High-order Magnus Expansion for Hamiltonian Simulation

Di Fang; Diyi Liu; Shuchen Zhu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 71 references

High-order Magnus Expansion for Hamiltonian Simulation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any order p, the truncated Magnus expansion has local error bounded purely by finitely many nested commutators of the Hamiltonian — no time-derivative terms — yielding a quantum algorithm whose cost is only logarithmic in how fast H cha

desk verdict A real advance — arbitrary-order Magnus with commutator-only finite error and poly(p) circuits — but Lemma 24's quadrature parameter choice is not proved as written; fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06054 v1 pith:BDHSUFTE submitted 2025-09-07 quant-ph cs.NAmath.NA

Di Fang , Diyi Liu , Shuchen Zhu This is my paper

classification quant-phcs.NAmath.NA MSC 81P6865P10 PACS 03.67.Ac

keywords Magnusexpansiontime-dependentHamiltoniansimulationcommutatorscalingerrorboundsquantumcircuitsblockencodingstatepreparationinteractionpicture

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 paper establishes that the p-th order truncated Magnus expansion approximates the time-ordered evolution of a time-dependent Hamiltonian with local error bounded by a constant times αbar_comm^{p+1} h^{p+1}, where αbar_comm is the largest nested-commutator norm of the Hamiltonian and h is the time step. The bound involves only finitely many nested commutators (of grades p+1 up to p²+2p) and contains no time-derivative terms, which is what makes high-order commutator scaling possible. From this, the authors construct an explicit quantum circuit implementing the p-th order Magnus expansion with polynomial-in-p cost — no factorial blow-up despite the p! permutation terms — achieving query complexity O~(p² αbar_comm^{1+1/p} T^{1+1/p} ε^{-1/p}) with only logarithmic dependence on the derivative of H. A reader should care because time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation underlies many quantum algorithms, including interaction-picture simulations of time-independent systems, and previous high-order methods either depended polynomially on time derivatives or were stuck at low order. If the claims hold, this is the first general time-dependent simulation method combining arbitrary-order accuracy, commutator scaling, and weak dependence on the Hamiltonian's rate of change.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exact error representation for the truncated Magnus evolution: writing the approximant as Ẏ_p = Ã_p U_p with Ã_p = dexp_{Ω(p)}(Ω̇(p)) and using the variation-of-constants formula, so the error equals the integral of (A − Ã_p) against the stable propagator. The analysis carries two bookkeeping measures — the grade (the number of Hamiltonian factors in a nested commutator) and the width (the number of integral layers) — and proves by induction that all grade-≤p terms cancel through the Bernoulli identity Σ (k+1 choose m) B_m = 0. On the circuit side the key mechanisms are the swap-based quantum lookup table that makes the SELECT oracle cost O(k) instead of O(k!),

What would settle it

Symbolically expand Θ_p = Σ_{k=0}^p (1/(k+1)!) ad^k_{Ω(p)}(Ω̇(p)) − A for p = 2,...,5 and verify that all terms of grade ≤ p vanish identically; then, for a two-level system with exactly computable nested commutator norms, plot the local error ∥U_p(h) − U(h)∥ against h on a log-log scale — the slope must approach p+1 with the theorem's finite-commutator constant, and the curve must be unchanged when H(t) is rescaled in time keeping αbar_comm fixed. Deviations from either check would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves that the truncation error of the p-th order Magnus expansion U_p = exp(Σ_{n≤p} Ω_n) against the exact propagator U(t) = T exp(−i∫H) can be organized so that all terms of grade ≤ p cancel, leaving an error built exclusively from nested commutators of H of grades p+1 through p²+2p. The cancellation runs by induction and hinges on a Bernoulli-number identity: the grade-(p+1) contributions from the Θ_p expression are exactly the negative of the time derivative of the (p+1)-th Magnus term, and the composition sums collapse via Σ_{m=0}^{k} (k+1 choose m) B_m = 0. The resulting short-time error bound is C αbar_comm^{p+1} h^{p+1}, with αbar_comm the largest q-th root of the grade-q

Load-bearing premise

The cost claims assume the Hamiltonian H(t) is differentiable with bounded derivative on each time step: the quadrature error bound is a midpoint-rule estimate, so if H has jumps or an unbounded derivative the logarithmic dependence on ‖H′‖ is not established (the paper explicitly defers the unbounded and non-differentiable cases).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any fixed integer p, simulating time-dependent evolution on short intervals costs O~(p² αbar_comm^{1+1/p} T^{1+1/p} ε^{-1/p}) queries to the HAM-T oracle, with error controlled by commutator norms rather than operator norms.
Because the error bounds contain no time derivatives, the algorithm remains efficient in the interaction picture, where a time-independent Hamiltonian is rewritten as a time-dependent one; the gate count depends only logarithmically on ‖H′‖.
By tuning the order to p = O(log(αbar_comm T/ε)), the Magnus-based algorithm reaches polylog(1/ε) precision scaling, in contrast to commutator-scaling Trotter methods for time-independent Hamiltonians, which retain 1/ε^{o(1)}.
Independently of the algorithm, the error analysis shows that the Magnus expansion of every order p is a commutator-structured integrator, which matters broadly wherever Magnus series are used as a theoretical tool in physics and chemistry.
The circuit construction keeps total cost polynomial in p despite the p! terms in the Magnus series, because coefficients are computed arithmetically rather than stored and the time-ordered integral is prepared with factorial subnormalization cancelled.

Reading between the lines

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

A directly testable extension: for a driven two-level or few-mode system with exactly known nested commutators, a log-log plot of the local error ∥U_p(h) − U(h)∥ against h should show slope p+1 with a constant matching the finite-commutator expression; if derivative terms dominated, the order would degrade at small h.
The finite range of grades (p+1 to p²+2p) suggests the algorithm is structure-aware in a practical sense: Hamiltonians whose higher commutators vanish or nearly vanish (such as nilpotent or nearly-commuting families) would get exact or near-exact evolution at fixed cost — a property worth exploiting in ladder models and spin chains.
The same error representation could be pushed to Hamiltonians that are only piecewise continuous by replacing the midpoint-rule quadrature analysis with an adaptive or higher-order quadrature; the paper explicitly leaves the non-differentiable and unbounded cases open.
The permutation-descent coefficient formula and the arithmetic state-preparation trick may transfer to other time-ordered expansions, such as Dyson-series variants, where the same combinatorial sums currently force stored-coefficient circuits.

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

Main takeaway: the central theorem is real and worth taking seriously. This is the first arbitrary-order Magnus truncation bound that depends only on finitely many nested commutators of H, with no time-derivative terms, together with a circuit construction that avoids the p! factorial overhead. That is a genuine closing of a known gap, not a repackaging.

What is new and good: Proposition 3's Bernoulli-number cancellation is the technical heart, and it checks out—modulo a harmless factor-1/2 typo in Eq. (34). Theorems 7 and 8 give finite-commutator error bounds with the p^2+2p cutoff, and the counting arguments behind them are plausible. The circuit section directly attacks the p! obstacle via the SWAP-UP/lookup-based SELECT and the new time-ordered integral state preparation; if those block encodings hold up, the HAM-T count ~ p^2 αbar^{1+1/p} T^{1+1/p}/ε^{1/p} and the polylog(1/ε) scaling by tuning p follow naturally.

Soft spots: 1. Lemma 24 has a real proof gap. After assuming αh<1, the non-derivative quadrature terms are O(h^2 α^2/M), not an h-independent constant. The proof drops them and concludes the error is C h^2 ||A'||/M. That under-justifies the stated M when ||A'|| is small, e.g. nearly time-independent H. The fix is easy—choose M ~ (||A'||+α^2) T^{1-1/p}/(αbar^{1+1/p} ε^{1-1/p})—and it preserves the logarithmic dependence on ||H'||, but as written the main resource theorem is not established. 2. The state-preparation lemmas rely on an unpublished reference [45], and Lemma 22's error propagation is asserted more than proved. This is a reproducibility concern rather than an obvious mathematical error, but it needs addressing before the circuit claims are fully trustworthy. 3. Minor textual errors: Eq. (34) has the factor-1/2 typo, and Lemma 16's cost line has a typo. These are easy fixes.

The differentiability assumption on H is stated explicitly, so the scope limitation is fair. The citation pattern is reasonable; the only problematic dependency is [45].

Verdict: This deserves a serious referee. The core Magnus commutator-scaling result is an advance, and the algorithm is promising. I would send it out, with the referee asked to insist on a corrected Lemma 24 and either a public version of [45] or a self-contained proof of the state-preparation and block-encoding lemmas.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the p-th order truncated Magnus expansion as a method for time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation. It claims (Prop. 3, Thms. 7-8) that the local truncation error of the p-th order Magnus expansion depends only on finitely many nested commutators of the Hamiltonian, with no time-derivative terms, and that the resulting algorithm has HAM-T query complexity O~(p^2 \bar\alpha_{\mathrm{comm}}^{1+1/p} T^{1+1/p} / \epsilon^{1/p}) and elementary gate complexity O~(p^3 \bar\alpha_{\mathrm{comm}}^{1+1/p} T^{1+1/p} / \epsilon^{1/p}) for fixed p (Theorem 25), with only logarithmic dependence on ||H'||. The paper also gives explicit circuit constructions: state preparation for time-ordered multi-layer integrals, state preparation for Magnus coefficients via direct sampling, and a SELECT oracle using quantum lookup tables, avoiding the naive p! scaling.

Significance. If the claims are correct, this is a substantial advance. It would be the first arbitrary-order commutator-scaling Magnus algorithm for general time-dependent Hamiltonians with only logarithmic derivative dependence, and the finite-commutator truncation bound is of independent mathematical interest. The explicit polynomial-in-p circuit construction, replacing the natural p! sum over permutations by arithmetic state preparation and lookup-table-based SELECT, is a genuine technical contribution. The high-level structure of the argument is credible: the cancellation proof in Prop. 3 is sound, and the finite-commutator error bounds in Thms. 7-8 are plausible. However, two load-bearing technical points need to be repaired before the main resource theorem is established: the quadrature-error matching in Lemma 24 and the unproved general-p block-encoding error statement in Lemma 22.

major comments (3)

[Section 6, Lemma 24, Eq. (167)-(168)] The proof of Lemma 24 discards the non-derivative quadrature terms. In Eq. (167), the local quadrature error contains both (k-1) h^k ||A||^k terms and 2k h^{k+1} ||A'|| ||A||^{k-1} terms. The manuscript bounds the first group by a constant C, but then concludes that the whole expression becomes C_2 h^2 ||A'||/M. This is only valid if C/M is at most comparable to C_2 h^2 ||A'||/M, which fails when ||A'|| is small. In the slowly varying or time-independent case, the non-derivative terms give a contribution \Theta(h^2 \alpha^2 / M) per step, and over L steps \Theta(T h \alpha^2 / M). Matching this to the Magnus truncation error forces M = \Omega(\alpha^2 T^{1-1/p} / (\bar\alpha_{\mathrm{comm}}^{1+1/p} \epsilon^{1-1/p})), not the M in Eq. (166). As written, Eq. (166) even gives M = O(0) for a constant Hamiltonian. Since Theorem 25 uses M in the ancilla and two-qubit gate counts, the stated r
[Section 5.2.4, Lemma 22] Lemma 22 asserts that the circuit in Fig. 3 gives a (2 C_\gamma(p) \alpha h, \, plog(M)+n_b+2p\lceil\log p\rceil+p n_a+p, \, \epsilon)-block encoding of \tilde{\Omega}^{(p)}, but no proof is supplied. Lemma 21 bounds the state-preparation error for each PREP_k, and Lemma 20 gives a linear error-propagation statement for p=3 only. The general-p case requires a careful accounting of how the PREP errors, sampling errors, LCU post-selection errors, and the errors in combining the k-th order block encodings accumulate to the claimed \epsilon. This block encoding is the central input to the complexity analysis of Theorem 25, so the missing proof is load-bearing. Please either provide the full error budget or state and prove a precise lemma covering general p.
[Section 6, Theorem 25] The proof of Theorem 25 relies on Lemma 24 for the choice of M and on Lemma 22 for the per-slice block encoding. Because both lemmas have the issues described above, the HAM-T count in Eq. (170), the ancilla count in Eq. (173), and the gate count in Eq. (175), and hence all three stated cost scalings, are not fully justified as written. I emphasize that the issues appear repairable within the manuscript's scope, but they are not purely editorial.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.2, Eq. (34)] The displayed identity in the base case of Prop. 3 omits the factor 1/2: with \dot{\Omega}_1 = A, one has \Theta_1 = \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{ad}_{\Omega_1}(A), not \mathrm{ad}_{\Omega_1}(A). The cancellation argument is unaffected, but the formula as printed is inconsistent with the preceding expression.
[Section 5.2.1, Lemma 16] The last line of the proof states that the two-qubit cost is "log(klog(k) log(M))" which is clearly a typo. It should be O(k \log k \log M), matching the earlier sentence.
[Section 4, Eq. (103)] In Lemma 13, the equality before Eq. (103) should be an inequality with \sum_\pi |C_{\pi,k}|, not a factored |\sum_\pi C_{\pi,k}|, since the operators A(t_{\pi(1)})\dots A(t_{\pi(k)}) differ for each permutation. The subsequent bound is acceptable if one uses |C_{\pi,k}|\le 1 and the k! terms, but the printed equality is misleading.
[Theorem 8, item 2] The condition "\bar{\alpha}_{\mathrm{comm}} h = \Theta(1)" is too vague for the later p-selection argument. To make the p = O(\log(\bar\alpha T/\epsilon)) choice rigorous, the constant in \Theta(1) must be explicitly smaller than 1; otherwise the global error term (1/(p+1))\bar\alpha T (\bar\alpha h)^p cannot be controlled. I suggest writing \bar\alpha h \le c for a fixed c<1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Magnus error bounds are derived from external commutator norms; self-citations are technical and non-circular.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the p-th order Magnus error bound (Theorem 7) is obtained from an exact error representation (Eqs. 31-32), a cancellation proof (Proposition 3) using Bernoulli-number identities, and coefficient-counting bounds (Lemma 5 and Eqs. 65-82) over finitely many nested commutators. The result is expressed in the external commutator norms α_comm,q and αbar_comm, which are problem-instance inputs, not fitted parameters. Theorem 8 and Lemma 23 convert this into step-size selection by algebra, not by fitting. The quadrature analysis (Lemma 13, Theorem 14) is a midpoint-rule estimate; Lemma 24's M-selection is an algebraic match to the Magnus error. The circuit section gives explicit block-encoding constructions with stated gate and ancilla counts, and the state-preparation subroutines are described with explicit oracles and proofs. Self-citations ([40], [41], [45]) are used for standard estimates or subroutines, with proofs either included (Lemma 6 and Appendix A) or stated as explicit oracle properties; they do not carry the central commutator-scaling claim. A separate correctness gap exists in Lemma 24: after Eq. (167), the proof discards ∑_{k=1}^p (k-1)(hα)^k as an h-independent constant, although for αh<1 it is O(h^2 α^2); consequently the stated M can under-control quadrature error when ||A'|| is small. This affects the proof of Theorem 25's cost scaling but is an error-analysis issue, not circular reasoning. No step was found where a 'prediction' is equivalent by construction to its input, nor does the argument reduce to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard boundedness/differentiability assumptions on H, standard math (Bernoulli identities, variation of constants, QSVT), and external oracle-construction lemmas. The only questionable dependency is the unpublished [45] direct-sampling construction.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Boundedness of the Hamiltonian: ||H(t)|| ≤ α for all t, with HAM-T oracle access (Definition 15).
The block-encoding framework and all norm-based error bounds in Sections 5 and 6 require a finite operator norm α.
domain assumption Differentiability of H(t) with bounded derivative ||A'||, where A = -iH.
Lemma 13 bounds the Riemann-sum quadrature error using the midpoint rule applied to A(t), which requires differentiability; the gate count in Theorem 25 depends on log(||A'||).
standard math Bernoulli-number identity Σ_{m=0}^{k} C(k+1,m) B_m = 0 for k≥1 (Eq. 53).
Used in the proof of Proposition 3 to show cancellation of all grade ≤ p terms in Θ_p.
standard math Direct sampling oracle from [45] and permutation-state preparation from [46,69] achieve the claimed accuracy and gate counts.
Lemma 18 and Lemma 16 invoke these as external construction lemmas; the poly(p) circuit claim depends on them.
standard math QSVT+OAA block-encoding-to-exponential conversion of Gilyén et al. [60].
Used in Algorithm 1 and Theorem 25 to convert a block encoding of Ω̃(p) into a block encoding of exp(Ω̃(p)).
standard math Magnus series representation of the propagator and convergence for bounded A with ∫||A|| < π (Blanes et al. [57]).
Justifies the formal expansion U(t) = exp(Ω(t)) used as the starting point in Section 2.
standard math Uniform bound ||ĝ_p||_{L1} ≤ C for the Fourier transform of g_p (Appendix A).
Used in Lemma 6 to bound the remainder of the derivative-of-exponential expansion; proof deferred to [40,62].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-order Magnus Expansion for Hamiltonian Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDHSUFTE

@misc{pith2026250906054,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-order Magnus Expansion for Hamiltonian Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDHSUFTE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06054}
}

read the original abstract

Efficient simulation of quantum dynamics with time-dependent Hamiltonians is important not only for time-varying systems but also for time-independent Hamiltonians in the interaction picture. Such simulations are more challenging than their time-independent counterparts due to the complexity introduced by time ordering. Existing algorithms that aim to capture commutator-based scaling either exhibit polynomial cost dependence on the Hamiltonian's time derivatives or are limited to low-order accuracy. In this work, we establish the general commutator-scaling error bounds for the truncated Magnus expansion at arbitrary order, where only Hamiltonian terms appear in the nested commutators, with no time derivatives involved. Building on this analysis, we design a high-order quantum algorithm with explicit circuit constructions. The algorithm achieves cost scaling with the commutator structure in the high-precision regime and depends only logarithmically on the Hamiltonian's time variation, making it efficient for general time-dependent settings, including the interaction picture.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06054 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The quantum circuit for the oracle OΩ˜ 3 that block encodes Ω˜ 3(tj + h, tj ) for tj = 0 in Eq. (143). As an example, consider the Ω(3)(tj + h, tj ) and we use M time steps to discretize the multi-layer time integral from tj to tj + h. By Eq. (58) the highest order term Ω3(tj + h, tj ) in the third-order Magnus expansion Ω(3)(tj + h, tj ) equals Ω3(tj + h, tj ) = X π∈S3 Cπ,3 Z tj+h tj dt˜1 Z t˜1 tj dt˜2 Z t˜2 tj dt˜… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Lemma 19. The quantum circuit in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The quantum circuit of oracle OΩ˜ (3) that block encodes Ω˜ (3)(tj +h, tj ) for tj = 0, p = 3 in Eq. (155). Proof. To start, the initial state is set to be |0 2 ⟩ |0 n3 ⟩ |ψ⟩ where n3 := 3nm + nb + 3⌈log(3)⌉ + 3na + 3. We constructed the prepare oracle (denoted as PREP) with alias sampling [66], PREP|0⟩ |0⟩ = s αh P3 i=1 αih i |1⟩ + s α2h 2 P3 i=1 αih i |2⟩ + s α3h 3 P3 i=1 αih i |3⟩. (151) Then we have that |0 2 ⟩ … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The quantum circuit of oracle OΩ˜ (p) that block encodes Ω˜ (p)(tj + h, tj ) for tj = 0 in Eq. (155). State preparation can be a crucial task for implementing high-order Magnus expansion, in order to avoid factorial or exponential cost in two-qubit gate count. To const…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

[45]

Block encoding with low gate count for second-quantized hamiltonians.Under preparation, 2025

Diyi Liu, Shuchen Zhu, Lin Lin, Guang Hao Low, and Chao Yang. Block encoding with low gate count for second-quantized hamiltonians.Under preparation, 2025

work page 2025
[1]

Nmr techniques for quantum control and computation

Lieven MK Vandersypen and Isaac L Chuang. Nmr techniques for quantum control and computation. Reviews of modern physics, 76(4):1037–1069, 2004

work page 2004
[2]

Control of quantum phenomena: past, present and future.New Journal of Physics, 12(7):075008, 2010

Constantin Brif, Raj Chakrabarti, and Herschel Rabitz. Control of quantum phenomena: past, present and future.New Journal of Physics, 12(7):075008, 2010

work page 2010
[3]

Quantum control theory and applications: a survey.IET Control Theory & Applications, 4(12):2651–2671, 2010

Daoyi Dong and Ian R Petersen. Quantum control theory and applications: a survey.IET Control Theory & Applications, 4(12):2651–2671, 2010

work page 2010
[4]

Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving.Physical review letters, 111(10):100502, 2013

Adolfo Del Campo. Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving.Physical review letters, 111(10):100502, 2013

work page 2013
[5]

Counter- diabatic driving with performance guarantees.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01958, 2025

Jernej Rudi Finˇ zgar, Simone Notarnicola, Madelyn Cain, Mikhail D Lukin, and Dries Sels. Counter- diabatic driving with performance guarantees.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01958, 2025

arXiv 2025
[6]

Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator.Nature, 551(7682):601–604, 2017

Jiehang Zhang, Guido Pagano, Paul W Hess, Antonis Kyprianidis, Patrick Becker, Harvey Kaplan, Alexey V Gorshkov, Z-X Gong, and Christopher Monroe. Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator.Nature, 551(7682):601–604, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Jurcevic, H

P. Jurcevic, H. Shen, P. Hauke, C. Maier, T. Brydges, C. Hempel, B. P. Lanyon, M. Heyl, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos. Direct observation of dynamical quantum phase transitions in an interacting many-body system.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:080501, Aug 2017

work page 2017

Show all 71 references

[8]

Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator.Nature, 551(7682):579–584, 2017

Hannes Bernien, Sylvain Schwartz, Alexander Keesling, Harry Levine, Ahmed Omran, Hannes Pich- ler, Soonwon Choi, Alexander S Zibrov, Manuel Endres, Markus Greiner, et al. Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator.Nature, 551(7682):579–584, 2017

2017
[9]

Quantum computation by adia- batic evolution

Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Michael Sipser. Quantum computation by adia- batic evolution. 2000. arXiv:quant-ph/0001106

2000 arXiv
[10]

Albash and D

T. Albash and D. A. Lidar. Adiabatic quantum computation.Rev. Mod. Phys., 90:015002, 2018

2018
[11]

Egger, Bruce G

Amira Abbas, Andris Ambainis, Brandon Augustino, Andreas B¨ artschi, Harry Buhrman, Carleton Cof- frin, Giorgio Cortiana, Vedran Dunjko, Daniel J. Egger, Bruce G. Elmegreen, Nicola Franco, Filippo Fratini, Bryce Fuller, Julien Gacon, Constantin Gonciulea, Sander Gribling, Swat...

2024
[12]

G. H. Low and N. Wiebe. Hamiltonian simulation in the interaction picture. 2019. arXiv:1805.00675

2019 arXiv
[13]

Hybridized methods for quantum simulation in the interaction picture.Quantum, 6:780, August 2022

Abhishek Rajput, Alessandro Roggero, and Nathan Wiebe. Hybridized methods for quantum simulation in the interaction picture.Quantum, 6:780, August 2022

2022
[14]

Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C

Andrew M. Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C. Tran, Nathan Wiebe, and Shuchen Zhu. Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling.Phys. Rev. X, 11:011020, 2021

2021
[15]

Wiebe, D

N. Wiebe, D. Berry, P. Høyer, and B. C. Sanders. Higher order decompositions of ordered operator exponentials.J. Phys. A, 43(6):065203, 2010

2010
[16]

Nearly optimal lattice simulation by product formulas.Phys

Andrew M Childs and Yuan Su. Nearly optimal lattice simulation by product formulas.Phys. Rev. Lett., 123(5):050503, 2019

2019
[17]

Burak S ¸ahino˘ glu and Rolando D. Somma. Hamiltonian simulation in the low-energy subspace.npj Quantum Information, 7(1), July 2021. 32

2021
[18]

Time-dependent unbounded Hamiltonian simulation with vector norm scaling.Quantum, 5:459, may 2021

Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin. Time-dependent unbounded Hamiltonian simulation with vector norm scaling.Quantum, 5:459, may 2021

2021
[19]

Campbell

Yuan Su, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Earl T. Campbell. Nearly tight Trotterization of interacting electrons. Quantum, 5:495, July 2021

2021
[20]

Shaw, Tongyang Li, and Andrew M

Qi Zhao, You Zhou, Alexander F. Shaw, Tongyang Li, and Andrew M. Childs. Hamiltonian simulation with random inputs.Physical Review Letters, 129(27), December 2022

2022
[21]

Uniform observable error bounds of trotter formulae for the semiclassical schr¨ odinger equation.Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 23(1):255–277, 2025

Yonah Borns-Weil and Di Fang. Uniform observable error bounds of trotter formulae for the semiclassical schr¨ odinger equation.Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 23(1):255–277, 2025

2025
[22]

Complexity of Digital Quantum Simulation in the Low- Energy Subspace: Applications and a Lower Bound.Quantum, 8:1409, July 2024

Weiyuan Gong, Shuo Zhou, and Tongyang Li. Complexity of Digital Quantum Simulation in the Low- Energy Subspace: Applications and a Lower Bound.Quantum, 8:1409, July 2024

2024
[23]

Guang Hao Low, Yuan Su, Yu Tong, and Minh C. Tran. Complexity of implementing trotter steps. PRX Quantum, 4:020323, May 2023

2023
[24]

Entanglement accelerates quantum simulation.Nature Physics, pages 1–8, 2025

Qi Zhao, You Zhou, and Andrew M Childs. Entanglement accelerates quantum simulation.Nature Physics, pages 1–8, 2025

2025
[25]

Selection and improvement of product formulae for best performance of quantum simulation.Quantum Information & Computation, 25(1):1–35, 2025

Mauro ES Morales, Pedro Costa, Giacomo Pantaleoni, Daniel K Burgarth, Yuval R Sanders, and Dominic W Berry. Selection and improvement of product formulae for best performance of quantum simulation.Quantum Information & Computation, 25(1):1–35, 2025

2025
[26]

Well-conditioned multiproduct hamiltonian simulation, 2019

Guang Hao Low, Vadym Kliuchnikov, and Nathan Wiebe. Well-conditioned multiproduct hamiltonian simulation, 2019. arXiv:1907.11679

2019 arXiv
[27]

Universal quantum simulators.Science, pages 1073–1078, 1996

Seth Lloyd. Universal quantum simulators.Science, pages 1073–1078, 1996

1996
[28]

Huyghebaert and H

J. Huyghebaert and H. De Raedt. Product formula methods for time-dependent Schr¨ odinger problems. J. Phys. A, 23(24):5777–5793, 1990

1990
[29]

Ikeda, and Keisuke Fujii

Kaoru Mizuta, Tatsuhiko N. Ikeda, and Keisuke Fujii. Explicit error bounds with commutator scaling for time-dependent product and multi-product formulas, 2024. arXiv:2410.14243

2024
[30]

On the commutator scaling in hamiltonian simulation with multi-product formulas,

Kaoru Mizuta. On the commutator scaling in hamiltonian simulation with multi-product formulas,
[31]

Multi-product hamiltonian simulation with explicit commutator scaling, 2024

Junaid Aftab, Dong An, and Konstantina Trivisa. Multi-product hamiltonian simulation with explicit commutator scaling, 2024. arXiv:2403.08922

2024 arXiv
[32]

D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma. Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series.Phys. Rev. Lett., 114:090502, 2015

2015
[33]

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), Apr 2019

2019
[34]

D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, Y. Su, X. Wang, and N. Wiebe. Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation withl 1-norm scaling.Quantum, 4:254, 2020

2020
[35]

Quantum simulation of time-dependent hamiltonians and the convenient illusion of hilbert space.Physical review letters, 106(17):170501, 2011

David Poulin, Angie Qarry, Rolando Somma, and Frank Verstraete. Quantum simulation of time-dependent hamiltonians and the convenient illusion of hilbert space.Physical review letters, 106(17):170501, 2011

2011
[36]

Watson and Jacob Watkins

James D. Watson and Jacob Watkins. Exponentially reduced circuit depths using trotter error mitiga- tion.PRX Quantum, 6:030325, Aug 2025

2025
[37]

Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation via time-independent dynamics in a larger space, 2025

Zecheng Li and Chunhao Wang. Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation via time-independent dynamics in a larger space, 2025. arXiv:2507.19345. 33

2025 arXiv
[38]

Quan- tum simulation of time-dependent hamiltonians via commutator-free quasi-magnus operators, 2024

Pablo Antonio Moreno Casares, Modjtaba Shokrian Zini, and Juan Miguel Arrazola. Quan- tum simulation of time-dependent hamiltonians via commutator-free quasi-magnus operators, 2024. arXiv:2403.13889

2024 arXiv
[39]

Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation of highly oscillatory dynamics and superconvergence for schr¨ odinger equation.Quantum, 6:690, 2022

Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin. Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation of highly oscillatory dynamics and superconvergence for schr¨ odinger equation.Quantum, 6:690, 2022

2022
[40]

Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation via magnus expansion: Algorithm and superconvergence.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 406(6):128, 2025

Di Fang, Diyi Liu, and Rahul Sarkar. Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation via magnus expansion: Algorithm and superconvergence.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 406(6):128, 2025

2025
[41]

Discrete Superconvergence Analysis for Quantum Magnus Algorithms of Unbounded Hamiltonian Simulation, 2025

Yonah Borns-Weil, Di Fang, and Jiaqi Zhang. Discrete Superconvergence Analysis for Quantum Magnus Algorithms of Unbounded Hamiltonian Simulation, 2025. arXiv:2502.20255

2025
[42]

Trading t gates for dirty qubits in state preparation and unitary synthesis.Quantum, 8:1375, 2024

Guang Hao Low, Vadym Kliuchnikov, and Luke Schaeffer. Trading t gates for dirty qubits in state preparation and unitary synthesis.Quantum, 8:1375, 2024

2024
[43]

Unified architecture for a quantum lookup table,

Shuchen Zhu, Aarthi Sundaram, and Guang Hao Low. Unified architecture for a quantum lookup table,
[44]

Exponentially faster implementations of select (h) for fermionic hamiltonians.Quantum, 5:380, 2021

Kianna Wan. Exponentially faster implementations of select (h) for fermionic hamiltonians.Quantum, 5:380, 2021

2021
[46]

Improved techniques for preparing eigenstates of fermionic hamilto- nians.npj Quantum Information, 4(1):22, 2018

Dominic W Berry, M´ aria Kieferov´ a, Artur Scherer, Yuval R Sanders, Guang Hao Low, Nathan Wiebe, Craig Gidney, and Ryan Babbush. Improved techniques for preparing eigenstates of fermionic hamilto- nians.npj Quantum Information, 4(1):22, 2018

2018
[47]

Childs, Jiaqi Leng, Tongyang Li, Jin-Peng Liu, and Chenyi Zhang

Andrew M. Childs, Jiaqi Leng, Tongyang Li, Jin-Peng Liu, and Chenyi Zhang. Quantum simulation of real-space dynamics.Quantum, 6:860, November 2022

2022
[48]

Observable error bounds of the time-splitting scheme for quantum- classical molecular dynamics.SIAM J

Di Fang and Albert Tres Vilanova. Observable error bounds of the time-splitting scheme for quantum- classical molecular dynamics.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 61(1):26–44, 2023

2023
[49]

Learning many-body hamiltonians with heisenberg- limited scaling.Phys

Hsin-Yuan Huang, Yu Tong, Di Fang, and Yuan Su. Learning many-body hamiltonians with heisenberg- limited scaling.Phys. Rev. Lett., 130:200403, May 2023

2023
[50]

Simple and high-precision hamiltonian simulation by compensating trotter error with linear combination of unitary operations, 2022

Pei Zeng, Jinzhao Sun, Liang Jiang, and Qi Zhao. Simple and high-precision hamiltonian simulation by compensating trotter error with linear combination of unitary operations, 2022. arXiv:22212.04566

2022 arXiv
[51]

Error interference in quantum simulation, 2024

Boyang Chen, Jue Xu, Qi Zhao, and Xiao Yuan. Error interference in quantum simulation, 2024. arXiv:2411.03255

2024 arXiv
[52]

Uniform semiclassical observable error bound of Trotterization without the Egorov theorem: a simple algebraic proof, 2025

Di Fang and Conrad Qu. Uniform semiclassical observable error bound of Trotterization without the Egorov theorem: a simple algebraic proof, 2025. arXiv:2507.02783

2025 arXiv
[53]

On the Trotter Error in Many-body Quantum Dynamics with Coulomb Potentials, 2025

Di Fang, Xiaoxu Wu, and Avy Soffer. On the Trotter Error in Many-body Quantum Dynamics with Coulomb Potentials, 2025. arXiv:2507.22707

2025
[54]

Time-dependent hamiltonian sim- ulation using discrete-clock constructions.PRX Quantum, 5(4):040316, 2024

Jacob Watkins, Nathan Wiebe, Alessandro Roggero, and Dean Lee. Time-dependent hamiltonian sim- ulation using discrete-clock constructions.PRX Quantum, 5(4):040316, 2024

2024
[55]

Kunal Sharma and Minh C. Tran. Hamiltonian simulation in the interaction picture using the magnus expansion, 2024. arXiv:2404.02966

2024 arXiv
[56]

Efficient and practical hamiltonian simulation from time-dependent product formulas

Jan Lukas Bosse, Andrew M Childs, Charles Derby, Filippo Maria Gambetta, Ashley Montanaro, and Raul A Santos. Efficient and practical hamiltonian simulation from time-dependent product formulas. Nature Communications, 16(1):2673, 2025. 34

2025
[57]

Blanes, F

S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. A. Oteo, and J. Ros. The Magnus expansion and some of its applications.Phys. Rep., 470(5-6):151–238, 2009

2009
[58]

Geometric numerical integration

Ernst Hairer, Marlis Hochbruck, Arieh Iserles, and Christian Lubich. Geometric numerical integration. Oberwolfach Reports, 3(1):805–882, 2006

2006
[59]

CRC press, 2017

Sergio Blanes and Fernando Casas.A concise introduction to geometric numerical integration. CRC press, 2017

2017
[60]

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

Andr´ as Gily´ en, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. InProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 193–204, 2019

2019
[61]

A general formula for the magnus expansion in terms of iterated integrals of right-nested commutators.Journal of Physics Communications, 2(3):035024, mar 2018

Ana Arnal, Fernando Casas, and Cristina Chiralt. A general formula for the magnus expansion in terms of iterated integrals of right-nested commutators.Journal of Physics Communications, 2(3):035024, mar 2018

2018
[62]

On Magnus integrators for time-dependent Schr¨ odinger equa- tions.SIAM J

Marlis Hochbruck and Christian Lubich. On Magnus integrators for time-dependent Schr¨ odinger equa- tions.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 41(3):945–963, 2003

2003
[63]

Block-encoding structured matrices for data input in quantum computing.Quantum, 8:1226, 2024

Christoph S¨ underhauf, Earl Campbell, and Joan Camps. Block-encoding structured matrices for data input in quantum computing.Quantum, 8:1226, 2024

2024
[64]

Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 45(1):801–827, 2024

Daan Camps, Lin Lin, Roel Van Beeumen, and Chao Yang. Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 45(1):801–827, 2024

2024
[65]

On efficient quantum block encoding of pseudo-differential operators.Quantum, 7:1031, 2023

Haoya Li, Hongkang Ni, and Lexing Ying. On efficient quantum block encoding of pseudo-differential operators.Quantum, 7:1031, 2023

2023
[66]

Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear t complexity.Physical Review X, 8(4):041015, 2018

Ryan Babbush, Craig Gidney, Dominic W Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Jarrod McClean, Alexandru Paler, Austin Fowler, and Hartmut Neven. Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear t complexity.Physical Review X, 8(4):041015, 2018

2018
[67]

An efficient quantum circuit for block encoding a pairing hamiltonian.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11205, 2024

Diyi Liu, Weijie Du, Lin Lin, James P Vary, and Chao Yang. An efficient quantum circuit for block encoding a pairing hamiltonian.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11205, 2024

2024 arXiv
[68]

Hamiltonian input model and spectroscopy on quantum computers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08969, 2024

Weijie Du and James P Vary. Hamiltonian input model and spectroscopy on quantum computers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08969, 2024

2024 arXiv
[69]

Childs, and Daniel Gottesman

Zhenning Liu, Andrew M. Childs, and Daniel Gottesman. Low-depth quantum symmetrization, 2025. arXiv:2411.04019

2025 arXiv
[70]

Improved Accuracy for Trotter Simulations Using Chebyshev Interpolation (QIP2025).Quantum, 8:1266, February 2024

Gumaro Rendon, Jacob Watkins, and Nathan Wiebe. Improved Accuracy for Trotter Simulations Using Chebyshev Interpolation (QIP2025).Quantum, 8:1266, February 2024

2024
[71]

James D. Watson. Randomly compiled quantum simulation with exponentially reduced circuit depths, 2024. 35

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [45]

Block encoding with low gate count for second-quantized hamiltonians.Under preparation, 2025

Diyi Liu, Shuchen Zhu, Lin Lin, Guang Hao Low, and Chao Yang. Block encoding with low gate count for second-quantized hamiltonians.Under preparation, 2025

work page 2025

[2] [1]

Nmr techniques for quantum control and computation

Lieven MK Vandersypen and Isaac L Chuang. Nmr techniques for quantum control and computation. Reviews of modern physics, 76(4):1037–1069, 2004

work page 2004

[3] [2]

Control of quantum phenomena: past, present and future.New Journal of Physics, 12(7):075008, 2010

Constantin Brif, Raj Chakrabarti, and Herschel Rabitz. Control of quantum phenomena: past, present and future.New Journal of Physics, 12(7):075008, 2010

work page 2010

[4] [3]

Quantum control theory and applications: a survey.IET Control Theory & Applications, 4(12):2651–2671, 2010

Daoyi Dong and Ian R Petersen. Quantum control theory and applications: a survey.IET Control Theory & Applications, 4(12):2651–2671, 2010

work page 2010

[5] [4]

Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving.Physical review letters, 111(10):100502, 2013

Adolfo Del Campo. Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving.Physical review letters, 111(10):100502, 2013

work page 2013

[6] [5]

Counter- diabatic driving with performance guarantees.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01958, 2025

Jernej Rudi Finˇ zgar, Simone Notarnicola, Madelyn Cain, Mikhail D Lukin, and Dries Sels. Counter- diabatic driving with performance guarantees.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01958, 2025

arXiv 2025

[7] [6]

Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator.Nature, 551(7682):601–604, 2017

Jiehang Zhang, Guido Pagano, Paul W Hess, Antonis Kyprianidis, Patrick Becker, Harvey Kaplan, Alexey V Gorshkov, Z-X Gong, and Christopher Monroe. Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator.Nature, 551(7682):601–604, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [7]

Jurcevic, H

P. Jurcevic, H. Shen, P. Hauke, C. Maier, T. Brydges, C. Hempel, B. P. Lanyon, M. Heyl, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos. Direct observation of dynamical quantum phase transitions in an interacting many-body system.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:080501, Aug 2017

work page 2017