- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Tensor-based phase difference estimation on time-series analysis

Shu Kanno1,2,*, Kenji Sugisaki3,2,4, Rei Sakuma5,2, Jumpei Kato6,2,7, Hajime Nakamura2, and Naoki Yamamoto2,8

  • *Contact author: shu.kanno@quantum.keio.ac.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 113, 052433 – Published 15 May, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/f49t-zs9p

Abstract

We propose a phase-difference-estimation algorithm based on tensor-network circuit compression, leveraging time-evolution data to pursue scalability and higher accuracy with a quantum-phase-estimation- (QPE) type algorithm. Using tensor networks, we construct circuits composed solely of nearest-neighbor gates and extract time-evolution data with four-type circuit measurements. In addition, to enhance the accuracy of the time-evolution and state-preparation circuits, we propose techniques based on algorithmic error mitigation and on iterative circuit optimization combined with merging into matrix product states, respectively. Verification using a noiseless simulator for the eight-qubit one-dimensional Hubbard model using an ancilla qubit shows that the proposed algorithm achieves accuracies with 0.4%–4.7% error from a true energy gap with an appropriate time-step size and that accuracy improvements due to the algorithmic error mitigation are observed. We also confirm the enhancement of the overlap with matrix product states through iterative optimization. Finally, the proposed algorithm is demonstrated on IBM Heron devices with Q-CTRL error suppression for 8-, 36-, and 52-qubit models using more than 4000 2-qubit gates. These largest-scale demonstrations for the QPE-type algorithm represent significant progress not only toward practical applications of near-term quantum computing but also toward preparation for the era of error-corrected quantum devices.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (54)

  1. A. Yu. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem, arXiv:quant-ph/9511026.
  2. R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca, Quantum algorithms revisited, Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 454, 339 (1998).
  3. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th anniversary ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
  4. H. Gao, S. Imamura, A. Kasagi, and E. Yoshida, Distributed implementation of full configuration interaction for one trillion determinants, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 20, 1185 (2024).
  5. B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Entanglement-free Heisenberg-limited phase estimation, Nature (London) 450, 393 (2007).
  6. S. Kimmel, G. H. Low, and T. J. Yoder, Robust calibration of a universal single-qubit gate set via robust phase estimation, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062315 (2015).
  7. N. Wiebe and C. Granade, Efficient Bayesian phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 010503 (2016).
  8. R. D. Somma, Quantum eigenvalue estimation via time series analysis, New J. Phys. 21, 123025 (2019).
  9. T. E. O'Brien, B. Tarasinski, and B. M. Terhal, Quantum phase estimation of multiple eigenvalues for small-scale (noisy) experiments, New J. Phys. 21, 023022 (2019).
  10. A. Dutkiewicz, B. M. Terhal, and T. E. O'Brien, Heisenberg-limited quantum phase estimation of multiple eigenvalues with few control qubits, Quantum 6, 830 (2022).
  11. L. Lin and Y. Tong, Heisenberg-limited ground-state energy estimation for early fault-tolerant quantum computers, PRX Quantum 3, 010318 (2022).
  12. G. Wang, D. S. Francca, R. Zhang, S. Zhu, and P. D. Johnson, Quantum algorithm for ground state energy estimation using circuit depth with exponentially improved dependence on precision, Quantum 7, 1167 (2022).
  13. Z. Ding and L. Lin, Even shorter quantum circuit for phase estimation on early fault-tolerant quantum computers with applications to ground-state energy estimation, PRX Quantum 4, 020331 (2023).
  14. Z. Ding and L. Lin, Simultaneous estimation of multiple eigenvalues with short-depth quantum circuit on early fault-tolerant quantum computers, Quantum 7, 1136 (2023).
  15. Z. Ding, Y. Dong, T. Yu, and L. Lin, Robust ground-state energy estimation under depolarizing noise, arXiv:2307.11257.
  16. N. S. Blunt, L. Caune, R. Izsák, E. T. Campbell, and N. Holzmann, Statistical phase estimation and error mitigation on a superconducting quantum processor, PRX Quantum 4, 040341 (2023).
  17. M. S. Rudolph, J. Chen, J. Miller, A. Acharya, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, Decomposition of matrix product states into shallow quantum circuits, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 015012 (2024).
  18. S.-J. Ran, Encoding of matrix product states into quantum circuits of one- and two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032310 (2020).
  19. S.-H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Pollmann, Real- and imaginary-time evolution with compressed quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 2, 010342 (2021).
  20. J. Dborin, F. Barratt, V. Wimalaweera, L. Wright, and A. G. Green, Matrix product state pre-training for quantum machine learning, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 035014 (2022).
  21. J. Dborin, V. Wimalaweera, F. Barratt, E. Ostby, T. E. O'Brien, and A. G. Green, Simulating groundstate and dynamical quantum phase transitions on a superconducting quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 13, 5977 (2022).
  22. C. Mc Keever and M. Lubasch, Classically optimized Hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023146 (2023).
  23. B. Anselme Martin, T. Ayral, F. Jamet, M. J. Rančić, and P. Simon, Combining matrix product states and noisy quantum computers for quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062437 (2024).
  24. L. Causer, F. Jung, A. Mitra, F. Pollmann, and A. Gammon-Smith, Scalable simulation of nonequilibrium quantum dynamics via classically optimized unitary circuits, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033062 (2024).
  25. T. Shirakawa, H. Ueda, and S. Yunoki, Automatic quantum circuit encoding of a given arbitrary quantum state, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043008 (2024).
  26. C. Mc Keever and M. Lubasch, Towards adiabatic quantum computing using compressed quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 5, 020362 (2024).
  27. M. D'Anna, Y. Zhang, R. Wiersema, M. S. Rudolph, and J. Carrasquilla, Circuit compression for 2D quantum dynamics, arXiv:2507.01883.
  28. S. Sugawara, K. Inomata, T. Okubo, and S. Todo, Embedding of tree tensor networks into shallow quantum circuits, arXiv:2501.18856.
  29. J. Gibbs and L. Cincio, Deep circuit compression for quantum dynamics via tensor networks, Quantum 9, 1789 (2025).
  30. I. N. M. Le, S. Sun, and C. B. Mendl, Riemannian quantum circuit optimization based on matrix product operators, Quantum 9, 1833 (2025).
  31. R. Mansuroglu and N. Schuch, Preparation circuits for matrix product states by classical variational disentanglement, Phys. Rev. A 113, 042430 (2026).
  32. E. Karacan, Phase estimation with compressed controlled time evolution, Phys. Rev. A 113, 042420 (2026).
  33. K. Sugisaki, C. Sakai, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi, and T. Takui, Bayesian phase difference estimation: A general quantum algorithm for the direct calculation of energy gaps, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 23, 20152 (2021).
  34. S. Kanno, K. Sugisaki, H. Nakamura, H. Yamauchi, R. Sakuma, T. Kobayashi, Q. Gao, and N. Yamamoto, Tensor-based quantum phase difference estimation for large-scale demonstration, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2425026122 (2025).
  35. S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, S. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Mitigating algorithmic errors in a Hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. A 99, 012334 (2019).
  36. N. F. Robertson, B. Pokharel, B. Fuller, E. Switzer, O. Shtanko, M. Amico, A. Byrne, A. D'Urbano, S. Hayes-Shuptar, A. Akhriev, N. Keenan, S. Bravyi, and S. Zhuk, Tensor network enhanced dynamic multiproduct formulas, PRX Quantum 6, 020360 (2025).
  37. K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Quantum-Selected Configuration Interaction: classical diagonalization of Hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers, arXiv:2302.11320.
  38. J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa, I. Sitdikov, R.-Y. Sun, K. J. Sung, M. Takita, M. C. Tran, S. Yunoki, and A. Mezzacapo, Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercomputer, Sci. Adv. 11, eadu9991 (2025).
  39. T. Sarkar, J. Nebat, D. Weiner, and V. Jain, Suboptimal approximation/identification of transient waveforms from electromagnetic systems by pencil-of-function method, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 28, 928 (1980).
  40. A. Steffens, P. Rebentrost, I. Marvian, J. Eisert, and S. Lloyd, An efficient quantum algorithm for spectral estimation, New J. Phys. 19, 033005 (2017).
  41. S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992).
  42. U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam, Neth.) 326, 96 (2011).
  43. K. Sugisaki, C. Sakai, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi, and T. Takui, Quantum algorithm for full configuration interaction calculations without controlled time evolutions, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 12, 11085 (2021).
  44. P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Über das Paulische öquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928).
  45. M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The itensor software library for tensor network calculations, SciPost Phys. Codebases 4 (2022).
  46. A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit, arXiv:2405.08810.
  47. P. S. Mundada, A. Barbosa, S. Maity, Y. Wang, T. Merkh, T. M. Stace, F. Nielson, A. R. R. Carvalho, M. Hush, M. J. Biercuk, and Y. Baum, Experimental benchmarking of an automated deterministic error-suppression workflow for quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 024034 (2023).
  48. Y. Baum, M. Amico, S. Howell, M. Hush, M. Liuzzi, P. Mundada, T. Merkh, A. R. R. Carvalho, and M. J. Biercuk, Experimental deep reinforcement learning for error-robust gate-set design on a superconducting quantum computer, PRX Quantum 2, 040324 (2021).
  49. I. D. Kivlichan, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, W. Sun, Z. Jiang, N. Rubin, A. Fowler, A. Aspuru-Guzik, H. Neven, and R. Babbush, Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via trotterization, Quantum 4, 296 (2020).
  50. TS-TQPDE_open, https://github.com/sk888ks/TS-TQPDE_open.
  51. M. Ganahl, J. Beall, M. Hauru, A. G. M. Lewis, T. Wojno, J. H. Yoo, Y. Zou, and G. Vidal, Density matrix renormalization group with tensor processing units, PRX Quantum 4, 010317 (2023).
  52. J. D. Watson and J. Watkins, Exponentially reduced circuit depths using trotter error mitigation, PRX Quantum 6, 030325 (2025).
  53. K. Mizuta, On the commutator scaling in Hamiltonian simulation with multi-product formulas, Quantum 10, 1974 (2026).
  54. J. Haah, M. B. Hastings, R. Kothari, and G. H. Low, Quantum algorithm for simulating real time evolution of lattice Hamiltonians, SIAM J. Comput. 52, FOCS18-250 (2021).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 113, 052433– Published 15 May, 2026
  • Received 3 March 2026
  • Accepted 20 April 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation