pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20153 · v1 · pith:5PYYC7BMnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.other· physics.comp-ph

Optimizing resource allocation for accuracy in noisy variational quantum algorithms

Harshit Verma , Thomas Ayral , Alexia Auff\`eves , Robert Whitney This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.otherphysics.comp-ph
keywords variational quantum eigensolverNISQresource optimizationquantum noisephenomenological modelgate operationserror mitigation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations of noisy VQE yield a model that finds the circuit size and iteration count minimizing total gate operations for a target accuracy.

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

The paper develops a methodology to optimize variational quantum algorithms on noisy hardware by reaching a target accuracy with minimal total gate operations. Simulations of the Variational Quantum Eigensolver are used to build a phenomenological model relating accuracy to circuit size, number of iterations, and noise levels. This model reveals a trade-off where small circuits lack precision and large ones suffer from noise, leading to an optimal balance that reduces overall resource costs. The approach also identifies the circuit size maximizing accuracy under a fixed resource budget, offering practical guidelines for near-term quantum devices including those with error mitigation.

Core claim

Using simulations of a Variational Quantum Eigensolver, the authors propose a phenomenological model that captures the relationship between algorithmic accuracy, total gate operations, and noise. The model identifies the sweet spot of circuit size versus iterations that minimizes the algorithmic resource costs for a desired accuracy. It also gives the circuit size that maximizes algorithm accuracy for a fixed resource cost. This provides a practical guideline for deployment of variational algorithms on realistic noisy hardware.

What carries the argument

The phenomenological model of accuracy-resource-noise trade-offs derived from VQE simulations, which balances circuit size against iteration count to minimize total gate operations.

If this is right

  • Minimizing total gate operations leads to faster and more energy-efficient algorithms.
  • There is an identifiable optimal point in the circuit size versus iterations trade-off.
  • The model applies to algorithms using error mitigation on noisy hardware.
  • For fixed resources, accuracy can be maximized by choosing the right circuit size.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The model might extend to other variational quantum algorithms like QAOA.
  • Validation on real hardware could allow calibration of the model parameters for specific devices.
  • If accurate, it could guide the design of future quantum processors by highlighting resource bottlenecks.

Load-bearing premise

That the phenomenological model fitted to simulations under modeled noise will accurately predict the accuracy and resource trade-off on real quantum hardware with different noise characteristics.

What would settle it

Running VQE experiments on actual NISQ hardware with different circuit depths and iteration counts, then comparing the measured accuracy and total gate counts against the model's predictions for the optimal sweet spot.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20153 by Alexia Auff\`eves, Harshit Verma, Robert Whitney, Thomas Ayral.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Abstract representation of the quantum circuit imple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The transpiled quantum circuit that we considered (showing only the first layer of that circuit). This transpiled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Convergence of the VQE energy as a function of number of iterations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The rate at which the VQE energy converges with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plot of the converged prediction for the ground state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Algorithmic accuracy and algorithmic resources as a function of the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Optimal gate count [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Validation of our phenomenological scaling relations on a noisy IBM Nighthawk fake backend, with and without error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The abstract circuit of the RYA taken from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The phenomenological scaling relations for RYA, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Phenomenological scaling relation for the conver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The relationship between the number of gates and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

For quantum algorithms to achieve their full potential, we need methodologies to optimize them, such as reaching a given output accuracy with minimal resource costs. Here, we develop such a methodology for a class of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) algorithms. We leverage simulations of a Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) to propose a phenomenological model of such algorithms that captures the complex relationship between algorithmic accuracy, algorithmic resource costs, and the noise that exists in realistic quantum hardware. For this, we take the algorithmic resource cost to be the total number of quantum gate-operations in the algorithm; minimizing this cost typically makes the algorithm faster and more energy-efficient. We consider the subtle trade-off between quantum circuit size (small circuits are too imprecise, but large ones are too noisy), and the number of iterations of that quantum circuit for the full algorithm to sufficiently converge. Using a noise-metric-resource methodology, we identify the sweet spot (of circuit size versus iterations) that minimizes the algorithmic resource costs for a desired algorithm accuracy. It also gives the circuit size that maximizes algorithm accuracy for a fixed resource cost. Our methodology provides a practical guideline for near-term deployment of variational algorithms on realistic noisy hardware, including hardware that uses error mitigation.

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 paper develops a phenomenological model from VQE simulations under modeled noise to relate output accuracy to total gate operations and noise strength. It identifies an optimal balance between circuit size and iteration count that minimizes total gate operations for a target accuracy (or maximizes accuracy for fixed resources) and claims this supplies practical guidelines for deploying variational algorithms on realistic NISQ hardware, including with error mitigation.

Significance. If the fitted functional form transfers beyond the simulated noise channels, the work would supply a concrete, simulation-derived heuristic for resource allocation in noisy variational algorithms, directly addressing the circuit-depth versus iteration trade-off that is central to NISQ deployment. The explicit focus on total gate count as the cost metric is a strength, as is the attempt to produce falsifiable operating-point predictions rather than purely abstract bounds.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and methodology: the central claim that the model 'provides a practical guideline for near-term deployment ... on realistic noisy hardware' rests on transferability from simulated noise channels to physical devices. No experimental data, calibration-drift measurements, or crosstalk benchmarks are reported to test whether the fitted accuracy-versus-gate-count surface remains predictive once hardware-specific correlations are present; the predicted sweet-spot circuit size can therefore shift arbitrarily under realistic noise.
  2. [Methodology] The phenomenological model is constructed by fitting to the authors' own VQE simulation ensemble. Without an independent validation set (either from a different simulator with distinct noise assumptions or from hardware runs), the optimization procedure risks circularity: the reported minimum-resource operating point is guaranteed to be optimal only inside the same simulation loop used to derive the functional form.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the model 'captures the complex relationship' but supplies no explicit functional form, parameter count, or goodness-of-fit metric; these should be stated quantitatively in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address each major comment below, agreeing where revisions are needed to better reflect the simulation-based nature of the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and methodology: the central claim that the model 'provides a practical guideline for near-term deployment ... on realistic noisy hardware' rests on transferability from simulated noise channels to physical devices. No experimental data, calibration-drift measurements, or crosstalk benchmarks are reported to test whether the fitted accuracy-versus-gate-count surface remains predictive once hardware-specific correlations are present; the predicted sweet-spot circuit size can therefore shift arbitrarily under realistic noise.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript is based exclusively on simulations with modeled noise channels and contains no experimental data from physical devices. The central claim regarding practical guidelines for deployment therefore rests on an assumption of transferability that is not directly tested. We will revise the abstract and relevant discussion sections to explicitly state that the model and operating-point predictions are derived from simulations and that further experimental validation on NISQ hardware (including checks for crosstalk and calibration effects) is required before the guidelines can be considered directly applicable to real devices. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methodology] The phenomenological model is constructed by fitting to the authors' own VQE simulation ensemble. Without an independent validation set (either from a different simulator with distinct noise assumptions or from hardware runs), the optimization procedure risks circularity: the reported minimum-resource operating point is guaranteed to be optimal only inside the same simulation loop used to derive the functional form.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the functional form is fitted to the same simulation ensemble used for the subsequent optimization. This is inherent to phenomenological modeling, but we acknowledge the risk of circularity in claiming optimality. In revision we will add an explicit discussion of model validation (e.g., cross-validation on held-out simulation runs) and will note the limitation that an independent simulator or hardware dataset was not used. We maintain that the derived trade-off surface remains a useful heuristic within the modeled noise regime, but we will not claim broader optimality without additional validation. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • We cannot supply experimental data, calibration-drift measurements, or crosstalk benchmarks from physical hardware, as the present study is limited to classical simulations of noisy VQE circuits.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Phenomenological model fitted to own VQE simulations makes sweet-spot identification a direct output of the fit

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "we leverage simulations of a Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) to propose a phenomenological model of such algorithms that captures the complex relationship between algorithmic accuracy, algorithmic resource costs, and the noise that exists in realistic quantum hardware. ... Using a noise-metric-resource methodology, we identify the sweet spot (of circuit size versus iterations) that minimizes the algorithmic resource costs for a desired algorithm accuracy."

    The model parameters and functional form are determined by fitting to the VQE simulation outputs; the subsequent identification of the resource-minimizing sweet spot is performed by optimizing within that fitted model. Therefore the reported minimum is a direct algebraic consequence of the same simulation data used to construct the model, rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper explicitly builds its central result—a phenomenological model relating accuracy, gate count, and noise—directly from VQE simulations performed under the authors' modeled noise. The claimed sweet spot (circuit size vs. iterations minimizing total gates for target accuracy) is then located by optimizing inside that same fitted model. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the optimization result is statistically forced by the functional form and parameters chosen to match the simulation data, with no independent external benchmark or first-principles derivation separating the input data from the output recommendation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described. The phenomenological model is presumed to contain fitted parameters relating noise, circuit depth, and accuracy, but none are stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5759 in / 1169 out tokens · 27568 ms · 2026-06-26T17:09:30.369572+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

71 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    11), a hardware-efficient ansatz with a dif- ferent structure, for the same 5-qubit Heisenberg Hamil- tonian in Eq

    (see Fig. 11), a hardware-efficient ansatz with a dif- ferent structure, for the same 5-qubit Heisenberg Hamil- tonian in Eq. (3). The RYA consists of layers of single- qubitR Y (θ) rotations followed by a fixed entangling pat- 0 100 200 300 400 500 Number of Iterations, Nit 0 1 2 3 4 5 6E(Nit) − E noiseless ∞ (a) Nlayers 1 (Ng = 30) 4 (Ng = 105) 7 (Ng = ...

  2. [2]

    (B2), simplifies in this regime

    Low-noise limit All simulations in this work employ low noise rates ϵ∈[10 −6,10 −3], so it is natural to ask how the tran- scendental equation for optimalN g, given in Eqs. (B2), simplifies in this regime. Settingϵ= 0 in Eq. (B2a), the left-hand side vanishes since ln(1) = 0, yielding the following condition: αµ0∆e −µ0∆f(N g) f ′(Ng) +βκ e −κNg = 0.(B3) W...

  3. [3]

    Then we simply want to get the highest algorithm accuracy in the limit of very large ∆

    The limit of large algorithmic resources (∆→ ∞) Suppose that we have no limit on the algorithmic re- sources, so ∆ can be as large as we like (∆→ ∞). Then we simply want to get the highest algorithm accuracy in the limit of very large ∆. In this limit, it is always good to have infinitely many iterations of the quantum circuit to ensure complete con- verg...

  4. [4]

    fold factor

    Error mitigation pipeline To escape the noise-dominated regime, we apply a three-stage mitigation pipeline at every optimization step — that is, for every evaluation ofE(N it, Ng). The pipeline is implemented using the Mitiq library [58] on top of Qiskit and combines noise tailoring with zero- noise extrapolation, applied in sequence from innermost (circu...

  5. [5]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, The variational quantum eigensolver: A re- view of methods and best practices, Physics Reports986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    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)

    2018

  7. [7]

    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, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Kurita, H

    T. Kurita, H. Qassim, M. Ishii, H. Oshima, S. Sato, and J. Emerson, Synergetic quantum error mitigation by randomized compiling and zero-noise extrapolation for the variational quantum eigensolver, Quantum7, 1184 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    Fontana, N

    E. Fontana, N. Fitzpatrick, D. M. Ramo, R. Duncan, and I. Rungger, Evaluating the noise resilience of variational quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. A104, 022403 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    De Palma, M

    G. De Palma, M. Marvian, C. Rouz´ e, and D. S. Fran¸ ca, Limitations of variational quantum algorithms: A quan- tum optimal transport approach, Phys. Rev. X Quantum 4, 010309 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms, Nature Communica- tions12, 6961 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Auff` eves, Quantum technologies need a quantum en- ergy initiative, Phys

    A. Auff` eves, Quantum technologies need a quantum en- ergy initiative, Phys. Rev. X Quantum3, 020101 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Fellous-Asiani, J

    M. Fellous-Asiani, J. H. Chai, Y. Thonnart, H. K. Ng, R. S. Whitney, and A. Auff` eves, Optimizing resource effi- ciencies for scalable full-stack quantum computers, Phys. Rev. X Quantum4, 040319 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Kaplan, S

    J. Kaplan, S. McCandlish, T. Henighan, T. B. Brown, B. Chess, R. Child, S. Gray, A. Radford, J. Wu, and D. Amodei, Scaling laws for neural language models (2020), arXiv:2001.08361

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Hoffmann, S

    J. Hoffmann, S. Borgeaud, A. Mensch, E. Buchatskaya, T. Cai, E. Rutherford, D. de Las Casas, L. A. Hendricks, J. Welbl, A. Clark, T. Hennigan, E. Noland, K. Milli- can, G. van den Driessche, B. Damoc, A. Guy, S. Osin- dero, K. Simonyan, E. Elsen, J. W. Rae, O. Vinyals, and L. Sifre, Training compute-optimal large language mod- els (2022), arXiv:2203.15556

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Verteletskyi, T.-C

    V. Verteletskyi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, Mea- surement optimization in the variational quantum eigen- solver using a minimum clique cover, J. Chem. Phys.152, 124114 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    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)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Nakaji, S

    K. Nakaji, S. Endo, Y. Matsuzaki, and H. Hakoshima, Measurement optimization of variational quantum simu- lation by classical shadow and derandomization, Quan- tum7, 995 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Cattelan, S

    M. Cattelan, S. Yarkoni, and W. Lechner, Parallel circuit 17 implementation of variational quantum algorithms, npj Quantum Information11, 27 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Bisicchia, A

    G. Bisicchia, A. Bocci, J. Garc´ ıa-Alonso, J. M. Murillo, and A. Brogi, Cut & shoot: cutting & distributing quan- tum circuits across multiple NISQ computers, in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 02 (2024) pp. 187–192

    2024

  21. [21]

    K. Endo, Y. Sato, R. Raymond, K. Wada, N. Yamamoto, and H. C. Watanabe, Optimal parameter configurations for sequential optimization of the variational quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043136 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Ostaszewski, E

    M. Ostaszewski, E. Grant, and M. Benedetti, Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits, Quan- tum5, 391 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum com- putation, Annals of Physics298, 210–226 (2002)

    2002

  24. [24]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nature Communications10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    I. G. Ryabinkin, T.-C. Yen, S. N. Genin, and A. F. Iz- maylov, Qubit coupled cluster method: A systematic ap- proach to quantum chemistry on a quantum computer, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation14, 6317 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    X. You, S. Chakrabarti, and X. Wu, A convergence the- ory for over-parameterized variational quantum eigen- solvers (2022), arXiv:2205.12481

    arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    T. Haug, K. Bharti, and M. Kim, Capacity and quantum geometry of parametrized quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X Quantum2, 040309 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Y. Du, T. Huang, S. You, M.-H. Hsieh, and D. Tao, Quantum circuit architecture search for variational quan- tum algorithms, npj Quantum Information8, 62 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Gidney and M

    C. Gidney and M. Eker˚ a, How to factor 2048 bit rsa in- tegers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits, Quantum 5, 433 (2021)

    2048

  30. [30]

    Astrakhantsev, G

    N. Astrakhantsev, G. Mazzola, I. Tavernelli, and G. Car- leo, Phenomenological theory of variational quantum ground-state preparation, Physical Review Research5, 033225 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    Y. Tao, M. Guta, and G. Adesso, Trade-off between com- plexity and energy in quantum phase estimation (2025), arXiv:2511.05458

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Fellous-Asiani, H

    M. Fellous-Asiani, H. K. Ng, and R. S. Whitney, Magic states are rarely the most important resource to optimize (2024), arXiv:2411.01880

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers with less than a million noisy qubits (2025), arXiv:2505.15917

    C. Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers with less than a million noisy qubits (2025), arXiv:2505.15917

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2048

  34. [34]

    Suchan,Hyperparameter Tuning for Quantum Ma- chine Learning, Master’s thesis, TU Wien (2024)

    D. Suchan,Hyperparameter Tuning for Quantum Ma- chine Learning, Master’s thesis, TU Wien (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    Moussa, J

    C. Moussa, J. N. van Rijn, T. B¨ ack, and V. Dunjko, Hy- perparameter importance of quantum neural networks across small datasets, inDiscovery Science, edited by P. Pascal and D. Ienco (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2022) p. 32

    2022

  36. [36]

    S. S. Cranganore, V. De Maio, I. Brandic, T. M. A. Do, and E. Deelman, Molecular Dynamics Workflow De- composition for Hybrid Classic/Quantum Systems , in 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on e-Science (e-Science)(IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2022) pp. 346–356

    2022

  37. [37]

    Bonet-Monroig, H

    X. Bonet-Monroig, H. Wang, D. Vermetten, B. Senjean, C. Moussa, T. B¨ ack, V. Dunjko, and T. E. O’Brien, Per- formance comparison of optimization methods on vari- ational quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. A107, 032407 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Herbst, V

    S. Herbst, V. De Maio, and I. Brandic, On optimizing hyperparameters for quantum neural networks, in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)(IEEE, 2024) p. 1478–1489

    2024

  39. [39]

    Watanabe, K

    R. Watanabe, K. Fujii, and H. Ueda, Variational quan- tum eigensolver with embedded entanglement using a tensor-network ansatz, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023009 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Mih´ alikov´ a, M

    I. Mih´ alikov´ a, M. Krejˇ c´ ı, and M. Fri´ ak, The impact of quantum circuit architecture and hyperparameters on variational quantum algorithms exemplified in the elec- tronic structure of the gaas crystal, Scientific Reports15, 15746 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Wiersema, C

    R. Wiersema, C. Zhou, Y. de Sereville, J. F. Carrasquilla, Y. B. Kim, and H. Yuen, Exploring entanglement and optimization within the hamiltonian variational ansatz, Phys. Rev. X Quantum1, 020319 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    The Green500 at top500.org/lists/green500, quantifies supercomputer’s energy efficiency in GFLOPS per Watt. Since FLOPS is the number of floating point operations per second, the units of seconds cancel, making this equivalent to a measure of the number of floating point operations per Joule of energy

  43. [43]

    G´ ois, M

    F. G´ ois, M. Pezzutto, and Y. Omar, Towards energetic quantum advantage in trapped-ion quantum computa- tion (2024), arXiv:2404.11572

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Soret, N

    A. Soret, N. Dridi, S. C. Wein, V. Giesz, S. Mansfield, and P.-E. Emeriau, Quantum energetic advantage be- fore computational advantage in boson sampling (2026), arXiv:2601.08068

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nature Reviews Physics7, 174 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Cerezo, M

    M. Cerezo, M. Larocca, D. Garc´ ıa-Mart´ ın, N. L. Diaz, P. Braccia, E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, P. Bermejo, A. Ijaz, S. Thanasilp, E. R. Anschuetz, and Z. Holmes, Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability?, Nature Communications16, 7907 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Lerch, R

    S. Lerch, R. Puig, M. S. Rudolph, A. Angrisani, T. Jones, M. Cerezo, S. Thanasilp, and Z. Holmes, Efficient quantum-enhanced classical simulation for patches of quantum landscapes (2024), arXiv:2411.19896

    arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Holmes, K

    Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus, Phys. Rev. X Quantum3, 010313 (2022)

    2022

  49. [49]

    R. Puig, M. Drudis, S. Thanasilp, Z. Holmes, R. Puig, M. Drudis, S. Thanasilp, and Z. Holmes, Variational quantum simulation: A case study for understanding warm starts, Phys. Rev. X Quantum10, 1 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Mhiri, R

    H. Mhiri, R. Puig, S. Lerch, M. S. Rudolph, T. Chotibut, and S. Thanasilp, A unifying account of warm start guarantees for patches of quantum landscapes (2025), arXiv:2502.07889

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Anselme-Martin and T

    B. Anselme-Martin and T. Ayral, Pre-optimization of quantum circuits, barren plateaus and classical simulabil- ity: Tensor networks to unlock the variational quantum eigensolver (2026), arXiv:2602.04676

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    This would have no significant 18 effect on our results

    If we had included a pre-measurement subroutine con- sisting of one gate operation per qubit, it would have changed the 15 into 20. This would have no significant 18 effect on our results

  53. [53]

    Ding, X.-Y

    C. Ding, X.-Y. Xu, S. Zhang, H.-L. Huang, and W.-S. Bao, Evaluating the resilience of variational quantum algorithms to leakage noise, Phys. Rev. A106, 042421 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    M. Oliv, A. Matic, T. Messerer, and J. M. Lorenz, Evalu- ating the impact of noise on the performance of the vari- ational quantum eigensolver (2022), arXiv:2209.12803

    arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    J. Zeng, Z. Wu, C. Cao, C. Zhang, S. Hou, P. Xu, and B. Zeng, Simulating noisy variational quantum eigen- solver with local noise models, Quantum Engineering3, e77 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    Quantum Noise

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010) see Chap. 8 “Quantum Noise”’

    2010

  57. [57]

    Garc´ ıa-Mart´ ın, M

    D. Garc´ ıa-Mart´ ın, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, Effects of noise on the overparametrization of quantum neural networks, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013295 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    A. M. Dalzell, N. Hunter-Jones, and F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, Random quantum circuits transform local noise into global white noise, Commun. Math. Phys.405, 78 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    Vovrosh, K

    J. Vovrosh, K. E. Khosla, S. Greenaway, C. Self, M. S. Kim, and J. Knolle, Simple mitigation of global depolar- izing errors in quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. E104, 035309 (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    Bravo-Prieto, J

    C. Bravo-Prieto, J. Lumbreras-Zarapico, L. Tagliacozzo, and J. I. Latorre, Scaling of variational quantum circuit depth for condensed matter systems, Quantum4, 272 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Na- tion, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    LaRose, A

    R. LaRose, A. Mari, S. Kaiser, P. J. Karalekas, A. A. Alves, P. Czarnik, M. El Mandouh, M. H. Gordon, Y. Hindy, A. Robertson, P. Thakre, M. Wahl, D. Samuel, R. Mistri, M. Tremblay, N. Gardner, N. T. Stemen, N. Shammah, and W. J. Zeng, Mitiq: A software pack- age for error mitigation on noisy quantum computers, Quantum6, 774 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Physi- cal Review A94, 10.1103/physreva.94.052325 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.94.052325 2016

  64. [64]

    Knill, Fault-tolerant postselected quantum computa- tion: Schemes (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0402171 [quant- ph]

    E. Knill, Fault-tolerant postselected quantum computa- tion: Schemes (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0402171 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  65. [65]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation, in2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)(IEEE,

  66. [66]

    Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitiga- tion for short-depth quantum circuits, Physical Review Letters119, 10.1103/physrevlett.119.180509 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.180509 2017

  67. [67]

    Li \ and\ author S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization, Phys- ical Review X7, 10.1103/physrevx.7.021050 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.7.021050 2017

  68. [68]

    van den Berg, Z

    E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors, Na- ture Physics19, 1116–1121 (2023)

    2023

  69. [69]

    Czarnik, A

    P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, Er- ror mitigation with clifford quantum-circuit data, Quan- tum5, 592 (2021)

    2021

  70. [71]

    Dolanet al., Phys

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Sei- delin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates, Physical Review A77, 10.1103/phys- reva.77.012307 (2008)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2008

  71. [72]

    Perrin, T

    H. Perrin, T. Scoquart, A. Shnirman, J. Schmalian, and K. Snizhko, Mitigating crosstalk errors by randomized compiling: Simulation of the bcs model on a supercon- ducting quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013142 (2024)

    2024