Field-by-Field Reading Lists
A useful research reading list teaches you to do something: derive a bound, interpret a measurement, reproduce a diagnostic, or identify a failed assumption. Begin with one orientation source, then a primary result and a competing approach. The topic assessments linked below supply more specific evidence and starter projects; this page organizes the first reading decision.
Helpful background. Core Formalism supplies the shared state, operator, and measurement language used across these sources.
Read toward a capability
Section titled “Read toward a capability”| Area and research assessment | Orientation source | Capability to acquire before proposing an extension |
|---|---|---|
| Quantum computing | Preskill (2018), followed by the primary reports in the chapter | Distinguish a protected memory, a logical operation, and a delivered workload |
| Algorithms and complexity | Montanaro (2016) | State input access, output precision, success probability, and classical comparison |
| Simulation and many-body physics | Altman et al. (2021) | Connect a simulator architecture to a scientific observable and verification task |
| Quantum matter | Keimer and Moore (2017) | Separate a material signature, an effective model, and a microscopic mechanism |
| AMO platforms | Kaufman and Ni (2021) | Identify preparation, interactions, control, and readout limitations |
| Networks | Azuma et al. (2023) | Calculate how loss, memory time, and protocol choices affect delivered entanglement |
| Sensing | Degen, Reinhard, and Cappellaro (2017) | Define sensitivity, bandwidth, coherence limits, and the resource-normalized comparator |
| Open systems and control | Fazio et al. (2025), then Koch et al. (2022) | Distinguish averaged, conditional, and controlled dynamics |
| Foundations | Brunner et al. (2014) | Identify the premises connecting observed correlations to a no-go conclusion |
| Gravity interface | Harlow (2018) for holography; the topic dossier for laboratory proposals | Keep a controlled theoretical correspondence distinct from an experimental mediator test |
| Rigorous frontiers | Cubitt, Pérez-García, and Wolf (2015) as a worked boundary case | Track quantifiers and distinguish a generic obstruction from a tractable restricted family |
| Computational research | LeBlanc et al. (2015) | Compare independent methods at common model parameters with explicit uncertainties |
| Interdisciplinary directions | Lambert et al. (2013) for one evidence-sensitive interface | Distinguish the existence of a quantum mechanism from its functional significance |
These are entry sources, not claims that the field stopped developing in their publication year. Later primary literature and corrections belong in the topic assessments. Links and bibliographic identities were checked during the 2026-10-11 authoring review; source dates remain explicit.
Follow a three-pass sequence
Section titled “Follow a three-pass sequence”Orientation. Read the introduction, definitions, and summary of one review. Make a vocabulary map and locate the stable background in the canonical home map. Do not attempt to absorb every cited paper.
Reconstruction. Choose one central result and work through its primary source. Reproduce the smallest informative calculation or reconstruct the proof’s hypotheses. For an experiment, trace one observable from preparation through calibration and analysis.
Comparison. Read a paper using a different method or reaching a different interpretation. Align assumptions before judging disagreement. The point is to discover what the first source could not establish, not to collect an equal number of favorable and unfavorable citations.
Worked sequence: a many-body numerical project
Section titled “Worked sequence: a many-body numerical project”Use Altman et al. to identify the scientific observable and the verification problem. Use LeBlanc et al. to see how independent classical methods can be compared on a shared Hamiltonian. Then choose the specific many-body simulation dossier and reproduce a small benchmark with the stable computational methods.
The reading deliverable is a model specification, a benchmark, and an error ledger. Only then decide which inaccessible regime or unresolved discrepancy motivates an extension. A paper count is not evidence of readiness; the ability to explain why two methods disagree is.
Stop reading when the next uncertainty requires work
Section titled “Stop reading when the next uncertainty requires work”If the remaining question is whether your code converges or whether an instrument reaches a noise floor, another broad review is unlikely to answer it. Run the bounded check and return to the literature with a sharper question. Source monitoring keeps later developments connected to your project rather than turning reading into an indefinite prerequisite.
References
Section titled “References”- E. Altman et al., “Quantum Simulators: Architectures and Opportunities,” PRX Quantum 2, 017003 (2021). DOI.
- K. Azuma et al., “Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,” Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 045006 (2023). DOI.
- N. Brunner et al., “Bell nonlocality,” Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 419–478 (2014). Preprint.
- T. S. Cubitt, D. Pérez-García, and M. M. Wolf, “Undecidability of the spectral gap,” Nature 528, 207–211 (2015). Full technical version.
- C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, “Quantum sensing,” Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 035002 (2017). Preprint.
- R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schirò, “Many-Body Open Quantum Systems,” SciPost Physics Lecture Notes 99 (2025). DOI.
- D. Harlow, “TASI Lectures on the Emergence of the Bulk in AdS/CFT,” Proceedings of Science, TASI2017, 002 (2018). Preprint.
- A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, “Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules,” Nature Physics 17, 1324–1333 (2021). DOI.
- B. Keimer and J. E. Moore, “The physics of quantum materials,” Nature Physics 13, 1045–1055 (2017). DOI.
- C. P. Koch et al., “Quantum optimal control in quantum technologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe,” EPJ Quantum Technology 9, 19 (2022). Preprint.
- N. Lambert et al., “Quantum biology,” Nature Physics 9, 10–18 (2013). DOI.
- J. P. F. LeBlanc et al., “Solutions of the Two-Dimensional Hubbard Model: Benchmarks and Results from a Wide Range of Numerical Algorithms,” Physical Review X 5, 041041 (2015). Preprint.
- A. Montanaro, “Quantum algorithms: an overview,” npj Quantum Information 2, 15023 (2016). DOI.
- J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum 2, 79 (2018). DOI.