Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Classical shadows for sample-efficient measurements of gauge-invariant observables

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that, in a Z2 lattice gauge theory, classical shadow measurements of gauge-invariant observables can be made exponentially more sample-efficient by randomizing in a dual Ising representation rather than on the raw link qub

desk verdict Useful symmetry-aware shadow protocols for Z2 LGT, but the Dual Product protocol's constant-sample claim rests on an ancilla construction that is not defined tightly enough to support it. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.02904 v2 pith:WLZVPHZJ submitted 2025-11-04 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechhep-latnucl-th

Jacob Bringewatt , Henry Froland , Andreas Elben , Niklas Mueller This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechhep-latnucl-th
keywords classicalshadowslatticegaugetheoryZ2samplecomplexityLGT-Isingdualitygauge-invariantobservablesrandomizedmeasurementsquantumsimulation
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

The paper tries to show that prior knowledge of gauge symmetry can be built into classical shadow protocols, turning an exponential sample cost into a constant or polynomial one for gauge-invariant observables. It does this for Z2 lattice gauge theory by exploiting an exact duality to an Ising model, where the physical Hilbert space is exponentially smaller than the full link-qubit space. Three protocols are introduced: Global Dual Pairs, Local Dual Pairs, and Dual Product, each with different trade-offs between sample complexity and circuit depth. If correct, the central payoff is that measurements of gauge-invariant observables in quantum simulators of lattice gauge theories can become dramatically cheaper, at the price of deeper entangling circuits. A careful reader would care because the same duality-based reasoning may extend to other gauge theories where quantum simulation is a major goal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exact LGT-Ising duality: magnetic plaquette operators W_□ map to single-qubit Z operators on plaquette-centered dual spins, and electric link operators map to products of adjacent X operators (or single X operators at fixed boundaries). This duality is used to define randomizing unitaries on the dual Ising side, map them back to physical LGT operations, and invert the shadow channel classically after measurement. The shadow channel inversion for the Dual Pairs protocols is a pairing-averaged map evaluated through Eqs. (23)-(25), while the Dual Product protocol reduces to the standard single-qubit Clifford channel on the dual. For periodic boundary conditions, a

What would settle it

Prepare the exact ground state of the Z2 lattice gauge theory on a small periodic lattice, measure a long ribbon operator whose LGT-side weight k grows with system size while its Ising-side weight kdual stays fixed, and record the empirical sample variance for the Dual Product protocol. The paper predicts variance bounded by 4^{kdual} ||O||^2_infinity, independent of volume; observing variance growing like 4^k, or a biased estimate of the plaquette identity ∏_□ W_□, would indicate that the ancilla-modified duality or the s-to-b parity mapping is incorrect. A more direct check is to apply the p

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a gauge-invariant observable that is kdual-local on the dual Ising side, the Dual Product protocol has shadow variance bounded by 4^{kdual} ||O||^2_infinity, so the number of shots needed for fixed accuracy is constant when kdual is O(1). The standard symmetry-ignorant Product protocol instead costs 4^k, where k is the Pauli weight on the link Hilbert space of the gauge theory; for long ribbon and large Wilson-loop operators this weight grows with system size and the sample cost becomes exponential. The paper derives analytic channel inversions for all three protocols, giving rigorous sample-complexity guarantees. For the Global Dual Pairs protocol the sample cost is polynomial in the la

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Z2 lattice-gauge-theory/Ising duality—including the ancilla construction that promotes the plaquette identity ∏_□ W_□ = 1 into a symmetry respected by the randomizing unitaries—is an exact isomorphism of the physical, Gauss-law-constrained Hilbert space; if that isomorphism fails, the constant-sample variance bound for the Dual Product protocol fails with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gauge-invariant observables that are few-body on the Ising side (ribbon operators, small Wilson loops) can be estimated with a number of shots independent of lattice volume using the Dual Product protocol, whereas the Product protocol's 4^k dependence can be exponential in system size.
  • A single batch of Dual Product measurements can be post-processed into estimates of many gauge-invariant observables, preserving the classical-shadows 'measure first, ask questions later' advantage within the physical subspace.
  • Global Dual Pairs gives polynomial sample complexity for arbitrary gauge-invariant observables and is parallelizable, while Local Dual Pairs reduces circuit depth to O(L^4) for observables supported on L-by-L patches.
  • The protocols work for both periodic and fixed boundary conditions, with the parity constraint on periodic boundaries handled exactly by the ancilla extension.
  • The asymptotic comparison favors the Dual Product protocol over Global Dual Pairs for dual-local observables, since it converts polynomial to constant sample complexity at only a constant-factor worsening of circuit depth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same duality-based reduction should carry over to Z_N and U(1) lattice gauge theories, where analogous Kramers-Wannier-type dualities exist, likely giving similar exponential sample-complexity gains; the paper notes this as a plausible extension but does not prove it.
  • On fault-tolerant devices where logical gate cost is comparable to or cheaper than measurement, the Dual Product protocol would likely become the preferred choice for electric-type gauge-invariant observables, since the exponential sample savings are an unalloyed advantage there.
  • A practical implementation should precompute both k and kdual for each desired observable: for observables where k and kdual are comparable, the simpler Product protocol may be preferable, and the advantage of symmetry-aware protocols is largest for observables that are short on the Ising side but extensive on the LGT side.
  • Because the randomizing circuits mix LGT sectors, noise that breaks gauge symmetry could bias the estimators; a testable extension would be to postselect measured bit strings on Gauss-law constraints and measure how much this restores unbiasedness.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes three classical-shadow protocols for estimating gauge-invariant observables in Z2 lattice gauge theory, exploiting the exact LGT--Ising duality. Global Dual Pairs randomizes parity-respecting two-qubit unitaries on the dual Ising lattice and maps them back to the LGT; Local Dual Pairs restricts the pairing to local patches; Dual Product applies the standard single-qubit Clifford Product protocol on the dual Ising side, adding an ancilla for PBC to represent both parity sectors. The authors derive the shadow channels, give sample-complexity bounds (Eqs. (27), (28), (30)), compare circuit depths, and support the results with small-system numerics and publicly available code.

Significance. If the Dual Product construction can be made rigorous, the central message is significant: for gauge-invariant observables with dual weight kdual = O(1), the sample complexity becomes constant in system size, in contrast to the exponential-in-LGT-weight cost of the symmetry-agnostic Product protocol. The Global and Local Dual Pairs protocols provide intermediate resource tradeoffs. The manuscript also supplies analytic worst-case bounds with no fitted constants, public numerical code, and an honest discussion of boundary conditions and limitations. The main risk is the under-specified ancilla-extended duality, which directly underpins the paper's strongest sample-complexity claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Step 2 and Eq. (30)] The ancilla-extended duality is never defined as an explicit map. The stated rule that every occurrence of sigma^x_r is replaced by sigma^x_r sigma^x_a, when applied to the ribbon realization of an Ising X operator, gives an LGT operator containing the pair sigma^x_r sigma^x_a. But (sigma^x_r sigma^x_a)(sigma^z_a sigma^z_r) = +(sigma^z_a sigma^z_r)(sigma^x_r sigma^x_a), so this pair commutes with the promoted sector operator P = sigma^z_a sigma^z_r. Since the Ising X_□ anti-commutes with the parity operator ∏□ Z□, its image under the extended duality must anti-commute with P if the LGT-side implementation is to mix PBC/tPBC sectors and reproduce the Product channel used to derive Eq. (30). Please define the image of each elementary Ising Pauli operator, specify how paths cross the ancilla cut, and prove the required (anti-)commutation relations, or supply a direct numerical verification
  2. [Section IIIA4, Eq. (28)] The asymptotic scaling fα = Θ(V^{(wZ-kdual)/2}) is asserted via Stirling's approximation without showing the calculation. This exponent determines the polynomial sample-cost entry for Global Dual Pairs in Table I and is not probed by the numerics, which reach only V ≤ 10. Please include the derivation and state the precise conditions, in particular how the wZ dependence cancels so that the asymptotic exponent depends only on wXY.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (23)] The expression "3wXY /2" should be typeset as 3^{wXY/2}; as written it is easy to misread as a product 3·wXY/2.
  2. [Section IIIA2, Eq. (13)] The sampling distribution for α, β, γ is not specified. Please state explicitly that these angles are drawn so that U_odd and U_even form a unitary 2-design on each parity sector.
  3. [Fig. 7d caption] The caption lists system sizes V = 4, 6, 7, 10, but Global Dual Pairs assumes an even number of dual sites for the pairing construction. Please clarify how the V = 7 case is handled or correct the list.
  4. [Eq. (25) and surrounding text] The notation |P_m| should specify that it is zero for odd m; otherwise several intermediate combinatorial expressions are ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sample-complexity claims are analytic bounds on explicitly constructed shadow channels; self-citations are contextual and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing results are derived by construction, not by fitting or by renaming. The Global Dual Pairs variance bound (Eq. (27)) follows from an explicit channel calculation (Eqs. (22)-(25), Appendix A), and the Dual Product bound (Eq. (30)) is the standard Product-protocol bound applied to the dual Ising model, a channel the protocol is explicitly designed to realize: 'The Dual Product protocol now consists simply of single-qubit Clifford rotations on the Ising side... post-processing reduces to the standard Product protocol applied to the Ising degrees of freedom, with a straightforward shadow channel inversion as outlined in [15].' This is a design guarantee, not a hidden restatement of the target conclusion. No parameters are fitted to data and then called predictions; all reported sample costs are analytic worst-case bounds. The LGT-Ising duality is the main external input, and it is cited to canonical prior work (Refs. [84,85]) in addition to same-author references, with an independent degree-of-freedom count supporting exactness; hence self-citations are not load-bearing. The same-author deep-randomization work (Ref. [61]) is explicitly distinguished as numerical and complementary. The main vulnerability is the under-specified ancilla-extended duality in Section IV: the replacement rule 'every occurrence of σ^x_r is replaced by σ^x_r σ^x_a' is stated without proving that ribbon-realized randomizing gates correctly mix the PBC/tPBC sectors needed for the Product channel. If that extended duality were incorrect, Eq. (30) could fail. However, that is an unproven correctness assumption or omitted proof, not a circular reduction: it is not equivalent to the protocol's own inputs, and no fitted quantity is being renamed as a prediction. The numerical demonstrations against exact ground-state values provide an external check. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No parameters are fitted; the analysis uses standard shadow bounds and the exact duality. The main assumptions are the duality itself, 2-design properties of CUE pairs, and the ancilla/parity construction.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Exact Z2 LGT-Ising duality mapping physical Hilbert space to parity-constrained Ising model
    Section II, Eqs. (4)-(5); all protocols and channel inversions rely on this duality being an exact isomorphism.
  • standard math Two-qubit CUE/Haar unitaries on parity sectors form 2-designs
    Section IIIA2, Eq. (21); needed for the pairwise channel action in Global Dual Pairs.
  • standard math Classical shadow variance bound from Huang et al. (Ref. [15])
    Appendix A, Eq. (A1); connects the shadow norm to sample complexity.
  • domain assumption Physical states satisfy G_s=1 and expectation values of gauge-variant operators vanish
    Section II; justifies restricting to the physical subspace and ignoring odd-sector action in Global Dual Pairs.
  • domain assumption Ancilla CNOT promotes the parity identity to a symmetry for PBC
    Section IV; required for the Dual Product protocol to represent the full dual Hilbert space.
invented entities (1)
  • Ancilla qubit a attached to reference link r (Dual Product protocol, PBC)
    purpose: Represents the odd-parity (tPBC) sector so single-qubit dual unitaries have a valid LGT-side action and the standard product shadow channel can be inverted over the full dual Hilbert space.
    Operational/additive quantum resource, not a new physical entity; it makes no falsifiable prediction outside the protocol.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classical shadows for sample-efficient measurements of gauge-invariant observables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WLZVPHZJ

@misc{pith2026251102904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classical shadows for sample-efficient measurements of gauge-invariant observables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WLZVPHZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.02904}
}
abstract

Classical shadows provide a versatile framework for estimating many properties of quantum states from repeated, randomly chosen measurements without requiring full quantum state tomography. When prior information is available, such as knowledge of symmetries of states and operators, this knowledge can be exploited to significantly improve sample efficiency. In this work, we develop three classical shadow protocols for $\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory, where a dual formulation enables a rigorous analysis of resource requirements, including both circuit depth and sample complexity. Our approaches can offer exponential improvements in sample complexity over symmetry-agnostic methods, albeit at the cost of increased circuit complexity. While our analysis is restricted to $\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory, our approach offers a blueprint for similar protocols for more general lattice gauge theory models which are currently at the forefront of quantum simulation efforts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.02904 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sample-efficient measurements of gauge-invariant observables in Z2 LGT. (a) Illustration of Z2 LGT in (2 + 1)D and its Ising dual. For the LGT qubits reside on links l of the lattice and Gauss law constraints Gs are associated with sites s. The Hamiltonian consists of plaquette (magnetic) terms W□ = Q l∈□ σ z l and on-site (electric) terms σ x l . In the dual description as a (2 + 1)D Ising model the qubit degrees o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic overview of the Global Dual Pairs protocol with periodic boundary conditions (PBC). Step 1. A pairing, π, of dual lattice sites is chosen uniformly at random. For each pair, a random unitary U[ij] is constructed in the Ising formulation. Step 2. For each pair [ij] ∈ π, the dual unitary U[ij] = Φ−1 [U[ij] ] is implemented on the LGT side of the duality and a computational basis measurement is performed. Ste… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LGT–Ising duality for mapping a (parity￾respecting) entangling operation Φ −1 (YiXj ). While this operation is two-body on the Ising side (top panels), it corresponds to an extended operation in the LGT (bot￾tom panels) acting between plaquettes i and j along a path γij , which is arbitrary except for its fixed endpoints. 3. Mapping of Measurement Outcomes In this subsection, we discuss the first part of Step 3 of t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview over the Local Dual Pairs protocol. The Local Dual Pairs protocol is a variant of our scheme for geometrically local gauge-invariant observables that have support on a patch of at most L × L. Step 1 consists of picking a random tiling τ ∈ T and, then, picking …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An ancilla enables mixing PBC (even par￾ity) and tPBC (odd parity) sectors. (a) Adding an an￾cilla a to a reference link r allows us to enforce either PBC or tPBC in the Z2 LGT. (b) In the Dual Product protocol, the z-component of the state of the link r is “copied” to…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic overview of the Dual Product protocol with periodic boundary conditions (PBC). Step 1. Ran￾domly choose a unitary Uprod consisting of a single qubit Clifford gate on each Ising qubit. Step 2. The dual unitary Uprod = Φ[Uprod] is implemented on the LGT side of…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Numerical Demonstration. (a) Examples of a ribbon (blue) and loop (red) operator on both the Z2 LGT and Ising side of the duality. (b) Estimates of ribbon (of maximal length) and loop operator (two plaquettes) expectation values on a minimal lattice of size Nx = 3, Ny …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) An illustration of an example loop operator of the sort considered in the discussion in Section VI B. (b) An illustration of an example (set of) ribbon op￾erators of the sort considered in the discussion in Sec￾tion VI B. The way in which one picks paths to connect…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Summary of LGT-Ising duality for PBC and FBC. (a) Hilbert space structure and operators for Z2 LGT with PBC and (b) for the corresponding Ising dual which is subject to a parity constraint. Spheres mark one local spin-1/2 d.o.f. (c) For FBC, the LGT includes bulk and b…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Implementation of Global Dual Pairs with Fixed Boundary Conditions Example of a) loop and b) ribbon operators for Nx = 3 and Ny = 3 with FBC via the modified Global Dual Pairs protocol, compared to the exact solution of the Z2 LGT ground state. Error bars represent st…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Binary Gauss Stabilizers for Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Binary Gauss stabilizers provide a non-Pauli stabilizer description of the physical subspace of Z_{2^η} lattice gauge theories, enabling bit-flip error correction and gauge fixing from gauge constraints alone.

  2. Particle-preserving fermionic shadows with mode-independent sample complexity

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Derives improved mode-independent sample complexity bounds O(η log η) for fermionic classical shadows on particle-preserving operators and Slater determinant overlaps.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Overview The Global Dual Pairs protocol for estimating gauge-invariant observables, without additional re- strictions, is illustrated schematically in Fig. 2. For simplicity of presentation, we assume that bothNx and Ny are even, although this is not a requirement. The system realized in experiment, where measure- ments are performed, is the LGT; the dual...

  2. [2]

    For systems with PBCs, we choose each local unitary U[ij] to respect parity symmetry

    Random Symmetry-Respecting Unitaries In this section, we detail the structure and cost of implementing the random symmetry-respecting uni- taries Uπ constructed in the Ising picture inStep 1 and implemented on the LGT states inStep 2. For systems with PBCs, we choose each local unitary U[ij] to respect parity symmetry. In the absence of a symmetry constra...

  3. [3]

    Mapping of Measurement Outcomes In this subsection, we discuss the first part of Step 3 of the Global Dual Pairs protocol where we map measurement outcomes s ∈ {0, 1}2V to dual bit strings b ∈ {0, 1}V as described in Eq. (9). The mapping is relatively simple: the parity of the mea- surement outcomes around a given plaquette cor- responds to the measuremen...

  4. [4]

    all-pairs

    Inverting the Channel In this subsection, we discuss the second part of Step 3 of the Global Dual Pairs protocol—–the in- version of the channel defined in Eq. (10). We focus on the case with PBCs, where the Ising dual retains a global parity constraint. Our approach to ana- lyzing the channel inversion adapts techniques origi- nally developed in Ref. [62...

  5. [5]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Friesdorf, and C. Gogolin, Quantum many-body systems out of equilibrium, Nat. Phys. 11, 124 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Schachenmayer, L

    J. Schachenmayer, L. Pollet, M. Troyer, and A. J. Daley, Thermalization of strongly interact- ing bosons after spontaneous emissions in optical lattices, EPJ Quantum Technology2, 1 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body local- ization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 15 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quan- tum thermalization through entanglement in an isolated many-body system, Science 353, 794 (2016)

    2016

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Na- ture 607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Mueller, T

    N. Mueller, T. Wang, O. Katz, Z. Davoudi, and M. Cetina, Quantum computing universal thermal- ization dynamics in a (2+ 1) d lattice gauge theory, Nat. Commun. 16, 5492 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    A. De, A. Lerose, D. Luo, F. M. Surace, A. Schuck- ert, E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, W. Morong, K. S. Collins, Z. Davoudi,et al., Observation of string- breaking dynamics in a quantum simulator, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13815 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    T. A. Cochran, B. Jobst, E. Rosenberg, Y. D. Lensky, G. Gyawali, N. Eassa, M. Will, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni,et al., Visualizing dynam- 17 ics of charges and strings in (2+ 1) d lattice gauge theories, Nature , 315–320 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    González-Cuadra, M

    D. González-Cuadra, M. Hamdan, T. V. Zache, B. Braverman, M. Kornjača, A. Lukin, S. H. Cantú, F. Liu, S.-T. Wang, A. Keesling,et al., Ob- servation of string breaking on a (2+ 1) d rydberg quantum simulator, Nature , 1 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eber- harter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye,et al., Quan- tum simulation of 2d antiferromagnets with hun- dreds of rydberg atoms, Nature595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Semeghini, H

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kalinowski, R. Samajdar,et al., Probing topo- logical spin liquids on a programmable quantum simulator, Science 374, 1242 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Satzinger, Y.-J

    K. Satzinger, Y.-J. Liu, A. Smith, C. Knapp, M. Newman, C. Jones, Z. Chen, C. Quintana, X. Mi, A. Dunsworth, et al., Realizing topologi- cally ordered states on a quantum processor, Sci- ence 374, 1237 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states, in Proceedings of the 50th annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing (2018) pp

    S. Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states, in Proceedings of the 50th annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing (2018) pp. 325–338

    2018

  11. [19]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys.16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Emerson, R

    J. Emerson, R. Alicki, and K. Życzkowski, Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 7, S347 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Knill, D

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Oz- eri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A77, 012307 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    Cramer, M

    M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon- Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y.-K. Liu, Efficient quantum state tomography, Nat Commun.1, 149 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 180504 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices, Nat. Phys. 14, 595 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Erhard, J

    A. Erhard, J. J. Wallman, L. Postler, M. Meth, R. Stricker, E. A. Martinez, P. Schindler, T. Monz, J. Emerson, and R. Blatt, Characterizing large- scale quantum computers via cycle benchmarking, Nat. Commun. 10, 5347 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Kokail, C

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, et al., Self-verifying varia- tional quantum simulation of lattice models, Na- ture 569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Blume-Kohout, T

    R. Blume-Kohout, T. Proctor, and K. Young, Quantum characterization, verification, and vali- dation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16383 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Czerwinski, Selected concepts of quantum state tomography, Optics3, 268 (2022)

    A. Czerwinski, Selected concepts of quantum state tomography, Optics3, 268 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Gross, Y.-K

    D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, S. T. Flammia, S. Becker, and J. Eisert, Quantum state tomography via com- pressed sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 150401 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    S. T. Flammia, D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, and J. Eis- ert, Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient esti- mators, New J. Phys.14, 095022 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    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 sympo- sium on Theory of Computing(2016) pp. 913–925

    2016

  24. [32]

    O’Donnell and J

    R. O’Donnell and J. Wright, Efficient quantum to- mography, inProceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing(2016) pp. 899–912

    2016

  25. [33]

    Torlai, G

    G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, J. Carrasquilla, M. Troyer, R. Melko, and G. Carleo, Neural-network quantum state tomography, Nat. Phys.14, 447 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Saxena, E

    A. Saxena, E. Abbasgholinejad, A. Majumdar, and R. Trivedi, Boundary measurement tomography of the bose hubbard model on general graphs, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033058 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    S. J. van Enk and C. W. Beenakker, Measuring trρ nonsinglecopiesof ρusingrandommeasurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 110503 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Elben, B

    A. Elben, B. Vermersch, M. Dalmonte, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Rényi entropies from ran- dom quenches in atomic hubbard and spin models, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 050406 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Vermersch, A

    B. Vermersch, A. Elben, M. Dalmonte, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Unitaryn-designs via random quenches in atomic hubbard and spin models: Ap- plication to the measurement of rényi entropies, Phys. Rev. A97, 023604 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Elben, B

    A. Elben, B. Vermersch, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Statistical correlations between locally randomized measurements: A toolbox for probing entangle- ment in many-body quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052323 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Brydges, A

    T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch, C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Probing rényi entanglement entropy via randomized measurements, Science 364, 260 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Z. Du, Y. Tang, A. Elben, I. Roth, J. Eisert, and Z. Liu, Optimal randomized measurements for a family of non-linear quantum properties, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09206 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Paini and A

    M. Paini and A. Kalev, An approximate de- 18 scription of quantum states, arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10543 (2019)

    1910 arXiv

  34. [42]

    H.-Y. R. Huang, M. B. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Bab- bush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill,et al., Demonstrating quantum advantage in learning from experiments, Science 376, 1182 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Van Kirk, J

    K. Van Kirk, J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and M. D. Lukin, Hardware-efficient learning of quantum many-body states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06084 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Hadfield, S

    C. Hadfield, S. Bravyi, R. Raymond, and A. Mez- zacapo, Measurements of quantum hamiltonians with locally-biased classical shadows, Commun. Math. Phys. 391, 951 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    A. A. Akhtar, H.-Y. Hu, and Y.-Z. You, Scalable and flexible classical shadow tomography with ten- sor networks, Quantum7, 1026 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

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

    2023

  39. [47]

    Kunjummen, M

    J. Kunjummen, M. C. Tran, D. Carney, and J. M. Taylor, Shadow process tomography of quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A107, 042403 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Gandhari, V

    S. Gandhari, V. V. Albert, T. Gerrits, J. M. Taylor, and M. J. Gullans, Precision bounds on continuous-variable state tomography using classi- cal shadows, PRX Quantum5, 010346 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

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

    2024

  42. [50]

    Z. Zhu, J. M. Lukens, and B. T. Kirby, On the connection between least squares, regularization, and classical shadows, Quantum8, 1455 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Z. Cai, A. Chapman, H. Jnane, and B. Koczor, Biased estimator channels for classical shadows, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09511 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    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, Nat Commun. 16, 2943 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    M. K. Joshi, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, T. Brydges, C. Maier, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Quantum Information Scrambling in a Trapped- Ion Quantum Simulator with Tunable Range In- teractions, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 240505 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    L. K. Joshi, J. Franke, A. Rath, F. Ares, S. Mur- ciano, F. Kranzl, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, B. Vermersch, P. Calabrese, C. F. Roos, and M. K. Joshi, Ob- serving the Quantum Mpemba Effect in Quantum Simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 010402 (2024), publisher: American Physical Society

    2024

  47. [55]

    Zhang, J

    T. Zhang, J. Sun, X.-X. Fang, X.-M. Zhang, X. Yuan, and H. Lu, Experimental quantum state measurement with classical shadows, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 200501 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Struchalin, Y

    G. Struchalin, Y. A. Zagorovskii, E. Kovlakov, S. Straupe, and S. Kulik, Experimental estimation ofquantumstatepropertiesfromclassicalshadows, PRX Quantum 2, 010307 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Vitale, A

    V. Vitale, A. Rath, P. Jurcevic, A. Elben, C. Bran- ciard, and B. Vermersch, Robust Estimation of the Quantum Fisher Information on a Quantum Pro- cessor, PRX Quantum5, 030338 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    H. Dong, P. Zhang, C. B. Dağ, Y. Gao, N. Wang, J. Deng, X. Zhang, J. Chen, S. Xu, K. Wang, Y.Wu, C.Zhang, F.Jin, X.Zhu, A.Zhang, Y.Zou, Z. Tan, Z. Cui, Z. Zhu, F. Shen, T. Li, J. Zhong, Z. Bao, H. Li, Z. Wang, Q. Guo, C. Song, F. Liu, A. Chan, L. Ying, and H. Wang, Measuring t...

    2025

  51. [59]

    Berndtsson, J

    T.I.Andersen, N.Astrakhantsev, A.H.Karamlou, J. Berndtsson, J. Motruk, A. Szasz, J. A. Gross, A. Schuckert, T. Westerhout, Y. Zhang, et al., Thermalization and criticality on an analogue– digital quantum simulator, Nature638, 79 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Votto, M

    M. Votto, M. Ljubotina, C. Lancien, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, M. Serbyn, L. Piroli, and B. Vermersch, Learning mixed quantum states in large-scale experiments, arXiv:preprint arXiv:2507.12550 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Elben, S

    A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, The ran- domized measurement toolbox, Nat. Rev. Phys.5, 9 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    A. Rath, R. van Bijnen, A. Elben, P. Zoller, and B. Vermersch, Importance sampling of ran- domized measurements for probing entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 200503 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Efficient estimation of pauli observables by derandomiza- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 030503 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Hao Low, Classical shadows of fermions with particle number symmetry, arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08964 (2022)

    G. Hao Low, Classical shadows of fermions with particle number symmetry, arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08964 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Bringewatt, J

    J. Bringewatt, J. Kunjummen, and N. Mueller, Randomized measurement protocols for lattice gauge theories, Quantum8, 1300 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    N.Hearth, M.O.Flynn, A

    S. N.Hearth, M.O.Flynn, A. Chandran,andC.R. Laumann, Efficient local classical shadow tomog- raphy with number conservation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 060802 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Sauvage and M

    F. Sauvage and M. Larocca, Classical shadows with symmetries, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05279 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Arvind, K

    R. Arvind, K. Bharti, J. Y. Khoo, D. E. Koh, and J. F. Kong, Quantum tug of war between random- nessandsymmetriesonhomogeneousspaces,Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013105 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    J. C. Halimeh, N. Mueller, J. Knolle, Z. Pa- pić, and Z. Davoudi, Quantum simulation of out- of-equilibrium dynamics in gauge theories, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.03586 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    M. C. Banuls, R. Blatt, J. Catani, A. Celi, J. I. Cirac, M. Dalmonte, L. Fallani, K. Jansen, M. Lewenstein, S. Montangero,et al., Simulating latticegaugetheorieswithinquantumtechnologies, Eur. Phys. J. D74, 1 (2020). 19

    2020

  63. [71]

    N. Klco, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, Standard model physics and the digital quantum revolution: thoughtsabouttheinterface,Rept.Prog.Phys. 85, 064301 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhattacharya, M. Carena, W. A. de Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada, D. Kharzeev, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Liu, M. Lukin, Y. Meurice, C. Monroe, B. Nachman, G. Pagano, J. Preskill, E. Rinaldi, A. Roggero, D. I. Sant...

    2023

  65. [73]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Sav- age, Quantum simulation of fundamental particles and forces, Nature Rev. Phys.5, 420 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Di Meglio, K

    A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexan- drou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft, R. de Putter, A. Delgado, V. Dunjko, D. J. Egger, E. Fernández- Combarro, E. Fuchs, L. Funcke, D. González- Cuadra, M. Grossi, J. C. Halimeh, Z. H...

    2024

  67. [75]

    Fradkin, Field theories of condensed matter physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    E. Fradkin, Field theories of condensed matter physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  68. [76]

    Kleinert, Gauge Fields in Condensed Matter: Vol

    H. Kleinert, Gauge Fields in Condensed Matter: Vol. 1: Superflow and Vortex Lines (Disorder Fields, Phase Transitions) Vol. 2: Stresses and Defects (Differential Geometry, Crystal Melting) (World Scientific, 1989)

    1989

  69. [77]

    Wen, Topological orders in rigid states, Int

    X.-G. Wen, Topological orders in rigid states, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A4, 239 (1990)

    1990

  70. [78]

    M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, String-net condensa- tion: A physical mechanism for topological phases, Phys. Rev. B71, 045110 (2005)

    2005

  71. [79]

    Y.-A. Chen, A. Kapustin, and Ð. Radičević, Exact bosonization in two spatial dimensions and a new class of lattice gauge theories, Annals of Physics 393, 234 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    Chen, Exact bosonization in arbitrary di- mensions, Phys

    Y.-A. Chen, Exact bosonization in arbitrary di- mensions, Phys. Rev. Research2, 033527 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    Chen and Y

    Y.-A. Chen and Y. Xu, Equivalence between fermion-to-qubit mappings in two spatial dimen- sions, PRX Quantum4, 010326 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    Das Sarma, M

    S. Das Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, Topo- logical quantum computation, Physics Today59, 32 (2006)

    2006

  75. [83]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-abelian anyons and topo- logicalquantumcomputation,Rev.Mod.Phys. 80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  76. [84]

    Lahtinen and J

    V. Lahtinen and J. K. Pachos, A Short Introduc- tion to Topological Quantum Computation, Sci- Post Phys. 3, 021 (2017)

    2017

  77. [85]

    J.KogutandL.Susskind,Hamiltonianformulation of wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D11, 395 (1975)

    1975

  78. [86]

    J. B. Kogut, An introduction to lattice gauge the- ory and spin systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 659 (1979)

    1979

  79. [87]

    to- ward quantum computing gauge theories of na- ture

    Z. Davoudi, Tasi/cern/kitp lecture notes on" to- ward quantum computing gauge theories of na- ture", arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.15840 (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    F. J. Wegner, Duality in generalized ising models and phase transitions without local order parame- ters, J. Math. Phys.12, 2259 (1971)

    1971

  81. [89]

    D. Horn, M. Weinstein, and S. Yankielowicz, Hamiltonian approach to z (n) lattice gauge the- ories, Phys. Rev. D19, 3715 (1979)

    1979

  82. [90]

    Mueller, T

    N. Mueller, T. V. Zache, and R. Ott, Thermal- ization of gauge theories from their entanglement spectrum, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 011601 (2022)

    2022

  83. [91]

    Hartse, L

    J. Hartse, L. Fidkowski, and N. Mueller, Stabilizer scars, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 060402 (2025)

    2025

  84. [92]

    Black, Dictionary of algorithms and data struc- tures (2012)

    P. Black, Dictionary of algorithms and data struc- tures (2012)

    2012

  85. [93]

    A. A. Mele, Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial, Quantum 8, 1340 (2024)

    2024

  86. [94]

    Smith, J

    A. Smith, J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, and R. Moessner, Disorder-free localization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 266601 (2017)

    2017

  87. [95]

    J. C. Halimeh, U. E. Khodaeva, D. L. Kovrizhin, R. Moessner, and J. Knolle, Disorder-free localiza- tion for benchmarking quantum computers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08268 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    https://github.com/frolandh/lgtshallowshadows

  89. [97]

    Handler, S

    P. Handler, S. Jasperson, S. Koeppen,et al., Du- ality transformations for discrete abelian models. simple example of duality transformation for non- abelianmodel,Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz 75,1083(1978)

    1978

  90. [98]

    Drouffe, C

    J. Drouffe, C. Itzykson, and J. Zuber, Lattice mod- els with a solvable symmetry group, Nuc. Phys. B 147, 132 (1979)

    1979

  91. [99]

    Alvarez, L

    E. Alvarez, L. Alvarez-Gaume, and Y. Lozano, On non-abelian duality, Nuc. Phys. B424, 155 (1994)

    1994

  92. [100]

    V. M. Buchstaber and M. I. Monastyrsky, General- ized kramers–wannier duality for spin systems with non-commutative symmetry, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36, 7679 (2003)

    2003

  93. [101]

    Cobanera, G

    E. Cobanera, G. Ortiz, and E. Knill, A solution to the non-abelian duality problem, Nuc. Phys. B 877, 574 (2013)

    2013

  94. [102]

    Ji and X.-G

    W. Ji and X.-G. Wen, Categorical symmetry and noninvertible anomaly in symmetry-breaking and topological phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033417 (2020)

    2020

  95. [103]

    Aasen, P

    D. Aasen, P. Fendley, and R. S. Mong, Topological defects on the lattice: Dualities and degeneracies, arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.08598 (2020)

    2008 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Chakraborty, R

    A. Chakraborty, R. Lewis, and C. A. Muschik, The charge-singlet measurement toolbox, arXiv 20 preprint arXiv:2510.08718 (2025)

    2025

  97. [105]

    A. T. Than, Y. Y. Atas, A. Chakraborty, J. Zhang, M.T.Diaz, K.Wen, X.Liu, R.Lewis, A.M.Green, C. A. Muschik,et al., The phase diagram of quan- tum chromodynamics in one dimension on a quan- tum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00579 (2024)

    2024

  98. [106]

    Y. Zhan, A. Elben, H.-Y. Huang, and Y. Tong, Learning conservation laws in unknown quantum dynamics, PRX Quantum5, 010350 (2024)

    2024

  99. [107]

    Ji, Y.-K

    Z. Ji, Y.-K. Liu, and F. Song, Pseudorandom quan- tum states, in Annual International Cryptology Conference (Springer, 2018) pp. 126–152

    2018

  100. [108]

    Ma and H.-Y

    F. Ma and H.-Y. Huang, How to construct ran- dom unitaries, in Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing(2025) pp. 806–809

    2025

  101. [109]

    Schuster, J

    T. Schuster, J. Haferkamp, and H.-Y. Huang, Ran- dom unitaries in extremely low depth, Science389, 92 (2025)

    2025

  102. [110]

    Ippoliti, Classical shadows based on locally- entangled measurements, Quantum8, 1293 (2024)

    M. Ippoliti, Classical shadows based on locally- entangled measurements, Quantum8, 1293 (2024)

    2024

  103. [111]

    S. Chen, W. Yu, P. Zeng, and S. T. Flammia, Ro- bust shadow estimation, PRX Quantum2, 030348 (2021)

    2021

  104. [112]

    D. E. Koh and S. Grewal, Classical shadows with noise, Quantum 6, 776 (2022)

    2022

  105. [113]

    Rozon, N

    P.-G. Rozon, N. Bao, and K. Agarwal, Optimal twirling depth for classical shadows in the presence of noise, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 130803 (2024)

    2024

  106. [114]

    Brieger, M

    R. Brieger, M. Heinrich, I. Roth, and M. Kliesch, Stabilityofclassicalshadowsundergate-dependent noise, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 090801 (2025)

    2025

  107. [115]

    H.-Y. Hu, R. LaRose, Y.-Z. You, E. Rieffel, and Z. Wang, Logical shadow tomography: Efficient estimation of error-mitigated observables, arXiv prepreint arXiv:2203.07263 (2022). 21 Appendix A: Details of Sample Complexity Bound Here, we provide details for the derivation of th...

    2022 arXiv

  108. [116]

    The case of periodic boundary conditions (PBC) is discussed in the main text and, for reference, is also summarized in Fig

    Duality with FBC We now describe how the duality is modified in the presence of fixed boundary conditions (FBC). The case of periodic boundary conditions (PBC) is discussed in the main text and, for reference, is also summarized in Fig. 9a and b. The LGT–Ising duality under FB...

  109. [117]

    double pairings

    Adapting the Global Dual Pairs Protocol to FBC The Global Dual Pairs protocol with FBC is essentially identical to the PBC case discussed in the main text, except that the parity symmetry constraint is no longer imposed. Accordingly, for each pairingπ, and for pairs [ij] ∈ π, ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.