Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 59 references

Sparse long-range gates cut quantum circuit depth by matching connectivity to the problem

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 07:16 UTC pith:T7ES7U3T

load-bearing objection Solid combination of rigorous algebra and practical variational scheme; the asymptotic scaling claims for quench dynamics are the weak point but the paper is honest about them. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07547 v1 pith:T7ES7U3T submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Variational Learning with Sparse Long-range Entangling Gates

Helene M. L\"osl , Aydin Deger , Andrew J. Daley This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas PACS 03.67.Ac03.67.Lx75.10.Pq
keywords variational quantum algorithmslong-range entangling gatespower-of-two coupling graphdynamical Lie algebraunitary 2-designMonna mapqubit reconfigurabilityneutral atom arrays
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the connectivity pattern of a variational quantum circuit is itself a tunable resource, not just a hardware constraint. The authors study circuits built on power-of-two (PWR2) coupling graphs, where qubits connect to partners at distances 1, 2, 4, 8, and so on. This graph has only logarithmic degree per qubit but a logarithmic diameter, meaning information can spread across the system in far fewer steps than on a nearest-neighbor chain. The paper shows that this sparse long-range connectivity enlarges the operator space reachable by the circuit (the dynamical Lie algebra grows exponentially rather than quadratically), accelerates the generation of target operators (commutator depth drops from O(n) to O(log n)), and produces faster approach to unitary-design behavior at finite depth. The authors then test these structural advantages on two variational tasks: ground-state preparation for a long-range Ising model and simulation of quench dynamics in a nearest-neighbor Ising model. They find that matching the circuit connectivity to the Hamiltonian structure matters: long-range circuits excel when the target problem itself has long-range couplings, but can incur overhead when the target is purely nearest-neighbor because the circuit spends parameters on gates that do not appear in the target dynamics. The paper also introduces a complementary technique, the Monna map, which permutes the qubit register so that dominant long-range couplings become local in the permuted basis. This allows strictly short-range circuits to find entangled ground states of long-range Hamiltonians that they cannot reach in the physical register, with the inverse permutation implemented on hardware by physically rearranging atoms rather than applying coherent swap gates.

Core claim

The central object is the PWR2 coupling graph, which connects qubits at power-of-two separations. The paper proves that this graph reduces the commutator depth needed to generate the full quadratic Majorana algebra from O(n) to O(log n) (Appendix A), demonstrates that random circuits on this graph approach unitary 2-designs faster than nearest-neighbor circuits at equal depth (Section II.A.2), and shows numerically that the practical variational advantage is task-dependent: long-range ansatze outperform nearest-neighbor ones for long-range Hamiltonians (Section III.A) but carry overhead for short-range targets (Section III.B). The Monna map provides a second route: by reindexing qubits so a

What carries the argument

PWR2 coupling graph (power-of-two connectivity), dynamical Lie algebra analysis, approximate unitary 2-design diagnostics, Meyer-Wallach entangling power, Hamiltonian variational ansatz, Monna map (bit-reversal permutation that localizes hierarchical long-range couplings)

Load-bearing premise

The scaling arguments predicting that PWR2 circuits will outperform nearest-neighbor circuits for quench dynamics at around 100-130 qubits are heuristic, based on graph diameter and information-propagation velocity, and are extrapolated from numerical results at a single system size of 16 qubits. If the variational optimization landscape or finite-depth effects change the scaling at larger sizes, the predicted crossover may not materialize.

What would settle it

If variational optimization landscapes for PWR2 circuits develop barren plateaus at depths below the crossover point, or if the O(log^2 n) scaling for quench dynamics fails to hold at system sizes beyond n=16, the predicted advantage of PWR2 connectivity for dynamical simulation would not materialize.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Circuit geometry should be treated as a design parameter alongside circuit depth and parameter count when engineering variational quantum algorithms, especially on platforms with reconfigurable connectivity.
  • The Monna map approach could extend beyond Ising models to any Hamiltonian with a hierarchical or tree-like coupling structure, potentially including certain molecular electronic structure problems or lattice gauge theories.
  • The predicted crossover where PWR2 circuits outperform nearest-neighbor circuits for quench dynamics (estimated near n=100-130 qubits) is directly testable on current neutral-atom and trapped-ion hardware.
  • Combining the Monna map with tensor network methods could improve classical simulation of long-range models, since the mapped Hamiltonian has reduced entanglement entropy across bipartitions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the asymptotic O(log^2 n) vs O(n) scaling for quench dynamics holds at larger system sizes, the crossover point would shift the practical regime where sparse long-range circuits become the default choice for dynamical simulation.
  • The Monna map's success suggests a broader principle: finding problem-aware qubit register permutations that align circuit locality with Hamiltonian locality could be automated as a classical preprocessing step for general coupling graphs, not just power-of-two structures.
  • The observation that the Monna map also localizes mutual information in the ground state (Appendix E) hints at a deep connection between the locality structure of the interaction graph and the entanglement structure of the ground state, which could inform tensor network bond dimension bounds.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies sparse power-of-two (PWR2) coupling graphs as a variational resource for quantum algorithms, motivated by neutral-atom and trapped-ion hardware. The paper combines dynamical Lie algebra (DLA) analysis, approximate unitary 2-design diagnostics, and finite-depth expressibility/entanglement measures to characterize PWR2 circuits relative to nearest-neighbor (NN) and all-to-all (A2A) alternatives. Two applications are pursued: (1) VQE for a long-range PWR2 transverse-field Ising model, and (2) variational learning of NN TFIM quench dynamics. A Monna-map framework is introduced to localize hierarchical long-range Hamiltonians, enabling short-range circuits to solve long-range problems via qubit reconfiguration. The rigorous commutator-depth bound (Appendix A) and the exact 2-design construction (Appendix B) are clean. Numerical experiments at n=16 with matched parameter counts, 10 seeds, and multiple ansatz families (Appendix D) provide controlled evidence.

Significance. The paper's strongest contributions are the rigorous commutator-depth bound (Appendix A, Eq. A9: q_PWR2 ≤ floor(log2(2n-1)) vs. q_NN = 2n-2), the exact second-moment superoperator construction for the 2-design diagnostic (Appendix B, no Monte Carlo), and the Monna-map variational pipeline with its clear hardware motivation for reconfigurable platforms. The VQE numerics are well-controlled: matched parameter counts across ansatz families, 10 seeds, and the use of entanglement entropy as a diagnostic beyond energy error are commendable. The paper is appropriately cautious in separating algebraic reachability from variational optimization performance, and the honest reporting of regimes where PWR2 underperforms NN (quench dynamics at n=16) is a strength. The Monna-map demonstration that a permutation alone converts a failing NN VQE into a successful one (Fig. 5) is a concrete, falsifiable result.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section III.B, paragraphs on asymptotic scaling and crossover prediction] The heuristic scaling argument D_PWR2 = O(log^2 n) vs. D_NN = O(n) conflates two distinct quantities: (i) the commutator depth to generate the algebra (rigorous, Appendix A) and (ii) the variational circuit depth to approximate a specific time-evolved state (heuristic). The LR velocity on the PWR2 graph is not computed; the argument assumes it scales inversely with graph diameter, but LR bounds depend on the interaction graph's specific structure, not just diameter. The prefactors for both scalings are extracted from a single data point (n=16) where PWR2 actually underperforms NN by factors of 1.8x-2.4x. The predicted crossover at n~100-130 is then a linear extrapolation of these prefactors against asymptotic exponents. This is the least supported practical claim in the paper. The authors acknowledge this ('These estimates are heuristic...'), but the crossover prediction is still stated.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section II.A.1, Eq. (5)] The DLA classification cites Theorem III.9 of Ref. [35]. The conditions of that theorem should be briefly restated so the reader can verify they apply to the PWR2 graph without consulting the external reference.
  2. [Section III.B, Fig. 4(b)] The depth axis is in 'Trotter blocks of depth 2,' but the three ansatze have different numbers of blocks per Trotter step (1, 3, and 4). This makes the visual comparison slightly misleading. Consider also plotting fidelity vs. raw gate count or parameter count to disambiguate.
  3. [Section IV, paragraph containing the Monna map decomposition] The expression '2n-2*ceil(n/2)' for the number of transpositions is ambiguous in formatting. Please clarify whether this is 2n - 2*ceil(n/2) or 2(n-2)*ceil(n/2), and verify the count.
  4. [Figure 2(a)] The 2-design bound is shown only for n=16. Adding n=8 and n=12 would strengthen the claim that PWR2 accelerates design formation with system size, rather than at a single point.
  5. [Section III.A] The claim that PWR2 'performs well' even in the short-range regime (s=-5) should be qualified. Appendix D, Fig. 8 shows LR has ~30% success vs. NN's ~60% at L=3, which is not 'performing well' in a comparative sense. The text should note this tradeoff explicitly in the main body, not only in the appendix.
  6. [References] Ref. [43] (Gunning, Deger, Kuriyattil, Daley) has author overlap with the present manuscript (Deger, Daley). This should be disclosed per journal convention.
  7. [Throughout] Typos: 'ansaetze' (multiple locations, should be 'ansatze'), 'fan-out' (Section III.B, should be 'fanout' or 'fan-out' consistently), 'disitribution' (Appendix D, Fig. 8 caption).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and the constructive assessment. The referee raises one major comment concerning the heuristic scaling argument and crossover prediction in Section III.B. We address it below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The heuristic scaling argument D_PWR2 = O(log^2 n) vs. D_NN = O(n) conflates two distinct quantities: (i) the commutator depth to generate the algebra (rigorous, Appendix A) and (ii) the variational circuit depth to approximate a specific time-evolved state (heuristic). The LR velocity on the PWR2 graph is not computed; the argument assumes it scales inversely with graph diameter, but LR bounds depend on the interaction graph's specific structure, not just diameter. The prefactors for both scalings are extracted from a single data point (n=16) where PWR2 actually underperforms NN by factors of 1.8x-2.4x. The predicted crossover at n~100-130 is then a linear extrapolation of these prefactors against asymptotic exponents. This is the least supported practical claim in the paper. The authors acknowledge this ('These estimates are heuristic...'), but the crossover prediction is still stated.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that this is the least supported practical claim in the paper, and we accept that the current presentation does not sufficiently distinguish the rigorous commutator-depth result (Appendix A) from the heuristic variational-depth argument in Section III.B. The referee is correct on all three specific points: (1) the two quantities—algebra generation depth and variational approximation depth—are distinct, and the text does not adequately separate them; (2) we do not compute a Lieb–Robinson velocity for the PWR2 graph, and the argument's use of graph diameter as a proxy for information-propagation speed is not rigorously justified, since LR bounds depend on finer graph structure than diameter alone; (3) the crossover prediction at n~100–130 rests on extrapolating prefactors from a single system size (n=16) at which PWR2 underperforms NN, which is a fragile basis for a quantitative prediction. We will revise Section III.B accordingly. Specifically, we will: (a) add an explicit sentence clarifying that the commutator-depth bound in Appendix A is a rigorous algebraic result, whereas the D_PWR2 = O(log^2 n) and D_NN = O(n) estimates in Section III.B are heuristic variational-depth arguments that are not derived from the commutator-depth bound; (b) soften the crossover prediction from a stated estimate to a clearly labeled speculative observation, noting explicitly that it is obtained by extrapolating a single data point and that no conclusion can be drawn without data at larger n; and (c) acknowledge that the LR velocity on the PWR2 graph is not computed and that graph diameter alone does not determine it. We believe the qualitative observation—that PWR2 connectivity has a logarithmic diameter and that a single PWR2 Trotter step requires log(n) blocks— revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity. The paper's main results are self-contained, with one minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is largely self-contained and does not exhibit circularity. The central rigorous result (Appendix A, Eq. 9) proves that PWR2 generators reach the quadratic Majorana algebra so(2n) in commutator depth O(log n) versus O(n) for NN. This proof is self-contained within the paper, relying only on standard Majorana commutator identities (Eq. A10) and graph diameter arguments (Eq. A12-A13). The DLA classification (Eq. 5) cites external theorems (Refs. 34-35) by independent authors, which is legitimate evidence. The 2-design bound (Eq. 15) uses external results (Ref. 38) by independent authors. The PWR2 graph properties cite external work (Refs. 16-22). The Monna map cites an external mathematical result (Ref. 44, Monna 1952). The VQE Hamiltonian (Eq. 20) is from Ref. 43, which has author overlap (Deger, Daley). However, Ref. 43 defines the physical model under study; the present paper's claims about variational performance on that model are independent of that citation. The heuristic scaling arguments in Section III.B (D_PWR2 = O(log^2 n) vs D_NN = O(n)) are explicitly flagged by the authors as heuristic estimates based on graph diameter, not rigorous derivations. While these arguments extrapolate from a single system size (n=16) and conflate algebra generation with variational optimization depth, this is a question of correctness and evidential support, not circularity. The paper does not fit a parameter to data and then rename the fit as a prediction, nor does it define a quantity in terms of what it claims to derive. The self-citation to Ref. 43 is minor and not load-bearing for the central claims about circuit geometry as a resource. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks (exact diagonalization for n=16). This is an honest non-finding of circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The PWR2 graph and Monna map are known mathematical objects. The free parameters (s, B/J, L) are control parameters swept in numerical experiments, not fitted constants. The axioms are standard results from the cited literature.

free parameters (3)
  • s (interaction range exponent) = +5, -5, 0
    Exponent in J_d = J/d^s controlling interaction range; chosen as representative values, not fitted.
  • B/J (transverse field ratio) = 0.05
    Transverse field strength; chosen to place the system in a regime with small spectral gap.
  • Circuit depth L = 1-3
    Number of variational layers; swept as a control parameter.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption DLA classification of TFIM on graphs (Theorem III.9, Ref. 35)
    Eq. 5 relies on the classification result that PWR2 graph yields su(2^{n-1})⊕2 DLA, same as complete graph.
  • domain assumption Unitary 2-design bound from Ref. 38, Theorem 2
    Eq. 15 uses the bound L ≥ log(1/ε)/log(1/λ_G) from Ref. 38.
  • domain assumption Lieb-Robinson velocity sets scrambling time on NN chain
    Sec. III.B: 'the scrambling time of the NN chain is set by the Lieb–Robinson velocity, suggesting D_NN = O(n)'.
  • domain assumption PWR2 graph has expander-like logarithmic scrambling
    Sec. III.B: 'the scrambling time of the graph is itself logarithmic due to its expander-like structure'.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 28139 in / 2966 out tokens · 598586 ms · 2026-07-09T07:16:08.539085+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The performance of variational quantum algorithms depends in general on the structure of the parametrized quantum circuit, but the most common ans\"atze are typically based on local couplings. Motivated by the extended connectivity available with neutral atoms and trapped ions, we examine when structured long-range connectivity provides a useful resource, focusing on sparse power-of-two (PWR2) coupling graphs. Using dynamical Lie-algebra analysis, approximate unitary-design diagnostics, and finite-depth measures of expressibility and entanglement, we examine how these geometries enlarge the accessible operator space. This enlarged space alone is not sufficient to ensure trainability of the parameterized circuit for given target problems, and we explore performance across example problems with and without long-range coupling, identifying where sparse coupling graphs are or are not likely to provide an advantage. We also introduce a variational scheme that maps hierarchical long-range Hamiltonians to geometrically local ones that can be optimized with short-range circuits. Together, these results identify circuit geometry and qubit reconfigurability as task-dependent resources for variational algorithms, relevant to ongoing developments in quantum hardware with long-range connectivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07547 by Andrew J. Daley, Aydin Deger, Helene M. L\"osl.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) parametrized quantum circuit for eight qubits, different colors represent distances between entangled qubits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a)Distance of an ensemble of PQC on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Median relative energy error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Learning the late-time state of a nearest-neighbor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) shows the median relative energy error |δE|/∆ as a function of circuit depth for the direct and Monna pipelines under both initializations. The direct NN pipeline is trapped far above the ground state re￾gardless of initialization: under |0⟩ ⊗n it converges to a product-state basin at |δE|/∆ ≈ 7–10 across all depths, while under |+⟩ ⊗n it fails catastrophically (|δE|/∆ > 2000). The Monna pipeline, in c… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Ans¨atze used in the computation of Fig. 2(b). We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Absolute energy error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Median fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Energy error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This determines the set of unitaries that can be reached asymptotically, i.e., in the limit of sufficiently many layers and arbitrary parameters

    Asymptotic Controllability Let us first consider how increased expressibility, caused by changes in qubit connectivity, affects circuit behavior, by identifying the dynamical Lie algebra (DLA) generated by the elementary parametrized evolutions of the ansatz. This determines the set of unitaries that can be reached asymptotically, i.e., in the limit of su...

    work page

  2. [2]

    To obtain a complementary diagnos- tic, we study the rate at which circuit ensembles with a specified connectivity approach an approximate unitary 2-design

    Approximate unitary 2-design diagnostics The DLA characterizes asymptotic reachability, but it does not by itself describe the behavior of finite-depth circuits [36–38]. To obtain a complementary diagnos- tic, we study the rate at which circuit ensembles with a specified connectivity approach an approximate unitary 2-design . This calculation is not inten...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Expressibility and Entangling capabilities To quantify how the algebraic and design-theoretic differences discussed above manifest at finite circuit depth, we employ empirical diagnostics that probe the 5 FIG. 2. (a)Distance of an ensemble of PQC onn= 16 qubits from forming anε-approximate 2-design, or equiva- lently, the circuit depthLneeded to reach a p...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum3, 191 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Kokail, C

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of lattice models, Nature569, 355 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021). 12

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Long-range interacting quantum systems, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 035002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    C. Lyu, X. Tang, J. Li, X. Xu, M.-H. Yung, and A. Bayat, Variational quantum simulation of long-range interacting systems, New Journal of Physics25, 053022 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    B¨ aumer and S

    E. B¨ aumer and S. Woerner, Measurement-based long- range entangling gates in constant depth, Physical Re- view Research7, 023120 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    N. M. Linke, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, S. Debnath, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Mon- roe, Experimental comparison of two quantum comput- ing architectures, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, 3305 (2017)

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications9, 4812 (2018), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Foss-Feig, G

    M. Foss-Feig, G. Pagano, A. C. Potter, and N. Y. Yao, Progress in trapped-ion quantum simulation, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics16, 145 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Ransford, M

    A. Ransford, M. S. Allman, J. Arkinstall, J. P. Campora, S. F. Cooper, R. D. Delaney, J. M. Dreiling, B. Estey, C. Figgatt, A. Hall, A. A. Husain, A. Isanaka, C. J. Kennedy, N. Kotibhaskar, I. S. Madjarov, K. Mayer, A. R. Milne, A. J. Park, A. P. Reed, R. Ancona, M. P. An- dersen, P. Andres-Martinez, W. Angenent, L. Argueta, B. Arkin, L. Ascarrunz, W. Bak...

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on recon- figurable atom arrays, Nature626,...

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Finkelstein, R

    R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Di- rekci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Uni- versal quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for tweezer clocks, Nature634, 321 (2024), publisher: Na- ture Publishing Group

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    J. A. Muniz, M. Stone, D. T. Stack, M. Jaffe, J. M. Kindem, L. Wadleigh, E. Zalys-Geller, X. Zhang, C.-A. Chen, M. A. Norcia, J. Epstein, E. Halperin, F. Hum- mel, T. Wilkason, M. Li, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, T. C. Bohdanowicz, G. Booth, A. Brown, M. O. Brown, W. B. Cairncross, K. Cassella, R. Coxe, D. Crow, M. Feldkamp, C. Griger, A. Heinz, A. M. W. Jon...

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    C.-L. Hung, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, J. I. Cirac, and H. J. Kimble, Quantum spin dynamics with pairwise-tunable, long-range interactions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, E4946 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Bentsen, Y

    G. Bentsen, Y. Gu, and A. Lucas, Fast scrambling on sparse graphs, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 6689 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Z. Qin, M. Gessner, Z. Ren, X. Deng, D. Han, W. Li, X. Su, A. Smerzi, and K. Peng, Characterizing the multi- partite continuous-variable entanglement structure from squeezing coefficients and the fisher information, npj Quantum Information5, 3 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Periwal, E

    A. Periwal, E. S. Cooper, P. Kunkel, J. F. Wienand, E. J. Davis, and M. Schleier-Smith, Programmable in- teractions and emergent geometry in an array of atom clouds, Nature600, 630 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Mivehvar, F

    F. Mivehvar, F. Piazza, T. Donner, and H. Ritsch, Cavity QED with quantum gases: new paradigms in many-body physics, Advances in Physics70, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Hashizume, G

    T. Hashizume, G. S. Bentsen, S. Weber, and A. J. Daley, Deterministic fast scrambling with neutral atom arrays, Physical Review Letters126, 200603 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Hashizume, S

    T. Hashizume, S. Kuriyattil, A. J. Daley, and G. Bentsen, Tunable geometries in sparse clifford circuits, Symmetry 14, 666 (2022). 13

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Kuriyattil, T

    S. Kuriyattil, T. Hashizume, G. Bentsen, and A. J. Daley, Onset of scrambling as a dynamical transition in tunable- range quantum circuits, PRX Quantum4, 030325 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    J. W. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, A. C. Keith, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, Engineered two-dimensional Ising interactions in a trapped-ion quantum simulator with hundreds of spins, Nature484, 489 (2012)

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    Islam, C

    R. Islam, C. Senko, W. C. Campbell, S. Korenblit, J. Smith, A. Lee, E. E. Edwards, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, and C. Monroe, Emergence and frustration of magnetism with variable-range interactions in a quantum simulator, Science340, 583 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Zeiher, J.-y

    J. Zeiher, J.-y. Choi, A. Rubio-Abadal, T. Pohl, R. van Bijnen, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Coherent many-body spin dynamics in a long-range interacting ising chain, Physical Review X7, 041063 (2017)

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    V. D. Vaidya, Y. Guo, R. M. Kroeze, K. E. Ballantine, A. J. Koll´ ar, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Tunable-range, photon-mediated atomic interactions in multimode cav- ity qed, Physical Review X8, 011002 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Hollerith, K

    S. Hollerith, K. Srakaew, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, D. Adler, P. Weckesser, A. Kruckenhauser, V. Walther, R. van Bijnen, J. Rui, C. Gross, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Realizing distance-selective interactions in a rydberg- dressed atom array, Physical Review Letters128, 113602 (2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Bentsen, T

    G. Bentsen, T. Hashizume, A. S. Buyskikh, E. J. Davis, A. J. Daley, S. S. Gubser, and M. Schleier-Smith, Treelike interactions and fast scrambling with cold atoms, Physi- cal Review Letters123, 130601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Express- ibility and entangling capability of parameterized quan- tum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies2, 1900070 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shal- low parametrized quantum circuits, Nature Communica- tions12, 1791 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Holmes, K

    Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Con- necting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus, PRX Quantum3, 010313 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Abbas, D

    A. Abbas, D. Sutter, C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, A. Figalli, and S. Woerner, The power of quantum neural networks, Nature Computational Science1, 403 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Larocca, P

    M. Larocca, P. Czarnik, K. Sharma, G. Muraleedharan, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum optimal control, Quantum6, 824 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Wiersema, E

    R. Wiersema, E. K¨ okc¨ u, A. F. Kemper, and B. N. Bakalov, Classification of dynamical Lie algebras of 2- local spin systems on linear, circular and fully connected topologies, npj Quantum Information10, 110 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    K¨ okc¨ u, R

    E. K¨ okc¨ u, R. Wiersema, A. F. Kemper, and B. N. Bakalov, Classification of dynamical Lie algebras gener- ated by spin interactions on undirected graphs, Journal of Mathematical Physics67, 052205 (2026)

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

    Zeier and T

    R. Zeier and T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, Symmetry princi- ples in quantum systems theory, Journal of Mathematical Physics52, 113510 (2011)

    work page 2011

  40. [40]

    Zimbor´ as, R

    Z. Zimbor´ as, R. Zeier, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and D. Burgarth, Symmetry criteria for quantum simulability of effective interactions, Physical Review A92, 042309 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Ragone, B

    M. Ragone, B. N. Bakalov, F. Sauvage, A. F. Kemper, C. Ortiz Marrero, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, A Lie algebraic theory of barren plateaus for deep parameter- ized quantum circuits, Nature Communications15, 7172 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    ˙Zyczkowski and H.-J

    K. ˙Zyczkowski and H.-J. Sommers, Average fidelity be- tween random quantum states, Physical Review A71, 032313 (2005)

    work page 2005

  43. [43]

    D. A. Meyer and N. R. Wallach, Global entanglement in multiparticle systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4273 (2002)

    work page 2002

  44. [44]

    G. K. Brennen, An observable measure of entanglement for pure states of multi-qubit systems, Quantum Info. Comput.3, 619 (2003)

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    Strobl, M

    M. Strobl, M. Franz, E. Kuehn, W. Mauerer, and A. Streit, Qml essentials – a framework for working with quantum fourier models, in2025 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Software (QSW)(2025) pp. 238–243, arXiv:2506.06695 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Gunning, A

    A. Gunning, A. Deger, S. Kuriyattil, and A. J. Daley, Geometry-driven transitions in sparse long-range spin models with cold atoms (2025), arXiv:2512.08709 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    A. F. Monna, Sur une transformation simple des nombres P-adiques en nombres reels, Indagationes Mathematicae (Proceedings)55, 1 (1952)

    work page 1952

  48. [48]

    N. V. Tkachenko, J. Sud, Y. Zhang, S. Tretiak, P. M. Anisimov, A. T. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, and P. A. Dub, Correlation-informed permutation of qubits for reducing ansatz depth in the variational quantum eigensolver, PRX Quantum2, 020337 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Saffman, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2313 (2010)

    M. Saffman, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2313 (2010)

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    Saffman, Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics49, 202001 (2016)

    M. Saffman, Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics49, 202001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, S. H. Li, X. Lyu, L. M. Peters, D. Bluvstein, T. T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000- qubit system, Nature646, 1075 (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, M. Cain, and M. D. Lukin, A fault-tolerant neutral-atom architec- ture for universal quantu...

    work page 2026

  53. [53]

    Luo, J.-G

    X.-Z. Luo, J.-G. Liu, P. Zhang, and L. Wang, Yao.jl: Extensible, efficient framework for quantum algorithm design, Quantum4, 341 (2020)

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    A. A. Mele, Introduction to haar measure tools in quan- tum information: A beginner’s tutorial, Quantum8, 1340 (2024). Appendix A: Proof of Commutator depth bound Here we answer the finite depth question, asking how many commutator layers are required before the PWR2- 14 generated filtration already contains the nearest-neighbor TFIM target algebra. In th...

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Second-moment operators LetH ≃C d be a finite-dimensional Hilbert space. For an ensemble of unitariesEonH, the second-moment op- erator is defined as M(2) E =E U∼E U ⊗2 ⊗(U †)⊗2 .(B1) Viewed as a superoperator via vectorization, it acts on operators onH ⊗2. This operator fully character- izes the second moments of the ensemble and plays a central role in ...

    work page

  56. [56]

    Weingarten calculus The Weingarten calculus provides a systematic method to compute integrals of products of matrix elements over the unitary group with respect to the Haar measure. For kcopies, one has the general identity [51] Z U(d) dU U i1j1 · · ·U ikjk U i′ 1j′ 1 · · · U i′ kj′ k (B4) = X σ,τ∈S k δi1i′ σ(1) · · ·δ iki′ σ(k) δj1j′ τ(1) · · ·δ jkj′ τ(k...

    work page

  57. [57]

    This operator governs the mixing of second moments induced by a single two-qubit gate

    Second-moment operator for two-qubit gates Specializing the Haar second-moment operator to two- qubit gates drawn from SU(4), thek= 2 moment op- eratorM (2) SU(4) acts on operators on (C 2)⊗4 and can be expressed, in the operator basis{I⊗I,I⊗S,S⊗I,S⊗S}, as the 4×4 matrix M(2) SU(4) =   1 0 0 0 2/5 0 0 2/5 2/5 0 0 2/5 0 0 0 1   ,(B8) obtained via the...

    work page

  58. [58]

    Embedding into ann-qubit system To describe circuit layers acting on ann-qubit register, we embed the two-qubit moment operator into the full operator space. For a gate acting on a pair of qubits (i, j) withi < j, we define M(2) SU(4),(i,j) := Emb(i,j) M(2) SU(4) ,(B9) where Emb(i,j) places the two tensor legs ofM (2) SU(4) on sitesiandjand acts as the id...

    work page

  59. [59]

    We explicitly construct the second-moment operators for a single circuit layer and the corresponding Haar ensemble as sparse matrices

    Numerical evaluation Using the above construction, we computeλ max nu- merically for nearest-neighbor and power-of-two circuit geometries and system sizes up ton= 16 qubits. We explicitly construct the second-moment operators for a single circuit layer and the corresponding Haar ensemble as sparse matrices. The largest non-trivial singular value is then o...

    work page