Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Quantum Pushforward Designs

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Finite 49-channel families can replace random unitary evolution with any k-dimensional environment, and the authors use this to estimate a 127-qubit processor's effective environment dimension as below 2.2 up to 350 μs.

desk verdict Solid channel-design formalism and a clean unification, but the central [3,k]-design claim is only verified at t=2 and the IBM noise number is a self-fit; still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09672 v3 pith:7V2U47WD submitted 2024-12-12 quant-ph

Jakub Czartowski , Karol Życzkowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords pushforwarddesignschannelt-designseffectiveenvironmentdimensionquantumnoisetomographyCliffordgroupWeingartencalculussimplexmutuallyunbiasedbases
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 introduces pushforward designs, a general way to turn a t-design on one space into a t-design on another by pushing it through a map. Its main new object is the channel [t,k]-design: a finite set of quantum channels whose t-fold averages are indistinguishable from the average of random unitary evolution with a k-dimensional environment. The authors claim an explicit 49-channel family—the single-qubit Clifford group, eighteen rank-2 channels, and the maximally depolarizing channel, weighted 1, 4(k−1), and 32($k^{2}$−3k+2)—forms a channel [3,k]-design for any environment dimension k. They use this family to fit an 'effective environment dimension' $k^*$ to idle-noise data from a 127-qubit superconducting processor, finding $k^*$ below 2.2 for evolution times up to 350 μs. If correct, this gives a cheap, fixed 49-channel way to simulate realistic device noise and a benchmark for comparing quantum hardware.

What carries the argument

The central object is the channel [t,k]-design: a set of channels X such that $\frac{1}{|X|} \sum_i \sigma_{\Phi_i}^{\otimes t} = \langle \sigma_{\Phi}^{\otimes t}\rangle_{U(dk)}$, with the right-hand side given in closed form as a Weingarten-calculus sum over permutations weighted by $k^{\mathrm{Cl}(\tau)}$. This identity carries the argument because it turns the continuous average over random unitaries into a concrete target that a finite set can be checked against. The explicit construction is the weighted set consisting of the 24 single-qubit Clifford unitaries, the 18 rank-2 channels in R2, and the maximally depolarizing channel, with weights 1, 4(k−1), and 32($k^{2}$−3k+2); the paper argues these weights solve the t=2 equality and, for k=2^l, match the Clifford group, making the set a channel [3,k]-design. Pushforward designs provide the general induction mechanism: any design mapped linearly to another space is a design there, with the degree possibly rising when the target dimension is lower.

What would settle it

Evaluate the left side of Eq. (28) at t=3 for the claimed weighted set at a non-power-of-two k such as k=3 and compare with the closed form from Eq. (27); if equality fails for any k, the universal [3,k]-design claim is wrong. Separately, tomograph idle-noise Choi states at several delay times and check whether the residual distance from the 49-channel family goes to zero as the emission weight is tuned; a persistent distance means $k^*$ is only a projection coefficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that averaging over all channels reachable by tracing out a k-dimensional environment equals averaging over a tiny weighted set. The authors derive a closed formula for the t-copy averaged Choi–Jamiołkowski state $\langle \sigma_{\Phi}^{\otimes t}\rangle_{U(dk)}$ using Weingarten functions, so a candidate set X is a channel [t,k]-design iff the set average equals this target. They then show, by solving the t=2 equality and matching the Clifford group for k=2^l, that the set of the single-qubit Clifford group, the rank-2 channels R2, and the maximally depolarizing channel, with weights 1, 4(k−1), and 32($k^{2}$−3k+2), is a channel [3,k]-design for every k. This yields a 49-element weighted set whose average reproduces the uniform environment-averaged channel.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the weighted 49-channel ensemble really is a channel [3,k]-design for every k and that idle noise on the measured qubits lies within that family; if either fails, the fitted $k^*$ is not a physical environment dimension.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The weighted 49-channel set can replace sampling random unitaries over U(dk) in any t-copy average for t≤3, making environment-averaged quantities computable with a fixed circuit family.
  • The closed-form identity turns design certification into a finite calculation: check equality of the t-copy Choi average against the Weingarten formula.
  • For k=d², a channel [t,d²]-design reproduces the flat Lebesgue measure over all channels, giving a discrete average over the full convex body of quantum channels.
  • The effective dimension $k^*$ with an extra emission weight gives a quantitative noise benchmark; on the measured 127-qubit device, $k^*$ stays below 2.2 for idle times up to 350 μs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same weighted family could be fitted to gate-error data or to different qubit technologies; if $k^*$ tracks physical coupling strength, the effective dimension becomes a device-level diagnostic rather than a curve fit.
  • If the [3,k]-design claim survives a direct t=3 check for non-power-of-two k, the 49-channel ensemble is a tunable noise simulator whose only parameter k sets the environment size without changing circuit structure.
  • The non-monotonic $k^*(T)$ seen at intermediate times in the real-device data, but not in the uniform-interaction simulation, hints at a structured noise source that the paper's model does not include; randomized benchmarking against the same family could test this.
  • The generalized Simpson rule for simplices could be turned into a practical integration routine for triangulated surfaces, since affine images of simplex designs remain designs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces pushforward designs as images of designs under measurable maps and applies the concept to construct channel [t,k]-designs: finite weighted sets of channels whose t-fold tensor averages reproduce the average over Stinespring unitaries U(dk) with a k-dimensional environment initialized in |0>. The authors derive the Weingarten formula (27) for the averaged t-copy Choi-Jamiolkowski state, propose an explicit weighted set (single-qubit Clifford unitaries, rank-2 channels R2, and the depolarizing channel) with weights (1,4(k-1),32(k^2-3k+2)), and claim it is a channel [3,k]-design for every k. They then define an effective environment dimension k* as the minimizer (31) of the distance between measured and model noise, apply an ancilla-free tomography scheme to idle noise on IBM Kyoto, and report k* close to 2 up to 350 microseconds after adding an emission weight w.

Significance. The pushforward-design framework is a clean unifying language, and the closed-form Weingarten expression (27) gives a practical verification tool for channel designs; credit is due for the explicit [3,2]-design from the two-qubit Clifford group and for the sampling-based [3,4] check. The ancilla-free tomography procedure of Appendix D is a useful practical contribution, and the authors make calibration data available. However, the advertised [3,k]-design for arbitrary k is currently not proven, and the experimental k* is a best-fit parameter of the model family rather than a directly measured environment dimension. Both issues are fixable but affect the central claims as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (30) and following paragraph] The [3,k]-design claim is verified only at t=2. Equation (30) equates two-fold averages and fixes a=1, b=4(k-1), and c=32(k^2-3k+2). The next sentence asserts that for k=2^l the expressions must match the Clifford group on l+1 qubits and therefore a,b,c are also proper weights for 3-designs; no calculation is displayed showing that the partial trace of the Clifford 3-design reproduces exactly the three channel classes C1, R2, and the depolarizing channel with those weights for every l, and no argument extends the statement from k=2^l to arbitrary (including non-integer) k. Since equality of second moments does not constrain third moments, the central construction is not established as a [3,k]-design for general k. Please supply the missing third-moment verification, or restrict the theorem and all downstream claims to the cases actually proved.
  2. [Section VI, Eq. (31) and Appendix E] The effective dimension k* is defined as the minimizer of the distance to the same parametric family used to model the noise, and the emission weight w is adjusted on the same dataset before k* is extracted. Consequently, the reported agreement between model and device and the values k* near 2-2.2 show that the device is close to the model family in the fitted norm, but they do not by themselves measure an environment dimension. The text acknowledges this in general terms through the nonzero residual epsilon*, but the abstract and summary report the k* estimate without this caveat. Please either add an out-of-sample or cross-validated assessment of the fit, or rephrase the claims as model-projection coefficients rather than measured environment dimensions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II.B, after Eq. (3)] The text says 'even the average of a balanced (1,1) monomial, such as |z1|, vanishes identically'; |z1| is not a balanced monomial and its average over the complex projective space is positive. The intended example is presumably |z1|^2 (or z1 z1*) with suitable centering, or a monomial with equal powers of z and z*.
  2. [Figure 11 caption] The caption for Fig. 11 misassigns the panels: the left panel shows k*, the middle panel shows w, and the right panel shows epsilon*, while the caption says the middle plot depicts w and the right plot shows k*.
  3. [Eq. (29)] In Eq. (29), the index k in CNOT_{k to 1} overloads the environment dimension k used throughout Section V; renaming the CNOT control index (e.g., c) would remove ambiguity.
  4. [References] References [10] and [33] are the same paper, as are [6] and [37]; duplicate entries should be merged or cross-referenced once.
  5. [Section V, Observation 5] Observation 5 would benefit from a one-line proof: for t=1, Eq. (24) gives the same maximally depolarizing average for every k, so the statement is immediate but should be said explicitly rather than left as an unproved observation.
  6. [Appendix D, after Eq. (D5)] The expression following Eq. (D5), showing the product of the pseudoinverse evaluated at T=0 with the matrix at T>0, is typeset in a confusing way; please rewrite it with clear parentheses and indices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the channel [t,k]-design construction is benchmarked against unitary-group averages, the cited Clifford 3-design theorem is external, and the empirical k* is an explicitly fitted estimator rather than a disguised prediction.

full rationale

The central construction is not circular. The channel [t,k]-design target is defined by an average over U(dk) (Eq. 20), and the paper computes that target explicitly via Weingarten calculus (Eqs. 25-27), so the verification formula (Eq. 28) is a self-contained benchmark rather than a restatement of the construction. The claimed [3,k]-design weights are obtained by solving the two-fold equality (Eq. 30), and the extension to t=3 for k=2^l is asserted via the Clifford group being a unitary 3-design, which is cited to Webb [9], an independent external theorem, not to the authors' own work. I do flag a genuine proof gap: the paper does not display the third-moment verification for general k, and the sentence 'for k=2^l the expressions must match the Clifford group on l+1 qubits, and thus a, b, c are also proper weights for 3 designs in such cases' is an assertion rather than a shown reduction; this is an omitted proof and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity because the conclusion does not reduce to its own inputs. The empirical part is also not circular in the relevant sense: k* is defined explicitly as the argmin of the distance to the model (Eq. 31), and the additional emission weight w is adjusted on the same dataset, so the reported agreement is a fit quality measure, not an independent prediction. The paper is transparent about this fitted character ('we estimate', 'adjusting the overall normalisation accordingly'), so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations appear only as background or extension references and are not load-bearing for the main design claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ledger shows the empirical claim carries two fitted parameters and one central ad hoc modeling axiom; the mathematical design construction itself relies only on standard Weingarten and MUB facts.

free parameters (2)
  • Effective environment dimension k* = 2 to 2.2 (up to 350 microseconds)
    k* is defined as the argmin of the distance between measured and model-averaged Choi states (Eq. 31); the reported value is the minimizer, hence a fitted quantity, not an independent estimate.
  • Emission weight w = polynomial growth, on the order of 10 near 350 microseconds (Fig. 11)
    Added ad hoc to the rank-2 emission channel weight, 4(k-1) becomes 4(k-1)+w, and is adjusted to make the emission model match the IBM data; the paper does not derive w from a first-principles error model.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Weingarten calculus formulas for unitary integrals over U(D) are correct and applicable for t up to 3.
    Used to derive Eq. (25) and the general formula Eq. (27) for the average Choi-Jamiolkowski state; the paper cites [29,35] but does not reprove them.
  • domain assumption Complete sets of MUB exist in prime power dimensions and form complex projective 2-designs.
    Needed for Proposition 4 (generalized Simpson rule) and for the MUB-based tomography in Appendix D; the paper cites [3,8].
  • domain assumption The Lebesgue measure on quantum channels equals the Stinespring measure with environment dimension d^2, and the Choi and Kraus constructions give the same measure.
    The statement that a [t,d^2]-design is a design with respect to the flat Lebesgue measure relies on the measure equalities from [43], stated in Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper Idle noise on IBM Kyoto is represented by the Stinespring ensemble U(dk) on an |0> environment, possibly with biased emission weight w.
    This is the central modeling assumption in Section VI; the paper itself notes uniform interaction is limited and modifies it with an adjustable emission weight.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective environment dimension k*
    purpose: To summarize the size of the environment that best reproduces measured noise when averaged over random unitaries.
    The value is a best-fit parameter within an assumed model family; no independent experiment or falsifiable prediction outside the model is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Pushforward Designs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7V2U47WD

@misc{pith2026241209672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Pushforward Designs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7V2U47WD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09672}
}
abstract

Designs, structures connected to averaging with respect to a given measure using finite sets of points, have proven themselves as invaluable tools across the field of quantum information, finding their uses in state and process tomography, key distribution and others. In this work, we introduce a new concept of pushforward designs, which allows us to obtain new structures from already existing ones by mapping them between the spaces, with specific examples including simplex designs and mixed state designs from complex projective designs. Based on the general concept, we put forward a structure called channel $[t,k]$-design, allowing for averaging over space of quantum channels for systems in contact with an environment of dimension $k$. Based on this notion, we introduce the concept of effective environment dimensionality $k^*$, which we estimate for the IBM Kyoto quantum computer to be below $2.2$ for times up to $350\mu\text{s}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09672 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Schematic depiction of the architecture of 127-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The induced design is composed of the same chan- nels as the channel [3 , 4]-design induced by Cli fford group on 2 qubits, extended by maximally depolarising channel, corresponding to the maximally mixed Choi- Jamiołkowski state,σΦ = I4/4

    work page

  2. [2]

    The weights are confirmed analytically using Proposition 6

    The weights are estimated to be 1 for each rank-1 chan- nel, 12 for each rank-2 channel, and 192 for the maxi- mally depolarising channel. The weights are confirmed analytically using Proposition 6

    work page

  3. [3]

    No rank-3 channels are necessary to construct a channel [2, 4]-design on two qubits. The above leads to the claim that a channel [3, k]-design for any k∈ (1,∞] can be achieved by taking the channels of the Clifford groupC1, the rank-2 channelsR2, and the maximally depolarising channel, taken with k-dependent weights. This claim can be verified by consider...

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    By a set of dE Kraus operators Ki, with the action de- fined as Φ(ρ) = dEX i=1 KiρK† i (A1) 11 with the identity resolution condition P i K† i Ki = I en- suring the trace preservation condition

    work page

  5. [5]

    By a unitary operation U∈U (d× dE) with the action of the channel defined by Φ(ρ) = TrE h U(ρ⊗|1⟩⟨1|)U†i . (A2)

    work page

  6. [6]

    From this follow three natural ways for generating random quantum channels – by random Kraus operators, random uni- tary operations, and random Choi-Jamiołkowski states [43]

    By the corresponding Choi-Jamiołkowski state σΦ de- fined as σΦ = (Φ⊗ I) |ψ+⟩⟨ψ+| (A3) where|ψ+⟩ = 1√ d Pd i=1|ii⟩ is the standard maximally en- tangled state. From this follow three natural ways for generating random quantum channels – by random Kraus operators, random uni- tary operations, and random Choi-Jamiołkowski states [43]. In order to understand...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Take s random matrices G1,..., Gs of size d× d, drawn independently from the complex Ginibre ensemble

    work page

  8. [8]

    Compute the matrix H = Ps i=1 G† i Gi

    work page

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Construction 2 (Random Quantum Channels via Choi– Jamiołkowski states)

    Define Kraus operators as K i = GiH−1/2, i∈{1,..., s}. Construction 2 (Random Quantum Channels via Choi– Jamiołkowski states). Let s∈S be a real number. We define µChoi d,s to be the probability measure of the random quantum channel Φ defined in the following way:

  2. [10]

    Take a random complex Wishart matrix W with param- eters (d2, s)

  3. [11]

    Find the positive semidefinite matrix defined by partial trace H≡ TrB(W)

  4. [12]

    (A4) Construction 3 (Random Quantum Channels via environ- mental form)

    Construct the sampled Choi-Jamiołkowski state as σΦ≡ H−1/2⊗ I W H−1/2⊗ I . (A4) Construction 3 (Random Quantum Channels via environ- mental form) . Let s be an integer and s ≥ 1. We define µStinespring d,s to be the probability measure of the random quan- tum channel Φ, define...

  5. [13]

    Consider a random unitary matrix U ∈ U(Md), act- ing on the principal system and the environment E of dimension M

  6. [14]

    (A5) For Constructions 2 and 1 one needs to take note of the zero-measure sets, in which the matrices H are non-invertible and, therefore, do not adhere to the scheme

    The channel Φ is defined as Φ(ρ) = TrE h U(ρ⊗|0⟩⟨0|E)U†i . (A5) For Constructions 2 and 1 one needs to take note of the zero-measure sets, in which the matrices H are non-invertible and, therefore, do not adhere to the scheme. All the above constructions should be complemented...

  7. [15]

    C. F. Gauss, Methodus nova integralium valores per approxi- mationem inveniendi, Comm. Soc. Sci. Göttingen Math. 3, 29 (1815)

  8. [16]

    Levenshtein, Designs as maximum codes in polynomial met- ric spaces, Acta Appl

    V . Levenshtein, Designs as maximum codes in polynomial met- ric spaces, Acta Appl. Math. 29, 1 (1992)

    1992

  9. [17]

    A. J. Scott, Tight informationally complete quantum measure- ments, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 13507 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Klappenecker and M

    A. Klappenecker and M. Rotteler, Mutually unbiased bases are complex projective 2-designs, inProceedings. International Symposium on Information Theory, 2005. ISIT 2005., pp. 1740– 1744

    2005

  11. [19]

    Gross, K

    D. Gross, K. Audenaert, and J. Eisert, Evenly distributed uni- taries: On the structure of unitary designs, J. Math. Phys. 48, 052104 (2007)

    2007

  12. [21]

    Sawicki, L

    A. Sawicki, L. Mattioli, and Z. Zimborás, Universality verifi- cation for a set of quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A 105, 052602 (2022)

    2022

  13. [22]

    Durt, B.-G

    T. Durt, B.-G. Englert, I. Bengtsson, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, On mutually unbiased bases, Int. J. Quant. Inf. 08, 535 (2010)

    2010

  14. [23]

    Webb, The Clifford group forms a unitary 3-design, Quantum Inf

    Z. Webb, The Clifford group forms a unitary 3-design, Quantum Inf. Comput. 16, 1379 (2016)

    2016

  15. [25]

    J. T. Iosue, T. C. Mooney, A. Ehrenberg, and A. V . Gorshkov, Projective toric designs, quantum state designs, and mutually unbiased bases, Quantum 8, 1546 (2024)

    2024

  16. [26]

    Seymour and T

    P. Seymour and T. Zaslavsky, Averaging sets: A generalization of mean values and spherical designs, Advances in Mathematics 52, 213 (1984)

    1984

  17. [27]

    Delsarte, J

    P. Delsarte, J. M. Goethals, and J. J. Seidel, Spherical codes and designs, Geometriae Dedicata 6, 363–388 (1977)

    1977

  18. [28]

    Levenshtein, On designs in compact metric spaces and a uni- versal bound on their size, Discrete Math

    V . Levenshtein, On designs in compact metric spaces and a uni- versal bound on their size, Discrete Math. 192, 251 (1998)

    1998

  19. [29]

    Levenshtein, Universal bounds for codes and designs, in Handbook of Coding Theory, edited by V

    V . Levenshtein, Universal bounds for codes and designs, in Handbook of Coding Theory, edited by V . Pless and C. W. Huff- man (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1998) p. 499

    1998

  20. [30]

    Iblisdir and J

    S. Iblisdir and J. Roland, Optimal finite measurements and gauss quadratures, Physics Letters A 358, 368 (2006)

    2006

  21. [31]

    Cie ´sli´nski, S

    P. Cie ´sli´nski, S. Imai, J. Dziewior, O. Guehne, L. Knips, W. Laskowski, J. Meinecke, T. Paterek, and T. Vertesi, Analysing quantum systems with randomised measurements, Physics Reports 1095, 1 (2024)

    2024

  22. [32]

    S. G. Hoggar, t-designs in projective spaces, Europ. J. Combin. 3, 233 (1982)

    1982

  23. [33]

    S. G. Hoggar, Parameters of t-designs in f pd−1, Europ. J. Com- bin. 5, 29 (1984)

    1984

  24. [34]

    Bannai and S

    E. Bannai and S. G. Hoggar, On tight t-designs in compact sym- metric spaces of rank one, Proc. Japan Acad. 61A, 78 (1985)

    1985

  25. [35]

    S. G. Hoggar, Tight 4 and 5-designs in projective spaces, Graphs Combin. 5, 87 (1989)

    1989

  26. [36]

    Bannai and S

    E. Bannai and S. G. Hoggar, Tight t-designs and squarefree in- tegers, Europ. J. Combin. 10, 113 (1989)

    1989

  27. [37]

    S. G. Hoggar, t-designs with general angle set, Europ. J. Com- bin. 13, 257 (1992)

    1992

  28. [38]

    Datta, S

    S. Datta, S. Howard, and D. Cochran, Geometry of the Welch bounds, Lin. Alg. App. 437, 2455 (2012)

    2012

  29. [39]

    Zauner, Quantum designs: foundations of a noncommuta- tive design theory, International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion 09, 445 (2011)

    G. Zauner, Quantum designs: foundations of a noncommuta- tive design theory, International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion 09, 445 (2011)

    2011

  30. [40]

    Bengtsson, M

    I. Bengtsson, M. Grassl, and G. McConnell, SIC-POVMs from Stark units: Dimensions n2 + 3 = 4p, p prime, arXiv preprint arXiv: 2403.02872 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [41]

    S. G. Hoggar, Two quaternionic 4-polytopes, in The Geometric Vein (Springer New York, 1981) p. 219–230

    1981

  32. [42]

    Dankert, R

    C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity 16 estimation, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012304 (2009)

    2009

  33. [43]

    Collins, S

    B. Collins, S. Matsumoto, and J. Novak, The Weingarten calcu- lus, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 69, 1 (2022)

    2022

  34. [44]

    Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum com- puters, arXiv preprint arXiv: quant-ph_9807006 (1998)

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum com- puters, arXiv preprint arXiv: quant-ph_9807006 (1998)

    1998

  35. [45]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabi- lizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  36. [46]

    Grier and L

    D. Grier and L. Schae ffer, The classification of Cli fford gates over qubits, Quantum 6, 734 (2022)

    2022

  37. [47]

    Czartowski, D

    J. Czartowski, D. Goyeneche, M. Grassl, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Isoentangled mutually unbiased bases, symmetric quantum measurements, and mixed-state designs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 090503 (2020)

    2020

  38. [48]

    Seyfarth and K

    U. Seyfarth and K. S. Ranade, Construction of mutually unbi- ased bases with cyclic symmetry for qubit systems, Phys. Rev. A 84, 042327 (2011)

    2011

  39. [49]

    Collins and P

    B. Collins and P. ´Sniady, Integration with respect to the Haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic group, Com- mun. Math. Phys. 264, 773–795 (2006)

    2006

  40. [50]

    E. Van Den Berg, A simple method for sampling random Clifford operators, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2021) pp. 54–59

    2021

  41. [51]

    A. J. Scott, Optimizing quantum process tomography with uni- tary 2-designs, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 055308 (2008)

    2008

  42. [52]

    I. L. Chuang and M. A. Nielson, Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2455 (1997)

    1997

  43. [53]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Complete characteriza- tion of a quantum process: The two-bit quantum gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 390 (1997)

    1997

  44. [54]

    Gumann and J

    P. Gumann and J. Chow, IBM cools down the world’s largest quantum-ready cryogenic concept system (2022), accessed: 2024-12-04

    2022

  45. [55]

    Sawicki, J

    A. Sawicki, J. Czartowski, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Approximate pushforward designs and image bounds on approximations, to appear (2025)

    2025

  46. [56]

    Markiewicz and J

    M. Markiewicz and J. Przewocki, On construction of finite av- eraging sets for sl (2, C) via its Cartan decomposition, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54, 235302 (2021)

    2021

  47. [57]

    Kukulski, I

    R. Kukulski, I. Nechita, Ł. Pawela, Z. Puchała, and K. ˙Zy- czkowski, Generating random quantum channels, J. Math. Phys. 62 (2021)

    2021

  48. [58]

    S. D. Peddada and D. S. P. Richards, Proof of a conjecture of M. L. Eaton on the characteristic function of the Wishart distri- bution, Ann. Probab. 19, 868 (1991)

    1991

  49. [59]

    Bruzda, V

    W. Bruzda, V . Cappellini, H.-J. Sommers, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Random quantum operations, Physics Lett. A 373, 320 (2009)

    2009

  50. [60]

    Winter and D

    A. Winter and D. Yang, Operational resource theory of coher- ence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120404 (2016)

    2016

  51. [61]

    Czartowski, D

    J. Czartowski, D. Goyeneche, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Entangle- ment properties of multipartite informationally complete quan- tum measurements, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51, 305302 (2018)

    2018

  52. [62]

    H. Zhu, Y . S. Teo, and B.-G. Englert, Two-qubit symmetric informationally complete positive-operator-valued measures, Phys. Rev. A 82, 042308 (2010)

    2010

  53. [63]

    ˙Zyczkowski and I

    K. ˙Zyczkowski and I. Bengtsson, On duality between quantum maps and quantum states, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 11, 3 (2004)

    2004

  54. [64]

    M. Musz, M. Ku ´s, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Unitary quantum gates, perfect entanglers, and unistochastic maps, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022111 (2013)

    2013

  55. [65]

    uj.edu.pl/~czartowski/chan_des/noise_model_dict

    Calibration data for IBM Quantum, https://chaos.if. uj.edu.pl/~czartowski/chan_des/noise_model_dict. txt, (obtained on July 12, 2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.