Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 51 references

Designing Minimalistic Variational Quantum Ansatz Inspired by Algorithmic Cooling

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a reset-free XX+YY cooling block, applied one-to-one between problem and bath qubits, outperforms QAOA and hardware-efficient ansätze on complete-graph MaxCut, and that the same block inside a dissipative VQE reaches…

desk verdict A clever dVQE cooling block overshadowed by an unsubstantiated MaxCut claim that reduces to classical mean-field search. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16776 v1 pith:LEOCWGVN submitted 2025-01-28 quant-ph

Soyoung Shin , Ha Eum Kim , Hyeonjun Yeo , Kabgyun Jeong , Wonho Jhe , Jaewan Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Ac
keywords algorithmiccoolingvariationalquantumeigensolverheat-exchangeansatzMaxCutHeisenbergchainwithimpuritydissipativeVQENISQdevicesXX+YYinteraction
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

Most variational ansätze either rely on deep circuits or on resets to a thermal bath to remove entropy. This paper proposes a minimalistic alternative: a Heat-Exchange (HE) block, a single parameterized $XX+YY$ rotation between each problem qubit and an auxiliary qubit prepared in $|1\rangle$, which coherently transfers population without any bath reset. The authors claim this block alone outperforms QAOA and hardware-efficient ansätze on weighted complete-graph MaxCut in both simulation and noisy-device experiments, and that when the block is used as the dissipative layer of a dissipative VQE it estimates the ground-state energy of a 1D Heisenberg chain with a frozen impurity to below 1% error, reproducing the known edge effect. The point of the claim is practical: if true, a fixed low-depth unitary, implementable with native two-qubit gates, is enough to handle problems that usually force deep problem-specific circuits. That would lower the hardware cost of variational algorithms for optimization and for disordered quantum systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the heat-exchange interaction $H^{(j)}_{\rm int}=J(\sigma^x_j\tau^x_j+\sigma^y_j\tau^y_j)$ between problem qubit $j$ and a bath qubit, which at $Jt=\pi/4$ acts as a partial iSWAP swapping populations of $|01\rangle$ and $|10\rangle$. The HE ansatz places one such gate between each problem qubit and a bath qubit initialized in $|1\rangle$, so each gate pushes the problem qubit toward $|0\rangle$; in the dVQE variant, the same block is inserted at the impurity site as a parameterized cooling layer. The mechanism does the work of population redistribution and decoherence emulation that other approaches achieve with mid-circuit resets or a physical thermal bath. This single two-qubit gate is what carries the entire argument: no reset, no external bath, only a coherent exchange between two qubits in the same circuit.

What would settle it

The most direct test is to take a random weighted complete graph on 10 nodes, solve MaxCut exactly by brute force, and run the Fig. 2(a) HE ansatz, QAOA at $p=2$, and a classical single-bit-flip local search under identical budgets. Because the HE circuit becomes a product distribution over the problem qubits once the bath qubits are traced out, any instance where the best HE cut is strictly below the QAOA or classical cut would refute the paper's MaxCut superiority claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the unitary evolution of heat-bath algorithmic cooling—an $XX+YY$ exchange between a target qubit and a bath qubit that starts in $|1\rangle$—can be promoted from a cooling primitive into a variational ansatz. The resulting HE block shifts population toward the ground state of each problem qubit through a partial-swap rotation, and it does so without resetting the bath or coupling to an external environment. The paper reports that, used directly as the whole ansatz for complete-graph weighted MaxCut, this block reaches higher approximation ratios and higher probabilities of finding the optimal cut than hardware-efficient and QAOA circuits, including on a real device after readout-error mitigation. Used as the dissipative component of dVQE, the same block yields ground-state energies for a six-site 1D XXX Heisenberg chain with one impurity at distance $d=0,1,2$ from the edge that agree with exact reference values to within 1%, and it reproduces the edge effect in which an edge impurity effectively shortens the chain.

Load-bearing premise

The MaxCut comparison assumes that the family of circuits in Fig. 2(a), where every problem qubit interacts only with its own always-|1\rangle bath qubit through one XX+YY rotation, is expressive enough to reach near-optimal cuts on every random weighted complete graph; after tracing the baths this family reduces to independent single-qubit distributions, so the question is whether that classical mean-field search is actually that good.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The HE block gives a fixed, shallow, reset-free replacement for entropy-removal operations in variational circuits, lowering the hardware overhead of VQE on near-term devices.
  • On weighted complete graphs, including Sherrington–Kirkpatrick-type instances, the one-to-one cooling circuit reaches higher approximation ratios than QAOA at comparable or greater depth.
  • Inserted as the dissipation block of dVQE, the same block computes impurity-site ground states of 1D Heisenberg chains to within 1% and reproduces the boundary edge effect.
  • Since the required gate is a partial iSWAP, the ansatz maps directly onto the native two-qubit interactions of superconducting processors.
  • The recipe generalizes: any algorithmic-cooling operation can be converted into a variational layer when the target problem benefits from controllable population bias.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: after tracing the bath qubits, the Fig. 2(a) MaxCut circuit generates only product states, so its MaxCut search is effectively a classical mean-field randomized cut; a comparison against a semidefinite-programming rounding bound would show how much of the reported advantage is due to the circuit rather than to the optimization of independent qubit biases.
  • Beyond the paper: the same cooling block should transfer to other diagonal-cost problems, such as weighted Max-2-SAT or biased spin-glass instances, where single-qubit partition biases are known to help; a low-cost test is to run the block on 20-node instances with skewed weights.
  • Beyond the paper: the 1% Heisenberg claim is demonstrated only for six sites; scaling the cooling block to 10–20 sites and checking the error beyond exact diagonalization would show whether the edge-effect physics survives in a regime where classical references are harder to obtain.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a 'Heat Exchange' (HE) variational ansatz built from XX+YY interactions between problem qubits and ancilla 'bath' qubits initialized in |1>, without resets. It applies the ansatz in two settings: (i) weighted MAXCUT on complete graphs with n=5 and n=10, comparing against QAOA and a hardware-efficient ansatz in ideal simulation and on ibm_strasbourg; and (ii) a dissipative VQE variant for the 1D XXX Heisenberg chain with an impurity, comparing ground-state energies against an effective-Hamiltonian reference. The paper claims superior approximation ratios for MAXCUT and sub-1% energy errors for the Heisenberg chain, including an 'edge effect' simulation.

Significance. If the MAXCUT claim were supported, a single low-depth XX+YY block would outperform standard variational circuits on small weighted complete graphs. However, the circuit in Fig. 2(a) prepares a product state on the problem register, so the MAXCUT experiment is equivalent to a classical product-distribution search; the claimed superiority is therefore not a result about a quantum state family and needs a classical baseline before it can be interpreted. The Heisenberg dVQE application is potentially more interesting, with a concrete physical target and a falsifiable edge-effect prediction, but as presented it lacks the specification and statistical detail needed to verify the sub-1% claim. The paper is clearly written in its circuit definitions and uses standard tools (Qiskit, TREX readout mitigation, Gaussian-process plus ImFil optimization), but no code or data are released and the displayed curves carry no error bars.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Fig. 2(a), Eq. (6)] In the MaxCut ansatz of Fig. 2(a), each problem qubit Qp interacts only with its own bath qubit Qb through one XX+YY gate and there are no entangling gates between problem qubits. Since the initial state is a tensor product and every gate is a tensor product of two-qubit unitaries, the reduced state on the problem register is a product state for all parameters. For the diagonal Hamiltonian of Eq. (6), <Z_i Z_j> = <Z_i><Z_j>, so optimizing the HE angles is exactly equivalent to a classical product-distribution search over bitstrings. The 'superior approximation ratios' reported in Fig. 4 are therefore not evidence about a quantum state family; they can be reproduced by any classical mean-field bitstring optimizer. The manuscript must include a classical baseline (e.g., local search, simulated annealing, or direct product-distribution optimization) on the same instances with the same evaluation budget, and the MaxCut claims must be reframed accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (8), Fig. 6] The Heisenberg analysis contains an internal inconsistency in a load-bearing quantity. The text states that the critical field is h_c = 2J and sets J = 1, which gives h_c = 2, but later reads 'the magnitude of the magnetic field exceeds h_c = 4' and uses h = 4 as the separating field in Fig. 6. The phase assignments and the 'edge effect' interpretation depend on the correct threshold, so this must be corrected and the energies at h = 3 and h = 4 re-examined. In addition, the circuit in Fig. 5 shows only one HE block on qubit 0, while results are reported for impurities at distances d = 1, 2 and for impurity states both |0> and |1>; the manuscript does not state how the impurity is moved or how a |1> impurity is encoded with a cooling block that drives population toward |0>. Without these details the edge-effect simulation is not reproducible.
  3. [Section 4.1, Fig. 4] The experimental comparison is not apples-to-apples. The real-device curve labeled CHEreal in Fig. 4 is compared against ideal noiseless simulation curves for HEA and QAOA, so the statement that it 'still outperformed ideal simulation result' is biased by the absence of noise in the baselines. Moreover, no error bars, number of independent runs, or significance tests are reported for any of the displayed approximation-ratio or probability curves; with only one displayed instance per size, the claimed ordering of algorithms may not be stable. The manuscript should report statistics over many random graphs and, for the hardware point, compare with the same circuits executed under the same noise conditions or a calibrated noise model.
  4. [Section 4.2, Fig. 2(b), Fig. 6] The role of the HE cooling block in the Heisenberg result is not isolated. The comparison in Fig. 6 is only between the HE-dVQE output and an exact reference energy; there is no ablation against a standard VQE using the same RealAmplitude U block without the HE block, nor against the original dVQE of Ref. [YNMF20]. Since a 6-qubit Heisenberg chain is small enough that the U block alone may already reach sub-1% error, the reader cannot conclude that the cooling mechanism contributes to the reported accuracy. An ablation is necessary to support the causal claim in the abstract and Section 5.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical errors: 'ansatzs' and 'anstaz' should be 'ansatze', and 'fluctutation', 'predefiend', and 'conneced' should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.1] The claim that uniform weights in [0,1] 'encompass the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model' is inaccurate, since SK uses zero-mean, unit-variance couplings; either state the mean-field shift explicitly or remove the claim.
  3. [Section 3] The optimization budget is described only as 'maximum iteration number will be a control parameter'; define the budget variable used on the x-axis of Fig. 4 and state the number of independent restarts per curve.
  4. [Fig. 3(b)] The caption 'typical histogram of circuit count of QAOA' is unclear; specify what is being histogrammed (measurement outcomes, cut values, or circuit counts) and for which parameter values.
  5. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'quantum integer problems' appears to be a typo and should be clarified, for example as 'Ising-type problems'.
  6. [Section 2.2 and Fig. 2(a)] The bath is said to be 'initialized as the ground state' in Section 2.2, but Fig. 2(a) prepares Qb in |1>; if |1> is the excited state, the cooling direction and sign convention should be stated explicitly, since this affects the interpretation of the HE block.
  7. [Section 4.2] Eq. (9) defines tau^k_j as 'Pauli k operators for the i-th bath'; the index should be j, and the raising and lowering operators sigma^± should be defined before use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the ansatz parameters are optimized against the problem Hamiltonian and all performance claims are benchmarked against external reference values.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain consists of standard VQE/dVQE optimization: the HE ansatz parameters are optimized by minimizing the problem-Hamiltonian expectation (Eq. 1) for the MaxCut cost (Eq. 6) or the squared-Liouvillian cost in the dVQE framework of Ref. [YNMF20]. These are not predictions derived from the ansatz definition by construction; the benchmarks are external, namely brute-force optimal cut values for MaxCut and effective-Hamiltonian numerics for the Heisenberg chain with impurity. No parameter is fitted to the reference energy and then reported as an error; the sub-1% error is a post-optimization comparison against an independent numerical reference. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations and no uniqueness import: the dVQE construction and the Gaussian-process/ImFil optimizer are cited from independent research groups. The observation that the Fig. 2(a) MaxCut circuit is a tensor product of independent two-qubit unitaries, so that the reduced problem-register state is a product state and the diagonal cost of Eq. (6) factors, is a genuine modeling limitation and a missing classical baseline, but it is not a circular step: the ansatz is not defined in terms of the MaxCut optimum, and the claimed superior approximation ratio is an empirical comparison, not an identity. Likewise, the impurity is modeled by dissipation at site 0, so the edge effect is a property of the chosen model; reproducing the reference ground-state energy tests whether the optimizer finds the intended steady state, rather than circularly defining the target result in terms of the answer. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked, so no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds two sets of variational rotation angles as fitted parameters and relies on four explicit or implicit modeling assumptions. It introduces no new particles or forces.

free parameters (2)
  • HE rotation angles theta_i = not reported (optimized per instance)
    Each XX+YY gate between a problem qubit and its bath qubit has one angle; these angles are the variational parameters fitted to minimize the MaxCut cost function in Section 4.1.
  • RealAmplitude U-block angles = not reported (optimized per instance)
    The dVQE U block in Fig. 2(b) uses Ry and CX rotation parameters fitted to minimize the Heisenberg energy in Section 4.2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The bosonic system-bath interaction in Eq. (2) can be truncated to the two-qubit XX+YY interaction in Eq. (3).
    Requires low temperature and at most one boson per mode; used to justify the HE gate but not verified for the actual circuits.
  • domain assumption The impurity dynamics of the 0-th spin follow the Lindblad master equation Eq. (10).
    Assumes weak coupling and Markovian bath, which justifies modeling the impurity as a frozen qubit; this is the physical picture behind the Heisenberg edge-effect benchmark.
  • domain assumption The chosen circuit families (HE block for MaxCut, RealAmplitude U block with HE cooling for dVQE) can express the relevant optimal states.
    No expressibility or trainability guarantee is given; this is the load-bearing premise for all reported numerical results.
  • standard math Variational bound Eg <= <psi|H|psi> (Eq. 1).
    Standard VQE foundation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing Minimalistic Variational Quantum Ansatz Inspired by Algorithmic Cooling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LEOCWGVN

@misc{pith2026250116776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing Minimalistic Variational Quantum Ansatz Inspired by Algorithmic Cooling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LEOCWGVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16776}
}
abstract

This study introduces a novel minimalistic variational quantum ansatz inspired by algorithmic cooling principles. The proposed Heat Exchange algorithmic cooling ansatz (HE ansatz) facilitates efficient population redistribution without requiring bath resets, simplifying implementation on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices. The HE ansatz achieves superior approximation ratios with the complete network \textsc{Maxcut} optimization problem compared to the conventional Hardware efficient and QAOA ansatz. We also proposed a new variational algorithm that utilize HE ansatz to compute the ground state of impure dissipative-system variational quantum eigensolver (dVQE) which achieved a sub-$1\%$ error in ground-state energy calculations of the 1D Heisenberg chain with impurity and successfully simulates the edge effect of impure spin chain, highlighting its potential for applications in quantum many-body physics. These results underscore the compatibility of the ansatz with hardware-efficient implementations, offering a scalable approach for solving complex quantum problems in disordered and open quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16776 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Heat exchange algorithmic cooling. The heat-exchange cooling method involves coherent interactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proposed Ansatz. (a) Basic cooling block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 5 Node Complete graph weighted MAXCUT. (a) shows the structure of the problem with random weights w01, . . . , w34. (b) shows typical histogram of circuit count of QAOA. The most probable configuration can be interpreted as a solution of MAXCUT problem. α = Calg Copt < 1, (7) where Calg is the cut value obtained by the algorithm and Copt is the optimal (maximum) cut value. A higher α (i.e., closer to 1) indicates th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerical simulation and experimental results on approximation ratio and the probability of finding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ansatz circuit used to compute N = 6 1D XXX Heisenberg chain with impurity at 0-th qubit. The U block can be any ansatz. The HE block shows quantum circuit of parameterized HE ansatz works on 0-th qubit and bath (q6). d dtρs(t) = − i[Hs, ρs(t)] + γ(2σ − j ρs(t)Sσ+ j − …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Computed ground state energy of XXX heisenberg rising chain with impurity. (a) and (c) shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization

    Amira Abbas, Andris Ambainis, Brandon Augustino, Andreas B \"a rtschi, Harry Buhrman, Carleton Coffrin, Giorgio Cortiana, Vedran Dunjko, Daniel J Egger, Bruce G Elmegreen, et al. Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization. Nature Reviews Physics , 6:718–735, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Heat-bath algorithmic cooling with optimal thermalization strategies

    \'A lvaro M Alhambra, Matteo Lostaglio, and Christopher Perry. Heat-bath algorithmic cooling with optimal thermalization strategies. Quantum , 3:188, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Evered, Alexandra A

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J. Evered, Alexandra A. Geim, Sophie H. Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Nishad Maskara, Iris Cong, Xun Gao, Pedro Sales Rodriguez, Thomas Karolyshyn, Giulia Semeghini, Michael J. Gullans, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti \'c , and Mikhail D. Lu...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    o tschel, Michael J \

    Francisco Barahona, Martin Gr \"o tschel, Michael J \"u nger, and Gerhard Reinelt. An application of combinatorial optimization to statistical physics and circuit layout design. Operations Research , 36(3):493--513, 1988

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    Interactive graph cuts for optimal boundary & region segmentation of objects in nd images

    Yuri Y Boykov and M-P Jolly. Interactive graph cuts for optimal boundary & region segmentation of objects in nd images. In Proceedings eighth IEEE international conference on computer vision. ICCV 2001 , volume 1, pages 105--112. IEEE, 2001

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Boykin, Tal Mor, Vwani Roychowdhury, Farrokh Vatan, and Ruben Vrijen

    Oscar G. Boykin, Tal Mor, Vwani Roychowdhury, Farrokh Vatan, and Ruben Vrijen. Algorithmic cooling and scalable nmr quantum computers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 99(6):3388--3393, 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Simulating gauge theories with variational quantum eigensolvers in superconducting microwave cavities

    Matteo Buser, Torsten V Zache, J Ignacio Cirac, Peter Zoller, and Philipp Hauke. Simulating gauge theories with variational quantum eigensolvers in superconducting microwave cavities. Quantum , 7:1148, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Noise-aware variational eigensolvers: a dissipative route for lattice gauge theories

    Jes \'u s Cobos, David F Locher, Alejandro Bermudez, Markus M \"u ller, and Enrique Rico. Noise-aware variational eigensolvers: a dissipative route for lattice gauge theories. PRX Quantum , 5(3):030340, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits

    Marco Cerezo, Akira Sone, Tyler Volkoff, and et al. Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits. Nature Communications , 12:1791, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Egger, Jakub Mareček, and Stefan Woerner

    Daniel J. Egger, Jakub Mareček, and Stefan Woerner. Warm-starting quantum optimization. Quantum , 5:479, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Quantum adiabatic evolution algorithms versus simulated annealing

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. Quantum adiabatic evolution algorithms versus simulated annealing. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0201031 , 2002

    2002 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The quantum approximate optimization algorithm and the sherrington-kirkpatrick model at infinite size

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Leo Zhou. The quantum approximate optimization algorithm and the sherrington-kirkpatrick model at infinite size. Quantum , 6:759, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Quantum physics in one dimension , volume 121

    Thierry Giamarchi. Quantum physics in one dimension , volume 121. Clarendon press, 2003

    2003

  7. [15]

    Effect of correlation on the ferromagnetism of transition metals

    Martin C Gutzwiller. Effect of correlation on the ferromagnetism of transition metals. Physical Review Letters , 10(5):159, 1963

    1963

  8. [16]

    Z. N. Hu et al. Two magnetic impurities in a spin chain. Physical Review B , 58:R2925(R), 1998

    1998

  9. [17]

    Hastings

    Matthew B. Hastings. Classical and quantum algorithms for approximate solutions of the maxcut problem. Quantum Information and Computation , 19(7-8):610--648, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Simple variational wave functions for two-dimensional heisenberg spin- 1/2 antiferromagnets

    David A Huse and Veit Elser. Simple variational wave functions for two-dimensional heisenberg spin- 1/2 antiferromagnets. Physical review letters , 60(24):2531, 1988

    1988

  11. [19]

    Wen Wei Ho and Timothy H. Hsieh. Efficient variational simulation of non-trivial quantum states. SciPost Physics , 6:029, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Quantum approximate optimization of non-planar graph problems on a planar superconducting processor

    Matthew P Harrigan, Kevin J Sung, Matthew Neeley, Kevin J Satzinger, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Juan Atalaya, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Sergio Boixo, et al. Quantum approximate optimization of non-planar graph problems on a planar superconducting processor. Nature Physics ,...

    2021

  13. [21]

    A coherent ising machine for 2000-node optimization problems

    Takahiro Inagaki, Yoshitaka Haribara, Koji Igarashi, Tomohiro Sonobe, Shuhei Tamate, Toshimori Honjo, Alireza Marandi, Peter L McMahon, Takeshi Umeki, Koji Enbutsu, et al. A coherent ising machine for 2000-node optimization problems. Science , 354(6312):603--606, 2016

    2000

  14. [22]

    One-dimensional quantum liquids: Beyond the luttinger liquid paradigm

    Adilet Imambekov, Thomas L Schmidt, and Leonid I Glazman. One-dimensional quantum liquids: Beyond the luttinger liquid paradigm. Reviews of Modern Physics , 84(3):1253--1306, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Quantum computing with qiskit

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christopher J Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D Nation, Lev S Bishop, Andrew W Cross, et al. Quantum computing with qiskit. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions

    Donald R Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J Welch. Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. Journal of Global optimization , 13:455--492, 1998

    1998

  17. [25]

    Reducibility among combinatorial problems

    Richard M Karp. Reducibility among combinatorial problems . Springer, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance

    Youngseok Kim, Andrew Eddins, Sajant Anand, Ken Xuan Wei, Ewout van den Berg, Sami Rosenblatt, Hasan Nayfeh, Yantao Wu, Michael Zaletel, Kristan Temme, and Abhinav Kandala. Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance. Nature , 618(7965):500--505, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    A universal quantum algorithm for weighted maximum cut and ising problems

    Natacha Kuete Meli, Florian Mannel, and Jan Lellmann. A universal quantum algorithm for weighted maximum cut and ising problems. Quantum Information Processing , 22(7):279, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. nature , 549(7671):242--246, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Combinatorial optimization , volume 1

    Bernhard H Korte, Jens Vygen, B Korte, and J Vygen. Combinatorial optimization , volume 1. Springer, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Probing many-body localization by excited-state vqe

    Shuo Liu, Huitao Shen, Jinfeng Zhu, and Liang Zhang. Probing many-body localization by excited-state vqe. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.13719 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Classical optimizers for noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices

    Wim Lavrijsen, Ana Tudor, Juliane M \"u ller, Costin Iancu, and Wibe De Jong. Classical optimizers for noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices. In 2020 IEEE international conference on quantum computing and engineering (QCE) , pages 267--277. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    McClean, Annabelle Bohrdt, Philipp Heim, and et al

    Jarrod R. McClean, Annabelle Bohrdt, Philipp Heim, and et al. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nature Communications , 9:4812, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    One-dimensional magnetism

    Hans-J \"u rgen Mikeska and Alexei K Kolezhuk. One-dimensional magnetism. Quantum magnetism , pages 1--83, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Accelerating noisy vqe optimization with gaussian processes

    Juliane M \"u ller, Wim Lavrijsen, Costin Iancu, and Wibe de Jong. Accelerating noisy vqe optimization with gaussian processes. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , pages 215--225. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    The sherrington-kirkpatrick model

    Dmitry Panchenko. The sherrington-kirkpatrick model . Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Love, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L. O'Brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature Communications , 5:4213, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    The theory of radial basis function approximation in 1990

    Michael JD Powell. The theory of radial basis function approximation in 1990. Advances in numerical analysis , pages 105--210, 1992

    1990

  30. [38]

    Heat bath algorithmic cooling with spins: review and prospects

    Daniel K Park, Nayeli A Rodriguez-Briones, Guanru Feng, Robabeh Rahimi, Jonathan Baugh, and Raymond Laflamme. Heat bath algorithmic cooling with spins: review and prospects. Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) Based Quantum Computing , pages 227--255, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum , 2:79, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Qin et al

    S. Qin et al. Edge states in open antiferromagnetic heisenberg chains. Physical Review B , 52:12844, 1995

    1995

  33. [41]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices

    JC Tilly, H Chen, S Cao, D Picozzi, K Setia, R Li, E Grant, L Wossnig, I Rungger, GH Booth, et al. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices. Physics Reports , 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Vazirani

    Vijay V. Vazirani. Approximation Algorithms . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001

    2001

  35. [43]

    Minev, and Kristan Temme

    Ewout van den Berg, Zlatko K. Minev, and Kristan Temme. Model-free readout-error mitigation for quantum expectation values. Phys. Rev. A , 105:032620, Mar 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Hastings, and Matthias Troyer

    Dave Wecker, Matthew B. Hastings, and Matthias Troyer. Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms. Physical Review A , 92(4):042303, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    Maxcut quantum approximate optimization algorithm performance guarantees for p > 1

    Jonathan Wurtz and Peter Love. Maxcut quantum approximate optimization algorithm performance guarantees for p > 1 . Physical Review A , 103(4):042612, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Variational benchmarks for quantum many-body problems

    Dian Wu, Riccardo Rossi, Filippo Vicentini, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Federico Becca, Xiaodong Cao, Juan Carrasquilla, Francesco Ferrari, Antoine Georges, Mohamed Hibat-Allah, et al. Variational benchmarks for quantum many-body problems. Science , 386(6719):296--301, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Nakagawa, and Masatoshi Imada

    Yuta Watanabe, Kosuke Yamamoto, Kenji Sugisaki, Yuya O. Nakagawa, and Masatoshi Imada. Hamiltonian-inspired ansatz for strongly correlated electrons. Physical Review Research , 5:033225, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Hamiltonian Variational Ansatz without Barren Plateaus

    Xanadu Collaboration . Hamiltonian Variational Ansatz without Barren Plateaus . Quantum , 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Nakagawa, Kosuke Mitarai, and Keisuke Fujii

    Nobuyuki Yoshioka, Yuya O. Nakagawa, Kosuke Mitarai, and Keisuke Fujii. Variational quantum algorithm for nonequilibrium steady states. Physical Review Research , 2(4):043289, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Phenomenological theory of variational quantum ground-state preparation

    Raffaele Zen, Giuseppe E Santoro, and Rosario Fazio. Phenomenological theory of variational quantum ground-state preparation. Physical Review Research , 5(3):033225, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices

    Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices. Physical Review X , 10(2):021067, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.