Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Sample-based diagonalization lets quantum chemistry circuits be compressed aggressively without losing accuracy.

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 00:15 UTC pith:C6PM7MIO

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful ablation showing SQD absorbs heavy circuit compression, but the abstract overclaims and the evidence never reaches the sparse-sampling regime where the claim would matter. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15076 v2 pith:C6PM7MIO submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph

SQD-Enabled Circuit Compression for Resource-Efficient Quantum Chemistry

Kangyu Zheng , Yidong Zhou , Jinglei Cheng , Zhemin Zhang , Shaohua Li , Zhiding Liang This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords subspace quantum diagonalizationcircuit compressiongradient pruningClifford roundingvariational quantum eigensolverquantum chemistrystabilizer tensor networkcontextual subspace
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 argues that Subspace Quantum Diagonalization (SQD), which recovers ground-state energies by classically diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in the space spanned by sampled bitstrings, only needs the sampling circuit to overlap the ground-state subspace—not to produce an accurate energy estimate. Because of this, the circuit can be aggressively simplified. The authors show that two compressions—gradient-based pruning of excitation operators and rounding of parameters to Clifford angles—can be applied to a variational ansatz while keeping median SQD error within chemical accuracy (1.6 mHa) at 50% compression on both axes, and on hardware the transpiled depth drops up to 2.8x with identical SQD energies. The practical upshot: SQD pipelines should be deliberately built from shallow, imprecise circuits, since the classical eigensolve absorbs sampler error. These results are demonstrated on 21 molecules in simulation and 6 on hardware, all in a minimal basis with 3–14 contextual-subspace qubits.

Core claim

The central claim is that SQD changes what the quantum circuit must achieve: standalone VQE demands an accurate expectation value, while SQD only requires bitstrings with sufficient overlap on the ground-state subspace. The authors exploit this by pruning low-gradient excitation operators and snapping the least significant parameters to the nearest Clifford angle (kπ/2). In a 4x5 ablation over 21 molecules, median SQD error remains below 1.6 mHa for gradient fractions f_g ≥ 0.75 combined with any Clifford fraction f_c ≥ 0.25, while median simulation speedup reaches 2.47x at (f_g=0.75, f_c=0.25); combining aggressive pruning (f_g=0.25) with full Clifford rounding (f_c=0.00) collapses accuracy

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the SQD sampler requirement, formalized as overlap on the ground-state subspace rather than energy accuracy. The paper's two compression tools operate on a UCCSD-style ansatz in a contextually reduced Hilbert space: (1) gradient pruning ranks each excitation operator by the magnitude of its single-term gradient ∂E/∂θ_j evaluated at θ_j=0 with all other parameters fixed at zero, keeping the top fraction f_g; (2) Clifford rounding, applied post-convergence, computes each parameter's distance to the nearest Clifford angle kπ/2 and snaps the fraction f_c of parameters with the smallest distances, converting non-Clifford gates into classically trackable Clifford operati

Load-bearing premise

The pruning ranking assumes each operator's importance is captured by its single-term gradient at θ=0 with all other parameters frozen, ignoring inter-operator interactions; if joint effects dominate, pruning silently removes operators needed to keep ground-state overlap, and SQD cannot recover configurations the sampler never produces.

What would settle it

Run the same 21-molecule ablation with a random-pruning control (same f_g fractions, operators chosen at random) and with a full ADAPT-VQE-style coupled-gradient ranking; if random pruning at f_g=0.75 also stays within 1.6 mHa, the paper's gradient proxy is not load-bearing, while if coupled gradients keep accuracy at f_g=0.25 where the single-term proxy fails, the proxy is the limiting factor. A second decisive test is to re-run the hardware experiment with far fewer shots (e.g., 1k–10k) on a molecule with at least 10 CS qubits to see whether compressed circuits still yield identical SQD ener

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

If this is right

  • SQD's robustness property means circuit quality can be substantially degraded without changing final energy accuracy, reframing SQD from an accuracy refinement tool into an enabler of circuit compression.
  • Clifford rounding is nearly free in accuracy cost for f_c ≥ 0.25 across all tested molecules, with median error flat across that range.
  • Gradient pruning is the dominant source of error growth; f_g ≥ 0.75 is the recommended operating point for molecules with larger contextual subspaces.
  • On hardware, combined compression reduces transpiled circuit depth by 2.4–2.8x for molecules with more than a few parameters, directly reducing decoherence and gate-error exposure.
  • The two compression axes contribute roughly multiplicatively to simulation speedup (2.8x from pruning, 2.1x from rounding, 3.8x combined at f_g=0.25, f_c=0.25), and the practical operating point is f_c in [0.25, 0.50].

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the overlap-only requirement holds at larger scale, SQD pipelines could trade away variational accuracy deliberately, e.g., using hardware-efficient entanglers or even random Clifford circuits as samplers, so long as the sampled subspace retains ground-state overlap.
  • The single-term gradient proxy at θ=0 is untested against coupled-gradient or random-pruning baselines; a control experiment comparing pruning rankings would reveal whether the robustness is due to the ranking quality or to SQD's tolerance.
  • The identical hardware energies across all configurations suggest a saturation effect: at 100k shots on 3–6 CS qubits the sample set nearly exhausts or well-covers the relevant subspace, so the compressed circuit's distribution still lands in the recovery region; the sparse-sampling regime where SQD matters most remains unexplored.
  • The f_c=0.00 phase transition (accuracy intact at f_g=1.00, collapses at f_g≤0.75) implies a threshold in combined expressivity loss; locating that threshold for a given molecule could be done by monitoring ground-state overlap of the sampled distribution rather than final energy.

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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that Sample-based Quantum Diagonalization (SQD) is robust to circuit imprecision, and exploits this by compressing the sampling circuit through gradient-based operator pruning and Clifford rounding. The pipeline first projects the molecular Hamiltonian into a contextual subspace, runs a compressed VQE, samples bitstrings, and then classically diagonalizes the resulting selected-CI subspace. The authors report a 21-molecule ablation showing that median SQD error remains within chemical accuracy at moderate compression, a 33× simulation speedup, and hardware experiments on 6 molecules with up to 2.8× transpiled-depth reduction and identical SQD errors across all compression settings.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper reframes SQD from a post-processing accuracy booster into an enabler of aggressive circuit compression, which would be a valuable practical insight for near-term quantum chemistry. The paper contains a systematic two-axis ablation, hardware validation on IBM quantum hardware, and a public implementation. The main strength is the clarity of the core observation: SQD only requires ground-state overlap, not accurate energy expectation values. However, the evidence as presented does not exercise the sparse-sampling regime where this robustness would matter, and the headline claims overstate what the data support. The core idea is plausible and worth publishing after substantial revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract & §IV-B(b), Table I] The abstract claims 'median SQD error stays within chemical accuracy even at 50% compression on both axes,' but Table I shows at (fg=0.50, fc=0.50) a median error of 3.79 mHa and at (0.50, 0.25) 3.82 mHa; all entries in the fg=0.50 row exceed the 1.6 mHa threshold. The supported operating point is fg≥0.75 with fc≥0.25. Similarly, the abstract's '33× simulation speedup' corresponds to (fg=0.25, fc=0.00), where the median error is 37.16 mHa. These figures should be reported with their accuracy context, and the wording revised to match the data.
  2. [§IV-A(d), §IV-D, Table III] The central robustness claim is tested only in a regime where sampling is nearly exhaustive. Hardware runs use 3–6 CS qubits with 100k shots, which essentially covers the full 2^3–2^6 configuration space; simulation samples from the exact statevector distribution. The identical SQD errors across all compression configurations is therefore consistent with a small-space artifact: SQD diagonalizes nearly the full CS Hamiltonian regardless of circuit quality. The paper itself concedes this in §IV-D ('the CS qubit counts here are small enough...'). To support the claim that compressed circuits tolerate SQD, the authors should add shot-limited experiments (e.g., 1k–10k shots) or larger CS spaces, and report the number of unique sampled determinants per batch.
  3. [§III-C, Table I] Gradient pruning uses a single-term gradient proxy evaluated at θ=0 with all other parameters fixed at zero, and the text explicitly states that inter-operator interactions are not accounted for. Since pruning is the dominant source of error increase in Table I, this proxy is load-bearing. The ablation at fg≥0.75 could be explained by redundancy in the UCCSD pool or by the small CS spaces, not by the proxy's validity. The authors should validate the proxy against a coupled-gradient/ADAPT-style ranking, or at least include a random-pruning control at the same fg values to demonstrate that the gradient ranking is informative.
  4. [§IV-A(b)] The contextual-subspace size is selected as the smallest number of CS qubits whose subspace ground energy is within 1.6 mHa of FCI—the same threshold used as the pass/fail criterion for SQD accuracy. For molecules satisfying this condition, any near-exhaustive sample set will return the CS ground state, whose error is below threshold by construction, independent of circuit compression. To isolate the circuit-compression contribution, the authors should report SQD errors relative to the CS ground-state energy rather than FCI, and disclose the CS truncation error per molecule.
  5. [§IV-D, Table III] The hardware 'zero loss' result is reported as identical SQD errors to 0.01 mHa across all configurations, but no statistical uncertainty, shot counts of unique postselected determinants, or repeated runs over device noise are provided. With 100k shots on 3–6 qubits, sampling variance is negligible and the invariance is expected. The authors should report per-batch energy distributions and the number of unique sampled determinants to assess whether compression changes the variance or bias of SQD estimates.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption describes a 'stabilizer-tableau component' and an 'MPS component,' but the method text (§III-C) never defines or uses an MPS representation. Please reconcile the caption with the STN-based implementation.
  2. [Table I] The bold markers for within-chemical-accuracy entries are not visible in the manuscript text provided; please ensure they render in the final version.
  3. [§IV-B(b)] The statement that 'error stays flat across columns until fc=0.00' is not strictly true at fg=0.50 (3.62→3.79 mHa from fc=0.75 to fc=0.50). The qualitative point stands, but the wording should be softened.
  4. [§III-C] The definition of 'Clifford angle' as kπ/2 is clear, but the set of k values should be stated (integer k) and the convention for wrapping angles should be specified, since parameter values outside [0,2π) may occur after rounding.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Mild threshold-reuse circularity in the chemical-accuracy headline; the central compression-robustness comparison is otherwise independent.

specific steps
  1. other [Section IV-A(b) (subspace selection) and Section IV-B(a)/Table I (accuracy evaluation)]
    "For each molecule we sweep the subspace size and select the smallest number of contextual qubits whose subspace ground energy is within approximately 1.6 mHa of full configuration interaction (FCI). ... Of the 21 molecules, 15 achieve SQD error below the 1.6 mHa chemical accuracy threshold."

    The 1.6 mHa tolerance is used both as the subspace-selection input (each reduced Hamiltonian is chosen so that its ground energy is within 1.6 mHa of FCI) and as the pass/fail threshold for the headline accuracy claim. Thus the 'median SQD error stays within chemical accuracy' result is partly inherited from the selection criterion rather than independently predicted. The compression-robustness comparison (compressed vs. uncompressed runs on the same subspace) remains meaningful, so this is a mild, not total, circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical ablation against external FCI benchmarks from PySCF, so no equation hides a fitted constant. The SQD robustness property is cited from independent prior work (QSCI/SQD) rather than smuggled via self-citation. Self-citations ([14], [15], [25]) appear only in non-load-bearing contexts. The main circularity-adjacent issue is threshold reuse: the contextual subspace is selected so its ground energy is within 1.6 mHa of FCI, and the same value is then used as the chemical-accuracy pass/fail criterion, making the absolute accuracy claim partly by construction. Additionally, the hardware validation uses only 3–6 CS qubits with 100k shots; as the paper itself states, 'the CS qubit counts here are small enough that even a significantly perturbed circuit distributes probability over the correct region,' so the identical SQD energies across configurations are an artifact of near-exhaustive sampling rather than a demonstration of tolerance in a sparse-sampling regime. These are scope/evidence limitations plus a mild threshold circularity, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. Score 2.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The pipeline rests on three imported external results (STN simulation [31], contextual-subspace projection [19], SQD recovery [20]) and three hand-made heuristics (single-term gradient ranking, min-diff Clifford rounding, configuration-recovery biasing). The 1.6 mHa subspace-selection criterion means the headline accuracy is partly inherited from subspace choice rather than from the compression techniques themselves. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • CS subspace size selection threshold = ~1.6 mHa proximity to FCI, applied per molecule
    Smallest contextual-subspace qubit count whose subspace ground energy is within ~1.6 mHa of FCI is selected (§IV-A(b)); the headline 'within chemical accuracy' is partly inherited from this per-molecule choice.
  • Excitation-pool Pauli truncation = one dominant Pauli term per composite UCCSD operator
    'Retaining the dominant Pauli term from each composite operator' (§IV-A(b)) fixes ansatz expressivity before any compression; an unstated truncation with accuracy consequences.
  • Single-term gradient importance proxy
    Operator importance is scored by |∂E/∂θ_j| at θ_j=0 with all other parameters zero (§III-C); the ranking that drives pruning is this hand-chosen proxy, never validated against coupled gradients.
  • SQD configuration-recovery bias strength
    The 'configuration recovery step that biases the next iteration's sampling toward the most occupied orbitals' (§III-D) is described qualitatively; its strength determines sample diversity and hence recovered energies, and is not specified.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The STN estimator from [31] computes expectation values of Clifford-dominated circuits in polynomial time and was correctly implemented.
    All simulation cost-function evaluations and speedups rely on this external simulator's correctness and cost model (§II-B, §III-C); the paper modifies the implementation without shipping it.
  • domain assumption Contextual-subspace projection preserves the ground state within ~1.6 mHa for the chosen subspace sizes.
    Verified numerically per molecule against FCI (§IV-A(b)) but load-bearing: the accuracy results are conditional on every molecule having at least one contextual subspace within the threshold.
  • domain assumption SQD converges to the subspace ground state when the sampler has sufficient overlap with the ground-state subspace.
    The enabling property imported from [20]/[36] (§II-D); used to justify compression, not re-derived or stress-tested in the sparse-sampling regime.
  • ad hoc to paper Parameter proximity to kπ/2 at convergence implies low sensitivity of the final sampled distribution to that parameter.
    The min-diff Clifford rounding heuristic (§III-C) assumes the parameters with smallest δ_j are the least important; error flatness for f_c≥0.25 supports this empirically but it is an assumption about the loss landscape.
  • domain assumption Chemical accuracy at 1.6 mHa in STO-3G is the relevant success criterion.
    Standard chemistry practice; used both as subspace-selection threshold and as the pass/fail line, which gives the headline accuracy claim a self-referential component.
  • standard math A Clifford-rounded gate e^{-ikπ/2 P} is classically trackable at negligible cost.
    Pauli rotations at multiples of π/2 are Clifford operations (Gottesman [32]); standard stabilizer formalism.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12310 in / 30190 out tokens · 307506 ms · 2026-08-02T00:15:46.613337+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Subspace Quantum Diagonalization (SQD) recovers ground-state energies by classically diagonalizing a Hamiltonian in the subspace spanned by quantum samples, requiring only bitstrings with sufficient ground-state overlap rather than an accurate variational energy. We reveal and exploit this underexplored robustness property: how much non-Clifford and variational expressivity can be removed from the sampling circuit before SQD accuracy degrades? We answer through two complementary compression techniques: gradient-based operator pruning, which discards low-impact excitation operators, and Clifford rounding, which snaps remaining parameters to the nearest Clifford angle. Both of these techniques can be applied to a VQE ansatz on a qubit-reduced Hamiltonian. A systematic ablation study across 21 molecules shows that median SQD error stays within chemical accuracy even at 50\% compression on both axes, while simulation speedup reaches $33\times$. Hardware validation on 6 molecules on IBM quantum hardware confirms up to $2.8\times$ transpiled-depth reduction with zero loss in SQD accuracy. Our implementation can be found at: https://github.com/zkysfls/cs-vqe-sqd

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15076 by Jinglei Cheng, Kangyu Zheng, Shaohua Li, Yidong Zhou, Zhemin Zhang, Zhiding Liang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the proposed pipeline. The full Hilbert space is compressed into a contextual reduced subspace capturing the dominant low-energy structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Relative energy error versus FCI comparison under full parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Runtime speedup of CS-VQE+SQD vs. standard VQE across 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation heatmap across 21 molecules. Left: median SQD energy error (mHa). Right: median simulation speedup ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Absolute transpiled circuit depth on ibm_rensselaer across four configurations. The depth reduction scales with molecule size: H2O (168 parameters) drops from 4437 to 1690; small molecules (Be, B+) are already shallow and show no change. decoherence and gate errors on hardware. The invariance of SQD accuracy across all four hardware configurations arises because all four circuits, despite varying compressi… 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

38 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,”SIAM review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999

    1999

  2. [2]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets,

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets,”nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 242–246, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Quantum op- timization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices,

    N. Moll, P. Barkoutsos, L. S. Bishop, J. M. Chow, A. Cross, D. J. Egger, S. Filipp, A. Fuhrer, J. M. Gambetta, M. Ganzhornet al., “Quantum op- timization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 030503, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Quantum machine learning,

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum machine learning,”Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,”Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Measurement error mitigation for varia- tional quantum algorithms,

    G. S. Barron and C. J. Wood, “Measurement error mitigation for varia- tional quantum algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08520, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Error mitigation for variational quantum algorithms through mid- circuit measurements,

    L. Botelho, A. Glos, A. Kundu, J. A. Miszczak, ¨O. Salehi, and Z. Zim- bor´as, “Error mitigation for variational quantum algorithms through mid- circuit measurements,”Physical Review A, vol. 105, no. 2, p. 022441, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Error mitigation with clifford quantum-circuit data,

    P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, “Error mitigation with clifford quantum-circuit data,”Quantum, vol. 5, p. 592, 2021

    2021

  9. [9]

    Systematic crosstalk mitigation for superconducting qubits via frequency-aware compilation,

    Y . Ding, P. Gokhale, S. F. Lin, R. Rines, T. Propson, and F. T. Chong, “Systematic crosstalk mitigation for superconducting qubits via frequency-aware compilation,” in2020 53rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). IEEE, 2020, pp. 201–214

    2020

  10. [10]

    Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation,

    H. Liao, D. S. Wang, I. Sitdikov, C. Salcedo, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, “Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation,”Nature Machine Intelligence, pp. 1–9, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Ex- ponentially tighter bounds on limitations of quantum error mitigation,

    Y . Quek, D. Stilck Franc ¸a, S. Khatri, J. J. Meyer, and J. Eisert, “Ex- ponentially tighter bounds on limitations of quantum error mitigation,” Nature Physics, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1648–1658, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,”Nature communications, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, 2014

    2014

  13. [13]

    An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, “An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,”Nature communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 3007, 2019

    2019

  14. [14]

    Quantum-machine-assisted drug discovery: Survey and perspective,

    Y . Zhou, J. Chen, J. Cheng, G. Karemore, M. Zitnik, F. T. Chong, J. Liu, T. Fu, and Z. Liang, “Quantum-machine-assisted drug discovery: Survey and perspective,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13479, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Qcs-adme: Quantum circuit search for drug property prediction with imbalanced data and regression adapta- tion,

    K. Zheng, T. Fu, and Z. Liang, “Qcs-adme: Quantum circuit search for drug property prediction with imbalanced data and regression adapta- tion,” 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Can error mitigation improve trainability of noisy variational quantum algorithms?

    S. Wang, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Can error mitigation improve trainability of noisy variational quantum algorithms?”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1287, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Cafqa: A classical simulation bootstrap for variational quantum algorithms,

    G. S. Ravi, P. Gokhale, Y . Ding, W. Kirby, K. Smith, J. M. Baker, P. J. Love, H. Hoffmann, K. R. Brown, and F. T. Chong, “Cafqa: A classical simulation bootstrap for variational quantum algorithms,” inProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 1, 2022, pp. 15–29

    2022

  18. [18]

    Clapton: Clif- ford assisted problem transformation for error mitigation in variational quantum algorithms,

    L. M. Seifert, S. Dangwal, F. T. Chong, and G. S. Ravi, “Clapton: Clif- ford assisted problem transformation for error mitigation in variational quantum algorithms,” inProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 4, ser. ASPLOS ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for...

    2025

  19. [19]

    Contextual subspace variational quantum eigensolver calculation of the dissociation curve of molecular nitrogen on a superconducting quantum computer,

    T. Weaving, A. Ralli, P. J. Love, S. Succi, and P. V . Coveney, “Contextual subspace variational quantum eigensolver calculation of the dissociation curve of molecular nitrogen on a superconducting quantum computer,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 25, feb 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercomputer,

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa, I. Sit- dikov, R.-Y . Sun, K. J. Sung, M. Takita, M. C. Tran, S. Yunoki, and A. Mezzacapo, “Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercomputer,”Science Advances, vol. 11, no. 25, Jun. 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    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, “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, p. 625–644, Aug. 2021

    2021

  22. [22]

    Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum- classical algorithms,

    S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum- classical algorithms,”Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 2, no. 12, p. 1900070, 2019

    2019

  23. [23]

    Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus,

    Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, “Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus,”PRX quantum, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 010313, 2022

    2022

  24. [24]

    Efficient and robust parameter optimization of the unitary coupled-cluster ansatz,

    W. Li, Y . Ge, S.-X. Zhang, Y .-Q. Chen, and S. Zhang, “Efficient and robust parameter optimization of the unitary coupled-cluster ansatz,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 3683– 3696, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Napa: intermediate-level variational native-pulse ansatz for variational quantum algorithms,

    Z. Liang, J. Cheng, H. Ren, H. Wang, F. Hua, Z. Song, Y . Ding, F. T. Chong, S. Han, X. Qianet al., “Napa: intermediate-level variational native-pulse ansatz for variational quantum algorithms,”IEEE Trans- actions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1834–1847, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Equivalence of quantum barren plateaus to cost concentration and narrow gorges,

    A. Arrasmith, Z. Holmes, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, “Equivalence of quantum barren plateaus to cost concentration and narrow gorges,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 045015, 2022

    2022

  27. [27]

    Synergistic pretraining of parametrized quantum circuits via tensor networks,

    M. S. Rudolph, J. Miller, D. Motlagh, J. Chen, A. Acharya, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, “Synergistic pretraining of parametrized quantum circuits via tensor networks,”Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 8367, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ans ¨atze on a quantum processor,

    H. L. Tang, V . Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, 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 Quantum, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 020310, 2021

    2021

  29. [29]

    Avoiding symmetry roadblocks and minimizing the measurement over- head of adaptive variational quantum eigensolvers,

    V . O. Shkolnikov, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, “Avoiding symmetry roadblocks and minimizing the measurement over- head of adaptive variational quantum eigensolvers,”Quantum, vol. 7, p. 1040, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    Validating quantum-classical programming models with tensor network simulations,

    A. McCaskey, E. Dumitrescu, M. Chen, D. Lyakh, and T. Humble, “Validating quantum-classical programming models with tensor network simulations,”PloS one, vol. 13, no. 12, p. e0206704, 2018

    2018

  31. [31]

    Stabilizer tensor networks: univer- sal quantum simulator on a basis of stabilizer states,

    S. Masot-Llima and A. Garcia-Saez, “Stabilizer tensor networks: univer- sal quantum simulator on a basis of stabilizer states,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 133, no. 23, p. 230601, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. Califor- nia Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  33. [33]

    Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing,

    Y . Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferov ´a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. Sawaya et al., “Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing,”Chemical reviews, vol. 119, no. 19, pp. 10 856–10 915, 2019

    2019

  34. [34]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 023023, 2016

    2016

  35. [35]

    Learning to optimize variational quantum circuits to solve combina- torial problems,

    S. Khairy, R. Shaydulin, L. Cincio, Y . Alexeev, and P. Balaprakash, “Learning to optimize variational quantum circuits to solve combina- torial problems,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 34, no. 03, 2020, pp. 2367–2375

    2020

  36. [36]

    Quantum-selected configuration interaction: Classical diagonalization of Hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers,

    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,”Physical Review Research, vol. 8, p. 023268, 2026

    2026

  37. [37]

    Recent developments in the PySCF program package,

    Q. Sunet al., “Recent developments in the PySCF program package,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 153, no. 2, p. 024109, 2020

    2020

  38. [38]

    ADAPT-QSCI: Adaptive construction of an input state for quantum-selected configuration interaction,

    Y . O. Nakagawa, M. Kamoshita, W. Mizukami, S. Sudo, and Y .-y. Ohnishi, “ADAPT-QSCI: Adaptive construction of an input state for quantum-selected configuration interaction,”Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 20, no. 24, pp. 10 817–10 825, 2024

    2024