Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Trotterized QPE sampling converges to a fixed rate set by initial-state overlap and evolution time, so pushing Trotter accuracy beyond a modest threshold yields no further gains.

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

2026-08-02 20:43 UTC pith:YE5WAJQJ

load-bearing objection A careful but very small numerical study of textbook QPE; the qualitative saturation behavior is plausible, but the printed Eq. (4) normalization error and the single 3-qubit instance leave the quantitative claim unverified. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.22349 v2 pith:YE5WAJQJ submitted 2026-02-25 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncs.NAmath.NA

Numerical Experiments with Parameter Setting of Trotterized Quantum Phase Estimation for Quantum Hamiltonian Ground State Computation

Elijah Pelofske , Stephan Eidenbenz This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncs.NAmath.NA MSC 81P6868Q12
keywords Quantum Phase EstimationTrotterizationground-state energyHeisenberg spin glassinitial state overlapphase readoutparameter tuningquantum simulation
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.

This paper tries to establish that, when Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE) is used with Trotterized time evolution to find a Hamiltonian's ground-state energy, the probability of sampling the correct digitized phase stops improving once the Trotter error falls below a modest threshold. The ceiling equals the initial state's overlap with the ground space times the textbook QPE success probability, ζ = χ·p(x). This means practitioners should tune evolution time and initial state, not endlessly decrease Trotter error. The claim is supported by exact-statevector simulations of 3-qubit Heisenberg spin glass circuits with up to 10 phase bits of precision and Trotter orders up to 10. A sympathetic reader cares because it gives concrete, actionable input-tuning guidelines for QPE on early fault-tolerant quantum computers.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a Trotterized QPE circuit samples the optimal digitized phase at a rate that converges to ζ = χ·p(x), where χ is the initial state's overlap with the (possibly degenerate) ground space and p(x) is the textbook QPE success probability for a perfect initial state. The numerical evidence shows this saturation occurs while the Trotter error is still high, implying a regime of diminishing returns where further Trotter step or order increases add gate count but not sampling accuracy. The paper also shows that total evolution time can be tuned to raise p(x) by up to a factor of 1/(4/π²) ≈ 2.47, and that non-physical sub-ground-state energies appear in the out

What carries the argument

The central object is the steady-state sampling rate ζ = χ·p(x) (Eq. 5), built from the initial-state overlap χ (Eq. 3) and the exact QPE success probability p(x) (Eq. 4, the textbook phase-estimation distribution). The product formula (Trotter-Suzuki) approximation of the controlled time evolution exp(iHt), with order k and step count r, is the object being tuned; the paper shows that once its error drops below a modest threshold, the sampling rate stops tracking Trotter error and equals ζ. The total evolution time t appears inside the phase of p(x) and sets which digitized bitstring is optimal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single 3-qubit Heisenberg spin glass realization run with the all-zero initial state is representative enough that the qualitative tuning guidance — saturation at high Trotter error, the 4/π² time-tuning factor, and the non-physical tails — transfers to larger systems; the paper itself notes that the all-zero state has exponentially decaying overlap with system size and is not expected to be a good initial state at scale.

What would settle it

Run exact statevector simulations of QPE on a 4- or 5-qubit Heisenberg spin glass with an initial state known to have high overlap, and measure the digitized optimal-phase sampling rate while decreasing Trotter error. If the rate continues to rise past the predicted steady-state ζ — or if the saturated rate deviates from χ·p(x) — the central claim fails. Repeating across multiple Hamiltonian instances and initial states would test how broadly the saturation behavior holds.

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

If this is right

  • Trotter error does not need to be decreased indefinitely: there is a saturation point beyond which extra Trotter steps or higher order add gate count without improving the probability of sampling the ground-state phase.
  • The maximum achievable optimal-phase sampling rate is limited by the initial state's overlap with the ground space, so improved initial state preparation is the main lever for QPE performance.
  • Tuning the total evolution time can increase the sampling rate by up to a factor of about 2.47 (from 4/π² to 1), even for a fixed initial state.
  • QPE output distributions contain non-physical energy estimates below the true ground-state energy, so post-processing with eigenvalue bounds is necessary.
  • Phase leakage from nearby eigenvalues can slightly boost the observed optimal-phase sampling rate, especially with small phase registers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the saturation behavior suggests a practical protocol — sweep the Trotter step count until the sampled phase distribution stops changing, then stop; further resources are wasted.
  • Inference: if ζ = χ·p(x) holds broadly, fault-tolerant QPE resource estimates should target the overlap-limited sampling rate rather than machine-precision Trotter error.
  • Inference: the 4/π² minimum factor implies that even without knowing the energy gap, time evolution should be tuned to a peak of the phase-estimation curve, using eigenvalue bounds only as a starting point.
  • Inference: a testable extension is to verify on a larger instance with a known high-overlap initial state (e.g., prepared adiabatically) that the sampling rate still matches ζ and that saturation occurs at comparable Trotter-error thresholds.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a numerical study of textbook Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE) with Trotterized controlled time evolution, applied to a 3-qubit disordered Heisenberg spin glass Hamiltonian. The authors simulate full QPE circuits at the elementary-gate level, varying evolution time t, Trotter order k, Trotter steps r, phase-register size m_prec, and initial state, and measure the sampling probability of the bitstring corresponding to the ground-state energy. Their central observation is that, once the Trotter error is sufficiently small, this optimal-phase sampling probability saturates at a 'steady-state' rate ζ = χ·p(x), where χ is the initial-state overlap with the degenerate ground space and p(x) is the textbook QPE success probability (Eqs. 4–5). They use this to argue for strong diminishing returns in Trotter accuracy, to quantify the benefit of tuning the total evolution time (a 4/π² factor), and to issue a set of QPE input-parameter tuning guidelines. The paper is framed as a small-scale algorithmic-engineering study rather than a new theoretical result.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides practically useful guidance for early fault-tolerant QPE implementations: beyond a modest Trotter accuracy, the dominant factors controlling ground-state sampling are initial-state overlap and evolution-time tuning, not the continued reduction of Trotter error. The study has genuine strengths that should be credited: it uses exact diagonalization as ground truth, full statevector circuit simulation, a fixed 10,000-shot sampling protocol, Frobenius-norm Trotter-error checks, several initial-state families, and Trotter orders up to 10. The authors are also transparent that ζ is a diagnostic that requires knowing the ground-state energy, and they explicitly flag several limitations (e.g., the all-zero state is not representative for large n). However, the quantitative foundation of the central claim is currently compromised by an apparent normalization error in Eq. (4), and the main QPE sampling experiments rest on a single n=3 Hamiltonian instance with a single initial state. These issues limit the generality of the tuning guidelines as written and need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) as printed has normalization 1/2^n, which is not the textbook QPE probability; the correct prefactor is 1/2^{2n}. With the printed normalization, p(x) can exceed 1 (e.g., for m_prec=3 and a midpoint phase, p≈3.24), and the stated minimum value 4/π² is incorrect. Since Eq. (5) is ζ=χ·p(x) and the dashed curves in Figs. 4–5 are labeled as Eq. (4) and Eq. (5), this is not a cosmetic typo: the plotted reference cannot be evaluated as written. Please correct the formula and state explicitly which normalization was used to generate the figures.
  2. [§III, Figs. 4–5] The main QPE sampling results are for a single 3-qubit Hamiltonian realization with the all-zero initial state. The paper itself notes (§III) that the all-zero state is not representative for large n and that easy-to-prepare state overlaps decay exponentially with n (Fig. 10). The saturation behavior and the 4/π² tuning factor in Discussion item 2 are presented as general QPE guidance, but no multiple-instance or n>3 QPE sampling data are provided. Please either add QPE experiments for additional instances and larger n, or explicitly reframe the conclusions as a case study; as written, the generality of the central deliverable is unsupported.
  3. [§II, Eq. (5); §IV, item 6] Equation (5) omits phase leakage from excited eigenstates into the optimal bitstring; the manuscript itself notes after Eq. (5) that a full state-space distribution would include such leakage, and Discussion item 6 concedes that leakage can push the measured rate above ζ. Thus ζ is at best an approximate lower bound, not the exact 'steady-state' rate claimed in Discussion item 3. The agreement with Eq. (5) in Figs. 4–5 is presented qualitatively, without residuals, error bars, or reproducible code/data. Please provide a quantitative comparison, including the size of leakage corrections, or soften the claim accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eq. (4)] The symbol n is used both for the number of system qubits (Eq. 3) and, apparently, for the number of phase bits in Eq. (4). This is confusing; define the phase-register size explicitly, e.g., call it m_prec.
  2. [Figs. 4–5] The label 'Upper Bound*' is misleading because the text correctly explains that Eq. (4) is not a hard upper bound. Consider relabeling it as a 'reference curve' or 'ideal initial-state reference'.
  3. [Fig. 7] The y-axis label 'Count' with a log scale is understandable, but it would help to state explicitly that these are histogram counts from 10,000 samples and to add sampling error bars, especially for the small-count tails.
  4. [Fig. 6] The two panels correspond to different evolution times (t0·2^0 and t0·2^10). State this in the caption or main text more explicitly, and explain how the second panel relates to the largest phase-register size used elsewhere in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Eq. (5) is an explicitly labeled ground-truth diagnostic benchmark, not a fitted prediction, and the saturation finding is an independent empirical comparison.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The paper's central quantitative object, ζ = χ·p(x) (Eq. 5), is an analytic benchmark: χ (Eq. 3) is the overlap of the chosen initial state with the exact-diagonalization ground space, and p(x) (Eq. 4, from Kaye–Laflamme–Mosca, an external textbook) is the ideal QPE success probability for a perfect initial state. Neither quantity is fit to the QPE circuit-sampling data; the QPE circuits are built only from the Trotterized controlled unitary and the initial state, with exact diagonalization used solely to validate/label the measured bitstrings (Sec. II: 'Exact diagonalization is used to validate the sampling of the QPE circuit, but not used in the construction of the circuit or the choice of algorithm parameters'). The headline saturation claim is an empirical observation that measured digitized E0 phase probabilities converge to this benchmark at modest Trotter accuracy (Figs. 4–6), and the paper explicitly identifies deviations (transitory Trotter effects, phase leakage, finite sampling) rather than explaining them away. The paper also explicitly concedes the limitation that computing Eq. (5) requires knowing the minimum eigenvalue (Discussion item 3), so it does not disguise the ground-truth dependence as a parameter-free prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness claims, or fitted-input-called-prediction steps. Separately, Eq. (4)'s printed normalization appears inconsistent with the standard 1/2^{2n} form, but that is a correctness/verification issue, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The experiment sweeps known knobs (t, r, k, m_prec, initial state) without fitting any free parameter to the target output; the 'steady-state rate' ζ is, however, constructed from ground-truth quantities (exact-diagonalization overlap χ and the textbook success probability at the true phase), so the headline diagnostic imports the answer. No physical entities are invented. The main ad hoc element is the representativeness assumption for one 3-qubit instance.

free parameters (4)
  • Evolution time t0 = π/(3|E||J|) = π/9 for n=3 (Eq. 2)
    A hand-chosen, efficiently computable bound taken from Qiskit, then re-tuned by grid search in Fig. 5 over the range t0 − 8t0/2^mprec; the grid width is an ad hoc resolution choice. The sampling-rate landscape depends on this tuning rather than on a derived optimum.
  • Single n=3 Hamiltonian realization = J coefficients ∈ {±1}, one sampled instance
    All QPE circuit experiments (Figs. 4-9) use one random 3-qubit instance; the generality of the steady-state and diminishing-returns claims rests on this instance being representative.
  • Degenerate-eigenvalue threshold = 1×10^-12
    Used in Eq. (3) to decide which eigenvectors share E0; this threshold directly sets the overlap χ that defines the steady-state rate.
  • Sample count = 10,000 measurements per parameter combination
    Fixed sampling budget; sets the observable resolution of the digitized-phase probability, but no error bars are reported on the measured rates.
axioms (5)
  • standard math QPE success-probability distribution p(x) of Eq. (4) (Kaye-Laflamme-Mosca Lemma 7.1.2) holds for the circuit implementation
    The steady-state rate ζ = χ·p(x) inherits this textbook formula; its validity is imported, though the paper numerically checks that circuit sampling matches it.
  • domain assumption Steady-state rate ζ = χ·p(x) (Eq. 5) approximates the sampling distribution with phase leakage from other eigenstates neglected
    Used as the target the sampled distribution converges to. The paper acknowledges leakage can add to the E0 bitstring rate at small mprec (Discussion, item 6), so Eq. 5 is an approximation, not a theorem.
  • standard math Trotter-Suzuki product formulas converge to e^{iHt}, with r and k as the tuning knobs (operator ordering fixed to the Qiskit default)
    The study treats r and k as the error dials and explicitly declines to analyze operator ordering, though different orderings give different effective unitaries (Section II).
  • standard math Exact diagonalization via NumPy/LAPACK provides the true ground-state energy and overlap
    Ground truth for E0 and χ (Eq. 3); also the means by which the diagnostic ζ is computed.
  • ad hoc to paper One 3-qubit instance with the all-zero initial state is representative of QPE behavior on the model
    The qualitative guidance (saturation at high Trotter error, the 4/π² time-tuning factor, non-physical tails) is drawn from this single configuration; the authors note the all-zero state is 'not very representative' and overlap decays exponentially with n (Fig. 10).
invented entities (1)
  • Steady-state optimal phase sampling rate ζ = χ·p(x) (Eq. 5) no independent evidence
    purpose: Diagnostic target that the measured QPE sampling distribution is claimed to converge to; used to argue for diminishing returns of Trotter accuracy.
    Not a physical entity but a composite of the exact-diagonalization overlap and the textbook QPE distribution. It has no falsifiable handle outside the paper's own small simulations, and the authors state it cannot be computed without already knowing the ground state (Discussion, item 3).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16175 in / 18592 out tokens · 179058 ms · 2026-08-02T20:43:38.988379+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We numerically investigate quantum circuit elementary-gate level instantiations of the standard Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE) algorithm for the task of computing the ground-state energy of a quantum magnet; the disordered fully-connected quantum Heisenberg spin glass model. We consider (classical simulations of) QPE circuit computations on relatively small quantum Hamiltonians ($3$ qubits) with up to $10$ phase bits of precision, using up to Trotter order $10$. We systematically study the inputs of QPE, specifically time evolution, Trotter order, Trotter steps, and initial state, and illustrate how these inputs practically determine how QPE operates. From this we outline a coherent set of quantum algorithm input and tuning guidelines. One of the notable properties we characterize is that QPE sampling of the optimal digitized phase converges to a fixed rate. This results in strong diminishing returns of optimal phase sampling rates which can occur when the Trotter error is surprisingly high.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22349 by Elijah Pelofske, Stephan Eidenbenz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Quantum circuit diagram schematic of the Quantum Phase Estimation algorithm to compute the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Digitization phase readout error. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: QPE optimal phase sampling (y-axis) as a function of Trotter steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: High resolution search over evolution times. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Trotter error, in terms of the Frobenius norm, as a function of Trotter steps ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparing low bit precision ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: QPE decoded eigenvalue estimates where the Trotter error is substantially high, resulting in QPE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Total QPE circuit instruction count (log-scale y-axis is the sum of 1Q and 2Q gates) as Trotter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows initial state overlap, averaged over 100 random coefficient instantiations of Eq. (1), as a function of n. This shows that none of the initial states have very high overlap. Significantly improved initial state meth￾ods must be developed in order for QPE to be applied to Heisenberg quantum Hamiltonian ground-state com￾putation, beyond these simple test cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.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

73 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Using the smallest energy found from the measured QPE circuit executions can result in an energy that is not physical, i.e., the energy is lower than the actual ground- state of the quantum Hamiltonian (see Figs. 7, 8). This is a counter-intuitive property – especially from the con- text of standard classical linear algebra computation – that surprises ma...

  2. [2]

    The total evolution time is an important parameter that can be tuned in order for QPE to perform especially well. Eigenvalue bounds can be used in order to obtain reasonably good total evolution time, however, the total evolution time can be tuned to generate higher optimal phase sampling rates compared to what an initial time evolution bound can produce....

  3. [3]

    There is a saturation, or a steady-state, of the op- timal phase sampling that occurs at sufficiently low error rate. This property of QPE is good; it means that there does exist some sufficient error rate at which the QPE sampling converges, which in particular means that Trot- ter error does not need to be decreasedad infinitum. This is illustrated by F...

  4. [4]

    This is in part due to the probabilistic nature of the computa- tion, but moreover the probability distributions are not guaranteed to concentrate on the optimal phase

    Perfect QPE, run on a noiseless quantum computer, with a good initial state would not always output the op- timal phase, corresponding to ground-state energy. This is in part due to the probabilistic nature of the computa- tion, but moreover the probability distributions are not guaranteed to concentrate on the optimal phase. The optimal phase sampling ra...

  5. [5]

    For in- stance, higher success probability than steady-state con- verged QPE value can occur (see Fig

    Transitory effects due to poor approximation of the time evolution can cause outlier behavior. For in- stance, higher success probability than steady-state con- verged QPE value can occur (see Fig. 4). This is not necessarily a problem. In fact, given that in some in- stances it boosts success probability to be greater than Eq. 5 it may be able to be expl...

  6. [6]

    Phase leakage can cause slightly higher digitized E0 eigenvalue steady-state sampling probability of Eq. (5). This occurs because of leakage from nearby eigenvalues to E0, and becomes more apparent when mprec is small. This is illustrated in Fig. 4-(top left) with 3 phase qubits, although the effect in this plot is relatively small. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The au...

  7. [7]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  8. [8]

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

    2010

  9. [9]

    Shor, in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foun- dations of Computer Science (1994) pp

    P. Shor, in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foun- dations of Computer Science (1994) pp. 124–134

    1994

  10. [10]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer , SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 1484–1509 (1997)

    1997

  11. [11]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. HØyer, and A. Tapp, Quantum count- ing, in Automata, Languages and Programming (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1998) p. 820–831

    1998

  12. [12]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations , Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  13. [13]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm pro- viding exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Physical Review Letters 83, 5162–5165 (1999)

    1999

  14. [14]

    Johnstun and J.-F

    S. Johnstun and J.-F. V. Huele, Optimizing the phase es- timation algorithm applied to the quantum simulation of heisenberg-type hamiltonians (2021), arXiv:2105.05018 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    J. S. Nelson and A. D. Baczewski, An assessment of quan- tum phase estimation protocols for early fault-tolerant quantum computers (2024), arXiv:2403.00077 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Ding and L

    Z. Ding and L. Lin, Even Shorter Quantum Circuit for Phase Estimation on Early Fault-Tolerant Quan- tum Computers with Applications to Ground-State En- ergy Estimation , PRX Quantum 4, 10.1103/prxquan- tum.4.020331 (2023)

    doi:10.1103/prxquan- 2023

  17. [17]

    Patel, S

    D. Patel, S. J. S. Tan, Y. Subasi, and A. T. Sornborger, Optimal Coherent Quantum Phase Estimation via Ta- pering (2024), arXiv:2403.18927 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    H. Apel, C. L. Cortes, J. Lemieux, and M. Steudtner, Re- ducing quantum resources for observable estimation with window-assisted coherent QPE (2025), arXiv:2508.06677 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of operators, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 10, 545–551 (1959)

    1959

  20. [20]

    M. Suzuki, Generalized Trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner deriva- tions with applications to many-body problems , Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics 51, 183–190 (1976)

    1976

  21. [21]

    M. Suzuki, Decomposition formulas of exponential opera- tors and Lie exponentials with some applications to quan- tum mechanics and statistical physics , Journal of mathe- matical physics 26, 601–612 (1985)

    1985

  22. [22]

    Hatano and M

    N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding Exponential Prod- uct Formulas of Higher Orders, in Quantum Annealing and Other Optimization Methods (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 2005) p. 37–68

    2005

  23. [23]

    Lopez-Cerezo, A Rigorous Introduction to Hamil- tonian Simulation via High-Order Product Formulas (2025), arXiv:2507.10501 [quant-ph]

    J. Lopez-Cerezo, A Rigorous Introduction to Hamil- tonian Simulation via High-Order Product Formulas (2025), arXiv:2507.10501 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders, Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Sparse Hamiltonians, Communications in Mathematical Physics 270, 359–371 (2006)

    2006

  25. [25]

    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, Improved Fault-Tolerant Quantum Simulation of Condensed-Phase Correlated Electrons via Trotterization, Quantum 4, 296 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, M. Motta, J. R. McClean, and R. Babbush, Qubitization of arbitrary basis quantum chemistry leveraging sparsity and low rank factorization , Quantum 3, 208 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Bray and M

    A. Bray and M. Moore, Replica theory of quantum spin glasses, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 13, L655 (1980)

    1980

  29. [29]

    Georges, O

    A. Georges, O. Parcollet, and S. Sachdev, Mean Field Theory of a Quantum Heisenberg Spin Glass , Physical Review Letters 85, 840–843 (2000)

    2000

  30. [30]

    Sherrington and S

    D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1792–1796 (1975)

    1975

  31. [31]

    J. R. L. de Almeida and D. J. Thouless, Stability of the sherrington-kirkpatrick solution of a spin glass model , Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 11, 983 (1978)

    1978

  32. [32]

    Dannegger, I

    T. Dannegger, I. Hagym´ asi, L. R´ ozsa, and U. Nowak, Quantum fluctuations determine the spin-flop transition in hematite (2025), arXiv:2510.23412 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Shinaoka, Y

    H. Shinaoka, Y. Tomita, and Y. Motome, Spin-Glass Transition in Bond-Disordered Heisenberg Antiferro- magnets Coupled with Local Lattice Distortions on a Pyrochlore Lattice , Physical Review Letters 107, 10.1103/physrevlett.107.047204 (2011)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.047204 2011

  34. [34]

    Wu, D.-X

    M. Wu, D.-X. Yao, and H.-Q. Wu, Exact diagonaliza- tion study of the anisotropic heisenberg model related to ybmggao4, Phys. Rev. B 103, 205122 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    J.-W. Li, Z. Zhang, J.-Y. You, B. Gu, and G. Su, Two- dimensional heisenberg model with material-dependent superexchange interactions , Phys. Rev. B 107, 224411 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Torelli and T

    D. Torelli and T. Olsen, First principles Heisenberg mod- els of 2D magnetic materials: the importance of quantum corrections to the exchange coupling , Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 335802 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    K. K. Kesharpu and P. A. Maksimov, Quantum selection of order and dynamic properties of the Kitaev-Heisenberg ferromagnet on a triangular lattice , Phys. Rev. B 112, 054416 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Christos, F

    M. Christos, F. M. Haehl, and S. Sachdev, Spin liquid to spin glass crossover in the random quantum Heisenberg magnet, Phys. Rev. B 105, 085120 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Kavokine, M

    N. Kavokine, M. M¨ uller, A. Georges, and O. Parcollet, Exact Numerical Solution of the Fully Connected Classi- cal and Quantum Heisenberg Spin Glass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 016501 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Z.-L. Tsai, P. Chen, and Y.-C. Lin, Tensor network renormalization group study of spin-1 random Heisen- berg chains , The European Physical Journal B 93, 10.1140/epjb/e2020-100585-8 (2020). 12

    work page doi:10.1140/epjb/e2020-100585-8 2020

  41. [41]

    W. Y. Ching, D. L. Huber, and K. M. Leung, Numerical studies of spin-wave dynamics in Heisenberg spin-glasses, Phys. Rev. B 23, 6126–6132 (1981)

    1981

  42. [42]

    Uematsu and H

    K. Uematsu and H. Kawamura, Randomness-induced quantum spin liquid behavior in the s = 1 2 random J1−J2 heisenberg antiferromagnet on the square lattice , Phys. Rev. B 98, 134427 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    Astrakhantsev, T

    N. Astrakhantsev, T. Westerhout, A. Tiwari, K. Choo, A. Chen, M. H. Fischer, G. Carleo, and T. Neupert, Broken-symmetry ground states of the heisenberg model on the pyrochlore lattice, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041021 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Uematsu, T

    K. Uematsu, T. Hikihara, and H. Kawamura, Frustration-induced quantum spin liquid behavior in the s= 1/2 random-bond heisenberg antiferromagnet on the zigzag chain , Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90, 124703 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Shimokawa, K

    T. Shimokawa, K. Watanabe, and H. Kawamura, Static and dynamical spin correlations of the s = 1 2 random- bond antiferromagnetic heisenberg model on the triangu- lar and kagome lattices , Phys. Rev. B 92, 134407 (2015)

    2015

  46. [46]

    D. Han, Y. Bai, and Y. Zhao, Entropy dynamics of the binary bond disordered heisenberg chain (2024), arXiv:2411.09368 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Pan and Z

    G. Pan and Z. Y. Meng, The sign problem in quantum Monte Carlo simulations, in Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics (Elsevier, 2024) p. 879–893

    2024

  48. [48]

    V. I. Iglovikov, E. Khatami, and R. T. Scalettar, Geom- etry dependence of the sign problem in quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Physical Review B 92, 10.1103/phys- revb.92.045110 (2015)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2015

  49. [49]

    Tranter, D

    A. Tranter, D. Gowland, K. Yamamoto, M. Sze, and D. M. Ramo, High-precision Quantum Phase Estima- tion on a Trapped-ion Quantum Computer (2025), arXiv:2506.17207 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    C. Kang, N. P. Bauman, S. Krishnamoorthy, and K. Kowalski, Optimized Quantum Phase Estimation for Simulating Electronic States in Various Energy Regimes (2022), arXiv:2206.00802 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    J. D. Whitfield, J. Biamonte, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Sim- ulation of electronic structure Hamiltonians using quan- tum computers, Molecular Physics 109, 735–750 (2011)

    2011

  52. [52]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies, Science 309, 1704–1707 (2005)

    2005

  53. [53]

    Y. Ino, M. Yonekawa, H. Yuzawa, Y. Minato, and K. Sug- isaki, Workflow for practical quantum chemical calcula- tions with a quantum phase estimation algorithm: elec- tronic ground and π–π∗ excited states of benzene and its derivatives, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 26, 30044–30054 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    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. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Aleksandrowicz, T

    G. Aleksandrowicz, T. Alexander, P. Barkoutsos, L. Bello, Y. Ben-Haim, D. Bucher, F. J. Cabrera- Hern´ andez, J. Carballo-Franquis, A. Chen, C.-F. Chen, J. M. Chow, A. D. C´ orcoles-Gonzales, A. J. Cross, A. Cross, J. Cruz-Benito, C. Culver, S. D. L. P. Gonz´ alez, E. D. L. Torre, D. Ding, E. Dumitrescu, I. Duran, P. Een- debak, M. Everitt, I. F. Sertage,...

    2019

  56. [56]

    A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, S. Sheldon, P. D. Nation, and J. M. Gambetta, Validating quantum computers us- ing randomized model circuits , Physical Review A 100, 10.1103/physreva.100.032328 (2019)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.100.032328 2019

  57. [57]

    Aaronson and L

    S. Aaronson and L. Chen, Complexity-Theoretic Foun- dations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments (2016), arXiv:1612.05903 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Tay- lor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R ´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. Shep- pard, T. Reddy, W. Weckesser, H. Abbasi, C. Gohlke, and T. E. Oliphant, Array...

    2020

  59. [59]

    Angerson, Z

    E. Angerson, Z. Bai, J. Dongarra, A. Greenbaum, A. McKenney, J. Du Croz, S. Hammarling, J. Demmel, C. Bischof, and D. Sorensen, in Supercomputing ’90:Pro- ceedings of the 1990 ACM/IEEE Conference on Super- computing (1990) pp. 2–11

    1990

  60. [60]

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter Error with Commutator Scaling, Phys- ical Review X 11, 10.1103/physrevx.11.011020 (2021)

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.011020 2021

  61. [61]

    A. M. Childs, A. Ostrander, and Y. Su, Faster quantum simulation by randomization , Quantum 3, 182 (2019)

    2019

  62. [62]

    Tranter, P

    A. Tranter, P. J. Love, F. Mintert, N. Wiebe, and P. V. Coveney, Ordering of Trotterization: Impact on Errors in Quantum Simulation of Electronic Structure , Entropy 21, 1218 (2019)

    2019

  63. [63]

    M. B. Hastings, D. Wecker, B. Bauer, and M. Troyer, Improving Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Chemistry (2014), arXiv:1403.1539 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  64. [64]

    P. Kaye, R. Laflamme, and M. Mosca, An introduction to quantum computing (OUP Oxford, 2006)

    2006

  65. [65]

    Gibbs and L

    J. Gibbs and L. Cincio, Deep Circuit Compression for Quantum Dynamics via Tensor Networks , Quantum 9, 1789 (2025)

    2025

  66. [66]

    Gibbs and L

    J. Gibbs and L. Cincio, Learning Circuits with Infinite Tensor Networks (2025), arXiv:2506.02105 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Nagaj, P

    D. Nagaj, P. Wocjan, and Y. Zhang, Fast Amplification of QMA (2009), arXiv:0904.1549 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  68. [68]

    Rajchel-Mieldzio´ c, S

    G. Rajchel-Mieldzio´ c, S. Pli´ s, and E. Zak, Quantum algorithm for solving generalized eigenvalue problems with application to the schr¨ odinger equation (2026), arXiv:2506.13534 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation (2002)

    2002

  70. [70]

    Daskin and S

    A. Daskin and S. Kais, Direct application of the phase estimation algorithm to find the eigenvalues of the hamil- 13 tonians, Chemical Physics 514, 87–94 (2018)

    2018

  71. [71]

    L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9605043 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  72. [72]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix analysis (Cam- bridge university press, 2012)

    2012

  73. [73]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Po- lat, Y. Feng, E. W. Moore, J. VanderPlas, D. Laxalde, J. Perktold, R. Cimrman, I. Henr...

    2020