Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 86 references

Optimal statistical ensembles for quantum thermal state preparation within the quantum singular value transformation framework

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Choosing generalized ensembles inside QSVT removes the canonical ensemble's extra exponential cost of thermal state preparation.

desk verdict Interesting ensemble-optimization idea, but the QSVT construction has a normalization bug: Theorem 6 block-encodes exp[-Nη(H_N)], not exp[-Nη(H_N/N)], so the main result as stated does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06216 v2 pith:6VOOMXW5 submitted 2025-05-09 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Yasushi Yoneta This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech MSC 81P6882B10 PACS 03.67.Lx05.30.-d
keywords thermalstatepreparationquantumsingularvaluetransformationgeneralizedstatisticalensemblesquerycomplexityamplitudeamplificationfinite-temperaturesimulationensembleequivalenceblock-encoding
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

Thermal state preparation on a quantum computer is one of the bottlenecks for finite-temperature simulation, and existing algorithms that work for arbitrary systems at arbitrary temperature pay an exponential price in system size. This paper argues that part of that price is an artifact of the canonical ensemble, not of the physics: in the quantum singular value transformation framework, the query cost carries an ensemble-dependent factor $\exp(\tfrac12 N(\eta(u_\eta)-\eta_{\min}))$ that the canonical choice $\eta=\beta u$ pins to $\exp(\tfrac12 N\beta(u_{\rm can}(\beta)+1))$. The paper constructs polynomial generalized ensembles $\eta(u)=((u-\mu)/\Delta)^{2n}$ for which this factor can be made arbitrarily close to 1, leaving the cost at $\sqrt{2^N/e^{Ns(u_\eta)}}\,e^{N\varepsilon+o(N)}$ with $\varepsilon$ arbitrarily small. If correct, this converts the classical statistical-mechanics freedom to choose an ensemble into a genuine algorithmic speedup that persists for small finite systems, with a numerical demonstration at $N=50$ free spins showing a two-order-of-magnitude query reduction over the canonical algorithm.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the family of polynomial ensembles $\eta(u)=((u-\mu)/\Delta)^{2n}$, a steep-sided polynomial whose minimum sits at $\mu$; the steepness keeps the equilibrium energy density $u_\eta$ close to the minimum of $\eta$, making the ensemble-dependent factor $\exp(\tfrac12 N(\eta(u_\eta)-\eta_{\min}))$ close to 1 while the filter function remains bounded by 1 inside a unitary block-encoding. The algorithm builds a normalized polynomial $\tilde{\eta}$, uses the degree-$(d_\eta d_{\exp})$ polynomial $P(x)=\tfrac12 p_{\exp,\lambda,d_{\exp}}(\tilde{\eta}(x))$ to block-encode $\tfrac12 e^{-\frac12 N(\eta(H_N/N)-\eta_{\min})}$, and then applies fixed-point amplitude amplification with a circuit $W$ whose query count $d_{AA}$ is set by the amplified overlap $\sqrt{\zeta}/2$ with $\zeta=e^{N\eta_{\min}}Z_\eta^N/2^N$. The total cost is $d_\eta d_{\exp} d_{AA}$ queries to the Hamiltonian block-encoding, and the asymptotic analysis in Eq. (63) separates it into the entropy term $\sqrt{2^N/e^{Ns(u_\eta)}}$ and the ensemble term $\exp(\tfrac12 N(\eta(u_\eta)-\eta_{\min}))$.

What would settle it

Compute the trace distance, or differences of local-observable expectation values, between $\rho_\eta^N$ and $\rho_{\rm can}^N(\beta)$ for free spins at $N=50$, $\beta=0.5$, $n=1$, and $\Delta\simeq0.63$. If this distance is not exponentially small in $N$, or if the observable differences exceed the target preparation error, then the algorithm is preparing a generalized equilibrium state rather than the canonical Gibbs state, and the claimed small-system advantage would not establish canonical thermal state preparation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that within QSVT, the number of queries to the Hamiltonian block-encoding needed to prepare a thermal state from the maximally entangled infinite-temperature state is $\sqrt{2^N/e^{Ns(u_\eta)}}\exp(\tfrac12 N(\eta(u_\eta)-\eta_{\min})+o(N))$, in which the first factor is fixed by the target state's entropy and the second factor is set by the choice of ensemble. For the canonical ensemble $\eta=\beta u+\mathrm{const.}$, the second factor becomes $\exp(\tfrac12 N\beta(u_{\rm can}(\beta)+1))$ and cannot be reduced. The paper introduces the polynomial family $\eta(u)=((u-\mu)/\Delta)^{2n}$, whose parameters are constrained by $\mu=u_\eta-\Delta(\Delta\beta/2n)^{1/(2n-1)}$, and shows $\eta(u_\eta)-\eta_{\min}=(\Delta\beta/2n)^{2n/(2n-1)}$, which can be made arbitrarily small. Consequently the query count can reach $\sqrt{2^N/e^{Ns(u_\eta)}}\,e^{N\varepsilon+o(N)}$ for any fixed $\varepsilon>0$. The paper also reports numerical results for free spins at $\beta=0.5$: at $N=50$ the optimized ensemble uses about two orders of magnitude fewer queries than the canonical one, and the $N$-dependence approaches the predicted optimal scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the generalized ensemble with $\beta=\eta'(u_\eta)$ represents the same equilibrium state as the canonical Gibbs state at inverse temperature $\beta$, and that the two are close enough at finite $N$ for the $N=50$ comparison to be a fair test of preparing canonical thermal states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The asymptotic query count drops from $\sqrt{2^N/e^{Ns(u)}}\exp(\tfrac12 N\beta(u_{\rm can}(\beta)+1)+o(N))$ to $\sqrt{2^N/e^{Ns(u_\eta)}}\,e^{N\varepsilon+o(N)}$ for any fixed $\varepsilon>0$.
  • For fixed temperature, the ensemble-dependent part of the cost no longer grows with $\beta$ and the canonical energy density, so larger systems become reachable under the same Hamiltonian block-encoding assumptions.
  • In the limit $n\to\infty$ the generalized ensemble tends to a microcanonical energy-shell ensemble, so the near-optimal asymptotic cost is reached without explicit knowledge of the entropy function beyond the target energy density.
  • Since the algorithm applies to arbitrary Hermitian Hamiltonians at any temperature, it also covers first-order phase-transition regions where the canonical ensemble cannot represent phase-coexistence states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This paper leaves implicit that the advantage is not specific to the polynomial family $((u-\mu)/\Delta)^{2n}$: because the cost reduction enters only through the subnormalized partition function $\zeta$, any QSVT-based preparation whose bottleneck is amplitude amplification on a filtered maximally entangled state should benefit from the same ensemble design.
  • A rigorous finite-$N$ bound on $\|\rho_\eta^N-\rho_{\rm can}^N\|$ would upgrade the numerical $N=50$ reduction from a statement about generalized ensembles to a guarantee about canonical Gibbs state preparation; the present paper does not supply such a bound.
  • A direct numerical test of the asymptotic analysis would be to fix $\beta$ and small $\Delta$, measure the crossover $N$ at which the optimized generalized ensemble beats the canonical one, and compare it with the prediction obtained from Eq. (63); the paper does not report this crossover.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a QSVT-based algorithm for preparing thermal equilibrium states from generalized statistical ensembles of the form ρ^η_N ∝ exp[-N η(H_N/N)], and analyzes the number of queries to a Hamiltonian block-encoding. The main asymptotic claim, in Section IV, is that with η(u) = ((u-μ)/Δ)^{2n}, the ensemble-dependent overhead B^η_N = exp[(1/2)N(η(uη)-ηmin)] can be made arbitrarily small, so the query count scales as sqrt(2^N / e^{N s(uη)}) e^{Nε+o(N)} for arbitrarily small ε>0, whereas the canonical ensemble forces an additional factor exp[(1/2)Nβ(u_can(β)+1)]. Section V reports numerical query-count comparisons for free spins at N=50 and N=1000. The paper includes explicit circuit constructions, detailed appendices, and exact free-spin partition functions.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would make a useful contribution to thermal state preparation: it would show that the choice of statistical ensemble is an algorithmic resource within QSVT, not merely a physical modeling choice, and it would quantify the overhead reduction relative to canonical-ensemble methods. The paper's strengths are its explicit construction with stated constants, the detailed polynomial approximation and amplitude-amplification arguments in the appendices, and the clean separation of the cost into an entropy-limited search factor and an ensemble-dependent filter factor. The asymptotic idea is sound and worth publishing once the load-bearing technical issues below are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Step 2 / Theorem 6] As written, the circuit V does not block-encode exp[-1/2 N η(H_N/N)]; it block-encodes exp[-1/2 N η(H_N)]. In Eq. (43) the polynomial is constructed from η(αx), and x is the eigenvalues of the encoded matrix H_N/α_N from Eq. (35), so the eigenvalue transformation produces η(H_N), not η(H_N/N). The theorem statement in Eq. (36) and the ζ definition in Eq. (39) both use η(H_N/N). Hence Theorem 6's guarantee and the subsequent cost formula in Eqs. (61)-(64) are not established by the proof as written. The fix is to define the polynomial via η(α_N x / N), or equivalently to set α := α_N/N, and to adjust ηmax, ηmin, and λ consistently.
  2. [Section V] The finite-size comparison assumes that the generalized ensemble with β = η'(uη) represents the same equilibrium state as the canonical ensemble at inverse temperature β, but the paper asserts ensemble equivalence only in the thermodynamic limit and gives no finite-N bound. The algorithm prepares a purification of ρ^η_N, not of the canonical Gibbs state; at N=50 the two density operators differ, already in the width of the energy distribution for free spins. Therefore the numerical reduction in query count does not, as stated, demonstrate cheaper preparation of the canonical thermal state at β=0.5. Please either prove a quantitative finite-N closeness bound, or reframe Section V as a cost comparison for preparing the corresponding generalized ensembles and state the thermodynamic-limit caveat explicitly.
  3. [Section IV A, Eqs. (61)-(64)] The passage from Eq. (61) to Eq. (63) absorbs d_η and all factors depending on ηmax-ηmin into e^{o(N)} without stating conditions. For the optimal family in Eq. (67), d_η = 2n and ηmax-ηmin diverge when n→∞ or Δ→0, so the e^{o(N)} factor must absorb exp(O(log n)) and exp(O(log(N(ηmax-ηmin)))). To make the claimed 'arbitrarily small ε' scaling rigorous, the paper should specify how n and Δ are allowed to depend on N (for example, Δ = N^{-a} with n fixed, or n = o(N) with Δ fixed) and verify that the absorbed terms are indeed exp(o(N)).
minor comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 6 and Section III] The symbol α is used inconsistently: Theorem 6 introduces α_N, while Eqs. (38), (43), and (44) use an undefined α. This should be fixed unambiguously, especially after the factor-N correction.
  2. [Theorem 6, Eq. (37)] The expression 'dηdexpdAA' is a typographical run-on; it should be d_η d_exp d_AA. The ceiling notation in d_AA should also be checked in the typeset version.
  3. [Section IV D] The statement that κ = k/N with fixed k∈Z_{\ge 0} makes the achievable equilibrium states dense in the thermodynamic limit is misleading for a fixed target β: from Eq. (73), β = 2κ/(l - uη), so a fixed target β requires κ = O(1), hence k = Θ(N). Please clarify the intended scaling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the central query-complexity derivation is self-contained; the few self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The query count in Theorem 6 and Eqs. (61)-(64) is obtained by combining the QSVT block-encoding construction (Theorems 4 and 5, Lemma 1) with the standard entropy/partition-function identity ζ = e^{Nη_min} Z_η/2^N = e^{Ns(u^η)}/2^N × e^{-N[η(u^η)-η_min]} × e^{o(N)}. Each step is a stated theorem, a polynomial approximation bound, or an algebraic identity; no parameter is fitted to reproduce the claimed scaling. The generalized ensemble is defined before the algorithm, and the optimal family η(u)=((u-μ)/Δ)^{2n} is introduced as a design choice; Eq. (68) fixes μ by solving β=η'(u^η), so Eq. (69) is a derived expression, not an assumed result. The finite-size study optimizes the derived cost formula and compares it with the canonical baseline, which is a legitimate optimization calculation rather than a forced prediction. The author's self-citations ([31], [32], [79]) provide background on generalized ensembles and an alternative purification route but are not load-bearing for the central query-complexity claim, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked. The possible mismatch in Step 2 between the theorem's stated η(H_N/N) and the block-encoded η(H_N) is an internal-consistency/correctness concern, not an input-output circularity, so it does not affect this circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The only new object is a family of polynomial ensemble weight functions, which is a method parameter rather than an invented entity. The central claim rests on standard statistical-mechanics assumptions plus access to a Hamiltonian block-encoding oracle.

free parameters (2)
  • Delta (steepness width of eta) = Delta approximately 0.63, optimized for N=50 and beta=0.5 in Fig. 2a
    Controls how steeply eta grows away from mu. Smaller Delta reduces the ensemble-dependent overhead B_N but increases the polynomial approximation degree d_exp. It is the main dial used to claim the advantage, and its finite-size value is chosen by optimization.
  • n (polynomial exponent of eta) = n=1 in the finite-size example; large n considered in the asymptotic analysis
    Controls the flatness of eta near mu. Taking n to infinity drives eta(u_eta) - eta_min to zero, but increases the polynomial degree d_eta = 2n. It is selected as part of the ensemble optimization in Sections IV C and V.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The thermodynamic entropy density s(u) exists and (1/N) log g_N(u) converges to a concave function, or its concave envelope is used when the limit is nonconcave.
    Invoked in Eq. (1) and footnote [53]. It is needed for the entropy formula and for ensemble equivalence, and the paper explicitly replaces s by its concave envelope in nonconcave cases.
  • domain assumption The function s(u) - eta(u) is strongly concave, so u_eta is the unique maximizer defining the generalized ensemble equilibrium.
    Stated in Section II B 2 after Eq. (7). It ensures that the generalized ensemble describes a well-defined equilibrium energy density and supports the temperature formula beta = eta'(u_eta).
  • standard math QSVT, QSP, and polynomial approximation theorems from Refs. [11, 68] hold as quoted.
    Theorems 1 through 5 and Lemmas 1 and 2 are used without proof. The central algorithm is built on these external results, which are standard in the quantum algorithms literature.
  • domain assumption Generalized ensembles and the canonical ensemble are thermodynamically equivalent in the thermodynamic limit when chosen appropriately.
    Used in Section II B 2 and Section IV to compare ensembles at the same inverse temperature. The paper cites Refs. [33-39] but provides no finite-N trace-distance bound, which becomes critical in the Section V finite-size comparison.
  • domain assumption Access to a block-encoding of the Hamiltonian H_N with normalization alpha_N is available, and query complexity is measured against this oracle.
    Assumed in Theorem 6 and throughout Section III. The algorithm and all cost statements are expressed in terms of queries to this block-encoding, so the entire result is conditional on such an oracle being constructible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal statistical ensembles for quantum thermal state preparation within the quantum singular value transformation framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6VOOMXW5

@misc{pith2026250506216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal statistical ensembles for quantum thermal state preparation within the quantum singular value transformation framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6VOOMXW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06216}
}
read the original abstract

Preparing thermal equilibrium states is an essential task for finite-temperature quantum simulations. In statistical mechanics, microstates in thermal equilibrium can be obtained from statistical ensembles. To date, numerous ensembles have been devised, ranging from Gibbs ensembles such as the canonical and microcanonical ensembles to a variety of generalized ensembles. Since these ensembles yield equivalent thermodynamic predictions, one can freely choose an ensemble for computational convenience. In this paper, we exploit this flexibility to develop an efficient quantum algorithm for preparing thermal equilibrium states. We first present a quantum algorithm for implementing generalized ensembles within the framework of quantum singular value transformation. We then perform a detailed analysis of the computational cost and elucidate its dependence on the choice of the ensemble. Our analysis shows that employing an appropriate ensemble can significantly mitigate ensemble-dependent overhead and yield improved scaling of the computational cost with system size compared to existing methods based on the canonical ensemble. We also numerically demonstrate that our approach achieves a significant reduction in the computational cost even for small finite-size systems. Our algorithm applies to arbitrary thermodynamic systems at any temperature and is thus expected to offer a practical and versatile method for computing finite-temperature properties of quantum many-body systems. These results highlight the potential of ensemble design as a powerful tool for enhancing the efficiency of a broad class of quantum algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Transition of the energy density distribution in the thermal state preparation algorithm presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) Number of queries to the block-encoding of the Hamiltonian, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Gate sequences used for quantum singular value transformation and eigenvalue transformation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Quantum circuits implementing eigenvalue transformation for (a) odd-degree and (b) even-degree polynomials. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [51]

    Yung and A

    M.-H. Yung and A. Aspuru-Guzik, A quantum–quantum Metropolis algorithm, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.109, 754 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [1]

    To facilitate a comparison with generalized ensembles, we first describe the canonical ensemble

    Canonical ensemble Among the numerous ensembles, the canonical ensemble is one of the most widely used. To facilitate a comparison with generalized ensembles, we first describe the canonical ensemble. The density matrix for the canonical ensemble is given by ρcan N (β) = e−βHN Zcan N (β),(2) whereZ can N (β) = Tr[e−βHN ] is the partition function. The can...

  3. [2]

    Generalized ensemble Beyond the canonical ensemble, numerous ensembles have been proposed. In this paper, we consider a quite broad class of generalized ensembles [25, 26, 31], for which the density matrix and partition function are given by ρη N = e−Nη(HN/N) Zη N ,(6) Zη N = Tr h e−Nη(HN/N) i .(7) Here,ηis a function independent ofNthat satisfies the con...

  4. [3]

    Quantum signal processing Before describing QSVT, we review quantum signal processing (QSP). QSP provides efficient implementation of polynomial transformations of scalars, and, consequently, serves as a foundational technique for polynomial transfor- mations of the singular values of matrices. Given a single-qubit reflection unitary that encodesx∈[−1,+1]...

  5. [4]

    In quantum computations, all matrices should be described by the unitary operators

    Block-encoding QSVT is an extension of QSP, generalizing its applicability from scalars to matrices. In quantum computations, all matrices should be described by the unitary operators. Block-encoding is a technique to represent general matrices, which are not necessarily unitary, with unitary operators. Intuitively, a block-encoding embeds the target matr...

  6. [5]

    First, we provide the definition of singular value transformation of matrices

    Quantum singular value transformation We now describe QSVT. First, we provide the definition of singular value transformation of matrices. Definition(Singular value transformation [11]).LetAbe a matrix with the singular value decomposition A= X i ςi| ˜ψi⟩⟨ψi|,(22) and letfbe a function of definite parity. The singular value transformation ofAforfis define...

  7. [6]

    In particular, for the application in this paper, the polynomial approximation of the exponential function plays a key role

    Polynomial approximation of the exponential function Since the computational cost of QSVT is determined by the degree of the polynomial, it is crucial to obtain a low- degree polynomial that approximates the desired function for the transformation. In particular, for the application in this paper, the polynomial approximation of the exponential function p...

  8. [7]

    As a result, the filter function applied to the energy eigenstates with eigenvaluesNuis at moste − 1 2Nβ(u−u 0)

    Since the maximum eigenvalue ofe − 1 2βHN is equal to the Boltzmann weight of the ground state,e − 1 2Nβu 0, it must be rescaled so that this value is less than or equal to 1. As a result, the filter function applied to the energy eigenstates with eigenvaluesNuis at moste − 1 2Nβ(u−u 0). Sinceu−u 0 = Θ(N0) foruin the finite-temperature energy region, the ...

    work page

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys.21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  2. [9]

    Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  3. [10]

    Sly, Computational Transition at the Uniqueness Threshold, in2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(IEEE Computer Society, 2010) pp

    A. Sly, Computational Transition at the Uniqueness Threshold, in2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(IEEE Computer Society, 2010) pp. 287–296

    2010

  4. [11]

    Sly and N

    A. Sly and N. Sun, The Computational Hardness of Counting in Two-Spin Models ond-Regular Graphs, in2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2012) pp. 361–369

    2012

  5. [12]

    Galanis, D

    A. Galanis, D. ˇStefankoviˇ c, and E. Vigoda, Inapproximability of the Partition Function for the Antiferromagnetic Ising and Hard-Core Models, Combinator. Probab. Comp.25, 500 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    Poulin and P

    D. Poulin and P. Wocjan, Sampling from the Thermal Quantum Gibbs State and Evaluating Partition Functions with a Quantum Computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 220502 (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    Chiang and P

    C.-F. Chiang and P. Wocjan, Quantum algorithm for preparing thermal Gibbs states - detailed analysis, inQuantum Cryptography and Computing, NATO Science for Peace and Security Series - D: Information and Communication Security, Vol. 26 (IOS Press, 2010) pp. 138–147

    2010

  8. [15]

    A. N. Chowdhury and R. D. Somma, Quantum algorithms for Gibbs sampling and hitting-time estimation, Quant. Inf. Comp.17, 41 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    van Apeldoorn, A

    J. van Apeldoorn, A. Gily´ en, S. Gribling, and R. de Wolf, Quantum SDP-Solvers: Better upper and lower bounds, Quantum 4, 230 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    van Apeldoorn and A

    J. van Apeldoorn and A. Gily´ en, Improvements in Quantum SDP-Solving with Applications, in46th International Collo- quium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, Vol. 132, edited by F. Meunier (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zent...

    2019

  11. [18]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, inProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019 (Association for Computing Machinery,...

    2019

  12. [19]

    J. W. Gibbs,Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics, Developed with Especial Reference to the Rational Foundation of Thermodynamics(Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1902) p. 207, first edition

    1902

  13. [20]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Statistical Physics, Part 1, 3rd ed., Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 5 (Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford, 1980)

    1980

  14. [21]

    M. Toda, R. Kubo, and N. Sait¯ o,Statistical Physics I: Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences, Vol. 30 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1983)

    1983

  15. [22]

    H. B. Callen,Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1985)

    1985

  16. [23]

    J. H. Hetherington, Solid 3He magnetism in the classical approximation, J. Low Temp. Phys.66, 145 (1987)

    1987

  17. [24]

    M. S. S. Challa and J. H. Hetherington, Gaussian Ensemble as an Interpolating Ensemble, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 77 (1988)

    1988

  18. [25]

    M. S. S. Challa and J. H. Hetherington, Gaussian ensemble: An alternate Monte Carlo scheme, Phys. Rev. A38, 6324 (1988)

    1988

  19. [26]

    R. S. Johal, A. Planes, and E. Vives, Statistical mechanics in the extended Gaussian ensemble, Phys. Rev. E68, 056113 (2003)

    2003

  20. [27]

    J. R. Ray, Microcanonical ensemble Monte Carlo method, Phys. Rev. A44, 4061 (1991)

    1991

  21. [28]

    R. W. Gerling and A. H¨ uller, First order phase transitions studied in the dynamical ensemble, Z. Phys. B90, 207 (1993)

    1993

  22. [29]

    Tsallis, Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics, J

    C. Tsallis, Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics, J. Stat. Phys.52, 479 (1988)

    1988

  23. [30]

    Beck and E

    C. Beck and E. Cohen, Superstatistics, Physica A322, 267 (2003)

    2003

  24. [31]

    Cohen, Superstatistics, Physica D193, 35 (2004)

    E. Cohen, Superstatistics, Physica D193, 35 (2004)

    2004

  25. [32]

    Costeniuc, R

    M. Costeniuc, R. S. Ellis, H. Touchette, and B. Turkington, The Generalized Canonical Ensemble and Its Universal Equivalence with the Microcanonical Ensemble, J. Stat. Phys.119, 1283 (2005)

    2005

  26. [33]

    Costeniuc, R

    M. Costeniuc, R. S. Ellis, H. Touchette, and B. Turkington, Generalized canonical ensembles and ensemble equivalence, Phys. Rev. E73, 026105 (2006)

    2006

  27. [34]

    Toral, Ensemble equivalence for non-Boltzmannian distributions, Physica A365, 85 (2006)

    R. Toral, Ensemble equivalence for non-Boltzmannian distributions, Physica A365, 85 (2006)

    2006

  28. [35]

    Penrose and J

    O. Penrose and J. L. Lebowitz, Rigorous treatment of metastable states in the van der Waals-Maxwell theory, J. Stat. Phys.3, 211 (1971)

    1971

  29. [36]

    R. S. Ellis, K. Haven, and B. Turkington, Large Deviation Principles and Complete Equivalence and Nonequivalence Results for Pure and Mixed Ensembles, J. Stat. Phys.101, 999 (2000)

    2000

  30. [37]

    Touchette, Methods for calculating nonconcave entropies, J

    H. Touchette, Methods for calculating nonconcave entropies, J. Stat. Mech.2010, P05008 (2010)

    2010

  31. [38]

    Yoneta and A

    Y. Yoneta and A. Shimizu, Squeezed ensemble for systems with first-order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B99, 144105 (2019)

    2019

  32. [39]

    Yoneta and A

    Y. Yoneta and A. Shimizu, Statistical ensembles for phase coexistence states specified by noncommutative additive ob- servables, J. Stat. Mech.2023, 053106 (2023)

    2023

  33. [40]

    Ruelle,Statistical Mechanics: Rigorous Results(World Scientific, 1999)

    D. Ruelle,Statistical Mechanics: Rigorous Results(World Scientific, 1999)

    1999

  34. [41]

    Martin-L¨ of, The equivalence of ensembles and the Gibbs phase rule for classical lattice systems, J

    A. Martin-L¨ of, The equivalence of ensembles and the Gibbs phase rule for classical lattice systems, J. Stat. Phys.20, 557 (1979)

    1979

  35. [42]

    Georgii, The equivalence of ensembles for classical systems of particles, J

    H.-O. Georgii, The equivalence of ensembles for classical systems of particles, J. Stat. Phys.80, 1341 (1995)

    1995

  36. [43]

    Lima, Equivalence of ensembles in quantum lattice systems: States, Commun

    R. Lima, Equivalence of ensembles in quantum lattice systems: States, Commun. Math. Phys.24, 180 (1972)

    1972

  37. [44]

    M. P. M¨ uller, E. Adlam, L. Masanes, and N. Wiebe, Thermalization and Canonical Typicality in Translation-Invariant Quantum Lattice Systems, Commun. Math. Phys.340, 499 (2015)

    2015

  38. [45]

    F. G. S. L. Brandao and M. Cramer, Equivalence of Statistical Mechanical Ensembles for Non-Critical Quantum Systems (2015), arXiv:1502.03263 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Tasaki, On the Local Equivalence Between the Canonical and the Microcanonical Ensembles for Quantum Spin Systems, J

    H. Tasaki, On the Local Equivalence Between the Canonical and the Microcanonical Ensembles for Quantum Spin Systems, J. Stat. Phys.172, 905 (2018)

    2018

  40. [47]

    J. Kim, T. Keyes, and J. E. Straub, Generalized Replica Exchange Method, J. Chem. Phys.132, 224107 (2010)

    2010

  41. [48]

    Schierz, J

    P. Schierz, J. Zierenberg, and W. Janke, First-order phase transitions in the real microcanonical ensemble, Phys. Rev. E 94, 021301 (2016)

    2016

  42. [49]

    Sugiura and A

    S. Sugiura and A. Shimizu, Thermal Pure Quantum States at Finite Temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 240401 (2012)

    2012

  43. [50]

    Temme, T

    K. Temme, T. J. Osborne, K. G. Vollbrecht, D. Poulin, and F. Verstraete, Quantum Metropolis sampling, Nature471, 87 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Chen and F

    C.-F. Chen and F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, Fast Thermalization from the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis (2021), arXiv:2112.07646 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Wocjan and K

    P. Wocjan and K. Temme, Szegedy Walk Unitaries for Quantum Maps, Commun. Math. Phys.402, 3201 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    P. Rall, C. Wang, and P. Wocjan, Thermal State Preparation via Rounding Promises, Quantum7, 1132 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and A. Gily´ en, Quantum Thermal State Preparation (2023), arXiv:2303.18224 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bilgin and S

    E. Bilgin and S. Boixo, Preparing Thermal States of Quantum Systems by Dimension Reduction, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 170405 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    Seki and S

    K. Seki and S. Yunoki, Energy-filtered random-phase states as microcanonical thermal pure quantum states, Phys. Rev. B106, 155111 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Mizukami and A

    K. Mizukami and A. Koga, Quantum algorithm for the microcanonical thermal pure quantum state method, Phys. Rev. 22 A108, 012404 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand Unification of Quantum Algorithms, PRX Quantum2, 040203 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    The assumption of the concavity of the limiting function is made to simplify the discussion. When the limiting function is nonconcave, several difficulties arise, such as the thermodynamic entropy becoming ill-defined and the canonical ensemble giving a statistical mixture of ...

  53. [61]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian Simulation by Quantum Signal Processing, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 010501 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubitization, Quantum3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Rall and B

    P. Rall and B. Fuller, Amplitude Estimation from Quantum Signal Processing, Quantum7, 937 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Rall, Faster Coherent Quantum Algorithms for Phase, Energy, and Amplitude Estimation, Quantum5, 566 (2021)

    P. Rall, Faster Coherent Quantum Algorithms for Phase, Energy, and Amplitude Estimation, Quantum5, 566 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    G. H. Low, T. J. Yoder, and I. L. Chuang, Methodology of Resonant Equiangular Composite Quantum Gates, Phys. Rev. X6, 041067 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    Haah, Product Decomposition of Periodic Functions in Quantum Signal Processing, Quantum3, 190 (2019)

    J. Haah, Product Decomposition of Periodic Functions in Quantum Signal Processing, Quantum3, 190 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    R. Chao, D. Ding, A. Gily´ en, C. Huang, and M. Szegedy, Finding Angles for Quantum Signal Processing with Machine Precision (2020), arXiv:2003.02831 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Y. Dong, X. Meng, K. B. Whaley, and L. Lin, Efficient phase-factor evaluation in quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. A103, 042419 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Ying, Stable Factorization for Phase Factors of Quantum Signal Processing, Quantum6, 842 (2022)

    L. Ying, Stable Factorization for Phase Factors of Quantum Signal Processing, Quantum6, 842 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    B. K. Berntson and C. S¨ underhauf, Complementary Polynomials in Quantum Signal Processing (2024), arXiv:2406.04246 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Alexis, L

    M. Alexis, L. Lin, G. Mnatsakanyan, C. Thiele, and J. Wang, Infinite Quantum Signal Processing for Arbitrary Szeg˝ o Functions (2024), arXiv:2407.05634 [quant-ph]

    2024

  64. [72]

    S. J. Garratt and S. Choi, Quantum Algorithm to Prepare Quasi-Stationary States (2024), arXiv:2407.07893 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    T. J. Yoder, G. H. Low, and I. L. Chuang, Fixed-Point Quantum Search with an Optimal Number of Queries, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 210501 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    Sachdeva and N

    S. Sachdeva and N. K. Vishnoi, Faster Algorithms via Approximation Theory, Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci.9, 125 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian Simulation by Uniform Spectral Amplification (2017), arXiv:1707.05391 [quant- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Similarly, one can alternatively employ the pure-state method [42, 78, 79]. While this approach requires additional com- putational cost for preparing infinite-temperature states, it allows one to eliminate the ancilla register ofNqubits that is required for purification. Even...

  69. [77]

    H. M. Hoorfar, Abdolhossein, Inequalities on the LambertWfunction and hyperpower function, J. Inequal. Pure and Appl. Math.9, 5 (2008)

    2008

  70. [78]

    L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, inProceedings of the 28th annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 1996) pp. 212–219

    1996

  71. [79]

    L. K. Grover, Fixed-Point Quantum Search, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 150501 (2005)

    2005

  72. [80]

    Høyer, Arbitrary phases in quantum amplitude amplification, Phys

    P. Høyer, Arbitrary phases in quantum amplitude amplification, Phys. Rev. A62, 052304 (2000)

    2000

  73. [81]

    G. L. Long, Grover algorithm with zero theoretical failure rate, Phys. Rev. A64, 022307 (2001)

    2001

  74. [82]

    In particular, in the limitn→∞, this ensemble approaches the microcanonical ensemble with an energy shell [µ−∆,µ+∆]

  75. [83]

    D. H. E. Gross,Microcanonical thermodynamics: Phase transitions in Small systems, Lectures Notes in Physics, Vol. 66 (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001)

    2001

  76. [84]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, eds.,Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, 10th ed., Applied Mathematics Series, Vol. 55 (National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1972)

    1972

  77. [85]

    Sugiura and A

    S. Sugiura and A. Shimizu, Canonical Thermal Pure Quantum State, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 010401 (2013)

    2013

  78. [86]

    Yoneta, Thermal pure states for systems with antiunitary symmetries and their tensor network representations, Phys

    Y. Yoneta, Thermal pure states for systems with antiunitary symmetries and their tensor network representations, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L042062 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.