REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references
Optimizing Cost Hamiltonian Compilation for Max-Cut QAOA on Unweighted Graphs Using Global Controls and Qubit Bit Flips
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Path graphs prove QAOA coupling compilation needs n−1 global layers, and Hadamard matrices decide the perfect-matching gap.
desk verdict Real contributions in the path lower bound, the 2.5n+2 construction, and the Hadamard equivalence, but Theorem 8's clique lower bound is false and the numerical claims are overstated. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the spin-biclique decomposition: a row of P in {±1}^{k×n} encodes a partition of the vertex set, and the matrix p p^T ⊙ J is the adjacency matrix of a complete graph whose edge signs are −1 across a cut and +1 inside each side. The identity A + tr(W)I = P^T W P converts the Hadamard product into an ordinary matrix product, so rank(W) = ||W||_0 bounds rank(A + tr(W)I); together with the spectral corollary this gives all lower bounds. The Union of Double-Stars construction uses the observation that any two non-adjacent vertices can be processed with five shared rows, one all-ones row reused across all double-stars, yielding the 2.5n+2 upper bound.
What would settle it
Solve the Graph Coupling Problem exactly for PM_6 by exhaustive enumeration of P ∈ {±1}^{7×12}. The theorem predicts the minimum is 7, since no Hadamard matrix of order 6 exists; a feasible 6-row solution would refute the Hadamard equivalence. As a weaker test, run the same exhaustive search on all graphs with n=6 vertices and compare the minimum to n minus the largest eigenvalue multiplicity; any graph whose gc is smaller than that bound would refute the spectral lower bound.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that the minimal number of global MS layers in a bit-flip compilation of a Max-Cut cost Hamiltonian equals the minimum rank of a signed decomposition of the graph's adjacency matrix, and that this number is controlled by spectral degeneracy. For any unweighted graph, gc(G) is at least n minus the largest eigenvalue multiplicity of its adjacency matrix; this yields gc(P_n) ≥ n−1 and makes the earlier Union of Stars bound order-optimal. For perfect matchings, the gap collapses to one: gc(PM_q) equals q exactly when a Hadamard matrix of order q exists, and otherwise equals q+1, so closing the gap is equivalent to resolving the Hadamard conjecture. Replacing the star-by-star decomposition by a double-star decomposition reduces the universal upper bound from 3n−2 to 2.5n+2, and the paper's polynomial-size MIP, called CMIPGC, finds better primal bounds than the exponential MIP on the tested random graphs up to 20 vertices.
Load-bearing premise
The theory assumes that every compiled circuit corresponds exactly to a decomposition A = P^T W P ⊙ J with arbitrary real weights on the global MS layers, and that no other native two-qubit gates are available; if hardware allows additional gates or restricts the achievable weights, these bounds are not guaranteed.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Every unweighted graph on n vertices admits a Max-Cut cost Hamiltonian circuit with at most 2.5n+2 global MS gates, improving the previous 3n−2 guarantee.
- Any QAOA Max-Cut compilation of a path graph P_n needs at least n−1 MS layers, so the earlier Union of Stars construction cannot be asymptotically improved by more than a constant factor.
- For a perfect matching on q edges, exactly q layers are possible if and only if a Hadamard matrix of order q exists; in particular, gc(PM_4)=4 while gc(PM_6)=7.
- No unweighted graph has graph coupling number 3, and the only graphs with gc=2 are bicliques K_{a,b} with (a,b) not (1,1) and disjoint unions K_a ∪ K_b with (a,b) not (1,1).
- The new polynomial-size MIP uses the spectral lower bound as a cutting plane and the combinatorial constructions as warm starts, giving valid upper bounds that improve on the exponential-size baseline on larger random instances.
Reading between the lines
- If the spectral lower bound were tight for broader graph families, graphs with highly degenerate adjacency spectra would be the cheapest to compile, suggesting a spectral heuristic for ordering decomposition algorithms.
- The Hadamard equivalence turns the Hadamard conjecture into a circuit-design question: an explicit q-layer circuit for PM_q at any q divisible by 4 would construct an order-q Hadamard matrix, giving a concrete compilation route to the conjecture.
- The empirical appearance of an all-ones row in every optimal P suggests a normalization that, if proved, would imply gc(G)=gc(complement); a testable next step is exhaustive verification on all graphs up to n=8.
- The small big-M constant used in the experiments is far below the proven bound, so a systematic study of valid big-M ranges could shrink the MIP further; this is an experiment suggested by the paper's results, not a claim the paper makes.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies the graph coupling number gc(G), the minimum number of global MS-gate layers (with single-qubit bit flips) needed to realize a Max-Cut cost Hamiltonian for an unweighted graph G, formalized as a decomposition A = P^T W P ⊙ J with P ∈ {±1}^{k×n} and W diagonal. The main claimed contributions are: a spectral lower bound n − max mult(λ) ≤ gc(G); a lower bound gc(P_n) ≥ n−1 establishing order-optimality of the Union of Stars construction; an improved general upper bound gc(G) ≤ 2.5n+2 via a new Union of Double-Stars construction; family-specific bounds for cliques, perfect matchings, paths, and cycles; an equivalence between gc(PM_q) = q and the existence of a Hadamard matrix of order q; and a compact mixed-integer program (CMIPGC) with numerical comparisons against the exponential-size MIP of Rajakumar et al. The path lower bound, the double-star upper bound, and the Hadamard equivalence are substantial and appear internally correct. However, the clique lower bound stated in Theorem 8 is false and contradicts the paper's own Theorem 2, and several supporting arguments (Corollary 6, Algorithm 1, and the big-M choice) need correction before the paper can be accepted.
Significance. If the remaining issues are fixed, the paper would make solid contributions. The spectral lower bound is a clean and broadly applicable tool; the path lower bound is the first evidence of order-optimality of the existing Union of Stars construction; the Union of Double-Stars improves a known general upper bound; and the Hadamard equivalence is an elegant and surprising bridge between a compilation problem and a famous open conjecture. The compact MIP is polynomially sized and empirically outperforms the exponential baseline on the reported instances, and the authors state that code and data are publicly available. The false clique theorem is a genuine defect, but it is localized: the path, double-star, and Hadamard results do not depend on it. The paper merits a major revision rather than rejection, provided the incorrect claims are removed or corrected and the supporting proofs are made complete.
major comments (4)
- [Section IV.E, Theorem 8] Theorem 8 is false as stated. For G = K_q ∪ K_{n−q} with q, n−q ≥ 2, the matrix A + I is the direct sum J_q ⊕ J_{n−q} of all-ones matrices, whose rank is 2, not n−q; the asserted 'last n−q rows are linearly independent' fails because those rows are identical. Corollary 2 therefore gives only gc(G) ≥ 2 for such graphs. This contradicts the paper's own Theorem 2, which gives gc(K_q ∪ K_{n−q}) = 2 whenever (q, n−q) ≠ (1,1). For example, K_3 ∪ K_3 has gc = 2 by Theorem 2, while Theorem 8 would force gc ≥ 3. Consequently, the bullet 'q ≤ gc(K_q ∪ K_{n−q}) ≤ q+2' in Section IV.F and the abstract's claim of sharper bounds for cliques are unsupported as written. This section should be rewritten; the correct lower bound for these graphs is 2, and the meaningful upper bound is already supplied by Theorem 2.
- [Section IV.F, Corollary 6] The proof of Corollary 6 is not valid as written. It sets G1 = G2 = K_q ∪ K_{n−q}, so Theorem 4 is applied to a single graph and the two cases do not distinguish anything; the subsequent construction 'adding rows' from G2 to G1 is vacuous when the graphs are identical. If the intended second graph is the complement K_{q,n−q}, then Theorem 4 gives |gc(G1) − gc(G2)| ≤ 1 rather than ≤ 2, and the claimed bound min{q, n−q} + 2 requires a different argument. This comment is related to Major Comment 1, but it is independent: the corollary's proof should be rewritten and its relation to Theorem 2 clarified.
- [Section IV.H, Theorem 13 and Algorithm 1] The feasibility claim for the Union of Double-Stars is under-specified. Theorem 12 defines the double-star edge set using arbitrary pairwise-disjoint sets V3, V4, V5, V6, but Algorithm 1 never states how these sets are chosen for a given non-adjacent pair (v1, v2). If V6 contains a neighbor of v1 or v2, then the corresponding edge is not in the double-star and is not eliminated, so the statement that 'the proposed double-stars and the final clique partition the edges of the original graph' is not justified. The construction can be repaired by taking V3 = N(v1) \ N(v2), V4 = N(v1) ∩ N(v2), V5 = N(v2) \ N(v1), and V6 as the remaining vertices, but this choice must be stated explicitly and used in the proof of Theorem 13.
- [Section IV.I, constraints (2), (6), (7)] The choice M = 10 for the big-M constant is unsupported and can invalidate the numerical results. The paper itself notes that Rajakumar et al. [21, Theorem 8] gives |W_{r,r}| ≤ (3n−2)(3n−1)/2, which is far larger than 10 for all but very small n. If an optimal weight exceeds 10 in magnitude, constraints (6)–(7) (and the linking constraint (2)) cut off the optimal solution, so both the primal and dual bounds reported in Table I may be incorrect. Either use the proven big-M bound, prove a tighter bound valid for the present formulation, or clearly label the reported experiments as heuristic under an unverified big-M assumption.
minor comments (5)
- [Theorem 12 proof] The reference to 'Corollary 2' for the uniform behavior of vertices in the same column class is incorrect; the relevant statement is Remark 2 in Section IV.A.
- [Appendix A, proof of Theorem 3] The proof relies on several 'brute force verifies' claims (e.g., systems (A1)–(A3) and the 5–8 corner cases) without providing the verification code or a symbolic derivation; please make these checks reproducible, or state explicitly that Theorem 3 is a computation-assisted result. Note that the perfect-matching gap q ≤ gc(PM_q) ≤ q+1 follows from Corollaries 3 and 7 and does not require Theorem 3.
- [Section IV.F, Theorem 9] The coefficient in the displayed decomposition should read (q−1)/4 K_n rather than 'q−1/4 K_n' to avoid ambiguity.
- [Lemma 2] The exhaustive search 'over all possible matrices P ∈ {±1}^{5×6}' is not by itself enough to prove optimality; please state that all k < 6 were enumerated using Algorithm 2 (or provide the script), and indicate how the first-column reduction and row symmetries were applied.
- [Section IV.D, Corollary 2] The notation 'n − max_{λ∈spec(A)} mult(λ)' is correct for diagonalizable A but the proof should explicitly note that the minimum is attained at an eigenvalue of A; as written the case enumeration already covers this, but a one-sentence clarification would help.
Circularity Check
No circularity: theoretical bounds and the Hadamard equivalence follow from the external decomposition model plus independent linear algebra; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.
full rationale
All load-bearing derivations are self-contained. The decomposition A=P^TWP⊙J, the definition of gc, and the Union of Stars 3n−2 bound are taken as premises from Rajakumar et al. (external authors with no overlap), not derived from this paper's conclusions. The new lower bounds use the identity A+tr(W)I=P^TWP (Thm 6) and the rank inequality rank(P^TWP)≤||W||_0 (Thms 7 and Cor 2), combined with external spectral facts: distinct path eigenvalues give gc(P_n)≥n−1 (Cor 4), and block-diagonal matching eigenvalues give gc(PM_q)≥q (Cor 3). These are necessary conditions, not assumed conclusions. The upper bounds are explicit spin-biclique decompositions with counted rows (Thms 9, 10, 13), and Lemma 2's feasibility/optimality is verified by exhaustive enumeration. Theorem 11 is constructive in both directions: a Hadamard matrix yields a q-row feasible pair, and gc=q forces H with HH^T diagonal, so no fitted parameter or self-citation carries the argument. The unproven choice M=10 (Sec IV.I) and the incorrect clique lower bound in Thm 8 (K3∪K3 has gc=2 by Thm 2 but Thm 8 would force ≥3) are correctness/limitation concerns, not circularity; the path, double-star, and Hadamard results do not depend on Thm 8.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (1)
- big-M constant =
10
assumptions (5)
- standard math rank(AB) <= min(rank(A), rank(B)) and its product generalization
- standard math Spectral theorem and eigenvalue multiplicities for symmetric matrices; eigenvalue formulas for paths, cliques, and matchings
- domain assumption Physical model: arbitrary ZZ couplings can be implemented by global MS gates and bit flips, reducing to A = P^T W P ⊙ J
- standard math Hadamard matrix facts: orders must be 1, 2, or multiples of 4; the Hadamard conjecture is open
- ad hoc to paper big-M = 10 is large enough not to cut off feasible solutions
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Cost Hamiltonian Compilation for Max-Cut QAOA on Unweighted Graphs Using Global Controls and Qubit Bit Flips." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4O6J4ET
@misc{pith2026250900170,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Optimizing Cost Hamiltonian Compilation for Max-Cut QAOA on Unweighted Graphs Using Global Controls and Qubit Bit Flips},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4O6J4ET}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00170}
}
read the original abstract
We study a cost Hamiltonian compilation problem for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) applied to the Max-Cut problem, focusing on trapped-ion quantum computers. Instead of standard compilation with CNOT and Rz gates, we employ global coupling operations and single-qubit bit flips. Prior work by Rajakumar et al. established that such a compilation is always possible. Minimizing operational error requires short operation sequences. The problem reduces to a low-rank semi-discrete decomposition of the graph's adjacency matrix, where the minimum achievable rank, the graph coupling number gc(G), represents the number of global control layers. Rajakumar et al. introduced the Union of Stars construction, proving gc(G) <= 3n - 2 for unweighted graphs with n vertices, and gave an O(m)-rank construction for weighted graphs. We concentrate on unweighted graphs. We derive structural properties of the compilation problem and show the Union of Stars method is order-optimal by proving a lower bound of gc(G) >= n - 1 for a family of graphs. We also improve the general upper bound to 2.5n + 2. For particular graph families -- cliques, perfect matchings, paths, and cycles -- we provide sharper bounds. Further, we reveal a link between the problem and Hadamard matrix theory. Finally, we introduce a compact mixed-integer programming (MIP) formulation that outperforms the previously studied exponential-size MIP.
Figures
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Global coupling using the Mølmer–Sørensen interaction, which implements a ZZ coupling over all qubit pairs with a uniform strength W∈ R, i.e., MS = n−1X i=1 nX j=i+1 Wσz iσz j
-
[2]
These operations interact through the identity: X† jσz iσz jXj =−σz iσz j
Single-qubit bit flips, implemented by applying the operator Xj =−iσx j , where σx j is the Pauli-X operator on qubit j. These operations interact through the identity: X† jσz iσz jXj =−σz iσz j. Thus, surrounding a global coupling operation with bit flips on qubit j effectively flips the sign of all ZZ terms involving qubit j. By combining multiple such ...
-
[3]
pp⊤⊙ J is the adjacency matrix of a spin biclique. 9
-
[4]
If A is the adjacency matrix of a spin biclique, then there exist exactly two vectors for p satisfying A =pp⊤⊙ J, and they are negatives of each other. Proof. 1. Let p = [1q (−1)n−q]⊤. Then pp⊤⊙ J = 1q −1n−q h 1⊤ q −1⊤ n−q i ⊙ J = 1 −1 −1 1 ⊙ J, which is the adjacency matrix of SBq,n−q
-
[5]
Then A = 1 −1 −1 1 ⊙ J =pp⊤⊙ J, for p = [1|S| − 1n−|S|]
Conversely, let A be the adjacency matrix of a spin biclique defined by a cut S⊆V , and assume the vertices in S appear first. Then A = 1 −1 −1 1 ⊙ J =pp⊤⊙ J, for p = [1|S| − 1n−|S|]. The vector−p produces the same result, and no other sign pattern yields the same adjacency matrix. Remark 1. Lemma 1 provides a bijection (up to sign) between vectors...
-
[6]
The spin biclique has weight 0, yielding the empty graph Kn
-
[7]
Next, we characterize graphs with gc(G) = 2 and gc(G) = 3
The spin biclique is SBn,0 with weight 1, yielding the complete graph Kn. Next, we characterize graphs with gc(G) = 2 and gc(G) = 3. The proofs of the following two theorems are deferred to Appendix A. Theorem 2. LetG be a simple unweighted graph. Then gc(G) = 2 ⇐⇒ ∃a,b∈ N, (a,b )̸= (1, 1) such that G =Ka∪Kb or G =Ka,b. Theorem 3. There exists no simple u...
-
[8]
n even: The edges of an even cycle can be partitioned into two perfect matchings using odd- and even-indexed edges. Since each perfect matching can be constructed using n 2 + 1 spin bicliques (one of which is Kn), the entire cycle can be constructed using n + 1 spin bicliques. Note that we can combine the Kn terms by summing their weights
Show all 33 references
-
[9]
Let G1 consist of edges e1,e 3,...,e n−2, G2 of e2,e 4,...,e n−1, and G3 of the single edge en
n odd: Enumerate the vertices and edges of the cycle as v1,...,v n and e1,...,e n. Let G1 consist of edges e1,e 3,...,e n−2, G2 of e2,e 4,...,e n−1, and G3 of the single edge en. Then Cn =G1 +G2 +G3 is an edge partition. G1 andG2 are each of the form described in Theorem 10, s...
-
[10]
Quadratic reformulations of nonlinear binary optimization problems
Martin Anthony, Endre Boros, Yves Crama, and Aritanan Gruber. Quadratic reformulations of nonlinear binary optimization problems. Mathematical Programming, 162:115–144, 2017
2017
-
[11]
Graph theory
John Adrian Bondy and Uppaluri Siva Ramachandra Murty. Graph theory. Springer Publish- ing Company, Incorporated, 2008
2008
-
[12]
Obstacles to variational quantum optimization from symmetry protection
Sergey Bravyi, Alexander Kliesch, Robert Koenig, and Eugene Tang. Obstacles to variational quantum optimization from symmetry protection. Physical review letters , 125(26):260505, 2020. 40
2020
-
[13]
Spectra of graphs
Andries E Brouwer and Willem H Haemers. Spectra of graphs . Springer Science & Business Media, 2011
2011
-
[14]
Solving clique partitioning problems: a comparison of models and commercial solvers
Yu Du, Gary Kochenberger, Fred Glover, Haibo Wang, Mark Lewis, Weihong Xie, and Takeshi Tsuyuguchi. Solving clique partitioning problems: a comparison of models and commercial solvers. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making , 21(01):59–81, 2022
2022
-
[15]
The quantum approximate optimization algorithm needs to see the whole graph: A typical case
Edward Farhi, David Gamarnik, and Sam Gutmann. The quantum approximate optimization algorithm needs to see the whole graph: A typical case. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09002 , 2020
2004 arXiv
-
[16]
A quantum approximate optimization algorithm
Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 , 2014
2014 arXiv
-
[17]
Quantum bridge analytics I: a tutorial on formulating and using qubo models
Fred Glover, Gary Kochenberger, Rick Hennig, and Yu Du. Quantum bridge analytics I: a tutorial on formulating and using qubo models. Annals of Operations Research , 314(1):141– 183, 2022
2022
-
[18]
Rydberg-mediated entanglement in a two-dimensional neutral atom qubit array
TM Graham, M Kwon, B Grinkemeyer, Z Marra, X Jiang, MT Lichtman, Y Sun, M Ebert, and M Saffman. Rydberg-mediated entanglement in a two-dimensional neutral atom qubit array. Physical review letters , 123(23):230501, 2019
2019
-
[19]
Hadamard matrices and their applications
A Hedayat and Walter Dennis Wallis. Hadamard matrices and their applications. The annals of statistics , pages 1184–1238, 1978
1978
-
[20]
Quantum computing with neutral atoms
Lo¨ ıc Henriet, Lucas Beguin, Adrien Signoles, Thierry Lahaye, Antoine Browaeys, Georges- Olivier Reymond, and Christophe Jurczak. Quantum computing with neutral atoms. Quan- tum, 4:327, 2020
2020
-
[21]
Reducibility among combinatorial problems
Richard M Karp. Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In 50 Years of Integer Pro- gramming 1958-2008: from the Early Years to the State-of-the-Art , pages 219–241. Springer, 2009
1958
-
[22]
Practical guidelines for solving difficult mixed integer linear programs
Ed Klotz and Alexandra M Newman. Practical guidelines for solving difficult mixed integer linear programs. Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science , 18(1-2):18–32, 2013
2013
-
[23]
A unified framework for modeling and solving combi- natorial optimization problems: A tutorial
Gary A Kochenberger and Fred Glover. A unified framework for modeling and solving combi- natorial optimization problems: A tutorial. Multiscale optimization methods and applications , pages 101–124, 2006. 41
2006
-
[24]
High-fidelity control and entanglement of rydberg-atom qubits
Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Ahmed Omran, Hannes Bernien, Sylvain Schwartz, Alexan- der S Zibrov, Manuel Endres, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti´ c, and Mikhail D Lukin. High-fidelity control and entanglement of rydberg-atom qubits. Physical review letters , 121(12):123603, 2018
2018
-
[25]
Promise of graph sparsifica- tion and decomposition for noise reduction in QAOA: Analysis for trapped-ion compilations
Jai Moondra, Philip C Lotshaw, Greg Mohler, and Swati Gupta. Promise of graph sparsifica- tion and decomposition for noise reduction in QAOA: Analysis for trapped-ion compilations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14330 , 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[26]
A quantum annealer with fully pro- grammable all-to-all coupling via floquet engineering
Tatsuhiro Onodera, Edwin Ng, and Peter L McMahon. A quantum annealer with fully pro- grammable all-to-all coupling via floquet engineering. npj Quantum Information , 6(1):48, 2020
2020
-
[27]
The boolean quadric polytope: some characteristics, facets and relatives
Manfred Padberg. The boolean quadric polytope: some characteristics, facets and relatives. Mathematical programming, 45:139–172, 1989
1989
-
[28]
Quantum approximate optimization of the long-range ising model with a trapped-ion quantum simulator
Guido Pagano, Aniruddha Bapat, Patrick Becker, Katherine S Collins, Arinjoy De, Paul W Hess, Harvey B Kaplan, Antonis Kyprianidis, Wen Lin Tan, Christopher Baldwin, et al. Quantum approximate optimization of the long-range ising model with a trapped-ion quantum simulator. Proc...
2020
-
[29]
Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond
John Preskill. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, August 2018
2018
-
[30]
Generat- ing target graph couplings for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm from native quantum hardware couplings
Joel Rajakumar, Jai Moondra, Bryan Gard, Swati Gupta, and Creston D Herold. Generat- ing target graph couplings for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm from native quantum hardware couplings. Physical Review A , 106(2):022606, 2022
2022
-
[31]
Introduction to Linear Algebra
Gilbert Strang. Introduction to Linear Algebra . Wellesley-Cambridge Press, Wellesley, MA, 6th edition, 2023
2023
-
[32]
Experimental realization of shor’s quantum factoring algo- rithm using nuclear magnetic resonance
Lieven MK Vandersypen, Matthias Steffen, Gregory Breyta, Costantino S Yannoni, Mark H Sherwood, and Isaac L Chuang. Experimental realization of shor’s quantum factoring algo- rithm using nuclear magnetic resonance. Nature, 414(6866):883–887, 2001
2001
-
[33]
Emulating many-body localization with a superconducting quantum processor
Kai Xu, Jin-Jun Chen, Yu Zeng, Yu-Ran Zhang, Chao Song, Wuxin Liu, Qiujiang Guo, Pengfei Zhang, Da Xu, Hui Deng, et al. Emulating many-body localization with a superconducting quantum processor. Physical review letters , 120(5):050507, 2018. 42
2018
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.