pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11381 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · ⚛️ nucl-th · quant-ph

Improved quasiparticle nuclear Hamiltonians for quantum computing

Emanuele Costa , Javier Menendez This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th quant-ph
keywords quasiparticle HamiltonianBrillouin-Wigner perturbation theorynuclear shell modelquantum computingopen-shell nucleisd shellHartree-Fock approximationeffective Hamiltonian
0
0 comments X

The pith

Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory refines quasiparticle Hamiltonians for open-shell nuclei to below 0.2 percent error against the shell model.

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

This paper shows how to extend a qubit-efficient quasiparticle encoding for nuclear Hamiltonians beyond semimagic cases. By applying Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory, the description of open-shell nuclei in the sd shell reaches energy accuracies better than 0.2 percent relative to exact shell-model diagonalization. To keep the resulting effective Hamiltonian practical for quantum computers, a mean-field Hartree-Fock treatment replaces the non-quasiparticle part of the resolvent, yielding ground-state energies within 2 percent of the exact results. The work therefore provides a systematic route to accurate nuclear simulations on near-term quantum hardware without doubling the qubit count.

Core claim

We apply Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory to systematically improve the quasiparticle description of open-shell nuclei in the sd shell, reaching an energy relative error below 0.2% compared to the nuclear shell model. Furthermore, to make the effective Hamiltonian suitable for quantum simulation, we introduce a mean-field Hartree-Fock approximation of the non-quasiparticle resolvent, achieving ground-state energies typically within 2% of the exact shell-model result. This represents a systematic improvement over the bare quasiparticle Hamiltonian while remaining within the reach of near-term quantum devices.

What carries the argument

The Brillouin-Wigner perturbation series applied to the quasiparticle pairing modes, together with the Hartree-Fock mean-field approximation to the resolvent that excludes quasiparticle excitations.

Load-bearing premise

The mean-field Hartree-Fock approximation of the non-quasiparticle resolvent remains accurate enough that the resulting effective Hamiltonian still captures the essential physics of open-shell nuclei while staying implementable on near-term quantum hardware.

What would settle it

Exact diagonalization of an open-shell sd-shell nucleus such as 28Si using the full Brillouin-Wigner effective Hamiltonian and finding that the Hartree-Fock approximated version deviates by more than 2% from the exact shell-model ground-state energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11381 by Emanuele Costa, Javier Menendez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the computational workflows for quasiparticle BW methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the residual relative error compared to the exact shell-model result, ∆re = (E∗ − Egs)/|Egs|, at convergence as a function of the total number of itera￾tions needed to reach convergence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: compares the ground-state energy of the quasiparticle BW method with the exact HCI shell￾model exact result, via the relative error ∆re = (E∗ − Egs)/|Egs|. The orange circles show the results for the full BW approach, corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In contrast, neutron-rich nuclei such as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows that the truncated HF BW method (black stars) has an average fidelity, F HF ≃ 0.88, with sizeable difference between nuclei, FHF ∈ [0.74, 0.97]. Naturally, the two nuclei with larger ∆re, 22Ne and 24Mg, show the lower fidelities, but also for 22S we find FHF < 0.85. In an isotope chain, FHF increases with neu￾tron number, where proton-neutron correlations become less relevant. Overall, the HF WB fide… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum computing is increasingly offering concrete solutions toward the simulation of nuclear structure, with the potential to overcome the exponential scaling that limits classical diagonalization methods in large spaces. A particularly efficient encoding scheme, based on collective like-nucleon pairing modes, reduces the qubit requirements by half and avoids the non-local operator strings of standard fermion-to-qubit mappings. While this quasiparticle framework provides accurate results for semimagic nuclei, it does not adequately describe open-shell systems where proton-neutron correlations become important. In this work, we apply Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory to systematically improve the quasiparticle description of open-shell nuclei in the $sd$ shell, reaching an energy relative error below $0.2\%$ compared to the nuclear shell model. Furthermore, to make the effective Hamiltonian suitable for quantum simulation, we introduce a mean-field Hartree-Fock approximation of the non-quasiparticle resolvent, achieving ground-state energies typically within $2\%$ of the exact shell-model result. This represents a systematic improvement over the bare quasiparticle Hamiltonian while remaining within the reach of near-term quantum devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes improving quasiparticle nuclear Hamiltonians for quantum computing of open-shell nuclei by applying Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory to incorporate proton-neutron correlations in the sd shell, claiming relative energy errors below 0.2% versus the nuclear shell model. It further replaces the exact non-quasiparticle resolvent with a mean-field Hartree-Fock approximation to ensure the effective Hamiltonian remains suitable for near-term quantum simulation, achieving ground-state energies typically within 2% of exact shell-model results.

Significance. If substantiated, the work would provide a systematic extension of pairing-mode quasiparticle encodings (which already halve qubit requirements) to open-shell systems while preserving hardware feasibility, addressing a clear limitation of prior quasiparticle approaches that are accurate only for semimagic nuclei.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central quantitative claims (relative error below 0.2% with Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory and typically within 2% after the Hartree-Fock resolvent approximation) are stated without any accompanying numerical results, tables of energies for specific sd-shell nuclei, derivation steps, or error-bar analysis, so the robustness of the reported improvements cannot be assessed from the manuscript.
  2. [Resolvent approximation] The section introducing the mean-field Hartree-Fock approximation of the non-quasiparticle resolvent: this replacement is load-bearing for the quantum-simulability claim, yet no separate validation, error bound, or comparison isolating the effect of the approximation on pairing and collective correlations in open-shell nuclei is provided; the jump from <0.2% to ~2% error is noted but not analyzed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it specified the particular sd-shell nuclei or mass range for which the quoted error figures were obtained.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly to improve the presentation of results and validation of the approximation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central quantitative claims (relative error below 0.2% with Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory and typically within 2% after the Hartree-Fock resolvent approximation) are stated without any accompanying numerical results, tables of energies for specific sd-shell nuclei, derivation steps, or error-bar analysis, so the robustness of the reported improvements cannot be assessed from the manuscript.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, as a concise overview, does not embed specific numerical tables or error bars. The full manuscript details the Brillouin-Wigner derivations in the methods section and presents numerical comparisons for multiple sd-shell nuclei in the results section. In revision we will (i) augment the abstract with one or two concrete examples (e.g., relative errors for ^{24}Mg and ^{28}Si), (ii) insert a compact summary table of ground-state energies, exact shell-model references, and relative errors, and (iii) add a short paragraph on the numerical error analysis already performed. These changes will make the quantitative claims directly verifiable from the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Resolvent approximation] The section introducing the mean-field Hartree-Fock approximation of the non-quasiparticle resolvent: this replacement is load-bearing for the quantum-simulability claim, yet no separate validation, error bound, or comparison isolating the effect of the approximation on pairing and collective correlations in open-shell nuclei is provided; the jump from <0.2% to ~2% error is noted but not analyzed.

    Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit isolation of the Hartree-Fock resolvent approximation is needed. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection that (a) compares ground-state energies obtained with the exact non-quasiparticle resolvent versus the Hartree-Fock approximation for representative open-shell nuclei, (b) quantifies the additional error introduced on pairing and quadrupole correlations, and (c) supplies a perturbative error bound consistent with the Brillouin-Wigner framework. This analysis will explain the observed increase from <0.2% to ~2% and directly support the claim that the approximated Hamiltonian remains suitable for near-term quantum simulation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation uses standard perturbation theory and mean-field approximation on prior quasiparticle basis

full rationale

The paper applies Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory to improve an existing quasiparticle Hamiltonian for open-shell sd-shell nuclei and replaces the exact non-quasiparticle resolvent with a mean-field Hartree-Fock form to enable quantum simulation. These are conventional many-body techniques whose outputs are compared to independent shell-model benchmarks rather than being defined in terms of the target energies or fitted parameters. No equation reduces the final effective Hamiltonian or reported errors to the inputs by construction, and no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked in the provided text. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are stated. The work inherits standard assumptions of the nuclear shell model and many-body perturbation theory.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The nuclear shell model supplies the exact reference energies for sd-shell nuclei
    Used as the benchmark against which relative errors are measured.
  • domain assumption Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory is applicable to the quasiparticle Hamiltonian for open-shell systems
    Invoked as the systematic improvement method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5487 in / 1607 out tokens · 58910 ms · 2026-05-10T15:50:54.408586+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Altman, K

    E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, L. D. Carr, E. Dem- ler, C. Chin, B. DeMarco, S. E. Economou, M. A. Eriks- son, K.-M. C. Fu, M. Greiner, K. R. Hazzard, R. G. Hulet, A. J. Koll´ ar, B. L. Lev, M. D. Lukin, R. Ma, X. Mi, S. Misra, C. Monroe, K. Murch, Z. Nazario, K.-K. Ni, A. C. Potter, P. Roushan, M. Saffman, M. Schleier- Smith, I. Siddiqi, R. Simmonds,...

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum chem- istry in the age of quantum computing, Chemi- cal Reviews119, 10856 (2019), pMID: 31469277, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00803

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00803 2019

  5. [5]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Klco and M

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Digitization of scalar fields for quantum computing, Physical Review A99, 052335 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    C. Zalka, Simulating quantum systems on a quantum computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Math- ematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences454, 313 (1998), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article- pdf/454/1969/313/633967/rspa.1998.0162.pdf

    work page arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    2411.09861 (2024)

    A. Shajan, D. Kaliakin, A. Mitra, J. R. Moreno, Z. Li, M. Motta, C. Johnson, A. A. Saki, S. Das, I. Sitdikov, A. Mezzacapo, and K. M. M. Jr, Towards quantum- centric simulations of extended molecules: sample-based quantum diagonalization enhanced with density matrix embedding theory (2024), arXiv:2411.09861 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature549, 242 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Re- views of Modern Physics92, 015003 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    C. Cade, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, and S. Stanisic, Strategies for solving the fermi-hubbard model on near- 10 term quantum computers, Physical Review B102, 235122 (2020)

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Yoshioka, T

    N. Yoshioka, T. Okubo, Y. Suzuki, Y. Koizumi, and W. Mizukami, Hunting for quantum-classical crossover in condensed matter problems, npj Quantum Informa- tion10, 45 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Di Meglio, K

    A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft, R. de Putter, A. Delgado, V. Dun- jko, D. J. Egger, E. Fern´ andez-Combarro, E. Fuchs, L. Funcke, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, M. Grossi, J. C. Hal- imeh, Z. Holmes, S. K¨ uhn, D. Lacroix, R. Lewis, D. Luc- chesi, M. L. Martinez, F. Me...

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhat- tacharya, M. Carena, W. A. de Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada, D. Kharzeev, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Liu, M. Lukin, Y. Meurice, C. Monroe, B. Nachman, G. Pagano, J. Preskill, E. Ri- naldi, A. Roggero, D. I. Santiago, M. J. Savage, I. Sid- diqi, G. Siopsis, D. Van Zanten, N. Wiebe, Y. Ya...

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Davoudi, M

    Z. Davoudi, M. Hafezi, C. Monroe, G. Pagano, A. Seif, and A. Shaw, Towards analog quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories with trapped ions, Physical Review Research2, 023015 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Zhang, H

    D.-B. Zhang, H. Xing, H. Yan, E. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Selected topics of quantum computing for nuclear physics*, Chinese Physics B30, 020306 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    M. J. Savage, Quantum computing for nuclear physics (2023), arXiv:2312.07617 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Stevenson, C

    P. Stevenson, C. Sarma, R. Giles, L. La Ronde, and B. Maheshwari, Quantum computing for nuclear struc- ture, Quantum2, 1

    work page

  19. [19]

    Ayral, P

    T. Ayral, P. Besserve, D. Lacroix, and E. A. Ruiz Guz- man, Quantum computing with and for many-body physics, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 227 (2023), arXiv:2303.04850 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, G. Hagen, and et al., Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus, Physical Review Letters120, 210501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Siwach and P

    P. Siwach and P. Arumugam, Quantum simulation of nuclear Hamiltonian with a generalized transformation for Gray code encoding, Physical Review C104, 034301 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    A. M. Romero, J. Engel, H. L. Tang, and S. E. Economou, Solving nuclear structure problems with the adaptive variational quantum algorithm, Physics Review C105, 064317 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    O. Kiss, M. Grossi, P. Lougovski, F. Sanchez, S. Val- lecorsa, and T. Papenbrock, Quantum computing of the 6Li nucleus via ordered unitary coupled clusters, Physical Review C106, 034325 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Stetcu, A

    I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Variational ap- proaches to constructing the many-body nuclear ground state for quantum computing, Physical Review C105, 064308 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    P´ erez-Obiol, A

    A. P´ erez-Obiol, A. Romero, J. Men´ endez, A. Rios, A. Garc´ ıa-S´ aez, and B. Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, Nuclear shell-model simulation in digital quantum computers, Scientific Re- ports13, 12291 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Sarma, O

    C. Sarma, O. Di Matteo, A. Abhishek, and P. C. Sri- vastava, Prediction of the neutron drip line in oxygen isotopes using quantum computation, Physical Review C 108, 064305 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Bhoy and P

    B. Bhoy and P. Stevenson, Shell-model study of 58Ni using quantum computing algorithm, New Journal of Physics26, 075001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Zhang, D

    J. Zhang, D. Lacroix, and Y. Beaujeault-Taudi` ere, Neutron-proton pairing correlations described on quan- tum computers, Physical Review C110, 064320 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Zhang and D

    J. Zhang and D. Lacroix, Excited States from ADAPT-VQE convergence path in Many-Body Prob- lems: application to nuclear pairing problem and H 4 molecule dissociation, Physics Letters B139841, 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139841 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139841 2025

  30. [30]

    C. Gu, M. Heinz, O. Kiss, and T. Papenbrock, To- wards scalable quantum computations of atomic nuclei, arXiv:2507.14690 [nucl-th] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Carrasco-Codina, E

    M. Carrasco-Codina, E. Costa, A. M´ arquez Romero, J. Men´ endez, and A. Rios, Comparison of variational quantum eigensolvers in light nuclei, Phys. Rev. C113, 024332 (2026)

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    P´ erez-Obiol, S

    A. P´ erez-Obiol, S. Masot-Llima, A. M. Romero, J. Men´ endez, A. Rios, A. Garc´ ıa-S´ aez, and B. Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, Entropy-driven entanglement forging, arXiv:2409.04510 [quant-ph] (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Quantum simulations of Green's functions for small superfluid systems

    S. Aychet-Claisse, D. Lacroix, V. Som` a, and J. Zhang, Quantum simulations of Green’s functions for small superfluid systems, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2509.02272, arXiv:2509.02272 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    E. A. Ruiz Guzman and D. Lacroix, Accessing ground- state and excited-state energies in a many-body system after symmetry restoration using quantum computers, Physical Review C105, 024324 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Stetcu, A

    I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Projection algorithm for state preparation on quantum computers, Physical Review C108, L031306 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    E. Rule, I. Stetcu, and J. Carlson, Simplified projec- tion on total spin zero for state preparation on quan- tum computers, Phys. Rev. C110, 064003 (2024), arXiv:2410.02848 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Y. H. Li, J. Al-Khalili, and P. Stevenson, Quantum sim- ulation approach to implementing nuclear density func- tional theory via imaginary time evolution, Physical Re- view C109, 044322 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Costa, A

    E. Costa, A. P´ erez-Obiol, J. Men´ endez, A. Rios, A. Garc´ ıa-S´ aez, and B. Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, A quantum annealing protocol to solve the nuclear shell model, SciPost Physics 19, 062 (2025)

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Weiss, A

    R. Weiss, A. Baroni, J. Carlson, and I. Stetcu, Solving reaction dynamics with quantum computing algorithms, Physical Review C111, 064004 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Singh, P

    A. Singh, P. Siwach, and P. Arumugam, Quantum sim- ulations of nuclear resonances with variational methods, Physical Review C112, 024323 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Bai, and Z. Ren, Quantum computing for extracting nuclear resonances, Physics Letters B860, 139187 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    P. Wang, W. Du, W. Zuo, and J. P. Vary, Nuclear scat- tering via quantum computing, Physical Review C109, 11 064623 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    M. Yusf, L. Gan, C. Moffat, and G. Rupak, Elastic scat- tering on a quantum computer, Physical Review C111, 034001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Rule and I

    E. Rule and I. Stetcu, A time-dependent wave-packet approach to reactions for quantum computation (2026), arXiv:2603.26881 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Chernyshev, C

    I. Chernyshev, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Quan- tum magic and computational complexity in the neutrino sector, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023228 (2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    S. M. Hengstenberg, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Multi-body entanglement and information rearrange- ment in nuclear many-body systems: a study of the Lip- kin–Meshkov–Glick model, Europen Physical Jorunal A 59, 231 (2023), arXiv:2306.16535 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    P´ erez-Obiol, S

    A. P´ erez-Obiol, S. Masot-Llima, A. M. Romero, J. Men´ endez, A. Rios, A. Garc´ ıa-S´ aez, and B. Juli´ a- D´ ıaz, Quantum entanglement patterns in the structure of atomic nuclei within the nuclear shell model, Euro- pean Physical Journal A59, 240 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Br¨ okemeier, S

    F. Br¨ okemeier, S. M. Hengstenberg, J. W. Keeble, C. E. Robin, F. Rocco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum magic and multipartite entanglement in the structure of nuclei, Physical Review C111, 034317 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    C. E. P. Robin, Stabilizer-accelerated quantum many- body ground-state estimation, Phys. Rev. A112, 052408 (2025), arXiv:2505.02923 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    C. E. P. Robin and M. J. Savage, Anti-Flatness and Non- Local Magic in Two-Particle Scattering Processes (2025), arXiv:2510.23426 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, The shell model as a unified view of nuclear structure, Reviews of Modern Physics77, 427 (2005)

    work page 2005

  52. [52]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin, T. Suzuki, and Y. Utsuno, Evolution of shell structure in exotic nuclei, Reviews of Modern Physics92, 015002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    B. A. Brown and B. H. Wildenthal, Status of the nuclear shell model, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Sci- ence38, 29 (1988)

    work page 1988

  54. [54]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Nonempirical interactions for the nuclear shell model: An update, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 69, 307 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Singh, P

    N. Singh, P. Siwach, and P. Arumugam, Advancing quan- tum simulations of the nuclear shell model with Gray- code–based resource-efficient protocols, Physical Review C112, 034320 (2025)

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    A low-circuit-depth quantum computing approach to the nuclear shell model

    C. Sarma and P. Stevenson, Quantum simulation of nu- clear shell model: bridging theory and hardware limita- tions, 2510.02124 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    M. Illa, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulations of SO(5) many-fermion systems using qudits, Physics Review C108, 064306 (2023), arXiv:2305.11941 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    C. E. P. Robin and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulations in effective model spaces: Hamiltonian-learning variational quantum eigensolver using digital quantum computers and application to the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Physics Review C108, 024313 (2023), arXiv:2301.05976 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Du and J

    W. Du and J. P. Vary, Systematic many-fermion Hamil- tonian input scheme and spectral calculations on quan- tum computers, Phys. Lett. B866, 139548 (2025), arXiv:2402.08969 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    W. Du, Y. Yang, Z. Liu, C. Yang, and J. P. Vary, Ab initio many-fermion structure calculations on a quantum computer (2025), arXiv:2505.19906 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Yoshida, T

    S. Yoshida, T. Sato, T. Ogata, and M. Kimura, Bridg- ing quantum computing and nuclear structure: Atomic nuclei on a trapped-ion quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013134 (2026)

    work page 2026

  62. [62]

    Yoshida, T

    S. Yoshida, T. Sato, T. Ogata, T. Naito, and M. Kimura, Accurate and precise quantum computation of valence two-neutron systems, Physical Review C109, 064305 (2024)

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    Costa, A

    E. Costa, A. P´ erez-Obiol, J. Men´ endez, A. Rios, A. Garc´ ıa-S´ aez, and B. Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, Quasiparticle pairing encoding of atomic nuclei for quantum annealing, Physics Letters B872, 140042 (2026)

    work page 2026

  64. [64]

    C. Chen, G. Emperauger, G. Bornet, F. Caleca, B. G´ ely, M. Bintz, S. Chatterjee, V. Liu, D. Barredo, N. Y. Yao, T. Lahaye, F. Mezzacapo, T. Roscilde, and A. Browaeys, Spectroscopy of elementary excitations from quench dynamics in a dipolar xy rydberg simulator (2024), arXiv:2311.11726 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke,et al., Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015004 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    L. N. Brillouin, Les probl` emes de perturbations et les champs self-consistents, Journal De Physique Et Le Ra- dium3, 373 (1932)

    work page 1932

  68. [68]

    E. P. Wigner, Application of the rayleigh-schr¨ odinger perturbation theory to the hydrogen atom, Phys. Rev. 94, 77 (1954)

    work page 1954

  69. [69]

    Hubaˇ c, P

    I. Hubaˇ c, P. Mach, and S. Wilson, Multireference Brillouin-Wigner methods for many-body systems, in New Perspectives in Quantum Systems in Chemistry and Physics, Part 1, Advances in Quantum Chemistry, Vol. 39 (Academic Press, 2001) pp. 225–240

    work page 2001

  70. [70]

    Hubaˇ c and S

    I. Hubaˇ c and S. Wilson, On the use of Brillouin-Wigner perturbation theory for many-body systems, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics33, 365 (2000)

    work page 2000

  71. [71]

    Shavitt and R

    I. Shavitt and R. J. Bartlett,Many-Body Methods in Chemistry and Physics: MBPT and Coupled-Cluster Theory, Cambridge Molecular Science (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  72. [72]

    Li and N

    Z. Li and N. A. Smirnova, Converging many-body pertur- bation theory for ab-initio nuclear structure: Brillouin- Wigner perturbation series for closed-shell nuclei, Physics Letters B854, 138749 (2024)

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    Kelly, Perturbation theory with hartree-fock states, Physics Letters A25, 6 (1967)

    H. Kelly, Perturbation theory with hartree-fock states, Physics Letters A25, 6 (1967)

    work page 1967

  74. [74]

    Møller and M

    C. Møller and M. S. Plesset, Note on an approximation treatment for many-electron systems, Physical Review 46, 618 (1934)

    work page 1934

  75. [75]

    Dikmen, A

    E. Dikmen, A. F. Lisetskiy, B. R. Barrett, P. Maris, A. M. Shirokov, and J. P. Vary, Ab initio effective in- teractions forsd-shell valence nucleons, Physical Review C91, 064301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  76. [76]

    G. R. Jansen, J. Engel, G. Hagen, P. Navratil, and A. Sig- noracci, Ab Initio Coupled-Cluster Effective Interactions for the Shell Model: Application to Neutron-Rich Oxy- 12 gen and Carbon Isotopes, Physical Review Letters113, 142502 (2014)

    work page 2014

  77. [77]

    J. A. de Gracia Trivi˜ no, M. G. Delcey, and G. Wendin, Complete active space methods for nisq devices: The importance of canonical orbital optimization for accu- racy and noise resilience, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation19, 2863 (2023), pMID: 37103120, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00123

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00123 2023

  78. [78]

    B. A. Brown and W. A. Richter, New “USD” Hamil- tonians for thesdshell, Physical Review C74, 034315 (2006)

    work page 2006

  79. [79]

    F. J. del Arco Santos and J. S. Kottmann, A hybrid qubit encoding: splitting Fock space into Fermionic and Bosonic subspaces, Quantum Science and Technology10, 035018 (2025)

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    D. J. Dean and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Pairing in nuclear sys- tems: from neutron stars to finite nuclei, Review of Mod- ern Physics75, 607 (2003)

    work page 2003

Showing first 80 references.