Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 115 references

Ab initio many-fermion structure calculations on a quantum computer

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum-classical algorithm now resolves complete bound-state spectra of many-fermion systems, assigning each eigenstate its total angular momentum.

desk verdict A genuinely new hybrid approach to full nuclear spectra plus J values, but the abstract overreaches with 'complete' and the validation-ancilla description is under-specified in a load-bearing way. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19906 v1 pith:4XZL6GKI submitted 2025-05-26 nucl-th quant-ph

Weijie Du , Yangguang Yang , Zixin Liu , Chao Yang , James P. Vary This is my paper
classification nucl-thquant-ph PACS 21.60.Cs03.67.Ac21.10.Dr
keywords quantumcomputationnuclearstructureconfigurationinteractionbound-statespectrumangularmomentumblockencodingChebyshevpolynomialresolvent
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 introduces a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm that aims to extract the complete bound-state spectrum of a self-bound many-fermion system, including the total angular momentum $J$ of every eigenstate, from a quantum computer. The key move is to block-encode the second-quantized Hamiltonian through a new fermionic circuit representation that avoids the overhead of converting operators into Pauli strings, then evaluate Chebyshev moments of the resolvent $G(E)=1/(E-H)$ and assemble the spectral function classically. A two-fold scan—varying the $M$-projection of the pivot and increasing the resolution—assigns $J$ values to each resolved level. The authors apply the method for the first time to the oxygen-20 nucleus with a realistic strong-interaction Hamiltonian and find agreement with classical shell-model results, with direct extension to hadron spectra in basis light-front quantization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the resolvent $G(E) = (E - H)^{-1}$, expressed through the integral identity $G(E) = -i \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{iEt} e^{-iHt} dt$ and evaluated by a truncated Chebyshev polynomial expansion of $e^{-iHt}$, so that only moments $\langle \psi_\mathrm{out} | T_n(H') | \psi_\mathrm{in} \rangle$ must be produced on the quantum device. The Hamiltonian is block-encoded by a fermionic circuit representation built from direct occupation-basis encoding with validation registers that mark physical versus nonphysical actions of creation and annihilation operators, eliminating the Pauli-string compilation of standard mappings and the oracle/uncomputation overhead of other block encodings. A quantum-walk-style construction of forward and backward walk states turns the scaled Hamiltonian matrix element $\langle G | H | F \rangle / (B\Xi)$ into an inner product, and Chebyshev polynomials are block-encoded by alternating the walk operator with a reflection on ancilla qubits. The cascading-$M$ scan then reads off $J$ from the emergence pattern of peaks in the spectral function.

What would settle it

Take a small configuration-interaction Hamiltonian whose exact eigenstates are known, run the cascading-$M$ scan with a pivot that is a single Slater determinant deliberately orthogonal to one eigenstate of angular momentum $J \ge M$, and observe that this state never appears in any spectral function; this directly contradicts the claim that the method resolves the complete bound-state spectrum for arbitrary pivots.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the full bound-state spectrum and the total angular momentum of each eigenstate can be obtained by combining a quantum-computed set of Chebyshev moments $\langle \psi | T_n(H') | \psi \rangle$ with a classical reconstruction of the spectral function $F_\psi(E) = \Re \langle \psi | G(E) | \psi \rangle$. The $J$-assignment is made by a cascading-$M$ scan: a state first appearing when the pivot projection is lowered from $M$ to $M-1$ carries $J = M-1$, provided the pivot has nonzero overlap with it. The paper reports the first such computation for $^{20}\mathrm{O}$ using a realistic strong interaction, resolving the energies and $J$ values of most bound eigenstates and matching classical calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The angular-momentum assignment assumes that the chosen single-configuration pivot has nonzero overlap with every eigenstate whose total angular momentum is at least the pivot's $M$-projection, so that a missing peak is evidence of absence rather than of pivot invisibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the first time, a full bound-state spectrum with $J$ assignments is produced for $^{20}\mathrm{O}$ from a realistic strong-interaction Hamiltonian on a quantum computer.
  • The method carries a gate cost $\tilde{O}(N_\mathrm{sp}^{2k+1})$ for Hamiltonians with up to $k$-body interactions, the lowest rigorous upper bound for a general $k$-body input, making larger configuration-interaction spaces accessible than with Pauli-string-based encodings.
  • The same block-encoding and scan framework applies directly to hadron spectra computed in basis light-front quantization, where a 2D harmonic-oscillator basis replaces the 3D basis used here.
  • Because the input scheme preserves Hamiltonian symmetries, targeted $M$-projection calculations can prune the Hilbert space and isolate states by angular momentum.
  • The resolvent-based machinery extends to response functions and reaction observables, not just bound-state energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorially, the completeness of the spectrum hinges on pivot coverage: a single-determinant pivot that is orthogonal to some eigenstate with $J \ge M$ will simply not show that state, and the paper itself notes that odd-$J$ states can be missing from one pivot's spectral function; a practical recipe must therefore use several pivots or a superposition.
  • Editorially, the $\tilde{O}(N_\mathrm{sp}^{2k+1})$ gate count is the lowest rigorous upper bound for general $k$-body Hamiltonians, yet it still grows rapidly with the single-particle basis, so the near-term niche is small valence-space problems rather than full no-core shell-model scales.
  • Editorially, the symmetry-preserving block encoding could be combined with quantum subspace diagonalization to target a fixed $J$ sector directly, potentially removing the need for the cascading-$M$ scan.
  • Editorially, a natural stress-test is to apply the method to a nucleus with closely spaced levels of different angular momenta and compare the $J$ assignment against exact diagonalization for several randomly chosen single-configuration pivots.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a hybrid quantum-classical framework for configuration-interaction (CI) many-fermion structure calculations and demonstrates it on the 20O nucleus. The approach evaluates the retarded Green's function (resolvent) of the second-quantized Hamiltonian from Chebyshev polynomial moments computed on a quantum computer through a new 'direct basis encoding' Hamiltonian input scheme: fermionic operator monomials are realized by circuits on occupation qubits with auxiliary validity ancillae, and the Hamiltonian is block-encoded via forward/backward walk states with a claimed gate cost of O~(N_sp^{2k+1}) for Hamiltonians containing up to k-body terms. The spectral function is assembled classically from the moments, and a two-fold scan, consisting of a cascading-M scan and a resolution scan, assigns total angular momentum J to the resolved energy levels. The demonstration uses 20O in a truncated sd-shell space (0d5/2 and 1s1/2 orbits, four valence neutrons) with an effective interaction from Ref. [68]; the Chebyshev moments are evaluated with the Qiskit Statevector simulator in noiseless mode and cross-checked against classical calculations, yielding an excitation spectrum with J assignments.

Significance. If the Hamiltonian input scheme is correct as described, the paper contributes a concrete, oracle-free circuit construction for second-quantized fermionic Hamiltonians with up to k-body interactions that avoids Pauli-string compilation, a stated gate-cost bound, and a spectral method that can in principle return complete bound-state spectra with angular momentum assignments. The manuscript's strengths include explicitly drawn circuit building blocks, a self-contained walk-state construction, the use of standard qubitization for Chebyshev moment evaluation, and computed moments that are machine-checked against classical results, which is a commendable validation step. The physics demonstration itself is modest: an 8-mode, four-particle model space computed on a noiseless simulator with a phenomenological sd-shell interaction, so the contribution is methodological. The claimed applicability to BLFQ hadron spectra is plausible but not demonstrated in this work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Hamiltonian input scheme (Fig. 1); SM Eqs. (18)-(21)] The validity-ancilla mechanism described in the main text and Fig. 1 does not, on its face, implement the condition y^P_{F,j}=y^Q_{F,j}=0 if and only if the monomial action b†_{Qj}b_{Pj}|F⟩ is physical, which is the invariant on which the block-encoding identity, SM Eq. (21), and Eq. (8) of the main text rest. For a single-qubit register e_P initialized in |1⟩ and 'flipped' controlled on each annihilated mode's occupation, the final state of e_P records the parity of the occupancies rather than their conjunction. For a two-annihilation term a_q a_p (p<q), a Fock state with b_p=0 and b_q=1 ends with e_P=|0⟩ and is accepted as physical even though a_q a_p|F⟩=0; read as a CNOT toggle, the valid all-occupied case ends with e_P=|1⟩ and is rejected, while read as a flip-only-while-|1⟩ gate, the exactly-one-occupied cases are still accepted because the failure of the first annihilation leaves e_P=|1⟩ and the second flip then toggles it to |0⟩. In the wrongly accepted cases the X gates also corrupt the system register, so the spurious terms contribute to the block-encoded matrix rather than being projected out. Because the 20O Hamiltonian contains two-body terms (Table S3), these spurious contributions would alter the Chebyshev moments ⟨ψ|T_n(H')|ψ⟩ unless the implemented circuits differ from the text. The authors must specify the multi-operator circuits explicitly and prove the ancilla invariant before the input scheme claim can be regarded as established.
  2. [Abstract; SM 'Pivot choices'; Summary] The abstract claims the method is 'capable of resolving the complete bound-state spectrum' and of providing 'the total angular momentum J associated with each eigenstate,' but the results reported in the manuscript do not support the completeness claim. The cascading-M assignment logic requires the pivot |ψ_M⟩ to have nonzero overlap with every eigenstate with J≥M; with single-configuration pivots this condition is not guaranteed and in fact fails in the present calculation, as the SM ('Pivot choices') concedes that some states are absent from the spectral function (the odd-J states in Fig. 3(f)). The Summary itself more cautiously claims only that 'most eigenstates' are resolved. The assignment-by-emergence procedure will mislabel a state if the pivot at the higher M has zero overlap with it, so the claimed completeness requires either a proven overlap condition for the chosen pivots or an explicit method for selecting pivots that guarantees completeness. The paper should reconcile the abstract with the Summary and state precisely which eigenstates the demonstrated procedure actually resolves.
  3. [Fig. 3; 'Hybrid method' section] The J-assignment protocol that produces the spectrum in Fig. 3(b) is not documented in a reproducible way. The spectral functions shown are computed only with an M=4 pivot (Fig. 3(c,d)) and an M=0 pivot (Fig. 3(e,f)); the cascading-M scan used to assign the individual J values in Fig. 3(b) is not specified: which M values were scanned, which single-configuration pivots were used at each M, which resolutions N were used, and how the criterion 'additional states emerge' was applied when comparing F_{ψ_M} with F_{ψ_{M−1}} are all absent. No peak-matching threshold or error estimate for the fitted peak positions E_x is given. Since the J assignment is a central claimed output of the method, the protocol should be described precisely, or the relevant cascading spectra should be made available.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Formalism, Eq. (1)] The integral representation in Eq. (1) integrates over all t with H→H−iϵ; the exponential e^{i(E−H)t} then diverges for t<0, so the integration range should be [0,∞) for the retarded Green's function. The discretized version in Eq. (3) correctly uses τ=0,...,N−1.
  2. [Title and Abstract] The demonstration is performed on the Qiskit Statevector simulator in noiseless mode in a truncated model space with the phenomenological single-particle energies of Ref. [68]; the abstract's 'on a quantum computer' and the title's 'Ab initio' should be qualified to reflect this, with 'ab initio' reserved for the method's intended target rather than the reported calculation.
  3. [Eq. (8) discussion] The phrase 'the lowest rigorous upper bound on the gate cost' is not supported, since no lower bound is proven; the sentence should state simply that the scheme achieves a gate cost of O~(N_sp^{2k+1}).
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The peak-extraction procedure should be documented: the fit model f(x) is stated, but the fitting algorithm, the statistical error on E_x, and the criterion for declaring a resolved peak are not; the use of Re⟨ψ|G(E)|ψ⟩ rather than −Im⟨ψ|G(E)|ψ⟩ also deserves a comment, since Re G has a dispersive (zero-crossing) shape near a pole.
  5. [SM Table S1] The column header 'n l2j2m' is garbled and should read 'n, l, 2j, 2m'.
  6. [References] Ref. [104] (NNDC) should be given a proper database citation rather than a bare URL and access date.
  7. [Hamiltonian input scheme] The sentence 'this input scheme preserves Hamiltonian symmetries' should specify which symmetries (presumably the M-projection) are preserved and how, since the direct-basis encoding with M-conserving matrix elements is what carries this property.
  8. [Introduction and Abstract] The 'for the first time' claim should specify that the spectrum is computed for the first time by this hybrid quantum algorithm on a simulator; classical shell-model diagonalization in this small model space is routine.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 20O spectrum is derived from a block-encoded Hamiltonian and resolvent evaluation, cross-checked classically, with no fitted output relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The spectrum is obtained from the resolvent G(E)=1/(E-H) via the Chebyshev expansion (Eqs. 1-3); the many-fermion Hamiltonian input scheme block-encodes H' through the forward/backward walk states, with the identity (⟨G|⊗⟨0|)T_b†T_f(|F>⊗|0>) = (1/BΞ)⟨G|H|F⟩ proved in the SM (Eqs. 9-21) from the walk-state construction and the validation-ancilla conditions. No step of this derivation invokes the 20O spectrum, the experimental energies, or any fitted parameter. The Chebyshev moments are evaluated on a statevector simulator and 'cross-checked against corresponding classical calculations' of the same Hamiltonian, so the agreement is a consistency check, not a fit. The peak positions are extracted by a standard peak fit to the computed spectral function, and the J assignment uses the angular-momentum selection rule that a pivot with projection M overlaps only eigenstates with J>=M; this rule is an external symmetry property, not an input. The self-citations ([29,30] for Chebyshev-operator circuits, [77,98] for related input schemes) are to prior work by the same group, but the load-bearing block-encoding identity and spectrum calculation are established in the present SM and checked against independent classical evaluation, so these citations are not load-bearing. The SM 'Pivot choices' explicitly concedes that 'some states may be absent from the resultant spectral function'; this is an acknowledged completeness limitation and a correctness risk, but it does not make any predicted quantity equal to an input by construction. Similarly, the reviewer's concern about the single-qubit validity ancilla failing to validate multi-fermion products would, if correct, invalidate the block-encoding identity (making the quantum computation wrong), not render the derivation circular: the identity is claimed and proved in the SM rather than assumed from the target result. No equation in the paper reduces the output spectrum to the input Hamiltonian or pivot by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The physics output is entirely inherited from the fitted sd-shell effective interaction of Ref. [68]; the algorithm contributes no physical parameters. Algorithmic hyperparameters (B, Xi, N, nmax) affect resolution and normalization but not the physics. The free parameters itemized are the interaction inputs plus the peak-fit energies used to report the spectrum. Invented entities: none; the eP, eQ, me, act, and id registers are ancilla qubits and P_X is a relabeled phase gate.

free parameters (5)
  • sd-shell single-particle energies eps_i = -3.2079 MeV (1s1/2), -3.9257 MeV (0d5/2)
    'Phenomenologically successful choices' from Ref. [68], SM Eq. (24) and Table S3 entries 0-7; fitted to sd-shell data.
  • Two-body effective interaction matrix elements (102 entries) = SM Table S3, indices 8-109
    sd-shell effective interaction of Ref. [68], fitted to sd-shell data; the central physical input to the 20O spectrum.
  • Interaction mass scaling factor (18/A)^(1/3) = (18/20)^(1/3)
    Hand-chosen A-scaling applied to the matrix elements for 20O (SM 'Realistic Hamiltonian' section).
  • Peak-fit parameters Ex, a1, a2, eta = Ex values reported in Fig. 3(b)
    Eigenenergies are extracted by four-parameter fits f(x) = a1/(x-Ex+1e-6) + a2/(x-Ex+1e-6)^2 + eta to the reconstructed spectral function (Fig. 3 caption).
  • Algorithmic hyperparameters B, Xi, N, nmax = B >= D = 110; Xi = max norm of matrix elements; N = 2000/20000; nmax > 4 tau
    Chosen by hand; set normalization and resolution but do not alter the spectrum; included for completeness.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Resolvent representation G(E) = -i integral exp[iEt] exp[-iHt] dt (Eq. 1) and its discrete Fourier evaluation (Eq. 3)
    Functional calculus for Hermitian H; standard derivation following Refs [88-91].
  • standard math Chebyshev expansion of exp(-iHt) with truncation nmax(tau) > 4 tau (Eq. 2)
    Standard kernel polynomial technique [89, 90]; truncation relies on asymptotic decay of Bessel functions J_n(pi tau).
  • domain assumption Fermionic circuit representations with validation registers implement the exact anticommutation algebra for arbitrary monomial strings (Fig. 1, SM Eqs. 9-11)
    Shown by example for up to three fermion operators; the controlled multi-fermion case is asserted rather than proven step-by-step in the provided text.
  • standard math Block-encoding identity (G| x <0|) T_b-dagger T_f (|F> x |0>) = (1/(B Xi)) <G|H|F> (SM Eq. 21), with U_H and U_H-dagger both encoding H'
    Inner-product computation is given in the SM (Eqs. 18-19); consistency with the Chebyshev construction (SM Eqs. 22-23) follows standard QSVT arguments.
  • domain assumption M-scheme completeness: a pivot of projection M has nonzero overlap with all eigenstates with J >= M
    The angular momentum selection rule is standard, but the completeness part is violated in the demonstration; odd-J states are missing from Fig. 3(f) (SM 'Pivot choices').
  • domain assumption The sd-shell effective interaction of Ref. [68], truncated to 0d5/2 + 1s1/2, is an adequate model for 20O
    Physics input; authors expect better agreement with experiment only after adding 0d3/2, so the demonstrated spectrum is model-space dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ab initio many-fermion structure calculations on a quantum computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4XZL6GKI

@misc{pith2026250519906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ab initio many-fermion structure calculations on a quantum computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4XZL6GKI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19906}
}
abstract

To overcome the limitations of existing algorithms for solving self-bound quantum many-body problems -- such as those encountered in nuclear and particle physics -- that access only a restricted subset of energy levels and provide limited structural information, we introduce and demonstrate a novel quantum-classical approach capable of resolving the complete bound-state spectrum. This method also provides the total angular momentum $J$ associated with each eigenstate. Our approach is based on expressing the Hamiltonian in second-quantized form within a novel input model combined with a scan scheme, enabling broad applicability to configuration-interaction calculations across diverse fields. We apply this hybrid method to compute, for the first time, the bound-state spectrum together with corresponding $J$ values of ${^{20}O}$ using a realistic strong-interaction Hamiltonian. Our approach applies to hadron spectra and $J$ values solved in the relativistic Basis Light-Front Quantization approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19906 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) From left to right: the circuit represen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) Illustration: the circuit of constructing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [68]

    backward

    developed from fundamental theories [69–71]. The same method applies directly to relativistic Hamilonians derived from quantum field theory and expressed in the Basis Light-Front Quantization (BLFQ) framework [72– 77]. As a crucial ingredient of this method, we propose a new Hamiltonian input scheme based on a novel cir- cuit representation of the fermion...

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Cook,Handbook of Computational Quantum Chem- istry, Dover Books on Chemistry (Dover Publications, 2012)

    D. Cook,Handbook of Computational Quantum Chem- istry, Dover Books on Chemistry (Dover Publications, 2012)

    2012

  3. [2]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quan- tum materials science, Chemical Reviews120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  4. [3]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, The shell model as a unified view of nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 427 (2005)

    2005

  5. [4]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Quan- tum monte carlo methods for nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015)

    2015

  6. [5]

    Hjorth-Jensen, M

    M. Hjorth-Jensen, M. P. Lombardo, and U. van Kolck, eds.,An Advanced Course in Computational Nuclear Physics, Vol. 936 (Springer, 2017)

    2017

  7. [6]

    B. R. Barrett, P. Navratil, and J. P. Vary, Ab initio no core shell model, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.69, 131 (2013)

    2013

  8. [7]

    Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    E. Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

Show all 115 references
  1. [8]

    Schreiber and T

    M. Schreiber and T. Vojta,Computational Condensed Matter Physics: A Course for Self-Study and the Com- puter Laboratory, Advanced Texts in Physics (Springer- Verlag GmbH, 2005)

    2005

  2. [9]

    Peskin,An Introduction To Quantum Field Theory (CRC Press, 2018)

    M. Peskin,An Introduction To Quantum Field Theory (CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, and S. S. Pinsky, Quantum chromodynamics and other field theories on the light cone, Physics Reports301, 299 (1998)

    1998

  4. [11]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, In- ternational Journal of Theoretical Physics21(1982)

    1982

  5. [12]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  6. [13]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing, Chemical Reviews119, 10856–10915 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Ben- jamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chem- istry, Reviews of Modern Physics92, 10.1103/revmod- phys.92.015003 (2020)

    2020 doi

  8. [15]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum compu- tation, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, R. C. Pooser, D. J. Dean, and P. Lougovski, Cloud quantum comput- ing of an atomic nucleus, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 210501 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Physics Reports 6 986, 1–128 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    A. M. Romero, J. Engel, H. L. Tang, and S. E. Economou, Solving nuclear structure problems with the adaptive variational quantum algorithm, Physical Re- view C105, 10.1103/physrevc.105.064317 (2022)

    2022 doi

  12. [19]

    Sarma, O

    C. Sarma, O. Di Matteo, A. Abhishek, and P. C. Sri- vastava, Prediction of the neutron drip line in oxygen isotopes using quantum computation, Physical Review C108, 10.1103/physrevc.108.064305 (2023)

    2023 doi

  13. [20]

    O. Kiss, M. Grossi, P. Lougovski, F. Sanchez, S. Val- lecorsa, and T. Papenbrock, Quantum computing of the 6Li nucleus via ordered unitary coupled clusters, Phys. Rev. C106, 034325 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    P´ erez-Obiol, A

    A. P´ erez-Obiol, A. M. Romero, J. Men´ endez, A. Rios, A. Garc ´ ıa-S´ aez, and B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, Nuclear shell-model simulation in digital quantum computers, Scientific Re- ports13, 10.1038/s41598-023-39263-7 (2023)

    2023 doi

  15. [22]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. Brandao, and G. K.-L. Chan, De- termining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Na- ture Physics16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Yeter-Aydeniz, R

    K. Yeter-Aydeniz, R. C. Pooser, and G. Siopsis, Prac- tical quantum computation of chemical and nuclear en- ergy levels using quantum imaginary time evolution and Lanczos algorithms, npj Quantum Inf.6, 63 (2020), arXiv:1912.06226 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    E. N. Epperly, L. Lin, and Y. Nakatsukasa, A theory of quantum subspace diagonalization, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications43, 1263–1290 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Kirby, M

    W. Kirby, M. Motta, and A. Mezzacapo, Exact and effi- cient lanczos method on a quantum computer, Quantum 7, 1018 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Motta, W

    M. Motta, W. Kirby, I. Liepuoniute, K. J. Sung, J. Cohn, A. Mezzacapo, K. Klymko, N. Nguyen, N. Yoshioka, and J. E. Rice, Subspace methods for electronic structure simulations on quantum computers (2023), arXiv:2312.00178 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    N. H. Stair, R. Huang, and F. A. Evangelista, A multireference quantum krylov algorithm for strongly correlated electrons, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation16, 2236 (2020), pMID: 32091895, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01125

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Du and J

    W. Du and J. P. Vary, Systematic input scheme for many-boson Hamiltonians with applications to the two- dimensionalϕ4 theory, Phys. Rev. D111, 016013 (2025), arXiv:2407.13672 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Du and J

    W. Du and J. P. Vary, Hamiltonian input model and spectroscopy on quantum computers, (2024), arXiv:2402.08969 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Carlson and R

    J. Carlson and R. Schiavilla, Euclidean proton response in light nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 3682 (1992)

    1992

  24. [32]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Quan- tum Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015), arXiv:1412.3081 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lovato, S

    A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, S. C. Pieper, and R. Schiavilla, Electromagnetic and neutral-weak re- sponse functions of 4He and 12C, Phys. Rev. C91, 062501 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Lovato, S

    A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, S. C. Pieper, and R. Schiavilla, Electromagnetic response of 12C: A first- principles calculation, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 082501 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Bacca, N

    S. Bacca, N. Barnea, G. Hagen, M. Miorelli, G. Orlan- dini, and T. Papenbrock, Giant and pigmy dipole res- onances in 4He, 16,22O, and 40Ca from chiral nucleon- nucleon interactions, Phys. Rev. C90, 064619 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    J. E. Sobczyk, B. Acharya, S. Bacca, and G. Hagen, Ab initio computation of the longitudinal response function in 40Ca, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 072501 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    J. E. Sobczyk, B. Acharya, S. Bacca, and G. Hagen, 40Ca transverse response function from coupled-cluster theory, Phys. Rev. C109, 025502 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Acharya, J

    B. Acharya, J. E. Sobczyk, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, and W. Jiang, 16o electroweak response functions from first principles (2024), arXiv:2410.05962 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. E. Sobczyk, W. Jiang, and A. Roggero, Spin re- sponse of neutron matter in ab initio approach (2024), arXiv:2407.20986 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    V. D. Efros, W. Leidemann, and G. Orlandini, Response functions from integral transforms with a lorentz kernel, Physics Letters B338, 130 (1994)

    1994

  33. [41]

    Roggero and J

    A. Roggero and J. Carlson, Dynamic linear response quantum algorithm, Phys. Rev. C100, 034610 (2019), arXiv:1804.01505 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    P. Yin, A. M. Shirokov, H. Li, B. Zhou, X. Zhao, S. Bacca, and J. P. Vary, Alpha-Particle Monopole Form Factors with Ab Initio No-Core Shell Model, (2024), arXiv:2412.18037 [nucl-th]

    2024

  35. [43]

    D. M. Kurkcuoglu, A. Roggero, G. N. Perdue, and R. Gupta, Inference of response functions with the help of machine learning algorithms (2025), arXiv:2501.10583 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Stetcu, Quantum computing for nuclear reactions, EPJ Web Conf.322, 03002 (2025)

    I. Stetcu, Quantum computing for nuclear reactions, EPJ Web Conf.322, 03002 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Weiss, A

    R. Weiss, A. Baroni, J. Carlson, and I. Stetcu, Solving reaction dynamics with quantum computing algorithms (2025), arXiv:2404.00202 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    V. D. Efros, W. Leidemann, G. Orlandini, and N. Barnea, The lorentz integral transform (lit) method and its applications to perturbation-induced reactions, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics34, R459 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    V. D. Efros, Calculating reactions with use of no-core shell-model states, Phys. Rev. C99, 034620 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Goldberger and K

    M. Goldberger and K. Watson,Collision Theory, Dover books on physics (Dover Publications, 2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    Hjorth-Jensen, M

    M. Hjorth-Jensen, M. Lombardo, and U. van Kolck, An Advanced Course in Computational Nuclear Physics: Bridging the Scales from Quarks to Neutron Stars, Lec- ture Notes in Physics (Springer International Publish- ing, 2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Baroni, P

    S. Baroni, P. Navr´ atil, and S. Quaglioni, Unified ab ini- tio approach to bound and unbound states: No-core shell model with continuum and its application to 7he, Phys. Rev. C87, 034326 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Navr´ atil, S

    P. Navr´ atil, S. Quaglioni, I. Stetcu, and B. R. Bar- rett, Recent developments in no-core shell-model cal- culations, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics36, 083101 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    T. Luu, M. J. Savage, A. Schwenk, and J. P. Vary, Nucleon-nucleon scattering in a harmonic potential, Phys. Rev. C82, 034003 (2010). 7

    2010

  45. [53]

    W. Du, P. Yin, Y. Li, G. Chen, W. Zuo, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Coulomb excitation of the deuteron in pe- ripheral collisions with a heavy ion, Phys. Rev. C97, 064620 (2018), arXiv:1804.01156 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    W. Du, J. P. Vary, X. Zhao, and W. Zuo, Quantum simulation of nuclear inelastic scattering, Phys. Rev. A 104, 012611 (2021), arXiv:2006.01369 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Sharma, T

    S. Sharma, T. Papenbrock, and L. Platter, Scattering phase shifts from a quantum computer, Physical Review C109, 10.1103/physrevc.109.l061001 (2024)

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    P. Wang, W. Du, W. Zuo, and J. P. Vary, Nuclear scattering via quantum computing, Phys. Rev. C109, 064623 (2024), arXiv:2401.17138 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    M. A. Sharaf, A. M. Shirokov, W. Du, and J. P. Vary, Applications of the Modified Hulth´ en-Kohn Method for Bound and Scattering States, (2024), arXiv:2408.05656 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Zhang, Extracting free-space observables from trapped interacting clusters, Phys

    X. Zhang, Extracting free-space observables from trapped interacting clusters, Phys. Rev. C101, 051602 (2020), arXiv:1905.05275 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Zhang, S

    X. Zhang, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navr´ atil, C. Gwak, J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, and J. D. Holt, Ab Initio Calculations of Low-Energy Nuclear Scattering Using Confining Potential Traps, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 112503 (2020), arXiv:2004.13575 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Zhang, A non-Hermitian quantum mechanics approach for extracting and emulating continuum physics based on bound-state-like calculations, (2024), arXiv:2408.03309 [nucl-th]

    X. Zhang, A non-Hermitian quantum mechanics approach for extracting and emulating continuum physics based on bound-state-like calculations, (2024), arXiv:2408.03309 [nucl-th]

    2024

  53. [61]

    X. Zhang, A non-Hermitian quantum mechanics ap- proach for extracting and emulating continuum physics based on bound-state-like calculations: technical de- tails, (2024), arXiv:2411.06712 [nucl-th]

    2024

  54. [62]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, ¨ uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot, Z. Physik47(1928)

    1928

  55. [63]

    M. A. Nielsen, The fermionic canonical commutation relations and the jordan-wigner transform (2005)

    2005

  56. [64]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum com- putation, Annals of Physics298, 210–226 (2002)

    2002

  57. [65]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, The bravyi- kitaev transformation for quantum computation of elec- tronic structure, The Journal of Chemical Physics137, 10.1063/1.4768229 (2012)

    2012 doi

  58. [66]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation us- ing linear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Inf. Comput.12, 901 (2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 090502 (2015)

    2015

  60. [69]

    I. J. Shin, N. A. Smirnova, A. M. Shirokov, Z. Yang, B. R. Barrett, Z. Li, Y. Kim, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Improving the sd-shell effective interaction ob- tained from the Daejeon16 nucleon-nucleon interaction, Phys. Rev. C110, 034306 (2024)

    2024

  61. [70]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meissner, Modern Theory of Nuclear Forces, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1773 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Improved chiral nucleon-nucleon potential up to next-to-next-to- next-to-leading order, Eur. Phys. J. A51, 53 (2015), arXiv:1412.0142 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Preci- sion nucleon-nucleon potential at fifth order in the chi- ral expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 122301 (2015), arXiv:1412.4623 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [73]

    J. P. Vary, H. Honkanen, J. Li, P. Maris, S. J. Brod- sky, A. Harindranath, G. F. de Teramond, P. Stern- berg, E. G. Ng, and C. Yang, Hamiltonian light-front field theory in a basis function approach, Phys. Rev. C 81, 035205 (2010), arXiv:0905.1411 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  65. [74]

    W. Qian, S. Jia, Y. Li, and J. P. Vary, Light mesons within the basis light-front quantization framework, Phys. Rev. C102, 055207 (2020), arXiv:2005.13806 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Kreshchuk, W

    M. Kreshchuk, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, H. Beau- chemin, and P. J. Love, Quantum simulation of quantum field theory in the light-front formulation, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032418 (2022), arXiv:2002.04016 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Kreshchuk, S

    M. Kreshchuk, S. Jia, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, J. P. Vary, and P. J. Love, Simulating Hadronic Physics on NISQ devices using Basis Light-Front Quantization, Phys. Rev. A103, 062601 (2021), arXiv:2011.13443 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [77]

    W. Du, Y. Li, X. Zhao, G. A. Miller, and J. P. Vary, Basis Light-Front Quantization for a Chiral Nucleon- Pion Lagrangian, Phys. Rev. C101, 035202 (2020), arXiv:1911.10762 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Du and J

    W. Du and J. P. Vary, Multinucleon structure and dy- namics via quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A108, 052614 (2023), arXiv:2304.04838 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Schirmer,Many-Body Methods for Atoms, Molecules and Clusters, Lecture Notes in Chemistry (Springer In- ternational Publishing, 2018)

    J. Schirmer,Many-Body Methods for Atoms, Molecules and Clusters, Lecture Notes in Chemistry (Springer In- ternational Publishing, 2018)

    2018

  71. [80]

    Stefanucci and R

    G. Stefanucci and R. van Leeuwen,Nonequilibrium Many-Body Theory of Quantum Systems: A Modern In- troduction(Cambridge University Press, 2025)

    2025

  72. [81]

    Fetter and J

    A. Fetter and J. Walecka,Quantum Theory of Many- particle Systems, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Pub- lications, 2003)

    2003

  73. [82]

    K¨ okc¨ u, H

    E. K¨ okc¨ u, H. A. Labib, J. K. Freericks, and A. F. Kem- per, A linear response framework for quantum simu- lation of bosonic and fermionic correlation functions, Nature Commun.15, 3881 (2024), arXiv:2302.10219 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [83]

    P. W. K. Jensen, P. D. Johnson, and A. A. Kunitsa, Near-term quantum algorithm for computing molecular and materials properties based on recursive variational series methods, Physical Review A108, 10.1103/phys- reva.108.022422 (2023)

    2023 doi

  75. [84]

    Y. Tong, D. An, N. Wiebe, and L. Lin, Fast inver- sion, preconditioned quantum linear system solvers, fast green’s-function computation, and fast evaluation of matrix functions, Phys. Rev. A104, 032422 (2021)

    2021

  76. [85]

    T. Keen, E. Dumitrescu, and Y. Wang, Quantum algo- rithms for ground-state preparation and green’s func- tion calculation (2021), arXiv:2112.05731 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Libbi, J

    F. Libbi, J. Rizzo, F. Tacchino, N. Marzari, and I. Tav- ernelli, Effective calculation of the green’s function in the time domain on near-term quantum processors, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043038 (2022)

    2022

  78. [87]

    Sakurai, W

    R. Sakurai, W. Mizukami, and H. Shinaoka, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithm for computing imaginary- time correlation functions, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023219 (2022)

    2022

  79. [88]

    S. Endo, I. Kurata, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Calculation of the green’s function on near-term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033281 (2020). 8

    2020

  80. [89]

    Volya, Time-dependent approach to the continuum shell model, Phys

    A. Volya, Time-dependent approach to the continuum shell model, Phys. Rev. C79, 044308 (2009)

    2009

  81. [90]

    Tal-Ezer and R

    H. Tal-Ezer and R. Kosloff, An accurate and ef- ficient scheme for propagating the time dependent schr¨ odinger equation, The Journal of Chemical Physics 81, 3967 (1984), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/81/9/3967/18950222/3967 1 online.pdf

    1984

  82. [91]

    Weiße, G

    A. Weiße, G. Wellein, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, The kernel polynomial method, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 275 (2006)

    2006

  83. [92]

    Arfken, G

    G. Arfken, G. Arfken, H. Weber, and F. Harris,Math- ematical Methods for Physicists: A Comprehensive Guide(Elsevier Science, 2013)

    2013

  84. [93]

    P. W. K. Jensen, P. D. Johnson, and A. A. Kunitsa, Near-term quantum algorithm for computing molecular and materials properties based on recursive variational series methods, Phys. Rev. A108, 022422 (2023)

    2023

  85. [94]

    Nielsen and I

    M. Nielsen and I. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  86. [95]

    Helgaker, P

    T. Helgaker, P. Jorgensen, and J. Olsen,Molecular Electronic-Structure Theory(Wiley, 2014)

    2014

  87. [96]

    A. M. Childs, On the relationship between continuous- and discrete-time quantum walk, Communications in Mathematical Physics294, 581–603 (2009)

    2009

  88. [97]

    A. M. Childs, Universal computation by quantum walk, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 180501 (2009)

    2009

  89. [98]

    D. W. Berry and A. M. Childs, Black-box hamiltonian simulation and unitary implementation, Quantum In- formation and Computation12, 29 (2012)

    2012

  90. [99]

    D. Liu, W. Du, L. Lin, J. P. Vary, and C. Yang, An Efficient Quantum Circuit for Block Encoding a Pairing Hamiltonian, (2024), arXiv:2402.11205 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [100]

    W. A. Simon, C. M. Gustin, K. Serafin, A. Ralli, G. R. Goldstein, and P. J. Love, Ladder operator block- encoding (2025), arXiv:2503.11641 [quant-ph]

    2025

  92. [101]

    Babbush, D

    R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, I. D. Kivlichan, A. Y. Wei, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Exponentially more precise quantum simulation of fermions in second quan- tization, New Journal of Physics18, 033032 (2016)

    2016

  93. [102]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal hamiltonian sim- ulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017)

    2017

  94. [103]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, inPro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing(2019) pp. 193–204

    2019

  95. [104]

    Lin, Lecture notes on quantum algorithms for scien- tific computation (2022), arXiv:2201.08309 [quant-ph]

    L. Lin, Lecture notes on quantum algorithms for scien- tific computation (2022), arXiv:2201.08309 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  96. [105]

    gov/ensarchivals/, accessed on 2024-01-23

    National nuclear data center,http://www.nndc.bnl. gov/ensarchivals/, accessed on 2024-01-23

    2024

  97. [106]

    Navratil, J

    P. Navratil, J. P. Vary, and B. R. Barrett, Properties of C-12 in the ab initio nuclear shell model, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 5728 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0004058

    2000 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Navratil, J

    P. Navratil, J. P. Vary, and B. R. Barrett, Large basis ab initio no-core shell model and its application to C-12, Phys. Rev. C62, 054311 (2000)

    2000

  99. [108]

    Qiskit contributors, Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing (2023)

    2023

  100. [109]

    Yoshioka, T

    N. Yoshioka, T. Okubo, Y. Suzuki, Y. Koizumi, and W. Mizukami, Hunting for quantum-classical crossover in condensed matter problems, npj Quantum Inf.10, 45 (2024), arXiv:2210.14109 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  101. [110]

    Y.-X. Yao, N. Gomes, F. Zhang, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, T. Iadecola, and P. P. Orth, Adaptive variational quan- tum dynamics simulations, PRX Quantum2, 030307 (2021)

    2021

  102. [111]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulation of fundamental parti- cles and forces, Nature Rev. Phys.5, 420 (2023), arXiv:2404.06298 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  103. [112]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhat- tacharya, M. Carena, W. A. de Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada, D. Kharzeev, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Liu, M. Lukin, Y. Meurice, C. Monroe, B. Nachman, G. Pagano, J. Preskill, E. Ri- naldi, A. Roggero, D. I. ...

    2023

  104. [113]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature549, 195–202 (2017)

    2017

  105. [114]

    Wang and J

    Y. Wang and J. Liu, A comprehensive review of quan- tum machine learning: from nisq to fault tolerance, Re- ports on Progress in Physics87, 116402 (2024)

    2024

  106. [115]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  107. [116]

    id” is initialized as|0⟩. The qubits in the system register “s

    J. Suhonen,From Nucleons to Nucleus: Concepts of Mi- croscopic Nuclear Theory, Theoretical and Mathemati- cal Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007). 9 Supplementary Material: Ab initio many-fermion structure calculations on a quantum computer Weijie Du1,2, Yangguang Yang1...

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.