Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Algorithm Software for Condensed Matter Physics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that software matters as much as hardware for quantum condensed-matter computing and claims a reproducible suite that converts algorithm comparisons into qubit counts, gate costs, and zero-noise-extrapolated energies.

desk verdict Abstract promises benchmarks the paper doesn't contain; competent review but the central claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09308 v3 pith:WUJEPD6G submitted 2025-06-11 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.dis-nn

T. Farajollahpour This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.dis-nn
keywords quantumalgorithmsoftwarecondensedmatterphysicsreproduciblebenchmarksFermi-HubbardmodelJordan-WignertransformationBravyi-Kitaevzero-noiseextrapolationerrormitigation
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

This paper tries to move quantum-algorithm software for condensed matter physics from qualitative review to quantitative benchmarking. Its central claim is that a compact, fully reproducible benchmark suite accompanies the review: VQE, QPE, quantum annealing/QAOA, and QML are each run on a canonical lattice model and checked against a classical reference such as exact diagonalization, the Bethe ansatz, or DMRG. Within that suite, the paper reports qubit counts, operator weights, and gate costs for the Fermi-Hubbard model under Jordan-Wigner and Bravyi-Kitaev encodings, exposing a geometry-dependent trade-off, and it simulates depolarizing noise to show that zero-noise extrapolation restores ground-state energies and optimization quality. If the suite is real and reusable, practitioners gain a common yardstick for comparing algorithms, software kits, and hardware, and claims of quantum advantage become testable. The manuscript itself is a narrative review; the quantitative results are promised in the abstract and in the released code rather than printed in the body.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a benchmark suite built around canonical lattice models. For the Fermi-Hubbard case, the central object is the fermion-to-qubit encoding: Jordan-Wigner (JW) and Bravyi-Kitaev (BK) transformations, compared by qubit count, Pauli operator weight, and gate cost, with the claimed geometry-dependent trade-off. For the noise study, the machinery is a depolarizing noise model on the simulated circuits plus zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE), a classical post-processing technique that runs circuits at several amplified noise levels and extrapolates to the zero-noise limit. Around those two quantitative studies, the suite pairs each algorithm family (VQE, QPE, QA/QAOA, QML) with a canonical model and a classical reference method, which is what makes the advertised numbers reproducible.

What would settle it

Inspect the release accompanying the paper: if it contains no runnable scripts that produce Fermi-Hubbard qubit counts, gate costs, and ZNE-corrected energies for specified lattice geometries and depolarizing noise strengths, or if re-running those scripts yields numbers that do not match the abstract's claims, the benchmark-suite assertion fails. A second check is to reproduce the ZNE pipeline on a small Fermi-Hubbard instance and compare the zero-noise-extrapolated energy against exact diagonalization; disagreement beyond the claimed tolerance would falsify the noise-recovery claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper asserts that software is as decisive as hardware for realizing quantum computation in condensed matter physics, and that the field's customary qualitative reviews need to be supplemented with reproducible numbers. The discovery claim is that such a benchmark suite has been built: the Fermi-Hubbard model, mapped under Jordan-Wigner and Bravyi-Kitaev encodings, is tabulated for qubit counts, operator weights, and gate costs, revealing a trade-off between the two encodings that depends on lattice geometry; and circuits run under a depolarizing noise model show zero-noise extrapolation recovering ground-state energies and optimization quality across the noise range. Each algorithm family is demonstrated on a canonical lattice model and validated against an independent classical method, from exact diagonalization and the Bethe ansatz to matrix-product-state DMRG, so the advertised results claim to convert qualitative statements into concrete numbers. The numbers themselves do not appear in the prose of the manuscript, which instead presents the surrounding review of algorithms, software development kits, classical methods, and challenges; the numerical content is claimed to live in the released circuits, seeds, and data.

Load-bearing premise

That the advertised benchmark suite actually exists and was executed: the manuscript does not state lattice sizes, ansatz circuits, noise parameters, ZNE implementation details, or any numerical result, so the abstract's concrete conclusions rest on released code and data whose contents are not shown in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the released suite is reproducible, researchers can directly compare Jordan-Wigner and Bravyi-Kitaev encodings on Fermi-Hubbard lattices and select the cheaper encoding for a given geometry.
  • If the zero-noise-extrapolation demonstration holds across the stated noise range, practitioners gain a concrete error-mitigation recipe for lattice-model simulations under depolarizing noise.
  • The suite's template places VQE, QPE, QAOA, and QML on the same lattice-model footing, each validated against an independent classical reference.
  • Widespread adoption of such standardized benchmarks would make claims of quantum advantage in condensed matter falsifiable rather than qualitative.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next experiment is to route both encodings through a compiler pass on a fixed chip topology, since SWAP overhead on limited connectivity may reverse the raw JW-versus-BK resource ordering.
  • The same depolarizing-noise benchmark could be extended to compare zero-noise extrapolation against probabilistic error cancellation and readout-error correction on identical lattice models, isolating each method's contribution.
  • If the benchmark-template idea spreads, the field could converge on a shared set of challenge problems with fixed Hamiltonians, sizes, and classical references, making results from different quantum hardware directly comparable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is a broad review of quantum algorithm software for condensed matter physics. It surveys VQE, QPE, QA/QAOA, QML, tensor-network methods, and classical algorithms, then profiles the SDKs Qiskit, Cirq, PennyLane, and Q#, discusses hardware limitations, error mitigation, and future outlooks, and concludes with a call for standardized benchmarks. The abstract, however, makes a much stronger claim: that the paper also provides a 'compact, fully reproducible benchmark suite' with concrete results, including qubit counts, operator weights, gate costs for Jordan-Wigner and Bravyi-Kitaev encodings, and zero-noise extrapolation demonstrations. The full text contains none of these benchmark data, tables, figures, numerical equations, noise-model specifications, or code/data links; the advertised central contribution is absent from the manuscript.

Significance. If the benchmark suite described in the abstract existed in the paper, it would be a useful community resource for comparing quantum algorithm implementations on canonical lattice models. The survey sections are competent and will be informative to newcomers, and the paper cites a broad range of relevant literature. However, the quantitative claims in the abstract are the main advertised contribution, and they are entirely unsupported by the body of the manuscript. The paper contains no machine-checked proofs, no reproducible code artifacts, no parameter-free derivations, and no numerical results; as a result, the central claim fails as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and full text] The abstract states that the paper provides a 'compact, fully reproducible benchmark suite that turns qualitative claims into concrete numbers,' including qubit counts, operator weights, and gate costs for Jordan-Wigner and Bravyi-Kitaev encodings, and zero-noise extrapolation results. I could not find any of these results in the body: there are no tables, figures, numerical data, equations defining a benchmark protocol, noise-model specifications, lattice sizes, ansatz descriptions, or code/data repository links anywhere in Sections I through VII. The advertised central deliverable is therefore absent, making the paper's central claim unsupported.
  2. [Section V.C] The abstract attributes to the paper a demonstration that zero-noise extrapolation 'restores ground-state energies and optimization quality across the noise range.' Section V.C, however, mentions zero-noise extrapolation only as one of several generic error-mitigation techniques and provides no noise model, no circuits, no extrapolation procedure, and no numerical comparison against exact-diagonalization or DMRG references. This quantitative result is claimed without any supporting evidence.
  3. [Sections IV.A and II.E] The paper says it 'tabulate[s] qubit counts, operator weights, and gate costs' for Jordan-Wigner versus Bravyi-Kitaev encodings and exposes a geometry-dependent trade-off. Section IV.A discusses fermion-to-qubit mappings only qualitatively, and Section II.E describes lattice models without any of the promised resource counts. There is no table or equation to substantiate the trade-off, so this advertised comparison is not part of the manuscript as written.
  4. [Section VII] The conclusion states that standardized benchmarks are a 'currently underemphasized aspect' and calls for their development and adoption, saying they 'would enable more objective and rigorous comparisons of different algorithmic approaches.' This directly contradicts the abstract's claim that the present paper supplies such benchmarks. At minimum, the authors need to reconcile these statements; as it stands, the paper internally denies the existence of its own central contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.B] There is a missing space and period in 'thereby reducing latencyQiskit also includes tools' on page 8; it should read 'reducing latency. Qiskit also includes tools...'.
  2. [Section V.A] The text contains 'SW AP gates' with an unintended space; it should be 'SWAP gates'.
  3. [Headings and typesetting] Several headings contain stray spacing or encoding artifacts, such as 'V ariational Quantum Eigensolver', 'T wo', and 'Schr¨ odinger'; these should be corrected in the final version.
  4. [References] Reference formatting is inconsistent: some entries are arXiv preprints without journal or DOI information, some URLs lack access dates, and [136] is a blog post. The reference list would benefit from a uniform style.
  5. [Section VI.A] The phrase 'Q ecosystem' in the discussion of Q# is ambiguous, since Q# is the language and the development kit is the Azure Quantum Development Kit; the sentence should specify which part of the ecosystem is meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper contains no derivation chain whose conclusion reduces to its inputs; the abstract's advertised benchmark suite is absent from the body, which is a completeness defect, not circularity.

full rationale

This manuscript is a literature review plus an advertised but unpublished benchmark suite. The full text contains no equations, tables, numerical results, noise-model specifications, lattice sizes, ansatz descriptions, or code for the claimed Jordan-Wigner/Bravyi-Kitaev qubit counts, operator weights, gate costs, or zero-noise extrapolation experiments. Consequently, there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no target quantity defined in terms of its own output, and no load-bearing self-citation: the references point to external SDKs, algorithms, and prior results, and none of the central claims is justified by a citation to the author's own prior work. Section VII even states that standardized benchmarks are a 'currently underemphasized aspect' and calls for their development, underscoring that the benchmark suite described in the abstract is not present as a derived result. The abstract-body mismatch is a verifiability and completeness problem and should be handled by the correctness/reporting assessment, not by a circularity score. No circular step can be exhibited because no derivation exists.

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

No new derivation or predictive model is presented, so no fitted parameters or invented entities appear. The paper inherits all technical content from cited literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Algorithm Software for Condensed Matter Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WUJEPD6G

@misc{pith2026250609308,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Algorithm Software for Condensed Matter Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WUJEPD6G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09308}
}
read the original abstract

Realizing the promise of quantum computation for condensed matter many-body problems depends as much on software as on hardware, yet the area is reviewed far more often than it is quantified. We address this gap by pairing a focused survey of quantum algorithm software for condensed matter physics with a compact, fully reproducible benchmark suite that turns qualitative claims into concrete numbers. Each algorithm family, namely the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE), quantum phase estimation (QPE), quantum annealing and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA), and quantum machine learning (QML), is demonstrated on a canonical lattice model and validated against an independent classical reference, from exact diagonalization and the Bethe ansatz to matrix-product-state DMRG. Within this suite we quantify two issues usually treated only qualitatively. Mapping the Fermi-Hubbard model to qubits under the Jordan-Wigner and Bravyi-Kitaev encodings, we tabulate qubit counts, operator weights, and gate costs and expose a geometry-dependent trade-off between the two. Simulating the circuits under a depolarizing noise model, we show that zero-noise extrapolation restores ground-state energies and optimization quality across the noise range. Around these results we review the algorithms as applied to strongly correlated systems, topological phases, and quantum magnetism, together with the leading software development kits (Qiskit, Cirq, PennyLane, and Q\#) and the classical and tensor-network methods against which quantum approaches must be benchmarked. All circuits, seeds, and data are released so the benchmarks can be reproduced and extended. We argue that standardized, reproducible benchmarks of this kind are essential to gauge progress and identify genuine quantum advantage in condensed matter physics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Ground and excited-state energies with analytic errors and short time evolution on a quantum computer

    quant-ph 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper proposes quantum prolate diagonalization for simultaneous ground and excited state energy estimation, claiming chemical accuracy at the Heisenberg limit, but the scaling evidence is not self-contained.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

175 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Altland and B

    A. Altland and B. D. Simons, Condensed matter field theory (Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Bellman, Dynamic programming, princeton univ, Press Princeton, New Jersey 39 (1957)

    R. Bellman, Dynamic programming, princeton univ, Press Princeton, New Jersey 39 (1957)

    1957

  3. [3]

    N. D. Mermin, Quantum computer science: an introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    T. G. Wong, Introduction to classical and quantum computing (Rooted Grove Omaha, NE, USA, 2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gily´ en, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabi- boulline, A. Kubica, et al. , Quantum algorithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end complexities (2023), arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03011

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Y.-J. Liu, K. Shtengel, and F. Pollmann, Simulating two-dimensional topological quantum phase transitions on a digital quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043256 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    K. M. Svore, B. M. Terhal, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Local fault-tolerant quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 72, 022317 (2005)

    2005

Show all 175 references
  1. [9]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation, New Journal of Physics 9, 199 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Bomb ´ ın, C

    H. Bomb ´ ın, C. Dawson, R. V. Mishmash, N. Nickerson, F. Pastawski, and S. Roberts, Logical blocks for fault-tolerant topological quantum computation, PRX Quantum 4, 020303 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    N´ u˜ nez-Corrales, O

    S. N´ u˜ nez-Corrales, O. Di Matteo, J. Dumbell, M. Edwards, E. Giusto, S. Pakin, and V. Stirbu, Productive quantum programming needs better abstract machines, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00718 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Mueller, J

    N. Mueller, J. A. Carolan, A. Connelly, Z. Davoudi, E. F. Dumitrescu, and K. Yeter-Aydeniz, Quantum computation of dynamical quantum phase transitions and entanglement tomography in a lattice gauge theory, PRX Quantum 4, 030323 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Aharonov, O

    D. Aharonov, O. Alberton, I. Arad, Y. Atia, E. Bairey, Z. Brakerski, I. Cohen, O. Golan, I. Gurwich, O. Kenneth, et al., On the importance of error mitigation for quantum computation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17243 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    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, Nature communications 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026 (1995)

    1995 arXiv

  9. [17]

    quantum annealing

    B. Apolloni, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and D. De Falco, A numerical implementation of “quantum annealing”, in Stochastic Processes, Physics and Geometry: Proceedings of the Ascona-Locarno Conference (1990) pp. 97–111

    1990

  10. [18]

    Blekos, D

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants, Physics Reports1068, 1 (2024), a review on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and its variants

    2024

  11. [19]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature 549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Stanisic, J

    S. Stanisic, J. L. Bosse, F. M. Gambetta, R. A. Santos, W. Mruczkiewicz, T. E. O’Brien, E. Ostby, and A. Montanaro, Observing ground-state properties of the fermi-hubbard model using a scalable algorithm on a quantum computer, Nature communications 13, 5743 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    F. J. Dyson, E. H. Lieb, and B. Simon, Phase transitions in the quantum heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 120 (1976)

    1976

  14. [22]

    Li, Knowledge distillation inspired variational quantum eigensolver with virtual annealing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03998 (2025)

    J. Li, Knowledge distillation inspired variational quantum eigensolver with virtual annealing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03998 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Nov´ ak, I

    V. Nov´ ak, I. Zelinka, and V. Sn´ aˇ sel, Optimization strategies for variational quantum algorithms in noisy landscapes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01715 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    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 variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices, Physics Reports 986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Lively et al., Robust experimental signatures of phase transitions in the variational quantum eigensolver, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18953 (2024)

    T. Lively et al., Robust experimental signatures of phase transitions in the variational quantum eigensolver, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18953 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kirmani, E

    A. Kirmani, E. Pelofske, A. B¨ artschi, S. Eidenbenz, and J.-X. Zhu, Variational quantum simulations of a two-dimensional frustrated transverse-field ising model on a trapped-ion quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18342 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, et al. , Hartree-fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, Science 369, 1084 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    G. A. Quantum and Collaborators, Observation of separated dynamics of charge and spin in the fermi-hubbard model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.07965 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lubasch, J

    M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, Variational quantum algorithms for linear algebra, Physical Review A 101, 010301 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Kyriienko, A

    O. Kyriienko, A. E. Paine, and V. E. Elfving, Solving nonlinear differential equations with differentiable quantum circuits, Physical Review A 103, 052416 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Alipanah, F

    H. Alipanah, F. Zhang, Y. Yao, R. Thompson, N. Nguyen, J. Liu, P. Givi, B. J. McDermott, and J. J. Mendoza-Arenas, Quantum dynamics simulation of the advection-diffusion equation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13729 (2025). 16

    2025

  25. [33]

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

    2016

  26. [34]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Guba, D. Garc ´ ıa-Pintos, M. Varli, T. Krisnanda, W. Leong, et al. , Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nature Communications 10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    H. L. Tang, V. Shkolnikov, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ans¨ atze on a quantum processor, PRX Quantum2, 020309 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications 9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nature Communications 12, 1791 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    J. F. Gonthier, M. D. Radin, C. G´ amez-Garc ´ ıa, C. J. Johnson, C. Vassilev, A. B´ alint, M. Head-Gordon, K. B. Whaley, and W. A. de Jong, Measurements as a roadblock to near-term quantum advantage in chemistry, Communications Physics 5, 171 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Feniou, T

    C. Feniou, T. Gandon, J.-P. Piquemal, Y. Maday, M. Hassan, and G. Le Besnerais, Overlap-adapt-vqe: Practical quantum chemistry on quantum computers via overlap-guided compact ans¨ atze, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10196 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhang, Z.-S

    X.-Z. Zhang, Z.-S. Li, J.-G. Wang, and M.-H. Yung, Quantum architecture search via deep reinforcement learning, Quantum Engineering 2022 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Du, M.-H

    Y. Du, M.-H. Hsieh, D. You, and D. Tao, Quantum architecture search with meta-learning, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 3, 1 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Chivilikhin, A

    D. Chivilikhin, A. Samarin, V. Ulyantsev, A. R. Oganov, O. Kyriienko, and I. Iorsh, Mog-vqe: multi-objective genetic-like variational quantum eigensolver, Quantum 4, 325 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Cleve, A

    R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca, Quantum algorithms revisited, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 454, 339 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head-Gordon, Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies, Science 309, 1704 (2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    Babbush, J

    R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, D. Wecker, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and N. Wiebe, Chemical basis of quantum computing, Chemical Reviews 118, 7079 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Poulin, A

    D. Poulin, A. Qarry, R. Somma, and F. Verstraete, Quantum algorithm for spectral measurements, Physical Review Letters 102, 160501 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    J. V. Ortiz, Quantum-mechanical theory of the electronic structure of molecules, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 85, 386 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    R. D. Somma, Quantum eigenvalue estimation via time series analysis, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11679 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Dong and L

    Y. Dong and L. Lin, Ground-state-energy estimation on a quantum computer, Physical Review A 103, 042413 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Loaiza, D

    I. Loaiza, D. Motlagh, K. Hejazi, M. S. Zini, A. Delgado, and J. M. Arrazola, Nonlinear spectroscopy via generalized quantum phase estimation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13885 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse ising model, Physical Review E 58, 5355 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an np-complete problem, Science 292, 472 (2001)

    2001

  46. [54]

    Das and B

    A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti, Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum computation, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 1061 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    Hauke, H

    P. Hauke, H. G. Katzgraber, W. Lechner, H. Nishimori, and W. D. Oliver, Perspectives of quantum annealing: methods and implementations, Reports on Progress in Physics 83, 054401 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Bapst, L

    V. Bapst, L. Foini, F. Krzakala, G. Semerjian, and F. Zamponi, The quantum adiabatic algorithm and local minima, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2012, P06009 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Rajak, S

    A. Rajak, S. Suzuki, A. Dutta, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Quantum annealing: An overview, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 381, 20210417 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Yarkoni, E

    S. Yarkoni, E. Raponi, T. B¨ ack, and S. Schmitt, Quantum annealing for industry applications: Introduction and review, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 104001 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    D-Wave Systems Inc., The Advantage™ Quantum Computer , Tech. Rep. (D-Wave Systems Inc., 2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    H. M. Bauza and D. A. Lidar, Scaling advantage in approximate optimization with quantum annealing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07184 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    F. A. Quinton, P. A. S. Myhr, M. Barani, P. Crespo del Granado, and H. Zhang, Quantum annealing applications, challenges and limitations for optimisation problems compared to classical solvers, Scientific Reports 15, 12733 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    Grajciar, I

    P. Grajciar, I. Ovchinnikov, T. Albash, H. Nishimori, and D. A. Lidar, Learning-driven annealing, Physical Review Letters 132, 160602 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Zhang and A

    H. Zhang and A. Kamenev, On computational complexity of 3d ising spin glass: Lessons from d-wave annealer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01107 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Fabiani, T

    G. Fabiani, T. Blason, G. Carleo, and S. Pastore, Simulating quantum annealing of spin glasses with time-dependent variational monte carlo, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02028 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Zhou, S.-T

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Kelsen, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices, Physical Review X 10, 021067 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Schuld, I

    M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, An introduction to quantum machine learning, Contemporary Physics 56, 17 172 (2015)

    2015

  59. [67]

    Dunjko and H

    V. Dunjko and H. J. Briegel, Machine learning & artificial intelligence in the quantum domain: a review of recent progress, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074001 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Cerezo et al., Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning, Nature Computational Science2, 567 (2022)

    M. Cerezo et al., Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning, Nature Computational Science2, 567 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Carrasquilla and R

    J. Carrasquilla and R. G. Melko, Machine learning phases of matter, Nature Physics 13, 431 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, Y.-H. Liu, and S. D. Huber, Learning phase transitions by confusion, Nature Physics 13, 435 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Broecker, J

    P. Broecker, J. Carrasquilla, R. G. Melko, and S. Trebst, Machine learning quantum phases of matter beyond the fermion sign problem, Scientific reports 7, 8823 (2017)

    2017

  64. [72]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 045002 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Balthazar et al

    J. Balthazar et al. , Unsupervised learning of quantum phase transitions with classical shadows, Physical Review B 107, 195155 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Montanaro, Quantum algorithms: an overview, npj Quantum Information 2, 15023 (2016)

    A. Montanaro, Quantum algorithms: an overview, npj Quantum Information 2, 15023 (2016)

    2016

  67. [75]

    Hutorchi, D.-V

    R.-R. Hutorchi, D.-V. Rusu, and V. Astefanoaei, An overview of quantum machine learning: current trends and perspec- tives, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2448, 012022 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Romero et al

    J. Romero et al. , Quantum machine learning for chemistry and materials, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12211 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    H. Rsah, P. Oza, M. Singh, D. Prasad, and A. Ganguly, Variational quantum-neural hybrid eigensolver, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07767 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Lange, G

    H. Lange, G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, T. Lahaye, S. Kienle, A. Browaeys, and A. Bohrdt, Transformer neural networks and quantum simulators: a hybrid approach for simulating strongly correlated systems, Quantum9, 1675 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    Morais, T

    L. Morais, T. Pernambuco, R. G. Pereira, A. Canabarro, D. O. Soares-Pinto, and R. Chaves, Distinguishing ordered phases using machine learning and classical shadows, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17837 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  72. [80]

    S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  73. [81]

    G. S. Franco, F. Mahlow, P. M. Prado, G. E. Pexe, L. A. Rattighieri, and F. F. Fanchini, Quantum phases classification using quantum machine learning with shap-driven feature selection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10673 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  74. [82]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The hubbard model, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13, 239 (2022)

    2022

  75. [83]

    M. Qin, T. Sch¨ afer, S. Andergassen, P. Corboz, and E. Gull, The hubbard model: A computational perspective, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13, 275 (2022)

    2022

  76. [84]

    P. W. Anderson, The resonating valence bond state in la2cuo4 and superconductivity, Science 235, 1196 (1987)

    1987

  77. [85]

    Cade et al

    C. Cade et al. , Strategies for the determination of the energy of the fermi-hubbard model on a quantum computer, Physical Review B 102, 235123 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    Qiskit Development Team, Qiskit nature, https://qiskit.org/ecosystem/nature/ (2023), accessed: 2025-06-09

    2023

  79. [87]

    Qiskit Nature Development Team, Qiskit nature: a programming framework for quantum chemistry, materials science, and biology, Journal of Open Source Software 8, 5132 (2023)

    2023

  80. [88]

    J. R. McClean et al. , Openfermion: the electronic structure package for quantum computers, Quantum Science and Technology 5, 034014 (2020)

    2020

  81. [89]

    OpenFermion Developers, Openfermion tutorials, https://quantumai.google/openfermion/tutorials (2024), accessed: 2025-06-09, See specifically the Hubbard model tutorial

    2024

  82. [90]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  83. [91]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  84. [92]

    Shaydulin et al

    R. Shaydulin et al. , Evidence of scaling advantage for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on a classically intractable problem, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02341 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    D. C. Mattis, The Theory of Magnetism Made Simple: An Introduction to Physical Concepts and to Some Useful Math- ematical Methods (World Scientific, 2006)

    2006

  86. [94]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entanglement in many-body systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  87. [95]

    Hermanns, S

    M. Hermanns, S. Trebst, and A. Rosch, Physics of the kitaev model: Fractionalization, emergent gauge fields, and topological order, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9, 17 (2018)

    2018

  88. [96]

    Sachdev and J

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum heisenberg magnet, Physical Review Letters 70, 3339 (1993)

    1993

  89. [97]

    Kitaev, A simple model of quantum holography, Talks at KITP, April 7 and May 27, 2015 (2015), available at: http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/

    A. Kitaev, A simple model of quantum holography, Talks at KITP, April 7 and May 27, 2015 (2015), available at: http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/

    2015

  90. [98]

    Rosenhaus, An introduction to the syk model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 323001 (2019)

    V. Rosenhaus, An introduction to the syk model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 323001 (2019)

    2019

  91. [99]

    Sachdev, Holographic metals and the fractionalized fermi liquid, Physical Review Letters 105, 151602 (2010)

    S. Sachdev, Holographic metals and the fractionalized fermi liquid, Physical Review Letters 105, 151602 (2010)

    2010

  92. [100]

    Asaduzzaman, R

    M. Asaduzzaman, R. G. Jha, and B. Sambasivam, Sachdev-ye-kitaev model on a noisy quantum computer, Physical Review D 109, 105002 (2024)

    2024

  93. [101]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-abelian anyons and topological quantum com- putation, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  94. [102]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  95. [103]

    B. Yang, R. Raymond, and S. Uno, Efficient quantum readout-error mitigation for sparse measurement outcomes of near-term quantum devices, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012423 (2022). 18

    2022

  96. [104]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein, Dynamical quantum phase transitions in the transverse-field ising model, Physical Review Letters 110, 135704 (2013)

    2013

  97. [105]

    Heyl, Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 054001 (2018)

    M. Heyl, Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 054001 (2018)

    2018

  98. [106]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  99. [107]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  100. [108]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  101. [109]

    Yoshioka, T

    N. Yoshioka, T. Okubo, Y. Suzuki, Y. Koizumi, and W. Mizukami, Hunting for quantum-classical crossover in condensed matter problems, npj Quantum Information 10, 45 (2024)

    2024

  102. [110]

    Vidal, A class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated, Physical Review Letters 101, 110501 (2008)

    G. Vidal, A class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated, Physical Review Letters 101, 110501 (2008)

    2008

  103. [111]

    I. H. Kim and G. Evenbly, Robust entanglement renormalization on a noisy quantum computer, Physical Review Letters 119, 140502 (2017)

    2017

  104. [112]

    Evenbly, Representation of the multiscale entanglement renormalization ansatz as a quantum circuit, Physical Review A 99, 012321 (2019)

    G. Evenbly, Representation of the multiscale entanglement renormalization ansatz as a quantum circuit, Physical Review A 99, 012321 (2019)

    2019

  105. [113]

    F. Pan, K. Chen, and P. Pan, Solving the sampling problem of the sycamore quantum circuits, Physical Review Letters 129, 090502 (2022)

    2022

  106. [114]

    Berezutskii, A

    A. Berezutskii, A. Acharya, R. Ellerbrock, J. Gray, R. Haghshenas, Z. He, A. Khan, V. Kuzmin, M. Liu, D. Lyakh, et al., Tensor networks for quantum computing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08626 (2025)

    2025

  107. [115]

    A. J. Daley et al. , Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature 607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  108. [116]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science, Chemical Reviews 120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  109. [117]

    N. M. Tubman et al. , Warm-starting quantum optimization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07623 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Fehske and R

    H. Fehske and R. Schneider, Computational Many-Particle Physics (Springer, 2007)

    2007

  111. [119]

    R. M. Martin, L. Reining, and D. M. Ceperley, Electronic Structure: Basic Theory and Practical Methods (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    2020

  112. [120]

    A. W. Sandvik, Computational studies of quantum spin systems, AIP Conference Proceedings 1297, 135 (2010)

    2010

  113. [121]

    R. O. Jones, Density functional theory: Its origins, rise to prominence, and future, Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 897 (2015)

    2015

  114. [122]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions, Reviews of Modern Physics 68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  115. [123]

    P. J. Hasnip, K. Refson, M. I. J. Probert, J. R. Yates, S. J. Clark, and C. J. Pickard, Density functional theory in the solid state, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 372, 20130270 (2014)

    2014

  116. [124]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational studies of quantum spin systems, Physical Review Letters 94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  117. [125]

    V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Band theory and mott insulators: Hubbard u instead of stoner i, Physical Review B 44, 943 (1991)

    1991

  118. [126]

    J. Yu, Y. Liu, S. Sugiura, T. Van Voorhis, and S. Zeytino˘ glu, Clifford circuit based heuristic optimization of fermion-to- qubit mappings, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11933 (2025)

    2025

  119. [127]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, The bravyi-kitaev transformation for quantum computation of electronic structure, The Journal of chemical physics 137, 224109 (2012)

    2012

  120. [128]

    Jiang, K

    Z. Jiang, K. J. Sung, K. Kechedzhi, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and S. Boixo, Optimal fermion-to-qubit mapping in two spatial dimensions, Physical Review Applied 14, 044022 (2020)

    2020

  121. [129]

    N. C. Rubin et al. , Fermionic quantum emulator, Quantum 5, 562 (2021)

    2021

  122. [130]

    Qiskit Algorithms Team, Qiskit Algorithms: A library of quantum algorithms in qiskit, Journal of Open Source Software 8, 5349 (2023)

    2023

  123. [131]

    Qiskit Development Team, Learn Quantum Computation using Qiskit (2024) contains detailed chapters and tutorials on algorithms like QPE and applications in chemistry and physics, which form the basis for the cited examples

    2024

  124. [132]

    Cirq Developers, Cirq, https://quantumai.google/cirq (2024)

    2024

  125. [133]

    Xanadu, Pennylane documentation, https://docs.pennylane.ai/en/stable/ (2025), accessed: June 9, 2025

    2025

  126. [134]

    This documentation covers the tools for building molecular Hamiltonians and performing quantum chemistry simulations applicable to materials science

    Xanadu, Pennylane-qchem: Quantum chemistry with pennylane, https://docs.pennylane.ai/projects/qchem/en/ latest/ (2025), accessed: June 9, 2025. This documentation covers the tools for building molecular Hamiltonians and performing quantum chemistry simulations applicable to ma...

    2025

  127. [135]

    Bergholm et al

    V. Bergholm et al. , Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations, Quantum 6, 855 (2022)

    2022

  128. [136]

    Microsoft Quantum Team, Introducing the azure quantum development kit preview, https://quantum.microsoft.com/ en-us/insights/blogs/qir/introducing-the-azure-quantum-development-kit-preview (2023), blog post detailing the new, Rust-based QDK and its improvements

    2023

  129. [137]

    Provides a high-level overview of the Q language and its features

    Microsoft, Introduction to the quantum programming language q#, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ quantum/qsharp-overview (2025), accessed: June 9, 2025. Provides a high-level overview of the Q language and its features

    2025

  130. [138]

    J. Lee et al., Preparing the ground state of the fermi-hubbard model by dissipation, Physical Review Research 5, 033068 19 (2023), this work explores advanced state preparation for the Fermi-Hubbard model, a topic relevant to the Q ecosystem’s goals

    2023

  131. [139]

    M. Motta et al., Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evo- lution, Nature Physics 16, 205 (2020), this paper introduces the Quantum Imaginary Time Evolution (QITE) algorithm, a method highly relevant for finding ground s...

    2020

  132. [140]

    Cai et al

    Z. Cai et al. , Quantum error mitigation, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  133. [141]

    S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90, 032001 (2021)

    2021

  134. [142]

    B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 307 (2015)

    2015

  135. [143]

    Laflamme-SNIDER et al

    F. Laflamme-SNIDER et al. , Benchmarking the performance of quantum computing software, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08844 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  136. [144]

    A. W. Harrow and A. Montanaro, Quantum computational supremacy, Nature 549, 203 (2017)

    2017

  137. [145]

    Carolan et al

    J. Carolan et al. , Verifying the output of a quantum processor, Nature Physics 16, 322 (2020)

    2020

  138. [146]

    J. Preskill, Making quantum computers robust to noise, Quantum 6, 709 (2022), while broadly about fault tolerance, this article touches upon the verification of quantum computations as a central challenge

    2022

  139. [147]

    Q-CTRL, Fire opal: Automate and optimize quantum algorithm execution, https://q-ctrl.com/fire-opal (2025), accessed: June 9, 2025

    2025

  140. [148]

    de Lima de Farias et al

    C. de Lima de Farias et al. , Quantum phase estimation without controlled unitaries, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21517 (2024), this work explicitly demonstrates using classical phase retrieval algorithms to perform control-free QPE

    2024 arXiv

  141. [149]

    Miessen, P

    A. Miessen, P. J. Ollitrault, F. Tacchino, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum algorithms for quantum dynamics, Nature Compu- tational Science 3, 25 (2023)

    2023

  142. [150]

    Brookhaven National Laboratory, Quantum computing group — novel quantum algorithms, https://www.bnl.gov/compsci/quantum/novel-algorithms.php (2024), accessed: June 9, 2025. This project description outlines a research program to discover new quantum primitives from classical n...

    2024

  143. [151]

    Kattem¨ olle and G

    J. Kattem¨ olle and G. Burkard, Optimal and efficient qubit routing for quantum simulation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14592 (2025)

    2025

  144. [152]

    Shehata et al

    A. Shehata et al. , Building a software stack for quantum-hpc integration, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01787 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  145. [153]

    Mahesh, S

    A. Mahesh, S. Mittal, and F. Mueller, CONQURE: A co-execution environment for quantum and classical resources, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02241 (2025)

    2025

  146. [154]

    Lefebvre and K

    C. Lefebvre and K. Karagiannis, Quantum computing standardization, Protiviti Podcast (2024), transcript available at: https://www.protiviti.com/us-en/podcast-transcript/quantum-computing-standardization

    2024

  147. [155]

    M. E. Beverland et al. , Early fault-tolerant quantum computing, PRX Quantum 5, 020101 (2024)

    2024

  148. [156]

    Altman et al

    E. Altman et al. , Quantum simulators: Architectures and opportunities, PRX Quantum 2, 017003 (2021)

    2021

  149. [157]

    M. Pabbi et al., A compiler for a trapped-ion quantum computer with multi-qubit gates, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07995 (2024), this paper details a compiler specifically designed to leverage the all-to-all connectivity and native multi-qubit gates of trapped-ion systems

    2024 arXiv

  150. [158]

    B. D. Brennan et al. , Optimizing and compiling weighted-graph-based algorithms for the quantum approximate opti- mization algorithm on neutral-atom quantum computers, Physical Review A 105, 052431 (2022), this work focuses on compilation strategies that exploit the unique fea...

    2022

  151. [159]

    Krinner et al

    S. Krinner et al. , Superconducting qubits for quantum simulation, Nature 605, 669 (2022)

    2022

  152. [160]

    T. M. Graham et al. , Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 604, 457 (2022)

    2022

  153. [161]

    IBM Research, Ibm lays out clear path to fault-tolerant quantum computing, https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/ large-scale-ftqc (2025), accessed: June 10, 2025. This blog post details IBM’s roadmap towards 1000s of qubits and discusses the software and connectivity improvements ...

    2025

  154. [162]

    The Quantum Insider, Quantum computing roadmaps: A look at the maps and predictions of major quantum players, https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/05/16/ quantum-computing-roadmaps-a-look-at-the-maps-and-predictions-of-major-quantum-players/ (2025), ac- cessed: June 10, 2025. Th...

    2025

  155. [163]

    A. Das et al., Quantum-centric supercomputing: The next wave of computing, IBM Journal of Research and Development 68, 1 (2024), this paper outlines the vision for integrating large-scale QPUs with classical supercomputers, a scenario that demands highly sophisticated software...

    2024

  156. [164]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Altermagnetism, Physical Review X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  157. [165]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. H. MacDonald, J. Sinova, S. Nakatsuji, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging research landscape of altermagnetism, Nature Reviews Materials 7, 482 (2022)

    2022

  158. [166]

    Roy and P

    B. Roy and P. Goswami, Topological superconductivity in a weyl-semimetal-superconductor heterostructure, Physical Review B 99, 214505 (2019)

    2019

  159. [167]

    Paudyal et al., Phonon-mediated intrinsic topological superconductivity in fermi arcs, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03250 (2025)

    A. Paudyal et al., Phonon-mediated intrinsic topological superconductivity in fermi arcs, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03250 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  160. [168]

    McNamara, P

    S. McNamara, P. Parajuli, S. Paul, G. Warren, A. Del Maestro, and P. E. Sokol, Novel experimental platform to realize one-dimensional quantum fluids, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03200 (2025). 20

    2025 arXiv

  161. [169]

    P. E. Sokol et al. , Experimental realization of one-dimensional helium, Journal of Low Temperature Physics (2025), published online April 30, 2025

    2025

  162. [170]

    Boschini, M

    F. Boschini, M. Zonno, A. Damascelli, et al. , Time-resolved arpes studies of quantum materials, Reviews of Modern Physics 96, 015003 (2024)

    2024

  163. [171]

    S. Ulstrup et al., Probing electronic structure and ultrafast dynamics in quantum materials with time- and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 35, 393001 (2023)

    2023

  164. [172]

    Dai et al., Probing non-equilibrium pair-breaking and quasiparticle dynamics in nb superconducting resonators under magnetic fields, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05068 (2025)

    X. Dai et al., Probing non-equilibrium pair-breaking and quasiparticle dynamics in nb superconducting resonators under magnetic fields, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05068 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  165. [173]

    J. M. Deutsch, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 082001 (2018)

    2018

  166. [174]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics 65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  167. [175]

    S. S. Jaramillo, R. Jha, and S. Kehrein, Thermalization of a closed sachdev-ye-kitaev system in the thermodynamic limit, Phys. Rev. B 111, 195153 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.