- 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

AppQSim: Application-oriented benchmarks for Hamiltonian simulation on a quantum computer

Etienne Granet* and Henrik Dreyer

  • Quantinuum, Leopoldstrasse 180, 80804 Munich, Germany

  • *Contact author: etienne.granet@quantinuum.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043146 – Published 10 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/qt55-7d6r

Abstract

We introduce AppQSim, a benchmarking suite for quantum computers focused on applications of Hamiltonian simulation. We consider five different settings for which we define a precise task and score: condensed matter and material simulation (dynamic and static properties), nuclear magnetic resonance simulation, chemistry ground-state preparation, and classical optimization. These five different benchmark tasks display different resource requirements and scalability properties. We introduce a metric to evaluate the quality of the output of a tested quantum hardware, called distinguishability cost, defined as the minimal number of gates that a perfect quantum computer would have to run to certify that the output of the benchmarked hardware is incorrect.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (55)

  1. M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, Y. Alexeev, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, E. Chertkov et al., Computational power of random quantum circuits in arbitrary geometries, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021052 (2025).
  2. D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature (London) 626, 58 (2024).
  3. 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).
  4. M. Foss-Feig, A. Tikku, T.-C. Lu, K. Mayer, M. Iqbal, T. M. Gatterman, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, N. Hewitt, C. V. Horst et al., Experimental demonstration of the advantage of adaptive quantum circuits, arXiv:2302.03029.
  5. S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman, R. Ancona, L. Ascarrunz, C. Barnes, J. Bartolotta, B. Bjork, P. Blanchard, M. Bohn et al., A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041052 (2023).
  6. F. Geissler, E. Stopfer, C. Ufrecht, N. Meyer, D. D. Scherer, F. Wagner, J. M. Oberreuter, Z. Chen, A. Farace, D. Gutina et al., BenchQC—Scalable and modular benchmarking of industrial quantum computing applications, arXiv:2504.11204.
  7. B. F. Schiffer, A. F. Rubio, R. Trivedi, and J. I. Cirac, The quantum adiabatic algorithm suppresses the proliferation of errors, arXiv:2404.15397.
  8. E. Granet and H. Dreyer, Dilution of error in digital Hamiltonian simulation, PRX Quantum 6, 010333 (2025).
  9. E. Chertkov, Y.-H. Chen, M. Lubasch, D. Hayes, and M. Foss-Feig, Robustness of near-thermal dynamics on digital quantum computers, arXiv:2410.10794.
  10. J. Emerson, R. Alicki, and K. Życzkowski, Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 7, S347 (2005).
  11. 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).
  12. R. Blume-Kohout, J. K. Gamble, E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, J. Mizrahi, K. Fortier, and P. Maunz, Demonstration of qubit operations below a rigorous fault tolerance threshold with gate set tomography, Nat. Commun. 8, 14485 (2017).
  13. A. Erhard, J. J. Wallman, L. Postler, M. Meth, R. Stricker, E. A. Martinez, P. Schindler, T. Monz, J. Emerson, and R. Blatt, Characterizing large-scale quantum computers via cycle benchmarking, Nat. Commun. 10, 5347 (2019).
  14. A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, S. Sheldon, P. D. Nation, and J. M. Gambetta, Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032328 (2019).
  15. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  16. C. Neill, P. Roushan, K. Kechedzhi, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. Smelyanskiy, A. Megrant, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, K. Arya et al., A blueprint for demonstrating quantum supremacy with superconducting qubits, Science 360, 195 (2018).
  17. T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, Measuring the capabilities of quantum computers, Nat. Phys. 18, 75 (2022).
  18. P.-L. Dallaire-Demers, M. Stęchły, J. F. Gonthier, N. T. Bashige, J. Romero, and Y. Cao, An application benchmark for fermionic quantum simulations, arXiv:2003.01862.
  19. B. T. Gard and A. M. Meier, Classically efficient quantum scalable Fermi-Hubbard benchmark, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042602 (2022).
  20. A. J. McCaskey, Z. P. Parks, J. Jakowski, S. V. Moore, T. D. Morris, T. S. Humble, and R. C. Pooser, Quantum chemistry as a benchmark for near-term quantum computers, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 99 (2019).
  21. T. Tomesh, P. Gokhale, V. Omole, G. S. Ravi, K. N. Smith, J. Viszlai, X.-C. Wu, N. Hardavellas, M. R. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, SupermarQ: A scalable quantum benchmark suite, in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA) (IEEE, Seoul, South Korea, 2022), pp. 587–603.
  22. T. Lubinski, J. J. Goings, K. Mayer, S. Johri, N. Reddy, A. Mehta, N. Bhatia, S. Rappaport, D. Mills, C. H. Baldwin et al., Quantum algorithm exploration using application-oriented performance benchmarks, arXiv:2402.08985.
  23. S. Martiel, T. Ayral, and C. Allouche, Benchmarking quantum coprocessors in an application-centric, hardware-agnostic, and scalable way, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 2, 1 (2021).
  24. W. van der Schoot, R. Wezeman, N. Neumann, F. Phillipson, and R. Kooij, Extending the q-score to an application-level quantum metric framework, in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, Montreal, Canada, 2024), Vol. 1, pp. 941–951.
  25. J. R. Finžgar, P. Ross, L. Hölscher, J. Klepsch, and A. Luckow, Quark: A framework for quantum computing application benchmarking, in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, Broomfield, CO, USA, 2022), pp. 226–237.
  26. K. Mesman, Z. Al-Ars, and M. Möller, QPack: Quantum approximate optimization algorithms as universal benchmark for quantum computers, arXiv:2103.17193.
  27. F. Barbaresco, L. Rioux, C. Labreuche, M. Nowak, N. Olivier, D. Nicolazic, O. Hess, A.-L. Guilmin, R. Wang, T. Sassolas et al., BACQ—Application-oriented benchmarks for quantum computing, arXiv:2403.12205.
  28. Y. Dong and L. Lin, Random circuit block-encoded matrix and a proposal of quantum LINPACK benchmark, Phys. Rev. A 103, 062412 (2021).
  29. A. Cornelissen, J. Bausch, and A. Gilyén, Scalable benchmarks for gate-based quantum computers, arXiv:2104.10698.
  30. Y. Dong, K. B. Whaley, and L. Lin, A quantum Hamiltonian simulation benchmark, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 131 (2022).
  31. N. P. Sawaya, D. Marti-Dafcik, Y. Ho, D. P. Tabor, D. E. B. Neira, A. B. Magann, S. Premaratne, P. Dubey, A. Matsuura, N. Bishop et al., HamLib: A library of Hamiltonians for benchmarking quantum algorithms and hardware, Quantum 8, 1559 (2024).
  32. S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Commun. 12, 6961 (2021).
  33. A. A. Agrawal, J. Job, T. L. Wilson, S. Saadatmand, M. J. Hodson, J. Y. Mutus, A. Caesura, P. D. Johnson, J. E. Elenewski, K. J. Morrell et al., Quantifying fault tolerant simulation of strongly correlated systems using the Fermi-Hubbard model, arXiv:2406.06511.
  34. R. Nigmatullin, K. Hemery, K. Ghanem, S. Moses, D. Gresh, P. Siegfried, M. Mills, T. Gatterman, N. Hewitt, E. Granet et al., Experimental demonstration of breakeven for a compact fermionic encoding, Nat. Phys. 21, 1319 (2025).
  35. C. Derby, J. Klassen, J. Bausch, and T. Cubitt, Compact fermion to qubit mappings, Phys. Rev. B 104, 035118 (2021).
  36. E. Granet, K. Hémery, and H. Dreyer, Analog simulation of noisy quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013213 (2025).
  37. W.-Y. Liu, S.-S. Gong, Y.-B. Li, D. Poilblanc, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Gapless quantum spin liquid and global phase diagram of the spin-1/2 j1−j2 square antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model, Sci. Bull. 67, 1034 (2022).
  38. J.-W. Mei, J.-Y. Chen, H. He, and X.-G. Wen, Gapped spin liquid with z2 topological order for the kagome Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 95, 235107 (2017).
  39. A. M. Läuchli, J. Sudan, and R. Moessner, S = 12 kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet revisited, Phys. Rev. B 100, 155142 (2019).
  40. H. J. Hogben, M. Krzystyniak, G. T. Charnock, P. J. Hore, and I. Kuprov, Spinach—A software library for simulation of spin dynamics in large spin systems, J. Magn. Reson. 208, 179 (2011).
  41. 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).
  42. K. Seetharam, D. Biswas, C. Noel, A. Risinger, D. Zhu, O. Katz, S. Chattopadhyay, M. Cetina, C. Monroe, E. Demler et al., Digital quantum simulation of NMR experiments, Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2594 (2023).
  43. J. E. Elenewski, C. M. Camara, and A. Kalev, Prospects for NMR spectral prediction on fault-tolerant quantum computers, arXiv:2406.09340.
  44. A. Khedri, P. Stadler, K. Bark, M. Lodi, R. Reiner, N. Vogt, M. Marthaler, and J. Leppäkangas, The impact of noise on the simulation of NMR spectroscopy on NISQ devices, arXiv:2404.18903.
  45. Q. Stern and K. Sheberstov, Simulation of NMR spectra at zero and ultralow fields from A to Z—A tribute to prof. Konstantin L’vovich Ivanov, Magn. Reson. 4, 87 (2023).
  46. 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).
  47. E. Granet, K. Ghanem, and H. Dreyer, Practicality of quantum adiabatic algorithm for chemistry applications, Phys. Rev. A 111, 022428 (2025).
  48. Q. Sun, X. Zhang, S. Banerjee, P. Bao, M. Barbry, N. S. Blunt, N. A. Bogdanov, G. H. Booth, J. Chen, Z.-H. Cui et al., Recent developments in the PySCF program package, J. Chem. Phys. 153, 024109 (2020).
  49. Q. Sun, Libcint: An efficient general integral library for Gaussian basis functions, J. Comput. Chem. 36, 1664 (2015).
  50. Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfutyarova, S. Sharma et al., PySCF: The python-based simulations of chemistry framework, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci. 8, e1340 (2018).
  51. E. Granet and H. Dreyer, Hydrogen chain Hamiltonians, Zenodo (2025), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16614244.
  52. E. Granet and H. Dreyer, Hamiltonian dynamics on digital quantum computers without discretization error, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 82 (2024).
  53. E. Granet and H. Dreyer, Benchmarking a heuristic Floquet adiabatic algorithm for the Max-Cut problem, Sci. Rep. 15, 31983 (2025).
  54. I. Dunning, S. Gupta, and J. Silberholz, What works best when? A systematic evaluation of heuristics for Max-Cut and QUBO, INFORMS J. Comput. 30, 608 (2018).
  55. E. Granet and H. Dreyer, Numerical data for AppQSim, Zenodo (2025), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17224040.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043146– Published 10 November, 2025
  • Received 2 April 2025
  • Accepted 25 September 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