Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Depth-Efficient Quantum Circuit Synthesis for Deterministic Dicke State Preparation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that deterministic Dicke state preparation with all-to-all qubit connectivity can be done in depth $O(\log(k)\log(n/k)+k)$, improves grid-constrained depths, and establishes matching lower bounds.

desk verdict Genuine depth improvements for Dicke state preparation, but Theorem 13's all-to-all bound is false at k=1, contradicting the paper's own lower bound; an easy fix, but it needs to be made. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15413 v1 pith:GA3VZRRE submitted 2025-05-21 quant-ph

Pei Yuan , Shengyu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords Dickestatequantumcircuitdepthdeterministicpreparationall-to-allconnectivitygriddivide-and-conquerlowerboundcontrolled
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

The paper establishes depth-efficient deterministic circuits for preparing $n$-qubit Dicke states $|D^n_k\rangle$, the uniform superposition of all $k$-one bit strings, using only standard 1- and 2-qubit gates and no measurement or dedicated ancillary qubits. Its headline result is that with all-to-all qubit wiring the depth is $O(\log(k)\log(n/k)+k)$, beating the previous best $O(k\log(n/k))$ for every $k\le n/2$. On an $n_1\times n_2$ grid the depth becomes $O(k\log(n/k)+n_2)$ when $k\ge n_2/n_1$ and $O(n_2)$ when $k

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the divide unitary $\mathrm{Divide}^{n,m}_k(S_1,S_2)$, which takes $|0^k\rangle|0^{k-\ell}1^\ell\rangle$ to a superposition of split weights $\sum_i \sqrt{\binom{m}{i}\binom{n-m}{\ell-i}}/\sqrt{\binom{n}{\ell}}\,|0^{k-i}1^i\rangle|0^{k+i-\ell}1^{\ell-i}\rangle$. Its four-phase implementation, binary encoding, ancilla-assisted controlled state preparation, one-hot encoding with parallel plus/minus moves, and unary encoding again, reduces a single divide layer from depth $O(k)$ to $O(\log k + k^2/(k+N))$. The recursion then stacks $\log(n/k)$ such layers, using the idle qubits at each layer as the ancilla $N$, which is what converts the product $k\log(n/k)$ into $\log k\log(n/k)+k$.

What would settle it

Compile the divide unitary of Lemma 12 for $k=16$ with $N=2k$, $N=8k$, and $N=32k$ idle helper qubits and count actual two-qubit gate layers; Lemma 12 predicts the $k^2/(k+N)$ term drops from about 8 to 2.5 to 0.5 layers, so the last circuit should be essentially as shallow as its $O(\log k)$ base, whereas a controlled-state-preparation step that cannot be sped up by ancillas would keep the depth near $O(k)=16$ layers and disprove Theorem 13.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the divide-and-conquer Dicke unitary can be re-engineered so that each recursive divide layer costs $O(\log k + k^2/(k+N_j))$ rather than $O(k)$, where $N_j$ is the number of idle qubits at that layer acting as temporary workspace. The implementation encodes the split weight in binary to create the required amplitudes with a controlled-state-preparation subroutine, then switches to one-hot encoding so that shifting ones can be done by parallel Toffoli blocks, then returns to unary encoding. Because the recursion has about $\log(n/k)$ layers and later layers leave many qubits idle, the sum collapses to $O(\log(k)\log(n/k)+k)$. For grids, the paper replaces the prior unbalanced recursion with a balanced recursion that pays an $O(n_2)$ qubit-movement overhead per level but gains enough parallelization to give $O(k\log(n/k)+n_2)$ when $k\ge n_2/n_1$ and the optimal $O(n_2)$ when $k<n_2/n_1$.

Load-bearing premise

The all-to-all speedup rests on a previously derived formula saying that the superposition step inside the divide unitary becomes shallower when temporary helper qubits are available; if that formula overstates the power of helper qubits, the new depth bound no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 13 is correct, any $n$-qubit $k$-Dicke state can be prepared deterministically in depth $O(\log(k)\log(n/k)+k)$ without auxiliary qubits, improving the previous $O(k\log(n/k))$ for all $1\le k\le n/2$.
  • On an $n_1\times n_2$ grid, the construction gives $O(k\log(n/k)+n_2)$ when $k\ge n_2/n_1$, beating the previous $O(\sqrt{nk})$ bound, and the optimal $O(n_2)$ when $k<n_2/n_1$.
  • The lower bounds $\Omega(\log n)$ (all-to-all) and $\Omega(n_2)$ (grid) imply the constructions are asymptotically optimal when $k$ is constant, and would become optimal up to a logarithmic factor if the conjectured $\Omega(k)$ lower bound holds.
  • By Corollary 17, the same depths carry over to any symmetric state with amplitude only on Dicke levels up to $k$, extending the result beyond Dicke states themselves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next check is to implement the four-phase divide unitary on actual hardware for small $k$ and measure gate-layer counts; the predicted $k^2/(k+N)$ ancilla benefit gives a concrete crossover where the new circuit overtakes the old $O(k\log(n/k))$ construction.
  • The depth formula in Lemma 12 suggests that the bottleneck term $k$ comes from the one-hot plus/minus moves; replacing those moves by a different encoding could push all-to-all depth closer to the $\Omega(\log n)$ lower bound, a direction the paper leaves open.
  • The same encoding-shift idea may apply to other permutation-symmetric superpositions, such as antisymmetric or weighted Dicke-type states, where binary-to-sparse encoding can parallelize amplitude preparation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes deterministic quantum circuits for preparing n-qubit k-weight Dicke states under all-to-all and 2D-grid connectivity, claiming depth O(log(k) log(n/k)+k) for all-to-all and O(k log(n/k)+n_2) (or O(n_2) when k<n_2/n_1) for an (n_1×n_2)-grid. The construction is recursive, combining unary/one-hot/binary encodings, controlled quantum state preparation (CQSP), CNOT-circuit parallelization, and permutation routing, with idle data qubits used as temporary workspace. The paper also proves lower bounds Ω(log n) and Ω(n_2) via light-cone arguments, and extends the upper bounds to arbitrary symmetric states of level at most k.

Significance. If the central claims are correct after repair, the all-to-all bound would improve the previous best O(k log(n/k)) for k≥2, and the grid results would improve the prior O(√(nk)) bound in several parameter regimes while matching the lower bound in some cases. The paper gives a clear divide-and-conquer framework and makes explicit use of known general synthesis tools, including the authors' earlier CQSP and CNOT-parallelization lemmas, which are independent of the Dicke-state target. The main results are asymptotic depth bounds with explicit logarithmic factors, not numerical or machine-checked claims. The significance is real, but the current manuscript contains a load-bearing edge-case error in the all-to-all theorem and a gap in the lower-bound proof, so the results as stated are not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 13 and its proof, Section 3.1] Theorem 13 as stated is false at k=1. For k=1 the claimed bound is O(log(1) log(n/1)+1)=O(1), predicting constant-depth preparation of the W state |D^n_1> under all-to-all connectivity, which contradicts the paper's own Theorem 20 lower bound Ω(log n) (Eqs. (33)-(34) show the two-qubit reduced state is not a product for k=1). The error is in the proof's depth summation: the term Σ_j O(log k) is replaced by O(log(n/k) log k), which is valid only when log k ≥ 1; for k=1 each of the d=⌊log(n/k)⌋ divide layers still costs Ω(1), giving Ω(log n). The theorem statement should be corrected to O(log(k+1) log(n/k)+k), or the case k=1 should be handled separately, and Table 1 should be updated accordingly.
  2. [Theorem 20, lower-bound proof] The proof of the all-to-all lower bound asserts that if d=o(log n), one can find two sequences of reachable sets P'_1 and Q'_1 with P'_1∩Q'_1=∅ and |P'_1|=o(n), |Q'_1|=o(n). This does not follow from the stated bound |S'_i|≤2^{d-i+2}: a family of n subsets of [n] of size n^{o(1)} can be pairwise intersecting (for example, all sets containing a fixed element), so small light cones do not by themselves guarantee two disjoint ones. The paper needs an additional argument that two qubits of the Dicke state have disjoint light cones under the assumed shallow circuit, or a different proof technique. The same gap affects the grid and path lower bounds, since they rely on the same disjoint-light-cone step.
  3. [Lemma 12, Eq. (20), and Lemma 6] The application of Lemma 6 in Eq. (20) is under-specified in a way that is load-bearing for the all-to-all depth claim. Lemma 6 as quoted does not state that the m ancillary qubits are restored to |0^m> after the controlled state preparation, yet Lemma 12 immediately reuses the same N ancillary qubits in Eqs. (21)-(24). If the CQSP from [YZ23] leaves the ancilla entangled with the data registers, the subsequent steps are not valid. The authors should either quote the full lemma including the ancilla-return guarantee, or provide a short argument that the ancilla are clean. In addition, the target states in Eq. (20) are superpositions of binary basis states on the low ⌈log(k+1)⌉ qubits of the k-qubit registers, while Lemma 6 prepares arbitrary n-qubit states; the mapping of the high k-⌈log(k+1)⌉ qubits should be made explicit.
  4. [Theorem 14, grid partition] The proof of Theorem 14, Case 1, assumes that √(n_1 k/n_2), √(n_2 k/n_1), √(n/k), n/k, and r are integers and states that 'we can choose their ceiling values as the actual values, which do not change the order of the final circuit depth.' This is not justified: exact block dimensions determine the number of blocks, the recursion depth, and the permutation distances, so the ceiling operation can break the stated recurrence unless a padding or rounding argument is supplied. The authors should provide a rigorous treatment of non-integer block sizes, for example by allowing blocks of slightly different sizes and verifying that the depth recurrence remains O(k log(n/k)+n_2).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, first paragraph] The phrase 'Over the past decades, Over the past decades,' is duplicated and should be reduced to one occurrence.
  2. [Lemma 12, Eqs. (22)-(23)] The transition from Eq. (22) to Eq. (23) is hard to follow because the inverse of U_plus is applied with a non-default register ordering: the third k-qubit register in that application is S_2, not W. The text says 'Eq. (23) can be implemented by a inverse circuit of U_plus,' but it should explicitly state the register permutation (S_1, W, S_2) so that the reader can verify the calculation.
  3. [Lemma 6, statement] The depth formula in Lemma 6 appears to contain a missing superscript: the term '2n+k' should presumably be '2^{n+k}'. Please correct the notation and also state explicitly that the m ancillary qubits are returned to their initial state.
  4. [Lemma 9, proof] The labeling of the qubit sets is inconsistent: the target register T is written as {t_k,t_k-1,...,t_1} in the circuit description but the clearing step refers to 'the first p qubits {t_p,...,t_1}'. Using a consistent least-significant-first ordering would remove ambiguity.
  5. [Theorem 20, proof of grid lower bound] The sentence 'Assume that S'_{d+1} is the set of the upper left (lower right) vertex of the grid' is terse; it should say that one starts from two output qubits located at opposite corners of the grid and tracks their reachable sets backward.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Dicke-state construction reuses the authors' earlier general synthesis lemmas (CQSP, routing, CNOT parallelization), but none of those lemmas assume the Dicke target; the k=1 boundary issue is a correctness error, not circularity.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Theorem 13 is built from Lemma 12 (divide unitary) plus Lemma 8 as a base case. Lemma 12's key step is Eq. (20), where a (ceil(log(k+1)), ceil(log(k+1)))-CQSP creates the binomial-weighted superposition. This CQSP is Lemma 6, quoted from [YZ23]; it is a general controlled state-preparation theorem for arbitrary target states |psi_x> over x in {0,1}^k and makes no reference to Dicke states, so invoking it to implement the divide unitary does not assume the result being proved. Lemmas 9-11 are decomposed into CNOT and Toffoli circuits, using the general CNOT parallelization of Lemma 4 [JST+20] and U_add/U_copy from [STY+23]; these are connectivity and arithmetic primitives, not Dicke-specific. The grid construction (Theorem 14) uses Lemma 5 [YZ24] for permutation routing under grid constraints, again a general routing result independent of the Dicke target. The lower bound (Theorem 20) borrows the light-cone graph formalism from [YAZ24], but the two-qubit reduced-state entanglement argument is carried out in the paper and is self-contained. No parameter is fitted and later called a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported; no ansatz is smuggled in by citation; and no equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction. The only notable anomaly is the k=1 boundary of Theorem 13: the displayed depth O(log(k) log(n/k)+k) degenerates to O(1) at k=1, contradicting the paper's own Omega(log n) lower bound; this is a correctness or boundary error in the depth summation (dropping the per-layer constant when log k = 0), not a circularity. The self-citations are load-bearing, but they cite published, parameter-free general lemmas whose stated assumptions do not include the Dicke-state target, so under the hard rules they count as independent evidence. Score 2 reflects the presence of several self-cited general tools, not any circular reduction.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the constructions are parameter-free. The central claims rest on a set of cited synthesis and routing lemmas, several coauthored by the present authors, plus one ad hoc tiling assumption in the grid proof. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Lemma 6: (k,n)-CQSP can be implemented in depth O(n+k+2^(n+k)/(n+k+m)) with m ancilla
    Cited from [YZ23], coauthored by the present authors; load-bearing for Lemma 12's superposition step. Not proven in this paper.
  • standard math Lemma 5: any permutation unitary on an n1 x n2 grid has depth O(n_2)
    Cited from [YZ24], coauthored by the present authors; load-bearing for the grid recurrences in Theorem 14.
  • standard math Lemma 4: any n-qubit CNOT circuit can be parallelized to depth O(log n + n^2/((n+m) log(n+m))) with m ancilla
    Cited from [JST+20]; used for encoding conversions in Lemma 9.
  • standard math Lemma 8: the divide unitary can be implemented in depth O(k) on 2k adjacent qubits under Path_{2k}
    Cited from [BE22]; used as fallback when ancilla are scarce and for the grid construction.
  • standard math Lemma 7: U^n_k can be implemented with depth O(n) under Path_n
    Cited from [BE19]; used for base cases k=Omega(n) and for grid small subproblems.
  • standard math The recursive framework U^n_k = (U^{n/2}_k tensor U^{n/2}_k) Divide is valid for all l<=k
    Established in [BE19, BE22]; the paper builds both theorems on this identity (Eq. 8).
  • ad hoc to paper The grid partition can use non-integer dimensions by taking ceilings without changing the asymptotic depth
    Stated in Theorem 14 proof without proof; tiling an n1 x n2 grid with k-vertex blocks of exact dimensions sqrt(n1 k/n2) x sqrt(n2 k/n1) requires integer dimensions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Depth-Efficient Quantum Circuit Synthesis for Deterministic Dicke State Preparation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GA3VZRRE

@misc{pith2026250515413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Depth-Efficient Quantum Circuit Synthesis for Deterministic Dicke State Preparation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GA3VZRRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15413}
}
abstract

The $n$-qubit $k$-weight Dicke states $|D^n_k\rangle$, defined as the uniform superposition of all computational basis states with exactly $k$ qubits in state $|1\rangle$, form a basis of the symmetric subspace and represent an important class of entangled quantum states with broad applications in quantum computing. We propose deterministic quantum circuits for Dicke state preparation under two commonly seen qubit connectivity constraints: 1. All-to-all qubit connectivity: our circuit has depth $O(\log(k)\log(n/k)+k)$, which improves the previous best bound of $O(k\log(n/k))$. 2. Grid qubit connectivity ($(n_1\times n_2)$-grid, $n_1\le n_2$): (a) For $k\ge n_2/n_1$, we design a circuit with depth $O(k\log(n/k)+n_2)$, surpassing the prior $O(\sqrt{nk})$ bound. (b) For $k< n_2/n_1$, we design an optimal-depth circuit with depth $O(n_2)$. Furthermore, we establish the depth lower bounds of $\Omega(\log(n))$ for all-to-all qubit connectivity and $\Omega(n_2)$ for $(n_1\times n_2)$-grid connectivity constraints, demonstrating the near-optimality of our constructions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15413 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of circuit framework for U 9 2 . 3.1 Dicke state preparation with all-to-all qubit connectivity The above framework [BE22] for implementing the U n k consists of O(log(n/k)) layers of 2k-qubit divide unitaries followed by one layer of small-scale Dicke state unitaries U O(k) k . This construction yields an overall circuit depth of O(k log(n/k)). Our work achieves significant depth compression with three k… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The blocks in (a) and (b) are all Toffoli gates in Eqs. (14) and (17), respectively. The Toffoli gates on the same arrow (the Toffoli gates in C (1) i or C (2) i ) have distinct control and target qubits. Lemma 12 can then be used to construct efficient circuit preparing the Dicke state. Theorem 13. The Dicke state |D n k ⟩ can be prepared by a standard quantum circuit of depth O log(k) log(n/k)+k  with all-to-all… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A partition of Gridn1,n2 n , each S i, j contains k vertices. (a) If k ≥ n2/n1, each S i, j is a grid Grid √ n1k/n2, √ n2k/n1 k . (b) If k < n2/n1, each S i, j is a grid Grid1,k k . constructed in Section 3.1 and 3.2 can be used to prepare for any symmetric state composed of low-level basis. More precisely, an n-qubit symmetric state |Ψn k ⟩ is at level at most k if |Ψ n k ⟩ = X k ℓ=0 αℓ |D n ℓ ⟩, (30) where αℓ ∈ C … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum states supported by matroids

    quant-ph 2026-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    For states whose support is the set of bases of a matroid, genuine multipartite entanglement is tied to matroid connectivity, measurement to minors, and bit-flip duality to matroid duality.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A divide-and-conquer approach to D icke state preparation

    Shamminuj Aktar, Andreas B \"a rtschi, Abdel-Hameed A Badawy, and Stephan Eidenbenz. A divide-and-conquer approach to D icke state preparation. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , 3:1--16, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Linear combination of hamiltonian simulation for nonunitary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost

    Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, and Lin Lin. Linear combination of hamiltonian simulation for nonunitary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost. Physical Review Letters , 131(15):150603, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series

    Dominic W Berry, Andrew M Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D Somma. Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series. Physical Review Letters , 114(9):090502, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Decomposing Quantum Generalized Toffoli with an Arbitrary Number of Ancilla

    Jonathan M Baker, Casey Duckering, Alexander Hoover, and Frederic T Chong. Decomposing quantum generalized toffoli with an arbitrary number of ancilla. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01671 , 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1904

  5. [5]

    Deterministic preparation of D icke states

    Andreas B \"a rtschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. Deterministic preparation of D icke states. In International Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory , pages 126--139. Springer, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Short-depth circuits for D icke state preparation

    Andreas B \"a rtschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. Short-depth circuits for D icke state preparation. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , pages 87--96. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations

    Dominic W Berry. High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 47(10):105301, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    State preparation by shallow circuits using feed forward

    Harry Buhrman, Marten Folkertsma, Bruno Loff, and Niels MP Neumann. State preparation by shallow circuits using feed forward. Quantum , 8:1552, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum machine learning

    Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pancotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature , 549(7671):195--202, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    The quantum alternating operator ansatz on maximum k -vertex cover

    Jeremy Cook, Stephan Eidenbenz, and Andreas B \"a rtschi. The quantum alternating operator ansatz on maximum k -vertex cover. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , pages 83--92. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Efficient quantum algorithms for GHZ and W states, and implementation on the ibm quantum computer

    Diogo Cruz, Romain Fournier, Fabien Gremion, Alix Jeannerot, Kenichi Komagata, Tara Tosic, Jarla Thiesbrummel, Chun Lam Chan, Nicolas Macris, Marc-Andr \'e Dupertuis, et al. Efficient quantum algorithms for GHZ and W states, and implementation on the ibm quantum computer. Adva...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Childs, Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann

    Andrew M. Childs, Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. Finding cliques by quantum adiabatic evolution. Quantum Information & Computation , 2(3):181–191, April 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Quantum spectral methods for differential equations

    Andrew M Childs and Jin-Peng Liu. Quantum spectral methods for differential equations. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 375(2):1427--1457, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes

    Robert H Dicke. Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes. Physical Review , 93(1):99, 1954

    1954

  7. [15]

    Using quantum gates instead of ancilla bits

    Craig Gidney. Using quantum gates instead of ancilla bits. https://algassert.com/circuits/2015/06/22/Using-Quantum-Gates-instead-of-Ancilla-Bits.html, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Preparation of D icke states in an ion chain

    DB Hume, Chin-Wen Chou, Till Rosenband, and David J Wineland. Preparation of D icke states in an ion chain. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 80(5):052302, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations

    Aram W Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical Review Letters , 103(15):150502, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Optimal space-depth trade-off of CNOT circuits in quantum logic synthesis

    Jiaqing Jiang, Xiaoming Sun, Shang-Hua Teng, Bujiao Wu, Kewen Wu, and Jialin Zhang. Optimal space-depth trade-off of CNOT circuits in quantum logic synthesis. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms , pages 213--229. SIAM, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang. Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing. Physical Review Letters , 118(1):010501, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang. Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization. Quantum , 3:163, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Low-depth quantum symmetrization

    Zhenning Liu, Andrew M Childs, and Daniel Gottesman. Low-depth quantum symmetrization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04019 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Circuit complexity of sparse quantum state preparation

    Jingquan Luo and Lvzhou Li. Circuit complexity of sparse quantum state preparation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16142 , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Deterministic generation of arbitrary symmetric states and entanglement classes

    Lucas Lamata, Carlos E Lopez, BP Lanyon, Thierry Bastin, Juan Carlos Retamal, and Enrique Solano. Deterministic generation of arbitrary symmetric states and entanglement classes. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 87(3):032325, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Quantum telecloning and multiparticle entanglement

    M Murao, D Jonathan, MB Plenio, and V Vedral. Quantum telecloning and multiparticle entanglement. Physical Review A , 59(1):156, 1999

    1999

  17. [25]

    Finite-round quantum error correction on symmetric quantum sensors

    Yingkai Ouyang and Gavin K Brennen. Finite-round quantum error correction on symmetric quantum sensors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06285 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A necessary and sufficient condition to play games in quantum mechanical settings

    Sahin K \"O zdemir, Junichi Shimamura, and Nobuyuki Imoto. A necessary and sufficient condition to play games in quantum mechanical settings. New Journal of Physics , 9(2):43, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    Permutation-invariant quantum codes

    Yingkai Ouyang. Permutation-invariant quantum codes. Physical Review A , 90(6):062317, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Permutation-invariant quantum coding for quantum deletion channels

    Yingkai Ouyang. Permutation-invariant quantum coding for quantum deletion channels. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , pages 1499--1503. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Approximating many-body quantum states with quantum circuits and measurements

    Lorenzo Piroli, Georgios Styliaris, and J Ignacio Cirac. Approximating many-body quantum states with quantum circuits and measurements. Physical Review Letters , 133(23):230401, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Asymptotically optimal circuit depth for quantum state preparation and general unitary synthesis

    Xiaoming Sun, Guojing Tian, Shuai Yang, Pei Yuan, and Shengyu Zhang. Asymptotically optimal circuit depth for quantum state preparation and general unitary synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , 42(10):3301--3314, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Permutationally invariant quantum tomography

    G \'e za T \'o th, Witlef Wieczorek, David Gross, Roland Krischek, Christian Schwemmer, and Harald Weinfurter. Permutationally invariant quantum tomography. Physical Review Letters , 105(25):250403, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    Experimental entanglement of a six-photon symmetric D icke state

    Witlef Wieczorek, Roland Krischek, Nikolai Kiesel, Patrick Michelberger, G \'e za T \'o th, and Harald Weinfurter. Experimental entanglement of a six-photon symmetric D icke state. Physical Review Letters , 103(2):020504, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Preparing D icke states in a spin ensemble using phase estimation

    Yang Wang and Barbara M Terhal. Preparing D icke states in a spin ensemble using phase estimation. Physical Review A , 104(3):032407, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Generation of atomic entangled states with selective resonant interaction in cavity quantum electrodynamics

    Yun-Feng Xiao, Xu-Bo Zou, and Guang-Can Guo. Generation of atomic entangled states with selective resonant interaction in cavity quantum electrodynamics. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 75(1):012310, 2007

    2007

  27. [35]

    Does qubit connectivity impact quantum circuit complexity? IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , 43(2):520--533, 2024

    Pei Yuan, Jonathan Allcock, and Shengyu Zhang. Does qubit connectivity impact quantum circuit complexity? IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , 43(2):520--533, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Efficient preparation of D icke states

    Jeffery Yu, Sean R Muleady, Yu-Xin Wang, Nathan Schine, Alexey V Gorshkov, and Andrew M Childs. Efficient preparation of D icke states. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03428 , 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Optimal (controlled) quantum state preparation and improved unitary synthesis by quantum circuits with any number of ancillary qubits

    Pei Yuan and Shengyu Zhang. Optimal (controlled) quantum state preparation and improved unitary synthesis by quantum circuits with any number of ancillary qubits. Quantum , 7:956, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Full characterization of the depth overhead for quantum circuit compilation with arbitrary qubit connectivity constraint

    Pei Yuan and Shengyu Zhang. Full characterization of the depth overhead for quantum circuit compilation with arbitrary qubit connectivity constraint. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02403 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications

    Xiao-Ming Zhang, Tongyang Li, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications. Physical Review Letters , 129(23):230504, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Constant-depth quantum circuits for arbitrary quantum state preparation via measurement and feedback

    Wei Zi, Junhong Nie, and Xiaoming Sun. Constant-depth quantum circuits for arbitrary quantum state preparation via measurement and feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16208 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.