pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.01204 · v1 · pith:AFTS7TH6new · submitted 2025-06-01 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.str-el· physics.comp-ph

Quantum-Classical Embedding via Ghost Gutzwiller Approximation for Enhanced Simulations of Correlated Electron Systems

I-Chi Chen , Aleksei Khindanov , Carlos Salazar , Humberto Munoz Barona , Feng Zhang , Cai-Zhuang Wang , Thomas Iadecola , Nicola Lanat\`a
show 1 more author
Yong-Xin Yao
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 01:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph
keywords quantum embeddingGutzwiller approximationHubbard modelcorrelated electronsvariational quantum algorithmquantum error detectionspectral functionsimpurity models
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ghost Gutzwiller approximation maps bulk correlated electron systems onto impurity models that current quantum devices can simulate for ground states and spectra.

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

This work creates a hybrid quantum-classical method based on the ghost Gutzwiller approximation for embedding correlated electron problems. The technique converts the full lattice into a smaller impurity model that quantum circuits can handle, targeting both energies and spectral properties. For the infinite-dimensional Hubbard model, ghost mode counts of three to five lead to circuit depths of 16 to 104. Noise from realistic error models is countered with the Iceberg code, yielding up to 40 percent better spectral weights, and the full pipeline is tested on IBM and Quantinuum quantum processors.

Core claim

The ghost Gutzwiller approximation supplies an embedding that reduces the simulation of correlated electrons to a quantum impurity problem whose variational solution on quantum hardware yields accurate ground-state properties and spectral functions for the Hubbard model, with controlled growth in circuit complexity as ghost modes are added.

What carries the argument

Ghost Gutzwiller approximation that introduces auxiliary ghost modes to represent correlations in the effective impurity model solved by adaptive variational quantum algorithms.

If this is right

  • Ground-state properties of the Hubbard model are accessible via quantum circuits whose depth scales with ghost mode number rather than system size.
  • Spectral functions of Hubbard bands can be obtained but require error mitigation to preserve accurate weights, achieving up to 40% reduction in noise-induced errors.
  • The framework supports benchmarking on real quantum hardware with different connectivities and multiple mitigation techniques for density matrix estimation.
  • Increasing ghost modes from 3 to 5 improves correlation capture while keeping the approach suitable for pre-fault-tolerant devices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This embedding strategy may generalize to finite-dimensional or multi-orbital models for simulating real materials.
  • Hybridizing with classical dynamical mean-field theory solvers could optimize the bath parameters before quantum steps.
  • The method opens paths to studying nonequilibrium dynamics if extended beyond ground-state calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The ghost Gutzwiller approximation with three to five ghost modes sufficiently represents the key correlations of the infinite-dimensional Hubbard model so that spectral function results remain reliable despite any approximation errors.

What would settle it

Exact computation of the spectral function for the Hubbard model at parameters used in the paper, followed by comparison to the ghost Gutzwiller results; mismatches in the positions or intensities of the lower and upper Hubbard bands would disprove sufficient accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01204 by Aleksei Khindanov, Cai-Zhuang Wang, Carlos Salazar, Feng Zhang, Humberto Munoz Barona, I-Chi Chen, Nicola Lanat\`a, Thomas Iadecola, Yong-Xin Yao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the AVQITE simulation results with increasing circuit depth D for the two impurity models. The circuit depth D is defined as the number of layers of unitary operations, where each layer consists of unitaries acting on mutually disjoint qubits. For calculations of the B = 3 model, as D increases from 1 to 21, the number of variational parameters Nθ grows from 4 to 59; meanwhile, the error in the densi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: presents the analysis of the impact of noise on the simulated electronic structure of the Hubbard model. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Simulating correlated materials on present-day quantum hardware remains challenging due to limited quantum resources. Quantum embedding methods offer a promising route by reducing computational complexity through the mapping of bulk systems onto effective impurity models, allowing more feasible simulations on pre- and early-fault-tolerant quantum devices. This work develops a quantum-classical embedding framework based on the ghost Gutzwiller approximation to enable quantum-enhanced simulations of ground-state properties and spectral functions of correlated electron systems. Circuit complexity is analyzed using an adaptive variational quantum algorithm on a statevector simulator, applied to the infinite-dimensional Hubbard model with increasing ghost mode numbers from 3 to 5, resulting in circuit depths growing from 16 to 104. Noise effects are examined using a realistic error model, revealing significant impact on the spectral weight of the Hubbard bands. To mitigate these effects, the Iceberg quantum error detection code is employed, achieving up to 40% error reduction in simulations. Finally, the accuracy of the density matrix estimation is benchmarked on IBM and Quantinuum quantum hardware, featuring distinct qubit-connectivity and employing multiple levels of error mitigation techniques.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a quantum-classical embedding framework based on the ghost Gutzwiller approximation to map bulk correlated electron systems onto effective impurity models for simulation on pre- and early-fault-tolerant quantum devices. It applies this to the infinite-dimensional Hubbard model, analyzes circuit depths of an adaptive variational quantum algorithm (growing from 16 to 104 for 3 to 5 ghost modes), examines noise effects on spectral weights using a realistic error model, applies the Iceberg quantum error detection code to achieve up to 40% error reduction, and benchmarks density matrix estimation accuracy on IBM and Quantinuum hardware with various error mitigation techniques.

Significance. If the ghost Gutzwiller mapping with 3-5 modes accurately reproduces bulk properties, the framework could enable practical quantum-enhanced calculations of ground states and spectral functions for correlated materials on near-term hardware. The concrete circuit-depth scaling, noise analysis, and hardware benchmarks with Iceberg code represent useful engineering contributions that demonstrate feasibility. However, the absence of direct validation against exact or converged DMFT benchmarks for the Hubbard model limits the assessed impact on reliable simulations of correlated systems.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the ghost Gutzwiller approximation enables reliable quantum-enhanced simulations requires that the impurity-model spectral functions faithfully represent the infinite-D Hubbard model. No quantitative comparison is provided to exact results or converged DMFT at representative interaction strengths (e.g., U/t = 4 or 8), so it is impossible to determine whether observed discrepancies arise from the embedding approximation itself or from hardware noise.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports circuit depths and a 40% error reduction but does not specify the precise metric (e.g., fidelity, spectral-weight error) or the number of shots used, which would aid reproducibility.
  2. [Abstract] Hardware benchmark results lack reported error bars or statistical details on the number of experimental runs, making it difficult to assess the robustness of the density-matrix estimation accuracy.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We agree that direct validation of the ghost Gutzwiller embedding against exact or converged DMFT benchmarks is necessary to substantiate the central claims and to separate embedding errors from hardware noise. We address this point below and will incorporate the requested comparisons in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the ghost Gutzwiller approximation enables reliable quantum-enhanced simulations requires that the impurity-model spectral functions faithfully represent the infinite-D Hubbard model. No quantitative comparison is provided to exact results or converged DMFT at representative interaction strengths (e.g., U/t = 4 or 8), so it is impossible to determine whether observed discrepancies arise from the embedding approximation itself or from hardware noise.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of such benchmarks makes it difficult to assess the fidelity of the ghost Gutzwiller mapping itself. The current work emphasizes the quantum-circuit implementation, noise analysis, and hardware execution for the infinite-dimensional Hubbard model, but we recognize that quantitative comparisons are required to support the reliability claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that compares the impurity spectral functions obtained with 3 and 5 ghost modes against established DMFT results for the Hubbard model at U/t = 4 and U/t = 8, drawing on literature values and, where needed, additional classical DMFT calculations. This will allow readers to distinguish embedding accuracy from hardware-induced discrepancies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Ghost Gutzwiller quantum embedding derivation is self-contained with no circular reductions

full rationale

The paper develops a quantum-classical embedding framework based on the ghost Gutzwiller approximation, mapping the infinite-dimensional Hubbard model to impurity models with 3-5 ghost modes. It analyzes circuit depths (16 to 104), noise effects via realistic error models, Iceberg code error reduction (up to 40%), and hardware benchmarks on IBM/Quantinuum with error mitigation. No load-bearing steps reduce by construction to self-defined quantities, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains. The central claims rest on explicit variational quantum algorithm simulations and external hardware validation rather than tautological equivalences, making the derivation independent and falsifiable against benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Abstract provides insufficient detail for exhaustive ledger; ghost modes appear as an extension of the approximation but lack independent evidence or explicit free parameters.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The ghost Gutzwiller approximation accurately maps the bulk correlated system to an effective impurity model suitable for quantum simulation.
    Invoked as the basis for the entire embedding framework and circuit complexity analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • Ghost modes no independent evidence
    purpose: Enhance the Gutzwiller approximation to improve embedding accuracy for spectral functions.
    Increased from 3 to 5 in simulations, affecting circuit depth from 16 to 104.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5763 in / 1364 out tokens · 62500 ms · 2026-05-22T01:37:43.053691+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Band structure picture for topology in strongly correlated systems with the ghost Gutzwiller ansatz

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The ghost Gutzwiller variational embedding framework recovers an effective band structure for topological phases in strongly correlated systems and reveals topologically nontrivial Hubbard bands with edge states in th...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A. V. Ivanov, C. S¨ underhauf, N. Holzmann, T. Ellaby, R. N. Kerber, G. Jones, and J. Camps, Quantum com- putation for periodic solids in second quantization, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013200 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    A. V. Ivanov, A. Patterson, M. Bothe, C. S¨ underhauf, B. K. Berntson, J. J. Mortensen, M. Kuisma, E. Camp- bell, and R. Izs´ ak, Quantum computation of electronic structure with projector augmented-wave method and plane wave basis set, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03159 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03159 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.03159 2024

  3. [3]

    D. W. Berry, N. C. Rubin, A. O. Elnabawy, G. Ahlers, A. E. DePrince III, J. Lee, C. Gogolin, and R. Babbush, Quantum simulation of realistic materials in first quan- tization using non-local pseudopotentials, npj Quantum Information10, 130 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    T. N. Georges, M. Bothe, C. S¨ underhauf, B. K. Berntson, R. Izs´ ak, and A. V. Ivanov, Quantum simulations of chem- istry in first quantization with any basis set, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03145 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03145 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.03145 2024

  5. [5]

    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)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Clinton, T

    L. Clinton, T. Cubitt, B. Flynn, F. M. Gambetta, J. Klassen, A. Montanaro, S. Piddock, R. A. Santos, and E. Sheridan, Towards near-term quantum simulation of materials, Nature Communications15, 211 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Georges, G

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

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Held, Electronic structure calculations using dynamical mean field theory, Adv

    K. Held, Electronic structure calculations using dynamical mean field theory, Adv. Phys.56, 829 (2007)

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    Bauer, D

    B. Bauer, D. Wecker, A. J. Millis, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Hybrid quantum-classical approach to corre- lated materials, Phys. Rev. X6, 031045 (2016)

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Rungger, N

    I. Rungger, N. Fitzpatrick, H. Chen, C. Alderete, H. Apel, A. Cowtan, A. Patterson, D. M. Ramo, Y. Zhu, N. Nguyen, et al., Dynamical mean field theory algorithm and experiment on quantum computers, arXiv:1910.04735 10.48550/arXiv.1910.04735 (2019)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.04735 1910

  11. [11]

    Backes, Y

    S. Backes, Y. Murakami, S. Sakai, and R. Arita, Dynami- cal mean-field theory for the hubbard-holstein model on a quantum device, Phys. Rev. B107, 165155 (2023)

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Dynamical meanfieldtheoryforrealmaterialsonaquantum computer

    J. Selisko, M. Amsler, C. Wever, Y. Kawashima, G. Sam- sonidze, R. U. Haq, F. Tacchino, I. Tavernelli, and T. Eckl, Dynamical mean field theory for real materials on a quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09527 10.48550/arXiv.2404.09527 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.09527 2024

  13. [13]

    Lanata, Y.-X

    N. Lanata, Y.-X. Yao, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, J. Schmalian, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, γ- α isostructural transition in cerium, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 196801 (2013)

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    X. Deng, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, LDA + Gutzwiller method for correlated electron systems, EPL83, 37008 (2008)

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Lanat` a, Y.-X

    N. Lanat` a, Y.-X. Yao, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, and G. Kotliar, Phase diagram and electronic structure of praseodymium and plutonium, Phys. Rev. X5, 011008 (2015)

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    Lanat` a, Y.-X

    N. Lanat` a, Y.-X. Yao, X. Deng, V. Dobrosavljevi´ c, and G. Kotliar, Slave boson theory of orbital differentiation with crystal field effects: Application to UO2, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 126401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Lanat` a, T.-H

    N. Lanat` a, T.-H. Lee, Y.-X. Yao, V. Stevanovi´ c, and V. Dobrosavljevi´ c, Connection between mott physics and crystal structure in a series of transition metal binary compounds, npj Comput. Mater.5, 30 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Y.-X. Yao, F. Zhang, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, and P. P. Orth, Gutzwiller hybrid quantum-classical computing ap- proach for correlated materials, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013184 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Mukherjee, N

    A. Mukherjee, N. F. Berthusen, J. C. Getelina, P. P. Orth, and Y.-X. Yao, Comparative study of adaptive variational quantum eigensolvers for multi-orbital impurity models, Commun. Phys.6, 4 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    T.-H. Lee, T. Ayral, Y.-X. Yao, N. Lanata, and G. Kotliar, Rotationally invariant slave-boson and density matrix embedding theory: Unified framework and comparative study on the one-dimensional and two-dimensional hub- bard model, Phys. Rev. B99, 115129 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Mineh and A

    L. Mineh and A. Montanaro, Solving the hubbard model using density matrix embedding theory and the variational quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. B105, 125117 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Kawashima, E

    Y. Kawashima, E. Lloyd, M. P. Coons, Y. Nam, S. Mat- suura, A. J. Garza, S. Johri, L. Huntington, V. Senicourt, A. O. Maksymov,et al., Optimizing electronic structure simulations on a trapped-ion quantum computer using problem decomposition, Communications Physics4, 245 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    N. C. Rubin, A hybrid classical/quantum approach for large-scale studies of quantum systems with density ma- trix embedding theory, arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.06910 10.48550/arXiv.1610.06910 (2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.06910 2016

  24. [24]

    Lanata, T.-H

    N. Lanata, T.-H. Lee, Y.-X. Yao, and V. Dobrosavljevi´ c, Emergent bloch excitations in mott matter, Phys. Rev. B 96, 195126 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    M. S. Frank, T.-H. Lee, G. Bhattacharyya, P. K. H. Tsang, V. L. Quito, V. Dobrosavljevi´ c, O. Christiansen, and N. Lanat` a, Quantum embedding description of the ander- son lattice model with the ghost gutzwiller approximation, Phys. Rev. B104, L081103 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    T.-H. Lee, C. Melnick, R. Adler, X. Sun, Y.-X. Yao, N. Lanat` a, and G. Kotliar, Charge self-consistent density functional theory plus ghost rotationally invariant slave- boson theory for correlated materials, Phys. Rev. B110, 115126 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Gomes, A

    N. Gomes, A. Mukherjee, F. Zhang, T. Iadecola, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, P. P. Orth, and Y.-X. Yao, Adaptive 14 variational quantum imaginary time evolution approach for ground state preparation, Adv. Quantum Technol.4, 2100114 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Y.-X. Yao, N. Gomes, F. Zhang, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, T. Iadecola, and P. P. Orth, Adaptive variational quantum dynamics simulations, PRX Quantum2, 030307 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    M. S. Frank, D. G. Artiukhin, T.-H. Lee, Y.-X. Yao, K. Barros, O. Christiansen, and N. Lanat` a, Active learn- ing approach to simulations of strongly correlated matter with the ghost gutzwiller approximation, Physical Review Research6, 013242 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    T.-H. Lee, N. Lanat` a, and G. Kotliar, Accuracy of ghost rotationally invariant slave-boson and dynamical mean field theory as a function of the impurity-model bath size, Phys. Rev. B107, L121104 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, Many-body electronic structure of americium metal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 036404 (2006)

    work page 2006

  32. [32]

    Bradbury, R

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. Johnson, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Necula, A. Paszke, J. Van- derPlas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang, JAX: com- posable transformations of Python+NumPy programs (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Inf.5, 75 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. Brand˜ ao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nat. Phys.16, 205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Stokes, J

    J. Stokes, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, and G. Carleo, Quantum natural gradient, Quantum4, 269 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

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

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    H. L. Tang, V. Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grim- sley, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ans¨ atze on a quantum processor, PRX Quantum2, 020310 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Gomes, F

    N. Gomes, F. Zhang, N. F. Berthusen, C.-Z. Wang, K.- M. Ho, P. P. Orth, and Y.-X. Yao, Efficient step-merged quantum imaginary time evolution algorithm for quantum chemistry, J. Chem. Theory Comput.16, 6256 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Alipanah, F

    H. Alipanah, F. Zhang, Y. Yao, R. Thompson, N. Nguyen, J. Liu, P. Givi, B. J. McDermott, and J. J. Mendoza- Arenas, Quantum dynamics simulation of the advection- diffusion equation (2025), arXiv:2503.13729 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Zhang, C.-Z

    F. Zhang, C.-Z. Wang, T. Iadecola, P. P. Orth, and Y.-X. Yao, Adaptive variational quantum dynamics simulations with compressed circuits and fewer measurements, Phys. Rev. B111, 094310 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    P. G. Anastasiou, Y. Chen, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Tetris-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm that yields shallower, denser circuit ans¨ atze, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013254 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    ˇZitko and T

    R. ˇZitko and T. Pruschke, Energy resolution and dis- cretization artifacts in the numerical renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B79, 085106 (2009)

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    Zitko, Nrg ljubljana (2021)

    R. Zitko, Nrg ljubljana (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    TRIQS: A Toolbox for Research on Interacting Quantum Systems

    O. Parcollet, M. Ferrero, T. Ayral, H. Hafermann, I. Krivenko, L. Messio, and P. Seth, TRIQS: A toolbox for research on interacting quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications196, 398 (2015), 1504.01952

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    Khindanov, Y

    A. Khindanov, Y. Yao, and T. Iadecola, Robust prepara- tion of ground state phases under noisy imaginary time evolution, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013263 (2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    J. C. Getelina, N. Gomes, T. Iadecola, P. P. Orth, and Y.-X. Yao, Adaptive variational quantum minimally en- tangled typical thermal states for finite temperature sim- ulations, SciPost Phys.15, 102 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    C. N. Self, M. Benedetti, and D. Amaro, Protecting ex- pressive circuits with a quantum error detection code, Nature Physics20, 219 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Herrmann, et al., Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature605, 669 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsiout- sios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. Brock, A. Ding, L. Frunzio, et al., Real-time quantum error correction beyond break- even, Nature616, 50 (2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter,et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with better-than-physical error rates

    A. Paetznick, M. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. Bello- Rivas, J. Campora III, A. Chernoguzov, J. Dreiling, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. Gaebler,et al., Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with better- than-physical error rates, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02280 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02280 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.02280 2024

  52. [52]

    R. S. Gupta, N. Sundaresan, T. Alexander, C. J. Wood, S. T. Merkel, M. B. Healy, M. Hillenbrand, T. Jochym- O’Connor, J. R. Wootton, T. J. Yoder,et al., Encoding a magic state with beyond break-even fidelity, Nature625, 259 (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    G. Q. AIet al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Fault-Tolerant Postselected Quantum Computation: Schemes

    E. Knill, Fault-tolerant postselected quantum computa- tion: Schemes (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0402171 [quant- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  55. [55]

    Fault-Tolerant Postselected Quantum Computation: Threshold Analysis

    E. Knill, Fault-tolerant postselected quantum computa- tion: Threshold analysis (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0404104 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  56. [56]

    Gowrishankar, D

    M. Gowrishankar, D. Claudino, J. Wright, and T. Hum- ble, Logical error rates for a [[4, 2, 2]]-encoded vari- ational quantum eigensolver ansatz, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03032 10.48550/arXiv.2405.03032 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.03032 2024

  57. [57]

    Z. He, D. Amaro, R. Shaydulin, and M. Pistoia, Per- formance of quantum approximate optimization with quantum error detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12104 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12104 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.12104 2024

  58. [58]

    Chao and B

    R. Chao and B. W. Reichardt, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with few qubits, npj Quantum Information 4, 10.1038/s41534-018-0085-z (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-018-0085-z 2018

  59. [59]

    Abraham, I

    H. Abraham, I. Y. Akhalwaya, G. Aleksandrowicz, T. Alexander, G. Alexandrowics, E. Arbel, A. Asfaw, C. Azaustre, AzizNgoueya, P. Barkoutsos, G. Barron, L. Bello, Y. Ben-Haim, D. Bevenius,et al., Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    J. C. Getelina, P. Sharma, T. Iadecola, P. P. Orth, and Y.- X. Yao, Quantum subspace expansion in the presence of hardware noise, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.09132 (2024), arXiv:2404.09132. 15

    work page arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Kanno, M

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Quantum-selected configuration interaction: classical diagonalization of hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers (2023), arXiv:2302.11320 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa,et al., Chemistry beyond exact solutions on a quantum-centric supercomputer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05068 10.48550/arXiv.2405.05068 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.05068 2024

  63. [63]

    J. Yu, J. R. Moreno, J. T. Iosue, L. Bertels, D. Claudino, B. Fuller, P. Groszkowski, T. S. Humble, P. Jurce- vic, W. Kirby, T. A. Maier, M. Motta, B. Pokharel, A. Seif, A. Shehata, K. J. Sung, M. C. Tran, V. Tri- pathi, A. Mezzacapo, and K. Sharma, Quantum-centric algorithm for sample-based krylov diagonalization (2025), arXiv:2501.09702 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Mikkelsen and Y

    M. Mikkelsen and Y. O. Nakagawa, Quantum-selected configuration interaction with time-evolved state (2025), arXiv:2412.13839 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Schir´ o and M

    M. Schir´ o and M. Fabrizio, Time-dependent mean field theory for quench dynamics in correlated electron systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 076401 (2010)

    work page 2010

  66. [66]

    Guerci, M

    D. Guerci, M. Capone, and N. Lanat` a, Time-dependent ghost gutzwiller nonequilibrium dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L032023 (2023)

    work page 2023