Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

A single coarse Trotter step of a diabatic interpolation yields a measured subspace whose lowest eigenvalue is the ground-state energy to chemical accuracy, even on noisy hardware.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:30 UTC pith:OCMOEACG

load-bearing objection A plausible hybrid subspace method with a real hardware demo, but the central subspace heuristic is unproven and the only interacting test is a toy model. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.04801 v2 pith:OCMOEACG submitted 2025-12-04 quant-ph

Hybrid VQE-CVQE algorithm using diabatic state preparation

John P. T. Stenger , C. Stephen Hellberg , Daniel Gunlycke This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords variational quantum eigensolvercascaded variational quantum eigensolverdiabatic state preparationsubspace diagonalizationguided sampling ansatzNISQground-state energyJordan-Wigner transformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper proposes a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm that computes ground-state energies without ever preparing the ground state itself. The quantum circuit applies a very short, heavily discretized version of adiabatic state preparation—in the demonstrated case, a single time step—starting from a simple initial Hamiltonian. The measured computational basis states, together with all states they couple to through the system Hamiltonian, define a small subspace; the paper's claim is that this subspace contains enough of the true ground state that diagonalizing the Hamiltonian restricted to it yields the ground-state energy to chemical accuracy. The authors demonstrate this on an 8-orbital interacting model in classical simulation and on a 50-orbital, 25-electron non-interacting system run on IBM Brisbane, obtaining energies within chemical accuracy despite roughly two percent error per gate layer. The algorithm is designed to work in three regimes—small, intermediate, and large numbers of time steps—corresponding to near-term noisy, intermediate, and fault-tolerant quantum computers.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a highly discretized Trotterized evolution—even Nτ = 1—generates a guiding state whose computational-basis measurement outcomes, when closed under application of the Hamiltonian, span a subspace in which the true ground state is well represented. The lowest eigenvalue of the projected Hamiltonian H_B is then a chemically accurate estimate of the ground-state energy. Because the subspace dimension grows polynomially and the circuit depth is set by Nτ, the method fits near-term hardware; the authors further show numerically and on IBM Brisbane that small fluctuations in the measured probability distribution barely affect the final energy,

What carries the argument

The machinery is the diabatic evolution operator U(Nτ, Δτ) = T ∏ e^{-i H(τ_i Δτ) Δτ}, interpolating linearly between a trivial Hamiltonian H0 and the target H. With Nτ as small as one, U produces a guiding state |Ψ0⟩; repeated measurements yield basis states B0, and applying H to B0 yields coupled states B1. The effective Hamiltonian H_B is the projection of H onto V = span(B0 ∪ B1), and its lowest eigenvalue E_B is computed classically. The load-bearing identity in Appendix A compares U(1,T) with the full adiabatic evolution U_A(T) and shows the two contain the same operator strings with similar weight ordering, which is why the authors expect the single-step subspace to capture the same lo

Load-bearing premise

The key premise is the expectation, stated in the main text and Appendix A, that even a single coarse Trotter step produces a guiding state whose measured bitstrings, closed under the Hamiltonian, span a subspace containing a good approximation to the true ground state; if that fails, no classical diagonalization of the subspace can recover the correct energy.

What would settle it

In a noiseless classical simulation of the 50-orbital non-interacting model, set Nτ = 1 and choose parameters where the guiding state has essentially zero overlap with the exact ground state (for example, Δμ ≪ t where the initial filling is not the adiabatic ground state). If the lowest eigenvalue of H_B misses chemical accuracy, the central claim is false. More directly, compute the squared overlap between the exact ground state and V = span(B0 ∪ H B0): the claim predicts this overlap is close to 1, and a value much below 1 falsifies it.

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

If this is right

  • The same algorithm spans hardware generations: with Nτ small it runs on today's noisy devices, with Nτ moderate it behaves as CVQE with no parameter updates, and with Nτ large it approaches adiabatic state preparation for fault-tolerant machines.
  • On current hardware, Nτ = 1 is optimal for large systems: the accuracy gain from more Trotter steps is outweighed by additional gate noise, so the variational parameter update can be skipped.
  • The energy error is insensitive to small measurement fluctuations, because tiny changes in sampled probabilities do not add or drop basis states; the method therefore tolerates gate error rates around one to two percent per layer.
  • When the guiding state is a poor approximation (the small-Nτ regime), E_B can still be a good approximation, so the classical diagonalization step does useful work the quantum circuit cannot.
  • For the 50-orbital system the subspace has only about 2,000–2,500 states, versus roughly 10^14 states in the full electron-preserving Fock space, making the classical diagonalization tractable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This is effectively a measurement-guided selected configuration-interaction performed classically; a natural extension is to use the same subspace construction with other cheap guiding states (e.g., Hartree-Fock plus a few excitations) to benchmark how much diabatic preparation adds.
  • The error-bound intuition in Appendix E suggests accuracy is tied to eigenstate weight concentration: if the true ground state has a long tail of small-amplitude, high-energy components, more shots or a larger B may be required; this predicts a testable relationship between shot count and energy error.
  • The authors demonstrate only V = 0 on hardware; for interacting systems the Hamiltonian connects more states, so the subspace could grow faster, and the Nτ = 1 heuristic would need to be re-tested—a concrete next experiment.
  • The three-regime picture implies a simple operational rule: choose Nτ as large as hardware noise allows, then let the classical diagonalization absorb the remaining error; this could inform resource estimates for near-term quantum chemistry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid quantum-classical eigensolver ('VQE-CVQE') in which the quantum circuit implements a highly discretized diabatic evolution U(Nτ,Δτ)=T∏ exp(−iH(τ_i)Δτ) from a trivial Hamiltonian H0 to the target H (Eqs. 1–2). The resulting guiding state is measured in the computational basis; the observed bitstrings B0, together with their couplings B1 under H, define a subspace V=span(B) (Table I, steps 3–4). The target Hamiltonian is projected onto V and diagonalized classically (Eq. 3), yielding a variational upper bound E_B, which is then optimized by scanning (Nτ,Δτ). The authors demonstrate the method by classical simulation on an 8-orbital, 4-electron interacting model (Fig. 2), identifying three Nτ regimes, and on the IBM Brisbane 50-qubit device for a 50-orbital, 25-electron noninteracting model (V=0; Figs. 3–4), reporting small energy errors. They further argue that the method is resilient to hardware noise and that it interpolates between NISQ and fault-tolerant operation. Appendices provide the gate decomposition, a shot-collection comparison, a demonstration that the method reduces to CVQE for fixed parameters, and an argument that eigenstate expectation values are well approximated by high-weight basis states.

Significance. If the subspace heuristic holds, the algorithm is a useful addition to the guided-sampling/subspace-expansion family: it combines a physically motivated diabatic ansatz with a classical diagonalization step that is guaranteed by the variational principle (Appendix D) to be no worse than the guiding-state expectation value, and it offers a concrete bridge between NISQ (small Nτ) and FTQ (large Nτ) implementations. The paper's strengths are its transparency: the 8-orbital classical simulation explicitly compares E_B with the guiding-state energy; the choice V=0 for the Brisbane run is openly justified as enabling comparison with known values; and the relationship to the authors' earlier CVQE method is stated plainly in Appendix D. The 50-qubit hardware experiment is a substantive resource, and the reported raw errors are encouraging. However, the strength of the paper's claims currently exceeds the evidence: the scalable interacting regime is untested, and the hardware results are reported without statistics or an explicit energy scale.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II / Appendix A / Appendix C / Appendix E] The load-bearing claim that for Nτ=O(1), span(B) approximates the exact ground state is not established. Appendix A compares operator strings of U(1,T) and U_A(T) (Eqs. A3–A6) and asserts a 'similar ordering of the weights,' but B is formed by thresholding measured bitstring amplitudes (Eq. C8) and one H-application (Eq. C9); a bitstring essential to the exact ground state can have small weight under U(1,T) and fall below the shot cutoff. Appendix E shows only that a high-weight component expansion approximates expectation values of an eigenstate, not that the exact ground state has high weight in B (and the step from Eqs. E12 to E13 neglects phase cancellations). Fig. 2c shows the 8-orbital subspace approaching the full 70-state space, so it does not test the scalable regime. Recommend a solvable interacting test with |B|≪dim F (e.g., Q=12–16, V≠0) and a cutoff/shot study, or constrain
  2. [Sec. III C, Figs. 3–4] The headline claim 'well within chemical accuracy' (abstract, conclusion) is not quantified. Energy errors are plotted in units of t, but no value of t is stated for the 50-orbital run (the t=1/15 Ha value appears only in the Fig. 2 caption). No shot counts, repetitions, or error bars are reported for any hardware point; the scatter in Fig. 4a is attributed to hardware noise purely qualitatively. Please specify the Hamiltonian parameters used, report absolute errors in Hartree with an explicit chemical-accuracy definition, and provide error bars (repeated runs or shot bootstrapping) for the claimed operating point (Nτ=1, Δτ=1/15τ0) and for at least a subset of the Fig. 3 data.
  3. [Sec. III C / Abstract] The hardware run is not a demonstration on an interacting system. For V=0 the Hamiltonian is quadratic, so the ideal U(Nτ,Δτ) maps the initial Slater determinant to another Slater determinant, and a single H-application from configurations near the Fermi sea generates mostly single-excitation (and a few double-excitation) states; the reported 2000–2500-state subspace therefore contains significant noise-inflated contributions. The experiment is better described as a test of whether the noisy device produces a subspace containing the relevant single-particle excitations of a solvable one-body model. The abstract's claim that the algorithm is demonstrated 'on a system of interacting electrons' is supported only by the 8-orbital classical simulation (Fig. 2), where the subspace saturates the full space (Fig. 2c). Please rephrase abstract and conclusion to separate hardware and simulation cl
  4. [Sec. III C (noise-resilience paragraph)] The statement that the method is 'resilient to small fluctuations' is asserted, not derived. The argument ignores that hardware noise systematically distorts the guiding-state distribution (weight shift to high-energy bitstrings) rather than merely adding shot noise, and the shot cutoff ε of Appendix C is never specified for the hardware runs. Fig. 4 itself shows the landscape is noise-dominated (Nτ=1 optimal; Δτ=0 already accurate), so the CVQE optimization over (Nτ,Δτ) is not meaningfully exercised. Please either supply a quantitative error model (e.g., probability flux into/out of B0 per gate given the quoted 1.9% EPLG) and the measurement protocol (shots, cutoff), or soften the resilience claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'an typical' (Sec. III B); 'qubic' (Sec. III C); 'Hailtonian' (Appendix D); 'cuttoff' (Appendix C); 'wieghts' (Appendix A, twice); 'gor' (Eq. C10); 'Variation Quantum Eigensolver' (Sec. I); 'state states' (Fig. 1 caption).
  2. [Appendix D, Eqs. (D1)–(D4)] Define λ(θ) explicitly (Hermitian operator?) and clarify whether the equivalence to CVQE for fixed (Nτ,Δτ) carries any practical distinction from Refs. [24–26] beyond the choice of ansatz.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The color legend ('thick blue,' 'medium orange,' 'thin green') does not match the visible grayscale figure; label the curves directly or provide a matching legend.
  4. [Sec. III B / Fig. 2a] The medium-regime plateau is described as 'nearly independent of the variational parameters'; consider stating E_B relative to the exact ground-state energy (e.g., E_B/E_exact−1) so the quality of the plateau can be assessed without reading the axis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: E_B is a variational upper bound and the main accuracy claims are benchmarked, not derived from the fitted inputs.

full rationale

The algorithm's output E_B is the lowest eigenvalue of H_B, the projection of H onto span(B), where B comes from measured bitstrings of U(Nτ,Δτ)|Φ0> plus H-coupled states. Because E_B is a variational upper bound on the exact ground-state energy, the scan over Nτ and Δτ is a genuine variational optimization and is not a fit to the known answer; the known V=0 energies are used only as an external benchmark. The central subspace heuristic ('We expect that the ground state of H is well approximated within this subspace') is explicitly an expectation, and Appendix A's support for small Nτ is an operator-weight comparison plus a 'similar ordering' assertion, not a derivation. An unproven ansatz is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The self-citations (refs 24-26 and 69) identify the CVQE/guided-sampling provenance, but the paper's Q=8 exact-diagonalization benchmarks and the V=0 hardware comparison are independent demonstrations, so no load-bearing premise rests solely on those citations. No step reduces by construction to its inputs; the score reflects minor self-citation rather than actual circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The algorithm itself introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are the two evolution parameters (Nτ, Δτ), the measurement/truncation choice, and the toy-model Hamiltonian parameters. The load-bearing assumptions are the subspace-quality heuristic and the faithful-sampling assumption; both are stated qualitatively rather than proven.

free parameters (4)
  • Nτ (number of time steps) = 1 (hardware); 0-4000 scanned (Q=8)
    Variational parameter controlling Trotter step count; optimized by scanning; the paper concludes Nτ=1 is best on noisy hardware.
  • Δτ (time-step duration) = 1/15 τ0 (hardware), τ0=1/t
    Variational parameter controlling time-step size; selected from scan.
  • Subspace truncation / measurement cutoff = 14, 8, 2 most-probable states in Q=8; 2000-2500 states on hardware
    The number of measured basis states retained determines the subspace dimension; set by the experimenter and by the (unreported) number of shots.
  • Model parameters (Δμ, V, t) = Q=8: Δμ=0.75t, V=t, t=1/15 Ha; Q=50: V=0, Δμ scanned
    Toy model parameters chosen to define the test systems; t sets the energy scale and is not fitted.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The spectrum of H(τ) is gapped throughout the interpolation (needed for the adiabatic limit).
    Invoked in Appendix A to claim the adiabatic limit prepares the exact ground state; not needed for the practical Nτ=1 regime but used to motivate the guiding state.
  • ad hoc to paper A highly discretized Trotterized evolution (Nτ=O(1)) produces the same excitation subspace as the adiabatic evolution, with a similar ordering of weights.
    This is the central heuristic in Appendix A ('we expect that U(1,T) is often sufficient for our purposes as it produces the same excitations as U_A(T)'); it is argued by comparing operator-string weights but not proven.
  • domain assumption Measurement shots faithfully sample the guiding-state probability distribution well enough to include all basis states with non-negligible amplitude.
    The whole subspace construction relies on observed bitstrings; the paper gives no shot budget or confidence analysis.
  • standard math Variational principle: the lowest eigenvalue of H_B is an upper bound to the ground-state energy.
    Used to justify that E_B is a legitimate variational estimate (Appendix D).
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner transformation and Trotter-Suzuki decomposition correctly map the fermionic evolution to Pauli gates.
    Standard tools, used in Appendix B to build the circuits.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22528 in / 18863 out tokens · 171161 ms · 2026-08-03T18:30:59.186300+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a hybrid variational quantum algorithm that has variational parameters used by both the quantum circuit and the subsequent classical optimization. Similar to the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE), this algorithm applies a parameterized unitary operator to the qubit register. We generate this operator using diabatic state preparation. The quantum measurement results then inform the classical optimization procedure used by the Cascaded Variational Quantum Eigensolver (CVQE). We demonstrate the algorithm on a system of interacting electrons and show how it can be used on long-term error-corrected as well as short-term intermediate-scale quantum computers. Our simulations performed on IBM Brisbane produced energies well within chemical accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.04801 by C. Stephen Hellberg, Daniel Gunlycke, John P. T. Stenger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The basic process for our method. Diabatic state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The difference between the energy calculated on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Energy optimization for a Q = 8 orbital system with Ne = 4 electrons. (a) energy as a function of the number of time steps with a duration of ∆τ = 1/15 τ0 where τ0 = 1/t is the characteristic time scale. (b) energy as a function of the time step duration at Nτ = 100. (c) the total subspace after application of the Hamiltonian as a function of the number of time steps with a duration of ∆τ = 1/15 τ0. The pa… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Error in energy as a function of (a) the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Eigenstates for an example H0. The spheres represent electrons. The lines represent energy levels. On the left, the lowest energy levels are filled with electrons. In the second from left, one excitation has occurred. The two right most graphs show two excitations. computer, we could perform adiabatic state preparation UˆA(τ ) = T e −i R τ 0 dτ1Hˆ (τ1) . (A1) where Hˆ (τ ) =  1 − τ T  Hˆ 0 + τ T H, ˆ (A2… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Probability Distribution Analysis of the Cascaded Variational Quantum Eigensolver

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A trapezoidal preparation method combined with probability distribution analysis is used to pick efficient guiding states for CVQE, demonstrated on the H2 + H2+ to H3+ + H reaction.

  2. Distributed Quantum-Enhanced Optimization: A Topographical Preconditioning Approach for High-Dimensional Search

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    D-QEO framework uses quantum topographical preconditioning on separable functions via small parallel subcircuits to generate seeds that accelerate classical global optimization and avoid exponential failure rates.

  3. Ground-state energies of Ising models calculated using the samples from a quantum computer that simulates short-time evolution

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Ground-state energies of homogeneous and random-coupling Ising models are obtained via CVQE with GSA on quantum hardware up to 63 qubits, with error-boundary, entropic, and subspace analyses indicating suitability for...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Weights in the evolution operator The full-adiabatic evolution operator can be written as a sum over integrals ˆUA(T) = ∞X n=0 (−i)n ˆIn(T),(A7) where each integral is ˆIn(τ) = Z τ 0 dτ1 ˆH(τ 1)In−1(τ1),(A8) with ˆI0(τ) =1. Let us perform the first few integrals and then the pattern for the weights becomes clear ˆI1(τ) = 1 1 ˆH0τ+ 1 2 ˆH1 τ 2 T , ˆI2(τ) =...

  2. [2]

    • • Ry (⇡ 2) • • Rx (⇡

  3. [3]

    oNvnJ5fPpVLkqKd333Lc53G40PA=

    Rz () Rx (⇡ 2) 1 Example C(y,z) 2 random Calculate Optimize E(✓)= h |ˆO(✓)ˆHˆO(✓)| i h |ˆO(✓)ˆO(✓)| i . (1) 3V Q E 1 <latexit sha1_base64="oNvnJ5fPpVLkqKd333Lc53G40PA=">AAACE3icbZDLSsNAFIYn9VbrLerSzWARxEVJVNRl0Y3LCvYCTRom00k7dCYJMxMxhr6DG1/FjQtF3Lpx59s4bVPQ1h8GPv5zDmfO78eMSmVZ30ZhYXFpeaW4Wlpb39jcMrd3GjJKBCZ1HLFItHwkCaMhqSuqGGnFgiDuM9L0B1ejevOOCEmj8FalMXE5...

  4. [4]

    Instead of calculatingΥandΛfrom the prob- ability distributions (D5), we project the Hamiltonian onto a subspace

    Comparison between CVQE and our method The state created on the quantum computer in CVQE |Ψ0⟩acts as our guiding state for particular values ofNτ and∆τ. Instead of calculatingΥandΛfrom the prob- ability distributions (D5), we project the Hamiltonian onto a subspace. However, the final ansatz is the same in both CVQE and our method. Letun0 =⟨n| ˆU|0⟩, then...

  5. [5]

    Let use define an effective Hamilto- nian on the subspace as in Eq

    Effective Hamiltonian We can optimize ¯Ψ(ϕ) variationally, however, we can find the exact minimum from diagonalizing an effective Hailtonian instead. Let use define an effective Hamilto- nian on the subspace as in Eq. (3) of the main text. As the size of the basisBis subexponential with the number of qubits, we can use a classical computer to diagonalize ...

  6. [6]

    Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  7. [7]

    A quan- tum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an np-complete problem,

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, Joshua Lapan, Andrew Lundgren, and Daniel Preda, “A quan- tum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an np-complete problem,” Science292, 472–475 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    Simulations of the adiabatic quantum optimization for the set partition problem,

    V. N. Smelyanskiy, U. V. Toussaint, and D. A. Timucin, “Simulations of the adiabatic quantum optimization for the set partition problem,” (2002), arXiv:quant- ph/0112143 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2002

  9. [9]

    The quantum adiabatic optimiza- tion algorithm and local minima,

    Ben W. Reichardt, “The quantum adiabatic optimiza- tion algorithm and local minima,” inProceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’04 (Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 2004) p. 502–510

    2004

  10. [10]

    A varia- tional eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum proces- sor,

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod R. McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien, “A varia- tional eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum proces- sor,” Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  11. [11]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Alá n Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,” New Journal of Physics18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  12. [12]

    Scalable quan- tum simulation of molecular energies,

    P. J. J. O’Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Jef- frey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wen- ner, T. C. White, P. V. Coveney, P. J. Lo...

    2016

  13. [13]

    Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets,

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets,” Nature549, 242–246 (2017)

    2017

  14. [15]

    Quantum computa- tional chemistry,

    Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Alá n Aspuru-Guzik, Si- mon C. Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan, “Quantum computa- tional chemistry,” Reviews of Modern Physics92(2020), 10.1103/revmodphys.92.015003

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.92.015003 2020

  15. [16]

    Hartree- fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer,

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Ba- con, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Sergio Boixo, Michael Broughton, Bob B. Buckley, David A. Buell, Brian Burkett, Nicholas Bushnell, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Benjamin Chiaro, Roberto Collins, William Courtney, SeanDemura, AndrewDunsworth, EdwardFarhi, Austin Fowler, Brooks Foxen, Craig Gidney, Marissa Giustin...

    2020

  16. [17]

    Measurements as a roadblock to near-term practical quantum advantage in chemistry: Resource analysis,

    Jérôme F. Gonthier, Maxwell D. Radin, Corneliu Buda, Eric J. Doskocil, Clena M. Abuan, and Jhonathan Romero, “Measurements as a roadblock to near-term practical quantum advantage in chemistry: Resource analysis,” Physical Review Research4(2022), 10.1103/physrevresearch.4.033154

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.033154 2022

  17. [18]

    Quantum information and algorithmsforcorrelatedquantummatter,

    Kade Head-Marsden, Johannes Flick, Christopher J. Cic- carino, and Prineha Narang, “Quantum information and algorithmsforcorrelatedquantummatter,” ChemicalRe- views121, 3061–3120 (2021)

    2021

  18. [19]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R. Mc- Clean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles, “Variational quantum algorithms,” Na- ture Reviews Physics3, 625–644 (2021)

    2021

  19. [20]

    Quan- tum filter diagonalization: Quantum eigendecomposi- tion without full quantum phase estimation,

    Robert M. Parrish and Peter L. McMahon, “Quan- tum filter diagonalization: Quantum eigendecomposi- tion without full quantum phase estimation,” (2019), arXiv:1909.08925 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [21]

    A multireference quantum krylov algorithm for strongly correlated electrons,

    Nicholas H. Stair, Renke Huang, and Francesco A. Evan- gelista, “A multireference quantum krylov algorithm for strongly correlated electrons,” Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation16, 2236–2245 (2020)

    2020

  21. [22]

    Lanczos recursion on a quantum com- puter for the green’s function and ground state,

    Thomas E. Baker, “Lanczos recursion on a quantum com- puter for the green’s function and ground state,” Phys. Rev. A103, 032404 (2021)

    2021

  22. [23]

    Krylov vari- ational quantum algorithm for first principles materials simulations,

    Francois Jamet, Abhishek Agarwal, Carla Lupo, Dan E. Browne, Cedric Weber, and Ivan Rungger, “Krylov vari- ational quantum algorithm for first principles materials simulations,” (2021), arXiv:2105.13298 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [24]

    Iterative quantum- assisted eigensolver,

    Kishor Bharti and Tobias Haug, “Iterative quantum- assisted eigensolver,” Phys. Rev. A104, L050401 (2021)

    2021

  24. [25]

    Quantum filter diagonalization with compressed double- factorized hamiltonians,

    Jeffrey Cohn, Mario Motta, and Robert M. Parrish, “Quantum filter diagonalization with compressed double- factorized hamiltonians,” PRX Quantum2, 040352 (2021)

    2021

  25. [26]

    Quantum subspace expansion algorithm for green’s functions,

    Francois Jamet, Abhishek Agarwal, and Ivan Rung- ger, “Quantum subspace expansion algorithm for green’s functions,” (2022), arXiv:2205.00094 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [27]

    Block lanczos method for excited states on a quantum computer,

    Thomas E. Baker, “Block lanczos method for excited states on a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. A110, 012420 (2024)

    2024

  27. [28]

    Krylov diagonalization of large many-body hamiltonians on a quantum processor,

    Nobuyuki Yoshioka, Mirko Amico, William Kirby, Petar Jurcevic, Arkopal Dutt, Bryce Fuller, Shelly Garion, Hol- ger Haas, Ikko Hamamura, Alexander Ivrii, Ritajit Ma- jumdar, Zlatko Minev, Mario Motta, Bibek Pokharel, Pedro Rivero, Kunal Sharma, Christopher J. Wood, Ali Javadi-Abhari, and Antonio Mezzacapo, “Krylov diagonalization of large many-body hamilto...

    2025

  28. [29]

    Cascaded variational quantum eigensolver al- gorithm,

    Daniel Gunlycke, C. Stephen Hellberg, and John P. T. Stenger, “Cascaded variational quantum eigensolver al- gorithm,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013238 (2024)

    2024

  29. [30]

    Demonstration of the effectiveness of the cas- caded variational quantum eigensolver using the jastrow ansatz for molecular calculations,

    John P. T. Stenger, C. Stephen Hellberg, and Daniel Gunlycke, “Demonstration of the effectiveness of the cas- caded variational quantum eigensolver using the jastrow ansatz for molecular calculations,” ACS Omega9, 21353– 21364 (2024)

    2024

  30. [31]

    Guided sampling ansätzes for variational quantum computing,

    Daniel Gunlycke, John P. T. Stenger, Andrii Maksymov, AnanthKaushik, MartinRoetteler, andC.StephenHell- berg, “Guided sampling ansätzes for variational quantum computing,” (2025), arXiv:2508.13926 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    Hybrid quantum-classicalhierarchyformitigationofdecoherence and determination of excited states,

    Jarrod R. McClean, Mollie E. Kimchi-Schwartz, Jonathan Carter, and Wibe A. de Jong, “Hybrid quantum-classicalhierarchyformitigationofdecoherence and determination of excited states,” Phys. Rev. A95, 042308 (2017)

    2017

  32. [33]

    Computation of molecular spec- tra on a quantum processor with an error-resilient algo- rithm,

    J. I. Colless, V. V. Ramasesh, D. Dahlen, M. S. Blok, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. R. McClean, J. Carter, W. A. de Jong, and I. Siddiqi, “Computation of molecular spec- tra on a quantum processor with an error-resilient algo- rithm,” Phys. Rev. X8, 011021 (2018)

    2018

  33. [34]

    Chemistry on quantum com- puters with virtual quantum subspace expansion,

    Miroslav Urbanek, Daan Camps, Roel Van Beeumen, and Wibe A. de Jong, “Chemistry on quantum com- puters with virtual quantum subspace expansion,” Jour- nal of Chemical Theory and Computation16, 5425–5431 (2020)

    2020

  34. [35]

    Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quan- tum error mitigation,

    SuguruEndo, ZhenyuCai, SimonC.Benjamin, andXiao Yuan, “Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quan- tum error mitigation,” Journal of the Physical Society of Japan90, 032001 (2021)

    2021

  35. [36]

    Low rank representations for quantum simu- lation of electronic structure,

    Mario Motta, Erika Ye, Jarrod R. McClean, Zhendong Li, Austin J. Minnich, Ryan Babbush, and Garnet Kin- Lic Chan, “Low rank representations for quantum simu- lation of electronic structure,” npj Quantum Information 7(2021), 10.1038/s41534-021-00416-z

    doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00416-z 2021

  36. [37]

    A theory of quantum subspace diagonalization,

    Ethan N. Epperly, Lin Lin, and Yuji Nakatsukasa, “A theory of quantum subspace diagonalization,” SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications43, 1263– 1290 (2022)

    2022

  37. [38]

    Subspace methods for electronic structure simu- lations on quantum computers,

    Mario Motta, William Kirby, Ieva Liepuoniute, Kevin J Sung, Jeffrey Cohn, Antonio Mezzacapo, Katherine Klymko, Nam Nguyen, Nobuyuki Yoshioka, and Julia E Rice, “Subspace methods for electronic structure simu- lations on quantum computers,” Electronic Structure6, 013001 (2024)

    2024

  38. [39]

    Quan- tum subspace expansion approach for simulating dynam- ical response functions of kitaev spin liquids,

    Chukwudubem Umeano, Fran çois Jamet, Lachlan P. Lindoy, Ivan Rungger, and Oleksandr Kyriienko, “Quan- tum subspace expansion approach for simulating dynam- ical response functions of kitaev spin liquids,” Phys. Rev. Mater.9, 034401 (2025)

    2025

  39. [40]

    Quantum computa- tion of electronic transitions using a variational quantum eigensolver,

    Robert M. Parrish, Edward G. Hohenstein, Peter L. McMahon, and Todd J. Martínez, “Quantum computa- tion of electronic transitions using a variational quantum eigensolver,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 230401 (2019)

    2019

  40. [41]

    A non-orthogonal variationalquantumeigensolver,

    William J Huggins, Joonho Lee, Unpil Baek, Bryan O’Gorman, and K Birgitta Whaley, “A non-orthogonal variationalquantumeigensolver,” NewJournalofPhysics 22, 073009 (2020)

    2020

  41. [42]

    Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercom- puter,

    Javier Robledo-Moreno, Mario Motta, Holger Haas, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Petar Jurcevic, William Kirby, Simon Martiel, Kunal Sharma, Sandeep Sharma, Tomonori Shi- rakawa, Iskandar Sitdikov, Rong-Yang Sun, Kevin J. Sung, Maika Takita, Minh C. Tran, Seiji Yunoki, and Antonio Mezzacapo, “Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric sup...

    2025

  42. [43]

    On the difference between variational and unitary cou- pled cluster theories,

    Gaurav Harsha, Toru Shiozaki, and Gustavo E. Scuseria, “On the difference between variational and unitary cou- pled cluster theories,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 148, 044107 (2018)

    2018

  43. [44]

    Quantum simulation of electronic struc- turewithlineardepthandconnectivity,

    Ian D. Kivlichan, Jarrod McClean, Nathan Wiebe, Craig Gidney, Alá n Aspuru-Guzik, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, and Ryan Babbush, “Quantum simulation of electronic struc- turewithlineardepthandconnectivity,” PhysicalReview Letters120(2018), 10.1103/physrevlett.120.110501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.110501 2018

  44. [45]

    Quantum chemistry calculations on a trapped-ion quan- tum simulator,

    Cornelius Hempel, Christine Maier, Jonathan Romero, Jarrod McClean, Thomas Monz, Heng Shen, Petar Ju- rcevic, Ben P. Lanyon, Peter Love, Ryan Babbush, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Rainer Blatt, and Christian F. Roos, “Quantum chemistry calculations on a trapped-ion quan- tum simulator,” Phys. Rev. X8, 031022 (2018)

    2018

  45. [46]

    Strategies for quantum computing molecular en- ergies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz,

    Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, Jarrod R McClean, Cornelius Hempel, Peter J Love, and Alán Aspuru- Guzik, “Strategies for quantum computing molecular en- ergies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz,” Quan- tum Science and Technology4, 014008 (2018)

    2018

  46. [47]

    Low-depth circuit ansatz for preparing correlated fermionic states on a quantum computer,

    Pierre-Luc Dallaire-Demers, Jonathan Romero, Libor Veis, Sukin Sim, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik, “Low-depth circuit ansatz for preparing correlated fermionic states on a quantum computer,” Quantum Science and Tech- nology4, 045005 (2019)

    2019

  47. [48]

    Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation,

    Kanav Setia, Sergey Bravyi, Antonio Mezzacapo, and James D. Whitfield, “Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation,” Physical Review Research1 (2019), 10.1103/physrevresearch.1.033033

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.1.033033 2019

  48. [49]

    Generalized unitary coupled cluster wave functions for quantum computation,

    Joonho Lee, William J. Huggins, Martin Head-Gordon, and K. Birgitta Whaley, “Generalized unitary coupled cluster wave functions for quantum computation,” Jour- nal of Chemical Theory and Computation15, 311–324 (2019)

    2019

  49. [50]

    Jastrow-type de- composition in quantum chemistry for low-depth quan- tum circuits,

    Yuta Matsuzawa and Yuki Kurashige, “Jastrow-type de- composition in quantum chemistry for low-depth quan- tum circuits,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Compu- tation16, 944–952 (2020)

    2020

  50. [51]

    Quantum orbital-optimized uni- tary coupled cluster methods in the strongly correlated regime: Can quantum algorithms outperform their clas- sical equivalents?

    Igor O. Sokolov, Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos, Pauline J. Ollitrault, Donny Greenberg, Julia Rice, Marco Pistoia, and Ivano Tavernelli, “Quantum orbital-optimized uni- tary coupled cluster methods in the strongly correlated regime: Can quantum algorithms outperform their clas- sical equivalents?” The Journal of Chemical Physics152, 124107 (2020)

    2020

  51. [52]

    Ground-state energy estimation of the water molecule on a trapped-ion quantum computer,

    Yunseong Nam, Jwo-Sy Chen, Neal C. Pisenti, Ken- neth Wright, Conor Delaney, Dmitri Maslov, Kenneth R. Brown, Stewart Allen, Jason M. Amini, Joel Apisdorf, Kristin M. Beck, Aleksey Blinov, Vandiver Chaplin, Mika Chmielewski, Coleman Collins, Shantanu Debnath, Kai M. Hudek, Andrew M. Ducore, Matthew Keesan, Sarah M. Kreikemeier, Jonathan Mizrahi, Phil Solo...

    2020

  52. [53]

    Variational quantum eigensolver for approximate diagonalization of down- folded hamiltonians using generalized unitary coupled cluster ansatz,

    Nicholas P. Bauman, Jaroslav Chládek, Libor Veis, Jiří Pittner, and Karol Kowalski, “Variational quantum eigensolver for approximate diagonalization of down- folded hamiltonians using generalized unitary coupled cluster ansatz,” (2020), arXiv:2011.01985 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [54]

    Is the trotterized uccsd ansatz chemically well-defined?

    Harper R. Grimsley, Daniel Claudino, Sophia E. Economou, Edwin Barnes, and Nicholas J. Mayhall, “Is the trotterized uccsd ansatz chemically well-defined?” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation16, 1–6 (2020), pMID: 31841333

    2020

  54. [55]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  55. [56]

    Quantum approximate optimization is computationally universal,

    Seth Lloyd, “Quantum approximate optimization is computationally universal,” (2018), arXiv:1812.11075 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [57]

    From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz,

    StuartHadfield, ZhihuiWang, BryanO'Gorman, Eleanor Rieffel, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas, “From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz,” Algorithms12, 34 (2019)

    2019

  57. [59]

    On the universality of the quantum approximate op- timization algorithm,

    M. E. S. Morales, J. D. Biamonte, and Z. Zimborás, “On the universality of the quantum approximate op- timization algorithm,” Quantum Information Processing 19(2020), 10.1007/s11128-020-02748-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-020-02748-9 2020

  58. [60]

    Quantum algorithms for electronic structure calcula- tions: Particle-hole hamiltonian and optimized wave- function expansions,

    Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos, Jerome F. Gonthier, Igor Sokolov, Nikolaj Moll, Gian Salis, Andreas Fuhrer, Marc Ganzhorn, Daniel J. Egger, Matthias Troyer, Anto- nio Mezzacapo, Stefan Filipp, and Ivano Tavernelli, “Quantum algorithms for electronic structure calcula- tions: Particle-hole hamiltonian and optimized wave- function expansions,” Phys. Rev. A98, 02...

    2018

  59. [61]

    Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor,

    Abhinav Kandala, Kristan Temme, Antonio D. Córcoles, Antonio Mezzacapo, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gam- betta, “Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor,” Nature567, 491–495 (2019)

    2019

  60. [62]

    Self-verifying variational quan- tum simulation of lattice models,

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, “Self-verifying variational quan- tum simulation of lattice models,” Nature569, 355–360 (2019)

    2019

  61. [63]

    Gate-efficient simu- lation of molecular eigenstates on a quantum computer,

    M. Ganzhorn, D.J. Egger, P. Barkoutsos, P. Ollitrault, G. Salis, N. Moll, M. Roth, A. Fuhrer, P. Mueller, S. Wo- erner, I. Tavernelli, and S. Filipp, “Gate-efficient simu- lation of molecular eigenstates on a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. Applied11, 044092 (2019)

    2019

  62. [64]

    Noise-resilient quantum dynamics us- ing symmetry-preserving ansatzes,

    Matthew Otten, Cristian L. Cortes, and Stephen K. Gray, “Noise-resilient quantum dynamics us- ing symmetry-preserving ansatzes,” (2019), arXiv:1910.06284 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [65]

    Efficient symmetry-preserving state prepa- ration circuits for the variational quantum eigen- solver algorithm,

    Bryan T. Gard, Linghua Zhu, George S. Barron, Nicholas J. Mayhall, Sophia E. Economou, and Ed- win Barnes, “Efficient symmetry-preserving state prepa- ration circuits for the variational quantum eigen- solver algorithm,” npj Quantum Information6(2020), 10.1038/s41534-019-0240-1

    doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0240-1 2020

  64. [66]

    Scaling of variational quantum circuit depth for condensed matter systems,

    Carlos Bravo-Prieto, Josep Lumbreras-Zarapico, Luca Tagliacozzo, and José I. Latorre, “Scaling of variational quantum circuit depth for condensed matter systems,” Quantum4, 272 (2020)

    2020

  65. [67]

    Correlation- informedpermutationofqubitsforreducingansatzdepth in the variational quantum eigensolver,

    Nikolay V. Tkachenko, James Sud, Yu Zhang, Sergei Tre- tiak, Petr M. Anisimov, Andrew T. Arrasmith, Patrick J. Coles, Lukasz Cincio, and Pavel A. Dub, “Correlation- informedpermutationofqubitsforreducingansatzdepth in the variational quantum eigensolver,” PRX Quantum 2(2021), 10.1103/prxquantum.2.020337

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.020337 2021

  66. [68]

    Accurate and gate-efficient quan- tum ansätze for electronic states without adaptive opti- mization,

    Hugh G. A. Burton, “Accurate and gate-efficient quan- tum ansätze for electronic states without adaptive opti- mization,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023300 (2024)

    2024

  67. [69]

    Nonunitary opera- tions for ground-state calculations in near-term quantum computers,

    Guglielmo Mazzola, Pauline J. Ollitrault, Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos, and Ivano Tavernelli, “Nonunitary opera- tions for ground-state calculations in near-term quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 130501 (2019)

    2019

  68. [70]

    Gutzwiller hybrid quantum- classical computing approach for correlated materials,

    Yongxin Yao, Feng Zhang, Cai-Zhuang Wang, Kai-Ming Ho, and Peter P. Orth, “Gutzwiller hybrid quantum- classical computing approach for correlated materials,” Phys. Rev. Research3, 013184 (2021)

    2021

  69. [71]

    Gutzwiller wave function on a digital quantum computer,

    Bruno Murta and J. Fernández-Rossier, “Gutzwiller wave function on a digital quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. B 103, L241113 (2021)

    2021

  70. [72]

    Variational quantum-neural hybrid eigensolver,

    Shi-Xin Zhang, Zhou-Quan Wan, Chee-Kong Lee, Chang-Yu Hsieh, Shengyu Zhang, and Hong Yao, “Variational quantum-neural hybrid eigensolver,” Physical Review Letters128(2022), 10.1103/phys- revlett.128.120502

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2022

  71. [73]

    Gutzwiller wave function on a quantum computer using a discrete hubbard-stratonovich transformation,

    Kazuhiro Seki, Yuichi Otsuka, and Seiji Yunoki, “Gutzwiller wave function on a quantum computer using a discrete hubbard-stratonovich transformation,” Physi- cal Review B105(2022), 10.1103/physrevb.105.155119

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.105.155119 2022

  72. [74]

    Implementing jastrow-gutzwiller operators on a quantum computer using the cascaded variational quantum eigensolver algorithm,

    John P. T. Stenger, C. Stephen Hellberg, and Daniel Gunlycke, “Implementing jastrow-gutzwiller operators on a quantum computer using the cascaded variational quantum eigensolver algorithm,” Physical Review A107 (2023), 10.1103/physreva.107.062606

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.107.062606 2023

  73. [75]

    Solving strongly correlated electron models on a quan- tum computer,

    Dave Wecker, Matthew B. Hastings, Nathan Wiebe, Bryan K. Clark, Chetan Nayak, and Matthias Troyer, “Solving strongly correlated electron models on a quan- tum computer,” Phys. Rev. A92, 062318 (2015)

    2015

  74. [76]

    Efficient varia- tional simulation of non-trivial quantum states,

    Wen Wei Ho and Timothy H. Hsieh, “Efficient varia- tional simulation of non-trivial quantum states,” SciPost Physics6(2019), 10.21468/scipostphys.6.3.029

    doi:10.21468/scipostphys.6.3.029 2019

  75. [77]

    Exploring entanglement and optimization within the hamiltonian variational ansatz,

    Roeland Wiersema, Cunlu Zhou, Yvette de Sereville, Juan Felipe Carrasquilla, Yong Baek Kim, and Henry Yuen, “Exploring entanglement and optimization within the hamiltonian variational ansatz,” PRX Quantum1 (2020), 10.1103/prxquantum.1.020319

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.1.020319 2020

  76. [78]

    Barrenplateausinvariationalquantumcomputing,

    Martín Larocca, Supanut Thanasilp, Samson Wang, Ku- nal Sharma, Jacob Biamonte, Patrick J. Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R. McClean, Zoë Holmes, and M. Cerezo, “Barrenplateausinvariationalquantumcomputing,” Na- ture Reviews Physics7, 174–189 (2025)

    2025

  77. [79]

    Über das paulische äquivalen- zverbot,

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, “Über das paulische äquivalen- zverbot,” Zeitschrift für Physik47, 631–651 (1928)

    1928

  78. [80]

    Generalized jordan-wigner transformations,

    C. D. Batista and G. Ortiz, “Generalized jordan-wigner transformations,” Physical Review Letters86, 1082–1085 (2001). Table II. Specifications of IBMQ Brisbane. qubit Frequency (GHz) T1 (µs) T2 (µs) Readout Error (%) p (X)(%) ECR↑(%) ECR↓(%) ECR←(%) ECR→(%) q0 4.72 291.7 80.1 2.37 0.01 q1 4.82 364.7 289.5 2.25 0.01 0.44 q2 4.61 206.0 94.5 0.97 0.06 1.61 q...

    2001