Code-space recovery for sample-based quantum diagonalization beyond native symmetry constraints

Byeongyong Park; Doyeol Ahn; Keunhong Jeong; Sanha Kang

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Code-space recovery for sample-based quantum diagonalization beyond native symmetry constraints

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Dual-rail code-space recovery lets sample-based quantum diagonalization repair noisy samples without native symmetries, beating raw unencoded supports on Ising models up to 36 spins.

desk verdict Clear methods result: dual-rail recovery beats a strong unencoded sample-support baseline on symmetry-free Ising models, with fair matched hardware design and ordinary near-term limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10227 v1 pith:MXXV2BPL submitted 2026-07-11 quant-ph

Byeongyong Park , Sanha Kang , Doyeol Ahn , Keunhong Jeong This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords sample-basedquantumdiagonalizationdual-railencodingcode-spacerecoveryIsingmodelKrylovprojectedsubspaceself-consistentSqDRIFT

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Sample-based quantum diagonalization builds a compact classical subspace from quantum measurement samples and diagonalizes the target operator there. Prior recovery of noisy samples leaned on native constraints such as particle-number symmetry, which many eigenvalue problems lack. This paper engineers a recovery constraint instead: each logical qubit is dual-rail encoded so that only weight-one physical pairs are valid, making code-space violations visible in the bitstrings. Invalid pairs are stochastically repaired with self-consistent reference vectors, decoded, and used for projected diagonalization. On transverse- and mixed-field Ising models with up to 36 sites—models with no particle-number-like U(1) symmetry—the recovered subspaces give lower projected Ritz energies than the full unencoded sample support, even at smaller basis sizes and despite roughly doubled qubit count and deeper circuits. The result is that recoverable structure can be designed into sampling rather than required of the target problem.

What carries the argument

Dual-rail code-space recovery: map each logical qubit as |0⟩→|01⟩ and |1⟩→|10⟩, implement sampling operations that intertwine with this encoding, then repair invalid pairs (00 or 11) stochastically using cluster-specific, self-consistently updated rail-occupation reference vectors before decoding and classical projected diagonalization.

What would settle it

On the same device, SqDRIFT protocol, and shot budget, if the encoded workflow’s lowest Ritz energy at target basis size 2.5 million were higher than the unencoded full-support Ritz energy on the reported 25- or 36-site Ising benchmarks, the central claim would be false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For Ising Hamiltonians without a native measurement-visible symmetry, dual-rail code-space recovery produces lower projected Ritz energies than direct diagonalization on the full unencoded sample support, even when the recovered logical basis is smaller than that support and the encoded circuits use more qubits and more two-qubit gates.

Load-bearing premise

Noise from the larger, deeper encoded circuits still leaves pair-violation patterns that self-consistent repair can turn into a better logical basis than the raw unencoded samples provide.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

SQD-style projected diagonalization can be aimed at general Hermitian eigenvalue problems whose low-lying states are sparse in a computational basis, not only chemistry Hamiltonians with particle-number symmetry.
Encoding overhead need not erase sample quality if the engineered pair constraint supplies enough repair information to improve the projected subspace.
Native constraints and engineered code-space constraints can be composed: repair dual-rail pairs first, then enforce a logical sector such as particle number.
Any sampling circuit whose operations admit encoded lifts that preserve the code space in the noiseless limit can feed the same recovery loop.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

On noisier devices or encodings, pair statistics may randomize faster than recovery can correct, erasing the subspace-quality advantage.
Other error-detecting codes with local, measurement-visible constraints could replace dual-rail if their encoded operations remain practical.
The residual gap to DMRG on the 36-site tests may close with denser Krylov sampling or larger shot budgets rather than only better recovery.
The work reframes simple encodings as classical post-processing aids for hybrid subspace methods, not only as quantum memories.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one thing to know is that this is a real empirical methods result, not a rebrand. They take dual-rail encoding—old hat as a code—and use it only as a sample-level recovery interface for SQD when the Hamiltonian has no particle-number-style U(1) to lean on. On TFIM/MFIM up to 36 sites, recovered logical subspaces give lower Ritz energies than the full unencoded sample support, often at smaller D_proj, even though the encoded circuits are deeper and use ~2× qubits (Tables 1–2, Figs. 2–4).

What is actually new is the packaging: encode the sampling circuit so pair violations are visible, repair with a self-consistent cluster-adaptive loop, decode, then Rayleigh–Ritz the original logical H. The comparison design is careful. Same logical SqDRIFT sequences, same shot budget, same GHZ support augmentation, and the unencoded baseline is the full observed support—so any subset would only raise the Ritz value. Fully valid encoded strings are rare (0.02–4.8%), so recovery is doing real work, not postselecting a free lunch. Energy-variance intercepts on the 25-site cases sit close to exact/DMRG, which is a useful consistency check.

Soft spots are ordinary, not load-bearing. Residual gaps remain on the 36-site runs; they do not claim a clean zero-variance extrapolation there. One device, one sampling family, fixed recovery hyperparameters, and code/data only on request. The paper does not show that engineered recovery beats native recovery when both exist, and it does not claim a general theory of when pair noise stays informative. Those are scope limits, not internal contradictions. The central claim as stated holds on the reported benchmarks.

This is for people already in the SQD / quantum-centric diagonalization lane who care about problems without native bitstring constraints. Math and citations look solid; dual-rail and SqDRIFT are properly sourced. I would send it to peer review. Worth a reading-group slot if your group is in hybrid sampling methods; otherwise a careful skim of Results + Methods is enough.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes code-space recovery for sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD): dual-rail encoding maps each logical qubit to a physical pair (|0⟩→|01⟩, |1⟩→|10⟩) so that Hamming-weight-one violations in noisy samples become detectable recovery signals. Encoded counterparts of logical sampling operations are implemented so that the pair constraint is preserved in the noiseless limit (Eqs. 1–4, 20–23). After sampling, invalid pairs are repaired by a self-consistent, cluster-adaptive stochastic procedure guided by reference vectors, decoded logical bitstrings span a projected subspace, and the original logical Hamiltonian is diagonalized. Benchmarks on 1D/2D TFIM and MFIM instances (n=25 and 36) use matched SqDRIFT logical sequences on IBM Heron r2. Across all five problems, recovered subspaces at D_tar ≤ 2.5×10^6 yield lower Ritz energies and smaller |E−E_ref| than the full unencoded sample-support baseline (Table 1, Figs. 2–4), despite roughly doubled qubits and higher transpiled depth/N2q (Table 2).

Significance. If the empirical advantage holds more broadly, the work supplies a concrete route to apply SQD-style recovery to eigenvalue problems that lack a native, measurement-visible constraint such as particle number. The matched logical SqDRIFT design, identical shot budgets, and Rayleigh–Ritz projection of the original logical Hamiltonian make the comparison fair and falsifiable; energy-variance intercepts for the 25-site cases agree closely with exact/DMRG references, strengthening the claim that the recovered subspaces track the target low-energy branch. The explicit resource trade-off (Table 2) and the demonstration that recovery can still win when fully valid encoded strings are rare (0.02–4.8 %) are useful contributions to the quantum-centric diagonalization literature.

major comments (2)

The central claim rests on a single sampling protocol (SqDRIFT with fixed K, Δt, M_seq) and one IBM Heron device. Section 2.2 and Methods 4.1 do not test whether the subspace-quality advantage survives under alternative samplers (e.g., different Krylov constructions or non-randomized circuits) or under substantially different noise. A short additional experiment or a clear statement that the advantage is protocol- and device-specific would make the scope of the claim precise.
For the 36-site stress tests (Fig. 4), residual gaps to DMRG remain large (≈0.22 and ≈0.17 at D_tar=2.5×10^6) and the manuscript reports that a controlled zero-variance extrapolation was not possible. The Discussion attributes this to sampling budget and 72-qubit noise exposure, but does not quantify how much of the residual is due to incomplete support versus residual recovery error. Clarifying this distinction (e.g., by comparing recovered support overlap with a classical high-quality basis when available) would strengthen the interpretation of the stress-test results.

minor comments (4)

Table 2 reports median (min–max) active qubits, depth, and N2q; a brief note on how routing/layout inflation of active qubits affects the encoded vs unencoded comparison would help readers interpret the overhead.
The modified-ReLU parameters (ρ,δ)=(1/2,0.01) and N_C=2 are fixed without a sensitivity check (Methods 4.2). A short remark or supplementary scan would reassure that the advantage is not finely tuned to these choices.
Fig. 1 is dense; labeling the six numbered stages more explicitly in the caption would improve readability for readers new to SQD recovery loops.
The Discussion correctly notes that engineered and native constraints can be complementary, but does not cite or discuss any prior dual-rail or pair-code use outside photonic QC; a sentence situating the recovery-only use of dual-rail would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claim is an empirical encoded-vs-unencoded comparison against independent hardware baselines and external exact/DMRG references.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is that dual-rail code-space recovery produces lower projected Ritz energies than matched unencoded sample-support diagonalization on Ising Hamiltonians lacking native U(1) constraints (Abstract; Table 1; Figs. 2–4). That comparison is not forced by definition: both workflows use the same logical SqDRIFT term sequences and shots; the unencoded baseline diagonalizes over the full observed logical support (plus known GHZ support); the encoded workflow recovers logical bases via the engineered pair constraint and then projects the original logical Hamiltonian. Rayleigh–Ritz is stated explicitly (Methods §4.2: λ_b^(t) ≥ λ_min(O) independently of how the basis was built), so reported energies remain variational upper bounds, not tautologies of the recovery map. Self-consistent reference updates from the current global-best Ritz state are iterative subspace refinement, not a self-definitional loop that equates input to output. Energy-variance intercepts are diagnostics only. Self-citations ([21] modified-ReLU scores; [22] cluster-adaptive partitioning) supply methodological choices and are not uniqueness theorems that forbid alternatives or force the Table 1 ranking. Dual-rail encoding and SqDRIFT are standard external constructions. The result is therefore self-contained against external classical references and an independent hardware baseline; no step reduces the central claim to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard quantum-information and numerical-linear-algebra background plus a handful of algorithmic design choices (encoding lift, recovery scoring rule, clustering, SqDRIFT parameters) that are fixed rather than derived. No new physical entities are postulated; the dual-rail code is a known encoding repurposed for sample recovery.

free parameters (5)

modified-ReLU recovery parameters (ρ, δ) = (1/2, 0.01)
Fixed to (1/2, 0.01) for all benchmarks following the SQD prescription; they control which rail is flipped when repairing invalid pairs and therefore affect the recovered basis.
number of recovery clusters N_C = 2
Set to 2 for all encoded runs; determines how many reference vectors guide stochastic repair.
carry-over threshold ε_carry = 10^{-3}
Logical basis states with |α| ≥ 10^{-3} are forced into the next iteration’s batches; chosen by hand.
qDRIFT sequence length M_seq and Krylov parameters = M_seq=75/100, K=4, Δt=1.0
M_seq = 75 or 100, K = 4, Δt = 1.0, M_R = 1000, M_S = 1024; these control the quality and diversity of the raw sample pool that recovery acts on.
target projected dimensions D_tar and batch count N_B = D_tar up to 2.5e6, N_B=10
D_tar grid and N_B = 10 are experimental design choices that define the reported subspace sizes and stochastic batch selection.

assumptions (4)

standard math Encoded operators A' satisfy A'V = V A so that ideal encoded circuits stay in the dual-rail code space and reproduce the logical sampling distribution after decoding.
Intertwining condition Eq. (4); standard encoding isometry property used throughout sampling-circuit construction.
standard math Rayleigh–Ritz: the lowest eigenvalue of the projected Hamiltonian is a variational upper bound on the true ground-state energy, independent of how the basis was obtained.
Invoked after every projected diagonalization; guarantees that lower Ritz values are meaningful improvements.
domain assumption Under ground-state concentration and sufficient Krylov sampling budget, important computational-basis states appear with non-negligible probability in at least one Krylov state (SqDRIFT/qDRIFT sampling assumption).
Stated in Methods §4.1; required for the sample pool to contain the support that recovery is supposed to reconstruct.
ad hoc to paper Noise-induced dual-rail pair violations remain partially structured so that reference-vector-guided repair improves logical support quality relative to unencoded samples.
Central empirical premise of the method; not guaranteed by the encoding alone and only tested on the reported Ising benchmarks.

invented entities (1)

code-space recovery workflow (dual-rail + self-consistent pair repair for SQD)
purpose: Supply an engineered, measurement-visible recovery constraint when the target Hamiltonian has no native symmetry usable at the sample level.
The dual-rail map is classical; the entity is the end-to-end recovery loop that turns pair violations into repaired logical bases for projected diagonalization.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Code-space recovery for sample-based quantum diagonalization beyond native symmetry constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXXV2BPL

@misc{pith2026260710227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Code-space recovery for sample-based quantum diagonalization beyond native symmetry constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXXV2BPL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10227}
}

abstract

Sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) diagonalizes a Hamiltonian in a compact subspace built from quantum samples, and its performance often relies on recovery procedures that exploit native constraints such as particle-number symmetry. For a broad class of eigenvalue problems, however, no analogous constraint is guaranteed, limiting the applicability of SQD-type recovery. Here, we introduce code-space recovery, which engineers recoverable structure through encoding rather than assuming it in the target problem. Using a dual-rail representation, each logical qubit is mapped to a physical pair, $|0\rangle \to |01\rangle$ and $|1\rangle \to |10\rangle$, making code-space violations in noisy samples detectable and repairable. We combine this encoding with self-consistent recovery and benchmark it on transverse- and mixed-field Ising models with up to 36 spin sites. Despite increased circuit overhead, code-space recovery yields lower projected Ritz energies than unencoded sample-support diagonalization even at smaller projected-basis dimensions, suggesting that engineered recoverable structure can extend SQD beyond native constraints.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

[1]

& van der Vorst, H.Templates for the solution of algebraic eigenvalue problems: a practical guide(SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2000)

Bai, Z., Demmel, J., Dongarra, J., Ruhe, A. & van der Vorst, H.Templates for the solution of algebraic eigenvalue problems: a practical guide(SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2000)

2000
[2]

Saad, Y.Numerical methods for large eigenvalue problems: revised edition(SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2011)

2011
[3]

Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L.Quantum computation and quantum information: 10th anniversary edition(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010). 17

2010
[4]

Abrams, D. S. & Lloyd, S. Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors.Physical Review Letters83, 5162 (1999)

1999
[5]

Cao, Y.et al.Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing.Chemical Reviews 119, 10856–10915 (2019)

2019
[6]

& Rebentrost, P

Lloyd, S., Mohseni, M. & Rebentrost, P. Quantum principal component analysis.Nature Physics10, 631–633 (2014)

2014
[7]

Biamonte, J.et al.Quantum machine learning.Nature549, 195–202 (2017)

2017
[8]

Kitaev, A. Y. Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem.arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026(1995)

arXiv 1995

Show all 43 references

[9]

& Mosca, M

Cleve, R., Ekert, A., Macchiavello, C. & Mosca, M. Quantum algorithms revisited.Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences454, 339–354 (1998)

1998
[10]

Peruzzo, A.et al.A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

2014
[11]

R., Romero, J., Babbush, R

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

2016
[12]

Cerezo, M.et al.Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics3, 625–644 (2021)

2021
[13]

Yoshioka, N.et al.Krylov diagonalization of large many-body Hamiltonians on a quantum processor.Nature Communications16, 5014 (2025)

2025
[14]

M., Wecker, D

Reiher, M., Wiebe, N., Svore, K. M., Wecker, D. & Troyer, M. Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 7555–7560 (2017)

2017
[15]

D.et al.Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via trotterization.Quantum4, 296 (2020)

Kivlichan, I. D.et al.Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via trotterization.Quantum4, 296 (2020)

2020
[16]

R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V

McClean, J. R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Babbush, R. & Neven, H. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature Communications9, 4812 (2018)

2018
[17]

Wang, S.et al.Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms.Nature Communications12, 6961 (2021)

2021
[18]

& Coles, P

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

2022
[19]

F.et al.Measurements as a roadblock to near-term practical quantum advantage in chemistry: Resource analysis.Physical Review Research4, 033154 (2022)

Gonthier, J. F.et al.Measurements as a roadblock to near-term practical quantum advantage in chemistry: Resource analysis.Physical Review Research4, 033154 (2022)

2022
[20]

Kanno, K.et al.Quantum-selected configuration interaction: Classical diagonalization of Hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers.Physical Review Research8, 023268 (2026)

2026
[21]

Robledo-Moreno, J.et al.Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercomputer.Science Advances11, eadu9991 (2025)

2025
[22]

Park, B.et al.Cluster-adaptive sample-based quantum diagonalization for strongly correlated systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.09346(2026). 18

2026 arXiv
[23]

Yu, J.et al.Quantum-centric algorithm for sample-based Krylov diagonalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09702(2025)

2025
[24]

Piccinelli, S.et al.Quantum chemistry with provable convergence via randomized sample- based Krylov quantum diagonalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02578(2025)

2025
[25]

& Motta, M

Barison, S., Robledo-Moreno, J. & Motta, M. Quantum-centric computation of molecular excited states with extended sample-based quantum diagonalization.Quantum Science and Technology10, 025034 (2025)

2025
[26]

J., Motta, M

Danilov, D., Robledo-Moreno, J., Sung, K. J., Motta, M. & Shee, J. Enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of sample-based quantum diagonalization with phaseless auxiliary- field quantum Monte Carlo.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation21, 11585– 11594 (2025)

2025
[27]

Shajan, A.et al.Toward quantum-centric simulations of extended molecules: Sample- based quantum diagonalization enhanced with density matrix embedding theory.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation21, 6801–6810 (2025)

2025
[28]

Patra, C.et al.Physics-informed generative machine learning for accelerated quantum- centric supercomputing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.06858(2025)

2025
[29]

Ronˇ cevi´ c, I.et al.A molecule with half-M¨ obius topology.Science392, eaea3321 (2026)

2026
[30]

M.et al.Crossing the 12,000-atom barrier with heterogeneous quantum- classical supercomputing: quantum chemistry of protein-ligand complexes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.01138(2026)

Merz Jr, K. M.et al.Crossing the 12,000-atom barrier with heterogeneous quantum- classical supercomputing: quantum chemistry of protein-ligand complexes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.01138(2026)

2026 arXiv
[31]

Chuang, I. L. & Yamamoto, Y. Simple quantum computer.Physical Review A52, 3489 (1995)

1995
[32]

& Milburn, G

Knill, E., Laflamme, R. & Milburn, G. J. A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics.Nature409, 46–52 (2001)

2001
[33]

Kok, P.et al.Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits.Reviews of Modern Physics79, 135–174 (2007)

2007
[34]

Random compiler for fast Hamiltonian simulation.Physical Review Letters 123, 070503 (2019)

Campbell, E. Random compiler for fast Hamiltonian simulation.Physical Review Letters 123, 070503 (2019)

2019
[35]

White, S. R. Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups.Physical Review Letters69, 2863 (1992)

1992
[36]

quimb: a python package for quantum information and many-body calculations

Gray, J. quimb: a python package for quantum information and many-body calculations. Journal of Open Source Software3, 819 (2018)

2018
[37]

& Imada, M

Kashima, T. & Imada, M. Path-integral renormalization group method for numerical study on ground states of strongly correlated electronic systems.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan70, 2287–2299 (2001)

2001
[38]

Javadi-Abhari, A.et al.Quantum computing with Qiskit.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810(2024)

2024 arXiv
[39]

& Lloyd, S

Viola, L. & Lloyd, S. Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems. Physical Review A58, 2733 (1998)

1998
[40]

D., Kang, H., Sundaresan, N

Nation, P. D., Kang, H., Sundaresan, N. & Gambetta, J. M. Scalable mitigation of measurement errors on quantum computers.PRX Quantum2, 040326 (2021). 19

2021
[41]

& Govaert, G

Nadif, M. & Govaert, G. Clustering for binary data and mixture models—choice of the model.Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis13, 269–278 (1997)

1997
[42]

& McCombs, J

Stathopoulos, A. & McCombs, J. R. PRIMME: preconditioned iterative multimethod eigensolver—methods and software description.ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS)37, 21:1–21:30 (2010)

2010
[43]

Morin, S.et al.StepMix: A Python package for pseudo-likelihood estimation of generalized mixture models with external variables.Journal of Statistical Software113, 1–39 (2025). 20

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

& van der Vorst, H.Templates for the solution of algebraic eigenvalue problems: a practical guide(SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2000)

Bai, Z., Demmel, J., Dongarra, J., Ruhe, A. & van der Vorst, H.Templates for the solution of algebraic eigenvalue problems: a practical guide(SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2000)

2000

[2] [2]

Saad, Y.Numerical methods for large eigenvalue problems: revised edition(SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2011)

2011

[3] [3]

Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L.Quantum computation and quantum information: 10th anniversary edition(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010). 17

2010

[4] [4]

Abrams, D. S. & Lloyd, S. Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors.Physical Review Letters83, 5162 (1999)

1999

[5] [5]

Cao, Y.et al.Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing.Chemical Reviews 119, 10856–10915 (2019)

2019

[6] [6]

& Rebentrost, P

Lloyd, S., Mohseni, M. & Rebentrost, P. Quantum principal component analysis.Nature Physics10, 631–633 (2014)

2014

[7] [7]

Biamonte, J.et al.Quantum machine learning.Nature549, 195–202 (2017)

2017

[8] [8]

Kitaev, A. Y. Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem.arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026(1995)

arXiv 1995