pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.21667 · v3 · submitted 2025-08-29 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.DS· cs.NA· math.NA

Block Encoding of Sparse Matrices via Coherent Permutation

Abhishek Setty This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 20:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.DScs.NAmath.NA
keywords block encodingsparse matricesquantum circuitscoherent permutationcombinatorial optimizationmulti-controlled gatesquantum algorithmshardware connectivity
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

A unified framework simplifies block encoding of sparse matrices for quantum hardware through coherent permutations and combinatorial optimization for control assignment.

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

The paper introduces a method to construct block encodings of sparse matrices more efficiently in quantum circuits. It focuses on reducing the cost of multi-controlled operations, reordering amplitudes in superposition, and respecting limited hardware connections between qubits. The key step links the problem to combinatorial optimization so that control qubits can be assigned systematically to obey nearest-neighbor rules. Coherent permutation operators then perform the needed reordering without destroying the superposition. The result is explicit, lower-depth circuits for structured sparse matrices that can feed into algorithms such as quantum singular value transformation and linear solvers.

Core claim

The central claim is that a connection to combinatorial optimization enables systematic assignment of control qubits to satisfy nearest-neighbor connectivity constraints for structured sparse matrices, while coherent permutation operators preserve superposition and allow structured amplitude reordering, together yielding simplified block-encoding circuits with explicit gate-level implementations and reduced control overhead.

What carries the argument

coherent permutation operators that preserve superposition while enabling structured amplitude reordering, combined with combinatorial optimization for assigning control qubits to nearest-neighbor connections

If this is right

  • Multi-controlled X gate overhead drops for block encodings of structured sparse matrices.
  • Circuit depth decreases for quantum singular value transformation and Hamiltonian simulation that rely on these encodings.
  • Hardware connectivity constraints become easier to satisfy without additional swap layers.
  • Explicit gate decompositions become available for a wider class of sparse matrices that appear in linear solvers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same permutation technique could be applied to improve block encodings of non-structured matrices by relaxing the combinatorial step.
  • Lower gate counts may reduce accumulated error in quantum linear system solvers that use the encoded matrices.
  • The approach might generalize to other sparse operators in quantum machine learning models that require efficient matrix access.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that combinatorial optimization can systematically assign control qubits to meet nearest-neighbor connectivity for the sparse matrices considered, and that coherent permutations can be realized with low overhead while preserving superposition.

What would settle it

A direct gate-count or depth comparison on a concrete structured sparse matrix, such as a tridiagonal Toeplitz matrix, showing that the new construction uses more or equal total gates than a standard block-encoding method that does not use coherent permutations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21667 by Abhishek Setty.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Circuit structure for block encoding of sparse ma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: a Circuit illustration of a data item (a) from m data qubits being selected and shifted by one column in an 8 × 8 matrix formed by three matrix qubits (|j⟩). The control values for the left shift (La1) are t1 = 1, while for the right shift (Ra1), they are t1 = 0. The binary vector ⃗a (as defined in Eq. (2)) is placed above the circle with a slash to indicate the control values according to the qubit orderi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Shifting data items (a, b) towards left (t1 = 1)/right (t1 = 0) in block encoded matrix formed by three matrix qubits |j⟩. The MCX gates are grouped together re￾sulting in three compositions Q MCX. gates as 2 nQ−1 j=0 MCX(a j , t) acting on P + 1 qubits (P > 1), where the target X j |t⟩ is on qubit t ∈ [0, P] and control C is on remaining P qubits. Let the control of 2 n computational basis states (|a j ⟩)… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a Circuit representation of combined shift operation with right-ended permutation of amplitudes A_PERMUTE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a Circuit representation for block encoding with coherent permutation. The circuit is initialized with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Circuit representation for block encoding complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: a Visual representation of the example sparse matrix structure (see Section 9.2). The data items are denoted by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Block encoding of sparse matrices underpins powerful quantum algorithms such as quantum singular value transformation, Hamiltonian simulation, and quantum linear solvers, yet its efficient gate-level realization for general sparse matrices remains a major challenge. We introduce a unified framework that addresses key obstacles including the overhead of multi-controlled X (MCX) gates, amplitude reordering, and hardware connectivity, enabling simplified block encoding constructions with explicit gate-level implementations. Central to our approach is a connection to combinatorial optimization, which enables systematic assignment of control qubits to satisfy nearest-neighbor connectivity constraints, along with coherent permutation operators that preserve superposition while enabling structured amplitude reordering. We demonstrate our methods on structured sparse matrices, achieving systematic reductions in control overhead and circuit depth. Our framework bridges the gap between theoretical formulations and hardware-efficient quantum circuit implementations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a unified framework for block encoding sparse matrices that tackles overhead from multi-controlled X gates, amplitude reordering, and hardware connectivity constraints. It connects the problem to combinatorial optimization to systematically assign control qubits satisfying nearest-neighbor connectivity, and employs coherent permutation operators to enable structured amplitude reordering while preserving superposition. The approach is demonstrated on structured sparse matrices, with claims of simplified constructions, explicit gate-level implementations, and systematic reductions in control overhead and circuit depth. The goal is to bridge theoretical block-encoding methods (supporting QSVT, Hamiltonian simulation, and quantum linear solvers) with hardware-efficient quantum circuits.

Significance. If the central constructions and reductions hold with supporting derivations and evidence, the work could meaningfully advance practical quantum algorithm implementations by reducing circuit depth and gate overhead for block encodings on connectivity-constrained hardware. The link to combinatorial optimization for qubit assignment represents a potentially reusable technique for quantum circuit compilation problems.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: the central claim that a connection to combinatorial optimization enables systematic assignment of control qubits to satisfy nearest-neighbor connectivity while reducing MCX overhead is load-bearing, yet the abstract supplies no explicit formulation of the optimization problem (e.g., graph mapping, bandwidth minimization, or qubit routing), no complexity bound, and no concrete example or scaling analysis showing that the assignment step is tractable and actually removes rather than relocates overhead.
  2. Abstract / main text: the framework claims simplified block encoding constructions with explicit gate-level implementations and reductions in control overhead and circuit depth for structured sparse matrices, but the provided text contains no derivations, error analysis, numerical evidence, or concrete circuit diagrams to support these reductions; without them the central claim cannot be verified.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract introduces terms such as 'coherent permutation operators' and 'structured sparse matrices' without immediate definitions or small illustrative examples; these should be clarified early in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and verifiability of the central claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: the central claim that a connection to combinatorial optimization enables systematic assignment of control qubits to satisfy nearest-neighbor connectivity while reducing MCX overhead is load-bearing, yet the abstract supplies no explicit formulation of the optimization problem (e.g., graph mapping, bandwidth minimization, or qubit routing), no complexity bound, and no concrete example or scaling analysis showing that the assignment step is tractable and actually removes rather than relocates overhead.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, as a high-level summary, does not contain the full mathematical details of the optimization problem. The main text explicitly formulates the control-qubit assignment as a graph bandwidth minimization problem (equivalent to a restricted qubit routing task on a line topology) and provides a concrete example for a structured sparse matrix together with a scaling argument showing that the assignment remains tractable for matrices with bounded sparsity. To address the referee's concern directly, we have revised the abstract to include a concise statement of the optimization formulation and a reference to the tractability result. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract / main text: the framework claims simplified block encoding constructions with explicit gate-level implementations and reductions in control overhead and circuit depth for structured sparse matrices, but the provided text contains no derivations, error analysis, numerical evidence, or concrete circuit diagrams to support these reductions; without them the central claim cannot be verified.

    Authors: The main text supplies explicit gate-level decompositions of the coherent permutation operators and the connectivity-constrained MCX implementations, together with analytic derivations of the resulting circuit depth and gate-count reductions for the structured sparse matrices considered. Because the constructions are exact unitary operators, they introduce no additional approximation error beyond the standard block-encoding overhead; this is stated in the text. To make verification easier, we have added concrete circuit diagrams and a summary table comparing resource counts to standard approaches. We acknowledge that further numerical benchmarks on larger instances would strengthen the empirical support and have included a brief discussion of planned extensions. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework relies on external combinatorial optimization without self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim introduces a connection between block encoding and combinatorial optimization for control qubit assignment plus coherent permutations for amplitude reordering. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that reduce any prediction or uniqueness result back to the paper's own inputs by construction. The derivation chain remains independent of the target claims and does not exhibit self-definitional, fitted-input, or load-bearing self-citation patterns. This is the expected honest non-finding for a methods paper whose core steps depend on external optimization techniques rather than internal redefinition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on the existence of efficient coherent permutation operators and the solvability of the control-assignment problem via combinatorial optimization; both are introduced without independent evidence in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Quantum circuit model with nearest-neighbor connectivity constraints on hardware.
    Invoked when the paper addresses hardware connectivity for control qubits.
invented entities (1)
  • coherent permutation operators no independent evidence
    purpose: Preserve superposition while enabling structured amplitude reordering during block encoding.
    New operator family introduced to solve the amplitude-reordering obstacle.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5659 in / 1225 out tokens · 49506 ms · 2026-05-18T20:27:29.304814+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Quantum Linear Systems Pathway for Solving Differential Equations

    quant-ph 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A quantum algorithm pathway using block encoding and QSVT to solve differential equations, with demonstrations on heat and Burgers' equations plus hardware resource estimates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Gilyén, Y

    A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, N. Wiebe, Quan- tumsingularvaluetransformationandbeyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, in: Proceedings of the 51st annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of com- puting, 2019, pp. 193–204

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, S. Lloyd, Quan- tum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Physical review letters 103 (15) (2009) 150502

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, R. D. Somma, Simulating hamilto- nian dynamics with a truncated taylor series, Physical review letters 114 (9) (2015) 090502

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    A.M.Childs, R.Kothari, R.D.Somma, Quan- tum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision, SIAM Journal on Computing 46 (6) (2017) 1920–1950

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    A. M. Childs, N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simula- tion using linear combinations of unitary oper- ations, arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.5822 (2012)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    F. G. Brandao, K. M. Svore, Quantum speed- ups for solving semidefinite programs, in: 2017 IEEE58thAnnualSymposiumonFoundations of Computer Science (FOCS), IEEE, 2017, pp. 415–426. 14

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Van Apeldoorn, A

    J. Van Apeldoorn, A. Gilyén, S. Gribling, R. de Wolf, Quantum sdp-solvers: Better up- per and lower bounds, in: 2017 IEEE 58th An- nual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), IEEE, 2017, pp. 403–414

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Babbush, C

    R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, H.Neven, Encodingelectronicspectrainquan- tum circuits with linear t complexity, Physical Review X 8 (4) (2018) 041015

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Salton, M

    B.D.Clader, A.M.Dalzell, N.Stamatopoulos, G. Salton, M. Berta, W. J. Zeng, Quantum resources required to block-encode a matrix of classical data, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 3 (2023) 1–23

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Gilyén, S. Jeffery, The power of block-encoded matrix pow- ers: improved regression techniques via faster hamiltonian simulation, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.01973 (2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Camps, R

    D. Camps, R. Van Beeumen, Fable: Fast approximate quantum circuits for block- encodings, in: 2022 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE), IEEE, 2022, pp. 104–113

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Kuklinski, B

    P. Kuklinski, B. Rempfer, S-fable and ls- fable: Fast approximate block-encoding algo- rithms for unstructured sparse matrices, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04234 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Li, X.-M

    Z. Li, X.-M. Zhang, C. Yang, G. Zhang, Binary tree block encoding of classical matrix, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05624 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Camps, L

    D. Camps, L. Lin, R. Van Beeumen, C. Yang, Explicit quantum circuits for block encod- ings of certain sparse matrices, SIAM Jour- nal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 45 (1) (2024) 801–827

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Sünderhauf, E

    C. Sünderhauf, E. Campbell, J. Camps, Block- encoding structured matrices for data input in quantum computing, Quantum 8 (2024) 1226

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    C. Yang, H. Yao, Z. Li, Z. Fan, G. Zhang, J.Liu, Blockencodingofsparsestructuredma- trices coming from ocean acoustics in quantum computing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18007 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    V. V. Shende, S. S. Bullock, I. L. Markov, Syn- thesis of quantum logic circuits, in: Proceed- ings of the 2005 Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, 2005, pp. 272–275

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    M. Amy, D. Maslov, M. Mosca, M. Roet- teler, A meet-in-the-middle algorithm for fast synthesis of depth-optimal quantum circuits, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided De- sign of Integrated Circuits and Systems 32 (6) (2013) 818–830

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    On the qubit routing problem

    A. Cowtan, S. Dilkes, R. Duncan, A. Kra- jenbrink, W. Simmons, S. Sivarajah, On the qubit routing problem, arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.08091 (2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  20. [20]

    Chong, M

    P.Murali, J.M.Baker, A.Javadi-Abhari, F.T. Chong, M. Martonosi, Noise-adaptive compiler mappings for noisy intermediate-scale quan- tum computers, in: Proceedings of the twenty- fourth international conference on architec- tural support for programming languages and operating systems, 2019, pp. 1015–1029

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computation, Physical review A 52 (5) (1995) 3457

    work page 1995

  22. [22]

    D. M. Miller, D. Maslov, G. W. Dueck, A transformation based algorithm for reversible logic synthesis, in: Proceedings of the 40th an- nual Design Automation Conference, 2003, pp. 318–323

    work page 2003

  23. [23]

    Maslov, Advantages of using relative-phase toffoli gates with an application to multiple control toffoli optimization, Physical Review A 93 (2) (2016) 022311

    D. Maslov, Advantages of using relative-phase toffoli gates with an application to multiple control toffoli optimization, Physical Review A 93 (2) (2016) 022311

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    N. M. Linke, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, S. Deb- nath, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, C. Monroe, Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (13) (2017) 3305–3310

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Beals, S

    R. Beals, S. Brierley, O. Gray, A. W. Harrow, S. Kutin, N. Linden, D. Shepherd, M. Stather, Efficient distributed quantum computing, Pro- ceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyA:Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 469 (2153) (2013) 20120686. 15

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    S. A. Kutin, D. P. Moulton, L. M. Smithline, Computation at a distance, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0701194 (2007)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

    R. W. Hamming, Error detecting and error correcting codes, The Bell system technical journal 29 (2) (1950) 147–160

    work page 1950

  28. [28]

    J. Li, S. Lin, K. Yu, G. Guo, Quantum k- nearest neighbor classification algorithm based on hamming distance, Quantum Information Processing 21 (1) (2022) 18

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Transformation of quantum states using uniformly controlled rotations

    M. Mottonen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, M. M. Salomaa, Transformation of quantum states using uniformly controlled rotations, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0407010 (2004)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  30. [30]

    Möttönen, J

    M. Möttönen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, M. M. Salomaa, Quantum circuits for gen- eral multiqubit gates, Physical review letters 93 (13) (2004) 130502

    work page 2004

  31. [31]

    R. Iten, R. Colbeck, I. Kukuljan, J. Home, M. Christandl, Quantum circuits for isome- tries, Physical Review A 93 (3) (2016) 032318

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Zhang, T

    X.-M. Zhang, T. Li, X. Yuan, Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Imple- mentations and applications, Physical Review Letters 129 (23) (2022) 230504

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    H. W. Kuhn, The hungarian method for the assignment problem, Naval research logistics quarterly 2 (1-2) (1955) 83–97

    work page 1955

  34. [34]

    J.Munkres, Algorithmsfortheassignmentand transportationproblems, Journalofthesociety for industrial and applied mathematics 5 (1) (1957) 32–38

    work page 1957

  35. [35]

    Burkard, M

    R. Burkard, M. Dell’Amico, S. Martello, As- signment problems: revised reprint, SIAM, 2012

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    L. A. Wolsey, Integer programming, John Wi- ley & Sons, 2020

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Schrijver, et al., Combinatorial opti- mization: polyhedra and efficiency, Vol

    A. Schrijver, et al., Combinatorial opti- mization: polyhedra and efficiency, Vol. 24, Springer, 2003

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    Korte, J

    B. Korte, J. Vygen, Combinatorial optimiza- tion: theory and algorithms, Springer, 2008

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    D. F. Crouse, On implementing 2d rectangu- lar assignment algorithms, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 52 (4) (2016) 1679–1696

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, I. L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algo- rithms, PRX quantum 2 (4) (2021) 040203. 16

    work page 2021