- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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

Double-bracket quantum algorithms for high-fidelity ground-state preparation

Matteo Robbiati1,2,*, Edoardo Pedicillo2,3,*, Andrea Pasquale2,3,4,*, Xiaoyue Li5,*, Oriel Kiss1,6,*, Andrew Wright7, Renato M. S. Farias3,8, Khanh Uyen Giang5, Jeongrak Son5 et al.

Johannes Knörzer9, Siong Thye Goh10, Jun Yong Khoo10, Nelly H. Y. Ng5, Zoë Holmes7, Stefano Carrazza1,2,3,4, and Marek Gluza5,†

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: marekludwik.gluza@ntu.edu.sg
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033078 – Published 17 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/jz88-32rb

Abstract

Ground-state preparation is a central application for quantum computers but remains challenging in practice. In this work, we quantitatively investigate the performance and gate counts of double-bracket quantum algorithms (DBQAs) for ground-state preparation. We propose a practical strategy in which DBQAs refine initial state preparation circuits, and we compile them for Heisenberg chains using controlled-Z and single-qubit gates. Warm-started DBQAs consistently improve both the energy and ground-state fidelity relative to the initial states provided by variational ansätze, indicating that DBQAs offer an effective unitary synthesis method. To demonstrate compatibility with near-term hardware, we executed a proof-of-concept example on IBM devices. With error mitigation, we observed a statistically significant improvement over the corresponding warm-start circuit. Furthermore, numerical emulations for the same system size indicate that executing DBQAs on Quantinuum's hardware could achieve similar cost-function gains without requiring error mitigation. These findings suggest that DBQAs are a promising approach for enhancing ground-state approximations on near-term quantum devices.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (138)

  1. Y. Dong, L. Lin, and Y. Tong, Ground-state preparation and energy estimation on early fault-tolerant quantum computers via quantum eigenvalue transformation of unitary matrices, PRX Quantum 3, 040305 (2022).
  2. L. Lin and Y. Tong, Heisenberg-limited ground-state energy estimation for early fault-tolerant quantum computers, PRX Quantum 3, 010318 (2022).
  3. Y. Ge, J. Tura, and J. I. Cirac, Faster ground state preparation and high-precision ground energy estimation with fewer qubits, J. Math. Phys. 60, 022202 (2019).
  4. O. Kiss, U. Azad, B. Requena, A. Roggero, D. Wakeham, and J. M. Arrazola, Early fault-tolerant quantum algorithms in practice: Application to ground-state energy estimation, Quantum 9, 1682 (2025).
  5. 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).
  6. D. W. Berry, Y. Tong, T. Khattar, A. White, T. I. Kim, G. H. Low, S. Boixo, Z. Ding, L. Lin, S. Lee, G. K.-L. Chan, R. Babbush, and N. C. Rubin, Rapid initial-state preparation for the quantum simulation of strongly correlated molecules, PRX Quantum 6, 020327 (2025).
  7. L. Lin and Y. Tong, Near-optimal ground state preparation, Quantum 4, 372 (2020).
  8. K. Bharti et al., Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022).
  9. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021).
  10. J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, et al., The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep. 986, 1 (2022).
  11. E. R. Anschuetz and B. T. Kiani, Beyond barren plateaus: Quantum variational algorithms are swamped with traps, Nat. Commun. 13, 7760 (2022).
  12. 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).
  13. L. Bittel and M. Kliesch, Training variational quantum algorithms is NP-Hard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 120502 (2021).
  14. D. Stilck Franca and R. Garcia-Patron, Limitations of optimization algorithms on noisy quantum devices, Nat. Phys. 17, 1221 (2021).
  15. M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Biamonte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, A review of barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nat. Rev. Phys. 7, 174 (2024) .
  16. 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 (2023).
  17. M. Gluza, Double-bracket quantum algorithms for diagonalization, Quantum 8, 1316 (2024).
  18. M. Gluza, J. Son, B. H. Tiang, R. Zander, R. Seidel, Y. Suzuki, Z. Holmes, and N. H. Y. Ng, Double-bracket quantum algorithms for quantum imaginary-time evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 020601 (2026).
  19. R. Zander, R. Seidel, L. Xiaoyue, and M. Gluza, Role of Riemannian geometry in double-bracket quantum imaginary-time evolution, in Geometric Science of Information, edited by F. Nielsen and F. Barbaresco (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2026), pp. 105–114.
  20. Y. Suzuki, B. H. Tiang, J. Son, N. H. Y. Ng, Z. Holmes, and M. Gluza, Double-bracket algorithm for quantum signal processing without post-selection, Quantum 9, 1954 (2025).
  21. U. Helmke and J. B. Moore, Optimization and Dynamical Systems (Springer, London, 1994).
  22. Y. Suzuki, M. Gluza, J. Son, B. H. Tiang, N. H. Ng, and Z. Holmes, Grover's algorithm is an approximation of imaginary-time evolution, arXiv:2507.15065.
  23. A. Katabarwa, K. Gratsea, A. Caesura, and P. D. Johnson, Early fault-tolerant quantum computing, PRX Quantum 5, 020101 (2024).
  24. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  25. J. Montanez-Barrera, K. Michielsen, and D. E. B. Neira, Evaluating the performance of quantum processing units at large width and depth, arXiv:2502.06471.
  26. J. B. Moore, R. E. Mahony, and U. Helmke, Numerical gradient algorithms for eigenvalue and singular value calculations, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 15, 881 (1994).
  27. S. T. Smith, Geometric Optimization Methods for Adaptive Filtering (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1993).
  28. 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).
  29. J. L. Bosse and A. Montanaro, Probing ground-state properties of the kagome antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model using the variational quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. B 105, 094409 (2022).
  30. J. Kattemölle and J. van Wezel, Variational quantum eigensolver for the Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the kagome lattice, Phys. Rev. B 106, 214429 (2022).
  31. D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015).
  32. 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).
  33. S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992).
  34. K. G. Wilson, The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the Kondo problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 773 (1975).
  35. M. Motta, C. Sun, Adrian T. K. Tan, M. J. O'Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nat. Phys. 16, 205 (2020).
  36. H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Implementation of quantum imaginary-time evolution method on NISQ devices by introducing nonlocal approximation, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 85 (2021).
  37. S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 75 (2019).
  38. N. Gomes, A. Mukherjee, F. Zhang, T. Iadecola, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, P. P. Orth, and Y.-X. Yao, Adaptive variational quantum imaginary time evolution approach for ground state preparation, Adv. Quantum Technol. 4, 2100114 (2021).
  39. S. Fomichev, K. Hejazi, M. S. Zini, M. Kiser, J. Fraxanet, P. A. M. Casares, A. Delgado, J. Huh, A.-C. Voigt, J. E. Mueller, and J. M. Arrazola, Initial state preparation for quantum chemistry on quantum computers, PRX Quantum 5, 040339 (2024).
  40. F. Verstraete, M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nat. Phys. 5, 633 (2009).
  41. M.-A. Filip and N. Fitzpatrick, Beyond asymptotic reasoning: The practicalities of a quantum ground state projector based on the Wall–Chebyshev expansion, Quantum Sci. Technol. 11, 015027 (2026).
  42. F. Wegner, Flow-equations for Hamiltonians, Ann. Phys. 506, 77 (1994).
  43. S. D. Głazek and K. G. Wilson, Renormalization of Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. D 48, 5863 (1993).
  44. F. Wegner, Flow equations and normal ordering: A survey, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 8221 (2006).
  45. S. Kehrein, The Flow Equation Approach to Many-Particle Systems, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, Vol. 217 (Springer, Berlin, 2006).
  46. R. Brockett, Dynamical systems that sort lists, diagonalize matrices, and solve linear programming problems, Linear Algebra Appl. 146, 79 (1991).
  47. A. Anshu, D. Gosset, K. J. Morenz Korol, and M. Soleimanifar, Improved approximation algorithms for bounded-degree local Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 250502 (2021).
  48. T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, S. J. Glaser, G. Dirr, and U. Helmke, Gradient flows for optimization in quantum information and quantum dynamics: Foundations and applications, Rev. Math. Phys. 22, 597 (2010).
  49. B. Zindorf and S. Bose, Efficient implementation of multi-controlled quantum gates, Phys. Rev. Appl. 24, 044030 (2025).
  50. S. Balauca and A. Arusoaie, Efficient constructions for simulating multi controlled quantum gates, in International Conference on Computational Science (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2022), pp. 179–194.
  51. B. Zindorf and S. Bose, Multi-controlled quantum gates in linear nearest neighbor, arXiv:2506.00695.
  52. X. Wang, A. Sorensen, and K. Molmer, Multibit gates for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3907 (2001).
  53. J. Son, M. Gluza, R. Takagi, and N. H. Y. Ng, Quantum dynamic programming Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 180602 (2024).
  54. Y.-A. Chen, A. M. Childs, M. Hafezi, Z. Jiang, H. Kim, and Y. Xu, Efficient product formulas for commutators and applications to quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013191 (2022).
  55. A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Product formulas for exponentials of commutators, J. Math. Phys. 54, 062202 (2013).
  56. G. Kuperberg, Breaking the cubic barrier in the Solovay–Kitaev algorithm, arXiv:2306.13158.
  57. A. Elkasapy and A. Thom, On the length of the shortest non-trivial element in the derived and the lower central series, J. Group Theory 18, 793 (2015).
  58. A. Elkasapy, A new construction for the shortest non-trivial element in the lower central series, arXiv:1610.09725.
  59. J. Peetz and P. Narang, Hamiltonian simulation via stochastic Zassenhaus expansions, arXiv:2501.13922.
  60. A. M. Childs and Y. Su, Nearly optimal lattice simulation by product formulas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 050503 (2019).
  61. E. Campbell, Random compiler for fast Hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070503 (2019).
  62. L. Xiaoyue, M. Robbiati, A. Pasquale, E. Pedicillo, A. Wright, S. Carrazza, and M. Gluza, Strategies for optimizing double-bracket quantum algorithms, arXiv:2408.07431.
  63. F. Levkovich-Maslyuk, The Bethe ansatz, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 323004 (2016).
  64. A. Sopena, M. H. Gordon, D. García-Martín, G. Sierra, and E. López, Algebraic Bethe circuits, Quantum 6, 796 (2022).
  65. R. Ruiz, A. Sopena, M. H. Gordon, G. Sierra, and E. López, The Bethe ansatz as a quantum circuit, Quantum 8, 1356 (2024).
  66. V. Murg, V. E. Korepin, and F. Verstraete, Algebraic Bethe ansatz and tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B 86, 045125 (2012).
  67. R. I. Nepomechie, Bethe ansatz on a quantum computer? arXiv:2010.01609.
  68. T. Fogarty, S. Deffner, T. Busch, and S. Campbell, Orthogonality catastrophe as a consequence of the quantum speed limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110601 (2020).
  69. M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y.-K. Liu, Efficient quantum state tomography, Nat. Commun. 1, 149 (2010).
  70. Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus, PRX Quantum 3, 010313 (2022).
  71. P. Nataf and F. Mila, Exact diagonalization of Heisenberg SU(N) models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 127204 (2014).
  72. M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys. 378, 686 (2019).
  73. G.-L. R. Anselmetti, D. Wierichs, C. Gogolin and R. M. Parrish, Local, expressive, quantum-number-preserving VQE ansätze for fermionic systems, New J. Phys. 23, 113010 (2021).
  74. J. M. Arrazola, O. Di Matteo, N. Quesada, S. Jahangiri, A. Delgado, and N. Killoran, Universal quantum circuits for quantum chemistry, Quantum 6, 742 (2022).
  75. S. Johri, S. Debnath, A. Mocherla, A. Singk, A. Prakash, J. Kim, and I. Kerenidis, Nearest centroid classification on a trapped ion quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 122 (2021).
  76. I. Kerenidis and A. Prakash, Quantum machine learning with subspace states, arXiv:2202.00054.
  77. N. Jain, J. Landman, N. Mathur, and I. Kerenidis, Quantum Fourier networks for solving parametric PDEs, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 035026 (2024).
  78. M. Ragone, P. Braccia, Q. T. Nguyen, L. Schatzki, P. J. Coles, F. Sauvage, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, Representation theory for geometric quantum machine learning, arXiv:2210.07980.
  79. L. Monbroussou, J. Landman, A. B. Grilo, R. Kukla, and E. Kashefi, Trainability and expressivity of Hamming-weight preserving quantum circuits for machine learning, Quantum 9, 1745 (2023).
  80. C. Tüysüz, S. Y. Chang, M. Demidik, K. Jansen, S. Vallecorsa, and M. Grossi, Symmetry breaking in geometric quantum machine learning in the presence of noise PRX Quantum 5, 030314 (2024).
  81. D. Raveh and R. I. Nepomechie, Estimating Bethe roots with VQE, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 57, 355303 (2024).
  82. R. M. S. Farias, T. O. Maciel, G. Camilo, R. Lin, S. Ramos-Calderer, and L. Aolita, Quantum encoder for fixed Hamming-weight subspaces, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 044014 (2025).
  83. E. A. Cherrat, I. Kerenidis, N. Mathur, J. Landman, M. Strahm, and Y. Y. Li, Quantum vision transformers, Quantum 8, 1265 (2024).
  84. G. Crognaletti, G. D. Bartolomeo, M. Vischi, and L. L. Viteritti, Equivariant variational quantum eigensolver to detect phase transitions through energy level crossings, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 015048 (2025).
  85. 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).
  86. C. Gu, M. Heinz, O. Kiss, and T. Papenbrock, Toward scalable quantum computations of atomic nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 113, 034321 (2026).
  87. M. Grossi, O. Kiss, F. De Luca, C. Zollo, I. Gremese, and A. Mandarino, Finite-size criticality in fully connected spin models on superconducting quantum hardware, Phys. Rev. E 107, 024113 (2023).
  88. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017).
  89. N. Hansen, The CMA evolution strategy: A tutorial, arXiv:1604.00772.
  90. M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032331 (2019).
  91. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2015).
  92. C.-Y. Park and N. Killoran, Hamiltonian variational ansatz without barren plateaus, Quantum 8, 1239 (2024).
  93. 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).
  94. 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).
  95. O. Kiss, D. Teplitskiy, M. Grossi, and A. Mandarino, Statistics of topological defects across a phase transition in a superconducting quantum processor, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 035037 (2025).
  96. M. Urbanek, B. Nachman, V. R. Pascuzzi, A. He, C. W. Bauer, and W. A. de Jong, Mitigating depolarizing noise on quantum computers with noise-estimation circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 270502 (2021).
  97. O. Kiss, M. Grossi, and A. Roggero, Quantum error mitigation for Fourier moment computation, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034504 (2025).
  98. O. Kiss, I. Tavernelli, F. Tacchino, D. Lacroix, and A. Roggero, Neutrino thermalization via randomization on a quantum processor, arXiv:2510.24841.
  99. Z. Cai and S. Benjamin, Constructing smaller Pauli twirling sets for arbitrary error channels, Sci. Rep. 9, 1128 (2019).
  100. P. D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gambetta, Scalable mitigation of measurement errors on quantum computers, PRX Quantum 2, 040326 (2021).
  101. E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, and K. Temme, Model-free readout-error mitigation for quantum expectation values, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032620 (2022).
  102. Double-bracket quantum algorithms in Qibo, GitHub, 2025, https://github.com/qiboteam/qibo-dbqa.
  103. S. Efthymiou, S. Ramos-Calderer, C. Bravo-Prieto, A. Pérez-Salinas, D. García-Martín, A. Garcia-Saez, J. I. Latorre, and S. Carrazza, Qibo: A framework for quantum simulation with hardware acceleration, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 015018 (2022).
  104. 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, Sci. Adv. 11, eadu9991 (2025).
  105. N. Yoshioka, M. Amico, W. Kirby, P. Jurcevic, A. Dutt, B. Fuller, S. Garion, H. Haas, I. Hamamura, A. Ivrii, R. Majumdar, Z. Minev, M. Motta, B. Pokharel, P. Rivero, K. Sharma, C. J. Wood, A. Javadi-Abhari, and A. Mezzacapo, Krylov diagonalization of large many-body Hamiltonians on a quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 16, 5014 (2025).
  106. R. Wiersema and N. Killoran, Optimizing quantum circuits with Riemannian gradient flow, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062421 (2023).
  107. J. Stokes, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, and G. Carleo, Quantum natural gradient, Quantum 4, 269 (2020).
  108. S. Carrazza, S. Efthymiou, M. Lazzarin, and A. Pasquale, An open-source modular framework for quantum computing, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2438, 012148 (2023).
  109. S. Efthymiou, M. Lazzarin, A. Pasquale, and S. Carrazza, Quantum simulation with just-in-time compilation, Quantum 6, 814 (2022).
  110. S. Efthymiou et al., Qibolab: An open-source hybrid quantum operating system, Quantum 8, 1247 (2024).
  111. A. Pasquale, A. Papaluca, R. M. S. Farias, M. Robbiati, E. Pedicillo, and S. Carrazza, Beyond full statevector simulation with Qibo, arXiv:2408.00384.
  112. E. Pedicillo, A. Candido, S. Efthymiou, H. Sargsyan, Y. P. Tan, J. Cereijo, J. Y. Khoo, A. Pasquale, M. Robbiati, and S. Carrazza, An open-source framework for quantum hardware control, arXiv:2407.21737.
  113. A. Pasquale, S. Efthymiou, S. Ramos-Calderer, J. Wilkens, I. Roth, and S. Carrazza, Towards an open-source framework to perform quantum calibration and characterization, arXiv:2303.10397.
  114. A. Pérez-Salinas, J. Cruz-Martinez, A. A. Alhajri, and S. Carrazza, Determining the proton content with a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034027 (2021).
  115. C. Bravo-Prieto, J. Baglio, M. Cè, A. Francis, D. M. Grabowska, and S. Carrazza, Style-based quantum generative adversarial networks for Monte Carlo events, Quantum 6, 777 (2022).
  116. M. Robbiati, J. M. Cruz-Martinez, and S. Carrazza, Determining probability density functions with adiabatic quantum computing, Quantum Mach. Intell. 7, 5 (2025).
  117. J. M. Cruz-Martinez, M. Robbiati, and S. Carrazza, Multi-variable integration with a variational quantum circuit, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 035053 (2024).
  118. S. Bordoni, D. Stanev, T. Santantonio, and S. Giagu, Long-lived particles anomaly detection with parametrized quantum circuits, Particles 6, 297 (2023).
  119. V. Belis, K. A. Woźniak, E. Puljak, P. Barkoutsos, G. Dissertori, M. Grossi, M. Pierini, F. Reiter, I. Tavernelli, and S. Vallecorsa, Quantum anomaly detection in the latent space of proton collision events at the LHC, Commun. Phys. 7, 334 (2024).
  120. J. J. Martínez de Lejarza, L. Cieri, M. Grossi, S. Vallecorsa, and G. Rodrigo, Loop Feynman integration on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D 110, 074031 (2024).
  121. M. Robbiati, S. Efthymiou, A. Pasquale, and S. Carrazza, A quantum analytical Adam descent through parameter shift rule using Qibo, arXiv:2210.10787.
  122. M. Robbiati, A. Sopena, A. Papaluca, and S. Carrazza, Real-time error mitigation for variational optimization on quantum hardware, arXiv:2311.05680.
  123. A. D’Elia et al., Characterization of a transmon qubit in a 3D cavity for quantum machine learning and photon counting, Appl. Sci. 14, 1478 (2024).
  124. F. Chollet et al., Keras (2015), https://keras.io.
  125. M. Abadi et al., TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems (2015), software available from http://tensorflow.org.
  126. P. Virtanen et al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nat. Methods 17, 261 (2020).
  127. K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Quantum circuit learning, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032309 (2018).
  128. F. Vatan and C. Williams, Optimal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032315 (2004).
  129. V. V. Shende, S. S. Bullock, and I. L. Markov, Synthesis of quantum logic circuits, in Proceedings of the 2005 Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ACM Digital, New York, 2005), pp. 272–275.
  130. J. V. José, 40 Years of Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless Theory (World Scientific, Singapore, 2013).
  131. S. R. White and I. Affleck, Dimerization and incommensurate spiral spin correlations in the zigzag spin chain: Analogies to the Kondo lattice, Phys. Rev. B 54, 9862 (1996).
  132. S. Bordoni et al., Quantum noise modeling through reinforcement learning, Quantum Sci. Technol. 11, 015005 (2026).
  133. N. A. McMahon, M. Pervez, and C. Arenz, Equating quantum imaginary time evolution, Riemannian gradient flows, and stochastic implementations, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 023024 (2026).
  134. Z. Lai, H. Nie, J. Wu, and D. An, Quantum circuit design from a retraction-based Riemannian optimization framework, arXiv:2602.20605.
  135. H. Westerheim, J. Chen, Z. Holmes, I. Luo, T. Nuradha, D. Patel, S. Rethinasamy, K. Wang, and M. M. Wilde, Dual variational quantum eigensolver: A quantum algorithm to lower bound the ground-state energy, Phys. Rev. A 113, 032443 (2026).
  136. C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, et al., Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of lattice models, Nature (London) 569, 355 (2019).
  137. K. Yamamoto, S. Duffield, Y. Kikuchi, and D. M. Ramo, Demonstrating Bayesian quantum phase estimation with quantum error detection, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013221 (2024).
  138. K. Yamamoto (private communication).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033078– Published 17 July, 2026
  • Received 12 December 2024
  • Accepted 14 May 2026
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