Optimal precision dependence of low-energy Hamiltonian simulation
- Field
- Topics
Problem
What is the tight precision dependence of worst-case query complexity for low-energy simulation in the regime (2)? Let \(A\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}\), \(\lVert A\rVert\leq1\), \(H=\lambda A^\dagger A\), and \(P_\Delta=\mathbf{1}_{[0,\Delta]}(H)\), where \(\lambda>0\) and \(0<\Delta\leq\lambda\). Assume an exact block encoding \((\langle0^m\rvert\otimes I_N)V_A(\lvert0^m\rangle\otimes I_N)=A\), with controlled and inverse calls. Count these queries; input-state preparation is excluded. For known \(t>0\) and \(0<\epsilon<1/2\), a unitary simulator \(W\) must satisfy (1) uniformly on the promised subspace:
Here \(a\) counts workspace qubits. Consider asymptotic families with \(\epsilon\to0\) satisfying
Determine whether the known \(O(\sqrt{t\lambda\log(1/\epsilon)})\) upper bound has optimal precision dependence.
Source
Zlokapa and Somma explicitly leave the intermediate-regime precision gap open in Sections 1 and 7 [ZS24]. The error convention and nontrivial-regime restriction are made explicit here.
Progress
Lemma 1.2 and Section 2.2 give \(O(t\sqrt{\lambda\Gamma}+\sqrt{\lambda/\Gamma}\log(1/\epsilon))\) queries for \(\Delta\leq\Gamma\leq\lambda\). Choosing \(\Gamma=\log(1/\epsilon)/t\) gives the stated upper bound; polynomial tolerance \(O(\epsilon^2)\) suffices for (1) [ZS24].
Section 5.5 proves \(\Omega(\sqrt{t\lambda})\) on explicit nontrivial intermediate-regime families, without matching the precision factor [ZS24].
Comment
This formulation fixes vector-norm error and excludes the identity-accurate regime \(t\Delta\leq\epsilon\). Factor access is essential. The cited lower bound is not asserted uniformly throughout (2).