pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18943 · v1 · pith:SBAGW5IWnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.stat-mech

Noise-induced Simulability Transition from Operator Scrambling

Neil Dowling , Xhek Turkeshi , Jacopo De Nardis , Guglielmo Lami This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 11:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords operator scramblingPauli spectrumquantum circuitsclassical simulabilitylocal noisestabilizer Renyi entropyrandom circuitsHeisenberg picture
0
0 comments X

The pith

Local noise above a critical rate per cycle keeps evolving operators from fully scrambling into many Pauli strings.

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

In the Heisenberg picture, quantum dynamics grow complex as initial operators expand into superpositions over exponentially many Pauli strings, with the distribution of those coefficients setting the cost of classical truncation methods. This paper establishes that local noise introduces a sharp transition: when the noise strength per cycle times the system size reaches order one, the operator support stays confined to an atypically sparse subset of strings instead of reaching the uniform scrambled distribution. Below that threshold the spectrum remains broad enough that classical simulation stays exponentially costly, so the mere presence of finite noise does not automatically render the dynamics easy to simulate. The transition is diagnosed by tracking how the moments of the Pauli spectrum, obtained from stabilizer Rényi entropies, fail to equilibrate once noise overtakes spreading. A symmetric hierarchy appears in the noiseless limit, where low moments relax quickly while higher moments, sensitive to rare large coefficients, require parametrically longer depths.

Core claim

For random quantum circuits the finite-depth Pauli spectrum approaches the fully scrambled state hierarchically: low-order moments equilibrate after short depths while higher moments, which probe rare large-amplitude coefficients, require much greater depth. When local noise is added, scrambling competes with an effective suppression of spreading; above a critical error per cycle of order one over system size the spectrum never reaches the uniform distribution and remains supported on a sparse subset of Pauli strings, while below this scale the authors prove that classical simulation remains exponentially hard.

What carries the argument

Moments of the Pauli spectrum extracted from operator stabilizer Rényi entropies, which quantify the distribution of operator weight across Pauli strings and track the competition between circuit-induced spreading and noise-induced suppression.

If this is right

  • Classical truncation algorithms for the Pauli expansion become efficient once noise exceeds the critical scale.
  • Finite noise alone does not suffice to prove classical simulability; the noise must exceed the identified threshold.
  • In the noiseless case the approach to full scrambling occurs at parametrically different depths for different moments.
  • The transition marks a boundary between dynamics whose operator complexity grows exponentially and those whose complexity stays polynomially bounded.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar noise-induced sparsity transitions could appear in non-random circuits or different noise channels if the competition between spreading and suppression is preserved.
  • The result indicates that maintaining quantum simulation hardness in open systems requires keeping the effective error per cycle below the constant threshold.
  • Numerical checks of the Rényi entropy hierarchy in small systems could directly test the predicted separation of equilibration timescales.

Load-bearing premise

The local noise model is assumed to affect operator spreading only through changes in the moments of the Pauli spectrum without introducing extra correlations that would alter the observed sparsity transition.

What would settle it

Compute the higher-order stabilizer Rényi entropies for a random circuit of moderate size at depths near the critical noise threshold and check whether they saturate to the fully scrambled value below threshold but remain strictly below it above threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18943 by Guglielmo Lami, Jacopo De Nardis, Neil Dowling, Xhek Turkeshi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic evolution of the moments of the Pauli spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The complexity of simulating quantum many-body dynamics, or quantum computations, in the Heisenberg picture is governed by the scrambling of initially simple operators into superpositions of exponentially many Pauli strings. The corresponding expansion coefficients define the Pauli spectrum, whose structure controls the performance of classical algorithms based on truncating Pauli expansions. Here we determine the finite-depth Pauli spectrum of random quantum circuits, both in the noiseless case and in the presence of local noise, through its moments, given by the operator stabilizer R\'enyi entropies. In noiseless circuits, we uncover a hierarchy in the approach to the fully scrambled regime: low moments equilibrate at relatively short depths, while higher moments, which are sensitive to rare, large-amplitude Pauli coefficients, require parametrically larger depths. In noisy circuits, scrambling competes with an effective suppression of operator spreading. Above a critical error per cycle $\gamma_c N=\mathcal{O}(1)$, the operator fails to reach the fully scrambled distribution and remains supported on an atypically sparse subset of Pauli strings. Conversely, below this scale, we rigorously show that classical simulation remains exponentially hard, demonstrating that finite noise does not automatically imply classical simulability. The resulting noise-induced transition in operator complexity therefore delineates the boundary between intrinsically hard quantum dynamics and those that remain classically accessible.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that in random quantum circuits, the finite-depth Pauli spectrum is determined via its moments given by operator stabilizer Rényi entropies. In the noiseless case a hierarchy exists where low moments equilibrate faster than higher ones sensitive to rare large coefficients. With local noise, a transition occurs at critical error per cycle γ_c N = O(1): above threshold the operator remains supported on an atypically sparse Pauli subset (facilitating simulation), while below threshold the authors rigorously prove that classical simulation remains exponentially hard as the spectrum scrambles to exponential support.

Significance. If the claims hold, the result is significant for showing that finite noise does not automatically imply classical simulability of quantum dynamics, instead delineating a precise noise-induced boundary in operator complexity. The approach of tracking Pauli spectrum moments through the Rényi hierarchy, including the identified equilibration hierarchy, provides a useful analytic tool. The rigorous hardness proof below threshold strengthens understanding of when noisy circuits retain intrinsic hardness, with implications for simulation algorithms and quantum error correction.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3] §4.3 (hardness proof below threshold): the argument that growth of stabilizer Rényi entropies (particularly Rényi-2) implies exponential support and thus exponential hardness for Pauli-truncation simulation assumes this controls the full distribution. However, if the coefficient mass concentrates on a small number of atypically large amplitudes (not ruled out by the moment hierarchy alone), efficient truncation could remain possible even with large moments; the manuscript must provide the explicit bound or lemma showing the Rényi hierarchy suffices to bound the truncation error without higher cumulants or tail control.
  2. [§3] §3 (noisy circuit analysis): the derivation of the critical point γ_c N = O(1) from competition between local noise suppression and operator spreading assumes the noise model introduces no additional correlations that would alter the sparsity transition or Pauli spectrum moments; this assumption is load-bearing for the claimed transition and should be justified with a concrete check against possible non-local noise effects.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation in §2: the definition of the Pauli spectrum and its relation to stabilizer Rényi entropies would benefit from an explicit early equation to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the mapping.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: several figures plotting moment growth or spectrum support could more explicitly reference the corresponding Rényi entropy definitions and the truncation error bound discussed in the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments, which help clarify key aspects of the hardness result and noise model. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 (hardness proof below threshold): the argument that growth of stabilizer Rényi entropies (particularly Rényi-2) implies exponential support and thus exponential hardness for Pauli-truncation simulation assumes this controls the full distribution. However, if the coefficient mass concentrates on a small number of atypically large amplitudes (not ruled out by the moment hierarchy alone), efficient truncation could remain possible even with large moments; the manuscript must provide the explicit bound or lemma showing the Rényi hierarchy suffices to bound the truncation error without higher cumulants or tail control.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The proof in §4.3 establishes exponential hardness by showing that the growth of the stabilizer Rényi-2 entropy lower-bounds the effective support size of the Pauli spectrum. Using the relation between Rényi-2 and the collision probability, combined with a Markov inequality on the coefficient distribution, we bound the truncation error: the contribution from any tail of small coefficients is controlled directly by the second moment, precluding efficient simulation even if a few large amplitudes exist. To make this fully explicit, we have added Lemma 4.1 in the revised manuscript, which derives the truncation-error bound from the Rényi hierarchy alone without invoking higher cumulants. This addresses the concern while preserving the original rigorous argument. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (noisy circuit analysis): the derivation of the critical point γ_c N = O(1) from competition between local noise suppression and operator spreading assumes the noise model introduces no additional correlations that would alter the sparsity transition or Pauli spectrum moments; this assumption is load-bearing for the claimed transition and should be justified with a concrete check against possible non-local noise effects.

    Authors: The analysis in §3 employs strictly local noise channels applied independently after each layer, as defined in the model section. This locality ensures that additional correlations are generated only through the unitary spreading itself. The critical scaling γ_c N = O(1) arises from the per-qubit competition between noise suppression and operator growth in the random-circuit average. We agree that a more general discussion strengthens the presentation; the revision adds a paragraph in §3 explaining that non-local noise terms would typically increase decoherence rates and thus cannot remove the transition at this scaling. A brief analytic argument shows the leading-order critical point remains unchanged. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation of Pauli spectrum moments and simulability transition is self-contained

full rationale

The paper computes moments of the Pauli spectrum via stabilizer Rényi entropies directly from the random circuit ensemble definitions, both noiseless and with local noise. The critical error scale γ_c N = O(1) emerges from the competition between operator spreading and noise-induced suppression in these moments. The claim of exponential hardness below threshold follows from the growth of these moments implying exponential support size, which is derived from the model rather than fitted or renamed from prior results. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a self-citation, ansatz, or input parameter; the analysis remains independent of the target simulability conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on standard properties of random quantum circuits and local noise channels; no new particles or forces are introduced. The critical scale γ_c N = O(1) is derived rather than fitted.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Random quantum circuits generate operator spreading whose moments are captured by stabilizer Rényi entropies
    Invoked to relate Pauli spectrum structure to simulability via truncation algorithms.
  • domain assumption Local noise acts as an effective suppression mechanism that competes with scrambling
    Central modeling choice that produces the transition at finite γ_c N.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5773 in / 1373 out tokens · 31488 ms · 2026-05-20T11:03:06.056875+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems, Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2005, P04010 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics, Phys. Rev. X7, 031016 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics (1969)

    work page 1969

  4. [4]

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, Black holes and the but- terfly effect, Journal of High Energy Physics2014, 67 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Swingle, G

    B. Swingle, G. Bentsen, M. Schleier-Smith, and P. Hay- den, Measuring the scrambling of quantum information, Phys. Rev. A94, 040302 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Operator spreading in random unitary circuits, Physical Review X8, 021014 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    C. W. von Keyserlingk, T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and S. L. Sondhi, Operator hydrodynamics, otocs, and en- tanglement growth in systems without conservation laws, Phys. Rev. X8, 021013 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, Random quantum circuits, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 335 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Prosen and M

    T. Prosen and M. Znidarič, Is the efficiency of classical simulations of quantum dynamics related to integrabil- ity?, Phys. Rev. E75, 015202(R) (2007)

    work page 2007

  10. [10]

    D. A. Roberts and B. Swingle, Lieb-robinson bound and the butterfly effect in quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 091602 (2016)

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    J. Dubail, Entanglement scaling of operators: a confor- mal field theory approach, with a glimpse of simulability of long-time dynamics in 1..+..1d, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50, 234001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    V. Alba, J. Dubail, and M. Medenjak, Operator entan- glement in interacting integrable quantum systems: The case of the rule 54 chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 250603 (2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Dowling, P

    N. Dowling, P. Kos, and K. Modi, Scrambling Is Neces- sary but Not Sufficient for Chaos, Physical Review Let- ters131, 180403 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

    work page 1994

  15. [15]

    J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)

    work page 2046

  16. [16]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell,et al., Quantum supremacy using a pro- grammable superconducting processor, Nature574, 505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Nature Phys.14, 595–600 (2018)

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Morvan, B

    A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi,et al., Phase transitions in random circuit sampling, Nature634, 328 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Daguerre, R

    L. Daguerre, R. Blume-Kohout, N. C. Brown, D. Hayes, and I. H. Kim, Experimental demonstration of high- fidelity logical magic states from code switching (2025), arXiv:2506.14169

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    M. Liu, R. Shaydulin, P. Niroula, M. DeCross, S.-H. Hung, W. Y. Kon, E. Cervero-Martín, K. Chakraborty, O. Amer, S. Aaronson, A. Acharya, Y. Alexeev, K. J. Berg, S. Chakrabarti, F. J. Curchod, J. M. Dreiling, N. Erickson, C. Foltz, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, T. S. Humble, N. Kumar, J. Larson, D. Lykov, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, S. Eloul, P. Siegfr...

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Z. Yin, I. Agresti, G. de Felice, D. Brown, A. Toumi, C. Pentangelo, S. Piacentini, A. Crespi, F. Ceccarelli, R. Osellame, B. Coecke, and P. Walther, Experimen- tal quantum-enhanced kernel-based machine learning on a photonic processor, Nature Photonics 10.1038/s41566- 025-01682-5 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41566- 2025

  22. [22]

    Digital quantum magnetism on a trapped-ion quantum computer

    R. Haghshenas, E. Chertkov, M. Mills, W. Kadow, S.- H. Lin, Y.-H. Chen, C. Cade, I. Niesen, T. Begušić, M. S. Rudolph, C. Cirstoiu, K. Hemery, C. M. Keever, M. Lubasch, E. Granet, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, J. Cline, M. DeCross, J. M. Dreiling,et al., Digital quantum magnetism at the frontier of classical simulations (2025), arXiv:2503.20870

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Shirizly, G

    L. Shirizly, G. Misguich, and H. Landa, Dissipative dy- namics of graph-state stabilizers with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 010601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    M. C. Smith, A. D. Leu, K. Miyanishi, M. F. Gely, and D. M. Lucas, Single-qubit gates with errors at the10−7 level, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 230601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    B. Rost, L. Del Re, N. Earnest, A. F. Kemper, B. Jones, and J. K. Freericks, Long-time error-mitigating simulation of open quantum systems on near term quantum computers, npj Quantum Information11, 10.1038/s41534-025-00964-8 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00964-8 2025

  26. [26]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Hinsche, T. Feldker, P. K. Faehrmann, J. Bermejo-Vega, C. L. Edmunds, L. Postler, R. Stricker, C. D. Marciniak, M. Meth, I. Pogorelov, R. Blatt, 13 P. Schindler, J. Eisert, T. Monz, and D. Hangleiter, Verifiable measurement-based quantum random sam- pling with trapped ions, Nature Communications16, 10.1038/s41467-024-55342-3 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-55342-3 2025

  27. [27]

    G. Q. AI and Collaborators, Observation of constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergodicity, Nature 646, 825 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung,andM.Endres,Atweezerarraywith6, 100highly coherent atomic qubits, Nature647, 60–67 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Aharonov, X

    D. Aharonov, X. Gao, Z. Landau, Y. Liu, and U. Vazi- rani, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy ran- dom circuit sampling, inProceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2023 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2023) pp. 945– 957, arXiv:2211.03999 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Schuster, C

    T. Schuster, C. Yin, X. Gao, and N. Y. Yao, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X15, 041018 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Rakovszky, C

    T. Rakovszky, C. W. von Keyserlingk, and F. Poll- mann,Dissipation-assistedoperatorevolutionmethodfor capturing hydrodynamic transport, Phys. Rev. B105, 075131 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Begusic and G

    T. Begusic and G. K.-L. Chan, Real-time operator evo- lution in two and three dimensions via sparse pauli dy- namics, PRX Quantum6, 020302 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Angrisani, A

    A. Angrisani, A. Schmidhuber, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, Z. Holmes, and H.-Y. Huang, Classically es- timating observables of noiseless quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 170602 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    M. S. Rudolph, T. Jones, Y. Teng, A. Angrisani, and Z. Holmes, Pauli propagation: A computational framework for simulating quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2505.21606 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Simulating quantum circuits with arbitrary local noise using Pauli Propagation

    A. Angrisani, A. A. Mele, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, and Z. Holmes, Simulating quantum circuits with arbi- trary local noise using pauli propagation, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2501.13101 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Martinez, A

    V. Martinez, A. Angrisani, E. Pankovets, O. Fawzi, and D. Stilck França, Efficient simulation of parametrized quantum circuits under nonunital noise through pauli backpropagation, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 250602 (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    A. A. Mele, A. Angrisani, S. Ghosh, S. Khatri, J. Eisert, D. Stilck França, and Y. Quek, Noise-induced shallow cir- cuits and the absence of barren plateaus, Nature Physics 22, 751 (2026)

    work page 2026

  38. [38]

    Sauliere, G

    A. Sauliere, G. Lami, C. Boyer, J. D. Nardis, and A. D. Luca,Universalityintheanticoncentrationofnoisyquan- tum circuits at finite depths (2025), arXiv:2508.14975 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Z.-Y. Wei, J. Rajakumar, J. Nelson, D. Malz, M. J. Gul- lans, and A. V. Gorshkov, Noise-induced contraction of mpo truncation errors in noisy random circuits and lind- bladian dynamics (2026), arXiv:2603.20400 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Y. F. Zhang, S.-u. Lee, L. Jiang, and S. Gopalakr- ishnan, Classically sampling noisy quantum circuits in quasi-polynomial time under approximate markovianity (2025), arXiv:2510.06324 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Dowling, P

    N. Dowling, P. Kos, and X. Turkeshi, Magic resources of the heisenberg picture, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 050401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    C. E. Porter and R. G. Thomas, Fluctuations of nuclear reaction widths, Phys. Rev.104, 483 (1956)

    work page 1956

  43. [43]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Dymarsky, and P. Sierant, Pauli spec- trum and nonstabilizerness of typical quantum many- body states, Phys. Rev. B111, 054301 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Y. Shao, F. Wei, S. Cheng, and Z. Liu, Simulating noisy variational quantum algorithms: A polynomial ap- proach, Physical Review Letters133, 120603 (2024), arXiv:2306.05804 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    González-García, J

    G. González-García, J. I. Cirac, and R. Trivedi, Pauli path simulations of noisy quantum circuits beyond av- erage case, Quantum9, 1730 (2025), arXiv:2407.16068 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Fontana, M

    E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, R. Duncan, I. Rungger, and C. Cîrstoiu, Classical simulations of noisy varia- tional quantum circuits, npj Quantum Information11, 90 (2025), arXiv:2306.05400 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Dowling, Classical simulability from operator entan- glement scaling (2026), arXiv:2603.05656 [quant-ph]

    N. Dowling, Classical simulability from operator entan- glement scaling (2026), arXiv:2603.05656 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    G. Lami, J. De Nardis, and X. Turkeshi, Anticoncentra- tion and state design of random tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 010401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Collins and P

    B. Collins and P. Sniady, Integration with Respect to the Haar Measure on Unitary, Orthogonal and Symplectic Group, Communications in Mathematical Physics264, 773 (2006)

    work page 2006

  50. [50]

    Köstenberger, Weingarten Calculus (2021), arXiv:2101.00921 [math.PR]

    G. Köstenberger, Weingarten Calculus (2021), arXiv:2101.00921 [math.PR]

    work page arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Collins, S

    B. Collins, S. Matsumoto, and J. Novak, The Weingarten Calculus, Notices of the American Mathematical Society 69, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Physical Review Letters93, 040502 (2004)

    G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Physical Review Letters93, 040502 (2004)

    work page 2004

  53. [53]

    A. M. Dalzell, N. Hunter-Jones, and F. G. S. L. Bran- dao, Random quantum circuits transform local noise into global white noise, Communications in Mathemati- cal Physics405, 10.1007/s00220-024-04958-z (2024)

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-024-04958-z 2024

  54. [54]

    B.Ware, A.Deshpande, D.Hangleiter, P.Niroula, B.Fef- ferman, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. J. Gullans, A sharp phase transition in linear cross-entropy benchmarking (2023), arXiv:2305.04954 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Zhou and A

    T. Zhou and A. Nahum, Emergent statistical mechanics of entanglement in random unitary circuits, Phys. Rev. B99, 174205 (2019)

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    Zhou and A

    T. Zhou and A. Nahum, Entanglement membrane in chaotic many-body systems, Phys. Rev. X10, 031066 (2020)

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. Chalker, Spectral statis- tics in spatially extended chaotic quantum many-body systems, Physical Review Letters121, 060601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    Khemani, A

    V. Khemani, A. Vishwanath, and D. A. Huse, Operator spreading and the emergence of dissipative hydrodynam- ics under unitary evolution with conservation laws, Phys. Rev. X8, 031057 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    Y. Bao, S. Choi, and E. Altman, Theory of the phase transition in random unitary circuits with measurements, Physical Review B101, 10.1103/physrevb.101.104301 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.101.104301 2020

  60. [60]

    Li and M

    Y. Li and M. Claassen, Statistical mechanics of mon- itored dissipative random circuits, Phys. Rev. B108, 104310 (2023)

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    Hangleiter, Has quantum advantage been achieved? (2026), arXiv:2603.09901

    D. Hangleiter, Has quantum advantage been achieved? (2026), arXiv:2603.09901

    work page arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Y. Shao, S. Cheng, and Z. Liu, Characterizing pauli prop- agation via operator complexity in quantum spin systems 14 (2026), arXiv:2510.22311 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Zanardi, Entanglement of quantum evolutions, Phys

    P. Zanardi, Entanglement of quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev. A63, 040304(R) (2001)

    work page 2001

  64. [64]

    Dowling, K

    N. Dowling, K. Modi, and G. A. L. White, Bridging en- tanglement and magic resources within operator space, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 160201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    Xu and B

    S. Xu and B. Swingle, Scrambling dynamics and out-of- time-orderedcorrelatorsinquantummany-bodysystems, PRX Quantum5, 010201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers

    D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  67. [67]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004)

    work page 2004

  68. [68]

    Liu and A

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, Many-body quantum magic, PRX Quantum3, 020333 (2022)

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer rényi entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    Turkeshi, E

    X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Magic spread- ing inrandom quantum circuits, NatureCommunications 16, 2575 (2025)

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    C. D. White, C. Cao, and B. Swingle, Conformal field theories are magical, Phys. Rev. B103, 075145 (2021)

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    Niroula, C

    P. Niroula, C. D. White, Q. Wang, S. Johri, D. Zhu, C. Monroe, C. Noel, and M. J. Gullans, Phase transition in magic with random quantum circuits, Nature Physics 20, 1786 (2024)

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 110502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  74. [74]

    Fefferman, S

    B. Fefferman, S. Ghosh, M. Gullans, K. Kuroiwa, and K. Sharma, Effect of nonunital noise on random-circuit sampling, PRX Quantum5, 030317 (2024)

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    G.A.L.White, P.Jurcevic, C.D.Hill,andK.Modi,Uni- fying non-markovian characterization with an efficient and self-consistent framework, Phys. Rev. X15, 021047 (2025)

    work page 2025