Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Learning Clifford-structured quantum unitaries and Hamiltonians

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An unknown unitary's closest Clifford can be learned in quasipolynomial time, within any desired accuracy.

desk verdict New proper quasipolynomial Clifford agnostic tomography with a genuinely new neighbor-graph technique, but the proof as written leaves the unknown-opt handling unjustified; patchable and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09912 v1 pith:LWQST7X6 submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph cs.CC

Arkopal Dutt , Dale Jacobs , John Jeang , Saeed Mehraban , Vladimir Podolskii This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.CC MSC 81P6868Q32 PACS 03.67.Lx03.67.-a
keywords agnostictomographyCliffordunitariesstabilizerbootstrappingextentHamiltonianlearningquantumprocessstabilizer-neighborgraphChoistate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the Clifford structure of an unknown quantum process can be extracted even when the process is not itself Clifford, and answers that it can. Given query access to any $n$-qubit unitary $U$, an algorithm outputs a Clifford unitary $V$ whose fidelity with $U$ is within $\varepsilon$ of the best possible Clifford, using $\mathrm{poly}(n,(1/\varepsilon)^{\log(1/\varepsilon)},\log(1/\delta))$ queries and time. This settles, in quasipolynomial time, the open problem of proper agnostic tomography of the Clifford group. Building on this, the paper shows that unitaries and Hamiltonians with concise decompositions over Cliffords—even ones exponentially dense in the Pauli basis—can be learned efficiently. The significance is a new learnable regime for quantum dynamics: structure measured by Clifford extent rather than Pauli sparsity.

What carries the argument

The stabilizer-neighbor graph: vertices are stabilizer states on $2n$ qubits, with an edge between any two states whose fidelity is exactly $1/2$. The argument uses two properties of this graph—that a fidelity-increasing path from a maximally entangled state reaches a $\gamma$-approximate local maximizer in at most $O(\log(1/\mathrm{opt}))$ steps, and that each step changes entanglement entropy across the Choi cut by at most one (Lemma 3.4). These properties let the algorithm trade fidelity gained along the path (a factor $\gamma^{-t}$) against fidelity lost in rounding the endpoint to a maximally entangled stabilizer state (a factor $2^t$), with the tradeoff tuned by $\gamma$ so the net loss is $\varepsilon$. The graph thus converts a coarse list-decoding guarantee from stabilizer bootstrapping into a strong agnostic learner for Clifford unitaries.

What would settle it

Run the stabilizer-bootstrapping list-decoding routine on a $2n$-qubit state with stabilizer fidelity $\tau = 0.1$ using $\gamma = 1/2 + 10^{-3}/(12\log(10^3))$ and measure how often a known $\gamma$-approximate local maximizer appears in the output list: a rate below $((\gamma-1/2)\tau)^{O(\log(1/\tau))}$ would falsify the black-box guarantee on which Theorem 1.1's proof rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a path-counting argument on the stabilizer-neighbor graph, whose vertices are $2n$-qubit stabilizer states and whose edges join states of fidelity $1/2$. Starting from any Clifford Choi state $|C\rangle\rangle$ with fidelity $\mathrm{opt}$ to the unknown Choi state $|U\rangle\rangle$, the algorithm follows edges that increase fidelity by a factor of at least $1/\gamma$ until it reaches a $\gamma$-approximate local maximizer, which stabilizer bootstrapping is guaranteed to output with nonnegligible probability. Because each edge changes entanglement entropy across the Choi cut by at most one, a state reached in $t$ steps is a superposition of at most $t$ maximally entangled stabilizer states, so it can be rounded back to a Clifford Choi state at a cost of at most $2^t$ in fidelity. Choosing $\gamma = 1/2 + \varepsilon/(12\log(1/\varepsilon))$ balances the fidelity gained along the path against the loss in rounding, yielding an output Clifford with fidelity at least $\mathrm{opt} - \varepsilon$. The same protocol, composed with a decomposition algorithm for bounded-extent states, learns unitaries and Hamiltonians of bounded Clifford extent.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on a black-box promise about the stabilizer-state search subroutine: that it outputs every near-optimal stabilizer state with the promised probability, even when the target fidelity is as low as $\mathrm{opt} - \varepsilon$ and the local-improvement parameter is only a hair above $1/2$; if that promise fails at those parameters, Theorem 1.1 has no proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Proper agnostic tomography of Clifford unitaries is settled in quasipolynomial time, closing the open question left by the improper agnostic baseline and yielding a quasipolynomial-time tolerant tester for Clifford unitaries with $1/\mathrm{poly}(n)$ additive gap.
  • Unitaries with Clifford extent at most $\xi$ can be learned to normalized Frobenius error $\varepsilon$ with $\mathrm{poly}(n,(\xi/\varepsilon)^{\log(\xi/\varepsilon)},\log(1/\delta))$ queries and time, even when they are exponentially dense in the Pauli basis.
  • Hamiltonians with Clifford extent at most $\xi$ and $\mathrm{Tr}(H)=0$ can be learned from short-time evolution $\exp(-iHt)$ with the same quasipolynomial scaling, extending Hamiltonian learning beyond Pauli-sparse classes to Hamiltonians dense in the Pauli basis.
  • Every unitary's Choi state admits a structured decomposition into $O(1/\varepsilon^2)$ Clifford Choi states plus a residual of low Clifford fidelity, providing a classically simulable surrogate that can be compiled and used for circuit verification and error mitigation.
  • The learned Clifford is a genuine Clifford circuit, so the output can be directly simulated, compared with an intended circuit, and used as a surrogate in error-mitigation schemes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The stabilizer-neighbor template is general: any state class whose neighbor graph changes the relevant resource by $O(1)$ per edge should admit a strong agnostic learner by the same fidelity-gain/loss-rounding tradeoff; fermionic Gaussian states and low levels of the Clifford hierarchy are natural next targets.
  • Because the Hamiltonian learner requires short evolution times $t = O(\varepsilon/\xi^2)$, the result does not transfer to long-time evolution; the paper's own open question 3 flags this as a real boundary, and a long-time variant would have to avoid the Taylor truncation entirely.
  • Appendix B's exponential separation between Clifford extent of $U$ and stabilizer extent of its Choi state means the two Hamiltonian-learning algorithms are complementary, not redundant; a practical learner could compute both bounds and take the cheaper one, a hybrid the paper does not explicitly propose.
  • Corollary 4.2 controls the residual state only through its Clifford fidelity, not its norm; strengthening that residual guarantee to a norm bound would make the bounded-extent unitary tomography proper, which the paper lists as open future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies learning of n-qubit unitaries and Hamiltonians that are dense in the Pauli basis but admit concise Clifford decompositions. Its main contribution is a claimed proper agnostic tomography algorithm for Clifford unitaries: given query access to an unknown unitary U with optimal Clifford fidelity opt, the algorithm outputs a Clifford V with fidelity at least opt - ε in time poly(n,(1/ε)^{log(1/ε)},log(1/δ)). The proof proceeds by studying a stabilizer-neighbor graph, using stabilizer bootstrapping [CGYZ25] as a black box, and then rounding a nearby stabilizer state to a maximally entangled stabilizer state. The paper then applies this protocol, together with the bounded-extent tomography framework of [AD26], to obtain algorithms for learning unitaries and Hamiltonians with bounded Clifford extent, and it gives examples of Pauli-dense Clifford-sparse Hamiltonians.

Significance. If correct, the paper resolves an open question on proper agnostic tomography of Clifford unitaries and extends Hamiltonian learning from Pauli-sparse to Pauli-dense but Clifford-structured dynamics. The overall research direction is timely, and the paper contains useful observations: the stabilizer-neighbor graph analysis in Lemma 3.4 is clean, the dependence on [CGYZ25] is explicit, and the appendix gives a concrete exponential separation between Clifford extent and stabilizer extent of a Choi state. However, the central proof of Theorem 1.1 has a load-bearing gap in how it handles the unknown optimal fidelity opt, and the Hamiltonian application depends on a convention for the extent definition that is not pinned down. The gaps appear repairable, but they need to be addressed before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2] The reduction from Corollary 3.7 to the unknown-opt setting is invalid. Corollary 3.7 is conditional: if the actual Clifford fidelity opt is at least τ, the algorithm outputs V with |⟨⟨U|V⟩⟩|² ≥ τ−ε. If τ > opt, the premise is false and no guarantee applies; the sentence "If τ > opt, the algorithm will fail to find a Clifford with the desired fidelity" is unsupported, and when τ−ε < opt the target fidelity τ−ε is actually achievable, so failure is not forced. Conversely, the proposed acceptance test "returns a Clifford with fidelity at least τ−ε" can pass for τ much smaller than opt, in which case the output can have fidelity below opt−ε. The complexity in Claim 3.6 is poly(n,(1/(ετ))^{log(1/τ)},log(1/δ)), so any search that runs at a small τ without knowledge of opt exceeds the stated poly(n,(1/ε)^{log(1/ε)}) bound. A grid search over τ∈[ε,1] with maximum estimated fidelity, and treating opt<ε as trivial, would repair the argument, but this repair is not in the manuscript; as written, Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 3.1 are not proved.
  2. [Claim 3.6] The proof uses the inequality "since 2αt ≤ ε/2" after setting γ=1/2+α with α≤ε/(12 log(1/ε)) and t≤3 log(1/τ). Substituting gives 2αt ≤ (ε/2)·log(1/τ)/log(1/ε), which is only at most ε/2 when τ≥ε. The statements of Claim 3.6 and Corollary 3.7 allow arbitrary τ∈(0,1). If τ<ε the claimed guarantee τ−ε is negative and the problem is vacuous, but then the complexity expression (1/(ετ))^{log(1/τ)} is not the relevant description of the trivial case. The condition ε≤τ should be stated explicitly, or the vacuous regime should be handled separately, because Corollary 3.7 is the main subroutine in the proof of Theorem 1.1.
  3. [Definition 2.4] The Clifford extent in Definition 2.4 is defined as a minimum over decompositions without specifying whether the support must be finite. The proof of Theorem 4.4 bounds ξ_Cliff(exp(−iHt)) by e^{tξ} using the infinite Taylor series in Eqs. (21)–(22); the series has finite ℓ1 norm but infinite support. If Definition 2.4, and the [AD26] theorems used in Corollary 4.3, require finite decompositions, this bound is not a valid extent bound. If infinite ℓ1 decompositions are intended, that convention must be written into Definition 2.4 and the model-class results must be compatible with it. As written, the Hamiltonian learning theorem relies on an unspecified convention, and the proof needs to either allow infinite decompositions or replace the infinite series by a truncated series with an explicit approximation error.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definition 2.1] The normalization factor 1/√(2N) in the definition of dist(A,B) is inconsistent with the note that dist(A,B)² = 1 − |⟨⟨A|B⟩⟩| for unitaries and with the later bound ||V−e^{iθ}U(t)||₂ ≤ √2 ε1 in Eq. (23). If ||·||₂ is the normalized Frobenius norm, the factor should be 1/√2, not 1/√(2N).
  2. [Eq. (1)] The normalized Frobenius norm is written as ||A||₂ = sqrt(Tr(A†A)/√N), which has the wrong dimension; the standard definition is sqrt(Tr(A†A)/N). This typo propagates into Definition 2.1 and should be corrected.
  3. [Theorem 1.2] The complexity statements use inconsistent notation: for example, Theorem 1.2 writes "poly(n,(1/ε)^{log(1/ε)},log(1/δ))" while Theorem 4.4 writes "poly(n(ξ/ε)^{log(ξ/ε)} log(1/δ))" without separating commas. The proof of Theorem 4.4 also produces exponents with extra constant factors, so the paper should state that O(1) factors in the exponent are absorbed.
  4. [Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 takes a fidelity lower bound τ as input, while Theorem 3.1 promises an output for unknown optimal fidelity opt. The relationship between τ and opt is never specified in the algorithm statement; this is related to the gap in the proof of Theorem 1.1 and should be clarified when the binary-search argument is repaired.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem 1.1's derivation rests on the external [CGYZ25] list-decoding theorem, and the same-author [AD26] citation is a parameter-free model-class black box, not a re-import of the target conclusion.

full rationale

The central claim (Theorem 1.1) is not circular: its proof reduces to the external stabilizer-bootstrapping list-decoding theorem of [CGYZ25] (Theorem 2.10 / Corollary 6.2), which is cited from a disjoint author group and whose assumptions (gamma-approximate local maximizers with fidelity at least tau) are stated independently of the Clifford-fidelity target. Claims 3.5 and 3.6 then supply a graph-theoretic rounding argument that does not re-use Theorem 1.1. The bounded-extent applications (Corollaries 4.2-4.3, Theorem 4.4) invoke [AD26]'s general model-class decomposition theorem; although [AD26] shares an author with this paper, it is a parameter-free theorem about arbitrary model classes satisfying Definition 2.11, and the present paper supplies the required agnostic protocol for the Clifford-Choi model class via Theorem 3.1, rather than assuming the Clifford tomography conclusion. Thus the same-author citation is not load-bearing in the sense of reducing the conclusion to its own assumptions. The Section 3.2 passage claiming a binary search over tau to recover unknown opt is logically under-supported (success at threshold tau-epsilon does not by itself certify opt-epsilon), but this is an unsound-inference or correctness gap, not a circular definition or a fitted-parameter rename; accordingly it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No empirical fits or newly postulated physical entities appear. The ledger lists the external theorems and normal forms imported as black boxes, plus the analytically chosen error parameters. The heaviest reliance is on stabilizer bootstrapping [CGYZ25] and on [AD26], which shares an author with the present paper.

free parameters (3)
  • γ = 1/2 + ε/(12 log(1/ε))
    Chosen in Algorithm 1 to balance the fidelity gain against the rounding loss in Claim 3.6. It is an analytical proof parameter, not an empirical fit.
  • t = ε/(3eξ^2) in Theorem 4.4; ε/(3e(g*h*)^2) in Theorem 4.6
    Short evolution time chosen to keep the Taylor remainder and the Clifford or stabilizer extent bounded. It is fixed by the error analysis, not fitted to data.
  • ε1 = ε^2/(18√2 e ξ^2) in Theorem 4.4; ε^2/(18e(g*h*)^2) in Theorem 4.6
    Intermediate unitary or state learning error chosen so that the final Hamiltonian error is at most ε. It is an analytical choice, not an empirical parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stabilizer bootstrapping theorems of [CGYZ25, Thm 2.8, 2.10, Cor 6.2]: strong agnostic tomography of stabilizer states and list-decoding of γ-approximate local maximizers.
    Invoked in Algorithm 1 step 1 and Claim 3.5; supplies the output state and probability bound that the neighbor-graph rounding starts from.
  • domain assumption [AD26, Thm 2.12, 2.13]: model-class agnostic tomography implies tomography of bounded-extent states.
    Used to derive Corollaries 4.2 and 4.3. One author overlaps with the present paper, so this is a self-cited but independent external theorem.
  • standard math Normal form of bipartite stabilizer states [FCY+04]: any 2n-qubit stabilizer state can be brought by local Cliffords to |EPR_k>|0>...; the entanglement entropy is n - log|S_A|.
    Used in Claim 3.6 and Appendix A to decompose the bootstrapped state and to round back to a Clifford Choi state.
  • domain assumption [HBvD+26]: F_Cliff(U) ≥ F_Stab(|U>>)^6.
    Used only in the weak agnostic protocol in Appendix A to convert stabilizer fidelity of the Choi state into Clifford fidelity.
  • standard math Choi-state isometry: preparing |U>> by applying U to half an EPR state gives sample access equivalent to query access to U.
    Used throughout to reduce unitary tomography to state tomography; requires n ancillas and coherent control.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Clifford-structured quantum unitaries and Hamiltonians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LWQST7X6

@misc{pith2026260809912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Clifford-structured quantum unitaries and Hamiltonians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LWQST7X6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09912}
}
abstract

Learning algorithms for structured quantum unitaries and Hamiltonians have primarily considered classes of processes that are local or sparse in the Pauli basis. We turn our attention to learning $n$-qubit quantum unitaries $U$ and Hamiltonians $H$, given query access to $U$ or the unitary evolution of $H$, that may be dense in the Pauli basis but still admit concise Clifford decompositions. Specifically, we consider unitaries (or Hamiltonians) of the form $U = \sum_i \alpha_i C_i$ over Cliffords $C_i$ with bounded Clifford extent $\sum_i |\alpha_i|$. To extract this Clifford structure, we introduce an agnostic tomography protocol for Clifford unitaries that given query access to an unknown unitary $U$ with optimal Clifford fidelity $\textsf{opt}$, outputs a Clifford unitary witnessing fidelity $\geq \textsf{opt} - \varepsilon$ for some error $\varepsilon > 0$, in time $\textsf{poly}(n,(1/\varepsilon)^{\log(1/\varepsilon)})$. We then apply this protocol to obtain tomography protocols for unitaries and Hamiltonians that have bounded Clifford extent. This extends learnability of Hamiltonians from those with sparse Pauli decompositions to those that are dense (i.e., has sparsity $\Omega(2^n)$) in the Pauli basis but are Clifford structured.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Clifford Testing: Algorithms and Lower Bounds , year =

    Hinsche, Marcel and Bao, Zongbo and van Dordrecht, Philippe and Eisert, Jens and Bri\". Clifford Testing: Algorithms and Lower Bounds , year =. doi:10.1145/3798129.3800801 , booktitle =

    arXiv

  2. [3]

    Agnostic

    Wadhwa, Chirag and Lewis, Laura and Kashefi, Elham and Doosti, Mina , journal =. Agnostic. 2025 , month =. doi:10.1103/q2nb-zg9m , url =

    work page doi:10.1103/q2nb-zg9m 2025

  3. [4]

    Improved Quantum data analysis , year =

    B. Improved Quantum data analysis , year =. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =. doi:10.1145/3406325.3451109 , abstract =

    arXiv

  4. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00593 , year=

    Linear-Size QAC0 Channels: Learning, Testing and Hardness , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00593 , year=

    arXiv

  5. [6]

    and Liu, Yi-Kai , journal =

    Flammia, Steven T. and Liu, Yi-Kai , journal =. Direct Fidelity Estimation from Few. 2011 , doi =. 1104.4695 , archivePrefix =

    arXiv 2011

  6. [7]

    Physical Review Letters , volume =

    Practical Characterization of Quantum Devices without Tomography , author =. Physical Review Letters , volume =. 2011 , doi =. 1104.3835 , archivePrefix =

    arXiv 2011

  7. [8]

    Physical Review Letters , volume =

    Scalable and Robust Randomized Benchmarking of Quantum Processes , author =. Physical Review Letters , volume =. 2011 , doi =. 1009.3639 , archivePrefix =

    arXiv 2011

  8. [9]

    Physical Review Letters , volume =

    Error Mitigation for Short-Depth Quantum Circuits , author =. Physical Review Letters , volume =. 2017 , doi =. 1612.02058 , archivePrefix =

    arXiv 2017

Show all 63 references
  1. [10]

    Physical Review X , volume =

    Practical Quantum Error Mitigation for Near-Future Applications , author =. Physical Review X , volume =. 2018 , doi =. 1712.09271 , archivePrefix =

    2018 arXiv

  2. [11]

    and Cincio, Lukasz , journal =

    Czarnik, Piotr and Arrasmith, Andrew and Coles, Patrick J. and Cincio, Lukasz , journal =. Error Mitigation with. 2021 , doi =. 2005.10189 , archivePrefix =

    2021 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Physical Review Research , volume =

    Unified Approach to Data-Driven Quantum Error Mitigation , author =. Physical Review Research , volume =. 2021 , doi =. 2011.01157 , archivePrefix =

    2021 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Quantum , volume =

    Simulation of Quantum Circuits by Low-Rank Stabilizer Decompositions , author =. Quantum , volume =. 2019 , doi =. 1808.00128 , archivePrefix =

    2019 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Preprint available at https://simons

    Real analysis in computer science: A collection of open problems , author=. Preprint available at https://simons. berkeley. edu/sites/default/files/openprobsmerged. pdf , year=

  6. [15]

    arXiv preprint quant-ph/0406168 , year=

    Entanglement in the stabilizer formalism , author=. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0406168 , year=

    arXiv

  7. [16]

    Query-optimal estimation of unitary channels via

    Grewal, Sabee and Liang, Daniel , journal=. Query-optimal estimation of unitary channels via

  8. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19966 , year=

    Quantum circuit lower bounds in the magic hierarchy , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19966 , year=

    arXiv

  9. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.07425 , year=

    Tomography of quantum states with bounded extent , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.07425 , year=

    arXiv

  10. [19]

    Quantum , volume=

    Efficient learning of quantum states prepared with few non-Clifford gates , author=. Quantum , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  11. [20]

    Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , volume=

    Learning and testing algorithms for the Clifford group , author=. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  12. [21]

    51st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2024) , pages =

    Arunachalam, Srinivasan and Dutt, Arkopal and Escudero Guti\'. 51st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2024) , pages =. 2024 , volume =. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2024.13 , annote =

    2024 doi

  13. [22]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume=

    Learning quantum circuits of some T gates , author=. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  14. [23]

    The Thirty Sixth Annual Conference on Learning Theory , pages=

    On testing and learning quantum junta channels , author=. The Thirty Sixth Annual Conference on Learning Theory , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  15. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00203 , year=

    Query Learning Nearly Pauli Sparse Unitaries in Diamond Distance , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00203 , year=

  16. [25]

    Testing and Learning Structured Quantum Hamiltonians , year =

    Arunachalam, Srinivasan and Dutt, Arkopal and Escudero Guti\'. Testing and Learning Structured Quantum Hamiltonians , year =. doi:10.1145/3717823.3718289 , booktitle =

  17. [26]

    arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 , year=

    The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers , author=. arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 , year=

    arXiv

  18. [27]

    Physical review letters , volume=

    Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by Clifford gates , author=. Physical review letters , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  19. [28]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Quantum higher-order Fourier analysis and the Clifford hierarchy , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  20. [29]

    48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'07) , pages=

    Structure and randomness in combinatorics , author=. 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'07) , pages=. 2007 , organization=

    2007

  21. [30]

    Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages=

    Improved stabilizer estimation via bell difference sampling , author=. Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages=

  22. [31]

    Quantum Science & Technology , volume=

    Lower bounds on the non-Clifford resources for quantum computations , author=. Quantum Science & Technology , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  23. [32]

    Property testing of unitary operators , author =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2011 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.84.052328 , url =

    2011 doi

  24. [33]

    Communications in Mathematical Physics , year=

    Schur–Weyl Duality for the Clifford Group with Applications: Property Testing, a Robust Hudson Theorem, and de Finetti Representations , author=. Communications in Mathematical Physics , year=

  25. [34]

    Nature Physics , volume=

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements , author=. Nature Physics , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  26. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18928 , year=

    Learning k -body Hamiltonians via compressed sensing , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18928 , year=

    arXiv

  27. [36]

    Quantum , volume=

    Robust and efficient Hamiltonian learning , author=. Quantum , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  28. [37]

    Clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over

    Dehaene, Jeroen and De Moor, Bart , journal =. Clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over. 2003 , publisher =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.68.042318 , url =

    2003 doi

  29. [38]

    arXiv quant-ph/0302002 , year=

    Efficient synthesis of linear reversible circuits , author=. arXiv quant-ph/0302002 , year=

    arXiv

  30. [39]

    Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , chapter =

    Thomas Chen and Shivam Nadimpalli and Henry Yuen , title =. Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , chapter =. doi:10.1137/1.9781611977554.ch43 , URL =

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    Proceedings of the 2026 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages=

    A near-optimal quadratic Goldreich-Levin algorithm , author=. Proceedings of the 2026 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages=. 2026 , organization=. doi:10.1137/1.9781611978971.224 , URL =

    2026 doi

  32. [41]

    Efficient learning of bosonic

    Fanizza, Marco and Iyer, Vishnu and Lee, Junseo and Mele, Antonio A and Mele, Francesco A , journal=. Efficient learning of bosonic

  33. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11318 , year=

    Mildly-interacting fermionic unitaries are efficiently learnable , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11318 , year=

    arXiv

  34. [43]

    , title =

    Huang, Hsin-Yuan and Liu, Yunchao and Broughton, Michael and Kim, Isaac and Anshu, Anurag and Landau, Zeph and McClean, Jarrod R. , title =. 2024 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3618260.3649722 , booktitle =

    2024

  35. [44]

    PRX Quantum , volume =

    Learning Quantum States and Unitaries of Bounded Gate Complexity , author =. PRX Quantum , volume =. 2024 , month =. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.040306 , url =

    2024 doi

  36. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07937 , year=

    Improved Hamiltonian learning and sparsity testing through Bell sampling , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07937 , year=

    arXiv

  37. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.27838 , year=

    Heisenberg-limited Hamiltonian learning without short-time control , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.27838 , year=

    arXiv

  38. [48]

    PRX Quantum , volume =

    Ansatz-Free Hamiltonian Learning with Heisenberg-Limited Scaling , author =. PRX Quantum , volume =. 2025 , month =. doi:10.1103/j7b8-pb77 , url =

    2025 doi

  39. [49]

    Learning Many-Body Hamiltonians with Heisenberg-Limited Scaling , author =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2023 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.200403 , url =

    2023 doi

  40. [50]

    Quantum , volume=

    The advantage of quantum control in many-body Hamiltonian learning , author=. Quantum , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  41. [51]

    arXiv e-prints , pages=

    Lower Bounds for Learning Hamiltonians from Time Evolution , author=. arXiv e-prints , pages=

  42. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05690 , year=

    Learning Hamiltonians at Long Times , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05690 , year=

    arXiv

  43. [53]

    , title =

    Caro, Matthias C. , title =. 2024 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3670418 , journal =

    2024 doi

  44. [54]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.09813 , year=

    Nearly optimal algorithms to learn sparse quantum Hamiltonians in physically motivated distances , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.09813 , year=

    arXiv

  45. [55]

    Structure Learning of Hamiltonians from Real-Time Evolution , year=

    Bakshi, Ainesh and Liu, Allen and Moitra, Ankur and Tang, Ewin , booktitle=. Structure Learning of Hamiltonians from Real-Time Evolution , year=

  46. [56]

    Quantum , volume=

    Hamiltonian learning via shadow tomography of pseudo-choi states , author=. Quantum , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  47. [57]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02444 , year=

    Optimal stabilizer testing and learning with limited quantum memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02444 , year=

    arXiv

  48. [58]

    Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =

    Hinsche, Marcel and Helsen, Jonas , title =. Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =. 2025 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3717823.3718169 , abstract =

    2025

  49. [59]

    , title =

    Arunachalam, Srinivasan and Bravyi, Sergey and Dutt, Arkopal and Yoder, Theodore J. , title =. 18th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2023) , pages =. 2023 , volume =. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2023.3 , annote =

    2023 doi

  50. [60]

    Concentration inequalities for sampling without replacement , author=

  51. [61]

    2026 , publisher=

    Kalra, Amolak Ratan and Sinha, Pulkit , journal=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  52. [62]

    Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages=

    Improved bounds for testing low stabilizer complexity states , author=. Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages=

  53. [63]

    Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages=

    Quadratic lower bounds on the approximate stabilizer rank: A probabilistic approach , author=. Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages=

  54. [64]

    Journal of Mathematical Physics , volume=

    How to efficiently select an arbitrary Clifford group element , author=. Journal of Mathematical Physics , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  55. [65]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.07848 , year=

    On the geometry of stabilizer states , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.07848 , year=

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.