Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Contractive Unitary and Classical Shadow Tomography

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By sandwiching a deterministic product of commuting ZZ rotations between random single-qubit gates, classical shadow tomography can estimate dense k-qubit Pauli strings with sample complexity scaling as about 1.8^k instead of 2^k.

desk verdict Known-location 1.8^k shadow-norm improvement is real and well-verified, but the abstract's 'any non-successive operators' and the unknown-location sliding trick overclaim: sparse operators and non-consecutive supports break the advertised scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01850 v1 pith:MKDXOMYC submitted 2024-11-28 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el

Yadong Wu , Ce Wang , Juan Yao , Hui Zhai , Yi-Zhuang You , Pengfei Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el
keywords classicalshadowtomographycontractiveunitarysamplecomplexityPauliweightoperatorsizedistributionlocallyscrambledensemblerandomCliffordatomarrayquantumprocessor
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 aims to show that classical shadow tomography can break the $2^k$ sample-complexity barrier for estimating $k$-qubit Pauli observables, provided the operator's location is known and its support is dense. It introduces a deterministic global unitary, the contractive unitary $U_{ct}=\prod_{i

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the contractive unitary, a global all-to-all product of commuting two-qubit ZZ rotations $U_{ct}=\prod_{i<j}\exp(i\pi Z_i Z_j/4)$, sandwiched between independent random single-qubit Clifford layers. Its action on a Pauli string is controlled by the parity of $N_{XY}$, the number of $X$ and $Y$ factors: for odd $N_{XY}$ each $Z$ becomes $I$ and each $I$ becomes $Z$, contracting the operator size from $k$ to $N_{XY}$, while for even $N_{XY}$ the string commutes with $U_{ct}$ and stays at size $k$. The Pauli weight $w(O)=\sum_m \pi(m)/3^m$, derived from the resulting size distribution, converts directly to the shadow norm via $\|O\|^2 = w(O)^{-1}$, and the broad size peak at $2k/3$ plus the minority delta peak at $k$ yields the $1.8^k$ scaling.

What would settle it

Run the contractive-unitary shadow protocol on a known $k$-qubit support for a fully dense Pauli string with $k=20$ and compare the empirical shot variance with the random-Clifford protocol; the theory predicts a variance ratio of roughly $(2/1.8)^{20}\approx 9.5$ in favor of the contractive protocol. Alternatively, insert $q=\gamma k$ identity factors with $\gamma=0.2$ into the operator and check whether the variance crosses the random-Clifford value at $\gamma\approx 0.206$ as predicted by Eq. (13); observing the crossover at a substantially different $\gamma$, or a variance that scales as $3^k$ for dense operators, would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the deterministic all-to-all product of commuting ZZ rotations, $U_{ct}=\prod_{i<j}\exp(i\pi Z_i Z_j/4)$, when used as the global unitary between two layers of random single-qubit Cliffords, reduces the shadow norm for a size-$k$ Pauli string from the random-Clifford value $\sim 2^k$ to $\sim 2\times 1.8^k$. The mechanism is a parity-dependent size contraction: a Pauli string with $N_{XY}$ X/Y factors either collapses to size $N_{XY}$ when $N_{XY}$ is odd or stays at size $k$ when $N_{XY}$ is even. Averaging the resulting size distribution with the Pauli-weight factor $3^{-m}$ gives $w(O)=\frac{1}{2}[\frac{1}{3^k}+\frac{(-1)^k}{9^k}]+\frac{1}{2}[(\frac{5}{9})^k-\frac{1}{9^k}]$, and the shadow norm is its inverse. The same construction with a sliding trick handles operators whose location is unknown, yielding $k\times 1.8^k$ scaling. The contractive unitary is readily implemented on atom-array platforms because all two-qubit gates commute and have identical form.

Load-bearing premise

The advantage over random Clifford rests on the operator being dense in its known support: if a significant fraction of the $k$ sites carry identity operators, the parity-driven size contraction weakens and the $1.8^k$ scaling is lost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a known, dense $k$-qubit Pauli string, the contractive-unitary protocol reduces the number of measurement shots by a factor of $(2/1.8)^k \approx (10/9)^k$ compared to random Clifford shadows.
  • When the operator location is unknown, the sliding trick gives sample complexity $k \times 1.8^k$, which for sufficiently large $k$ beats the shallow-circuit protocol's $\sim 2^k$ bound.
  • Because all two-qubit gates in the contractive unitary commute and are identical, the unitary can be implemented in at most $k-1$ parallel steps on a reconfigurable atom-array processor.
  • The protocol demonstrates a general principle: a deterministic global unitary tailored to contract operator size can outperform fully random ensembles in classical shadow tomography.
  • With $q \le O(1)$ identity factors in the operator support, the $1.8^k$ scaling survives with only a prefactor $(5/3)^q$, so a small number of identity defects does not erase the advantage over random Clifford.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Other deterministic global unitaries, such as partial products of ZZ rotations acting on selected qubit pairs, might interpolate between random Clifford and the full contractive unitary, trading sample complexity for shallower circuits.
  • The parity-dependent contraction mechanism suggests that unitaries biased toward flipping the parity of $X/Y$ counts could push the sample-complexity exponent below $\log_2(1.8)\approx 0.848$, approaching the per-contracted-site bound $3^{-m}$ in the Pauli-weight sum.
  • The sliding-trick prefactor $(32/19)^k \approx 1.684^k$ shows how boundary-crossing operators degrade the variance; a recursive or hierarchical sliding scheme might recover the pure $1.8^k$ scaling even for completely unknown operator locations.
  • Because the contractive unitary is a product of commuting CZ-like gates, the same size-distribution calculation could be adapted to fermionic shadow encodings or photon-number-resolving measurements, where Pauli weights obey different formulas.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes replacing the random global Clifford unitary in classical shadow tomography with a fixed 'contractive unitary' U_ct = ∏_{i<j} exp(iπ/4 Z_i Z_j), sandwiched between random single-qubit Clifford rotations. For a Pauli string of size k with no identity factors on a known k-qubit subsystem, the authors derive the Pauli weight w(O)_ct in Eq. (4) and hence the shadow norm ∥O∥²_ct ≈ 2×1.8^k, improving on the random Clifford 2^k scaling. They extend the idea to unknown operator locations using a sliding-trick ensemble of k-qubit blocks, claiming k×1.8^k scaling, and they benchmark both protocols on GHZ and ZXZ states, finding agreement with the predicted scalings.

Significance. The known-location result is a clean, parameter-free analytical construction with independent numerical verification on stabilizer states; if it stands, it demonstrates a new principle: a deterministic global unitary can outperform fully random scrambling for dense Pauli observables, and it is implementable on atom-array platforms. The two-qubit optimality argument in the Supplementary provides a non-circular motivation for the unitary, and the derivation contains no fitted parameters. The significance is reduced, however, by the fact that the advertised universality ('any non-successive local operators') is not fully established: the density condition and the consecutive-window restriction in the unknown-location extension materially limit the claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 'Extensition to Situations without Knowing Operator Locations' and Table I] The sliding-trick argument only aligns an operator with a circuit structure when its support is contained in a single length-k consecutive window. A non-successive size-k operator such as Z_1 Z_3 Z_5 ... Z_{2k-1} has span 2k-1 and is contained in no such window for any of the k shifts, so its alignment probability is 0, not 1/k. Consequently Eq. (14) and the k×1.8^k entry in Table I do not cover non-successive operators in the unknown-location setting, and the abstract's 'any non-successive local operators' overstates the proven scope. The numerical example in Fig. 3 uses a consecutive string, so it does not test the non-successive case. Please restrict the unknown-location claim to operators contained in a length-k window, or supply a distinct construction and analysis for general non-successive operators.
  2. [Abstract and Supplementary Eq. (13)] The abstract's phrase 'any non-successive local operators with a size ∼k' is not qualified by the density condition derived in Supplementary Eq. (13). When the operator contains q identity factors, the shadow norm acquires a prefactor (5/3)^q, and for q=γk the contractive protocol beats random Clifford only for γ<0.206 (non-identity fraction above about 80%). A sparse size-k operator can therefore have sample complexity exceeding 2^k. The main text acknowledges the O(1) case, but the abstract's unqualified 'any' is too strong. Please state the density assumption explicitly in the abstract and the known-location summary, or revise the claim to 'dense' operators.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section heading] The section heading 'Extensition to Situations without Knowing Operator Locations' contains a typo; it should read 'Extension'.
  2. [Section 'Extensition to Situations without Knowing Operator Locations'] The text contains the typo 'probalility' instead of 'probability' in the sentence explaining the sliding-trick sampling.
  3. [Section 'Extensition to Situations without Knowing Operator Locations'] There is an inconsistency in the claimed prefactor: the text first says ∼k×1.8^k, then says the sample complexity is bounded by 2k×1.8^k, while Table I lists k×1.8^k and the exact calculation gives (32/19)k×1.8^k; these should be reconciled.
  4. [Eq. (4) and Supplementary Eq. (12)] The notation (-1)^k/9^k in Eq. (4) and (-1/9)^k in Supplementary Eq. (12) should be unified for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 2×1.8^k shadow-norm scaling is an analytic consequence of the specified unitary and ensemble, not a refit of the target scaling.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The paper defines the contractive unitary U_ct = ∏_{i<j} exp(iπ/4 Z_i Z_j), classifies each size-k Pauli string by the number N_XY of X/Y factors (main-text Eq. 3: m = N_XY for odd N_XY and m = k for even N_XY), and inserts the resulting size distribution into the Pauli-weight relation w(Ô) = Σ_m π(m)/3^m from Eq. (1). Eq. (4) then evaluates two binomial sums exactly, giving w(O)_ct = (1/2)[1/3^k + (-1)^k/9^k] + (1/2)[(5/9)^k - 1/9^k] and hence ||O||²_ct ~ 2×1.8^k. No parameter is fitted to the claimed scaling; the two-qubit 'at most four size-2 operators can be contracted' bound is proved in the Supplemental Material by commutation relations, not imported from a citation. The numerical benchmarks use analytically known GHZ and ZXZ expectation values and the analytically computed shadow norm, so the agreement in Fig. 2 is an independent consistency check. The identity-defect analysis (Supplementary Eq. 13 and the γ≈0.206 threshold) is an explicit scope condition, and the unknown-location sliding trick is limited to operators whose support fits inside a length-k window; these are stated limitations rather than circular reductions. A small number of background citations ([26]-[33]) overlap with the authors' earlier work, but the load-bearing formulas are rederived in the Supplemental Material and the overlap is not load-bearing.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data. The protocol introduces no new physical entities; the contractive unitary is a specific deterministic Clifford circuit. Axioms are standard shadow-tomography results plus the stated construction rules.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Local random Clifford rotations make the measurement channel diagonal in the Pauli basis, giving M[O_A] = w(O_A) O_A and shadow norm ||O_A||² = w(O_A)^{-1}.
    Used in Supplementary Section 1; follows from Haar/Clifford twirling over single-qubit rotations for locally scrambled ensembles.
  • standard math The identity part of the density matrix is the only contribution to the shadow norm; non-identity parts vanish due to anti-commutation symmetries.
    Supplementary Eq. (8) relies on this standard shadow-norm simplification for Pauli observables.
  • domain assumption The contractive unitary U_ct can be implemented as a product of commuting exp(iπ/4 Z_i Z_j) gates, and its action on Pauli strings follows the parity rule in Eq. (3).
    This is the construction itself, verified by direct conjugation; it is a definition, not an unproved physical law.
  • domain assumption For the sliding trick, a k-local operator can straddle at most two k-qubit blocks, and each slide is sampled with probability 1/k.
    Used in the sliding trick derivation in the main text and Supplementary; assumes periodic boundary conditions and N = n0 k or N = n0 k + q.
  • standard math The shadow norm, and hence the required number of samples, scales as the inverse Pauli weight for this ensemble.
    Supplementary derivation Eq. (7)-(8), standard in locally scrambled shadow tomography.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contractive Unitary and Classical Shadow Tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MKDXOMYC

@misc{pith2026241201850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contractive Unitary and Classical Shadow Tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MKDXOMYC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01850}
}
abstract

The rapid development of quantum technology demands efficient characterization of complex quantum many-body states. However, full quantum state tomography requires an exponential number of measurements in system size, preventing its practical use in large-scale quantum devices. A major recent breakthrough in this direction, called classical shadow tomography, significantly reduces the sample complexity, the number of samples needed to estimate properties of a state, by implementing random Clifford rotations before measurements. Despite many recent efforts, reducing the sample complexity below $\mathbf{2^k}$ for extracting any non-successive local operators with a size $\sim \mathbf{k}$ remains a challenge. In this work, we achieve a significantly smaller sample complexity of $\mathbf{\sim 1.8^k}$ using a protocol that hybridizes locally random and globally deterministic unitary operations. The key insight is the discovery of a deterministic global unitary, termed as \textit{contractive unitary}, which is more efficient in reducing the operator size to enhance tomography efficiency. The contractive unitary perfectly matches the advantages of the atom array quantum computation platform and is readily realized in the atom array quantum processor. More importantly, it highlights a new strategy in classical shadow tomography, demonstrating that a random-deterministic hybridized protocol can be more efficient than fully random measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01850 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Sliding trick without knowledge of the precise location of size- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Classical Shadows with Improved Median-of-Means Estimation

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Applying Minsker's tighter median-of-means estimator with incomplete U-statistics to classical shadows improves sample efficiency for Clifford measurements but not for Pauli measurements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    If both ˆO1 and ˆO2 belong to{ ˆZ, ˆI}, the operator does not change

    work page

  2. [2]

    If both ˆO1 and ˆO2 belong to { ˆX, ˆY}, the operator does not change

    work page

  3. [3]

    nj69+5VlRvdCctoz/YFJypl0PgQ=

    If ˆO1 belongs to{ ˆZ, ˆI} and ˆO2 belong to{ ˆX, ˆY}, or vice versa, the evolution by ˆU12 permutes ˆX↔ ˆY and ˆZ↔ ˆI. For a generic subsystemS withk qubits, we construct the contractive unitary as ˆUct =∏ i<j ˆUij, where ˆUij is given by Eq. (2), acting on any pair of qubits i and j within the subsystem. Since ˆUij gates with different i and j commute w...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al. , Quantum supremacy using a pro- grammable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    X. Mi, P. Roushan, C. Quintana, S. Mandr` a, J. Mar- shall, C. Neill, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, et al., Information scrambling in quantum circuits, Science 374, 1479 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Altman, K

    E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, L. D. Carr, E. Dem- ler, C. Chin, B. DeMarco, S. E. Economou, M. A. Eriks- son, K.-M. C. Fu, et al. , Quantum simulators: Archi- tectures and opportunities, PRX Quantum 2, 017003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Wu, W.-S

    Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, et al. , Strong quantum computational advantage using a su- perconducting quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Acharya, I

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ans- mann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, et al. , Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676 (2023)

    2023

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, et al., High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral- atom quantum computer, Nature 622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit, Nature 622, 279 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    S. T. Flammia, D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, and J. Eisert, Quan- tum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators, New Journal of Physics 14, 095022 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    O’Donnell and J

    R. O’Donnell and J. Wright, Efficient quantum tomogra- phy (2015), arXiv:1508.01907 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. Haah, A. W. Harrow, Z. Ji, X. Wu, and N. Yu, Sample- optimal tomography of quantum states, in Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing (2016) pp. 913–925

    2016

  7. [15]

    Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states (2018), arXiv:1711.01053 [quant-ph]

    S. Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states (2018), arXiv:1711.01053 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Paini and A

    M. Paini and A. Kalev, An approximate description of quantum states (2019), arXiv:1910.10543 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics 16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Struchalin, Y

    G. Struchalin, Y. A. Zagorovskii, E. Kovlakov, S. Straupe, and S. Kulik, Experimental estimation of quantum state properties from classical shadows, PRX Quantum 2, 010307 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    S. Chen, W. Yu, P. Zeng, and S. T. Flammia, Robust shadow estimation, PRX Quantum 2, 030348 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

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

    2021

  13. [21]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, G. Torlai, V. V. Albert, and J. Preskill, Provably efficient machine learning for quan- tum many-body problems, Science377, eabk3333 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Hu and Y.-Z

    H.-Y. Hu and Y.-Z. You, Hamiltonian-driven shadow to- mography of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013054 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Elben, S

    A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, The random- ized measurement toolbox, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 9 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Zhou and P

    T.-G. Zhou and P. Zhang, Efficient classical shadow tomography through many-body localization dynamics (2024), arXiv:2309.01258 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    R. Levy, D. Luo, and B. K. Clark, Classical shadows for quantum process tomography on near-term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013029 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    A. A. Akhtar, H.-Y. Hu, and Y.-Z. You, Measurement- induced criticality is tomographically optimal, Phys. Rev. B 109, 094209 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Y. Zhan, A. Elben, H.-Y. Huang, and Y. Tong, Learning conservation laws in unknown quantum dynamics, PRX Quantum 5, 010350 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Ippoliti and V

    M. Ippoliti and V. Khemani, Learnability transitions in monitored quantum dynamics via eavesdropper’s classi- cal shadows, PRX Quantum 5, 020304 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    H.-Y. Hu, S. Choi, and Y.-Z. You, Classical shadow tomography with locally scrambled quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023027 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    A. A. Akhtar, H.-Y. Hu, and Y.-Z. You, Scalable and 7 Flexible Classical Shadow Tomography with Tensor Net- works, Quantum 7, 1026 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    A. A. Akhtar, N. Anand, J. Marshall, and Y.-Z. You, Dual-unitary classical shadow tomography (2024), arXiv:2404.01068 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    H.-Y. Hu, A. Gu, S. Majumder, H. Ren, Y. Zhang, D. S. Wang, Y.-Z. You, Z. Minev, S. F. Yelin, and A. Seif, Demonstration of robust and efficient quantum property learning with shallow shadows (2024), arXiv:2402.17911 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zhang, X

    S. Zhang, X. Feng, M. Ippoliti, and Y.-Z. You, Holographic classical shadow tomography (2024), arXiv:2406.11788 [quant-ph]

    2024

  26. [34]

    Bertoni, J

    C. Bertoni, J. Haferkamp, M. Hinsche, M. Ioannou, J. Eisert, and H. Pashayan, Shallow shadows: Expecta- tion estimation using low-depth random clifford circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 020602 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Ippoliti, Y

    M. Ippoliti, Y. Li, T. Rakovszky, and V. Khemani, Oper- ator relaxation and the optimal depth of classical shad- ows, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 230403 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    K. Bu, D. E. Koh, R. J. Garcia, and A. Jaffe, Classi- cal shadows with pauli-invariant unitary ensembles, npj Quantum Information 10, 6 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    X.-L. Qi, E. J. Davis, A. Periwal, and M. Schleier-Smith, Measuring operator size growth in quantum quench ex- periments (2019), arXiv:1906.00524 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    D. A. Roberts, D. Stanford, and L. Susskind, Localized shocks, Journal of High Energy Physics 2015, 51 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    D. A. Roberts, D. Stanford, and A. Streicher, Operator growth in the syk model, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018, 122 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    shadow norm for- mula of Pauli operators; (ii)

    See Supplementary material for: (i). shadow norm for- mula of Pauli operators; (ii). proof of the optimal two- qubit contractive unitary operator; (iii). analytical calcu- lation of the shadow norm with the contractive unitary ensemble and (iv). analytical calculation of the s...

  33. [41]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going beyond bell’s theorem (2007), arXiv:0712.0921 [quant- ph]

    2007 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. A. Nielsen, Cluster-state quantum computation, Re- ports on Mathematical Physics 57, 147 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Bekenstein, I

    R. Bekenstein, I. Pikovski, H. Pichler, E. Shahmoon, S. F. Yelin, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum metasurfaces with atom arrays, Nature Physics 16, 676 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, et al. , Controlling quantum many-body dynamics in driven rydberg atom arrays, Sci- ence 371, 1355 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, et al. , Quantum optimization of maximum independent set using rydberg atom arrays, Science 376, 1209 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of en- tangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, F. R¨ onchen, A. Jenkins, and A. M. Kaufman, Midcircuit operations using the omg architecture in neutral atom arrays, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041035 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits (2024), arXiv:2403.12021 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    R. Tao, M. Ammenwerth, F. Gyger, I. Bloch, and J. Zei- her, High-fidelity detection of large-scale atom arrays in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 013401 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. L. Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jan- dura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. D. Oppong, and A. M. Kaufman, Multi-qubit gates and schr¨ odinger cat states in an optical clock (2024), arXiv:2402.16289 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    DeCross, R

    M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, Y. Alexeev, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, E. Chertkov, et al. , The computational power of ran- dom quantum circuits in arbitrary geometries (2024), arXiv:2406.02501 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Na- ture 549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    sWeVmVvDyEZZKnt64mV5k3DN+No=

    X.-M. Hu, Y. Guo, B.-H. Liu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Progress in quantum teleportation, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 339 (2023). Supplementary Material for ”Contractive Unitary and Classical Shadow Tomography” Yadong Wu,1, 2 Ce Wang,3 Juan Yao,4, 5, 6 Hui Zhai,7, 8 Yi-Zhuang You...

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    & Khemani, V

    Ippoliti, M., Li, Y ., Rakovszky, T. & Khemani, V . Operator relaxation and the optimal depth of classical shadows. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 230403 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Y ., Choi, S

    Hu, H. Y ., Choi, S. & You, Y . Z. Classical shadow tomography with locally scrambled quantum dynamics. Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023027 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    A., Hu, H

    Akhtar, A. A., Hu, H. Y . & You, Y . Z. Scalable and Flexible Classical Shadow Tomography with Tensor Networks. Quantum 7, 1026 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    E., Garcia, R

    Bu, K., Koh, D. E., Garcia, R. J. & Jaffe, A. Classical shadows with Pauli-invariant unitary ensembles. npj Quantum Information 10, 6 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    & Pashayan, H

    Bertoni, C., Haferkamp, J., Hinsche, M., Ioannou, M., Eisert, J. & Pashayan, H. Shallow Shadows: Expectation Estimation Using Low- Depth Random Clifford Circuits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 020602 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    & Preskill, J

    Huang, H.-Y ., Kueng, R. & Preskill, J. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics 16, 1050–1057 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.