- Open Access
Lie-algebraic classical simulations for quantum computing
Phys. Rev. Research 7, 033266 – Published 19 September, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/3y65-f5w6
Abstract
The classical simulation of quantum dynamics plays an important role in our understanding of quantum complexity and in the development of quantum technologies. Efficient techniques such as those based on the Gottesman-Knill theorem for Clifford circuits, tensor networks for low entanglement-generating circuits, or Wick's theorem for fermionic Gaussian states have become central tools in quantum computing. In this work, we contribute to this body of knowledge by presenting a framework for classical simulations, dubbed “”, which is based on the underlying Lie algebraic structure of the dynamical process. When the dimension of the algebra grows at most polynomially in the system size, there exist observables for which the simulation is efficient. Indeed, we show that enables new regimes for classical simulations, is able to deal with certain forms of noise in the evolution, as well as can be used to tackle several paradigmatic variational and nonvariational quantum computing tasks. For the former, we perform Lie-algebraic simulations to train and optimize parametrized quantum circuits (thus effectively showing that some variational models can be dequantized), design enhanced parameter initialization strategies, solve tasks of quantum circuit synthesis, and train a quantum-phase classifier. For the latter, we report large-scale noiseless and noisy simulations on benchmark problems. By comparing the limitations of and certain Wick's theorem-based simulations, we find that the two methods become inefficient for different types of states or observables, hinting at the existence of distinct, nonequivalent resources for classical simulation.
Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)
Article Text
References (147)
- D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction, arXiv:quant-ph/9705052.
- G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003).
- G.-C. Wick, The evaluation of the collision matrix, Phys. Rev. 80, 268 (1950).
- L. G. Valiant, Quantum computers that can be simulated classically in polynomial time, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, 2001), pp. 114–123.
- B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032325 (2002).
- Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme et al., Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature (London) 618, 500 (2023).
- 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).
- K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke et al., Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022).
- M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, An introduction to quantum machine learning, Contemp. Phys. 56, 172 (2015).
- J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature (London) 549, 195 (2017).
- M. Larocca, F. Sauvage, F. M. Sbahi, G. Verdon, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Group-invariant quantum machine learning, PRX Quantum 3, 030341 (2022).
- M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 567 (2022).
- J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018).
- M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nat. Commun. 12, 1791 (2021).
- E. R. Anschuetz and B. T. Kiani, Beyond barren plateaus: Quantum variational algorithms are swamped with traps, Nat. Commun. 13, 7760 (2022).
- P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, Error mitigation with clifford quantum-circuit data, Quantum 5, 592 (2021).
- A. Strikis, D. Qin, Y. Chen, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Learning-based quantum error mitigation, PRX Quantum 2, 040330 (2021).
- F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, A. Bengtsson, S. Boixo, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley et al., Observation of separated dynamics of charge and spin in the Fermi-Hubbard model, arXiv:2010.07965.
- A. Montanaro and S. Stanisic, Error mitigation by training with fermionic linear optics, arXiv:2102.02120.
- G. Matos, C. N. Self, Z. Papić, K. Meichanetzidis, and H. Dreyer, Characterization of variational quantum algorithms using free fermions, Quantum 7, 966 (2023).
- E. Grant, L. Wossnig, M. Ostaszewski, and M. Benedetti, An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits, Quantum 3, 214 (2019).
- G. Verdon, M. Broughton, J. R. McClean, K. J. Sung, R. Babbush, Z. Jiang, H. Neven, and M. Mohseni, Learning to learn with quantum neural networks via classical neural networks, arXiv:1907.05415.
- F. Sauvage, S. Sim, A. A. Kunitsa, W. A. Simon, M. Mauri, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, Flip: A flexible initializer for arbitrarily-sized parametrized quantum circuits, arXiv:2103.08572.
- A. Rad, A. Seif, and N. M. Linke, Surviving the barren plateau in variational quantum circuits with Bayesian learning initialization, arXiv:2203.02464.
- X. Liu, G. Liu, H.-K. Zhang, J. Huang, and X. Wang, Mitigating barren plateaus of variational quantum eigensolvers, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 5, 3103719 (2024).
- K. Mitarai, Y. Suzuki, W. Mizukami, Y. O. Nakagawa, and K. Fujii, Quadratic Clifford expansion for efficient benchmarking and initialization of variational quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033012 (2022).
- G. S. Ravi, P. Gokhale, Y. Ding, W. Kirby, K. Smith, J. Baker, P. Love, H. Hoffmann, K. Brown, and F. Chong, CAFQA: A classical simulation bootstrap for variational quantum algorithms, arXiv:2202.12924.
- M. Cheng, K. Khosla, C. Self, M. Lin, B. Li, A. Medina, and M. Kim, Clifford circuit initialization for variational quantum algorithms, arXiv:2207.01539.
- J. Dborin, F. Barratt, V. Wimalaweera, L. Wright, and A. G. Green, Matrix product state pre-training for quantum machine learning, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 035014 (2022).
- A. A. Mele, G. B. Mbeng, G. E. Santoro, M. Collura, and P. Torta, Avoiding barren plateaus via transferability of smooth solutions in a Hamiltonian variational ansatz, Phys. Rev. A 106, L060401 (2022).
- M. S. Rudolph, J. Miller, D. Motlagh, J. Chen, A. Acharya, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, Synergistic pretraining of parametrized quantum circuits via tensor networks, Nat. Commun. 14, 8367 (2023).
- M. Cerezo, M. Larocca, D. García-Martín, N. L. Diaz, P. Braccia, E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, P. Bermejo, A. Ijaz, S. Thanasilp et al., Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability? Or, why we need to rethink variational quantum computing, Nat. Commun. 16, 7907 (2025).
- A. Angrisani, Learning unitaries with quantum statistical queries, Quantum 9, 1817 (2025).
- P. Bermejo, P. Braccia, M. S. Rudolph, Z. Holmes, L. Cincio, and M. Cerezo, Quantum convolutional neural networks are (effectively) classically simulable, arXiv:2408.12739.
- S. Lerch, R. Puig, M. Rudolph, A. Angrisani, T. Jones, M. Cerezo, S. Thanasilp, and Z. Holmes, Efficient quantum-enhanced classical simulation for patches of quantum landscapes, arXiv:2411.19896.
- F. J. Schreiber, J. Eisert, and J. J. Meyer, Classical surrogates for quantum learning models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 100803 (2023).
- S. Jerbi, C. Gyurik, S. C. Marshall, R. Molteni, and V. Dunjko, Shadows of quantum machine learning, Nat. Commun. 15, 5676 (2024).
- Y. Shao, F. Wei, S. Cheng, and Z. Liu, Simulating quantum mean values in noisy variational quantum algorithms: A polynomial-scale approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 120603 (2024).
- A. Basheer, Y. Feng, C. Ferrie, and S. Li, Alternating layered variational quantum circuits can be classically optimized efficiently using classical shadows, in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI, 2023), Vol. 37, pp. 6770–6778.
- R. Shaffer, L. Kocia, and M. Sarovar, Surrogate-based optimization for variational quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032415 (2023).
- E. R. Anschuetz, A. Bauer, B. T. Kiani, and S. Lloyd, Efficient classical algorithms for simulating symmetric quantum systems, Quantum 7, 1189 (2023).
- A. A. Mele and Y. Herasymenko, Efficient learning of quantum states prepared with few fermionic non-Gaussian gates, PRX Quantum 6, 010319 (2025).
- R. D. Somma, Quantum computation, complexity, and many-body physics, arXiv:quant-ph/0512209.
- R. Somma, H. Barnum, G. Ortiz, and E. Knill, Efficient solvability of Hamiltonians and limits on the power of some quantum computational models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 190501 (2006).
- L. Schatzki, M. Larocca, Q. T. Nguyen, F. Sauvage, and M. Cerezo, Theoretical guarantees for permutation-equivariant quantum neural networks, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 12 (2024).
- X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Babbush, and T. E. O'Brien, Nearly optimal measurement scheduling for partial tomography of quantum states, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031064 (2020).
- E. Kökcü, T. Steckmann, Y. Wang, J. Freericks, E. F. Dumitrescu, and A. F. Kemper, Fixed depth Hamiltonian simulation via Cartan decomposition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 070501 (2022).
- S. Qvarfort and I. Pikovski, Solving quantum dynamics with a Lie algebra decoupling method, arXiv:2210.11894.
- A. Barthe, M. Cerezo, A. T. Sornborger, M. Larocca, and D. García-Martín, Gate-based quantum simulation of Gaussian bosonic circuits on exponentially many modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 070604 (2025).
- R. D. Somma, R. King, R. Kothari, T. O'Brien, and R. Babbush, Shadow Hamiltonian simulation, arXiv:2407.21775.
- M. T. West, J. Heredge, M. Sevior, and M. Usman, Provably trainable rotationally equivariant quantum machine learning, PRX Quantum 5, 030320 (2024).
- S. Kazi, M. Larocca, M. Farinati, P. J. Coles, M. Cerezo, and R. Zeier, Analyzing the quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Ansätze, symmetries, and Lie algebras, arXiv:2410.05187.
- M. Oszmaniec and Z. Zimborás, Universal extensions of restricted classes of quantum operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 220502 (2017).
- E. Pozzoli, M. Leibscher, M. Sigalotti, U. Boscain, and C. P. Koch, Lie algebra for rotational subsystems of a driven asymmetric top, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55, 215301 (2022).
- R. Wiersema, E. Kökcü, A. F. Kemper, and B. N. Bakalov, Classification of dynamical Lie algebras of 2-local spin systems on linear, circular and fully connected topologies, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 110 (2024).
- E. Kökcü, R. Wiersema, A. F. Kemper, and B. N. Bakalov, Classification of dynamical Lie algebras generated by spin interactions on undirected graphs, arXiv:2409.19797.
- G. Aguilar, S. Cichy, J. Eisert, and L. Bittel, Full classification of Pauli Lie algebras, arXiv:2408.00081.
- E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019).
- 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, 1 (2014).
- B. C. Hall, Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations (Springer, Springer-Verlag New York, 2013).
- A. Kirillov Jr., An Introduction to Lie groups and Lie Algebras (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008), p. 113.
- D. D'Alessandro, Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, Chapman & Hall/CRC Applied Mathematics & Nonlinear Science (Taylor & Francis, New York, 2007).
- R. Zeier and T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, Symmetry principles in quantum systems theory, J. Math. Phys. 52, 113510 (2011).
- 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).
- M. Larocca, N. Ju, D. García-Martín, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Theory of overparametrization in quantum neural networks, Nat. Comput. Sci. 3, 542 (2023).
- R. Wiersema, C. Zhou, Y. de Sereville, J. F. Carrasquilla, Y. B. Kim, and H. Yuen, Exploring entanglement and optimization within the Hamiltonian variational ansatz, PRX Quantum 1, 020319 (2020).
- M. R. Geller and Z. Zhou, Efficient error models for fault-tolerant architectures and the Pauli twirling approximation, Phys. Rev. A 88, 012314 (2013).
- Z. Cai and S. C. Benjamin, Constructing smaller Pauli twirling sets for arbitrary error channels, Sci. Rep. 9, 11281 (2019).
- E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse Pauli–Lindblad models on noisy quantum processors, Nat. Phys. 19, 1116 (2023).
- T. Jones and J. Gacon, Efficient calculation of gradients in classical simulations of variational quantum algorithms, arXiv:2009.02823.
- S. Lloyd, Almost any quantum logic gate is universal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 346 (1995).
- R. D. Mattuck, A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in the Many-Body Problem (Dover Publications, New York, 2012).
- R. Gilmore, On the properties of coherent states, Rev. Mex. Fis. 23, 143 (1974).
- A. M. Perelomov, Generalized coherent states and some of their applications, Sov. Phys. Usp. 20, 703 (1977).
- W.-M. Zhang, R. Gilmore et al., Coherent states: Theory and some applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 867 (1990).
- R. Delbourgo and J. Fox, Maximum weight vectors possess minimal uncertainty, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 10, L233 (1977).
- S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004).
- A. Heimendahl, F. Montealegre-Mora, F. Vallentin, and D. Gross, Stabilizer extent is not multiplicative, Quantum 5, 400 (2021).
- O. Reardon-Smith, The fermionic linear optical extent is multiplicative for 4 qubit parity eigenstates, arXiv:2407.20934.
- P. Bermejo, P. Braccia, A. A. Mele, N. L. Diaz, A. E. Deneris, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, Characterizing quantum resourcefulness via group-fourier decompositions (unpublished).
- M. L. Goh, G-sim, https://github.com/gohmat/g-sim (2023).
- B. Dias and R. Koenig, Classical simulation of non-Gaussian fermionic circuits, Quantum 8, 1350 (2024).
- J. Cudby and S. Strelchuk, Gaussian decomposition of magic states for matchgate computations, arXiv:2307.12654.
- E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, R. Duncan, I. Rungger, and C. Cîrstoiu, Classical simulations of noisy variational quantum circuits, arXiv:2306.05400.
- C. Cirstoiu, A Fourier analysis framework for approximate classical simulations of quantum circuits, arXiv:2410.13856.
- L. Bittel and M. Kliesch, Training variational quantum algorithms is NP-hard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 120502 (2021).
- B. Neyshabur, Z. Li, S. Bhojanapalli, Y. LeCun, and N. Srebro, The role of over-parametrization in generalization of neural networks, in International Conference on Learning Representations (2018).
- C. Zhang, S. Bengio, M. Hardt, B. Recht, and O. Vinyals, Understanding deep learning (still) requires rethinking generalization, Commun. ACM 64, 107 (2021).
- Z. Allen-Zhu, Y. Li, and Y. Liang, Learning and generalization in overparameterized neural networks, going beyond two layers, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 32 (2019).
- S. Du, J. Lee, H. Li, L. Wang, and X. Zhai, Gradient descent finds global minima of deep neural networks, in International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR, 2019), pp. 1675–1685.
- R.-D. Buhai, Y. Halpern, Y. Kim, A. Risteski, and D. Sontag, Empirical study of the benefits of overparameterization in learning latent variable models, in International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR, 2020), pp. 1211–1219.
- S. S. Du, X. Zhai, B. Poczos, and A. Singh, Gradient descent provably optimizes over-parameterized neural networks, in International Conference on Learning Representations (2019).
- A. Brutzkus, A. Globerson, E. Malach, and S. Shalev-Shwartz, SGD learns over-parameterized networks that provably generalize on linearly separable data, in International Conference on Learning Representations (2018).
- D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015).
- W. W. Ho and T. H. Hsieh, Efficient variational simulation of non-trivial quantum states, SciPost Phys. 6, 029 (2019).
- C. Cade, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, and S. Stanisic, Strategies for solving the Fermi-Hubbard model on near-term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. B 102, 235122 (2020).
- Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus, PRX Quantum 3, 010313 (2022).
- A. Arrasmith, Z. Holmes, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Equivalence of quantum barren plateaus to cost concentration and narrow gorges, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 045015 (2022).
- R. Puig, M. Drudis, S. Thanasilp, and Z. Holmes, Variational quantum simulation: A case study for understanding warm starts, PRX Quantum 6, 010317 (2025).
- M. Broughton, G. Verdon, T. McCourt, A. J. Martinez, J. H. Yoo, S. V. Isakov, P. Massey, R. Halavati, M. Yuezhen Niu, A. Zlokapa, E. Peters, O. Lockwood, A. Skolik, S. Jerbi, V. Dunjko, M. Leib, M. Streif, D. Von Dollen, H. Chen, S. Cao et al., Tensorflow quantum: A software framework for quantum machine learning, arXiv:2003.02989.
- E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028.
- R. M. Karp, Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems (Springer, New York, 1972).
- M. X. Goemans and D. P. Williamson, Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming, J. ACM 42, 1115 (1995).
- A. Ozaeta, W. van Dam, and P. L. McMahon, Expectation values from the single-layer quantum approximate optimization algorithm on Ising problems, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 045036 (2022).
- L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021067 (2020).
- G. Koßmann, L. Binkowski, L. van Luijk, T. Ziegler, and R. Schwonnek, Deep-circuit QAOA, arXiv:2210.12406.
- M. Oszmaniec, N. Dangniam, M. E. Morales, and Z. Zimborás, Fermion sampling: A robust quantum computational advantage scheme using fermionic linear optics and magic input states, PRX Quantum 3, 020328 (2022).
- S. Khatri, R. LaRose, A. Poremba, L. Cincio, A. T. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, Quantum-assisted quantum compiling, Quantum 3, 140 (2019).
- K. Sharma, S. Khatri, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Noise resilience of variational quantum compiling, New J. Phys. 22, 043006 (2020).
- M. C. Caro, H.-Y. Huang, N. Ezzell, J. Gibbs, A. T. Sornborger, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and Z. Holmes, Out-of-distribution generalization for learning quantum dynamics, Nat. Commun. 14, 3751 (2023).
- J. Gibbs, Z. Holmes, M. C. Caro, N. Ezzell, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, A. T. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, Dynamical simulation via quantum machine learning with provable generalization, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013241 (2024).
- P. W. Anderson, Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices, Phys. Rev. 109, 1492 (1958).
- C. Cîrstoiu, Z. Holmes, J. Iosue, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Variational fast forwarding for quantum simulation beyond the coherence time, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 82 (2020).
- S.-H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Pollmann, Real-and imaginary-time evolution with compressed quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 2, 010342 (2021).
- N. F. Berthusen, T. V. Trevisan, T. Iadecola, and P. P. Orth, Quantum dynamics simulations beyond the coherence time on noisy intermediate-scale quantum hardware by variational Trotter compression, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023097 (2022).
- M. L. Goh and B. Koczor, Direct estimation of the density of states for fermionic systems, arXiv:2407.03414.
- V. Bucaj, On the Kunz-Souillard approach to localization for the discrete one dimensional generalized Anderson model, arXiv:1608.01379.
- I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Quantum simulation of electronic structure with linear depth and connectivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 110501 (2018).
- F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell et al., Hartree-Fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, Science 369, 1084 (2020).
- W. Mizukami, K. Mitarai, Y. O. Nakagawa, T. Yamamoto, T. Yan, and Y.-y. Ohnishi, Orbital optimized unitary coupled cluster theory for quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033421 (2020).
- P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Noiseless quantum codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3306 (1997).
- B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal encoded quantum gate sets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 110502 (2009).
- N. Khaneja, R. Brockett, and S. J. Glaser, Time optimal control in spin systems, Phys. Rev. A 63, 032308 (2001).
- Z. Zimborás, R. Zeier, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, and D. Burgarth, Symmetry criteria for quantum simulability of effective interactions, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042309 (2015).
- I. Marvian, Restrictions on realizable unitary operations imposed by symmetry and locality, Nat. Phys. 18, 283 (2022).
- T.-C. Yen and A. F. Izmaylov, Cartan subalgebra approach to efficient measurements of quantum observables, PRX Quantum 2, 040320 (2021).
- T. Steckmann, T. Keen, A. F. Kemper, E. F. Dumitrescu, and Y. Wang, Simulating the Mott transition on a noisy digital quantum computer via Cartan-based fast-forwarding circuits, arXiv:2112.05688.
- Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O'Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023).
- E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012307 (2008).
- J. Helsen, S. Nezami, M. Reagor, and M. Walter, Matchgate benchmarking: Scalable benchmarking of a continuous family of many-qubit gates, Quantum 6, 657 (2022).
- D. García-Martín, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, Effects of noise on the overparametrization of quantum neural networks, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013295 (2024).
- M. Duschenes, J. Carrasquilla, and R. Laflamme, Characterization of overparametrization in the simulation of realistic quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062607 (2024).
- W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, N. Wiebe, K. B. Whaley, and R. Babbush, Efficient and noise resilient measurements for quantum chemistry on near-term quantum computers, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 23 (2021).
- L. Lamata, A. Parra-Rodriguez, M. Sanz, and E. Solano, Digital-analog quantum simulations with superconducting circuits, Adv. Phys.: X 3, 1457981 (2018).
- A. Parra-Rodriguez, P. Lougovski, L. Lamata, E. Solano, and M. Sanz, Digital-analog quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 101, 022305 (2020).
- O. R. Meitei, B. T. Gard, G. S. Barron, D. P. Pappas, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Gate-free state preparation for fast variational quantum eigensolver simulations: ctrl-VQE, arXiv:2008.04302.
- L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum 4, 327 (2020).
- A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature (London) 607, 667 (2022).
- J. Wurtz, A. Bylinskii, B. Braverman, J. Amato-Grill, S. H. Cantu, F. Huber, A. Lukin, F. Liu, P. Weinberg, J. Long et al., Aquila: Quera's 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum computer, arXiv:2306.11727.
- A. Richards, University of Oxford Advanced Research Computing (2015), doi:10.5281/zenodo.22558.
- J. Côté, F. Sauvage, M. Larocca, M. Jonsson, L. Cincio, and T. Albash, Diabatic quantum annealing for the frustrated ring model, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 045033 (2023).
- S. Machnes, E. Assémat, D. Tannor, and F. K. Wilhelm, Tunable, flexible, and efficient optimization of control pulses for practical qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 150401 (2018).
- R. T. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud, Neural ordinary differential equations, AAdv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 31 (2018).
- F. Schäfer, M. Kloc, C. Bruder, and N. Lörch, A differentiable programming method for quantum control, Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 1, 035009 (2020).
- F. Sauvage and F. Mintert, Optimal control of families of quantum gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 050507 (2022).
- L. M. Robledo, Sign of the overlap of Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov wave functions, Phys. Rev. C 79, 021302 (2009).
- H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050 (2020).