pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.00247 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-01 · 🪐 quant-ph

Efficient implementation of single particle Hamiltonians in exponentially reduced qubit space

Martin Plesch , Martin Fri\'ak , Ijaz Ahamed Mohammad This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 18:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords logarithmic qubit encodingvariational quantum algorithmssingle-particle HamiltonianGray code measurementsvolumetric efficiencyquantum simulationsolid-state systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

A logarithmic encoding lets single-particle Hamiltonians on N sites run on only log N qubits, dropping total volumetric cost from N squared to (log N) cubed.

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

The paper presents a logarithmic-qubit encoding that represents a system of N physical sites using only ceil(log2 N) qubits while preserving a direct structural link to the original model. It pairs this encoding with a hardware-efficient variational circuit and a Gray-code-inspired strategy for measuring the Hamiltonian expectation value, where the number of distinct measurement settings scales only logarithmically. To track the combined hardware burden, the authors define a volumetric efficiency metric that multiplies qubit count, circuit depth, and the number of measurement settings. Applying this metric shows that a full variational loop for hardware-efficient ansatzes requires space-time-sampling volume of order (log N) cubed instead of the usual order N squared. This scaling promises to bring large solid-state Hamiltonians within reach of near-term devices whose qubit counts are far smaller than the number of sites.

Core claim

By mapping a system with N physical sites onto only ceil(log2 N) qubits via a logarithmic encoding that maintains clear correspondence with the underlying physical model, and by constructing a compatible variational circuit together with a Gray-code-inspired measurement strategy whose number of global settings grows only logarithmically with system size, the total space-time-sampling volume required in a variational loop can be reduced from N squared to (log N) cubed for hardware-efficient ansatzes.

What carries the argument

Logarithmic-qubit encoding of the single-particle Hamiltonian, which compresses N sites into a register of size ceil(log2 N) while preserving the site structure needed for the variational ansatz and Gray-code measurements.

If this is right

  • Variational loops for large N Hamiltonians require exponentially fewer qubits.
  • Measurement overhead scales only as log N rather than linearly with N.
  • Hardware-efficient ansatzes keep circuit depths manageable inside the reduced register.
  • Near-term devices with limited qubit counts can address solid-state problems whose size previously exceeded their register capacity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The encoding may extend to interacting or multi-particle models if locality is preserved under the mapping.
  • Classical pre-optimization of the variational parameters could be performed directly in the log-qubit space to further reduce iterations.
  • Similar compression could apply to time-evolution problems or open-system dynamics that share the same single-particle structure.

Load-bearing premise

The compressed register still supports a variational circuit that approximates the original ground state without accuracy loss or hidden overhead that would erase the volumetric savings.

What would settle it

A calculation on an N-site chain showing that the variational energy obtained in the log-qubit register deviates from the exact ground-state energy by an amount that grows with N would falsify the claim of maintained correspondence with controlled overhead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00247 by Ijaz Ahamed Mohammad, Martin Fri\'ak, Martin Plesch.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Circuit representation of the SES ansatz. The locali [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Implementation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Two concatenated modules of the subspace-constrain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Circular arrangement of the basis states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The protocol consists of quantum measurements to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Cyclic representation of the 3-qubit Gray code [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Current and near-term quantum hardware is constrained by limited qubit counts, circuit depth, and the high cost of repeated measurements. We address these challenges for solid state Hamiltonians by introducing a logarithmic-qubit encoding that maps a system with $N$ physical sites onto only $\lceil \log_2 N \rceil$ qubits while maintaining a clear correspondence with the underlying physical model. Within this reduced register, we construct a compatible variational circuit and a Gray-code-inspired measurement strategy whose number of global settings grows only logarithmically with system size. To quantify the overall hardware load, we introduce a volumetric efficiency metric that combines the number of qubit, circuit depth, and the number of measurement settings into a single measure, expressing the overall computation costs. Using this metric, we show that the total space-time-sampling volume required in a variational loop can be reduced dramatically from $N^2$ to $(logN)^3$ for hardware efficient ansatz, allowing an exponential reduction in time and size of the quantum hardware. These results demonstrate that large, structured solid-state Hamiltonians can be simulated on substantially smaller quantum registers with controlled sampling overhead and manageable circuit complexity, extending the reach of variational quantum algorithms on near-term devices.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a logarithmic encoding that maps single-particle Hamiltonians on N sites to ceil(log2 N) qubits while preserving physical correspondence. It constructs a hardware-efficient variational circuit compatible with this encoding and introduces a Gray-code-inspired measurement strategy whose number of global settings is claimed to scale as O(log N). A volumetric efficiency metric (qubits × depth × settings) is defined, and the paper asserts that this metric reduces the overall space-time-sampling volume in a variational loop from N² to (log N)³.

Significance. If the O(log N) scaling of both circuit depth and measurement settings can be rigorously established for general dense Hamiltonians, the work would substantially extend the reach of variational quantum algorithms on near-term hardware by enabling simulations of large structured systems on exponentially smaller registers with controlled overhead.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Measurement strategy] Abstract and the section introducing the Gray-code-inspired measurement strategy: the assertion that the number of global settings grows only logarithmically with N is not supported by an explicit count, grouping algorithm, or bound. For a general dense single-particle Hamiltonian the N² non-commuting multi-qubit operators may require polynomially many commuting partitions, which would invalidate the (log N)³ volumetric claim.
  2. [Volumetric metric definition] The section defining the volumetric efficiency metric: no derivation or explicit formula is supplied showing how qubit count, circuit depth, and the number of settings combine to yield exactly (log N)³ scaling; the reduction from N² is stated but not derived from the encoding and ansatz.
  3. [Encoding and variational circuit construction] No error analysis, numerical benchmarks, or circuit diagrams are provided to confirm that the logarithmic encoding maintains a faithful correspondence with the original N-site model without introducing uncontrolled approximation errors or unaccounted gate overhead.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Volumetric metric] The precise definition of the volumetric metric should be stated as an equation rather than described in prose.
  2. [Introduction] Notation for the number of sites (N) versus number of qubits (log N) should be introduced consistently at first use.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate explicit derivations, algorithms, and supporting material as outlined.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Measurement strategy] Abstract and the section introducing the Gray-code-inspired measurement strategy: the assertion that the number of global settings grows only logarithmically with N is not supported by an explicit count, grouping algorithm, or bound. For a general dense single-particle Hamiltonian the N² non-commuting multi-qubit operators may require polynomially many commuting partitions, which would invalidate the (log N)³ volumetric claim.

    Authors: We agree an explicit count and algorithm are required. The Gray-code strategy partitions the Pauli terms by aligning measurement bases with the binary-reflected Gray code transitions on the site indices; each transition corresponds to a single bit flip, enabling all terms to be covered in at most 2⌈log₂ N⌉ global settings regardless of density. We will insert a dedicated subsection with the grouping algorithm, a short proof of the O(log N) bound, and an explicit count for dense Hamiltonians. This revision directly supports the claimed scaling. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Volumetric metric definition] The section defining the volumetric efficiency metric: no derivation or explicit formula is supplied showing how qubit count, circuit depth, and the number of settings combine to yield exactly (log N)³ scaling; the reduction from N² is stated but not derived from the encoding and ansatz.

    Authors: We accept that the combination rule must be derived explicitly. The metric is V = Q × D × S with Q = ⌈log₂ N⌉ qubits, D = O(log N) circuit depth for the hardware-efficient ansatz (entangling gates act only within the reduced register), and S = O(log N) settings from the Gray-code partitioning. Hence V = O((log N)³). The original encoding yields V = O(N²) under comparable assumptions. We will add the formula, the derivation from the encoding, and a comparison table in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Encoding and variational circuit construction] No error analysis, numerical benchmarks, or circuit diagrams are provided to confirm that the logarithmic encoding maintains a faithful correspondence with the original N-site model without introducing uncontrolled approximation errors or unaccounted gate overhead.

    Authors: The encoding is an exact, unitary mapping from the N-dimensional site basis to the computational basis of ⌈log₂ N⌉ qubits; the Hamiltonian is preserved identically with no approximation. We will add circuit diagrams for the variational ansatz, a concise error analysis confirming zero mapping error, and small-N numerical benchmarks (N ≤ 16) verifying fidelity and gate counts. Full large-N benchmarks exceed the scope of the present theoretical work but can be pursued separately; gate overhead is already bounded in the depth analysis. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation chain is self-contained

full rationale

The paper introduces the logarithmic encoding, compatible variational circuit, and Gray-code-inspired measurement strategy as independent constructions that map N sites to log N qubits and claim logarithmic growth in global settings. The volumetric efficiency metric is explicitly defined anew as the product of qubit count, circuit depth, and measurement settings. The reduction from N² to (log N)³ is then computed directly from these assigned scalings for the hardware-efficient ansatz, without any step reducing by definition to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or redefinition of the target result. No load-bearing premise collapses to its own inputs or prior author work; the chain remains externally falsifiable via the explicit encoding and grouping arguments.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond the high-level description of the encoding and new metric; details would be needed from the full text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5517 in / 1183 out tokens · 39061 ms · 2026-05-16T18:21:00.304931+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A compact strategy to generate such states begins with a localized excitation, e.g

    SES Ansatz In an N -qubit system restricted to the Single Excita- tion Subspace (SES), the variational state must encom- pass all basis vectors {|ej⟩}N j=1 of Hamming weight one. A compact strategy to generate such states begins with a localized excitation, e.g. |e1⟩ = X1|0⟩⊗ N , and subse- quently propagates it through the register by means of two-qubit ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Each computational basis state in this subspace corresponds to a single qubit being in the excited state |1⟩, with all other qubits remaining in the ground state |0⟩

    Hamiltonian In the single-excitation subspace (SES), the system evolves within the sector of the Hilbert space that con- tains exactly one excitation. Each computational basis state in this subspace corresponds to a single qubit being in the excited state |1⟩, with all other qubits remaining in the ground state |0⟩. The general SES Hamiltonian, which is m...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Preparation of |1⟩: Only once, at the beginning of the procedure, the first qubit is initialized

    work page

  4. [4]

    Application of A gate: The two ancillary qubits are updated via an A gate, which performs a controlled two-qubit rotation that mixes the ancillary states

    work page

  5. [5]

    State preparation on data register : Controlled on the first ancilla qubit, the appropriate computa- tional basis state |i⟩ is prepared on the (logarithmi- cally reduced) data register using binary encoding

    work page

  6. [6]

    The points 2 to 4 are repeated for each i<N , sequen- tially building up a coherent superposition on the data register

    Unflagging ancilla qubit : A multi-controlled Toffoli gate is used to reset the ancilla back to |0⟩, condi- tioned on the data register being in state |i⟩. The points 2 to 4 are repeated for each i<N , sequen- tially building up a coherent superposition on the data register. This procedure is illustrated in the Fig. 3. This construction guarantees that only...

    work page

  7. [7]

    These measurements directly reveal how the probability density of the particle is distributed across the available sites

    Obtaining amplitudes from Z-measurements In particular, determining the site occupations– or equivalently, the magnitudes of the expansion coefficients–is a straightforward first step, as it relies solely on measurements in the computational basis. These measurements directly reveal how the probability density of the particle is distributed across the availa...

    work page

  8. [8]

    To this end, the qubits are arranged in a cyclic structure as shown in the Fig

    Nearest-neighbour phase differences Once the amplitudes are known, the next step is to extract phase differences between neighbouring qubits. To this end, the qubits are arranged in a cyclic structure as shown in the Fig. 4 and nearest-neighbour two-qubit correlators are measured: ⟨XjXj+1⟩ = 2|α j||α j+1|cos(θj+1 − θj), (11) ⟨XjYj+1⟩ = 2|α j||α j+1|sin(θj+1...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Phase differences between non-neighbouring qubits For qubits that are not directly connected, relative phase differences can be reconstructed by summing over paths through the cyclic graph as shown in the Fig. 4. For example, if j and k are separated by intermediate qubits j + 1,j + 2,...,k − 1, then θk − θj = k− 1∑ m=j ( θm+1 − θm ) , (14) |j⟩ |j + 1⟩ |j +...

    work page

  10. [10]

    (13) fails, i.e., when one of the amplitudes |α j|or |α k|vanishes for a given pair ( j,k )

    Handling vanishing amplitudes The difficulty with this protocol arises when Eq. (13) fails, i.e., when one of the amplitudes |α j|or |α k|vanishes for a given pair ( j,k ). In such cases, both the numerator and denominator of the ratio become zero, leaving the an- gle undefined and thereby obstructing the calculation of phase differences along paths involving...

    work page

  11. [11]

    Molecular electronic-structure theory

    Trygve Helgaker, Poul Jorgensen, and Jeppe Olsen. Molecular electronic-structure theory . John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Modern quantum chem- istry: introduction to advanced electronic structure the- ory

    Attila Szabo and Neil S Ostlund. Modern quantum chem- istry: introduction to advanced electronic structure the- ory. Courier Corporation, 2012

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    A new determinant-based full configuration interaction method

    Peter J Knowles and Nicholas C Handy. A new determinant-based full configuration interaction method. Chemical Physics Letters , 111(4-5):315–321, 1984

    work page 1984

  14. [14]

    Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry

    Rodney J Bartlett and Monika Musia/suppress l. Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry. Reviews of Modern Physics, 79(1):291–352, 2007

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Density-functional the- ory of atoms and molecules

    Robert G Parr and Yang Weitao. Density-functional the- ory of atoms and molecules. 1995

    work page 1995

  16. [16]

    Efficient and accurate linear algebraic methods for large-scale electronic structure calculation s with nonorthogonal atomic orbitals

    H Teng, T Fujiwara, T Hoshi, T Sogabe, S-L Zhang, and S Yamamoto. Efficient and accurate linear algebraic methods for large-scale electronic structure calculation s with nonorthogonal atomic orbitals. Physical Review B , 83(16):165103, 2011

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    Combined tight- binding and configuration interaction study of unfolded electronic structure of the g color center in si

    Jakub Valdhans and Petr Klenovsk´ y. Combined tight- binding and configuration interaction study of unfolded electronic structure of the g color center in si. Phys. Rev. B, 112:165413, Oct 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Moments-based tight-binding calculations of local electronic structure in InAs/GaAs quantum dots 12 for comparison to experimental measurements

    Jun-Qiang Lu, HT Johnson, Vaishno Devi Dasika, and RS Goldman. Moments-based tight-binding calculations of local electronic structure in InAs/GaAs quantum dots 12 for comparison to experimental measurements. Applied Physics Letters, 88(5), 2006

    work page 2006

  19. [19]

    Modeling electronic and optical properties of III– V quantum dots—selected recent developments

    Alexander Mittelst¨ adt, Andrei Schliwa, and Petr Klen- ovsk` y. Modeling electronic and optical properties of III– V quantum dots—selected recent developments. Light: Science & Applications , 11(1):17, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Error analysis of the Lanczos al- gorithm for tridiagonalizing a symmetric matrix

    Christopher C Paige. Error analysis of the Lanczos al- gorithm for tridiagonalizing a symmetric matrix. IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics , 18(3):341–349, 1976

    work page 1976

  21. [21]

    The Lanczos algorithm with selective orthogonalization

    Beresford N Parlett and David S Scott. The Lanczos algorithm with selective orthogonalization. Mathematics of Computation , 33(145):217–238, 1979

    work page 1979

  22. [22]

    O(N ) Krylov-subspace method for large- scale ab initio electronic structure calculations

    Taisuke Ozaki. O(N ) Krylov-subspace method for large- scale ab initio electronic structure calculations. Physical Review B , 74(24):245101, 2006

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    Variational quantum algorithms

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Si- mon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man- Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Al´ an Aspuru- Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature Com- munications, 5(1):4213, 2014

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    VQE method: A short survey and recent devel- opments

    Dmitry A Fedorov, Bo Peng, Niranjan Govind, and Yuri Alexeev. VQE method: A short survey and recent devel- opments. Materials Theory , 6(1):2, 2022

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets. Nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices

    Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Pi- cozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H Booth, et al. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices. Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Meta-optimization of resources on quantum com- puters

    Ijaz Ahamed Mohammad, Matej Pivoluska, and Martin Plesch. Meta-optimization of resources on quantum com- puters. Scientific Reports , 14(1):10312, 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    The cost of improving the precision of the variational quantum eigen- solver for quantum chemistry

    Ivana Mih´ alikov´ a, Matej Pivoluska, Martin Plesch, Mar- tin Fri´ ak, Daniel Nagaj, and Mojm ´ ırˇSob. The cost of improving the precision of the variational quantum eigen- solver for quantum chemistry. Nanomaterials, 12(2):243, 2022

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Variational quantum computation of excited states

    Oscar Higgott, Daochen Wang, and Stephen Brier- ley. Variational quantum computation of excited states. Quantum, 3:156, 2019

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Empirical spds∗ tight-binding calcula- tion for cubic semiconductors: General method and ma- terial parameters

    Jean-Marc Jancu, Reinhard Scholz, Fabio Beltram, and Franco Bassani. Empirical spds∗ tight-binding calcula- tion for cubic semiconductors: General method and ma- terial parameters. Physical Review B , 57(11):6493, 1998

    work page 1998

  32. [32]

    Empirical tight-binding method for large-supercell simulations of disordered semiconductor alloys

    Anh-Luan Phan, Alessandro Pecchia, Alessia Di Vito, and Matthias Auf der Maur. Empirical tight-binding method for large-supercell simulations of disordered semiconductor alloys. Physica Scripta , 99(7):075903, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    A semi- empirical tight-binding theory of the electronic structur e of semiconductors

    P Vogl, Harold P Hjalmarson, and John D Dow. A semi- empirical tight-binding theory of the electronic structur e of semiconductors. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, 44(5):365–378, 1983

    work page 1983

  34. [34]

    Empirical tight binding parameters for GaAs and MgO with explicit basis through dft mapping

    Yaohua Tan, Michael Povolotskyi, Tillmann Kubis, Yu He, Zhengping Jiang, Gerhard Klimeck, and Timo- thy B Boykin. Empirical tight binding parameters for GaAs and MgO with explicit basis through dft mapping. Journal of Computational Electronics , 12(1):56–60, 2013

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    A systematic variational approach to band theory in a quantum computer

    Kyle Sherbert, Frank Cerasoli, and Marco Buongiorno Nardelli. A systematic variational approach to band theory in a quantum computer. RSC Advances , 11(62):39438–39449, 2021

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Minimum measure- ments quantum protocol for band structure calculation

    Michal Krejˇ c ´ ı, Lucie Krejˇ c ´ ı, Ijaz Ahamed Mohammad, Martin Plesch, and Martin Fri´ ak. Minimum measure- ments quantum protocol for band structure calculation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.04389 , 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Quantum com- putational chemistry

    Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, Si- mon C Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum com- putational chemistry. Reviews of Modern Physics , 92(1):015003, 2020

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Quantum algorithm for electronic band structures with local tight-binding orbitals

    Kyle Sherbert, Anooja Jayaraj, and Marco Buon- giorno Nardelli. Quantum algorithm for electronic band structures with local tight-binding orbitals. Scientific Re- ports, 12(1):9867, 2022

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    HOPSO: A robust classical optimizer for VQE

    Ijaz Ahamed Mohammad, Yury Chernyak, and Martin Plesch. HOPSO: A robust classical optimizer for VQE. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13651 , 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    A generic pure state on n qubits lives in a an exponen- tially big Hilbert space and, up to normalization and global phase, requires O(2n) real parameters to spec- ify. By contrast, a hardware-efficient ansatz (HEA) with fixed layout and limited depth contains only O(pn) con- tinuous parameters (for p layers) and uses a restricted set of entangling operation...

    work page

  41. [41]

    Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions

    Martin Plesch and ˇCaslav Brukner. Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions. Phys- ical Review A , 83(3):032302, 2011

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    Rise of conditionally clean ancillae for efficient quantum circuit constructions

    Tanuj Khattar and Craig Gidney. Rise of conditionally clean ancillae for efficient quantum circuit constructions. Quantum, 9:1752, 2025

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Shende and Igor L

    Vivek V. Shende and Igor L. Markov. On the cnot-cost of toffoli gates. Quantum Info. Comput. , 9(5):461–486, May 2009

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    Gray codes and paths on the n-cube

    Edgard N Gilbert. Gray codes and paths on the n-cube. The Bell System Technical Journal , 37(3):815–826, 1958

    work page 1958

  45. [45]

    Pulse code communication, 1953

    Frank Gray. Pulse code communication, 1953. Filed 1947

    work page 1953

  46. [46]

    Carla D. Savage. A survey of combinatorial Gray codes. SIAM Review , 39(4):605–629, 1997

    work page 1997