MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414460923 · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ae0b08

Iterative qubit coupled cluster using only clifford circuits

2025· article· en· W4414460923 on OpenAlexaff
James Brown, Marc P. Coons, Erika Lloyd, A. Fleury, Krzysztof Bieniasz, Valentin Senicourt, Arman Zaribafiyan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysica Scripta · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsDow Chemical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQubitCorrectnessQuantum computerOverhead (engineering)Quantum circuitQuantumConvergence (economics)Topology (electrical circuits)Quantum algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The performance of quantum algorithms for ground-state energy estimation is directly impacted by the quality of the initial state, where quality is traditionally defined in terms of the overlap of the input state with the target state. An ideal state preparation protocol can be characterized by being easily generated classically and can be transformed to a quantum circuit with minimal overhead while having a significant overlap with the targeted eigenstate of a given Hamiltonian. We propose a method that meets these requirements by introducing a variant of the iterative qubit coupled cluster (iQCC) approach, which exclusively uses Clifford circuits. These circuits can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer, with polynomial scaling according to the Gottesman–Knill theorem. Since the iQCC method has been developed as a quantum algorithm firstly, our variant can be mapped naturally to quantum hardware. We additionally implemented several optimizations to the algorithm enhancing its scalability. We demonstrate the algorithm’s correctness in ground-state simulations for small molecules such as H2, LiH, and H2O, and extend our study to complex systems like the titanium-based compound Ti(C5H5)(CH3)3 with a (20, 20) active space, requiring 40 qubits. Results show that the convergence of the algorithm is well-behaved, and the ground state can be represented accurately. Moreover, we show an automated workflow for restricting the qubit active space, thus relieving computational resources by considering only qubits affected by non-trivial operations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysica ScriptaSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207