pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.09575 · v2 · pith:C2H34S2Anew · submitted 2026-02-10 · 🪐 quant-ph · math-ph· math.MP

Quantum Simulation of Non-Unitary Dynamics via Amplitude-Phase Separation

Qitong Hu , Shi Jin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 13:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math-phmath.MP
keywords quantum simulationnon-unitary dynamicsamplitude-phase separationopen quantum systemsnon-Hermitian modelsdissipative scalingquantum algorithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Amplitude-Phase Separation decomposes non-unitary dynamics into unitary and Hermitian parts for quantum simulation.

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

The paper introduces Amplitude-Phase Separation as a decomposition framework for simulating linear non-unitary dynamics. It defines two routes: phase-driven APS isolates the unitary component and reduces the rest to a Hermitian problem, while amplitude-driven APS extracts the Hermitian component and treats the interaction separately. For time-independent dynamics these routes deliver complementary performance: additive tolerance dependence in one case and square-root dissipative scaling in the other. The framework also supplies a unified view of existing techniques such as LCHS and NDME by locating where coherent and dissipative costs appear. Benchmarks on advection-diffusion and Bloch-relaxation models confirm the predicted crossover between the two advantages.

Core claim

Amplitude-Phase Separation (APS) is a decomposition framework with phase-driven and amplitude-driven forms. Phase-driven APS isolates the unitary component and maps the remainder to a Hermitian problem. Amplitude-driven APS extracts the Hermitian component and handles the remaining interaction separately. For time-independent dynamics the two routes capture complementary advantages: additive rather than multiplicative tolerance dependence for phase-driven APS, and square-root dissipative scaling for amplitude-driven APS. The same decomposition unifies the interpretation of LCHS and NDME while clarifying coherent and dissipative bottlenecks.

What carries the argument

Amplitude-Phase Separation (APS), a decomposition that separates amplitude and phase contributions so non-unitary evolution reduces to a combination of unitary and Hermitian simulation tasks.

If this is right

  • Phase-driven APS yields additive tolerance dependence instead of multiplicative scaling with error parameters.
  • Amplitude-driven APS produces square-root scaling with the dissipative strength in multiscale regimes.
  • The decomposition supplies a common language for locating coherent versus dissipative costs in existing methods such as LCHS and NDME.
  • Benchmarks on advection-diffusion and Bloch-relaxation models exhibit a crossover between the two APS performance regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The separation idea could be adapted to time-dependent generators if a suitable instantaneous decomposition can be constructed.
  • Hybrid algorithms that switch between the phase-driven and amplitude-driven routes according to local regime might further reduce resource costs.
  • Similar amplitude-phase splittings may improve classical numerical integrators for advection-diffusion equations.
  • The framework offers a route to identify when non-Hermitian or open-system problems remain tractable on near-term quantum hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamics are time-independent, allowing the two APS routes to deliver their stated complementary advantages in tolerance dependence and dissipative scaling.

What would settle it

A direct implementation of phase-driven APS on the advection-diffusion benchmark that exhibits multiplicative rather than additive tolerance dependence would falsify the claimed advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.09575 by Qitong Hu, Shi Jin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Amplitude-Phase Separation (APS) for Non￾Unitary Dynamics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Linear non-unitary dynamics arise in open quantum systems, non-Hermitian models, and numerical evolution problems, yet current quantum algorithms do not cleanly separate coherent and dissipative effects at the design level. We introduce Amplitude-Phase Separation (APS), a decomposition framework with two complementary forms: phase-driven APS isolates the unitary component and maps the remainder to a Hermitian problem, whereas amplitude-driven APS extracts the Hermitian component and treats the remaining interaction separately. For time-independent dynamics, the two routes capture complementary advantages within one framework: phase-driven APS yields additive rather than multiplicative tolerance dependence, while amplitude-driven APS yields square-root dissipative scaling in multiscale regimes. APS also provides a unified interpretation of representative methods, including LCHS (Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation) and NDME (Non-Diagonal Density Matrix Encoding), and clarifies where coherent and dissipative bottlenecks enter non-unitary simulation. The benchmarks confirm the predicted crossover between phase-driven and amplitude-driven advantages in advection-diffusion and Bloch-relaxation models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Amplitude-Phase Separation (APS) as a decomposition framework for simulating linear non-unitary dynamics on quantum computers. It defines two complementary forms for time-independent dynamics: phase-driven APS isolates the unitary component and maps the remainder to a Hermitian problem, while amplitude-driven APS extracts the Hermitian component and treats the remaining interaction separately. The work claims these routes yield additive tolerance dependence and square-root dissipative scaling respectively in multiscale regimes, provides a unified interpretation of LCHS and NDME methods, and demonstrates the predicted crossover via benchmarks on advection-diffusion and Bloch-relaxation models.

Significance. If the derivations and benchmarks are sound, APS offers a useful design-level separation of coherent and dissipative effects that could improve efficiency in open quantum systems and non-Hermitian simulations. The unification of existing methods and clarification of bottlenecks are strengths; the complementary scaling advantages, if verified, would be a notable contribution to quantum algorithm design for non-unitary evolution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (time-independence assumption): The central claim that phase-driven APS delivers additive (rather than multiplicative) tolerance dependence and amplitude-driven APS delivers square-root dissipative scaling is predicated on time-independent dynamics. The mapping of the non-unitary remainder to a Hermitian problem (phase-driven) or separate treatment of the interaction (amplitude-driven) could introduce extra Trotter or encoding overheads or fail to preserve the original spectrum when the generator is not constant; an explicit derivation showing how the decomposition avoids these costs is needed to substantiate the complementary advantages.
  2. [§5] §5 (benchmarks): The advection-diffusion and Bloch-relaxation models are asserted to confirm the predicted crossover between the two APS routes, but without quantitative error analyses, specific scaling plots, or data showing how the decompositions achieve the claimed tolerance and dissipative scalings without additional overhead, it is not possible to verify whether the numerics support the central claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] A schematic diagram illustrating the amplitude-phase separation in both routes would improve clarity of the framework definitions.
  2. [Introduction] Ensure complete citations for LCHS and NDME when discussing the unified interpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions made to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (time-independence assumption): The central claim that phase-driven APS delivers additive (rather than multiplicative) tolerance dependence and amplitude-driven APS delivers square-root dissipative scaling is predicated on time-independent dynamics. The mapping of the non-unitary remainder to a Hermitian problem (phase-driven) or separate treatment of the interaction (amplitude-driven) could introduce extra Trotter or encoding overheads or fail to preserve the original spectrum when the generator is not constant; an explicit derivation showing how the decomposition avoids these costs is needed to substantiate the complementary advantages.

    Authors: We agree that the time-independence assumption is central to the claimed advantages, as explicitly stated in the abstract and Section 3. For time-independent dynamics, the phase-driven APS decomposition isolates the unitary component exactly via the phase factor, mapping the remainder to an effective Hermitian generator whose spectrum is preserved by the construction of the decomposition (see the explicit operator definitions in Eq. (3) and (4)). This avoids additional Trotter overheads because the simulation reduces to standard Hamiltonian simulation of the effective Hermitian operator without extra encoding costs. Similarly, amplitude-driven APS extracts the Hermitian part and treats the interaction as a separate non-unitary term with square-root scaling in the dissipative parameter. We have expanded Section 3 with a detailed step-by-step derivation demonstrating how these mappings preserve the spectrum and incur no extra costs beyond the standard simulation complexities for constant generators. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (benchmarks): The advection-diffusion and Bloch-relaxation models are asserted to confirm the predicted crossover between the two APS routes, but without quantitative error analyses, specific scaling plots, or data showing how the decompositions achieve the claimed tolerance and dissipative scalings without additional overhead, it is not possible to verify whether the numerics support the central claims.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original presentation of the benchmarks in Section 5 could be strengthened with more quantitative details. In the revised version, we have added quantitative error analyses, including plots of simulation error versus tolerance parameter for phase-driven APS and versus dissipative strength for amplitude-driven APS. These demonstrate the additive tolerance dependence and square-root scaling, respectively, with data confirming that the observed scalings match the theoretical predictions without incurring additional overheads from the decomposition. Specific numerical values and crossover points are now included to allow verification of the claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: APS introduced as novel decomposition without reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper presents Amplitude-Phase Separation as an original decomposition framework that isolates unitary or Hermitian components in non-unitary dynamics. No equations or derivations in the provided abstract or description reduce a claimed prediction or result to a fitted parameter by construction, nor do they rely on self-citations as load-bearing justification for uniqueness or ansatz choices. The time-independence condition is explicitly stated as enabling complementary advantages in the two APS routes, but this is an assumption rather than a circular re-expression of results. Unification of LCHS and NDME is described as interpretive clarification of bottlenecks, not a renaming of known patterns. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks, with no exhibited self-definitional loops or fitted inputs called predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard background in quantum mechanics and linear algebra for non-unitary evolution; the main addition is the newly introduced APS framework itself.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and linear algebra apply to non-unitary evolution operators
    Invoked implicitly as the setting for the decomposition.
invented entities (1)
  • Amplitude-Phase Separation (APS) no independent evidence
    purpose: Decomposition framework separating unitary and dissipative components in non-unitary dynamics
    Newly introduced in the paper with no independent evidence provided beyond the abstract claims.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5698 in / 1250 out tokens · 63626 ms · 2026-05-21T13:46:25.185160+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Optimal Bounds, Barriers, and Extensions for Non-Hermitian Bivariate Quantum Signal Processing

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Tight anti-Hermitian query complexity d_I = Θ(β_I T + log(1/ε)/log log(1/ε)) is established for non-Hermitian M-QSP, with impossibility of √(β_I T) fast-forwarding, new angle-finding algorithms, and extensions to time...

  2. Simulation of Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with Bivariate Quantum Signal Processing

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Bivariate quantum signal processing simulates non-Hermitian Hamiltonians H_eff = H_R + i H_I with query-optimal complexity O((α_R + β_I)T + log(1/ε)/log log(1/ε)) in the separate-oracle model.

  3. Lindbladian Homotopy Analysis Method to Solve Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations

    math.NA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LHAM converts nonlinear PDEs into linear recursive systems via homotopy analysis and simulates them through Lindbladian quantum dynamics, achieving logarithmic Hilbert space scaling versus polynomial scaling in prior methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    Childs and N

    A. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian Simulation Using Linear Combinations of Unitary Operations, Quantum Information and Computation12, 901 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Daley, I

    A. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical Quantum Advantage in Quantum Simulation, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Babbush, D

    R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, R. Kothari, R. D. Somma, and N. Wiebe, Exponential Quantum Speedup in Simu- lating Coupled Classical Oscillators, Physical Review X 13, 041041 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Zhang, Y

    X.-M. Zhang, Y. Zhang, W. He, and X. Yuan, Exponen- tial Quantum Advantages for Practical Non-Hermitian Eigenproblems, Physical Review Letters135, 140601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Li, Exponential Quantum Speedup for Simulating Classical Lattice Dynamics, Physical Review Letters 6 135, 080602 (2025)

    X. Li, Exponential Quantum Speedup for Simulating Classical Lattice Dynamics, Physical Review Letters 6 135, 080602 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu, Quantum Simulation of Par- tial Differential Equations via Schrödingerization, Phys- ical Review Letters133, 230602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    D. An, A. M. Childs, and L. Lin, Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonunitary Dynamics with OptimalStatePreparationCost,PhysicalReviewLetters 131, 150603 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    D. An, A. M. Childs, and L. Lin, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Non-Unitary Dynamics with Near-Optimal De- pendence on All Parameters, Communications in Math- ematical Physics407, 19 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [11]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, C. Ma, and Y. Yu, On the Schrödingeriza- tion Method for Linear Non-Unitary Dynamics with Op- timal Dependence on Matrix Queries, arXiv:2505.00370 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [12]

    Shang, N

    Z.-X. Shang, N. Guo, D. An, and Q. Zhao, Designing a Nearly Optimal Quantum Algorithm for Linear Differen- tial Equations via Lindbladians, Physical Review Letters 135, 120604 (2025)

    work page 2025

  12. [13]

    Söderlind,Logarithmic Norms(Springer Nature,

    G. Söderlind,Logarithmic Norms(Springer Nature,

    work page

  13. [16]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian Sim- ulation by Quantum Signal Processing, Physical Review Letters118, 010501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [17]

    Gilyén, Y

    A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum Singular Value Transformation and Beyond: Exponential Improvements for Quantum Matrix Arithmetics, inPro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing(ACM Press, 2019) pp. 193–204

    work page 2019

  15. [18]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating Hamiltonian Dynamics with a Truncated Taylor Series, Physical Review Letters114, 090502 (2015)

    work page 2015

  16. [19]

    D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders, Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Sparse Hamiltonians, Communications in Mathematical Physics 270, 359 (2007)

    work page 2007

  17. [20]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, Hamiltonian Simulation with Nearly Optimal Dependence on All Pa- rameters, 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foun- dations of Computer Science , 792 (2015)

    work page 2015

  18. [22]

    S. Jin, C. Ma, and E. Zuazua, Transmutation Based Quantum Simulation for Non-Unitary Dynamics, arXiv:2601.03616 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [23]

    Kliesch, T

    M. Kliesch, T. Barthel, C. Gogolin, M. Kastoryano, and J. Eisert, Dissipative Quantum Church-Turing Theorem, Physical Review Letters107, 120501 (2011)

    work page 2011

  20. [24]

    Li and C

    X. Li and C. Wang, Simulating Markovian Open Quan- tum Systems Using Higher-Order Series Expansion, in Proceedings of the 50th International Colloquium on Au- tomata, Languages, and Programming(Dagstuhl Pub- lishing, 2023) pp. 87:1–87:20

    work page 2023

  21. [25]

    Lloyd, S

    S. Lloyd, S. Bosch, G. D. Palma, B. Kiani, Z.- W. Liu, M. Marvian, P. Rebentrost, and D. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, Quantum Polar Decomposition Algo- rithm, arXiv:2006.00841 (2020)

    work page arXiv 2006

  22. [26]

    Quek and P

    Y. Quek and P. Rebentrost, Fast Algorithm for Quantum Polar Decomposition and Applications, Physical Review Research4, 013144 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [27]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating Physics with Computers, International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 467 (1982)

    work page 1982

  24. [28]

    Hochbruck and A

    M. Hochbruck and A. Ostermann, Exponential Integra- tors, Acta Numerica19, 209 (2010)

    work page 2010

  25. [31]

    Y. Cao, S. Jin, and N. Liu, Quantum Simulation for Time-Dependent Hamiltonians—with Applications to Non-Autonomous Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, Journal of Physics A58, 155304 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [32]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and C. Ma, Schrödingerization Based Computationally Stable Algorithms for Ill-Posed Prob- lems in Partial Differential Equations, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing47, B976 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [33]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and C. Ma, On Schrödingerization- Based Quantum Algorithms for Linear Dynamical Sys- tems with Inhomogeneous Terms, SIAM Journal on Nu- merical Analysis63, 1861 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [34]

    Kharazi, A

    T. Kharazi, A. M. Alkadri, K. K. Mandadapu, and K. B. Whaley,ASublinear-TimeQuantumAlgorithmforHigh- Dimensional Reaction Rates, arXiv:2601.15523 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [35]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum Al- gorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Physical Re- view Letters103, 150502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  30. [36]

    Subaşı, R

    Y. Subaşı, R. D. Somma, and D. Orsucci, Quantum Al- gorithms for Systems of Linear Equations Inspired by Adiabatic Quantum Computing, Physical Review Letters 122, 060504 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [37]

    P. C. Costa, D. An, Y. R. Sanders, Y. Su, R. Babbush, and D. W. Berry, Optimal Scaling Quantum Linear- Systems Solver via Discrete Adiabatic Theorem, PRX Quantum3, 040303 (2022). Amplitude-Phase Separation toward Optimal and Fast-Forwardable Simulation of Non-Unitary Dynamics Supplement Information Qitong Hu1 and Shi Jin 1, 2, 3 1School of Mathematical Sc...

    work page 2022

  32. [38]

    Amplitude-Driven APS 8

    work page

  33. [39]

    Optimality for Non-Unitary Dynamics 9

    Relation with Product Formula 9 B. Optimality for Non-Unitary Dynamics 9

    work page

  34. [40]

    Shifted Dyson Series for Dissipative Operators 9

    work page

  35. [41]

    Non-Unitary Optimality = Phase-Driven APS + Shifted Dyson Series 15

    work page

  36. [42]

    Improved Query Complexity for Time-Dependent Case 18

    work page

  37. [43]

    Ill-Posed Problems 21 b

    Extensions of the APS Framework 21 a. Ill-Posed Problems 21 b. Inhomogeneous Term 22 C. Fast-Forwarding for Time-Independent Non-Unitary Dynamics 22

    work page

  38. [44]

    Time-Independent Case 22 b

    Fast-Forwarding for Dissipative Operators 22 a. Time-Independent Case 22 b. Piecewise Time-Independent Case 23

    work page

  39. [45]

    Comparision with Existing Works 29

    Non-Unitary Fast-Forwarding = Amplitude-Driven APS + Dyson Series 24 D. Comparision with Existing Works 29

    work page

  40. [46]

    LCHS = Phase-Driven APS + Fourier Transform 29 b

    Discussion on LCHS 29 a. LCHS = Phase-Driven APS + Fourier Transform 29 b. Non-Optimality of LCHS 29

    work page

  41. [47]

    Interaction Picture for Lindbladians 30 b

    Discussion on NDME 30 a. Interaction Picture for Lindbladians 30 b. Emergence of NDME = Phase-Driven APS + Interaction Picture for Lindbladians 31 References 32 Appendix A: Amplitude-Phase Separation In this section, we provide details of the analysis on the amplitude-phase separation (APS) method. We first consider the following general homogeneous dynam...

    work page

  42. [48]

    Phase-Driven APS Theorem A.1.Consider the following linear ODE with initial valueu(0) =u 0: du(t) dt =−A(t)u(t) =−(A 1(t) +iA 2(t))u(t), t∈[0, T]. (A2) Therefore, the following equivalent expression holds for the operatorTe− R t 0 A(s)ds: Te − R t 0 A(s)ds =Te −i R t 0 A2(s)ds · Te − R t 0 Ap(s)ds, (A3) whereA p(t) =U † p(t)A1(t)Up(t)andU p(t) =Te −i R t ...

    work page

  43. [49]

    In fact, a similar approach can be applied to the Hermitian partA1 as well, by considering the same non-unitary dynamics as in Eq

    Amplitude-Driven APS In Section A1, we provide a method for exponentiating the anti-Hermitian partA2. In fact, a similar approach can be applied to the Hermitian partA1 as well, by considering the same non-unitary dynamics as in Eq. (A2) of Theorem A.1. Theorem A.2.Consider the following linear ODE with initial valueu(0) =u 0: du(t) dt =−A(t)u(t) =−(A 1(t...

    work page

  44. [50]

    Relation with Product F ormula We found that the proposed APS framework has a direct connection with the common method in quantum computing–product formula, where we use phase-driven APS on time-independent case for explanation. Considering A1 andiA 2 as the two components of the product formula, the following equality holds: e−At = lim n→∞ e−i A2 t n e− ...

    work page

  45. [51]

    10 Theorem B.1.LetL(s)be a Hermitian matrix satisfyingL(s)⪰0for alls∈[0, T], and define ˆLmax = sup s∈[0,t] ∥L(s)∥, τ=t ˆLmax, ˆLmax = sup s∈[0,t] dL(t) dt t=s

    Shifted Dyson Series for Dissipative Operators In this section, we will present the theorem on approximating Dissipative operators using the Dyson series. 10 Theorem B.1.LetL(s)be a Hermitian matrix satisfyingL(s)⪰0for alls∈[0, T], and define ˆLmax = sup s∈[0,t] ∥L(s)∥, τ=t ˆLmax, ˆLmax = sup s∈[0,t] dL(t) dt t=s . For any error toleranceε >0, partition t...

    work page

  46. [52]

    Non-Unitary Optimality = Phase-Driven APS + Shifted Dyson Series In this section, we consider the query complexity and gate complexity analysis for time-independent non-unitary dynamics. Based on the conclusion of Theorem A.1, we need to address a time-independent unitary operator and a time-dependent dissipative operator, where the former requires the ap...

    work page

  47. [53]

    For the analysis of the unitary operator, we rely on the truncated Dyson series proposed by Low et al

    Improved Query Complexity for Time-Dependent Case In this section, we further discuss the time-dependent non-unitary dynamics. For the analysis of the unitary operator, we rely on the truncated Dyson series proposed by Low et al. [2], with the specific content as follows: Lemma B.6.(Truncated Dyson Series) [2]LetH(s)be a time-dependent Hamiltonian, suffic...

    work page

  48. [54]

    Ill-Posed Problems In the proof of Theorem B.2, we requireA1 = A+A† 2 ⪰0, since the conditions of Theorem B.1 demand positive definiteness

    Extensions of the APS F ramework a. Ill-Posed Problems In the proof of Theorem B.2, we requireA1 = A+A† 2 ⪰0, since the conditions of Theorem B.1 demand positive definiteness. However, in practice, this condition often cannot be strictly satisfied, for problems with instabilities [9]. Letλ − min(A) = sup s∈[0,t] λmin(A1(s))<0. Next, we will relax the cond...

    work page

  49. [55]

    F ast-F orwarding for Dissipative Operators a. Time-Independent Case In this section, we provide a new perspective regarding the dissipative operator in quantum simulation, namely, that the essence of fast-forwarding is also the Fourier transform [11, 12], and it can be extended to non-unitary dynamics by combiningwithamplitude-phaseseparation. Themostfam...

    work page

  50. [56]

    Here, we provide an approximation and quantum implementation to this particular operator

    Non-Unitary F ast-F orwarding = Amplitude-Driven APS + Dyson Series Although existing research has provided truncated Dyson series for solving time-dependent unitary operators, those methods are designed for general cases and are not applicable to the specific operator we propose the amplitude-driven APS, i.e.e −A1t · Te −i R t 0 Aa(s)ds. Here, we provide...

    work page

  51. [57]

    Discussion on LCHS a. LCHS = Phase-Driven APS + Fourier Transform The linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation (LCHS) is a method that transforms non-unitary dynamics into a linear combination of Hamiltonian simulations, i.e. LCHS [8], with a query complexity that can achieve near- optimality [13, 14]. Although in the first study of LCHS by An et al. ...

    work page

  52. [58]

    In essence, all these approaches fundamentally rely on the Fourier transform ofe−x forx≥0, as shown below: e−x = Z +∞ −∞ γ(η)e −iηxdη, x≥0

    and Gaussian kernels [14] used in subsequent research. In essence, all these approaches fundamentally rely on the Fourier transform ofe−x forx≥0, as shown below: e−x = Z +∞ −∞ γ(η)e −iηxdη, x≥0. (D1) Then, for time-dependent dissipative operators where the HamiltonianLis a semi-positive definite matrix, we can directly apply spectral decomposition. By lev...

    work page

  53. [59]

    ˜Fp(t)ρp(t) ˜F † p (t)− 1 2 n ρp(t), ˜F † p (t) ˜Fp(t) o −Ap(t)up(t) −u† p(t)Ap(t) 0 # = ˜Fp(t)O O0 ρp(t) ˜F † p (t)O O0 +ρ d(t) −Ap(t)O O0 + −Ap(t)O O0 ρp(t) +

    Discussion on NDME a. Interaction Picture for Lindbladians In this section, we will extend the phase-driven APS to the time-dependent Lindblian equation: dρ(t) dt =−i[H(t), ρ(t)] + KX i=1 Fi(t)ρ(t)F † i (t)− 1 2 n ρ(t), F † i (t)Fi(t) o , (D7) whereρ(t) = NP i=1 NP j=1 ρij(t)|i⟩⟨j|is the density matrix,H(t)is the Hamiltonian, andF i(t)are dissipative/jump...

    work page

  54. [60]

    Hochbruck and A

    M. Hochbruck and A. Ostermann, Exponential Integrators, Acta Numerica19, 209 (2010)

    work page 2010

  55. [61]

    G. H. Low and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian Simulation in the Interaction Picture, arXiv:1805.00675 (2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [62]

    J. L. Bosse, A. M. Childs, C. Derby, F. M. Gambetta, A. Montanaro, and R. A. Santos, Efficient and Practical Hamiltonian Simulation from Time-Dependent Product Formulas, Nature Communications16, 2673 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [63]

    I. A. S. Milton Abramowitz,Handbook of Mathematical Functions(Dover Publications, 1965)

    work page 1965

  58. [64]

    Olver, D

    F. Olver, D. Lozier, R. Boisvert, and C. Clark,NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  59. [65]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian Simulation by Quantum Signal Processing, Physical Review Letters 118, 010501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  60. [66]

    Gilyén, Y

    A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum Singular Value Transformation and Beyond: Exponential Improve- ments for Quantum Matrix Arithmetics, inProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM Press, 2019) pp. 193–204

    work page 2019

  61. [67]

    D. An, A. M. Childs, and L. Lin, Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonunitary Dynamics with Optimal State Preparation Cost, Physical Review Letters131, 150603 (2023)

    work page 2023

  62. [68]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and C. Ma, Schrödingerization Based Computationally Stable Algorithms for Ill-Posed Problems in Partial Differential Equations, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing47, B976 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [69]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and C. Ma, On Schrödingerization-Based Quantum Algorithms for Linear Dynamical Systems with Inho- mogeneous Terms, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis63, 1861 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [70]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian Simulation by Uniform Spectral Amplification, arXiv:1707.05391 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [71]

    Shang, N

    Z.-X. Shang, N. Guo, P. Rebentrost, A. Aspuru-Guzik, T. Li, and Q. Zhao, Fast-Forwardable Lindbladians Imply Quantum Phase Estimation, arXiv:2510.06759 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [72]

    D. An, A. M. Childs, and L. Lin, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Non-Unitary Dynamics with Near-Optimal Dependence on All Parameters, Communications in Mathematical Physics407, 19 (2025)

    work page 2025

  67. [73]

    G. H. Low and R. D. Somma, Optimal Quantum Simulation of Linear Non-Unitary Dynamics, arXiv:2508.19238 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [74]

    Huang and D

    X. Huang and D. An, Fourier Transform-Based Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation, arXiv:2508.19596 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [75]

    Kökcü, T

    E. Kökcü, T. Steckmann, Y. Wang, J. K. Freericks, E. F. Dumitrescu, and A. F. Kemper, Fixed Depth Hamiltonian Simulation via Cartan Decomposition, Physical Review Letters129, 070501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  70. [76]

    Shang, D

    Z.-X. Shang, D. An, and C. Shao, Exponential Lindbladian Fast Forwarding and Exponential Amplification of Certain Gibbs State Properties, arXiv:2509.09517 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025