Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Classical shadows with arbitrary group representations

Quantum Physics · Submitted 1 Apr 2026

abstract compiled · 2026-10-15 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim In this work, we present a unified theory that allows us to simultaneously understand CS protocols based on sampling from general group representations, extending previous approaches that worked in simplified (multiplicity-free) settings.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2604.01429 (version 2)
Pith ID24XAIQPI, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationAniruddha Sen, David Wierichs, Dmitry Grinko, Frederic Sauvage, Martin Larocca, Maxwell West, M. Cerezo, Nathan Killoran, Roy Forestano. "Classical shadows with arbitrary group representations." arXiv:2604.01429 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24XAIQPI
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-15: 1 request, 5,666 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.13 · states limitation 0.10 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.20 · states quantitative result 0.52 · compares with prior results 0.81 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

Classical shadows (CS) has recently emerged as an important framework to efficiently predict properties of an unknown quantum state. A common strategy in CS protocols is to parametrize the basis in which one measures the state by a random group action; many examples of this have been proposed and studied on a case-by-case basis. In this work, we present a unified theory that allows us to simultaneously understand CS protocols based on sampling from general group representations, extending previous approaches that worked in simplified (multiplicity-free) settings. We identify a class of measurement bases which we call "centralizing bases" that allows us to analytically characterize and invert the measurement channel, minimizing classical post-processing costs. We complement this analysis by deriving general bounds on the sample-complexity necessary to obtain estimates of a given precision. Beyond its unification of previous CS protocols, our method allows us to readily generate new protocols based on other groups, or different representations of previously considered ones. For example, we characterize novel shadow protocols based on sampling from the spin and tensor representations of $\textsf{SU}(2)$, symmetric and orthogonal groups, and the exceptional Lie group $G_2$.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 Classical shadows (CS) has recently emerged as an important framework to efficiently predict properties of an unknown quantum state. background 1.00 0.04 0.03 asserted 1.00
s1 A common strategy in CS protocols is to parametrize the basis in which one measures the state by a random group action; many examples of this have been proposed and studied on a case-by-case basis. background 0.98 0.04 0.02 asserted 1.00
s2 In this work, we present a unified theory that allows us to simultaneously understand CS protocols based on sampling from general group representations, extending previous approaches that worked in simplified (multiplicity-free) settings. contribution 1.00 0.93 0.50 asserted 1.00
s3 We identify a class of measurement bases which we call "centralizing bases" that allows us to analytically characterize and invert the measurement channel, minimizing classical post-processing costs. contribution 0.73 0.96 0.16 asserted 1.00
s4 We complement this analysis by deriving general bounds on the sample-complexity necessary to obtain estimates of a given precision. contribution 0.66 0.96 0.09 asserted 1.00
s5 Beyond its unification of previous CS protocols, our method allows us to readily generate new protocols based on other groups, or different representations of previously considered ones. contribution 0.73 0.89 0.23 asserted 0.92
s6 For example, we characterize novel shadow protocols based on sampling from the spin and tensor representations of $\textsf{SU}(2)$, symmetric and orthogonal groups, and the exceptional Lie group $G_2$. contribution 0.70 0.94 0.11 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.63 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v2
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

Classical shadows (CS) has recently emerged as an important framework to efficiently predict properties of an unknown quantum state. A common strategy in CS protocols is to parametrize the basis in which one measures the state by a random group action; many examples of this have been proposed and studied on a case-by-case basis. In this work, we present a unified theory that allows us to simultaneously understand CS protocols based on sampling from general group representations, extending previous approaches that worked in simplified (multiplicity-free) settings. We identify a class of measurement bases which we call "centralizing bases" that allows us to analytically characterize and invert the measurement channel, minimizing classical post-processing costs. We complement this analysis by deriving general bounds on the sample-complexity necessary to obtain estimates of a given precision. Beyond its unification of previous CS protocols, our method allows us to readily generate new protocols based on other groups, or different representations of previously considered ones. For example, we characterize novel shadow protocols based on sampling from the spin and tensor representations of $\textsf{SU}(2)$, symmetric and orthogonal groups, and the exceptional Lie group $G_2$.

Human review
References
How the literature uses it

5 arXiv papers cite this in 15 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 8 sentences without a confident label

Cites it as background 3 papers
  • We begin by briefly recalling the key points of classical shadows; more details may be found in Appendix [ref] and Refs. [ref] .

    Classical shadows over symmetric spaces · Preliminaries · 0.99

  • Specifically, second moment computations arise in a wide range of quantum information processing tasks, including quantum advantage experiments [ref] , certification [ref] , randomized benchmarking [ref] , classical shadows [ref] , classical simulation [ref] and concentration phenomena in variational quantum algorithms [ref] .

    Boson sampling beyond the dilute regime: second moments and anti-concentration · Introduction · 0.84

  • More representation-theoretic formulations for group-based shadows have also been developed, where the measurement channel is analyzed using general group representations [ref] .

    Finite-Sample Selected Covariance Spectra in Classical Shadows · Shadow-output vectors and covariance matrices · 0.99

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.