<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cond-mat_0408370/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cond-mat_0408370/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations — mentioned by acqq</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21678315</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:cond-mat_0408370:21678315</guid><pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2019 22:43:58 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for mentioning the term that I was able to find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_sign_problem https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94... &amp;quot;Computational Complexity and Fundamental Limitations to Fermionic Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations, Matthias Troyer and Uwe-Jens Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201, 4 May 2005&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Quantum Monte Carlo simulations, while being efficient for bosons, suffer from the “negative sign problem” when applied to fermions — causing an exponential increase of the computing time with the number of particles. A polynomial time solution to…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cond-mat_0408370/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cond-mat.stat-mech</category></item><item><title>Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations — mentioned by jhrmnn</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20248384</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:cond-mat_0408370:20248384</guid><pubDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2019 06:58:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Here’s one example. Though it’s probably different from what you had in mind https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0408370&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cond-mat_0408370/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cond-mat.stat-mech</category></item><item><title>Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations — mentioned by balsam</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7788004</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:cond-mat_0408370:7788004</guid><pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2014 04:38:31 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Maybe you mean subexponential time? Which is not much of an improvement. This is a question which I would like someone like Scott Aaronson to answer. The sign problem is NP-hard[1]. So it&amp;#x27;s not currently believed that quantum computers can actually help with the sign problem [2]. On the other hand, we have papers that seem to say they could [3]. &amp;quot;today it seems extremely unlikely that quantum computers can solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time&amp;quot; -- Scott Aaronson [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0408370.pdf [2] http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/bqpph.pdf [3]…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cond-mat_0408370/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cond-mat.stat-mech</category></item></channel></rss>
