pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09483 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.str-el· math-ph· math.MP

Recognition: unknown

Quantum Randomized Subspace Iteration

Stefano Scali , Brian Coyle , Giuseppe Buonaiuto , Michal Krompiec
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MP
keywords degenerate eigenspacesquantum subspace methodsrandomized quantum algorithmstopological ground statesvariational quantum eigensolverquantum phase estimation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Conjugating a Hamiltonian with independent random unitaries across branches spans the full degenerate eigenspace almost surely.

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

The paper introduces quantum randomized subspace iteration as a parallel method to prepare states covering every direction inside a degenerate quantum eigenspace. Multiple copies of the system are each rotated by a different random unitary, then any chosen eigenstate preparation routine is run independently on each copy. The resulting collection of states is assembled into the target subspace through standard estimation, either from coefficients or from Gram-matrix measurements. This works with probability one and leaves the spectral gap unchanged on every branch, provided only that the random unitaries spread sufficiently across the degenerate directions. The construction therefore removes the need for sequential orthogonality constraints that limit existing variational or projective techniques.

Core claim

We introduce the quantum randomized subspace iteration (QRSI), a fully parallel construction that conjugates the Hamiltonian by independent random unitaries across as many branches as the degeneracy g, then invokes any chosen eigenstate-preparation primitive on each branch. The target subspace is identified from the resulting ensemble via standard subspace estimation. We prove that the construction spans the full eigenspace almost surely and preserves the spectral gap exactly on every branch. These guarantees hold whenever the random rotations satisfy an anti-concentration condition over the degenerate manifold, substantially weaker than full Haar randomness.

What carries the argument

QRSI construction: independent random unitaries applied in parallel across g branches, followed by eigenstate preparation on each and subspace estimation from the ensemble.

If this is right

  • The full eigenspace is recovered from the parallel ensemble without sequential orthogonality constraints.
  • The spectral gap remains exactly the same on every branch, so any existing eigenstate finder can be used unchanged.
  • The guarantees apply to the toric code, recovering all four topological ground states.
  • The anti-concentration requirement is weaker than Haar randomness, allowing simpler random circuits on hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same parallel structure could be paired with any variational primitive to handle degeneracy in frustrated magnets without extra penalty terms.
  • Hardware Gram-matrix measurements would allow the entire subspace identification to stay quantum, reducing classical post-processing.
  • If approximate random circuits satisfy anti-concentration on typical hardware noise models, QRSI could be tested on near-term devices for small degeneracies.

Load-bearing premise

The random unitaries must spread sufficiently across the degenerate manifold to meet an anti-concentration condition.

What would settle it

Run QRSI on the toric-code Hamiltonian, whose ground-state degeneracy is known to be four, and check whether the estimated subspace has exact dimension four and contains representatives from all topological sectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09483 by Brian Coyle, Giuseppe Buonaiuto, Michal Krompiec, Stefano Scali.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: QRSI on the perturbed 2×2 toric code (N = 256, g = 4, 8 qubits). (a) Stabilizer Hamiltonian (vertex and plaquette terms). (b) Four topologically distinct ground states at E0 ≡ σ = −8. (c) Singular-value spectrum with (navy) and without (slate) Haar rotation; the SVD gap at j = g appears only with rotation. (d) Four preparation primitives (imaginary time, power iteration, Chebyshev filtering, shift-and-inve… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cartoon of the diversity / overlap land￾scape for quantum degenerate-eigenspace methods. Schematic, not to scale. Variational and subspace-expansion methods (VQE family, QSE) achieve high overlap but low diversity: the optimiser’s basin of attraction selects a sin￾gle ground-state direction per invocation. Random probing achieves high diversity but only the Haar baseline overlap O(g/N). The upper-right cor… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Diversity mechanism on CP N−1 (state-rotation picture). The preparation family M (solid, dark blue) and its isometric copies RiM (dashed/dotted) under Haar-random rotations Ri. Spectral invariance (Proposition 2) guarantees that each branch achieves O(1) overlap with G. Each copy’s optimum projects to a distinct foot-point [ψ (i) 0 ] ∈ CP(G) (orange dots), and for M ≥ g these span G almost surely (Proposit… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Practical schematic of QRSI. A single initial state |ψ0⟩ is distributed across M independent branches, with each ‘branch’ generated by a different instance of a random unitary Ri. Every branch undergoes the same preparation/amplification primitive P (q) =: P (q) ωi (e.g. imaginary-time evolution, VQE, or adiabatic preparation) with q resolvent steps, producing output states |ϕi⟩ that concentrate on the tar… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: QRSI on structured complex-Hermitian random Hamiltonians ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Resolving degenerate quantum eigenspaces - including topologically ordered ground states and frustrated magnets - requires preparing high-fidelity states that span every direction of the target manifold. Existing variational and projective algorithms do not naturally cover a multi-dimensional degenerate subspace without sequential orthogonality constraints. We introduce the quantum randomized subspace iteration (QRSI), a fully parallel construction that conjugates the Hamiltonian by independent random unitaries across as many branches as the degeneracy g, then invokes any chosen eigenstate-preparation primitive on each branch. The target subspace is identified from the resulting ensemble via standard subspace estimation, either classically through the coefficient matrix or on hardware through Gram-matrix measurements. We prove that the construction spans the full eigenspace almost surely and preserves the spectral gap exactly on every branch. For practical use, we show that these guarantees hold whenever the random rotations satisfy an anti-concentration condition over the degenerate manifold, substantially weaker than full Haar randomness. We demonstrate QRSI on the toric code, recovering all four topological ground states, and on random Hamiltonians with planted degeneracies.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Quantum Randomized Subspace Iteration (QRSI), a parallel algorithm for spanning degenerate eigenspaces. It conjugates the Hamiltonian by g independent random unitaries (g = degeneracy), applies an eigenstate-preparation primitive on each branch, and recovers the target subspace via classical coefficient-matrix or hardware Gram-matrix estimation. The central claims are that the construction spans the full eigenspace almost surely and exactly preserves the spectral gap on every branch whenever the random unitaries obey an anti-concentration condition over the degenerate manifold, a requirement strictly weaker than Haar randomness. The claims are supported by a proof and by numerical demonstrations on the toric code (recovering all four topological ground states) and on random Hamiltonians with planted degeneracies.

Significance. If the probabilistic guarantees hold, QRSI supplies a fully parallel route to degenerate-subspace preparation that avoids sequential orthogonality constraints, which is directly relevant to topological order and frustrated magnetism. The exact gap preservation follows immediately from unitary invariance of the spectrum, while the almost-sure spanning result under a mild anti-concentration assumption is a substantive theoretical advance. The demonstrations provide concrete, falsifiable evidence of practicality. Credit is due for the explicit statement of the anti-concentration hypothesis and for the reproducible numerical examples.

major comments (1)
  1. The proof that anti-concentration implies almost-sure spanning (central to both the theoretical guarantee and the practical claim of being weaker than Haar) is stated in the abstract and introduction but lacks an explicit quantitative bound on the failure probability in terms of degeneracy g and the anti-concentration parameter; without this, it is impossible to assess how much weaker the condition truly is or to verify tightness of the almost-sure claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract refers to 'standard subspace estimation' without citing the precise classical or quantum procedure used; a short reference or one-sentence description would improve clarity.
  2. Figure captions for the toric-code and planted-degeneracy demonstrations should explicitly state the number of random branches g and the anti-concentration parameter employed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading, positive assessment of QRSI, and constructive suggestion regarding quantitative bounds. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarification.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The proof that anti-concentration implies almost-sure spanning (central to both the theoretical guarantee and the practical claim of being weaker than Haar) is stated in the abstract and introduction but lacks an explicit quantitative bound on the failure probability in terms of degeneracy g and the anti-concentration parameter; without this, it is impossible to assess how much weaker the condition truly is or to verify tightness of the almost-sure claim.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative bound on the failure probability would strengthen the result and allow a clearer comparison to Haar randomness. The existing proof (Section 3) shows that the anti-concentration condition (Definition 2) implies that the probability of failing to span the full degenerate subspace is zero, but it does not supply a finite-sample expression such as 1 - (1 - c(g,δ))^k or similar. We can derive such a bound by bounding the measure of the exceptional set of unitaries more precisely using the anti-concentration parameter δ and the dimension g; the revised manuscript will include this explicit dependence together with a short derivation. This change does not alter the almost-sure claim but makes the practical implications more transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper's central claims consist of an algorithmic construction (QRSI) that applies independent random unitaries followed by an eigenstate-preparation primitive, plus probabilistic guarantees that the resulting ensemble spans the degenerate eigenspace almost surely under an external anti-concentration assumption on the unitaries. Spectrum preservation follows immediately from the standard fact that unitary conjugation leaves eigenvalues invariant, which is not derived from the target result. The anti-concentration condition is stated as a hypothesis on the chosen distribution rather than a quantity fitted or defined from the spanning guarantee itself. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, no parameters are fitted to data and then relabeled as predictions, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard quantum mechanics and linear algebra for the proofs of spanning and gap preservation. No free parameters are introduced in the abstract. The anti-concentration condition is a domain assumption on the random unitaries rather than an invented entity.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard postulates of quantum mechanics and linear algebra suffice to prove almost-sure spanning of the degenerate subspace under random unitary conjugation.
    Invoked in the proof statements for the construction.
  • domain assumption The chosen random unitaries satisfy an anti-concentration condition over the degenerate manifold.
    Explicitly stated as the sufficient condition weaker than Haar randomness.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5490 in / 1437 out tokens · 34395 ms · 2026-05-10T16:44:16.482885+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nature , author =

    Leon Balents. Spin liquids in frustrated magnets.Na- ture, 464(7286):199–208, March 2010. ISSN 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/nature08917. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/nature08917

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08917 2010

  2. [2]

    Reports on Progress in Physics, 55, 1855 (doi: 10.1088/0034- 4885/55/11/001)

    Lucile Savary and Leon Balents. Quantum spin liquids: a review.Reports on Progress in Physics, 80(1):016502, November 2016. ISSN 1361-6633. doi:10.1088/0034- 4885/80/1/016502. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0034-4885/80/1/016502

    work page doi:10.1088/0034- 2016

  3. [3]

    Quasiparticle statistics and braiding from ground-state entanglement.Physical Re- view B, 85(23), June 2012

    Yi Zhang, Tarun Grover, Ari Turner, Masaki Oshikawa, and Ashvin Vishwanath. Quasiparticle statistics and braiding from ground-state entanglement.Physical Re- view B, 85(23), June 2012. ISSN 1550-235X. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.85.235151. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.235151

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.85.235151 2012

  4. [4]

    Cincio and G

    L. Cincio and G. Vidal. Characterizing topological or- der by studying the ground states on an infinite cylin- der.Physical Review Letters, 110(6), February 2013. ISSN 1079-7114. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.067208. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110. 067208

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.067208 2013

  5. [5]

    Molecular Electronic-Structure Theory

    Trygve Helgaker, Poul Jørgensen, and Jeppe Olsen. Molecular Electronic-Structure Theory. Wiley, August

  6. [6]

    doi:10.1002/9781119019572

    ISBN 9781119019572. doi:10.1002/9781119019572. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119019572

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119019572

  7. [7]

    Quantum algorithms for topological and geometric anal- ysis of data.Nature Communications, 7(1), January

    Seth Lloyd, Silvano Garnerone, and Paolo Zanardi. Quantum algorithms for topological and geometric anal- ysis of data.Nature Communications, 7(1), January

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1038/ncomms10138

    ISSN 2041-1723. doi:10.1038/ncomms10138. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10138

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms10138 2041

  9. [9]

    To- wards quantum advantage via topological data analysis

    Casper Gyurik, Chris Cade, and Vedran Dunjko. To- wards quantum advantage via topological data analysis. Quantum, 6:855, November 2022. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2022-11-10-855. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.22331/q-2022-11-10-855

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2022-11-10-855 2022

  10. [10]

    The topology of data hides in quantum ther- mal states.APL Quantum, 1(3), July 2024

    Stefano Scali, Chukwudubem Umeano, and Oleksandr Kyriienko. The topology of data hides in quantum ther- mal states.APL Quantum, 1(3), July 2024. ISSN 2835-

    2024

  11. [11]

    Scali, C

    doi:10.1063/5.0209201. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1063/5.0209201

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0209201

  12. [12]

    Yin-Chen He, D. N. Sheng, and Yan Chen. Obtain- ing topological degenerate ground states by the den- sity matrix renormalization group.Physical Review B, 89(7):075110, February 2014. ISSN 1550-235X. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.075110. URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.075110

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.89.075110 2014

  13. [13]

    E. M. Stoudenmire and Steven R. White. Study- ing two-dimensional systems with the density ma- trix renormalization group.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 3:111–128, March 2012. ISSN 1947-5462. doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys- 020911-125018. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-conmatphys-020911-125018

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys- 2012

  14. [14]

    Nakanishi, Kosuke Mitarai, and Keisuke Fujii

    Ken M. Nakanishi, Kosuke Mitarai, and Keisuke Fujii. Subspace-search variational quantum eigen- solver for excited states.Physical Review Re- search, 1(3), October 2019. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.1.033062. URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033062

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.1.033062 2019

  15. [15]

    Variational quantum computation of excited states

    Oscar Higgott, Daochen Wang, and Stephen Brier- ley. Variational quantum computation of excited states. Quantum, 3:156, July 2019. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2019-07-01-156. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.22331/q-2019-07-01-156

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-01-156 2019

  16. [16]

    Parrish, Edward G

    Robert M. Parrish, Edward G. Hohenstein, Pe- ter L. McMahon, and Todd J. Mart´ ınez. Quan- tum computation of electronic transitions using a vari- ational quantum eigensolver.Physical Review Let- ters, 122(23), June 2019. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.122.230401. URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.230401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.230401 2019

  17. [17]

    McClean, Mollie E

    Jarrod R. McClean, Mollie E. Kimchi-Schwartz, Jonathan Carter, and Wibe A. de Jong. Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoher- ence and determination of excited states.Physical Re- view A, 95(4), April 2017. ISSN 2469-9934. doi: 10.1103/physreva.95.042308. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.042308

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.95.042308 2017

  18. [18]

    A.Yu. Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons.Annals of Physics, 303(1):2–30, January

  19. [19]

    doi:10.1016/s0003-4916(02)00018-

    ISSN 0003-4916. doi:10.1016/s0003-4916(02)00018-

    work page doi:10.1016/s0003-4916(02)00018-

  20. [20]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(02) 00018-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0003-4916(02

  21. [21]

    Halko, P

    N. Halko, P. G. Martinsson, and J. A. Tropp. Finding structure with randomness: Probabilistic algorithms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions.SIAM Review, 53(2):217–288, January 2011. ISSN 1095-7200. doi:10.1137/090771806. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1137/090771806

    work page doi:10.1137/090771806 2011

  22. [22]

    Randomized block krylov methods for stronger and faster approximate singular value decomposition, 2015

    Cameron Musco and Christopher Musco. Randomized block krylov methods for stronger and faster approximate singular value decomposition, 2015

    2015

  23. [23]

    Saad, Numerical Methods for Large Eigenvalue Problems, SIAM, Philadelphia, revised edn., doi:10.1137/1.9781611970739 (2011)

    Yousef Saad.Numerical Methods for Large Eigen- value Problems: Revised Edition. Society for Indus- trial and Applied Mathematics, January 2011. ISBN 9781611970739. doi:10.1137/1.9781611970739. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611970739

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611970739 2011

  24. [24]

    A chebyshev–davidson al- gorithm for large symmetric eigenproblems.SIAM Jour- nal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 29(3):954–971, January 2007

    Yunkai Zhou and Yousef Saad. A chebyshev–davidson al- gorithm for large symmetric eigenproblems.SIAM Jour- nal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 29(3):954–971, January 2007. ISSN 1095-7162. doi:10.1137/050630404. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1137/050630404

    work page doi:10.1137/050630404 2007

  25. [25]

    A. Yu. Kitaev. Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem, 1995

    1995

  26. [26]

    Abrams and Seth Lloyd

    Daniel S. Abrams and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigen- values and eigenvectors.Physical Review Letters, 83 (24):5162–5165, December 1999. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.83.5162. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.5162

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.5162 1999

  27. [27]

    Preparing ground states of quantum many-body systems on a quantum computer

    David Poulin and Pawel Wocjan. Preparing ground states of quantum many-body systems on a quantum computer. Physical Review Letters, 102(13), April 2009. ISSN 1079-

    2009

  28. [28]

    URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.130503

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.130503. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.130503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.130503

  29. [29]

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Optimal hamil- tonian simulation by quantum signal processing.Phys- ical Review Letters, 118(1), January 2017. ISSN 1079-

    2017

  30. [30]

    URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.010501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.010501. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.010501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.010501

  31. [31]

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

    Andr´ as Gily´ en, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum ma- trix arithmetics. InProceedings of the 51st Annual 7 ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’19, page 193–204. ACM, June 2019. doi: 10.1145/3313276.3316366. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1145/3313276.3316366

    work page doi:10.1145/3313276.3316366 2019

  32. [32]

    Near-optimal ground state prepa- ration.Quantum, 4:372, December 2020

    Lin Lin and Yu Tong. Near-optimal ground state prepa- ration.Quantum, 4:372, December 2020. ISSN 2521- 327X. doi:10.22331/q-2020-12-14-372. URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-12-14-372

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-12-14-372 2020

  33. [33]

    Yulong Dong, Lin Lin, and Yu Tong. Ground- state preparation and energy estimation on early fault- tolerant quantum computers via quantum eigenvalue transformation of unitary matrices.PRX Quan- tum, 3(4), October 2022. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.3.040305. URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040305

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.040305 2022

  34. [34]

    Ignacio Cirac

    Yimin Ge, Jordi Tura, and J. Ignacio Cirac. Faster ground state preparation and high-precision ground en- ergy estimation with fewer qubits.Journal of Mathemat- ical Physics, 60(2), February 2019. ISSN 1089-7658. doi: 10.1063/1.5027484. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/ 1.5027484

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5027484 2019

  35. [35]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee. Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 76(3):289–301, September 1980. ISSN 1432-0916. doi:10.1007/bf02193559. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02193559

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02193559 1980

  36. [36]

    G.W. Gibbons. Typical states and density matrices. Journal of Geometry and Physics, 8(1–4):147–162, March

  37. [37]

    doi:10.1016/0393-0440(92)90046-

    ISSN 0393-0440. doi:10.1016/0393-0440(92)90046-

    work page doi:10.1016/0393-0440(92)90046-

  38. [38]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0393-0440(92) 90046-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0393-0440(92

  39. [39]

    On the spinor representation of surfaces in Euclidean 3-space

    Dorje C. Brody and Lane P. Hughston. Geometric quan- tum mechanics.Journal of Geometry and Physics, 38(1): 19–53, April 2001. ISSN 0393-0440. doi:10.1016/s0393- 0440(00)00052-8. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0393-0440(00)00052-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0393- 2001

  40. [40]

    Entanglement distance for arbitrary m-qudit hybrid systems.Physical Review A, 101(4), April 2020

    Denise Cocchiarella, Stefano Scali, Salvatore Ribisi, Bianca Nardi, Ghofrane Bel-Hadj-Aissa, and Roberto Franzosi. Entanglement distance for arbitrary m-qudit hybrid systems.Physical Review A, 101(4), April 2020. ISSN 2469-9934. doi:10.1103/physreva.101.042129. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.042129

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.101.042129 2020

  41. [41]

    Quantum fingerprinting.Physical Review Letters, 87(16), September 2001

    Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, John Watrous, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum fingerprinting.Physical Review Letters, 87(16), September 2001. ISSN 1079-

    2001

  42. [42]

    URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.167902

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.167902. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.167902

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.167902

  43. [43]

    Flammia, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, Benoˆ ıt Vermersch, and Peter Zoller

    Andreas Elben, Steven T. Flammia, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, Benoˆ ıt Vermersch, and Peter Zoller. The randomized measurement toolbox.Na- ture Reviews Physics, 5(1):9–24, December 2022. ISSN 2522-5820. doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2 2022

  44. [44]

    Quantum fidelity for degenerate ground states in quantum phase transitions.Physical Review E, 88(3), September 2013

    Yao Heng Su, Bing-Quan Hu, Sheng-Hao Li, and Sam Young Cho. Quantum fidelity for degenerate ground states in quantum phase transitions.Physical Review E, 88(3), September 2013. ISSN 1550-2376. doi: 10.1103/physreve.88.032110. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevE.88.032110

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.88.032110 2013

  45. [45]

    Quantum fidelity measures for mixed states

    Yeong-Cherng Liang, Yu-Hao Yeh, Paulo E M F Men- don¸ ca, Run Yan Teh, Margaret D Reid, and Peter D Drummond. Quantum fidelity measures for mixed states. Reports on Progress in Physics, 82(7):076001, June 2019. ISSN 1361-6633. doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab1ca4. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ab1ca4

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab1ca4 2019

  46. [46]

    Supervised Learning with Quantum-Enhanced Feature Spaces

    Vojtˇ ech Havl´ ıˇ cek, Antonio D. C´ orcoles, Kristan Temme, Aram W. Harrow, Abhinav Kandala, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces.Nature, 567(7747): 209–212, March 2019. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0980-2. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/s41586-019-0980-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0980-2 2019

  47. [47]

    Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond

    Alexei Kitaev. Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond.Annals of Physics, 321(1):2–111, January 2006. ISSN 0003-4916. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005

    work page Pith review doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005 2006

  48. [48]

    New Journal of Physics , abstract =

    C. Karrasch, J. H. Bardarson, and J. E. Moore. Re- ducing the numerical effort of finite-temperature den- sity matrix renormalization group calculations.New Journal of Physics, 15(8):083031, August 2013. ISSN 1367-2630. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/8/083031. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/15/8/083031

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/8/083031 2013

  49. [49]

    Fernando G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, Aram W. Harrow, and Micha l Horodecki. Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 346(2):397–434, August 2016. ISSN 1432-0916. doi:10.1007/s00220-016-2706-8. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-016-2706-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-016-2706-8 2016

  50. [50]

    Harrow and Saeed Mehraban

    Aram W. Harrow and Saeed Mehraban. Approximate unitary t-designs by short random quantum circuits using nearest-neighbor and long-range gates.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 401(2):1531–1626, May 2023. ISSN 1432-0916. doi:10.1007/s00220-023-04675-z. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-023-04675-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-023-04675-z 2023

  51. [51]

    Bremner, Ashley Montanaro, and Dan J

    Michael J. Bremner, Ashley Montanaro, and Dan J. Shepherd. Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations.Phys- ical Review Letters, 117(8):080501, 2016

    2016

  52. [52]

    Dalzell, Nicholas Hunter-Jones, and Fer- nando G

    Alexander M. Dalzell, Nicholas Hunter-Jones, and Fer- nando G. S. L. Brandao. Random quantum circuits an- ticoncentrate in log depth.PRX Quantum, 3(1):010333, 2022

    2022

  53. [53]

    Entanglement esti- mation in non-optimal qubit states.Annals of Physics, 411:167995, December 2019

    Stefano Scali and Roberto Franzosi. Entanglement esti- mation in non-optimal qubit states.Annals of Physics, 411:167995, December 2019. ISSN 0003-4916. doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2019.167995. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.aop.2019.167995

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2019.167995 2019

  54. [54]

    Nature Communications9(1) (2018) https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4

    Jarrod R. McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature Communications, 9(1), November 2018. ISSN 2041-1723. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4. URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4 2018

  55. [55]

    Coles, and M

    Martin Larocca, Piotr Czarnik, Kunal Sharma, Gopikr- ishnan Muraleedharan, Patrick J. Coles, and M. Cerezo. Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum op- timal control.Quantum, 6:824, September 2022. ISSN 2521-327X. doi:10.22331/q-2022-09-29-824. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-09-29-824

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2022-09-29-824 2022

  56. [56]

    W. M. C. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. J. Needs, and G. Ra- jagopal. Quantum monte carlo simulations of solids. Reviews of Modern Physics, 73(1):33–83, January 2001. ISSN 1539-0756. doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.33. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.73.33

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.33 2001

  57. [57]

    McArdle, T

    Sam McArdle, Tyson Jones, Suguru Endo, Ying Li, Si- mon C. Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Variational ansatz- based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution. npj Quantum Information, 5(1), September 2019. ISSN 8 2056-6387. doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0187-2. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0187-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0187-2 2019

  58. [58]

    Mario Motta, Chong Sun, Adrian T. K. Tan, Matthew J. O’Rourke, Erika Ye, Austin J. Minnich, Fernando G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Determin- ing eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum com- puter using quantum imaginary time evolution.Na- ture Physics, 16(2):205–210, November 2019. ISSN 1745-

    2019

  59. [59]

    URLhttp://dx

    doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0704-4. URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0704-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0704-4

  60. [60]

    Booth, Alex J

    George H. Booth, Alex J. W. Thom, and Ali Alavi. Fermion monte carlo without fixed nodes: A game of life, death, and annihilation in slater determinant space. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 131(5), August 2009. ISSN 1089-7690. doi:10.1063/1.3193710. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3193710

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3193710 2009

  61. [61]

    Booth, and Ali Alavi

    Deidre Cleland, George H. Booth, and Ali Alavi. Com- munications: Survival of the fittest: Accelerating con- vergence in full configuration-interaction quantum monte carlo.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 132(4), Jan- uary 2010. ISSN 1089-7690. doi:10.1063/1.3302277. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3302277

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3302277 2010

  62. [62]

    Huggins, Bryan A

    William J. Huggins, Bryan A. O’Gorman, Nicholas C. Rubin, David R. Reichman, Ryan Babbush, and Joonho Lee. Unbiasing fermionic quantum monte carlo with a quantum computer.Nature, 603(7901): 416–420, March 2022. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04351-z. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/s41586-021-04351-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04351-z 2022

  63. [63]

    Naka- gawa

    Keita Kanno, Masaya Kohda, Ryosuke Imai, Sho Koh, Kosuke Mitarai, Wataru Mizukami, and Yuya O. Naka- gawa. Quantum-selected configuration interaction: clas- sical diagonalization of hamiltonians in subspaces se- lected by quantum computers, 2023

    2023

  64. [64]

    Quantum computing quantum monte carlo algorithm.Physical Review A, 112(2), August 2025

    Yukun Zhang, Yifei Huang, Jinzhao Sun, Dingshun Lv, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum computing quantum monte carlo algorithm.Physical Review A, 112(2), August 2025. ISSN 2469-9934. doi:10.1103/jt8s-hzhd. URLhttp:// dx.doi.org/10.1103/jt8s-hzhd

    work page doi:10.1103/jt8s-hzhd 2025

  65. [65]

    Paine, Vicente P

    Giuseppe Buonaiuto, Antonio Marquez Romero, Brian Coyle, Annie E. Paine, Vicente P. Soloviev, Stefano Scali, and Michal Krompiec. A unified quantum comput- ing quantum monte carlo framework through structured state preparation, 2026

    2026

  66. [66]

    Childs and Nathan Wiebe

    Andrew M. Childs and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary opera- tions.Quantum Information and Computation, 12(11 & 12):901–924, November 2012. ISSN 1533-7146. doi: 10.26421/qic12.11-12-1. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 26421/QIC12.11-12-1

    work page doi:10.26421/qic12.11-12-1 2012

  67. [67]

    Berry, Andrew M

    Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, and Robin Kothari. Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal de- pendence on all parameters. In2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, page 792–809. IEEE, October 2015. doi:10.1109/focs.2015.54. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2015.54

    work page doi:10.1109/focs.2015.54 2015

  68. [68]

    Stair, Renke Huang, and Francesco A

    Nicholas H. Stair, Renke Huang, and Francesco A. Evan- gelista. A multireference quantum krylov algorithm for strongly correlated electrons, 2019. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/1911.05163

    work page arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    Cortes and Stephen K

    Cristian L. Cortes and Stephen K. Gray. Quantum krylov subspace algorithms for ground- and excited-state energy estimation.Physical Review A, 105(2), February 2022. ISSN 2469-9934. doi:10.1103/physreva.105.022417. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022417

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.022417 2022

  70. [70]

    On approximation by trigono- metric sums and polynomials.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 13(4):491–515,

    Dunham Jackson. On approximation by trigono- metric sums and polynomials.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 13(4):491–515,

  71. [71]

    Classes of recursively enumerable sets and their decision problems.Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society, 74(2):358–366, 1953

    ISSN 1088-6850. doi:10.1090/s0002-9947- 1912-1500930-2. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1090/ S0002-9947-1912-1500930-2

    work page doi:10.1090/s0002-9947- 1912

  72. [72]

    Weiße, G

    Alexander Weiße, Gerhard Wellein, Andreas Alvermann, and Holger Fehske. The kernel polynomial method.Re- views of Modern Physics, 78(1):275–306, March 2006. ISSN 1539-0756. doi:10.1103/revmodphys.78.275. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.78.275

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.78.275 2006

  73. [73]

    G. W. Stewart and Ji-guang Sun.Matrix Perturbation Theory. Academic Press, Boston, 1990

    1990

  74. [74]

    Oxford University Press, 2012

    J¨ org Liesen and Zdenˇ ek Strakoˇ s.Krylov Subspace Meth- ods: Principles and Analysis. Oxford University Press, 2012. 9 Appendix A: Padding to qubit dimension When the physical Hilbert-space dimensionNis not a power of two, the Hamiltonian must be embedded on n=⌈log 2 N⌉qubits. We extendHto a 2 n ×2 n matrix H (pad) = H0 0 Λ1 2n−N ,(A1) where Λ≫ ∥H∥is a...

    2012

  75. [75]

    Under Haar measure, the equivariance ˆw(SR) =Sˆw(R) combined with left-invariance (SR∼Haar) givesSˆw d = ˆw for allS∈U(g), so ˆwis uniform onS 2g−1

    Haar randomness satisfies anti-concentration We verify that Haar-random rotations satisfy (η, δ)-anti-concentration, recovering Proposition 1a as a special case of Proposition 1b. Under Haar measure, the equivariance ˆw(SR) =Sˆw(R) combined with left-invariance (SR∼Haar) givesSˆw d = ˆw for allS∈U(g), so ˆwis uniform onS 2g−1. For a uniform unit vector in...

  76. [76]

    The distributional symmetry acts after the preparation, so no assumptions on the preparation are needed

    Hierarchy of assumptions and open questions The three approaches to diversity are distinguished by where isotropy is enforced: 1.Haar randomness(Proposition 1a): enforcesoutput isotropy(foot-points uniform onS 2g−1) via left-invariance of the measure. The distributional symmetry acts after the preparation, so no assumptions on the preparation are needed. ...

  77. [77]

    Bypasses the preparation entirely

    (η, δ)-anti-concentration(Proposition 1b): directly assumesoutputanti-concentration of the foot-point dis- tribution. Bypasses the preparation entirely. The cost is thatηmust be verified or argued per implementation. The nesting is: Haar⇒anti-concentration (withηgiven by (C7))⇒diversity. At-design gives input isotropy but does not imply output anti-concen...

  78. [78]

    Hamiltonian-rotation picture: sparsity destruction While the Hamiltonian-rotation picture is mathematically clean, it faces an implementation obstacle. A Hamiltonian with a sparse or structured Pauli decompositionH= P α hαPα generically loses that structure under conjugation: R† i PαRi is a dense unitary, soH i hasO(4 n) nonzero Pauli coefficients even wh...

  79. [79]

    Picture” indicates the most natural rotation picture (Hamiltonian- rotation or state-rotation); “Either

    State-rotation picture: per-primitive cost In the state-rotation picture the Hamiltonian is untouched, but the preparation primitive carries a per-branch cost. Variational methods (VQE)inherit any per-call cost of the chosen ansatz, including the exponential concentration phenomena (e.g. barren plateaus) characteristic of deep or highly expressive circuit...