Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

QTurbo: A Robust and Efficient Compiler for Analog Quantum Simulation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that analog quantum simulation compilation can be decomposed into one linear system plus small local mixed systems, yielding hundreds-fold faster compilation and substantially shorter, more accurate pulses.

desk verdict A real compiler contribution with credible speedups; the 'robust' claim overreaches because the fixed-variable fallback can't remove scale-invariant Rydberg errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22958 v1 pith:3HFBOL37 submitted 2025-06-28 quant-ph

Junyu Zhou , Yuhao Liu , Shize Che , Anupam Mitra , Efekan Kökcü , Ermal Rrapaj , Costin Iancu , Gushu Li This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Ac
keywords analogquantumsimulationcompilationHamiltonianpulseschedulingmixedequationsystemdecompositionRydbergatomarraysHeisenbergmodelnoise-resilient
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

QTurbo addresses the bottleneck in analog quantum simulation compilation: the monolithic mixed continuous-binary equation system that prior compilers solve all at once. The paper's central claim is that this system has a hierarchical structure, so it can be split into a global linear system over synthesized variables, which are instruction amplitudes multiplied by evolution time, plus smaller localized mixed systems over the underlying hardware variables. On that decomposition the paper builds three optimizations: choosing the simulator evolution time from the slowest time-critical instruction, solving fixed hardware variables such as atom positions in local subsystems, and applying one round of iterative residual refinement. The reported payoff is roughly 600x (up to 1600x) faster compilation, 51% (up to 90%) shorter pulses, 72% (up to 100%) better compilation accuracy, and, on a real neutral-atom device, an average 51% (up to 94%) reduction in measured error. If correct, this makes analog simulation compilation fast enough for much larger systems and more noise-resilient in practice.

What carries the argument

The central object is the synthesized-variable substitution: for each Hamiltonian contribution, QTurbo defines a new variable $α_k = A_k T_{\mathrm{sim}}$, where $A_k$ is the relevant amplitude factor such as $C_6/(4|x_i-x_j|^6)$, $\Delta_i/2$, or $(\Omega_i/2)\cos\phi_i$. This substitution turns the global matching condition into a linear system in the $α_k$, and the remaining inversion back to amplitude variables splits along the connected components of a bipartite graph whose nodes are synthesized variables and amplitude variables. The evolution-time optimization uses the per-instruction time-critical variable, such as $\Omega_i$ or $\Delta_i$, to compute each instruction's shortest possible evolution time and selects the longest of these as the simulator evolution time. The accuracy-control step uses the residual equation $M_r \deltaα_r + M_c \deltaα_c = \delta B_{\mathrm{tar}}$ to adjust the runtime dynamic variables and reduce the $\ell^1$ error of the compiled schedule.

What would settle it

Compile a target Hamiltonian containing an interaction term whose required strength is larger than the hardware can produce at the closest allowed atom spacing, or whose sign the fixed geometry cannot realize; if QTurbo then fails to find a solution, violates hardware bounds, or produces a pulse whose relative $\ell^1$ error does not shrink as the evolution time is increased, the assumed fix by time extension is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the global mixed equation system used for analog compilation is not irreducibly mixed: when each Hamiltonian coefficient is expressed as a product of an amplitude variable and the evolution time, the resulting equations become linear in the synthesized variables, while the remaining nonlinear, discrete, or constrained relations decompose into independent local systems according to a dependency graph of the hardware variables. QTurbo therefore solves one global linear system, then solves each connected-component local mixed system separately, instead of solving one large mixed system. It then fixes the simulator evolution time as the maximum of the minimum times required by the time-critical dynamic variables, solves the runtime fixed variables at that time, and, if hardware constraints are violated, increases the evolution time until a feasible solution appears. A final refinement step adjusts the more flexible dynamic variables to reduce the residual error between the compiled and target evolutions. The concrete outcome is a pulse schedule that matches each Hamiltonian term of $H_{\mathrm{sim}} T_{\mathrm{sim}}$ to $H_{\mathrm{tar}} T_{\mathrm{tar}}$, with much shorter execution time and lower compilation error than the baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme assumes that once the shortest evolution time is fixed by the fastest achievable dynamic controls, the remaining fixed hardware variables such as atom positions can actually be placed to produce the required interaction strengths, and that if they cannot, simply lengthening the evolution time will eventually make them feasible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Compilation time no longer grows as steeply with system size, so benchmark Hamiltonians with roughly 100 qubits can be compiled instead of requiring hours or failing outright.
  • Generated pulses are substantially shorter, which should reduce the exposure of the quantum program to decoherence and other time-dependent noise on current devices.
  • Time-dependent target Hamiltonians can be compiled piecewise, with the evolution time of each segment stretched so that the fixed hardware variables remain feasible.
  • The decomposition works for both the Rydberg and Heisenberg instruction sets, so the approach is not tied to a single hardware platform.
  • In cases where the baseline compiler finds no solution, QTurbo still returns a schedule, making compilation more robust for hard-to-match Hamiltonians.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the dependency-graph decomposition is a general scheduling principle, so any simulator whose instruction expansion has sparse, separable support could benefit from the same linear-system-plus-local-systems split, even beyond the two instruction sets tested.
  • Editorial inference: the paper does not supply a feasibility condition for the runtime fixed variables; a natural testable extension is to pre-check whether the required interaction strengths lie within the achievable range of the fixed geometry and to add a fallback when no evolution time makes the system feasible.
  • Editorial inference: the one-round refinement could be iterated to convergence, and a simple experiment comparing compiled-pulse error after one versus several refinement rounds would test whether the reported accuracy gains saturate quickly.
  • Editorial inference: because QTurbo can compress a 20 microsecond target evolution into a pulse well under the device's maximum execution time, combining these shorter pulses with existing error-mitigation techniques may extend reliable analog simulation beyond current hardware limits.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. QTurbo is a compiler for analog quantum simulation that replaces the global mixed equation system used by the baseline SimuQ with a hierarchical decomposition: a global linear system over synthesized variables (e.g., products of interaction coefficients and evolution time) followed by smaller localized mixed equation systems over amplitude variables. The paper proposes determining an optimized evolution time from the bottleneck among runtime-dynamic variables, then solving the runtime-fixed variable systems (e.g., atom positions), with an incremental increase of the evolution time as a fallback when constraints are not met. An iterative refinement step is introduced to reduce the L1 error between simulated and target evolution. The evaluation reports large compilation speedups, shorter pulse durations, lower compilation errors, and improvements on QuEra's Aquila device compared with SimuQ.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the decomposition is a genuinely useful compiler technique for analog quantum simulation: it reduces a hard global mixed optimization problem to a linear system plus smaller local systems, it is free of fitted parameters, and it is compared against an external baseline on both simulated and real hardware. The explicit L1 error bound, while elementary, provides a useful accounting of error propagation. The main weakness is that the paper does not establish when the runtime-fixed variable systems are feasible, and the proposed fallback does not cure structural infeasibilities; this limits the generality of the 'robust' and 'ensures accuracy' claims. The benchmark results remain plausible for the tested cases, but the missing feasibility analysis is a load-bearing gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eq. (4)] The paper provides no feasibility condition for the localized mixed equation systems over runtime fixed variables, and the proposed fallback of incrementally increasing T_sim cannot resolve a structural infeasibility. For a target Hamiltonian with no next-nearest-neighbor ZZ term on a linear Rydberg chain, Eq. (4) requires alpha3 = 0, but alpha3 = C6/(4 |x3 - x1|^6) T_sim is strictly positive for any finite positions. Moreover, once alpha1 and alpha2 are pinned to the target values, the ratio alpha3/alpha1 = (|x1 - x2|/|x3 - x1|)^6 is invariant under rescaling T_sim, so increasing T_sim does not drive the spurious term to zero. The compiler can therefore silently return a pulse with a systematic, time-scale-invariant error. The manuscript should either prove a feasibility condition, add an explicit check that reports infeasibility, or otherwise characterize the residual error that remains when no exact solution exists.
  2. [Section 2.1.1 vs Sections 4.2 and 5.1] Section 2.1.1 states that the QuEra Aquila device currently allows only global control of Delta_i, Omega_i, and phi_i, but the worked example in Sections 4.2 and 5.1 solves for per-site values, such as Delta1 = Delta3 = 2.5 MHz and Delta2 = 5.0 MHz. If the backend is globally controlled, these values are not independently realizable; if the AAIS abstraction intentionally permits per-site controls, the real-device validation on Aquila must ensure that the compiled pulses satisfy the global-control constraint. As written, the relationship between the abstract AAIS and the actual hardware constraints is ambiguous, which undermines the claims of real-device applicability.
  3. [Sections 6.1 and 6.2] The error analysis in Theorem 1 and the refinement in Section 6.2 do not address the feasibility gap in the runtime-fixed variable systems. The refinement updates only the runtime-dynamic variables delta alpha_c, so it cannot correct an irreducible error in the fixed-variable synthesized coefficients alpha_r. Consequently, the reported compilation-accuracy improvements do not imply that the compiler attains zero residual error when the target Hamiltonian is not exactly realizable on the fixed hardware. The evaluation should distinguish cases where exact compilation is possible from those where the compiler returns a best-effort approximation, and it should report the residual error in the latter case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 7.2] The abstract reports 'around 600x (up to 1600x)' compilation speedup, while Section 7.2 reports 350x average on the Rydberg device and 800x average on the Heisenberg device; please reconcile these numbers or clarify the averaging procedure.
  2. [Table 2, PXP row] The displayed PXP Hamiltonian is written as an equality between two distinct expressions, which is incorrect; the PXP model should be defined with projectors, e.g., H = J * sum_i P_{i-1} X_i P_{i+1}, not by the equation shown.
  3. [Case 3 in Section 5.1] The sentence 'The result of given problem is phi = 0 and T = 1' should specify units and use T_sim for the evolution time, and it should state the constraint that the solution is the minimal T_sim.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states that SimuQ sometimes fails to produce a solution, resulting in missing data points; please state in the caption how the reported averages and speedups are computed when data points are missing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QTurbo's decomposition into a global linear system and localized mixed systems is a self-contained algebraic reformulation of the target condition, and the reported speedups, pulse shortening, and accuracy gains are measured against the external SimuQ baseline; the only self-citations are background references that carry no load-bearing argument.

full rationale

QTurbo's derivation chain is self-contained. The pipeline restates the target condition H_sim x T_sim = H_tar x T_tar (Eqs. 1-3, inherited from the external SimuQ framework) in synthesized variables alpha_i = A_i x T_sim (Eq. 4); the global linear system (Eq. 5) pins alpha exactly to the target areas B_tar, so no quantity is fitted and then renamed a prediction. The localized mixed systems invert the algebraic definitions alpha_i = C6/(4|x_i - x_j|^6) x T_sim and the Rabi/detuning relations, and the evolution time in Eq. (6) is the genuine minimum set by the hardware amplitude bottleneck; the refinement in Section 6.2 minimizes the same L1 residual that the accuracy metric (Eq. 9) measures, which is an honest report of the optimization objective, not circularity. All experimental comparisons use SimuQ [30] as baseline, with no author overlap, and the real-device results are checked against QuTiP/Bloqade simulations and theory. The overlapping citations ([25] Paulihedral, co-authored by G. Li, and [29], co-authored by E. Rrapaj) appear only in background and related-work passages and carry no load-bearing argument. The Section 5.2 fallback ('incrementally increasing the evolution time by Delta t and recalculating the solution until the constraints are satisfied') is asserted without a feasibility proof; the skeptic's scale-invariance argument shows it can fail for Rydberg next-nearest-neighbor couplings, so that is a soundness and generality gap and a correctness risk, but a failed guarantee is not an equation that reduces to its own input. No circular step can therefore be exhibited, and the normal non-circular finding of score 0-2 applies.

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

The central claim depends on the standard assumptions of analog compilation (AAIS completeness, proportionality of generators, piecewise-constant time slicing). The paper introduces no new physical entities and no free parameters fitted to data. The key structural assumptions are the existence of a 'time-critical variable' for each dynamic instruction and the feasibility of position solutions after time adjustment, both of which are stated but not formally proven.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The target Hamiltonian terms are all representable as linear combinations of the simulator's AAIS instruction terms.
    Eqs. (2) and (3) assume each target term B_i^tar H_i can be matched by a sum of simulator instruction amplitudes. If a target term is absent from the AAIS, the compilation cannot be exact.
  • domain assumption The simulator evolution matches the target evolution when the weighted Hamiltonian-time products are equal (H_sim * T_sim = H_tar * T_tar).
    Eq. (1) is the foundation of the compilation condition; it is exact when H_sim and H_tar are proportional but ignores any non-Markovian or higher-order corrections.
  • domain assumption Each instruction controlled by runtime dynamic variables has a single time-critical variable with a known maximum amplitude, and all such variables can be set independently.
    Section 5.1 uses this to compute the shortest evolution time per instruction; e.g., Delta_max and Omega_max are used, and no cross-constraints among detuning and Rabi parameters are considered.
  • ad hoc to paper The localized mixed equation systems for runtime fixed variables (e.g., atom positions) have a feasible solution after increasing T_sim, and the iterative increase in Section 5.2 terminates within hardware bounds.
    Section 5.2 states 'an iterative approach can be employed' without proving existence or termination. This is the main unproven premise for the generality of the method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QTurbo: A Robust and Efficient Compiler for Analog Quantum Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3HFBOL37

@misc{pith2026250622958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QTurbo: A Robust and Efficient Compiler for Analog Quantum Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3HFBOL37}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22958}
}
read the original abstract

Analog quantum simulation leverages native hardware dynamics to emulate complex quantum systems with great efficiency by bypassing the quantum circuit abstraction. However, conventional compilation methods for analog simulators are typically labor-intensive, prone to errors, and computationally demanding. This paper introduces QTurbo, a powerful analog quantum simulation compiler designed to significantly enhance compilation efficiency and optimize hardware execution time. By generating precise and noiseresilient pulse schedules, our approach ensures greater accuracy and reliability, outperforming the existing state-of-theart approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22958 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparision between the proposed QTurbo com￾piler and the baseline SimuQ [30] On the other hand, analog quantum simulation [4] has garnered increasing interest due to its ability to emulate the behavior of a target quantum system directly. Unlike the digital approach, analog quantum simulation bypasses the quantum circuit abstraction and directly exploits the na￾tive tunable Hamiltonian of the quantum hardware [39] … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Process of building the global linear system and local mixed system In the “Instructions” layer, a subset of the AAIS for a Ry￾dberg device is presented. The first two instructions corre￾spond to Van der Waals interactions between qubits 1 and 2, and qubits 2 and 3, respectively. They directly affects multiple Hamiltonian terms. For instance, the instruction: 𝐶6 |𝑥1 − 𝑥2 | 6 𝑛ˆ1𝑛ˆ2 = 𝐶6 |𝑥1 − 𝑥2 | 6 × 𝐼 − 𝑍1 − 𝑍2 + … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Compilation result comparision for Rydberg AAIS Heisenberg Device Ising chain Ising cycle Kitaev Heisenberg chain 317 51% 100% 312 52% 100% 1632 39% 100% 1010 49% 100% System Size QTurbo Baseline (SimuQ) Compilation Time ( ) Execution Time ( ) Relative Error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Compilation result comparision for Heisenberg AAIS Similarly, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Case study on mapping and time-dependent Hamil￾tonian optimized, exhibiting considerably shorter durations that enhance their robustness against noise. 7.3 Mapping and Time-Dependent Hamiltonian In the preceding section, we focused on evaluating the opti￾mization of th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Altland, B.D

    A. Altland, B.D. Simons, and B. Simons. 2006. Condensed Matter Field Theory. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511789984

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511789984 2006

  2. [2]

    Andersen, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Amir H

    Trond I. Andersen, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Amir H. Karamlou, Julia Berndtsson, Johannes Motruk, Aaron Szasz, Jonathan A. Gross, Alexan- der Schuckert, Tom Westerhout, Yaxing Zhang, Ebrahim Forati, Dario Rossi, Bryce Kobrin, Agustin Di Paolo, Andrey R. Klots, Ilya Drozdov, Vladislav D. Kurilovich, Andre Petukhov, Lev B. Ioffe, Andreas El- ben, Aniket Rath, V...

    2025

  3. [3]

    Adith Sai Aramthottil, Utso Bhattacharya, Daniel González-Cuadra, Maciej Lewenstein, Luca Barbiero, and Jakub Zakrzewski. 2022. Scar states in deconfined Z 2 lattice gauge theories. Physical Review B 106, 4 (2022), L041101. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2201.10260

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.10260 2022

  4. [4]

    Javier Argüello-Luengo, Alejandro González-Tudela, Tao Shi, Peter Zoller, and J Ignacio Cirac. 2019. Analogue quantum chemistry simula- tion. Nature 574, 7777 (2019), 215–218. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1614-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1614-4 2019

  5. [5]

    Barger, D

    V. Barger, D. Marfatia, and K. Whisnant. 2012. The Physics of Neutri- nos. Princeton University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id= qso8NEr3XY8C

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Lindsay Bassman Oftelie, Connor Powers, and Wibe A De Jong. 2022. Arqtic: A full-stack software package for simulating materials on quantum computers. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 3, 3 (2022), 1–17. doi:10.1145/3511715

    doi:10.1145/3511715 2022

  7. [7]

    Jwo-Sy Chen, Erik Nielsen, Matthew Ebert, Volkan Inlek, Kenneth Wright, Vandiver Chaplin, Andrii Maksymov, Eduardo Páez, Amrit Poudel, Peter Maunz, and John Gamble. 2024. Benchmarking a trapped- ion quantum computer with 30 qubits. Quantum 8 (2024), 1516. doi:10. 22331/q-2024-11-07-1516

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Andrew M Childs, Dmitri Maslov, Yunseong Nam, Neil J Ross, and Yuan Su. 2018. Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 38 (2018), 9456–9461. doi:10.1073/pnas.1801723115

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1801723115 2018

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Vincenzo Cirigliano, Srimoyee Sen, and Yukari Yamauchi. 2024. Neu- trino many-body flavor evolution: the full Hamiltonian. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2404.16690 arXiv:2404.16690 [hep-ph]

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bishop, Steven Heidel, Colm A

    Andrew Cross, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Thomas Alexander, Niel De Beau- drap, Lev S. Bishop, Steven Heidel, Colm A. Ryan, Prasahnt Sivarajah, John Smolin, Jay M. Gambetta, and Blake R. Johnson. 2022. OpenQASM 3: A broader and deeper quantum assembly language. ACM Transac- tions on Qu...

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Dag, Hanzhen Ma, P

    Ceren B. Dag, Hanzhen Ma, P. Myles Eugenio, Fang Fang, and Su- sanne F. Yelin. 2024. Emergent disorder and sub-ballistic dynamics in quantum simulations of the Ising model using Rydberg atom arrays. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.13643 arXiv:2411.13643 [quant-ph]

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin. 2022....

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Sepehr Ebadi, Tout T. Wang, Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Giulia Semeghini, Ahmed Omran, Dolev Bluvstein, Rhine Samajdar, Hannes Pichler, Wen Wei Ho, Soonwon Choi, Subir Sachdev, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuletić, and Mikhail D. Lukin. 2021. Quantum phases of matter on a 256-...

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. 2014. A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1411.4028 arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    2014 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Benedikt Fauseweh. 2024. Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges. Nature Communications 15, 1 (2024), 2123. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46402-9

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Richard P. Feynman. 1982. Simulating physics with computers. In- ternational Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 6 (01 Jun 1982), 467–488. doi:10.1007/BF02650179

    1982 doi

  9. [17]

    Iulia M Georgescu, Sahel Ashhab, and Franco Nori. 2014. Quantum simulation. Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 1 (2014), 153–185. doi: 10. 1103/RevModPhys.86.153

    2014

  10. [18]

    Harris, K

    Charles R. Harris, K. Jarrod Millman, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J. Smith, Robert Kern, Matti Picus, Stephan Hoyer, Marten H. van Kerkwijk, Matthew Brett, Allan Hal- dane, Jaime ...

    2020

  11. [19]

    2005.Finding Exponential Product Formulas of Higher Orders

    Naomichi Hatano and Masuo Suzuki. 2005.Finding Exponential Product Formulas of Higher Orders . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 37–68. doi: 10. 1007/11526216_2

    2005

  12. [20]

    IBM. 2025. Pulse schedules. https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/guides/ pulse (Accessed on 03/9/2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    IBM Quantum. 2021. https://quantum.ibm.com/

    2021

  14. [22]

    J Robert Johansson, Paul D Nation, and Franco Nori. 2012. QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Computer physics communications 183, 8 (2012), 1760–1772. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.02.021

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    Naoki Kanazawa, Daniel J Egger, Yael Ben-Haim, Helena Zhang, William E Shanks, Gadi Aleksandrowicz, and Christopher J Wood

  16. [24]

    Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang. 1952. Statistical theory of equa- tions of state and phase transitions. II. Lattice gas and Ising model. Physical Review 87, 3 (1952), 410. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.87.410

    1952 doi

  17. [25]

    Gushu Li, Anbang Wu, Yunong Shi, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. 2022. Paulihedral: a generalized block-wise compiler optimization framework for quantum simulation kernels. In Proceed- ings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Architectural Sup- port for Pr...

    2022

  18. [26]

    McQuarrie

    D.A. McQuarrie. 2008. Quantum Chemistry. University Science Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=zzxLTIljQB4C

    2008

  19. [27]

    Amey Meher, Yuan Liu, and Huiyang Zhou. 2024. Error Mitigation of Hamiltonian Simulations from an Analog-Based Compiler (SimuQ). In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 1. IEEE, 181–187. doi:10.1109/QCE60285.2024. 00031

    2024

  20. [28]

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. 2010. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press. doi: 10.1017/ CBO9780511976667

    2010

  21. [29]

    Patwardhan, Michael J

    Amol V. Patwardhan, Michael J. Cervia, Ermal Rrapaj, Pooja Siwach, and A. B. Balantekin. 2020. Many-Body Collective Neutrino Oscillations: Recent Developments. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 1–16. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8818-1_126-1

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Yuxiang Peng, Jacob Young, Pengyu Liu, and Xiaodi Wu. 2024. SimuQ: A framework for programming quantum hamiltonian simulation with analog compilation. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Lan- guages 8, POPL (2024), 2425–2455. doi:10.1145/3632923

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    QuEra. 2025. Bloqade: a Julia package for quantum computation and quantum dynamics based on neutral-atom architectures . https: //queracomputing.github.io/Bloqade.jl/dev/ (Accessed on 03/9/2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    P.W. Shor. 1994. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete loga- rithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foun- dations of Computer Science . IEEE, 124–134. doi: 10.1109/SFCS.1994. 365700

    1994 doi

  25. [33]

    Peter W. Shor. 1997. Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factor- ization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer. SIAM J. Comput. 26, 5 (Oct. 1997), 1484–1509. doi: 10.1137/s0097539795293172 13 Junyu Zhou, Yuhao Liu, Shize Che, Anupam Mitra, Efekan Kökcü, Ermal Rrapaj, ...

    1997 doi

  26. [34]

    Henrique Silvério, Sebastián Grijalva, Constantin Dalyac, Lucas Leclerc, Peter J Karalekas, Nathan Shammah, Mourad Beji, Louis-Paul Henry, and Loïc Henriet. 2022. Pulser: An open-source package for the design of pulse sequences in programmable neutral-atom arrays. Quantum 6 (2...

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Minoru Takahashi. 1971. One-dimensional Heisenberg model at finite temperature. Progress of Theoretical Physics 46, 2 (1971), 401–415. doi:10.1143/PTP.46.401

    1971 doi

  28. [36]

    CJ Turner, AA Michailidis, DA Abanin, Maksym Serbyn, and Z Papić

  29. [37]

    Ewout Van Den Berg and Kristan Temme. 2020. Circuit optimization of Hamiltonian simulation by simultaneous diagonalization of Pauli clusters. Quantum 4 (2020), 322. doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-12-322

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson, E...

    2020

  31. [39]

    Cantu, Florian Huber, Alexander Lukin, Fangli Liu, Phillip Weinberg, John Long, Sheng-Tao Wang, Nathan Gemelke, and Alexan- der Keesling

    Jonathan Wurtz, Alexei Bylinskii, Boris Braverman, Jesse Amato-Grill, Sergio H. Cantu, Florian Huber, Alexander Lukin, Fangli Liu, Phillip Weinberg, John Long, Sheng-Tao Wang, Nathan Gemelke, and Alexan- der Keesling. 2023. Aquila: QuEra’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum comput...

    2023 doi arXiv

  32. [2018]

    Physical Review B 98, 15 (2018), 155134

    Quantum scarred eigenstates in a Rydberg atom chain: Entan- glement, breakdown of thermalization, and stability to perturbations. Physical Review B 98, 15 (2018), 155134. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.98. 155134

    2018 doi

  33. [2023]

    Journal of Open Source Software 8, 84 (2023),

    Qiskit experiments: A python package to characterize and cali- brate quantum computers. Journal of Open Source Software 8, 84 (2023),

    2023

  34. [5329]

    doi:10.21105/joss.05329

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.