Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 43 references

The effect of Quantum Time Crystal Computing to Quantum Machine Learning methods

T0 review · 5 major / 7 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 claims that deliberately injecting rotation noise through a Floquet time-crystal Hamiltonian improves the test accuracy of quantum neural networks and variational quantum Kolmogorov-Arnold networks, and treats this as evidence…

desk verdict The paper reports a new but uncontrolled numerical comparison: QTCC beats noiseless propagation on two fitting tasks at trial 15, but the claim that noise helps QML is not supported as presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12788 v1 pith:TZQT7Q23 submitted 2025-06-15 quant-ph

Hikaru Wakaura , Andriyan B. Suksmono This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords quantumtimecrystalcomputingcrystalsFloquetHamiltonianmachinelearningneuralnetworkreservoirvariationalKolmogorov-Arnoldnoise-inducedaccuracyimprovement
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 controlled noise from a time-crystal phase can improve the accuracy of some quantum machine learning methods. It implements Quantum Time Crystal Computing (QTCC) as a Floquet Hamiltonian whose noise term is a rotation error with standard deviation 1/3, and compares QTCC against noiseless time propagation on three tasks. The result is mixed: QTCC worsens echo generation in quantum reservoir computing, but lowers the sum of absolute test errors in function fitting from 18.6153 to 9.5243 for a quantum neural network and from 22.1747 to 10.4943 for a variational quantum Kolmogorov-Arnold network. The paper presents this as evidence that noise can be a resource for quantum machine learning and as a possible step toward quantum error mitigation. A sympathetic reader would care because the result challenges the default assumption that noise is always the enemy of quantum computation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Floquet Hamiltonian of a discrete time crystal, $$H = \begin{cases} \sum_{j=0}^{N} 0.5(1-d) X_j & (0 \le t \bmod 2T \le T),\\ H_1 & (T < t \bmod 2T \le 2T), \end{cases}$$ where $H_1$ contains an all-to-all Ising interaction and rotation noise on the parameters, $\theta_i = \theta^0_i + \theta^r_i \, \mathrm{Err}(0,1/3)$, with $d=0.001$. QTCC runs the system through alternating coherent and noisy periods rather than trying to remove the noise. For QRC the learned filter is $W = V^{-1} y$ and predictions are $\tilde{y} = V W$; for QNN and VQKAN the coefficients of $H_1$ are the trainable parameters, optimized by CMA-ES. A protocol detail that distinguishes the QTCC runs is that each loss point is evaluated 10 times and averaged, whereas the noiseless runs are not averaged in this way.

What would settle it

Run the same QNN and VQKAN function-fitting protocol with the QTCC Hamiltonian but set the rotation-noise standard deviation to 0 while keeping the 10-fold loss averaging; if the sum of absolute test distances returns to roughly 18.6 and 22.2, the reported improvement comes from evaluating each loss point ten times rather than from time-crystal noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that Quantum Time Crystal Computing changes quantum machine learning accuracy in a task-dependent way: it degrades echo generation in quantum reservoir computing (average loss 35.4215 vs 14.4402 for noiseless propagation) but improves function fitting by a quantum neural network (sum of absolute test distances 9.5243 vs 18.6153) and by a variational quantum Kolmogorov-Arnold network (10.4943 vs 22.1747). The paper interprets this as evidence that rotational noise can improve the accuracy of quantum machine learning, and it proposes QTCC as a step toward quantum error mitigation. The proposed mechanism is that the noise turns each loss point into a random variable, so the sum of averaged losses can fall below the noiseless value.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes QTCC and noiseless runs differ only by the controlled time-crystal noise, but the QTCC protocol additionally evaluates each loss point ten times and averages the losses, while the noiseless protocol does not, so the repeated-loss averaging alone could explain the smaller QTCC errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QTCC can be added to existing variational quantum machine learning pipelines without changing the network architecture, since it only changes how the Hamiltonian noise term is generated.
  • The QRC results imply that reservoir-style quantum machine learning must be adapted before it can benefit from time-crystal noise; running it unmodified makes predictions worse.
  • Because the noiseless loss curves fall gradually, the advantage of QTCC may shrink or reverse with more optimization trials, as the paper itself notes.
  • A successful demonstration on more than one problem is needed before QTCC can be called a general quantum error mitigation technique.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 10-fold loss averaging in QTCC is a confound: if repeated evaluation alone reduces variance, the observed accuracy gain may be a Monte Carlo averaging effect rather than a property of time-crystal order, and a matched equal-evaluation comparison would separate the two.
  • One testable extension would sweep the noise standard deviation, for instance 0, 1/6, 1/3, 2/3, and 1, and look for a non-monotonic accuracy peak; the paper only tests one noise level.
  • If the benefit is real, a classical analogue by injecting rotation-like noise into classical neural network optimization would predict similar improvements, connecting the result to known noise-regularization effects in classical machine learning.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Quantum Time Crystal Computing (QTCC), a method in which a time-crystal Floquet Hamiltonian is supplemented with controlled rotation noise, and applies it to three quantum machine learning tasks: echo generation with Quantum Reservoir Computing (QRC), function fitting with a Quantum Neural Network (QNN), and function fitting with a Variational Quantum Kolmogorov-Arnold Network (VQKAN). The numerical results in Section III show that QTCC worsens QRC performance (average loss 35.4215 vs 14.4402 in Table I) but improves QNN and VQKAN prediction accuracy (sum of absolute distances 9.5243 and 10.4943 vs 18.6153 and 22.1747 in Table II). The authors interpret this as evidence that controlled time-crystal noise can improve quantum machine learning and as a potential milestone for quantum error mitigation.

Significance. If established, the claim that a specific, physically motivated noise mechanism improves the accuracy of variational quantum learning would be an interesting and nonobvious result, and the paper's emphasis on time-crystal coherence is a plausible route to explore. The paper does provide quantitative tables and figures rather than only qualitative statements, and it explicitly acknowledges in the concluding remarks that only one problem was solved. However, the evidence is currently too preliminary and methodologically confounded to support the broad claim: it rests on a single toy target, a small number of attempts (10), no error bars or statistical tests, a comparison that differs in how loss evaluations are aggregated, and an explicit admission that the noiseless baselines may overtake the QTCC results after further optimization. The methods themselves also rely on the authors' own unpublished preprints, which limits independent verification.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Table II, Fig. 3] The comparison between QTCC and noiseless propagation is not protocol-matched: the manuscript states in Section II that for QTCC "the loss function of each point is calculated 10 times," while no such averaging is described for the noiseless arm. This means the two arms differ not only in the presence of time-crystal noise but also in the number of loss evaluations used to form the optimizer's objective. The reported advantage in Table II (9.5243 and 10.4943 vs 18.6153 and 22.1747) could therefore be due to variance reduction from repeated loss evaluation rather than to the time-crystal noise. To support the central claim, the authors must include a noiseless arm with the same 10-fold averaging, or a QTCC arm without averaging, and show that the advantage persists.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 3] The claimed improvement is evaluated at trial 15, yet the authors themselves write that the noiseless losses "lower gradually, hence, the values may be smaller than those of case (c) and (d) after the trials." This is a direct admission that the observed ordering may not persist at convergence. A claim that noise improves accuracy requires demonstrating that the advantage is stable over the optimization trajectory or at least that the reported budget reflects a reasonable stopping point. As it stands, the result is compatible with QTCC merely accelerating early optimization rather than improving the final achievable accuracy.
  3. [Section III, Tables I and II, Figs. 4-13] The paper reports averages over 10 attempts but provides no error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical tests for the QNN/VQKAN comparisons, despite the QTCC arm being stochastic (Gaussian rotation noise) and the optimizer (CMA-ES) also being stochastic. The observed differences in Table II could be within the range of run-to-run and optimizer variance. The authors should report the distribution of the sum of absolute distances across independent seeds, and ideally a paired statistical test, before drawing any conclusion about accuracy improvement.
  4. [Section III, Eq. (3)] The entire positive claim rests on a single target function, f_aim(x) = exp(sin(x0^2+x1^2)+sin(x2^2+x3^2)), with one set of hyperparameters (2 layers, T=10, Nq=4, and the specific Hamiltonian Z0Z1+Z2Z3). This is too narrow to support the abstract's general statement that QTCC "improved the accuracy of Quantum Neural Network and Variational Quantum Kolmogorov-Arnold Network." The concluding remark partially acknowledges this, but the abstract and introduction present the result as a general finding. Additional tasks and hyperparameter settings, or a substantial re-scoping of the claims, are necessary.
  5. [Section II, Eq. (1); Section II, paragraph on H1] The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) and the accompanying description of H1 are not sufficiently specified for reproducibility. The all-to-all Ising term and the rotation noise are described in prose, but the precise form of H1, the exact noise realization procedure, the time-evolution operator (e.g., Trotterization order), and the meaning of T in the period condition versus the "number of time frames" are ambiguous. Without a complete specification, the numerical results cannot be independently reproduced, which is especially problematic because the central claim is purely numerical.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "may be the one of milestones" is grammatically awkward; it should be "may be one of the milestones."
  2. [Section I] There is a typo "conputing" in the sentence "chaotic phenomena are exploited for conputing"; it should be "computing."
  3. [Section II] The term "Quantum Resavoir Computing" is a misspelling; it should be "Quantum Reservoir Computing."
  4. [Section III] In the sentence "The value of Loss functions of cases (c) and (d) are smaller han those of case (a) and (b) at all trials," "han" should be "than."
  5. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The symbol T is used both as the period in the modulo condition and as the "number of time frames" later in the text; please disambiguate these two uses.
  6. [Section III, Figs. 4, 5, 8, 9] The text refers to these figures as histograms, but the figure captions describe "time propagation" of absolute distances; please clarify what is actually plotted and what the vertical axis represents.
  7. [References, Ref. [22]] Reference [22] is the original QTCC proposal and is an author preprint; please include a full citation with an arXiv identifier or DOI, and specify which parts of the method are taken from it, so that readers can verify the numerical setup.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity: the reported QTCC accuracy numbers are simulation measurements, not quantities forced by the paper's defining equations or by self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is: define the Floquet Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) with fixed noise parameters d=0.001 and Err(0,1/3), run QRC, QNN, and VQKAN simulations, and compare QTCC against noiseless propagation in Tables I and II. The loss values are produced by numerical experiments rather than derived from the equations, so no prediction reduces to an input by construction. The QNN and VQKAN ansatze are taken from the authors' own preprint [35], but the same ansatze are used in both QTCC and noiseless arms, so the comparative result is not forced by the self-citation. The citation [22] supplies the QTCC proposal, yet Eq. (1) restates the Hamiltonian in this paper and fresh simulations support the numerical claims. The main weaknesses are experimental-design issues rather than circularity: the paper averages each QTCC loss point 10 times while the noiseless arm is not averaged, no error bars are given, and the authors concede that the noiseless loss 'may be smaller than those of case (c) and (d) after the trials' (Sec. III). These concerns affect the validity of the claimed improvement but do not make the derivation circular.

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

The paper does not introduce new physical entities; QTCC is a proposed computational protocol, not a particle, force, or dimension. The central claim rests on modeling choices and the comparison protocol rather than on an invented entity.

free parameters (6)
  • Noise amplitude d in Eq (1) = 0.001
    Assumed tunable coefficient, fixed for all calculations; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Rotation noise standard deviation = 1/3
    Gaussian parameter noise model theta_i = theta_i^0 + theta_i^r Err(0,1/3); chosen by hand with no experimental calibration.
  • Number of layers for QNN/VQKAN = 2
    Set by the authors; no ablation or error analysis is provided.
  • Number of time frames T = 10
    Used for time propagation in QNN/VQKAN; not varied across experiments.
  • Loss evaluations per point for QTCC = 10
    The QTCC loss is calculated 10 times per point, while the noiseless protocol is not; this asymmetry may explain the accuracy gain.
  • VQKAN ansatz dimensions and grid/spline counts = not fully specified
    Section II gives N_d^n=4 and dim(nx_m)=4 but omits the number of grids and splines referenced in the KAN formula.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Many-body localized time crystals are robust to external perturbations and time reversal while extending coherence times.
    Motivates the entire QTCC approach; cited from [8,9,21] but not demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption The Floquet Hamiltonian H in Eq (1) realizes a time-crystal phase for any quantum system.
    The paper asserts 'Any quantum system can enter the TC phase' without a phase diagram, symmetry-breaking diagnostic, or stability check.
  • domain assumption Gaussian parameter noise with standard deviation 1/3 represents the relevant noise of a time crystal.
    The noise model is assumed; no derivation or experimental justification is given.
  • domain assumption The noiseless time propagation is a valid control for isolating QTCC effects.
    The baseline is internal and does not include standard error mitigation methods or matched evaluation counts.
  • domain assumption The parabolic Ry encoding and VQKAN ansatz are adequate for the fitting task.
    Ansatz choices are taken from the authors' previous work; the VQKAN equation in Section II is typeset incorrectly and cannot be evaluated directly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The effect of Quantum Time Crystal Computing to Quantum Machine Learning methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZQT7Q23

@misc{pith2026250612788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The effect of Quantum Time Crystal Computing to Quantum Machine Learning methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZQT7Q23}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12788}
}
read the original abstract

Many body localization shows the robustness for external perturbations and time reversal symmetry on Time Crystal. This Time Crystal prolongs the coherence time, hence, it is used for quantum computers as qubits. Therefore, we established the method to exploit Time Crystals for quantum computing by controlling external noise called Quantum Time Crystal Computing and demonstrated solving the problem of generating correct waves using Quantum Reservoir Computing, and fitting of given function using Quantum Neural Network and Variational Quantum Kolmogorov-Arnold Network. As a consequence, we revealed that Quantum Time Crystal Computing lower the accuracy of Quantum Reservoir Computing and improved the accuracy of Quantum Neural Network and Variational Quantum Kolmogorov-Arnold Network. This result may be the one of milestones of Quantum Error Mitigation as the case that noise improves the accuracy of Quantum Machine Learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12788 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Time step v.s. the average, minimum and maximum of the result of generating an echo wave of sin, triangle, block, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time step v.s. the average, minimum and maximum of the result of generating an echo wave of sin, triangle, block, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The number of trials v.s. the average of the value of Loss functions of the cases that (a) using QNN by noiseless time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The histogram of the average and of the sum of absolute distances between calculated and exact values (absolute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The histogram of the average and of the sum of absolute distances between calculated and exact values (absolute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The number of test points v.s. the average and the median of the sum of absolute distances between calculated and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The number of test points v.s. the average and the median of the sum of absolute distances between calculated and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The histogram of the average and of the sum of absolute distances between calculated and exact values (absolute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The histogram of the average and of the sum of absolute distances between calculated and exact values (absolute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The number of trials v.s. the average of the sum of absolute distances between calculated and exact values (absolute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The number of trials v.s. the average of the sum of absolute distances between calculated and exact values (absolute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The number of test points v.s. the average and the median of the sum of absolute distances between calculated and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The number of test points v.s. the average and the median of the sum of absolute distances between calculated and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (3) Here, xi = 21xm i − 1 for i = 0, 1, 2, 3

    + sin(x2 2 + x2 3) . (3) Here, xi = 21xm i − 1 for i = 0, 1, 2, 3. nxm i = 0.5(⟨ ˜Ψ(1xm)|Zi| ˜Ψ(1xm)⟩ + 1) for the state calculated by n-th layer | ˜Ψ(1xm)⟩, with N n d = 4 and dim( nxm) = 4 for all layers and calculations, and the Hamiltonian is Z0Z1 + Z2Z3. The realm of nxm is {0, 0.25}. We show the value of Loss functions of the cases that (a) using QN...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The average, minimum, and maximum of the result on QTCC are all larger than those of the result on noiseless time propagation, respectively as shown in Table.I

    The noise deviates the result of prediction in case of QTCC compared to that of noiseless time propagation. The average, minimum, and maximum of the result on QTCC are all larger than those of the result on noiseless time propagation, respectively as shown in Table.I. The process of QRC should be adapted noises to take advantages of QTCC. TABLE I. The ave...

    work page

  3. [3]

    have provided a foundation for scalable quantum computing architectures. However, QEC comes at the cost of substantial overhead in terms of the number of qubits and the complexity of operations, which has slowed its immedi- ate implementation in near-term quantum devices. In contrast, Quantum Error Mitigation represents an alternative approach better suit...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031027 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Ohzeki, Phys

    M. Ohzeki, Phys. Rev. A 85, 060301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Acharya, I

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, J. Cogan, R. Collins, P. Conne...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Georgescu, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 519 (2020)

    I. Georgescu, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 519 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Ponte, Z

    P. Ponte, Z. Papi´ c, F. m. c. Huveneers, and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 140401 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Yoshioka, H

    N. Yoshioka, H. Hakoshima, Y. Matsuzaki, Y. Tokunaga, Y. Suzuki, and S. Endo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 020502 (2022), arXiv:2107.02611 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Quantum chaos is also used for computing by various ways

    such as image encription [11]. Quantum chaos is also used for computing by various ways. Quantum Reservoir Computer is the major example that uses chaotic behavour [12] [13] emerged by measurement and feedback [14] . The circuit to emerge quantum chaos [15],two-level systems o...

    2012

  3. [11]

    Cai, Quantum 5, 548 (2021)

    Z. Cai, Quantum 5, 548 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Lesfari, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0706.1579 (2007), arXiv:0706.1579 [math.DS]

    A. Lesfari, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0706.1579 (2007), arXiv:0706.1579 [math.DS]

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    D. A. Huse, R. Nandkishore, V. Oganesyan, A. Pal, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B 88, 014206 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    J. S. Teh, M. Alawida, and Y. C. Sii, Journal of Information Security and Applications 50, 102421 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Zhang and L

    B. Zhang and L. Liu, Mathematics 11, 10.3390/math11112585 (2023)

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    M. J. Cossins and S. Phang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.12948 (2024), arXiv:2406.12948 [cs.CR]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zhong, Q

    D. Zhong, Q. Wu, J. Zhang, T. Wang, Y. Chen, H. Zeng, Z. Ren, Y. Wang, and C. Qiu, Optics Express 32, 28441 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Kobayashi, K

    K. Kobayashi, K. Fujii, and N. Yamamoto, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.15783 (2024), arXiv:2406.15783 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Singh, E

    H. Singh, E. McCulloch, S. Gopalakrishnan, and R. Vasseur, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.13892 (2024), arXiv:2405.13892 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M. F. I. Kieler, Eigenstate entanglement in chaotic bipartite systems, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Dresden, Ger- many (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    A. M. Patoary, A. Vikram, L. Shou, and V. Galitski, Physical Review Research 6, L032046 (2024), arXiv:2306.16446 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 160401 (2012), arXiv:1202.2539 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    D. V. Else, C. Monroe, C. Nayak, and N. Y. Yao, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 467 (2020), arXiv:1905.13232 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    B. Chen, S. Li, X. Hou, F. Zhou, P. Qian, F. Mei, S. Jia, N. Xu, and H. Shen, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2012.05495 (2020), arXiv:2012.05495 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Autti, P

    S. Autti, P. J. Heikkinen, J. Nissinen, J. T. M¨ akinen, G. E. Volovik, V. V. Zavyalov, and V. B. Eltsov, Nature Communi- cations 13, 3090 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Wyld, David C

    D. Wyld, David C. Nagamalai, ed., Numerical Simulation of Universal and Adiabatic Quantum Computation by Time Crystal: Proposal of Quantum Time Crystal Computing , Vol. 15 (CS & IT Conference Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.5121/csit.2025.150513, 2025)

  19. [27]

    Khoshaman, W

    A. Khoshaman, W. Vinci, B. Denis, E. Andriyash, H. Sadeghi, and M. H. Amin, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 014001 (2019), arXiv:1802.05779 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Havl ´ ıˇ cek, A

    V. Havl ´ ıˇ cek, A. D. C´ orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature (London) 567, 209 (2019), arXiv:1804.11326 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rebentrost, M

    P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 130503 (2014), arXiv:1307.0471 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. Abel, J. C. Criado, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022601 (2022), arXiv:2202.11727 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Y. Kwak, W. J. Yun, J. Pyoung Kim, H. Cho, M. Choi, S. Jung, and J. Kim, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2202.11200 (2022), arXiv:2202.11200 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Liu and L

    J.-G. Liu and L. Wang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1804.04168 (2018), arXiv:1804.04168 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kassal, J

    I. Kassal, J. D. Whitfield, A. Perdomo-Ortiz, M.-H. Yung, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 62, 185 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-physchem-032210-103512

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, New Journal of Physics 18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Nature Communications 10, 3007 (2019), arXiv:1812.11173 [quant-ph]. 11

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    R. M. Parrish, E. G. Hohenstein, P. L. McMahon, and T. J. Martinez, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1906.08728 (2019), arXiv:1906.08728 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Wakaura and A

    H. Wakaura and A. Bayu Suksmono, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2105.01141 (2021), arXiv:2105.01141 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Wakaura and T

    H. Wakaura and T. Tomono, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2109.02009 (2021), arXiv:2109.02009 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wakaura, A

    H. Wakaura, A. Bayu Suksmono, and R. Mulyawan, Research Square 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4504342/v3 (2024), pREPRINT (Version 3)

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Wakaura, R

    H. Wakaura, R. Mulyawan, and A. B. Suksmono, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.21336 (2025), arXiv:2503.21336 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wakaura, R

    H. Wakaura, R. Mulyawan, and A. B. Suksmono, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.22604 (2025), arXiv:2503.22604 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hansen, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1604.00772 (2016), arXiv:1604.00772 [cs.LG]

    N. Hansen, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1604.00772 (2016), arXiv:1604.00772 [cs.LG]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Toida, K

    H. Toida, K. Sakai, T. F. Teshima, M. Hori, K. Kakuyanagi, I. Mahboob, Y. Ono, and S. Saito, Communications Physics 6, 19 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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