Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 85 references

Fast quantum computation with all-to-all Hamiltonians

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 All-to-all Hamiltonians can simulate any two-qubit gate in O(1/N) time and any depth-D circuit in O(D/√N), polynomially beating circuit-by-circuit simulation.

desk verdict Serious, detailed theory paper with two real speedups; the √N circuit speedup is solid, while the 1/N gate result needs a clear caveat about K-local realizability. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.25345 v2 pith:24MAQFVT submitted 2025-09-29 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Chao Yin This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords all-to-allHamiltoniansquantumcircuitsimulationHolstein-PrimakofftransformationMølmer-SørensenschemeLieb-RobinsonboundsfastscramblingHamiltoniancomputation
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 argues that programmable all-to-all Hamiltonians, in which every pair of qubits can interact with O(1) strength, can process quantum information far faster than the standard circuit simulation, where each gate takes O(1) time. Its first result shows that a two-qubit gate can be realized in O(1/N) time on N qubits, up to an N^δ overhead and with polynomially small error, by using K-local couplings and treating the ancilla ensemble as a squeezed bosonic mode. This immediately yields O(1/N)-time generation of GHZ states, W states, and multiply-controlled Toffoli gates, and shows that a known Lieb-Robinson speed limit for strongly long-range interactions is tight. Its second result shows that any depth-D circuit can be simulated in O(D/√N) time by a randomized 2-local Hamiltonian protocol with constant space overhead, giving an operational proof of fast scrambling for dense Hamiltonians. If correct, the paper establishes that interaction time, not circuit depth, is the right complexity measure for all-to-all platforms.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Dicke manifold of the N ancilla qubits: the permutation-symmetric subspace behaves as a large semiclassical spin, and near its north pole the Holstein-Primakoff transformation maps it to a boson mode with position x̂=(B+B†)/√2. The 1/N protocol squeezes this boson, displaces it conditionally on a data qubit, reverses the squeezing to amplify the signal, and then applies a potential V(x̂) that is flat at the two displaced wavepackets, imprinting a π/2 phase in time ~1/N; truncating the boson operators to polynomial order K produces the K-local Hamiltonian. The √N protocol uses a Mølmer-Sørensen-style sequence (a four-pulse trapped-ion scheme in which qubits acquire a geometric phase from a shared bosonic mode) whose phase-space trajectory returns the ancillae to their initial state while accumulating a geometric phase proportional to Z0Z−1, and a Fourier transform of the ancilla operators focuses O($N^{2}$) weak couplings into O(N) couplings of strength √N. Suzuki product formulas upgrade the primitive to polynomially small error, and a worst-case-to-average-case reduction with random on-site Pauli rotations removes the restriction to typical inputs.

What would settle it

Simulate or derive the effective Hamiltonian of a Floquet/Magnus sequence built from 2-local couplings and check whether its K-body coefficients obey the $N^{{2-k}}$ normalization with a constant K; if the required K-local Hamiltonian cannot be generated this way, then Theorem 3.1's O(1/N) gate protocol does not apply to pairwise-coupled platforms. A complementary numerical test is to implement the Theorem 3.1 pulse sequence for N≈$10^{3}$ to $10^{4}$ with locality K=4 or 6 and verify that the error follows the claimed $N^{{-δ_T(√K-1)/2}}$ decay rather than saturating at a constant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that all-to-all Hamiltonians are polynomially stronger than all-to-all quantum circuits per unit time. Theorem 3.1 proves that a controlled-Z gate (and hence any two-qubit gate) can be simulated with error $N^{{2-δ_T(√K-1)/2}}$ in time T≤$N^{{-1+δ_T}}$ using K-local all-to-all interactions with the normalization $N^{{2-k}}$ per k-body term; Theorem 5 proves that any depth-D circuit is simulated with error $cD^{2}$ $N^{{-2κ}}$ in time T≤ĉ $N^{{-1/2+δ_T}}$ D using 2-local interactions and random on-site fields. From these follow O(1/N)-time preparation of GHZ and W states and the multiply-controlled Toffoli gate, a matching of the strongly long-range Lieb-Robinson bound T=Ω($N^{{α/d-1}}$), and an operational proof of the fast-scrambling conjecture for dense Hamiltonian ensembles. The proofs rely on non-commuting Hamiltonians rather than on parallelizing commuting gates: squeezing, controlled displacement, geometric phases, and Fourier focusing of spin-wave modes.

Load-bearing premise

The 1/N gate protocol requires K-local all-to-all couplings with the specific $N^{{2-k}}$ normalization and a large N-independent locality K, and the paper does not prove that such K-local terms can be generated from ordinary pairwise interactions; if that generation fails, the O(1/N) speedup does not transfer to pairwise-only hardware.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GHZ states, W states, and multiply-controlled Toffoli gates can be produced in O(1/N) time with constant space overhead, roughly N times faster than previous global-gate constructions.
  • Any depth-D circuit can be simulated in O(D/√N) time using only 2-local all-to-all couplings plus randomness, so a Shor-style factoring computation would run in Hamiltonian time ~√N rather than circuit depth Θ(N).
  • The strongly long-range Lieb-Robinson bound for α<d is tight: information can propagate through power-law systems as fast as the T=Ω(N^{α/d-1}) lower bound allows, and the protocol saturates it.
  • Random dense Hamiltonians scramble quantum information in O(1/N) or O(1/√N) time, providing an operational proof of fast scrambling for those ensembles.
  • With enough ancilla space, any circuit can be simulated in arbitrarily short Hamiltonian time T∼N_d N^{-1+δ_T}D, giving a clean space-time tradeoff.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If pairwise-only platforms cannot realize the required K-local terms, the 1/N speedup might still survive heuristically through 2-local squeezing protocols like the author's earlier GHZ encoding; a direct numerical test on ~10^3 qubits would distinguish a genuine scaling advantage from a proof artifact.
  • Inference: The space-for-time tradeoff suggests a general resource theory for Hamiltonian computation in which ancillary qubits function as a clock or bus; this may be relevant for error correction or near-term devices where decoherence sets a hard time budget.
  • Inference: The Fourier-focusing trick is not tied to circuit simulation and could be adapted to other distributed tasks, such as preparing graph states or implementing non-local gates in modular quantum processors, though the paper does not explore these applications.
  • Inference: The fast-scrambling implication is testable in current all-to-all platforms by measuring out-of-time-ordered correlators at times ~1/√N or ~1/N; if the predicted scrambling times are observed, the paper's model of Hamiltonian computation would be validated experimentally.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the computational power of time-dependent all-to-all Hamiltonians. Its first main result (Theorem 1) claims that any two-qubit gate can be simulated in time O(1/N) up to an N^δ factor with polynomially small error, using K-local all-to-all Hamiltonians with a specific N^{2-k} normalization; corollaries include fast preparation of GHZ and W states, fast multiply-controlled Toffoli gates, and saturation of Lieb-Robinson bounds for strongly long-range interactions. Its second main result (Theorem 5) proves that any depth-D quantum circuit can be simulated in time O(D/√N) with constant space overhead and polynomially small average error, using only 2-local interactions and randomized on-site fields. The proofs in the Supplemental Material are detailed and self-contained, including explicit error estimates, truncation bounds for the Holstein-Primakoff mapping, and normalization checks for the Hamiltonians.

Significance. If the central results hold in the form stated, they would establish a polynomial speedup of Hamiltonian evolution over circuit depth for all-to-all architectures, which is a significant conceptual advance in Hamiltonian complexity. The paper's strengths include unusually detailed and self-contained proofs, explicit polynomial error bounds for the 1/N protocol, a fully 2-local randomized √N-speedup protocol, an exact Mølmer-Sørensen-type two-qubit gate in O(1/√N) time, and a tightness argument for a known Lieb-Robinson bound. However, the headline 1/N result is proved only for K-local Hamiltonians with K sufficiently large, and the generation of such K-local terms from 2-local pairwise interactions is explicitly left open in the Supplemental Material. The √N result is 2-local and does not inherit this fragility, so the paper contains a substantial robust contribution even if the 1/N claims are restricted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; SM §7.1, Eq. (1.2)] The O(1/N) two-qubit-gate result is proved only for K-local all-to-all Hamiltonians of the form (1.2), with K a sufficiently large constant, and not for pairwise 2-local Hamiltonians. SM §7.1 explicitly states: "it is unclear whether the desired form of K-local Hamiltonians like in Theorem 3.1 could be generated by a 2-local protocol." Since the abstract and introduction frame the result as applying when "each pair of qubits interacts with O(1) strength," there is a load-bearing gap: Corollaries 2, 3, and 4, together with the Lieb-Robinson saturation claim, inherit this unresolved assumption. The authors should either prove that the assumed K-local terms can be generated from pairwise couplings with the same normalization, or restrict all O(1/N) claims to the K-local model and state clearly that the pairwise-interaction case remains open.
  2. [Theorem 1; SM Theorem 3.1, Eqs. (2) and (3.2)] The statement of Theorem 1, "For any constants δ_T∈(0,1) and locality K≥2," is incompatible with the displayed error bound ε = N^{2−δ_T(√K−1)/2}. For fixed K such as K=2 and small δ_T, the exponent is positive and the error grows with N, so the bound is not polynomially small. The text after Eq. (2) acknowledges that a sufficiently large K is needed, but this condition is absent from the theorem statement and from the abstract. The theorem should be restated with the explicit condition that K is chosen large enough relative to δ_T (or the claim should be weakened accordingly).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6.29)] The notation Z_i for a Fourier-transformed data-qubit operator conflicts with the notation Z_i for the i-th ancilla qubit in other parts of the paper; using a different symbol would improve readability.
  2. [SM §2.2, Lemma 2.2] In the bound of Lemma 2.2, the condition |α|>5e^{|ζ|} is stated, but the proof text occasionally suppresses the dependence of constants on |ζ|; making the constant dependence explicit would help the reader verify the uniformity claimed in later uses.
  3. [Throughout] The phrase "polynomially small error" is used in Theorem 1 and Corollaries without always specifying whether the exponent is uniform in the other parameters; this should be made uniform and explicit, especially because the error exponent in (3.2) depends on K.
  4. [Corollary 3] The space-for-time tradeoff claims that the time T can be made to vanish by choosing N≫N_d, but the normalization (1.2) depends on N_tot; the sentence could acknowledge that fixing the total qubit count and increasing N necessarily reduces N_d, so the statement is an asymptotic tradeoff rather than a literal vanishing time for fixed N_tot.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular steps: both main speedups are derived from explicit constructions, with only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The central claims are derived self-containedly rather than by reducing to their own inputs. Theorem 3.1 in the Supplemental Material proves the O(1/N) CZ simulation by an explicit construction: Holstein-Primakoff mapping, bosonic squeezed states, truncation-error bounds, and normalization estimates, yielding the claimed error bound (3.2) from these ingredients rather than from the target statement. Theorem 5 and SM Theorem 6.1 likewise construct an explicit Mølmer-Sørensen-like qubit protocol with Fourier-mode data coupling, Suzuki product formulas, and a worst-case-to-average-case reduction, with the error bound (8)/(6.3) accumulated from Magnus truncation estimates. The self-citations, such as [36] for the heuristic GHZ protocol and [41] for a scrambling lower bound, are used as motivation or external benchmarks; the rigorous proofs rest on arguments supplied in the paper. The paper even re-proves the K-local Lieb-Robinson bound in SM Section 5.4, so the tightness claim is checked against an independently derived lower bound rather than an imported uniqueness theorem. Non-circular caveats exist but do not create circularity: SM Section 7.1 explicitly leaves open whether the required K-local all-to-all form can be generated from 2-local couplings, which narrows the physical scope of the 1/N result; and Theorem 1's displayed error is only polynomially small for sufficiently large K despite the statement allowing any K >= 2. Neither is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, nor an equation reused as its own input. The score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

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

All free parameters listed are proof-construction constants, not fitted to data. The central claims require choosing δ_T and κ first, then K for Theorem 1 or p for Theorem 5 large enough; the exponents δ_α, δ_ζ, M are set inside the proof to make error bounds polynomial. The axioms are mostly standard mathematical tools plus the physical Hamiltonian-form assumption; the weakest is the realizability of K-local terms, which the paper itself leaves open in Section 7.1.

free parameters (6)
  • δ_T (time exponent) = user-specified constant in (0,1) for Theorem 1, (0,1/2) for Theorem 5
    Controls the time scaling T <= N^{-1+δ_T} and T <= c N^{-1/2+δ_T} D; chosen by hand in the theorem statements, not fitted to data.
  • δ_α (displacement exponent) = δ_T/(2M+2), SM Eq (3.36)
    Chosen in the proof of Theorem 3.1 to balance coherent-state displacement against truncation error; a proof parameter.
  • δ_ζ (squeezing exponent) = M δ_α, SM Eq (3.36)
    Sets squeezing strength e^{2ζ}=N^{1-2δ_α-2δ_ζ}; chosen to keep the two coherent states well separated.
  • M (flat potential degree) = floor(2√K)+1, SM Eq (3.50)
    Order of the polynomial in the displacement-controlled-Z Hamiltonian; chosen large enough to suppress the DCZ error.
  • K (Hamiltonian locality) = sufficiently large constant, K ≫ κ^2 for error N^{-κ}
    The 1/N protocol requires K-body interactions; the error bound only becomes 1/poly(N) for large constant K.
  • p (Suzuki product order) = intended integer about (κ+1)/δ_T + 3, SM Eq (6.47)
    Sets the accuracy of the high-order product formula in the √N protocol; the SM formula appears typoed as half-integer.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hamiltonian form (1.2): K-local all-to-all couplings with N^{2-k} normalization and arbitrary time dependence
    Central to both main results; physically motivated by cavities and ions, but restricts experimental applicability; introduced in SM Eq (1.2).
  • domain assumption Arbitrarily strong instantaneous single-qubit rotations h_i^a(t)
    Assumed following prior work; justified via interaction picture, but real control fields are bounded; stated in the remark after Eq (1).
  • standard math Holstein-Primakoff mapping and truncation at order K-2 is accurate for low-boson-number states
    Standard transformation; truncation error bounded in SM Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3 and used throughout the proof of Theorem 3.1.
  • standard math Wick's theorem for displaced squeezed states
    Used to compute expectation values of the bosonic wavepackets in the squeezing protocol; SM Prop 2.1.
  • standard math Random bitstring concentration: Fourier mode strengths are O(N^{δ_T/2}) except with exponentially small probability
    Hoeffding bound in SM Eq (6.25); the probabilistic ingredient that makes the Fourier-focused protocol work for almost all inputs.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical realizability of K-local interactions with the assumed N^{2-k} normalization
    The 1/N protocol depends on this. SM Section 7.1 sketches Floquet and Magnus generation but explicitly states it is unclear whether the desired K-local form can be generated from 2-local Hamiltonians.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast quantum computation with all-to-all Hamiltonians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24MAQFVT

@misc{pith2026250925345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast quantum computation with all-to-all Hamiltonians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24MAQFVT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.25345}
}
abstract

All-to-all interactions arise naturally in many areas of theoretical physics and across diverse experimental quantum platforms, motivating a systematic study of their information-processing power. Assuming each pair of qubits interacts with $\mathrm{O}(1)$ strength, programmable time-dependent all-to-all Hamiltonians can simulate arbitrary all-to-all quantum circuits, performing quantum computation in time proportional to the circuit depth. We show that this naive correspondence is far from optimal: all-to-all Hamiltonians can process information on much shorter timescales. First, we prove that any two-qubit gate can be simulated by all-to-all Hamiltonians on $N$ qubits in time $\mathrm{O}(1/N)$ (up to factor $N^{\delta}$ with an arbitrarily small constant $\delta>0$), with polynomially small error $1/\mathrm{poly}(N)$. Immediate consequences include: 1) Certain $\mathrm{O}(N)$-qubit unitaries and entangled states, such as the multiply-controlled Toffoli gate and the GHZ and W states, can be generated in $\mathrm{O}(1/N)$ time; 2) Information could propagate in a fast way that saturates known Lieb-Robinson bounds in strongly power-law interacting systems. Our second main result proves that any depth-$D$ quantum circuit can be simulated by a randomized Hamiltonian protocol in time $T=\mathrm{O}(D/\sqrt{N})$, with constant space overhead and polynomially small error. Applied to circuit ensembles forming unitary designs and pseudorandom unitaries, this simulation gives an operational proof of the fast scrambling conjecture for dense Hamiltonians. The techniques underlying our results depart fundamentally from the existing literature on parallelizing commuting gates: We rely crucially on non-commuting Hamiltonians and draw on diverse physical ideas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.25345 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of the idea for Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Sketch of the idea for Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. For our first main result Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. High-level sketch of the protocol ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) We apply the Mølmer-Sørensen scheme for qubits, which yields an exact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_3.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Universal quantum circuit for two-qubit transformations with three controlled-not gates,

    G. Vidal and C. M. Dawson, “Universal quantum circuit for two-qubit transformations with three controlled-not gates,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 010301 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    From bound (6.25), we have max ( |Zi|,| ~Zi| ) ≤NδT/2, ∀i (6.32) when choosing each data qubit Zj =±1 in completely random, with exponentially small failure probability e−Ω(NδT)

    Define HY = ∑ N i=1HY i similarly with HY i = i 2 √ 2 √ N ~Zi⊗X+ i + H.c., (6.30) and ~Zi := 1√ N N∑ k=1 ei 2πk N iZτ(−k), (6.31) Note that in contrast to (6.21), Zi is labeled by the ancilla index i and represents a Fourier mode of the data qubits. From bound (6.25), we have max ( |Zi|,| ~Zi| ) ≤NδT/2, ∀i (6.32) when choosing each data qubit Zj =±1 in co...

    work page

  3. [3]

    GHZ subspace

    FAST TWO-QUBIT GATE IN 1/N TIME Theorem 3.1. Consider a system of Ntot qubits where N of them are ancilla qubits set initially to the all-zero state |0⟩, and the others are data qubits. For any constants δT∈ (0, 1), ctot≥ 1 and locality K≥ 2, the following holds for sufficiently large N and Ntot≤ctotN. (3.1) For two data qubits 0,−1, there exists a protoc...

  4. [4]

    Logical operator for two coherent states Proof of Proposition 3.2

    TECHNICAL INGREDIENTS FOR THE 1/N TIME PROTOCOL 4.1. Logical operator for two coherent states Proof of Proposition 3.2. Because L is an odd function of X, we can focus on the + case of (3.29) due to X↔−X symmetry. We writeL =Xf (x) where x :=X/X (4.1) and f(x) = M∑ m=0 Cmx2m+1. (4.2) We chooseCm so that f(1) = 1, and f(k)(1) = 0, ∀k = 1, 2,··· ,M. (4.3) I...

  5. [5]

    wavefunction

    IMPLICATIONS OF THE 1/N TIME PROTOCOL 5.1. Trading space with time for any quantum circuit A direct consequence of Theorem 3.1 is that, by paying a space overhead N/Nd, one can speed up any quantum circuit evolution on Nd qubits by roughly the same factor N/Nd using all-to-all Hamiltonians. Intriguingly, this tradeoff approximately preserves the spacetime...

  6. [6]

    Assa Auerbach, Interacting electrons and quantum magnetism (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    DISCUSSION ON THE FORM OF THE HAMILTONIAN 7.1. K-locality Although √ N-speed-up protocols in Section 6 apply to 2-local Hamiltonians, the N-speed-up protocol Theorem 3.1 needs K-local ones with a sufficiently large constant K in order for the simulation error ϵ = Θ(N−κ) to be as small as a desired polynomial. Here we argue that this K-locality requirement...

    work page

  8. [8]

    shows a simple 2-local protocol to fast generate the GHZ state, which has very small infidelity < 10−3 for∼ 103 number of qubits. Crucially, the protocol utilizes spin squeezing [69, 70] generated by 2-local Hamiltonians, which is well established in numerics but escapes from rigorous treatments to the best of our knowledge. Although the infidelity in [4]...

    work page

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Photon-number distributions for fields with gaussian wigner functions,

    S. Chaturvedi and V. Srinivasan, “Photon-number distributions for fields with gaussian wigner functions,” Phys. Rev. A 40, 6095–6098 (1989)

    1989

  2. [10]

    Locality and digital quantum simulation of power-law interactions,

    Minh C. Tran, Andrew Y. Guo, Yuan Su, James R. Garrison, Zachary Eldredge, Michael Foss-Feig, Andrew M. Childs, and Alexey V. Gorshkov, “Locality and digital quantum simulation of power-law interactions,” Phys. Rev. X 9, 031006 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Complexity of implementing trotter steps,

    Guang Hao Low, Yuan Su, Yu Tong, and Minh C. Tran, “Complexity of implementing trotter steps,” PRX Quantum 4, 020323 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Fast and accurate greenberger-horne-zeilinger encoding using all-to-all interactions,

    Chao Yin, “Fast and accurate greenberger-horne-zeilinger encoding using all-to-all interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 130604 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    Peter W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,” SIAM Review 41, 303–332 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Efficient preparation of dicke states,

    Jeffery Yu, Sean R. Muleady, Yu-Xin Wang, Nathan Schine, Alexey V. Gorshkov, and Andrew M. Childs, “Efficient preparation of dicke states,” (2024), arXiv:2411.03428 [quant-ph]

    2024

  7. [15]

    Marlan O Scully and M Suhail Zubairy, Quantum optics (Cambridge university press, 1997)

    1997

  8. [16]

    Photon distribution for one-mode mixed light with a generic gaussian wigner function,

    V. V. Dodonov, O. V. Man’ko, and V. I. Man’ko, “Photon distribution for one-mode mixed light with a generic gaussian wigner function,” Phys. Rev. A 49, 2993–3001 (1994)

    1994

  9. [17]

    Sequential generation of projected entangled-pair states,

    Zhi-Yuan Wei, Daniel Malz, and J. Ignacio Cirac, “Sequential generation of projected entangled-pair states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 010607 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Peter Hoyer and Robert Spalek, Theory of Computing 1, 81–103 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Constant-cost implementations of clifford operations and multiply- controlled gates using global interactions,

    Sergey Bravyi, Dmitri Maslov, and Yunseong Nam, “Constant-cost implementations of clifford operations and multiply- controlled gates using global interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230501 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Collapse of the hierarchy of constant-depth exact quantum circuits,

    Yasuhiro Takahashi and Seiichiro Tani, “Collapse of the hierarchy of constant-depth exact quantum circuits,” computational complexity 25, 849–881 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Fixed-point quantum search,

    Lov K. Grover, “Fixed-point quantum search,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150501 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    Long-range interacting quantum systems,

    Nicol` o Defenu, Tobias Donner, Tommaso Macr` ı, Guido Pagano, Stefano Ruffo, and Andrea Trombettoni, “Long-range interacting quantum systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Sequential generation of entangled multiqubit states,

    C. Sch¨ on, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, “Sequential generation of entangled multiqubit states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110503 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    Sequentially generated states for the study of two-dimensional systems,

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, D. P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, “Sequentially generated states for the study of two-dimensional systems,” Phys. Rev. A 77, 052306 (2008). 31

    2008

  17. [25]

    Operator Growth Bounds from Graph Theory,

    Chi-Fang Chen and Andrew Lucas, “Operator Growth Bounds from Graph Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 385, 1273– 1323 (2021), arXiv:1905.03682 [math-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Sequential quantum circuits as maps between gapped phases,

    Xie Chen, Arpit Dua, Michael Hermele, David T. Stephen, Nathanan Tantivasadakarn, Robijn Vanhove, and Jing-Yu Zhao, “Sequential quantum circuits as maps between gapped phases,” Phys. Rev. B 109, 075116 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Duality via sequential quantum circuit in the topological holography formalism,

    Robijn Vanhove, Vibhu Ravindran, David T. Stephen, Xiao-Gang Wen, and Xie Chen, “Duality via sequential quantum circuit in the topological holography formalism,” Phys. Rev. B 112, 035173 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Sequential circuit as generalized symmetry on lattice,

    Nathanan Tantivasadakarn, Xinyu Liu, and Xie Chen, “Sequential circuit as generalized symmetry on lattice,” (2025), arXiv:2507.22394 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Methods for simulating string-net states and anyons on a digital quantum computer,

    Yu-Jie Liu, Kirill Shtengel, Adam Smith, and Frank Pollmann, “Methods for simulating string-net states and anyons on a digital quantum computer,” PRX Quantum 3, 040315 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    A bound on chaos,

    Juan Maldacena, Stephen H. Shenker, and Douglas Stanford, “A bound on chaos,” JHEP 08, 106 (2016), arXiv:1503.01409 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Signaling and scrambling with strongly long-range interactions,

    Andrew Y. Guo, Minh C. Tran, Andrew M. Childs, Alexey V. Gorshkov, and Zhe-Xuan Gong, “Signaling and scrambling with strongly long-range interactions,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 010401 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Speed limits and locality in many-body quantum dynamics,

    Chi-Fang (Anthony) Chen, Andrew Lucas, and Chao Yin, “Speed limits and locality in many-body quantum dynamics,” Reports on Progress in Physics 86, 116001 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Minimal Model for Fast Scrambling,

    Ron Belyansky, Przemyslaw Bienias, Yaroslav A. Kharkov, Alexey V. Gorshkov, and Brian Swingle, “Minimal Model for Fast Scrambling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 130601 (2020), arXiv:2005.05362 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems,

    Elliott H. Lieb and Derek W. Robinson, “The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems,” Commun. Math. Phys. 28, 251–257 (1972)

    1972

  27. [35]

    Fast scramblers,

    Yasuhiro Sekino and L Susskind, “Fast scramblers,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2008, 065–065 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    focusing

    (6.19) We set Φ MS = π 4N so that the protocol induces CZ 0,−1 exactly (up to free single-qubit rotations). There exists T satisfying (6.7) that achieves this due to (6.19). As a remark, we require the initial state of the ancillae to be |0⟩, while the original MS scheme works...

  29. [37]

    Towards the Fast Scrambling Conjecture,

    Nima Lashkari, Douglas Stanford, Matthew Hastings, Tobias Osborne, and Patrick Hayden, “Towards the Fast Scrambling Conjecture,” JHEP 04, 022 (2013), arXiv:1111.6580 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Many-body chaos at weak coupling,

    Douglas Stanford, “Many-body chaos at weak coupling,” JHEP 10, 009 (2016), arXiv:1512.07687 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Operator growth in the SYK model,

    Daniel A. Roberts, Douglas Stanford, and Alexandre Streicher, “Operator growth in the SYK model,” JHEP 06, 122 (2018), arXiv:1802.02633 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Quantum Epidemiology: Operator Growth, Thermal Effects, and SYK,

    Xiao-Liang Qi and Alexandre Streicher, “Quantum Epidemiology: Operator Growth, Thermal Effects, and SYK,” JHEP 08, 012 (2019), arXiv:1810.11958 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bound on quantum scrambling with all-to-all interactions,

    Chao Yin and Andrew Lucas, “Bound on quantum scrambling with all-to-all interactions,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 022402 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Operator growth bounds in a cartoon matrix model,

    Andrew Lucas and Andrew Osborne, “Operator growth bounds in a cartoon matrix model,” J. Math. Phys. 61, 122301 (2020), arXiv:2007.07165 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity,

    A. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, “Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity,” Sov. Phys. JETP 28, 1200 (1969)

    1969

  36. [44]

    Lyapunov Exponent and Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlator’s Growth Rate in a Chaotic System,

    Efim B. Rozenbaum, Sriram Ganeshan, and Victor Galitski, “Lyapunov Exponent and Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlator’s Growth Rate in a Chaotic System,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 086801 (2017), arXiv:1609.01707 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Quantum operator growth bounds for kicked tops and semiclassical spin chains,

    Chao Yin and Andrew Lucas, “Quantum operator growth bounds for kicked tops and semiclassical spin chains,” Phys. Rev. A 103, 042414 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Operator size at finite temperature and Planckian bounds on quantum dynamics,

    Andrew Lucas, “Operator size at finite temperature and Planckian bounds on quantum dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 216601 (2019), arXiv:1809.07769 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    using a large amount of ancillae. Here we can simulate the optimistic QFT in [46] by all-to-all Hamiltonians in ∼ 1/ √ N time and slightly more ancillae, and further reduce the time cost of Shor’s algorithm: Example 6.3. For any constant 0 < δT < 1/2, an N-bit number can be fa...

  40. [48]

    A universal operator growth hypothesis,

    Daniel E. Parker, Xiangyu Cao, Alexander Avdoshkin, Thomas Scaffidi, and Ehud Altman, “A universal operator growth hypothesis,” Phys. Rev. X 9, 041017 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Non-perturbative dynamics of the operator size distribution in the sachdev–ye–kitaev model,

    Andrew Lucas, “Non-perturbative dynamics of the operator size distribution in the sachdev–ye–kitaev model,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 61, 081901 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Hierarchy of linear light cones with long-range interactions,

    Minh C. Tran, Chi-Fang Chen, Adam Ehrenberg, Andrew Y. Guo, Abhinav Deshpande, Yifan Hong, Zhe-Xuan Gong, Alexey V. Gorshkov, and Andrew Lucas, “Hierarchy of linear light cones with long-range interactions,” Phys. Rev. X 10, 031009 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Absence of fast scrambling in thermodynamically stable long-range interacting systems,

    Tomotaka Kuwahara and Keiji Saito, “Absence of fast scrambling in thermodynamically stable long-range interacting systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 030604 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Optimal frobenius light cone in spin chains with power-law interactions,

    Chi-Fang Chen and Andrew Lucas, “Optimal frobenius light cone in spin chains with power-law interactions,” Phys. Rev. A 104, 062420 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    A log-depth in-place quantum fourier transform that rarely needs ancillas,

    Gregory D. Kahanamoku-Meyer, John Blue, Thiago Bergamaschi, Craig Gidney, and Isaac L. Chuang, “A log-depth in-place quantum fourier transform that rarely needs ancillas,” (2025), arXiv:2505.00701 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Fast quantum integer multiplication with zero ancillas,

    Gregory D. Kahanamoku-Meyer and Norman Y. Yao, “Fast quantum integer multiplication with zero ancillas,” (2024), arXiv:2403.18006 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Fast parallel circuits for the quantum fourier transform,

    R. Cleve and J. Watrous, “Fast parallel circuits for the quantum fourier transform,” in Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (2000) pp. 526–536

    2000

  48. [56]

    Quantum computation with ions in thermal motion,

    Anders Sørensen and Klaus Mølmer, “Quantum computation with ions in thermal motion,” Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1971–1974 (1999)

    1999

  49. [57]

    Multiparticle entanglement of hot trapped ions,

    Klaus Mølmer and Anders Sørensen, “Multiparticle entanglement of hot trapped ions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1835–1838 32 (1999)

    1999

  50. [58]

    The magnus expansion and some of its applications,

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J.A. Oteo, and J. Ros, “The magnus expansion and some of its applications,” Physics Reports 470, 151–238 (2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics,

    Masuo Suzuki, “General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 32, 400–407 (1991)

    1991

  52. [60]

    Elementary approximation of exponentials of lie polynomials,

    Fr´ ed´ eric Jean and Pierre-Vincent Koseleff, “Elementary approximation of exponentials of lie polynomials,” in Applied Algebra, Algebraic Algorithms and Error-Correcting Codes , edited by Teo Mora and Harold Mattson (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1997) pp. 174–188

    1997

  53. [61]

    Product formulas for exponentials of commutators,

    Andrew M. Childs and Nathan Wiebe, “Product formulas for exponentials of commutators,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 54, 062202 (2013)

    2013

  54. [62]

    Efficient product formulas for commutators and applications to quantum simulation,

    Yu-An Chen, Andrew M. Childs, Mohammad Hafezi, Zhang Jiang, Hwanmun Kim, and Yijia Xu, “Efficient product formulas for commutators and applications to quantum simulation,” Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013191 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Approximating exponentials of commutators by optimized product formulas,

    F. Casas, A. Escorihuela-Tom` as, and P. A. Moreno Casares, “Approximating exponentials of commutators by optimized product formulas,” Quantum Information Processing 24 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    A personal view of average-case complexity,

    R. Impagliazzo, “A personal view of average-case complexity,” in Proceedings of Structure in Complexity Theory. Tenth Annual IEEE Conference (1995) pp. 134–147

    1995

  57. [65]

    Average-case complexity,

    Andrej Bogdanov and Luca Trevisan, “Average-case complexity,” Foundations and Trends ® in Theoretical Computer Science 2, 1–106 (2006)

    2006

  58. [66]

    Quantum worst-case to average-case reductions for all linear problems,

    Vahid R. Asadi, Alexander Golovnev, Tom Gur, Igor Shinkar, and Sathyawageeswar Subramanian, “Quantum worst-case to average-case reductions for all linear problems,” in Proceedings of the 2024 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) (2024) pp. 2535–2567

    2024

  59. [67]

    Demonstration of three- and four-body interactions between trapped-ion spins,

    Or Katz, Lei Feng, Andrew Risinger, Christopher Monroe, and Marko Cetina, “Demonstration of three- and four-body interactions between trapped-ion spins,” Nature Phys. 19, 1452–1458 (2023), arXiv:2209.05691 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    n-body interactions between trapped ion qubits via spin-dependent squeezing,

    Or Katz, Marko Cetina, and Christopher Monroe, “ n-body interactions between trapped ion qubits via spin-dependent squeezing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 063603 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Programmable n-body interactions with trapped ions,

    Or Katz, Marko Cetina, and Christopher Monroe, “Programmable n-body interactions with trapped ions,” PRX Quantum 4, 030311 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Emergence of multi-body interactions in a fermionic lattice clock,

    A. Goban, R. B. Hutson, G. E. Marti, S. L. Campbell, M. A. Perlin, P. S. Julienne, J. P. D’Incao, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, “Emergence of multi-body interactions in a fermionic lattice clock,” Nature 563, 369–373 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    Realization of three and four-body interactions between momentum states in a cavity through optical dressing,

    Chengyi Luo, Haoqing Zhang, Chitose Maruko, Eliot A. Bohr, Anjun Chu, Ana Maria Rey, and James K. Thompson, “Realization of three and four-body interactions between momentum states in a cavity through optical dressing,” (2024), arXiv:2410.12132 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Fast generation of ghz-like states using collective-spin XYZ model,

    Xuanchen Zhang, Zhiyao Hu, and Yong-Chun Liu, “Fast generation of ghz-like states using collective-spin XYZ model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 113402 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    High-order Magnus Expansion for Hamiltonian Simulation,

    Di Fang, Diyi Liu, and Shuchen Zhu, “High-order Magnus Expansion for Hamiltonian Simulation,” (2025), arXiv:2509.06054 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Floquet–magnus theory and generic transient dynamics in periodi- cally driven many-body quantum systems,

    Tomotaka Kuwahara, Takashi Mori, and Keiji Saito, “Floquet–magnus theory and generic transient dynamics in periodi- cally driven many-body quantum systems,” Annals of Physics 367, 96–124 (2016)

    2016

  67. [75]

    A rigorous theory of many-body prether- malization for periodically driven and closed quantum systems,

    Dmitry Abanin, Wojciech De Roeck, Wen Wei Ho, and Fran¸ cois Huveneers, “A rigorous theory of many-body prether- malization for periodically driven and closed quantum systems,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 354, 809–827 (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    Quantum and classical floquet prether- malization,

    Wen Wei Ho, Takashi Mori, Dmitry A. Abanin, and Emanuele G. Dalla Torre, “Quantum and classical floquet prether- malization,” Annals of Physics 454, 169297 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Squeezed spin states,

    Masahiro Kitagawa and Masahito Ueda, “Squeezed spin states,” Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138–5143 (1993)

    1993

  70. [78]

    Quantum spin squeezing,

    Jian Ma, Xiaoguang Wang, C.P. Sun, and Franco Nori, “Quantum spin squeezing,” Physics Reports 509, 89–165 (2011)

    2011

  71. [79]

    Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions,

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, “Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Spin squeezing: Transforming one-axis twisting into two-axis twisting,

    Y. C. Liu, Z. F. Xu, G. R. Jin, and L. You, “Spin squeezing: Transforming one-axis twisting into two-axis twisting,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 013601 (2011)

    2011

  73. [81]

    Hamiltonian engineering of collective XYZ spin models in an optical cavity,

    Chengyi Luo, Haoqing Zhang, Anjun Chu, Chitose Maruko, Ana Maria Rey, and James K. Thompson, “Hamiltonian engineering of collective XYZ spin models in an optical cavity,” Nature Phys. 21, 916–923 (2025), arXiv:2402.19429 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Two-axis twisting using floquet-engineered xyz spin models with polar molecules,

    Calder Miller, Annette N. Carroll, Junyu Lin, Henrik Hirzler, Haoyang Gao, Hengyun Zhou, Mikhail D. Lukin, and Jun Ye, “Two-axis twisting using floquet-engineered xyz spin models with polar molecules,” Nature 633, 332–337 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    Efficient arbitrary simultaneously entangling gates on a trapped-ion quantum computer,

    Nikodem Grzesiak, Reinhold Bl¨ umel, Kenneth Wright, Kristin M. Beck, Neal C. Pisenti, Ming Li, Vandiver Chaplin, Jason M. Amini, Shantanu Debnath, Jwo-Sy Chen, and Yunseong Nam, “Efficient arbitrary simultaneously entangling gates on a trapped-ion quantum computer,” Nature Co...

    2020

  76. [84]

    Fast design and scaling of multi-qubit gates in large-scale trapped-ion quantum computers,

    Yotam Shapira, Lee Peleg, David Schwerdt, Jonathan Nemirovsky, Nitzan Akerman, Ady Stern, Amit Ben Kish, and Roee Ozeri, “Fast design and scaling of multi-qubit gates in large-scale trapped-ion quantum computers,” (2023), arXiv:2307.09566 [quant-ph]

    2023

  77. [85]

    Full pro- grammable quantum computing with trapped-ions using semi-global fields,

    Yakov Solomons, Yotam Kadish, Lee Peleg, Jonathan Nemirovsky, Amit Ben Kish, and Yotam Shapira, “Full pro- grammable quantum computing with trapped-ions using semi-global fields,” (2025), arXiv:2509.14331 [quant-ph]

    2025

Pith tools

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