Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Another generalization of Hadamard test: Optimal sample complexities for learning functions on the unitary group

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any square-integrable function of a unitary, the optimal query count equals the size of its unreachable high-degree tail.

desk verdict The average-bias query complexity theorem is solid and genuinely new; the PAC 'optimality' claims in Section 5.2 are not supported and should be rewritten. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05710 v2 pith:X3ZJG6MP submitted 2025-09-06 quant-ph cs.CC

Daiki Suruga This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.CC MSC 81P68
keywords unitaryestimationHadamardtestsamplecomplexityPeter-WeyldecompositionSchur-WeyldualityPAClearningquantumtomographyrepresentationtheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims a complete answer to a basic question: given black-box access to a controlled version of an unknown $d\times d$ unitary $U$, how many queries are needed to estimate any square-integrable function $f(U)$? The answer is that the minimum number of queries under Haar-averaged bias is exactly (up to constants) $\operatorname{Rep}_{\varepsilon}(f)$, a quantity that counts how much of $f$'s $L^2$ mass lives in high-degree irreducible components that no $m$-query algorithm can touch. This unifies tasks like estimating traces, determinants, and individual representation matrix elements under one framework. The same machinery yields sample-optimal PAC estimators for polynomial functions of the unitary.

What carries the argument

The quantity $\operatorname{Rep}_{\varepsilon}(f)$, defined via the orthogonal projection $Q_{\leq 2m}^{\perp}$ onto polynomials of degree $>2m$ in the entries of $g$ and $\bar{g}$; the lower-bound argument that any $m$-query estimator's expectation lies in $Q_{\leq 2m}$; and the G-Hadamard algorithm, a generalized Hadamard test that uses $2m$ controlled-$g$ queries to produce an unbiased estimate of any inner product of the form $\langle \phi | (\bigoplus_{n,n'} g^{\otimes n} \otimes g^{* \otimes n'} \otimes I_E) | \psi \rangle$, allowing any polynomial of degree $\leq m$ to be estimated with $m$ queries.

What would settle it

Take $f(g)=\det(g)$ on $U(d)$ with $d\ge 3$ and fixed small $\varepsilon$. The theorem predicts $B_{\varepsilon}(f)=\Theta(d)$. An explicit estimator that uses $o(d)$ controlled-$g$ queries while achieving Haar-averaged bias $< \varepsilon$ would refute the lower bound; a search of existing determinant-estimation literature for such an estimator, or a construction of one, would settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $B_{\varepsilon}(f)$, the minimum number of generalized queries needed to estimate $f$ with averaged squared bias below $\varepsilon$, is $\Theta(\operatorname{Rep}_{\varepsilon}(f))$, where $\operatorname{Rep}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is the largest $m$ such that the projection of $f$ onto the orthogonal complement of the degree-$\leq 2m$ polynomial subspace $Q_{\leq 2m}(U(d))$ has $L^2$ norm at least $\varepsilon$. In words: an estimator that uses $m$ queries produces an answer whose expectation is a polynomial of total degree at most $2m$ in the matrix entries of $g$ and $\bar{g}$, so it cannot see the part of $f$ living in higher-degree Peter-Weyl sectors. The optimal strategy is therefore to approximate $f$ by its best degree-$2m$ polynomial projection and estimate that projection with a generalized Ha

Load-bearing premise

The characterization relies on the query model in which each query applies only a degree-$1$ polynomial unitary in $g$ and $\bar{g}$; if a query could instead apply a nonlinear function of $g$ directly, the polynomial degree bound (and the whole lower bound) would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Estimating det(U) requires Θ(d) queries under small averaged bias, matching the new lower bound; trace requires only O(1).
  • Matrix elements of irreducible representations π_λ(g)_{i,j} have optimal query complexity Θ((m+m̄)/ε² · log(1/δ)) in the PAC model.
  • The framework gives a unified way to derive sample-optimal estimators for any continuous function on U(d), not just previously studied special cases.
  • The polynomial-degree lower bound extends to algorithms with access to U, U*, C-U* as well, so the characterization is robust to query-model extensions.
  • Full unitary tomography (Θ(d²) samples) is recovered as the special case where f is the whole matrix, showing why tomography is exponentially hard in qubits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The theorem suggests a general principle: in the Haar-averaged bias model, query complexity of estimating f is governed not by the complexity of f's evaluation but by the decay of its Fourier (Peter-Weyl) tail; one could test this against known algorithms for phase estimation and other tasks where the function has low-degree truncations.
  • The characterization might extend to other compact groups, e.g., the orthogonal or symplectic groups, where Peter-Weyl and Schur-Weyl analogues exist; the paper's proof structure is group-theoretic and would likely carry over, changing only the labeling of irreps.
  • The PAC-optimality results for specific functions rely on the L1 norm of the coefficient matrix A; finding smaller-norm representations of f could yield even better constants, suggesting a resource theory of representability for unitary functions.
  • The G-Hadamard test can be seen as a primitive for building unbiased estimators for arbitrary bounded functions via polynomial approximation; in practice, one might combine it with Fourier sampling over the unitary group to estimate f without classical polynomial truncation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies estimation of an unknown unitary g∈U(d) using controlled-g queries, for a general target function f∈L²(U(d)). It defines B_ε(f) as the optimal query complexity under Haar-averaged squared bias, and Q_{ε,δ}(f) under the PAC criterion. The central result (Theorem 1) states B_ε(f)=Θ(Rep_ε(f)), where Rep_ε(f)=max{m : ||Q^⊥_{≤2m} f||²_{L2} ≥ ε}; the lower bound uses the polynomial method, and the upper bound uses a generalized Hadamard test that gives an unbiased estimator for any polynomial of degree at most m with O(m) queries. The paper then gives a PAC upper bound O(||A||₁² log(1/δ)/ε² · m) for a polynomial f expressed as a trace, with applications to monomials, the normalized trace, and entries of irreducible representations, and claims these upper bounds are PAC-optimal.

Significance. If Theorem 1 is correct, it gives a clean representation-theoretic characterization of average-case query complexity, with a lower bound that holds in a fairly powerful query model and an explicit unitary algorithm achieving the bound. The generalized Hadamard test is a useful primitive. However, the PAC-optimality claims are not supported: standard quantum amplitude estimation improves the ε-dependence in the same query model, so the abstract and Section 5.2 need qualification. The average-bias theorem is unaffected by this criticism.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5.2, Propositions 7–8, Fact 6] The PAC 'optimal' claims are not established and, if meant uniformly in ε, are false. The estimator in Proposition 1 is produced by a coherent circuit (G-Hadamard); applying quantum amplitude estimation to that circuit estimates the relevant measurement probability to accuracy ε with O(1/ε) uses of the circuit, each use containing O(m) controlled-g queries, and O(log 1/δ) repetitions give Q_{ε,δ}(f)=O(m log(1/δ)/ε) for the functions in Section 5.2 (g_{11}^α, Tr g/d, irrep entries). This improves the ε^{-2} dependence in Section 5.2. Fact 6 gives only Q_{ε,δ}(f) ≥ B_{ε'}(f) with ε'=(2δ||f||_sup+ε)^2; for fixed ε,δ this supplies Ω(m) but no Ω(ε^{-2}) lower bound. Thus the statement that the Section 5.2 upper bounds are tight can at most mean optimality in the degree parameter for fixed ε,δ, not PAC optimality in ε. Theorem 1 is unaffected because amplitude estimation reduces statistical er
  2. [Proposition 1 proof] The bounded-range claim for the G-Hadamard estimator is incorrect. In the proof of Estimation, the estimator takes values 4-(1+i), 4i-(1+i), and -(1+i), so its magnitude is not bounded by 1; for example |4-(1+i)|=√10. Consequently the unbiased estimator for f in Proposition 1 does not 'take values on the interval [−||A||₁, ||A||₁]' as claimed. The Hoeffding argument still works with C₀=c||A||₁ for a fixed constant c, so the stated O(||A||₁² log(1/δ)/ε²) scaling is unchanged up to constants, but the proof as written needs a corrected range bound.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Proposition 6 proof] The displayed inequality uses d where α is meant: 'for any d∈N₀' should be 'for any α∈N₀'.
  2. [Section 1.1.1 vs Definition 2] The first informal definition of Bias_G leaves the square implicit. Make the squared-bias convention explicit in both places to avoid confusion.
  3. [Figures 1 and 2] The circuit diagrams are low-resolution and the labels (S^{-b}, C_n(g), C'_n(g), Toffoli structure) are hard to read. Please redraw them or add a more detailed textual description.
  4. [Abstract / Section 5.2] The abstract lists determinant among the applications, but Section 5.2 gives no explicit PAC determinant result. Specify whether determinant is treated only under the average-bias criterion, or add the corollary.
  5. [Proposition 5 proof] The scheme is said to use 4m₀ controlled-g operations, while a single Estimation call with m₀ uses 2m₀ queries. If the factor 4 is intentional (e.g., two calls for real and imaginary parts), this should be stated; the Θ result tolerates the constant, but the count should be justified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a proven equivalence between an intrinsic Fourier-tail quantity and query complexity, not a definitional or fitted reduction.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and not circular. Theorem 1's lower bound (Prop. 3) relies only on the model fact that the expectation of an m-query algorithm is a polynomial of degree at most 2m (Definition 1 and the definition of the estimator), so projecting f - E[est] onto the orthogonal complement yields ||Q^⊥_{≤2m} f||² ≤ Bias_G(A,f). This is a proved inequality, not an identity built into the definition of Rep_ε(f). The upper bound (Prop. 5) constructs the G-Hadamard estimator for the projection Q_{≤2m0} f, uses SVD to represent the polynomial, and shows the average bias equals ||Q^⊥_{≤2m0} f||² < ε via Parseval; the construction is explicit and uses only controlled-g queries. Rep_ε(f) is defined intrinsically from the L^2 tail of f, not from query counts, so the matching B_ε(f)=Θ(Rep_ε(f)) is genuine content. The PAC section is also not circular: it gives Hoeffding-concentration upper bounds for explicit unbiased estimators, and its lower bounds are inherited from the average-bias theorem via Fact 6; even if the phrase 'tight for sufficiently small constants ε, δ' could be challenged on ε-dependence, that is a correctness/optimality concern, not a reduction of the output to the input. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no fitted parameters renamed as predictions; the representation-theoretic facts are standard external theorems stated and used with proofs or references.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no parameters. It relies on standard representation theory and a crafted query model. The only 'chosen' quantity is m_0 = Rep_ε(f)+1, which is derived, not fitted.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Peter-Weyl theorem: L^2(U(d)) decomposes as a direct sum of matrix element spaces of irreps
    Used in Fact 3 and throughout to define Q_{≤2m} and Rep_ε.
  • standard math Schur-Weyl duality (mixed), Facts 4 and 5
    Used to characterize polynomial spaces Q_{≤m} and to construct the A matrix for irrep elements.
  • domain assumption Query model: each query applies a unitary whose entries are degree-1 polynomials in g and ḡ (Definition 1)
    This is the computational model; the lower bound relies on it.
  • domain assumption Upper bounds use only controlled-g; state preparations U_φ, U_ψ and the intertwiner W are available for free
    Sample complexity counts C-U queries, not gates; constructing W (Schur transform) may be expensive but is not counted.
  • standard math Hoeffding's inequality for bounded random variables
    Used in Proposition 1 for the PAC upper bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Another generalization of Hadamard test: Optimal sample complexities for learning functions on the unitary group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X3ZJG6MP

@misc{pith2026250905710,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Another generalization of Hadamard test: Optimal sample complexities for learning functions on the unitary group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X3ZJG6MP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05710}
}
abstract

Estimating properties of unknown unitary operations is a fundamental task in quantum information science. While full unitary tomography requires a number of samples to the unknown unitary scaling linearly with the dimension (implying exponentially with the number of qubits), estimating specific functions of a unitary can be significantly more efficient. In this paper, we present a unified framework for the sample-efficient estimation of arbitrary square integrable functions $f: \mathbf{U}(d) \to \mathbb{C}$, using only access to the controlled-unitary operation. We first provide a tight characterization of the optimal sample complexity when the accuracy is measured by the averaged bias over the unitary $\mathbf{U}(d)$. We then construct a sample-efficient estimation algorithm that becomes optimal under the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) learning criterion for various classes of functions. Applications include optimal estimation of matrix elements of irreducible representations, the trace, determinant, and general polynomial functions on $\mathbf{U}(d)$. Our technique generalize the Hadamard test and leverage tools from representation theory, yielding both lower and upper bound on sample complexity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05710 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The definition of the algorithm G-Hadamard. 𝐻 𝐴𝑛 𝐵𝑛 Toffoli Toffoli 𝑔 𝐶𝑛 ሺ𝑔ሻ = |0⟩ |0⟩ 𝐻 𝐶𝑛 𝐷𝑛 Toffoli Toffoli 𝑔 𝐶𝑛 ′ ሺ𝑔ሻ = |0⟩ |0⟩ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The definition of the components Cn(g) and C ′ n (g). Algorithm 1 (Generalized Hadamard test: G-Hadamard). For any positive integers m and d, a binary bit b ∈ {0, 1}, let An, Bn, Cn and Dn (1 ≤ n ≤ m) be quantum systems whose dimensions satisfy dim An = dim Cn = 2, dim Bn = dim Dn = d, and define A := O 1≤n≤m An, B := O 1≤n≤m Bn, C := O 1≤n≤m Cn, and D := O 1≤n≤m Dn. Additionally, for any φ, ψ ∈ C (2m) d , let Uφ an… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ac\' n, E

    A. Ac\' n, E. Jan\'e, and G. Vidal. Optimal estimation of quantum dynamics. Phys. Rev. A , 64:050302, 2001

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Agerskov and K

    J. Agerskov and K. Splittorff. Quantum determinant estimation. Phys. Rev. A , 112:012407, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Quantum lower bounds by polynomials

    Robert Beals, Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, Michele Mosca, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials. Journal of the ACM (JACM) , 48(4):778--797, 2001

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Quantum complexity of the kronecker coefficients

    Sergey Bravyi, Anirban Chowdhury, David Gosset, Vojt e ch Havl \' c ek, and Guanyu Zhu. Quantum complexity of the kronecker coefficients. PRX Quantum , 5(1):010329, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Tensor product representations of general linear groups and their connections with brauer algebras

    Georgia Benkart, Manish Chakrabarti, Thomas Halverson, Robert Leduc, Chanyoung Y Lee, and Jeffrey Stroomer. Tensor product representations of general linear groups and their connections with brauer algebras. Journal of Algebra , 166(3):529--567, 1994

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    Classical and quantum algorithms for characters of the symmetric group

    Sergey Bravyi, David Gosset, Vojtech Havlicek, and Louis Schatzki. Classical and quantum algorithms for characters of the symmetric group. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12579 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation

    Gilles Brassard, Peter H yer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. Contemporary Mathematics , 305:53--74, 2002

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    A general quantum duality for representations of groups with applications to quantum money, lightning, and fire

    John Bostanci, Barak Nehoran, and Mark Zhandry. A general quantum duality for representations of groups with applications to quantum money, lightning, and fire. In 57th Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 201--212, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Representations of compact Lie groups , volume 98

    Theodor Br \"o cker and Tammo Tom Dieck. Representations of compact Lie groups , volume 98. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

    2003

  2. [10]

    Cubitt, Raul Garcia-Patron, Ashley Montanaro, Stasja Stanisic, and Maarten Stroeks

    Laura Clinton, Toby S. Cubitt, Raul Garcia-Patron, Ashley Montanaro, Stasja Stanisic, and Maarten Stroeks. Quantum phase estimation without controlled unitaries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21517 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D'Ariano, P. Perinotti, and M. F. Sacchi. Efficient use of quantum resources for the transmission of a reference frame. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 93:180503, 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D'Ariano, and M. F. Sacchi. Optimal estimation of group transformations using entanglement. Phys. Rev. A , 72:042338, Oct 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    Lecture notes on quantum algorithms

    Andrew M Childs. Lecture notes on quantum algorithms

  6. [14]

    A fourier analysis framework for approximate classical simulations of quantum circuits

    Cristina Cirstoiu. A fourier analysis framework for approximate classical simulations of quantum circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13856 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    o ran Johansson, Vitaly Shumeiko, and G \

    Miroslav Dob s \' c ek, G \"o ran Johansson, Vitaly Shumeiko, and G \"o ran Wendin. Arbitrary accuracy iterative quantum phase estimation algorithm using a single ancillary qubit: A two-qubit benchmark. Phys. Rev. A , 76(3):030306, 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    Introduction to representation theory , volume 59

    Pavel I Etingof, Oleg Golberg, Sebastian Hensel, Tiankai Liu, Alex Schwendner, Dmitry Vaintrob, and Elena Yudovina. Introduction to representation theory , volume 59. American Mathematical Soc., 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    In the shadow of the hadamard test: Using the garbage state for good and further modifications

    Paul K Faehrmann, Jens Eisert, and Richard Kueng. In the shadow of the hadamard test: Using the garbage state for good and further modifications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15913 , 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Representation theory: a first course , volume 129

    William Fulton and Joe Harris. Representation theory: a first course , volume 129. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Dmitry A. Grinko. Mixed Schur--Weyl duality in quantum information . PhD thesis, Ph. D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics

    Andr \'a s Gily \'e n, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In 51st annual symposium on theory of computing , pages 193--204, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Topological obstructions to quantum computation with unitary oracles

    Zuzana Gavorov\'a, Matan Seidel, and Yonathan Touati. Topological obstructions to quantum computation with unitary oracles. Phys. Rev. A , 109:032625, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Parallel treatment of estimation of su (2) and phase estimation

    Masahito Hayashi. Parallel treatment of estimation of su (2) and phase estimation. Physics Letters A , 354(3):183--189, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Quantum information theory

    Masahito Hayashi. Quantum information theory . Springer, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Quantum detection and estimation theory

    Carl W Helstrom. Quantum detection and estimation theory. Journal of Statistical Physics , 1(2):231--252, 1969

    1969

  17. [25]

    Query-optimal estimation of unitary channels in diamond distance

    Jeongwan Haah, Robin Kothari, Ryan O'Donnell, and Ewin Tang. Query-optimal estimation of unitary channels in diamond distance. In 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages 363--390, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Stephen P. Jordan. Fast quantum algorithms for approximating some irreducible representations of groups. 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem

    A Yu Kitaev. Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem. arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026 , 1995

    1995 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Robust calibration of a universal single-qubit gate set via robust phase estimation

    Shelby Kimmel, Guang Hao Low, and Theodore J Yoder. Robust calibration of a universal single-qubit gate set via robust phase estimation. Phys. Rev. A , 92(6):062315, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Theory of point estimation

    Erich Leo Lehmann and George Casella. Theory of point estimation . Springer, 1998

    1998

  22. [30]

    Quantum algorithms for representation-theoretic multiplicities

    Mart\' n Larocca and Vojtech Havlicek. Quantum algorithms for representation-theoretic multiplicities. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 135:010602, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Direct estimation of minimum gate fidelity

    Yiping Lu, Jun Yan Sim, Jun Suzuki, Berthold-Georg Englert, and Hui Khoon Ng. Direct estimation of minimum gate fidelity. Phys. Rev. A , 102:022410, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Mande and Ronald de Wolf

    Nikhil S. Mande and Ronald de Wolf. Tight Bounds for Quantum Phase Estimation and Related Problems . In 31st Annual European Symposium on Algorithms , volume 274, pages 81:1--81:16, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    The random matrix theory of the classical compact groups , volume 218

    Elizabeth S Meckes. The random matrix theory of the classical compact groups , volume 218. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    A generalization of schur--weyl duality with applications in quantum estimation

    Iman Marvian and Robert W Spekkens. A generalization of schur--weyl duality with applications in quantum estimation. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 331(2):431--475, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition . Cambridge University Press, 10th edition, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    The mixed schur transform: efficient quantum circuit and applications

    Quynh T Nguyen. The mixed schur transform: efficient quantum circuit and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01613 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Polynomial time classical versus quantum algorithms for representation theoretic multiplicities

    Greta Panova. Polynomial time classical versus quantum algorithms for representation theoretic multiplicities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20253 , 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Peter and H

    F. Peter and H. Weyl. Die vollst \"a ndigkeit der primitiven darstellungen einer geschlossenen kontinuierlichen gruppe. Mathematische Annalen , 97(1):737--755, 1927

    1927

  31. [39]

    Faster phase estimation

    Krysta M Svore, Matthew Hastings, and Michael Freedman. Faster phase estimation. Quantum Information and Computation , 14:306--328, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Unitary property testing lower bounds by polynomials

    Adrian She and Henry Yuen. Unitary property testing lower bounds by polynomials. In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference , 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Are controlled unitaries helpful? arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00055 , 2025

    Ewin Tang and John Wright. Are controlled unitaries helpful? arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00055 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Quantum tomography using state-preparation unitaries

    Joran van Apeldoorn, Arjan Cornelissen, Andr \'a s Gily \'e n, and Giacomo Nannicini. Quantum tomography using state-preparation unitaries. In 34th Annual Symposium on Discrete Algorithms , pages 1265--1318, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Wang, Robin Brown, Taylor L

    Iria W. Wang, Robin Brown, Taylor L. Patti, Anima Anandkumar, Marco Pavone, and Susanne F. Yelin. Sum-of-squares inspired quantum metaheuristic for polynomial optimization with the hadamard test and approximate amplitude constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07774 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Quantum-classical algorithms for skewed linear systems with an optimized hadamard test

    Bujiao Wu, Maharshi Ray, Liming Zhao, Xiaoming Sun, and Patrick Rebentrost. Quantum-classical algorithms for skewed linear systems with an optimized hadamard test. Phys. Rev. A , 103:042422, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Optimal universal programming of unitary gates

    Yuxiang Yang, Renato Renner, and Giulio Chiribella. Optimal universal programming of unitary gates. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 125(21):210501, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Zenchuk, Georgii A

    Alexander I. Zenchuk, Georgii A. Bochkin, Wentao Qi, Asutosh Kumar, and Junde Wu. Quantum algorithms for calculating determinant and inverse of matrix and solving linear algebraic systems. Quantum Information & Computation , 25(2):195--215, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.