Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Better non-overlapping Pauli groups, built with the same covariances overlapping methods already need, cut measurement cost for quantum energy estimation.

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 ↗

VarSI covariance-informed non-overlapping Pauli groupings reduce measurement counts ~38% over SI and improve ICS by mean 9–15% (max ~70%) across 130 molecular Hamiltonians.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-12 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid engineering paper: covariance-informed non-overlapping seeds cut SI costs ~38% and give ICS another 9–15% (up to 70%) on 130 Hamiltonians, with open code and no hidden circularity.

arxiv 2607.02794 v1 pith:3HPQWYVA submitted 2026-07-02 quant-ph

Reducing quantum measurements in qubit-based overlapping grouping methods for quantum energy estimation through better initializations

Isaac L. Huidobro-Meezs , Rodrigo A. Vargas-Hern\'andez This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum measurement reductionPauli groupingSorted Insertionvariance-aware groupingiterative coefficient splittingoverlapping fragmentsmolecular Hamiltoniansvariational quantum algorithms
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 reading

Estimating the energy of a molecular Hamiltonian on a quantum computer is limited by how many measurements you must take. The usual first step is to partition the Hamiltonian's Pauli terms into non-overlapping groups that can be measured together; Sorted Insertion (SI) is the standard greedy rule for that partition. Overlapping methods such as iterative coefficient splitting (ICS) then refine the groups, but they still start from an SI seed and already require a covariance dictionary built from an approximate wavefunction. This paper shows that those same covariances can be used earlier, to build better non-overlapping seeds. The authors introduce variance-aware sorted insertion (VarSI): three simple heuristics that score candidate insertions by how much they change the total measurement objective rather than by coefficient size alone. On 130 molecular Hamiltonians the resulting non-overlapping groups need roughly 38 percent fewer shots than SI. When the same groups initialize ICS, mean shot counts fall another 9–15 percent relative to SI-ICS (up to 70 percent in the best cases), enough to make the cheaper ICS competitive with more expensive overlapping schemes on the systems tested. The practical claim is therefore simple: the non-overlapping seed is still a high-leverage design choice, and feeding it the covariances you already planned to compute is an essentially free way to improve it.

Core claim

On molecular benchmarks covering 130 Hamiltonians, covariance-informed non-overlapping groupings (VarSI-O and its local refinements) reduce the measurement metric ε²M by about 38 percent relative to Sorted Insertion; the same groupings, used as initializations for iterative coefficient splitting, further reduce ICS measurement cost by mean factors of 9–15.3 percent (maximum near 70 percent) versus the conventional SI-ICS pipeline.

What carries the argument

The incremental variance update V(G∪k)=V(G)+c_k²C_kk+2c_k∑c_i C_ik, which scores every candidate insertion (or relocation) by its immediate effect on the sum of square-root fragment variances; this scoring rule, applied greedily or as a local refinement, is the entire content of the VarSI family.

Load-bearing premise

That covariance dictionaries built from inexpensive approximate wavefunctions remain accurate enough that the groupings they produce still cut measurement cost when the final estimator is evaluated with the true ground-state variances.

What would settle it

Re-run the full 130-Hamiltonian suite with deliberately poor covariance dictionaries (for example random or mean-field only) and check whether the reported 9–15 percent mean ICS reductions relative to SI-ICS disappear or reverse.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces variance-aware sorted insertion (VarSI), a family of covariance-informed heuristics (VarSI-O, VarSI-G, and local refinements VarSI-R/OR) for non-overlapping Pauli grouping under full commutativity. Using the elementary variance-update formula (Eq. 9) and covariance dictionaries already required by overlapping methods, the authors construct better seed fragments than standard Sorted Insertion (SI). On molecular benchmarks covering 130 Hamiltonians (plus PES scans and hydrogen-chain datasets, totaling hundreds of instances across JW/BK/parity mappings), non-overlapping VarSI-O/R/OR groupings reduce ε²M by ~35–39% on average relative to SI. When these seeds initialize iterative coefficient splitting (ICS), mean measurement reductions of 9–15.3% (max ~70%) versus SI-ICS are reported, allowing ICS to compete more closely with SPP/so-SPP. Code and a parallel covariance builder are released.

Significance. Measurement cost remains a central bottleneck for VQAs; the paper shows that the non-overlapping seed, often treated as a fixed SI preprocessing step, is still a consequential design choice even when the final estimator uses overlapping fragments. Strengths include a clean derivation of the insertion score, fully specified algorithms with pseudocode and complexity tables, extensive multi-mapping benchmarks that report final ε²M with exact ground-state variances after both exact and CISD-guided scoring, direct comparison to SPP baselines, and open code. The result is an immediately usable engineering improvement for qubit-based overlapping pipelines rather than a new asymptotic theory.

minor comments (5)
  1. Table I and SM Section I: the asymptotic costs are clear, but a short wall-clock comparison (or note that covariance construction dominates) for the largest systems (e.g., NH3, H8) would help readers judge practical overhead of VarSI-O/R versus SI.
  2. Results and SM: VarSI-G is consistently worse than SI; a brief sentence explaining the failure mode (early low-cost insertions blocking later high-variance terms) would prevent readers from treating all VarSI variants as interchangeable.
  3. Introduction / Methods: a one-sentence pointer that VarSI applies unchanged to QWC or k-commuting groups (already mentioned briefly) would broaden the claimed scope without extra experiments.
  4. Figure 1 and PES discussion: the QPU-time translation (250 µs delay, 100 µs circuit) is useful but should be labeled as an illustrative estimate rather than a hardware-specific claim.
  5. Minor typography: “V ariance-aware” (space after V) appears in the Methods heading; consistent hyphenation of “non-overlapping” and “ground-state” would improve polish.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical heuristic improvements over external SI/ICS baselines, with final ε²M evaluated on exact ground-state variances.

full rationale

The paper proposes covariance-informed non-overlapping grouping heuristics (VarSI-O/G/R/OR) that reuse the covariance dictionary already required by overlapping methods such as ICS. The measurement objective ε²M = (∑_α √Var(H_α))² is the standard shot-allocation formula; VarSI scores candidate insertions via the exact variance-update identity V_{G∪ k} = V_G + c_k² C_kk + 2 c_k ∑_i c_i C_ik and accepts only strictly improving local moves in the refinement variants. Groupings are generated from either exact or CISD covariances and then re-evaluated with exact ground-state variances against the external SI and SI-ICS baselines (and against published SPP numbers). No free parameters are fitted to the reported measurement reductions; the claimed 35–39 % non-overlapping and 9–15.3 % ICS gains are empirical outcomes on 130+ Hamiltonians, not identities forced by construction or by self-citation. Reuse of the same covariance dictionary is an intentional engineering choice, not a circular derivation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The work rests on standard quantum-measurement variance formulas and the already-accepted ICS/SPP framework; the only new ingredients are the three greedy/refinement heuristics and the empirical claim that they improve both non-overlapping and ICS estimators. No new physical entities or free parameters are fitted to produce the reported percentages.

free parameters (2)
  • number of refinement sweeps N_S = 100 (default)
    Fixed at 100 (and checked at 500) by hand; the paper states that 500 yields no significant further gain, but the choice remains a free algorithmic hyper-parameter.
  • choice of approximate wavefunction for covariance dictionary
    CISD versus exact ground-state; both are reported, yet the practical pipeline assumes an inexpensive approximate state is available and sufficiently accurate.
axioms (3)
  • standard math Estimator variance for a fixed grouping is ε²M = (∑_α √Var(H_α))² and is minimized by optimal shot allocation (Eq. 4).
    Standard result in the measurement-allocation literature (Wecker et al., Crawford et al., Yen et al.); used throughout.
  • domain assumption Two Pauli words may share a measurement basis if and only if they fully commute (FC) or qubit-wise commute (QWC).
    Standard compatibility notions in qubit-based grouping; paper restricts to FC for lowest shot counts.
  • domain assumption Covariance dictionaries constructed from approximate wavefunctions (CISD or exact) are sufficiently accurate to guide both VarSI insertion and ICS coefficient splitting.
    Empirical premise of the whole overlapping-measurement program; paper tests both exact and CISD dictionaries.
invented entities (1)
  • VarSI family (VarSI-O, VarSI-G, VarSI-R, VarSI-OR) independent evidence
    purpose: Covariance-informed non-overlapping Pauli grouping heuristics that serve as improved seeds for overlapping methods.
    New algorithmic objects introduced by the paper; they are classical heuristics, not physical entities, and are fully specified by pseudocode.

reviewed 2026-07-12 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reducing quantum measurements in qubit-based overlapping grouping methods for quantum energy estimation through better initializations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3HPQWYVA

@misc{pith2026260702794,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reducing quantum measurements in qubit-based overlapping grouping methods for quantum energy estimation through better initializations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3HPQWYVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02794}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The measurement cost for estimating expectation values of Hamiltonians is a central bottleneck in variational quantum algorithms. Grouping strategies significantly reduce this cost, with overlapping techniques being the state of the art in the field. Overlapping grouping methods require i) a non-overlapping grouping of the Hamiltonian, typically obtained from the Sorted Insertion (SI) algorithm as initialization, and ii) the construction of covariance dictionaries from approximate wavefunctions to guide the optimization. It was recently shown that different initializations can potentially reduce measurement costs for overlapping methods. Motivated by these findings, we introduce variance-aware SI (VarSI), a family of covariance-informed non-overlapping Pauli grouping heuristics to reduce measurement counts. VarSI grouping leverages the covariance dictionaries, already required by overlapping methods, to construct better non-overlapping groups. We propose three variants: a global greedy grouping insertion rule, a variance-informed SI analog, and a local refinement step initialized from SI or our variance-informed variant. We showcase the use of groupings generated by our VarSI heuristic algorithms to initialize overlapping methods using the iterative coefficient-splitting (ICS) algorithm. Molecular benchmarks with 130 Hamiltonians demonstrate consistent, non-overlapping measurement improvements over SI of 38\% and enhanced downstream ICS results when initialized from VarSI groups. We find that the initializations considered here achieve up to 70\% measurement reductions for ICS, compared to the standard SI initialization with mean reductions of 9--15.3\% depending on qubit mappings and covariance dictionaries used. These results show that non-overlapping grouping remains a consequential design step even when the final estimator uses overlapping fragments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02794 by Isaac L. Huidobro-Meezs, Rodrigo A. Vargas-Hern\'andez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. a) Cumulative measurement improvements over SI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Require: Pauli terms P = {(ci, Pi)} NP i=1, covariance matrix C, and compatibility rule FC or QWC. Ensure: Non-overlapping compatible grouping G. For a group Gα, let VGα be its covariance-based variance. For a grouping G, define S(G) = X Gα∈G p VGα , ϵ2M(G) = S(G) 2 . A term Pi is compatible with Gα if it satisfies the chosen FC or QWC condition with every Pauli word in Gα. Let insert(G, i, Gα) denote the … view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Pseudocode for VarSI-O. Terms are processed by decreasing single-term variance and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Greedy variance-aware sorted insertion (VarSI-G). At each step, both the next Pauli term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Pseudocode for Variance local refinement. The procedure searches over admissible one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Cumulative measurement improvements over SI-ICS required to produce the PES for N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_4.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. Certified Optimal Measurement Reduction over Quantum Context Landscapes

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A second-order cone program certifiably minimizes the shot cost of quantum Hamiltonian measurement over any declared context dictionary, with independently checkable lower-bound witnesses, validated on molecules and 2...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021). 7

    2021

  2. [2]

    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, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    Higgott, D

    O. Higgott, D. Wang, and S. Brierley, Quantum3, 156 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Nature Communications10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    S. E. Smart and D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 070504 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    J. R. McClean, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. Carter, and W. A. de Jong, Phys. Rev. A95, 042308 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    C. L. Cortes and S. K. Gray, Phys. Rev. A105, 022417 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, New Journal of Physics18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Takeshita, N

    T. Takeshita, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, E. Lee, R. Babbush, and J. R. McClean, Phys. Rev. X10, 011004 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Seki and S

    K. Seki and S. Yunoki, PRX Quantum2, 010333 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    P. J. Ollitrault, A. Kandala, C.-F. Chen, P. K. Barkout- sos, A. Mezzacapo, M. Pistoia, S. Sheldon, S. Woerner, J. M. Gambetta, and I. Tavernelli, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043140 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Coopmans and M

    L. Coopmans and M. Benedetti, Communications Physics7, 274 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. A98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    S. Y.-C. Chen, H.-H. Tseng, H.-Y. Lin, and S. Yoo, Learning to measure quantum neural networks (2025), arXiv:2501.05663 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    K. Shen, A. Kurkin, A. P´ erez-Salinas, E. Shishenina, V. Dunjko, and H. Wang, npj Quantum Information11, 178 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Zhao and K

    B. Zhao and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023123 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    X. Pan, Z. Lu, W. Wang, Z. Hua, Y. Xu, W. Li, W. Cai, X. Li, H. Wang, Y.-P. Song, C.-L. Zou, D.-L. Deng, and L. Sun, Nature Communications14, 4006 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Kardashin, Y

    A. Kardashin, Y. Balkybek, V. V. Palyulin, and K. An- tipin, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013201 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, The Journal of Chemical Physics137, 224109 (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    J. F. Gonthier, M. D. Radin, C. Buda, E. J. Doskocil, C. M. Abuan, and J. Romero, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033154 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Patel, P

    S. Patel, P. Jayakumar, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, Chemical Reviews125, 7490 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Verteletskyi, T.-C

    V. Verteletskyi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics152, 124114 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    B. Wu, J. Sun, Q. Huang, and X. Yuan, Quantum7, 896 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    A. Jena, S. Genin, and M. Mosca, arXiv:1907.07859 (2019), arXiv:1907.07859 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  26. [26]

    Gokhale, O

    P. Gokhale, O. Angiuli, Y. Ding, K. Gui, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering1, 1 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    T.-C. Yen, V. Verteletskyi, and A. F. Izmaylov, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation16, 2400 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Crawford, B

    O. Crawford, B. van Straaten, D. Wang, T. Parks, E. Campbell, and S. Brierley, Quantum5, 385 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    T.-C. Yen, A. Ganeshram, and A. F. Izmaylov, npj Quan- tum Information9, 14 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    I. L. Huidobro-Meezs, J. Dai, and R. A. Vargas- Hern´ andez, Discrete flow-based generative models for measurement optimization in quantum computing (2025), arXiv:2509.15486 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Nature 549, 172 (2017)

    2017

  32. [33]

    Vandaele, S

    V. Vandaele, S. Martiel, S. Perdrix, and C. Vuil- lot, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing5, 10.1145/3639062 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1145/3639062 2024

  33. [34]

    S. Choi, I. Loaiza, and A. F. Izmaylov, Quantum7, 889 (2023)

    2023

  34. [35]

    W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, N. Wiebe, K. B. Whaley, and R. Babbush, npj Quantum Information7, 23 (2021)

    2021

  35. [36]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Physical Review Letters127, 030503 (2021)

    2021

  36. [37]

    Hadfield, S

    C. Hadfield, S. Bravyi, R. Raymond, and A. Mezza- capo, Communications in Mathematical Physics391, 951 (2022)

    2022

  37. [38]

    Choi, T.-C

    S. Choi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput.18, 7394 (2022)

    2022

  38. [39]

    Shlosberg, A

    A. Shlosberg, A. J. Jena, P. Mukhopadhyay, J. F. Haase, F. Leditzky, and L. Dellantonio, Quantum7, 906 (2023)

    2023

  39. [40]

    I. L. Huidobro-Meezs, J. Dai, G. Rabusseau, and R. A. Vargas-Hern´ andez, arXiv:2410.16041 (2024), arXiv:2410.16041 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [41]

    Uvarov, J

    A. Uvarov, J. D. Biamonte, and D. Yudin, Phys. Rev. B 102, 075104 (2020)

    2020

  41. [42]

    R. R. P. Singh and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B76, 180407(R) (2007)

    2007

  42. [43]

    A. N. Ciavarella, Phys. Rev. D108, 094513 (2023)

    2023

  43. [44]

    Zhang, R

    J. Zhang, R. Ferguson, S. K¨ uhn, J. F. Haase, C. Wilson, K. Jansen, and C. A. Muschik, Quantum7, 1148 (2023)

    2023

  44. [45]

    Wecker, M

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

    2015

  45. [46]

    Romero, R

    J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Science and Tech- nology4, 014008 (2018)

    2018

  46. [47]

    N. C. Rubin, R. Babbush, and J. McClean, New Journal of Physics20, 053020 (2018)

    2018

  47. [48]

    Thiede, A

    L. Thiede, A. Aldossary, A. Burger, J. A. Campos- Gonzalez-Angulo, N. Wang, A. Zook, M. Alkan, K. Nakaji, T. L. Patti, J. F. Gonthier, M. G. Vakili, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Coupled cluster con M¯ oLe: Molec- ular orbital learning for neural wavefunctions (2026), arXiv:2602.20232 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2026

  48. [49]

    X. Shao, L. Paetow, M. E. Tuckerman, and M. Pavanello, Nature Communications14, 6281 (2023)

    2023

  49. [50]

    J. A. M. B., B. Rana, X. Shao, K. Pernal, and M. Pa- vanello, Machine learning the two-electron reduced den- sity matrix in molecules and condensed phases (2026), arXiv:2603.06882 [physics.chem-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  50. [51]

    H. Zou, M. Rahm, A. F. Kockum, and S. Olsson, npj Quantum Information12, 5 (2025)

    2025

  51. [52]

    DalFavero, R

    B. DalFavero, R. Sarkar, J. Rowland, D. Camps, N. P. D. Sawaya, and R. LaRose, Phys. Rev. A112, 052407 (2025)

    2025

  52. [53]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. P. Wigner, Z. Phys.47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  53. [54]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Annals of Physics298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  54. [55]

    J. S. Kottmann, S. Alperin-Lea, T. Tamayo-Mendoza, A. Cervera-Lierta, C. Lavigne, T.-C. Yen, V. Vertelet- skyi, P. Schleich, A. Anand, M. Degroote, S. Chaney, et al., Quantum Science and Technology6, 024009 8 (2021)

    2021

  55. [56]

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfutyarova, S. Sharma, S. Wouters, and G. K.-L. Chan, WIREs Com- putational Molecular Science8, e1340 (2018)

    2018

  56. [57]

    Q. Sun, X. Zhang, S. Banerjee, P. Bao, M. Barbry, N. S. Blunt, N. A. Bogdanov, G. H. Booth, J. Chen, Z.-H. Cui, J. J. Eriksen, Y. Gao, S. Guo, J. Hermann, M. R. Hermes, K. Koh, P. Koval, S. Lehtola, Z. Li, J. Liu, N. Mardirossian, J. D. McClain, M. Motta, B. Mussard, H. Q. Pham, A. Pulkin, W. Purwanto, P. J. Robin- son, E. Ronca, E. R. Sayfutyarova, M. Sc...

    2020

  57. [58]

    Bergholm, J

    V. Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V. Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. Akash- Narayanan, A. Asadi, J. M. Arrazola, U. Azad, S. Ban- ning, C. Blank, T. R. Bromley, B. A. Cordier, J. Ceroni, A. Delgado, O. D. Matteo, A. Dusko, T. Garg, D. Guala, A. Hayes, R. Hill, A. Ijaz, T. Isacsson, D. Ittah, S. Ja- hangiri, P. Jain, E. Jiang,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [59]

    N. P. Sawaya, D. Marti-Dafcik, Y. Ho, D. P. Tabor, D. E. B. Neira, A. B. Magann, S. Premaratne, P. Dubey, A. Matsuura, N. Bishop, W. A. d. Jong, S. Benjamin, O. Parekh, N. Tubman, K. Klymko, and D. Camps, Quantum8, 1559 (2024)

    2024

  59. [60]

    Tornow, N

    C. Tornow, N. Kanazawa, W. E. Shanks, and D. J. Egger, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 064061 (2022)

    2022

  60. [61]

    IBM Quantum Platform, Workload usage, https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/guides/ estimate-job-run-time(2026), iBM Quantum Docu- mentation, accessed 2 July 2026

    2026

  61. [62]

    Reducing quantum measurements in qubit-based overlapping grouping methods for quantum energy estimation through better initializations

    J. Rowland, R. Sarkar, N. P. Sawaya, N. M. Tub- man, and R. LaRose, Overlapped groupings for quan- tum energy estimation: Maximal variance reduction and deterministic algorithms for reducing variance (2026), arXiv:2604.07156 [quant-ph]. Supplementary Material: “Reducing quantum measurements in qubit-based overlapping grouping methods for quantum energy es...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [63]

    J. S. Kottmann, S. Alperin-Lea, T. Tamayo-Mendoza, A. Cervera-Lierta, C. Lavigne, T.-C. Yen, V. Verteletskyi, P. Schleich, A. Anand, M. Degroote, S. Chaney,et al., Quantum Science and Technology6, 024009 (2021)

    2021

  63. [64]

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfutyarova, S. Sharma, S. Wouters, and G. K.-L. Chan, WIREs Computational Molecular Science8, e1340 (2018)

    2018

  64. [65]

    N. P. Sawaya, D. Marti-Dafcik, Y. Ho, D. P. Tabor, D. E. B. Neira, A. B. Magann, S. Pre- maratne, P. Dubey, A. Matsuura, N. Bishop, W. A. d. Jong, S. Benjamin, O. Parekh, N. Tub- man, K. Klymko, and D. Camps, Quantum8, 1559 (2024)

    2024

  65. [66]

    Crawford, B

    O. Crawford, B. van Straaten, D. Wang, T. Parks, E. Campbell, and S. Brierley, Quantum5, 385 (2021). 22

    2021

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 12, 2026.