Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 128 references

Nuclear physics gets a quantum benchmark suite with first cost estimates

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 · glm-5.2

2026-07-10 01:00 UTC pith:IT5YRQXE

load-bearing objection Useful benchmarking framework for nuclear many-body quantum computing, but headline scaling exponents omit Trotter step growth, making large-system T-gate counts misleading. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08047 v1 pith:IT5YRQXE submitted 2026-07-09 quant-ph nucl-th

Nuclear Many-Body Systems as Benchmarks for Quantum Computing

Sota Yoshida , Alessandro Baroni , Takayuki Miyagi , Ermal Rrapaj This is my paper
classification quant-ph nucl-th PACS 21.60.Cs03.67.Lx03.67.Ac
keywords quantum computingnuclear structurechiral effective field theoryresource estimationT-gate countJordan-Wigner transformationQuantum Phase EstimationQuantum Krylov
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 builds a software pipeline that takes realistic nuclear forces—derived from chiral effective field theory, including two-body and selected three-body interactions—and converts them into qubit Hamiltonians via the Jordan-Wigner transformation. It then feeds these encoded Hamiltonians into three quantum eigenvalue algorithms—Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE), Quantum Krylov subspace methods (QKrylov), and Observable Dynamic Mode Decomposition (ODMD)—and counts the T-gates each algorithm would need on a fault-tolerant quantum computer. The result is a set of scaling curves showing how quantum cost grows with the number of qubits (equivalently, the number of single-particle states) across valence-space shell model and no-core shell model problem classes. The central finding is a concrete hierarchy: ODMD is the cheapest in T-gate count, QKrylov is the most expensive due to measurement overhead, and Qubitization-based QPE outperforms Trotter-based QPE by roughly one order of magnitude. For valence-space systems at the scale of hundreds of qubits, QPE requires 10^10 to 10^14 T-gates—a range comparable to early estimates for the FeMoco molecule in quantum chemistry, suggesting nuclear physics problems sit at a similar level of quantum-computational difficulty.

Core claim

The paper's core contribution is a unified, reproducible workflow—implemented as an open-source software library—that bridges nuclear structure theory and quantum algorithm resource estimation, and the first systematic comparison of three eigenvalue algorithms under that shared cost model. The scaling laws it extracts (T-gate counts scaling as N_q^3.4 for valence NN, up to N_q^12.1 for no-core NN+3N in QKrylov) provide a quantitative baseline against which future algorithmic improvements for nuclear many-body problems can be measured. The comparison between Trotterization and Qubitization primitives, showing the latter is roughly 10x more efficient for QPE on nuclear Hamiltonians, is a key实用

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Jordan-Wigner encoding of second-quantized nuclear Hamiltonians (with up to three-body terms) into Pauli strings, combined with a T-gate cost model that counts: (1) the number of non-commuting Pauli-string pairs for Trotter error bounds, (2) a heuristic measurement-grouping reduction factor of ~3 for QKrylov, and (3) the LCU normalization λ_H for Qubitization-based estimates. The scaling of T-gate counts is driven by the combinatorial growth of Hamiltonian terms—roughly N_q^3.6 for NN and N_q^5.4 for 3N interactions in the M-scheme—which propagates through each algorithm's circuit structure (controlled time evolution for QPE, overlap and matrix-element circuits Q

Load-bearing premise

The cost model assumes that a single Trotter time step keeps the total Trotter error within target tolerance, and that a heuristic measurement-grouping reduction factor of 3 and a phenomenological saturation-based estimate of Hamiltonian coefficients hold across all system sizes. These assumptions are validated only for small systems (up to ~80 qubits), and the extrapolation to hundreds of qubits relies on scaling arguments that are not rigorously bounded.

What would settle it

If the Trotter error grows faster than the phenomenological N_q^4.6–N_q^8.1 scaling suggests (for instance, if non-commuting term pairs grow superlinearly with system size), the required number of Trotter steps—and hence the T-gate counts for Trotter-based QPE, QKrylov, and ODMD—would be substantially higher than projected, potentially erasing the apparent advantage of Qubitization or the cost hierarchy among algorithms.

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

If this is right

  • Algorithmic improvements in state preparation, measurement grouping, and Hamiltonian simulation could reduce the 10^10–10^14 T-gate estimates for nuclear QPE by orders of magnitude, as has happened for quantum chemistry benchmarks.
  • The scaling gap between NN-only and NN+3N interactions (e.g., N_q^3.7 vs N_q^6.1 for no-core QPE Trotter) quantifies the additional quantum cost of including three-body forces, which is essential for nuclear physics accuracy but absent from most quantum chemistry benchmarks.
  • The software pipeline can be extended to test emerging quantum-classical hybrid methods (e.g., quantum-selected configuration interaction) against established classical nuclear structure methods like the Monte Carlo Shell Model.
  • The Trotter error bounds, currently validated only for small systems, need rigorous extension to hundreds of qubits; if the phenomenological saturation-based estimates break down, the Trotter-step cost could be substantially higher than projected.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling trends hold, the crossover point where quantum algorithms become competitive with classical nuclear structure methods (e.g., no-core shell model for A≳20) likely requires hundreds to thousands of logical qubits with T-gate counts in the 10^12–10^16 range—placing meaningful nuclear physics beyond early fault-tolerant hardware but within reach of mature fault-tolerant architectures.
  • The finding that Qubitization outperforms Trotterization by ~10x for nuclear Hamiltonians suggests that block-encoding-based methods may be even more advantageous for 3N interactions, where the commutator structure is more complex and the Trotter error grows faster (N_q^8.1 vs N_q^5.2 for NN-only in no-core).
  • The framework could be extended to scattering and reaction problems, where the relevant Hilbert spaces and spectral properties differ qualitatively from bound-state structure calculations, potentially requiring different algorithmic strategies than those benchmarked here.

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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript introduces NuQuLib, a software framework that bridges realistic nuclear Hamiltonians (from chiral EFT or phenomenological models) with quantum computing algorithms via Jordan-Wigner encoding. The paper defines benchmark problem classes spanning valence-space and no-core shell model formulations with NN and selected 3N interactions, and provides T-gate-count resource estimates for three eigenvalue algorithms: Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE), Quantum Krylov methods (QKrylov), and Observable Dynamic Mode Decomposition (ODMD). The cost model is based on first-order Trotterization for the time-evolution primitive, with a qubitization-based QPE comparison included. The main results (Fig. 6) show that ODMD is least resource-intensive, QKrylov most expensive, and qubitization-based QPE is roughly one order of magnitude more efficient than Trotter-based QPE. Small-scale demonstrations on classically simulable systems (Sec. VI) validate the workflow end-to-end, including QPE on 3n and 6He, QKrylov/ODMD on 20O, angular-momentum-projection state preparation on 18O, and a VQE example. The NuQuLib code is publicly available, which strengthens reproducibility.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine gap: unlike quantum chemistry, nuclear physics lacks a standardized benchmarking infrastructure for quantum algorithms. The unified workflow from nuclear interactions to qubit-encoded Hamiltonians to quantum circuits is a useful contribution, and the public NuQuLib implementation is a concrete deliverable. The systematic comparison of three eigenvalue algorithms under a shared cost model, the inclusion of 3N interactions (which substantially increase Hamiltonian term counts), and the analysis of both valence-space and no-core formulations provide a meaningful baseline for future work. The cost formulas (Table II, App. A) are derived transparently from combinatorial term counting and standard algorithmic structure, without fitted parameters. The Trotter error analysis (App. B, Table III, Fig. 7), while heuristic for large systems, is validated against exact commutator bounds for small spaces. The paper also discusses block-encoding alternatives (App. C) including qubitization and QSVT, and provides an illustrative crossover analysis (Fig. 13).

major comments (2)
  1. Section V.C and Figure 6: The headline scaling exponents (e.g., N_q^3.4 for valence QPE, N_q^6.1 for NCSM NN+3N) are derived purely from the scaling of the number of Hamiltonian terms N_H with N_q, since the algorithmic factors (2^{N_a}, N_iter, N_snap) are held fixed and the cost per Trotter step is T_U = N_H * T_epsilon. However, the Trotter error bound B shown in Fig. 7 scales as N_q^{4.6} to N_q^{8.1}. For first-order Trotterization over total time t, the number of steps r needed for error epsilon scales as r ~ t*B/(2*epsilon), adding a multiplicative factor of N_q^{4.6}--N_q^{8.1} to the T-gate count. This would change the valence-space QPE scaling from N_q^{3.4} to approximately N_q^{8} and the NCSM NN+3N scaling from N_q^{6.1} to N_q^{12} or worse. The paper acknowledges this issue qualitatively in Sec. V.A ('we assume the time duration delta_t to be small enough for the overall T
  2. Section V.C, panels (c,d) of Figure 6, and Eq. (C25): The claim that qubitization-based QPE is '~10x more efficient' than Trotter-based QPE is presented as a roughly constant factor. However, Eq. (C25) shows the ratio T_Trotter/T_Qubitization is proportional to B/lambda_H, and Fig. 13 indicates B/lambda_H scales as N_q^{2.6}. This means the advantage of qubitization grows with system size rather than being a constant factor. The '~10x' statement in the text (Sec. V.C: 'we find the latter to be more efficient by about one order of magnitude') is thus system-size-dependent and could be significantly larger for hundreds of qubits. The authors should clarify that the 10x factor corresponds to specific small-to-moderate system sizes and that the crossover behavior is captured by the scaling of B/lambda_H shown in Fig. 13. The current phrasing risks being read as a size-independent claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. Equation (12): The measurement grouping reduction factor of 3 is described as based on 'numerical experiments for smaller model spaces.' Since this factor enters the QKrylov cost linearly, it would help to state the range of model spaces tested and whether the factor shows any systematic drift with N_q, even if the authors believe it is stable.
  2. Table III: The reduction factor N_red is stated to be 'fixed to 2 for all model spaces' in the Trotter error estimates, but the table itself shows N_red values ranging from 2.0 to 5.6 for different interactions. The relationship between the table values and the fixed value used in extrapolation should be clarified.
  3. Figure 6 caption: The phrase 'The symbols without edge' is unclear; presumably this refers to open vs. filled symbols or similar. The caption should describe the visual encoding more precisely.
  4. Section V.A: The assumption T_cU = 2*T_U for controlled time evolution is stated as a simplification. While reasonable for a scaling analysis, a brief justification or reference for this factor would strengthen the cost model, especially since controlled versions of Trotter steps can have different overhead depending on compilation.
  5. Section VI: The Trotter order is set to 4 with 10 steps for the demonstrations, but the resource estimates in Sec. V use first-order Trotter. A brief note on why different orders are used for demonstration vs. estimation would help the reader reconcile the two.
  6. Reference [22] (Gu et al.) and [23] (Gibbs et al.) are cited as recent cutting-edge works, but [22] is listed as Phys. Rev. C113, 034321 (2026) and [23] as arXiv:2603.11156. If these are genuinely 2026 works, the citation format is fine; if these are forward-dated, the references should be corrected.
  7. The abstract states 'selected three-body (3N) interactions' but does not specify what 'selected' means. A brief parenthetical (e.g., 'at N3LO in chiral EFT' or 'with E3max truncation') would set expectations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: resource estimates derive from combinatorial Hamiltonian structure and standard algorithmic cost formulas, with no self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The scaling exponents in Fig. 6 (e.g., N_q^3.4 for valence QPE, N_q^6.1 for NCSM NN+3N) follow directly from combinatorial term counting of nuclear Hamiltonians (NN bounded by N_q^4, 3N by N_q^6, with symmetry-reduced actual scaling ~3.6 and ~5.4 from Fig. 2) combined with standard quantum algorithm cost formulas (Table II: T_U = N_H × T_ε, with algorithmic factors held fixed). No parameter is fitted to data and then presented as a prediction. The Trotter error analysis (App. B) uses the phenomenological saturation property of nuclear binding energy (~8 MeV/nucleon) as an external physical input, not a circular one. The Qubitization vs. Trotter comparison (Eq. C25, ratio ∝ B/λ_H) is derived from independently computable quantities. Self-citations (Ref [97] for QPF, Ref [88] for hard-core boson mapping, Ref [26] for NuQuLib) appear in demonstration sections or as implementation tools, not as load-bearing theoretical premises. The skeptic's concern that Trotter step count is excluded from headline exponents is a valid completeness concern but is not circularity: the paper separately analyzes Trotter error growth (Fig. 7, Table III) and does not define any quantity in terms of itself. The scaling exponents are explicitly per-unit-time-evolution with fixed algorithmic parameters, not claimed as total end-to-end costs including Trotter repetition. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The free parameters are mostly heuristic choices for cost estimation rather than physically fitted constants. The key ad-hoc assumptions (Trotter step size, grouping factor, coefficient saturation) are clearly stated but validated only for small systems, creating uncertainty in large-system extrapolation.

free parameters (8)
  • T_epsilon (T-gate count per rotation) = 100
    Assumed T-gate count for a single-qubit rotation gate with precision ~10^-10, based on Ref. [85]. Used as a fixed multiplier in all T-count estimates (Sec. V.A).
  • N_circ reduction factor = 3
    Heuristic measurement grouping reduction factor from total Hamiltonian terms, based on numerical experiments for smaller model spaces (Eq. 12, Sec. V.A). Applied uniformly to all system sizes.
  • N_red (non-commuting pairs reduction factor) = 2
    Fixed reduction factor for non-commuting pairs of Hamiltonian terms in Trotter error estimation, assumed constant across all model spaces (Sec. V.D.1, Table III).
  • delta_t (Trotter time step) = 0.01
    Fixed time step for QPE resource estimates, chosen to cover ~628 MeV energy range (App. A.1). Not validated against actual Trotter error for large systems.
  • N_a (ancilla qubits for QPE) = 10 or 20
    Number of ancilla qubits for inverse QFT in QPE, set to 10 (MeV precision) or 20 (keV precision) for illustration (Sec. V.C).
  • N_iter / N_snap = 50
    Krylov subspace dimension (QKrylov) and number of snapshots (ODMD), set to 50 for illustration purposes (Sec. V.C).
  • h_tilde_Z (typical diagonal coefficient) = ~8*N_q/N_HZ MeV
    Phenomenological estimate of typical diagonal Hamiltonian coefficient based on nuclear binding energy saturation (~8 MeV/nucleon). Used in SBE Trotter error bound (App. B).
  • h_tilde_ND (typical off-diagonal coefficient) = ~0.8*N_q/N_HZ MeV
    Assumed one order of magnitude smaller than diagonal terms. Used in SBE Trotter error bound (App. B).
axioms (6)
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner encoding faithfully represents fermionic nuclear Hamiltonians on qubits
    Standard fermion-to-qubit mapping used throughout (Sec. III.D). Well-established in quantum computing literature.
  • domain assumption Efficient initial state preparation is possible
    Sec. V.A: 'we simply assume that it can be done efficiently unless explicitly stated otherwise.' This is a major assumption for QPE performance.
  • ad hoc to paper Single Trotter step achieves error within target tolerance at delta_t=0.01
    Sec. V.A: 'we assume the time duration δt to be small enough for the overall Trotter error to be under control.' Validated only for small systems (Table III).
  • ad hoc to paper Measurement grouping reduction factor of 3 holds for all system sizes
    Eq. 12 and Sec. V.A: reduction factor derived from 'numerical experiments for smaller model spaces' and applied uniformly.
  • domain assumption Nuclear interaction coefficients saturate (binding energy ~8 MeV/nucleon)
    App. B: phenomenological assumption used to estimate typical Hamiltonian coefficients without explicit generation.
  • ad hoc to paper T_cU = 2*T_U (controlled time evolution costs twice uncontrolled)
    Sec. V.A and Table II: simplifying assumption for controlled vs. uncontrolled gate cost.
invented entities (1)
  • NuQuLib software framework independent evidence
    purpose: Bridge between nuclear structure codes and quantum computing backends; generates qubit-encoded Hamiltonians and quantum circuits
    Publicly available on GitHub and Zenodo (Ref. [26]) with demonstration codes. Can be independently tested.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 41812 in / 3322 out tokens · 363914 ms · 2026-07-10T01:00:20.805122+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a framework for benchmarking quantum algorithms for nuclear many-body systems based on realistic nuclear Hamiltonians such as chiral effective field theory. To this effect we introduce a workflow that maps nuclear interactions in second quantization formalism to qubit Hamiltonians. This enables the systematic construction of benchmark instances spanning no-core and valence-space formulations with two-body (NN) and selected three-body (3N) interactions. Then, we proceed to provide resource estimates for three representative eigenvalue algorithms: Quantum Phase Estimation, Quantum Krylov methods, and Observable Dynamic Mode Decomposition. We compare their resource requirements in terms of T-gate counts and system size, and examine the impact of model-space choices and many-body interactions. The primitives included in our analysis are Trotterization, Qubitization, and Quantum Singular Value Transformation. Our results quantify scaling trends across algorithms and problem classes, and provide a basis for consistent comparisons of quantum approaches to nuclear many-body problems. The implementation is provided by the NuQuLib software stack.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08047 by Alessandro Baroni, Ermal Rrapaj, Sota Yoshida, Takayuki Miyagi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. NuQuLib workflow: A typical pathway starts from a nuclear interaction based on chiral effective field theory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Number of non-zero matrix elements in nuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic illustration of nuclear configuration-interaction model spaces in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quantum circuit to implement the time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Summary of quantum resource estimation for various model spaces as a function of number of system qubits. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Trotter error as a function of the system size. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Example of QPE results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. QPE results with NN + 3N for three-neutron system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Example of QKrylov and ODMD results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Example of state preparation with angular momen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. VQE results for representative two-valence-neutron systems using the pUCCD ansatz. The systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Illustrative comparison of the T-gate counts for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] 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

128 extracted references · 128 canonical work pages · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Trotter error estimates So far we have assumed that the single step time evo- lution produces and overall Trotter error that is within the target tolerance, but the actual number of Trotter steps required to achieve a target accuracy depends on the structure of the Hamiltonian and the target state. Hence, it is important to summarize here some useful ex- ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    State preparation considerations State preparation is a central bottleneck for early fault- tolerant quantum simulations of many-body Hamiltoni- ans. In practice, scalable ground-state preparation al- gorithms rely on two key assumptions: (i) the availabil- ity of a trial state with nonzero overlap with the target ground state, and (ii) coarse spectral in...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Quantum Phase Estimation The resources needed for this algorithm depend on how the time evolution operator is performed. If we employ the first order Trotter approximation for the short time evolution, the total number of calls for the unit controlled Trotter step in QPE is given by Na−1X k=0 2k = 2Na −1,(A1) whereN a is the number of ancilla qubits. For ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    , N iter,(A5) then preparing the superposition for the pair (m, n) re- quires applying controlled time evolution for time-steps mon the first branch andnon the second branch

    Quantum Krylov Subspace Method (QKrylov) If we use time-evolved Krylov vectors |Φk⟩=e −iHkδt |Φ0⟩, k= 1, . . . , N iter,(A5) then preparing the superposition for the pair (m, n) re- quires applying controlled time evolution for time-steps mon the first branch andnon the second branch. Hence a single measurement (real or imaginary part) for pair (m, n) cos...

    work page

  5. [5]

    It is enough to measure the first column of ˜Nmatrix in Eq

    Observable Dynamic Mode Decomposition (ODMD) It is noted that ODMD requires only the measure- ment of the overlap in contrast to QKrylov method. It is enough to measure the first column of ˜Nmatrix in Eq. (8) to construct the Hankel matrices. The number of controlled time evolution gates required for ODMD is given as 2 Nsnap.X k=1 k=N snap.(Nsnap. + 1),(A...

    work page

  6. [6]

    HereP ℓ de- notes a Pauli word including its phase convention

    LCU block encoding We write the qubit Hamiltonian as a linear combina- tion of Pauli unitaries, H= NPX ℓ=1 aℓPℓ, a ℓ ≥0,(C1) whereN P is the number of Pauli terms. HereP ℓ de- notes a Pauli word including its phase convention. In other words, any sign or phase originally associated with 21 a Pauli string is absorbed intoP ℓ, so that the LCU coef- ficients...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Qubitized walk operator From the LCU construction above, we define the pre- pared ancilla state as |L⟩= PREP|0⟩,(C9) and the corresponding reflection as RL = 2|L⟩ ⟨L| ⊗I−I.(C10) The qubitized walk operator is then defined by W=R L SELECT.(C11) This form is equivalent to the more compact expres- sion obtained in the computational basis of the ancilla regis...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Qubitized QPE from the walk operator Suppose that the desired energy resolution is ∆E, fol- lowing [112] ∆E=λ H∆ cosθ≤λ H∆θ ≈λ H r ( π 2Na+1 )2 + (ϵsynth +πϵ QF T)2, (C17) where we have accounted for the gate synthesis error and any possible QFT error, which we assume are small enough not to impact the resolution of the energy. Which implies, Na =⌈log( πλ...

    work page

  9. [9]

    This is relevant for algorithms such as QKrylov and ODMD, where the basic objects are time-evolved states or time-dependent observables, and can be used also for QPE

    QSVT-based time evolution QSVT [5, 114] provides a block-encoding-based method to synthesize the time-evolution operator itself. This is relevant for algorithms such as QKrylov and ODMD, where the basic objects are time-evolved states or time-dependent observables, and can be used also for QPE. Given a block encodingU H/λH ofH/λ H, QSVT imple- ments polyn...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Possible extensions: block-encoding-based Krylov and ODMD variants The block-encoding framework also suggests possible extensions beyond the direct walk-operator QPE and 24 QSVT-based time evolution discussed above. In par- ticular, one may use the block encoding, or the as- sociated qubitized walk operator, to construct Krylov- type or ODMD-like sequence...

    work page

  11. [11]

    D. D. Awschalom, H. Bernien, R. Hanson, W. D. Oliver, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Challenges and opportunities for quan- tum information hardware, Science390, 1004 (2025), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adz8659

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adz8659 2025

  12. [12]

    Stanford University and The Hoover Institution,The Stanford Emerging Technology Review 2025: A Report on Ten Key Technologies and Their Policy Implications, Tech. Rep. (Stanford University, 2025) co-chairs: Con- doleezza Rice, John B. Taylor, Jennifer Widom

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    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, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing, Chem. Rev.119, 10856 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quan- tum materials science, Chem. Rev.120, 12685 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, inPro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019) p. 193–204

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Camps and R

    D. Camps and R. Van Beeumen, Fable: Fast approx- imate quantum circuits for block-encodings, in2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Comput- ing and Engineering (QCE)(2022) pp. 104–113

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Di Meglio, K

    A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft, R. de Putter, A. Delgado, V. Dun- jko, D. J. Egger, E. Fern´ andez-Combarro, E. Fuchs, L. Funcke, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, M. Grossi, J. C. Hal- imeh, Z. Holmes, S. K¨ uhn, D. Lacroix, R. Lewis, D. Lucchesi, M. L. Martinez, F. Melo...

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Reiher, N

    M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quan- tum computers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA114, 7555 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    J. J. Goings, A. White, J. Lee, C. S. Tautermann, M. Degroote, C. Gidney, T. Shiozaki, R. Babbush, and N. C. Rubin, Reliably assessing the electronic structure of cytochrome p450 on today’s classical computers and tomorrow’s quantum computers, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2203533119 (2022), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas...

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2203533119 2022

  20. [20]

    Rocca, C

    D. Rocca, C. L. Cortes, J. F. Gonthier, P. J. Olli- trault, R. M. Parrish, G.-L. Anselmetti, M. Degroote, N. Moll, R. Santagati, and M. Streif, Reducing the run- time of fault-tolerant quantum simulations in chem- istry through symmetry-compressed double factoriza- tion, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation20, 4639–4653 (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Machleidt and F

    R. Machleidt and F. Sammarruca, Recent advances in chiral eft based nuclear forces and their applications, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics137, 104117 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, R. C. Pooser, D. J. Dean, and P. Lougovski, Cloud quantum comput- ing of an atomic nucleus, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 210501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    O. Kiss, M. Grossi, P. Lougovski, F. Sanchez, S. Val- lecorsa, and T. Papenbrock, Quantum computing of the 6Li nucleus via ordered unitary coupled clusters, Phys. Rev. C106, 034325 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    P´ erez-Obiol, A

    A. P´ erez-Obiol, A. M. Romero, J. Men´ endez, A. Rios, A. Garc´ ıa-S´ aez, and B. Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, Nuclear shell-model simulation in digital quantum computers, Scientific Re- ports13, 12291 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Sarma, O

    C. Sarma, O. Di Matteo, A. Abhishek, and P. C. Srivas- 25 tava, Prediction of the neutron drip line in oxygen iso- topes using quantum computation, Phys. Rev. C108, 064305 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Stetcu, A

    I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Variational ap- proaches to constructing the many-body nuclear ground state for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. C105, 064308 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    P. Wang, W. Du, W. Zuo, and J. P. Vary, Nuclear scattering via quantum computing, Phys. Rev. C109, 064623 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Turro, K

    F. Turro, K. A. Wendt, S. Quaglioni, F. Pederiva, and A. Roggero, Evaluation of phase shifts for nonrelativis- tic elastic scattering using quantum computers, Phys. Rev. C110, 054604 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Rethinasamy, E

    S. Rethinasamy, E. Guo, A. Wei, M. M. Wilde, and K. D. Launey, Neutron–nucleus dynamics simulations for quantum computers, Quantum Science and Tech- nology11, 015052 (2026)

    work page 2026

  30. [30]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Bai, and Z. Ren, Quantum computing for extracting nuclear resonances, Physics Letters B860, 139187 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Singh, P

    A. Singh, P. Siwach, and P. Arumugam, Quantum sim- ulations of nuclear resonances with variational methods, Phys. Rev. C112, 024323 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    C. Gu, M. Heinz, O. Kiss, and T. Papenbrock, Toward scalable quantum computations of atomic nuclei, Phys. Rev. C113, 034321 (2026)

    work page 2026

  33. [33]

    Gibbs, L

    J. Gibbs, L. Cincio, C. Sarma, Z. Holmes, and P. Steven- son, Lowt-count preparation of nuclear eigenstates with tensor networks (2026), arXiv:2603.11156 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    W. Du, Y. Yang, Z. Liu, C. Yang, and J. P. Vary, Quantum-classical framework for many-fermion re- sponse and structure (2026), arXiv:2602.08357 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Sakuma, K

    R. Sakuma, K. Wada, S. Kanno, K. Keithley, K. Sug- isaki, T. Abe, H. Nakamura, and N. Yamamoto, Quantum-phase-estimation-based filtering: Perfor- mance analysis and application to low-energy spectral calculations, Phys. Rev. A113, 012602 (2026)

    work page 2026

  36. [36]

    Yoshida, A

    S. Yoshida, A. Baroni, T. Miyagi, and E. Rrapaj, https://github.com/SotaYoshida/nuqulib; Nuqulib: A quantum simulation library for nuclear physics (2026)

    work page 2026

  37. [37]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  38. [38]

    C. L. Cortes and S. K. Gray, Quantum krylov subspace algorithms for ground- and excited-state energy estima- tion, Phys. Rev. A105, 022417 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Y. Shen, D. Camps, A. Szasz, S. Darbha, K. Klymko, D. B. Williams-Young, N. M. Tubman, and R. V. Beeu- men, Estimating Eigenenergies from Quantum Dynam- ics: A Unified Noise-Resilient Measurement-Driven Ap- proach, Quantum9, 1836 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Modern Theory of Nuclear Forces

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Modern theory of nuclear forces, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1773 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces

    R. Machleidt and D. Entem, Chiral effective field the- ory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rep.503, 1 (2011), arXiv:1105.2919

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    High-precision nuclear forces from chiral EFT: State-of-the-art, challenges and outlook

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and P. Reinert, High-Precision Nuclear Forces From Chiral EFT: State-of-the-Art, Challenges, and Outlook, Front. Phys.8, 1 (2020), arXiv:1911.11875

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    T. Miyagi, Nuhamil : A numerical code to gen- erate nuclear two- and three-body matrix elements from chiral effective field theory, The European Physical Journal A59, 150 (2023); Nuhamil, https://github.com/Takayuki-Miyagi/NuHamil-public

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    S. R. Stroberg, https://github.com/ragnarstroberg/imsrg

    work page

  45. [45]

    Nuclear shell-model code for massive parallel computation, "KSHELL"

    N. Shimizu, Nuclear shell-model code for massive par- allel computation, “KSHELL” (2013), arXiv:1310.5431; N. Shimizu, T. Mizusaki, Y. Utsuno, and Y. Tsun- oda, Thick-restart block Lanczos method for large-scale shell-model calculations, Comput. Phys. Commun.244, 372 (2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Yoshida, NuclearToolkit.jl: A Julia pack- age for nuclear structure calculations, Jour- nal of Open Source Software7, 4694 (2022); https://github.com/SotaYoshida/NuclearToolkit.jl

    S. Yoshida, NuclearToolkit.jl: A Julia pack- age for nuclear structure calculations, Jour- nal of Open Source Software7, 4694 (2022); https://github.com/SotaYoshida/NuclearToolkit.jl

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. Entem, Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rept.503, 1 (2011)

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    Machleidt and F

    R. Machleidt and F. Sammarruca, Chiral EFT based nuclear forces: achievements and challenges, Physica Scripta91, 083007 (2016)

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Modern theory of nuclear forces, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1773 (2009)

    work page 2009

  50. [50]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and P. Reinert, High- precision nuclear forces from chiral eft: State-of-the- art, challenges, and outlook, Frontiers in Physics8, 10.3389/fphy.2020.00098 (2020)

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2020.00098 2020

  51. [51]

    Navr´ atil, S

    P. Navr´ atil, S. Quaglioni, I. Stetcu, and B. R. Bar- rett, Recent developments in no-core shell-model cal- culations, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics36, 083101 (2009)

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    B. R. Barrett, P. Navr´ atil, and J. P. Vary, Ab initio no core shell model, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.69, 131 (2013)

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    Brown, The nuclear shell model towards the drip lines, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics47, 517 (2001)

    B. Brown, The nuclear shell model towards the drip lines, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics47, 517 (2001)

    work page 2001

  54. [54]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, The shell model as a unified view of nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 427 (2005)

    work page 2005

  55. [55]

    Coraggio, A

    L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, and T. Kuo, Shell-model calculations and realistic effective interactions, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 62, 135 (2009)

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    Fujita and H

    J.-i. Fujita and H. Miyazawa, Pion Theory of Three- Body Forces, Prog. Theor. Phys.17, 360 (1957)

    work page 1957

  57. [57]

    Hammer, A

    H.-W. Hammer, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Colloquium : Three-body forces: From cold atoms to nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 197 (2013)

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    Three-Nucleon Forces: Implementation and Applications to Atomic Nuclei and Dense Matter

    K. Hebeler, Three-nucleon forces: Implementation and applications to atomic nuclei and dense matter, Phys. Rep.890, 1 (2021), arXiv:2002.09548

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Coraggio, G

    L. Coraggio, G. De Gregorio, T. Fukui, A. Gargano, Y. Ma, Z. Cheng, and F. Xu, The role of three-nucleon potentials within the shell model: Past and present, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.134, 104079 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Hergert, A Guided Tour of ab initio Nuclear Many- Body Theory, Front

    H. Hergert, A Guided Tour of ab initio Nuclear Many- Body Theory, Front. Phys.8, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral lagrangians, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral lagrangians, Phys. Lett. B251, 288 (1990), arXiv:9910064v1 [nucl- th]

    work page 1990

  62. [62]

    J. A. Melendez, S. Wesolowski, and R. J. Furnstahl, Bayesian truncation errors in chiral effective field the- ory: Nucleon-nucleon observables, Phys. Rev. C96, 024003 (2017), arXiv:1704.03308. 26

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  63. [63]

    J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, D. R. Phillips, M. T. Pratola, and S. Wesolowski, Quantifying correlated truncation errors in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C100, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1904.10581

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  64. [64]

    Hjorth-Jensen, T

    M. Hjorth-Jensen, T. T. Kuo, and E. Osnes, Realistic ef- fective interactions for nuclear systems, Phys. Rep.261, 125 (1995)

    work page 1995

  65. [65]

    Dikmen, A

    E. Dikmen, A. F. Lisetskiy, B. R. Barrett, P. Maris, A. M. Shirokov, and J. P. Vary, Ab initio effective in- teractions for s d -shell valence nucleons, Phys. Rev. C 91, 064301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    Z. H. Sun, T. D. Morris, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Shell-model coupled-cluster method for open-shell nuclei, Phys. Rev. C98, 054320 (2018), arXiv:1806.07405

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Nonempirical Interactions for the Nuclear Shell Model: An Update, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 307 (2019), arXiv:1902.06154

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  68. [68]

    Wildenthal, Empirical strengths of spin operators in nuclei, Prog

    B. Wildenthal, Empirical strengths of spin operators in nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.11, 5 (1984)

    work page 1984

  69. [69]

    B. A. Brown and B. H. Wildenthal, Status of the Nu- clear Shell Model, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.38, 29 (1988)

    work page 1988

  70. [70]

    B. A. Brown and W. A. Richter, New “USD” Hamilto- nians for thesdshell, Phys. Rev. C74, 034315 (2006)

    work page 2006

  71. [71]

    Poves, J

    A. Poves, J. S´ anchez-Solano, E. Caurier, and F. Nowacki, Shell model study of the isobaric chains A=50, A=51 and A=52, Nucl. Phys. A694, 157 (2001)

    work page 2001

  72. [72]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Effective interaction forpf-shell nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 65, 061301 (2002)

    work page 2002

  73. [73]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Shell-model description of neutron-rich pf-shell nuclei with a new effective interaction GXPF 1, Eur. Phys. J. A25, 499 (2005)

    work page 2005

  74. [74]

    Magilligan, B

    A. Magilligan, B. A. Brown, and S. R. Stroberg, Data- driven configuration-interaction Hamiltonian extrapola- tion to Ca60, Phys. Rev. C104, L051302 (2021)

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    J. A. Purcell, B. A. Brown, B. C. He, S. R. Stroberg, and W. B. Walters, Improving the predictive power of empirical shell-model Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. C111, 044313 (2025), arXiv:2412.09917 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Kumar, N

    A. Kumar, N. Shimizu, T. Miyagi, Y. Tsunoda, and Y. Utsuno, Probing the shape evolution and shell struc- tures in neutron-rich N=50 nuclei, Phys. Lett. B874, 140184 (2026), arXiv:2510.16775 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    Chiew, C

    M. Chiew, C. Ibrahim, I. Safro, and S. Strelchuk, Opti- mal fermion-qubit mappings via quadratic assignment, 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering (QCE)01, 560 (2025)

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    O’Brien and S

    O. O’Brien and S. Strelchuk, Ultrafast hybrid fermion- to-qubit mapping, Phys. Rev. B109, 115149 (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    Y. Liu, K. Yao, J. Hong, J. Froustey, E. Rrapaj, C. Ian- cull, G. Li, and Y. Shi, Hatt: Hamiltonian adaptive ternary tree for optimizing fermion-to-qubit mapping, in2025 IEEE International Symposium on High Perfor- mance Computer Architecture (HPCA)(2025) pp. 143– 157

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    Chen and Y

    Y.-A. Chen and Y. Xu, Equivalence between fermion-to- qubit mappings in two spatial dimensions, PRX Quan- tum4, 010326 (2023)

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.