Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Training Quantum Dragons

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read NEGF electron transport for quantum-dragon nanodevices can be solved on quantum computers with only three to four physical qubits.

desk verdict Solid first quantum-NEGF circuit demo on toy dragons; T=1 under VQLS is mostly enforced by the ansatz, so judge it on overlaps and the mapping, not the headline transmission. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27168 v1 pith:4C6ZJAIH submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph

Muhammad Yusf , Bhola Devkota , Mark A. Novotny , Gautam Rupak This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumcomputingHHLvariationallinearsolverNEGFelectrontransportdragonnanodevicestight-bindingmodel
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

This paper shows that the standard NEGF method for nanoscale electron transport can be rewritten as a linear system whose solution carries the transmission and reflection amplitudes, making it runnable on quantum linear-algebra algorithms. The authors apply HHL and the variational quantum linear solver to quantum-dragon devices—nanodevices that transmit every electron in the conducting band even when the interior is disordered—and recover the perfect-transmission signature T(E)=1. After a similarity transformation that block-diagonalizes the system, the 2-site and 6-site dragons fit on compact circuits of three and four physical qubits. Ideal simulations, noise-aware simulations, and runs on an IBM processor are used to argue that the approach is already feasible on near-term hardware for VQLS and is the natural path for fault-tolerant HHL as devices improve. A sympathetic reader cares because NEGF is the workhorse of nanoelectronics design, and a quantum route could eventually reach disordered or correlated devices that classical solvers struggle with.

What carries the argument

A similarity transformation that block-diagonalizes the NEGF linear system, decoupling the perfectly transmitting dragon mode from null modes and sharply reducing the Pauli decomposition of the block-encoded matrix so the problem fits compact HHL and VQLS circuits.

What would settle it

Run unconstrained VQLS (no |r|²=|s|² forced on the ansatz) on the same 2-site dragon matrices and check whether the measured |s|² still equals 1 across the band and whether the full state overlaps the classical dragon solution above the noise floor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The first quantum-computer implementation of NEGF is obtained by recasting the scattering problem as a linear system solvable by HHL and VQLS; for quantum-dragon nanodevices in the single-band tight-binding model, those algorithms recover the perfect-transmission solution T(E)=1 on circuits of only three to four physical qubits, as shown in ideal and noise-aware simulations and on physical IBM hardware.

Load-bearing premise

That recovering T(E)=1 with the variational solver shows the linear system was solved, even though perfect transmission is built into the trial state by a hard constraint rather than left free for the optimizer to discover.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • VQLS is positioned as the practical near-term route for NEGF transport on NISQ processors, while HHL is the intended fault-tolerant successor once logical error rates fall.
  • The same block-diagonal dragon reduction can be reused for larger multi-slice devices that share graphene or carbon-nanotube connectivity.
  • Physics-aware ansätze that encode current conservation can keep the physical observable T(E)=1 even when wavefunction fidelity degrades near band edges.
  • Extensions to DNA molecular wires and full tight-binding nanotube junctions become the natural next targets once the qubit count and optimizer scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the dragon condition is an eigenvalue constraint that forces a zero mode, any quantum linear solver that preserves that kernel will automatically report T=1; the harder test is devices that are not dragons, where transmission is energy-dependent and cannot be hard-wired into the ansatz.
  • The extreme compactness (3–4 qubits) is bought by the dragon similarity transform; without it, general disordered NEGF matrices would need far more Pauli terms and deeper circuits, so the headline qubit counts do not automatically transfer to arbitrary nanodevices.
  • If unconstrained VQLS fails near band edges while constrained VQLS succeeds, the method is better read as a constrained variational search for dragon-compatible states than as a general NEGF inverter.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript recasts the NEGF scattering problem for single-band tight-binding nanodevices as a linear system A|x⟩=|b⟩ whose solution encodes reflection and transmission amplitudes, then applies HHL and VQLS to 2-site and 6-site quantum-dragon devices that are known to satisfy T(E)=1 across the lead band. A similarity transformation block-diagonalizes the system into an equivalent linear chain plus a null subspace, reducing the Pauli decomposition and mapping the problems onto 3–4 physical qubits. Ideal HHL statevector overlaps reach ~99% and ideal shot simulations recover T≈1; noisy HHL collapses; VQLS (with a |r|²=|s|² ansatz constraint) yields mid-band overlaps ≳90% on ibm_torino for the 2-site device and weaker ideal-simulation overlaps for the 6-site device.

Significance. If the claims hold under a clarified reading, this is a useful first demonstration that NEGF transport LSEs can be mapped to compact HHL/VQLS circuits, with an explicit similarity reduction that lowers Pauli weight. Ideal HHL fidelity and a limited hardware VQLS run on ibm_torino are concrete benchmarks. The work does not claim a complexity advantage for these tiny systems; its value is methodological (NEGF→LSE→quantum linear algebra) and as a pathway toward larger nanodevice Hamiltonians on future FT hardware. Strengths include the careful classical reformulation (Secs. II–III), the block-diagonalization that reduces L, and transparent reporting of noisy-HHL failure modes.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Section V.B] Sec. IV (after Eq. 50) and Sec. V.B: VQLS supplements CL(α) with the constraint |r|²=|s|² on the trial state, so T(E)=1 is recovered “by construction… regardless of the optimizer’s wavefunction fidelity.” The abstract and introduction frame the result as computing T(E) of quantum dragons. That framing overstates what VQLS demonstrates. The load-bearing evidence is wavefunction overlap with the classical solution (Figs. 12–14), not T(E). The manuscript should restate the VQLS claim around overlap/fidelity of |x⟩, treat T=1 as an imposed physical prior, and report unconstrained VQLS (or an ablation) so readers can separate ansatz bias from solver performance.
  2. [Section V.A, Fig. 10] Sec. V.A and discussion of Fig. 10: noisy HHL yields ΔHHL≈0.375 because decoherence flattens block-register probabilities to 1/8, which forces the ratio |xs|²/|xr|²=1 and thus T=1 trivially. Presenting noisy T(E)≈1 alongside ideal T(E) without equal emphasis that the observable is uninformative under that noise model weakens the “feasibility on physical processors” claim for HHL. Either omit noisy T as a success metric or state explicitly that only overlap (and structured probability vectors) are diagnostic.
  3. [Sections II.B–II.C, Eqs. (17), (26)] Secs. II.B–II.C, Eqs. (17), (26), (29): devices are constructed to satisfy the dragon eigenvalue conditions from prior work, so T(E)=1 is an input property, not a prediction. That is legitimate for benchmarking solvers, but the paper should say clearly that the algorithms are validated on instances with known closed-form structure (equivalent linear chain + null modes), not that they discover ballistic transport in disordered systems. Without that caveat, the “training quantum dragons” narrative reads stronger than the experiments support.
  4. [Section V.B–V.D, Figs. 12–14] Figs. 12–14 and Sec. V.D: VQLS overlap degrades sharply where the condition number κ of the reduced block is large (band edges), and the 6-site device (L=14, larger Hilbert space) shows substantially worse ideal overlap than the 2-site case. The comparison that “HHL is unaffected by κ while VQLS is not” is only supported in ideal simulation; noisy HHL is unusable. A revised discussion should quantify the κ window where VQLS is reliable, state optimizer budgets (Powell evaluations, shots) as limiting factors, and avoid implying a clean NISQ-vs-FT division beyond what the data show.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: “3 and 4 total physical qubits” is easy to misread; HHL uses additional clock and flag qubits (nc≈6–7 plus ancilla). Clarify system vs total qubits.
  2. [Section II.D, Eq. (36)] Eq. (36) and surrounding text: normalization constant c and the relation T=|xs|²/|xr|² under current conservation should be cross-checked against the block-encoded |x̃⟩ convention in Eq. (39) so readout formulas are unambiguous.
  3. [Table II] Table II: report the achieved CL values and whether termination was by budget or convergence; “Iterations” alone is hard to interpret.
  4. [Throughout] Typos/notation: “wavefucntion” (II.A); “V ARIA TIONAL” spacing in the Sec. IV heading; “ibmq torino” vs “ibm_torino” inconsistency; “QVLS” vs “VQLS” in Fig. 12 caption.
  5. [Section V.D] Related work: Yang et al. [53] is noted; a short explicit contrast (dragon vs general devices; constrained vs unconstrained cost) would help priority and scope.
  6. [Appendix B] Appendix B: t-tuning via expected 1/√3 probabilities is useful; state whether this protocol was used only in simulation or is proposed for hardware (cost).

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

VQLS recovers the headline observable T(E)=1 by an explicit ansatz constraint, not by unconstrained solution of the NEGF linear system; noisy HHL likewise yields T=1 from flattened probabilities.

  1. self definitional [Sec. IV (after Eq. 50) and Sec. V.B (discussion of Fig. 12)]
    "We supplement the local cost function CL(α) calculation by a physical constraint for perfect transmission |r|² = |s|² which requires the αr and the αs component of the trial state |α⟩ to have the same magnitude. ... Consequently and by construction, T(E) = 1 is recovered across the entire conducting bandwidth regardless of the optimizer’s wavefunction fidelity."

    T(E)=|s|² is the quantity the paper claims VQLS computes from the NEGF linear system. Enforcing |r|²=|s|² (and current conservation) directly on the variational ansatz makes T(E)=1 true for every accepted trial state by definition of the search manifold, independent of whether A|α⟩≈|b⟩. The paper acknowledges this (“by construction”) yet still presents VQLS hardware/simulation runs as computing dragon transmission.

  2. self definitional [Sec. V.A, discussion of noisy HHL and Fig. 10]
    "If one looks at the Psuccess for the noisy simulations, one sees that the success probabilities are much higher than the statevector estimates. The reason behind this is that the error model calculations results in many false positives for the |1⟩a flag qubit state leading to large success rates. Consequently, all the probabilities in the 8-component block qubit state are just random variables with equal probabilities of 1/8. ... At the same time, the noisy model will produce a perfect transmission T(E) = 1 since it is calculated from ratio of probabilities that are all exactly 1/8."

    Under the noise model the measured block-register probabilities are structureless (uniform 1/8). T(E) is defined as the ratio |xs|²/|xr|² (Eq. 47), which is then identically 1 for any such flat distribution. Reporting T(E)=1 from noisy HHL therefore does not evidence a correct solve of the LSE; it is forced by the definition of T from equal random probabilities.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. II.B–II.C, Eqs. (12)–(17), (25)–(30); citations [10, 29–32]]
    "Quantum dragon devices exhibit perfect transmission across the full conducting band regardless of internal disorder. ... The quantum dragon solution [10] for this device where the transmission coefficient T(E) = 1 ... is obtained with the following choice of device parameters: ... The quantum dragon condition [10, 29–31] for T(E) = 1 solution can be stated as an eigenvalue equation A v_dragon = 0."

    The devices under test are parameterized (β, tab, κj, dragon vectors) so that the classical NEGF LSE already has the exact solution T(E)=1 by the eigenvalue/inter-slice conditions of prior Novotny et al. work. The quantum algorithms are therefore scored on recovering a property that was built into the Hamiltonian choice. This is legitimate as a known-answer benchmark, but it means success on T(E) cannot be read as discovery or independent verification of transport physics; the load-bearing “perfect transmission” premise is imported from the authors’ own prior definitions.

full rationale

The paper’s strongest public claim is that HHL and VQLS “compute the transmission coefficient T(E)” of quantum-dragon nanodevices. For ideal HHL this is largely non-circular: the algorithm solves the block-encoded LSE and T is read from measured amplitudes, with wavefunction overlap as an independent check. Two load-bearing steps are circular. (1) Quantum dragons are chosen precisely because prior Novotny work already guarantees T(E)=1 via eigenvalue conditions on A and the inter-slice B matrices; the devices are a known-answer benchmark, not a prediction. (2) More seriously, Section IV supplements the VQLS local cost with the physical constraint |r|²=|s|² on the trial state, and Section V.B states explicitly that “by construction, T(E)=1 is recovered across the entire conducting bandwidth regardless of the optimizer’s wavefunction fidelity.” Thus the headline VQLS observable is enforced on the optimization manifold rather than inferred from solving A|x⟩=|b⟩. Noisy HHL similarly prints T=1 because decoherence flattens block-register probabilities to 1/8, making the ratio trivial. The only non-circular evidence is wavefunction overlap with the classical |x⟩, which the paper itself shows degrades with condition number κ and is weak for the 6-site device. Score 6 reflects one clear by-construction reduction of the central VQLS claim, while HHL ideal results and overlap metrics retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard NEGF/tight-binding scattering theory, published quantum-dragon eigenvalue conditions, standard HHL/VQLS algorithms, and several hand-chosen algorithmic and device parameters. No new physical entities are postulated. The load-bearing modeling choice is that single-band non-interacting dragons with the Novotny conditions are a fair first quantum-NEGF benchmark; the load-bearing algorithmic choice for VQLS is enforcing current conservation in the ansatz.

free parameters (4)
  • HHL evolution time t and clock qubits n_c (per energy) = e.g. t=0.3–0.664 eV^{-1}, n_c=6–7; s'=0.5 eV fixed
    Tuned per energy (Table I, App. B) so block-register probabilities match the expected dragon pattern (~1/3 each); not derived from a parameter-free rule when the spectrum is unknown.
  • Dragon angles β (and β_j) and hoppings t_ab, t_intra, κ_j = β=23°/72°/70°/50°; t_ab=1.9 eV; κ=0.1,-0.39 (examples in text/App. A)
    Free device parameters chosen to satisfy dragon conditions; specific values (β=23° or 72°, t_ab=1.9 eV, etc.) set the numerical instances.
  • VQLS optimizer budget and shots = 1000 shots; ≤150 (2-site) / ≤600 (6-site) cost evaluations
    Powell evaluations (up to 150 or 600) and 1000 shots per circuit are procedural choices that affect reported overlaps.
  • Lead parameters t_L, ε_L = t_L=2.7 eV, ε_L=-2.7 eV
    Fixed to SWCNT-motivated values; they set the conducting window and condition-number profile but are not fitted to quantum output.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Single-particle tight-binding NEGF scattering reduces to a finite LSE whose solution encodes r and s (and thus T=|s|² for identical leads).
    Sections I–II; standard mesoscopic transport (Datta et al.), non-interacting limit.
  • domain assumption Quantum dragon eigenvalue/inter-slice conditions imply T(E)=1 on the full lead band independent of internal disorder.
    Eqs. (12)–(17), (25)–(30); taken from Novotny and related prior work cited in the paper.
  • standard math HHL solves sparse well-conditioned Hermitian LSEs with runtime scaling in κ and log N under standard oracular assumptions; non-Hermitian A is handled by Hermitian dilation.
    Section III; Harrow–Hassidim–Lloyd and block encoding (39).
  • standard math VQLS local cost C_L vanishes iff A|α⟩ ∥ |b⟩ (up to the usual caveats on local vs global costs and barren plateaus).
    Section IV; Bravo-Prieto et al. formulation used as given.
  • ad hoc to paper Enforcing |r|²=|s|² on the VQLS trial state is an acceptable physical constraint that does not invalidate claims of solving the transport LSE.
    Section IV paragraph on supplementing C_L; makes T=1 automatic while overlap remains the fidelity metric.
  • domain assumption Noise model of Fake_Torino / ibm_torino and finite-shot sampling adequately represent near-term feasibility for these circuits.
    Sections V A–B; underpins the NISQ vs FT division of labor conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Training Quantum Dragons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4C6ZJAIH

@misc{pith2026260727168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Training Quantum Dragons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4C6ZJAIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27168}
}
abstract

The Non-Equilibrium Green's Function (NEGF) is the standard formalism for nano-scale electron transport. By recasting the NEGF scattering problem as a linear system of equations whose solution encodes the transmission and reflection amplitudes, we present the first quantum computerized implementation of NEGF. We apply both the Harrow--Hassidim--Lloyd and Variational Quantum Linear Solver algorithms to compute the transmission coefficient $T(E)$ of quantum dragon nanodevices within the single-band tight-binding model. Quantum dragon devices exhibit perfect transmission across the full conducting band regardless of internal disorder. The problem maps onto compact circuits of 3 and 4 total physical qubits for the 2-site and 6-site dragon devices, respectively. A similarity transformation block-diagonalizes the NEGF linear system reducing the Pauli decomposition of the block-encoded matrix. We demonstrate the feasibility of quantum computation by performing ideal and noise-aware simulations and computations on physical IBM quantum processor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27168 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A linear 2-site device [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. 2-site quantum dragon. Hopping parameters and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. 6-site quantum dragon. The 6 sites on the device are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Modular circuit for HHL. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The Hadamard test circuit for calculating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Circuit for a generic 2-qubit state as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Circuit for a generic 3-qubit state as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Exact statevector calculation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The (green) square data points statevector overlap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Success probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Results from VQLS computations on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Results from ideal and noisy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Results from ideal simulations for the 6-site device. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Visualization of the 2-site quantum dragon ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Visualization of the 6-site quantum dragon nanode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: We also include the same 4 sets of quenched [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Statevector calculation overlap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    statevector

    Schmidt decomposition in terms of new orthonormal basis|i⟩ A = P a Uai|a⟩,|i⟩ B = P b V ∗ bi|b⟩allows one to write |α⟩2-qubit = 1X i=0 λi|i⟩A ⊗ |i⟩B = (U⊗V ∗)(λ0|00⟩+λ 1|11⟩).(56) Then the desired 2-qubit state can be prepared from ini- tial state|00⟩=|0⟩ ⊗ |0⟩by first creating a superposi- tion state (λ 0|0⟩+λ 1|1⟩)⊗ |0⟩with the single rotation 11 Ry(2 c...

  2. [2]

    Brandbyge, J.-L

    M. Brandbyge, J.-L. Mozos, P. Ordej´ on, J. Taylor, and K. Stokbro, Density-functional method for nonequilib- rium electron transport, Phys. Rev. B65, 165401 (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    Similarly, for the 6-site device, we ex- pect 5 non-zero amplitudes of magnitude 1/ √

  4. [4]

    At the same time, the noisy model will produce a perfect transmissionT(E) = 1 since it is calculated from ratio of probabilities that are all exactly 1/8

    One then finds that ∆HHL ≡ |⟨ √ ˜x2| p x2 HHL⟩|2 = (3/ √ 24)2 ≈0.375 deterministically because the noise model produces the measured probabilities uniformly without any structure. At the same time, the noisy model will produce a perfect transmissionT(E) = 1 since it is calculated from ratio of probabilities that are all exactly 1/8. We observe that the ac...

    1963

  5. [5]

    As per the formulation of the 2-site state|˜x⟩in Eq. (39), mea- surement of the 8-dimensional block-qubit state in the HHL algorithm should return an 8-dimensional probabil- ity vector with the 5 th to 7 th component being ideally 1/3. Here we tunedtfrom measurements in ideal sim- ulations. On real quantum hardware, it would be an expensive exercise but a...

  6. [6]

    Thakur and N

    A. Thakur and N. Sarkar, A tutorial on the NEGF method for electron transport in devices and defective materials, Eur. Phys. J. B96, 113 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Datta,Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995)

    S. Datta,Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995)

    1995

  8. [8]

    C. H. Lewenkopf and E. R. Mucciolo, The recursive Green’s function method for graphene, J. Comput. Elec- tron.12, 203 (2013)

    2013

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum al- gorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Golze, M

    D. Golze, M. Dvorak, and P. Rinke, The GW com- pendium: A practical guide to theoretical photoemission spectroscopy, Front. Chem.7, 377 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozen- berg, Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions, Rev. 21 Mod. Phys.68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  4. [12]

    Stroeks, J

    M. Stroeks, J. Helsen, and B. Terhal, Solving free fermion problems on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 033335 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Bravo-Prieto, R

    C. Bravo-Prieto, R. LaRose, M. Cerezo, Y. Subasi, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational Quantum Linear Solver, Quantum7, 1188 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    M. A. Novotny, Energy-independent total quantum transmission of electrons through nanodevices with cor- related disorder, Phys. Rev. B90, 165103 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys.21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  8. [16]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferova, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum com- puting, Chem. Rev.119, 10856 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun.5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum- classical algorithms, New J. Phys.18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao,et al., The variational quan- tum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep.986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    M. Yusf, L. Gan, C. Moffat, and G. Rupak, Elastic scat- tering on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. C111, 034001 (2025), arXiv:2406.09231 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Aruteet al., Hartree-Fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, Science369, 1084 (2020)

    F. Aruteet al., Hartree-Fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, Science369, 1084 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shal- low parametrized quantum circuits, Nature Communica- tions12, 1791 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quan- tum materials science, Chem. Rev.120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    C. Cade, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, and S. Stanisic, Strategies for solving the Fermi-Hubbard model on near- term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. B102, 235122 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Frank, P

    S. Frank, P. Poncharal, Z. L. Wang, and W. A. de Heer, Carbon nanotube quantum resistors, Science280, 1744 (1998)

    1998

  20. [28]

    K. I. Bolotin, K. J. Sikes, Z. Jiang, M. Klima, G. Fuden- berg, J. Hone, P. Kim, and H. L. Stormer, Ultrahigh elec- tron mobility in suspended graphene, Solid State Com- mun.146, 351 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Javey, J

    A. Javey, J. Guo, Q. Wang, M. Lundstrom, and H. Dai, Ballistic carbon nanotube field-effect transistors, Nature 424, 654 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Trauzettel, D

    B. Trauzettel, D. V. Bulaev, D. Loss, and G. Burkard, Spin qubits in graphene quantum dots, Nature Phys.3, 192 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, The rise of graphene, Nature Mater.6, 183 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Assouline, L

    A. Assouline, L. Pugliese, H. Chakraborti, S. Lee, L. Bernabeu, M. Jo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. C. Glattli, N. Kumada, H.-S. Sim, F. D. Parmentier, and P. Roulleau, Emission and coherent control of Levitons in graphene, Science382, 1260 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Inkoom and M

    G. Inkoom and M. A. Novotny, Quantum dragon solu- tions for electron transport through nanostructures based on rectangular graphs, Journal of Physics Communica- tions2, 115019 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    M. A. Novotny and T. Novotn´ y, Order amidst disorder in 2D+3D quantum dragon composite nanodevices with varying breadth, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1740, 012002 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    M. A. Novotny, G. Inkoom, and T. Novotn´ y, Order amidst disorder for two-dimensional nanoribbons with various boundary conditions, Europhysics Letters143, 26005 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Novotny and T

    M. Novotny and T. Novotn´ y, Universal scaling of electron transmission for nearly ballistic and quantum dragon nanodevices, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals199, 116879 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Hamada, S.-i

    N. Hamada, S.-i. Sawada, and A. Oshiyama, New one- dimensional conductors: Graphitic microtubules, Physi- cal Review Letters68, 1579 (1992)

    1992

  31. [39]

    Nakada, M

    K. Nakada, M. Fujita, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dres- selhaus, Edge state in graphene ribbons: Nanometer size effect and edge shape dependence, Physical Review B54, 17954 (1996)

    1996

  32. [40]

    Reich, J

    S. Reich, J. Maultzsch, C. Thomsen, and P. Ordej´ on, Tight-binding description of graphene, Phys. Rev. B66, 035412 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Saito, M

    R. Saito, M. Fujita, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dressel- haus, Electronic structure of graphene tubules based on C60, Phys. Rev. B46, 1804 (1992)

    1992

  34. [42]

    Abraham, AduOffei, I

    H. Abraham, AduOffei, I. Y. Akhalwaya, G. Alek- sandrowicz, T. Alexander, and et al., Qiskit: An Open- source Framework for Quantum Computing (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Google Quantum AI, Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    IBM Quantum, IBM quantum development and in- novation roadmap,https://www.ibm.com/roadmaps/ quantum(2024), accessed: 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Bravyiet al., High-threshold and low-overhead fault- tolerant quantum memory, Nature627, 778 (2024)

    S. Bravyiet al., High-threshold and low-overhead fault- tolerant quantum memory, Nature627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Quantinuum, Quantinuum accelerated roadmap to fault-tolerant quantum computing,https: //www.quantinuum.com(2024), accessed: 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Porath, A

    D. Porath, A. Bezryadin, C. de Vries, and C. Dekker, Direct measurement of electrical transport through DNA molecules, Nature403, 635 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Guti´ errez, S

    R. Guti´ errez, S. Mandal, and G. Cuniberti, Dissipative effects in the electronic transport through DNA molecu- lar wires, Phys. Rev. B71, 235116 (2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

    Cuniberti, E

    G. Cuniberti, E. Maci´ a, A. Rodr ´ ıguez, and R. A. R¨ omer, Tight-binding modeling of charge migration in DNA devices, inCharge Migration in DNA: Perspec- tives from Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, edited by T. Chakraborty (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei- delberg, ...

    2007

  42. [50]

    Mohammad and M

    H. Mohammad and M. P. Anantram, Charge transport through DNA with energy-dependent decoherence, Phys. Rev. E108, 044403 (2023). 22

    2023

  43. [51]

    Aaronson, Read the fine print, Nat

    S. Aaronson, Read the fine print, Nat. Phys.11, 291 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    H. J. Morrell, A. Zaman, and H. Y. Wong, A step-by-step HHL algorithm walkthrough to enhance understanding of critical quantum computing concepts, IEEE Access11, 77117 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    M. J. D. Powell, An efficient method for finding the minimum of a function of several variables with- out calculating derivatives, The Computer Journal7, 155 (1964), https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article- pdf/7/2/155/959784/070155.pdf

    1964

  46. [54]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Po- lat, Y...

    2020

  47. [55]

    Suzuki, Y

    Y. Suzuki, Y. Kawase, Y. Masumura, Y. Hiraga, M. Nakadai, J. Chen, K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, R. Imai, S. Tamiya, T. Yamamoto, T. Yan, T. Kawakubo, Y. O. Nakagawa, Y. Ibe, Y. Zhang, H. Yamashita, H. Yoshimura, A. Hayashi, and K. Fujii, Qulacs: a fast and versatile quantum ci...

    2021

  48. [56]

    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, 174–189 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Yang and J

    Q. Yang and J. Guo, Variational quantum linear solver for simulating quantum transport in nanoscale semicon- ductor devices (2025), arXiv:2509.07005 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. E. Miroshnihenko, S. Flach, and Y. S. Kivshar, Fano resonances in nanoscale strucrtures, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2257 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.