Distributed Quantum Dynamics on Near-Term Quantum Processors

Maciej Koch-Janusz; Maxence Grandadam; Vladyslav Bohun

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Distributed Quantum Dynamics on Near-Term Quantum Processors

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read dp-VQD claims to execute Hamiltonian dynamics on circuits wider than the device by splitting Trotter steps into factorizable slices and wire-cutting a matching ansatz at fixed locations.

desk verdict A real but modest algorithmic step, honestly reported, with the flagship hardware demo stopping short of on-device variational training. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03542 v1 pith:LORJFEP5 submitted 2025-02-05 quant-ph cond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph

Vladyslav Bohun , Maxence Grandadam , Maciej Koch-Janusz This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph

keywords distributedquantumcomputingwirecuttingvariationaldynamicsprojectedHamiltoniansimulationNISQdevicesHubbardmodelHeisenberg

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

This paper claims that a variational quantum dynamics algorithm, called dp-VQD, can simulate Hamiltonian evolution on circuits wider and deeper than a single current quantum processor can execute directly. The trick is to split each Trotter step into slices that factorize across a fixed pair of wires, and to cut the variational ansatz at the same places, so the number of wire cuts stays small and constant. The paper demonstrates the procedure on noisy simulators and real IBM devices: a 7-qubit disordered Heisenberg chain run on 5-qubit noise models, and a 12-qubit Hubbard chain with a weak link run on ibm_sherbrooke using subcircuits of at most 7 qubits, tracking the staggered magnetization for 50 Trotter steps. If this holds, it extends the reach of near-term dynamics simulation beyond a single device's nominal qubit count and lets several small processors be combined without quantum or classical communication.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the factorizing Trotter slice combined with a matching cuttable ansatz and the wire-cutting identity. For each sub-iteration dp-VQD requires a slice $T_\gamma = T^1_j \otimes T^{j+1,n}_\gamma$, a product of disconnected circuits on the two sides of a chosen pair of neighboring wires; the ansatz is wired so that it requires a cut exactly on those wires, with a one-layer linear ansatz in the simplest case and more complex structures otherwise. The reconstruction identity $\rho = \sum_{O\in\mathcal{P},\lambda\in\sigma(O)} \frac{\lambda}{2} \mathrm{Tr}(O\rho) |v_\lambda(O)\rangle\langle v_\lambda(O)|$ turns a cut wire into a weighted sum of measurement-and-repreparation subcircuits, which can be executed independently without communication. Because the ansatz and Hamiltonian share the same sparse cut structure, the number of cuts $k$ is fixed, keeping the sampling overhead $O(\beta^{2k})$ with $\beta=4$ constant rather than growing with Hamiltonian complexity.

What would settle it

Run dp-VQD with a single fixed cut on a uniform Heisenberg chain (no weak link) initialised in a product state, and measure the per-step variational infidelity as a function of time and system size; if the infidelity grows steadily beyond roughly 0.1 as entanglement spreads across the cut, or if the number of shots needed to match exact imbalance observables grows noticeably with $n$ while the cut count stays fixed, then the constant-overhead claim fails for that Hamiltonian family.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the exponential sampling overhead of circuit cutting does not have to prevent distributed variational time evolution, provided the Hamiltonian's structure is used to keep the number of cuts fixed. dp-VQD rewrites one Trotter step as several sub-iterations, each acting on a slice $T_\gamma$ that factorizes as a tensor product $T^1_j \otimes T^{j+1,n}_\gamma$ across two wires, and pairs that slice with a cuttable ansatz whose only sparse cuts sit on the same wires. The wire-cutting identity then reconstructs expectation values from smaller subcircuits that fit on the available hardware, with constant overhead when the cut count is constant. On the Heisenberg and Hubbard models the paper finds that the distributed variational results track the exact dynamics for up to 20–50 Trotter steps while direct execution of the full Trotter circuit is rapidly destroyed by noise.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each Trotter slice can be factored across a fixed pair of wires and the ansatz cut at those same wires remains expressive enough; if entanglement across the cut grows with time or system size, the ansatz fails or requires more cuts, and the exponential sampling overhead of wire cutting takes over (the paper's low-disorder Heisenberg runs, with infidelities 0.3–0.5, already show the onset).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Hamiltonian evolutions can be executed on devices with fewer qubits than the problem: a 6-qubit wire-cut circuit runs on 5 qubits in the Heisenberg example, and the 12-qubit Hubbard evolution runs on at most 7 qubits.
Trotter depth no longer forces circuit depth: each p-VQD step is constant depth, and the demonstrated Hubbard run reaches 50 Trotter steps with no error mitigation before the direct Trotter circuit is destroyed.
Several small devices can be combined asynchronously without real-time quantum or classical communication, since each subcircuit is executed independently and results are combined classically.
The cost of distribution is controlled by designing both the Trotter slicing and the ansatz from the Hamiltonian; with $m$ factorizing pieces the method executes up to $m$-fold larger circuits at fixed cut overhead.
For Hamiltonians that do not have sparse cut structure, the cut count grows and the $O(\beta^{2k})$ sampling overhead eventually dominates, so the practical reach is bounded by problem structure.

Reading between the lines

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

The same construction should transfer to Hamiltonians made of two strongly correlated subsystems connected by a weak link, such as parts of a molecule or a heterostructure; the paper's Hubbard weak-link example is a proof of concept for that class.
Replacing the fixed cut with adaptive or classical-communication cutting, or adding qubit reuse, could trade shot overhead against physical qubit count; these are natural next steps mentioned or implied by the authors.
One testable scaling prediction is that for a fixed Hamiltonian family with fixed cut placement, the per-step variational infidelity should remain roughly flat as system size grows; showing it instead grows with crossing entanglement would bound the method's scalability.
The paper's own Heisenberg results at low disorder show final infidelities of 0.3–0.5 and displaced oscillation peaks, a sign that the single-cut ansatz cannot fully capture entanglement spreading across the cut; this is a limitation stated in the manuscript, and it sets the boundary of the method's domain.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the sub-iteration decomposition is a real and modest contribution, and the paper is honest about what was and wasn't run on hardware. The main gap is the one the stress test flags: the 12-qubit Hubbard demonstration on ibm_sherbrooke trains the variational parameters on an exact simulator and only executes final subcircuits on the QPU, so the full dp-VQD loop under device noise is never demonstrated on real hardware.

What is genuinely new: splitting a Trotter step into slices chosen to factorize trivially across a fixed pair of wires, and matching the ansatz so the same cut placement works for both the Trotter slice and the two copies of the ansatz in the p-VQD loss. That is a clean way to keep the number of wire cuts constant, and it goes beyond Ref. [32]'s gate-cut p-VQD. Cuttable ansatze existed for VQE, so the broad idea is not new, but the sub-iteration structure is. The hardware execution of a 12-qubit Hubbard evolution using at most 7 physical qubits is a useful proof of principle, and the Heisenberg comparison on FakeJakarta showing variational dynamics outlasting direct Trotter is a nice sanity check.

The paper is also well-behaved: shot counts and final loss values are declared, the wire-cutting overhead formula is cited rather than relabeled, and self-citations are limited to a transpiler tool. I see no circular argument or fitted-data-as-prediction problem.

Soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test concern is correct and it matters. The abstract carefully says training on noisy simulators and reconstruction on real devices, but the conclusion reads as if the distributed variational algorithm had been validated on the QPU. It hasn't been. For the Heisenberg case the noisy results come from FakeManila and FakeJakarta noise models, not physical QPUs. So the load-bearing claim—that the variational loss evaluated on noisy cut subcircuits still guides training—is untested on hardware. Second, there are no error bars over disorder realizations (Fig. 9 shows three configurations without statistics), and final infidelities of 0.3–0.5 on the noisy simulator with displaced peaks mean the ansatz is clearly struggling in the low-disorder regime. That is consistent with the stated structural assumption—weak cross-cut entanglement—but it is exactly the regime the method needs for wide applicability. The exponential sampling overhead of wire cutting remains, and the paper acknowledges it.

Who should read it: people working on circuit knitting, variational simulation, or NISQ algorithm demonstrations. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review with the request that the authors either run the training loop on hardware for a small case or explicitly frame the Hubbard result as classically-trained parameters with QPU reconstruction, and add repeated-instance statistics plus code/data.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces dp-VQD, an algorithm that combines projected variational quantum dynamics (p-VQD) with wire cutting to simulate Hamiltonian time evolution using subcircuits that fit on smaller quantum devices. The method splits each Trotter step into slices that factorize across a fixed pair of wires, and uses a matching ansatz that requires only a small number of wire cuts, keeping the sampling overhead exponential in the number of cuts but constant when that number is fixed. The authors demonstrate the Heisenberg model on noisy simulators and a 12-qubit Hubbard model on the ibm_sherbrooke QPU, where subcircuits of at most 7 qubits are used to simulate the 12-qubit evolution for 50 Trotter steps. The central claim is that this extends quantum dynamics simulations beyond the nominal qubit count of a single device and, more broadly, enables distributed computation on multiple small devices.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted after revision, the paper would be a useful experimental proof-of-principle: it identifies a concrete problem structure (weak-link / tensor-product Trotter slices) for which wire-cutting overhead can be kept constant, and it provides hardware data with declared shot counts, a direct Trotter-circuit baseline, and honest discussion of the cut-overhead limitation. The algorithmic synthesis of p-VQD and circuit cutting is not entirely new—Ref. [32] studied a related combination—but the concrete slicing construction and the experimental demonstration are valuable. The paper's main weaknesses are that the flagship Hubbard hardware run does not train on device, that experimental evidence lacks ensemble statistics, and that the 'distributed' claim is not backed by a multi-device experiment.

major comments (5)

[§2.2, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) as printed is not a valid wire-cutting identity. For O=I, the eigenvalue set is {+1} (not {−1,1}), and the term λ/2 Tr(Iρ)|v_λ(I)⟩⟨v_λ(I)| cannot produce the required (1/2)I contribution. Testing ρ=|1⟩⟨1| with v_+1(I)=|0⟩ gives a right-hand side of (1/2)|1⟩⟨1| rather than |1⟩⟨1|. The standard identity must treat the identity contribution separately, e.g. ρ = (1/2)[|0⟩⟨0|+|1⟩⟨1| + Σ_{O∈{X,Y,Z}} Σ_{λ∈{±1}} λ Tr(Oρ)|v_λ(O)⟩⟨v_λ(O)|]. Since this identity underpins the reconstruction used throughout the manuscript, please correct it and verify that the subsequent subcircuit grouping (Sec. 2.2 and App. A) is consistent with the corrected form.
[§4, Fig. 6] The Hubbard hardware demonstration does not execute the dp-VQD training loop on the QPU. The text states that, 'for cost reasons, the variational training is performed on an exact simulator, but the final subcircuits are executed in a distributed manner on the physical QPU.' Therefore the orange curve in Fig. 6 validates only the wire-cutting reconstruction of a classically precomputed parameter set, not the robustness of iterative parameter updates under device noise. Since the abstract's central claim is that dp-VQD 'allows to execute Hamiltonian evolution simulations ... on the existing devices,' this gap should be addressed either by adding a noisy-simulator or hardware training run for the Hubbard test case, or by explicitly scoping the claim to reconstruction of pre-trained circuits.
[§4, Figs. 4–5 and Fig. 9] The Heisenberg experimental results are presented without error bars or averages over disorder realizations. Fig. 9 shows final infidelities for three random field configurations, but the observable curves in Figs. 4 and 5 are single samples, and the text reports only that the results 'retain the qualitative features.' With final noisy-simulator infidelities of 0.3–0.5 (versus 0.02–0.15 on the ideal simulator), the displaced peaks in the low-disorder panels could be systematic approximation error or shot noise. Please provide ensemble statistics over disorder realizations, or clearly label the curves as single realizations and avoid drawing general conclusions from them.
[Abstract, §4, Fig. 6] No experiment in the paper combines multiple physical QPUs; all hardware data come from a single device (FakeManila, FakeJakarta, or ibm_sherbrooke), with the subcircuits executed on that one device. The abstract's claim that the method allows one 'to combine multiple small devices in a distributed computation' is a capability of the wire-cutting protocol but is not demonstrated here. Please either perform a multi-device run (even with two devices) or rephrase the claim as an extrapolation, rather than an experimentally supported feature.
[§3, Algorithm 1 and 'constant overhead'] The statement that 'the full procedure has a constant overhead' is only valid for a fixed number of cuts. The manuscript acknowledges the exponential growth with cut count later in the text, but the abstract and introduction do not state the problem-structure condition that makes the method practical. A target Hamiltonian without a weak-link/tensor-product slice structure, or an ansatz that needs more entanglement across the cut, will require more cuts and the O(β^{2k}) sampling overhead will dominate. Please add an explicit sentence in the abstract or introduction stating that the method is efficient only when the Hamiltonian and ansatz admit a sparse, constant number of cuts.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'sparsly cutable' (Sec. 3 and Fig. 1), 'the the fundamental problem' (Sec. 2.1), 'simualt' (Appendix D), and 'cash' instead of 'cache' (Conclusions). A proofreading pass is needed.
[References] References [52] and [54] are the same arXiv:2107.07532 entry; they should be consolidated into a single citation.
[§4, Fig. 6 caption] The caption states that the blue (exact-simulator) dp-VQD curve uses subcircuits of at most 8 qubits, while the main text says the hardware execution used no more than 7 qubits; please clarify the discrepancy and state which ansatz/cut structure gives 7 versus 8 qubits.
[§4, Hubbard run] The total shot budget and number of executed subcircuits for the Hubbard run are not reported (Fig. 8 gives this information only for the Heisenberg runs). Please state the number of subcircuits, shots per subcircuit, and total executions for the ibm_sherbrooke demonstration.
[Appendix D] The description of the Hubbard Pauli generators is ambiguous: 'YZY and XZX on all i,i+1,i+2 qubits except i=5' should specify the exact index ranges, and a circuit diagram analogous to Fig. 10 for the Hubbard Trotter step would substantially improve reproducibility.
[Availability] The paper does not state whether the experimental data and code are available; given the detailed hardware claims, a data/code availability statement would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the dp-VQD derivation is self-contained, and the simulator-trained Hubbard QPU run is stated as a limitation, not presented as an on-device training demonstration.

full rationale

The central derivation combines the p-VQD loss (Eq. 3) with the wire-cutting identity (Eq. 4) and the cited overhead O(beta^{2k}) from the literature; none of these are rederived from, or equivalent to, the paper's own outputs. The dp-VQD construction, splitting a Trotter step into slices T_gamma that factorize across a chosen pair of wires and pairing those slices with a matching cuttable ansatz, is explicitly a Hamiltonian-structure-guided construction, not a fit parameter later relabeled as a prediction. The numerical results are empirical comparisons against exact state-vector simulations; no observable is fitted on a subset and then reported as a predicted value. The only self-citation is the Rivet transpiler [73], used to cache and reuse transpiled subcircuits and save classical resources; it is not load-bearing for algorithm correctness or for any experimental claim. The one explicit limitation appears in Sec. 4 and the Fig. 6 caption: 'for cost reasons, the variational training is performed on an exact simulator, but the final subcircuits are executed in a distributed manner on the physical QPU.' This is a transparent caveat about the scope of the hardware demonstration, not a concealed circular step, because the paper does not claim that the Hubbard QPU run performed full variational training under device noise. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing premise is supported solely by the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fundamental constants. The central claim depends on problem-dependent structural assumptions (sparse cut structure, cuttable ansatz expressivity) and on standard circuit-cutting overhead formulas taken from prior work. No parameter is fitted to make the presented curves match theory; the reported quantities are direct measurements of the algorithm's behavior.

free parameters (3)

Ansatz depth and corner-block layers = fixed by hand; Fig. 7 shows a 6-qubit example with two corner layers
The PQC layout is chosen manually to balance expressivity and cuttability; no ablation of this choice is reported, and accuracy depends on it.
Cut placement = between qubits 3 and 4 for Heisenberg; across the weak link for Hubbard
Chosen to match the Hamiltonian structure; it determines the number of cuts (2) and thus the constant sampling overhead.
Time step and number of Trotter steps = Delta t = 0.1, N = 20 (Heisenberg); Delta t = 0.3, N = 50 (Hubbard)
Discretization parameters traded against variational error; no convergence or error analysis in Delta t is provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The wire-cutting reconstruction identity (Eq. 4) correctly reconstructs expectation values of a cut circuit from its subcircuits, with sampling overhead O(beta^{2k}), beta = 4.
Invoked in Sec. 2.2 and used for every loss evaluation; the identity and overhead are taken from Refs. [35, 38, 49] and are not re-derived or numerically verified here.
standard math The Lie-Trotter-Suzuki decomposition approximates the full evolution with step Delta t as a product of exponentials of commuting terms (Eq. 1).
Standard approximation used by the p-VQD loss (Eq. 3); its error is assumed small for the chosen Delta t.
domain assumption For small enough Delta t, the p-VQD training remains trainable and the representational error of the ansatz stays controlled by warm-start initialization.
Stated in Sec. 2.1 citing Refs. [44, 45]; no bound is proven and the empirical losses on the noisy device reach 0.3-0.5.
domain assumption Each chosen Trotter slice factorizes as a tensor product across a fixed cut (T_gamma = T1_j x T_{j+1,n}), and the ansatz can be matched to require only a small constant number of cuts.
Stated in Sec. 3 and used in all experiments; this structure is problem-specific and does not hold for generic Hamiltonians.
domain assumption The ansatz cut on the selected wires is expressive enough to track the dynamics at the accuracy needed for the measured observable.
Vital for training convergence; the low-disorder Heisenberg results show this fails when entanglement spreads across the cut.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributed Quantum Dynamics on Near-Term Quantum Processors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LORJFEP5

@misc{pith2026250203542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributed Quantum Dynamics on Near-Term Quantum Processors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LORJFEP5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03542}
}

read the original abstract

Simulations of quantum dynamics are a key application of near term quantum computing, but are hindered by the twin challenges of noise and small device scale, which limit the executable circuit depths and the number of qubits the algorithm can be run on. Towards overcoming these obstacles we develop and implement a distributed variant of the projected Variational Quantum Dynamics which we dub dp-VQD, which allows to simultaneously alleviate circuit depth and width limitations. We employ the wire cutting technique, which can be executed on the existing devices without quantum or classical communication. We demonstrate the full variational training on noisy simulators, and execute and perform the reconstruction on real IBM quantum devices. The algorithm allows to execute Hamiltonian evolution simulations for problem sizes exceeding devices' nominal qubit counts, and to combine multiple small devices in a distributed computation. We test our approach on the Heisenberg and Hubbard model dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03542 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a) The quantum circuit computing the loss Eq.3 in k-th iteration of the p-VQD procedure. Here V (θ γ k−1 ) with γ = 3 is a PQC with parameters fixed in the previous iteration, and V (θ γ k ) is the PQC currently trained using the Trotter step exp(−∆tH). The color shades on the Trotter operator represent its possible slicing, used in our algorithm (but not in p-VQD). (b) For a generic Trotter step the attempt to dis… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A single cut (in red) of the original 3-qubit circuit splits it into disjoint 2-qubit subcircuits, which can be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The structure of a PQC ansatz V (θ) which is cutable with a single cut on two adjacent wires. Each of the circuit subblocks, shown in blue, can have otherwise arbitrary structure and depth. The structure can equivalently be mirrored. This can be generalized to PQCs cuttable using k > 1 cuts on selected subsets of qubits. the sheer number of subcircuits, or, equivalently, the number terms in the reconstruction to be… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Distributed simulation of time evolution of the 7-qubit disordered Heisenberg chain Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Distributed simulation of time evolution of the 7-qubit disordered Heisenberg chain Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Distributed simulation of time evolution of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: A 6-qubit parametrized quantum circuit (PQC) whose layout corresponds to the general structure in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The final training loss (infidelity) of the dp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: A single Trotter step of Heisenberg evolution on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Optimal e XX+Y Y +ZZ gate decomposition. ing the evolution in weak spin-selective tunneling scenario. To this end we map the fermionic Hamiltonian (7) to a qubit Hamiltonian using the JordanWigner transformation. We study a chain with N = 6 sites and we fix hij,σ = …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

[32]

Overhead-constrained 10 circuit knitting for variational quantum dy- namics

Gian Gentinetta, Friederike Metz, and Giuseppe Carleo. “Overhead-constrained 10 circuit knitting for variational quantum dy- namics”. Quantum 8, 1296 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

Quantum simulation

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and Franco Nori. “Quantum simulation”. Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 153–185 (2014)

work page 2014
[2]

Polynomial-time quantum algo- rithm for the simulation of chemical dynam- ics

Ivan Kassal, Stephen P. Jordan, Peter J. Love, Masoud Mohseni, and Al´ an Aspuru- Guzik. “Polynomial-time quantum algo- rithm for the simulation of chemical dynam- ics”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 18681–18686 (2008)

work page 2008
[3]

Quantum hardware simulating four- dimensional inelastic neutron scattering

A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, M. Grossi, P. San- tini, I. Tavernelli, D. Gerace, and S. Car- retta. “Quantum hardware simulating four- dimensional inelastic neutron scattering”. Nature Physics 15, 455–459 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Uncovering local integrability in quantum many-body dynamics

Oles Shtanko, Derek S. Wang, Haimeng Zhang, Nikhil Harle, Alireza Seif, Ramis Movassagh, and Zlatko Minev. “Uncovering local integrability in quantum many-body dynamics” (2023). arXiv:2307.07552

arXiv 2023
[5]

Observation of separated dynamics of charge and spin in the fermi- hubbard model

Frank Arute et al. “Observation of separated dynamics of charge and spin in the fermi- hubbard model” (2020). arXiv:2010.07965

arXiv 2020
[6]

Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics

Rahul Nandkishore and David A. Huse. “Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics”. An- nual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 6, 15–38 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermaliza- tion in the schwinger model

Wibe A. de Jong, Kyle Lee, James Mul- ligan, Mateusz P losko´ n, Felix Ringer, and Xiaojun Yao. “Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermaliza- tion in the schwinger model”. Physical Re- view D106 (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 74 references

[8]

Quantum com- putation by adiabatic evolution

Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gut- mann, and Michael Sipser. “Quantum com- putation by adiabatic evolution” (2000). arXiv:quant-ph/0001106

2000 arXiv
[9]

Op- timization using quantum mechanics: quan- tum annealing through adiabatic evolution

Giuseppe E Santoro and Erio Tosatti1. “Op- timization using quantum mechanics: quan- tum annealing through adiabatic evolution”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 39, 15–38 (2006)

2006
[10]

Improving quantum and classi- cal decomposition methods for vehicle rout- ing

Laura S. Herzog, Friedrich Wagner, Chris- tian Ufrecht, Lilly Palackal, Axel Plinge, Christopher Mutschler, and Daniel D. Scherer. “Improving quantum and classi- cal decomposition methods for vehicle rout- ing” (2024). arXiv:2404.05551

2024 arXiv
[11]

Quantum computing applications for flight trajectory optimiza- tion

Henry Makhanov, Kanav Setia, Junyu Liu, Vanesa Gomez-Gonzalez, and Guillermo Jenaro-Rabadan. “Quantum computing applications for flight trajectory optimiza- tion” (2023). arXiv:2304.14445

2023 arXiv
[12]

Variational quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications in colloidal trans- port

Fong Yew Leong, Dax Enshan Koh, Wei- Bin Ewe, and Jian Feng Kong. “Variational quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications in colloidal trans- port” (2023). arXiv:2307.07173

2023 arXiv
[13]

Exponential quantum speedup in simulating coupled classical oscillators

Ryan Babbush, Dominic W. Berry, Robin Kothari, Rolando D. Somma, and Nathan 9 Wiebe. “Exponential quantum speedup in simulating coupled classical oscillators”. Physical Review X13 (2023)

2023
[14]

Hamiltonian simulation for time-evolving partial differential equation by scalable quantum circuits

Yuki Sato, Ruho Kondo, Ikko Hamamura, Tamiya Onodera, and Naoki Yamamoto. “Hamiltonian simulation for time-evolving partial differential equation by scalable quantum circuits” (2024). arXiv:2402.18398

2024 arXiv
[15]

Variational quantum so- lutions to the advection-diffusion equation for applications in fluid dynamics

Reuben Demirdjian, Daniel Gunlycke, Car- olyn A. Reynolds, James D. Doyle, and Sergio Tafur. “Variational quantum so- lutions to the advection-diffusion equation for applications in fluid dynamics” (2022). arXiv:2208.11780

2022 arXiv
[16]

Efficient quantum lattice gas au- tomata

Antonio David Bastida Zamora, Ljubomir Budinski, Ossi Niemim¨ aki, and Valtteri Lahtinen. “Efficient quantum lattice gas au- tomata” (2024). arXiv:2402.16488

2024 arXiv
[17]

Quantum circuits for par- tial differential equations via schr¨ odingeri- sation

Junpeng Hu, Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Lei Zhang. “Quantum circuits for par- tial differential equations via schr¨ odingeri- sation” (2024). arXiv:2403.10032

2024 arXiv
[18]

Explicit gate construction of block- encoding for hamiltonians needed for simu- lating partial differential equations

Nikita Guseynov, Xiajie Huang, and Nana Liu. “Explicit gate construction of block- encoding for hamiltonians needed for simu- lating partial differential equations” (2024). arXiv:2405.12855

2024 arXiv
[19]

Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling

Andrew M. Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C. Tran, Nathan Wiebe, and Shuchen Zhu. “Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling”. Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021)

2021
[20]

Low- cost quantum circuits for classically in- tractable instances of the hamiltonian dy- namics simulation problem

Yunseong Nam and Dmitri Maslov. “Low- cost quantum circuits for classically in- tractable instances of the hamiltonian dy- namics simulation problem”. npj Quantum Information5 (2019)

2019
[21]

Toward the first quantum simula- tion with quantum speedup

Andrew M. Childs, Dmitri Maslov, Yun- seong Nam, Neil J. Ross, and Yuan Su. “Toward the first quantum simula- tion with quantum speedup”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 9456–9461 (2018)

2018
[22]

Quantum volume in practice: What users can expect from nisq devices

Elijah Pelofske, Andreas B¨ artschi, and Stephan Eidenbenz. “Quantum volume in practice: What users can expect from nisq devices”. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 3, 1–19 (2022)

2022
[23]

Adiabatic population transfer with con- trol fields

Mustafa Demirplak and Stuart A Rice. “Adiabatic population transfer with con- trol fields”. The Journal of Physi- cal Chemistry A 107, 9937–9945 (2003). url: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ jp030708a#Abstract

2003
[24]

Fast optimal frictionless atom cooling in harmonic traps: Shortcut to adiabaticity

Xi Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, S. Schmidt, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga. “Fast optimal frictionless atom cooling in harmonic traps: Shortcut to adiabaticity”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 063002 (2010)

2010
[25]

Shortcuts to adiabatic- ity by counterdiabatic driving

Adolfo del Campo. “Shortcuts to adiabatic- ity by counterdiabatic driving”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 100502 (2013)

2013
[26]

Min- imizing irreversible losses in quantum sys- tems by local counterdiabatic driving

Dries Sels and Anatoli Polkovnikov. “Min- imizing irreversible losses in quantum sys- tems by local counterdiabatic driving”. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences114 (2017)

2017
[27]

Variational fast forward- ing for quantum simulation beyond the co- herence time

Cristina Cirstoiu, Zoe Holmes, Joseph Io- sue, Lukasz Cincio, Patrick J Coles, and An- drew Sornborger. “Variational fast forward- ing for quantum simulation beyond the co- herence time”. npj Quantum Information 6, 82 (2020). url: https://www.nature.com/ articles/s41534-020-00302-0

2020
[28]

De- termining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imag- inary time evolution

Mario Motta, Chong Sun, Adrian T. K. Tan, Matthew J. O’Rourke, Erika Ye, Austin J. Minnich, Fernando G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. “De- termining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imag- inary time evolution”. Nature Physics 16, 2...

2019
[29]

Krylov subspace methods for quantum dy- namics with time-dependent generators

Kazutaka Takahashi and Adolfo del Campo. “Krylov subspace methods for quantum dy- namics with time-dependent generators”. Physical Review Letters134 (2025)

2025
[30]

A multireference quantum krylov algorithm for strongly cor- related electrons

Nicholas H. Stair, Renke Huang, and Francesco A. Evangelista. “A multireference quantum krylov algorithm for strongly cor- related electrons”. Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation 16, 2236–2245 (2020)

2020
[31]

An efficient quantum al- gorithm for the time evolution of parameter- ized circuits

Stefano Barison, Filippo Vicentini, and Giuseppe Carleo. “An efficient quantum al- gorithm for the time evolution of parameter- ized circuits”. Quantum 5, 512 (2021)

2021
[33]

Distributed quantum computing: A survey

Marcello Caleffi, Michele Amoretti, Davide Ferrari, Jessica Illiano, Antonio Manzalini, and Angela Sara Cacciapuoti. “Distributed quantum computing: A survey”. Computer Networks 254, 110672 (2024)

2024
[34]

Fragqc: An efficient quantum error reduc- tion technique using quantum circuit frag- mentation

Saikat Basu, Arnav Das, Amit Saha, Am- lan Chakrabarti, and Susmita Sur-Kolay. “Fragqc: An efficient quantum error reduc- tion technique using quantum circuit frag- mentation”. Journal of Systems and Soft- ware 214, 112085 (2024)

2024
[35]

Simulating large quan- tum circuits on a small quantum computer

Tianyi Peng, Aram W. Harrow, Maris Ozols, and Xiaodi Wu. “Simulating large quan- tum circuits on a small quantum computer”. Physical Review Letters125 (2020)

2020
[36]

Con- structing a virtual two-qubit gate by sam- pling single-qubit operations

Kosuke Mitarai and Keisuke Fujii. “Con- structing a virtual two-qubit gate by sam- pling single-qubit operations”. New Journal of Physics 23, 023021 (2021)

2021
[38]

Fast quantum circuit cutting with randomized measurements

Angus Lowe, Matija Medvidovi´ c, Anthony Hayes, Lee J. O’Riordan, Thomas R. Brom- ley, Juan Miguel Arrazola, and Nathan Kil- loran. “Fast quantum circuit cutting with randomized measurements”. Quantum 7, 934 (2023)

2023
[39]

Circuit knitting with classical communica- tion

Christophe Piveteau and David Sutter. “Circuit knitting with classical communica- tion”. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 70, 2734–2745 (2024)

2024
[40]

Readout error mitiga- tion for mid-circuit measurements and feed- forward

Jin Ming Koh, Dax Enshan Koh, and Jayne Thompson. “Readout error mitiga- tion for mid-circuit measurements and feed- forward” (2024). arXiv:2406.07611

2024
[41]

Pauli noise learning for mid-circuit measure- ments

Jordan Hines and Timothy Proctor. “Pauli noise learning for mid-circuit measure- ments” (2024). arXiv:2406.09299

2024 arXiv
[42]

Measuring error rates of mid-circuit measurements

Daniel Hothem, Jordan Hines, Charles Bald- win, Dan Gresh, Robin Blume-Kohout, and Timothy Proctor. “Measuring error rates of mid-circuit measurements” (2024). arXiv:2410.16706

2024 arXiv
[43]

Com- bining quantum processors with real-time classical communication

Almudena Carrera Vazquez, Caroline Tornow, Diego Rist` e, Stefan Woerner, Maika Takita, and Daniel J Egger. “Com- bining quantum processors with real-time classical communication”. NaturePages 1–5 (2024). url: https://www.nature.com/ articles/s41586-024-08178-2

2024
[44]

Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shal- low parametrized quantum circuits

M. Cerezo, Akira Sone, Tyler Volkoff, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. “Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shal- low parametrized quantum circuits”. Nature Communications12 (2021)

2021
[45]

Vari- ational quantum simulation: a case study for understanding warm starts

Ricard Puig i Valls, Marc Drudis, Su- panut Thanasilp, and Zo¨ e Holmes. “Vari- ational quantum simulation: a case study for understanding warm starts” (2024). arXiv:2404.10044

2024 arXiv
[46]

Adaptive projected variational quantum dynamics

David Linteau, Stefano Barison, Netanel H. Lindner, and Giuseppe Carleo. “Adaptive projected variational quantum dynamics”. Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023130 (2024)

2024
[47]

Cutqc: using small quantum comput- ers for large quantum circuit evaluations

Wei Tang, Teague Tomesh, Martin Suchara, Jeffrey Larson, and Margaret Martonosi. “Cutqc: using small quantum comput- ers for large quantum circuit evaluations”. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Ope...

2021
[48]

Efficient quantum circuit cutting by neglecting basis elements

Daniel T. Chen, Ethan H. Hansen, Xin- peng Li, Vinooth Kulkarni, Vipin Chaud- hary, Bin Ren, Qiang Guan, Sanmukh Kup- pannagari, Ji Liu, and Shuai Xu. “Efficient quantum circuit cutting by neglecting basis elements” (2023). arXiv:2304.04093

2023 arXiv
[49]

Over- head for simulating a non-local channel with local channels by quasiprobability sam- pling

Kosuke Mitarai and Keisuke Fujii. “Over- head for simulating a non-local channel with local channels by quasiprobability sam- pling”. Quantum 5, 388 (2021)

2021
[50]

Scaleqc: A scalable framework for hybrid computation on quantum and classical processors

Wei Tang and Margaret Martonosi. “Scaleqc: A scalable framework for hybrid computation on quantum and classical processors” (2022). arXiv:2207.00933

2022 arXiv
[51]

How to build a quantum supercom- puter: Scaling from hundreds to millions of qubits

Masoud Mohseni, Artur Scherer, K. Grace Johnson, Oded Wertheim, Matthew Ot- ten, Navid Anjum Aadit, Yuri Alexeev, Kirk M. Bresniker, Kerem Y. Camsari, Barbara Chapman, Soumitra Chatterjee, 11 Gebremedhin A. Dagnew, Aniello Espos- ito, Farah Fahim, Marco Fiorentino, Ar- chit Ga...

2025 arXiv
[53]

High dimensional quantum machine learning with small quantum com- puters

Simon C. Marshall, Casper Gyurik, and Ve- dran Dunjko. “High dimensional quantum machine learning with small quantum com- puters”. Quantum 7, 1078 (2023)

2023
[54]

Divide and con- quer for combinatorial optimization and distributed quantum computation

Teague Tomesh, Zain H. Saleem, Michael A. Perlin, Pranav Gokhale, Martin Suchara, and Margaret Martonosi. “Divide and con- quer for combinatorial optimization and distributed quantum computation” (2023). arXiv:2107.07532

2023 arXiv
[55]

Approaches to con- strained quantum approximate optimiza- tion

Zain H Saleem, Teague Tomesh, Bilal Tariq, and Martin Suchara. “Approaches to con- strained quantum approximate optimiza- tion”. SN Computer Science 4, 183 (2023). url: https://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s42979-022-01638-4

2023 doi
[56]

Parallelizing quantum-classical workloads: Profiling the impact of splitting techniques

Tuhin Khare, Ritajit Majumdar, Ra- jiv Sangle, Anupama Ray, Padman- abha Venkatagiri Seshadri, and Yogesh Simmhan. “Parallelizing quantum-classical workloads: Profiling the impact of splitting techniques” (2023). arXiv:2305.06585

2023 arXiv
[57]

Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algo- rithms

Sukin Sim, Peter D. Johnson, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. “Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algo- rithms”. Advanced Quantum Technolo- gies2 (2019)

2019
[58]

Low-depth circuit ansatz for preparing correlated fermionic states on a quantum computer

Pierre-Luc Dallaire-Demers, Jonathan Romero, Libor Veis, Sukin Sim, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. “Low-depth circuit ansatz for preparing correlated fermionic states on a quantum computer” (2018). arXiv:1801.01053

2018 arXiv
[59]

Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets

Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. “Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets”. Nature 549, 242–246 (2017)

2017
[60]

Integrated qubit reuse and circuit cutting for large quantum circuit evaluation

Aditya Pawar, Yingheng Li, Zewei Mo, Yanan Guo, Youtao Zhang, Xulong Tang, and Jun Yang. “Integrated qubit reuse and circuit cutting for large quantum circuit evaluation” (2023). arXiv:2312.10298

2023 arXiv
[61]

Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset

Matthew DeCross, Eli Chertkov, Megan Ko- hagen, and Michael Foss-Feig. “Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset” (2022). arXiv:2210.08039

2022 arXiv
[62]

Dynamic quantum circuit compila- tion

Kun Fang, Munan Zhang, Ruqi Shi, and Yi- nan Li. “Dynamic quantum circuit compila- tion” (2023). arXiv:2310.11021

2023 arXiv
[63]

Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces

Vojtˇ ech Havl ´ ıˇ cek, Antonio D. C´ orcoles, Kristan Temme, Aram W. Harrow, Abhinav Kandala, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gam- betta. “Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces”. Nature 567, 209–212 (2019)

2019
[64]

A lie algebraic theory of barren plateaus for deep parameterized quantum circuits

Michael Ragone, Bojko N. Bakalov, Fr´ ed´ eric Sauvage, Alexander F. Kemper, Carlos Or- tiz Marrero, Mart ´ ın Larocca, and M. Cerezo. “A lie algebraic theory of barren plateaus for deep parameterized quantum circuits”. Na- ture Communications15 (2024)

2024
[65]

A review of barren plateaus in variational quantum computing

Martin Larocca, Supanut Thanasilp, Sam- son Wang, Kunal Sharma, Jacob Bia- monte, Patrick J. Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R. McClean, Zo¨ e Holmes, and M. Cerezo. “A review of barren plateaus in variational quantum computing” (2024). arXiv:2405.00781

2024 arXiv
[66]

Many-body localization in the heisenberg xxz magnet in a random field

Marko ˇZnidariˇ c, Toma ˇ z Prosen, and Peter Prelovˇ sek. “Many-body localization in the heisenberg xxz magnet in a random field”. Phys. Rev. B 77, 064426 (2008). 12

2008
[67]

Collo- quium: Many-body localization, thermaliza- tion, and entanglement

Dmitry A. Abanin, Ehud Altman, Im- manuel Bloch, and Maksym Serbyn. “Collo- quium: Many-body localization, thermaliza- tion, and entanglement”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019)

2019
[68]

The hub- bard model

Daniel P. Arovas, Erez Berg, Steven A. Kivelson, and Srinivas Raghu. “The hub- bard model”. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13, 239–274 (2022)

2022
[69]

Nonequilibrium dynamical mean- field theory and its applications

Hideo Aoki, Naoto Tsuji, Martin Eckstein, Marcus Kollar, Takashi Oka, and Philipp Werner. “Nonequilibrium dynamical mean- field theory and its applications”. Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 779–837 (2014)

2014
[70]

Model exact many-body studies of charge trans- fer through bridged systems

Swapan K Pati and S Ramasesha. “Model exact many-body studies of charge trans- fer through bridged systems”. Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter 16, 989–996 (2004)

2004
[71]

Phase diagram of the bose-hubbard model on a ring-shaped lattice with tunable weak links

Kalani Hettiarachchilage, Val´ ery G. Rousseau, Ka-Ming Tam, Mark Jarrell, and Juana Moreno. “Phase diagram of the bose-hubbard model on a ring-shaped lattice with tunable weak links”. Physical Review A87 (2013)

2013
[72]

Spin- polarized electron tunneling

R. Meservey and P.M. Tedrow. “Spin- polarized electron tunneling”. Physics Re- ports 238, 173–243 (1994)

1994
[73]

Vladyslav Bohun, Mariana Krasnytska, Mykhailo Ohorodnikov, Yuriy Pryyma, and Volodymyr Sergeyev. “Rivet”. https:// github.com/haiqu-ai/rivet
[74]

Sequential minimal optimization for quantum-classical hybrid algorithms

Ken M. Nakanishi, Keisuke Fujii, and Synge Todo. “Sequential minimal optimization for quantum-classical hybrid algorithms”. Physical Review Research2 (2020)

2020
[75]

Quantum-assisted solution paths for the capacitated vehicle routing problem

Lilly Palackal, Benedikt Poggel, Matthias Wulff, Hans Ehm, Jeanette Miriam Lorenz, and Christian B. Mendl. “Quantum-assisted solution paths for the capacitated vehicle routing problem”. In 2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). IEEE (2023)

2023
[76]

Opti- mal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates

Farrokh Vatan and Colin Williams. “Opti- mal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates”. Physical Review A 69 (2004). A PQC Ansatz for dp-VQD An example of a sparsely cutable PQC of the type we used in our experiments is shown in Fig. 7 (for 6 qubits). AllRY andRZ gates are...

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [32]

Overhead-constrained 10 circuit knitting for variational quantum dy- namics

Gian Gentinetta, Friederike Metz, and Giuseppe Carleo. “Overhead-constrained 10 circuit knitting for variational quantum dy- namics”. Quantum 8, 1296 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Quantum simulation

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and Franco Nori. “Quantum simulation”. Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 153–185 (2014)

work page 2014

[3] [2]

Polynomial-time quantum algo- rithm for the simulation of chemical dynam- ics

Ivan Kassal, Stephen P. Jordan, Peter J. Love, Masoud Mohseni, and Al´ an Aspuru- Guzik. “Polynomial-time quantum algo- rithm for the simulation of chemical dynam- ics”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 18681–18686 (2008)

work page 2008

[4] [3]

Quantum hardware simulating four- dimensional inelastic neutron scattering

A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, M. Grossi, P. San- tini, I. Tavernelli, D. Gerace, and S. Car- retta. “Quantum hardware simulating four- dimensional inelastic neutron scattering”. Nature Physics 15, 455–459 (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [4]

Uncovering local integrability in quantum many-body dynamics

Oles Shtanko, Derek S. Wang, Haimeng Zhang, Nikhil Harle, Alireza Seif, Ramis Movassagh, and Zlatko Minev. “Uncovering local integrability in quantum many-body dynamics” (2023). arXiv:2307.07552

arXiv 2023

[6] [5]

Observation of separated dynamics of charge and spin in the fermi- hubbard model

Frank Arute et al. “Observation of separated dynamics of charge and spin in the fermi- hubbard model” (2020). arXiv:2010.07965

arXiv 2020

[7] [6]

Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics

Rahul Nandkishore and David A. Huse. “Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics”. An- nual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 6, 15–38 (2015)

work page 2015

[8] [7]

Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermaliza- tion in the schwinger model

Wibe A. de Jong, Kyle Lee, James Mul- ligan, Mateusz P losko´ n, Felix Ringer, and Xiaojun Yao. “Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermaliza- tion in the schwinger model”. Physical Re- view D106 (2022)

work page 2022