Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Classical Pauli-propagated flow estimates ground-state energies of strongly correlated 2D lattices to sub-1% accuracy, and a 100-qubit Heisenberg lattice in about 10 minutes on one thread.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 19:55 UTC pith:T7EMG4SE

load-bearing objection A genuinely new combination of Pauli propagation and double-bracket flows gives fast, plausible energy estimates, but the headline sub-1% claim on the largest 2D systems leans on an extrapolation whose uncertainty is likely understated. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.21651 v2 pith:T7EMG4SE submitted 2025-11-26 quant-ph physics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph

Pauli propagation enables fast classical simulation of strongly correlated quantum systems

Chinmay Shrikhande , Arnab Bachhar , Aaron Rodriguez Jimenez , Edward F. Valeev , Nicholas J. Mayhall This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords ground state energyPauli propagationsparse Pauli dynamicsdouble bracket flowHeisenberg modelHubbard modelenergy variance extrapolationclassical simulation of quantum circuits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that ground-state energies of strongly correlated spin and fermionic lattice models can be computed classically and quickly by evolving the Hamiltonian in the Heisenberg picture with Pauli operators, truncating small coefficients, and greedily rotating by the most energy-lowering generators. It packages this as a variational double bracket flow (vDBF). For 2D Heisenberg and Hubbard lattices of 100–128 qubits, vDBF achieves sub-1% error relative to DMRG benchmarks while using orders of magnitude less wall time on a single thread. The authors argue that techniques built for classical simulation of quantum circuits can be repurposed into practical many-body tools.

Core claim

vDBF approximates a unitary transformation that maps a reference product state into the ground state. Instead of integrating the double bracket flow exactly, it iterates three cheap steps: form the truncated generator G = sum_i [H, Z_i]; rank its Pauli components by their energy gradient; and rotate the Hamiltonian by the top few Paulis through the analytically optimal angle. Each rotation is approximated in the Heisenberg picture by Pauli propagation with a coefficient cutoff, and the energy and variance lost to truncation are accumulated to correct the final estimate. A linear-plus-quadratic extrapolation of corrected energy against corrected variance then estimates the exact, untruncated,

What carries the argument

The central device is the Heisenberg-picture evolution of a Hamiltonian as a sparse sum of Pauli strings under successive unitary rotations. Each rotation of a Pauli string splits into a cosine and sine branch, forming a binary tree whose branch weights decay exponentially for small angles; keeping only coefficients above a threshold (Sparse Pauli Dynamics / Pauli propagation) keeps the operator manageable. This is driven by a state-specific double bracket flow with the truncated generator [H, sum_i Z_i], whose Pauli components are selected greedily by the derivative of the energy and rotated by analytical optimal angles. The energy-variance extrapolation plus accumulated clip corrections is

Load-bearing premise

The sub-1% accuracy numbers depend on the energy-variance extrapolation being nearly linear over the data window used, and for the largest systems on the DMRG extrapolations used as benchmarks; if either is biased, the claimed accuracy could be overstated.

What would settle it

Compute an essentially exact ground-state energy for the 8×8 half-filled Hubbard model at U=t (e.g., with well-converged auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo or a larger-bond-dimension tensor network than used here) and compare it with vDBF's extrapolated value. If the exact energy lies more than the reported error bars below the DMRG-extrapolated benchmark, the sub-1% claim against that benchmark is unfalsified but the benchmark is wrong; if the exact energy lies above the vDBF value, the extrapolation is biased. A cheaper falsifier: on the 6x6 Heisenberg lattice, where DMRG is essentially exa

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For 2D Heisenberg and Hubbard models around 100–128 qubits, ground-state energy estimates at sub-1% error become available on a single CPU thread within minutes to hours, where DMRG takes days or is difficult to converge.
  • The cost of tightening accuracy is roughly an order of magnitude more Pauli strings per order-of-magnitude decrease in the truncation threshold, suggesting a controlled trade-off between accuracy and memory/time.
  • For 1D systems, DMRG remains competitive or superior; vDBF's practical niche is the higher-dimensional regime where tensor-network bond dimensions grow rapidly.
  • The method's correlation functions decay exponentially even where the true correlations decay polynomially, so its reliable output is the energy, not detailed ground-state structure.
  • Because vDBF works directly in the Pauli basis, it can be applied to fermionic models via Jordan-Wigner without needing to build tensor networks, and to qubit Hamiltonians generally.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the energy-variance extrapolation is unbiased in the 8×8 Hubbard case, vDBF's tightest extrapolated values falling below DMRG's extrapolated energy would imply the DMRG reference is itself an upper bound biased high, which is plausible for a truncated bond dimension; a direct comparison against auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo would settle which method is closer.
  • The exponential decay of spatial correlations suggests vDBF is effectively generating a local or quasi-local unitary that captures the energy-relevant physics; this hints that combining vDBF with a Schrödinger-picture correction term (hybrid evolution) could recover accurate long-range correlations at modest extra cost.
  • A natural testable extension is to add symmetry-preserving rotations (e.g., total spin or particle-number-conserving Pauli strings); the paper predicts this should speed convergence and allow targeting specific symmetry sectors, which would extend the method to quantum-chemistry active spaces of the kind it already probes for hexabenzocoronene.
  • The observed ~10x growth in Pauli count per 10x threshold tightening, if it persists, implies the method's classical cost scales polynomially in desired accuracy for these models — a property worth testing across more Hamiltonians and system sizes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces vDBF (variational double-bracket flow), a classical ground-state energy estimation algorithm built on Sparse Pauli Dynamics. It iteratively applies greedily chosen Pauli rotations—selected by energy gradients from commutators with single-qubit Z operators—with optimal angles, coefficient truncation at threshold ε, and an energy-vs-'corrected variance' extrapolation. Claims: sub-1% energy errors relative to DMRG for 1×100, 6×6, and 10×10 Heisenberg and 1×64, 4×4, and 8×8 Hubbard models, with order-of-magnitude speedups on the largest 2D systems. The abstract also claims a sub-1% result on an 84-qubit hexabenzocoronene active space that does not appear in the body.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a notable application of Pauli-propagation techniques to ground-state many-body physics, offering a fast heuristic energy estimator for 2D strongly correlated lattice models. The paper is strongest in its clear algorithmic description, the range of systems tested, and its explicit recognition of limitations such as exponential correlation decay and possible DMRG benchmark error. It is weakest in that the method is heuristic—there are no proven error bounds—and the headline claims for the largest 2D systems rely on two layers of extrapolation whose systematic biases are not quantified. The availability of the algorithm as pseudocode and the use of open-source Julia packages are assets, though the repository references are incomplete.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §III.B] The abstract states: 'We further test vDBF on the 84-qubit π-valence active space of hexabenzocoronene, where the tighter-threshold calculations achieve sub-1% agreement with DMRG.' No section, table, or figure in the submitted manuscript reports this result. The main text ends with the Heisenberg and Hubbard studies plus the appendix. This abstract claim is therefore unsupported. Please either add the hexabenzocoronene data and methodology or remove the claim from the abstract.
  2. [Table I; §III.A.3] The error percentages reported for the 10×10 Heisenberg lattice are consistent with comparison to the variational DMRG energy (−0.628455 J/site), not the extrapolated DMRG energy (−0.628693 J/site) cited in the text. For example, ε=1e-5 gives |−0.62687 − (−0.628455)|/0.628455 ≈ 0.25%, but the difference from the extrapolated value is ≈0.29%; for ε=1e-2 the corresponding numbers are ≈0.84% and ≈0.87%. The table should explicitly state which DMRG value is the reference, and the text's statement that all four thresholds achieve sub-1% error with respect to the extrapolated DMRG energy should be verified against the corrected numbers.
  3. [§II.C.4b; §III.a; Tables I–II] The energy-variance extrapolation uses a 'corrected variance' obtained by adding an accumulated truncation loss; this is not the variance of any physical state, and the assumed linear energy-variance relation has no formal justification in the large-variance regime. The reported uncertainty is only half the difference between linear and quadratic fits and does not capture systematic bias in the extrapolating curve. For 10×10 at ε=1e-5, the vDBF extrapolated energy is ≈0.0018 J/site (≈0.29%) above the extrapolated DMRG value, while the reported uncertainty is 0.00003 J/site. For 8×8 at ε=2e-4, the vDBF result is ≈0.007 t/site (0.53%) below the DMRG extrapolation, outside the quoted 0.002 t/site uncertainty. The sub-1% accuracy claim for the largest systems is therefore not controlled by the reported error bars. Please validate the extrapolation on intermediate systems with exact or high-q
  4. [Table II, 8×8 row] The error for 8×8 Hubbard does not improve monotonically with tighter truncation: ε=5e-4 gives 0.23% error while ε=2e-4 gives 0.53%. The authors mention convergence slowdown and possible DMRG inaccuracy, but no quantitative test separates these. Because the benchmark for this system is itself extrapolated, this non-monotonicity weakens the claim that tighter thresholds systematically approach the exact ground state. A concrete comparison against an independent reference (e.g., AFQMC/CPMC for U=t at the chosen filling) would resolve whether the issue is vDBF extrapolation or the DMRG extrapolation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §III.B] The abstract describes the 8×8 Hubbard calculation as 'half-filled', but Sec. III.B states the Hubbard model is treated 'at moderate coupling (t=U) away from half-filling.' This should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 4(b)] The axis label of Fig. 4(b) contains corrupted unicode text (e.g., '/uni00000013/uni00000011/...'). The figure should be regenerated with correct encoding.
  3. [Ref. [78]] Reference [78] is malformed ('nmayhall Nmayhall/PauliOperators.Jl') and does not give a URL. The DBF.jl package mentioned in Sec. III is not referenced at all.
  4. [Sec. III.A.1; Table I] The text says a 10-fold decrease in ε results in a 'commensurate 10-fold increase in cost'. For 1×100, the timings (0.5, 4.3, 22.7, 172.8 min) scale by factors of about 8.6, 5.3, and 7.6. Suggest saying 'roughly an order of magnitude' to avoid overstating the scaling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: vDBF is a variational method benchmarked against external DMRG calculations; the energy-variance extrapolation is a heuristic, not a construction-level fit to the target energies.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained: vDBF selects Pauli rotations by exact energy gradients (Eq. 15) and optimizes each rotation angle by analytic minimization of the reference-state energy (Eq. 14), so the flow is a genuine variational procedure rather than a fit to a target energy. The truncation threshold and rotation parameters control computational cost, and the resulting energies are compared to DMRG values computed with ITensors.jl, an independent external benchmark; DMRG energies are not fed into the vDBF optimization. The energy-variance extrapolation (Sec. II C 4b, Sec. III 0 a) fits the vDBF trajectory's own corrected energy against its corrected variance and extrapolates to zero variance, which is a standard many-body heuristic with external references, not a parameter fitted to the DMRG answer. The authors also report a clear independent failure mode—exponentially decaying spin correlations where DMRG gives power-law decay—showing the method is not constructed to reproduce the benchmark results in all observables. Self-citations to ADAPT-VQE and to the authors' PauliOperators.jl software are contextual and not load-bearing for the accuracy claims. The main caveats, such as the uncertainty of the DMRG extrapolations on the largest 2D systems and the heuristic nature of the variance extrapolation, are correctness/risk concerns, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The algorithm introduces no new physics or entities; it relies on standard quantum mechanics and heuristic extrapolation. The main free parameters are convergence/truncation controls, which are not fitted to the target energies. The key unproven assumptions are that the approximate flow converges and that the variance extrapolation corrects the residual errors.

free parameters (5)
  • truncation threshold epsilon = 1e-2 to 1e-5 (Heisenberg), 1e-2 to 2e-4 (Hubbard)
    Threshold for dropping Pauli terms with small coefficients; user-selected, controls accuracy/cost tradeoff.
  • n_rots (number of rotations per iteration) = 100 (Heisenberg), 50 (Hubbard)
    User-specified parameter controlling how many operators are rotated per iteration.
  • max_iter (maximum iterations) = 100 (Heisenberg), 1000 (Hubbard)
    User-specified cutoff; many calculations hit this cap without full convergence.
  • conv_thresh (convergence threshold) = not reported
    Gradient norm threshold for stopping; value not specified in the paper.
  • extrapolation_cutoff = chosen to minimize (b1-b2)/2 + R^2
    Heuristic selection of data points for the energy vs variance extrapolation; data-dependent.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Double bracket flow with the chosen generator [H, sum_i Z_i] drives the system towards an eigenstate.
    Proved for the exact projector generator, but the approximate 1-body generator is only shown empirically (Fig. 6) to converge for a 1×6 lattice. The convergence guarantee is lost with truncation and greedy approximations.
  • domain assumption Energy-variance extrapolation is valid.
    Assumed linear/quadratic relation near convergence, borrowed from nuclear shell-model literature; no proof for this algorithm.
  • domain assumption DMRG extrapolated energies for 10×10 Heisenberg and 8×8 Hubbard are accurate reference benchmarks.
    The paper uses extrapolated DMRG values as ground truth; for 8×8 Hubbard the extrapolation correction is ~2%, so the reference is uncertain.
  • standard math The Jordan-Wigner transformation maps the fermionic Hubbard model to a Pauli Hamiltonian exactly.
    Standard fermion-to-qubit mapping; well-established.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18431 in / 10840 out tokens · 86700 ms · 2026-08-03T19:55:41.614733+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Ground state energy estimation for strongly correlated quantum systems remains a central challenge in computational physics and chemistry. While tensor network methods like DMRG provide efficient solutions for one-dimensional systems, higher-dimensional problems remain difficult. Here we present a variational double bracket flow (vDBF) algorithm that leverages Pauli Propagation, a technique originally developed for classical simulation of quantum circuits, to efficiently approximate ground state energies. By combining greedy operator selection with coefficient-based fluctuation truncation and energy-variance extrapolation, we obtain results with sub-1% relative accuracy compared to DMRG benchmarks for the Heisenberg and Hubbard models in one and two dimensions. For a 10x10 Heisenberg lattice (100 qubits), vDBF obtains accurate results in approximately 1 minute on a single CPU thread, compared to over 50 hours on 64 threads for DMRG. For the 8x8 half-filled Hubbard model, corresponding to 128 qubits, vDBF reaches the 1% error regime in less than one hour, while our DMRG calculations required more than 10 hours on 64 threads. We further test vDBF on the 84-qubit {\pi}-valence active space of hexabenzocoronene, where the tighter-threshold calculations achieve sub-1% agreement with DMRG. These results demonstrate that classical simulation techniques developed in the context of quantum advantage benchmarking can provide practical tools for many-body physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.21651 by Aaron Rodriguez Jimenez, Arnab Bachhar, Chinmay Shrikhande, Edward F. Valeev, Nicholas J. Mayhall.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic depiction of the evolution of a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Energy vs Variance extrapolations for Heisenberg lattices using a series of vDBF thresholds: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Spin-spin correlation functions for 1x100 site [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Energy vs Variance extrapolations for Hubbard lattice using a series of vDBF thresholds: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Relationship between number of Pauli strings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Convergence of the exact continuous double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Augmenting Imaginary-Time Evolution with Local Geometric Information

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    AITE augments ITE with local geometric information from energy distribution skewness and higher moments, yielding superlinear convergence followed by exact finite-time error extinction, recovering standard ITE at zero...

  2. Exponentially many initializations to avoid barren plateaus

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A first-moment operator diagnostic reveals exponentially many inequivalent initialization distributions avoid barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms, with numerics indicating distinct attained minima.

  3. Efficient computation of real-time correlators using Pauli Propagation

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Short-time truncated Pauli propagation combined with low-rank positive semi-definite time extension recovers dynamical structure factors for 1D/2D Heisenberg models beyond the direct Pauli window.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    K.; Plesset, M

    Møller, C. K.; Plesset, M. S. Note on an Approximation Treatment for Many-Electron Systems.Physical Review 1934,46, 618–622

    1934

  2. [2]

    J.; Purvis, G

    Bartlett, R. J.; Purvis, G. D. Many-body perturbation theory, coupled-pair many-electron theory, and the im- portance of quadruple excitations for the correlation problem.Int J of Quantum Chemistry1978,14, 561– 581

  3. [3]

    J.Many-Body Methods in Chem- istry and Physics: MBPT and Coupled-Cluster Theory, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press, 2009

    Shavitt, I.; Bartlett, R. J.Many-Body Methods in Chem- istry and Physics: MBPT and Coupled-Cluster Theory, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  4. [4]

    J.; Musia l, M

    Bartlett, R. J.; Musia l, M. Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry.Rev. Mod. Phys.2007,79, 291–352

    2007

  5. [5]

    Bartlett, R. J. Many-Body Perturbation Theory and Coupled Cluster Theory for Electron Correlation in Molecules.Annual Review of Physical Chemistry1981, 32, 359–401

  6. [6]

    New Method for Calculating the One-Particle Green’s Function with Application to the Electron-Gas Problem.Phys

    Hedin, L. New Method for Calculating the One-Particle Green’s Function with Application to the Electron-Gas Problem.Phys. Rev.1965,139, A796–A823

    1965

  7. [7]

    90; pp 157–184

    Marie, A.; Ammar, A.; Loos, P.-F.Advances in Quantum Chemistry; Elsevier, 2024; Vol. 90; pp 157–184

    2024

  8. [8]

    The GW method.Re- ports on Progress in Physics1998,61, 237

    Aryasetiawan, F.; Gunnarsson, O. The GW method.Re- ports on Progress in Physics1998,61, 237

  9. [9]

    Foulkes, W. M. C.; Mitas, L.; Needs, R. J.; Rajagopal, G. Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of solids.Rev. Mod. Phys.2001,73, 33–83

    2001

  10. [10]

    H.; Thom, A

    Booth, G. H.; Thom, A. J. W.; Alavi, A. Fermion Monte Carlo without fixed nodes: A game of life, death, and annihilation in Slater determinant space.The Journal of Chemical Physics2009,131, 054106

  11. [11]

    H.; Alavi, A

    Cleland, D.; Booth, G. H.; Alavi, A. Communications: Survival of the fittest: Accelerating convergence in full configuration-interaction quantum Monte Carlo.The Journal of chemical physics2010,132

  12. [12]

    Ab initio computations of molecu- lar systems by the auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science2018,8, e1364

    Motta, M.; Zhang, S. Ab initio computations of molecu- lar systems by the auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science2018,8, e1364

  13. [13]

    Quantum Monte Carlo Method using Phase-Free Random Walks with Slater Determi- nants.Phys

    Zhang, S.; Krakauer, H. Quantum Monte Carlo Method using Phase-Free Random Walks with Slater Determi- nants.Phys. Rev. Lett.2003,90, 136401

    2003

  14. [14]

    Zhang, S.; Carlson, J.; Gubernatis, J. E. Constrained path Monte Carlo method for fermion ground states. Phys. Rev. B1997,55, 7464–7477

  15. [15]

    K.-L.; Sharma, S

    Chan, G. K.-L.; Sharma, S. The Density Matrix Renor- malization Group in Quantum Chemistry.Annual Re- view of Physical Chemistry2011,62, 465–481, PMID: 21219144

  16. [16]

    H.; Reiher, M

    Marti, K. H.; Reiher, M. New electron correlation theo- ries for transition metal chemistry.Phys. Chem. Chem. 12 Phys.2011,13, 6750–6759

    2011

  17. [17]

    The density matrix renor- malization group for ab initio quantum chemistry.The European Physical Journal D2014,68, 272–272

    Wouters, S.; Van Neck, D. The density matrix renor- malization group for ab initio quantum chemistry.The European Physical Journal D2014,68, 272–272

  18. [18]

    White, S. R. Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups.Phys. Rev. Lett.1992,69, 2863– 2866

    1992

  19. [19]

    R.; Martin, R

    White, S. R.; Martin, R. L.Ab initioquantum chem- istry using the density matrix renormalization group.The Journal of Chemical Physics1999,110, 4127–4130

  20. [20]

    White, S. R. Density matrix renormalization group algo- rithms with a single center site.Phys. Rev. B2005,72, 180403

  21. [21]

    Density-matrix renormalization group algorithm with multi-level active space.The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics2015,143, 034105, Publisher: American Institute of Physics

    Ma, Y.; Wen, J.; Ma, H. Density-matrix renormalization group algorithm with multi-level active space.The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics2015,143, 034105, Publisher: American Institute of Physics

  22. [22]

    Hyatt, K.; Stoudenmire, E. M. DMRG approach to opti- mizing two-dimensional tensor networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.088332019,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  23. [23]

    T.; Vanderstraeten, L.; Zauner-Stauber, V.; Haegeman, J.; Verstraete, F

    Fishman, M. T.; Vanderstraeten, L.; Zauner-Stauber, V.; Haegeman, J.; Verstraete, F. Faster methods for con- tracting infinite 2d tensor networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.058812017,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    M.; Solomonik, E

    Ma, L.; Fishman, M.; Stoudenmire, E. M.; Solomonik, E. Approximate contraction of arbitrary tensor networks with a flexible and efficient density matrix algorithm. Quantum2024,8, 1580

  25. [25]

    T.; Verstraete, F.; Haegeman, J

    Zauner-Stauber, V.; Vanderstraeten, L.; Fishman, M. T.; Verstraete, F.; Haegeman, J. Variational optimization al- gorithms for uniform matrix product states.Phys. Rev. B2018,97, 045145

  26. [26]

    Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension.Physical review letters2007,98, 070201

    Vidal, G. Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension.Physical review letters2007,98, 070201

  27. [27]

    Verstraete, F.; Cirac, J. I. Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher di- mensions.arXiv preprint cond-mat/04070662004,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Stoudenmire, E. M. Learning relevant features of data with multi-scale tensor networks.Quantum Science and Technology2018,3, 034003

  29. [29]

    Entanglement Renormalization.Phys

    Vidal, G. Entanglement Renormalization.Phys. Rev. Lett.2007,99, 220405

    2007

  30. [30]

    Computational Complexity and Fundamental Limitations to Fermionic Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations.Physical review letters2005,94, 170201

    Troyer, M.; Wiese, U.-J. Computational Complexity and Fundamental Limitations to Fermionic Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations.Physical review letters2005,94, 170201

  31. [31]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code thresh- old.Nature2025,638, 920–926

  32. [32]

    X.; van den Berg, E.; Rosenblatt, S.; Nayfeh, H.; Wu, Y.; Zale- tel, M.; Temme, K.; Kandala, A

    Kim, Y.; Eddins, A.; Anand, S.; Wei, K. X.; van den Berg, E.; Rosenblatt, S.; Nayfeh, H.; Wu, Y.; Zale- tel, M.; Temme, K.; Kandala, A. Evidence for the Utility of Quantum Computing before Fault Tolerance.Nature 2023,618, 500–505

    2023

  33. [33]

    J.; Geim, A

    Bluvstein, D.; Evered, S. J.; Geim, A. A.; Li, S. H.; Zhou, H.; Manovitz, T.; Ebadi, S.; Cain, M.; Kali- nowski, M.; Hangleiter, D.; others Logical quantum pro- cessor based on reconfigurable atom arrays.Nature2024, 626, 58–65

  34. [34]

    Lee, S. et al. Evaluating the Evidence for Exponential Quantum Advantage in Ground-State Quantum Chem- istry.Nat Commun2023,14, 1952

    1952

  35. [35]

    Beguˇ si´ c, T.; Chan, G. K.-L. Fast Classical Simulation of Evidence for the Utility of Quantum Computing before Fault Tolerance. 2023

    2023

  36. [36]

    Beguˇ si´ c, T.; Gray, J.; Chan, G. K.-L. Fast and Con- verged Classical Simulations of Evidence for the Utility of Quantum Computing before Fault Tolerance.Science Advances2024,10, eadk4321

  37. [37]

    M.; Sels, D

    Tindall, J.; Fishman, M.; Stoudenmire, E. M.; Sels, D. Efficient Tensor Network Simulation of IBM’s Eagle Kicked Ising Experiment.PRX Quantum2024,5, 010308

  38. [38]

    Simulation of Qubit Quantum Circuits via Pauli Propagation.Phys

    Rall, P.; Liang, D.; Cook, J.; Kretschmer, W. Simulation of Qubit Quantum Circuits via Pauli Propagation.Phys. Rev. A2019,99, 062337

  39. [39]

    S.; Fontana, E.; Holmes, Z.; Cincio, L

    Rudolph, M. S.; Fontana, E.; Holmes, Z.; Cincio, L. Classical Surrogate Simulation of Quantum Systems with LOWESA. 2023

    2023

  40. [40]

    Schuster, T.; Yin, C.; Gao, X.; Yao, N. Y. A Polynomial- Time Classical Algorithm for Noisy Quantum Circuits. 2024

    2024

  41. [41]

    A Fourier Analysis Framework for Approxi- mate Classical Simulations of Quantum Circuits

    Cirstoiu, C. A Fourier Analysis Framework for Approxi- mate Classical Simulations of Quantum Circuits. 2024

    2024

  42. [42]

    S.; Duncan, R.; Rungger, I.; C ˆ ırstoiu, C

    Fontana, E.; Rudolph, M. S.; Duncan, R.; Rungger, I.; C ˆ ırstoiu, C. Classical Simulations of Noisy Variational Quantum Circuits.npj Quantum Inf2025,11, 84

  43. [43]

    Beguˇ si´ c, T.; Hejazi, K.; Chan, G. K. Simulating Quan- tum Circuit Expectation Values by Clifford Perturbation Theory.The Journal of Chemical Physics2025,162

  44. [44]

    Schuster, T.; Yin, C.; Gao, X.; Yao, N. Y. A Polynomial- Time Classical Algorithm for Noisy Quantum Circuits. Phys. Rev. X2025,15, 041018

  45. [45]

    S.; Cerezo, M.; Holmes, Z.; Huang, H.-Y

    Angrisani, A.; Schmidhuber, A.; Rudolph, M. S.; Cerezo, M.; Holmes, Z.; Huang, H.-Y. Classically Esti- mating Observables of Noiseless Quantum Circuits. 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    A.; Rudolph, M

    Angrisani, A.; Mele, A. A.; Rudolph, M. S.; Cerezo, M.; Holmes, Z. Simulating Quantum Circuits with Arbitrary Local Noise Using Pauli Propagation. 2025

    2025

  47. [47]

    Simulation of Fermionic Circuits Using Majorana Prop- agation

    Miller, A.; Holmes, Z.; Salehi, ¨O.; Chakraborty, R.; Nyk¨ anen, A.; Zimbor´ as, Z.; Glos, A.; Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, G. Simulation of Fermionic Circuits Using Majorana Prop- agation. 2025

    2025

  48. [48]

    Robbiati, M. et al. Double-Bracket Quantum Algorithms for High-Fidelity Ground State Preparation. 2025

    2025

  49. [49]

    S.; Jones, T.; Teng, Y.; Angrisani, A.; Holmes, Z

    Rudolph, M. S.; Jones, T.; Teng, Y.; Angrisani, A.; Holmes, Z. Pauli Propagation: A Computational Frame- work for Simulating Quantum Systems. 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    I.; Trivedi, R

    Gonz´ alez-Garc ´ ıa, G.; Cirac, J. I.; Trivedi, R. Pauli Path Simulations of Noisy Quantum Circuits beyond Average Case.Quantum2025,9, 1730

  51. [51]

    While one can always find a change of basis that makes the ground state sparse (e.g., the eigenbasis), this is computationally intractable, whereas Hamiltonians are generally sparse in computationally tractable bases (e.g., Pauli, or fermionic operator bases)

  52. [52]

    Full Classifi- cation of Pauli Lie Algebras

    Aguilar, G.; Cichy, S.; Eisert, J.; Bittel, L. Full Classifi- cation of Pauli Lie Algebras. 2024

    2024

  53. [53]

    K.; Dumitrescu, E

    K¨ okc¨ u, E.; Steckmann, T.; Wang, Y.; Freericks, J. K.; Dumitrescu, E. F.; Kemper, A. F. Fixed Depth Hamil- tonian Simulation via Cartan Decomposition.Phys. Rev. Lett.2022,129, 070501

    2022

  54. [54]

    F.; Bakalov, B

    Wiersema, R.; K¨ okc¨ u, E.; Kemper, A. F.; Bakalov, B. N. Classification of Dynamical Lie Algebras of 2-Local Spin Systems on Linear, Circular and Fully Connected Topolo- gies.npj Quantum Inf2024,10, 110

  55. [55]

    Magoulas, I.; Evangelista, F. A. Clifford Transformations for Fermionic Quantum Systems: From Paulis to Majo- 13 ranas to Fermions. 2025

    2025

  56. [56]

    Jayakumar, P.; Zeng, T.; Izmaylov, A. F. On the Feasi- bility of Exact Unitary Transformations for Many-body Hamiltonians. 2025

    2025

  57. [57]

    A.; Magoulas, I

    Evangelista, F. A.; Magoulas, I. Exact Closed-Form Uni- tary Transformations of Fermionic Operators.Phys. Rev. A2025,111, 042825

  58. [58]

    Martinez, V.; Angrisani, A.; Pankovets, E.; Fawzi, O.; Fran¸ ca, D. S. Efficient Simulation of Parametrized Quan- tum Circuits under Non-Unital Noise through Pauli Backpropagation.Phys. Rev. Lett.2025,134, 250602

    2025

  59. [59]

    D.; Wilson, K

    Glazek, S. D.; Wilson, K. G. Perturbative Renormaliza- tion Group for Hamiltonians.Phys. Rev. D1994,49, 4214–4218

  60. [60]

    D.; Wilson, K

    G lazek, S. D.; Wilson, K. G. Renormalization of Hamil- tonians.Phys. Rev. D1993,48, 5863–5872

  61. [61]

    Flow-Equations for Hamiltonians.Annalen der Physik1994,506, 77–91

    Wegner, F. Flow-Equations for Hamiltonians.Annalen der Physik1994,506, 77–91

  62. [62]

    K.; Lietz, J

    Hergert, H.; Bogner, S. K.; Lietz, J. G.; Morris, T. D.; Novario, S. J.; Parzuchowski, N. M.; Yuan, F. InAn Ad- vanced Course in Computational Nuclear Physics: Bridg- ing the Scales from Quarks to Neutron Stars; Hjorth- Jensen, M., Lombardo, M. P., van Kolck, U., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2017; pp 477– 570

    2017

  63. [63]

    Evangelista, F. A. A Driven Similarity Renormalization Group Approach to Quantum Many-Body Problems.The Journal of chemical physics2014,141, 054109–054109

  64. [64]

    A Similarity Renormalization Group Approach to Green’s Function Methods.J

    Marie, A.; Loos, P.-F. A Similarity Renormalization Group Approach to Green’s Function Methods.J. Chem. Theory Comput.2023,19, 3943–3957

    2023

  65. [65]

    Wang, S.; Li, C.; Evangelista, F. A. Analytic Energy Gra- dients for the Driven Similarity Renormalization Group Multireference Second-Order Perturbation Theory.J. Chem. Theory Comput.2021,17, 7666–7681

    2021

  66. [66]

    Double-Bracket Quantum Algorithms for Di- agonalization.Quantum2024,8, 1316

    Gluza, M. Double-Bracket Quantum Algorithms for Di- agonalization.Quantum2024,8, 1316

  67. [67]

    Any computational basis state can be rotated into|0⟩, folding the resulting unitary intoH(0)

  68. [68]

    R.; Economou, S

    Grimsley, H. R.; Economou, S. E.; Barnes, E.; May- hall, N. J. An Adaptive Variational Algorithm for Exact Molecular Simulations on a Quantum Computer.Nat. Commun.2019,10, 3007

    2019

  69. [69]

    L.; Shkolnikov, V.; Barron, G

    Tang, H. L.; Shkolnikov, V.; Barron, G. S.; Grims- ley, H. R.; Mayhall, N. J.; Barnes, E.; Economou, S. E. Qubit-ADAPT-VQE: An Adaptive Algorithm for Con- structing Hardware-Efficient Ans\”atze on a Quantum Processor.PRX Quantum2021,2, 020310

  70. [70]

    For example, after forming the flow generator,G, this operator is clipped

    We note that additional applications of theclipfunction are applied at various points to improve efficiency, but are not included in Algorithm 1 for clarity. For example, after forming the flow generator,G, this operator is clipped. However, this is clipped with a tight threshold (default 10−6) so as to not affect the accuracy

  71. [71]

    G.; Lang, R

    Ryabinkin, I. G.; Lang, R. A.; Genin, S. N.; Iz- maylov, A. F. Iterative Qubit Coupled Cluster Approach with Efficient Screening of Generators.J. Chem. Theory Comput.2020,16, 1055–1063

    2020

  72. [72]

    G.; Yen, T.-C.; Genin, S

    Ryabinkin, I. G.; Yen, T.-C.; Genin, S. N.; Iz- maylov, A. F. Qubit Coupled-Cluster Method: A Sys- tematic Approach to Quantum Chemistry on a Quantum Computer.J. Chem. Theory Comput.2018,14, 6317

    2018

  73. [73]

    A.; Mehendale, S

    Lang, R. A.; Mehendale, S. G.; Ryabinkin, I. G.; Iz- maylov, A. F. Multistate Iterative Qubit Coupled Cluster (MS-iQCC): A Quantum-Inspired, State-Averaged Ap- proach to Ground- and Excited-State Energies. 2025

    2025

  74. [74]

    Precise estimation of shell model energy by second-order extrapolation method.Phys

    Mizusaki, T.; Imada, M. Precise estimation of shell model energy by second-order extrapolation method.Phys. Rev. C2003,67, 041301

  75. [75]

    Novel extrapolation method in the Monte Carlo shell model.Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics2010,82, 061305

    Shimizu, N.; Utsuno, Y.; Mizusaki, T.; Otsuka, T.; Abe, T.; Honma, M. Novel extrapolation method in the Monte Carlo shell model.Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics2010,82, 061305

  76. [76]

    Extrapolation method in the Monte Carlo Shell Model and its applications.AIP Conference Proceedings2011,1355, 138–144

    Shimizu, N.; Utsuno, Y.; Mizusaki, T.; Otsuka, T.; Abe, T.; Honma, M. Extrapolation method in the Monte Carlo Shell Model and its applications.AIP Conference Proceedings2011,1355, 138–144

  77. [77]

    New variational Monte Carlo method with energy variance extrapolation for large-scale shell-model calculations.Phys

    Mizusaki, T.; Shimizu, N. New variational Monte Carlo method with energy variance extrapolation for large-scale shell-model calculations.Phys. Rev. C2012,85, 021301

  78. [78]

    nmayhall Nmayhall/PauliOperators.Jl. 2025

    2025

  79. [79]

    R.; Stoudenmire, E

    Fishman, M.; White, S. R.; Stoudenmire, E. M. The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- tions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.14822v2, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  80. [80]

    Tensor Networks Contraction and the Belief Propagation Algorithm.Phys

    Alkabetz, R.; Arad, I. Tensor Networks Contraction and the Belief Propagation Algorithm.Phys. Rev. Res.2021, 3, 023073

    2021

Showing first 80 references.