Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 118 references

In passive linear optics, barren plateaus and classical simulability are linked by how much the input state and observable share weight on the same irreducible pieces of the unitary group.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 06:37 UTC pith:VRGPVEY4

load-bearing objection Solid regime map for bosonic barren plateaus built on their prior second-moment calculus; the advertised partial separation rests on thin finite-n fits the paper itself half-walks back. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24728 v1 pith:VRGPVEY4 submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph

Classical simulation and model concentration in passive linear optics

L\'eo Monbroussou , Hugo Thomas , Hela Mhiri , Zo\"e Holmes , Elham Kashefi This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords passive linear opticsbarren plateausclassical simulationirrep puritiesboson samplingnumber-phase observablesHaar concentrationFock states
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Passive linear optics is a practical near-term platform, but variational training can fail when loss landscapes concentrate. This paper shows that, for fixed-photon Fock inputs and particle-number-preserving observables, the variance of Haar-averaged expectation values is exactly a sum over irreducible representations: each term is the product of state and observable irrep purities divided by the irrep dimension. Exponential concentration is therefore avoided only when those purities align on sectors whose normalized projections beat the dimensional suppression. The same decomposition recovers known classical simulation routes (exact or approximate truncation to small irreps, permanent expansions, transition-amplitude methods) and maps broad families of trainable observables into classically efficient regimes. The authors also isolate candidate number-phase observables that appear not to concentrate exponentially and keep a polynomially large high-irrep signal outside known worst-case algorithms; even there, most of the landscape remains classically tractable and a low-irrep truncation is a surrogate with polynomially small error. The framework is offered as a systematic search tool for a cleaner separation between trainability and simulability in bosonic models.

Core claim

Concentration of expectation values under random passive linear-optical circuits is governed by misalignment of the projections of the input state and the observable into irreducible representations of U(m): the Haar variance equals the sum over k of ||P_k(ρ)||₂² ||P_k(O)||₂² / d_k. Exponential concentration fails only when state and observable share non-negligible weight on irreps whose normalized projections compensate dimension; conversely, many non-concentrating observables remain classically simulable, and the paper's best candidate separations still leave a high-irrep tail small enough that truncation is a classical surrogate with polynomially small error.

What carries the argument

The irrep-purity variance formula (Theorem 1): Var = Σ_k ||P_k(ρ)||₂² ||P_k(O)||₂² / d_k, with purities obtained from an iterative lowering-map expansion of partial traces. It turns generalized entanglement (state side) and generalized locality (observable side) into concrete asymptotic weights that both diagnose concentration and build average-case classical surrogates by truncating large-k tails.

Load-bearing premise

That finite-size numerical fits up to a few dozen photons, plus the existing catalogue of classical algorithms, are enough to decide asymptotic concentration and to claim that residual high-irrep signal is beyond known efficient simulation while still admitting a polynomially accurate classical surrogate.

What would settle it

Compute or rigorously bound the high-irrep tail of the variance for the nonlinear number-phase observable on minimally bunched Fock inputs at substantially larger n (or prove a matching worst-case classical algorithm); if the tail becomes exponentially small, or if a poly-time worst-case estimator appears, the claimed partial separation disappears.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Constant-degree photon-number products and single-support monomials avoid exponential concentration only by living in polynomially large irreps and are exactly classically simulable.
  • Fock projectors and many growing-degree number products concentrate exponentially because state and observable irrep weights misalign or cannot beat dimension.
  • Nonlinear number-phase observables can keep a non-exponentially vanishing high-irrep contribution, but low-irrep truncation still approximates the landscape to polynomial relative error.
  • The same purity pipeline is a constructive search method for bosonic observables that might simultaneously avoid barren plateaus and known efficient classical simulation.
  • Dimensional bounds alone forbid non-negligible signal from irreps with k/n above a fixed threshold set by the mode-to-photon ratio.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A true trainability–simulability separation in linear optics likely requires observables whose high-irrep weight is a constant fraction of the full variance, not a large inverse polynomial.
  • Extending the same irrep-purity diagnosis to adaptive or nonlinear optics would test whether the partial-separation pattern is special to the passive unitary group.
  • The necessity that state purity on mid-scale irreps be at least exponentially small yet compensable by observable weight suggests designing resource states deliberately peaked near the dimensional crossover rather than at extreme bunching.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies concentration of expectation values of particle-number-preserving observables on Fock-state inputs under Haar-random passive linear-optical interferometers. Using the irrep decomposition of the n-photon operator space W_n under the adjoint U(m) action, it recalls (from companion work [1]) a variance formula Var = Σ_k ||P_k(ρ)||²₂ ||P_k(O)||²₂ / d_k (Theorem 1) and an iterative procedure to evaluate the irrep purities in closed form. It analyzes Fock-state purity profiles as a function of bunching (Lemma 2, Figs. 2–3), derives support rules for monomial observables (Propositions 1–3), reviews five classical simulation techniques, and classifies concrete observable families into four regimes (VB1–VB4) combining concentration behavior with simulability. The headline claim is deliberately modest: number-phase observables with minimally bunched inputs appear to avoid exponential concentration with a non-negligible high-irrep component not covered by known worst-case algorithms, but the residual signal is small enough that low-irrep truncation is a classical surrogate with polynomially small error — a 'partial separation' only.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides the first systematic representation-theoretic treatment of concentration and its relation to classical simulability in passive linear optics, extending the qubit barren-plateau/simulability tradeoff to a bosonic setting where the 'curse of dimensionality' mechanism can genuinely differ. Concrete strengths: closed-form variance and irrep-purity formulas with explicit iterative evaluation procedures (adapted from [1]); provable construction rules linking observable monomial structure to irrep support; a clear formulation of the signal-relative truncation error ε_rel(K) (Eq. (33)) that makes the notion of 'classical surrogate' precise; an honest discussion of the max-bunched input being classically simulable via a multinomial/dynamic-programming argument (App. G3); and falsifiable numerical predictions with code promised. The four-regime taxonomy (VB1–VB4) is a useful organizational contribution even where its boundary cases remain open.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table IV; §VB4; Table I] Table IV and the paragraph following it (App. G4), feeding into the orange-highlighted cell of Table I and regime VB4 in §VB4: in the decisive case — minimally bunched input, quadratic number-phase observable — the paper's own R² criterion prefers the exponential fit over the power-law fit for the truncated tail at k0=⌊√n⌋ (R²_E−R²_P ≈ 0.018 for p=2, 0.024 for p=⌊log₂n⌋, 0.024 for p=⌊√n⌋), and at k0=⌊log₂n⌋ the power-law advantage is marginal (≤0.014). The statement 'the truncated signals do not vanish exponentially for the large truncation orders' is therefore not supported by the reported fits; by the paper's own bolding convention the quadratic/min-bunched truncated cells favor exponential decay. If the high-irrep tail is exponentially small, this example belongs to VB2 (average-case g-simulation surrogate), not VB4, and the partial-separation narrative of the abstract and Fig. 1 lose
  2. [App. E5, F3, G4; Eq. (34)] Range of the numerics and cutoff structure: n runs from 2 to 35 (m=2n), so the 'growing' cutoffs k0=⌊log₂n⌋ and k0=⌊√n⌋ never exceed 5. Fitting a two-parameter power law and a two-parameter exponential to ≤34 points in log space and comparing R² values is weak evidence for an asymptotic classification; several fitted exponents (e.g. n^−29.66 in Table III) suggest the fits mix regimes. More importantly, the criterion in Eq. (34) requires the tail beyond every efficient truncation to remain non-negligible, but the tables only test moving cutoffs; a fixed efficient cutoff (say K=10) is never examined, so nothing bounds the tail between K=10 and ⌊√n⌋. A fixed-K column in Tables II–V, and ideally analytic estimates of Δ_K using the closed-form purities of Lemma 2 and App. G2, would substantially strengthen the load-bearing empirical claims.
  3. [§IIIC, Proposition 3; App. B1, Proposition 9] Proposition 3 (and its restatement as Proposition 9 in App. B): the statement is internally inconsistent — it says '|𝒑∩𝒒|=k, i.e., 𝒑 and 𝒒 have exactly k−1 common indices', and asserts support on 'the K consecutive irreps' with K undefined (k elsewhere). This proposition is used in the main text to justify the irrep support of Fock-state projectors (§VA, Eq. (42)) and the design rules of §IIIC, so the off-by-one/indexing confusion should be corrected and the boundary cases (k=1, k=d) stated explicitly and checked against Propositions 1 and 2.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§VA, Eq. (41); App. G1] The notation O=(−1)^{g_p({n̂_i})} (Eq. (41) and Eq. (G4)) is ambiguous for the quadratic case: with α_i=1/r_i, the exponent α_i n_i² is generally non-integer and (−1)^x is multi-valued. The intended object, e^{iπ n̂²/r} as in Eq. (G8), is well defined; the main text should define the observable directly in exponential form and note that the Hermitian observable is (O+O†)/2.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (33)] Eq. (33): ε_sim(K) is stated as Θ(Δ_K), but Eq. (32) gives exact equality of the mean-squared error with Δ_K; the Θ notation obscures that ε_rel has a closed form. Please clarify.
  3. [Code Availability] The Code Availability statement says the code is 'available on the following repository' but no URL or identifier is given. Since the empirical classifications in Tables II–V rest entirely on these numerics, a working repository link (ideally with the fitting scripts) is important for verification.
  4. [Various] Several typos and language issues: 'Clebsh–Gordan' (§IIIA), 'Obervable-dependent' (§IIIC heading), 'This result allow to retrieve' (§IV), 'non of the aforementioned' (§VB), 'the expression the the coefficients' (§IIIA), 'extensivelystudied' (§VA), and missing spaces throughout (e.g., 'remainslargelyunexplored' in the abstract).
  5. [Fig. 2; §II] Fig. 2: panels (a)–(c) would benefit from stating in the caption that the curves are fits/interpolations of the closed-form purities from Lemma 2, and from specifying the m/n ratio used (2n vs ⌈2.1n⌉); the two conventions are used in different places without comment.
  6. [App. G3; Table I] The maximally-bunched classical algorithm of App. G3 (multinomial sampling / O(pn²) dynamic program, generalizing to constantly many occupied modes) is a nice observation but is only mentioned in passing in §VB4; given that it eliminates the max-bunched row from any separation claim, it deserves a pointer from Table I.
  7. [§VB1; App. E5] §VB1, final paragraph: the statement that p=Θ(log n) variance fits are 'not conclusive since the R² scores were close' is the correct instinct and should be applied uniformly — see major comment 1. A short methods paragraph on fit uncertainty (e.g., confidence intervals on exponents, sensitivity to dropping small-n points) would help all tables.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: variance identities follow from Haar/Schur math; self-cite [1] is shared infrastructure, not a fitted prediction renamed as result.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. IIIA, Theorem 1 and Theorem 2; also Abstract / Intro framing on [1]]
    "The first- and second-moment formulas were formally derived in Ref. [1, Proposition 2]. ... In [1], we showed that these norms can be expressed as a linear combination of partial trace of the operator in question over particles. Theorem 2 (Informal, adapted from [1])."

    The paper’s entire concentration analysis is computed inside the second-moment / iterative-projection apparatus of overlapping-author Ref. [1]. That is load-bearing shared infrastructure, not an external uniqueness theorem or a fitted constant renamed as prediction. Once the identities are granted, subsequent variance scalings and simulation comparisons are independent evaluations, so this raises the score only mildly.

full rationale

The load-bearing variance formula (Theorem 1 / Eq. 18) is the standard second-moment consequence of Haar invariance plus Schur orthogonality of U(m) irreps on W_n; it is not defined in terms of the concentration conclusions it is used to diagnose. Irrep-purity evaluations (Theorem 2 / iterative L/R maps) are closed-form algebraic identities adapted from overlapping-author work [1], but they are parameter-free procedures with stated assumptions, not fits of the target scaling. Regime classification (VB1–VB4, Table I) and the partial-separation narrative for number-phase observables are obtained by numerically evaluating those identities against an external catalogue of simulation algorithms (Gurvits, Ryser/Barvinok, Lim–Oh, g-sim). E[|f_U−f_C|²]=Δ_K is equality by construction of the irrep truncation, which the paper states as a method rather than as an independent empirical prediction. Weaknesses in finite-n R² fits (whether high-irrep tails are polynomial or exponential) are correctness/asymptotics risks, not circular reductions of claim to input. Score 1 only for mild foundational dependence on self-cited [1]; central concentration–simulability content does not collapse to a fit or a uniqueness import.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

Load-bearing structure is standard compact-group representation theory plus the authors’ prior second-moment calculus, bosonic CCR, and a finite catalogue of classical photonic algorithms. Free choices are the mode-to-photon ratio, the prime-weighted Kerr phases used to dodge easy Fourier simulation, and finite-n fit cutoffs. No new physical entities; “irrep purity” is a named diagnostic, not a postulated particle or force.

free parameters (3)
  • m = ⌈2.1 n⌉ (numerics often m = 2n) = 2.1 (or 2 in figures)
    Fixed by appeal to BosonSampling hardness in the linear-mode regime [36]; changes irrep dimensions and all asymptotic claims.
  • α_i = 1/r_i (r_i = i-th prime) in nonlinear number-phase O = 1/prime_i
    Hand-chosen phases so the discrete Fourier expansion has exp(Θ(p log p)) terms and flat ℓ1 weight, blocking easy truncation/importance sampling (App. G).
  • Irrep cutoffs K ∈ {1, ⌊log₂ n⌋, ⌊√n⌋} and p ∈ {Θ(1), log n, √n}
    Define the four concentration regimes and which tail is called “large-irrep signal”; classification is sensitive to these scalings.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Haar measure on U(m) is the right average-case ensemble for random passive interferometers and for diagnosing barren plateaus in photonic VQAs.
    Stated in Sec. IIIA; standard in BosonSampling but stronger than typical shallow hardware ansätze.
  • standard math Second-moment formula Var = Σ_k ||P_k(ρ)||₂² ||P_k(O)||₂² / d_k from Schur and the irrep decomposition of W_n (Theorem 1 / Ref. [1]).
    Core calculus; taken as given from prior work and App. A.
  • standard math Bosonic CCR and particle-number-preserving algebra W spanned by equal-degree normally ordered monomials.
    Sec. II; defines the operator class under study.
  • domain assumption Catalogue of classical methods (exact/approx g-sim, Lim–Oh product estimators, Gurvits-style amplitudes, Ryser/Barvinok direct expansion, Fourier of phase shifters) exhausts “known efficient” simulation for the compared regimes.
    Sec. IV–V; the partial-separation claim is only relative to this list.
  • domain assumption Observables normalized to ||O||_∞ = O(1) so variance is not inflated by trivial rescaling against shot noise.
    Sec. IIIC; standard trainability hygiene.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite-n (n≤35, some plots to ~130) power-law vs exponential R² comparisons diagnose asymptotic concentration class.
    Tables II–V; several log-n cells left “unclear” when R² values are close.
invented entities (2)
  • Irrep purities ||P_k(X)||₂² as generalized entanglement (states) and generalized locality (observables) no independent evidence
    purpose: Unify concentration diagnostics and connect to resource-theory language in the bosonic setting.
    Interpretive renaming of projection norms already in [1,18,24,29]; not an independent physical degree of freedom.
  • Nonlinear number-phase / prime-weighted Kerr product observables as candidate “large-irrep signal” losses independent evidence
    purpose: Exhibit non-exponential concentration with support beyond efficient low-irrep cutoffs while resisting listed worst-case sims.
    Constructed observables; physical as post-processed PNR + Kerr phases, but the hardness claim is only against known algorithms.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 51285 in / 4230 out tokens · 86401 ms · 2026-07-31T06:37:43.142636+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Passive linear optics is a restricted model of quantum computation, with complexity-theoretic evidence of quantum advantage for sampling tasks and low losses that make it attractive for near-term algorithms. In qubit architectures, a body of work has revealed a close connection between barren plateaus and classical simulability. Whether an analogous tradeoff exists for bosonic systems remains largely unexplored. Building on a recently developed representation-theoretic framework for moments of random passive linear-optical circuits, we characterize the concentration of expectation values for relevant families of particle-number-preserving observables by evaluating their projections into irreducible representations of the unitary group and analyzing their asymptotic scaling. We show that concentration is governed by the misalignment of the projections into irreducible representations of the input state and the observable, giving a unified representation-theoretic interpretation of generalized entanglement and locality in the bosonic setting. We further relate these concentration properties to existing classical simulation techniques, identifying broad classes of trainable observables that admit efficient classical simulation. Conversely, we identify Fock-state inputs and observables that appear to evade exponential concentration while retaining a polynomially large signal component not accessible to known efficient classical simulation methods. The separation is only partial: most of the signal remains classically tractable, and the residual part, while not exponentially suppressed, is small enough that a truncation serves as a classical surrogate with polynomially small error. Our framework nonetheless provides a systematic route for searching for regimes that unambiguously combine the absence of exponential concentration and lies beyond known efficient classical simulation methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24728 by Elham Kashefi, Hela Mhiri, Hugo Thomas, L\'eo Monbroussou, Zo\"e Holmes.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Fock state purity distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Fock state purity on the irreducible component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Irreducible components normalized index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Purity evolution of a product of number operators. We consider the case where all the number operators are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Study of the first moment for the expectation value of a product of photon number operators. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Study of the second moment, for different evolution of the number of terms in the product, corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Evolution of the sum of the observable purities divided by the dimension of the irrep, from irrep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Evolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Study of the second moment, for different evolution of the degree, corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Irrep purities profile of linear and quadratic number-phase observables normalized by their infinity norm, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Study of the second moment of the parity operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Decay of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_17.png] view at source ↗

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

118 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    If Supp(𝑂)⊆{0,...,𝐾},(45) then𝒱 >𝐾 =0, and the second moment is entirely de- termined by the small-irrep contribution

    No concentration and exactly simulable The simplest way to avoid exponential concentra- tion is to restrict the observable exactly to polynomial- dimensional irreps. If Supp(𝑂)⊆{0,...,𝐾},(45) then𝒱 >𝐾 =0, and the second moment is entirely de- termined by the small-irrep contribution. Provided that 𝒱⩽𝐾 is not exponentially small, the model avoids expo- nen...

  2. [2]

    No concentration due to signal from "small" irreps Anobservablemayhavesupportonlargeirrepswhile receiving a non-negligible contribution only from the small ones. In this case, 𝒱⩽𝐾 ∉𝒪(exp(−𝑛)),𝒱 >𝐾∈𝒪(exp(−𝑛)).(46) The model avoids exponential concentration because of itslow-irrepsignal,eventhoughtheobservableisnotex- actly supported on that sector. This re...

  3. [3]

    First, the normalized observable projections may be too small to compensate the irrep dimensions

    Exponential concentration Exponential concentration occurs when neither the low- nor the high-irrep sectors provide a non-negligible contribution, 𝒱⩽𝐾+𝒱 >𝐾∈𝒪(exp(−𝑛)).(47) This suppression can arise through two complementary mechanisms. First, the normalized observable projections may be too small to compensate the irrep dimensions. This is particularly c...

  4. [4]

    No concentration and signal from "large" irreps The most interesting regime occurs when a non- negligible contribution survives on irreps beyond every efficient low-irrep truncation: 𝒱>𝐾 ∉𝒪(exp(−𝑛)).(48) While the contribution termΓ𝑘(𝜌,𝑂)cannot avoid ex- ponential concentration for𝑘>𝑛/2by simple dimen- sionalityargumentsdevelopedinSectionH,signalfrom irre...

  5. [5]

    Aghaee Rad, T

    H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. N. Alexander, B. Al- tieri, M. F. Askarani, R. Baby, L. Banchi, B. Q. Baragiola, J. E. Bourassa, R. S. Chadwick, I. Charania, H. Chen, M. J. Collins, P. Contu, N. D’Arcy, G. Dauphinais, R. De Prins, D. Deschenes, I. Di Luch, S. Duque, P. Edke, S. E. Fayer, S. Ferracin, H. Ferretti, J. Gefaell, S. Glancy, C. González- Arcini...

    2025

  6. [6]

    Mhiri, H

    H. Mhiri, H. Thomas, L. Monbroussou, U. Chabaud, Z. Holmes, and E. Kashefi, Boson sampling beyond the dilute regime: second moments and anti-concentration (2026), version Number: 1

    2026

  7. [7]

    2023/1746

    HT acknowledges support from the European Commission as part of the EIC accelerator program un- der the grant agreement 190188855 for SEPOQC project, the Horizon-CL4 program under the grant agreement 101135288 for EPIQUE project, and the the CIFRE grant N. 2023/1746. ZH acknowledges support from the San- doz Family Foundation-Monique de Meuron program for...

    2023

  8. [8]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Na- ture Photonics14, 273 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    Taballione, R

    C. Taballione, R. van der Meer, H. J. Snijders, P. Hooi- jschuur, J. P. Epping, M. de Goede, B. Kassenberg, P. Venderbosch, C. Toebes, H. van den Vlekkert, P. W. H. Pinkse, and J. J. Renema, Materials for Quantum Technol- ogy1, 035002 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    J. E. Bourassa, R. N. Alexander, M. Vasmer, A. Patil, I. Tzitrin, T. Matsuura, D. Su, B. Q. Baragiola, S. Guha, G. Dauphinais, K. K. Sabapathy, N. C. Menicucci, and I. Dhand, Quantum5, 392 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    Burridge, H

    K.Alexander,A.Benyamini,D.Black,D.Bonneau,S.Bur- gos, B. Burridge, H. Cable, G. Campbell, G. Catalano, A. Ceballos, C.-M. Chang, S. S. Choudhury, C. J. Chung, F.Danesh,T.Dauer,M.Davis,E.Dudley,P.Er-Xuan,J.Far- gas, A. Farsi, C. Fenrich, J. Frazer, M. Fukami, Y. Gane- san, G. Gibson, M. Gimeno-Segovia, S. Goeldi, P. Goley, R. Haislmaier, S. Halimi, P. Hans...

    2025

  12. [12]

    Maring, A

    N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margaria, W. Hease, A. Pishchagin, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, T. H. Au, S. Boissier, E. Bertasi, A. Baert, M. Val- divia, M. Billard, O. Acar, A. Brieussel, R. Mezher, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, P. Sinnott, D. A. Fioretto, P.-E. Eme- riau,N.Belabas,S.Mansfield,P.Senellart,J.Senellart,and N. Somaschi...

    2024

  13. [13]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S.Endo,K.Fujii,J.R.McClean,K.Mitarai,X.Yuan,L.Cin- cio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Lloyd, Nature549, 195 (2017)

    J.Biamonte,P.Wittek,N.Pancotti,P.Rebentrost,N.Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Nature549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte,P.J.Coles,L.Cincio,J.R.McClean,Z.Holmes,and M. Cerezo, Nature Reviews Physics7, 174 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Neven, Nature Communications9, 4812 (2018)

    J.R.McClean,S.Boixo,V.N.Smelyanskiy,R.Babbush,and H. Neven, Nature Communications9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    A.Arrasmith,Z.Holmes,M.Cerezo,andP.J.Coles,Quan- tum Science and Technology7, 045015 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Holmes, K

    Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, PRX Quantum3, 010313 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Communications12, 1791 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    C.OrtizMarrero,M.Kieferová,andN.Wiebe,PRXQuan- tum2, 040316 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L.Cincio,andP.J.Coles,NatureCommunications12,6961 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Larocca, and M

    M.Ragone,B.N.Bakalov,F.Sauvage,A.F.Kemper,C.Or- tiz Marrero, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, Nature Commu- nications15, 7172 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Fontana, D

    E. Fontana, D. Herman, S. Chakrabarti, N. Kumar, R. Yalovetzky, J. Heredge, S. H. Sureshbabu, and M. Pis- toia, Nature Communications15, 7171 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Tóth, W.Wieczorek, D.Gross, R

    G. Tóth, W.Wieczorek, D.Gross, R. Krischek, C.Schwem- mer, and H. Weinfurter, Physical Review Letters105, 16 250403 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    A. V. Uvarov and J. D. Biamonte, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical54, 245301 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Zhao and X.-S

    C. Zhao and X.-S. Gao, Quantum5, 466 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Z.Liu,L.-W.Yu,L.-M.Duan,andD.-L.Deng,PhysicalRe- view Letters129, 270501 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Coles, and M

    M.Larocca,P.Czarnik,K.Sharma,G.Muraleedharan,P.J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Quantum6, 824 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    H.-K.Zhang,S.Liu,andS.-X.Zhang,PhysicalReviewLet- ters132, 150603 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Monbroussou, E

    L. Monbroussou, E. Z. Mamon, J. Landman, A. B. Grilo, R. Kukla, and E. Kashefi, Quantum9, 1745 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Cerezo, M

    M. Cerezo, M. Larocca, D. García-Martín, N. L. Diaz, P. Braccia, E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, P. Bermejo, A. Ijaz, S. Thanasilp, E. R. Anschuetz, and Z. Holmes, Nature Communications16, 7907 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Angrisani, A

    A. Angrisani, A. A. Mele, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, and Z.Holmes,Simulatingquantumcircuitswitharbitrarylo- cal noise using pauli propagation (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    N. L. Diaz, D. García-Martín, S. Kazi, M. Larocca, and M.Cerezo,Showcasingabarrenplateautheorybeyondthe dynamical lie algebra (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Makarov, Mathematics10, 4794 (2022)

    D. Makarov, Mathematics10, 4794 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Żukowski, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 777 (2012)

    J.-W.Pan,Z.-B.Chen,C.-Y.Lu,H.Weinfurter,A.Zeilinger, and M. Żukowski, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 777 (2012)

    2012

  37. [37]

    W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Optica3, 1460 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    J. C. Garcia-Escartin, V. Gimeno, and J. J. Moyano- Fernández, Optics Communications430, 434 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, inProceedings of the Forty- Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, San Jose California USA, 2011) pp. 333–342

    2011

  40. [40]

    Aniello, C

    P. Aniello, C. Lupo, and M. Napolitano, Open Systems & Information Dynamics13, 415 (2006)

    2006

  41. [41]

    A.Bouland,D.Brod,I.Datta,B.Fefferman,D.Grier,F.Her- nandez,andM.Oszmaniec,Complexity-theoreticfounda- tions of BosonSampling with a linear number of modes (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Marcus and H

    M. Marcus and H. Minc, The American Mathematical Monthly72, 577 (1965), 2313846

    1965

  43. [43]

    B.CollinsandP.Sniady,CommunicationsinMathematical Physics264, 773 (2006), arXiv:math-ph/0402073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  44. [44]

    C. S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Sil- berhorn, and I. Jex, Physical Review Letters119, 170501 (2017), arXiv:1612.01199

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Oszmaniec, N

    M. Oszmaniec, N. Dangniam, M. E. Morales, and Z. Zim- borás, PRX Quantum3, 020328 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    Carolan, C

    J. Carolan, C. Harrold, C. Sparrow, E. Martín-López, N. J. Russell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Matsuda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh, G. D. Marshall, M. G. Thompson, J.C.F.Matthews,T.Hashimoto,J.L.O’Brien,andA.Laing, Science349, 711 (2015)

    2015

  47. [47]

    Moralis-Pegios, G

    M. Moralis-Pegios, G. Giamougiannis, A. Tsakyridis, D. Lazovsky, and N. Pleros, Nature Communications15, 5468 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups (2007)

    F. Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups (2007)

    2007

  49. [49]

    Arienzo, D

    M. Arienzo, D. Grinko, M. Kliesch, and M. Heinrich, PRX Quantum6, 020305 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    255 (Springer, New York, NY, 2009)

    R.GoodmanandN.R.Wallach,Symmetry,Representations, and Invariants, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 255 (Springer, New York, NY, 2009)

    2009

  51. [51]

    Serre,Linear Representations of Finite Groups, Gradu- ateTextsinMathematics,Vol.42(Springer,NewYork,NY, 1977)

    J.-P. Serre,Linear Representations of Finite Groups, Gradu- ateTextsinMathematics,Vol.42(Springer,NewYork,NY, 1977)

    1977

  52. [52]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. García-Patrón, N. J. Cerf, T.C.Ralph,J.H.Shapiro,andS.Lloyd,ReviewsofModern Physics84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  53. [53]

    Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021), arXiv:2104.12596 [quant-ph]

    M. Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021), arXiv:2104.12596 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Larocca, and M

    N.L.Diaz,A.A.Mele,P.Bermejo,P.Braccia,A.E.Deneris, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, A unified approach to quan- tum resource theories and a new class of free operations (2025), arXiv:2507.10851 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Larocca, and M

    P.Bermejo,P.Braccia,A.A.Mele,N.L.Diaz,A.E.Deneris, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, Characterizing quantum re- sourcefulness via group-Fourier decompositions (2025), arXiv:2506.19696

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Barnum, E

    H. Barnum, E. Knill, G. Ortiz, and L. Viola, Physical Re- view A68, 032308 (2003)

    2003

  57. [57]

    Barnum, E

    H. Barnum, E. Knill, G. Ortiz, R. Somma, and L. Viola, Physical Review Letters92, 107902 (2004)

    2004

  58. [58]

    S.AaronsonandT.Hance,QuantumInfo.Comput.14,541 (2014)

    2014

  59. [59]

    Aghaei Saem, B

    R. Aghaei Saem, B. Tafreshi, Z. Holmes, and S. Thanasilp, Quantum Science and Technology11, 015049 (2026)

    2026

  60. [60]

    M. L. Goh, M. Larocca, L. Cincio, M. Cerezo, and F. Sauvage, Lie-algebraic classical simulations for varia- tional quantum computing (2023), arXiv:2308.01432

    arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Holmes, and H.-Y

    A.Angrisani, A.Schmidhuber, M.S.Rudolph,M.Cerezo, Z. Holmes, and H.-Y. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 170602 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Lim and C

    Y. Lim and C. Oh, Classical algorithms for estimat- ing expectation values in linear-optical circuits (2025), arXiv:2502.12882 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    L.Gurvits,inMathematicalFoundationsofComputerScience 2005(SpringerBerlinHeidelberg,Berlin,Heidelberg,2005) pp. 447–458

    2005

  64. [64]

    Aaronson, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Math- ematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences467, 3393 (2011)

    S. Aaronson, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Math- ematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences467, 3393 (2011)

    2011

  65. [65]

    C.Oh,Y.Lim,Y.Wong,B.Fefferman,andL.Jiang,Nature Physics20, 225 (2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    Seron, L

    B. Seron, L. Novo, A. Arkhipov, and N. J. Cerf, Quantum 8, 1479 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    H.Thomas,U.Chabaud,andP.-E.Emeriau,Sheddinglight on classical shadows: Learning photonic quantum states (2025)

    2025

  68. [68]

    Ryser,Combinatorial Mathematics, Carus Mathemati- cal Monographs (Mathematical Association of America, 1973)

    H. Ryser,Combinatorial Mathematics, Carus Mathemati- cal Monographs (Mathematical Association of America, 1973)

    1973

  69. [69]

    A.I.Barvinok,MathematicsofOperationsResearch21,65 (1996), 3690206

    1996

  70. [70]

    Blasiak, Combinatorics of boson normal ordering and some applications (2005)

    P. Blasiak, Combinatorics of boson normal ordering and some applications (2005)

    2005

  71. [71]

    Killoran, T

    N. Killoran, T. R. Bromley, J. M. Arrazola, M. Schuld, N. Quesada, and S. Lloyd, Physical Review Research1, 033063 (2019)

    2019

  72. [72]

    Killoran, J

    N. Killoran, J. Izaac, N. Quesada, V. Bergholm, M. Amy, and C. Weedbrook, Quantum3, 129 (2019)

    2019

  73. [73]

    Killoran, Quantum Science and Technology5, 034010 17 (2020)

    T.R.Bromley,J.M.Arrazola,S.Jahangiri,J.Izaac,N.Que- sada,A.D.Gran,M.Schuld,J.Swinarton,Z.Zabaneh,and N. Killoran, Quantum Science and Technology5, 034010 17 (2020)

    2020

  74. [74]

    B. Y. Gan, D. Leykam, and D. G. Angelakis, EPJ Quantum Technology9, 16 (2022)

    2022

  75. [75]

    G.R.Steinbrecher, J.P.Olson, D.Englund,andJ.Carolan, npj Quantum Information5, 60 (2019)

    2019

  76. [76]

    Laiho, T

    K. Laiho, T. Dirmeier, M. Schmidt, S. Reitzenstein, and C. Marquardt, Physics Letters A435, 128059 (2022)

    2022

  77. [77]

    M. L. Goh, M. Larocca, L. Cincio, M. Cerezo, and F. Sauvage, Physical Review Research7, 033266 (2025)

    2025

  78. [78]

    Kurkin, U

    A. Kurkin, U. Chabaud, Z. Kolarovszki, B. Bakó, Z. Zim- borás,andV.Dunjko,UniversalityofClassicallyTrainable, Quantum-Deployed Boson-Sampling Generative Models (2026), arXiv:2603.11014 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    Z.Kolarovszki,B.Bakó,M.Oszmaniec,C.Oh,andZ.Zim- borás, Generative modeling with Gaussian Boson Sam- pling: classically trainable Bosonic Born Machines (2026), arXiv:2603.11195 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    Gottlieb, R

    F. Gottlieb, R. Mezher, B. Ventura, S. Mansfield, and A.Salavrakos,Efficienttrainingofphotonicquantumgen- erative models (2026), arXiv:2603.08793 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.