Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Simulating Vibrational Dynamics on Bosonic Quantum Devices

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new bosonic fragmentation scheme makes anharmonic vibrational dynamics digitally simulable on current hardware.

desk verdict Legitimate new bosonic fragmentation scheme with clean small-system numerics; the generality claim outruns the evidence, but the paper deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17950 v2 pith:KBAIJ6SI submitted 2024-11-27 quant-ph physics.chem-ph

Shreyas Malpathak , Sangeeth Das Kallullathil , Artur F. Izmaylov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords bosonicquantumdevicesvibrationaldynamicsCartansubalgebraBogoliubovtransformTrottersimulationanharmonicpotentials
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to give a general digital simulation strategy for anharmonic vibrational dynamics on bosonic quantum devices. It does this by splitting the vibrational Hamiltonian into fragments that can each be diagonalized by a Bogoliubov transform, so the time evolution of each fragment uses only Gaussian gates and Kerr interactions. The approach is tested by reproducing tunneling dynamics in a two-dimensional double well and by computing vibrational eigenenergies of small molecules. If the fragmentation works broadly, it would let existing hybrid oscillator-qubit hardware simulate molecular spectra and chemical dynamics without mapping bosons to qubits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the solvable quartic fragment, a Hamiltonian term that becomes a polynomial of commuting number operators after a Bogoliubov unitary. The Cartan subalgebra idea, originally used for fermionic Hamiltonians, is extended to bosons: the diagonal part lives in the CSA spanned by $\tilde n_p$, and the Bogoliubov transform supplies the rotation. A greedy algorithm (GFRO) optimizes each fragment's Bogoliubov parameters and number-operator coefficients to absorb as much of the cubic and quartic part of the Hamiltonian as possible, iterating until the leftover anharmonic coefficients fall below a tolerance.

What would settle it

Apply the GFRO fragmentation, with the same 0.1 cm$^{-1}$ tolerance, to a molecule with, say, six vibrational modes and strong cubic couplings; if the residual cannot be driven below tolerance with a practical number of fragments, or if the resulting eigenenergies deviate from exact diagonalization by more than the paper's claimed threshold, the claimed generality of the scheme is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that any quartic vibrational Hamiltonian can be decomposed, to any chosen accuracy, into solvable fragments of the form $H_k = U_b^{(k)} \left(\sum_{p,q} \eta^{(k)}_{pq} \tilde n_p \tilde n_q\right) U_b^{(k)\dagger}$, where $U_b^{(k)}$ is a Bogoliubov transform and $\tilde n_p$ are number operators in the transformed modes. Because each fragment is diagonal after a Gaussian rotation, its propagator factorizes into displacement, beam-splitter, squeezing, rotation, Kerr, and cross-Kerr gates. The paper shows numerically that this decomposition reproduces coherent tunneling in a two-dimensional double-well potential and yields vibrational eigenenergies of CO, H2O, H2S, and CO2 with errors below 1 cm$^{-1}$ compared with exact diagonalization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the greedy optimization can always find enough fragments to push the leftover cubic and quartic terms below the chosen tolerance, so that the discarded anharmonicity is harmless.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Vibrational Hamiltonians with up to quartic terms can be simulated on bosonic devices using only Gaussian gates and Kerr interactions, avoiding boson-to-qubit mapping overhead.
  • The fragment count for the tested molecules is 13–27 times smaller than the number of fully commuting Pauli fragments, promising lower simulation cost on bosonic hardware.
  • The scheme extends naturally to higher-order anharmonic terms by using higher-order polynomials of bosonic number operators as the diagonal fragments.
  • Tunneling dynamics in double-well potentials can be captured digitally, offering a route to simulate chemical dynamics on current hybrid oscillator-qubit platforms.
  • Vibrational eigenenergies accurate to better than 1 cm$^{-1}$ are obtainable from the Trotterized propagator built from these fragments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The claimed generality rests on the untested assumption that the greedy algorithm can always find enough fragments to make the anharmonic residual arbitrarily small; the numerical evidence covers at most four vibrational modes, so a high-dimensional or strongly anharmonic case may require impractically many fragments or stall above tolerance.
  • If the fragment count grows only polynomially with the number of modes, the approach could become the standard digital method for anharmonic vibrational simulation on bosonic processors, but if it scales exponentially the advantage over qubit-based methods would disappear.
  • The Trotter error analysis in the paper is standard; the more consequential error is the discarded residual from the fragmentation tolerance, which is not propagated through the dynamics in the reported tests.
  • The method is naturally compatible with the Christiansen second-quantized n-mode representation of the potential, so it could be adapted to accurate spectroscopic predictions for larger molecules than those tested.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 manuscript presents a digital quantum simulation framework for anharmonic vibrational Hamiltonians on bosonic (qumode) hardware. The Hamiltonian is decomposed into a quadratic fragment H0 plus quartic fragments Hk = U_b^{(k)} (sum_{p,q} eta^{(k)}_{pq} ntilde_p ntilde_q) U_b^{(k)dagger}, where each U_b is a Bogoliubov transform implemented by Gaussian gates and the diagonal pieces are Kerr and cross-Kerr interactions. Fragments are found by a greedy algorithm (GFRO) that minimizes the residual cubic and quartic coefficients. The scheme is validated numerically for tunneling dynamics in a two-dimensional tropolone double-well model and for vibrational eigenenergies of CO, H2O, H2S, and CO2, with reported Trotterized eigenenergy errors below 1 cm^-1 relative to exact diagonalization. The central claim is that this fragmentation provides a new, general approach for digital simulation of multi-mode anharmonic vibrational dynamics on bosonic quantum devices.

Significance. If the scheme is sound, it offers a potentially useful route to digital vibrational simulation on hybrid CV-DV hardware, avoiding boson-to-qubit mappings and using a small number of Gaussian plus Kerr-type gates. The paper's strengths include explicit gate-level decompositions via the Bloch-Messiah factorization, numerical validation against exact diagonalization for several molecules, a clear comparison of fragment counts with fully commuting Pauli groupings, and a demonstration of Trotter-error control in the double-well dynamics. The main unresolved issues concern the generality of the fragmentation step: the greedy GFRO procedure has no proven expressibility or convergence guarantee, and the stability of the final quadratic fragment is not verified. The paper is therefore best read as a promising demonstration rather than an established general method, and the broad claim in the abstract and conclusion needs either additional proof or appropriate qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II B, steps 2-4 and Eq. (8)] The claimed generality of the method rests on the assumption that the greedy GFRO procedure can always reduce the cubic and quartic coefficient residual below the chosen tolerance using fragments of the form in Eq. (8). No expressibility or convergence argument is provided: the manuscript does not show that the set of coefficient vectors generated by real Bogoliubov parameters {alpha, beta, gamma, eta} spans the space of cubic and quartic bosonic monomials, and the numerical tests are limited to N <= 4 modes. Step 4's stopping criterion presupposes that the residual can be made small. I recommend either adding a proof or a numerical scaling study of the residual as a function of fragment number and system size, or softening the abstract and conclusion claims from 'any anharmonic vibrational Hamiltonian' to the class of systems for which the greedy procedure is demonstrated to converge.
  2. [Sec. II B, step 5 and Eqs. (7), (9)-(14)] The final quadratic fragment is represented as H0 = U_b (sum_p epsilon_p ntilde_p + K 1) U_b^dagger, which requires H0 to be diagonalizable by a real Bogoliubov transformation into a stable oscillator form. Step 3 of the GFRO algorithm modifies the linear, quadratic, and constant terms when each quartic fragment is subtracted, but the cost function in step 2 only penalizes the cubic and quartic coefficient residuals. The optimization therefore does not prevent the accumulated quadratic back-action from making H0 indefinite or otherwise outside the domain of the real Bogoliubov diagonalization assumed in Eqs. (9)-(14). The manuscript does not report the symplectic spectrum of H0 or any positive-definiteness diagnostic for the tested systems, so this failure mode is not ruled out. I ask the authors to report, for each test case, the symplectic eigenvalues of the final H0 (or an equivalent stability diagnostic) and, ideally, to add a constraint or regularization in the GFRO loop that enforces the stability of H0.
  3. [Sec. III B and Table II] The eigenenergy comparison is performed entirely in a truncated Fock space with maximum occupation numbers nmax between 5 and 8, but no convergence study with respect to nmax is presented. Since both the exact and the Trotterized results are computed in the same truncated space, the reported sub-1 cm^-1 agreement does not by itself establish convergence to the untruncated vibrational energies. This does not invalidate the method, but a convergence statement would strengthen the claim that the approach is suitable for vibrational spectroscopy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV] The conclusion states that the bosonic fragmentation scheme is '13-17 times cheaper in terms of fragment counts', but the results section reports a factor of '13-27' based on Table I (CO: 27, H2S: 24.3, H2O: 18.1, CO2: 13.5). The conclusion should match the results.
  2. [Sec. II C] The symbol D is overloaded: D_p denotes both the displacement gate in Eqs. (10)-(11) and the diagonal fragment operators D_k in Eqs. (9) and (14). The paper explicitly notes the distinction, but a different notation for one of the two (for example, using script D for diagonal fragments) would improve readability.
  3. [Sec. III A] The double-well potential in Eq. (16) is expanded only to fourth order in the vibrational Hamiltonian of Eq. (3), but the text does not discuss how the fourth-order truncation affects the accuracy of the tunneling dynamics for this strongly anharmonic potential. A brief comment on this limitation would be useful.
  4. [Sec. III B] The electronic structure data for CO2 and H2S are obtained at the HF/6-31G level, which is generally inaccurate for vibrational properties. The authors say the choice is not important for illustrating the fragmentation procedure, and this is acceptable, but a sentence noting that the method itself is independent of the potential energy surface quality would avoid any impression that the reported energies are benchmark-quality spectroscopic predictions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the solvable fragments are an explicit ansatz fitted to the input Hamiltonian and benchmarked against exact diagonalization.

full rationale

The paper's central construction is Eq. (8), an explicit ansatz for a solvable fragment: a Bogoliubov rotation of a diagonal polynomial in number operators. The GFRO algorithm then fits the fragment parameters to the cubic and quartic coefficients c_j of the input Hamiltonian. Because the fit target is the Hamiltonian itself, the Trotterized Heff is an approximation to the same H, and the numerical section validates Heff eigenenergies and evolved wavefunctions against exact diagonalization of H. This is a self-consistency benchmark, not a circular derivation: no target observable or benchmark energy is used as a fitting constraint, and the solvability of each fragment is built in by Eq. (8) rather than imported from a self-citation. The cited CSA paper [51] supplies algorithmic inspiration and the standard maximal-torus theorem (also cited to Hall [71]); the bosonic construction, Bloch-Messiah decomposition, and gate implementations are derived in the paper. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own input by construction. The main limitations, namely the unproven expressibility/convergence of the greedy GFRO for larger systems and the possible instability of the final quadratic fragment H0, are correctness risks rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction introduces no new physical entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions. Its free parameters are variational coefficients used to match the input Hamiltonian rather than to fit target observables, plus hand-chosen tolerances and cutoffs. The main unproved input is the expressibility and convergence of the fragment ansatz in the greedy optimization.

free parameters (5)
  • Solvable fragment rotation parameters alpha, beta, gamma = Optimized numerically; values not reported
    GFRO optimizes these Bogoliubov transform parameters to match the Hamiltonian coefficients; all downstream results depend on them.
  • Solvable fragment diagonal parameters eta = Optimized numerically; values not reported
    The eta coefficients in Eq. (8) define the diagonal quartic fragments and are fitted to the cubic and quartic terms of the vibrational Hamiltonian.
  • Residual tolerance = 10^-2 cm^-1 (tropolone), 0.1 cm^-1 (molecules)
    Stopping criterion for the greedy decomposition; controls how much anharmonicity is discarded and contributes to the reported errors.
  • Trotter time step = Variable in Fig. 2; t = 1 a.u. for eigenenergies
    Chosen empirically to keep the Trotter error below target; no rigorous bound is derived for the eigenvalue calculation.
  • Bosonic occupation cutoff n_max = 8 (CO), 6 (H2O), 7 (H2S), 5 (CO2)
    Hilbert space truncation used for the exact diagonalization benchmark and eigenvalue comparison.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Canonical commutation relations and preservation of CCR by Bogoliubov transforms
    Used to define the bosonic Hamiltonian and to justify that transformed operators are valid bosonic modes (Sec. II and Appendix B).
  • standard math Maximal torus theorem for compact Lie groups
    Appendix A justifies diagonalization of quadratic bosonic Hamiltonians by symplectic group unitaries.
  • standard math Bloch-Messiah decomposition of the symplectic matrix M
    Appendix C decomposes Bogoliubov unitaries into displacement, beam-splitter, and squeezing gates.
  • domain assumption Fourth-order Taylor truncation of the potential energy surface is adequate
    The Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) truncates V(q) at quartic order; the method's validity inherits this approximation.
  • domain assumption Only two-mode anharmonic couplings are needed in the molecular tests
    Section III B uses Hamiltonians with only two-mode couplings because they are available from the electronic structure packages; the method claims but does not test arbitrary couplings.
  • ad hoc to paper The fragment ansatz in Eq. (8) is expressive enough for the greedy algorithm to reduce the residual below tolerance
    No proof of convergence or expressibility is provided; numerical tests cover up to four modes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating Vibrational Dynamics on Bosonic Quantum Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KBAIJ6SI

@misc{pith2026241117950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating Vibrational Dynamics on Bosonic Quantum Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KBAIJ6SI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17950}
}
read the original abstract

Bosonic quantum devices, which utilize harmonic oscillator modes to encode information, are emerging as a promising alternative to conventional qubit-based quantum devices, especially for the simulation of vibrational dynamics and spectroscopy. We present a framework for digital quantum simulation of vibrational dynamics under anharmonic potentials on these bosonic devices. In our approach the vibrational Hamiltonian is decomposed into solvable fragments that can be used for Hamiltonian simulation on currently available bosonic hardware. Specifically, we extended the Cartan subalgebra approach [T.C. Yen, A.F. Izmaylov, PRX Quantum 2, 040320 (2021)] -- a method for decomposing quantum Hamiltonians into solvable parts -- to bosonic operators, enabling us to construct anharmonic Hamiltonian fragments that can be efficiently diagonalized using Bogoliubov transforms. The approach is tested using a simulation of tunneling dynamics in a model two-dimensional double-well potential and calculations of vibrational eigenenergies for small molecules. Our fragmentation scheme provides a new approach for digital quantum simulations on bosonic quantum hardware for multi-mode anharmonic vibrational dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17950 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Overlap error, as defined in Eq. (18), as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Collect the coefficients of the cubic and quartic terms in the Hamiltonian, hereon referred to as cj

  2. [2]

    The fragment parameters are restricted to be real

    Find a solvable fragment Hk by optimizing the cost function P j(cj − c(k) j )2 over the fragment parame- ters {η(k) pq , α(k) pq , β(k) pq , γ(k) p }, where c(k) j are the coef- ficients of the cubic and quartic terms of the solv- able fragment written in the original basis. The fragment parameters are restricted to be real

  3. [3]

    This has the effect of changing the cubic and quartic co- efficients in the Hamiltonian as cj → cj − ck j , while also modifying the linear, quadratic and constant terms

    Store the solvable fragment Hk, and subtract it from the original Hamiltonian, H → H − Hk. This has the effect of changing the cubic and quartic co- efficients in the Hamiltonian as cj → cj − ck j , while also modifying the linear, quadratic and constant terms

    work page

  4. [4]

    For a sufficiently small tolerance, the re- maining cubic and quartic terms can be discarded

    Repeat steps 2 and 3 till the residual of the coefficients of the cubic and quartic termsqP j(cj − PNf k=1 c(k) j )2 is less than a specified tol- erance. For a sufficiently small tolerance, the re- maining cubic and quartic terms can be discarded. Nf is the number of quartic solvable fragments found

    work page

  5. [5]

    This frag- ment is referred to as H0

    The remaining Hamiltonian, H − PNf k=1 Hk, only contains up to quadratic terms, and can be diag- onalized using a Bogoliubov transform. This frag- ment is referred to as H0. At the end of the algorithm, the Hamiltonian is decom- posed into Nf + 1 solvable fragments H = PNf k=0 Hk, where H0 is a quadratic fragment, and Hk for k ∈ [1, Nf ] are quartic fragm...

    work page

  6. [6]

    (17) The average energy of this wavepacket is 4429 cm −1, well below the barrier height of 14042 cm −1

    |0⟩ . (17) The average energy of this wavepacket is 4429 cm −1, well below the barrier height of 14042 cm −1. Owing to its significant overlap with the ground and first ex- cited eigenstates of the potential, upon evolution, the wavepacket coherently tunnels through the barrier on a timescale close to the period corresponding to the tunnel- ing splitting ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Whitfield, Alejandro Perdomo- Ortiz, Man-Hong Yung, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik

    Ivan Kassal, James D. Whitfield, Alejandro Perdomo- Ortiz, Man-Hong Yung, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. Sim- ulating Chemistry Using Quantum Computers. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry , 62:185–207, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Quantum algorithms for quantum chem- istry and quantum materials science

    Bela Bauer, Sergey Bravyi, Mario Motta, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Quantum algorithms for quantum chem- istry and quantum materials science. Chemical Reviews, 120(22):12685–12717, January 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan

    Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, Si- mon C. Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum com- putational chemistry. Reviews of Modern Physics , 92(1):015003, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Ollitrault, Alexander Miessen, and Ivano Tav- ernelli

    Pauline J. Ollitrault, Alexander Miessen, and Ivano Tav- ernelli. Molecular Quantum Dynamics: A Quantum Computing Perspective. Accounts of Chemical Research, 54(23):4229–4238, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Digital quantum simulation of molecular vibrations

    Sam McArdle, Alexander Mayorov, Xiao Shan, Simon Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Digital quantum simulation of molecular vibrations. Chemical Science, 10(22):5725– 5735, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Nicolas P. D. Sawaya and Joonsuk Huh. Quantum Algo- rithm for Calculating Molecular Vibronic Spectra. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 10(13):3586–3591, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Ollitrault, Alberto Baiardi, Markus Reiher, and Ivano Tavernelli

    Pauline J. Ollitrault, Alberto Baiardi, Markus Reiher, and Ivano Tavernelli. Hardware efficient quantum algo- rithms for vibrational structure calculations. Chemical Science, 11(26):6842–6855, 2020. 7

    2020

  6. [14]

    Nicolas P. D. Sawaya, Tim Menke, Thi Ha Kyaw, Sonika Johri, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Gian Giacomo Guer- reschi. Resource-efficient digital quantum simulation of d-level systems for photonic, vibrational, and spin-s Hamiltonians. npj Quantum Information , 6(1):49, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Nicolas P. D. Sawaya, Francesco Paesani, and Daniel P. Tabor. Near- and long-term quantum algorithmic ap- proaches for vibrational spectroscopy. Physical Review A, 104(6):062419, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Simulation of Condensed-Phase Spectroscopy with Near-Term Digital Quantum Computers

    Chee-Kong Lee, Chang-Yu Hsieh, Shengyu Zhang, and Liang Shi. Simulation of Condensed-Phase Spectroscopy with Near-Term Digital Quantum Computers. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 17(11):7178–7186, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Magann, Matthew D

    Alicia B. Magann, Matthew D. Grace, Herschel A. Ra- bitz, and Mohan Sarovar. Digital quantum simulation of molecular dynamics and control. Physical Review Re- search, 3(2):023165, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Optimizing the number of measurements for vibrational structure on quantum computers: coordinates and mea- surement schemes

    Marco Majland, Rasmus Berg Jensen, Mads Greisen Højlund, Nikolaj Thomas Zinner, and Ove Christiansen. Optimizing the number of measurements for vibrational structure on quantum computers: coordinates and mea- surement schemes. Chemical Science, 14(28):7733–7742, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Revelle, Christopher G

    Philip Richerme, Melissa C. Revelle, Christopher G. Yale, Daniel Lobser, Ashlyn D. Burch, Susan M. Clark, Debadrita Saha, Miguel Angel Lopez-Ruiz, Anurag Dwivedi, Jeremy M. Smith, Sam A. Norrell, Amr Sabry, and Srinivasan S. Iyengar. Quantum Computation of Hydrogen Bond Dynami...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Ollitrault, Stuart M

    Dimitar Trenev, Pauline J. Ollitrault, Stuart M. Har- wood, Tanvi P. Gujarati, Sumathy Raman, Antonio Mezzacapo, and Sarah Mostame. Refining resource es- timation for the quantum computation of vibrational molecular spectra through Trotter error analysis, 2023. arXiv:2311.03719

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Nonlinear Spectroscopy via Generalized Quan- tum Phase Estimation, 2024

    Ignacio Loaiza, Danial Motlagh, Kasra Hejazi, Mod- jtaba Shokrian Zini, Alain Delgado, and Juan Miguel Arrazola. Nonlinear Spectroscopy via Generalized Quan- tum Phase Estimation, 2024. arXiv:2405.13885

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Smith, Eleanor Crane, John M

    Yuan Liu, Shraddha Singh, Kevin C. Smith, Eleanor Crane, John M. Martyn, Alec Eickbusch, Alexander Schuckert, Richard D. Li, Jasmine Sinanan-Singh, Miche- line B. Soley, Takahiro Tsunoda, Isaac L. Chuang, Nathan Wiebe, and Steven M. Girvin. Hybrid Oscillator- Qubit Quantum Pro...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Smith, Teague Tomesh, Alec Eickbusch, John M

    Eleanor Crane, Kevin C. Smith, Teague Tomesh, Alec Eickbusch, John M. Martyn, Stefan K¨ uhn, Lena Funcke, Michael Austin DeMarco, Isaac L. Chuang, Nathan Wiebe, Alexander Schuckert, and Steven M. Girvin. Hybrid Oscillator-Qubit Quantum Processors: Sim- ulating Fermions, Bosons...

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Rishab Dutta, Delmar G. A. Cabral, Ningyi Lyu, Nam P. Vu, Yuchen Wang, Brandon Allen, Xiaohan Dan, Ro- drigo G. Corti˜ nas, Pouya Khazaei, Max Sch¨ afer, Ale- jandro C. C. d. Albornoz, Scott E. Smart, Scott Nie, Michel H. Devoret, David A. Mazziotti, Prineha Narang, Chen Wang,...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Vu, Ningyi Lyu, Chen Wang, and Victor S

    Rishab Dutta, Nam P. Vu, Ningyi Lyu, Chen Wang, and Victor S. Batista. Simulating electronic structure on bosonic quantum computers, 2024. arXiv:2404.10222

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Chowd- hury, Jonathon L

    Mingyu Kang, Hanggai Nuomin, Sutirtha N. Chowd- hury, Jonathon L. Yuly, Ke Sun, Jacob Whitlow, Jes´ us Valdiviezo, Zhendian Zhang, Peng Zhang, David N. Be- ratan, and Kenneth R. Brown. Seeking a quantum advan- tage with trapped-ion quantum simulations of condensed- phase chemi...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Araz, Matt Grau, Jake Montgomery, and Felix Ringer

    Jack Y. Araz, Matt Grau, Jake Montgomery, and Felix Ringer. Toward hybrid quantum simulations with qubits and qumodes on trapped-ion platforms, October 2024. arXiv:2410.07346

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Joglekar, Toshikazu Hashimoto, Nobuyuki Matsuda, Jeremy L

    Chris Sparrow, Enrique Mart ´ ın-L´ opez, Nicola Mar- aviglia, Alex Neville, Christopher Harrold, Jacques Carolan, Yogesh N. Joglekar, Toshikazu Hashimoto, Nobuyuki Matsuda, Jeremy L. O’Brien, David P. Tew, and Anthony Laing. Simulating the vibrational quan- tum dynamics of mo...

    2018

  21. [29]

    McClean, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik

    Joonsuk Huh, Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, Borja Per- opadre, Jarrod R. McClean, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. Boson sampling for molecular vibronic spectra. Nature Photonics, 9(9):615–620, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Vibronic Boson Sam- pling: Generalized Gaussian Boson Sampling for Molec- ular Vibronic Spectra at Finite Temperature

    Joonsuk Huh and Man-Hong Yung. Vibronic Boson Sam- pling: Generalized Gaussian Boson Sampling for Molec- ular Vibronic Spectra at Finite Temperature. Scientific Reports, 7(1):7462, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Simulation of molecular spec- troscopy with circuit quantum electrodynamics

    Ling Hu, Yue-Chi Ma, Yuan Xu, Wei-Ting Wang, Yu- Wei Ma, Ke Liu, Hai-Yan Wang, Yi-Pu Song, Man-Hong Yung, and Lu-Yan Sun. Simulation of molecular spec- troscopy with circuit quantum electrodynamics. Science Bulletin, 63(5):293–299, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Clements, Jelmer J

    William R. Clements, Jelmer J. Renema, Andreas Eck- stein, Antonio A. Valido, Adriana Lita, Thomas Ger- rits, Sae Woo Nam, W. Steven Kolthammer, Joonsuk Huh, and Ian A. Walmsley. Approximating vibronic spectroscopy with imperfect quantum optics. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, M...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Quan- tum optical emulation of molecular vibronic spectroscopy using a trapped-ion device

    Yangchao Shen, Yao Lu, Kuan Zhang, Junhua Zhang, Shuaining Zhang, Joonsuk Huh, and Kihwan Kim. Quan- tum optical emulation of molecular vibronic spectroscopy using a trapped-ion device. Chemical Science, 9(4):836– 840, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Wang, Jacob C

    Christopher S. Wang, Jacob C. Curtis, Brian J. Lester, Yaxing Zhang, Yvonne Y. Gao, Jessica Freeze, Victor S. Batista, Patrick H. Vaccaro, Isaac L. Chuang, Luigi Frun- zio, Liang Jiang, S.M. Girvin, and Robert J. Schoelkopf. Efficient Multiphoton Sampling of Molecular Vibronic...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Quantum algorithm for simulating molecular vibrational excitations

    Soran Jahangiri, Juan Miguel Arrazola, Nicol´ as Quesada, and Alain Delgado. Quantum algorithm for simulating molecular vibrational excitations. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 22(44):25528–25537, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Hamza Jnane, Nicolas P. D. Sawaya, Borja Peropadre, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, Raul Garcia-Patron, and Joon- suk Huh. Analog Quantum Simulation of Non-Condon 8 Effects in Molecular Spectroscopy. ACS Photonics , 8(7):2007–2016, 2021

    2007

  29. [37]

    Hybrid Quantum-Classical Boson Sampling Algorithm for Molecular Vibrationally Resolved Elec- tronic Spectroscopy with Duschinsky Rotation and An- harmonicity

    Yuanheng Wang, Jiajun Ren, Weitang Li, and Zhi- gang Shuai. Hybrid Quantum-Classical Boson Sampling Algorithm for Molecular Vibrationally Resolved Elec- tronic Spectroscopy with Duschinsky Rotation and An- harmonicity. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters , 13(28):6391–6399, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    MacDonell, Tomas Navickas, Tim F

    Ryan J. MacDonell, Tomas Navickas, Tim F. Wohlers- Reichel, Christophe H. Valahu, Arjun D. Rao, Maver- ick J. Millican, Michael A. Currington, Michael J. Bier- cuk, Ting Rei Tan, Cornelius Hempel, and Ivan Kas- sal. Predicting molecular vibronic spectra using time- domain anal...

    2023

  31. [39]

    MacDonell, Claire E

    Ryan J. MacDonell, Claire E. Dickerson, Clare J. T. Birch, Alok Kumar, Claire L. Edmunds, Michael J. Bier- cuk, Cornelius Hempel, and Ivan Kassal. Analog quan- tum simulation of chemical dynamics. Chemical Science, 12(28):9794–9805, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Corti˜ nas, Kenneth Jung, Yuchen Wang, Zixuan Hu, Eitan Geva, Sabre Kais, and Victor S

    Ningyi Lyu, Alessandro Miano, Ioannis Tsioutsios, Ro- drigo G. Corti˜ nas, Kenneth Jung, Yuchen Wang, Zixuan Hu, Eitan Geva, Sabre Kais, and Victor S. Batista. Map- ping Molecular Hamiltonians into Hamiltonians of Mod- ular cQED Processors. Journal of Chemical Theory and Compu...

    2023

  33. [41]

    Wang, Nicholas E

    Christopher S. Wang, Nicholas E. Frattini, Benjamin J. Chapman, Shruti Puri, S.M. Girvin, Michel H. Devoret, and Robert J. Schoelkopf. Observation of Wave-Packet Branching through an Engineered Conical Intersection. Physical Review X , 13(1):011008, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Delmar G. A. Cabral, Pouya Khazaei, Brandon C. Allen, Pablo E. Videla, Max Sch¨ afer, Rodrigo G. Corti˜ nas, Alejandro Cros Carrillo de Albornoz, Jorge Ch´ avez- Carlos, Lea F. Santos, Eitan Geva, and Victor S. Batista. A Roadmap for Simulating Chemical Dynamics on a Parametri...

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Corti˜ nas, Max Sch¨ afer, Nicholas E

    Alejandro Cros Carrillo de Albornoz, Rodrigo G. Corti˜ nas, Max Sch¨ afer, Nicholas E. Frattini, Brandon Allen, Delmar G. A. Cabral, Pablo E. Videla, Pouya Khazaei, Eitan Geva, Victor S. Batista, and Michel H. Devoret. Oscillatory dissipative tunneling in an asym- metric doubl...

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Wolynes, Jos´ e N

    Visal So, Midhuna Duraisamy Suganthi, Abhishek Menon, Mingjian Zhu, Roman Zhuravel, Han Pu, Peter G. Wolynes, Jos´ e N. Onuchic, and Guido Pagano. Trapped-Ion Quantum Simulation of Elec- tron Transfer Models with Tunable Dissipation, 2024. arXiv:2405.10368

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Beratan, Kenneth R

    Ke Sun, Mingyu Kang, Hanggai Nuomin, George Schwartz, David N. Beratan, Kenneth R. Brown, and Jungsang Kim. Quantum Simulation of Spin-Boson Mod- els with Structured Bath, 2024. arXiv:2405.14624

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Iz- maylov

    Tzu-Ching Yen, Aadithya Ganeshram, and Artur F. Iz- maylov. Deterministic improvements of quantum mea- surements with grouping of compatible operators, non- local transformations, and covariance estimates. npj Quantum Information , 9(1):1–7, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Izmaylov

    Seonghoon Choi, Ignacio Loaiza, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Fluid fermionic fragments for optimizing quantum mea- surements of electronic Hamiltonians in the variational quantum eigensolver. Quantum, 7:889, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Izmaylov

    Seonghoon Choi and Artur F. Izmaylov. Measurement Optimization Techniques for Excited Electronic States in Near-Term Quantum Computing Algorithms. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 19(11):3184–3193, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Izmaylov

    Smik Patel and Artur F. Izmaylov. Exactly solv- able Hamiltonian fragments obtained from a direct sum of Lie algebras. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 160(19):194107, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Izmaylov

    Smik Patel, Tzu-Ching Yen, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Ex- tension of Exactly-Solvable Hamiltonians Using Symme- tries of Lie Algebras. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 128(20):4150–4159, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Mart ´ ınez-Mart ´ ınez, Tzu-Ching Yen, and Artur F

    Luis A. Mart ´ ınez-Mart ´ ınez, Tzu-Ching Yen, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Assessment of various Hamiltonian partition- ings for the electronic structure problem on a quantum computer using the Trotter approximation. Quantum, 7:1086, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Mart ´ ınez-Mart ´ ınez, Prathami Divakar Kamath, and Artur F

    Luis A. Mart ´ ınez-Mart ´ ınez, Prathami Divakar Kamath, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Estimating Trotter Approxi- mation Errors to Optimize Hamiltonian Partitioning for Lower Eigenvalue Errors, 2024. arXiv:2312.13282

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Reducing molecular electronic Hamiltonian simulation cost for linear combination of unitaries approaches

    Ignacio Loaiza, Alireza Marefat Khah, Nathan Wiebe, and Artur F Izmaylov. Reducing molecular electronic Hamiltonian simulation cost for linear combination of unitaries approaches. Quantum Science and Technology, 8(3):035019, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Izmaylov

    Ignacio Loaiza and Artur F. Izmaylov. Block-Invariant Symmetry Shift: Preprocessing Technique for Second- Quantized Hamiltonians to Improve Their Decomposi- tions to Linear Combination of Unitaries. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation , 19(22):8201–8209, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Izmaylov

    Ignacio Loaiza and Artur F. Izmaylov. Majorana Ten- sor Decomposition: A unifying framework for decompo- sitions of fermionic Hamiltonians to Linear Combination of Unitaries, 2024. arXiv:2407.06571

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Cantin, Linjun Wang, and Artur F

    Smik Patel, Aritra Sankar Brahmachari, Joshua T. Cantin, Linjun Wang, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Guaran- teed Global Minimum of Electronic Hamiltonian 1-Norm via Linear Programming in the Block Invariant Symme- try Shift (BLISS) Method, 2024. arXiv:2409.18277

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Izmaylov

    Tzu-Ching Yen and Artur F. Izmaylov. Cartan Subal- gebra Approach to Efficient Measurements of Quantum Observables. PRX Quantum , 2(4):040320, 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C

    Andrew M. Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C. Tran, Nathan Wiebe, and Shuchen Zhu. Theory of Trotter Error with Commutator Scaling. Physical Review X , 11:011020, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Improved Accuracy for Trotter Simulations Using Cheby- shev Interpolation

    Gumaro Rendon, Jacob Watkins, and Nathan Wiebe. Improved Accuracy for Trotter Simulations Using Cheby- shev Interpolation. Quantum, 8:1266, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Braunstein and Peter van Loock

    Samuel L. Braunstein and Peter van Loock. Quantum in- formation with continuous variables. Reviews of Modern Physics, 77(2):513–577, 2005

    2005

  53. [61]

    Cerf, Timothy C

    Christian Weedbrook, Stefano Pirandola, Ra´ ul Garc ´ ıa- Patr´ on, Nicolas J. Cerf, Timothy C. Ralph, Jeffrey H. Shapiro, and Seth Lloyd. Gaussian quantum information. Reviews of Modern Physics , 84(2):621–669, 2012

    2012

  54. [62]

    Introduction to Quantum Statistical Mechanics

    N N Bogolubov and N N Bogolubov Jr. Introduction to Quantum Statistical Mechanics . World Scientific, 2nd edition, 2009

    2009

  55. [63]

    Braunstein

    Samuel L. Braunstein. Squeezing as an irreducible re- source. Physical Review A , 71(5):055801, 2005. 9

    2005

  56. [64]

    Matrix decompositions in Quantum Optics: Takagi/Autonne, Bloch-Messiah/Euler, Iwasawa, and Williamson, 2024

    Martin Houde, Will McCutcheon, and Nicol´ as Que- sada. Matrix decompositions in Quantum Optics: Takagi/Autonne, Bloch-Messiah/Euler, Iwasawa, and Williamson, 2024. arXiv:2403.04596

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    W´ ojcik, Lukasz Boda, and Marek Boczar

    Marek J. W´ ojcik, Lukasz Boda, and Marek Boczar. Theoretical study of proton tunneling in the excited state of tropolone. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 130(16):164306, 2009

    2009

  58. [66]

    M. J. D. Powell. An efficient method for finding the mini- mum of a function of several variables without calculating derivatives. The Computer Journal , 7(2):155–162, 1964

    1964

  59. [67]

    M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, G. Scal- mani, V. Barone, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, X. Li, M. Caricato, A. V. Marenich, J. Bloino, B. G. Janesko, R. Gomperts, B. Mennucci, H. P. Hratchian, J. V. Or- tiz, A. F. Izmay...

  60. [68]

    Bowman, Stuart Carter, and Xinchuan Huang

    Joel M. Bowman, Stuart Carter, and Xinchuan Huang. MULTIMODE: A code to calculate rovibrational ener- gies of polyatomic molecules. International Reviews in Physical Chemistry, 22(3):533–549, 2003

    2003

  61. [69]

    Berkelbach, Nick S

    Qiming Sun, Timothy C. Berkelbach, Nick S. Blunt, George H. Booth, Sheng Guo, Zhendong Li, Junzi Liu, James D. McClain, Elvira R. Sayfutyarova, Sandeep Sharma, Sebastian Wouters, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Pyscf: the python-based simulations of chemistry framework. WIREs Computa...

    2018

  62. [70]

    Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J. Wright. Numerical Opti- mization. Springer, New York, USA, 2006

    2006

  63. [71]

    Iz- maylov

    Tzu-Ching Yen, Vladyslav Verteletskyi, and Artur F. Iz- maylov. Measuring All Compatible Operators in One Se- ries of Single-Qubit Measurements Using Unitary Trans- formations. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computa- tion, 16(4):2400–2409, 2020

    2020

  64. [72]

    Somma, Gerardo Ortiz, Emanuel H

    Rolando D. Somma, Gerardo Ortiz, Emanuel H. Knill, and James Gubernatis. Quantum simulations of physics problems. In Quantum Information and Computation , volume 5105, pages 96–103. SPIE, 2003

    2003

  65. [73]

    Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli oper- ators in the presence of finite sampling error

    Ophelia Crawford, Barnaby van Straaten, Daochen Wang, Thomas Parks, Earl Campbell, and Stephen Brierley. Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli oper- ators in the presence of finite sampling error. Quantum, 5:385, 2021

    2021

  66. [74]

    A second quantization formulation of multimode dynamics

    Ove Christiansen. A second quantization formulation of multimode dynamics. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 120(5):2140–2148, 2004

    2004

  67. [75]

    Bernstein, and Philip Bertani

    Michael Reck, Anton Zeilinger, Herbert J. Bernstein, and Philip Bertani. Experimental realization of any dis- crete unitary operator. Physical Review Letters , 73:58– 61, 1994. Appendix A: Lie algebraic properties of quadratic bosonic Hamiltonians A general bosonic Hamiltonian...

    1994

  68. [76]

    Dutta, N

    Arvind, B. Dutta, N. Mukunda, and R. Simon. The Real Symplectic Groups in Quantum Mechanics and Optics. Pramana, 45(6):471–497, 1995. arXiv:quant-ph/9509002

    1995 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Representation theory of Gaussian unitary transfor- mations for bosonic and fermionic systems, 2024

    Tommaso Guaita, Lucas Hackl, and Thomas Quella. Representation theory of Gaussian unitary transfor- mations for bosonic and fermionic systems, 2024. arXiv:2409.11628

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representa- tions

    Brian Hall. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representa- tions. Springer, 2015

    2015

  71. [79]

    Alessandro Ferraro, Stefano Olivares, and Matteo G. A. Paris. Gaussian states in continuous variable quantum information, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0503237

    2005 arXiv

  72. [80]

    M. Wagner. Unitary transformations in solid state physics. North-Holland, Netherlands, 1986

    1986

  73. [81]

    Unitary transformations and the ac- tion principle

    Julian Schwinger. Unitary transformations and the ac- tion principle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 46(6):883–897, 1960

    1960

  74. [2016]

    Wallingford CT

    Gaussian Inc. Wallingford CT

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.