Hamiltonian Locality Testing via Trotterized Postselection

May 10, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors John Kallaugher, Daniel Liang arXiv ID 2505.06478 Category quant-ph: Quantum Computing Cross-listed cs.CC, cs.DS Citations 5 Venue Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
The (tolerant) Hamiltonian locality testing problem, introduced in [Bluhm, Caro,Oufkir `24], is to determine whether a Hamiltonian $H$ is $\varepsilon_1$-close to being $k$-local (i.e. can be written as the sum of weight-$k$ Pauli operators) or $\varepsilon_2$-far from any $k$-local Hamiltonian, given access to its time evolution operator and using as little total evolution time as possible, with distance typically defined by the normalized Frobenius norm. We give the tightest known bounds for this problem, proving an $\text{O}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_2}{(\varepsilon_2-\varepsilon_1)^5}}\right)$ evolution time upper bound and an $Ξ©\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_2-\varepsilon_1}\right)$ lower bound. Our algorithm does not require reverse time evolution or controlled application of the time evolution operator, although our lower bound applies to algorithms using either tool. Furthermore, we show that if we are allowed reverse time evolution, this lower bound is tight, giving a matching $\text{O}\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_2-\varepsilon_1}\right)$ evolution time algorithm.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Quantum Computing

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted