Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Quantum Supremacy through Fock State $q$ boson Sampling with Transmon Qubits

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 A transmon's nonlinear spectrum maps it to a q-boson with $q = 1 + K/\omega$, enabling Fock-state q-boson sampling.

desk verdict A clean spectral observation undercut by a load-bearing algebraic gap: transmons are not q-bosons, so the supremacy claim fails on its own model. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21094 v1 pith:VL3GQL52 submitted 2025-06-26 quant-ph

Chon-Fai Kam , En-Jui Kuo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Ac03.67.Lx
keywords transmonqubitKerrnonlinearoscillatorq-bosonalgebraFock-statesamplingbosonquantumsupremacyArik-Coonsuperconductingprocessors
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 claims that a transmon—a superconducting nonlinear oscillator normally used as a two-level qubit—can be treated as an infinite-level Kerr oscillator whose weak anharmonicity makes it an Arik–Coon q-boson with deformation parameter $q = 1 + K/\omega$. Since q-boson Fock-state sampling preserves the permanent-based output probabilities of standard boson sampling, the paper concludes that transmon processors could demonstrate quantum supremacy on a sampling task different from random circuit sampling. The mapping is made by comparing the Kerr energy ladder $E_n = \omega n + \frac{K}{2}n(n-1)$ with the q-deformed spectrum $\omega[n]_q$, which agree to first order in $K/\omega$ for the values typical of real devices ($|K|/\omega \approx 0.01$–$0.08$). The paper extends the standard linear-optics sampling protocol to q-bosons by relying on the fact that different modes commute, so output probabilities are still permanents. It also states that practical success requires precise multi-level control and that the idealized infinite-level model must survive noise and higher-order nonlinearities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Arik–Coon q-boson algebra, defined by the deformed commutation relation $\hat{a}\hat{a}^\dagger - q\,\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a} = 1$, with q-number $[N]_q = (q^N - 1)/(q-1)$ acting on Fock states by $a_q|n\rangle = \sqrt{[n]_q}\,|n-1\rangle$. The argument works by spectral matching: the Kerr oscillator's spacing $\Delta E_n = \omega + K(n-1)$ is compared with the q-boson ladder $\omega[n]_q$, and expanding $q = 1+\delta$ gives $[n]_q \approx n + \frac{\delta}{2}n(n-1)$, so $\delta = K/\omega$. This single identity converts the transmon's anharmonicity into a deformation parameter and makes the full boson-sampling apparatus—random linear mode mixing and permanent evaluation—available for q-boson Fock states. Appendix A also proves conditions under which a more general deformed algebra reproduces the standard q-number $[n]_q$ to first order, which the paper uses to justify that the sampling distribution is stable under that generalization.

What would settle it

Measure the transmon energy ladder, for example the transitions $|0\rangle\to|1\rangle$ through $|4\rangle\to|5\rangle$, and compare them against $\omega[n]_q$ with $q = 1 + K/\omega$; a deviation beyond the predicted first-order error at photon number $n$ would falsify the spectral mapping. A complementary decisive test is a two-mode Fock-state interference experiment whose coincidence statistics must match the permanent formula with that same $q$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that the transmon's nonlinear energy spectrum is not a defect to be minimized but a resource: it encodes a deformation of the bosonic oscillator algebra. Writing the transmon as a Kerr oscillator $H = \omega a^\dagger a + \frac{K}{2} a^{\dagger 2} a^2$ and comparing its eigenvalues with those of the q-deformed Hamiltonian $H_q = \omega[N]_q$ gives, to first order in the small ratio $K/\omega$, the Arik–Coon deformation parameter $q = 1 + K/\omega$. Because q-bosons on different sites still commute, the multi-mode Fock-state input–output problem under a linear mode-mixing unitary $U$ has the same permanent formula $|\mathrm{Perm}(\Lambda[k|l])|^2/(\prod_i l_i! \prod_i k_i!)$ as ordinary boson sampling. The paper therefore claims that transmon-based processors can sample from a permanent-hard q-boson distribution, upgrading their role from random circuit sampling to a Fock-state sampling task. The paper notes the caveat that this is an idealized infinite-level treatment and that experimental confirmation against classical simulation is still needed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that treating the transmon as an infinite-level Kerr oscillator and identifying it with a q-boson through the first-order relation $q = 1 + K/\omega$ stays accurate for the multi-mode sampling probabilities at the photon numbers a hardness claim requires.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A transmon-based processor could run a permanent-hard Fock-state sampling task, not just random circuit sampling, using the same superconducting hardware.
  • The deformation parameter is set by a measurable device property, $q = 1 + K/\omega$, so the sampled distribution is tunable through the transmon's anharmonicity.
  • For typical transmon parameters ($|K|/\omega \approx 0.01$–$0.08$) the q-boson and Kerr spectra are nearly identical, so the protocol lives in the regime current devices already operate in.
  • If the q-boson sampling hardness holds, the output distribution cannot be efficiently sampled classically, giving a new benchmark for quantum advantage on superconducting platforms.
  • Off-site commuting q-boson modes keep the output probabilities as permanents; only with crosstalk do they become q-permanents, whose complexity the paper leaves open.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete next test suggested by the paper's logic: measure two-mode Fock-state interference in a transmon array and compare the coincidence statistics with the q-boson prediction; the fit would extract $q$ independently, and disagreement beyond the $O(K/\omega)$ error window would falsify the mapping. This is not an experiment the paper describes.
  • If the mapping is right, the practical target is not single-mode spectroscopy but a multi-mode linear mixing unitary on q-boson modes; the paper does not give a circuit-level construction, so designing such a unitary is the main open engineering step.
  • Because the error $[n]_q - n$ grows like $n^2(1-q)$, the regime where the first-order mapping is trustworthy is bounded by the largest photon number per mode; this quantifies how large a sampling instance the argument covers.
  • Combining the q-boson sampling distribution with the q-permanent of crosstalk could turn unwanted mode coupling into a tunable computational feature, provided the complexity of q-permanents is resolved.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that transmon qubits, modeled as infinite-level Kerr nonlinear oscillators, can be mapped to Arik–Coon q-bosons with deformation parameter q = 1 + K/ω (Eq. (11)), where K is the Kerr nonlinearity and ω the oscillator frequency. It then argues that the Aaronson–Arkhipov Fock-state boson sampling protocol can be extended to these q-bosons, so that transmon arrays could perform classically hard q-boson sampling and achieve quantum supremacy. The paper derives the first-order spectral correspondence, estimates |K|/ω for typical transmons, and reviews deformed oscillator algebras and transmon energy levels, but it does not establish the operator-level mapping, the sampling hardness, or an experimental construction.

Significance. If the central claim were valid, the paper would introduce a new sampling problem and connect q-deformed algebras to superconducting hardware, with potential implications for quantum advantage demonstrations. The manuscript is honest about some gaps: it states that a comprehensive complexity-theoretic characterization of q-permanents is lacking and that hardness requires further validation. However, the central claim as stated is not supported: the algebraic mismatch between standard bosonic transmon operators and the q-boson algebra is decisive, and the hardness and implementation gaps are admitted rather than resolved. The significance is therefore conditional on a reformulation of the claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [III (Eqs. (5)–(11)) and IV (Eqs. (18)–(19))] The derivation establishes at most a first-order match of energy eigenvalues, not an isomorphism of operator algebras. The operators in Eq. (5) are standard bosonic ladder operators, for which a a^† - q a^† a = 1 + (1-q)N; the Arik–Coon relation in Eq. (7) is satisfied only at q = 1. The matrix elements following from Eq. (8), ⟨n-1|a_q|n⟩ = sqrt([n]_q), are incompatible with the transmon's ⟨n-1|a|n⟩ = sqrt(n). Since the generalized-boson sampling formula and Fock states in Eqs. (18)–(19) use the deformed normalization f(n_i) = sqrt([n_i]_q!), the distribution sampled by a transmon array is not the q-boson distribution. The central claim that transmons can achieve quantum supremacy in q-boson sampling therefore fails at the physical-model level.
  2. [III (Eqs. (10)–(17), Fig. 1)] The paper does not quantify the error of the first-order mapping. For q = 1 + δ, the exact Arik–Coon spectrum is ω[n]_q = ω[n + δ n(n-1)/2 + δ^2 n(n-1)(n-2)/6 + ...], while the Kerr spectrum is ω[n + δ n(n-1)/2]; Eq. (17) is just the Kerr spectrum rewritten with q, not the q-boson spectrum. Even at the lower end |δ| ≈ 0.0125, the δ^2 term is not negligible for the photon numbers relevant to a sampling experiment; for instance, at δ = 0.033 and n = 20 the two spectra differ by roughly 8% of ω, and the deviation grows cubically in n. The paper gives no bound on n or on the total variation distance between the two sampling distributions, so the smallness of K/ω quoted in Eqs. (12)–(14) does not by itself justify replacing the transmon distribution with the q-boson distribution.
  3. [IV (final paragraph) and V] The computational hardness of q-boson sampling is not established. The text explicitly states that "a comprehensive complexity-theoretic characterization is still lacking" and the conclusion says that "the computational hardness of q-boson sampling, while supported by theoretical arguments, requires further validation." The cited Refs. [34] and [48] do not supply a proof for Arik–Coon q-boson sampling at finite q, and no derivation is given in the present manuscript. Since quantum supremacy is the paper's central claim, this missing proof is a load-bearing gap rather than a peripheral caveat.
  4. [IV (after Eq. (19))] No physical construction is provided for the required multi-mode linear mode-mixing unitary on transmon modes. The Aaronson–Arkhipov protocol requires a specific linear optical network on the physical modes; for q-bosons one must show how transmon modes are coupled so that the effective dynamics is a q-boson linear network, and how input Fock states and output number-resolved measurements are realized. The manuscript describes no coupling Hamiltonian, circuit layout, or error analysis, so the statement that transmon-based q-boson sampling can be experimentally realized is unsupported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [II (Eq. (3)) and Appendix B (Eq. (B15))] There is an inconsistency in the anharmonic coefficient: the derivation in Appendix B gives a first-order correction of -E_C/2 (m^2 + m + 1/2), while Eq. (3) and Eq. (B15) display -E_C/12 (m^2 + m + 1/2). This contradicts the stated anharmonicity α ≈ -E_C in Eq. (13) and Eq. (B16).
  2. [III (Eq. (17))] Eq. (17) is the Kerr spectrum rewritten in terms of q, not the q-boson spectrum; the caption of Fig. 1 describing q-boson "non-perturbative deviations" should be clarified to avoid presenting the Kerr spectrum as the deformed spectrum.
  3. [References] Several references are incomplete or non-archival, including Ref. [3] (a talk), Ref. [29] ("Title unknown"), and Ref. [38] ("Anonymous"); these should be completed or replaced.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase "direct mapping to the q-boson formalism" overstates the result of Section III, which is a first-order spectral correspondence rather than a direct operator mapping; the wording should be adjusted to match the content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the q-parameter is explicitly calibrated to the Kerr spectrum, and the sampling protocol's hardness is imported from published external work, not re-derived from the fit.

full rationale

The derivation of q ≈ 1 + K/ω in Section III is a calibration, not a prediction: the paper states 'To relate the deformation parameter q to the Kerr nonlinearity strength K, one can compare the energy spectrum of the Kerr oscillator to those of the q-boson system' and obtains δ ≈ K/ω by matching the first-order n(n−1) term. Equation (17) then rewrites the Kerr spectrum with q defined as 1 + K/ω, so the subsequent comparison in Fig. 1 is a consistency check on the calibrated parameter, not an independent output forced by an input. Section IV's generalized-boson sampling formula is attributed to Aaronson and Arkhipov [5] and Kuo et al. [34]; [34] is a published external result that shares an author with this paper, but the present work does not reduce its own conclusion to that citation in a way that feeds the premise back into the result. The manuscript itself flags the incompleteness of the hardness foundation, stating that the complexity of q-permanents 'remains largely unexplored' and that 'a comprehensive complexity-theoretic characterization is still lacking,' and the conclusion admits that the hardness 'requires further validation.' These are evidence gaps, not circularity. The most serious substantive objection, that the transmon operators in Eq. (5) are standard bosonic and the Arik–Coon relation Eq. (7) is never shown to hold for them, is an invalid-inference or modeling concern: the spectral match does not by construction deliver the deformed matrix elements used in the sampling probabilities. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The only free parameter is q, which is fixed by the Hamiltonian parameters rather than fitted to sampling data. The main unproven inputs are the hardness of q-boson sampling and the physical implementability of the multi-mode protocol.

free parameters (1)
  • deformation parameter q = 1 + K/omega
    Set in Eq. (11) to make the q-boson spectrum match the Kerr oscillator spectrum to first order in K/omega; it is a model mapping parameter, not measured independently.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The transmon is an infinite-level Kerr nonlinear oscillator with H = omega a-dagger a + (K/2) a-dagger a-dagger a a.
    Section III, Eq. (5). This standard model neglects charge dispersion, higher-order nonlinearities, and coupling to other modes.
  • domain assumption The Arik-Coon q-boson with q = 1 + K/omega reproduces the transmon spectrum to sufficient accuracy for sampling.
    Section III, Eq. (11). The match is first-order in K/omega; the paper does not bound the deviation at high photon numbers where boson sampling hardness requires large occupation.
  • domain assumption Fock-state q-boson sampling is classically hard.
    Section IV and V. The paper cites no complete complexity proof; it states 'a comprehensive complexity-theoretic characterization is still lacking'.
  • domain assumption The Aaronson-Arkhipov sampling formula extends to q-bosons via the generalized boson framework of Ref. [34].
    Section IV, after Eq. (19). The generalized probability formula is not derived; the extension is asserted by reference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Supremacy through Fock State $q$ boson Sampling with Transmon Qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VL3GQL52

@misc{pith2026250621094,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Supremacy through Fock State $q$ boson Sampling with Transmon Qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VL3GQL52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21094}
}
abstract

Transmon qubits have traditionally been regarded as limited to random circuit sampling, incapable of performing Fock state boson sampling, a problem known to be classically intractable. This work challenges that assumption by introducing $q$ boson Fock state sampling, a variant in which transmon qubits can operate effectively. Through direct mapping to the $q$ boson formalism, we demonstrate that transmons possess the capability to achieve quantum supremacy in $q$ boson sampling tasks. This finding expands the potential applications of transmon-based quantum processors and paves the way for new avenues in quantum computation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21094 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the renormalized energy level spectra be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. This four-panel visualization illustrates the behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Boson sampling for generalized bosons

    En-Jui Kuo, Yijia Xu, Dominik Hangleiter, Andrey Grankin, and Mohammad Hafezi. Boson sampling for generalized bosons. Physical Review Research, 4(4):043096, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [48]

    The Computational Complexity of Quantum Determinants

    Shih-Han Hung and En-Jui Kuo. The computational complex- ity of quantum determinants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08083, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    Quantum computation and shor’s factoring algorithm

    Artur Ekert and Richard Jozsa. Quantum computation and shor’s factoring algorithm. Reviews of Modern Physics , 68(3):733, 1996

    work page 1996

  4. [2]

    Experimental demonstration of a compiled version of shor’s algorithm with quantum entangle- ment

    Benjamin P Lanyon et al. Experimental demonstration of a compiled version of shor’s algorithm with quantum entangle- ment. Physical Review Letters, 99(25):250505, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [3]

    Martinis

    John M. Martinis. Shor’s algorithm on a superconducting quan- tum processor. Talk at Google Quantum AI Lab, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [4]

    How to factor 2048-bit rsa integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits

    Craig Gidney and Martin Ekerå. How to factor 2048-bit rsa integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits. Quantum, 5:433, 2021

    work page

  7. [5]

    The computational com- plexity of linear optics

    Scott Aaronson and Alex Arkhipov. The computational com- plexity of linear optics. In Proceedings of the forty-third an- nual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 333–342, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [6]

    Completeness classes in algebra

    Leslie G Valiant. Completeness classes in algebra. In Pro- ceedings of the eleventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 249–261, 1979

    work page 1979

Show all 59 references
  1. [7]

    The complexity of approximate counting

    Larry J Stockmeyer. The complexity of approximate counting. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual ACM symposium on The- ory of computing, pages 118–126, 1983

    1983

  2. [8]

    On the average-case hardness of bosonsampling

    Adam Bouland, Ishaun Datta, Bill Fe fferman, and Felipe Her- nandez. On the average-case hardness of bosonsampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04566, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Complexity-theoretic foundations of bosonsampling with a lin- ear number of modes

    Adam Bouland, Daniel Brod, Ishaun Datta, Bill Fe ffer- man, Daniel Grier, Felipe Hernandez, and Michal Oszmaniec. Complexity-theoretic foundations of bosonsampling with a lin- ear number of modes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00286, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    2019

  5. [11]

    Charge- insensitive qubit design derived from the cooper pair box

    Jens Koch, Terri M Yu, Jay Gambetta, Andrew A Houck, David I Schuster, Johannes Majer, Alexandre Blais, Michel H Devoret, Steven M Girvin, and Robert J Schoelkopf. Charge- insensitive qubit design derived from the cooper pair box. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optic...

    2007

  6. [12]

    On the complexity and verification of quantum ran- dom circuit sampling

    Adam Bouland, Bill Fe fferman, Chinmay Nirkhe, and Umesh Vazirani. On the complexity and verification of quantum ran- dom circuit sampling. Nature Physics, 15(2):159–163, 2019

    2019

  7. [13]

    Photonic implementation of boson sampling: a review

    Daniel J Brod, Ernesto F Galvão, Andrea Crespi, Roberto Osel- lame, and Nicolò Spagnolo. Photonic implementation of boson sampling: a review. Advanced Photonics, 1(3):034001, 2019

    2019

  8. [14]

    Superconducting qubits: Current state of play

    Morten Kjaergaard, Michael E Schwartz, Jochen Braumüller, et al. Superconducting qubits: Current state of play. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 11:369–395, 2020

    2020

  9. [15]

    A quantum engi- neer’s guide to superconducting qubits

    Philip Krantz, Morten Kjaergaard, Fei Yan, Terry P Orlando, Simon Gustavsson, and William D Oliver. A quantum engi- neer’s guide to superconducting qubits. Applied Physics Re- views, 6(2):021318, 2019

    2019

  10. [16]

    Leveraging secondary storage to simulate deep 54-qubit sycamore circuits

    Edwin Pednault, John Gunnels, Dmitri Maslov, and Jay M Gambetta. Leveraging secondary storage to simulate deep 54-qubit sycamore circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09534, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Classi- cal simulation of quantum supremacy circuits

    Hengyuan Huang, Jinzhao Wu, Daimeng Fan, Liang Zhu, Jian-Wei Pan, Bill Fe fferman, and Yaoyun Zhang. Classi- cal simulation of quantum supremacy circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.06787, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Quantum computing and the entanglement fron- tier

    John Preskill. Quantum computing and the entanglement fron- tier. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.5813, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Suppressing charge noise decoherence in superconducting charge qubits

    J A Schreier, A A Houck, Jens Koch, D I Schuster, B R Johnson, J M Chow, J M Gambetta, J Majer, L Frunzio, M H Devoret, et al. Suppressing charge noise decoherence in superconducting charge qubits. Physical Review B, 77(18):180502, 2008

    2008

  14. [20]

    Measuring a transmon qubit in circuit qed: Dressed 10 squeezed states

    Mostafa Khezri, Eric Mlinar, Justin Dressel, and Alexander N Korotkov. Measuring a transmon qubit in circuit qed: Dressed 10 squeezed states. Physical Review A, 94(1):012347, 2016

    2016

  15. [21]

    Beyond hard-core bosons in transmon arrays

    Olli Mansikkamäki, Sami Laine, Atte Piltonen, and Matti Sil- veri. Beyond hard-core bosons in transmon arrays. PRX Quan- tum, 3(4):040314, 2022

    2022

  16. [22]

    Analytical modeling of parametrically modulated trans- mon qubits

    Nicolas Didier, Eyob A Sete, Marcus P da Silva, and Chad Rigetti. Analytical modeling of parametrically modulated trans- mon qubits. Physical Review A, 97(2):022330, 2018

    2018

  17. [23]

    Superconducting qubits beyond the dis- persive regime

    Mohammad H Ansari. Superconducting qubits beyond the dis- persive regime. Physical Review B, 100(2):024509, 2019

    2019

  18. [24]

    Hilbert spaces of analytic func- tions and generalized coherent states

    Metin Arik and Don D Coon. Hilbert spaces of analytic func- tions and generalized coherent states. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 17(4):524–527, 1976

    1976

  19. [25]

    Arik–coon oscillator with q > 1 in the framework of unified (q; α, β, γ; ν)-deformation

    IM Burban. Arik–coon oscillator with q > 1 in the framework of unified (q; α, β, γ; ν)-deformation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 43(30):305204, 2010

    2010

  20. [26]

    Generalized deformed algebra

    Won-Sang Chung, Ki-Soo Chung, Sang-Tack Nam, and Chung- In Um. Generalized deformed algebra. Physics Letters A , 183(5-6):363–370, 1993

    1993

  21. [27]

    I. M. Burban. Generalized deformed harmonic oscillators in the framework of unified ( q;α,β,γ ;ν)-deformation. Modern Physics Letters A, 25(15):1239–1249, 2010

    2010

  22. [28]

    S. S. Mizrahi, J. P. Camargo Lima, and V . V . Dodonov. En- ergy spectrum, potential and inertia functions of a generalized f-oscillator. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 37:3707–3724, 2004

    2004

  23. [29]

    I. M. Burban. Title unknown. Physics Letters A , 366:308–?, 2007

    2007

  24. [30]

    V . V . Borzov, E. V . Damaskinsky, and S. B. Yegorov. Some remarks on the representations of the generalized deformed os- cillator algebra. Preprint, arXiv:q-alg/9509022, 1995

    1995 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Quesne and N

    C. Quesne and N. Vansteenkiste. cλ-extended oscillator alge- bras and some of their deformations and applications to quan- tum mechanics. Preprint, arXiv:math-ph/0003025, 2000

    2000 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Anyons, deformed oscillator algebras and projectors

    Johan Engquist. Anyons, deformed oscillator algebras and projectors. Nuclear Physics B , 816:356–375, 2009. arXiv:0809.3226

    2009 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Brzezi ´nski, I

    T. Brzezi ´nski, I. L. Egusquiza, and A. J. Macfarlane. Gener- alized fock spaces, new forms of quantum statistics and their oscillator algebras. Physics Letters B, 276:10–14, 1992

    1992

  28. [35]

    Equivalence between spin hamiltonians and boson sam- pling

    Borja Peropadre, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Juan José García- Ripoll. Equivalence between spin hamiltonians and boson sam- pling. Physical Review A, 95(3):032327, 2017

    2017

  29. [36]

    Beyond boson sampling: Higher spin sampling as a practical path to quantum supremacy

    Chon-Fai Kam and En-Jui Kuo. Beyond boson sampling: Higher spin sampling as a practical path to quantum supremacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.07312, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Simulation of the bcs model on a superconducting quantum computer

    Nick Bultinck, Hrvoje Pashayan, et al. Simulation of the bcs model on a superconducting quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Re- search, 6:013142, 2024

    2024

  31. [38]

    Estimating the e ffect of crosstalk error on circuit fidelity using noisy

    Anonymous. Estimating the e ffect of crosstalk error on circuit fidelity using noisy ... arXiv, 2024

    2024

  32. [39]

    Experimental char- acterization of crosstalk errors with simultaneous ...PRX Quan- tum, 2:040338, 2021

    Timothy Proctor, Kenneth Rudinger, et al. Experimental char- acterization of crosstalk errors with simultaneous ...PRX Quan- tum, 2:040338, 2021

    2021

  33. [40]

    q–determinants and permutations

    Kung-Wei Yang. q–determinants and permutations. The Fi- bonacci Quarterly, 29:160–163, 1991

    1991

  34. [41]

    Inequalities for the q-permanent

    RB Bapat and AK Lal. Inequalities for the q-permanent. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 197:397–409, 1994

    1994

  35. [42]

    Inequalities for the q-permanent

    AK Lal. Inequalities for the q-permanent. ii. Linear algebra and its applications, 274(1-3):1–16, 1998

    1998

  36. [43]

    The µ -permanent revisited

    Carlos M da Fonseca. The µ -permanent revisited. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02231, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  37. [44]

    The µ-permanent of a tridiagonal matrix, or- thogonal polynomials, and chain sequences

    CM Da Fonseca. The µ-permanent of a tridiagonal matrix, or- thogonal polynomials, and chain sequences. Linear algebra and its applications, 432(5):1258–1266, 2010

    2010

  38. [45]

    Noncrossing partitions, noncrossing graphs, and q-permanental equations

    Eduardo Marques de Sá. Noncrossing partitions, noncrossing graphs, and q-permanental equations. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 541:36–53, 2018

    2018

  39. [46]

    q-analogues of determinants and sym- metric chain decompositions

    Hiroyuki TAGAW A. q-analogues of determinants and sym- metric chain decompositions. Tokyo Journal of Mathematics , 16(2):311–320, 1993

    1993

  40. [47]

    The µ-permanent, a new graph labeling, and a known integer sequence

    Milica Andeli ´c, Carlos M da Fonseca, and António Pereira. The µ-permanent, a new graph labeling, and a known integer sequence. Bulletin mathématique de la Société des Sciences Mathématiques de Roumanie, 61(3):255–262, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    A preview of practical quantum computing

    Chad Rigetti et al. A preview of practical quantum computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.00023, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Suppressing leakage in trans- mon qubits via optimal control

    Vibhav Tripathi, Matthew Ware, Luke C G Govia, Emily J Pritchett, and John M Martinis. Suppressing leakage in trans- mon qubits via optimal control. npj Quantum Information , 8(1):45, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Tomasz Brzezinski, I. L. Egusquiza, and A. J. Macfarlane. On the structure of q-deformed boson algebras. Physics Letters B, 311(2):202–206, 1993

    1993

  44. [52]

    An introduction to quantum machine learning

    Maria Schuld, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione. An introduction to quantum machine learning. Contemporary Physics, 56(2):172–185, 2015

    2015

  45. [53]

    Operator algebra of dual resonance models

    M Arik, Darryl D Coon, and Yuk-ming Lam. Operator algebra of dual resonance models. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 16(9):1776–1779, 1975

    1975

  46. [54]

    Quantum Groups, volume 155 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    Christian Kassel. Quantum Groups, volume 155 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, 1995

    1995

  47. [55]

    A. J. Macfarlane. On q-analogues of the quantum harmonic oscillator and the quantum group suq(2). Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 22:4581–4588, 1989

    1989

  48. [56]

    The quantum group suq (2) and a q-analogue of the boson operators.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 22(18):L873, 1989

    LC Biedenharn. The quantum group suq (2) and a q-analogue of the boson operators.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 22(18):L873, 1989

    1989

  49. [57]

    Combinatorics and bo- son normal ordering: A gentle introduction

    Pawel Blasiak, Andrzej Horzela, Karol A Penson, Allan I Solomon, and Gerard HE Duchamp. Combinatorics and bo- son normal ordering: A gentle introduction. American Journal of Physics, 75(7):639–646, 2007

    2007

  50. [58]

    Newton series expansion of bosonic operator functions

    Jürgen König and Fred Hucht. Newton series expansion of bosonic operator functions. SciPost Physics, 10(1):007, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Normal or- dering of degenerate integral powers of number operator and its applications

    Taekyun Kim, Dae San Kim, and Hye Kyung Kim. Normal or- dering of degenerate integral powers of number operator and its applications. Applied Mathematics in Science and Engineering, 30(1):440–447, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

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