Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Quantum Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Cosmological Functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid quantum-classical MCMC sampler reproduces classical posterior contours for supernova and CMB cosmological data.

desk verdict The empirical match with emcee is genuine, but the proposal distribution is underspecified—and possibly deterministic—so the sampler's correctness is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09395 v1 pith:KQ74YBYA submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.CO quant-ph

Giuseppe Sarracino , Vincenzo Fabrizio Cardone , Roberto Scaramella , Giuseppe Riccio , Andrea Bulgarelli , Carlo Burigana , Luca Cappelli , Stefano Cavuoti
show 9 more authors
Farida Farsian Irene Graziotti Massimo Meneghetti Giuseppe Murante Nicolò Parmiggiani Alessandro Rizzo Francesco Schillirò Vincenzo Testa Tiziana Trombetti
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COquant-ph
keywords quantumMarkovchainMonteCarlocosmologicalparameterestimationMetropolis-HastingsstatevectorproposalwCDMΛCDMCMBtemperaturespectrumhybridquantum-classicalalgorithm
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

This paper aims to show that a Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampler can use a quantum circuit to generate its proposed steps and still converge to the same posterior distributions as a classical sampler. The authors implement a hybrid algorithm in which the shift vector for each proposal is read from the statevector of a shallow quantum circuit, while the Metropolis-Hastings accept/reject decision is computed classically. They apply it to a multimodal test function and to two real cosmological likelihoods — wCDM fitted to Type Ia supernova distances and ΛCDM fitted to CMB temperature data — and report that the resulting contours, means, correlations, and z-scores match the classical reference. If this holds, it would mean quantum-generated proposals can be dropped into standard Bayesian inference for cosmology without biasing the inferred parameters, and the history-independent step generation could help escape local minima.

What carries the argument

The proposal engine is a shallow quantum circuit: Hadamard gates at both ends, three layers of rotations about the y and z axes, and conditional y-rotations that entangle all qubits. Its output statevector v — the list of complex amplitudes describing the circuit's output state — is converted into a parameter-space shift by s = i·Re(v)·f(Im(v)), where i is a step-size hyperparameter and f is a step function applied to the imaginary part of v. This shift becomes the proposal in a classical Metropolis-Hastings update, whose acceptance rule is written with the proposal ratio cancelled, an assumption that the proposal distribution is symmetric. The circuit uses log2(d) qubits and has depth 2 + n

What would settle it

Record the shift vectors proposed by the quantum circuit over many thousands of iterations, build histograms of s and of -s (or of forward and reverse proposal probabilities for pairs θ, θ'), and test whether they coincide. If they differ measurably, the proposal is asymmetric and the chain is not guaranteed to converge to the target posterior, so the reported agreement with the classical sampler would need reinterpretation. This check can be done with the same emulator used in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the QMCMC algorithm, which proposes steps via the statevector of a quantum circuit and accepts or rejects them with classical Metropolis-Hastings, produces posterior distributions for cosmological parameters that are statistically consistent with those obtained from a standard classical MCMC sampler. The paper's evidence is that the 68% and 95% credible contours overlap almost completely in both the CMB and supernova runs, the z-scores of the means are near zero, and the pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients are nearly identical. On this basis the authors state that the algorithm correctly locates the region around the global minimum for the test function and fo

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the proposal distribution generated by Eq. 7 is symmetric, so q(θ|θ')/q(θ'|θ) cancels in the Metropolis-Hastings acceptance; the paper states this possibility without proof, and the step function f(Im(v)) is never defined, leaving the actual distribution of the proposed shift uncharacterized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported consistency is correct, quantum-generated proposals can be spliced into classical Metropolis-Hastings pipelines for cosmological parameter estimation without changing the inferred posterior.
  • The logarithmic qubit scaling means the circuit proposal remains small even for higher-dimensional cosmological problems, so the approach is in principle scalable beyond the 5-parameter case tested.
  • A history-independent proposal mechanism of this kind could reduce the risk of chains getting trapped in local minima on multimodal likelihood surfaces, a property the authors highlight as the motivation for the design.
  • The reported effective sample sizes and acceptance rates indicate the sampler can produce usable chains, but the paper does not claim a runtime speedup over classical sampling; the bottleneck is the classical likelihood evaluation and circuit transpilation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's consistency claim rests on an unproven symmetry of the proposal distribution; a direct measurement of the shift distribution from the circuit would settle whether the acceptance rule is correctly specified or whether the agreement is specific to these test cases.
  • Because the quantum circuit is only a source of random shift vectors, the same algorithmic shell could work with any cheap history-independent random generator; the quantum origin is not essential to the Metropolis-Hastings framework, only to the particular implementation.
  • The 'avoids local minima' motivation is not demonstrated by the tests shown — the test function has local minima but the chains were not adversarially initialized there — so a targeted test with multimodal cosmological posteriors and poor initial conditions would be needed to see the claimed benefit.
  • On real quantum hardware, gate errors and connectivity constraints will perturb the statevector and therefore the proposal distribution; the authors acknowledge this, and the practical value of the method will depend on whether those perturbations corrupt the symmetry assumption used in the acceptance rule.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid quantum-classical MCMC sampler (QMCMC) for cosmological parameter estimation. The proposal step is generated from a parameterized quantum circuit: a statevector v is computed and a shift s = i Re(v) f(Im(v)) is added to the current point; the candidate is accepted or rejected with classical Metropolis-Hastings. The authors apply the method to the Ackley test function in 8 dimensions, to a wCDM fit of SNe Ia (Pantheon+) with parameters (w, Omega_M, H0), and to a LambdaCDM fit of Planck TT with five parameters. They report contours, z-scores, and Pearson coefficients showing close agreement with emcee, and quote convergence diagnostics, acceptance rates, and effective sample sizes. The central claim is that QMCMC produces posterior distributions consistent with classical methods.

Significance. If correct, this would be a useful proof of concept for quantum-assisted sampling in cosmology, with an appealing scaling of qubit number as log2(d). The external comparison with emcee is a reasonable and non-circular benchmark, and the use of two real cosmological likelihoods goes beyond toy examples. The paper also has the merit of being candid about its limitations, including the use of a simulator rather than real quantum hardware. However, the manuscript currently lacks a well-defined proposal distribution and a proof of detailed balance; without these, the sampler has no guaranteed stationary distribution equal to the target posterior. The empirical agreement is suggestive but cannot validate the algorithm. If the missing definitions and correctness checks are supplied and the numerical experiments re-run with a fully specified transition kernel, the contribution could be of interest to the astrostatistics and quantum-computing communities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (7) and Algorithm 1] The proposal distribution is not defined. Eq. (7) defines the shift using f(Im(v)), but f is never specified; the circuit's rotation angles and number of layers n_l are not given; and the text does not state whether v is obtained by a projective measurement (and in what basis) or by exact statevector simulation. On a statevector simulator, repeated calls return the same v, so the 'proposal' would be deterministic and no transition density q(theta'|theta) exists. Without q, Eq. (6) cannot be evaluated and Algorithm 1 does not define a Markov chain with a known stationary distribution. This is a load-bearing gap: all posterior results depend on this undefined kernel.
  2. [Section II (Eq. (6)) and Section III (Eq. (7))] The acceptance rule uses Metropolis-Hastings, but the proposal ratio is omitted. The text states q cancels 'if it is symmetric' and then proceeds as if it did. No symmetry proof is given for the shift s = i Re(v) f(Im(v)); for generic rotation angles and a step function f, the distribution of s will generally be asymmetric, especially with the initial Hadamard layer producing real coefficients before rotations. If q is asymmetric, the chain's stationary distribution is not pi. The authors must either prove symmetry for the exact implementation, restrict the circuit/function family to make it symmetric, or compute and include q(theta|theta')/q(theta'|theta).
  3. [Section IV, Figs. 2 and 3] The empirical agreement with emcee is a necessary consistency check, not sufficient validation of correct sampling. Agreement in contours and low z-scores could also arise from a deterministic or wrong-kernel walk on the smooth likelihood surfaces considered. The authors should add a formal validation: e.g., compare against known analytic posteriors on a multimodal target, estimate the proposal ratio from simulations, and verify detailed balance or reversibility of the implemented kernel. Without this, the central claim that the results are consistent with classical methods is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (7)] The symbol i is used for the initial step size, which is easy to confuse with the imaginary unit appearing in the same expression; use e.g. epsilon or sigma.
  2. [Section III, Algorithm 1] 'The overall algorithm is summarized in III' should refer to Algorithm 1. Also, in the pseudocode, 'If stepmod n==0' should be typeset with a space.
  3. [Section III and IV] Typos: 'the shiftss' should be 'the shifts'; 'aersimulator' should be 'aer simulator'.
  4. [Section IV] The z-score formula is not typeset correctly; define it in display math.
  5. [Section III, step 2] The mapping from the 2^n-dimensional statevector to the d-dimensional parameter shift is not described for d that is not a power of two (e.g., d=5). Please specify how the statevector components are assigned to dimensions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QMCMC posterior results are benchmarked against external emcee runs, and no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the QMCMC sampler returns posterior distributions consistent with emcee for an Ackley test function, SNe Ia (w, Omega_M, H0), and Planck TT (Omega_M, H0, omega_B, n_s, A_s). The target distributions are defined externally by the cosmological chi-square functions (Eq. 5 and the CMB likelihood), and the agreement with emcee is an external, independent benchmark. I find no step in which a result is equivalent to its input by construction: the proposal shift s = i*Re(v)*f(Im(v)) (Eq. 7) does not depend on the target or on the emcee output, and no parameter is fitted to force the QMCMC contours to match emcee. The self-citations present in the text are background references (e.g., Euclid papers by co-authors) and are not load-bearing for the QMCMC derivation or for the validation against emcee. There is no imported uniqueness theorem and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. I explicitly flag the manuscript's own identified gaps, though they are not circularity: after Eq. 6 the paper states the q-ratio 'cancels out in the computations if it is symmetric' without proving symmetry, and Eq. 7 refers to 'f is a step function' without defining its values or the distribution of v from Fig. 1. These are rigor/convergence concerns about whether the chain targets the posterior, not a reduction of the claimed prediction to the input. The consistency with emcee could in principle be questioned on those grounds, but the correct venue for that concern is correctness risk, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular; score 0.

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

The central claim rests on the statistical validity of the quantum proposal in a Metropolis-Hastings scheme, which is supported only by an unproven symmetry assumption and an unspecified step function. Standard cosmological modeling assumptions are imported from the literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Step function f(Im(v)) = unspecified
    The modulation of step size depends on an undefined function of the imaginary part of the statevector; no functional form or parameters are given.
  • Quantum circuit rotation angles = unspecified
    The circuit in Fig. 1 has 3 layers of y/z rotations and conditional rotations, but the angle values are not provided, making the proposal distribution data-dependent in an unspecified way.
  • Initial step size i = not reported
    The initial step size is a hyperparameter that controls the scale of proposals; its value for each run is not stated.
  • Number of circuit layers n_l = 3
    The number of layers is a hyperparameter chosen by hand; no search or justification is given.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Metropolis-Hastings proposal ratio cancels (symmetric proposal)
    The paper assumes the quantum-generated shift distribution is symmetric so q(theta|theta')/q(theta'|theta)=1, but this is not demonstrated and may be false.
  • domain assumption Quantum statevector from the circuit provides unbiased exploration
    The claim that the circuit ensures 'an even and unbiased exploration of the parameter space' is asserted without statistical characterization.
  • domain assumption Flat LCDM/wCDM background model (flatness, neglect of radiation)
    Equation (3) assumes flatness and omits radiation, standard in this context but a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Convergence criteria (tau and R-1) indicate convergence
    Standard MCMC diagnostics are used; their reliability is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Cosmological Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KQ74YBYA

@misc{pith2026250909395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Cosmological Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KQ74YBYA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09395}
}
read the original abstract

We present an implementation of Quantum Computing for a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method with an application to cosmological functions, to derive posterior distributions from cosmological probes. The algorithm proposes new steps in the parameter space via a quantum circuit whose resulting statevector provides the components of the shift vector. The proposed point is accepted or rejected via the classical Metropolis-Hastings acceptance method. The advantage of this hybrid quantum approach is that the step size and direction change in a way independent of the evolution of the chain, thus ideally avoiding the presence of local minima. The results are consistent with analyses performed with classical methods, both for a test function and real cosmological data. The final goal is to generalize this algorithm to test its application to complex cosmological computations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Quantum Circuit used in our algorithm to propose the new step in the chain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 68% and 95% Contour plots for the Ackley test function with d = 8, derived from our QMCMC algorithm and the classical MCMC emcee tool. Here, also the z-score and ρ for each panel are shown. are displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 68% and 95% Contour plots from our QMCMC algorithm and the classical MCMC emcee tool. Left panel: for the CMB, considering 5 cosmological parameters for the ΛCDM. Right panel: for the SNe Ia, considering 3 parameters for the wCDM model. Here, also the z-score and ρ for each panel are shown. variability in the exploration of the parameter space that could help the convergence of the algorithm. We have used our algori… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum computing,

    A. Steane, “Quantum computing,”Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 61, no. 2, p. 117–173, Feb. 1998. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/61/2/002

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/61/2/002 1998

  2. [2]

    Quantum computation,

    D. Aharonov, “Quantum computation,” inAnnual Reviews of Computa- tional Physics VI. WORLD SCIENTIFIC, Mar. 1999, p. 259–346

    1999

  3. [3]

    Quantum computers,

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y . Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, “Quantum computers,”Nature, vol. 464, no. 7285, p. 45–53, Mar. 2010. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08812

    doi:10.1038/nature08812 2010

  4. [4]

    Quantum optimization and quantum learning: A survey,

    Y . e. a. Li, “Quantum optimization and quantum learning: A survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 23 568 – 23 593, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2970105

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Simulating Physics with Computers,

    R. P. Feynman, “Simulating Physics with Computers,”International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 21, no. 6-7, pp. 467–488, Jun

  6. [6]

    Maintaining coherence in quantum computers,

    W. G. Unruh, “Maintaining coherence in quantum computers,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 51, pp. 992–997, Feb 1995. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.992

    doi:10.1103/physreva.51.992 1995

  7. [7]

    Quantum computation,

    D. P. DiVincenzo, “Quantum computation,”Science, vol. 270, no. 5234, pp. 255–261, 1995. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.270.5234.255

    doi:10.1126/science.270.5234.255 1995

  8. [8]

    Quantum-inspired genetic algorithms,

    A. Narayanan and M. Moore, “Quantum-inspired genetic algorithms,” inProceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, 1996, pp. 61–66

    1996

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum computers can search rapidly by using almost any transformation,

    L. K. Grover, “Quantum computers can search rapidly by using almost any transformation,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 80, pp. 4329–4332, May 1998. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4329

    1998 doi

  2. [10]

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

    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,”SIAM Review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144598347011

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    A feasible path for the use of ferromagnetic josephson junctions in quantum circuits: The ferro-transmon,

    D. Massarotti, H. G. Ahmad, R. Satariano, R. Ferraiuolo, L. Di Palma, and et al., “A feasible path for the use of ferromagnetic josephson junctions in quantum circuits: The ferro-transmon,”Low Temperature Physics, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 794–802, Jul. 2023. [Online]. Available: ht...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Quantum algorithms: an overview,

    A. Montanaro, “Quantum algorithms: an overview,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 2, no. 1, Jan. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npjqi.2015.23

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Quantum algorithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end complexities,

    A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, and et al., “Quantum algorithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end complexities,”arXiv e-prints, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    High Performance Astronomical Data Analysis towards Exascale,

    G. Taffoni, D. Goz, L. Tornatore, M. Frailis, G. Maggio, and F. Pasian, “High Performance Astronomical Data Analysis towards Exascale,” inAstronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ser. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, vol. 522, Apr. 2020, p. ...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Gaia Data Release 3. Specific processing and validation of all sky RR Lyrae and Cepheid stars: The Cepheid sample,

    V . Ripepi, G. Clementini, R. Molinaro, S. Leccia, E. Plachy, and et al., “Gaia Data Release 3. Specific processing and validation of all sky RR Lyrae and Cepheid stars: The Cepheid sample,”Astronomy & Astrophysics, vol. 674, p. A17, Jun. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi...

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    The Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Technical Summary,

    D. G. York, J. Adelman, J. Anderson, John E., S. F. Anderson, J. Annis, and et al., “The Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Technical Summary,”The Astronomical Journal, vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 1579–1587, Sep. 2000. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/301513

    doi

  9. [17]

    zCOSMOS: A Large VLT/VIMOS Redshift Survey Covering 0 ¡ z ¡ 3 in the COSMOS Field,

    S. J. Lilly, O. Le F `evre, A. Renzini, G. Zamorani, M. Scodeggio, and et al., “zCOSMOS: A Large VLT/VIMOS Redshift Survey Covering 0 ¡ z ¡ 3 in the COSMOS Field,”The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, vol. 172, no. 1, pp. 70–85, Sep. 2007. [Online]. Available: http://dx...

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    Euclid Definition Study Report,

    R. Laureijs, J. Amiaux, S. Arduini, J. L. Augu `eres, J. Brinchmann, and et al., “Euclid Definition Study Report,”arXiv e-prints, Oct. 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Euclid preparation. i. the euclid wide survey,

    R. Scaramella, J. Amiaux, Y . Mellier, C. Burigana, C. S. Carvalho, and et al., “Euclid preparation. i. the euclid wide survey,”Astronomy & Astrophysics, vol. 662, p. A112, jun 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202141938

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission,

    Y . Mellier, Abdurro’uf, J. A. A. Barroso, A. Ach ´ucarro, J. Adamek, and et al., “Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13491

    2024

  13. [21]

    LSST Science Book, Version 2.0,

    LSST Science Collaboration, P. A. Abell, J. Allison, S. F. Anderson, J. R. Andrew, J. R. P. Angel, and et al., “LSST Science Book, Version 2.0,”arXiv e-prints, Dec. 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Automated physical classification in the sdss dr10. a catalogue of candidate quasars,

    M. Brescia, S. Cavuoti, and G. Longo, “Automated physical classification in the sdss dr10. a catalogue of candidate quasars,”Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 450, no. 4, p. 3893–3903, May 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv854

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    The search for galaxy cluster members with deep learning of panchromatic hst imaging and extensive spectroscopy,

    G. Angora, P. Rosati, M. Brescia, A. Mercurio, C. Grillo, and et al., “The search for galaxy cluster members with deep learning of panchromatic hst imaging and extensive spectroscopy,”Astronomy & Astrophysics, vol. 643, p. A177, Nov. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.or...

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Astronomical big data processing using machine learning: A comprehensive review,

    S. Sen, S. Agarwal, P. Chakraborty, and K. P. Singh, “Astronomical big data processing using machine learning: A comprehensive review,” Experimental Astronomy, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 1–43, Feb. 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10686-021-09827-4

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,

    A. G. Riess, A. V . Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, and et al., “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,”The Astronomical Journal, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 1009–1038, 1998. [Online]. Available: http://dx....

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,

    E. Abdalla, G. F. Abell ´an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, ¨Ozg¨ur Akarsu, and et al., “Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,”Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, vol. 34, pp. ...

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    The absolute magnitudes of type ia supernovae

    M. M. Phillips, “The absolute magnitudes of type ia supernovae.” Astrophysical Journal Letters, vol. 413, p. L105, 1993

    1993

  20. [28]

    The pantheon+ analysis: The full data set and light-curve release,

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A. G. Riess, T. M. Davis, and et al., “The pantheon+ analysis: The full data set and light-curve release,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 938, no. 2, p. 113, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    The pantheon+ analysis: Cosmological constraints,

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, A. Carr, and et al., “The pantheon+ analysis: Cosmological constraints,”The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 938, no. 2, p. 110, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Planck 2018 results,

    N. Aghanim, Y . Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, and et al., “Planck 2018 results,”Astronomy & Astrophysics, vol. 641, p. A6, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004- 6361/201833910

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Models,

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, “Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Models,”The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 538, no. 2, pp. 473–476, Aug. 2000. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/309179

    doi

  24. [32]

    Pico: Parameters for the impatient cosmologist,

    W. A. Fendt and B. D. Wandelt, “Pico: Parameters for the impatient cosmologist,”The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 654, no. 1, p. 2–11, Jan

  25. [33]

    Computing high accuracy power spectra with pico,

    ——, “Computing high accuracy power spectra with pico,” 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Monte Carlo Sampling Methods using Markov Chains and their Applications,

    W. K. Hastings, “Monte Carlo Sampling Methods using Markov Chains and their Applications,”Biometrika, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 97–109, Apr

  27. [35]

    Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences,

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, “Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences,”Statistical Science, vol. 7, pp. 457–472, Jan. 1992. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136

    1992

  28. [36]

    emcee: The mcmc hammer,

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, “emcee: The mcmc hammer,”Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, vol. 125, no. 925, p. 306–312, Mar. 2013. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    Cobaya: code for bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models,

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: code for bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models,”Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2021, no. 05, p. 057, May 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Quantum annealing: an overview,

    A. Rajak, S. Suzuki, A. Dutta, and B. K. Chakrabarti, “Quantum annealing: an overview,”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 381, no. 2241, Dec. 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2021.0417

    2022

  32. [40]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, and et al., “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, p. 625–644, Aug. 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Implementing evolutionary optimization on actual quantum processors,

    G. Acampora and A. Vitiello, “Implementing evolutionary optimization on actual quantum processors,”Information Sciences, vol. 575, pp. 542–562, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002002552100640X

    2021

  34. [42]

    Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo,

    D. Layden, G. Mazzola, R. V . Mishmash, M. Motta, P. Wocjan, J.-S. Kim, and S. Sheldon, “Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo,” Nature, vol. 619, no. 7969, p. 282–287, Jul. 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06095-4

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Bounding the speedup of the quantum-enhanced markov-chain monte carlo algorithm,

    A. Orfi and D. Sels, “Bounding the speedup of the quantum-enhanced markov-chain monte carlo algorithm,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 110, p. 052414, Nov 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.052414

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Sampling problems on a quantum computer,

    M. B. Mansky, J. N ¨ußlein, D. Bucher, D. Schuman, S. Zielinski, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, “Sampling problems on a quantum computer,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). IEEE, Sep. 2023, p. 485–495. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi....

    2023

  37. [45]

    Markov-chain monte carlo method enhanced by a quantum alternating operator ansatz,

    Y . Nakano, H. Hakoshima, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, “Markov-chain monte carlo method enhanced by a quantum alternating operator ansatz,”Physical Review Research, vol. 6, no. 3, Jul. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033105

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Quantum annealing enhanced markov-chain monte carlo,

    S. Arai and T. Kadowaki, “Quantum annealing enhanced markov-chain monte carlo,”Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 21427, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07293-y

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    Quantum computing with qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with qiskit,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08810

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A connectionist machine for genetic hillclimbing,

    D. Ackley, “A connectionist machine for genetic hillclimbing,” in Cognitive Systems: Information Processing, Integration, and Aspects of Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987, vol. 2, pp. 97–124

    1987

  41. [1970]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    doi

  42. [1982]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179

    doi

  43. [2007]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/508342

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/508342

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.