Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Simulating the Dicke Model on Qubit-Based and hybrid Qubit-Boson-Based Quantum Computers

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A truncated spin-mapped version of the Dicke model, solved with a symmetry-preserving variational ansatz, reproduces the finite-size critical behavior of the full model on digital and trapped-ion quantum computers.

desk verdict Solid variational method paper for the spin-Dicke model, but the mapping to the actual Dicke model is only controlled in the large-M limit, and the paper never quantifies the error for the finite-M hardware demos. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18546 v1 pith:OLQEHUDP submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phphysics.comp-phphysics.optics

Aravind P. Babu , Seongjin Ahn , Jing Sun , Augustas G. Landsbergis , Andrey S. Moskalenko , Marko J. Rančić This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phphysics.comp-phphysics.optics
keywords DickemodelsuperradiantphasetransitionvariationalquantumeigensolverHolstein-Primakofftransformationsymmetry-preservingansatztrapped-ioncomputerhybridqubit-bosonsimulationfinite-sizecriticalbehavior
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that the Dicke model — the standard quantum-optics description of many two-level atoms coupled to one cavity mode — can be simulated on modest quantum hardware by replacing the bosonic mode with a finite spin via the leading-order inverse Holstein-Primakoff mapping. The resulting 'spin-Dicke model' keeps the superradiant phase transition at the same critical coupling as the full model when the spin size is large enough. Using a variational ansatz that preserves parity and exchange symmetries, the authors match exact diagonalization for ground and excited states across a wide coupling range, with systems up to N=10 atoms and M=35 cavity qubits. The circuits were run on a trapped-ion processor, and a hybrid qubit-boson variant reduces qubit count by keeping the cavity mode continuous.

What carries the argument

The key object is the linearized inverse Holstein-Primakoff mapping a → S_-/√(2s), which truncates the infinite bosonic Hilbert space to a spin-s register (s=M/2) and produces the spin-Dicke Hamiltonian. The variational workhorse is a collective parity-preserving gate e^{-iθ X_a Y_c/2} applied to a maximally entangled atomic state in the X basis, whose layer-by-layer construction enforces exchange symmetry and reduces the full ansatz to a single variational angle.

What would settle it

Compute the full Dicke model ground state (using exchange-symmetry reduced diagonalization) for N=8, M=8 at λ=2λ_c, and compare its energy and ⟨a†a⟩/N with the spin-Dicke variational result reported in the paper; if the difference exceeds the variational error of ~10^-2, the mapping truncation — not the ansatz — is the dominant error source, falsifying the claim that the framework simulates the Dicke model at these hardware parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the finite-size Dicke Hamiltonian can be mapped, via the first-order inverse Holstein-Primakoff transformation a → S_-/√(2s), to an all-qubit 'spin-Dicke' Hamiltonian that, in the large-spin limit, shows a second-order phase transition at the same λ_c = √(ωω0)/2 as the full model. The authors' symmetry-preserving variational state — a collective gate e^{-iθ X_a Y_c/2} applied to an exchange-symmetric atomic state — yields energies matching exact diagonalization to order 10^-2 across the coupling range, and runs on trapped-ion hardware up to N=8, M=8. A hybrid variant using the bosonic mode directly (e^{-ix X_a P}) matches the exact N=10 ground state within 4%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that keeping only the first term of the inverse Holstein-Primakoff expansion, a ≈ S_-/√(2s), produces negligible error for the low-lying eigenstates at the system sizes and couplings used; if that error is large, the digital simulations would solve a different collective spin model rather than the Dicke model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The spin-Dicke model is a systematically improvable approximation: raising M reduces the mapping error, and the critical coupling stays fixed at λ_c for every N/M ratio.
  • Near-term all-to-all devices like trapped-ion quantum processors can study finite-size precursors of the superradiant transition using as few as N + M qubits, demonstrated here at N=8, M=8.
  • Excited states are obtained without deflation or penalty terms, simply by initializing within a chosen parity sector, simplifying excited-state variational quantum eigensolver calculations.
  • The hybrid qubit-boson ansatz lowers qubit count and circuit depth enough that near-critical-point studies may be possible even when only a small number of bosons can be supported by the hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper demonstrates the spin-Dicke approximation only against exact diagonalization of the spin-Dicke Hamiltonian, not the full Dicke Hamiltonian; an obvious next check is to benchmark the mapping error itself against exchange-symmetric exact Dicke solutions for the same (N,M) pairs.
  • If the first-order mapping error remains small for larger N and off-resonant couplings, the same symmetry-preserving ansatz structure transfers almost unchanged to other collective spin-boson models, which the paper mentions but does not test.
  • The infidelity-minimization procedure that fixes the atomic angles (Eq. 33) suggests a quantitative scalability criterion: if the minimized infidelity grows with N, the single-angle ansatz must be deepened — this is a testable prediction of the paper's own construction.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) framework for the finite-size Dicke model. For fully digital qubit hardware, the bosonic mode is mapped via a linearized inverse Holstein–Primakoff transformation to M qubits, yielding a spin-Dicke Hamiltonian (Eq. (8)). A parity-, time-reversal-, and exchange-symmetric ansatz is constructed (Eqs. (35) and (36)) and benchmarked against exact diagonalization for N=4–10 and M=4–35. Classically optimized variational states are also executed on a trapped-ion QPU for N=1, M=35 and N=M=8. In addition, a hybrid qubit-boson ansatz is introduced (Eq. (37)) with an analytic energy functional (Eq. (38)). The central claim is that the resulting model reproduces the critical behavior of the Dicke model in the appropriate large-spin limit while remaining implementable on near-term devices.

Significance. The paper has genuine strengths: the analytic energy functionals in Eqs. (18), (38), and (C2) are correct and useful; the statevector VQE results match exact diagonalization for the spin-Dicke model; the trapped-ion demonstrations are a valuable proof of principle; and the symmetry analysis that reduces the ansatz to a single variational angle for N≤4 is elegant. However, the central claim that the framework simulates the Dicke model itself is undercut by two load-bearing issues: the thermodynamic-limit formula Eq. (9) is incorrect as written, and the error incurred by truncating the inverse Holstein–Primakoff expansion is not quantified for the hardware parameters used. Both issues are fixable, but they are central to the paper's main assertion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (9)] The thermodynamic-limit formula is asserted without derivation and is incorrect as printed. For M=N, ω=ω0=1, and λ/λc=2, the radicand is 1 − 4(1 − 1/16) = −11/4, so Eq. (9) gives an imaginary number, while the spin-Dicke ground state is real (Fig. 1(b) shows ⟨a†a⟩/N ≈ 0.25). The correct two-spin mean-field result is ⟨a†a⟩/N = M/(2N)[1 − sqrt((1 + Nω0²/(4Mλ²))/(1 + 4Nλ²/(Mω²)))] for λ > λc, which reduces to the Dicke formula when N/M→0 and yields the slope in Eq. (10). Eq. (9) should be replaced and its derivation supplied; as written it undermines the thermodynamic-limit claim.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (7), and Figs. 3–8] The linearization a ≈ S₋/√(2s) discards all higher-order terms in Eq. (6). The paper controls this only by a probabilistic tail bound and does not quantify the actual error between the spin-Dicke and Dicke Hamiltonians for the parameters demonstrated on hardware (N=M=8 and N=1, M=35). All VQE and QPU comparisons are against exact diagonalization of the spin-Dicke model, not the Dicke model. For N=M=8 and λ>λc, a†a/M is not small (≈0.25 at λ/λc=2 and up to 0.5 in the strong-coupling limit), and Fig. 1(b) shows visible spin-Dicke/Dicke deviations for N=M=10 at large λ. Please add a quantitative convergence study (e.g., energy or fidelity vs M for N=8) or temper the claim that the demonstrated digital simulations reproduce the Dicke model itself.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V.B, text before Eq. (18)] The sentence 'For λ=0, the expectation value can reach the ground-state energy if cosθ=−1' is inconsistent with Eq. (18); minimizing Eq. (18) at λ=0 gives cosθ=1. Please fix this typo.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] Typo: 'orange dashed linies' should be 'orange dashed lines'.
  3. [Appendix A] The stated Hilbert-space dimension ((2s+1)·(2j+1)^{N−1})² appears incorrect; for N spins-j plus one spin-s the dimension is (2s+1)(2j+1)^N. Please check the resource estimate.
  4. [Introduction, Ref. [41]] Ref. [41] is referred to as 'the manuscript in question'; for clarity, use 'Ref. [41]' instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained and benchmarked against independent exact diagonalization.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard approximation, not a self-referential loop. The bosonic mode is mapped via the inverse Holstein–Primakoff transformation (Eq. 4), truncated at first order (Eqs. 6–7), giving the spin-Dicke Hamiltonian (Eq. 8). The claim that the spin-Dicke model reproduces Dicke critical behavior is checked against exact diagonalization of the actual Dicke model (Fig. 1b), and the large-spin-limit expression (Eq. 9) is an analytic mean-field result for the spin-Dicke Hamiltonian, not an output of the variational fit. The VQE ansatz parameters are obtained by energy minimization on the spin-Dicke Hamiltonian, and the resulting energies and order parameters are compared with independent exact diagonalization of the same Hamiltonian (Figs. 3, 4, 7); the benchmark is not used to fit the parameters. The trapped-ion demonstrations use classically optimized variational angles for state preparation and measurement only, and are compared against exact spin-Dicke results. No load-bearing self-citations appear in the reference list, and no author-specific uniqueness theorem is invoked. The acknowledged limitation that the symmetry-preserving ansatz cannot capture spontaneous symmetry breaking in the thermodynamic limit is a scope restriction, not a circular step. The unquantified linearization error in Eq. (7) is a correctness/approximation concern, not evidence that a prediction reduces by construction to its input. Hence, no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two approximations: the linearized Holstein-Primakoff truncation (which replaces the Dicke model by a two-spin LMG-type model) and the restriction to a low-parameter exchange-symmetric variational family. Neither is fully validated for the hardware parameters; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Cavity truncation size M = 4, 6, 8, 35, 100 (varies by simulation)
    M is chosen by hand to balance circuit width against accuracy; the spin-Dicke model is guaranteed to approach the Dicke model only as M→∞, so all numerical claims inherit an M-dependent approximation error that is not quantified for the QPU parameters.
  • Ansatz depth (number of layers) = 1 or 2 layers
    The number of collective entangling layers is chosen by hand; a second layer improves energy but the paper does not provide a convergence criterion.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Inverse Holstein-Primakoff transformation and its linearization: a ≈ S_-/√(2s), dropping terms of order (s+S_z)/(2s) and higher (Eqs. 6-7).
    The digital algorithm solves the spin-Dicke model, not the Dicke model; validity requires that low-lying eigenstates have boson occupation much less than M. The paper gives a probabilistic bound but does not verify it for the simulated parameters, especially at λ>λ_c.
  • domain assumption Exchange symmetry of the homogeneous Dicke Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) justifies restricting the ansatz to the exchange-symmetric subspace.
    The method is designed for homogeneous couplings; the paper's extension claim to inhomogeneous models (Eq. 2) would break this symmetry, so the ansatz transfer is not automatic.
  • standard math The ground state of the finite-size model remains in the even-parity sector for all λ (Section V), so a parity-preserving ansatz is sufficient.
    This follows from the discreteness of parity and continuity in λ; spontaneous symmetry breaking is absent for finite N, which the authors acknowledge.
  • domain assumption Trapped-ion hardware can implement the required collective MS (XY) gates and single-qubit rotations with sufficient fidelity for state preparation; results are degraded by noise.
    The QPU demonstration prepares classically optimized states on IonQ Forte/Forte Enterprise; no error-budget analysis is provided, and the authors state results are 'somewhat limited by noise'.
  • standard math For the hybrid ansatz, the bosonic mode is initialized in vacuum and the spin-dependent displacement is a perfect gate; the expectation value ⟨0|cos(2xP)|0⟩ = e^{-x^2} holds.
    This is a standard bosonic coherent-state identity used in Eq. (38).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating the Dicke Model on Qubit-Based and hybrid Qubit-Boson-Based Quantum Computers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OLQEHUDP

@misc{pith2026260718546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating the Dicke Model on Qubit-Based and hybrid Qubit-Boson-Based Quantum Computers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OLQEHUDP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18546}
}
read the original abstract

The Dicke model provides a fundamental description of collective light-matter interactions and has long served as a testbed for exploring a wide range of physical phenomena in quantum optics and condensed matter physics. In this work, we develop a variational framework for investigating the finite-size Dicke model on both fully qubit-based (digital) and hybrid qubit boson based (digital-analogue) quantum computing platforms. We show that the resulting model reproduces the characteristic critical behavior of the Dicke model in the appropriate large-spin limit while remaining suitable for implementation on both classical emulators of quantum computers and actual trapped ion quantum computers, albeit in the case of latter somewhat limited by noise. Finally, we introduce a complementary hybrid qubit-bosonic variational ansatz that directly exploits the bosonic degree of freedom to reduce quantum resources and discuss its potential implementation on hybrid quantum hardware. Our results establish a scalable, symmetry-aware framework for variational quantum simulations of collective light-matter systems and provide a pathway toward efficient simulations of more general spin-boson models on near-term quantum devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18546 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Average number of cavity excitations per atom, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Circuit for the single layer of parameterized symmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Expectation values of the cavity excitations per atom and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy deviation Δ𝐸 = 𝐸VQE − 𝐸exact for the ground state (GS) and first excited state (FS) of the spin-Dicke model, shown in panels (a) and (b), respectively. The results are obtained using a problem-inspired ansatz within the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optimization results for the spin-Dicke model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy optimization result with respect to the ansatz given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the one- and two-layer ansätze given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Ground-state energy of the Dicke model describing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references

  1. [1]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  2. [2]

    (17), encompassing the infinite-coupling ground state

    Í 𝜇=±|𝜇⟩𝑎1,whichwehaveusedtogetthesingle-atom ansatz, Eq. (17), encompassing the infinite-coupling ground state. For𝑁=2, we can generate the maximally entangled state via a single MS gate as 𝑒−𝑖𝜙𝑌 𝑎2𝑋𝑎1/2|0⟩𝑎2|0⟩𝑎1= 1√ 2 ∑︁ 𝜇=± 𝑒−𝑖𝜙𝜇𝑌 𝑎2/2|0⟩𝑎2|𝜇⟩𝑎1, whichbecomesthetargetstate,Eq.(22),when𝜙=𝜋/2,since |0⟩𝑎2 is rotated by±𝜋/2depending on the sign of|±⟩𝑎2. F...

  3. [3]

    Frontier

    Í 𝜇=±|𝜇⟩Σ𝑛, an equal superposition of the two eigenstates,|±⟩Σ𝑛 =|±⟩ 𝑛···|±⟩ 1, of 𝑋Σ𝑛 witheigenvalues±𝑛. Then,wepreparethe(𝑛+1)thqubit in its|0⟩𝑛+1 state and apply𝑈𝑛(𝜙𝑛)to get 1√ 2 ∑︁ 𝜇=± 𝑒−𝑖(𝜇𝑛𝜙 𝑛)𝑌𝑛+1/2|0⟩𝑛+1|𝜇⟩Σ𝑛 = 1√ 2 ∑︁ 𝜇=± |𝜇⟩𝑛+1|𝜇⟩Σ𝑛, where we set 𝑛𝜙𝑛=𝜋/2.(24) We note that to generate the GHZ state, the total number of gates are distributed to𝑁−1...

    2024

  4. [4]

    Hepp and E

    K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, On the superradiant phase transition for molecules in a quantized radiation field: the Dicke maser model, Annals of Physics76, 360 (1973)

    1973

  5. [5]

    Bonifacio, P

    R. Bonifacio, P. Schwendimann, and F. Haake, Quantum statis- tical theory of superradiance. I, Phys. Rev. A4, 302 (1971)

    1971

  6. [6]

    N. E. Rehler and J. H. Eberly, Superradiance, Phys. Rev. A3, 1735 (1971)

    1971

  7. [7]

    Rev.51, 652 (1937)

    I.I.Rabi,Spacequantizationinagyratingmagneticfield,Phys. Rev.51, 652 (1937)

    1937

  8. [8]

    Y. K. Wang and F. T. Hioe, Phase transition in the Dicke model of superradiance, Phys. Rev. A7, 831 (1973)

    1973

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    H.Carmichael,C.Gardiner,andD.Walls,Higherordercorrec- tionstotheDickesuperradiantphasetransition,PhysicsLetters A46, 47 (1973)

    1973

  2. [10]

    Safavi-Naini, R

    A. Safavi-Naini, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. G. Bohnet, M. Gärttner, K.A.Gilmore,J.E.Jordan,J.Cohn,J.K.Freericks,A.M.Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Verification of a many-ion simulator of the Dicke model through slow quenches across a phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 040503 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Forn-Díaz, L

    P. Forn-Díaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Ultrastrong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025005 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    J.Klinder,H.Keßler,M.Wolke,L.Mathey,andA.Hemmerich, DynamicalphasetransitionintheopenDickemodel,Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.112, 3290 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Chen, Y.-Y

    Q.-H. Chen, Y.-Y. Zhang, T. Liu, and K.-L. Wang, Numerically exact solution to the finite-size Dicke model, Phys. Rev. A78, 051801(R) (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Mezzacapo, U

    A. Mezzacapo, U. Las Heras, J. S. Pedernales, L. DiCarlo, E. Solano, and L. Lamata, Digital quantum Rabi and Dicke models in superconducting circuits, Sci. Rep.4, 7482 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Lamata, Digital-analog quantum simulation of generalized Dickemodelswithsuperconductingcircuits,Sci.Rep.7,43768 (2017)

    L. Lamata, Digital-analog quantum simulation of generalized Dickemodelswithsuperconductingcircuits,Sci.Rep.7,43768 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    M.Greiner,O.Mandel,T.Esslinger,T.W.Hänsch,andI.Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    P.Das,S.Wüster,andA.Sharma,Dickemodelwithdisordered spin-boson couplings, Phys. Rev. A109, 013715 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Jaksch, C

    D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Coldbosonicatomsinopticallattices,Phys.Rev.Lett.81,3108 (1998)

    1998

  11. [19]

    Salathé, M

    Y. Salathé, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, J. Heinsoo, P. Kurpiers, A.Potočnik,A.Mezzacapo,U.LasHeras,L.Lamata,E.Solano, S. Filipp, and A. Wallraff, Digital quantum simulation of spin models with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. X5, 021027 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Friedenauer, H

    A. Friedenauer, H. Schmitz, J. T. Glueckert, D. Porras, and T. Schaetz, Simulating a quantum magnet with trapped ions, Nature Physics4, 757 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Kim, M.-S

    K. Kim, M.-S. Chang, S. Korenblit, R. Islam, E. E. Edwards, J. K. Freericks, G.-D. Lin, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Quan- tum simulation of frustrated Ising spins with trapped ions, Na- ture465, 590 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Cai, Z.-D

    M.-L. Cai, Z.-D. Liu, W.-D. Zhao, Y.-K. Wu, Q.-X. Mei, Y.Jiang, L.He, X.Zhang, Z.-C.Zhou,andL.-M.Duan,Obser- vationofaquantumphasetransitioninthequantumRabimodel with a single trapped ion, Nat. Commun.12, 1126 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    X.-s. Ma, B. Dakic, W. Naylor, A. Zeilinger, and P. Walther, Quantum simulation of the wavefunction to probe frustrated Heisenberg spin systems, Nat. Phys.7, 399 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    N. K. Langford, R. Sagastizabal, M. Kounalakis, C. Dickel, A. Bruno, F. Luthi, D. J. Thoen, A. Endo, and L. DiCarlo, Experimentally simulating the dynamics of quantum light and matter at deep-strong coupling, Nat. Commun.8, 1715 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum3, 191 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Marquez Peraca, X

    N. Marquez Peraca, X. Li, J. M. Moya, K. Hayashida, D. Kim, X. Ma, K. J. Neubauer, D. Fallas Padilla, C.-L. Huang, P. Dai, A.H.Nevidomskyy,H.Pu,E.Morosan,S.Cao,M.Bamba,and J. Kono, Quantum simulation of an extended Dicke model with a magnetic solid, Commun. Mater.5, 42 (2024). 20

    2024

  19. [27]

    J. S. Pedernales, I. Lizuain, S. Felicetti, G. Romero, L. Lamata, and E. Solano, Quantum Rabi model with trapped ions, Sci. Rep.5, 15472 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Com- mun.5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Fujii, J

    M.Cerezo,A.Arrasmith,R.Babbush,S.C.Benjamin,S.Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin- Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J.M.Chow,andJ.M.Gambetta,Hardware-efficientvariational quantumeigensolverforsmallmoleculesandquantummagnets, Nature549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, New J. Phys.18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, The variationalquantumeigensolver: Areviewofmethodsandbest practices, Phys. Rep.986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Kokail, C

    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 quantum simulation of lat- tice models, Nature569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    H. L. Tang, V. Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, N. J. Mayhall,E.Barnes,andS.E.Economou,Qubit-ADAPT-VQE: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient an- sätzeonaquantumprocessor,PRXQuantum2,020310(2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    V.O.Shkolnikov,N.J.Mayhall,S.E.Economou,andE.Barnes, Avoiding symmetry roadblocks and minimizing the measure- ment overhead of adaptive variational quantum eigensolvers, Quantum7, 1040 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    C. Cade, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, and S. Stanisic, Strategies for solving the Fermi-Hubbard model on near-term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. B102, 235122 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    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. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quintana, D. San...

    2016

  31. [39]

    Reiner, F

    J.-M. Reiner, F. Wilhelm-Mauch, G. Schön, and M. Marthaler, Finding the ground state of the Hubbard model by variational methods on a quantum computer with gate errors, Quantum Science and Technology4, 035005 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    A.Duriez,A.Saguia,andM.S.Sarandy,Variationalsimulation of quantum phase transitions induced by boundary fields, Phys. Rev. B112, 094401 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Liu, Y.-H

    J.-G. Liu, Y.-H. Zhang, Y. Wan, and L. Wang, Variational quantum eigensolver with fewer qubits, Phys. Rev. Research 1, 023025 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    J.KattemölleandJ.vanWezel,Variationalquantumeigensolver fortheHeisenbergantiferromagnetonthekagomelattice,Phys. Rev. B106, 214429 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet, Phys. Rev.58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  36. [44]

    A.DiPaolo,P.K.Barkoutsos,I.Tavernelli,andA.Blais,Varia- tional quantum simulation of ultrastrong light-matter coupling, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033364 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Tudorovskaya and D

    M. Tudorovskaya and D. Muñoz Ramo, Quantum computing simulation of a mixed spin-boson hamiltonian and its perfor- mance for a cavity quantum electrodynamics problem, Phys. Rev. A109, 032612 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Blaha, A

    M. Blaha, A. Johnson, A. Rauschenbeutel, and J. Volz, Beyond the Tavis-Cummings model: Revisiting cavity QED with en- semblesofquantumemitters,Phys.Rev.A105,013719(2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    T.MatsubaraandH.Matsuda,Alatticemodelofliquidhelium, I, Prog. Theor. Phys.16, 569 (1956)

    1956

  40. [48]

    R. M. Wilson, K. W. Mahmud, A. Hu, A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hafezi, and M. Foss-Feig, Collective phases of strongly in- teracting cavity photons, Phys. Rev. A94, 033801 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    J. L. Cardy, ed.,Finite-Size Scaling, Current Physics—Sources and Comments, Vol. 2 (North-Holland, 1988)

    1988

  42. [50]

    Emary and T

    C. Emary and T. Brandes, Quantum chaos triggered by precur- sorsofaquantumphasetransition: TheDickemodel,Phys.Rev. Lett.90, 044101 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    M. E. Fisher and M. N. Barber, Scaling theory for finite-size effects in the critical region, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 1516 (1972)

    1972

  44. [52]

    Somma, G

    R. Somma, G. Ortiz, E. Knill, and J. Gubernatis, Quantum simulations of physics problems, Int. J. Quantum Inf.01, 189 (2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    Binder, Finite size effects at phase transitions, inComputa- tional Methods in Field Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol

    K. Binder, Finite size effects at phase transitions, inComputa- tional Methods in Field Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 409,editedbyH.GaustererandC.B.Lang(Springer,1992)pp. 59–125

    1992

  46. [54]

    Lett.74, 817 (2006)

    J.VidalandS.Dusuel,Finite-sizescalingexponentsintheDicke model, Europhys. Lett.74, 817 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    O.Higgott,D.Wang,andS.Brierley,Variationalquantumcom- putation of excited states, Quantum3, 156 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    2025, 1 (2025)

    X.-Y.Huang,L.Yu,X.Lu,Y.Yang,D.-S.Li,C.-W.Wu,W.Wu, andP.-X.Chen,Qubitizationofbosons,Prog.HighEnergyPhys. 2025, 1 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Rotosolve is a gradient-free optimizer that exploits the trigonometric dependence of the VQE cost function on each variational parameter

    for the classical optimization in the VQE calculations. Rotosolve is a gradient-free optimizer that exploits the trigonometric dependence of the VQE cost function on each variational parameter. When all other parameters are held fixed, the cost function mathematically becomes ...

  50. [58]

    Barnes, Efficient symmetry-preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm, npj Quantum Inf.6, 10 (2020)

    B.T.Gard,L.Zhu,G.S.Barron,N.J.Mayhall,S.E.Economou, and E. Barnes, Efficient symmetry-preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm, npj Quantum Inf.6, 10 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    J. Wen, D. Lv, M.-H. Yung, and G.-L. Long, Variational quan- tum packaged deflation for arbitrary excited states, Quantum Engineering3, e80 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Ostaszewski, E

    M. Ostaszewski, E. Grant, and M. Benedetti, Structure opti- mization for parameterized quantum circuits, Quantum5, 391 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Wierichs, J

    D. Wierichs, J. Izaac, C. Wang, and C. Y.-Y. Lin, General parameter-shift rules for quantum gradients, Quantum6, 677 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going be- yond Bell’s theorem, inBell’s theorem, quantum theory and conceptions of the universe(Springer, 1989) pp. 69–72

    1989

  55. [63]

    Eickbusch, V

    A. Eickbusch, V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, S. S. Elder, S. R. Jha, J. Venkatraman, B. Royer, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M.H.Devoret,Fastuniversalcontrolofanoscillatorwithweak dispersive coupling to a qubit, Nat. Phys.18, 1464 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Leibfried, B

    D. Leibfried, B. DeMarco, V. Meyer, D. Lucas, M. Barrett, J.Britton,W.M.Itano,B.Jelenković,C.Langer,T.Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, Experimental demonstration of a robust, high-fidelity geometric two ion-qubit phase gate, Nature422, 21 412 (2003)

    2003

  57. [65]

    Kienzler, C

    D. Kienzler, C. Flühmann, V. Negnevitsky, H.-Y. Lo, M. Marinelli, D. Nadlinger, and J. P. Home, Observation of quantum interference between separated mechanical oscillator wave packets, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 140402 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    P.Campagne-Ibarcq,A.Eickbusch,S.Touzard,E.Zalys-Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, S. Shankar, R.J.Schoelkopf,L.Frunzio,M.Mirrahimi,andM.H.Devoret, Quantumerrorcorrectionofaqubitencodedingridstatesofan oscillator, Nature584, 368 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    D. Lv, S. An, Z. Liu, J.-N. Zhang, J. S. Pedernales, L. Lamata, E. Solano, and K. Kim, Quantum simulation of the quantum Rabi model in a trapped ion, Phys. Rev. X8, 021027 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    A.Blais,A.L.Grimsmo,S.M.Girvin,andA.Wallraff,Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    OLCF User Documentation, Frontier user guide, https: //docs.olcf.ornl.gov/systems/frontier_user_guide.html (2025), accessed: 2026-01-27

    2025

  62. [70]

    SciPy Community, SciPy documentation: scipy.sparse.linalg.eigsh, https://docs.scipy.org/ doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.sparse.linalg.eigsh.html (2025), accessed: 2026-01-27

    2025

  63. [71]

    Y. Lu, S. Zhang, K. Zhang, W. Chen, Y. Shen, J. Zhang, J.-N. Zhang, and K. Kim, Global entangling gates on arbitrary ion qubits, Nature572, 363 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    S.-L. Zhu, C. Monroe, and L.-M. Duan, Trapped ion quantum computationwithtransversephononmodes,Phys.Rev.Lett.97, 050505 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.