Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper demonstrates that a dissipation channel with an exact Kraus form can prepare a spin-chain ground state on a trapped-ion quantum computer, tolerating thousands of noisy entangling gates.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 10:55 UTC pith:ZHEKJWML

load-bearing objection Solid theory, honest experiment, but the ground-state guarantee is conditional on uniqueness that is cited, not checked, and the noiseless benchmark itself misses E0. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.08137 v2 pith:ZHEKJWML submitted 2026-01-13 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el

Dissipative ground-state preparation of a quantum spin chain on a trapped-ion quantum computer

Kazuhiro Seki , Yuta Kikuchi , Tomoya Hayata , Seiji Yunoki This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el MSC 81P6881S22
keywords dissipative ground-state preparationKraus representationLindblad dynamicstrapped-ion quantum computertransverse-field Ising modelzero-noise extrapolationoperator Fourier transformmonotonic fidelity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper establishes that ground-state preparation via engineered dissipation works as a discrete, step-size-independent quantum channel and survives real hardware noise. The authors first write the dissipation map in an exact Kraus form valid for any time step, going beyond the small-step Lindblad limit; they then prove that fidelity with the ground state is non-decreasing under every application, so any initial state is driven to the ground state provided that state is the channel's unique steady state. On a trapped-ion quantum computer they prepare a transverse-field Ising chain of up to 19 spins, observing convergence to a low-energy state even with circuits containing 4110 entangling gates, and zero-noise extrapolation makes the measured energies agree with noiseless simulation. The point is that dissipative state preparation may be a practical route to ground states on noisy near-term hardware, using only one ancilla qubit and mid-circuit reset.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the dissipative channel Γ_K has an exact two-operator Kraus form for any step τ: Γ_K[ρ] = M0ρM0† + M1ρM1†, with M0 = cos√(τK†K) and M1 = −i√τK sinc√(τK†K). The completeness identity M0†M0 + M1†M1 = I makes it a completely positive, trace-preserving map, and when the jump operator K̂ annihilates the ground state, fidelity with that fixed point is non-decreasing under each application. This turns engineered dissipation into deterministic ground-state preparation. The hardware demonstration on a trapped-ion computer uses one ancilla qubit and mid-circuit reset; circuits with thousands of entangling gates still converge to low-energy states, and zero-noise extrapola

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the jump operator K̂, built by Fourier filtering the time-evolved coupling Â(s)=e^{iHs} Â e^{-iHs} with a filter whose frequency support lies only on negative energy differences, so K̂ moves population downward in energy and annihilates the ground state. A single ancilla qubit couples to the system through a dilated operator K̂_dil = |1⟩⟨0|⊗K̂† + |0⟩⟨1|⊗K̂; the evolution exp(−iK̂_dil√τ), followed by discarding the ancilla, defines the channel Γ_K. The exact Kraus form uses the operator functions cos and sinc of √(τK†K), with completeness following from the operator identity cos² + sin² = I. In the limit τ→0 the channel reduces to Lindblad evolution with jump operator K̂, an

Load-bearing premise

The whole guarantee rests on the ground state being the unique steady state of the channel actually implemented; the paper inherits that uniqueness from a prior analysis, and in practice the finite filter width plus truncation and discretization of the time integral give the filter a small positive-frequency component, so K̂ no longer exactly annihilates the ground state and even the noiseless simulation plateaus slightly above the exact ground-state energy.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to compute the spectrum of the implemented interleaved channel Γ_H∘Γ_K∘Γ_H with the discretized filter and check whether any eigenoperator other than the ground-state projector has eigenvalue 1; if one does, the monotonic-fidelity premise fails. Experimentally, run the noiseless protocol for N=19 to much larger m and check whether the energy approaches the exact E0 as S_s and Δs are refined; the existing plateau above E0 would, if persistent, be evidence of additional steady states.

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

If this is right

  • Ground-state preparation no longer needs variational optimization or post-selection: repeated application of the dissipative channel increases fidelity from any initial state.
  • Because the Kraus form is exact for arbitrary step τ, large steps can be chosen to converge faster while remaining a legitimate quantum channel; only filter and Trotter approximations contribute error.
  • The protocol survives realistic noise: circuits with up to 4110 native two-qubit gates yield energies far below the maximally-mixed value, so engineered dissipation acts as a built-in error suppressor.
  • Zero-noise extrapolation corrects the residual noise: exponential ZNE makes the measured N=6 and N=19 energies agree with noiseless simulations within statistical uncertainties.
  • The resource footprint is small—one ancilla qubit, mid-circuit reset, and a Trotterized operator Fourier transform—so the method fits on current hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to benchmark convergence speed against the spectral gap of the implemented channel; measuring that gap directly could replace the paper's exact-diagonalization parameter choices.
  • The fidelity-monotonicity theorem does not imply monotone energy, as the paper itself notes in its comparison with imaginary-time evolution; designing jump operators that also make energy decrease monotonically is an open direction.
  • The observed noise robustness suggests the dissipative channel may actively suppress coherent gate errors rather than merely tolerating them; embedding Γ_K in a depolarizing error model could quantify when this protection breaks.
  • Because filter parameters can be estimated classically, the protocol could extend to models without exact solutions, such as frustrated or mixed-field spin chains, where ground-state preparation is currently harder.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a dissipative ground-state preparation protocol based on the single-ancilla construction of Ding et al. [42], implemented on the Quantinuum Reimei trapped-ion device for transverse-field Ising chains of up to 19 spins. The main theoretical contribution is an exact Kraus representation of the dissipation channel, Γ_K[ρ] = M_0 ρ M_0^† + M_1 ρ M_1^† with M_0 = cos(√(τ K†K)) and M_1 = −i√τ K sinc(√(τ K†K)) (Eqs. 7–10), valid for arbitrary step size τ. The paper further proves that the ground-state fidelity is monotonically non-decreasing under repeated application of Γ_K, provided the ground state is the unique steady state (Eq. 12). The experiments show that, despite hardware noise, the energy converges to a low-energy state far from the maximally mixed state even for circuits with up to 4110 entangling gates, and that ZNE improves agreement with noiseless simulations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful finite-step generalization of the Lindblad-based single-ancilla dissipation protocol and a NISQ-relevant experimental demonstration of noise-robust dissipative state preparation. The exact Kraus derivation (Appendix A) is algebraically sound and the completeness relation (Eq. 11) is correctly verified; the small-τ reduction to Lindblad dynamics is standard. The experimental data are presented carefully, with explicit gate counts, noise parameters, and ZNE procedures. However, the claim is conditional on a load-bearing assumption—unique steady state of the implemented channel—that is not established for the actual Trotterized, interleaved map. The paper itself acknowledges in Sec. III.C that the implemented filter violates Eq. (14), so the ground state is not an exact steady state of the implemented channel. Thus the theoretical guarantee does not directly apply to the experiment; the demonstrated result is preparation of a low-energy state, not exact ground-state preparation. This is a significant gap but one that can be addressed by either proving/quantifying the steady-state shift or by reframing the claims as approximate pr

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (12), Eq. (31)] The monotonicity theorem is stated for a CPTP map with a unique steady state. The map actually implemented in the experiment is the interleaved channel Γ_H ∘ Γ_K ∘ Γ_H of Eq. (31), not the ideal Γ_K. Uniqueness of the fixed point for this Trotterized, interleaved channel is not proved; it is inherited only by citation from Ref. [42], which concerns the continuous-time Lindblad generator. Since the whole ground-state preparation claim rests on this premise, the manuscript should either prove uniqueness for the implemented map under stated parameter conditions or explicitly list it as an unverified assumption with consequences.
  2. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (29), Eq. (14)] The implemented filter function has positive-frequency support: finite β rounds the Fermi-Dirac edges, and OFT truncation at S_s further broadens them by ∼π/S_s, as shown in Fig. 1(d)–(e). The paper itself states that 'A nonvanishing value of f̃(ω) at ω > 0 ... implies that the jump operator K̂ contains energy-increasing transitions, in which case the ground state is no longer the steady state.' Therefore the sufficient condition K̂|E0⟩=0 (Eq. 5) is violated, and the fixed point of Γ_K is not |E0⟩. The Appendix C bounds are operator-norm bounds on aliasing/truncation errors; they do not remove this positive-frequency support or bound the resulting shift of the steady state. This is load-bearing because Eq. (12) guarantees nothing about the limit when the uniqueness premise fails.
  3. [Sec. III.F, Fig. 5] The noiseless N=19 simulation levels off noticeably above the exact ground-state energy E0, confirming that the implemented noiseless map has a fixed point different from |E0⟩. The abstract's claim that ZNE brings energies into agreement with noiseless simulations is therefore not equivalent to ground-state preparation: it is agreement with a systematically shifted noiseless value. The manuscript should quantify the deviation between the noiseless fixed point and E0, or provide a rigorous error bound in terms of β, S_s, Δ_s, and the interleaving parameters, and adjust the wording of the central claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV] Typo: 'lager system sizes' should be 'larger system sizes'.
  2. [References] Refs. [47] and [49] are the same work (Sivarajah et al., t|ket⟩); one duplicate should be removed.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states 'Reimei-E for G=1 at m≥30 are also shown as orange open triangles,' but the main text says these are noisy simulations using Reimei-E with G=1 for m≥30. Please clarify whether these are emulator data and mark them consistently in the figure legend.
  4. [Sec. III.C] The choice M_s=4 is very small; the paper motivates it solely by resource constraints. A brief discussion of the resulting practical trade-off (circuit depth vs. systematic error) would help the reader judge the validity of the fixed point at larger m.
  5. [Sec. II.A] The statement 'Reference [42] shows that the ground state is the unique steady state of Γ_K under appropriate assumptions' should be more explicit about which assumptions are needed for the finite-τ Kraus map presented here, since the original proof may target the Lindblad generator.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; the main risk is an unmet uniqueness assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central Kraus derivation (Eqs. 7-10) is a direct Taylor/Stinespring computation from the dilated unitary W(√τ)=exp(−i K√τ); no measured quantity or fitted parameter is fed into the channel, and the completeness relation (Eq. 11) verifies the CPTP property. The fidelity monotonicity (Eq. 12) is a standard CPTP-fidelity inequality conditional on uniqueness of the steady state; uniqueness is imported from the external, peer-reviewed Ref. [42] (Ding-Chen-Lin), not from the present authors' prior work, and no hardware result is used to establish it. The filter parameters β,b,a are set by exact diagonalization of the same Hamiltonian whose ground state is targeted; this is a classical preprocessing requirement, not a fitted prediction, and the paper explicitly states that precise estimates are not strictly required as long as Eq. (14) is approximately satisfied. The paper itself candidly flags that the implemented finite-β/discretized filter violates Eq. (14), so the noiseless simulation levels off above E0 (Secs. III.C and III.F). That is an admitted unmet assumption and a correctness risk, not a circular step. The only self-citation is Ref. [37] (with co-author Kikuchi), used for the choice to interleave coherent and dissipative evolution; this is a performance choice also supported by Refs. [42,45] and is not load-bearing for the main claim. Therefore no circular reduction is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical result rests on one standard theorem (fidelity monotonicity under CPTP maps) and one unproven, cited premise (uniqueness of the steady state). The experimental demonstration is configured with eight human-chosen or fit parameters, most notably the filter window (β, b, a) set by exact diagonalization of the target Hamiltonian, the dissipation step τ picked by simulation, and the OFT grid (S_s, M_s) picked for circuit feasibility. No new physical entities are introduced; the ancilla and reset are existing hardware capability. The finite-β, truncation, and discretization effects mean the ideal-theorem conditions (Eqs. 5 and 14) are violated in the implementation, which is the main source of the noiseless systematic error visible in Fig. 5.

free parameters (8)
  • β (filter inverse temperature) = 8/Δ, Δ from exact diagonalization
    Controls the sharpness of the Fermi filter edges; set using the excitation gap of the target Hamiltonian computed by ED (Sec. III.B).
  • b (filter window upper edge) = −2/β = −Δ/4
    Negative frequency offset set by the gap; positions the filter edge at O(1/β) below zero (Sec. III.B).
  • a (filter window lower edge) = −2|E_0|, E_0 from exact diagonalization
    Set to twice the ground-state magnitude (about twice the spectral radius); requires prior knowledge of E_0 (Sec. III.B).
  • τ (dissipation step) = 4
    Chosen in Appendix D as the value giving fastest convergence in noiseless simulations of the N=6 system; τ affects the rate, not the converged value.
  • Δt, N_t (coherent interleaving) = 0.25, 4
    Coherent evolution of total duration t/2 = N_t Δt/2 interleaved with the dissipative step; set by hand (Sec. III.D).
  • OFT truncation S_s and grid M_s = 4π/(b−a), 4
    Chosen to keep circuits feasible; causes truncation broadening (~π/S_s) and aliasing (2π/Δs) that violate Eq. (14).
  • jump-operator probe  = Ẑ_0 (Pauli-Z on first site)
    Chosen for implementation simplicity; determines the kernel of K̂ and hence the convergence rate and dark-space structure (Sec. III.B).
  • ZNE fit parameters (ã, b̃) for linear/exponential fits = fit to G=1,3 (linear) and G=1,3,5 (exponential)
    A noise-model assumption: gate-fold scaling with linear or exponential functional form; only 2–3 noise points.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Fidelity is non-decreasing under any CPTP map: F(E[ρ],E[σ]) ≥ F(ρ,σ)
    Textbook result (Nielsen-Chuang); used in Sec. II.A to prove Eq. (12).
  • domain assumption The channel Γ_K (and Γ_H∘Γ_K∘Γ_H) has |E_0⟩ as a unique steady state for the chosen jump operator
    Load-bearing premise of the monotonic-convergence guarantee; inherited from Ref. [42], not re-derived here. Appears in Sec. II.A and in the abstract's provided-that clause.
  • domain assumption Filter condition f̃(ω)=0 for ω>0 holds (Eq. 14), so K̂ induces no energy-increasing transitions
    In the implementation with finite β, truncated S_s, and finite Δs the condition is violated (positive-frequency edge broadening and aliasing), so the ground state is only approximately a steady state; acknowledged in Sec. III.C and visible in Fig. 1(d)-(e).
  • domain assumption Exact-diagonalization estimates of E_0 and Δ are available for setting β, b, a
    For non-integrable targets this must be replaced by QMC or tensor-network estimates (Sec. IV); the demonstration relies on classical knowledge of the target spectrum.
  • standard math Second-order Trotter decompositions of e^{±iĤs} and e^{−iĤΔt} are accurate at the chosen Δs, Δt
    Trotter error O(Δ^2) is assumed small; no error bars for Trotterization are computed in the experiment (Sec. III.D).
  • domain assumption ZNE: hardware noise scales smoothly with gate-fold factor G, allowing linear/exponential extrapolation to G→0
    Gate-folding ZNE; only 2–3 G points; no zero-noise validation against hardware-calibration models (Sec. III.G, Appendix E).
  • domain assumption Mid-circuit measurement and qubit reset implement a partial trace (discarding the ancilla outcome)
    Standard MCMR usage; requires the reset to be faithful and outcome-independent (Sec. III.F, Fig. 2).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22625 in / 33204 out tokens · 293502 ms · 2026-08-03T10:55:03.476113+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We demonstrate a dissipative protocol for ground-state preparation of a quantum spin chain on a trapped-ion quantum computer. As a first step, we derive a Kraus representation of a dissipation channel for the protocol recently proposed by Ding et al. [Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033147 (2024)] that still holds for arbitrary temporal discretization steps, extending the analysis beyond the Lindblad dynamics regime. The protocol guarantees that the fidelity with the ground state monotonically increases (or remains unchanged) under repeated applications of the channel to an arbitrary initial state, provided that the ground state is the unique steady state of the dissipation channel. Using this framework, we implement dissipative ground-state preparation of a transverse-field Ising chain for up to 19 spins on the trapped-ion quantum computer Reimei provided by Quantinuum. Despite the presence of hardware noise, the dynamics consistently converges to a low-energy state far away from the maximally mixed state even when the corresponding quantum circuits contain as many as 4110 entangling gates, demonstrating the intrinsic robustness of the protocol. By applying zero-noise extrapolation, the resulting energy expectation values are systematically improved to agree with noiseless simulations within statistical uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.08137 by Kazuhiro Seki, Seiji Yunoki, Tomoya Hayata, Yuta Kikuchi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Example of the filter function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Quantum circuit used to estimate the expectation value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Schematic illustration of the contours [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Noiseless simulation results for (a) the energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Energy as a function of the noise-scaling factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Steady States of a Single Trapped-Ion Spin Coupled to an Engineered Non-Markovian Bath

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A qubit with Pareto-distributed reset waiting times reaches a steady state with positive z-magnetization at Γ_eff/B ≈ 0.53, impossible for Markovian reset dissipation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P∞ k=0 c2k( ˆK† ˆK)k P∞ k=0 c2k+1( ˆK† ˆK)k ˆK† ˆK P∞ k=0 c2k+1( ˆK† ˆK)k P∞ k=0 c2k( ˆK ˆK†)k # =

    Derivation of Eq. (7) We begin by considering the Taylor expansion of the dilated unitary operator ˆW(√τ) defined in Eq. (3): ˆW(√τ)= ∞X k=0 ck ˆK k = ∞X k=0 c2k ˆK 2k +c 2k+1 ˆK 2k+1 ,(A1) wherec k =(−i√τ)k/k!. The decomposition into even and odd powers is made for clarity. From Eq. (4), we obtain ˆK 2k =|0⟩⟨0| a⊗ ˆK† ˆK k +|1⟩⟨1| a⊗ ˆK ˆK† k ,(A2) ˆK 2k...

  2. [2]

    By explicitly extracting the terms proportional toτ 0 andτ 1 from Eq

    Lindblad dynamics As a remark onΓ K, we note that its lowest-order expansion coincides with a Lindblad dynamics with the jump operator ˆK. By explicitly extracting the terms proportional toτ 0 andτ 1 from Eq. (7), we obtain ΓK[ˆρ]=ˆρ+τ ˆKˆρˆK†− τ 2 n ˆK† ˆK,ˆρ o +O(τ 2).(A6) Therefore, in the smallτlimit,Γ K reduces to the Lindblad evolution generated by ...

  3. [3]

    Time discretization We begin by analyzing the time-discretization error, i.e., the aliasing error. To this end, we employ Poisson’s resummation formula, ∆s ∞X l=−∞ f(l∆ s) ˆA(l∆s) = Z ∞ −∞ dt f(t) ˆA(t)+ X k∈Z\{0} Z ∞ −∞ dte−i2πkt/∆s f(t) ˆA(t), (C1) which leads to the aliasing error ϵalias = Z ∞ −∞ dt f(t) ˆA(t)−∆ s ∞X l=−∞ f(l∆ s) ˆA(l∆s) = X k∈Z\{0} Z ...

  4. [4]

    interaction time

    Truncation of the infinite sum We now analyze the error arising from truncating the infi- nite sum, i.e., the leakage error: ϵleak = X |l|>M s f(l∆ s) ⩽ 4 β1−e − 2π∆s β Ms ∞X l=M s e−π∆s β l = 4 β1−e − 2π β S s 1−e −π∆s β e−π β S s, (C6) where in the first inequality we used the bound|f(s)|⩽ 2β−1 e−π β s(1−e − 2π β S s)−1 fors≥S s. Appendix D:τdependence ...

  5. [5]

    D. Wu, R. Rossi, F. Vicentini, N. Astrakhantsev, F. Becca, X. Cao, J. Carrasquilla, F. Ferrari, A. Georges, M. Hibat- Allah, M. Imada, A. M. L ¨auchli, G. Mazzola, A. Mezzacapo, A. Millis, J. Robledo Moreno, T. Neupert, Y . Nomura, J. Nys, O. Parcollet, R. Pohle, I. Romero, M. Schmid, J. M. Sil- vester, S. Sorella, L. F. Tocchio, L. Wang, S. R. White, A. ...

    2024

  6. [6]

    J. E. Hirsch, Two-dimensional hubbard model: Numerical sim- ulation study, Phys. Rev. B31, 4403 (1985)

    1985

  7. [7]

    Tahara and M

    D. Tahara and M. Imada, Variational monte carlo method com- bined with quantum-number projection and multi-variable op- timization, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan77, 114701 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    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. Hender- son, 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 . Svis- tunov, L. F. Tocchio, I. S. Tupitsyn, S. R. White, S. Zhang, B.-X. Zheng, Z. Zhu, and E. Gull (Simons Collabor...

    2015

  9. [9]

    Zheng, C.-M

    B.-X. Zheng, C.-M. Chung, P. Corboz, G. Ehlers, M.-P. Qin, R. M. Noack, H. Shi, S. R. White, S. Zhang, and G. K.-L. Chan, Stripe order in the underdoped region of the two-dimensional hubbard model, Science358, 1155–1160 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Nomura, A

    Y . Nomura, A. S. Darmawan, Y . Yamaji, and M. Imada, Re- stricted boltzmann machine learning for solving strongly corre- lated quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B96, 205152 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    K. Ido, T. Ohgoe, and M. Imada, Competition among vari- ous charge-inhomogeneous states andd-wave superconducting state in hubbard models on square lattices, Phys. Rev. B97, 045138 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    Seki and S

    K. Seki and S. Sorella, Benchmark study of an auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo technique for the hubbard model with shifted-discrete hubbard-stratonovich transformations, Phys. Rev. B99, 144407 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Sorella, Systematically improvable mean-field variational ansatz for strongly correlated systems: Application to the hub- bard model, Phys

    S. Sorella, Systematically improvable mean-field variational ansatz for strongly correlated systems: Application to the hub- bard model, Phys. Rev. B107, 115133 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    A. W. Sandvik, Finite-size scaling of the ground-state parame- ters of the two-dimensional heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B56, 11678 (1997)

    1997

  15. [15]

    Iqbal, F

    Y . Iqbal, F. Becca, S. Sorella, and D. Poilblanc, Gapless spin- liquid phase in the kagome spin- 1 2 heisenberg antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B87, 060405 (2013)

    2013

  16. [16]

    Iqbal, W.-J

    Y . Iqbal, W.-J. Hu, R. Thomale, D. Poilblanc, and F. Becca, Spin liquid nature in the heisenbergJ 1−J 2 triangular antiferro- magnet, Phys. Rev. B93, 144411 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    Nomura and M

    Y . Nomura and M. Imada, Dirac-type nodal spin liquid revealed by refined quantum many-body solver using neural-network wave function, correlation ratio, and level spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X11, 031034 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    Yoshioka, T

    N. Yoshioka, T. Okubo, Y . Suzuki, Y . Koizumi, and W. Mizukami, Hunting for quantum-classical crossover in condensed matter problems, npj Quantum Information10, 10.1038/s41534-024-00839-4 (2024)

    doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00839-4 2024

  19. [19]

    Lanes, M

    O. Lanes, M. Beji, A. D. Corcoles, C. Dalyac, J. M. Gam- betta, L. Henriet, A. Javadi-Abhari, A. Kandala, A. Mezza- capo, C. Porter, S. Sheldon, J. Watrous, C. Zoufal, A. Dauphin, and B. Peropadre, A framework for quantum advantage (2025), 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 G 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 E(G) (a) m = 5 Noiseless ZNE exp ZNE lin G = 1 G = 3 G = 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 G 9 8 7 6...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    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 Communications5, 10.1038/ncomms5213 (2014)

    doi:10.1038/ncomms5213 2014

  21. [21]

    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 mag- nets, Nature549, 242–246 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications9, 10.1038/s41467-018- 07090-4 (2018)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-018- 2018

  23. [23]

    Kanno, M

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y . O. Nakagawa, Quantum-Selected Config- uration Interaction: classical diagonalization of Hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2302.11320 (2023), arXiv:2302.11320 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shi- rakawa, I. Sitdikov, R.-Y . Sun, K. J. Sung, M. Takita, M. C. Tran, S. Yunoki, and A. Mezzacapo, Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercom- puter, Science Advances11, 10.1126/sciadv.adu9991 (2025)

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adu9991 2025

  25. [25]

    Y . O. Nakagawa, M. Kamoshita, W. Mizukami, S. Sudo, and Y .-y. Ohnishi, Adapt-qsci: Adaptive construction of an input state for quantum-selected configuration interaction, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation20, 10817–10825 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Sugisaki, S

    K. Sugisaki, S. Kanno, T. Itoko, R. Sakuma, and N. Yamamoto, Hamiltonian simulation-based quantum-selected configuration interaction for large-scale electronic structure calculations with a quantum computer, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics27, 20869–20884 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Mikkelsen and Y

    M. Mikkelsen and Y . O. Nakagawa, Quantum-selected config- uration interaction with time-evolved state, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043043 (2025). 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 G 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 4 E(G) (a) m = 10 Noiseless ZNE exp ZNE lin G = 1 G = 3 G = 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 G 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 4 E(G) (b) m = 20 Noiseless ZNE exp ZNE lin G = 1 G = 3 G = 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 G 24 20 16 12 8 4...

    2025

  28. [28]

    J. Yu, J. Robledo Moreno, J. T. Iosue, L. Bertels, D. Claudino, B. Fuller, P. Groszkowski, T. S. Humble, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, T. A. Maier, M. Motta, B. Pokharel, A. Seif, A. Shehata, K. J. Sung, M. C. Tran, V . Tripathi, A. Mezzacapo, and K. Sharma, Quantum-Centric Algorithm for Sample-Based Krylov Diagonalization, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.09702 (202...

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Alexeev, M

    Y . Alexeev, M. Amsler, P. Baity, M. A. Barroca, S. Bassini, T. Battelle, D. Camps, D. Casanova, Y . J. Choi, F. T. Chong, C. Chung, C. Codella, A. D. Corcoles, J. Cruise, A. Di Meglio, J. Dubois, I. Duran, T. Eckl, S. Economou, S. Eidenbenz, B. Elmegreen, C. Fare, I. Faro, C. Sanz Fern ´andez, R. Neu- mann Barros Ferreira, K. Fuji, B. Fuller, L. Gagliard...

    2024

  30. [30]

    Barison, J

    S. Barison, J. Robledo Moreno, and M. Motta, Quantum-centric computation of molecular excited states with extended sample- based quantum diagonalization, Quantum Science and Technol- ogy10, 025034 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Shirakawa, J

    T. Shirakawa, J. Robledo-Moreno, T. Itoko, V . Tripathi, K. Ueda, Y . Kawashima, L. Broers, W. Kirby, H. Pathak, H. Paik, M. Tsuji, Y . Kodama, M. Sato, C. Evangelinos, S. See- lam, R. Walkup, S. Yunoki, M. Motta, P. Jurcevic, H. Horii, and A. Mezzacapo, Closed-loop calculations of electronic structure on a quantum processor and a classical supercomputer ...

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    A. A. Holmes, N. M. Tubman, and C. J. Umrigar, Heat-bath configuration interaction: An efficient selected configuration in- teraction algorithm inspired by heat-bath sampling, Journal of 15 Chemical Theory and Computation12, 3674–3680 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    Reinholdt, K

    P. Reinholdt, K. M. Ziems, E. R. Kjellgren, S. Coriani, S. P. A. Sauer, and J. Kongsted, Critical limitations in quantum-selected configuration interaction methods, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation21, 6811–6822 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    J. M. Koh, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Measurement-induced entanglement phase transition on a su- perconducting quantum processor with mid-circuit readout, Na- ture Physics19, 1314–1319 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Chertkov, Z

    E. Chertkov, Z. Cheng, A. C. Potter, S. Gopalakrishnan, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, A. Hall, A. Hankin, M. Matheny, T. Mengle, D. Hayes, B. Neyenhuis, R. Stutz, and M. Foss-Feig, Characterizing a non-equilibrium phase transition on a quantum computer, Nature Physics19, 1799–1804 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Foss-Feig, D

    M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gae- bler, S. A. Moses, J. M. Pino, and A. C. Potter, Holographic quantum algorithms for simulating correlated spin systems, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033002 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    DeCross, E

    M. DeCross, E. Chertkov, M. Kohagen, and M. Foss-Feig, Qubit-Reuse Compilation with Mid-Circuit Measurement and Reset, Physical Review X13, 041057 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Shtanko and R

    O. Shtanko and R. Movassagh, Preparing thermal states on noiseless and noisy programmable quantum processors (2023), arXiv:2112.14688 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, F. G. S. L. Brand ˜ao, and A. Gily´en, Quantum Thermal State Preparation, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2303.18224 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, and A. Gily ´en, An efficient and exact noncommutative quantum Gibbs sampler, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2311.09207 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Brunner, L

    E. Brunner, L. Coopmans, G. Matos, M. Rosenkranz, F. Sauvage, and Y . Kikuchi, Lindblad engineering for quantum gibbs state preparation under the eigenstate thermalization hy- pothesis, Quantum9, 1843 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Lloyd and D

    J. Lloyd and D. A. Abanin, Quantum thermal state preparation for near-term quantum processors (2025), arXiv:2506.21318 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Z. Ding, Y . Zhan, J. Preskill, and L. Lin, End-to-end efficient quantum thermal and ground state preparation made simple (2025), arXiv:2508.05703 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Lin, Dissipative preparation of many-body quantum states: Toward practical quantum advantage, APL Computational Physics1, 10.1063/5.0283315 (2025)

    L. Lin, Dissipative preparation of many-body quantum states: Toward practical quantum advantage, APL Computational Physics1, 10.1063/5.0283315 (2025)

    doi:10.1063/5.0283315 2025

  45. [45]

    X. Mi, A. A. Michailidis, S. Shabani, K. C. Miao, P. V . Klimov, J. Lloyd, E. Rosenberg, R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, T. I. Ander- sen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, ...

    2024

  46. [46]

    Ding, C.-F

    Z. Ding, C.-F. Chen, and L. Lin, Single-ancilla ground state preparation via lindbladians, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033147 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    https://docs.quantinuum.com/systems/user guide/hardware user guide/performance validation.html, accessed on January 13th, 2026

    2026

  48. [48]

    Y . Zhan, Z. Ding, J. Huhn, J. Gray, J. Preskill, G. K.-L. Chan, and L. Lin, Rapid quantum ground state preparation via dissi- pative dynamics (2025), arXiv:2503.15827 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    D. Fang, J. Lu, and Y . Tong, Mixing time of open quantum sys- tems via hypocoercivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 140405 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    The experiments were conducted in June 2025 and November 2025

    2025

  51. [52]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [53]

    Sivarajah, S

    S. Sivarajah, S. Dilkes, A. Cowtan, W. Simmons, A. Edging- ton, and R. Duncan, t—ket⟩: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices, Quantum Science and Technology6, 014003 (2020)

    2020

  53. [54]

    M. J. S. Beach, R. G. Melko, T. Grover, and T. H. Hsieh, Mak- ing trotters sprint: A variational imaginary time ansatz for quan- tum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. B100, 094434 (2019)

    2019

  54. [55]

    Ezawa, Y

    H. Ezawa, Y . Tomozawa, and H. Umezawa, Quantum statistics of fields and multiple production of mesons, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)5, 810 (1957)

    1955