Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication Related

Topics

Quantum Networks Quantum Simulation

Comment on "Beyond-classical computation in quantum simulation"

arXiv

Authors: Wladislaw Krinitsin, Nikita Alert, Matteo Rizzi, Markus Schmitt

Year

2026

Paper ID

73041

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

Citations

N/A

Abstract

A recent article [Science 388, 199-204 (2025)] investigates the applicability of numerical methods and a quantum processor unit in simulating a quantum annealing protocol. One of the findings indicates that Neural Quantum States - a versatile variational ansatz for the many-body wave function based on artificial neural networks - fail to reach the same accuracy as the quantum processor. In this comment we revisit these concerns, demonstrating that NQS can provide competitive results in some of the cases when accounting for the Monte-Carlo noise and large autocorrelation times between samples obtained from the final state.

Why This Paper Matters

This paper contributes to the Quantum Networks research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
A recent article [Science 388, 199-204 (2025)] investigates the applicability of numerical methods and a quantum processor unit in simulating a quantum annealing protocol.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Become a member Sign in

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

[1] DOI https://doi.org/arXiv:2607.08811 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08811 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08811

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0

Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.