arxiv: 2605.04861 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Quantum algorithm for solving differential equations using SLAC derivatives

Rakshit M. Gharat , Gopikrishnan Muraleedharan , Dominic W. Berry , Gavin K. Brennen

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum algorithmsdifferential equationsSLAC derivativesblock-encodinglinear combination of unitarieswavelet transformspreconditioningquantum linear systems

0 comments

The pith

Efficient block-encodings of SLAC derivative operators allow quantum linear solvers to handle partial differential equations on finite lattices.

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

The paper constructs linear-combination-of-unitaries block-encodings for first-order derivatives and Laplacians in the SLAC representation on a lattice. It shows how to prepare the required amplitudes efficiently using techniques for smoothly decaying functions and how to apply Shannon wavelet transforms to create multi-scale versions of these operators. A diagonal preconditioner is then used to bring the condition number down to a small constant in the wavelet basis. This combination makes it possible to solve PDEs discretized with SLAC derivatives via the quantum linear solving algorithm, with full analysis of the resulting complexity and error. A sympathetic reader would care because classical simulation of high-dimensional PDEs is expensive, and this offers a potential quantum route for certain problems.

Core claim

We present the construction of efficient linear-combination-of-unitaries (LCU)-based block-encodings for the first-order derivative and Laplacian operators in the SLAC representation. We use state-preparation techniques designed for smoothly decaying functions to efficiently prepare the dense LCU amplitudes with high success probability and low gate cost. Furthermore, we demonstrate how Shannon wavelet transforms can be applied to these block-encodings to efficiently obtain multi-scale representations of the SLAC derivative operators. We then show how to apply a diagonal preconditioner that reduces the condition number of these matrices in the multi-scale wavelet basis to a small constant. 1

What carries the argument

LCU-based block-encodings of SLAC first-order derivative and Laplacian operators, combined with Shannon wavelet transforms for multi-scale representation and a diagonal preconditioner in the wavelet basis.

If this is right

The dense LCU amplitudes for SLAC operators can be prepared with high success probability using state-preparation for smoothly decaying functions.
Shannon wavelet transforms produce efficient multi-scale representations of the block-encoded operators.
The condition number is reduced to a small constant by the diagonal preconditioner in the wavelet basis.
Partial differential equations discretized on finite lattices with SLAC derivatives become solvable using the quantum linear solving algorithm, with explicit complexity and error bounds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Such encodings could extend to other derivative operators or higher-order terms in PDEs without changing the core approach.
Applications to specific physical systems like fluid dynamics or quantum mechanics simulations on lattices might follow directly.
The error scaling analysis suggests the method remains efficient even as lattice size increases, provided the state preparation succeeds.

Load-bearing premise

The state-preparation techniques designed for smoothly decaying functions can efficiently prepare the dense LCU amplitudes with high success probability and low gate cost.

What would settle it

Numerical simulation of the block-encoding and preconditioned system for a small lattice size, such as solving the Poisson equation in 1D or 2D, to verify if the quantum linear solver achieves the predicted scaling in gate count and error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04861 by Dominic W. Berry, Gavin K. Brennen, Gopikrishnan Muraleedharan, Rakshit M. Gharat.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Implementation of QSWT in a quantum circuit on view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. High-level circuit implementing the state-preparation protocol for the view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Probability per state view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Complete view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Log–log plot showing the scaling of the operator view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Multi-scaled view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Quantum circuit for recursively applying the wavelet transform at each scale to the SLAC derivative operator (first view at source ↗

read the original abstract

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 gives explicit LCU block-encodings for SLAC derivatives plus a wavelet preconditioner that keeps the condition number constant, but the claimed polylog cost still rests on unverified state-preparation success probabilities for the dense coefficients.

read the letter

The punchline is that this work supplies concrete LCU constructions for the SLAC first-derivative and Laplacian on a finite lattice, then uses Shannon wavelets to move into a basis where a diagonal preconditioner reduces the condition number to a small constant. That combination lets you hand the system to QLSA and get a route to solving lattice PDEs with the usual quantum-linear-system complexity. The constructions themselves look new; prior LCU work on derivatives has mostly used finite-difference or Fourier stencils, not the SLAC representation with this wavelet lift. They also spell out the gate counts and error scaling for each piece, which is useful even if the numbers are not yet optimal. The state-preparation step for the dense LCU amplitudes is the part that needs the most scrutiny. The paper invokes routines designed for smoothly decaying functions, but the SLAC stencil coefficients are a linear combination of shifts whose decay in the preparation basis is not obviously rapid enough to guarantee 1/poly(log N) success probability. If the tails are heavier, amplitude amplification adds an exponential factor that erases the advantage. The wavelet preconditioner helps the solver side but does not reduce the block-encoding cost. I did not see numerical checks on the coefficient decay or explicit bounds that close this gap. This is for researchers already comfortable with QLSA, LCU, and wavelet transforms who want a concrete starting point for PDE applications. It is worth sending to a serious referee because the constructions are checkable and the complexity claims can be verified or tightened in review, even though the state-preparation assumption is the load-bearing one.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper constructs LCU-based block-encodings for the SLAC first-order derivative and Laplacian operators on finite lattices. It invokes state-preparation routines designed for smoothly decaying functions to handle the resulting dense amplitudes with claimed high success probability and low gate cost, incorporates Shannon wavelet transforms to obtain multi-scale representations, and applies a diagonal preconditioner in the wavelet basis that reduces the condition number to a small constant. This enables application of the quantum linear solving algorithm (QLSA) to PDEs discretized with SLAC operators, accompanied by complexity and error analyses.

Significance. If the block-encoding costs remain polylogarithmic and the preconditioner achieves a constant condition number independent of lattice size, the approach could yield an efficient quantum solver for PDEs that exploits the spectral accuracy of SLAC discretizations. The integration of wavelets for multi-resolution analysis and the explicit complexity/error scaling constitute strengths, provided the state-preparation overhead does not introduce hidden exponential factors.

major comments (2)

[LCU block-encoding and state-preparation construction] The central efficiency claim rests on applying state-preparation techniques for smoothly decaying functions to the dense LCU amplitudes arising from the SLAC stencil. No explicit bounds, decay-rate analysis, or numerical verification is provided showing that the SLAC coefficient sequence (a linear combination of shift operators) satisfies the smoothness/decay hypotheses of the cited preparation routine; violation would drop the success probability below 1/poly(log N) and introduce exponential overhead via amplitude amplification, negating the claimed advantage over classical methods.
[Wavelet transform and preconditioner section] The assertion that the diagonal preconditioner reduces the condition number of the SLAC operators to a small constant in the multi-scale wavelet basis lacks supporting eigenvalue bounds or scaling analysis across wavelet levels and lattice sizes. Without this, the QLSA runtime (which depends on both condition number and block-encoding cost) cannot be guaranteed to remain polylogarithmic in the lattice dimension.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief statement of the specific PDE classes (e.g., Poisson, advection-diffusion) and spatial dimensions for which the constructions are demonstrated.
[Notation and preliminaries] Notation for the SLAC derivative operator and its LCU decomposition should be introduced with an explicit equation at first appearance to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the stencil.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and insightful comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central efficiency claim rests on applying state-preparation techniques for smoothly decaying functions to the dense LCU amplitudes arising from the SLAC stencil. No explicit bounds, decay-rate analysis, or numerical verification is provided showing that the SLAC coefficient sequence (a linear combination of shift operators) satisfies the smoothness/decay hypotheses of the cited preparation routine; violation would drop the success probability below 1/poly(log N) and introduce exponential overhead via amplitude amplification, negating the claimed advantage over classical methods.

Authors: We appreciate the referee's careful scrutiny of this foundational step. The SLAC stencil coefficients derive from the Fourier representation of the derivative on a periodic lattice and are known to exhibit exponential decay away from the origin due to the analyticity of the underlying symbol. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the original manuscript did not supply explicit decay-rate bounds or numerical verification against the hypotheses of the cited state-preparation routine. In the revised version we will add a new subsection that (i) derives an explicit exponential decay bound for the LCU amplitudes of both the first-order SLAC derivative and the Laplacian, (ii) verifies that this decay satisfies the smoothness conditions required for success probability 1-O(1/poly(log N)), and (iii) includes numerical plots of the coefficient tails for lattice sizes up to N=2^12. These additions will remove any ambiguity regarding hidden exponential overhead. revision: yes
Referee: The assertion that the diagonal preconditioner reduces the condition number of the SLAC operators to a small constant in the multi-scale wavelet basis lacks supporting eigenvalue bounds or scaling analysis across wavelet levels and lattice sizes. Without this, the QLSA runtime (which depends on both condition number and block-encoding cost) cannot be guaranteed to remain polylogarithmic in the lattice dimension.

Authors: We agree that a rigorous justification of the preconditioner's effect on the condition number is essential for the claimed polylogarithmic complexity. While the manuscript demonstrates the construction of the diagonal preconditioner in the Shannon wavelet basis and states that the resulting condition number is O(1), we did not provide explicit eigenvalue bounds or scaling analysis with respect to wavelet level and lattice size. In the revision we will insert a theorem that bounds the eigenvalues of the preconditioned SLAC operators, proving that the condition number remains bounded by a small constant independent of the lattice dimension. The proof will combine the spectral properties of the SLAC symbol with the multi-resolution orthogonality of the Shannon wavelets; we will also supply numerical eigenvalue computations across multiple scales and lattice sizes to corroborate the analytic bound. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: explicit constructions and standard primitives

full rationale

The paper constructs LCU block-encodings for SLAC derivative and Laplacian operators, applies Shannon wavelet transforms for multi-scale representations, introduces a diagonal preconditioner in the wavelet basis, and invokes QLSA. These steps are presented as explicit algorithmic constructions relying on cited state-preparation routines for decaying functions and standard quantum linear algebra primitives. No step reduces by definition or self-citation to the target PDE solution, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The derivation chain remains independent of the final result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum-computing primitives plus two domain assumptions about efficient state preparation and preconditioner performance that are not derived inside the paper.

axioms (2)

domain assumption State-preparation techniques for smoothly decaying functions can prepare dense LCU amplitudes with high success probability and low gate cost
Invoked to justify efficient implementation of the block-encodings for derivative operators.
domain assumption A diagonal preconditioner reduces the condition number of the SLAC operators in the multi-scale wavelet basis to a small constant
Required for the QLSA to remain efficient; stated as a demonstration in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5454 in / 1457 out tokens · 43823 ms · 2026-05-08T16:47:42.220003+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Natural flavor conservation in higgs induced neutral currents and the quark mixing angles,

H. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, “Absence of neu- trinos on a lattice: (i). proof by homotopy the- ory,”Nuclear Physics B185no. 1, (1981) 20–40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0550321381903618

work page arXiv 1981
[2]

Renormalization of lattice field theories with infinite- range wavelets,

P. Fries, I. Reyes, J. Erdmenger, and H. Hinrichsen, “Renormalization of lattice field theories with infinite- range wavelets,”J. Stat. Mech.1906no. 6, (2019) 064001,arXiv:1811.05388 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2019
[3]

Strong- coupling field theories. ii. fermions and gauge fields on a lattice,

S. D. Drell, M. Weinstein, and S. Yankielowicz, “Strong- coupling field theories. ii. fermions and gauge fields on a lattice,”Phys. Rev. D14(Sep, 1976) 1627–1647.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.14.1627

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.14.1627 1976
[4]

Lattice theories of chiral fermions,

H. R. Quinn and M. Weinstein, “Lattice theories of chiral fermions,”Phys. Rev. D34(1986) 2440–2450

1986
[6]

Mallat,A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing, Third Edition: The Sparse Way

S. Mallat,A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing, Third Edition: The Sparse Way. Academic Press, Inc., USA, 3rd ed., 2008

2008
[7]

Efficient quantum algorithm for all quantum wavelet trans- forms,

M. Bagherimehrab and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Efficient quantum algorithm for all quantum wavelet trans- forms,”Quantum Sci. Technol.9no. 3, (2024) 035010, arXiv:2309.09350 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[8]

Multiscale quantum simulation of quantum field theory using wavelets,

G. K. Brennen, P. Rohde, B. C. Sanders, and S. Singh, “Multiscale quantum simulation of quantum field theory using wavelets,”Phys. Rev. A92no. 3, (2015) 032315, arXiv:1412.0750 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2015
[9]

Holographic Con- struction of Quantum Field Theory using Wavelets,

S. Singh and G. K. Brennen, “Holographic Con- struction of Quantum Field Theory using Wavelets,” arXiv:1606.05068 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv
[10]

Nearly Optimal Quantum Algorithm for Generating the Ground State of a Free Quantum Field Theory,

M. Bagherimehrab, Y. R. Sanders, D. W. Berry, G. K. Brennen, and B. C. Sanders, “Nearly Optimal Quantum Algorithm for Generating the Ground State of a Free Quantum Field Theory,”PRX Quantum3no. 2, (2022) 020364,arXiv:2110.05708 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[11]

Entanglement in quan- tum field theory via wavelet representations,

D. J. George, Y. R. Sanders, M. Bagherimehrab, B. C. Sanders, and G. K. Brennen, “Entanglement in quan- tum field theory via wavelet representations,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 3, (2022) 036025,arXiv:2201.06211 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[12]

Scale limited fields and the Casimir effect,

Š. Vedl, D. J. George, and G. K. Brennen, “Scale limited fields and the Casimir effect,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 1, (2024) 016018,arXiv:2310.04089 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[13]

Fastquantum algorithm for differential equations,

M. Bagherimehrab, K. Nakaji, N. Wiebe, G. K. Bren- nen, B.C.Sanders, andA.Aspuru-Guzik, “Fastquantum algorithm for differential equations,”arXiv:2306.11802 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv
[16]

Precon- ditionedQuantumLinearSystemAlgorithm,

B. D. Clader, B. C. Jacobs, and C. R. Sprouse, “Precon- ditionedQuantumLinearSystemAlgorithm,”Phys. Rev. Lett.110no. 25, (June, 2013) 250504,arXiv:1301.2340 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[17]

Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D

C. Andrew M., K. Robin, and S. Rolando D., “Quantum Algorithm for Systems of Linear Equations with Expo- nentially Improved Dependence on Precision,”SIAM J. Comput.46no. 6, (2017) 1920–1950,arXiv:1511.02306 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2017
[18]

Variable time amplitude amplification and a faster quan- tum algorithm for solving systems of linear equations,

A. Ambainis, “Variable time amplitude amplification and a faster quantum algorithm for solving systems of linear equations,”arXiv:1010.4458 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv
[19]

Entanglement renormalization for quan- tum field theories with discrete wavelet transforms,

D. S. M. Alves, “Entanglement renormalization for quan- tum field theories with discrete wavelet transforms,” Journal of High Energy Physics2024no. 7, (2024) 81. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2024)081

work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2024)081 2024
[20]

Scale limited fields and the casimir effect,

Š. Vedl, D. J. George, and G. K. Brennen, “Scale limited fields and the casimir effect,”Phys. Rev. D 109(Jan, 2024) 016018.https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.016018

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.016018 2024
[21]

Hamiltonian Simulation Using Linear Combinations of Unitary Operations

A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, “Hamiltonian Simula- tion Using Linear Combinations of Unitary Operations,” Quant. Inf. Comput.12no. 11&12, (2012) 0901–0924, arXiv:1202.5822 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[22]

Quantum simulation of chemistry with sublinear scaling in basis size,

R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, J. R. McClean, and H. Neven, “Quantum simulation of chemistry with sublinear scaling in basis size,”npj Quantum Inf.5(2019) 92

2019
[23]

On efficient quantum block encoding of pseudo-differential operators,

H. Li, H. Ni, and L. Ying, “On efficient quantum block encoding of pseudo-differential operators,”Quantum7 (2023) 1031,arXiv:2301.08908 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[24]

Halving the cost of quantum addition,

C. Gidney, “Halving the cost of quantum addition,” Quantum2(June, 2018) 74.http://dx.doi.org/10. 22331/q-2018-06-18-74

2018
[25]

Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices

D. Camps, L. Lin, R. Van Beeumen, and C. Yang, “Ex- plicit Quantum Circuits for Block Encodings of Certain Sparse Matrices,”SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.45no. 1, (2024) 801–827,arXiv:2203.10236 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[26]

Block-encoding structured matrices for data input in quantum computing

C. Sünderhauf, E. Campbell, and J. Camps, “Block- encoding structured matrices for data input in quantum computing,”Quantum8(2024) 1226,arXiv:2302.10949 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[27]

Black-box quantum state preparation without arith- metic,

Y. R. Sanders, G. Hao Low, A. Scherer, and D. W. Berry, “Black-box quantum state preparation without arith- metic,”arXiv e-prints(July, 2018) arXiv:1807.03206, arXiv:1807.03206 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[28]

A new proposal for the fermion doubling problem. ii. improving the operators for finite lattices,

J. P. Costella, “A new proposal for the fermion doubling problem. ii. improving the operators for finite lattices,” 2002.https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0207015

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2002
[29]

Fault-Tolerant Quantum Simulations of Chemistry in First Quantization

Y. Su, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, N. Rubin, and R. Bab- bush, “Fault-Tolerant Quantum Simulations of Chem- istry in First Quantization,”PRX Quantum2no. 4, (2021) 040332,arXiv:2105.12767 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[30]

Quantum sam- pling algorithms for quantum state preparation and ma- trix block-encoding,

J. Lemieux, M. Lostaglio, S. Pallister, W. Pol, K. Seetharam, S. Sim, and B. Şahinoğlu, “Quantum sam- pling algorithms for quantum state preparation and ma- trix block-encoding,”arXiv:2405.11436 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv
[31]

Block- encoding dense and full-rank kernels using hierarchi- cal matrices: applications in quantum numerical lin- ear algebra,

Q. T. Nguyen, B. T. Kiani, and S. Lloyd, “Block- encoding dense and full-rank kernels using hierarchi- cal matrices: applications in quantum numerical lin- ear algebra,”Quantum6(2022) 876,arXiv:2201.11329 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[32]

Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics,

A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, “Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics,” in51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Com- puting. 6, 2018.arXiv:1806.01838 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[33]

Efficient Quantum Circuits for Non-Unitary and Unitary Diagonal Operators with Space-Time-Accuracy Trade-Offs,

J. Zylberman, U. Nzongani, A. Simonetto, and F. Deb- basch, “Efficient Quantum Circuits for Non-Unitary and Unitary Diagonal Operators with Space-Time-Accuracy Trade-Offs,”ACM Trans. Quant. Comput.6no.2, (2025) 15,arXiv:2404.02819 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[34]

Rise of conditionally clean ancillae for efficient quantum circuit construc- tions,

T. Khattar and C. Gidney, “Rise of conditionally clean ancillae for efficient quantum circuit construc- tions,”Quantum9(2025) 1752,arXiv:2407.17966 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

Harrow and Avinatan Hassidim and Seth Lloyd , Date-Added =

A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, “Quan- tum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations,”Phys. Rev. Lett.103no. 15, (2009) 150502,arXiv:0811.3171 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2009
[36]

Validity of SLAC fermions for the (1 +1 ) -dimensional helical Lut- tinger liquid,

Z. Wang, F. Assaad, and M. Ulybyshev, “Validity of SLAC fermions for the (1 +1 ) -dimensional helical Lut- tinger liquid,”Phys. Rev. B108no. 4, (July, 2023) 045105,arXiv:2211.02960 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page arXiv 2023
[37]

Tangent Fermions: Dirac or Majorana Fermions on a Lattice Without Fermion Doubling,

C. W. J. Beenakker, A. Donís Vela, G. Lemut, M. J. Pacholski, and J. Tworzydło, “Tangent Fermions: Dirac or Majorana Fermions on a Lattice Without Fermion Doubling,”Annalen der Physik535no. 7, (July, 2023) 2300081,arXiv:2302.12793 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

work page arXiv 2023
[38]

Chiral Heisenberg Gross-Neveu-Yukawa criticality: honeycomb vs. SLAC fermions,

T. C. Lang and A. M. Läuchli, “Chiral Heisenberg Gross-Neveu-Yukawa criticality: honeycomb vs. SLAC fermions,”arXiv:2503.15000 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page arXiv
[39]

A Comprehensive Study of Quantum Arithmetic Circuits,

S. Wang, X. Li, W. J. B. Lee, S. Deb, E. Lim, and A. Chattopadhyay, “A Comprehensive Study of Quantum Arithmetic Circuits,”arXiv:2406.03867 [quant-ph]. 29 A. The ingredients for the LCU based block-encoding In Sections IV and V, we adapt the nested-box inequality-test framework to prepare the requiredNam- plitudes with the desired weighting on each basis ...

work page arXiv
[40]

The preparation circuit: PREP For both block-encoding—the first-order SLAC deriva- tive and the Laplacian—we begin by preparing the de- sired scaling through an inequality test. From Eq. (32), the result of implementing the state- preparation module underlying theLCU-based block- encoding (forn≫0) of the SLAC Laplacian can be formalised as follows: Result...
[41]

This ensures that while un- computing the flipped qubitC, the undesired branches get discarded

The Copy oracle As the preparation circuit constructed above had some overall contribution from irrelavant states|ω⟩fail, we want to mark the relevant and undesirable branch with a marker qubit labelledC. This ensures that while un- computing the flipped qubitC, the undesired branches get discarded. To do this one needs to applyCXgate from flagf to marker...
[42]

(21) that we must also apply al- ternating signs to the computational basis states|j⟩to obtain the correct weightings in the SLAC Laplacian

The Sign Oracle for SLAC Laplacian It is clear from Eq. (21) that we must also apply al- ternating signs to the computational basis states|j⟩to obtain the correct weightings in the SLAC Laplacian. This can be done efficiently using a sign oracle, sayOsgn, which has the following action: Osgn|j⟩|ψ⟩sys = (−1)1+j|j⟩|ψ⟩sys .(A5) This operation can be realised...
[43]

The Phase Oracle for first order SLAC derivative The first-order SLAC derivative operator also hasj- dependent phases, as evident in Eq. (44). These phases can be realised, up to a global factor of−1, by applying a Phase oracleOp which acts on a computational basis state|j⟩as follows: O(1) p |j⟩= { −eiαj|j⟩, j̸= 0,α=π ( 1 + 1 N ) . (A7) Hence, up to an ov...
[44]

The SELECT oracle of theLCU The SLAC Laplacian and the first-order SLAC deriva- tive for a periodic lattice are translationally invariant cir- culant dense matrices. To construct the block-encoding 31 usingthestate-preparationandsignoraclesdefinedinthe previous subsections, it is necessary to apply appropriate cyclic shift matrices to the states prepared ...