Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Quantum solver for single-impurity Anderson models with particle-hole symmetry

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A shallow-circuit quantum solver reconstructs the impurity Green's function for particle-hole symmetric Anderson models.

desk verdict Useful benchmark for quantum impurity solvers, with one load-bearing assertion left unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.10594 v2 pith:3MGNPYD6 submitted 2026-01-15 quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mariia Karabin , Tanvir Sohail , Dmytro Bykov , Eduardo Antonio Coello Pérez , Swarnava Ghosh , Murali Gopalakrishnan Meena , Seongmin Kim , Amir Shehata
show 3 more authors
In-Saeng Suh Hanna Terletska Markus Eisenbach
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords AndersonimpuritymodelGreen'sfunctionVQEcontinuedfractionparticle-holesymmetrydensityofstatesLanczosnear-termquantumcomputing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that a variational quantum eigensolver with a shallow, symmetry-preserving circuit can replace expensive classical solvers for the Anderson impurity model inside dynamical mean-field theory. The key move is to reuse the optimized ground-state circuit, with parameters shifted by π−θ0, to generate the particle and hole excitations that define the impurity Green's function, and to obtain that function from a continued-fraction expansion built from low-order Hamiltonian moments. Benchmarking in classical simulations with finite shots and noise, for up to five bath sites and Hubbard interaction U up to 8, the reconstructed density of states matches exact diagonalization. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete pathway to real-frequency impurity solvers that avoid the sign problem and require only shallow circuits on near-term hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the parameter-shift rule for the symmetry-preserving ansatz: the circuit that prepares the ground state |ψ(θ0)⟩, with its parameters set to π−θ0, is asserted to prepare the particle and hole states c†|ψ0⟩ and c|ψ0⟩ (and their embeddings for three and five bath sites), avoiding re-optimization. The Green's function is then expressed as a continued fraction whose p and h Lanczos coefficients are estimated from cumulant expansions of Hamiltonian moments ⟨H^n⟩ up to n=4, truncating the expansions to order 1/N. Together these two elements convert a single VQE ground-state optimization into a real-frequency spectral function.

What would settle it

Compute the squared overlap between the state prepared by the π−θ0 parameter-shifted circuit and the exact c†|ψ0⟩ (and c|ψ0⟩) for a five-bath, U=8 particle-hole symmetric Anderson model using exact statevector simulation. If the overlap is far below one while the ground-state ansatz itself has high fidelity, the parameter-shift construction is invalidated and the reconstructed DOS is not the impurity Green's function. A simpler check is to verify the identity analytically for the one-bath case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the parameter-shifted ansatz, built from half-filling and Givens-rotation gates, prepares particle and hole excitations that are sufficiently accurate to reconstruct the impurity Green's function via a continued fraction. Using Hamiltonian moments up to fourth order to compute Lanczos coefficients, the authors obtain density of states that reproduce the exact spectra for one-, three-, and five-bath particle-hole symmetric Anderson models at U values from 2 to 8. They also show that L-BFGS-B optimization gives the best balance between accuracy and circuit cost, and that the quantum-computed moment correction reduces variational energy errors, particularly for

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is the unproved assertion that the π−θ0 parameter shift of the ground-state circuit yields the exact particle and hole excitations c†|ψ0⟩ and c|ψ0⟩ for one, three, and five bath sites; if that identity is wrong, the continued-fraction coefficients are not those of the impurity Green's function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A successful quantum impurity solver can deliver real-frequency Green's functions directly, bypassing the sign problem and low-temperature limitations of continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo.
  • Reusing ground-state parameters for excitations cuts quantum circuit depth and optimization cost, making larger bath sizes more accessible within near-term hardware limits.
  • The moment-based QCM correction improves ground-state energies without deepening the ansatz, potentially stabilizing the DMFT self-consistency loop.
  • The reported shot counts and optimizer comparisons provide practical benchmarks for embedding VQE-based impurity solvers into DMFT workflows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The unproved parameter-shift identity likely depends on particle-hole symmetry; extending to asymmetric models would require new circuit constructions, a natural testable extension.
  • The truncated cumulant expansion (order 1/N) for the Lanczos coefficients may lose accuracy outside the tested range (U≤8, Nb≤5); comparing against full Lanczos would reveal the breakdown.
  • The 'near-term feasibility' claim is conditional: all results are simulated, and the five-bath moment-correction cost (~7.6×10^7 shots) likely exceeds current hardware budgets without error mitigation or shot reduction.
  • A direct hardware run on the one- or three-bath model, at the reported shot counts, would be the decisive test of the practical claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a hybrid quantum-classical solver for single-impurity Anderson models with particle-hole symmetry, targeting DMFT-type impurity problems. A symmetry-preserving VQE ansatz approximates the ground state; a parameter-shifted version of the same circuit is claimed to prepare the particle and hole excitations. The impurity Green's function is reconstructed from continued-fraction Lanczos coefficients obtained from measured Hamiltonian moments on those states. The method is benchmarked for one-, three-, and five-bath AIMs with U in {2,4,6,8}, using classical simulation of the quantum subroutines, comparing COBYLA, Adam, and L-BFGS-B, and testing a moment-based (QCM) energy correction. The central claim is that Green's-function/DOS reconstruction is feasible on near-term devices.

Significance. If the parameter-shift excitation construction is valid, the paper makes a useful contribution: it avoids re-optimizing excited states, uses shallow circuits, and connects VQE-prepared states to real-frequency spectral functions through a standard continued-fraction formalism. The absence of fitted constants is a clear strength: variational parameters are optimized on the Hamiltonian itself, and the Green's function is built from measured moments, so the reported DOS is not the result of a circular fit. The systematic comparison of optimizers and the shot-cost analysis are also practically valuable. However, the core excitation-preparation assertion is unproven, and the hardware-feasibility claim is stronger than the evidence, which is entirely classical simulation. The paper would be publishable after the central gap is closed and the claims are made commensurate with the data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II E, Eq. (13)] The load-bearing step is asserted, not demonstrated: 'It can be shown that setting their parameters to π−θ0 ... generates the particle and hole excitations ... This result holds for the five-bath case as well.' Equation (13) is the impurity Green's function only if the Krylov bases are built from the exact c†|ψ0⟩ and c|ψ0⟩ states. No derivation or direct fidelity check for these excited states is reported; the only evidence is the indirect DOS agreement in Fig. 8, which also depends on the 1/N truncation in Eq. (11) and on the approximate variational ground state. Please provide either a rigorous proof of the π−θ0 identity or a direct overlap/fidelity calculation for the prepared particle/hole states for Nb=1,3,5. Without this, the continued-fraction coefficients in Eq. (13) are not established as those of the impurity Green's function.
  2. [Fig. 8, Sec. III D] The validation for the five-bath case is statistically thin: one initialization seed, two optimization repeats, and no error bars or uncertainty band on the sampled DOS. The statement that 'the sampled DOS tracks the relative weight of these peaks across all interaction values' is stronger than what is shown: only U=2 and one larger U are displayed, and the right-column subplot is labeled U=8 while the caption says U=5. Please clarify the actual U values, add uncertainty envelopes, and either show results for U=4,6 or temper the 'all interaction values' claim.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract claims 'demonstrate the feasibility of Green's function reconstruction on near-term devices,' but Sec. III states explicitly that all results were obtained from classical simulations of the quantum subroutines, with no hardware execution and no hardware noise model beyond finite-shot sampling. This overstates the result. The paper should either rephrase to 'feasibility in classically simulated, shot-limited VQE' or include actual device data. The hardware claim is central to the paper's stated significance and should be made commensurate with the evidence.
  4. [Eq. (11), Sec. III D] The sampled DOS uses Lanczos coefficients approximated by the order-1/N cumulant expansion, while the exact DOS uses full Lanczos coefficients. For Nb=1,3,5 there is no asymptotic regime, so the 1/N truncation is a significant uncontrolled approximation. The DOS comparison therefore conflates two sources of error: truncation of the cumulant expansion and error in the quantum-prepared states. Please disentangle these by also reporting the continued-fraction DOS obtained from the exact Lanczos coefficients of the variational excitation states, or by otherwise isolating the effect of the 1/N approximation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] Typo: 'optimizatoin' should be 'optimization'.
  2. [Sec. III C] Typo: 'infinum' should be 'infimum'.
  3. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption values and the axis labels disagree for the right column (U=5 vs U=8). Please correct and ensure consistency.
  4. [Table I] The table lists N_shots without clearly specifying whether the numbers are per commuting group or total. The text refers to 'shots per group' for H and H4; please add this information to the table header/caption.
  5. [Sec. III D] The phrase 'across all interaction values' is not supported by the figure, which shows only two U values. Please either include plots for U=4,6 or revise the sentence to name the reported set U∈{2,4,6,8}.
  6. [General] No code or data availability statement is included. Given that all results are from classical simulations, releasing the simulation scripts would materially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DOS is benchmarked against exact diagonalization, no fitted constants, and the continued-fraction coefficients come from standard moment expansions; the unproven excitation ansatz is a soundness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns. The VQE ground-state parameters are optimized on the AIM Hamiltonian itself (Eq. 4), not fitted to the target DOS. The Lanczos coefficients in Eq. (13) are approximated from Hamiltonian moments via the standard cumulant/1/N expansions in Eq. (11), and the classical pipeline uses the same continued-fraction representation with exact Lanczos iteration, providing an independent external benchmark (Sec. II F, Fig. 8). The QCM energy correction (Eq. 12) is a published moment-based formula. No parameter is tuned to reproduce the Green's function or DOS, so the agreement in Fig. 8 is a genuine benchmark rather than a construction. The paper's load-bearing but unproven step is the Sec. II E assertion that setting ansatz parameters to π−θ0 generates c†|ψ0⟩ and c|ψ0⟩ for one-, three-, and five-bath systems ('It can be shown... This result holds for the five-bath case as well.'). This is a soundness gap—the claim is not defined in terms of the Green's function, and no equation reduces Eq. (13) to an input. Thin five-bath statistics and the fact that 'feasibility on near-term devices' is only supported by classical simulation are validity/overclaim concerns, not circularity. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard mappings (Jordan-Wigner, Lanczos continued fractions, cumulant expansions) plus two domain-specific choices: the particle-hole symmetric parametrization ϵ0=-U/2 with V_k=V, and the assertion that parameter-shifted ansätze produce exact particle/hole excitations. The latter is unproved. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Variational parameters θ of the symmetry-preserving ansatz = optimized per run (not listed)
    The optimized parameters determine the ground state and all subsequent moments; the paper reports no closed-form values, only convergence thresholds.
  • Bath-site energies ϵ_k = not stated
    The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) requires a set of ϵ_k; the text fixes ϵ0=-U/2 and V_k=V but never specifies the bath energies used in the DOS benchmarks, so the reported spectra are underdetermined.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner mapping (Eq. 5) and Pauli grouping are valid and standard.
    Used to translate the fermionic AIM Hamiltonian into qubit operators.
  • standard math Continued-fraction representation of the Green's function Eq. (13) is exact when the ground state and Lanczos coefficients are exact.
    Haydock recursion; cited Ref. [37].
  • domain assumption The cumulant expansion of Lanczos coefficients (Eq. 11) truncated to O(1/N) is accurate for the small systems N=1,3,5.
    The paper relies on this truncation to compute continued-fraction coefficients from moments up to H^4, but the expansion is derived for large N.
  • domain assumption Particle-hole symmetry with ϵ0=-U/2 and V_k=V yields a half-filled ground state with Sz=0.
    Sets the model regime and justifies the symmetry-preserving ansatz; stated in Sec. II A.
  • ad hoc to paper Parameter-shifted ansatz with angles π−θ0 prepares exact particle and hole excitations, including embedded versions for Nb=3,5.
    Asserted in Sec. II E as 'It can be shown...' with no proof; the Green's function reconstruction depends on it.
  • domain assumption QCM infimum formula Eq. (12) gives a better estimate of the true ground-state energy than the raw variational energy.
    Taken from Refs. [32,34-36]; the paper uses it for energy correction but notes it is no longer a strict upper bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum solver for single-impurity Anderson models with particle-hole symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MGNPYD6

@misc{pith2026260110594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum solver for single-impurity Anderson models with particle-hole symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MGNPYD6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.10594}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum embedding methods, such as dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT), provide a powerful framework for investigating strongly correlated materials. A central computational bottleneck in DMFT is in solving the Anderson impurity model (AIM), whose exact solution is classically intractable for large bath sizes. In this work, we develop and benchmark a quantum-classical hybrid solver tailored for DMFT applications, using the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) to prepare the ground state of the AIM with shallow quantum circuits. The solver uses a unified ansatz framework to prepare the particle and hole excitations of the ground-state from parameter-shifted circuits, enabling the reconstruction of the impurity Green's function through a continued-fraction expansion. We evaluate the performance of this approach across a few bath sizes and interaction strengths under noisy, shot-limited conditions. We compare three optimization routines (COBYLA, Adam, and L-BFGS-B) in terms of convergence and fidelity, assess the benefits of estimating a quantum-computed moment (QCM) correction to the variational energies, and benchmark the approach by comparing the reconstructed density of states (DOS) against that obtained using a classical pipeline. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of Green's function reconstruction on near-term devices and establish practical benchmarks for quantum impurity solvers embedded within self-consistent DMFT loops.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.10594 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Spin-block ordering used to map the model’s spin-up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Half-filling (top left) and Givens rotation (top right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ansatz for the particle (right) and hole (left) excita [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Absolute relative error between variational energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison between total number of shots required [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Average absolute relative error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison between the DOS constructed using the proposed quantum solver (green solid lines) and a classical pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fulde,Electron Correlations in Molecules and Solids

    P. Fulde,Electron Correlations in Molecules and Solids. Springer Nature, 1995. [Online]. Available: https: //link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-57809-0

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-57809-0 1995

  2. [2]

    Quantum embedding method for the simulation of strongly correlated systems on quantum computers,

    M. Rossmannek, F. Pavoˇ sevi´ c, A. Rubio, and I. Taver- nelli, “Quantum embedding method for the simulation of strongly correlated systems on quantum computers,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, vol. 14, no. 14, pp. 3491–3497, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c00330

    doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c00330 2023

  3. [3]

    Inhomogeneous electron gas,

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, “Inhomogeneous electron gas,”Phys. Rev., vol. 136, pp. B864–B871, Nov 1964. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.136.B864

    1964

  4. [5]

    Electronic structure calculations with dynamical mean- field theory,

    G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, “Electronic structure calculations with dynamical mean- field theory,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 78, pp. 865–951, Aug 2006. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/RevModPhys.78.865

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.78.865 2006

  5. [6]

    Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions,

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, “Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 68, pp. 13–125, Jan

  6. [7]

    Dynamical mean- field theory from a quantum chemical perspective,

    D. Zgid and G. K.-L. Chan, “Dynamical mean- field theory from a quantum chemical perspective,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 134, no. 9, p. 094115, 03 2011. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.3556707

    doi:10.1063/1.3556707 2011

  7. [9]

    Dynamical mean field the- ory algorithm and experiment on quantum computers,

    I. Rungger, N. Fitzpatrick, H. Chen, C. Alderete, H. Apel, A. Cowtan, A. Patterson, D. Mu˜ noz Ramo, Y. Zhu, N. Nguyen, E. Grant, S. Chretien, L. Wossnig, N. Linke, and R. Duncan, “Dynamical mean field the- ory algorithm and experiment on quantum computers,” Quantum, Jan. 2020

    2020

  8. [10]

    Localized magnetic states in metals,

    P. W. Anderson, “Localized magnetic states in metals,” Phys. Rev., vol. 124, pp. 41–53, Oct 1961. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev. 124.41

    doi:10.1103/physrev 1961

Show all 40 references
  1. [11]

    Quantum-classical simulation of two-site dy- namical mean-field theory on noisy quantum hard- ware,

    T. Keen, T. Maier, S. Johnston, and P. Lougov- ski, “Quantum-classical simulation of two-site dy- namical mean-field theory on noisy quantum hard- ware,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 035001, apr 2020. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ab7d4c

    2020 doi

  2. [12]

    Quan- tum simulations of materials on near-term quan- tum computers,

    H. Ma, M. Govoni, and G. Galli, “Quan- tum simulations of materials on near-term quan- tum computers,”npj Computational Materials, vol. 6, 07 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41524-020-00353-z#Abs1

    2020

  3. [13]

    Continuous-time monte carlo methods for quantum impurity models,

    E. Gull, A. J. Millis, A. I. Lichtenstein, A. N. Rubtsov, M. Troyer, and P. Werner, “Continuous-time monte carlo methods for quantum impurity models,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 83, pp. 349–404, May 2011. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.83.349

    2011

  4. [14]

    The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,

    U. Schollw¨ ock, “The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,”Annals of Physics, vol. 326, no. 1, pp. 96–192, Jan 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0003491610001752

    2011

  5. [15]

    Numerical renormalization group method for quantum impurity systems,

    R. Bulla, T. A. Costi, and T. Pruschke, “Numerical renormalization group method for quantum impurity systems,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 80, pp. 395–450, Apr

  6. [16]

    Quantum computational chemistry,

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, “Quantum computational chemistry,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 92, p. 015003, Mar 2020. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.92.015003

    2020

  7. [17]

    Hybrid quantum-classical approach 11 to correlated materials,

    B. Bauer, D. Wecker, A. J. Millis, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, “Hybrid quantum-classical approach 11 to correlated materials,”Phys. Rev. X, vol. 6, p. 031045, Sep 2016. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031045

    2016 doi

  8. [18]

    Quantum Computed Green’s Functions using a Cumulant Expansion of the Lanczos Method,

    G. Greene-Diniz, D. Z. Manrique, K. Yamamoto, E. Plekhanov, N. Fitzpatrick, M. Krompiec, R. Sakuma, and D. M. Ramo, “Quantum Computed Green’s Functions using a Cumulant Expansion of the Lanczos Method,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1383, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/1...

    2024 doi

  9. [19]

    Krylov variational quantum algorithm for first principles materials simulations,

    F. Jamet, A. Agarwal, C. Lupo, D. E. Browne, C. Weber, and I. Rungger, “Krylov variational quantum algorithm for first principles materials simulations,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13298

    2021 arXiv

  10. [20]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,”Nature Commun., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5213

    2014

  11. [21]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 023023, feb 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023023

    2016 doi

  12. [22]

    Hybrid quantum-classical algorithm for computing imaginary- time correlation functions,

    R. Sakurai, W. Mizukami, and H. Shinaoka, “Hybrid quantum-classical algorithm for computing imaginary- time correlation functions,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 4, p. 023219, Jun 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023219

    2022 doi

  13. [23]

    Comparative study on compact quantum circuits of hybrid quantum-classical algorithms for quantum impurity models,

    R. Sakurai, O. J. Backhouse, G. H. Booth, W. Mizukami, and H. Shinaoka, “Comparative study on compact quantum circuits of hybrid quantum-classical algorithms for quantum impurity models,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 6, p. 023110, May 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/d...

    2024 doi

  14. [24]

    ¨Uber das paulische ¨Aquivalenzverbot,

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, “ ¨Uber das paulische ¨Aquivalenzverbot,”Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, vol. 47, pp. 631–651, 1928

    1928

  15. [25]

    Fermionic quantum com- putation,

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, “Fermionic quantum com- putation,”Annals of Physics, vol. 298, no. 1, pp. 210– 226, 2002

    2002

  16. [26]

    Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli operators in the presence of finite sampling error,

    O. Crawford, B. v. Straaten, D. Wang, T. Parks, E. Campbell, and S. Brierley, “Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli operators in the presence of finite sampling error,”Quantum, vol. 5, p. 385, Jan

  17. [27]

    Efficient estimation of pauli observables by derandomization,

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, “Efficient estimation of pauli observables by derandomization,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 127, p. 030503, Jul 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.127.030503

    2021

  18. [28]

    Efficient symmetry- preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm,

    B. T. Gard, L. Zhu, G. S. Barron, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, “Efficient symmetry- preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm,”npj Quantum Infor- mation, vol. 6, no. 1, Jan. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi...

    2020 doi

  19. [29]

    M. J. D. Powell,A Direct Search Optimization Method That Models the Objective and Constraint Functions by Linear Interpolation. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1994, pp. 51–67. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8330-5 4

    1994 doi

  20. [30]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    2017 arXiv

  21. [31]

    A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization,

    R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, J. Nocedal, and C. Zhu, “A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1190–1208, 1995

    1995

  22. [32]

    Quantum computed moments correction to variational estimates,

    H. J. Vallury, M. A. Jones, C. D. Hill, and L. , “Quantum computed moments correction to variational estimates,”Quantum, vol. 4, pp. 373–373, 12

  23. [33]

    An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral op- erators,

    C. Lanczos, “An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral op- erators,”Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, vol. 45, p. 255, 10 1950

    1950

  24. [34]

    Plaquette expansion in lattice hamiltonian models,

    L. C. L. Hollenberg, “Plaquette expansion in lattice hamiltonian models,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 47, pp. 1640–1644, Feb 1993. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.47.1640

    1993 doi

  25. [35]

    Analytic solution for the ground-state energy of the extensive many-body problem,

    L. C. L. Hollenberg and N. S. Witte, “Analytic solution for the ground-state energy of the extensive many-body problem,”Phys. Rev. B, vol. 54, pp. 16 309–16 312, Dec 1996. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.54.16309

    1996 doi

  26. [36]

    General nonperturbative estimate of the energy density of lattice hamiltonians,

    L. C. L. Hollenberg and N. S. Witte, “General nonperturbative estimate of the energy density of lattice hamiltonians,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 50, pp. 3382–3386, Sep 1994. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3382

    1994 doi

  27. [37]

    Electronic structure based on the local atomic environment for tight-binding bands,

    R. Haydock, V. Heine, and M. J. Kelly, “Electronic structure based on the local atomic environment for tight-binding bands,”J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys., vol. 5, no. 20, p. 2845, oct 1972. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3719/5/20/004

    1972 doi

  28. [38]

    The recursive solution of the schrodinger equation,

    R. Haydock, “The recursive solution of the schrodinger equation,” ser. Solid State Physics, H. Ehrenre- ich, F. Seitz, and D. Turnbull, Eds. Academic Press, 1980, vol. 35, pp. 215–294. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0081194708605056

    1980

  29. [1996]

    Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10

    [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.68.13

  30. [2008]

    Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10

    [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.80.395

  31. [2020]

    Available: https://quantum-journal.org/ papers/q-2020-12-15-373/

    [Online]. Available: https://quantum-journal.org/ papers/q-2020-12-15-373/

    2020

  32. [2021]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2021-01-20-385

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2021-01-20-385

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.