Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 3 cited by

Quantum Measurement for Quantum Chemistry on a Quantum Computer

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Measurement in quantum chemistry is one unitary-construction problem

desk verdict A solid, clearly organized review of measurement techniques for quantum chemistry; the organizational thesis is useful, the math checks out, and the main caveat is the heavy self-citation and citation-carried performance claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14968 v2 pith:Z5XCUOZI submitted 2025-01-24 quant-ph

Smik Patel , Praveen Jayakumar , Tzu-Ching Yen , Artur F. Izmaylov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantummeasurementchemistryVQEHamiltonianpartitioningclassicalshadowtomographyPOVMerrormitigationphaseestimation
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 review argues that reading out any property from a quantum-chemistry simulation is, at bottom, one design problem: build a unitary that rotates the observable into a diagonal form the machine can measure. It organizes the literature on the Variational Quantum Eigensolver and Quantum Phase Estimation around three costs: classical preprocessing to find the unitary, quantum circuit depth to implement it, and the number of measurement shots needed for a target accuracy. Its central synthesis is that Hamiltonian partitioning and classical shadow tomography are both instances of expectation-value estimation through POVMs, so the many competing methods can be compared on a common footing. A sympathetic reader comes away with a unified map of the measurement landscape and a clear picture of where the remaining bottlenecks lie.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fragment-diagonalizing unitary $\hat{U}$ with $\hat{U}\hat{H}_\alpha\hat{U}^\dagger = p(\hat{z}_1,\dots,\hat{z}_N)$, where $p$ is a polynomial in Pauli $\hat{z}$ operators. This single construction carries the argument: every measurable Hamiltonian fragment corresponds to a PVM $\{\hat{U}|z\rangle\langle z|\hat{U}^\dagger\}$, and mixing such PVMs with nonnegative weights produces a POVM whose effects can be used to estimate $\langle\hat{H}\rangle$. The review uses this PVM-to-POVM identity to unify Hamiltonian partitioning and classical shadow tomography, and it uses the estimator variance $\mathrm{Var}[\bar{H}] = \sum_\alpha \mathrm{Var}(\hat{H}_\alpha)/M_\alpha$ as the quantitative target that greedy and covariance-based methods minimize.

What would settle it

On a small molecule with a fixed VQE ansatz, compute fragment variances and covariances exactly on the optimized state, then compare covariance-optimized shot allocation against greedy sorted insertion at equal total shots; if the optimized allocation does not yield a smaller energy error, the review's central quantitative claim loses practical force.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that measurement in quantum simulation is a unitary-construction problem: once a state close to the target eigenstate is prepared, every nontrivial observable $\hat{O}$ requires an additional unitary $\hat{U}$ such that measuring Pauli $\hat{z}$ on $\hat{U}|\Phi\rangle$ estimates $\langle\Phi|\hat{O}|\Phi\rangle$. It catalogues which Hamiltonian fragments can be diagonalized by tractable unitaries, moving from fully commuting and qubit-wise commuting Pauli groups, through one-electron and Cartan-subalgebra solvable fragments, to anti-commuting and term-wise commuting generalizations. The unifying result is that every such fragment defines a projector-valued measure $\{\hat{U}|z\rangle\langle z|\hat{U}^\dagger\}$, any convex combination of these PVMs is a POVM, and both Hamiltonian partitioning and classical shadow tomography become special cases of POVM-based estimation. The review further claims that these frameworks converge under optimization: greedy uneven fragments, covariance-based coefficient splitting, and biased or derandomized shadows all minimize the same estimator variance.

Load-bearing premise

The cost reductions from covariance-based measurement optimization assume that classically available reference states or accumulated measurement statistics provide variances and covariances close enough to the true VQE state that the optimized shot allocations remain near-optimal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Selecting a measurement method becomes a three-way trade-off among classical preprocessing, circuit depth, and shot count, so the optimal choice changes with system size, hardware noise, and fault-tolerance assumptions.
  • Greedy grouping that produces uneven fragment norms, and covariance-based coefficient splitting that redistributes Hamiltonian coefficients across fragments, can cut measurement counts by two- to three-fold for a single state and by up to two orders of magnitude for multi-state problems.
  • Classical shadow tomography is most competitive when many operators are estimated simultaneously, such as reduced density matrices and quantum subspace matrix elements, where it can beat Hamiltonian partitioning.
  • For fault-tolerant hardware, amplitude-estimation and robust amplitude estimation give Heisenberg scaling ($1/\epsilon$) in circuit depth instead of $1/\epsilon^2$ in shots, at the price of requiring controlled walker operators and good initial-state overlap.
  • On near-term devices, measurement circuits that share the state's symmetries enable post-selection, and classically simulable fragments enable regression-based error mitigation with reported one to two order-of-magnitude error reductions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the POVM unification is taken literally, the next step is to optimize directly over convex combinations of measurement frames rather than over fragments, which could automate the partitioning-versus-shadow choice.
  • The covariance-based cost reductions are only as good as the approximate variances and covariances fed into them; a systematic benchmark against greedy grouping over multiple ansatze and noise levels would test whether the reported savings survive outside the small molecules examined.
  • The framing suggests that classical algorithms for diagonalizing structured Hamiltonians, such as free-fermionic, matchgate, or graph-state circuits, are not just preprocessing details but the primary lever on total measurement cost, so progress on those classical problems directly improves quantum measurement efficiency.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of quantum measurement techniques for quantum chemistry in the second-quantized setting. It organizes the field around a unitary-construction view of measurement: to estimate the expectation value of an observable after state preparation, one applies a measurement unitary and measures computational-basis observables, with three costs to balance—classical preprocessing, quantum circuit implementation, and number of measurements. The review surveys Hamiltonian partitioning into measurable fragments (QWC, FC, CSA, anti-commuting and generalized fragments), classical shadow tomography, ancilla-based schemes (Hadamard test, joint Bell measurements, IC-POVMs), measurement reduction via greedy and covariance-based methods, multi-state and multi-operator estimation, error mitigation, and Heisenberg-scaling/QPE-inspired methods. An appendix provides group-theoretic derivations for twirled measurement channels and their inverses.

Significance. As a review, the paper is valuable and largely correct. Its three-cost taxonomy and the POVM unification of Hamiltonian partitioning and classical shadow tomography are coherent organizing principles that should help practitioners navigate the literature. I checked several load-bearing formulas against known results: the Hoeffding-type bound in Eq. (66), the Pauli classical-shadow weights in Eqs. (47) and (48), the joint Bell measurement identity in Eq. (54), and the twirled channel inverses in Appendix A; these are correct. The review explicitly discloses in Sec. IV C that covariance-based measurement reductions rely on approximate covariance data, and it presents the associated savings as literature results rather than as new demonstrations. The manuscript would benefit from small presentational fixes, including a corrected citation for the original classical shadows paper, but I found no load-bearing technical flaw in the central organizational claim.

minor comments (5)
  1. [II C] The first sentence cites Ref. [53] for Classical Shadow Tomography, but Ref. [53] is the later derandomization paper; the original CST method is Ref. [52]. Please correct this citation.
  2. [IV B] In the paragraph on optimal measurement allocation, 'the optional choice results in a minimum variance' should read 'the optimal choice results in a minimum variance.'
  3. [II B 1 and V A] There are several typos: 'annhilates' should be 'annihilates' in Sec. II B 1, 'mesurement' should be 'measurement' in Sec. V A, and 'psuedo-Trotter' should be 'pseudo-Trotter' in Sec. V B 2.
  4. [References] Reference [68] is a duplicate of Ref. [58]; both are Loaiza, Khah, Wiebe, and Izmaylov, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 035019 (2023). Please consolidate or distinguish them.
  5. [V A] Equation (85) uses m_alpha for the number of measurements allocated to fragment alpha, while the surrounding text and Eq. (13) use M_alpha; unify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's unitary-construction framework and POVM unification are organizational classifications, not derivations that reduce to fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

This is a review article, not a new derivation. The central claim (Sec. I) that measurement is a unitary-construction problem and the three-cost taxonomy (Sec. II) are classifications of existing techniques; they do not predict a quantity from fitted parameters. The POVM unification in Sec. III C follows by direct construction: fragment PVMs weighted by w_alpha form a POVM (Eqs. 55-56), and uniformly sampled classical-shadow unitaries define the POVM effects described in Sec. III C; no equation is asserted to be derived from its own input. Covariance-based measurement reduction (Sec. IV C) is the only place where numerical benefits are reported, but the review explicitly discloses that exact variances/covariances are unavailable and that prior works rely on Hartree-Fock or accumulated-statistics approximations; the two-to-three-fold and two-orders-of-magnitude figures are attributed to the cited papers, not re-derived here. The paper contains self-citations (e.g., Refs. [10,15,27,40,42,44,50,69,71]), and several surveyed techniques originate with the authors, but the review's organizational argument does not rest on accepting those papers' numerical claims as a premise; it describes their methods and places them in a framework. There is no imported uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no fitted input relabeled as a prediction. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The review introduces no free parameters, fitted values, or invented entities; all optimized quantities discussed (fragment coefficients, orbital rotations, BLISS parameters, shadow weights) belong to the cited primary literature. Its claims rest on: standard quantum measurement and Lie-algebra mathematics; the stated premise that full Hamiltonian diagonalization is exponentially hard (Sec II A); the choice of estimator variance as the cost metric in the many-shot limit (Sec IV A); the assumption that classically approximated covariances remain valid for target VQE states (Sec IV C); and the projected future viability of Heisenberg-scaling QPE-based schemes (Sec VII).

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption General N-qubit Hamiltonian diagonalization is exponentially hard, so finding the full diagonalizing unitary U is infeasible for a generic Hamiltonian.
    Sec II A: 'finding Û is equivalent to diagonalizing the Hamiltonian... exponentially hard... This constitutes the measurement problem in quantum simulation.' This premise motivates all fragment-based approximations in the review.
  • domain assumption Estimator variance (Eq. 63) is the correct figure of merit for measurement cost in the many-shot regime.
    Sec IV A justifies this via the central limit theorem, Chebyshev, and Hoeffding bounds, but notes it characterizes cost 'in the limit of sufficient measurements.' The entire cost-reduction discussion in Secs IV B through IV F rests on this metric.
  • domain assumption Variances and covariances needed for shot optimization can be approximated by classically tractable states or by accumulated measurement statistics.
    Sec IV C: 'prior works have relied on approximate estimates of these quantities. The approximations came from classical quantum-chemistry methods... or accumulated statistics of quantum measurements.' The reported cost reductions assume these approximations stay valid for the target VQE state.
  • domain assumption Heisenberg-scaling QPE-based measurement schemes will become viable on future fault-tolerant hardware.
    Sec VII premise: 'assuming the emergence of fault-tolerant quantum computing in the future.' This is an open, currently untestable assumption about hardware development.
  • standard math Standard mathematical results used without proof: central limit theorem, Chebyshev and Hoeffding bounds, Schur's lemma, maximal torus theorem, Naimark dilation.
    Invoked in Secs IV A, II B 3, III C, and Appendix A, with textbook citations where appropriate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Measurement for Quantum Chemistry on a Quantum Computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5XCUOZI

@misc{pith2026250114968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Measurement for Quantum Chemistry on a Quantum Computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5XCUOZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14968}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum chemistry is among the most promising applications of quantum computing, offering the potential to solve complex electronic structure problems more efficiently than classical approaches. A critical component of any quantum algorithm is the measurement step, where the desired properties are extracted from a quantum computer. This review focuses on recent advancements in quantum measurement techniques tailored for quantum chemistry, particularly within the second quantized framework suitable for current and near-term quantum hardware. We provide a comprehensive overview of measurement strategies developed primarily for the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) and its derivatives. These strategies address the inherent challenges posed by complexity of the electronic Hamiltonian operator. Additionally, we examine methods for estimating excited states and one- and two-electron properties, extending the applicability of quantum algorithms to broader chemical phenomena. Key aspects of the review include approaches for constructing measurement operators with reduced classical preprocessing and quantum implementation costs, techniques to minimize the number of measurements required for a given accuracy, and error mitigation strategies that leverage symmetries and other properties of the measurement operators. Furthermore, we explore measurement schemes rooted in Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE), which are expected to become viable with the advent of fault-tolerant quantum computing. This review emphasizes foundational concepts and methodologies rather than numerical benchmarks, serving as a resource for researchers aiming to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of quantum measurements in quantum chemistry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the framework for Hamiltonian energy estimation using a partitioning of the Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Compatibility graph for the set of Pauli operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Example of a three qubit feed-forward circuit used to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Diagrammatic representation of the framework for Hamiltonian energy estimation using classical shadow tomography [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Hadamard test circuits for estimating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Extended swap test circuits for estimating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Diagrammatic representation of symmetry verification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Diagrammatic representation of robust amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Universal Fluctuations in the Tail Probability for d=2 Random Walks in Space-Time Random Environments

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The reported d=2 random-walk universality result is unsupported: the full text is a quantum federated learning survey that never mentions random walks, tail probabilities, or lambda_ext.

  2. Shot-Efficient ADAPT-VQE via Reused Pauli Measurements and Variance-Based Shot Allocation

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A shot-efficient ADAPT-VQE variant that reuses grouped Pauli measurements from VQE optimization for gradient estimation and adds variance-based shot allocation reaches chemical accuracy with fewer measurements in smal...

  3. Quantum Computing in Corrosion Modeling: Bridging Research and Industry

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A quantum chemistry feasibility study concludes that simulating the oxygen reduction reaction on copper with VQE or QPE is impractical with near-term and near-future quantum hardware.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

170 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    In con- trast, FC measurement circuits, which involve larger gate counts, produce estimates with higher bias but lower quantum variance

    Optimization Based on Various Commutativity Definitions Lower gate counts in QWC measurement circuits re- sult in lower estimation bias but high variance. In con- trast, FC measurement circuits, which involve larger gate counts, produce estimates with higher bias but lower quantum variance. Estimator’s bias and variance depend non-trivially on the operato...

  2. [2]

    The set of qubit pairs that support two-qubit gates is 24 VI NOISE-ERROR REDUCTION usually a strict subset of all possible pairs

    Optimization Accounting for Device Connectivity The connectivity between qubits in quantum hardware is often limited by the physical implementation of the sys- tem. The set of qubit pairs that support two-qubit gates is 24 VI NOISE-ERROR REDUCTION usually a strict subset of all possible pairs. To implement a two-qubit gate between disconnected qubits, add...

  3. [3]

    For example, in the 2D Hubbard Hamiltonian, a five-fragment approach has been proposed that leverages the locality of nearest neighbour interaction terms in the Hamiltonian

    Problem Specific Reductions Exploiting problem-specific structure can lead to gate- efficient measurement circuits and lower estimation er- rors. For example, in the 2D Hubbard Hamiltonian, a five-fragment approach has been proposed that leverages the locality of nearest neighbour interaction terms in the Hamiltonian. [ 24] These fragments have measuremen...

  4. [4]

    (A6) for the measurement channel is non-trivial

    Unitary Groups Finding groups G that satisfy the invertibility criterion in Eq. (A6) for the measurement channel is non-trivial. We present a few discrete groups and discuss the invert- ibility of the corresponding twirled measurement channel. a. Global Clifford Unitaries The Clifford group of N qubits, Cl(N ) is defined as the group of all unitary evolut...

  5. [5]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5162 (1999)

    1999

  7. [7]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Science 309, 1704–1707 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    For instance, the number operator commutes with ˆH and gen- erates a U (1) = {exp(iθ ˆNe)|θ ∈ [0, 2π)} continuous sym- metry group of ˆH

    Symmetry Verification The molecular Hamiltonian ˆH has symmetries which form a group of operators, S that commute with ˆH. For instance, the number operator commutes with ˆH and gen- erates a U (1) = {exp(iθ ˆNe)|θ ∈ [0, 2π)} continuous sym- metry group of ˆH. The electron number parity operator, ˆp = (−1) ˆNe commutes with the Hamiltonian and {ˆ1, ˆp} fo...

Show all 170 references
  1. [9]

    Various models have been tested, [ 127] but often a simple linear func- tion, ¯E = a ¯E′ + b relating the erroneous estimate ¯E′ to the error free expectation value ¯E suffice

    Error Mitigation by Training In error mitigation by training (EMT), regression mod- els are trained to predict error-free estimates from erro- neous estimates of expectation values. Various models have been tested, [ 127] but often a simple linear func- tion, ¯E = a ¯E′ + b re...

  2. [10]

    This theory provides conditions when the channel can be inverted

    Noise Twirling Noise can be considered using quantum channel theory. This theory provides conditions when the channel can be inverted. The inversion of the noise channel would be a way to mitigate the associated error. Unfortunately, bare noise channels are not invertible, how...

  3. [11]

    Gokhale, O

    P. Gokhale, O. Angiuli, Y. Ding, K. Gui, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, arXiv preprint (2019), arXiv:1907.13623

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. Jena, S. Genin, and M. Mosca, arXiv preprint (2019), arXiv:1907.07859

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 405 (1997)

    1997

  6. [14]

    Denote a vectorized density ˆρ by |ˆρ⟩ ⟩and the super- operator corresponding to the channel U as U

    Liouville Representation of Quantum Channels Since quantum channels are linear on the space of density operators, we can re-express quantum channels as linear operators acting on the d2 dimensional Hilbert space Hd2 of density operators, where, for N qubits, d = 2N . Denote a ...

  7. [15]

    Pauli product basis elements are orthonormal with respect to the Hilbert- Schmidt inner product, defined as ⟨ ⟨⃗ σa|⃗ σb⟩ ⟩= Tr(⃗ σ† a⃗ σb). The entries of a column vector representing the density is given by [|ˆρ⟩ ⟩]a = ⟨ ⟨⃗ σa|ˆρ⟩ ⟩= Tr(⃗ σ† a ˆρ) (A1) and the entries of the...

  8. [16]

    Density matrices have a trace of 1, and the eigenvalues of density matrices describe probabilities that are required to be non-negative

    Quantum Channels and their Invertibility Quantum channels are linear maps between density matrices. Density matrices have a trace of 1, and the eigenvalues of density matrices describe probabilities that are required to be non-negative. Thus, quantum channels are required to p...

  9. [17]

    (A3) Equation (42) is now re-expressed in the super-operator formalism as EU ∈G h U†MU i |ˆρ⟩ ⟩= MG|ˆρ⟩ ⟩ (A4) where we denote the channel M twirled by the group G as MG

    Invertibility by Twirling Since |0⟩ ⟨0| = ( ˆ1 + ˆz)/ √ 2 and |1⟩ ⟨1| = ( ˆ1 − ˆz)/ √ 2, the super-operator representation of the measurement channel in the Pauli operator basis is M = (|ˆσ0⟩ ⟩⟨ ⟨ˆσ0| + |ˆσz⟩ ⟩⟨ ⟨ˆσz|)⊗N . (A3) Equation (42) is now re-expressed in the super-op...

  10. [18]

    Gokhale, O

    P. Gokhale, O. Angiuli, Y. Ding, K. Gui, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 1, 1 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Chem. Rev. 119, 10856 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Chem. Rev. 120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Bellonzi, A

    N. Bellonzi, A. Kunitsa, J. T. Cantin, J. A. Campos- Gonzalez-Angulo, M. D. Radin, Y. Zhou, P. D. Johnson, L. A. Mart ´ ınez-Mart ´ ınez, M. R. Jangrouei, A. S. Brah- machari, et al., arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2406.06335

    2024

  15. [23]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, N. Wiebe, B. K. Clark, C. Nayak, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062318 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Jiang, K

    Z. Jiang, K. J. Sung, K. Kechedzhi, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and S. Boixo, Phys. Rev. Applied 9, 044036 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    J. M. Arrazola, O. Di Matteo, N. Quesada, S. Jahangiri, A. Delgado, and N. Killoran, Quantum 6, 742 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.- C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    T.-C. Yen, V. Verteletskyi, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 2400 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Peng and K

    B. Peng and K. Kowalski, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 13, 4179 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Motta, E

    M. Motta, E. Ye, J. R. McClean, Z. Li, A. J. Minnich, R. Babbush, and G. K.-L. Chan, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, N. Wiebe, K. B. Whaley, and R. Babbush, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Verteletskyi, T.-C

    V. Verteletskyi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 124114 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    DalFavero, R

    B. DalFavero, R. Sarkar, D. Camps, N. Sawaya, and R. LaRose, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11840 (2023), arXiv:2312.11840

    2023

  27. [35]

    Crawford, B

    O. Crawford, B. v. Straaten, D. Wang, T. Parks, E. Campbell, and S. Brierley, Quantum 5, 385 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032325 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    Csakany and A

    B. Csakany and A. J. Thom, arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2311.11826

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Baranyai, J

    Z. Baranyai, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. B 26, 276 (1979)

    1979

  31. [39]

    I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, 4 Unitary Groups 35 Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 110501 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 58 (1994)

    1994

  33. [41]

    Bonet-Monroig, R

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Babbush, and T. E. O’Brien, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031064 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Patel and A

    S. Patel and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Phys. 160, 194107 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    N. P. Sawaya, D. Camps, N. M. Tubman, G. M. Rotskoff, and R. LaRose, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2408.11898

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Yoshimine, J

    M. Yoshimine, J. Comput. Phys. 11, 449 (1973)

    1973

  37. [45]

    Yen and A

    T.-C. Yen and A. F. Izmaylov, PRX Quantum 2, 040320 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    J. Cohn, M. Motta, and R. M. Parrish, PRX Quantum 2, 040352 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    N. D. Roussopoulos, Inf. Process. Lett. 2, 108 (1973)

    1973

  40. [48]

    P. G. H. Lehot, J. ACM 21, 569 (1974)

    1974

  41. [49]

    D. G. Degiorgi and K. Simon, in Graph-Theoretic Con- cepts in Computer Science , Vol. 1017, edited by G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, J. Leeuwen, and M. Nagl (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995) pp. 37–48

    1995

  42. [50]

    B. C. Hall, Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representa- tions: An Elementary Introduction , Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 222 (Springer International Publish- ing, Cham, 2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    A. F. Izmaylov and T.-C. Yen, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 044006 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    I. G. Ryabinkin, S. N. Genin, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Phys. 149, 214105 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    The analysis of Ref

    which exploits the magnitude of coefficients of the Pauli terms in the ˆAn to choose the ˆUα in a way that reduces the total number of measurements required to estimate all ⟨ ˆAn⟩ simultaneously. The analysis of Ref

  46. [54]

    L. G. Valiant, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC ’01 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2001) pp. 114–123

    2001

  47. [55]

    Jozsa and A

    R. Jozsa and A. Miyake, Proc. R. Soc. A 464, 3089 (2008)

    2008

  48. [56]

    D. J. Brod, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062332 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    A. Zhao, A. Tranter, W. M. Kirby, S. F. Ung, A. Miyake, and P. J. Love, Phys. Rev. A 101, 062322 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    A. F. Izmaylov, T.-C. Yen, R. A. Lang, and V. Vertelet- skyi, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 190 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, PRX Quantum 2, 030305 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Loaiza, A

    I. Loaiza, A. S. Brahmachari, and A. F. Izmaylov, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2407.06571

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    C. Cao, H. Yano, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013205 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Choi, T.-C

    S. Choi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput. (arXiv:2208.06563) 18, 7394 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Chapman and S

    A. Chapman and S. T. Flammia, Quantum 4, 278 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Krausz, Mat

    J. Krausz, Mat. Fiz. Lapok 50, 75 (1943)

    1943

  57. [65]

    I. J. Bienaym´ e, Comptes rendus de l’Acad´ emie des Sci- ences 37, 309–324 (1853)

  58. [66]

    P. L. Chebyshev, Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu` ees12, 177 (1867)

  59. [67]

    Hoeffding, J

    W. Hoeffding, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58, 13 (1963), 2282952

    1963

  60. [68]

    Patel, T.-C

    S. Patel, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Phys. Chem. A 128, 4150 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    A. F. Izmaylov, T.-C. Yen, and I. G. Ryabinkin, Chem. Sci. 10, 3746 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 030503 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Hadfield, S

    C. Hadfield, S. Bravyi, R. Raymond, and A. Mezzacapo, cmp 391, 951 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    Jordan and E

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

    1928

  66. [74]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Ann. of Phys. 298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  67. [75]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 224109 (2012)

    2012

  68. [76]

    Loaiza, A

    I. Loaiza, A. M. Khah, N. Wiebe, and A. F. Izmaylov, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 035019 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    G. Lee, D. Lee, and J. Huh, Quantum 8, 1477 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Quantum Info. Comput. 12, 901–924 (2012)

    2012

  71. [79]

    Koridon, S

    E. Koridon, S. Yalouz, B. Senjean, F. Buda, T. E. O’Brien, and L. Visscher, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033127 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  73. [81]

    Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, M

    G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, M. A. Rossi, B. Sokolov, F. Tacchino, P. K. Barkoutsos, G. Mazzola, I. Tavernelli, and S. Man- iscalco, PRX Quantum 2, 040342 (2021)

    2021

  74. [82]

    A. Glos, A. Nyk¨ anen, E.-M. Borrelli, S. Maniscalco, M. A. Rossi, Z. Zimbor´ as, and G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, arXiv preprint (2022), arXiv:2208.07817

    2022 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Rocca, C

    D. Rocca, C. L. Cortes, J. F. Gonthier, P. J. Ollitrault, R. M. Parrish, G.-L. Anselmetti, M. Degroote, N. Moll, R. Santagati, and M. Streif, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 20, 4639 (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    Deka and E

    K. Deka and E. Zak, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2412.01338

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Caesura, C

    A. Caesura, C. L. Cortes, W. Poll, S. Sim, M. Steudt- ner, G.-L. R. Anselmetti, M. Degroote, N. Moll, R. Santagati, M. Streif, et al. , arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2501.06165

    2025 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Loaiza, A

    I. Loaiza, A. Marefat Khah, N. Wiebe, and A. F. Iz- maylov, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 035019 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    T.-C. Yen, A. Ganeshram, and A. F. Izmaylov, npj Quantum Inf 9 (2023)

    2023

  80. [88]

    B. Wu, J. Sun, Q. Huang, and X. Yuan, Quantum 7, 896 (2023)

    2023

  81. [89]

    S. Choi, I. Loaiza, and A. F. Izmaylov, Quantum 7, 889 (2023)

    2023

  82. [90]

    Shlosberg, A

    A. Shlosberg, A. J. Jena, P. Mukhopadhyay, J. F. Haase, F. Leditzky, and L. Dellantonio, Quantum 7, 906 (2023)

    2023

  83. [91]

    The straightforward grouping method of Eq

    found that classical shadow techniques can outper- form partitioning techniques when many operators are measured simultaneously. The straightforward grouping method of Eq. (96) as- sumes that the operators ˆAn all have a representation as a linear combination of Pauli products...

  84. [92]

    Hadfield, arXiv preprint (2021), arXiv:2105.12207

    C. Hadfield, arXiv preprint (2021), arXiv:2105.12207

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Hillmich, C

    S. Hillmich, C. Hadfield, R. Raymond, A. Mezzacapo, and R. Wille, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2021) pp. 24–34

    2021

  86. [94]

    Gresch and M

    A. Gresch and M. Kliesch, Nature Communications 16, 689 (2025)

    2025

  87. [95]

    Sauvage and M

    F. Sauvage and M. Larocca, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2408.05279

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    I. G. Ryabinkin, T.-C. Yen, S. N. Genin, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem Theory Comput. 14, 6317 (2018)

    2018

  89. [97]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Nat. Commun. 10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  90. [98]

    Oumarou, M

    O. Oumarou, M. Scheurer, R. M. Parrish, E. G. Hohen- stein, and C. Gogolin, Quantum 8, 1371 (2024). 36 A GROUP THEORETIC BACKGROUND

    2024

  91. [99]

    Loaiza and A

    I. Loaiza and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 8201 (2023)

    2023

  92. [100]

    C. L. Cortes, D. Rocca, J. Gonthier, P. J. Ollitrault, R. M. Parrish, G.-L. R. Anselmetti, M. Degroote, N. Moll, R. Santagati, and M. Streif, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2403.04737

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    A. F. Izmaylov, R. A. Lang, and T.-C. Yen, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062443 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    Wierichs, J

    D. Wierichs, J. Izaac, C. Wang, and C. Y.-Y. Lin, Quantum 6, 677 (2022)

    2022

  95. [103]

    Anand, P

    A. Anand, P. Schleich, S. Alperin-Lea, P. W. Jensen, S. Sim, M. D ´ ıaz-Tinoco, J. S. Kottmann, M. Degroote, A. F. Izmaylov, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Chem. Soc. Rev. 51, 1659 (2022)

    2022

  96. [104]

    Patel, A

    S. Patel, A. S. Brahmachari, J. T. Cantin, L. Wang, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput. (2025), 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c01390

    2025 doi

  97. [105]

    G. Lee, S. Choi, J. Huh, and A. F. Izmaylov, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2409.02504

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Higgott, D

    O. Higgott, D. Wang, and S. Brierley, Quantum 3, 156 (2019)

    2019

  99. [107]

    R. M. Parrish, E. G. Hohenstein, P. L. McMahon, and T. J. Mart ´ ınez, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 230401 (2019)

    2019

  100. [108]

    Santagati, J

    R. Santagati, J. Wang, A. A. Gentile, S. Paesani, N. Wiebe, J. R. McClean, S. Morley-Short, P. J. Shad- bolt, D. Bonneau, J. W. Silverstone, D. P. Tew, X. Zhou, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thompson, Sci. Adv. 4, eaap9646 (2018)

    2018

  101. [109]

    Choi and A

    S. Choi and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 3184 (2023)

    2023

  102. [110]

    D. A. Mazziotti, Chem. Rev. 112, 244 (2012)

    2012

  103. [111]

    A. Zhao, N. C. Rubin, and A. Miyake, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 110504 (2021)

    2021

  104. [112]

    G. H. Low, arXiv preprint (2022), arXiv:2208.08964

    2022 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Avdic and D

    I. Avdic and D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 220802 (2024)

    2024

  106. [114]

    N. H. Stair, R. Huang, and F. A. Evangelista, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 2236 (2020)

    2020

  107. [115]

    C. L. Cortes and S. K. Gray, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022417 (2022)

    2022

  108. [116]

    showed a one to three order of magnitude reduc- tion in the total measurement cost for small molecules by allowing a single state to be the classically tractable Hartree-Fock state. VI. NOISE-ERROR REDUCTION In addition to errors in expectation values arising from finite sampl...

  109. [117]

    J. Li, X. Yang, X. Peng, and C.-P. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150503 (2017)

    2017

  110. [118]

    Motivated by this observation, several re- cent works have proposed hybrid methods between FC and QWC to minimize the estimator mean square error (MSE)

    For certain ranges of noise model parameters and sample counts, a significant reduction in bias can be achieved at the cost of a small increase in variance and vice-versa. Motivated by this observation, several re- cent works have proposed hybrid methods between FC and QWC to ...

  111. [119]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

  112. [120]

    Schuld, V

    M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032331 (2019)

    2019

  113. [121]

    M. X. Burns, C. Liu, S. Stein, B. Peng, K. Kowalski, and A. Li, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 015054 (2024)

    2024

  114. [122]

    H. L. Tang, V. Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, PRX Quantum 2, 020310 (2021)

    2021

  115. [123]

    Y. S. Yordanov, V. Armaos, C. H. W. Barnes, and D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, Commun. Phys. 4, 1 (2021)

    2021

  116. [124]

    V. O. Shkolnikov, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Quantum 7, 1040 (2023)

    2023

  117. [125]

    Ryabinkin, R

    I. Ryabinkin, R. Lang, S. Genin, and A. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 1055 (2020)

    2020

  118. [126]

    P. G. Anastasiou, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2306.03227

    2023 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Motta, W

    M. Motta, W. Kirby, I. Liepuoniute, K. J. Sung, J. Cohn, A. Mezzacapo, K. Klymko, N. Nguyen, N. Yoshioka, and J. E. Rice, Electron. Struct. 6, 013001 (2024)

    2024

  120. [128]

    J. R. McClean, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. Carter, and W. A. de Jong, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042308 (2017)

    2017

  121. [129]

    R. M. Parrish and P. L. McMahon, arXiv preprint (2019), arXiv:1909.08925

    2019 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Klymko, C

    K. Klymko, C. Mejuto-Zaera, S. J. Cotton, F. Wudarski, M. Urbanek, D. Hait, M. Head-Gordon, K. B. Whaley, J. Moussa, N. Wiebe, W. A. de Jong, and N. M. Tubman, PRX Quantum 3, 020323 (2022)

    2022

  123. [131]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Nat. Phys. 16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  124. [132]

    S. Chen, W. Yu, P. Zeng, and S. T. Flammia, PRX Quantum 2, 030348 (2021)

    2021

  125. [133]

    generalized these estimators in terms of noisy esti- mates and ideal expectation values of known symmetry 27 operators of the state to construct a symmetry adapted error mitigated classical shadows scheme. VII. HEISENBERG SCALING METHODS Here we discuss measurement approaches ...

  126. [134]

    M. D. Radin and P. Johnson, arXiv preprint (2021), arXiv:2106.04755

    2021 arXiv

  127. [135]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  128. [136]

    Z. P. Bansingh, T.-C. Yen, P. D. Johnson, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Phys. Chem. A 126, 7007 (2022)

    2022

  129. [137]

    Hamamura and T

    I. Hamamura and T. Imamichi, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 56 (2020)

    2020

  130. [138]

    Escudero, D

    F. Escudero, D. Fern´ andez-Fern´ andez, G. Jaum` a, G. F. Pe˜ nas, and L. Pereira, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 034044 (2023)

    2023

  131. [139]

    Steudtner, S

    M. Steudtner, S. Morley-Short, W. Pol, S. Sim, C. L. Cortes, M. Loipersberger, R. M. Parrish, M. Degroote, N. Moll, R. Santagati, and M. Streif, Quantum 7, 1164 (2023)

    2023

  132. [140]

    The common circuit for frugal QPE is the Hadamard test (see Fig

    considers multiple EFT approaches, thus here we will not cover them in extensive details, instead we would like to provide basic ideas for common strategies of saving quantum resources. The common circuit for frugal QPE is the Hadamard test (see Fig. 5) where ˆU is the walker ...

  133. [141]

    layer scheduling

    requiring |Ψ⟩ to be one of the eigenstates of the ˆU = ei ˆHt operator. If one considers the probability of getting d = ±1 in the measurement after applying ˆU k and the phase rotation S(ϕ), Pr(d|k, ϕ) = 1 2 [1 + d cos(kθ + ϕ)], (128) it gives an illustration how deeper circui...

  134. [142]

    Miller, L

    D. Miller, L. E. Fischer, K. Levi, E. J. Kuehnke, I. O. Sokolov, P. K. Barkoutsos, J. Eisert, and I. Tavernelli, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 122 (2024)

    2024

  135. [143]

    E. A. Ruiz Guzman and D. Lacroix, The European Physical Journal A 60, 112 (2024)

    2024

  136. [144]

    Stanisic, J

    S. Stanisic, J. L. Bosse, F. M. Gambetta, R. A. San- tos, W. Mruczkiewicz, T. E. O’Brien, E. Ostby, and A. Montanaro, Nat. Commun. 13, 5743 (2022)

    2022

  137. [145]

    Xiong, D

    Y. Xiong, D. Chandra, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 71, 477 (2023)

    2023

  138. [146]

    Cai, Quantum 5, 548 (2021)

    Z. Cai, Quantum 5, 548 (2021)

    2021

  139. [147]

    H. Liao, D. S. Wang, I. Sitdikov, C. Salcedo, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, Nat. Mach. Intell. , 1 (2024)

    2024

  140. [148]

    Czarnik, A

    P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, Quantum 5, 592 (2021)

    2021

  141. [149]

    Montanaro and S

    A. Montanaro and S. Stanisic, arXiv preprint (2021), arXiv:2102.02120

    2021 arXiv

  142. [150]

    Lolur, M

    P. Lolur, M. Skogh, W. Dobrautz, C. Warren, J. Bizn´ arov´ a, A. Osman, G. Tancredi, G. Wendin, J. By- lander, and M. Rahm, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 783 (2023)

    2023

  143. [151]

    Helsen, I

    J. Helsen, I. Roth, E. Onorati, A. Werner, and J. Eisert, PRX Quantum 3, 020357 (2022)

    2022

  144. [152]

    Zhao and A

    A. Zhao and A. Miyake, npj Quantum Information 10, 57 (2024). 4 Unitary Groups 37

    2024

  145. [153]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Quan- tum Comput. Inf. , 53–74 (2002)

    2002

  146. [154]

    Knill, G

    E. Knill, G. Ortiz, and R. D. Somma, Phys. Rev. A 75, 012328 (2007)

    2007

  147. [155]

    D. Wang, O. Higgott, and S. Brierley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140504 (2019)

    2019

  148. [156]

    G. Wang, D. E. Koh, P. D. Johnson, and Y. Cao, PRX Quantum 2, 010346 (2021)

    2021

  149. [157]

    T. E. O’Brien, M. Streif, N. C. Rubin, R. Santagati, Y. Su, W. J. Huggins, J. J. Goings, N. Moll, E. Kyoseva, M. Degroote, C. S. Tautermann, J. Lee, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Phys. Rev. Res. 4 (2022), 10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043210

    2022 doi

  150. [158]

    Katabarwa, K

    A. Katabarwa, K. Gratsea, A. Caesura, and P. D. John- son, PRX Quantum 5, 020101 (2024)

    2024

  151. [159]

    A. Y. Kitaev, A. H. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi, Classical and Quantum Computation. , Graduate studies in math- ematics, Vol. 47 (American Mathematical Society, 2002) pp. I–XIII, 1–257

    2002

  152. [160]

    Wiebe and C

    N. Wiebe and C. Granade, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 010503 (2016)

    2016

  153. [161]

    Kshirsagar, A

    R. Kshirsagar, A. Katabarwa, and P. D. Johnson, Quan- tum 8, 1531 (2024)

    2024

  154. [162]

    Lin and Y

    L. Lin and Y. Tong, PRX Quantum 3, 010318 (2022)

    2022

  155. [163]

    G. Wang, D. S. Fran¸ ca, R. Zhang, S. Zhu, and P. D. Johnson, Quantum 7, 1167 (2023)

    2023

  156. [164]

    C. Yi, C. Zhou, and J. Takahashi, Quantum 8, 1579 (2024)

    2024

  157. [165]

    Ding and L

    Z. Ding and L. Lin, PRX Quantum 4, 020331 (2023)

    2023

  158. [166]

    P. D. Johnson, A. A. Kunitsa, J. F. Gonthier, M. D. Radin, C. Buda, E. J. Doskocil, C. M. Abuan, and J. Romero, arXiv preprint (2022), arXiv:2203.07275

    2022 arXiv

  159. [167]

    Suzuki, S

    Y. Suzuki, S. Uno, R. Raymond, T. Tanaka, T. Onodera, and N. Yamamoto, Quantum Inf. Process. 19 (2020), 10.1007/s11128-019-2565-2

    2020 doi

  160. [168]

    Kunitsa, N

    A. Kunitsa, N. Bellonzi, S. Guo, J. F. Gonthier, C. Buda, C. M. Abuan, and J. Romero, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2410.00686

    2024 arXiv

  161. [169]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  162. [170]

    Koenig and J

    R. Koenig and J. A. Smolin, Journal of Mathematical Physics 55 (2014), 10.1063/1.4903507

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.