Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Non-Variational ADAPT algorithm for quantum simulations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NoVa-ADAPT removes the classical optimizer from ADAPT-VQE and still matches its measurement cost to chemical accuracy.

desk verdict NoVa-ADAPT is a plausible hybrid of ADAPT-VQE and feedback-based methods, but the headline claim of measurement-cost parity rests on a proxy that hides the pool-size factor and needs a shot-level accounting. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09736 v1 pith:KMJD7MGW submitted 2024-11-14 quant-ph

Ho Lun Tang , Yanzhu Chen , Prakriti Biswas , Alicia B. Magann , Christian Arenz , Sophia E. Economou This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords non-variationalalgorithmADAPT-VQEadaptivequantumcircuitsgroundstatepreparationmeasurementcostchemistrynoiserobustnessfeedback-basedalgorithms
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

Adaptive quantum algorithms for molecular ground states typically pair gradient-based operator selection with a classical optimization loop over circuit parameters. This paper asks whether that loop is necessary and proposes NoVa-ADAPT, which sets each new parameter directly from the measured energy gradient of the operator selected. In simulations of the H4 molecule, NoVa-ADAPT reaches chemical accuracy with a measurement cost similar to ADAPT-VQE, despite building deeper circuits. The paper also finds that the optimization-free update is more tolerant of gate rotation errors than ADAPT-VQE, while being more sensitive to errors in the gradient measurements. If these results hold, removing the variational optimizer is a viable way to cut measurement overhead in adaptive quantum chemistry simulations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the gradient-scaled exponential update. At each iteration the energy derivative with respect to every pool operator $A_i$ is measured, $\left.\partial E/\partial\theta\right|_{\theta=0} = i\langle\psi|[H,A_i]|\psi\rangle$; the operator $A_n$ with the largest magnitude is selected and applied as $e^{i\eta_n A_n}$, with $\eta_n = -\gamma\, \left.\partial E_{A_n}/\partial\theta\right|_{\theta=0}$. The paper uses three prescriptions for $\gamma$: a constant, the descent-lemma bound $1/(4\|H\|^2\|A_n\|^2)$, and the second-derivative optimum $\gamma^* = -(\partial^2 E/\partial\eta^2)^{-1}$. This construction transfers the role of the classical optimizer to a fixed, measurement-determined update while preserving ADAPT's problem-tailored circuit growth.

What would settle it

Simulate both algorithms on H4 with finite measurement shots, tallying the total shot count including every gradient estimate, and compare the shot budget needed to reach chemical accuracy; if NoVa-ADAPT's total exceeds ADAPT-VQE's, the claimed parity is an artifact of counting each energy or gradient estimate as one function evaluation. A hardware experiment with characterized gate over-rotation errors could also test the predicted robustness difference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a non-variational version of ADAPT-VQE can match the variational original in measurement cost down to chemical accuracy. Starting from the Hartree–Fock state, the algorithm measures the energy gradients of every operator in the pool, appends the operator with the largest gradient magnitude as $e^{i\eta A}$, and chooses $\eta = -\gamma$ times that gradient. With $\gamma$ taken as a constant, as a descent-lemma lower bound, or as the inverse second derivative, the update lowers the energy at each step without any classical parameter optimization. On the H4 molecule, NoVa-ADAPT uses more operators than ADAPT-VQE but a comparable number of function evaluations to reach chemical accuracy; on a strongly correlated H4 geometry it even escapes the local minimum that traps ADAPT-VQE. The paper presents this as evidence that gradient-based operator selection alone, without a variational subroutine, is sufficient for efficient adaptive ground-state preparation in small molecular systems.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement-cost comparison assumes that estimating the energy and estimating a gradient each cost one function evaluation; if gradient estimates require many more measurement shots than energy estimates, the claimed cost parity between NoVa-ADAPT and ADAPT-VQE could reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NoVa-ADAPT reaches chemical accuracy for the H4 molecule with a number of function evaluations comparable to ADAPT-VQE, so the classical optimization subroutine is not essential for this adaptive algorithm's measurement efficiency.
  • Because NoVa-ADAPT adds more operators than ADAPT-VQE, its circuits are deeper, so on noisy hardware the savings in optimization must be weighed against increased gate-error exposure.
  • The optimization-free update is less sensitive to rotational (parameter) errors, since a range of update sizes still reduce the energy, making it a candidate for devices with imprecise gate control.
  • On strongly correlated systems where ADAPT-VQE settles into a local minimum, a constant-step non-variational update can keep lowering the energy and reach chemical accuracy.
  • Starting with a few NoVa-ADAPT iterations and then switching to ADAPT-VQE slightly reduces the measurement cost relative to running ADAPT-VQE alone, suggesting a practical hybrid workflow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The function-evaluation metric likely understates the true sampling cost of gradient estimates; a shot-level comparison on larger molecules is needed to see whether the parity survives outside the small, noiseless setting.
  • The constant-gamma strategy's ability to sidestep a local minimum hints that curvature information (the second-derivative update) guides the path into the trap; a tunable mix of first- and second-order information could give a more robust update rule.
  • The same non-variational gradient update could be applied with other operator pools, such as hardware-efficient qubit-ADAPT pools, potentially transferring the measurement-cost result to circuits with different noise characteristics.
  • If the predicted robustness to rotational errors holds on real devices, the update rule could be used as a building block inside variational or hybrid algorithms to make parameter optimization less sensitive to control noise.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces NoVa-ADAPT, a non-variational adaptive quantum state preparation algorithm. At each iteration, the energy gradient with respect to each operator in an ADAPT-style pool is measured; the operator with the largest gradient magnitude is appended, and the rotation parameter is set to a negative multiplicative constant times the measured gradient, avoiding any classical optimization. The paper compares this algorithm with ADAPT-VQE, feedback-based quantum algorithms, and randomized adaptive approaches on an H4 molecule in the STO-3G basis, using the number of operators in the circuit, the number of function evaluations (as a proxy for measurement cost), and energy error relative to exact diagonalization. The main reported findings are that NoVa-ADAPT reaches chemical accuracy with a similar number of function evaluations as ADAPT-VQE despite using more operators, that it can escape a local minimum where ADAPT-VQE gets trapped for a strongly correlated geometry, and that it shows different noise robustness properties. The authors also explore random initial states and a hybrid ADAPT/NoVa scheme.

Significance. If the central cost-parity claim is correct, NoVa-ADAPT is a useful addition to the toolbox of optimization-free adaptive state preparation methods. The paper is notable for directly comparing against several prior feedback-based approaches and for being transparent about the limitations of its noise model. The numerical evidence is limited to H4 (8 qubits) at two geometries, so the generality of the conclusions remains open. The algorithm's basic premise is clearly stated and the results are reproducible in principle from the provided Hamiltonian in Appendix A.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V, Fig. 1(b); abstract] The claim of 'similar measurement cost to ADAPT-VQE' rests on counting each energy or gradient estimate as one function evaluation. Under this proxy, a full gradient evaluation over the operator pool is treated as a single unit, but Eq. (2) shows that selecting an operator requires estimating i⟨[H,A_i]⟩ for every A_i in the pool, i.e., P separate circuit expectation values for a pool of size P. Because NoVa-ADAPT uses about 100 operators while ADAPT-VQE uses 11 in Fig. 1, the gradient-evaluation bill for NoVa is already ~100P versus ~11P before including ADAPT's BFGS energy evaluations. For a spin-adapted fermionic pool with P~40, this can reverse the apparent parity under shot-level accounting. The authors should either report a shot-level metric (e.g., total number of Pauli expectation-value estimates) or multiply the gradient-evaluation count by the pool size and demonstrate that the conclusion is unchanged.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (10)] Equation (10) for γ* has the wrong sign. Combining Eq. (5), η_n = -γ g with g = ∂E/∂η_n at η_n=0, and the quadratic expansion in Eq. (9), the stationary point with respect to γ is γ* = (∂²E/∂η_n²)^{-1}, not -(...)^{-1} as printed. As written, the formula is inconsistent with Eq. (9). Since the '2nd-deriv' results in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 use γ from this equation, the authors must verify the implementation, correct the equation, and confirm the affected numerical curves.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI, Figs. 6 and 7] The noise model does not inject rotational or gradient errors during the classical optimization steps of ADAPT-VQE, which the text acknowledges underestimates ADAPT-VQE's sensitivity. Please make this caveat more prominent, for example in the figure captions, since the figures otherwise suggest a more definitive robustness comparison than the model supports.
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 3] For the random initial state results, the lower panel x-axis is labeled 'number of function evaluations' but the caption describes 'Energy error'; please clarify whether the plotted quantity is energy or energy error, and consider adding error bars or shaded regions for the 100-sample averages.
  3. [Sec. IV C, Fig. 5] The description of the ACSE comparison would benefit from a sentence stating how the step size ϵ is optimized with BFGS and whether that optimization cost is included in the function-evaluation counts of Fig. 5.
  4. [Sec. III, Eqs. (7) and (8)] The lower-bounding γ in Eq. (8) is derived from Ref. [36]; the factor 1/4 in Eq. (8) leads to a 1/8 in Eq. (7). Please check that the constants are quoted consistently with the source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: NoVa-ADAPT's gate parameters and operator choices are computed from current-state gradient measurements, and the final energies are benchmarked against exact diagonalization.

full rationale

The central claims are benchmark claims, not fitted identities. The update rule in Eqs. (4)-(6) sets eta_n = -gamma times the measured energy gradient, with gamma chosen either as a fixed hyperparameter, as the lower bound in Eq. (8) taken from an external descent lemma, or as a second-derivative estimate in Eq. (10). None of these choices is fitted to the exact ground-state energy that the algorithm is later judged against; the target energies are independent outputs of exact diagonalization. The operator pools and selection rule are adopted from the authors' earlier ADAPT-VQE papers, but those are established algorithmic components with external benchmarks, and the present performance comparison uses the same measured energy-error function for all algorithms rather than importing the conclusion from a citation. The only substantive concern is the paper's function-evaluation accounting in Sec. V, which counts a full-pool gradient estimate as one function evaluation and could undercount NoVa-ADAPT's shot-level measurement cost; that is a metric or accounting limitation, not a circular derivation. I also note that Eq. (10) appears to have a sign error relative to the stationary point of Eq. (9), but an algebraic mistake is not circularity. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's text and equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm rests on standard quantum mechanics, a borrowed descent lemma, and the ADAPT operator pool. The only hand-set quantity in the main algorithm is the constant step size gamma in some runs; the second-derivative version avoids this free parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • constant gamma step size = 1 for H4 at 1.5 A; 0.75 for H4 at 3 A
    Hand-chosen step sizes for the constant-gamma runs in Figures 1 and 2. Different values are needed for different systems, so this is a tuned hyperparameter rather than a derived quantity.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The energy derivative of a candidate operator at zero angle equals the commutator expectation value i<[H,A_i]> (Eq. 2).
    Standard derivative formula for a parameterized unitary exponential, used to rank operators in every ADAPT-type algorithm.
  • domain assumption The descent lemma (Eq. 7) guarantees monotone energy decrease for sufficiently small step sizes and provides a lower-bounding step size (Eq. 8).
    Borrowed from Ref. [36] by two of the same authors; it assumes a Lipschitz-type condition on the energy gradient that may not hold globally.
  • domain assumption The second-order Taylor expansion (Eq. 9) approximates the energy reduction well enough to set the step size gamma* via Eq. 10.
    Assumes local quadratic behavior; the paper itself shows this step can lead to a sub-optimal trap, so this assumption is not globally reliable.
  • domain assumption The spin-adapted fermionic operator pool (Eqs. 20-21) contains operators sufficient to reach the ground state while preserving symmetries.
    Standard ADAPT-VQE pool assumption; if the pool is not expressive for the Hamiltonian, the adaptive construction cannot converge.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Variational ADAPT algorithm for quantum simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMJD7MGW

@misc{pith2026241109736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Variational ADAPT algorithm for quantum simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMJD7MGW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09736}
}
read the original abstract

We explore a non-variational quantum state preparation approach combined with the ADAPT operator selection strategy in the application of preparing the ground state of a desired target Hamiltonian. In this algorithm, energy gradient measurements determine both the operators and the gate parameters in the quantum circuit construction. We compare this non-variational algorithm with ADAPT-VQE and with feedback-based quantum algorithms in terms of the rate of energy reduction, the circuit depth, and the measurement cost in molecular simulation. We find that despite using deeper circuits, this new algorithm reaches chemical accuracy at a similar measurement cost to ADAPT-VQE. Since it does not rely on a classical optimization subroutine, it may provide robustness against circuit parameter errors due to imperfect control or gate synthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09736 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    10, sampled from 100 runs

    Green curves show the results of constructing the state with operators randomly picked from the pool with γ calculated from the second derivative using Eq. 10, sampled from 100 runs. Magenta curves show the results of the NoVa-ADAPT algorithm with lower bounding γ from Eq. 8. Red curves show the results of the NoVa-ADAPT algorithm with γ calculated from t...

    work page

  2. [2]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  3. [3]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem, arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 (1995)

    arXiv 1995

  4. [4]

    J. D. Whitfield, J. Biamonte, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Sim- ulation of electronic structure hamiltonians using quan- tum computers, Molecular Physics 109, 735 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Simulation of many-body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2586 (1997)

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm provid- ing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5162 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

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

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

    2018

  8. [8]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications 5 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Bauer, D

    B. Bauer, D. Wecker, A. J. Millis, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Hybrid quantum-classical approach to corre- lated materials, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031045 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum 3, 191 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. Brandao, and G. K.-L. Chan, De- termining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Na- ture Physics 16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Gomes, A

    N. Gomes, A. Mukherjee, F. Zhang, T. Iadecola, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, P. P. Orth, and Y.-X. Yao, Adaptive variational quantum imaginary time evolution approach for ground state preparation, Advanced Quantum Tech- nologies 4, 2100114 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

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

    2016

  6. [14]

    J. I. Colless, V. V. Ramasesh, D. Dahlen, M. S. Blok, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. R. McClean, J. Carter, W. A. de Jong, and I. Siddiqi, Computation of molecular spec- tra on a quantum processor with an error-resilient algo- rithm, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011021 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Kandala, A

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

    2017

  8. [16]

    Y. Shen, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J.-N. Zhang, M.-H. Yung, and K. Kim, Quantum implementation of the unitary coupled cluster for simulating molecular electronic struc- ture, Phys. Rev. A 95, 020501 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Hempel, C

    C. Hempel, C. Maier, J. Romero, J. McClean, T. Monz, H. Shen, P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Love, R. Babbush, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Quantum chemistry calculations on a trapped-ion quantum simu- lator, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031022 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

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

    2019

  11. [19]

    H. L. Tang, V. Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grim- sley, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for construct- ing hardware-efficient ans¨ atze on a quantum processor, PRX Quantum 2, 020310 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    P. G. Anastasiou, Y. Chen, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Tetris-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algo- rithm that yields shallower, denser circuit ans¨ atze (2022), arXiv:2209.10562 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chen, H.-Y

    C.-F. Chen, H.-Y. Huang, J. Preskill, and L. Zhou, Local minima in quantum systems, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2309.16596 (2023), arXiv:2309.16596 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bittel and M

    L. Bittel and M. Kliesch, Training variational quantum algorithms is np-hard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 120502 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    D. A. Mazziotti, Anti-hermitian contracted schr¨ odinger equation: Direct determination of the two-electron re- duced density matrices of many-electron molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 143002 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Feedback-based quantum optimization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 250502 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Lyapunov-control-inspired strategies for quantum combinatorial optimization, Phys. Rev. A 106, 062414 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Abdul Rahman, H

    S. Abdul Rahman, H. G. Clausen, ¨O. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, Adaptive sampling noise mitiga- tion technique for feedback-based quantum algorithms, in International Conference on Computational Science (Springer, 2024) pp. 321–329

    2024

  19. [27]

    G. Pexe, L. Rattighieri, A. Malvezzi, and F. Fanchini, Us- ing a feedback-based quantum algorithm to analyze the critical properties of the annni model without classical optimization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17937 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. A. Rahman, ¨O. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, Feedback-based quantum algorithm for constrained op- timization problems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08169 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. A. Rahman, ¨O. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, Feedback-based quantum algorithm for excited states cal- culation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04620 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    R. K. Malla, H. Sukeno, H. Yu, T.-C. Wei, A. Weichsel- baum, and R. M. Konik, Feedback-based quantum algo- rithm inspired by counterdiabatic driving, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15303 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    D. Arai, K. N. Okada, Y. Nakano, K. Mitarai, and K. Fu- jii, Scalable circuit depth reduction in feedback-based quantum optimization with a quadratic approximation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17810 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    L. T. Brady and S. Hadfield, Focqs: Feedback optimally controlled quantum states (2024), arXiv:2409.15426 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Chandarana, K

    P. Chandarana, K. Paul, K. R. Swain, X. Chen, and A. del Campo, Lyapunov controlled counterdiabatic quantum optimization (2024), arXiv:2409.12525 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. B. Larsen, M. D. Grace, A. D. Baczewski, and A. B. 13 Magann, Feedback-based quantum algorithms for ground state preparation, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033336 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    SCHULTE-HERBR ¨UGGEN, S

    T. SCHULTE-HERBR ¨UGGEN, S. J. GLASER, G. DIRR, and U. HELMKE, Gradient flows for op- timization in quantum information and quantum dynamics: Foundations and applications, Reviews in Mathematical Physics 22, 597 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Wiersema and N

    R. Wiersema and N. Killoran, Optimizing quantum cir- cuits with riemannian gradient flow, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062421 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    A. B. Magann, S. E. Economou, and C. Arenz, Ran- domized adaptive quantum state preparation, Physical Review Research 5, 10.1103/physrevresearch.5.033227 (2023)

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Malvetti, C

    E. Malvetti, C. Arenz, G. Dirr, and T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, Randomized Gradient Descents on Rieman- nian Manifolds: Almost Sure Convergence to Global Minima in and beyond Quantum Optimization, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.12039 (2024), arXiv:2405.12039 [math.OC]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    V. O. Shkolnikov, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Avoiding symmetry roadblocks and minimiz- ing the measurement overhead of adaptive variational quantum eigensolvers, Quantum 7, 1040 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    L. W. Bertels, H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Symmetry breaking slows convergence of the adapt variational quantum eigen- solver, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation18, 6656 (2022), pMID: 36239978

    2022

  33. [41]

    Warren, L

    A. Warren, L. Zhu, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Adaptive variational algorithms for quantum Gibbs state preparation, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2203.12757 (2022), arXiv:2203.12757 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. M. Romero, J. Engel, H. L. Tang, and S. E. Economou, Solving nuclear structure problems with the adaptive variational quantum algorithm, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064317 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Grimsley, G

    H. Grimsley, G. Barron, E. Barnes, S. Economou, and N. Mayhall, Adaptive, problem-tailored variational quan- tum eigensolver mitigates rough parameter landscapes and barren plateaus, npj Quantum Inf 9, 19 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    C. K. Long, K. Dalton, C. H. W. Barnes, D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, and N. Mertig, Layering and sub- pool exploration for adaptive variational quantum eigen- solvers: Reducing circuit depth, runtime, and suscepti- bility to noise, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042413 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    J. S. Van Dyke, K. Shirali, G. S. Barron, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Scaling adaptive quan- tum simulation algorithms via operator pool tiling, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L012030 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Ramˆ oa, L

    M. Ramˆ oa, L. P. Santos, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Reducing measurement costs by recycling the Hessian in adaptive variational quantum algorithms, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2401.05172 (2024), arXiv:2401.05172 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ramˆ oa, P

    M. Ramˆ oa, P. G. Anastasiou, L. P. Santos, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Reducing the Resources Required by ADAPT-VQE Using Coupled Exchange Operators and Improved Subroutines, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.08696 (2024), arXiv:2407.08696 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, Scalable circuits for preparing ground states on digital quantum computers: The schwinger model vacuum on 100 qubits, PRX Quantum 5, 020315 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Beck, First-Order Methods in Opti- mization (Society for Industrial and Ap- plied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2017) https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9781611974997

    A. Beck, First-Order Methods in Opti- mization (Society for Industrial and Ap- plied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2017) https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9781611974997

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    S. E. Smart and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum solver of con- tracted eigenvalue equations for scalable molecular simu- lations on quantum computing devices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 070504 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Nakata, C

    Y. Nakata, C. Hirche, C. Morgan, and A. Winter, Uni- tary 2-designs from random x- and z-diagonal unitaries, Journal of Mathematical Physics 58, 10.1063/1.4983266 (2017)

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    J.-N. Boyn, A. O. Lykhin, S. E. Smart, L. Gagliardi, and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum-classical hybrid algorithm for the simulation of all-electron correlation, The Journal of Chemical Physics 155, 244106 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction, Russ. Math. Surv. 52, 1191 (1997)

    1997

  46. [54]

    C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, The solovay-kitaev algorithm, Quantum Info. Comput. 6, 81–95 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    N. J. Ross and P. Selinger, Optimal ancilla-free clifford+t approximation of z-rotations, Quantum Info. Comput. 16, 901–953 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.