pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16016 · v1 · pith:4KP6F26Rnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.str-el

Beyond Commutativity: Redesigning Trotter Decomposition via Local Symmetry

Naoki Negishi , Bo Yang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 19:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el
keywords Trotter decompositionquantum simulationSU(2) symmetryproduct formulaspin lattice modelsKagome Heisenberg modelcircuit depth
0
0 comments X

The pith

Grouping Hamiltonian terms by local SU(2) symmetry yields a Trotter decomposition that cuts simulation errors by orders of magnitude with fewer gates.

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

The paper introduces a decomposition principle for product formulas that partitions Hamiltonians into local three-site clusters classified by their SU(2) symmetry rather than by commutativity alone. Each of the at most four symmetry classes admits an exact mapping to efficient two-qubit operations, which reduces the number of clusters and thereby suppresses commutator errors while keeping physical invariants intact. In practice this yields second-order accuracy on certain models without the usual doubling of circuit depth. Readers should care because the method directly improves fidelity and hardware efficiency for spin-lattice simulations that standard commutativity-based Trotter steps handle poorly.

Core claim

Three-site generators fall into at most four SU(2)-symmetry classes, each of which possesses an effective two-qubit SU(4) representation that can be implemented exactly and efficiently. Reorganizing the product formula around these symmetry classes instead of commutativity relations reduces the total number of clusters, suppresses residual errors, and preserves underlying physical structures such as spin chirality. On a Kagome Heisenberg model with triangular chirality interactions the approach lowers both state infidelity and average chirality bias by more than three orders of magnitude while using substantially fewer gates than conventional decompositions.

What carries the argument

Local three-site cluster grouping by SU(2) symmetry class, each class mapped to an exact two-qubit SU(4) representation.

Load-bearing premise

That every relevant three-site generator belongs to one of at most four SU(2) symmetry classes that each admit exact and efficient two-qubit implementations.

What would settle it

Finding a physically relevant three-site interaction that cannot be placed in one of the four classes or that requires non-exact or inefficient two-qubit gates would show the claimed reduction in clusters and errors does not hold generally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16016 by Bo Yang, Naoki Negishi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of an SU(2)-respecting trian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Algebraic structure of the generator space of three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Circuit implementation of the local propagator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The connectivity graph of the 12-qubit Kagome [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Elementary circuits and first-order decomposi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. State infidelity at the evolution time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Estimated average spin-chirality as a function of the evolution time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The complete algebraic structures in Theorem 2. The yellow transparent regions denote [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The abstract of the decomposition procedure classi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Decomposition procedure classified by the coloured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Decomposition procedures classified by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The product formula, commonly known as Trotter decomposition, is a central tool for digital quantum simulation, whose performance depends critically on how the Hamiltonian is partitioned into tractable blocks. Standard decompositions typically rely on direct commutativity among Hamiltonian terms in a chosen operator representation, which can lead to large residual errors and deep circuits for complex, practically relevant many-body quantum systems. We address this fundamental bottleneck by introducing a new decomposition principle that goes beyond commutativity, grouping Hamiltonian terms into local three-site clusters according to the underlying SU(2) symmetry of the local dynamics. We show that three-site generators fall into at most four SU(2)-symmetry classes, each admitting an effective two-qubit SU(4) representation with exact and efficient implementations. By reducing the number of clusters, this decomposition principle substantially suppresses commutator-induced errors and circuit overhead while preserving underlying physical structures that commutativity-based decompositions may violate. We demonstrate the proposed method on several physically relevant spin-lattice models, where the reduced cluster structure can even realise the second-order product formula without doubling the circuit depth, as would be required by conventional decompositions. Numerical simulations of a Kagome Heisenberg model with triangular spin-chirality interactions show that the proposed method reduces both state infidelity and average spin-chirality bias by more than three orders of magnitude compared with conventional decompositions, while using substantially fewer gates. These results establish local symmetry as a flexible and practical design principle for product-formula simulation, opening a route to more accurate and hardware-efficient simulations of broader classes of many-body systems.

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 proposes redesigning Trotter product formulas for digital quantum simulation by grouping Hamiltonian terms into local three-site clusters according to underlying SU(2) symmetry rather than commutativity. It claims that all relevant three-site generators belong to at most four SU(2) symmetry classes, each exactly equivalent to a two-qubit SU(4) operator that admits efficient exact implementation. This reduces cluster count, suppresses commutator errors, and preserves physical structures; numerical results on a Kagome Heisenberg model with triangular spin-chirality terms report more than three orders of magnitude reduction in state infidelity and chirality bias while using fewer gates.

Significance. If the symmetry classification and exact mappings hold, the method offers a principled way to improve accuracy and circuit efficiency for many-body spin simulations beyond standard commutativity-based decompositions. The reported numerical gains on a physically relevant model with chirality interactions, combined with the potential for second-order formulas without depth doubling, would represent a meaningful advance in hardware-efficient quantum simulation techniques.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3] §3 (decomposition principle): The central claim that three-site generators, including spin-chirality terms of the form S_i · (S_j × S_k), fall into at most four SU(2)-symmetry classes each admitting an exact two-qubit SU(4) representation must be supported by an explicit enumeration or derivation. Without this, it is unclear whether the classification is complete or whether the effective representations introduce any deviation from the target Hamiltonian, which would undermine the attribution of the observed three-order-of-magnitude fidelity improvements to the symmetry-based grouping.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions and legends should explicitly distinguish the conventional commutativity-based decompositions from the symmetry-based ones, including gate counts and error metrics for direct comparison.
  2. The abstract states 'at most four' classes; the main text should clarify whether this bound is tight for the models considered and list the classes with their explicit generators.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address the major comment regarding the explicit support for the SU(2) symmetry classification in Section 3. We agree that an explicit enumeration will strengthen the manuscript and will incorporate it in the revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (decomposition principle): The central claim that three-site generators, including spin-chirality terms of the form S_i · (S_j × S_k), fall into at most four SU(2)-symmetry classes each admitting an exact two-qubit SU(4) representation must be supported by an explicit enumeration or derivation. Without this, it is unclear whether the classification is complete or whether the effective representations introduce any deviation from the target Hamiltonian, which would undermine the attribution of the observed three-order-of-magnitude fidelity improvements to the symmetry-based grouping.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing this out. Upon review, while the manuscript outlines the symmetry classes, we acknowledge that a more detailed derivation and enumeration would clarify the completeness. In the revised version, we will include an explicit table or list enumerating the four classes: 1. Vector-like terms (e.g., Heisenberg exchange), 2. Tensor terms, 3. Chirality operators which transform as axial vectors under SU(2), and 4. Higher-order combinations. For the spin-chirality term S_i · (S_j × S_k), we derive its equivalence to a two-qubit gate by noting that it can be expressed as an imaginary part of a three-qubit operator that reduces to SU(4) on paired qubits due to the local symmetry constraint. This mapping is exact, preserving the eigenvalues and thus not introducing deviations. The fidelity gains are therefore attributable to the symmetry-based clustering reducing the number of non-commuting blocks. We will add this derivation to §3. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Symmetry classification derived from SU(2) structure without reduction to inputs or self-citation

full rationale

The paper derives the claim that three-site generators fall into at most four SU(2)-symmetry classes, each admitting an exact two-qubit SU(4) representation, directly from the local symmetry of the Hamiltonian terms rather than by fitting parameters to the target data or invoking a self-citation chain. The numerical error reductions on the Kagome model are presented as empirical validation of the resulting decomposition, not as a quantity forced by construction from the classification itself. No equations or premises reduce the central result to a renaming, ansatz smuggled via prior work, or uniqueness theorem imported from the same authors. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks of SU(2) representation theory.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard representation theory of SU(2) and the assumption that local three-site terms admit exact two-qubit embeddings; no new free parameters or postulated entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Local three-site Hamiltonian generators can be partitioned into at most four SU(2)-symmetry classes each admitting an exact two-qubit SU(4) representation.
    This classification is the load-bearing step that allows reduction in cluster count and exact implementations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5812 in / 1372 out tokens · 39524 ms · 2026-05-20T19:14:02.394757+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

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Two-body interactions byXXXHeisenberg Hamiltonian First, we consider the triangular quantum spin Hamil- tonian H(3) Heis =⃗ σi ·⃗ σj +⃗ σj ·⃗ σk +⃗ σk ·⃗ σi, (10) where⃗ σi ·⃗ σj represents the two-bodyXXXHeisenberg interaction term, ⃗ σi ·⃗ σj =X iXj +Y iYj +Z iZj. (11) Based on the commutativity relation among the terms inH Heis, the conventional decomp...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (15) We here remark thatϵ Heis =H (3) Chiral, which is obvious by comparing Eq

    Three-body spin-chirality interactions Next, we consider the three-body spin-chirality inter- action HamiltonianH (3) Chiral =⃗ σi ·(⃗ σj ×⃗ σk), defined by H(3) Chiral =⃗ σi ·(⃗ σj ×⃗ σk) :=X i(YjZk −Z jYk) +Y i(ZjXk −X jZk) +Z i(XjYk −Y jXk). (15) We here remark thatϵ Heis =H (3) Chiral, which is obvious by comparing Eq. (13) and Eq. (15). Using the not...

    work page

  3. [3]

    residual error

    Combinations of the two types of interaction Now, we consider the circuit realisation of the prop- agator of the combined HamiltonianH (3) Heis +H (3) Chiral. From the above, we have checked that bothH (3) Heis and H(3) Chiral satisfy the same SU(2) symmetry. This imme- diately implies that the proposed method can exactly implement the propagator exp −i(H...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This remark is helpful for the proof of the following second lemma

    = (X 1X2X3, Y1Y2Y3, Z1Z2Z3). This remark is helpful for the proof of the following second lemma. In the proof of the second lemma, we choose the bases ofG 1 andG 2 as G1 = spanR{X1, Y 1, Z 1}, G2 = spanR{X1X2X3, Y 1Y2Y3, Z 1Z2Z3}. (A12) Lemma 2.Assuming that the subspaceH l commutes withG l, the intersection ofH l andH l′ for anyl̸=l ′ satisfies Hl ∩ Hl′ ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Furthermore, any operatorG µ ∈ G l does not commute withG l′, indicating thatG µ ̸∈ H l′ and thusG l ∩ Hl′ = {0}

    = (X1C1, Y1C2, Z1C1C2), (B8) we find that the subspaceC= span R {C1, C2, C1C2}com- mutes with all elements ofG l andG l′. Furthermore, any operatorG µ ∈ G l does not commute withG l′, indicating thatG µ ̸∈ H l′ and thusG l ∩ Hl′ = {0}. From the proof of Lemma 1, we yieldH l ∩ Hl′ = C ∼= T 3. We next prove the lemma that describes another type of intersect...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Under this choice, any operator commuting with Gl ⊕ Gl′ must act only on the third qubit

    = (X2, Y2, Z2) without loss of gen- erality. Under this choice, any operator commuting with Gl ⊕ Gl′ must act only on the third qubit. Therefore, we uniquely obtainH l ∩ Hl′ = spanR{X3, Y3, Z3}. The same argument applies if the intersectionG l ∩ Hl′ containsY 1 orZ 1 instead ofX 1. 14 Let us prove Theorem 2. We define the subspaceV ′ as V ′ = 3X l=1 (Hl ⊕...

    work page

  7. [7]

    In the conventional decomposition process, the propagator generated byHis decomposed into two tractable Trotter blocks generated byH 1 =−h PN i=1 Xi andH 2 =J PN i=1 ZiZi+1

    1D transverse-field Ising model We consider the propagator generated by the following Hamiltonian H=J NX i=1 ZiZi+1 −h NX i=1 Xi, (C1) with the periodic boundary conditions (PBC) ofZ 1 = ZN+1. In the conventional decomposition process, the propagator generated byHis decomposed into two tractable Trotter blocks generated byH 1 =−h PN i=1 Xi andH 2 =J PN i=...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The Hamiltonian can be described by the two-body zig-zag in- teraction edges (red and blue bars) in FIG

    Two-layerJ 1–J2 Heisenberg model The two-layerJ 1–J2 chain refers to the 1D Heisen- berg chain with next-nearest-neighbour interactions. The Hamiltonian can be described by the two-body zig-zag in- teraction edges (red and blue bars) in FIG. 10 (a) with the coupling parameterJ 1 and the two-body horizontal ones (green and yellow bars) with the coupling pa...

    work page

  9. [9]

    The pe- riodic boundary conditions(PBC) are given byZ 1,j = ZNX+1,j andZ i,1 =Z i,NY +1

    2D transverse-field Ising model We consider the following Hamiltonian H=J NXX i=1 NYX j=1 Zi,jZi+1,j +Z i,jZi,j+1 −h NXX i=1 NYX j=1 Xi,j, (C9) where the double subscripts “i, j” denotex- andy- coordinates of the 2D lattice site, respectively. The pe- riodic boundary conditions(PBC) are given byZ 1,j = ZNX+1,j andZ i,1 =Z i,NY +1. We conventionally decomp...

    work page

  10. [10]

    The other types of interaction model listed in Table I are the specific cases of the 2D triangular lattice, which can be obtained by truncating some kinds of interactions

    2D triangular lattice We focus on the 2D triangular lattice containing two- bodyXXXHeisenberg and three-body scalar spin- chirality interactions. The other types of interaction model listed in Table I are the specific cases of the 2D triangular lattice, which can be obtained by truncating some kinds of interactions. For the case of the conventional approa...

    work page

  11. [11]

    2D square Heisenberg lattice We finally remark that both the conventional and the proposed methods can be applied to the two-dimensional squareXXXHeisenberg lattice by removing the blue and orange edges from the triangular lattice shown in Fig. 11(a-1). Here, we illustrate the partitioned interac- tion edges in Fig. 12. While the conventional decompositio...

    work page

  12. [12]

    H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of opera- tors, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 10, 545–551 (1959)

    work page 1959

  13. [13]

    M. Suzuki, Generalized trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner deriva- tions with applications to many-body problems, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics51, 183–190 (1976)

    work page 1976

  14. [14]

    Hatano and M

    N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential prod- uct formulas of higher orders, inQuantum Annealing and Other Optimization Methods(Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 2005) p. 37–68

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature618, 500–505 (2023). 20

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Whitlow, Z

    J. Whitlow, Z. Jia, Y. Wang, C. Fang, J. Kim, and K. R. Brown, Quantum simulation of conical intersections using trapped ions, Nature Chemistry15, 1509–1514 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    T. A. Chowdhury, K. Yu, M. A. Shamim, M. L. Kabir, and R. S. Sufian, Enhancing quantum utility: Simulat- ing large-scale quantum spin chains on superconduct- ing quantum computers, Physical Review Research6, 10.1103/physrevresearch.6.033107 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.033107 2024

  18. [18]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Sav- age, Quantum simulations of hadron dynamics in the schwinger model using 112 qubits, Phys. Rev. D109, 114510 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Miessen, D

    A. Miessen, D. J. Egger, I. Tavernelli, and G. Mazzola, Benchmarking digital quantum simulations above hun- dreds of qubits using quantum critical dynamics, PRX Quantum5, 040320 (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Yoshioka, M

    N. Yoshioka, M. Amico, W. Kirby, P. Jurcevic, A. Dutt, B. Fuller, S. Garion, H. Haas, I. Hamamura, A. Ivrii, R. Majumdar, Z. Minev, M. Motta, B. Pokharel, P. Rivero, K. Sharma, C. J. Wood, A. Javadi-Abhari, and A. Mezzacapo, Krylov diagonalization of large many- body hamiltonians on a quantum processor, Nature Com- munications16, 10.1038/s41467-025-59716-z (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59716-z 2025

  21. [21]

    Di Sante, T

    D. Di Sante, T. Neupert, G. Sangiovanni, R. Thomale, R. Comin, J. G. Checkelsky, I. Zeljkovic, and S. D. Wil- son, Kagome metals, Rev. Mod. Phys.98, 015002 (2026)

    work page 2026

  22. [22]

    Luo and J

    M. Luo and J. I. Cirac, Efficient simulation of quantum chemistry problems in an enlarged basis set, PRX Quan- tum6, 010355 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Kan and B

    A. Kan and B. C. B. Symons, Resource-optimized fault- tolerant simulation of the fermi-hubbard model and high- temperature superconductor models, npj Quantum Infor- mation11, 10.1038/s41534-025-01091-0 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01091-0 2025

  24. [24]

    Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spontaneous hall effect in collinear anti- ferromagnets,

    I. Ronˇ cevi´ c, F. Paschke, Y. Gao, L.-A. Lieske, L. A. G¨ odde, S. Barison, S. Piccinelli, A. Baiardi, I. Tavernelli, J. Repp, F. Albrecht, H. L. Anderson, and L. Gross, A molecule with half-m¨ obius topology, Science 10.1126/sci- ence.aea3321 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1126/sci- 2026

  25. [25]

    R. D. Somma, A trotter-suzuki approximation for lie groups with applications to hamiltonian simulation, Journal of Mathematical Physics57, 10.1063/1.4952761 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4952761 2016

  26. [26]

    Su, H.-Y

    Y. Su, H.-Y. Huang, and E. T. Campbell, Nearly tight trotterization of interacting electrons, Quantum5, 495 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    J. R. Stryker, Shearing approach to gauge-invariant trot- terization, Phys. Rev. D112, 014508 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    X. Yuan, J. Sun, J. Liu, Q. Zhao, and Y. Zhou, Quantum simulation with hybrid tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    A. M. Childs, A. Ostrander, and Y. Su, Faster quantum simulation by randomization, Quantum3, 182 (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Campbell, Random compiler for fast hamiltonian sim- ulation, Phys

    E. Campbell, Random compiler for fast hamiltonian sim- ulation, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 070503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Yang, Randomized term grouping over physical law on digital quantum simulation (2023)

    S. Yang, Randomized term grouping over physical law on digital quantum simulation (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Kiumi and B

    C. Kiumi and B. Koczor, Te-pai: exact time evolution by sampling random circuits, Quantum Science and Tech- nology10, 045071 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    M. C. Tran, Y. Su, D. Carney, and J. M. Taylor, Faster digital quantum simulation by symmetry protec- tion, PRX Quantum2, 010323 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    P. Zeng, J. Sun, L. Jiang, and Q. Zhao, Simple and high- precision hamiltonian simulation by compensating trot- ter error with linear combination of unitary operations, PRX Quantum6, 010359 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, S. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Mit- igating algorithmic errors in a hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. A99, 012334 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Hakkaku, Y

    S. Hakkaku, Y. Suzuki, Y. Tokunaga, and S. Endo, Data- efficient error mitigation for physical and algorithmic er- rors in a hamiltonian simulation (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Geometric theory of nonlocal two-qubit operations, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042313 (2003)

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    Khaneja and S

    N. Khaneja and S. J. Glaser, Cartan decomposition of su(2n) and control of spin systems, Chemical Physics 267, 11 (2001)

    work page 2001

  39. [39]

    Khaneja, R

    N. Khaneja, R. Brockett, and S. J. Glaser, Time optimal control in spin systems, Phys. Rev. A63, 032308 (2001)

    work page 2001

  40. [40]

    M. J. Bremner, C. M. Dawson, J. L. Dodd, A. Gilchrist, A. W. Harrow, D. Mortimer, M. A. Nielsen, and T. J. Os- borne, Practical scheme for quantum computation with any two-qubit entangling gate, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 247902 (2002)

    work page 2002

  41. [41]

    A. M. Krol and Z. Al-Ars, Beyond quantum shannon de- composition: Circuit construction forn-qubit gates based on block-zxzdecomposition, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 034019 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Wang, Physical Review B94, 10.1103/phys- revb.94.195105 (2016)

    D. Bacon, I. L. Chuang, and A. W. Harrow, Effi- cient quantum circuits for schur and clebsch-gordan transforms, Physical Review Letters97, 10.1103/phys- revlett.97.170502 (2006)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2006

  43. [43]

    Q. T. Nguyen, The mixed schur transform: efficient quan- tum circuit and applications (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Yang and N

    B. Yang and N. Negishi, Quantum simulation of many- body dynamics with noise-robust trotter decomposition based on symmetric structures, AVS Quantum Science8, 10.1116/5.0308618 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1116/5.0308618 2026

  45. [45]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    A. C. Hughes, R. Srinivas, C. M. L¨ oschnauer, H. M. Knaack, R. Matt, C. J. Ballance, M. Malinowski, T. P. Harty, and R. T. Sutherland, Trapped-ion two-qubit gates with>99.99% fidelity without ground-state cool- ing (2025)

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Ransford, M

    A. Ransford, M. S. Allman, J. Arkinstall, J. P. Campora, S. F. Cooper, R. D. Delaney, J. M. Dreiling, B. Estey, C. Figgatt, A. Hall, A. A. Husain, A. Isanaka, C. J. Kennedy, N. Kotibhaskar, I. S. Madjarov, K. Mayer, A. R. Milne, A. J. Park, A. P. Reed, R. Ancona, M. P. Andersen, P. Andres-Martinez, W. Angenent, L. Ar- gueta, B. Arkin, L. Ascarrunz, W. Bak...

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X11, 011020 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    J. D. Watson and J. Watkins, Exponentially reduced cir- cuit depths using trotter error mitigation, PRX Quantum 6, 030325 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitiga- tion for short-depth quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    B. Yang, R. Raymond, and S. Uno, Efficient quantum readout-error mitigation for sparse measurement out- comes of near-term quantum devices, Phys. Rev. A106, 012423 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Yoshioka, H

    N. Yoshioka, H. Hakoshima, Y. Matsuzaki, Y. Tokunaga, Y. Suzuki, and S. Endo, Generalized quantum subspace expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 020502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    B. Yang, N. Yoshioka, H. Harada, S. Hakkaku, Y. Toku- naga, H. Hakoshima, K. Yamamoto, and S. Endo, Resource-efficient generalized quantum subspace expan- sion, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 054021 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045005 (2023)

    work page 2023