arxiv: 2605.06122 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.chem-ph· physics.comp-ph

Recognition: unknown

Variationally Compressing Quantum Circuits to Approximate Nonadiabatic Molecular Quantum Dynamics

Joshua M. Courtney , P.C. Stancil

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph

keywords variational compressionTrotter termsnonadiabatic dynamicsquantum circuitsmolecular simulationreaction ratesquantum hardwareadiabatic dynamics

0 comments

The pith

Variational compression of Trotter terms preserves reaction rate coefficients in nonadiabatic quantum dynamics simulations

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

The paper tries to establish that approximating the unitaries in Trotter-based time evolution via variational methods creates shallower quantum circuits that still accurately reproduce reaction rate coefficients for nonadiabatic molecular dynamics. A sympathetic reader would care because this could enable practical quantum simulations of chemical processes on hardware that cannot handle deep circuits. The authors test this by classically emulating a hybrid optimization to compress terms and then running fast-forwarded adiabatic dynamics on quantum hardware for a model system of coupled harmonic potentials. They recover approximate rate coefficients after substituting the compressed terms into the full nonadiabatic process while tracking resource costs.

Core claim

We show the variational compression of Trotter terms preserve reaction rate coefficients via classical emulation of a hybrid quantum-classical optimization method, as well as fast-forwarded adiabatic dynamics on quantum hardware. Compressed circuits can be incorporated with product-formula-based time evolution to approximate dynamics of a particle in two coupled harmonic potentials, allowing tunability when removing high-cost qubit interactions. Approximate rate coefficients are recovered after substituting terms in a nonadiabatic dynamic process.

What carries the argument

Variational compression of Trotter terms, which approximates the unitary operators in the decomposition to reduce circuit depth while preserving key observables

If this is right

Shallower circuits can simulate nonadiabatic dynamics on near-term quantum hardware.
Reaction rate coefficients remain recoverable after term substitution.
Accuracy can be tuned by adjusting the variational approximation level.
Gate and qubit resources are minimized for the same observable accuracy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

This compression technique might apply to simulating larger or more complex molecular systems beyond the harmonic model.
It suggests a pathway to hybrid methods that balance quantum accuracy with classical optimization for dynamics.
Future work could explore error bounds on the preserved rates for different compression levels.

Load-bearing premise

That the variational approximation to the Trotter terms sufficiently preserves the relevant observables without introducing uncontrolled errors in the nonadiabatic dynamics.

What would settle it

Observing a significant discrepancy in the reaction rate coefficients between simulations using the original and variationally compressed Trotter terms for the same coupled harmonic potential model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06122 by Joshua M. Courtney, P.C. Stancil.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Explicit circuit decomposition for the same quadratic view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Quantum-assisted quantum compiling (QAQC) cir view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ansatz structure for view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. First-order Trotter step circuit for nonadiabatic dynamics. The position register ( view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fast-forwarding demonstration on view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. LHST cost versus locality parameter view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Marcus model rate coefficients extracted from short view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Adiabatic state transition in a Marcus-model type system with view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. A logical OR operation. If view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. Comparison circuits to test if a 3-qubit state is “greater than” a given integer value from 0 (state view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison circuits to test if an 8-qubit state is “less than” basis states 127, 128, and 129. view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14. Schematic coupling for each piece of the function, conditioned upon the state of the wavepacket and the state of view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15. Long time dynamics with varying coupling. (Top left) Coupling is area preserving with an offset ∆ view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: FIG. 16. An view at source ↗

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: FIG. 17. Three-qubit initializations using a UCC ansatz circuit. Probabilities are given for each basis state using (a) a view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: FIG. 18. Wavepacket initializations using a UCC ansatz circuit for view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum simulation has begun to penetrate the field of quantum chemistry in hopes of efficiently calculating ground state energies and approximating real-time evolution. With modern research highlighting nonadiabatic dynamics, tunably approximating deep circuits representing potential landscapes becomes crucial for simulating real quantum systems. Variationally approximating unitaries allows for shallower circuits and accuracy tunable to hardware fidelity, so long as the observable quantities are preserved. We show the variational compression of Trotter terms preserve reaction rate coefficients via classical emulation of a hybrid quantum-classical optimization method, as well as fast-forwarded adiabatic dynamics on quantum hardware. Compressed circuits can be incorporated with product-formula-based time evolution to approximate dynamics of a particle in two coupled harmonic potentials, allowing tunability when removing high-cost qubit interactions. Approximate rate coefficients are recovered after substituting terms in a nonadiabatic dynamic process, giving proof-of-principle for observable preservation under variational optimization. Attention is paid to minimizing qubit and gate-count resources.

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

The work gives numerical evidence that compressed Trotter terms preserve rates in a simple nonadiabatic model, though without error analysis to support broader use.

read the letter

The paper's main point is that you can variationally compress the Trotter terms used in product-formula time evolution for nonadiabatic molecular dynamics and still get reaction rate coefficients that are close to the uncompressed version. They show this through classical emulation of the hybrid optimization and include a hardware demonstration for the adiabatic fast-forward case. What works here is the practical focus on resource reduction while checking the observable of interest. The authors substitute the compressed circuits into the dynamics for a particle in two coupled harmonic potentials and recover approximate rates. This is a legitimate extension of variational compression techniques to this setting, and the attention to minimizing qubit interactions and gate counts is useful for near-term devices. The emulation provides concrete numerical support for the preservation claim in this model. The soft spots are in the analysis. There are no quantitative error bounds or scaling of the rate error with compression level or number of steps. Generic variational approximation of the unitaries may not control the phase errors that affect rates over time, so the observed agreement might not hold more broadly. The nonadiabatic dynamics preservation comes only from classical simulation of a small system, while the quantum hardware run is limited to adiabatic dynamics. The abstract does not detail how the cost function was chosen or if it directly targeted the rates. This is for people interested in variational quantum algorithms applied to chemical dynamics. It offers a proof-of-principle that could help with circuit depth issues, but it is not yet a robust general method. The thinking is clear and the emulation is a real result, even if more work on guarantees is needed. I would recommend sending it for peer review. The numerical evidence makes it worth referee time to assess the methods and suggest improvements.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that variationally compressed Trotter unitaries can be substituted into product-formula time-evolution operators to approximate nonadiabatic dynamics of a particle in two coupled harmonic potentials while preserving reaction rate coefficients. This is supported by classical emulation of a hybrid quantum-classical optimizer for the nonadiabatic case and by fast-forwarded adiabatic dynamics executed on quantum hardware, with emphasis on reducing qubit and gate-count resources through tunable compression.

Significance. If the observed numerical agreement in rates holds with controlled errors and generalizes, the work would offer a practical route to shallower circuits for quantum dynamics simulations on NISQ hardware, addressing the tension between Trotter depth and hardware fidelity while maintaining key observables. The hybrid optimization and resource-minimization focus are strengths that could influence variational methods in quantum chemistry.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'approximate rate coefficients are recovered after substituting terms in a nonadiabatic dynamic process' is stated without any quantitative error metrics, comparison to the uncompressed baseline, scaling of rate error versus compression depth, or description of the variational cost function (e.g., whether it targets fidelity, Hilbert-Schmidt distance, or the rate observable itself).
[Classical emulation of hybrid optimization] Classical emulation results: the preservation of reaction rates under substitution of compressed Trotter terms is presented as a proof-of-principle, yet the manuscript provides no explicit error bounds, phase-error analysis, or demonstration that the variational objective controls interference-sensitive quantities over multiple time steps; generic fidelity minimization does not automatically guarantee this for integrated observables.
[Quantum hardware results] Hardware demonstration: results are restricted to fast-forwarded adiabatic dynamics, leaving the nonadiabatic preservation claim supported solely by classical simulation of the low-dimensional model; this limits the strength of the assertion that the method applies to full nonadiabatic processes on quantum hardware.

minor comments (2)

[Model and methods] The description of the coupled-harmonic model and the precise form of the Trotter terms being compressed would benefit from an explicit equation or diagram early in the text to clarify the starting point for compression.
Notation for the variational parameters and the compression ratio should be standardized across figures and text to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which have helped clarify the scope and presentation of our work. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details and clarifications where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'approximate rate coefficients are recovered after substituting terms in a nonadiabatic dynamic process' is stated without any quantitative error metrics, comparison to the uncompressed baseline, scaling of rate error versus compression depth, or description of the variational cost function (e.g., whether it targets fidelity, Hilbert-Schmidt distance, or the rate observable itself).

Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from greater specificity. In the revised manuscript we have updated the abstract to state that the variational cost function is the Hilbert-Schmidt distance, to report that approximate rate coefficients are recovered with relative errors below 10% relative to the uncompressed baseline for the compression levels examined, and to reference the scaling behavior of the rate error with compression depth (now shown in a new supplementary figure). revision: yes
Referee: [Classical emulation of hybrid optimization] Classical emulation results: the preservation of reaction rates under substitution of compressed Trotter terms is presented as a proof-of-principle, yet the manuscript provides no explicit error bounds, phase-error analysis, or demonstration that the variational objective controls interference-sensitive quantities over multiple time steps; generic fidelity minimization does not automatically guarantee this for integrated observables.

Authors: The optimization targets the Hilbert-Schmidt distance, which supplies an operator-norm bound on the unitary approximation error and thereby limits accumulated phase errors in the product-formula evolution. Numerical results for the two-state model confirm that the integrated observable (reaction rate) remains accurate across the simulated time steps. We have added a short error-propagation paragraph in the methods section of the revised manuscript that connects the chosen cost function to preservation of the rate coefficient. We acknowledge that a general analytical guarantee for arbitrary systems is not derived here and would require a separate theoretical study. revision: partial
Referee: [Quantum hardware results] Hardware demonstration: results are restricted to fast-forwarded adiabatic dynamics, leaving the nonadiabatic preservation claim supported solely by classical simulation of the low-dimensional model; this limits the strength of the assertion that the method applies to full nonadiabatic processes on quantum hardware.

Authors: The manuscript presents the hardware results as a demonstration that the compressed circuits can be executed on present-day quantum processors for adiabatic dynamics, while the nonadiabatic substitution is validated through classical emulation of the hybrid optimizer. We have revised the text to make this distinction explicit and to frame the work as a proof-of-principle for the compression technique rather than a direct hardware implementation of the full nonadiabatic process. As hardware fidelity and qubit counts improve, direct execution of the nonadiabatic case will become feasible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; preservation shown via independent numerical emulation and hardware runs

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a proof-of-principle numerical demonstration that variationally compressed Trotter terms, when substituted into product-formula evolution, recover approximate reaction rates for a specific coupled-harmonic model. This rests on classical emulation of the hybrid optimizer and hardware execution of fast-forwarded adiabatic dynamics, not on any derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided abstract or described results. The variational optimization targets circuit fidelity or distance to target unitaries, with observable preservation checked post-hoc via simulation rather than enforced by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard quantum simulation primitives with variational parameters introduced for compression; no new physical entities postulated.

free parameters (1)

variational parameters for circuit compression
Used in the hybrid optimization to approximate Trotter unitaries; values are fitted during the process.

axioms (2)

standard math Trotterization provides a valid approximation to time evolution operators
Invoked implicitly as the basis for the circuits being compressed.
domain assumption Observable preservation under unitary approximation is sufficient for rate coefficient accuracy
Central to the claim that compressed circuits can substitute in dynamics simulations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5467 in / 1303 out tokens · 41325 ms · 2026-05-08T11:28:02.146650+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Best Cost

Each compressed term uses thel-local truncated ansatz from Eq. (14), op- timized to achieveC LHST ≤0.01. For an 8-qubit position register, the kinetic term is approximated as beingl= 4- local, and the potential termsV ′ 0,V ′ 1 are truncated to be l= 6-local for linear qubit connectivity andl= 4-local for a ring topology. We calculate rate coefficients fr...

2020
[2]

G. H. Low,Quantum signal processing by single-qubit dy- namics, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy (2017)

2017
[3]

G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Quantum3, 163 (2019)

2019
[4]

Motlagh and N

D. Motlagh and N. Wiebe, PRX Quantum5, 020368 (2024)

2024
[5]

A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Physical re- view letters103, 150502 (2009)

2009
[6]

D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders, Communications in Mathematical Physics270, 359 (2007)

2007
[7]

D. W. Berry, D. Motlagh, G. Pantaleoni, and N. Wiebe, Physical Review A110, 012612 (2024)

2024
[8]

Q. Zhao, Y. Zhou, A. F. Shaw, T. Li, and A. M. Childs, Physical Review Letters129, 270502 (2022)

2022
[9]

R. P. Feynman, International Journal of Theoretical Physics21(1982)

1982
[10]

Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

2018
[11]

Stamatopoulos, D

N. Stamatopoulos, D. J. Egger, Y. Sun, C. Zoufal, R. Iten, N. Shen, and S. Woerner, Quantum4, 291 (2020)

2020
[12]

Baiardi, M

A. Baiardi, M. Christandl, and M. Reiher, Chem- BioChem24, e202300120 (2023)

2023
[13]

Tavernelli, Accounts of chemical research48, 792 (2015)

I. Tavernelli, Accounts of chemical research48, 792 (2015)

2015
[14]

T. R. Nelson, A. J. White, J. A. Bjorgaard, A. E. Sifain, Y. Zhang, B. Nebgen, S. Fernandez-Alberti, D. Mozyrsky, A. E. Roitberg, and S. Tretiak, Chemical reviews120, 2215 (2020)

2020
[15]

Burghardt, K

I. Burghardt, K. Giri, and G. Worth, The Journal of chemical physics129(2008)

2008
[16]

B. H. Lengsfield and D. R. Yarkony, Adv. Chem. Phys 82, 1 (1992)

1992
[17]

W. H. Miller, The Journal of Chemical Physics53, 3578 (1970)

1970
[18]

Sadri, D

K. Sadri, D. Lauvergnat, F. Gatti, and H.-D. Meyer, The Journal of Chemical Physics141(2014)

2014
[19]

Meyer, F

H.-D. Meyer, F. Gatti, and G. A. Worth,Multidimen- sional quantum dynamics: MCTDH theory and applica- tions(John Wiley & Sons, 2009)

2009
[20]

Molignini, S

P. Molignini, S. Dutta, and E. Fasshauer, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 094 (2025)

2025
[21]

J. Ren, W. Li, T. Jiang, Y. Wang, and Z. Shuai, Wi- ley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science12, e1614 (2022)

2022
[22]

Baiardi, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computa- tion17, 3320 (2021)

A. Baiardi, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computa- tion17, 3320 (2021)

2021
[23]

Wang, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A119, 7951 (2015)

H. Wang, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A119, 7951 (2015)

2015
[24]

P. J. Ollitrault, G. Mazzola, and I. Tavernelli, Physical Review Letters125, 260511 (2020)

2020
[25]

Navickas, R

T. Navickas, R. J. MacDonell, C. H. Valahu, V. C. Olaya- Agudelo, F. Scuccimarra, M. J. Millican, V. G. Matsos, H. L. Nourse, A. D. Rao, M. J. Biercuk,et al., Journal of the American Chemical Society (2025)

2025
[26]

D. Wang, O. Higgott, and S. Brierley, Physical review letters122, 140504 (2019)

2019
[27]

Peruzzo, J

A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, Nature communications5, 4213 (2014)

2014
[28]

R. R. Ferguson, L. Dellantonio, A. A. Balushi, K. Jansen, W. D¨ ur, and C. A. Muschik, Physical review letters126, 220501 (2021)

2021
[29]

Cerezo, K

M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Arrasmith, and P. J. Coles, npj Quantum Information8, 113 (2022)

2022
[30]

Park, APL Quantum1(2024)

C.-Y. Park, APL Quantum1(2024)

2024
[31]

Tamiya, S

S. Tamiya, S. Koh, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Physical Review Research3, 023244 (2021)

2021
[32]

J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Nature communications9, 4812 (2018)

2018
[33]

Zhang, L

Y. Zhang, L. Cincio, C. F. Negre, P. Czarnik, P. J. Coles, P. M. Anisimov, S. M. Mniszewski, S. Tretiak, and P. A. Dub, npj Quantum Information8, 96 (2022)

2022
[34]

S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan90, 032001 (2021)

2021
[35]

J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, New Journal of Physics18, 023023 (2016)

2016
[36]

S. Endo, J. Sun, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Physical Review Letters125, 010501 (2020)

2020
[37]

Y.-X. Yao, N. Gomes, F. Zhang, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, T. Iadecola, and P. P. Orth, PRX Quantum2, 030307 (2021)

2021
[38]

Benedetti, M

M. Benedetti, M. Fiorentini, and M. Lubasch, Physical Review Research3, 033083 (2021)

2021
[39]

K. Heya, K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, Z. Yan, K. Zuo, Y. Suzuki, T. Sugiyama, S. Tamate, Y. Tabuchi, K. Fujii, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08566 (2019)

work page arXiv 1904
[40]

Barison, F

S. Barison, F. Vicentini, and G. Carleo, Quantum5, 512 (2021)

2021
[41]

McArdle, S

S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Reviews of Modern Physics92, 015003 (2020)

2020
[42]

Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. Sawaya,et al., Chemical reviews119, 10856 (2019)

2019
[43]

H. Liu, G. H. Low, D. S. Steiger, T. H¨ aner, M. Reiher, and M. Troyer, Materials Theory6, 11 (2022)

2022
[44]

R. M. Parrish, E. G. Hohenstein, P. L. McMahon, and T. J. Martinez, arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08728 (2019)

work page arXiv 1906
[45]

A. Cook, P. Stancil, M. Geller, H. You, and A. Sorn- borger, inAPS March Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2016 (2016) pp. G1–274

2016
[46]

T. E. O’Brien, B. Senjean, R. Sagastizabal, X. Bonet- Monroig, A. Dutkiewicz, F. Buda, L. DiCarlo, and L. Visscher, npj Quantum Information5, 113 (2019). 16 FIG. 17. Three-qubit initializations using a UCC ansatz circuit. Probabilities are given for each basis state using (a) a noise-free simulator, (b)ibm brisbane(F= 0.991±0.000623), and (c)ibm sherbrook...

2019
[47]

Bornman, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05537 (2023)

N. Bornman, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05537 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[48]

Lloyd, Science273, 1073 (1996)

S. Lloyd, Science273, 1073 (1996)

1996
[49]

Staelens and F

M. Staelens and F. Marsiglio, American Journal of Physics89, 693 (2021)

2021
[50]

A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Physical Review X11, 011020 (2021)

2021
[51]

E. J. Pritchett, C. Benjamin, A. Galiautdinov, M. R. Geller, A. T. Sornborger, P. C. Stancil, and J. M. Mar- tinis, arXiv preprint arXiv:1008.0701 (2010)

work page arXiv 2010
[52]

Atia and D

Y. Atia and D. Aharonov, Nature communications8, 1572 (2017)

2017
[53]

Cirstoiu, Z

C. Cirstoiu, Z. Holmes, J. Iosue, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, npj Quantum Information6, 82 (2020)

2020
[54]

Commeau, M

B. Commeau, M. Cerezo, Z. Holmes, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.02559 (2020)

work page arXiv 2009
[55]

M. R. Geller, Z. Holmes, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Physical Review Research3, 033200 (2021)

2021
[56]

Balasubramanian, M

V. Balasubramanian, M. DeCross, A. Kar, and O. Par- rikar, Journal of High Energy Physics2020, 1 (2020)

2020
[57]

Khatri, R

S. Khatri, R. LaRose, A. Poremba, L. Cincio, A. T. Sorn- borger, and P. J. Coles, Quantum3, 140 (2019)

2019
[58]

Sharma, S

K. Sharma, S. Khatri, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, New Journal of Physics22, 043006 (2020)

2020
[59]

J. L. Walsh, American Journal of Mathematics45, 5 (1923)

1923
[60]

Benenti and G

G. Benenti and G. Strini, American Journal of Physics 76, 657 (2008)

2008
[61]

Kandala, A

A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, nature549, 242 (2017)

2017
[62]

R. A. Marcus, The Journal of chemical physics24, 966 (1956)

1956
[63]

Tachiya, The Journal of Physical Chemistry97, 5911 (1993)

M. Tachiya, The Journal of Physical Chemistry97, 5911 (1993)

1993
[64]

Nitzan,Chemical dynamics in condensed phases: re- laxation, transfer, and reactions in condensed molecular systems(Oxford university press, 2024)

A. Nitzan,Chemical dynamics in condensed phases: re- laxation, transfer, and reactions in condensed molecular systems(Oxford university press, 2024)

2024
[65]

Kassal, S

I. Kassal, S. P. Jordan, P. J. Love, M. Mohseni, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105, 18681 (2008)

2008
[66]

Babbush, D

R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, and H. Neven, Physical Review A99, 040301 (2019)

2019
[67]

J. M. Martyn, Y. Liu, Z. E. Chin, and I. L. Chuang, The Journal of Chemical Physics158(2023)

2023
[68]

Temme, S

K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Physical re- view letters119, 180509 (2017)

2017
[69]

Kandala, K

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

2019
[70]

B. J. Braams and J. M. Bowman, International Reviews in Physical Chemistry28, 577 (2009)

2009
[71]

Jiang, J

B. Jiang, J. Li, and H. Guo, International Reviews in Physical Chemistry35, 479 (2016)

2016
[72]

T. J. Yoder, E. Schoute, P. Rall, E. Pritchett, J. M. Gam- betta, A. W. Cross, M. Carroll, and M. E. Beverland, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03094 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[73]

M. H. Shaw and B. M. Terhal, Physical review letters 134, 090602 (2025). 17 FIG. 18. Wavepacket initializations using a UCC ansatz circuit forn= 3−8 qubits. Probabilities are given for each basis state using average results foribm torino(blue) a classical emulator (red). Error bars foribm torinowere taken as the standard error over ten independent runs (j...

2025
[74]

Courtney and P

J. Courtney and P. Stancil, Variationally-Compression- Scripts,https://github.com/jmcourtneyuga/ Variationally-Compression-Scripts(2025)

2025
[75]

Ortiz, J

G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Physical Review A64, 022319 (2001)

2001