Faster Quantum Algorithm for Multiple Observables Estimation in Fermionic Problems

Kaito Wada; Nobuyuki Yoshioka; Wataru Mizukami; Yuki Koizumi

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Faster Quantum Algorithm for Multiple Observables Estimation in Fermionic Problems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum algorithm for estimating many fermionic observables at once claims a quadratic query reduction by exploiting particle-number symmetry and a single-shot parallel readout, with numerical 100x and 500x savings for 2-RDM estimation.

desk verdict Real algorithmic advance in adaptive QGE, but the fermionic RDM speedup rests on an unproved and convention-sensitive norm identity, so the 100x/500x query claims are not yet grounded. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00697 v2 pith:5X6MHQYG submitted 2025-05-01 quant-ph

Yuki Koizumi , Kaito Wada , Wataru Mizukami , Nobuyuki Yoshioka This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumgradientestimationmultipleobservablesfermionicpartialtomographyreduceddensitymatricesparticle-numbersymmetryquerycomplexitysingularvaluetransformationparallelreadout

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

Estimating many expectation values of a fermionic many-body state is a bottleneck in quantum simulation, and this paper proposes a way to do it with fewer calls to the state-preparation oracle. The core idea is a generalized adaptive quantum gradient estimation loop with two upgrades: restrict the encoding of observables to the particle-number subspace that actually contains the target state, and replace repeated probe readouts by a single-shot parallel measurement. The paper states as Theorem 2 that when the state lives in an $\eta$-particle subspace, the total query count scales as $\epsilon^{-1}\sqrt{\sum_j [O_j^{(\eta)}]^2}\,\log d_\eta \log M$ for root-mean-square error $\varepsilon$. For $k$-RDM elements it asserts the squared-norm sum equals $\binom{\eta}{k}\binom{N-\eta+k}{k}$, which yields a quadratic speedup over previous adaptive quantum gradient estimation in low- or high-filling regimes. Numerically, at $\varepsilon=10^{-3}$, this reduces 2-RDM estimation queries by about 100x for the FeMo cofactor active space and 500x for a 100-site doped Fermi-Hubbard model.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an adaptive quantum gradient estimation loop in which the expectation values to be estimated are encoded as phases of a probe register; the loop's cost is set by the block-encoding normalization of the averaged observable. Method I uses the direct-sum decomposition $O_j=\bigoplus_\lambda O_j^{(\lambda)}$ and applies quantum singular value transformation (QSVT), the technique for implementing polynomial functions of an operator's singular values, only on the relevant symmetry subspace via Lemma 1, bringing the normalization down to $\sigma_\lambda=O(\sqrt{\sum_j [O_j^{(\lambda)}]^2}\,\log d_\lambda)$. Method II replaces the iterated median-of-readouts step by preparing $R$ entangled copies of the probe state and reading them in parallel, which changes the repetition scaling from $O(\varepsilon^{-1}R\sqrt{M}\log d)$ to $O(\varepsilon^{-1}\sqrt{MR}\log d)$; with $R=O(\log M)$ this yields the $\sqrt{\log M}$ factor in Theorem 2.

What would settle it

Work through the paper's normalization for a minimal case, say $k=1$, $\eta=1$, $N=2$, by explicitly constructing the Hermitianized $k$-RDM operators, restricting to the one-particle subspace, and summing squared spectral norms; if the sum does not equal $\binom{\eta}{k}\binom{N-\eta+k}{k}$, the claimed 100x and 500x reductions fail by that factor. The same check can be repeated by reproducing the FeMoco and Hubbard query counts at $\varepsilon=10^{-3}$ from the paper's formulas.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cost of estimating $M$ observables from a state preparation oracle can be made to depend on the size of the symmetry-restricted observable set, not the full Hilbert space. Concretely, Theorem 2 asserts that for a target state supported on a particle-number subspace $\eta$, $M$ observables can be estimated with worst-case mean squared error at most $\varepsilon^2$ using $\varepsilon^{-1}\cdot O(\sqrt{\sum_j [O_j^{(\eta)}]^2}\,\log d_\eta \log M)$ queries to $U_\psi$ and $U_\psi^\dagger$. For fermionic $k$-RDM elements the paper identifies the squared-norm sum as $\binom{\eta}{k}\binom{N-\eta+k}{k}$, and for $\eta=k+O(1)$ or $\eta=N-O(1)$ this turns the bound into a quadratic improvement over the previous adaptive quantum gradient estimation algorithm. The same paper reports that, for 2-RDM estimation at $\varepsilon=10^{-3}$, the query count is reduced by a factor of about 100 for the FeMo cofactor ($N=152$, $\eta=113$) and about 500 for a 100-site doped Fermi-Hubbard model ($\eta=\lceil 7N/8\rceil$).

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative speedups rest on an asserted but unproved identity for the sum of squared norms of $k$-RDM operators in an $\eta$-particle subspace, $\sum_j [O_j^{(\eta)}]^2=\binom{\eta}{k}\binom{N-\eta+k}{k}$, together with complete proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 that are deferred to a companion paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $k$-RDM estimation at $\eta=k+O(1)$ or $\eta=N-O(1)$, the oracle query count scales as $\sqrt{\binom{\eta}{k}\binom{N-\eta+k}{k}}\,\log d_\eta\log M/\varepsilon$, a quadratic improvement over the previous adaptive QGE baseline.
In the paper's numerical comparison at $\varepsilon=10^{-3}$, the total queries to the state-preparation oracle drop by roughly 100x for the FeMoco active space and 500x for the 100-site doped Hubbard model when estimating 2-RDM elements.
For 2-RDM estimation at filling $\eta=\lceil 7N/8\rceil$, Method II achieves the lowest query count among the compared algorithms for every system size $N$ considered.
For the FeMoco active-space model, Method II has the lowest query count among the compared algorithms for target precision $\varepsilon \lesssim 10^{-2}$.
For $k \geq 3$, the asymptotic saving over competing methods becomes even larger because the query count is set by the square root of the same binomial product divided by $\varepsilon$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the binomial norm identity is correct, the same subspace-block-encoding trick should extend to other symmetries of fermionic states, such as spin or momentum conservation, wherever the analogue of $\sum_j [O_j^{(\lambda)}]^2$ can be computed; the speedup would then be available for a wider class of collective observables than $k$-RDMs.
The parallel readout buys its $R\to\sqrt{R}$ improvement with extra probe qubits, so on a device where qubit count is the scarcer resource the symmetry-only Method I may be the more practical choice even though it uses more state-preparation calls.
The quoted 100x and 500x factors count queries to $U_\psi$ and its inverse only; an end-to-end resource estimate that includes the block-encoding and QSVT circuits could shrink the practical gap, so a natural next calculation is a full fault-tolerant cost for FeMoco at $\varepsilon=10^{-3}$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Two things to know. First, the core idea is real: replacing the full-space norm in adaptive QGE with a symmetry-adapted subspace norm, plus a parallel single-shot readout, is a genuine advance that could reduce query counts for symmetric states. Second, the fermionic application section is not currently checked: the key identity sum_j [O_j^(eta)]^2 = C(eta,k)C(N-eta+k,k) is asserted without proof or a normalization convention, and under the standard Hermitianized p

The paper does a few things well. Theorem 1's bound is a clean generalization of [16], and the observation that you don't need access to the projector Pi_lambda is valuable. Theorem 2's parallel scheme, turning R repetitions into a single entangled readout, is a neat trick and properly reduces the cost. The QSVT lemma in Appendix A is proved. The comparison table in Fig. 1(d) is helpful.

The soft spots are substantial. First, complete proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 are in the companion paper; Theorem 2 has no proof sketch in this text beyond a few sentences. For a letter that's acceptable only if the companion is easily available and the statements are precise. Second, the norm identity. The stress-test example is worth checking: for k=1, N=3, eta=1, the standard Hermitianized real+imaginary operators give sum of squares 2, not 3. The identity matches the non-Hermitian ordered sum. If the authors intend to list every ordered pair (p,q) and include duplicate Hermitianized operators, the identity holds, but then M and log M change, and the text never says that. The claim as written is at best ambiguous and at worst wrong. Since this identity feeds directly into Eqs. (5) and (7) and the reported 100x/500x factors, those numbers are not grounded in this manuscript. Third, the baselines in Figures 2-3 are drawn from the same group's companion paper with undisclosed constants, so the head-to-head factor should be treated as provisional.

Is the central idea salvageable? Probably yes. The subspace-adapted complexity bound is plausible independent of the RDM identity. But the application section needs a correct, stated normalization and a proof of the identity (or a different identity). A referee should demand that.

Who this is for: quantum algorithm researchers working on fermionic tomography and expectation-value estimation. It deserves a serious referee; the novelty is enough, and the flaw is fixable. I would not cite it yet. Bring it to reading group as a cautionary example of how a missing normalization can sink an otherwise good idea.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a generalized adaptive quantum gradient estimation (QGE) framework and two variants for multiple observables estimation: Method I exploits a symmetry (direct-sum structure) of the target state, and Method II adds a single-shot parallel readout scheme. The main results, Theorem 1 (Eq. 5) and Theorem 2 (Eq. 7), bound the total number of queries to the state-preparation oracles U_psi and U_psi^dagger needed to estimate M observables with max MSE <= epsilon^2, in terms of epsilon^{-1} times sqrt(sum_j [O_j^{(lambda)}]^2) up to logarithmic factors. For fermionic k-RDM estimation under a fixed particle number eta, the paper asserts the identity sum_j [O_j^{(eta)}]^2 = C(eta,k) C(N-eta+k,k), which converts the general bound into a quadratic speedup over prior adaptive QGE for extreme fillings. Numerical comparisons in Figures 2 and 3 claim query reductions by factors of 100 for the FeMoco active space (N=152, eta=113) and 500 for a 100-site doped Hubbard model at epsilon=10^{-3}.

Significance. If fully established, the proposed symmetry-aware complexity bound would be a useful and nontrivial advance: it offers a quadratic improvement in the observable-dependent prefactor for particle-number-restricted fermionic partial tomography, and the parallel single-shot readout is a conceptually interesting way to remove repetition overhead. The general adaptive-QGE framework, the pseudocode in Algorithm 1, and the proof of Lemma 1 in Appendix A provide a helpful foundation. However, the two main theorems are not proved in the text (Theorem 2 has no proof at all, and Theorem 1's proof is a sketch), and the k-RDM norm identity that powers the central speedup is stated without a normalization convention or proof. Because the numerical 100x/500x reductions inherit these unverified ingredients, the paper's main quantitative claims cannot currently be checked from the submitted manuscript. The strengths are the clarity of the framework and the concrete application targets; the weakness is the deferral of essentially all load-bearing proof content to the companion paper [35].

major comments (3)

[Application to fermionic problems, p.4 (before Fig. 1(d))] The identity sum_j [O_j^{(eta)}]^2 = C(eta,k) C(N-eta+k,k) is asserted without proof and without specifying the normalization of the Hermitianized k-RDM operators. Under the standard convention with off-diagonal Hermitianized operators X_pq = (a^dagger_p a_q + a^dagger_q a_p)/2 and Y_pq = (a^dagger_p a_q - a^dagger_q a_p)/(2i), the k=1, N=3, eta=1 case gives sum_j [O_j^{(eta)}]^2 = 2I, not 3I; with unnormalized off-diagonal operators the sum is 5I; the value 3 matches the non-Hermitian ordered sum sum_{p,q} (a^dagger_p a_q)^dagger (a^dagger_p a_q). Since Theorems 1 and 2 are stated for Hermitian observables with spectral norm at most 1, the query complexities in Eqs. (5) and (7) and the derived 100x/500x reductions are not directly tied to the asserted identity as written. Please state the operator convention explicitly, prove the identity under that convention, and reconcile it with the Hermitian-observable assumption in the theorems, or revise the claimed complexity bounds accordingly.
[Theorem 2 (Eq. 7) and Theorem 1 proof sketch] The complete proofs of both main theorems are deferred to the companion paper [35]; for Theorem 2 the text contains no proof at all, only a pointer to Sec. V.C of [35]. Since the central claims of the letter are these query-complexity bounds, the manuscript is not self-contained: a reader cannot verify the logarithmic factors, the validity of uniform singular value amplification for the restricted observables O_j^{(lambda)} without access to the projector Pi_lambda, or the claimed dependence on d_lambda and M. Please include full proofs of Theorems 1 and 2, or at minimum complete proof sketches with all technical lemmas stated and proved in the appendix.
[Method II paragraph, p.3] The text states that the parallel scheme 'reduces the query complexity from O(epsilon^{-1} R sqrt(M) log d) to O(epsilon^{-1} sqrt(M) R log d), achieving quadratic speedup regarding R.' These two expressions are identical up to commutativity of the factors, so the claimed quadratic speedup is not reflected in the displayed formulas. Please correct the baseline and improved scaling (e.g., distinguishing the number of repetitions R from the number of observables M) and state precisely what quantity is quadratically improved.

minor comments (4)

[Application to fermionic problems, p.4] The phrase 'Hermitianized operators such as (kD_q^p + kD_q^q)/2' appears to contain a typo: the indices should likely be arranged as (kD_q^p + kD_p^q)/2 or similar. Please correct this to the intended Hermitianized 2-RDM operator.
[Figure 1(d)] The table in Figure 1(d) is difficult to read in the provided rendering; the asymptotic scalings are partially garbled (e.g., 'O(N^{k/2})/epsilon' versus 'O(N^k)/epsilon^2'). Please ensure the figure is typeset legibly in the final version.
[Algorithm 1 (Appendix B)] The input condition M >= 2 log_2 d + 24 and the confidence parameter c bound c in (0, 3/(8(1+pi)^2)] are introduced in the pseudocode but not connected to the theorem statements; please state how these conditions are used or remove them from the main algorithm description.
[Figures 2 and 3 captions] The captions do not define the exact query-count evaluation method (e.g., which constant factors are kept, what block-encoding costs are assumed for the observables, and how the 'QAE algorithm proposed in accompanying paper [35]' is implemented). Please specify these details so the numerical factors 100 and 500 are reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the query-complexity theorems are derived from symmetry-aware QSVT and parallel readout, not from fitted or self-referential inputs; the unproved RDM norm identity and deferred full proofs are support gaps, not circular steps.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorems 1 and 2 are query-complexity upper bounds whose proofs (sketched here and completed in the companion paper [35]) reduce the cost to sigma_lambda via Lemma 1, uniform singular value amplification, and optimal Hamiltonian simulation; no displayed equation in the paper is an input by construction. Method II's parallel readout is a stated algorithmic modification, not a renamed previous result. The numerical 100x/500x claims are evaluations of the stated formulas against baselines, including the authors' earlier adaptive QGE [16] and the QAE baseline from [35]; citing one's own previous algorithm as a benchmark is not circular unless the comparison is rigged, and the text gives no evidence of that. The unproved identity sum_j ||O_j^(eta)||^2 = C(eta,k)C(N-eta+k,k) is a genuine support gap: it is asserted without a normalization convention and, under common Hermitianized conventions, appears to fail already for k=1, N=3, eta=1, which would undermine the concrete advantage factors if not corrected. However, a false or unsupported auxiliary identity is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction, and deferring the full proofs to the authors' companion paper is a verifiability concern rather than an assumption of the target theorem. No step in the letter reduces Eq. (7) to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central complexity bounds assume the standard QSVT/qubitization toolbox, oracular access to U_psi and observable block-encodings, and the symmetry conditions stated in the theorems. No numerical data is fitted to reach the conclusions; the only hand-chosen quantities are the undisclosed constants behind the Figures 2-3 query counts, which the 'factor of 100/500' claims depend on. The asserted k-RDM norm identity is the one ad hoc mathematical input not backed by a proof or citation in this text.

free parameters (1)

Undisclosed constant factors in the query-count evaluation (Figures 2-3) = not disclosed (hidden inside O-notation)
The headline 100x (FeMoco) and 500x (Hubbard) reductions are ratios of concrete query counts. The theorems provide only big-O bounds, so the plots must instantiate specific constants (success probability c in delta(q), amplification constants, R(q)=O(log M), etc.). Without them the numeric claims are not reproducible from this text.

assumptions (4)

standard math QSVT, uniform singular value amplification, and qubitization are used as black boxes
Invoked in Theorem 1's proof sketch and Appendix A without re-derivation; these are published, refereed results [32,33,34]. The central complexity bounds inherit their correctness.
domain assumption Oracular access to U_psi, U_psi^dagger, and block-encodings of the observables
Problem Setup paragraph: the cost model counts queries to the state-preparation oracle, and block-encodings of the observables are assumed available. The query counts and the algorithm's structure both depend on this model.
domain assumption Target state supported on a known symmetric subspace labeled by lambda (fixed particle number eta for the fermionic application)
Theorems 1 and 2 assume support on subspace lambda; the fermionic application assumes particle-number symmetry with eta known. If the state is not confined to that subspace or eta is unknown, the speedup does not apply.
ad hoc to paper The norm identity sum_j [O_j^(eta)]^2 = C(eta,k)C(N-eta+k,k) for k-RDM operators
Asserted as 'We find that...' without proof or stated normalization immediately before Fig. 1(d). It converts Theorem 2's abstract bound into the concrete k-RDM speedup and is the quantitative engine of the paper's application claims.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Faster Quantum Algorithm for Multiple Observables Estimation in Fermionic Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5X6MHQYG

@misc{pith2026250500697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Faster Quantum Algorithm for Multiple Observables Estimation in Fermionic Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5X6MHQYG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00697}
}

read the original abstract

Achieving quantum advantage in efficiently estimating collective properties of quantum many-body systems remains a fundamental goal in quantum computing. While the quantum gradient estimation (QGE) algorithm has been shown to achieve doubly quantum enhancement in the precision and the number of observables, it remains unclear whether one benefits in practical applications. In this work, we present a generalized framework of adaptive QGE algorithm, and further propose two variants which enable us to estimate the collective properties of fermionic systems using the smallest cost among existing quantum algorithms. The first method utilizes the symmetry inherent in the target state, and the second method enables estimation in a single-shot manner using the parallel scheme. We show that our proposal offers a quadratic speedup compared with prior QGE algorithms in the task of fermionic partial tomography for systems with limited particle numbers. Furthermore, we provide the numerical demonstration that, for a problem of estimating fermionic 2-RDMs, our proposals improve the number of queries to the target state preparation oracle by a factor of 100 for the nitrogenase FeMo cofactor and by a factor of 500 for Fermi-Hubbard model of 100 sites.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00697 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** shows the query count to estimate 1,2-RDM elements with accuracy of ε = 10−3 for fermionic systems with filling of η = ⌈7N/8⌉. Such a setup reflects the unresolved phase diagram of doped Fermi-Hubbard model on 2D lattice. We find that our proposals excel at wide regimes; for 1-RDM estimation, the QAE algorithm proposed in accompanying paper [35] and Method (a) 1-RDM (b) 2-RDM # of queris to U # of qubits N # of qu… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The total query complexity in (a) 1-RDM elements, (b) 2-RDM elements, when varying a root mean squared error ε. Here, we consider the k-RDM elements estimation for N = 152 active space of FeMoco with η = 113 electrons [38]. The algorithms compared here are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Comprehensive Study on Heisenberg-limited Quantum Algorithms for Multiple Observables Estimation
quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

New adaptive quantum gradient estimation variants (Method I and Method II) achieve O~(N^{k/2})/epsilon state-preparation queries for fermionic k-RDMs, and a sine-state amplitude estimation circuit is shown to be near-...
A framework for robust quantum speedups in practical correlated electronic structure and dynamics
quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A framework derives polynomial quantum speedups, up to Lc^18 for crystalline tri-exciton BSE and d^3 Lc^15 for linearized coupled cluster, in the regime where classical heuristics are accurate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[16]

K. Wada, N. Yamamoto, and N. Yoshioka, Heisenberg- limited adaptive gradient estimation for multiple observ- ables, PRX Quantum6, 020308 (2025)

work page 2025
[35]

Koizumi, K

Y. Koizumi, K. Wada, W. Mizukami, and N. Yoshioka, Comprehensive study on heisenberg-limited quantum algorithms for multiple observables estimation, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2505.00698 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025
[1]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

2004
[2]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Physical review letters96, 010401 (2006)

2006
[3]

M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Interferometric detection of optical phase shifts at the heisenberg limit, Physical Review Letters 71, 1355 (1993)

work page 1993
[4]

Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M

R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kołodyński, Quantum limits in optical interfer- ometry, Progress in Optics60, 345 (2015)

2015
[5]

Brassard, P

G. Brassard, P. Hoyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation, Contemporary Mathematics 305, 53 (2002)

2002
[6]

B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wise- man, and G. J. Pryde, Entanglement-free heisenberg- limited phase estimation, Nature450, 393 (2007)

2007

Show all 41 references

[7]

B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, M. W. Mitchell, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Demon- strating Heisenberg-limited unambiguous phase estima- tion without adaptive measurements, New Journal of Physics 11, 073023 (2009), arXiv:0809.3308 [quant-ph]

2009 arXiv
[8]

Rebentrost, B

P. Rebentrost, B. Gupt, and T. R. Bromley, Quantum computational finance: Monte carlo pricing of financial derivatives, Physical Review A98, 022321 (2018)

2018
[9]

T. E. O’Brien, M. Streif, N. C. Rubin, R. Santagati, Y. Su, W. J. Huggins, J. J. Goings, N. Moll, E. Kyoseva, M. Degroote, C. S. Tautermann, J. Lee, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Efficient quantum computa- tion of molecular forces and other energy gradients, Phys. Rev...

2022
[10]

Suzuki, S

Y. Suzuki, S. Uno, R. Raymond, T. Tanaka, T. On- odera, and N. Yamamoto, Amplitude estimation without phase estimation, Quantum Information Processing19, 75 (2020)

2020
[11]

Rall, Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block encodings, Physical Review A102, 022408 (2020)

P. Rall, Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block encodings, Physical Review A102, 022408 (2020)

2020
[12]

S. P. Jordan, Fast quantum algorithm for numerical gradient estimation, Physical review letters 95, 050501 (2005)

2005
[13]

Gilyén, S

A. Gilyén, S. Arunachalam, and N. Wiebe, Optimiz- ing quantum optimization algorithms via faster quantum gradient computation, Proceedings of the Thirtieth An- nual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms , 1425 (2019)

2019
[14]

W. J. Huggins, K. Wan, J. McClean, T. E. O’Brien, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Nearly optimal quantum al- gorithmforestimatingmultipleexpectationvalues,Phys- ical Review Letters129, 240501 (2022)

2022
[15]

van Apeldoorn, A

J. van Apeldoorn, A. Cornelissen, A. Gilyén, and G. Nan- nicini, Quantum tomography using state-preparation unitaries, Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , 1265 (2023)

2023
[17]

Yoshioka, T

N. Yoshioka, T. Okubo, Y. Suzuki, Y. Koizumi, and W. Mizukami, Hunting for quantum-classical crossover in condensed matter problems, npj Quantum Informa- tion 10, 45 (2024)

2024
[18]

M. E. Beverland, P. Murali, M. Troyer, K. M. Svore, T. Hoeffler, V. Kliuchnikov, G. H. Low, M. Soeken, A. Sundaram, and A. Vaschillo, As- sessing requirements to scale to practical quan- tum advantage, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07629 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.07629 (2022)

2022 doi arXiv
[19]

Di Meglio, K

A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft, R. de Putter, A. Delgado, V. Dun- jko, D. J. Egger, E. Fernández-Combarro, E. Fuchs, L. Funcke, D. González-Cuadra, M. Grossi, J. C. Hal- imeh, Z. H...

2024
[20]

Babbush, C

R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. Mc- Clean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Encoding elec- tronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear t complex- ity, Physical Review X8, 041015 (2018)

2018
[21]

von Burg, G

V. von Burg, G. H. Low, T. Häner, D. S. Steiger, M. Rei- her, M. Roetteler, and M. Troyer, Quantum computing enhanced computational catalysis, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033055 (2021)

2021
[22]

B.Bauer, S.Bravyi, M.Motta,andG.K.-L.Chan,Quan- tum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum ma- terials science, Chemical reviews120, 12685 (2020)

2020
[23]

McArdle, S

S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Re- views of Modern Physics92, 015003 (2020)

2020
[24]

J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. Mc- Clean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hy- percontraction, PRX Quantum2, 030305 (2021)

2021
[25]

Cheong and C

S.-A. Cheong and C. L. Henley, Many-body density ma- trices for free fermions, Physical Review B 69, 075111 (2004)

2004
[26]

M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Entanglement structure of current-driven diffusive fermion systems, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021007 (2019)

2019
[27]

Grover, Entanglement of interacting fermions in quan- tum monte carlo calculations, Phys

T. Grover, Entanglement of interacting fermions in quan- tum monte carlo calculations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 130402 (2013)

2013
[28]

Huang, R

H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Information- theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning, Physical Review Letters126, 190505 (2021)

2021
[29]

A. Zhao, N. C. Rubin, and A. Miyake, Fermionic partial tomography via classical shadows, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 110504 (2021), arXiv:2010.16094 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[30]

Bonet-Monroig, R

X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Babbush, and T. E. O’Brien, Nearly optimal measurement scheduling for partial to- mography of quantum states, Physical Review X 10, 031064 (2020)

2020
[31]

D. W. Berry, H. M. Wiseman, and J. K. Breslin, Opti- mal input states and feedback for interferometric phase estimation, Phys. Rev. A63, 053804 (2001). 8

2001
[32]

Gilyén, Y

A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, Proceed- ings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , 193 (2019)

2019
[33]

G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simula- tion by uniform spectral amplification, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05391 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[34]

G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019)

2019
[36]

Löwdin, Quantum theory of many-particle systems

P.-O. Löwdin, Quantum theory of many-particle systems. i. physical interpretations by means of density matrices, natural spin-orbitals, and convergence problems in the method of configurational interaction, Physical Review 97, 1474 (1955)

1955
[37]

Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states, Proceedings of the 50th annual ACM SIGACT sympo- sium on theory of computing , 325 (2018)

S. Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states, Proceedings of the 50th annual ACM SIGACT sympo- sium on theory of computing , 325 (2018)

2018
[38]

Z. Li, J. Li, N. S. Dattani, C. Umrigar, and G. K. Chan, The electronic complexity of the ground-state of the femo cofactor of nitrogenase as relevant to quantum simula- tions, The Journal of chemical physics150 (2019)

2019
[39]

Tilly, P

J. Tilly, P. Sriluckshmy, A. Patel, E. Fontana, I. Rung- ger, E. Grant, R. Anderson, J. Tennyson, and G. H. Booth, Reduced density matrix sampling: Self-consistent embedding and multiscale electronic structure on cur- rent generation quantum computers, Physical Review Research...

2021
[40]

Kimmel, G

S. Kimmel, G. H. Low, and T. J. Yoder, Robust calibra- tion of a universal single-qubit gate set via robust phase estimation, Phys. Rev. A92, 062315 (2015)

2015
[41]

Atia and D

Y. Atia and D. Aharonov, Fast-forwarding of hamilto- nians and exponentially precise measurements, Nature communications 8, 1572 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

K. Wada, N. Yamamoto, and N. Yoshioka, Heisenberg- limited adaptive gradient estimation for multiple observ- ables, PRX Quantum6, 020308 (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [35]

Koizumi, K

Y. Koizumi, K. Wada, W. Mizukami, and N. Yoshioka, Comprehensive study on heisenberg-limited quantum algorithms for multiple observables estimation, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2505.00698 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025

[3] [1]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

2004

[4] [2]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Physical review letters96, 010401 (2006)

2006

[5] [3]

M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Interferometric detection of optical phase shifts at the heisenberg limit, Physical Review Letters 71, 1355 (1993)

work page 1993

[6] [4]

Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M

R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kołodyński, Quantum limits in optical interfer- ometry, Progress in Optics60, 345 (2015)

2015

[7] [5]

Brassard, P

G. Brassard, P. Hoyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation, Contemporary Mathematics 305, 53 (2002)

2002

[8] [6]

B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wise- man, and G. J. Pryde, Entanglement-free heisenberg- limited phase estimation, Nature450, 393 (2007)

2007