Time-Dependent Hamiltonian Simulation with Optimal Query Complexity

Boyang Chen; Minbo Gao; Shuo Zhou; Xinzhao Wang

Time-Dependent Hamiltonian Simulation with Optimal Query Complexity

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulating time-dependent Hamiltonians needs no extra queries

desk verdict Genuine resolution of the optimal query complexity for time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation, with a new transducer construction and proofs that withstand close scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06094 v1 pith:ADXMZHKF submitted 2026-08-06 quant-ph cs.DS

Boyang Chen , Minbo Gao , Xinzhao Wang , Shuo Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcs.DS MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.Lx

keywords time-dependentHamiltoniansimulationHAM-TmodelquerycomplexitytransducerCayleytransformobliviousamplitudeamplificationblock-encodingquantumalgorithms

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

This paper claims to settle the query complexity of time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation in the standard black-box oracle model (HAM-T), where a query returns a controlled block-encoding of the Hamiltonian. For any Lipschitz-continuous Hamiltonian $H(t)$ with norm at most $\alpha$, it constructs a circuit that approximates the time-ordered propagator $U_H(T)$ to error $\varepsilon$ using $O(\alpha T + \log(1/\varepsilon)/\log(e+\log(1/\varepsilon)/(\alpha T)))$ queries. This is the same asymptotic count as the known lower bound for time-independent Hamiltonians, so time dependence, in this model, costs no extra queries. The argument works by building a one-query transducer that implements a discretized evolution while leaving an auxiliary catalyst state untouched, then combining many reuse circuits with carefully chosen weights so that the error from omitting the catalyst decays factorially.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-query Cayley transducer: a unitary $S$ that, when supplied with an auxiliary catalyst state $\Gamma|\psi\rangle$, uses a single HAM-T query to implement an approximation $U_C$ of $U_H(T)$ and returns the catalyst unchanged. The catalyst is a superposition over time-grid labels of local states, and its norm is bounded by $\sqrt{\alpha T}$. Removing the catalyst is governed by the identity $U_C - P_N = C\,G_N(A)\Gamma$, where $A$ is the private-to-private block; the key structural fact is $A = i(I - \Delta)\mathrm{HAM\text{-}T}$, whose lower-triangular time-ordered form suppresses transitions that do not respect chronological order. The polynomial $Q(z) = (1+z^2)/2$ then cancels the identity part of $A^2$, so every term in $Q(A)^q$ contains at least $q$ time-ordered factors, yielding the factorial bound $\|Q(A)^q\| \leq (12e\alpha T/q)^q$. A weighted combination of reuse circuits with coefficients $\lambda_N$ derived from $E_q(z)=Q(z)^q G_{2q}(z)$ keeps the LCU normalization below $2$, allowing one step of oblivious amplitude amplification to complete the simulation.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to simulate a small system whose exact propagator can be computed numerically, such as $H(t) = a\,\sigma_x + b\sin(\omega t)\,\sigma_z$ on one qubit, choose $\alpha$ and $\beta$ from $a,b,\omega$, and verify that the constructed circuit with $J = \max\{q, \beta T^2/\varepsilon, (\alpha T)^{3/2}/\sqrt{\varepsilon}\}$ and $q$ chosen by Theorem 9 achieves output error at most $\varepsilon$; if any instance violates the promised error, the estimate (13) or the factorial bound (44) is wrong. A more direct refutation of the tightness claim would be a Lipschitz Hamiltonian in the HAM-T model whose query complexity is asymptotically larger than the stated bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 9: given HAM-T access to a Lipschitz-continuous Hamiltonian $H(t)$ on $[0,T]$ with $\|H(t)\| \leq \alpha$, there is a quantum circuit $U_{\mathrm{sim}}$ such that $\|U_{\mathrm{sim}}(|0\rangle |\psi\rangle) - |0\rangle U_H(T)|\psi\rangle\| \leq \varepsilon$ for every unit state, using $12q$ HAM-T queries with $q = O(\alpha T + \log(1/\varepsilon)/\log(e+\log(1/\varepsilon)/(\alpha T)))$. Because the same expression is a lower bound for time-independent simulation, the result shows that general time dependence incurs no asymptotic query overhead. The construction first approximates the evolution by a product of Cayley transforms on a time grid, encodes the whole product into a single one-query transducer with a catalyst of norm $\sqrt{\alpha T}$, and then removes the catalyst by a weighted combination of reuse circuits. The chosen weights $E_q(z) = ((1+z^2)/2)^q G_{2q}(z)$ make the residual error drop faster than any polynomial, giving the logarithmic dependence on $1/\varepsilon$. For time-independent $H$, the same method provides a query-optimal alternative to qubitization, the standard block-encoding technique for optimal Hamiltonian simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that $H(t)$ is Lipschitz continuous with a known Lipschitz constant $\beta$, because the time-grid size $J$ is chosen as $\max\{q, \beta T^2/\varepsilon, (\alpha T)^{3/2}/\sqrt{\varepsilon}\}$; without a known $\beta$, the discretization error bound (13) and the finite circuit construction do not hold, even though the query bound might still be achievable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The HAM-T query complexity of time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation is $\Theta(\alpha T + \log(1/\varepsilon)/\log(e+\log(1/\varepsilon)/(\alpha T)))$ for Lipschitz Hamiltonians, matching the time-independent lower bound.
Time dependence itself causes no asymptotic query overhead; the Lipschitz constant only affects how finely the time grid must be sampled, i.e., gate and ancilla complexity.
For $H(t) \equiv H$, the construction yields a query-optimal simulation algorithm that does not use qubitization, giving a different optimal method for the time-independent problem.
The result applies without assuming periodicity, locality, or any structural decomposition of $H(t)$, covering worst-case black-box access.
Because the reuse lengths are at most $4q$ and the circuit uses $12q$ queries, the precision dependence is polylogarithmic rather than the quadratic dependence of the generic transducer reuse bound.

Reading between the lines

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

If the stated query bound is tight, it gives a complete characterization of coherent-oracle HAM-T complexity for Lipschitz time-dependent Hamiltonians; the same transducer-reuse technique may extend to other coherent access models, where clock-embedding overhead could similarly be eliminated.
The continuous-time-register transducer in the appendix is an editorial step beyond the paper's main gate-complexity claim: if an efficient finite-dimensional circuit for that restricted transducer were found, it could remove the time-discretization error and potentially lower the gate count while retaining the optimal query count.
A natural testable extension is the low-energy subspace: because the catalyst norm and omitted-catalyst error are controlled by the full Hamiltonian norm, one could try to replace $\alpha T$ by the restricted evolution norm for states in a low-energy subspace, which would improve adiabatic state preparation costs.
The coefficient-construction idea here—choosing reuse lengths so that error terms cancel and only ordered transitions survive—may generalize to removing catalysts from other transducers, providing a general subroutine for state conversion with logarithmic overhead in $1/\varepsilon$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague, the short version: this is the real thing. It closes the long-open gap between upper and lower bounds for time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation in the HAM-T model, and it does so with a genuinely new construction rather than a minor tweak. You should read it.

What is new: the one-query Cayley transducer followed by weighted reuse with factorial error cancellation. The generic Belovs–Jeffery–Yolcu reuse gives O(1/epsilon^2) precision dependence; here they show that for their specific transducer, combining different reuse lengths makes the omitted-catalyst error decay factorially, yielding the optimal log(1/epsilon) dependence. They also obtain a query-optimal alternative to qubitization for time-independent Hamiltonians. The proof chain is detailed and internally consistent. I checked the local Cayley identity, the reuse error identity, the lower-triangular structure of the private block, the Schur-test factorial bound, the coefficient normalization with Lambda = 2 − 2^{1−q}, and the robust amplification lemma. Everything holds together. No fitted parameters, no circularity.

Soft spots, mostly minor. The main theorem requires Lipschitz continuity with known beta because the gate-efficient discretization chooses J ~ max{q, beta T^2/epsilon, (alpha T)^{3/2}/sqrt(epsilon)}. That assumption is explicit, and it affects gate complexity, not the query bound. The Hermitian-oracle requirement is dispatched in a footnote via a flag qubit; the reduction is standard and correct but terse. The gate complexity is stated with suppressed polylog factors, which is acceptable when the headline result is query complexity. The continuous-time appendix is interesting but explicitly makes no gate claim. The paper also discloses that LLMs generated the central proof strategies, with the human authors stating they verified and rewrote them. I found the proofs coherent and checkable, not like generated filler. A machine-checked formalization would be the natural next step, but its absence does not undermine the result.

Who this is for: anyone working on Hamiltonian simulation, quantum algorithms for differential equations, or transducer techniques. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review as is, expecting only minor revision on exposition—most notably moving the Hermitian-reduction footnote into the main text—and no substantive changes.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a query-optimal algorithm for simulating a general time-dependent Hamiltonian H(t) on [0,T] in the HAM-T oracle model, assuming H is Lipschitz continuous with norm bound α. The main result, Theorem 9, gives a quantum circuit that approximates the time-ordered propagator U_H(T) to error ε using 12q HAM-T queries, with q = O(αT + log(1/ε)/log(e + log(1/ε)/(αT))), matching the known lower bound for time-independent Hamiltonians. The proof constructs a one-query Cayley transducer with a catalyst state, then applies a weighted combination of reuse circuits so that the error from omitting the catalyst decays factorially. The same framework yields a query-optimal alternative to qubitization for time-independent Hamiltonians, and an appendix gives a continuous-time version of the transducer with no gate-efficiency claim.

Significance. If the result holds, it resolves a long-standing open problem by showing that time dependence incurs no asymptotic query overhead over the optimal time-independent Hamiltonian simulation bound. The proof is detailed and self-contained, with machine-checkable algebra in the Cayley transducer identity, the reuse error identity (Lemma 4), the factorial decay bound (Proposition 6), the coefficient normalization (Proposition 7), and the robust amplification lemma (Lemma 8). The construction is explicit, has no fitted parameters, and the claimed query bound is compared directly against an external lower bound. These are substantial strengths.

minor comments (5)

[Footnote 1] The reduction that enforces Hermitian unitary block encodings with one flag qubit should state explicitly how the |+>-state compression interacts with the rest of the construction and whether the exact HAM-T query count is preserved; in the non-Hermitian case the displayed eU_j appears to require separate applications of U_j and U_j^†, which changes the reported 12q constant but not the asymptotic O(·) bound.
[§6.2, Proposition 6 proof] The displayed identity immediately before the Schur-test application appears as "RX r=0 ..." and should be corrected to a summation over r from 0 to R, since the surrounding text is otherwise clear.
[Theorem 9] The statement "The circuit uses 12q queries" should explicitly separate the αT ≤ ε case, where the identity circuit uses zero queries and q is not defined; currently the proof defines q only in the αT > ε branch.
[§7.2, Algorithm 1] It would be helpful to state explicitly that each of the 4q loop layers contains a HAM-T query gate even when the work-qubit control is inactive for a particular selected N, so that SELECT uses exactly 4q oracle calls rather than N calls.
[Theorem 9 proof] The inequality log(e + L/(αT)) ≤ 2L for αT > ε and ε ≤ 1/2 is asserted without justification; a one-line proof would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the query-optimal upper bound is derived from an explicit transducer construction and compared against an external time-independent lower bound.

full rationale

The proof chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Theorem 9's upper bound follows from explicit constructions and lemmas: the Cayley transducer (Lemma 2, Proposition 3), the reuse error identity (Lemma 4), the lower-triangular private-block structure and factorial decay (Lemma 5, Proposition 6), the weighted reuse combination with bounded LCU norm (Proposition 7), and robust amplification (Lemma 8). Each step is proven from the block decomposition of a unitary and the stated assumptions (Lipschitz continuity, ||H|| ≤ α, Hermitian block-encodings), and no parameter is fitted to the target query count. The matching lower bound (1) is an external result for time-independent Hamiltonians, which are a subclass of the time-dependent instances, so matching it is a genuine optimality argument rather than a restatement of an input. Citations to BJY24 and to the standard LCU/amplification lemmas are external frameworks, not self-citations, and they do not carry the central derivation beyond standard, independently established facts. The flagged Hermitian-oracle footnote is a valid reduction to the standard model, and the Appendix A disclaimers about gate complexity are limitations, not circular steps. No load-bearing self-citation or self-definitional reduction was found.

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

No fitted parameters; q and J are chosen by explicit formulas from alpha T, epsilon, and beta. The catalyst Gamma|psi> is a mathematical auxiliary state in the transducer construction, not a new physical entity, and it is explicitly removed by the reuse procedure. The axioms are standard quantum-algorithmic background and the stated regularity assumptions.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Hamiltonian H(t) is Hermitian-valued, bounded by alpha, and beta-Lipschitz on [0,T].
Stated in the theorem; used for the discretization error bound (13) and to define the J-point grid.
domain assumption The HAM-T oracle provides Hermitian unitary block-encodings O_j of H(t_j)/alpha, with O_j^2 = I.
Definition 3; the Cayley transducer algebra in Lemma 2 relies on O_j^2 = I and the block-encoding identity (7). The footnote sketches a flag-qubit reduction from general block-encodings.
standard math The transducer framework of Belovs-Jeffery-Yolcu and its reuse construction are valid.
Cited as [BJY24, Theorem 3.2]; the paper improves the generic O(1/epsilon^2) bound to logarithmic but builds on the framework.
domain assumption The known lower bound for time-independent Hamiltonian simulation transfers to the time-dependent HAM-T model.
Cited from [LC19, GSLW19]; since time-independent Hamiltonians are a special case, the lower bound applies. The paper uses it to claim optimality.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-Dependent Hamiltonian Simulation with Optimal Query Complexity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ADXMZHKF

@misc{pith2026260806094,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-Dependent Hamiltonian Simulation with Optimal Query Complexity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ADXMZHKF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06094}
}

abstract

We give a query-optimal algorithm for simulating a general $n$-qubit time-dependent Hamiltonian $H(t)$ on $[0,T]$, assuming that $H$ is Lipschitz continuous and $\|H(t)\|\leq\alpha$. In the standard $\mathrm{HAM\mbox{-}T}$ access model, the algorithm approximates the time-ordered propagator $U_H(T)$ to error $\varepsilon$ using $$ O\left( \alpha T+\frac{\log(1/\varepsilon)} {\log(e+\log(1/\varepsilon)/(\alpha T))} \right) $$ $\mathrm{HAM\mbox{-}T}$ queries. This matches the known query lower bound for time-independent Hamiltonians, showing that time dependence incurs no asymptotic query overhead. Our method first constructs a one-query transducer that, given an auxiliary state, implements an approximation to $U_H(T)$ and returns the state unchanged. A weighted combination of circuits that apply the transducer different numbers of times makes the error caused by omitting this state decay factorially, yielding the stated optimal precision dependence. For time-independent Hamiltonians, the same method also gives a query-optimal alternative to qubitization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06094 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[15]

118.010501

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 118.010501. [LC19] Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubitization.Quantum, 3:163, July 2019.doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-12-163. [Llo96] Seth Lloyd. Universal Quantum Simulators.Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, August

doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2019
[17]

arXiv:2410. 14243. [Miz23] Kaoru Mizuta. Optimal and nearly optimal simulation of multiperiodic time-dependent hamilto- nians.Phys. Rev. Res., 5:033067, Jul 2023.doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.033067. [PQSV11] David Poulin, Angie Qarry, Rolando D. Somma, and Frank Verstraete. Quantum simulation of time-dependent Hamiltonians and the convenient illusion of ...

doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.033067 2023
[18]

Optimal Lower Bounds for Hamiltonian Simulation

doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.040316. 30 [ZAH26] Alexander Zlokapa, Richard R. Allen, and Aram W. Harrow. Optimal Lower Bounds for Hamiltonian Simulation, July 2026.arXiv:2607.19852. [ZPGL26] Shuo Zhou, Zhaokai Pan, Weiyuan Gong, and Tongyang Li. Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation in the low-energy subspace, January 2026.arXiv:2601.01550. A Construction wit...

work page Pith review arXiv 2026
[1990]

[HHL09] Aram W

doi:10.1088/0305-4470/23/24/019. [HHL09] Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations.Physical Review Letters, 103(15):150502, October

doi:10.1088/0305-4470/23/24/019
[1996]

[L W18] Guang Hao Low and Nathan Wiebe

doi:10.1126/science.273.5278.1073. [L W18] Guang Hao Low and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian Simulation in the Interaction Picture, May 2018.arXiv:1805.00675. [L W25] Zecheng Li and Chunhao Wang. Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation via time-independent dynamics in a larger space, July 2025.arXiv:2507.19345. [MF23] Kaoru Mizuta and Keisuke Fujii. Optimal Hamil...

arXiv 2018
[2003]

28 [A VDK+07] Dorit Aharonov, Wim Van Dam, Julia Kempe, Zeph Landau, Seth Lloyd, and Oded Regev

ACM.doi:10.1145/780542.780546. 28 [A VDK+07] Dorit Aharonov, Wim Van Dam, Julia Kempe, Zeph Landau, Seth Lloyd, and Oded Regev. Adiabatic Quantum Computation is Equivalent to Standard Quantum Computation.SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(1):166–194, January 2007.doi:10.1137/S0097539705447323. [BACS07] Dominic W. Berry, Graeme Ahokas, Richard Cleve, and Barry ...

arXiv
[2005]

[AFL21] Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin

doi:10.1126/science.1113479. [AFL21] Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin. Time-dependent unbounded Hamiltonian simulation with vector norm scaling.Quantum, 5:459, May 2021.doi:10.22331/q-2021-05-26-459. [AFL22] Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin. Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation of highly oscillatory dynamics and superconvergence for Schr¨ odinger equation.Quan...

doi:10.1126/science.1113479 2021
[2010]

[BCS+20] Dominic W

doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ 12/7/075008. [BCS+20] Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Yuan Su, Xin Wang, and Nathan Wiebe. Time- dependent Hamiltonian simulation with L1-norm scaling.Quantum, 4:254, April

doi:10.1088/1367-2630/

Show all 17 references

[2012]

[Eck17] Andr´ e Eckardt

doi: 10.26421/QIC12.11-12-1. [Eck17] Andr´ e Eckardt. Colloquium: Atomic quantum gases in periodically driven optical lattices. Reviews of Modern Physics, 89(1):011004, March

doi
[2015]

doi:10.1109/FOCS.2015.54

IEEE. doi:10.1109/FOCS.2015.54. [BCR10] Constantin Brif, Raj Chakrabarti, and Herschel Rabitz. Control of quantum phenomena: Past, present and future.New Journal of Physics, 12(7):075008, July

2015 doi
[2017]

[Fey82] Richard P

doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.89.011004. [Fey82] Richard P. Feynman. Simulating physics with computers.International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6-7):467–488, June 1982.doi:10.1007/BF02650179. [FGGS00] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Michael Sipser. Quantum C...

1982 arXiv
[2019]

[HDR90] J

ACM.doi:10.1145/3313276.3316366. [HDR90] J. Huyghebaert and H. De Raedt. Product formula methods for time-dependent Schr¨ odinger problems.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 23(24):5777–5793, December
[2020]

[BCSC24] Dominic W

doi: 10.22331/q-2020-04-20-254. [BCSC24] Dominic W. Berry and Pedro C. S. Costa. Quantum algorithm for time-dependent differential equations using Dyson series.Quantum, 8:1369, June

2020 doi
[2022]

[ALL23] Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, and Lin Lin

doi: 10.22331/q-2022-04-15-690. [ALL23] Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, and Lin Lin. Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonuni- tary Dynamics with Optimal State Preparation Cost.Physical Review Letters, 131(15):150603, October 2023.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.150603. [ARZ...

2022 arXiv
[2024]

[BJY24] Aleksandrs Belovs, Stacey Jeffery, and Duyal Yolcu

doi:10.22331/q-2024-06-13-1369 . [BJY24] Aleksandrs Belovs, Stacey Jeffery, and Duyal Yolcu. Taming Quantum Time Complexity. Quantum, 8:1444, August 2024.doi:10.22331/q-2024-08-23-1444. [BWFZ26] Yonah Borns-Weil, Di Fang, and Jiaqi Zhang. Discrete superconvergence analysis for...

2024 arXiv
[2025]

[CW12] Andrew M Childs and Nathan Wiebe

doi:10.1103/fkh5-b669. [CW12] Andrew M Childs and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations.Quantum Information & Computation, 12(11-12):901–924,

doi
[2026]

[KSB19] M´ aria Kieferov´ a, Artur Scherer, and Dominic W

doi:10.1103/pwdd-htbf. [KSB19] M´ aria Kieferov´ a, Artur Scherer, and Dominic W. Berry. Simulating the dynamics of time- dependent Hamiltonians with a truncated Dyson series.Physical Review A, 99(4):042314, April 2019.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.99.042314. [LC17] Guang Hao Low and I...

2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

118.010501

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 118.010501. [LC19] Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubitization.Quantum, 3:163, July 2019.doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-12-163. [Llo96] Seth Lloyd. Universal Quantum Simulators.Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, August

doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2019

[2] [17]

arXiv:2410. 14243. [Miz23] Kaoru Mizuta. Optimal and nearly optimal simulation of multiperiodic time-dependent hamilto- nians.Phys. Rev. Res., 5:033067, Jul 2023.doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.033067. [PQSV11] David Poulin, Angie Qarry, Rolando D. Somma, and Frank Verstraete. Quantum simulation of time-dependent Hamiltonians and the convenient illusion of ...

doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.033067 2023

[3] [18]

Optimal Lower Bounds for Hamiltonian Simulation

doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.040316. 30 [ZAH26] Alexander Zlokapa, Richard R. Allen, and Aram W. Harrow. Optimal Lower Bounds for Hamiltonian Simulation, July 2026.arXiv:2607.19852. [ZPGL26] Shuo Zhou, Zhaokai Pan, Weiyuan Gong, and Tongyang Li. Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation in the low-energy subspace, January 2026.arXiv:2601.01550. A Construction wit...

work page Pith review arXiv 2026

[4] [1990]

[HHL09] Aram W

doi:10.1088/0305-4470/23/24/019. [HHL09] Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations.Physical Review Letters, 103(15):150502, October

doi:10.1088/0305-4470/23/24/019

[5] [1996]

[L W18] Guang Hao Low and Nathan Wiebe

doi:10.1126/science.273.5278.1073. [L W18] Guang Hao Low and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian Simulation in the Interaction Picture, May 2018.arXiv:1805.00675. [L W25] Zecheng Li and Chunhao Wang. Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation via time-independent dynamics in a larger space, July 2025.arXiv:2507.19345. [MF23] Kaoru Mizuta and Keisuke Fujii. Optimal Hamil...

arXiv 2018

[6] [2003]

28 [A VDK+07] Dorit Aharonov, Wim Van Dam, Julia Kempe, Zeph Landau, Seth Lloyd, and Oded Regev

ACM.doi:10.1145/780542.780546. 28 [A VDK+07] Dorit Aharonov, Wim Van Dam, Julia Kempe, Zeph Landau, Seth Lloyd, and Oded Regev. Adiabatic Quantum Computation is Equivalent to Standard Quantum Computation.SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(1):166–194, January 2007.doi:10.1137/S0097539705447323. [BACS07] Dominic W. Berry, Graeme Ahokas, Richard Cleve, and Barry ...

arXiv

[7] [2005]

[AFL21] Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin

doi:10.1126/science.1113479. [AFL21] Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin. Time-dependent unbounded Hamiltonian simulation with vector norm scaling.Quantum, 5:459, May 2021.doi:10.22331/q-2021-05-26-459. [AFL22] Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin. Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation of highly oscillatory dynamics and superconvergence for Schr¨ odinger equation.Quan...

doi:10.1126/science.1113479 2021

[8] [2010]

[BCS+20] Dominic W

doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ 12/7/075008. [BCS+20] Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Yuan Su, Xin Wang, and Nathan Wiebe. Time- dependent Hamiltonian simulation with L1-norm scaling.Quantum, 4:254, April

doi:10.1088/1367-2630/