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

Bo Jiang; Jie Hou; Qiao Wang; Shi Wang; Yang Ji; Yongjin Ye; Yongzheng Wu; Zijian Wang

arxiv: 2510.00056 · v3 · pith:YX5PJ6HInew · submitted 2025-09-28 · 🪐 quant-ph

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

Yang Ji , Yongjin Ye , Qiao Wang , Shi Wang , Jie Hou , Yongzheng Wu , Zijian Wang , Bo Jiang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 21:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords boson samplingnoise quantificationphoton distinguishabilitystatistical benchmarkscorrelatorscloudsquantum advantagephoton loss

0 comments

The pith

Statistical benchmark methods can quantify noise levels in boson sampling outputs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

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.

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.

What carries the argument

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

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.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are 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.

Load-bearing premise

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

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.

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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

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

The punchline is that this work supplies a practical fast simulator for generating noisy boson samples that include partial photon distinguishability, and it tests whether existing statistical benchmarks can turn around and measure the noise strength instead of just separating ideal from fake distributions. They argue that noise damps the output imbalances that come from multi-photon interference, so higher-order correlators or clouds track the noise parameters more cleanly. The simulation trick is presented as new and aimed at making those checks feasible without full exact computation. That part looks like the real addition here, since prior benchmark papers focused on discrimination rather than quantitative noise readout. It is useful for groups running boson sampling experiments who need quick ways to gauge how much distinguishability or loss is creeping in before claiming advantage. The approach builds directly on the cited correlator and cloud methods without obvious circular fitting. The soft spot is the central premise that noise suppresses those interference-driven unbalances independently of how the samples are generated. The abstract states this as the reason higher orders work better, but without derivations, small-system exact comparisons, or controls that isolate the effect from possible damping built into the fast simulator itself, the correlation between benchmark values and noise parameters could partly reflect the approximation rather than diagnose the physics. If the full paper shows those checks and reports error bars on the estimates, the concern shrinks; otherwise it stays material. No invented entities or heavy free parameters jump out from the description. This is for experimental quantum optics teams or theorists working on near-term sampling protocols who already know the benchmark literature. A reader looking for ready-to-use noise diagnostics would find value if the validation holds. It deserves a serious referee because the simulation scheme could be adopted even if the noise evaluation needs tightening, and the topic sits inside active quantum advantage work.

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)

[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.
[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)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the specific noise strength parameters and system sizes used in the reported simulations.
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

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
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

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.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 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.

axioms (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.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5674 in / 1354 out tokens · 86804 ms · 2026-05-21T21:02:12.242754+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[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]

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]

-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.030503 2018
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.032310 2018
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.220502 2018
[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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.01953
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.022407 2021
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.108.052604 2023
[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

work page doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02535-8 2024
[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

work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab5555 2020
[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

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aadfa8 2018
[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

work page doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00557- 2022
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.100.012340 2019
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.91.022316 2015
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.230502 2018
[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

work page doi:10.1038/s41534- 2018
[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

work page 2018
[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

work page doi:10.1117/1.ap.1.3.034001 2019
[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/s021974991560028x

work page doi:10.1142/s021974991560028x 2014
[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

work page doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1440-y 2020
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011013 2019
[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

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.05093
[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

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.18113
[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

work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac969b 2023
[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

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/3/032001 2016
[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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.020502 2014
[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),

work page 2025
[34]

DOI: 10.1007/s11128-025-04705-w

work page doi:10.1007/s11128-025-04705-w
[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

work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-08-08-1076 2023
[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

work page doi:10.1038/nphys4270 2017
[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

work page doi:10.1364/optica.3.001460 2016
[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. 1 Equivalent optical network of boson sampling with the noise of photon distingu...

work page doi:10.1126/science.1231692 2013

[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

[9] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.030503 2018

[10] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.032310 2018

[11] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.220502 2018

[12] [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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.01953

[13] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.022407 2021

[14] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.108.052604 2023

[15] [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

work page doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02535-8 2024

[16] [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

work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab5555 2020

[17] [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

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aadfa8 2018

[18] [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

work page doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00557- 2022

[19] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.100.012340 2019

[20] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.91.022316 2015

[21] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.230502 2018

[22] [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

work page doi:10.1038/s41534- 2018

[23] [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

work page 2018

[24] [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

work page doi:10.1117/1.ap.1.3.034001 2019

[25] [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/s021974991560028x

work page doi:10.1142/s021974991560028x 2014

[26] [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

work page doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1440-y 2020

[27] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011013 2019

[28] [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

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.05093

[29] [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

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.18113

[30] [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

work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac969b 2023

[31] [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

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/3/032001 2016

[32] [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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.020502 2014

[33] [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),

work page 2025

[34] [34]

DOI: 10.1007/s11128-025-04705-w

work page doi:10.1007/s11128-025-04705-w

[35] [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

work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-08-08-1076 2023

[36] [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

work page doi:10.1038/nphys4270 2017

[37] [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

work page doi:10.1364/optica.3.001460 2016

[38] [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. 1 Equivalent optical network of boson sampling with the noise of photon distingu...

work page doi:10.1126/science.1231692 2013