arxiv: 2604.23382 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-25 · 🪐 quant-ph · math-ph· math.MP

Recognition: unknown

Non-unitary extension of Grover's search algorithm

V.N.A. Lula-Rocha , M.A.S. Trindade

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 08:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

keywords Grover algorithmnon-unitary operatorsquantum searchquantum singular value transformblock encodingChebyshev polynomialsamplitude amplification

0 comments

The pith

Non-unitary diffusion lets Grover search use one large rotation to reach O(sqrt(N)) with one extra qubit.

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

The paper extends Grover's search by replacing the standard diffusion operator with a non-unitary version that changes the geometry of the Hilbert space. This change allows the algorithm to rotate the initial state directly onto the solution state in a single large step rather than through repeated small rotations. Direct implementation with Kraus operators demands O(N) repetitions to overcome normalization costs during post-selection, which performs no better than classical search. Combining quantum singular value transformation, block encoding, and Chebyshev polynomial approximation reduces the overall complexity to O(sqrt(N)), matching the standard Grover bound while using only one additional qubit.

Core claim

We have developed a non-unitary extension of Grover's search algorithm by changing the hidden geometry of Hilbert space carried by diffusion operator. Our algorithm finds the solution for search problem by performing a unique bigger rotation rather than small rotations in order polynomial times in the size N of search space. We analyze the complexity of implementing the non-unitary operation and we observed that the price paid by performing this rotation is due the normalization. In Kraus operator approach we need O(N) repetition of the algorithm to have a chance of measuring a solution in a post-selection, this is no better than the classical solution. However, the quantum singular value tr

What carries the argument

The non-unitary diffusion operator, which alters the Hilbert space geometry to support a single large rotation from the initial uniform superposition to the marked state.

If this is right

The marked state is located with the same asymptotic query complexity as standard Grover search.
Only one additional qubit is required to carry out the non-unitary extension.
Polynomial approximations suffice to implement the non-unitary step without degrading the quadratic speedup.
Post-selection after the approximated operations recovers the solution with Grover-level probability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The single large rotation might tolerate certain coherent noise sources better than many small rotations, suggesting possible near-term hardware benefits.
Changing the diffusion geometry could be tried in other amplitude-amplification tasks to see if similar complexity gains appear.
The extra qubit might be repurposed for error correction or ancillary tasks if the circuit depth is lower than in the standard iterative version.

Load-bearing premise

The non-unitary diffusion operator can be block-encoded and approximated so that the single large rotation stays accurate and normalization costs remain polynomial without hidden exponential overhead.

What would settle it

Simulate the approximated algorithm on a small instance such as N=4 or N=8, count the number of oracle calls needed to reach high success probability, and check whether it scales as O(sqrt(N)) with one extra qubit.

read the original abstract

We have developed a non-unitary extension of Grover's search algorithm by changing the hidden geometry of Hilbert space carried by diffusion operator. Our algorithm finds the solution for search problem by performing a unique bigger rotation rather than small rotations in order polynomial times in the size $N$ of search space. We analyze the complexity of implementing the non-unitary operation and we observed that the price paid by performing this rotation is due the normalization. In Kraus operator approach we need $O(N)$ repetition of the algorithm to have a chance of measuring a solution in a post-selection, this is no better than the classical solution. However, the quantum singular value transform in addition with block encoding and Chebyshev polynomial approximation, we got complexity $O(\sqrt{N})$ and reach the Grover's bound with an extra resource of one single qubit, compared with the standard Grover's algorithm.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper sketches a non-unitary Grover variant that uses QSVT and block encoding to recover the optimal bound with one extra qubit, but supplies no derivation or normalization details for the claim.

read the letter

The core idea here is a non-unitary diffusion operator that alters the hidden geometry so the search can be done with one large rotation rather than the usual sequence of small ones. The authors contrast a Kraus-operator version, which they correctly note costs O(N) due to repeated post-selection, against a QSVT-plus-block-encoding version that they say restores O(sqrt N) complexity using only one ancilla qubit. That contrast is the clearest part of the abstract and is the main thing a reader would take away on a first pass.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a non-unitary extension of Grover's search algorithm obtained by altering the 'hidden geometry' of the diffusion operator so that a single large rotation replaces the sequence of small rotations. It analyzes two implementations: a Kraus-operator approach that requires O(N) repetitions due to normalization and post-selection (no better than classical), and a QSVT-based approach that combines block encoding of the non-unitary operator with Chebyshev polynomial approximation to recover O(√N) query complexity using one extra qubit.

Significance. If the block-encoding construction, normalization factor α, and post-selection probabilities are shown to incur only polylog(N) overhead while preserving the claimed single large rotation, the result would provide a concrete non-unitary route to Grover-optimal search and could illuminate how QSVT handles non-unitary reflections. The explicit contrast between Kraus and QSVT costs is a useful pedagogical point, but the absence of any derivation or circuit leaves the central complexity claim unsupported.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the O(√N) claim is asserted via 'quantum singular value transform in addition with block encoding and Chebyshev polynomial approximation' but no explicit block-encoding unitary U, no value or scaling of the normalization factor α, and no calculation of the resulting query complexity or post-selection success probability are supplied. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as an α = Θ(N) scaling (common for projectors onto unknown subspaces) would collapse the bound to O(N).
[Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the QSVT route 'reach[es] the Grover's bound with an extra resource of one single qubit' is presented without any resource count, circuit diagram, or comparison of the block-encoding overhead to the standard Grover diffusion operator, making it impossible to verify the 'one extra qubit' accounting.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract contains several grammatical and phrasing issues ('we got complexity', 'reach the Grover's bound') that should be corrected for clarity.
[Abstract] The manuscript should include at least one explicit low-dimensional example (e.g., N=4) showing the non-unitary operator, its block encoding, and the Chebyshev polynomial used, to make the construction reproducible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We agree that the abstract and the description of the QSVT implementation lack the explicit constructions, normalization analysis, and resource counts needed to substantiate the central O(√N) claim. We will perform a major revision that adds these derivations, a block-encoding circuit description, explicit scaling of α, post-selection probabilities, and a side-by-side qubit/gate comparison with standard Grover. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the O(√N) claim is asserted via 'quantum singular value transform in addition with block encoding and Chebyshev polynomial approximation' but no explicit block-encoding unitary U, no value or scaling of the normalization factor α, and no calculation of the resulting query complexity or post-selection success probability are supplied. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as an α = Θ(N) scaling (common for projectors onto unknown subspaces) would collapse the bound to O(N).

Authors: We accept this criticism. The current manuscript only sketches the QSVT + block-encoding route in the abstract and does not supply the unitary U, the concrete value or scaling of the normalization factor α, or the end-to-end query-complexity derivation. In the revised version we will insert a new subsection that (i) explicitly constructs the block-encoding unitary for the non-unitary diffusion operator obtained by altering the hidden geometry, (ii) shows that the resulting α scales as O(1) (or at worst polylog(N) after Chebyshev truncation), (iii) computes the number of QSVT queries needed to approximate the large rotation to sufficient precision, and (iv) bounds the post-selection success probability so that the overall complexity remains O(√N). This will directly rule out a Θ(N) collapse. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the QSVT route 'reach[es] the Grover's bound with an extra resource of one single qubit' is presented without any resource count, circuit diagram, or comparison of the block-encoding overhead to the standard Grover diffusion operator, making it impossible to verify the 'one extra qubit' accounting.

Authors: We agree that the one-qubit overhead claim cannot be verified from the present text. The extra qubit arises because block encoding embeds the non-unitary operator into a unitary on an (n+1)-qubit space. In the revision we will (a) provide a gate-level description or diagram of the block-encoding circuit, (b) count the total number of qubits and the asymptotic gate complexity of the QSVT implementation, and (c) compare both quantities directly with the standard Grover diffusion operator (which itself requires O(log N) gates per iteration). We will show that the net overhead is indeed a single ancilla qubit while the query complexity stays O(√N). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation applies external QSVT/block-encoding techniques to non-unitary operator

full rationale

The paper derives its O(√N) complexity claim by applying the quantum singular value transform, block encoding, and Chebyshev polynomial approximation to the proposed non-unitary diffusion operator, then comparing the resulting cost to the O(N) Kraus-operator approach and to standard Grover. These tools are invoked as established external methods rather than being defined in terms of the target result. The abstract presents the normalization cost and post-selection as consequences of the chosen implementation, without any equation reducing the claimed bound to a fitted parameter, self-citation loop, or ansatz smuggled from the authors' prior work. No load-bearing step collapses by construction to the input data or to a renaming of a known empirical pattern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper relies on standard quantum mechanics and operator theory but introduces a non-unitary diffusion operator whose implementation cost is analyzed. No explicit free parameters are fitted in the abstract; the complexity claims rest on the validity of the block-encoding approximation.

axioms (2)

standard math Standard quantum mechanics and Hilbert space formalism apply to the modified non-unitary diffusion operator.
Invoked throughout the description of the algorithm and complexity analysis.
domain assumption Block encoding and Chebyshev polynomial approximation can represent the non-unitary operator with polynomial overhead.
Central to achieving the O(sqrt(N)) claim in the QSVT section of the abstract.

invented entities (1)

Non-unitary diffusion operator with modified hidden geometry no independent evidence
purpose: To enable a single large rotation instead of multiple small Grover iterations.
Introduced as the core modification to standard Grover; no independent falsifiable evidence provided in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5448 in / 1703 out tokens · 19084 ms · 2026-05-08T08:21:15.017375+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys.21, 467 (1982)

1982
[2]

Deutsch, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

D. Deutsch, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Phys- ical Sciences400, 97 (1985)

1985
[3]

Nielsen and Isaac L

Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum In- formation, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2010)

2010
[4]

Portugal,Quantum walks and search algorithms, 2nd ed

R. Portugal,Quantum walks and search algorithms, 2nd ed. (Springer Nature Switzer- land, 2018)

2018
[5]

L. K. Grover, STOC ’96: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing , 212 (1996)

1996
[6]

Deutsch and R

D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.439, 553 (1992)

1992
[7]

P. W. Shor, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 303 (1997)

1997
[8]

D. R. Simon, SIAM J. Comput.26, 1474 (1997)

1997
[9]

Bernstein and U

E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, SIAM J. Comput.26, 1411 (1997)

1997
[10]

Cleve, A

R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca, Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.454, 339 (1998)

1998
[11]

R. B. Griffiths and C. S. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3228 (1996)

1996
[12]

A. Y. Kitaev, , 1 (1995), arXiv:9511026 [quant-ph]

1995
[13]

Basic Quantum Algorithms

R. Portugal, (2025), arXiv:arXiv:2201.10574v8 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[14]

Abughanem and H

M. Abughanem and H. Eleuch, IEEE Access12, 102941 (2024). 30

2024
[15]

X.-d. Xie, X. Zhang, B. Koczor, and X. Yuan, Entropy27, 1074 (2025)

2025
[16]

R. Hai, T. Coopmans, T. Littau, and F. Geerts, PVLDB18, 1720 (2025)

2025
[17]

J. Wei, Z. Lau, K. H. Lim, H. Shrotriya, and L. C. Kwek, AAPPS Bulletin32, 27 (2022)

2022
[18]

Brassard and P

G. Brassard and P. Hoyer, Proceedings of the Israel Symposium on Theory of Com- puting and Systems, ISTCS , 12 (1997)

1997
[19]

Tonchev and R

H. Tonchev and R. Bahtev, (2025), arXiv:2508.19793 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

T. Roy, L. Jiang, and D. I. Schuster, Phys. Rev. Research4, L022013 (2022)

2022
[21]

Seidel, C

R. Seidel, C. K. U. Becker, S. Bock, N. Tcholtchev, I. D. Gheorghe-Pop, and M. Hauswirth, Quantum Scii. and Technol.8, 025003 (2023)

2023
[22]

Biron, O

D. Biron, O. Biham, E. Biham, M. Grassl, and D. A. Lidar, inQuantum Computing and Quantum Communications, edited by C. P. Williams (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999) p. 140

1999
[23]

Byrnes, G

T. Byrnes, G. Forster, and L. Tessler, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 060501 (2018)

2018
[24]

Accardi and R

L. Accardi and R. Sabbadini, (2000), arXiv:0012143 [quant-ph]

2000
[25]

Gilliam, M

A. Gilliam, M. Pistoia, and C. Gonciulea, (2020), arXiv:2005.06468 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[26]

Tulsi, Phys

A. Tulsi, Phys. Rev. A86, 042331 (2012)

2012
[27]

Biham, O

E. Biham, O. Biham, D. Biron, M. Grassl, D. A. Lidar, and D. Shapira, Phys. Rev. A63, 012310 (2001)

2001
[28]

Chen and S

G. Chen and S. Sun, inMathematics of Quantum Computation, edited by R. K. Brylinski and G. Chen (Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, 2002) 1st ed

2002
[29]

S. R. Chowdhury and S. Pradhan, (2022), arXiv:2207.09762 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[30]

Optimal phase change for a generalized grover’s algorithm,

C. Cardullo and M. Kang, (2026), arXiv:2509.20610 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[31]

Gingrich, C

R. Gingrich, C. P. Williams, and N. Cerf, Phys. Rev. A61, 052313 (1999)

1999
[32]

Biamonte, P

J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Nature 549, 195 (2017)

2017
[33]

Schuld and F

M. Schuld and F. Petruccione,Machine Learning with Quantum Computers, 2nd ed. (Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021)

2021
[34]

Jaques, M

S. Jaques, M. Naehrig, M. Roetteler, and F. Virdia, Advances in Cryptology – EU- ROCRYPT 2020. EUROCRYPT 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science()12106 31 (2020)

2020
[35]

Fern´ andez and M

P. Fern´ andez and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Phys. Rev. Research6, 043109 (2024)

2024
[36]

M. Amy, O. Di Matteo, V. Gheorghiu, M. Mosca, A. Parent, and J. Schanck, inSe- lected Areas in Cryptography – SAC 2016, edited by R. Avanzi and H. Heys (Springer International Publishing, 2017) p. 317

2016
[37]

E. O. Kiktenko, E. V. Krendeleva, and A. K. Fedorov, (2025), arXiv:2512.23026

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

Yan and N

B. Yan and N. A. Sinitsyn, (2022), arXiv:2207.05665

work page arXiv 2022
[39]

E. M. Stoudenmire and X. Waintal, Phys. Rev. X14, 041029 (2024)

2024
[40]

G. F. Viamontes, I. L. Markov, and J. P. Hayes, Comput. Sci. Eng.7, 62 (2005)

2005
[41]

Y. Liu, Am. J. Comput. Math14, 1 (2024)

2024
[42]

M. Amy, O. Di Matteo, V. Gheorghiu, M. Mosca, A. Parent, and J. Schanck, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)10532 LNCS, 317 (2017), arXiv:1603.09383

work page arXiv 2017
[43]

M. A. Naranjo and L. A. Fletscher, Algorithms17, 382 (2024)

2024
[44]

D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3992 (1998)

1998
[45]

Zalka, Phys

C. Zalka, Phys. Rev. A60, 2746 (1999)

1999
[46]

Boyer, G

M. Boyer, G. Brassard, P. HØyer, and A. Tapp, Fortschritte der Physik46, 493 (1999)

1999
[47]

Beals, H

R. Beals, H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, M. Mosca, and R. De Wolf, Journal of the ACM 48, 778 (2001)

2001
[48]

Dohotaru and P

C. Dohotaru and P. Høyer, Quantum Information and Computation9, 533 (2009)

2009
[49]

Daskin, (2024), arXiv:2412.16514

A. Daskin, (2024), arXiv:2412.16514

work page arXiv 2024
[50]

T. Liu, J. G. Liu, and H. Fan, Quantum Information Processing20, Quantum Inf. Process. (2021)

2021
[51]

A. M. Childs and J. Young, Phys. Rev. A93, 022314 (2016)

2016
[52]

Zujev, HAL preprint hal-03495489 (2021)

A. Zujev, HAL preprint hal-03495489 (2021)

2021
[53]

Terashima and M

H. Terashima and M. Ueda, Int. J. Quantum Inf.3, 633 (2005)

2005
[54]

Heredge, M

J. Heredge, M. West, L. Hollenberg, and M. Sevior, Phys. Rev. Applied23, 044046 (2025)

2025
[55]

D. An, A. M. Childs, and L. Lin, Commun. Math. Phys.407, 19 (2026). 32

2026
[56]

Koukoutsis, P

E. Koukoutsis, P. Papagiannis, K. Hizanidis, A. K. Ram, G. Vahala, ´O. Amaro, L. I. Gamiz, and D. Vallis, Quantum Information and Computation25, 141 (2025)

2025
[57]

Daskin and S

A. Daskin and S. Kais, Quantum Inf. Process.16, 33 (2017), arXiv:1606.04315

work page arXiv 2017
[58]

A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. A. M. Sager-Smith, P. Narang, and D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. A106, 022414 (2022), arXiv:2205.02826

work page arXiv 2022
[59]

Zylberman, U

J. Zylberman, U. Nzongani, A. Simonetto, and F. Debbasch, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing6, 15 (2025)

2025
[60]

Gily´ en, Y

A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, STOC 2019: Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , 193 (2019)

2019
[61]

Brearley and P

P. Brearley and P. Pfeffer, (2025), arXiv:2511.19659

work page arXiv 2025
[62]

Chakraborty, Quantum8, 1496 (2024)

S. Chakraborty, Quantum8, 1496 (2024)

2024
[63]

R. M. Gingrich and C. P. Williams, WISICT ’04: Proceedings of the winter interna- tional synposium on Information and communication technologies , 1 (2004)

2004
[64]

S. H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Pollmann, PRX Quantum2, 010342 (2021)

2021
[65]

G. Zhu, J. Bierman, J. Lu, and Y. Li, npj Quantum Inf.11, 198 (2025)

2025
[66]

Castelazo, Q

G. Castelazo, Q. T. Nguyen, G. D. Palma, D. Englund, S. Lloyd, and B. T. Kiani, Phys. Rev. A106, 032402 (2022)

2022
[67]

Leadbeater, N

C. Leadbeater, N. Fitzpatrick, N. M. Ramo, and A. J. W. Thom, Quantum Science and Technology9, 045007 (2024)

2024
[68]

Kraus, Ann

K. Kraus, Ann. Phys.64, 311 (1971)

1971
[69]

Gaitan and R

F. Gaitan and R. Li, inDecoeherence Suppression in Quantum Systems 2008, edited by M. Nakahara, R. Rahimi, and A. SaiToh (World Scientific, 2008)

2008
[70]

Scherer,Mathematics of quantum Computing: an introduction(Springer Nature Switzerland, 2019)

W. Scherer,Mathematics of quantum Computing: an introduction(Springer Nature Switzerland, 2019)

2019
[71]

V. N. Lula-Rocha, M. A. Trindade, and J. D. M. Vianna, Brazilian Journal of Physics 53, 82 (2023)

2023
[72]

J. Nys, Z. Denis, and G. Carleo, Phys. Rev. B109, 235120 (2024)

2024
[73]

C. K. Lee, S.-X. Zhang, C.-Y. Hsieh, S. Zhang, and L. Shi, (2022), arXiv:2206.05571

work page arXiv 2022
[74]

Selisko, M

J. Selisko, M. Amsler, T. Hammerschmidt, R. Drautz, and T. Eckl, Quantum Sci. 33 Technol9, 015026 (2023)

2023
[75]

G. X. A. Petronilo, M. R. Ara´ ujo, and C. Cruz, Rev. Bras. Ens. Fis.45, e20230287 (2023)

2023
[76]

Zapusek, K

E. Zapusek, K. Kirova, W. Hahn, Michael Marthaler, and F. Reiter, Quantum Sci. Technol (2025)

2025
[77]

The complexity of thermalization in finite quantum systems

D. Devulapalli, T. C. Mooney, and J. D. Watson, (2025), arXiv:2507.00405

work page arXiv 2025
[78]

Korutcheva, K

E. Korutcheva, K. Korutchev, S. N. Santalla, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Laguna, and H. Chamati, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2436, 012001 (2023)

2023
[79]

Moro and E

L. Moro and E. Prati, Communications Physics6, 269 (2023)

2023
[80]

T¨ uys¨ uz, M

C. T¨ uys¨ uz, M. Demidik, L. Coopmans, E. Rinaldi, V. Croft, Y. Haddad, M. Rosenkranz, and K. Jansen, (2024), arXiv:2410.16363

work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.