Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Subspace Selected Variational Quantum Configuration Interaction with a Partial Walsh Series

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A variational quantum eigensolver ansatz encodes a configuration-interaction wavefunction as a uniform superposition over selected determinants followed by a diagonal Walsh-operator product, yielding exact full-CI energies with a gate count

desk verdict Promising ansatz and strong numerics undercut by a normalization error in the exact-encoding claim and a wrong 50% success probability. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.07037 v3 pith:BBPDCDFQ submitted 2026-01-11 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Koray Aydoğan , Anna R. Spak , Kade Head-Marsden , Anthony W. Schlimgen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords variationalquantumeigensolverconfigurationinteractionWalshoperatorsWalsh-FouriertransformsubspacestatepreparationselectedCIchemistrydiagonalunitary
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 proposes a variational quantum eigensolver ansatz that maps a configuration-interaction (CI) wavefunction onto a quantum circuit in two steps: prepare a uniform superposition over a chosen set of Slater determinants, then apply a diagonal unitary built from a partial Walsh series to imprint the CI coefficients. The result is a systematically improvable, non-overparameterized ansatz in which the number of variational parameters equals the number of determinants, and the CNOT count grows linearly with that number. If correct, this would give a way to reach full-CI or selected-CI ground-state energies without classical matrix diagonalization, and to do so on near-term hardware because the ansatz is a product of commuting diagonal operators that does not form a 2-design and therefore avoids the usual barren-plateau scaling. The paper demonstrates chemical accuracy for small molecules on simulators and on quantum hardware, and reports that a full-rank Walsh transform can be obtained by randomly oversampling D log D Walsh functions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dilated diagonal unitary U = [[Σ+ , 0], [0, Σ−]] acting on the system plus one ancilla, where Σ+ and Σ− are conjugate diagonal matrices whose average reproduces the CI coefficient matrix. U is implemented as a product of Walsh operators e^{i a_j w_j}, with Walsh coefficients a_j obtained from the CI coefficients by a restricted Walsh-Fourier transform over the D selected determinants. This identity is what converts a nonunitary coefficient-encoding problem into a concrete circuit: a superposition over the subspace, a Walsh-operator product, and a post-selected ancilla measurement.

What would settle it

Take the paper's H2 FCI example: two determinants, coefficients c ≈ 0.99 and c ≈ 0.14. Compute Σ±k from Eq. (4): the first entry has magnitude √2·0.99 ≈ 1.40 > 1, so the matrix is not a valid unitary. A direct numerical check of the circuit's dilation therefore fails, which would disprove the exact-encoding claim as written unless an alternative normalization is supplied.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that any CI wavefunction over a chosen subspace of Slater determinants can be prepared exactly on a quantum computer: uniformly superpose the D bitstrings of the subspace, then apply a diagonal operator whose eigenvalues are the CI coefficients, embedded as a unitary on an extra ancilla qubit via a dilation. Because the diagonal operator is written as a product of Walsh operators (diagonal Pauli strings), it can be implemented with RZ rotation angles given by the Walsh transform of the coefficient vector, using O(D) CNOT gates and exactly D rotation parameters. The paper argues this gives an exact representation of the FCI state when all determinants are included, near-e

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the circuit exactly encodes the CI wavefunction rests on an unstated normalization condition: after the subspace superposition, every target coefficient must satisfy |c_k| ≤ 1/√D (in magnitude, up to the ancilla dilation), and the paper's own H2 example exceeds this bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a full CI expansion, the ansatz yields the exact ground state with a circuit whose CNOT count is linear in the number of Slater determinants, matching or beating conventional hardware-efficient VQE circuits.
  • Within a selected-CI subspace, energies improve systematically as the subspace grows, with fidelity rising from 0.991 to 0.994 to 1.000 in the paper's H2O example as the threshold tightens.
  • For large problems, choosing D log D random Walsh functions instead of D exactly yields a full-rank transform with probability approaching 1 as D grows, trading a small amount of overparameterization for an O(D^2 log D) classical preprocessing cost.
  • Because the ansatz is diagonal and commutative, it does not form a 2-design, which the paper argues mitigates barren plateaus and spurious local minima during the VQE optimization.
  • The subspace-selection step is independent of the ansatz, so the method can impose particle-number, spin, or other symmetries by choosing the superposition, and extends to any Hamiltonian written in a qubit basis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension the paper only hints at: replacing the uniform superposition with a symmetry-adapted one (translational, parity) would let the same Walsh encoding prepare ground states of lattice models, not just molecules.
  • The random oversampling result suggests an empirical rule: roughly half of D log D Walsh functions suffice for full rank. Testing this on larger D could turn a probabilistic statement into a practical heuristic with a proven success probability.
  • Because the ansatz is diagonal, it could be composed with non-diagonal cluster operators to form a hybrid ansatz for multireference coupled-cluster, a direction the paper mentions as future work.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) ansatz for molecular ground states. A uniform superposition over selected Slater determinants is acted on by a diagonal unitary built from Walsh operators, dilated with one ancilla; the resulting amplitudes are supposed to encode the CI coefficients. The authors claim exact FCI/SCI state preparation with a number of CNOT gates linear in the number of determinants D, a constant 50% success probability, and absence of barren-plateau overparameterization. They present simulations for H2, H6, H2O, and a hardware demonstration for H2 on IBMQ Torino.

Significance. The numerical demonstrations are encouraging, and the idea of a systematically improvable, diagonal, subspace-selected ansatz is potentially interesting. The paper also ships code and data on Zenodo, which is a concrete strength. However, the central exact-encoding derivation is not self-consistent: the normalization of the subspace superposition is mishandled in Eq. (5), the success probability is not 50% for general D, and Eq. (7) identifies the Walsh coefficients with the transform of the CI coefficients rather than with the transform of the phase angles required by Eq. (6). These are load-bearing issues for the main claim, and the scaling statements in the abstract and conclusions are also inconsistent. The method may be salvageable after a substantial revision, but the paper as written does not establish its central theoretical claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theory and Methods, Eqs. (3)-(5)] The exact-encoding equation omits the normalization of |S>. With |S> = D^{-1/2} Σ_k |ψ_k>, the ancilla-|0> branch before postselection is (1/2)(Σ+ + Σ-)|S> = Σ|S> = D^{-1/2} Σ_k c_k |ψ_k> = D^{-1/2}|Ψ>, not |Ψ>. The postselection probability is ||Σ|S>||^2 = (1/D) Σ_k |c_k|^2 = 1/D, not 50%, except for D=2. The sentence claiming each conditioned wavefunction has unit norm and that each outcome occurs half the time is therefore incorrect. For H6 (D=400) the success probability would be 0.25%, which materially affects the practical claim.
  2. [Theory and Methods, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The Walsh coefficients a_j in Eq. (7) are defined as the Walsh-Hadamard transform of the CI coefficients c_k, but the diagonal entries of U in Eq. (6) are exp(i Σ_j a_j (-1)^{<k,j>}). To represent Σ+ = diag(c_k + i sqrt(1-c_k^2)), the phases must be arccos(c_k), so the correct relation is a_j = 2^{-r} Σ_k arccos(c_k) (-1)^{<k,j>}. As written, Eq. (7) does not provide a unitary whose diagonal is Σ±, and the exact-encoding claim is not derivable. The full-rank/oversampling analysis is performed on the linear map c -> a, not on the actual state-preparation map, so it does not establish expressibility of the final wavefunction.
  3. [Results and Conclusions, scaling claims] The scaling claims are inconsistent: the abstract and Results state O(D) CNOTs for the Walsh ansatz, while Conclusions states O(D log D) CNOTs. Moreover, no circuit decomposition is supplied for Eq. (6) that justifies either count. A product over O(D log D) Walsh operators implemented with standard Gray-code methods would cost O(r D log D) two-qubit gates in general. Table I reports numerical counts, but no formula or derivation is given. Since the claimed linear scaling is one of the central selling points, this needs to be stated precisely and proved or corrected.
  4. [Results, Table II and VQE optimization] The paper reports that the quantum FCI result matches classical FCI to machine precision, but it does not clarify whether Eq. (7) was used as an initialization or as an exact encoding, nor how many VQE iterations were required. Given the inconsistency between Eqs. (6) and (7), the numerical exactness cannot be attributed to the Walsh-series construction from the written theory. The role of Eq. (7) in the optimizer should be stated explicitly, and the numerical results should be re-analyzed under the corrected Walsh-phase relation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The expression inside the square root is typeset as '1 - c_k/||c_k||', which is dimensionally inconsistent. It should presumably be 1 - (c_k/||c||)^2, with ||c|| the norm of the full CI vector. Please correct the notation.
  2. [Figure 2] The text says the Torino noisy simulator is shown with blue circles and the Torino device with green triangles, but the legend lists 'ibmq_torino' (blue) and 'fake_torino' (green). The colors are swapped relative to the text.
  3. [Results, Figure 3] The text in the Results section says the example is H2O in a 6-31G basis, but Figure 3 is captioned as the dissociation of H2 in 6-31G. Please correct the mismatch in the text, figure caption, or both.
  4. [Theory/Conclusions] The manuscript states both that the O(D log D) Walsh circuit is 'overparameterized' and that the ansatz 'introduces no overparameterization of the chosen subspace.' These statements should be explicitly separated into the QR mode and the random-oversampling mode.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos, e.g., 'resuling' in the abstract, 'probabalistical' in the introduction, and 'dissocation' in the Figure 2 caption. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the variational energy results are not fitted to FCI outputs, and the self-citation [46] supplies a standard dilation identity that is restated in Eq. (4).

full rationale

The central construction (Eqs. 4-7) is a state-preparation ansatz: the diagonal matrices Sigma_+ and Sigma_- are defined so that (Sigma_+ + Sigma_-)/2 equals diag(c_k), and the ancilla-dilated circuit is intended to prepare the CI state |Psi>. This is a construction, not a prediction derived from the thing it predicts. The reported ground-state energies come from VQE optimization against Hamiltonian expectation values, not from inserting classically computed FCI coefficients into the circuit and calling the resulting energy a prediction. The self-citation [46] is used for the diagonal-operator dilation identity, but the identity is also stated explicitly in the text and is a simple algebraic fact, so the load-bearing step does not reduce to an unverified self-citation chain. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. There are serious internal correctness concerns that are not circularity: Eq. (5) drops the 1/sqrt(D) normalization if |S> is the normalized uniform superposition, making the claimed 50% success probability incorrect (it would be 1/D), and Eq. (7) sets Walsh coefficients to the transform of c_k rather than of arccos(c_k) required by Eq. (4). These are mathematical errors in the printed derivation, not circular reductions of the paper's claims to their inputs. Under the specified rubric, the paper's derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard quantum-chemistry mapping and on cited state-preparation and Walsh decomposition results. The main unstated assumption is the normalization of the subspace state, which is required for the exact-encoding claim. No new particles or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Walsh oversampling ratio α = ≈0.5 (50% of D log D observed to give full-rank WFT)
    Figure 4 empirically shows full rank is reached at roughly 50% of D log D random Walsh functions; the paper uses this to justify oversampling.
  • SCI truncation threshold ε = 10^-3 and 10^-7 in Table II
    Chosen by hand to define selected CI spaces; the reported energies and fidelities depend on ε.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dilated diagonal operator U = [[Σ+,0],[0,Σ-]] with Σ± = C ± i√(1-C²) is a valid unitary dilation for a diagonal operator C with |C_kk|≤1.
    Taken from cited prior work (ref 46) without proof; the paper does not address the normalization condition for |S⟩.
  • standard math Any diagonal unitary on r qubits can be decomposed as ∏_j e^{i a_j w_j} using O(2^r) Walsh operators (Welch et al.).
    Standard Walsh-Fourier decomposition of diagonal unitaries, cited as refs [47,48].
  • standard math Randomly selecting O(D log D) Walsh functions gives a full-rank Walsh-Fourier transform with probability 1 - O(1/D) (Tropp).
    Relies on subsampled randomized Hadamard transform theory, ref [49].
  • domain assumption The molecular electronic Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) maps via Jordan-Wigner to a qubit Hamiltonian.
    Standard technique; the paper uses PySCF/OpenFermion, refs [52-54].
  • domain assumption Uniform superpositions over selected Slater determinant subspaces can be prepared with Dicke/quantum walk algorithms.
    Uses cited algorithms (refs [43-45]) with stated CNOT scalings; proof not repeated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Subspace Selected Variational Quantum Configuration Interaction with a Partial Walsh Series." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BBPDCDFQ

@misc{pith2026260107037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Subspace Selected Variational Quantum Configuration Interaction with a Partial Walsh Series},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BBPDCDFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.07037}
}
read the original abstract

Estimating the ground-state energy of a quantum system is one of the most promising applications for quantum algorithms. Here we propose a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) \emph{Ansatz} for finding ground state configuration interaction (CI) wavefunctions. We map CI for fermions to a quantum circuit using a subspace superposition, then apply diagonal Walsh operators to encode the wavefunction. The algorithm can be used to solve both full CI and selected CI wavefunctions, resuling in exact and near-exact solutions for electronic ground states. Both the subspace selection and wavefunction \emph{Ansatz} can be applied to any Hamiltonian that can be written in a qubit basis. The algorithm bypasses costly classical matrix diagonalizations, which is advantageous for large-scale applications. We demonstrate results for several molecules using quantum simulators and hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07037 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Circuit diagram for the preparation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (b). We compare the results of the statevector simulator (teal squares), CCSD(T) (orange triangles), and FCI (black line). Here we include all spin preserving N-electron SDs, resulting in 400 parameters or SDs, and prepare the super￾position with quantum walk. The ideal statevector simulator results highlight the accuracy of the present algorithm. For large-scale applications and molecules in non-minimal basis sets,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Dissociation of H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The median success probability of obtaining a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Simulation of many-body fermi systemsonauniversalquantumcomputer,Phys.Rev.Lett.79, 2586 (1997)

    1997

  2. [2]

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

    1999

  3. [3]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Information5, 75 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular En- ergies, Science309, 1704 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    Almeida,I.Kassal,J.D.Biamonte,M.Mohseni,B.J.Powell, M

    B.P.Lanyon,J.D.Whitfield,G.G.Gillett,M.E.Goggin,M.P. Almeida,I.Kassal,J.D.Biamonte,M.Mohseni,B.J.Powell, M. Barbieri, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and A. G. White, Towards quantumchemistryonaquantumcomputer,NatureChemistry 2, 106 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

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

    2016

  8. [8]

    A.Peruzzo,J.McClean,P.Shadbolt,M.-H.Yung,X.-Q.Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    J.R.McClean,J.Romero,R.Babbush,andA.Aspuru-Guzik, Thetheoryofvariationalhybridquantum-classicalalgorithms, New Journal of Physics18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    P.G.Szalay,T.Müller,G.Gidofalvi,H.Lischka,andR.Shep- ard, Multiconfiguration Self-Consistent Field and Multiref- erence Configuration Interaction Methods and Applications, Chemical Reviews112, 108 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Chan, C.-M

    J.P.F.LeBlanc,A.E.Antipov,F.Becca,I.W.Bulik,G.K.-L. Chan, C.-M. Chung, Y. Deng, M. Ferrero, T. M. Henderson, C. A. Jiménez-Hoyos, E. Kozik, X.-W. Liu, A. J. Millis, N. V. Prokof’ev, M. Qin, G. E. Scuseria, H. Shi, B. V. Svistunov, L. F. Tocchio, I. S. Tupitsyn, S. R. White, S....

    2015

  4. [12]

    Gagliardi, D

    L. Gagliardi, D. G. Truhlar, G. Li Manni, R. K. Carlson, C. E. Hoyer, and J. L. Bao, Multiconfiguration Pair-Density Functional Theory: A New Way To Treat Strongly Correlated Systems, Accounts of Chemical Research50, 66 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    S.PaschenandQ.Si,Quantumphasesdrivenbystrongcorre- lations, Nature Reviews Physics3, 9 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    A.Katabarwa,K.Gratsea,A.Caesura,andP.D.Johnson,Early fault-tolerant quantum computing, PRX Quantum5, 020101 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

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

    1995 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. Du, N. Xu, X. Peng, P. Wang, S. Wu, and D. Lu, NMR implementation of a molecular hydrogen quantum simulation with adiabatic state preparation, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 030502 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    J. Yu, J. R. Moreno, J. T. Iosue, L. Bertels, D. Claudino, B.Fuller,P.Groszkowski,T.S.Humble,P.Jurcevic,W.Kirby, T. A. Maier, M. Motta, B. Pokharel, A. Seif, A. Shehata, K. J. Sung,M.C.Tran,V.Tripathi,A.Mezzacapo,andK.Sharma, Quantum-centricalgorithmforsample-basedkrylovdiagon...

    2025

  10. [18]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich,F.G.S.L.Brandão,andG.K.-L.Chan,Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nature Physics16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    S.E.SmartandD.A.Mazziotti,Quantumsolverofcontracted eigenvalue equations for scalable molecular simulations on quantum computing devices, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 070504 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Paesani, A

    S. Paesani, A. A. Gentile, R. Santagati, J. Wang, N. Wiebe, D. P. Tew, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thompson, Experimental bayesianquantumphaseestimationonasiliconphotonicchip, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 100503 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient varia- tional quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Zhang, T

    Z.-J. Zhang, T. H. Kyaw, J. S. Kottmann, M. Degroote, and A.Aspuru-Guzik,Mutualinformation-assistedadaptivevaria- tionalquantumeigensolver,QuantumScienceandTechnology 6, 035001 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Zhang, L

    Y. Zhang, L. Cincio, C. F. A. Negre, P. Czarnik, P. J. Coles, P. M. Anisimov, S. M. Mniszewski, S. Tretiak, and P. A. Dub, Variational quantum eigensolver with reduced circuit com- plexity, npj Quantum Information8, 96 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    H.R.Grimsley,S.E.Economou,E.Barnes,andN.J.Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simu- lations on a quantum computer, Nature Communications10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Y. S. Yordanov, V. Armaos, C. H. W. Barnes, and D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, Qubit-excitation-based adaptive varia- tional quantum eigensolver, Communications Physics4, 228 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    H. L. Tang, V. Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, N.J.Mayhall,E.Barnes,andS.E.Economou,Qubit-ADAPT- VQE: An Adaptive Algorithm for Constructing Hardware- Efficient Ansätze on a Quantum Processor, PRX Quantum 2, 020310 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    P. G. Anastasiou, Y. Chen, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, TETRIS-ADAPT-VQE: An adaptive algo- rithm that yields shallower, denser circuit Ansätze, Physical Review Research6, 013254 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Ramôa, P

    M. Ramôa, P. G. Anastasiou, L. P. Santos, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Reducing the resources re- quiredbyADAPT-VQEusingcoupledexchangeoperatorsand improvedsubroutines,npjQuantumInformation11,86(2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Kanno, M

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Quantum-selected con- figuration interaction: classical diagonalization of hamilto- nians in subspaces selected by quantum computers (2023), arXiv:2302.11320 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Barison, J

    S. Barison, J. Robledo Moreno, and M. Motta, Quantum- centriccomputationofmolecularexcitedstateswithextended sample-basedquantumdiagonalization,QuantumScienceand Technology10, 025034 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa, I. Sitdikov, R.-Y. Sun, K. J. Sung, M. Takita, M. C. Tran, S. Yunoki, and A. Mezzacapo, Chemistry be- yond the scale of exact diagonalization on a qua...

    2025

  24. [32]

    K.Sugisaki,S.Kanno,T.Itoko,R.Sakuma,andN.Yamamoto, Hamiltonian simulation-based quantum-selected configura- tion interaction for large-scale electronic structure calcula- tionswithaquantumcomputer,PhysicalChemistryChemical Physics27, 20869 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Danilov, J

    D. Danilov, J. Robledo-Moreno, K. J. Sung, M. Motta, and J. Shee, Enhancing the Accuracy and Efficiency of Sample- Based Quantum Diagonalization with Phaseless Auxiliary- FieldQuantumMonteCarlo,JournalofChemicalTheoryand Computation21, 11585 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H.Neven,Barrenplateausinquantumneuralnetworktraining landscapes, Nature Communications9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M.Cerezo,Barrenplateausinvariationalquantumcomputing, Nature Reviews Physics7, 174 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Qi, C.-H

    J. Qi, C.-H. H. Yang, P.-Y. Chen, and M.-H. Hsieh, Random- matrix-induced simplicity bias in over-parameterized varia- tional quantum circuits (2026), arXiv:2601.01877 [quant-ph]

    2026

  29. [37]

    Motta, K

    M. Motta, K. J. Sung, K. B. Whaley, M. Head-Gordon, and J.Shee,Bridgingphysicalintuitionandhardwareefficiencyfor correlated electronic states: the local unitary cluster Jastrow ansatz for electronic structure, Chemical Science14, 11213 7 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Sauer, and J

    P.Reinholdt,K.M.Ziems,E.R.Kjellgren,S.Coriani,S.P.A. Sauer, and J. Kongsted, Critical Limitations in Quantum- SelectedConfigurationInteractionMethods,JournalofChem- ical Theory and Computation21, 6811 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Szabo and N

    A. Szabo and N. S. Ostlund,Modern quantum chemistry: in- troduction to advanced electronic structure theory(Courier Corporation, 2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    G. H. Booth, A. Grüneis, G. Kresse, and A. Alavi, Towards anexactdescriptionofelectronicwavefunctionsinrealsolids, Nature493, 365 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    A. A. Holmes, N. M. Tubman, and C. J. Umrigar, Heat-Bath Configuration Interaction: An Efficient Selected Configura- tion Interaction Algorithm Inspired by Heat-Bath Sampling, JournalofChemicalTheoryandComputation12,3674(2016), publisher: American Chemical Society

    2016

  34. [42]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  35. [43]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Bärtschi and S

    A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, Deterministic preparation of dicke states, inInternational Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory(Springer, 2019) pp. 126–139

    2019

  37. [45]

    Gonzales, R

    A. Gonzales, R. Herrman, C. Campbell, I. Gaidai, J. Liu, T.Tomesh,andZ.H.Saleem,Efficientsparsestatepreparation via quantum walks, npj Quantum Information11, 143 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager-Smith, P. Narang, and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum state preparation and nonunitary evolution with diagonal operators, Phys. Rev. A106, 022414 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Golubov, A

    B. Golubov, A. Efimov, and V. Skvortsov,Walsh Se- ries and Transforms: Theory and Applications, edited by M. Hazewinkel, Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol. 64 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1991)

    1991

  40. [48]

    Welch, D

    J. Welch, D. Greenbaum, S. Mostame, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Efficient quantum circuits for diagonal unitaries without an- cillas, New Journal of Physics16, 033040 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    J.A.Tropp,Improvedanalysisofthesubsampledrandomized hadamard transform, Advances in Adaptive Data Analysis03, 115 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright,et al., Scipy 1.0: fundamental al- gorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature methods 17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    R. J. Bartlett and M. Musiał, Coupled-cluster theory in quan- tum chemistry, Reviews of Modern Physics79, 291 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfutyarova, S. Sharma, S. Wouters, and G. K.-L. Chan, PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework, WIREs Computational Molecular Science8, e1340 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    J.D.Whitfield,J.Biamonte,andA.Aspuru-Guzik,Simulation of electronic structure Hamiltonians using quantum comput- ers, Molecular Physics109, 735 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, K. J. Sung, I. D. Kivlichan, X. Bonet-Monroig, Y. Cao, C. Dai, E. S. Fried, C. Gidney, B. Gimby, P. Gokhale, T. Häner, T. Hardikar, V. Havlíček, O. Higgott, C. Huang, J. Izaac, Z. Jiang, X. Liu, S. McArdle, M.Neeley,T.O’Brien,B.O’Gorman,I.Ozfidan,M....

    2020

  47. [55]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    AbuGhanem, IBM quantum computers: evolution, perfor- mance, and future directions, The Journal of Supercomputing 81, 687 (2025)

    M. AbuGhanem, IBM quantum computers: evolution, perfor- mance, and future directions, The Journal of Supercomputing 81, 687 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    D.Aharonov,V.Jones,andZ.Landau,APolynomialQuantum AlgorithmforApproximatingtheJonesPolynomial,Algorith- mica55, 395 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    W. J. Hehre, R. F. Stewart, and J. A. Pople, Self-Consistent Molecular-OrbitalMethods.I.UseofGaussianExpansionsof Slater-TypeAtomicOrbitals,TheJournalofChemicalPhysics 51, 2657 (1969)

    1969

  51. [59]

    Ditchfield, W

    R. Ditchfield, W. J. Hehre, and J. A. Pople, Self-consistent molecular-orbital methods. IX. an extended gaussian-type ba- sis for molecular-orbital studies of organic molecules, The Journal of Chemical Physics54, 724 (1971)

    1971

  52. [60]

    Angeli, R

    C. Angeli, R. Cimiraglia, S. Evangelisti, T. Leininger, and J.-P. Malrieu, Introduction ofN-electron valence states for multireference perturbation theory, The Journal of Chemical Physics114, 10252 (2001)

    2001

  53. [61]

    N. M. Tubman, J. Lee, T. Y. Takeshita, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley, A deterministic alternative to the full configu- ration interaction quantum Monte Carlo method, The Journal of Chemical Physics145, 044112 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    J. B. Schriber and F. A. Evangelista, Communication: An adaptiveconfigurationinteractionapproachforstronglycorre- latedelectronswithtunableaccuracy,TheJournalofChemical Physics144, 161106 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Ragone, B

    M. Ragone, B. N. Bakalov, F. Sauvage, A. F. Kemper, C. Or- tiz Marrero, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, A Lie algebraic theoryofbarrenplateausfordeepparameterizedquantumcir- cuits, Nature Communications15, 7172 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Altland and M

    A. Altland and M. R. Zirnbauer, Nonstandard symmetry classes in mesoscopic normal-superconducting hybrid struc- tures, Phys. Rev. B55, 1142 (1997)

    1997

  57. [65]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The HubbardModel,AnnualReviewofCondensedMatterPhysics 13, 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031620-102024 (2022)

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    B. T. Gard, L. Zhu, G. S. Barron, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Efficient symmetry-preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigen- solver algorithm, npj Quantum Information6, 10 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Lacroix, Symmetry-assisted preparation of entangled many-body states on a quantum computer, Phys

    D. Lacroix, Symmetry-assisted preparation of entangled many-body states on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 230502 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Selvarajan, M

    R. Selvarajan, M. Sajjan, and S. Kais, Variational Quantum Circuits to Prepare Low Energy Symmetry States, Symmetry 14, 457 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    R. I. Nepomechie, F. Ravanini, and D. Raveh, Spin-sDicke States and Their Preparation, Advanced Quantum Technolo- gies7, 2400057 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    A. Rupp, J. Pelzl, C. Paar, M. Mertens, and A. Bogdanov, A Parallel Hardware Architecture for fast Gaussian Elimination over GF(2), in2006 14th Annual IEEE Symposium on Field- Programmable Custom Computing Machines(2006)pp.237– 248

    2006

  63. [71]

    Christofides, The asymptotic complexity of matrix reduc- tion over finite fields (2014), arXiv:1406.5826 [cs.DS]

    D. Christofides, The asymptotic complexity of matrix reduc- tion over finite fields (2014), arXiv:1406.5826 [cs.DS]

    2014 arXiv

  64. [72]

    ePrint Arch

    G.V.Bard,Acceleratingcryptanalysiswiththemethodoffour Russians, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. , 251 (2006). 8

    2006

  65. [73]

    Camarero, Simple, fast and practicable algorithms for cholesky, lu and qr decomposition using fast rectangular ma- trix multiplication (2018), arXiv:1812.02056 [cs.NA]

    C. Camarero, Simple, fast and practicable algorithms for cholesky, lu and qr decomposition using fast rectangular ma- trix multiplication (2018), arXiv:1812.02056 [cs.NA]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    D. A. Fedorov, B. Peng, N. Govind, and Y. Alexeev, VQE method: a short survey and recent developments, Materials Theory6, 2 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Wossnig, I

    J.Tilly, H.Chen, S.Cao, D.Picozzi, K.Setia, Y.Li, E.Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Physics Reports986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    J.Rissler,R.M.Noack,andS.R.White,Measuringorbitalin- teractionusingquantuminformationtheory,ChemicalPhysics 323, 519 (2006)

    2006

  69. [77]

    Appendix: Device detail We used Qiskit version 1.2.2 along with used SamplerV2 class with no error mitigation or suppression

    K.Aydogan,A.R.Spak,K.Head-Marsden,andA.Schlimgen, Subspace selected variational quantum configuration interac- tion with a partial Walsh series, Zenodo (2026), 10.5281/zen- odo.18214599. Appendix: Device detail We used Qiskit version 1.2.2 along with used SamplerV2 class with ...

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.