Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Quantum Simulation of Nuclear Shell Model Using GCM-Based Methods on NISQ Devices

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that QuGCM and ADAPT-GCIM — parameter-free hybrid quantum-classical eigensolvers built on the Generator Coordinate Method — reproduce exact nuclear spectra for the deuteron, 38Ar, and 6Li, even under simulated noise, and t

desk verdict Useful encoding benchmarks for nuclear shell models, but the paper's NISQ eigensolver claim is undercut by the no-CNOT classical evaluation in Appendix D; the theta-independence proof only covers the two-state deuteron. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01769 v1 pith:3U7ESFTR submitted 2026-08-03 nucl-th quant-ph

Durgesh Pandey , Ashutosh Singh , Ankit Kumar Das , P. Arumugam This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thquant-ph
keywords generatorcoordinatemethodquantumsimulationnuclearshellmodelADAPT-GCIMQuGCMGraycodeencodingNISQdevicesHill-Wheelerequation
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

The paper claims that two non-variational hybrid quantum-classical eigensolvers, QuGCM and ADAPT-GCIM, can compute low-lying nuclear energy spectra as accurately as exact diagonalization without running any parameter-optimization loop. Instead of fitting an ansatz, they build a small non-orthogonal basis by applying fixed unitary generators — exponentials of anti-Hermitian combinations of UCCSD single and double excitations, with all angles set to π/4 — onto a Hartree-Fock reference, measure the overlap and Hamiltonian kernels on a quantum computer, and solve the resulting Hill-Wheeler generalized eigenvalue problem classically. Applied to the deuteron (Reid68), 38Ar (USDB), and 6Li (Cohen-Kurath), both methods match exact eigenvalues in noiseless simulation and stay close under a device-mimicking noise model, with ADAPT-GCIM needing only a fraction of the generator states. A second claim is that Gray-code encoding compresses the fermion-to-qubit mapping (6-qubit JW to 3-qubit GC for the 38Ar 0+ ground state), cutting Pauli terms and circuit count by roughly an order of magnitude and reducing noise sensitivity — which matters because current hardware limits circuit depth.

What carries the argument

Three pieces carry the argument. (1) The Hill-Wheeler generalized eigenvalue equation Hψ = ENψ: overlap and Hamiltonian kernels between generator states are measured on quantum circuits and the result is solved classically. (2) Generator operators G_i = e^{π/4(T_i − T_i†)} formed from anti-Hermitian combinations of UCCSD single and double excitations; fixing θ = π/4 makes the method parameter-free, relying on the claim that the spectrum is θ-independent. (3) Gray-code encoding, which reorders the fermionic subspace so neighboring Slater determinants differ by one bit flip — compressing JW registers (6 to 3 qubits for 38Ar 0+), turning a non-local three-qubit JW excitation into a one-qubit Pa

What would settle it

Run QuGCM on the 38Ar 0+ and 2+ states using the double-excitation generators at θ = π/6 and θ = π/3 instead of π/4, keeping everything else fixed; if the eigenvalues shift beyond the noise bar, the parameter-free claim collapses and the π/4 choice is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims a quantum Generator Coordinate Method is a practical, parameter-free eigensolver for nuclear shell-model problems on NISQ devices. Generator states are HF determinants rotated by fixed operators G_i = e^{π/4(T_i − T_i†)}; the paper asserts the Hill-Wheeler spectrum is independent of that fixed angle, so no optimization loop is needed. For every tested level of the deuteron (Reid68), 38Ar (USDB), and 6Li (Cohen-Kurath), QuGCM and ADAPT-GCIM match exact diagonalization without noise and stay closer to exact energies than VQE and ADAPT-VQE under device noise. ADAPT-GCIM selects the largest-gradient operator per iteration and needs far fewer states (6 vs 15 for 38Ar 0+; 3 vs 8 u

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fixed generator angle θ = π/4 is inert — the paper asserts the Hill-Wheeler spectrum is the same for any non-singular θ, but demonstrates this only for the two-state deuteron, so multi-excitation generators could make the basis (and energies) depend on the chosen angle; a secondary premise is that counting sparse Pauli terms without CNOT gates is a faithful NISQ resource estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If QuGCM and ADAPT-GCIM stay accurate under realistic noise as claimed, nuclear structure calculations on NISQ hardware can bypass variational optimization entirely, removing barren-plateau and local-minimum failure modes that plague VQE.
  • ADAPT-GCIM converges with as few as 2–6 generator states for the tested levels, so the number of circuits and matrix elements scales with the selected subspace rather than the full Hilbert space.
  • The JW-to-GC compression (56,694 versus 2,126 Pauli-term circuits for the 38Ar ground-state kernels) means the same spectrum can be obtained with about 27 times fewer quantum measurements, which translates directly into noise tolerance on current devices.
  • Because QuGCM is the quantum analogue of a method classical computers cannot push beyond roughly 10^4 grid points, it offers a route to configuration spaces classical GCM cannot reach, provided the generator basis stays small.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's θ-independence is demonstrated only for the two-state deuteron, where the generator algebra is simple; for double-excitation generators, where T_i^2 need not vanish, the span of the basis could in principle change with θ. Recomputing 38Ar spectra with θ = π/6 and θ = π/3 would settle whether the π/4 choice is truly inert.
  • The resource comparison counts sparse Pauli terms and excludes CNOT gates, but the Trotterized circuits actually executed on hardware do contain CNOTs; a CNOT-depth-and-connectivity accounting would give a stricter GC-versus-JW comparison under noise.
  • A natural next probe is a nucleus with a genuine collective coordinate — quadrupole deformation or pairing amplitude — where classical GCM grids blow up exponentially; ADAPT-GCIM's gradient selection could be repurposed to discover the collective manifold itself rather than using a predefined grid.
  • The same non-orthogonal subspace expansion should transfer to other strongly correlated fermionic systems, but the fixed-π/4 generator construction would need re-validation beyond the three systems shown here.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid quantum-classical implementation of the Generator Coordinate Method (QuGCM) and its adaptive variant ADAPT-GCIM for nuclear shell-model problems. Generator states are formed by exponentiating anti-Hermitian combinations of single/double excitation operators at a fixed angle theta=pi/4, and the Hamiltonian and norm kernels are assembled and fed into the Hill-Wheeler generalized eigenvalue problem. The method is applied to the deuteron, 38Ar, and 6Li, with results compared to exact diagonalization and VQE-family baselines under noiseless and noisy (FakeBrisbane) simulators. Jordan-Wigner and Gray-code encodings are compared in terms of Pauli-term counts and circuit resources.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely problem: extracting low-lying nuclear shell-model spectra with near-term quantum algorithms. Its strengths are the use of a well-established generalized-eigenvalue (Hill-Wheeler) formalism, explicit exact-diagonalization benchmarks, and a detailed comparison of Jordan-Wigner and Gray-code encodings, including sparse-Pauli term counts. If the implementation were truly quantum, the parameter-free QuGCM/ADAPT-GCIM scheme would be a useful complement to VQE. However, the no-CNOT, computational-basis evaluation described in Appendix D makes the reported kernels classically computable, so the central NISQ claim is not currently supported; the paper's present value is mainly as a classical GCM benchmark and a proposal for future circuit-level implementation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix D and Sec. III A, Eqs. (19)-(20)] The kernel evaluation described in Appendix D is classically simulable. Appendix D states that G_i is converted to sparse-Pauli form and has no CNOT gates, and that each H_ij/N_ij is measured on the computational-basis HF reference (X gates only). On a computational-basis input every Pauli expectation value is 0 or ±1, so H and N are obtained by summing Pauli coefficients classically. This removes the support for the abstract's claim of a practical NISQ eigensolver. If the Trotterized circuits are actually executed instead, the no-CNOT counts and the factor-27 circuit reduction are invalid because PauliEvolutionGate Trotterization requires CNOTs. Please provide circuit-level results and counts, and state clearly whether any entangling circuit was used.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Tables III and VI] The noiseless results are not uniformly in agreement with exact diagonalization. Table III (JW) gives 1+ QuGCM/ADAPT-GCIM = -149.2677 MeV versus exact -149.104 MeV; Table VI gives 6Li 0+ = -3.332 MeV versus exact -3.910 MeV (error 0.578 MeV) and 1+2 = -1.311 MeV versus -1.273 MeV. The text below Tables III/V states 'both QuGCM and ADAPT-GCIM reproduce the exact diagonalization energies,' and the abstract claims agreement. Please report a systematic error table and discuss the incompleteness of the fixed generator basis for these levels.
  3. [Sec. III C and Appendix A] Theta-independence is not established for the actual generator operators. Appendix A demonstrates only the two-state deuteron. For operators of the form in Eq. (29), T_i is a sum of two single excitations and T_i^2 need not vanish, so G_i(theta)|phi0> need not live in a two-dimensional subspace; the generalized eigenvalues can then depend on theta. The assertion that any non-singular theta gives the same spectrum requires a proof or numerical theta-sweep for 38Ar and 6Li. As written, the fixed theta=pi/4 is an unremoved free parameter, undermining the 'parameter-free' claim.
  4. [Sec. IV B] The paper states that the second 0+ and 2+ levels are 'accessed using the VQD algorithm,' but it never defines how VQD is combined with QuGCM/ADAPT-GCIM or how the GCM kernels for excited states are computed. Because the spectrum claim includes these states, the absence of a protocol makes the excited-state entries in Tables III and V non-reproducible. Please specify the VQD-GCM workflow (e.g., penalty terms or overlap constraints) or remove the VQD reference.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix D] The sentence 'the number of quantum circuits for GC is approximately 27 times that for JW' contradicts the stated totals (2126 for GC vs 56694 for JW); it should say the JW count is about 27 times the GC count. Also, 'too few' should be 'fewer.'
  2. [Appendix A] The text says 'non-singular norm matrix N ... makes it unsolvable'; the intended word is 'singular.'
  3. [Eq. (29)] The operator written as T_{ab}^{ij} = theta_ai a_a^dagger a_i + theta_bj a_b^dagger a_j is a sum of two single excitations, not a conventional double excitation operator. Please clarify whether this is intentional or correct the formula.
  4. [Fig. 8] The noiseless 6Li legend lists E(0+) = -2.340 MeV and E(2+2) = 0.947 MeV, which disagree with Table VI values (-3.332 MeV and 0.632 MeV). The convergence plot and table should be made consistent.
  5. [Sec. III C] The sentence 'the resulting wavefunction for a non-orthogonal basis remains independent of the parameters' is confusing; it should refer to eigenvalues of the generalized problem, not the wavefunction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QuGCM/ADAPT-GCIM spectra come from solving a generalized eigenvalue problem in a UCC-generated basis and are benchmarked against independent exact diagonalization; self-citations and the fixed pi/4 angle are not load-bearing.

full rationale

QuGCM defines generator states |ψ_i⟩ = G_i|φ0⟩ with G_i = exp(π/4(T_i−T_i†)), then computes H_ij = ⟨φ0|G_j†HG_i|φ0⟩ and N_ij = ⟨φ0|G_j†G_i|φ0⟩, and solves the Hill-Wheeler equation Hψ = ENψ. The reported energies are eigenvalues of this generalized problem; they are not used to define the basis, and no parameter is optimized to reproduce them. The independent benchmarks are exact diagonalizations (the deuteron value from Ref. [27] and shell-model diagonalizations for 38Ar and 6Li). The VQE/ADAPT-VQE comparison values taken from the authors' own Refs. [27,81] are additional baselines, not inputs to the GCM calculation; removing them would not change the QuGCM eigenvalues. The fixed θ=π/4 is an arbitrary constant, and the paper's claim of θ-independence is demonstrated only for the two-state deuteron in Appendix A; if that claim fails for larger multi-excitation spaces, the basis construction rests on an unverified ansatz. That is a correctness/robustness gap, not a circularity: the energies are not defined in terms of π/4, and the quoted spectra are not a re-description of that angle. Appendix D's sparse-Pauli, no-CNOT evaluation on a computational-basis reference shows that the matrix-element evaluation is classically contractible, which undermines the NISQ-resource and noise-resilience claims, but it does not make the generalized eigenvalues equal to the input Pauli coefficients by construction; it is an implementation/resource-fidelity concern rather than a circular derivation. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, with only mild non-load-bearing self-reference.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main burden is the expressibility of the UCC-generated basis and the unproven theta independence. No physical entities are invented; the noise-robustness claim carries a hardware-model assumption. The pi/4 angle is a hand-chosen parameter despite the paper calling the method parameter-free.

free parameters (1)
  • Generator angle theta = pi/4
    Fixed uniformly for all G_i in Eq. (31). The paper claims theta independence, but Appendix A only tests the two-state deuteron; for operators built from multiple excitations the generated subspace can in principle depend on theta, so this is an arbitrary construction parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The UCCSD-generated non-orthogonal basis spans a subspace containing accurate low-lying eigenstates for the tested nuclei.
    The method solves Eq. (6) in this subspace; if the subspace is deficient, the reported spectra are not guaranteed. This is invoked throughout Secs. III and IV.
  • standard math Hill-Wheeler generalized eigensolution H psi = E N psi gives physical energies when N is nonsingular.
    Used in Eq. (6) and in every numerical solve.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed generator angle theta = pi/4 is irrelevant to the final spectrum.
    Stated in Sec. III C and Appendix A, but only explicitly demonstrated for the two-state deuteron; no general proof is given.
  • domain assumption FakeBrisbane noise simulations represent current NISQ hardware behavior.
    Used to support the robustness-under-noise claims in Sec. IV; no real-device data are presented.
  • standard math Gray-code encoding preserves the relevant fermionic algebra for the shell-model spaces.
    The mapping is taken from Refs. [27,80,81] and used for 38Ar and 6Li.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Simulation of Nuclear Shell Model Using GCM-Based Methods on NISQ Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3U7ESFTR

@misc{pith2026260801769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Simulation of Nuclear Shell Model Using GCM-Based Methods on NISQ Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3U7ESFTR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01769}
}
abstract

Based on the Generator Coordinate Method (GCM), we use a Quantum GCM (QuGCM) within a hybrid quantum-classical framework to simulate low-lying eigenstates of nuclear systems on quantum devices. The generator basis states are constructed from Hartree-Fock (HF) reference states, excited via symmetry-adapted unitary coupled-cluster (UCC) operators. These states are prepared as non-orthogonal quantum circuits and measured pairwise to compute the required overlap and Hamiltonian kernels. The resulting data is processed using a classical generalized-eigenvalue solver, following the GCM formalism, to extract the system's energy spectrum. To enhance efficiency and reduce circuit depth, we apply the Adaptive Generator Coordinate Inspired method (ADAPT-GCIM), which iteratively selects generator excitations based on energy gradients, thereby avoiding the need to explore the full Hilbert space. Our implementation is applied to nuclear systems, specifically the deuteron with the Reid68 potential and shell-model Hamiltonians of $^6$Li and $^{38}$Ar. For each system, both the QuGCM and ADAPT-GCIM methods produce energy spectra in agreement with classical diagonalization results, demonstrating robustness even under noise and limited-depth constraints. Additionally, we compare fermionic encoding strategies, specifically Jordan-Wigner (JW) transformations of one-hot (OH) encoding and Gray code (GC) mappings, and show that GC encoding reduces circuit complexity and improves fidelity during multi-reference state preparation. Our findings indicate that QuGCM and ADAPT-GCIM provide a practical and scalable path toward simulating correlated quantum systems, with lesser vulnerability to noise and better compatibility with the limitations of current quantum hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01769 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Flowchart of the hybrid QuGCM. A non-orthogonal basis is first constructed classically from a reference state. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Flowchart for an adaptive quantum algorithm ADAPT-GCIM that iteratively refines the basis set for the QuGCM. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic diagram showing all conversions from a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Convergence of the deuteron ground-state energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ground-state energy estimates for the deuteron sys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of energies of levels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of energies of levels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Variation of the deuteron ground-state energy with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The 12-qubit JW states are compressed into 4-qubit GC states as defined in Table XI

    V alence shell model space The 6Li nucleus is modeled using thep-shell valence space, mapping the Slater determinants of the active space onto qubit registers. The 12-qubit JW states are compressed into 4-qubit GC states as defined in Table XI. TABLE X. Hamiltonian terms for 38Ar (0 +) in the GC scheme. Pauli T erm Coefficient Pauli T erm Coefficient I−93...

  2. [2]

    TABLE XII: Hamiltonian coefficients and Pauli terms for 6Li (0+) in the GC scheme

    Hamiltonian for0 + state in GC The explicit Hamiltonian terms for the 6Li 0 + state under GC encoding are listed in TableXII. TABLE XII: Hamiltonian coefficients and Pauli terms for 6Li (0+) in the GC scheme. Pauli T erm Coeff. Pauli T erm Coeff. I0.242340 X3Z1 0.026711 Z3 −0.051668 Z1Z3 −0.351740 Z2 −0.351740 X1Z2 0.331685 Continued ... 19 TABLE XII: Ham...

  3. [3]

    Verriere and D

    M. Verriere and D. Regnier, The time-dependent gener- ator coordinate method in nuclear physics, Frontiers in Physics8, 10.3389/fphy.2020.00233 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    D. L. Hill and J. A. Wheeler, Nuclear constitution and the interpretation of fission phenomena, Phys. Rev.89, 1102 (1953)

    1953

  5. [5]

    Wa Wong, Generator-coordinate methods in nuclear physics, Physics Reports15, 283 (1975)

    C. Wa Wong, Generator-coordinate methods in nuclear physics, Physics Reports15, 283 (1975)

    1975

  6. [6]

    Uzawa, N

    K. Uzawa, N. Hinohara, and T. Nakatsukasa, Generator coordinate method with proton–neutron pairing fluctua- tions and magnetic properties of N = Z odd–odd nuclei, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2024, 053D02 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Chattopadhyay, R

    P. Chattopadhyay, R. M. Dreizler, M. Trsic, and M. Fink, Illustration of the generator coordinate method in terms of model problems, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei285, 7 (1978)

    1978

  8. [8]

    It therefore gives satisfactory values for noise as seen in Fig. 9. Due to significant exploration of reasonable subspace because of consecutive operators on the state, ADAPT-GCIM is more capable of getting close to more accurate values, as shown for higher energy levels 1+ and 0+ 2 in tables III and V. The results are more accurate and closer to the exac...

    2022

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Nerlo-Pomorska, K

    B. Nerlo-Pomorska, K. Pomorski, M. Brack, and E. Werner, Multipole moments of rare-earth nuclei in the generator coordinate method, Nuclear Physics A462, 252 (1987)

    1987

  2. [10]

    W¨ ust and A

    E. W¨ ust and A. Ansari, A microscopic study of the s band in the generator coordinate approach, Physics Letters B 161, 223 (1985)

    1985

  3. [11]

    Shimizu, T

    N. Shimizu, T. Mizusaki, K. Kaneko, and Y. Tsunoda, Generator-coordinate methods with symmetry-restored hartree-fock-bogoliubov wave functions for large-scale shell-model calculations, Phys. Rev. C103, 064302 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    Bender, P

    M. Bender, P. Heenen, and P. Reinhard, Self-consistent mean-field models for nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 121 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    J. J. Griffin and J. A. Wheeler, Collective motions in nu- clei by the method of generator coordinates, Phys. Rev. 108, 311 (1957)

    1957

  7. [15]

    Horiuchi, Generator coordinate treatment of com- posite particle reaction and molecule-like structures, Progress of Theoretical Physics43, 375 (1970)

    H. Horiuchi, Generator coordinate treatment of com- posite particle reaction and molecule-like structures, Progress of Theoretical Physics43, 375 (1970)

    1970

  8. [16]

    Krewald, R

    S. Krewald, R. Rosenfelder, J. Galonska, and A. Faessler, Selfconsistent generator coordinate method for giant monopole resonances, Nuclear Physics A269, 112 (1976)

    1976

  9. [17]

    Dancer, S

    H. Dancer, S. Perri` es, P. Bonche, H. Flocard, P. Heenen, J. Meyer, and M. Meyer, Generator coordinate method and superdeformation in A=190 nuclei, Nuclear Physics A654, 655c (1999)

    1999

  10. [18]

    Trsic, W

    M. Trsic, W. F. D. Angelotti, and F. A. Molfetta, The generator coordinate method for atomic and molecular systems: Revision and further developments, inA Trib- ute Volume in Honor of Professor Osvaldo Goscinski, Advances in Quantum Chemistry, Vol. 47 (Academic Press, 2004) pp...

    2004

  11. [19]

    F. E. Jorge, R. Centoducatte, and E. V. R. de Castro, Improved generator coordinate hartree–fock method for molecular systems: application to H 2, Li2 and LiH, The- oretical Chemistry Accounts103, 477 (2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    G. L. Malli and Y. Ishikawa, The generator coordinate dirac–fock method for open-shell atomic systems, The Journal of chemical physics109, 8759 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    Onishi and S

    N. Onishi and S. Yoshida, Generator coordinate method applied to nuclei in the transition region, Nuclear Physics 80, 367 (1966)

    1966

  14. [22]

    L. M. Robledo, Sign of the overlap of hartree-fock- bogoliubov wave functions, Phys. Rev. C79, 021302(R) (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

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

    1982

  16. [24]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  17. [25]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 21 P (JW) N =   56 94 88 62 94 94 62 88 94 144 144 152 128 144 144 94 93 272 176 240 280 208 280 232 224 290 250 344 352 384 88 272 88 176 272 280 17...

    2000

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. R. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M. Yung, X. 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

  21. [29]

    Singh, P

    A. Singh, P. Siwach, and P. Arumugam, Quantum sim- ulations of nuclear resonances with variational methods, Phys. Rev. C112, 024323 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Siwach and P

    P. Siwach and P. Arumugam, Quantum simulation of nu- clear hamiltonian with a generalized transformation for gray code encoding, Phys. Rev. C104, 034301 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Romero, R

    J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Strategies for quantum com- puting molecular energies using the unitary coupled clus- ter ansatz, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 014008 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Y. Shen, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Zhang, M. Yung, and K. Kim, Quantum implementation of the unitary cou- pled cluster for simulating molecular electronic structure, Phys. Rev. A95, 020501 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. C´ orcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitigation ex- tends the computational reach of a noisy quantum pro- cessor, Nature567, 491 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    J. I. Colless, V. V. Ramasesh, D. Dahlen, M. S. Blok, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. R. McClean, J. Carter, W. A. de Jong, and I. Siddiqi, Computation of molecular spec- tra on a quantum processor with an error-resilient algo- rithm, Phys. Rev. X8, 011021 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, U. Baek, B. O’Gorman, and K. B. Whaley, A non-orthogonal variational quantum eigen- solver, New Journal of Physics22, 073009 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Cao and et al., Quantum chemistry in the age of quan- tum computing, Chem

    Y. Cao and et al., Quantum chemistry in the age of quan- tum computing, Chem. Rev.119, 10856 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nat. Commun.10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    H. R. Grimsley, D. Claudino, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Is the trotterized uccsd ansatz chem- 22 ically well-defined?, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation16, 1 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Verteletskyi, T

    V. Verteletskyi, T. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, Measure- ment optimization in the variational quantum eigensolver using a minimum clique cover, J. Chem. Phys.152, 124114 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simula- tion of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Informa- tion5, 75 (2019)

    2019

  34. [43]

    Tilly and et al., The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices, Phys

    J. Tilly and et al., The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep.986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  35. [44]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv preprint (2014), arXiv:1411.4028

    2014 arXiv

  36. [45]

    S. Stein and et al., Eqc: ensembled quantum comput- ing for variational quantum algorithms, inProceedings of the 49th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture(ACM, 2022) pp. 59–71

    2022

  37. [46]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W. K. Mok, S. Sim, L. c. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  38. [47]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum compu- tation, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  39. [48]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational com- plexity of linear optics, inSTOC ’11: Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of com- puting(Association for Computing Machinery, 2011) pp. 333–342

    2011

  40. [49]

    Trabesinger, Quantum simulation, Nat

    A. Trabesinger, Quantum simulation, Nat. Phys.8, 263 (2012)

    2012

  41. [50]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  42. [51]

    Motta and et al., Determining eigenstates and ther- mal states on a quantum computer using quantum imag- inary time evolution, Nat

    M. Motta and et al., Determining eigenstates and ther- mal states on a quantum computer using quantum imag- inary time evolution, Nat. Phys.16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  43. [52]

    R. M. Parrish and P. L. McMahon, Quantum filter diagonalization: Quantum eigendecomposition without full quantum phase estimation, arXiv preprint (2019), arXiv:1909.08925

    2019 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Kyriienko, Quantum inverse iteration algorithm for programmable quantum simulators, npj Quantum Inf.6, 1 (2020)

    O. Kyriienko, Quantum inverse iteration algorithm for programmable quantum simulators, npj Quantum Inf.6, 1 (2020)

    2020

  45. [54]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Metal-insulator transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 1039 (1998)

    1998

  46. [55]

    R. J. Witzke, D. Hait, K. Chakarawet, M. Head-Gordon, and T. D. Tilley, Bimetallic mechanism for alkyne cy- clotrimerization with a two-coordinate fe precatalyst, ACS Catal.10, 7800 (2020)

    2020

  47. [56]

    C. A. Gould and et al., Ultrahard magnetism from mixed- valence dilanthanide complexes with metal-metal bond- ing, Science375, 198 (2022)

    2022

  48. [57]

    Shavitt and R

    I. Shavitt and R. Bartlett,Many-Body Methods in Chem- istry and Physics: MBPT and Coupled-Cluster The- ory, Cambridge Molecular Science (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2009)

    2009

  49. [58]

    Zheng, B

    M. Zheng, B. Peng, N. Wiebe, A. Li, X. Yang, and K. Kowalski, Quantum algorithms for generator coor- dinate methods, Physical Review Research5, 023200 (2023)

    2023

  50. [59]

    Zheng, B

    M. Zheng, B. Peng, A. Li, X. Yang, and K. Kowalski, Unleashed from constrained optimization: quantum com- puting for quantum chemistry employing generator coor- dinate inspired method, npj Quantum Information10, 127 (2024)

    2024

  51. [60]

    J. Yao, J. Meng, P. Ring, and D. Vretenar, Configuration mixing of angular-momentum-projected triaxial relativis- tic mean-field wave functions, Phys. Rev. C81, 044311 (2010)

    2010

  52. [61]

    J. L. Egido, State-of-the-art of beyond mean field theo- ries with nuclear density functionals, Physica Scripta91, 073003 (2016)

    2016

  53. [62]

    Hizawa, K

    N. Hizawa, K. Hagino, and K. Yoshida, Generator coor- dinate method with a conjugate momentum: Application to particle number projection, Phys. Rev. C103, 034313 (2021)

    2021

  54. [63]

    U. Baek, D. Hait, J. Shee, O. Leimkuhler, W. J. Hug- gins, T. F. Stetina, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley, Say no to optimization: A nonorthogonal quantum eigen- solver, PRX Quantum4, 030307 (2023)

    2023

  55. [64]

    M. R. Hirsbrunner and et al., Diagnosing local min- ima and accelerating convergence of variational quantum eigensolvers with quantum subspace techniques, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2404.06534

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Zhang, D

    J. Zhang, D. Lacroix, and Y. Beaujeault-Taudi` ere, Neutron-proton pairing correlations described on quan- tum computers, Phys. Rev. C110, 064320 (2024)

    2024

  57. [66]

    Zhang and D

    J. Zhang and D. Lacroix, Excited states from adapt-vqe convergence path in many-body problems: Application to nuclear pairing problem and h4 molecule dissociation, Physics Letters B869, 139841 (2025)

    2025

  58. [67]

    Q. Y. Luo, X. Zhang, L. H. Chen, and J. M. Yao, Emulating the generator coordinate method with ex- tended eigenvector continuation for the lipkin-meshkov- glick model, Phys. Rev. C110, 014309 (2024)

    2024

  59. [68]

    Beaujeault-Taudi` ere and D

    Y. Beaujeault-Taudi` ere and D. Lacroix, Solving the lip- kin model using quantum computers with two qubits only with a hybrid quantum-classical technique based on the generator coordinate method, Phys. Rev. C109, 024327 (2024)

    2024

  60. [69]

    Thouless, Stability conditions and nuclear rotations in the hartree-fock theory, Nuclear Physics21, 225 (1960)

    D. Thouless, Stability conditions and nuclear rotations in the hartree-fock theory, Nuclear Physics21, 225 (1960)

    1960

  61. [70]

    R. J. Bartlett and M. Musia l, Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 291 (2007)

    2007

  62. [71]

    A. F. Izmaylov, T. C. Yen, R. A. Lang, and V. Vertelet- skyi, Unitary partitioning approach to the measurement problem in the variational quantum eigensolver method, J. Chem. Theory Comput.16, 190 (2019)

    2019

  63. [72]

    Paldus and J

    J. Paldus and J. ˇC´lˇ zzek, Stability conditions for the solu- tions of the hartree–fock equations for atomic and molec- ular systems. ii. simple open-shell case, The Journal of Chemical Physics52, 2919 (1970)

    1970

  64. [73]

    Paldus and B

    J. Paldus and B. Jeziorski, Clifford algebra and unitary group formulations of the many-electron problem, Theo- retica chimica acta73, 81 (1988)

    1988

  65. [74]

    Gray, Pulse code communication, United States Patent Number 2632058 (1953)

    F. Gray, Pulse code communication, United States Patent Number 2632058 (1953)

    1953

  66. [75]

    C. D. Batista and G. Ortiz, Generalized jordan-wigner transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 1082 (2001)

    2001

  67. [76]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 (1928). 23

    1928

  68. [77]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum com- putation, Ann. Phys.298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  69. [78]

    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

  70. [79]

    Fukutome, The group theoretical structure of fermion many-body systems arising from the canonical anticom- mutation relation

    H. Fukutome, The group theoretical structure of fermion many-body systems arising from the canonical anticom- mutation relation. i: Lie algebras of fermion operators and exact generator coordinate representations of state vectors, Progress of Theoretical Physics65, 809 (1981)

    1981

  71. [80]

    J. Lee, W. J. Huggins, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Wha- ley, Generalized unitary coupled cluster wave functions for quantum computation, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation15, 311 (2019)

    2019

  72. [81]

    Thouless, ed.,The Quantum Mechanics of Many-Body Systems, Pure and Applied Physics, Vol

    D. Thouless, ed.,The Quantum Mechanics of Many-Body Systems, Pure and Applied Physics, Vol. 11 (Elsevier,

  73. [82]

    Qiskit contributors, Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing (2023), qiskit version 0.45.0

    2023

  74. [83]

    Di Matteo, A

    O. Di Matteo, A. McCoy, P. Gysbers, T. Miyagi, R. M. Woloshyn, and P. Navr´ atil, Improving hamiltonian en- codings with the gray code, Phys. Rev. A103, 042405 (2021)

    2021

  75. [84]

    Singh, P

    N. Singh, P. Siwach, and P. Arumugam, Advancing quan- tum simulations of the nuclear shell model with gray- code–based resource-efficient protocols, Phys. Rev. C 112, 034320 (2025)

    2025

  76. [85]

    IBM Quantum, Fakebrisbane: Fake backend provider for qiskit runtime (2025)

    2025

  77. [86]

    R. V. Reid, Local phenomenological nucleon-nucleon po- tentials, Annals of Physics50, 411 (1968)

    1968

  78. [87]

    W. A. Richter, S. Mkhize, and B. A. Brown,sd-shell observables for the usda and usdb hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. C78, 064302 (2008)

    2008

  79. [88]

    Higgott, D

    O. Higgott, D. Wang, and S. Brierley, Variational Quan- tum Computation of Excited States, Quantum3, 156 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.