arxiv: 2509.07279 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-08 · 🪐 quant-ph · nucl-th· physics.chem-ph

Recursive algorithm for constructing antisymmetric fermionic states in first quantization mapping

E. Rule , I. A. Chernyshev , I. Stetcu , J. Carlson , R. Weiss This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 17:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph nucl-thphysics.chem-ph

keywords quantum computingfermion antisymmetrizationfirst quantizationT-gate complexityrecursive algorithmsquantum simulationancilla qubits

0 comments

The pith

A recursive quantum algorithm prepares antisymmetric fermionic states by initializing each particle independently and achieves O(η² √N) T-gate cost.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a deterministic quantum algorithm for creating antisymmetric states of fermions using the first quantization mapping. Unlike methods that require ordered input states and involve sorting, this approach allows each particle to be prepared in its orbital independently. For η particles and N single-particle states, it achieves a T-gate complexity of O(η² √N) with O(√N) dirty ancilla qubits, which is advantageous when the particle number is not much larger than the square root of the number of states. This matters for quantum simulations of many-body systems because efficient state preparation is essential for studying fermionic interactions on quantum hardware. A measurement-based version can halve the gate cost, and the method generalizes from small examples like two and three particles to arbitrary numbers.

Core claim

The central discovery is a recursive construction that maps independently prepared single-particle states into a fully antisymmetric many-particle state without requiring pre-sorted inputs. For systems of η particles in N orbitals, this yields an antisymmetrized state at a cost of O(η² √N) T-gates using O(√N) ancillary qubits, with further optimizations possible when the orbitals are known in advance.

What carries the argument

The recursive antisymmetrization circuit that builds the Slater determinant-like state by successive applications of exchange operations and projections.

If this is right

The algorithm outperforms sorting-based methods specifically when η is less than or approximately equal to sqrt(N).
Knowledge of the single-particle states can be used to reduce the circuit complexity further.
A measurement-based variant achieves roughly half the gate cost of the unitary version.
Explicit circuits for two- and three-particle cases demonstrate the construction, and noise effects are analyzed for the three-particle example.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This approach could be integrated into variational quantum algorithms for molecular ground states where Hartree-Fock orbitals are precomputed.
The scaling suggests a resource advantage in regimes typical for small-molecule simulations on near-term devices.
Extending the recursion to include spin degrees of freedom or more complex orbital sets might preserve the efficiency gains.

Load-bearing premise

The single-particle orbitals are known in advance and can be prepared independently on each particle register without additional dominant costs or requiring ordered inputs.

What would settle it

A direct implementation or simulation showing that the T-gate count for preparing a three-particle antisymmetric state exceeds O(η² √N) or that the output state is not invariant under particle exchanges would falsify the efficiency and correctness claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07279 by E. Rule, I. A. Chernyshev, I. Stetcu, J. Carlson, R. Weiss.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Quantum circuit for generating the antisymmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measurement-based antisymmetrization of two par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Antisymmetry probability circuit for a system of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fidelity (left) and antisymmetric probability (right) of the 3-particle state produced by the measurement-based variant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Fundamental building block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Quantum circuit that prepares the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Quantum circuit that prepares the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Decomposition of the double-controlled X (Toffoli) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. Decomposition of the multi-controlled X gate into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We devise a deterministic quantum algorithm to produce antisymmetric states of single-particle orbitals in the first quantization mapping. Unlike sorting-based antisymmetrization algorithms, which require ordered input states and high Clifford-gate overhead, our approach initializes the state of each particle independently. For a system of $\eta$ particles and $N$ single-particle states, our algorithm prepares antisymmetrized states of non-trivial localized (e.g., Hartree-Fock) orbitals using $O(\eta^2\sqrt{N})$ $T$-gates, outperforming alternative algorithms when $\eta\lesssim \sqrt{N}$. To achieve such scaling, we require $O(\sqrt{N})$ dirty ancilla qubits for intermediate calculations. Knowledge of the single-particle states to be antisymmetrized can be leveraged to further improve the efficiency of the circuit, and a measurement-based variant reduces gate cost by roughly a factor of two. We show example circuits for two- and three-particle systems and discuss the generalization to an arbitrary number of particles. For a specific three-particle example, we decompose the circuit into Clifford$+T$ gates and study the impact of noise on the prepared state.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Recursive antisymmetrizer gives scaling win for small eta but orbital prep cost needs scrutiny.

read the letter

The paper introduces a recursive algorithm to build antisymmetric fermionic states in first quantization by initializing each particle independently instead of sorting them. This avoids the high Clifford overhead of sorting methods and targets better performance when the particle number η is up to about the square root of the number of single-particle states N. It does a good job laying out explicit two- and three-particle circuits and a measurement-based variant that roughly halves the gate count. The scaling claim of O(η² √N) T-gates with O(√N) dirty ancillas is presented clearly, and they show how prior knowledge of the orbitals, such as Hartree-Fock, can be used to optimize further. The noise study on the three-particle example adds some practical insight. The central claim holds up in the abstract as a self-contained construction with gate counts from the recursion. The contrast with sorting-based literature is direct and the new elements like the independent initialization and measurement variant are not in the prior work cited. A potential issue is the assumption that preparing the individual orbitals does not dominate the total cost. The stress test raises this, and while the paper notes that knowledge of the states helps, the end-to-end T-gate budget for general localized orbitals might still need explicit verification to confirm the advantage in the η ≲ √N regime. The generalization to arbitrary η is discussed but the full proof details are key to check. This work is for researchers in quantum simulation of fermions, particularly those focused on first-quantized mappings for chemistry or nuclear applications. Readers looking for concrete circuit constructions and resource estimates will find value here. It has enough technical substance and verifiable claims to merit a serious referee. I recommend putting it through peer review. The algorithmic idea is worth the community's scrutiny.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a recursive deterministic quantum algorithm for preparing antisymmetric fermionic states in the first-quantization mapping. It initializes each of the η particles independently with known single-particle orbitals (e.g., Hartree-Fock) and uses recursion to enforce antisymmetry, achieving O(η² √N) T-gates and O(√N) dirty ancilla qubits. The method is claimed to outperform sorting-based alternatives when η ≲ √N. Explicit circuits are provided for two- and three-particle cases, a measurement-based variant is introduced that halves the gate cost, and a noise study is performed for a specific three-particle example. Generalization to arbitrary η is discussed.

Significance. If the scaling holds with preparation costs subdominant, the algorithm would offer a resource-efficient route to fermionic state preparation for quantum chemistry simulations in the first-quantized representation, particularly advantageous for moderate particle numbers relative to basis size. The recursive structure, dirty-ancilla usage, and measurement-based optimization are constructive contributions that could inform future circuit designs for indistinguishable particles.

major comments (2)

[Resource analysis section] Resource analysis (around the T-gate counting for the full procedure): The claimed O(η² √N) T-gate bound for preparing the antisymmetrized state treats the independent preparation of each localized orbital as either external or negligible. If each orbital preparation requires Ω(√N) T-gates (plausible for general non-trivial orbitals), the total cost becomes O(η √N) or larger, which would exceed the stated bound and weaken the outperformance claim in the η ≲ √N regime. An explicit bound or assumption on preparation cost is required to support the central scaling result.
[Generalization discussion] Generalization to arbitrary η (in the section discussing extension beyond small-particle examples): Correctness is verified explicitly for two- and three-particle systems with full Clifford+T decompositions, but the manuscript provides only a discussion rather than a formal inductive proof or complete circuit construction for general η. Since the central claim applies to arbitrary particle number, this gap is load-bearing and should be addressed with a rigorous argument.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that a three-particle noise study is performed but supplies no quantitative metrics (e.g., fidelity or error-rate values); adding a one-sentence summary of the observed impact would aid readability.
[Circuit diagrams and ancilla discussion] Notation for ancilla usage and gate counts should be cross-checked for consistency between the main text and any supplementary circuit diagrams.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate clarifications and additional arguments as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Resource analysis section] Resource analysis (around the T-gate counting for the full procedure): The claimed O(η² √N) T-gate bound for preparing the antisymmetrized state treats the independent preparation of each localized orbital as either external or negligible. If each orbital preparation requires Ω(√N) T-gates (plausible for general non-trivial orbitals), the total cost becomes O(η √N) or larger, which would exceed the stated bound and weaken the outperformance claim in the η ≲ √N regime. An explicit bound or assumption on preparation cost is required to support the central scaling result.

Authors: We clarify that the O(η² √N) T-gate complexity refers to the cost of the recursive antisymmetrization procedure itself, which assumes that the initial single-particle orbital states have already been prepared independently for each particle. This is consistent with the problem setup where the single-particle states (e.g., Hartree-Fock orbitals) are known and can be prepared separately. If each orbital preparation requires O(√N) T-gates, the additional cost would be O(η √N). Since η ≲ √N in the regime of interest, O(η √N) is O(N) or less, while O(η² √N) is up to O(N^{3/2}), so the antisymmetrization cost dominates and the overall scaling remains O(η² √N). We will add an explicit statement in the revised manuscript clarifying this assumption and bounding the preparation cost to support the claim. The outperformance over sorting methods holds for the antisymmetrization step, which is the focus of the comparison. revision: yes
Referee: [Generalization discussion] Generalization to arbitrary η (in the section discussing extension beyond small-particle examples): Correctness is verified explicitly for two- and three-particle systems with full Clifford+T decompositions, but the manuscript provides only a discussion rather than a formal inductive proof or complete circuit construction for general η. Since the central claim applies to arbitrary particle number, this gap is load-bearing and should be addressed with a rigorous argument.

Authors: We agree that a more rigorous treatment of the generalization is beneficial. The algorithm is defined recursively, with the η-particle antisymmetrizer constructed from the (η-1)-particle case by applying appropriate controlled operations and permutations to enforce the antisymmetry. In the revised version, we will include a formal inductive proof of correctness: The base case for η=1 is the identity operation, which is trivially correct. Assuming correctness for η-1, the recursive step applies the antisymmetrizer for η-1 to the first η-1 particles and then uses a series of controlled swaps and phase gates (as detailed in the two- and three-particle examples) to antisymmetrize with the η-th particle. This ensures the full state is antisymmetric under any particle exchange. We will also provide a high-level circuit diagram for the general case to complement the discussion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained algorithmic construction

full rationale

The paper presents an explicit recursive construction for antisymmetrization whose T-gate scaling is derived step-by-step from the algorithm's structure and the assumed independent preparation of single-particle orbitals. No load-bearing step reduces by definition or self-citation to the target result itself; gate counts follow from standard Clifford+T decompositions and recursion depth rather than fitted parameters or renamed inputs. The treatment of orbital preparation as external input is consistent with the stated problem and does not create a self-referential loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The algorithm relies on standard quantum circuit assumptions and the ability to prepare independent single-particle states; no new physical entities or fitted constants are introduced.

axioms (2)

standard math Standard quantum circuit model with Clifford+T gates and dirty ancilla qubits is available.
Invoked implicitly when stating T-gate counts and ancilla requirements.
domain assumption Single-particle orbitals can be prepared independently on separate registers.
Central to the claim that the algorithm avoids ordered-input overhead.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5750 in / 1309 out tokens · 16145 ms · 2026-05-18T17:20:06.036507+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

To correct this, we apply to particlep1 the operatorU † 2, followed by a multi-controlledZopera- tion to restore the antisymmetry, and finallyU2 to restore the stateϕ 2, as shown in Fig. 4(b). The ancilla can then be reset and reused, if desired. As discussed earlier, one can leverage information about the single-particle state to reduce the number of gat...

work page
[2]

The Ross-Selinger algorithm was used to generate discrete approximations of aZ-axis rotation with the same angle, which was then basis-transformed into aY-axis rotation. The approximation can be im- proved to arbitrary accuracyε— defined as the oper- ator norm of the difference between the exact and ap- proximate rotation operators — at the cost of additi...

work page
[3]

The stated er- ror (ε) represents the operator norm of the difference between the exact and approximate rotation operators

in Clifford+Tgates to various accuracies using the Ross-Selinger algorithm. The stated er- ror (ε) represents the operator norm of the difference between the exact and approximate rotation operators. The state infi- delity resulting from rotation synthesis is roughly the square of the difference operator norm. ErrorT-gate count Total gate count 1×10 −1 8 ...

work page 2024
[4]

12 |0⟩ G ( 1 6 ) Z |0⟩ G ( 1 5 ) Z |0⟩ G ( 1 4 ) Z |0⟩ G ( 1 3 ) Z |0⟩ G ( 1 2 ) Z FIG

The base case is ˜Y1 =H|0⟩. 12 |0⟩ G ( 1 6 ) Z |0⟩ G ( 1 5 ) Z |0⟩ G ( 1 4 ) Z |0⟩ G ( 1 3 ) Z |0⟩ G ( 1 2 ) Z FIG. 8. Quantum circuit that prepares the stateY 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . a H H q1 ˜Yk ... qk qk+1 H qk+2 .....

work page
[5]

operation, this gate can be decomposed into a controlled-Hgate followed by acnotgate, enabling an exact expression in terms of the native gate-set. The controlled-Hcan in turn be represented with 1cnot gate surrounded by oneTand oneT † gate and a basis- transformation on the target qubit that applies the fol- lowing map to the Pauli gate-set:{σ (x) →σ (z)...

work page
[6]

K. W. Ford and J. A. Wheeler, Semiclassical description of scattering, Annals of Physics7, 259 (1959)

work page 1959
[7]

Brack and R

M. Brack and R. Bhaduri,Semiclassical Physics, Fron- tiers in Physics (Avalon Publishing, 2003)

work page 2003
[8]

Brink,Semi-classical methods for nucleus-nucleus scattering(Cambridge University Press., 2025)

D. Brink,Semi-classical methods for nucleus-nucleus scattering(Cambridge University Press., 2025)

work page 2025
[9]

A. D. Laurent and D. Jacquemin, TD-DFT benchmarks: A review, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 113, 2019–2039 (2013)

work page 2019
[10]

Bulgac, P

A. Bulgac, P. Magierski, K. J. Roche, and I. Stetcu, In- duced Fission of 240Pu within a Real-Time Microscopic Framework, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 122504 (2016)

work page 2016
[11]

Chemla and J

D. Chemla and J. Shah, Many-body and correlation ef- fects in semiconductors, Nature411, 549 (2001)

work page 2001
[12]

A. D. Klemm and R. G. Storer, The structure of quantum fluids: helium and neon, Australian Journal of Physics 26, 43 (1973)

work page 1973
[13]

Piarulli and I

M. Piarulli and I. Tews, Local Nucleon-Nucleon and Three-Nucleon Interactions Within Chiral Effective Field Theory, Front. in Phys.7, 245 (2020), arXiv:2002.00032 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2020
[14]

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
[15]

Ortiz, J

G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Quantum algorithms for fermionic simulations, Phys. Rev. A64, 022319 (2001)

work page 2001
[16]

Aspuru-Guzik, A

A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Simulated Quantum Computation of Molec- ular Energies, Science309, 1704 (2005), arXiv:quant- ph/0604193 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2005
[17]

Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

S. Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

work page 1996
[18]

Efficient Simulation of Quantum Systems by Quantum Computers

C. Zalka, Simulating quantum systems on a quantum computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don Series A454, 313 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9603026 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[19]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(2000)

work page 2000
[20]

Stetcu, A

I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Projection algorithm for state preparation on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. C108, L031306 (2023)

work page 2023
[21]

Shee, P.-K

Y. Shee, P.-K. Tsai, C.-L. Hong, H.-C. Cheng, and H.- S. Goan, Qubit-efficient encoding scheme for quantum simulations of electronic structure, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023154 (2022). ≡ |0⟩ FIG. 12. Decomposition of the multi-controlled X gate into native members of the Clifford+Tgate-set that provides a method of implementing an arbitrary number of control qubi...

work page 2022
[22]

Babbush, N

R. Babbush, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, J. McClain, H. Neven, and G. K.-L. Chan, Low-depth quantum sim- ulation of materials, Phys. Rev. X8, 011044 (2018)

work page 2018
[23]

A. Li, A. Baroni, I. Stetcu, and T. S. Humble, Deep quan- tum circuit simulations of low-energy nuclear states, The European Physical Journal A60, 106 (2024)

work page 2024
[24]

D. W. Berry, M. Kieferov´ a, A. Scherer, Y. R. Sanders, G. H. Low, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, and R. Babbush, Im- proved techniques for preparing eigenstates of fermionic Hamiltonians, npj Quantum Information4, 22 (2018)

work page 2018
[25]

Delgado, P

A. Delgado, P. A. M. Casares, R. dos Reis, M. S. Zini, R. Campos, N. Cruz-Hern´ andez, A.-C. Voigt, A. Lowe, S. Jahangiri, M. A. Martin-Delgado, J. E. Mueller, and J. M. Arrazola, Simulating key properties of lithium-ion batteries with a fault-tolerant quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A106, 032428 (2022)

work page 2022
[26]

Babbush, W

R. Babbush, W. J. Huggins, D. W. Berry, S. F. Ung, A. Zhao, D. R. Reichman, H. Neven, A. D. Baczewski, and J. Lee, Quantum simulation of exact electron dynam- ics can be more efficient than classical mean-field meth- ods, Nature Commun.14, 4058 (2023), arXiv:2301.01203 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[27]

W. J. Huggins, O. Leimkuhler, T. F. Stetina, and K. B. Whaley, Efficient state preparation for the quantum sim- ulation of molecules in first quantization, PRX Quantum 6, 020319 (2025)

work page 2025
[28]

Ajtai, J

M. Ajtai, J. Koml´ os, and E. Szemer´ edi, An 0(n log n) sorting network, inProceedings of the Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’83 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1983) p. 1–9. 14

work page 1983
[29]

M. S. Paterson, Improved sorting networks with O(logN) depth, Algorithmica5, 75–92 (1990)

work page 1990
[30]

M. T. Goodrich, Zig-zag sort: a simple deterministic data-oblivious sorting algorithm running in o(n log n) time, inProceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’14 (Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,

work page
[31]

K. E. Batcher, Sorting networks and their applications, inProceedings of the April 30–May 2, 1968, Spring Joint Computer Conference, AFIPS ’68 (Spring) (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1968) p. 307–314

work page 1968
[32]

Selinger, Quantum circuits oft-depth one, Phys

P. Selinger, Quantum circuits oft-depth one, Phys. Rev. A87, 042302 (2013)

work page 2013
[33]

Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault- tolerant toffoli gate, Phys

C. Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault- tolerant toffoli gate, Phys. Rev. A87, 022328 (2013)

work page 2013
[34]

G. H. Low, V. Kliuchnikov, and L. Schaeffer, Trading T gates for dirty qubits in state preparation and unitary synthesis, Quantum8, 1375 (2024)

work page 2024
[35]

Gosset, R

D. Gosset, R. Kothari, and K. Wu, Quantum state prepa- ration with optimal T-count, (2024), arXiv:2411.04790 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[36]

H. Choi, F. T. Chong, D. Englund, and Y. Ding, Fault tolerant non-clifford state preparation for arbitrary rota- tions (2023), arXiv:2303.17380 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[37]

Mayer, C

K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, N. Brown, E. Durso- Sabina, C. H. Baldwin, D. Hayes, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman,et al., Benchmarking logical three-qubit quantum fourier trans- form encoded in the steane code on a trapped-ion quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08616 10.48550/arXiv.2303.17380 (2024)

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.17380 2024
[38]

Luthra, A

S. Luthra, A. E. Moylett, D. E. Browne, and E. T. Camp- bell, Unlocking early fault-tolerant quantum computing with mitigated magic dilution (2025), 2505.10513

work page arXiv 2025
[39]

He and Z.-Y

Z.-C. He and Z.-Y. Xue, High-fidelity initialization of a logical qubit with multiple injections, Phys. Rev. A111, 052419 (2025)

work page 2025
[40]

Sethi and J

S. Sethi and J. M. Baker, Rescq: Realtime scheduling for continuous angle quantum error correction architec- tures, inProceedings of the 30th ACM International Con- ference on Architectural Support for Programming Lan- guages and Operating Systems, Volume 2, ASPLOS ’25 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2025) p. 1028–1043

work page 2025
[41]

N. J. Ross and P. Selinger, Optimal ancilla-free Clif- ford+T approximation of z-rotations, Quantum Info. Comput.16, 901–953 (2016), arXiv:1403.2975

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[42]

Quantum computing with Qiskit

A. Javadi-Abhariet al., Quantum computing with Qiskit, (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[43]

Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with better-than-physical error rates

A. Paetznick, M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, J. P. Campora, III, A. Chernoguzov, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, L. Grans-Samuelsson, D. Gresh, D. Hayes, N. Hewitt, C. Holliman, C. V. Horst, J. Johansen, D. Lucchetti, Y. Matsuoka, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, A. Paz, J. Pino, P. Siegfried...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[44]

Bluvstein, S

D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter,et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

work page 2024
[45]

L. Egan, D. M. Debroy, C. Noel, A. Risinger, D. Zhu, D. Biswas, M. Newman, M. Li, K. R. Brown, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, Fault-tolerant control of an error- corrected qubit, Nature598, 281 (2021)

work page 2021
[46]

Daguerre, R

L. Daguerre, R. Blume-Kohout, N. C. Brown, D. Hayes, and I. H. Kim, Experimental demonstration of high-fidelity logical magic states from code switch- ing, arXiv e-prints 10.48550/arXiv.2506.14169 (2025), arXiv:2506.14169 [quant-ph]

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.14169 2025
[47]

Sales Rodriguez, J

P. Sales Rodriguez, J. M. Robinson, P. N. Jepsen, Z. He, C. Duckering, C. Zhao, K.-H. Wu, J. Campo, K. Bagnall, M. Kwon,et al., Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distillation, Nature , 1 (2025)

work page 2025
[48]

Jozsa, Fidelity for mixed quantum states, Journal of Modern Optics41, 2315 (1994)

R. Jozsa, Fidelity for mixed quantum states, Journal of Modern Optics41, 2315 (1994)

work page 1994
[49]

Weiss, A

R. Weiss, A. Baroni, J. Carlson, and I. Stetcu, Solving reaction dynamics with quantum computing algorithms, Phys. Rev. C111, 064004 (2025), arXiv:2404.00202 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[50]

W. Dur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A62, 062314 (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0005115

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000
[51]

D. Cruz, R. Fournier, F. Gremion, A. Jeannerot, K. Komagata, T. Tosic, J. Thiesbrummel, C. L. Chan, N. Macris, M.-A. Dupertuis, and C. Javerzac-Galy, Effi- cient quantum algorithms for ghz and w states, and im- plementation on the ibm quantum computer, Advanced Quantum Technologies2, 1900015 (2019)

work page 2019
[52]

M. Amy, D. Maslov, M. Mosca, and M. Roetteler, A meet-in-the-middle algorithm for fast synthesis of depth-optimal quantum circuits, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Sys- tems32, 818 (2013)

work page 2013