The Efficiency Frontier: Classical Shadows versus Direct Quantum Measurement

Junyu Liu; Shuowei Ma

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 21 references

The Efficiency Frontier: Classical Shadows versus Direct Quantum Measurement

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Classical shadows overtake direct measurement at ~16 observables

desk verdict The LCP resource accounting is practical, but the LHM frontier rests on a false shadow-norm/infinity-norm equivalence that invalidates the paper's headline claim for sparse matrices. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06218 v3 pith:Q2NTUHWO submitted 2025-09-07 quant-ph cs.AIcs.LGstat.ML

Shuowei Ma , Junyu Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcs.AIcs.LGstat.ML MSC 81P6881P15 PACS 03.67.-a

keywords classicalshadowsdirectquantummeasurementresourceestimationefficiencyfrontierPauliobservablessparseHermitianmatricestomographybreak-evenanalysis

topics The Measurement Problem

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 tries to establish a quantitative efficiency frontier between two ways of learning expectation values from an unknown quantum state: the classical shadow method, which randomizes measurements and post-processes them classically, and direct quantum measurement (“quantum footage”), which measures each observable independently. It derives closed-form resource counts for both schemes—quantum gates, number of measurement shots, and classical floating-point operations—and multiplies those counts by realistic per-operation times from four quantum hardware platforms and a supercomputer. The central result is that the shadow method is not universally efficient: for observables built as linear combinations of Pauli terms it wins only when the number of observables is large (the crossover sits near $M \approx 16$ in the default hardware setting), and for large sparse Hermitian observables it wins only inside a finite window of the number of observables, sparsity, and qubit count. This matters because it converts a folklore “shadows are good” into a concrete, parameter-dependent recommendation for when to use which method.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the resource-count formulas themselves: the shadow measurement bound $T \lesssim (34/\epsilon^2)\max_i \|O_i\|^2_{\mathrm{shadow}}\log(2M/\delta)$ and the Hoeffding-based bound $T' \lesssim (b-a)^2/(2\epsilon^2)\log(2/\delta')$ for direct measurement, converted into runtime by per-gate and per-measurement latencies. For the sparse-Hermitian case the load-bearing step is replacing the shadow norm of $O-\mathrm{tr}(O)2^{-n}I$ with its infinity norm (Eq. 31), then estimating that infinity norm as $k\sqrt{2/\pi}+\sqrt{k(1-2/\pi)2n\log 2}$ via extreme-value theory over the $2^n$ row sums (Eq. 46). That estimate is what turns the abstract shadow norm into a closed expression in the sparsity $k$ and qubit number $n$.

What would settle it

Compute the exact shadow norm (Eq. 30) for randomly generated sparse Hermitian observables at, say, $n=12\text{–}20$ qubits and sparsities $k=3\text{–}10$, and measure how many shadow measurements are actually needed to reach $\epsilon=0.01$ with $\delta=0.01$; if this measured count departs systematically from Eq. (5)/(48), the crossover boundaries in Figure 2(d) move, and the finite-window advantage claim fails wherever the gap is large.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the total runtime of the two methods can be compared through the upper-bound formulas in Statements 1–4: for linear-combination-of-Pauli observables, the shadow method needs $T \lesssim 17L\,3^w\,\epsilon^{-2}\log(2M/\delta)$ measurements and $ML(T(1/3)^w(w+1)+2\log(2M/\delta)+2)$ floating-point operations, while direct measurement needs $T' \lesssim 0.5ML^3\epsilon^{-2}\log(2ML/\delta)$ measurements; for sparse Hermitian observables, the shadow count is governed by an estimated infinity norm of the observable and the direct count by its spectral norm. Evaluating these formulas with hardware gate/measurement times and supercomputer FLOP rates produces the crossover: for Pauli-type observables the shadow method becomes cheaper around $\log M = 4$, and for sparse matrices there is a finite advantage window in $M$ that eventually closes because classical processing grows exponentially in the qubit number. The runtime ratio of the two schemes is shown to be independent of the precision $\epsilon$.

Load-bearing premise

The sparse-matrix branch of the paper stands or falls on the approximation that the shadow norm of a sparse random Hermitian observable equals its infinity norm and that this infinity norm is given by the extreme-value estimate $k\sqrt{2/\pi}+\sqrt{k(1-2/\pi)2n\log 2}$; if that statistical estimate is wrong, the predicted measurement counts and the claimed advantage window shift or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For Pauli-type observables, the shadow method is the cheaper choice once the number of observables exceeds roughly 16; below that, direct measurement costs less for typical hardware.
For sparse Hermitian observables, the advantage is non-monotonic: shadows win for intermediate $M$ but lose again for very large $M$ because classical post-processing grows exponentially with the qubit number.
The break-even point depends on hardware: photonic computers push the crossover to larger $M$ or eliminate it for the sparse-matrix case, while superconducting, ion-trap, and neutral-atom devices behave similarly.
The runtime ratio $t_{\mathrm{shadow}}/t_{\mathrm{footage}}$ is independent of the target precision $\epsilon$, so the frontier does not move as accuracy requirements tighten.
Because all shadow costs are upper bounds, in practice the shadow method may be even cheaper than the predicted frontier suggests.

Reading between the lines

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

One testable extension is an adaptive strategy that switches between direct measurement and shadows at the predicted crossover points; such a hybrid should dominate either fixed choice, but the paper does not implement it.
The infinity-norm shortcut used for sparse matrices is specific to Pauli measurements; for Clifford shadows the same shortcut would likely fail because the shadow norm is not row-local, so a different norm estimate would be needed to extend the comparison.
The crossover near $M\approx 16$ implies a simple rule of thumb—use direct measurement for fewer than about a dozen Pauli-type observables—but this threshold depends on the ratio of gate time to measurement time and should be recalculated for each new hardware generation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know. The LCP part of this paper is a useful, if not deep, resource-accounting exercise; the LHM part is not sound. The central step that makes the LHM result work, Eq. 31, equates the shadow norm of a sparse Hermitian matrix with its infinity norm. That equality is false, and the LHM efficiency frontier is therefore unsupported.

What is new is the full-stack cost model: they count classical FLOPs, use hardware-specific gate and measurement times, and produce break-even curves for when classical shadows are cheaper than direct measurement. The LCP analysis is a legitimate extension of Huang–Kueng–Preskill: for Pauli observables with L terms and weight w, the measurement count is the standard 34 / eps^2 * ||O||_shadow^2 * log(2M/delta), and their FLOP count for shadow post-processing (matching measurement bases rather than matrix multiplication) is a concrete, transparent estimate. The LCP crossover at M ~ 16 is the crossing of two known bounds under their parameter choices, but it is packaged in a way practitioners can use. The LHM direct-measurement estimate using sparse random matrix spectral norm ~ 2 sqrt(2k) is a reasonable heuristic.

The soft spot is not minor. Eq. 31 fails badly. Take a random diagonal matrix with independent N(0,1) diagonal entries: it has sparsity k=1 per row, but its Pauli decomposition has full support with coefficients of typical magnitude 2^{-n/2}; the shadow norm squared is ~ sum_S 3^{|S|} / 2^n = 2^n, while the infinity norm is O(sqrt(n)). So the equality underestimates the shadow norm exponentially. The paper's claim that small computational-basis sparsity implies small Pauli weight is simply wrong: a diagonal matrix is as Pauli-global as it gets. Consequently, Statement 3(a)'s T, and with it the LHM curves and hardware crossovers, are not established. The extreme-value estimate in Eq. 46 is a secondary issue; even an exact infinity norm would not fix the problem.

There is also a minor inconsistency in the LCP proof: the statement sets coefficients ~ N(0,1), while the proof uses N(0,0.5) truncated to [-1,1] (with average square 0.25), which changes the constant.

Who should read this? Practitioners choosing measurement strategies might find the LCP cost model useful. The LHM claims should not be used. The paper deserves a serious referee — the LCP part is a service to the community and reviewing it can catch exactly this kind of load-bearing error — but the authors should either prove a valid shadow-norm bound for sparse matrices or retract the LHM section.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares the resource cost of classical shadow tomography with that of direct quantum measurement (dubbed 'quantum footage') for two families of observables: linear combinations of Pauli operators (LCP) and large sparse Hermitian matrices (LHM). For LCP observables, it claims that classical shadows win when the number of observables M is large and the Pauli weight w is small, with a crossover near M ≈ 16 in the default settings (Statement 1, Statement 2, Figure 2c). For LHM observables, it claims the shadow method wins only in a finite window of M, k, and n (Statement 3, Statement 4, Figure 2d). The derivations combine standard shadow-norm bounds from Huang–Kueng–Preskill with extreme-value estimates for the infinity norm of sparse random matrices, and then convert measurement counts and floating-point operations into runtime comparisons across several hardware platforms.

Significance. If the results were correct, the paper would provide a practically useful rule of thumb for when classical shadows are preferable to direct measurement, and it would extend the comparison beyond measurement counts to classical post-processing and hardware-dependent runtimes. The explicit formulas for LCP measurement counts and the full-stack cost accounting are valuable features, and the authors are transparent about the parameters entering the comparison. However, the central LHM claim rests on an equality between the shadow norm and the infinity norm that is false for the stated observable class, and the LCP statement contains a coefficient-distribution inconsistency that undermines its claimed rigor. Because the LHM efficiency frontier and the hardware crossover in Figure 3(b) are direct consequences of the invalid equality, the main contribution is not currently supported.

major comments (4)

[Appendix B.3.1, Eq. (46)] Equation (31) asserts that for sparse Hermitian matrices the shadow norm equals the infinity norm after subtracting the normalized trace. This equality is false for the stated observable class. For an n-qubit Pauli operator P of weight w, ||P||_shadow^2 = 3^w while ||P||_infinity^2 = 1; sparsity in the computational basis does not imply low Pauli weight. A concrete counterexample is a diagonal matrix with iid N(0,1) diagonal entries, which has k = 1 nonzero per row but its Pauli decomposition has E[c_S^2] = 2^{-n}, giving E||O||_shadow^2 = sum_S 3^{|S|}/2^n = 2^n, whereas ||O||_infinity^2 = O(n log n). Thus Eq. (31) underestimates the shadow norm exponentially, and the claimed measurement count in Eq. (5), the finite advantage window in Figure 2(d), and the hardware crossover in Figure 3(b) are not established. The argument that k << 2^n implies w << n is incorrect: locality in the computational basis is not equivalent to low Pauli weight.
[Appendix B.3.1, Eq. (46)] The extreme-value estimate in Eq. (46) approximates the infinity norm as the maximum of 2^n independent Gaussian row sums and uses the CLT for sums of k half-normal random variables. The row sums are not independent because the matrix is symmetric, so off-diagonal entries are shared between rows. Moreover, the normal approximation is invoked for all k, including small k where the CLT is not meaningful. Even if Eq. (31) were replaced by a valid shadow-norm bound, the functional dependence of Eq. (5) on k and n would still be heuristic rather than proven, so Statement 3(a) is not rigorous in its present form.
[Statement 1 and Appendix B.1.1] Statement 1 says the Pauli coefficients follow a standard normal distribution, but the proof in Appendix B.1.1 uses c_j ~ N(0, 0.5) truncated to [-1,1] and replaces the maximum shadow norm over observables by its expectation, with E[c_j^2] ≈ 0.25. This is not a worst-case bound: a fixed observable with coefficients drawn from N(0,1) has E||O||_shadow^2 = L * 3^w, not 0.25 L * 3^w. The factor 4 difference changes Eq. (2), and the failure probability in the theorem does not cover randomness in the coefficients unless that is explicitly stated. Statement 1 is therefore not 'rigorous' as claimed.
[Appendix B.5, Eqs. (60)-(62)] The spectral-norm estimate for the direct-measurement side of the LHM comparison is also unreliable. Equation (62) asserts ||O|| ≈ 2 sqrt(2) sqrt(k) based on a random-matrix result for off-diagonal degrees d = k-1. For matrices with nonzero diagonal entries and small k, this can be badly wrong: a diagonal matrix with k = 1 has spectral norm equal to the largest absolute diagonal entry, which is Theta(sqrt(n)) for iid N(0,1) entries, whereas Eq. (62) gives a constant. Since Statement 4's measurement count Eq. (7) depends on this spectral norm, the quantum-footage side of the LHM comparison is not established for the actual matrix ensemble described in the paper.

minor comments (6)

[Title] The arXiv title is 'Classical Shadows versus Direct Quantum Measurement' but the manuscript title inside is 'Classical Shadows versus Quantum Footage'; please align the two.
[Section 2] Equation (3) is numbered twice (Statement 2 and Statement 4); renumber the equations.
[Section 2, bullet list] The manuscript states that t_shadow/t_footage is 'rigorously shown' to be independent of epsilon, but the proof is not included in the appendix; please provide it or mark the claim as a conjecture.
[Figures 2 and 3] The figure captions contain typos ('observales' for 'observables') and the base of the logarithm used in the crossover statements is not specified; for example, log(M) = 4 corresponds to M ≈ 16 only if log is base 2, but earlier formulas use log in the sense of the shadow literature, which is often natural log.
[Appendix B.4] The FLOP accounting for the Kronecker product uses 6 FLOPs per complex multiplication and 4 multiplications per output element, but the associated additions are not fully itemized; please make the counting step-by-step.
[Throughout] The text repeatedly describes the statements as rigorous and supported by numerical experiments, but the appendix contains heuristic replacements of maxima by expectations and no numerical experiment section is provided; the Figures appear to plot the derived formulas rather than independent simulations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the resource comparisons follow from standard shadow-norm bounds and independent Hoeffding/random-matrix estimates, with no fitted parameter or load-bearing self-citation forcing the claimed crossover.

full rationale

The paper's LCP comparison is a direct algebraic comparison of two independent measurement-count bounds: the classical-shadow count uses the standard HKP shadow-norm expression (Eq. 12) with ||O_i||_shadow^2 approximately L*0.25*3^w, while the direct-footage count is derived from Hoeffding's inequality and a union bound (Eqs. 20-29). The crossover near M=16 follows by evaluating these closed-form formulas at L=n=log M and w=log log M; no parameter is fitted to the comparison outcome. The LHM comparison likewise uses two independent statistical estimates: the shadow side estimates the infinity norm of the de-traced observable by extreme-value theory over row sums (Eqs. 33-46), and the footage side estimates the spectral norm through a sparse-random-matrix formula (Eqs. 52-64). Equation (31), which replaces the shadow norm by the infinity norm for numerical computation, is an approximation imported from the standard shadow literature (Ref. [11]) and may be a correctness concern for nonlocal sparse observables, but it is not circular: the infinity-norm estimate and the spectral-norm estimate are not calibrated to each other or to the final crossover. The only self-citation, Ref. [18], appears in a future-work remark about energy consumption and carries no load-bearing weight. The paper also explicitly lists its limitations, including unmodeled noise and future Clifford-measurement comparisons, which is consistent with a non-circular resource-estimation framework. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its resource estimates rest on standard shadow bounds, a heuristic infinity-norm replacement for the shadow norm, an extreme-value approximation for the norm of sparse random matrices, and a random-matrix spectral norm result cited from [19]. The free parameters are modeling choices for coefficient distributions and the average coefficient magnitude that directly affect the quoted break-even points.

free parameters (3)

mu (average absolute coefficient in quantum footage LCP) = 0.5 (default)
Used in Step 1 of the quantum footage proof (Appendix B.2) to approximate the sum of absolute Pauli coefficients as L*mu; the default value 0.5 is a modeling choice for coefficients, and it directly scales the required measurement count T'. The statement in the main text says coefficients are standard normal, which would give a different mu.
truncation range and variance for Pauli coefficients in classical shadow LCP = N(0,0.5) truncated to [-1,1]
In Appendix B.1.1, the proof assumes coefficients are drawn from N(0,0.5) truncated to [-1,1] so that E[c^2]=0.25, which yields the constant 17 in the measurement count T. The statement says standard normal, so this ad hoc choice affects the measurement count.
c constant in shadow norm inequality (Eq 32) = 4^w
The paper uses an inequality linking shadow norm to infinity norm with a constant c=4^w, but then treats the infinity norm as equal to the shadow norm in Eq (31). The choice of c and the equality are not derived in the paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Classical shadow measurement count formula T = 34/epsilon^2 * max_i ||O_i||^2_shadow * 2 log(2M/delta) (Eq 12)
Taken from [11] and used without re-derivation; it sets the core scaling for the shadow method.
domain assumption Shadow norm of a sparse Hermitian matrix can be bounded by the infinity norm (Eq 31-32)
The paper states this as a known result from [11], but the exact inequality and the equality replacement are not proven in the text. This assumption carries the LHM analysis.
domain assumption Extreme value theory approximation for the maximum of 2^n row sums treated as approximately independent normal variables (Eq 45-46)
The row sums of the sparse symmetric matrix are correlated, but the paper treats them as independent for the extreme value approximation. This yields the k and n dependence of the infinity norm.
domain assumption Spectral norm of sparse random matrix is approximately 2*sqrt(2)*sqrt(k) (from [19])
Used in the quantum footage LHM measurement count (Statement 4). It is an asymptotic result for sparse random matrices with variance 2, cited to [19].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Efficiency Frontier: Classical Shadows versus Direct Quantum Measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q2NTUHWO

@misc{pith2026250906218,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Efficiency Frontier: Classical Shadows versus Direct Quantum Measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q2NTUHWO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06218}
}

abstract

Interfacing quantum and classical processors is an important subroutine in full-stack quantum algorithms. The so-called ``classical shadow'' method efficiently extracts essential classical information from quantum states, enabling the prediction of many properties of a quantum system from only a few measurements. However, for a small number of highly non-local observables, or when classical post-processing power is limited, the classical shadow method is not always the most efficient choice. Here, we address this issue quantitatively by performing a full-stack resource analysis that compares classical shadows with direct quantum measurement. Under certain assumptions, our analysis illustrates an efficiency frontier between classical shadows and direct quantum measurement in the information-extraction stage. For observables expressed as linear combinations of Pauli matrices, the classical shadow method outperforms direct measurement when the number of observables is large and the Pauli weight is small. For observables in the form of large Hermitian sparse matrices, the classical shadow method shows an advantage when the number of observables, the sparsity of the matrix, and the number of qubits fall within a certain range. The key parameters influencing this behavior include the number of qubits $n$, observables $M$, sparsity $k$, Pauli weight $w$, accuracy requirement $\epsilon$, and failure tolerance $\delta$. We also compare the resource consumption of the two methods on different types of quantum computers and identify break-even points where the classical shadow method becomes more efficient, which vary depending on the hardware. This paper opens a new avenue for quantitatively designing optimal strategies for hybrid quantum-classical tomography and provides practical insights for selecting the most suitable quantum measurement approach in real-world applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Cambridge univer- sity press, Cambridge (2010)

Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information. Cambridge univer- sity press, Cambridge (2010)

work page 2010
[2]

Nature 607(7920), 667–676 (2022)

Daley, A.J., Bloch, I., Kokail, C., Flannigan, S., Pearson, N., Troyer, M., Zoller, P.: Practical quan- tum advantage in quantum simulation. Nature 607(7920), 667–676 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

Nature Physics19(5), 752–759 (2023)

Kim, Y., Wood, C.J., Yoder, T.J., Merkel, S.T., Gambetta, J.M., Temme, K., Kandala, A.: Scal- able error mitigation for noisy quantum circuits produces competitive expectation values. Nature Physics19(5), 752–759 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

Nature Physics19(12), 1787–1792 (2023)

O’Brien, T.E., Anselmetti, G., Gkritsis, F., Elfv- ing, V., Polla, S., Huggins, W.J., Oumarou, O., Kechedzhi, K., Abanin, D., Acharya, R.,et al.: Purification-based quantum error mitigation of pair-correlated electron simulations. Nature Physics19(12), 1787–1792 (2023)

work page 2023
[5]

Nature567(7749), 491– 495 (2019)

Kandala, A., Temme, K., C´ orcoles, A.D., Mez- zacapo, A., Chow, J.M., Gambetta, J.M.: Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor. Nature567(7749), 491– 495 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Reviews of Mod- ern Physics95(4), 045005 (2023)

Cai, Z., Babbush, R., Benjamin, S.C., Endo, S., Huggins, W.J., Li, Y., McClean, J.R., O’Brien, T.E.: Quantum error mitigation. Reviews of Mod- ern Physics95(4), 045005 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

In: Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on The- ory of Computing, pp

Grover, L.K.: A fast quantum mechanical algo- rithm for database search. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on The- ory of Computing, pp. 212–219 (1996)

work page 1996
[8]

SIAM review41(2), 303–332 (1999)

Shor, P.W.: Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM review41(2), 303–332 (1999)

work page 1999

Show all 21 references

[9]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S.: A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

2014 arXiv
[10]

Physical review letters103 15, 150502 (2008)

Harrow, A.W., Hassidim, A., Lloyd, S.: Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical review letters103 15, 150502 (2008)

2008
[11]

Nature Physics16(10), 1050– 1057 (2020)

Huang, H.-Y., Kueng, R., Preskill, J.: Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics16(10), 1050– 1057 (2020)

2020
[12]

PRX quantum2(1), 010307 (2021)

Struchalin, G., Zagorovskii, Y.A., Kovlakov, E., Straupe, S., Kulik, S.: Experimental estimation of quantum state properties from classical shadows. PRX quantum2(1), 010307 (2021)

2021
[13]

Physi- cal Review Letters127(20), 200501 (2021)

Zhang, T., Sun, J., Fang, X.-X., Zhang, X.- M., Yuan, X., Lu, H.: Experimental quantum state measurement with classical shadows. Physi- cal Review Letters127(20), 200501 (2021)

2021
[14]

https://www.top500.org/lists/ green500/

The Green500 List. https://www.top500.org/lists/ green500/
[15]

The Journal of Supercomputing81(5) (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11227-025-07047-7

AbuGhanem, M.: Ibm quantum computers: evo- lution, performance, and future directions. The Journal of Supercomputing81(5) (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11227-025-07047-7

2025 doi
[16]

The collected works of Wassily Hoeffding, 409–426 (1994)

Hoeffding, W.: Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. The collected works of Wassily Hoeffding, 409–426 (1994)

1994
[17]

Chebyshev, P.L.: Des valeurs moyennes. J. Math. Pures Appl12(2), 177–184 (1867)
[18]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11239 (2025)

Tu, Y., Dubynskyi, M., Mohammadisiahroudi, M., Riashchentceva, E., Cheng, J., Ryashchentsev, D., Terlaky, T., Liu, J.: Towards identifying possible fault-tolerant advantage of quantum linear system algorithms in terms of space, time and energy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11239 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[19]

Data acquisition and processing are the challenges with two major effort-intensive steps of the construction process

Benaych-Georges, F., Bordenave, C., Knowles, A.: Spectral radii of sparse random matrices (2020) 9 Appendix A Introduction to Classical Shadow method A.1 Construction of Classical Shadows The classical shadow described in the paper [11] is a classical description of a quantum ...

2020
[20]

ř j‰i|oij| Each row of the matrix containsknon-zero elements, with the distribution of these non-zeros depending on the value of the diagonal elemento ii: specifically, ifo ii ‰0, there arek´1 non-zero elements among the off-diagonal positionsj‰i, whereas ifo ii“0, allknon-zer...
[21]

R34¨max shadow norm¨ r2 logp2M{δqs ε2 V (47) Substituting: T“ » ———— 34¨

Distribution ofS i Approximately, the sumS i « ř j:oij‰0|oij|can be characterized as the sum ofkindependent half-normal random variables, each arising from the absolute value of a standard normal variable (consistent with the dis- tribution of non-zero off-diagonal elementso i...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Cambridge univer- sity press, Cambridge (2010)

Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information. Cambridge univer- sity press, Cambridge (2010)

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Nature 607(7920), 667–676 (2022)

Daley, A.J., Bloch, I., Kokail, C., Flannigan, S., Pearson, N., Troyer, M., Zoller, P.: Practical quan- tum advantage in quantum simulation. Nature 607(7920), 667–676 (2022)

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Nature Physics19(5), 752–759 (2023)

Kim, Y., Wood, C.J., Yoder, T.J., Merkel, S.T., Gambetta, J.M., Temme, K., Kandala, A.: Scal- able error mitigation for noisy quantum circuits produces competitive expectation values. Nature Physics19(5), 752–759 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Nature Physics19(12), 1787–1792 (2023)

O’Brien, T.E., Anselmetti, G., Gkritsis, F., Elfv- ing, V., Polla, S., Huggins, W.J., Oumarou, O., Kechedzhi, K., Abanin, D., Acharya, R.,et al.: Purification-based quantum error mitigation of pair-correlated electron simulations. Nature Physics19(12), 1787–1792 (2023)

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Nature567(7749), 491– 495 (2019)

Kandala, A., Temme, K., C´ orcoles, A.D., Mez- zacapo, A., Chow, J.M., Gambetta, J.M.: Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor. Nature567(7749), 491– 495 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Reviews of Mod- ern Physics95(4), 045005 (2023)

Cai, Z., Babbush, R., Benjamin, S.C., Endo, S., Huggins, W.J., Li, Y., McClean, J.R., O’Brien, T.E.: Quantum error mitigation. Reviews of Mod- ern Physics95(4), 045005 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

In: Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on The- ory of Computing, pp

Grover, L.K.: A fast quantum mechanical algo- rithm for database search. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on The- ory of Computing, pp. 212–219 (1996)

work page 1996

[8] [8]

SIAM review41(2), 303–332 (1999)

Shor, P.W.: Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM review41(2), 303–332 (1999)

work page 1999