Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Simulating the Antiferromagnetic Heisenberg Model on a Spin-Frustrated Kagome Lattice with the Contextual Subspace Variational Quantum Eigensolver

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 five-qubit subspace, biased by a cheap classical wavefunction, preserves the exact ground-state energy of a 12-site frustrated spin model, and noisy quantum hardware finds it to within 0.019%.

desk verdict Solid algorithmic demonstration of DMRG-biased contextual subspace VQE on a frustrated Kagome cell, but the headline 0.019% hardware error rests on an unvalidated three-parameter ZNE fit to four points. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12391 v1 pith:AKBRUSGU submitted 2025-06-14 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Tim Weaving , Alexis Ralli , Vinul Wimalaweera , Peter J. Love , Peter V. Coveney This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el MSC 81P6882B20 PACS 03.67.-a75.10.Jm
keywords KagomelatticeantiferromagneticHeisenbergmodelquantumspinliquidcontextualsubspacevariationaleigensolverzeronoiseextrapolationdensitymatrixrenormalizationgroupsymmetryverification
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 a classical-to-quantum workflow can probe a frustrated quantum magnet on today's noisy hardware. It takes the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on a 12-site Kagome star, whose exact ground-state energy is $E_0=-18$, and compresses it, first by exact qubit tapering and then by a contextual-subspace projection biased with low-bond-dimension density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) wavefunctions, into a 5-qubit Hamiltonian whose ground-state energy is still exactly $-18$. Running a variational quantum eigensolver on a superconducting device, with readout correction, symmetry postselection, and zero-noise extrapolation, the paper reports a relative energy error of $0.019\%$. If this holds, a frustrated spin system, a candidate quantum spin liquid, can be probed accurately on a near-term device rather than only in classical simulation.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the contextual subspace projection, which generalizes qubit tapering: a set of independent, commuting near-Pauli stabilizers is chosen, a Clifford rotation maps each stabilizer to a single qubit, those qubits are traced out, and one obtains a smaller Hamiltonian whose sector is fixed by a classically chosen sign vector. The stabilizers are identified through the symplectic representation of the Pauli group, where commutation becomes a binary inner product and approximate symmetries are ranked by a weighted commutation score. A low-bond-dimension DMRG wavefunction is used to bias this selection, so the ground-state sector survives the projection even as higher levels compress. The resulting 5-qubit Hamiltonian is noncontextual, expressible in terms of symmetry generators and two anticommuting clique representatives, and the paper constructs a fully expressible six-parameter ansatz from this decomposition. Error mitigation is carried by readout correction, symmetry postselection on $\sigma^{(0)}_z$, and zero-noise extrapolation with an exponential fit $f(\lambda;\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=e^{\alpha\lambda}e^{\beta}+\gamma$ over noise factors $\lambda=1,2,3,4$.

What would settle it

Repeat the same 5-qubit VQE energy estimate with a different noise-scaling method, such as identity insertion, and compare the zero-noise extrapolated energy to $-18$; a shift larger than the reported standard deviations would show that the exponential extrapolation, not the physics, is responsible for the $0.019\%$ accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the contextual subspace method, when its stabilizers are biased by a low-bond-dimension DMRG wavefunction, preserves the exact ground-state energy of the 12-site Kagome Heisenberg model while reducing the problem from 12 to 5 qubits. The reduced Hamiltonian of Eq. (15) is noncontextual, so its ground state can be searched by a shallow six-parameter ansatz. On superconducting hardware, combining readout error mitigation, symmetry verification, and exponential zero-noise extrapolation yields an estimated zero-noise energy whose relative error is $0.019\%$ with respect to $E_0=-18$, compared with $1.210\%$ when symmetry verification is omitted. The paper also recovers the pinwheel singlet pattern in the spin-spin mutual information, matching the exact ground state apart from weak couplings at two sites.

Load-bearing premise

The headline accuracy depends on the empirical assumption that device noise, after amplification by the folding parameter, follows the exponential curve used for zero-noise extrapolation; if the true noise curve is not exponential, the extrapolated energy is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 12-site frustrated spin system can be compressed to 5 qubits without changing its ground-state energy, making it addressable by circuits that fit comfortably on current hardware.
  • The combination of readout correction, symmetry postselection, and zero-noise extrapolation reduces the hardware energy error from $1.210\%$ to $0.019\%$ relative to the exact value.
  • Because the 5-qubit circuit can be tiled three times on a 16-qubit device, the same shot budget gives three times as many samples and averages over spatially varying noise.
  • The recovered spin-spin mutual information reproduces the pinwheel singlet pattern of the exact ground state, with only small deviations at two couplings.
  • The same pipeline could be applied to other frustrated lattices, provided a classical wavefunction of modest fidelity is available to bias the subspace selection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the exact ground-state preservation is special to the 12-site cell and its DMRG-biased stabilizers, scaling to larger Kagome cells will require accepting near-noncontextual models and trading a small energy bias for the qubit reduction.
  • The zero-noise extrapolation assumption is testable beyond the four points used here; fitting more noise factors or a second extrapolation form would reveal whether the $0.019\%$ error bar is dominated by the fitting form.
  • A stronger check of the prepared quantum state would compare additional observables, such as individual spin-spin correlations, against exact diagonalization, since matching the energy alone is a weaker test than matching the full mutual-information pattern.
  • The same DMRG-biased stabilizer selection could be deployed as a classical pre-screening tool to decide, before any quantum run, which qubit reductions are safe for a given frustrated lattice.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Contextual Subspace Variational Quantum Eigensolver to the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on a 12-site Kagome star, reducing the problem to a 5-qubit Hamiltonian (Eq. 15) whose ground-state energy is claimed to coincide exactly with the full system's E0=-18. The stabilizer selection is biased by low-bond-dimension DMRG wavefunctions via an approximate-symmetry extraction algorithm. The authors then run VQE with a six-parameter ansatz on ibmq_guadalupe, using readout error mitigation, symmetry verification, and zero-noise extrapolation, and report a final energy error of 0.019%. The central claims are that the contextual subspace exactly preserves the target ground state and that the full classical-to-quantum workflow produces a quantitatively accurate estimate on NISQ hardware.

Significance. If the hardware error estimate is substantiated, the paper provides a meaningful demonstration of contextual-subspace VQE applied to a condensed-matter problem, with a complete pipeline from classical DMRG-biased subspace selection through tiled circuit execution to error-mitigated energy estimation. The core subspace construction is directly checkable: Eq. (15) is explicit, and the exact-diagonalization spectra in Fig. 4a support the ground-state preservation claim. The DMRG bias is independent classical data, so there is no circularity in the subspace construction. The main weakness is that the headline 0.019% result depends on a three-parameter exponential zero-noise extrapolation from only four points, without validation or uncertainty quantification; this is a load-bearing issue for the quantitative hardware claim but is fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (21), Table I] The headline relative error of 0.019% is the lambda->0 intercept of a three-parameter exponential fit f(lambda)=e^(alpha*lambda)e^beta+gamma through only four noise-amplified points (lambda=1,...,4). The paper neither validates the exponential noise model nor reports residuals, an alternative-model comparison, or a confidence interval on the intercept. Because the lambda=1 REM+SV estimate is already -17.99325, a 0.0375% error, the factor-of-two improvement to 0.019% is produced entirely by the assumed functional form. To support the central hardware claim, the authors should report the raw converged data, residual plots, a noiseless statevector-simulator energy at the optimal variational parameters, and uncertainty quantification for the zero-noise intercept (e.g., bootstrap resampling or comparisons with polynomial/linear fits).
  2. [Section III.3, Eq. (20)] The noise-scaling scheme replaces each CNOT with H(t) [product over n=1..lambda of CPhase(pi/lambda)] H(t), and each CPhase is subsequently transpiled into two CNOTs. The lambda=1 data therefore already contain four CNOTs per original CNOT, and the formal lambda->0 limit corresponds to removing the CPhase block entirely, i.e., to a different logical circuit with the CNOT replaced by identity. The exponential extrapolation may thus be fitting a family of circuits rather than estimating the zero-noise expectation value of the native ansatz. The authors should either adopt a noise-scaling method that preserves the logical circuit for all lambda (e.g., unitary folding of the whole circuit) or explicitly account for the constant decomposition overhead in the noise model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, first paragraph] The device name is misspelled as "ibm_quadalupe"; it should be "ibmq_guadalupe".
  2. [Section IIB2 heading] The heading reads "Densitry Matrix Renormalization Group"; this should be "Density Matrix Renormalization Group".
  3. [Section III, optimizer description] The text says the CG optimizer "aims to minimize the energy and parameter gradient"; a gradient is not a scalar objective, so the sentence should be rephrased as "minimize the energy and drive the gradient norm to zero."
  4. [Section III, BFGS citation] The name "Broy-den" in the text should be "Broyden" (as in Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno).
  5. [Section IV, Figure 8] The comparison of spin couplings is made between the 5-qubit VQE wavefunction and the 12-site exact ground state, but the paper never specifies how the contextual-subspace state is embedded back into the full 12-qubit Hilbert space (the inverse of the stabilizer projection and Clifford rotations); without this map the mutual-information plot is not reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reduced Hamiltonian is verified by exact diagonalization, the DMRG bias is an independent classical input, and the ZNE fit is made to device noise, not to the target energy.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The 5-qubit contextual subspace Hamiltonian H_CS (Eq. 15) is obtained by applying the stabilizer heuristic of Secs. IIB1-IIB2 with a low-bond DMRG wavefunction as bias; it is not constructed from the target energy. The exact preservation of E0 = -18 is a posteriori verified by exact diagonalization (Fig. 4a) across CS[9q] through CS[5q], and the DMRG input is an independent classical calculation (Fig. 3) with only about 27.1% ground-space overlap at D_max=17, so the subspace quality is not forced by the claim. The VQE ansatz (Eq. 18) is checked against the noncontextual spectrum, and the hardware energy after REM+SV+ZNE is obtained from noisy expectation values at lambda in {1,2,3,4} (Table I); the exponential fit (Eq. 21) has parameters fitted to device noise, not to E0, so the 0.019% estimate is not encoded in the inputs. The paper's self-citations to prior Contextual Subspace work [8-12] supply methodology and code (symmer) rather than the Kagome result, so they are not load-bearing. The main weakness, an unvalidated exponential noise model with no confidence interval, is a statistical and correctness risk, not a circularity.

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

The central exact-reduction claim rests on established stabilizer and contextual subspace theory plus a DMRG bias heuristic. The headline experimental number rests mainly on the unvalidated exponential ZNE model and the chosen noise amplification schedule.

free parameters (5)
  • ZNE exponential fit parameters alpha, beta, gamma = not reported
    Three parameters fitted to four noise-amplified energy estimates (Table I) via weighted least squares; they determine the extrapolated 0.019% energy error.
  • Noise amplification factors lambda = 1, 2, 3, 4
    Chosen by hand; the quality and validity of the ZNE extrapolation depend on this set.
  • DMRG maximum bond dimension Dmax = 17
    Chosen as a low-cost bias; with Dmax = 17 the average overlap is 27.1%, and the stabilizer selection depends on this choice.
  • Approximate-symmetry threshold epsilon = not stated
    The weight w_n in Eq 12 must be thresholded to select stabilizers, but no explicit epsilon value is given.
  • Variational parameters theta_0 through theta_5 = not reported
    Optimized on hardware with BFGS/CG; the final parameter values are not given, so the energy result cannot be independently reconstructed.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Z2 symmetries of a Pauli Hamiltonian can be tapered off via Clifford rotation with exact spectrum preservation.
    Section IIA relies on stabilizer formalism and prior tapering results [18-20].
  • domain assumption Projecting onto a stabilizer subspace generated by approximate symmetries yields a valid reduced Hamiltonian whose ground state approximates the original.
    Core of Section IIB, carried over from the contextual subspace literature [8-10].
  • domain assumption The correct symmetry sector nu can be found by solving a noncontextual hidden-variable model classically.
    Section IIB3 relies on the definitions and results of Kirby and Love [28,29].
  • ad hoc to paper Noise-amplified expectation values follow f(lambda) = e^(alpha*lambda)e^beta + gamma and extrapolate to the zero-noise value.
    Eq 21; this exponential form is not validated in this paper and directly determines the 0.019% result.
  • domain assumption Tensored readout error mitigation is valid because readout errors are sufficiently uncorrelated across qubits.
    Section III.1 cites prior validation [42], but correlation levels are not verified for ibmq_guadalupe in this work.
  • domain assumption A low bond dimension DMRG wavefunction with Dmax = 17 is a useful reference for stabilizer selection.
    Section IIB2; if the overlap with the ground space were much lower, the chosen stabilizers could fail to preserve E0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating the Antiferromagnetic Heisenberg Model on a Spin-Frustrated Kagome Lattice with the Contextual Subspace Variational Quantum Eigensolver." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AKBRUSGU

@misc{pith2026250612391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating the Antiferromagnetic Heisenberg Model on a Spin-Frustrated Kagome Lattice with the Contextual Subspace Variational Quantum Eigensolver},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AKBRUSGU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12391}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we investigate the ground state properties of a candidate quantum spin liquid using a superconducting Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) device. Specifically, we study the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on a Kagome lattice, a geometrically frustrated structure that gives rise to a highly degenerate energy spectrum. To successfully simulate this system, we employ a qubit reduction strategy leveraging the Contextual Subspace methodology, significantly reducing the problem size prior to execution on the quantum device. We improve the quality of these subspaces by using the wavefunctions obtained from low bond dimension Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG) calculations to bias the subspace stabilizers through a symplectic approximate symmetry generator extraction algorithm. Reducing the Hamiltonian size allows us to implement tiled circuit ensembles and deploy the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) to estimate the ground state energy. We adopt a hybrid quantum error mitigation strategy combining Readout Error Mitigation (REM), Symmetry Verification (SV) and Zero Noise Extrapolation (ZNE). This approach yields high-accuracy energy estimates, achieving error rates on the order of 0.01% and thus demonstrating the potential of near-term quantum devices for probing frustrated quantum materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12391 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a, where the parametrized circuit Uλ(θ) contains 2λ CPhase gates, noting upon transpilation each CPhase will be mapped onto a pair of CNOTs, resulting in 4λ CNOT gates. After evaluating several noise-amplified expectation values Eλ(θ) = ⟨0|Uλ(θ) †HCSUλ(θ)|0⟩ for a set …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Utility-Scale Quantum Computation of Ground-State Energy in a 100+ Site Planar Kagome Antiferromagnet via Hamiltonian Engineering

    quant-ph 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 103-qubit IBM experiment yields a kagome antiferromagnet energy per site of -0.417J, boundary-corrected to -0.4386J, but the Hamiltonian was engineered and the couplings were fitted to exact small-system energies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (6) In other words, x, z track σx,σz factors in the Pauli string σ, i.e

    Identifying Approximate Z2-type Symmetries in the Symplectic Representation In the symplectic representation, a Pauli operator or string σ =⨂N−1 n=0 σ(n) where σ(n)∈{I,σx,σy,σz} indi- cates the Pauli matrix acting in each qubit position can be identified with a pair of binary vectorsx, z of length N such that xn = { 1, σ (n)∈{σx,σy} 0, σ (n)∈{I,σz} ,zn = ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Biasing Contextual Subspace Stabilizer Selection with the Densitry Matrix Renormalization Group In the previous Section IIB1 we provided an algorithm for identifying approximateZ2-type symmetries for some input operator. We now demonstrate how this can be used to select the stabilizers S that define a particu- lar contextual subspace, motivated by an appr...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Effective Noncontextual Hamiltonian for the Kagome Lattice Heisenberg Model With the goal of preparing the Kagome lattice ground state on a quantum computer, we choose to simulate a 5-qubit contextual subspace Hamiltonian whose spec- trum may be viewed in Figure 4a. This choice was made so that we may tile three concurrent circuit instances across the 16 ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    tensored

    Readout Error Mitigation Readout Error Mitigation (REM) focuses on rectify- ing errors that occur due to the measurement process in quantum experiments, treating earlier circuit opera- tions as a black box. To address scalability challenges in constructing full assignment/transition matrices for large qubit systems, a “tensored” approach that esti- mates ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Commuting operators share a common eigenbasis, so for a symmetry S of a Hamiltonian H, meaning [H,S ] = 0, ifH|ψ⟩ =E|ψ⟩ then we must also 8 haveS|ψ⟩ =s|ψ⟩ for some eigenvalues ofS

    Symmetry Verification In Symmetry Verification (SV) we discard quantum measurements that violate some known symmetry of the system [45–47]. Commuting operators share a common eigenbasis, so for a symmetry S of a Hamiltonian H, meaning [H,S ] = 0, ifH|ψ⟩ =E|ψ⟩ then we must also 8 haveS|ψ⟩ =s|ψ⟩ for some eigenvalues ofS. In the case of Z2-type symmetry, we ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    zero-noise

    Zero Noise Extrapolation The idea underpinning Zero Noise Extrapolation (ZNE) is that, if we can controllably introduce noise into a quantum system, we can analyze its behaviour and make some inference on what the experimentally impen- etrable “zero-noise” regime looks like. We can amplify noise arising from some selection of gates in a quantum circuit, f...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, nature 464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Nikolić and T

    P. Nikolić and T. Senthil, Theory of the kagome lattice ising antiferromagnet in weak transverse fields, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics71, 024401 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Matan, T

    K. Matan, T. Ono, Y. Fukumoto, T. J. Sato, J. Yamaura, M. Yano, K. Morita, and H. Tanaka, Pinwheel valence- bond solid and triplet excitations in the two-dimensional deformed kagome lattice, Nature Physics6, 865 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    T.-H. Han, J. S. Helton, S. Chu, D. G. Nocera, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, C. Broholm, and Y. S. Lee, Fraction- alized excitations in the spin-liquid state of a kagome- lattice antiferromagnet, Nature492, 406 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature communications5, 1 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    J. L. Bosse and A. Montanaro, Probing ground-state properties of the kagome antiferromagnetic heisenberg model using the variational quantum eigensolver, Physi- cal Review B105, 094409 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Kattemölle and J

    J. Kattemölle and J. Van Wezel, Variational quantum eigensolver for the heisenberg antiferromagnet on the kagome lattice, Physical Review B106, 214429 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    W. M. Kirby, A. Tranter, and P. J. Love, Contextual subspace variational quantum eigensolver, Quantum 5, 456 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Weaving, A

    T. Weaving, A. Ralli, W. M. Kirby, A. Tranter, P. J. Love, and P. V. Coveney, A stabilizer framework for the contextual subspace variational quantum eigensolver and the noncontextual projection ansatz, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation19, 808 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Ralli, T

    A. Ralli, T. Weaving, A. Tranter, W. M. Kirby, P. J. Love, and P. V. Coveney, Unitary partitioning and the contextual subspace variational quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013095 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Weaving, A

    T. Weaving, A. Ralli, W. M. Kirby, P. J. Love, S. Succi, and P. V. Coveney, Benchmarking noisy intermediate scale quantum error mitigation strategies for ground state preparation of the hcl molecule, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 43054 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Weaving, A

    T. Weaving, A. Ralli, P. J. Love, S. Succi, and P. V. Coveney, Contextual subspace variational quantum eigensolver calculation of the dissociation curve of molec- ular nitrogen on a superconducting quantum computer, npj Quantum Information11, 25 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Liang, Z

    Z. Liang, Z. Song, J. Cheng, H. Ren, T. Hao, R. Yang, Y. Shi, and T. Li, Spacepulse: Combining parameterized pulses and contextual subspace for more practical vqe, arXiv preprint (2023), 2311.17423

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kiser, M

    M. Kiser, M. Beuerle, and F. Šimkovic IV, Contextual subspace auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo: Improved bias with reduced quantum resources, Journal of Chem- ical Theory and Computation21, 2256 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Yao and H

    Q. Yao and H. Li, Quantum inspired excited states cal- culations for molecules based on contextual subspace and symmetry optimizations, arXiv preprint (2025), 2502.17932

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T. M. Bickley, A. Mingare, T. Weaving, M. W. de la Bastida, S. Wan, M. Nibbi, P. Seitz, A. Ralli, P. J. Love, M.Chung, et al.,Extendingquantumcomputingthrough subspace, embedding and classical molecular dynamics techniques, arXiv preprint (2025), 2505.16796

    2025

  15. [23]

    Weaving, A

    T. Weaving, A. Ralli, P. J. Love, S. Succi, and P. V. Coveney, Accurately simulating the time evolution of an ising model with echo verified clifford data regression on a superconducting quantum computer, Quantum9, 1732 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Bravyi, J

    S. Bravyi, J. M. Gambetta, A. Mezzacapo, and K. Temme, Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic Hamiltonians, arXiv preprint (2017), arXiv:1701.08213

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Setia, R

    K. Setia, R. Chen, J. E. Rice, A. Mezzacapo, M. Pistoia, and J. D. Whitfield, Reducing qubit requirements for quantum simulations using molecular point group sym- metries, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 6091 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (California Institute of Technology, 1997) quant- ph/9705052

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (California Institute of Technology, 1997) quant- ph/9705052

    1997

  19. [27]

    Peres, Incompatible results of quantum measure- ments, Physics Letters A151, 107 (1990)

    A. Peres, Incompatible results of quantum measure- ments, Physics Letters A151, 107 (1990)

    1990

  20. [28]

    N. D. Mermin, Simple unified form for the major no- hidden-variables theorems, Physical review letters 65, 3373 (1990)

    1990

  21. [29]

    N. D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of john bell, Reviews of Modern Physics65, 803 (1993)

    1993

  22. [30]

    R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparations, trans- formations, and unsharp measurements, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics71, 052108 (2005). 12

    2005

  23. [31]

    R. W. Spekkens, Evidence for the epistemic view of quan- tum states: A toy theory, Physical Review A75, 032110 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    R. W. Spekkens, Negativity and contextuality are equiv- alent notions of nonclassicality, Physical review letters 101, 020401 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    R. W. Spekkens, Quasi-quantization: Classical statisti- cal theories with an epistemic restriction, in Quantum Theory: Informational Foundations and Foils(Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2016) pp. 83–135

    2016

  26. [34]

    W. M. Kirby and P. J. Love, Contextuality test of the nonclassicalityofvariationalquantumeigensolvers,Phys- ical review letters123, 200501 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    W. M. Kirby and P. J. Love, Classical simulation of non- contextual pauli Hamiltonians, Physical Review A102, 032418 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Bermejo-Vega, E. Tyhurst, C. Okay, and M. Zurel, Phase-space-simulation method for quan- tum computation with magic states on qubits, Physical Review A 101, 012350 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Ralli and T

    A. Ralli and T. Weaving, symmer,https://github.com/ UCL-CCS/symmer (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Gray, quimb: a python library for quantum informa- tionandmany-bodycalculations,JournalofOpenSource Software 3, 819 (2018)

    J. Gray, quimb: a python library for quantum informa- tionandmany-bodycalculations,JournalofOpenSource Software 3, 819 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    A. F. Izmaylov, T.-C. Yen, R. A. Lang, and V. Vertelet- skyi, Unitary partitioning approach to the measurement problem in the variational quantum eigensolver method, Journal of chemical theory and computation 16, 190 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    M. S. ANISet al., Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Verteletskyi, T.-C

    V. Verteletskyi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, Measure- ment optimization in the variational quantum eigensolver using a minimum clique cover, The Journal of chemical physics 152, 124114 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    T.-C. Yen, V. Verteletskyi, and A. F. Izmaylov, Measur- ing all compatible operators in one series of single-qubit measurements using unitary transformations, Journal of chemical theory and computation16, 2400 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    A. Zhao, A. Tranter, W. M. Kirby, S. F. Ung, A. Miyake, and P. J. Love, Measurement reduction in variational quantum algorithms, Physical Review A 101, 062322 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Fletcher,Practical methods of optimization(John Wi- ley & Sons, 2013)

    R. Fletcher,Practical methods of optimization(John Wi- ley & Sons, 2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    M. R. Hestenes, E. Stiefel,et al., Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems, Vol. 49 (NBS Wash- ington, DC, 1952)

    1952

  38. [46]

    Virtanenet al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nature Methods17, 261 (2020)

    P. Virtanenet al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nature Methods17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    R. M. Parrish, E. G. Hohenstein, P. L. McMahon, and T. J. Martinez, Hybrid quantum/classical derivative the- ory: Analytical gradients and excited-state dynamics for the multistate contracted variational quantum eigen- solver, arXiv preprint (2019), 1906.08728

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    P. D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gambetta, Scalable mitigation of measurement errors on quantum computers, PRX Quantum2, 040326 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Bravyi, S

    S. Bravyi, S. Sheldon, A. Kandala, D. C. Mckay, and J. M. Gambetta, Mitigating measurement errors in mul- tiqubit experiments, Physical Review A 103, 042605 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    van den Berg, Z

    E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, and K. Temme, Model-free readout-error mitigation for quantum expectation values, Physical Review A105, 032620 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Bonet-Monroig, R

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. O’Brien, Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry ver- ification, Physical Review A98, 062339 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    McArdle, X

    S. McArdle, X. Yuan, and S. Benjamin, Error-mitigated digital quantum simulation, Physical review letters122, 180501 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Cai, Quantum error mitigation using symmetry ex- pansion, Quantum 5, 548 (2021)

    Z. Cai, Quantum error mitigation using symmetry ex- pansion, Quantum 5, 548 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Li and S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization, Phys- ical Review X7, 021050 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error miti- gation for short-depth quantum circuits, Physical review letters 119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Practical quan- tum error mitigation for near-future applications, Physi- cal Review X8, 031027 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. Córcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitigation ex- tends the computational reach of a noisy quantum pro- cessor, Nature 567, 491 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation, in2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)(IEEE,

  51. [59]

    A. He, B. Nachman, W. A. de Jong, and C. W. Bauer, Zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate error mitiga- tion with identity insertions, Physical Review A 102, 012426 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    A. Mari, N. Shammah, and W. J. Zeng, Extending quantum probabilistic error cancellation by noise scaling, Physical Review A104, 052607 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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