Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 82 references

Heisenberg limited multiple eigenvalue estimation via off-the-grid compressed sensing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 compressed sensing protocol estimates multiple eigenvalues at once at the Heisenberg limit.

desk verdict Solid numerical proposal for multiple eigenvalue estimation via off-grid compressed sensing plus MUSIC, but the Heisenberg-limited claim is not yet proven and rests on post-hoc selected data and an unverified detectability assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12438 v1 pith:VT3BMXKN submitted 2025-07-16 quant-ph

Davide Castaldo , Stefano Corni This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumphaseestimationoff-the-gridcompressedsensingmultipleeigenvalueHeisenberglimitMUSICalgorithmHadamardtestautocorrelationfunctionstrongcorrelation
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 proposes a quantum phase estimation variant that recovers several eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian simultaneously rather than one at a time. It claims that by sampling only a few percent of the autocorrelation function through a Hadamard test, reconstructing the full signal with off-the-grid compressed sensing, and denoising with the MUSIC subspace method, one can reach chemical accuracy with total runtime scaling at the Heisenberg limit, error shrinking as $T_{\mathrm{runtime}}^{-1}$. Numerical tests on LiH (weak correlation) and the H$_8$ chain at stretched bond length (strong correlation, dense spectrum) support the claimed scaling and show that four excited-state energies can be estimated together. A sympathetic reader would care because this points toward useful quantum chemistry before full fault tolerance, with shallow circuits and modest sampling requirements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the autocorrelation function written as a sparse sum of complex exponentials, whose frequencies are the eigenvalues. The recovery step is off-the-grid compressed sensing: rather than Fourier gridding, it solves an atomic-norm minimization whose semidefinite relaxation is handled by IVDST, with an SVD-based shrinkage step adapted to noisy quantum samples and a physically informed initialization from approximate classical frequencies. The estimation step is the MUSIC algorithm, which builds a Hankel matrix from the reconstructed signal, separates signal and noise subspaces by SVD, and locates frequencies as peaks of the imaging function $J(\omega)$; its superresolution property is what lets closely spaced eigenvalues be distinguished. The compressed sensing theorem supplies the sample count $m \ge C \max\{\log^2(N/\delta), s \log(s/\delta)\log(N/\delta)\}$, and the number of shots per sample is set to $\sqrt{s}\log s\, N \log N$, which together produce the reported runtime scaling.

What would settle it

Run the protocol on a small exactly diagonalizable Hamiltonian with an initial state engineered as a uniform superposition of many eigenstates (so the nontarget part of the autocorrelation is large and oscillatory), set MUSIC's signal-subspace dimension equal to the number of targeted eigenvalues, and check whether the estimated energies deviate systematically from exact diagonalization or the Heisenberg fit degrades as signal length grows; Fig.7's overlap scan already moves in this direction, and pushing overlap well below $0.3$ should make the failure visible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multiple eigenvalues of a molecular Hamiltonian can be estimated simultaneously with Heisenberg-limited precision by treating the autocorrelation function $z(t)=\sum_i |c_i|^2 e^{-iE_i t}$ as a sparse multitone signal. The protocol measures a random subset of $z(t)$ via the Hadamard test, reconstructs the full time-domain signal with a modified Iterative Vandermonde Decomposition and Shrinkage-Thresholding (IVDST) algorithm that replaces the Vandermonde factorization with an SVD to tolerate shot noise, and then extracts frequencies from the reconstructed signal with MUSIC, a single-snapshot subspace method with superresolution. The paper reports that the average eigenvalue error follows the Heisenberg scaling $\epsilon \propto T_{\mathrm{runtime}}^{-1}$ in both weakly correlated LiH and strongly correlated H$_8$, with even better dependence on the maximum evolution time, $\epsilon \propto T_{\max}^{-2}$, and that chemically accurate estimates of four energies are obtained while sampling less than five percent of the signal. It further claims that the method tolerates approximate initial states, recovering the fourth excited singlet energy of H$_8$ within chemical accuracy down to overlaps around $0.3$, and introduces a physically informed initialization that warm-starts the recovery from cheap classical estimates of the target frequencies.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes the target eigenvalues are the only dominant frequencies in the autocorrelation signal, so all other eigenstate contributions can be lumped into noise; if the initial state has substantial overlap with many nontarget eigenstates, those contributions are deterministic exponentials that can bias the MUSIC estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Total quantum runtime to reach error $\epsilon$ scales as $O(1/\epsilon)$ for several eigenvalues at once, matching the Heisenberg limit instead of the $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ shot-noise scaling of Fourier-based approaches.
  • Because the error depends on maximum evolution time as roughly $T_{\max}^{-2}$, circuits can remain shallow while accuracy improves, which is favorable for early fault-tolerant hardware.
  • Sampling less than 5% of the autocorrelation points means the quantum computer spends a small fraction of the naive signal length doing time evolution.
  • The physically informed initialization makes classical quantum-chemistry approximations (CISD, smaller active spaces) reusable as warm starts, speeding convergence and improving accuracy.
  • The strong-correlation H$_8$ results suggest the method can handle dense spectra where many frequencies lie within one Rayleigh length, provided the resolution conditions on signal length are met.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the non-target components of the autocorrelation are deterministic sums of exponentials, not random noise; a flat, broad overlap spectrum should break the 'everything else is noise' assumption and bias MUSIC estimates unless the signal subspace dimension grows.
  • Going beyond the paper, the observed $\epsilon \propto T_{\max}^{-2}$ suggests an even more favorable shallow-circuit regime than the Heisenberg limit, but only once both resolution conditions are met; quantifying the crossover as a function of spectral density would be a direct follow-up.
  • Going beyond the paper, the physically informed initialization is generic: any problem with cheap prior frequency estimates (vibrational spectroscopy, NMR line lists) could reuse this warm-starting idea.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid quantum-classical protocol for simultaneous estimation of multiple eigenvalues of a molecular Hamiltonian. The quantum part samples an autocorrelation function via a Hadamard test at a small random subset of times; the classical part reconstructs the full signal with a modified off-the-grid compressed-sensing algorithm (IVDST) and then extracts frequencies with MUSIC. The central claim is that this combined protocol achieves Heisenberg-limited error scaling, i.e. epsilon = O(1/T_runtime), for several eigenvalues at once, in both weakly correlated (LiH) and strongly correlated (H8) examples, while sampling only a few percent of the autocorrelation points. The paper also introduces a physically informed initialization for IVDST and studies the sensitivity of the estimate to the quality of the initial state.

Significance. If the scaling claim is correct, the protocol would be a valuable contribution to early fault-tolerant quantum simulation: it offers simultaneous estimation of multiple eigenvalues with short maximum evolution times and a small number of samples, and it comes with an open-source implementation and numerical benchmarks on chemically relevant molecules. The physically informed initialization is a useful and independently interesting idea, and the compression factors shown in Fig. 6 are striking. The main limitation is that the Heisenberg claim is currently supported only by selective numerical power-law fits; the authors themselves state in Sec. III that an analytic bound is missing, and the MUSIC detectability condition is not checked against the dominant non-target component of the signal.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (20); Sec. IIB] The MUSIC frequency detectability condition is stated with E = Hank(z_noise(t)), i.e. only the shot-noise component enters the bound. However, the signal model in Eq. (6) contains the deterministic off-target term z_nr(t), and in the H8 strong-correlation runs the target overlap is only about 0.55, leaving roughly 45% of the spectral weight in z_nr(t). Since Eq. (17) fixes the MUSIC signal-subspace dimension to the number of target eigenvalues (s=4), the off-target exponentials can leak into the signal subspace or produce spurious peaks. The manuscript never bounds ||Hank(z_nr)||_2 nor verifies sigma_s >> 2||Hank(z_nr + z_noise)||_2 for the tail points used in Fig. 4. This is a load-bearing gap for the strong-correlation Heisenberg claim and should be closed with either an analytic bound or a direct numerical check of the detectability condition on the reconstructed signals.
  2. [Sec. IIB, Figs. 3-4] The central evidence for Heisenberg scaling is a power-law fit y = a x^{-b}, but the fitted exponent b is never reported in the text or captions, and no confidence interval is given. For H8, the fit is applied only to the last points that satisfy the resolution conditions, after the authors have observed three regimes in the data. This post hoc selection of the tail makes the claimed epsilon = O(T_runtime^{-1}) and epsilon = O(T_max^{-2}) difficult to falsify. Please report the fitted exponents with uncertainties, state the selection rule for the points included in each fit, and show the full data with the regime boundaries indicated.
  3. [Sec. IC and Supplemental Eq. (21)] The MUSIC error bound epsilon = O(log N / N^{3/2}) is cited for a signal embedded in stochastic noise, but in this protocol MUSIC is applied to the reconstructed vector x*(t) produced by the off-grid compressed-sensing step, not to the raw noisy samples. The reconstruction error of the IVDST/atomic-norm step is not characterized in the manuscript, and it is not statistically equivalent to the shot noise in Eq. (7). Treating x* as a proxy for z(t) without analyzing the norm or structure of the reconstruction error means that Eq. (21) does not, by itself, transfer to the end-to-end protocol. This gap is load-bearing for the claimed total-runtime scaling; the authors should either prove a bound on the reconstruction error entering the MUSIC Hankel matrix or numerically verify the effective noise condition at the input to MUSIC for the specific simulations used in Figs. 3-4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] There are small typographical issues, e.g. 'anoff-grid' in the abstract and 'algoritm' / 'MUSIC algoritm' in the text; these should be corrected in a final proofread.
  2. [Sec. IIA] The formulas for the number of samples and the number of shots use ambiguous notation: '#samples = s log s log N' and '#shots = sqrt(s log s N log N)' should be written with parentheses, and the text should clarify whether N is the reconstructed signal length before or after the doubling to the interval [-T, T].
  3. [Sec. IIB] The main text refers to 'Appendix IIIA' when discussing the MUSIC properties; this should be a reference to the Supplemental Material Section A, not a numbered appendix.
  4. [References and code availability] The references to the GitHub repositories (Refs. [53], [55], [58]) currently appear as URLs with 'Accessed by date'; they should be cited with version numbers or persistent identifiers where possible so that the reported numerical results are reproducible.
  5. [Sec. IIA] The initial guess frequencies are described as having an error of 0.1-0.01 Ha; it would be clearer to state how these errors are generated (deterministic offsets, random draws, or otherwise), since this choice affects the warm-start speedup claim in Fig. 2 and Fig. 9.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: external CS/MUSIC results carry the derivation, recovered frequencies are checked against exact FCI energies, and the missing analytic Heisenberg bound is acknowledged in the paper.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The protocol is a pipeline of external results: Eq. (8) and Eq. (11) invoke the off-grid compressed-sensing guarantee and atomic-norm SDP of Tang et al. [38]; Alg. 1 modifies the IVDST algorithm of Wang-Tian [46]; MUSIC and its error bound Eq. (21) are taken from Liao-Fannjiang [43]; the shot-noise scaling is taken from Ding-Lin [30]. The target frequencies are not defined by any fitted parameter: numerical errors in Figs. 3-5 and Table I are measured against exact FCI energies, and the 'physically informed initialization' (Alg. 2) uses approximate classical guesses with stated errors of 0.1-0.01 Ha, orders of magnitude above the 1 mHa chemical accuracy claimed, so it is a warm start rather than the answer being smuggled in. Self-citations [15,67,81] appear only as background/context and do no load-bearing work. The paper even states in Sec. III: 'despite the numerical evidences of Heisenberg scaling, an analytic bound that formally demonstrates it is still missing,' presenting the central claim as numerical evidence, not as a derived theorem, and no equation reduces to its own input. The most notable rigor gap—the Supplement's detectability condition Eq. (20) defines E = Hank(z_noise(t)) while Eq. (6) classifies the deterministic non-target term z_nr(t) as part of the noise, so the MUSIC detectability condition is not proven with z_nr included—is a missing assumption check, not a circularity, because z_nr is not fitted to the targets and ignoring it does not make any output identical to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are protocol choices (sample counts, hyperparameters, initial guess details) that affect the runtime and accuracy. The key axioms are external mathematical theorems (off-the-grid CS, MUSIC bounds) and domain assumptions about sparsity and the noise model. The treatment of z_nr as noise is the most fragile modeling choice.

free parameters (8)
  • Number of samples per reconstruction (#samples) = s log s log N
    Chosen heuristically in Sec.IIA based on compressed-sensing bounds; not derived for this specific protocol.
  • Number of shots per sample (#shots) = sqrt(s) log s N log N (ambiguous in text)
    Introduced as a 'more practical definition' in Sec.IIA; directly controls the noise level and total runtime, and is central to the Heisenberg-scaling claim.
  • IVDST learning rate delta = 0.5 (first iteration), 0.01 (remaining)
    Hand-tuned in Sec.IIA to balance accuracy and speed.
  • IVDST shrinkage threshold tau = 0.001
    Hand-tuned in Sec.IIA.
  • Convergence threshold gamma = 10^{-6}
    Stopping criterion for IVDST, set in Sec.IIA.
  • Initial guess frequency error = 0.01-0.1 Ha
    Assumed in Sec.IIA to mimic rough classical estimates; affects the PII warm start.
  • Initial guess coefficients = c = 1/sqrt(s*)
    All components set equal in Sec.IIA; a choice that may not reflect true overlaps.
  • Signal subspace dimension s = number of target eigenvalues (e.g., 4)
    Set by the user to the number of eigenvalues to estimate; determines MUSIC noise subspace (Eq.17).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Off-the-grid compressed sensing theorem (Tang et al. 2013): a signal with minimal frequency gap Delta f >= 1/N can be recovered from m random samples with m = O(s log s log N).
    Stated in Sec.IB and used to justify #samples; it is an external mathematical result.
  • standard math MUSIC single-snapshot stability and error bound epsilon = O(log N / N^{3/2}) (Liao and Fannjiang 2016).
    Used in Sec.IIB and Appendix A to claim the analytic error scaling epsilon = O(T_tot^{-1.5}).
  • domain assumption Shot-noise variance eta = 1/M from the central limit theorem.
    Equations (3)-(4) in Sec.IA; assumes the Hadamard test measurement noise is Gaussian with variance inversely proportional to shots.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-relevant part of the autocorrelation function z_nr(t) can be treated as noise.
    Equation (6) in Sec.IA; this is a modeling choice that is central to the MUSIC signal/noise decomposition.
  • domain assumption The signal is sparse: the initial state overlap is concentrated on the s target eigenstates.
    Sec.IA and IIA; the protocol's efficiency relies on |c_i|^2 being negligible for non-target states.
  • domain assumption The minimal frequency gap satisfies Delta f >= 1/N.
    Invoked via the off-the-grid CS theorem in Sec.IB; the H8 dense spectrum partly violates this at short N, leading to the resolution-regime selection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heisenberg limited multiple eigenvalue estimation via off-the-grid compressed sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VT3BMXKN

@misc{pith2026250712438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heisenberg limited multiple eigenvalue estimation via off-the-grid compressed sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VT3BMXKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12438}
}
abstract

Quantum phase estimation is the flagship algorithm for quantum simulation on fault-tolerant quantum computers. We demonstrate that an \emph{off-grid} compressed sensing protocol, combined with a state-of-the-art signal classification method, enables the simultaneous estimation of multiple eigenvalues of a unitary matrix using the Hadamard test while sampling only a few percent of the full autocorrelation function. Our numerical evidence indicates that the proposed algorithm achieves the Heisenberg limit in both strongly and weakly correlated regimes and requires very short evolution times to obtain an $\epsilon$-accurate estimate of multiple eigenvalues at once. Additionally -- and of independent interest -- we develop a modified off-grid protocol that leverages prior knowledge of the underlying signal for faster and more accurate recovery. Finally, we argue that this algorithm may offer a potential quantum advantage by analyzing its resilience with respect to the quality of the initial input state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12438 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the proposed protocol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Preconditioning the IVDST with approximate solu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Heisenberg-limited scaling in the weak correlation regime. Estimation of four different eigenfrequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Heisenberg-limited scaling in the strong correlation regime. Estimation of four different eigenfrequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Resolution power of the MUSIC algoritm. Plot of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Computational saving due to the compressed sensing protocol. (a) Compressing factor as a function of the maximal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Effect of the initial input state on the energy estimate accuracy. (a) Overlap of the initial input state used for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison between FFT (black dashed-dotted line) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Preconditioning the IVDST with approximate solutions allows for more accurate energy estimates. (a) Error on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Moreover, we also highlight that, given the di- mensionality of the signal, the resolution of the imaging function can be arbitrarily high

    As a consequence, the frequencies that span the sig- nal subspace will correspond to the peaks of the J(ω) function. Moreover, we also highlight that, given the di- mensionality of the signal, the resolution of the imaging function can be arbitrarily high. This effect is based on the superresolution property of the MUSIC algorithm, i.e., the capability to...

    2017

  2. [2]

    Simulating physics with comput- ers,

    Richard P Feynman, “Simulating physics with comput- ers,” inFeynman and computation(cRc Press, 2018) pp. 133–153

    2018

  3. [3]

    Simulated quantum compu- tation of molecular energies,

    Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Anthony D Dutoi, Peter J Love, and Martin Head-Gordon, “Simulated quantum compu- tation of molecular energies,” Science 309, 1704–1707 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers,

    Markus Reiher, Nathan Wiebe, Krysta M Svore, Dave Wecker, and Matthias Troyer, “Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers,” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences114, 7555–7560 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Measurement-based quantum computation,

    Hans J Briegel, David E Browne, Wolfgang Dür, Robert Raussendorf, and Maarten Van den Nest, “Measurement-based quantum computation,” Nature Physics 5, 19–26 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Fusion-based quantum computation,

    Sara Bartolucci, Patrick Birchall, Hector Bombin, Hugo Cable, Chris Dawson, Mercedes Gimeno-Segovia, Eric Johnston, Konrad Kieling, Naomi Nickerson, Mihir Pant, et al., “Fusion-based quantum computation,” Nature Communications 14, 912 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum compu- tation,

    DoritAharonov, WimVanDam, JuliaKempe, ZephLan- dau, Seth Lloyd, and Oded Regev, “Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum compu- tation,” SIAM review50, 755–787 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code,

    Sebastian Krinner, Nathan Lacroix, Ants Remm, Agustin Di Paolo, Elie Genois, Catherine Leroux, ChristophHellings, StefaniaLazar, FrancoisSwiadek, Jo- hannes Herrmann, et al., “Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code,” Nature 605, 669–674 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,

    Google Quantum AI, “Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,” Nature614, 676– 681 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Hardware-efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits,

    Harald Putterman, Kyungjoo Noh, Connor T Hann, Gre- gorySMacCabe, ShahriarAghaeimeibodi, RishiNPatel, Menyoung Lee, William M Jones, Hesam Moradinejad, Roberto Rodriguez, et al., “Hardware-efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits,” Nature 15 638, 927–...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Quantum error correction below the sur- face code threshold,

    Rajeev Acharya, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Igor Aleiner, Trond I Andersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Ku- nal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Juan Atalaya,et al., “Quantum error correction below the sur- face code threshold,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13687 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even,

    Volodymyr V Sivak, Alec Eickbusch, Baptiste Royer, Shraddha Singh, Ioannis Tsioutsios, Suhas Ganjam, Alessandro Miano, BL Brock, AZ Ding, Luigi Frun- zio, et al., “Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even,” Nature616, 50–55 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Early fault-tolerant quantum computing,

    Amara Katabarwa, Katerina Gratsea, Athena Caesura, and Peter D Johnson, “Early fault-tolerant quantum computing,” PRX quantum5, 020101 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Quantum algo- rithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end com- plexities,

    Alexander M Dalzell, Sam McArdle, Mario Berta, Prze- myslaw Bienias, Chi-Fang Chen, András Gilyén, Con- nor T Hann, Michael J Kastoryano, Emil T Khabi- boulline, Aleksander Kubica, et al., “Quantum algo- rithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end com- plexities,” arXiv pr...

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Fault-tolerant quantum simulation of ma- terials using bloch orbitals,

    Nicholas C Rubin, Dominic W Berry, Fionn D Malone, Alec F White, Tanuj Khattar, A Eugene DePrince III, Sabrina Sicolo, Michael Küehn, Michael Kaicher, Joonho Lee, et al., “Fault-tolerant quantum simulation of ma- terials using bloch orbitals,” PRX Quantum 4, 040303 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    A differen- tiable quantum phase estimation algorithm,

    Davide Castaldo, Soran Jahangiri, Agostino Migliore, Juan Miguel Arrazola, and Stefano Corni, “A differen- tiable quantum phase estimation algorithm,” Quantum Science and Technology9, 045026 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Nonlinear spectroscopy via generalized quan- tum phase estimation,

    Ignacio Loaiza, Danial Motlagh, Kasra Hejazi, Mod- jtaba Shokrian Zini, Alain Delgado, and Juan Miguel Arrazola, “Nonlinear spectroscopy via generalized quan- tum phase estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13885 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computa- tion of molecular observables,

    Mark Steudtner, Sam Morley-Short, William Pol, Sukin Sim, Cristian L Cortes, Matthias Loipersberger, Robert M Parrish, Matthias Degroote, Nikolaj Moll, Raf- faele Santagati,et al., “Fault-tolerant quantum computa- tion of molecular observables,” Quantum7, 1164 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Quantum algorithms revisited,

    Richard Cleve, Artur Ekert, Chiara Macchiavello, and Michele Mosca, “Quantum algorithms revisited,” Pro- ceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon.SeriesA:Mathe- matical, Physical and Engineering Sciences454, 339–354 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Assessment of quantum phase estimation protocols for early fault- tolerant quantum computers,

    Jacob S Nelson and Andrew D Baczewski, “Assessment of quantum phase estimation protocols for early fault- tolerant quantum computers,” Physical Review A110, 042420 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    High ground state overlap via quantum em- bedding methods,

    Mihael Erakovic, Freek Witteveen, Dylan Harley, Jakob Günther, Moritz Bensberg, Oinam Romesh Meitei, Min- sikCho, TroyVanVoorhis, MarkusReiher, andMatthias Christandl, “High ground state overlap via quantum em- bedding methods,” PRX Life3, 013003 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Initial state prepa- ration for quantum chemistry on quantum computers,

    Stepan Fomichev, Kasra Hejazi, Modjtaba Shokrian Zini, Matthew Kiser, Joana Fraxanet, Pablo Antonio Moreno Casares, Alain Delgado, Joonsuk Huh, Arne-Christian Voigt, Jonathan E Mueller,et al., “Initial state prepa- ration for quantum chemistry on quantum computers,” PRX Quantu...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Enhancing initial state overlap through orbital optimization for faster molecu- lar electronic ground-state energy estimation,

    Pauline J Ollitrault, Cristian L Cortes, Jérôme F Gonthier, Robert M Parrish, Dario Rocca, Gian-Luca Anselmetti, Matthias Degroote, Nikolaj Moll, Raffaele Santagati, and Michael Streif, “Enhancing initial state overlap through orbital optimization for faster molecu- lar electr...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse hamil- tonians,

    Dominic W Berry, Andrew M Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D Somma, “Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse hamil- tonians,” in Proceedings of the forty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(2014) pp. 283–292

    2014

  17. [25]

    Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series,

    Dominic W Berry, Andrew M Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D Somma, “Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series,” Physical review letters114, 090502 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Hamiltonian sim- ulation by qubitization,

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang, “Hamiltonian sim- ulation by qubitization,” Quantum3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Shadow hamil- tonian simulation,

    Rolando D Somma, Robbie King, Robin Kothari, Thomas E O’Brien, and Ryan Babbush, “Shadow hamil- tonian simulation,” Nature Communications 16, 2690 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Efficient simulation of quantum chemistry problems in an enlarged basis set,

    Maxine Luo and J Ignacio Cirac, “Efficient simulation of quantum chemistry problems in an enlarged basis set,” PRX Quantum6, 010355 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Te-pai: Exact time evolution by sampling random circuits,

    Chusei Kiumi and Bálint Koczor, “Te-pai: Exact time evolution by sampling random circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16850 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage,

    Michael E Beverland, Prakash Murali, Matthias Troyer, Krysta M Svore, Torsten Hoefler, Vadym Kliuchnikov, Guang Hao Low, Mathias Soeken, Aarthi Sundaram, and Alexander Vaschillo, “Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07629 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Even shorter quantum cir- cuit for phase estimation on early fault-tolerant quan- tum computers with applications to ground-state energy estimation,

    Zhiyan Ding and Lin Lin, “Even shorter quantum cir- cuit for phase estimation on early fault-tolerant quan- tum computers with applications to ground-state energy estimation,” PRX quantum4, 020331 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Quantum multiple eigenvalue gaussian filtered search: an efficient and versatile quan- tum phase estimation method,

    Zhiyan Ding, Haoya Li, Lin Lin, HongKang Ni, Lexing Ying, and Ruizhe Zhang, “Quantum multiple eigenvalue gaussian filtered search: an efficient and versatile quan- tum phase estimation method,” Quantum8, 1487 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Quan- tum phase estimation by compressed sensing,

    Changhao Yi, Cunlu Zhou, and Jun Takahashi, “Quan- tum phase estimation by compressed sensing,” Quantum 8, 1579 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Onlow-depth algorithms for quantum phase estimation,

    HongkangNi, HaoyaLi, andLexingYing,“Onlow-depth algorithms for quantum phase estimation,” Quantum7, 1165 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Xviii.—on the functions which are represented by the expansions of the interpolation-theory,

    Edmund Taylor Whittaker, “Xviii.—on the functions which are represented by the expansions of the interpolation-theory,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh35, 181–194 (1915)

    1915

  28. [36]

    Compressive sampling,

    Emmanuel J Candèset al., “Compressive sampling,” in Proceedings of the international congress of mathemati- cians, Vol. 3 (Madrid, Spain, 2006) pp. 1433–1452

    2006

  29. [37]

    Compressed sensing,

    David L Donoho, “Compressed sensing,” IEEE Transac- tions on information theory52, 1289–1306 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Quantum metrology,

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone, “Quantum metrology,” Physical review letters96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Compressed sensing off the grid,

    Gongguo Tang, Badri Narayan Bhaskar, Parikshit Shah, and Benjamin Recht, “Compressed sensing off the grid,” IEEE transactions on information theory59, 7465–7490 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Orthogonal matching pursuit for sparse signal recovery with noise,

    T Tony Cai and Lie Wang, “Orthogonal matching pursuit for sparse signal recovery with noise,” IEEE Transactions on Information theory57, 4680–4688 (2011). 16

    2011

  33. [41]

    Quantum eigenvalue estimation via time series analysis,

    Rolando D Somma, “Quantum eigenvalue estimation via time series analysis,” New Journal of Physics21, 123025 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Adaptive low-depth quantum algorithms for robust multiple-phase estimation,

    Haoya Li, Hongkang Ni, and Lexing Ying, “Adaptive low-depth quantum algorithms for robust multiple-phase estimation,” Physical Review A108, 062408 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Super-resolution techniques to sim- ulate electronic spectra of large molecular systems,

    Matthias Kick, Ezra Alexander, Anton Beiersdorfer, and Troy Van Voorhis, “Super-resolution techniques to sim- ulate electronic spectra of large molecular systems,” Na- ture Communications15, 8001 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Music for single- snapshot spectral estimation: Stability and super- resolution,

    Wenjing Liao and Albert Fannjiang, “Music for single- snapshot spectral estimation: Stability and super- resolution,” Applied and Computational Harmonic Anal- ysis 40, 33–67 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang,Quantum compu- tation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Simultaneous estimation of multiple eigenvalues with short-depth quantum circuit on early fault-tolerant quantum computers,

    Zhiyan Ding and Lin Lin, “Simultaneous estimation of multiple eigenvalues with short-depth quantum circuit on early fault-tolerant quantum computers,” Quantum 7, 1136 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Ivdst: A fast algorithm for atomic norm minimization in line spectral estimation,

    Yue Wang and Zhi Tian, “Ivdst: A fast algorithm for atomic norm minimization in line spectral estimation,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters25, 1715–1719 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    27 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    Henry Wolkowicz, Romesh Saigal, and Lieven Vanden- berghe, Handbook of semidefinite programming: theory, algorithms, and applications, Vol. 27 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Sdpt3- a matlab software package for semidefinite-quadratic- linearprogramming,

    Kim-Chuan Toh, MJ Todd, and RH Tutuncu, “Sdpt3- a matlab software package for semidefinite-quadratic- linearprogramming,” Optim.MethodsSoftw 11,545–581 (1999)

    1999

  42. [50]

    Matrix pencil method for estimating parameters of exponentially damped/undamped sinusoids in noise,

    Yingbo Hua and Tapan K Sarkar, “Matrix pencil method for estimating parameters of exponentially damped/undamped sinusoids in noise,” IEEE Transac- tions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 38, 814–824 (1990)

    1990

  43. [51]

    Heisenberg-limited quantum phase estimation of multiple eigenvalues with few control qubits,

    Alicja Dutkiewicz, Barbara M Terhal, and Thomas E O’Brien, “Heisenberg-limited quantum phase estimation of multiple eigenvalues with few control qubits,” Quan- tum 6, 830 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Using the matrix pencil method to estimate the parameters of a sum of complex exponentials,

    Tapan K Sarkar and Odilon Pereira, “Using the matrix pencil method to estimate the parameters of a sum of complex exponentials,” IEEE Antennas and propagation Magazine 37, 48–55 (1995)

    1995

  45. [53]

    Multiple emitter location and signal pa- rameter estimation,

    Ralph Schmidt, “Multiple emitter location and signal pa- rameter estimation,” IEEE transactions on antennas and propagation 34, 276–280 (1986)

    1986

  46. [54]

    Ac- cessed by date: 14/07/2025,

    https://github.com/davidecast/compressed_qpe, “Ac- cessed by date: 14/07/2025,”

    2025

  47. [55]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,

    Ville Bergholm, Josh Izaac, Maria Schuld, Christian Gogolin, Shahnawaz Ahmed, Vishnu Ajith, M Sohaib Alam, Guillermo Alonso-Linaje, B AkashNarayanan, Ali Asadi, et al., “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.0...

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Overlapper,

    Stepan Fomichev, Kasra Hejazi, Joana Fraxanet, and Juan Miguel Arrazola, “Overlapper,” https://github. com/XanaduAI/Overlapper/ (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    JAX: com- posable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,

    James Bradbury, Roy Frostig, Peter Hawkins, Matthew James Johnson, Chris Leary, Dougal Maclau- rin, George Necula, Adam Paszke, Jake VanderPlas, Skye Wanderman-Milne, and Qiao Zhang, “JAX: com- posable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,” (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Array pro- gramming with NumPy,

    Charles R. Harris, K. Jarrod Millman, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cour- napeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J. Smith, Robert Kern, Matti Picus, Stephan Hoyer, Marten H. van Kerkwijk, Matthew Brett, Al- lan Haldane, Jaim...

    2020

  51. [59]

    CYI1995, “Qeep,” https://github.com/CYI1995/QEEP/ tree/main (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Com- puting in Python,

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson, E...

    2020

  53. [61]

    Emerging quantum com- puting algorithms for quantum chemistry,

    Mario Motta and Julia E Rice, “Emerging quantum com- puting algorithms for quantum chemistry,” Wiley Inter- disciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 12, e1580 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Compact wavefunctions from compressed imaginary time evolu- tion,

    Jarrod R McClean and Alán Aspuru-Guzik, “Compact wavefunctions from compressed imaginary time evolu- tion,” RSC advances5, 102277–102283 (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    Classification of electronic structures and state preparation for quantum computation of reaction chem- istry,

    Maximilian Mörchen, Guang Hao Low, Thomas Wey- muth, Hongbin Liu, Matthias Troyer, and Markus Rei- her, “Classification of electronic structures and state preparation for quantum computation of reaction chem- istry,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08910 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Robust interpolation between weak- and strong-correlation regimes of quantum systems,

    Jerzy Cioslowski, “Robust interpolation between weak- and strong-correlation regimes of quantum systems,” The Journal of Chemical Physics136, 044109 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    Quantum information reveals that orbital-wise correlation is essentially classical in natural orbitals,

    Davide Materia, Leonardo Ratini, Celestino Angeli, and Leonardo Guidoni, “Quantum information reveals that orbital-wise correlation is essentially classical in natural orbitals,” The Journal of Chemical Physics161, 244108 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Environment-induced superselection rules,

    Wojciech H Zurek, “Environment-induced superselection rules,” Physical review D26, 1862 (1982)

    1982

  59. [67]

    Infrared catastrophe in fermi gases with local scattering potentials,

    Philip W Anderson, “Infrared catastrophe in fermi gases with local scattering potentials,” Physical Review Letters 18, 1049 (1967)

    1967

  60. [68]

    Fast- forwarding molecular ground state preparation with opti- mal control on analog quantum simulators,

    Davide Castaldo, Marta Rosa, and Stefano Corni, “Fast- forwarding molecular ground state preparation with opti- mal control on analog quantum simulators,” The Journal of Chemical Physics161, 014105 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    Molecular excited state calculations with adaptive wave- functions on a quantum eigensolver emulation: reducing circuit depth and separating spin states,

    Hans Hon Sang Chan, Nathan Fitzpatrick, Javier Segarra-Martí, Michael J Bearpark, and David P Tew, “Molecular excited state calculations with adaptive wave- functions on a quantum eigensolver emulation: reducing circuit depth and separating spin states,” Physical Chem- istry C...

    2021

  62. [70]

    Ground state property calculations of lihn complexes using ibm qiskit’s 17 quantum simulator,

    Benjamin Avramidis, Hari P Paudel, Dominic Alfonso, Yuhua Duan, and Kenneth D Jordan, “Ground state property calculations of lihn complexes using ibm qiskit’s 17 quantum simulator,” AIP Advances14 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Super- resolution limit of the esprit algorithm,

    Weilin Li, Wenjing Liao, and Albert Fannjiang, “Super- resolution limit of the esprit algorithm,” IEEE transac- tions on information theory66, 4593–4608 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    The esprit algorithm under high noise: Opti- mal error scaling and noisy super-resolution,

    Zhiyan Ding, Ethan N Epperly, Lin Lin, and Ruizhe Zhang, “The esprit algorithm under high noise: Opti- mal error scaling and noisy super-resolution,” in 2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Com- puter Science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2024) pp. 2344–2366

    2024

  65. [73]

    Strong electronic correlation in the hy- drogen chain: A variational monte carlo study,

    Lorenzo Stella, Claudio Attaccalite, Sandro Sorella, and Angel Rubio, “Strong electronic correlation in the hy- drogen chain: A variational monte carlo study,” Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics84, 245117 (2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    Towards the solution of the many-electron prob- lem in real materials: Equation of state of the hydrogen chain with state-of-the-art many-body methods,

    Mario Motta, David M Ceperley, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, John A Gomez, Emanuel Gull, Sheng Guo, Carlos A Jiménez-Hoyos, Tran Nguyen Lan, Jia Li, Fengjie Ma, et al., “Towards the solution of the many-electron prob- lem in real materials: Equation of state of the hydrogen chain with ...

    2017

  67. [75]

    Ground-state properties of the hydrogen chain: Dimerization, insulator-to-metal transition, and magnetic phases,

    Mario Motta, Claudio Genovese, Fengjie Ma, Zhi-Hao Cui, RandySawaya, GarnetKin-LicChan, NataliaChep- iga, Phillip Helms, Carlos Jiménez-Hoyos, Andrew J Millis, et al., “Ground-state properties of the hydrogen chain: Dimerization, insulator-to-metal transition, and magnetic pha...

    2020

  68. [76]

    Thecom- plexity of the local hamiltonian problem,

    JuliaKempe, AlexeiKitaev, andOdedRegev,“Thecom- plexity of the local hamiltonian problem,” Siam journal on computing35, 1070–1097 (2006)

    2006

  69. [77]

    Intractability of electronic structure in a fixed basis,

    Bryan O’Gorman, Sandy Irani, James Whitfield, and Bill Fefferman, “Intractability of electronic structure in a fixed basis,” PRX Quantum3, 020322 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    Early fault-tolerant quantum algorithms in practice: Application to ground-state energy estimation,

    Oriel Kiss, Utkarsh Azad, Borja Requena, Alessandro Roggero, David Wakeham, and Juan Miguel Arrazola, “Early fault-tolerant quantum algorithms in practice: Application to ground-state energy estimation,” Quan- tum 9, 1682 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    Spectral es- timation for hamiltonians: a comparison between classi- cal imaginary-time evolution and quantum real-time evo- lution,

    ME Stroeks, Jonas Helsen, and BM Terhal, “Spectral es- timation for hamiltonians: a comparison between classi- cal imaginary-time evolution and quantum real-time evo- lution,” New Journal of Physics24, 103024 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Fisher information for smart sampling in time- domain spectroscopy,

    Luca Bolzonello, Niek F van Hulst, and Andreas Jakob- sson, “Fisher information for smart sampling in time- domain spectroscopy,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 160 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    Computing ground state properties with early fault- tolerant quantum computers,

    Ruizhe Zhang, Guoming Wang, and Peter Johnson, “Computing ground state properties with early fault- tolerant quantum computers,” Quantum6, 761 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    A vision for the future of multiscale modeling,

    MatteoCapone, MarcoRomanelli, DavideCastaldo, Gio- vanni Parolin, Alessandro Bello, Gabriel Gil, and Mirko Vanzan, “A vision for the future of multiscale modeling,” ACS Physical Chemistry Au4, 202–225 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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