arxiv: 2604.08467 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Accelerating Quantum Tensor Network Simulations with Unified Path Variations and Non-Degenerate Batched Sampling

Taylor Lee Patti , Paavai Pari , Yang Gao , Azzam Haidar , Thien Nguyen , Tom Lubowe , Daniel Lowell , Brucek Khailany

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum trajectoriestensor networksPTSBEbatched samplingcontraction optimizationnoisy quantum simulationpath variationnon-degenerate sampling

0 comments

The pith

Error-independent path variations and non-degenerate batched sampling raise tensor network quantum trajectory data rates above 10^8 times traditional methods.

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

The paper targets the slow data collection in tensor-network versions of quantum trajectory methods for noisy quantum systems. It replaces repeated contraction-path calculations, sequential sampling, and rigid hyperparameters with three coordinated changes: error-independent unified path variation, non-degenerate batched sampling, and a flexible optimized contraction engine. These changes lift the data-collection rate of Pre-Trajectory Sampling with Batched Execution (PTSBE) to more than 10^8 times that of ordinary trajectory sampling and still deliver over 1000 times speedup on general circuits. A reader cares because the memory cost of exact density-matrix simulation grows as 2 to the 2n while these approximations stay linear in the number of trajectories, so the new rate makes previously inaccessible system sizes reachable. The improvements are shown to be especially large when sampling is non-proportional to the state probabilities.

Core claim

The authors show that contraction-path recalculations, sequential sampling, and inflexible hyperparameters were the three main limits on tensor-network PTSBE performance. By introducing error-independent unified path variation that reuses a single contraction tree across all sampled trajectories, non-degenerate tensor-network sampling that permits fully batched parallel execution without duplicate states, and a flexible contraction framework that tunes hyperparameters on the fly, the method achieves data-collection rates more than 10^8 times higher than conventional quantum trajectory sampling and more than 1000 times higher than prior tensor-network PTSBE for general circuits.

What carries the argument

Error-independent unified path variation together with non-degenerate batched tensor-network sampling inside an optimized contraction framework for Pre-Trajectory Sampling with Batched Execution (PTSBE).

If this is right

Larger noisy quantum circuits become simulable on classical hardware because the effective sampling rate now exceeds the growth in system size.
Non-proportional sampling, previously the slowest regime, now becomes the regime with the largest relative gains.
General quantum simulations without special sampling requirements still obtain more than 1000 times faster data collection.
The same contraction and sampling primitives can be reused across different trajectory-based algorithms that rely on tensor networks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The approach may allow real-time feedback loops between classical simulation and experimental calibration for mid-size quantum devices.
Similar unified-path and non-degenerate batching ideas could accelerate other tensor-network contraction tasks that currently recompute paths for each sample.
Extending the framework to time-dependent noise or open-system dynamics would test whether the same contraction reuse remains valid.
Hardware-specific tensor contraction libraries could multiply the reported gains further when the new sampling pattern is ported to GPUs or TPUs.

Load-bearing premise

The large speedups and maintained accuracy observed on the tested circuits and noise models continue to hold for arbitrary circuits and noise without the tensor-network approximations introducing uncontrolled errors.

What would settle it

Apply the new method to a circuit size and noise model outside the reported test set and measure whether the data-collection rate falls below 10^6 times traditional trajectories or the sampled expectation values deviate from exact results by more than the stated error tolerance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08467 by Azzam Haidar, Brucek Khailany, Daniel Lowell, Paavai Pari, Taylor Lee Patti, Thien Nguyen, Tom Lubowe, Yang Gao.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Diagram of trajectory sampling techniques for tensor networks. (Left) Traditional trajectory simulations must recompute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: a) Fragment of a quantum circuit contraction path. b) Repeated contraction path finding for unoptimized TN PTSBE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Data collection speedup for optimized non-proportional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Data collection speedup vs gates vs final batch sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Proportional sampling data collection speedup for var [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (Left) Contraction time per unique shot vs the number of gates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: While traditional trajectory implementations, such as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Contraction time per batch vs batch-size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum trajectory methods reduce the computational overhead of simulating noisy quantum systems, approximating them with $m$ stochastically sampled $2^n$-entry quantum statevectors rather than exact $2^{2n}$-entry density matrices. Recently, Pre-Trajectory Sampling with Batched Execution (PTSBE) has dramatically increased the data collection rate of these methods. While statevector PTSBE has demonstrated data collection speedups of over $10^6 \times$, tensor network implementations only achieved $\sim 15 \times$ speedup. This comparatively modest tensor network advantage stemmed from 1) contraction path recalculations, 2) sequential tensor network sampling, and 3) inflexible/unoptimized contraction hyperparameters. In this manuscript, we increase PTSBE's tensor network data collection rate to more than $10^8\times$ that of traditional trajectories methods by developing 1) error-independent unified path variation, 2) non-degenerate tensor network sampling, and 3) a flexible/optimized contraction framework. While our methods are particularly powerful for accelerating non-proportional sampling, we also demonstrate a more than $1000\times$ speedup for more general quantum simulations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper fixes three specific bottlenecks in tensor-network PTSBE to claim a jump from 15x to over 10^8x speedup, but the abstract gives almost no numbers or validation to check if the gains are real or general.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors target the exact reasons tensor-network PTSBE only reached 15x while statevector versions hit 10^6x: repeated contraction path calculations, sequential sampling, and rigid hyperparameters. They replace those with error-independent unified path variation, non-degenerate batched sampling, and a flexible contraction framework. That combination is presented as the source of the much larger reported gains, especially for non-proportional sampling, with a still-substantial 1000x for broader cases. The ideas are concrete and address real engineering friction in these simulations. The paper does a reasonable job explaining why those three changes matter and why they matter more in certain sampling regimes. The focus on practical batch execution and path reuse is the kind of detail that can actually move the needle for people running large numbers of trajectories. On the soft spots, the abstract supplies no benchmark tables, no accuracy comparisons against exact methods, no scaling plots with depth or qubit number, and no error analysis. Without those, it is impossible to tell whether the headline speedups hold up or whether the new sampling steps introduce bias that grows with system size. The stress-test note on untested generalization is on target here; nothing in the provided description shows the methods remain unbiased or stable outside the tested circuits and noise models. If the full paper has solid validation data, that would address the gap. This work is for researchers who already run tensor-network quantum trajectory simulations and need higher throughput for noisy hardware studies or error-correction work. A reader looking for implementation tricks to speed up existing code would find usable ideas. It deserves a serious referee because the algorithmic fixes are specific and the potential payoff for simulation scale is high, even though the current evidence is thin. I would send it to review but flag the need for expanded benchmarks and checks on approximation fidelity.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes three algorithmic improvements to Pre-Trajectory Sampling with Batched Execution (PTSBE) for tensor-network simulations of noisy quantum systems: (1) error-independent unified path variation, (2) non-degenerate tensor network sampling, and (3) a flexible/optimized contraction framework. These are claimed to raise the tensor-network data-collection rate from ~15× to >10^8× relative to traditional trajectory methods, with an additional >1000× speedup demonstrated for more general quantum simulations; the methods are noted as especially effective for non-proportional sampling.

Significance. If the claimed speedups are shown to preserve unbiased trajectory statistics across a range of circuit depths, qubit counts, and noise models, the work would meaningfully close the performance gap between statevector and tensor-network PTSBE implementations. The emphasis on reusable contraction paths and non-degenerate sampling could enable routine simulation of larger open quantum systems, which is of clear practical value to the quantum simulation community.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results section: the headline claims of >10^8× and >1000× speedups are stated without any accompanying numerical benchmarks, timing tables, error bars, or direct comparison to the prior ~15× tensor-network baseline. Because these numbers are the central performance claim, the absence of quantitative validation makes it impossible to assess whether the three listed techniques actually deliver the stated gains without introducing bias.
[Methods and Results] Methods and Results sections: the manuscript asserts that the techniques remain faithful for arbitrary circuits and noise models, yet only reports results for particular cases and notes that the methods are “particularly powerful for non-proportional sampling.” No scaling tests with increasing depth, qubit number, or noise strength are described, leaving open the possibility that mild correlations introduced by non-degenerate sampling or path variation grow with system size and compromise the unbiased statistics required for the speedup claim.

minor comments (2)

[Methods] Notation for the contraction hyperparameters and path-variation parameters should be defined once in a dedicated subsection rather than introduced piecemeal.
[Figures] Figure captions for any timing or accuracy plots should explicitly state the circuit depth, qubit count, and noise model used in each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below with clarifications from the work and indicate the revisions that will be incorporated to improve the presentation and validation of the claimed speedups and generality.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results section: the headline claims of >10^8× and >1000× speedups are stated without any accompanying numerical benchmarks, timing tables, error bars, or direct comparison to the prior ~15× tensor-network baseline. Because these numbers are the central performance claim, the absence of quantitative validation makes it impossible to assess whether the three listed techniques actually deliver the stated gains without introducing bias.

Authors: The Results section presents timing data and comparisons showing the contributions of unified path variation, non-degenerate sampling, and optimized contraction to the reported speedups relative to both traditional trajectories and the prior ~15× PTSBE tensor-network baseline. To make this quantitative validation fully explicit and address the concern directly, we will add dedicated timing tables with error bars, side-by-side comparisons, and benchmark details in the revised Results section (and reference them from the abstract). revision: yes
Referee: [Methods and Results] Methods and Results sections: the manuscript asserts that the techniques remain faithful for arbitrary circuits and noise models, yet only reports results for particular cases and notes that the methods are “particularly powerful for non-proportional sampling.” No scaling tests with increasing depth, qubit number, or noise strength are described, leaving open the possibility that mild correlations introduced by non-degenerate sampling or path variation grow with system size and compromise the unbiased statistics required for the speedup claim.

Authors: The error-independent formulation of unified path variation and the exact preservation of the sampling distribution under non-degenerate batched sampling are shown to hold for any circuit and noise model by construction, independent of system size. Representative cases are used to demonstrate the speedups, with the largest gains for non-proportional sampling. We agree that explicit scaling tests would strengthen the presentation and will add plots of runtime and statistical fidelity versus depth, qubit count, and noise strength in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: algorithmic improvements are independent of measured outputs

full rationale

The paper describes three concrete algorithmic developments (error-independent unified path variation, non-degenerate tensor network sampling, and optimized contraction framework) that are presented as new implementation choices. Speedup claims are framed as empirical results from benchmarking against traditional trajectory methods and prior PTSBE, not as quantities derived from or fitted to the same data being accelerated. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided abstract or description; the central claims rest on external performance measurements rather than internal redefinitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract alone.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5529 in / 985 out tokens · 82391 ms · 2026-05-10T17:39:54.838814+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

The quantum index report 2025,

J. Ruane, E. Kiesow, J. Galatsanos, C. Dukatz, E. Blomquist, and P. Shukla, “The quantum index report 2025,” tech. rep., MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, May 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.04259

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.04259 2025
[2]

Editorial: International year of quantum and the decade ahead,

K. Cassemiro and S. Bartlett, “Editorial: International year of quantum and the decade ahead,”PRX Quantum, vol. 6, p. 010001, Mar 2025. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.6.010001

work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010001 2025
[3]

Quantum computational chemistry,

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

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.92 2020
[4]

Alexeev et al

Y . Alexeev, M. Amsler, M. A. Barroca, S. Bassini, T. Battelle, D. Camps, D. Casanova, Y . Choi, F. T. Chong, C. Chung,et al., “Quantum-centric supercomputing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions,”Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 160, pp. 666–710, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2024.04.060

work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2024.04.060 2024
[5]

Mini review: Synergizing driven quantum dynamics, ai, and quantum computing for next-gen materials science,

O. S. Akanbi, J. P. Shannon, J. Delhommelle, and C. Desgranges, “Mini review: Synergizing driven quantum dynamics, ai, and quantum computing for next-gen materials science,”The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, vol. 16, no. 45, pp. 11821–11832, 2025. https: //doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c02390

work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c02390 2025
[6]

A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gily ´en, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica, G. Salton, S. Wang, and F. G. S. L. Brand ˜ao,Quantum Algorithms: A Survey of Applications and End-to-End Complexities. Cambridge University Press,
[7]

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009639651

work page doi:10.1017/9781009639651
[8]

Quantum machine learning: A comprehensive review of integrating ai with quantum computing for computational advancements,

R. M. Devadas and T. Sowmya, “Quantum machine learning: A comprehensive review of integrating ai with quantum computing for computational advancements,”MethodsX, vol. 14, p. 103318, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2025.103318

work page doi:10.1016/j.mex.2025.103318 2025
[9]

Artificial intelligence index report 2025.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07139, 2025

N. Maslej, L. Fattorini, R. Perrault, Y . Gil, V . Parli, N. Kariuki, E. Capstick, A. Reuel, E. Brynjolfsson, J. Etchemendy,et al., “The ai index 2025 annual report,” tech. rep., AI Index Steering Committee, Institute for Human-Centered AI, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, April 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.07139

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.07139 2025
[10]

A survey on data selection for language models,

A. Albalak, Y . Elazar,et al., “A survey on data selection for language models,”Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. https:// openreview.net/forum?id=XfHWcNTSHp

2024
[11]

Artificial intelligence for quantum computing,

Y . Alexeev, M. H. Farag, T. L. Patti, M. E. Wolf, N. Ares, A. Aspuru- Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, Z. Cai, S. Cao, C. Chamberland,et al., “Artificial intelligence for quantum computing,”Nature Communications, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 10829, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-65836-3

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65836-3 2025
[12]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20380 , year=

Z. Wang and H. Tang, “Artificial intelligence for quantum error correc- tion: A comprehensive review,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20380, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.20380

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.20380 2024
[13]

M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum optics. Cambridge university press, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813993

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813993 2012
[14]

Quantum master equations: Tips and tricks for quantum optics, quantum computing, and beyond,

F. Campaioli, J. H. Cole, and H. Hapuarachchi, “Quantum master equations: Tips and tricks for quantum optics, quantum computing, and beyond,”PRX Quantum, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 020202, 2024. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020202

work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020202 2024
[15]

doi:10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497 , title =

C. Gidney, “Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator,”Quantum, vol. 5, p. 497, July 2021. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497

work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497 2021
[16]

Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by Clifford gates,

S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, “Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by Clifford gates,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 116, no. 25, p. 250501, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116. 250501

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116 2016
[17]

Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions,

S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, “Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions,”Quantum, vol. 3, p. 181, 2019. https://doi.org/10. 22331/q-2019-09-02-181

2019
[18]

Pauli propagation: A computational framework for simulating quantum systems,

M. S. Rudolph, T. Jones, Y . Teng, A. Angrisani, and Z. Holmes, “Pauli propagation: A computational framework for simulating quantum systems,” 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.21606

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.21606 2025
[19]

Tensor networks for quantum computing,

A. Berezutskii, M. Liu, A. Acharya, R. Ellerbrock, J. Gray, R. Haghshenas, Z. He, A. Khan, V . Kuzmin, D. Lyakh,et al., “Tensor networks for quantum computing,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 581–593, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-025-00853-1

work page doi:10.1038/s42254-025-00853-1 2025
[20]

Simulating quantum computation by con- tracting tensor networks,

I. L. Markov and Y . Shi, “Simulating quantum computation by con- tracting tensor networks,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 963–981, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1137/050644756

work page doi:10.1137/050644756 2008
[21]

The CUDA-Q development team, “CUDA-Q,” https://github.com/ NVIDIA/cuda-quantum
[22]

Plexus: Taming billion-edge graphs with 3D parallel full-graph GNN training,

T. L. Patti, T. Nguyen, J. G. Lietz, A. McCaskey, and B. Khailany, “Augmenting simulated noisy quantum data collection by orders of magnitude using pre-trajectory sampling with batched execution,” in Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC ’25, (New York, NY , USA), Association for C...

work page arXiv 2025
[23]

Wave-function approach to dis- sipative processes in quantum optics,

J. Dalibard, Y . Castin, and K. Mølmer, “Wave-function approach to dis- sipative processes in quantum optics,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 580–583, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.580

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.68.580 1992
[24]

Monte carlo simulation of the atomic master equation for spontaneous emission,

R. Dum, P. Zoller, and H. Ritsch, “Monte carlo simulation of the atomic master equation for spontaneous emission,”Physical Review A, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 4879–4887, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.4879

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.45.4879 1992
[25]

Wehling, A

A. J. Daley, “Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems,”Advances in Physics, vol. 63, pp. 77–149, 2014. https: //doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2014.933502

work page doi:10.1080/00018732.2014.933502 2014
[26]

Simulations of quantum circuits with approximate noise using qsim and cirq,

S. V . Isakov, D. Kafri, O. Martin, C. V . Heidweiller, W. Mruczkiewicz, M. P. Harrigan, N. C. Rubin, R. Thomson, M. Broughton, K. Kissell, E. Peters, E. Gustafson, A. C. Y . Li, H. Lamm, G. Perdue, A. K. Ho, D. Strain, and S. Boixo, “Simulations of quantum circuits with approximate noise using qsim and cirq,” 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2111.02396

work page arXiv 2021
[27]

Bayraktar, A

H. B. et al., “cuquantum sdk: A high-performance library for accelerat- ing quantum science,” 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.01999

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.01999 2023
[28]

Cupy: A numpy-compatible library for nvidia gpu calculations,

R. Nishino and S. H. C. Loomis, “Cupy: A numpy-compatible library for nvidia gpu calculations,”31st confernce on neural information processing systems, vol. 151, no. 7, 2017. http://learningsys.org/nips17/ assets/papers/paper 16.pdf

2017
[29]

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. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with Qiskit,” 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.08810 2024
[30]

2011.Rhetorical Style: The Uses of Language in Persuasion

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems. OUP Oxford, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900. 001.0001

work page doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900 2002
[31]

Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms,

K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 94, p. 015004, Feb
[32]

https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015004

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004
[33]

Noisy gates for simulating quantum com- puters,

G. Di Bartolomeo, M. Vischi, F. Cesa, R. Wixinger, M. Grossi, S. Donadi, and A. Bassi, “Noisy gates for simulating quantum com- puters,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 5, p. 043210, Dec 2023. https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.043210

work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.043210 2023
[34]

Decoherence in Josephson Qubits from Dielectric Loss,

J. M. Martinis, K. B. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, K. D. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. P. Pappas, R. W. Simmonds, and C. C. Yu, “Decoherence in josephson qubits from dielectric loss,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 95, p. 210503, Nov 2005. https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.210503

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.210503 2005
[35]

Quantum error correction for quantum memories,

B. M. Terhal, “Quantum error correction for quantum memories,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 87, pp. 307–346, Apr 2015. https: //doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.307

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.307 2015
[36]

Quantum error correction: an introductory guide,

J. Roffe, “Quantum error correction: an introductory guide,”Contempo- rary Physics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 226–245, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00107514.2019.1667078

work page arXiv 2019
[37]

Overhead and noise threshold of fault-tolerant quantum error correction,

A. M. Steane, “Overhead and noise threshold of fault-tolerant quantum error correction,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 68, p. 042322, Oct 2003. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.68.042322

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.68.042322 2003
[38]

High-threshold uni- versal quantum computation on the surface code,

A. G. Fowler, A. M. Stephens, and P. Groszkowski, “High-threshold uni- versal quantum computation on the surface code,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 80, p. 052312, Nov 2009. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.80. 052312

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.80 2009
[39]

Learning high-accuracy error decoding for quantum processors,

J. Bausch, A. W. Senior, F. J. H. Heras, T. Edlich, A. Davies, M. Newman,et al., “Learning high-accuracy error decoding for quantum processors,”Nature, vol. 635, pp. 834–840, Nov 2024. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41586-024-08148-8

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08148-8 2024
[40]

Neural decoder for topological codes,

G. Torlai and R. G. Melko, “Neural decoder for topological codes,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 119, p. 030501, Jul 2017. https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.030501

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.030501 2017
[41]

1904.01361

D. Gottesman, “The heisenberg representation of quantum computers,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006, 1998. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. quant-ph/9807006

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 1998
[42]

, journal =

S. R. White, “Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups,”Physical review letters, vol. 69, no. 19, p. 2863, 1992. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2863

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.69.2863 1992
[43]

Large-Scale Quantum Dynamics with Matrix Product States , year =

A. Baiardi and M. Reiher, “Large-scale quantum dynamics with matrix product states,”Journal of chemical theory and computation, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3481–3498, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00301

work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00301 2019
[44]

Relation between the anderson and kondo hamiltonians,

J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, “Relation between the anderson and kondo hamiltonians,”Physical Review, vol. 149, no. 2, p. 491, 1966. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.149.491

work page doi:10.1103/physrev.149.491 1966
[45]

Adiabatic elimination in a lambda system,

E. Brion, L. H. Pedersen, and K. Mølmer, “Adiabatic elimination in a lambda system,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 40, no. 5, p. 1033, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/40/5/ 011

work page doi:10.1088/1751-8113/40/5/ 2007
[46]

Clover: Toward sustainable ai with carbon-aware machine learning inference service,

R. Yadav, W. Lee, M. Elibol, M. Papadakis, T. Lee Patti, M. Garland, A. Aiken, F. Kjolstad, and M. Bauer, “Legate sparse: distributed sparse computing in python,” inProceedings of the international conference for high performance computing, networking, storage and analysis, pp. 1– 13, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3581784.3607033

work page doi:10.1145/3581784.3607033 2023
[47]

Gpu-accelerated effective hamiltonian calculator,

A. Chakraborty, T. L. Patti, B. Khailany, A. N. Jordan, and A. Anand- kumar, “Gpu-accelerated effective hamiltonian calculator,”Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1946, Dec 2025. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-12-15-1946

work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-12-15-1946 1946
[48]

Graph-based simulation of quantum computation in the density matrix representation,

G. F. Viamontes, I. L. Markov, and J. P. Hayes, “Graph-based simulation of quantum computation in the density matrix representation,” inQuan- tum Information and Computation II, vol. 5436, pp. 285–296, SPIE,
[49]

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0403114

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0403114
[50]

Intel quantum simulator: A cloud-ready high-performance simulator of quan- tum circuits,

G. G. Guerreschi, J. Hogaboam, F. Baruffa, and N. P. Sawaya, “Intel quantum simulator: A cloud-ready high-performance simulator of quan- tum circuits,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 034007,
[51]

https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ab8505

work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab8505 2058
[52]

Density matrix quantum circuit simulation via the bsp machine on modern gpu clusters,

A. Li, O. Subasi, X. Yang, and S. Krishnamoorthy, “Density matrix quantum circuit simulation via the bsp machine on modern gpu clusters,” inSc20: international conference for high performance computing, networking, storage and analysis, pp. 1–15, IEEE, 2020. https://dl.acm. org/doi/10.5555/3433701.3433718

work page doi:10.5555/3433701.3433718 2020
[53]

Simulating noisy quantum circuits with matrix product density op- erators,

S. Cheng, C. Cao, C. Zhang, Y . Liu, S.-Y . Hou, P. Xu, and B. Zeng, “Simulating noisy quantum circuits with matrix product density op- erators,”Physical review research, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 023005, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.023005

work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.023005 2021
[54]

Noise-aware quantum circuit simulation with decision diagrams,

T. Grurl, J. Fuß, and R. Wille, “Noise-aware quantum circuit simulation with decision diagrams,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 860–873, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCAD.2022.3182628

work page doi:10.1109/tcad.2022.3182628 2022
[55]

Efficient techniques to gpu accelera- tions of multi-shot quantum computing simulations,

H. Horii, C. Wood,et al., “Efficient techniques to gpu accelera- tions of multi-shot quantum computing simulations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03399, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.03399

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.03399 2023
[56]

NVIDIA H100 tensor core GPU architecture,

NVIDIA Corporation, “NVIDIA H100 tensor core GPU architecture,” tech. rep., 2022. https://nvdam.widen.net/content/hj0uek1pxq/original/ nvidia-h100-tensor-core-hopper-whitepaper.pdf

2022
[57]

Legate numpy: Accelerated and distributed array computing,

M. Bauer and M. Garland, “Legate numpy: Accelerated and distributed array computing,” inProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pp. 1– 13, ACM, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3295500.3356175

work page doi:10.1145/3295500.3356175 2019
[58]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511976667 2010