Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 38 references

A bottleneck variant of Birkhoff's algorithm decomposes suitable matrices into O(N log(1/ε)) permutation terms for LCU implementations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-07-02 23:25 UTC pith:3BGIZLSE

load-bearing objection The paper shows how to halve LCU ancilla width for dense matrices using a greedy Birkhoff-von Neumann decomposition needing ~2N terms. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.27430 v2 pith:3BGIZLSE submitted 2026-05-22 quant-ph

Lowering LCU Circuit Width through Maximum-Weight Birkhoff-von Neumann Decomposition

Ammar Daskin This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords Birkhoff-von Neumann decompositionlinear combination of unitariesquantum circuitsancilla reductiondoubly stochastic matricespermutation decompositionLCU implementationSinkhorn scaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper shows that complex square matrices whose absolute values have total support can be mapped to phased doubly stochastic matrices. A bottleneck or largest-weight greedy version of the Birkhoff-von Neumann decomposition then expresses them using far fewer terms than the standard quadratic count. This change cuts the ancilla qubits needed for linear combination of unitaries circuits from 2 log N to log N while setting the normalization factor exactly to one. Readers would care because the smaller term count shortens circuits and raises success probability in fixed-Hadamard LCU setups used for dense operators.

Core claim

Any complex square matrix whose element-wise absolute value has total support can be mapped to a phased doubly stochastic matrix or embedded into a larger one via matrix completion. A bottleneck variant of Birkhoff's algorithm then decomposes it into O(N log(1/ε)) permutation terms where ε is the ℓ1 approximation error, while a greedy largest-weight variant uses approximately 2N terms on dense matrices. The resulting convex combination has LCU coefficient α exactly equal to 1, so the uniform superposition is an eigenvector with eigenvalue 1.

What carries the argument

The bottleneck variant of Birkhoff's algorithm applied to phased doubly stochastic matrices, which iteratively selects maximum-weight permutation matchings to reduce the number of terms.

Load-bearing premise

Any complex square matrix whose element-wise absolute value has total support can be mapped to a phased doubly stochastic matrix or embedded into a larger doubly stochastic matrix via matrix completion.

What would settle it

A dense matrix with total support whose largest-weight greedy decomposition requires substantially more than 3N terms on average or whose bottleneck decomposition exceeds O(N log(1/ε)) terms for small ε.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The ancilla register in LCU shrinks from 2 log₂ N to log₂ N qubits.
  • The SELECT circuit shortens because fewer terms are needed.
  • Success probability in fixed-Hadamard LCU improves because it scales as 1/K with smaller K.
  • The LCU normalization constant α equals exactly 1.
  • The uniform superposition is an eigenvector with eigenvalue 1 and can be used directly in quantum walks and Markov chain simulations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The eigenvector property might allow measurement-free sampling from stationary distributions in quantum algorithms that simulate Markov processes.
  • Matrix completion for non-square operators could extend the method to rectangular matrices common in quantum optimal transport.
  • The empirical average of 2.4N terms suggests the greedy variant may admit a theoretical average-case bound under random matrix assumptions.
  • The same term reduction could apply to other LCU-based simulations of non-Hermitian dynamics beyond the examples given.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that any complex square matrix whose element-wise absolute value has total support can be mapped to a phased doubly stochastic matrix (via Sinkhorn scaling on magnitudes followed by phase attachment). It then shows that a bottleneck variant of Birkhoff's algorithm decomposes such matrices into convex combinations of O(N log(1/ε)) phased permutation matrices for ℓ1 approximation error ε, while a largest-weight greedy heuristic empirically requires only ≈2.4N terms on dense instances. This reduces LCU ancilla width from 2 log₂ N to log₂ N qubits, shortens the SELECT oracle, yields exact normalization α=1, and preserves the all-ones vector as an eigenvector with eigenvalue 1, with applications to optimal transport and non-Hermitian simulation.

Significance. If the O(N log(1/ε)) bound and the empirical term counts hold, the work offers a concrete, algorithmically grounded route to lowering ancilla overhead for dense operators in LCU-based quantum algorithms. The exact α=1 property and eigenvector structure are exploitable for high success probability without amplification in quantum walks and Markov simulations, which is a structural advantage over generic decompositions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Bottleneck variant analysis): the claimed O(N log(1/ε)) term count for ℓ1 error ε is load-bearing for the central contribution; the proof sketch must explicitly bound the minimum positive entry after Sinkhorn scaling (or show that the bottleneck selection guarantees a weight lower bound independent of conditioning) to confirm the logarithmic dependence does not hide additional factors of the matrix condition number or minimum support size.
  2. [§4] §4 (empirical evaluation): the statement that the greedy variant requires ≈2.4N terms on dense matrices is used to support the practical quadratic reduction; the reported average must be accompanied by the precise matrix ensemble (entry distribution, conditioning) and number of trials so that the result can be reproduced and the claim that it is “only ≈2N” can be assessed for generality.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that the mapping works for matrices whose |A| has total support; the main text should include a short remark on what fraction of random dense matrices satisfy this (or how the matrix-completion embedding handles the general case) to clarify the scope.
  2. [§5] In the LCU application section, the reduction of the ancilla register is stated as 2 log₂ N → log₂ N; a brief calculation showing the new SELECT circuit depth or gate count (even asymptotically) would strengthen the resource claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the requested clarifications in a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Bottleneck variant analysis): the claimed O(N log(1/ε)) term count for ℓ1 error ε is load-bearing for the central contribution; the proof sketch must explicitly bound the minimum positive entry after Sinkhorn scaling (or show that the bottleneck selection guarantees a weight lower bound independent of conditioning) to confirm the logarithmic dependence does not hide additional factors of the matrix condition number or minimum support size.

    Authors: We agree that the current proof sketch in §3 would benefit from an explicit lower bound on the minimum positive entry after Sinkhorn scaling. In the revision we will add a lemma establishing that the bottleneck selection rule produces a weight lower bound depending only on ε (via the total support property and the doubly stochastic normalization), independent of the matrix condition number. This will rigorously confirm the O(N log(1/ε)) term count. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (empirical evaluation): the statement that the greedy variant requires ≈2.4N terms on dense matrices is used to support the practical quadratic reduction; the reported average must be accompanied by the precise matrix ensemble (entry distribution, conditioning) and number of trials so that the result can be reproduced and the claim that it is “only ≈2N” can be assessed for generality.

    Authors: We will revise §4 to specify the matrix ensemble (random complex matrices with magnitudes drawn uniformly from [0,1] and phases uniform on [0,2π), conditioned to have total support and normalized via Sinkhorn), the range of matrix sizes tested, and the number of independent trials (100 per size). The reported average of ≈2.4N will be accompanied by these details and a brief statement on observed variance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper's core construction maps any complex matrix with total support in |A| to a phased doubly stochastic matrix via Sinkhorn on magnitudes then Birkhoff decomposition of the resulting nonnegative matrix. The O(N log(1/ε)) bound is stated as a proof for the bottleneck variant of Birkhoff's algorithm, and the ≈2N empirical count is presented as an observation on dense instances. Neither claim reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation loop, or renamed input; the LCU normalization α=1 follows directly from the convex-combination property of the decomposition. The argument relies on standard matrix theory (Sinkhorn, Birkhoff-von Neumann) without load-bearing self-citations or ansatz smuggling visible in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that matrices with total support in their absolute values admit a phased doubly-stochastic mapping; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Any complex square matrix whose element-wise absolute value has total support can be mapped to a phased doubly stochastic matrix or embedded into a larger doubly stochastic matrix via matrix completion.
    Explicitly stated as the starting point for the decomposition in the first sentence of the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5830 in / 1290 out tokens · 24828 ms · 2026-07-02T23:25:35.279033+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

While classical Sinkhorn scaling applies to nonnegative matrices, we show that any complex square matrix whose element-wise absolute value has total support can be mapped to a phased doubly stochastic matrix, or alternatively embedded into a larger doubly stochastic matrix via matrix completion. Standard Birkhoff-von Neumann and Pauli decompositions represent such matrices as linear combinations of $O(N^2)$ permutation or Pauli terms, leading to a large ancilla overhead in a quantum Linear Combination of Unitaries (LCU) implementation. We prove that a bottleneck variant of Birkhoff's algorithm reduces the number of permutations to $O(N\log(1/\varepsilon))$, where $\varepsilon$ is the $\ell_1$-norm approximation error of the reconstructed matrix, and demonstrate empirically that a largest-weight greedy variant requires only $\approx 2N$ terms for dense matrices (the exact average observed is $\approx 2.4N$). The quadratic reduction in term count directly shrinks the ancilla register from $2\log_2 N$ to $\log_2 N$ qubits, shortens the SELECT circuit, and is especially valuable in fixed-Hadamard LCU architectures whose success probability scales with $1/K$. The approach enables compact quantum implementations of dense operators appearing in optimal transport, non-Hermitian simulation, and other settings amenable to Sinkhorn preconditioning. Furthermore, because the decomposition is a convex combination, the LCU normalization constant is exactly $\alpha = 1$, and the uniform superposition is an eigenvector of the target matrix with eigenvalue~1. This structure can be exploited to achieve high success probability without amplitude amplification in many practical scenarios, including quantum walks and Markov chain simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27430 by Ammar Daskin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Empirical term counts for N = 2q , error tolerance 0.01. The largest-weight variant scales as O(N), while all other BVN methods and the Pauli decomposition scale as O(N2 ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Step-by-step execution of the largest-weight BVN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Hamiltonian simulation using linear com- binations of unitary operations,

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, “Hamiltonian simulation using linear com- binations of unitary operations,”Quantum Information & Computation, vol. 12, no. 11-12, pp. 901–924, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series,

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, “Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series,”Phys- ical Review Letters, vol. 114, no. 9, p. 090502, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Grand unification of quantum algorithms,

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, “Grand unification of quantum algorithms,”PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 040203, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

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

    A. Gily ´en, Y . Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, “Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics,” inProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 193–204, ACM, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices,

    D. Camps, L. Lin, R. Van Beeumen, and C. Yang, “Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices,”SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 801–827, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Preconditioned block encodings for quantum linear systems,

    L. Lapworth and C. S ¨underhauf, “Preconditioned block encodings for quantum linear systems,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 045064, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Compact quantum algorithms for time-dependent differential equations,

    S. S. Bharadwaj and K. R. Sreenivasan, “Compact quantum algorithms for time-dependent differential equations,”Physical Review Research, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 023262, 2025. 8

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Quantum algorithm for solving differential equations using SLAC derivatives

    R. M. Gharat, G. Muraleedharan, D. W. Berry, and G. K. Brennen, “Quantum algorithm for solving differential equations using slac deriva- tives,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.04861, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations: Theory and experiment,

    T. Xin, S. Wei, J. Cui, J. Xiao, I. Arrazola, L. Lamata, X. Kong, D. Lu, E. Solano, and G. Long, “Quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations: Theory and experiment,”Physical Review A, vol. 101, no. 3, p. 032307, 2020

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Quantum Neural Physics: Solving Partial Differential Equations on Quantum Simulators using Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks

    J. Zhai, M. Abdullah, B. Chen, F. Chaudry, P. N. Smith, C. E. Heaney, Y . Wang, J. Xiang, and C. C. Pain, “Quantum neural physics: Solving partial differential equations on quantum simulators using quantum convolutional neural networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.24196, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Nonunitary quantum machine learning,

    J. Heredge, M. West, L. Hollenberg, and M. Sevior, “Nonunitary quantum machine learning,”Physical Review Applied, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 044046, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Nuclear physics in the era of quantum computing and quantum machine learning,

    J.-E. Garc ´ıa-Ramos, ´A. S ´aiz, J. M. Arias, L. Lamata, and P. P ´erez- Fern´andez, “Nuclear physics in the era of quantum computing and quantum machine learning,”Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 8, no. 12, p. 2300219, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Majorana tensor decomposition: A unifying framework for decompositions of fermionic hamiltonians to linear combination of unitaries,

    I. Loaiza, A. Sankar Brahmachari, and A. F. Izmaylov, “Majorana tensor decomposition: A unifying framework for decompositions of fermionic hamiltonians to linear combination of unitaries,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 035035, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Efficient quantum access model for sparse structured matrices using linear combination of “things

    A. Gnanasekaran and A. Surana, “Efficient quantum access model for sparse structured matrices using linear combination of “things”,” Physical Review A, vol. 113, no. 2, p. 022437, 2026

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    Efficient LCU block encodings through Dicke states preparation

    F. Della Chiara, M. Nibbi, Y . Shen, and R. Van Beeumen, “Efficient lcu block encodings through dicke states preparation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20887, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Quantum speed-up of markov chain based algorithms,

    M. Szegedy, “Quantum speed-up of markov chain based algorithms,” in45th Annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science, pp. 32–41, IEEE, 2004

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    Entropic optimal transport with quantum amplitude estimation,

    F. Orts, “Entropic optimal transport with quantum amplitude estimation,” Future Generation Computer Systems, p. 108570, 2026

    work page 2026

  18. [18]

    The birkhoff theorem for unitary matrices of prime-power dimension,

    A. De V os and S. De Baerdemacker, “The birkhoff theorem for unitary matrices of prime-power dimension,”Linear Algebra and its Applica- tions, vol. 578, pp. 27–52, 2019

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    A quantum compiler design method by using linear com- binations of permutations,

    A. Daskin, “A quantum compiler design method by using linear com- binations of permutations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18226, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Error analysis of quantum operators written as a linear combination of permutations,

    A. Daskin, “Error analysis of quantum operators written as a linear combination of permutations,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 24, no. 5, p. 149, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    R. A. Brualdi,Combinatorial matrix classes, vol. 13. Cambridge University Press, 2006

    work page 2006

  22. [22]

    Scheduling techniques for hybrid circuit/packet networks,

    H. Liu, M. K. Mukerjee, C. Li, N. Feltman, G. Papen, S. Savage, S. Seshan, G. M. V oelker, D. G. Andersen, M. Kaminsky,et al., “Scheduling techniques for hybrid circuit/packet networks,” inProceed- ings of the 11th ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, pp. 1–13, 2015

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Costly circuits, submodular schedules and approximate carath´eodory theorems,

    S. Bojja Venkatakrishnan, M. Alizadeh, and P. Viswanath, “Costly circuits, submodular schedules and approximate carath´eodory theorems,” Queueing Systems, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 311–347, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Birkhoff’s decomposition revisited: Sparse scheduling for high-speed circuit switches,

    V . Valls, G. Iosifidis, and L. Tassiulas, “Birkhoff’s decomposition revisited: Sparse scheduling for high-speed circuit switches,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 2399–2412, 2021

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Concerning nonnegative matrices and doubly stochastic matrices,

    R. Sinkhorn and P. Knopp, “Concerning nonnegative matrices and doubly stochastic matrices,”Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 343–348, 1967

    work page 1967

  26. [26]

    Efficient quantum circuits for diagonal unitaries without ancillas,

    J. Welch, D. Greenbaum, S. Mostame, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Efficient quantum circuits for diagonal unitaries without ancillas,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 033040, 2014

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    An nˆ5/2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs,

    J. E. Hopcroft and R. M. Karp, “An nˆ5/2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs,”SIAM Journal on computing, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 225–231, 1973

    work page 1973

  28. [28]

    Paths, trees, and flowers,

    J. Edmonds, “Paths, trees, and flowers,”Canadian Journal of mathemat- ics, vol. 17, pp. 449–467, 1965

    work page 1965

  29. [29]

    H. N. Gabow,Implementation of algorithms for maximum matching on nonbipartite graphs.Stanford University, 1974

    work page 1974

  30. [30]

    Linear-time approximation for maximum weight matching,

    R. Duan and S. Pettie, “Linear-time approximation for maximum weight matching,”Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2014

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    Notes on the birkhoff algorithm for doubly stochastic matrices,

    R. A. Brualdi, “Notes on the birkhoff algorithm for doubly stochastic matrices,”Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 191–199, 1982

    work page 1982

  32. [32]

    Further notes on birkhoff–von neumann decomposition of doubly stochastic matrices,

    F. Dufoss ´e, K. Kaya, I. Panagiotas, and B. Uc ¸ar, “Further notes on birkhoff–von neumann decomposition of doubly stochastic matrices,” Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 554, pp. 68–78, 2018

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    Minimum birkhoff-von neumann decomposition,

    J. Kulkarni, E. Lee, and M. Singh, “Minimum birkhoff-von neumann decomposition,” inInternational Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, pp. 343–354, Springer, 2017

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Diagonals of doubly stochastic matrices,

    M. Marcus and R. Ree, “Diagonals of doubly stochastic matrices,”The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 296–302, 1959

    work page 1959

  35. [35]

    A note on erd ˝os matrices and marcus–ree inequality,

    A. Kushwaha and R. Tripathi, “A note on erd ˝os matrices and marcus–ree inequality,”Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 725, pp. 223–247, 2025

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Exploiting all ancilla outcomes in linear combinations of unitaries: low-rank recovery and quantum trapdoor functions

    A. Daskin, “Exploiting all ancilla outcomes in linear combinations of unitaries: low-rank recovery and quantum trapdoor functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.02986, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Synthesis of reversible logic circuits,

    V . V . Shende, A. K. Prasad, I. L. Markov, and J. P. Hayes, “Synthesis of reversible logic circuits,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 710–722, 2003

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    Synthesis and optimization of reversible circuits—a survey,

    M. Saeedi and I. L. Markov, “Synthesis and optimization of reversible circuits—a survey,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 1–34, 2013

    work page 2013