Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 86 references

Accelerated spin-adapted ground state preparation with non-variational quantum algorithms

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-step penalty scheme prepares the spin-adapted ground state of rotationally symmetric Hamiltonians with quadratically fewer gates than the standard quartic penalty, and the paper verifies it on Heisenberg rings and a manganese trimer.

desk verdict A clean two-step penalty decomposition gives a real reduction in penalty terms from O(n^4) to O(n^2) per Trotter step, but the end-to-end speedup is not yet proven because the linear penalty needs larger coefficients and the paper gives no quantitative bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04663 v1 pith:6DIJ3NL5 submitted 2025-06-05 quant-ph

Takumi Kobori , Taichi Kosugi , Hirofumi Nishi , Synge Todo , Yu-ichiro Matsushita This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V70
keywords spin-adaptedgroundstatenon-variationalquantumalgorithmpenaltyHamiltonianprobabilisticimaginary-timeevolutionadiabatictimeWignerD-matrixHamming-weightprojectionHeisenbergmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a two-step procedure that prepares the spin-adapted ground state (the lowest energy state of fixed total spin $s^*$ and spin projection $s_z^*$) with non-variational quantum algorithms at quadratically lower gate cost. Step one replaces the quartic penalty $(\hat{S}^2 - s^*(s^*+1))^2$, which naively expands into $O(n_{\mathrm{spin}}^4)$ terms, with a linear penalty $C_S(\hat{S}^2 - s^*(s^*+1)) - C_z(\hat{S}_z - s^*)$ that picks out the maximal-$S_z$ member of the target spin multiplet using only $O(n_{\mathrm{spin}}^2)$ terms. Step two rotates the state by a global $y$-rotation to the desired $S_z$ and projects onto the correct Hamming weight with a circuit of depth $O(\log^2 n)$. If correct, this removes the main gate-complexity gap between variational and non-variational spin-adapted state preparation for spin-rotationally symmetric Hamiltonians. The numerical experiments on Heisenberg rings and a manganese trimer support the practical usefulness of the scheme.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified penalty Hamiltonian $H'_{\mathrm{penalty}} = C_S(\hat{S}^2 - s^*(s^*+1)) - C_z(\hat{S}_z - s^*)$, whose eigenvalue on a $|s, s_z\rangle$ state is $C_S(s(s+1)-s^*(s^*+1)) - C_z(s_z - s^*)$; minimizing over $s_z$ at $s_z = s$ turns the level spacing in $s$ into a linear function, so the inequality $2s^* < C_z/C_S < 2(s^*+1)$ makes the $s = s^*$ level the global minimum. This avoids the squared form $(\hat{S}^2 - s^*(s^*+1))^2$, whose explicit expansion in swap operators $U^S_{ij}$ contains all pairwise products and hence $O(n_{\mathrm{spin}}^4)$ terms. The second stage uses the global rotation $U_y(\theta) = e^{-i\theta\hat{S}_y}$, whose Wigner D-matrix element $d^{s^*}_{s_z^* s^*}(\theta)$ gives the weight of the desired $S_z$ component, and the optimal angle maximises that weight; the subsequent Hamming-weight projection is implemented by an $O(\log^2 n)$-depth circuit in the encoding where each spin is a qubit. The same machinery works for higher spin via binary encoding, at the price of a modified projection circuit.

What would settle it

Run the two-step PITE on a small Heisenberg ring with a perturbation that breaks spin-rotational symmetry, such as $\varepsilon \sum_i (-1)^i S_i^z$; if the fidelity of the prepared state to the exact spin-adapted ground state worsens at a rate linear in $\varepsilon$, the central symmetry assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For Hamiltonians that commute with total spin, the authors establish that the spin-adapted ground state can be prepared in two stages: first drive a non-variational evolution under $H_{\mathrm{system}} + C_S(\hat{S}^2 - s^*(s^*+1)) - C_z(\hat{S}_z - s^*)$ toward the state with maximal $S_z$ in the $s^*$ sector, provided the coefficient ratio satisfies $2s^* < C_z/C_S < 2(s^*+1)$; then apply a global rotation about the $y$-axis through $\theta_{\mathrm{opt}} = 2\arcsin\sqrt{(s^* - s_z^*)/2s^*}$ and post-select on the computational-basis subspace of the desired Hamming weight. The first stage replaces the squared spin penalty, whose expansion in swap operators contains $O(n_{\mathrm{spin}}^4)$ terms, with a linear combination containing only $O(n_{\mathrm{spin}}^2)$ terms, and the second stage costs only $O(\log^2 n)$ circuit depth with worst-case success probability $O(S^{-1/2})$. The claim is that this two-step procedure reaches the exact spin-adapted ground state of any spin-rotationally symmetric Hamiltonian, and the paper verifies it by numerical simulation of the adiabatic and probabilistic imaginary-time variants on spin-1/2 Heisenberg rings and the Mn(II)2Mn(III) trimer, including for excited spin sectors.

Load-bearing premise

The system Hamiltonian must commute with total spin, so that every member of the target spin multiplet is exactly degenerate and the rotation-and-projection post-processing cannot leak into states with different total spin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the linear-penalty first step, probabilistic imaginary-time evolution and adiabatic time evolution gain a quadratic reduction in the number of penalty gates for spin-rotationally symmetric Hamiltonians, closing the gate-count gap with variational methods that only needed $O(n_{\mathrm{spin}}^2)$ measurements.
  • The two-step recipe is not limited to spin-1/2 Heisenberg models: the paper demonstrates it on a manganese trimer with $S = 5/2$ and $S = 2$ ions, and notes it extends to first-quantized Hamiltonians and to certain excited spin states.
  • The post-processing step's success probability scales as $O(S^{-1/2})$ in the worst case, so the method is most efficient for the low-spin sectors that are usually of interest in condensed-matter and quantum-chemistry problems.
  • The coefficient condition $2s^* < C_z/C_S < 2(s^*+1)$ gives a concrete tuning rule for the penalty strengths, subject to the requirement that they be large enough to dominate $H_{\mathrm{system}}$ but not so large that they force impractically small Trotter steps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same 'prepare an extremal-weight state with a linear penalty, then rotate and project' pattern should generalize to any symmetry group whose target multiplet has a degenerate extremal-weight state, such as particle-number or orbital-angular-momentum sectors, not just spin.
  • Because the first step pins $S_z$ to its maximal value, the post-selection step is the only probabilistic part; amplitude amplification on the Hamming-weight projection could lift the $O(S^{-1/2})$ success probability to near unity without changing the gate scaling.
  • A hybrid route not explored in the paper would use the linear-penalty Hamiltonian directly in a variational imaginary-time ansatz, reducing both measurement overhead and circuit depth relative to current variational penalty approaches.
  • The fitted exponents (gate count $\propto n_{\mathrm{spin}}^{2.07}$ for the new penalty versus $n_{\mathrm{spin}}^{4.61}$ for the quartic one) suggest the asymptotic claims survive at practical system sizes, but the constant overhead of the second-stage projection will dominate on near-term hardware and is the natural target for the next benchmark.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-step method for preparing spin-adapted ground states of spin-rotationally symmetric Hamiltonians with non-variational algorithms such as ATE and PITE. In the first step, the usual quartic penalty in (S^2 - s*(s*+1))^2 is replaced by a linear penalty CS(S^2 - s*(s*+1)) - Cz(Sz - s*), which under the condition of Eq. (16) selects the desired total-spin sector s* while working in the maximal-Sz subspace. This reduces the number of swap-operator terms in the penalty Hamiltonian from O(n_spin^4) to O(n_spin^2) per Trotter step. In the second step, a global y-rotation and a Hamming-weight projection are used to reach the desired Sz value. Numerical experiments on spin-1/2 Heisenberg rings and a manganese trimer show convergence for both ATE and PITE, and Fig. 6 reports transpiled gate counts for a single time-evolution operator showing the O(n^2) versus O(n^4) scaling per step.

Significance. If the claimed gate-complexity reduction holds end-to-end, the method would be a practically useful tool for spin-adapted state preparation in early fault-tolerant quantum simulation, particularly for spin-rotationally symmetric systems in condensed matter and quantum chemistry. The paper's analytic derivation of the penalty condition (Eq. 16), the Wigner-weight analysis for the rotation step, and the explicit numerical comparison against the quartic penalty are strengths. The authors also give a concrete circuit for Hamming-weight projection and provide numerical evidence that the modified penalty does not degrade convergence in the tested cases. However, the central complexity claim is only a per-step gate count; the end-to-end scaling, including the required growth of the penalty coefficient CS and the associated Trotter step count, is not established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eq. (15)] The central asymptotic claim is a per-step gate-count reduction, not an end-to-end complexity reduction. For the linear penalty in Eq. (12) with the choice Cz = CS(2s*+1) used throughout the numerics, Eq. (15) gives an energy separation of only CS between the target spin sector s* and the neighboring sectors s*±1; the quartic penalty in Eq. (7) gives a separation of order s*^2 CS for the same CS. To make the penalty dominate H_system, CS for the linear penalty may therefore need to be larger by a factor O(s*^2), and because the permissible Trotter step size decreases with the norm of the total Hamiltonian, the number of steps grows correspondingly. With s* = O(n_spin), the total gate count of the proposed method becomes O(n_spin^4), the same scaling as the naive quartic approach. Section III A only states qualitatively that CS must be large enough and Δt small enough; no bound is derived, so the claimed quadratic speedup is not established.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 6] Fig. 6 reports transpiled gate counts and depths for a single time-evolution operator exp(-i CS H'_S s Δt) at fixed CS=7.5 and Δt=0.015. The total cost of ATE and PITE is (number of Trotter steps) × (gates per step), and the required number of steps depends on the spectral gap of H_problem and on the norm of the penalty. No finite-size scaling of the step count, the total evolution time T, or the required CS is provided; the numerical demonstration is limited to n_spin=6 for the Heisenberg ring and to the fixed Mn trimer. Consequently, the numerical experiments show convergence for the tested cases but do not substantiate the asymptotic O(n^2) end-to-end gate-complexity claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. IV A] The title contains a typo: 'Heidenberg ring model' should be 'Heisenberg ring model'.
  2. [Sec. III B] The phrase 'post processing' should be hyphenated as 'post-processing' for consistency with the rest of the text.
  3. [Sec. II B] The O(n^4) baseline is specifically for the swap-operator/Trotterized implementation of Eq. (11); block-encoding or LCU implementations of the same quartic penalty can have different scaling, so the comparison should be stated as a Trotterized-baseline comparison.
  4. [Eq. (18)] The Wigner d-matrix element conventionally includes a sign factor (-1)^{s*-s*_z}; omitting it does not affect the squared weight but should be corrected for standard form.
  5. [Sec. III B and Appendix A] The text says the binary-encoding modification of the Hamming-weight projection is 'shown in Appendix A', but Appendix A only provides the encoded spin operators; the modified projection circuit is not given.
  6. [Fig. 3] The notation switches between S, Sz, and s*, s*_z; please unify the symbols for total spin and its z-component.
  7. [Sec. III A] The statement that CS and Cz 'must be appropriately optimized' is not accompanied by any heuristic or numerical procedure for choosing them; a specific guideline would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-step spin-adaptation method is derived from standard angular momentum algebra and validated against exact diagonalization; penalty strengths are tuned hyperparameters, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central claim is algorithmic: replacing the quartic penalty (S^2 - s*(s*+1))^2 with a linear-plus-Sz penalty (Eqs. 12-15) reduces the number of Pauli/swap terms from O(n^4) to O(n^2) for spin-rotationally symmetric Hamiltonians. This is a direct algebraic count (Eqs. 9-11), not an input-data fit. The eigenvalue condition (Eq. 16) and the Wigner d-matrix rotation (Eqs. 17-20) are standard results. Numerical experiments benchmark against exact diagonalization of the instantaneous Hamiltonian, so the reported fidelities are externally verified; CS, Cz, and delta-t are tuned hyperparameters, not fitted to reproduce the target states. The only self-citations (PITE formalism, e.g., Ref. [18]) are used as algorithmic tools and are not invoked to establish the new reduction. The paper explicitly acknowledges the trade-off between large penalty coefficients and small Trotter steps (Sec. III A), which is a practical limitation concerning end-to-end cost scaling rather than a circular step. No equation reduces by construction to the input data, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The central claim rests on standard angular momentum theory, a spin-symmetry assumption on the system Hamiltonian, and the availability of a Hamming-weight projection circuit from the literature. It introduces no new physical entities, and the only hand-chosen numbers are algorithm hyperparameters.

free parameters (5)
  • CS = 7.5, 3, or 10 depending on experiment
    Chosen by hand as penalty strength; must be large enough to dominate H_system but small enough to keep Trotter errors controlled.
  • Cz = CS * (2*s* + 1) in experiments
    Set to satisfy Eq. (16), the ratio condition 2s* < Cz/CS < 2(s*+1).
  • m0 = 0.8
    PITE parameter controlling the effective imaginary-time step; chosen by hand.
  • time step dt = 0.05, 0.015, or 0.008
    Trotter or evolution step sizes selected for numerical convergence.
  • ATE total time T and steps = T = 1.0, n = 2x10^4
    Adiabatic schedule length and resolution chosen for convergence.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption System Hamiltonian is spin-rotationally symmetric (commutes with S^2 and total spin).
    Invoked in Sec. III to ensure the linear penalty at maximal Sz selects the target spin sector and that rotation preserves the sector.
  • domain assumption Sufficiently large penalty coefficients CS, Cz can dominate H_system while keeping the evolution time step manageable.
    The paper states coefficients must be optimized but does not provide a quantitative bound (Sec. III A).
  • domain assumption The Hamming-weight projection circuit of Zi et al. [64] implements the required Sz projection with O(log n) depth.
    Adopted from prior work; the paper does not derive it.
  • standard math Standard Wigner d-matrix formula for rotation matrix elements (Eq. 18) and its maximum at theta_opt.
    Used to compute the rotation angle and post-selection success probability.
  • standard math Standard adiabatic theorem and Trotter-Suzuki decomposition for ATE and PITE.
    Background for non-variational time evolution in Sec. II A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accelerated spin-adapted ground state preparation with non-variational quantum algorithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DIJ3NL5

@misc{pith2026250604663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accelerated spin-adapted ground state preparation with non-variational quantum algorithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DIJ3NL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04663}
}
abstract

Various methods have been explored to prepare the spin-adapted ground state, the lowest energy state within the Hilbert space constrained by externally specified values of the total spin magnitude and the spin-$z$ component. In such problem settings, variational and non-variational methods commonly incorporate penalty terms into the original Hamiltonian to enforce the desired constraints. While in variational approaches, only $O(n_{\textrm{spin}}^2)$ measurements are required for the calculation of the penalty terms for the total spin magnitude, non-variational approaches, such as probabilistic imaginary-time evolution or adiabatic time evolution, are expected to be more computationally intensive, requiring $O(n_{\textrm{spin}}^4)$ gates naively. This paper proposes a new procedure based on non-variational quantum algorithms to obtain the spin-adapted ground state. The proposed method consists of two steps: the first step is to prepare a spin-magnitude adapted state and the second step is post-processing for the desired $S_z$. By separating into two steps, the procedure achieves the desired spin-adapted ground state while reducing the number of penalty terms from $O(n_{\textrm{spin}}^4)$ to $O(n_{\textrm{spin}}^2)$. We conducted numerical experiments for spin-1/2 Heisenberg ring models and manganese trimer systems. The results confirmed the effectiveness of our method, demonstrating a significant reduction in gate complexity and validating its practical usefulness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04663 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Circuits of the non-variational approaches: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Circuit for projecting an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Results of our proposed methods for preparing spin-adapted ground states of Heisenberg ring models by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Dependence of gate complexity of penalty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Schematic of a cubane-like CaMn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Results of our proposed methods for preparing spin-adapted ground states of the manganese trimer model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ATE ATE is a non-variational method that applies the adi- abatic theorem to obtain the ground state of a tar- get Hamiltonian [14, 27, 36]. The adiabatic theorem states that if a system is initially in the ground state of the Hamiltonian and the Hamiltonian evolves suffi- ciently slowly, the system will remain in the instanta- neous ground state throughou...

  2. [2]

    ITE and probabilistic ITE (PITE) ITE is a non-variational method that applies the imaginary-time evolution of a Hamiltonian to obtain the ground state. The state |ψ(τ )⟩ after evolving an initial state |ψ(0)⟩ for an imaginary time τ is given by |ψ(τ )⟩ ∝e−Hτ |ψ(0)⟩ ∝ X Ei e−Eiτ |ψi⟩ ⟨ψi|ψ(0)⟩ , (1) where |ψi⟩ and Ei are the eigenstates and correspond- ing...

  3. [3]

    By utilizing such an approximation, Eq. (4) can be rewritten as UM = (W †Rz(−2θ0) ⊗ I) e−iHs∆t 0 0 eiHs∆t (W H⊗ I) + O(∆t2), (6) where Rz(θ) is the rotation operator around the z-axis by an angle θ, defined as Rz(θ) = e−iθσz/2. The controlled unitaries e±iHs∆t can be implemented via the real-time evolution of the Hamiltonian H as illustrated in Fig. 1(b),...

  4. [4]

    Sz = s∗) us- ing a non-variational method

    Prepare the spin-magnitude-adapted ground state with maximal spin- z component (i.e. Sz = s∗) us- ing a non-variational method

  5. [5]

    Objective Fidelity

    Apply a rotation operator within the subspace that conserves the total spin, followed by a projection onto the subspace corresponding to a desired Ham- ming weight of given Sz. By introducing the two-step procedure as described above and obtaining the ground state for the Hamiltonian with the properly constructed penalty terms using non- variational appro...

  6. [6]

    A. W. Sandvik, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1297 (American Institute of Physics, 2010) pp. 135–338

    2010

  7. [7]

    R. P. Feynman, in Feynman and computation (cRc 10 Press, 2018) pp. 133–153

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cam- bridge university press, 2010)

    2010

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Or´ us, Nature Reviews Physics1, 538 (2019)

    R. Or´ us, Nature Reviews Physics1, 538 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

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

    2014

  3. [11]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Quantum 3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Chemical Reviews 120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Chemical Reviews 119, 10856 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    D. Wu, R. Rossi, F. Vicentini, N. Astrakhantsev, F. Becca, X. Cao, J. Carrasquilla, F. Ferrari, A. Georges, M. Hibat-Allah, M. Imada, A. M. L¨ auchli, G. Mazzola, A. Mezzacapo, A. Millis, J. Robledo Moreno, T. Neupert, Y. Nomura, J. Nys, O. Parcollet, R. Pohle, I. Romero, M. S...

    2024

  8. [16]

    A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 9456 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Yoshioka, T

    N. Yoshioka, T. Okubo, Y. Suzuki, Y. Koizumi, and W. Mizukami, npj Quantum Information 10, 45 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    C. Lyu, X. Xu, M.-H. Yung, and A. Bayat, Quantum 7, 899 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, arXiv e-prints , quant-ph/0001106 (2000), arXiv:quant- ph/0001106 [quant-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hejazi, M

    K. Hejazi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033084 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, R. N. Tazhigulov, A. T. Tan, G. K.- L. Chan, and A. J. Minnich, PRX Quantum 2, 010317 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Nishi, K

    H. Nishi, K. Hamada, Y. Nishiya, T. Kosugi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043048 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Kosugi, Y

    T. Kosugi, Y. Nishiya, H. Nishi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033121 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Nature Physics 16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Keller and M

    S. Keller and M. Reiher, The Journal of Chemical Physics 144, 134101 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Sharma and G

    S. Sharma and G. K.-L. Chan, The Journal of Chemical Physics 136, 124121 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Pauncz, Spin eigenfunctions: construction and use (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    R. Pauncz, Spin eigenfunctions: construction and use (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Planelles and P

    J. Planelles and P. Viciano, Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 16, 137 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    Gandon, A

    A. Gandon, A. Baiardi, M. Rossmannek, W. Dobrautz, and I. Tavernelli, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.14797 (2024), arXiv:2412.14797 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Sugisaki, K

    K. Sugisaki, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi, and T. Takui, Communications Chemistry 5, 84 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    K. Seki, T. Shirakawa, and S. Yunoki, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052340 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Kuroiwa and Y

    K. Kuroiwa and Y. O. Nakagawa, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013197 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Carbone, D

    A. Carbone, D. E. Galli, M. Motta, and B. Jones, Sym- metry 14 (2022), 10.3390/sym14030624

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Lacroix, E

    D. Lacroix, E. A. Ruiz Guzman, and P. Siwach, The European Physical Journal A 59, 3 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Nature Communications 9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Xie, S.-J

    H.-N. Xie, S.-J. Wei, F. Yang, Z.-A. Wang, C.-T. Chen, H. Fan, and G.-L. Long, Phys. Rev. A 109, 052414 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Liu, J.-G

    T. Liu, J.-G. Liu, and H. Fan, Quantum Information Processing 20, 204 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Nishi, T

    H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, Y. Nishiya, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L022041 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Nishiya, H

    Y. Nishiya, H. Nishi, Y. Couzini´ e, T. Kosugi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Phys. Rev. A 109, 022423 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Siwach and D

    P. Siwach and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062435 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Stetcu, A

    I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C 108, L031306 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Lacroix, Phys

    D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 230502 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  39. [47]

    Jahnke and C

    T. Jahnke and C. Lubich, BIT Numerical Mathematics 40, 735 (2000)

    2000

  40. [49]

    H. F. Trotter, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 10, 545 (1959)

    1959

  41. [50]

    Suzuki, Progress of Theoretical Physics 56, 1454 (1976)

    M. Suzuki, Progress of Theoretical Physics 56, 1454 (1976)

    1976

  42. [51]

    A. Y. Kitaev, A. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi, Classical and quantum computation, 47 (American Mathematical Soc., 2002)

    2002

  43. [52]

    Or´ us, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  44. [53]

    W. M. C. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. J. Needs, and G. Ra- jagopal, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 33 (2001)

    2001

  45. [54]

    Jones, S

    T. Jones, S. Endo, S. McArdle, X. Yuan, and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062304 (2019)

    2019

  46. [55]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, npj Quantum Information 5, 75 (2019)

    2019

  47. [56]

    X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Quantum 3, 191 (2019)

    2019

  48. [57]

    Yeter-Aydeniz, R

    K. Yeter-Aydeniz, R. C. Pooser, and G. Siopsis, npj Quantum Information 6, 63 (2020)

    2020

  49. [58]

    S.-H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Poll- mann, PRX Quantum 2, 010342 (2021)

    2021

  50. [59]

    Meister and S

    R. Meister and S. C. Benjamin, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2212.00846 (2022), arXiv:2212.00846 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Shirai, H

    S. Shirai, H. Iwakiri, K. Kanno, T. Horiba, K. Omiya, H. Hirai, and S. Koh, ACS Omega 8, 19917 (2023)

    2023

  52. [61]

    L¨ owdin and O

    P.-O. L¨ owdin and O. Goscinski, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 4, 533 (1969)

    1969

  53. [62]

    Kattem¨ olle and J

    J. Kattem¨ olle and J. van Wezel, Phys. Rev. B 106, 214429 (2022)

    2022

  54. [63]

    X. Yi, J. Huo, G. Liu, L. Fan, R. Zhang, and C. Cao, EPJ Quantum Technology 12, 43 (2025)

    2025

  55. [64]

    Moudgalya, N

    S. Moudgalya, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. 11 Rev. B 98, 235156 (2018)

    2018

  56. [65]

    N. F. Chilton, Annual Review of Materials Research 52, 79 (2022)

    2022

  57. [66]

    F. H. Essler, H. Frahm, F. G¨ ohmann, A. Kl¨ umper, and V. E. Korepin, The one-dimensional Hubbard model (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  58. [67]

    Rajca, Chemical Reviews 94, 871 (1994)

    A. Rajca, Chemical Reviews 94, 871 (1994)

    1994

  59. [68]

    Wigner, Pure and applied physics (2012)

    E. Wigner, Pure and applied physics (2012)

    2012

  60. [69]

    W. Zi, J. Nie, and X. Sun, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.06052 (2024), arXiv:2404.06052 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [70]

    R. P. Stanley, Catalan numbers (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  62. [71]

    Mootz, P

    M. Mootz, P. P. Orth, C. Huang, L. Luo, J. Wang, and Y.-X. Yao, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 035054 (2024)

    2024

  63. [72]

    N. P. D. Sawaya, T. Menke, T. H. Kyaw, S. Johri, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and G. G. Guerreschi, npj Quantum Information 6, 49 (2020)

    2020

  64. [73]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with Qiskit,” (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Kouzoudis, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Ma- terials 173, 259 (1997)

    D. Kouzoudis, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Ma- terials 173, 259 (1997)

    1997

  66. [75]

    Hu and B

    H. Hu and B. Wu, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012345 (2016)

    2016

  67. [76]

    K. N. Ferreira, T. M. Iverson, K. Maghlaoui, J. Barber, and S. Iwata, Science 303, 1831 (2004)

    2004

  68. [77]

    D. N. Hendrickson, G. Christou, E. A. Schmitt, E. Libby, J. S. Bashkin, S. Wang, H. L. Tsai, J. B. Vincent, and P. D. W. Boyd, Journal of the American Chemical Soci- ety 114, 2455 (1992)

    1992

  69. [78]

    Isobe, M

    H. Isobe, M. Shoji, K. Koizumi, Y. Kitagawa, S. Ya- manaka, S. Kuramitsu, and K. Yamaguchi, Polyhedron 24, 2767 (2005), proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Molecule-based Magnets (ICMM 2004)

    2005

  70. [79]

    Gocho, H

    S. Gocho, H. Nakamura, S. Kanno, Q. Gao, T. Kobayashi, T. Inagaki, and M. Hatanaka, npj Com- putational Materials 9, 13 (2023)

    2023

  71. [80]

    Nishi, Y

    H. Nishi, Y. Takei, T. Kosugi, S. Mieda, Y. Nat- sume, T. Aoyagi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.10555 (2024), arXiv:2407.10555 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [81]

    H. Ma, M. Govoni, and G. Galli, npj Computational Materials 6, 85 (2020)

    2020

  73. [82]

    Roggero, C

    A. Roggero, C. Gu, A. Baroni, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C 102, 064624 (2020)

    2020

  74. [83]

    K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033062 (2019)

    2019

  75. [84]

    Higgott, D

    O. Higgott, D. Wang, and S. Brierley, Quantum 3, 156 (2019)

    2019

  76. [85]

    Kassal, S

    I. Kassal, S. P. Jordan, P. J. Love, M. Mohseni, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 18681 (2008)

    2008

  77. [86]

    N. C. Jones, J. D. Whitfield, P. L. McMahon, M.-H. Yung, R. V. Meter, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and Y. Yamamoto, New Journal of Physics 14, 115023 (2012)

    2012

  78. [87]

    Kosugi, H

    T. Kosugi, H. Nishi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, npj Quantum Information 9, 112 (2023). Appendix A: Binary encoding of S = 5/2 and S = 2 Spin states Here, we present the explanation of the binary encoding for S = 5 /2 and S = 2, which is used in numerical experiments of the manganes...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.