Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 53 references

QSCI-CMP: Quantum-Selected Configuration Interaction with Chemically Motivated Preselection

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 QSCI-CMP treats chemically obvious determinants as pre-sampled, removes them from the amplification target with an oracle whose cost is independent of the preselected subspace, and cuts the query and T-gate counts to chemical accuracy by…

desk verdict Deserves a serious referee: the oracle construction is a genuine contribution, and the reported reductions are real but conditional on an idealized state-preparation assumption the authors disclose. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05766 v1 pith:YIUWRK5F submitted 2026-08-06 quant-ph

Masahiko Kamoshita , Kosuke Mitarai This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V55 PACS 03.67.Ac31.15.-p
keywords quantum-selectedconfigurationinteractionsample-basedquantumdiagonalizationamplitudeamplificationchemicallymotivatedpreselectionsenioritynumberexcitationlevelhierarchyT-gatecount
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

QSCI-CMP addresses the sampling bottleneck of quantum-selected configuration interaction by treating chemically obvious determinants—low excitations from the Hartree–Fock reference and low-seniority states—as already collected, before any quantum measurement. These chemically trivial determinants are included in the classical diagonalization subspace from the start and removed from the amplitude-amplification target, so quantum sampling is spent only on states whose importance is not predictable. The paper constructs an oracle that recognizes the trivial subspace structurally via excitation level and seniority number, costing O(n) T gates independent of the subspace size, and demonstrates numerically that this reduces the query and T-gate counts to chemical accuracy by up to roughly 68% and 72% for 24-qubit systems. For systems where the preselected subspace alone reaches chemical accuracy, such as Cr2 in the tested active spaces, the method requires no quantum sampling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the chemically trivial subspace T(R) = {x : (e(x), Ω(x)) ∈ R}, where e is the excitation level (half the Hamming distance to the Hartree–Fock reference) and Ω is the seniority number (number of singly occupied spatial orbitals), combined optionally into the hierarchy number h = (2e+Ω)/4 of the hCI framework. This subspace serves as the fixed, classically enumerated part of the diagonalization subspace and as the part of the amplification target that the oracle suppresses structurally rather than by listing. The load-bearing mechanism is the factorization OCMP = OT O_{M\T}: the structural oracle OT costs O(n) T gates regardless of |T|, so enlarging T both raises the classical diagonalization cost and lowers the quantum cost, with the extreme case being a purely classical calculation when T alone reaches the target accuracy.

What would settle it

For a molecule at a strongly stretched geometry (for instance N2 at large bond length), compute the weight Σ_{x∈T(R)} |c_x|² of the exact ground state within the active space and the initial diagonalization error of T(R) alone; if for every R up to h≤2.5 the initial error stays above chemical accuracy while high-seniority determinants carry significant weight, QSCI-CMP would show no query reduction over SQD-AA.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the expensive oracle of sample-based quantum diagonalization with amplitude amplification (SQD-AA), which lists measured determinants one by one, can be partly replaced by a chemically motivated oracle that suppresses the entire set of low-excitation, low-seniority determinants in superposition. Since this set T is fixed classically, the oracle OCMP = I − 2 Σ_{x∈M∪T} |x⟩⟨x| factorizes into OT O_{M\T}; OT is implemented by loading the reference-shifted string, computing the Hamming weight (excitation level) or the pairwise-OR hierarchy count (seniority) with Gidney adders, and flipping the phase within the threshold. Its T-gate count is ~4n for excitation or hierarchy thresholds and ~6n for a general preselection, independent of |T|, versus the per-element cost of the enumerated remainder. On H2O, hydrogen chains, and Cr2, QSCI-CMP reaches the same in-active-space chemical accuracy as SQD-AA with fewer queries and T gates, and for several systems the initial diagonalization of T alone is already sufficient.

Load-bearing premise

The reductions rest on the premise that the determinants in the preselected chemically trivial subspace carry appreciable weight in the prepared state; if a system's ground state is dominated by high-excitation or high-seniority determinants, the subspace captures little of the wavefunction and the query savings vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any system whose low-excitation, low-seniority subspace captures the ground state within chemical accuracy, QSCI-CMP reduces to classical diagonalization with zero quantum queries, as observed for Cr2 and for H2O in the (10e,10o) active space.
  • The reduction rate grows with the size of the preselected subspace, bounded only by the classical cost of diagonalizing it, so the method transparently trades quantum resources for classical ones.
  • Using the query-optimal stopping point of quantum search, (2k+1)θ ≈ 1.17, lowers the expected total query count of both SQD-AA and QSCI-CMP by about 12% with no accuracy loss.
  • The per-query T-gate cost of the oracle drops from O(|M|·n) to O(|M\T|·n + n), so the T-gate reduction exceeds the query reduction whenever the oracle is comparable to state preparation, which the numerical results confirm.
  • The preselection is not restricted to excitation and seniority thresholds; any classically enumerable set of determinants can serve as T, so the framework extends to other chemically motivated configuration classes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test outside the paper is to benchmark QSCI-CMP at stretched geometries or in active spaces where high-seniority determinants dominate; in such regimes the advertised savings should shrink and eventually vanish as the weight in T drops.
  • The structural oracle's independence of |T| suggests a family of hybrid classical-quantum methods in which any classically diagnosed subspace—coupled-cluster amplitudes, selected-CI spaces, or embedding orbitals—can be folded into the oracle at O(n) cost, with the paper's hierarchy threshold being one instance.
  • The reported in-active-space accuracy is not a full-orbital FCI claim; extending to full-orbital benchmarks would require revisiting the chemical-triviality assumption, since dynamic correlation beyond the active space may reintroduce small-amplitude determinants that the preselection misses.
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 manuscript proposes QSCI-CMP, a modification of SQD-AA in which a classically enumerated 'chemically trivial' subspace T, defined by excitation level and seniority thresholds, is treated as already sampled. T enters the diagonalization subspace immediately, is excluded from the amplitude-amplification target, and is recognized by a structural oracle whose T-gate count is independent of |T|. The paper derives oracle costs of 4n T gates for excitation/hierarchy thresholds and 6n for a general preselection, and presents numerical resource comparisons on H2O, hydrogen chains, and Cr2 in active spaces up to 24 qubits, reporting up to approximately 68% query-count and 72% T-gate-count reductions relative to SQD-AA at chemical accuracy, with some systems requiring no quantum sampling at all.

Significance. If the results hold, QSCI-CMP is a useful way to fold classical CI preselection into quantum sampling and can materially reduce fault-tolerant resource estimates for molecular ground-state calculations. The oracle construction is careful and uses standard building blocks (temporary logical-AND, population counts), and the 12% query-reduction remark based on Boyer et al. is correct. The numerical methodology honestly isolates sampling efficiency from state-preparation fidelity by drawing from the exact ground state, and the paper explicitly discloses that reported accuracies are relative to the in-active-space reference. The main limitations are that the numerical reductions are conditional on near-exact state preparation and that the generality of the 6n oracle cost is not established for arbitrary R.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III D 1c and Appendix A 4, Eq. (18)] The stated 6n T-gate cost for a general preselection R is not established for arbitrary R. In Appendix A 4d, the phase flip Z_R is implemented as a product of one multi-controlled Z gate per accepted (e,Omega) pair, each acting on O(log n) controls. If R is an arbitrary subset of the (e,Omega) plane, there can be Theta(n^2) accepted pairs, making Z_R cost Theta(n^2 log n) T gates, which is not subleading and can dominate the 6n estimate. Because Sec. III B explicitly advertises 'any subset' R and Sec. III D says the oracle accommodates an arbitrary R at a cost independent of |T|, the current claim is broader than the construction supports. Please restrict the 6n bound to threshold-type or constant-size R and revise the 'any subset' wording, or supply a different implementation that achieves O(n) T gates for arbitrary R.
  2. [Sec. IV A, Sec. IV B, Sec. V] The headline reductions are obtained under the exact-ground-state sampling assumption: configurations are drawn from |psi_GS> (Sec. IV A) and the UCJ ansatz is assumed to prepare |psi_GS> exactly for the T-gate accounting. This makes the premise of Sec. III E, that T carries appreciable weight in the prepared state, true by construction, so the experiments do not test how the method behaves with a realistic finite-fidelity state preparation. The paper discloses this in Sec. V, but the abstract and Sec. IV B state the 68% and 72% reductions without this qualifier. Since a finite-fidelity preparation can reduce the weight on T and erode the advantage, please either add a numerical test with an approximate state (for example, a finite-layer UCJ or a noisy preparation) reporting the weight on T and the resulting reductions, or explicitly label the headline numbers as conditional on near-exact state preparation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 2 and 3] The zero-query dotted segments for QSCI-CMP are difficult to distinguish from the axes; annotating the initial errors numerically or in a table would improve readability.
  2. [Sec. II C] The sentence on the 12% query reduction would benefit from a one-line derivation or an explicit pointer to the relevant result in Ref. [25]; the claim is correct, but the current text is terse.
  3. [Sec. V] The sentence 'a more efficient implementation would change its cost and the size of the reported reductions' should read 'could change,' since the sign of the change depends on the implementation.
  4. [Appendix A 4d] The statement that the phase flip Z_R 'adds only subleading T gates' should be tied to a bound on the number of accepted pairs in R; as written it is only valid when that number is O(1) or O(log n), which is not the general case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QSCI-CMP is benchmarked against the external SQD-AA baseline, its preselection thresholds come from established hCI/seniority literature, and the idealizing exact-eigenvector sampling is disclosed as a limitation rather than used to force the result by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The oracle cost formulas (Eqs. 15, 17, 18 and Appendix A) follow from standard fault-tolerant building blocks (Gidney temporary logical-AND, Cuccaro comparator) with no parameter fitted to the reported reductions. The chemically trivial subspace T(R) is defined through excitation level and seniority (Eqs. 7-10) using thresholds from hCI and seniority literature, not tuned to the target numbers. The query and T-gate reductions are computed against the external SQD-AA baseline, and the 12% iteration-count improvement is attributed to the known Boyer et al. quantum-search analysis, not to a self-citation. The paper explicitly states in Sec. III E that both reductions rest on the premise that T carries appreciable weight in |ψ>, and in Sec. V it discloses that the sampling experiments draw from the exact ground-state eigenvector and do not account for finite state-preparation fidelity. This is a stated idealization and a potential correctness risk for realistic implementations, but it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, nor does any equation reduce to its own input by construction. The core methodological claims—that the oracle cost is independent of |T| and that enlarging T shifts work to the classical solver—are direct consequences of the circuit construction and classical diagonalization, not circular imports.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one main domain assumption: chemically trivial determinants dominate the wavefunction. All other axioms are standard mathematical tools or methodological idealizations the authors disclose. There are no new physical entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Preselection threshold (e_max or h_max) = e<=2, h<=2, h<=2.5 in experiments
    The size of the chemically trivial subspace is a tunable knob of the method; performance depends on it. It is chosen from standard CI hierarchies, not fitted to the data.
  • Samples per iteration N_s = 10
    Taken from SQD-AA's parameter study; not optimized here.
  • Number of UCJ layers L = L = N_o
    Assumed for T-gate accounting of state preparation; reflects rank of cluster amplitudes, not tuned to match results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Low-excitation and low-seniority determinants dominate molecular ground states.
    The method's advantage depends on T carrying appreciable weight in the prepared state. Stated in Sec. III E and used throughout the numerical design.
  • domain assumption The exact ground state can be prepared by the UCJ ansatz with L=N_o layers for cost counting.
    Used to assign state-preparation T-gate costs in Sec. IV A; an idealization for fault-tolerant cost comparison.
  • domain assumption Theta, the weight of the target subspace, is known when setting the amplification iteration count k.
    Assumed in the resource analysis (Sec. II C); in practice theta must be estimated, which may add overhead to both methods.
  • standard math Standard quantum search iteration count result of Boyer et al. (1996).
    Used for the 12% query-reduction remark in Sec. II C.
  • domain assumption HCI hierarchy number h=(e+Omega/2)/2 orders determinant importance.
    Basis for the h<=h_max preselection; from Kossoski et al. [20].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QSCI-CMP: Quantum-Selected Configuration Interaction with Chemically Motivated Preselection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIUWRK5F

@misc{pith2026260805766,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QSCI-CMP: Quantum-Selected Configuration Interaction with Chemically Motivated Preselection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIUWRK5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05766}
}
read the original abstract

We present QSCI-CMP, a quantum-classical hybrid algorithm for molecular ground-state calculations that reduces both the query count and the gate count of sample-based quantum diagonalization with amplitude amplification (SQD-AA). SQD-AA mitigates the measurement bottleneck of quantum-selected configuration interaction (QSCI) by amplifying the basis states that have not yet been measured. Its oracle, however, specifies the measured states by listing them one by one, so its gate count grows with the number of collected states. Moreover, the quantum resources are spent even on states whose importance is evident from chemical knowledge, such as low-order excitations from the Hartree-Fock reference, which could be collected classically at the outset. We therefore propose to fix such chemically trivial states in advance, include them in the diagonalization subspace from the start, and exclude them from the amplification target, using a low-cost oracle that recognizes them through the excitation level and the seniority number of each basis state. We numerically demonstrate that QSCI-CMP reduces the query count and the gate count required to reach chemical accuracy by up to approximately 68% and 72% relative to SQD-AA for 24-qubit systems. The chemically trivial subspace is freely tunable within the classical computational budget. A larger subspace shifts more work onto the classical solver and increases the reduction in quantum cost, and when it captures the ground state sufficiently well, no quantum sampling is needed at all. We also point out that a query-optimal iteration count known from the analysis of quantum search further reduces the query count of both methods by approximately 12%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05766 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Block-level circuits for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy error versus the cumulative number of queries to the state-preparation unitary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Block-level circuit for the general-preselection oracle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Construct the oracle ˆOM from the current setM

    work page

  2. [3]

    The iteration count is chosen ask≈π/(4θ) following Sec

    PerformN s projective measurements on the ampli- fied state, and add the newly observed basis states toM. The iteration count is chosen ask≈π/(4θ) following Sec. II B, whereθis now determined by the weight of the unmeasured states through sin 2 θ= P x /∈M|cx|2. This weight is not known a priori, and in the original algo- rithm theN s measurements of each ...

    work page

  3. [4]

    Construct ˆOCMP from the current setMand the fixed subspaceT

    work page

  4. [5]

    Applykrounds of amplitude amplification to|ψ⟩

    work page

  5. [6]

    4 The iteration count is set as in Sec

    PerformN s projective measurements on the ampli- fied state, and add the newly observed basis states toM. 4 The iteration count is set as in Sec. II C, withMreplaced byM∪T, and the same setM∪Tserves as the subspace for the classical diagonalization. In particular, QSCI- CMP starts from the accuracy obtained by diagonalizing Talone, before any quantum samp...

    work page

  6. [7]

    Circuit for ˆOT The operator ˆOT applies a phase flip to every|x⟩with (e(x),Ω(x))∈ R. In all cases it first applies the reference shiftU HF :|x⟩ 7→ |z⟩,z≡x⊕x HF, a layer of Pauli-X gates with no T cost, computes onto an ancilla register an integer that determines membership inR, flips the phase accordingly, and uncomputes. The counting uses the temporary ...

    work page

  7. [8]

    Each multi-controlled phase gate costsO(n) T gates [23, 24], so ˆOM\T costs O(|M \ T | ·n) in total

    Total Cost The operator ˆOM\T specifies the enumerated setM\T as a product of one multi-controlled phase gate per basis state, exactly as in SQD-AA [16]. Each multi-controlled phase gate costsO(n) T gates [23, 24], so ˆOM\T costs O(|M \ T | ·n) in total. This construction leaves room for standard optimiza- tions, such as the cancellation of T gates betwee...

    work page

  8. [9]

    Both steps use the temporary logical-AND of Ref

    Building blocks: Hamming-weight computation and threshold comparison Every variant of ˆOT computes the Hamming weight of a string of single-bit values on an ancilla register and then compares it with a classical threshold. Both steps use the temporary logical-AND of Ref. [29], which costs four T gates and is later erased by anX-basis measurement and a cla...

    work page

Show all 53 references
  1. [10]

    The oracle is therefore a single Hamming-weight computation on thenbits ofz, performed by the net- work of Eq

    Excitation threshold For an excitation thresholdR={e≤e max}, the only quantity required is the excitation level, which is deter- mined by the Hamming weight ofzthroughW(z) = 2e(x). The oracle is therefore a single Hamming-weight computation on thenbits ofz, performed by the ne...

  2. [11]

    Hierarchy threshold For a hierarchy thresholdR={h≤h max}, member- ship is decided by the integer 4h(x) = 2e(x) + Ω(x). We show that for a closed-shell reference this integer is twice the Hamming weight ofN o pairwise OR bits, and that an open-shell reference is accommodated at...

  3. [12]

    The block-level circuit is shown in Fig

    General preselection For a general preselection that constrainseand Ω inde- pendently, both quantities must be held in separate regis- ters. The block-level circuit is shown in Fig. 4. We state the construction for a closed-shell reference and comment on the open-shell case at...

  4. [13]

    A. Y. Kitaev, arXiv preprint (1995), arXiv:quant- ph/9511026

    1995

  5. [14]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Science309, 1704 (2005). 12

    2005

  6. [15]

    Reiher, N

    M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.114, 7555 (2017)

    2017

  7. [16]

    J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, PRX Quantum2, 030305 (2021)

    2021

  8. [17]

    M. E. Beverland, P. Murali, M. Troyer, K. M. Svore, T. Hoefler, V. Kliuchnikov, G. H. Low, M. Soeken, A. Sundaram, and A. Vaschillo, arXiv:2211.07629 [quant- ph] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Kanno, M

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 023268 (2026)

    2026

  10. [19]

    Y. O. Nakagawa, M. Kamoshita, W. Mizukami, S. Sudo, and Y.-y. Ohnishi, Journal of Chemical Theory and Com- putation20, 10817 (2024)

    2024

  11. [20]

    Mikkelsen and Y

    M. Mikkelsen and Y. O. Nakagawa, Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043043 (2025)

    2025

  12. [21]

    Sugisaki, S

    K. Sugisaki, S. Kanno, T. Itoko, R. Sakuma, and N. Ya- mamoto, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.27, 20869 (2025)

    2025

  13. [22]

    Yoshida, L

    Y. Yoshida, L. Erhart, T. Murokoshi, R. Nakagawa, C. Mori, T. Miyanaga, T. Mori, and W. Mizukami, arXiv:2502.21081 [quant-ph] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi- Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa, I. Sitdikov, R.-Y. Sun, K. J. Sung, M. Takita, M. C. Tran, S. Yunoki, and A. Mezza- capo, Science Advances11, eadu9991 (2025)

    2025

  15. [24]

    Yoshioka, M

    N. Yoshioka, M. Amico, W. Kirby, P. Jurcevic, A. Dutt, B. Fuller, S. Garion, H. Haas, I. Hamamura, A. Ivrii, R. Majumdar, Z. Minev, M. Motta, B. Pokharel, P. Rivero, K. Sharma, C. J. Wood, A. Javadi-Abhari, and A. Mezzacapo, Nature Communications16, 5014 (2025)

    2025

  16. [25]

    J. Yu, J. Robledo Moreno, J. T. Iosue, L. Bertels, D. Claudino, B. Fuller, P. Groszkowski, T. S. Hum- ble, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, T. A. Maier, M. Motta, B. Pokharel, A. Seif, A. Shehata, K. J. Sung, M. C. Tran, V. Tripathi, A. Mezzacapo, and K. Sharma, arXiv:2501.09702 [quant-...

    2025

  17. [26]

    Shirakawa, J

    T. Shirakawa, J. Robledo-Moreno, T. Itoko, V. Tripathi, K. Ueda, Y. Kawashima, L. Broers, W. Kirby, H. Pathak, H. Paik, M. Tsuji, Y. Kodama, M. Sato, C. Evangelinos, S. Seelam, R. Walkup, S. Yunoki, M. Motta, P. Jurcevic, H. Horii, and A. Mezzacapo, arXiv:2511.00224 [quant-ph] (2025)

    2025

  18. [27]

    Reinholdt, K

    P. Reinholdt, K. M. Ziems, E. R. Kjellgren, S. Coriani, S. P. A. Sauer, and J. Kongsted, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation21, 6811 (2025)

    2025

  19. [28]

    Stockinger, L

    N. Stockinger, L. N¨ utzel, and M. J. Hartmann, arXiv:2605.02565 [quant-ph] (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Helgaker, P

    T. Helgaker, P. Jørgensen, and J. Olsen,Molecular Electronic-Structure Theory(John Wiley & Sons, Chich- ester, 2000)

    2000

  21. [30]

    Bytautas, T

    L. Bytautas, T. M. Henderson, C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, J. K. Ellis, and G. E. Scuseria, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics135, 044119 (2011)

    2011

  22. [31]

    Bytautas, G

    L. Bytautas, G. E. Scuseria, and K. Ruedenberg, The Journal of Chemical Physics143, 094105 (2015)

    2015

  23. [32]

    Kossoski, Y

    F. Kossoski, Y. Damour, and P.-F. Loos, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters13, 4342 (2022)

    2022

  24. [33]

    L. K. Grover, inProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing(1996) pp. 212–219

    1996

  25. [34]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Contem- porary Mathematics305, 53 (2002)

    2002

  26. [35]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Physical Review A52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  27. [36]

    Maslov, Physical Review A93, 022311 (2016)

    D. Maslov, Physical Review A93, 022311 (2016)

    2016

  28. [37]

    Boyer, G

    M. Boyer, G. Brassard, P. Høyer, and A. Tapp, arXiv preprint (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9605034

    1996 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  30. [39]

    Constantinides, J

    N. Constantinides, J. Yu, D. Devulapalli, A. Fahimniya, L. Schaeffer, A. M. Childs, M. J. Gullans, A. Schuck- ert, and A. V. Gorshkov, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2510.05099 [quant-ph]

    2025

  31. [40]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  32. [41]

    Gidney, Quantum2, 74 (2018)

    C. Gidney, Quantum2, 74 (2018)

    2018

  33. [42]

    Gidney and N

    C. Gidney and N. C. Jones, arXiv:2106.11513 [quant-ph] (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  34. [43]

    H. R. Larsson, H. Zhai, C. J. Umrigar, and G. K.-L. Chan, Journal of the American Chemical Society144, 15932 (2022)

    2022

  35. [44]

    Fomichev, K

    S. Fomichev, K. Hejazi, M. S. Zini, M. Kiser, J. Fraxanet, P. A. M. Casares, A. Delgado, J. Huh, A.-C. Voigt, J. E. Mueller, and J. M. Arrazola, PRX Quantum5, 040339 (2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Genovese, F. Ma, Z.-H. Cui, R. Sawaya, G. K.-L. Chan, N. Chepiga, P. Helms, C. A. Jim´ enez- Hoyos, A. J. Millis, U. Ray, E. Ronca, H. Shi, S. Sorella, E. M. Stoudenmire, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. X10, 031058 (2020)

    2020

  37. [46]

    Matsuzawa and Y

    Y. Matsuzawa and Y. Kurashige, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation16, 944 (2020)

    2020

  38. [47]

    Motta, K

    M. Motta, K. J. Sung, K. B. Whaley, M. Head-Gordon, and J. Shee, Chemical Science14, 11213 (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    Bocharov, M

    A. Bocharov, M. Roetteler, and K. M. Svore, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 080502 (2015)

    2015

  40. [49]

    I. D. Kivlichan, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, W. Sun, Z. Jiang, N. Rubin, A. Fowler, A. Aspuru-Guzik, H. Neven, and R. Babbush, Quantum 4, 296 (2020)

    2020

  41. [50]

    Motta, E

    M. Motta, E. Ye, J. R. McClean, Z. Li, A. J. Minnich, R. Babbush, and G. K.-L. Chan, npj Quantum Informa- tion7, 83 (2021)

    2021

  42. [51]

    D. E. Muller and F. P. Preparata, Journal of the ACM 22, 195 (1975)

    1975

  43. [52]

    Boyar and R

    J. Boyar and R. Peralta, Theoretical Computer Science 396, 223 (2008)

    2008

  44. [53]

    Kan and B

    A. Kan and B. Symons, npj Quantum Information11, 138 (2025), arXiv:2411.02160 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [54]

    S. A. Cuccaro, T. G. Draper, S. A. Kutin, and D. P. Moulton, arXiv:quant-ph/0410184 [quant-ph] (2004)

    2004 arXiv

Pith tools

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