Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that ansatz-free Hamiltonian structure and coefficients can be learned in situ with total evolution time Θ(Λ/ε² log(Λ/ε)), which is optimal for any control-free protocol, using only Pauli product state preparation and meas

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

2026-08-02 10:53 UTC pith:7ZLULIU4

load-bearing objection Conditional optimality is the real story: the abstract overstates a log-factor lower bound that only holds when Λ²/ε² ≤ O(n). the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.19486 v2 pith:7ZLULIU4 submitted 2026-06-17 quant-ph cs.ITcs.LGmath.IT

Optimal Ansatz-free Hamiltonian Learning In Situ

Taiqi Zhou , Weiyuan Gong This is my paper
classification quant-ph cs.ITcs.LGmath.IT MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.-a03.65.-w
keywords Hamiltonian learningansatz-freestandard quantum limitquantum metrologyPauli product measurementsstructure learningtime-evolution oracleoptimal scaling
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 establishes that an arbitrary bounded Hamiltonian on n qubits can be learned from real-time evolutions without quantum control, ancillary qubits, or any assumed interaction structure, using only Pauli product-state preparations and measurements, with total evolution time Θ(Λ/ε² log(Λ/ε)). This matches a lower bound the paper proves for all control-free protocols, so the cost is optimal: structure learning adds only a logarithmic factor over the standard quantum limit of quantum metrology. The protocol's probe times are O(1/Λ) and independent of the precision ε, which makes it attractive for high-precision in situ calibration and sensing. The paper also shows the algorithm remains asymptotically optimal under calibrated state-preparation-and-measurement noise for local Hamiltonians.

Core claim

The central claim is that the support and coefficients of an unknown ansatz-free Hamiltonian with operator norm bounded by Λ can be recovered to precision ε with total evolution time O((Λ/ε²) log(Λ/ε)), and that no control-free protocol can do better, so the algorithm is optimal. The proof uses a two-stage randomized-sampling approach: same-Pauli product measurements with times drawn from a band-limited kernel estimate the second-order derivative of autocorrelation functions, yielding a small candidate set of Pauli labels via a displacement sieve; then cross-Pauli measurements with random target bases provide unbiased signed estimates of all candidate coefficients simultaneously through pari

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a randomized kernel-based time sampling: evolution times are drawn from a probability distribution built from a smooth cutoff kernel KΛ (or LΛ) whose Fourier transform matches the second (or first) derivative of the band-limited correlation function on the spectral window [-2Λ,2Λ]. This converts the norm bound into an unbiased estimator of squared coefficients (displacement stage) and of signed coefficients (parity stage). The displacement sieve records bit-flip patterns in complementary Z and X bases and keeps only patterns with mass above ε², giving a Cartesian candidate set of size O(Λ⁴/ε⁴); the parity stage then estimates all candidates at once via random Pauli target ba

Load-bearing premise

The entire guarantee depends on being able to apply the exact noiseless time evolution e^{-iHt} for any chosen small duration t; if the machine cannot resolve times of order 1/Λ or suffers decoherence during evolution, the proof does not apply.

What would settle it

For the discrete-time model, take two one-sparse Hamiltonians H1=(π/t0)P_u and H2=(π/t0)P_v with different Pauli labels u,v. On every allowed grid time mt0, both produce the same unitary (-1)^m, so any control-free protocol has identical outcome distributions and cannot identify the label. To falsify the claimed scaling, exhibit a control-free protocol that learns a family of anticommuting Pauli Hamiltonians with total evolution time o((Λ/ε²) log(Λ/ε)); the paper's coupon-collector lower bound shows such a protocol cannot exist within its access model.

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

If this is right

  • Ansatz-free Hamiltonian characterization becomes practical on near-term analog devices without control and ancillas, at a total evolution time set by the standard quantum limit.
  • The time resolution needed per probe is O(1/Λ) regardless of the target precision ε, easing high-precision sensing and calibration.
  • The matching lower bound classifies the maximal power of control-free ancilla-free protocols: they cannot avoid the log(Λ/ε) factor beyond the SQL scale.
  • The algorithm estimates all candidate coefficients from the same dataset with only logarithmic overhead in candidate-set size, without any locality assumption.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the exact-evolution oracle is replaced by a device with bounded time resolution, the paper's own indistinguishability construction suggests that learning becomes information-theoretically impossible on grids coarser than π/Λ; a practical extension would be to analyze protocols that use weak coherent control to recover learnability despite coarse timing.
  • The kernel-sampling and displacement-sieve ideas are natural templates for learning open-system generators or time-dependent Hamiltonians; testing whether the same projection-based candidate generation works under dissipative dynamics would be a direct next step.
  • Because the SPAM-robustness analysis shows a variance penalty (r_pr_m)^(-2k) for Pauli weight k candidates, an adaptive pruning of high-weight false positives in the candidate set might make the algorithm substantially more robust in non-local settings.
  • A constant-factor benchmarking of this protocol against compressed-sensing heuristics on a small quantum simulator would give a concrete sense of whether the theoretical optimal scaling translates into favorable practical overheads.

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 control-free, ancilla-free Hamiltonian learning protocol (Algorithm 3) that uses only Pauli product state preparation and Pauli product measurement. The algorithm first runs a displacement sieve based on same-Pauli measurements to recover a small candidate set of Pauli labels containing all terms with |λ_u| ≥ ε, then estimates the coefficients on that candidate set using cross-Pauli parity measurements. The main upper bound (Theorem 4.1) is O((Λ/ε²) log(Λ/ε) log(1/δ) log log(1/δ)) total evolution time. The paper also proves a matching lower bound Ω((Λ/ε²) log(Λ/ε)) for control-free protocols (Theorem 5.2), but this lower bound is conditional on Λ²/ε² ≤ O(n). A SPAM-robust version is analyzed in Theorem 4.2 under calibrated depolarizing noise and a locality assumption.

Significance. If the optimality claim were fully established, the result would be significant: it would close the gap between earlier O(1/ε⁴)-type control-free protocols and the standard quantum limit, and it would show that ansatz-free structure learning can be done in situ with essentially the same evolution-time cost as single-parameter quantum metrology. The randomized displacement-sieve framework, the band-limited kernel time sampling with O(1/Λ) probe resolution, and the complete appendix proofs are notable strengths. The lower-bound construction using a hidden-block coupon-collector argument is conceptually interesting. However, the unconditional optimality stated in the abstract goes beyond what the formal theorems prove.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §1; §5 (Theorem 5.2)] The abstract and Section 1 state that the Θ(Λ/ε² log(Λ/ε)) cost is “optimal for any control-free protocols,” and Table 1 lists this work as eΘ(Λ/ε²) without qualification. The formal lower bound, Theorem 5.2, is valid only under Λ²/ε² ≤ O(n), because the hard family in Eq. (28) requires M ≈ Λ²/ε² pairwise anticommuting Pauli strings and is constrained by M ≤ 2n+1. In the complementary regime (e.g., fixed n and ε → 0), only the single-parameter bound Ω(Λ/ε²) of Lemma 5.1 is proven. This is not an internal inconsistency of the formal theorems, but it is a mismatch between the central advertised claim and what is proven. The condition must be stated prominently in the abstract, in Theorem 1.2, and in Table 1.
  2. [Appendix B.4 (Lemma B.11); §4.1 (Theorem 4.1)] The upper bound also appears to overpay in the small-n regime, making the claimed Θ(Λ/ε² log(Λ/ε)) even less supported. Lemma B.11 sets r = ⌈Λ²/ε²⌉ for the union bound, but Proposition B.10 and the fact that Π_x^(ε) ⊆ F_2^n give |Π_x^(ε)| ≤ min(Λ²/ε², 2^n). Replacing r with this minimum changes log(4r) to O(min{log(Λ/ε), n}), and the same cap propagates to the candidate-set size and hence to log|U| in Lemma 3.5. Thus for Λ²/ε² ≫ n the proven upper bound is O(Λ/ε² · min{log(Λ/ε), n} · poly(log log, log 1/δ)), so the log(Λ/ε) factor is not intrinsic in this regime. The authors should either extend the lower bound to cover this regime or explicitly state the optimality result only for Λ²/ε² ≤ O(n) and discuss the refined upper bound for small n.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Typographical issues: “Recent works proposed protocols have achieved” is ungrammatical, and “using onlyPauli product state” is missing a space. These should be corrected.
  2. [Table 1] The row for “This work” states eΘ(Λ/ε²), omitting the logarithmic factor. It should also include the regime caveat from Theorem 5.2, or be replaced by the upper-bound expression from Theorem 4.1.
  3. [§2.4] The sentence “we use same-Pauli measurements only to recover bSε” refers to a set that has not yet been defined in that section. The text should say that this stage recovers the projection/candidate sets bΠ_x, bΠ_z, with bSε defined later in Algorithm 3.
  4. [Appendix F] The discrete-time lower bound (Proposition F.7) is a useful sanity check, but the presentation would benefit from an explicit statement that the algorithm requires t₀ < π/(6Λ), while impossibility is shown only for t₀ ≥ π/Λ. There is a constant-factor gap that is not discussed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: both the algorithmic upper bound and the lower bound are derived from the stated oracle model, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The upper bound (Theorem 4.1) is built from Lemma B.11 (displacement sieve) and Lemma C.10 (parity coefficient estimation), each proved directly from band-limited kernel identities, the trace rule, and the norm bound ∥H∥≤Λ. The candidate set bUproj is guaranteed to contain the ε-support by construction: if |λ_u|≥ε, then the corresponding x- and z-projections have mass ≥ε², and the sieve detects them with the stated probability. The coefficient stage gives unbiased estimators with visibility correction q(u)^{-1}, and the final threshold θ=ε/2 with ε_lin=ε/6 yields the support inclusions purely by triangle inequalities. Nothing is fitted to the target coefficients, and no prediction is a renamed input. The lower bound (Theorem 5.2) is also derived from an explicit hard family of pairwise anticommuting Paulis and a coupon-collector argument; its condition Λ²/ε²≤O(n) is honestly stated, and the abstract's unconditional wording is a scope gap rather than circularity. The self-citations ([35], [39], which include author W. Gong) appear only as prior-work comparisons in Table 1 and as a motivating SPAM-noise assumption; the SPAM robustness claim is proven in Appendix E from an explicit calibrated depolarizing model, not imported from those citations. Accordingly, no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol is self-contained: all lemmas are proven in the appendices; the genuinely external inputs are standard signal-processing facts, the exact-oracle access model, Fisher-information bounds, the anticommuting-family bound (Ref 47), and the SPAM calibration assumptions. No data-fitted parameters appear; the listed constants are construction-dependent or calibration inputs. No new physical entities are postulated — 'displacement', 'parity block', and 'visibility correction' are algorithmic constructs, not new forces, particles, or dimensions.

free parameters (4)
  • Kernel cutoff φ and derived constants κ₀, κ₁ (same-Pauli) and ℓ₀, ℓ₁ (cross-Pauli) = κ₀, κ₁, ℓ₀, ℓ₁ asserted to exist; not numerically evaluated
    The band-limited kernels K_Λ, L_Λ are built from a hand-chosen smooth cutoff φ ∈ C^∞_c, with an explicit bump example in Appendix B. The constants satisfy ||K_Λ||₁ = 4κ₀Λ², E[τ] = κ₁/(2Λ), ||L_Λ||₁ = 2ℓ₀Λ, E[τ] = ℓ₁/(2Λ). They are absolute constants independent of H, Λ, ε and do not enter asymptotic scaling, but an implementation must compute them.
  • Algorithm block constants C₀, C₁ (Lemmas 3.3, 3.5); threshold θ = ε/2; internal scale ε_lin = ε/6 = Unspecified 'sufficiently large' constants
    Chosen by hand to satisfy Chernoff/Hoeffding union bounds; not fitted to data and asymptotically irrelevant, but required for an explicit implementation.
  • Sieve detection threshold p = ε²/(4κ₀Λ²) = ε²/(4κ₀Λ²)
    A chosen fraction of the minimum heavy-mass displacement probability; algorithmic hyperparameter, not data-fitted.
  • SPAM calibration rates r_p, r_m and full-record displacement error ξ₁ = Assumed known from calibration
    Inputs to the SPAM model (Eqs. 23, 22); in an experiment these are measured, not fitted. The theorem requires ξ₁ ≲ ε²/(2κ₀Λ²).
axioms (7)
  • standard math Band-limitedness: for ||H|| ≤ Λ, correlation functions have spectrum in [−2Λ, 2Λ] (Props B.4, C.4)
    Proven in-appendix via the spectral decomposition of ad_H; underlies all kernel identities.
  • standard math Whittaker–Shannon–Kotelnikov / Poisson-summation sampling identities for band-limited signals (Eq. 21, Prop F.2)
    Used to convert continuous kernel integrals to grid sums with t₀ < π/(6Λ); classical signal-processing results cited as Refs [41–44].
  • domain assumption Exact time-evolution oracle e^{-iHt} for arbitrary chosen t ≥ 0 (Def 2.2), with no mid-evolution decoherence
    The entire cost model counts evolution time and assumes its perfect execution; only preparation/measurement noise is later modeled (Eq. 23).
  • standard math M ≤ 2n+1 pairwise anticommuting Pauli strings (Ref [47], Hrubeš)
    Used to build the hard family in Theorem 5.2 with M = Θ(Λ²/ε²); requires n ≥ C₀Λ²/ε².
  • standard math Quantum Fisher information bounds (Facts G.1, G.2; Refs [48–50])
    Load-bearing for the SQL lower bound Lemma 5.1: F_Q ≤ 4||G||² and the TV-vs-Fisher integral inequality.
  • domain assumption SPAM calibration conditions: local depolarizing preparation/measurement with known r_p, r_m (Eq. 23); calibrated full-record displacement bound ξ₁ (Eq. 22)
    Theorem 4.2 assumes the conversion from local calibration to the full-record bound (Eq. 22) rather than deriving it; Section E.1 states 'any local calibration must first be converted to this full-record guarantee' without proving the conversion can meet ξ₁ ≲ ε²/(2κ₀Λ²).
  • standard math Uniform-random eigenstate preparation and the trace rule (Prop 2.3)
    Connects product-state experiments to trace correlation functions; proven in Appendix A.3.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 47058 in / 28965 out tokens · 258968 ms · 2026-08-02T10:53:09.902877+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Characterizing the features of a Hamiltonian that governs a quantum system serves as a fundamental subroutine of quantum device calibration, signal sensing, and error correction. Recent works have proposed protocols achieving the optimal Heisenberg-limited scaling learning ansatz-free Hamiltonians from their real-time evolutions without fully specifying interaction structures. However, these protocols rely on both deep circuits with interleaving probes and control, and extremely short time resolution, making them difficult to implement on near- and intermediate-term in situ quantum experiments. In this work, we propose a computationally efficient, control-free, and ancilla-free algorithm that uses only Pauli product state preparation and measurement, and learns an ansatz-free Hamiltonian $H$ with $||H||\leq\Lambda$ in total evolution time of $\Theta(\frac{\Lambda}{\epsilon^2}\log(\frac{\Lambda}{\epsilon}))$. The evolution time cost of our algorithm is optimal for any control-free protocols as we further prove a lower bound of $\Omega(\frac{\Lambda}{\epsilon^2}\log(\frac{\Lambda}{\epsilon}))$. Technically, our method introduces a randomized-sampling framework that combines band-limited kernel-based time sampling with a displacement sieve for Hamiltonian structure learning. The characteristic probe time resolution depends only on $\Lambda$ instead of $\varepsilon$, which makes our protocol especially appealing in the high-precision regime for sensing and calibration applications. We also show that the algorithm maintains the same asymptotic total evolution time in the presence of state-preparation-and-measurement (SPAM) noise when the Hamiltonian is local after calibration. Our results demonstrate the fundamental cost of experimentally friendly Hamiltonian learning and provide a practical route to rigorous in situ characterization of near-term quantum platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19486 by Taiqi Zhou, Weiyuan Gong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Control-free ancilla-free Hamiltonian learning protocols considered in this work. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mean absolute coefficient error versus total evolution time for Algorithm 3 in learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Characterizing Arbitrary Lindbladian Dynamics with a Few Pauli Measurements

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0

    A control-free protocol using only product-Pauli preparations and measurements reconstructs arbitrary sparse Lindbladian generators, identifying supports from data with O~(Γ²M0²/ε⁴) samples and O~(ΓM0²/ε²) total evolu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum certification and benchmarking.Nature Reviews Physics, 2(7):382– 390, 2020

    Jens Eisert, Dominik Hangleiter, Nathan Walk, Ingo Roth, Damian Markham, Rhea Parekh, Ulysse Chabaud, and Elham Kashefi. Quantum certification and benchmarking.Nature Reviews Physics, 2(7):382– 390, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    Theoretical and experimental perspectives of quantum verification.PRX Quantum, 2(1):010102, 2021

    Jose Carrasco, Andreas Elben, Christian Kokail, Barbara Kraus, and Peter Zoller. Theoretical and experimental perspectives of quantum verification.PRX Quantum, 2(1):010102, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems.Nature Physics, 17(8):931–935, 2021

    Anurag Anshu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, Tomotaka Kuwahara, and Mehdi Soleimanifar. Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems.Nature Physics, 17(8):931–935, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Optimal learning of quantum hamiltonians from high- temperature gibbs states

    Jeongwan Haah, Robin Kothari, and Ewin Tang. Optimal learning of quantum hamiltonians from high- temperature gibbs states. In2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 135–146. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Learning quantum hamiltonians at any tempera- ture in polynomial time

    Ainesh Bakshi, Allen Liu, Ankur Moitra, and Ewin Tang. Learning quantum hamiltonians at any tempera- ture in polynomial time. InProceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1470–1477, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Practical hamiltonian learning with unitary dynamics and gibbs states.Nature Communications, 15(1):312, 2024

    Andi Gu, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Practical hamiltonian learning with unitary dynamics and gibbs states.Nature Communications, 15(1):312, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Determining a local hamiltonian from a single eigenstate.Quantum, 3:159, 2019

    Xiao-Liang Qi and Daniel Ranard. Determining a local hamiltonian from a single eigenstate.Quantum, 3:159, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Hamiltonian tomography via quantum quench.Physical Review Letters, 124(16):160502, 2020

    Zhi Li, Liujun Zou, and Timothy H Hsieh. Hamiltonian tomography via quantum quench.Physical Review Letters, 124(16):160502, 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Scalable bayesian hamiltonian learning

    Tim J Evans, Robin Harper, and Steven T Flammia. Scalable bayesian hamiltonian learning. arXiv:1912.07636, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  10. [10]

    Quantum probe tomography.arXiv:2510.08499, 2025

    Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, and Hsin-Yuan Huang. Quantum probe tomography.arXiv:2510.08499, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Chi-Fang Chen, Anurag Anshu, and Quynh T. Nguyen. Learning quantum gibbs states locally and efficiently. In2025 IEEE 66th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 1458–1464, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Quantum metrology.Physical Review Letters, 96(1):010401, 2006

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum metrology.Physical Review Letters, 96(1):010401, 2006

    2006

  13. [13]

    Advances in quantum metrology.Nature Photonics, 5(4):222–229, 2011

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Advances in quantum metrology.Nature Photonics, 5(4):222–229, 2011

    2011

  14. [14]

    Quantum sensing.Reviews of Modern Physics, 89(3):035002, 2017

    Christian L Degen, Friedemann Reinhard, and Paola Cappellaro. Quantum sensing.Reviews of Modern Physics, 89(3):035002, 2017

    2017

  15. [15]

    Robust online hamiltonian learning.New Journal of Physics, 14(10):103013, 2012

    Christopher E Granade, Christopher Ferrie, Nathan Wiebe, and David G Cory. Robust online hamiltonian learning.New Journal of Physics, 14(10):103013, 2012

    2012

  16. [16]

    Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources.Physical Review Letters, 112(19):190501, 2014

    Nathan Wiebe, Christopher Granade, Christopher Ferrie, and David G Cory. Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources.Physical Review Letters, 112(19):190501, 2014

    2014

  17. [17]

    Hamiltonian tomography for quantum many-body systems with arbitrary couplings.New Journal of Physics, 17(9):093017, 2015

    Sheng-Tao Wang, Dong-Ling Deng, and Lu-Ming Duan. Hamiltonian tomography for quantum many-body systems with arbitrary couplings.New Journal of Physics, 17(9):093017, 2015

    2015

  18. [18]

    Scalable reconstruction of unitary processes and hamiltonians.Physical Review A, 91(4):042129, 2015

    Milan Holzäpfel, Tillmann Baumgratz, Marcus Cramer, and Martin B Plenio. Scalable reconstruction of unitary processes and hamiltonians.Physical Review A, 91(4):042129, 2015

    2015

  19. [19]

    Learning quantum hamiltonians from single-qubit measurements.Physical Review Research, 3(2):023246, 2021

    Liangyu Che, Chao Wei, Yulei Huang, Dafa Zhao, Shunzhong Xue, Xinfang Nie, Jun Li, Dawei Lu, and Tao Xin. Learning quantum hamiltonians from single-qubit measurements.Physical Review Research, 3(2):023246, 2021. 15

    2021

  20. [20]

    Entanglement hamiltonian tomography in quantum simulation.Nature Physics, 17(8):936–942, 2021

    Christian Kokail, Rick van Bijnen, Andreas Elben, Benoît Vermersch, and Peter Zoller. Entanglement hamiltonian tomography in quantum simulation.Nature Physics, 17(8):936–942, 2021

    2021

  21. [21]

    Scalably learning quantum many-body hamiltonians from dynamical data.arXiv:2209.14328, 2022

    Frederik Wilde, Augustine Kshetrimayum, Ingo Roth, Dominik Hangleiter, Ryan Sweke, and Jens Eisert. Scalably learning quantum many-body hamiltonians from dynamical data.arXiv:2209.14328, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Robustly learning the hamiltonian dynamics of a superconducting quantum processor.Nature Communications, 15(1):9595, 2024

    Dominik Hangleiter, Ingo Roth, Jonáš Fuksa, Jens Eisert, and Pedram Roushan. Robustly learning the hamiltonian dynamics of a superconducting quantum processor.Nature Communications, 15(1):9595, 2024

    2024

  23. [23]

    Hamiltonian learning for 300 trapped ion qubits with long-range couplings.Science Advances, 11(5):eadt4713, 2025

    Shi-An Guo, Yu-Kai Wu, Jing Ye, Lin Zhang, Ye Wang, Wen-Qian Lian, Rui Yao, Yu-Lin Xu, Chi Zhang, Yu-Zi Xu, et al. Hamiltonian learning for 300 trapped ion qubits with long-range couplings.Science Advances, 11(5):eadt4713, 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Learning many-body hamiltonians with heisenberg- limited scaling.Physical Review Letters, 130(20):200403, 2023

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Yu Tong, Di Fang, and Yuan Su. Learning many-body hamiltonians with heisenberg- limited scaling.Physical Review Letters, 130(20):200403, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Learningk-body hamiltonians via compressed sensing.arXiv:2410.18928, 2024

    Muzhou Ma, Steven T Flammia, John Preskill, and Yu Tong. Learningk-body hamiltonians via compressed sensing.arXiv:2410.18928, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Structure learning of hamiltonians from real-time evolution

    Ainesh Bakshi, Allen Liu, Ankur Moitra, and Ewin Tang. Structure learning of hamiltonians from real-time evolution. In2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 1037–1050. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Heisenberg-limited hamiltonian learning for interacting bosons.npj Quantum Information, 10(1):83, 2024

    Haoya Li, Yu Tong, Tuvia Gefen, Hongkang Ni, and Lexing Ying. Heisenberg-limited hamiltonian learning for interacting bosons.npj Quantum Information, 10(1):83, 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    Quantum hamiltonian learning for the fermi-hubbard model

    Hongkang Ni, Haoya Li, and Lexing Ying. Quantum hamiltonian learning for the fermi-hubbard model. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 191(1):2, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Learning interacting fermionic hamiltonians at the heisenberg limit

    Arjun Mirani and Patrick Hayden. Learning interacting fermionic hamiltonians at the heisenberg limit. Physical Review A, 110(6):062421, 2024

    2024

  30. [30]

    Robust and efficient hamiltonian learning.Quantum, 7:1045, 2023

    Wenjun Yu, Jinzhao Sun, Zeyao Han, and Xiao Yuan. Robust and efficient hamiltonian learning.Quantum, 7:1045, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    Efficient and robust estimation of many-qubit hamiltonians.Nature Communications, 15(1):311, 2024

    Daniel Stilck França, Liubov A Markovich, Viatcheslav V Dobrovitski, Albert H Werner, and Johannes Borregaard. Efficient and robust estimation of many-qubit hamiltonians.Nature Communications, 15(1):311, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Learning and certification of local time-dependent quantum dynamics and noise.arXiv:2510.08500, 2025

    Daniel Stilck França, Tim Möbus, Cambyse Rouzé, and Albert H Werner. Learning and certification of local time-dependent quantum dynamics and noise.arXiv:2510.08500, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Testing and learning structured quantum hamiltonians

    Srinivasan Arunachalam, Arkopal Dutt, and Francisco Escudero Gutiérrez. Testing and learning structured quantum hamiltonians. InProceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1263–1270, 2025

    2025

  34. [34]

    Learning the structure of any hamiltonian from minimal assumptions

    Andrew Zhao. Learning the structure of any hamiltonian from minimal assumptions. InProceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1201–1211, 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    Flammia, and Susanne F

    Hong-Ye Hu, Muzhou Ma, Weiyuan Gong, Qi Ye, Yu Tong, Steven T. Flammia, and Susanne F. Yelin. Ansatz-free hamiltonian learning with heisenberg-limited scaling.PRX Quantum, 6:040315, Oct 2025

    2025

  36. [36]

    Improved hamiltonian learning and sparsity testing through bell sampling

    Savar D Sinha and Yu Tong. Improved hamiltonian learning and sparsity testing through bell sampling. arXiv:2509.07937, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    The advantage of quantum control in many-body hamiltonian learning.Quantum, 8:1537, 2024

    Alicja Dutkiewicz, Thomas E O’Brien, and Thomas Schuster. The advantage of quantum control in many-body hamiltonian learning.Quantum, 8:1537, 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    Lower bounds for hamiltonian parameter learning from time evolution

    Ziyun Chen and Jerry Li. Lower bounds for hamiltonian parameter learning from time evolution. arXiv:2509.20665, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Ansatz-free learning of lindbladian dynamics in situ.arXiv:2603.05492, 2026

    Petr Ivashkov, Nikita Romanov, Weiyuan Gong, Andi Gu, Hong-Ye Hu, and Susanne F Yelin. Ansatz-free learning of lindbladian dynamics in situ.arXiv:2603.05492, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Learning quantum processes and hamiltonians via the pauli transfer matrix.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 5(2):1–53, 2024

    Matthias C Caro. Learning quantum processes and hamiltonians via the pauli transfer matrix.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 5(2):1–53, 2024

    2024

  41. [41]

    E. T. Whittaker. Xviii. on the functions which are represented by the expansions of the interpolation-theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 35:181–194, 1915. 16

    1915

  42. [42]

    V . A. Kotelnikov. On the transmission capacity of the ether and of cables in electrical communications. In Proceedings of the First All-Union Conference on the Technological Reconstruction of the Communications Sector and Low-Current Engineering, Moscow, 1933

    1933

  43. [43]

    Claude E. Shannon. Communication in the presence of noise.Proceedings of the IRE, 37(1):10–21, 1949

    1949

  44. [44]

    Butzer, Gerhard Schmeisser, and Rudolf L

    Paul L. Butzer, Gerhard Schmeisser, and Rudolf L. Stens. Shannon’s sampling theorem for bandlimited signals and their hilbert transform, boas-type formulae for higher order derivatives—the aliasing error involved by their extensions from bandlimited to non-bandlimited signals.Entropy, 14(11):2192–2226, 2012

    2012

  45. [45]

    Cheng, Y

    J. Cheng, Y . Zhu, Y . Zhou, H. Ren, Z. Song, and Z. Liang. Epoc: An efficient pulse generation framework with advanced synthesis for quantum circuits. InProceedings of the 62nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pages 1–7, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    Chong, Song Han, Xuehai Qian, and Yiyu Shi

    Zhiding Liang, Jinglei Cheng, Hang Ren, Hanrui Wang, Fei Hua, Zhixin Song, Yongshan Ding, Frederic T. Chong, Song Han, Xuehai Qian, and Yiyu Shi. Napa: Intermediate-level variational native-pulse ansatz for variational quantum algorithms.IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 43(6):1834–1847, 2024

    2024

  47. [47]

    On families of anticommuting matrices.Linear Algebra and its Applications, 493:494–507, 2016

    Pavel Hrubeš. On families of anticommuting matrices.Linear Algebra and its Applications, 493:494–507, 2016

    2016

  48. [48]

    Statistical distance and hilbert space.Physical Review D, 23(2):357, 1981

    William K Wootters. Statistical distance and hilbert space.Physical Review D, 23(2):357, 1981

    1981

  49. [49]

    Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states

    Samuel L Braunstein and Carlton M Caves. Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states. Physical Review Letters, 72(22):3439, 1994

    1994

  50. [50]

    Generalized uncertainty relations: theory, examples, and lorentz invariance.Annals of Physics, 247(1):135–173, 1996

    Samuel L Braunstein, Carlton M Caves, and Gerard J Milburn. Generalized uncertainty relations: theory, examples, and lorentz invariance.Annals of Physics, 247(1):135–173, 1996. A Extended Preliminaries A.1 Hamiltonian and time evolution Here, we provide more primary results on Hamiltonian and time evolution. In physics, the Hamil- tonian describes the dyn...

    1996

  51. [51]

    The short-time second-order derivative of the auto-correlation function is proportional to the sum of the squared coefficients of all anti-commutative terms with the probe operator in the Hamiltonian

  52. [52]

    The raw signal obtained from the same-Pauli measurement can be written as a linear sum of the squares of the coefficients in the Hamiltonian

  53. [53]

    As a result, we need complementary bases to extract all Pauli terms in the Hamiltonian

    Any single probe suffers from invisibility of some Hamiltonian terms. As a result, we need complementary bases to extract all Pauli terms in the Hamiltonian. Proposition B.1(Same-Pauli signal).For every Hermitian Pauli string P and Pauli Hamiltonian H= P u∈V λuPu, we have C ′′ P (0) =−4 X u:{Pu,P}=0 λ2 u.(49) 19 Proof.Note that d dt P(t) =i[H, P(t)]andP ′...

  54. [54]

    Since the rounds are independent, the probability that all L Z-basis rounds fail is at most 3 16 L

    The same proof applies to one X-basis round and the setΠ (ε) z \ {0}. Since the rounds are independent, the probability that all L Z-basis rounds fail is at most 3 16 L . By choosing C1 large enough, we have 3 16 L ≤ η 2 . The same bound holds for the X basis. A union bound over the two bases gives Π(ε) x \ {0} ⊆bΠx,Π (ε) z \ {0} ⊆bΠz (127) 27 with probab...

  55. [55]

    Therefore, by taking the median for each coordinate, the result guarantees the precision of ε foru∈Uunder all circumstances

    If fewer than half of the blocks fail, then more than half of the block outputs are ε-accurate for every u∈ U. Therefore, by taking the median for each coordinate, the result guarantees the precision of ε foru∈Uunder all circumstances. Hence, we have Pr max u∈U |bλU (u)−λ u|> ε ≤Pr   RX j=1 Ij ≥ R 2   .(186) By the choice ofR, the Chernoff bound gives...

  56. [56]

    X t 1[J t ̸= 0] # ≤E

    Therefore, we haveE[K]≥ k0 6 . Now we upper bound E[K] by the total evolution time. If the t-th shot uses time τt, Lemma G.5 gives Pr[Jt ̸= 0|past data and chosen shot] = sin 2(Λτt)≤Λτ t.(331) Taking expectation shot by shot, E[K] =E "X t 1[J t ̸= 0] # ≤E "X t Λτt # .(332) Since the total evolution time is always at most Ttot, we have E[K]≤ΛT tot. Combini...