Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Pauli quantum computing: $I$ as $|0\rangle$ and $X$ as $|1\rangle$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Pauli quantum computing encodes computational-basis information in the Pauli operators $I$ and $X$ inside density-matrix off-diagonals, and for amplitudes with sub-linear Hadamard count it yields an exponential reduction in query…

desk verdict Novel PQC formalism, but the main exponential speedup is undone by outer Hadamards in V. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03109 v1 pith:FV4IYNLU submitted 2024-12-04 quant-ph

Zhong-Xia Shang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6868Q12
keywords Pauliquantumcomputingnon-diagonaldensitymatrixencodingchannelblockamplitudeestimationHadamardgatesLindbladmasterequationsearchquerycomplexity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces Pauli quantum computing (PQC), a formalism in which the computational basis states are not the vectors $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ but the Pauli operators $I$ and $X$, embedded in the off-diagonal block of a density matrix: under the vectorization map, $I$ corresponds to $|0\rangle$ and $X$ to $|1\rangle$. The author shows that operations on the encoded state can be implemented by quantum channels with block-diagonal Kraus operators, and that measuring Pauli expectations of the density matrix reads off the amplitudes of the encoded state with a magnification factor $2^{n/2+1}\gamma$ that can be much larger than one. The central claim is that for amplitudes $\langle +|^{\otimes n} U |0\rangle^{\otimes n}$ with $U$ built from $\{H,S_g,T,\text{CNOT}\}$ containing $k$ Hadamard gates, Pauli quantum computing estimates the amplitude to additive error $\epsilon$ using $O(2^{-(n-k)/2}\epsilon^{-1})$ queries, against $O(\epsilon^{-1})$ in standard quantum computing, so whenever $k=o(n)$ the query complexity drops exponentially. The paper also claims that a family of Lindblad master equations realizes imaginary-time evolution and prepares stabilizer ground states, and that a Pauli searching oracle—whose efficient construction is left explicitly open—solves search with $O(n)$ queries and $O(\mathrm{poly}(n))$ time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair ($\gamma$-NDME, $\eta$-CBE): a density matrix $\rho_S$ is a $\gamma$-NDME of $S$ when $(\langle 0|\otimes I)\rho_S(|1\rangle\otimes I)=\gamma S$, and a quantum channel with Kraus operators of the block form $\mathrm{diag}(K_i,L_i)$ is an $\eta$-CBE of $Q$ when $\sum_i K_i\otimes L_i^* = \eta Q$. Acting on $\rho_S$ transforms the encoded matrix $S$ by $\sum_i K_i S L_i^\dagger$, which in the vectorized picture applies the operator $\eta Q$ to the encoded state. The amplitude advantage comes from the Pauli-measurement identities $\mathrm{Tr}(X\otimes Q_\alpha \rho_S)=2^{n/2+1}\gamma \,\mathrm{Re}[\langle\alpha|\psi_S\rangle]$ and $\mathrm{Tr}(Y\otimes Q_\alpha \rho_S)=2^{n/2+1}\gamma \,\mathrm{Im}[\langle\alpha|\psi_S\rangle]$, which turn amplitude estimation into Pauli expectation estimation with a magnification factor $2^{n/2+1}\gamma$. The proof of Theorem 2 is then a normalization budget: start from $|\psi_{S_0}\rangle=|+\rangle^{\otimes n}$ with $\gamma_0=1/2$, apply channels of CBE type for $H S_g H$, $H T H$, and $(H\otimes H)\mathrm{CNOT}(H\otimes H)$ with $\eta=1$ and for $H$ with $\eta=1/\sqrt{2}$, and end with $\gamma=2^{-(k+1)/2}$, so the magnification factor is $2^{(n-k)/2}$.

What would settle it

Detect whether the actual normalization $\gamma$ achieved by the Appendix A channels after unitary purification is smaller than $2^{-(k+1)/2}$ for a concrete small circuit, e.g. $n=2, k=1$; if it is, the predicted amplification factor $2^{(n-k)/2}$ and hence the exponential query reduction in Theorem 2 fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the core is the observation, via vectorization and the Pauli–Bell correspondence, that a matrix whose Pauli decomposition uses only $I$ and $X$ behaves like a superposition over computational basis states. Placing that matrix in the upper-right block of a larger density matrix gives a non-diagonal density matrix encoding (NDME), and a quantum channel of block form acts on the encoded state as a channel block encoding (CBE) of some operator, which need not be unitary. The paper's central formal result, Theorem 2, states that when $V=H^{\otimes n} U H^{\otimes n}$ and $U$ is made from $\{H,S_g,T,\text{CNOT}\}$ with $k$ Hadamard gates, the amplitude $\langle 0|^{\otimes n} V |+\rangle^{\otimes n} = \langle +|^{\otimes n} U |0\rangle^{\otimes n}$ can be estimated to additive error $\epsilon$ by PQC with query complexity $O(2^{-(n-k)/2}\epsilon^{-1})$ on the preparation channel $C_V$, whose gate complexity is comparable to $U$, whereas standard quantum computing needs $O(\epsilon^{-1})$ queries. This follows because the Pauli measurement identity exposes the amplitude with a factor $2^{n/2+1}\gamma$, and Theorem 1 bounds $\gamma$ by $\gamma_S = 1/(2\sum_\alpha |\langle \alpha | H^{\otimes n} |\psi_S\rangle|)$; starting from $|+\rangle^{\otimes n}$ and paying $\eta=1/\sqrt{2}$ for each Hadamard gate but $\eta=1$ for the other conjugated gates gives $\gamma=2^{-(k+1)/2}$. Theorem 3 extends the formalism to search: a channel oracle that flips the sign of $X\otimes Q_\alpha$ except at the target solves the unique-target search problem in $O(n)$ queries and $O(\mathrm{poly}(n))$ time, provided such an oracle exists and the output state has the stated form.

Load-bearing premise

The exponential speedup rests on the assumption that the explicit channel constructions in Appendix A realize every non-Hadamard gate in $U$ with normalization $\eta=1$ and every Hadamard gate with $\eta=1/\sqrt{2}$, and that the unitary purification used for amplitude estimation preserves these normalizations with no extra overhead; the paper asserts the optimality of these constructions without a proof, so if the attainable normalization is lower than this budget the $O(2^{-(n-k)/2}\epsilon^{-1})$ bound fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $k=o(n)$, e.g. $k=\mathrm{polylog}(n)$ or $k=\sqrt{n}$, Theorem 2 yields query complexity $O(2^{-(n-o(n))/2}\epsilon^{-1})$, exponentially below the $O(\epsilon^{-1})$ required by standard quantum amplitude estimation.
  • Because the $k=o(n)$ regime permits many CNOT and $T$ gates, the circuits involved are not obviously classically simulable by tensor-network or stabilizer-based methods, so the speedup is claimed to sit in a quantum-advantage regime rather than on an easy classical class.
  • The same PQC measurement identity implies that operator expectation values are shrunk by a factor $\gamma^2$ (with $\gamma\le 1/2$), so PQC helps amplitude estimation but hurts expectation-value estimation compared with standard encoding.
  • The Lindbladian construction provides a route to prepare stabilizer ground states and to characterize the steady subspace of a class of open systems through density-matrix stabilizer coherence, extending PQC beyond pure-state computation.
  • The search oracle result, if the oracle can be built, would solve unique-target search in $O(n)$ queries and $O(\mathrm{poly}(n))$ time; the paper is explicit that the oracle construction may be exponentially hard, so this does not imply NP$\in$BQP.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Theorem 2's normalization budget survives scrutiny, a natural next target is to classify larger families of low-Hadamard-count circuits whose amplitudes admit the same $2^{(n-k)/2}$ amplification, potentially turning PQC into a generic verification tool for sampling-based quantum advantage experiments.
  • The optimality of the Appendix A constructions is asserted but not proved; resolving that optimization problem would either firm up or overturn the exponential gap, and the same optimization may yield improved channel constructions for other non-unitary operations.
  • The search algorithm's efficiency relies on the commutativity of $I$ and $X$, which allows target extraction via stabilizer generators; a parallel formalism using $Z$ or $Y$ coherence would lose this property and would likely require a different extraction strategy.
  • The $\eta=1/3$ oracle construction shows existence but not efficient constructibility; a useful criterion would be a family of problems where a Pauli searching oracle can be implemented with $\eta$ bounded away from exponentially small values, since that is the real bottleneck for practical speedup.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Pauli quantum computing (PQC), a formalism in which the Pauli operators I and X in the non-diagonal block of a density matrix play the roles of the computational basis states |0> and |1> of standard quantum computing. The paper defines non-diagonal density matrix encoding (NDME) and channel block encoding (CBE), and it explains how operations and measurements are performed in this picture. Three applications are presented: (i) Lindbladians that realize imaginary time evolution and prepare stabilizer ground states; (ii) an exponential reduction in query complexity for estimating amplitudes <+|^n U |0>^n when U contains o(n) Hadamard gates; and (iii) an O(n)-query search algorithm given a Pauli searching oracle, with an explicit but exponentially costly oracle construction and an explicit caveat that efficient oracle construction is open. The central technical claim is Theorem 2, which states that PQC estimates the specified amplitudes to additive error epsilon with query complexity O(2^{-(n-k)/2} epsilon^{-1}), compared with O(epsilon^{-1}) in standard quantum computing.

Significance. If correct, the amplitude-estimation result is striking and, to my knowledge, novel: for a class of circuits with few Hadamard gates, PQC would reduce the number of quantum queries by an exponential factor 2^{-(n-o(n))/2} while retaining a gate complexity comparable to the original circuit. The paper is transparent about the conditional nature of the search result and about the open problem of constructing a practical Pauli searching oracle. The explicit Kraus-operator constructions in Appendix A and the positive-semidefinite bound in Appendix B are valuable components, and the framework itself is original. However, the advertised gate/time complexity advantage is not fully proven because the cost of unitarily purifying the concatenated channel C_V is not quantified, and the statement of Theorem 1 contains an internal inconsistency in the displayed bound.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III B, Theorem 1] The displayed upper bound reads gamma <= gamma_S = (1/2) sum_alpha |<alpha|H^{otimes n}|psi_S>|, but Appendix B proves gamma <= 1/(2 sum_alpha |<alpha|H^{otimes n}|psi_S>|). The examples immediately after the theorem (gamma_S = 2^{-n/2-1} for |0>^{otimes n} and gamma_S = 1/2 for |+>^{otimes n}) are consistent only with the reciprocal form. The value gamma = 2^{-k/2-1} used in Theorem 2 is exactly this reciprocal bound for a state supported on at most 2^k basis states, so the printed formula must be corrected; as written it states a bound that can be exponentially large and breaks the logical chain from Theorem 1 to the complexity claim.
  2. [Section III B, Theorem 2 and Eq. (16)] The theorem advertises a reduction in gate (time) complexity, but the proof counts queries to the channel C_V. The sentence 'The second requirement is obviously satisfied since we can assign each quantum gate in V with a corresponding quantum channel and the composite of these channels forms C_V' does not by itself bound the elementary-gate cost of a unitary Stinespring dilation of C_V suitable for amplitude estimation. A rigorous statement needs an explicit construction (for example, a fresh environment register per gate with controlled-Kraus unitaries of constant size) and a count showing that the total number of elementary gates scales as O(|U| 2^{-(n-k)/2} epsilon^{-1}). Without this, the exponential gate-complexity claim rests on an unproved overhead assumption.
  3. [Section II E and Eq. (16)] The query complexity O(2^{-n/2} gamma^{-1} epsilon^{-1}) is asserted after Eq. (16) without deriving the amplitude-estimation error budget. Because the left-hand sides of Eq. (16) contain the small quantity 2^{n/2+1} gamma c_alpha, estimating c_alpha to additive error epsilon requires estimating the corresponding amplitude or expectation value to error proportional to 2^{n/2} gamma epsilon; this step, and the asserted O(1) block-encoding cost of (X otimes Q_alpha + I)/2, should be written out. If the block-encoding or the purification has n-dependent overhead, the advertised query reduction could be reduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] The line 'PQC[|-><-|] = |+>' should read 'PQC[|-><-|] = |->'; this typo does not affect the subsequent PSD argument but is confusing.
  2. [Section III B, after Eq. (17)] The decomposition V = H^{otimes n} U H^{otimes n} when V is built from {H, HS_gH, HT H, (H otimes H) CNOT (H otimes H)} is used without proof; a one-line demonstration that H^{otimes n} U H^{otimes n} equals the product of the conjugated gates would make the argument self-contained.
  3. [Section III B, paragraph containing Eq. (17)] There is a typo 'Pauli computing computing' in the sentence describing the construction of conjugated gates; it should be 'Pauli quantum computing'.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C7)] The symbol 'Tranc' should be 'Tr_anc' (trace over the ancilla), and the displayed equation would benefit from a brief explanation of the partial trace step.
  5. [Section II A and Appendix B] The proof of Theorem 1 uses the identity in Eq. (B2) without proving it; a short derivation connecting c_alpha = 2^{-n/2} Tr(Q_alpha S) with the Hadamard-transformed amplitudes would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; central mechanism is self-contained from explicit channel constructions and a PSD bound. One minor self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The PQC framework is built from linear-algebra identities: vectorization maps the block action of channel (3) to multiplication by sum_i K_i tensor L_i^* (Eq. 5), and Eq. 11 is the definition of what it means for a channel to implement a desired operator V. Theorem 1's gamma bound is derived from positive semidefiniteness in Appendix B, not from the target amplitude, and the per-gate eta values used in Theorem 2 come from explicit Kraus operators in Appendix A (H: eta = 1/sqrt(2); HSgH, HTH, (H tensor H)CNOT(H tensor H): eta = 1). The query complexity O(2^{-n/2} gamma^{-1} epsilon^{-1}) follows from standard amplitude estimation on the block-encoded observable in Eq. 16. No parameter is fitted to the amplitude being estimated; the target appears only as the index alpha of a Pauli observable. The only self-referential element is the citation of Ref. [8] for the existence of a CBE channel for arbitrary V; that existence claim is not used in the three examples, which supply explicit constructions in Appendices A and C, so it is a minor self-citation rather than a load-bearing circular step. Appendix A asserts 'optimal' eta constructions without proof; this is an omitted justification but not a circular reduction. The central derivation is therefore self-contained enough to give a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework is mostly self-contained after accepting the vectorization identity and the existence result from [8]; the novelty is in the Pauli basis encoding and the three example applications. No free parameters are fit; γ and η are derived. The main added postulate is the Pauli searching oracle with η=1/3, whose efficient construction is open.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Vectorization identity V[A O B] = (A ⊗ B^*) |O>> with the paper's unnormalized convention
    Used throughout Section II for deriving channel actions and measurement formulas.
  • domain assumption For any operator V, there exists a channel of form Eq 3 satisfying Eq 11 when no constraint on η is imposed
    Stated in Section II D and attributed to Ref [8]; the paper gives explicit constructions only for the specific gates needed later.
  • standard math The initial state |+>^n can be prepared with maximal γ=1/2 using ρ_S=|+><+|^(n+1)
    Used in Theorem 2 to set γ0; follows from direct computation.
  • domain assumption Each H gate in V can be implemented with optimal η=1/√2, and HS_gH, HT H, (H⊗H)CNOT(H⊗H) with η=1
    Given by explicit Kraus operators in Appendix A; optimality is asserted but not proved.
  • domain assumption The Lindbladian with jump operators F_i=diag(P1,i,P2,i) realizing Eq 11 gives imaginary time evolution per Eq 15
    Used in Section III A; relies on the standard Lindblad master equation and the specific jump-operator construction.
  • ad hoc to paper There exists a Pauli searching oracle C_search as a channel satisfying Eq 19 with η=1/3
    Construction in Appendix C uses exponentially many Kraus operators; existence is shown, efficiency is not and is acknowledged as unlikely.
  • domain assumption For Theorem 3, ρ_out has the form Eq 21
    Derived from the oracle action in Appendix C; the theorem explicitly assumes this form.
invented entities (1)
  • Pauli searching oracle C_search independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a channel-based analog of Grover's phase oracle; with access to it, search has O(n) queries
    An explicit CPTP channel with η=1/3 is constructed in Appendix C, so the mathematical object is well-defined; however, no efficient implementation is known and the paper states efficient construction is unlikely.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pauli quantum computing: $I$ as $|0\rangle$ and $X$ as $|1\rangle$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FV4IYNLU

@misc{pith2026241203109,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pauli quantum computing: $I$ as $|0\rangle$ and $X$ as $|1\rangle$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FV4IYNLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03109}
}
abstract

We propose a new quantum computing formalism named Pauli quantum computing. In this formalism, we use the Pauli basis $I$ and $X$ on the non-diagonal blocks of density matrices to encode information and treat them as the computational basis $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ in standard quantum computing. There are significant differences between Pauli quantum computing and standard quantum computing from the achievable operations to the meaning of measurements, resulting in novel features and comparative advantages for certain tasks. We will give three examples in particular. First, we show how to design Lindbladians to realize imaginary time evolutions and prepare stabilizer ground states in Pauli quantum computing. These stabilizer states can characterize the coherence in the steady subspace of Lindbladians. Second, for quantum amplitudes of the form $\langle +|^{\otimes n}U|0\rangle^{\otimes n}$ with $U$ composed of $\{H,S,T,\text{CNOT}\}$, as long as the number of Hadamard gates in the unitary circuit $U$ is sub-linear $\mathit{o}(n)$, the gate (time) complexity of estimating such amplitudes using Pauli quantum computing formalism can be exponentially reduced compared with the standard formalism ($\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-1})$ to $\mathcal{O}(2^{-(n-\mathit{o}(n))/2}\epsilon^{-1})$). Third, given access to a searching oracle under the Pauli encoding picture manifested as a quantum channel, which mimics the phase oracle in Grover's algorithm, the searching problem can be solved with $\mathcal{O}(n)$ scaling for the query complexity and $\mathcal{O}(\text{poly}(n))$ scaling for the time complexity. While so, how to construct such an oracle is highly non-trivial and unlikely efficient due to the hardness of the problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03109 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Framework of Pauli quantum computing. In Pauli quantum computing, we treat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In comparison, in Pauli quantum computing, we use I and X to take the roles of |0⟩ and |1⟩ in SQC

    In standard quantum computing, we start from an initial state |ψS0 ⟩, then implement a unitary quantum circuit U to generate an output state U |ψS0 ⟩ which is further measured to extract information. In comparison, in Pauli quantum computing, we use I and X to take the roles of |0⟩ and |1⟩ in SQC. We start from an ini- tial density matrix ρS0 which is γ0-...

    work page

  2. [2]

    When V is built by the above 4 gates, it has the form V = H ⊗nU H⊗n with U a unitary circuit com- posed of {H, Sg, T,CNOT}

    We give concrete optimal CBE constructions for {H, HSgH, HT H,(H ⊗ H)CNOT(H ⊗ H)} in the Ap- pendix A. When V is built by the above 4 gates, it has the form V = H ⊗nU H⊗n with U a unitary circuit com- posed of {H, Sg, T,CNOT}. Then the amplitude such as ⟨0|⊗nV |ψS0 ⟩ with |ψS0 ⟩ = |+⟩⊗n can be re-expressed as: ⟨0|⊗nV |ψS0 ⟩ = ⟨+|⊗nU |0⟩⊗n. (17) 6 Combined...

    work page

  3. [3]

    However, we want to emphasize that this has nothing to do with NP ∈ BQP since how to efficiently construct such an oracle is unknown

    in SQC, the search problem can be solved efficiently with only O(n) queries and O(poly(n)) time. However, we want to emphasize that this has nothing to do with NP ∈ BQP since how to efficiently construct such an oracle is unknown. II. P AULI QUANTUM COMPUTING A. V ectorization and matrixization To facilitate later discussions, we first introduce the notio...

    work page

  4. [4]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, in Feynman and computation (cRc Press, 2018) pp. 133– 153

    2018

  6. [6]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM review 41, 303 (1999)

    1999

  7. [7]

    L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth an- nual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (1996) pp. 212–219

    1996

  8. [8]

    Shang and Q

    Z.-X. Shang and Q. Zhao, Estimating quantum ampli- tudes can be exponentially improved, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13721 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gily´ en, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica, et al., Quantum algorithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end complexities, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03011 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Shang, Z.-H

    Z.-X. Shang, Z.-H. Chen, M.-C. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, A polynomial-time quantum algorithm for solving the ground states of a class of classically hard hamiltonians, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13946 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Shang, Z.-H

    Z.-X. Shang, Z.-H. Chen, and C.-S. Cheng, Un- conditionally decoherence-free quantum error mitiga- tion by density matrix vectorization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07592 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu- lar, and Optical Physics 70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    12, PQC shrinks the opera- tor expectation values resulting in a larger complexity in estimation compared with SQC, in contrast, in Eq

    We will show later that the largest possible value of γ is 1/2 ≤ 1, therefore, in Eq. 12, PQC shrinks the opera- tor expectation values resulting in a larger complexity in estimation compared with SQC, in contrast, in Eq. 13, PQC enlarges the values of amplitudes when 2n/2+1γ ...

  6. [14]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    1997

  7. [15]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer r´ enyi entropy, Physical Review Letters 128, 050402 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

    D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

    1998 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aharonov, X

    D. Aharonov, X. Gao, Z. Landau, Y. Liu, and U. Vazi- rani, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy ran- dom circuit sampling, in Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2023) pp. 945–957

    2023

  10. [18]

    Schuster, C

    T. Schuster, C. Yin, X. Gao, and N. Y. Yao, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy quantum circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12768 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in mathematical physics 48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in mathematical physics 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  12. [20]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level sys- tems, Journal of Mathematical Physics 17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  13. [21]

    Shang, N

    Z.-X. Shang, N. Guo, D. An, and Q. Zhao, Design nearly optimal quantum algorithm for linear differential equa- tions via lindbladians, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.19628 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Cleve, A

    R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca, Quantum algorithms revisited, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 454, 339 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Hoyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation, Contemporary Mathematics 305, 53 (2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    Aaronson and P

    S. Aaronson and P. Rall, Quantum approximate count- ing, simplified, in Symposium on simplicity in algorithms (SIAM, 2020) pp. 24–32

    2020

  18. [26]

    Grinko, J

    D. Grinko, J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, and S. Woerner, Itera- tive quantum amplitude estimation, npj Quantum Infor- mation 7, 52 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of physics 303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    Anshu, N

    A. Anshu, N. P. Breuckmann, and C. Nirkhe, Nlts hamil- tonians from good quantum codes, in Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2023) pp. 1090–1096

    2023

  21. [29]

    Vojta, Frustration and quantum criticality, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 064501 (2018)

    M. Vojta, Frustration and quantum criticality, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 064501 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Hangleiter and J

    D. Hangleiter and J. Eisert, Computational advantage of quantum random sampling, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 035001 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Rall, Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block encodings, Physical Review A102, 022408 (2020)

    P. Rall, Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block encodings, Physical Review A102, 022408 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    J. I. Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Bravyi, D

    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)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Coppersmith and S

    D. Coppersmith and S. Winograd, Matrix multiplication via arithmetic progressions, in Proceedings of the nine- teenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (1987) pp. 1–6

    1987

  27. [35]

    T. J. Schaefer, The complexity of satisfiability problems, in Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(1978) pp. 216–226

    1978

  28. [36]

    C. H. Bennett, Notes on the history of reversible compu- tation, ibm Journal of Research and Development 32, 16 (1988)

    1988

  29. [37]

    Preskill, Lecture notes for physics 229: Quantum in- formation and computation, California institute of tech- nology 16, 1 (1998)

    J. Preskill, Lecture notes for physics 229: Quantum in- formation and computation, California institute of tech- nology 16, 1 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    C. H. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, and U. Vazi- rani, Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing, SIAM journal on Computing 26, 1510 (1997). 9 Appendix A: Optimal channel constructions of gates in Pauli quantum computing Here, we show how to use CBE to construct {X, ...

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.