Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Efficient Fermi-Hubbard model ground-state preparation by coupling to a classical reservoir in the instantaneous-response limit

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A classical-reservoir-inspired variational circuit prepares Fermi-Hubbard ground states with at least 0.99 fidelity on all tested two-dimensional clusters, using fewer parameters than previous ansatze.

desk verdict A legitimate ansatz paper with a real resource reduction, but the 'consistently ≥0.99 fidelity' claim needs multi-seed statistics before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13862 v2 pith:QRD55VBD submitted 2025-01-23 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Zekun He , Lorenzo Del Re , A. F. Kemper , J. K. Freericks This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el
keywords Fermi-Hubbardmodelground-statepreparationclassicalreservoirHamiltonianvariationalansatzJordan-Wignertransformationtotalspinconservationstrongcorrelationsquantumcircuit
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 Fermi-Hubbard model (electrons hopping on a lattice with on-site repulsion) is a standard testbed for quantum ground-state preparation, but its exponentially large Hilbert space makes variational paths hard to find. This paper claims that a variational circuit built from spin-adapted (total-spin-conserving) nearest-neighbor hopping and on-site interaction steps can drive a simple product state to the interacting ground state with at least 0.99 fidelity, including at strong coupling $U/t=8$. The circuit is motivated as a classical reservoir coupled to the system in the instantaneous-response limit, which turns the cooling dynamics into Hamiltonian evolution that never expands the Hilbert space. On an 8-site periodic cluster and on $2\times4$ and $2\times5$ ladders, the optimized ansatz reaches infidelities between $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-6}$, and on open-boundary ladders it needs roughly half the parameters of the number-preserving ansatz (a prior particle-conserving variational ansatz). If the results extend beyond these small clusters, the method offers a resource-efficient, spin-conserving route to strongly correlated ground states on near-term quantum hardware, with no fermionic swap network and no Z-string operators in state preparation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a layered ansatz $|\psi_f\rangle = \prod_{l=1}^L e^{i\hat U_l(\lambda')} e^{-i\hat T_l(\lambda)} e^{i\hat T'_l(\lambda)} |\psi_0\rangle$, built from spin-adapted nearest-neighbor hopping terms $\hat T = \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle,\sigma} \lambda (\hat c^\dagger_{i\sigma}\hat c_{j\sigma} + \mathrm{h.c.})$ and on-site potential terms $\hat U = \sum_i \lambda' \hat n_{i\uparrow}\hat n_{i\downarrow}$; each layer carries $M=2N-1$ parameters. The argument has three supporting parts: pairing the spin-up and spin-down hoppings conserves total spin and its $z$-component, so optimization stays in one spin sector; the Lie-algebra closure $[\hat c^\dagger_p \hat c_q, \hat c^\dagger_a \hat c_b] = \hat c^\dagger_p \delta_{qa}\hat c_b - \hat c^\dagger_a \delta_{bp}\hat c_q$ lets adjacent hoppings along the one-dimensional Jordan-Wigner path generate all effective hoppings, so no fermionic swap network and no Z-string operators are needed in state preparation; and the instantaneous-response limit of a classical reservoir justifies Hamiltonian time evolution in the canonical ensemble, keeping the state pure and the Hilbert-space dimension unchanged.

What would settle it

Compute the exact ground state of a larger two-dimensional Hubbard cluster, such as a $4\times4$ or 20-site lattice at $U/t=8$ in the $S=0$ sector, run the same ansatz with the paper's optimization procedure, and check whether the optimized fidelity reaches 0.99; if the infidelity plateaus above 0.01 for any such cluster, the claim that the method consistently achieves 0.99 fidelity would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a layered circuit of spin-adapted hopping and on-site potential terms, with parameters found by minimizing the final-state energy, can prepare the Hubbard ground state with high fidelity without leaving the original Hilbert space. The construction starts from a classical reservoir action and takes the instantaneous-response limit, which removes the two-time dependence and allows a canonical Hamiltonian description; the state remains pure and total particle number and spin are conserved. In the numerical tests on the $\sqrt{8}\times\sqrt{8}$ periodic cluster at $U/t=8$ (total spin sectors $S=0,1,2,3$, pure and disordered) and on $2\times4$ and $2\times5$ ladders at $U/t=2$ and $U/t=8$, the method consistently reaches fidelities of at least 0.99, with infidelities spanning $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-6}$. Against the number-preserving ansatz on open-boundary ladders, it achieves the same fidelity with 180 and 285 parameters instead of 392 and 432, and with one layer of $X$ gates for initialization instead of $N-1$ layers.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the ansatz being expressive enough to reach the exact ground state with at least 99 percent fidelity on the studied clusters, and on the numerical optimizer reliably finding that minimum; this is demonstrated for 8- and 10-site systems but not proven for larger sizes or for the interacting, non-Gaussian part of the ansatz.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ground states of strongly correlated Hubbard clusters can be prepared with at least 0.99 fidelity using circuits whose per-layer cost is linear ($M=2N-1$ parameters), with no fermionic swap network and no Z-string operators in the state-preparation circuit.
  • Initialization reduces to a single layer of $X$ gates on a simple product state, so the method avoids the more involved preparation of the noninteracting $U=0$ ground state used by other variational algorithms.
  • On the open $2\times4$ and $2\times5$ ladders at $U/t=2$, the same fidelity is reached with 180 and 285 parameters respectively, versus 392 and 432 for the number-preserving ansatz, and with $N-1$ initialization layers reduced to one.
  • Restricting to one total-spin sector allows the ansatz to target the ground state of each spin sector separately, and the numerical results show stability against random hopping and on-site disorder.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the 0.99-fidelity performance persists on 16- and 20-site clusters, this ansatz becomes a leading candidate for near-term Hubbard-model simulation, but that scaling is not established in the paper.
  • Editorial inference: the same layer structure may transfer to other lattice fermion models by replacing the on-site potential with their interaction terms; the spin-adapted hopping pairing and the one-dimensional hopping closure would remain valid only for interactions that preserve total spin.
  • Editorial inference: applying the ansatz away from half-filling, in three dimensions, or with a different optimizer would test the paper's conjecture that preparation difficulty is essentially independent of interaction strength; those regimes are not covered by the reported numerical evidence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a ground-state preparation method for the Fermi-Hubbard model based on coupling to a classical reservoir in the instantaneous-response limit. In this limit the evolution reduces to a layered Hamiltonian ansatz built from spin-adapted nearest-neighbor hopping terms along a Jordan-Wigner snake ordering plus on-site potential terms, without enlarging the Hilbert space. Starting from a product state with fixed total spin, the parameters are optimized by L-BFGS energy minimization. Numerical results on 8- and 10-site two-dimensional clusters at U/t=8 report infidelities in the range 1e-3 to 1e-6, and the method is compared with the number-preserving ansatz in terms of variational parameters needed to reach 0.99 fidelity. The central claim is that the method can consistently achieve at least 0.99 fidelity in all examined cases with lower resource counts than previous ansatze.

Significance. If the fidelity and resource claims hold, this is a useful and practical simplification of the Hamiltonian variational ansatz: it preserves total spin, avoids fermionic swap networks, uses only M=2N-1 parameters per layer, and reproduces exact ground states on the tested strongly correlated clusters. The authors provide open data and code, which is a clear strength. However, the headline 'consistently achieve >=0.99 fidelity' claim currently rests on single optimization runs and a single disorder realization, while the paper itself reports run-to-run energy variation of order 1e-2. The comparison with the NP ansatz is also made at U/t=2, not at the strong-coupling value U/t=8 that motivates the work. The core idea is sound and the numerical demonstrations are consistent with exact ground states, but the statistical support for the central claim needs strengthening.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV] The claim that the method can 'consistently achieve >=0.99 fidelity in all the cases we examined' is not supported by the data as presented. Figures 4 and 5 show a single optimization trajectory per spin sector and system, with no ensemble over initial parameters, and Appendix B states that the variation in the final energy due to the initial guess is 'typically at most on the order of 10^{-2}'. That variation is comparable to the error budget needed to guarantee an infidelity below 1e-2, particularly in the small-gap S=1 sector of Table I. Please report the success rate and the distribution of fidelities over many random initializations (and, where relevant, over disorder samples) so that the consistency claim can be evaluated quantitatively.
  2. [Table I and Section III.A] The disorder-robustness conclusion is drawn from 'one explicit representation' of a disordered Hubbard Hamiltonian. A single random realization cannot establish robustness against disorder. The authors should provide ensemble-averaged infidelities or relative energy errors over multiple disorder samples, including the spread across samples, before claiming that disorder does not significantly affect performance.
  3. [Table II and Section III.B] The resource comparison with the number-preserving ansatz is performed only at U/t=2, whereas the motivation and conclusions emphasize the strongly correlated regime U/t=8. At U/t=2 the system is weakly correlated, so Table II does not substantiate the claim of improved performance in the strong-correlation regime where prior ansatze are said to plateau. Please provide a comparison at U/t=8 or explicitly limit the comparison claim to the parameter regime actually studied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'The resulting time evolution operator consist of...' should read 'consists of'.
  2. [Section IV] The phrase 'The noininteracting state' appears to be a typo for 'noninteracting state'; please correct it.
  3. [Section II and Figure 1] The text uses 'Langrangian-based dynamics' and 'Langrangian' in the figure caption; these should be 'Lagrangian'.
  4. [Table II] The column header 'Fermionic swap network' would be clearer as 'Uses fermionic swap network?' and the NP parameter counts should be accompanied by the number of layers used to reach the 0.99 fidelity threshold, so the comparison is reproducible.
  5. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The notation in Eq. (2) involving a time-ordered exponential of beta-weighted operators with a two-time action S(lambda) is standard in path-integral contexts but is unusual here; a brief definition of the trace and the ordering would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variational parameters are fitted to minimize energy, but the reported fidelities are benchmarked against independently computed exact ground states; the only self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim—consistent infidelities below 0.01 for 8- and 10-site Hubbard clusters—is an empirical benchmark, not a quantity defined by the fit. The ansatz of Eqs. (7)-(8) is a fixed parameterized circuit (spin-adapted adjacent hoppings plus on-site ZZ terms) with free variational parameters; the initial states in Appendix A are simple product states with the target total spin. Parameters are optimized by L-BFGS to minimize the final-state energy (Section II A, Appendix B), while the reported infidelity and relative energy error are computed against exact ground states obtained independently (Section III). Energy minimization does not by construction force the reported fidelities: the ansatz family could fail to contain the ground state or converge to local minima, so the benchmark has independent content. The Lie-algebra closure used to justify the Jordan-Wigner-path-only hopping set is derived inline in Eq. (5) as a standard commutator; Refs. [40,41] are cited only as conceptual analogues, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Section IV that the resulting ansatz is analogous to the NP ansatz or HVA, and the claimed contribution is the reservoir motivation plus resource reductions, not a disguised new name for a known result. Limitations noted in Appendix B (run-to-run energy variation up to ~1e-2) and the single disorder realization in the Table I caption weaken the statistical support for the word 'consistently,' but these are external-validity/correctness concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the chosen ansatz form and its optimization. The variational parameters are fitted to minimize energy; performance depends on number of layers and initial conditions, chosen empirically. The instantaneous-response reservoir limit is an asserted idealization. The expressibility of the restricted ansatz is the key unproven input. The classical reservoir itself is an interpretive device with no external falsifiable handle.

free parameters (4)
  • Variational parameters lambda, lambda' = L times (2N-1) numbers per run (e.g., 285 for 2x5 at 0.99 fidelity)
    All circuit parameters are optimized by L-BFGS to minimize the final-state energy; the reported fidelities depend on these fitted values.
  • Number of layers L = chosen per system, typically 15-200
    The ansatz depth is a hyperparameter selected to reach the target accuracy; no a priori rule or cost bound is given.
  • Initial parameter range = [-0.001, 0.001]
    Random initialization scale is chosen by hand; the final-energy variation is reported to be at most about 1e-2 but is not statistically characterized.
  • Disorder realization = Single sample: delta_ij = 0.2*N(0,1), U_i in [0,16]
    Disorder robustness is assessed with one explicit disorder configuration, not an ensemble.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The instantaneous-response limit of a classical reservoir can be described by Hamiltonian time evolution with single-time fields; the resulting interaction is represented by hopping and on-site potential terms.
    Section II: 'in the instantaneous-response limit... we can work with Hamiltonian time evolution instead, using a time-dependent Hamiltonian with the classical reservoir arising as additional time-dependent fields'. This idealization is asserted, not derived from a microscopic model.
  • standard math The Lie algebra generated by adjacent hopping operators along the Jordan-Wigner path is closed and generates indirect hopping, so restricting the ansatz to JW-adjacent hoppings retains full representational power for the hopping part.
    Eq. (5) states the commutator closure; the sufficiency of adjacent hoppings follows from known fermionic Gaussian circuit universality (Refs [40,41,48]), but the paper's application of this to the full interacting ansatz is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The restricted variational ansatz, starting from a product state with target total spin, can express and converge to the interacting ground state with at least 0.99 fidelity.
    This expressibility is the central unproven premise; it is verified only for 8- and 10-site clusters in Section III and has no scaling or proof.
  • domain assumption L-BFGS finds a sufficiently good minimum of the energy landscape within the stated stopping criterion.
    Appendix B: the optimizer is chosen empirically; the paper reports small variation with initialization but no guarantee or systematic statistics.
invented entities (1)
  • Classical reservoir (instantaneous-response limit)
    purpose: Conceptual device for deriving the variational ansatz from a cooling dynamics; in the limit it produces the hopping and potential terms of Eqs. (4)-(8).
    The reservoir is a theoretical construct that adds no observable degrees of freedom; its only output is the ansatz, which could be postulated directly. There is no falsifiable prediction associated with the reservoir itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Fermi-Hubbard model ground-state preparation by coupling to a classical reservoir in the instantaneous-response limit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QRD55VBD

@misc{pith2026250113862,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Fermi-Hubbard model ground-state preparation by coupling to a classical reservoir in the instantaneous-response limit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QRD55VBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13862}
}
read the original abstract

Preparing the ground state of the Fermi-Hubbard model is challenging, in part due to the exponentially large Hilbert space, which complicates efficiently finding a path from an initial state to the ground state using the variational principle. In this work, we propose an approach for ground state preparation of interacting models by involving a classical reservoir, simplified to the instantaneous-response limit, which can be described using a Hamiltonian formalism. The resulting time evolution operator consist of spin-adapted nearest-neighbor hopping and on-site interaction terms similar to those in the Hubbard model, without expanding the Hilbert space. We can engineer the coupling to rapidly drive the system from an initial product state to its interacting ground state by numerically minimizing the final state energy. This ansatz closely resembles the Hamiltonian variational ansatz, offering a fresh perspective on it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13862 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left, schematic depiction of a generic classical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the classical reservoir method for a 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A four-site Hubbard model example with a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Numerical results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Relative errors (solid lines) and infidelities (dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Initialize state with the target spin One layer of classical reservoir method Done if converged

    work page

  2. [2]

    Trotterized time evolution

    work page

  3. [3]

    Using L-BFGS to minimize energy with respect to ALL parameters JW-fermionic encoding physical connectivity FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the classical reservoir method for a 4×4 two-dimensional square lattice. Left: operators used to describe the instantaneous-response classical reservoir. Center: snake-like path for the Jordan–Wigner fermionic enco...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The noininteracting state is more complicated to make in the position basis [34, 50], especially when it is degenerate [33]

    We only require the initial state to have the tar- get total spin and do not need it to be theU=0 non-interacting ground state; it is most easily pre- pared by creating double occupancies in a single product state. The noininteracting state is more complicated to make in the position basis [34, 50], especially when it is degenerate [33]

    work page

  5. [5]

    Constraining the system to a definite total spin as well as itsz-component allows us to find the ground state for each value of total spin easily and reduces the numerical cost by working within a smaller op- timization landscape

    work page

  6. [6]

    The closure property of the Lie algebra allows us to use a one-dimensional indexing scheme, elimi- nating the need for fermionic swap (fSW AP) net- work [48, 51] to handle any hopping terms that re- quire Jordan-Wigner strings in the ansatz for the state preparation. Using the classical reservoir method, we find high- accuracy results —infidelities reach ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    A. Y. Kitaev, A. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi,Classical and quantum computation, 47 (American Mathematical Soc., 2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    C. N. Varney, C.-R. Lee, Z. J. Bai, S. Chiesa, M. Jarrell, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B80, 075116 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    M. Qin, H. Shi, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B94, 085103 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Jiang, D

    S. Jiang, D. J. Scalapino, and S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B 108, L161111 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  5. [13]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    J. P. F. LeBlanc, A. E. Antipov, F. Becca, I. W. Bulik, G. K.-L. Chan, C.-M. Chung, Y. Deng, M. Ferrero, T. M. Henderson, C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, E. Kozik, X.-W. Liu, A. J. Millis, N. V. Prokof’ev, M. Qin, G. E. Scuseria, H. Shi, B. V. Svistunov, L. F. Tocchio, I. S. Tupitsyn, ...

    2015

  7. [15]

    Born and V

    M. Born and V. Fock, Z. Phys.51, 165 (1928)

    1928

  8. [16]

    Jansen, M.-B

    S. Jansen, M.-B. Ruskai, and R. Seiler, J. Math. Phys. 48, 102111 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0001106 (2000)

    2000 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, Y. Ding, M. Sanz, F. Albarr´ an- Arriagada, E. Solano, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 024038 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, J. Phys. Chem. A107, 9937 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, J. Phys. Chem. B109, 6838 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    M. V. Berry, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Shor, inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foun- dations of Computer Science(1994) pp

    P. Shor, inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foun- dations of Computer Science(1994) pp. 124–134

    1994

  16. [24]

    A. Y. Kitaev, arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant- ph/9511026 (1995)

    1995 doi

  17. [25]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, New J. Phys.18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    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, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    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, Nat. Commun5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Cerezo, A

    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, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Nat. Commun10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Gyawali and M

    G. Gyawali and M. J. Lawler, Phys. Rev. A105, 012413 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    H. G. Burton, D. Marti-Dafcik, D. P. Tew, and D. J. Wales, Npj Quantum Inf.9, 75 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    J. B. Larsen, M. D. Grace, A. D. Baczewski, and A. B. Magann, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033336 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 250502 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Q. Xie, K. Seki, and S. Yunoki, Phys. Rev. B106, 155153 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090602 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    J. Tang, R. Xu, Y. Ding, X. Xu, Y. Ban, M.-H. Yung, A. P´ erez-Obiol, G. Platero, and X. Chen, npj Quantum Mater.9, 87 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Marti, R

    L. Marti, R. Mansuroglu, and M. J. Hartmann, arXiv preprint https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.14506 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Reiner, F

    J.-M. Reiner, F. Wilhelm-Mauch, G. Sch¨ on, and M. Marthaler, QST4, 035005 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A92, 042303 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    C. Cade, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, and S. Stanisic, Phys. Rev. B102, 235122 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Cai, Phys

    Z. Cai, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 014059 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    A. M. Alvertis, A. Khan, T. Iadecola, P. P. Orth, and N. Tubman, Quantum9, 1748 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(Oxford University Press, USA, 2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    A. F. Izmaylov, M. D ´ ıaz-Tinoco, and R. A. Lang, Phys. Chem. Chem.22, 12980 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  38. [46]

    K¨ okc¨ u, D

    E. K¨ okc¨ u, D. Camps, L. Bassman Oftelie, J. K. Freericks, W. A. de Jong, R. Van Beeumen, and A. F. Kemper, Phys. Rev. A.105, 032420 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    K¨ okc¨ u, D

    E. K¨ okc¨ u, D. Camps, L. B. Oftelie, W. A. de Jong, R. V. Beeumen, and A. F. Kemper, arXiv preprint arXiv.2303.09538 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Developers,Cirq(Zenodo, 2025)

    C. Developers,Cirq(Zenodo, 2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    B¨ aumer, V

    E. B¨ aumer, V. Tripathi, D. S. Wang, P. Rall, E. H. Chen, S. Majumder, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, PRX Quantum 5, 030339 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev,et al., Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y (2024)

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Betts, S

    D. Betts, S. Masui, N. Vats, and G. Stewart, Can. J. Phys.74, 54 (1996)

    1996

  45. [53]

    Noack, S

    R. Noack, S. White, and D. Scalapino, Physica C: Super- conductivity270, 281 (1996)

    1996

  46. [54]

    I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 110501 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Gros, Phys

    C. Gros, Phys. Rev. B53, 6865 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    Jiang, K

    Z. Jiang, K. J. Sung, K. Kechedzhi, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and S. Boixo, Phys. Rev. Appl.9, 044036 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and J. I. Latorre, Phys. Rev. A79, 032316 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    J. K. F. Z.He, A. F. Kemper, Dataset (2025). 8

    2025

  51. [59]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, S. Chintala, G. Chanan, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, Z. Lin, A. Desmaison, L. Antiga, and A. Lerer, (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    Stanisic, J

    S. Stanisic, J. L. Bosse, F. M. Gambetta, R. A. Santos, W. Mruczkiewicz, T. E. O’Brien, E. Ostby, and A. Mon- tanaro, Nat. Commun.13, 5743 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Motta, K

    M. Motta, K. J. Sung, K. B. Whaley, M. Head-Gordon, and J. Shee, Chem. Sci.14, 11213 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Chen, H.-P

    J. Chen, H.-P. Cheng, and J. K. Freericks, J. Chem. The- ory Comput.17, 841 (2021). Appendix A: Initial state examples The only requirement for the initial state is to have the target value of total spin. But, we find it is advantageous to intersperse the doubly occupied sites...

    2021

Pith tools

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