Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 8 cited by

A Framework for Quantum Advantage

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that quantum advantage requires both rigorous validation of outputs and a demonstrable separation from classical computation, and that random circuit sampling does not yet meet this bar.

desk verdict A coherent, useful position paper on quantum advantage whose dismissal of RCS depends on a validation standard applied unevenly; worth engaging, but the asymmetry needs confrontation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20658 v2 pith:BMYZSKMD submitted 2025-06-25 quant-ph

Olivia Lanes , Mourad Beji , Antonio D. Corcoles , Constantin Dalyac , Jay M. Gambetta , Loic Henriet , Ali Javadi-Abhari , Abhinav Kandala
show 7 more authors
Antonio Mezzacapo Christopher Porter Sarah Sheldon John Watrous Christa Zoufal Alexandre Dauphin Borja Peropadre
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords quantumadvantagerandomcircuitsamplingerrormitigationdetectionvalidationvariationaleigensolverdiagonalizationquantum-centricsupercomputing
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

Quantum advantage, the paper argues, should not be treated as a buzzword but as an operational claim with two mandatory criteria: the output must be rigorously validated, and the quantum computation must show a demonstrable separation from classical alternatives in efficiency, cost, or accuracy. Applying this standard, the paper concludes that random circuit sampling—the basis of several high-profile supremacy demonstrations—does not yet meet the bar, because certifying its outputs at scale is classically intractable without fault tolerance. The constructive side of the framework identifies where early advantage is more plausible: problems whose answers are classically checkable, such as ground-state energies from sample-based quantum diagonalization, or expectation values produced by error mitigation with proven error bounds. The practical upshot is a shift in near-term strategy away from sampling supremacy and toward verifiable hybrid quantum-classical computation in high-performance computing centers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a two-criterion definition of quantum advantage, coupled with a taxonomy of validation modes. Validation, the first criterion, can be achieved in three ways: rigorous error bars (from fault-tolerant computation, formally proven error mitigation, or post-selected error detection); efficient classical verification of the answer's structure (as in factoring or peaked sampling); or variational scoring, where approximate solutions can be ranked by energy or cost without knowing the exact answer. The second criterion, quantum separation, requires the quantum result to be demonstrably better than the best available classical approach, measured by efficiency, cost, or accuracy. This definitional machinery does the work of classifying algorithms: it elevates sample-based quantum diagonalization and error-mitigated expectation values as verifiable, and demotes random circuit sampling as unverifiable at scale.

What would settle it

A random-circuit-sampling experiment whose outputs are certified by a method the community accepts as rigorous—for example, fault-tolerant or post-selected error-detected sampling—and whose distribution is verified classically at a scale beyond classical simulation would falsify the claim that RCS is not a satisfactory pathway to quantum advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a definition plus a verdict. Quantum advantage is defined as the execution of an information-processing task on quantum hardware that satisfies two criteria: (i) the correctness of the output can be rigorously validated, and (ii) the computation is performed with a quantum separation that demonstrably offers superior efficiency, cost-effectiveness, or accuracy over classical computation alone. The paper then applies this definition to three algorithmic families—sampling, variational ground-state problems, and expectation values of observables—and concludes that random circuit sampling does not yet constitute a fully satisfactory pathway to quantum advantage, because the only universally accepted way to certify that RCS outputs are drawn faithfully at scale is fault-tolerant quantum computing. Experimental supremacy claims based on RCS therefore remain unsubstantiated under this criterion. In contrast, sample-based quantum diagonalization and error-mitigated expectation values with provable error bounds achieve the highest degree of verifiability, because their outputs can be classically ranked and reproduced, making them the most credible candidates for early advantage.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's verdict depends on the normative judgment that statistical certification of sampling outputs is not validation; if the community instead accepts cross-entropy benchmarking or similar statistical evidence as sufficient, the conclusion that RCS claims are unsubstantiated collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Random-circuit-sampling claims will not count as quantum advantage under this standard until sampling is certified by fault tolerance, error detection with post-selection, or an equally rigorous method.
  • Early advantage claims will most plausibly come from classically verifiable ground-state problems, such as sample-based quantum diagonalization, where the final answer is stored and checked classically.
  • Error mitigation with proven error bounds, augmented by classical tensor-network and light-cone methods, extends the reach of expectation-value computations beyond brute-force classical simulation.
  • The benchmark for advantage shifts from quantum-hardware-versus-classical to hybrid quantum-classical systems integrated into HPC, so advantage becomes a property of the combined workflow.
  • Peaked random circuits are the remaining open avenue for sampling-based advantage, pending a rigorous hardness analysis; quasi-polynomial classical simulation of peakedness threatens them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the paper's definition makes community acceptance of statistical certification, such as cross-entropy benchmarking, the decisive judgment; if that judgment flips, so does the verdict on RCS.
  • Editorial extension: the 'quantum separation' criterion compares against best-known classical algorithms and hardware-specific metrics, so in practice the framework yields sequential, falsifiable benchmarks rather than unconditional separations.
  • Editorial extension: the constructive path depends on the paper's own caveat that error mitigation has exponential sampling overhead and analog verification is hard; if hardware fidelity plateaus, the expectation-value route weakens.
  • Editorial extension: a direct testable next step is identifying which local observables in analog simulators keep size-independent error bounds, using the cited robustness results as a map.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This position paper proposes a functional definition of quantum advantage with two criteria: (i) the correctness of the output can be rigorously validated, and (ii) the computation is performed with a quantum separation that demonstrably offers superior efficiency, cost-effectiveness, or accuracy over classical computation. The authors apply this framework to three algorithmic families: sampling problems, variational/diagonalization methods, and expectation-value estimation. They conclude that random circuit sampling (RCS) does not yet constitute a satisfactory pathway to quantum advantage because its outputs cannot be rigorously validated at scale without fault tolerance, whereas error-mitigated expectation values and quantum diagonalization methods (SQD/SKQD) are more likely to yield early, verifiable advantage. The paper also reviews error correction, error mitigation, error detection, quantum-centric supercomputing, and current hardware platforms.

Significance. If accepted, the proposed definition would provide a much-needed common vocabulary for evaluating near-term quantum advantage claims, and the paper's emphasis on verifiability, falsifiability, and open benchmarking is a constructive contribution to the field. The manuscript is clearly written and well-referenced, and it gives a detailed, honest discussion of error detection as an intermediate path between error mitigation and fault tolerance. The paper's concrete roadmap—prioritizing error-mitigated expectation values and diagonalization-based methods over sampling—is a useful hypothesis that can stimulate further research. However, the paper is a perspective rather than a proof-based contribution, and its central applied conclusion about RCS rests on a normative epistemic standard that is applied asymmetrically to the methods it favors. The definition itself also lacks an operational specification of what counts as 'demonstrably superior.' These issues do not destroy the paper's value but do require substantial clarification before the conclusions can be considered fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III vs. Section IV A2] The validation standard is applied unevenly. Section III rejects RCS because XEB-style statistical certification is treated as insufficient, asserting that 'the only universally accepted method for achieving this is fault-tolerant quantum computing.' Yet Section IV A2 claims that several quantum error mitigation methods 'have demonstrated the ability to yield accurate expectation values from short-depth circuits, with rigorous error bounds [60,61].' Those rigorous error bounds are conditional on noise-model assumptions (e.g., sparse Pauli-Lindblad models) that are themselves verified only through heuristic evidence such as randomized benchmarking and small-system tomography. Section II A concedes that 'formally proven results always rely on a set of initial assumptions... that must themselves be verified.' At scales beyond classical simulation, those noise-model assumptions cannot be fully verified independently, leaving a symmetric vulnerability to unmodeled errors. The paper does not supply a principled boundary between heuristic validation that is admissible and heuristic validation that is not; this asymmetry is load-bearing because it drives the central conclusion that RCS is not a satisfactory pathway while error-mitigated expectation values are.
  2. [Section III, RCS paragraph] The assertion that fault-tolerant quantum computing is the 'only universally accepted method' for certifying error-free sampling is a contestable empirical claim about community consensus, not a technical result. The paper does not engage with the substantial literature on verification of random circuit sampling, including linear cross-entropy benchmarking and its known limitations, nor does it explain why statistical evidence of sampling correctness is categorically inadmissible while the statistical evidence supporting noise-model accuracy is admissible. Because the RCS conclusion depends entirely on this premise, the authors should either justify the consensus claim with evidence or reframe it explicitly as a normative choice rather than a universal standard.
  3. [Section II, Definition of quantum advantage] The second criterion—'quantum separation that demonstrably offers superior efficiency, cost-effectiveness, or accuracy'—is not operational as stated. The paper does not specify the baseline (e.g., best known classical algorithm at the time of the claim, including future algorithmic improvements), the metric (wall-clock time, financial cost, energy, accuracy measure), or the required confidence level. The abstract calls the definition 'empirically verifiable,' but without these specifications it is difficult to falsify any particular claim of advantage. This weakens the central contribution of the paper, which purports to provide a functional framework for evaluating advantage claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section I] The paper uses 'quantum advantage' without clarifying its relationship to the earlier term 'quantum supremacy'; a sentence distinguishing the two would help readers.
  2. [Section III, peaked random circuits] The paragraph on peaked random circuits first presents peakedness as enabling verifiable advantage and then notes that peaked distributions may be simulable in quasi-polynomial time [29]; the presentation would be clearer if this tension were addressed head-on rather than leaving the reader to reconcile the two statements.
  3. [Section IV A2] The PEC sampling overhead expression '~ (1+15ε/8)^{nd}' should define n, d, and ε explicitly and state the noise model to which ε refers.
  4. [Section IV B] The term 'quantum-centric supercomputing (QCSC)' is used as a proprietary label; consider defining it in more neutral language so the framework is accessible to a broad community.
  5. [Section V] The prediction that credible evidence of quantum advantage will emerge 'within the next two years' is speculative and lacks supporting analysis; either cite a roadmap study or soften the claim.
  6. [Throughout] Several statements are phrased as opinions ('we believe,' 'we anticipate') mixed with technical assertions; marking the distinction would improve clarity in a position paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's conclusions follow from its stipulated definition of quantum advantage, and the cited supporting results are published, independently checkable works rather than inputs fitted here.

full rationale

The paper stipulates in Section II that quantum advantage requires rigorous validation and a demonstrable quantum separation. The later conclusion about random circuit sampling, 'we conclude that random circuit sampling (RCS) does not yet constitute a fully satisfactory pathway to quantum advantage,' is a classification under that stipulated criterion, not an empirical prediction derived from the definition by a hidden fit. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the choice of methods. The cited error-mitigation bounds and sample-based quantum diagonalization results (e.g., refs. [60, 61, 9]) are real published results with stated assumptions, even though some authors overlap with the present paper. The perceived asymmetry between statistical certification for RCS and noise-model-based certification for error mitigation is a normative epistemic judgment about what counts as validation; it may be debated as a correctness or fairness concern, but it is not a derivation loop. The framework is self-contained relative to its own definitions, and the applied conclusions are conditional on those definitions rather than equivalent to them by construction.

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

The paper is a position statement with no free parameters or invented entities. Its argument rests on several domain assumptions about what counts as validation and about the appropriate baseline for comparison. These are reasonable but contestable, and they are identified above.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The correctness of a quantum computation must be established through rigorous error bars or efficient classical verification of the output.
    Section II A sets this as the standard for validation; it is a normative choice that excludes statistical certification such as cross-entropy benchmarking.
  • domain assumption Fault-tolerant quantum computing is the only universally accepted method to certify random circuit sampling outputs at scale.
    Section III uses this to dismiss RCS demonstrations; it is a community-judgment claim, not a proven fact.
  • standard math The variational principle permits classical ranking of approximate ground-state energies.
    Invoked in Section III to establish verifiability of variational and diagonalization approaches; this is a standard property of quantum mechanics.
  • domain assumption The relevant comparison for quantum advantage is the hybrid quantum-classical system, not the quantum processor in isolation.
    Section IV B frames quantum-centric supercomputing as the benchmark unit; this is a policy choice that shapes the framework's conclusions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Framework for Quantum Advantage." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BMYZSKMD

@misc{pith2026250620658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Framework for Quantum Advantage},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BMYZSKMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20658}
}
read the original abstract

As quantum computing approaches the threshold where certain tasks demonstrably outpace their classical machines, the need for a precise, clear, consensus-driven definition of quantum advantage becomes essential. Rapid progress in the field has blurred this term across companies, architectures, and application domains. Here, we aim to articulate an operational definition for quantum advantage that is both platform-agnostic and empirically verifiable. Building on this framework, we highlight the algorithmic families most likely to achieve early advantage. Finally, we outline our vision for the near future, in which quantum computers enhance existing high-performance computing platforms, enabling new frontiers in chemistry, materials discovery, optimization, and beyond.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Sampling hard circuits with verifiably high fidelity

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A 97-qubit experiment certifies a 0.284 fidelity lower bound for a 468-T-gate sampling circuit by combining spacetime-code error detection with the measured fidelity of an undoped Clifford reference.

  2. Logarithmic growth of operator entanglement in a clean non-integrable circuit

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In a clean non-integrable semi-ergodic dual-unitary circuit, operator entanglement of a local Pauli grows at most logarithmically in time, with bimodal operator-size distributions and late-time autocorrelations matchi...

  3. Syndrome aware mitigation of logical errors

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Conditioning logical error mitigation on the measured error-correcting syndromes cuts sampling overhead exponentially and can make error correction useful above its standard pseudo-threshold.

  4. Universal initial state preparation for first quantized quantum simulations

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    By mapping Fock occupations to Schur labels via the Jordan-Schwinger homomorphism and applying an inverse quantum Schur transform, the paper constructs a first-quantized state-preparation protocol with poly(L,N,log d,...

  5. Systematic Experiment Tracking in Quantum Software: A Case Study of Reservoir Computing with Error Mitigation

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    MLflow-style experiment tracking, extended with quantum provenance, supports reproducible multi-stage quantum software pipelines, shown on error-mitigated quantum reservoir computing for chaotic time-series prediction.

  6. Observation of Robust and Coherent Non-Abelian Hadron Dynamics on Noisy Quantum Processors

    hep-lat 2026-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 60-site SU(2) lattice gauge theory was run on 120 qubits, but the implemented dynamics approximate to non-interacting fermion hopping, and the abstract's claimed breathing-mode frequency is not extracted anywhere.

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

    quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A trapped-ion experiment prepared low-energy states of a 19-spin Ising chain by engineered dissipation, backed by an exact finite-step Kraus form of the cooling channel.

  8. The vast world of quantum advantage

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Assuming quantum computers are strictly more powerful than classical ones, the problem of deciding whether a given quantum circuit beats a specific classical simulation heuristic is solvable by quantum computers but n...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The way to achieve this formally is through proven error bars

    Error bars and error bounds A universal way to ensure that the computation can be trusted is to ensure that every step of the computation was performed accurately. The way to achieve this formally is through proven error bars. There are different methods that can ensure such error bars, the car- dinal approach being fault-tolerant quantum computing, cf. S...

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    But some of these problems are structured in such a way that, once found, these answers can be verified efficiently on a classical computer

    Problems with efficient classical verificationIt is believed that for certain problems the answers can only be found effi- ciently on a quantum computer. But some of these problems are structured in such a way that, once found, these answers can be verified efficiently on a classical computer. Examples include sampling problems, cf. Section III, where we ...

  3. [3]

    peaked- ness

    Variational problems Similarly, there are problems for which it may not be possible to efficiently verify the solution on a classical computer directly, but we can easily score the quality of a solution and compare it with competing classical approaches. This is, for example, the case in variational prob- lems, cf. Section III, such as in the estimation o...

  4. [4]

    Error correction Quantum error correction [50] (QEC) refers to a set of techniques designed to protect quantum infor- mation from decoherence, gate imperfections, and measure- ment errors—limitations intrinsic to any practical quantum computing platform. In QEC, information is encoded into log- ical qubits: fault-tolerant constructs built from multiple ph...

  5. [5]

    Error mitigationQuantum error mitigation (QEM) encom- passes a suite of techniques aimed at reducing—or in some cases, eliminating—the bias in expectation value estimates caused by noise in quantum circuits [42, 56]. Unlike quan- tum error correction (QEC), QEM operates through classical post-processing of noisy outputs from ensembles of circuit ex- ecuti...

  6. [6]

    Conceptually, one can view the distinction between error cor- rection and error mitigation as a trade-off between quantum and classical resources—qubits versus sampling

    Error detection Post-selected quantum error detection methods represent a promising intermediate approach between full quantum error correction and classical error mitigation. Conceptually, one can view the distinction between error cor- rection and error mitigation as a trade-off between quantum and classical resources—qubits versus sampling. Error detec...

    2026

  7. [7]

    R. P. Feynman, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    P. W. Shor, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1484–1509 (1997)

    1997

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Deutsch, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 400, 97–117 (1985)

    D. Deutsch, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 400, 97–117 (1985)

    1985

  2. [10]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Physical Review Letters 103 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Lloyd, Science 273, 1073–1078 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Science 273, 1073–1078 (1996)

    1996

  4. [12]

    Grover, Physical Review Letters 79, 325–328 (1997)

    L. Grover, Physical Review Letters 79, 325–328 (1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Weia, E. van den Bergand Sami Rosenblatt, et al., Nature 618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Ju- rcevic, et al., Science Advances 11, eadu9991 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Aaronson and Y

    S. Aaronson and Y. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2404.14493

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D. Wu, R. Rossi, F. Vicentini, N. Astrakhantsev, F. Becca,et al., Science 386, 296 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    D. A. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, G. Aigeldinger, A. Ajoy, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10191 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Filippov, M

    S. Filippov, M. Leahy, M. A. C. Rossi, and G. Garc ´ıa-P´erez, (2023), arXiv:2307.11740 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Haghshenas, E

    R. Haghshenas, E. Chertkov, M. Mills, W. Kadow, S.-H. Lin, et al., (2025), arXiv:2503.20870

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, and R. K ¨onig, Science 362, 308 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Aaronson and L

    S. Aaronson and L. Chen, (2016), arXiv:1612.05903

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, (2014), arXiv:1411.4028

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    T. Koch, D. E. B. Neira, Y. Chen, G. Cortiana, D. J. Egger,et al., (2025), arXiv:2504.03832

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cazals, A

    P. Cazals, A. Franc ¸ois, L. Henriet, L. Leclerc, M. Marin,et al., (2025), arXiv:2502.04291

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Brodoloni, J

    L. Brodoloni, J. Vovrosh, S. Juli`a-Farr´e, A. Dauphin, and S. Pi- lati, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05117 (2025). 8

    2025

  19. [27]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, et al., Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Villalonga, X

    B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandra, A. Bengtsson, P. Klimov,et al., Nature 634, 328 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    DeCross, R

    M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, et al., Phys. Rev. X15, 021052 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Fujii, arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03632 (2016)

    K. Fujii, arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03632 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Martiel and A

    S. Martiel and A. Javadi-Abhari, (2025), arXiv:2504.15725

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. L. Shaw, Z. Chen, J. Choi, D. K. Mark, P. Scholl, R. Finkel- stein, A. Elben, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Nature628, 71 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    T. I. Andersen, N. Astrakhantsev, A. H. Karamlou, J. Berndts- son, J. Motruk, et al., Nature 638, 79 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Kechedzhi, S

    K. Kechedzhi, S. V. Isakov, S. Mandr `a, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Boixo, and V. Smelyanskiy, Future Generation Computer Systems 153, 431 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, and Y. Liu, (2023), arXiv:2309.08405

    2023 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, et al., Nature communications 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  29. [38]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  30. [39]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Nature communications 10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  31. [40]

    Ceperley, G

    D. Ceperley, G. V. Chester, and M. H. Kalos, Physical Review B 16, 3081 (1977)

    1977

  32. [41]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015)

    2015

  33. [42]

    Zhang, X

    Y. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Sun, H. Lin, Y. Huang, D. Lv, and X. Yuan, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 15, e70020 (2025)

    2025

  34. [43]

    Yoshioka, M

    N. Yoshioka, M. Amico, W. Kirby, P. Jurcevic, A. Dutt, et al., (2024), arXiv:2407.14431

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Kanno, M

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, (2023), arXiv:2302.11320 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [45]

    J. Yu, J. R. Moreno, J. T. Iosue, L. Bertels, D. Claudino, et al., (2025), arXiv:2501.09702

    2025

  37. [46]

    Kirby, Quantum 8, 1457 (2024)

    W. Kirby, Quantum 8, 1457 (2024)

    2024

  38. [47]

    Havl´ıˇcek, A

    V. Havl´ıˇcek, A. D. C´orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kan- dala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature567, 209 (2019)

    2019

  39. [49]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. C ´orcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature567, 491 (2019)

    2019

  40. [50]

    J.-y. Choi, S. Hild, J. Zeiher, P. Schauß, A. Rubio-Abadal, T. Yef- sah, V. Khemani, D. A. Huse, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Science 352, 1547 (2016), arXiv:1604.04178 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Trivedi, A

    R. Trivedi, A. Franco Rubio, and J. I. Cirac, Nature Communi- cations 15, 6507 (2024)

    2024

  42. [52]

    Y. Cai, Y. Tong, and J. Preskill, in19th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2024), Vol. 310 (2024) pp. 2:1–2:15

    2024

  43. [53]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  44. [54]

    R.-C. Guo, Y. Gu, and D. E. Liu, npj Quantum Information 11, 14 (2025)

    2025

  45. [55]

    Steckmann, D

    T. Steckmann, D. Luo, Y.-X. Wang, S. R. Muleady, A. Seif, C. Monroe, M. J. Gullans, A. V. Gorshkov, O. Katz, and A. Schuckert, Error mitigation of shot-to-shot fluctuations in analog quantum simulators (2025), arXiv:2506.16509

    2025 arXiv

  46. [56]

    P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  47. [57]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  48. [58]

    Benito, E

    C. Benito, E. L ´opez, B. Peropadre, and A. Bermudez, Quantum 9, 1623 (2025)

    2025

  49. [59]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  50. [60]

    A. Y. Kitaev, (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 [quant-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  51. [61]

    Clinton, T

    L. Clinton, T. S. Cubitt, R. Garcia-Patron, A. Montanaro, S. Stanisic, and M. Stroeks, (2024), arXiv:2410.21517 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Li and S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017)

    2017

  53. [63]

    P. D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gambetta, PRX Quantum 2, 040326 (2021)

    2021

  54. [64]

    van den Berg, Z

    E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, and K. Temme, Phys. Rev. A105, 032620 (2022)

    2022

  55. [65]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 306–316

    2020

  56. [66]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  57. [67]

    van den Berg, Z

    E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Nature Physics 19, 1116 (2023)

    2023

  58. [68]

    Schuster, C

    T. Schuster, C. Yin, X. Gao, and N. Y. Yao, (2024), arXiv:2407.12768

    2024 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Temme, E

    K. Temme, E. van den Berg, A. Kandala, and J. Gambetta, https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/ gammabar-for-quantum-advantage (2022), blog post

    2022

  60. [70]

    Aharonov, O

    D. Aharonov, O. Alberton, I. Arad, Y. Atia, E. Bairey, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17243 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Zimbor ´as, B

    Z. Zimbor ´as, B. Koczor, Z. Holmes, E.-M. Borrelli, A. Gily´en, et al., arXiv:2501.05694 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  62. [72]

    L. E. Fischer, M. Leahy, A. Eddins, N. Keenan, D. Ferracin, et al., (2024), arXiv:2411.00765

    2024

  63. [73]

    Eddins, M

    A. Eddins, M. C. Tran, and P. Rall, (2024), arXiv:2409.04401

    2024 arXiv

  64. [74]

    Carrera Vazquez, D

    A. Carrera Vazquez, D. J. Egger, D. Ochsner, and S. Woerner, Quantum 7, 1067 (2023)

    2023

  65. [75]

    Harper and S

    R. Harper and S. T. Flammia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 080504 (2019)

    2019

  66. [76]

    R. S. Gupta, N. Sundaresan, T. Alexander, C. J. Wood, S. T. Merkel, et al., Nature 625, 259 (2024)

    2024

  67. [77]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou,et al., Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  68. [78]

    B. W. Reichardt, D. Aasen, R. Chao, A. Chernoguzov, W. van Dam, et al., Demonstration of quantum computation and error correction with a tesseract code (2024), arXiv:2409.04628

    2024 arXiv

  69. [79]

    B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, I. Basov, J. M. Bello- Rivas, et al., Fault-tolerant quantum computation with a neutral atom processor (2025), arXiv:2411.11822

    2025 arXiv

  70. [80]

    C. N. Self, M. Benedetti, and D. Amaro, Nature Physics20, 219 (2024)

    2024

  71. [81]

    Tsubouchi, Y

    K. Tsubouchi, Y. Mitsuhashi, R. Takagi, and N. Yoshioka, (2025), arXiv:2503.13114

    2025

  72. [82]

    Bonet-Monroig, R

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. E. O’Brien, Phys. Rev. A98, 062339 (2018)

    2018

  73. [83]

    van den Berg, S

    E. van den Berg, S. Bravyi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Jurcevic, D. Maslov, and K. Temme, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033193 (2023)

    2023

  74. [84]

    Fuller, M

    B. Fuller, M. C. Tran, D. Lykov, C. Johnson, M. Rossmannek, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01897 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  75. [85]

    Liepuoniute, K

    I. Liepuoniute, K. D. Doney, J. R. Moreno, J. A. Job, W. S. Friend, and G. O. Jones, Journal of Chemical Theory and Com- putation 21 (2025)

    2025

  76. [86]

    Sitdikov, M

    I. Sitdikov, M. E. Sahin, U. Bacher, A. Wennersteen, A. Damin, et al., (2025), arXiv:2506.10052

    2025

  77. [87]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.- J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  78. [88]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2313 (2010). 9

    2010

  79. [89]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Applied physics reviews6 (2019)

    2019

  80. [90]

    D. C. McKay, I. Hincks, E. J. Pritchett, M. Carroll, L. C. G. Govia, and S. T. Merkel, arXiV (2023)

    2023

  81. [91]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, et al., Nature (2024)

    2024

  82. [92]

    Bravyi, O

    S. Bravyi, O. Dial, J. M. Gambetta, D. Gil, and Z. Nazario, Journal of Applied Physics 132 (2022)

    2022

  83. [93]

    Community, qiskit-device-benchmarking (2025), version 564164b, retrieved June 23, 2025

    Q. Community, qiskit-device-benchmarking (2025), version 564164b, retrieved June 23, 2025

    2025

  84. [94]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lish- man, et al., (2024), arXiv:2405.08810

    2024 arXiv

  85. [95]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum 4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  86. [96]

    Wurtz, A

    J. Wurtz, A. Bylinskii, B. Braverman, J. Amato-Grill, S. H. Cantu, et al., (2023), arXiv:2306.11727 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.