- 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

Prospects for NMR spectral prediction on fault-tolerant quantum computers

J. E. Elenewski1,*, C. M. Camara2, and A. Kalev3,4,†

  • *Contact author: justin.elenewski@ll.mit.edu
  • †Contact author: amirk@isi.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013315 – Published 24 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/km66-ltpl

Abstract

Advanced atomic magnetometers have made it possible to acquire nuclear magnetic resonance spectra in zero to ultralow magnetic fields. This regime carries the benefit of compact, low-cost instrumentation with reduced spin relaxation effects and the ability to probe phenomena that are inaccessible in conventional high-field experiments. A trade-off is that the resulting spectra must be interpreted using simulations that are taxing for classical computation. Working by example for small-molecule and protein spectroscopy, we demonstrate that these simulations are a promising target for fault-tolerant quantum computation. Our holistic analysis spans from input selection to the construction of explicit circuits for qubitized quantum dynamics. By maintaining parity with experimental requirements, we demonstrate how certain cases might be especially promising for early fault-tolerant architectures. Notably, valuable natural products and small proteins could be simulated with a few hundred logical qubits and less than 1012 T gates, corresponding to days of runtime with foreseeable hardware based on spin or superconducting qubits.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (133)

  1. R. R. Ernst, G. Bodenhausen, and A. Wokaun, Principles of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in One and Two Dimensions (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1990).
  2. Y. Hu, K. Cheng, L. He, X. Zhang, B. Jiang, L. Jiang, C. Li, G. Wang, Y. Yang, and M. Liu, NMR-based methods for protein analysis, Anal. Chem. 93, 1866 (2021).
  3. M. Marušič, M. Toplishek, and J. Plavec, NMR of RNA—Structure and interactions, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 79, 102532 (2023).
  4. C. Fontana and G. Widmalm, Primary structure of glycans by NMR spectroscopy, Chem. Rev. 123, 1040 (2023).
  5. G. S. Rule and T. K. Hitchens, Fundamentals of Protein NMR Spectroscopy (Springer, New York, 2006).
  6. R. Sprangers, A. Velyvis, and L. E. Kay, Solution NMR of supramolecular complexes: Providing new insights into function, Nat. Methods 4, 697 (2007).
  7. M. Weingarth and M. Baldus, Solid-state NMR-based approaches for supramolecular structure elucidation, Acc. Chem. Res. 46, 2037 (2013).
  8. R. Rosenzweig and L. E. Kay, Solution NMR spectroscopy provides an avenue for the study of functionally dynamic molecular machines: The example of protein disaggregation, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 138, 1466 (2016).
  9. R. Puthenveetil and O. Vinogradova, Solution NMR: A powerful tool for structural and functional studies of membrane proteins in reconstituted environments, J. Biol. Chem. 294, 15914 (2019).
  10. P. Bayer, A. Matena, and C. Beuck, NMR spectroscopy of supramolecular chemistry on protein surfaces, Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 16, 2505 (2020).
  11. B. Reif, S. E. Ashbrook, L. Emsley, and M. Hong, Solid-state NMR spectroscopy, Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 1, 2 (2021).
  12. K. M. Cecil, Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy: Technique for the neuroradiologist, Neuroimaging Clin. North Am. 23, 381 (2013).
  13. G. Öz, et al., Clinical proton MR spectroscopy in central nervous system disorders, Radiology 270, 658 (2014).
  14. J. M. Tognarelli, M. Dawood, M. I. F. Sharif, V. P. B. Grover, M. M. E. Crossey, I. J. Cox, S. D. Taylor–Robinson, and M. J. W. McPhail, Magnetic resonance spectroscopy: Principles and techniques: Lessons for clinicians, J. Clin. Exp. Hepatol. 5, 320 (2015).
  15. R. W. Brown, Y.-C. N. Cheng, E. M. Haacke, M. R. Thompson, and R. Venkatesan, Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Physical Principles and Sequence Design (Wiley, 2014).
  16. J. M. Soares, R. Magalhães, P. S. Moreira, A. Sousa, E. Ganz, A. Sampaio, V. Alves, P. Marques, and N. Sousa, A Hitchhiker's guide to functional magnetic resonance imaging, Front. Neurosci. 10, 515 (2016).
  17. C. Westbrook and J. Talbot, MRI in Practice (Wiley, 2018).
  18. J. Bernarding, G. Buntkowsky, S. Macholl, S. Hartwig, M. Burghoff, and L. Trahms, J-coupling nuclear mangetic resonance spectroscopy of liquids in nT fields, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 714 (2006).
  19. J. W. Blanchard, D. Budker, and A. Trabesinger, Lower than low: Perspectives on zero- to ultralow-field nuclear magnetic resonance, J. Magn. Reson. 323, 106886 (2021).
  20. S. J. DeVience, M. Greer, S. Mandal, and M. S. Rosen, Homonuclear J-coupling spectroscopy and low mangetic fields using spin-lock induced crossing, ChemPhysChem 22, 2128 (2021).
  21. T. Theis, P. Ganssle, G. Kervern, S. Knappe, J. Kitching, M. P. Ledbetter, D. Budker, and A. Pines, Parahydrogen-enhanced zero-field nuclear magnetic resonance, Nat. Phys. 7, 571 (2011).
  22. D. A. Barskiy, J. W. Blanchard, D. Budker, J. Eills, S. Pustelny, K. F. Shebertsov, M. C. D. Tayler, and A. H. Trabesinger, Zero- to ultralow-field nuclear magnetic resonance, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 148, 101558 (2025).
  23. J. W. Blanchard, M. P. Ledbetter, T. Theis, M. C. Butler, D. Budker, and A. Pines, High-resolution zero-field NMR J-spectroscopy of aromatic compounds, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 3607 (2013).
  24. M. Emondts, M. P. Ledbetter, S. Pustelny, T. Theis, B. Patton, J. W. Blanchard, M. C. Butler, D. Budker, and A. Pines, Long-lived heteronuclear spin-singlet states in liquids at a zero magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 077601 (2014).
  25. J. W. Blanchard, T. F. Sjolander, J. P. King, M. P. Ledbetter, E. H. Levine, V. S. Bajaj, D. Budker, and A. Pines, Measurement of untruncated nuclear spin interactions via zero- to ultralow-field nuclear magnetic resonance, Phys. Rev. B 92, 220202(R) (2015).
  26. S. Appelt, F. W. Häsing, U. Sieling, A. Gordji-Nejad, S. Glöggler, and B. Blümich, Paths from weak to strong coupling in NMR, Phys. Rev. A 81, 023420 (2010).
  27. A. Karabanov, I. Kuprov, G. T. P. Charnock, A. van der Drift, L. J. Edwards, and W. Köckenberger, On the accuracy of the state space restriction approximation for spin dynamics simulations, J. Chem. Phys. 135, 084106 (2011).
  28. A. Wilzewski, S. Afach, J. W. Blanchard, and D. Budker, A method for measurement of spin-spin couplings with sub-mHz precision using zero- to ultralow-field nuclear magnetic resonance, J. Magn. Reson. 284, 66 (2017).
  29. M. G. Algaba, M. Ponce-Martinez, C. Munuera-Javaloy, V. Pina-Canelles, M. J. Thapa, B. G. Taketani, M. Leib, I. de Vega, J. Casanova, and H. Heimonen, Co-design quantum simulation of nanoscale NMR, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043089 (2022).
  30. T. E. O’Brien, L. B. Ioffe, Y. Su, D. Fushman, H. Neven, R. Babbush, and V. Smelyanskiy, Quantum computation of molecular structure using data from challenging-to-classically simulate nuclear magnetic resonance experiments, PRX Quantum 3, 030345 (2022).
  31. K. Seetharam, D. Biswas, C. Noel, A. Risinger, D. Zhu, O. Katz, S. Chattopadhyay, M. Cetina, C. Monroe, E. Demler, and D. Sels, Digital quantum simulation of NMR experiments, Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2594 (2023).
  32. A. Burov, O. Nagl, and C. Javerzac-Galy, Towards quantum utility for NMR quantum simulation on a NISQ computer, arXiv:2404.17548.
  33. D. A. Abanin et al. (Google Quantum AI and Collaborators), Observation of constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergodicity, Nature (London) 646, 825 (2025).
  34. C. Zhang, et al., Quantum computation of molecular geometry via many–body nuclear spin echoes, arXiv:2510.19550.
  35. D. Sels, H. Dashti, S. Mora, O. Demler, and E. Demler, Quantum approximate Bayesian computation for NMR model inference, Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 396 (2020).
  36. K. Seetharam, D. Sels, and E. Demler, Platform tailored codesign of gate-based quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033059 (2024).
  37. D. Litinski, A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery, Quantum 3, 128 (2019).
  38. C. Gidney and M. Ekerå, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits, Quantum 5, 433 (2021).
  39. R. Babbush, R. King, S. Boixo, W. Huggins, T. Khattar, G. H. Low, J. R. McClean, T. O’Brien, and N. C. Rubin, The grand challenge of quantum applications, arXiv:2511.09124.
  40. The most straightforward digital quantum simulations will reproduce a pure state density matrix as opposed to the mixed state generated by relaxation operators. Instead, we treat relaxation through the decaying exponential factor in Eq. (2). Thus, the longitudinal and transverse magnetization profiles become equivalent for determining resonances in the NMR spectrum. It may be prudent to work with S+ or S− when developing pulse sequences due to the difference in objectives and potential methodology.
  41. There will be a chemical shift at small but finite fields, though resonances can still be indistinguishable due to finite linewidths.
  42. Stated generally, the scalar coupling will be a tensor quantity. However, only the scalar isotropic component is relevant for the liquid-phase experiments that we consider. Other protocols can access different components of the coupling tensor and extract different information.
  43. M. C. Tayler and L. F. Gladden, Scalar relaxation of NMR transitions at ultralow magnetic field, J. Magn. Reson. 298, 101 (2019).
  44. Y. Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, What limits the simulation of quantum computers? Phys. Rev. X 10, 041038 (2020).
  45. T. Ayral, T. Louvet, Y. Zhou, C. Lambert, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, Density-matrix renormalization group algorithm for smulating quantum circuits with a finite fidelity, PRX Quantum 4, 020304 (2023).
  46. We drop the isotopic label in subscripts since all nuclei are assumed to be the most abundant spin-1/2 isotope.
  47. W. Kemp, NMR in Chemistry: A Multinuclear Introduction (Macmillan Education Limited, 1986).
  48. H. J. Hogben, M. Krzystyniak, G. T. P. Charnock, P. J. Hore, and I. Kuprov, Spinach—A software library for simulation of spin dynamics in large systems, J. Magn. Reson. 208, 179 (2011).
  49. D. Cremer and J. Gräfenstein, Calculation and analysis of NMR spin-spin coupling constants, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 9, 2791 (2007).
  50. T. Helgaker, M. Jaszunski, and P. Swider, Calculation of NMR spin-spin coupling constants in Strychnine, J. Org. Chem. 81, 11496 (2016).
  51. S. J. DeVience and M. S. Rosen, Homonuclear J-coupling spectroscopy using J-synchrnonized echo detection, J. Magn. Reson. 341, 107244 (2022).
  52. P. Tzvetkova, U. Sternberg, T. Gloge, A. Navaro-Vázquez, and B. Luy, Configuration determination by residual dipolar couplings: Accessing the full conformational space by molecular dynamics with tensorial constraints, Chem. Sci. 10, 8774 (2019).
  53. The experimental budget is also guided by other parameters, tmax=npoints/2W, such as the desired spectral width W and the number of points npoints sampled in the signal. There is likewise a trade-off between satisfying Nyquist sampling requirements and practical spectrometer availability. Thus, it difficult to map literature parameters back to quantum simulation inputs.
  54. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimial Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017).
  55. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019).
  56. A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, in Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2019) (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2019), pp. 193–204.
  57. J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algorithms, PRX Quantum 2, 040203 (2021).
  58. Y. Dong, X. Meng, K. B. Whaley, and L. Lin, Efficient phase-factor evaluation in quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042419 (2021).
  59. D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090502 (2015).
  60. J. M. Martyn, Y. Liu, Z. E. Chin, and I. L. Chuang, Efficient fully-coherent quantum signal processing algorithms for real-time dynamics simulation, J. Chem. Phys. 158, 024106 (2023).
  61. D. Motlagh and N. Wiebe, Generalized quantum signal processing, PRX Quantum 5, 020368 (2024).
  62. R. Rines, K. Obenland, and I. Chuang, Empirical determination of the simulation capacity of a near-term quantum computer, arXiv:1905.10724.
  63. Our practical use of the GQSP formalism actually corresponds to a quantum eigenvalue transform. However, we retain the name GQSP to maintain consistency with literature. However, it is currently unclear if GQSP can be extended to the more general context of the quantum singular value transform (QSVT).
  64. S. Yamamoto and N. Yoshioka, Robust angle finding for generalized quantum signal processing, arXiv:2402.03016.
  65. R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear–T-complexity, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041015 (2018).
  66. pyLIQTR: A Python library for fault–tolerant quantum algorithms, GitHub (2024), https://github.com/isi-usc-edu/pyLIQTR.
  67. M. P. Harrigan, T. Khattar, C. Yuan, A. Peduri, N. Yosri, F. D. Malone, R. Babbush, and N. C. Rubin, Expressing and analyzing quantum algorithms with Qualtran, arXiv:2409.04643.
  68. QUALTRAN: A quantum algorithms translator, GitHub, 2024, https://github.com/quantumlib/Qualtran.
  69. J. Eills, D. Budker, S. Cavagnero, E. Y. Chekmenev, S. J. Elliott, S. Jannin, A. Lesange, J. Matysik, T. Meersmann, T. Prisner, J. A. Reimer, H. Yang, and I. V. Koptyug, Spin hyperpolarization in modern magnetic resonance, Chem. Rev. 123, 1417 (2023).
  70. D. Grinko, J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, and S. Woerner, Iterative quantum amplitude estimation, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 52 (2021).
  71. A. A. Agrawal, J. Job, T. L. Wilson, S. N. Saadatmand, M. J. Hodson, J. Y. Mutus, A. Caesura, P. D. Johnson, J. E. Elenewski, K. J. Morrell, and A. F. Kemper, Quantifying fault-tolerant simulation of strongly correlated systems using the Fermi-Hubbard model, arXiv:2406.06511.
  72. D. Donoho, Compressed sensing, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 52, 1289 (2006).
  73. M. J. Bostock, D. J. Holland, and D. Nietlispach, Improving resolution in multidimensional NMR using random quadrature detection with compressed sensing reconstruction, J. Biomol. NMR 68, 67 (2017).
  74. M. Bostock and D. Nietlispach, Compressed sensing: Reconstruction of non-uniformly sampled multidimensional NMR data, Concepts Magn. Reson. Part A 46A, e21438 (2017).
  75. S. Robson, H. Arthanari, S. G. Hyberts, and G. Wagner, Nonuniform sampling for NMR spectroscopy, Methods Enzymol. 614, 263 (2019).
  76. F. Delaglio, G. S. Walker, K. A. Farley, R. Sharma, J. C. Hoch, L. W. Arbogast, R. G. Brinson, and J. P. Marino, Non-uniform sampling for all: More NMR spectral quality, less measurement time, Am. Pharm. Rev. 20, 339681 (2017).
  77. R. A. E. Carr, M. Congreve, C. W. Murray, and D. C. Rees, Fragment-based lead discovery: Leads by design, Drug Discov. Today 10, 987 (2005).
  78. At N=16, a matrix representation of the time-evolution operator would be 64 Gb (assuming 64-bit complex entries). This would be time-consuming to integrate on the timescales required for simulating spectra. At N=20, the operators would require 16 384 Gb matrices, which is prohibitive for any classical calculation.
  79. N. C. Menicucci and C. M. Caves, Local realistic model for the dynamics of bulk-ensemble NMR information processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 167901 (2002).
  80. M. M. Rams and M. Zwolak, Breaking the entanglement barrier: Tensor network simulation of quantum transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 137701 (2020).
  81. G. Wójtowicz, J. E. Elenewski, M. M. Rams, and M. Zwolak, Open system tensor networks and Kramers’ crossover for quantum transport, Phys. Rev. A 101, 050301(R) (2020).
  82. G. Wójtowicz, J. E. Elenewski, M. M. Rams, and M. Zwolak, Dual current anomalies and quantum transport within extended reservoir simulations, Phys. Rev. B 104, 165131 (2021).
  83. J. E. Elenewski, G. Wójtowicz, M. M. Rams, and M. Zwolak, Performance of reservor discretizations in quantum transport simulations, J. Chem. Phys. 155, 124117 (2021).
  84. While these clusters span the whole molecule, the overhead does not correspond to the maximum number of possible Hamiltonian terms (and thus T-gate count). This is due to our finite range for dipolar interactions, which is smaller than the maximal extent of the molecule. Stated differently, these models have a fully connected spin network, but do not saturate the edge count.
  85. P. Klukowski, F. F. Damberger, F. H.-T. Allain, H. Iwai, H. Kadavath, T. A. Ramelot, G. T. Montelione, R. Riek, and P. Güntert, The 100-protein NMR spectra dataset: A resource for biomolecular NMR data analysis, Sci. Data 11, 30 (2024).
  86. N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Quantum low-density parity-check codes, PRX Quantum 2, 040101 (2021).
  87. 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).
  88. C. Gidney, M. Newman, P. Brooks, and C. Jones, Yoked surface codes, Nat. Commun. 16, 4498 (2025).
  89. C. Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits, arXiv:2505.15917.
  90. A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9456 (2018).
  91. M. C. Tran, S.-K. Chu, Y. Su, A. M. Childs, and A. V. Gorshkov, Destructive error interference in product-formula lattice simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 220502 (2020).
  92. A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021).
  93. Y.-H. Chen, A. Kalev, and I. Hen, Quantum algorithm for time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation by permutation expansion, PRX Quantum 2, 030342 (2021).
  94. D. An, D. Fang, and L. Lin, Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation of highly oscillatory dynamics and superconvergence for Schrödinger equation, Quantum 6, 690 (2022).
  95. H. Zhao, M. Bukov, M. Heyl, and R. Moessner, Adaptive Trotterization for time-dependent Hamiltonian quantum dynamics using piecewise conservation laws, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 010603 (2024).
  96. J. L. Bosse, A. M. Childs, C. Derby, F. M. Gambetta, A. Montanaro, and R. A. Santos, Efficient and practical Hamiltonian simulation from time-dependent product formulas, Nat. Commun. 16, 2673 (2025).
  97. T. A. Halgren, Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parametrization, and performance of MMFF94, J. Comput. Chem. 17, 490 (1996).
  98. N. M. O’Boyle, M. Banck, C. A. James, C. Morley, T. Vandermeersch, and G. R. Hutchinson, Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox, J. Cheminform. 3, 33 (2011).
  99. T. Scientific, Maybridge fragment libraries (2025), https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/industrial/pharma-biopharma/drug-discovery-development/screening-compounds-libraries-hit-identification/maybridge-fragment-libraries.html.
  100. S. Kim, J. Chen, T. Cheng, A. Gindulyte, J. He, S. He, Q. Li, B. A. Shoemaker, P. A. Thiessen, B. Yu, L. Zaslavsky, J. Zhang, and E. E. Bolton, PubChem 2025 update, Nucleic Acids Res. 53, D1516 (2025).
  101. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (2025), https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/index.cfm.
  102. RCSB Protein Databank (2025), https://www.rcsb.org/.
  103. S. Paeckel, T. Köhler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Schollwöck, and C. Hubig, Time-evolution methods for matrix-product states, Ann. Phys. 411, 167998 (2019).
  104. J. I. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021).
  105. A. Sander, M. Fröhlich, M. Ali, M. Eigel, J. Eisert, M. Hintermüller, C. B. Mendl, R. M. Milbradt, and R. Wille, Quantum circuit simulation with a local time-dependent variational principle, arXiv:2508.10096.
  106. Z. Zhu and S. R. White, Spin liquid phase of the S=12J1–J2 Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 92, 041105(R) (2015).
  107. W.-J. Hu, S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, and D. N. Sheng, Competing spin-liquid states in the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 92, 140403(R) (2015).
  108. N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, and J. E. Moore, Spectral function of the Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 107, 165146 (2023).
  109. 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).
  110. A. Kan and B. Symons, Resource-optimized fault-tolerant simulation of the Fermi-Hubbard model and high-temperature superconductor models, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 138 (2025).
  111. D. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. Van Meter, Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery, New J. Phys. 14, 123011 (2012).
  112. C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Efficient magic state factories with a catalyzed |CCZ〉 to 2|T〉 transformation, Quantum 3, 135 (2019).
  113. A. G. Fowler and C. Gidney, Low overhead quantum computation using lattice surgery, arXiv:1808.06709.
  114. Y. Li, A magic state's fidelity can be superior to the operations that created it, New J. Phys. 17, 023037 (2015).
  115. C. Gidney and A. G. Folwer, Flexible layout of surface code computations using Auto CCZ states, arXiv:1905.08916.
  116. J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hypercontraction, PRX Quantum 2, 030305 (2021).
  117. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
  118. J. Ostmeyer, Optimized Trotter decompositions for classical and quantum computing, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56, 285303 (2023).
  119. R. Babbush, J. McClean, D. Wecker, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and N. Wiebe, Chemical basis of Trotter-Suzuki errors in quantum chemistry simulation, Phys. Rev. A 91, 022311 (2015).
  120. M. Suzuki, Decomposition formulas of exponential operators and Lie exponentials with some applications to quantum mechanics and statistical physics, J. Math. Phys. 26, 601 (1985).
  121. M. Suzuki, Quantum statistical Monte Carlo methods and applications to spin systems, J. Stat. Phys. 43, 883 (1986).
  122. M. Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Lett. A 146, 319 (1990).
  123. C.-F. Chen and F. G. S. L. Brandão, Average-case speedup for product formulas, Commun. Math. Phys. 405, 32 (2024).
  124. I. V. Oseledets, Tensor-train decomposition, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 33, 2295 (2011).
  125. G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003).
  126. G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004).
  127. M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, C. Karrasch, J. E. Moore, and F. Pollmann, Time-evolving a mstrix product state with long-ranged interactions, Phys. Rev. B 91, 165112 (2015).
  128. K. Hémery, F. Pollmann, and D. J. Luitz, Matrix product state approaches to operator spreading in ergodic quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B 100, 104303 (2019).
  129. J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, and I. Pižorn, Time-dependent variational principle for quantum lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 070601 (2011).
  130. J. Haegeman, T. J. Osborne, and F. Verstraete, Post-matrix product state methods: To tangent space and beyond, Phys. Rev. B 88, 075133 (2013).
  131. J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time-evolution and optimization with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 165116 (2016).
  132. L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Tangent-space methods for uniform matrix product states, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 7 (2019).
  133. M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor software library for tensor network calculations, SciPost Phys. Codebases 4 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013315– Published 24 March, 2026
  • Received 20 June 2025
  • Accepted 4 February 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