Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 128 references

Nuclear Many-Body Systems as Benchmarks for Quantum Computing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Realistic nuclear Hamiltonians can be converted into qubit Hamiltonians and, on a shared T-count cost model, ODMD needs the fewest T-gates, QKrylov the most, and qubitization-based QPE runs an order of magnitude cheaper than Trotter-based Q

desk verdict Useful benchmark infrastructure for nuclear quantum computing, but the headline T-count ordering across algorithms is conditional on a single-shot assumption that can plausibly reverse the ranking. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08047 v2 pith:IT5YRQXE submitted 2026-07-09 quant-ph nucl-th

Sota Yoshida , Alessandro Baroni , Takayuki Miyagi , Ermal Rrapaj This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phnucl-th
keywords quantumcomputingnuclearmany-bodytheorychiraleffectivefieldJordan-WignerencodingT-gateresourceestimationphaseKrylovmethodsdynamicmodedecomposition
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

Quantum computers need realistic test problems. This paper claims that atomic nuclei, described by chiral effective field theory, provide such a test bed, and it builds a workflow that maps these nuclear Hamiltonians onto qubit operators with Jordan-Wigner encoding. It then counts T-gates—the expensive resource in fault-tolerant quantum computing—for three eigenvalue algorithms. The headline findings: on a shared cost model, the measurement-based Observable Dynamic Mode Decomposition (ODMD) requires the fewest T-gates, Quantum Krylov (QKrylov) the most, and QPE built on qubitization costs about an order of magnitude less than QPE built on Trotter steps. These comparisons are meant as a consistent baseline, not final costs.

What carries the argument

The central object is NuQuLib, a workflow that maps a second-quantized nuclear Hamiltonian into a qubit Hamiltonian via Jordan-Wigner encoding with a fixed single-particle ordering. The cost model assigns each Pauli-term exponential one synthesized rotation with T-count T_epsilon about 100, and the formulas in Table II then yield T-counts from the number of Hamiltonian terms and the measurement-circuit grouping factor (about N_hatH/3). For QKrylov, measurement of overlaps and Hamiltonian matrix elements drives an N_iter^3 cost; for ODMD, Hankel-matrix snapshots drive an N_snap^2 cost; and for qubitized QPE, the cost is set by the walk operator built from block-encoding oracles, with eigenval

What would settle it

Recompute the T-count comparison of Fig. 6 with N_shot set by the precision required for the measured quantities (for example N_shot ~ 1/epsilon^2 per term for QKrylov and ODMD, or calibrated shot counts), and observe whether ODMD and QKrylov remain below Trotter-QPE.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that realistic nuclear many-body Hamiltonians—not toy models—can be used as controlled quantum-computing benchmarks, and that a shared cost model reveals clear scaling differences among candidate eigenvalue algorithms. Starting from chiral-EFT and phenomenological interactions in valence-shell and no-core model spaces, the workflow Jordan-Wigner-encodes the fermionic operators into Pauli strings, then prices each algorithm by the number of T-gates. Under the stated assumptions (one shot per circuit, T_epsilon about 100 per rotation, first-order Trotter steps), ODMD has the lowest T-count, QKrylov the highest due to its measurement circuits, and qubitized QPE beat

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes a single measurement shot per circuit for every algorithm, even though QKrylov and ODMD are measurement-driven methods that would need many repeated shots to estimate overlaps and matrix elements; if realistic shot counts are included, the claimed resource ordering may change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any chiral-EFT or phenomenological shell-model Hamiltonian can be mapped to a qubit Hamiltonian and to a library of quantum circuits, so nuclear structure offers a reproducible benchmark family for quantum eigensolvers.
  • Under the paper's cost model, ODMD is the least T-gate-intensive of the three eigenvalue algorithms and QKrylov the most, because QKrylov must measure many overlap and Hamiltonian matrix elements.
  • For QPE, qubitization saves roughly an order of magnitude in T-gates over first-order Trotterization, and the gap should widen with system size since the commutator-bound-to-lambda_H ratio scales as N_q^{2.6}.
  • T-gate estimates for hundreds of qubits fall in the 10^{10}-10^{14} range, similar to early quantum-chemistry resource estimates, indicating that algorithmic improvements are needed before practical nuclear simulation.
  • Three-body interactions steepen the scaling dramatically (exponents up to N_q^{12.1} in no-core spaces), making 3N forces a particularly severe stress test for any quantum eigensolver.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The resource ordering depends on the paper's explicit single-shot assumption; with realistic shot counts for the measurement-driven methods, QKrylov and ODMD costs would multiply, potentially changing the ranking.
  • The measurement-grouping reduction factor (about 3) was fitted on small model spaces; at the larger N_q values shown in Fig. 6, groupability may improve or worsen, which would shift QKrylov's cost relative to QPE.
  • The walk-operator identity E_k = lambda_H cos(theta_k) hints at Chebyshev-polynomial Krylov schemes built from powers of the walk operator rather than real-time evolution—an algorithm family the paper mentions but does not price.
  • The same encoding workflow could be applied to lattice nuclear interactions or scattering Hamiltonians, extending the benchmark suite beyond eigenvalue problems.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces NuQuLib, a software workflow that maps realistic chiral-EFT and phenomenological nuclear Hamiltonians (valence-space and no-core, with NN and selected 3N interactions) to Jordan-Wigner-encoded qubit Hamiltonians, and uses this framework to derive T-count resource estimates for three eigenvalue strategies: Trotter-based QPE, qubitization-based QPE, QKrylov, and ODMD. Central quantitative claims are the scaling exponents N_q^{3.4}–N_q^{12.1} for the model spaces in Fig. 6, the ordering that ODMD is least resource-intensive and QKrylov most resource-intensive, and the statement that qubitization-based QPE is about an order of magnitude more efficient than Trotter-based QPE. The paper also provides small-scale statevector demonstrations of QPE, QKrylov, ODMD, angular-momentum-projected state preparation, and VQE, together with an appendix of T-count derivations and block-encoding background.

Significance. If the resource comparisons were established, this would be a useful contribution: it provides a concrete, reproducible bridge from realistic nuclear-structure input to qubit Hamiltonians and algorithmic resource counts, and it begins to create a benchmark culture for nuclear quantum simulation analogous to quantum chemistry. The paper is honest about many of its simplifications, ships a public implementation (NuQuLib), and includes small-space exact checks for Trotter-error estimates that lend credibility to the workflow. The scaling trends, if corrected as described below, could guide early fault-tolerant algorithm selection for nuclear many-body problems. However, the headline quantitative ordering is currently not supported because the cost model sets N_shot=1 for all algorithms despite the measurement-driven nature of QKrylov and ODMD, and because the QPE controlled-evolution call count is presented inconsistently between Table II and Appendix A.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V B / Table II / Fig. 6] The numerical comparisons set N_shot=1 for every algorithm, as stated in Sec. V B: 'we assumed a single-shot measurement for all algorithms'. For QKrylov and ODMD this is not a harmless prefactor: the number of shots is set by the statistical precision required for O(N_iter^2) overlap/matrix elements (QKrylov) and N_snap time-series overlaps (ODMD). Overlap amplitudes can be small, and the variance depends on the grouped-measurement structure, so realistic shot counts can be orders of magnitude larger than 1. The paper suggests 'one can simply multiply the estimated T-gate count by the number of shots required,' but it provides no formula or estimate for that number. Because the headline ordering (ODMD least, QKrylov most) and the exponents in Fig. 6 are presented with N_shot=1, the central comparison is not established. Please either include realistic shot-count estimates (with their N_
  2. [Appendix A1 vs. Table II] The number of controlled time-evolution calls in QPE is not presented consistently. Appendix A1 derives the sum Σ_{k=0}^{N_a-1} 2^k = 2^{N_a} − 1, whereas Table II lists T_cU (2N_a − 1). For N_a=20 these differ by a factor of roughly 26,000. This factor is decisive for the QPE-vs-ODMD ordering in Fig. 6 and for the claimed qubitization advantage. Please correct the typo and state explicitly which expression was used to generate Fig. 6 and the numerical exponents.
  3. [Sec. V B / Sec. V D / Fig. 6(c)-(d)] The Trotter-based QPE estimates count one controlled Trotter step per unit time, but do not multiply by the number of Trotter steps r needed to keep the total Trotter error below the target accuracy for the full QPE evolution time. Equations (13)–(16) give error bounds, and Fig. 7 shows how the error grows with system size, but this r factor is not inserted into the plotted QPE T-counts. As a result, the comparison between Trotter-based and qubitization-based QPE in Fig. 6(c)–(d) and the 'about one order of magnitude' statement are not fixed-accuracy comparisons. The paper acknowledges this limitation in the text, but it should either be reflected in the plots or the plots should be relabeled as per-step costs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table III / Sec. V D 1] The reduction factor N_red is fixed to 2 for all model spaces, whereas the exact values in Table III range from 2.0 to 5.6. Since a smaller N_red gives a larger (more conservative) error bound, the text should state explicitly that this is an upper-bound convention, not a value extracted from the exact commutators.
  2. [Sec. VI B] The QKrylov/ODMD demonstration for 20O uses a hard-core boson mapping, whereas the resource estimates in Sec. V are for Jordan-Wigner fermionic encodings. This mismatch should be stated in the demo section so readers do not treat the demonstration as validation of the resource model.
  3. [Sec. V C / Fig. 6 caption] In monochrome print, the dashed and dashed-dotted curves in panels (b) and (d) are difficult to distinguish. Please use different marker shapes or a table of numerical values for the plotted exponents, especially for the N_q^{12.1} curve.
  4. [General notation] There are several notational inconsistencies: N_q and N_Q are both used; Eq. (14) uses t both for the total evolution time and implicitly for the Trotter step; Table II writes 'N shot' while the text writes N_shot; and the superscripts in Eqs. (A1), (C17), and Table II are easy to misread in the current typesetting. A careful pass to make all exponents and subscripts explicit would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: resource estimates follow from term counting and standard cost formulas; disclosed single-shot simplification and minor non-load-bearing self-citations do not reduce the derivation to its inputs.

full rationale

The central resource estimates are not circular. Hamiltonian term-count scaling is obtained by explicit counting of non-zero matrix elements (Fig. 2), and the Table II T-count formulas are derived in Appendix A by counting controlled-evolution calls: QPE uses 2^N_a-1 calls; QKrylov sums (m+n) over off-diagonal pairs, giving (4N_iter^3+N_iter^2-3N_iter)/2; ODMD sums snapshot costs, giving N_snap(N_snap+1). The exponents quoted from Fig. 6 are arithmetic consequences of these formulas and of the term-count data, not fitted targets. The heuristic N_circ≈N_H/3 is explicitly labeled a rough estimate from small-space numerical experiments, not a prediction; and the ODMD-vs-QKrylov ordering follows from the formulas even for N_circ=1 at the chosen N_iter=N_snap=50. The single-shot assumption is disclosed in Sec. V B with N_shot left symbolic: setting N_shot=1 uniformly is a stated modeling simplification, not a fitted parameter chosen to force the ordering. The paper itself flags this and other simplifications as limitations (Sec. V B, Sec. VII), which supports treating them as sensitivity concerns rather than circularity. Self-citations (NuQuLib, NuHamil, NuclearToolkit.jl, QPF, Ref. [88]) provide tools or adopted methods, but none carries the load-bearing derivation; the small-space demonstrations are checked against exact diagonalization. Score 2 reflects only minor non-load-bearing self-citations, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central estimates rely on a set of chosen parameters and pragmatic heuristics: the rotation-synthesis T-count, QPE ancilla count, Krylov/ODMD dimensions, measurement-grouping reduction, Trotter non-commuting reduction, and saturation-based coefficient estimates. These are disclosed but not all rigorously bounded.

free parameters (11)
  • T_epsilon (T-count per single-qubit rotation) = ~100
    Assumed rotation synthesis precision epsilon~1e-10 from Ref [85]; sets overall scale of all T-count estimates.
  • N_a (QPE ancilla qubits) = 10 and 20
    Chosen for MeV and keV energy resolution; controls QPE controlled-evolution depth.
  • N_iter (QKrylov subspace dimension) = 50
    Illustrative choice; QKrylov cost scales as N_iter^3.
  • N_snap (ODMD snapshots) = 50
    Illustrative choice; ODMD cost scales as N_snap^2.
  • N_circ grouping reduction factor = N_H/3
    Heuristic qubit-wise commuting group count from small model spaces, used in all QKrylov cost estimates.
  • N_red (non-commuting pair reduction factor) = 2
    Fixed for all model spaces in Trotter-error estimates despite measured 2.0-5.6 in small spaces.
  • SBE coefficient estimates = diagonal ~8 N_q/N_HZ MeV; off-diagonal ~0.8 N_q/N_HZ MeV
    Derived from nuclear saturation assumption; used for Trotter-error scaling at large N_q.
  • QPE time step delta_t = 0.01 MeV^-1
    Chosen to cover ~628 MeV range; controls N_a and Trotter error.
  • Qubitization oracle parameters = mu~20, q=1
    Assumptions for PREPARE/SELECT oracle T-counts in Eq. (C20).
  • Prefactor F in Trotter-vs-qubitization comparison = 10^-3, 100, 10^3
    Varied by hand in Fig 13 to absorb implementation overhead; not derived.
  • N_shot (number of measurement shots) = 1 (all algorithms)
    Numerical estimates set single-shot for all algorithms; QKrylov/ODMD sampling overhead is therefore excluded.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Nuclear many-body dynamics is described by second-quantized Hamiltonians with one-, two-, and three-body terms from ChEFT or phenomenological interactions.
    Invoked in Sec III B, Eq. (1); the entire benchmark suite is built on this nuclear-structure input.
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner mapping with the fixed orbital ordering faithfully encodes fermionic creation/annihilation operators.
    Sec III D, Eq. (5); standard fermion-to-qubit mapping.
  • standard math First-order Trotter-Suzuki error is bounded by Eq. (13) from Childs et al. [90].
    Sec V D1; used for Trotter-step estimation.
  • ad hoc to paper The saturation property of nuclear binding energy implies average Hamiltonian coefficients scale as 8 N_q/N_HZ and 0.8 N_q/N_HZ MeV.
    Sec V D1 / App B, Eq. (B1); phenomenological input for SBE Trotter-error estimates without explicit Hamiltonian coefficients.
  • domain assumption A suitable initial state with non-negligible overlap with the target eigenstate can be prepared efficiently.
    Sec V A; state preparation cost is excluded from all numerical resource estimates.
  • ad hoc to paper Qubit-wise commuting measurement grouping reduces the number of circuits by a factor of 3 for all model spaces.
    Sec V A, Eq. (12); inferred from small model spaces and applied to large N_q.
  • ad hoc to paper The number of non-commuting Hamiltonian pairs relative to total terms is roughly constant (N_red=2) with system size.
    Sec V D1 / Table III; needed to extrapolate Trotter error to large systems.
  • ad hoc to paper Controlled time evolution costs twice the uncontrolled T-count (T_cU=2T_U).
    Sec V A / Table II; simple overhead assumption used in all formulas.
  • domain assumption T-count for arbitrary rotation is ~100 for epsilon~1e-10 (Ross-Selinger synthesis).
    Sec V A; sets absolute scale.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nuclear Many-Body Systems as Benchmarks for Quantum Computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IT5YRQXE

@misc{pith2026260708047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nuclear Many-Body Systems as Benchmarks for Quantum Computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IT5YRQXE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08047}
}
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 end, 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 the authors.

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. 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. FIG. 3. Schematic illustration of nuclear configuration-interaction model spaces in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quantum circuit to implement the time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
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]
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]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Example of QPE results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
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]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Example of QKrylov and ODMD results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Example of QKrylov and ODMD results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Example of state preparation with angular momen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
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]
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]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 16 linked inside Pith

  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- ...

  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...

  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 ...

  4. [4]

    , Niter,(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, . . . , Niter,(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) cost...

  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...

  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 a Pauli string is absorbed intoP ℓ, so that the LCU coef- ficientsa ℓ...

  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...

  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( ...

Show all 128 references
  1. [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 ...

  2. [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 QSVT-based time evolution discussed above. In par- ticular, one may use the block encoding, or the as- soci...

  3. [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

    2025 doi

  4. [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

    2025

  5. [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)

    2019

  6. [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)

    2020

  7. [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 Machiner...

    2019

  8. [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

    2022

  9. [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, ...

    2024

  10. [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)

    2017

  11. [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 Acade...

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Rocca, C

    D. Rocca, C. L. Cortes, J. F. Gonthier, P. J. Olli- 25 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, Jo...

    2024

  13. [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)

    2024

  14. [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)

    2018

  15. [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)

    2022

  16. [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)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Sarma, O

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

    2023

  18. [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)

    2022

  19. [27]

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

    2024

  20. [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)

    2024

  21. [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)

    2026

  22. [30]

    Zhang, D

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

    2025

  23. [31]

    Singh, P

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

    2025

  24. [32]

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

    2026

  25. [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]

    2026

  26. [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]

    2026

  27. [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)

    2026

  28. [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)

    2026

  29. [37]

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

    1995 arXiv

  30. [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)

    2022

  31. [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)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

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

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Machleidt and D

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

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Epelbaum, H

    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

    2020 arXiv

  35. [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

    2023

  36. [44]

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

  37. [45]

    Shimizu, Nuclear shell-model code for massive par- allel computation, “KSHELL” (2013), arXiv:1310.5431; N

    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)

    2013 arXiv

  38. [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

    2022

  39. [47]

    Machleidt and D

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

    2011

  40. [48]

    Machleidt and F

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

    2016

  41. [49]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

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

    2009

  42. [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)

    2020

  43. [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)

    2009

  44. [52]

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

    2013

  45. [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)

    2001

  46. [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)

    2005

  47. [55]

    Coraggio, A

    L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, and 26 T. Kuo, Shell-model calculations and realistic effective interactions, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 62, 135 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    Fujita and H

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

    1957

  49. [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)

    2013

  50. [58]

    Hebeler, Three-nucleon forces: Implementation and applications to atomic nuclei and dense matter, Phys

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

    2021 arXiv

  51. [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)

    2024

  52. [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)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral lagrangians, Phys

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

    1990

  54. [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

    2017 arXiv

  55. [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

    2019 arXiv

  56. [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)

    1995

  57. [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)

    2015

  58. [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

    2018 arXiv

  59. [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

    2019 arXiv

  60. [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)

    1984

  61. [69]

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

    1988

  62. [70]

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

    2006

  63. [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)

    2001

  64. [72]

    Honma, T

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

    2002

  65. [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)

    2005

  66. [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)

    2021

  67. [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]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [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]

    2026

  69. [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)

    2025

  70. [78]

    O’Brien and S

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

    2024

  71. [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

    2025

  72. [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)

    2023

  73. [81]

    Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(1994) pp

    P. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(1994) pp. 124–134

    1994

  74. [82]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  75. [83]

    Wiebe and C

    N. Wiebe and C. Granade, Efficient bayesian phase es- timation, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 010503 (2016)

    2016

  76. [84]

    Yamamoto, S

    K. Yamamoto, S. Duffield, Y. Kikuchi, and D. Mu˜ noz Ramo, Demonstrating bayesian quantum phase estima- tion with quantum error detection, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013221 (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    Kimmel, G

    S. Kimmel, G. H. Low, and T. J. Yoder, Robust calibra- tion of a universal single-qubit gate set via robust phase estimation, Phys. Rev. A92, 062315 (2015)

    2015

  78. [86]

    Rudinger, S

    K. Rudinger, S. Kimmel, D. Lobser, and P. Maunz, Ex- perimental demonstration of a cheap and accurate phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 190502 (2017)

    2017

  79. [87]

    Yoshioka, M

    N. Yoshioka, M. Amico, W. Kirby, P. Jurcevic, A. Dutt, B. Fuller, S. Garion, H. Haas, I. Hamamura, A. Ivrii, R. Majumdar, Z. Minev, M. Motta, B. Pokharel, P. Rivero, K. Sharma, C. J. Wood, A. Javadi-Abhari, and A. Mezzacapo, Krylov diagonalization of large many-body hamiltonia...

    2025

  80. [88]

    P. J. Schmid, Dynamic mode decomposition of numeri- cal and experimental data, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 656, 5 (2010)

    2010

  81. [89]

    C. W. Rowley, I. Mezi´ c, S. Bagheri, P. Schlatter, and D. S. Henningson, Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows, Journal of Fluid Mechanics641, 115 (2009)

    2009

  82. [90]

    Y. Shen, A. Buzali, H.-Y. Hu, K. Klymko, D. Camps, S. F. Yelin, and R. Van Beeumen, Efficient measurement-driven eigenenergy estimation with classi- cal shadows, PRX Quantum7, 010328 (2026)

    2026

  83. [91]

    Bassi, Y

    H. Bassi, Y. Shen, H. S. Bhat, and R. Van Beeumen, From noisy observables to accurate ground-state en- ergies: A quantum–classical signal subspace approach with denoising, APL Quantum2, 046103 (2025)

    2025

  84. [92]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubitization, Quantum3, 163 (2019). 27

    2019

  85. [93]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  86. [94]

    T. Hao, A. Xu, and S. Tannu, Reducing t gates with unitary synthesis, inProceedings of the 31st ACM Inter- national Conference on Architectural Support for Pro- gramming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 2, ASPLOS ’26 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, U...

    2026

  87. [95]

    Camps, E

    D. Camps, E. Rrapaj, K. Klymko, H. Kim, K. Gott, S. Darbha, J. Balewski, B. Austin, and N. J. Wright, Quantum computing technology roadmaps and capa- bility assessment for scientific computing – an anal- ysis of use cases from the nersc workload (2025), arXiv:2509.09882 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  88. [96]

    N. J. Ross and P. Selinger, Optimal ancilla-free clif- ford+t approximation of z-rotations, Quantum Info. Comput.16, 901–953 (2016)

    2016

  89. [97]

    Bocharov, M

    A. Bocharov, M. Roetteler, and K. M. Svore, Efficient synthesis of universal repeat-until-success quantum cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 080502 (2015)

    2015

  90. [98]

    Yoshida, T

    S. Yoshida, T. Sato, T. Ogata, and M. Kimura, Bridg- ing quantum computing and nuclear structure: Atomic nuclei on a trapped-ion quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013134 (2026)

    2026

  91. [99]

    M. A. Caprio, P. J. Fasano, and P. Maris, Robust ab initio prediction of nuclear electric quadrupole observ- ables by scaling to the charge radius, Phys. Rev. C105, L061302 (2022)

    2022

  92. [100]

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X11, 011020 (2021)

    2021

  93. [101]

    Cohen and D

    S. Cohen and D. Kurath, Effective interactions for the 1pshell, Nucl. Phys.73, 1 (1965)

    1965

  94. [102]

    C. Yuan, T. Suzuki, T. Otsuka, F. Xu, and N. Tsun- oda, Shell-model study of boron, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen isotopes with a monopole-based universal inter- action, Phys. Rev. C85, 064324 (2012)

    2012

  95. [103]

    D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt, Accurate charge- dependent nucleon-nucleon potential at fourth order of chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. C68, 041001 (2003)

    2003

  96. [104]

    Som` a, P

    V. Som` a, P. Navr´ atil, F. Raimondi, C. Barbieri, and T. Duguet, Novel chiral hamiltonian and observables in light and medium-mass nuclei, Phys. Rev. C101, 014318 (2020)

    2020

  97. [105]

    Y. Dong, L. Lin, and Y. Tong, Ground-state prepara- tion and energy estimation on early fault-tolerant quan- tum computers via quantum eigenvalue transformation of unitary matrices, PRX Quantum3, 040305 (2022)

    2022

  98. [106]

    K. Choi, D. Lee, J. Bonitati, Z. Qian, and J. Watkins, Rodeo algorithm for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 040505 (2021)

    2021

  99. [107]

    Stetcu, A

    I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Projection al- gorithm for state preparation on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. C108, L031306 (2023)

    2023

  100. [108]

    Qiskit contributors, Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing (2023)

    2023

  101. [109]

    Bergholm, J

    V. Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V. Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadi, J. M. Arrazola, U. Azad, S. Banning, C. Blank, T. R. Bromley, B. A. Cordier, J. Ceroni, A. Delgado, O. D. Matteo, A. Dusko, T. Garg, D. Guala, A. Hayes,...

    2022 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Sivarajah, S

    S. Sivarajah, S. Dilkes, A. Cowtan, W. Simmons, A. Edgington, and R. Duncan, t—ket〉: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices, Quantum Science and Tech- nology6, 014003 (2020)

    2020

  103. [111]

    E. Rule, I. Stetcu, and J. Carlson, Simplified projec- tion on total spin zero for state preparation on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. C110, 064003 (2024)

    2024

  104. [112]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization (2017), arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG]

    2017 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, T. Mizusaki, and M. Hjorth- Jensen, New effective interaction forf 5pg9-shell nuclei, Phys. Rev. C80, 064323 (2009)

    2009

  106. [114]

    Kanno, M

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

    2023 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi- Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa, I. Sitdikov, 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 quan...

    2025 doi

  108. [116]

    Otsuka, M

    T. Otsuka, M. Honma, T. Mizusaki, N. Shimizu, and Y. Utsuno, Monte carlo shell model for atomic nuclei, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics47, 319 (2001)

    2001

  109. [117]

    Shimizu, T

    N. Shimizu, T. Abe, Y. Tsunoda, Y. Utsuno, T. Yoshida, T. Mizusaki, M. Honma, and T. Ot- suka, New-generation monte carlo shell model for the k computer era, Progress of Theoret- ical and Experimental Physics2012, 01A205 (2012), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2012/...

    2012

  110. [118]

    Shimizu, T

    N. Shimizu, T. Abe, M. Honma, T. Otsuka, T. Togashi, Y. Tsunoda, Y. Utsuno, and T. Yoshida, Monte carlo shell model studies with massively parallel supercom- puters, Physica Scripta92, 063001 (2017)

    2017

  111. [119]

    Shimizu, Y

    N. Shimizu, Y. Tsunoda, Y. Utsuno, and T. Otsuka, Variational approach with the superposition of the symmetry-restored quasiparticle vacua for nuclear shell- model calculations, Phys. Rev. C103, 014312 (2021)

    2021

  112. [120]

    Park and D

    B. Park and D. Ahn, Reducing t-count and t-depth in approximate quantum fourier transform circuits, Scien- tific Reports15, 37199 (2025)

    2025

  113. [121]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation us- ing linear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Information & Computation12, 901 (2012)

    2012

  114. [122]

    Babbush, C

    R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. Mc- Clean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear t com- 28 plexity, Phys. Rev. X8, 041015 (2018)

    2018

  115. [123]

    Uvarov and A

    A. Uvarov and A. F. Izmaylov, Accuracy and re- source advantages of quantum eigenvalue estimation with non-hermitian transcorrelated electronic hamilto- nians, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 10.1021/acs.jctc.6c00274 (2026)

    2026 doi

  116. [124]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algorithms, PRX Quan- tum2, 040203 (2021)

    2021

  117. [125]

    R. Chao, D. Ding, A. Gilyen, C. Huang, and M. Szegedy, Finding Angles for Quantum Signal Processing with Machine Precision (2020), arXiv:2003.02831 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Y. Dong, X. Meng, K. B. Whaley, and L. Lin, Efficient phase-factor evaluation in quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. A103, 042419 (2021)

    2021

  119. [127]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, Hamilto- nian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters, in2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(2015) pp. 792–809

    2015

  120. [128]

    Kirby, M

    W. Kirby, M. Motta, and A. Mezzacapo, Exact and ef- ficient Lanczos method on a quantum computer, Quan- tum7, 1018 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.