Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantum State Readout via Overlap-Based Feature Extraction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper claims that an unknown quantum state that is close to a sum of a few localized peaks can be reconstructed from overlap measurements whose number does not grow with the number of qubits.

desk verdict A real overlap-based readout technique for localized states, but the 'fewer measurements' claim compares overlap evaluations to shots and omits the proposed method's statistical error—needs a fair resource comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08613 v1 pith:6NAM3C6V submitted 2025-05-13 quant-ph

Hirofumi Nishi , Taichi Kosugi , Xinchi Huang , Satoshi Hirose , Tatsuya Okayama , Yu-ichiro Matsushita This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords quantumstatereadoutoverlap-basedfittingLorentzianfunctionstatesphaseestimationX-rayabsorptionspectraamplitudeSWAPtesttomography
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

This paper claims that a quantum state shaped like a few localized peaks can be read out by measuring overlaps between the unknown state and shifted bell-shaped Lorentzian basis states, then fitting those overlap values on a classical computer. The reconstruction is a linear combination of Lorentzian states, and the fitted peak positions, widths, and coefficients serve as the extracted features. The numerical results show that for a Gaussian-like target, the reconstruction infidelity stays near $7.1\times10^{-3}$ for $n=5$ through $10$ qubits, so the required measurement count does not grow with system size, unlike direct readout. For quantum-phase-estimation spectra, reconstructing the squared amplitudes needed on average 28 overlap evaluations versus 32 computational-basis amplitudes for $n=5$, meaning fewer measurements than direct basis-by-basis readout. This matters because complete state readout is a bottleneck in quantum simulations of continuous functions such as wavefunctions and spectra.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the shifted discrete Lorentzian function state $|L;a,k_c\rangle$: a normalized bell-shaped wavefunction with power-law tails, decay rate $a$, and center $k_c$, prepared from a discrete Slater state by a quantum Fourier transform and a translation operator. The method represents the unknown target as a linear combination of $n_{\rm loc}$ such states and turns state readout into overlap-based fitting: SWITCH tests supply complex overlaps when phases are needed, SWAP tests supply squared overlaps when only probabilities are needed, and a classical generalized-eigenvalue solve extracts the optimal coefficients from the measured overlap matrix. The analytical formula for the Lorentzian overlap matrix keeps classical cost low, and in the quantum-phase-estimation application two inverse quantum Fourier transforms cancel, shortening the circuit that feeds the fit.

What would settle it

Run the protocol on a target state deliberately far from the Lorentzian ansatz, such as random signs on all computational-basis amplitudes or a dense comb of closely spaced peaks, and count the SWAP/SWITCH overlap evaluations needed to reach an infidelity below 0.01. If that count grows with $N=2^n$, or if the optimizer fails in a constant fraction of trials as $n$ increases, the claimed qubit-independent readout cost does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an unknown $n$-qubit target state $|\psi_{\rm tgt}\rangle$ that is well approximated by a linear combination of $n_{\rm loc}$ shifted discrete Lorentzian function states can be read out by maximizing the fidelity $F=|\langle\psi_{\rm tgt}|\psi_{\rm LCLF}\rangle|^2$. For fixed centers and widths, the optimal coefficients are the largest-eigenvalue eigenvector of the generalized eigenvalue problem $G\mathbf{d}=\kappa S\mathbf{d}$, where $G$ is built from measured overlaps between the target and each Lorentzian state and $S$ is the analytically known Lorentzian overlap matrix. The peak centers and decay rates are then optimized classically, with gradients evaluated by finite differences and additional overlap measurements. The paper demonstrates two variants: a phase-sensitive readout using the SWITCH test, and a probability-only readout using the SWAP test that suffices for spectral functions. The numerical evidence is that reconstruction infidelity is independent of the number of qubits, and that for quantum-phase-estimation spectra the number of overlap evaluations needed is smaller than the number of computational-basis amplitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quantum state being read out is almost a sum of a few bell-shaped peaks whose positions and widths the classical optimizer can find; if the state has many peaks, broad nonlocal structure, or random sign fluctuations, the measurement savings and accuracy claims no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For states that are sums of a few localized peaks, full state readout requires a number of overlap evaluations that does not grow with the number of qubits; the paper reports infidelity near $7\times10^{-3}$ for $n=5$ through $10$ with 1,000 measurements.
  • For quantum-phase-estimation spectra, reading out squared amplitudes costs on average 28 overlap evaluations for $n=5$, fewer than the 32 computational-basis amplitudes direct readout would require.
  • The fitting procedure gives two readout modes: phase-sensitive reconstruction through the SWITCH test, and probability-only reconstruction through the SWAP test, the latter being sufficient for spectral quantities such as X-ray absorption spectra.
  • Because peak centers are optimized by Metropolis sampling, the number of quantum overlap evaluations grows roughly in proportion to the Hamming distance between the initial and true peak positions, so good initial guesses directly reduce measurement cost.
  • Quantum amplitude estimation can be applied to the SWAP and SWITCH tests, replacing the Monte Carlo $O(1/\varepsilon^2)$ shot-count scaling with a Heisenberg-limited $O(1/\varepsilon)$ circuit-depth scaling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The same overlap-fitting scheme should transfer to other localized basis families, such as Gaussians or wavelets, making it a general primitive for reading out smooth quantum states rather than a Lorentzian-specific trick.
  • Editorial inference: The qubit-independence claim is conditional on the optimizer finding the right peaks; the paper's own 1-in-10 failure to converge for $n=9$ and $n=10$ suggests the practical scaling cliff may appear earlier than the asymptotic statement implies.
  • Editorial inference: A natural stress test is to apply the method to two very close Lorentzian peaks; the overlap matrix becomes nearly singular, and the number of measurements or the classical conditioning may degrade even though the state is still a small linear combination.
  • Editorial inference: Combining this readout with adaptive initial centers, for example from mean-field solutions, could turn the measurement-count advantage into an end-to-end protocol for iterative quantum simulations, since the solver's previous step supplies the next guess.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid quantum-classical protocol for reading out a quantum state that is well approximated by a linear combination of discrete Lorentzian functions (LCLF). The target state's overlaps with shifted Lorentzian basis states are estimated on a quantum processor via SWITCH or SWAP tests, then a classical optimizer adjusts the Lorentzian centers, decay rates, and expansion coefficients by solving a generalized eigenvalue problem (phase-sensitive readout) or a linear least-squares problem (amplitude-squared readout). The authors present quantum circuits, including an amplitude-estimation enhancement, and give an asymptotic cost model in Sec. II E. Numerical demonstrations reconstruct a grid-based wavefunction for n=5..10 qubits and a synthetic QPE-based X-ray absorption spectrum for n=5, and the paper claims the method requires fewer measurements than conventional direct state readout because the number of overlap evaluations is small and approximately independent of n.

Significance. If the resource claim were established, the protocol would be a useful tool for readout of structured quantum states, particularly in first-quantized simulation and spectral-function settings. The core algebraic formulation is sound: the rank-one GEVP for fixed centers and decay rates, the least-squares fit for squared amplitudes, and the analytical overlap formulas in Appendix C are concrete and checkable. The paper also provides explicit circuits for SWITCH/SWAP tests and QAE, and it carefully separates quantum and classical costs in Sec. II E. These are genuine strengths. However, the headline quantitative claim—that the method outperforms direct measurement in total measurement cost—is not supported by the numerics as presented, because the comparison mixes overlap evaluations with measurement shots and omits statistical error for the proposed method. The paper also inherits an approximation error floor from the LCLF ansatz and reports occasional optimization failures at n=9,10, which need to be quantified before the scalability claim is accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B and Fig. 7(b)] The central claim of requiring fewer measurements is not established because the comparison counts overlap evaluations, not measurement shots, and because the proposed method's infidelity is plotted without statistical error. In Fig. 7(b), the black broken line for the LCLF method explicitly ignores statistical error, while the direct-measurement baseline includes shot noise from 1,000 measurements. In Sec. IV B, the statement that a mean of 28 overlap calculations for n=5 is fewer than 2^5=32 computational-basis amplitudes equates one overlap evaluation with one measurement. But each SWITCH/SWAP overlap estimate is itself a random variable requiring O(1/epsilon^2) shots (or circuit depth O(1/epsilon) with QAE), as the paper's own cost model in Sec. II E states. The comparison should fix a target total infidelity, include statistical error for the proposed method, and compare total numbers of shots (or total circuit depth) for both approaches. As written, even if the LCLF approximation were exact, the total measurement budget for the proposed method could exceed direct readout once each overlap is sampled to the required precision.
  2. [Sec. IV A and Fig. 7(e)] The scalability claim that infidelity is independent of n is demonstrated only for the idealized case of known optimal centers and decay rates, not for the full optimization used to find those parameters. The text states that for n=9 and n=10 the final infidelity remained above 0.01 because the optimal peak positions were not found in 1 out of 10 trials. This means the readout protocol has a non-vanishing failure probability at the largest sizes tested, yet the paper's summary claim does not mention this caveat. The authors should either report the full distribution of infidelities including failed trials, show the success probability as a function of n, or clearly condition the scalability claim on convergence of the classical optimizer.
  3. [Sec. II E and Fig. 7(f)] The metric m_iter, the number of unique overlap evaluations, is not by itself a quantum resource metric. The paper argues that m_iter is approximately independent of n, but the actual quantum cost is c_tgt * m_iter / epsilon^2 (or /epsilon with QAE), with no specification of the precision epsilon per overlap used in the numerics. The apparent flatness of Fig. 7(f) therefore does not, by itself, imply that the method scales favorably relative to direct readout; the total cost includes both the number of overlap evaluations and the shot budget per evaluation, and the latter depends on the required accuracy of the LCLF fit, which in turn depends on the approximation error floor. The authors should present a total-resource comparison for a fixed target infidelity, including the per-overlap shot count and the contribution of the LCLF approximation error.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (8)] The displayed stationary condition contains an error: the final term 'edℓ′ = 0' is not part of the equation and should be removed; also the summation index ℓ' is used inconsistently in the same line.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The index structure of the derivative formula is unclear; it should specify which indices are summed and which are fixed, to avoid confusion between the derivative index ℓ and the summation indices.
  3. [Sec. IV A, Fig. 7 caption] The caption should explicitly state which curves include statistical error and which do not, and the proposed method should be shown with error bars or shaded confidence intervals in all panels, not only in the direct-measurement baseline.
  4. [Sec. IV A, paragraph on n=9 and n=10] The sentence 'In these cases, the optimal peak positions were not found in only 1 out of 10 trials' is ambiguous: it could mean one failed trial in each of the two sizes, or one failure total, or that the final infidelity stayed above 0.01 in only those failed trials. Please reword to state exactly how many of the ten trials converged for each n.
  5. [Sec. IV B and Fig. 8(c)] Please define precisely what counts as one 'quantum overlap calculation' in m_iter, including whether cached evaluations are reused, because this quantity is the basis for the claimed superiority over direct measurement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the readout is an explicit least-squares/Rayleigh fit to a declared Lorentzian ansatz; no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's core step (Sec. II B, Eqs. (7)-(12)) is to maximize the overlap F(d,a,k_c)=|<psi_tgt|psi_LCLF>|^2 over coefficients, decay rates, and centers. This is a fit by explicit declaration ('assuming the target quantum state is well approximated by a linear combination of n_loc discrete LF states', Eq. (6)), so the overlap value is the objective, not an independently predicted quantity. The quantum overlap evaluations b(a_l,kc_l)=<psi_tgt|L;a_l,kc_l> are inputs to a generalized eigenvalue problem; the eigenvector giving the largest eigenvalue is by construction the best LCLF approximation in the declared span. This is a mathematical exactness, not a reduction of the output to the input. The self-citations [30,31] supply the LF basis construction and a Rayleigh-quotient gradient identity; both are standard linear algebra and are not used to forbid alternatives or to import a uniqueness theorem. The numerical demonstrations use a target deliberately chosen from Ref. [30], but the infidelity values are computed from the actual reconstruction, not from a fitted parameter claimed as a prediction. The Sec. IV B comparison counts m_iter overlap evaluations against 2^n amplitudes; whether this is the right cost metric (each overlap needs sampling or QAE depth) is a correctness or scope question, not a circularity. Therefore no step satisfies the evidentiary standard of 'Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction' or 'fitted parameter renamed as prediction'.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are proposed. The free parameters are the fitted parameters of the approximation (number of bases, decay rates, centers, coefficients) plus hand-chosen hyperparameters. The axioms are the structural assumptions about the target state, the reliability of the overlap circuits, the Lorentzian form of the QPE spectrum, and the optimization heuristics.

free parameters (6)
  • number of Lorentzian bases n_loc = 3
    Chosen for the numerical demonstration; the method's cost and accuracy depend on it.
  • decay rates a_l for each Lorentzian = 0.360, 1.672, 0.490
    Fitted to the target state to maximize fidelity in Sec. IV A.
  • peak centers kc_l = 0.25, 0.4375, 0.5 (times N)
    Fitted via Metropolis optimization to the target state in Sec. IV A.
  • expansion coefficients d_l = 0.380, -0.517, 1.272
    Obtained from the generalized eigenvalue problem for the fitted centers and decay rates.
  • Lorentzian broadening eta in QPE-LF example = 0.3
    Set as a known input parameter for the synthetic XAS spectrum in Sec. IV B; assumed known in advance.
  • optimization hyperparameters beta0, alpha0, alpha1 = beta0=100 or 150, alpha0=2n-5, alpha1=15
    Chosen by hand for the Metropolis and update schedules in Sec. IV A.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The target quantum state is well approximated by a linear combination of n_loc discrete Lorentzian states (LCLF).
    Stated in Sec. II B as the starting assumption; if false, the reconstruction error floor is large and the measurement savings vanish.
  • standard math Quantum overlaps between the target and Lorentzian states can be measured with controllable precision using SWITCH and SWAP tests.
    Invoked in Secs. II B and II C; these are standard quantum circuits.
  • domain assumption The QPE-sampling probability distribution with the Slater-function input is approximately a sum of Lorentzians (Eq. 33).
    Used in Sec. III to justify fitting XAS spectra with squared Lorentzians; relies on the approximation in Appendix D.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite differences reliably approximate the quantum-overlap derivatives for optimizing decay rates.
    The derivative circuit is 'not clear' (Sec. II B), so finite differentiation is used without error analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Metropolis search with the given cooling schedule finds the optimal peak centers.
    Heuristic; the paper reports failure to converge in 1 of 10 trials for n=9 and n=10 (Sec. IV A).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum State Readout via Overlap-Based Feature Extraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NAM3C6V

@misc{pith2026250508613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum State Readout via Overlap-Based Feature Extraction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NAM3C6V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08613}
}
read the original abstract

In this study, a method for quantum state readout and feature extraction is developed using quantum overlap-based fitting of function expansions. The approach involves the quantum calculation of quantum overlaps between a target quantum state and a linear combination of basis functions, such as Lorentzian functions, via measurements, and classical optimization of the parameters in the function expansion. This method is particularly effective in scenarios where the quantum state is approximately represented as a continuous function and expressed as a combination of localized functions. The proposed method involves a quantum state readout for both the raw and absolute values of the amplitudes in the quantum state. Preliminary numerical simulations were performed to reconstruct the grid-based wave function and X-ray absorption spectra from a quantum state, and the results show that our proposed method requires fewer measurements compared to conventional quantum state measurement techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08613 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of the proposed quantum-classical hybrid readout methodology. The quantum overlaps between a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Quantum circuit for calculating inner product [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The quantum circuit used to evaluate overlap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Quantum circuit for the AA operator for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Quantum circuit for the XAS spectra based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Quantum circuit for evaluating the overlap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) Target state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (a) Probability distribution of target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Quantum circuit for shifted discrete LF state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The overlap between two LFs in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The overlap between two squared of LFs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Quantum circuit for evaluating the element of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Fourier space readout method for efficiently recovering functions encoded in quantum states

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Measuring a quantum state's Fourier coefficients, rather than its grid-point amplitudes, recovers smooth amplitude-encoded functions with shot count independent of grid size, preserving quantum speedups for CAE readout.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Vogel and H

    K. Vogel and H. Risken, Determination of quasiproba- bility distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase, Phys. Rev. A40, 2847 (1989)

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Hradil, Quantum-state estimation, Phys

    Z. Hradil, Quantum-state estimation, Phys. Rev. A55, R1561 (1997)

    1997

  3. [3]

    Amiet and S

    J.-P. Amiet and S. Weigert, Reconstructing a pure state of a spin s through three stern-gerlach measurements, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General32, 2777 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Dodonov and V

    V. Dodonov and V. Man’ko, Positive distribution descrip- tion for spin states, Physics Letters A229, 335 (1997)

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, Measurement of qubits, Phys. Rev. A64, 052312 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    Blume-Kohout, Optimal, reliable estimation of quan- tum states, New Journal of Physics12, 043034 (2010)

    R. Blume-Kohout, Optimal, reliable estimation of quan- tum states, New Journal of Physics12, 043034 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Gross, Y.-K

    D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, S. T. Flammia, S. Becker, and J. Eis- ert, Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 150401 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Cramer, M

    M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y.-K. Liu, Efficient quantum state tomography, Na- ture Communications1, 149 (2010)

    2010

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Bonet-Monroig, R

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Babbush, and T. E. O’Brien, Nearly optimal measurement scheduling for partial to- mography of quantum states, Phys. Rev. X10, 031064 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Hamamura and T

    I. Hamamura and T. Imamichi, Efficient evaluation of quantum observables using entangled measurements, npj Quantum Information6, 56 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    W. J. Huggins, K. Wan, J. McClean, T. E. O’Brien, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Nearly optimal quantum al- gorithm for estimating multiple expectation values, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 240501 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Inoue, K

    W. Inoue, K. Aoyama, Y. Teranishi, K. Kanno, Y. O. Nakagawa, and K. Mitarai, Almost optimal measurement scheduling of molecular hamiltonian via finite projective plane, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013096 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    S. Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states, in Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Sympo- sium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2018 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018) p. 325–338

    2018

  6. [14]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Efficient estima- tion of pauli observables by derandomization, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 030503 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Hadfield, S

    C. Hadfield, S. Bravyi, R. Raymond, and A. Mezzacapo, Measurements of quantum hamiltonians with locally- biased classical shadows, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics391, 951 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    A. A. Akhtar, H.-Y. Hu, and Y.-Z. You, Scalable and Flexible Classical Shadow Tomography with Tensor Net- works, Quantum7, 1026 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    I. Cong, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum convolu- tional neural networks, Nature Physics15, 1273 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Pesah, M

    A. Pesah, M. Cerezo, S. Wang, T. Volkoff, A. T. Sorn- borger, and P. J. Coles, Absence of barren plateaus in quantum convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041011 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Budiutama, S

    G. Budiutama, S. Daimon, H. Nishi, R. Kaneko, T. Oht- suki, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Channel attention for quan- tum convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. A110, 012447 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    C. A. Williams, S. Scali, A. A. Gentile, D. Berger, and O. Kyriienko, Addressing the Readout Problem in Quantum Differential Equation Algorithms with Quantum Scientific Machine Learning, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.14259 (2024), arXiv:2411.14259 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum al- gorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Y. Cao, A. Papageorgiou, I. Petras, J. Traub, and S. Kais, Quantum algorithm and circuit design solving the pois- son equation, New Journal of Physics15, 013021 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    D. W. Berry, High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical47, 105301 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    J.-P. Liu, H. Øie Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs, Efficient quantum al- gorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2026805118 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Huang, H

    X. Huang, H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, Y. Kawada, and Y.- i. Matsushita, A probabilistic imaginary-time evolu- tion quantum algorithm for advection-diffusion equa- tion: Explicit gate-level implementation and comparisons to quantum linear system algorithms, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kassal, S

    I. Kassal, S. P. Jordan, P. J. Love, M. Mohseni, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Polynomial-time quantum algorithm for the simulation of chemical dynamics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105, 18681 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Kosugi, Y

    T. Kosugi, Y. Nishiya, H. Nishi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Imaginary-time evolution using forward and backward real-time evolution with a single ancilla: First-quantized eigensolver algorithm for quantum chemistry, Phys. Rev. Research4, 033121 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Nishiya, H

    Y. Nishiya, H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, and Y.-i. Mat- sushita, Orbital-free density functional theory with first-quantized quantum subroutines, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.16191 (2024), arXiv:2407.16191 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kosugi, S

    T. Kosugi, S. Daimon, H. Nishi, S. Tsuneyuki, and Y.- i. Matsushita, Qubit encoding for a mixture of localized functions, Phys. Rev. A110, 062407 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Kosugi, X

    T. Kosugi, X. Huang, H. Nishi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Tensor decomposition technique for qubit encoding of maximal-fidelity Lorentzian orbitals in real-space quan- tum chemistry, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.07211 (2025), arXiv:2501.07211 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 090502 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Kosugi and Y.-i

    T. Kosugi and Y.-i. Matsushita, Linear-response func- tions of molecules on a quantum computer: Charge and spin responses and optical absorption, Phys. Rev. Re- search2, 033043 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Iaconis, S

    J. Iaconis, S. Johri, and E. Y. Zhu, Quantum state 14 preparation of normal distributions using matrix prod- uct states, npj Quantum Information10, 15 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Manabe and Y

    H. Manabe and Y. Sano, The State Preparation of Multivariate Normal Distributions using Tree Ten- sor Network, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.12067 (2024), arXiv:2412.12067 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Klco and M

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Minimally entangled state preparation of localized wave functions on quantum com- puters, Phys. Rev. A102, 012612 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Quantum fingerprinting, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 167902 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Chamorro-Posada and J

    P. Chamorro-Posada and J. C. Garcia-Escartin, The switch test for discriminating quantum evolutions, Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical56, 355301 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. Brandao, and G. K. Chan, Deter- mining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum com- puter using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nature Physics16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Seki and S

    K. Seki and S. Yunoki, Quantum power method by a superposition of time-evolved states, PRX Quantum2, 010333 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    N. H. Stair, R. Huang, and F. A. Evangelista, A multiref- erence quantum krylov algorithm for strongly correlated electrons, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 2236 (2020), pMID: 32091895

    2020

  34. [42]

    Brassard and P

    G. Brassard and P. Hoyer, An exact quantum polynomial-time algorithm for simon’s problem, inPro- ceedings of the Fifth Israeli Symposium on Theory of Computing and Systems(1997) pp. 12–23

    1997

  35. [43]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computa- tion, Phys. Rev. A52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    Maslov, Advantages of using relative-phase toffoli gates with an application to multiple control toffoli opti- mization, Phys

    D. Maslov, Advantages of using relative-phase toffoli gates with an application to multiple control toffoli opti- mization, Phys. Rev. A93, 022311 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Suzuki, S

    Y. Suzuki, S. Uno, R. Raymond, T. Tanaka, T. On- odera, and N. Yamamoto, Amplitude estimation without phase estimation, Quantum Information Processing19, 75 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Tanaka, Y

    T. Tanaka, Y. Suzuki, S. Uno, R. Raymond, T. Onodera, and N. Yamamoto, Amplitude estimation via maximum likelihood on noisy quantum computer, Quantum Infor- mation Processing20, 293 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Grinko, J

    D. Grinko, J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, and S. Woerner, Itera- tive quantum amplitude estimation, npj Quantum Infor- mation7, 52 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Giurgica-Tiron, I

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, I. Kerenidis, F. Labib, A. Prakash, and W. Zeng, Low depth algorithms for quantum ampli- tude estimation, Quantum6, 745 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Manzano, D

    A. Manzano, D. Musso, and ´A. Leitao, Real quantum amplitude estimation, EPJ Quantum Technology10, 2 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Rall and B

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

    2023

  43. [51]

    Ghosh, K

    K. Ghosh, K. Yogaraj, G. Agliardi, P. Sabino, M. Fern´ andez-Campoamor, J. Bernab´ e-Moreno, G. Cor- tiana, O. Shehab, and C. O’Meara, Energy risk anal- ysis with dynamic amplitude estimation and piecewise approximate quantum compiling, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Inhomogeneous electron gas, Phys. Rev.136, B864 (1964)

    1964

  45. [53]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Self-consistent equations in- cluding exchange and correlation effects, Phys. Rev.140, A1133 (1965)

    1965

  46. [54]

    and X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) spectra [33, 55, 56]. B. Lorentzian fitting of XAS spectra Next, we describe a method for estimating the proba- bility distribution obtained by QPE in Eq. (33) using the LF state. Eq. (29) is rewritten as |ψQPE⟩= N−1X k=0 eck|eϕk⟩⊗|k⟩ n ...

  47. [55]

    Kosugi and Y.-i

    T. Kosugi and Y.-i. Matsushita, Construction of green’s functions on a quantum computer: Quasiparticle spectra of molecules, Phys. Rev. A101, 012330 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Fomichev, K

    S. Fomichev, K. Hejazi, I. Loaiza, M. S. Zini, A. Delgado, A.-C. Voigt, J. E. Mueller, and J. M. Arrazola, Simulat- ing x-ray absorption spectroscopy of battery materials on a quantum computer, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.11015 (2024), arXiv:2405.11015 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Sakuma, S

    R. Sakuma, S. Kanno, K. Sugisaki, T. Abe, and N. Ya- mamoto, Entanglement-assisted phase-estimation algo- rithm for calculating dynamical response functions, Phys. Rev. A110, 022618 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Nishiya, H

    Y. Nishiya, H. Nishi, Y. Couzini´ e, T. Kosugi, and Y.- i. Matsushita, First-quantized adiabatic time evolution for the ground state of a many-electron system and the optimal nuclear configuration, Phys. Rev. A109, 022423 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Okuyama, T

    T. Okuyama, T. Sonobe, K.-i. Kawarabayashi, and M. Yamaoka, Binary optimization by momentum anneal- ing, Phys. Rev. E100, 012111 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Taillefumier, D

    M. Taillefumier, D. Cabaret, A.-M. Flank, and F. Mauri, X-ray absorption near-edge structure calculations with the pseudopotentials: Application to the k edge in dia- mond andα-quartz, Phys. Rev. B66, 195107 (2002)

    2002

  53. [61]

    S.-P. Gao, C. J. Pickard, M. C. Payne, J. Zhu, and J. Yuan, Theory of core-hole effects in 1score-level spec- troscopy of the first-row elements, Phys. Rev. B77, 115122 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    Gougoussis, M

    C. Gougoussis, M. Calandra, A. Seitsonen, C. Brouder, A. Shukla, and F. Mauri, Intrinsic charge transfer gap in nio from Nik-edge x-ray absorption spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B79, 045118 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    M. Fang, S. Fenner, F. Green, S. Homer, and Y. Zhang, Quantum Lower Bounds for Fanout, arXiv e-prints , quant-ph/0312208 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0312208 [quant-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Takahashi and S

    Y. Takahashi and S. Tani, Power of uninitialized qubits in shallow quantum circuits, Theoretical Computer Science 851, 129 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Nishi, T

    H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, S. Hirose, T. Okayama, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Demonstration of quantum phase estimation for x-ray absorption spectra, to be published. (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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