- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review C

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Comparison of variational quantum eigensolvers in light nuclei

Miquel Carrasco-Codina1,2,3,*, Emanuele Costa1,2,†, Antonio Márquez Romero1,2,‡, Javier Menéndez1,2,§, and Arnau Rios1,2,∥

  • *Contact author: miquel.carrasco.codina@upc.edu
  • †Contact author: emanuele.costa@icc.ub.edu
  • ‡Contact author: antonio.marquezromero@fujitsu.com
  • §Contact author: menendez@fqa.ub.edu
  • ∥Contact author: arnau.rios@fqa.ub.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. C 113, 024332 – Published 23 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/17n2-xh6k

Abstract

Quantum computing is one of the most promising technologies of the near future, and the simulation of quantum many-body systems is a natural application. In this work, we present classical simulations of the ground states of light atomic nuclei within the p shell, from He6 to B10, calculated within the nuclear shell model. We compare the performance of two leading variational quantum eigensolver algorithms: the unitary coupled cluster (UCC) and the adaptive derivative-assembled pseudo-Trotter (ADAPT) methods, introducing a new metric to quantify the use of quantum resources in each simulation. We find that Slater determinants are the most useful reference states for both approaches. Our analysis suggests that ADAPT is more efficient for nuclei close to magic numbers, while UCC tends to require fewer resources toward the mid shell. This work lays the groundwork for robust benchmarking of quantum algorithms in nuclear structure studies.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (86)

  1. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  2. I. Mukha, E. Roeckl, L. Batist, A. Blazhev, J. Döring, H. Grawe, L. Grigorenko, M. Huyse, Z. Janas, R. Kirchner et al., Proton–proton correlations observed in two-proton radioactivity of 94Ag, Nature (London) 439, 298 (2006).
  3. R. Taniuchi, C. Santamaria, P. Doornenbal, A. Obertelli, K. Yoneda, G. Authelet, H. Baba, D. Calvet, F. Château, A. Corsi et al., Ni78 revealed as a doubly magic stronghold against nuclear deformation, Nature (London) 569, 53 (2019).
  4. P. Butler, L. Gaffney, P. Spagnoletti, J. Konki, M. Scheck, J. Smith, K. Abrahams, M. Bowry, J. Cederkäll, T. Chupp et al., The observation of vibrating pear-shapes in radon nuclei, Nat. Commun. 10, 2473 (2019).
  5. N. Tsunoda, T. Otsuka, K. Takayanagi, N. Shimizu, T. Suzuki, Y. Utsuno, S. Yoshida, and H. Ueno, The impact of nuclear shape on the emergence of the neutron dripline, Nature (London) 587, 66 (2020).
  6. B. Hu, W. Jiang, T. Miyagi, Z. Sun, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, T. Papenbrock, S. R. Stroberg et al., Ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of Pb208 to nuclear forces, Nat. Phys. 18, 1196 (2022).
  7. Y. Kondo, N. Achouri, H. A. Falou, L. Atar, T. Aumann, H. Baba, K. Boretzky, C. Caesar, D. Calvet, H. Chae et al., First observation of O28, Nature (London) 620, 965 (2023); 623, E13 (2023).
  8. A. Gade, B. Longfellow, R. V. Janssens, D. D. Dao, F. Nowacki, J. A. Tostevin, A. D. Ayangeakaa, M. J. Basson, C. M. Campbell, M. P. Carpenter et al., In-beam spectroscopy reveals competing nuclear shapes in the rare isotope Cr62, Nat. Phys. 21, 37 (2025).
  9. C. Hinke, M. Böhmer, P. Boutachkov, T. Faestermann, H. Geissel, J. Gerl, R. Gernhäuser, M. Górska, A. Gottardo, H. Grawe et al., Superallowed Gamow–Teller decay of the doubly magic nucleus Sn100, Nature (London) 486, 341 (2012).
  10. P. Gysbers, G. Hagen, J. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, P. Navrátil, T. Papenbrock, S. Quaglioni, A. Schwenk, S. Stroberg et al., Discrepancy between experimental and theoretical β-decay rates resolved from first principles, Nat. Phys. 15, 428 (2019).
  11. C. Robin, M. J. Savage, and N. Pillet, Entanglement rearrangement in self-consistent nuclear structure calculations, Phys. Rev. C 103, 034325 (2021).
  12. C. W. Johnson and O. C. Gorton, Proton-neutron entanglement in the nuclear shell model, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 50, 045110 (2023).
  13. A. Tichai, S. Knecht, A. T. Kruppa, Ö. Legeza, C. P. Moca, A. Schwenk, M. A. Werner, and G. Zarand, Combining the in-medium similarity renormalization group with the density matrix renormalization group: Shell structure and information entropy, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138139 (2023).
  14. I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Variational approaches to constructing the many-body nuclear ground state for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064308 (2022).
  15. A. Pérez-Obiol, S. Masot-Llima, A. M. Romero, J. Menéndez, A. Rios, A. García-Sáez, and B. Juliá-Díaz, Quantum entanglement patterns in the structure of atomic nuclei within the nuclear shell model, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 240 (2023).
  16. F. Brökemeier, S. M. Hengstenberg, J. W. T. Keeble, C. E. P. Robin, F. Rocco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum magic and multi-partite entanglement in the structure of nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 111, 034317 (2025).
  17. O. C. Gorton and C. W. Johnson, Weak entanglement approximation for nuclear structure, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034305 (2024).
  18. C. W. Johnson and O. C. Gorton, A weak entanglement approximation for nuclear structure: A progress report, J. Subatom. Part. and cosmol. 3, 100061 (2025).
  19. J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J. E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wiescher, K. Langanke, G. Martínez-Pinedo, and F.-K. Thielemann, Origin of the heaviest elements: The rapid neutron-capture process, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015002 (2021).
  20. J. Aalbers, S. AbdusSalam, K. Abe, V. Aerne, F. Agostini, S. A. Maouloud, D. Akerib, D. Y. Akimov, J. Akshat, A. Al Musalhi et al., A next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 50, 013001 (2023).
  21. S. Huth, P. T. Pang, I. Tews, T. Dietrich, A. Le Fèvre, A. Schwenk, W. Trautmann, K. Agarwal, M. Bulla, M. W. Coughlin et al., Constraining neutron-star matter with microscopic and macroscopic collisions, Nature (London) 606, 276 (2022).
  22. M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez, and F. Vissani, Toward the discovery of matter creation with neutrinoless ββ decay, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 025002 (2023).
  23. J. Engel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and U. van Kolck, Electric dipole moments of nucleons, nuclei, and atoms: The standard model and beyond, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 71, 21 (2013), Fundamental Symmetries in the Era of the LHC.
  24. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
  25. D. P. DiVincenzo, The physical implementation of quantum computation, Fortschr. Phys. 48, 771 (2000).
  26. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  27. S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory, Nature (London) 627, 778 (2024).
  28. J. M. Hornibrook, J. I. Colless, I. D. Conway Lamb, S. J. Pauka, H. Lu, A. C. Gossard, J. D. Watson, G. C. Gardner, S. Fallahi, M. J. Manfra, and D. J. Reilly, Cryogenic control architecture for large-scale quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Appl. 3, 024010 (2015).
  29. T. Ayral, P. Besserve, D. Lacroix, and E. A. Ruiz-Guzman, Quantum computing with and for many-body physics, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 227 (2023).
  30. I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Projection algorithm for state preparation on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. C 108, L031306 (2023).
  31. A. Li, A. Baroni, I. Stetcu, and T. S. Humble, Deep quantum circuit simulations of low-energy nuclear states, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 106 (2024).
  32. E. Rule, I. Stetcu, and J. Carlson, Simplified projection on total spin zero for state preparation on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. C 110, 064003 (2024).
  33. S. Yoshida, T. Sato, T. Ogata, T. Naito, and M. Kimura, Accurate and precise quantum computation of valence two-neutron systems, Phys. Rev. C 109, 064305 (2024).
  34. W. Du, J. P. Vary, X. Zhao, and W. Zuo, Ab initio nuclear structure via quantum adiabatic algorithm, arXiv:2105.08910.
  35. E. Costa, A. Perez-Obiol, J. Menendez, A. Rios, A. Garcia-Saez, and B. Julia-Diaz, A quantum annealing protocol to solve the nuclear shell model SciPost Phys. 19, 062 (2025).
  36. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O'brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014).
  37. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021).
  38. J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep. 986, 1 (2022).
  39. E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, R. C. Pooser, D. J. Dean, and P. Lougovski, Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 210501 (2018).
  40. O. Kiss, M. Grossi, P. Lougovski, F. Sanchez, S. Vallecorsa, and T. Papenbrock, Quantum computing of the Li6 nucleus via ordered unitary coupled clusters, Phys. Rev. C 106, 034325 (2022).
  41. C. Sarma, O. Di Matteo, A. Abhishek, and P. C. Srivastava, Prediction of the neutron drip line in oxygen isotopes using quantum computation, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064305 (2023).
  42. A. M. Romero, J. Engel, H. L. Tang, and S. E. Economou, Solving nuclear structure problems with the adaptive variational quantum algorithm, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064317 (2022).
  43. A. Pérez-Obiol, A. M. Romero, J. Menéndez, A. Rios, A. García-Sáez, and B. Juliá-Díaz, Nuclear shell-model simulation in digital quantum computers, Sci. Rep. 13, 12291 (2023).
  44. J. Zhang, D. Lacroix, and Y. Beaujeault-Taudiere, Neutron-proton pairing correlations described on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. C 110, 064320 (2024).
  45. A. Pérez-Obiol, S. Masot-Llima, A. M. Romero, J. Menéndez, A. Rios, A. García-Sáez, and B. Juliá-Díaz, Entropy-driven entanglement forging, arXiv:2409.04510.
  46. J. Zhang and D. Lacroix, Excited states from ADAPT-VQE convergence path in many-body problems: Application to nuclear pairing problem and H4 molecule dissociation, arXiv:2506.22275.
  47. N. Singh, P. Siwach, and P. Arumugam, Advancing quantum simulations of nuclear shell model with noise-resilient protocols, arXiv:2504.11689.
  48. B. Bhoy and P. Stevenson, Shell-model study of Ni58 using quantum computing algorithm, New J. Phys. 26, 075001 (2024).
  49. C. E. P. Robin, Stabilizer-accelerated quantum many-body ground-state estimation, Phys. Rev. A 112, 052408 (2025).
  50. H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 10, 3007 (2019).
  51. M. D. Sapova and A. K. Fedorov, Variational quantum eigensolver techniques for simulating carbon monoxide oxidation, Commun. Phys. 5, 199 (2022).
  52. S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020).
  53. A. Cervera-Lierta, Exact ising model simulation on a quantum computer, Quantum 2, 114 (2018).
  54. M. J. Cervia, A. B. Balantekin, S. N. Coppersmith, C. W. Johnson, P. J. Love, C. Poole, K. Robbins, and M. Saffman, Lipkin model on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. C 104, 024305 (2021).
  55. G. Harsha, T. Shiozaki, and G. E. Scuseria, On the difference between variational and unitary coupled cluster theories, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 044107 (2018).
  56. J. Faba, V. Martín, and L. Robledo, Analysis of quantum correlations within the ground state of a three-level Lipkin model, Phys. Rev. A 105, 062449 (2022).
  57. C. E. P. Robin and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulations in effective model spaces: Hamiltonian-learning variational quantum eigensolver using digital quantum computers and application to the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024313 (2023).
  58. S. Baid, A. Sáiz, L. Lamata, P. Pérez-Fernández, A. M. Romero, A. Rios, J. M. Arias, and J. E. García-Ramos, Extended Lipkin model: Proposal for implementation in a quantum platform and machine learning analysis of its phase diagram, Phys. Rev. C 110, 044318 (2024).
  59. D. Lacroix, Symmetry-assisted preparation of entangled many-body states on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 230502 (2020).
  60. E. A. Ruiz Guzman and D. Lacroix, Accessing ground-state and excited-state energies in a many-body system after symmetry restoration using quantum computers, Phys. Rev. C 105, 024324 (2022).
  61. A. Anand, P. Schleich, S. Alperin-Lea, P. W. K. Jensen, S. Sim, M. Díaz-Tinoco, J. S. Kottmann, M. Degroote, A. F. Izmaylov, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, A quantum computing view on unitary coupled cluster theory, Chem. Soc. Rev. 51, 1659 (2022).
  62. P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Über das paulische äquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928).
  63. M. Hjorth-Jensen, T. T. Kuo, and E. Osnes, Realistic effective interactions for nuclear systems, Phys. Rep. 261, 125 (1995).
  64. S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Nonempirical interactions for the nuclear shell model: An update, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 307 (2019).
  65. S. Cohen and D. Kurath, Effective interactions for the 1p shell, Nucl. Phys. 73, 1 (1965).
  66. J. C. Slater, The theory of complex spectra, Phys. Rev. 34, 1293 (1929).
  67. W. Ritz, Über eine neue methode zur lösung gewisser variationsprobleme der mathematischen physik., J. Reine Angew. Math. 1909, 1 (1909).
  68. M. Larocca, P. Czarnik, K. Sharma, G. Muraleedharan, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum optimal control, Quantum 6, 824 (2022).
  69. 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, Nat. Rev. Phys. 7, 174 (2025).
  70. A. F. Izmaylov, M. Díaz-Tinoco, and R. A. Lang, On the order problem in construction of unitary operators for the variational quantum eigensolver, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22, 12980 (2020).
  71. R. J. Bartlett and M. Musiał, Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 291 (2007).
  72. I. O. Sokolov, P. K. Barkoutsos, P. J. Ollitrault, D. Greenberg, J. Rice, M. Pistoia, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum orbital-optimized unitary coupled cluster methods in the strongly correlated regime: Can quantum algorithms outperform their classical equivalents? J. Chem. Phys. 152, 124107 (2020).
  73. J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 014008 (2018).
  74. M. Suzuki, Generalized Trotter's formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner derivations with applications to many-body problems, Commun. Math. Phys. 51, 183 (1976).
  75. H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of operators, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 10, 545 (1959).
  76. P. K. Barkoutsos, J. F. Gonthier, I. Sokolov, N. Moll, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, M. Ganzhorn, D. J. Egger, M. Troyer, A. Mezzacapo, S. Filipp, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum algorithms for electronic structure calculations: Particle-Hole Hamiltonian and optimized wave-function expansions, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022322 (2018).
  77. H. R. Grimsley, D. Claudino, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Is the Trotterized UCCSD ansatz chemically well-defined? J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 1 (2020).
  78. M. Carrasco Codina, Variational hybrid algorithms for nuclear shell model simulations, Master's thesis, University of Barcelona, 2024.
  79. M. Plesch, Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions, Phys. Rev. A 83, 032302 (2011).
  80. X.-M. Zhang, Low-depth quantum state preparation, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043200 (2021).
  81. X.-M. Zhang, Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230504 (2022).
  82. C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del Río, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. Gérard-Marchant et al., Array programming with NumPy, Nature (London) 585, 357 (2020).
  83. P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey et al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature Methods 17, 261 (2020).
  84. R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, J. Nocedal, and C. Zhu, A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 16, 1190 (1995).
  85. M. Carrasco, Ucc_vs_adapt_p_shell, https://github.com/miquel-carrasco/UCC_vs_ADAPT_p_shell.
  86. E. Caurier, G. Martínez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, The shell model as a unified view of nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 427 (2005).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. C 113, 024332– Published 23 February, 2026
  • Received 29 July 2025
  • Accepted 20 October 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation