Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 9 minor 1 cited by

Variational Quantum Simulations of a Two-Dimensional Frustrated Transverse-Field Ising Model on a Trapped-Ion Quantum Computer

T0 review · 4 major / 9 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 trapped-ion quantum computer, running classically pretrained variational circuits with no error mitigation, reproduces the magnetic phases of a 16-site frustrated transverse-field Ising model as judged by exact diagonalization.

desk verdict A credible trapped-ion VQE demo for a 16-qubit 2D frustrated TFIM, but the 'near perfect recovery' claim only covers the easy-to-train parameter slice. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22932 v3 pith:W7BEHOKY submitted 2025-05-28 quant-ph

Ammar Kirmani , Elijah Pelofske , Andreas Bärtschi , Stephan Eidenbenz , Jian-Xin Zhu This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Ac75.10.Hk
keywords variationalquantumeigensolverfrustratedtransverse-fieldIsingmodeltrapped-ioncomputerphasetransitionhardware-efficientansatzspinstructurefactorexactdiagonalizationNISQ
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 tries to establish that a 16-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer, running classically pretrained variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) circuits with no error mitigation, can reproduce the ground-state physics of a two-dimensional frustrated transverse-field Ising model. The authors compare VQE outputs to exact diagonalization for a square lattice with periodic boundary conditions, and report near-perfect agreement in ground-state energy, the first derivative of energy, two-spin correlation functions, and the spin structure factor. The significance would be that current noisy quantum hardware can reliably identify magnetic phases in a strongly correlated model in the low-shot regime, unlike earlier superconducting-device experiments that needed error mitigation and still struggled. The paper is careful that this recovery is demonstrated at low transverse field values where the classical VQE pretraining succeeds, not across the full phase diagram.

What carries the argument

The hardware-efficient VQE ansatz adapted to all-to-all trapped-ion connectivity: one layer of single-qubit rotations, a layer of commuting CZ gates placed on every nearest-neighbor and next-nearest-neighbor bond of the periodic square lattice, then another single-qubit rotation layer. Because the CZ gates commute, their order is arbitrary, and the circuit compiles naturally to the H1-1 native gates. Classical SPSA pretraining with 40 random initializations selects the lowest-energy parameters, and exact diagonalization provides the reference energies, derivatives, and structure factors against which the hardware signal is judged. The first derivative of energy is obtained from the nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor $ZZ$ correlator sums, and the spin structure factor is the Fourier transform of the two-spin correlation function.

What would settle it

Run the same pretrained VQE circuits on H1-1 at $B_x/J_1 = 1.0$ and $1.5$ with $J_2/J_1$ near $0.5$, where the classical training error reaches about 8 percent, and check whether the measured energy derivative and structure factor still show the ferromagnet-to-stripe step and the correct ordering peak; a failure there would show the recovery depends on the classical optimizer, not on the hardware. A simpler check is to compute the fidelity between the optimized VQE state and the exact ground state across the whole $(J_2, B_x)$ grid: the claim predicts high fidelity at the hardware points and visibly lower fidelity in the high-error band, which would localize exactly where the method stops being reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Quantinuum H1-1 trapped-ion processor, executing VQE circuits pretrained classically with the SPSA optimizer, recovers the ferromagnetic and stripe magnetic phases of the $J_1$-$J_2$ transverse-field Ising model on a $4 \times 4$ periodic lattice. At $B_x/J_1 = 0.1$ and $0.5$, the measured Hamiltonian expectation values track exact diagonalization as $J_2/J_1$ is swept, the energy derivative shows the first-order step at the ferromagnet-to-stripe transition, and the spin structure factor peaks at $\mathbf{q} = 0$ in the ferromagnetic case and at $(0, \pi)$ or $(\pi, 0)$ in the stripe case. This is achieved with 100 to 500 shots per observable and without quantum error mitigation, which the authors contrast with prior one-dimensional studies on superconducting devices. The claim is qualified: VQE training energy errors reach about 8 percent near $J_2/J_1 = 0.5$ for $B_x/J_1 = 1.0$ to $1.5$, so the near-perfect recovery is established for the parameter points used in the hardware experiments rather than everywhere.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the classically pretrained ansatz actually finds the ground state, or a state with the correct magnetic order, at every parameter point sent to the trapped-ion device; near the frustration point at intermediate field strengths the paper's own training error reaches about 8 percent, so the claimed near-perfect recovery is not established in that region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, trapped-ion hardware with all-to-all connectivity can serve as a low-shot, no-error-mitigation platform for variational ground-state simulations of two-dimensional frustrated spin models.
  • The energy derivative computed from $ZZ$ correlator sums can mark the first-order ferromagnet-to-stripe transition on quantum hardware.
  • Classically pretrained VQE circuits can be reused to evaluate multiple observables, including energies, correlations, and structure factors, from the same optimized state.
  • The one-dimensional comparison suggests the same no-error-mitigation approach reproduces the energy profile of a 12-site frustrated chain with only 100 shots.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the hardware experiments use classically pretrained circuits, one could test whether the same agreement survives when the parameters are optimized by a quantum-classical feedback loop on H1-1 itself; the paper does not do this.
  • If the roughly 8 percent VQE energy error near $J_2/J_1 = 0.5$ at intermediate $B_x/J_1$ reflects optimizer local minima rather than hardware noise, better classical optimizers or a more expressive ansatz could extend phase recovery into the coexistence region.
  • A natural next step is scaling to larger lattices where exact diagonalization is unavailable, using the agreement of structure-factor peaks rather than exact energies as the phase diagnostic.
  • Comparing the all-to-all CZ ansatz against generic classical variational representations of the same 16-site model would locate how much of the success comes from circuit expressiveness versus trapped-ion gate fidelity.
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

4 major / 9 minor

Summary. This paper reports variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) simulations of a 16-site square-lattice transverse-field Ising model with competing nearest-neighbor ferromagnetic and next-nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic couplings (Eq. (1)), using a single-layer hardware-efficient ansatz whose entangling layer mimics the Hamiltonian bonds. The VQE parameters are obtained by classical SPSA training (40 random restarts, up to 2000 iterations, with finite shot noise), and the best-found circuits are then executed on the Quantinuum H1-1 trapped-ion processor without error mitigation. The authors compare H1-1 measurements with exact diagonalization and noiseless VQE simulation for the ground-state energy, the first energy derivative, two-spin correlation functions, and the spin structure factor at transverse fields Bx/J1 = 0.1 and 0.5, and report near-perfect agreement for ferromagnetic (J2/J1 = 0.45) and stripe (J2/J1 = 0.55) ordering. They also present a VQE-computed phase diagram (Appendix A) and an exact-diagonalization phase diagram (Fig. 2(c)), and they document a parameter region near J2/J1 = 0.5 at intermediate Bx where the trained ansatz misses the ground-state energy by up to about 8% (Fig. 5). The central hardware claim is that a trapped-ion processor can reliably recover magnetic phases at low shot counts without error mitigation.

Significance. If the claims hold for the tested parameters, the paper provides a clean demonstration that a trapped-ion processor with all-to-all connectivity can reproduce ground-state energies, the energy-derivative step at a first-order transition, and the spin-structure-factor signatures of ferromagnetic and stripe order in a frustrated 16-qubit model using only 100-500 shots and no error mitigation, in contrast to earlier 1D superconducting-qubit experiments that required noise-robust observables and extensive error mitigation. The paper deserves credit for the internal consistency of the demonstrated comparisons, for training VQE solely against the energy expectation value without fitting the phase labels, and for openly reporting the parameter region where the ansatz and optimizer fail (Fig. 5, Appendix D) rather than restricting the narrative to favorable points. The main caveats are that the headline claims are broader than the demonstrated parameter range, the hardware data are presented without statistical error bars, and one of the three-way comparisons for the stripe phase uses a staggered-field Hamiltonian for the exact reference that is not part of the model being simulated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. IV; Fig. 5; Sec. V] The abstract's claim of 'near perfect recovery of the magnetic phases' and the conclusion's statement that the experimental signal allowed the authors to 'map out the ground-state phases of the system' are broader than the demonstrated evidence. The H1-1 measurements in Fig. 2(a,b) and Figs. 3-4 are confined to Bx/J1 = 0.1 and 0.5, while the paper's own Fig. 5 shows that the classically trained one-layer ansatz misses the exact ground-state energy by up to approximately 8% in a contiguous region near J2/J1 = 0.5 for Bx/J1 = 1.0-1.5, with elevated errors appearing at intermediate Bx values. Because every hardware observable is evaluated on the pretrained ansatz state, the claimed recovery is not established in the region where the VQE optimization demonstrably fails. The abstract and conclusion should either be restricted to the tested parameter range or be supported by additional hardware data or improved training in the hard region.
  2. [Sec. IV; Figs. 2-4] No statistical error bars or confidence intervals are reported for any of the H1-1 data. The energy (Fig. 2(a)), energy derivative (Fig. 2(b)), correlation functions, and structure factors (Figs. 3-4) are measured with 500 or 100 shots, which implies a worst-case sampling uncertainty of roughly 0.045 (500 shots) and 0.1 (100 shots) for each independently estimated two-point correlation, with the structure factor inheriting comparable uncertainty. The repeated statements of 'perfect agreement' between H1-1 and exact diagonalization cannot be assessed or falsified without this information. The authors should report standard errors on the experimental points and state explicitly how agreement between experiment and exact diagonalization was quantified.
  3. [Sec. IV; Fig. 4] The stripe-phase comparison in Fig. 4 is presented as a three-way agreement among exact diagonalization, the classically simulated VQE, and the H1-1 processor, but the exact-diagonalization calculation includes 'a small staggered field' to remove degeneracy among stripe patterns, whereas the model in Eq. (1) and, as described, the VQE/H1-1 runs do not include such a field. A VQE state that is a superposition or mixture of the degenerate (0,pi) and (pi,0) stripe states would not reproduce the symmetry-broken correlation function of the staggered-field calculation, so the claimed agreement requires either explicit demonstration that the trained VQE state spontaneously breaks the symmetry or a comparison on a quantity insensitive to the degeneracy. The authors should specify the staggered-field magnitude, state whether any symmetry-breaking term entered the VQE training, and clarify which quantity is actually being compared across the three columns of Fig. 4.
  4. [Appendix A; Fig. 6; Sec. IV] The VQE-based phase diagram in Fig. 6 classifies a phase as dominant when its total measured probability exceeds 0.5, and the grey region near J2/J1 = 0.5 is interpreted as matching the coexistence regions of the exact phase diagram in Fig. 2(c). This interpretation is ambiguous because the grey region can arise either from physical degeneracy/coexistence or from a failed optimization that produces a state with no dominant magnetic order, and Fig. 5 shows that the same parameter neighborhood contains the largest VQE energy errors. The text does not disentangle these two possibilities, so the grey region does not provide an independent confirmation of coexistence. The authors should report, for the grey points, the corresponding VQE energy errors and argue that the absence of dominant order persists for states with small energy error, or restrict the phase-mapping claim to regions where the ansatz is known to train successfully.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Appendix C] The appendix heading contains 'frunstrated'; it should read 'frustrated'.
  2. [Appendix C; Fig. 9] The legend in Fig. 9 says 'VQE on H1-1', but the appendix text states that these data were obtained by 'simulated on the H1-1 noisy emulator'; this device-versus-emulator discrepancy should be resolved consistently in the figure and the text.
  3. [References] References [17] and [18] are the same Tilly et al. review (Physics Reports 986, 1-128 (2022)) and should be consolidated into a single citation.
  4. [Appendix A; Fig. 6] The phase-classification threshold of total measured probability exceeding 0.5 appears ad hoc; the authors should comment on how the resulting phase diagram depends on this threshold.
  5. [Sec. IV] The text introduces the label 'F1-SP' but earlier defines the field-induced spin-polarized state as 'FI-SP'; the notation should be made consistent.
  6. [Fig. 2(b); Fig. 4 caption] Fig. 2(b) contains 'diagonalizationon' and Fig. 4 contains 'Quantionuum'; both are typos that should be corrected.
  7. [Sec. III] The shot budgets are reported in several places (10^4 shots per objective call during training, 10^6 shots for post-training observables, and 500/100 shots for the H1-1 runs); a single consolidated statement of the shot counts used for each quantity would improve readability.
  8. [Sec. IV; Fig. 2(b) inset] The inset of Fig. 2(b) shows the transverse magnetization M_x versus Bx for J2/J1 = 0.4 but is not described in the text; one sentence explaining the inset would be helpful.
  9. [Entire manuscript] No data-availability statement is provided; for a benchmarking study of this kind, a repository with the raw H1-1 shot data and the trained VQE parameters would materially strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the VQE energy, derivative, and correlation results are benchmarked against independent exact diagonalization and an external series-expansion phase diagram; the only self-citation is comparative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked. The Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) is defined independently; the VQE ansatz is trained classically only against the energy expectation value (Eq. 2), with no phase label or target observable used as a training objective. The phase classification is made from the spin structure factor (Eq. 3), which is then compared with exact diagonalization and with the independent series-expansion phase diagram of Ref. [49]. The hardware experiments execute the pre-trained circuits and measure energy, energy derivative, correlations, and structure factor; none of these measured quantities are fed back into the training or used to adjust the parameters. The paper's use of Ref. [9] (which shares author J.-X. Zhu) is limited to prior 1D context and the Appendix C emulator rerun; it does not supply a load-bearing premise for the 2D results. A genuine limitation is documented in Section IV and Fig. 5: the VQE energy error reaches about 8% near J2=0.5 for Bx=1.0-1.5, and the hardware runs are restricted to Bx=0.1 and 0.5. This is a scope/correctness caveat, not circularity, because the claimed agreement is demonstrated only for the parameters actually run and is checked against external exact results.

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

The central claim rests on the standard variational principle, exact diagonalization as an external benchmark, and an unproven expressibility assumption for the one-layer VQE ansatz that partially fails in the frustrated region. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or mediators. The main hand-chosen elements are the VQE parameters themselves, the unspecified staggered field used for exact stripe-state calculations, and the thresholds used to classify phases from structure factors.

free parameters (3)
  • VQE variational parameters (64 single-qubit rotation angles) = Optimized by SPSA; trained parameter values not published
    The 64 theta angles in the hardware-efficient ansatz are fitted to minimize the energy expectation value for each (J2, Bx) point and are the exact objects executed on H1-1. Since the optimized values are not released, the hardware runs cannot be independently re-executed or re-analyzed from the paper alone.
  • Staggered field magnitude for exact stripe-state calculations = Not specified; described only as 'small'
    In the Fig. 4 caption, exact diagonalization of the stripe phase is computed with a small staggered field whose direction alternates with each row, to remove superpositions of degenerate stripe patterns. The magnitude is not quantified, and the same perturbation is not described for the VQE simulator or H1-1 runs, so the exact-VQE comparison in that figure is not strictly controlled.
  • Phase-classification thresholds for structure factors and probabilities = Not specified; criteria such as 'strong peak' or probability greater than 0.5
    The exact-diagonalization phase diagram in Fig. 2(c) and the probability-based diagram in Appendix A assign phases using thresholds like a 'strong peak' at q = 0 or total measured probability greater than 0.5. These thresholds are chosen by hand and can shift phase boundaries, especially in coexistence regions.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Variational upper bound E(theta) >= E_GS (Eq. 2)
    VQE relies on the Rayleigh-Ritz variational principle. No proof is given, but it is a standard result in quantum mechanics.
  • domain assumption Exact diagonalization of the 16-site Hamiltonian gives the true ground-state reference
    The paper uses LAPACK-based exact diagonalization as the benchmark for VQE and for the phase diagram in Fig. 2(c). This is exact up to numerical precision for a 16-qubit Hamiltonian, but it is a finite-size system.
  • domain assumption The 4x4 periodic lattice (kings graph) approximates the thermodynamic-limit phase diagram of the J1-J2 TFIM
    The paper compares its phase diagram to the series-expansion results of Ref. [49] and notes finite-size effects and coexistence regions. The identification of FM, stripe, and FI-SP phases assumes that 16 sites with toroidal boundary conditions capture the essential phase structure.
  • ad hoc to paper The one-entangling-layer hardware-efficient ansatz is sufficiently expressive to represent the relevant ground states
    No expressibility analysis is given. Fig. 5 shows this assumption fails near J2/J1 = 0.5 for Bx/J1 = 1.0 to 1.5, where the VQE energy error reaches about 8 percent, so the assumption is load-bearing and only partially valid over the parameter grid.
  • domain assumption H1-1 device noise is low enough that 100 to 500 shot measurements without error mitigation yield unbiased expectation values
    The paper's central empirical conclusion rests on this assumption. No device calibration data, noise characterization, or readout-error correction is provided to support it beyond the observed agreement at the selected points.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational Quantum Simulations of a Two-Dimensional Frustrated Transverse-Field Ising Model on a Trapped-Ion Quantum Computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W7BEHOKY

@misc{pith2026250522932,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational Quantum Simulations of a Two-Dimensional Frustrated Transverse-Field Ising Model on a Trapped-Ion Quantum Computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W7BEHOKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22932}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computers are an ideal platform to study the ground state properties of strongly correlated systems due to the limitation of classical computing techniques particularly for systems exhibiting quantum phase transitions. While the error rates of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) computers are still high, simulating strongly correlated systems on such devices and extracting information of possible phases may be within reach. The frustrated transverse-field Ising model (TFIM) is such a system with multiple ordered magnetic phases. In this study, we simulate a two-dimensional frustrated TFIM with next-nearest-neighbor spin-exchange interactions at zero temperature. The competition between the nearest-neighbor ferromagnetic and next-nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic coupling gives rise to frustration in the system. Moreover, the presence of quantum fluctuations makes the ground-state phase profile even richer. We use the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) to compute the phases on a square lattice with periodic boundary conditions for a system of 16 sites (qubits). The trained VQE circuits are compared to exact diagonalization, allowing us to extract error measures of VQE. We focus on the ground-state phase transitions of this model, where VQE succeeds in finding the dominant magnetic phases. The optimized VQE circuits are then executed on the Quantinuum H1-1 trapped-ion quantum computer without using any error mitigation techniques. Our experiments show near perfect recovery of the magnetic phases of the frustrated model through ground-state energy, the energy derivative, and the spin correlation functions. Thus, we show that the trapped-ion quantum processor is able to achieve reliable simulations of a strongly correlated system within the limitations of the VQE approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22932 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) 2D transverse field Ising model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The ground-state energy profile of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The comparison of exact, VQE classical simulator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. SPSA trained VQE energy compared to the true [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. VQE-simulator computed phase diagram on a grid of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: plots the quantities of several different observ￾ables as computed by VQE, as a function of J2, for sev￾eral different Bx values upto Bx = 2. All of the VQE simulation data shown in this figure comes from exact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Ground state energy as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Linear-nearest-neighbors connectivity hardware [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Example VQE learning convergence using the SPSA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Node connectivity graphs with toroidal periodic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Ans\"atz Expressivity and Optimization in Variational Quantum Simulations of Transverse-field Ising Model Across System Sizes

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.5 of 10

    VQE with EfficientSU2 and Hamiltonian Variational ansatze approximates TFIM ground states and entanglement in up to 3D lattices of 27 spins, with accuracy tied to ansatz expressivity and optimization success.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Sublattice coding algorithm and distributed memory parallelization for large-scale exact diagonalizations of quantum many- body systems,

    Alexander Wietek and Andreas M. L¨ auchli, “Sublattice coding algorithm and distributed memory parallelization for large-scale exact diagonalizations of quantum many- body systems,” Phys. Rev. E98, 033309 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Exact diagonal- ization library for quantum electron models,

    Sergei Iskakov and Michael Danilov, “Exact diagonal- ization library for quantum electron models,” Computer Physics Communications225, 128–139 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Numerical simulations of frustrated systems,

    Andreas M L¨ auchli, “Numerical simulations of frustrated systems,” inIntroduction to Frustrated Magnetism: Ma- terials, Experiments, Theory(Springer, 2010) pp. 481– 511

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    M. Suzuki, “Relationship between d-Dimensional Quan- tal Spin Systems and (d+1)-Dimensional Ising Sys- tems —Equivalence, Critical Exponents and System- atic Approximants of the Partition Function and Spin Correlations—,” Progress of Theoretical Physics56, 1454–1469 (1976)

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    Quantum An- nealing Simulation of Out-of-Equilibrium Magnetization in a Spin-Chain Compound,

    Andrew D. King, Cristian D. Batista, Jack Raymond, Trevor Lanting, Isil Ozfidan, Gabriel Poulin-Lamarre, Hao Zhang, and Mohammad H. Amin, “Quantum An- nealing Simulation of Out-of-Equilibrium Magnetization in a Spin-Chain Compound,” PRX Quantum2(2021), 10.1103/prxquantum.2.030317

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.030317 2021

  6. [6]

    Digital quantum simulation of the statistical mechanics of a frustrated magnet,

    Jingfu Zhang, Man-Hong Yung, Raymond Laflamme, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jonathan Baugh, “Digital quantum simulation of the statistical mechanics of a frustrated magnet,” Nature Communications3(2012), 10.1038/ncomms1860

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms1860 2012

  7. [7]

    Quantum Simulation of Frustrated Clas- sical Magnetism in Triangular Optical Lattices,

    J. Struck, C. ¨Olschl¨ ager, R. Le Targat, P. Soltan-Panahi, A. Eckardt, M. Lewenstein, P. Windpassinger, and K. Sengstock, “Quantum Simulation of Frustrated Clas- sical Magnetism in Triangular Optical Lattices,” Science 333, 996–999 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Scaling advantage over path-integral monte carlo in quantum simulation of geometrically frustrated magnets,

    Andrew D. King, Jack Raymond, Trevor Lanting, Sergei V. Isakov, Masoud Mohseni, Gabriel Poulin- Lamarre, Sara Ejtemaee, William Bernoudy, Isil Ozfidan, Anatoly Yu. Smirnov, Mauricio Reis, Fabio Altomare, Michael Babcock, Catia Baron, Andrew J. Berkley, Kelly Boothby, Paul I. Bunyk, Holly Christiani, Colin Enderud, Bram Evert, Richard Harris, Emile Hoskins...

    2021

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Noise robust detection of quantum phase transitions,

    Kevin Lively, Tim Bode, Jochen Szangolies, Jian-Xin Zhu, and Benedikt Fauseweh, “Noise robust detection of quantum phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043254 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Evidence for the util- ity of quantum computing before fault tolerance,

    Youngseok Kim, Andrew Eddins, Sajant Anand, Ken Xuan Wei, Ewout van den Berg, Sami Rosenblatt, Hasan Nayfeh, Yantao Wu, Michael Zaletel, Kristan Temme, and Abhinav Kandala, “Evidence for the util- ity of quantum computing before fault tolerance,” Nature 618, 500–505 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R. Mc- Clean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles, “Variational quantum algorithms,” Na- ture Reviews Physics3, 625–644 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Optimized Quan- tum Phase Estimation for Simulating Electronic States in Various Energy Regimes,

    Christopher Kang, Nicholas P. Bauman, Sriram Krish- namoorthy, and Karol Kowalski, “Optimized Quan- tum Phase Estimation for Simulating Electronic States in Various Energy Regimes,” (2022), arXiv:2206.00802 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    An survey: Quantum phase estimation al- gorithms,

    Duo Jiang, Xiaonan Liu, Huichao Song, and Haoshan Xie, “An survey: Quantum phase estimation al- gorithms,” in2021 IEEE 5th Information Technol- ogy,Networking,Electronic and Automation Control Con- ference (ITNEC), Vol. 5 (2021) pp. 884–888

    2021

  6. [14]

    Implementation of quantum imaginary-time evolution method on nisq devices by introducing nonlocal approximation,

    Hirofumi Nishi, Taichi Kosugi, and Yu-ichiro Mat- sushita, “Implementation of quantum imaginary-time evolution method on nisq devices by introducing nonlocal approximation,” npj Quantum Information7, 85 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man- Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Al´ an Aspuru- Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,” Nature Com- munications5(2014), 10.1038/ncomms5213

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,” New Journal of Physics18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: A re- view of methods and best practices,

    Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Pi- cozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H. Booth, and Jonathan Tennyson, “The variational quantum eigensolver: A re- view of methods and best practices,” Physics Reports 986, 1–128 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: A re- view of methods and best practices,

    Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Pi- cozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H. Booth, and Jonathan Tennyson, “The variational quantum eigensolver: A re- view of methods and best practices,” Physics Reports 986, 1–128 (2...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets,

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets,” Nature549, 242–246 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Numerical hardware- efficient variational quantum simulation of a soliton so- lution,

    Andrey Kardashin, Anastasiia Pervishko, Jacob Bi- amonte, and Dmitry Yudin, “Numerical hardware- efficient variational quantum simulation of a soliton so- lution,” Phys. Rev. A104, L020402 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Variational quantum eigensolver for the heisenberg antiferromagnet on the kagome lattice,

    Joris Kattem¨ olle and Jasper van Wezel, “Variational quantum eigensolver for the heisenberg antiferromagnet on the kagome lattice,” Phys. Rev. B106, 214429 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Qubit-ADAPT-VQE: An Adaptive Algorithm for Constructing Hardware-Efficient Ans¨ atze on a Quantum Processor,

    Ho Lun Tang, V.O. Shkolnikov, George S. Barron, Harper R. Grimsley, Nicholas J. Mayhall, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou, “Qubit-ADAPT-VQE: An Adaptive Algorithm for Constructing Hardware-Efficient Ans¨ atze on a Quantum Processor,” PRX Quantum2, 020310 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

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

    2018

  16. [24]

    Prepare ground states of highly frustrated magnetic clusters on quantum computers,

    Yan Wang, “Prepare ground states of highly frustrated magnetic clusters on quantum computers,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 02 (2023) pp. 397–398

    2023

  17. [25]

    Classically optimized variational quan- tum eigensolver with applications to topological phases,

    Ken N. Okada, Keita Osaki, Kosuke Mitarai, and Keisuke Fujii, “Classically optimized variational quan- tum eigensolver with applications to topological phases,” Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043217 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Machine learning phase transitions with a quantum pro- cessor,

    A. V. Uvarov, A. S. Kardashin, and J. D. Biamonte, “Machine learning phase transitions with a quantum pro- cessor,” Phys. Rev. A102, 012415 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Variational quantum eigensolver for frustrated quantum systems,

    Alexey Uvarov, Jacob D. Biamonte, and Dmitry Yudin, “Variational quantum eigensolver for frustrated quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. B102, 075104 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Using a Feedback-Based Quan- tum Algorithm to Analyze the Critical Properties of the ANNNI Model Without Classical Optimization,

    G. E. L. Pexe, L. A. M. Rattighieri, A. L. Malvezzi, and F. F. Fanchini, “Using a Feedback-Based Quan- tum Algorithm to Analyze the Critical Properties of the ANNNI Model Without Classical Optimization,” (2024), arXiv:2406.17937 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Accelerating feedback-based quan- tum algorithms through time rescaling,

    L. A. M. Rattighieri, G. E. L. Pexe, B. L. Bernado, and F. F. Fanchini, “Accelerating feedback-based quan- tum algorithms through time rescaling,” (2025), arXiv:2504.01256 [quant-ph]

    2025

  22. [30]

    The Performance of VQE across a phase transition point in theJ 1-J2 model on kagome lattice,

    Yuheng Guo and Mingpu Qin, “The Performance of VQE across a phase transition point in theJ 1-J2 model on kagome lattice,” (2023), arXiv:2306.04851 [cond-mat.str- el]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sketching phase diagrams using low-depth variational 12 quantum algorithms,

    Jan Lukas Bosse, Raul A Santos, and Ashley Montanaro, “Sketching phase diagrams using low-depth variational 12 quantum algorithms,” Quantum Science and Technology 9, 035034 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Simulating gauge theories with variational quantum eigensolvers in superconducting microwave cav- ities,

    Jinglei Zhang, Ryan Ferguson, Stefan K¨ uhn, Jan F. Haase, C.M. Wilson, Karl Jansen, and Christine A. Muschik, “Simulating gauge theories with variational quantum eigensolvers in superconducting microwave cav- ities,” Quantum7, 1148 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    The one-dimensional ising model with a transverse field,

    Pierre Pfeuty, “The one-dimensional ising model with a transverse field,” Annals of Physics57, 79–90 (1970)

    1970

  26. [34]

    Observation of a finite-energy phase transition in a one-dimensional quantum simula- tor,

    Alexander Schuckert, Or Katz, Lei Feng, Eleanor Crane, Arinjoy De, Mohammad Hafezi, Alexey V. Gorshkov, and Christopher Monroe, “Observation of a finite-energy phase transition in a one-dimensional quantum simula- tor,” Nature Physics21, 374–379 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Fully optimised variational simulation of a dy- namical quantum phase transition on a trapped-ion quantum computer,

    Lesley Gover, Vinul Wimalaweera, Fariha Azad, Matthew DeCross, Michael Foss-Feig, and Andrew G. Green, “Fully optimised variational simulation of a dy- namical quantum phase transition on a trapped-ion quantum computer,” (2025), arXiv:2502.06961 [quant- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Enhancing quantum utility: Simulating large- scale quantum spin chains on superconducting quantum computers,

    Talal Ahmed Chowdhury, Kwangmin Yu, Mah- mud Ashraf Shamim, M. L. Kabir, and Raza Sabbir Sufian, “Enhancing quantum utility: Simulating large- scale quantum spin chains on superconducting quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033107 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Unveiling quantum phase transitions from traps in variational quantum algo- rithms,

    Chenfeng Cao, Filippo Maria Gambetta, Ashley Monta- naro, and Raul A. Santos, “Unveiling quantum phase transitions from traps in variational quantum algo- rithms,” npj Quantum Information11, 93 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Effective quantum volume, fidelity and computational cost of noisy quan- tum processing experiments,

    K. Kechedzhi, S. V. Isakov, S. Mandr` a, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Boixo, and V. Smelyanskiy, “Effective quantum volume, fidelity and computational cost of noisy quan- tum processing experiments,” arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2306.15970

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Fast classi- cal simulation of evidence for the utility of quantum com- puting before fault tolerance,

    Tomislav Beguˇ si´ c and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, “Fast classi- cal simulation of evidence for the utility of quantum com- puting before fault tolerance,” arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2306.16372

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Efficient tensor network simulation of IBM’s kicked Ising experiment,

    Joseph Tindall, Matt Fishman, Miles Stoudenmire, and Dries Sels, “Efficient tensor network simulation of IBM’s kicked Ising experiment,” arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2306.14887

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Fast and converged classical simulations of evi- dence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,

    Tomislav Beguˇ si´ c, Johnnie Gray, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, “Fast and converged classical simulations of evi- dence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,” (2023), arXiv:2308.05077

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Simulation of IBM’s kicked Ising experiment with Projected Entangled Pair Oper- ator,

    Hai-Jun Liao, Kang Wang, Zong-Sheng Zhou, Pan Zhang, and Tao Xiang, “Simulation of IBM’s kicked Ising experiment with Projected Entangled Pair Oper- ator,” arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2308.03082

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Classical surrogate simulation of quan- tum systems with LOWESA,

    Manuel S. Rudolph, Enrico Fontana, Zo¨ e Holmes, and Lukasz Cincio, “Classical surrogate simulation of quan- tum systems with LOWESA,” arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2308.09109

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Efficient tensor network simulation of IBM’s largest quantum processors,

    Siddhartha Patra, Saeed S. Jahromi, Sukhbinder Singh, and Roman Orus, “Efficient tensor network simulation of IBM’s largest quantum processors,” arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2309.15642

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Classical benchmarking of zero noise extrapolation beyond the exactly-verifiable regime,

    Sajant Anand, Kristan Temme, Abhinav Kandala, and Michael Zaletel, “Classical benchmarking of zero noise extrapolation beyond the exactly-verifiable regime,” arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2306.17839

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Dissipa- tive mean-field theory of IBM utility experiment,

    Emanuele G. Dalla Torre and Mor M. Roses, “Dissipa- tive mean-field theory of IBM utility experiment,” arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2308.01339

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    On the practical usefulness of the Hard- ware Efficient Ansatz,

    Lorenzo Leone, Salvatore F.E. Oliviero, Lukasz Cincio, and M. Cerezo, “On the practical usefulness of the Hard- ware Efficient Ansatz,” Quantum8, 1395 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Frustrated spin- 1 2 ising antiferromagnet on a square lattice in a transverse field,

    A. Bob´ ak, E. Jurˇ ciˇ sinov´ a, M. Jurˇ ciˇ sin, and M.ˇZukoviˇ c, “Frustrated spin- 1 2 ising antiferromagnet on a square lattice in a transverse field,” Phys. Rev. E97, 022124 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Frustrated transverse-field ising model,

    J Oitmaa, “Frustrated transverse-field ising model,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 085001 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Quan- tum ising model on the frustrated square lattice,

    N. Kellermann, M. Schmidt, and F. M. Zimmer, “Quan- tum ising model on the frustrated square lattice,” Phys. Rev. E99, 012134 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Phase transitions in a frustrated ising an- tiferromagnet on a square lattice,

    A. Bob´ ak, T. Luˇ civjansk´ y, M. Borovsk´ y, and M. ˇZukoviˇ c, “Phase transitions in a frustrated ising an- tiferromagnet on a square lattice,” Phys. Rev. E91, 032145 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Exploring the phase diagram of the quantum one-dimensional annni model,

    M. Cea, M. Grossi, S. Monaco, E. Rico, L. Taglia- cozzo, and S. Vallecorsa, “Exploring the phase diagram of the quantum one-dimensional annni model,” (2024), arXiv:2402.11022 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Dynamical phase transitions in the two- dimensional transverse-field ising model,

    Tomohiro Hashizume, Ian P. McCulloch, and Jad C. Halimeh, “Dynamical phase transitions in the two- dimensional transverse-field ising model,” Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013250 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Quantum tricrit- icality in antiferromagnetic Ising model with transverse field: A quantum Monte Carlo study,

    Yasuyuki Kato and Takahiro Misawa, “Quantum tricrit- icality in antiferromagnetic Ising model with transverse field: A quantum Monte Carlo study,” Phys. Rev. B92, 174419 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    Ex- perimental comparison of two quantum computing archi- tectures,

    Norbert M Linke, Dmitri Maslov, Martin Roetteler, Shantanu Debnath, Caroline Figgatt, Kevin A Lands- man, Kenneth Wright, and Christopher Monroe, “Ex- perimental comparison of two quantum computing archi- tectures,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences of the Unit...

    2017

  48. [56]

    Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum CCD computer architecture,

    J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. S. Allman, C. H. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, and B. Neyen- huis, “Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum CCD computer architecture,” Nature592, 209–213 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    The H1-1 quantum computer was used between February and April 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    On the Qubit Routing Problem,

    Alexander Cowtan, Silas Dilkes, Ross Duncan, Alexandre Krajenbrink, Will Simmons, and Seyon Sivarajah, “On the Qubit Routing Problem,” in14th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2019), Leibniz International Pro- ceedings in Info...

    2019

  51. [59]

    t— ket¿: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices,

    Seyon Sivarajah, Silas Dilkes, Alexander Cowtan, Will Simmons, Alec Edgington, and Ross Duncan, “t— ket¿: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices,” Quantum Sci- ence and Technology6, 014003 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Quan- tum computing with Qiskit,

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christopher J. Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Si- mon Martiel, Paul D. Nation, Lev S. Bishop, Andrew W. Cross, Blake R. Johnson, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Quan- tum computing with Qiskit,” (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Qiskit: An Open-source Framework 13 for Quantum Computing,

    Qiskit contributors, “Qiskit: An Open-source Framework 13 for Quantum Computing,” (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    An overview of the simultaneous pertur- bation method for efficient optimization,

    James C Spall, “An overview of the simultaneous pertur- bation method for efficient optimization,” Johns Hopkins apl technical digest19, 482–492 (1998)

    1998

  55. [63]

    Global random optimiza- tion by simultaneous perturbation stochastic approxima- tion,

    J.L. Maryak and D.C. Chin, “Global random optimiza- tion by simultaneous perturbation stochastic approxima- tion,” inProceedings of the 2001 American Control Con- ference. (Cat. No.01CH37148), Vol. 2 (2001) pp. 756–762 vol.2

    2001

  56. [64]

    Adaptive stochastic approximation by the simultaneous perturbation method,

    J.C. Spall, “Adaptive stochastic approximation by the simultaneous perturbation method,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control45, 1839–1853 (2000)

    2000

  57. [65]

    Convergence of simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation for nondifferentiable optimization,

    Ying He, M.C. Fu, and S.I. Marcus, “Convergence of simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation for nondifferentiable optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control48, 1459–1463 (2003)

    2003

  58. [66]

    Stochastic optimization algorithms for quantum appli- cations,

    J. Gidi, B. Candia, A. D. Mu˜ noz Moller, A. Rojas, L. Pereira, M. Mu˜ noz, L. Zambrano, and A. Delgado, “Stochastic optimization algorithms for quantum appli- cations,” Phys. Rev. A108, 032409 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Performance com- parison of optimization methods on variational quantum algorithms,

    Xavier Bonet-Monroig, Hao Wang, Diederick Vermetten, Bruno Senjean, Charles Moussa, Thomas B¨ ack, Vedran Dunjko, and Thomas E. O’Brien, “Performance com- parison of optimization methods on variational quantum algorithms,” Phys. Rev. A107, 032407 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Iteration Complexity of Variational Quantum Algorithms,

    Vyacheslav Kungurtsev, Georgios Korpas, Jakub Mare- cek, and Elton Yechao Zhu, “Iteration Complexity of Variational Quantum Algorithms,” Quantum8, 1495 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    Anderson, Z

    E. Anderson, Z. Bai, C. Bischof, S. Blackford, J. Demmel, J. Dongarra, J. Du Croz, A. Greenbaum, S. Hammarling, A. McKenney, and D. Sorensen,LAPACK Users’ Guide, 3rd ed. (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 1999)

    1999

Pith tools

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