Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Unitary Dilation Strategy Towards Efficient and Exact Simulation of Non-Unitary Quantum Evolutions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Any non-unitary operator can be written exactly as a short sum of unitaries via Lagrange-Sylvester interpolation, removing the finite-difference factor that inflated measurement cost.

desk verdict Exact interpolation-based unitary decomposition of Kraus operators: the math is right and the two-level case saturates the l1 bound, but the advertised measurement-cost advantage for larger systems rests on an unproven optimization assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18697 v1 pith:I3TJ2BAB submitted 2025-01-30 quant-ph

Aman Mehta , Scott E. Smart , Joseph Peetz , David A. Mazziotti , Prineha Narang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 15A1665F6081P68 PACS 03.65.-w03.67.-a
keywords unitarydecompositionnon-unitarysimulationLagrange-SylvesterinterpolationopenquantumsystemsKrausoperatorslinearcombinationofunitariesmeasurementcostamplitudedamping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces an exact method for simulating non-unitary quantum evolution by decomposing the non-unitary operator into a sum of unitary operations. The central claim is that any arbitrary non-unitary operator can be expressed with no finite approximation error as a linear combination of at most $2N$ unitaries, where $N$ counts the unique eigenvalues of its Hermitian and anti-Hermitian parts. This removes the small parameter $\epsilon$ that made earlier approximate decompositions costly, because the measurement variance no longer scales as $1/\epsilon^2$. The authors show that the required coefficient norm is lower bounded by the operator's largest eigenvalue, and demonstrate numerically that this bound is nearly attainable, yielding several orders of magnitude reduction in measurement shots for practical examples like amplitude damping. If correct, this provides a straightforward, single-ancilla route to simulating open quantum systems on near-term quantum hardware.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Sylvester-Lagrange interpolation formula for matrix functions, the machinery that turns the matrix exponential $e^{-i\mu M}$ into a finite polynomial in $M$ with coefficients given by Frobenius covariants. The paper leverages the fact that the interpolating identity can be rearranged to solve for $M$ itself as a finite linear combination of unitaries $e^{-i\mu_i M}$, with the interpolation nodes $\mu_i$ chosen to minimize the $\ell^1$ norm of the coefficients. This minimization, posed in Equation (9), is what determines measurement cost: the $\ell^1$ norm of the coefficient vector is the factor multiplying the variance in the stochastic combination of unitaries dilation, so bringing it close to the lower bound $\max|\lambda|$ is what delivers the practical speedup.

What would settle it

Compute the SQR (coefficient $\ell^1$ norm divided by the largest eigenvalue) for randomly sampled Hermitian and anti-Hermitian generators of dimension $d = 2^n$ with $n$ from 4 to 12, using a standard optimizer such as SLSQP with random restarts; if the typical SQR grows markedly with $n$ or exceeds a modest constant (say 2), the practical scalability claim fails in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that any non-unitary operator $M$ can be exactly decomposed into a sum of unitaries using Sylvester-Lagrange matrix interpolation. Writing $M = S + A$ with Hermitian $S = (M+M^\dagger)/2$ and anti-Hermitian $A = (M-M^\dagger)/2$, the authors express $S = \sum_i c_i^{(s)} e^{-i\mu_i^{(s)} S}$ and $A = \sum_i c_i^{(a)} e^{-\mu_i^{(a)} A}$, where the coefficients solve a linear system built from the eigenvalue decomposition. Because the unitaries and generators can be simultaneously diagonalized, the interpolation only needs as many terms as the number of unique eigenvalues $N$, giving a sum of at most $2N$ unitaries with no dependence on a finite-difference step. The measurement overhead is controlled by the $\ell^1$ norm of the coefficient vectors, which the authors prove is at least the maximum unsigned eigenvalue of the operator; for the two-eigenvalue case they derive the optimal interpolation parameters and show the bound is saturated exactly. For larger cases they propose a numerical optimization over the interpolation nodes and report that with standard optimizers the $\ell^1$ norm stays close to the lower bound on random test distributions, leading to an unbiased estimator whose variance is proportional to $L^2 / s_{\mathrm{tot}}$ rather than the $K/\epsilon^2$ scaling of previous approximate decompositions.

Load-bearing premise

The advertised measurement savings depend on the numerical optimizer solving Equation (9) well enough that the coefficient $\ell^1$ norm stays close to its lower bound $\max|\lambda|$, and the paper provides no guarantee that this holds for large-dimensional or unstructured Kraus operators.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Open-system simulations using the amplitude-damping channel require about a thousandfold fewer shots than the previous approximate decomposition while remaining exact and unbiased.
  • The decomposition applies to arbitrary non-unitary operators, so any Kraus-map evolution can be simulated with a single ancilla qubit via stochastic combination of unitaries, with variance scaling as $O(L^2 / s_{\mathrm{tot}})$ instead of $O(K/\epsilon^4)$ for the approximate approach under the same dilation.
  • Because the overhead is set by the number of unique eigenvalues of $S$ and $A$, not by the full Hilbert-space dimension, spatially local or otherwise low-rank Kraus operators keep the classical optimization cost moderate even when applied to large density matrices.
  • The exact method eliminates the finite-difference bias floor, so the shot budget for a target precision is no longer constrained by an optimal $\epsilon$ that balances bias and variance.
  • The interpolation construction works for arbitrary dimensions, though the classical optimization step scales as $n^3$ with the number of unique eigenvalues, which is exponential in the number of qubits for generic dense operators.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would replace the numerical optimization of Equation (9) with analytic or specialized solvers for structured spectra (e.g. evenly spaced or clustered eigenvalues), potentially eliminating the non-convex landscape bottleneck that currently limits large-scale application.
  • The interpolation approach is a direct generalization of the parameter-shift rule, so integrating it with variational quantum eigensolvers or gradient-based optimization could give exact, shot-efficient gradient estimators for gates generated by non-Hermitian operators.
  • Because the method also applies to the anti-Hermitian part $A$, the same interpolation machinery could be used to simulate non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and PT-symmetric dynamics, where the expansion coefficients would be complex and the $\ell^1$-norm minimization would need to include phase information.
  • A practical diagnostic for near-term hardware would be to measure the achieved SQR (ratio of $\ell^1$ norm to the largest eigenvalue) as a function of eigenvalue degeneracy and spectral gap, identifying regimes where the lower bound is not practically attainable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a method for simulating non-unitary quantum evolutions by expressing each Kraus operator as a sum of unitaries via Lagrange-Sylvester interpolation of its Hermitian and anti-Hermitian parts. Unlike the earlier finite-difference expansion, the interpolation is claimed to be exact for diagonalizable generators, with the coefficient l1 norm lower bounded by the largest absolute eigenvalue. The authors derive the interpolation, provide a two-eigenvalue proof that the bound can be saturated, simulate amplitude damping with a stochastic combination of unitaries, and report optimization-based results for randomly sampled spectra in higher dimensions. The central advertised claims are that the decomposition has no finite approximation error and that the measurement cost can be reduced by several orders of magnitude.

Significance. If the efficiency claim holds, this is a valuable step toward practical open-system simulation: an exact, unbiased unitary decomposition would remove the epsilon-dependent bias and the associated 1/epsilon^2 or 1/epsilon^4 measurement overhead of finite-difference methods. The exactness of the interpolation for diagonalizable operators is mathematically sound and the two-eigenvalue saturation proof in Appendix B is a clean, useful result. The paper also makes a fair comparison of SCU and LCU dilation costs in Appendix C, and the amplitude-damping demonstration is a meaningful proof of principle. However, the advertised scalability and measurement-cost reduction rest on the unverified assumption that the nonconvex optimization in Eq. (9) produces coefficient norms close to the lower bound for physical Kraus operators, and there is an internal inconsistency in the variance formula that directly affects the cost scaling. These issues are load-bearing for the main claim and require additional analysis or benchmarks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theory, Eq. (9) and Fig. 4] The central efficiency claim depends on the optimization in Eq. (9) producing coefficient vectors with l1 norm close to the lower bound max|lambda|, because the SCU variance scales as L^2/s_tot (Eq. A2). For n>2 no analytic saturation result is given; the paper states that the landscape is non-convex and that iterations scale as n^3, which is exponential in the number of qubits. The numerical evidence in Fig. 4 uses random eigenvalue distributions in [0,1] with unspecified spectral gaps, which does not address clustered spectra or physical non-local Kraus operators where the Vandermonde-type matrix E(mu) can be ill-conditioned and ||c||_1 can greatly exceed max|lambda|. Since the conclusion itself admits that 'for much larger Kraus maps, improved interpolation schemes or more resource-intensive quantum algorithms may be needed,' the claim that the method is efficient and scalable is not established for the cases where it matters most. Please provide either an analytic saturation argument for a physically relevant class of Kraus operators or benchmarks on physical-scale operators with clustered spectra and ill-conditioning reported.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] The variance formula is stated without derivation and appears internally inconsistent. In the Theory section, L is defined as L = sum_k |c_k|_1 and the variance is said to be proportional to L^2. In Eq. (A2), however, L is defined as sum_{j,j'} |c_{j'}^* c_j|, which for a single Kraus operator equals (sum_j |c_j|)^2, i.e. the square of the l1 norm; substituting this into Eq. (A2) would make the variance scale as the fourth power of the l1 norm rather than the second power. This inconsistency directly affects the advertised measurement-cost reduction. Please derive the variance from the stochastic sampling procedure, clarify the definition of L, and reconcile Eq. (A2) with the earlier text.
  3. [Results, Fig. 2 and surrounding text] The sentence claims that the simulation 'maintain[s] a total measurement overhead which is less than sqrt(K) for all times' without defining K or explaining how the l1 norm of the interpolation coefficients relates to sqrt(K). If K is the number of Kraus operators, for the amplitude-damping channel K=4 and sqrt(K)=2, but the relevant resource is the coefficient l1 norm, not K. This quantitative claim is unverifiable as written and needs a precise definition and, ideally, a derivation or a plot of the actual L used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theory, Eq. (7)] The indexing in Eq. (7) is unclear: it writes i in [0,1,...,n] and sums j over n terms, but the eigenvalue index should run from 1 to n and the coefficient vector should have n components; please clarify the dimensions of E, c, and lambda.
  2. [Theory, Eq. (8) and Eq. (9)] The notation 'maximum unsigned eigenvalue' is vague; since S is Hermitian and A is anti-Hermitian, please state explicitly that the bound uses the largest absolute value of the eigenvalues and clarify whether the optimization variables mu_i are restricted to real values, which is required for the exponentials to be unitary.
  3. [Results, Fig. 4] The random benchmark lacks details needed for reproducibility: the number of random instances, the distribution of spectral gaps, the initialization protocol beyond the scale factor R, and error bars for the SQR. Please provide these or state that the plot is illustrative.
  4. [Appendix A, Algorithm 1] The subroutine 'Optimization-Subroutine' is not specified; the pseudocode should state the objective, the allowed optimizers, the initialization, and the termination criteria, since the numerical claim depends on it.
  5. [Theory, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is mistyped: 'S, A= 1/2 (M + M†), 1/2 (M − M†)' should be S = ... and A = ...; please fix the formatting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; same-group citations and numerical optimization are not load-bearing in a way that reduces the claim to its inputs.

full rationale

The central exact-unitary-decomposition claim is self-contained. Equations (5)-(7) are a direct application of Sylvester-Lagrange interpolation to the identity function on the spectrum of S and A; the coefficients are obtained by solving a linear system with the eigenvalue data, not by fitting the quantity later reported. The lower bound (8) follows from the triangle inequality, and the n=2 saturation (10)-(11) is derived in Appendix B. For n>2 the paper explicitly labels the optimization as numerically solved and reports SQR as a measured quality metric; this is a performance caveat, not a circular prediction. The same-group citations (Refs. 35, 36, 40) provide the AUD baseline and the SCU implementation tool; the exactness and the variance comparison do not reduce to those citations, and the variance formula in Eq. (A2) is standard. No step identifies a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction or a uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. The non-convexity and exponential classical-optimization scaling in n are genuine efficiency risks but are outside the circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are the interpolation nodes and optimizer hyperparameters; the central exactness result is standard interpolation theory, while the efficiency claim rests on an unproven optimization assumption.

free parameters (2)
  • Interpolation nodes mu_i^(s/a) = Optimized numerically
    Chosen to minimize l1 norm of coefficients in Eq (9); for n=2 closed form Eq (10), for larger n obtained via SLSQP/COBYLA heuristics.
  • Heuristic scale factor R = Empirical
    Used in initialization subroutine; multiple R values are scanned to pick the best.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Sylvester-Lagrange interpolation expresses f(M) as a finite matrix polynomial via Cayley-Hamilton (Eq 4).
    Invoked in Theory section to derive Eqs (5)-(6).
  • standard math The linear system E c = lambda is invertible for distinct eigenvalues and distinct interpolation nodes.
    Required to solve for coefficients in Eq (7).
  • domain assumption Any CPTP map can be represented in Kraus operator sum form with trace normalization.
    Used throughout to frame the simulation target.
  • domain assumption The SCU sampling estimator is unbiased with variance (L^2 - <O>^2)/stot (Eq A2).
    Stated in Appendix A without derivation; the efficiency claims rely on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unitary Dilation Strategy Towards Efficient and Exact Simulation of Non-Unitary Quantum Evolutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I3TJ2BAB

@misc{pith2026250118697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unitary Dilation Strategy Towards Efficient and Exact Simulation of Non-Unitary Quantum Evolutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I3TJ2BAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18697}
}
read the original abstract

Simulating quantum systems with their environments often requires non-unitary operations, and mapping these to quantum devices often involves expensive dilations or prohibitive measurement costs to achieve desired precisions. Building on prior work with a finite-differences strategy, we introduce an efficient and exact single-ancilla unitary decomposition technique that addresses these challenges. Our approach is based on Lagrange-Sylvester interpolation, akin to analytical differentiation techniques for functional interpolation. As a result, we can exactly express any arbitrary non-unitary operator with no finite approximation error using an easily computable decomposition. This can lead to several orders of magnitude reduction in the measurement cost, which is highly desirable for practical quantum computations of open systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Mean square error (MSE) versus total shots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Interpolation cost in terms of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Excited state population (pink) decaying to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Demonstration of optimization strategy on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: This circuit prepares the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Takahashi, Cold-atom systems as condensed matter physics emulation, in Encyclopedia of Condensed Mat- ter Physics (Second Edition), edited by T

    Y. Takahashi, Cold-atom systems as condensed matter physics emulation, in Encyclopedia of Condensed Mat- ter Physics (Second Edition), edited by T. Chakraborty (Academic Press, Oxford, 2024) second edition ed., pp. 135–144

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Oko lowicz, M

    J. Oko lowicz, M. P loszajczak, and I. Rotter, Dynamics of quantum systems embedded in a continuum, Physics Reports 374, 271 (2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Akamatsu, Quarkonium in quark–gluon plasma: Open quantum system approaches re-examined, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 123, 103932 (2022)

    Y. Akamatsu, Quarkonium in quark–gluon plasma: Open quantum system approaches re-examined, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 123, 103932 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Roduner and T

    E. Roduner and T. P. Kr¨ uger, The origin of irreversibility and thermalization in thermodynamic processes, Physics Reports 944, 1 (2022), the origin of irreversibility and thermalization in thermodynamic processes

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Delle Site and M

    L. Delle Site and M. Praprotnik, Molecular systems with open boundaries: Theory and simulation, Physics Re- ports 693, 1 (2017), molecular systems with open bound- aries: Theory and Simulation

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Yunger Halpern, P

    N. Yunger Halpern, P. Faist, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Microcanonical and resource-theoretic deriva- tions of the thermal state of a quantum system 5 with noncommuting charges, Nature Communications 7, 10.1038/ncomms12051 (2016)

    doi:10.1038/ncomms12051 2016

  7. [7]

    M. J. Martin, M. Bishof, M. D. Swallows, X. Zhang, C. Benko, J. von Stecher, A. V. Gorshkov, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, A quantum many-body spin sys- tem in an optical lattice clock, Science 341, 632 (2013), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1236929

    doi:10.1126/science.1236929 2013

  8. [8]

    Kolkowitz, S

    S. Kolkowitz, S. L. Bromley, T. Bothwell, M. L. Wall, G. E. Marti, A. P. Koller, X. Zhang, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Spin–orbit-coupled fermions in an optical lattice clock, Nature 542, 66–70 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Kraus, H

    B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, S. Diehl, A. Kantian, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, Preparation of entangled states by quan- tum markov processes, Phys. Rev. A 78, 042307 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nature Physics 4, 878–883 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Head-Marsden, J

    K. Head-Marsden, J. Flick, C. J. Ciccarino, and P. Narang, Quantum information and algorithms for correlated quantum matter, Chemical Reviews 121, 3061–3120 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    M. L. Olivera-Atencio, L. Lamata, and J. Casado- Pascual, Benefits of open quantum systems for quan- tum machine learning, Advanced Quantum Technologies , 2300247 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of Open Quantum Systems (Clarendon, 2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119–130 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119–130 (1976)

    1976

  8. [16]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. Sudarshan, Com- pletely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics 17, 821–825 (1976)

    1976

  9. [17]

    W. F. Stinespring, Positive functions on c*-algebras, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 6, 211–216 (1955)

    1955

  10. [18]

    Paulsen, Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Al- gebras, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

    V. Paulsen, Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Al- gebras, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    Langer, B

    H. Langer, B. sz.-nagy and c. foias, harmonic anal- ysis of operators on hilbert space. viii + 387 s. bu- dapest/amsterdam/london 1970. akad´ emiai kiad´ o/north- holland publishing company, ZAMM - Journal of Ap- plied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift f¨ ur Ange- wandte...

    1972

  12. [20]

    Kliesch, T

    M. Kliesch, T. Barthel, C. Gogolin, M. Kastoryano, and J. Eisert, Dissipative quantum church-turing theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 120501 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    H. Wang, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum algorithm for simulating the dynamics of an open quantum system, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062317 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Barthel and M

    T. Barthel and M. Kliesch, Quasilocality and efficient simulation of markovian quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 230504 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    J. Han, W. Cai, L. Hu, X. Mu, Y. Ma, Y. Xu, W. Wang, H. Wang, Y. P. Song, C.-L. Zou, and L. Sun, Experi- mental simulation of open quantum system dynamics via trotterization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 020504 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Bacon, A

    D. Bacon, A. M. Childs, I. L. Chuang, J. Kempe, D. W. Leung, and X. Zhou, Universal simulation of markovian quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 64, 062302 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    Sweke, I

    R. Sweke, I. Sinayskiy, D. Bernard, and F. Petruccione, Universal simulation of markovian open quantum sys- tems, Phys. Rev. A 91, 062308 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Cleve and C

    R. Cleve and C. Wang, Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Lindblad Evolution, in 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017), Leibniz International Proceedings in In- formatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 80, edited by I. Chatzigiannakis, P. I...

    2017

  19. [27]

    Z. Hu, R. Xia, and S. Kais, A quantum algorithm for evolving open quantum dynamics on quantum comput- ing devices, Scientific Reports 10, 10.1038/s41598-020- 60321-x (2020)

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    P. L. Walters and F. Wang, Path integral quantum algo- rithm for simulating non-markovian quantum dynamics in open quantum systems, Physical Review Research 6, 10.1103/physrevresearch.6.013135 (2024)

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Y. Wang, E. Mulvihill, Z. Hu, N. Lyu, S. Shivpuje, Y. Liu, M. B. Soley, E. Geva, V. S. Batista, and S. Kais, Simulating open quantum system dynamics on nisq com- puters with generalized quantum master equations, Jour- nal of Chemical Theory and Computation 19, 4851–4862 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Gaikwad, Arvind, and K

    A. Gaikwad, Arvind, and K. Dorai, Simulating open quantum dynamics on an nmr quantum processor us- ing the sz.-nagy dilation algorithm, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022424 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Z. Hu, K. Head-Marsden, D. A. Mazziotti, P. Narang, and S. Kais, A general quantum algorithm for open quan- tum dynamics demonstrated with the fenna-matthews- olson complex, Quantum 6, 726 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Head-Marsden, S

    K. Head-Marsden, S. Krastanov, D. A. Mazziotti, and P. Narang, Capturing non-markovian dynamics on near- term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013182 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Seneviratne, P

    A. Seneviratne, P. L. Walters, and F. Wang, Exact non- markovian quantum dynamics on the nisq device using kraus operators, ACS Omega 9, 9666–9675 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    X. Dan, E. Geva, and V. S. Batista, Qheom: A quantum algorithm for simulating non-markovian quantum dy- namics using the hierarchical equations of motion (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager, P. Narang, and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum simulation of the lindblad equation using a unitary decomposition of operators, Physical Review Research 4, 10.1103/phys- revresearch.4.023216 (2022)

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager, P. Narang, and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum simulation of open quantum systems using a unitary decomposition of operators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 270503 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    N. Suri, J. Barreto, S. Hadfield, N. Wiebe, F. Wudarski, and J. Marshall, Two-unitary decomposition algorithm and open quantum system simulation, Quantum 7, 1002 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    G. E. Crooks, Gradients of parameterized quantum gates using the parameter-shift rule and gate decomposition 10.48550/ARXIV.1905.13311 (2019)

    2019 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wierichs, J

    D. Wierichs, J. Izaac, C. Wang, and C. Y.-Y. Lin, General parameter-shift rules for quantum gradients, Quantum6, 677 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Peetz, S

    J. Peetz, S. E. Smart, and P. Narang, Quantum Sim- ulation via Stochastic Combination of Unitaries (2024), 6 arXiv:2407.21095 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Chakraborty, Implementing any Linear Combination of Unitaries on Intermediate-term Quantum Computers, 2302.13555

    S. Chakraborty, Implementing any Linear Combination of Unitaries on Intermediate-term Quantum Computers, 2302.13555

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation us- ing linear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Info. Comput. 12, 901–924 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    V. T. Hai and L. B. Ho, Lagrange interpolation approach for general parameter-shift rule, in Quantum Computing: Circuits, Systems, Automation and Applications, edited by H. Thapliyal and T. Humble (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2024) p. 1–17

    2024

  37. [45]

    Moler and C

    C. Moler and C. Van Loan, Nineteen dubious ways to compute the exponential of a matrix, SIAM Review 20, 801–836 (1978)

    1978

  38. [46]

    Tarantola, Elements for Physics(Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006)

    A. Tarantola, Elements for Physics(Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006)

    2006

  39. [47]

    D. H. Hailu, On sylvester solution for degenerate eigen- values (2020), arXiv:2004.05159 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    L. F. Richardson and J. A. Gaunt, Viii. the deferred ap- proach to the limit, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 226, 299–361 (1927)

    1927

  41. [49]

    Krebsbach, B

    M. Krebsbach, B. Trauzettel, and A. Calzona, Optimiza- tion of richardson extrapolation for quantum error miti- gation, Phys. Rev. A 106, 062436 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Fujiwara, Estimation of a generalized amplitude- damping channel, Phys

    A. Fujiwara, Estimation of a generalized amplitude- damping channel, Phys. Rev. A 70, 012317 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    B. Rost, B. Jones, M. Vyushkova, A. Ali, C. Cullip, A. Vyushkov, and J. Nabrzyski, Simulation of thermal relaxation in spin chemistry systems on a quantum com- puter using inherent qubit decoherence, arXiv: Quantum Physics (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Z. Hu, R. Xia, and S. Kais, A quantum algorithm for evolving open quantum dynamics on quantum computing devices, Scientific Reports 10, 3301

  45. [53]

    Arrasmith, L

    A. Arrasmith, L. Cincio, R. D. Somma, and P. J. Coles, Operator sampling for shot-frugal optimization in varia- tional algorithms, (2020), arXiv:2004.06252 [quant-ph]. Appendix A: Details on Implementation with Stochastic Combination of Unitaries Focusing on the stochastic com...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.