pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.15616 · v3 · pith:XU24NW7Qnew · submitted 2026-01-22 · 🪐 quant-ph

Tensor-based phase difference estimation on time series analysis

Shu Kanno , Kenji Sugisaki , Rei Sakuma , Jumpei Kato , Hajime Nakamura , Naoki Yamamoto This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 15:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords tensor networksquantum phase estimationphase differenceenergy gap estimationcircuit compressionerror mitigationHubbard modelquantum simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Tensor-network compression extracts phase differences from quantum time evolution with 0.4 to 4.7 percent error on systems up to 52 qubits.

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

The paper presents a phase-difference estimation method that compresses time-evolution circuits using tensor networks so that only nearest-neighbor gates are needed. Four specific circuit measurements then pull out the time-series data from which the phase, and therefore the energy gap, is recovered. Algorithmic error mitigation and iterative optimization that merges circuits into matrix product states are added to reduce noise and improve state preparation. Noiseless simulations on an eight-qubit Hubbard model confirm the stated error range for suitable time steps, while hardware runs on IBM Heron processors demonstrate the approach at 36- and 52-qubit scales with more than four thousand two-qubit gates.

Core claim

Tensor-network compression produces compact circuits of nearest-neighbor gates that faithfully represent the time-evolution operator; four complementary measurement circuits applied to these compressed circuits yield the phase difference between evolved states, which directly gives the energy gap, with further accuracy gained from algorithmic error mitigation and MPS-based circuit optimization.

What carries the argument

Tensor-network compression of time-evolution circuits into nearest-neighbor gates together with a four-type measurement protocol that extracts phase information from the resulting time series.

If this is right

  • The algorithm reaches 0.4-4.7 percent error relative to the true energy gap on an eight-qubit Hubbard model when an appropriate time-step size is chosen.
  • Accuracy visibly improves when the proposed algorithmic error mitigation is applied.
  • Iterative circuit optimization increases the overlap between prepared states and the target matrix product states.
  • The method executes on IBM Heron hardware with Q-CTRL suppression for 8-, 36-, and 52-qubit models that contain more than four thousand two-qubit gates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same compression-plus-measurement strategy could be applied to other time-evolution problems such as real-time correlation functions or quench dynamics beyond static energy gaps.
  • Hybrid classical-quantum workflows that interleave tensor-network circuit design with quantum execution may become a standard route for scaling phase-estimation tasks.
  • Once error-corrected devices are available, the reduced gate count from tensor compression could lower the overhead needed to reach fault-tolerant precision.
  • The four-type measurement pattern might generalize to other quantum algorithms that rely on sampling phases or frequencies from short time series.

Load-bearing premise

The tensor-network compression and four-type circuit measurements capture the underlying time-evolution operator without introducing uncontrolled approximation errors that would invalidate the extracted phase difference.

What would settle it

Running the full protocol on a small system whose exact energy gap is known and finding that the estimated gap lies outside the 0.4-4.7 percent error window for any recommended time-step size would falsify the accuracy claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.15616 by Hajime Nakamura, Jumpei Kato, Kenji Sugisaki, Naoki Yamamoto, Rei Sakuma, Shu Kanno.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Overview of our proposal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Summary of the unitary compression in our previous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows our implementation for calculat￾ing Mij (t) and Li(t). We first transform U i evol and Uprep |0⟩ ⊗N+1 to the MPO and MPS, respectively, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Procedure of the overlap enhancement. (a) Circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Energy gap errors, ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Energy gap errors, ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. SVD dependencies for the bond dimension and energy gap errors, ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Overlap enhancement. The vertical break line in red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Real device demonstrations for energy gap errors, ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. SVD dependencies for the bond dimension in ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Scaling for the depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a phase-difference estimation algorithm based on the tensor-network circuit compression, leveraging time-evolution data to pursue scalability and higher accuracy on a quantum phase estimation (QPE)-type algorithm. Using tensor networks, we construct circuits composed solely of nearest-neighbor gates and extract time-evolution data by four-type circuit measurements. In addition, to enhance the accuracy of time-evolution and state-preparation circuits, we propose techniques based on algorithmic error mitigation and on iterative circuit optimization combined with merging into matrix product states, respectively. Verifications using a noiseless simulator for the 8-qubit one-dimensional Hubbard model using an ancilla qubit show that the proposed algorithm achieves accuracies with 0.4--4.7\% error from a true energy gap on an appropriate time-step size, and that accuracy improvements due to the algorithmic error mitigation are observed. We also confirm the enhancement of the overlap with matrix product states through iterative optimization. Finally, the proposed algorithm is demonstrated on IBM Heron devices with Q-CTRL error suppression for 8-, 36-, and 52-qubit models using more than 4,000 2-qubit gates. These largest-scale demonstrations for the QPE-type algorithm represent significant progress not only toward practical applications of near-term quantum computing but also toward preparation for the era of error-corrected quantum devices.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a tensor-network-based phase difference estimation algorithm for QPE-type methods on time series. It compresses time-evolution circuits to nearest-neighbor gates via tensor networks, extracts data using four-type measurements, applies algorithmic error mitigation, and uses iterative MPS optimization for state preparation. Simulator verification on the 8-qubit 1D Hubbard model reports 0.4–4.7% error from the true gap at suitable time steps, with accuracy gains from mitigation; hardware runs on IBM Heron devices with Q-CTRL suppression are shown for 8-, 36-, and 52-qubit instances using >4000 two-qubit gates.

Significance. If the tensor compression faithfully reproduces the evolution operator without uncontrolled errors, the work would constitute meaningful progress toward scaling QPE-type algorithms beyond small qubit counts on NISQ hardware. The reported hardware demonstrations at 52 qubits and the integration of tensor networks with error mitigation represent concrete steps that could influence practical quantum simulation in chemistry and materials science.

major comments (2)
  1. [Tensor-network compression and circuit construction] The tensor-network compression section provides no operator-norm bound or other quantitative control on ||U_compressed(t) − U_exact(t)||. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the extracted phase difference recovers the energy gap to 0.4–4.7 % accuracy, especially when extrapolating the 8-qubit verification to the 36- and 52-qubit hardware cases where entanglement structure may exceed the chosen bond dimension.
  2. [Hardware experiments on IBM Heron] In the hardware demonstration results, no ablation or scaling study with respect to bond dimension is reported for the 36- and 52-qubit instances. Without such data it remains unclear whether the observed accuracies are robust properties of the method or artifacts of near-exact compression at the scales tested.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] The abstract and method description refer to 'four-type circuit measurements' without an accompanying diagram or explicit listing of the measurement bases; a figure would improve reproducibility.
  2. [State-preparation optimization] Notation for the iterative MPS merging step could be clarified by labeling the bond indices and contraction order in the relevant equations or diagrams.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments highlight important aspects for strengthening the theoretical and empirical support of our tensor-network-based phase difference estimation approach. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Tensor-network compression and circuit construction] The tensor-network compression section provides no operator-norm bound or other quantitative control on ||U_compressed(t) − U_exact(t)||. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the extracted phase difference recovers the energy gap to 0.4–4.7 % accuracy, especially when extrapolating the 8-qubit verification to the 36- and 52-qubit hardware cases where entanglement structure may exceed the chosen bond dimension.

    Authors: We agree that an operator-norm bound or equivalent quantitative control on the compression error would provide stronger justification for the accuracy claims, particularly for larger systems. The current manuscript relies on empirical verification for the 8-qubit 1D Hubbard model (0.4–4.7% error) and selects bond dimensions to achieve high-fidelity approximations based on the limited entanglement growth in 1D systems. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated discussion or subsection on the approximation quality, including available fidelity metrics, error estimates for the chosen bond dimensions, and any relevant bounds or scaling arguments for tensor-network time-evolution compression in 1D models. This will better support the extrapolation to the hardware demonstrations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Hardware experiments on IBM Heron] In the hardware demonstration results, no ablation or scaling study with respect to bond dimension is reported for the 36- and 52-qubit instances. Without such data it remains unclear whether the observed accuracies are robust properties of the method or artifacts of near-exact compression at the scales tested.

    Authors: We acknowledge that an ablation or scaling study with respect to bond dimension for the 36- and 52-qubit hardware cases would help clarify robustness. Performing such studies directly on hardware at these scales is resource-intensive, which limited the scope of the initial demonstrations. We chose bond dimensions based on the entanglement structure of the 1D Hubbard model to ensure faithful compression. In the revision, we will add a discussion of the bond-dimension selection process, report the specific values used, and include additional simulator-based scaling analysis for intermediate system sizes to demonstrate that the results reflect the method's properties rather than near-exact compression. A full hardware ablation may be noted as future work due to practical constraints. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on constructive algorithm and external empirical validation

full rationale

The paper proposes a new tensor-network-based phase-difference estimation algorithm for QPE-type methods, constructs nearest-neighbor circuits via compression, defines four-type measurements, and introduces algorithmic error mitigation plus iterative MPS optimization. Accuracies (0.4–4.7% error) are reported from direct noiseless simulation against the known Hubbard-model gap and from hardware runs on IBM Heron devices; these are measured outcomes, not quantities defined in terms of themselves or obtained by fitting a parameter and relabeling it a prediction. No self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise that would reduce the central result to prior author work by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as an explicit algorithmic proposal whose performance is checked against independent benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-circuit and tensor-network assumptions with no free parameters, new particles, or ad-hoc entities named in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Quantum circuits evolve under unitary time-evolution operators generated by a Hamiltonian
    Invoked when the abstract states that time-evolution data is extracted from the compressed circuits.
  • domain assumption Tensor-network representations can approximate quantum states and operators with controllable error
    Required for the claim that nearest-neighbor gate circuits remain accurate after compression.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5777 in / 1424 out tokens · 57414 ms · 2026-05-21T15:20:28.585838+00:00 · methodology

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

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    We set the indexk= 1

    work page

  2. [2]

    4(a),U (k) prep is optimized to maximize the real part of overlap Re D MPS(k) U(k) prep 0 E⊗N+1 , where we added the indexkfor|MPS⟩andU prep to identify the iteration count

    As in Fig. 4(a),U (k) prep is optimized to maximize the real part of overlap Re D MPS(k) U(k) prep 0 E⊗N+1 , where we added the indexkfor|MPS⟩andU prep to identify the iteration count. The state MPS(1) E is the target MPS that we want to approximate. FIG. 4. Procedure of the overlap enhancement. (a) Circuit optimization. (b) Circuit merging. (c) Deep circ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    4(b), using the optimized circuitU ∗(k) prep, we create MPS(k+1) E =U ∗(k)† prep MPS(k) E which is closer to|0⟩ ⊗N+1 than MPS(k) E

    As in Fig. 4(b), using the optimized circuitU ∗(k) prep, we create MPS(k+1) E =U ∗(k)† prep MPS(k) E which is closer to|0⟩ ⊗N+1 than MPS(k) E . 7

    work page

  4. [4]

    The procedures 2-4 are repeated until a termination condition is satisfied

    We increasek→k+ 1 forU (k) prep. The procedures 2-4 are repeated until a termination condition is satisfied

    work page

  5. [5]

    4(c), we obtain a deep circuitU prep =Q1 k=kmax U(k) prep

    As in Fig. 4(c), we obtain a deep circuitU prep =Q1 k=kmax U(k) prep. Uprep give a higher overlap than singleU (1) prep since D MPS(1) Uprep 0 E⊗N+1 = D MPS(1) 1Y k=kmax U(k) prep 0 E⊗N+1 = D MPS(2) 2Y k=kmax U(k) prep 0 E⊗N+1 =. . . = D MPS(kmax) 0 E⊗N+1 . (23) Note that the bond dimension of MPS(k) E would in- crease forkin general, but it may decrease ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Promoting the application of advanced quantum technology platforms to social issues

    The number of sweeps is 10 3 forU prep. ForU evol, the number is 10 4. The cutoff value of the SVD in the optimization ofU prep andU evol is 10−12. The number of slicesmin Eq. (12) is ∆t/0.001. The number of shots in a circuit execution is 10 5. The maximum number of time steps is 100 in the next section and 50 the others, but the execution is stopped whe...

    work page

  7. [7]

    A. Yu. Kitaev, arXiv [quant-ph] (1995), quant- ph/9511026

    work page arXiv 1995

  8. [8]

    Cleve, A

    R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca, Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.454, 339 (1998)

    work page 1998

  9. [9]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010)

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    H. Gao, S. Imamura, A. Kasagi, and E. Yoshida, J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 1185 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wise- man, and G. J. Pryde, Nature450, 393 (2007)

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    Kimmel, G

    S. Kimmel, G. H. Low, and T. J. Yoder, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062315 (2015)

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Wiebe and C

    N. Wiebe and C. Granade, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 010503 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    R. D. Somma, New J. Phys.21, 123025 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    T. E. O’Brien, B. Tarasinski, and B. M. Terhal, New J. Phys.21, 023022 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Dutkiewicz, B

    A. Dutkiewicz, B. M. Terhal, and T. E. O’Brien, Quan- tum6, 830 (2022), 2107.04605v3

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Lin and Y

    L. Lin and Y. Tong, PRX Quantum3, 010318 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    G. Wang, D. S. Francca, R. Zhang, S. Zhu, and P. D. Johnson, Quantum7, 1167 (2022), 2209.06811

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Ding and L

    Z. Ding and L. Lin, PRX quantum4(2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Ding and L

    Z. Ding and L. Lin, Quantum7, 1136 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Z. Ding, Y. Dong, T. Yu, and L. Lin, arXiv [quant-ph] (2023), 2307.11257

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    N. S. Blunt, L. Caune, R. Izs´ ak, E. T. Campbell, and N. Holzmann, PRX Quantum4, 040341 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    M. S. Rudolph, J. Chen, J. Miller, A. Acharya, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, Quantum Sci. Technol.9, 015012 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Ran, Phys

    S.-J. Ran, Phys. Rev. A101, 032310 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    S.-H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Poll- mann, PRX Quantum2, 010342 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Dborin, F

    J. Dborin, F. Barratt, V. Wimalaweera, L. Wright, and A. G. Green, Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 035014 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Dborin, V

    J. Dborin, V. Wimalaweera, F. Barratt, E. Ostby, T. E. O’Brien, and A. G. Green, Nat. Commun.13, 5977 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Mc Keever and M

    C. Mc Keever and M. Lubasch, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023146 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Anselme Martin, T

    B. Anselme Martin, T. Ayral, F. Jamet, M. J. Ranˇ ci´ c, and P. Simon, Phys. Rev. A109, 062437 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Causer, F

    L. Causer, F. Jung, A. Mitra, F. Pollmann, and A. Gammon-Smith, Phys. Rev. Res.6(2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Shirakawa, H

    T. Shirakawa, H. Ueda, and S. Yunoki, Phys. Rev. Res. 6(2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Mc Keever and M

    C. Mc Keever and M. Lubasch, PRX Quantum5, 020362 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    D’Anna, Y

    M. D’Anna, Y. Zhang, R. Wiersema, M. S. Rudolph, and J. Carrasquilla, arXiv [quant-ph] (2025), 2507.01883

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Sugawara, K

    S. Sugawara, K. Inomata, T. Okubo, and S. Todo, arXiv [quant-ph] (2025), 2501.18856

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Gibbs and L

    J. Gibbs and L. Cincio, Quantum9, 1789 (2025), 2409.16361v2

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    I. N. M. Le, S. Sun, and C. B. Mendl, Quantum9, 1833 (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Preparation Circuits for Matrix Product States by Classical Variational Disentanglement

    R. Mansuroglu and N. Schuch, arXiv [quant-ph] (2025), 2504.21298

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Phase Estimation with Compressed Controlled Time Evolution

    E. Karacan, arXiv [quant-ph] (2025), 2511.21225

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Sugisaki, C

    K. Sugisaki, C. Sakai, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi, and T. Takui, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.23, 20152 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Kanno, K

    S. Kanno, K. Sugisaki, H. Nakamura, H. Yamauchi, R. Sakuma, T. Kobayashi, Q. Gao, and N. Yamamoto, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.122(2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, S. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Phys. Rev. A99, 012334 (2019)

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    N. F. Robertson, B. Pokharel, B. Fuller, E. Switzer, O. Shtanko, M. Amico, A. Byrne, A. D’Urbano, S. Hayes- Shuptar, A. Akhriev, N. Keenan, S. Bravyi, and S. Zhuk, PRX Quantum6, 020360 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Kanno, M

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, arXiv [quant-ph] (2023), 2302.11320

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi- Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa, I. Sitdikov, R.-Y. Sun, K. J. Sung, M. Takita, M. C. Tran, S. Yunoki, and A. Mezza- capo, Sci. Adv.11, eadu9991 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Sarkar, J

    T. Sarkar, J. Nebat, D. Weiner, and V. Jain, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.28, 928 (1980)

    work page 1980

  46. [46]

    Steffens, P

    A. Steffens, P. Rebentrost, I. Marvian, J. Eisert, and S. Lloyd, New J. Phys.19, 033005 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    work page 1992

  48. [48]

    Schollw¨ ock, Ann

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Ann. Phys.326, 96 (2011)

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    Sugisaki, C

    K. Sugisaki, C. Sakai, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi, and T. Takui, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.12, 11085 (2021)

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 (1928)

    work page 1928

  51. [51]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Sci- Post Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    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, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gam- betta, arXiv [quant-ph] (2024), 2405.08810

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    P. S. Mundada, A. Barbosa, S. Maity, Y. Wang, T. Merkh, T. M. Stace, F. Nielson, A. R. R. Carvalho, M. Hush, M. J. Biercuk, and Y. Baum, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 024034 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Y. Baum, M. Amico, S. Howell, M. Hush, M. Liuzzi, P. Mundada, T. Merkh, A. R. R. Carvalho, and M. J. Biercuk, PRX Quantum2, 040324 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    I. D. Kivlichan, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, W. Sun, Z. Jiang, N. Rubin, A. Fowler, A. Aspuru-Guzik, H. Neven, and R. Babbush, Quan- tum4, 296 (2020), 1902.10673v4

    work page arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Ganahl, J

    M. Ganahl, J. Beall, M. Hauru, A. G. M. Lewis, T. Wo- jno, J. H. Yoo, Y. Zou, and G. Vidal, PRX quantum4, 010317 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    J. D. Watson and J. Watkins, PRX Quantum6, 030325 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Mizuta, Quantum10, 1974 (2026), 2507.06557v4

    K. Mizuta, Quantum10, 1974 (2026), 2507.06557v4

    work page arXiv 1974

  59. [59]

    J. Haah, M. B. Hastings, R. Kothari, and G. H. Low, SIAM J. Comput. , FOCS18 (2021)

    work page 2021