Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 33 references

Error bounds for the truncated Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff and Zassenhaus formulas in unitary problems

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Explicit error bounds for truncated BCH and Zassenhaus formulas

desk verdict Solid contribution: explicit commutator-scaling error bounds for truncated BCH and Zassenhaus formulas in the unitary setting. Zassenhaus bounds appear genuinely new. Proofs are clean, limitations honestly stated. Deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07692 v1 pith:426SNYRX submitted 2026-07-08 math-ph math.MPquant-ph

A. Arnal , F. Casas , J.L. Ruiz-Benito This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MPquant-ph MSC 17B6634L3081Q05
keywords Baker-Campbell-HausdorffformulaZassenhauserrorboundscommutatorscalingunitaryevolutiontruncationskew-adjointoperatorsquantumsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff (BCH) formula says that the product of two operator exponentials, e^A times e^B, can be written as a single exponential whose exponent is A + B plus an infinite series of nested commutators. In practice one truncates this series, and the authors ask: how large is the resulting error? They prove that for skew-adjoint operators A and B (the setting of quantum evolution, where exponentials are unitary), the error of truncating the BCH series after m terms is bounded by an explicit polynomial in t whose coefficients are norms of nested commutators of A and B. The degree of this polynomial is m^2 - 1, and its leading term is of order t^{m+1}. For example, keeping terms through the first commutator [A,B] (m=2) yields the bound (1/4)||[A,[A,B]]|| + (1/12)||[B,[A,B]]||. The authors establish analogous bounds for the Zassenhaus formula (the dual decomposition of e^{A+B} into a product of exponentials of commutators), for the symmetric BCH formula arising in Strang splitting, and for products of N operators. In every case the bound depends on commutator norms rather than on the raw norms of A and B, which means the bounds tighten automatically when the operators nearly commute.

What carries the argument

Lemma 2.1: for unitary F_1, F_2 solving dF_i/dt = M_i(t) F_i with skew-adjoint M_i, the bound ||F_1(t) - F_2(t)|| <= integral ||M_1(s) - M_2(s)|| ds. Lemma 2.2: integral-form Taylor remainder for e^{s ad_X} Y, bounded by (1/n!)||ad^n_X Y|| when X is skew-adjoint. Theorem 2.3: general m-term BCH bound. Corollary 2.4: polynomial structure with coefficients C_j^{[m]}. Theorem 4.1: N-operator generalization. Theorem 5.1: symmetric BCH. Equation 47: Zassenhaus bound.

What would settle it

If one constructs skew-adjoint matrices A, B where the commutator norms ||[A,[A,B]]|| and ||[B,[A,B]]|| are small but the actual error ||e^A e^B - e^{A+B+[A,B]/2}|| is large, the m=2 bound would be violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central mechanism is a comparison of two unitary evolution operators via their generator equations. The authors write e^{tA}e^{tB} and e^{Z[m](tA,tB)} as solutions of linear ODEs with skew-adjoint generator matrices M_1(t) and M_2(t). A lemma shows that the norm of the difference of two unitary evolution operators is bounded by the time-integral of the norm of the difference of their generators. By expanding M_1 and M_2 in powers of t with integral remainders (using the Taylor expansion of the adjoint action e^{s ad_X} Y), the difference M_1 - M_2 becomes an explicit function of nested commutators. Integrating term by term produces a polynomial in t whose coefficients are linear combicor

Load-bearing premise

The entire framework depends on the operators being skew-adjoint in finite dimensions, which ensures that the evolution operators in the comparison are unitary and have norm exactly one. This is what makes the integral bound on the generator difference directly control the operator difference without extra factors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quantum simulation algorithms using Trotter or product-formula decompositions can use these bounds to determine circuit depth requirements with explicit constants, rather than asymptotic order estimates.
  • Systems where operators nearly commute benefit directly: the bounds scale with commutator norms, so near-commutativity yields tighter error control without additional analysis.
  • The Zassenhaus bounds are the first published error estimates for truncated Zassenhaus expansions, filling a gap for applications in periodically driven quantum systems and quantum nonlinear optics.
  • The polynomial structure (degree m^2-1, leading term t^{m+1}) gives a practical criterion for choosing the truncation order m: one selects m so that the leading commutator norm is small enough for the target accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The restriction to finite-dimensional skew-adjoint operators is essential because the proof uses ||F_2(t)|| = 1 and ||Psi(t)|| = 1, which holds for unitary operators. Extending to unbounded or infinite-dimensional settings would require substitute estimates for the evolution operator norms.
  • The triangle-inequality step that separates combined commutator norms (e.g., ||[A,[A,B]] + [B,[A,B]]|| into individual terms) introduces looseness. The numerical examples for m=2,3 show the overestimation factor is roughly 2-3, but whether this remains controlled for large m is not established.
  • The computational complexity of extracting explicit C_j^{[m]} coefficients grows exponentially with m, which may limit practical use to moderate truncation orders unless algorithmic improvements are made.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a general strategy for deriving rigorous, explicit error bounds on the truncation of the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff (BCH) and Zassenhaus formulas when the operators involved are skew-adjoint (finite-dimensional unitary setting). The core technique (Lemma 2.1) relates the norm of the difference of two unitary evolution operators to the integral of the norm of the difference of their generator operators. By expanding these generators via integral-form Taylor remainders (Lemma 2.2) and exploiting the fact that the adjoint action of a skew-adjoint operator is norm-preserving, the authors obtain bounds that are explicit polynomials in the parameter t with coefficients given by norms of nested commutators. The framework is applied to the two-operator BCH (Theorem 2.3, Corollary 2.4), the N-operator BCH (Theorem 4.1), the symmetric BCH (Theorem 5.1), and the Zassenhaus formula (Section 6). The m=1,2 cases recover known Lie–Trotter and Strang bounds. A numerical example on random 20×20 matrices confirms tightness within a factor of ~3 for m=2,3.

Significance. The problem addressed is well-motivated by quantum simulation and product-formula error analysis, where commutator-scaling bounds are of practical importance. The derivation is parameter-free and self-contained; the BCH and Zassenhaus coefficients are determined by standard recursive constructions, not fitted to data. The bounds are falsifiable and explicitly computable via computer algebra, with expressions provided for m=3 (Appendix) and m=4 (companion website). The recovery of known Lie–Trotter and Strang bounds at lowest order provides a consistency check. The Zassenhaus error bounds appear to be genuinely new. The restriction to finite-dimensional skew-adjoint operators is inherent to the method (Lemma 2.1 requires unitarity for the norm-preservation step) and is openly acknowledged.

major comments (3)
  1. §2.2, between Eqs. (18) and (19): The claim that M_1(t) − M_2(t) = O(t^m) is stated as following from the BCH construction, but the justification is only informal here. Since this order condition is load-bearing for Theorem 2.3 (it is what makes R^[m](s) = O(s^m) in the proof), a brief explicit verification or a forward reference to the proof of Theorem 2.3 (where it is re-asserted) would strengthen the logical flow. As written, the reader must take the claim on trust at the point it is first used.
  2. §6, Zassenhaus bound for q=3: The bound includes the term (3/5) t^5 ‖[C_2, C_3]‖. The coefficient 3/5 arises from integrating s^4 and appears correct, but the claim immediately following that the q=2 bound (Eq. 10) constitutes an 'optimal bound' (i.e., 'it is not possible to get smaller coefficients') is stated without proof. This optimality claim is load-bearing for the framing of the contribution as sharp. Either a brief justification (e.g., by exhibiting a counterexample to any smaller coefficient) or a softening of the language to 'best known' or 'consistent with the structure of C_3' would be appropriate.
  3. §4, Theorem 4.1: The remainder term V_{N,m}(t) is bounded via Eq. (37) using the triangle inequality on the sum over n. For general N and m, the looseness introduced by this step is not assessed. While the numerical example in §3 covers N=2, m=2,3, no numerical or analytical evidence is provided for N>2. A brief comment on whether the bounds remain tight for multiple operators (or at least an acknowledgment that tightness has only been verified for N=2) would set appropriate expectations.
minor comments (7)
  1. Abstract: The abstract states the operators are 'skew-adjoint,' but the introduction (§1, 'Main contribution') says 'self-adjoint.' Since e^{tA} is unitary for skew-adjoint A (and e^{itA} for self-adjoint A), this terminology inconsistency should be resolved. The body of the paper consistently uses 'skew-adjoint.'
  2. §2.3, Eq. (24) to (25): The transition from the combined norm ‖[A,[A,B]] + [B,[A,B]]‖ to the sum of norms via the triangle inequality is noted, but the factor of 1/12 on the second term in (25) appears to combine the 1/12 from (24) with the split. This is correct but could confuse a quick reader; a one-line derivation would help.
  3. §3, Figure 1 caption: 'truncated second-order BCH formula' should read 'truncated BCH formula after two terms' or 'second-order truncation,' as 'second-order' is ambiguous (the error is O(t^3)).
  4. §5, Theorem 5.1: The statement uses W^[p] in the exponent on the left-hand side but W^[p+1] in the integral on the right-hand side. While this is consistent with the definition (40) (truncation after p terms, indexed as p+1), the notation is potentially confusing. A clarifying remark would help.
  5. §6, Algorithm 1, line 4: The formula C_n = (1/n) f_{⌊(n−1)/2⌋, n−1} for n≥5 should be checked for consistency with the indexing in line 3. The floor function ⌊(n−1)/2⌋ appears without prior motivation.
  6. References: [11] (Casas & Murua, arXiv:2604.01026) is cited as a tech report from 2026. If this is a preprint, the journal reference should be updated upon publication.
  7. The companion website (http://www.gicas.uji.es/Research/bch.html) is referenced multiple times for explicit bounds at higher m. The permanence of this URL cannot be verified at review time; depositing the code/expressions in a permanent repository (e.g., Zenodo) would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying three points where the manuscript can be improved. All three comments are well-taken. We will (1) add an explicit verification of the order condition M_1(t) - M_2(t) = O(t^m) at the point it is first used, (2) soften the optimality claim for the q=2 Zassenhaus bound to 'best known' with a brief justification, and (3) add a comment acknowledging that tightness has only been verified numerically for N=2. No standing objections remain.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §2.2, between Eqs. (18) and (19): The claim that M_1(t) − M_2(t) = O(t^m) is stated as following from the BCH construction, but the justification is only informal here. Since this order condition is load-bearing for Theorem 2.3 (it is what makes R^[m](s) = O(s^m) in the proof), a brief explicit verification or a forward reference to the proof of Theorem 2.3 (where it is re-asserted) would strengthen the logical flow. As written, the reader must take the claim on trust at the point it is first used.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the claim is stated informally at this point and only justified later in the proof of Theorem 2.3. We will add a brief explicit verification in §2.2. Specifically, the recursive construction (17) shows that at each order t^{n-1}, the coefficient of M_1(t) (namely (1/(n-1)!) ad_A^{n-1} B) is matched by the corresponding coefficient nΦ_n plus lower-order commutator terms F_{n-1}(Φ_1,...,Φ_{n-1}) in M_2(t). Since Φ_n is defined precisely to enforce this matching (equation (17)), all terms through order t^{m-1} cancel in M_1(t) - M_2(t), leaving the leading contribution at order t^m. We will include this one-paragraph verification between equations (18) and (19), and also add a forward reference to the proof of Theorem 2.3 where the same cancellation is re-examined in the context of R^[m](s). revision: yes

  2. Referee: §6, Zassenhaus bound for q=3: The bound includes the term (3/5) t^5 ‖[C_2, C_3]‖. The coefficient 3/5 arises from integrating s^4 and appears correct, but the claim immediately following that the q=2 bound (Eq. 10) constitutes an 'optimal bound' (i.e., 'it is not possible to get smaller coefficients') is stated without proof. This optimality claim is load-bearing for the framing of the contribution as sharp. Either a brief justification (e.g., by exhibiting a counterexample to any smaller coefficient) or a softening of the language to 'best known' or 'consistent with the structure of C_3' would be appropriate.

    Authors: The referee is right that the word 'optimal' is too strong as stated, since we do not provide a proof of optimality (e.g., by exhibiting a counterexample showing that smaller coefficients are impossible). We will soften the language. Specifically, we will replace 'this constitutes an optimal bound: it is not possible to get smaller coefficients in front of the respective commutators' with 'this constitutes the best bound achievable within our framework: the coefficients arise directly from the integral-form Taylor remainders without any further application of the triangle inequality, and are consistent with the structure of C_3.' We believe this accurately characterizes the situation—the bound (10) is obtained without any intermediate triangle-inequality step that would inflate coefficients—but we agree that a formal optimality proof would require a separate argument that we do not currently have. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §4, Theorem 4.1: The remainder term V_{N,m}(t) is bounded via Eq. (37) using the triangle inequality on the sum over n. For general N and m, the looseness introduced by this step is not assessed. While the numerical example in §3 covers N=2, m=2,3, no numerical or analytical evidence is provided for N>2. A brief comment on whether the bounds remain tight for multiple operators (or at least an acknowledgment that tightness has only been verified for N=2) would set appropriate expectations.

    Authors: This is a fair point. The numerical verification in §3 is limited to N=2, and we have not tested N>2 cases. The triangle inequality in equation (37) is applied to the sum over n inside the integral, and for larger N the recursive structure of C_{k,n} means that more terms accumulate, so some looseness is expected—though the N=2 results suggest it may be modest. We will add a sentence after Theorem 4.1 (or at the end of §4) acknowledging that tightness has only been verified numerically for N=2 and that the N>2 case may warrant further investigation. We will also note that for N=2 the bound reduces to Theorem 2.3 (as shown), so the N=2 numerical evidence provides at least a partial consistency check on the general formula. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified; derivation is parameter-free and self-contained.

full rationale

The paper derives explicit error bounds for truncated BCH and Zassenhaus formulas from first principles. Lemma 2.1 (the integral bound on unitary evolution differences) is proved directly from the ODE satisfied by W(t) = F1(t) - F2(t), using only the unitarity of F2 and the evolution operator Psi. Lemma 2.2 (Taylor expansion of e^{s ad_X} Y with integral remainder) is a standard result proved from the Taylor theorem. Theorem 2.3 applies these lemmas to M1(t) - M2(t) where M1 and M2 are the logarithmic derivatives of e^{tA}e^{tB} and e^{Z[m]}, expanding both in powers of t with remainder terms bounded via (14). The BCH coefficients Phi_n are determined by the standard recursive construction (17), not fitted to any data. The bound (26) follows by degree-counting on ad^k_{Z[m]} Z_dot[m] (eq. 27-30). The m=1 case recovers the Lie-Trotter bound (21) and the symmetric case recovers the Strang bound, providing independent consistency checks. The numerical example in Section 3 uses random matrices to verify tightness, not to fit parameters. Self-citations ([10], [11], [12]) provide algorithmic tools (BCH series computation, Zassenhaus recursion) that are independently verifiable and do not assume the target result. No step reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, no ad hoc axioms, and no invented entities. All constants in the bounds arise from exact algebraic manipulation of the BCH/Zassenhaus series coefficients and integral remainders. The skew-adjointness assumption is a domain restriction, not an ad hoc postulate.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Operators A, B are skew-adjoint in a finite-dimensional space, so e^{tA} and e^{tB} are unitary with norm 1.
    Invoked throughout, starting in §1 (Main contribution) and used critically in Lemma 2.1 proof where ‖F₂(t)‖ = 1 and ‖Ψ(t)‖ = 1.
  • standard math The norm is submultiplicative and satisfies ‖[A,B]‖ ≤ 2‖A‖‖B‖.
    Stated in the Convergence paragraph of §1; standard for operator algebras.
  • standard math The derivative of the exponential of a time-dependent operator has the integral form d/dt e^{Ω(t)} = ∫₀¹ e^{x·ad_Ω} Ω̇ dx.
    Used in §2.2 to compute M₂(t); standard result cited as ref [7].
  • standard math The BCH and Zassenhaus coefficients Φ_n and C_n are well-defined homogeneous Lie polynomials determined by the standard recursive construction.
    Used throughout §2 and §6; standard Lie theory result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Error bounds for the truncated Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff and Zassenhaus formulas in unitary problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/426SNYRX

@misc{pith2026260707692,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Error bounds for the truncated Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff and Zassenhaus formulas in unitary problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/426SNYRX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07692}
}
read the original abstract

The Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff (BCH) formula plays a critical role in many branches of mathematics and physics. It expresses the logarithm of the product of exponentials of non-commuting operators as an infinite series of nested commutators of the operators involved. The Zassenhaus formula is the dual of the BCH formula: the exponential of a sum of operators is written as an infinite product of exponentials involving the operators and their commutators. In practical computations, however, one typically has to truncate the expansions, and so understanding the error committed by the resulting approximations and eventually providing suitable bounds for this error is of paramount interest. In this work we present a general strategy to derive rigorous error bounds and explicit error constants for the BCH and Zassenhaus formulas when the operators involved are skew-adjoint, as is the case for quantum evolution problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07692 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Actual error (32) committed by the truncated second-order BCH formula, together with the bounds (33) for two skew-adjoint 20 × 20 matrices 𝐴 and 𝐵. The difference between 𝐵 [2] 1 and 𝐵 [2] 2 is almost negligible in this case, and they overestimate the actual error by less than a factor 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Actual error 𝐸 [3] 𝑟 committed by the truncated second-order BCH formula, together with the theoretical bounds obtained in this work for two skew-adjoint 20 × 20 matrices 𝐴 and 𝐵. The dashed line corresponds to the leading term in the theoretical bound (26). 4 The truncated BCH formula with 𝑁 > 2 operators Consider now the BCH formula involving any number of skew-adjoint matrices, 𝐴1 , …, 𝐴𝑁 , exp(𝑡𝐴𝑁 ) ⋯ exp(𝑡𝐴2 ) … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A.ARNAL,F.CASAS,ANDC.CHIRALT,Onthestructureandconvergenceofthe symmetric Zassenhaus formula, Comput. Phys. Comm., 217 (2017), pp. 58–65

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    ARNAL, F

    A. ARNAL, F. CASAS,ANDC. CHIRALT,A note on the Baker–Campbell– Hausdorff series in terms of right-nested commutators, Mediterr. J. Math., 18 (2021), p. 53. 20

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    H. J. BAUES,Commutator Calculus and Groups of Homotopy Classes, Cam- bridge University Press, 1981

    work page 1981

  4. [4]

    BAYEN,On the convergence of the Zassenhaus formula, Lett

    F. BAYEN,On the convergence of the Zassenhaus formula, Lett. Math. Phys., 3 (1979), pp. 161–167

    work page 1979

  5. [5]

    BLANES ANDF

    S. BLANES ANDF. CASAS,On the convergence and optimization of the Baker– Campbell–Hausdorff formula, Linear Algebra Appl., 378 (2004), pp. 135–158

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    BLANES, F

    S. BLANES, F. CASAS,ANDA. MURUA,Splitting methods for differential equa- tions, Acta Numerica, 33 (2024), pp. 1–161

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    BLANES, F

    S. BLANES, F. CASAS, J. A. OTEO,ANDJ. ROS,The Magnus expansion and some of its applications, Phys. Rep., 470 (2009), pp. 151–238

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    BONFIGLIOLI ANDR

    A. BONFIGLIOLI ANDR. FULCI,Topics in Noncommutative Algebra. The The- orem of Campbell, Baker, Hausdorff and Dynkin, vol. 2034 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, 2012

    work page

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    BURGUNDER,Eulerian idempotent and Kashiwara–Vergne conjecture, Ann

    E. BURGUNDER,Eulerian idempotent and Kashiwara–Vergne conjecture, Ann. Inst. Fourier, 58 (2008), pp. 1153–1184

    2008

  2. [10]

    CASAS ANDA

    F. CASAS ANDA. MURUA,An efficient algorithm for computing the Baker– Campbell–Hausdorff series and some of its applications, J. Math. Phys., 50 (2009), p. 033513

    2009

  3. [11]

    CASAS ANDA

    F. CASAS ANDA. MURUA,Error bounds for splitting methods in unitary prob- lems, tech. rep., arXiv:2604.01026, 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    F.CASAS,A.MURUA,ANDM.NADINIC,EfficientcomputationoftheZassenhaus formula, Comput. Phys. Comm., 183 (2012), pp. 2386–2391

    2012

  5. [13]

    D. S. CHATTOPADHYAY, K. CHAKRABORTY, A. DIGHE, S. GOSWAMI,AND M.LAKSHMI,Neutrinopropagationwhenmasseigenstatesanddecayeigenstates mismatch, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129 (2022), p. 011802

    2022

  6. [14]

    A. M. CHILDS, Y. SU, M. C. TRAN, N. WIEBE,ANDS. ZHU,Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X, 11 (2021), p. 011020

    2021

  7. [15]

    A. J. DRAGT,Lie Methods for Nonlinear Dynamics with Applications to Accel- erator Physics, tech. rep., University of Maryland, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    DYNKIN,On the representation by means of commutators of the series log(𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑦)for noncommutative𝑥and𝑦, Mat

    E. DYNKIN,On the representation by means of commutators of the series log(𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑦)for noncommutative𝑥and𝑦, Mat. Sb. (N.S.), 25(67) (1949), pp. 155– 162 (in Russian)

    1949

  9. [17]

    DYNKIN,Calculation of the coefficients in the Campbell–Hausdorff series, in Selected Papers of E.B

    E. DYNKIN,Calculation of the coefficients in the Campbell–Hausdorff series, in Selected Papers of E.B. Dynkin with Commentary, E. Dynkin, A. Yushkevich, G. Seitz, and A. Onishchik, eds., American Mathematical Society, 2000, pp. 31– 35

    2000

  10. [18]

    E.B.DYNKIN,EvaluationofthecoefficientsoftheCampbell–Hausdorffformula, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, 57 (1947), pp. 323–326. 21

    1947

  11. [19]

    N.GOLDMAN ANDJ.DALIBARD,Periodicallydrivenquantumsystems: effective Hamiltonians and engineered gauge fields, Phys. Rev. X, 4 (2014), p. 031027

    2014

  12. [20]

    V. V. GORBATSEVICH, A. L. ONISHCHIK,ANDE. B. VINBERG,Foundations of Lie Theory and Lie Transformation Groups, Springer, 1997

    1997

  13. [21]

    ISERLES ANDK

    A. ISERLES ANDK. KROPIELNICKA,An elementary approach to splittings of unbounded operators, Comput. Math. Appl., 176 (2024), pp. 29–34

    2024

  14. [22]

    JACOBSON,Lie Algebras, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1979

    N. JACOBSON,Lie Algebras, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1979

    1979

  15. [23]

    LODAY,Série de Hausdorff, idempotents Eulériens et algèbres de Hopf, Expo

    J.-L. LODAY,Série de Hausdorff, idempotents Eulériens et algèbres de Hopf, Expo. Math., 12 (1994), pp. 165–178

    1994

  16. [24]

    MAGNUS,On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Comm

    W. MAGNUS,On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Comm. Pure and Appl. Math., VII (1954), pp. 649–673

    1954

  17. [25]

    J. C. MOODIE ANDM. W. LONG,An exact power series representation of the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 54 (2021), p. 015208

    2021

  18. [26]

    NGUYEN ANDN

    M. NGUYEN ANDN. JING,Zassenhaus expansions in solving the Schrödinger equation, tech. rep., arXiv:2505.09441, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    QUESADA ANDJ

    N. QUESADA ANDJ. SIPE,Effects of time ordering in quantum nonlinear optics, Phys. Rev. A, 90 (2014), p. 063840

    2014

  20. [28]

    SUZUKI,On the convergence of exponential operators—the Zassenhaus for- mula, BCH formula and systematic approximants, Commun

    M. SUZUKI,On the convergence of exponential operators—the Zassenhaus for- mula, BCH formula and systematic approximants, Commun. Math. Phys., 57 (1977), pp. 193–200

    1977

  21. [29]

    SUZUKI,Decomposition formulas of exponential operators and Lie expo- nentials with some applications to quantum mechanics and statistical physics, J

    M. SUZUKI,Decomposition formulas of exponential operators and Lie expo- nentials with some applications to quantum mechanics and statistical physics, J. Math. Phys., 26 (1985), pp. 601–612

    1985

  22. [30]

    VAN-BRUNT ANDM

    A. VAN-BRUNT ANDM. VISSER,Simplifying the Reinsch algorithm for the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff series, J. Math. Phys., 57 (2016), p. 023507

    2016

  23. [31]

    C. A. WEIDNER, E. A. REED, J. MONROE, B. SHELLER, S. O’NEILL, E. MAAS, E. A. JONCKHERE, F. C. LANGBEIN,ANDS. SCHIRMER,Robust quantum con- trol in closed and open systems: Theory and practice, Automatica, 172 (2025), p. 111987

    2025

  24. [32]

    WEYRAUCH ANDD

    M. WEYRAUCH ANDD. SCHOLZ,Computing the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff seriesandtheZassenhausproduct,Comput.Phys.Comm.,180(2009),pp.1558– 1565

    2009

  25. [33]

    I. ZUK, D. COHEN, A. V. GORSHKOV,ANDA. RETZKER,Robust gates with spin-locked superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Res., 6 (2024), p. 013217. 22

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.