Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 53 references

Certifying and learning quantum Ising Hamiltonians

T0 review · 0 major / 7 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 An Ising Hamiltonian can be certified against a known candidate in $\widetilde O(1/\varepsilon)$ evolution time, matching the lower bound up to logs; its Gibbs state can be learned and certified with sample complexity polynomial in $n$…

desk verdict Near-optimal Hamiltonian certification via the Bonami lemma is the real deal; the apparent abstract/theorem gap is a standard promise-testing artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10239 v1 pith:LNYWAKVM submitted 2025-09-12 quant-ph cs.CCcs.DS

Andreas Bluhm , Matthias C. Caro , Francisco Escudero Gutiérrez , Aadil Oufkir , Cambyse Rouzé This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.CCcs.DS MSC 81P68
keywords quantumHamiltoniancertificationIsingHamiltonianspropertytestingGibbsstatelearningBonamilemmahypercontractivityclassicalshadows
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's project is to make the verification and thermal-state characterization of quantum Ising Hamiltonians as efficient as information theory allows. For an unknown $n$-qubit Ising Hamiltonian accessed through its time evolution, it gives a certification test that decides whether the Hamiltonian is within $\varepsilon$ (normalized Frobenius norm) of a known candidate or at least $12\varepsilon$ away, using only $\widetilde O(1/\varepsilon)$ total evolution time, which matches the $\Omega(1/\varepsilon)$ lower bound up to logarithmic factors. For the associated Gibbs states, it gives a learning algorithm using $\widetilde O(n^4\beta^2/\varepsilon^4)$ single copies in trace norm, avoiding the exponential-in-$\beta$ sample cost that earlier Hamiltonian-learning approaches incurred, and a certification algorithm with the same sample complexity that is also time-efficient. If these results are correct, verifying a candidate quantum-device Hamiltonian and learning its thermal state become feasible at near-information-theoretic cost for the Ising class.

What carries the argument

The central object for the certification result is the normalized trace of the time-evolution operator of the difference Hamiltonian, $u_{I^{\otimes n}}=\mathrm{Tr}[e^{-it\Delta H}]/2^n$, whose Taylor expansion separates the desired term $-\frac12(t\|\Delta H\|_{\bar F})^2$ from a remainder. The mechanism that keeps the remainder small is the quantum Bonami Lemma: for a $k$-local Hamiltonian $H$ and $l\ge2$, $(\mathrm{Tr}[|H|^l]/2^n)^{1/l}\le l^{k/2}(\mathrm{Tr}[H^2]/2^n)^{1/2}$; for $k=2$ the constant is just $l$ with no dependence on $n$, making the remainder $O((t\|\Delta H\|_{\bar F})^3)$ at $t=\Theta(1/\varepsilon)$. For the Gibbs-state results, the load-bearing identity is the Pinsker-type trace-distance bound $\|\rho_H(\beta)-\rho_{H'}(\beta)\|_{\rm tr}\le \sqrt{2\beta\,\mathrm{Tr}[(\rho-\rho')(H'-H)]}$, which converts closeness of Hamiltonian coefficients into closeness of Gibbs states and makes a coarse net an $\varepsilon$-cover. The readout mechanism is classical shadow tomography, which estimates all low-weight Pauli expectation values of the net simultaneously from few copies.

What would settle it

Numerically evaluate the ratio $(\mathrm{Tr}[|\Delta H|^l]/2^n)^{1/l}\big/(\mathrm{Tr}[\Delta H^2]/2^n)^{1/2}$ for random traceless $n$-qubit 2-local operators $\Delta H$ with $\|\Delta H\|_{\rm op}\le1$ and $n=4,\dots,20$, for $l$ up to about $1/\varepsilon$. If the ratio exceeds $C l$ with $C$ growing like $n^{\Omega(1)}$, the Taylor-error bound in Lemma 9 fails and the claimed $\widetilde O(1/\varepsilon)$ total evolution time does not follow; the same computation for $k>2$ should reproduce the divergence identified in Remark 11.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that both tasks reduce to estimating a few scalar quantities that depend on the Hamiltonian only through its low-weight Pauli coefficients. For certification from dynamics, the identity coefficient of the time-evolution operator of $\Delta H=H-H_0$ satisfies $u_{I^{\otimes n}}=\mathrm{Tr}[e^{-it\Delta H}]/2^n = 1-\frac12 (t\|\Delta H\|_{\bar F})^2 + O((t\|\Delta H\|_{\bar F})^3)$, where the quantum Bonami Lemma — a Fourier-analytic hypercontractivity bound for $k$-local operators — controls the tail for $k=2$; estimating $|u_{I^{\otimes n}}|^2$ by stabilizer-state Pauli sampling and iterating over exponentially decreasing tolerances yields the $\widetilde O(1/\varepsilon)$ certification test. For the Gibbs state, the paper proves the Pinsker-type bound $\|\rho_H(\beta)-\rho_{H'}(\beta)\|_{\rm tr}\le \sqrt{2\beta\,\mathrm{Tr}[(\rho-\rho')(H'-H)]}\le O(\beta n^2 \max_P |h_P-h'_P|)$, so a coarse integer grid in the space of Ising coefficient vectors is an $\varepsilon$-covering net of all Ising Gibbs states. Classical shadow tomography estimates every grid observable from $\widetilde O(n^4\beta^2/\varepsilon^4)$ copies, giving a learner and, with a simple threshold on the shadow estimates of Pauli coefficients, a time-efficient certifier. The same scheme extends to $k$-local Hamiltonians with sample complexity $\widetilde O(n^{2k})$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire near-optimal certification speed rests on the 2-local quantum Bonami Lemma holding with constant $l$ and no hidden dependence on the number of qubits — $(\mathrm{Tr}[|\Delta H|^l]/2^n)^{1/l}\le l(\mathrm{Tr}[\Delta H^2]/2^n)^{1/2}$ — since if the correct constant grew with $n$, the Taylor remainder in the certification proof would be too large and the $\widetilde O(1/\varepsilon)$ evolution time would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ising Hamiltonian certification reaches the Heisenberg limit: because no time-evolution algorithm can distinguish $H=\varepsilon X$ from $H=-\varepsilon X$ with less than $\Omega(1/\varepsilon)$ evolution time, the $\widetilde O(1/\varepsilon)$ test is optimal up to logarithmic factors.
  • For Gibbs states, the sample complexity is polynomial in $\beta$, $n$, and $1/\varepsilon$; for $\beta=\mathrm{poly}(n)$ and constant $k$, the learner uses $\widetilde O(n^{2k})$ copies, an exponential speedup over full state tomography, which needs $\Theta(4^n)$ copies.
  • Gibbs-state certification is both sample- and time-efficient; for $\beta=\mathrm{poly}(n)$ and constant $k$, it is exponentially faster in sample complexity than general state certification, which needs $\Theta(2^n)$ copies.
  • The Gibbs-state results generalize to $k$-local Hamiltonians with sample complexity $\widetilde O(n^{2k})$, whereas the near-optimal Hamiltonian certification is specific to 2-local (Ising) Hamiltonians; the paper's own tail-bound analysis shows the Bonami-based argument diverges for $k>2$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence beyond the paper: for $k>2$, the same Taylor-tail strategy should fail numerically, because the summands grow like $l^{l/2}$, and a direct moment computation on random 3-local Hamiltonians would confirm the divergence predicted by the paper's Remark 11.
  • Beyond the paper, the Pinsker-type bound on Gibbs-state distances is a transferable primitive: any family of states parameterized by bounded $k$-body coefficients inherits the same covering-net learning guarantee with sample complexity polynomial in $n^k$, $\beta$, and $1/\varepsilon$, up to constants.
  • A natural next step beyond the paper is to replace the brute-force search over the covering net in the Gibbs-state learner by a convex or iterative optimization over the coefficient polytope; the sample bound would stay $\widetilde O(n^4\beta^2/\varepsilon^4)$ while the classical post-processing could become polynomial, turning Theorem 14 into a time-efficient learner.
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

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies certification and learning of n-qubit Ising (2-local) Hamiltonians in two access models. In the time-evolution model, it gives an algorithm (Theorem 10, via the subroutine of Lemma 9) that, for a known 2-local H0 and an unknown 2-local H, distinguishes ||H-H0||_Fbar <= epsilon from ||H-H0||_Fbar >= 12 epsilon using O~(1/epsilon) total evolution time, matching the Omega(1/epsilon) lower bound up to logarithmic factors. The proof combines a Taylor expansion of Tr[e^{-it Delta H}]/2^n, Trotterization, Pauli sampling, and the quantum Bonami inequality to control the tail of the expansion. The second part develops sample-efficient algorithms for Gibbs states: Theorem 14 learns an unknown Ising Gibbs state in trace norm from O~(n^4 beta^2/epsilon^4) copies (for k=2), using an epsilon-net over Hamiltonians and classical shadows; Theorem 15 certifies closeness versus farness of two Ising Gibbs states with both sample and time complexity polynomial in all parameters. The results extend to constant k-local Hamiltonians. The paper also states clear limitations: the near-optimal certification is restricted to k=2, and the Gibbs-state learning algorithm is time-inefficient.

Significance. If correct, these results give the first nearly optimal Hamiltonian property-testing algorithm in the time-evolution model, the first fully sample-efficient Gibbs-state learning algorithm, and the first sample- and time-efficient Gibbs-state certification protocol, resolving a question attributed to Anshu. The proofs are carefully structured and rely on standard, independently established ingredients. I checked the two potentially fragile points explicitly. First, the Montanaro-Osborne Corollary 8.9 bound gives the l^{k/2} Bonami constant with no hidden n-dependence, so Eq. (8) and Lemma 9 are sound. Second, the apparent mismatch between abstract Result 3 (equality versus epsilon-far) and Theorem 15 (which states a close threshold epsilon^2/(400 beta n^k) and a far threshold 2 epsilon) is not a flaw: applying Theorem 15 with parameter epsilon/2 gives the desired equality-versus-delta promise, since equality satisfies the close condition and the far case is exactly distance at least delta. The limitations disclosed in the paper are accurate and appropriately framed.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3, Theorem 10 and Algorithm 2] Theorem 10 states the result for all epsilon in (0, C_Fbar), but Algorithm 2 sets L = ceil(log_{15/12}(2 C_Fbar/(15 epsilon))), which is negative when epsilon >= C_Fbar/6. In that regime the far case is either impossible or occurs only at the extremal boundary ||Delta H||_Fbar = 2 C_Fbar. Please add an explicit trivial step that outputs CLOSE for epsilon >= C_Fbar/6, or restrict the theorem to epsilon < C_Fbar/6, so that the statement is literally correct over its claimed range.
  2. [Section 1.1.2 and abstract Result 2] Result 2 and the abstract state a sample complexity of O~(n^4 beta^2/epsilon^4), while Theorem 14 gives O(3^k n^{2k} k log(n/delta) (max{beta,1})^2/epsilon^4). These agree only for beta >= 1. Please use max{beta,1}^2 in the informal statements, or explicitly assume beta >= 1.
  3. [Section 4.2 and abstract Result 3] Result 3 and Theorem 15 use different promise thresholds: Theorem 15 decides distance at most epsilon^2/(400 beta n^k) versus distance at least 2 epsilon, while the abstract states equality versus distance at least epsilon. The reduction via applying the theorem with parameter epsilon/2 should be stated explicitly, so that readers do not think Theorem 15 leaves the stated task unresolved.
  4. [Footnote after Theorem 15] The footnote says ||H-H0||_tr <= 200 n^k, but this is false for the unnormalized trace norm: a sum of O(n^k) Pauli strings with coefficients bounded by 1 can have trace norm as large as 2^n times that bound. The intended bound is ||H-H0||_op <= 200 n^k, which does follow by the triangle inequality and does imply ||rho-rho0||_tr <= 400 beta n^k via Eq. (7). Please correct the norm in the footnote.
  5. [Algorithm 3] The output line of Algorithm 3 should read rho' in S_{epsilon', n, k, beta} rather than S_{epsilon, n.k, beta}, and the Require line should include delta in the logarithm, matching the sample-complexity statement of Theorem 14.
  6. [Algorithm 4] The Require line of Algorithm 4 mentions only single copies of rho, but Step 1 also estimates rho0. It should state that copies of both rho and rho0 are used, in line with Theorem 15.
  7. [Proof of Lemma 9] In the proof of Lemma 9, the quantity that is bounded by 1/(2400 e^6 C^2) is |u_{I^{otimes n}}|^2, not u_{I^{otimes n}}; please correct the notation in that sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: central claims follow from external hypercontractivity, Trotterization, and shadow tomography; the only overlapping-author citation is an independent subroutine.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external results. In Section 3, the O~(1/epsilon) certification bound follows from the Taylor identity u_I = 1 - (1/2)(t||Delta H||_F)^2 + sum_{l>=3} ..., the external quantum Bonami Lemma (Theorem 8, Montanaro-Osborne) used only to control the l>=3 remainder, external Trotterization (Theorem 5), and Lemma 6's estimation routine; no parameter in Algorithm 1 or 2 is fitted to data or defined in terms of the target distance. The cited Lemma 6 ([ADEG24, Lemma 3.3], overlapping authorship) is an auxiliary unitary-coefficient estimator whose stated assumptions do not include the certification result, so it is independent support rather than load-bearing circularity. For Gibbs states, Lemma 4 is proved in-paper from Pinsker, and the covering-net and classical-shadow arguments of Theorems 14-15 do not presuppose the conclusion; the apparent gap in Theorem 15's promise is closed by choosing the theorem parameter as half the desired threshold, and the appended footnote likewise excludes the overlapping regime. Remark 11 explicitly discloses the k>2 limitation rather than hiding it. I find no step where Eq. X equals Eq. Y by construction or a fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no invented entities. The central claims depend on standard access-model assumptions (time-evolution queries and single-copy Gibbs state access), boundedness assumptions on the Hamiltonian, and imported external theorems (Bonami Lemma, Trotterization, Clifford shadows, stabilizer Pauli estimation). These are all stated explicitly and are not tailored to force the target results.

assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Access to the time-evolution operator U_H(t) = e^{-itH} for arbitrary times t, with total evolution time as the resource.
    The certification algorithms (Algorithm 1 and 2) assume the ability to query e^{-itH} and e^{-itH0} at chosen times; Section 2.1.1 defines this access model.
  • domain assumption Access to copies of Gibbs states rho(beta) = e^{-beta H}/Tr[e^{-beta H}].
    Learning and certification of Gibbs states assume single-copy access; Section 2.2 defines the access model and sample complexity.
  • standard math Quantum Bonami Lemma: (Tr[|H|^l]/2^n)^(1/l) <= l^{k/2} (Tr[H^2]/2^n)^(1/2) for k-local Hamiltonians.
    Imported from [MO08, Corollary 8.9] and used to bound higher-order Taylor terms in Lemma 9, Eq. (8).
  • standard math Trotterization with commutator scaling (Theorem 5 from [CST+21]).
    Used to simulate e^{-it(H-H0)} from queries to e^{-itH} and e^{-itH0} while preserving total evolution time up to constants.
  • standard math Stabilizer-state Pauli sampling subroutine (Lemma 6 from [ADEG24]).
    Used to estimate |u_I|^2 with O(log(1/delta)) experiments and one query to the unitary per experiment.
  • standard math Classical shadows with Clifford measurements (Theorem 7 from [HKP20]).
    Used to estimate 2^n rho_P for all |P| <= k in Gibbs-state learning and certification.
  • standard math Pinsker inequality and the identity log rho(beta) = -beta H - log Z(beta).
    Used in Lemma 4 to bound trace distance between Gibbs states; the proof is included in the paper.
  • domain assumption Hamiltonians are traceless (h_{I tensor n} = 0).
    Justified because identity shifts do not change time evolution or Gibbs states; Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Bounded Pauli coefficients |h_P| <= 1 and bounded operator norms ||H||_op <= C_op.
    Theorems 9, 10, 14, and 15 assume these boundedness conditions; they set the scale for all complexity bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Certifying and learning quantum Ising Hamiltonians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LNYWAKVM

@misc{pith2026250910239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Certifying and learning quantum Ising Hamiltonians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LNYWAKVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10239}
}
abstract

In this work, we study the problems of certifying and learning quantum Ising Hamiltonians. Our main contributions are as follows: Certification of Ising Hamiltonians. We show that certifying an Ising Hamiltonian in normalized Frobenius norm via access to its time-evolution operator requires only $\widetilde O(1/\varepsilon)$ time evolution. This matches the Heisenberg-scaling lower bound of $\Omega(1/\varepsilon)$ up to logarithmic factors. To our knowledge, this is the first nearly-optimal algorithm for testing a Hamiltonian property. A key ingredient in our analysis is the Bonami Lemma from Fourier analysis. Learning Ising Gibbs states. We design an algorithm for learning Ising Gibbs states in trace norm that is sample-efficient in all parameters. In contrast, previous approaches learned the underlying Hamiltonian (which implies learning the Gibbs state) but suffered from exponential sample complexity in the inverse temperature. Certification of Ising Gibbs states. We give an algorithm for certifying Ising Gibbs states in trace norm that is both sample and time-efficient, thereby solving a question posed by Anshu (Harvard Data Science Review, 2022). Finally, we extend our results on learning and certification of Gibbs states to general $k$-local Hamiltonians for any constant $k$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems

    Anurag Anshu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, Tomotaka Kuwahara, and Mehdi Soleimanifar. Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems. Nature Physics , 17(8):931--935, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Quantum algorithmic measurement

    Dorit Aharonov, Jordan Cotler, and Xiao-Liang Qi. Quantum algorithmic measurement. Nature Communications , 13(1):1--9, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Testing and learning structured quantum Hamiltonians

    Srinivasan Arunachalam, Arkopal Dutt, and Francisco Escudero Guti \'e rrez. Testing and learning structured quantum Hamiltonians . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 1263--1270, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Testing and learning structured quantum H amiltonians, 2024

    Srinivasan Arunachalam, Arkopal Dutt, and Francisco Escudero Gutiérrez. Testing and learning structured quantum H amiltonians, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00082 arXiv:2411.00082

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Some recent progress in learning theory: The quantum side

    Anurag Anshu. Some recent progress in learning theory: The quantum side. Harvard Data Science Review , 4(1), 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory

    Sergey Bravyi, Andrew W Cross, Jay M Gambetta, Dmitri Maslov, Patrick Rall, and Theodore J Yoder. High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory. Nature , 627(8005):778--782, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Hamiltonian property testing

    Andreas Bluhm, Matthias C Caro, and Aadil Oufkir. Hamiltonian property testing. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.02968 arXiv:2403.02968

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    On complexity of the quantum Ising model

    Sergey Bravyi and Matthew Hastings. On complexity of the quantum Ising model. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 349(1):1--45, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Learning quantum H amiltonians at any temperature in polynomial time

    Ainesh Bakshi, Allen Liu, Ankur Moitra, and Ewin Tang. Learning quantum H amiltonians at any temperature in polynomial time. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 1470--1477, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Etude des coefficients de Fourier des fonctions de Lp (g)

    Aline Bonami. Etude des coefficients de Fourier des fonctions de Lp (g). In Annales de l'institut Fourier , volume 20, pages 335--402, 1970

    1970

  3. [11]

    Quantum state certification

    Costin B a descu, Ryan O'Donnell, and John Wright. Quantum state certification. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 503--514, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Learning quantum Gibbs states locally and efficiently

    Chi-Fang Chen, Anurag Anshu, and Quynh T Nguyen. Learning quantum Gibbs states locally and efficiently. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02706 arXiv:2504.02706

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Learning quantum processes and Hamiltonians via the Pauli transfer matrix

    Matthias C Caro. Learning quantum processes and Hamiltonians via the Pauli transfer matrix. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , 5(2):1--53, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Complexity classification of local Hamiltonian problems

    Toby Cubitt and Ashley Montanaro. Complexity classification of local Hamiltonian problems. SIAM Journal on Computing , 45(2):268--316, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Universal quantum Hamiltonians

    Toby S Cubitt, Ashley Montanaro, and Stephen Piddock. Universal quantum Hamiltonians . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(38):9497--9502, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Theory of T rotter error with commutator scaling

    Andrew M Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C Tran, Nathan Wiebe, and Shuchen Zhu. Theory of T rotter error with commutator scaling. Physical Review X , 11(1):011020, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Hamiltonian learning via shadow tomography of pseudo- Choi states

    Juan Castaneda and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian learning via shadow tomography of pseudo- Choi states. Quantum , 9:1700, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Quantum phase transitions in transverse field spin models: from statistical physics to quantum information

    Amit Dutta, Gabriel Aeppli, Bikas K Chakrabarti, Uma Divakaran, Thomas F Rosenbaum, and Diptiman Sen. Quantum phase transitions in transverse field spin models: from statistical physics to quantum information. 2010. https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0653 arXiv:1012.0653

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Testing Ising models

    Constantinos Daskalakis, Nishanth Dikkala, and Gautam Kamath. Testing Ising models. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 65(11):6829--6852, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    The advantage of quantum control in many-body Hamiltonian learning

    Alicja Dutkiewicz, Thomas E O'Brien, and Thomas Schuster. The advantage of quantum control in many-body Hamiltonian learning. Quantum , 8:1537, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Practical characterization of quantum devices without tomography

    Marcus P da Silva, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, and David Poulin. Practical characterization of quantum devices without tomography. Physical Review Letters , 107(21):210404, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Efficient Hamiltonian , structure and trace distance learning of Gaussian states

    Marco Fanizza, Cambyse Rouz \'e , and Daniel Stilck Fran c a. Efficient Hamiltonian , structure and trace distance learning of Gaussian states. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03163 arXiv:2411.03163

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Practical Hamiltonian learning with unitary dynamics and Gibbs states

    Andi Gu, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Practical Hamiltonian learning with unitary dynamics and Gibbs states. Nature Communications , 15(1), 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Quantum H amiltonian certification

    Minbo Gao, Zhengfeng Ji, Qisheng Wang, Wenjun Yu, and Qi Zhao. Quantum H amiltonian certification. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13217 arXiv:2505.13217

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Scalable reconstruction of unitary processes and Hamiltonians

    M Holz \"a pfel, T Baumgratz, M Cramer, and Martin B Plenio. Scalable reconstruction of unitary processes and Hamiltonians . Physical Review A , 91(4):042129, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states

    Jeongwan Haah, Aram W Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu. Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 63(9):5628--5641, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics , 16(10):1050--1057, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Optimal learning of quantum H amiltonians from high-temperature Gibbs states

    Jeongwan Haah, Robin Kothari, and Ewin Tang. Optimal learning of quantum H amiltonians from high-temperature Gibbs states. In 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 135--146. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Ansatz-free Hamiltonian learning with Heisenberg -limited scaling

    Hong-Ye Hu, Muzhou Ma, Weiyuan Gong, Qi Ye, Yu Tong, Steven T Flammia, and Susanne F Yelin. Ansatz-free Hamiltonian learning with Heisenberg -limited scaling. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11900 arXiv:2502.11900

    2025

  22. [30]

    Learning many-body Hamiltonians with Heisenberg -limited scaling

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Yu Tong, Di Fang, and Yuan Su. Learning many-body Hamiltonians with Heisenberg -limited scaling. Physical Review Letters , 130(20):200403, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus

    Ernst Ising. Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus . Zeitschrift f \"u r Physik , 31(1):253--258, 1925

    1925

  24. [32]

    The complexity of the local Hamiltonian problem

    Julia Kempe, Alexei Kitaev, and Oded Regev. The complexity of the local Hamiltonian problem. SIAM Journal on Computing , 35(5):1070--1097, 2006

    2006

  25. [33]

    Hamiltonian locality testing via trotterized postselection

    John Kallaugher and Daniel Liang. Hamiltonian locality testing via trotterized postselection. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06478 arXiv:2505.06478

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Robust quantum computational advantage with programmable 3050-photon Gaussian boson sampling

    Hua-Liang Liu, Hao Su, Si-Qiu Gong, Yi-Chao Gu, Hao-Yang Tang, Meng-Hao Jia, Qian Wei, Yukun Song, Dongzhou Wang, Mingyang Zheng, et al. Robust quantum computational advantage with programmable 3050-photon Gaussian boson sampling. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09092 arXiv:2...

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Heisenberg-limited Hamiltonian learning for interacting bosons

    Haoya Li, Yu Tong, Tuvia Gefen, Hongkang Ni, and Lexing Ying. Heisenberg-limited Hamiltonian learning for interacting bosons. npj Quantum Information , 10(1):83, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Quantum algorithms for testing Hamiltonian symmetry

    Margarite L LaBorde and Mark M Wilde. Quantum algorithms for testing Hamiltonian symmetry. Physical Review Letters , 129(16):160503, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Dissipation-enabled bosonic Hamiltonian learning via new information-propagation bounds, 2023

    Tim Möbus, Andreas Bluhm, Matthias C Caro, Albert H Werner, and Cambyse Rouzé. Dissipation-enabled bosonic Hamiltonian learning via new information-propagation bounds, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15026 arXiv:2307.15026

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Learning k -body Hamiltonians via compressed sensing

    Muzhou Ma, Steven T Flammia, John Preskill, and Yu Tong. Learning k -body Hamiltonians via compressed sensing. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.18928 arXiv:2410.18928

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    The importance of the Ising model

    Barry M McCoy and Jean-Marie Maillard. The importance of the Ising model. Progress of Theoretical Physics , 127(5):791--817, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    Quantum B oolean functions

    Ashley Montanaro and Tobias J Osborne. Quantum B oolean functions. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science , pages 1--45, 2008

    2008

  33. [41]

    The complexity of quantum spin systems on a two-dimensional square lattice

    Roberto Oliveira and Barbara M Terhal. The complexity of quantum spin systems on a two-dimensional square lattice. Quantum Information & Computation , 8(10):900--924, 2008

    2008

  34. [42]

    Quantum spectrum testing

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright. Quantum spectrum testing. In Proceedings of the 47th annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC) , pages 529--538, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    Efficient quantum tomography

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright. Efficient quantum tomography. In Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , page 899–912, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Learning quantum many-body systems from a few copies

    Cambyse Rouz \'e and Daniel Stilck Fran c a. Learning quantum many-body systems from a few copies. Quantum , 8:1319, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Efficient learning of ground and thermal states within phases of matter

    Cambyse Rouz \'e , Daniel Stilck Fran c a, Emilio Onorati, and James D Watson. Efficient learning of ground and thermal states within phases of matter. Nature Communications , 15(1):7755, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Efficient and robust estimation of many-qubit Hamiltonians

    Daniel Stilck Fran c a, Liubov A Markovich, V V Dobrovitski, Albert H Werner, and Johannes Borregaard. Efficient and robust estimation of many-qubit Hamiltonians . Nature Communications , 15:311, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Quantum Ising phases and transitions in transverse Ising models , volume 862

    Sei Suzuki, Jun-ichi Inoue, and Bikas K Chakrabarti. Quantum Ising phases and transitions in transverse Ising models , volume 862. Springer, 2012

    2012

  40. [48]

    Improved Hamiltonian learning and sparsity testing through Bell sampling, 2025

    Savar D Sinha and Yu Tong. Improved Hamiltonian learning and sparsity testing through Bell sampling, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.07937 arXiv:2509.07937

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Information-theoretic limits of selecting binary graphical models in high dimensions

    Narayana P Santhanam and Martin J Wainwright. Information-theoretic limits of selecting binary graphical models in high dimensions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 58(7):4117--4134, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    Unitary property testing lower bounds by polynomials

    Adrian She and Henry Yuen. Unitary property testing lower bounds by polynomials . In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023) , volume 251, pages 96:1--96:17, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Robust and efficient Hamiltonian learning

    Wenjun Yu, Jinzhao Sun, Zeyao Han, and Xiao Yuan. Robust and efficient Hamiltonian learning. Quantum , 7:1045, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Learning the structure of any Hamiltonian from minimal assumptions

    Andrew Zhao. Learning the structure of any Hamiltonian from minimal assumptions. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 1201--1211, 2025

    2025

  45. [53]

    Optimal short-time measurements for Hamiltonian learning

    Assaf Zubida, Elad Yitzhaki, Netanel Lindner, and Eyal Bairey. Optimal short-time measurements for Hamiltonian learning. Bulletin of the American Physical Society , 67, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

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