Generalized Quantum Signal Processing

• Generalized quantum signal processing (GQSP) is a framework that interleaves fixed signal operators with arbitrary SU(2) rotations to synthesize bounded complex polynomial transformations without the parity restrictions of standard QSP.
• GQSP leverages nonlinear Fourier analysis to equate phase parameters with polynomial coefficients, allowing for exact recursions and efficient recovery of transformation parameters.
• Applications of GQSP include Hamiltonian simulation, spectral filtering, and extensions to matrix singular-value transformations, offering reduced query counts and improved algorithmic performance.

Generalized quantum signal processing (GQSP) is a reformulation of quantum signal processing that keeps the central QSP idea—interleaving a fixed signal operator with single-qubit controls—but replaces the usual phase-only control pattern by arbitrary $SU(2)$ rotations on the ancilla. In its unitary-input form, with

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$

and $R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$ an arbitrary $SU(2)$ rotation, the sequence

$$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$

implements

$$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$

if and only if $P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$ have degree at most $d$ and satisfy $|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$ on the unit circle. In this sense, GQSP removes the practical parity restrictions emphasized in standard QSP and enlarges the achievable family to arbitrary bounded complex polynomial transformations of a unitary signal (Motlagh et al., 2023).

1. Basic formulation and signal models

A common analytic formulation writes the signal operator as

$w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$

and considers products of the form

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$0

Acting on $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$1, such a product produces a state

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$2

where $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$3 satisfy $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$4 on $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$5. The Laurent model uses

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$6

and the two pictures are exactly equivalent through

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$7

The analytic model is especially convenient because it aligns transparently with later nonlinear-Fourier formulations (Laneve, 4 Mar 2025).

In the $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$8-parameterized form emphasized in GQSP, the phase factors may be written as

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$9

This formulation generalizes standard constrained QSP. If the underlying nonlinear-Fourier data are purely imaginary, one recovers $R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$0-constrained QSP; if they are real, one recovers $R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$1-constrained QSP; and if they are general complex numbers, one obtains full GQSP. The generalization is therefore not merely “more angles,” but the full single-qubit $R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$2 factorization theory underlying several QSP variants (Laneve, 4 Mar 2025).

The same idea admits other signal conventions. In the Laurent-polynomial form used for robust angle finding, the signal operators are

$R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$3

and the generalized sequence uses arbitrary rotations

$R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$4

In that setting, GQSP directly implements complex Laurent polynomials $R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$5 subject only to degree bounds and $R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$6 on $R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$7 (Yamamoto et al., 2024).

2. Nonlinear Fourier analysis, canonical phases, and infinite GQSP

A major structural development is the identification of GQSP with the $R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$8 non-linear Fourier transform (NLFT). For a compactly supported sequence $R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$9, the NLFT produces an $SU(2)$0-valued matrix

$SU(2)$1

and the analytic QSP product satisfies

$SU(2)$2

Matching the $SU(2)$3 factors gives the explicit relation

$SU(2)$4

so the NLFT coefficients and the GQSP phase parameters are the same object in different coordinates. This equivalence yields a canonical uniqueness statement: after fixing the leading coefficient of $SU(2)$5 to be real and positive and imposing the canonical condition

$SU(2)$6

the GQSP phase factors are unique (Laneve, 4 Mar 2025).

The nonlinear-Fourier perspective also changes the realizability language. In the survey treatment, the image of compactly supported nonlinear-Fourier data is the class

$SU(2)$7

and the NLFT is a bijection from compactly supported sequences onto $SU(2)$8. In the generalized setting, realizability is no longer expressed only as a complementary-polynomial problem; it becomes a factorization problem for pairs $SU(2)$9 satisfying

$$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$0

with uniqueness selected by requiring $$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$1 to be outer (Lin, 1 Oct 2025).

This same framework extends to infinite protocols. Infinite QSP introduces an infinite reduced phase sequence $$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$2 and studies limits of symmetric finite QSP products. One result is local invertibility of the extended synthesis map

$$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$3

on a ball of radius

$$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$4

Thus, if the Chebyshev coefficient vector $$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$5 of the target function satisfies $$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$6, there exists an infinite reduced phase sequence $$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$7 such that $$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$8. The same work shows that there exists a consistent choice of parameterization so that the phase limit is well defined in $$\left(\prod_{j=1}^{d}R(\theta_j,\phi_j,0)A\right)R(\theta_0,\phi_0,\lambda)$$9, and proves a decay theorem of the form

$$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$0

This ties regularity of the target function directly to decay of the infinite phase sequence (Dong et al., 2022).

A broader infinite-QSP theory appears in the mathematical survey. There, realizability extends beyond polynomials to an $$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$1-small Chebyshev class, where

$$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$2

and to the class of Szegő functions $$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$3, characterized by

$$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$4

The corresponding infinite-QSP realizations converge either uniformly or in the weighted Szegő norm, and the nonlinear Plancherel identity

$$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$5

connects function-theoretic data to the phase sequence (Lin, 1 Oct 2025).

3. Phase synthesis and numerical analysis

Although the existence theory is exact, finding the angles has historically been the main implementation bottleneck. In the original GQSP construction, when both $$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$6 and $$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$7 are known, the phases can be recovered recursively by cancelling the top degree. If

$$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$8

the top-layer parameters are

$$\begin{bmatrix} P(U) & \cdot \ Q(U) & \cdot \end{bmatrix}$$9

and one then defines lower-degree polynomials $P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$0 by undoing the final GQSP layer. This exact recursion lowers the degree by one at each step (Motlagh et al., 2023).

When only $P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$1 is known, the same paper proposes an optimization-based completion of $P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$2 using the autocorrelation identity

$P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$3

with objective

$P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$4

Because the convolution is FFT-based, the objective can be evaluated in

$P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$5

time. The reported numerical performance reaches degree on the order of $P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$6 in under a minute of GPU time, and random $P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$7 of degree

$P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$8

was handled in less than $P,Q\in\mathbb C[x]$9 seconds on an A100 GPU (Motlagh et al., 2023).

A distinct line of work develops robust angle finding specifically for generalized Laurent-polynomial GQSP. There the main completion step uses Prony’s method rather than explicit root finding. The reported numerical result is that the proposed algorithm “successfully generates angle sequence of precision $d$0 up to polynomial degrees of hundreds within a second,” and, in Hamiltonian-simulation tests, the corresponding signal-operator query count is essentially halved relative to ordinary QSP (Yamamoto et al., 2024).

The nonlinear-Fourier formulation yields a different algorithmic toolkit. In the survey treatment, the Weiss algorithm solves the generalized completion problem $d$1 with $d$2 outer by computing

$d$3

If $d$4 has degree $d$5 and

$d$6

then one chooses

$d$7

sample points, with total cost

$d$8

The same survey presents layer stripping with cost $d$9, a structured Riemann–Hilbert factorization method whose naive cost can be reduced to $|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$0, and an inverse nonlinear FFT with complexity

$|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$1

which it describes as near the information-theoretic optimum $|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$2 (Lin, 1 Oct 2025).

4. Hamiltonian simulation and spectral filtering

Hamiltonian simulation is one of the earliest algorithmic applications where GQSP changes the constant factors rather than the asymptotic law. In the standard block-encoding and qubitization setting, one is given

$|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$3

builds the qubitized walk

$|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$4

and reduces simulation of

$|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$5

to transforming eigenphases $|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$6 of $|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$7 into

$|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$8

Standard QSP achieves complexity

$|P(z)|^2+|Q(z)|^2=1$9

The bidirectional GQSP construction replaces the usual control between $w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$0 and $w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$1 by control between $w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$2 and $w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$3, leading to a modified theorem in which the transformed objects are Laurent polynomials $w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$4. Because both positive and negative powers are available, the same simulated time can be achieved with approximately half the number of controlled walk uses, up to two additive correction controls (Berry et al., 2024).

The same paper identifies the key structural reason for the factor-of-two improvement. In ordinary QSP the order of the relevant Fourier expansion is half the number of controlled operations, whereas with the controlled-$w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$5 primitive “the order is the same as the number of controlled operations, not half as it is in standard quantum signal processing.” The resulting Hamiltonian-simulation query complexity remains

$w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$6

but with the leading constant in the dominant query count halved whenever

$w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$7

is implementable with nearly the same complexity as the standard controlled-$w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$8 primitive (Berry et al., 2024).

The original GQSP paper already observed that the generalized formalism simplifies Hamiltonian simulation by directly implementing mixed-parity Fourier expansions. Using Jacobi–Anger expansions,

$w=\operatorname{diag}(z,1),\qquad z\in\mathbb T,$9

it proves that, given $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$00, one can implement an $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$01-approximation of $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$02 and $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$03 using

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$04

controlled-$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$05 and two-qubit operations with a single ancilla qubit. In the qubitization setting, this yields a block-encoding of $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$06 within error $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$07 using

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$08

applications of the walk operator $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$09 (Motlagh et al., 2023).

More recent work uses GQSP as a common spectral-filtering layer for eigensolvers. A block-encoding $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$10 of $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$11 supports complex polynomial transformations $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$12, and therefore polynomial filters of $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$13. In this way, quantum power iteration, power Lanczos, inverse iteration, and folded spectrum methods are all described by different choices of $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$14, implemented through the same GQSP mechanism. The paper’s explicit summary is that the number of queries to the encoded unitary equals the polynomial degree used in each method (Khinevich et al., 15 Jul 2025).

5. Extensions beyond scalar unitary transformations

GQSP has been generalized along several orthogonal directions: from unitary eigenvalue transformations to singular-value transformations of general matrices, from $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$15 ancilla control to $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$16, from univariate to multivariate signals, and from $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$17 to non-unitary $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$18 transfer matrices.

Extension	Core signal model	Distinctive capability
GQSVT	Block-encoded general matrix $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$19	Removes parity restriction and implements $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$20 or $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$21
QSP/QSVT on $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$22	$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$23 ancilla with controlled projectors	Realizes multiple polynomial outputs simultaneously
Multivariate QSP	$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$24	Gives exact sufficient conditions for some multivariate polynomial states
Complexified QSP	$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$25 signal $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$26, $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$27	Produces complex unimodular transfer matrices and Möbius actions

The extension to general matrices is called generalized quantum singular value transformation (GQSVT). Starting from a block-encoding of

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$28

the construction introduces four controlled operators $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$29 built from the qubitized walk and its adjoint. If $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$30 is a polynomial with $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$31 on $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$32, then there exist GQSP parameters such that, for even degree, the resulting block-encoding contains

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$33

and for odd degree it contains

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$34

The paper presents this as the matrix-functional lift of GQSP beyond unitary-only inputs (Liu et al., 29 Aug 2025).

A different extension lifts the ancilla control space from $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$35 to $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$36. In this setting, the target is no longer a single polynomial but a matrix polynomial

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$37

and the controlled-$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$38 sequence block-encodes

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$39

The corresponding $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$40-QSVT theorem states that if

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$41

then a block-encoding of $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$42 can be implemented with $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$43 calls to $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$44 and $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$45. The paper uses this framework to treat bivariate polynomial processing and quantum amplitude estimation (Lu et al., 2024).

Multivariate polynomial transformation has also been studied in a more directly QSP-like form. For the bivariate analytic signal operator

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$46

the paper considers products

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$47

Its main positive result is that a degree-$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$48 polynomial state is decomposable if the coefficients of

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$49

are all nonzero. The authors describe this as the first proved sufficient condition for exact implementability of a generally inhomogeneous multivariate polynomial in a QSP setting; the appendix extends the criterion to $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$50-dimensional signal operators

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$51

with $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$52 (Laneve et al., 2024).

A more radical generalization complexifies QSP from $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$53 to $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$54. There the signal is

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$55

the product

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$56

takes values in $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$57, and its matrix entries are written as

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$58

subject only to the determinant-one condition

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$59

This construction unifies the $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$60 and $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$61 cases inside $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$62 and identifies the symmetric protocol with a truncated $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$63 nonlinear Fourier transform, but the paper does not prove a full feasibility theorem analogous to standard QSP completeness (Bastidas et al., 2024).

6. Alternative architectures and physical settings

One application architecture uses GQSP to synthesize functions of a Hermitian contraction without block-encoding that Hermitian directly. If

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$64

the paper defines

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$65

so that

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$66

It then proves that for each $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$67 there exists a degree-$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$68 polynomial $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$69 such that

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$70

and consequently

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$71

This gives a block-encoding-free Hermitian polynomial-synthesis route based on two GQSP circuits, one for $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$72 and one for $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$73, followed by coherent recombination (Mahasinghe et al., 20 Dec 2025).

Hybrid oscillator–qubit settings provide another extension. In oscillator–qubit GQSP, the signal operator is

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$74

and the controlled signal primitives are

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$75

The resulting OQ-GQSP sequence synthesizes

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$76

and, for analytic phase functions, the Fourier truncation theorem yields degree

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$77

for fixed strip width. This is used to compile arbitrary bosonic phase gates and anharmonic vibronic propagators on hybrid oscillator–qubit processors (Hong et al., 12 Oct 2025).

A related continuous-variable formulation, quantum signal processing interferometry, begins from the qubit–oscillator block encoding

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$78

and constructs

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$79

For displacement sensing, the measured ancilla response becomes a Laurent polynomial

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$80

so the polynomial transform is transferred from the oscillator operator to an experimentally accessible response function (Sinanan-Singh et al., 2023).

GQSP has also been adapted to non-Hermitian linear systems through Hermitian block embedding. In the Black–Scholes application, the backward-Euler step matrix $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$81 is generally non-Hermitian, so the paper embeds it into

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$82

After scaling $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$83 so that $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$84, one approximates

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$85

on

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$86

by an odd polynomial

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$87

Because odd powers of $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$88 remain block off-diagonal, $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$89 approximates the inverse action of $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$90 on the embedded state (Greenwell et al., 30 May 2026).

7. Limitations and open directions

The most universal limitation is still the unitarity bound. In the original GQSP theorem, the only remaining scalar constraint is

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$91

on the unit circle; in matrix-valued extensions, this becomes matrix contractivity such as

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$92

or

$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$93

For general functions, the framework remains polynomial at the compilation level, so non-polynomial targets are accessed through approximation, infinite limits, or Hardy-space factorization rather than by a single finite exact circuit (Motlagh et al., 2023).

Some generalizations are mathematically complete only in special regimes. The survey of mathematical and numerical analysis states explicitly that for broader multivariate and other generalizations there is “not yet a full analogue of QSVT” that lifts the generalized scalar theory to matrices, even though QETU and some Hermitian-function constructions already fit into GQSP-like templates (Lin, 1 Oct 2025). The multivariate decomposition results therefore remain selective rather than exhaustive, and the bivariate factorization condition in the $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$94 framework is stronger than mere boundedness on the torus (Lu et al., 2024).

The non-unitary complexified theory is also incomplete in the same sense. The $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$95 formulation gives a transfer-matrix ansatz, a determinant constraint, recurrences, and a nonlinear-Fourier correspondence, but it does not provide a full analogue of the standard QSP feasibility theorem for arbitrary quadruples $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$96 (Bastidas et al., 2024).

Algorithmically, phase synthesis has improved substantially, but the numerical problem remains central. The robust Prony method, Weiss completion, layer stripping, Riemann–Hilbert factorization, and inverse nonlinear FFT all address different regimes, yet the survey still treats numerical stability, outer-function normalization, and efficient recovery of generalized phase factors as major topics rather than finished problems (Yamamoto et al., 2024, Lin, 1 Oct 2025).

Finally, many application-level speedups depend on access-model assumptions rather than on formal asymptotic changes. The factor-of-two Hamiltonian-simulation improvement requires that coherent control between $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$97 and $$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$98 cost essentially the same as ordinary controlled-$$A=(|0\rangle\!\langle 0|\otimes U)+(|1\rangle\!\langle 1|\otimes I)$$99 (Berry et al., 2024). The block-encoding-free Hermitian route depends on efficient implementation of

$R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$00

(Mahasinghe et al., 20 Dec 2025). The Hermitian-embedding approach to non-Hermitian PDE solvers still leaves detailed quantum resource analysis, efficient implementation of

$R(\theta,\phi,\lambda)$01

and multi-step time evolution as future work (Greenwell et al., 30 May 2026).

Taken together, these developments define GQSP less as a single theorem than as a family of closely related signal-processing formalisms. At its core lies a common principle: once the one-qubit control layer of standard QSP is replaced by a more general unitary or matrix-valued factorization, the reachable transformations extend from parity-constrained scalar polynomials to bounded complex polynomials, Laurent polynomials, matrix polynomials, multivariate polynomial states, and, in some settings, non-unitary transfer matrices. The resulting theory now connects block-encoding, qubitization, nonlinear Fourier analysis, infinite-function realization, and hybrid continuous-variable architectures within one generalized signal-processing language (Laneve, 4 Mar 2025).