Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Quantum expectation value estimation by doubling the number of qubits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that Bell sampling on two state copies estimates all Pauli expectation values at once, and that for molecular Hamiltonians up to 12 qubits it needs fewer measurements than conventional grouped sampling when target…

desk verdict Careful numerical study of Bell sampling for coarse energy estimation; the central claims hold up, but the covariance saddle point and the N2/N1 choice need extra scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14466 v1 pith:7NC52LWF submitted 2024-12-19 quant-ph

Hiroshi Yano , Masaya Kohda , Shoichiro Tsutsui , Ryosuke Imai , Keita Kanno , Kosuke Mitarai , Yuya O. Nakagawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords BellsamplingexpectationvalueestimationPaulistringsmeasurementoverheadquantumchemistryvariationaleigensolverqubit-wisecommutinggroupingmolecularHamiltonians
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether Bell sampling from two copies of a quantum state can reduce the measurement cost of estimating Hamiltonian expectation values. The trick works because every doubled Pauli string $P\otimes P$ commutes with every other, so one Bell-basis circuit yields estimates of $\langle\psi|P|\psi\rangle$'s absolute value for all Pauli strings at once; the cost is that signs must be obtained separately and the absolute-value estimator has a $1/\epsilon^4$ shot scaling. Through bias and standard-deviation calculations for molecular Hamiltonians up to 12 qubits, the authors find that, when the target precision is no better than tens of milli-Hartree, Bell sampling beats conventional qubit-wise-commuting sampling even after sign estimation is paid for. This identifies a practical regime: coarse energy estimates in early-stage quantum chemistry algorithms could use far fewer measurements than standard approaches.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the doubled Pauli string $P\otimes P$ acting on two copies of the state. All doubled Pauli strings commute, and the Bell measurement on each corresponding qubit pair is a joint eigenbasis of $X\otimes X$, $Y\otimes Y$, and $Z\otimes Z$; reading the eigenvalues $\Lambda_P(B)=\prod_k \lambda_{\sigma_k}(B_k)$ gives an unbiased estimator $\hat{a}(P)$ of $|\langle\psi|P|\psi\rangle|^2$. The nonlinear estimator $\hat{b}(P)=\sqrt{\max(0,\hat{a}(P))}$ introduces a state-dependent bias that the paper quantifies analytically, and the saddle-point method lets the authors evaluate that bias and the variance for molecular Hamiltonians.

What would settle it

Run the same H4 ground-state energy estimation at a 10 milli-Hartree target error with the conventional baseline replaced by a general-commuting or near-optimal grouping schedule; if Bell sampling no longer requires fewer total state preparations than that baseline, the central claim is false. A second check is to repeat the comparison at $\epsilon=1$ milli-Hartree, where the $1/\epsilon^4$ scaling of Bell sampling should make conventional sampling win.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Bell sampling, meaning a joint Bell-basis measurement of two copies of $|\psi\rangle$, is a practically competitive way to estimate molecular Hamiltonians when the required accuracy is moderate. For any Pauli string $P$, the identity $\langle\psi|\langle\psi|P\otimes P|\psi\rangle|\psi\rangle = |\langle\psi|P|\psi\rangle|^2$ means that squared absolute values of all Pauli expectations are encoded in a single set of Bell outcomes, and the estimator $\hat{b}(P)=\sqrt{\max(0,\hat{a}(P))}$ recovers the absolute value. The paper's numerical study estimates ground-state energies of H2, H4, H6, and LiH using exact ground states, and evaluates bias and variance through exact summation and a saddle-point approximation. With exact signs, Bell sampling matches or beats QWC grouping at 10 to 30 milli-Hartree; with signs estimated either classically by CISD or by conventional sampling with QWC grouping, it still wins for rough energy estimates, and for LiH(2o2e) the advantage extends below chemical accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed shot-count advantage is established only against qubit-wise-commuting grouping with its shot budget doubled; if a more efficient grouping that uses extra two-qubit gates is allowed as the baseline, the advantage at tens of milli-Hartree may shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For molecular Hamiltonians up to 12 qubits, Bell sampling with sign estimation requires fewer total state preparations than QWC-grouped sampling when the target error is roughly 10 milli-Hartree or worse.
  • The number of circuits no longer grows with the number of Pauli strings $M$; the same Bell circuit yields all absolute values, so the method's overhead should scale more mildly with system size than per-Pauli projective sampling.
  • When signs are taken from a classical CISD calculation, the energy estimate remains competitive for rough targets, so quantum measurement shots can be traded for cheap classical approximate sign information.
  • The bias of $\hat{b}(P)$ decays as $1/N_1$ for Pauli terms with large expectation values and as $1/N_1^{1/4}$ for near-zero values, so molecules with many small Pauli terms are the hard case for this estimator.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the advantage comes from replacing an $O(M)$ circuit count with one circuit, the crossover precision should improve, moving to smaller $\epsilon$, as the molecule grows; verifying this on a 20-plus-qubit Hamiltonian would test the paper's extrapolation.
  • The sign-estimation overhead is the main bottleneck; replacing the second copy by an adaptively chosen, classically simulable ancilla state could give signs and absolute values in one pass, extending the method to higher precision.
  • The positive bias of the max-truncated absolute-value estimator could accumulate in energy estimates when many Pauli terms have small true expectations; a testable extension is to compare signed energy estimates with and without truncation on stretched geometries where classical signs are known to be unreliable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper numerically assesses the performance of Bell sampling (measuring two copies of a quantum state in the Bell basis) for estimating expectation values of molecular Hamiltonians. The method simultaneously estimates the absolute values of all Pauli-string expectation values from a single circuit type; signs are estimated separately, either classically (CISD) or by conventional QWC-grouped sampling. The authors derive bias and variance formulas, introduce a saddle-point approximation for the covariance between Pauli terms, and benchmark the method against QWC-grouped conventional sampling with a doubled shot budget on H2, H4, H6, and LiH (up to 12 qubits). The central claim is that, for target precisions of tens of milli-Hartree, Bell sampling with sign estimation requires fewer measurements than conventional sampling, including end-to-end results for H4 with N2 = 5N1.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a practically relevant parameter regime where an entangled-measurement protocol reduces measurement cost for coarse energy estimates in quantum chemistry. The strengths include a careful derivation of bias and variance formulas, a transparent comparison protocol (equal number of state preparations), and explicit numerical simulations on several molecules. The paper also proposes and tests a classical (CISD) route for sign estimation, which is a useful practical addition. However, the breadth of the claim currently exceeds the evidence: the baseline is restricted to QWC grouping, the larger-molecule results rely on an unvalidated multivariate saddle-point approximation, and the end-to-end advantage is demonstrated only for H4 with a favorable N2/N1 ratio.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A.5 / Sec. III B] The standard-deviation curves for H6 and LiH in Fig. 3, which support the abstract's 'up to 12 qubits' claim, rely entirely on the multivariate saddle-point approximation for E[b_i b_j] given in Eq. (A24). This approximation is validated in Fig. 2 only for single-Pauli terms (E[b_i] and E[b_i^2]); the multinomial integral (A9)-(A10) has a different integrand with max(0, ·) and log terms that can push the saddle point toward the boundary. If Eq. (A24) is inaccurate, the 10-30 mHa crossover could shift or disappear. The authors should validate Eq. (A24) against direct Monte Carlo or exact multinomial summation for a representative set of (i,j) pairs and N1 values for at least H6 and LiH, or provide a rigorous error bound for the saddle-point approximation in the multivariate case.
  2. [Sec. III B / abstract] The comparison baseline is exclusively QWC grouping, as stated in the text ('QWC grouping is chosen for comparison'), and the abstract and conclusion claim superiority over 'conventional sampling methods' without this qualifier. More efficient general-commuting and near-optimal groupings (Refs. [10, 13, 18]) are acknowledged but excluded because they require additional two-qubit gates. While the gate-count argument for QWC is reasonable, the measurement-shot comparison is incomplete. The authors should either restrict the abstract and conclusion to 'QWC-grouped conventional sampling' or include at least one additional grouping baseline (e.g., general commuting grouping with its gate overhead accounted for) to show that the advantage persists under a stronger conventional baseline.
  3. [Sec. III C / Fig. 5] The end-to-end sign-estimation result uses N2 = 5N1, explicitly chosen as 'the most favorable outcome among the ratios tested empirically.' This introduces a free parameter and risks cherry-picking. The paper should report how the crossover point depends on the N2/N1 ratio and discuss how the ratio would be set in practice without prior knowledge of the optimal value. In addition, the end-to-end simulation covers only H4; the abstract's 'up to 12 qubits' claim is based on the sign-given analysis of Fig. 3, not on the full protocol with sign estimation. The authors should either add end-to-end results for a larger molecule (e.g., H6 or LiH with direct sampling) or explicitly state that the end-to-end advantage is demonstrated only for H4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III / Eq. (7)-(8)] The assumption that the sign estimators and the absolute-value estimators are uncorrelated is mentioned only in passing ('with some assumptions such as \hat s_i and \hat b_i being uncorrelated'). This assumption is central to the variance decomposition and should be stated more prominently, with an explicit justification that sign estimation is performed on independent measurement shots.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that the standard deviation is evaluated using only the saddle point method, while the bias is evaluated by both summation and saddle point. It would be helpful to show a direct comparison of the saddle-point standard deviation against the exact summation for at least one molecule and a few N1 values, to give the reader confidence in the approximation for the molecular case.
  3. [Appendix A.5] The paper does not discuss the possibility of multiple saddle points for Eq. (A24) or the numerical procedure for selecting the relevant one. A brief comment on uniqueness and the choice of initial guess for the SymPy nsolve would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. III B] There is a typo in the sentence 'the absolute values of expectation values of all the Pauli stings are measured simultaneously' — 'stings' should be 'strings'.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'tens of milli-Hartree' is imprecise; the numerical results indicate a crossover in the range of about 10-30 mHa, and stating this range in the abstract would make the claim more specific and falsifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Bell-sampling benchmark is self-contained; only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations exist.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the estimators and their statistical properties are defined from first principles rather than fitted to the conclusion. The absolute-value estimator a-hat(P) is defined in Eq. (2) directly from Bell-basis measurement outcomes, b-hat(P) is sqrt(max(0, a-hat)) in Eq. (3), and the energy estimator in Eq. (5) is the linear combination with signed coefficients. The bias and variance expressions in Eqs. (7)-(8) and Appendix A follow algebraically from these definitions and from binomial/multinomial measurement statistics; no parameter is fitted to the molecular data used to draw the advantage conclusion. The saddle-point evaluation of E[b_i b_j] in Eq. (A24) is an approximation whose single-Pauli accuracy is cross-checked against exact summation in Fig. 2; if the multivariate saddle point were inaccurate for molecules, this would be a numerical-error risk that could shift the crossover, but it would not be a circular reduction of the conclusion to its assumptions. The QWC baseline is an external benchmark: its standard deviations come from standard grouped-measurement formulas, the shot budget is doubled to equalize the number of state preparations, and the text explicitly acknowledges that stronger grouping strategies exist but require extra two-qubit gates. That is a scope limitation, not circularity. Proposition 1 is quoted from Ref. [26] by Huang, Kueng, and Preskill, not from the present authors. The self-citations that exist (Refs. [18], [21], [39], [43], [44]) are background measurement-grouping work or software references, and Ref. [39] is used only to motivate VQE applications and the possibility of skipping sign estimation; none of them supplies the load-bearing numerical comparison. The empirical choice N2 = 5N1 in Sec. III C is a post-hoc tuning choice for one comparison figure, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No claimed output is equivalent by construction to an input, so the paper has no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on no newly invented physical entities. Free parameters are minimal, with the N2/N1 ratio the only hand-chosen value that directly affects the end-to-end performance comparison. The largest epistemic load is carried by the multivariate saddle point approximation and by the choice of QWC grouping as the only conventional baseline.

free parameters (1)
  • N2/N1 ratio for sign estimation = 5
    Selected empirically as the most favorable ratio among those tested in Sec. III C and used for the H4 end-to-end cost analysis. The claimed advantage depends on this choice, and the paper does not report sensitivity to it.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Corollary 1 of Ref. [26]: N1 = Θ(log(1/δ)/ε^4) shots suffice for |bhat(P) − |<P>|| ≤ ε.
    The paper relies on this prior theorem for its asymptotic claims about the absolute-value estimator, without re-proving it (Sec. II A, Proposition 1).
  • standard math Normal and multivariate normal approximations for binomial and multinomial measurement statistics.
    Used throughout Appendix A to compute E[bhat], Var[bhat], and covariances. Validated for the single-Pauli case, then applied to multi-Pauli cases.
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer approximation, Hartree-Fock orbitals, STO-3G basis, and Jordan-Wigner transformation.
    These standard quantum chemistry choices define the molecular Hamiltonians studied in Sec. III B.
  • domain assumption The state |ψ⟩ is the exact ground state from Full-CI or exact diagonalization.
    Used to compute exact expectation values for the bias and variance analysis in Sec. III B.
  • domain assumption Statistical independence of sign and absolute-value estimators in the bias/variance decomposition.
    Assumed in Eqs. (7)-(8) and justified in Appendix A for per-string sign estimation; needed for the analytic formulas.
  • ad hoc to paper Multivariate saddle point approximation for E[b_i b_j] is accurate.
    Used to evaluate the standard deviation of the energy estimator for molecular Hamiltonians; validated against exact summation only for single Pauli terms, then applied to multi-Pauli covariances without independent validation (Appendix A5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum expectation value estimation by doubling the number of qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7NC52LWF

@misc{pith2026241214466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum expectation value estimation by doubling the number of qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7NC52LWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14466}
}
abstract

Expectation value estimation is ubiquitous in quantum algorithms. The expectation value of a Hamiltonian, which is essential in various practical applications, is often estimated by measuring a large number of Pauli strings on quantum computers and performing classical post-processing. In the case of $n$-qubit molecular Hamiltonians in quantum chemistry calculations, it is necessary to evaluate $O(n^4)$ Pauli strings, requiring a large number of measurements for accurate estimation. To reduce the measurement cost, we assess an existing idea that uses two copies of an $n$-qubit quantum state of interest and coherently measures them in the Bell basis, which enables the simultaneous estimation of the absolute values of expectation values of all the $n$-qubit Pauli strings. We numerically investigate the efficiency of energy estimation for molecular Hamiltonians of up to 12 qubits. The results show that, when the target precision is no smaller than tens of milli-Hartree, this method requires fewer measurements than conventional sampling methods. This suggests that the method may be useful for many applications that rely on expectation value estimation of Hamiltonians and other observables as well when moderate precision is sufficient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14466 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Quantum circuits for estimating the expectation value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Bias and standard deviation for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Bias and standard deviation on the estimation of the ground-state energy of H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Bias and standard deviation in the ground-state en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Bias and standard deviation in the ground-state en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Bias and standard deviation in the estimation of the ground-state energy of LiH with the size of active space varied [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (A2) When N1 ≫ 1, we use the normal approximation of the binomial distribution N1 m for Eq

    Computation of E[ˆbi] Given N1 measurements for measuring an absolute value of the expectation value for any Pauli string Pi, the expectation value of each Pauli string is E[ˆbi] = N1X m=0 s max 0, 2m N1 − 1 N1 m qm i (1 − qi)N1−m, (A1) with the probability of measuring +1 on the doubled sys- tem qi = 1 + ⟨ψ| ⟨ψ| Pi ⊗ Pi |ψ⟩ |ψ⟩ 2 . (A2) When N1 ≫ 1, we u...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (A4) When N1 ≫ 1, according to the normal approximation with f (normal) i (m) appeared in Eq

    Computation of E[ˆbiˆbj] For i = j, we can compute E[ˆb2 i ] similarly to E[ˆbi]: E[ˆb2 i ] = N1X m=0 max 0, 2m N1 − 1 N1 m qm i (1 − qi)N1−m. (A4) When N1 ≫ 1, according to the normal approximation with f (normal) i (m) appeared in Eq. (A3), we have E[ˆb2 i ] ≈ Z N1 0 dm max 0, 2m N1 − 1 f (normal) i (m). (A5) For i ̸= j, let ti, tj ∈ {−1, +1} be the eig...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (A12) Note that N (i) 2 is supposed to be an odd number to ensure that the sign is determined

    Computation of E[ˆsi] Given N (i) 2 measurements for estimating the sign, the expectation value of ˆsi reads E [ˆsi] = 1 − 2 N (i) 2 −1 2X m=0 N (i) 2 m pm i (1 − pi)N (i) 2 −m, (A11) with the probability of measuring +1 in the standard sampling pi = 1 + ⟨ψ| Pi |ψ⟩ 2 . (A12) Note that N (i) 2 is supposed to be an odd number to ensure that the sign is determined

    work page

  4. [4]

    Thus, we only consider the case of i ̸= j

    Computation of E[ˆsiˆsj] For i = j, E[ˆs2 i ] = 1 trivially holds. Thus, we only consider the case of i ̸= j. Let [ N2]g(i) be the number of shots assigned to a groupg(i), which Pi belongs to, and G a set of all the groups. Note that g(i) = g(j) = g for Pauli strings Pi and Pj of the same group, and assume thatP g∈G[N2]g = N2 and [N2]g is an odd number. W...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (A3), (A5), and (A10), respectively, it is hard to evaluate the summation numerically

    Saddle point method Although E[ˆbi], E[ˆb2 i ] and E[ˆbiˆbj] are defined for large N1 in Eqs. (A3), (A5), and (A10), respectively, it is hard to evaluate the summation numerically. To circumvent this numerical problem, we introduce the saddle point method. Define a new variable x = (2m)/N1 − 1 and Eq. (A3) becomes E[ˆbi] ≈ 1p 2πσ 2 i Z 1 −1 dx p max(0, x)...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Best and worst scaling In Sec. III A, we numerically observe the scaling of the bias and the standard deviation with respect to N1 for estimating the absolute value of the expectation value of a single Pauli string: the scaling of the bias changes from O(N −1/4 1 ) to O(N −1 1 ) and the standard deviation from O(N −1/4 1 ) to O(N −1/2 1 ). To analytically...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    T. E. O’Brien, M. Streif, N. C. Rubin, R. Santagati, Y. Su, W. J. Huggins, J. J. Goings, N. Moll, E. Kyo- 12 101 103 105 107 109 Number of measurements N1 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 Bias and std of energy (Hartree) 1/N1/4 1 Bias (Bell sampling) Std (Bell sampling) Std (QWC,WRS) Std (QWC,WDS) 1 kcal/mol (a) LiH(2o2e) 101 103 105 107 109 Number of measure...

    work page 2022

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum- classical algorithms, New Journal of Physics 18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    A. F. Izmaylov, T.-C. Yen, and I. G. Ryabinkin, Revis- ing the measurement process in the variational quantum eigensolver: Is it possible to reduce the number of sep- arately measured operators?, Chemical Science 10, 3746 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    A. Jena, S. Genin, and M. Mosca, Pauli partitioning with respect to gate sets (2019), arXiv:1907.07859 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gokhale, O

    P. Gokhale, O. Angiuli, Y. Ding, K. Gui, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, O(N 3) measurement cost for variational quantum eigensolver on molecular hamiltonians, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 1, 1 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    A. F. Izmaylov, T.-C. Yen, R. A. Lang, and V. Vertelet- skyi, Unitary Partitioning Approach to the Measure- ment Problem in the Variational Quantum Eigensolver Method, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 190 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Verteletskyi, T.-C

    V. Verteletskyi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, Measure- ment optimization in the variational quantum eigensolver using a minimum clique cover, The Journal of Chemical Physics 152, 124114 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    T.-C. Yen, V. Verteletskyi, and A. F. Izmaylov, Measur- ing All Compatible Operators in One Series of Single- Qubit Measurements Using Unitary Transformations, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 2400 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    A. Zhao, A. Tranter, W. M. Kirby, S. F. Ung, A. Miyake, and P. J. Love, Measurement reduction in variational quantum algorithms, Physical Review A 101, 062322 (2020). 13

    2020

  10. [18]

    Hamamura and T

    I. Hamamura and T. Imamichi, Efficient evaluation of quantum observables using entangled measurements, npj Quantum Information 6, 1 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Bonet-Monroig, R

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Babbush, and T. E. O’Brien, Nearly Optimal Measurement Scheduling for Partial To- mography of Quantum States, Physical Review X 10, 031064 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Crawford, B

    O. Crawford, B. van Straaten, D. Wang, T. Parks, E. Campbell, and S. Brierley, Efficient quantum measure- ment of Pauli operators in the presence of finite sampling error, Quantum 5, 385 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, N. Wiebe, K. B. Whaley, and R. Babbush, Efficient and noise resilient measurements for quantum chemistry on near-term quantum computers, npj Quantum Informa- tion 7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Yen and A

    T.-C. Yen and A. F. Izmaylov, Cartan Subalgebra Ap- proach to Efficient Measurements of Quantum Observ- ables, PRX Quantum 2, 040320 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Shlosberg, A

    A. Shlosberg, A. J. Jena, P. Mukhopadhyay, J. F. Haase, F. Leditzky, and L. Dellantonio, Adaptive estimation of quantum observables, Quantum 7, 906 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Inoue, K

    W. Inoue, K. Aoyama, Y. Teranishi, K. Kanno, Y. O. Nakagawa, and K. Mitarai, Almost optimal measurement scheduling of molecular Hamiltonian via finite projective plane, Physical Review Research 6, 013096 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    T.-C. Yen, A. Ganeshram, and A. F. Izmaylov, Deter- ministic improvements of quantum measurements with grouping of compatible operators, non-local transforma- tions, and covariance estimates, npj Quantum Informa- tion 9, 1 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics 16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Kohda, R

    M. Kohda, R. Imai, K. Kanno, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Quantum expectation-value esti- mation by computational basis sampling, Physical Re- view Research 4, 033173 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress to- wards practical quantum variational algorithms, Physical Review A 92, 042303 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    N. C. Rubin, R. Babbush, and J. McClean, Application of fermionic marginal constraints to hybrid quantum al- gorithms, New Journal of Physics 20, 053020 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    J. F. Gonthier, M. D. Radin, C. Buda, E. J. Doskocil, C. M. Abuan, and J. Romero, Measurements as a road- block to near-term practical quantum advantage in chem- istry: Resource analysis, Physical Review Research 4, 033154 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    P. D. Johnson, A. A. Kunitsa, J. F. Gonthier, M. D. Radin, C. Buda, E. J. Doskocil, C. M. Abuan, and J. Romero, Reducing the cost of energy estimation in the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm with robust amplitude estimation (2022), arXiv:2203.07275 [quant- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Information- Theoretic Bounds on Quantum Advantage in Machine Learning, Physical Review Letters 126, 190505 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Huang, M

    H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Babbush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, and J. R. McClean, Quantum advantage in learning from experiments, Science 376, 1182 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Jiang, A

    Z. Jiang, A. Kalev, W. Mruczkiewicz, and H. Neven, Op- timal fermion-to-qubit mapping via ternary trees with applications to reduced quantum states learning, Quan- tum 4, 276 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, M

    G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, M. A. Rossi, B. Sokolov, F. Tacchino, P. K. Barkoutsos, G. Mazzola, I. Tavernelli, and S. Man- iscalco, Learning to measure: Adaptive informationally complete generalized measurements for quantum algo- rithms, PRX Quantum 2, 040342 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    R. King, K. Wan, and J. R. McClean, Exponential learn- ing advantages with conjugate states and minimal quan- tum memory, PRX Quantum 5, 040301 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    S. Chen, W. Gong, and Q. Ye, Optimal tradeoffs for estimating pauli observables (2024), arXiv:2404.19105 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    R. King, D. Gosset, R. Kothari, and R. Babbush, Triply efficient shadow tomography (2024), arXiv:2404.19211 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Montanaro, Learning stabilizer states by bell sampling (2017), arXiv:1707.04012 [quant-ph]

    A. Montanaro, Learning stabilizer states by bell sampling (2017), arXiv:1707.04012 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Gross, S

    D. Gross, S. Nezami, and M. Walter, Schur–Weyl Dual- ity for the Clifford Group with Applications: Property Testing, a Robust Hudson Theorem, and de Finetti Rep- resentations, Communications in Mathematical Physics 385, 1325 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Haug and M

    T. Haug and M. Kim, Scalable Measures of Magic Resource for Quantum Computers, PRX Quantum 4, 010301 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    T. Haug, S. Lee, and M. S. Kim, Efficient Quantum Algo- rithms for Stabilizer Entropies, Physical Review Letters 132, 240602 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Hangleiter and M

    D. Hangleiter and M. J. Gullans, Bell Sampling from Quantum Circuits, Physical Review Letters 133, 020601 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Grier, H

    D. Grier, H. Pashayan, and L. Schaeffer, Principal eigen- state classical shadows (2024), arXiv:2405.13939 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C. Cao, H. Yano, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Accelerated varia- tional quantum eigensolver with joint Bell measurement, Physical Review Research 6, 013205 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, K. J. Sung, I. D. Kivlichan, X. Bonet-Monroig, Y. Cao, C. Dai, E. S. Fried, C. Gidney, B. Gimby, P. Gokhale, T. H¨ aner, T. Hardikar, V. Havl ´ ıˇ cek, O. Higgott, C. Huang, J. Izaac, Z. Jiang, X. Liu, S. McArdle, M. Neeley, T. O’Brien, B. O’Gorman,...

    2020

  39. [47]

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfut- yarova, S. Sharma, S. Wouters, and G. K.-L. Chan, PySCF: The Python-based simulations of chemistry framework, WIREs Computational Molecular Science 8, e1340 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Q. Sun, X. Zhang, S. Banerjee, P. Bao, M. Barbry, N. S. Blunt, N. A. Bogdanov, G. H. Booth, J. Chen, Z.-H. Cui, J. J. Eriksen, Y. Gao, S. Guo, J. Hermann, M. R. Hermes, K. Koh, P. Koval, S. Lehtola, Z. Li, J. Liu, N. Mardirossian, J. D. McClain, M. Motta, B. Mussard, H. Q. Pha...

    2020

  41. [49]

    Suzuki, Y

    Y. Suzuki, Y. Kawase, Y. Masumura, Y. Hiraga, M. Nakadai, J. Chen, K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, R. Imai, S. Tamiya, T. Yamamoto, T. Yan, T. Kawakubo, Y. O. Nakagawa, Y. Ibe, Y. Zhang, H. Yamashita, H. Yoshimura, A. Hayashi, and K. Fujii, Qulacs: A fast and versatile quantum ci...

    2021

  42. [50]

    QURI Parts (2022), https://github.com/QunaSys/ quri-parts

    2022

  43. [51]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu- lar, and Optical Physics 70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  44. [52]

    Arrasmith, L

    A. Arrasmith, L. Cincio, R. D. Somma, and P. J. Coles, Operator sampling for shot-frugal optimization in varia- tional algorithms (2020), arXiv:2004.06252 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Zhang, B.-L

    D.-B. Zhang, B.-L. Chen, Z.-H. Yuan, and T. Yin, Vari- ational quantum eigensolvers by variance minimization, Chinese Physics B 31, 120301 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quan- tum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nature Physics 16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Boyd and B

    G. Boyd and B. Koczor, Training Variational Quan- tum Circuits with CoVaR: Covariance Root Finding with Classical Shadows, Physical Review X 12, 041022 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    J. R. McClean, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. Carter, and W. A. de Jong, Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states, Physical Review A 95, 042308 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Takeshita, N

    T. Takeshita, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, E. Lee, R. Bab- bush, and J. R. McClean, Increasing the Representation Accuracy of Quantum Simulations of Chemistry with- out Extra Quantum Resources, Physical Review X 10, 011004 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    J. R. McClean, Z. Jiang, N. C. Rubin, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Decoding quantum errors with subspace ex- pansions, Nature Communications 11, 636 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Suchsland, F

    P. Suchsland, F. Tacchino, M. H. Fischer, T. Neupert, P. K. Barkoutsos, and I. Tavernelli, Algorithmic Er- ror Mitigation Scheme for Current Quantum Processors, Quantum 5, 492 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    H. H. S. Chan, R. Meister, M. L. Goh, and B. Koczor, Al- gorithmic shadow spectroscopy (2024), arXiv:2212.11036 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Meurer, C

    A. Meurer, C. P. Smith, M. Paprocki, O. ˇCert ´ ık, S. B. Kirpichev, M. Rocklin, Am. Kumar, S. Ivanov, J. K. Moore, S. Singh, T. Rathnayake, S. Vig, B. E. Granger, R. P. Muller, F. Bonazzi, H. Gupta, S. Vats, F. Johans- son, F. Pedregosa, M. J. Curry, A. R. Terrel, ˇS. Rouˇ ck...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.