Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Universal Quantum Computational Spectroscopy on a Quantum Chip

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single measured correlation function reconstructs eigenenergies and per-eigenstate observable values for closed, open (non-Hermitian), and time-dependent (Floquet) quantum systems, a regime where standard phase-estimation and…

desk verdict The η-averaged correlation is a real advance for real, gapped quasi-energy spectra, and the photonic Floquet demonstrations are strong; but the 'universal' open-system claim outruns the derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22418 v1 pith:GIGCTQAF submitted 2025-06-27 quant-ph

Chonghao Zhai , Jinzhao Sun , Jieshan Huang , Jun Mao , Hongchang Bao , Siyuan Zhang , Qihuang Gong , Vlatko Vedral
show 2 more authors
Xiao Yuan Jianwei Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Ac03.67.Lx42.50.Ex
keywords quantumcomputationalspectroscopyauto-correlationfunctioneigenstate-resolvednon-Hermitiansystemsparity-timesymmetrybreakingFloquetquasi-energytopologicalholonomysilicon-photonicchip
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 claims that one quantum correlation function — the time-ordered overlap $C_{\hat O,\psi}(t) = \int d\eta\,\langle\psi|\hat U^\dagger(\eta)\hat O\hat U(\eta+t)|\psi\rangle$ — encodes the complete eigenstate-resolved spectrum of a quantum system, and that a Fourier transform of it yields the quasi-eigenenergies $E_n$ as peaks while amplitude ratios give the expectation value of any observable in each eigenstate. This works not only for closed Hermitian systems, which standard quantum algorithms already handle, but for non-Hermitian (open) and periodically driven (Floquet) systems, where eigenstates are non-orthogonal and conventional spectroscopy sees only energy differences rather than the absolute energies themselves. If correct, the method replaces eigenstate preparation with measurement of controlled time evolution, giving eigenstate tomography, exceptional-point detection, and topological-holonomy readouts in one framework. The paper backs the claim with experiments on a programmable silicon-photonic chip and with numerical benchmarks against iterative quantum phase estimation and quantum eigenvalue transformation.

What carries the argument

The object carrying the argument is the quantum auto-correlation function $C_{\hat O,\psi}(t) = \int d\eta\,\langle\psi|\hat U^\dagger(\eta)\hat O\hat U(\eta+t)|\psi\rangle$, measured by a generalised Hadamard test that runs two time evolutions offset by $\eta$ (one of them controlled) together with a controlled Pauli decomposition of $\hat O$. The mechanism is phase orthogonality: the exponentials $e^{-iE_n\eta}$ annihilate cross terms between distinct gapped quasi-eigenstates when integrated over $\eta$, transforming the non-orthogonal expansion of the state into the sparse diagonal form of Equation (2). A Gaussian window of width $\tau$ with $\tau\,\Delta E_{\min}\gg 1$ replaces the ideal Dirac delta, time sampling follows the Nyquist–Shannon theorem, singular spectrum renormalisation suppresses gate noise, and a silicon-photonic chip realising four-dimensional controlled unitaries with classical fidelity above 0.996 supplies the controlled dynamics that make the correlations measurable.

What would settle it

Run UQCS on a two-level non-Hermitian Hamiltonian swept past its exceptional point so the eigenenergies become a complex-conjugate pair, and compare the amplitude-ratio estimates of $\langle u_n|\hat O|u_n\rangle$ with exact biorthogonal values: the identity (2) predicts the reconstruction to degrade as the imaginary parts grow, since the $\eta$-integral no longer yields a delta function, and the paper's own PT-broken-phase spectra already show negative amplitudes and oscillations. Alternatively, drive a Hermitian system through an avoided crossing so that $\Delta E_{\min}$ falls below $1/\tau$, and check whether the two Gaussian peaks merge and the recovered observable drifts toward the overlap-weighted average rather than either exact eigenvalue.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that gapped phase factors, not the eigenstates themselves, carry the orthogonality: for any dynamics admitting an expansion $\hat U(t)|\psi\rangle = \sum_n c_n e^{-iE_n t}|u_n\rangle$, the functions $e^{-iE_n\eta}$ form an orthogonal set whenever the quasi-eigenenergies $E_n$ (the Fourier harmonic frequencies of the evolved state) are real and separated, so cross terms between different components vanish under the $\eta$-integral. Equation (2), $C_{\hat O,\psi}(t) = 2\pi\sum_{n,m}|c_n|^2 e^{-iE_n t}\delta(E_n-E_m)\langle u_n|\hat O|u_n\rangle$, then reduces the entire spectral problem to Fourier analysis of one measured function: peak positions in the transform of the identity correlation give the $E_n$, peak heights give the initial-state overlap weights ($|c_n|^2$, or $|\langle l_n|\psi\rangle|^2$ for non-Hermitian systems), and the ratio of the $\hat O$-correlation amplitude to the identity-correlation amplitude at each peak gives $\langle u_n|\hat O|u_n\rangle$. Because the argument never uses Hermiticity or orthonormality of the quasi-eigenstates, the same formula covers PT-symmetric non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and time-dependent Floquet Hamiltonians, whose quasi-eigenstates are typically non-orthogonal; the paper demonstrates extraction of observable expectation values, detection of the exceptional point, and measurement of U(1) and SU(2) topological holonomy from the resulting spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quasi-eigenenergies are real and separated (gapped in the real part), the paper's stated 'sole requirement of phase factor orthogonality'; if two levels coincide or the energies develop imaginary parts, cross terms survive and the clean peak-amplitude ratios no longer give per-eigenstate observable values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • UQCS returns eigenenergies, overlap weights, and per-eigenstate expectation values of arbitrary observables from one family of correlation measurements, enabling full eigenstate tomography at fidelities around 0.995–0.998 on the demonstrated chip.
  • The framework applies without modification to non-Hermitian Hamiltonians in the PT-exact phase, where measured peak weights are $|\langle l_n|\psi\rangle|^2$ and the ratio of spectra still yields physical-state expectation values.
  • For periodically driven systems, UQCS resolves the full Floquet–Bloch band structure including replica bands, and the quasi-energy shift or splitting measures the U(1) Berry phase or SU(2) Wilczek–Zee holonomy (measured Berry phase 0.912$\pi$ against a predicted $\pi$, and Wilson loop $W = -0.499$ against $-0.504$).
  • In noiseless benchmarks UQCS reaches comparable accuracy with query depth 30 versus 2048 for iterative quantum phase estimation and 274 for quantum eigenvalue transformation, and unlike those baselines it keeps estimating eigenenergies across the exceptional point and for Floquet systems.
  • A variant circuit using a maximally mixed initial state tracks $\mathrm{Tr}(e^{-i\hat H t})/d$ through the exceptional point, so the PT transition, including the broken phase, is detected through coalescence of the real parts of the eigenenergies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the amplitude-ratio reconstruction requires real, gapped quasi-energies, the honest scope of the word 'universal' is Hermitian, PT-exact, and Floquet dynamics; turning the PT-broken phase's damped oscillations into genuine complex eigenenergies would need the Laplace-transform extension the authors flag as future work.
  • The same measurement stream that produces the spectrum also yields $\langle u_n|\hat O|u_n\rangle$ for every resolved level, so UQCS could act as a post-processing verifier inside eigenstate-preparation pipelines, certifying the observable values of a prepared state without running extra circuits.
  • Levels closer than $1/\tau$ merge into a single Gaussian line, so the extracted observable is the overlap-weighted average over the unresolved manifold; the splitting under periodic driving in the SU(2) holonomy case shows that UQCS resolves degeneracy mainly through dynamics-induced energy shifts.
  • The query-depth bound carries a factor of $1/\zeta$ in the initial-state overlap, so a natural adaptive strategy is to restart UQCS using a reconstructed eigenstate as the new trial state to reach weakly populated levels at controlled sampling cost.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Universal Quantum Computational Spectroscopy (UQCS), a framework that estimates the spectral properties of a quantum system from a quantum auto-correlation function C_{O,ψ}(t) = ∫ dη ⟨ψ|U†(η) O U(η+t)|ψ⟩. Fourier-transforming this function is claimed to produce peaks at the quasi-eigenenergies of the system, and the ratios of peak amplitudes for different observables are claimed to yield eigenstate expectation values. The method is presented as universal, covering closed, open (non-Hermitian), and time-dependent (Floquet) systems. The authors experimentally implement the required controlled-evolution circuits on a programmable silicon-photonic chip and demonstrate the approach on an anisotropic Heisenberg spin chain, a PT-symmetric non-Hermitian two-mode system, and a periodically driven spin-3/2 system, extracting energies, expectation values, PT phase transitions, and topological holonomy. Numerical benchmarking against IQPE, QETU, and other methods is also reported.

Significance. If the central claim holds, UQCS is a significant methodological advance: it offers eigenstate-resolved spectroscopy without requiring eigenstate preparation, and it is demonstrated experimentally with good agreement to exact values and without fitted parameters. The paper includes a programmable photonic-chip demonstration, state tomography of eigenstates, a PT-transition scan, and Floquet holonomy extraction, together with open-source simulation code. These strengths make the manuscript of considerable interest to the quantum simulation and quantum photonics communities. The significance is moderated, however, by the gap between the advertised universality and the rigorous domain of the derivation, as detailed in the major comments below.

major comments (3)
  1. [The UQCS framework, Eq. (2)] The reduction of Eq. (1) to Eq. (2) uses ∫ dη e^{i(E_m^* − E_n)η} = 2πδ(E_n − E_m), which is only defined when E_n and E_m are real; for complex quasi-eigenenergies the integral does not converge, and for degenerate real energies the phase factor is unity for all η, so cross terms between degenerate states survive. The condition stated in the text ("quasi-eigenenergies gapped in the real part") excludes the PT-broken phase but does not by itself rule out exact degeneracy of real parts. The PT-broken experiment (Fig. 4g) does not test Eq. (2): it measures A(t) = Tr(e^{−iHt})/d from a maximally mixed initial state and extracts only the real parts of the complex energies. The manuscript should therefore either restrict the central claim of eigenstate-resolved spectroscopy to real, non-degenerate quasi-eigenenergies, or provide a separate rigorous treatment of the degenerate and complex-energy cases.
  2. [The UQCS framework (complexity statement) and Methods (Query depth)] The complexity bound O((√(2 ln(1/ϵ1)) R(H)/ΔE_min)^2/ϵ_2^2) and the claim of a <0.01% truncation error are stated with reference to "Supplementary Information Section ??", which is not present in the manuscript. The scaling reported in Fig. 5b and Table 1 depends on this bound, and the derivation in Methods is only a sketch: for example, the relation |δω|^2 ≈ 2|δf|/(ζ^2 τ^2) is introduced without justification. The missing error analysis should be supplied before the performance claims can be evaluated.
  3. [Periodically driven quantum systems (Floquet experiments)] The Floquet experiments use initial states with support on doubly degenerate static eigenspaces (the B^2/4 and 9B^2/4 manifolds). In a degenerate subspace the phase factors e^{−iE_n t} are identical, so the integrand of Eq. (1) contains non-vanishing cross terms ⟨u_n|O|u_m⟩ that are not captured by Eq. (2); the stated "gapped in the real part" condition does not address this. Although the paper only extracts quasi-energy positions and splittings (not amplitude-ratio expectation values) in the Floquet section, the text should state the precise conditions under which the Fourier peaks of Eq. (1) can be identified with quasi-eigenenergies in the presence of degeneracy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are multiple typos: "The practical implementation of UCQS" should be UQCS; "The chip is is controlled" has a duplicated "is"; "furtherly" should be "furthermore"; "exbibit" and "requries" appear in the benchmarking section; "Herimtian" appears in the Methods.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The double sum over n and m with |c_n|^2 and δ(E_n−E_m) is ambiguous: for non-degenerate real energies it should reduce to a single sum over n (i.e., n=m), and the current notation suggests a divergent δ(0) for degenerate states. Please rewrite the expression with the summation indices made explicit.
  3. [First section of main text] The phrase "quasi-eigenstates generally form one non-orthogonal set" should read "form a non-orthogonal set".
  4. [Main text, complexity paragraph] The reference to "Supplementary Information Section ??" appears twice in the main text; please replace it with the actual section number once the supplementary material is included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the UQCS frequency extraction and amplitude-ratio estimates are measured quantities compared against independently computed exact spectra, and the few self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central relation of the paper, Eq. (2), is obtained by substituting a Fourier decomposition of the time-evolved state into the directly measured quantum auto-correlation function (Eq. (1)) and then using the orthogonality of the phase factors e^{-iE_n t}. This is a derivation from the definition of the measured quantity, not a fitting of the target eigenenergies or expectation values. The experimental eigenenergies in Figs. 3c, 4c, 4g, 4h, and 4i are compared with independently computed exact values or Floquet theory, and the observable expectation values are obtained from ratios of measured peak amplitudes eC_O(En)/eC_I(En), with the overlap factors canceling. No parameter appearing in the reported spectrum is fitted to the eigenvalues that are later called predictions. The self-citation to Ref. [22] (Sun et al., with overlapping authorship) appears only in the introductory comparison of existing spectral-filtering methods and is not used as a premise for the UQCS construction; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and the methods section supplies its own derivation of the quasi-eigenenergy Floquet eigenproblem. The paper's own limitation statements, such as the need for Laplace transforms to resolve imaginary parts of eigenenergies in non-Hermitian systems, and the restricted validity of the Dirac-delta reduction to real quasi-eigenenergies, are scope or correctness concerns rather than circular reductions. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted constants enter the central spectrum; the only hand-chosen numerical parameters are window width and sampling grids. The method relies on standard Fourier orthogonality, a discrete quasi-energy decomposition, and the experimental ability to implement controlled time evolutions. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Gaussian window width tau = 6, 6 and 15 (chosen per experiment)
    The window width controls spectral resolution and truncation; it is selected by hand to satisfy tau*Delta_Emin >> 1 and is not fitted to the reported eigenenergies.
  • Time sampling grid (N steps and step size) = N=120, 30, 150 with varying dt
    The number of timestamps and discretisation are chosen in accordance with Nyquist-Shannon and spectral range; they affect resolution and cost but are not fitted to the target peaks.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Fourier phase orthogonality: integral deta e^{i(E_n-E_m)eta} = 2 pi delta(E_n-E_m)
    Central to Eq. (2); valid only for real E_n.
  • domain assumption Time-evolved states admit discrete Fourier decomposition U(t)|psi> = sum_n c_n e^{-iE_n t}|u_n>
    Assumed for all target systems; for general time-dependent Hamiltonians this requires a discretised or Floquet spectrum and truncation of high-frequency components.
  • domain assumption Generalized Hadamard test with controlled time evolution estimates the integrand <psi|U†(eta) O U(eta+t)|psi>
    Underpins the experimental extraction of C(t); assumes high-fidelity controlled unitaries.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian window truncation to [-4 tau, 4 tau] gives truncation error below 0.01%
    Stated without a visible proof; the supporting section is referenced as 'Supplementary Information Section ??'.
  • domain assumption Noise model: uncorrelated complex Gaussian errors in controlled unitaries and shot noise
    Used for the 8-site noise-robustness simulation and for claims of noise robustness.
  • domain assumption Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians are diagonalizable with biorthogonal right and left eigenvectors except at exceptional points
    Used to interpret spectral peaks in the PT-exact phase; fails at the exceptional point where a Jordan form is needed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal Quantum Computational Spectroscopy on a Quantum Chip." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GIGCTQAF

@misc{pith2026250622418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal Quantum Computational Spectroscopy on a Quantum Chip},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GIGCTQAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22418}
}
read the original abstract

Spectroscopy underpins modern scientific discovery across diverse disciplines. While experimental spectroscopy probes material properties through scattering or radiation measurements, computational spectroscopy combines theoretical models with experimental data to predict spectral properties, essential for advancements in physics, chemistry, and materials science. However, quantum systems present unique challenges for computational spectroscopy due to their inherent complexity, and current quantum algorithms remain largely limited to static and closed quantum systems. Here, we present and demonstrate a universal quantum computational spectroscopy framework that lifts these limitations. Through leveraging coherently controlled quantum dynamics, our method efficiently reconstructs the spectral information for both closed and open systems, furtherly for time-dependent driven systems. We experimentally validate this approach using a programmable silicon-photonic quantum processing chip, capable of high-fidelity time-evolution simulations. The versatility of our framework is demonstrated through spectroscopic computations for diverse quantum systems -- including spin systems, non-Hermitian systems, and quantum Floquet systems -- revealing novel phenomena such as parity-time symmetry breaking and topological holonomy that are inaccessible to conventional spectroscopy or quantum eigenstate algorithms. {Furthermore, systematic benchmarking of UQCS against existing quantum algorithms is numerically performed to demonstrate its unprecedented capabilities and superior performance. This work establishes a noise-robust and transformative paradigm for quantum spectral analysis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    J. Sun, L. Vilchez-Estevez, V . Vedral, A. T. Boothroyd & M. S. Kim. Probing spectral features of quantum many-body sys- tems with quantum simulators.Nature Communications 16, 1403 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    C. N. Banwell & McCash. Fundamentals of molecular spec- troscopy. (Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, 2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [2]

    A. Zong, B. R. Nebgen, S.-C. Lin, J. A. Spies & M. Zuerch. Emerging ultrafast techniques for studying quantum materi- als. Nature Reviews Materials 8, 224–240 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    F. J. García de Abajo. Optical excitations in electron microscopy. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 209–275 (1 2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [4]

    Barone et al

    V . Barone et al. Computational molecular spectroscopy. Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1, 38 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin & X. Yuan. Quantum computational chemistry. Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Santagati et al

    R. Santagati et al. Drug design on quantum computers. Nature Physics 20, 549–557 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    S. G. Louie, Y.-H. Chan, F. H. da Jornada, Z. Li & D. Y. Qiu. Dis- covering and understanding materials through computation. Nature Materials 20, 728–735 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Carleo & M

    G. Carleo & M. Troyer. Solving the quantum many-body prob- lem with artificial neural networks. Science 355, 602–606 (2017)

    2017

  2. [9]

    Fauseweh

    B. Fauseweh. Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges. Nature Communications 15, 2123 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    R. P . Feynman. Simulating physics with computers. Interna- tional Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 467–488 (1982)

    1982

  4. [11]

    A. Kitaev. Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity 3 (1996)

    1996

  5. [12]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P . J. Love & M. Head-Gordon. Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies. Sci- ence 309, 1704–1707 (2005)

    2005

  6. [13]

    Dobšíˇ cek, G

    M. Dobšíˇ cek, G. Johansson, V . Shumeiko & G. Wendin. Arbi- trary accuracy iterative quantum phase estimation algorithm using a single ancillary qubit: A two-qubit benchmark. Phys. Rev. A 76, 030306 (2007)

    2007

  7. [14]

    Peruzzo et al

    A. Peruzzo et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature Communications 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  8. [15]

    Wu et al

    D. Wu et al. Variational benchmarks for quantum many-body problems. Science 386, 296–301 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Cerezo et al

    M. Cerezo et al. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Re- views Physics 3, 625–644 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Santagati et al

    R. Santagati et al. Witnessing eigenstates for quantum sim- ulation of Hamiltonian spectra. Science Advances 4, eaap9646 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan & I. L. Chuang. Grand Unification of Quantum Algorithms. PRX Quantum 2, 040203 (4 2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    Y. Dong, L. Lin & Y. Tong. Ground-state preparation and en- ergy estimation on early fault-tolerant quantum computers via quantum eigenvalue transformation of unitary matrices. PRX quantum 3, 040305 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Wang et al

    S. Wang et al. Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms. Nature Communications 12, 6961 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    Kökcü, H

    E. Kökcü, H. A. Labib, J. K. Freericks & A. F. Kemper. A lin- ear response framework for quantum simulation of bosonic and fermionic correlation functions. Nature Communications 15, 3881 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    H. H. S. Chan, R. Meister, M. L. Goh & B. Koczor. Algorithmic shadow spectroscopy. PRX Quantum 6, 010352 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Maskara et al

    N. Maskara et al. Programmable simulations of molecules and materials with reconfigurable quantum processors. Nature Physics, 1–9 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong & M. Ueda. Non-Hermitian Physics. Ad- vances in Physics 69, 249–435 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    M. S. Rudner & N. H. Lindner. Band structure engineering and non-equilibrium dynamics in Floquet topological insulators. Nature Reviews Physics 2, 229–244 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Ding et al

    Z. Ding et al. Quantum Multiple Eigenvalue Gaussian filtered Search: an efficient and versatile quantum phase estimation method. Quantum 8, 1487 (2024). 10

    2024

  20. [28]

    G. Wang, D. S. França, R. Zhang, S. Zhu & P . D. Johnson. Quan- tum algorithm for ground state energy estimation using circuit depth with exponentially improved dependence on precision. Quantum 7, 1167 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Zhang, G

    R. Zhang, G. Wang & P . Johnson. Computing ground state properties with early fault-tolerant quantum computers.Quan- tum 6, 761 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    C. Shannon. Communication in the Presence of Noise. Proceed- ings of the IRE 37, 10–21 (1949)

    1949

  23. [31]

    Golyandina & A

    N. Golyandina & A. Zhigljavsky. Singular Spectrum Analysis for Time Series (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    El-Ganainy et al

    R. El-Ganainy et al. Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry. Nature Physics 14, 11–19 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Zheng et al

    Y. Zheng et al. Multichip multidimensional quantum networks with entanglement retrievability. Science 381, 221–226 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Chi et al

    Y. Chi et al. A programmable qudit-based quantum processor. Nature Communications 13, 1166 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    R. J. Marshman, A. P . Lund, P . P . Rohde & T. C. Ralph. Passive quantum error correction of linear optics networks through er- ror averaging. Physical Review A 97, 022324 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    W. R. Clements, P . C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Koltham- mer & I. A. Walmsley. Optimal design for universal multiport interferometers. Optica 3, 1460–1465 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Hamerly, S

    R. Hamerly, S. Bandyopadhyay & D. Englund. Asymptotically fault-tolerant programmable photonics.Nature Communications 13, 6831 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Choi et al

    J. Choi et al. Preparing random states and benchmarking with many-body quantum chaos. Nature 613, 468–473 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Xu et al

    X. Xu et al. MindSpore Quantum: A User-Friendly, High- Performance, and AI-Compatible Quantum Computing Framework. arXiv, 2406.17248 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    C. M. Bender & S. Boettcher. Real Spectra in Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians Having PT Symmetry. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    L. Feng, R. El-Ganainy & L. Ge. Non-Hermitian photonics based on parity–time symmetry. Nature Photonics 11, 752–762 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    ¸ S. K. Özdemir, S. Rotter, F. Nori & L. Yang. Parity–time sym- metry and exceptional points in photonics. Nature Materials 18, 783–798 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Zhang et al

    X. Zhang et al. Digital quantum simulation of Floquet symmetry-protected topological phases. Nature 607, 468–473 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    A. Zee. Non-Abelian gauge structure in nuclear quadrupole resonance. Phys. Rev. A 38, 1–6 (1988)

    1988

  37. [45]

    Neef et al

    V . Neef et al. Three-dimensional non-Abelian quantum holon- omy. Nature Physics 19, 30–34 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Chen et al

    Y. Chen et al. High-dimensional non-Abelian holonomy in in- tegrated photonics. Nature Communications 16, 3650 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Wilczek & A

    F. Wilczek & A. Zee. Appearance of Gauge Structure in Sim- ple Dynamical Systems. Physical Review Letters 52, 2111–2114 (1984)

    1984

  40. [48]

    B. M. Victor. Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 392, 45–57 (1984)

    1984

  41. [49]

    H. H. S. Chan, R. Meister, M. L. Goh & B. Koczor. Algorithmic Shadow Spectroscopy. PRX Quantum 6, 010352 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Zylberman

    J. Zylberman. Fast Laplace transforms on quantum computers. arXiv, 2412.05173 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bagherimehrab & A

    M. Bagherimehrab & A. Aspuru-Guzik. Efficient quantum al- gorithm for all quantum wavelet transforms. Quantum Science and T echnology9, 035010 (2024). Acknowledgements We acknowledge support from the National Natural Science Foun- dation of China (nos. 123B2065, 12325410, 6223...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.