Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Symbolic Hamiltonian Compiler for Hybrid Qubit-Boson Processors

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents a compiler that turns second-quantized fermion-boson Hamiltonians into native qubit-boson gate sequences without ever forming the Hamiltonian matrix.

desk verdict Useful symbolic compiler for qubit-boson hardware, but the central cutoff-independence claim is not established because the BCH error grows with the boson cutoff. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00215 v1 pith:VI4UCKW3 submitted 2025-05-30 quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el

Ethan Decker , Erik Gustafson , Evan McKinney , Alex K. Jones , Lucas Goetz , Ang Li , Alexander Schuckert , Samuel Stein
show 2 more authors
Gushu Li Eleanor Crane
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords quantumcompilationqubit-bosonprocessorssecondquantizationHamiltoniansimulationsymbolicrewritingTrotterdecompositionBose-HubbardmodelHubbard-Holstein
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 introduces a compiler that turns time evolution under a fermion-boson Hamiltonian into the native gates of a qubit-boson processor by rewriting second-quantized operator expressions symbolically, without ever forming the Hamiltonian matrix. The matrix-free design is the point: a bosonic site has a large or infinite local Hilbert space, so matrix-based compilation becomes impractical while symbolic rewriting stays independent of the boson cutoff. For the benchmarked Hamiltonian terms, the number of emitted gates per Trotter step is independent of the boson cutoff in most cases, and the compiler's runtime scales polynomially with the number of sites, with exponents near two. The paper demonstrates this on Bose-Hubbard and Hubbard-Holstein models, reporting linear gate-count scaling and near-quadratic compile-time scaling. If the approach holds up, a domain scientist could specify a simulation in second quantization and receive target-machine gate sequences without hand-deriving any decompositions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a symbolic intermediate representation of the Hamiltonian as a sum of operator tuples, with each tuple recording the operator type (creation, annihilation, Pauli, or number operator) and its site index, processed through a directed-acyclic-graph traversal that applies rewrite rules in a fixed order. The rewrite engine has four stages: normal ordering that places number operators, then qubit operators, then ladder operators; Jordan-Wigner fermion-to-qubit mapping; Trotterization; and factorization (density, then Pauli) followed by a Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff expansion for products of ladder operators. Every rule acts on operator expressions, so no matrix whose dimension grows with the boson cutoff is ever formed. Density factorization uses the SQR gate (a selective qubit rotation conditioned on a Fock state) with $K = \lceil \log_2(n_{\max}+1)\rceil$ ancilla bits to extract number-operator products, which is what turns the naive quadratic cutoff dependence into a logarithmic one for density-density terms.

What would settle it

Compile a two-site Bose-Hubbard or Hubbard-Holstein instance at a small Fock cutoff, simulate the emitted gate sequence, and compare it with the exact $e^{-iH\delta t}$ over a range of step sizes $\delta t$. If the observed error does not follow the Trotter-order scaling expected from the decomposition (e.g., a $\delta t^3$ term dominates where the Trotter bound predicts $\delta t^2$), the BCH expansion in Table II is introducing an uncontrolled approximation that undermines the pipeline's accuracy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that compilation of fermion-boson Hamiltonians to qubit-boson hardware can be automated as a chain of symbolic equivalences, and that the automation preserves the asymptotic advantages of hybrid hardware. Concretely, the paper claims that for the hopping and coupling terms of the benchmarked models, the per-Trotter-step gate count is independent of the boson cutoff, in contrast to the quadratic scaling of qubit-only Fock-binary encodings; for density-density interaction terms, the gate count grows only logarithmically with the cutoff. It also claims that compile time scales polynomially with the number of sites, around $O(N_s^{2.09})$ for Hubbard-Holstein and $O(N_s^{1.98})$ for Bose-Hubbard. The correctness argument rests on a pipeline of rewrite rules: Trotterization splits exponentials of sums, exact density and Pauli factorization steps break up products of operators, and a Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff expansion with an ancillary qubit handles products of ladder operators.

Load-bearing premise

The emitted circuits are only as accurate as the approximate Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff step used to break up products of ladder operators, which carries an $O(\theta^3)$ error the compiler neither tracks nor bounds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the benchmarked hopping and coupling terms, a user obtains a number of gates per Trotter step linear in the number of sites, $O(N_s)$, instead of the $O(N_s^2)$ scaling of qubit-only Fock-binary encodings.
  • Density-density interaction terms yield only logarithmic dependence of the gate count on the boson cutoff, still an exponential improvement over qubit-only compilation.
  • A researcher can write the simulation in second quantization and receive ISA-specific gate strings without manually applying fermionic statistics or hybrid term decompositions.
  • Because compilation is symbolic rather than numerical, the same emitted circuit is valid for any boson cutoff, so the truncation point can be chosen at runtime or on the target hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would point the same rewrite pipeline at fermion-qubit processors by skipping the bosonic stages, carrying the fault-tolerance constructions for fermionic platforms over to the compiled output.
  • Because the BCH stage's $O(\theta^3)$ error is not tracked, a near-term user cannot tell whether the emitted sequence's deviation from the intended unitary is dominated by Trotter error or by compilation error; attaching per-rule error certificates would make the output auditable.
  • A natural stress test is the same pipeline in higher dimension or with long-range hopping: the symbolic rules should transfer, but the measured compile-time exponents around two in one dimension may grow with denser connectivity.
  • Cutoff-independence is a gate-count statement, not an accuracy statement; physical truncation of the bosonic Hilbert space still introduces an $n_{\max}$-dependent simulation error that the compiler does not address.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a software compiler that symbolically transforms second-quantized fermion-boson Hamiltonians into sequences of qubit-boson gates for Trotterized time evolution. The compiler pipeline consists of parsing (fermion-to-qubit mapping and normal ordering), transformation (Trotterization, density and Pauli factorization, and a BCH-based expansion), and generation (ISA gate matching). Benchmarks on the Hubbard-Holstein and Bose-Hubbard models report gate counts linear in the number of sites and compile times scaling as approximately N_s^2, with gate counts independent of the boson cutoff for many interaction types. The work is positioned as a significant step toward automating compilation for emerging qubit-boson hardware.

Significance. If the central scaling claims are correct, the compiler would be a valuable tool for the quantum simulation community, addressing a real gap between existing qubit-oriented SDKs and the needs of hybrid qubit-boson platforms. The paper relies on symbolic manipulation rather than matrix construction, which is appropriate for bosonic systems, and it leverages external validation via QuTiP. The explicit code snippets and benchmark data are useful, though the absence of a rigorous error analysis for the BCH approximation and the lack of uncertainty quantification in the scaling fits weaken the current evidence. The potential impact is high, but the claims need further support before they can be considered fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III.C.3 and Table II] The BCH decomposition rule in Table II is used to synthesize exp(-2i Z_k O_I O_J theta^2) as a product of four CUX/CUY gates with an O(theta^3) remainder. The paper does not track the magnitude of this remainder. Since O_I and O_J are products of bosonic ladder operators whose truncated operator norms grow with the Fock cutoff S (e.g., ||a|| ~ sqrt(S)), the per-step error of the emitted circuit can grow with S at fixed theta. Consequently, the claim of cutoff-independent gate count (contribution 2) is not yet established for fixed simulation accuracy. The authors should either bound the error, benchmark fidelity against S, or explicitly restrict the claim to raw instruction counts of an approximate Trotter step.
  2. [Section IV.C and Fig. 4] The asymptotic compile-time exponents B=2.09 (Hubbard-Holstein) and B=1.98 (Bose-Hubbard) are extracted from fits to the ansatz t = A N_s^B + C. The paper does not report the number of data points, uncertainties in A, B, and C, or any goodness-of-fit measure. Since polynomial compile time is a central claimed contribution (contribution 3), the fitting methodology and error bars should be reported so the reader can assess the reliability of the asymptotic scaling.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3] The example code contains undefined variables (spin, u, d) and inconsistent function calls, including a((f"{i}ˆ")+a(f"{i}")) and a call to create_hubbard_holstein_hamiltonian_NN with arguments (num_sites,t,omega,U) while the function signature is (num_sites,t,g,U). As written, the example is not reproducible.
  2. [Section IV.B] The QuTiP validation is described only as a correctness check with no details on the set of Hamiltonians tested, the error metric, or the achieved tolerance. Please provide this information to make the validation reproducible.
  3. [Section IV.C] The phrase 'manifestly independent of the boson cutoff' overstates the case, as the same paragraph acknowledges a logarithmic cutoff dependence for density-density interaction terms. Consider rewording to 'independent of the cutoff for most interaction types considered here'.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'Baker-Campbell-Housdorf' in Section III.C should be 'Hausdorff', 'n AMD EPYC' in Section IV.B should be 'an AMD EPYC', 'QISKit' and 'Circ' in Section III.D.2 should be 'Qiskit' and 'Cirq', and the abstract's 'fermion-boson quantum computers' should be clarified or aligned with the title's 'qubit-boson processors'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: scaling claims are structural properties of transparently adopted rules, with external correctness checks and honest fits.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained for what the paper actually claims. The compiler's decomposition rules are explicitly imported: 'The compiler is based on the compilation rules defined in Tables 2, 4 and 5 of Ref. [7]' and Table II is 'reproduced with permission from [29]'. These rules are inputs, not predictions derived in this paper. The headline gate-count scaling O(Ns) per Trotter step is a direct consequence of compiling O(Ns) nearest-neighbor terms into a constant number of gates per term; the cutoff independence follows because the BCH and Pauli-factorization rows in Table II contain no cutoff parameter, while density factorization explicitly carries O(log nmax), so the statement 'manifestly independent of the boson cutoff' is a structural property of the listed rules, not a fitted quantity. The benchmark exponents are presented honestly as fits: 'We found the compilation time and the number of gates per Trotter step to asymptotically fit an ansatz t = A Ns^B + C ... extracted from the exponent B obtained from the fit.' No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Correctness is checked against an external package: 'decompositions were compared with QuTiP to check their correctness.' The main self-citation load is the qubit-only quadratic-scaling baseline imported from Ref. [7] by overlapping authors, but that is an analytic estimate from prior work used for comparison only; the present compiler's own deterministic outputs independently realize the linear gate-count scaling. Accordingly, no step reduces to its own input by construction, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central machinery relies on standard operator identities and on the compilation rules from the authors' prior papers. The only fitted parameters appear in the benchmark scaling fits. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Scaling constant A = not reported
    Multiplicative constant in the fit t = A N_s^B + C (Eq 10).
  • Scaling exponent B = 2.09 and 1.98
    Reported exponents for compile time in Hubbard-Holstein and Bose-Hubbard models; central to the claimed O(N^2) compile time.
  • Scaling constant C = not reported
    Additive constant in Eq 10.
  • Fock space cutoff nmax = 5 in Fig. 3 example
    User-chosen truncation in the example; density factorization cost scales logarithmically with it.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Trotter-Suzuki decomposition approximates e^{-iHt} as a product of exponentials of individual terms with error O(t^2).
    Used in Section III.C.1 and Eq 8.
  • standard math Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula approximates products of exponentials; the compiler uses the second-order version with O(t^3) error.
    Used in Section III.C.3 and Table II, originally from Ref [27].
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner transformation maps fermionic operators to qubit operators preserving anticommutation.
    Section II.B, Eq 6.
  • domain assumption The native gate set in Table I is available on the target qubit-boson hardware.
    Sections II.C and III.D.1; the compiler matches decompositions to this ISA.
  • domain assumption The compilation rules from Ref [7] (density factorization, Pauli factorization) are exact as stated.
    Section III.C.2 states these originate from Ref [7] and are exact; the paper inherits them without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Normal ordering of mixed fermion-boson operators terminates and preserves equivalence for realistic O(1)-weight terms.
    Section III.B.2 acknowledges worst-case exponential cost but assumes realistic Hamiltonians have low-weight terms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symbolic Hamiltonian Compiler for Hybrid Qubit-Boson Processors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VI4UCKW3

@misc{pith2026250600215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symbolic Hamiltonian Compiler for Hybrid Qubit-Boson Processors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VI4UCKW3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00215}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum simulation of the interactions of fermions and bosons -- the fundamental particles of nature -- is essential for modeling complex quantum systems in material science, chemistry and high-energy physics and has been proposed as a promising application of fermion-boson quantum computers, which overcome the overhead encountered in mapping fermions and bosons to qubits. However, compiling the simulation of specific fermion-boson Hamiltonians into the natively available fermion-boson gate set is challenging. In particular, the large local dimension of bosons renders matrix-based compilation methods, as used for qubits and in existing tools such as Bosonic Qiskit or OpenFermion, challenging. We overcome this issue by introducing a novel symbolic compiler based on matrix-free symbolic manipulation of second quantised Hamiltonians, which automates the decomposition of fermion-boson second quantized problems into qubit-boson instruction set architectures. This integration establishes a comprehensive pipeline for simulating quantum systems on emerging qubit-boson and fermion-boson hardware, paving the way for their large-scale usage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00215 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our software package finds the decomposition of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline of our qubit-boson compiler. The parse section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example code. We define a Hubbard-Holstein Hamil￾tonian provided in Eq. (7) and then compile subsequently into the gateset of Table I. Here c() is a fermionic operator and a() is a bosonic operator. B. Parse Our qubit-boson compiler comprises two critical pars￾ing stages—normal ordering and fermion-to-qubit map￾ping—that serve as intermediaries between the user interface and the compiler backend. These stages enable… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Compilation time and number of gates as a function of the system size Ns. We consider two different benchmark Hamiltonians. Fits to functional form AN B s + C with A, B and C constants are shown with the solid blue (compile time) and black (gate count) along with their…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Magic for Hybrid Boson-Fermion Systems: A Grassmann Phase-Space Approach

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Grassmann phase-space Lp norm defines a computable hybrid magic proxy for boson-fermion systems, with a closed-form magic power for the conditional displacement gate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing,

    Y . Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferov ´a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 119, no. 19, pp. 10 856–10 915, 2019, pMID: 31469277. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemr...

    doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00803 2019

  2. [2]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices,

    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 Reports, vol. 986, pp. 1–128, 2022, the Variational Quantum Eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices. [Online]. Available: https://www.sci...

    2022

  3. [3]

    HamLib: A library of Hamiltonians for benchmarking quantum algorithms and hardware,

    N. P. Sawaya, D. Marti-Dafcik, Y . Ho, D. P. Tabor, D. E. B. Neira, A. B. Magann, S. Premaratne, P. Dubey, A. Matsuura, N. Bishop, W. A. d. Jong, S. Benjamin, O. Parekh, N. Tubman, K. Klymko, and D. Camps, “HamLib: A library of Hamiltonians for benchmarking quantum algorithms and hardware,” Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1559, Dec

    work page

  4. [4]

    Quantum Simulation for High-Energy Physics,

    C. W. Bauer et al., “Quantum Simulation for High-Energy Physics,” PRX Quantum, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 027001, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.027001

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.027001 2023

  5. [5]

    Quantum computing hardware for HEP algorithms and sensing,

    M. S. Alam et al., “Quantum computing hardware for HEP algorithms and sensing,” in Snowmass 2021, 4 2022. [Online]. Available: https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2022/pub/fermilab-pub-22-260-sqms.pdf

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, “A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,” Physics Reports, vol. 1068, pp. 1–66, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2024.03.002

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.03.002 2024

  7. [7]

    Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields,

    E. Crane, K. C. Smith, T. Tomesh, A. Eickbusch, J. M. Martyn, S. K ¨uhn, L. Funcke, M. A. DeMarco, I. L. Chuang, N. Wiebe, A. Schuckert, and S. M. Girvin, “Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03747

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Instruction set architectures, abstract machine models, and applications,

    Y . Liu, S. Singh, K. C. Smith, E. Crane, J. M. Martyn, A. Eickbusch, A. Schuckert, R. D. Li, J. Sinanan-Singh, M. B. Soley et al., “Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Instruction set architectures, abstract machine models, and applications,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10381

    arXiv 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Fermionic quantum processing with programmable neutral atom arrays,

    D. Gonz ´alez-Cuadra, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, R. Kaubruegger, N. Maskara, P. Naldesi, T. V . Zache, A. M. Kaufman, M. D. Lukin, H. Pichler, B. Vermersch, J. Ye, and P. Zoller, “Fermionic quantum processing with programmable neutral atom arrays,” Proceedings of the Nationa...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Fermion-qubit fault-tolerant quantum computing,

    A. Schuckert, E. Crane, A. V . Gorshkov, M. Hafezi, and M. J. Gullans, “Fermion-qubit fault-tolerant quantum computing,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08955

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The solovay-kitaev algorithm,

    C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, “The solovay-kitaev algorithm,”

  4. [12]

    Theory of Trotter Error with Commutator Scaling,

    A. M. Childs, Y . Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, “Theory of Trotter Error with Commutator Scaling,” Physical Review X, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 011020, Feb. 2021, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX. 11.011020

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Openfermion: The electronic structure package for quantum computers,

    J. R. McClean, K. J. Sung, I. D. Kivlichan, Y . Cao, C. Dai, E. S. Fried, C. Gidney, B. Gimby, P. Gokhale, T. H ¨aner, T. Hardikar, V . Havl´ıˇcek, O. Higgott, C. Huang, J. Izaac, Z. Jiang, X. Liu, S. McArdle, M. Neeley, T. O’Brien, B. O’Gorman, I. Ozfidan, M. D. Radin, J. Rom...

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

    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

    2024

  7. [15]

    Strawberry fields: A software platform for photonic quantum computing,

    N. Killoran, J. Izaac, N. Quesada, V . Bergholm, M. Amy, and C. Weedbrook, “Strawberry fields: A software platform for photonic quantum computing,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 129, Mar. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-03-11-129

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Quantum computing with trapped ions: a beginner’s guide,

    F. Bernardini, A. Chakraborty, and C. Ord ´o˜nez, “Quantum computing with trapped ions: a beginner’s guide,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16358

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,

    G. Q. AI, “Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,” Nature, vol. 614, pp. 676–681, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05434-1

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays,

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim et al., “Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays,” Nature, vol. 626, pp. 58–65, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06927-3

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Developers, “Cirq,” May 2024

    C. Developers, “Cirq,” May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.11398048

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Continuous- variable gate decomposition for the bose-hubbard model,

    T. Kalajdzievski, C. Weedbrook, and P. Rebentrost, “Continuous- variable gate decomposition for the bose-hubbard model,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 97, p. 062311, Jun 2018. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.062311

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Quantum computing with qiskit,

    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. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08810

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kernpiler: Compiler optimization for quantum hamiltonian simulation with partial trotterization,

    E. Decker, L. Goetz, E. McKinney, E. Gustafson, J. Zhou, Y . Liu, A. K. Jones, A. Li, A. Schuckert, S. Stein, E. Crane, and G. Li, “Kernpiler: Compiler optimization for quantum hamiltonian simulation with partial trotterization,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ab...

    2025

  15. [23]

    C2qa - bosonic qiskit,

    T. J. Stavenger, E. Crane, K. C. Smith, C. T. Kang, S. M. Girvin, and N. Wiebe, “C2qa - bosonic qiskit,” in 2022 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), 2022, pp. 1–8. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9926318

    2022

  16. [24]

    Mqt qudits: A software framework for mixed-dimensional quantum computing,

    K. Mato, M. Ringbauer, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “Mqt qudits: A software framework for mixed-dimensional quantum computing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02854, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02854

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Simuq: A framework for programming quantum hamiltonian simulation with analog compilation,

    Y . Peng, J. Young, P. Liu, and X. Wu, “Simuq: A framework for programming quantum hamiltonian simulation with analog compilation,” Proc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 8, no. POPL, Jan. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3632923

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Bosehedral: Compiler optimization for bosonic quantum computing,

    J. Zhou, Y . Liu, Y . Shi, A. Javadi-Abhari, and G. Li, “Bosehedral: Compiler optimization for bosonic quantum computing,” in 2024 ACM/IEEE 51st Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2024, pp. 261–276. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Leveraging hamiltonian simulation techniques to compile operations on bosonic devices,

    C. Kang, M. Soley, E. Crane, S. M. Girvin, and N. Wiebe, “Leveraging hamiltonian simulation techniques to compile operations on bosonic devices,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 2025. [Online]. Available: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8121/ adb5df

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    How to decompose arbitrary continuous- variable quantum operations,

    S. Sefi and P. Van Loock, “How to decompose arbitrary continuous- variable quantum operations,” Physical review letters, vol. 107, no. 17, p. 170501, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.107.170501

    2011

  21. [29]

    Quantum computation and simulation in silicon donors: from optically-controlled entangling gates to the hubbard model,

    E. Crane, “Quantum computation and simulation in silicon donors: from optically-controlled entangling gates to the hubbard model,” Ph.D. dissertation, UCL (University College London), 2021. [Online]. Available: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10140860/

    2021

  22. [30]

    Measuring the loschmidt amplitude for finite-energy properties of the fermi-hubbard model on an ion-trap quantum computer,

    K. H ´emery, K. Ghanem, E. Crane, S. L. Campbell, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, J. Johansen, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, J. M. Pino, A. Ransford, M. Rowe, P. Siegfried, R. P. Stutz, H. Dreyer, A. Schuckert, and R. Nigmatullin, “Measuring the loschmidt amplitu...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Experimental demonstration of break-even for the compact fermionic encoding,

    R. Nigmatullin, K. Hemery, K. Ghanem, S. Moses, D. Gresh, P. Siegfried, M. Mills, T. Gatterman, N. Hewitt, E. Granet, and H. Dreyer, “Experimental demonstration of break-even for the compact fermionic encoding,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.06789

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Quantum simulation of electronic structure with linear depth and connectivity,

    I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru- Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, “Quantum simulation of electronic structure with linear depth and connectivity,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 120, p. 110501, Mar 2018. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10...

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Fermionic quantum computation,

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y . Kitaev, “Fermionic quantum computation,” Annals of Physics, vol. 298, no. 1, pp. 210–226, 2002. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0003491602962548

    2002

  26. [34]

    The bravyi-kitaev transformation for quantum computation of electronic structure,

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, “The bravyi-kitaev transformation for quantum computation of electronic structure,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 137, no. 22, p. 224109, 12 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4768229

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling,

    A. M. Childs, Y . Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, “Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 11, p. 011020, Feb 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011020

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Non-clifford diagonalization for measurement shot reduction in quantum expectation value estimation,

    N. P. Sawaya, D. Camps, N. M. Tubman, G. M. Rotskoff, and R. LaRose, “Non-clifford diagonalization for measurement shot reduction in quantum expectation value estimation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11898

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Quantum reservoir computing in atomic lattices,

    G. Llodr `a, P. Mujal, R. Zambrini, and G. L. Giorgi, “Quantum reservoir computing in atomic lattices,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 195, p. 116289, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0960077925003029

    2025

  30. [38]

    Preparing thermal states on noiseless and noisy programmable quantum processors,

    O. Shtanko and R. Movassagh, “Preparing thermal states on noiseless and noisy programmable quantum processors,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.14688

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Encoding strongly-correlated many-boson wavefunctions on a photonic quantum computer: application to the attractive Bose-Hubbard model,

    S. Yalouz, B. Senjean, F. Miatto, and V . Dunjko, “Encoding strongly-correlated many-boson wavefunctions on a photonic quantum computer: application to the attractive Bose-Hubbard model,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 572, Nov. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2021...

    2021

  32. [40]

    Provably accurate simulation of gauge theories and bosonic systems,

    Y . Tong, V . V . Albert, J. R. McClean, J. Preskill, and Y . Su, “Provably accurate simulation of gauge theories and bosonic systems,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 816, Sep. 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-09-22-816

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Full configuration interaction quantum monte carlo for coupled electron-boson systems and infinite spaces,

    R. J. Anderson, C. J. C. Scott, and G. H. Booth, “Full configuration interaction quantum monte carlo for coupled electron-boson systems and infinite spaces,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 106, p. 155158, Oct 2022. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.155158

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Dynamical mean- field theory for the hubbard-holstein model on a quantum device,

    S. Backes, Y . Murakami, S. Sakai, and R. Arita, “Dynamical mean- field theory for the hubbard-holstein model on a quantum device,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 107, p. 165155, Apr 2023. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.165155

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Digital-analog quantum computing of fermion-boson models in superconducting circuits,

    S. Kumar, N. N. Hegade, A.-M. Visuri, B. A. Bhargava, J. F. Hernandez, E. Solano, F. Albarr ´an-Arriagada, and G. A. Barrios, “Digital-analog quantum computing of fermion-boson models in superconducting circuits,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 43, 2025. [Online]....

    2025

  36. [2005]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505030

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505030

    arXiv

  37. [2024]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-12-11-1559

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-12-11-1559

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.