Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/0305139 · Physical Review Letters

Comment on “Polynomial-Time Simulation of Pairing Models on a Quantum Computer”

J. Dukelsky, J. M. Román, Germán Sierra

Published Jun 17, 2003• 9 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Comment on the Letter ``Polynomial-Time Simulation of Pairing Models on a Quantum Computer'', L. A. Wu, M. S. Byrd and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057904 (2002).
DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.90.249803

Related papers

Reply to: ``Comment on `Polynomial-Time Simulation of Pairing Models on a Quantum Computer'''

Liang Wu, Mark Byrd, Daniel A. Lidar

We reply to Dukelsky, et al. regarding the article: L. A. Wu, M. S. Byrd and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057904 (2002).

arXiv:quant-ph/0305159•May 26, 2003•3 citations

Publisher’s Note: Polynomial-Time Simulation of Pairing Models on a Quantum Computer [Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 057904 (2002)]

Liang Wu, Mark Byrd, Daniel A. Lidar

Received 1 October 2002DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.199902©2002 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Oct 21, 2002•1 citation

Comment on “Conservative Quantum Computing”

Daniel A. Lidar

A Comment on the paper "Conservative Quantum Computing" by M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057902 (2002). The author replies in Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 089802 (2003).

arXiv:quant-ph/0308123•Physical Review Letters•Aug 22, 2003•11 citations

Comment on “Quantum Szilard Engine”

Martin Plesch, Oscar Dahlsten, John Goold +1 more

A Comment on the Letter by S. W. Kim et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 070401 (2011). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.

arXiv:1309.4209•Physical Review Letters•Oct 30, 2013•16 citations

Limitations of Quantum Simulation Examined by Simulating a Pairing Hamiltonian Using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

Kenneth R. Brown, Robert Clark, Isaac L. Chuang

Quantum simulation uses a well-known quantum system to predict the behavior of another quantum system. Certain limitations in this technique arise, however, when applied to specific problems, as we demonstrate with a theoretical and experimental study of an algorithm proposed by Wu, Byrd, and Lidar [Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057904 (2002).10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.057904] to find the low-lying spectrum of a pairing Hamiltonian. While the number of elementary quantum gates required scales polynomially with the size of the system, it increases inversely to the desired error bound E. Making such simulations robust to decoherence using fault tolerance requires an additional factor of approximately 1/E gates. These constraints, along with the effects of control errors, are illustrated using a three qubit NMR system.

arXiv:quant-ph/0601021•Physical Review Letters•Aug 4, 2006•98 citations

COMMENT: Comment on `Quantum optimization for combinatorial searches'

Christof Zalka, Todd A. Brun

New Journal of Physics•Sep 1, 2002•0 citations
Quantum simulation uses a well-known quantum system to predict the behavior of another quantum system. Certain limitations in this technique arise, however, when applied to specific problems, as we demonstrate with a theoretical and experimental study of an algorithm proposed by Wu, Byrd, and Lidar [Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057904 (2002).10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.057904] to find the low-lying spectrum of a pairing Hamiltonian. While the number of elementary quantum gates required scales polynomially with the size of the system, it increases inversely to the desired error bound E. Making such simulations robust to decoherence using fault tolerance requires an additional factor of approximately 1/E gates. These constraints, along with the effects of control errors, are illustrated using a three qubit NMR system.