ArticlePhysical review letters2020
Destructive Error Interference in Product-Formula Lattice Simulation.
Article in Physical review letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital adiabatic evolution is universally accurate.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantum computers can efficiently simulate the dynamics of quantum systems. In this Letter, we study the cost of digitally simulating the dynamics of several physically relevant systems using the first-order product-formula algorithm. We show that the errors from different Trotterization steps in the algorithm can interfere destructively, yielding a much smaller error than previously estimated. In particular, we prove that the total error in simulating a nearest-neighbor interacting system of n sites for time t using the first-order product formula with r time slices is O(nt/r+nt^{3}/r^{2}) when nt^{2}/r is less than a small constant. Given an error tolerance ϵ, the error bound yields an estimate of max{O(n^{2}t/ϵ),O(n^{2}t^{3/2}/ϵ^{1/2})} for the total gate count of the simulation. The estimate is tighter than previous bounds and matches the empirical performance observed in Childs et al. [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 9456 (2018)PNASA60027-842410.1073/pnas.1801723115]. We also provide numerical evidence for potential improvements and conjecture an even tighter estimate for the gate count.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.