Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Efficient simulation of parametrized quantum circuits under non-unital noise through Pauli backpropagation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that Pauli backpropagation, a classical simulation technique for parameterized quantum circuits, works for non-unital noise—specifically amplitude damping—not just the unital noise covered by earlier guarantees.

desk verdict Solid extension of LOWESA to non-unital noise, but Theorem 4's concentration proof doesn't close as written and the depth-independence claim is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13050 v1 pith:4TL2PZU2 submitted 2025-01-22 quant-ph cs.CCmath-phmath.MP

Victor Martinez , Armando Angrisani , Ekaterina Pankovets , Omar Fawzi , Daniel Stilck França This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.CCmath-phmath.MP
keywords Paulibackpropagationamplitudedampingnon-unitalnoiseparameterizedquantumcircuitsclassicalsimulationL2approximationCliffordMonteCarlotreesampling
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 proves that Pauli backpropagation, a classical simulation technique for parameterized quantum circuits, remains efficient when the circuit noise is non-unital, specifically amplitude damping. It presents two polynomial-time algorithms that approximate the expectation value of any Pauli observable as a function of the rotation angles, with error measured in L2 norm over the full angle range. This matters because real hardware noise is often non-unital, whereas earlier Pauli backpropagation guarantees covered unital noise such as depolarizing. The paper also extends the result to any single-qubit noise channel that can be brought into normal form with Clifford diagonalizing unitaries.

What carries the argument

The engine is the Pauli transfer matrix decomposition of the noisy rotation $R_z(\theta) \circ \mathcal{N}_{AD}$ into five quantum processes $D_0$, $D_{0Z}$, $D_{0I}$, $D_1$, $D_{-1}$, so that backpropagating a Pauli string through the circuit builds a binary tree of paths. Each split corresponds to one of those processes; the vector $\omega$ records which process occurred at each layer, and the trigonometric monomials $\Phi_\omega(\theta)$ carry the angle dependence. The key analysis shows that when two discarded paths contribute to the L2 error, they must share the same $h(\omega)$ (where $0$, $0Z$, and $0I$ are identified), and a split through $D_{\pm 1}$ multiplies the contribution by $1-\gamma$ while a split through $D_{0Z}/D_{0I}$ leaves it unchanged, yielding the exponential-in-$\ell$ damping that makes truncation effective.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on a concrete instance—say, a QAOA circuit on a 3-regular graph with amplitude damping $\gamma = 0.1$—compute the exact expectation value by state-vector simulation on a dense grid of angles, and compare the empirical L2 error with the certificate $(1-\gamma)^{r/2}$. If the empirical error exceeds that bound with a clear margin, Theorem 1 is false; the paper's own warning that L2 convergence does not imply pointwise accuracy can be demonstrated by fixing an angle where the surrogate deviates by more than the bound, though that alone would not refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for circuits built from alternating layers of Clifford gates, single-qubit $Z$-rotations, and amplitude-damping channels with parameter $\gamma > 0$, the expectation value $f(\theta) = \mathrm{tr}(\mathcal{U}_\theta(|0\rangle\langle 0|)P)$ can be approximated in time $O(n^2 m 2^{\ell})$ to L2 error at most $(1-\gamma)^{r/2}$ (Algorithm 1), and with an additional Monte-Carlo sampling overhead $K$ in time $O(K n^2 m 2^{\ell})$ to error $(1-\gamma)^{(\ell+1)/2} + \sqrt{2\log(\delta^{-1/2})/K}$ with probability at least $1-\delta$ (Algorithm 2). The L2 error is the root-mean-square deviation over the parameter space $[0,2\pi]^m$. The proof works by decomposing each noisy rotation in the Heisenberg picture into five quantum processes and tracking how often the dampening processes $D_{\pm 1}$ occur on discarded branches, showing that every such split reduces the error by a factor $1-\gamma$, while splits through $D_{0Z}/D_{0I}$ leave it unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The approximation is only guaranteed to be close on average over all rotation angles in the L2 sense; for a specific set of angles, the surrogate can be arbitrarily far from the true expectation value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any circuit in the alternating Clifford-plus-$R_z$ family under amplitude damping can be simulated classically in polynomial time, with runtime independent of circuit depth and hardware geometry.
  • Algorithm 2 removes the "almost any circuit" caveat: the Monte-Carlo sampling guarantees the L2 error bound for every circuit in the family, not just typical ones.
  • Algorithm 1 returns a certificate $r$, the minimum number of dampening splits on discarded branches, giving a per-instance error bound that can be computed directly from the circuit and observable.
  • The same machinery covers compositions and probabilistic mixes of amplitude damping, dephasing, and depolarizing noise, since these fit the normal-form class of single-qubit channels handled in Appendix D.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If variational algorithms mostly care about the shape of the energy landscape rather than pointwise accuracy at one angle, this result suggests classical simulation can track noisy landscapes under realistic hardware noise, not just depolarizing.
  • The L2-only guarantee means the surrogate is not trustworthy for reporting a specific expectation value at a fixed optimized angle; a practical simulator should pair it with a pointwise check at the angles it actually uses.
  • Because the known results on non-unital noise show that structured circuits can sustain long computations, the boundary between classically simulable and not is likely set by circuit structure rather than by whether the noise is unital; extending this to noisy continuous-time evolution is a natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 extends Pauli backpropagation (LOWESA) to parametrized quantum circuits subject to non-unital noise, focusing on amplitude damping and general normal-form non-unital channels. The authors decompose noisy Rz rotations in the Pauli transfer matrix formalism into tree-structured processes, truncate the tree by the number of splittings, and propose a deterministic algorithm (Algorithm 1) and a Monte Carlo version (Algorithm 2). The main theorems claim L2-average approximation guarantees: Algorithm 1 achieves error at most (1−γ)^{r/2} in time O(n^2 m 2^ℓ), and Algorithm 2 achieves, with probability at least 1−δ, error at most (1−γ)^{(ℓ+1)/2} + sqrt(2 log(δ^{−1/2})/K) in time O(K n^2 m 2^ℓ). An extension to normal-form non-unital channels is presented in Appendix D.

Significance. If the proofs were correct, this would be a valuable extension of Pauli backpropagation beyond unital noise and beyond the random-circuit assumptions of previous work, and the tree-splitting analysis in Lemma 2 and Proposition 3 is a genuine technical contribution. The algorithms are concrete, with explicit runtimes, and the QAOA numerical experiments in Appendix A provide a useful sanity check. However, the high-probability bound for Algorithm 2 is not established by the submitted proof, and the extension to general normal-form channels rests on an unjustified sign assumption in Lemma 5. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claims, so the manuscript needs substantive revision before the results can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Theorem 4 (Eq. C11) and Theorem 1 (Eq. 13)] The final step of the proof of Theorem 4 applies Hoeffding's inequality to the L2 error Δ(f, f_hat), but Hoeffding's inequality controls a fixed scalar random variable, not a norm of a function-valued estimator. The quantity Δ(f, f_hat) is not an average of K independent bounded scalars, and bounding it with probability 1−δ requires an additional uniform bound over the angle space or a vector-valued concentration argument (e.g., a covering argument or McDiarmid applied to Δ as a function of all K samples). Moreover, even pointwise the stated constant is wrong: for independent samples bounded in [−1,1], Hoeffding gives sqrt(2 log(2/δ)/K), not sqrt(2 log(δ^{−1/2})/K). As written, Eq. (C11) and the corresponding part of Theorem 1 are unsupported. The preceding expectation bound E[Δ] ≤ (1−γ)^{(ℓ+1)/2} + 1/sqrt(K) does not imply the claimed high-probability guarantee.
  2. [Appendix D, Lemma 5, proof around Eq. (D9)] The proof of Lemma 5 asserts at the last equality that 'the coefficients D_P have all the same sign', but this is not proven and is not a property of every normal-form non-unital channel. CPTP constraints alone do not force D_X, D_Y, and D_Z to share a common sign. Without this assumption, the identity |∑_P b_P^2 D_P + |b_P t_P| sign(D_P)| = ∑_P (b_P^2 |D_P| + |b_P t_P|) can fail, and the conclusions |D_P| + |t_P| ≤ 1 and uniqueness of equality do not follow. Since Theorem 6's truncation bound depends on these conclusions, the claimed extension to general normal-form non-unital noise is not established as stated. The authors should either prove the sign property from complete positivity or restrict the noise class accordingly.
  3. [Abstract and Section II (Eq. 4)] The abstract and introduction state that the paper shows how to 'efficiently simulate' parameterized quantum circuits under non-unital noise, but the theorems provide guarantees only in the L2 norm averaged over all rotation angles, and the paper itself acknowledges after Eq. (4) that convergence in this metric does not imply success for a given set of angles. This is a serious scope limitation for the practical interpretation of the results: for applications that require a pointwise accurate expectation value at specific optimized parameters, the theorems give no bound. The headline claims should be consistently qualified as average-case-over-parameters guarantees so that the reader is not misled about the strength of the simulation result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C, Algorithm 2, line 8] The line '˜ˆf(θ) ← 1/K ˜f_k(θ)' inside the for-loop overwrites the accumulator, so the algorithm as written does not compute the empirical average of Eq. (C3). It should be an accumulating update of the form '˜ˆf(θ) ← ˜ˆf(θ) + (1/K) ˜f_k(θ)'.
  2. [Introduction, Section I] The sentence 'the runtime of the algorithm is independent of both the quantum chip geometry and the depth of the quantum circuit' appears inaccurate, because Theorem 1 reports a runtime of O(n^2 m 2^ℓ), which depends linearly on m, the number of layers/rotations and hence on the circuit depth.
  3. [Notation throughout] The notation for the zero-like processes is inconsistent: the text uses both '0Z' and '0z' (e.g., below Eq. (7) versus Appendix B), and the set of modes is written with both '0z' and '0Z'. Please unify the notation.
  4. [Appendix D, paragraph after Eq. (D12)] The statement that the diagonalizing Cliffords can be absorbed into the circuit 'without loss of generality' is terse: absorbing them changes the positions of the rotations relative to the noise channel, so this reduction needs a short justification or a pointer to a previous argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the error bounds are proved from the tree/channel structure; the flagged Hoeffding concern is a correctness gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Algorithm 1's truncation error is an exact Fourier/tree decomposition (Eqs. B4-B10, Lemma 2), and the bound Delta^2(f, f_tilde) <= (1-gamma)^r follows by counting damped splits; r is a certificate computed from the backpropagated tree, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Algorithm 2's estimator is unbiased by explicit reweighting, and Theorem 4 combines a truncation bound with a Monte-Carlo term; no quantity in the bound is set equal to its own output. The only overlapping-author citation, Lemma 5 'adapted from Ref. [30]', is accompanied by a full proof, so it does not import an unverified premise. The possible flaw in Theorem 4 is in the last step of Appendix C: 'By applying Hoeffding's inequality...' to the L2 norm (after Eq. C10). Hoeffding controls a fixed scalar, and even pointwise the stated constant does not match the [-1,1] range; this is a correctness/missing-support concern, not a circularity, and does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorems rely on no fitted parameters. They depend on the standard PTM formalism, trigonometric orthogonality for L2 errors, and the stated circuit and noise assumptions. The average-case Proposition 3 requires an additional random Clifford gate before each rotation. The only questionable premise is the unstated same-sign assumption on the normal-form D coefficients in the Lemma 5 proof.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Pauli transfer matrix (PTM) formalism and the orthogonality of trigonometric monomials over [0,2pi]^m
    Used throughout to derive Eq. 7, Lemma 2, and the L2 error expressions.
  • domain assumption The circuit family is restricted to alternating Clifford layers and single-qubit Rz rotations with noise applied only to the rotations
    Defined in Eq. 2; the tree splitting analysis only holds for this architecture.
  • domain assumption The noise channel is amplitude damping for the main result, or a channel in normal form with Clifford diagonalizing unitaries for Appendix D
    Eq. 5 defines the adjoint amplitude damping action; Appendix D generalizes to normal-form channels.
  • domain assumption L2 norm over the parameter space is the accepted approximation metric
    Eq. 4; the paper explicitly notes pointwise convergence is not implied.
  • domain assumption For Proposition 3, a single-qubit random Clifford gate is inserted before each rotation
    Added to randomize the Pauli at the rotated qubit; the average-case bound of Eq. B13 depends on this extra circuit structure.
  • ad hoc to paper The normal-form parameters D_P are all of the same sign, used in the proof of Lemma 5
    The paper claims this without stating it as a property of the normal form; it is not justified in the text and may be false for general non-unital channels, though the lemma is attributed to Ref. [30].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient simulation of parametrized quantum circuits under non-unital noise through Pauli backpropagation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4TL2PZU2

@misc{pith2026250113050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient simulation of parametrized quantum circuits under non-unital noise through Pauli backpropagation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4TL2PZU2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13050}
}
read the original abstract

As quantum devices continue to grow in size but remain affected by noise, it is crucial to determine when and how they can outperform classical computers on practical tasks. A central piece in this effort is to develop the most efficient classical simulation algorithms possible. Among the most promising approaches are Pauli backpropagation algorithms, which have already demonstrated their ability to efficiently simulate certain classes of parameterized quantum circuits-a leading contender for near-term quantum advantage-under random circuit assumptions and depolarizing noise. However, their efficiency was not previously established for more realistic non-unital noise models, such as amplitude damping, that better capture noise on existing hardware. Here, we close this gap by adapting Pauli backpropagation to non-unital noise, proving that it remains efficient even under these more challenging conditions. Our proof leverages a refined combinatorial analysis to handle the complexities introduced by non-unital channels, thus strengthening Pauli backpropagation as a powerful tool for simulating near-term quantum devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Representation of parametrised quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Tree corresponding to the backpropagation of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Branch of a tree resulting from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Two different branches of a tree resulting from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Lower bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (a) Tree corresponding to the backpropagation of a single observable through the circuit. (b) Example of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Interplay of resources for universal continuous-variable quantum computing

    quant-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The authors define symplectic coherence, show that circuits with little of it can be classically simulated, and map this resource to coherence in discrete-variable quantum computing via the GKP encoding.

  2. Pauli Propagation: A Computational Framework for Simulating Quantum Systems

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Pauli propagation, a classical method that evolves Pauli operators through quantum circuits, is presented as a unified algorithmic framework together with the Julia package PauliPropagation.jl that implements it.

  3. One Polynomial Strategy for Computing Local Projections on Square-Lattice Cluster States

    quant-ph 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The note conjectures a polynomial-time recursive method for computing arbitrary local projections on 2D square-lattice cluster states, but the core 2D recursion is not proved and the numerical evidence is too small to...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Yu, Y.Zhao, andT.-C.Wei,Phys

    H. Yu, Y.Zhao, andT.-C.Wei,Phys. Rev.Res. 5,013183 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Carrera Vazquez, C

    A. Carrera Vazquez, C. Tornow, D. Ristè, S. Woerner, M. Takita, and D. J. Egger, Nature636, 75–79 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    J. R. Glick, T. P. Gujarati, A. D. Córcoles, Y. Kim, A. Kandala, J. M. Gambetta, and K. Temme, Nature Physics 20, 479–483 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625–644 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 (2022)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 2022

  7. [7]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature Communications5, 10.1038/ncomms5213 (2014)

    doi:10.1038/ncomms5213 2014

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Cerezo, K

    M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Arrasmith, and P. J. Coles, npj Quantum Information8, 10.1038/s41534-022-00611- 6 (2022)

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Bowles, S

    J. Bowles, S. Ahmed, and M. Schuld, Better than clas- sical? the subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models (2024), arXiv:2403.07059 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Communications12, 10.1038/s41467-021-27045-6 (2021)

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Stilck França and R

    D. Stilck França and R. García-Patrón, Nature Physics 17, 1221–1227 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Takagi, S

    R. Takagi, S. Endo, S. Minagawa, and M. Gu, npj Quan- tum Information 8, 10.1038/s41534-022-00618-z (2022)

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Schuster, C

    T. Schuster, C. Yin, X. Gao, and N. Y. Yao, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy quantum circuits (2024), arXiv:2407.12768 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. A. Mele, A. Angrisani, S. Ghosh, S. Khatri, J. Eisert, D.S.França,andY.Quek,Noise-inducedshallowcircuits and absence of barren plateaus (2024), arXiv:2403.13927 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chirolli and G

    L. Chirolli and G. Burkard, Advances in Physics 57, 225–285 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Blume-Kohout, J

    R. Blume-Kohout, J. K. Gamble, E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, J. Mizrahi, K. Fortier, and P. Maunz, Nature Communications 8, 10.1038/ncomms14485 (2017)

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Ben-Or, D

    M. Ben-Or, D. Gottesman, and A. Hassidim, Quantum refrigerator (2013), arXiv:1301.1995 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fontana, M

    E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, R. Duncan, I. Rungger, and C. Cîrstoiu, Classical simulations of noisy variational quantum circuits (2023), arXiv:2306.05400 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M. S. Rudolph, E. Fontana, Z. Holmes, and L. Cincio, Classical surrogate simulation of quantum systems with lowesa (2023), arXiv:2308.09109 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Begušić, J

    T. Begušić, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan, Science Advances 10, eadk4321 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adk4321

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Angrisani, A

    A. Angrisani, A. Schmidhuber, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, Z. Holmes, and H.-Y. Huang, Classically esti- mating observables of noiseless quantum circuits (2024), arXiv:2409.01706 [quant-ph]

    2024

  15. [23]

    Y. Shao, F. Wei, S. Cheng, and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 120603 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Lerch, R

    S. Lerch, R. Puig, M. S. Rudolph, A. Angrisani, T. Jones, M. Cerezo, S. Thanasilp, and Z. Holmes, Efficient quantum-enhanced classical simulation for patches of quantum landscapes (2024), arXiv:2411.19896 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bermejo, P

    P. Bermejo, P. Braccia, M. S. Rudolph, Z. Holmes, L. Cincio, and M. Cerezo, Quantum convolutional neu- ral networks are (effectively) classically simulable (2024), arXiv:2408.12739 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. Rall, D. Liang, J. Cook, and W. Kretschmer, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062337 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Aharonov, X

    D. Aharonov, X. Gao, Z. Landau, Y. Liu, and U. Vazi- rani, inProceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2023 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2023) p. 945–957

    2023

  20. [28]

    González-García, J

    G. González-García, J. I. Cirac, and R. Trivedi, Pauli path simulations of noisy quantum circuits beyond aver- age case (2024), arXiv:2407.16068 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Tanggara, M

    A. Tanggara, M. Gu, and K. Bharti, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00789 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Angrisani, A

    A. Angrisani, A. A. Mele, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, and Z. Holmes, Simulating quantum circuits with arbitrary local noise using pauli propagation (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Physical Review Letters116, 10.1103/physrevlett.116.250501 (2016)

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, A. D. Córcoles, S. T. Merkel, J. A. Smolin, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, J. R. Rozen, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Stef- fen, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 060501 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Physical Review A70, 10.1103/physreva.70.052328 (2004)

    2004 doi

  27. [35]

    landscape

    M. B. Ruskai, S. Szarek, and E. Werner, An analysis of completely-positive trace-preserving maps on 2x2 matri- ces (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0101003 [quant-ph]. 7 Appendix A: A verage Pauli backpropagation algorithm In this section we present the pseudocode for our deterministic ...

    2001 arXiv

  28. [36]

    ωi+1,...,i′−1 = ω′ i+1,...,i′−1: In this case, illustrated in Figure 3, it is clear that the same split occurs on both paths. If the split occurs through processesD±1 at i′, then the two resulting branches can only interact with themselves in order to satisfyh(ω) = h(ω′), and ...

  29. [37]

    Either both the branches split (the splits might not be the same here), or only one splits, the other encountering processD0

    ωi+1,...,i′−1 ̸= ω′ i+1,...,i′−1: In this case, illustrated in Figure 4, we need to be more careful as the split occuring on each branch might be different, and two cases are possible. Either both the branches split (the splits might not be the same here), or only one splits, ...

  30. [38]

    ∀P ∈ {X, Y, Z}, |DP | + |tP | ≤1,

  31. [39]

    and there exists at most oneP ∈ {X, Y, Z} such that |DP | + |tP | = 1. Proof. Let O be the observable andρ the state defined by, O = X P ∈{X,Y,Z } |bP | ·sign(tP DP )P and ρ = I + O 2 (D4) The operator norm ofO can be bounded as follow, 16 ||O||∞ = max σ |tr(Oσ)| = max r∈R3 ||...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.