pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18877 · v1 · pith:BHPQTVXGnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🪐 quant-ph

Logical Resource Estimation for Quantum State Preparation with Compilation

Diyi Liu , Hanyu Wang , Shuchen Zhu , Jason Cong , Wibe A. de Jong , Di Fang , Zhen Huang , Costin Iancu
show 1 more author
Chao Yang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 17:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum state preparationT-countsampling-based methodsrotation-based methodsquantum compilationresource estimationreal-amplitude states
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sampling-based methods prepare n-qubit real-amplitude states with asymptotically lower T-count than rotation-based approaches, and keep the edge after total gate count and compilation costs.

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

The paper compares two standard ways to load classical data into the amplitudes of an n-qubit quantum state: rotation-based circuits that apply sequences of controlled rotations, and sampling-based circuits that use a structured representation of the target amplitudes. It measures both methods by T-count, by total gate count, and by the overhead that appears when a compiler turns the abstract circuit into a form suitable for hardware. Numerical tests on resource states and on states drawn from chemistry, condensed-matter models, and Magnus-expansion simulations show that the sampling route uses fewer T gates for large n and still wins on overall resources once compilation is included. Because state preparation sits at the start of many quantum algorithms, a consistent cost reduction here would lower the barrier for running those algorithms at scale.

Core claim

The authors show that sampling-based methods for preparing general n-qubit states with real amplitudes achieve asymptotically lower T-count than rotation-based methods. After the total gate count and the overhead introduced by compilation are taken into account, the sampling-based circuits retain a practical advantage across the tested accuracies and application domains.

What carries the argument

Direct comparison of rotation-based circuits (controlled rotations) versus sampling-based circuits (structured amplitude representation), evaluated on T-count, total gate count, and post-compilation resources using a dedicated state-preparation compiler.

If this is right

  • For large n the T-count advantage of sampling grows, reducing the dominant cost in fault-tolerant regimes.
  • The overall resource win survives compilation, so the advantage is not erased by practical implementation steps.
  • The developed compiler subroutine can be dropped into larger quantum algorithms that need state preparation.
  • The relative ordering holds for states arising in chemistry, condensed-matter, and Magnus-expansion simulations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the advantage persists for complex amplitudes or for states with known structure, sampling methods could become the default starting point for state-preparation subroutines.
  • The result suggests that resource estimates for end-to-end algorithms should be recomputed using sampling-based preparation rather than rotation-based defaults.
  • Hardware teams could prioritize compilation passes that exploit the structured form used in sampling methods.

Load-bearing premise

The states chosen for numerical tests are representative of arbitrary n-qubit real-amplitude states, and the modeled compilation overhead accurately reflects the cost that would appear on real hardware.

What would settle it

A single counter-example: an n-qubit real state (n large) for which the compiled sampling-based circuit requires more T gates or more total resources than the compiled rotation-based circuit at the target accuracy.

read the original abstract

Quantum state preparation is a fundamental primitive in quantum algorithms for encoding classical data into quantum amplitudes. We compare the cost of preparing general $n$-qubit states with real amplitudes using two common paradigms: rotation-based methods, based on controlled rotations, and sampling-based methods, based on a structured representation of the target state. Although these approaches are often theoretically compared using CNOT count and $T$-count, their relative performance in total gate count remains less well understood practically. We compare representative rotation-based and sampling-based methods using $T$-count and total gate count, and analyze how compilation overhead affects their relative performance. We also develop a software package for compiling state preparation circuits, designed as a practical subroutine for more general quantum computations. Numerical experiments on resource states and quantum states related to quantum chemistry, condensed matter physics, and simulation via Magnus expansion over a range of target accuracies $\epsilon$ support the analysis. Our results show that sampling-based methods achieve asymptotically lower $T$-count and retain an overall advantage after accounting for total gate count and compilation overhead.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares rotation-based and sampling-based methods for preparing general n-qubit states with real amplitudes. It evaluates their performance using T-count and total gate count, analyzes the impact of compilation overhead, and reports numerical experiments on resource states plus states drawn from quantum chemistry, condensed matter physics, and Magnus-expansion simulations across a range of target accuracies. The authors conclude that sampling-based methods achieve asymptotically lower T-count and retain an overall advantage after accounting for total gate count and compilation overhead; they also present a software package for compiling state-preparation circuits.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies practical resource-estimation guidance for a core primitive in quantum algorithms and demonstrates that sampling-based approaches can remain preferable once realistic compilation costs are included. The provision of a dedicated compilation tool and the cross-domain numerical benchmarking constitute concrete strengths that could be directly useful to practitioners.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and numerical experiments] Abstract and § on numerical experiments: the headline claim that sampling-based methods 'retain an overall advantage after accounting for total gate count and compilation overhead' for general n-qubit real-amplitude states rests on experiments performed on resource states and on structured families (chemistry, condensed matter, Magnus expansion). These families typically admit sparsity or locality that can reduce the effective cost of the structured encoding used by sampling methods. For a generic state lacking such structure the sampling overhead (including compilation) could grow faster than the rotation baseline, potentially reversing the observed advantage. This generality gap is load-bearing for the central comparison and requires either additional benchmarks on unstructured random states or an explicit qualification of the claim's scope.
minor comments (2)
  1. The description of the developed software package would benefit from explicit statements on public availability, input/output formats, and how the modeled compilation overhead (routing, mapping, synthesis) is implemented.
  2. [Methods] Details on exact benchmarking procedures, data-exclusion criteria, and error-bar computation for the reported T-count and gate-count comparisons would improve verifiability of the numerical support.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We respond to the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and § on numerical experiments: the headline claim that sampling-based methods 'retain an overall advantage after accounting for total gate count and compilation overhead' for general n-qubit real-amplitude states rests on experiments performed on resource states and on structured families (chemistry, condensed matter, Magnus expansion). These families typically admit sparsity or locality that can reduce the effective cost of the structured encoding used by sampling methods. For a generic state lacking such structure the sampling overhead (including compilation) could grow faster than the rotation baseline, potentially reversing the observed advantage. This generality gap is load-bearing for the central comparison and requires either additional benchmarks on unstructured random states or an explicit qualification of the claim's scope.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important consideration. Our asymptotic T-count analysis for sampling-based methods is general and holds for arbitrary real-amplitude states, scaling with the effective support size of the amplitude vector rather than assuming sparsity. The numerical experiments focus on resource states and application-derived families (chemistry, condensed matter, Magnus expansions) because these reflect the structured states typically encountered in quantum algorithms, where sampling methods can exploit locality or sparsity. We acknowledge that for fully dense, unstructured random states the compilation overhead could diminish or reverse the total-gate-count advantage at finite n and epsilon. To address the concern, we will add an explicit qualification to the abstract and numerical-experiments section, stating that the observed overall advantage after compilation is demonstrated for the classes of states studied, which are representative of practical use cases. We will also include a brief remark on expected behavior for random states and note that our open-source compiler enables such tests. This constitutes a partial revision. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; claims rest on independent numerical benchmarking of distinct circuit families

full rationale

The paper compares rotation-based and sampling-based state preparation via T-count, total gate count, and modeled compilation overhead. Its central results are obtained from numerical experiments on resource states plus states drawn from chemistry, condensed matter, and Magnus-expansion simulation. These experiments constitute external data relative to the two circuit families rather than any fitted parameter inside the same equations or a self-citation chain that is itself unverified. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a definition, a renamed known result, or an ansatz imported only from the authors' prior work. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard quantum circuit cost models and previously published state-preparation constructions without introducing new free parameters, axioms, or postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5733 in / 1078 out tokens · 43911 ms · 2026-05-20T17:27:59.337703+00:00 · methodology

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

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Introduction.Quantum state preparation is a fundamental subroutine in quantum computing, whose goal is to encode classical data into a quantum state for subsequent algorithmic tasks. In quantum simulation, quantum state preparation is often used to construct prepare or amplitude oracles within the block-encoding framework [1–5], serving as essential primi...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    T-count” refers to the compiled Clifford+T T-count rather than the logical proxyT proxy. Likewise, every figure label that says “total gate count

    State preparation algorithms.We write the target state as (2.1)|ψ⟩= L−1X j=0 αj |j⟩, α j ∈R, L−1X j=0 α2 j = 1, L= 2 n, wherenis the number of qubits. For a comprehensive introduction to the bra-ket no- tation used in this work, we refer the reader to [26]. Both in this paper and the accom- LOGICAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION FOR QUANTUM STATE PREPARATION3 panyin...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Theory.This section makes the qualitative trade-off between rotation-based and sampling-based preparation precise. Rotation-based methods incur per-rotation Clifford+Tsynthesis cost but no discretization error; sampling-based methods incur ab-bit discretization error but avoid rotation synthesis entirely. We first discuss both costs in closed form forn= 1...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Numerical experiments.In this section, we compare the two algorithmic families—dense and sparse rotation-based preparation versus sampling-based alias sampling with two backends—across several benchmark states, and we report the resulting logical resource estimates. 4.1. Structured andT-friendly benchmarks. W and Dicke states.We first benchmark three stru...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Discussion and conclusion.Quantum state preparation is a basic subrou- tine in many quantum algorithms, and its practical cost can strongly affect end-to- end algorithmic performance. In this work, we compared representative rotation- based and sampling-based methods for preparing generaln-qubit states with real amplitudes, with an emphasis on resource me...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quan- tum signal processing.Physical Review Letters, 118(1):010501, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Quantum sin- gular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics

    Andr´ as Gily´ en, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum sin- gular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. InProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 193–204. Association for Computing Machinery, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    An efficient quan- tum circuit for block encoding a pairing hamiltonian.Journal of Computational Science, 85:102480, 2025

    Diyi Liu, Weijie Du, Lin Lin, James P Vary, and Chao Yang. An efficient quan- tum circuit for block encoding a pairing hamiltonian.Journal of Computational Science, 85:102480, 2025

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 45(1):801–827, 2024

    Daan Camps, Lin Lin, Roel Van Beeumen, and Chao Yang. Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 45(1):801–827, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Block encoding with low gate count for second-quantized

    Diyi Liu, Shuchen Zhu, Guang Hao Low, Lin Lin, and Chao Yang. Block en- coding with low gate count for second-quantized hamiltonians.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08644, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations.Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009

    Aram W Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations.Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    Variable time amplitude amplification and quantum algorithms for linear algebra problems

    Andris Ambainis. Variable time amplitude amplification and quantum algorithms for linear algebra problems. InSTACS’12 (29th Symposium on Theoretical As- pects of Computer Science), volume 14, pages 636–647. LIPIcs, 2012

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on pre- cision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

    Andrew M Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D Somma. Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on pre- cision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

    work page 1920

  14. [14]

    Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm.Physical review letters, 110(25):250504, 2013

    B David Clader, Bryan C Jacobs, and Chad R Sprouse. Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm.Physical review letters, 110(25):250504, 2013

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Quantum linear system algorithm for dense matrices.Physical review letters, 120(5):050502, 2018

    Leonard Wossnig, Zhikuan Zhao, and Anupam Prakash. Quantum linear system algorithm for dense matrices.Physical review letters, 120(5):050502, 2018

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Optimal scaling quantum linear-systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem.PRX quantum, 3(4):040303, 2022

    Pedro CS Costa, Dong An, Yuval R Sanders, Yuan Su, Ryan Babbush, and Dominic W Berry. Optimal scaling quantum linear-systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem.PRX quantum, 3(4):040303, 2022

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Quantum linear system algorithm with optimal queries to initial state preparation.Quantum, 10:2041, 2026

    Guang Hao Low and Yuan Su. Quantum linear system algorithm with optimal queries to initial state preparation.Quantum, 10:2041, 2026. LOGICAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION FOR QUANTUM STATE PREPARATION21

    work page 2041

  18. [18]

    Quantum algorithms and the finite element method.Physical Review A, 93(3):032324, 2016

    Ashley Montanaro and Sam Pallister. Quantum algorithms and the finite element method.Physical Review A, 93(3):032324, 2016

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation.Physical Review A, 99(1):012323, 2019

    Pedro CS Costa, Stephen Jordan, and Aaron Ostrander. Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation.Physical Review A, 99(1):012323, 2019

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Childs and Jin-Peng Liu

    Andrew M. Childs and Jin-Peng Liu. Quantum spectral methods for differential equations.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 375(2):1427–1457, 2020

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    High-precision quantum algorithms for partial differential equations.Quantum, 5:574, 2021

    Andrew M Childs, Jin-Peng Liu, and Aaron Ostrander. High-precision quantum algorithms for partial differential equations.Quantum, 5:574, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Quantum simulation of partial differential equa- tions via schrodingerisation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13969, 2022

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum simulation of partial differential equa- tions via schrodingerisation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13969, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Efficient quantum algorithm for nonlinear reaction–diffusion equations and energy estimation.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 404(2):963– 1020, 2023

    Jin-Peng Liu, Dong An, Di Fang, Jiasu Wang, Guang Hao Low, and Stephen Jordan. Efficient quantum algorithm for nonlinear reaction–diffusion equations and energy estimation.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 404(2):963– 1020, 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Ross and Peter Selinger

    Neil J. Ross and Peter Selinger. Optimal ancilla-free clifford+t approximation of z-rotations.Quantum Info. Comput., 16(11–12):901–953, September 2016

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Quantum state preparation with optimal t-count

    David Gosset, Robin Kothari, and Kewen Wu. Quantum state preparation with optimal t-count. InProceedings of the 2026 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 3378–3406. SIAM, 2026

    work page 2026

  26. [26]

    Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications.Physical Review Letters, 129(23):230504, 2022

    Xiao-Ming Zhang, Tongyang Li, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications.Physical Review Letters, 129(23):230504, 2022

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Optimal (controlled) quantum state preparation and improved unitary synthesis by quantum circuits with any number of ancillary qubits.Quantum, 7:956, 2023

    Pei Yuan and Shengyu Zhang. Optimal (controlled) quantum state preparation and improved unitary synthesis by quantum circuits with any number of ancillary qubits.Quantum, 7:956, 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Spacetime-efficient low-depth quantum state preparation with applications.Quantum, 8:1257, 2024

    Kaiwen Gui, Alexander M Dalzell, Alessandro Achille, Martin Suchara, and Fred- eric T Chong. Spacetime-efficient low-depth quantum state preparation with applications.Quantum, 8:1257, 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Trading T gates for dirty qubits in state preparation and unitary synthesis.Quantum, 8:1375, June 2024

    Guang Hao Low, Vadym Kliuchnikov, and Luke Schaeffer. Trading T gates for dirty qubits in state preparation and unitary synthesis.Quantum, 8:1375, June 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Quantum state preparation using an exact cnot synthesis formulation

    Hanyu Wang, Jason Cong, and Giovanni De Micheli. Quantum state preparation using an exact cnot synthesis formulation. In2024 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Cambridge university press, 2010

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang.Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    Surviving as a quantum computer in a classical world.Text- book manuscript preprint, 8(8.1):8–2, 2024

    Daniel Gottesman. Surviving as a quantum computer in a classical world.Text- book manuscript preprint, 8(8.1):8–2, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Jarrod Mc- Clean, Alexandru Paler, Austin Fowler, and Hartmut Neven

    Ryan Babbush, Craig Gidney, Dominic W. Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Jarrod Mc- Clean, Alexandru Paler, Austin Fowler, and Hartmut Neven. Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear t complexity.Phys. Rev. X, 8:041015, Oct 2018

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 71(2):022316, 2005

    Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev. Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 71(2):022316, 2005

    work page 2005

  35. [35]

    Magic-state distillation with low overhead

    Sergey Bravyi and Jeongwan Haah. Magic-state distillation with low overhead. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 86(5):052329, 2012

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    Multilevel distillation of magic states for quantum computing.Phys- ical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 87(4):042305, 2013

    Cody Jones. Multilevel distillation of magic states for quantum computing.Phys- ical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 87(4):042305, 2013

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    Magic 22D

    Jeongwan Haah, Matthew B Hastings, David Poulin, and Dave Wecker. Magic 22D. LIU, H. WANG, S.ZHU, ET AL. state distillation with low space overhead and optimal asymptotic input count. Quantum, 1:31, 2017

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Distillation with sublogarithmic over- head.Physical review letters, 120(5):050504, 2018

    Matthew B Hastings and Jeongwan Haah. Distillation with sublogarithmic over- head.Physical review letters, 120(5):050504, 2018

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation.Nature, 549(7671):172–179, 2017

    Earl T Campbell, Barbara M Terhal, and Christophe Vuillot. Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation.Nature, 549(7671):172–179, 2017

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think.Quantum, 3:205, 2019

    Daniel Litinski. Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think.Quantum, 3:205, 2019

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates

    Craig Gidney, Noah Shutty, and Cody Jones. Magic state cultivation: growing t states as cheap as cnot gates.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17595, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Efficient magic state cultivation on the surface code,

    Yotam Vaknin, Shoham Jacoby, Arne Grimsmo, and Alex Retzker. Efficient magic state cultivation on the surface code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01743, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    High rate magic state cultivation on the surface code.PRX Quantum, 7(1):010353, 2026

    Yotam Vaknin, Shoham Jacoby, Arne Grimsmo, and Alex Retzker. High rate magic state cultivation on the surface code.PRX Quantum, 7(1):010353, 2026

    work page 2026

  44. [44]

    Efficient magic state cultivation on rp 2.PRX Quantum, 7(1):010315, 2026

    Zi-Han Chen, Ming-Cheng Chen, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan. Efficient magic state cultivation on rp 2.PRX Quantum, 7(1):010315, 2026

    work page 2026

  45. [45]

    Constant-overhead magic state distillation.Nature Physics, 21(11):1842–1846, 2025

    Adam Wills, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, and Hayata Yamasaki. Constant-overhead magic state distillation.Nature Physics, 21(11):1842–1846, 2025

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Good binary quantum codes with transversal ccz gate

    Quynh T Nguyen. Good binary quantum codes with transversal ccz gate. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 697–706, 2025

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Magic state distillation using asymptotically good codes on qudits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21874, 2025

    Michael J Cervia, Henry Lamm, Diyi Liu, Edison M Murairi, and Shuchen Zhu. Magic state distillation using asymptotically good codes on qudits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21874, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Constant Overhead

    Daniel Gottesman. Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant overhead. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.2984, 2013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  49. [49]

    Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays.Nature Physics, 20(7):1084–1090, 2024

    Qian Xu, J Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Christopher A Pattison, Nithin Raveendran, Dolev Bluvstein, Jonathan Wurtz, Bane Vasi´ c, Mikhail D Lukin, Liang Jiang, and Hengyun Zhou. Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays.Nature Physics, 20(7):1084–1090, 2024

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Pablo, Bonilla Ataides, Hengyun Zhou, Qiang-Da Xu, Gefen Baranes, Bikun Li, Mikhail D

    J. Pablo, Bonilla Ataides, Hengyun Zhou, Qiang-Da Xu, Gefen Baranes, Bikun Li, Mikhail D. Lukin, and Liang Jiang. Constant-overhead fault-tolerant bell-pair distillation using high-rate codes.Physical review letters, 135 13:130804, 2025

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Smalley, Leigh Lap- worth, and Juan Miguel Arrazola

    Guillermo Alonso-Linaje, Utkarsh Azad, Jay Soni, Jarrett L. Smalley, Leigh Lap- worth, and Juan Miguel Arrazola. Quantum compilation framework for data loading.Quantum Science and Technology, 2025

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Michael D. Vose. A linear algorithm for generating random numbers with a given distribution.IEEE Transactions on software engineering, 17(9):972, 1991

    work page 1991

  53. [53]

    Sanders, Guang Hao Low, Artur Scherer, and Dominic W

    Yuval R. Sanders, Guang Hao Low, Artur Scherer, and Dominic W. Berry. Black- box quantum state preparation without arithmetic.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:020502, Jan 2019

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    Unified architecture for quantum lookup tables.Phys

    Shuchen Zhu, Aarthi Sundaram, and Guang Hao Low. Unified architecture for quantum lookup tables.Phys. Rev. Res., 7:043230, Dec 2025

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    Vartiainen, Ville Bergholm, and Martti M

    Mikko M¨ ott¨ onen, Juha J. Vartiainen, Ville Bergholm, and Martti M. Salomaa. Transformation of quantum states using uniformly controlled rotations.Quantum Info. Comput., 5(6):467–473, September 2005

    work page 2005

  56. [56]

    Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions.Phys

    Martin Plesch and ˇCaslav Brukner. Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions.Phys. Rev. A, 83:032302, Mar 2011

    work page 2011

  57. [57]

    Efficient deterministic preparation of quantum states LOGICAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION FOR QUANTUM STATE PREPARATION23 using decision diagrams.Physical Review A, 106(2):022617, 2022

    Fereshte Mozafari et al. Efficient deterministic preparation of quantum states LOGICAL RESOURCE ESTIMATION FOR QUANTUM STATE PREPARATION23 using decision diagrams.Physical Review A, 106(2):022617, 2022

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    An efficient algorithm for sparse quantum state preparation

    Niels Gleinig and Torsten Hoefler. An efficient algorithm for sparse quantum state preparation. In2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pages 433–438. IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    Nearly Optimal Circuit Size for Sparse Quantum State Preparation

    Lvzhou Li and Jingquan Luo. Nearly Optimal Circuit Size for Sparse Quantum State Preparation. In Keren Censor-Hillel, Fabrizio Grandoni, Jo¨ el Ouaknine, and Gabriele Puppis, editors,52nd International Colloquium on Automata, Lan- guages, and Programming (ICALP 2025), volume 334 ofLeibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 113:1–113:...

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik

    work page

  61. [61]

    Halving the cost of quantum addition.Quantum, 2:74, 2018

    Craig Gidney. Halving the cost of quantum addition.Quantum, 2:74, 2018

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    Fast and efficient exact synthesis of single-qubit unitaries generated by clifford and t gates.Quantum Info

    Vadym Kliuchnikov, Dmitri Maslov, and Michele Mosca. Fast and efficient exact synthesis of single-qubit unitaries generated by clifford and t gates.Quantum Info. Comput., 13(7–8):607–630, July 2013

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Remarks on matsumoto and amano’s normal form for single-qubit clifford+t operators, 2019

    Brett Giles and Peter Selinger. Remarks on matsumoto and amano’s normal form for single-qubit clifford+t operators, 2019

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac. Three qubits can be entangled in two inequiv- alent ways.Phys. Rev. A, 62:062314, Nov 2000

    work page 2000

  65. [65]

    R. H. Dicke. Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes.Phys. Rev., 93:99– 110, Jan 1954

    work page 1954

  66. [66]

    Prevedel, G

    R. Prevedel, G. Cronenberg, M. S. Tame, M. Paternostro, P. Walther, M. S. Kim, and A. Zeilinger. Experimental realization of dicke states of up to six qubits for multiparty quantum networking.Phys. Rev. Lett., 103:020503, Jul 2009

    work page 2009

  67. [67]

    SIAM, 2019

    Lin Lin and Jianfeng Lu.A mathematical introduction to electronic structure theory. SIAM, 2019

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    Solid state physics, 1976

    Neil W Ashcroft, N David Mermin, et al. Solid state physics, 1976

    work page 1976

  69. [69]

    Fault-tolerant quantum simulation of materials using bloch orbitals.PRX Quantum, 4(4):040303, 2023

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

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hypercontraction.PRX quantum, 2(3):030305, 2021

    Joonho Lee, Dominic W Berry, Craig Gidney, William J Huggins, Jarrod R McClean, Nathan Wiebe, and Ryan Babbush. Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hypercontraction.PRX quantum, 2(3):030305, 2021

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Berry, Craig Gidney, William J

    Joonho Lee, Dominic W. Berry, Craig Gidney, William J. Huggins, Jarrod R. McClean, Nathan Wiebe, and Ryan Babbush. Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hypercontraction.PRX Quantum, 2:030305, Jul 2021

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    https://github.com/AbInitioQHub/coqui,

    Coqu´ ı: Correlated quantum ´ ınterface. https://github.com/AbInitioQHub/coqui,

    work page

  73. [73]

    Low-scaling algorithm for the random phase approximation using tensor hypercontraction with k-point sampling.Jour- nal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 19(18):6197–6207, 2023

    Chia-Nan Yeh and Miguel A Morales. Low-scaling algorithm for the random phase approximation using tensor hypercontraction with k-point sampling.Jour- nal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 19(18):6197–6207, 2023

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    Chia-Nan Yeh and Miguel A Morales. Low-scaling algorithms for gw and con- strained random phase approximation using symmetry-adapted interpolative sep- arable density fitting.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 20(8):3184– 3198, 2024

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    The magnus expansion and some of its applications.Physics reports, 470(5-6):151–238, 2009

    Sergio Blanes, Fernando Casas, Jose-Angel Oteo, and Jos´ e Ros. The magnus expansion and some of its applications.Physics reports, 470(5-6):151–238, 2009

    work page 2009

  76. [76]

    Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation 24D

    Di Fang, Diyi Liu, and Rahul Sarkar. Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation 24D. LIU, H. WANG, S.ZHU, ET AL. via magnus expansion: Algorithm and superconvergence.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 406(6):128, 2025

    work page 2025

  77. [77]

    High-order magnus expansion for hamil- tonian simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06054, 2025

    Di Fang, Diyi Liu, and Shuchen Zhu. High-order magnus expansion for hamil- tonian simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06054, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation of highly oscillatory dynamics and superconvergence for schr¨ odinger equation

    Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin. Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation of highly oscillatory dynamics and superconvergence for schr¨ odinger equation. Quantum, 6:690, 2022

    work page 2022