Cited by 3Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureAdvanced NMR Techniques and ApplicationsQuantum Information and Cryptography

Prospects for NMR spectral prediction on fault-tolerant quantum computers

Open access
Elenewski, J. E., Camara, C. M., Kalev, A.·2026·Physical Review Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Advanced atomic magnetometers have made it possible to acquire nuclear magnetic resonance spectra in zero to ultralow magnetic fields. This regime carries the benefit of compact, low-cost instrumentation with reduced spin relaxation effects and the ability to probe phenomena that are inaccessible in conventional high-field experiments. A trade-off is that the resulting spectra must be interpreted using simulations that are taxing for classical computation. Working by example for small-molecule and protein spectroscopy, we demonstrate that these simulations are a promising target for fault-tolerant quantum computation. Our holistic analysis spans from input selection to the construction of explicit circuits for qubitized quantum dynamics. By maintaining parity with experimental requirements, we demonstrate how certain cases might be especially promising for early fault-tolerant architectures. Notably, valuable natural products and small proteins could be simulated with a few hundred logical qubits and less than 10 12 T gates, corresponding to days of runtime with foreseeable hardware based on spin or superconducting qubits.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/km66-ltpl

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Elenewski, J. E., Camara, C. M., & Kalev, A.
Affiliations
  • MIT Lincoln Laboratory (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Physical Review Research
Published
2026-03-24
Volume
8
Issue
1
ISSN
2643-1564 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399695860
Cited by
3
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • National Institutes of Health (5T32HL007574)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced NMR Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
NMR spectral simulation, fault-tolerant quantum computing, atomic magnetometer, protein NMR, spin qubits, superconducting qubits

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review