Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 43 references

Ambient unitaries don't enable shallow group designs

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that no local sublinear-depth circuit ensemble can form approximate designs over the matchgate, orthogonal, symplectic, or Clifford groups, even using ambient unitaries or ancilla qubits.

desk verdict Solid short note closing the ambient-unitary loophole for shallow group designs; the ancilla extension is asserted rather than proved and looks repairable. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13528 v1 pith:QU3PCQKT submitted 2026-08-13 quant-ph

Maxwell West , M. Cerezo , Martin Larocca This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68
keywords approximateunitarydesignsgroupmatchgateClifford4-designdiamonddistancelightconeargumentcircuitdepthlowerboundsclassicalshadows
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

This paper closes a loophole in recent no-go results on shallow quantum designs. Earlier work showed that sublinear-depth circuits made only of matchgate, orthogonal, symplectic, or Clifford gates cannot form approximate designs over those groups, but left open the possibility that mixing in arbitrary 'ambient' unitaries from outside the group could still produce a good design. The paper shows this does not help: no ensemble of nearest-neighbour circuits of sublinear depth can form an approximate matchgate, orthogonal, or symplectic 2-design, or a Clifford 4-design, even when the sampled unitaries are arbitrary and may act on ancilla qubits. The proof is a single invariant-state argument that covers both a shallow unitary that approximately preserves the group-invariant state and one that does not. If correct, this means protocols that sample from these groups, such as matchgate shadow tomography or benchmarking, must pay linear circuit depth rather than the logarithmic depth available for the full unitary group.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is an invariant projector $Q$: the projector onto a state or subspace fixed by the $k$-fold tensor action of the target group. For $k=2$ this is a maximally entangled state $|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|$ invariant under the group; for the Clifford 4-design it is the Clifford commutant projector $Q=\frac{1}{d^2}\sum_P P^{\otimes 4}$. The mechanism is the dichotomy of Theorem 1: a sampled shallow unitary either leaves $Q$ approximately invariant, in which case the Heisenberg lightcone of a probe $A$ stays within a local projection $\Pi$ and the lightcone POVM separates it from the Haar measure, or it disturbs $Q$, in which case the POVM $\{Q,\mathbf{1}-Q\}$ separates it from the group's Haar measure. The out-of-time-order correlator expression of Eq. (18) turns this bound into explicit constants for each group.

What would settle it

Construct an explicit family of depth-L nearest-neighbour circuits on n+k qubits whose unitaries are ambient (outside the target group), initialize the ancillas in any fixed state, and compute the induced moment channel on the original n qubits; if for some L below the stated threshold the diamond distance to the group's Haar channel falls below 3/4 (or below $1 - (4^{L+1}-1)/(4^n-1)$ for the Clifford case), the paper's central claim would be false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for any ensembles $\mu$ and $\nu$, any $\mu$-invariant orthogonal projector $Q$, and any probe unitary $A$, the diamond distance between the $k$th moment channels satisfies $\|\Phi_\mu^{(k)}-\Phi_\nu^{(k)}\|_\diamond \geq 1 - \mathrm{Tr}[\Pi\, \Phi_\mu^{(k)}(\mathrm{Ad}_A(\rho_Q))]$ whenever $\mathrm{Ad}_{\mathrm{Ad}_{U^{\otimes k}}(A)}(Q) \leq \Pi$ for every $U$ in the support of $\nu$. The proof combines two distinguishing experiments: if a sampled $U$ fails to approximately stabilize $Q$, the POVM $\{Q,\mathbf{1}-Q\}$ already separates it from Haar-distributed $\mu$; if it does stabilize $Q$, the lightcone POVM $\Pi$ does the work, because a shallow $U$ cannot move the probe $A$ outside its Heisenberg lightcone. For the matchgate, orthogonal, and symplectic groups, with $Q$ the maximally entangled invariant state, this gives lower bounds of about $3/4$ on the diamond distance to the corresponding 2-design for depths $L\leq n/2-1$ (matchgates) or $L\leq n-2$ (orthogonal and symplectic). For the Clifford group, $Q = \frac{1}{d^2}\sum_P P^{\otimes 4}$ is the fourth-order commutant projector and the bound is $\|\Phi_{E_L}^{(4)}-\Phi_{\mu_{Cl_n}}^{(4)}\|_\diamond \geq 1 - \frac{4^{L+1}-1}{4^n-1}$, so depth $L\leq n-2$ is at distance at least $3/4$ from a Clifford 4-design. The paper further asserts, in Remark 1, that extending the POVMs by the identity on the ancilla registers makes the argument go through unchanged when the sampled unitaries act on an extended Hilbert space containing ancillas.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that adding ancilla qubits cannot change the conclusion: the paper assumes in Remark 1 that extending the POVMs by the identity on ancilla registers makes the proof of Theorem 1 go through unchanged, without an explicit channel-level check that the diamond distance in the extended space bounds the design error on the original system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any tomography or benchmarking protocol that assumes an approximate matchgate, orthogonal, or symplectic 2-design, or a Clifford 4-design, must use circuits of linear depth; logarithmic-depth implementations are impossible even when the sampled unitaries are not restricted to the group.
  • The known linear-depth constructions for Clifford circuits are optimal up to constant factors for the 4-design property, matching the new lower bound.
  • For the matchgate group, approximate 2-designs require depth at least roughly $n/2$, while exact Haar-random matchgates can be sampled in depth $3n$, leaving only a constant-factor window.
  • The result transfers to arbitrary representations: any unitary that maps a representation of one of these groups to another must pay a circuit-depth overhead governed by the design's depth in the target representation.
  • Approximate designs over these four groups are exponentially harder in depth than approximate designs over the full unitary group, so the naive expectation that simpler groups are easier to sample is inverted.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the invariant-projector dichotomy is a general template, so any compact group with a nontrivial invariant projector in a low tensor power should inherit an analogous depth obstruction against ambient shallow ensembles, not just the four groups analyzed here.
  • Inference: the ancilla claim in Remark 1 would be worth making explicit; without an explicit effective-channel calculation there is a small logical gap between the diamond distance on the extended space and the design error on the original system.
  • Inference: a natural testable extension is to probe the third moment of the Clifford group with the same lightcone argument, which could sharpen the known 'narrow failure' of the Clifford 4-design into a quantitative depth bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proves no-go results for approximate designs over the matchgate, orthogonal, symplectic, and Clifford groups generated by shallow local circuits, even when the circuits are allowed to use unitaries outside the target group and, as claimed, when ancilla qubits are available. The main tool is a new lower bound, Theorem 1, on the diamond distance between the k-th moment channel of an arbitrary unitary ensemble and that of the Haar measure on a group G, obtained from a G-invariant projector Q and a lightcone-bounded POVM. Theorem 2 specialises this to the case of a maximally entangled invariant state, and Corollaries 1 and 2 follow from previously computed OTOC values for the matchgate, orthogonal, and symplectic groups. Corollary 3 treats the Clifford 4-design case using the Clifford commutant projector Q and a lightcone POVM. The authors conclude that sublinear depth is impossible for these approximate designs and that known linear-depth constructions are optimal up to constants.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper closes a real loophole in earlier no-go results: prior work only ruled out ensembles whose unitaries belong to the target subgroup, leaving open constructions that use arbitrary ambient unitaries. The invariant-state-plus-lightcone framework is elegant and the main no-ancilla argument is cleanly executed. The paper is also honest about relying on prior OTOC computations in Ref. [4], and the final constant-factor optimality statements for linear-depth constructions are clearly stated. The ancilla claim, however, is currently unsupported by a proof, and the Clifford proof contains a variable typo, so the central claim is not yet fully established as written.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 2, Remark 1] placeholder

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ambient-unitaries no-go is derived from a new Theorem 1, and the self-cited OTOC integrals from [4] are independent parameter-free inputs rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that sublinear-depth ambient ensembles cannot approximate matchgate, orthogonal, or symplectic 2-designs, or Clifford 4-designs—is derived from Theorem 1, a diamond-norm lower bound constructed from a μ-invariant projector Q and a lightcone projector Π. The proof of Theorem 1 is self-contained: Eq. (5) follows from two distinguishing experiments encoded in Eq. (4), and no step identifies the target no-go with an input. The corollaries substitute group-specific invariant states, perturbations, and Haar averages. The Haar-average OTOC values in Eqs. (20), (24), and (25) are imported from the authors' prior work [4], but they are parameter-free consequences of Weingarten calculus on the relevant groups and do not assume the present target result; they are independent mathematical inputs rather than fitted parameters being renamed as predictions. The paper does not invoke a self-referential uniqueness theorem or smuggle in an ansatz via citation. The only flagged concern is Remark 1, which asserts the ancilla extension rather than proving it: 'Extending the POVMs by the identity on H_anc^⊗k, the argument of Theorem 1 goes through unchanged.' This is an omitted-proof/completeness issue, not circularity, because even if Remark 1 were false the main theorem on system-only unitaries would stand. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the circularity score is 0.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the paper is a theorem proof. The main external inputs are the OTOC averages from Ref [4], standard lightcone facts, and known Clifford/design constructions for tightness. The ancilla extension is asserted rather than fully derived.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard quantum information definitions: moment channels, diamond norm, and the POVM distinguishability bound of Eq. (4) from Ref [4].
    These are background results used to formalize approximate designs and to convert acceptance probabilities into diamond-norm lower bounds.
  • domain assumption Lightcone bound for one-dimensional nearest-neighbour circuits: a depth-L circuit spreads a single-qubit operator by at most L positions.
    Invoked in Section 3 for all four corollaries to conclude that Ad_U(V) lies in the local algebra U(H_L)⊗1_L.
  • domain assumption The matchgate, orthogonal, and symplectic groups possess maximally entangled invariant states in H⊗2; the Clifford group has the invariant fourth-order projector Q.
    These invariant objects are the probes used to distinguish shallow circuits from Haar-random group elements; they are taken from Refs [4,26,27].
  • domain assumption The Haar-averaged OTOC values in Eqs (20), (24), and (25), computed in Ref [4], are correct for all n and L.
    Corollaries 1 and 2 depend directly on these closed-form expressions; the paper does not rederive them.
  • domain assumption Known linear-depth constructions exist for Clifford synthesis [28] and for matchgate, orthogonal, and symplectic 3-designs via Clifford intersections [29,30].
    These are used in the Discussion to claim that the lower bounds are tight up to constant factors.
  • domain assumption The ancilla extension stated in Remark 1 is valid: extending POVMs by the identity on H_anc^⊗k suffices for Theorem 1 with ancillas.
    The paper asserts this in one sentence without giving an explicit effective-channel formalism or full diamond-norm reduction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ambient unitaries don't enable shallow group designs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QU3PCQKT

@misc{pith2026260813528,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ambient unitaries don't enable shallow group designs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QU3PCQKT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13528}
}
read the original abstract

Characterising the efficiency with which designs over various subsets of the unitary group may be constructed is an important goal of quantum information theory. While it is now known that approximate unitary designs can be realised in depth logarithmic in the system size, it has recently been shown that ensembles of local nearest-neighbour sublinear-depth one-dimensional circuits over the matchgate, orthogonal, and symplectic groups cannot form approximate 2-designs over their parent groups; similarly, sublinear-depth ensembles of Cliffords cannot form a Clifford 4-design. In this note we show that this remarkable exponential separation is not merely an artefact of restricting to ensembles consisting of unitaries from the subgroups themselves, but rather that no ensemble of local nearest-neighbour sublinear-depth unitaries can realise approximate designs in the aforementioned cases, even when employing "ambient" unitaries from beyond the subgroup itself (possibly acting on ancilla qubits). This implies that various natural tomography and benchmarking schemes which involves sampling from these groups suffer from a dramatic circuit depth overhead compared to similar protocols which involve sampling from the full unitary group. We additionally conclude that, in all of the above cases, the known linear-depth design constructions are up to constant factors optimal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13528 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2-designs over a group G which possesses an invariant state |Ψ⟩ ∈ H⊗2 formed by averaging over an ensemble of sublinear-depth unitaries belonging to G are straightforwardly disallowed by a simple lightcone argument [4]. The invariant state effectively acts as a resource for converting a unitary from the group to its Hermitian conjugate. Indeed, for U ∈ G we have U ⊗2 (V ⊗ 1H)|Ψ⟩ = ((UV U† ) ⊗ 1H)|Ψ⟩, so that there a… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    No-go theorems for sublinear-depth group designs,

    M. West, D. García-Martín, N. Diaz, M. Cerezo, and M. Larocca, “No-go theorems for sublinear-depth group designs,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16005, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.16005

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Random unitaries in extremely low depth,

    T. Schuster, J. Haferkamp, and H.-Y. Huang, “Random unitaries in extremely low depth,”Science, vol. 389, no. 6755, pp. 92–96, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adv8590

    doi:10.1126/science.adv8590 2025

  3. [2]

    Unitary designs in nearly optimal depth,

    L. Cui, T. Schuster, F. Brandao, and H.-Y. Huang, “Unitary designs in nearly optimal depth,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06216, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06216 AMBIENT UNITARIES DON’T ENABLE SHALLOW GROUP DESIGNS 9

    arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    Approximate unitaryk-designs from shallow, low-communication circuits,

    N. LaRacuente and F. Leditzky, “Approximate unitaryk-designs from shallow, low-communication circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07876, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07876

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Will it glue? on short-depth designs beyond the unitary group,

    L. Grevink, J. Haferkamp, M. Heinrich, J. Helsen, M. Hinsche, T. Schuster, and Z. Zimboras, “Will it glue? on short-depth designs beyond the unitary group,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23925, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23925

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs,

    F. G. Brandao, A. W. Harrow, and M. Horodecki, “Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 346, no. 2, pp. 397–434, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00220-016-2706-8

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Random quantum circuits are approximate unitaryt-designs in depthO nt5+o(1) ,

    J. Haferkamp, “Random quantum circuits are approximate unitaryt-designs in depthO nt5+o(1) ,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 795, Sep. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-09-08-795

    doi:10.22331/q-2022-09-08-795 2022

  8. [8]

    How to construct random unitaries,

    F. Ma and H.-Y. Huang, “How to construct random unitaries,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10116, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10116

    arXiv 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation,

    C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, “Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation,”Physical Review A, vol. 80, no. 1, p. 012304, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.80.012304

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    Random quantum circuits are approximate 2-designs,

    A. W. Harrow and R. A. Low, “Random quantum circuits are approximate 2-designs,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 291, no. 1, pp. 257–302, 2009. [Online]. Available: https: //link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00220-009-0873-6

    2009

  3. [11]

    Incompressibility and spectral gaps of random circuits,

    C.-F. Chen, J. Haah, J. Haferkamp, Y. Liu, T. Metger, and X. Tan, “Incompressibility and spectral gaps of random circuits,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07478, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07478

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Evenly distributed unitaries: On the structure of unitary designs,

    D. Gross, K. Audenaert, and J. Eisert, “Evenly distributed unitaries: On the structure of unitary designs,”Journal of mathematical physics, vol. 48, no. 5, p. 052104, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.2716992

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    Short remarks on shallow unitary circuits,

    J. Haah, “Short remarks on shallow unitary circuits,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14005, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14005

    2025

  6. [14]

    Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems,

    P. Hayden and J. Preskill, “Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 9, no. 120, p. 120, 2007. [Online]. Available: https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/120/meta

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    Fast scramblers,

    Y. Sekino and L. Susskind, “Fast scramblers,”Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2008, no. 10, p. 065,

    2008

  8. [16]

    The clifford group forms a unitary 3-design,

    Z. Webb, “The clifford group forms a unitary 3-design,”Quantum Information and Computation, vol. 16, no. 15&16, pp. 1379–1400, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.26421/QIC16.15-16-8

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Multiqubit clifford groups are unitary 3-designs,

    H. Zhu, “Multiqubit clifford groups are unitary 3-designs,”Physical Review A, vol. 96, no. 6, p. 062336, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Estimating the fidelity oftgates using standard interleaved randomized benchmarking,

    R. Harper and S. T. Flammia, “Estimating the fidelity oftgates using standard interleaved randomized benchmarking,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 015008, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial,

    A. A. Mele, “Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1340, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2024-05-08-1340/

    2024

  12. [20]

    Computing the distance between quantum channels: usefulness of the fano representation,

    G. Benenti and G. Strini, “Computing the distance between quantum channels: usefulness of the fano representation,”Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, vol. 43, no. 21, p. 215508,

  13. [21]

    Chaos and complexity by design,

    D. A. Roberts and B. Yoshida, “Chaos and complexity by design,”Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2017, no. 4, p. 121, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2017)121

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Operator spreading in random unitary circuits,

    A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, “Operator spreading in random unitary circuits,”Physical Review X, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 021014, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/ PhysRevX.8.021014

    2018

  15. [23]

    Fermionic linear optics and matchgates,

    E. Knill, “Fermionic linear optics and matchgates,”arXiv preprint arXiv:quant-ph/0108033, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0108033 10 AMBIENT UNITARIES DON’T ENABLE SHALLOW GROUP DESIGNS

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Optimal haar random fermionic linear optics circuits,

    P. Braccia, N. Diaz, M. Larocca, M. Cerezo, and D. García-Martín, “Optimal haar random fermionic linear optics circuits,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24212, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.24212

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Integration with respect to the haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic group,

    B. Collins and P. Śniady, “Integration with respect to the haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic group,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 264, no. 3, pp. 773–795, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00220-006-1554-3

    2006

  18. [26]

    The clifford group fails gracefully to be a unitary 4-design,

    H. Zhu, R. Kueng, M. Grassl, and D. Gross, “The clifford group fails gracefully to be a unitary 4-design,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08172, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.08172

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A complete theory of the clifford commutant,

    L. Bittel, J. Eisert, L. Leone, A. A. Mele, and S. F. Oliviero, “A complete theory of the clifford commutant,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12263, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12263

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Linear depth stabilizer and quantum fourier transformation circuits with no auxiliary qubits in finite-neighbor quantum architectures,

    D. Maslov, “Linear depth stabilizer and quantum fourier transformation circuits with no auxiliary qubits in finite-neighbor quantum architectures,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 76, no. 5, p. 052310, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://journals.a...

    2007

  21. [29]

    Matchgate shadows for fermionic quantum simulation,

    K. Wan, W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, and R. Babbush, “Matchgate shadows for fermionic quantum simulation,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 404, p. 629, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00220-023-04844-0

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    From pauli strings to quantum dynamics: A unified characterization,

    R. Gargiulo, P. Herringer, and R. Zeier, “From pauli strings to quantum dynamics: A unified characterization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.09773, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606. 09773

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Real randomized benchmarking,

    A. Hashagen, S. Flammia, D. Gross, and J. Wallman, “Real randomized benchmarking,”Quantum, vol. 2, p. 85, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2018-08-22-85/

    2018

  24. [32]

    Matchgate benchmarking: Scalable benchmarking of a continuous family of many-qubit gates,

    J. Helsen, S. Nezami, M. Reagor, and M. Walter, “Matchgate benchmarking: Scalable benchmarking of a continuous family of many-qubit gates,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 657, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2022-02-21-657/

    2022

  25. [33]

    Fermionic Averaged Circuit Eigenvalue Sampling,

    A. Chapman and S. T. Flammia, “Fermionic Averaged Circuit Eigenvalue Sampling,”Quantum, vol. 10, p. 2053, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2026-04-08-2053

    2026 doi

  26. [34]

    Particle-preserving fermionic shadows with mode-independent sample complexity,

    M. West, M. Cerezo, and M. Larocca, “Particle-preserving fermionic shadows with mode-independent sample complexity,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.27254, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.27254

    2026 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Fermionic partial tomography via classical shadows,

    A. Zhao, N. C. Rubin, and A. Miyake, “Fermionic partial tomography via classical shadows,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 127, no. 11, p. 110504, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.127.110504

    2021

  28. [37]

    Unified framework for matchgate classical shadows,

    V. Heyraud, H. Chomet, and J. Tilly, “Unified framework for matchgate classical shadows,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 65, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41534-025-01015-y

    2025

  29. [38]

    Real classical shadows,

    M. West, A. A. Mele, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, “Real classical shadows,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 58, no. 24, p. 245304, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8121/addfc2

    2025 doi

  30. [39]

    Classicalshadowsoffermionswithparticlenumbersymmetry,

    G.H.Low, “Classicalshadowsoffermionswithparticlenumbersymmetry,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08964, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Random ensembles of symplectic and unitary states are indistinguishable,

    M. West, A. A. Mele, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, “Random ensembles of symplectic and unitary states are indistinguishable,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16500, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16500

    2024 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements,

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, “Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements,”Nature Physics, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 1050–1057, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-0932-7

    2020

  33. [2008]

    Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/065

    [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/065

    2008 doi

  34. [2010]

    Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-4075/43/21/215508

    [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-4075/43/21/215508

    doi

  35. [2026]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01429

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01429

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.