Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A Practical Guide to using Pauli Path Simulators for Utility-Scale Quantum Experiments

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Pauli Path Simulations obey a power law in their coefficient counts, so memory needs can be extrapolated from short coarse runs.

desk verdict A practical, honestly hedged resource-estimation and convergence-check protocol for PPS, with real out-of-sample validations; the main gap is an untested extrapolation on the paper's own documented small-angle distortion family. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10771 v1 pith:O4SCAXCI submitted 2025-07-14 quant-ph

Hrant Gharibyan , Siddharth Hariprakash , Mohammed Zuhair Mullath , Vincent P. Su This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Lx
keywords PaulipathsimulationSparsedynamicsHeisenbergpicturepower-lawdistributionresourceestimationtruncationthresholdclassicalsimulabilityquantum
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

Pauli Path Simulation (PPS) is a classical method that works in the Heisenberg picture: it expands the evolved observable as a sum of Pauli strings and keeps only coefficients above a threshold $\delta$. The paper's central claim is that for a broad class of utility-scale circuits the distribution of the kept coefficients settles into a truncated power law, $\rho(t)=m\delta^m/(2|t|^{m+1})$, and this makes the maximum number of tracked Pauli terms grow roughly as $\delta^{-m}$. As a result, $\log N_{\max}$ is approximately linear in $\log(1/\delta)$, so memory and runtime at fine $\delta$ can be extrapolated from a few short coarse-$\delta$ runs. The paper also proposes a practical diagnostic: sweep $\delta$ and check whether expectation values appear to converge; this splits problems into those where PPS can be trusted as a verification tool and those where it only gives a fluctuating Monte-Carlo-like estimate. Applied to the 127-qubit kicked Ising circuits, the protocol shows both regimes and exposes two counterintuitive facts: smaller $\delta$ does not always improve accuracy, and deeper circuits can be easier to simulate than shallower ones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the distribution $\rho(t)$ of the absolute values of the Pauli coefficients of the evolved observable, together with the truncation threshold $\delta$. The key identity is the truncated power law $\rho(t)=m\delta^m/(2|t|^{m+1})$, whose slowly varying exponent $m$ controls how fast the number of Pauli terms grows as $\delta$ shrinks. The analytic support for the power law (Appendix D) invokes what the paper calls the PPS hypothesis: commuting and anticommuting Pauli sets share the same coefficient distribution, and the paired coefficients $c_P$ and $c_{\sigma P}$ are independent. The argument then converts the density into a resource estimate through a Riemann-sum approximation of the observable's second moment, leading to Eq. (17) and the log-linear relation Eq. (19). On the convergence side, the mechanism is a $\delta$-sweep protocol: compute expectation values at $\delta_n = r^n \delta_0$ and declare apparent convergence when $\ell$ successive values agree within $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}$.

What would settle it

Take a circuit whose coefficient distribution is visibly distorted, as in Fig. 15 (small correlated angles, non-Clifford RZZ), run the coarse-to-fine $\delta$ sweep, and compare the extrapolated $N_{\max}$ at $\delta=5\times 10^{-5}$ with the value from a full simulation. If the log-log plot of $N_{\max}$ versus $1/\delta$ is not approximately linear, or if the prediction error is much larger than the few percent seen in the clean power-law case, the central extrapolation claim fails for that family. A second falsifier: if sweeping $\delta$ over a range of $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}$ and ratios $r$ never yields $\ell$ successive values within tolerance on a circuit that the paper's protocol labels as apparently convergent, the convergence diagnostic is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the apparently chaotic branching-and-merging of Pauli terms in PPS is governed by a simple statistical regularity. After enough gates, the absolute values of the coefficients of the evolved observable follow a truncated power law, $\rho(t)=m\delta^m/(2|t|^{m+1})$ for $|t|>\delta$ (Eq. 11), with an exponent $m$ that drifts slowly through the circuit. Feeding this density into a Riemann-sum estimate of the second moment yields $N_{\max} \approx \frac{2-m_*}{m_*} \frac{\lVert O_{k_*} \rVert^2}{\delta^{m_*}}(1-\delta^{2-m_*})$ (Eq. 17), and therefore $\log N_{\max}$ grows approximately linearly in $\log(1/\delta)$ (Eq. 19). The paper claims this is what makes resource extrapolation work: a handful of coarse-$\delta$ runs, with $\delta$ reduced by a constant ratio, give growth curves whose regular vertical spacing predicts $N_{\max}$ at much smaller $\delta$ to within a few percent. On the reliability side, the paper claims that sweeping $\delta$ and testing for apparent convergence separates PPS problems into two classes, and that some problems whose PPS results match the published hardware experiment do not actually pass the convergence test, meaning PPS there is a Monte-Carlo-like estimate rather than a verified prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol's predictions rest on the assumption that a single truncated power law with a slowly varying exponent $m$ describes the coefficient distribution of the circuit being simulated; when $\eta$-spikes or small-angle rotations distort that distribution (Appendices E and F), the extrapolated $N_{\max}$ and the apparent-convergence verdict can be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Memory and runtime for a fine-$\delta$ PPS run can be estimated from a few minutes of coarse-$\delta$ runs, without committing to the expensive simulation.
  • Practitioners can decide before a run whether the extrapolated $N_{\max}$ fits their available memory and time budget.
  • The $\delta$-sweep gives a no-ground-truth test of PPS reliability, flagging problems where PPS apparently converges and problems where it is only a Monte-Carlo-like estimate.
  • Because smaller $\delta$ does not monotonically improve accuracy, the cheapest $\delta$ that gives the desired tolerance is the right choice, not the smallest feasible one.
  • Convergence difficulty does not transfer across circuit depths: a deeper version of the same circuit can converge with fewer resources, so each circuit must be probed independently.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could adapt the same coarse-to-fine extrapolation to other truncation-based classical methods, such as tensor-network bond dimension or sparse-state truncation, by treating the truncation parameter as $\delta$.
  • If the power-law regularity holds broadly, the PPS hypothesis could be tested directly: measure the commuting/anticommuting coefficient distributions and the $c_P/c_{\sigma P}$ correlation on small circuits and compare with the independence assumption, giving a rigorous validity condition for the extrapolation.
  • The observed link between non-Cliffordness and convergence difficulty raises the possibility that the exponent $m$ or the frequency of $\eta$-spikes tracks a magic monotone, turning resource estimation into a function of the circuit's magic content.
  • One testable extension: for a fixed architecture, map the depth at which a circuit crosses from non-convergent to apparently convergent, which would give a practical classical-simulability frontier for that architecture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a practical protocol for estimating the memory and runtime requirements of Pauli Path Simulations (PPS) at fine truncation thresholds δ from brief coarse-δ runs, together with a convergence diagnostic for deciding whether PPS can be trusted. The central modeling claim is that, for a broad class of utility-scale circuits, the absolute Pauli coefficients of the evolved observable follow a truncated power law ρ(t)=m δ^m/(2|t|^{m+1}) (Eq. 11), leading to a log-linear scaling of the maximum number of Pauli terms Nmax with log(1/δ) (Eqs. 17-19). The authors validate this extrapolation on the kicked Ising circuit with random single-qubit angles (Fig. 5, within 6%) and on a 2D Ising example (predicted ≈2.1 billion vs. reported ≈2.5 billion). They then introduce an 'apparent convergence' protocol based on sweeping δ and checking whether successive estimates agree, and apply it to IBM's kicked Ising experiments, finding both convergent and non-convergent regimes. The BlueQubit SDK implementing the method is released publicly.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a genuinely useful practical contribution: it turns resource estimation for PPS from guesswork into an inexpensive extrapolation procedure and provides a principled way to think about PPS convergence in the absence of rigorous error bounds. The paper's strengths include out-of-sample validation on two distinct circuits, a concrete and falsifiable prediction for the 2D Ising example, a released software implementation, and an honest discussion of regimes where the power-law model fails. However, the analytic derivation rests on the unproven 'PPS hypothesis' of Appendix D, and the convergence diagnostic is inherently a self-consistency check rather than a comparison against ground truth. The practical value of the method is therefore conditional on the validity of the power-law assumption for the user's circuit, and the paper would be substantially strengthened by testing the extrapolation in the very regimes it identifies as deviating from the power law.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 and Appendix E.2] The central resource-extrapolation claim is validated only on circuits whose coefficient distributions are close to the power-law form of Eq. (11). Appendix E.2 explicitly documents a circuit family (θZZ = -π/36, θX = π/12) with strong, persistent deviations from the power law, and the text notes that the 2D Ising example from Section 3.3 resembles this distorted distribution. Yet no extrapolation test against direct Nmax or runtime values is reported for this family. Since the practical promise of Section 3.3 is that coarse-δ runs predict fine-δ resources across the circuits a user might encounter, an untested failure mode inside a documented regime is load-bearing. Please add an out-of-sample extrapolation test for the Appendix E.2 family, or provide a criterion that tells the user when Eqs. (13)-(17) are reliable.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (19) and Fig. 16] The approximation in Eq. (19) drops the term 2 log(||O_{k*}(δ1)||/||O_{k*}(δ2)||) based on the observation in Fig. 4 that the norm varies little with δ. This justification is circuit-dependent: Fig. 16's inset shows a single coefficient contributing roughly 47% of the norm-squared, and in such cases the norm-ratio term can be large enough to bias the log-linear slope used to extract m*. The paper should either quantify the size of this term for the validated examples or provide a practical test for when the dropped term is negligible.
  3. [Appendix D] The analytic support for the power-law density and for Eq. (17) rests on the 'PPS hypothesis': that commuting and anticommuting Pauli sets share the same coefficient distribution, and that paired coefficients in P^anti and σP^anti are independent. These assumptions are stated but not proven, and no numerical test of them is reported. Since the paper presents the power-law model as a theoretical framework rather than a purely empirical fit, the authors should either validate the two parts of the hypothesis on the circuits studied, or explicitly state that Eq. (17) is an empirical model whose analytic derivation is conditional.
  4. [§4.1 and §4.2] The 'apparent convergence' protocol is a self-consistency check that never compares against an external ground truth, and the paper itself notes that the estimates are non-monotonic in δ and that local minima can falsely indicate convergence. This is not by itself a flaw, but the paper uses the diagnostic to classify problems into trustworthy and untrustworthy categories (e.g., Fig. 8), which is a stronger claim than 'these runs were self-consistent'. The manuscript should state more clearly that apparent convergence is neither necessary nor sufficient for accuracy, and should discuss what external evidence (e.g., known exact results, hardware data, or cross-method comparison) would strengthen a verdict of convergence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract and the opening line of Section 1 contain the typo 'In this this paper'.
  2. [§2] The notation P_{k+1} = P_k ∪ σ_{k+1}P^anti_k could be clarified: as written it suggests a union of sets of Pauli operators, but the coefficients also change according to Eq. (9). A brief sentence on this would help readers.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (20)] The symbol ≲ is described as 'an upper bound up to a constant factor'; since Eq. (17) already contains a specific prefactor, the statement would be clearer if the constant were identified explicitly.
  4. [Appendix E.1] In the sentence describing the η-spike at k=2036, the angle 'approximately 55.13°' appears inconsistent with the earlier restriction θ_j ∈ [-π/4, π/4] from Eq. (3); please clarify whether this is an angle before Clifford recompilation or a different convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Nmax extrapolation is validated out-of-sample against true finer-delta runs and an external reference, and the convergence diagnostic is explicitly labeled 'apparent' rather than presented as a rigorous proof.

full rationale

The central resource-extrapolation chain is not circular. The power-law form Eq. (11) is presented as an empirical observation supported by Figs. 1-2; the derivation of Eq. (17) treats it as a model, and no parameter of Eq. (17) is fitted to the Nmax values it is later used to predict. The practical protocol of Sec. 3.3 fits a log-linear trend to coarse-delta Nmax values and extrapolates to smaller delta; Fig. 5 checks these predictions against true Nmax from full runs within 6%, and the 2D Ising example is checked against the externally reported value from [BcvacC25], so this is genuine out-of-sample validation rather than a redescription of inputs. The convergence diagnostic of Sec. 4 is a self-consistency check, but the paper says explicitly: 'we use the term apparent convergence since there are no guarantees that finer and finer resolutions will yield the same value, unless all terms are kept,' and later 'there are no guarantees that convergence prevents larger fluctuations as delta continues to decrease.' Thus the self-referential character of the diagnostic is acknowledged and does not masquerade as a proof. The main weaknesses are unproven assumptions: Appendix D's 'PPS hypothesis' is explicitly a hypothesis, and Appendix E.2 documents small-angle, non-Clifford RZZ regimes where the coefficient distribution deviates visibly from Eq. (11), with no extrapolation test reported there. These are correctness and generalizability limitations, not circular reductions. No load-bearing self-citation was found; the cited prior PPS work ([BC23], [BcvacC25], [RJT+25], etc.) is external to the present author list and independently checkable.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its practical protocols rest on an empirically motivated power-law model with a fitted exponent m, a domain restriction to certain kicked Ising and Ising circuits, an unproven 'PPS hypothesis' for the analytic recurrence, and a Riemann-sum approximation. The figure of merit Nmax is not directly measurable; it is extrapolated from coarse runs.

free parameters (2)
  • power-law exponent m = varies over circuit; e.g., about 1.7 in Fig. 13; estimated by regression or MLE (Appendix F)
    Appears in the truncated power-law density rho(t)=m*delta^m/(2*|t|^(m+1)) and in Nmax formulas Eq. (17)-(20). Estimated from the coefficient distribution of each run; its uncertainty propagates strongly, a 5% error gives roughly 50% error in Nmax.
  • tail lower cutoff l (in units of delta) = l=1,2,3 considered; no optimal l selected
    For distributions that deviate from the power law near delta (Appendix E.2 and F), the model is fit from l*delta; the choice of l affects m estimates (Fig. 17).
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The Pauli coefficient distribution is a truncated power law rho(t)=m*delta^m/(2*|t|^(m+1)) for |t|>delta.
    This is the central modeling assumption, introduced in Section 3.1 (Eq. 11) as a numerical observation, with an approximate steady-state justification in Appendix D relying on further hypotheses.
  • ad hoc to paper PPS hypothesis: commuting and anticommuting Pauli sets have the same coefficient distribution, and paired coefficients in P^anti and sigma*P^anti are independent (Appendix D).
    Used to derive the recurrence Eq. (37)-(39). The paper labels this a hypothesis and does not prove it; it is invoked to explain, not to derive, the empirical power law.
  • domain assumption The circuits studied (Eq. 10) with Clifford RZZ gates, theta_X sampled uniformly or fixed, observable Z62 on IBM heavy-hex, and the 2D Ising example are representative of the 'generic' behavior claimed.
    All main numerical evidence is restricted to these families; the paper itself notes every circuit must be probed independently (Section 4.1).
  • standard math Standard Riemann-sum approximation of the second moment (Eq. 13) with sub-leading error in delta and k.
    Used to obtain N_k and Nmax estimates in Section 3.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Practical Guide to using Pauli Path Simulators for Utility-Scale Quantum Experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4SCAXCI

@misc{pith2026250710771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Practical Guide to using Pauli Path Simulators for Utility-Scale Quantum Experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4SCAXCI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10771}
}
abstract

In this this paper we present an inexpensive protocol to perform runtime and memory estimation for large-scale experiments with Pauli Path simulators (PPS). Additionally, we propose a conceptually simple solution for studying whether PPS can be used as a scientific discovery tool, rather than reproducing existing answers. We start by analyzing the dynamics of the Pauli coefficients tracked in the Heisenberg picture. In addition to surprisingly generic convergence features of the Pauli coefficient distributions, we find certain regularities that allow for extrapolation of memory and runtime requirements for smaller and smaller coefficient truncation parameter $\delta$. We then introduce a framework for understanding convergence in the absence of rigorous error guarantees on PPS. Combined with runtime analysis, we propose bifurcating quantum simulation problems broadly into two classes, based on whether there is apparent convergence of expectation values as a function of $\delta$. This serves as a way for practitioners to understand where their problem falls on the frontier of classical simulability. In the case without apparent convergence, PPS may still serve useful as a Monte Carlo-like estimate. Applied to IBM's utility-scale experiments, we show parameter regimes where both behaviors are realized. Some of our key findings challenge conventional intuition: reducing $\delta$ does not always improve accuracy, and deeper quantum circuits may actually be easier to simulate than shallower ones. The BlueQubit SDK implementing these methods has been released publicly, offering researchers a comprehensive toolkit for evaluating this frontier classical simulation approach. These results establish practical guidelines for when PPS can serve as a reliable verification tool versus when it should be used as a complementary estimate alongside quantum experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10771 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the distribution of Pauli coefficients shown at different stages in the execution of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (left) Distribution of Pauli Coefficients corresponding to the set up described in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Tracking the growth of Pauli’s and the shape of the power-law coefficient distribution. Left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Decrease in the norm ∥Ok∥ of the evolved observable over the execution of the circuit for various values of truncation threshold. The circuit was constructed with θX sampled uniformly from [π/4, π/4] and T = 30. Let m∗ be the maximum m over the course of the circuit an…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimating Nmax via extrapolation : The exact values of Nmax corresponding to the three largest values of δ (solid horizontal lines) are used to extrapolate and predict Nmax for the smaller values of δ indicated in the plot. The predictions are within 6% of the true Nm…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Convergence plots showing Ok, the approximation to the expectation value ⟨Z62⟩, as a function of δk with randomly sampled θX. The top row is with ε1 = 0.01 and the bottom row is for a stricter ε2 = 0.001. We vary the number of Trotter steps T within the range [12, 24].…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Convergence plots of Ok with fixed θX = 0.4. We vary the number of Trotter steps T within the range [12, 24]. For εtol = 10−2 (top row), all experiments converge within 20s on a single CPU core. Changing to a stricter εtol = 10−3 , the estimated expectation value does …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Convergence plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the distribution of the Pauli coefficients of the evolved observable for circuits with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plots showing the numerical value of s(θ) := R δ −δ ρ ⋆ θ (t)dt for the convolution Eq. (33) for different values of m. Under the PPS hypotheses, the set P anti ∩ σP anti gets shrunk by the factor 1 − s(θ) after applying a δ-truncation. This factor is denoted by r(θ) …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Growth of Paulis over the execution of the circuit. Left: for circuit with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fraction of anticommuting Paulis, φk = |Panti k |/|Pk|, and “existing” anticommuting Paulis, ηk = |Panti k ∩ σP anti k |/|Pk|, plotted over the course of the circuit execution for the circuit constructed with each θX sampled uniformly from −[π/4, π/4], T = 30 steps. T…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The convolution ρ ⋆ θ , defined in Eq. (33), for various values of θ. The plots are generated for ρ corresponding to the choice of m = 1.7, and δ = 10−3 . While m affects the steepness of the curves, δ has no effect on the nature of these curves. The vertical lines co…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: η-wiggle: These plots show the presence of a transient wiggle caused by an η-spike in the Pauli coefficient distribution ρ. The circuit we use is constructed with each θX sampled uniformly from −[π/4, π/4] and T = 30. The simulation is performed using δ = 5 × 10−5 . W…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Plots corresponding to an experimental set up that exhibits visual deviations from a power-law [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Distribution of Pauli coefficients for fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Plots showing variation of the power-law exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Stochastic Pauli-path simulator for large-scale quantum optimization

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A stochastic Pauli-path simulator with importance reweighting and path automatic differentiation produces unbiased gradient estimates for quantum optimization, demonstrated on VQE at 100 qubits and QNN at 40 qubits.

  2. SAFE ma-QAOA: Surrogate-Assisted and Fine-Tuning Enhanced Multi-Angle QAOA with Parameter Distillation

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    SAFE ma-QAOA achieves 64.3% fewer active parameters and 94.5% lower estimated QPU workload via surrogate pre-training and parameter distillation on Sherrington-Kirkpatrick, 2D spin glass, and Max-Cut instances.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy random circuit sampling

    Dorit Aharonov, Xun Gao, Zeph Landau, Yunchao Liu, and Umesh Vazirani. A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy random circuit sampling. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC ’23, page 945–957. ACM, June 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Mele, Manuel S

    Armando Angrisani, Antonio A. Mele, Manuel S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, and Zoë Holmes. Simulating quantum circuits with arbitrary local noise using pauli propagation, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Rudolph, M

    Armando Angrisani, Alexander Schmidhuber, Manuel S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, Zo\"e Holmes, and Hsin-Yuan Huang. Classically estimating observables of noiseless quantum circuits . 9 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Tensor networks in a nutshell, 2017

    Jacob Biamonte and Ville Bergholm. Tensor networks in a nutshell, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Fast classical simulation of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance

    Tomislav Begu s i\'c and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Fast classical simulation of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance . 6 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Real-time operator evolution in two and three dimensions via sparse pauli dynamics

    Tomislav Begu s s i c \' c and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Real-time operator evolution in two and three dimensions via sparse pauli dynamics. PRX Quantum , 6:020302, Apr 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Fast and converged classical simulations of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance

    Tomislav Begu s i\'c, Johnnie Gray, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Fast and converged classical simulations of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance . Sci. Adv. , 10(3):adk4321, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Magic of the Heisenberg Picture

    Neil Dowling, Pavel Kos, and Xhek Turkeshi. Magic of the Heisenberg Picture . 8 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Rudolph, Ross Duncan, Ivan Rungger, and Cristina C\^ rstoiu

    Enrico Fontana, Manuel S. Rudolph, Ross Duncan, Ivan Rungger, and Cristina C\^ rstoiu. Classical simulations of noisy variational quantum circuits . npj Quantum Inf. , 11(1):84, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Ignacio Cirac, Tobias J

    Jutho Haegeman, J. Ignacio Cirac, Tobias J. Osborne, Iztok Pizorn, Henri Verschelde, and Frank Verstraete. Time-Dependent Variational Principle for Quantum Lattices . Phys. Rev. Lett. , 107:070601, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Unifying time evolution and optimization with matrix product states

    Jutho Haegeman, Christian Lubich, Ivan Oseledets, Bart Vandereycken, and Frank Verstraete. Unifying time evolution and optimization with matrix product states . Phys. Rev. B , 94(16):165116, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance

    Youngseok Kim et al. Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance . Nature , 618(7965):500--505, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Rudolph, Armando Angrisani, Tyson Jones, M

    Sacha Lerch, Ricard Puig, Manuel S. Rudolph, Armando Angrisani, Tyson Jones, M. Cerezo, Supanut Thanasilp, and Zoë Holmes. Efficient quantum-enhanced classical simulation for patches of quantum landscapes, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Simulation of IBM's kicked Ising experiment with Projected Entangled Pair Operator

    Hai-Jun Liao, Kang Wang, Zong-Sheng Zhou, Pan Zhang, and Tao Xiang. Simulation of IBM's kicked Ising experiment with Projected Entangled Pair Operator . 8 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states

    Rom \'a n Or \'u s. A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states. Annals of Physics , 349:117--158, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Jahromi, Sukhbinder Singh, and Roman Orus

    Siddhartha Patra, Saeed S. Jahromi, Sukhbinder Singh, and Roman Orus. Efficient tensor network simulation of IBM's largest quantum processors . Phys. Rev. Res. , 6(1):013326, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Wallman, and Joseph Emerson

    Hammam Qassim, Joel J. Wallman, and Joseph Emerson. Clifford recompilation for faster classical simulation of quantum circuits. Quantum , 3:170, August 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Rudolph, Tyson Jones, Yanting Teng, Armando Angrisani, and Zo\"e Holmes

    Manuel S. Rudolph, Tyson Jones, Yanting Teng, Armando Angrisani, and Zo\"e Holmes. Pauli Propagation: A Computational Framework for Simulating Quantum Systems . 5 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercomputer

    Javier Robledo-Moreno et al. Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercomputer . Sci. Adv. , 11(25):adu9991, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Simulating noisy variational quantum algorithms: A polynomial approach

    Yuguo Shao, Fuchuan Wei, Song Cheng, and Zhengwei Liu. Simulating noisy variational quantum algorithms: A polynomial approach. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 133:120603, Sep 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Thomas Schuster, Chao Yin, Xun Gao, and Norman Y. Yao. A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy quantum circuits . 7 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Gauging tensor networks with belief propagation

    Joseph Tindall and Matthew Fishman. Gauging tensor networks with belief propagation. SciPost Physics , 15(6), December 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Miles Stoudenmire, and Dries Sels

    Joseph Tindall, Matthew Fishman, E. Miles Stoudenmire, and Dries Sels. Efficient Tensor Network Simulation of IBM s Eagle Kicked Ising Experiment . PRX Quantum , 5(1):010308, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly Entangled Quantum Computations

    Guifr\'e Vidal. Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly Entangled Quantum Computations . Phys. Rev. Lett. , 91(14):147902, 2003

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.