pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20184 · v1 · pith:NXQQBJJZnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.CE· physics.flu-dyn

Operator Learning for efficient Quantum Computation

Paul Over , Sergio Bengoechea , Leonardo Borello Busilacchi , Martin Kiffner , Thomas Rung , Alexios A. Michailidis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.CEphysics.flu-dyn
keywords variational quantum circuitsoperator learningblock encodingquantum simulationquantum chemistryfinite difference operatorsnon-unitary operatorsquantum hardware
0
0 comments X

The pith

A variational framework learns compact quantum circuits for arbitrary operators with one ancilla qubit.

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

The paper presents a variational method that converts any target operator into a compact circuit suited to a given hardware's connectivity. Optimization uses backpropagation on a cost function that handles both unitary propagators and non-unitary operators through single-ancilla block encoding, plus a regularization term to reduce error. Tests on quantum-simulation propagators show better resource scaling than Suzuki-Trotter decompositions, while engineering examples cover the Laplace finite-difference operator and a dense flow operator. The framework is positioned as a general primitive for near-term simulation and future fault-tolerant algorithms.

Core claim

The full-stack variational framework maps arbitrary operators, unitary or non-unitary, to compact quantum circuits that respect target hardware connectivity. Learning proceeds via backpropagation of a cost function that supports block encoding with a single ancilla qubit, augmented by a regularization term that lowers the final approximation error. In quantum applications the learned circuits for simulation and chemistry propagators exhibit improved resource scaling relative to standard Suzuki-Trotter expansions; in engineering applications the same procedure yields lower error metrics for the second-order central finite-difference Laplace operator and implements a dense non-unitary operator

What carries the argument

The variational circuit-learning procedure that optimizes parameters via backpropagation on a single-ancilla block-encoding cost function together with an added regularization term.

If this is right

  • Propagators arising in quantum simulation and quantum chemistry can be realized with improved resource scaling compared with standard Suzuki-Trotter expansions.
  • The second-order central finite-difference Laplace operator can be implemented with better error metrics than current approaches.
  • Dense non-unitary operators, such as those appearing in inviscid potential-flow analysis, become representable as quantum circuits.
  • The same procedure supplies a universal route to efficient primitives for both quantum-mechanical and engineering problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the method scales to larger systems without per-instance retuning, it could lower the compilation overhead that currently limits near-term quantum advantage demonstrations.
  • Hardware-tailored circuits learned this way might reduce the depth penalty incurred when mapping abstract algorithms onto devices with restricted connectivity.
  • The single-ancilla block-encoding route could be tested on open-system evolution operators to see whether the same cost function extends beyond closed-system cases.
  • Direct comparison of learned circuit depth against hand-crafted or Trotterized versions on a fixed hardware graph would quantify the practical gain for fault-tolerant primitives.

Load-bearing premise

The optimization landscape defined by the cost function plus regularization term allows reliable convergence to low-error circuits for diverse operators without problem-specific hyperparameter tuning.

What would settle it

Apply the learned circuit for a chosen quantum propagator on a simulator, compare its two-qubit gate count and achieved fidelity against the equivalent Suzuki-Trotter circuit at the same target accuracy, and check whether the learned version uses measurably fewer resources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20184 by Alexios A. Michailidis, Leonardo Borello Busilacchi, Martin Kiffner, Paul Over, Sergio Bengoechea, Thomas Rung.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Illustration of the entire quantum operator learning approach. The synthesis begins with discretizing the target problem (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Illustration of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Gate complexity over number of qubits for layers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Application of the learning algorithm to multiple quantum many-body scenarios and comparison against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Quantum circuit implementation of the butadiene PPP Hamiltonian, consisting of 21 nearest-neighbor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Operator learning of the discrete second derivative operator for varying system sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Application of the learning protocol to the discretized second derivative operator. The ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Illustration of the flow around a NACA 0012 airfoil subjected to an approach flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Sparsity and correlation measures of the potential flow operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Results for the learning of an inviscid airfoil flow operator showing the evolution of the cost functional (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

An efficient implementation of quantum algorithms is often hindered by the lack of efficient primitives for operators and state preparation. This limits both the ability of near-term quantum hardware to simulate complex problems and the potential of fault-tolerant algorithms to achieve practical quantum advantage. To address this, we propose a full-stack variational framework that transforms arbitrary operators to compact quantum circuits. The resulting variational circuits can be tailored to the connectivity and long-range interaction of the target hardware. The learning process employs backpropagation together with a cost function that efficiently optimizes unitary operators and non-unitary -- dense or sparse -- operators using only a single ancilla qubit for block encoding. Additionally, we introduce a regularization term that reduces the approximation error. The approach is validated for both quantum mechanical and engineering applications. In the former case, we learn propagators that arise in native quantum problems -- such as quantum simulation and quantum chemistry -- and achieve improved resource scaling in comparison to standard Suzuki-Trotter expansions. In the latter case, we demonstrate the approach's ability to implement the second-order central finite difference approximation of the Laplace operator -- relevant for solving partial differential equations -- while improving upon current error metrics. The final example deals with learning a dense, non-unitary operator that arises in the analysis of inviscid potential flow around an airfoil. This universality of the framework opens the door for solving general problems beyond prototypical engineering and quantum applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a variational framework for learning compact quantum circuits that implement arbitrary operators (unitary or non-unitary) via backpropagation on a cost function that uses a single ancilla qubit for block encoding. A regularization term is introduced to reduce approximation error. The circuits are claimed to be adaptable to hardware connectivity. Validation examples include learning propagators for quantum simulation and quantum chemistry (with asserted better resource scaling than Suzuki-Trotter), the second-order central finite-difference Laplace operator, and a dense non-unitary operator from inviscid airfoil flow analysis.

Significance. If the central claims hold with reproducible numerical evidence, the approach could supply a general, hardware-aware method for operator compilation that reduces gate counts or depths relative to standard decompositions, with relevance to both NISQ simulation/chemistry and classical PDE problems on quantum hardware.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of 'improved resource scaling in comparison to standard Suzuki-Trotter expansions' for propagators in quantum simulation and chemistry is stated without any numerical results, error metrics, circuit depths, gate counts, or explicit cost-function definitions, so it is impossible to verify whether the math or optimization supports the scaling assertion.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the weakest assumption—that the optimization landscape of the proposed cost function plus regularization term permits reliable convergence to low-error circuits without problem-specific hyperparameter tuning—is not addressed; no analysis, landscape characterization, or ablation on regularization strength is supplied, leaving the generality of the framework untested.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed comments on the abstract. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and verifiability of the claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of 'improved resource scaling in comparison to standard Suzuki-Trotter expansions' for propagators in quantum simulation and chemistry is stated without any numerical results, error metrics, circuit depths, gate counts, or explicit cost-function definitions, so it is impossible to verify whether the math or optimization supports the scaling assertion.

    Authors: We agree the abstract would be strengthened by including representative quantitative metrics. The full manuscript contains explicit comparisons (circuit depths, gate counts, and error metrics) demonstrating improved scaling for the learned propagators versus Suzuki-Trotter in the quantum simulation and chemistry examples. We will revise the abstract to incorporate key numerical evidence and a brief definition of the cost function to make the claim verifiable from the abstract alone. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the weakest assumption—that the optimization landscape of the proposed cost function plus regularization term permits reliable convergence to low-error circuits without problem-specific hyperparameter tuning—is not addressed; no analysis, landscape characterization, or ablation on regularization strength is supplied, leaving the generality of the framework untested.

    Authors: The manuscript reports consistent convergence to low-error circuits across three distinct operator classes using the same regularization strength and without per-problem hyperparameter sweeps, providing empirical support for the landscape's tractability. We acknowledge the absence of explicit landscape analysis or ablation studies. We will add a short discussion of the regularization coefficient values used and their effect on the reported examples, while noting that a full theoretical characterization remains future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: variational learning claims rest on empirical validation against external Trotter benchmarks

full rationale

The paper presents a variational framework that uses backpropagation on a single-ancilla block-encoding cost plus regularization to produce compact circuits for operators. The central claim of improved resource scaling versus Suzuki-Trotter expansions is stated as an empirical outcome obtained by applying the method to propagators from quantum simulation and chemistry; no equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that would make the reported improvement equivalent to the input data or ansatz by construction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against the external Trotter reference and does not reduce to any of the enumerated circular patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework implicitly assumes that variational optimization converges for the stated operator classes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5799 in / 1109 out tokens · 28521 ms · 2026-06-26T17:01:19.691843+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Rather than utilizing Riemannian gradient [56], we adopt automatic differentiation [26] that can be naturally extended to TN representations [57]

    Strategy This section focuses on the optimization strategy by which the gatesG– assembled as introduced in the previous section – are iteratively updated to minimize the objectiveJ. Rather than utilizing Riemannian gradient [56], we adopt automatic differentiation [26] that can be naturally extended to TN representations [57]. To this end, the presented a...

  2. [2]

    In particular, we focus on the dominant costs arising in Algorithms 1 and 2, and their implications for the subsequent quantum hardware implementation

    Complexity This section analyzes the computational complexity of the proposed method. In particular, we focus on the dominant costs arising in Algorithms 1 and 2, and their implications for the subsequent quantum hardware implementation. To compare with the existing literature and without loss of generality, we assume a one-dimensional LNN chip topology. ...

  3. [3]

    H=−g zz n−1X i=1 ZiZi+1 −g x nX i=1 Xi −g z nX i=1 Zi ,(15) wherenagain denotes the number of qubits

    Quantum Simulation To benchmark our approach in quantum simulations, we consider the 1D transverse-field Ising model (TFIM) with an additional longitudinal field, viz. H=−g zz n−1X i=1 ZiZi+1 −g x nX i=1 Xi −g z nX i=1 Zi ,(15) wherenagain denotes the number of qubits. The operatorsZ=|0⟩⟨0| − |1⟩⟨1|andX=|1⟩⟨0|+|0⟩⟨1|correspond to the Pauli-Zand Pauli-Xope...

  4. [4]

    To simulate intrinsically fermionic systems on a qubit-based QC, the fermions need to be mapped to qubits

    Quantum Chemistry In this section, we consider quantum chemistry models, whose fundamental degrees of freedom are interacting fermionic modes rather than spins. To simulate intrinsically fermionic systems on a qubit-based QC, the fermions need to be mapped to qubits. Fermionic creation and annihilation operators obey anticommutation relations, mapping the...

  5. [5]

    Without loss of generality, we assume a spatial equidistant one- dimensional finite difference discretization, i.e.,x i+1 −x i = ∆x, with 2 ns supporting pointsi

    Finite Approximation of Second Derivative In the following, we consider the prototypical problem of implementing the discretized second spatial derivative, represented by the one-dimensional Laplace operator. Without loss of generality, we assume a spatial equidistant one- dimensional finite difference discretization, i.e.,x i+1 −x i = ∆x, with 2 ns suppo...

  6. [6]

    In particular, it can be represented as a TT ofn s local tensors with auxiliary dimensionR(A) = 5 for any grid size [75]

    0−1 2   .(26) Exploiting the tridiagonal Toeplitz structure, the operatorAis efficiently represented by TTs with a resource scaling ofO(n s). In particular, it can be represented as a TT ofn s local tensors with auxiliary dimensionR(A) = 5 for any grid size [75]. Termanovaet al.[41] applies this finding [75] for the initialization of their tensor...

  7. [7]

    The airfoil is subject to a uniform free-stream velocity ofU ∞ and set at an angle of attack (AoA)α= 5 ◦ as depicted in Figure 8

    Potential Flow Analysis The final application deals with the steady flow around a two-dimensional NACA 0012 airfoil. The airfoil is subject to a uniform free-stream velocity ofU ∞ and set at an angle of attack (AoA)α= 5 ◦ as depicted in Figure 8. The underlying physical model is based on an inviscid potential flow, and the numerical algorithm employs a Sm...

    2021

  8. [8]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery,Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing(Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  9. [9]

    J. P. Slotnick, A. Khodadoust, J. Alonso, D. Darmofal, W. Gropp, E. Lurie, and D. J. Mavriplis,CFD vision 2030 study: a path to revolutionary computational aerosciences, Tech. Rep. (NASA, 2014)

    2030

  10. [10]

    H. N. Khan, D. A. Hounshell, and E. R. H. Fuchs, Science and research policy at the end of Moore’s Law, Nature Electronics 1, 14 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Esmaeilzadeh, E

    H. Esmaeilzadeh, E. Blem, R. S. Amant, K. Sankaralingam, and D. Burger, Dark silicon and the end of multicore scaling, in2011 38th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA)(2011) pp. 365–376

    2011

  12. [12]

    P. Givi, A. J. Daley, D. Mavriplis, and M. Malik, Quantum speedup for aeroscience and engineering, AIAA Journal58, 3715 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski,et al., A fault-tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantum computation, Nature649, 39 (2026)

    2026

  14. [14]

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature549, 172 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature574, 505 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    Camps and R

    D. Camps and R. Van Beeumen, Approximate quantum circuit synthesis using block encodings, Phys. Rev. A102, 052411 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Hoefler, T

    T. Hoefler, T. H¨ aner, and M. Troyer, Disentangling hype from practicality: On realistically achieving quantum advantage, Commun. ACM66, 82–87 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    M¨ ott¨ onen, J

    M. M¨ ott¨ onen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, and M. M. Salomaa, Transformation of quantum states using uniformly controlled rotations, Quantum Inf. Comput.5, 467 (2005)

    2005

  20. [20]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, et al., High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Debnath, N

    S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe, Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits, Nature536, 63 (2016)

    2016

  22. [22]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Integrated photonic quantum technologies, Nature photonics14, 273 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Shirakawa, H

    T. Shirakawa, H. Ueda, and S. Yunoki, Automatic quantum circuit encoding of a given arbitrary quantum state, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043008 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    An, J.-P

    D. An, J.-P. Liu, and L. Lin, Linear combination of hamiltonian simulation for nonunitary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 150603 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    Or´ us, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nature Reviews Physics1, 538 (2019)

    R. Or´ us, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nature Reviews Physics1, 538 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    I. V. Oseledets, Tensor-train decomposition, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing33, 2295 (2011). 21

    2011

  27. [27]

    Gourianov, M

    N. Gourianov, M. Lubasch, S. Dolgov, Q. Y. van den Berg, H. Babaee, P. Givi, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, A quantum- inspired approach to exploit turbulence structures, Nature Computational Science2, 30 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Kiffner and D

    M. Kiffner and D. Jaksch, Tensor network reduced order models for wall-bounded flows, Phys. Rev. Fluids8, 124101 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    A. A. Michailidis, C. Fenton, and M. Kiffner, Element-wise multiplication of tensor trains, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing47, B1158 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Lubasch, J

    M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems, Phys. Rev. A101, 010301(R) (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Ran, Encoding of matrix product states into quantum circuits of one- and two-qubit gates, Phys

    S.-J. Ran, Encoding of matrix product states into quantum circuits of one- and two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A101, 032310 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    S.-H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Pollmann, Real- and imaginary-time evolution with compressed quantum circuits, PRX Quantum2, 010342 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    P.-F. Zhou, R. Hong, and S.-J. Ran, Automatically differentiable quantum circuit for many-qubit state preparation, Phys. Rev. A104, 042601 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    M. S. Rudolph, J. Chen, J. Miller, A. Acharya, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, Decomposition of matrix product states into shallow quantum circuits, Quantum Science and Technology9, 015012 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Szo ldra, R

    T. Szo ldra, R. Mukherjee, and P. Schmelcher, Scalable preparation of matrix product states with sequential and brick wall quantum circuits, Quantum Science and Technology11, 025056 (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    Barratt, J

    F. Barratt, J. Dborin, M. Bal, V. Stojevic, F. Pollmann, and A. G. Green, Parallel quantum simulation of large systems on small NISQ computers, npj Quantum Information7, 79 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    M. S. J. Tepaske, D. Hahn, and D. J. Luitz, Optimal compression of quantum many-body time evolution operators into brickwall circuits, SciPost Phys.14, 073 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Mansuroglu, T

    R. Mansuroglu, T. Eckstein, L. N¨ utzel, S. A. Wilkinson, and M. J. Hartmann, Variational hamiltonian simulation for translational invariant systems via classical pre-processing, Quantum Science and Technology8, 025006 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    Mc Keever and M

    C. Mc Keever and M. Lubasch, Classically optimized Hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023146 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Mc Keever and M

    C. Mc Keever and M. Lubasch, Towards adiabatic quantum computing using compressed quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 5, 020362 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Robertson, A

    N. Robertson, A. Akhriev, J. Vala, and S. Zhuk, Approximate quantum compiling for quantum simulation: A tensor network based approach, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing6, 1 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Wiersema, J. Carrasquilla, L. Cincio, and Y. B. Kim, Scalable quantum dynamics compilation via quantum machine learning, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 023128 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    Causer, F

    L. Causer, F. Jung, A. Mitra, F. Pollmann, and A. Gammon-Smith, Scalable simulation of nonequilibrium quantum dynamics via classically optimized unitary circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033062 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    B. A. Martin, T. Ayral, F. Jamet, M. J. Ranˇ ci´ c, and P. Simon, Combining matrix product states and noisy quantum computers for quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. A109, 062437 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Gibbs and L

    J. Gibbs and L. Cincio, Deep circuit compression for quantum dynamics via tensor networks, Quantum9, 1789 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Kotil, R

    A. Kotil, R. Banerjee, Q. Huang, and C. B. Mendl, Riemannian quantum circuit optimization for Hamiltonian simulation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 135303 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    I. N. M. Le, S. Sun, and C. B. Mendl, Riemannian quantum circuit optimization based on matrix product operators, Quantum9, 1833 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Termanova, A

    A. Termanova, A. Melnikov, E. Mamenchikov, N. Belokonev, S. Dolgov, A. Berezutskii, R. Ellerbrock, C. Mansell, and M. R. Perelshtein, Tensor quantum programming, New Journal of Physics26, 123019 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Nibbi and C

    M. Nibbi and C. B. Mendl, Block encoding of matrix product operators, Phys. Rev. A110, 042427 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Z.-Y. Wei, D. Malz, and J. I. Cirac, Sequential generation of projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010607 (2022)

    2022

  51. [51]

    Z.-Y. Wei, D. Malz, and J. I. Cirac, Efficient adiabatic preparation of tensor network states, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L022037 (2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    Guo and S

    Y. Guo and S. Yang, Efficient quantum circuit compilation for near-term quantum advantage, EPJ Quantum Technology 12, 69 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Evenbly and G

    G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, Algorithms for entanglement renormalization, Phys. Rev. B79, 144108 (2009)

    2009

  54. [54]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  55. [55]

    Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Physics Letters A146, 319 (1990)

    M. Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Physics Letters A146, 319 (1990)

    1990

  56. [56]

    Jaksch, P

    D. Jaksch, P. Givi, A. J. Daley, and T. Rung, Variational quantum algorithms for computational fluid dynamics, AIAA Journal61, 1885 (2023)

    2023

  57. [57]

    P. Over, S. Bengoechea, T. Rung, F. Clerici, L. Scandurra, E. de Villiers, and D. Jaksch, Boundary treatment for variational quantum simulations of partial differential equations on quantum computers, Computers & Fluids288, 106508 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Bengoechea, P

    S. Bengoechea, P. Over, D. Jaksch, and T. Rung, Toward variational quantum algorithms for generalized linear and nonlinear transport phenomena, AIAA Journal64, 585 (2026)

    2026

  59. [59]

    Brearley and S

    P. Brearley and S. Laizet, Quantum algorithm for solving the advection equation using Hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. A110, 012430 (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    P. Over, S. Bengoechea, P. Brearley, S. Laizet, and T. Rung, Quantum algorithm for the advection-diffusion equation by direct block encoding of the time-marching operator, Phys. Rev. A112, L010401 (2025). 22

    2025

  61. [61]

    Bengoechea, P

    S. Bengoechea, P. Over, and T. Rung, Quantum time-marching algorithms for solving linear transport problems including boundary conditions, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering127, e70326 (2026)

    2026

  62. [62]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright,Numerical optimization, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, NY, 2006)

    2006

  63. [63]

    I. A. Luchnikov, M. E. Krechetov, and S. N. Filippov, Riemannian geometry and automatic differentiation for optimization problems of quantum physics and quantum technologies, New Journal of Physics23, 073006 (2021)

    2021

  64. [64]

    Liao, J.-G

    H.-J. Liao, J.-G. Liu, L. Wang, and T. Xiang, Differentiable programming tensor networks, Phys. Rev. X9, 031041 (2019)

    2019

  65. [65]

    D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, Learning representations by back-propagating errors, Nature323, 533 (1986)

    1986

  66. [66]

    Gharibyan, V

    H. Gharibyan, V. P. Su, and H. Tepanyan, Hierarchical learning for training large-scale variational quantum circuits, in 2024 International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA)(2024) pp. 1810–1814

    2024

  67. [67]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, in3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings(2015)

    2015

  68. [68]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Biamonte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nature Reviews Physics7, 174 (2025)

    2025

  69. [69]

    S. H. Sack, R. A. Medina, A. A. Michailidis, R. Kueng, and M. Serbyn, Avoiding barren plateaus using classical shadows, PRX Quantum3, 020365 (2022)

    2022

  70. [70]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  71. [71]

    Friedrich and J

    L. Friedrich and J. Maziero, Avoiding barren plateaus with classical deep neural networks, Phys. Rev. A106, 042433 (2022)

    2022

  72. [72]

    V. V. Shende, I. L. Markov, and S. S. Bullock, Minimal universal two-qubit controlled-NOT-based circuits, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062321 (2004)

    2004

  73. [73]

    E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems, Communications in Mathematical Physics28, 251 (1972)

    1972

  74. [74]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum computation, Annals of Physics298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  75. [75]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, The Bravyi-Kitaev transformation for quantum computation of electronic structure, The Journal of Chemical Physics137, 224109 (2012)

    2012

  76. [76]

    Pariser and R

    R. Pariser and R. G. Parr, A semi-empirical theory of the electronic spectra and electronic structure of complex unsaturated molecules. I., The Journal of Chemical Physics21, 466 (1953)

    1953

  77. [77]

    J. A. Pople, Electron interaction in unsaturated hydrocarbons, Transactions of the Faraday Society49, 1375 (1953)

    1953

  78. [78]

    Barford,Electronic and Optical Properties of Conjugated Polymers(Oxford University Press, 2005)

    W. Barford,Electronic and Optical Properties of Conjugated Polymers(Oxford University Press, 2005)

    2005

  79. [79]

    Chandross and S

    M. Chandross and S. Mazumdar, Coulomb interactions and linear, nonlinear, and triplet absorption in poly(para- phenylenevinylene), Phys. Rev. B55, 1497 (1997)

    1997

  80. [80]

    Ohno, Some remarks on the Pariser-Parr-Pople method, Theoretica chimica acta2, 219 (1964)

    K. Ohno, Some remarks on the Pariser-Parr-Pople method, Theoretica chimica acta2, 219 (1964)

    1964

Showing first 80 references.