Warm-Start Quantum Computation: Spectral-Weight Resources for Energy Readout and State Preparation
quant-ph, physics.chem-ph
Submitted: 2026-09-17
Updated: 2026-10-13
Comments: 59 pages, 47 figures, and 9 tables
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Estimating a ground-state energy and preparing a ground state both split into a front-end that supplies an approximate state χ and a back-end that reads or refines it.
Abstract
Estimating a ground-state energy and preparing a ground state both split into a front-end that supplies an approximate state χ and a back-end that reads or refines it. We argue, and measure at every step, that the only thing crossing that split is the front-end's spectral weight distribution p n= E nχ squared over the eigenstates of the problem Hamiltonian H P. Everything downstream is priced in it, so the front-end is a swappable module, and we swap it seven times without altering anything to its right. We call the arrangement WARP. Four back-ends spend that distribution. A readout (A) samples g(t)=χe-iH Ptχ on the device and extracts true eigenvalues by classical signal processing, returning an energy below the variational bound of the state it was handed, from a signal 50 times shorter than a Fourier transform needs. Three routes spend the same account on a state instead. An adiabatic schedule (B) has a minimum gap set by the overlap; a discrete amplification (C) is cheaper in depth but must halt at an index the overlap fixes, so it needs a measured value and not a bound; a recursion (D) of depth O(3 m) raises the question of whether it can be run at all. The interactions are the substance. On stretched N 2 a sample-based diagonalisation reports a variational bound 79 mHa high, fifty times outside chemical accuracy; reading the state it has already prepared returns E 0 to 1.4 times10-6 Ha, three orders of magnitude inside it, and needs no new front-end and no new circuit. And because the weights price everything, they must be measurable when scarce, so we beat a weak reference against a strong one and recover overlaps four orders of magnitude below the shot-noise floor. We map the operating envelope throughout, and state the limitations.
Sources
- Quantum measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem
- Quantum-HPC Workflows Across Multiple Quantum Computing Platforms: Two Case Studies
- Parallel Hadamard Test
- Quantum Algorithm for Vibronic Dynamics: Case Study on Singlet Fission Solar Cell Design
- Quantum Computation by Adiabatic Evolution
- Solving maximum cut problems by simulated annealing
- Postponing the orthogonality catastrophe: efficient state preparation for electronic structure simulations on quantum devices
- Chemistry Beyond the Scale of Exact Diagonalization on a Quantum-Centric Supercomputer
- Filtered Quantum Phase Estimation
- Quantum Filter Diagonalization: Quantum Eigendecomposition without Full Quantum Phase Estimation
- The generative quantum eigensolver (GQE) and its application for ground state search
- Learning to Prepare Molecular Ground States with Transformer Models
- On the Transfer of Knowledge in Quantum Algorithms
- A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm
- Performance of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm on the Maximum Cut Problem
- QAOA-GPT: Efficient Generation of Adaptive and Regular Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Circuits
- Better accuracy with fewer qubits: Single-particle basis set optimization for quantum chemistry on quantum computers
Related papers
- Reconquering Bell sampling on qudits: stabilizer learning and testing, quantum pseudorandomness bounds, and more
- Encrypted clones can leak: Classification of informative subsets in Quantum Encrypted Cloning
- Polynomial-time classical and quantum simulation of quantum impurity models
- A quasiparticle-protected superconducting qubit
- Theory of quantum-enhanced interferometry with general Markovian light sources
- A convergent hierarchy of spectral gap certificates for qubit Hamiltonians