Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Free Snacks in Quantum Complexity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quadrature-enhanced imaginary-time method extracts coarse spectral information from a Hamiltonian at polynomial sampling cost, while exact ground-state estimation remains exponentially hard.

desk verdict Useful ITQDE analysis with a broken Sec. IV scaling argument; worth refereeing once the m̄ inconsistency is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04618 v1 pith:SEAKIHZ4 submitted 2025-09-04 quant-ph

Gerard McCaul This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Ac
keywords ITQDEimaginary-timeevolutionspectralstaircaseGauss-HermitequadratureQMA-completenessground-stateenergyestimationquantumsamplingcomplexitycoarse-grainedinformation
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 tries to map the boundary between cheap and expensive spectral estimation for a recently proposed quantum method. It argues that Imaginary-Time Quantum Dynamical Emulation (ITQDE), which reconstructs a Hamiltonian's spectrum from overlaps of forward and backward unitary evolutions, can be implemented with a Gauss-Hermite quadrature approximation so that only a modest set of weighted overlap measurements is needed. The paper's central claim is that exact eigenvalue resolution remains exponentially hard, but coarse-grained spectral information is available at polynomial cost after a classical smoothing step. That would matter because it puts an intermediate regime, including spectral densities, low-lying gaps, and partition functions, within reach of near-term hardware, without contradicting the QMA-hardness of ground-state energy estimation, the quantum analogue of NP-hardness.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spectral staircase $H_\tau(\lambda) = \langle N_\tau^{(\lambda)}\rangle/\langle Z_\tau^{(\lambda)}\rangle$, a Gaussian-filtered weighted mean of eigenvalues that steps through plateaux at the eigenenergies as the probe $\lambda$ is scanned. The mechanism is the ITQDE correspondence: the non-unitary filter $e^{-\tau(H-\lambda)^2}$ is replaced by a sum of unitary overlaps $\langle\psi_{-\tau_k}|O|\psi_{\tau_k}\rangle$, and a Gauss-Hermite quadrature, replacing the Hubbard-Stratonovich integral by weighted nodes $x_k$ with $\tau_k=\sqrt{\tau}x_k$, makes the approximation exponentially accurate in the number of retained terms $\bar{m}$. Truncation stability is controlled by the tail ratio $r(\lambda)=Z_\varepsilon/Z_\tau(\lambda)$, which sets a largest resolvable gap; sampling stability comes from estimating numerator and denominator from the same batch of random states so their covariance cancels the $1/D$ orthogonality catastrophe; and the smoothing identity $\tau_{\mathrm{eff}} = \tau/(1+\tau\delta\lambda^2)$ converts resolution into a tunable bias-variance trade-off.

What would settle it

Directly measure the number of quadrature terms $\bar{m}$ needed to hold the integrated staircase error $\epsilon$ fixed as $s = \tau\|H\|^2$ is increased across many orders of magnitude, for example by rescaling a fixed Hamiltonian's hopping amplitude as in Fig. 2. If $\bar{m}$ must grow linearly with $s$ to maintain constant $\epsilon$, the claimed $O(n)$ overlap count is wrong; if $\bar{m}$ stays bounded or grows logarithmically, the polynomial-resource claim survives. A second check: with $K$ fixed and smoothing width $\delta\lambda$ varied, verify the predicted precision $\delta_j \approx \Delta_j/\sqrt{\ln K}$ and the largest-stable-gap formula $\Delta_\varepsilon \approx \sqrt{\ln K/(2\tau_{\mathrm{eff}})}$ against exact diagonalization on small Fermi-Hubbard lattices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is an explicit resource accounting for ITQDE that identifies the shot budget, not circuit depth or number of overlaps, as the locus of exponential cost. If a spectral window contains both a smallest gap $\Delta_{\min}$ and a largest gap $\Delta_{\max}$, resolving both simultaneously requires $K \gtrsim \exp(c(\Delta_{\max}/\Delta_{\min})^2)$ shots with $c=O(1)$; this is the mechanism by which QMA-completeness is preserved. If one instead convolves the staircase with a classical window of width $\delta\lambda$, the filter width governing the estimate changes from $\tau$ to $\tau_{\mathrm{eff}} = \tau/(1+\tau\delta\lambda^2)$, and the precision of each estimated level becomes $\delta_j \approx \Delta_j/\sqrt{\ln K}$, proportional to the local gap. With $K$ polynomial in system size, the method therefore delivers efficiently smoothed spectral information, the 'free snack', while leaving exact ground-state estimation exponentially expensive.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Gauss-Hermite truncation leaves only $\bar{m}\sim O(n)$ retained overlap terms even when the filter width $\tau$ must grow exponentially with $n$; the paper's derivation of this scaling appears internally inconsistent, since its Eq. (19) reduces to a constant rather than a linear-in-$s$ law, so if the true scaling is linear in $s$, the polynomial-overlap resource claim loses its foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near-term devices can use ITQDE with quadrature to estimate spectral densities, partition functions, and low-lying gaps at polynomial sampling cost, provided the target precision is expressed relative to the local gap rather than as absolute $1/\mathrm{poly}(n)$ accuracy.
  • Over-resolved spectral windows are self-diagnosing: the oscillatory truncation error predicted by the tail-ratio analysis appears precisely where $\tau$ is too large for the gap, so a user can detect and coarsen those windows.
  • For gapped systems whose gap stays finite as $n$ grows, the achievable precision of each energy level decouples from system size, making the method particularly useful for phase identification and thermodynamic estimates.
  • The same quadrature and smoothing analysis transfers to other non-unitary dynamics, including non-Hermitian Hamiltonian evolution and Lindbladian dissipation, because the underlying emulation correspondence is not specific to Hermitian filters.
  • If the overlap-count scaling holds, the number of distinct circuits needed is only polynomial for fixed resolution, so the method is compatible with shallow NISQ-era circuits and modest classical post-processing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Taken literally, the derivation of Eq. (19) is internally inconsistent: $\bar{m} \propto s\log(\varepsilon^{1/s})$ reduces algebraically to $\bar{m} \propto \ln\varepsilon$, independent of $s$, while the surrounding text claims linear-in-$s$ growth. The $\bar{m}\sim O(n)$ overlap scaling is therefore not established by the algebra shown, and it should be checked numerically for large $s$ before th
  • The local bandwidth ratio $\kappa_{\mathrm{loc}} = \Delta_{\max}/\Delta_{\min}$ may be a more natural complexity parameter for spectral estimation than $n$ itself; the exponential $K \gtrsim \exp(c\kappa_{\mathrm{loc}}^2)$ echoes the scale-coexistence mechanism behind spectral-gap undecidability, suggesting a continuum between easy and undecidable spectral problems.
  • The shared-batch ratio trick behind the variance analysis is a general principle: any estimator formed as a ratio of two positively correlated trace estimates can cancel an exponential concentration of the individual traces, which may apply to other quantum algorithms that compute normalized quantities.
  • A testable extension would replace the Gaussian filter with other positive kernels, such as Lorentzians or polynomial filters; if the same overlap scaling and $\tau_{\mathrm{eff}}$ smoothing hold, the 'free snack' regime is a property of coarse spectral filtering generally, not of Gaussians specifically.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 paper analyses Imaginary-Time Quantum Dynamical Emulation (ITQDE), a recently proposed method for estimating spectral densities, partition functions, and energy gaps from overlaps of oppositely propagated unitary evolutions. The author recapitulates the ITQDE correspondence, argues that exact spectral resolution must inherit an exponential cost, and then develops a Gauss-Hermite quadrature approximation with truncation to reduce the number of required overlaps. Secs. V and VI provide stability criteria and sampling-error bounds, and introduce a classical smoothing step that effectively rescales the filter width. The central claim is a 'free snack': coarse-grained spectral information can be obtained with resources polynomial in system size, while the QMA-hardness of exact ground-state energy estimation is preserved through an exponential shot-budget scaling involving the ratio of largest to smallest gaps in a spectral window.

Significance. If the scaling arguments were correct, the paper would provide a useful resource analysis of a NISQ-friendly spectral estimator and identify a concrete intermediate regime between trivial simulation and intractable exact resolution. The paper has genuine strengths: Fig. 1 validates the ITQDE staircase against exact eigenenergies on small Fermi-Hubbard models; the stability analysis in Sec. V and the sampling analysis in Sec. VI and App. B are transparent and supported by numerical experiments exhibiting the predicted K^{-1/2} law; and the distinction between deterministic truncation error and statistical sampling error is well drawn. However, the quadrature-overlap scaling in Sec. IV, which is load-bearing for the resource-reduction claim, is internally inconsistent; until that is corrected, the central 'polynomial overlaps' and 'free snack' statements are not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (18)-(19)] The derivation of the truncation scaling is internally inconsistent. Matching (s/m)^m to e^{-d m_bar} and setting m = kappa s gives e^{-gamma s} ~ e^{-d m_bar}, hence m_bar ~ (gamma/d) s, i.e. linear growth in s. Equation (19), however, states m_bar proportional to s log(epsilon^{1/s}); since log(epsilon^{1/s}) = (ln epsilon)/s, the right-hand side is constant in s. These two statements cannot both hold. Because s = tau ||H||^2 and full spectral resolution requires tau ~ 1/Delta_min^2, which is exponential in n for typical dense spectra, the distinction between constant and linear scaling is exponentially significant. The numerical collapse in Fig. 2, plotted against m_bar/s, does not discriminate between these two possibilities.
  2. [Sec. IV, final paragraph] The claim that 'the effective number of overlaps required to approximate the staircase grows only linearly with tau, meaning m_bar ~ O(n)' is a non sequitur. Even if m_bar grew linearly with tau, tau must itself scale exponentially with n when the smallest gaps shrink exponentially with n, so linear-in-tau growth implies exponential-in-n growth. The statement appears to conflate linear growth in tau with linear growth in n. This affects the 'polynomial circuits for fixed precision' statement in Sec. V and the resource-reduction part of the free-snack claim, so it must be corrected explicitly.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eq. (37) and smoothing discussion] The shot-budget bound K >= exp(c (Delta_max/Delta_min)^2) is a plausible and clearly stated mechanism for recovering exponential hardness, and the smoothing construction tau_eff = tau/(1 + tau (delta_lambda)^2) is well motivated. However, the resource count for the smoothed estimator is incomplete: after smoothing to tau_eff ~ alpha/Delta_j^2, the number of retained overlaps m_bar must be re-evaluated with the corrected scaling from Sec. IV. If m_bar is constant in s for fixed precision, the smoothed regime is indeed polynomial; if m_bar is linear in s, the overlap count must also be stated for the smoothed parameters. The paper should present the total resource count (overlaps and shots) after smoothing, not only the shot budget.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. I, Introduction] There is a typo 'TO achieve' at the end of the introductory section; it should read 'To achieve'.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption text 'min tau = 0.5 max tau = 6' is formatted as plain text; using a legend or a more standard notation such as 'tau_min = 0.5, tau_max = 6' would improve readability.
  3. [App. B, sampling error] Near the end of the appendix the text reads 'their relative errors. in In particular'; the stray 'in' should be removed.
  4. [References] Ref. [39] repeats the same textbook as Ref. [25] (Nielsen and Chuang); the duplicate should be consolidated.
  5. [Sec. IV, notation] The use of tau both as the filter width and as the quadrature node time tau_k = sqrt(tau) x_k is a slight abuse that is flagged in the text, but the distinction would be clearer if the node times were denoted by a different symbol, such as t_k.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new resource-scaling and stability results are derived from stated quadrature and sampling assumptions rather than fitted to the conclusions; the main caveat is that the base ITQDE correspondence itself is imported from the author's own Ref. [1].

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. II, Eqs. (8)-(10) and Sec. IV, Eq. (12); explicit deferral in the text immediately before Eq. (8).]
    "While the full details of the ITQDE correspondence are left to Ref. [1], it will suffice here to quote the result... we first appeal to the fact (established in Ref.[1]) that the continuous m→∞ limit of ITQDE recovers a form of Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation."

    The foundational equivalence (Eqs. 8-10) and the continuous Gaussian-integral identity (Eq. 12) that seeds the quadrature construction are both taken from Ref. [1], a paper co-authored by the present author. Every subsequent result—quadrature error bound, stability threshold, sampling bound, and the free-snack claim—inherits this equivalence without re-deriving it. This is a load-bearing self-citation rather than a fully circular derivation: Eq. (12) is a standard Gaussian identity and Fig. 1 reproduces the staircase against exact eigenenergies on small Fermi-Hubbard instances, so the dependence is transparent but not vacuous.

full rationale

The genuinely new content of this paper is the quadrature formulation, the stability criterion, and the sampling/resolution trade-off. These are derived from Gauss-Hermite asymptotics, the threshold analysis in Sec. V, and the ratio-variance expansion in App. B; they are not obtained by fitting a parameter and then relabeling the fit as a prediction. The numerical figures verify the derived scalings on Fermi-Hubbard models, and no central resource exponent is extracted from the data. The main circularity-relevant issue is that the ITQDE correspondence itself, and its continuous Hubbard-Stratonovich limit, are imported from Ref. [1] by the same author; this is flagged as a load-bearing self-citation, though it is mitigated by the standard mathematical form of Eq. (12) and by the small-model benchmark in Fig. 1. Separately, Sec. IV contains an internal algebraic inconsistency that is a correctness risk rather than a circularity: Eq. (19), written as m-bar proportional to s log(epsilon^{1/s}), algebraically reduces to m-bar proportional to log epsilon, i.e. constant in s, which conflicts with the immediately preceding balancing result m-bar proportional to s; and the statement that the overlap count 'grows only linearly with tau, meaning m-bar similar to O(n)' is a non sequitur when tau is exponential in n. These points weaken the resource argument but do not make the derivation circular. Overall score 2 reflects one load-bearing self-citation while the central new scaling claims still rest on derived, not fitted, assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims are expressed in terms of user-chosen parameters (τ, m, m̄, K, δλ, r0), which are not fitted to data. The main domain assumptions are standard for the field. The ad hoc assumption is the tail-balancing step in the quadrature scaling argument, which is internally inconsistent as written.

free parameters (6)
  • τ (filter width parameter)
    Controls the resolution scale Δ_min ~ 1/sqrt(τ) and the Gaussian filter width; chosen by the user, not fitted to data.
  • m (Gauss-Hermite quadrature degree)
    Chosen as m = κs with κ > 1 to make the quadrature error exponentially small; the constant κ is a free choice.
  • m̄ (quadrature truncation point)
    Number of retained overlaps; sets the truncation error ε ~ e^{-d m̄}; a user-chosen accuracy/effort trade-off.
  • K (shot budget per overlap)
    The sampling resource; its scaling is the main result, and the paper treats K as a free parameter in the analysis.
  • δλ (smoothing window width)
    Width of the convolution window in Eq. (38); sets τ_eff and the bias-variance trade-off; chosen by hand.
  • r0 (stability tolerance)
    Tolerance for the tail ratio r(λ) in Eqs. (27)-(30); a chosen constant that fixes the stability threshold.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Gauss-Hermite quadrature nodes and weights exist with the stated error bounds (DLMF refs in App. A).
    Used in App. A to derive the quadrature approximation and the error bound O((τe/(2K))^K ||H^{2K}||).
  • standard math Hubbard-Stratonovich identity e^{-τH^2} = (1/sqrt(π)) ∫ e^{-x^2} e^{-2i sqrt(τ) x H} dx (Eq. 12).
    Basis for discretizing the imaginary-time filter; taken from Ref. [1] and standard Gaussian integral identities.
  • domain assumption For a k-local Hamiltonian, ||H|| = O(n^k) and the spectral bandwidth is O(n^k).
    Used in Sec. III to relate spectral norm and bandwidth to system size.
  • domain assumption Generic non-integrable systems have exponentially dense spectra with minimum gaps ~ n^k/2^n.
    Used to argue τ must scale exponentially with n for full spectral resolution in Sec. III; model-dependent.
  • domain assumption The initial state has nonzero overlap with every eigenstate; in the trace variant, random states from a unitary/state 2-design are efficiently preparable.
    Needed for the spectral staircase to see all levels and for the stochastic trace estimator in Sec. VI.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncation tail ε = Σ_{k>m̄} w_k f_k is well approximated by e^{-d m̄}, and can be balanced against quadrature error to set m̄ (Eqs. 17-19).
    This is the step that contains the inconsistent scaling; the paper provides no rigorous bound for the tail sum beyond an asymptotic estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Free Snacks in Quantum Complexity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SEAKIHZ4

@misc{pith2026250904618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Free Snacks in Quantum Complexity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SEAKIHZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04618}
}
read the original abstract

Estimating ground-state energies is a cornerstone problem in Hamiltonian complexity, and in general requires exponential resources even on quantum computers. It is in this context we analyse the recently developed Imaginary-Time Quantum Dynamical Emulation (ITQDE). This method enables estimation of spectral densities, partition functions, and low-lying gaps, but requires only minimal coherent control, modest classical post-processing, and no state preparation. Using a quadrature-based formulation, we derive scaling and stability criteria that diagnose when its estimates are reliable, and introduce a controlled smoothing that yields a principled bias-variance trade off. The resulting picture preserves the hardness of exact eigenvalue resolution but reveals a practical regime - a "free snack" - here coarse-grained spectral information is obtainable with only polynomial resources. By recasting sampling costs as explicit bounds on resolvable bandwidths, the intermediate regime between trivial and intractable complexity becomes accessible on near-term quantum hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04618 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Plot of the filtered expectation value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Error scaling of the ITQDE correspondence calcu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Illustration of oscillatory errors originating from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Error scaling of the ITQDE when estimated with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Resolution floor set by the trade-off between stability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. M. Leamer, A. B. Magann, D. I. Bondar, and G. Mc- Caul, Quantum Dynamical Emulation of Imaginary Time Evolution (2024), arXiv:2403.03350 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Friedman, There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch (Open Court Publishing, La Salle, IL, 1975)

    M. Friedman, There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch (Open Court Publishing, La Salle, IL, 1975)

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    Ade, The free lunch, in The Old-Time Saloon: Not Wet — Not Dry, Just History , edited by B

    G. Ade, The free lunch, in The Old-Time Saloon: Not Wet — Not Dry, Just History , edited by B. Savage (Uni- versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2016) pp. 34–48, clas- sic firsthand account of late-19th-century saloon culture; ch. 4 details how proprietors used heavily salted “free” food to spur drink sales

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Wolpert and W

    D. Wolpert and W. Macready, No free lunch theorems for optimization, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Com- putation 1, 67 (1997)

    1997

  5. [5]

    J. F. Clauser and J. P. Dowling, Factoring integers with Young’s N-slit interferometer, Physical Review A 53, 4587 (1996), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    N. T. Shaked, S. Messika, S. Dolev, and J. Rosen, Op- tical solution for bounded NP-complete problems, Ap- plied Optics 46, 711 (2007), publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    ˇCern´ y, Quantum computers and intractable (NP- complete) computing problems, Physical Review A 48, 116 (1993), publisher: American Physical Society

    V. ˇCern´ y, Quantum computers and intractable (NP- complete) computing problems, Physical Review A 48, 116 (1993), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Fron- tiers in Physics 2, 10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 (2014), pub- lisher: Frontiers

    A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Fron- tiers in Physics 2, 10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 (2014), pub- lisher: Frontiers

    arXiv 2014

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Cubitt and A

    T. Cubitt and A. Montanaro, Complexity Classification of Local Hamiltonian Problems, SIAM Journal on Com- puting 45, 268 (2016), publisher: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    2016

  2. [10]

    Kempe, A

    J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, The Complexity of the Local Hamiltonian Problem, SIAM Journal on Com- puting 35, 1070 (2006), publisher: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    2006

  3. [11]

    Gharibian, Y

    S. Gharibian, Y. Huang, Z. Landau, and S. W. Shin, Quantum Hamiltonian Complexity, Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 10, 159 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    T. J. Osborne, Hamiltonian complexity, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 022001 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Volkoff, Z

    T. Volkoff, Z. Holmes, and A. Sornborger, Uni- versal Compiling and (No-)Free-Lunch Theorems for Continuous-Variable Quantum Learning, PRX Quantum 2, 040327 (2021), publisher: American Physical Society

    2021

  6. [14]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    Zalka, Simulating quantum systems on a quantum computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    C. Zalka, Simulating quantum systems on a quantum computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci- ences 454, 313 (1998), publisher: The Royal Society

    1998

  8. [16]

    Aharonov, W

    D. Aharonov, W. van Dam, J. Kempe, Z. Landau, S. Lloyd, and O. Regev, Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation, SIAM Journal on Computing 37, 166 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to ran- dom instances of an np-complete problem, Science 292, 472 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    N. A. McMahon, M. Pervez, and C. Arenz, Equat- ing quantum imaginary time evolution, Riemannian gradient flows, and stochastic implementations (2025), arXiv:2504.06123 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    An, J.-P

    D. An, J.-P. Liu, and L. Lin, Linear combination of hamil- tonian simulation for nonunitary dynamics with opti- mal state preparation cost, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 150603 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu, Quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications and detailed analy- sis, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032603 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    An, J.-P

    D. An, J.-P. Liu, and L. Lin, Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonunitary Dynamics with Optimal State Preparation Cost, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 150603 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  14. [22]

    Novikau and I

    I. Novikau and I. Joseph, Quantum algorithm for the advection-diffusion equation and the koopman-von neu- mann approach to nonlinear dynamical systems, Com- puter Physics Communications 309, 109498 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    J. B. Parker and I. Joseph, Quantum phase estimation for a class of generalized eigenvalue problems, Phys. Rev. A 102, 022422 (2020), publisher: American Physical So- ciety

    2020

  16. [24]

    A. Y. Kitaev, A. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi, Classical and Quantum Computation (American Mathematical Soc., Providence, Rhode Island, 2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    K. M. Svore, M. B. Hastings, and M. Freedman, Faster Phase Estimation (2013), arXiv:1304.0741 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    T. E. O’Brien, B. Tarasinski, and B. M. Terhal, Quantum phase estimation of multiple eigenvalues for small-scale (noisy) experiments, New J. Phys. 21, 023022 (2019), 15 publisher: IOP Publishing

    2019

  20. [28]

    Wiebe and C

    N. Wiebe and C. Granade, Efficient Bayesian Phase Esti- mation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 010503 (2016), publisher: American Physical Society

    2016

  21. [29]

    Dobˇ s´ ıˇ cek, G

    M. Dobˇ s´ ıˇ cek, G. Johansson, V. Shumeiko, and G. Wendin, Arbitrary accuracy iterative quantum phase estimation algorithm using a single ancillary qubit: A two-qubit benchmark, Phys. Rev. A 76, 030306 (2007), publisher: American Physical Society

    2007

  22. [30]

    K. Choi, D. Lee, J. Bonitati, Z. Qian, and J. Watkins, Rodeo Algorithm for Quantum Computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040505 (2021), publisher: American Physical Society

    2021

  23. [31]

    T. D. Cohen and H. Oh, Optimizing the rodeo projection algorithm, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032422 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  24. [32]

    R. D. Somma, Quantum eigenvalue estimation via time series analysis (2020), arXiv:1907.11748 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    K. P. Gnatenko, H. P. Laba, and V. M. Tkachuk, De- tection of energy levels of a spin system on a quantum computer by probe spin evolution, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 522 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    K. P. Gnatenko, H. P. Laba, and V. M. Tkachuk, Energy levels estimation on a quantum computer by evolution of a physical quantity, Physics Letters A 424, 127843 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Xie, Z.-Y

    X.-D. Xie, Z.-Y. Xue, and D.-B. Zhang, Variational quan- tum algorithms for scanning the complex spectrum of non-Hermitian systems, Front. Phys. 19, 41202 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Jones, S

    T. Jones, S. Endo, S. McArdle, X. Yuan, and S. C. Ben- jamin, Variational quantum algorithms for discovering hamiltonian spectra, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062304 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    S. A. Rahman, ¨O. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, Feedback-based quantum algorithm for excited states cal- culation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04620 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    S. Wei, J. Wen, X. Li, P. Chang, B. Wang, F. Nori, and G. Long, A Time-Symmetric Quantum Algorithm for Di- rect Eigenstate Determination (2025), arXiv:2506.10283 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Nielsen, Quantum computation and quantum informa- tion (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York, 2010)

    M. Nielsen, Quantum computation and quantum informa- tion (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York, 2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Elben, B

    A. Elben, B. Vermersch, R. van Bijnen, C. Kokail, T. Brydges, C. Maier, M. K. Joshi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Cross-Platform Verification of Intermediate Scale Quantum Devices, Physical Review Letters 124, 010504 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

    2020

  33. [41]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics 16, 1050 (2020), publisher: Na- ture Publishing Group

    2020

  34. [42]

    S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, Direct Fidelity Estimation from Few Pauli Measurements, Physical Review Letters 106, 230501 (2011), publisher: American Physical Soci- ety

    2011

  35. [43]

    G¨ arttner, J

    M. G¨ arttner, J. G. Bohnet, A. Safavi-Naini, M. L. Wall, J. J. Bollinger, and A. M. Rey, Measuring out-of-time- order correlations and multiple quantum spectra in a trapped-ion quantum magnet, Nature Physics 13, 781 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Metal-insulator transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1039 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    P. W. Anderson, The resonating valence bond state in La 2CuO4 and superconductivity, Science 235, 1196 (1987)

    1987

  38. [46]

    Hofrichter, L

    C. Hofrichter, L. Riegger, F. Scazza, M. H¨ ofer, D. R. Fernandes, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Direct probing of the mott crossover in the SU(n) fermi-hubbard model, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021030 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Gomes, A

    N. Gomes, A. Mukherjee, F. Zhang, T. Iadecola, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, P. P. Orth, and Y.-X. Yao, Adap- tive Variational Quantum Imaginary Time Evolution Approach for Ground State Preparation, Advanced Quantum Technologies 4, 2100114 (2021), eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.c...

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    Gomes, F

    N. Gomes, F. Zhang, N. F. Berthusen, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, P. P. Orth, and Y. Yao, Efficient Step-Merged Quan- tum Imaginary Time Evolution Algorithm for Quantum Chemistry, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 6256 (2020), publisher: American Chemical Society

    2020

  41. [49]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simula- tion of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Inf 5, 1 (2019), number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2019

  42. [50]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quan- tum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nature Physics 16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Kamakari, S.-N

    H. Kamakari, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Digital Quantum Simulation of Open Quantum Systems Using Quantum Imaginary–Time Evolution, PRX Quan- tum 3, 010320 (2022), publisher: American Physical So- ciety

    2022

  44. [52]

    Tsuchimochi, Y

    T. Tsuchimochi, Y. Ryo, S. L. Ten-no, and K. Sasasako, Improved Algorithms of Quantum Imaginary Time Evo- lution for Ground and Excited States of Molecular Sys- tems, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 503 (2023), pub- lisher: American Chemical Society

    2023

  45. [53]

    S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, R. N. Tazhigulov, A. T. Tan, G. K.- L. Chan, and A. J. Minnich, Quantum Computation of Finite-Temperature Static and Dynamical Properties of Spin Systems Using Quantum Imaginary Time Evolu- tion, PRX Quantum 2, 010317 (2021), publisher: Amer- ican Physical Society

    2021

  46. [54]

    Gluza, J

    M. Gluza, J. Son, B. H. Tiang, R. Zander, R. Seidel, Y. Suzuki, Z. Holmes, and N. H. Y. Ng, Double-bracket quantum algorithms for quantum imaginary-time evolu- tion (2025), arXiv:2412.04554 [quant-ph]

    2025

  47. [55]

    Kosugi, Y

    T. Kosugi, Y. Nishiya, H. Nishi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Imaginary-time evolution using forward and backward real-time evolution with a single ancilla: First-quantized eigensolver algorithm for quantum chemistry, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033121 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Kosugi, H

    T. Kosugi, H. Nishi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Exhaustive search for optimal molecular geometries using imaginary- time evolution on a quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf 9, 1 (2023), number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2023

  49. [57]

    Turro, A

    F. Turro, A. Roggero, V. Amitrano, P. Luchi, K. A. Wendt, J. L. Dubois, S. Quaglioni, and F. Pederiva, Imaginary-time propagation on a quantum chip, Phys- ical Review A 105, 022440 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Nishi, K

    H. Nishi, K. Hamada, Y. Nishiya, T. Kosugi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Optimal scheduling in probabilis- tic imaginary-time evolution on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Research 5, 043048 (2023), arXiv:2305.04600 16 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Xie, S.-J

    H.-N. Xie, S.-J. Wei, F. Yang, Z.-A. Wang, C.-T. Chen, H. Fan, and G.-L. Long, A Probabilistic Imaginary Time Evolution Algorithm Based on Non-unitary Quantum Circuit (2022), arXiv:2210.05293 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Liu, J.-G

    T. Liu, J.-G. Liu, and H. Fan, Probabilistic nonunitary gate in imaginary time evolution, Quantum Inf Process 20, 204 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Nishi, T

    H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, Y. Nishiya, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Acceleration of probabilistic imaginary-time evolution method combined with quantum amplitude amplification (2022), arXiv:2212.13816 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos , 3rd ed., Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2010)

    F. Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos , 3rd ed., Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2010)

    2010

  55. [63]

    M. L. Mehta, Random Matrices , 3rd ed. (Else- vier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2004)

    2004

  56. [64]

    DLMF, NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions , https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.1.10 of 2023-06-15, f. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

    2023

  57. [65]

    Dankert, R

    C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012304 (2009)

    2009

  58. [66]

    P. W. Anderson, Infrared catastrophe in fermi gases with local scattering potentials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 1049 (1967)

    1967

  59. [67]

    Elben, R

    A. Elben, R. Kueng, H.-Y. R. Huang, R. van Bij- nen, C. Kokail, M. Dalmonte, P. Calabrese, B. Kraus, J. Preskill, P. Zoller, and B. Vermersch, Mixed-state en- tanglement from local randomized measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 200501 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    T. S. Cubitt, D. Perez-Garcia, and M. M. Wolf, Unde- cidability of the spectral gap, Nature 528, 207 (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    Bausch, T

    J. Bausch, T. S. Cubitt, A. Lucia, and D. Perez-Garcia, Undecidability of the spectral gap in one dimension, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031038 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    K. G. Wilson and J. Kogut, The renormalization group and the ε expansion, Physics Reports 12, 75 (1974)

    1974

  63. [71]

    M. N. Ivaki, A. J. Szuminsky, A. Lazarides, A. Zagoskin, G. McCaul, and T. Ala-Nissila, Dynamical learning and quantum memory with non-Hermitian many-body sys- tems (2025), arXiv:2506.07676 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    McCaul, K

    G. McCaul, K. Jacobs, and D. I. Bondar, Fast computa- tion of dissipative quantum systems with ensemble rank truncation, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 013017 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.