Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

A photonic experiment extends a variational quantum linear solver to singular and modulo-2 linear systems.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 01:58 UTC pith:52VYPVQJ

load-bearing objection A plausible photonic VQLS demo for the complex field, but the modulo-2 cost function in Eq. (3) is internally inconsistent and the finite-field claim does not hold as written. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14477 v1 pith:52VYPVQJ submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph

A generalized variational quantum linear solver on photonic platform

Kang Gao , Zhao-An Wang , Ze-Guo Wang , Mao-Mao Huang , Hai Wei , Kai Wen This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords variational quantum linear solverphotonic quantum computingTikhonov regularizationsingular linear systemsfinite field F2modulo 2 arithmeticstabilizer codesNISQ algorithms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper's central claim is that the variational quantum linear solver (VQLS) works on real photonic hardware, not just in simulation. The authors solve four-dimensional linear equation systems Ax=b in three regimes: non-singular systems with a unique solution; singular systems with infinitely many or no solutions, handled by replacing A with A†A+δI (a regularization that removes the singularity, using δ=0.2); and binary systems over F₂, where all arithmetic is modulo 2 and the solution vector is constrained to be real with entries of equal magnitude. The results matter because linear solving is a core subroutine for many near-term quantum applications, and singular or finite-field cases are common in practice.

Core claim

The core discovery is that a four-dimensional VQLS can be experimentally validated on a photonic platform, and that its domain can be generalized beyond the textbook non-singular case. Concretely: (i) for non-singular A, the measured cost decreases toward zero and the trial state |x⟩ converges to the unique solution; (ii) for singular A, direct minimization can produce a cost near zero without a valid solution, but the same procedure applied to A'=A†A+δI yields an approximate solution that matches one of the true solutions when the system is consistent, and correctly fails to produce a verified solution when the system is inconsistent; (iii) for the finite field F₂, a row-wise sinusoidal cos

What carries the argument

The central object is the VQLS cost function Cost(θ)=f(⟨x|H|x⟩), built from H=A†(⟨b~|b~⟩I−|b⟩⟨b|)A and decomposed into Pauli-basis terms ⟨x|U_k|x⟩ that the photonic apparatus measures. For singular problems the load-bearing modification is Tikhonov regularization: replace A by A'=A†A+δI, then follow the same cost construction; the perturbation δ>0 removes the singularity and the algorithm checks the deviation D=||A|x~⟩−|b~⟩||² against a threshold to accept or reject the result. For the modulo-2 extension, the machinery is per-row Hamiltonians H_k=|a_k⟩⟨a_k| and the periodic cost J_k=sin²(π/2(γ√⟨x|H_k|x⟩+b~_k)), with penalty terms that force |x⟩ to be real with all nonzero entries equal in mo

Load-bearing premise

The experimental validation assumes the measured coincidence counts and waveplate-derived expectation values faithfully represent the ideal ⟨x|H|x⟩, with no unaccounted calibration offsets, background counts, or detector-efficiency errors; the paper reports no raw counts, no error bars, and no statistical uncertainties.

What would settle it

Re-run the same four-dimensional systems on the same optical setup while publishing raw coincidence counts, background subtraction, and per-point uncertainties; then compare each measured cost value to the red theoretical curve computed from the same θ. If the experimental points deviate by more than the counting statistics, or if another group cannot reproduce the convergence curves on an equivalent setup, the claimed experimental validation is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Photonic platforms can host a working VQLS with only a few waveplates and a single CNOT, indicating a low-resource route to near-term quantum linear algebra.
  • Tikhonov regularization transfers to the quantum variational setting: singular and inconsistent linear systems can be diagnosed and approximately solved by minimizing the regularized cost and then checking the deviation D.
  • The modulo-2 VQLS gives a way to test membership in a stabilizer group: the recovered binary vector indicates whether a Pauli operator lies in the group and how it factorizes into generators.
  • Because the modulo-2 cost function is designed to stop decreasing above zero when no solution exists, the solver signals non-solvability directly, without a separate regularization step.
  • The measured cost curves closely track theoretical predictions from the same waveplate angles, suggesting the optimization dynamics on real hardware follow the expected ideal behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same Tikhonov trick should transfer to other variational algorithms whose cost contains A†A — for instance, quantum least-squares or support-vector machines — by adding δI and tuning δ against device noise.
  • Editorial inference: the row-wise modulo-2 decomposition does not require A to be square (the paper notes the last columns may be discarded), so a natural next test is applying it to parity-check matrices of classical codes, where the solution vector would be a codeword or syndrome.
  • Editorial inference: if the convergence behavior is robust across different photon-counting statistics, the scheme should be portable to integrated programmable photonic circuits, where the waveplate angles become adjustable phase shifters.
  • Editorial inference: the stabilizer-code membership example is small; scaling to many-qubit stabilizers will require an ansatz that can express arbitrary binary vectors efficiently, which the paper does not address.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a photonic experimental implementation of a generalized variational quantum linear solver (VQLS) for 4-dimensional systems. In the complex field, the paper treats non-singular systems, singular systems with Tikhonov perturbation, and inconsistent systems, and proposes a threshold-based algorithmic workflow. It then extends VQLS to the finite field F2 by introducing a sinusoidal modulo-2 cost function with additional constraints on the solution vector and the global norm, and reports a successful experimental demonstration. The stated central claim is that these results validate VQLS on a photonic platform and demonstrate its practical potential, including applications to stabilizer-code membership problems.

Significance. If the claims were supported, the work would be a useful step: Tikhonov-type regularization for singular VQLS and a finite-field modulo-2 VQLS have genuine potential value, and a photonic demonstration would be a meaningful experimental contribution. The paper also correctly identifies that solving singular systems is relevant for practical applications, and the stabilizer-code interpretation in Sec. 4 is suggestive. However, the manuscript as written does not establish these claims: the central modulo-2 cost function is internally inconsistent, and the experimental section lacks the quantitative data needed to support an 'experimental validation'. The strengths of the paper are conceptual rather than demonstrated: the setup in Fig. 1 is plausible, and the row-wise Hamiltonian decomposition for F2 is a reasonable design idea, but no machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, raw data, or parameter-free derivations are provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (3)] The modulo-2 cost function is mathematically unsound as written. The text defines γ=|Γ|² and |x⟩ normalized, so at a true solution with r nonzero entries one has γ=r and each nonzero |x_i|=1/√r. For a row a_k with m nonzero entries, √⟨x|H_k|x⟩ = |a_k^T x| = m/√r. The argument of sin² is then (π/2)(r·m/√r + b̃_k) = (π/2)(m√r + b̃_k), which is not generally an integer multiple of π even when the modulo-2 condition m ≡ b̃_k (mod 2) holds. For example, r=2, m=2, b̃_k=0 gives arg = 2√2·π/2, so J_k does not vanish at the true solution. This is an internal inconsistency in the algorithm definition, not a numerical-precision issue. The intended expression appears to be √γ√⟨x|H_k|x⟩ = |Γ||a_k^T x| = m, which would make the sine argument an integer. The cost function must be corrected and the reported modulo-2 experiment repeated or re-analyzed with the corrected definition.
  2. [§3, Figs. 1–3] The central claim 'experimentally validate' is not quantitatively supported. No raw photon counts, integration times, detector-efficiency corrections, calibration data, or statistical uncertainties are reported anywhere in Sec. 3. The blue and red cost curves in Figs. 2 and 3 are shown without error bars, and the agreement between 'Experiment' and 'Theory' is asserted qualitatively. Moreover, the 'theoretical results from the same set of θ' is a consistency check, not an independent benchmark. The manuscript does not report the final cost values, the final solution vector entries, the deviation D=||A|x̃⟩−|b̃⟩||² for any case, or a fidelity between the reconstructed experimental state and the target state. Without these, a systematic calibration or state-preparation error cannot be excluded. The authors should provide raw coincidence-count data, propagated errors, and explicit final fidel
  3. [§2.1, Algorithm 1 and Fig. 2d–f] The Tikhonov-based branch of the algorithm is not established. The paper asserts that replacing A by A′=A†A+δI yields an approximate solution and that thresholds ζ1, ζ2 can certify 'infinitely many solutions' versus 'no solution', but no derivation, error bound, convergence result, or explicit threshold values are given. In the singular-consistent case (Fig. 2d), the regularized solution may depend on δ, yet the text does not justify the choice δ=0.2 or analyze how D changes with δ. In the inconsistent case (Figs. 2e–f), the cost reaches near zero in both the original and regularized systems, but the final state is not a solution; this is precisely the case where the algorithm's decision rule is needed, and the caption does not state what the algorithm returned. The algorithmic decision procedure is therefore under-specified. Provide either a proof/error bound or a systematic numerical s
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2)] The activation function f(·) is never specified, nor is the optimization hyperparameter schedule. The claim that f accelerates convergence cannot be checked without its explicit form.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (3)] The 'pit-shaped' function g(γ) and the rule for activating λ3 'after many iterations' are not defined. The constraints are central to the modulo-2 method, so explicit definitions and parameter values are needed.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The thresholds ζ1 and ζ2 are listed as inputs but no values are reported in the experiments. Please provide them along with the choice of δ.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical errors: 'Hill-conditioned' should likely be 'ill-conditioned'; 'It is adapt to' should be 'It is adapted to'; 'In Fig. 2a-b' should be 'Fig. 2a–b'; and 'renders H ill-conditioned' is unclear. Careful proofreading is needed.
  5. [References] The finite-field extension [37] is highly relevant but is not compared with the present approach. Please discuss the differences in cost-function design and theoretical guarantees.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the experimental benchmarks, cost definitions, and comparisons are self-contained.

full rationale

No circular step is found. The target linear systems (A, |b̃⟩) and their true solutions are externally specified benchmarks (Figs. 2–3 show known solutions as dotted lines), so the success criterion does not reduce to the algorithm's own outputs. The cost functions in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) are standard VQLS constructions whose minima are defined to correspond to the solution; that is algorithm design, not a derivation of the result from the result. The experimental 'validation' compares measured cost values with theory computed 'from the same set of θ' (figure captions) and, more importantly, shows the trial state trajectories converge to the independently known true entries. The same-θ comparison is a device consistency check, not a fitted parameter subsequently called a prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: all cited algorithmic ingredients (VQLS [26], modulo-2 VQLS [37], optical CNOT [38], Tikhonov [36]) are prior independent work, and no uniqueness theorem from the present authors is invoked. The only substantive concern is mathematical rather than circular: in Eq. (3), γ√⟨x|H_k|x⟩ is not generally an integer at the true solution (e.g., two nonzero solution entries and a row with two overlapping 1s gives 2√2), so the modulo-2 sine cost may not vanish as written; this is an internal correctness/typo issue (possibly intended √γ√⟨x|H_k|x⟩), not a circular reduction. Accordingly, no circularity is scored.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a large set of unspecified hyperparameters (δ, thresholds, λ weights, g(γ)) and on unproved convergence assumptions for the cost functions. No new physical entities are introduced. The experimental validation additionally assumes that the photonic apparatus measures the required expectation values accurately, which is not supported by error bars or raw data.

free parameters (5)
  • Tikhonov perturbation δ = 0.2 (in examples)
    Chosen by hand to regularize singular example systems; no systematic criterion or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Decision thresholds ζ1, ζ2 = not specified
    Used in Algorithm 1 to decide whether a solution exists; no values or selection procedure are reported.
  • Penalty weights λ1, λ2, λ3 = not specified
    Weights in the modulo-2 cost function (Eq. 3); values are not stated and no tuning procedure is described.
  • Pit-shaped function g(γ) = not specified
    Introduced in Eq. 3 to constrain γ to [1, dim(|x⟩)]; its explicit form is not given.
  • Optimization hyperparameters = not specified
    Adam learning rate, number of iterations, gradient evaluation details, and activation function f are not specified, though needed to reproduce the cost curves.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Standard VQLS cost function (Eq. 2) whose global minimum corresponds to the linear-system solution.
    Relies on prior VQLS theory; the paper does not prove that the classical optimizer reaches the global minimum.
  • standard math Tikhonov regularized solution of (A†A + δI)|x̃⟩ = A†|b̃⟩ approximates the original least-squares problem.
    Classical regularization result invoked in Section 2.1; assumed valid in the VQLS setting.
  • domain assumption The sinusoidal cost in Eq. 3 with integer γ and penalty constraints exactly encodes F2 arithmetic and solution membership.
    Asserted in Section 2.2 without a formal proof that the penalized global optimum corresponds exactly to a modulo-2 solution.
  • domain assumption Photon-counting coincidence measurements give unbiased estimates of ⟨x|U_k|x⟩.
    Required in Section 3 to compute the experimental cost; no calibration or statistical model is provided.
  • standard math Stabilizer membership maps Pauli products to binary vectors with multiplication as modulo-2 addition.
    Standard representation used in Section 4 for the stabilizer-code application discussion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10625 in / 13691 out tokens · 126650 ms · 2026-08-02T01:58:20.008908+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Based on a photonic computing platform, we experimentally validate a generalized variational quantum linear solver (VQLS) by systematically solving four-dimensional linear equation systems across different fields. In the complex field, in addition to solving non-singular systems that admit a unique solution, we investigate ill-conditioned problems arising from singularity--an issue frequently encountered in practical applications. To tackle these challenges, we introduce perturbation terms, a treatment inspired by Tikhonov regularization, and develop an algorithm capable of handling a wide range of systems. Furthermore, we extend the VQLS to the finite field F2 by redesigning the cost function to incorporate modulo 2 and imposing several constraints on the solution vector. This modulo 2 VQLS is inherently free from singularity. It is adapt to stabilizer coding theory and may find applications in areas such as decoders and the design of quantum gate sequences. Therefore, our work demonstrates the practical potential of VQLS in quantum computing, providing a solid experimental foundation and methodological guidance for its real-world applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14477 by Hai Wei, Kai Wen, Kang Gao, Mao-Mao Huang, Ze-Guo Wang, Zhao-An Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Experimental setup. Telecom-band photon pairs are generated and pass through a state preparation process including a CNOT gate and are subjected to coincidence measurement. The measurement results are analyzed and exploited to update the angles of waveplates enclosed in the blue frame. QWP: quarter waveplate, HWP: half waveplate, BD: beam displacer, PBS: polarization beam splitter, SNSPD: superconducting n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Demonstration of VQLS in complex field. a-b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Demonstration of Modulo 2 VQLS. Four Hamiltonians are introduced according to the rows of A and restrictions are imposed on the entries of |x˜⟩ via the Pauli measurements. The upper subplot is the optimiza￾tion process of the cost value. The blue and red points and lines represent experimental cost value and the theoreti￾cal results from the same set of θ. The lower two subplots exhibit the trajectories of… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Lmi techniques for optimization over polynomials in control: a survey.IEEE transactions on Automatic Control, 55(11):2500–2510, 2010

    Graziano Chesi. Lmi techniques for optimization over polynomials in control: a survey.IEEE transactions on Automatic Control, 55(11):2500–2510, 2010

    2010

  2. [2]

    Quantum machine learning.Nature, 549(7671):195– 202, 2017

    Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pancotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum machine learning.Nature, 549(7671):195– 202, 2017. 6

    2017

  3. [3]

    Duality quantum com- puter and the efficient quantum simulations.Quan- tum Information Processing, 15(3):1189–1212, 2016

    Shi-Jie Wei and Gui-Lu Long. Duality quantum com- puter and the efficient quantum simulations.Quan- tum Information Processing, 15(3):1189–1212, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Measuring holographic entan- glement entropy on a quantum simulator.npj Quan- tum Information, 5(1):30, 2019

    Keren Li, Muxin Han, Dongxue Qu, Zichang Huang, Guilu Long, Yidun Wan, Dawei Lu, Bei Zeng, and Raymond Laflamme. Measuring holographic entan- glement entropy on a quantum simulator.npj Quan- tum Information, 5(1):30, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Quantum gradient algorithm for general polynomials.Physical Review A, 103(4):042403, 2021

    Pan Gao, Keren Li, Shijie Wei, Jiancun Gao, and Guilu Long. Quantum gradient algorithm for general polynomials.Physical Review A, 103(4):042403, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Quan- tum gradient descent and newton’s method for con- strained polynomial optimization.New Journal of Physics, 21(7):073023, 2019

    Patrick Rebentrost, Maria Schuld, Leonard Woss- nig, Francesco Petruccione, and Seth Lloyd. Quan- tum gradient descent and newton’s method for con- strained polynomial optimization.New Journal of Physics, 21(7):073023, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Optimizing a polynomial func- tion on a quantum processor.npj Quantum Informa- tion, 7(1):16, 2021

    Keren Li, Shijie Wei, Pan Gao, Feihao Zhang, Zen- grong Zhou, Tao Xin, Xiaoting Wang, Patrick Reben- trost, and Guilu Long. Optimizing a polynomial func- tion on a quantum processor.npj Quantum Informa- tion, 7(1):16, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Ten- sorflow quantum: A software framework for quantum machine learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.02989, 2020

    Michael Broughton, Guillaume Verdon, Trevor Mc- Court, Antonio J Martinez, Jae Hyeon Yoo, Sergei V Isakov, Philip Massey, Ramin Halavati, Mur- phy Yuezhen Niu, Alexander Zlokapa, et al. Ten- sorflow quantum: A software framework for quantum machine learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.02989, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  9. [10]

    Gradient descent finds global minima of deep neural networks

    Simon Du, Jason Lee, Haochuan Li, Liwei Wang, and Xiyu Zhai. Gradient descent finds global minima of deep neural networks. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 1675–1685. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  10. [11]

    Insensitive stochas- tic gradient twin support vector machines for large scale problems.Information sciences, 462:114–131, 2018

    Zhen Wang, Yuan-Hai Shao, Lan Bai, Chun-Na Li, Li-Ming Liu, and Nai-Yang Deng. Insensitive stochas- tic gradient twin support vector machines for large scale problems.Information sciences, 462:114–131, 2018

    2018

  11. [12]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature communications, 5(1):4213, 2014

    2014

  12. [13]

    Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jar- rod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    2021

  13. [14]

    A quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gut- mann. A quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [15]

    Filtering variational quantum algorithms for combinatorial optimization.Quantum Science & Technology, 7(1):015021, 2022

    David Amaro, Carlo Modica, Matthias Rosenkranz, Mattia Fiorentini, Marcello Benedetti, and Michael Lubasch. Filtering variational quantum algorithms for combinatorial optimization.Quantum Science & Technology, 7(1):015021, 2022

    2022

  15. [16]

    A quantum algorithm for heat conduction with symmetrization.Science Bulletin, 68(5):494–502, 2023

    Shi-Jie Wei, Chao Wei, Peng Lv, Changpeng Shao, Pan Gao, Zengrong Zhou, Keren Li, Tao Xin, and Gui-Lu Long. A quantum algorithm for heat conduction with symmetrization.Science Bulletin, 68(5):494–502, 2023

    2023

  16. [17]

    Demonstration of hardware efficient pho- tonic variational quantum algorithm.Physical Review Research, 7(4):043021, 2025

    Iris Agresti, Koushik Paul, Peter Schiansky, Simon Steiner, Zhenghao Yin, Ciro Pentangelo, Simone Pi- acentini, Andrea Crespi, Yue Ban, Francesco Cecca- relli, et al. Demonstration of hardware efficient pho- tonic variational quantum algorithm.Physical Review Research, 7(4):043021, 2025

    2025

  17. [18]

    Vari- ational quantum algorithm for experimental photonic multiparameter estimation.npj Quantum Informa- tion, 10(1):26, 2024

    Valeria Cimini, Mauro Valeri, Simone Piacentini, Francesco Ceccarelli, Giacomo Corrielli, Roberto Osellame, Nicol` o Spagnolo, and Fabio Sciarrino. Vari- ational quantum algorithm for experimental photonic multiparameter estimation.npj Quantum Informa- tion, 10(1):26, 2024

    2024

  18. [19]

    Photonic variational quantum eigensolver using entanglement measurements.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(4):045028, 2024

    Jinil Lee, Wooyeong Song, Donghwa Lee, Yosep Kim, Seung-Woo Lee, Hyang-Tag Lim, Hojoong Jung, Sang-Wook Han, and Yong-Su Kim. Photonic variational quantum eigensolver using entanglement measurements.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(4):045028, 2024

    2024

  19. [20]

    Variational quantum simulation using non- gaussian continuous-variable systems.Physical Re- view Research, 6(4):043212, 2024

    Paolo Stornati, Antonio Acin, Ulysse Chabaud, Alexandre Dauphin, Valentina Parigi, and Federico Centrone. Variational quantum simulation using non- gaussian continuous-variable systems.Physical Re- view Research, 6(4):043212, 2024

    2024

  20. [21]

    Variational quantum algorithm for enhanced continuous variable optical phase sensing.npj Quan- tum Information, 11(1):70, 2025

    Jens AH Nielsen, Mateusz J Kicinski, Tummas N Arge, Kannan Vijayadharan, Jonathan Foldager, Jo- hannes Borregaard, Johannes Jakob Meyer, Jonas S Neergaard-Nielsen, Tobias Gehring, and Ulrik L An- dersen. Variational quantum algorithm for enhanced continuous variable optical phase sensing.npj Quan- tum Information, 11(1):70, 2025

    2025

  21. [22]

    Continuous-variable quantum approximate optimization on a programmable pho- tonic quantum processor.Physical Review Research, 5(4):043005, 2023

    Yutaro Enomoto, Keitaro Anai, Kenta Udagawa, and Shuntaro Takeda. Continuous-variable quantum approximate optimization on a programmable pho- tonic quantum processor.Physical Review Research, 5(4):043005, 2023

    2023

  22. [23]

    Qudit-based variational quantum eigensolver using photonic orbital angular momentum states.Science Advances, 10(43):eado3472, 2024

    Byungjoo Kim, Kang-Min Hu, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Yosep Kim, Yong-Su Kim, Seung-Woo Lee, and Hyang-Tag Lim. Qudit-based variational quantum eigensolver using photonic orbital angular momentum states.Science Advances, 10(43):eado3472, 2024. 7

    2024

  23. [24]

    Four-qubit varia- tional algorithms in silicon photonics with integrated entangled photon sources.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):107, 2025

    Alessio Baldazzi, Matteo Sanna, Massimo Borghi, Stefano Azzini, and Lorenzo Pavesi. Four-qubit varia- tional algorithms in silicon photonics with integrated entangled photon sources.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):107, 2025

    2025

  24. [25]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quan- tum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quan- tum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    2017

  25. [26]

    Variational quantum linear solver.Quantum, 7:1188, 2023

    Carlos Bravo-Prieto, Ryan LaRose, Marco Cerezo, Yigit Subasi, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Variational quantum linear solver.Quantum, 7:1188, 2023

    2023

  26. [27]

    A variational quantum linear solver application to discrete finite-element methods

    Corey Jason Trahan, Mark Loveland, Noah Davis, and Elizabeth Ellison. A variational quantum linear solver application to discrete finite-element methods. Entropy, 25(4):580, 2023

    2023

  27. [28]

    Near-term quantum algorithms for linear sys- tems of equations with regression loss functions.New Journal of Physics, 23(11):113021, 2021

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Kishor Bharti, and Patrick Reben- trost. Near-term quantum algorithms for linear sys- tems of equations with regression loss functions.New Journal of Physics, 23(11):113021, 2021

    2021

  28. [29]

    Performance study of variational quan- tum linear solver with an improved ansatz for reser- voir flow equations.Physics of Fluids, 36(4), 2024

    Xiang Rao. Performance study of variational quan- tum linear solver with an improved ansatz for reser- voir flow equations.Physics of Fluids, 36(4), 2024

    2024

  29. [30]

    Performance study of variational quantum algorithms for solving the pois- son equation on a quantum computer.Physical Re- view Applied, 20(1):014054, 2023

    Mazen Ali and Matthias Kabel. Performance study of variational quantum algorithms for solving the pois- son equation on a quantum computer.Physical Re- view Applied, 20(1):014054, 2023

    2023

  30. [31]

    Shadow quantum linear solver: A resource efficient quantum algorithm for linear sys- tems of equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08929, 2024

    Francesco Ghisoni, Francesco Scala, Daniele Bajoni, and Dario Gerace. Shadow quantum linear solver: A resource efficient quantum algorithm for linear sys- tems of equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08929, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  31. [32]

    Variational quantum linear solver-based combination rules in dempster–shafer theory.Information Fusion, 102:102070, 2024

    Hao Luo, Qianli Zhou, Zhen Li, and Yong Deng. Variational quantum linear solver-based combination rules in dempster–shafer theory.Information Fusion, 102:102070, 2024

    2024

  32. [33]

    An empirical anal- ysis on the effectiveness of the variational quantum linear solver.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06339, 2024

    Gloria Turati, Alessia Marruzzo, Maurizio Ferrari Dacrema, and Paolo Cremonesi. An empirical anal- ysis on the effectiveness of the variational quantum linear solver.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06339, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    Solving 1d pois- son problem with a variational quantum linear solver

    Giorgio Tosti Balducci, Boyang Chen, Matthias M¨ oller, and Roeland De Breuker. Solving 1d pois- son problem with a variational quantum linear solver. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04938, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [35]

    Variational algorithms for linear algebra.Science Bulletin, 66(21):2181–2188, 2021

    Xiaosi Xu, Jinzhao Sun, Suguru Endo, Ying Li, Simon C Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Variational algorithms for linear algebra.Science Bulletin, 66(21):2181–2188, 2021

    2021

  35. [36]

    Solution of incorrectly formu- lated problems and the regularization method.Sov Dok, 4:1035–1038, 1963

    Andrei N Tikhonov. Solution of incorrectly formu- lated problems and the regularization method.Sov Dok, 4:1035–1038, 1963

    1963

  36. [37]

    Mod2vqls: A variational quantum algorithm for solving sys- tems of linear equations modulo 2.Applied Sciences, 14(2):792, 2024

    Willie Aboumrad and Dominic Widdows. Mod2vqls: A variational quantum algorithm for solving sys- tems of linear equations modulo 2.Applied Sciences, 14(2):792, 2024

    2024

  37. [38]

    Demonstration of an all-optical quantum controlled- not gate.Nature, 426(6964):264–267, 2003

    Jeremy L O’Brien, Geoffrey J Pryde, Andrew G White, Timothy C Ralph, and David Branning. Demonstration of an all-optical quantum controlled- not gate.Nature, 426(6964):264–267, 2003

    2003

  38. [39]

    Variational quantum linear solver enhanced quantum support vector machine.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07770, 2023

    Jianming Yi, Kalyani Suresh, Ali Moghiseh, and Norbert Wehn. Variational quantum linear solver enhanced quantum support vector machine.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07770, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [40]

    Exploring hybrid quantum-classical methods for practical time-series forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05615, 2024

    Maksims Dimitrijevs, M¯ arti¸ nˇ s K¯ alis, and Il ¸ja Repko. Exploring hybrid quantum-classical methods for practical time-series forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05615, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [41]

    Vari- ational quantum framework for partial differential equation constrained optimization.ACM Transac- tions on Quantum Computing, 7(1):1–36, 2025

    Amit Surana and Abeynaya Gnanasekaran. Vari- ational quantum framework for partial differential equation constrained optimization.ACM Transac- tions on Quantum Computing, 7(1):1–36, 2025

    2025

  41. [42]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equa- tions.Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009

    Aram W Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equa- tions.Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009

    2009

  42. [43]

    Variational quan- tum state diagonalization.npj Quantum Information, 5(1):57, 2019

    Ryan LaRose, Arkin Tikku, ´Etude O’Neel-Judy, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Variational quan- tum state diagonalization.npj Quantum Information, 5(1):57, 2019. 8

    2019