Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

This paper claims that a hybrid full-state/Clifford simulator makes multi-qubit Pauli rotations as cheap to emulate as single-qubit rotations, yielding roughly 18x speedups on 24-qubit chemistry Hamiltonians.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 03:03 UTC pith:NTLIOBV6

load-bearing objection Useful integration of Pauli-frame Clifford tracking with fullstate pair updates, but the sign bookkeeping gap is a reproducibility problem that needs to be fixed before the speedup claims can be trusted. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.09020 v2 pith:NTLIOBV6 submitted 2026-02-09 quant-ph

Hybrid Method of Efficient Simulation of Physics Applications for a Quantum Computer

Carla Rieger , Albert T. Schmitz , Gehad Salem , Massimiliano Incudini , Sofia Vallecorsa , Anne Y. Matsuura , Michele Grossi , Gian Giacomo Guerreschi This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum simulationClifford simulationPauli framemulti-qubit rotationsTrotterized Hamiltonian evolutionemulationfull-state simulatorquantum chemistry
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 paper tries to show that Trotterized Hamiltonian simulation — the workhorse of quantum chemistry on quantum computers — can be emulated classically much faster than previously thought. The key move is to split the circuit: Clifford gates are folded into a Pauli frame, while only non-Clifford gates touch the full state vector. This makes the simulation cost independent of how many qubits each Pauli term acts on, so high-locality chemistry terms no longer require long chains of two-qubit gates. On real chemistry Hamiltonians with 24 qubits, the authors report speedups of about 18x, or 22x with MPI, over their earlier full-state simulator, at no extra compilation cost.

Core claim

A multi-qubit rotation exp(-iθP/2) can be implemented in a full-state simulator with a cost that is flat in the locality of P, provided the Clifford part of the circuit is accounted for by a Pauli frame used in the backward interpretation. The frame acts as a lookup table: commuting the accumulated Clifford unitary past a single-qubit rotation turns it into a multi-qubit rotation about an effective axis given by the frame. Consequently, Clifford gates never update the amplitude vector, and the simulation time scales with the number of non-Clifford gates rather than with the Pauli weight of each term. Benchmarks on chemistry Hamiltonians with a mean locality around 11 on 24 qubits show speedu

What carries the argument

The central object is the Pauli frame in the backward interpretation: a 2n set of Pauli operators (stabilizers and destabilizers) that uniquely represents a Clifford unitary up to a global phase. It is updated in O(n) per Clifford gate, negligible against the O(2^n) memory of the full-state vector, and it is used as a lookup table to translate single-qubit rotations into multi-qubit rotations with a modified axis, following the commutation identity RZ(i,θ)U = U R_effZ_i(θ). This identity, together with the pair-update rule for amplitudes under a Pauli rotation, is what makes locality-independent emulation possible.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the baseline simulator — which applies every multi-qubit rotation as a long chain of two-qubit gates to the full state vector — represents the standard cost of simulating such circuits; if that baseline is not representative, the reported speedups shrink.

What would settle it

Measure the runtime of the hybrid simulator on a single k-local rotation while holding the total qubit count fixed and varying k from 2 up to n; if the per-rotation cost grows with k, the central claim of locality independence collapses. Alternatively, run the same 24-qubit chemistry Hamiltonians on an independent state-of-the-art simulator that natively supports Pauli rotations and compare wall-clock runtimes.

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

If this is right

  • Simulation time becomes independent of the locality of Hamiltonian terms; only the number of non-Clifford gates and the qubit count determine the cost.
  • Chemistry workloads with high-locality terms — for example, 24-qubit Hamiltonians with mean locality around 11 — see up to 18x/22x speedups over the earlier full-state simulator.
  • The speedup is not an artifact of moving work into compilation: the compilation-time ratio between the hybrid simulator and the earlier simulator is about 0.95–0.98 on average.
  • The method applies beyond chemistry to any workload dominated by multi-qubit rotations, including QAOA and VQE and models in high-energy physics such as the Schwinger model.
  • Because the Pauli frame is compact, distributed simulation over MPI requires sharing only the frame rather than large portions of the state, reducing communication overhead.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reported 18x/22x speedup is measured against the authors' own earlier gate-by-gate simulator. A fairer test of the general claim would compare against independent simulators that already support native multi-qubit rotations or Pauli tracking; the paper offers no such external baseline, so the quantitative headline may not transfer to those settings.
  • The frame-as-lookup-table principle suggests a broader design rule: any classical simulator that maintains a stabilizer/Pauli frame can absorb Clifford circuits at negligible cost, so the effective cost of a workload is governed by its non-Clifford count. This could be tested directly on Clifford+T circuits by tracking the T-count.
  • For expectation-value extraction in VQE/QAOA, the frame maps each Pauli operator directly, which may eliminate the need to uncompute the Clifford unitary and potentially shifts the dominant cost in hybrid quantum-classical loops.
  • If locality-independent emulation persists at larger qubit numbers, estimates of the classical-simulation crossover for Trotterized chemistry may need revision: the break-even point between classical and quantum simulation could move to larger systems than previously assumed.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a hybrid classical simulator, the Clifford Fullstate Hybrid Simulator (CFHS), that combines a Pauli frame with a full state vector. Clifford gates update only the Pauli frame (in the backward interpretation), while non-Clifford Pauli rotations are applied to the full state vector using an axis read from the frame. This makes the cost of a k-local Pauli rotation independent of its locality, since the expensive full-state update uses the pair-wise amplitude rule of Eqs. (15)-(19) and (42). The authors benchmark CFHS against the Intel Quantum Simulator (IQS) on random and HamLib chemistry Hamiltonians with 14-24 qubits, reporting speedups of about 18x without MPI and 22x with MPI for 24-qubit chemistry systems, and they argue that compilation time is not shifted to runtime.

Significance. If correct, the method is a clean and useful technique for Trotterized Hamiltonian simulation workloads dominated by high-locality Pauli rotations: it removes the O(k) CNOT-staircase overhead while adding only an O(n^2) Pauli-frame memory cost. The paper contains explicit, checkable formulas for the amplitude update, the central commutation identity Eq. (21), and an appendix with a constructive O(n)-rotation implementation of Clifford unitaries. No parameters are fitted to the benchmark results, and the measured speedups are internally consistent with the expected reduction in gate count. However, the quantitative headline is measured only against Intel's own IQS, and two technical issues -- a sign error in the phase formula and the under-specified sign bookkeeping of the Pauli frame -- affect the correctness and reproducibility of the central claims. These issues, rather than the overall strategy, are what prevent acceptance in the current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (16), (41), (42)] Under the definition of the symbol \odot in Eq. (9) as bitwise XOR, Eq. (16) is algebraically wrong. For a single-qubit Z and k=0, m_Z(P)\odot k = 1, so Eq. (16) gives Z|0> = -|0>. The phase factor must use the parity of the bitwise AND, \sum_j m_j k_j, not the XOR weight. The same error propagates to the Z-only simplification in Eq. (41): with the correct e^{i\varphi_P(k)}, the two cases are interchanged (|0> should receive e^{-i\theta/2} and |1> should receive e^{+i\theta/2}). Since Eq. (42) uses e^{i\varphi_P(k)}, the amplitude update rule is incorrect as written. If the implemented code actually uses the AND-based phase, the text and the definition of \odot must be corrected and clarified.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (21); Section 2.3, Eq. (12)] The central translation rule Eq. (21) is valid only if the frame entry effZ_i is the exact conjugated Pauli U^\dagger Z_i U, including its sign. But the Pauli frame is defined modulo phase (Eq. (12) uses "\propto") and Appendix A explicitly says signs are not considered. A sign error in a rotation axis is not a global phase: it changes R_P(\theta) to R_{-P}(\theta)=R_P(-\theta). For example, after U=X the backward frame entry is X^\dagger Z X = -Z; if the frame stores only Z, the circuit X;R_Z(\theta) would be simulated as X R_Z(\theta) instead of X R_Z(-\theta). The paper must state how signs are represented and updated in the backward Pauli frame, both for Eq. (21) and for the expectation-value extraction in Eqs. (24)-(25).
  3. [Section 5.3, Table 2] The headline speedup factors (\approx 18 and \approx 22) are ratios against Intel's own IQS 1.1.1, whose baseline decomposes every k-local rotation into 2(k-1) CNOT gates. No external emulator baseline (e.g., the emulation work cited as [10]) is used, so the factors are not established as a general speedup over state-of-the-art simulators. The abstract and conclusion should state explicitly that the comparison is relative to IQS. In addition, Table 2 appears to list single timing measurements; the \pm values in the conclusion are not defined and seem to reflect the spread across the five 24-qubit molecules rather than run-to-run uncertainty. The measurement protocol and the definition of the quoted uncertainties should be stated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.4, Eq. (24)] The notation in Eq. (24) is inconsistent: the \lambda arguments are written as X_i, Z_i but the product contains effZ_i and effX_i. Presumably the arguments should be the frame entries. As noted in Major Comment 2, the claimed equality also requires the unstated signs of the frame entries.
  2. [Eq. (16) and Appendix B, Eq. (41)] There is a typographical error in the definition of \varphi_P(k): "|m_Z(P))\odot k|" has an extra closing parenthesis. This should be cleaned up.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Figure 2] The text and the Figure 2 caption refer to "Eq. (2.3)" when describing the Pauli frame update; the intended reference is Eq. (11) (or possibly Eq. (12)).
  4. [Figures 6, 8 and Appendix D] The MPI configuration is inconsistent: Figures 6 and 8 say 128 MPI ranks, while Appendix D says 4 nodes, 64 MPI tasks with 4 CPUs per task. This should be reconciled, since the MPI speedup numbers depend on the actual rank count.
  5. [General] No code or data availability statement is included. Given that the paper describes an implementation in the Intel QSDK and benchmarks it, a statement about availability would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: core identities are derived in-paper; speedups are measured benchmarks rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

This paper's claimed results—the locality-independent emulation of multi-qubit rotations and the speedups over IQS—are not circular. The central identity Eq. (21), RZ(i,θ)U = U R_effZi(θ), follows directly from the definition of the backward Pauli frame and unitary conjugation; it is derived in the paper rather than assumed. The full-state update for a multi-qubit rotation (Eqs. (18)–(19) and (42)) is derived from the action of Pauli operators on computational basis states, with no fitted parameters. The claim that CFH runtime scales with the number of non-Clifford gates is a direct property of the algorithm's definition (Clifford gates only update the frame; non-Clifford gates update the state vector), not a prediction obtained by fitting. The speedup factors are measured wall-clock benchmarks against the authors' own previous IQS implementation; this is an in-house comparison and a possible fairness limitation, but it is an empirical measurement, not a derivation from the method's equations, so it cannot make the argument circular. Self-citations (IQS, PCOAST, Hamlib) are implementation and dataset references; the load-bearing mathematical facts (symplectic transvection decomposition) are cited to external work [18,26]. The only substantive weakness found is the under-specification of Pauli signs/phases in the frame (Appendix A implements 'without considering signs,' while Eq. (12) is only up to a phase). That is a correctness/reproducibility issue concerning exact rotation axes, not a circularity problem: it does not make any claimed result equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No continuous free parameters are fitted; no new physical entities are introduced. The central mechanism rests on standard Clifford/Pauli theory plus two domain assumptions: symplectic transvection generation and correct sign tracking in the frame. The benchmark parameters (M=1, specific Hamiltonians) are choices, not fits.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Gottesman-Knill theorem: Clifford circuits with computational-basis states/measurements are classically simulable in polynomial time.
    Invoked in §2.3 to justify tracking only the Pauli frame for Clifford updates.
  • domain assumption Any Clifford unitary can be implemented/inverted using O(n) multi-qubit Pauli rotations; relies on generation of Sp(2n,2) by symplectic transvections and the cited 4n bound.
    Used in §4.4 and Appendix A to extract basis coefficients; the 4n transvection decomposition is cited to [18,23,26], not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Trotter-Suzuki first-order decomposition approximates exp(-iHt), and the benchmark with M=1 is representative of simulation workloads.
    Used in §5.1; the paper sets M=1 for chemistry Hamiltonians and assumes linear scaling in M, so single-step data supports the claimed speedups.
  • domain assumption Stabilizer/Pauli frame tableaux including exact signs can be maintained through Clifford updates in the backward interpretation.
    Eq. (21) requires effZ_i = U† Z_i U exactly; the text says frames are unique up to global phase and Appendix A ignores signs but does not specify the sign bookkeeping in CFHS.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19500 in / 18689 out tokens · 158322 ms · 2026-08-03T03:03:57.499025+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum chemistry and materials science are among the most promising areas for demonstrating algorithmic quantum advantage and quantum utility due to their inherent quantum mechanical nature. Still, large-scale simulations of quantum circuits are essential for determining the problem size at which quantum solutions outperform classical methods. In this work, we present a novel hybrid simulation approach, forming a hybrid of a fullstate and a Clifford simulator, specifically designed to address the computational challenges associated with the time evolution of quantum chemistry Hamiltonians. Our method focuses on the efficient emulation of multi-qubit rotations, a critical component of Trotterized Hamiltonian evolution. By optimizing the representation and execution of multi-qubit operations leveraging the Pauli frame, our approach significantly reduces the computational cost of simulating quantum circuits, enabling more efficient simulations. Beyond its impact on chemistry applications, our emulation strategy has broad implications for any computational workload that relies heavily on multi-qubit rotations. By increasing the efficiency of quantum simulations, our method facilitates more accurate and cost-effective studies of complex quantum systems. We quantify the performance improvements and computational savings for this emulation strategy, and we obtain a speedup of a factor $\approx 18$ ($\approx 22$ with MPI) for our evaluated chemistry Hamiltonians with 24 qubits. Thus, we evaluate our integration of this emulation strategy into the Intel Quantum SDK, further bridging the gap between theoretical algorithm development and practical quantum software implementations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.09020 by Albert T. Schmitz, Anne Y. Matsuura, Carla Rieger, Gehad Salem, Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, Massimiliano Incudini, Michele Grossi, Sofia Vallecorsa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Workings of the hybrid approach combining Clifford and fullstate simulation. This includes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Demonstration of the sequential updates applied to the respective Pauli frame as defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustrating the commutation behavior as described in Eq. (21), we can commute the Clifford [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The unitary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the simulation time (runtime [s]) for random Hamiltonians with varying local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Demonstrating the impact when enabling MPI for IQS and CFHS using 128 MPI ranks. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We compare the simulation time (without rescaling, thus corresponding to the wall-clock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation time (runtime [s]) for the depicted chemistry Hamiltonians as in Table 2 ordered by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Impact when utilizing MPI for IQS and CFHS using 128 MPI ranks as before. Here, we show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Workflow of the gate-updates in the Clifford fullstate hybrid Simulator. The flow diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evaluation of the compilation time ratio distribution for CFHS/IQS that is measured in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Increase of the compilation time [s] for random Hamiltonians each with 100 terms, averaged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Rescaled runtime [s] as defined in Eq. (43) per random Hamiltonian with 100 terms and a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ratio of the compilation time [s] of CFHS/IQS for the evaluated chemistry Hamiltonians (CH) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Rescaled runtime [s] as defined in Eq. (43) of CFHS and IQS in dependence of the mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.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

35 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels.Physical review letters, 70(13):1895, 1993

    Charles H Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Cr´ epeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K Wootters. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels.Physical review letters, 70(13):1895, 1993

    1993

  2. [2]

    Hamiltonian property testing.Quantum, 10:1979, 2026

    Andreas Bluhm, Matthias C Caro, and Aadil Oufkir. Hamiltonian property testing.Quantum, 10:1979, 2026

    1979

  3. [3]

    Early fault-tolerant simulations of the hubbard model.Quantum Science and Technology, 7(1):015007, 2021

    Earl T Campbell. Early fault-tolerant simulations of the hubbard model.Quantum Science and Technology, 7(1):015007, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Defining, classifying and optimising fermion–qubit mappings.PQDT-Global, 2024

    Mitchell Lee Chiew. Defining, classifying and optimising fermion–qubit mappings.PQDT-Global, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    A quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Quantum simulation.Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(1):153–185, 2014

    Iulia M Georgescu, Sahel Ashhab, and Franco Nori. Quantum simulation.Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(1):153–185, 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    California Institute of Technology, 1997

    Daniel Gottesman.Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. California Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  8. [8]

    The heisenberg representation of quantum computers

    Daniel Gottesman. The heisenberg representation of quantum computers. InGroup22: Proceed- ings of the XXII International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics, pages 32–43, Cambridge, MA, 1998. International Press. Available also at arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  9. [9]

    Intel quantum simulator: A cloud-ready high-performance simulator of quantum circuits.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(3):034007, 2020

    Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, Justin Hogaboam, Fabio Baruffa, and Nicolas PD Sawaya. Intel quantum simulator: A cloud-ready high-performance simulator of quantum circuits.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(3):034007, 2020

    2020

  10. [10]

    High performance emulation of quantum circuits

    Thomas H¨ aner, Damian S Steiger, Mikhail Smelyanskiy, and Matthias Troyer. High performance emulation of quantum circuits. InSC’16: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 866–874. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  11. [11]

    ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 47(9):631–651, 1928

    Pascual Jordan and Eugene Wigner. ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 47(9):631–651, 1928

    1928

  12. [12]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    2017

  13. [13]

    Quantum error correction with imperfect gates

    A Yu Kitaev. Quantum error correction with imperfect gates. InQuantum communication, comput- ing, and measurement, pages 181–188. Springer, 1997

    1997

  14. [14]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons.Annals of physics, 303(1):2–30, 2003

    A Yu Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons.Annals of physics, 303(1):2–30, 2003

    2003

  15. [15]

    Number 47

    Alexei Yu Kitaev, Alexander Shen, and Mikhail N Vyalyi.Classical and quantum computation. Number 47. American Mathematical Soc., 2002

    2002

  16. [16]

    Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via trotterization.Quantum, 4:296, 2020

    Ian D Kivlichan, Craig Gidney, Dominic W Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Jarrod McClean, Wei Sun, Zhang Jiang, Nicholas Rubin, Austin Fowler, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, et al. Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via trotterization.Quantum, 4:296, 2020

    2020

  17. [17]

    Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 77(1):012307, 2008

    Emanuel Knill, Dietrich Leibfried, Rolf Reichle, Joe Britton, R Brad Blakestad, John D Jost, Chris Langer, Roee Ozeri, Signe Seidelin, and David J Wineland. Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 77(1):012307, 2008

    2008

  18. [18]

    How to efficiently select an arbitrary clifford group element

    Robert K¨ onig and John A Smolin. How to efficiently select an arbitrary clifford group element. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 55(12):122202, 2014

    2014

  19. [19]

    Evaluating the evidence for expo- nential quantum advantage in ground-state quantum chemistry.Nature communications, 14(1):1952, 2023

    Seunghoon Lee, Joonho Lee, Huanchen Zhai, Yu Tong, Alexander M Dalzell, Ashutosh Kumar, Phillip Helms, Johnnie Gray, Zhi-Hao Cui, Wenyuan Liu, et al. Evaluating the evidence for expo- nential quantum advantage in ground-state quantum chemistry.Nature communications, 14(1):1952, 2023. 23

    1952

  20. [20]

    Scalable and robust randomized bench- marking of quantum processes.Physical review letters, 106(18):180504, 2011

    Easwar Magesan, Jay M Gambetta, and Joseph Emerson. Scalable and robust randomized bench- marking of quantum processes.Physical review letters, 106(18):180504, 2011

    2011

  21. [21]

    Emerging quantum computing algorithms for quantum chemistry

    Mario Motta and Julia E Rice. Emerging quantum computing algorithms for quantum chemistry. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 12(3):e1580, 2022

    2022

  22. [22]

    Cambridge university press, 2010

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang.Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  23. [23]

    American Mathematical Soc., 1978

    Onorato Timothy O’Meara.Symplectic groups, volume 16. American Mathematical Soc., 1978

    1978

  24. [24]

    Scalable quantum simulation of molecular energies.Physical Review X, 6(3):031007, 2016

    Peter JJ O’Malley, Ryan Babbush, Ian D Kivlichan, Jonathan Romero, Jarrod R McClean, Rami Barends, Julian Kelly, Pedram Roushan, Andrew Tranter, Nan Ding, et al. Scalable quantum simulation of molecular energies.Physical Review X, 6(3):031007, 2016

    2016

  25. [25]

    Pcoast: A pauli-based quantum circuit optimization framework

    Jennifer Paykin, Albert T Schmitz, Mohannad Ibrahim, Xin-Chuan Wu, and Anne Y Matsuura. Pcoast: A pauli-based quantum circuit optimization framework. In2023 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 1, pages 715–726. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    Un-weyl-ing the clifford hierarchy.Quantum, 4:370, 2020

    Tefjol Pllaha, Narayanan Rengaswamy, Olav Tirkkonen, and Robert Calderbank. Un-weyl-ing the clifford hierarchy.Quantum, 4:370, 2020

    2020

  27. [27]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    2018

  28. [28]

    Hamlib: A library of hamiltonians for benchmarking quantum algorithms and hardware.Quantum, 8:1559, 2024

    Nicolas PD Sawaya, Daniel Marti-Dafcik, Yang Ho, Daniel P Tabor, David E Bernal Neira, Alicia B Magann, Shavindra Premaratne, Pradeep Dubey, Anne Matsuura, Nathan Bishop, et al. Hamlib: A library of hamiltonians for benchmarking quantum algorithms and hardware.Quantum, 8:1559, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Resource-efficient digital quantum simulation of d-level systems for photonic, vibrational, and spin-s hamiltonians.npj Quantum Information, 6(1):49, 2020

    Nicolas PD Sawaya, Tim Menke, Thi Ha Kyaw, Sonika Johri, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Gian Giacomo Guerreschi. Resource-efficient digital quantum simulation of d-level systems for photonic, vibrational, and spin-s hamiltonians.npj Quantum Information, 6(1):49, 2020

    2020

  30. [30]

    Optimization at the interface of unitary and non- unitary quantum operations in pcoast

    Albert T Schmitz, Mohannad Ibrahim, Nicolas PD Sawaya, Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, Jennifer Paykin, Xin-Chuan Wu, and Anne Y Matsuura. Optimization at the interface of unitary and non- unitary quantum operations in pcoast. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering (QCE), volume 1, pages 727–738. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    qhipster: The quantum high performance software testing environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.07195, 2016

    Mikhail Smelyanskiy, Nicolas PD Sawaya, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. qhipster: The quantum high performance software testing environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.07195, 2016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Fermion-to-qubit mappings with varying resource require- ments for quantum simulation.New Journal of Physics, 20(6):063010, 2018

    Mark Steudtner and Stephanie Wehner. Fermion-to-qubit mappings with varying resource require- ments for quantum simulation.New Journal of Physics, 20(6):063010, 2018

    2018

  33. [33]

    Masuo Suzuki. Generalized trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner derivations with applications to many-body problems.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 51(2):183–190, 1976

    1976

  34. [34]

    On the product of semi-groups of operators.Proceedings of the American Mathe- matical Society, 10(4):545–551, 1959

    Hale F Trotter. On the product of semi-groups of operators.Proceedings of the American Mathe- matical Society, 10(4):545–551, 1959

    1959

  35. [35]

    Simulation of electronic structure hamiltonians using quantum computers.Molecular Physics, 109(5):735–750, 2011

    James D Whitfield, Jacob Biamonte, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. Simulation of electronic structure hamiltonians using quantum computers.Molecular Physics, 109(5):735–750, 2011. 24

    2011