Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 79 references

A universal protocol maps any polynomial-size superposition of occupation-number states into a first-quantized state in polynomial time, for fermions, bosons, and paraparticles in any single-particle basis.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:59 UTC pith:SEXJZOAD

load-bearing objection Fermion/boson state-prep pipeline is solid and useful; the advertised universality over Green's parastatistics is contradicted by the paper's own Table S1. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2510.07278 v2 pith:SEXJZOAD submitted 2025-10-08 quant-ph math-phmath.MPphysics.comp-ph

Universal initial state preparation for first quantized quantum simulations

Jack S. Baker , Gaurav Saxena , Thi Ha Kyaw This is my paper
classification quant-ph math-phmath.MPphysics.comp-ph PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords first-quantized quantum simulationinitial state preparationJordan-Schwinger mapquantum Schur transformSchur-Weyl dualityGreen's parastatisticslinear combination of unitariesoccupation-number states
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims to remove a long-standing bottleneck in first-quantized quantum simulation: preparing symmetry-adapted initial states. It exploits the Jordan–Schwinger Lie-algebra homomorphism to establish an equivariant bijection between Fock occupation states and su(d) weight states within the Schur–Weyl decomposition. Operationally, any target superposition of L occupation configurations is encoded as a superposition of Schur labels, prepared with a block-encoded linear combination of unitaries, and converted to the computational basis by an inverse quantum Schur transform. The claimed cost is poly(L, N, d, log ε⁻¹), dropping to poly(L, N, log d, log ε⁻¹) non-Clifford gates with the most efficient Schur transform. The protocol is claimed to work universally for fermions, bosons, and Green's paraparticles, making first-quantized simulation practical in arbitrary bases.

Core claim

First-quantized initial-state preparation is reduced to an efficient, statistics-agnostic change of basis. The Jordan–Schwinger map Φ(X) = Σ X_{pq} a†_p a_q is a Lie-algebra homomorphism that identifies number-conserving second-quantized operators with their first-quantized counterparts. Comparing Cartan generators gives z_i = n_i − n_{i+1}, an equivariant bijection between Fock occupations and su(d) Dynkin weights. Each occupation state maps to a Schur label |λ, µ, σ⟩; statistics are fixed by choosing the Young diagram λ, the target superposition of labels is prepared by a block-encoded linear combination of unitaries, and an inverse quantum Schur transform yields the desired first-quantize

What carries the argument

Jordan–Schwinger map and Schur–Weyl duality. The Jordan–Schwinger map Φ(X) = Σ X_{pq} a†_p a_q is a Lie-algebra homomorphism from gl(d, C) into the algebra of particle-number-conserving operators, turning the Cartan–Weyl generators of su(d) into first-quantized total operators. Schur–Weyl duality decomposes (C^d)^{⊗N} into U(d) irreps labeled by Young diagrams λ times S_N irreps labeled by σ, with Gelfand–Tsetlin patterns µ resolving weight degeneracies. The relation z_i = n_i − n_{i+1} provides an equivariant bijection between Fock states and weight states, letting the algorithm replace a second-quantized state by a superposition of Schur labels that an inverse quantum Schur transform (Baco

Load-bearing premise

The universal claim assumes each Fock occupation state has a unique image in the Schur basis, yet the paper's own example shows |1,1,1⟩ maps to four distinct Schur states for mixed symmetry, leaving an unspecified physical choice for paraparticles.

What would settle it

Prepare the N = 3, d = 3 mixed-symmetry sector with target |1,1,1⟩ and compare the output for the two S_N copies σ = T1 and σ = T2 under a Hamiltonian that breaks the S_N symmetry: if the two resulting first-quantized states give different expectation values for the same occupation configuration, then occupation numbers do not determine a unique physical state and the claimed universal bijection for paraparticles is falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • First-quantized simulation pipelines no longer need basis-specific or statistics-specific circuit redesign for initial-state preparation.
  • Any polynomial-size occupation-number superposition supplied by a classical algorithm can be loaded deterministically, with success probability controlled by the LCU norm and amplifiable to one.
  • The protocol extends to Green's parastatistics, making first-quantized simulations of parafermionic and parabosonic models feasible.
  • The block-encoded LCU stage cleanly separates classical data (coefficients) from the quantum change of basis, so improving either component directly lowers total cost.
  • If the high-dimensional Schur transform is verified, the non-Clifford cost drops to poly(log d), enabling simulations with very large mode counts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference (not the paper's claim): the paper's own N = 3, d = 3 table shows that the mixed-symmetry Fock state |1,1,1⟩ corresponds to four distinct Schur-basis states; so for paraparticles the protocol requires an extra physical choice of symmetric-group copy σ that occupation numbers alone do not fix.
  • Inference (not the paper's claim): the advertised poly(log d) scaling depends on a corrected high-dimensional Schur transform whose correctness the paper acknowledges has been questioned but does not itself verify.
  • Inference (not the paper's claim): the same block-encoding pipeline could be reused for other Schur-basis tasks, such as preparing states with non-classical coefficients or block-diagonal Hamiltonian simulation, though the paper only sketches these directions.
  • Inference (not the paper's claim): because the bijection is equivariant, the pipeline may extend to coherent superpositions across different particle numbers or statistics sectors, but the algorithm as stated fixes λ and σ.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a universal protocol for preparing first-quantized, symmetry-adapted initial states from second-quantized occupation-number superpositions. The core idea is to use the Jordan–Schwinger map to identify Fock occupation states with su(d) weight states inside the Schur–Weyl decomposition, prepare a superposition of the corresponding Schur labels via a block-encoded LCU, and then apply an inverse quantum Schur transform. The authors claim that the method applies to fermions, bosons, and Green's paraparticles of arbitrary order, in arbitrary single-particle bases, with non-Clifford gate complexity poly(L, N, log d, log ε^{-1}) for the most efficient variant when preparing L configurations of N particles over d modes. The paper includes a detailed resource model for the BCH Schur transform, LCU block encoding, and end-to-end Toffoli-equivalent costs, as well as a Supplemental Material with a concrete U(3) example and pseudocode for converting Dynkin weights to Gelfand–Tsetlin patterns.

Significance. If correct, the fermion and boson version of the construction is a clean and valuable contribution: Eq. (5) is invertible on the multiplicity-free sectors, the inverse Schur transform maps label states to determinants/permanents, and the resource estimates place the scheme within practical ranges for first-quantized simulation pipelines. The Supplemental Material is unusually detailed and self-contained, with explicit pseudocode, register encodings, error budgets, and reproducibility-friendly formulas for Toffoli-equivalent counts. The paper is also honest about the contested status of the high-dimensional Schur transform. However, the claimed universality for Green's paraparticles is contradicted by the paper's own Table S1, and the strongest complexity statement rests on an unverified external construction. These issues need to be resolved before the main claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III, Table S1, Eq. (5)] The central claim of an equivariant bijection between Fock occupations and Schur-basis labels is false for Green's paraparticles. For λ=(2,1,0), N=d=3, the Fock state |1,1,1⟩ has Dynkin weight z=(0,0), which corresponds to two GT patterns, (2,0;1) and (1,1;1), within each σ copy, as Table S1 itself shows. These are distinct computational-basis superpositions, e.g., (|012⟩−|120⟩)/√2 vs (|021⟩−|210⟩)/√2. Eq. (5) maps occupations only to Dynkin weights, not to a unique Schur-basis state. Algorithm S1 resolves the degeneracy by an arbitrary deterministic convention, so Algorithm 1 prepares a state that is not a function of the input occupation number. Dimension counting confirms the impossibility: the order-2 paraboson sector has dimension 10+16=26, while there are only C(5,2)=10 occupation configurations. The universality claim for parastatistics is therefore contradicted by the paper's own
  2. [Abstract and Algorithm 1 (Time complexity)] The abstract's 'most efficient variant' complexity poly(L,N,log d,log ε^{-1}) is not established. It relies on the high-dimensional Schur transform of Ref. [39], whose correctness the paper notes has been questioned; the corrected version [40] is cited but not verified or reproduced. Algorithm 1's own time-complexity statement is poly(L,N,d,log ε^{-1}), consistent with the BCH transform but not with the abstract. The authors should either provide a proof or detailed verification of the corrected high-dimensional transform, or state the strongest established theorem as poly(L,N,d,log ε^{-1}) and present the poly(log d) scaling as conditional on an external result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table S1 caption] The column header 'GT (x,y;z)' uses z both for the third GT coordinate and for the Dynkin weight; the compressed notation (x,y;k) is introduced in the text but not used consistently in the table. This is confusing and should be cleaned up.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] All panels assume an equal superposition so that ℓ1=√L. For arbitrary normalized superpositions, ℓ1=Σ|c_i| can be larger (up to √L) depending on phase alignment; please state this assumption explicitly in the main text as well as the caption.
  3. [Eq. (8) and Algorithm 1, Step 3] The LCU block-encoding step assumes that the coefficients c_i are classically known and that the Pauli strings X(λ,μ,σ) are precomputed. The paper does not discuss the classical cost of generating these strings or of running DynkinToGT for each configuration; a brief statement about this classical preprocessing cost would improve completeness.
  4. [Supplemental Material, §IV] Algorithm S1 is described as 'sufficient for our purposes,' but the main text calls the map an equivariant bijection. The Supplemental acknowledgment that 'the inverse problem of reconstructing (x,y;k) from z is degenerate' directly conflicts with the main-text phrasing. This inconsistency should be resolved in revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the Fock-to-Schur preparation is a constructive algorithm built on external representation-theory and LCU facts; no prediction reduces to a fitted input.

full rationale

The central claim is an algorithm: given a Fock superposition, Eq. (5) computes Dynkin weights z_i = n_i - n_{i+1}; a standard Schur-Weyl decomposition supplies λ, GT patterns, and σ; an LCU over label states followed by an inverse quantum Schur transform produces the first-quantized state. This is a constructive reduction, not a fitted prediction: no parameter is adjusted to data, and the target state is not an input to the fit. Correctness rests on external Schur-transform algorithms [35,37,39,40] and standard LCU/QROAM techniques [46,64], which are independently checkable. The paper explicitly flags that Krovi's algorithm 'has recently been questioned, and a corrected version has been developed [40]'—a verification caveat, not a circular step. The use of the authors' prior LCU resource construction (Ref. [48]) is a subroutine for gate-count estimates; the block-encoding template is standard PREP-SEL-PREP from Refs. [46,64], so this self-citation is not load-bearing. The Table S1 degeneracy of |1,1,1> under mixed symmetry is a genuine scientific concern about the claimed paraparticle bijection, but it is a correctness/validity issue (the map is not a well-defined function), not a case of a prediction being equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore no circular step is established.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol relies on standard representation theory and on published quantum primitives. No free parameters are fitted. The two domain assumptions that are not proven in the paper are the mapping for degenerate paraparticle weights and the correctness of the corrected high-dimensional Schur transform at the claimed complexity.

axioms (6)
  • standard math Schur-Weyl duality: (C^d)^⊗N decomposes as ⊕_λ V_λ^{U(d)} ⊗ V_λ^{S_N}
    Invoked in Eq. (6) and throughout; textbook result.
  • domain assumption The Jordan-Schwinger map Φ(X)=Σ_{p,q} X_{p,q} a†_p a_q is a Lie algebra homomorphism for bosons, fermions, and Green's paraparticles
    Eqs. (2)-(4). Standard for bosons/fermions; for paraparticles the paper cites [31] but does not prove that the map closes on u(d) for order-p statistics.
  • domain assumption Fock occupation numbers n are in bijection with su(d) Dynkin weights via z_i = n_i - n_{i+1} under fixed total N
    Eq. (5). True for multiplicity-free sectors (fermion/boson), but for mixed symmetry the weight space is degenerate and the bijection to a unique Schur label fails; cf. Table S1.
  • domain assumption Green's parastatistics of order p correspond to Young diagrams with at most p rows (parabosons) or p columns (parafermions)
    Asserted after Eq. (6); no proof or reference establishing the equivalence for arbitrary p is given.
  • domain assumption There is an efficient, correct inverse quantum Schur transform with the claimed complexity (BCH poly(N,d,log ε^{-1}); or Krovi/Burchardt et al. poly(N,log d,log ε^{-1}))
    Used in Eq. (7) and the complexity analysis; the paper notes Krovi's correctness was questioned and relies on corrected Ref [40] without verification.
  • standard math Block encoding via clean-ancilla QROAM alias sampling prepares the LCU to accuracy ε_prep and OAA succeeds deterministically
    Eq. (8) and Sec. VI; standard techniques from Refs [46,64-68].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24643 in / 21361 out tokens · 180728 ms · 2026-08-04T10:59:15.127437+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Preparing symmetry-adapted initial states is a principal bottleneck in first-quantized quantum simulation. We present a universal approach that efficiently maps any polynomial-size superposition of occupation-number configurations to the first-quantized representation on a digital quantum computer. The method exploits the Jordan--Schwinger Lie algebra homomorphism, which identifies number-conserving second-quantized operators with their first-quantized action and induces an equivariant bijection between Fock occupations and $\mathfrak{su}(d)$ weight states within the Schur--Weyl decomposition. Operationally, we deterministically prepare an superposition of target Schur labels and apply the inverse quantum Schur transform. For $L$ configurations of $N$ particles over $d$ modes prepared to accuracy $\epsilon$, the most efficient variant of the algorithm runs with non-Clifford gate complexity $\mathrm{poly}(L, N, \log d, \log \epsilon^{-1})$. The protocol applies universally to fermions, bosons, and Green's paraparticles in arbitrary single-particle bases. Resource estimates establish practicality within leading first-quantized pipelines, with statistics-aware specializations promising further reductions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.07278 by Gaurav Saxena, Jack S. Baker, Thi Ha Kyaw.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schur–Weyl decomposition of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Resource estimates for universal first-quantized state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Such a superposition may be chosen directly or obtained as the output of a classical algorithm

    Specify the target initial state as a normal- ized superposition of L occupation-number basis states, |ψ⟩ = PL i=1 ci |n⟩i, each with fixed par- ticle number N . Such a superposition may be chosen directly or obtained as the output of a classical algorithm

  2. [2]

    Map each |n⟩i to the Schur basis using Eq

    Impose the particle statistics by selecting the appropriate Young diagram λ. Map each |n⟩i to the Schur basis using Eq. (5) to obtain Dynkin labels z, convert these to GT patterns µ (see the Supplemental Material), and (for parastatistics) assign labels σ. This yields |ψ⟩λ,σ Schur = PL i=1 ci |λ, µi, σ⟩

  3. [3]

    Encode the Schur labels (e.g., via binary or Gray codes) and construct the LCU operatorB λ,σ

  4. [4]

    Implement the block encoding in Eq. (8), suc- ceeding with probability 1 /ℓ2 1 in the repeated- until-success (RUS) variant, or with probabil- ity 1 using oblivious amplitude amplification (OAA), which increases circuit depth by O(ℓ1)

  5. [5]

    type vectors

    Apply the inverse quantum Schur transform U −1 Schur (Eq. (7)). Output:Target initial state in first quantization on the system register. Time complexity:poly(L, N, d,logϵ−1). Superposition states can be prepared by applying U −1 Schur to arbitrary normalized superpositions of Schur labels, |ψ⟩λ,σ Schur = PL i=1 ci |λ, µi, σ⟩, ci ∈C , where we fix λ and σ...

  6. [6]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature607, 667–676 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    S. Lee, J. Lee, H. Zhai, Y. Tong, A. M. Dalzell, A. Kumar, P. Helms, J. Gray, Z.-H. Cui, W. Liu, M. Kastoryano, R. Babbush, J. Preskill, D. R. Reichman, E. T. Campbell, E. F. Valeev, L. Lin, and G. K.-L. Chan, Evaluating the evidence for exponential quantum advantage in ground-state quantum chemistry, Nature Communications14, 10.1038/s41467-023-37587-6 (2023). 21

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37587-6 2023

  8. [8]

    2.Gcontains an identity elementesuch thatea=ae=a,∀a∈G

    The law of composition obeys associativity, i.e.,(ab)c=a(bc),∀a, b, c∈G. 2.Gcontains an identity elementesuch thatea=ae=a,∀a∈G

  9. [9]

    A group is calledabelianif the law of composition is commutative

    Every elementa∈Gmust have an inverseb∈Gsuch thatab=ba=e. A group is calledabelianif the law of composition is commutative. Theorderof a group is the number of elements it contains. If the order is finite (infinite), G is said to be a finite (infinite) group.Lie groupsare an example of infinite groups that are also continuous. Formally, they are defined as...

  10. [10]

    = l nµ k′ 1 m + nµ 2 (k′ 1 −1) + l nµ k′ 2 m +k ′ 2.(S73) A near-optimal choice that balances the standard space-time tradeoff is given by Eq. S70. Ancilla (qubit) cost.We require QSEL-anc(nµ;k ′ 1, k′

  11. [11]

    Repeat-until-success We analyze the simple, measurement-based realization of the block encoding in which the ancilla is measured and we postselect on the all-zero outcome

    = max nµ (k′ 1 −1) + l log2 nµ k′ 1 m , k ′ 2 + l log2 nµ k′ 2 m .(S74) D. Repeat-until-success We analyze the simple, measurement-based realization of the block encoding in which the ancilla is measured and we postselect on the all-zero outcome. We call this the repeat-until-success (RUS) variant. Recall that we hold λ and σ fixed and only construct the ...

  12. [12]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, inFeynman and computation(cRc Press, 2018) pp. 133–153

    2018

  13. [13]

    Georgescu, S

    I. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153–185 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    McArdle, S

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

    2020

  15. [15]

    Alexeev, M

    Y. Alexeev, M. Amsler, M. A. Barroca, S. Bassini, T. Battelle, Camps,et al., Quantum-centric supercomputing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions, Future Generation Computer Systems160, 666–710 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulation of fundamental particles and forces, Nature Reviews Physics5, 420–432 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Fomichev, K

    S. Fomichev, K. Hejazi, M. S. Zini, M. Kiser, J. Fraxanet, P. A. M. Casares, A. Delgado, J. Huh, A.-C. Voigt, J. E. Mueller, and J. M. Arrazola, Initial state preparation for quantum chemistry on quantum computers, PRX Quantum5, 10.1103/prxquantum.5.040339 (2024)

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.040339 2024

  18. [18]

    D. W. Berry, Y. Tong, T. Khattar, A. White, T. I. Kim, G. H. Low, S. Boixo, Z. Ding, L. Lin, S. Lee, G. K.-L. Chan, R. Babbush, and N. C. Rubin, Rapid initial-state preparation for the quantum simulation of strongly correlated molecules, PRX Quantum6, 10.1103/prxquantum.6.020327 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.020327 2025

  19. [19]

    Lanes, M

    O. Lanes, M. Beji, A. D. Corcoles, C. Dalyac, J. M. Gambetta, L. Henriet, A. Javadi-Abhari, A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, C. Porter, S. Sheldon, J. Watrous, C. Zoufal, A. Dauphin, and B. Peropadre, A framework for quantum advantage (2025), arXiv:2506.20658 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, inProceedings of 37th conference on foundations of computer science (IEEE, 1996) pp. 56–65

    1996

  21. [21]

    Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation, Physical Review A57, 127 (1998)

    D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation, Physical Review A57, 127 (1998)

    1998

  22. [22]

    Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics60, 226–245 (2019)

    J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics60, 226–245 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  24. [24]

    Katabarwa, K

    A. Katabarwa, K. Gratsea, A. Caesura, and P. D. Johnson, Early fault-tolerant quantum computing, PRX Quantum5, 10.1103/prxquantum.5.020101 (2024)

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020101 2024

  25. [25]

    Babbush, J

    R. Babbush, J. McClean, D. Wecker, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and N. Wiebe, Chemical basis of trotter-suzuki errors in quantum chemistry simulation, Physical Review A91, 10.1103/physreva.91.022311 (2015)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.91.022311 2015

  26. [26]

    driving new exotic behaviour and have recently been simulated in trapped-ion experiments [ 27]. Taken to- gether, these setbacks leave first-quantized initial-state preparation well behind its second-quantized counter- part, which (with trivial modification) may uniformly prepare arbitrary superpositions of particle configurations for fermions, bosons, an...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Quantum simulation of electronic structure with linear depth and connectivity, Physical Review Letters120, 10.1103/physrevlett.120.110501 (2018)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.110501 2018

  28. [28]

    N. M. Tubman, C. Mejuto-Zaera, J. M. Epstein, D. Hait, D. S. Levine, W. Huggins, Z. Jiang, J. R. McClean, R. Babbush, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley, Postponing the orthogonality catastrophe: efficient state preparation for electronic structure simulations on quantum devices (2018), arXiv:1809.05523 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Schwinger,On angular momentum, Tech

    J. Schwinger,On angular momentum, Tech. Rep. NYO-3071 (Harvard University, Nuclear Development Associates, Inc., United States Department of Energy, 1952)

    1952

  30. [30]

    Y. Su, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, N. Rubin, and R. Babbush, Fault-tolerant quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization, PRX Quantum2, 10.1103/prxquantum.2.040332 (2021)

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.040332 2021

  31. [31]

    D. W. Berry, N. C. Rubin, A. O. Elnabawy, G. Ahlers, A. E. DePrince, J. Lee, C. Gogolin, and R. Babbush, Quantum simulation of realistic materials in first quantization using non-local pseudopotentials, npj Quantum Information10, 10.1038/s41534-024-00896-9 (2024)

    doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00896-9 2024

  32. [32]

    D. W. Berry, M. Kieferov´ a, A. Scherer, Y. R. Sanders, G. H. Low, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, and R. Babbush, Improved techniques for preparing eigenstates of fermionic hamiltonians, npj Quantum Information4, 10.1038/s41534-018-0071-5 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-018-0071-5 2018

  33. [33]

    N. J. Ward, I. Kassal, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Preparation of many-body states for quantum simulation, The Journal of Chemical Physics130, 10.1063/1.3115177 (2009)

    doi:10.1063/1.3115177 2009

  34. [34]

    W. J. Huggins, O. Leimkuhler, T. F. Stetina, and K. B. Whaley, Efficient state preparation for the quantum simulation of molecules in first quantization, PRX Quantum6, 10.1103/prxquantum.6.020319 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.020319 2025

  35. [35]

    T. N. Georges, M. Bothe, C. S¨ underhauf, B. K. Berntson, R. Izs´ ak, and A. V. Ivanov, Quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization with any basis set, npj Quantum Information11, 10.1038/s41534-025-00987-1 (2025)

    doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00987-1 2025

  36. [36]

    H. S. Green, A generalized method of field quantization, Phys. Rev.90, 270 (1953)

    1953

  37. [37]

    Wang and K

    Z. Wang and K. R. A. Hazzard, Particle exchange statistics beyond fermions and bosons, Nature637, 314–318 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Huerta Alderete and B

    C. Huerta Alderete and B. M. Rodr ´ ıguez-Lara, Simulating para-fermi oscillators, Sci. Rep.8, 11572 (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    Jordan, Der zusammenhang der symmetrischen und linearen gruppen und das mehrk¨ orperproblem, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 94, 531–535 (1935)

    P. Jordan, Der zusammenhang der symmetrischen und linearen gruppen und das mehrk¨ orperproblem, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 94, 531–535 (1935)

    1935

  40. [40]

    Burchardt, J

    A. Burchardt, J. Fei, D. Grinko, M. Larocca, M. Ozols, S. Timmerman, and V. Visnevskyi, High-dimensional quantum schur transforms (2025), arXiv:2509.22640 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    , d−1} ∪ {Ei,j |i̸ = j, i, j= 1,

    BCW = {Hi |i = 1, . . . , d−1} ∪ {Ei,j |i̸ = j, i, j= 1, . . . , d}with Cartan generators Hi = Ei,i −E i+1,i+1 and root operators Ei,j = (δikδjl)d k,l=1. Under Φ, the images 3 of these generators are Λi,j = ( a† i aj, i̸=j, i, j∈ {1, . . . d} a† i ai −a † i+1ai+1, i=j, i∈ {1, . . . d−1}. (3) Extending to u(d) ∼= su(d) ⊕u (1) amounts to including the centr...

  42. [42]

    Man’ko, G

    V. Man’ko, G. Marmo, P. Vitale, and F. Zaccaria, A generalization of the jordan-schwinger map: The classical verion and its q deformation, International Journal of Modern Physics A09, 5541–5561 (1994)

    1994

  43. [43]

    Dubus, T

    B. Dubus, T. Haas, and N. J. Cerf, From bosons and fermions to spins: A multi-mode extension of the jordan-schwinger map (2024), arXiv:2411.04918 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Itzykson and M

    C. Itzykson and M. Nauenberg, Unitary groups: Representations and decompositions, Reviews of Modern Physics38, 95–120 (1966)

    1966

  45. [45]

    D. J. Rowe, M. J. Carvalho, and J. Repka, Dual pairing of symmetry and dynamical groups in physics, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 711–757 (2012)

    2012

  46. [46]

    Mathur and H

    M. Mathur and H. S. Mani, Su(n) coherent states, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 5351–5364 (2002)

    2002

  47. [47]

    Bacon, I

    D. Bacon, I. L. Chuang, and A. W. Harrow, The quantum schur transform: I. efficient qudit circuits (2005), arXiv:quant- ph/0601001 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2005

  48. [48]

    A. W. Harrow, Applications of coherent classical communication and the schur transform to quantum information theory (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0512255 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  49. [49]

    Bacon, I

    D. Bacon, I. L. Chuang, and A. W. Harrow, Efficient quantum circuits for schur and clebsch-gordan transforms, Physical Review Letters97, 10.1103/physrevlett.97.170502 (2006)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.170502 2006

  50. [50]

    W. M. Kirby and F. W. Strauch, A practical quantum algorithm for the schur transform, Quantum Information and Computation18, 721–742 (2018)

    2018

  51. [51]

    Krovi, An efficient high dimensional quantum schur transform, Quantum3, 122 (2019)

    H. Krovi, An efficient high dimensional quantum schur transform, Quantum3, 122 (2019). 22

    2019

  52. [52]

    A. W. Knapp,Lie Groups: Beyond an Introduction, digital second edition ed. (Self published, 2023) cartan–Weyl description forSU(d): see Section II.1 (Classical root-space decompositions)

    2023

  53. [53]

    Feniou, C

    C. Feniou, C. Cherfan, J. Zylberman, B. Claudon, J.-P. Piquemal, and E. Giner, Real-space chemistry on quantum computers: A fault-tolerant algorithm with adaptive grids and transcorrelated extension (2025), arXiv:2507.20583 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Commuting Algebras on Tensor Spaces

    R. Goodman and N. R. Wallach,Representations and Invariants of the Classical Groups, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 68 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998) for a Schur–Weyl duality treatment, see Ch. 10 “Commuting Algebras on Tensor Spaces”

    1998

  55. [55]

    I. M. Gelfand and M. L. Tsetlin, Finite-dimensional representations of the group of unimodular matrices, inDokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vol. 71 (1950) p. 825

    1950

  56. [56]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010) see Secs. 4.5.1–4.5.2 for two-level unitaries and universality (decomposition of general d×d unitaries into qubit operations)

    2010

  57. [57]

    D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, M. Motta, J. R. McClean, and R. Babbush, Qubitization of Arbitrary Basis Quantum Chemistry Leveraging Sparsity and Low Rank Factorization, Quantum3, 208 (2019)

    2019

  58. [58]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction, Russian Mathematical Surveys52, 1191 (1997)

    1997

  59. [59]

    J. S. Baker, P. A. M. Casares, M. S. Zini, J. Thik, D. Banerjee, C. Ling, A. Delgado, and J. M. Arrazola, Simulating optically active spin defects with a quantum computer, Physical Review A110, 10.1103/physreva.110.032606 (2024)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.110.032606 2024

  60. [60]

    Burkat and N

    J. Burkat and N. Fitzpatrick, The quantum paldus transform: Efficient circuits with applications (2025), arXiv:2506.09151 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    S. Gu, R. D. Somma, and B. S ¸ahino˘ glu, Fast-forwarding quantum evolution, Quantum5, 577 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    Fulton and J

    W. Fulton and J. Harris,Representation Theory(Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2004)

    2004

  63. [63]

    A. N. Sengupta,Representing Finite Groups(Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2012)

    2012

  64. [64]

    Bacon, I

    D. Bacon, I. L. Chuang, and A. W. Harrow, Efficient quantum circuits for schur and clebsch–gordan transforms, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 170502 (2006), quant-ph/0601001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  65. [65]

    Biane, Representations of unitary groups and free probability, Advances in Mathematics138, 126 (1998)

    P. Biane, Representations of unitary groups and free probability, Advances in Mathematics138, 126 (1998)

    1998

  66. [66]

    Collins and P

    B. Collins and P. ´Sniady, Integration with respect to the haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic group, Communications in Mathematical Physics264, 773 (2006)

    2006

  67. [67]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  68. [68]

    Bocharov, M

    A. Bocharov, M. Roetteler, and K. M. Svore, Efficient synthesis of universal repeat-until-success quantum circuits, Physical Review Letters114, 080502 (2015), arXiv:1404.5320

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  69. [69]

    S. A. Cuccaro, T. G. Draper, S. A. Kutin, and D. P. Moulton, A new quantum ripple-carry addition circuit, arXiv:quant- ph/0410184 (2004)

    arXiv 2004

  70. [70]

    Gidney, Halving the cost of quantum addition, Quantum2, 74 (2018), arXiv:1709.06648

    C. Gidney, Halving the cost of quantum addition, Quantum2, 74 (2018), arXiv:1709.06648

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    R. P. Brent and P. Zimmermann,Modern Computer Arithmetic(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  72. [72]

    J. E. Volder, The cordic trigonometric computing technique, IRE Trans. Electronic ComputersEC-8, 330 (1959)

    1959

  73. [73]

    J. S. Walther, A unified algorithm for elementary functions, Spring Joint Computer Conference (AFIPS)38, 379 (1971)

    1971

  74. [74]

    P. K. Meher, J. Valls, T.-B. Juang, K. Sridharan, and K. Maharatna, 50 years of cordic: Algorithms, architectures, and applications, IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers56, 1893 (2009)

    2009

  75. [75]

    D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, M. Motta, J. R. McClean, and R. Babbush, Qubitization of arbitrary basis quantum chemistry to exponential precision, Quantum3, 208 (2019), advanced QROM/QROAM, clean-ancilla constructions and coherent alias sampling used for PREP

    2019

  76. [76]

    J. S. Baker, P. A. M. Casares, M. S. Zini, J. Thik, D. Banerjee, C. Ling, A. Delgado, and J. M. Arrazola, Simulating optically active spin defects with a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A110, 032606 (2024)

    2024

  77. [77]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series, Physical Review Letters114, 090502 (2015)

    2015

  78. [78]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, inProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)(ACM, 2019) pp. 193–204, arXiv:1806.01838

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Høyer, Arbitrary phases in quantum amplitude amplification, Phys

    P. Høyer, Arbitrary phases in quantum amplitude amplification, Phys. Rev. A62, 052304 (2000)

    2000