Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Quantum simulation of the Hubbard model on a graphene hexagon: Strengths of IQPE and noise constraints

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 This paper shows that IQPE seeded by a single Slater determinant reproduces exact Hubbard ground-state energies on a six-site graphene hexagon, and identifies two-qubit gate noise and thermal relaxation as the main obstacles on real…

desk verdict Useful benchmark paper; central IQPE claim is credible, but the missing overlap data and unshown readout-robustness plot should be supplied before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05031 v2 pith:T6ABJHHJ submitted 2025-06-05 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph

Mohammad Mirzakhani , Kyungsun Moon This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph MSC 81P6882B2081V70 PACS 03.67.Lx71.10.Fd
keywords HubbardmodelgraphenehexagoniterativequantumphaseestimationSlaterdeterminantJordan-WignertransformationTrotterdecompositionnoiseground-stateenergy
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 sets out to show that Iterative Quantum Phase Estimation (IQPE), initialized with nothing more than a single Slater determinant, recovers the exact ground-state energy of the Hubbard model on a six-site graphene hexagon for the full tested range of occupation numbers and interaction strengths up to $U_0=6$. A Slater determinant is the cheap, non-interacting guess: a product of single-particle orbitals. The paper also argues that for this periodic six-site ring the boundary hopping term's Jordan-Wigner string collapses to a global phase factor that depends only on total particle number, which shortens the needed circuit. On the hardware side, the paper isolates which realistic error channels damage IQPE most, identifying two-qubit gate errors and thermal relaxation as the dominant obstacles and readout errors as nearly harmless. A run on a real superconducting device with improved parameters reproduces exact results for a reduced three-site version of the model, so the claim is not only about idealized simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair formed by the initial state and the evolution operator: a single-Slater-determinant initial state prepared through planar rotations, and the IQPE unitary $U=e^{-iHt}$ approximated by a first-order Trotter-Suzuki product with $N_{\rm trot}=15$ steps, using a Jordan-Wigner mapping that arranges spin-up and spin-down qubits in separate blocks. The key simplification is Eq. (10), which rewrites the periodic boundary hopping term $(a^\dagger_N a_1 + \text{h.c.})$ as a local Pauli exchange multiplied by the global phase $(-1)^{N_f-1}$, where $N_f$ is the fermion number in the spin sector; this removes the multi-qubit Jordan-Wigner string from the deepest part of the circuit. IQPE then reads out the phase $\phi_0$ bit by bit with a single ancilla, and the ground-state energy follows from $E_0=-2\pi\phi_0/t$.

What would settle it

Compute the exact squared overlap between the prepare-and-evolve initial Slater determinant and the exact Hubbard ground state for a point inside the claimed range, say $N_{\rm occ}=6$, $U_0=6$; if that overlap is essentially zero while noiseless IQPE still returns the exact ground-state energy with high probability on every run, the paper's stated mechanism for convergence would be falsified for that point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single Slater determinant carries enough overlap with the true Hubbard ground state that IQPE projects onto it with high probability, so no variational ansatz or state-specific preparation is required for small Hubbard systems. In noiseless simulation with $m=5$ phase bits and $N_{\rm trot}=15$ Trotter steps, the IQPE energy estimates sit on top of exact diagonalization for every occupation number and interaction strength tested. The mechanism that makes the circuit practical is an identity: for a one-dimensional Hubbard chain with periodic boundary conditions in a fixed particle-number sector, the non-local Jordan-Wigner string attached to the boundary hopping term reduces to the global phase factor $(-1)^{N_f-1}$, removing a long sequence of CNOT gates. The noise analysis then shows that two-qubit depolarizing errors and thermal relaxation corrupt the phase readout most, while readout errors are comparatively harmless, and that halving the hardware error rates moves the energy estimates substantially closer to exact results.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the single Slater determinant retains enough overlap with the true ground state at every filling and interaction strength tested; the paper never reports those overlaps and infers sufficiency only from the final energy agreement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IQPE with a fixed non-variational initial state can serve as a benchmark for ground-state energies of small Hubbard clusters, complementing variational approaches.
  • The Jordan-Wigner string collapse cuts circuit depth for any one-dimensional fermionic chain with periodic boundary conditions, which directly reduces the two-qubit gate count that the noise study identifies as the main error source.
  • Noise-aware resource estimates for near-term simulation should budget primarily for two-qubit gate fidelity and coherence time, not for readout correction.
  • Hardware with roughly half the current two-qubit error rate should bring IQPE energy estimates close to exact values in the weakly interacting regime, according to the paper's halved-noise simulations.
  • Adiabatic evolution supplies accurate charge and spin densities and correlations, except at fillings $N_{\rm occ}=4$ and $8$ where the minimum gap vanishes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The overlap mechanism suggests a quantitative test the paper leaves implicit: the squared overlap between the single Slater determinant and the exact ground state should be computed for every $(N_{\rm occ}, U_0)$ point, and IQPE's success probability per bit string should track that overlap; if it does not, the apparent convergence may be an artifact of the phase resolution.
  • If the single-Slater-determinant sufficiency persists, it likely degrades with system size or stronger coupling, so a natural extension is to benchmark IQPE on larger hexagonal flakes or values of $U_0$ beyond 6 to find where the overlap assumption breaks.
  • The JW-string simplification should transfer to other periodic fermionic chains in fixed-number sectors, so the circuit-depth savings may apply to models such as small Hubbard ladders or spinful chains with periodic boundaries.
  • Because the noise study shows interaction-dominated circuits are more resilient, a practical error-mitigation strategy would concentrate mitigation effort on the hopping blocks of the Trotter circuit rather than distributing it uniformly.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports quantum simulations of the Hubbard model on a six-site graphene hexagon using iterative quantum phase estimation (IQPE) and adiabatic evolution, implemented in Qiskit with the Jordan-Wigner mapping. In noiseless simulation, IQPE with a single Slater determinant initial state is shown to reproduce exact-diagonalization ground-state energies for occupation numbers 1 through 11 at U0=0 and U0=3, and for a range of interaction strengths up to U0=6 for a subset of occupations; convergence in bit precision m and Trotter steps N_trot is documented. The paper also presents a noise model based on ibm_strasbourg hardware parameters applied to a three-site system, isolating the effects of depolarizing errors, thermal relaxation, and readout errors, and reports hardware executions on ibm_strasbourg and ibm_fez. A simplification of the periodic-boundary Jordan-Wigner string to a global phase factor is derived and used to reduce circuit depth.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a useful benchmark for IQPE on small Hubbard systems and a systematic noise analysis relevant to near-term hardware demonstrations. The noiseless agreement with exact diagonalization across many fillings and interaction strengths is a positive result, and the simplification of the Jordan-Wigner string is a concrete technical contribution. The convergence checks in m and N_trot add credibility. However, the main claim about the sufficiency of a single Slater determinant rests on a projective measurement protocol whose details and ground-state overlaps are not reported, and the ibm_fez hardware results are presented without statistical uncertainty. These gaps need to be addressed before the paper's conclusions are fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II B 1 and Section III A (Figs. 3-5)] The central claim that a single Slater determinant is sufficient as an IQPE initial state is not fully supported because the manuscript never reports the squared overlaps |<SD|GS>|^2 for the studied (Nocc, U0) combinations, nor does it specify how the noiseless IQPE energy is extracted from the measured phase bits (e.g., a single run, repeated runs with majority voting, or post-selection). Since IQPE is projective, a low-overlap initial state can produce measurements of excited-state phases; with m=5 bits the phase resolution is 2*pi/32, so an excited state within the same phase bin could appear to match the ground-state energy. Reporting the overlaps and the measurement protocol is necessary to support the claim that the SD initialization works as stated.
  2. [Section III B, Fig. 8] The ibm_fez hardware data are reported as an average over only 5 runs with 50,000 shots each and no error bars, whereas all other hardware and noisy-simulation results include standard deviations. The text states that the ibm_fez results 'closely match' the exact values; without a statistical uncertainty, the significance of this agreement cannot be assessed. The authors should report the standard deviation or variance for the ibm_fez data, or present the individual run values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III A] The value of the time step t used in the IQPE simulations is never stated; it is only constrained by the phase-range condition. Please provide t for each simulation set so that the results are reproducible.
  2. [Appendix, Eq. (A11)] The simplification of the Jordan-Wigner string in Eq. (10) relies on a fixed fermion number Nf in each spin sector; the manuscript should state explicitly that the Hubbard Hamiltonian conserves particle number per spin species, so that the phase factor is well defined within the chosen symmetry sector.
  3. [Fig. 4] The legend entries in Fig. 4 are garbled ('ExactIQPE 4') and the axis labels in panel (a) appear partially cut off; please regenerate the figure so that all text is legible.
  4. [Section III B] In the description of the noise model, 'sing-qubit gate' should be 'single-qubit gate'.
  5. [Section III B] The manuscript states that the IQPE algorithm is robust to a wide range of readout errors but the supporting results are 'not shown here'; either include the corresponding figure or remove this claim from the text.
  6. [Section III A (adiabatic simulations)] For the adiabatic evolution results, the total evolution time T and the number of time-discretization steps used to implement the path H_ad(eta) are not reported; these parameters should be specified to support the claimed agreement with exact diagonalization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: IQPE ground-state energies are benchmarked against independent exact diagonalization; the JW-string simplification is derived algebraically, and no parameter is fitted to the target energies.

full rationale

The paper's central noiseless claim is that IQPE, initialized with a single Slater determinant, recovers the Hubbard hexagon ground-state energy. This is validated by direct comparison with QuSpin exact diagonalization (Figs. 3 and 5), an external independent solver. The time step t is chosen from the system's energy scale to avoid phase wrapping, not fitted to the ground-state energy; the phase-to-energy relation E0 = -2πφ0/t is the standard IQPE definition and does not import the exact answer. The Trotterized evolution is an approximation, so the observed agreement is a genuine check rather than an identity. The PBC Jordan-Wigner string simplification (Eq. 10) is proved algebraically in the Appendix from the JW transformation (Eqs. A4-A11) with fixed-occupancy algebra, not assumed or cited in. The single-Slater-determinant sufficiency is an empirical finding; the absence of reported overlap values is a verification gap, but not a self-referential reduction. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear; algorithm and state-preparation references are to independent prior work. The noisy and hardware sections compare calibrated noise models and device runs to exact values without fitting those values. Overall, no derivation step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum simulation tools (JW, Trotter, IQPE, adiabatic theorem) and on domain assumptions about the Hubbard mapping and initial-state overlap. The only derived simplification (PBC string to phase) is proved in the appendix. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • time evolution step t = chosen so E_max*t < 2*pi (not numerically quoted)
    Selected based on prior knowledge of the energy spectrum to avoid phase wrapping in IQPE; a hand-chosen simulation parameter that the results depend on.
  • Trotter steps N_trot = 15
    Set to 15 after convergence tests (Fig. 4b); hand-chosen.
  • bit precision m = 5
    Set to 5 after convergence tests (Fig. 4a); hand-chosen.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner transformation preserves fermionic anti-commutation relations and maps the Hubbard Hamiltonian to qubits.
    Used throughout Section II B and the Appendix.
  • standard math Trotter-Suzuki decomposition converges to the exact time evolution as N_trot increases.
    Assumed in Eq. (6) and used to build the circuit.
  • standard math IQPE correctly estimates phases of the unitary U = exp(-iHt) given sufficiently high initial-state overlap.
    Algorithm description in Section II B 3, cited from Refs. 37-39.
  • standard math Adiabatic theorem: evolving slowly from H0 to H keeps the system in the ground state when T >> gap^{-2}.
    Eq. (5) and the adiabatic state preparation in Section II B 1.
  • domain assumption The six-site hexagon maps to a 1D Hubbard chain with periodic boundary conditions in the chosen site numbering.
    Section II, text after Fig. 1, used for the JW simplification.
  • domain assumption In a fixed-occupancy sector, the Pauli-Z string in the boundary hopping term acts as a global phase (-1)^{Nf-1}.
    Derived in the Appendix, Eq. (A11); valid for fixed Nf.
  • domain assumption The single Slater determinant state has sufficient overlap with the exact ground state for all Nocc and U0 studied.
    Not quantified in the paper; required for IQPE success. Stated in Sections II B 1 and III A.
  • domain assumption The noise model (depolarizing, thermal relaxation, readout) with IBM-calibrated parameters captures the dominant hardware errors.
    Section III B; the paper acknowledges discrepancies between modeled and physical noise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum simulation of the Hubbard model on a graphene hexagon: Strengths of IQPE and noise constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6ABJHHJ

@misc{pith2026250605031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum simulation of the Hubbard model on a graphene hexagon: Strengths of IQPE and noise constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6ABJHHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05031}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computing offers transformative potential for simulating real-world materials, providing a powerful platform to investigate complex quantum systems across quantum chemistry and condensed matter physics. In this work, we leverage this capability to simulate the Hubbard model on a six-site graphene hexagon using Qiskit, employing the Iterative Quantum Phase Estimation (IQPE) and adiabatic evolution algorithms to determine its ground-state properties. Our results show that a single Slater determinant is sufficient to initialize IQPE and accurately recover ground-state energies (GSEs) in small-scale Hubbard systems. In noiseless simulations, IQPE converges within a few iterations to exact GSEs, while adiabatic simulations yield charge and spin densities and correlation functions in excellent agreement with exact diagonalization. However, deploying IQPE and adiabatic evolution on today's noisy quantum hardware remains highly challenging. To investigate these limitations in IQPE, we use the Qiskit Aer simulator with a custom noise model tailored to the characteristics of IBM's real hardware. This model includes realistic depolarizing gate errors, thermal relaxation, and readout noise, allowing us to explore how these factors degrade simulation accuracy. Further, we implement the IQPE algorithm on IBM's ibm_strasbourg and ibm_fez devices for a reduced three-site Hubbard model, enabling direct comparison between simulated and real hardware noise. While ibm_fez runs closely match exact results, discrepancies highlight the gap between modeled and physical noise. This study demonstrates both the IQPE's potential and current limitations for simulating strongly correlated systems under realistic conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Graphene hexagon with six atomic sites labeled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The IQPE algorithm for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Convergence of the GSE as a function of (a) bit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of (a) charge densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The upper panels show the effect of each noise parameter on IQPE estimation of the GSE for a half-filled three-atomic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. GSE as a function of on-site interaction strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Preparing initial state The success of the IQPE algorithm [Fig. 2 ]largely de- pends on the choice of the initial state, as it must have a significant overlap with the target eigenstate of the Hamiltonian being solved, here, the ground state of the Hubbard model. However, achieving a perfect overlap with the ground state is not essential; if the overlap i...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This unitary evolution can be approximated using techniques like Trotterization [55], which breaks down the exponential of the Hamiltonian into a sequence of gates

    Unitary time evolution of the Hubbard model The core of IQPE algorithm involves simulating the time evolution of the system under the Hubbard Hamil- tonian (1), represented by the unitary operatorUH(t) = exp(−iHt). This unitary evolution can be approximated using techniques like Trotterization [55], which breaks down the exponential of the Hamiltonian int...

    work page

  3. [3]

    [37–39])

    IQPE Here, we briefly describe the IQPE algorithm, which has been extensively detailed in many studies (see, e.g., Refs. [37–39]). IQPE is an adaptation of the QPE algo- rithm, widely used in quantum computing for tasks such as solving eigenvalue problems and simulating quantum systems [15, 16, 37]. As shown in Fig. 2, the IQPE algorithm for solving an ei...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Bauer, D

    B. Bauer, D. Wecker, A.J. Millis, M. B. Hastings, and M. 14 Troyer, Hybrid quantum-classical approach to correlated materials, Phys. Rev. X6, 031045 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quan- tum materials science, Chem. Rev.120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands, Proc

    J. Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands, Proc. R. Soc. A276, 238 (1963)

    1963

  8. [8]

    F. H. L. Essler, H. Frahm, F. Göhmann, A. Klümper, and V. E. Korepin,The one-dimensional Hubbard model, (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Numerical studies of the 2D Hubbard model

    D. J. Scalapino, “Numerical studies of the 2D Hubbard model" InHandbook of High-Temperature Superconduc- tivity: Theory and Experiment, (Springer, New York, 2007), pp. 495–526

    2007

  2. [10]

    D. J. Scalapino, A common thread: The pairing inter- action for unconventional superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1383 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    J. P. LeBlanc, A. E. Antipov, F. Becca, I. W. Bulik, G. K.-L. Chan, C.-M. Chung, Y. Deng, M. Ferrero, T. M. Hendersonet al., Solutions of the two-dimensional Hubbard model: benchmarks and results from a wide range of numerical algorithms, Phys. Rev. X5, 041041 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    M. Qin, T. Schäfer, S. Andergassen, P. Corboz, and E. Gull, The Hubbard model: A computational perspective, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.13, 275 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    N. F. Mott, The basis of the electron theory of met- als, with special reference to the transition metals, Proc. Phys. Soc. A62, 416 (1949)

    1949

  6. [14]

    P. A. Lee, From high temperature superconductivity to quantum spin liquid: progress in strong correlation physics, Rep. Prog. Phys.71, 012501 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Yamada, T

    S. Yamada, T. Imamura, and M. Machida, 16.447 TFlops and 159-Billion-dimensional exact-diagonalization for trapped Fermion-Hubbard model on the earth simulator, SC ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing, IEEE, (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group Rev

    U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    E. M. Stoudenmire and S. R. White, Studying two di- mensional systems with the density matrix renormaliza- tion group, arXiv:1105.1374

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Somma, G

    R. Somma, G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Simulating physical phenomena by quantum networks, Phys. Rev. A65, 042323 (2002)

    2002

  11. [19]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, N. Wiebe, B. K. Clark, C. Nayak, and M. Troyer, Solving strongly correlated elec- tron models on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A92, 062318 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress to- wards practical quantum variational algorithms, Phys. Rev. A92, 042303 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Jiang, K

    Z. Jiang, K. J. Sung, K. Kechedzhi, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and S. Boixo, Quantum algorithms to simulate many- body physics of correlated fermions, Phys. Rev. Appl.9, 044036 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Reiner, F

    J.-M. Reiner, F. Wilhelm-Mauch, G. Schön, and M. Marthaler, Finding the ground state of the Hubbard model by variational methods on a quantum computer with gate errors, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 035005 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    C. Cade, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, and S. Stanisic, Strategies for solving the Fermi-Hubbard model on near- term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. B102, 235122 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Cai, Resource estimation for quantum variational sim- ulations of the Hubbard model, Phys

    Z. Cai, Resource estimation for quantum variational sim- ulations of the Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 014059 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Dallaire-Demers, M

    P.-L. Dallaire-Demers, M. Stęchły, J. F. Gonthier, N. T. Bashige, J. Romero, and Y. Cao, An appli- cation benchmark for fermionic quantum simulations, arXiv:2003.01862

    2003 arXiv

  18. [26]

    B. A. Martin, P. Simon, and M. J. Rančić, Simulating strongly interacting Hubbard chains with the variational Hamiltonian ansatz on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Research4, 023190 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    B. T. Gard and A. M. Meier, A classically efficient quan- tum scalable Fermi-Hubbard benchmark, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042602 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Stanisic, J

    S. Stanisic, J. L. Bosse, F. M. Gambetta, R. A. Santos, W. Mruczkiewicz, T. E. O’Brien, E. Ostby, and A. Mon- tanaro, Observing ground-state properties of the Fermi- Hubbard model using a scalable algorithm on a quantum computer, Nat. Commun.13, 5743 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Ayral, P

    T. Ayral, P. Besserve, D. Lacroix, and E. A. R. Guzman, Quantum computing with and for many-body physics, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 227 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Alexeev, M

    Y. Alexeev, M. Amsler, M. A. Barroca,et al., Quantum- centric supercomputing for materials science: A perspec- tive on challenges and future directions, Future Genera- tion Computer Systems160, 666 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, J. Ten- nyson, The Variational Quantum Eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep.986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Blekos, D

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, A. Summer, A review on Quantum Approx- imate Optimization Algorithm and its variants, Phys. Rep.1068, 1 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, (CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge, UK, 2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    A. Yu. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem, arXiv:quant-ph/9511026

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Simulation of many-body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 2586 (1997)

    1997

  30. [38]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm provid- ing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 5162 (1999)

    1999

  31. [39]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies, Science309, 1704 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    J. D. Whitfield, J. Biamonte, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Sim- ulation of electronic structure Hamiltonians using quan- tum computers, Mol. Phys.109, 735 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Parker and M

    S. Parker and M. B. Plenio, Efficient factorization with a single pure qubit andlogNmixed qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 3049 (2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    Dobšíček, G

    M. Dobšíček, G. Johansson, V. Shumeiko, and G. Wendin, Arbitrary accuracy iterative quantum phase es- timation algorithm using a single ancillary qubit: A two- 15 qubit benchmark, Phys. Rev. A76, 030306(R) (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    Xiu-Mei, L

    L. Xiu-Mei, L. Jun, and S. Xian-Ping, Experimental re- alization of arbitrary accuracy iterative phase estima- tion algorithms on ensemble quantum computers, Chi- nese Phys. Lett.24, 3316 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    Qiskit, https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/guides

  37. [45]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Na- tion, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit, arXiv:2405.08810

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    IBM Quantum Platform, https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/

  39. [47]

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, The rise of graphene , Nat. Mater.6, 183 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Fernández-Rossier and J

    J. Fernández-Rossier and J. J. Palacios, Magnetism in graphene nanoislands, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 177204 (2007)

    2007

  42. [50]

    A. V. Rozhkov, G. Giavaras, Y. P. Bliokh, V. Frei- likher, and F. Nori, Electronic properties of mesoscopic graphene structures: Charge confinement and control of spin and charge transport, Phys. Rep.503, 77 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    O. V. Yazyev, Emergence of magnetism in graphene ma- terials and nanostructures, Rep. Prog. Phys.73, 056501 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    A. D. Güçlü, P. Potasz, M. Korkusinski, and P. Hawry- lak, Graphene quantum dots, (Springer, Berlin Heidel- berg 2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    D. G. de Oteyza and T. Frederiksen, Carbon-based nanostructures as a versatile platform for tunableπ- magnetism, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter34, 443001 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Ortiz, J

    G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Quantum algorithms for fermionic simulations, Phys. Rev. A64, 022319 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K. -L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Quan- tum simulation of electronic structure with linear depth and connectivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 110501 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lund- gren, and D. Preda, A quantum adiabatic evolution al- gorithm applied to random instances of an NP-complete problem, Science292, 472 (2001)

    2001

  49. [57]

    Qiskit Nature, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7828767v

    doi

  50. [58]

    Findingexponentialprod- uct formulas of higher orders

    N.HatanoandMasuoSuzuki, “Findingexponentialprod- uct formulas of higher orders" InQuantum annealing and other optimization methods, (Springer, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 2005) pp. 37-68

    2005

  51. [59]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Über das Paulische Äquivalen- zverbot, Z. Phys. A.47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  52. [60]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, QuSpin: a Python package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems. Part II: bosons, fermions and higher spins, SciPost Phys.7, 020 (2019)·

    2019

Pith tools

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