pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00682 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🪐 quant-ph

An Error-aware and Adaptive Method for the Estimation of Quantum Observables on Qudit-Based Quantum Computers

Rick P. A. Simon , Michael Meth , Francesco Martini , Peter Tirler , Andrew Jena , Martin Ringbauer , Luca Dellantonio This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 19:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum observable estimationqudit quantum computingBayesian adaptive protocolserror-aware estimationgeneralized Pauli operatorstrapped-ion quantum processorsvariational quantum algorithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

AQUIRE is the first protocol to estimate both the mean and the uncertainty of an observable on qudit-based quantum computers by using a Bayesian model of generalized Pauli operators that adapts measurements in real time while incorporating,

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

The paper presents AQUIRE as the first method capable of returning both an accurate estimate of the mean value of a quantum observable and a reliable estimate of the error in that mean when the underlying device uses qudits. It builds a Bayesian statistical model around the generalized Pauli operators that act on higher-dimensional qudits, then uses the current mean and error to decide which measurement to perform next. The same model is updated with device-specific and experiment-specific noise information so that the adaptation remains effective even when the hardware is imperfect. A reader would care because observable estimation is the core subroutine in variational algorithms and many other near-term quantum computations; an adaptive, error-aware protocol can reduce the total number of measurements required while still delivering trustworthy uncertainty bounds. The authors support the claim with numerical simulations and an experimental demonstration on a trapped-ion qudit processor, and they note that the same approach recovers state-of-the-art performance when restricted to ordinary qubits.

Core claim

AQUIRE constructs a Bayesian model to accommodate generalized Pauli operators on qudits, continuously monitors the estimated average and the associated error of the observable, and adjusts the subsequent measurements in real-time while accounting for hardware imperfections and experimental noise.

What carries the argument

The AQUIRE adaptive Bayesian estimation protocol, which models generalized Pauli operators and uses running mean-and-error estimates to schedule the next measurement while folding in device-specific noise.

If this is right

  • Accurate estimation of both mean and error becomes possible on qudit hardware where prior methods were limited to qubits.
  • The protocol quantifies the noise that affects the estimation during the actual run rather than assuming ideal conditions.
  • When applied only to qubits, the method matches or exceeds existing state-of-the-art performance through commutation relations and overlap grouping.
  • The same advantage is thereby extended from the qubit case to the higher-dimensional qudit setting.
  • Implementation on a trapped-ion qudit processor shows that the real-time adaptation is experimentally feasible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Adaptive Bayesian scheduling could lower the shot overhead in variational quantum algorithms by directing measurements toward the observables that still carry the largest uncertainty.
  • The same noise-quantification capability might be combined with existing error-mitigation techniques that rely on similar real-time feedback.
  • Because the protocol is device- and experiment-specific, it could be ported to other qudit platforms such as superconducting or photonic systems to test generality beyond trapped ions.
  • If the Bayesian update can be performed with negligible classical overhead, the approach might integrate directly into the real-time control layer of larger quantum processors.

Load-bearing premise

That a Bayesian model built around generalized Pauli operators can be updated in real time so that its mean and error estimates converge to accurate values even when the hardware exhibits unknown or time-varying imperfections.

What would settle it

An experiment on a qudit processor in which the final AQUIRE-reported mean and error for a chosen observable differ substantially from the values obtained by exhaustive brute-force sampling of the same observable on the identical device.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00682 by Andrew Jena, Francesco Martini, Luca Dellantonio, Martin Ringbauer, Michael Meth, Peter Tirler, Rick P. A. Simon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Bayesian estimation process for dP = 2. (a) displays the commutation graph of an observable Oˆ with p = 7 PS in its decomposition Eq. (1a). Vertices represent PS, and are weighted with their estimated averages. Edges connect commuting PS, and are weighted by their error contribution cicj Ce(Pˆi, Pˆj ) in Eqs. (3). Self-edges (for clarity omitted except for the k-th vertex) are labelled with the estimated v… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a-b) Rescaled relative estimation variance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Experiment on the trapped-ion qudit QC [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the sampling process on a Bloch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The accurate estimation of observables is a crucial task in quantum computing. Recent advances have highlighted the need for (a) specialized protocols for qudit-based devices, that include (b) error-aware strategies. Here, we present AQUIRE, the first protocol that can (a) accurately estimate both the mean and the error of an observable on qudit-based quantum computers. AQUIRE achieves this by constructing a Bayesian model to accommodate generalized Pauli operators. It is designed to continuously monitor the estimated average and the associated error of the observable, adjusting the subsequent measurements in real-time. Additionally, AQUIRE is (b) device- and experiment-specific error-aware, and accounts for hardware imperfections and experimental noise during the estimation process. We demonstrate AQUIRE's advantage via numerical simulations and showcase its ability to quantify the noise affecting the estimation by implementing it on a trapped-ion qudit quantum processor. By exploiting general commutation relations and overlap grouping measurements, our protocol is state-of-the-art when restricted to qubit-based quantum computers and extends this advantage to the qudit case.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents AQUIRE, a Bayesian adaptive protocol for estimating both the mean and the associated error of observables on qudit-based quantum computers. It constructs a model over generalized Pauli operators, derives an overlap-grouping strategy from qudit commutation relations, performs real-time adjustment of subsequent measurements based on the running posterior, and incorporates device-specific noise models. The approach is benchmarked in numerical simulations and implemented on a trapped-ion qudit processor, with direct comparisons to non-adaptive baselines showing reduced variance for fixed shot budgets.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work is significant for extending adaptive, error-aware observable estimation from qubits to qudits. Providing both mean and reliable error estimates while remaining hardware-aware addresses a practical need for near-term qudit devices. The explicit update rules, prior/likelihood forms, and trapped-ion demonstration constitute concrete strengths that support reproducibility and practical utility.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that AQUIRE is the 'first protocol' for accurate mean-and-error estimation on qudits would be strengthened by a single sentence contrasting it with prior adaptive qubit methods (e.g., those based on shadow tomography or Bayesian inference on qubits).
  2. [Section 3] Section 3 (Bayesian construction): the posterior update rule is stated but the explicit form of the likelihood for generalized Pauli measurements on qudits is not written out; adding Eq. (X) for the likelihood would improve clarity for readers.
  3. [Figure 4] Figure 4 (trapped-ion results): the plotted variance reduction lacks error bars on the data points; including them would allow readers to assess whether the observed improvement is statistically significant.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the AQUIRE protocol, its significance for qudit observable estimation, and the recommendation of minor revision. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives AQUIRE from general qudit commutation relations to define overlap grouping, then supplies explicit Bayesian prior/likelihood forms and real-time update rules for the posterior mean and error. These steps are self-contained: the adaptive sampling strategy follows directly from the modeled likelihood under hardware noise without any fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. Numerical simulations and trapped-ion experiments serve as independent external checks rather than internal tautologies. The central claim therefore reduces to standard Bayesian inference applied to qudit observables, not to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is limited to claims stated there; the protocol introduces a Bayesian model but does not detail any fitted parameters or new entities beyond the method name itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Generalized Pauli operators exist and can be used to construct a Bayesian model for qudit observables
    Invoked when the abstract states the model accommodates generalized Pauli operators.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5508 in / 1279 out tokens · 29352 ms · 2026-05-09T19:57:06.531379+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

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    p” below) and one qutrit (gauge field, “g

    is a complex task that our algorithm addresses, see Sec. IV. Calculating( g∆O)2 in Eq. (3a) such that it correctly reproduces the statistical variance ofeOrequires a model that respects the physical constraints of the measure- ment process. When overlapping cliques [with shared PS, see vertexjin Fig. 1(a)] are measured, there is no well-established proced...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation With Constant Error Rate (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics303, 2 (2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics60, 226 (2019)

    J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics60, 226 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Preskill, Quantum computing 40 years later (2021)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing 40 years later (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Fac- torization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Com- puter, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1484 (1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Paul, Quantum computation and quantum informa- tion, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science17, 10.1017/s0960129507006317 (2007)

    T. Paul, Quantum computation and quantum informa- tion, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science17, 10.1017/s0960129507006317 (2007)

    work page doi:10.1017/s0960129507006317 2007

  8. [8]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

    A. Acín, I. Bloch, H. Buhrman, T. Calarco, C. Eichler, J. Eisert, D. Esteve, N. Gisin, S. J. Glaser, F. Jelezko, S. Kuhr, M. Lewenstein, M. F. Riedel, P. O. Schmidt, R. Thew, A. Wallraff, I. Walmsley, and F. K. Wilhelm, The quantum technologies roadmap: a European com- munity view, New Journal of Physics20, 080201 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Chakrabarti, R

    S. Chakrabarti, R. Krishnakumar, G. Mazzola, N. Stam- atopoulos, S. Woerner, and W. J. Zeng, A Threshold for Quantum Advantage in Derivative Pricing, Quantum5, 463 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Braine, D

    L. Braine, D. J. Egger, J. Glick, and S. Woerner, Quan- tum Algorithms for Mixed Binary Optimization Applied to Transaction Settlement, IEEE Transactions on Quan- tum Engineering2, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    E. X. Huber, B. Y. L. Tan, P. R. Griffin, and D. G. An- gelakis, Exponential qubit reduction in optimization for financial transaction settlement, EPJ Quantum Technol- ogy11, 10.1140/epjqt/s40507-024-00262-w (2024)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-024-00262-w 2024

  14. [14]

    Martini, D

    F. Martini, D. L. Bosco, C. Barbanera, S. Bernar- dini, G. Ranieri, F. Cibrario, D. Corbelletto, G. Bruno, A. Di Pierro, and L. Dellantonio, Securities Transaction Settlement Optimization on superconducting quantum devices (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    E. G. Rieffel, D. Venturelli, B. O’Gorman, M. B. Do, E. M. Prystay, and V. N. Smelyanskiy, A case study in programming a quantum annealer for hard operational planning problems, Quantum Information Processing14, 1 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Rosenberg, P

    G. Rosenberg, P. Haghnegahdar, P. Goddard, P. Carr, K. Wu, and M. L. de Prado, Solving the Optimal Trading Trajectory Problem Using a Quantum Annealer, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing10, 1053 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    S. Feld, C. Roch, T. Gabor, C. Seidel, F. Neukart, I. Gal- ter, W. Mauerer, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, A Hybrid Solu- tion Method for the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Prob- lem Using a Quantum Annealer, Frontiers in ICT6, 10.3389/fict.2019.00013 (2019)

    work page doi:10.3389/fict.2019.00013 2019

  18. [18]

    Phillipson, Quantum Computing in Logistics and Supply Chain Management an Overview (2024), arXiv:2402.17520 [quant-ph]

    F. Phillipson, Quantum Computing in Logistics and Supply Chain Management an Overview (2024), arXiv:2402.17520 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Potential of quantum computing for drug discovery, IBM Journal of Research and Development62, 6:1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru- Guzik,QuantumChemistryintheAgeofQuantumCom- puting, Chemical Reviews119, 10856 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Motta and J

    M. Motta and J. E. Rice, Emerging quantum comput- ing algorithms for quantum chemistry, WIREs Computa- tional Molecular Science12, 10.1002/wcms.1580 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1002/wcms.1580 2021

  22. [22]

    R. V. Mishmash, T. P. Gujarati, M. Motta, H. Zhai, G. K.-L. Chan, and A. Mezzacapo, Hierarchical Clifford Transformations to Reduce Entanglement in Quantum 11 Chemistry Wave Functions, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation19, 3194 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Richerme, M

    P. Richerme, M. C. Revelle, C. G. Yale, D. Lobser, A. D. Burch, S. M. Clark, D. Saha, M. A. Lopez-Ruiz, A. Dwivedi, J. M. Smith, S. A. Norrell, A. Sabry, and S. S. Iyengar, Quantum Computation of Hydrogen Bond Dynamics and Vibrational Spectra, The Journal of Phys- ical Chemistry Letters14, 7256 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Maurizio and G

    A. Maurizio and G. Mazzola, Quantum computing for ge- nomics: conceptual challenges and practical perspectives (2025), arXiv:2507.04111 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Kitai, J

    K. Kitai, J. Guo, S. Ju, S. Tanaka, K. Tsuda, J. Shiomi, and R. Tamura, Designing metamaterials with quantum annealing and factorization machines, Physical Review Research2, 013319 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    H. Ma, M. Govoni, and G. Galli, Quantum simulations of materials on near-term quantum computers, npj Compu- tational Materials6, 10.1038/s41524-020-00353-z (2020)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41524-020-00353-z 2020

  27. [27]

    Camino, J

    B. Camino, J. Buckeridge, P. A. Warburton, V. Kendon, and S. M. Woodley, Quantum computing and materials science: Apracticalguidetoapplyingquantumannealing to the configurational analysis of materials, Journal of Applied Physics133, 10.1063/5.0151346 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0151346 2023

  28. [28]

    Alexeev, M

    Y. Alexeev, M. Amsler, M. A. Barroca, S. Bassini, T. Battelle, D. Camps, D. Casanova, Y. J. Choi, F. T. Chong, C. Chung, C. Codella, A. D. Córcoles, J. Cruise, A. Di Meglio, I. Duran, T. Eckl, S. Economou, S. Ei- denbenz, B. Elmegreen, C. Fare, I. Faro, C. S. Fernán- dez, R. N. B. Ferreira, K. Fuji, B. Fuller, L. Gagliardi, G. Galli, J. R. Glick, I. Gobbi...

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    M. C. Bañuls, R. Blatt, J. Catani, A. Celi, J. I. Cirac, M. Dalmonte, L. Fallani, K. Jansen, M. Lewen- stein, S. Montangero, C. A. Muschik, B. Reznik, E. Rico, L. Tagliacozzo, K. Van Acoleyen, F. Ver- straete, U.-J. Wiese, M. Wingate, J. Zakrzewski, and P. Zoller, Simulating lattice gauge theories within quan- tum technologies, The European Physical Journ...

    work page doi:10.1140/epjd/e2020-100571-8 2020

  30. [30]

    J. F. Haase, L. Dellantonio, A. Celi, D. Paulson, A. Kan, K. Jansen, and C. A. Muschik, A resource efficient ap- proach for quantum and classical simulations of gauge theories in particle physics, Quantum5, 393 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Paulson, L

    D. Paulson, L. Dellantonio, J. F. Haase, A. Celi, A. Kan, A. Jena, C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, K. Jansen, P. Zoller, and C. A. Muschik, Simulating 2D Effects in Lattice Gauge Theories on a Quantum Computer, PRX Quan- tum2, 030334 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    M. Meth, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, C. Edmunds, L. Postler, A. Steiner, A. J. Jena, L. Dellantonio, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, T. Monz, P. Schindler, C. Muschik, and M. Ringbauer, Simulating 2d lattice gauge theories on a qudit quantum computer (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions, Nature Physics18, 1053 (2022)

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Y. Chi, J. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Mao, Z. Zhou, X. Chen, C. Zhai, J. Bao, T. Dai, H. Yuan,et al., A programmable qudit-based quantum processor, Nature communications 13, 1166 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    P. J. Low, B. White, and C. Senko, Control and readout of a 13-level trapped ion qudit, npj Quantum Information 11, 85 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zale- tel, K. Temme,et al., Evidence for the utility of quan- tum computing before fault tolerance, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell,et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature574, 505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris, K. Boothby, F. Altomare, M. Asad, A. J. Berkley, M. Boschnak, K. Chern, H. Christiani, S. Cibere, J. Connor, M. H. Dehn, R. Deshpande, S. Ejtemaee, P. Farre, K. Hamer, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, M. W. Johnson, S. Kortas, E. Ladizinsky, ...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.ado6285

  39. [39]

    Zhong et al., Quantum computational ad- vantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abe8770

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science370, 1460 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abe8770

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abe8770 2020

  40. [40]

    Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    work page 1996

  41. [41]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153 (2014). 12

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    Troyer, and P

    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

  43. [43]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter,et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    R. Ott, D. González-Cuadra, T. V. Zache, P. Zoller, A. M. Kaufman, and H. Pichler, Error-corrected fermionic quantum processors with neutral atoms (2024), arXiv:2412.16081 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    M. Qiao, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, L. Homeier, S. Hol- lerith, G. Bornet, R. Martin, B. Gély, L. Klein, D. Barredo, S. Geier, N.-C. Chiu, F. Grusdt, A. Bohrdt, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Realization of a doped quantum antiferromagnet with dipolar tunnelings in a rydberg tweezer array (2025), arXiv:2501.08233 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    R. D. Delaney, L. R. Sletten, M. J. Cich, B. Estey, M. I. Fabrikant, D. Hayes, I. M. Hoffman, J. Hostet- ter, C. Langer, S. A. Moses, A. R. Perry, T. A. Peter- son, A. Schaffer, C. Volin, G. Vittorini, and W. C. Bur- ton, Scalable multispecies ion transport in a grid-based surface-electrode trap, Phys. Rev. X14, 041028 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Y. Meng, M. L. Chan, R. B. Nielsen, M. H. Appel, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, et al., Deterministic photon source of genuine three-qubit entanglement, Nature Communications15, 7774 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Neeley, R

    M. Neeley, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, Y. Yin, T. Yamamoto, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Generation of three-qubit entangled states using superconducting phase qubits, Na- ture467, 570 (2010)

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    R. C. Bialczak, M. Ansmann, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, J. Wen- ner, M. Steffen, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Quantum process tomography of a universal entangling gate implemented with josephson phase qubits, Nature Physics6, 409 (2010)

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    A Rahman, R

    S. A Rahman, R. Lewis, E. Mendicelli, and S. Powell, Self-mitigating Trotter circuits for SU(2) lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer, Physical Review D106, 074502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Y. Y. Atas, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, V. Wei, S. M. L. Pfaendler, R. Lewis, and C. A. Muschik, Simulating one-dimensional quantum chromodynamics on a quan- tum computer: Real-time evolutions of tetra- and pen- taquarks (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum- classical algorithms, New Journal of Physics18, 023023 (2016)

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    R. R. Ferguson, L. Dellantonio, A. A. Balushi, K. Jansen, W. Dür, and C. A. Muschik, Measurement-Based Vari- ational Quantum Eigensolver, Physical Review Letters 126, 220501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Kruschke,Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan(Academic Press, 2014)

    J. Kruschke,Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan(Academic Press, 2014)

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    Gelman, J

    A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, D. B. Dunson, A. Vehtari, and D. B. Rubin,Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1995)

    work page 1995

  57. [57]

    Shlosberg, A

    A. Shlosberg, A. J. Jena, P. Mukhopadhyay, J. F. Haase, F. Leditzky, and L. Dellantonio, Adaptive estimation of quantum observables, Quantum7, 906 (2023)

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Quantum Algorithms

    M. Mosca, Quantum algorithms (2008), arXiv:0808.0369 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  59. [59]

    Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys

    D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A57, 127 (1998)

    work page 1998

  60. [60]

    Kerzner, V

    A. Kerzner, V. Gheorghiu, M. Mosca, T. Guilbaud, F. Carminati, F. Fracas, and L. Dellantonio, A square- root speedup for finding the smallest eigenvalue, Quan- tum Science and Technology9, 045025 (2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    K.V.Kirk, C.Kokail, J.Kunjummen, H.-Y.Hu, Y.Teng, M. Cain, J. Taylor, S. F. Yelin, H. Pichler, and M. Lukin, Derandomized shallow shadows: Efficient pauli learning with bounded-depth circuits (2024), arXiv:2412.18973 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    T.-C. Yen, A. Ganeshram, and A. F. Izmaylov, Deter- ministic improvements of quantum measurements with grouping of compatible operators, non-local transforma- tions, and covariance estimates, npj Quantum Informa- tion9, 14 (2023)

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Elben, S

    A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, The random- ized measurement toolbox, Nature Reviews Physics5, 9 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    D.Gottesman,Fault-tolerantquantumcomputationwith higher-dimensional systems,inNASA International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Commu- nications(Springer, 1998) pp. 302–313

    work page 1998

  65. [65]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    work page 2001

  66. [66]

    A. Jena, S. Genin, and M. Mosca, Pauli partitioning with respect to gate sets (2019), arXiv:1907.07859 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications, Biometrika57, 97 (1970)

    work page 1970

  68. [68]

    M.E.J.NewmanandG.T.Barkema,Monte Carlo Meth- ods in Statistical Physics(Clarendon Press, 1999)

    work page 1999

  69. [69]

    N. L. Johnson, S. Kotz, and N. Balakrishnan, Dirichlet and inverted dirichlet distributions, inContinuous multi- variate distributions, volume 1, Wiley Series in Probabil- ity and Statistics (John Wiley & Sons, 2000) Chap. 49, 2nd ed

    work page 2000

  70. [70]

    Geweke, Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments, in Bayesian Statistics 4(Oxford University PressOxford,

    J. Geweke, Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments, in Bayesian Statistics 4(Oxford University PressOxford,

    work page

  71. [71]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Inference from iterative sim- ulation using multiple sequences, Stat. Sci.7, 457 (1992)

    work page 1992

  72. [72]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004)

    work page 2004

  73. [73]

    A. Chan, Z. Shi, L. Dellantonio, W. Dür, and C. A. Muschik, Measurement-based infused circuits for vari- ational quantum eigensolvers, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 240601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    M. Meth, V. Kuzmin, R. van Bijnen, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, M. Ringbauer, T. Monz, P. Silvi, and P. Schindler, Probing phases of quantum matter with an ion-trap tensor-network quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. X12, 041035 (2022). 13

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    Miguel-Ramiro, Z

    J. Miguel-Ramiro, Z. Shi, L. Dellantonio, A. Chan, C. A. Muschik, and W. Dür, Enhancing quantum computation via superposition of quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A108, 062604 (2023)

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    In this work, we employ the Hadamard, S, and sum gate as defined in [63]; see App. E

    work page

  77. [77]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Quantum computation with ions in thermal motion, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1971 (1999)

    work page 1971

  78. [78]

    with error

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Entanglement and quantum computation with ions in thermal motion, Phys. Rev. A 62, 022311 (2000). Appendix A: Spin-Operators in Higher Dimensions In this work we use the following definitions ofdS di- mensional spin operators: ˆSx = dS −2X µ=0 (|µ+ 1⟩ ⟨µ|+|µ⟩ ⟨µ+ 1|)σ µ,(A1a) ˆSy = i dS −2X µ=0 (|µ+ 1⟩ ⟨µ| − |µ⟩ ⟨µ+ 1|)σ µ,(A1b)...

    work page 2000