pith. sign in

arxiv: 2406.14411 · v1 · submitted 2024-06-20 · 🪐 quant-ph

Performance and scaling analysis of variational quantum simulation

Mario Ponce , Thomas Cope , In\'es de Vega , Martin Leib This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 00:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords variational quantum simulationcircuit depth scalingTrotterizationquantum time evolutionnumerical benchmarkingquantum resource estimation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Variational quantum simulation reaches a fixed accuracy for time evolution with circuits whose depth grows more slowly than Trotterized evolution as both system size and simulated time increase.

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

The paper performs numerical experiments that measure the smallest circuit depth a variational quantum simulation method needs to keep the error in a quantum time-evolution problem below a chosen tolerance. These experiments are repeated across different numbers of qubits and different evolution times, and the same quantities are measured for a standard Trotterized product-formula method. The comparison shows that the variational approach requires less depth growth with both system size and time; the authors also estimate the classical cost of the variational optimization and locate the parameter region where the variational method would use fewer total resources.

Core claim

In direct numerical tests the authors show that the minimal depth of a variational circuit sufficient to keep the simulation error below a fixed threshold increases more slowly with system size and with evolution time than the depth required by a Trotter product formula of comparable accuracy.

What carries the argument

A parameterized quantum circuit whose variational parameters are optimized so that its action on an initial state reproduces the time-evolved state to within a preset error tolerance.

If this is right

  • For any fixed error tolerance the VQS depth requirement grows more slowly than the Trotter depth as the number of qubits increases.
  • The same slower growth holds when the simulated evolution time is lengthened.
  • The classical cost of optimizing the variational parameters must be added to the quantum depth when judging overall resource use.
  • A bounded region of system size and evolution time exists in which the total cost of VQS is lower than that of Trotterization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the observed depth scaling persists, VQS could reduce the number of gates needed to simulate longer-time dynamics in spin chains or lattice models on near-term hardware.
  • The advantage region identified supplies a concrete target for hardware experiments once devices reach the qubit counts already simulated.
  • Repeating the comparison with different variational ansatzes or different error measures would show whether the reported scaling advantage is tied to the particular circuit family used.

Load-bearing premise

The scaling trends measured on the small systems and short times in the numerical tests continue to hold when the number of qubits or the evolution time is increased.

What would settle it

A set of runs on systems with 20 or more qubits, or for evolution times several times longer than those already tested, in which the required VQS depth grows at least as fast as the Trotter depth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2406.14411 by In\'es de Vega, Mario Ponce, Martin Leib, Thomas Cope.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: First layer of the circuit corresponding to the problem-specific (9) ansatz that we use for our analysis for 5 qubits. More layers can be added for better results, increasing the total depth and the total number of parameters. by the Hamiltonian at hand. We chose it in order to make it easier for VQS to find good solutions for the problem at hand, but also because it has the same structure as a product for… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of the minimum depth for the final solution to reach a fidelity above 0.95 for VQS and Trotter for a linearly-increasing simulated time tf = nq. We see that VQS outperforms Trotter, and the trend suggests that it would do so for longer simulated times and larger systems. well within the VQS advantage region. 4.2. Scaling in the simulated time Secondly, we fix the number of qubits and vary the si… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the minimum depth for the final solution to reach a fidelity above 0.95 for VQS and Trotter for long simulated times. Both algorithms show a growing depth requirement with simulated time, but VQS’ growth rate is slower. We present here the results only for even-numbered qubits in the range (3-10) for better visibility, but the qualitative behavior is the same for the odd-numbered cases. This … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representation of the relative performance of VQS and Trotter in the tf-nq plane. We use a power-law-like function of the form a nb q t c f as in (12) to fit our simulation data and use the resulting function to extrapolate to larger values in the tf-nq plane. The blue line denotes the boundary of equal performance of VQS and Trotter in accordance with the fitted function, the shaded area below is a region… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Threshold in the number of qubits for which the computational cost of the classical part of VQS times a relative prefactor p is smaller than the computational cost of a purely classical approach based on matrix-vector multiplication (see (13)), for the case when the simulated time equals the number of qubits. enough as to get better performance than Trotter. Looking at both figure 4 and figure 5, the trend… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present an empirical analysis of the scaling of the minimal quantum circuit depth required for a variational quantum simulation (VQS) method to obtain a solution to the time evolution of a quantum system within a predefined error tolerance. In a comparison against a non-variational method based on Trotterized time evolution, we observe a better scaling of the depth requirements using the VQS approach with respect to both the size of the system and the simulated time. Results are also put into perspective by discussing the corresponding classical complexity required for VQS. Our results allow us to identify a possible advantage region for VQS over Trotterization.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an empirical analysis of the minimal quantum circuit depth required by a variational quantum simulation (VQS) method to simulate time evolution within a fixed error tolerance. Through numerical experiments, it reports that VQS exhibits better depth scaling than a Trotterized non-variational approach with respect to both system size and simulated time, discusses the associated classical optimization costs, and identifies a possible advantage region for VQS.

Significance. If the reported depth-scaling advantage were shown to persist beyond the small-system regime, the work would provide useful benchmark data for assessing variational methods on near-term hardware. As presented, however, the significance is limited to documenting performance on small instances; the absence of scaling theory or extrapolation arguments reduces its impact on claims of practical advantage.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results (scaling analysis)] Results section on depth scaling: the central claim of superior VQS depth scaling versus Trotterization rests on experiments performed at small qubit numbers and modest evolution times; no subsection supplies a bound on variational ansatz expressivity, optimizer cost, or extrapolation argument demonstrating that the observed advantage survives when Trotter depth becomes prohibitive.
  2. [Comparison with Trotterization] Comparison subsection: the depth requirements are reported at fixed error tolerances, yet the manuscript provides no analysis of how the choice of tolerance or post-hoc parameter selection influences the scaling curves, leaving open whether the reported advantage region is robust or an artifact of the tested regime.
  3. [Classical complexity discussion] Discussion of classical complexity: while classical overhead is mentioned, there is no quantitative scaling of the optimization cost with system size N or time t, which is load-bearing for any claim that VQS offers a practical advantage region.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should explicitly state the maximum system sizes and evolution times at which the scaling comparisons were performed.
  2. [Results figures] Figure captions in the results section lack sufficient detail on the specific variational ansatz and optimizer hyperparameters used for each data point.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 2 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our empirical study. We address each major comment below, clarifying the scope of the work as numerical experiments on small systems without theoretical bounds or extrapolation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results (scaling analysis)] Results section on depth scaling: the central claim of superior VQS depth scaling versus Trotterization rests on experiments performed at small qubit numbers and modest evolution times; no subsection supplies a bound on variational ansatz expressivity, optimizer cost, or extrapolation argument demonstrating that the observed advantage survives when Trotter depth becomes prohibitive.

    Authors: The manuscript is framed as an empirical analysis (see abstract and Section 1), reporting observed depth requirements in the tested regime of small qubit numbers and modest times. No theoretical bounds on expressivity or extrapolation arguments are supplied, as these lie outside the scope of the numerical study performed. We will revise the discussion to explicitly state this limitation and the empirical nature of the reported advantage region. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Comparison with Trotterization] Comparison subsection: the depth requirements are reported at fixed error tolerances, yet the manuscript provides no analysis of how the choice of tolerance or post-hoc parameter selection influences the scaling curves, leaving open whether the reported advantage region is robust or an artifact of the tested regime.

    Authors: Depth requirements are compared at a fixed error tolerance as specified in the methods. We acknowledge that varying the tolerance or analyzing parameter selection could test robustness further. Within the present study we retain the fixed tolerance used for all experiments. We will add a clarifying sentence on the tolerance choice and note that the advantage region applies to the reported setting. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Classical complexity discussion] Discussion of classical complexity: while classical overhead is mentioned, there is no quantitative scaling of the optimization cost with system size N or time t, which is load-bearing for any claim that VQS offers a practical advantage region.

    Authors: Classical overhead is discussed qualitatively to contextualize the quantum-depth results. No quantitative scaling of optimization cost versus N or t is provided, because deriving such scaling would require additional extensive simulations or analysis beyond the current empirical focus. We will revise the discussion to emphasize this limitation explicitly. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Theoretical bounds on variational ansatz expressivity or extrapolation arguments showing the depth advantage persists beyond the small-system regime.
  • Quantitative scaling of classical optimization cost with system size N and simulated time t.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; central claim is empirical observation from small-system numerics.

full rationale

The paper's strongest claim is an empirical observation of better depth scaling for VQS versus Trotterization, obtained by direct numerical comparison on small qubit numbers and modest evolution times. No derivation chain, first-principles result, or fitted-parameter prediction is presented that could reduce to its own inputs by construction. The analysis does not invoke self-citations for uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or load-bearing premises. The reported advantage is therefore an interpolation within the tested regime rather than a self-referential construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated beyond the standard framework of variational quantum algorithms and Trotterization.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of quantum mechanics and variational optimization apply to the tested systems.
    Implicit in any VQS or Trotter comparison.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5625 in / 1145 out tokens · 18439 ms · 2026-05-24T00:19:39.656119+00:00 · methodology

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

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Preskill J 2018 Quantum 2 79 ISSN 2521-327X URL https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 2018

  2. [2]

    Georgescu I M, Ashhab S and Nori F 2014 Rev. Mod. Phys. 86(1) 153–185 URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.86.153

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1103/revmodphys.86.153 2014

  3. [3]

    Fornberg B 1996 A Practical Guide to Pseudospectral Methods Cambridge Monographs on Applied and Computational Mathematics (Cambridge University Press)

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    A., Mathur, S., Salabert, D., Ballot, J., R´egulo, C., Metcalfe, T

    Lloyd S 1996 Science 273 1073–1078 (Preprint https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science. 273.5278.1073) URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.273.5278.1073

    work page doi:10.1126/science 1996

  5. [5]

    Bravyi S, Dial O, Gambetta J M, Gil D and Nazario Z 2022 Journal of Applied Physics 132 160902 ISSN 0021-8979 ( Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0082975/ 16515734/160902_1_online.pdf) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0082975

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0082975/ 2022

  6. [6]

    Childs A M, Su Y, Tran M C, Wiebe N and Zhu S 2021 Phys. Rev. X 11(1) 011020 URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.011020 2021

  7. [7]

    Berry D W, Childs A M, Cleve R, Kothari R and Somma R D 2014 Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse hamiltonians Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing STOC ’14 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery) p 283–292 ISBN 9781450327107 URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2591796.2591854

    work page doi:10.1145/2591796.2591854 2014

  8. [8]

    Haah J, Hastings M B, Kothari R and Low G H 2023 SIAM Journal on Computing 52 FOCS18–250– FOCS18–284 ( Preprint https://doi.org/10.1137/18M1231511) URL https://doi.org/10.1137/ 18M1231511

    work page doi:10.1137/18m1231511 2023

  9. [9]

    Cerezo M, Arrasmith A, Babbush R, Benjamin S C, Endo S, Fujii K, McClean J R, Mitarai K, Yuan X, Cincio L and Coles P J 2021 Nature Reviews Physics 3 625–644 ISSN 2522-5820 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9 Performance and scaling analysis of variational quantum simulation 13

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9 2021

  10. [10]

    Li Y and Benjamin S C 2017 Phys. Rev. X 7(2) 021050 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevX.7.021050

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    McArdle S, Jones T, Endo S, Li Y, Benjamin S C and Yuan X 2019 npj Quantum Information 5 ISSN 2056-6387 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0187-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0187-2 2019

  12. [12]

    Endo S, Sun J, Li Y, Benjamin S C and Yuan X 2020 Phys. Rev. Lett. 125(1) 010501 URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.010501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.010501 2020

  13. [13]

    Grimsley H R, Economou S E, Barnes E and Mayhall N J 2019Nature Communications 10 ISSN 2041-1723 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2 2041

  14. [14]

    Yao Y X, Gomes N, Zhang F, Wang C Z, Ho K M, Iadecola T and Orth P P 2021 PRX Quantum 2 ISSN 2691-3399 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.030307

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.030307 2021

  15. [15]

    Gomes N, Mukherjee A, Zhang F, Iadecola T, Wang C, Ho K, Orth P P and Yao Y 2021 Advanced Quantum Technologies 4 ISSN 2511-9044 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qute.202100114

    work page doi:10.1002/qute.202100114 2021

  16. [16]

    Yuan X, Endo S, Zhao Q and Li Yiand Benjamin S C 2019 Quantum 3 191 ISSN 2521-327X URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-10-07-191

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-10-07-191 2019

  17. [17]

    Zoufal C, Sutter D and Woerner S 2023 Physical Review Applied 20 ISSN 2331-7019 URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.044059

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.20.044059 2023

  18. [18]

    Hatano N and Suzuki M 2005 Finding Exponential Product Formulas of Higher Orders (Springer Berlin Heidelberg) p 37–68 ISBN 9783540315155 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11526216_2

    work page doi:10.1007/11526216_2 2005

  19. [19]

    Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 7 (4) (1954) 649–673.doi:10.1002/cpa.3160070404

    Magnus W 1954 Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 7 649–673 ( Preprint https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cpa.3160070404) URL https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cpa.3160070404

    work page doi:10.1002/cpa.3160070404 1954

  20. [20]

    Childs A M, Maslov D, Nam Y, Ross N J and Su Y 2018 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 9456–9461 ISSN 1091-6490 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801723115

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1801723115 2018

  21. [21]

    1103/PRXQuantum.2.040309

    Haug T, Bharti K and Kim M 2021 PRX Quantum 2(4) 040309 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PRXQuantum.2.040309

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Tikhonov A N 1977 Solutions of ill-posed problems Scripta series in mathematics (Washington: V. H. Winston I& Sons) ISBN 0-470-99124-0

    work page 1977

  23. [23]

    Harris C R, Millman K J, van der Walt S J, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D, Wieser E, Taylor J, Berg S, Smith N J, Kern R, Picus M, Hoyer S, van Kerkwijk M H, Brett M, Haldane A, del R´ ıo J F, Wiebe M, Peterson P, G´ erard-Marchant P, Sheppard K, Reddy T, Weckesser W, Abbasi H, Gohlke C and Oliphant T E 2020 Nature 585 357–362 URL https://doi.org/10....

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  24. [24]

    Fehlberg E 1964 ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift f¨ ur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 44 T17–T29 ( Preprint https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/pdf/10.1002/zamm.19640441310) URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ zamm.19640441310

    work page doi:10.1002/zamm.19640441310 1964

  25. [25]

    Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant T E, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, Burovski E, Peterson P, Weckesser W, Bright J, van der Walt S J, Brett M, Wilson J, Millman K J, Mayorov N, Nelson A R J, Jones E, Kern R, Larson E, Carey C J, Polat ˙I, Feng Y, Moore E W, VanderPlas J, Laxalde D, Perktold J, Cimrman R, Henriksen I, Quintero E A, Harris C R, Archibal...

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Wecker D, Hastings M B and Troyer M 2015 Physical Review A 92 ISSN 1094-1622 URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042303

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.92.042303 2015

  27. [27]

    Wiersema R, Zhou C, de Sereville Y, Carrasquilla J F, Kim Y B and Yuen H 2020 PRX Quantum 1 ISSN 2691-3399 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.020319

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.1.020319 2020

  28. [28]

    Park C Y and Killoran N 2024 Quantum 8 1239 ISSN 2521-327X URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/ q-2024-02-01-1239

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Suzuki Y, Kawase Y, Masumura Y, Hiraga Y, Nakadai M, Chen J, Nakanishi K M, Mitarai K, Imai R, Tamiya S, Yamamoto T, Yan T, Kawakubo T, Nakagawa Y O, Ibe Y, Zhang Y, Yamashita H, Yoshimura H, Hayashi A and Fujii K 2021 Quantum 5 559 ISSN 2521-327X URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/ q-2021-10-06-559 Performance and scaling analysis of variational quantum simu...

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Johansson J, Nation P and Nori F 2012 Computer Physics Communications 183 1760–1772 ISSN 0010- 4655 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010465512000835

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    Johansson J, Nation P and Nori F 2013 Computer Physics Communications 184 1234–1240 ISSN 0010- 4655 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010465512003955

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Liang Z, Cheng J, Ren H, Wang H, Hua F, Song Z, Ding Y, Chong F, Han S, Qian X and Shi Y 2024 Napa: Intermediate-level variational native-pulse ansatz for variational quantum algorithms ( Preprint 2208.01215)

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Skolik A, Mangini S, B¨ ack T, Macchiavello C and Dunjko V 2023 EPJ Quantum Technology 10 8 ISSN 2196-0763 URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-023-00166-1

    work page doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-023-00166-1 2023