Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

ExtraFerm computes exact Born-rule probabilities for circuits of particle-number-conserving matchgates and controlled-phase gates in time exponential only in the number of controlled-phase gates, and approximates them in time exponential on

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:01 UTC pith:JGBYVJMN

load-bearing objection Solid engineering with a real hardware demonstration; the central trajectory method is sound even for arbitrary-pair gates, but the paper has a few fixable typos and a reproducibility gap. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.12416 v3 pith:JGBYVJMN submitted 2025-11-16 quant-ph

ExtraFerm: An Extended Matchgate Simulator

Zack Hassman , Oliver Reardon-Smith , Gokul Subramanian Ravi , Frederic T. Chong , Kevin J. Sung This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords matchgatesfermionic linear opticsBorn-rule probabilitycircuit extentsample-based quantum diagonalizationLUCJ ansatzMonte Carlo simulationquantum chemistry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

ExtraFerm is a new classical simulator for quantum circuits built from particle-number-conserving matchgates plus controlled-phase gates — exactly the structure that emerges when the LUCJ chemistry ansatz is mapped to qubits via the Jordan-Wigner transformation. The paper's central claim is that the Born-rule probability of any chosen bitstring can be computed exactly at a cost exponential only in the number of controlled-phase gates, and approximately at a cost exponential only in the circuit's extent, which shrinks when the controlled-phase angles are small. That makes high-accuracy probability estimates feasible for 52-qubit chemistry circuits where state-vector or tensor-network methods hit a memory wall. The authors prove the point by using ExtraFerm to pick the most probable bitstrings in the first iteration of sample-based quantum diagonalization, improving molecular ground-state energy estimates by up to 46% and reducing variance by up to 98% with a runtime overhead of at most 2%.

Core claim

At the paper's core is a trajectory decomposition: every controlled-phase gate c(θ) is rewritten as a weighted sum of two particle-number-conserving matchgates, d0(θ) and d1(θ), with weights cos(θ/4) and i sin(θ/4). A circuit with k controlled-phase gates therefore becomes a weighted sum over 2^k matchgate-only trajectories, and each trajectory amplitude is a determinant of a submatrix of an n×n mode-transformation matrix — the standard Slater-determinant rule for non-interacting fermions. Summing all 2^k trajectories gives the exact Born-rule probability, so the exact cost is exponential only in k. Sampling trajectories according to the angle-dependent weights gives a Monte Carlo estimate w

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-term matchgate decomposition of a controlled-phase gate, c(θ) = e^{iθ/4}[cos(θ/4)d0(θ) + i sin(θ/4)d1(θ)], where d0(θ) and d1(θ) are both particle-number-conserving matchgates. This turns a circuit with k controlled-phase gates into a weighted sum over 2^k matchgate trajectories; the amplitude of each trajectory is computed as a determinant of a submatrix of the n×n mode-transformation matrix, which only costs O(n^3) or less. The LUCJ-specific optimization rewrites the mode transformation as V3 (I − 2Σ_{i∈N} E_{ii}) V1, so that every trajectory is a base matrix V3V1 plus a few low-rank corrections; ExtraFerm precomputes all correction matrices and caches their d

Load-bearing premise

The trajectory-count bound in Eq. (6) is borrowed from prior work and not re-derived here; if it fails to hold for ExtraFerm's signed, angle-dependent decomposition — especially for negative controlled-phase angles handled by the sign mask — the approximate probabilities used to warm-start SQD could be inaccurate, and the claim of exponential-in-angle scaling would not be supported.

What would settle it

Take a 12-qubit LUCJ circuit with controlled-phase angles including negative values near −π; compute exact probabilities of the full support with EXACT, then run RAWESTIMATE with t given by Eq. (6) for an additive error ϵ and failure probability δ (e.g., 0.01 and 0.01). If the empirical frequency of bitstrings where |p̂ − p_exact| > ϵ exceeds δ, the Monte Carlo error guarantee — and the warm-start benefits built on it — are falsified.

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

If this is right

  • For circuits with a handful of controlled-phase gates (k ≲ 20–30), exact Born-rule probabilities of selected bitstrings become computable at 50+ qubits, a regime where full state-vector simulation is impossible.
  • The approximate mode gives a tunable trade-off: user supplies additive error ϵ, failure probability δ, and the trajectory count follows from Eq. (6), making probability estimates with rigorous error bars available for larger k as long as the extent ξ* stays small.
  • Warm-starting SQD with ExtraFerm improves both accuracy and variance of molecular energy estimates at negligible overhead, suggesting that any bitstring-sampling hybrid algorithm could use targeted probability computation as a cheap post-processing filter.
  • ExtraFerm's memory footprint is essentially independent of qubit count, so it can serve as a drop-in subroutine inside classical-quantum workflows where other simulators would exhaust RAM.
  • The measured error trends (absolute error proportional to true probability) make the approximate probabilities reliable as a ranking signal, which is exactly what makes the warm-start heuristic work in practice.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the extent ξ* grows multiplicatively with both the number and the magnitude of controlled-phase angles, the practical sweet spot is 'many matchgates, few small-angle phase gates' — ExtraFerm is not a general-purpose circuit simulator, and its advantage evaporates once angles approach ±π.
  • The warm-start recipe likely transfers beyond SQD: any noise-mitigation or bootstrap step that subsamples bitstrings — including related configuration-selection methods, importance-sampled error mitigation, or training-set construction for machine-learned corrections — could use ExtraFerm's targeted probabilities to reweight samples, provided the circuits fit the matchgate-plus-phase form.
  • A direct numerical check of Eq. (6) against EXACT probabilities on circuits with negative angles would be a cheap way to validate the sign-mask handling; if the Monte Carlo bound holds for those cases, the warm-start results gain a firmer theoretical footing than the paper itself supplies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ExtraFerm, a classical simulator for circuits composed of particle-number-conserving matchgates and controlled-phase gates. For a target bitstring, it computes the Born-rule probability exactly in time exponential in the number of controlled-phase gates, and approximately with time exponential in the circuit extent ξ* (Eq. 5). The method is based on a trajectory decomposition of each controlled-phase gate into two matchgates d0, d1 (Eq. 7), followed by a Monte Carlo sum over trajectories (Algorithm 1). The authors benchmark against tensor-network and state-vector simulators, reporting substantially better latency and memory scaling, and integrate the estimator into warm-start sample-based quantum diagonalization, obtaining improved ground-state energy estimates for H14 (28 qubits, classical noise model) and N2 (52 qubits, IBM Heron) with small runtime overhead.

Significance. If the algorithmic claims are correct, ExtraFerm fills a practical gap: it permits targeted Born-rule probability computation for LUCJ and related chemistry circuits, with cost governed by the number and angles of controlled-phase gates rather than by qubit number. The paper provides open-source code, numerical validation of the estimator against exact probabilities (Figs. 7–8), and a realistic end-to-end application (warm-start SQD). The underlying mathematical framework is adapted from peer-reviewed work [19,20,41], which strengthens confidence in the central formulation.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-B, Fig. 3 caption] The paper states that controlled-phase gates may act on arbitrary qubit pairs, but the determinant formula (3) is introduced only for circuits of nearest-neighbor matchgates. The trajectory construction replaces each controlled-phase gate with d0 or d1 and evaluates ⟨b|V(x)|a⟩ as a determinant, which is justified only if the resulting circuit is free-fermionic. For non-adjacent pairs this is not automatic from the matchgate condition det(A)=det(B). The authors should explicitly show that d0 and d1 factor into single-qubit phase gates, e.g. d0 = e^{-iθ/2} e^{iθ n_q1/2} e^{iθ n_q2/2} and d1 = e^{-iθ/2} e^{i(θ/2+π)n_q1} e^{i(θ/2+π)n_q2}, so that each trajectory has a well-defined mode transformation matrix and Eq. (3) applies. Without this, the exactness claim for the advertised input class is not fully supported.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 12] The normalization in line 12, p̂ ← ξ*/s² |α|², is incorrect. The variable s is the per-trajectory sign computed in line 9 and is not a meaningful global normalization. The correct expression is p̂ ← ξ* |α|² / t², where t is the number of trajectories. As printed, the algorithm does not return a probability estimate; this is a load-bearing error in the core subroutine. Please correct the pseudocode and ensure the code matches.
  3. [Algorithm 2] The ESTIMATE algorithm as written is not well-defined. The loop condition uses an undefined variable ϵ* (presumably e*), and e* is never updated inside the loop. Thus the loop either never terminates or does not implement the intended iterative tightening of the error and probability upper bound. The δ_k update also refers to an undefined δ_total. The authors should rewrite Algorithm 2 to match the iterative procedure from Ref. [41], including an explicit update rule for the error target e*.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] The phrase 'exponential only in the magnitudes of the circuit’s controlled-phase gate angles' is imprecise; the cost is exponential in the circuit extent ξ*, which involves a product over gates of (cos(|θ|/4)+sin(|θ|/4))². Please clarify.
  2. [Section II-B] The definition of matchgate in Eq. (1) does not state a nearest-neighbor requirement, yet Eq. (3) is declared for nearest-neighbor circuits. This creates confusion when d0,d1 are called 'matchgates' even for arbitrary-pair controlled-phase gates. A sentence distinguishing the matrix-form condition from the nearest-neighbor simulation theorem would help.
  3. [Algorithm 2, line 4] δ_total is not defined in the algorithm input; the global failure probability is δ. Please correct.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] The listed circuit extents (e.g., 3.753 for θ=0) are for angles sampled from N(θ,0.1), not for exactly θ. The caption should say that θ is the mean of the sampling distribution.
  5. [Eq. (5)] Consider writing the extent explicitly as ξ* = ∏_j (cos(|θ_j|/4)+sin(|θ_j|/4))² to avoid any ambiguity about squaring the entire product.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the trajectory decomposition is an algebraic identity, the Monte Carlo bound is an independent cited result, and benchmarks are anchored to external exact/full-configuration references.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Eq. (7) is an explicit algebraic decomposition of the controlled-phase gate into two Gaussian unitaries; Eq. (8) is the exact linearity expansion obtained by summing that decomposition over all 2^k choices, and RAWESTIMATE is a Monte Carlo estimate of the same sum. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: p_max and ξ* enter as inputs to the trajectory-count bound of Eq. (6), which is taken from Refs. [19] and [41] rather than fit to the outputs, and the ESTIMATE loop tightens p* without feeding the final probabilities back into the circuit definition. The determinant formula (3) is a known theorem (Terhal-DiVincenzo), not a restatement of the present algorithm's assumptions. The paper validates the estimator against exactly computed ('true') probabilities in Figs. 7-8 and against independent state-vector/full-configuration references, so the probability estimates are not self-referential. The SQD warm-start result is obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in an ExtraFerm-selected subspace and comparing with independent FCI/HCI energies, so it is not an output of the simulator itself. There are self-citations to Reardon-Smith's earlier framework [19]/[41] and to [21], and these are load-bearing for the claimed exponential-in-extent scaling; however, they are peer-reviewed, parameter-free mathematical results that do not incorporate the present paper's measured outcomes, and the code and benchmarks are independently checkable. A separate potential correctness concern about applying Eq. (3) to arbitrary-pair controlled-phase gates (Fig. 3 caption) is a mathematical-validity issue, not a circular reduction, and I do not count it here.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard matchgate theory and two cited theoretical bounds; the only hand-chosen numeric input is the 1,000-trajectory budget for the SQD warm-start. No new physical entities are introduced, so the invented-entities count is zero.

free parameters (1)
  • trajectory count per bitstring in warm-start SQD = 1,000
    Chosen heuristically rather than by the error-bound formula (Eq. 6); the warm-start energy results depend on this computational budget, though the paper's error analysis suggests it is sufficient for the small controlled-phase angles used.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Matchgate amplitude formula: ⟨b|M|a⟩ = det(Ṽ) for particle-number-conserving matchgates (Eq. 3)
    Standard result from Terhal & DiVincenzo [34]; the trajectory amplitude calculations in ExtraFerm rely on this.
  • domain assumption The circuit extent ξ* (Eq. 5) and trajectory-count lower bound (Eq. 6) correctly bound the Monte Carlo error.
    Inherited from Reardon-Smith et al. [19] and Pashayan et al. [41]; the paper does not re-derive these bounds, and the approximate-simulation efficiency claim depends on them.
  • standard math A controlled-phase gate can be decomposed as in Eq. 7 into two matchgates d0 and d1 with weights cos(θ/4) and i·sin(θ/4).
    Direct algebraic computation; the trajectory sampling distribution and exact sum over trajectories follow from this.
  • domain assumption The LUCJ ansatz, after Jordan-Wigner mapping, decomposes into particle-number-conserving matchgates (orbital rotations) and controlled-phase gates (cluster operator).
    Standard property of LUCJ [22]; ExtraFerm's optimizations and the SQD application depend on this decomposition.
  • domain assumption LUCJ circuits preserve α- and β-spin Hamming weights independently.
    Used by SQD configuration recovery and by the warm-start method's focus on bitstrings with correct particle numbers; a standard property of the ansatz.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18403 in / 18879 out tokens · 151337 ms · 2026-08-03T22:01:38.060044+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present and open source Extraferm, a quantum circuit simulator tailored to chemistry applications. More specifically, our simulator can compute the Born-rule probabilities of samples obtained from circuits containing particle number-conserving matchgates and controlled-phase gates. We support both approximate and exact calculation of probabilities, and for approximate probability calculation, our simulator's runtime is exponential only in the magnitudes of the circuit's controlled-phase gate angles. This makes our simulator useful for simulating certain systems that are beyond the reach of conventional state vector methods. We demonstrate our simulator's utility by simulating the local cluster unitary Jastrow (LUCJ) ansatz and integrating it with sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) to improve the accuracy of molecular ground-state energy estimates with negligible computational overhead. More generally, we highlight a regime in which our simulator achieves substantially superior latency scaling and exponentially superior memory scaling over a tensor network simulator and a state vector simulator. As an efficient and flexible tool for simulating quantum chemistry circuits, our simulator enables new opportunities for enhancing near-term quantum algorithms in chemistry and related domains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.12416 by Frederic T. Chong, Gokul Subramanian Ravi, Kevin J. Sung, Oliver Reardon-Smith, Zack Hassman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The green star indicates the class of circuits that ExtraFerm is designed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A high-level depiction of how ExtraFerm computes the Born-rule probability of a bitstring using R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A visualization of how a trajectory x and corresponding mode transformation matrix V (x) are generated from a circuit. Each matchgate mi is unchanged while the controlled-phase gates are probabilistically assigned to either d0(θj ) or d1(θj ) based on |θj |. In the above example, the trajectory x = 010 has been sampled. The first controlled-phase gate is assigned to d0(θ0) with probability 1 while the seco… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Latency and memory comparisons of different tools when used to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The average runtime required to estimate a bitstring probability using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The error between the true probability and probability obtained from R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relative error of RAW ESTIMATE versus trajectory counts for a 40-qubit LUCJ circuit with 43 controlled-phase gates. These circuits correspond to fermionic systems with 20 spatial orbitals, 2 alpha spin orbitals, and 2 beta spin orbitals. They have extents of 3.48, 62.0, 1.22·106 , and 8.77·1012, respectively (left to right). Orbital rotations are randomly initialized while controlled phase gate angles are … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A schematic of our modification to the SQD algorithm. For the warm-start approach, the green path is taken after the first iteration of configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A comparison of SQD and warm-started SQD for H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The distribution of the magnitudes all 1368 controlled-phase gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Efficient classical simulation of large-scale unitary cluster Jastrow circuits

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    A one-layer UCJ quantum chemistry circuit can have its energy computed classically in O(N^7) time, so single-layer UCJ circuits cannot provide quantum advantage for energy estimation.

  2. Distribution Complexity of Electronic Structure Simulations on Quantum Supercomputers

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    An algorithm is presented for estimating distribution complexity of electronic structure Hamiltonians, with O(N^3) entanglement estimation per fragment and quadratic/exponential reductions in distribution cost for qua...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  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. Sawaya et al., “Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing,”Chemical reviews, vol. 119, no. 19, pp. 10 856–10 915, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Quantum computational chemistry,

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, “Quantum computational chemistry,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 92, no. 1, p. 015003, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Drug design on quantum computers,

    R. Santagati, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Babbush, M. Degroote, L. Gonz ´alez, E. Kyoseva, N. Moll, M. Oppel, R. M. Parrish, N. C. Rubinet al., “Drug design on quantum computers,”Nature Physics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 549–557, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Quantum-centric supercomputing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions,

    Y . Alexeev, M. Amsler, M. A. Barroca, S. Bassini, T. Battelle, D. Camps, D. Casanova, Y . J. Choi, F. T. Chong, C. Chunget al., “Quantum-centric supercomputing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions,”Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 160, pp. 666–710, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. Califor- nia Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 86, no. 3, p. 032324, 2012

    2012

  7. [7]

    Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,

    P. W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,”Physical review A, vol. 52, no. 4, p. R2493, 1995

    1995

  8. [8]

    Error correcting codes in quantum theory,

    A. M. Steane, “Error correcting codes in quantum theory,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 77, no. 5, p. 793, 1996

    1996

  9. [9]

    Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, “Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,”Physical Review A, vol. 54, no. 2, p. 1098, 1996

    1996

  10. [10]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,

    A. Y . Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,”Annals of physics, vol. 303, no. 1, pp. 2–30, 2003

    2003

  11. [11]

    Error mitigation for short- depth quantum circuits,

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mitigation for short- depth quantum circuits,”Physical review letters, vol. 119, no. 18, p. 180509, 2017

    2017

  12. [12]

    Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization,

    Y . Li and S. C. Benjamin, “Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization,”Physical Review X, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 021050, 2017

    2017

  13. [13]

    Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation,

    W. J. Huggins, S. McArdle, T. E. O’Brien, J. Lee, N. C. Rubin, S. Boixo, K. B. Whaley, R. Babbush, and J. R. McClean, “Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation,”Physical Review X, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 041036, 2021

    2021

  14. [14]

    Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation,

    H. Liao, D. S. Wang, I. Sitdikov, C. Salcedo, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, “Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation,”Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 1478–1486, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Machine learning of noise-resilient quantum circuits,

    L. Cincio, K. Rudinger, M. Sarovar, and P. J. Coles, “Machine learning of noise-resilient quantum circuits,”PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 010324, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    Error mitigation with clifford quantum-circuit data,

    P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, “Error mitigation with clifford quantum-circuit data,”Quantum, vol. 5, p. 592, 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    Scalable tensor-network error mitigation for near-term quantum computing,

    S. Filippov, M. Leahy, M. A. C. Rossi, and G. Garc ´ıa-P´erez, “Scalable tensor-network error mitigation for near-term quantum computing,”

  18. [18]

    Lightcone shading for classically accelerated quantum error mitigation,

    A. Eddins, M. C. Tran, and P. Rall, “Lightcone shading for classically accelerated quantum error mitigation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04401

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Improved sim- ulation of quantum circuits dominated by free fermionic operations,

    O. Reardon-Smith, M. Oszmaniec, and K. Korzekwa, “Improved sim- ulation of quantum circuits dominated by free fermionic operations,” Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1549, 2024

    2024

  20. [20]

    Classical simulation of non-Gaussian fermionic circuits,

    B. Dias and R. Koenig, “Classical simulation of non-Gaussian fermionic circuits,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1350, May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-05-21-1350

    doi:10.22331/q-2024-05-21-1350 2024

  21. [21]

    The fermionic linear optical extent is multiplicative for 4 qubit parity eigenstates,

    O. Reardon-Smith, “The fermionic linear optical extent is multiplicative for 4 qubit parity eigenstates,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2407.20934

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Bridging physical intuition and hardware efficiency for correlated electronic states: the local unitary cluster jastrow ansatz for electronic structure,

    M. Motta, K. J. Sung, K. B. Whaley, M. Head-Gordon, and J. Shee, “Bridging physical intuition and hardware efficiency for correlated electronic states: the local unitary cluster jastrow ansatz for electronic structure,”Chem. Sci., vol. 14, pp. 11 213–11 227, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D3SC02516K

    doi:10.1039/d3sc02516k 2023

  23. [23]

    Quantum computing approach to fixed-node Monte Carlo using classical shadows,

    N. S. Blunt, L. Caune, and J. Quiroz-Fernandez, “Quantum computing approach to fixed-node Monte Carlo using classical shadows,”Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1652–1666, Feb 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.4c01468

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.4c01468 2025

  24. [24]

    Toward quantum-centric simulations of extended molecules: Sample-based quantum diagonalization enhanced with density matrix embedding theory,

    A. Shajan, D. Kaliakin, A. Mitra, J. Robledo Moreno, Z. Li, M. Motta, C. Johnson, A. A. Saki, S. Das, I. Sitdikov, A. Mezzacapo, and K. M. Merz, “Toward quantum-centric simulations of extended molecules: Sample-based quantum diagonalization enhanced with density matrix embedding theory,”Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 21, no. 14, pp. 6801...

    doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5c00114 2025

  25. [25]

    Implicit sol- vent sample-based quantum diagonalization,

    D. Kaliakin, A. Shajan, F. Liang, and K. M. J. Merz, “Implicit sol- vent sample-based quantum diagonalization,”The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 129, no. 23, pp. 5788–5796, 2025, pMID: 40377433

    2025

  26. [26]

    Quantum-centric computational study of methylene singlet and triplet states,

    I. Liepuoniute, K. D. Doney, J. Robledo Moreno, J. A. Job, W. S. Friend, and G. O. Jones, “Quantum-centric computational study of methylene singlet and triplet states,”Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 5062–5070, May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.5c00075

    doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5c00075 2025

  27. [27]

    Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercomputer,

    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. Mezzacapo, “Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercomputer,”Science Advances, vol. 11, no. 25, p. eadu9991, 2025...

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adu9991 2025

  28. [28]

    Quantum algorithms for fermionic simulations,

    G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, “Quantum algorithms for fermionic simulations,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 64, p. 022319, Jul 2001. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.64.022319

    2001

  29. [29]

    Quantum-selected configuration interaction: classical diagonalization of hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers,

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y . O. Nakagawa, “Quantum-selected configuration interaction: classical diagonalization of hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.11320

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Classical simulation complexity of extended clifford circuits,

    R. Jozsa and M. Van Den Nest, “Classical simulation complexity of extended clifford circuits,”Quantum Info. Comput., vol. 14, no. 7 & 8, p. 633–648, May 2014

    2014

  31. [31]

    From estimation of quantum probabilities to simulation of quantum circuits,

    H. Pashayan, S. D. Bartlett, and D. Gross, “From estimation of quantum probabilities to simulation of quantum circuits,”Quantum, vol. 4, p. 223, 2020

    2020

  32. [32]

    How to simulate quantum measure- ment without computing marginals,

    S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, and Y . Liu, “How to simulate quantum measure- ment without computing marginals,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 128, no. 22, p. 220503, 2022

    2022

  33. [33]

    Quantum circuits that can be simulated classically in polynomial time,

    L. G. Valiant, “Quantum circuits that can be simulated classically in polynomial time,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1229– 1254, 2002

    2002

  34. [34]

    Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits,

    B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, “Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits,”Physical Review A, vol. 65, no. 3, p. 032325, 2002

    2002

  35. [35]

    Universal quantum computation with theν= 5/2fractional quantum hall state,

    S. Bravyi, “Universal quantum computation with theν= 5/2fractional quantum hall state,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 73, p. 042313, Apr 2006. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.042313

    doi:10.1103/physreva.73.042313 2006

  36. [36]

    Extending matchgates into universal quantum computation,

    D. J. Brod and E. F. Galvao, “Extending matchgates into universal quantum computation,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 84, no. 2, p. 022310, 2011

    2011

  37. [37]

    Matchgates and classical simulation of quantum circuits,

    R. Jozsa and A. Miyake, “Matchgates and classical simulation of quantum circuits,”Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 464, no. 2100, pp. 3089–3106, 2008

    2008

  38. [38]

    Classical simulation of parity-preserving quantum circuits,

    C. Wille and S. Strelchuk, “Classical simulation of parity-preserving quantum circuits,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504. 19317

    2025

  39. [39]

    Extending matchgate simulation methods to universal quantum circuits,

    A. Mocherla, L. Lao, and D. E. Browne, “Extending matchgate simulation methods to universal quantum circuits,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02654

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Quantifying fermionic nonlinearity of quantum circuits,

    S. Hakkaku, Y . Tashima, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and K. Fujii, “Quantifying fermionic nonlinearity of quantum circuits,”Physical Review Research, vol. 4, no. 4, 11 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043100

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043100 2022

  41. [41]

    Fast estimation of outcome probabilities for quantum circuits,

    H. Pashayan, O. Reardon-Smith, K. Korzekwa, and S. D. Bartlett, “Fast estimation of outcome probabilities for quantum circuits,”PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 020361, 2022

    2022

  42. [42]

    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

  43. [43]

    quimb: A python package for quantum information and many- body calculations,

    J. Gray, “quimb: A python package for quantum information and many- body calculations,”Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 3, no. 29, p. 819, 2018

    2018

  44. [44]

    ffsim: Faster simulations of fermionic quantum circuits,

    The ffsim developers, “ffsim: Faster simulations of fermionic quantum circuits,” https://github.com/qiskit-community/ffsim

  45. [45]

    Simulating and sampling from quantum circuits with 2d tensor networks,

    M. S. Rudolph and J. Tindall, “Simulating and sampling from quantum circuits with 2d tensor networks,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11424

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    The heisenberg representation of quantum computers,

    D. Gottesman, “The heisenberg representation of quantum computers,”

  47. [47]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas,

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, “Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu- lar, and Optical Physics, vol. 71, no. 2, p. 022316, 2005

    2005

  48. [48]

    Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions,

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, “Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions,”Quantum, vol. 3, p. 181, 2019

    2019

  49. [49]

    Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates,

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, “Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates,”Physical review letters, vol. 116, no. 25, p. 250501, 2016

    2016

  50. [50]

    Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups,

    S. R. White, “Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups,”Physical review letters, vol. 69, no. 19, p. 2863, 1992

    1992

  51. [51]

    A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states,

    R. Or ´us, “A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states,”Annals of physics, vol. 349, pp. 117–158, 2014

    2014

  52. [52]

    Simulating quantum computation by contract- ing tensor networks,

    I. L. Markov and Y . Shi, “Simulating quantum computation by contract- ing tensor networks,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 963–981, 2008

    2008

  53. [53]

    Tensor networks for quantum computing,

    A. Berezutskii, M. Liu, A. Acharya, R. Ellerbrock, J. Gray, R. Haghshenas, Z. He, A. Khan, V . Kuzmin, D. Lyakhet al., “Tensor networks for quantum computing,”Nature Reviews Physics, pp. 1–13, 2025

    2025

  54. [54]

    Pauli propagation: A computational framework for simulating quantum systems,

    M. S. Rudolph, T. Jones, Y . Teng, A. Angrisani, and Z. Holmes, “Pauli propagation: A computational framework for simulating quantum systems,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21606

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Classical simulators as quantum error mitigators via circuit cutting,

    J. Liu, A. Gonzales, and Z. H. Saleem, “Classical simulators as quantum error mitigators via circuit cutting,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.07335

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Cafqa: A classical simulation bootstrap for variational quantum algorithms,

    G. S. Ravi, P. Gokhale, Y . Ding, W. Kirby, K. Smith, J. M. Baker, P. J. Love, H. Hoffmann, K. R. Brown, and F. T. Chong, “Cafqa: A classical simulation bootstrap for variational quantum algorithms,” inProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 1, 2022, pp. 15–29

    2022

  57. [57]

    Importance sampling: a review,

    S. T. Tokdar and R. E. Kass, “Importance sampling: a review,”Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 54–60, 2010

    2010

  58. [58]

    Implementation of the simultaneous perturbation algorithm for stochastic optimization,

    J. C. Spall, “Implementation of the simultaneous perturbation algorithm for stochastic optimization,”IEEE Transactions on aerospace and elec- tronic systems, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 817–823, 2002

    2002

  59. [1998]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9807006

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9807006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [2023]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11740

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11740

    Pith/arXiv arXiv