Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 9 cited by

Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli operators in the presence of finite sampling error

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Merging commuting Pauli measurement groups never increases the required shot count when shots are allocated optimally.

desk verdict Solid, publishable VQE measurement paper with a genuinely useful Theorem 1 and new k<n rotation circuits; the practical claims lean on an under-validated proxy, Rhat, outside the small-molecule regime. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06942 v3 pith:7EYTXN4H submitted 2019-08-19 quant-ph

Ophelia Crawford , Barnaby van Straaten , Daochen Wang , Thomas Parks , Earl Campbell , Stephen Brierley This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords commutingPaulicollectionsmeasurementallocationSortedInsertionvariationalquantumeigensolverCliffordrotationcircuitsgraphstatesfinitesamplingerrormolecularHamiltonians
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 addresses the cost of estimating Hamiltonian expectation values on quantum computers, where only computational-basis measurements are directly available. It establishes that when measurement shots are optimally allocated among collections of mutually commuting Pauli operators, merging two commuting collections into one never increases the number of shots needed (Theorem 1). It then introduces Sorted Insertion, a collecting strategy that sorts Paulis by coefficient size and inserts each into the first compatible collection, and it constructs two rotation circuits with provable two-qubit gate counts that scale with the number of independent operators rather than merely with the number of qubits. Numerically, on molecular Hamiltonians up to 38 qubits, the method gives 10- to 60-fold reductions in the number of measurements compared with measuring each Pauli separately.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ratio R = Mu/Mg and its state-independent analogue Rhat, both evaluated under the optimal shot allocation ni = (1/$epsilon^{2}$) $\sqrt$(Var[Oi]) * sum_j $\sqrt$(Var[Oj]). R quantifies the measurement saving of a grouping of Paulis; Rhat replaces state-dependent variances with their uniform-spherical expectations and depends only on the Pauli coefficients. The collecting algorithm Sorted Insertion sorts Paulis by absolute coefficient and greedily inserts each into the first existing collection with which it commutes, targeting Rhat rather than collection count. For simultaneous measurement, the rotation circuits are built in the binary stabilizer representation: the CZ-construction reduces the collection to a graph-state form and then applies at most kn - k(k+1)/2 CZ gates, while the CNOT-construction applies Cholesky-type eliminations with O(kn/log k) CNOT gates, where k is the number of independent commuting Paulis in the collection.

What would settle it

On a molecule beyond the nine smallest tested, take a realistic ansatz state such as a UCCSD state, compute the exact state-dependent R for both the Sorted Insertion arrangement and the minimum-collection arrangement, and compare which grouping requires fewer shots at fixed accuracy. If the arrangement with the larger Rhat consistently requires more measurements than the other on such states, the uniform-spherical proxy underpinning the algorithm's design is falsified for that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, under optimal distribution of measurements, the performance ratio R = Mu/Mg is never reduced by joining two commuting collections of Paulis into one collection. R compares the number of measurements needed with no grouping against the number needed with a given grouping to reach fixed accuracy, assuming shots are allocated by Lagrange multipliers to minimize total variance. The proof rewrites the denominator as $\sqrt$(a^T C a) + $\sqrt$(b^T C b) for the covariance matrix C and applies Cauchy-Schwarz on the semi-inner product induced by C. The same argument transfers to Rhat, the state-independent version obtained by replacing variances and covariances with their expectations over the uniform spherical measure. A consequence is that minimizing the number of commuting collections is not the right objective for minimizing finite-sampling error; the paper exhibits operators where a three-collection arrangement beats the unique two-collection arrangement.

Load-bearing premise

The surrogate metric Rhat that guides Sorted Insertion is computed by averaging over uniformly random quantum states; if actual VQE ansatz states are far from that uniform distribution, the predicted measurement savings may not match the savings achieved in practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Minimizing the number of commuting collections is not the correct proxy for minimizing sampling error; arrangements with more collections can have strictly higher Rhat, as shown by a two-qubit example with Rhat 1.47 versus 1.71.
  • Sorted Insertion runs in O(n t^2) worst-case time without building the full commutation graph, making it at least as scalable as greedy clique-cover colouring while often producing better Rhat.
  • The rotation circuits scale with the independent rank k, not just n: when real collections typically have k < n, the two-qubit gate count drops below the previous O(n^2) worst case, which matters for near-term devices.
  • On molecular Hamiltonians from H2 to H2Se, Rhat closely tracks the mean of state-dependent R over 100 random ansatz states, and the CZ-construction's actual two-qubit gate counts are about 3.5 times below the worst-case bound.
  • The numerical results show a 10- to 60-fold reduction in the number of ansatz state preparations needed to reach fixed accuracy when compared with uncollected Pauli measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Rhat remains a faithful proxy for the average of R on ansatz families beyond the hardware-efficient depth-1 circuits tested, Sorted Insertion could serve as a generic preprocessing layer for any operator with known Pauli coefficients; a natural check is to compute exact R for UCCSD ansatze on the larger molecules in the table.
  • Because the merge-never-hurts theorem holds under optimal shot allocation, adaptive shot-frugal optimizers that reallocate measurements between iterations could safely merge compatible groups without a separate re-optimization step, potentially compounding the savings.
  • The O(kn/log k) CNOT bound comes from a four-Russians elimination; for the k = n case the constant factors and Cholesky structure may leave room for tighter gate-count bounds, and a direct noise-model comparison with the ancilla-based construction would clarify which circuit is preferable in practice.
  • The NP-hardness of approximating maximum Rhat within n^(1/2 - epsilon) suggests that no polynomial algorithm will always beat Sorted Insertion by a wide margin; on small random Hamiltonians one could brute-force optimal groupings and test how often the coefficient-priority heuristic matches the optimum.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the problem of reducing the number of measurements required to estimate expectation values of a weighted sum of Pauli operators, in the setting where mutually commuting Paulis are measured simultaneously and the available measurements are optimally allocated among collections. It introduces two metrics, R (state-dependent) and Rhat (an analytic, coefficient-only approximation to the uniform-spherical average of R), proves that merging two commuting collections never decreases R or Rhat (Theorem 1), and proposes a coefficient-weighted heuristic called Sorted Insertion for forming collections. It also gives two Clifford rotation-circuit constructions that rotate any collection of k independent commuting n-qubit Paulis to the computational basis with worst-case two-qubit gate counts kn - k(k+1)/2 and O(kn/log k), respectively. The methods are benchmarked on molecular Hamiltonians up to 38 qubits.

Significance. The central mathematical contributions are convincing and useful. Theorem 1 is proved cleanly through a positive-semidefinite covariance argument and Cauchy-Schwarz, and it correctly identifies that earlier counterexamples to collection merging relied on a suboptimal uniform allocation of measurements. The rotation constructions are a genuine advance because they explicitly treat the k < n case, and the stated gate-count bounds are concrete and appear correct. The numerical study is extensive, and the paper is careful to distinguish R from Rhat for the smaller molecules where both are computed. The main reservation is that the practical measurement-reduction claims for the larger molecules are carried by Rhat, a state-independent proxy that is validated against R only for the nine smallest molecules and a single depth-1 hardware-efficient ansatz; this limits the strength of the VQE-specific conclusions as currently stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Table 4, Eq. (20)] The practical claim that Sorted Insertion yields a 10- to 60-fold reduction in the number of measurements is supported for the 18- to 38-qubit molecules only by Rhat, not by the state-dependent metric R. Because Rhat is obtained by moving the uniform-spherical expectation inside the nonlinear square roots of Eq. (10), it is not E[R], and for structured VQE ansatz states there is no a priori reason that Rhat tracks R. The paper validates Rhat against the average of R over 100 random depth-1 hardware-efficient ansatz states only for the nine molecules up to 16 qubits; Table 4 reports no R values for the remaining molecules. This gap is load-bearing because the abstract's headline improvement and the practical superiority of Sorted Insertion are phrased in terms of the number of measurements required. I ask the authors either to (i) add R validation for representative states on at least some of the larger molecules, or (ii) explicitly rephrase the practical claims as statements about Rhat, with a clear caveat that the true saving on a given VQE state may differ.
  2. [Abstract and Table 3] The abstract's statement that Sorted Insertion outperforms four conventional greedy colouring algorithms is based on Table 3, which compares only Rhat and the number of collections N. The toy example in Section 2 already shows that the arrangement with the largest Rhat can have more collections than the minimum-clique-cover arrangement, and the same need not hold for R. Since Rhat is not shown to be a reliable proxy for R on realistic VQE states, the claim that Sorted Insertion is better in practice should be qualified as 'better according to Rhat' unless R-based comparisons are provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (43)] The summation limits in Eq. (43) appear to contain a typo (N_i instead of m_i); please correct them.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (20)] The definition of Rhat should state explicitly that identity Pauli terms are excluded or have their variance expectation set to zero, since the derivation in Appendix B applies only to non-identity Paulis.
  3. [Section 4, Table 2] The ansatz used to generate the 100 random states is described only as a hardware-efficient ansatz of depth 1; a circuit diagram or reference would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Fig. 3(c) and Section 4] The phrase 'ratio of worst-case maximum number of two-qubit gates to actual number' in Fig. 3(c) is ambiguous because both quantities are maxima; I suggest rewording it as 'ratio of the theoretical worst-case gate count to the largest true gate count over all collections'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are derived from explicit inequalities and cited external results, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing results are self-contained. Theorem 1 is proved directly from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality applied to the covariance matrix (Eqs. 10-19), not from any fitted quantity. The R-hat metric in Eq. (20) is derived in Appendix B from spherical expectation values, with the vanishing cross-covariance term cited from Gokhale et al. (Ref. [20]); this is an external result independent of the present authors. Sorted Insertion is a heuristic introduced to maximize R-hat, and its numerical advantage over greedy colouring is reported in terms of that same metric (Table 3); this is an empirical optimization comparison, not a prediction derived from fitted parameters, and the metric is independently motivated as an approximation to R. The validation of R-hat against R on nine small molecules (Table 2) is explicitly acknowledged as limited to one ansatz family, but that limitation affects external validity, not circularity. The rotation-circuit bounds (Eqs. 1-2) are proven constructively from the stabilizer formalism and cited synthesis results (Refs. [42-44]); no step in the derivation assumes the conclusion. Self-citations (Refs. [9,15,61]) are background or simulator references and are not load-bearing. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters enter the central derivations; R, Rhat, and the gate-count bounds are closed-form expressions. The main external ingredients are standard stabilizer-formalism facts and one modelling assumption, the uniform spherical measure, used to define Rhat. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption For any set of mutually commuting Pauli operators there exists a Clifford unitary that simultaneously diagonalises them, so all terms in a collection can be measured in one basis.
    Invoked in Section 1 and used throughout Section 3 to justify rotation to the computational basis.
  • standard math Covariance matrices of commuting Pauli observables under an arbitrary quantum state are positive semidefinite, so Cauchy-Schwarz applies to the semi-inner product defined by a^T C b.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1, Eqs. (15) to (19).
  • domain assumption Over the uniform spherical measure, E[Var[P]] = 1 - 1/(2^n+1) for non-identity Paulis and E[Cov[P_i,P_j]] = 0 for distinct Paulis.
    This is the basis of the Rhat metric; the paper cites Ref. [20] for the covariance expectation and derives the variance in Appendix B.
  • standard math Any symmetric binary matrix can be decomposed as Lambda + M^T M with Lambda diagonal and M invertible, enabling the Cholesky-style eliminations in the CNOT construction.
    Used without proof in steps 5 and 9 of the CNOT construction in Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption The uniform spherical measure is a useful proxy for the actual VQE state distribution when the state is unknown.
    Underlies the claim that Sorted Insertion's Rhat gains translate to real measurement savings; validated only for small molecules with one ansatz in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Two-qubit gates are the dominant cost in the rotation circuits, so minimising their count is the right objective.
    Stated in Section 3 with references to near-term hardware; it justifies the gate-count metrics used in the constructions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli operators in the presence of finite sampling error." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EYTXN4H

@misc{pith2026190806942,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli operators in the presence of finite sampling error},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EYTXN4H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06942}
}
abstract

Estimating the expectation value of an operator corresponding to an observable is a fundamental task in quantum computation. It is often impossible to obtain such estimates directly, as the computer is restricted to measuring in a fixed computational basis. One common solution splits the operator into a weighted sum of Pauli operators and measures each separately, at the cost of many measurements. An improved version collects mutually commuting Pauli operators together before measuring all operators within a collection simultaneously. The effectiveness of doing this depends on two factors. Firstly, we must understand the improvement offered by a given arrangement of Paulis in collections. In our work, we propose two natural metrics for quantifying this, operating under the assumption that measurements are distributed optimally among collections so as to minimise the overall finite sampling error. Motivated by the mathematical form of these metrics, we introduce SORTED INSERTION, a collecting strategy that exploits the weighting of each Pauli operator in the overall sum. Secondly, to measure all Pauli operators within a collection simultaneously, a circuit is required to rotate them to the computational basis. In our work, we present two efficient circuit constructions that suitably rotate any collection of $k$ independent commuting $n$-qubit Pauli operators using at most $kn-k(k+1)/2$ and $O(kn/\log k)$ two-qubit gates respectively. Our methods are numerically illustrated in the context of the Variational Quantum Eigensolver, where the operators in question are molecular Hamiltonians. As measured by our metrics, SORTED INSERTION outperforms four conventional greedy colouring algorithms that seek the minimum number of collections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06942 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reductions used in our CZ-construction. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reductions used in our CNOT-construction start￾ing at S4 of our CZ-construction. We start from S4 above, which we reached with￾out using two-qubit gates. Now, instead of using one block of CZ gates, we reduce to Send as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The results of numerical simulations discussed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The rotation circuit U for the CZ-construction walk-through example. and R −1 := R −1 3 R −1 2 R −1 1 R −1 0 =   0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1   . (75) The rotation circuit is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

  1. Predicting Features of Quantum Systems from Very Few Measurements

    quant-ph 2019-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    Random Clifford measurements produce a classical shadow of a quantum state that predicts M linear features using only O(log M) measurements, independent of system size, with a matching lower bound.

  2. Nearly Optimal Measurement Scheduling for Partial Tomography of Quantum States

    quant-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    All elements of a qubit k-RDM can be measured with O(3^k log^{k-1} N) circuits, and all elements of a fermionic 2-RDM with O(N^2) circuits, matching a new Ω(N^2) lower bound for Clifford measurements.

  3. STABSim: A Parallelized Clifford Simulator with Features Beyond Direct Simulation

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    STABSim is a GPU-accelerated Clifford tableau simulator with new measurement handling, exact T1/T2 noise sampling in a common regime, and a fast Clifford+T to PBC transpiler.

  4. Reducing the sampling complexity of energy estimation in quantum many-body systems using empirical variance information

    quant-ph 2025-02 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    An adaptive estimator based on empirical Bernstein stopping reduces the number of measurements needed to estimate ground-state energies with rigorous error bounds, by up to an order of magnitude in numerical benchmarks.

  5. A Hybrid Qubit Encoding: Splitting Fock Space into Fermionic and Bosonic Subspaces

    quant-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A hybrid fermionic/bosonic qubit encoding splits molecular orbitals into fully resolved spin-orbitals and spin-paired hard-core bosons, reducing quantum resources with a tunable energy error.

  6. Variational Quantum Algorithm for Non-equilibrium Steady States

    quant-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    dVQE variationally computes non-equilibrium steady states of open quantum systems by minimizing the squared Liouvillian over a doubled-qubit ansatz.

  7. Measurement reduction in variational quantum algorithms

    quant-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Unitary partitioning can always group molecular electronic-structure Hamiltonian terms into O(N^3) anticommuting sets, reducing the VQE term count by a factor linear in the number of orbitals.

  8. Quantum Natural Gradient

    quant-ph 2019-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Quantum Natural Gradient uses the Fubini-Study metric of quantum states to precondition gradient updates for variational quantum circuits, converging faster than standard optimizers in simulations.

  9. $O(N^3)$ Measurement Cost for Variational Quantum Eigensolver on Molecular Hamiltonians

    quant-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For Jordan-Wigner encoded molecular Hamiltonians, the O(N^4) Pauli terms partition into O(N^3) commuting families of size O(N), cutting VQE measurement cost to O(N^3).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shad- bolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Pe- ter J. Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Na- ture Communications , 5(1):4213, 2014. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5213

    doi:10.1038/ncomms5213 2014

  2. [2]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, August 2018. ISSN 2521-327X. DOI: 10.22331/q-2018-08-06- 79

    doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06- 2018

  3. [3]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. New Journal of Physics , 18(2):023023, February

    work page

  4. [4]

    P. J. J. O’Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quin- tana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, P. V. Coveney, P. J. Love,...

    2016

  5. [6]

    Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan

    Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Al´ an Aspuru- Guzik, Simon C. Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum computational chemistry. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 92:015003, Mar 2020. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015003

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.92.015003 2020

  6. [7]

    Ryabinkin, Scott N

    Ilya G. Ryabinkin, Scott N. Genin, and Ar- tur F. Izmaylov. Constrained variational quan- tum eigensolver: Quantum computer search en- gine in the Fock space. Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation , 15(1):249–255, 01 2019. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00943

    doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00943 2019

  7. [8]

    Strategies for quantum comput- ing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz

    Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, Jarrod R Mc- Clean, Cornelius Hempel, Peter J Love, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. Strategies for quantum comput- ing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz. Quantum Science and Technol- ogy, 4(1):014008, Oct 2018. DOI: 10.1088/2058- 9565/aad3e4

    doi:10.1088/2058- 2018

  8. [9]

    Accelerated variational quantum eigen- solver

    Daochen Wang, Oscar Higgott, and Stephen Brierley. Accelerated variational quantum eigen- solver. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122:140504, Apr 2019. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.140504

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.140504 2019

Show all 62 references
  1. [10]

    McClean, Mollie E

    Jarrod R. McClean, Mollie E. Kimchi-Schwartz, Jonathan Carter, and Wibe A. de Jong. Hy- brid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states. Phys. Rev. A , 95:042308, Apr 2017. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.042308

    2017 doi

  2. [11]

    Gentile, Stefano Paesani, Nathan Wiebe, Jar- rod R

    Raffaele Santagati, Jianwei Wang, Antonio A. Gentile, Stefano Paesani, Nathan Wiebe, Jar- rod R. McClean, Sam Morley-Short, Peter J. Shadbolt, Damien Bonneau, Joshua W. Silver- stone, David P. Tew, Xiaoqi Zhou, Jeremy L. O’Brien, and Mark G. Thompson. Witnessing eigenstates for...

    2018 doi

  3. [13]

    Subspace variational quantum simulator

    Kentaro Heya, Ken M Nakanishi, Kosuke Mi- tarai, and Keisuke Fujii. Subspace variational quantum simulator. arXiv e-prints , Apr 2019

    2019

  4. [14]

    Benjamin

    Tyson Jones, Suguru Endo, Sam McArdle, Xiao Yuan, and Simon C. Benjamin. Variational quantum algorithms for discovering Hamiltonian spectra. Phys. Rev. A, 99:062304, Jun 2019. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.062304

    2019 doi

  5. [15]

    Variational quantum computation of excited states

    Oscar Higgott, Daochen Wang, and Stephen Brierley. Variational quantum computation of excited states. Quantum, 3:156, July 2019. ISSN 2521-327X. DOI: 10.22331/q-2019-07-01-156

    2019 doi

  6. [16]

    Izmaylov

    Vladyslav Verteletskyi, Tzu-Ching Yen, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Measurement optimiza- tion in the variational quantum eigensolver us- ing a minimum clique cover. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 152(12):124114, 2020. DOI: 10.1063/1.5141458

    2020 doi

  7. [17]

    Pauli partitioning with respect to gate sets

    Andrew Jena, Scott Genin, and Michele Mosca. Pauli partitioning with respect to gate sets. arXiv e-prints , July 2019

    2019

  8. [18]

    Izmaylov

    Tzu-Ching Yen, Vladyslav Verteletskyi, and Ar- tur F. Izmaylov. Measuring all compatible oper- ators in one series of single-qubit measurements using unitary transformations. Journal of Chem- ical Theory and Computation , 16(4):2400–2409, 04 2020. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00008...

    2020 doi

  9. [19]

    Huggins, Jarrod McClean, Nicholas Rubin, Zhang Jiang, Nathan Wiebe, K

    William J. Huggins, Jarrod McClean, Nicholas Rubin, Zhang Jiang, Nathan Wiebe, K. Birgitta Whaley, and Ryan Babbush. Efficient and noise resilient measurements for quantum chemistry on near-term quantum computers. arXiv e-prints , July 2019

    2019

  10. [20]

    Pranav Gokhale, Olivia Angiuli, Yongshan Ding, Kaiwen Gui, Teague Tomesh, Martin Suchara, Margaret Martonosi, and Frederic T. Chong. Minimizing state preparations in variational quantum eigensolver by partitioning into com- muting families. arXiv e-prints , July 2019

    2019

  11. [22]

    Gokhale, O

    P. Gokhale, O. Angiuli, Y. Ding, K. Gui, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong. O(N3) measurement cost for variational quantum eigensolver on molecular Hamiltonians. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , 1: 1–24, 2020. DOI: 10.1109/TQE.2020.3035814

    2020

  12. [23]

    Izmaylov, Tzu-Ching Yen, Robert A

    Artur F. Izmaylov, Tzu-Ching Yen, Robert A. Lang, and Vladyslav Verteletskyi. Unitary par- titioning approach to the measurement prob- lem in the variational quantum eigensolver method. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 16(1):190–195, 01 2020. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00791

    2020 doi

  13. [24]

    Izmaylov, Tzu-Ching Yen, and Ilya G

    Artur F. Izmaylov, Tzu-Ching Yen, and Ilya G. Ryabinkin. Revising the measurement process in the variational quantum eigensolver: is it possi- ble to reduce the number of separately measured operators? Chem. Sci. , 10:3746–3755, 2019. DOI: 10.1039/C8SC05592K

    2019 doi

  14. [26]

    Application of fermionic marginal con- straints to hybrid quantum algorithms

    Nicholas C Rubin, Ryan Babbush, and Jarrod McClean. Application of fermionic marginal con- straints to hybrid quantum algorithms. New Journal of Physics , 20(5):053020, May 2018. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/aab919

    2018 doi

  15. [27]

    Wallraff, D

    Alexandre Blais, Jay Gambetta, A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf. Quantum-information processing with circuit quantum electrodynam- ics. Phys. Rev. A , 75:032329, Mar 2007. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032329

    2007 doi

  16. [28]

    Ralph, Mark G

    Anthony Laing, Alberto Peruzzo, Alberto Politi, Maria Rodas Verde, Matthaeus Halder, Timo- thy C. Ralph, Mark G. Thompson, and Jeremy L. O’Brien. High-fidelity operation of quantum pho- tonic circuits. Applied Physics Letters , 97(21): 211109, 2010. DOI: 10.1063/1.3497087

    2010 doi

  17. [29]

    Barends, J

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, C. Neill, P. O’Malley, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cleland, and John M. Marti- nis. Su...

    2014 doi

  18. [30]

    C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas. High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyperfine qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 117:060504, Aug 2016. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.060504

    2016 doi

  19. [32]

    Linke, Dmitri Maslov, Martin Roetteler, Shantanu Debnath, Caroline Fig- gatt, Kevin A

    Norbert M. Linke, Dmitri Maslov, Martin Roetteler, Shantanu Debnath, Caroline Fig- gatt, Kevin A. Landsman, Kenneth Wright, and Christopher Monroe. Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114(13):3305–...

    2017 doi

  20. [33]

    Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: a review

    G Wendin. Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: a review. Reports on Progress in Physics , 80(10):106001, sep 2017. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6633/aa7e1a

    2017 doi

  21. [34]

    Osborn, Niko- las Tezak, Alexa Staley, Guenevere Prawiroat- modjo, Michael Scheer, Nasser Alidoust, Eyob A

    Matthew Reagor, Christopher B. Osborn, Niko- las Tezak, Alexa Staley, Guenevere Prawiroat- modjo, Michael Scheer, Nasser Alidoust, Eyob A. Sete, Nicolas Didier, Marcus P. da Silva, Ezer Acala, Joel Angeles, Andrew Bestwick, Maxwell Block, Benjamin Bloom, Adam Bradley, Catvu Bu...

    2020

  22. [35]

    V. M. Sch¨ afer, C. J. Ballance, K. Thirumalai, L. J. Stephenson, T. G. Ballance, A. M. Steane, and D. M. Lucas. Fast quantum logic gates with trapped-ion qubits. Nature, 555(7694):75– 78, 2018. DOI: 10.1038/nature25737

    2018 doi

  23. [37]

    Zibrov, Manuel Endres, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti´ c, and Mikhail D

    Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Ahmed Om- ran, Hannes Bernien, Sylvain Schwartz, Alexan- der S. Zibrov, Manuel Endres, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti´ c, and Mikhail D. Lukin. High- fidelity control and entanglement of Rydberg- atom qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 121:123603, Sep

  24. [39]

    Huang, C

    W. Huang, C. H. Yang, K. W. Chan, T. Tanttu, B. Hensen, R. C. C. Leon, M. A. Fogarty, J. C. C. Hwang, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, A. Laucht, and A. S. Dzurak. Fidelity bench- marks for two-qubit gates in silicon. Nature, 569 (7757):532–536, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-...

    2019 doi

  25. [40]

    Power-optimal, stabilized entangling gate between trapped-ion qubits

    Reinhold Blumel, Nikodem Grzesiak, and Yun- seong Nam. Power-optimal, stabilized entangling gate between trapped-ion qubits. arXiv e-prints, May 2019

    2019

  26. [41]

    Y. He, S. K. Gorman, D. Keith, L. Kranz, J. G. Keizer, and M. Y. Simmons. A two-qubit gate between phosphorus donor electrons in sil- icon. Nature, 571(7765):371–375, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1381-2

    2019 doi

  27. [42]

    Graphical description of the ac- tion of local Clifford transformations on graph states

    Maarten Van den Nest, Jeroen Dehaene, and Bart De Moor. Graphical description of the ac- tion of local Clifford transformations on graph states. Phys. Rev. A , 69:022316, Feb 2004. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.022316

    2004 doi

  28. [43]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits

    Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. Phys. Rev. A , 70:052328, Nov 2004. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.052328

    2004 doi

  29. [44]

    Patel, Igor L

    Ketan N. Patel, Igor L. Markov, and John P. Hayes. Optimal synthesis of linear reversible circuits. Quantum Info. Comput. , 8(3):282– 294, March 2008. ISSN 1533-7146. DOI: 10.26421/QIC8.3-4

    2008 doi

  30. [45]

    Predicting many properties of a quan- tum system from very few measurements

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quan- tum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, Jun 2020. ISSN 1745-

    2020

  31. [46]

    Measurements of quantum Hamiltonians with locally-biased clas- sical shadows

    Charles Hadfield, Sergey Bravyi, Rudy Ray- mond, and Antonio Mezzacapo. Measurements of quantum Hamiltonians with locally-biased clas- sical shadows. arXiv e-prints , June 2020

    2020

  32. [47]

    K¨ ubler, Andrew Arrasmith, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J

    Jonas M. K¨ ubler, Andrew Arrasmith, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. An adaptive op- timizer for measurement-frugal variational algo- rithms. Quantum, 4:263, May 2020. ISSN 2521- 327X. DOI: 10.22331/q-2020-05-11-263

    2020 doi

  33. [48]

    Somma, and Patrick J

    Andrew Arrasmith, Lukasz Cincio, Rolando D. Somma, and Patrick J. Coles. Operator sam- pling for shot-frugal optimization in variational algorithms. arXiv e-prints , April 2020

    2020

  34. [49]

    J.B. Conway. A Course in Functional Analysis . Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer New York, 1994. ISBN 9780387972459

    1994

  35. [50]

    The Theory of Quantum Infor- mation

    John Watrous. The Theory of Quantum Infor- mation. Cambridge University Press, 2018

    2018

  36. [51]

    Classical coloring of graphs

    Adrian Kosowski and Krzysztof Manuszewski. Classical coloring of graphs. In Marek Kubale, editor, Graph Colorings , chapter 1. American Mathematical Society, 2004. ISBN 978-0-8218- 7942-9. DOI: 10.1090/conm/352

    2004 doi

  37. [52]

    Linear degree extractors and the inapproximability of max clique and chro- matic number

    David Zuckerman. Linear degree extractors and the inapproximability of max clique and chro- matic number. In Proceedings of the Thirty- Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , pages 681–690, New York, NY, USA, 2006. Association for Com- puting Machinery. IS...

    2006

  38. [54]

    Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction

    Daniel Gottesman. Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, Jan 1997

    1997

  39. [55]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quan- tum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition . Cambridge Univer- sity Press, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ISBN 978-1107002173

    2011

  40. [56]

    M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel. Multi- party entanglement in graph states. Phys. Rev. A, 69:062311, Jun 2004. DOI: 10.1103/Phys- RevA.69.062311

    2004 doi

  41. [57]

    Recognizing locally equivalent graphs

    Andr´ e Bouchet. Recognizing locally equivalent graphs. Discrete Mathematics , 114(1):75 – 86,

  42. [58]

    Op- timal space-depth trade-off of CNOT circuits in Accepted in Quantum 2020-12-27, click title to verify

    Jiaqing Jiang, Xiaoming Sun, Shang-Hua Teng, Bujiao Wu, Kewen Wu, and Jialin Zhang. Op- timal space-depth trade-off of CNOT circuits in Accepted in Quantum 2020-12-27, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 12 quantum logic synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM-S...

    2020 doi

  43. [59]

    Par- allel quantum computation and quantum codes

    Cristopher Moore and Martin Nilsson. Par- allel quantum computation and quantum codes. SIAM J. Comput. , 31(3):799–815, March 2002. ISSN 0097-5397. DOI: 10.1137/S0097539799355053

    2002 doi

  44. [60]

    Topological quantum mem- ory

    Eric Dennis, Alexei Kitaev, Andrew Landahl, and John Preskill. Topological quantum mem- ory. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 43(9): 4452–4505, 2002. DOI: 10.1063/1.1499754

    2002 doi

  45. [61]

    OpenFermion: the electronic structure package for quantum computers

    Jarrod R McClean, Nicholas C Rubin, Kevin J Sung, Ian D Kivlichan, Xavier Bonet-Monroig, Yudong Cao, Chengyu Dai, E Schuyler Fried, Craig Gidney, Brendan Gimby, Pranav Gokhale, Thomas H¨ aner, Tarini Hardikar, Vojtˇ ech Havl´ ıˇ cek, Oscar Higgott, Cupjin Huang, Josh Izaac, Zh...

    2020

  46. [62]

    Bravyi and Alexei Yu

    Sergey B. Bravyi and Alexei Yu. Kitaev. Fermionic quantum computation. Annals of Physics, 298(1):210 – 226, 2002. ISSN 0003-4916. DOI: 10.1006/aphy.2002.6254

    2002

  47. [63]

    Gambetta, Antonio Mez- zacapo, and Kristan Temme

    Sergey Bravyi, Jay M. Gambetta, Antonio Mez- zacapo, and Kristan Temme. Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic Hamiltonians. arXiv e- prints, Jan 2017

    2017

  48. [64]

    Hagberg, Daniel A

    Aric A. Hagberg, Daniel A. Schult, and Pieter J. Swart. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. In Ga¨ el Varo- quaux, Travis Vaught, and Jarrod Millman, ed- itors, Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference, pages 11 – 15, 2008

    2008

  49. [65]

    Arlazarov, E.A

    V.L. Arlazarov, E.A. Dinic, M.A. Kronod, and I.A. Faradez. On economical construction of the transitive closure of an oriented graph. Soviet Mathematics Doklady , pages 1209–10, 1970

    1970

  50. [66]

    Method of Four Russians

    Robert M. Parrish, Lori A. Burns, Daniel G. A. Smith, Andrew C. Simmonett, A. Eugene De- Prince, Edward G. Hohenstein, U˘ gur Bozkaya, Alexander Yu. Sokolov, Roberto Di Remi- gio, Ryan M. Richard, J´ erˆ ome F. Gonthier, Andrew M. James, Harley R. McAlexander, Ashutosh Kumar, ...

    2017

  51. [1993]

    DOI: 10.1016/0012- 365X(93)90357-Y

    ISSN 0012-365X. DOI: 10.1016/0012- 365X(93)90357-Y

    doi

  52. [2016]

    DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023023

    doi

  53. [2018]

    DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.123603

    doi

  54. [2481]

    DOI: 10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.