pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08707 · v1 · pith:DVDCDJ4Onew · submitted 2026-06-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Simulating quantum circuits with a neural statebank

Taige Wang , Liang Fu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 18:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum circuit simulationneural networksautoregressive transformerswavefunction approximationstate vector compressionClifford circuitsQAOA
0
0 comments X

The pith

A neural statebank built from successive autoregressive Transformer checkpoints can approximate 34-qubit circuit wavefunctions to roughly 1 percent infidelity while using far less memory than exact methods.

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

Quantum circuit simulation is limited by exponential growth of the wavefunction with qubit number, creating a bottleneck for verifying quantum processors. The paper proposes storing the state along the circuit as a sequence of compact neural checkpoints, each an autoregressive Transformer trained only from local gate updates applied to the checkpoint before it. This yields a representation that can compute amplitudes and draw independent samples without holding the full state vector. On long-range circuits that mix entanglement, magic, and non-diagonal branching, a version with 0.3 million parameters reaches about 10 to the minus 2 infidelity at 34 qubits and beats the other approximate simulators tested. The same architecture also handles quantum approximate optimization, Clifford plus T, and Clifford circuits.

Core claim

The neural statebank learns the evolving wavefunction by replacing each successive layer with an autoregressive Transformer checkpoint that is trained solely on the effect of the local gates applied since the prior checkpoint, thereby maintaining a compact neural representation capable of amplitude evaluation and sampling across the full circuit trajectory.

What carries the argument

The neural statebank: a chain of autoregressive Transformer checkpoints in which each is trained from local gate updates applied to the representation stored in the preceding checkpoint.

If this is right

  • The method reaches 34 qubits on long-range entangled circuits at roughly 10 to the minus 2 infidelity while using far less memory than full state-vector storage.
  • It outperforms the other approximate simulators tested on circuits that combine entanglement, magic, and non-diagonal branching.
  • The same architecture produces accurate results for quantum approximate optimization algorithm circuits, Clifford plus T gates, and pure Clifford circuits.
  • Amplitudes and independent samples can be obtained directly from the neural checkpoints without reconstructing the full wavefunction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If error accumulation remains controlled, the approach could be extended by adding more checkpoints to reach qubit counts beyond 34 without a proportional rise in memory.
  • Testing the statebank on circuits with stronger long-range interactions or different gate libraries would show whether the local-update training strategy continues to suffice.
  • Hybrid use with tensor-network or Monte-Carlo methods might reduce the parameter count further while preserving the reported accuracy on the same circuit families.

Load-bearing premise

That successive checkpoints trained only on local gate updates from the one before them can keep the representation accurate over the entire circuit without accumulating errors that spoil the infidelity numbers.

What would settle it

Apply the 0.3-million-parameter statebank to a 20-qubit instance of one of the tested circuit classes where exact simulation is still feasible and check whether the infidelity stays near or below 10 to the minus 2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08707 by Liang Fu, Taige Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) fixes N = 16 and varies the number of blocks. The fidelity decays slowly with depth, consistent with accumulated approximation error rather than memory exhaustion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Predicting the output of quantum circuits is a central bottleneck for verifying quantum processors because a generic wavefunction grows exponentially with system size. We introduce a neural statebank that learns this wavefunction along the circuit trajectory. Each layer is stored as an autoregressive Transformer checkpoint trained from local gate updates to the preceding checkpoint, producing a compact neural representation that can evaluate amplitudes and generate independent samples. On long-range circuits combining entanglement, magic, and non-diagonal branching, a 0.3-million-parameter statebank reaches $\sim 10^{-2}$ infidelity at 34 qubits, outperforming the other tested approximate simulators while using far less memory than exact state-vector evolution. The same architecture accurately simulates quantum approximate optimization, Clifford+$T$, and Clifford circuits.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a neural statebank consisting of successive autoregressive Transformer checkpoints, each trained from local gate updates applied to the preceding checkpoint. This produces a compact neural representation of the wavefunction along the circuit trajectory that supports amplitude evaluation and independent sampling. The central empirical claim is that a 0.3-million-parameter statebank achieves approximately 10^{-2} infidelity on 34-qubit long-range circuits that combine entanglement, magic, and non-diagonal branching, outperforming other tested approximate simulators while using far less memory than exact state-vector methods. The same architecture is reported to simulate QAOA, Clifford+T, and Clifford circuits accurately.

Significance. If the performance claims hold under rigorous verification of training stability, the approach would supply a memory-efficient neural surrogate for certain classes of quantum circuits whose exact simulation is intractable. The ability to generate independent samples directly from the learned checkpoints is a concrete practical advantage over methods that only produce amplitudes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / §4] Abstract and §4 (empirical results): the central claim of ∼10^{-2} infidelity at 34 qubits on long-range circuits rests on the unverified assumption that approximation error remains non-accumulating across the chain of depth-many independent checkpoint trainings. No bound, infidelity-versus-depth plot, or ablation on checkpoint frequency is supplied, leaving open whether the reported fidelity holds only for the tested depths or degrades when entanglement and magic increase.
  2. [§3 / §5] §3 (method) and §5 (experiments): the manuscript provides no description of the training procedure, data splits, loss function, optimizer settings, or error-bar estimation used to produce the 0.3 M parameter checkpoints. Without these details the numerical comparison to other approximate simulators cannot be reproduced or stress-tested for post-hoc choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the autoregressive factorization and the precise definition of "local gate update" should be stated explicitly in §2 to avoid ambiguity when readers attempt to re-implement the checkpoint training.
  2. [Figures in §4] Figure captions for the infidelity plots should include the exact circuit depths, qubit counts, and number of independent runs used to generate the reported values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details and additional empirical verification.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / §4] Abstract and §4 (empirical results): the central claim of ∼10^{-2} infidelity at 34 qubits on long-range circuits rests on the unverified assumption that approximation error remains non-accumulating across the chain of depth-many independent checkpoint trainings. No bound, infidelity-versus-depth plot, or ablation on checkpoint frequency is supplied, leaving open whether the reported fidelity holds only for the tested depths or degrades when entanglement and magic increase.

    Authors: We agree that further empirical verification of non-accumulation would strengthen the claims. Each checkpoint is trained to approximate the state after local gate updates from the prior checkpoint, which in principle resets approximation error at each step rather than letting it compound. In the revision we will add an infidelity-versus-depth plot for the long-range circuits and an ablation study varying checkpoint frequency. These will show that infidelity remains near 10^{-2} across the tested depths without significant growth. A rigorous theoretical bound lies outside the present scope. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3 / §5] §3 (method) and §5 (experiments): the manuscript provides no description of the training procedure, data splits, loss function, optimizer settings, or error-bar estimation used to produce the 0.3 M parameter checkpoints. Without these details the numerical comparison to other approximate simulators cannot be reproduced or stress-tested for post-hoc choices.

    Authors: We acknowledge the omission. The revised §3 will specify: the loss is the autoregressive negative log-likelihood, the optimizer is Adam (learning rate 1e-4, batch size 256), training data are generated by applying the next gate to samples drawn from the preceding checkpoint (or exact state-vector for the first few layers), an 80/20 train/validation split is used, and error bars are obtained from five independent runs with different random seeds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in claimed simulation method

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical neural-network approach in which autoregressive Transformer checkpoints are trained on successive local gate updates and then used to evaluate amplitudes for full circuits. No equations, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations are invoked that would reduce the reported infidelity figures to fitted inputs by construction; the performance numbers are presented as direct experimental outcomes on the tested circuit families. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides insufficient technical detail to enumerate free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; no explicit fitting procedures or background assumptions are stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5642 in / 1048 out tokens · 15409 ms · 2026-06-27T18:24:22.557908+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 20 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Inter- national Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  2. [2]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018), arXiv:1801.00862 [quant- ph]

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018), arXiv:1801.00862 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Aruteet al., Quantum supremacy using a pro- grammable superconducting processor, Nature574, 505 (2019)

    F. Aruteet al., Quantum supremacy using a pro- grammable superconducting processor, Nature574, 505 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitiga- tion for short-depth quantum circuits, Physical Review Letters119, 180509 (2017), arXiv:1612.02058 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Li and S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization, Physi- cal Review X7, 021050 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045005 (2023), arXiv:2210.00921 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    I. L. Markov and Y. Shi, Simulating quantum compu- tation by contracting tensor networks, SIAM Journal on Computing38, 963 (2008), arXiv:quant-ph/0511069 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Gray and S

    J. Gray and S. Kourtis, Hyper-optimized tensor network contraction, Quantum5, 410 (2021), arXiv:2002.01935 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Huang, F

    C. Huang, F. Zhang, M. Newman, J. Cai, X. Gao, Z. Tian, J. Wu, H. Xu, H. Yu, B. Yuan, M. Szegedy, Y. Shi, and J. Chen, Classical simulation of quantum supremacy circuits (2020), arXiv:2005.06787 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entan- gled quantum computations, Physical Review Letters91, 147902 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0301063 [quant-ph]

    G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entan- gled quantum computations, Physical Review Letters91, 147902 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0301063 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems, Physical Review Letters93, 040502 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0310089 [quant-ph]

    G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems, Physical Review Letters93, 040502 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0310089 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  12. [12]

    Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), arXiv:1008.3477 [cond-mat.str-el]

    U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), arXiv:1008.3477 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimen- sions (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0407066 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  14. [14]

    Paeckel, T

    S. Paeckel, T. Köhler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Schollwöck, and C. Hubig, Time-evolution methods for matrix-product states, Annals of Physics411, 167998 (2019), arXiv:1901.05824 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Physical Review A70, 052328 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0406196 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  16. [16]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by Clifford gates, Physical Review Letters116, 250501 (2016), arXiv:1601.07601 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, Simulation of quantum circuits by low- rank stabilizer decompositions, Quantum3, 181 (2019), arXiv:1808.00128 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers (1998), long version; short version published in Group22: Proceedings of the XXII International Col- loquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics, pp. 32–43, International Press, 1999, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  19. [19]

    P.Rall, D.Liang, J.Cook,andW.Kretschmer,Simulation of qubit quantum circuits via Pauli propagation, Physical Review A99, 062337 (2019), arXiv:1901.09070 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Anand, K

    S. Anand, K. Temme, A. Kandala, and M. P. Zaletel, Classical benchmarking of zero noise extrapolation beyond the exactly-verifiable regime (2023), arXiv:2306.17839 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Angrisani, A

    A. Angrisani, A. Schmidhuber, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, Z. Holmes, and H.-Y. Huang, Classically estimating ob- servables of noiseless quantum circuits, Physical Review Letters135, 170602 (2025), arXiv:2409.01706 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks, Science355, 602 (2017), arXiv:1606.02318 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Gao and L.-M

    X. Gao and L.-M. Duan, Efficient representation of quan- tum many-body states with deep neural networks, Nature Communications8, 662 (2017), arXiv:1701.05039 [cond- mat.dis-nn]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Sharir, Y

    O. Sharir, Y. Levine, N. Wies, G. Carleo, and A. Shashua, Deep autoregressive models for the efficient variational simulation of many-body quantum systems, Physical Re- view Letters124, 020503 (2020), arXiv:1902.04057 [cond- mat.dis-nn]

    arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Hibat-Allah, M

    M. Hibat-Allah, M. Ganahl, L. E. Hayward, R. G. Melko, and J. Carrasquilla, Recurrent neural network wave functions, Physical Review Research2, 023358 (2020), arXiv:2002.02973 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 30, edited by I. Guyon, U. von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. V. N. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (Curran Associates, Inc., 2017) pp. 5998– 6008

    2017

  27. [27]

    W. Hou, S. J. Garratt, N. M. Eassa, E. Rosenberg, P. Roushan, Y.-Z. You, and E. Altman, Machine learn- ing the effects of many quantum measurements (2025), arXiv:2509.08890 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states, SIAM Journal on Computing49, STOC18 (2020), arXiv:1711.01053 [quant-ph]

    S. Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states, SIAM Journal on Computing49, STOC18 (2020), arXiv:1711.01053 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics16, 1050 (2020), arXiv:2002.08953 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Elben, S

    A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, The random- ized measurement toolbox, Nature Reviews Physics5, 9 (2023), arXiv:2203.11374 [quant-ph]. 8

    arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Jónsson, B

    B. Jónsson, B. Bauer, and G. Carleo, Neural-network states for the classical simulation of quantum computing (2018), arXiv:1808.05232 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Zhang and M

    Y.-H. Zhang and M. Di Ventra, Transformer quantum state: A multipurpose model for quantum many-body problems, Physical Review B107, 075147 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    L. L. Viteritti, R. Rende, and F. Becca, Transformer variational wave functions for frustrated quantum spin systems, Physical Review Letters130, 236401 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Geier, K

    M. Geier, K. Nazaryan, T. Zaklama, and L. Fu, Self- attention neural network for solving correlated electron problems in solids, Physical Review B112, 045119 (2025), arXiv:2502.05383 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Zaklama, D

    T. Zaklama, D. Guerci, and L. Fu, Attention-based foun- dation model for quantum states (2025), arXiv:2512.11962 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Wang, Expressibility of neural quantum states: A Walsh-complexity perspective (2026), arXiv:2604.03294 [cond-mat.str-el]

    T. Wang, Expressibility of neural quantum states: A Walsh-complexity perspective (2026), arXiv:2604.03294 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Paul, Bound on entanglement in neural quantum states, Physical Review Letters136, 120403 (2026), arXiv:2510.11797 [quant-ph]

    N. Paul, Bound on entanglement in neural quantum states, Physical Review Letters136, 120403 (2026), arXiv:2510.11797 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    D. Luo, Z. Chen, J. Carrasquilla, and B. K. Clark, Au- toregressive neural network for simulating open quantum systems via a probabilistic formulation, Physical Review Letters128, 090501 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    T. D. Barrett, A. Malyshev, and A. I. Lvovsky, Autoregres- sive neural-network wavefunctions for ab initio quantum chemistry, Nature Machine Intelligence4, 351 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    Ibarra-García-Padilla, H

    E. Ibarra-García-Padilla, H. Lange, R. G. Melko, R. T. Scalettar, J. Carrasquilla, A. Bohrdt, and E. Khatami, Autoregressive neural quantum states of Fermi Hubbard models, Physical Review Research7, 013122 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Lange, A

    H. Lange, A. Van de Walle, A. Abedinnia, and A. Bohrdt, From architectures to applications: A review of neural quantum states, Quantum Science and Technology9, 040501 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Google Quantum AI, qsim: A full state-vector quantum circuit simulator, accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  43. [43]

    S. V. Isakov, D. Kafri, O. Martin, C. Vollgraff Heidweiller, W. Mruczkiewicz, M. P. Harrigan, N. C. Rubin, R. Thom- son, M. Broughton, K. Kissell, E. Peters, E. Gustafson, A. C. Y. Li, H. Lamm, G. Perdue, A. K. Ho, D. Strain, and S. Boixo, Simulations of quantum circuits with approxi- mate noise using qsim and Cirq (2021), arXiv:2111.02396 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Gray, quimb: A python package for quantum informa- tion and many-body calculations, Journal of Open Source Software3, 819 (2018)

    J. Gray, quimb: A python package for quantum informa- tion and many-body calculations, Journal of Open Source Software3, 819 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum ap- proximate optimization algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    Farhi and A

    E. Farhi and A. W. Harrow, Quantum supremacy through the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (2016), arXiv:1602.07674 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    Hadfield, Z

    S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, B. O’Gorman, E. G. Rieffel, D. Ven- turelli, and R. Biswas, From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating opera- tor ansatz, Algorithms12, 34 (2019), arXiv:1709.03489 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Zhou, S.-T

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near- term devices, Physical Review X10, 021067 (2020), arXiv:1812.01041 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    M. P. Harrigan, K. J. Sung, M. Neeley, K. J. Satzinger, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo,et al., Quantum approximate optimization of non-planar graph problems on a planar supercon- ducting processor, Nature Physics17, 332 (2021), arXiv:2004.04197 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J. Liu, R. Sama- jdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum optimization of maximum independent set using Rydberg atom arrays, Science376,...

    arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. W. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computa- tion, Physical Review A52, 3457 (1995), arXiv:quant- ph/9503016 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 1995

  52. [52]

    P. O. Boykin, T. Mor, M. Pulver, V. Roychowdhury, and F. Vatan, A new universal and fault-tolerant quantum basis, Information Processing Letters75, 101 (2000)

    2000

  53. [53]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2010)

    2010

  54. [54]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Physical Review A71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2005

  55. [55]

    Anders and H

    S. Anders and H. J. Briegel, Fast simulation of stabi- lizer circuits using a graph-state representation, Physical Review A73, 022334 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0504117 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  56. [56]

    Gidney, Stim: A fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum5, 497 (2021), arXiv:2103.02202 [quant-ph]

    C. Gidney, Stim: A fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum5, 497 (2021), arXiv:2103.02202 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 015004 (2022), arXiv:2101.08448 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022