Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

The paper claims that basket option pricing on quantum computers can replace exponential state-preparation depth with linear depth by targeting the basket's cumulative distribution function instead of the full joint state.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 01:51 UTC pith:2SLVMFHA

load-bearing objection A genuinely task-aligned variational loader for basket pricing with sound depth analysis and honest small-scale numerics; the main risk is the unproven expressivity of the one-latent-qubit dependence block. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14518 v1 pith:2SLVMFHA submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph q-fin.CP

Structure-Aware Variational State Preparation for Quantum Basket Option Pricing

Dongwoo Kim , Zhenyu Cui , Daniel K. Park , Chihoon Lee This is my paper
classification quant-ph q-fin.CP
keywords quantum financebasket option pricingquantum state preparationtensor-train decompositionvariational quantum circuitsamplitude estimationcircuit depth reductionpushforward distribution
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.

This paper claims that the main obstacle to quantum amplitude estimation for basket option pricing—the exponentially deep circuit needed to load the joint asset-price distribution—can be bypassed. Because basket option payoffs depend on the assets only through the weighted basket value, the paper argues that a circuit only needs to reproduce the basket's one-dimensional distribution. It proposes a two-stage loader: local tensor-train-informed circuits prepare each asset's marginal distribution, then a compact latent dependence block is trained to match the basket CDF. Numerical experiments at up to eight assets and four qubits per asset show linear depth growth and low-percent pricing errors. The paper's central evidence is that matching the basket pushforward distribution, not full-state fidelity, is sufficient for basket-dependent payoffs.

Core claim

The central claim is that matching the basket pushforward distribution, rather than the full joint state, is sufficient for basket-dependent payoffs, and that this can be achieved with a shallow variational circuit. Proposition 3 bounds basket-call pricing error by the integrated basket-CDF discrepancy, so minimizing a discretized CDF loss directly controls pricing error. The proposed marginal-TT latent loader implements this by preparing asset-wise marginals locally and using a single latent qubit to learn dependence only as it affects the basket CDF. Experiments on equicorrelated and market-sector-style correlated baskets report relative pricing errors in the low single digits and transpil

What carries the argument

The tensor-train (TT) rank profile of the amplitude tensor, used as a structural prior to decide which nearest-neighbor entangling links are needed in a hardware-efficient ansatz; and the basket pushforward CDF objective L_CDF, which replaces full-state fidelity as the training target for the dependence block. The Basket-CDF error bound (Proposition 3) is what transfers CDF accuracy into pricing accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a compact latent circuit, with one qubit and a few layers, can faithfully represent the basket distribution of any correlated basket; this is only tested numerically at small sizes and with no guaranteed error bounds.

What would settle it

Compute the exact basket CDF on a fine grid for a correlated basket (e.g., d=8, q=3) and compare it with the CDF induced by the trained loader; if the maximum CDF gap remains above a few percent while the loader depth stays linear, the central accuracy claim is falsified. The same gap feeds the Proposition 3 bound, so it directly translates into a pricing-error lower bound.

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

If this is right

  • The trained loader can be reused for any strike or any functional of the basket value without retraining.
  • The training target shrinks from the full joint probability table (size 2^{dq}) to marginal distributions and basket CDF values or samples.
  • In the independent-asset regime, the same TT-rank rule removes cross-asset entangling links, giving nearly constant circuit depth as assets are added.
  • The loader plugs into standard quantum amplitude estimation workflows; an end-to-end test reproduces the reference option-price curve.
  • Increasing resolution (more qubits per asset) tends to reduce loader-induced pricing error because the CDF-discrepancy bound controls the loading error.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the latent dependence block proves insufficiently expressive for larger or more heterogeneous baskets, a natural fix is to grow the latent register or dependence depth: the paper's own architecture leaves this as an open tuning knob.
  • The same pushforward sufficiency suggests the method applies to portfolio risk measures (VaR, CVaR, tail probabilities) that depend only on aggregate value—the paper only sketches this direction.
  • A sharper test would compare a fidelity-trained variant of the same circuit against the CDF-trained variant; this would isolate whether the gain comes from the objective or from the structure-aware ansatz.
  • The latent qubit's role resembles a single-factor dependence model; adding one latent qubit per independent risk factor could provide a heuristic scaling for multi-factor baskets.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a structure-aware variational state-preparation framework for QAE-based basket option pricing. For independent multi-asset targets, TT-rank information is used to remove unnecessary entangling links from a hardware-efficient ansatz. For correlated baskets, the authors prepare asset-wise marginals with TT-informed local circuits and train a compact latent dependence block to match the cumulative distribution function of the basket value, rather than the full joint state. Propositions 1–3 provide the theoretical core: product structure is reflected in trivial TT ranks, basket-pushforward equality implies equal prices for all basket functionals, and basket-call error is bounded by integrated basket-CDF discrepancy. Section 4 derives depth scalings, concluding that the proposed loader has O(dq) depth for fixed marginal and dependence-block depths, versus exponential depth for exact amplitude loading. Numerical experiments on discretized lognormal baskets (q=2,3,4; d≤8) report percent-level basket-pricing errors, transpiled depth much lower than exact loading, and comparisons against a fixed-rank Direct TT/MPS baseline, together with sample-based training and an empirical-scenario study.

Significance. The basket-pushforward viewpoint is a genuinely useful observation: for basket-structured payoffs, matching the one-dimensional basket law is sufficient, and Proposition 3 cleanly converts CDF discrepancy into a pricing-error bound. The TT-informed entangling-rule is also sensible, and the depth analysis in Section 4 is internally consistent with the transpiled counts in Tables D1–D3. If the accuracy claim holds beyond the tested instances, the method would be a practical contribution to quantum Monte Carlo pipelines. The paper is honest about several limitations, including that exact statevector training limits the tested sizes and that no universal depth reduction is claimed. However, the central low-error half of the abstract's claim currently rests on an unverified expressivity assumption rather than on the (correct) CDF-error bound, and the empirical evidence shows warning signs at the largest tested dimensions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2–3.3, Fig. 2, Eq. (23)] The low-error half of the central claim rests on an unverified expressivity assumption. The dependence block in Fig. 2 uses one latent qubit and L_dep=4 layers, and the gates in Eq. (38)–(40) contain no entangling gates between different asset registers. After tracing out the single latent qubit, the induced asset-register state is a rank-≤2 mixture. It is not shown that such states can approximate the basket pushforward of correlated lognormal baskets to the claimed accuracy. Table D1 gives a concrete warning: for q=2, market-sector, the K=55 error jumps from 1.140% at d=7 to 4.686% at d=8, with K=50 at 2.527%; the trend is not monotone and degrades sharply. The number of CDF constraints (distinct basket values) can grow much faster than the O(L_dep d q) variational parameters. To make the central claim defensible, the authors should either prove or rigorously bound the approximation ca
  2. [§5, Appendix D, Tables D1–D4] The pricing-accuracy evidence is entirely in-sample. The Basket-CDF target and the reported option errors are computed from the same discretized joint distribution, and in the sample variant (Table D4) the target samples come from the same model. This is a legitimate benchmark, but it does not support the general scaling claim without sensitivity analysis. No sweeps are reported for the loss weights λ_B and λ_M, the latent depth L_dep, the latent register size n_L, or the correlation strength ρ. The reader cannot tell whether the percent-level errors are robust or an artifact of particular hyperparameters. I request at least a correlation-strength sweep for a mid-size instance (e.g., q=3,d=5), and an L_dep sweep for the d=8,q=2 market-sector case where degradation is observed, along with a clear statement of the chosen CDF grid and its impact on the loss.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (45); §5.1, Table D5] The depth analysis is sound as a statement about the proposed architecture, but its connection to the 'linear scaling' claim needs qualification. Eq. (45) gives D_CDF = D_marg + O(L_dep d q) for fixed L_dep and fixed marginal depth; the experiments fix L_dep=4. If maintaining accuracy at larger d/q requires L_dep to grow with d or q, the observed linear depth would not persist. The paper should either provide evidence that L_dep=4 suffices for the tested range and discuss how L_dep must scale, or state the depth claim as conditional on the required L_dep. In addition, the main text says the Direct TT baseline uses a fixed bond-dimension cap χ=4, but Table D5 reports sweeps for χ=8 and 16 and never shows χ=4. This inconsistency must be corrected (or χ=4 results added) for the baseline comparison to be reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (22) and Prop. 3] The CDF loss is defined on J grid points, while Proposition 3 bounds the integrated absolute CDF discrepancy. The link between a small J-point L2 loss and the integrated error is not made explicit. If {b_j} includes all distinct basket values, this should be stated; otherwise a discretization gap should be discussed.
  2. [§3.4, Eq. (30)–(32)] The DKW bound is stated for a fixed circuit parameter φ. After optimization, φ depends on the samples used to estimate the model CDF, so a uniform-convergence argument over the parameter set would be needed to make the sample-based loss guarantee fully formal.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption does not make clear whether the displayed circuit is one dependence layer or the full L_dep=4 block. Please clarify.
  4. [Abstract and §4.2] The authors explicitly disclaim a universal depth reduction in §4.2, which is appreciated, but the abstract and conclusion state the claim more broadly. The wording should be aligned, e.g., 'in the tested instances' or 'for the considered correlation structures.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the depth-scaling and pricing-error derivations are self-contained, and the numerical accuracy check is an in-sample approximation demonstration rather than a fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: (1) The reduction from full joint-state fidelity to basket-pushforward matching is established by Proposition 2 (basket-pushforward sufficiency) and Proposition 3 (CDF-error bound on basket calls). Both proofs are elementary and do not assume the proposed loader; they assert an inequality relating option-price error to CDF discrepancy. This is independent mathematical content, not a definitional identity. (2) The ansatz design uses TT-rank information as a structural prior (Eqs. 9-11), and Proposition 1 shows factorized cuts have TT rank one. This is a self-contained structural result. (3) The depth scaling in Section 4 (D_CDF = D_marg + O(L_dep dq)) follows from counting gates in the marginal loaders and the latent dependence block; it does not depend on trained parameter values or on the numerical objectives. The comparison with exact amplitude loading, O(2^dq), is a direct resource-count comparison. (4) The reported low-percent pricing errors are computed on the same discretized target distribution used to train the Basket-CDF objective. This is an in-sample approximation check: the loader is trained to match F_p, and the reported option errors are bounded by that same CDF discrepancy via Proposition 3. The smallness of the errors is a consequence of successful optimization and of the (independent) error bound, not a circular prediction. The paper does not present these numbers as out-of-sample forecasts or as statistical predictions from a fitted subset. (5) Self-citations are not load-bearing: the only own-author citation ([6], Blank-Park-Petruccione) appears in a background list of QAE-based pipelines and is not used to justify the central construction or any uniqueness/expressivity claim. No ansatz is smuggled in via citation; the latent dependence block is defined explicitly in Eqs. 38-40 and Figure 2. The expressivity concern raised by the skeptic - that no approximation guarantee is given for the one-latent-qubit block - is a correctness/risk limitation, not a circularity in the derivation. The paper itself acknowledges limits (e.g., exact-simulation cost, small tested dimensions), and such limitations do not indicate that any claim reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-encoding assumptions plus two unproven premises: expressivity/trainability of the latent block and adequacy of finite-grid CDF matching. The listed free parameters are training hyperparameters, comparison choices, or unspecified implementation details; the method introduces no new physical constants, but the latent register is an added construction element without independent evidence.

free parameters (8)
  • Basket-CDF loss weight lambda_B = 1000
    Chosen in Section 5; not swept; balances CDF matching against marginal regularization.
  • Marginal regularization weight lambda_M = 10
    Chosen in Section 5; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Latent dependence depth L_dep = 4
    Controls expressivity and online depth; fixed across experiments.
  • Latent register size n_L = 1
    Default in Section 3.2; assumed sufficient for all tested baskets; no scaling study.
  • Marginal loader layer count L_marg = not reported
    The depth analysis depends on it, but it is not stated; this blocks exact replication.
  • CDF grid {b_j} = ordered distinct basket values (grid mode) or fixed/quantile grid (sample mode)
    Choice determines whether finite-grid CDF matching controls the integrated error in Proposition 3; not fully specified for all runs.
  • Optimizer iteration budget = 180
    L-BFGS-B budget; no convergence criterion and no variance across runs is reported.
  • Direct TT baseline bond dimension cap chi = 4
    Baseline comparison choice; higher chi improves accuracy at larger depth (Table D5), so the comparison depends on this cap.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The discretized risk-neutral distribution p (or its marginals and basket samples) is available classically before circuit training.
    Algorithm 1 requires the PMF or samples as input; estimation error from market data is not analyzed.
  • domain assumption Real, nonnegative amplitude-encoded probability states can be approximated by an Ry+CNOT hardware-efficient ansatz.
    Sections 2.3 and 3.1; no expressivity proof for the chosen topology at fixed depth.
  • ad hoc to paper The one-latent-qubit dependence block with L_dep=4 layers can represent the basket pushforward distribution accurately for all tested and larger correlated baskets.
    Section 3.2 design; no approximation guarantee; central load-bearing assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Matching the discretized basket CDF at the chosen grid points controls the integrated CDF error in Proposition 3.
    L_CDF in Eq. (22) is a finite sum while Proposition 3 involves an integral; the discretization gap is unanalyzed, especially for quantile grids.
  • domain assumption L-BFGS-B optimizes the variational objectives to adequate accuracy within 180 iterations.
    No barren-plateau or convergence analysis for these circuits; trainability at scale is not established.
  • standard math Standard measure-theoretic facts used in Propositions 2-3 (pushforward integrals, tail representation of call payoffs).
    The proofs are routine and correct.
invented entities (1)
  • Latent dependence register (default size 1 qubit) no independent evidence
    purpose: Adds a circuit-level auxiliary channel after frozen marginal loaders so cross-asset dependence can be learned from basket-CDF mismatch without preparing the full joint state.
    The paper explicitly disclaims a financial interpretation for it (Section 3.2); no independent evidence that one qubit suffices, and its sufficiency is not proven.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23856 in / 18861 out tokens · 199709 ms · 2026-08-02T01:51:22.904305+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Basket option pricing often relies on Monte Carlo estimation, for which quantum amplitude estimation (QAE) provides a quadratic speed-up. However, the practical benefit of QAE can be limited by the depth of the state-preparation circuit. We propose a structure-aware quantum state-preparation framework for QAE-based basket option pricing. The framework uses tensor-train (TT) rank information to design shallow variational state-preparation circuits. In the independent regime, TT ranks remove unnecessary entangling links from a hardware-efficient ansatz. In correlated basket settings, we instead prepare asset-wise marginals locally and train a compact latent block to match the basket cumulative distribution function. The Basket-CDF objective targets the basket pushforward distribution rather than the full joint state, directly aligning state preparation with basket-dependent payoffs. Numerical experiments show that the proposed circuits replace the exponential state-preparation depth scaling of exact amplitude loading with linear scaling, while maintaining low-percent basket-pricing errors. Additional sampling-based training experiments and an end-to-end QAE integration study support compatibility with sample-estimated training and standard QAE-based pricing workflows.

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

42 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint quant-ph/0005055 (2000)

    Brassard, G., Hoyer, P., Mosca, M., Tapp, A.: Quantum amplitude amplifica- tion and estimation. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0005055 (2000). https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0005055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0005055 2000

  2. [2]

    npj Quantum Information5(1), 15 (2019)

    Woerner, S., Egger, D.J.: Quantum risk analysis. npj Quantum Information5(1), 15 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0130-6

    doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0130-6 2019

  3. [3]

    Quantum4, 291 (2020)

    Stamatopoulos, N., Egger, D.J., Sun, Y., Zoufal, C., Iten, R., Shen, N., Woerner, S.: Option pricing using quantum computers. Quantum4, 291 (2020). https: //doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-07-06-291

    doi:10.22331/q-2020-07-06-291 2020

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03725 (2026)

    Herman, D., Sun, Y., Liu, J.-P., Pistoia, M., Che, C., Otter, R., Chakrabarti, S., Harrow, A.: Quantum speedups for derivative pricing beyond Black-Scholes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03725 (2026). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.03725

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03725 2026

  5. [5]

    Quantitative Finance (3), 467–489 (2026)

    Han, J.Y., Cheng, B., Vu, D.-L., Rebentrost, P.: Quantum advantage for multi- option portfolio pricing and valuation adjustments. Quantitative Finance (3), 467–489 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2026.2614573

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    npj Quantum Information7(1), 126 (2021)

    Blank, C., Park, D.K., Petruccione, F.: Quantum-enhanced analysis of discrete stochastic processes. npj Quantum Information7(1), 126 (2021). https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41534-021-00459-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00459-2 2021

  7. [7]

    Quantum Information Process- ing19(2), 75 (2020)

    Suzuki, Y., Uno, S., Raymond, R., Tanaka, T., Onodera, T., Yamamoto, N.: 35 Amplitude estimation without phase estimation. Quantum Information Process- ing19(2), 75 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-019-2565-2

    doi:10.1007/s11128-019-2565-2 2020

  8. [8]

    npj Quantum Information7(1), 52 (2021)

    Grinko, D., Gacon, J., Zoufal, C., Woerner, S.: Iterative quantum amplitude estimation. npj Quantum Information7(1), 52 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41534-021-00379-1

    2021

  9. [9]

    Nature Physics11(4), 291–293 (2015)

    Aaronson, S.: Read the fine print. Nature Physics11(4), 291–293 (2015). https: //doi.org/10.1038/nphys3272

    doi:10.1038/nphys3272 2015

  10. [10]

    Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    Preskill, J.: Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum2, 79 (2018). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 2018

  11. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth International Conference on Architectural Sup- port for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp

    Murali, P., Baker, J.M., Javadi-Abhari, A., Chong, F.T., Martonosi, M.: Noise- adaptive compiler mappings for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth International Conference on Architectural Sup- port for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp. 1015–1029 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3297858.3304075

    arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Physical Review Applied15(3), 034027 (2021)

    Carrera Vazquez, A., Woerner, S.: Efficient state preparation for quantum ampli- tude estimation. Physical Review Applied15(3), 034027 (2021). https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.15.034027

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.15.034027 2021

  13. [13]

    Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering29(6), 4137–4163 (2022)

    G´ omez, A., Leitao, ´A., Manzano, A., Musso, D., Nogueiras, M.R., Ord´ o˜ nez, G., V´ azquez, C.: A Survey on Quantum Computational Finance for Derivatives Pricing and VaR. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering29(6), 4137–4163 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09732-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11831-022-09732-9 2022

  14. [14]

    Quantum5, 609 (2021)

    Rattew, A.G., Sun, Y., Minssen, P., Pistoia, M.: The efficient preparation of normal distributions in quantum registers. Quantum5, 609 (2021). https://doi. org/10.22331/q-2021-12-23-609

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-12-23-609 2021

  15. [15]

    npj Quantum Information5(1), 45 (2019)

    Benedetti, M., Garcia-Pintos, D., Perdomo, O., Leyton-Ortega, V., Nam, Y., Perdomo-Ortiz, A.: A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and train- ing shallow quantum circuits. npj Quantum Information5(1), 45 (2019). https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0157-8

    doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0157-8 2019

  16. [16]

    npj Quantum Information5(1), 103 (2019)

    Zoufal, C., Lucchi, A., Woerner, S.: Quantum generative adversarial networks for learning and loading random distributions. npj Quantum Information5(1), 103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0223-2

    doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0223-2 2019

  17. [17]

    New Journal of Physics24(2), 023036 (2022)

    Alcazar, J., Cadarso, A., Katabarwa, A., Mauri, M., Peropadre, B., Wang, G., Cao, Y.: Quantum algorithm for credit valuation adjustments. New Journal of Physics24(2), 023036 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ac5003 36

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac5003 2022

  18. [19]

    npj Quantum Information10(1), 116 (2024)

    Rudolph, M.S., Lerch, S., Thanasilp, S., Kiss, O., Shaya, O., Vallecorsa, S., Grossi, M., Holmes, Z.: Trainability barriers and opportunities in quantum generative modeling. npj Quantum Information10(1), 116 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41534-024-00902-0

    2024

  19. [20]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Comput- ing33(5), 2295–2317 (2011)

    Oseledets, I.V.: Tensor-train decomposition. SIAM Journal on Scientific Comput- ing33(5), 2295–2317 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1137/090752286

    doi:10.1137/090752286 2011

  20. [21]

    Physical Review A101(3), 032310 (2020)

    Ran, S.-J.: Encoding of matrix product states into quantum circuits of one-and two-qubit gates. Physical Review A101(3), 032310 (2020). https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevA.101.032310

    2020

  21. [22]

    npj Quantum Information10(1), 15 (2024)

    Iaconis, J., Johri, S., Zhu, E.Y.: Quantum state preparation of normal distribu- tions using matrix product states. npj Quantum Information10(1), 15 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-024-00805-0

    doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00805-0 2024

  22. [23]

    Encoding of Probability Distributions for Quantum Monte Carlo Using Tensor Networks

    Pereira, A., Villarino, A., Cortines, A., Mugel, S., Orus, R., Beltran, V.L., Scur- sulim, J., Brito, S.: Encoding of probability distributions for quantum Monte Carlo using tensor networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11660 (2024). https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.11660

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.11660 2024

  23. [24]

    Quantum Science and Tech- nology8(3), 035027 (2023)

    Melnikov, A.A., Termanova, A.A., Dolgov, S.V., Neukart, F., Perelshtein, M.: Quantum state preparation using tensor networks. Quantum Science and Tech- nology8(3), 035027 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/acd9e7

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/acd9e7 2023

  24. [25]

    Quantitative Finance16(4), 535–554 (2016)

    Caldana, R., Fusai, G., Gnoatto, A., Grasselli, M.: General closed-form basket option pricing bounds. Quantitative Finance16(4), 535–554 (2016). https://doi. org/10.1080/14697688.2015.1073854

    arXiv 2016

  25. [26]

    EPJ Quantum Technology12, 28 (2025)

    Manzano, A., Ferro, G., Leitao, ´A., V´ azquez, C., G´ omez, A.: Alternative pipeline for option pricing using quantum computers. EPJ Quantum Technology12, 28 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00328-3

    work page doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00328-3 2025

  26. [27]

    EPJ Quan- tum Technology9, 7 (2022)

    Kaneko, K., Miyamoto, K., Takeda, N., Yoshino, K.: Quantum pricing with a smile: implementation of local volatility model on quantum computer. EPJ Quan- tum Technology9, 7 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-022-00125-2

    doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-022-00125-2 2022

  27. [28]

    EPJ Quantum Technology9, 3 (2022)

    Miyamoto, K.: Bermudan option pricing by quantum amplitude estimation and Chebyshev interpolation. EPJ Quantum Technology9, 3 (2022). https://doi.org/ 10.1140/epjqt/s40507-022-00124-3 37

    work page doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-022-00124-3 2022

  28. [30]

    EPJ Quantum Technology11, 42 (2024)

    Miyamoto, K.: On the bias in iterative quantum amplitude estimation. EPJ Quantum Technology11, 42 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/ s40507-024-00253-x

    doi:10.1140/epjqt/ 2024

  29. [31]

    Nature549(7671), 242–246 (2017)

    Kandala, A., Mezzacapo, A., Temme, K., Takita, M., Brink, M., Chow, J.M., Gambetta, J.M.: Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature549(7671), 242–246 (2017). https: //doi.org/10.1038/nature23879

    doi:10.1038/nature23879 2017

  30. [32]

    Nature Reviews Physics3(9), 625–644 (2021)

    Cerezo, M., Arrasmith, A., Babbush, R., Benjamin, S.C., Endo, S., Fujii, K., McClean, J.R., Mitarai, K., Yuan, X., Cincio, L.,et al.: Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics3(9), 625–644 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1038/s42254-021-00348-9

    2021

  31. [33]

    PRX Quantum2(2), 020337 (2021)

    Tkachenko, N.V., Sud, J., Zhang, Y., Tretiak, S., Anisimov, P.M., Arrasmith, A.T., Coles, P.J., Cincio, L., Dub, P.A.: Correlation-informed permutation of qubits for reducing ansatz depth in the variational quantum eigensolver. PRX Quantum2(2), 020337 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.020337

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.020337 2021

  32. [34]

    In: 2024 IEEE International Confer- ence on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol

    Mori, H., Miyamoto, K.: Quantum algorithm for copula-based risk aggregation using orthogonal series density estimation. In: 2024 IEEE International Confer- ence on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1, pp. 322–330 (2024). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/QCE60285.2024.00046

    arXiv 2024

  33. [35]

    Scientific Reports 13(1), 18511 (2023)

    Zhu, D., Shen, W., Giani, A., Ray-Majumder, S., Neculaes, B., Johri, S.: Copula- based risk aggregation with trapped ion quantum computers. Scientific Reports 13(1), 18511 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44151-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-44151-1 2023

  34. [36]

    Physical Review Research4(4), 043092 (2022)

    Zhu, E.Y., Johri, S., Bacon, D., Esencan, M., Kim, J., Muir, M., Murgai, N., Nguyen, J., Pisenti, N., Schouela, A.,et al.: Generative quantum learning of joint probability distribution functions. Physical Review Research4(4), 043092 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043092

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043092 2022

  35. [37]

    Management Science22(10), 1087–1096 (1976)

    Matheson, J.E., Winkler, R.L.: Scoring rules for continuous probability distribu- tions. Management Science22(10), 1087–1096 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.22.10.1087

    1976

  36. [38]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association102(477), 359–378 (2007)

    Gneiting, T., Raftery, A.E.: Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estima- tion. Journal of the American Statistical Association102(477), 359–378 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001437

    doi:10.1198/016214506000001437 2007

  37. [39]

    The 38 Annals of Mathematical Statistics27(3), 642–669 (1956)

    Dvoretzky, A., Kiefer, J., Wolfowitz, J.: Asymptotic minimax character of the sample distribution function and of the classical multinomial estimator. The 38 Annals of Mathematical Statistics27(3), 642–669 (1956)

    1956

  38. [40]

    The Annals of Probability18(3), 1269–1283 (1990)

    Massart, P.: The tight constant in the Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz inequality. The Annals of Probability18(3), 1269–1283 (1990). https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 2244426

    1990

  39. [41]

    Operations Research Letters47(1), 16–20 (2019)

    Kolla, R.K., Prashanth, L., Bhat, S.P., Jagannathan, K.: Concentration bounds for empirical conditional value-at-risk: The unbounded case. Operations Research Letters47(1), 16–20 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2018.11.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.orl.2018.11.005 2019

  40. [42]

    Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis8(2), 317–333 (1973)

    Rosenberg, B., McKibben, W.: The prediction of systematic and specific risk in common stocks. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis8(2), 317–333 (1973). https://doi.org/10.2307/2330027

    work page doi:10.2307/2330027 1973

  41. [43]

    Journal of Financial Economics33(1), 3–56 (1993)

    Fama, E.F., French, K.R.: Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics33(1), 3–56 (1993). https://doi.org/10. 1016/0304-405X(93)90023-5

    1993

  42. [44]

    The Journal of Finance52(1), 57–82 (1997)

    Carhart, M.M.: On persistence in mutual fund performance. The Journal of Finance52(1), 57–82 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03808. x 39

    arXiv 1997