Multiclass Portfolio Optimization via Variational Quantum Eigensolver with Dicke State Ansatz

Gabriel Mattos Langeloh; J. V. S. Scursulim; Samura\'i Brito; Victor Leme Beltran

arxiv: 2508.13954 · v3 · submitted 2025-08-19 · 🪐 quant-ph

Multiclass Portfolio Optimization via Variational Quantum Eigensolver with Dicke State Ansatz

J. V. S. Scursulim , Gabriel Mattos Langeloh , Victor Leme Beltran , Samura\'i Brito This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 22:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum optimizationportfolio optimizationDicke statesvariational quantum eigensolverdiversification constraintsCMA-EScombinatorial optimizationmulticlass portfolios

0 comments

The pith

A VQE ansatz of multiple parametrized Dicke states encodes diversification constraints for multiclass portfolio optimization without penalties.

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

The paper presents a quantum framework for multiclass portfolio optimization that directly incorporates diversification across asset classes. It employs an ansatz built from multiple parametrized Dicke states within the variational quantum eigensolver, initializing the system in a superposition consisting solely of feasible portfolio states. This built-in encoding eliminates the need for penalty terms in the objective function and shrinks the search space. The work compares classical optimizers and reports that CMA-ES paired with the Dicke ansatz delivers faster convergence, higher approximation ratios, and greater probability of measuring high-quality solutions. A sympathetic reader would care because real-world portfolio problems require explicit diversification, and quantum methods that respect such constraints natively may scale more effectively than penalty-augmented formulations.

Core claim

The central claim is that an ansatz composed of multiple parametrized Dicke states for the variational quantum eigensolver solves multiclass portfolio optimization by initializing the quantum register exclusively in a superposition of feasible, diversified portfolios. Each Dicke state enforces a fixed number of selected assets within its class, satisfying the diversification constraints by construction. Consequently the problem Hamiltonian requires no additional penalty terms. When the resulting variational circuit is optimized with CMA-ES, the method exhibits superior convergence rate, approximation ratio, and measurement probability relative to other tested classical optimizers.

What carries the argument

The parametrized Dicke state ansatz, which prepares superpositions restricted to states with a prescribed number of assets chosen in each class, thereby embedding diversification constraints directly into the variational manifold.

If this is right

The search space is restricted to feasible portfolios only, removing the computational overhead of penalizing invalid states.
No penalty coefficients need to be tuned or added to the Hamiltonian, simplifying problem encoding.
CMA-ES yields faster convergence and higher-quality solutions than the other optimizers examined.
The approach extends naturally to other combinatorial problems that impose cardinality or class-balance constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the ansatz preparation scales to dozens of qubits with acceptable fidelity, the method could address portfolio instances larger than those currently tractable with penalty-based quantum approaches.
Analogous fixed-particle-number ansatzes may prove useful for other constrained optimization tasks such as diversified scheduling or resource allocation.
Hardware noise models that preserve the Dicke subspace symmetry could still allow the constraint advantage to survive even when perfect state preparation is impossible.

Load-bearing premise

The quantum hardware can prepare and maintain the parametrized Dicke states such that the superposition stays confined to feasible diversified portfolios throughout the optimization, without decoherence or gate errors that would invalidate the constraint encoding.

What would settle it

An experiment on current quantum hardware in which a non-negligible fraction of measured bit strings after optimization violate the prescribed diversification counts, or in which the approximation ratio shows no improvement over a standard penalty-based VQE under CMA-ES, would falsify the central performance claims.

read the original abstract

Combinatorial optimization is a fundamental challenge in various domains, with portfolio optimization standing out as a key application in finance. Despite numerous quantum algorithmic approaches proposed for this problem, most overlook a critical feature of realistic portfolios: diversification. In this work, we introduce a novel quantum framework for multiclass portfolio optimization that explicitly incorporates diversification by leveraging multiple parametrized Dicke states, simultaneously initialized to encode the diversification constraints , as an ansatz of the Variational Quantum Eigensolver. A key strength of this ansatz is that it initializes the quantum system in a superposition of only feasible states, inherently satisfying the constraints. This significantly reduces the search space and eliminates the need for penalty terms. In addition, we also analyze the impact of different classical optimizers in this hybrid quantum-classical approach. Our findings demonstrate that, when combined with the CMA-ES optimizer, the Dicke state ansatz achieves superior performance in terms of convergence rate, approximation ratio, and measurement probability. These results underscore the potential of this method to solve practical, diversification-aware portfolio optimization problems relevant to the financial sector.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper's core idea of using parametrized Dicke states in VQE to encode diversification constraints directly into the ansatz is reasonable, but the superiority claims with CMA-ES lack any supporting numbers or verification of subspace preservation.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors use parametrized Dicke states to create an ansatz for the variational quantum eigensolver that automatically respects diversification constraints in multiclass portfolio optimization. This means the initial state is already a superposition over only valid portfolios, cutting out the need for penalty terms that usually bloat the Hamiltonian. They show this approach paired with the CMA-ES classical optimizer leads to faster convergence, better approximation ratios, and higher chances of sampling good solutions compared to other methods. The strength here is the direct encoding of the constraint into the ansatz structure. For problems where you have to pick a fixed number of assets from different classes, starting in the right subspace makes sense and avoids some of the usual tricks in quantum optimization. That said, the abstract makes strong claims about superior performance but does not include any actual numbers, plots, or descriptions of the datasets used. Without seeing those details, it's difficult to assess whether the gains come from the ansatz itself or from how the experiments were set up. The big open question is whether the variational layers keep the quantum state strictly within the feasible subspace once you start optimizing the parameters. Any leakage due to the circuit design or real hardware noise would make the results hard to compare fairly with penalty-based approaches. This work is relevant for people in quantum finance who are trying to make variational algorithms more practical for constrained problems. A reader who already knows VQE basics and is looking for ansatz ideas tailored to combinatorial constraints would get the most out of it. The paper is coherent enough and has a clear enough idea that it should go to peer review rather than being desk rejected. The referees can push for the numerical evidence and any analysis on how well the ansatz holds up under realistic conditions.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a VQE-based framework for multiclass portfolio optimization that uses multiple parametrized Dicke states as an ansatz to encode diversification constraints directly via fixed excitation numbers per asset class. The approach initializes the quantum state in a superposition of only feasible portfolios, thereby eliminating penalty terms, and reports that pairing this ansatz with the CMA-ES classical optimizer yields superior convergence rate, approximation ratio, and measurement probability relative to other optimizers.

Significance. If the feasible-subspace invariance holds under variational updates and realistic noise, the method would provide a concrete route to constraint-aware quantum optimization that avoids the overhead of penalty terms and shrinks the search space, with direct relevance to realistic financial portfolio problems that require diversification.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Results] The abstract and results sections assert that the Dicke-state ansatz combined with CMA-ES achieves superior performance in convergence rate, approximation ratio, and measurement probability, yet supply no numerical values, error bars, dataset sizes, or explicit comparison tables against penalty-based or other constrained baselines; without these data the central empirical claim cannot be assessed.
[Ansatz Construction] The claim that the parametrized Dicke states “inherently satisfying the constraints” and “eliminates the need for penalty terms” is load-bearing for the entire framework, but the manuscript provides neither an explicit gate decomposition of the variational layers nor a symmetry-preserving mixer construction that would guarantee the state remains inside the fixed-excitation subspace for the circuit depths used in the reported instances.
[Numerical Experiments] No noise-model simulations or hardware-error analysis are presented to verify that decoherence or gate infidelity does not leak amplitude outside the feasible diversification subspace, which would invalidate direct comparison of approximation ratios and measurement probabilities to classical penalty baselines.

minor comments (2)

[Methods] Define the precise mathematical expression for the approximation ratio and the measurement probability used to quantify performance.
[Framework Description] Clarify how the multiple Dicke states for different asset classes are combined into a single variational circuit and how the classical optimizer interfaces with the quantum expectation value.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and insightful comments, which have helped us identify areas to strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Results] The abstract and results sections assert that the Dicke-state ansatz combined with CMA-ES achieves superior performance in convergence rate, approximation ratio, and measurement probability, yet supply no numerical values, error bars, dataset sizes, or explicit comparison tables against penalty-based or other constrained baselines; without these data the central empirical claim cannot be assessed.

Authors: We agree that the presentation of quantitative results can be improved for clarity and verifiability. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the results section to include explicit numerical values for convergence rate, approximation ratio, and measurement probability, along with error bars derived from multiple independent runs, the sizes of the financial datasets employed, and side-by-side comparison tables against penalty-based VQE formulations and other constrained optimization baselines. These additions will enable direct quantitative assessment of the claimed improvements. revision: yes
Referee: [Ansatz Construction] The claim that the parametrized Dicke states “inherently satisfying the constraints” and “eliminates the need for penalty terms” is load-bearing for the entire framework, but the manuscript provides neither an explicit gate decomposition of the variational layers nor a symmetry-preserving mixer construction that would guarantee the state remains inside the fixed-excitation subspace for the circuit depths used in the reported instances.

Authors: The parametrized Dicke states are constructed to encode fixed excitation numbers per asset class from the outset, ensuring that the initial superposition lies entirely within the feasible subspace; the variational layers are chosen to respect this symmetry. To address the request for explicit detail, the revised manuscript will include a full gate decomposition of the variational layers, a description of the symmetry-preserving mixer, and a concise argument demonstrating that the fixed-excitation subspace is preserved for the circuit depths used in our experiments. revision: yes
Referee: [Numerical Experiments] No noise-model simulations or hardware-error analysis are presented to verify that decoherence or gate infidelity does not leak amplitude outside the feasible diversification subspace, which would invalidate direct comparison of approximation ratios and measurement probabilities to classical penalty baselines.

Authors: We concur that robustness under realistic noise is an important consideration for practical applicability. While the present work emphasizes ideal simulations to isolate the benefits of the feasible-subspace ansatz, we will add a dedicated subsection with noise-model simulations (employing a standard depolarizing noise channel with varying error rates) to quantify any leakage out of the feasible subspace and to compare approximation ratios and measurement probabilities against penalty-based baselines under the same noise conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Dicke-state ansatz encodes constraints by construction but performance claims rest on empirical tests, not tautological reduction

full rationale

The paper proposes a VQE ansatz built from multiple parametrized Dicke states that are initialized to lie entirely within the feasible subspace of diversification-constrained portfolios. This is a deliberate, standard symmetry-preserving construction rather than a derived result; the abstract and description explicitly state that the ansatz 'initializes the quantum system in a superposition of only feasible states, inherently satisfying the constraints' and thereby 'eliminates the need for penalty terms.' No equation or claim equates a reported performance metric (convergence rate, approximation ratio, measurement probability) to a quantity defined solely by the ansatz parameters or by a self-citation chain. The superiority statements are presented as outcomes of numerical experiments comparing the hybrid method against classical optimizers, which are external benchmarks. No fitted-input-called-prediction, self-definitional loop, or load-bearing self-citation appears in the provided derivation chain. The framework therefore remains self-contained against external validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method rests on the domain assumption that Dicke states can encode the required diversification constraints exactly and that VQE variational optimization can be performed effectively with classical post-processing. No new physical entities are introduced. Free parameters include the variational angles in the ansatz and the choice of classical optimizer.

free parameters (2)

variational parameters of Dicke state ansatz
Angles or coefficients optimized during VQE to minimize the portfolio objective.
optimizer hyperparameters for CMA-ES
Parameters of the classical evolutionary strategy used to update quantum circuit parameters.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Parametrized Dicke states inherently satisfy diversification constraints for multiclass portfolios
Invoked in the abstract when stating the ansatz initializes the system in a superposition of only feasible states.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5736 in / 1307 out tokens · 48274 ms · 2026-05-18T22:14:41.031433+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean LogicNat embedding and orbit structure unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

A key strength of this ansatz is that it initializes the quantum system in a superposition of only feasible states, inherently satisfying the constraints... multiple parametrized Dicke states... |D_n^k (θ)⟩

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

O(nk) 5nk − 5k2 N/A all-to-all Ours O(nk) 5nk − 5k2 kn − k(k+1) 2 all-to-all

work page
[2]

O(k log n k ) O(nk) N/A all-to-all

work page
[3]

O(k q n k ) O(nk) N/A grid

work page
[4]

2 (n − k) 2nk − 3k2 nk − 3k2 2 LNN

work page
[5]

A comparison between different implementations of the Dicke state circuit explored in the literature

2 n nk − k2 2 n(k+1) 2 − k2 4 LNN TABLE I. A comparison between different implementations of the Dicke state circuit explored in the literature. The circuits metrics considered are: the complexity of depths of CNOTs, the scaling of number of CNOTs ( nCNOTs ) and number of pa- rameters np with n and k, and topology. These metrics are relevant for resources...

work page 2000
[6]

McArdle, S

S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Re- views of Modern Physics 92, 015003 (2020)

work page 2020
[7]

Bauer, S

B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quan- tum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science, Chemical reviews 120, 12685 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

von Burg, G

V . von Burg, G. H. Low, T. Häner, D. S. Steiger, M. Rei- her, M. Roetteler, and M. Troyer, Quantum computing enhanced computational catalysis, Physical Review Re- search 3, 033055 (2021)

work page 2021
[9]

Biamonte, P

J. Biamonte, P . Wittek, N. Pancotti, P . Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Na- ture 549, 195 (2017)

work page 2017
[10]

Liu and P

N. Liu and P . Rebentrost, Quantum machine learning for quantum anomaly detection, Physical Review A 97, 042315 (2018)

work page 2018
[11]

Schuld and N

M. Schuld and N. Killoran, Quantum machine learn- ing in feature hilbert spaces, Physical review letters 122, 040504 (2019)

work page 2019
[12]

I. Cong, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum convolu- tional neural networks, Nature Physics 15, 1273 (2019)

work page 2019
[13]

Cerezo, G

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

work page 2022
[14]

Jerbi, L

S. Jerbi, L. J. Fiderer, H. Poulsen Nautrup, J. M. Kübler, H. J. Briegel, and V . Dunjko, Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods, Nature Communications 14, 517 (2023)

work page 2023
[15]

D. J. Egger, C. Gambella, J. Marecek, S. McFaddin, M. Mevissen, R. Raymond, A. Simonetto, S. Woerner, and E. Yndurain, Quantum computing for finance: State-of- 9 the-art and future prospects, IEEE Transactions on Quan- tum Engineering 1, 1 (2020)

work page 2020
[16]

Ramos-Calderer, A

S. Ramos-Calderer, A. Pérez-Salinas, D. García-Martín, C. Bravo-Prieto, J. Cortada, J. Planaguma, and J. I. La- torre, Quantum unary approach to option pricing, Phys- ical Review A 103, 032414 (2021)

work page 2021
[17]

Mugel, C

S. Mugel, C. Kuchkovsky, E. Sánchez, S. Fernández- Lorenzo, J. Luis-Hita, E. Lizaso, and R. Orús, Dynamic portfolio optimization with real datasets using quantum processors and quantum-inspired tensor networks, Phys- ical Review Research 4, 013006 (2022)

work page 2022
[18]

Buonaiuto, F

G. Buonaiuto, F. Gargiulo, G. De Pietro, M. Esposito, and M. Pota, Best practices for portfolio optimization by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum de- vices, Scientific Reports 13, 19434 (2023)

work page 2023
[19]

Herman, C

D. Herman, C. Googin, X. Liu, Y. Sun, A. Galda, I. Safro, M. Pistoia, and Y. Alexeev, Quantum computing for fi- nance, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 450 (2023)

work page 2023
[20]

Wilkens and J

S. Wilkens and J. Moorhouse, Quantum computing for financial risk measurement, Quantum Information Pro- cessing 22, 51 (2023)

work page 2023
[21]

A. S. Naik, E. Yeniaras, G. Hellstern, G. Prasad, and S. K. L. P . Vishwakarma, From portfolio optimization to quan- tum blockchain and security: A systematic review of quantum computing in finance, Financial Innovation 11, 1 (2025)

work page 2025
[22]

Jarret and K

M. Jarret and K. Wan, Improved quantum backtracking algorithms using effective resistance estimates, Physical Review A 97, 022337 (2018)

work page 2018
[23]

Campbell, A

E. Campbell, A. Khurana, and A. Montanaro, Applying quantum algorithms to constraint satisfaction problems, Quantum 3, 167 (2019)

work page 2019
[24]

Montanaro, Quantum speedup of branch-and-bound algorithms, Physical Review Research 2, 013056 (2020)

A. Montanaro, Quantum speedup of branch-and-bound algorithms, Physical Review Research 2, 013056 (2020)

work page 2020
[25]

D. J. Egger, J. Mareˇ cek, and S. Woerner, Warm-starting quantum optimization, Quantum 5, 479 (2021)

work page 2021
[26]

A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Feedback-based quantum optimization, Physical Review Letters 129, 250502 (2022)

work page 2022
[27]

Abbas, A

A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. Bärtschi, H. Buhrman, C. Coffrin, G. Cortiana, V . Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreen, et al., Challenges and opportuni- ties in quantum optimization, Nature Reviews Physics , 1 (2024)

work page 2024
[28]

J. R. Finžgar, A. Kerschbaumer, M. J. Schuetz, C. B. Mendl, and H. G. Katzgraber, Quantum-informed recur- sive optimization algorithms, PRX Quantum 5, 020327 (2024)

work page 2024
[29]

Jünger, G

M. Jünger, G. Reinelt, and G. Rinaldi, The traveling sales- man problem, Handbooks in operations research and management science 7, 225 (1995)

work page 1995
[30]

Toth and D

P . Toth and D. Vigo, The vehicle routing problem (SIAM, 2002)

work page 2002
[31]

Martello, D

S. Martello, D. Pisinger, and D. Vigo, The three- dimensional bin packing problem, Operations research 48, 256 (2000)

work page 2000
[32]

Mansini, W

R. Mansini, W. ‚odzimierz Ogryczak, M. G. Speranza, and E. T. A. of European Operational Research Societies, Linear and mixed integer programming for portfolio optimiza- tion, Vol. 21 (Springer, 2015)

work page 2015
[33]

Jünger, T

M. Jünger, T. M. Liebling, D. Naddef, G. L. Nemhauser, W. R. Pulleyblank, G. Reinelt, G. Rinaldi, and L. A. Wolsey, 50 Years of integer programming 1958-2008: From the early years to the state-of-the-art (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009)

work page 1958
[34]

T. F. Gonzalez, Handbook of approximation algorithms and metaheuristics (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2007)

work page 2007
[35]

K. A. Smith, Neural networks for combinatorial opti- mization: a review of more than a decade of research, Informs journal on Computing 11, 15 (1999)

work page 1999
[36]

Prates, P

M. Prates, P . H. Avelar, H. Lemos, L. C. Lamb, and M. Y. Vardi, Learning to solve np-complete problems: A graph neural network for decision tsp, inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 33 (2019) pp. 4731– 4738

work page 2019
[37]

H. M. Markowitz, Portfolio selection, Journal of finance 7, 71 (1952)

work page 1952
[38]

Cerezo, A

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

work page 2021
[39]

Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

work page 2018
[40]

Nature communica- tions

e. a. Peruzzo, Alberto, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor., "Nature communica- tions" (" 2014")

work page 2014
[41]

A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[42]

D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter, Introduction to quantum mechanics (Cambridge university press, 2019)

work page 2019
[43]

Glover, G

F. Glover, G. Kochenberger, and Y. Du, Quantum bridge analytics i: a tutorial on formulating and using qubo models, 4or 17, 335 (2019)

work page 2019
[44]

Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics 2, 5 (2014)

A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics 2, 5 (2014)

work page 2014
[45]

C. S. Mukherjee, S. Maitra, V . Gaurav, and D. Roy, Prepar- ing dicke states on a quantum computer, IEEE Transac- tions on Quantum Engineering 1, 1 (2020)

work page 2020
[46]

Bärtschi and S

A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, Short-depth circuits for dicke state preparation, in 2022 IEEE International Confer- ence on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE,

work page 2022
[47]

S. Wang, P . Wang, G. Li, S. Zhao, D. Zhao, J. Wang, Y. Fang, M. Dou, Y. Gu, Y.-C. Wu, et al. , Variational quantum eigensolver with linear depth problem-inspired ansatz for solving portfolio optimization in finance, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04296 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[48]

B. M. Garraway, The dicke model in quantum optics: Dicke model revisited, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369, 1137 (2011)

work page 2011
[49]

Bärtschi and S

A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, Deterministic preparation of dicke states, in International Symposium on Fundamen- tals of Computation Theory (Springer, 2019) pp. 126–139

work page 2019
[50]

J. Cook, S. Eidenbenz, and A. Bärtschi, The quantum al- ternating operator ansatz on maximum k-vertex cover, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 83–92

work page 2020
[51]

Bärtschi and S

A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, Grover mixers for qaoa: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state prepa- 10 ration, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 72–82

work page 2020
[52]

Brandhofer, D

S. Brandhofer, D. Braun, V . Dehn, G. Hellstern, M. Hüls, Y. Ji, I. Polian, A. S. Bhatia, and T. Wellens, Benchmark- ing the performance of portfolio optimization with qaoa, Quantum Information Processing 22, 25 (2022)

work page 2022
[53]

Z. He, R. Shaydulin, S. Chakrabarti, D. Herman, C. Li, Y. Sun, and M. Pistoia, Alignment between initial state and mixer improves qaoa performance for constrained optimization, npj Quantum Information 9, 121 (2023)

work page 2023
[54]

Niroula, R

P . Niroula, R. Shaydulin, R. Yalovetzky, P . Minssen, D. Herman, S. Hu, and M. Pistoia, Constrained quan- tum optimization for extractive summarization on a trapped-ion quantum computer, Scientific Reports 12, 17171 (2022)

work page 2022
[55]

S. K. Özdemir, J. Shimamura, and N. Imoto, A necessary and sufficient condition to play games in quantum me- chanical settings, New Journal of Physics 9, 43 (2007)

work page 2007
[56]

Prevedel, G

R. Prevedel, G. Cronenberg, M. S. Tame, M. Paternostro, P . Walther, M.-S. Kim, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental re- alization of dicke states of up to six qubits for multiparty quantum networking, Physical review letters 103, 020503 (2009)

work page 2009
[57]

Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 85, 022322 (2012)

G. Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 85, 022322 (2012)

work page 2012
[58]

Ouyang, Permutation-invariant quantum coding for quantum deletion channels, in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (IEEE, 2021) pp

Y. Ouyang, Permutation-invariant quantum coding for quantum deletion channels, in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (IEEE, 2021) pp. 1499–1503

work page 2021
[59]

Ouyang, Quantum storage in quantum ferromagnets, Physical Review B 103, 144417 (2021)

Y. Ouyang, Quantum storage in quantum ferromagnets, Physical Review B 103, 144417 (2021)

work page 2021
[60]

A. V . Grayver and A. V . Kuvshinov, Exploring equiva- lence domain in nonlinear inverse problems using covari- ance matrix adaption evolution strategy (cmaes) and ran- dom sampling, Geophysical Journal International 205, 971 (2016)

work page 2016
[61]

M. J. Powell, A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation (Springer, 1994)

work page 1994
[62]

J. C. Spall, An overview of the simultaneous perturba- tion method for efficient optimization, Johns Hopkins apl technical digest 19, 482 (1998)

work page 1998
[63]

Gacon, C

J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, G. Carleo, and S. Woerner, Simul- taneous perturbation stochastic approximation of the quantum fisher information, Quantum 5, 567 (2021)

work page 2021
[64]

Shaydulin and Y

R. Shaydulin and Y. Alexeev, Evaluating quantum ap- proximate optimization algorithm: A case study, in 2019 tenth international green and sustainable computing confer- ence (IGSC) (IEEE, 2019) pp. 1–6

work page 2019
[65]

Zhou, S.-T

L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Perfor- mance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices, Physical Review X 10, 021067 (2020)

work page 2020
[66]

Herrman, P

R. Herrman, P . C. Lotshaw, J. Ostrowski, T. S. Humble, and G. Siopsis, Multi-angle quantum approximate opti- mization algorithm, Scientific Reports 12, 6781 (2022)

work page 2022
[67]

Quantum computing with Qiskit

A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P . D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross,et al., Quantum computing with qiskit, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[68]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

work page 2010
[69]

Weinberg, Lectures on quantum mechanics (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

S. Weinberg, Lectures on quantum mechanics (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

work page 2015
[70]

S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P . J. Coles, Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms, Nature communica- tions 12, 6961 (2021)

work page 2021
[71]

Extending the computational reach of a noisy superconducting quantum processor

A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. Corcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Extending the compu- tational reach of a noisy superconducting quantum pro- cessor, arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04492 (2018)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[72]

Giurgica-Tiron, Y

T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum er- ror mitigation, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 306–316

work page 2020
[73]

Y. Kim, C. J. Wood, T. J. Yoder, S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gam- betta, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Scalable error miti- gation for noisy quantum circuits produces competitive expectation values, Nature Physics 19, 752 (2023)

work page 2023
[74]

Van Den Berg, Z

E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors, Nature physics 19, 1116 (2023)

work page 2023
[75]

R. S. Gupta, E. Van Den Berg, M. Takita, D. Riste, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Probabilistic error cancella- tion for dynamic quantum circuits, Physical Review A 109, 062617 (2024)

work page 2024
[76]

Scalable tensor-network error mitigation for near-term quantum computing,

S. Filippov, M. Leahy, M. A. Rossi, and G. García-Pérez, Scalable tensor-network error mitigation for near-term quantum computing, arXiv preprint arXiv: 2307.11740 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[77]

Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, et al., Evidence for the utility of quantum computing be- fore fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500 (2023)

work page 2023
[78]

P . D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gam- betta, Scalable mitigation of measurement errors on quantum computers, PRX Quantum 2, 040326 (2021)

work page 2021
[79]

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 A 105, 032620 (2022)

work page 2022
[80]

P . K. Barkoutsos, G. Nannicini, A. Robert, I. Tavernelli, and S. Woerner, Improving variational quantum opti- mization using cvar, Quantum 4, 256 (2020)

work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.

[1] [1]

O(nk) 5nk − 5k2 N/A all-to-all Ours O(nk) 5nk − 5k2 kn − k(k+1) 2 all-to-all

work page

[2] [2]

O(k log n k ) O(nk) N/A all-to-all

work page

[3] [3]

O(k q n k ) O(nk) N/A grid

work page

[4] [4]

2 (n − k) 2nk − 3k2 nk − 3k2 2 LNN

work page

[5] [5]

A comparison between different implementations of the Dicke state circuit explored in the literature

2 n nk − k2 2 n(k+1) 2 − k2 4 LNN TABLE I. A comparison between different implementations of the Dicke state circuit explored in the literature. The circuits metrics considered are: the complexity of depths of CNOTs, the scaling of number of CNOTs ( nCNOTs ) and number of pa- rameters np with n and k, and topology. These metrics are relevant for resources...

work page 2000

[6] [6]

McArdle, S

S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Re- views of Modern Physics 92, 015003 (2020)

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Bauer, S

B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quan- tum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science, Chemical reviews 120, 12685 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [8]

von Burg, G

V . von Burg, G. H. Low, T. Häner, D. S. Steiger, M. Rei- her, M. Roetteler, and M. Troyer, Quantum computing enhanced computational catalysis, Physical Review Re- search 3, 033055 (2021)

work page 2021

[9] [9]

Biamonte, P

J. Biamonte, P . Wittek, N. Pancotti, P . Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Na- ture 549, 195 (2017)

work page 2017

[10] [10]

Liu and P

N. Liu and P . Rebentrost, Quantum machine learning for quantum anomaly detection, Physical Review A 97, 042315 (2018)

work page 2018

[11] [11]

Schuld and N

M. Schuld and N. Killoran, Quantum machine learn- ing in feature hilbert spaces, Physical review letters 122, 040504 (2019)

work page 2019

[12] [12]

I. Cong, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum convolu- tional neural networks, Nature Physics 15, 1273 (2019)

work page 2019

[13] [13]

Cerezo, G

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

work page 2022

[14] [14]

Jerbi, L

S. Jerbi, L. J. Fiderer, H. Poulsen Nautrup, J. M. Kübler, H. J. Briegel, and V . Dunjko, Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods, Nature Communications 14, 517 (2023)

work page 2023

[15] [15]

D. J. Egger, C. Gambella, J. Marecek, S. McFaddin, M. Mevissen, R. Raymond, A. Simonetto, S. Woerner, and E. Yndurain, Quantum computing for finance: State-of- 9 the-art and future prospects, IEEE Transactions on Quan- tum Engineering 1, 1 (2020)

work page 2020

[16] [16]

Ramos-Calderer, A

S. Ramos-Calderer, A. Pérez-Salinas, D. García-Martín, C. Bravo-Prieto, J. Cortada, J. Planaguma, and J. I. La- torre, Quantum unary approach to option pricing, Phys- ical Review A 103, 032414 (2021)

work page 2021

[17] [17]

Mugel, C

S. Mugel, C. Kuchkovsky, E. Sánchez, S. Fernández- Lorenzo, J. Luis-Hita, E. Lizaso, and R. Orús, Dynamic portfolio optimization with real datasets using quantum processors and quantum-inspired tensor networks, Phys- ical Review Research 4, 013006 (2022)

work page 2022

[18] [18]

Buonaiuto, F

G. Buonaiuto, F. Gargiulo, G. De Pietro, M. Esposito, and M. Pota, Best practices for portfolio optimization by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum de- vices, Scientific Reports 13, 19434 (2023)

work page 2023

[19] [19]

Herman, C

D. Herman, C. Googin, X. Liu, Y. Sun, A. Galda, I. Safro, M. Pistoia, and Y. Alexeev, Quantum computing for fi- nance, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 450 (2023)

work page 2023

[20] [20]

Wilkens and J

S. Wilkens and J. Moorhouse, Quantum computing for financial risk measurement, Quantum Information Pro- cessing 22, 51 (2023)

work page 2023

[21] [21]

A. S. Naik, E. Yeniaras, G. Hellstern, G. Prasad, and S. K. L. P . Vishwakarma, From portfolio optimization to quan- tum blockchain and security: A systematic review of quantum computing in finance, Financial Innovation 11, 1 (2025)

work page 2025

[22] [22]

Jarret and K

M. Jarret and K. Wan, Improved quantum backtracking algorithms using effective resistance estimates, Physical Review A 97, 022337 (2018)

work page 2018

[23] [23]

Campbell, A

E. Campbell, A. Khurana, and A. Montanaro, Applying quantum algorithms to constraint satisfaction problems, Quantum 3, 167 (2019)

work page 2019

[24] [24]

Montanaro, Quantum speedup of branch-and-bound algorithms, Physical Review Research 2, 013056 (2020)

A. Montanaro, Quantum speedup of branch-and-bound algorithms, Physical Review Research 2, 013056 (2020)

work page 2020

[25] [25]

D. J. Egger, J. Mareˇ cek, and S. Woerner, Warm-starting quantum optimization, Quantum 5, 479 (2021)

work page 2021

[26] [26]

A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Feedback-based quantum optimization, Physical Review Letters 129, 250502 (2022)

work page 2022

[27] [27]

Abbas, A

A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. Bärtschi, H. Buhrman, C. Coffrin, G. Cortiana, V . Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreen, et al., Challenges and opportuni- ties in quantum optimization, Nature Reviews Physics , 1 (2024)

work page 2024

[28] [28]

J. R. Finžgar, A. Kerschbaumer, M. J. Schuetz, C. B. Mendl, and H. G. Katzgraber, Quantum-informed recur- sive optimization algorithms, PRX Quantum 5, 020327 (2024)

work page 2024

[29] [29]

Jünger, G

M. Jünger, G. Reinelt, and G. Rinaldi, The traveling sales- man problem, Handbooks in operations research and management science 7, 225 (1995)

work page 1995

[30] [30]

Toth and D

P . Toth and D. Vigo, The vehicle routing problem (SIAM, 2002)

work page 2002

[31] [31]

Martello, D

S. Martello, D. Pisinger, and D. Vigo, The three- dimensional bin packing problem, Operations research 48, 256 (2000)

work page 2000

[32] [32]

Mansini, W

R. Mansini, W. ‚odzimierz Ogryczak, M. G. Speranza, and E. T. A. of European Operational Research Societies, Linear and mixed integer programming for portfolio optimiza- tion, Vol. 21 (Springer, 2015)

work page 2015

[33] [33]

Jünger, T

M. Jünger, T. M. Liebling, D. Naddef, G. L. Nemhauser, W. R. Pulleyblank, G. Reinelt, G. Rinaldi, and L. A. Wolsey, 50 Years of integer programming 1958-2008: From the early years to the state-of-the-art (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009)

work page 1958

[34] [34]

T. F. Gonzalez, Handbook of approximation algorithms and metaheuristics (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2007)

work page 2007

[35] [35]

K. A. Smith, Neural networks for combinatorial opti- mization: a review of more than a decade of research, Informs journal on Computing 11, 15 (1999)

work page 1999

[36] [36]

Prates, P

M. Prates, P . H. Avelar, H. Lemos, L. C. Lamb, and M. Y. Vardi, Learning to solve np-complete problems: A graph neural network for decision tsp, inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 33 (2019) pp. 4731– 4738

work page 2019

[37] [37]

H. M. Markowitz, Portfolio selection, Journal of finance 7, 71 (1952)

work page 1952

[38] [38]

Cerezo, A

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

work page 2021

[39] [39]

Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

work page 2018

[40] [40]

Nature communica- tions

e. a. Peruzzo, Alberto, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor., "Nature communica- tions" (" 2014")

work page 2014

[41] [41]

A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[42] [42]

D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter, Introduction to quantum mechanics (Cambridge university press, 2019)

work page 2019

[43] [43]

Glover, G

F. Glover, G. Kochenberger, and Y. Du, Quantum bridge analytics i: a tutorial on formulating and using qubo models, 4or 17, 335 (2019)

work page 2019

[44] [44]

Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics 2, 5 (2014)

A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics 2, 5 (2014)

work page 2014

[45] [45]

C. S. Mukherjee, S. Maitra, V . Gaurav, and D. Roy, Prepar- ing dicke states on a quantum computer, IEEE Transac- tions on Quantum Engineering 1, 1 (2020)

work page 2020

[46] [46]

Bärtschi and S

A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, Short-depth circuits for dicke state preparation, in 2022 IEEE International Confer- ence on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE,

work page 2022

[47] [47]

S. Wang, P . Wang, G. Li, S. Zhao, D. Zhao, J. Wang, Y. Fang, M. Dou, Y. Gu, Y.-C. Wu, et al. , Variational quantum eigensolver with linear depth problem-inspired ansatz for solving portfolio optimization in finance, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04296 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[48] [48]

B. M. Garraway, The dicke model in quantum optics: Dicke model revisited, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369, 1137 (2011)

work page 2011

[49] [49]

Bärtschi and S

A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, Deterministic preparation of dicke states, in International Symposium on Fundamen- tals of Computation Theory (Springer, 2019) pp. 126–139

work page 2019

[50] [50]

J. Cook, S. Eidenbenz, and A. Bärtschi, The quantum al- ternating operator ansatz on maximum k-vertex cover, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 83–92

work page 2020

[51] [51]

Bärtschi and S

A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, Grover mixers for qaoa: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state prepa- 10 ration, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 72–82

work page 2020

[52] [52]

Brandhofer, D

S. Brandhofer, D. Braun, V . Dehn, G. Hellstern, M. Hüls, Y. Ji, I. Polian, A. S. Bhatia, and T. Wellens, Benchmark- ing the performance of portfolio optimization with qaoa, Quantum Information Processing 22, 25 (2022)

work page 2022

[53] [53]

Z. He, R. Shaydulin, S. Chakrabarti, D. Herman, C. Li, Y. Sun, and M. Pistoia, Alignment between initial state and mixer improves qaoa performance for constrained optimization, npj Quantum Information 9, 121 (2023)

work page 2023

[54] [54]

Niroula, R

P . Niroula, R. Shaydulin, R. Yalovetzky, P . Minssen, D. Herman, S. Hu, and M. Pistoia, Constrained quan- tum optimization for extractive summarization on a trapped-ion quantum computer, Scientific Reports 12, 17171 (2022)

work page 2022

[55] [55]

S. K. Özdemir, J. Shimamura, and N. Imoto, A necessary and sufficient condition to play games in quantum me- chanical settings, New Journal of Physics 9, 43 (2007)

work page 2007

[56] [56]

Prevedel, G

R. Prevedel, G. Cronenberg, M. S. Tame, M. Paternostro, P . Walther, M.-S. Kim, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental re- alization of dicke states of up to six qubits for multiparty quantum networking, Physical review letters 103, 020503 (2009)

work page 2009

[57] [57]

Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 85, 022322 (2012)

G. Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 85, 022322 (2012)

work page 2012

[58] [58]

Ouyang, Permutation-invariant quantum coding for quantum deletion channels, in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (IEEE, 2021) pp

Y. Ouyang, Permutation-invariant quantum coding for quantum deletion channels, in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (IEEE, 2021) pp. 1499–1503

work page 2021

[59] [59]

Ouyang, Quantum storage in quantum ferromagnets, Physical Review B 103, 144417 (2021)

Y. Ouyang, Quantum storage in quantum ferromagnets, Physical Review B 103, 144417 (2021)

work page 2021

[60] [60]

A. V . Grayver and A. V . Kuvshinov, Exploring equiva- lence domain in nonlinear inverse problems using covari- ance matrix adaption evolution strategy (cmaes) and ran- dom sampling, Geophysical Journal International 205, 971 (2016)

work page 2016

[61] [61]

M. J. Powell, A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation (Springer, 1994)

work page 1994

[62] [62]

J. C. Spall, An overview of the simultaneous perturba- tion method for efficient optimization, Johns Hopkins apl technical digest 19, 482 (1998)

work page 1998

[63] [63]

Gacon, C

J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, G. Carleo, and S. Woerner, Simul- taneous perturbation stochastic approximation of the quantum fisher information, Quantum 5, 567 (2021)

work page 2021

[64] [64]

Shaydulin and Y

R. Shaydulin and Y. Alexeev, Evaluating quantum ap- proximate optimization algorithm: A case study, in 2019 tenth international green and sustainable computing confer- ence (IGSC) (IEEE, 2019) pp. 1–6

work page 2019

[65] [65]

Zhou, S.-T

L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Perfor- mance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices, Physical Review X 10, 021067 (2020)

work page 2020

[66] [66]

Herrman, P

R. Herrman, P . C. Lotshaw, J. Ostrowski, T. S. Humble, and G. Siopsis, Multi-angle quantum approximate opti- mization algorithm, Scientific Reports 12, 6781 (2022)

work page 2022

[67] [67]

Quantum computing with Qiskit

A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P . D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross,et al., Quantum computing with qiskit, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[68] [68]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

work page 2010

[69] [69]

Weinberg, Lectures on quantum mechanics (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

S. Weinberg, Lectures on quantum mechanics (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

work page 2015

[70] [70]

S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P . J. Coles, Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms, Nature communica- tions 12, 6961 (2021)

work page 2021

[71] [71]

Extending the computational reach of a noisy superconducting quantum processor

A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. Corcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Extending the compu- tational reach of a noisy superconducting quantum pro- cessor, arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04492 (2018)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

[72] [72]

Giurgica-Tiron, Y

T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum er- ror mitigation, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 306–316

work page 2020

[73] [73]

Y. Kim, C. J. Wood, T. J. Yoder, S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gam- betta, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Scalable error miti- gation for noisy quantum circuits produces competitive expectation values, Nature Physics 19, 752 (2023)

work page 2023

[74] [74]

Van Den Berg, Z

E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors, Nature physics 19, 1116 (2023)

work page 2023

[75] [75]

R. S. Gupta, E. Van Den Berg, M. Takita, D. Riste, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Probabilistic error cancella- tion for dynamic quantum circuits, Physical Review A 109, 062617 (2024)

work page 2024

[76] [76]

Scalable tensor-network error mitigation for near-term quantum computing,

S. Filippov, M. Leahy, M. A. Rossi, and G. García-Pérez, Scalable tensor-network error mitigation for near-term quantum computing, arXiv preprint arXiv: 2307.11740 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023

[77] [77]

Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, et al., Evidence for the utility of quantum computing be- fore fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500 (2023)

work page 2023

[78] [78]

P . D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gam- betta, Scalable mitigation of measurement errors on quantum computers, PRX Quantum 2, 040326 (2021)

work page 2021

[79] [79]

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 A 105, 032620 (2022)

work page 2022

[80] [80]

P . K. Barkoutsos, G. Nannicini, A. Robert, I. Tavernelli, and S. Woerner, Improving variational quantum opti- mization using cvar, Quantum 4, 256 (2020)

work page 2020