Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Phase space tableau simulation for quantum computation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One binary tableau encodes non-stabilizer phase-space states efficiently.

desk verdict The CNC tableau idea is worth a look, but the Case IV update rule is internally inconsistent: a simple stabilizer measurement already produces an invalid tableau, so the main simulation claim is not supported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04033 v1 pith:DVF7MXTH submitted 2025-06-04 quant-ph

Selman Ipek , Atak Talay Yucel , Farzad Shahi , Cagdas Ozdemir , Cihan Okay This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68
keywords classicalsimulationphasespaceclosednon-contextualoperatorstableaualgorithmquantumcircuitsstabilizerformalismJordan-Wignerdecompositionmagicstates
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 introduces a tableau-based classical simulator for qubit quantum circuits that works in the phase-space representation of closed non-contextual (CNC) operators, a class of operators extending stabilizer states. The central claim is that a maximal CNC operator can be stored in $O(n^2)$ bits and updated under Clifford gates in $O(n)$ time and under Pauli measurements in $O(n^2)$ time, matching the scaling of stabilizer-tableau simulation while covering strictly more states. The authors implement the simulator and use it to estimate Born-rule probabilities of hidden shift and Deutsch-Jozsa circuits, where the CNC representation requires less negativity than stabilizer-based representations. If correct, the method widens the region of quantum circuits that are efficiently simulable classically.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a Jordan-Wigner decomposition of the symplectic vector space: an isotropic subspace $I$ of dimension $n-m$, a conjugate isotropic subspace $I'$, and a $2m$-dimensional symplectic subspace $W$ with a Jordan-Wigner basis $\{a_1,\dots,a_{2m+1}\}$ whose elements pairwise anti-commute and sum to zero. The decomposition casts a maximal CNC set as a union of isotropic subspaces $\langle a_k,I\rangle$, turning both Clifford conjugation and Pauli measurement into row operations on a tableau whose rows are the destabilizer, stabilizer, and Jordan-Wigner parts. The four update cases and the row product $\tilde R(a)*\tilde R(b)=(R(a)+R(b), s+r+\beta(a,b))$ are the mechanism that transfers a symbolic operator update into an explicit binary-array algorithm.

What would settle it

Run the implemented simulator on a small circuit, for example $n=4$ qubits initialized in a maximal CNC state of type $(4,2)$, and compare its measurement-outcome frequencies with exact Born-rule probabilities from full state-vector simulation for a Pauli observable in the $I^\perp\setminus\Omega$ case with $t=2$; a reproducible mismatch would falsify the update rules.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the $n$-qubit phase space can be decomposed into three compatible parts: a stabilizer isotropic subspace $I$, a conjugate destabilizer subspace $I'$, and a symplectic Jordan-Wigner part $W$ spanned by a maximal pairwise anti-commuting set $\{a_1,\dots,a_{2m+1}\}$. Every maximal CNC set then has the form $\bigcup_{k=1}^{2m+1}\langle a_k, I\rangle$, so the whole pair (set plus value assignment) fits in one $(2n+1)\times(2n+1)$ binary tableau. Pauli measurement updates split into four cases, ranging from fully deterministic updates in the center to random updates that either shrink the Jordan-Wigner index or replace a stabilizer row, and each case is implemented by row products and bit additions. This makes the phase-space update rules of CNC theory computationally explicit and yields the claimed $O(n)$ and $O(n^2)$ complexity bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the paper's four-case tableau update rules faithfully implement the phase-space operator update formula for CNC pairs; Cases III and IV are justified by construction from a supporting lemma rather than by a separate proof, and if that correspondence is wrong the samples will not follow the quantum Born rule.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A classical simulator can handle circuits whose initial states lie in the CNC polytope, not only the stabilizer polytope, with the same $O(n^2)$ memory scaling as stabilizer tableaus.
  • Weak simulation, sampling directly from the Born distribution, is efficient for stabilizer instruments acting on CNC states whenever the phase-space weight is a proper probability distribution.
  • For states with negativity, Born-rule estimation requires $O(\|W\|_1^2)$ samples, and because CNC robustness is upper-bounded by stabilizer robustness, the CNC representation gives at least as efficient estimation as stabilizer-based quasi-probability simulation.
  • The four-case update rules reduce to the standard stabilizer tableau at $m=0$, and the pseudocode makes the phase-space update rules explicit enough to implement and benchmark.
  • Benchmarks on hidden shift and Deutsch-Jozsa circuits produce Born-rule estimates that match the expected deterministic outcomes at moderate sample counts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because CNC operators are vertices of the Lambda polytope, the same tableau machinery could in principle encode other, non-CNC vertices if such vertices are discovered; the paper sets up the linear-algebraic tooling but does not construct those encodings.
  • Editorial extension: the intrinsic $O(n^2)$ case-checking overhead may offset the benefit for very small qubit counts, so the practical advantage likely appears for circuits with many stabilizer gates and moderate negativity.
  • Editorial extension: the published robustness values imply a testable prediction that replacing the stabilizer part of a magic-state decomposition with CNC operators cuts the required sample count by the ratio of stabilizer robustness to CNC robustness, which could be checked directly with the provided simulator.
  • Editorial extension: the Jordan-Wigner decomposition may also serve as a normal form for other Clifford-covariant state sets, suggesting a route to tableau algorithms for newly discovered vertices rather than a one-off construction.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a tableau representation, called the CNC tableau, for sampling-based classical simulation in the phase-space framework of closed non-contextual (CNC) operators introduced by Raussendorf et al. The authors introduce a Jordan–Wigner decomposition of the symplectic space, give an independent symplectic proof of the CNC classification, formulate four-case update rules for Pauli measurements, state complexity bounds (O(n^2) memory, O(n) Clifford updates, O(n^2) measurement updates), and benchmark an implementation on hidden-shift and Deutsch–Jozsa circuits.

Significance. If correct, the work provides an explicit tableau formulation of CNC simulation with asymptotic resource scaling matching the Aaronson–Gottesman simulator, together with an independent derivation of the CNC classification. The open-source implementation and the benchmark data are concrete and useful contributions. The central correctness claim, however, rests on the four measurement update rules, and the Case IV update is internally inconsistent as written; until that is repaired and a proof of the update rules relative to Eq. (22) is supplied, the simulation-correctness claim is not established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2 (Case IV) and Algorithm 2, with §4 Eqs. (31)–(32)] The three written formulations of the Case IV update disagree, and the pseudocode as written breaks even a 2-qubit stabilizer tableau. For n=2, m=0, I=<Z1,Z2>, I'=<X1,X2>, measuring b=X1Z2: Section 4 Eqs. (31)–(32) prescribe new destabilizers Z1 and Z1X2. Algorithm 2 chooses λ as the full row of the first anti-commuting stabilizer (Z1, row 3) and modifies only rows i>λ; row 2 (X2) is skipped even though [X2,b]=1. The tableau then violates the canonical condition that destabilizer row 2 commutes with the new stabilizer b. The displayed update in Section 5.2 is likewise not self-consistent: if λ is read as a stabilizer-block index, anti-commuting rows are multiplied by the old destabilizer R̃_λ rather than by the old stabilizer e_λ required by Eq. (31); if λ is read as a full tableau row index, the cases i=λ and i=λ+n−m point to the wrong rows. Because the simulator's output probabilities are correct only if the updated tableau remains a valid CNC tableau implementing Eq. (22), this issue is load-bearing and must be fixed and proved before the central claim can be accepted.
  2. [§5.2 and Theorem 5.6] The correctness of the measurement update rules relative to Eq. (22) is asserted rather than proved. The text states that the Case III and Case IV row operations implements Eq. (12) and Lemma 3.10, and Theorem 5.6 then counts the cost of these operations; but no proof is given that the resulting rows encode the new JW decomposition, the new value assignment, and the correct mixture. In light of the Case IV discrepancy, this missing verification is load-bearing, not merely expository. The authors should supply a complete proof for all four cases, or a machine-checked verification, showing that the output of each update algorithm represents the right-hand side of Eqs. (22) and (30).
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2 (Clifford update rules)] The statement that Clifford updates are "exactly the same" as in [8] needs a short derivation of the phase-bit (β) contributions; without this, the update of the value-assignment column under general Clifford gates is not justified.
  2. [§5.2 (Case IV notation)] The symbols λ and the row indices in the displayed Case IV update rule are ambiguous; the paper should consistently use either full tableau row indices or block-relative indices, and the first two cases of the displayed rule should be corrected accordingly.
  3. [§6.2.3 and Figure 3] The claim that the m=0 implementation is "considerably more performant" than the CHP Python implementation is not explained; since both are Python implementations, the comparison should be clarified or the claim softened.
  4. [Table 1 and §6.2.3] The n=4 CNC robustness is reported as ≤ 2.172 but is later used as if it were exact; the paper should state explicitly that an upper bound was used and how this affects the sample counts in Table 2.
  5. [Definition 3.8] Definition 3.8 contains two occurrences of "isotopic" where "isotropic" is meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tableau algorithm is a concrete implementation with independent structural lemmas; the imported update formula from prior work is a general theorem, not a restatement of the claimed result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a tableau encoding and update procedure for closed non-contextual (CNC) operators. The derivation chain is not circular: the JW decomposition, the classification of maximal CNC sets, and the enlargement procedures are proved in the paper (Section 3 and Appendix A) using symplectic arguments rather than being assumed from the cited prior work. The four-case measurement update rules in Section 4 are refinements of the general two-case update formula Eq. (22), which is imported from Raussendorf et al. [10]. That formula is a prior, general result about CNC operators under Pauli measurement; it does not presuppose the tableau representation or the O(n^2)-bit / O(n^2)-time update claims, so using it as a starting point is not circular. The same holds for Theorem 3 of [10] invoked in Section 6.1.1: it supplies the sampling correctness of the phase-space method, while the present paper contributes the explicit tableau data structure and complexity analysis. Although [10] shares an author, the cited result is independent of the specific algorithmic contribution and is not used to forbid alternatives. The numerical robustness values in Table 1 are computed by optimization, not fitted to the simulation outputs in Table 2, and the hidden-shift / Deutsch-Jozsa benchmarks are outputs of the implemented simulator rather than inputs to the derivation. The reviewer's noted discrepancy in the Case IV update loop bounds is a potential correctness or internal-consistency issue, not a circularity: it does not make any claimed prediction equal to an input by construction. No step in the paper reduces, by definition or by fitting, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central complexity theorem depends on standard symplectic algebra and on the phase-space update formulas imported from the authors' prior work. No new physical entities are introduced; the JW decomposition is a mathematical data structure.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CNC update rule Eq. (22) correctly describes Pauli measurement on CNC operators.
    The tableau update rules implement Eq. (22); the paper references [10] and does not re-prove this formula (Section 4, Eq. 22).
  • domain assumption Any quantum state can be written as an affine mixture of maximal CNC operators, and the phase-space sampling algorithm is correct.
    Used in Section 6.1 for weak simulation and Born rule estimation; cited as Theorem 3 of [10].
  • standard math Aaronson-Gottesman stabilizer tableau updates are correct and run in the stated complexities.
    The Clifford update rules are stated to be the same as those in [8] (Section 5.2).
  • standard math Gaussian elimination and symplectic Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization can construct JW decompositions in polynomial time.
    Used in Algorithm 3 to build tableaus; cited to [20,21].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase space tableau simulation for quantum computation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVF7MXTH

@misc{pith2026250604033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase space tableau simulation for quantum computation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVF7MXTH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04033}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel tableau-based classical simulation method for quantum computation, formulated within the phase space framework of the extended stabilizer theory of closed non-contextual operators. This method enables the efficient classical simulation of a broader class of quantum circuits beyond the stabilizer formalism. We implement the simulator and benchmark its performance on basic quantum algorithms, including the hidden shift and Deutsch--Jozsa algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04033 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The intersections and sums of the subspaces in a JW decomposition: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figures show the tested measurement time as a function of the qubit count for random Clifford [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figures show the tested measurement time as a function of the qubit count for random Clifford [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Phase-space-simulation method for quantum computation with magic states on qubits,

    R. Raussendorf, J. Bermejo-Vega, E. Tyhurst, C. Okay, and M. Zurel, “Phase-space-simulation method for quantum computation with magic states on qubits,” Physical Review A , vol. 101, no. 1, p. 012350, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Group22: Proceedings of the xxii international colloquium on group theoretical methods in physics,

    D. Gottesman, “Group22: Proceedings of the xxii international colloquium on group theoretical methods in physics,” 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [2]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas,

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, “Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas,” Physical Review A , vol. 71, no. 2, p. 022316, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [3]

    Trading classical and quantum computational resources,

    S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, “Trading classical and quantum computational resources,” Physical Review X , vol. 6, no. 2, p. 021043, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates,

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, “Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates,” Physical review letters , vol. 116, no. 25, p. 250501, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions,

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, “Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 181, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quan- tum computing,

    M. Howard and E. Campbell, “Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quan- tum computing,” Physical review letters , vol. 118, no. 9, p. 090501, 2017. 27

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

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

    2010

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , vol. 70, no. 5, p. 052328, 2004

    2004

  2. [9]

    Quantifying quantum speedups: Improved classical simulation from tighter magic monotones,

    J. R. Seddon, B. Regula, H. Pashayan, Y. Ouyang, and E. T. Campbell, “Quantifying quantum speedups: Improved classical simulation from tighter magic monotones,” PRX Quantum , vol. 2, no. 1, p. 010345, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation,

    V. Veitch, C. Ferrie, D. Gross, and J. Emerson, “Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 14, no. 11, p. 113011, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    Contextuality and wigner- function negativity in qubit quantum computation,

    R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, N. Delfosse, C. Okay, and J. Bermejo-Vega, “Contextuality and wigner- function negativity in qubit quantum computation,” Physical Review A, vol. 95, no. 5, p. 052334, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Hidden variables and the two theorems of john bell,

    N. D. Mermin, “Hidden variables and the two theorems of john bell,” Reviews of Modern Physics , vol. 65, no. 3, p. 803, 1993

    1993

  6. [14]

    Accessed: 2025-02-28

    BilQCT, “CNCSim.” https://github.com/BilQCT/CNCSim. Accessed: 2025-02-28

    2025

  7. [15]

    Topological proofs of contextuality in qunatum mechanics,

    C. Okay, S. Roberts, S. D. Bartlett, and R. Raussendorf, “Topological proofs of contextuality in qunatum mechanics,” Quantum Information & Computation , vol. 17, no. 13-14, pp. 1135–1166, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Contextuality test of the nonclassicality of variational quantum eigen- solvers,

    W. M. Kirby and P. J. Love, “Contextuality test of the nonclassicality of variational quantum eigen- solvers,” Physical review letters , vol. 123, no. 20, p. 200501, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Hidden variable model for universal quantum computation with magic states on qubits,

    M. Zurel, C. Okay, and R. Raussendorf, “Hidden variable model for universal quantum computation with magic states on qubits,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 125, no. 26, p. 260404, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Estimating outcome probabilities of quantum circuits using quasiprobabilities,

    H. Pashayan, J. J. Wallman, and S. D. Bartlett, “Estimating outcome probabilities of quantum circuits using quasiprobabilities,” Physical review letters , vol. 115, no. 7, p. 070501, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    On sets of commuting and anticommuting paulis,

    R. Sarkar and E. v. d. Berg, “On sets of commuting and anticommuting paulis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08123, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lectures on symplectic geometry,

    A. C. d. Silva, “Lectures on symplectic geometry,” Lecture Notes in Mathematics , vol. 1764, 2001

    2001

  13. [21]

    How to efficiently select an arbitrary clifford group element,

    R. Koenig and J. A. Smolin, “How to efficiently select an arbitrary clifford group element,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 55, no. 12, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Hidden variable models and classical simulation algorithms for quantum computation with magic states on qubits,

    M. Zurel, “Hidden variable models and classical simulation algorithms for quantum computation with magic states on qubits,” Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Python CHP Stabilizer Simulator

    C. Gidney, “Python CHP Stabilizer Simulator.” https://github.com/Strilanc/ python-chp-stabilizer-simulator . Accessed: 2025-03-21

    2025

  16. [24]

    Watrous, The theory of quantum information

    J. Watrous, The theory of quantum information . Cambridge university press, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Quantifying magic for multi-qubit operations,

    J. R. Seddon and E. T. Campbell, “Quantifying magic for multi-qubit operations,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A , vol. 475, no. 2227, p. 20190251, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Classical simulation complexity of extended clifford circuits,

    R. Jozsa and M. V. d. Nest, “Classical simulation complexity of extended clifford circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.6190, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    From estimation of quantum probabilities to simulation of quantum circuits,

    H. Pashayan, S. D. Bartlett, and D. Gross, “From estimation of quantum probabilities to simulation of quantum circuits,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 223, 2020. 28

    2020

  20. [28]

    Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables,

    W. Hoeffding, “Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables,” The collected works of Wassily Hoeffding, pp. 409–426, 1994

    1994

  21. [29]

    Quantum algorithms for highly non-linear boolean functions,

    M. R¨ otteler, “Quantum algorithms for highly non-linear boolean functions,” inProceedings of the twenty- first annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms , pp. 448–457, SIAM, 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,

    D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, “Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences , vol. 439, no. 1907, pp. 553–558, 1992

    1907

  23. [31]

    Fast estimation of outcome proba- bilities for quantum circuits,

    H. Pashayan, O. Reardon-Smith, K. Korzekwa, and S. D. Bartlett, “Fast estimation of outcome proba- bilities for quantum circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.12223 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Simulating quantum circuits with zx-calculus reduced stabiliser decompositions,

    A. Kissinger and J. van de Wetering, “Simulating quantum circuits with zx-calculus reduced stabiliser decompositions,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 044001, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Robustness of magic and symmetries of the stabiliser polytope,

    M. Heinrich and D. Gross, “Robustness of magic and symmetries of the stabiliser polytope,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 132, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    A one-way quantum computer,

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, “A one-way quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 86, pp. 5188– 5191, May 2001

    2001

  27. [35]

    Classical simulation of universal measurement-based quantum computation using multipartite bell scenarios,

    C. Okay, A. T. Yucel, and S. Ipek, “Classical simulation of universal measurement-based quantum computation using multipartite bell scenarios,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23734 , 2024. A Proof of CNC classification Lemma A.1. Let p1, p2, p3, p4 ∈ En satisfying [p1, p2] = [p1, p...

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    • Compute t ← 1 2 |Ab| • Swap rows in the tableau to place anti-commuting elements in the first 2 t rows:

    Reorganize JW Elements: • Identify indices of commuting and anti-commuting JW elements using TΩ(b). • Compute t ← 1 2 |Ab| • Swap rows in the tableau to place anti-commuting elements in the first 2 t rows:

  29. [37]

    • First Stabilizer and Destabilizer: – F or i = K + 2t + 1, · · ·, 2n + 1: - RK+1 ← RK+1 + Ri – ˜RK+1 ← (RK+1, rb) and ˜RK+2 ← (RK+2, 0)

    Generate New Stabilizers and Destabilizers: • Let K = 2(n − m) and randomly sample the measurement outcome rb ∈ Z2. • First Stabilizer and Destabilizer: – F or i = K + 2t + 1, · · ·, 2n + 1: - RK+1 ← RK+1 + Ri – ˜RK+1 ← (RK+1, rb) and ˜RK+2 ← (RK+2, 0). • Generate Remaining Ne...

  30. [38]

    Update Commuting JW Elements: • F ori = K + 2t + 1, · · ·, 2n + 1: - ˜Ri ← ˜Ri ∗ ˜RK+1

  31. [39]

    - Rows n − m + 1, · · ·, n− m + t are the new destabilizer rows K + 2i (i = 1, · · ·, t)

    Rearrange Stabilizers and Destabilizers: • Organize rows as follows - Rows 1 , · · ·, n− m are the previous destabilizer rows. - Rows n − m + 1, · · ·, n− m + t are the new destabilizer rows K + 2i (i = 1, · · ·, t). - Rows n − m + t + 1, · · ·, 2(n − m) + t are the previous s...

  32. [40]

    Update type: • Update m ← m − t

  33. [41]

    32 Algorithm 2: Algorithm for simulating measurement outcome and tableau update when b /∈ I ⊥

    Return: Updated tableau and measurement outcome rb. 32 Algorithm 2: Algorithm for simulating measurement outcome and tableau update when b /∈ I ⊥. Input: Current tableau ¯T γ Ω , Measurement basis R(b), commutation information TΩ(b). Output: Updated tableau ¯T γ∗rb ˜Ω(b) and o...

  34. [42]

    Find Minimum Anti-commuting Stabilizer: • λ ← min{i + n − m}n−m i=1 such that [Rλ, R(b)] = 1

  35. [43]

    Modify Anti-commuting Rows: • F oreach row i > λ: – If [Ri, R(b)] = 1 then: ˜Ri ← ˜Ri ∗ ˜Rλ

  36. [44]

    - ˜Rλ ← (R(b), rb)

    Update Stabilizer and Destabilizer: • New Destabilizer: Rλ−n+m ← Rλ • New Stabilizer: - Randomly sample the measurement outcome rb ∈ Z2. - ˜Rλ ← (R(b), rb)

  37. [45]

    33 Algorithm 3: Algorithm for creating a tableau from given maximal CNC operator Aγ Ω

    Return: Updated tableau and measurement outcome rb. 33 Algorithm 3: Algorithm for creating a tableau from given maximal CNC operator Aγ Ω. Input: Maximal CNC operator Aγ Ω. Output: Tableau T γ Ω

  38. [46]

    • Find a basis {e1,

    Find the Stabilizer: • Define I as the center of Ω, i.e., the set of all elements that commute with every element of Ω. • Find a basis {e1, . . . , en−m} for I

  39. [47]

    , en−m} to a symplectic basis {e1, f1,

    Find the Destabilizers: • Extend {e1, . . . , en−m} to a symplectic basis {e1, f1, . . . , en, fn} of En using symplectic Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization. • Then {f1, . . . , fn−m} is a basis for the destabilizer I ′

  40. [48]

    • Let PW be the orthogonal projection onto W and set Ω ′ = Ω \ I

    Find JW elements: • Define symplectic subspace W as W = ⟨en−m+1, fn−m+1, · · ·, en, fn⟩. • Let PW be the orthogonal projection onto W and set Ω ′ = Ω \ I. • Initialize J W:= {}. • F ori = 1 to 2m + 1: – Choose ˆai ∈ Ω′ and compute ai = PW (ˆai). – Add ai to J W. – Remove all e...

  41. [49]

    Construct the T ableau: • Construct tableau T γ Ω as follows: T γ Ω =   f1 γ(f1) ... ... fn−m γ(fn−m) e1 γ(e1) ... ... en−m γ(en−m) a1 γ(a1) ... ... a2m+1 γ(a2m+1)      Destabilizer    Stabilizer    JW elements

  42. [50]

    34 Algorithm 4: Algorithm for weak simulation using the phase space tableau

    Return: Tableau T γ Ω . 34 Algorithm 4: Algorithm for weak simulation using the phase space tableau. Input: Initial distribution Wρ ≥ 0. Stabilizer instruments Φ 1, · · ·, ΦN . Output: Set of outcomes L = {s1, · · ·, sT }. • Initialize empty outcome set L. • Sample initial tab...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.