Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Pumping a quantum computer at a chosen frequency directly yields the dynamical structure factor

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 19:09 UTC pith:NGL3CUFM

load-bearing objection Candid letter on arXiv:2607.07138 the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07138 v1 pith:NGL3CUFM submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph

Dynamical structure factor with a pumping approach on a trapped-ion quantum computer

Etienne Granet , Keisuke Murota , Henrik Dreyer , Kentaro Yamamoto , Juan Pedersen , Hidemaro Suwa This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Ac75.10.Jm75.40.Gb78.70.Nx
keywords dynamical structure factorquantum computingtrapped-ion quantum computerneutron scatteringHeisenberg modelcopper sulfatetime-dependent Hamiltonianperturbative pumping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The dynamical structure factor S(q, ω) — the quantity measured in neutron scattering experiments — is normally computed on a quantum computer by evaluating real-time dynamical correlations at many time points and then Fourier-transforming. This paper introduces an alternative: perturb the Hamiltonian with a source term oscillating at a chosen target frequency ω, evolve the system in time, and then measure a static local observable. The difference between measurements taken with positive and negative perturbation strength, divided by that strength, yields S(q, ω) directly — no time-by-time correlation sampling, no Fourier transform step. The method is exact in the limit of vanishing perturbation strength; at finite strength there is a systematic error that must be balanced against shot noise. The authors implement this on a 20-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer for the 1D Heisenberg spin chain (the model describing copper sulfate), obtaining results that match both noiseless circuit simulations and experimental neutron scattering data without any error mitigation.

Core claim

The central mechanism is a perturbative identity: if you evolve an equilibrium state under a Hamiltonian H(t) = H − ε O(0) sin(ω(T−t)), then the difference in the expectation value of a momentum-space observable Ô_q at time T, taken between ε and −ε, is proportional to S(q, ω) itself (Eq. 8). The proportionality involves the detailed-balance factor (1 − e^{−βω}) for thermal states and is exact to first order in ε. This converts the problem of measuring a frequency-resolved spectral function into the problem of measuring a static observable after a single time-evolution circuit, at the cost of running the circuit twice (for ±ε).

What carries the argument

The time-dependent Hamiltonian H(t) = H − ε O(0) sin(ω(T−t)) with a sinusoidal source term at the target frequency ω; the first-order expansion of the time-evolution operator W(T) in ε (Eq. 4); the detailed-balance relation S(q,−ω) = e^{−βω} S(q,ω) for thermal states, which isolates S(q, ω) from the antisymmetric combination (Eq. 8); Trotter decomposition of W(T) into gate sequences (Eq. 15); and an adiabatic-inspired variational ansatz for ground-state preparation (Eq. 18).

Load-bearing premise

The derivation requires the perturbation strength ε to vanish, but on hardware ε must be finite. The paper uses ε = 2, which their own analysis shows introduces roughly 30% error relative to the exact limit. The claim that hardware results agree well with experiment rests on this large-ε regime being acceptable, and reducing ε to improve accuracy would require quadratically more shots to overcome amplified shot noise.

What would settle it

If the systematic error from finite ε (demonstrated at ~30% for ε = 2) cannot be reduced below the noise floor of real experiments without prohibitive shot counts, the method's practical advantage over standard time-correlation approaches would vanish for applications requiring high spectral precision.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Frequency-targeted spectral computation becomes possible: one can compute S(q, ω) at a handful of specific frequencies without sampling the entire time axis, reducing shot overhead when only selected spectral features are needed.
  • The method extends to any quantum many-body system where an equilibrium state can be prepared and local observables measured — including models in higher dimensions, provided the spatial Fourier sum is tractable.
  • Applications beyond neutron scattering, such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy where spectral lines are sharply localized at specific frequencies, could benefit from directly targeting those frequencies rather than sampling long free-induction decays.
  • Combining this pumping protocol with scalable state-preparation methods (matrix-product-state embedding, sparse Pauli dynamics) could push the joint task of state preparation plus DSF computation into a regime challenging for classical computers alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The ε tradeoff is the fundamental tension: the method is exact as ε → 0 but shot noise scales as 1/ε², so practical use requires either acceptably small ε on low-noise hardware or a noise-mitigation strategy that suppresses the 1/ε amplification.
  • For systems where the spectral function is smooth in ω, the finite-T truncation (sinc broadening) and the finite-ε systematic error may compound, making the method most reliable when targeting well-separated spectral peaks rather than continuum features.
  • The approach could generalize to multi-frequency targeting by superposing multiple sinusoidal source terms at different ω values in a single time-evolution circuit, though cross-terms at order ε² would need to be controlled.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a 'pumping' approach for computing the dynamical structure factor (DSF) S(q,ω) on quantum computers. The key idea is to time-evolve an equilibrium state under a Hamiltonian perturbed by a source term oscillating at a target frequency ω, H(t) = H − εO(0)sin(ω(T−t)), and then measure the observable O(x) directly, bypassing the need to compute real-time dynamical correlations at many time points and Fourier-transform them. The method is derived perturbatively in ε (Eqs. 2–8), leveraging the detailed balance relation to isolate S(q,ω). The authors implement the protocol on the Quantinuum Reimei trapped-ion quantum computer for the 1D Heisenberg model on 20 sites, comparing the results to noiseless simulations of the same circuits and to neutron scattering data from copper sulfate (Fig. 4). The approach is shown to be efficient when only a few frequency values are needed, offering shot overhead reductions relative to standard Hadamard-test-based methods.

Significance. The pumping approach is a genuinely useful methodological contribution: the ability to directly target specific frequencies ω without sampling a full time grid is a practical advantage for quantum hardware, particularly for spectroscopic applications. The hardware demonstration on 20 qubits with 220 TK2 gates, achieving agreement with both noiseless simulation and experimental neutron scattering data without error mitigation, is a solid proof-of-principle. The authors are explicit about the perturbative nature of the derivation and the associated tradeoffs. The method's applicability to NMR spectroscopy, as noted in the Discussion, broadens its potential impact.

major comments (3)
  1. The central tension between the perturbative derivation and the operating point used in the hardware experiment is not adequately reconciled. Eq. (8) is derived as an expansion in ε, valid in the limit ε→0. The hardware run uses ε=2, which Fig. 3 shows introduces approximately 30% relative error in the DSF vector relative to the ε→0 limit. The manuscript acknowledges the shot-noise tradeoff (scaling as 1/ε²) but does not quantitatively address how a 30% systematic distortion affects the comparison to neutron scattering data. The claim of 'very good agreement' with neutron experiments (bottom panel of Fig. 4) is supported only by visual color-plot comparison; no quantitative metric (e.g., relative error, χ², or overlap integral) is provided. Since the O(ε²) correction could be frequency-dependent and signed, it may distort spectral line shapes in ways a single scalar error bound cannot捕获.
  2. The agreement between the hardware results and the noiseless simulation (top vs. middle panel of Fig. 4) validates hardware fidelity but does not validate the correctness of the DSF, because the noiseless simulation also uses ε=2 and thus contains the same finite-ε systematic distortion. The manuscript should clarify this distinction explicitly. The substantive correctness claim rests entirely on the comparison to neutron data, which is currently only qualitative. A quantitative comparison metric for the neutron data panel would strengthen the central claim significantly.
  3. The finite-T truncation introduces sinc-function artifacts (Eq. 14). With T=2.4, the frequency resolution is approximately 2π/T ≈ 2.6, and the sinc width is approximately π/T ≈ 1.3. The target frequencies are spaced as ω = 2πn·dt/T (Eq. 19), giving a spacing of approximately 0.63. The manuscript notes that 'the sinc function can cause spurious bumps to appear' but does not discuss whether these artifacts are visible in the results of Fig. 4 or how they interact with the finite-ε distortion. A brief discussion of whether the observed spectral features are robust to these artifacts would be appropriate.
minor comments (4)
  1. In the paragraph following Eq. (11), the text states 'Truncating the time integral to a finite T gives the approximate DSF S̃(q,ω)' and references Eq. (14). The notation switches from S to S̃ without explicit definition in the main text flow; this is minor but could be clarified.
  2. The manuscript mentions that the neutron scattering data was 'numerically extracted from the plots of Ref. [41]'. It would be helpful to state the uncertainty or resolution of this extraction process, as it affects the precision of the comparison in Fig. 4.
  3. The choice of R=1 for the ground state ansatz is justified by the S_diff metric (approximately 0.0381 vs. 0.0568 for R=2), but the physical reason why the first layer of the R=2 optimal evolution outperforms the full R=2 evolution is not discussed. A brief comment on this would be informative.
  4. The abstract states 'significant reduction in shot overhead compared to previous methods.' A quantitative estimate of this reduction (e.g., scaling comparison) would strengthen this claim, even if approximate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the DSF pumping formula derives from standard perturbation theory and detailed balance, with external benchmarks from neutron scattering data and Bethe ansatz solutions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Equation (8), the main result, follows from: (1) standard time-dependent perturbation theory expanding W(T) in ε (Eq. 4), (2) the equilibrium property of the density matrix to symmetrize the time integral (Eq. 5), (3) the definition of the Fourier-transformed observable Ô_q (Eq. 6), and (4) the detailed balance relation S(q,−ω) = e^{−βω}S(q,ω), which is a standard thermodynamic identity for thermal states, not a result defined in terms of the target quantity. None of these steps are self-definitional. The benchmarks are external: neutron scattering data is extracted from Ref. [41] (Mourigal et al., Nature Physics 2013), and exact DSF values come from Bethe ansatz solutions (Ref. [43], Caux). The state preparation ansatz (Eq. 18) is optimized classically, but the paper explicitly acknowledges this is not a quantum advantage regime and discusses scalable alternatives. The self-citations present (Refs. [48], [54], [55]) are to related methodological work but are not load-bearing for the mathematical derivation of Eq. (8). The skeptic's concern about finite ε=2 introducing ~30% systematic error is a correctness/validity issue, not a circularity issue — the formula is derived independently of the particular ε value chosen, and the error is acknowledged rather than hidden by redefinition. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or postulated objects. The free parameters are algorithmic choices (ε, dt, T, R, t_r) rather than physical constants. The axioms are standard statistical mechanics results plus two paper-specific modeling choices (finite ε validity, R=1 ground state quality).

free parameters (5)
  • ε (coupling strength) = 2
    Chosen as a tradeoff between signal strength and perturbative accuracy. Fig. 3 shows ~30% error at this value. Not fitted to data but selected by hand.
  • dt (Trotter step size) = 0.24
    Time step for the Trotter decomposition; chosen to balance accuracy and circuit depth.
  • T (total evolution time) = 2.4
    Truncation time for the time integral; determines frequency resolution via sinc broadening.
  • R (ansatz rounds for ground state) = 1
    Number of QAOA-like rounds; chosen to reduce gate count. Optimized parameters from L=20 statevector simulation used but not listed.
  • t_r (ansatz parameters) = not listed
    Optimized variational parameters for the adiabatic-inspired ansatz (Eq. 18); obtained from classical statevector optimization but not reported in the paper.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Detailed balance relation S(q,−ω) = e^{−βω} S(q,ω) for thermal states
    Standard statistical mechanics result used in Eq. 8 to relate S(q,ω) and S(q,−ω). Invoked in the derivation section.
  • domain assumption Translation invariance and x → −x symmetry of the Hamiltonian
    Used to obtain the last line of Eq. 5, extending the integral from [0,T] to [−T,T]. Stated explicitly in the derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Perturbative expansion in ε is valid at ε=2
    The derivation requires ε→0 (Eq. 8), but the hardware implementation uses ε=2. Fig. 3 quantifies the error but the paper proceeds with this value.
  • ad hoc to paper Ground state of the 1D Heisenberg model is well-approximated by R=1 ansatz
    The paper uses R=1 (first layer of R=2 optimal) for ground state preparation. S_diff ≈ 0.038 is reported but the energy error is not stated.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 13381 in / 2849 out tokens · 306105 ms · 2026-07-09T19:09:24.876025+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical structure factor with a pumping approach on a trapped-ion quantum computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NGL3CUFM

@misc{pith2026260707138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical structure factor with a pumping approach on a trapped-ion quantum computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NGL3CUFM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07138}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Dynamical structure factors (DSF) measured with neutron-scattering experiments provide key insights into the structure of materials. Their computation requires both the preparation of an equilibrium state and the implementation of Hamiltonian dynamics. We demonstrate the feasibility of computing DSF on the Quantinuum Reimei trapped-ion quantum computer, comparing the DSF of 1D Heisenberg model on $20$ sites, and that of the copper sulfate crystal. To that end, we introduce a pumping approach for computing the DSF $S(q,\omega)$ on quantum computers that enables targeting specific arbitrary values of frequencies $\omega$. This method time-evolves the initial state using a time-dependent Hamiltonian perturbed by a source term oscillating at the target frequency $\omega$. When targeting only a few frequency values, this approach provides a significant reduction in shot overhead compared to previous methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07138 by Etienne Granet, Henrik Dreyer, Hidemaro Suwa, Juan Pedersen, Keisuke Murota, Kentaro Yamamoto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Sturm, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A48, 233 (1993)

    K. Sturm, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A48, 233 (1993)

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin,Solid State Physics (Holt-Saunders, 1976)

    work page 1976

  3. [3]

    R. S. Fishman, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, and T. R˜ o˜ om, Spin-Wave Theory and its Applications to Neutron Scat- tering and THz Spectroscopy(Morgan & Claypool Pub- lishers, 2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 2462 (1990)

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    Chern, K

    G.-W. Chern, K. Barros, Z. Wang, H. Suwa, and C. D. Batista, Phys. Rev. B97, 035120 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    D. G. Mazzone, Y. Shen, H. Suwa, G. Fabbris, J. Yang, S.-S. Zhang, H. Miao, J. Sears, K. Jia, Y. G. Shi, M. H. Upton, D. M. Casa, X. Liu, J. Liu, C. D. Batista, and M. P. M. Dean, Nature Communications13, 913 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Dahlbom, C

    D. Dahlbom, C. Miles, H. Zhang, C. D. Batista, and K. Barros, Phys. Rev. B106, 235154 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Semiclassical representation of the Hubbard model

    Y. Yamasaki, H. Suwa, C. D. Batista, and S. Hoshino, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.02769 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Rajakumar and J

    J. Rajakumar and J. D. Watson, Quantum10, 1981 (2026)

    work page 1981

  10. [10]

    Bergamaschi, C.-F

    T. Bergamaschi, C.-F. Chen, and Y. Liu, in2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2024) pp. 1063–1085

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Lloyd, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    work page 1996

  12. [12]

    M. L. Baez, M. Goihl, J. Haferkamp, J. Bermejo-Vega, M. Gluza, and J. Eisert, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 26123 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Somma, G

    R. Somma, G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Physical Review A65, 042323 (2002)

    work page 2002

  14. [14]

    M. Knap, A. Kantian, T. Giamarchi, I. Bloch, M. D. Lukin, and E. Demler, Physical Review Letters111, 147205 (2013)

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Chiesa, F

    A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, M. Grossi, P. Santini, I. Taver- nelli, D. Gerace, and S. Carretta, Nature Physics15, 455 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Roggero and J

    A. Roggero and J. Carlson, Physical Review C100, 034610 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Francis, J

    A. Francis, J. Freericks, and A. F. Kemper, Physical Review B101, 014411 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Kosugi and Y.-i

    T. Kosugi and Y.-i. Matsushita, Physical Review A101, 012330 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Tacchino, A

    F. Tacchino, A. Chiesa, S. Carretta, and D. Gerace, Advanced Quantum Technologies3, 1900052 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    S. Endo, I. Kurata, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Physical Re- view Research2, 033281 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Libbi, J

    F. Libbi, J. Rizzo, F. Tacchino, N. Marzari, and I. Tav- ernelli, Physical Review Research4, 043038 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Altunta¸ s, R

    E. Altunta¸ s, R. Lena, S. Flannigan, A. Daley, and I. Spielman, Quantum Science and Technology10, 035045 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    K¨ okc¨ u, H

    E. K¨ okc¨ u, H. A. Labib, J. Freericks, and A. F. Kemper, Nature Communications15, 3881 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    J. D. Guimar˜ aes, J. Lim, M. I. Vasilevskiy, S. F. Huelga, 6 and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review Research7, 023130 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Yi and C

    C. Yi and C. Zhou, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.03288 (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2509.03288

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.03288 2025

  26. [26]

    E. Cruz, D. S. Wild, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review A112, 032610 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Piccinelli, F

    S. Piccinelli, F. Tacchino, I. Tavernelli, and G. Carleo, Quantum10, 2060 (2026)

    work page 2060

  28. [28]

    Kastner, P

    M. Kastner, P. Osterholz, and C. Gross, Physical Review A110, 013303 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    N. M. Eassa, J. Gibbs, Z. Holmes, A. Sornborger, L. Cin- cio, G. Hester, P. Kairys, M. Motta, J. Cohn, and A. Banerjee, Physical Review B110, 184414 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Bauer, V

    N. Bauer, V. Ale, P. Laurell, S. Huang, S. Watabe, D. A. Tennant, and G. Siopsis, Physical Review A111, 022442 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Vilchez-Estevez, R

    L. Vilchez-Estevez, R. A. Santos, S. Y. Wang, and F. M. Gambetta, Physical Review B112, 045143 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    J. Sun, L. Vilchez-Estevez, V. Vedral, A. T. Boothroyd, and M. Kim, Nature Communications16, 1403 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Y.-T. Lee, K. Kumaran, B. Pokharel, A. Scheie, C. L. Sarkis, D. A. Tennant, T. Humble, A. Schleife, A. Kan- dala, and A. Banerjee, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15608 (2026), 10.48550/arXiv.2603.15608

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15608 2026

  34. [34]

    H. Chen, M. Nusspickel, J. Tilly, and G. H. Booth, Phys- ical Review A104, 032405 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Huang, X

    K. Huang, X. Cai, H. Li, Z.-Y. Ge, R. Hou, H. Li, T. Liu, Y. Shi, C. Chen, D. Zheng,et al., The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters13, 9114 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Gyawali and M

    G. Gyawali and M. J. Lawler, Physical Review A105, 012413 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    C. K. Lee, S.-X. Zhang, C.-Y. Hsieh, S. Zhang, and L. Shi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05571 (2022), 10.48550/arXiv.2206.05571

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.05571 2022

  38. [38]

    P. W. Jensen, P. D. Johnson, and A. A. Kunitsa, Phys- ical Review A108, 022422 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Ciavarella, Physical Review D102, 094505 (2020)

    A. Ciavarella, Physical Review D102, 094505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    T. Keen, E. Dumitrescu, and Y. Wang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05731 (2021), 10.48550/arXiv.2112.05731

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.05731 2021

  41. [41]

    Mourigal, M

    M. Mourigal, M. Enderle, A. Kl¨ opperpieper, J.-S. Caux, A. Stunault, and H. M. Rønnow, Nature Physics9, 435 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Bethe, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik71, 205 (1931)

    H. Bethe, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik71, 205 (1931)

    work page 1931

  43. [43]

    Caux, Journal of Mathematical Physics50(2009), 10.1063/1.3216474

    J.-S. Caux, Journal of Mathematical Physics50(2009), 10.1063/1.3216474

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3216474 2009

  44. [44]

    Suzuki, Physics Letters A146, 319 (1990)

    M. Suzuki, Physics Letters A146, 319 (1990)

    work page 1990

  45. [45]

    Kato, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan5, 435 (1950)

    T. Kato, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan5, 435 (1950)

    work page 1950

  46. [46]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015002 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014), 10.48550/arXiv.1411.4028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1411.4028 2014

  48. [48]

    Benchmarking quantum simulation with neutron-scattering experiments

    Y.-T. Lee, K. Kumaran, B. Pokharel, A. Scheie, C. L. Sarkis, D. A. Tennant, T. Humble, A. Schleife, A. Kan- dala, and A. Banerjee, “Benchmarking quantum sim- ulation with neutron-scattering experiments,” (2026), arXiv:2603.15608 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    Marthaler, P

    M. Marthaler, P. Pinski, V. Rybkin, I. Schwenk, P. Stadler, and M. Walt, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15426 (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2506.15426

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.15426 2025

  50. [50]

    Khedri, P

    A. Khedri, P. Stadler, K. Bark, M. Lodi, R. Reiner, N. Vogt, M. Marthaler, and J. Lepp¨ akangas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18903 (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2404.18903

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.18903 2024

  51. [51]

    Seetharam, D

    K. Seetharam, D. Biswas, C. Noel, A. Risinger, D. Zhu, O. Katz, S. Chattopadhyay, M. Cetina, C. Monroe, E. Demler,et al., Science Advances9, eadh2594 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Towards quantum utility for NMR quantum simulation on a NISQ computer

    A. Burov, O. Nagl, and C. Javerzac-Galy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17548 (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2404.17548

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.17548 2024

  53. [53]

    Burov, J

    A. Burov, J. Baglio, and C. Javerzac- Galy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14513 (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2512.14513

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.14513 2025

  54. [54]

    Granet, S.-H

    E. Granet, S.-H. Lin, K. H´ emery, R. Haghshenas, P. Andres-Martinez, D. T. Stephen, A. Rans- ford, J. Arkinstall, M. Allman, P. Campora, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02125 (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02125

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02125 2025

  55. [55]

    C.-J. Lin, H. Gharibyan, and V. P. Su, Quantum10, 2014 (2026)

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    S. R. White, Physical Review Letters69, 2863 (1992)

    work page 1992

  57. [57]

    Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    work page 2011

  58. [58]

    Sch¨ on, E

    C. Sch¨ on, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, Physical Review Letters95, 110503 (2005)

    work page 2005

  59. [59]

    Ran, Physical Review A101, 032310 (2020)

    S.-J. Ran, Physical Review A101, 032310 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    M. S. Rudolph, J. Chen, J. Miller, A. Acharya, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, Quantum Science and Technology9, 015012 (2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    D. Malz, G. Styliaris, Z.-Y. Wei, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review Letters132, 040404 (2024)

    work page 2024