Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 38 references

Evaluating noises of fast-simulated boson sampling with statistical benchmark methods

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-21 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Statistical benchmark methods can quantify noise levels in boson sampling outputs.

desk verdict The paper gives a fast simulation scheme for noisy boson sampling with partial distinguishability and applies correlators/clouds to estimate noise, but the key premise about interference suppression lacks shown controls. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.00056 v3 pith:YX5PJ6HI submitted 2025-09-28 quant-ph

Yang Ji , Yongjin Ye , Qiao Wang , Shi Wang , Jie Hou , Yongzheng Wu , Zijian Wang , Bo Jiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords bosonsamplingnoisequantificationphotondistinguishabilitystatisticalbenchmarkscorrelatorscloudsquantumadvantageloss
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 establishes that correlators and clouds, originally for discriminating boson sampling from classical simulations, can also evaluate the levels of noise such as partial photon distinguishability and photon loss with dark count compensation. This works because these noises suppress the unbalances in the output distribution that arise from multi-photon interferences. Using higher order versions of these methods improves the evaluation accuracy. The authors also provide a scheme to quickly simulate samples under these noisy conditions. A reader would care as accurate noise assessment is crucial for validating quantum computational advantage claims.

What carries the argument

The correlators and clouds that measure the suppression of output distribution unbalances caused by multi-photon interferences under noise.

What would settle it

If measurements of correlators and clouds do not change systematically when known amounts of partial distinguishability or loss are introduced in simulations or experiments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Based on those statistical benchmark methods such as the correlators and clouds, which are initially proposed to discriminate boson sampling and other mockups, we quantificationally evaluate noises of photon partial distinguishability and photon loss compensated by dark counts. This is feasible owing to the fact that the output distribution unbalances are suppressed by noises, which are actually results of multi-photon interferences. This is why the evaluation performance is better when high order correlators or correspondent clouds are employed. Our results indicate that the statistical benchmark methods can also work in the task of evaluating noises of boson sampling.

Load-bearing premise

That the noises suppress the unbalances in the output distribution resulting from multi-photon interferences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Higher order correlators or clouds yield better noise evaluation performance.
  • The methods apply to quantifying photon partial distinguishability and compensated photon loss.
  • An effective scheme allows fast simulation of noisy boson sampling samples.
  • These benchmarks support careful demonstration of quantum computational advantage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Researchers could apply the same benchmarks to experimental data from photonic chips to estimate real-world noise without full tomography.
  • This noise evaluation might help optimize parameters in larger-scale boson sampling implementations.
  • Similar interference suppression effects could be used to benchmark noise in other quantum computing platforms relying on multi-particle statistics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that statistical benchmark methods such as correlators and clouds, originally proposed to discriminate boson sampling from mockups, can quantitatively evaluate noise levels due to photon partial distinguishability and photon loss compensated by dark counts in boson sampling. This is feasible because noises suppress output distribution unbalances arising from multi-photon interferences, with higher-order correlators or clouds showing better evaluation performance. The work also introduces an effective fast-simulation scheme for generating noisy samples, especially those with partial distinguishability.

Significance. If the central claims hold after validation, the work would usefully extend existing statistical benchmarks from discrimination tasks to noise quantification, supporting experimental verification of quantum advantage in boson sampling. The fast-simulation scheme for partial distinguishability represents a practical computational contribution that could enable broader studies of noisy boson sampling without prohibitive resources. Credit is due for building directly on prior benchmark methods rather than introducing entirely new metrics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and the paragraph on evaluation performance: the premise that 'output distribution unbalances are suppressed by noises, which are actually results of multi-photon interferences' is presented as the reason higher-order correlators perform better, yet no derivation, explicit calculation, or control simulation is supplied showing this suppression occurs independently of the fast-simulation scheme. This premise is load-bearing for the claim that the benchmarks can quantify noise levels.
  2. [Fast simulation scheme] Section describing the fast simulation scheme: without reported comparisons to exact methods or ablation studies that isolate interference damping from the approximation, it remains possible that the observed correlation between benchmark values and noise parameters is partly an artifact of the simulator rather than a diagnostic of physical noise.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the specific noise strength parameters and system sizes used in the reported simulations.
  2. Notation for the correlators and clouds should be defined consistently when first introduced to aid readers unfamiliar with the prior discrimination literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and for recognizing the potential value of extending statistical benchmark methods to noise quantification in boson sampling. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will implement to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and the paragraph on evaluation performance: the premise that 'output distribution unbalances are suppressed by noises, which are actually results of multi-photon interferences' is presented as the reason higher-order correlators perform better, yet no derivation, explicit calculation, or control simulation is supplied showing this suppression occurs independently of the fast-simulation scheme. This premise is load-bearing for the claim that the benchmarks can quantify noise levels.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from a clearer, independent justification of this premise. The suppression arises because partial distinguishability and loss damp the multi-photon interference contributions that produce the characteristic output imbalances in ideal boson sampling; this is a standard feature of the underlying permanents or scattering amplitudes. In the revised version we will insert a concise theoretical paragraph (with supporting references to prior literature on noisy boson sampling) explaining this damping effect. We will also add a small-scale control simulation using exact enumeration on systems small enough for direct computation, demonstrating the suppression of imbalances as a function of noise strength without invoking the fast simulator. This addition will make the rationale for superior performance of higher-order correlators explicit and independent of the simulation method. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Fast simulation scheme] Section describing the fast simulation scheme: without reported comparisons to exact methods or ablation studies that isolate interference damping from the approximation, it remains possible that the observed correlation between benchmark values and noise parameters is partly an artifact of the simulator rather than a diagnostic of physical noise.

    Authors: We accept that direct validation against exact methods is necessary to rule out simulator-specific artifacts. The fast scheme approximates the damping of interference terms induced by partial distinguishability while preserving the marginal photon statistics. In the revision we will include benchmark comparisons on small instances (e.g., 4–6 photons) where exact sampling is feasible, showing that the correlator and cloud values obtained from the fast simulator closely track those from exact noisy distributions across a range of distinguishability and loss parameters. We will also add a short discussion of the approximation’s effect on interference terms, confirming that the observed monotonic trends with noise strength are not introduced by the simulator itself. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; builds on external benchmarks with premise stated as established fact

full rationale

The paper extends externally proposed statistical benchmark methods (correlators and clouds, initially for discriminating boson sampling from mockups) to quantify noises from partial distinguishability and loss+dark counts. The central premise—that noises suppress output distribution unbalances arising from multi-photon interferences, explaining better performance at higher orders—is presented as a given fact enabling the evaluation, without any shown equations, fitted parameters, or self-citation chains that reduce the claimed performance or simulation outputs to quantities defined by the same inputs. The fast simulation scheme for noisy samples is introduced as a separate contribution. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to the paper's own data or ansatz, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that noises suppress output unbalances via multi-photon interference effects, plus standard quantum-optics models of loss and distinguishability; noise strengths function as free parameters whose specific values are not independently derived in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • noise strength parameters for partial distinguishability and loss/dark-count compensation
    These parameters are required to model the specific noise levels whose effects the statistical methods are claimed to quantify.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Output distribution unbalances are suppressed by noises, which are results of multi-photon interferences
    Invoked in the abstract to explain why higher-order correlators and clouds yield better noise evaluation performance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating noises of fast-simulated boson sampling with statistical benchmark methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YX5PJ6HI

@misc{pith2026251000056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating noises of fast-simulated boson sampling with statistical benchmark methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YX5PJ6HI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.00056}
}
read the original abstract

It is important to know noise levels of boson sampling in order to cautiously demonstrate the quantum computational advantage or realize certain tasks. Based on those statistical benchmark methods such as the correlators and clouds, which are initially proposed to discriminate boson sampling and other mockups, we quantificationally evaluate noises of photon partial distinguishability and photon loss compensated by dark counts. This is feasible owing to the fact that the output distribution unbalances are suppressed by noises, which are actually results of multi-photon interferences. This is why the evaluation performance is better when high order correlators or correspondent clouds are employed. Our results indicate that the statistical benchmark methods can also work in the task of evaluating noises of boson sampling. An effective scheme is also introduced to fast simulate noisy samples, especially those with photon partial distinguishability.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The computational complexity of linear optics

    Aaronson, S.; Arkhipov, A. The computational complexity of linear optics. In Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, San Jose, California, USA; 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.170501

    Hamilton, C. S.; Kruse, R.; Sansoni, L.; Barkhofen, S.; Silberhorn, C.; Jex, I. Gaussian Boson Sampling. Physical Review Letters 2017, 119 (17), 170501. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.170501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.170501 2017

  3. [3]

    -M.; Chen, M

    Deng, Y .-H.; Gu, Y .-C.; Liu, H.-L.; Gong, S.-Q.; Su, H.; Zhang, Z.-J.; Tang, H.-Y .; Jia, M.- H.; Xu, J. -M.; Chen, M. -C.; et al. Gaussian Boson Sampling with Pseudo -Photon-Number- Resolving Detectors and Quantum Computational Advantage. Physical Review Letters 2023, 131 (15), 150601. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.150601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.150601 2023

  4. [4]

    Quantum computational advantage via high -dimensional Gaussian boson sampling

    Deshpande, A.; Mehta, A.; Vincent, T.; Quesada, N.; Hinsche, M.; Ioannou, M.; Madsen, L.; Lavoie, J.; Qi, H.; Eisert, J.; et al. Quantum computational advantage via high -dimensional Gaussian boson sampling. Science Advances 2022, 8 (1), eabi7894. DOI: doi:10.1126/sciadv.abi7894

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abi7894 2022

  5. [5]

    An Unbiased Quantum Random Number Generator Based on Boson Sampling

    Shi, J.; Zhao, T.; Wang, Y .; Yu, C.; Lu, Y .; Wu, J.; Shi, R.; Zhang, S.; Peng, S.; Wu, J. An Unbiased Quantum Random Number Generator Based on Boson Sampling. Advanced Quantum Technologies 2024, 7 (1), 2300179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/qute.202300179

    work page doi:10.1002/qute.202300179 2024

  6. [6]

    G.; Peropadre, B.; McClean, J

    Huh, J.; Guerreschi, G. G.; Peropadre, B.; McClean, J. R.; Aspuru -Guzik, A. Boson sampling for molecular vibronic spectra. Nature Photonics 2015, 9 (9), 615 -620. DOI: 10.1038/nphoton.2015.153

    work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2015.153 2015

  7. [7]

    Banchi, L.; Fingerhuth, M.; Babej, T.; Ing, C.; Arrazola, J. M. Molecular docking with Gaussian Boson Sampling. Science Advances 2020, 6 (23), eaax1950. DOI: doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax1950

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax1950 2020

  8. [8]

    Solving graph problems using gaussian boson sampling,

    Deng, Y .-H.; Gong, S.-Q.; Gu, Y .-C.; Zhang, Z.-J.; Liu, H.-L.; Su, H.; Tang, H.-Y .; Xu, J.- M.; Jia, M.-H.; Chen, M.-C.; et al. Solving Graph Problems Using Gaussian Boson Sampling. Physical Review Letters 2023, 130 (19), 190601. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.190601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.190601 2023

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    M.; Bromley, T

    Arrazola, J. M.; Bromley, T. R. Using Gaussian Boson Sampling to Find Dense Subgraphs. Physical Review Letters 2018, 121 (3), 030503. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.030503

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Gaussian boson sampling for perfect matchings of arbitrary graphs

    Brádler, K.; Dallaire-Demers, P.-L.; Rebentrost, P.; Su, D.; Weedbrook, C. Gaussian boson sampling for perfect matchings of arbitrary graphs. Physical Review A 2018, 98 (3), 032310. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032310

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    J.; Menssen, A.; Clements, W

    Renema, J. J.; Menssen, A.; Clements, W. R.; Triginer, G.; Kolthammer, W. S.; Walmsley, I. A. Efficient Classical Algorithm for Boson Sampling with Partially Distinguishable Photons. Physical Review Letters 2018, 120 (22), 220502. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.220502

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Classical Simulability of Noisy Boson Sampling

    Renema J.; Shchesnovich V .; Garcia -Patron R. Classical Simulability of Noisy Boson Sampling. arXiv:1809.01953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1809.01953

    doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Classical simulation of lossy boson sampling using matrix product operators

    Oh, C.; Noh, K.; Fefferman, B.; Jiang, L. Classical simulation of lossy boson sampling using matrix product operators. Physical Review A 2021, 104 (2), 022407. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022407

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Simulating lossy Gaussian boson sampling with matrix -product operators

    Liu, M.; Oh, C.; Liu, J.; Jiang, L.; Alexeev, Y . Simulating lossy Gaussian boson sampling with matrix -product operators. Physical Review A 2023, 108 (5), 052604. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.108.052604

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Classical algorithm for simulating experimental Gaussian boson sampling

    Oh, C.; Liu, M.; Alexeev, Y .; Fefferman, B.; Jiang, L. Classical algorithm for simulating experimental Gaussian boson sampling. Nature Physics 2024, 20 (9), 1461 -1468. DOI: 10.1038/s41567-024-02535-8

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    E.; García-Patrón, R.; Renema, J

    Moylett, A. E.; García-Patrón, R.; Renema, J. J.; Turner, P. S. Classically simulating near- term partially -distinguishable and lossy boson sampling. Quantum Science and Technology 2020, 5 (1), 015001. DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/ab5555

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Oszmaniec, M.; Brod, D. J. Classical simulation of photonic linear optics with lost particles. New Journal of Physics 2018, 20 (9), 092002. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/aadfa8

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Effect of partial distinguishability on quantum supremacy in Gaussian Boson sampling

    Shi, J.; Byrnes, T. Effect of partial distinguishability on quantum supremacy in Gaussian Boson sampling. npj Quantum Information 2022, 8 (1), 54. DOI: 10.1038/s41534-022-00557- 9

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Shchesnovich, V . S. Noise in boson sampling and the threshold of efficient classical simulatability. Physical Review A 2019, 100 (1), 012340. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.012340

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Tichy, M. C. Sampling of partially distinguishable bosons and the relation to the multidimensional permanent. Physical Review A 2015, 91 (2), 022316. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.91.022316

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    M.; Li, Y

    Wang, H.; Li, W.; Jiang, X.; He, Y . M.; Li, Y . H.; Ding, X.; Chen, M. C.; Qin, J.; Peng, C. Z.; Schneider, C.; et al. Toward Scalable Boson Sampling with Photon Loss. Physical Review Letters 2018, 120 (23), 230502. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.230502

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    M.; Diamanti, E.; Kerenidis, I

    Arrazola, J. M.; Diamanti, E.; Kerenidis, I. Quantum superiority for verifying NP-complete problems with linear optics. npj Quantum Information 2018, 4 (1), 56. DOI: 10.1038/s41534- 018-0103-1

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    The Classical Complexity of Boson Sampling

    Clifford, P.; Clifford, R. The Classical Complexity of Boson Sampling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp 146-155

    2018

  16. [24]

    B.; Ernesto, F

    Daniel, J. B.; Ernesto, F. G.; Andrea, C.; Roberto, O.; Nicolò, S.; Fabio, S. Photonic implementation of boson sampling: a review. Advanced Photonics 2019, 1 (3), 034001. DOI: 10.1117/1.AP.1.3.034001

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    J.; Crespi, A.; Flamini, F.; Ramponi, R.; Mataloni, P.; Osellame, R.; Galvão, E

    Bentivegna, M.; Spagnolo, N.; Vitelli, C.; Brod, D. J.; Crespi, A.; Flamini, F.; Ramponi, R.; Mataloni, P.; Osellame, R.; Galvão, E. F.; et al. Bayesian approach to Boson sampling validation. International Journal of Quantum Information 2014, 12 (07n08), 1560028. DOI: 10.1142/...

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    A Bayesian validation approach to practical boson sampling

    Dai, Z.; Liu, Y .; Xu, P.; Xu, W.; Yang, X.; Wu, J. A Bayesian validation approach to practical boson sampling. Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 2020, 63 (5), 250311. DOI: 10.1007/s11433-019-1440-y

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Pattern Recognition Techniques for Boson Sampling Validation

    Agresti, I.; Viggianiello, N.; Flamini, F.; Spagnolo, N.; Crespi, A.; Osellame, R.; Wiebe, N.; Sciarrino, F. Pattern Recognition Techniques for Boson Sampling Validation. Physical Review X 2019, 9 (1), 011013. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011013

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    C.; Camillini A.; Marzban S.; Robbio M .; Seron B.; Novo L.; Renema J

    Anguita M. C.; Camillini A.; Marzban S.; Robbio M .; Seron B.; Novo L.; Renema J. J. Experimental Validation of Boson Sampling Using Detector Binning. arXiv:2502.05093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.05093

    doi

  21. [29]

    J.; Kim M

    Bressanini G.; Seron B.; Novo L.; Cerf N. J.; Kim M. S. Gaussian Boson Sampling Validation via Detector Binning. arXiv:2310.18113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.18113

    doi

  22. [30]

    Certification of Gaussian Boson Sampling via graphs feature vectors and kernels

    Giordani, T.; Mannucci, V .; Spagnolo, N.; Fumero, M.; Rampini, A.; Rodolà, E.; Sciarrino, F. Certification of Gaussian Boson Sampling via graphs feature vectors and kernels. Quantum Science and Technology 2023, 8 (1), 015005. DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/ac969b

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    -D.; Mayer, K.; Tichy, M

    Walschaers, M.; Kuipers, J.; Urbina, J. -D.; Mayer, K.; Tichy, M. C.; Richter, K.; Buchleitner, A. Statistical benchmark for BosonSampling. New Journal of Physics 2016, 18 (3), 032001. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/18/3/032001

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    C.; Mayer, K.; Buchleitner, A.; Mølmer, K

    Tichy, M. C.; Mayer, K.; Buchleitner, A.; Mølmer, K. Stringent and Efficient Assessment of Boson -Sampling Devices. Physical Review Letters 2014, 113 (2), 020502. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.020502

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Extension of a pattern recognition validation approach for noisy boson sampling

    Ji, Y .; Wu, Y .; Wang, S.; Hou, J.; Chen, M.; Ni, M. Extension of a pattern recognition validation approach for noisy boson sampling. Quantum Information Processing 2025, 24 (3),

    2025

  26. [34]

    DOI: 10.1007/s11128-025-04705-w

    doi

  27. [35]

    M.; Quesada N

    Martínez-Cifuentes J.; Fonseca-Romero K. M.; Quesada N. Classical models may be a better explanation of the Jiuzhang 1.0 Gaussian Boson Sampler than its targeted squeezed light model. Quantum 2023, 7, 1076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-08-08-1076

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    M.; Montanaro, A.; Laing, A

    Neville, A.; Sparrow, C.; Clifford, R.; Johnston, E.; Birchall, P. M.; Montanaro, A.; Laing, A. Classical boson sampling algorithms with superior performance to near -term experiments. Nature Physics 2017, 13 (12), 1153-1157. DOI: 10.1038/nphys4270

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    R.; Humphreys, P

    Clements, W. R.; Humphreys, P. C.; Metcalf, B. J.; Kolthammer, W. S.; Walmsley, I. A. Optimal design for universal multiport interferometers. Optica 2016, 3 (12), 1460-1465. DOI: 10.1364/OPTICA.3.001460

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    B.; Metcalf, B

    Spring, J. B.; Metcalf, B. J.; Humphreys, P. C.; Kolthammer, W. S.; Jin, X.-M.; Barbieri, M.; Datta, A.; Thomas -Peter, N.; Langford, N. K.; Kundys, D.; et al. Boson Sampling on a Photonic Chip. Science 2013, 339 (6121), 798-801. DOI: doi:10.1126/science.1231692. Figures Fig. ...

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 21, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.