pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10666 · v2 · pith:2KC4I3NFnew · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🪐 quant-ph

Multivariate Decoded Quantum Interferometry for Weighted Optimization

Kaifeng Bu , Weichen Gu , Xiang Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 22:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords decoded quantum interferometryweighted Max-LINSATquantum optimizationPrange algorithmmultivariate polynomialsGibbs statesquantum algorithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multivariate decoded quantum interferometry uses multi-variable polynomials to exploit weight structure in optimization and outperform a weighted classical benchmark on some problems.

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

The paper extends decoded quantum interferometry from uniform constraints to weighted Max-LINSAT problems over prime fields. Constraints are grouped into blocks by distinct weights, and states are built from N-variable polynomials of bounded total degree to capture the varying importance of different constraints. Closed-form expressions are derived for the asymptotic expectation value and concentration of these states, along with an explicit preparation circuit that uses a single decoder call. The construction is shown to beat the natural weighted analogue of Prange's algorithm on certain weighted OPI instances and is further extended to produce approximate Gibbs states for block-structured commuting Pauli Hamiltonians.

Core claim

By grouping the constraints of the weighted Max-LINSAT problem into N blocks according to their weights and constructing states from N-variable polynomials of bounded total degree, multivariate DQI yields a closed-form asymptotic expression for the optimal expectation value and its concentration behavior. These states can be prepared with a single decoder call, and for certain weighted OPI problems they outperform the natural weighted analogue of Prange's algorithm. The same ideas produce approximate Gibbs states for commuting Pauli Hamiltonians that possess block structure.

What carries the argument

multivariate DQI states constructed from N-variable polynomials of bounded total degree, which encode the distinct weights of constraint blocks

If this is right

  • An explicit quantum circuit prepares the required state using only one call to a decoder.
  • The analysis carries over to imperfect decoding.
  • For selected weighted OPI problems the quantum method returns higher values than the natural weighted version of Prange's algorithm.
  • The same construction supplies approximate Gibbs states for commuting Pauli Hamiltonians whose terms have block structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The block-grouping technique may apply to other structured combinatorial problems where constraints naturally separate by importance or scale.
  • When the number of distinct weights stays small, the polynomial degree remains practical, suggesting possible efficient implementations on near-term hardware.
  • The approach points toward adapting other quantum optimization routines to respect weight or priority structure rather than treating all terms equally.

Load-bearing premise

The weights of the constraints fall into a small number of distinct groups so that low-total-degree polynomials in several variables can capture the structure well enough to produce the claimed asymptotic advantage.

What would settle it

Prepare the multivariate DQI state for a concrete small weighted Max-LINSAT instance with known optimum, measure the achieved value, and compare it directly to the value obtained by the weighted Prange algorithm; if the classical method consistently wins, the outperformance claim is false.

read the original abstract

Decoded Quantum Interferometry (DQI) is a recently introduced quantum algorithm that reduces discrete optimization to decoding with potential advantages over the best-known polynomial-time classical algorithms for certain Max-LINSAT problems. In its original formulation, however, DQI treats all constraints uniformly and cannot exploit the weight structure present in most optimization problems of interest. In this work, we develop multivariate Decoded Quantum Interferometry (multivariate DQI) for weighted optimization problems, focusing on the weighted Max-LINSAT problem over a prime field. Grouping constraints into $N$ blocks by distinct weights, we introduce multivariate DQI states built from $N$-variable polynomials of bounded total degree, and derive a closed-form asymptotic expression for both their optimal expectation value and their concentration behavior. We give an explicit preparation circuit using a single decoder call, and extend the analysis to imperfect decoding. We also show that, for certain weighted OPI problems, multivariate DQI outperforms a natural weighted analogue of Prange's algorithm, which serves as the weighted counterpart of the classical benchmark used in the unweighted setting. Finally, we extend the ideas to Hamiltonian DQI, obtaining approximate Gibbs states for commuting Pauli Hamiltonians with block structure.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces multivariate Decoded Quantum Interferometry (DQI) for weighted optimization, focusing on weighted Max-LINSAT over prime fields. Constraints are grouped into N blocks by distinct weights; multivariate DQI states are constructed from N-variable polynomials of bounded total degree. Closed-form asymptotic expressions are derived for the optimal expectation value and concentration behavior. An explicit preparation circuit using a single decoder call is given, imperfect decoding is analyzed, outperformance over a weighted analogue of Prange's algorithm is shown for certain weighted OPI problems, and the framework is extended to Hamiltonian DQI for approximate Gibbs states of block-structured commuting Pauli Hamiltonians.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work meaningfully extends DQI beyond uniform constraints to weighted problems that better reflect practical instances. The closed-form asymptotics and concentration results supply analytical handles for comparing quantum and classical performance, while the explicit circuit and single-decoder construction are concrete implementation strengths. The reported outperformance over weighted Prange for selected OPI problems supplies a falsifiable quantum-advantage scenario in the weighted setting, and the Hamiltonian-DQI extension opens a route to approximate thermal states with block structure.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (multivariate state construction): The central asymptotic expressions rest on the claim that N-variable polynomials of bounded total degree suffice to capture the weight structure after grouping constraints into N blocks. No explicit error bound or reduction showing that higher-order cross-block terms are negligible or absorbable into the leading asymptotics is provided; if the weight distribution induces non-negligible higher-degree correlations, the derived expectation value could fall below the weighted-Prange benchmark, undermining the outperformance claim for the stated OPI instances.
  2. [§5] §5 (comparison with weighted Prange): The outperformance statement is load-bearing for the paper's main result, yet the manuscript supplies only an asymptotic argument without a concrete parameter regime, numerical verification, or explicit instance family where the multivariate-DQI expectation strictly exceeds the classical benchmark after accounting for the bounded-degree truncation.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the multivariate polynomials (e.g., the precise total-degree bound and the mapping from weight blocks to variables) is introduced without a compact reference table; adding one would improve readability.
  2. [§4] The extension to imperfect decoding in §4 is sketched but lacks a quantitative statement of how decoder error propagates into the concentration bound; a short lemma or inequality would clarify the robustness claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive report. The comments raise important points about rigor in the asymptotic analysis and the concreteness of the outperformance claim. We address each below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate clarifications and additional details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (multivariate state construction): The central asymptotic expressions rest on the claim that N-variable polynomials of bounded total degree suffice to capture the weight structure after grouping constraints into N blocks. No explicit error bound or reduction showing that higher-order cross-block terms are negligible or absorbable into the leading asymptotics is provided; if the weight distribution induces non-negligible higher-degree correlations, the derived expectation value could fall below the weighted-Prange benchmark, undermining the outperformance claim for the stated OPI instances.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit error bound strengthens the presentation. The bounded-total-degree construction is chosen precisely because the block grouping by distinct weights makes higher-order cross-block monomials higher-order corrections in the large-n expansion. In the revised manuscript we have added a supporting lemma in §3.2 that bounds the total contribution of all neglected cross terms by O(1/n) uniformly over the weight distributions considered; this term is absorbed into the leading asymptotic without altering the comparison to the weighted-Prange benchmark for the OPI instances analyzed. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (comparison with weighted Prange): The outperformance statement is load-bearing for the paper's main result, yet the manuscript supplies only an asymptotic argument without a concrete parameter regime, numerical verification, or explicit instance family where the multivariate-DQI expectation strictly exceeds the classical benchmark after accounting for the bounded-degree truncation.

    Authors: The outperformance claim rests on the closed-form asymptotics and concentration bounds already derived. We have revised §5 to state the concrete regime explicitly (n → ∞ with N, the weight vector, and the total-degree bound held fixed) and to exhibit an explicit infinite family of weighted OPI instances (two weight classes, linear constraints over F_p) for which the asymptotic expressions yield a strict gap after truncation. While we do not add finite-n numerics—whose interpretation would require additional error analysis beyond the scope of the present work—the concentration result already guarantees that the expectation is realized with high probability in this regime. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: asymptotic expressions derived directly from constructed polynomial states

full rationale

The paper defines multivariate DQI states explicitly from N-variable polynomials of bounded total degree after grouping constraints by weight blocks, then derives closed-form asymptotics for expectation value and concentration as a mathematical consequence of those states. This constitutes an independent derivation rather than any reduction to fitted inputs, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations. The extension to imperfect decoding and Hamiltonian DQI follows the same constructive pattern, and the outperformance claim over weighted Prange is framed as a comparison to an external classical benchmark without the central result collapsing to prior self-referential assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central additions rest on the ability to group constraints by weight and on background results from the original DQI paper; no free parameters or new invented entities are explicitly introduced in the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Constraints can be partitioned into N blocks according to distinct weights
    This partitioning enables the construction of multivariate DQI states from N-variable polynomials of bounded total degree.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5735 in / 1230 out tokens · 53058 ms · 2026-05-20T22:39:26.180705+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization.Nature Reviews Physics, 6(12):718–735, December 2024

    Amira Abbas, Andris Ambainis, Brandon Augustino, Andreas Bärtschi, Harry Buhrman, Carleton Coffrin, Giorgio Cortiana, Vedran Dunjko, Daniel J Egger, Bruce G Elmegreen, et al. Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization.Nature Reviews Physics, 6(12):718–735, December 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    (Sub)exponential quantum speedup for opti- mization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14841, 2025

    Jiaqi Leng, Kewen Wu, Xiaodi Wu, and Yufan Zheng. (Sub)exponential quantum speedup for opti- mization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14841, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    An in-principle super-polynomial quantum advantage for approximating combinatorial optimization problems via computational learning theory.Science Advances, 10(11):eadj5170, 2024

    Niklas Pirnay, Vincent Ulitzsch, Frederik Wilde, Jens Eisert, and Jean-Pierre Seifert. An in-principle super-polynomial quantum advantage for approximating combinatorial optimization problems via computational learning theory.Science Advances, 10(11):eadj5170, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Huang, S

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Soonwon Choi, Jarrod R. McClean, and John Preskill. The vast world of quantum advantage.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05720, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

    Lov K Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. InProceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 212–219, 1996

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Quantum Computation by Adiabatic Evolution

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Michael Sipser. Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0001106, 2000

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    Jérémie Roland and Nicolas J. Cerf. Quantum search by local adiabatic evolution.Physical Review A, 65:042308, 2002. 56 MULTIVARIATE DECODED QUANTUM INTERFEROMETRY FOR WEIGHTED OPTIMIZATION

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation.SIAM review, 50(4):755–787, 2008

    Dorit Aharonov, Wim Van Dam, Julia Kempe, Zeph Landau, Seth Lloyd, and Oded Regev. Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation.SIAM review, 50(4):755–787, 2008

    work page 2008

  9. [9]

    Chakrabarti

    Arnab Das and Bikas K. Chakrabarti. Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum com- putation.Reviews of Modern Physics, 80:1061–1081, 2008

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    Tameem Albash and Daniel A. Lidar. Adiabatic quantum computation.Rev. Mod. Phys., 90:015002, Jan 2018

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature communications, 5(1):4213, 2014

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature communications, 5(1):4213, 2014

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    The theory of varia- tional hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.New Journal of Physics, 18(2):023023, 2016

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. The theory of varia- tional hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.New Journal of Physics, 18(2):023023, 2016

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Quantum chem- istry in the age of quantum computing.Chemical reviews, 119(19):10856–10915, 2019

    Yudong Cao, Jonathan Romero, Jonathan P Olson, Matthias Degroote, Peter D Johnson, Mária Kieferová, Ian D Kivlichan, Tim Menke, Borja Peropadre, Nicolas PD Sawaya, et al. Quantum chem- istry in the age of quantum computing.Chemical reviews, 119(19):10856–10915, 2019

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Variational quantum algo- rithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algo- rithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices.Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022

    Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Picozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H Booth, et al. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices.Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices. Phys. Rev. X, 10:021067, Jun 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Lotshaw, James Ostrowski, Travis S

    Rebekah Herrman, Phillip C. Lotshaw, James Ostrowski, Travis S. Humble, and George Siopsis. Multi-angle quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Scientific Reports, 12(1):6781, Apr 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    An expressive ansatz for low-depth quantum approximate optimisation.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(2):025010, February 2024

    V Vijendran, Aritra Das, Dax Enshan Koh, Syed M Assad, and Ping Koy Lam. An expressive ansatz for low-depth quantum approximate optimisation.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(2):025010, February 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Multiangle QAOA does not always need all its angles

    Kaiyan Shi, Rebekah Herrman, Ruslan Shaydulin, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Marco Pistoia, and Jef- frey Larson. Multiangle QAOA does not always need all its angles. In2022 IEEE/ACM 7th Sympo- sium on Edge Computing (SEC), pages 414–419. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    The symmetry-based expressive QAOA for the MaxCut problem.Advanced Quantum Technologies, page 2500199, 2025

    Xiumei Zhao, Yongmei Li, Guanghui Li, Yijie Shi, Sujuan Qin, and Fei Gao. The symmetry-based expressive QAOA for the MaxCut problem.Advanced Quantum Technologies, page 2500199, 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Optimization by decoded quantum inter- ferometry.Nature, 646(8086):831–836, 2025

    Stephen P Jordan, Noah Shutty, Mary Wootters, Adam Zalcman, Alexander Schmidhuber, Robbie King, Sergei V Isakov, Tanuj Khattar, and Ryan Babbush. Optimization by decoded quantum inter- ferometry.Nature, 646(8086):831–836, 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    On lattices, learning with errors, random linear codes, and cryptography.Journal of the ACM (JACM), 56(6):1–40, 2009

    Oded Regev. On lattices, learning with errors, random linear codes, and cryptography.Journal of the ACM (JACM), 56(6):1–40, 2009

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Adiabatic quantum state generation and statistical zero knowledge

    Dorit Aharonov and Amnon Ta-Shma. Adiabatic quantum state generation and statistical zero knowledge. InProceedings of the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 20–29, 2003

    work page 2003

  26. [26]

    Verifiable quantum advantage without structure.Journal of the ACM, 71(3):1–50, 2024

    Takashi Yamakawa and Mark Zhandry. Verifiable quantum advantage without structure.Journal of the ACM, 71(3):1–50, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Quantum advantages for Pauli channel esti- mation.Phys

    Senrui Chen, Sisi Zhou, Alireza Seif, and Liang Jiang. Quantum advantages for Pauli channel esti- mation.Phys. Rev. A, 105:032435, Mar 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Verifiable quantum advantage via optimized dqi circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10967, 2025

    Tanuj Khattar, Noah Shutty, Craig Gidney, Adam Zalcman, Noureldin Yosri, Dmitri Maslov, Ryan Babbush, and Stephen P Jordan. Verifiable quantum advantage via optimized dqi circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10967, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    On the Complexity of Decoded Quantum Interferometry

    Kunal Marwaha, Bill Fefferman, Alexandru Gheorghiu, and Vojtech Havlicek. On the complexity of decoded quantum interferometry.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14443, 2025. MULTIVARIATE DECODED QUANTUM INTERFEROMETRY FOR WEIGHTED OPTIMIZATION 57

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Towards solving industrial integer linear programs with Decoded Quantum Interferometry

    Francesc Sabater, Ouns El Harzli, Geert-Jan Besjes, Marvin Erdmann, Johannes Klepsch, Jonas Hiltrop, Jean-Francois Bobier, Yudong Cao, and Carlos A Riofrio. Towards solving industrial integer linear programs with decoded quantum interferometry.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.08328, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    No quantum advantage in decoded quantum interferometry for maxcut.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19966, 2025

    Ojas Parekh. No quantum advantage in decoded quantum interferometry for maxcut.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19966, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Optimization of quadratic constraints by decoded quantum interferometry

    Daniel Cohen Hillel. Optimization of quadratic constraints by decoded quantum interferometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08061, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Gu and S

    Andi Gu and Stephen P Jordan. Algebraic geometry codes and decoded quantum interferometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06603, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Decoded quantum interferometry requires structure.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14509, 2025

    Eric R Anschuetz, David Gamarnik, and Jonathan Z Lu. Decoded quantum interferometry requires structure.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14509, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Kernelized decoded quantum interferometry.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20016, 2025

    Fumin Wang. Kernelized decoded quantum interferometry.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20016, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    A nearly linear-time decoded quantum interferometry algorithm for the optimal polynomial intersection problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15171, 2026

    Ansis Rosmanis. A nearly linear-time decoded quantum interferometry algorithm for the optimal polynomial intersection problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15171, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Hidden Quantum Advantage near the Decoding Threshold of Decoded Quantum Interferometry

    Maoxin Gao and Yan Chang. Hidden quantum advantage near the decoding threshold of decoded quantum interferometry.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15025, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Tight inapproximability of max-linsat and implications for decoded quantum interferometry.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04540, 2026

    Maximilian J Kramer, Carsten Schubert, and Jens Eisert. Tight inapproximability of max-linsat and implications for decoded quantum interferometry.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04540, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Decoded quantum interferometry under noise.Quantum Science and Technology, 11(2):025010, 2026

    Kaifeng Bu, Weichen Gu, Dax Enshan Koh, and Xiang Li. Decoded quantum interferometry under noise.Quantum Science and Technology, 11(2):025010, 2026

    work page 2026

  40. [40]

    Hamiltonian decoded quantum interferometry.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07913, 2025

    Alexander Schmidhuber, Jonathan Z Lu, Noah Shutty, Stephen Jordan, Alexander Poremba, and Yihui Quek. Hamiltonian decoded quantum interferometry.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07913, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Hamiltonian decoded quantum interferometry for general pauli hamiltonians.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18773, 2026

    Kaifeng Bu, Weichen Gu, and Xiang Li. Hamiltonian decoded quantum interferometry for general pauli hamiltonians.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18773, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Horn and Charles R

    Roger A. Horn and Charles R. Johnson.Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2012

    work page 2012

  43. [43]

    Short-depth circuits for dicke state preparation

    Andreas Bärtschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. Short-depth circuits for dicke state preparation. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 87–96, 2022

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Quantum state preparation using an exact cnot synthesis formulation

    Hanyu Wang, Jason Cong, and Giovanni De Micheli. Quantum state preparation using an exact cnot synthesis formulation. In2024 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Sur une généralisation des polynômes d’hermite.Comptes Rendus, 189(620- 622):5–3, 1929

    Mikhail Krawtchouk. Sur une généralisation des polynômes d’hermite.Comptes Rendus, 189(620- 622):5–3, 1929

    work page 1929

  46. [46]

    Classical orthogonal polynomials of a discrete variable

    Arnold F Nikiforov, Vasilii B Uvarov, and Sergei K Suslov. Classical orthogonal polynomials of a discrete variable. InClassical orthogonal polynomials of a discrete variable, pages 18–54. Springer, 1991

    work page 1991

  47. [47]

    Springer, 1999

    Jacobus Hendricus Lint.Introduction to coding theory. Springer, 1999

    work page 1999

  48. [48]

    Estimates for the range of binomiality in codes’ spectra.IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory, 43(3):987–991, 2002

    Ilia Krasikov and Simon Litsyn. Estimates for the range of binomiality in codes’ spectra.IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory, 43(3):987–991, 2002

    work page 2002

  49. [49]

    Elsevier, 1977

    Florence Jessie MacWilliams and Neil James Alexander Sloane.The theory of error-correcting codes, volume 16. Elsevier, 1977

    work page 1977

  50. [50]

    Fourier-reflexive partitions and macwilliams identities for additive codes

    Heide Gluesing-Luerssen. Fourier-reflexive partitions and macwilliams identities for additive codes. Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 75(3):543–563, 2015

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    On integral zeros of krawtchouk polynomials.J

    Ilia Krasikov and Simon Litsyn. On integral zeros of krawtchouk polynomials.J. Comb. Theory A, 74(1):71–99, 1996

    work page 1996