Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1909.05500 · ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing

Quantum Linear System Solver Based on Time-optimal Adiabatic Quantum Computing and Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

Dong An, Lin Lin

Published Mar 4, 2022• 108 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We demonstrate that with an optimally tuned scheduling function, adiabatic quantum computing (AQC) can readily solve a quantum linear system problem (QLSP) with O (κ poly(log (κ ε))) runtime, where κ is the condition number, and ε is the target accuracy. This is near optimal with respect to both κ and ε, and is achieved without relying on complicated amplitude amplification procedures that are difficult to implement. Our method is applicable to general non-Hermitian matrices, and the cost as well as the number of qubits can be reduced when restricted to Hermitian matrices, and further to Hermitian positive definite matrices. The success of the time-optimal AQC implies that the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) with an optimal control protocol can also achieve the same complexity in terms of the runtime. Numerical results indicate that QAOA can yield the lowest runtime compared to the time-optimal AQC, vanilla AQC, and the recently proposed randomization method.

DOI
10.1145/3498331

Related papers

Randomized Adiabatic Quantum Linear Solver Algorithm with Optimal Complexity Scaling and Detailed Running Costs

David Jennings, Matteo Lostaglio, Sam Pallister +2 more

Solving linear systems of equations is a fundamental problem with a wide variety of applications across many fields of science, and there is increasing effort to develop quantum linear solver algorithms. Subaşı . [Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 060504 (2019)] proposed a randomized algorithm inspired by adiabatic quantum computing, based on a sequence of random Hamiltonian simulation steps, with suboptimal scaling in the condition number κ of the linear system and the target error ϵ . Here we go beyond these results in several ways. Firstly, using filtering [Lin and Tong, Quantum 4, 361 (2020)] and Poissonization techniques [Cunningham and Roland, ArXiv:2406.03972 (2024)], the algorithm complexity is improved to the optimal scaling O ( κ log  ( 1 / ϵ ) ) —an exponential improvement in ϵ , and a shaving of a log  κ scaling factor in κ . Secondly, the algorithm is further modified to achieve constant factor improvements, which are vital as we progress towards hardware implementations on fault-tolerant devices. We introduce a cheaper randomized walk operator method replacing Hamiltonian simulation—which also removes the need for potentially challenging classical precomputations; randomized routines are sampled over optimized random variables; circuit constructions are improved. We obtain a closed formula rigorously upper bounding the expected number of times one needs to apply a block-encoding of the linear system matrix to output a quantum state encoding the solution to the linear system. The upper bound is 837 κ at ϵ = 10 − 10 for Hermitian matrices.

arXiv:2305.11352•PRX Quantum•Oct 7, 2025•6 citations

Optimal Scaling Quantum Linear-Systems Solver via Discrete Adiabatic Theorem

Pedro C. S. Costa, Dong An, Yuval R. Sanders +3 more

Recently, several approaches to solving linear systems on a quantum computer have been formulated in terms of the quantum adiabatic theorem for a continuously varying Hamiltonian.Such approaches have enabled near-linear scaling in the condition number κ of the linear system, without requiring a complicated variable-time amplitude amplification procedure.However, the most efficient of those procedures is still asymptotically suboptimal by a factor of log(κ).Here, we prove a rigorous form of the adiabatic theorem that bounds the error in terms of the spectral gap for intrinsically discrete-time evolutions.In combination with the qubitized quantum walk, our discrete adiabatic theorem gives a speed-up for all adiabatic algorithms.Here, we use this combination to develop a quantum algorithm for solving linear systems that is asymptotically optimal, in the sense that the complexity is strictly linear in κ, matching a known lower bound on the complexity.Our O[κ log(1/ )] complexity is also optimal in terms of the combined scaling in κ and the precision .Compared to existing suboptimal methods, our algorithm is simpler and easier to implement.Moreover, we determine the constant factors in the algorithm, which would be suitable for determining the complexity in terms of gate counts for specific applications.

arXiv:2111.08152•PRX Quantum•Oct 7, 2022•120 citations

Optimal polynomial based quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems

Lin Lin, Yu Tong

We present a quantum eigenstate filtering algorithm based on quantum signal processing (QSP) and minimax polynomials. The algorithm allows us to efficiently prepare a target eigenstate of a given Hamiltonian, if we have access to an initial state with non-trivial overlap with the target eigenstate and have a reasonable lower bound for the spectral gap. We apply this algorithm to the quantum linear system problem (QLSP), and present two algorithms based on quantum adiabatic computing (AQC) and quantum Zeno effect respectively. Both algorithms prepare the final solution as a pure state, and achieves the near optimal O ~ ( d κ log ⁡ ( 1 / ϵ ) ) query complexity for a d -sparse matrix, where κ is the condition number, and ϵ is the desired precision. Neither algorithm uses phase estimation or amplitude amplification.

arXiv:1910.14596•Quantum•Nov 11, 2020•106 citations

A shortcut to an optimal quantum linear system solver

Alexander M. Dalzell

Given a linear system of equations $A\boldsymbol{x}=\boldsymbol{b}$, quantum linear system solvers (QLSSs) approximately prepare a quantum state $|\boldsymbol{x}\rangle$ for which the amplitudes are proportional to the solution vector $\boldsymbol{x}$. Asymptotically optimal QLSSs have query complexity $O(κ\log(1/\varepsilon))$, where $κ$ is the condition number of $A$, and $\varepsilon$ is the approximation error. However, runtime guarantees for existing optimal and near-optimal QLSSs do not have favorable constant prefactors, in part because they rely on complex or difficult-to-analyze techniques like variable-time amplitude amplification and adiabatic path-following. Here, we give a conceptually simple QLSS that does not use these techniques. If the solution norm $\lVert\boldsymbol{x}\rVert$ is known exactly, our QLSS requires only a single application of kernel reflection (a straightforward extension of the eigenstate filtering (EF) technique of previous work) and the query complexity of the QLSS is $(1+O(\varepsilon))κ\ln(2\sqrt{2}/\varepsilon)$. If the norm is unknown, our method allows it to be estimated up to a constant factor using $O(\log\log(κ))$ applications of kernel projection (a direct generalization of EF) yielding a straightforward QLSS with near-optimal $O(κ\log\log(κ)\log\log\log(κ)+κ\log(1/\varepsilon))$ total complexity. Alternatively, by reintroducing a concept from the adiabatic path-following technique, we show that $O(κ)$ complexity can be achieved for norm estimation, yielding an optimal QLSS with $O(κ\log(1/\varepsilon))$ complexity while still avoiding the need to invoke the adiabatic theorem. Finally, we compute an explicit upper bound of $56κ+1.05κ\ln(1/\varepsilon)+o(κ)$ for the complexity of our optimal QLSS.

arXiv:2406.12086•Jun 17, 2024•1 citation

Optimal polynomial based quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems

Lin, L, Tong, Y

We present a quantum eigenstate filtering algorithm based on quantum signal processing (QSP) and minimax polynomials. The algorithm allows us to efficiently prepare a target eigenstate of a given Hamiltonian, if we have access to an initial state with non-trivial overlap with the target eigenstate and have a reasonable lower bound for the spectral gap. We apply this algorithm to the quantum linear system problem (QLSP), and present two algorithms based on quantum adiabatic computing (AQC) and quantum Zeno effect respectively. Both algorithms prepare the final solution as a pure state, and achieves the near optimal Oe(dκlog(1/∊)) query complexity for a d-sparse matrix, where κ is the condition number, and ∊ is the desired precision. Neither algorithm uses phase estimation or amplitude amplification.

•Nov 11, 2020•75 citations

Constant Factor Analysis of Optimal Quantum Linear Solvers in Practice

Pedro C. S. Costa, Alexander M. Dalzell, Dong An +1 more

Optimal quantum linear equation solvers provide complexity $O(κ\log(1/ε))$, where $κ$ is the condition number and $ε$ is the allowable error. The optimal solver using a discrete adiabatic approach [PRX Quantum 3, 040303 (2022)] has large analytically proven constant factors for the upper bound on the complexity. The constant factors were later found to be about 1,200 times smaller in numerical testing [Quantum 9, 1887 (2025)]. This meant it is about an order of magnitude more efficient than using a randomised approach from [PRX Quantum 6, 040373 (2025)], which has far smaller analytically proven constant factors. Recently, a ``Shortcut'' method has been found to provide an optimal solver which also has small proven constant factors. In the present work, we conduct a comprehensive numerical analysis comparing this method with the adiabatic solver for two families of random linear systems. We find that, in the case where the solution norm is unknown, the adiabatic solver provides slightly better performance. If the solution norm is known, then the shortcut method provides significantly better performance for non-Hermitian matrices.

quant-pharXiv:2604.22185•Apr 27, 2026•0 citations
We demonstrate that with an optimally tuned scheduling function, adiabatic quantum computing (AQC) can readily solve a quantum linear system problem (QLSP) with O (κ poly(log (κ ε))) runtime, where κ is the condition number, and ε is the target accuracy. This is near optimal with respect to both κ and ε, and is achieved without relying on complicated amplitude amplification procedures that are difficult to implement. Our method is applicable to general non-Hermitian matrices, and the cost as well as the number of qubits can be reduced when restricted to Hermitian matrices, and further to Hermitian positive definite matrices. The success of the time-optimal AQC implies that the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) with an optimal control protocol can also achieve the same complexity in terms of the runtime. Numerical results indicate that QAOA can yield the lowest runtime compared to the time-optimal AQC, vanilla AQC, and the recently proposed randomization method.
Solving linear systems of equations is a fundamental problem with a wide variety of applications across many fields of science, and there is increasing effort to develop quantum linear solver algorithms. Subaşı . [Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 060504 (2019)] proposed a randomized algorithm inspired by adiabatic quantum computing, based on a sequence of random Hamiltonian simulation steps, with suboptimal scaling in the condition number κ of the linear system and the target error ϵ . Here we go beyond these results in several ways. Firstly, using filtering [Lin and Tong, Quantum 4, 361 (2020)] and Poissonization techniques [Cunningham and Roland, ArXiv:2406.03972 (2024)], the algorithm complexity is improved to the optimal scaling O ( κ log  ( 1 / ϵ ) ) —an exponential improvement in ϵ , and a shaving of a log  κ scaling factor in κ . Secondly, the algorithm is further modified to achieve constant factor improvements, which are vital as we progress towards hardware implementations on fault-tolerant devices. We introduce a cheaper randomized walk operator method replacing Hamiltonian simulation—which also removes the need for potentially challenging classical precomputations; randomized routines are sampled over optimized random variables; circuit constructions are improved. We obtain a closed formula rigorously upper bounding the expected number of times one needs to apply a block-encoding of the linear system matrix to output a quantum state encoding the solution to the linear system. The upper bound is 837 κ at ϵ = 10 − 10 for Hermitian matrices.
Recently, several approaches to solving linear systems on a quantum computer have been formulated in terms of the quantum adiabatic theorem for a continuously varying Hamiltonian.Such approaches have enabled near-linear scaling in the condition number κ of the linear system, without requiring a complicated variable-time amplitude amplification procedure.However, the most efficient of those procedures is still asymptotically suboptimal by a factor of log(κ).Here, we prove a rigorous form of the adiabatic theorem that bounds the error in terms of the spectral gap for intrinsically discrete-time evolutions.In combination with the qubitized quantum walk, our discrete adiabatic theorem gives a speed-up for all adiabatic algorithms.Here, we use this combination to develop a quantum algorithm for solving linear systems that is asymptotically optimal, in the sense that the complexity is strictly linear in κ, matching a known lower bound on the complexity.Our O[κ log(1/ )] complexity is also optimal in terms of the combined scaling in κ and the precision .Compared to existing suboptimal methods, our algorithm is simpler and easier to implement.Moreover, we determine the constant factors in the algorithm, which would be suitable for determining the complexity in terms of gate counts for specific applications.
We present a quantum eigenstate filtering algorithm based on quantum signal processing (QSP) and minimax polynomials. The algorithm allows us to efficiently prepare a target eigenstate of a given Hamiltonian, if we have access to an initial state with non-trivial overlap with the target eigenstate and have a reasonable lower bound for the spectral gap. We apply this algorithm to the quantum linear system problem (QLSP), and present two algorithms based on quantum adiabatic computing (AQC) and quantum Zeno effect respectively. Both algorithms prepare the final solution as a pure state, and achieves the near optimal O ~ ( d κ log ⁡ ( 1 / ϵ ) ) query complexity for a d -sparse matrix, where κ is the condition number, and ϵ is the desired precision. Neither algorithm uses phase estimation or amplitude amplification.
Given a linear system of equations Ax=bA\boldsymbol{x}=\boldsymbol{b}Ax=b, quantum linear system solvers (QLSSs) approximately prepare a quantum state ∣x⟩|\boldsymbol{x}\rangle∣x⟩ for which the amplitudes are proportional to the solution vector x\boldsymbol{x}x. Asymptotically optimal QLSSs have query complexity O(κlog⁡(1/ε))O(κ\log(1/\varepsilon))O(κlog(1/ε)), where κκκ is the condition number of AAA, and ε\varepsilonε is the approximation error. However, runtime guarantees for existing optimal and near-optimal QLSSs do not have favorable constant prefactors, in part because they rely on complex or difficult-to-analyze techniques like variable-time amplitude amplification and adiabatic path-following. Here, we give a conceptually simple QLSS that does not use these techniques. If the solution norm ∥x∥\lVert\boldsymbol{x}\rVert∥x∥ is known exactly, our QLSS requires only a single application of kernel reflection (a straightforward extension of the eigenstate filtering (EF) technique of previous work) and the query complexity of the QLSS is (1+O(ε))κln⁡(22/ε)(1+O(\varepsilon))κ\ln(2\sqrt{2}/\varepsilon)(1+O(ε))κln(22​/ε). If the norm is unknown, our method allows it to be estimated up to a constant factor using O(log⁡log⁡(κ))O(\log\log(κ))O(loglog(κ)) applications of kernel projection (a direct generalization of EF) yielding a straightforward QLSS with near-optimal O(κlog⁡log⁡(κ)log⁡log⁡log⁡(κ)+κlog⁡(1/ε))O(κ\log\log(κ)\log\log\log(κ)+κ\log(1/\varepsilon))O(κloglog(κ)logloglog(κ)+κlog(1/ε)) total complexity. Alternatively, by reintroducing a concept from the adiabatic path-following technique, we show that O(κ)O(κ)O(κ) complexity can be achieved for norm estimation, yielding an optimal QLSS with O(κlog⁡(1/ε))O(κ\log(1/\varepsilon))O(κlog(1/ε)) complexity while still avoiding the need to invoke the adiabatic theorem. Finally, we compute an explicit upper bound of 56κ+1.05κln⁡(1/ε)+o(κ)56κ+1.05κ\ln(1/\varepsilon)+o(κ)56κ+1.05κln(1/ε)+o(κ) for the complexity of our optimal QLSS.
We present a quantum eigenstate filtering algorithm based on quantum signal processing (QSP) and minimax polynomials. The algorithm allows us to efficiently prepare a target eigenstate of a given Hamiltonian, if we have access to an initial state with non-trivial overlap with the target eigenstate and have a reasonable lower bound for the spectral gap. We apply this algorithm to the quantum linear system problem (QLSP), and present two algorithms based on quantum adiabatic computing (AQC) and quantum Zeno effect respectively. Both algorithms prepare the final solution as a pure state, and achieves the near optimal Oe(dκlog(1/∊)) query complexity for a d-sparse matrix, where κ is the condition number, and ∊ is the desired precision. Neither algorithm uses phase estimation or amplitude amplification.
Optimal quantum linear equation solvers provide complexity O(κlog⁡(1/ε))O(κ\log(1/ε))O(κlog(1/ε)), where κκκ is the condition number and εεε is the allowable error. The optimal solver using a discrete adiabatic approach [PRX Quantum 3, 040303 (2022)] has large analytically proven constant factors for the upper bound on the complexity. The constant factors were later found to be about 1,200 times smaller in numerical testing [Quantum 9, 1887 (2025)]. This meant it is about an order of magnitude more efficient than using a randomised approach from [PRX Quantum 6, 040373 (2025)], which has far smaller analytically proven constant factors. Recently, a ``Shortcut'' method has been found to provide an optimal solver which also has small proven constant factors. In the present work, we conduct a comprehensive numerical analysis comparing this method with the adiabatic solver for two families of random linear systems. We find that, in the case where the solution norm is unknown, the adiabatic solver provides slightly better performance. If the solution norm is known, then the shortcut method provides significantly better performance for non-Hermitian matrices.