pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.26218 · v2 · pith:JFZDOME5new · submitted 2026-05-25 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.stat-mech

Practical Tests and Witnesses of Fermionic non-Gaussianity

Tobias Haug , Xhek Turkeshi , Piotr Sierant This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 21:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords fermionic non-Gaussianityantiflatnesscovariance matrixMajorana bilinearsquantum witnessesGaussian statesquantum simulationmixed-state witnesses
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fermionic non-Gaussianity is witnessed by a measure from the two-point covariance matrix using native hardware operations.

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

The paper establishes practical tests and witnesses for fermionic non-Gaussianity based on antiflatness computed from the two-point covariance matrix. This matters because Gaussian states are classically simulable while interactions produce non-Gaussian correlations that enable quantum computational advantage in fermionic systems. The methods use two protocols: a two-copy Bell measurement and a single-copy scheme with commuting Majorana bilinears, both at lower measurement cost than prior approaches and using only fault-tolerant native operations. A purity-corrected version handles mixed states and stays robust under noise, with experiments on a quantum processor showing noise can both reduce and increase the measure. The work also shows that pseudorandom fermionic states demand extensive non-Gaussianity.

Core claim

We introduce practical tests and witnesses of fermionic non-Gaussianity built on fermionic antiflatness, a measure derived from the two-point covariance matrix. We estimate it with two protocols that determine whether a state is Gaussian or far from it at lower measurement cost than existing approaches, using only operations native to fault-tolerant hardware. For mixed states, a purity-corrected witness certifies non-Gaussianity and remains robust under strong noise. Finally, we show that preparing pseudorandom fermionic states requires extensive non-Gaussianity.

What carries the argument

Fermionic antiflatness, a witness derived from the two-point covariance matrix of Majorana operators that vanishes for Gaussian states.

If this is right

  • Non-Gaussian fermionic states can be certified with fewer measurements than existing methods.
  • The protocols use only operations already available in fault-tolerant quantum hardware.
  • A purity-corrected witness certifies non-Gaussianity even for noisy mixed states.
  • Noise on quantum processors can either suppress or enhance measured non-Gaussianity.
  • Pseudorandom fermionic states cannot be prepared without substantial non-Gaussian resources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The covariance-based witness may allow efficient resource certification in fermionic quantum simulations without full tomography.
  • These tests could benchmark the onset of quantum advantage in interacting fermion models on current devices.
  • The approach mirrors magic witnesses for qubits but exploits the structure of Majorana operators specific to fermions.
  • Extensions might combine antiflatness with other low-cost observables to further lower verification overhead in larger systems.

Load-bearing premise

Antiflatness from the covariance matrix is a faithful witness that vanishes exactly when the state is Gaussian and remains reliable under hardware noise.

What would settle it

Observation of a non-Gaussian fermionic state with zero antiflatness computed from its covariance matrix, or a Gaussian state with nonzero antiflatness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26218 by Piotr Sierant, Tobias Haug, Xhek Turkeshi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. To test whether a given state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Bell-measurement for the two-copy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Experimental measurement of fermionic non-Gaussianity witness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fermionic non-Gaussianity witness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Three-copy convolution test [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fermionic Gaussian states describe free fermions and underlie the mean-field picture of matter, from metals to superconductors; they are also efficiently simulable on classical computers. Departures from Gaussianity -- the correlations produced by interactions -- are therefore what make a fermionic system hard to simulate classically and useful for quantum computation, analogous to the role of magic in stabilizer-based quantum computation. Yet detecting and quantifying such non-Gaussianity at scale has remained challenging. Here we introduce practical tests and witnesses of fermionic non-Gaussianity built on fermionic antiflatness, a measure derived from the two-point covariance matrix. We estimate it with two protocols -- a two-copy Bell measurement and a single-copy scheme using commuting Majorana bilinears -- that determine whether a state is Gaussian or far from it at lower measurement cost than existing approaches, using only operations native to fault-tolerant hardware. For mixed states, a purity-corrected witness certifies non-Gaussianity and remains robust under strong noise; running it on the IQM quantum processor, we find that noise can both reduce and enhance non-Gaussianity. Finally, we show that preparing pseudorandom fermionic states requires extensive non-Gaussianity. Together, these tools enable the study and certification of non-Gaussian fermionic resources on present-day quantum devices.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces fermionic antiflatness, a measure derived from the two-point covariance matrix, as the basis for practical tests and witnesses of fermionic non-Gaussianity. It presents two estimation protocols (two-copy Bell measurement and single-copy commuting Majorana bilinears) claimed to determine whether a state is Gaussian or far from it at lower measurement cost than existing methods using only fault-tolerant-native operations. A purity-corrected witness for mixed states is introduced and run on IQM hardware, with observations that noise can reduce or enhance non-Gaussianity. The work also claims that preparing pseudorandom fermionic states requires extensive non-Gaussianity.

Significance. If the antiflatness-based protocols function as faithful witnesses, the manuscript would supply efficient, hardware-compatible tools for certifying interaction-induced non-Gaussian resources in fermionic systems, directly relevant to quantum simulation and the resource theory of non-Gaussianity. The experimental demonstration on present-day hardware and the pseudorandom-state result would add immediate practical value for characterizing fermionic states on NISQ and early fault-tolerant devices.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the protocols 'determine whether a state is Gaussian or far from it' rests on antiflatness derived solely from the two-point covariance matrix. Non-Gaussian fermionic states exist that share identical two-point functions (hence identical antiflatness) with Gaussian states but differ in higher-order correlations; vanishing antiflatness therefore cannot certify Gaussianity. This limitation directly undermines the witness interpretation of both protocols, the purity-corrected version, and the IQM experiment results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting an important point of interpretation. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the protocols 'determine whether a state is Gaussian or far from it' rests on antiflatness derived solely from the two-point covariance matrix. Non-Gaussian fermionic states exist that share identical two-point functions (hence identical antiflatness) with Gaussian states but differ in higher-order correlations; vanishing antiflatness therefore cannot certify Gaussianity. This limitation directly undermines the witness interpretation of both protocols, the purity-corrected version, and the IQM experiment results.

    Authors: We agree that vanishing antiflatness cannot certify Gaussianity, since non-Gaussian states can share identical two-point covariance matrices. Antiflatness functions as a one-sided witness: a sufficiently positive value certifies non-Gaussianity. The two protocols efficiently estimate this witness using native operations, and the purity-corrected version extends the witness to mixed states. The abstract phrasing 'determine whether a state is Gaussian or far from it' is imprecise and could be read as implying bidirectional certification; we will revise the abstract, introduction, and relevant sections to state explicitly that the methods witness non-Gaussianity when antiflatness is non-zero while a zero value remains inconclusive. This clarification leaves the estimation protocols, the purity correction, the IQM demonstration (which shows noise effects on the witness value), and the pseudorandom-state result unchanged, as all focus on practical detection and quantification of non-Gaussianity rather than certification of Gaussianity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; antiflatness is a direct definition from covariance with independent estimation protocols

full rationale

The paper defines fermionic antiflatness explicitly as a function of the two-point covariance matrix and introduces two measurement protocols (Bell and Majorana bilinear) to estimate it. No quoted step shows a prediction that reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, a self-citation chain, or an ansatz smuggled from prior work. The central construction is self-contained: the measure is computed from standard covariance data, the protocols are described as native hardware operations, and the mixed-state correction is presented as an additional formula. External benchmarks (hardware run on IQM) are invoked without reducing the claim to the definition itself. This is the normal case of a newly introduced witness whose completeness is an open mathematical question rather than a definitional tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the newly defined antiflatness measure as a faithful indicator of non-Gaussianity and on the assumption that the proposed measurement protocols correctly estimate it using native hardware operations. No free parameters are mentioned in the abstract. The work relies on standard quantum mechanics for fermions and the definition of Gaussian states via covariance matrices.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Fermionic states are fully characterized by their two-point covariance matrix when Gaussian; higher-order correlations indicate non-Gaussianity.
    Invoked when defining antiflatness from the covariance matrix as the departure from Gaussianity.
  • standard math Standard quantum measurement theory applies to Majorana operators and Bell measurements on fermionic systems.
    Underlies the two estimation protocols described.
invented entities (1)
  • fermionic antiflatness no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantitative measure of non-Gaussianity derived from the two-point covariance matrix
    Newly introduced quantity whose vanishing is claimed to certify Gaussianity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5764 in / 1564 out tokens · 34426 ms · 2026-06-29T21:33:48.525331+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Unitary Designs from Doped Matchgate Circuits

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Doped matchgate circuits achieve approximate parity-preserving 2-designs in polylogarithmic depth using a sparse number of non-Gaussian gates, with the design formation mapped exactly to a birth-death Markov chain.

  2. Fermionic non-Gaussianity via Bell sampling: monotones and efficient quantum algorithms

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Defines bridge degree monotone for fermionic non-Gaussianity from Bell-sampling eigenvalues of Lambda, shows non-increase under Gaussian protocols for stronger no-go theorems, and gives polynomial-sample tests for Gau...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Fermionic Linear Optics and Matchgates

    E. Knill, Fermionic linear optics and matchgates (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0108033 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    Jozsa and A

    R. Jozsa and A. Miyake, Matchgates and classical simu- 7 lation of quantum circuits, Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.464, 3089–3106 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic lin- ear optics, Quantum Info

    S. Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic lin- ear optics, Quantum Info. Comput.5, 216–238 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    J. W. Negele and H. Orland,Quantum many-particle systems, Frontiers in Physics (CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Peschel and V

    I. Peschel and V. Eisler, Reduced density matrices and entanglement entropy in free lattice models, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical42, 504003 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    J.SuraceandL.Tagliacozzo,FermionicGaussianstates: an introduction to numerical approaches, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 54 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    P. Sala, T. Shi, S. Kühn, M. C. Bañuls, E. Demler, and J. I. Cirac, Variational study of u(1) and su(2) lattice gauge theories with gaussian states in1 + 1dimensions, Phys. Rev. D98, 034505 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Zohar, M

    E. Zohar, M. Burrello, T. B. Wahl, and J. I. Cirac, Fermionic projected entangled pair states and local u(1) gauge theories, Ann. Phys.363, 385 (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    Kelman, U

    A. Kelman, U. Borla, I. Gomelski, J. Elyovich, G. Roose, P. Emonts, and E. Zohar, Gauged gaussian projectedentangledpairstates: Ahighdimensionalten- sor network formulation for lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D110, 054511 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    L. G. Valiant, Quantum computers that can be simu- lated classically in polynomial time, inProceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’01 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2001) p. 114–123

    2001

  12. [12]

    B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A65, 032325 (2002)

    2002

  13. [13]

    Gluza, M

    M. Gluza, M. Kliesch, J. Eisert, and L. Aolita, Fidelity witnessesforfermionicquantumsimulations,Phys.Rev. Lett.120, 190501 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    K. Wan, W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, and R. Babbush, Match- gate shadows for fermionic quantum simulation, Com- mun. Math. Phys.404, 629–700 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    A. Zhao, N. C. Rubin, and A. Miyake, Fermionic partial tomography via classical shadows, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 110504 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Majsak, D

    J. Majsak, D. McNulty, and M. Oszmaniec, A simple and efficient joint measurement strategy for estimating fermionic observables and hamiltonians, npj Quantum Info.11, 61 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Heyraud, H.Chomet, and J

    V. Heyraud, H.Chomet, and J. Tilly, Unified framework for matchgate classical shadows, npj Quantum Info.11, 65 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Sierant, X

    P. Sierant, X. Turkeshi, and P. S. Tarabunga, Theory of the matchgate commutant (2026), arXiv:2603.12392 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Denzler, A

    J. Denzler, A. A. Mele, E. Derbyshire, T. Guaita, and J. Eisert, Learning fermionic correlations by evolv- ing with random translationally invariant hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 240604 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Bittel, A

    L. Bittel, A. A. Mele, J. Eisert, and L. Leone, PAC- learning of free-fermionic states is NP-hard, Quantum 9, 1665 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Oszmaniec, N

    M. Oszmaniec, N. Dangniam, M. E. Morales, and Z. Zimborás, Fermion sampling: A robust quantum computational advantage scheme using fermionic linear optics and magic input states, PRX Quantum3, 020328 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Hebenstreit, R

    M. Hebenstreit, R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, S. Strelchuk, and M. Yoganathan, All pure fermionic non-gaussian states are magic states for matchgate computations, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 080503 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    Hebenstreit, R

    M. Hebenstreit, R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, and S. Strelchuk, Computational power of matchgates with supplemen- tary resources, Phys. Rev. A102, 052604 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    Lumia, E

    L. Lumia, E. Tirrito, R. Fazio, and M. Collura, Measurement-induced transitions beyond gaussianity: A single particle description, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023176 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    A. D. Gottlieb and N. J. Mauser, New measure of elec- tron correlation, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 123003 (2005)

    2005

  26. [26]

    Reardon-Smith, The fermionic linear optical extent is multiplicative for 4 qubit parity eigenstates (2024), arXiv:2407.20934 [quant-ph]

    O. Reardon-Smith, The fermionic linear optical extent is multiplicative for 4 qubit parity eigenstates (2024), arXiv:2407.20934 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Debertolis, Natural super-orbitals representation of many-body operators (2025), arXiv:2507.10690 [cond- mat.str-el]

    M. Debertolis, Natural super-orbitals representation of many-body operators (2025), arXiv:2507.10690 [cond- mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  29. [29]

    Veitch, S

    V. Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer rényi entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka,Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems(Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2003) original edition: McGraw-Hill, 1971

    2003

  32. [32]

    Altland and B

    A. Altland and B. D. Simons,Condensed Matter Field Theory, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2010)

    2010

  33. [33]

    de Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1999) original edition: W

    P.-G. de Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1999) original edition: W. A. Benjamin, 1966

    1999

  34. [34]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev.108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  35. [35]

    Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields

    S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol. 1: Foundations(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  36. [36]

    Vollhardt, Normal 3He: an almost localized fermi liquid, Rev

    D. Vollhardt, Normal 3He: an almost localized fermi liquid, Rev. Mod. Phys.56, 99 (1984)

    1984

  37. [37]

    Bünemann, W

    J. Bünemann, W. Weber, and F. Gebhard, Multiband gutzwiller wave functions for general on-site interac- tions, Phys. Rev. B57, 6896 (1998)

    1998

  38. [38]

    Kotliar and A

    G. Kotliar and A. E. Ruckenstein, New functional inte- gral approach to strongly correlated fermi systems: The gutzwiller approximation as a saddle point, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1362 (1986)

    1986

  39. [39]

    Capello, F

    M. Capello, F. Becca, M. Fabrizio, S. Sorella, and E. Tosatti, Variational description of mott insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 026406 (2005)

    2005

  40. [40]

    Becca and S

    F. Becca and S. Sorella,Quantum Monte Carlo Ap- proaches for Correlated Systems(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozen- berg, Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly corre- lated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimen- sions, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  42. [42]

    T. Shi, E. Demler, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Variational 8 study of fermionic and bosonic systems with non- gaussian states: Theory and applications, Ann. Phys. 390, 245–302 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    Hackl, T

    L. Hackl, T. Guaita, T. Shi, J. Haegeman, E. Demler, and J. I. Cirac, Geometry of variational methods: dy- namics of closed quantum systems, SciPost Phys.9, 048 (2020)

    2020

  44. [44]

    Buhrman, L

    H. Buhrman, L. Fortnow, I. Newman, and H. Röhrig, Quantum property testing, SIAM Journal on Comput- ing37, 1387 (2008)

    2008

  45. [45]

    Montanaro and R

    A. Montanaro and R. de Wolf,A Survey of Quantum Property Testing, Graduate Surveys No. 7 (Theory of Computing Library, 2016) pp. 1–81

    2016

  46. [46]

    Baumgratz, M

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

    2014

  47. [47]

    Soleimanifar and J

    M. Soleimanifar and J. Wright, Testing matrix product states, inProceedings of the 2022 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)(SIAM,

    2022

  48. [48]

    Gross, S

    D. Gross, S. Nezami, and M. Walter, Schur–weyl du- ality for the clifford group with applications: Property testing, a robust hudson theorem, and de finetti repre- sentations, Commun. Math. Phys.385, 1325 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    Haug and P

    T. Haug and P. S. Tarabunga, Efficient witnessing and testing of magic in mixed quantum states, npj Quantum Info.12, 40 (2026)

    2026

  50. [50]

    P. S. Tarabunga and T. Haug, Quantifying mixed-state entanglement via partial transpose and realignment mo- ments (2025), arXiv:2507.13840 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Hinsche and J

    M. Hinsche and J. Helsen, Single-copy stabilizer test- ing, inProceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Sympo- sium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’25 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2025) p. 439–450

    2025

  52. [52]

    Bittel, A

    L. Bittel, A. A. Mele, J. Eisert, and L. Leone, Optimal trace-distance bounds for free-fermionic states: Testing and improved tomography, PRX Quantum6, 030341 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    A. A. Mele and Y. Herasymenko, Efficient learning of quantum states prepared with few fermionic non- gaussian gates, PRX Quantum6, 010319 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    Lyu and K

    X. Lyu and K. Bu, Fermionic gaussian testing and non-gaussian measures via convolution (2024), arXiv:2409.08180 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Coffman, G

    L. Coffman, G. Smith, and X. Gao, Measuring non- gaussian magic in fermions: Convolution, entropy, and the violation of wick’s theorem and the matchgate iden- tity (2025), arXiv:2501.06179 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Sierant, P

    P. Sierant, P. Stornati, and X. Turkeshi, Fermionic magic resources of quantum many-body systems, PRX Quantum7, 010302 (2026)

    2026

  57. [57]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Über das paulische äquivalen- zverbot, Z. Phys.47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  58. [58]

    Bendersky, J

    A. Bendersky, J. P. Paz, and M. T. Cunha, General theory of measurement with two copies of a quantum state, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 040404 (2009)

    2009

  59. [59]

    J. C. Garcia-Escartin and P. Chamorro-Posada, swap test and hong-ou-mandel effect are equivalent, Phys. Rev. A87, 052330 (2013)

    2013

  60. [60]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  61. [61]

    Approximation by Quantum Circuits

    E. Knill, Approximation by quantum circuits (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9508006 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  62. [62]

    Ji, Y.-K

    Z. Ji, Y.-K. Liu, and F. Song, Pseudorandom quan- tum states, inAdvances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2018: 38th Annual International Cryptology Confer- ence, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 19–23, 2018, Proceedings, Part III(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2018) p. 126–152

    2018

  63. [63]

    N.LaRacuenteandF.Leditzky,Approximateunitaryk- designsfromshallow, low-communicationcircuits,Com- mun. Math. Phys.407, 51 (2026)

    2026

  64. [64]

    Schuster, J

    T. Schuster, J. Haferkamp, and H.-Y. Huang, Ran- dom unitaries in extremely low depth, Science389, 92 (2025)

    2025

  65. [65]

    Aaronson, A

    S. Aaronson, A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, S. Ghosh, U. Vazirani, C. Zhang, and Z. Zhou, Quantum pseu- doentanglement (2023), arXiv:2211.00747 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    A. Gu, L. Leone, S. Ghosh, J. Eisert, S. F. Yelin, and Y.Quek,Pseudomagicquantumstates,Phys.Rev.Lett. 132, 210602 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    T. Haug, K. Bharti, and D. E. Koh, Pseudorandom uni- tariesareneitherrealnorsparsenornoise-robust,Quan- tum9, 1759 (2025)

    2025

  68. [68]

    Zhandry, How to construct quantum random func- tions, J

    M. Zhandry, How to construct quantum random func- tions, J. ACM68, 1 (2021)

    2021

  69. [69]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Dymarsky, and P. Sierant, Pauli spec- trum and nonstabilizerness of typical quantum many- body states, Phys. Rev. B111, 054301 (2025)

    2025

  70. [70]

    Reardon-Smith, M

    O. Reardon-Smith, M. Oszmaniec, and K. Korzekwa, Improved simulation of quantum circuits dominated by free fermionic operations, Quantum8, 1549 (2024)

    2024

  71. [71]

    Dias and R

    B. Dias and R. Koenig, Classical simulation of non- Gaussian fermionic circuits, Quantum8, 1350 (2024)

    2024

  72. [72]

    Paviglianiti, L

    A. Paviglianiti, L. Lumia, E. Tirrito, A. Silva, M. Col- lura, X. Turkeshi, and G. Lami, Emergence of generic entanglement structure in doped matchgate circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 020403 (2026)

    2026

  73. [73]

    Grewal, V

    S. Grewal, V. Iyer, W. Kretschmer, and D. Liang, Im- proved stabilizer estimation via bell difference sampling, inProceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2024 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2024) p. 1352–1363

    2024

  74. [74]

    Haug and M

    T. Haug and M. Kim, Scalable measures of magic resource for quantum computers, PRX Quantum4, 010301 (2023)

    2023

  75. [75]

    T. Haug, S. Lee, and M. S. Kim, Efficient quantum al- gorithms for stabilizer entropies, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 240602 (2024)

    2024

  76. [76]

    Streltsov, G

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

    2017

  77. [77]

    Bellomia, A

    G. Bellomia, A. Amaricci, and M. Capone, Local clas- sical correlations between physical electrons in hubbard systems, Phys. Rev. B113, 155158 (2026)

    2026

  78. [78]

    Zavatti, G

    E. Zavatti, G. Bellomia, M. Ferraretto, S. Giuli, and M. Capone, More is uncorrelated: Tuning the local correlations of su(n) fermi-hubbard systems via con- trolled symmetry breaking (2026), arXiv:2512.03689 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    Quantum magic of strongly correlated fermions $-$ the Hubbard dimer

    E. Zavatti, G. Bellomia, and M. Capone, Quantum magic of strongly correlated fermions−the hubbard dimer (2026), arXiv:2605.18494 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    Aditya, X

    S. Aditya, X. Turkeshi, and P. Sierant, Growth and spreading of quantum resources under random circuit dynamics (2025), arXiv:2512.14827 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.