arxiv: 2605.03957 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 💻 cs.SE

Recognition: unknown

Randomized and Diverse Input State Generation for Quantum Program Testing

Maryse Ernzer , Seung Yeob Shin , Fabrizio Pastore , Domenico Bianculli

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE

keywords quantum software testinginput state generationdiversity scoresbrick-circuit constructionexpressibilityentanglementrandom quantum statestest coverage criteria

0 comments

The pith

A Brick-Circuit generator using only hardware-compatible gates produces quantum input states with greater uniformity and entanglement than prior methods at shallower circuit depths.

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

The paper develops new diversity scores that track local correlations and global spread across magnitude, phase, and entanglement to quantify how thoroughly a set of test circuits covers the quantum state space. It then presents a Brick-Circuit construction that layers two-qubit gates in a repeating brick pattern to approximate ideal random states while remaining executable on current quantum hardware. Evaluation against existing generators shows the Brick-Circuit approach reaches higher expressibility and entangling power with fewer layers. This matters for quantum software testing because incomplete state-space coverage can leave bugs in algorithms that depend on specific phase or entanglement properties undetected. Sympathetic readers would view the work as a practical step toward measurable input coverage criteria for quantum programs.

Core claim

The hardware-compatible BC generator achieves higher expressibility and entanglement performance at shallower depths than existing circuit generators, as measured by extended diversity scores that quantify local correlations and global spread of magnitude, phase, and entanglement.

What carries the argument

The Brick-Circuit (BC) construction, a layered arrangement of two-qubit gates in a repeating brick pattern that approximates uniformly distributed random quantum states while using only hardware-executable operations.

If this is right

Quantum program testers can select input states that more uniformly span the possible magnitude and phase values.
Testing workflows can rely on shallower circuits, lowering the resource cost of generating diverse inputs on real hardware.
Generators can now be ranked by concrete local and global metrics instead of only by circuit depth or gate count.
Hardware-native constructions become viable candidates for inclusion in automated quantum testing frameworks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Adoption could allow test suites to expose faults tied to specific entanglement patterns that current random generators miss.
The same scores might serve as a benchmark when comparing state-preparation routines for quantum machine learning or simulation tasks.
Integrating the Brick-Circuit method into existing quantum development kits would give practitioners a drop-in replacement for less expressive generators.

Load-bearing premise

The proposed diversity scores accurately capture the degree of quantum state-space exploration and the Brick-Circuit construction is close enough to ideal random states for the purpose of testing.

What would settle it

A side-by-side run on a quantum simulator that measures the statistical distribution of magnitude, phase, and entanglement values across thousands of generated states and finds no advantage for the BC generator over existing methods at the same depth would falsify the performance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03957 by Domenico Bianculli, Fabrizio Pastore, Maryse Ernzer, Seung Yeob Shin.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Scores addressing the magnitude (top), phase (mid view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: P-value comparison of Random Circuit (RC), Brick view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Wasserstein Distance (WD) of the diversity scores view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: To allow for a fair comparison between generators, the view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Diversity scores for magnitude (top), phase (middle) view at source ↗

read the original abstract

With the accelerating development of quantum technologies and their growing computational potential, quantum systems are being adapted for simulations and other critical tasks across diverse domains, making the reliability of the corresponding quantum software an essential concern. Although recent efforts have started to incorporate quantum-specific properties such as magnitude, phase, and entanglement under the form of input-coverage criteria into software testing, the unique structure of the quantum state space demands for more comprehensive testing. In particular, the notion of complete state-space exploration has so far received little attention. To address this gap, we propose a framework for evaluating test circuit generators with respect to their coverage of the quantum state space. Our contribution is threefold: we develop a set of diversity scores that capture both local and global indicators of the extent to which the state space is explored; we propose a test circuit generator that produces test input states via a Brick-Circuit (BC) construction designed to approximate ideal random states using hardware-compatible gates; we compare the proposed construction with existing generators based on their ability to generate uniformly distributed random test input states. Our extended diversity scores quantify the local correlations and global spread of magnitude, phase and entanglement. Using these scores, we evaluate the expressibility, defined as the capability to span the quantum state space uniformly, and entangling capabilities of existing generators relative to the BC generator. Our results show that the hardware-compatible BC generator achieves higher expressibility and entanglement performance at shallower depths than existing circuit generators.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper introduces custom diversity scores and a Brick-Circuit generator that beats prior methods on those scores, but the scores themselves lack comparison to standard quantum metrics like Haar fidelity.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this paper presents a Brick-Circuit generator for quantum test states that outperforms existing ones on the authors' custom diversity scores for expressibility and entanglement, but those scores have not been checked against standard quantum metrics. The work is new in defining extended diversity scores that capture local correlations and global spread across magnitude, phase, and entanglement. It also introduces the BC construction to approximate ideal random states with hardware-compatible gates. This addresses a gap in quantum software testing where complete state-space coverage has not been emphasized enough. The paper does well by providing a concrete framework to evaluate how well different generators explore the quantum state space. The results suggest the BC approach achieves good performance at shallower circuit depths, which matters for practical testing on current hardware. The soft spots are in the evaluation methodology. The claims rest on these newly defined scores without comparison to established proxies such as fidelity to the Haar measure or Weingarten functions. This raises the possibility that the reported advantages are specific to how the scores are calculated rather than reflecting true improvements in state-space coverage. The abstract lacks details on the experimental setup, statistical analysis, or data handling, which makes it hard to assess the robustness of the findings. This paper is for researchers in quantum software engineering focused on testing and reliability. Readers working on input generation for quantum programs would find the framework and generator useful. It has enough original content and practical relevance to warrant a serious referee, though the authors will likely need to add metric validation and experimental details. I recommend sending it for peer review with those points in mind.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for quantum program testing that includes new diversity scores measuring local and global aspects of magnitude, phase, and entanglement in generated states. It introduces a Brick-Circuit (BC) construction using hardware-compatible gates to generate input states approximating ideal random states, and reports empirical comparisons showing that the BC generator achieves higher expressibility (uniform state-space coverage) and entanglement at shallower depths than existing circuit generators.

Significance. If the diversity scores are shown to be robust and the BC superiority holds under standard quantum metrics, the work would provide a practical advance in quantum software testing by enabling more comprehensive input coverage with hardware-feasible circuits. The emphasis on hardware compatibility strengthens potential applicability to near-term devices.

major comments (2)

[§5] §5 (Experimental Evaluation): The abstract and results claim superior expressibility and entanglement for the BC generator, but provide no details on sample sizes, number of trials, statistical tests, error bars, or data exclusion criteria. Without these, the comparative performance claims cannot be rigorously assessed.
[§3] §3 (Diversity Scores): The custom local/global diversity scores for magnitude, phase, and entanglement are used both to motivate the BC design and to evaluate it, yet no comparison is made to established quantum metrics such as average fidelity to the Haar measure, participation ratios, or Weingarten functions on the same ensembles. This leaves open whether reported gains reflect true state-space coverage or metric-specific sensitivity to the BC parameterization.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract contains minor grammatical issues (e.g., 'demands for more comprehensive testing') that should be corrected for clarity.
[Figures in §5] Figure captions and axis labels in the evaluation section should explicitly state the number of circuits sampled and any normalization applied to the diversity scores.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and indicate the revisions planned for the next version to improve experimental rigor and metric validation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§5] §5 (Experimental Evaluation): The abstract and results claim superior expressibility and entanglement for the BC generator, but provide no details on sample sizes, number of trials, statistical tests, error bars, or data exclusion criteria. Without these, the comparative performance claims cannot be rigorously assessed.

Authors: We agree that the experimental section requires more statistical detail for rigorous evaluation. In the revised manuscript, we will expand §5 to specify: 1000 independent trials per circuit depth and generator, generation of 10,000 states per trial, error bars as standard deviations across trials, and explicit confirmation that no data were excluded. We will also report results of statistical tests (Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with p-values) for differences in expressibility and entanglement scores. These changes will allow direct assessment of the superiority claims. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3 (Diversity Scores): The custom local/global diversity scores for magnitude, phase, and entanglement are used both to motivate the BC design and to evaluate it, yet no comparison is made to established quantum metrics such as average fidelity to the Haar measure, participation ratios, or Weingarten functions on the same ensembles. This leaves open whether reported gains reflect true state-space coverage or metric-specific sensitivity to the BC parameterization.

Authors: The diversity scores were designed to capture testing-relevant local and global properties of magnitude, phase, and entanglement rather than general quantum information measures. We will revise §3 and §5 to include direct comparisons of our ensembles against average fidelity to the Haar measure and participation ratios. Weingarten functions are computationally infeasible at the ensemble sizes used here and less relevant to our testing application; we will add an explicit discussion of this limitation and why our metrics better suit the quantum program testing context. This will clarify that the reported advantages are not artifacts of the chosen scores. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical comparison using explicitly defined metrics

full rationale

The paper defines a set of diversity scores for local/global magnitude, phase, and entanglement, proposes the Brick-Circuit generator, and reports empirical results showing superior expressibility and entanglement at shallower depths. No equations or derivations are presented that reduce the claimed performance to the definitions by construction, nor is any load-bearing premise justified solely via self-citation. The evaluation is framed as an experimental comparison against existing generators, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that diversity in magnitude, phase, and entanglement meaningfully indicates coverage of the quantum state space; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Diversity in magnitude, phase, and entanglement can be quantified to measure exploration of the quantum state space.
Invoked when defining the diversity scores and expressibility metric.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5562 in / 1231 out tokens · 55628 ms · 2026-05-07T15:42:55.859822+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

A 2030 roadmap for software engineering,

M. Pezz `e, S. Abrah ˜ao, B. Penzenstadler, D. Poshyvanyk, A. Roychoud- hury, and T. Yue, “A 2030 roadmap for software engineering,”ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1–55, 2025

2030
[2]

Property-based testing of quantum programs in q#,

S. Honarvar, M. R. Mousavi, and R. Nagarajan, “Property-based testing of quantum programs in q#,” inProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops, 2020, pp. 430–435

2020
[3]

Metamorphic test- ing of oracle quantum programs,

R. Abreu, J. P. Fernandes, L. Llana, and G. Tavares, “Metamorphic test- ing of oracle quantum programs,” inProceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Quantum Software Engineering, 2022, pp. 16–23

2022
[4]

Qucheck: A property- based testing framework for quantum programs in qiskit,

G. Pontolillo, M. R. Mousavi, and M. Grzesiuk, “Qucheck: A property- based testing framework for quantum programs in qiskit,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22641, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[5]

On the feasibility of quantum unit testing,

A. Miranskyy, J. Campos, A. Mjeda, L. Zhang, and I. G. R. de Guzm´an, “On the feasibility of quantum unit testing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.17235, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[6]

Statistical assertions for validating patterns and finding bugs in quantum programs,

Y . Huang and M. Martonosi, “Statistical assertions for validating patterns and finding bugs in quantum programs,” inProceedings of the 46th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 2019, pp. 541–553

2019
[7]

Projection- based runtime assertions for testing and debugging quantum programs,

G. Li, L. Zhou, N. Yu, Y . Ding, M. Ying, and Y . Xie, “Projection- based runtime assertions for testing and debugging quantum programs,” Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, vol. 4, no. OOPSLA, pp. 1–29, 2020

2020
[8]

Faster and better quantum software testing through specification reduction and projective measure- ments,

N. H. Oldfield, C. Laaber, T. Yue, and S. Ali, “Faster and better quantum software testing through specification reduction and projective measure- ments,”ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1–39, 2025

2025
[9]

Assessing the effectiveness of input and output coverage criteria for testing quantum programs,

S. Ali, P. Arcaini, X. Wang, and T. Yue, “Assessing the effectiveness of input and output coverage criteria for testing quantum programs,” in2021 14th IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST). IEEE, 2021, pp. 13–23

2021
[10]

Quito: a coverage-guided test generator for quantum programs,

X. Wang, P. Arcaini, T. Yue, and S. Ali, “Quito: a coverage-guided test generator for quantum programs,” in2021 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1237–1241

2021
[11]

Generating failing test suites for quantum programs with search,

——, “Generating failing test suites for quantum programs with search,” inInternational symposium on search based software engineering. Springer, 2021, pp. 9–25

2021
[12]

Poster: Fuzz testing of quantum program,

J. Wang, F. Ma, and Y . Jiang, “Poster: Fuzz testing of quantum program,” in2021 14th IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST). IEEE, 2021, pp. 466–469

2021
[13]

Testing multi-subroutine quantum programs: From unit testing to integration testing,

P. Long and J. Zhao, “Testing multi-subroutine quantum programs: From unit testing to integration testing,”ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1–61, 2024

2024
[14]

Quratest: Integrating quantum specific features in quantum program testing,

J. Ye, S. Xia, F. Zhang, P. Arcaini, L. Ma, J. Zhao, and F. Ishikawa, “Quratest: Integrating quantum specific features in quantum program testing,” in2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Auto- mated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1149–1161

2023
[15]

Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum- classical algorithms,

S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum- classical algorithms,”Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 2, no. 12, p. 1900070, 2019

2019
[16]

Expressibility of the alternating layered ansatz for quantum computation,

K. Nakaji and N. Yamamoto, “Expressibility of the alternating layered ansatz for quantum computation,”Quantum, vol. 5, p. 434, 2021

2021
[17]

Expressibility, entangling power, and quantum average causal effect for causally indefinite circuits,

P. C. Azado, G. I. Correr, A. Drinko, I. Medina, A. Canabarro, and D. O. Soares-Pinto, “Expressibility, entangling power, and quantum average causal effect for causally indefinite circuits,”Physical Review A, vol. 111, no. 4, p. 042620, 2025

2025
[18]

Pseudo-random unitary operators for quantum information processing,

J. Emerson, Y . S. Weinstein, M. Saraceno, S. Lloyd, and D. G. Cory, “Pseudo-random unitary operators for quantum information processing,” science, vol. 302, no. 5653, pp. 2098–2100, 2003

2098
[19]

Random quantum circuits are approx- imate 2-designs,

A. W. Harrow and R. A. Low, “Random quantum circuits are approx- imate 2-designs,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 291, no. 1, pp. 257–302, 2009

2009
[20]

Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation,

C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, “Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 80, no. 1, p. 012304, 2009

2009
[21]

Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs,

F. G. Brandao, A. W. Harrow, and M. Horodecki, “Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 346, no. 2, pp. 397–434, 2016

2016
[22]

Persistent entanglement in arrays of interacting particles,

H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, “Persistent entanglement in arrays of interacting particles,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 86, no. 5, p. 910, 2001

2001
[23]

Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways,

W. D ¨ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, “Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways,”Physical Review A, vol. 62, no. 6, p. 062314, 2000

2000
[24]

Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,”Physical Review A, vol. 54, no. 5, p. 3824, 1996

1996
[25]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

2010
[26]

Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory,

P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, “Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory,”Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment, vol. 2004, no. 06, p. P06002, 2004

2004
[27]

Measur- ing renyi entanglement entropy in quantum monte carlo simulations,

M. B. Hastings, I. Gonz ´alez, A. B. Kallin, and R. G. Melko, “Measur- ing renyi entanglement entropy in quantum monte carlo simulations,” Physical review letters, vol. 104, no. 15, p. 157201, 2010

2010
[28]

Measuring entanglement entropy in a quantum many-body system,

R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. Eric Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, “Measuring entanglement entropy in a quantum many-body system,”Nature, vol. 528, no. 7580, pp. 77–83, 2015

2015
[29]

Measuring r ´enyi entanglement entropy with high efficiency and precision in quantum monte carlo simulations,

J. Zhao, B.-B. Chen, Y .-C. Wang, Z. Yan, M. Cheng, and Z. Y . Meng, “Measuring r ´enyi entanglement entropy with high efficiency and precision in quantum monte carlo simulations,”npj Quantum Materials, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 69, 2022

2022
[30]

Global entanglement in multiparticle systems,

D. A. Meyer and N. R. Wallach, “Global entanglement in multiparticle systems,”Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 4273– 4278, 2002

2002
[31]

An observable measure of entanglement for pure states of multi-qubit systems,

G. K. Brennen, “An observable measure of entanglement for pure states of multi-qubit systems,”arXiv preprint quant-ph/0305094, 2003

work page arXiv 2003
[32]

Multipartite entanglement signature of quantum phase transitions,

T. R. de Oliveira, G. Rigolin, M. C. de Oliveira, and E. Miranda, “Multipartite entanglement signature of quantum phase transitions,” Physical review letters, vol. 97, no. 17, p. 170401, 2006

2006
[33]

Random unitary matrices,

K. Zyczkowski and M. Kus, “Random unitary matrices,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, vol. 27, no. 12, p. 4235, Jun
[34]

Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/27/12/028

[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/27/12/028

work page doi:10.1088/0305-4470/27/12/028
[35]

Estimating the randomness of quantum circuit ensembles up to 50 qubits,

M. Liu, J. Liu, Y . Alexeev, and L. Jiang, “Estimating the randomness of quantum circuit ensembles up to 50 qubits,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 137, 2022

2022
[36]

Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial,

A. A. Mele, “Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1340, 2024

2024
[37]

N. I. Fisher,Statistical analysis of circular data. cambridge university press, 1995

1995
[38]

K. V . Mardia and P. E. Jupp,Directional statistics. John Wiley & Sons, 2009

2009
[39]

Quan- tum algorithms for inverse participation ratio estimation in multiqubit and multiqudit systems,

Y . Liu, P. Sierant, P. Stornati, M. Lewenstein, and M. Płodzie ´n, “Quan- tum algorithms for inverse participation ratio estimation in multiqubit and multiqudit systems,”Physical Review A, vol. 111, no. 5, p. 052614, 2025

2025
[40]

Fock-space delocalization and the emergence of the porter-thomas distribution from dual-unitary dynam- ics,

P. W. Claeys and G. De Tomasi, “Fock-space delocalization and the emergence of the porter-thomas distribution from dual-unitary dynam- ics,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 134, no. 5, p. 050405, 2025

2025
[41]

Random quantum circuits are approximate unitaryt- designs in depthO(nt 5+o(1)),

J. Haferkamp, “Random quantum circuits are approximate unitaryt- designs in depthO(nt 5+o(1)),”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 795, 2022

2022
[42]

Random unitaries in extremely low depth,

T. Schuster, J. Haferkamp, and H.-Y . Huang, “Random unitaries in extremely low depth,”Science, vol. 389, no. 6755, pp. 92–96, 2025

2025
[43]

Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits,

M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. V olkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits,” Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 1791, 2021

2021
[44]

Approximate unitary t-designs by short random quantum circuits using nearest-neighbor and long-range gates,

A. W. Harrow and S. Mehraban, “Approximate unitary t-designs by short random quantum circuits using nearest-neighbor and long-range gates,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 401, no. 2, pp. 1531–1626, 2023

2023
[45]

Integrating structured biological data by kernel maximum mean discrepancy,

K. M. Borgwardt, A. Gretton, M. J. Rasch, H.-P. Kriegel, B. Sch ¨olkopf, and A. J. Smola, “Integrating structured biological data by kernel maximum mean discrepancy,”Bioinformatics, vol. 22, no. 14, pp. e49– e57, 2006

2006
[46]

How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups,

F. Mezzadri, “How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups,”Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 592–604, 2007

2007
[47]

PennyLane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations

V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V . Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadiet al., “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical com- putations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968, 2018

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2018
[48]

Operator spreading in random unitary circuits,

A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, “Operator spreading in random unitary circuits,”Physical Review X, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 021014, 2018

2018
[49]

Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems,

P. Hayden and J. Preskill, “Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems,”Journal of high energy physics, vol. 2007, no. 09, pp. 120–120, 2007

2007
[50]

Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators,

J. Emerson, R. Alicki, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, “Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators,”Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. S347–S352, 2005

2005
[51]

Scalable and robust ran- domized benchmarking of quantum processes,

E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, “Scalable and robust ran- domized benchmarking of quantum processes,”Physical review letters, vol. 106, no. 18, p. 180504, 2011

2011
[52]

Scalable randomised benchmarking of non-clifford gates,

A. W. Cross, E. Magesan, L. S. Bishop, J. A. Smolin, and J. M. Gambetta, “Scalable randomised benchmarking of non-clifford gates,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 16012, 2016

2016
[53]

Quantum circuits for exact unitary t-designs and applications to higher-order randomized benchmarking,

Y . Nakata, D. Zhao, T. Okuda, E. Bannai, Y . Suzuki, S. Tamiya, K. Heya, Z. Yan, K. Zuo, S. Tamateet al., “Quantum circuits for exact unitary t-designs and applications to higher-order randomized benchmarking,” PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 030339, 2021

2021
[54]

Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,

J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,”Nature communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 4812, 2018

2018
[55]

Analytic theory for the dynamics of wide quantum neural networks,

J. Liu, K. Najafi, K. Sharma, F. Tacchino, L. Jiang, and A. Mezzacapo, “Analytic theory for the dynamics of wide quantum neural networks,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 130, no. 15, p. 150601, 2023

2023
[56]

Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices,

S. Boixo, S. V . Isakov, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, “Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices,”Nature Physics, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 595–600, 2018

2018
[57]

Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buellet al., “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,”nature, vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 505–510, 2019

2019
[58]

Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics,

A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, “Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics,”Physical Review X, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 031016, 2017

2017
[59]

[replication package] Randomized and Diverse Input State Generation for Quantum Program Testing,

M. Ernzer, S. Y . Shin, F. Pastore, and D. Bianculli, “[replication package] Randomized and Diverse Input State Generation for Quantum Program Testing,” The repository link will be made publicly available upon acceptance