Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Constant-depth adaptive preparation of Dicke and symmetric states

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that every Dicke state, and with a further lifting step every permutation-symmetric state, can be prepared exactly by constant-depth adaptive circuits using polynomial ancillary qubits, with the uniform subset…

desk verdict Genuinely new adaptive ordering route to constant-depth Dicke and symmetric state preparation; the main gap is a repairable missing proof in Lemma 2, so this deserves a serious referee but not unconditional acceptance yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01144 v1 pith:X7JTOW2F submitted 2026-08-02 quant-ph

Rui Luo , Junjie Chen , Xiongfeng Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Lx
keywords adaptivequantumcircuitsconstant-depthstatepreparationDickestatessymmetricuniformsubsetsuperpositionancillaryqubitsclassicalfeedforwardEuleriannumbers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's goal is to show that measurements and classical feedforward make exact state preparation much shallower than purely unitary circuits: every Dicke state $|D_n^k\rangle$, and in fact every $n$-qubit permutation-symmetric state, can be produced exactly in constant quantum depth using only polynomial ancillary qubits. The construction goes through a new primitive, the uniform subset superposition $|\mathrm{USS}_{n,k}\rangle$, an equal-weight coherent encoding of all $k$-element subsets as ordered tuples. The authors prove that $|\mathrm{USS}_{n,k}\rangle$ itself is preparable in constant adaptive depth with $O(k^2\log^2 n)$ ancillary qubits and success probability at least $1/k$, and that this suffices for exact Dicke states with $O(n^2+k^2\log^2 n+kn\log n\log\log n)$ ancillary qubits. A separate lifting theorem converts any clean unitary Dicke-state circuit of depth $O(L)$ and width $\xi$ into a symmetric-state circuit of depth $O(L)$ and width $O(n^2\log n+n\xi)$; combined with a recent unitary construction, this prepares arbitrary symmetric states in constant depth with $O(n^3\sqrt{\log n})$ ancillary qubits. If correct, these results replace logarithmic-depth lower-bound intuition with a constant-depth adaptive route for a broad class of metrologically and algorithmically relevant states.

What carries the argument

The central object is the uniform subset superposition $|\mathrm{USS}_{n,k}\rangle$, whose basis states are ordered tuples $0\le j_1<\cdots<j_k\le n-1$; it is also the uniform vertex state of the Johnson graph. The load-bearing mechanism is an adaptive ordering filter: the protocol creates $k$ independent uniform superpositions over $\{0,\ldots,\eta-1\}$, evaluates all pairwise comparisons, measures the comparison outcomes, and reads off each element's rank. For a rank permutation with $d$ descents (drops between consecutive ranks), the branch is lifted by adding offsets $a_i=|\{s<i:r_s<r_{s+1}\}|$, producing a strict chain whose endpoint is $|\mathrm{USS}_{\eta+k-1-d,k}\rangle$. The probability of each descent count is $p(d)=A(k,d)\binom{\eta+k-1-d}{k}/\eta^k$, where $A(k,d)$ are Eulerian numbers, the counts of permutations with exactly $d$ descents; choosing $\eta$ so that the most probable branch satisfies $\eta+k-1-d(\eta)=n$ yields the target USS. All comparison, addition, filling, and erasure steps are constant-depth adaptive circuits built from unbounded fan-out and classical feedforward.

What would settle it

Fix any $(n,k)$ and compute $p(d)=A(k,d)\binom{\eta+k-1-d}{k}/\eta^k$ for all $\eta\in[n-k+1,n]$ and all $d$ using the Eulerian-number recursion $A(k,d)=(k-d)A(k-1,d-1)+(d+1)A(k-1,d)$; check whether there is an $\eta$ whose mode $d(\eta)$ equals $\eta+k-1-n$. A single $(n,k)$ with no such $\eta$ would show that the exactness statement of Theorem 1 does not follow from the given proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a constructive exact reduction: constant-depth adaptive computation can prepare $|D_n^k\rangle$ by first preparing $|\mathrm{USS}_{n,k}\rangle$, using the ordered indices to write the excitations into a target register, and then coherently erasing the index register. The USS preparation is the main new ingredient: $k$ uniform index registers over a larger alphabet are compared pairwise, the comparison outcomes are measured, and the resulting branch, labelled by the descent count $d$ of the rank permutation, is lifted by adding fixed offsets to become exactly $|\mathrm{USS}_{\eta+k-1-d,k}\rangle$. Postselecting on the most probable descent count, whose probability is at least $1/k$, gives the target USS and hence the Dicke state. The second contribution is a lifting theorem: any family of clean unitary Dicke-state preparation circuits of depth $O(L)$ and width $O(\xi)$ yields exact preparation of arbitrary symmetric states at depth $O(L)$ and width $O(n^2\log n+n\xi)$, and with the current best unitary construction this becomes constant depth and $O(n^3\sqrt{\log n})$ qubits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that for every $n$ and $k$ there is an $\eta\in[n-k+1,n]$ whose most probable descent count $d(\eta)$ satisfies $\eta+k-1-d(\eta)=n$; the paper scans for such an $\eta$ and, if none is found, accepts an approximate match, which would prepare $|\mathrm{USS}_{n',k}\rangle$ for a different $n'$ instead of the announced exact Dicke state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $n$ and $k\le n$, the Dicke state $|D_n^k\rangle$ can be produced exactly by a $O(1)$-depth adaptive circuit with $O(n^2+k^2\log^2 n+kn\log n\log\log n)$ ancillary qubits and success probability at least $1/k$.
  • Parallel repetition suppresses the failure probability to $1-e^{-c}$ using $O(c\alpha k^2\log^2 n)$ ancillary qubits without increasing the quantum depth.
  • Any $n$-qubit permutation-symmetric state can be prepared exactly in constant depth with $O(n^3\sqrt{\log n})$ ancillary qubits, assuming the paper's cited unitary Dicke-state construction.
  • Through the lifting theorem, any improvement in clean unitary Dicke-state preparation automatically improves the ancilla cost for arbitrary symmetric-state preparation.
  • The uniform subset superposition itself becomes a constant-depth primitive for Johnson-graph quantum walks and for the uniform set-register superpositions used in topological-data-analysis algorithms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The exact-match condition $\eta+k-1-d(\eta)=n$ is a purely classical arithmetic statement about Eulerian-number distributions; it can be checked exhaustively by polynomial-time dynamic programming, so the protocol's exactness is decidable independently of the quantum circuit.
  • If no exact match exists for some $(n,k)$, the paper's stated fallback of accepting suboptimal descent numbers would output $|\mathrm{USS}_{n',k}\rangle$ for some $n'\neq n$, which is not the target Dicke state; a rigorous theorem would need to prove existence or relax the exactness claim.
  • A deterministic unitary USS preparation in constant depth would remove postselection entirely and allow the USS to be controlled coherently, which, by the lifting theorem, would yield deterministic symmetric-state preparation independent of the cited unitary Dicke construction.
  • The adaptive ordering technique may transfer to other combinatorial superposition states beyond Dicke states, such as Schur-basis or symmetry-resolved sectors, by replacing the comparison-and-descent filter with the appropriate symmetry measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an adaptive constant-depth protocol for exact preparation of Dicke states and, via a lifting theorem, arbitrary symmetric states. The main primitive is the uniform subset superposition (USS), prepared by generating k independent uniform registers, measuring pairwise comparisons to induce an ordering, and applying classically computed offsets so that each measurement branch with descent number d yields USS_{η+k-1-d,k}. The authors claim Theorem 1: exact Dicke-(n,k) preparation in O(1) quantum depth with O(n^2+k^2 log^2 n+kn log n log log n) ancillary qubits and success probability at least 1/k, with parallel repetition reducing the failure probability to e^{-c}. They also prove Theorem 2, a lifting framework that coherently combines clean unitary Dicke circuits to prepare arbitrary symmetric states, and combine it with Ref. [36] to obtain Corollary 3: exact constant-depth symmetric-state preparation with O(n^3 sqrt(log n)) ancillary qubits. The paper includes detailed resource accounting, a correction to prior width estimates, and an appendix analyzing the descent-number distribution p(d) via Eulerian numbers.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a genuinely new mechanism—ordering by intermediate measurement as an alternative to Grover-based filtering—and a general reduction from symmetric-state preparation to unitary Dicke-state preparation that is of independent interest. The USS primitive is also relevant to quantum-walk and topological-data-analysis algorithms. The resource accounting is careful and the success-probability derivation via Eulerian numbers is parameter-free and checks out on small cases; the paper also flags a real discrepancy in a cited width estimate. However, the exactness and success-probability claims of the Dicke protocol depend on an unproven arithmetic fixed-point condition in Lemma 2, and the appendix explicitly contemplates a failure mode. The significance is therefore real but cannot be fully assessed until that gap is closed.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Lemma 2 and Appendix A, Eq. (A1)] The proof of Lemma 2 asserts that 'a suitable value of η can be found by scanning' the interval n−k+1 ≤ η ≤ n and picking d(η) so that η+k−1−d(η)=n. No proof is given that such an integer exists, and Appendix A explicitly concedes that 'some suboptimal solutions of d≈d(η) is acceptable if there happens to be no exact match.' If no exact match exists, the post-lifting branch produces USS_{n',k} with n'≠n rather than the target USS_{n,k}, so the 'conditioned on success, exact' statement of Theorem 1 fails. Moreover, the proof's lower bound p(d(η))≥1/k uses the mode d(η); selecting a non-mode d invalidates the success-probability bound in Corollaries 1 and 2. This is a load-bearing gap, not a cosmetic issue, and it must be repaired by a proof of existence of the fixed point or by a constructive selection rule that provably satisfies both exactness and the 1/k bound.
  2. [III, Corollaries 1–2 and Appendix A, threshold rule] The threshold-based selection rule in Appendix A does not supply the claimed failure bound. The algorithm returns the first η with p(d~)>p_th for d~=η+k−1−n, and Table IV shows cases where d~ differs from the mode d(η). Since Corollary 1/2 computes α=1/p(d(η)) and then bounds the failure probability by e^{-c}, applying these bounds to a non-mode d~ is unjustified. The paper needs either a theorem that the selected d~ satisfies the exactness condition and p(d~)≥1/k, or a revision that separates the conjectural numerical discussion from the rigorous statements.
  3. [Appendix A, Lemma 5 and fixed-point discussion] Lemma 5 proves that p(d) is unimodal for fixed η and k, and the surrounding discussion observes that the peak moves with η. However, unimodality plus a moving mode does not by itself imply the existence of η with η+k−1−d(η)=n. The paper should explicitly prove monotonicity of F(η)=η+k−1−d(η), for example by showing that d(η+1)−d(η)∈{0,1} from the log-concavity of the Eulerian numbers, and then use F(n−k+1)≤n≤F(n). Without such an argument, the numerical evidence in Table IV (only four parameter sets) cannot support the exactness claim of Theorem 1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III, Eq. (12)] The displayed summation 'X_{j r1≤···≤j rk}' should be written with explicit bounds and normalization; as typeset it is ambiguous and hard to parse.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] The expansion contains repeated 'des = 0' terms and the line 'J-register with des = 1' appears to be a typo for 'order-register'; please correct.
  3. [Throughout] The index convention is inconsistent: Eq. (1) sums over x∈{0,1}^n, while the target-filling and index-erasure procedures index positions 0,...,n−1; a sentence fixing the convention would help the reader.
  4. [Tables and abstract] Several inline formulas (e.g., O(k2 log2n) in the abstract and Table I notes) lose superscripts in the preprint rendering; the final typeset version should use proper math formatting.
  5. [IV, proof of Theorem 2] The sentence 'After the controlled circuit has been applied' should clarify that the fan-out copies of the control qubits are uncomputed before proceeding to the next layer, since otherwise the per-layer control width could accumulate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the USS success-probability calculation is a first-principles Eulerian-number derivation; the Dicke-to-symmetric lifting uses independent external constructions; the Lemma 2 fixed-point omission is a missing-proof/correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. Lemma 2's success probability p(d) is computed explicitly in Eq. (A1) as (1/η^k) C(η+k-1-d, k) A(k,d), with the Eulerian numbers A(k,d) and the Worpitzky equality used to normalize it. The event 'success' is defined as the most probable descent-number branch, and the bound p(d(η)) ≥ 1/k follows from the support size of d; this is not the target state being inserted into the derivation. The subsequent Dicke conversion (filling and erasing the index register) reuses the external constructions of Ref. [30], and the symmetric-state lifting in Theorem 2 rests on Lemma 3 of Ref. [26] and the unitary Dicke preparer of Ref. [36]; none of these are authored by the present authors, and no self-citation is load-bearing. The paper's own self-citations (Refs. [10], [11], [27]) appear only as contextual background. Appendix A's remark that 'some suboptimal solutions of d ≈ d(η) is acceptable if there happens to be no exact match' does reveal a potential gap: Lemma 2 asserts that a suitable η with η+k−1−d(η)=n can be found by scanning, but the existence of such a fixed point is not proved. That is a mathematical completeness/correctness issue (and the failure mode is explicitly acknowledged), not a circularity: the protocol does not fit a parameter to the target state and then rename the fit as a prediction. Likewise, the O(√k) scaling of α is explicitly flagged as a conjecture supported by numerics, and the rigorous claims rely only on α≤k. Hence no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physics parameters are fitted to data; the only tunable quantities are user-chosen protocol constants (c, threshold), not free parameters in the sense of fitted values. The derivation rests on standard combinatorial identities and on cited complexity-theoretic collapses and prior constructions, which are listed as axioms because the paper does not re-prove them.

free parameters (2)
  • Amplification constant c = user-chosen
    In Corollaries 1 and 2, c trades failure probability e^{-c} against ancilla count O(c alpha k^2 log^2 n). Not fitted to data.
  • Selection threshold p_th = e.g., 1/sqrt(k)
    In the Appendix A algorithm for selecting eta, a threshold may be used to minimize eta; this is a design choice, not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Worpitzky identity sum_d A(k,d) C(eta+k-1-d,k) = eta^k
    Normalization of p(d) in Lemma 4; standard Eulerian-number identity.
  • standard math Log-concavity of Eulerian numbers A(k,d)
    Used in Lemma 5 to prove unimodality of p(d).
  • standard math Asymptotic normality of Eulerian numbers
    Used in Lemma 6 and Appendix A to estimate alpha = O(sqrt(k)); cited to Carlitz et al.
  • domain assumption Exact constant-depth equality QNC_f^0 = QTC_f^0 (Takahashi-Tani collapse)
    Used for exact constant-depth addition and prefix-rank computation in the index-erasure step; cited to Ref [28].
  • domain assumption Ref [36]: constant-depth unitary Dicke-state preparation with O(n^2 sqrt(log n)) ancillas
    Assumed true for Corollary 3; the present paper does not reproduce this construction.
  • domain assumption Ref [30] Lemmas 1 and 4.9: constant-depth uniform superposition and index-erasure primitives
    Used in Lemma 2 and the Dicke conversion; correctness assumed from the cited work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constant-depth adaptive preparation of Dicke and symmetric states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7JTOW2F

@misc{pith2026260801144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constant-depth adaptive preparation of Dicke and symmetric states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7JTOW2F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01144}
}
abstract

Efficient preparation of Dicke states and, more generally, permutation-symmetric states is important for quantum metrology, quantum networking, and collective quantum information processing. Measurements and classical feedforward enable low-depth preparations of these states, with a cost of ancillary qubits. In this work, we introduce an exact constant-depth adaptive preparation protocol for arbitrary Dicke-$(n,k)$ states and further symmetric states. We first provide a protocol preparing the uniform subset superposition state, as a primitive, using constant-depth adaptive circuit with $O(k^2\log^2 n)$ ancillary qubits and success probability at least $1/k$. This yields an exact, probabilistic, constant-depth Dicke-state preparation protocol using $O\left(n^2+k^2\log^2 n+kn\log n\log\log n\right)$ ancillary qubits. Parallel repetition suppresses the failure probability exponentially without increasing the quantum depth. Moreover, the uniform subset superposition state is also of independent interest as the uniform vertex state of the Johnson graph and as the compact uniform subset state appearing in quantum-walk and topological-data-analysis algorithms. We further establish a general lifting framework that coherently combines clean unitary Dicke-state preparation circuits to prepare arbitrary symmetric states with only polynomial ancillary overhead. Combined with recent constant-depth unitary Dicke-state constructions, this gives an exact constant-depth preparation protocol for arbitrary $n$-qubit symmetric states using $O(n^3\sqrt{\log n})$ ancillary qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01144 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The quantum circuit for preparing 9-qubit GHZ states given in [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Fix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    LAQCC Local Grid O(1)-Width O(1)∗ O(nlogn) E 1

    work page

  2. [36]

    Unitary All-to-All Global CZ O(1) O(nk+1) E O(1)

    work page

  3. [1]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Nature Physics8, 277 (2012), URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2252

    work page 2012

  4. [2]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.80.885

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    Unitary (n1×n2)-Grid O(1)-Width O(n2) 0 E [1,n2/n1]

    work page

  6. [5]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010), URLhttps://www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/quantum-computation-and-quantum-information/ 01E10196D0A682A6AEFFEA52D53BE9AE#overview

    work page 2010

  7. [6]

    Unitary All-to-All O(1)-Width Oklog n k 0 E [1,n/2]

    work page

  8. [7]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D¨ ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Nature Physics5, 19 (2009), URLhttps: //www.nature.com/articles/nphys1157

    work page 2009

Show all 75 references
  1. [8]

    All-to-All O(1)-Width O(logn·log logn) O(nlogn) E [1,n/2]

    Prob. All-to-All O(1)-Width O(logn·log logn) O(nlogn) E [1,n/2]

  2. [9]

    Unitary All-to-All O(1)-Width Ologklogn k +k 0 E [1,n/2]

  3. [10]

    H. Lu, Z. Zhang, L.-K. Chen, Z.-D. Li, C. Liu, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, X. Ma, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 030501 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.030501

    2016 doi

  4. [11]

    LAQCC Local Grid O(1)-Width O(1)∗ O(n2logn) E O(√n)

  5. [12]

    LAQCC 1D Chain O(1)-Width O(logn)∗ Ω(n2) E [1,n/2]

  6. [13]

    M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1355 (1993), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 71.1355. 16

    1993 doi

  7. [14]

    Prevedel, G

    R. Prevedel, G. Cronenberg, M. S. Tame, M. Paternostro, P. Walther, M. S. Kim, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 020503 (2009), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.020503

    2009 doi

  8. [15]

    Chiuri, C

    A. Chiuri, C. Greganti, M. Paternostro, G. Vallone, and P. Mataloni, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 173604 (2012), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.173604

    2012 doi

  9. [16]

    LOCC Grid O(1)-Width O(1)∗ O(logk) A [1,n/2]

  10. [17]

    S. P. Jordan, N. Shutty, M. Wootters, A. Zalcman, A. Schmidhuber, R. King, S. V. Isakov, T. Khattar, and R. Babbush, Nature646, 831 (2025), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09527-5

    2025 doi

  11. [18]

    Marconi, G

    C. Marconi, G. M¨ uller-Rigat, J. Romero-Pallej` a, J. Tura, and A. Sanpera,Symmetric quantum states: a review of recent progress(2025), URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10185

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Unitary All-to-All Global CZ O(1) O(1) A 1

  13. [20]

    1 Adaptive All-to-All O(1)-Width O(1)∗ On2 +k2log2n+knlognlog logn E [1,n/2] Cor

    Unitary All-to-All Global FAN-OUT O(1) On2√logn E [1,n/2] Thm. 1 Adaptive All-to-All O(1)-Width O(1)∗ On2 +k2log2n+knlognlog logn E [1,n/2] Cor. 2 Adaptive All-to-All O(1)-Width O(1)∗ On2 +cαk2log2n+knlognlog logn E [1,n/2] Notes.The table is organized primarily following the ...

  14. [21]

    Unitary 1D Chain O(1)-Width O(n) 0 E Arbitrary

  15. [22]

    Unitary (n1×n2)-Grid O(1)-Width O(√nk) 0 E [n2/n1,n/2]

  16. [23]

    Unitary (n1×n2)-Grid O(1)-Width Oklog n k +n2 0 E [n2/n1,n/2]

  17. [24]

    Unitary All-to-All O(1)-Width O(logn) 0 E 1

  18. [25]

    Unitary All-to-All O(1)-Width Olog3n·log logn O(nlogn) E [1,n/2]

  19. [26]

    Unitary All-to-All O(1)-Width Oklog n k 0 E [0,k]

  20. [27]

    Unitary Grid O(1)-Width O(√nk) 0 E [0,k]

  21. [28]

    Unitary All-to-All O(1)-Width O(log3n·log logn) O(nlogn) E Arbitrarya

  22. [29]

    LOCC Grid O(1)-Width O(logk)∗ O(1) A [1,n/2]

  23. [31]

    2 Unitary All-to-All Global FAN-OUT O(L) On2logn+nξ E Arbitrary Cor

    Unitary All-to-All Global Toffoli + FANOUTn O(1) poly(n) E Arbitrary Thm. 2 Unitary All-to-All Global FAN-OUT O(L) On2logn+nξ E Arbitrary Cor. 3 Unitary All-to-All Global FAN-OUT O(1) On3√logn E Arbitrary Notes.The labels E and Var. denote exact and variational preparations, r...

  24. [32]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction(California Institute of Technology, 1997), URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9705052

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction(California Institute of Technology, 1997), URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9705052

    1997 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Raussendorf, D

    R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, Physical review A68, 022312 (2003), URLhttps://journals.aps.org/ pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.68.022312

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    Jeffery, R

    S. Jeffery, R. Kothari, and F. Magniez, inProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms(Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2013), p. 1474–1485, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1. 9781611973105.106

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Nature photonics1, 165 (2007), URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2007.22

    2007

  28. [37]

    Unitary 1D Chain O(1)-Width O(n) 0 E [1,n/2]

  29. [38]

    Adaptive All-to-All O(1)-Width polylog(n)∗ O(logn) E [1,n/2]

  30. [39]

    LOCC Grid O(1)-Width O(1)∗ 0 A 1

  31. [40]

    Unitary All-to-All Global CZ O(1) poly(n) E 1

  32. [41]

    Arbitrary

    Variational Collective Global OAT + rotations ⌈2n/3⌉+O(1) 0 Var. Arbitrary

  33. [42]

    Unitary All-to-All Global Toffoli + FANOUTk O(1) poly(n) E [0,k]

  34. [43]

    Cleve, D

    R. Cleve, D. Gottesman, and H.-K. Lo, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 648 (1999), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.83.648

    1999

  35. [44]

    Y. Zhou, C. Guo, and X. Ma, Phys. Rev. A99, 052324 (2019), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.99. 052324

    2019 doi

  36. [45]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Reviews of Modern Physics90(2018), ISSN 1539-0756, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.035005

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    W. Roga, R. Ikuta, T. Horikiri, and M. Takeoka, Phys. Rev. A108, 012612 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.108.012612

    2023

  38. [47]

    Ouyang, Physical Review A90(2014), ISSN 1094-1622, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.062317

    Y. Ouyang, Physical Review A90(2014), ISSN 1094-1622, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.062317

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    Ouyang and J

    Y. Ouyang and J. Fitzsimons, Physical Review A93(2016), ISSN 2469-9934, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.93.042340

    2016

  40. [49]

    Kiesel, W

    N. Kiesel, W. Wieczorek, S. Krins, T. Bastin, H. Weinfurter, and E. Solano, Physical Review A81(2010), ISSN 1094-1622, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.032316

    2010 doi

  41. [50]

    Bartschi and S

    A. Bartschi and S. Eidenbenz, in2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2022), p. 87–96, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1109/QCE53715.2022.00027

    2022

  42. [51]

    Yuan and S

    P. Yuan and S. Zhang,Depth-efficient quantum circuit synthesis for deterministic dicke state preparation(2025), URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15413

    2025 arXiv

  43. [52]

    D. Cruz, R. Fournier, F. Gremion, A. Jeannerot, K. Komagata, T. Tosic, J. Thiesbrummel, C. L. Chan, N. Macris, M. Dupertuis, et al., Advanced Quantum Technologies2(2019), ISSN 2511-9044, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ qute.201900015

    2019

  44. [53]

    Z. Liu, A. M. Childs, and D. Gottesman,Low-depth quantum symmetrization(2025), URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411. 04019

    2025

  45. [54]

    W. Zi, J. Nie, and X. Sun, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16208 (2025), URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16208

    2025 arXiv

  46. [55]

    G. Liu, J. Chen, and X. Ma,State complexity and phase identification in adaptive quantum circuits(2025), URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2509.17014

    2025

  47. [56]

    Takahashi and S

    Y. Takahashi and S. Tani, computational complexity25, 849 (2016), URLhttps://link.springer.com/article/10. 1007/s00037-016-0140-0

    2016

  48. [57]

    Piroli, G

    L. Piroli, G. Styliaris, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review Letters133(2024), ISSN 1079-7114, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.230401

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    Buhrman, M

    H. Buhrman, M. Folkertsma, B. Loff, and N. M. Neumann, Quantum8, 1552 (2024), URLhttps://quantum-journal. org/papers/q-2024-12-09-1552/

    2024

  50. [59]

    Ambainis, SIAM Journal on Computing37, 210 (2007), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539705447311

    A. Ambainis, SIAM Journal on Computing37, 210 (2007), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539705447311

    2007 doi

  51. [60]

    A. M. Childs and J. M. Eisenberg, Quantum Info. Comput.5, 593–604 (2005), ISSN 1533-7146, URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/quant-ph/0311038

    2005 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Magniez, M

    F. Magniez, M. Santha, and M. Szegedy, SIAM Journal on Computing37, 413 (2007), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/ 050643684

    2007

  53. [62]

    McArdle, A

    S. McArdle, A. Gily´ en, and M. Berta, Quantum10, 2058 (2026), ISSN 2521-327X, URLhttps://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2026-04-10-2058

    2026

  54. [63]

    M. R. Joshi and F. Vasconcelos,Constant-depth unitary preparation of dicke states(2026), URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2601.10693

    2026

  55. [64]

    B¨ artschi and S

    A. B¨ artschi and S. Eidenbenz,Deterministic Preparation of Dicke States(Springer International Publishing, 2019), p. 126–139, ISBN 9783030250270, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25027-0_9

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    J. Yu, S. R. Muleady, Y.-X. Wang, N. Schine, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. M. Childs, Physical Review Letters136(2026), ISSN 1079-7114, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/9gjk-rgql

    2026 doi

  57. [66]

    R. C. Farrell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and J. Preskill,Digital quantum simulations of scattering in quantum field theories using w states(2025), URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.03111

    2025

  58. [67]

    Grier, J

    D. Grier, J. Morris, and K. Wu,QAC 0 containsTC 0 (with many copies of the input)(2026), URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2601.03243

    2026

  59. [68]

    L. J. Bond, M. J. Davis, J. c. v. Min´ aˇ r, R. Gerritsma, G. K. Brennen, and A. Safavi-Naini, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L022072 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.L022072

    2025 doi

  60. [69]

    Gretta, M

    L. Gretta, M. Gupta, and M. R. Joshi,Polylogarithmic-weight dicke states in qac 0 and arbitrary symmetric states in qac 0 f (2026), URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15298

    2026 arXiv

  61. [70]

    A. B. Watts, R. Kothari, L. Schaeffer, and A. Tal, inProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing(2019), pp. 515–526, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1906.08890

    2019 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Høyer and R

    P. Høyer and R. ˇSpalek, Theory of computing1, 81 (2005), URLhttps://theoryofcomputing.org/articles/v001a005/

    2005

  63. [72]

    Long, Physical Review A64, 022307 (2001), URLhttps://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA

    G.-L. Long, Physical Review A64, 022307 (2001), URLhttps://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA. 64.022307

    2001 doi

  64. [73]

    Hesse, E

    W. Hesse, E. Allender, and D. A. Mix Barrington, Journal of Computer and System Sciences65, 695 (2002), ISSN 0022-0000, special Issue on Complexity 2001, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 17 S0022000002000259

    2002

  65. [74]

    Worpitzky, Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik94, 203 (1883), URLhttp://eudml.org/doc/148532

    J. Worpitzky, Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik94, 203 (1883), URLhttp://eudml.org/doc/148532

  66. [75]

    Brenti, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society81, 0 (1989), URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:122644463

    F. Brenti, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society81, 0 (1989), URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:122644463

    1989

  67. [76]

    potential

    L. Carlitz, D. C. Kurtz, R. Scoville, and O. P. Stackelberg, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete 23, 47 (1972), URLhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00536689. Appendix A: Analysis ofp(d),αandηin Lemma 2 and Corollary 1 In this appendix,...

    1972 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.