pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.25774 · v5 · submitted 2026-03-26 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Catalytic Quantum Error Correction: Theory, Efficient Catalyst Preparation, and Numerical Benchmarks

Hikaru Wakaura , Taiki Tanimae
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords catalytic quantum error correctioncoherence amplificationquantum error correctiondynamical decouplingswap test purificationfidelity benchmarks
0
0 comments X

The pith

Catalytic Quantum Error Correction recovers known target states from noisy copies without a noise magnitude threshold.

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

The paper shows how to turn an abstract theorem on catalytic coherence amplification into a practical quantum error correction scheme called CQEC. This method recovers a known target quantum state from multiple noisy copies as long as the coherent modes of the target remain supported in the noise. Unlike standard QEC, it has no error threshold and maintains high fidelity even at strong noise levels. A three-stage pipeline involving dynamical decoupling, twirling, and purification reduces the needed copies from exponentially many to just eight while achieving fidelity above 0.96. This provides a complementary approach to traditional stabilizer codes for repairing states in quantum processors.

Core claim

Catalytic Quantum Error Correction (CQEC) is an operational protocol that recovers a known target state from noisy copies without any error magnitude threshold whenever the target's coherent modes are preserved, achieved through a three-stage pipeline that reduces the copy requirement by nine orders of magnitude to yield high fidelity with only eight copies.

What carries the argument

The three-stage pipeline combining CPMG dynamical decoupling, Clifford twirling, and recursive swap-test purification, which implements catalytic covariant operations to amplify coherence and recover the target state.

If this is right

  • CQEC maintains F > 0.999 across 200 configurations for dimensions d=4 to 64.
  • The protocol complements stabilizer- and purification-based QEC by enabling repairs beyond conventional thresholds.
  • Ancillary modules within surface-coded processors can be repaired far beyond the standard error threshold.
  • It turns the asymptotic coherence amplification theorem into a concrete finite-resource tool.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the coherence preservation condition holds under realistic noise, CQEC could significantly lower the resource overhead for fault-tolerant quantum computing.
  • The open-source implementation allows direct testing and integration with existing quantum hardware simulations.
  • This approach might extend to other resource theories beyond coherence for threshold-free recovery protocols.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the target's coherent modes are preserved in the noisy copies; if this fails, the protocol reduces to standard purification without the threshold advantage.

What would settle it

An experiment or simulation showing that fidelity drops significantly below 0.96 with eight copies when the noise channel eliminates the coherent modes of the target state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.25774 by Hikaru Wakaura, Taiki Tanimae.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Minimal 4-qubit CQEC circuit with 5 EC gates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Pipeline comparison under dephasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Catalyst fidelity vs. CPMG pulse count for qDRIFT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Summary of all catalyst preparation strategies un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sharp threshold of CQEC. Post-correction fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. CQEC recovery fidelity vs. noise strength. (a) De [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Conventional QEC vs. CQEC across depolarizing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Catalyst durability test. (a) Recovery fidelity over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Finite-copy fidelity bounds from Eq. (14). (a) Fi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Entangled state recovery via CQEC (dephasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Recovery fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum computers promise transformative speedups, but environmental noise destroys their fragile states. Conventional quantum error correction (QEC) encodes information redundantly across physical qubits, yet fails above a threshold of about $1\%$ and incurs polynomial qubit overhead. A recent theorem [Shiraishi2024] from the resource theory of coherence shows that catalytic covariant operations amplify coherence at an unbounded rate, but this result has never been cast as an operational protocol. The challenge is to turn an asymptotic theorem into a recovery scheme that works at any noise strength with realistic resources. Here we show that catalytic coherence amplification can be cast as an error-correction primitive, Catalytic Quantum Error Correction (CQEC), which recovers a known target state from noisy copies without any error \emph{magnitude} threshold whenever the target's coherent modes are preserved. Whereas existing QEC degrades above its threshold, CQEC maintains $F > 0.999$ across 200~configurations spanning $d = 4$--$64$, and the impractical $n^{*} \sim d^{4} e^{2\gamma}$ copy requirement is reduced by nine orders of magnitude via a three-stage pipeline combining CPMG dynamical decoupling, Clifford twirling, and recursive swap-test purification, yielding $F_\mathrm{cat} > 0.96$ from only eight noisy copies. These results turn an abstract resource-theoretic statement into a concrete tool complementary to stabilizer- and purification-based QEC. By replacing a quantitative threshold with a qualitative condition on the support of coherence, CQEC enables ancillary modules within surface-coded processors to be repaired far beyond the conventional threshold; an open-source package reproducing all results in $\sim$30\,s accompanies this work (arXiv:2603.25774, https://github.com/deeptell-inc/cqec).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Catalytic Quantum Error Correction (CQEC) by casting catalytic coherence amplification from the resource theory of coherence (Shiraishi2024) as an error-correction primitive. It recovers a known target state from noisy copies without an error-magnitude threshold whenever the target's coherent modes remain supported, presents a three-stage pipeline (CPMG dynamical decoupling, Clifford twirling, recursive swap-test purification) that reduces the copy requirement from n* ~ d^4 e^{2γ} by nine orders of magnitude, and reports numerical benchmarks maintaining F > 0.999 across 200 configurations for d = 4--64 while achieving F_cat > 0.96 from only eight noisy copies, accompanied by an open-source reproduction package.

Significance. If the coherence-support condition is verified to hold, the work supplies a concrete operational protocol that complements stabilizer and purification-based QEC by replacing a quantitative threshold with a qualitative support condition, enabling recovery far beyond conventional thresholds with modest resources. The explicit reduction in copy count, concrete fidelity numbers, and reproducible code package constitute clear strengths that would make the result a useful ancillary module for surface-code processors.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical benchmarks] Numerical benchmarks section (200 configurations, d=4--64): the central claim that CQEC maintains F > 0.999 without an error-magnitude threshold rests on the coherence-support condition being satisfied after the CPMG+twirling+swap-test pipeline, yet no explicit diagnostic, check, or verification is described for whether the off-diagonal coherence support is preserved under the simulated noise models; without this, the reported fidelities reduce to ordinary purification performance and the threshold-free guarantee does not apply.
  2. [Protocol derivation] Protocol derivation (three-stage pipeline): the translation from the asymptotic unbounded amplification in Shiraishi2024 to the finite-resource operational steps yielding F_cat > 0.96 from eight copies is not shown with explicit equations or a step-by-step mapping, leaving the precise invocation of the theorem's hypotheses unclear in the finite-n regime.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and numerical results: the reported fidelity values lack error bars, raw data, or statistical details on the 200 configurations, which would be needed to assess the robustness of the F > 0.999 and F_cat > 0.96 claims.
  2. [Numerical benchmarks] The open-source package is cited but its exact contents (e.g., which noise models and coherence diagnostics are included) are not summarized in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Numerical benchmarks section (200 configurations, d=4--64): the central claim that CQEC maintains F > 0.999 without an error-magnitude threshold rests on the coherence-support condition being satisfied after the CPMG+twirling+swap-test pipeline, yet no explicit diagnostic, check, or verification is described for whether the off-diagonal coherence support is preserved under the simulated noise models; without this, the reported fidelities reduce to ordinary purification performance and the threshold-free guarantee does not apply.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit diagnostic for the coherence-support condition would strengthen the presentation. In the original simulations, the CPMG dynamical decoupling stage is specifically chosen to protect the off-diagonal coherent modes under the considered noise models (dephasing and amplitude damping), ensuring the support condition of Shiraishi2024 holds by construction. However, we acknowledge that this was not verified or reported explicitly. In the revised manuscript, we will add a diagnostic step that computes the support of the off-diagonal elements after each pipeline stage for all 200 configurations, confirming preservation and distinguishing the catalytic performance from standard purification. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Protocol derivation (three-stage pipeline): the translation from the asymptotic unbounded amplification in Shiraishi2024 to the finite-resource operational steps yielding F_cat > 0.96 from eight copies is not shown with explicit equations or a step-by-step mapping, leaving the precise invocation of the theorem's hypotheses unclear in the finite-n regime.

    Authors: We thank the referee for noting this gap in clarity. The three-stage pipeline (CPMG decoupling to preserve coherence, Clifford twirling to implement covariant operations, and recursive swap-test purification) is designed to realize a finite-n approximation to the catalytic covariant operations of Shiraishi2024. To make the mapping explicit, we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) in the revision that provides step-by-step equations: (i) how CPMG enforces the support hypothesis, (ii) how twirling approximates the covariant channel, and (iii) how the swap-test recursion yields the finite-n fidelity bound F_cat > 0.96 from the asymptotic amplification rate. This will clarify the invocation of the theorem's hypotheses in the finite-resource setting. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claim grounded in external theorem

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain begins from the external Shiraishi2024 theorem on catalytic coherence amplification and constructs an operational CQEC protocol around it, with the three-stage pipeline (CPMG, twirling, swap-test) presented as a concrete realization rather than a self-referential fit. Numerical benchmarks across d=4--64 and 200 configurations supply independent empirical grounding. No self-definitional equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided text. The coherence-preservation condition is inherited directly from the cited theorem and treated as a qualitative prerequisite, not derived from the paper's own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of the external coherence-amplification theorem to noisy quantum channels and on the assumption that the three-stage pipeline preserves the required coherent support; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond those already present in the cited theorem and standard quantum information primitives.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Catalytic covariant operations amplify coherence at an unbounded rate (Shiraishi2024 theorem)
    Invoked in the first paragraph as the foundation for casting the theorem as an error-correction primitive

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5633 in / 1468 out tokens · 30292 ms · 2026-05-15T00:46:26.026376+00:00 · methodology

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

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    109-fold

    DD alone (orange) improves but is dimension-dependent. Twirl alone (purple) fails. DD+Twirl (green) achievesF cat > 0.96 uniformly. 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 DD pulses NDD 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Fidelity QKAN (d = 4, n = 8) Fcat Frec eff 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 DD pulses NDD 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Fidelity qDRIFT (d = 8, n = 8) Fcat Frec eff 0...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The qDRIFT approximation uses 80 random product formula gates with probabilistic sam- pling [4]

    qDRIFT[4, 40] simulates Hamiltonian dynam- icse −iHt for the 3-qubit Heisenberg modelH= JP ⟨i,j⟩(σx i σx j +σ y i σy j +σ z i σz j ) +h P i σz i withJ= 1.0, h= 0.5,t= 1.0. The qDRIFT approximation uses 80 random product formula gates with probabilistic sam- pling [4]. Dimensiond= 8 (3 qubits). Since different ran- dom seeds produce different gate sequence...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The CQEC target is the algorithmic output (not the ideal state), so recovery cor- rects only decoherence

    QKAN[6] implements a quantum Kolmogorov– Arnold network layer encoding the first four Cheby- shev polynomialsT n(x) atx= 0.5: the ideal state has amplitudes proportional to (T 0, T1, T2, T3) = (1.0,0.5,−0.5,−1.0) (normalized), while the algorithmic output truncates at degree 2. The CQEC target is the algorithmic output (not the ideal state), so recovery c...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The protocol gen- erates time seriesf j =⟨ψ|e −iHj∆t |ψ⟩and encodes the resulting spectrum as a 16-dimensional quantum state

    Control-free QPE[41] estimates eigenvalues of a Fermi–Hubbard-type Hamiltonian using vectorial phase retrieval without controlled unitaries. The protocol gen- erates time seriesf j =⟨ψ|e −iHj∆t |ψ⟩and encodes the resulting spectrum as a 16-dimensional quantum state. Dimensiond= 16 (4 qubits)

    work page

  5. [5]

    what is possible?

    Regev factoring[2] factorsN= 15 using discrete Gaussian states withD= 8 grid points per dimension, modular exponentiation, and quantum Fourier transform for LLL reduction [42]. Dimensiond= 64 (6 qubits). B. Decoherence models Three noise channels are applied to each algorithm’s output state: Partial dephasing.E deph(ρ)ij =ρ ij ·e−γ|Ei−Ej |, with γ= 2.0 (s...

    work page

  6. [6]

    what is theoreti- cally achievable

    achieves slightly lowerF after compared to smaller systems, reflecting the reduced expressibility of the 5- parameter ansatz in the larger Hilbert space. B. Sharp threshold Figure 5 demonstrates the infinitely sharp zero/nonzero threshold predicted by Theorem 1. For a 2-qubit (d= 4) maximally coherent target state: •ε= 0:F after = 0.250 = 1/d. Recovery fa...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Atd= 64, the covariant method reaches onlyF cat = 0.022— barely above 1/d

    Under strong dephasing, standard and covariant swap tests alone fail (F cat <0.44). Atd= 64, the covariant method reaches onlyF cat = 0.022— barely above 1/d

    work page

  8. [8]

    3.The DD+Twirl pipeline solves the dephas- ing problem:F cat >0.96 uniformly acrossd= 4– 64 with only 8 copies—a 109-fold improvement over distillation

    The covariant method provides a modest 1.2–1.4× improvement over standard. 3.The DD+Twirl pipeline solves the dephas- ing problem:F cat >0.96 uniformly acrossd= 4– 64 with only 8 copies—a 109-fold improvement over distillation

    work page

  9. [9]

    Under depolarizing noise, both standard and co- variant methods achieveF cat >0.93 with 8–64 copies

    work page

  10. [10]

    not really QEC

    Atd= 4, the variational approach (F cat = 1.000) remains competitive. I. Scaling analysis: fidelity vs. error, qubits, and copies We analyze how catalyst fidelity scales with three key parameters under the DD+Twirl pipeline. Fidelity vs. error strength(Fig. 11). Under raw dephasing,F cat decays rapidly and is strongly dimension- dependent (d= 16 reachesF=...

    work page

  11. [11]

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Numerical simulations were performed using NumPy [45] and SciPy [46]

    is within reach; (ii) proving tight analytical bounds on the pipeline’s fidelity as a function of DD pulse count N, twirl sample countK, and copy numbern, closing the gap between our numerical observations and rigor- ous guarantees; and (iii) integration with fault-tolerant architectures, where surface codes protect data qubits while CQEC restores coheren...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Shiraishi and R

    N. Shiraishi and R. Takagi, Arbitrary amplification of quantum coherence in asymptotic and catalytic transfor- mation, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 180202 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Regev, An efficient quantum factoring algorithm, arXiv (2024), 2308.06572v3

    O. Regev, An efficient quantum factoring algorithm, arXiv (2024), 2308.06572v3

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM J. Comput.26, 1484 (1997)

    work page 1997

  15. [15]

    Campbell, Random compiler for fast Hamiltonian sim- ulation, Phys

    E. Campbell, Random compiler for fast Hamiltonian sim- ulation, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 070503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys.21, 467 (1982)

    work page 1982

  17. [17]

    QKAN: quantum Kolmogorov-Arnold networks with applications in machine learning and multivariate state preparation

    M. Ivashkov, P.-W. Huang, N. Kotturu, O. Khatib, P. Ronagh, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Kolmogorov–Arnold networks, arXiv (2024), 2410.04435

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Na- ture549, 195 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  21. [21]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    work page 1995

  22. [22]

    Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  23. [23]

    A. M. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 793 (1996)

    work page 1996

  24. [24]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys.303, 2 (2003)

    work page 2003

  25. [25]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale 19 quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy de- vices, Nature434, 39 (2005)

    E. Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy de- vices, Nature434, 39 (2005)

    work page 2005

  27. [27]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantify- ing coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Marvian and R

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, Modes of asymmetry: The application of harmonic analysis in symmetric quan- tum dynamics and quantum reference frames, Phys. Rev. A90, 062110 (2014)

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Lostaglio and M

    M. Lostaglio and M. P. M¨ uller, Coherence and asymme- try cannot be broadcast, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 020403 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Faist, S

    P. Faist, S. Nezami, V. B. Scholz, J. Preskill, and F. Pastawski, Continuous symmetries and approximate quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. X10, 041018 (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    Hayden, M

    P. Hayden, M. Horodecki, A. Winter, and J. Yard, A de- coupling approach to the quantum capacity, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.15, 7 (2008)

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    Eastin and E

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

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Raghoonanan and T

    J. Raghoonanan and T. Byrnes, Quantum error cor- rection by purification, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11568 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    A. M. Childs, H. Fu, D. Leung, Z. Li, M. Ozols, and V. Vyas, Streaming quantum state purification, Quan- tum9, 1603 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Yao, Y.-A

    H. Yao, Y.-A. Chen, E. Huang, K. Chen, H. Fu, and X. Wang, Protocols and trade-offs of quantum state pu- rification, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 035020 (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Zhao, Y.-A

    B. Zhao, Y.-A. Chen, X. Zhao, C. Zhu, G. Chiribella, and X. Wang, Power and limitations of distributed quantum state purification, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 090203 (2026)

    work page 2026

  38. [38]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2417 (1999)

    work page 1999

  39. [39]

    Meiboom and D

    S. Meiboom and D. Gill, Modified spin-echo method for measuring nuclear relaxation times, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 29, 688 (1958)

    work page 1958

  40. [40]

    Marvian and R

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, The theory of manipula- tions of pure state asymmetry: I. Basic tools, equivalence classes and single copy transformations, New J. Phys.15, 033001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    E. P. Wigner, Die Messung quantenmechanischer Oper- atoren, Z. Phys.131, 101 (1952), see also M. M. Yanase, Phys. Rev.123, 666 (1961); H. Araki and M. M. Yanase, Phys. Rev.120, 622 (1960)

    work page 1952

  42. [42]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    work page 1994

  43. [43]

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, A single quantum cannot be cloned, Nature299, 802 (1982)

    work page 1982

  44. [44]

    Schuch, F

    N. Schuch, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Nonlocal re- sources in the presence of superselection rules, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 087904 (2004)

    work page 2004

  45. [45]

    Jozsa, Fidelity for mixed quantum states, J

    R. Jozsa, Fidelity for mixed quantum states, J. Mod. Opt. 41, 2315 (1994)

    work page 1994

  46. [46]

    J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, A simplex method for function minimization, Comput. J.7, 308 (1965)

    work page 1965

  47. [47]

    Barenco, A

    A. Barenco, A. Berthiaume, D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, and C. Macchiavello, Stabilization of quantum computations by symmetrization, SIAM J. Comput.26, 1541 (1997)

    work page 1997

  48. [48]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy chan- nels, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 722 (1996)

    work page 1996

  49. [49]

    Dankert, R

    C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation, Phys. Rev. A80, 012304 (2009)

    work page 2009

  50. [50]

    J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A94, 052325 (2016)

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    Chen, H.-Y

    C.-F. Chen, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. A. Tropp, Concentration for random product formulas, PRX Quan- tum2, 040305 (2021)

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Clinton, T

    L. Clinton, T. Cubitt, B. Flynn, F. M. Gambetta, J. Sherbert, and A. Sherrill, Control-free quantum phase estimation, PRX Quantum7, 010345 (2026)

    work page 2026

  53. [53]

    A. K. Lenstra, H. W. Lenstra, and L. Lov´ asz, Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients, Math. Ann.261, 515 (1982)

    work page 1982

  54. [54]

    Huggins, P

    W. Huggins, P. Patil, B. Mitchell, K. B. Whaley, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Towards quantum machine learning with tensor networks, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 024001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Expressibil- ity and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, Adv. Quantum Technol.2, 1900070 (2019)

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt,et al., Ar- ray programming with NumPy, Nature585, 357 (2020)

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant,et al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nat. Methods17, 261 (2020)

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment, Computing in Science & Engineering9, 90 (2007)

    work page 2007