Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 77 references

Noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that every eigenvalue of a noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonian has an associated eigenvector expressible as a sum of at most $O(n)$ stabilizer states, opening a new class of efficiently simulatable states.

desk verdict Solid structural results for noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians, but the proof of the central stabilizer-rank theorem depends on a false LCU identity and needs a real repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19778 v1 pith:CCHVQEBD submitted 2025-06-24 quant-ph math-phmath.MPphysics.comp-ph

Alexis Ralli , Tim Weaving , Peter J. Love This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MPphysics.comp-ph
keywords noncontextualPauliHamiltonianstabilizerrankcontextualityJordanproductunitarypartitioningefficientclassicalsimulationHamiltonianseigenspectrum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper establishes that noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians—quantum Hamiltonians built from Pauli operators that admit a consistent noncontextual value assignment—remain classically tractable even though they can contain more interaction terms than diagonal Hamiltonians. Its central result is that for every eigenvalue of such a Hamiltonian there is an associated eigenvector whose stabilizer rank is linear in the number of qubits, so the eigenstate can be written as a superposition of at most about $2n$ stabilizer states. The authors also prove that a noncontextual Hamiltonian can contain up to $2^{n+1}$ distinct Pauli operators, twice the ceiling for a fully commuting Hamiltonian, and that each block of the Hamiltonian carries only two eigenvalues. If the proofs are correct, noncontextual eigenstates form a new class of classically simulatable states usable as inputs to quantum algorithms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generating set $R = G \cup A$ of a noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonian: $G$ is a set of independent, mutually commuting Pauli operators serving as $Z_2$ symmetries, and $A$ is a set of pairwise anticommuting Pauli operators. Under the Jordan product—the symmetrized product $\{A,B\}/2$, which vanishes on anticommuting pairs—every noncontextual Hamiltonian is generated from such a set. The main technical engine is Theorem III.2, stating that any real linear combination of pairwise anticommuting Pauli operators is unitarily equivalent to a single Pauli operator and therefore has exactly two eigenvalues equal to plus and minus the Euclidean norm of its coefficients. The explicit unitary partitioning rotation $R_{\mathrm{LCU}}$ realizes that equivalence as a linear combination of at most $|A|$ Pauli terms, and this expansion is what carries the stabilizer-rank bound.

What would settle it

Search the small-qubit cases: if any set of Pauli operators satisfies the paper's noncontextuality condition (commutation becomes transitive after removing universally commuting operators) yet its Jordan-closed support has no independent generating set of the form $G \cup A$, then Corollary II.4 and the theorems built on it fail. Alternatively, construct the $R_{LCU}$ eigenstates for random noncontextual Hamiltonians and test whether their stabilizer rank ever exceeds $2(n-|G|)+1$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem III.3: for a general $n$-qubit noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonian, every eigenvalue has an associated eigenvector with stabilizer rank linear in $n$. The argument writes the Hamiltonian as generated by a Jordan-independent set $R = G \cup A$, where $G$ is a set of commuting Pauli symmetry operators and $A$ is a set of pairwise anticommuting Pauli operators. The symmetries in $G$ block-diagonalize the Hamiltonian, and inside each block the remaining operator is a constant plus a normalized real linear combination of anticommuting Pauli operators, which the unitary partitioning rotation $R_{\mathrm{LCU}}$ maps to a single Pauli operator. Applying that rotation to a stabilizer state produces a superposition of at most $|A| \leq 2(n-|G|)+1$ stabilizer states, which gives the linear bound. The same structure yields the two-eigenvalue-per-block spectrum and the support bound $|H_{nc}| \leq 2^{n+1}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every noncontextual set of Pauli operators is generated under the Jordan product by a set $R = G \cup A$ with $G$ universally commuting and $A$ pairwise anticommuting; the paper takes this characterization from earlier work without reproving it, and if it is incomplete the block structure and stabilizer-rank theorems cover only a subclass of noncontextual Hamiltonians.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians can include up to $2^{n+1}$ distinct Pauli terms, twice the maximum for a fully commuting (diagonal) Hamiltonian, so they cover more physical interactions while staying classically describable.
  • Each symmetry block of a noncontextual Hamiltonian has exactly two eigenvalues $E_{\pm}(\vec{u}) = \delta(\vec{u}) \pm \|\vec{c}(\vec{u})\|$, so the spectrum can be evaluated classically sector by sector rather than by diagonalization.
  • For every eigenvalue, an eigenvector can be constructed as a superposition of at most $2(n-|G|)+1$ stabilizer states; when $A$ is empty the Hamiltonian is a stabilizer Hamiltonian and its eigenvectors are single stabilizer states.
  • Eigenvalue degeneracies come in factors of $2^{\lceil(|A|-1)/2\rceil-1}$ from the anticommuting part, with additional degeneracies possible from symmetries beyond the Pauli $Z_2$ symmetries in $G$.
  • Finding the noncontextual ground state remains NP-complete because there are $2^{|G|}$ symmetry sectors, but once a sector is chosen the corresponding eigenstate is efficiently constructible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical extension would build the $R_{\mathrm{LCU}}$ expansion for random noncontextual Hamiltonians and check that the stabilizer rank of the constructed eigenstates never exceeds $2(n-|G|)+1$, and whether the bound is ever tight.
  • If the converse question the authors raise holds—that every state of linear stabilizer rank has a noncontextual parent Hamiltonian—then noncontextual Hamiltonians would characterize a general class of classically simulable Hamiltonians; if it fails, an even broader simulable class exists.
  • The NP-completeness of the ground-state search means the efficient eigenstate description is best read as a verification and initialization tool: it makes a chosen sector classically tractable, but it does not by itself remove the hardness of choosing the right sector.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians, defined as Hamiltonians generated under the Jordan product from a set R = G ∪ A, where G is a commuting set of Pauli symmetries and A is a set of pairwise anticommuting Pauli operators. The main results are: (i) a support bound |H_nc| ≤ 2^{n+1}; (ii) a block-diagonal structure with respect to the symmetries G; (iii) a two-eigenvalue spectral theorem for each block, which is a constant plus a normalized linear combination of pairwise anticommuting Paulis; and (iv) the claim that every eigenvalue has an associated eigenvector of stabilizer rank O(n) (Theorem III.3). The paper also discusses degeneracies arising from the anticommuting set A. The central proof of Theorem III.3 relies on an LCU rotation identity in Definition II.10/Eq. (5).

Significance. If the stabilizer-rank theorem can be correctly established, the paper identifies a genuinely new family of Hamiltonians whose eigenstates admit efficient classical descriptions, going beyond commuting and stabilizer Hamiltonians. The block-diagonalization theorem (Theorem III.1) and the two-eigenvalue spectral structure (Theorem III.2) are elementary, clearly stated, and the proofs in Appendix B are essentially correct. The support bound in Corollary III.3 is a useful quantitative result, although the comparison with 'diagonal Hamiltonians' is misstated. The paper does not present numerical or code artifacts; its value is theoretical. The advertised main contribution is Theorem III.3, and as written that theorem is not established because its proof uses a false identity.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.C, Definition II.10, Eq. (5)] The displayed identity is mathematically false. The exponential of a linear combination of Pauli operators is not, in general, a finite linear combination of |A| Pauli operators. For example, with A={X,Y,Z} on one qubit, exp(-iθ(aX+bY+cZ)) = cos(θ)I - i sin(θ)(aX+bY+cZ), which contains the identity in addition to the three Pauli operators and is not of the form Σ_{l=1}^{|A|} d_l P_l. The standard LCU construction from [63] is a linear combination of unitaries, not an exponential of the summed Pauli products. Since the proof of Theorem III.3 in Section III.E explicitly uses Eq. (5) to bound the number of stabilizer terms by |A|, the central stabilizer-rank claim is not established as written.
  2. [III.E, Eq. (20)] The eigenvector is written as |ψ_nc±(ν)⟩ = R†(ν)|ψ±(ν)⟩, but the convention adopted in Eq. (6) is R† Ô R = P. With H_nc(ν)=δ(ν)I+||c(ν)||Ô and Ô = R P_A R†, the eigenvector is R(ν)|ψ±(ν)⟩, not R†(ν)|ψ±(ν)⟩, unless R is Hermitian and self-inverse. The proof of Theorem III.3 should either apply the rotation on the correct side or explicitly prove that the LCU unitary is Hermitian and satisfies R²=I; otherwise the displayed vector is not generally an eigenvector.
  3. [Introduction and II.C] The comparison underlying the claimed support result is misstated. The maximum size of a commuting set of Pauli operators on n qubits is 2^n, not 2n, and the support bound proved in Corollary III.3 is 2^{n+1}, not 2n+1. The abstract and introduction compare noncontextual Hamiltonians with 'diagonal Hamiltonians' using the numbers 2n+1 versus 2n, which is internally inconsistent with Corollary III.3. The correct comparison should be restated as 2^{n+1} versus 2^n.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II.C, Definition II.9, Eq. (4)] The expansion of R_S as a product of rotations equal to a linear combination of 2|A|-1 Pauli operators also appears incorrect in general: a product of noncommuting single-Pauli rotations does not reduce to that few Pauli terms. This construction should be aligned with the precise statement in [63].
  2. [III.D, Eq. (19)] The eigenvalue formula is written as E±(ν)=δ(ν)I±(... ), but an eigenvalue is a scalar, not an operator; the identity operator should be removed.
  3. [II.F, Corollary II.4] The paper aims to be self-contained, but Corollary II.4, which supplies the G∪A characterization used throughout Section III, is stated without proof and only attributed to 'Appendix B of [4]'. It should either be proved or explicitly labeled as an imported theorem.
  4. [II.F, near Definition II.14] The statement that every eigenstate of H_nc must be an eigenstate of each G_i is too strong when H_nc has degeneracies; the correct statement is that there exists a common eigenbasis. This imprecision should be corrected.
  5. [Global (typos)] There are several typographical issues, including 'noncontexutal' on page 3, 'The proof we provide are straightforward' on page 2, and missing parentheses in Eq. (21). These should be fixed in a revision.
  6. [Figure 1] The caption says 'Different 4-qubit noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians by size of A', but it is not clear from the caption or the text whether the plots show all structures for each size of A or representative examples; this should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are consequences of previously established structural theorems, and the stabilizer-rank proof's reliance on Eq. (5) is a correctness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The load-bearing premises—Theorem II.2 and the R=G∪A generating-set characterization (Eq. 12, Corollary II.4)—are imported from the authors' prior peer-reviewed work [3,4]. They are parameter-free structural results and are not the target theorems of this paper; the subsequent derivations (support bound, block structure, two-eigenvalue spectrum, degeneracy factor) are genuine mathematical consequences of those premises rather than re-statements of them. The only place where a claimed result follows almost immediately from a definition is Theorem III.3: the stabilizer-rank bound is read off the defining expansion R_LCU = Σ_l d_l P_l in Eq. (5), and the eigenvector is defined as R†_LCU|ψ±⟩. This makes the theorem highly dependent on a self-cited construction, and if Eq. (5) is false the theorem is not established as written. But this is a correctness/evidence gap in an imported lemma, not a circularity: the target conclusion (linear stabilizer rank) is not assumed as a premise, and the cited lemma does not mention stabilizer rank. No step reduces the paper's target claims to their own inputs by construction, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters (no numerical fitting) and no new physical entities. It relies on four background results from the prior literature: the noncontextuality criterion (Theorem II.2), the generating-set structure (Corollary II.4), the unitary partitioning theorem (Theorem II.1), and the bound on anticommuting Pauli sets. The first two come from the same research program as the present authors and are not re-proved here; the last two are standard external results.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Set of Pauli operators S is noncontextual iff commutation is an equivalence relation on T = S minus the universally commuting operators (Theorem II.2, from [3]).
    Invoked in Section IIC and Definition II.17 to define noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians; taken without proof from Kirby and Love (PRL 2019), which overlaps authorship with Love.
  • domain assumption The closure under inference of a noncontextual set has an independent generating set R = G union A, where G is universally commuting and A is pairwise anticommuting (Corollary II.4, from [4]).
    Used in equation (12) and throughout Section III to derive the block structure and support bound; taken from Kirby and Love (PRA 2020).
  • domain assumption A normalized real linear combination of pairwise anticommuting Pauli operators is unitarily equivalent to a single Pauli operator (Theorem II.1, from [62,63]).
    Used in Appendix B to prove Theorem III.2 and in the eigenstate construction of Section IIIE.
  • standard math A set of pairwise anticommuting Pauli operators on m qubits has size at most 2m+1 (from [64]).
    Used to bound |A| and derive the support upper bound in Corollary III.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCHVQEBD

@misc{pith2026250619778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCHVQEBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19778}
}
read the original abstract

Contextuality is a key feature of quantum mechanics, and identification of noncontextual subtheories of quantum mechanics is of both fundamental and practical importance. Recently, noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians have been defined in the setting of variational quantum algorithms. In this work we rigorously establish a number of properties of noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians. We prove that these Hamiltonians can be composed of more Pauli operators than diagonal Hamiltonians. This establishes that noncontextual Hamiltonians are able to describe a greater number of physical interactions. We then show that the eigenspaces admit an efficient classical description. We analyse the eigenspace of these Hamiltonians and prove that for every eigenvalue there exists an associated eigenvector whose stabilizer rank scales linearly with the number of qubits. We prove that further structure in these Hamiltonians allow us to derive where degeneracies in the eigenspectrum can arise. We thus open the field to a new class of efficiently simulatable states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19778 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Different 4-qubit noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonians by size of A. Vertices represent Pauli operators and edges are between commuting Pauli operators. Each central cluster represents globally commuting Pauli operators (P ∈ Z) and outer clusters represent disjoint commuting cliques. Note the identity operator is included in these plots. nian Hnc? For a general Noncontextual Pauli Hamilto￾nian every Pauli operator Gi ∈ … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [63]

    Bravyi, J

    S. Bravyi, J. M. Gambetta, A. Mezzacapo, and K. Temme, arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.08213 (2017)

    arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  3. [2]

    W. M. Kirby, A. Tranter, and P. J. Love, Quantum5, 456 (2021)

    2021

  4. [3]

    W. M. Kirby and P. J. Love, Physical Review Letters 123, 200501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    W. M. Kirby and P. J. Love, Physical Review A102, 032418 (2020), arXiv:2002.05693

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    Weaving, A

    T. Weaving, A. Ralli, W. M. Kirby, A. Tranter, P. J. Love, and P. V. Coveney, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation19, 808 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Ralli, T

    A. Ralli, T. Weaving, A. Tranter, W. M. Kirby, P. J. Love, and P. V. Coveney, Physical Review Research5, 013095 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Weaving, A

    T. Weaving, A. Ralli, W. M. Kirby, P. J. Love, S. Succi, and P. V. Coveney, Physical Review Research5, 043054 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 77 references
  1. [8]

    Weaving, A

    T. Weaving, A. Ralli, P. J. Love, S. Succi, and P. V. Coveney, npj Quantum Information11, 25 (2025)

    2025

  2. [9]

    We note that by removing the globally commuting operators we obtain the disjoint commuting cliques

    The central clusters represent globally commuting operators and the outer clusters represent disjoint com- muting cliques. We note that by removing the globally commuting operators we obtain the disjoint commuting cliques. We use this fact to state the following corollaries. C...

  3. [10]

    Howard, J

    M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, Nature510, 351 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    Preskill, arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.5813 (2012)

    J. Preskill, arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.5813 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bermejo-Vega, N

    J. Bermejo-Vega, N. Delfosse, D. E. Browne, C. Okay, and R. Raussendorf, Physical Review Letters119, 120505 (2017)

    2017

  6. [13]

    Shahandeh, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00024 (2021)

    F. Shahandeh, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00024 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    For each symmetry, the+1or−1eigenspace can be selected and after projection the remaining Hamiltonian will be de- fined on one less qubit

    Now projecting onto an eigenstate of a particu- larC †GiCsymmetry is equivalent to fixing the unique qubit it acts on to be in the state|0⟩or|1⟩. For each symmetry, the+1or−1eigenspace can be selected and after projection the remaining Hamiltonian will be de- fined on one less...

  8. [15]

    Raussendorf, Physical Review A88, 022322 (2013)

    R. Raussendorf, Physical Review A88, 022322 (2013)

    2013

  9. [16]

    Delfosse, P

    N. Delfosse, P. A. Guerin, J. Bian, and R. Raussendorf, Physical Review X5, 021003 (2015)

    2015

  10. [17]

    Mansfield and E

    S. Mansfield and E. Kashefi, Physical Review Letters 121, 230401 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    Karanjai, J

    A. Karanjai, J. J. Wallman, and S. D. Bartlett, arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07744 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Grudka, K

    A. Grudka, K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, P. Joshi, W. Kłobus, and A. Wójcik, Physical Review Letters112, 120401 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    Budroni, A

    C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. Gühne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-Å. Larsson, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 045007 (2022). 13

    2022

  14. [21]

    Gupta, D

    S. Gupta, D. Saha, Z.-P. Xu, A. Cabello, and A. Ma- jumdar, Physical Review Letters130, 080802 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Pavicic, Quantum7, 953 (2023)

    M. Pavicic, Quantum7, 953 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    R. W. Spekkens, Physical review letters101, 020401 (2008)

    2008

  17. [24]

    Ferrie and J

    C. Ferrie and J. Emerson, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical41, 352001 (2008)

    2008

  18. [25]

    Ferrie and J

    C. Ferrie and J. Emerson, New Journal of Physics11, 063040 (2009)

    2009

  19. [26]

    Kocia, Y

    L. Kocia, Y. Huang, and P. Love, Physical Review A 96, 032331 (2017)

    2017

  20. [27]

    Kocia, Y

    L. Kocia, Y. Huang, and P. Love, Entropy19, 353 (2017)

    2017

  21. [28]

    Kocia and P

    L. Kocia and P. Love, Physical Review A96, 062134 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    Kocia and P

    L. Kocia and P. Love, New Journal of Physics20, 073020 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Kocia and P

    L. Kocia and P. Love, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical52, 095303 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Kocia and P

    L. Kocia and P. Love, Quantum5, 494 (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    Gottesman, Physical Review A54, 1862 (1996)

    D. Gottesman, Physical Review A54, 1862 (1996)

    1996

  26. [33]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    1997

  27. [34]

    Gottesman, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

    D. Gottesman, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

    1998 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Physical Review A70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  29. [36]

    R. W. Spekkens, Fundamental Theories of Physics181, 83 (2014), arXiv:1409.5041

    2014 arXiv

  30. [37]

    H. J. Garcia, I. L. Markov, and A. W. Cross, arXiv preprint arXiv:1210.6646 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  31. [38]

    H. J. García, I. L. Markov, and A. W. Cross, Quantum Information & Computation14, 683 (2014)

    2014

  32. [39]

    Bravyi, G

    S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Physical Review X6, 021043 (2016)

    2016

  33. [40]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gos- set, and M. Howard, Quantum3, 181 (2019)

    2019

  34. [41]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 250501 (2016)

    2016

  35. [42]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Annals of physics303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  36. [43]

    E.Dennis, A.Kitaev, A.Landahl, andJ.Preskill,Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452 (2002)

    2002

  37. [44]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Journal of Mathematical Physics56(2015)

    2015

  38. [45]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. P. Divincenzo, R. I. Oliveira, and B. M. Terhal, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0606140 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  39. [46]

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

    2002

  40. [47]

    Kempe, A

    J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, Siam journal on computing35, 1070 (2006)

    2006

  41. [48]

    Cubitt and A

    T. Cubitt and A. Montanaro, SIAM Journal on Com- puting45, 268 (2016)

    2016

  42. [49]

    T. J. Osborne, Reports on progress in physics75, 022001 (2012)

    2012

  43. [50]

    Bravyi and M

    S. Bravyi and M. Vyalyi, arXiv preprint quant- ph/0308021 (2003)

    2003

  44. [51]

    Bravyi, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0602108 (2006)

    S. Bravyi, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0602108 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Bravyi and B

    S. Bravyi and B. Terhal, Siam journal on computing 39, 1462 (2010)

    2010

  46. [53]

    Aharonov and L

    D. Aharonov and L. Eldar, in2011 IEEE 52nd An- nual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, 2011) pp. 334–343

    2011

  47. [54]

    Hofer-Szabó, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science93, 21 (2022)

    G. Hofer-Szabó, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science93, 21 (2022)

    2022

  48. [55]

    J. S. Bell, Reviews of Modern physics38, 447 (1966)

    1966

  49. [56]

    Kochen and E

    S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics17, 59 (1967)

    1967

  50. [57]

    Cabello and G

    A. Cabello and G. García-Alcaine, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General29, 1025 (1996)

    1996

  51. [58]

    Peres, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral24, L175 (1991)

    A. Peres, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral24, L175 (1991)

    1991

  52. [59]

    Contextuality,

    A. Peres, ed., “Contextuality,” inQuantum Theory: Concepts and Methods(Springer Netherlands, Dor- drecht, 2002) pp. 187–212

    2002

  53. [60]

    N. D. Mermin, Physical review letters65, 3373 (1990)

    1990

  54. [61]

    N. D. Mermin, Reviews of Modern Physics65, 803 (1993)

    1993

  55. [62]

    Abramsky and A

    S. Abramsky and A. Brandenburger, New Journal of Physics13, 113036 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    A.F.Izmaylov, T.-C.Yen, R.A.Lang, andV.Vertelet- skyi, Journal of chemical theory and computation16, 190 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    A. Zhao, A. Tranter, W. M. Kirby, S. F. Ung, A. Miyake, and P. J. Love, Physical Review A101, 062322 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Bermejo-Vega, E. Tyhurst, C. Okay, and M. Zurel, Physical Review A101, 012350 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Ralli, P

    A. Ralli, P. J. Love, A. Tranter, and P. V. Coveney, Physical Review Research3, 033195 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    McCrimmon,A taste of Jordan algebras, Vol

    K. McCrimmon,A taste of Jordan algebras, Vol. 1 (Springer, 2004)

    2004

  61. [69]

    Jansen, P

    K. Jansen, P. Scheffler, and G. Woeginger, RAIRO- Operations Research31, 45 (1997)

    1997

  62. [70]

    Temme and M

    K. Temme and M. J. Kastoryano, arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.07811 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A. Y. Kitaev, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026 (1995)

    1995 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.- Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, Nature communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  65. [73]

    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, inProceedings of the 28th ACM Inter- national Conference on Architectural Support for Pro- gramming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 1(2022) pp. 15–29

    2022

  66. [74]

    Aharonov and A

    D. Aharonov and A. Ta-Shma, inProceedings of the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of com- puting(2003) pp. 20–29, arXiv:quant-ph/0301023

    2003 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    Patel, T.-C

    S. Patel, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, arXiv (2023), 2305.18251

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Patel and A

    S. Patel and A. F. Izmaylov, The Journal of Chemical Physics160(2024). 14 APPENDIX Appendix A: Size of Noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonian Table I gives the number of Pauli operators a noncontextual Pauli Hamiltonian according to the size ofGand A, as defined by the first two line...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.