Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 105 references

Fermionic Clifford transformations reduce to half-body and pair operators acting at discrete angles, with number-operator phases allowed continuously.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Fermionic Clifford transformations are generated by half-body and pair operators with angles kπ/2, preserving many-body rank and fermionic parity.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid constructive results and a useful framework, but the completeness proof for the main generating set has a real gap: the Frobenius-norm argument at Eqs. (44)–(45) does not establish rank preservation. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2510.23923 v1 pith:N6WBZJUK submitted 2025-10-27 quant-ph

Clifford Transformations for Fermionic Quantum Systems: From Paulis to Majoranas to Fermions

Ilias Magoulas , Francesco A. Evangelista This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords fermionic Clifford groupMajorana operatorsfermionic stringsgenerating setClifford transformationssecond quantizationqubit taperingmean-field theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes the fermionic analogue of Clifford gates: unitaries that conjugate every product of fermionic creation, annihilation, number, and hole operators into another such product. It proves that every fermionic Clifford transformation is generated by half-body operators (a†_p ± a_p), pair operators (a†_p a_q ± a†_q a_p and a†_p a†_q ± a_q a_p), and number-operator phases e^{iθ n_p}, with the non-number generators restricted to angles kπ/2. The paper gives the explicit generating set and a complete table of the induced transformations: particle–hole conjugation for half-body generators, index swap for single excitations, and both for pair creation/annihilation. Because the generators are at most one-body, the transformations preserve many-body rank and fermionic parity; they also make the fermionic T gate Clifford, unlike in the Pauli setting. The same generator families, with continuous angles, recover the standard hierarchy of fermionic mean-field theories.

Core claim

The central claim is that the fermionic Clifford group — the set of unitaries that map every fermionic string to another fermionic string under conjugation — has the explicit generating set C_FM = ⟨e^{iθI}, e^{iθ n_p}, e^{kπ/2(a†_p−a_p)}, e^{kπ/2(a†_p a_q−a†_q a_p)}⟩. The proof shows that any unitary exponential of a fermionic string that acts Clifford must be generated by a half-body or pair operator; all other string lengths and angles produce linear combinations of multiple fermionic strings rather than a single one. The paper fully tabulates the action: half-body generators perform particle–hole conjugation, single-excitation pair generators swap indices, and pair creation/annihilation g

What carries the argument

The central object is the fermionic monoid F_M, the set of products of creation, annihilation, number, and hole operators, which replaces the Pauli group in the fermionic setting. The argument's workhorse is the closed-form similarity-transformation formula for a fermionic string under exponentials of an anti-Hermitian or Hermitian generator, which reduces to a rotation among a limited set of strings. These closed forms, together with the norm-based argument that Clifford unitaries preserve many-body rank, force the generators to be half-body and pair operators and the angles to be kπ/2 (except for number operators, which are continuous).

Load-bearing premise

The completeness argument assumes that any unitary preserving the norm of every fermionic string also preserves its many-body rank; the paper's norm data do not by themselves rule out rank-changing unitaries, since, for instance, the number operator and a single creation operator have equal norms.

What would settle it

Enumerate, for two or three fermionic modes, all unitaries that conjugate every element of the fermionic monoid into the monoid, and check whether each is expressible in the paper's generating set; a single counterexample would disprove completeness. A cheaper check is to look specifically for a unitary mapping a†_p to n_p (same norm, different rank) while preserving the monoid.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Every fermionic Clifford unitary can be compiled from the four gate families in the paper's generating set, so any circuit built from them maps fermionic strings to fermionic strings and is classically simulatable in the same sense as Pauli Clifford circuits.
  • Because fermionic Clifford transformations preserve many-body rank and fermionic parity, conjugating a fermionic Hamiltonian leaves the number of terms and their ranks unchanged, even when particle number is not conserved.
  • The number-operator gate e^{iθ n_p} is Clifford for every θ, so the fermionic analogue of the T gate (θ = π/4) is Clifford, in contrast to qubit Pauli T gates.
  • Relaxing the discrete angles to continuous parameters yields the hierarchy of fermionic mean-field theories, so the Clifford gate set and the mean-field methods share the same one-body generator families.
  • The single-excitation, pair, and half-body generators span the Lie algebras so(M), so(M)⊕so(M), and so(M)⊕so(M+1), respectively, classifying the algebraic structure behind the transformations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the generating set contains only one-body fermionic generators, any fermionic Clifford circuit acts within fixed parity sectors; a natural extension is a fermionic stabilizer tableau that tracks parity and rank, which the paper does not construct.
  • The rank-preservation property implies that fermionic Clifford transformations are markedly weaker than their Pauli counterparts, which can change string length; this suggests fermionic Clifford circuits are a limited but highly classically tractable resource, and that non-Clifford fermionic gates would supply any 'magic' needed for universality.
  • A testable extension is to treat the angles as continuous variational parameters and measure how much of mean-field correlation is already captured at the discrete Clifford angles; the paper's closed-form expressions make such a scan straightforward for small mode counts.
  • The completeness proof's reliance on norm preservation suggests checking whether any additional invariant (for example, idempotency or nilpotency) is needed; an exhaustive search for two or three modes could confirm or refute the generating set before relying on it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the notion of Clifford transformations from Pauli and Majorana strings to products of fermionic creation, annihilation, and number operators ('fermionic strings'). It claims that the setwise stabilizer of the fermionic monoid in the unitary group is generated by the unitaries in Eq. (46): global phases, number-operator phases exp(iθ n_p) with arbitrary θ, half-body exponentials exp(kπ/2 (a†_p − a_p)), and single-excitation pair exponentials exp(kπ/2 (a†_p a_q − a†_q a_p)) with k ∈ Z. The paper derives closed-form transformation tables (Tables I and II), illustrates particle-hole and index-swap actions, connects fermionic Clifford transformations to qubit tapering and to mean-field theories, and places the detailed case analysis in the Supplemental Material.

Significance. If the completeness statement in Eq. (46) is correct, this is a clean and potentially useful characterization of fermionic Clifford transformations. The paper's strengths include explicit closed-form expressions, detailed transformation tables that can be checked term by term, and connections to established Lie-algebraic structures and to qubit tapering. The derivation builds on the authors' earlier independently published closed-form results (Ref. [64]). However, the proof of the central completeness claim has a genuine logical gap, and therefore the main theorem is not yet fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (44)-(46)] The proof that fermionic Clifford transformations preserve many-body rank is incomplete. The argument that unitarity plus Frobenius-norm preservation forces rank preservation is not valid: for example, ||n_p||_F^2 = Tr(n_p^2) = 2^{M−1} equals ||a†_p||_F^2 = Tr(a_p a†_p) = 2^{M−1}, yet n_p has rank 1 and a†_p has rank 1/2 in the paper's terminology. Norm preservation alone therefore cannot exclude a unitary mapping a†_p to n_p, which would change rank. A correct proof needs an additional algebraic invariant, e.g. nilpotency/idempotency or the CAR: if U a†_p U† = n_p, then squaring gives U (a†_p)^2 U† = n_p^2, i.e. 0 = n_p, a contradiction. Since Eq. (46) rests on the rank-preservation claim, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Section III, around Eq. (46)] Even if rank preservation is established, the conclusion that 'the entire Clifford group is comprised of the aforementioned Clifford unitaries and their products' needs a transitivity/stabilizer argument. The preceding derivation classifies unitaries of the special exponential form e^{θA} or e^{iθH} for a single generator F and shows that their induced actions can realize index swaps and particle-hole conjugation. It does not prove that an arbitrary unitary in the setwise stabilizer of the fermionic monoid is a product of the listed exponentials. One must show, for example, that the group generated by Eq. (46) acts transitively on fermionic strings of fixed rank and that its point stabilizer is contained in the generated group up to phases. This missing step is part of the main theorem.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (46)] The generating set lists only e^{kπ/2(a†_p−a_p)} and e^{kπ/2(a†_p a_q−a†_q a_p)}, while the text and Tables I/II also use the Hermitian variants e^{ikπ/2(a†_p+a_p)} and e^{ikπ/2(a†_p a_q+a†_q a_p)}. It should be stated explicitly how the latter are generated from Eq. (46), e.g. by combining with e^{iθ n_p} and phases, so that the reader understands the generating set is not smaller than claimed.
  2. [Section III, after Eqs. (31)-(32)] The sentence 'with these two cases encompassing all possible combinations of fermionic operators' is an important structural assumption. It should be proved in the Supplemental Material or explicitly attributed to Ref. [64] with a proof sketch. As written, it is easy to miss that this is a nontrivial classification step.
  3. [Eqs. (48)-(52)] The dependence on k in Eqs. (49)-(51) is compressed through the expression 1 − (1 + (−1)^{k+1})/2. Stating the even-k and odd-k cases separately would improve readability and make the resulting particle-hole conjugation in Eq. (52) more transparent.
  4. [Fig. 4] The orbital labels |σ_g⟩, |σ_u⟩ are used in the figure but not defined in the caption. A brief definition (σ_g = symmetric, σ_u = antisymmetric under inversion) would make the figure self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the fermionic Clifford generating set is derived from independent closed-form commutation results, not from the conclusion itself.

full rationale

The central derivation (Section III, Eq. (46)) does not treat its own conclusion as an input. The closed-form similarity-transformation formulas (Eqs. (31)-(32)) are cited to Ref. [64], the authors' earlier work, but that work contains no Clifford characterization and is independently reproduced in Ref. [65]; it supplies only algebraic commutation expansions, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular way. There are no fitted parameters or data subsets: the angular restrictions theta = k*pi/2 are obtained by requiring the closed-form rotations to reduce to a single fermionic string, as computed in Section S3, rather than by fitting. The claim that exp(i*theta*n_p) is Clifford for arbitrary theta is derived directly from the idempotent-number-operator algebra (Eq. S73), not assumed. The only issue visible is a correctness gap in the completeness proof: the claim that unitarity plus Frobenius-norm preservation forces many-body-rank preservation (Eqs. (44)-(45)) is not logically sufficient, since n_p and a^dag_p share the same norm; this is an unsupported inference, not a definitional reduction, and therefore does not count as circularity under the stated rules.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or free parameters. It relies on standard fermionic algebra and on the authors' prior closed-form transformation formulas. The main unstated assumptions are the completeness of the α,β classification and the rank-preservation argument.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Closed-form similarity transformation formulas (Eqs. 31–32) with α,β ∈ {1,4} are exact for all fermionic strings.
    These formulas are borrowed from the authors' own Ref. [64]. We spot-checked half-body generators and found them correct, but the paper does not prove the general case.
  • ad hoc to paper The two cases α,β = 1 and α,β = 4 'encompass all possible combinations of fermionic operators'.
    Stated after Eq. (32) without proof. This is load-bearing because the subsequent classification of Clifford generators depends on these parameter values.
  • ad hoc to paper Frobenius norm preservation implies preservation of many-body rank.
    Invoked in Section III (Eqs. 44–46) to prove completeness of the generating set. The paper's twin examples are insufficient: n_p and a†_p have equal norm but different rank, so the conclusion does not follow from the evidence given.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clifford Transformations for Fermionic Quantum Systems: From Paulis to Majoranas to Fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N6WBZJUK

@misc{pith2026251023923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clifford Transformations for Fermionic Quantum Systems: From Paulis to Majoranas to Fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N6WBZJUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.23923}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Clifford gates and transformations, which map products of elementary Pauli or Majorana operators to other such products, are foundational in quantum computing, underpinning the stabilizer formalism, error-correcting codes, magic state distillation, quantum communication and cryptography, and qubit tapering. Moreover, circuits composed entirely of Clifford gates are classically simulatable, highlighting their computational significance. In this work, we extend the concept of Clifford transformations to fermionic systems. We demonstrate that fermionic Clifford transformations are generated by half-body and pair operators, providing a systematic framework for their characterization. Additionally, we establish connections with fermionic mean-field theories and applications in qubit tapering, offering insights into their broader implications in quantum computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.23923 by Francesco A. Evangelista, Ilias Magoulas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic illustration of the normalizer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Illustration of the continuous rotation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Illustration of the continuous rotation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Molecular orbital diagram of the H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Schematic representation of the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  2. [2]

    Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Gottesman, Surviving as a quantum computer in a classical world (2024), textbook manuscript prepeprint,www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2024/ cmsc858G/QECCbook-2024-ch1-15.pdf

    D. Gottesman, Surviving as a quantum computer in a classical world (2024), textbook manuscript prepeprint,www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2024/ cmsc858G/QECCbook-2024-ch1-15.pdf

    2024

  4. [4]

    Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys

    D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A57, 127 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    Gottesman, Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound, Phys

    D. Gottesman, Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1862 (1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, Quantum error correction and orthogonal geom- etry, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 405 (1997)

    1997

  7. [7]

    A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, Quantum error correction via codes over GF(4), IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory44, 1369 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  9. [9]

    A. M. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 793 (1996)

    1996

  10. [10]

    Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, High-threshold and low- overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory, Nature627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    B. W. Reichardt, D. Aasen, R. Chao, A. Chernogu- zov, W. van Dam, J. P. Gaebler, D. Gresh, D. Luc- chetti, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, A. Paet- znick, A. Paz, P. E. Siegfried, M. P. da Silva, K. M. Svore, Z. Wang, and M. Zanner, Demonstration of quan- tum computation and error correction with a tesseract code (2024), arXiv:2409.04628 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Rengaswamy, R

    N. Rengaswamy, R. Calderbank, S. Kadhe, and H. D. Pfister, Logical Clifford synthesis for stabilizer codes, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng.1, 2501217 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  15. [15]

    P. S. Rodriguez, J. M. Robinson, P. N. Jepsen, Z. He, C. Duckering, C. Zhao, K.-H. Wu, J. Campo, K. Bag- nall, M. Kwon, T. Karolyshyn, P. Weinberg, M. Cain, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, M. Kalinowski, S. H. Li, T. Manovitz, J. Amato-Grill, J. I. Basham, L. Bern- stein, B. Braverman, A. Bylinskii, A. Choukri, R. DeAn- gelo, F. Fang, C. Fieweger, P. Frederick,...

    arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Daguerre and I

    L. Daguerre and I. H. Kim, Code switching revisited: Low-overhead magic state preparation using color codes, Phys. Rev. Research7, 023080 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Itogawa, Y

    T. Itogawa, Y. Takada, Y. Hirano, and K. Fujii, Efficient magic state distillation by zero-level distillation, PRX Quantum6, 020356 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Daguerre, R

    L. Daguerre, R. Blume-Kohout, N. C. Brown, D. Hayes, and I. H. Kim, Experimental demonstration of high- fidelity logical magic states from code switching (2025), arXiv:2506.14169 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  20. [20]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  21. [21]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Go- ing beyond Bell’s theorem, inBell’s Theorem, Quan- tum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 69–72

    1989

  22. [22]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s theorem without inequalities, Am. J. Phys.58, 1131 (1990)

    1990

  23. [23]

    Gisin and H

    N. Gisin and H. Bechmann-Paquinucci, Bell inequality, Bell states and maximally entangled states fornqubits, Phys. Lett. A246, 1 (1998)

    1998

  24. [24]

    Sych and G

    D. Sych and G. Leuchs, A complete basis of generalized Bell states, New J. Phys.11, 013006 (2009)

    2009

  25. [25]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2881 (1992)

    1992

  26. [26]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

    1993

  27. [27]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s the- orem, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  28. [28]

    Hillery, V

    M. Hillery, V. Buˇ zek, and A. Berthiaume, Quantum se- cret sharing, Phys. Rev. A59, 1829 (1999)

    1999

  29. [29]

    Bravyi, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Setia, R

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

    2020

  31. [31]

    Microsoft Quantum, InAs-Al hybrid devices passing the topological gap protocol, Phys. Rev. B107, 245423 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Microsoft Azure Quantum, Interferometric single-shot parity measurement in InAs–Al hybrid devices, Nature 638, 651 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Kitaev, Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires, Phys.-Usp.44, 131 (2001)

    A. Kitaev, Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires, Phys.-Usp.44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  34. [34]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum com- putation, Ann. Phys.298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  35. [35]

    Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys.303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  36. [36]

    M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, M. J. Larsen, and Z. Wang, Topological quantum computation, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.40, 31 (2003)

    2003

  37. [37]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-Abelian anyons and topological quan- tum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  38. [38]

    Mudassar, R

    M. Mudassar, R. W. Chien, and D. Gottesman, Encoding majorana codes, Phys. Rev. A110, 032430 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Bettaque and B

    V. Bettaque and B. Swingle, The structure of the Majo- rana Clifford group (2025), arXiv:2407.11319 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    D. R. Hartree, The wave mechanics of an atom with a non-Coulomb central field. Part I. Theory and methods, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.24, 89 (1928)

    1928

  41. [41]

    D. R. Hartree, The wave mechanics of an atom with a non-Coulomb central field. Part II. Some results and discussion, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.24, 111 (1928)

    1928

  42. [42]

    J. C. Slater, Note on Hartree’s method, Phys. Rev.35, 210 (1930)

    1930

  43. [43]

    Fock, N¨ oherungsmethode zur L¨ osung des quanten- mechanischen Mehrk¨ orperproblems, Z

    V. Fock, N¨ oherungsmethode zur L¨ osung des quanten- mechanischen Mehrk¨ orperproblems, Z. Phys.61, 126 (1930)

    1930

  44. [44]

    Selfconsistent field

    V. Fock, “Selfconsistent field” mit Austausch f¨ ur Na- trium, Z. Phys.62, 795 (1930)

    1930

  45. [45]

    Fukutome, M

    H. Fukutome, M. Yamamura, and S. Nishiyama, A new fermion many-body theory based on theSO(2N+ 1) Lie algebra of the fermion operators, Prog. Theor. Phys.57, 1554 (1977)

    1977

  46. [46]

    Fukutome, Unrestricted Hartree–Fock theory and its applications to molecules and chemical reactions, Int

    H. Fukutome, Unrestricted Hartree–Fock theory and its applications to molecules and chemical reactions, Int. J. Quantum Chem.20, 955 (1981)

    1981

  47. [47]

    Fukutome, The group theoretical structure of fermion many-body systems arising from the canonical anticom- mutation relation

    H. Fukutome, The group theoretical structure of fermion many-body systems arising from the canonical anticom- mutation relation. I: Lie algebras of fermion operators and exact generator coordinate representations of state vectors, Prog. Theor. Phys.65, 809 (1981)

    1981

  48. [48]

    Echenique and J

    P. Echenique and J. L. Alonso, A mathematical and com- putational review of Hartree-Fock SCF methods in quan- tum chemistry, Mol. Phys.105, 3057 (2007)

    2007

  49. [49]

    J. E. Moussa, Generalized unitary Bogoliubov trans- formation that breaks fermion number parity (2012), arXiv:1208.1086 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    T. M. Henderson, S. G. Tabrizi, G. P. Chen, and G. E. Scuseria, Hartree–Fock–Bogoliubov theory for number- parity-violating fermionic hamiltonians, J. Chem. Phys. 160, 064103 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    N. N. Bogoljubov, On a new method in the theory of superconductivity, Nuovo Cim.7, 794 (1958)

    1958

  52. [52]

    J. G. Valatin, Comments on the theory of superconduc- tivity, Nuovo Cim.7, 843 (1958)

    1958

  53. [53]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  54. [54]

    Pauli, Zur Quantenmechanik des magnetischen Elek- trons, Z

    W. Pauli, Zur Quantenmechanik des magnetischen Elek- trons, Z. Phys.43, 601 (1927)

    1927

  55. [55]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computa- tion, Phys. Rev. A52, 3457 (1995). 18

    1995

  56. [56]

    Majorana, Teoria simmetrica dell’elettrone e del positrone, Nuovo Cim.14, 171 (1937)

    E. Majorana, Teoria simmetrica dell’elettrone e del positrone, Nuovo Cim.14, 171 (1937)

    1937

  57. [57]

    Wilczek, Majorana returns, Nature Phys.5, 614 (2009)

    F. Wilczek, Majorana returns, Nature Phys.5, 614 (2009)

    2009

  58. [58]

    Ma, Majorana fermions in condensed matter: An out- look, Physica B Condens

    N. Ma, Majorana fermions in condensed matter: An out- look, Physica B Condens. Matter512, 100 (2017)

    2017

  59. [59]

    Frolov, Quantum computing’s reproducibility crisis: Majorana fermions, Nature592, 350 (2021)

    S. Frolov, Quantum computing’s reproducibility crisis: Majorana fermions, Nature592, 350 (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    InAs-Al hybrid devices passing the topological gap protocol

    H. F. Legg, Comment on “InAs-Al hybrid devices passing the topological gap protocol”, Microsoft Quantum, Phys. Rev. B 107, 245423 (2023) (2025), arXiv:2502.19560 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, ¨Uber das Paulische ¨Aquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys.47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  62. [62]

    C. K. McLauchlan and B. B´ eri, Fermion-parity-based computation and its Majorana-zero-mode implementa- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 180504 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    J. J. Rotman,An Introduction to the Theory of Groups, 4th ed. (Springer New York, NY, 1995)

    1995

  64. [64]

    F. A. Evangelista and I. Magoulas, Exact Closed-Form Unitary Transformations of Fermionic Operators, Phys. Rev. A111, 042825 (2025)

    2025

  65. [65]

    Jayakumar, T

    P. Jayakumar, T. Zeng, and A. F. Izamylov, On the fea- sibility of exact unitary transformations for many-body Hamiltonians, 2025, arXiv:2510.10957. arXiv.org e-Print archive.https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10957

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Romero, R

    J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Strategies for quantum com- puting molecular energies using the unitary coupled clus- ter ansatz, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 014008 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Kutzelnigg, inMethods of Electronic Structure The- ory, edited by H

    W. Kutzelnigg, inMethods of Electronic Structure The- ory, edited by H. F. Schaefer, III (Springer, Boston, 1977) pp. 129–188

    1977

  68. [68]

    Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in Fock space

    W. Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in Fock space. I. The universal wave and energy operators, J. Chem. Phys.77, 3081 (1982)

    1982

  69. [69]

    Kutzelnigg and S

    W. Kutzelnigg and S. Koch, Quantum chemistry in Fock space. II. Effective Hamiltonians in Fock space, J. Chem. Phys.79, 4315 (1983)

    1983

  70. [70]

    Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in Fock space

    W. Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in Fock space. III. Particle-hole formalism, J. Chem. Phys.80, 822 (1984)

    1984

  71. [71]

    R. J. Bartlett, S. A. Kucharski, and J. Noga, Alternative coupled-cluster ans¨ atze II. The unitary coupled-cluster method, Chem. Phys. Lett.155, 133 (1989)

    1989

  72. [72]

    P. G. Szalay, M. Nooijen, and R. J. Bartlett, Alterna- tive ans¨ atze in single reference coupled-cluster theory. III. A critical analysis of different methods, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 281 (1995)

    1995

  73. [73]

    A. G. Taube and R. J. Bartlett, New perspectives on unitary coupled-cluster theory, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 106, 3393 (2006)

    2006

  74. [74]

    Cooper and P

    B. Cooper and P. J. Knowles, Benchmark studies of vari- ational, unitary and extended coupled cluster methods, J. Chem. Phys.133, 234102 (2010)

    2010

  75. [75]

    F. A. Evangelista, Alternative single-reference coupled cluster approaches for multireference problems: The sim- pler, the better, J. Chem. Phys.134, 224102 (2011)

    2011

  76. [76]

    Harsha, T

    G. Harsha, T. Shiozaki, and G. E. Scuseria, On the dif- ference between variational and unitary coupled clutser theories, J. Chem. Phys.148, 044107 (2018)

    2018

  77. [77]

    Filip and A

    M.-A. Filip and A. J. W. Thom, A stochastic approach to unitary coupled cluster, J. Chem. Phys.153, 214106 (2020)

    2020

  78. [78]

    J. K. Freericks, Operator relationship between conven- tional coupled cluster and unitary coupled cluster, Sym- metry14, 494 (2022)

    2022

  79. [79]

    Anand, P

    A. Anand, P. Schleich, S. Alperin-Lea, P. W. K. Jensen, S. Sim, M. D ´ ıaz-Tinoco, J. S. Kottmann, M. Degroote, A. F. Izmaylov, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, A quantum com- puting view on unitary coupled cluster theory, Chem. Soc. Rev.51, 1659 (2022)

    2022

  80. [80]

    Coester, Bound states of a many-particle system, Nucl

    F. Coester, Bound states of a many-particle system, Nucl. Phys.7, 421 (1958)

    1958

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.