Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 53 references

Hamiltonian Simulation via Stochastic Zassenhaus Expansions

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stochastic Zassenhaus expansions map nested commutators onto quantum gates and sample the higher-order terms, giving ancilla-free simulation with product-formula error scaling but no exponential prefactor.

desk verdict Genuinely new hybrid algorithm with a real gap in the general complexity proof, but the core idea and TFIM example are solid enough to deserve a serious look. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13922 v1 pith:KKDXTLUK submitted 2025-01-23 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Joseph Peetz , Prineha Narang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.Ac
keywords HamiltoniansimulationZassenhausformulastochasticsamplingproductformulasnestedcommutatorstransverse-fieldIsingmodelcircuitdepthconvexcombinationofunitaries
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 introduces stochastic Zassenhaus expansions (SZEs), a family of ancilla-free quantum algorithms for simulating time evolution under a Hamiltonian. SZEs write the evolution operator as a product of exponentials of nested commutators, convert those exponentials into quantum gates, and approximate the higher-order terms by randomly sampling convex combinations of Pauli rotations. The central claim is that for geometrically localized systems this reaches high approximation order without the exponential circuit-depth growth of standard product formulas, while preserving the same asymptotic scaling of the number of time steps. On a 10-qubit transverse-field Ising model, the authors build an 11th-order SZE needing 42 times fewer CNOT gates than a 10th-order product formula, and they observe the predicted $O(t^{p+1})$ error scaling in time and $O(n)$ scaling in system size. If the claim is right, high-order Hamiltonian simulation becomes practical at much lower circuit depth for local models.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Zassenhaus formula together with a stochastic sampling theorem. For a Hamiltonian split as $H = A + B$ with internally commuting Pauli strings in each part, the Zassenhaus formula gives $e^{-itH} = e^{-itA} e^{-itB} \prod_{k\ge 2} e^{-it^k H_k}$, where the Hermitian operators $H_k$ are $(k-1)$-nested commutators and each exponential is unitary. The sampling theorem says that for a Hermitian operator $H = \sum_k c_k P_k$, $e^{-it^m H} = \sum_k p_k e^{-i\theta(t)P'_k} + O(|H|_1^2 t^{2m})$, with probabilities $p_k = |c_k|/|H|_1$ and signed Pauli strings $P'_k = \operatorname{sign}(c_k) P_k$. This lets the algorithm replace the high-order Zassenhaus exponentials by one sampled Pauli rotation per step. The error analysis carries the comparison with product formulas: the nested commutators appearing in Zassenhaus expansions are subsets of the summands in the product-formula commutator scaling factor $\alpha_{\mathrm{comm}} = \sum_{\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_{p+1}} \|[h_{\gamma_{p+1}}, \cdots [h_{\gamma_2}, h_{\gamma_1}]]\|$, so the leading SZE error is $O(\alpha_{\mathrm{comm}} t^{p+1})$ when $p \le 2k$.

What would settle it

Take the transverse-field Ising model at a fixed size such as $n = 10$ with $J = h = 1$, compute the operator norm of the order-$(p+1)$ Zassenhaus remainder $H'_{p+1}$ for a chosen order $p$, and compare it with the product-formula commutator sum for the same Hamiltonian; if the Zassenhaus norm is larger, the predicted step count $r = O(t^{1+1/p}\epsilon^{-1/p})$ for SZE$_{k,p}$ would be too optimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Zassenhaus formula can be used as a gate-by-gate simulation recipe: $e^{-itH} = e^{-itA} e^{-itB} \prod_{k\ge 2} e^{-it^k H_k}$, where each $H_k$ is a nested commutator of the original operators and every exponential $e^{-it^k H_k}$ is unitary. The paper shows how to approximate these higher-order exponentials as convex combinations of Pauli rotations, $e^{-it^m H} = \sum_k p_k e^{-i\theta(t)P'_k} + O(|H|_1^2 t^{2m})$, and then to sample one rotation per time step. For a $k$-th order nested expansion with stochastic orders up to $p \le 2k$, the leading error is $O(\alpha_{\mathrm{comm}} t^{p+1})$, the same commutator-scaling form used for product formulas, so the number of time steps matches product formulas while the per-step prefactor avoids exponential growth in order. The empirical study on the transverse-field Ising model confirms the predicted $O(t^{p+1})$ and $O(n)$ scalings and shows an 11th-order SZE using 42 times fewer CNOT gates than the standard 10th-order product formula.

Load-bearing premise

The general complexity claims assume that the size of the first neglected nested-commutator term in the Zassenhaus expansion is no larger than the corresponding term in standard product-formula error bounds; the paper states this follows from earlier results but does not derive it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An 11th-order SZE on the 10-qubit transverse-field Ising model requires 42 times fewer CNOT gates than a 10th-order product formula, and fewer CNOTs than a minimal 8th-order product formula.
  • SZE$_{k,p}$ needs $r = O(t^{1+1/p}\epsilon^{-1/p})$ time steps for precision $\epsilon$, the same asymptotic step count as a $p$-th order product formula, but without the $5^{p/2}$ operator-count prefactor.
  • Measured trace-distance error follows $O(t^{p+1})$ in evolution time and at most $O(n)$ in system size for the nearest-neighbor model studied.
  • For nearest-neighbor, quasilocal, and rapidly decaying power-law Hamiltonians, SZEs improve gate complexity relative to product formulas; for fully connected $j$-local and electronic-structure Hamiltonians the advantage is expected mainly at low orders such as SZE$_{1,3}$.
  • Treating each Zassenhaus exponential as an independent Hamiltonian simulation subproblem enables hybrid algorithms and, for Hamiltonians whose nested commutators vanish beyond some order, simulation in a single time step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A hardware test beyond the paper's numbers would be to compile SZE$_{3,6}$ for the 1D transverse-field Ising model and compare realized fidelity against a sixth-order product formula at fixed total evolution time; the predicted order-of-magnitude CNOT reduction should translate to higher fidelity if errors are gate-dominated.
  • The advantage of SZEs is tied to nested commutators being sparse, so for random or fully connected Hamiltonians the crossover is expected at low order; making the method pay off for such systems would likely require a different error analysis.
  • Because the stochastic sampling step preserves the leading error term while introducing no sampling variance, the method may suit noisy intermediate-scale devices, but the paper does not model noise and that extension is untested.
  • The same convex-combination decomposition could be applied to imaginary-time evolution or open-system dynamics, as the paper hints, but the unitarity argument that turns each Zassenhaus exponential into a gate sequence would need to be replaced by a non-unitary approximation.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces stochastic Zassenhaus expansions (SZEs), which implement nested Zassenhaus commutator exponentials as quantum gates and approximate higher-order exponents by random sampling. It claims that, for a Hamiltonian split into internally commuting subsystems, a kth-order nested Zassenhaus formula with stochastic corrections up to order p has error O(||H'_p+1|| t^{p+1} + |H'_k+1|_1^2 t^{2(k+1)}) and, for p <= 2k, the same commutator scaling e_alpha_comm as product formulas, leading to time-step counts r ~ O(t^{1+1/p} epsilon^{-1/p}) without the 5^{p/2} prefactor. For the 10-qubit transverse-field Ising model, explicit high-order SZE circuits are constructed; an 11th-order SZE uses 42x fewer CNOTs than a 10th-order product formula, and numerical trace-distance errors scale as O(t^{p+1}) and O(n).

Significance. The algorithmic idea is novel and, on the explicit TFIM example, convincingly demonstrated: the nested commutators are computed in closed form, the gate counts are concrete and reproducible, and the empirical scalings in Figs. 2 and 3 match the predicted exponents. The stochastic approximation theorem is proved in the Supplementary Materials and the construction is self-contained, with no free parameters fitted to data. If the missing general bound is supplied, the complexity tables would represent a meaningful advance in high-order simulation for geometrically local systems. As it stands, the general complexity claims rest on an unproved transfer of the Childs et al. commutator bound to Zassenhaus operators.

major comments (2)
  1. [Supplementary Materials, Error Analysis, Eq. (36)] The inequality ||H'_p+1|| <= e_alpha_comm is asserted rather than derived. The Supplementary Materials state that the claim is 'not immediately clear' and that Refs. [47,48] show how to expand H_k into left-normal nested commutators, but no coefficient bound is given. This is not a cosmetic gap: H'_p+1 is a linear combination of nested commutators with rational prefactors and includes commutators of recursively generated operators such as [A',B']; after Jacobi rearrangement the same left-nested commutator can arise from several parent terms, so the required statement is a bound on sums of absolute coefficients, not a subset relation. Because Eq. (18) and Tables I and II use this inequality to inherit Childs et al.'s r ~ O(t^{1+1/p} epsilon^{-1/p}) scaling, the general complexity claims are unsupported until this bound is proved or the claims are stated conditionally.
  2. [Main text, Eq. (16)] The displayed error bound omits the 1/r^p and 1/r^{2k+1} factors that arise after discretizing into r time steps. As written, e^{-itH} = SZE_{k,p}(t) + O(||H'_p+1|| t^{p+1} + |H'_k+1|_1^2 t^{2(k+1)}) cannot by itself determine the number of time steps r; the subsequent sentence that this result determines the asymptotic scaling of r is only true after restoring the missing r-dependence. Please state both the per-step and accumulated errors explicitly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Materials, Theorem statement] The theorem states t in R, but the identity (23) is valid only for x = t^m |H|_1 >= 0; for negative t and odd m, the angle theta = sec^{-1}(sqrt(1+x^2)) gives I - i|x| P_k rather than I - i x P_k. Restrict to t >= 0 or define theta = arctan(t^m |H|_1).
  2. [Supplementary Materials, Random-Unitary Sampling Approximation] The sentence 'no sampling-related variance is introduced' is easy to misread: the expected random-unitary channel is deterministic, but individual runs of the randomized algorithm still have shot-to-shot fluctuations. Please rephrase to clarify that the channel itself has no sampling variance, not that measurement statistics are variance-free.
  3. [Figures 2 and 3] Please state whether the reported trace-distance errors are computed from the expected randomized channel (for example by exact state-vector simulation of the averaged channel) or from a single random circuit realization; this is important for interpreting the empirical scalings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SZE construction is self-contained, and the flagged commutator-bound gap is an external-citation correctness risk, not a circularity.

full rationale

The central SZE construction is self-contained. The sampling probabilities p_k and rotation angles θ(t) are determined directly from the Pauli coefficients c_k via p_k = |c_k|/|H|_1 and θ(t) = sec^{-1}(sqrt(1+(t^m|H|_1)^2)); they are not fitted to simulation data. The stochastic approximation theorem in Eq. (10) is proved in the Supplementary Materials by a Taylor expansion and the identity I - ixP = sqrt(1+x^2)e^{-iθP}, following the known qDRIFT/Wan et al. linearization; the citations there are to independent prior work, not to the present authors. The empirical power-law fits in Figures 2 and 3 are diagnostics used to confirm the independently predicted scalings O(t^{p+1}) and O(n); the algorithm parameters were not tuned to produce those exponents, so this is validation rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction. The only load-bearing external dependence is the commutator scaling factor eαcomm from Childs et al. and the left-nested expansion of Zassenhaus polynomials from Refs. [47,48]. The Supplementary Materials explicitly flags the inequality ||H'_{p+1}|| ≤ eαcomm as 'not immediately clear' and cites Refs. [47,48] for the expansion; this is an omitted proof or missing support and therefore a genuine correctness risk, but it is not circular: the bound is an external, independent mathematical result, not an input that is being renamed as the SZE prediction, nor a self-citation. The self-citations [30,31] are used for ancillary properties such as absence of sampling variance and extension to cross terms; they are not load-bearing for the main existence or scaling claims. Overall, no derivation step reduces by construction or by self-citation to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No load-bearing fitted parameters: p_k and theta are fixed by Pauli coefficients, and the power-law fits in Figures 2-3 are illustrative only. The main axioms are the unitarity of Zassenhaus factors, the efficient decomposition of H_k into commuting subsets, the asserted bound ||H'_{p+1}|| <= ealpha_comm, and the truncation analysis for power-law and quasilocal systems.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Zassenhaus expansion converges and each exponent W_j is anti-Hermitian for Hermitian operators A and B, so e^{t^j W_j} is unitary.
    Used in Eq. (4) and the mapping of each nested commutator to a Hamiltonian H_k.
  • domain assumption The nested commutator operators H_k for the Hamiltonian classes considered can be decomposed into a constant number of internally commuting subsets and implemented with O(n) or stated gates per order.
    Needed for Eqs. (8)-(9) and Table I; verified only for low orders in the TFIM example, not for general high order.
  • ad hoc to paper Zassenhaus nested commutators are subsets of the Childs et al. commutator scaling factor ealpha_comm, so ||H'_{p+1}|| <= ealpha_comm.
    Assumed in SM Error Analysis before Eq. (36) to transfer product-formula time-step counts to SZEs; cited to Refs [47,48] but not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Truncated power-law and quasilocal Zassenhaus operators retain the stated gate counts and truncation error bounds.
    SM Power-Law and Quasilocal sections; relies on Childs et al.'s cutoff techniques adapted to k-dimensional volumes, with approximate integral bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hamiltonian Simulation via Stochastic Zassenhaus Expansions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KKDXTLUK

@misc{pith2026250113922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hamiltonian Simulation via Stochastic Zassenhaus Expansions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KKDXTLUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13922}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce the stochastic Zassenhaus expansions (SZEs), a class of ancilla-free quantum algorithms for Hamiltonian simulation. These algorithms map nested Zassenhaus formulas onto quantum gates and then employ randomized sampling to minimize circuit depths. Unlike Suzuki-Trotter product formulas, which grow exponentially long with approximation order, the nested commutator structures of SZEs enable high-order formulas for many systems of interest. For a 10-qubit transverse-field Ising model, we construct an 11th-order SZE with 42x fewer CNOTs than the standard 10th-order product formula. Further, we empirically demonstrate regimes where SZEs reduce simulation errors by many orders of magnitude compared to leading algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13922 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Average number of CNOT gates vs. approxima [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Trace distance error vs. system size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wiebe, D

    N. Wiebe, D. W. Berry, P. Høyer, and B. C. Sanders, Simulating quantum dynamics on a quantum computer, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical44, 445308 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Miessen, P

    A. Miessen, P. J. Ollitrault, F. Tacchino, and I. Taver- nelli, Quantum algorithms for quantum dynamics, Na- ture Computational Science3, 25 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    P. J. Ollitrault, A. Miessen, and I. Tavernelli, Molecular Quantum Dynamics: A Quantum Computing Perspec- tive, Accounts of Chemical Research54, 4229 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    B.Bauer, S.Bravyi, M.Motta,andG.K.-L.Chan,Quan- tum Algorithms for Quantum Chemistry and Quantum Materials Science, Chemical Reviews120, 12685 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Lordi and J

    V. Lordi and J. M. Nichol, Advances and opportunities in materials science for scalable quantum computing, MRS Bulletin 46, 589 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    N. P. De Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. S. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman, Materials chal- lenges and opportunities for quantum computing hard- ware, Science 372, eabb2823 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A Quan- tum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum compu- tation, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 015002 (2018). 6

    work page 2018

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies, Science 309, 1704 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Poulin and P

    D. Poulin and P. Wocjan, Preparing Ground States of Quantum Many-Body Systems on a Quantum Computer, Physical Review Letters102, 130503 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Lin and Y

    L. Lin and Y. Tong, Near-optimal ground state prepara- tion, Quantum 4, 372 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Y. Dong, L. Lin, and Y. Tong, Ground-State Preparation and Energy Estimation on Early Fault-Tolerant Quan- tum Computers via Quantum Eigenvalue Transformation of Unitary Matrices, PRX Quantum3, 040305 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    G. Wang, D. S. França, R. Zhang, S. Zhu, and P. D. Johnson, Quantum algorithm for ground state energy es- timation using circuit depth with exponentially improved dependence on precision, Quantum7, 1167 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Maslov, K

    Y.Nam, J.-S.Chen, N.C.Pisenti, K.Wright, C.Delaney, D. Maslov, K. R. Brown, S. Allen, J. M. Amini, J. Apis- dorf, K.M.Beck, A.Blinov, V.Chaplin, M.Chmielewski, C. Collins, S. Debnath, K. M. Hudek, A. M. Ducore, M. Keesan, S. M. Kreikemeier, J. Mizrahi, P. Solomon, M. Williams,...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    R. D. Delaney, L. R. Sletten, M. J. Cich, B. Estey, M. I. Fabrikant, D. Hayes, I. M. Hoffman, J. Hostet- ter, C. Langer, S. A. Moses, A. R. Perry, T. A. Peter- son, A. Schaffer, C. Volin, G. Vittorini, and W. C. Bur- ton, Scalable Multispecies Ion Transport in a Grid-Based Sur...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature , 1 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

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

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

    1996

  11. [19]

    Suzuki, General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics, Journal of Mathematical Physics32, 400 (1991)

    M. Suzuki, General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics, Journal of Mathematical Physics32, 400 (1991)

    1991

  12. [20]

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter Error with Commutator Scaling, Phys- ical Review X11, 011020 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    A. M. Childs and Y. Su, Nearly Optimal Lattice Simula- tion by Product Formulas, Physical Review Letters123, 050503 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Campbell, Random Compiler for Fast Hamiltonian Simulation, Physical Review Letters123, 070503 (2019)

    E. Campbell, Random Compiler for Fast Hamiltonian Simulation, Physical Review Letters123, 070503 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

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

    2017

  16. [24]

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

    2019

  17. [25]

    A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quan- tum speedup, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 9456 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics7, 649 (1954)

    W. Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics7, 649 (1954)

    1954

  19. [27]

    Casas, A

    F. Casas, A. Murua, and M. Nadinic, Efficient computa- tion of the Zassenhaus formula, Computer Physics Com- munications 183, 2386 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    L. Wang, Y. Gao, and N. Jing, On multivariable Zassen- haus formula, Frontiers of Mathematics in China14, 421 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    K. Wan, M. Berta, and E. T. Campbell, Randomized Quantum Algorithm for Statistical Phase Estimation, Physical Review Letters129, 030503 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Peetz, S

    J. Peetz, S. E. Smart, S. Tserkis, and P. Narang, Sim- ulation of open quantum systems via low-depth convex unitary evolutions, Physical Review Research6, 023263 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Peetz, S

    J. Peetz, S. E. Smart, and P. Narang, Quantum Sim- ulation via Stochastic Combination of Unitaries (2024), arXiv:2407.21095 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. E. S. Morales, P. C. S. Costa, G. Pantaleoni, D. K. Burgarth, Y. R. Sanders, and D. W. Berry, Greatly im- proved higher-order product formulae for quantum sim- ulation (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Yoshida, Construction of higher order symplectic in- tegrators, Physics Letters A150, 262 (1990)

    H. Yoshida, Construction of higher order symplectic in- tegrators, Physics Letters A150, 262 (1990)

    1990

  26. [34]

    Sofroniou and G

    M. Sofroniou and G. Spaletta, Derivation of symmetric composition constants for symmetric integrators, Opti- mization Methods and Software20, 597 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    G. C. Wick, Properties of Bethe-Salpeter Wave Func- tions, Physical Review96, 1124 (1954)

    1954

  28. [36]

    Lehtovaara, J

    L. Lehtovaara, J. Toivanen, and J. Eloranta, Solution of time-independent Schrödinger equation by the imag- inary time propagation method, Journal of Computa- tional Physics 221, 148 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simula- tion of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Informa- tion 5, 75 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quan- tum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nature Physics 16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Nishi, T

    H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Implemen- tation of quantum imaginary-time evolution method on NISQ devices by introducing nonlocal approximation, npj Quantum Information7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Head-Marsden, J

    K. Head-Marsden, J. Flick, C. J. Ciccarino, and P. Narang, Quantum Information and Algorithms for Correlated Quantum Matter, Chemical Reviews 121, 3061 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager, P. Narang, and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum Simulation of Open Quantum Systems Using a Unitary Decomposi- tion of Operators, Physical Review Letters127, 270503 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Kamakari, S.-N

    H. Kamakari, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Digital Quantum Simulation of Open Quantum Systems Using Quantum Imaginary–Time Evolution, PRX Quan- tum 3, 010320 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Z. Ding, X. Li, and L. Lin, Simulating Open Quantum Systems Using Hamiltonian Simulations, PRX Quantum 5, 020332 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    S. Gu, R. D. Somma, and B. Şahinoğlu, Fast-forwarding quantum evolution, Quantum5, 577 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    W. H. Klink, Nilpotent Groups and Anharmonic Oscil- 7 lators, in Noncompact Lie Groups and Some of Their Applications, edited by E. A. Tanner and R. Wilson (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1994) pp. 301–313

    1994

  38. [46]

    Choi and C.-K

    M.-D. Choi and C.-K. Li, Norm bounds for summation of two normal matrices, Linear Algebra and its Applications Special Issue on the Tenth ILAS Conference (Auburn, 2002), 379, 137 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Scholz and M

    D. Scholz and M. Weyrauch, A note on the Zassenhaus product formula, Journal of Mathematical Physics 47, 033505 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Weyrauch and D

    M. Weyrauch and D. Scholz, Computing the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff series and the Zassen- haus product, Computer Physics Communications180, 1558 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Babbush, N

    R. Babbush, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, J. McClain, H. Neven, and G. K.-L. Chan, Low-Depth Quantum Sim- ulation of Materials, Physical Review X8, 011044 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    A. J. Ferris, Fourier Transform for Fermionic Systems and the Spectral Tensor Network, Physical Review Let- ters 113, 010401 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

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

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    T. M. Apostol, Introduction to analytic number theory , corr. 5th print ed., Undergraduate texts in mathematics (Springer, New York, 1998). 8 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIALS Stochastic Approximation Here, we explicitly expand matrix exponentials as convex combinations of unitaries,...

    1998

  45. [53]

    rapidly decaying

    Thus, the leading error is upper bounded by |H|2 1t2m, concluding our proof. 9 Random-Unitary Sampling Approximation A subtle yet important consideration is that sampling the convex decomposition ofe−itmH is itself an approxi- mation which induces error. For an input density m...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.