Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 95 references

Optimal Control by Variational Quantum Algorithms

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper claims that a shallow-circuit variational quantum algorithm achieves near-time-optimal perfect state transfer in a spin chain, and that its W1-based control optimality metric tracks real performance better than expressibility.

desk verdict A useful benchmarking metric for VQA-based control, but the speed-limit claim is internally inconsistent and needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23373 v2 pith:7WTY6OI6 submitted 2025-05-29 quant-ph

Tangyou Huang , Jing-Jun Zhu , Zhong-Yi Ni This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords variationalquantumalgorithmsoptimalcontrolperfectstatetransferoptimalityWassersteindistancespeedlimitTrottererrorbarrenplateaus
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a hybrid quantum-classical workflow, in which a Trotterized variational circuit simulates the driven dynamics of a spin chain and a classical optimizer tunes the control fields, can solve time-optimal quantum control problems on near-term hardware. Its case study is perfect state transfer along a one-dimensional XX spin chain, and the claim is that an uncorrelated ansatz with circuit depth linear in system size reaches fidelity above 0.999 at a total time close to the analytic minimum, T≈2.52 versus T_min=(N−1)/(2J0)=2.5 for N=6. The paper also introduces control optimality, a normalized 1-Wasserstein distance between the distribution of fidelities obtained from repeated optimizations and a reference distribution at the required fidelity threshold, and argues this metric tracks actual performance better than circuit expressibility measured by KL divergence. A sympathetic reader would care because it suggests a concrete path to near-speed-limit many-body control without deep circuits, while giving a single number that compares how well the quantum circuit and the classical optimizer together solve the control task.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Trotterized Hamiltonian-variational circuit U_HVA = ∏_{l=1}^{N_t} [U_0 ⊗_n R_z(θ_{n,l})], where U_0 = exp(−i J_0(σ_n^x σ_{n+1}^x + σ_n^y σ_{n+1}^y)T/N_t) is a fixed XY-exchange layer and R_z(θ_{n,l}) are trainable single-qubit rotations whose angles are mapped from control fields through θ_{γ,j}=f[λ_γ(t_j),n]. The three ansatze differ in how correlated these angles are: Ansatz-a uses one moving harmonic-trap center, Ansatz-b adds a time-dependent trap strength, and Ansatz-c uses N independent uncorrelated fields. The performance yardstick is control optimality, defined as the 1-Wasserstein distance W_1[P_lea(x), P_ref(x)] between the cumulative distribution of optimized log-infidelities x=log10(1−F) and a reference distribution concentrated at the fidelity threshold, with the normalized value W_1/ε lying in [0,1] and equaling 0 only when every optimization lands at the conditional optimum.

What would settle it

Run a dense numerical optimal-control search (for example, GRAPE or Krotov) over the same Ansatz-c control fields for N=6, J0=1, and find the smallest T at which fidelity 0.999 is attainable; independently compute the Mandelstam-Tamm time-averaged energy-dispersion bound along that optimal trajectory. If the true minimal T is larger than T≈2.52, or if the quoted QSL bound exceeds T≈2.52, then the paper's near-speed-limit claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the variational quantum algorithm attains near-time-optimal perfect state transfer in a six-qubit XX chain at total time T≈2.52 with fidelity F>Fc=0.999, using the uncorrelated Ansatz-c whose trainable parameters are N independent z-rotation fields B2(t)={θ_n(t)}, with only Nt=N Trotter steps. The controlling estimate is Eq. (29), T_min=(N−1)/(2J0), which the paper treats as the speed limit for this setup; the same section also quotes the Mandelstam-Tamm expression τ_QSL=(N−1)π/(4J0). The paper further claims that its new control optimality metric, the normalized W1 distance between the empirical log-infidelity CDF and a reference delta/step distribution, is a more consistent predictor of VQA performance than the DKL expressibility metric, because W1 captures both the quantum circuit's expressibility and the classical optimizer's effectiveness, including cases where larger Trotter steps worsen optimization despite reducing Trotter error.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that T_min=(N−1)/(2J0) is the actual minimum time for perfect state transfer in the XX spin chain of Eq. (22), since the paper uses this value as the benchmark that its numerically found T≈2.52 approaches; the paper cites this formula but does not derive it for its own Hamiltonian and control set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, time-optimal control of a many-body spin chain does not require deep or highly correlated circuits: a shallow circuit with Nt=N Trotter steps suffices, and larger systems (N>9) remain within the tight time limit h≤0.5 with infidelity around 10^{-4}.
  • Control optimality, unlike expressibility, can be used as a practical benchmarking number for hybrid workflows: it separates setups that only look expressive from setups whose optimizations actually land at the target fidelity.
  • The observed gradient-variance scaling O(2^{-N}) instead of O(2^{-2N}) means that for these correlated, deterministic-layer circuits the barren-plateau problem is milder than for random 2-design ansatze, improving trainability at fixed circuit depth.
  • Below the minimum time, the gradient variance decays as O(T^{2N}), so the speed limit itself shows up as a trainability limit: when there is not enough time to control the system, the optimizer's signal vanishes.
  • The metric's definition for arbitrary cost functions means it can be extended to other hybrid algorithms and to noisy devices, where it should be computed from the same sampled fidelity outcomes without requiring convergence of the cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the strength of the speed-limit claim depends on Eq. (29) being the correct lower bound for this Hamiltonian; the Mandelstam-Tamm expression quoted in the same section gives a larger value for N=6, so the paper's 'closely approaching the quantum speed limit' should be read as approaching Eq. (29), not necessarily the tightest bound.
  • As an extension, control optimality could be used online as a stopping criterion or ansatz-selection rule, since its sensitivity to the learning budget N_lea means it can detect when additional optimization effort no longer improves the distribution of outcomes.
  • A neighboring problem worth checking is whether the same W1 metric orders quantum machine learning or closed-loop control tasks correctly, since expressibility is not a well-defined comparator there but W1 is.
  • A natural test on hardware is to compute the W1 distance from repeated runs on a real device with finite shot noise and compare it with the noiseless simulator value; the paper's SPAM-error results predict a systematic shift of the apparent optimal time, which could be measured directly.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid quantum-classical framework for quantum optimal control, in which a Trotterized circuit with trainable control parameters plays the role of a control policy and a classical optimizer minimizes the infidelity. The authors introduce a 'control optimality' metric based on the W1 Wasserstein distance between the distribution of optimized fidelities and a reference distribution at a fidelity threshold Fc. They apply this setup to perfect state transfer (PST) in a one-dimensional spin chain with three ansatz variants (Ansatz-a, -b, -c) and report that the uncorrelated Ansatz-c achieves fidelity above 0.999 at total time T≈2.52 for N=6, which they claim approaches the analytic minimum time Tmin=(N−1)/(2J0). They also study gradient-variance scaling and robustness to SPAM errors under depolarizing noise. The central claims are (i) the W1-based optimality metric tracks practical VQA performance better than the DKL expressibility metric, and (ii) a VQA with a shallow circuit (Nt=N) can solve time-optimal PST near the quantum speed limit.

Significance. If the claims are correct, the paper makes a useful conceptual contribution by introducing a workflow-level metric that jointly captures quantum and classical aspects of hybrid optimization, rather than only circuit expressibility or Trotter error. The numerical studies are internally consistent with the stated definitions, and the ranking of ansatze (Ansatz-c best, Ansatz-a worst) is supported by the reported W1 and fidelity data. The authors also provide openly available code. The most striking quantitative claim—that a VQA reaches a PST time close to the minimum time—is, however, not yet supported because of an inconsistency in the speed-limit formulas used as the benchmark. The gradient-scaling result (O(2−N) rather than O(2−2N)) is interesting but would benefit from a more explicit explanation of why the ansatz is not a 2-design.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B and Eq. (29)] The manuscript states τ_QSL ≤ T_min and quotes τ_QSL=(N−1)π/(4J0) immediately before Eq. (29), which gives Tmin=(N−1)/(2J0). For N=6 these are 3.93 and 2.50, respectively, so the quoted inequality is false. The reported value T≈2.52 is compared only to the smaller value 2.50, and the abstract's claim of 'closely approaching the quantum speed limit' is therefore ambiguous or unsupported if 3.93 is the operative bound. Please reconcile the two expressions, or state precisely which lower bound applies to the model of Eq. (22) and justify that choice.
  2. [Eqs. (9), (25), and Appendix A] The Trotter time step is defined as Δt=T/(Nt−1) in Eq. (9) and in Appendix A, but Eq. (25) uses T/Nt in the exponent of the static unitary layer. With Nt=N=6 and the reported T=2.52, the first convention gives a physical evolution time of 6×2.52/5=3.02, which is 20% larger than the quoted T. The manuscript does not state which convention the simulations use, so the reported 'minimum time' is not well-defined. Please specify the convention and recompute the reported T values accordingly.
  3. [Section IV.B, benchmark derivation] Eq. (29), Tmin=(N−1)/(2J0), is quoted from Refs. [55,70,71] but is not derived for the Hamiltonian in Eq. (22) with the unbounded z-control fields of Eq. (24). Because this formula is the benchmark against which the claim T≈2.52 is judged, the authors should provide a derivation or a reference that establishes the lower bound for this specific control family and interaction model; otherwise the speed-limit comparison lacks a rigorous footing.
  4. [Section V, 'better than conventional methods'] The conclusion states that the VQA 'performing even better than previous conventional methods (h<0.5 in Fig. 5)'. However, Fig. 5 does not contain any comparison to conventional methods; the parameter h is merely a scaling factor that sets the total simulation time in the VQA runs. Please add a direct comparison with, e.g., the methods of Refs. [60–62], or reformulate the claim so that it does not imply a benchmark comparison that is not shown.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There is a typo in the introduction ('we fisrt provide') and in Section III.A ('on shall calculate'); the paper would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Fig. 6(b) caption] The caption states Nt=2N, while the text in Section IV.B and Fig. 6(a) use Nt=N; please make the circuit-depth convention consistent across the figure and the text.
  3. [Section III.B, Eq. (17)] The notation for the Iverson bracket and the reference distribution Pref(F) is somewhat informal; a cleaner definition with the domain of F would improve readability.
  4. [Fig. 3(d)] The label 'Dkl' should be 'DKL' for consistency with Eq. (15), and the caption of Fig. 4 could clarify which panel shows the W1 distance (the upper panel is not explicitly labeled).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Control-optimality superiority claim is definitional, but PST numerics and gradient scalings are independently computed; speed-limit inconsistency is a correctness issue, not circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section IV.A (The maximum-fidelity control), final paragraph after Fig. 3; cf. Eqs. (18)-(19) and (21).]
    "Then we can conclude that to evaluate the overall performance of a VQA, one should estimate control optimality rather than expressibility for the following reasons:W1 reflects both the expressibility of the quantum circuit and the performance of the classical optimizer, whereas DKL only captures the former."

    By Eqs. (18)-(19), Plea(F;Nlea) is the learning fidelity distribution accumulated during optimization, and Optim is the W1 distance from Plea to the reference optimal delta distribution. Therefore the claim that W1 'reflects the performance of the classical optimizer' is a restatement of the definition: W1 is a functional of exactly the achieved-fidelity outcomes whose quality it is used to rank. The empirical observation that W1 orders Ansatz-a/b/c consistently with infidelity is not an independent confirmation of the metric but an identity up to the chosen reference distribution. The PST time-optimal result and the gradient scaling laws are separate computed/fitted results and do not reduce this way, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The central time-optimal PST claim (T≈2.52 close to Eq. (29)) is a numerical result obtained by optimizing circuit parameters; it is not derived from the W1 metric, and Eq. (29) is an external benchmark rather than a fitted input. The gradient scalings O(2^-N) and O(T^{2N}) are empirical scalings fitted to the data, not predictions presented as derived. The main circularity is the metric-superiority claim: control optimality is defined as the W1 distance between the optimizer-produced fidelity distribution and an ideal reference, so showing that it tracks optimizer performance is largely tautological. Self-citations such as [13], [54], and [75] are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The internal inconsistency between tau_QSL=(N-1)pi/(4J0), Tmin=(N-1)/(2J0), and the two Trotter-time conventions is an important correctness and consistency concern, but it is not a circularity, and it does not enter the circularity score.

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

The paper's central claims rest on standard Trotterization and single-excitation conservation, but also on several ad hoc modeling choices: the fidelity threshold Fc=0.999, the identification of Eq. (29) as the speed limit, and the W1 distance as the performance measure. No new physical entities are proposed. The gradient scaling laws are empirical fits to the paper's own data.

free parameters (3)
  • Fidelity threshold Fc = 0.999
    Used to declare success in the time-optimal control search (Section IV.B and Fig. 4); the reported minimum times change if this threshold is relaxed or tightened.
  • Time-scaling factor h in Eq. (30) = 0.46, 0.48, 0.5, 0.52, 0.54
    Chosen by hand to define total evolution time T*=h(N-1)/J0; the conclusions about reaching the speed limit depend on which h values are scanned.
  • Gradient scaling exponent 2N in Eq. (31) = 2N
    Observed from the slopes of Var[∂λJ] versus T in Fig. 6(b); the text labels it an empirical scaling, so it is a fit to the paper's own numerical data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Trotter-Suzuki first-order product formula approximates the continuous propagator and the Trotter error is measured by Eq. (11).
    Invoked when constructing U(θ) in Eq. (9) and when quoting ξ in Eq. (11); the paper relies on the standard result that the product formula converges, without bounding finite-Nt effects for the optimized controls.
  • standard math The single-excitation subspace is sufficient because total z-magnetization is conserved ([HXXZ, sum sigma_z] = 0).
    Section IV; the paper restricts to single-excitation transport, assuming no leakage out of this subspace under the controlled dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper W1 distance between sampled fidelity distributions is a meaningful measure of overall hybrid workflow performance.
    Section III.B; the definition of control optimality is a modeling choice, not a derived theorem; the claim that it is more accurate than DKL is built into the choice of using the optimized fidelity distribution.
  • domain assumption Eq. (29), Tmin=(N-1)/(2J0), is the valid lower bound for the PST problem and can serve as the speed-limit benchmark.
    Section IV.B; the paper quotes this from Refs. [55,70,71] without derivation and uses it as the dashed benchmark in Fig. 4, while also quoting a different QSL expression tau_QSL=(N-1)pi/(4J0). This inconsistency is load-bearing for the abstract claim of approaching the speed limit.
  • domain assumption The reported fidelities are achieved by the classical optimizers (SLSQP, COBYLA, SPSA) with the exact or finite-shot cost model, and these results transfer to a real NISQ device.
    Section IV.A and Appendix C; main figures use a noise-free simulator with exact fidelity (only Fig. 9 includes depolarizing SPAM noise), so hardware transferability is assumed, not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Control by Variational Quantum Algorithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WTY6OI6

@misc{pith2026250523373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Control by Variational Quantum Algorithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WTY6OI6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23373}
}
read the original abstract

Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms hold great promise for solving quantum control problems on near-term quantum computers. In this work, we employ the hybrid framework that integrates digital quantum simulation with classical optimization to achieve optimal engineering of quantum many-body systems. To evaluate the overall performance of this method, we introduce a general metric termed control optimality, which accounts for constraints on both classical and quantum components. As a concrete example, we investigate the time-optimal control for perfect state transfer in a one-dimensional spin model using the variational quantum algorithm, closely approaching the quantum speed limit. Moreover, we discuss the emergent gradient behavior and error robustness, demonstrating the feasibility of applying hybrid quantum algorithms to solve quantum optimal control problems. These results establish a systematic framework for hybrid algorithms to address quantum control problems on near-term quantum platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The workflow diagram of quantum optimal control with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Each data point represents a single numerical experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a-c). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a). The optimal control ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) The variance of the control gradient, defined in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) The loss value, defined as infidelity 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Initialization: We firstly initialize the control policy Λ(0) = Λ 0 and prepare the qubit-register with state ρ(0) =ρin

  2. [2]

    The circuit consists of alternating layers of gates, repre- senting the time evolution under various control Hamil- tonians Hγ with control-related anglesθ(λγ, t j)

    Circuit Construction: Secondly, we construct the PQC U(θ) formed by DQS of driving propagator (Eq.(2) ) U(θ)≡ NtY j=1 ΓY γ=1 exp −iHγθ(λγ, t j)∆t V j, (9) V j represents the evolution under the static Hamiltonian term and ∆t = T/(Nt− 1) is the discrete time interval. The circuit consists of alternating layers of gates, repre- senting the time evolution un...

  3. [3]

    The optimization target is: θopt = argmin θ∈R 1− F(ρ(T),ρ tar) , (10) where F(·) is defined in Eq.(5) and the final state reads ρ(T) = U(θ)ρ0U(θ)†

    Optimization: Thirdly, a classical optimizer updates the parameters θ∈ R by minimizing the infidelity be- tween the final state ρ(T) and the target state ρtar. The optimization target is: θopt = argmin θ∈R 1− F(ρ(T),ρ tar) , (10) where F(·) is defined in Eq.(5) and the final state reads ρ(T) = U(θ)ρ0U(θ)†. In this paper, the Trotter errors for a total tim...

  4. [4]

    Feynman, Optics news 11, 11 (1985)

    R. Feynman, Optics news 11, 11 (1985)

    1985

  5. [5]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Katabarwa, K

    A. Katabarwa, K. Gratsea, A. Caesura, and P. D. Johnson, PRX Quantum 5, 020101 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Chemical 12 Reviews 120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Portmann and R

    C. Portmann and R. Renner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 025008 (2022)

    2022

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approxi- mate optimization algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant- ph]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, et al., Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  3. [12]

    A. B. Magann, C. Arenz, M. D. Grace, T.-S. Ho, R. L. Kosut, J. R. McClean, H. A. Rabitz, and M. Sarovar, PRX Quantum2, 010101 (2021)

    2021

  4. [13]

    de Keijzer, O

    R. de Keijzer, O. Tse, and S. Kokkelmans, Quantum 7, 908 (2023)

    2023

  5. [14]

    Choquette, A

    A. Choquette, A. Di Paolo, P. K. Barkoutsos, D. S ´en´echal, I. Tavernelli, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023092 (2021)

    2021

  6. [15]

    J. Li, X. Yang, X. Peng, and C.-P. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150503 (2017)

    2017

  7. [16]

    Huang, Y

    T. Huang, Y . Ding, L. Dupays, Y . Ban, M.-H. Yung, A. del Campo, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023173 (2023)

    2023

  8. [17]

    P. J. Ollitrault, G. Mazzola, and I. Tavernelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 260511 (2020)

    2020

  9. [18]

    A. B. Magann, M. D. Grace, H. A. Rabitz, and M. Sarovar, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023165 (2021)

    2021

  10. [19]

    N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, Y . Ding, M. Sanz, F. Albarr ´an- Arriagada, E. Solano, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 024038 (2021)

    2021

  11. [20]

    Or ´us, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 538 (2019)

    R. Or ´us, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 538 (2019)

    2019

  12. [21]

    Suzuki, Communications in Mathematical Physics 51, 183 (1976)

    M. Suzuki, Communications in Mathematical Physics 51, 183 (1976)

    1976

  13. [22]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  14. [23]

    Y . Kim, C. J. Wood, T. J. Yoder, S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gambetta, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Nature Physics 19, 752 (2023)

    2023

  15. [24]

    Smith, M

    A. Smith, M. Kim, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, npj Quantum Information 5, 106 (2019)

    2019

  16. [25]

    Fauseweh, Nature Communications 15, 2123 (2024)

    B. Fauseweh, Nature Communications 15, 2123 (2024)

    2024

  17. [26]

    Torlai and R

    G. Torlai and R. G. Melko, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics 11, 325 (2020)

    2020

  18. [27]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Nature communications 9, 1 (2018)

    2018

  19. [28]

    S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cin- cio, and P. J. Coles, Nature communications 12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. V olkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Na- ture communications 12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  21. [30]

    S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Advanced Quan- tum Technologies 2, 1900070 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    Nakaji and N

    K. Nakaji and N. Yamamoto, Quantum 5, 434 (2021)

    2021

  23. [32]

    Yi, Phys

    C. Yi, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052603 (2021)

    2021

  24. [33]

    Layden, Phys

    D. Layden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 210501 (2022)

    2022

  25. [34]

    L. K. Kovalsky, F. A. Calderon-Vargas, M. D. Grace, A. B. Ma- gann, J. B. Larsen, A. D. Baczewski, and M. Sarovar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 060602 (2023)

    2023

  26. [35]

    Zhang, J

    Z.-J. Zhang, J. Sun, X. Yuan, and M.-H. Yung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 040601 (2023)

    2023

  27. [36]

    H. Zhao, M. Bukov, M. Heyl, and R. Moessner, PRX Quantum 4, 030319 (2023)

    2023

  28. [37]

    Wurtz and P

    J. Wurtz and P. J. Love, Quantum 6, 635 (2022)

    2022

  29. [38]

    Boscain, M

    U. Boscain, M. Sigalotti, and D. Sugny, PRX Quantum 2, 030203 (2021)

    2021

  30. [39]

    M. M. M ¨uller, R. S. Said, F. Jelezko, T. Calarco, and S. Mon- tangero, Reports on progress in physics 85, 076001 (2022)

    2022

  31. [40]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. Oliviero, L. Cincio, and M. Cerezo, Quantum 8, 1395 (2024)

    2024

  32. [41]

    Park and N

    C.-Y . Park and N. Killoran, Quantum8, 1239 (2024)

    2024

  33. [42]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015)

    2015

  34. [43]

    A. M. Childs, Y . Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021)

    2021

  35. [44]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

  36. [45]

    Schuld, V

    M. Schuld, V . Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032331 (2019)

    2019

  37. [46]

    R. P. Feynman, in Feynman and computation (CRC Press,

  38. [47]

    Hunter-Jones, Unitary designs from statistical mechanics in random quantum circuits (2019), arXiv:1905.12053 [quant-ph]

    N. Hunter-Jones, Unitary designs from statistical mechanics in random quantum circuits (2019), arXiv:1905.12053 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classi- cal compact groups (2007), arXiv:math-ph/0609050 [math-ph]

    F. Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classi- cal compact groups (2007), arXiv:math-ph/0609050 [math-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Heyraud, Z

    V . Heyraud, Z. Li, K. Donatella, A. Le Boit´e, and C. Ciuti, PRX Quantum 4, 040335 (2023)

    2023

  41. [50]

    Holmes, K

    Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, PRX Quan- tum 3, 010313 (2022)

    2022

  42. [51]

    Du, M.-H

    Y . Du, M.-H. Hsieh, T. Liu, S. You, and D. Tao, PRX Quantum 2, 040337 (2021)

    2021

  43. [52]

    E. T. Jaynes, Phys. Rev. 106, 620 (1957)

    1957

  44. [53]

    A. J. Majda and B. Gershgorin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 10044 (2011)

    2011

  45. [54]

    V . M. Panaretos and Y . Zemel, Annual review of statistics and its application 6, 405 (2019)

    2019

  46. [55]

    Demiralp and H

    M. Demiralp and H. Rabitz, Phys. Rev. A 57, 2420 (1998)

    1998

  47. [56]

    H. A. Rabitz, M. M. Hsieh, and C. M. Rosenthal, Science 303, 1998 (2004)

    2004

  48. [57]

    Huang, A

    T. Huang, A. Gaikwad, I. Moskalenko, A. Aggarwal, T. Abad, M. Kuzmanovic, Y .-H. Chang, O. Stanisavljevic, E. Hogedal, C. Warren, I. Ahmad, J. Bizn ´arov´a, A. Osman, M. Dahiya, M. Rommel, A. F. Rousari, A. Nylander, L. Chen, J. Bylan- der, G. S. Paraoanu, A. F. Kockum, and G....

    2025

  49. [58]

    Yung, Phys

    M.-H. Yung, Phys. Rev. A 74, 030303 (2006)

    2006

  50. [59]

    R. J. Chapman, M. Santandrea, Z. Huang, G. Corrielli, A. Crespi, M.-H. Yung, R. Osellame, and A. Peruzzo, Nature communications 7, 11339 (2016)

    2016

  51. [60]

    Balachandran and J

    V . Balachandran and J. Gong, Phys. Rev. A77, 012303 (2008)

    2008

  52. [61]

    M. I. Makin, J. H. Cole, C. D. Hill, and A. D. Greentree, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 017207 (2012)

    2012

  53. [62]

    M. H. Ahmed and A. D. Greentree, Phys. Rev. A 91, 022306 (2015)

    2015

  54. [63]

    Caneva, M

    T. Caneva, M. Murphy, T. Calarco, R. Fazio, S. Montangero, V . Giovannetti, and G. E. Santoro, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 240501 (2009)

    2009

  55. [64]

    Murphy, S

    M. Murphy, S. Montangero, V . Giovannetti, and T. Calarco, Phys. Rev. A 82, 022318 (2010)

    2010

  56. [65]

    Zhang, Z.-W

    X.-M. Zhang, Z.-W. Cui, X. Wang, and M.-H. Yung, Phys. Rev. A 97, 052333 (2018)

    2018

  57. [66]

    P. T. Boggs and J. W. Tolle, Acta numerica4, 1 (1995)

    1995

  58. [67]

    Mandelstam and I

    L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, J. Phys. USSR 9, 249 (1945)

    1945

  59. [68]

    Anandan and Y

    J. Anandan and Y . Aharonov, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 1697 (1990)

    1990

  60. [69]

    Uhlmann, Physics Letters A 161, 329 (1992)

    A. Uhlmann, Physics Letters A 161, 329 (1992)

    1992

  61. [70]

    Margolus and L

    N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenom- ena 120, 188 (1998)

    1998

  62. [71]

    De ffner and E

    S. De ffner and E. Lutz, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 46, 335302 (2013)

    2013

  63. [72]

    De ffner and S

    S. De ffner and S. Campbell, Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical 50, 453001 (2017)

    2017

  64. [73]

    A. Kay, W. Xie, and C. Tamon, A note on the speed of perfect 13 state transfer (2022), arXiv:1609.01854 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Ashhab, P

    S. Ashhab, P. C. de Groot, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A85, 052327 (2012)

    2012

  66. [75]

    Christandl and R

    M. Christandl and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 120403 (2012)

    2012

  67. [76]

    Proctor, S

    T. Proctor, S. Seritan, K. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, R. Blume- Kohout, and K. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 150502 (2022)

    2022

  68. [77]

    A. M. Palmieri, E. Kovlakov, F. Bianchi, D. Yudin, S. Straupe, J. D. Biamonte, and S. Kulik, npj Quantum Information 6, 20 (2020)

    2020

  69. [78]

    Huang, Y

    T. Huang, Y . Ban, E. Y . Sherman, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 024040 (2022)

    2022

  70. [79]

    Y . Wang, Y . Ding, F. A. C´ardenas-L´opez, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 024009 (2024)

    2024

  71. [80]

    B. Li, S. Ahmed, S. Saraogi, N. Lambert, F. Nori, A. Pitchford, and N. Shammah, Quantum 6, 630 (2022)

    2022

  72. [81]

    Cerezo, G

    M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y . Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature computational science 2, 567 (2022)

    2022

  73. [82]

    Kelly, R

    J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, I.-C. Hoi, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Mutus, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, P...

    2014

  74. [83]

    Doria, T

    P. Doria, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 190501 (2011)

    2011

  75. [84]

    Kiely and S

    A. Kiely and S. Campbell, New Journal of Physics 23, 033033 (2021)

    2021

  76. [85]

    Coopmans, S

    L. Coopmans, S. Campbell, G. De Chiara, and A. Kiely, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043138 (2022)

    2022

  77. [86]

    Safavi-Naini, R

    A. Safavi-Naini, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. G. Bohnet, M. G ¨arttner, K. A. Gilmore, J. E. Jordan, J. Cohn, J. K. Freericks, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 040503 (2018)

    2018

  78. [87]

    Richerme, C

    P. Richerme, C. Senko, J. Smith, A. Lee, S. Korenblit, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. A 88, 012334 (2013)

    2013

  79. [88]

    X. Xu, J. Cui, Z. Cui, R. He, Q. Li, X. Li, Y . Lin, J. Liu, W. Liu, J. Lu,et al., Mindspore quantum: A user-friendly, high- performance, and ai-compatible quantum computing frame- work (2024), arXiv:2406.17248 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [89]

    D. A. Rower, L. Ding, H. Zhang, M. Hays, J. An, P. M. Harring- ton, I. T. Rosen, J. M. Gertler, T. M. Hazard, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, S. Gustavsson, K. Serniak, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, PRX Quantum5, 040342 (2024)

    2024

  81. [90]

    e. a. Barends, R, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210501 (2019)

    2019

  82. [91]

    B. e. a. Foxen (Google AI Quantum), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 120504 (2020)

    2020

  83. [92]

    U. L. Heras, A. Mezzacapo, L. Lamata, S. Filipp, A. Wallra ff, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 200501 (2014)

    2014

  84. [93]

    X. Yang, J. Chu, Z. Guo, W. Huang, Y . Liang, J. Liu, J. Qiu, X. Sun, Z. Tao, J. Zhang, J. Zhang, L. Zhang, Y . Zhou, W. Guo, L. Hu, J. Jiang, Y . Liu, X. Linpeng, T. Chen, Y . Chen, J. Niu, S. Liu, Y . Zhong, and D. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 170601 (2024)

    2024

  85. [94]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Ameri- can Association of Physics Teachers, 2002)

    2002

  86. [95]

    M. J. Powell, Acta numerica 7, 287 (1998)

    1998

  87. [96]

    J. C. Spall, Johns Hopkins apl technical digest 19, 482 (1998)

    1998

Pith tools

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