- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review X

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Perspective
  • Open Access

Vast World of Quantum Advantage

Hsin-Yuan Huang1,2, Soonwon Choi3, Jarrod R. McClean2, and John Preskill1,4

PDF

Phys. Rev. X 16, 030501 – Published 9 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/tn89-g1xz

Abstract

The quest to identify quantum advantages lies at the heart of quantum technology. While quantum devices promise extraordinary capabilities, from exponential computational speedups to unprecedented measurement precision, distinguishing genuine advantages from mere illusions remains a formidable challenge. In this endeavor, quantum theorists are like prophets attempting to foretell the future, yet the boundary between visionary insight and unfounded fantasy is perilously thin. In this Perspective, we examine our mathematical tools for navigating the vast world of quantum advantages across computation, learning, sensing, and communication. We explore five keystone properties, predictability, typicality, robustness, verifiability, and usefulness that define an ideal quantum advantage, and envision what new quantum advantages could arise in a future with ubiquitous quantum technology. We prove that some quantum advantages are inherently unpredictable using classical resources alone, suggesting a landscape far richer than what we can currently foresee. While mathematical rigor remains our indispensable guide, the ultimate power of quantum technologies may emerge from advantages we cannot yet conceive.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Popular Summary

Article Text

References (136)

  1. J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1, 195 (1964).
  2. S. Jaques and A. G. Rattew, Qram: A survey and critique, arXiv:2305.10310.
  3. A. M. Dalzell, A. Gilyén, C. T. Hann, S. McArdle, G. Salton, Q. T. Nguyen, A. Kubica, and F. G. Brandão, A distillation-teleportation protocol for fault-tolerant QRAM, arXiv:2505.20265.
  4. A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009).
  5. E. Tang, A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems, in Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, 2019), pp. 217–228.
  6. E. Tang, Quantum principal component analysis only achieves an exponential speedup because of its state preparation assumptions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 060503 (2021).
  7. A. S. Holevo, Bounds for the quantity of information transmitted by a quantum communication channel, Probl. Inf. Transm. 9, 177 (1973).
  8. R. Raz, Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity, in Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, 1999), pp. 358–367.
  9. A. Montanaro, Quantum states cannot be transmitted efficiently classically, Quantum 3, 154 (2019).
  10. W. Kretschmer, S. Grewal, M. DeCross, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, N. Hunter-Jones, K. Mayer, B. Neyenhuis, D. Hayes et al., Demonstrating an unconditional separation between quantum and classical information resources, arXiv:2509.07255.
  11. D. Gilboa, H. Michaeli, D. Soudry, and J. McClean, Exponential quantum communication advantage in distributed inference and learning, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 37, 30425 (2024).
  12. Z. Zimborás, B. Koczor, Z. Holmes, E.-M. Borrelli, A. Gilyén, H.-Y. Huang, Z. Cai, A. Acín, L. Aolita, L. Banchi et al., Myths around quantum computation before full fault tolerance: What no-go theorems rule out and what they don’t, arXiv:2501.05694.
  13. S. Aaronson, A. M. Childs, E. Farhi, A. W. Harrow, and B. C. Sanders, Future of quantum computing, arXiv:2506.19232.
  14. R. King, Quantum algorithms: A call to action, https://quantumfrontiers.com/2025/04/20/quantum-algorithms-a-call-to-action/ (2025).
  15. O. Lanes, M. Beji, A. D. Corcoles, C. Dalyac, J. M. Gambetta, L. Henriet, A. Javadi-Abhari, A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, C. Porter et al., A framework for quantum advantage, arXiv:2506.20658.
  16. I. Kerenidis and A. Prakash, Quantum recommendation systems, in Proceedings of the 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (Schloss Dagstuhl—Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik GmbH, Wadern/Saarbrücken, Germany, 2017), pp. 49:1–49:21.
  17. L. J. Stockmeyer, The polynomial-time hierarchy, Theor. Comput. Sci. 3, 1 (1976).
  18. P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM Rev. 41, 303 (1999).
  19. O. Regev, On lattices, learning with errors, random linear codes, and cryptography, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 56, 1 (2009).
  20. U. Mahadev, Classical verification of quantum computations, in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California, 2018), pp. 259–267.
  21. T. Schuster, J. Haferkamp, and H.-Y. Huang, Random unitaries in extremely low depth, Science 389, 92 (2025).

  22. UN Conference on Trade and Development, Digital economy report 2024: Shaping an environmentally sustainable and inclusive digital future (2024), business e-commerce sales reached $27 trillion in 2022 across 43 countries.

  23. Forrester Research, Global digital economy forecast, 2023 to 2028 (2024), digital economy projectedto reach $16.5 trillion by 2028.

  24. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Digital signature standard (dss) (2013), federal standard specifying RSA, DSA, and ECDSA for digital signatures.

  25. C.-F. Chen, H.-Y. Huang, J. Preskill, and L. Zhou, Local minima in quantum systems, in Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, 2024), pp. 1845–1858.
  26. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028.
  27. J. Basso, E. Farhi, K. Marwaha, B. Villalonga, and L. Zhou, The quantum approximate optimization algorithm at high depth for maxcut on large-girth regular graphs and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model, arXiv:2110.14206.
  28. J. Basso, D. Gamarnik, S. Mei, and L. Zhou, Performance and limitations of the QAOA at constant levels on large sparse hypergraphs and spin glass models, in Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California, 2022), pp. 335–343.
  29. E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, D. Ranard, and B. Villalonga, Lower bounding the maxcut of high girth 3-regular graphs using the QAOA, arXiv:2503.12789.
  30. S. P. Jordan, N. Shutty, M. Wootters, A. Zalcman, A. Schmidhuber, R. King, S. V. Isakov, T. Khattar, and R. Babbush, Optimization by decoded quantum interferometry, arXiv:2408.08292.
  31. A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem, arXiv:quant-ph/9511026.
  32. L. Lin and Y. Tong, Near-optimal ground state preparation, Quantum 4, 372 (2020).
  33. D. Wu, R. Rossi, F. Vicentini, N. Astrakhantsev, F. Becca, X. Cao, J. Carrasquilla, F. Ferrari, A. Georges, M. Hibat-Allah et al., Variational benchmarks for quantum many-body problems, Science 386, 296 (2024).
  34. S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992).
  35. D. Aharonov, X. Gao, Z. Landau, Y. Liu, and U. Vazirani, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy random circuit sampling, in Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, 2023), pp. 945–957.
  36. Y. Shao, F. Wei, S. Cheng, and Z. Liu, Simulating quantum mean values in noisy variational quantum algorithms: A polynomial-scale approach, arXiv:2306.05804.
  37. N. A. Nemkov, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, Fourier expansion in variational quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032406 (2023).
  38. T. Begušić, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan, Fast and converged classical simulations of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Sci. Adv. 10, eadk4321 (2024).
  39. T. Begušić, K. Hejazi, and G. K. Chan, Simulating quantum circuit expectation values by Clifford perturbation theory, J. Chem. Phys. 162 (2025).
  40. E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, R. Duncan, I. Rungger, and C. Cîrstoiu, Classical simulations of noisy variational quantum circuits, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 84 (2025).
  41. M. S. Rudolph, E. Fontana, Z. Holmes, and L. Cincio, Classical surrogate simulation of quantum systems with LOWESA, arXiv:2308.09109.
  42. A. Angrisani, A. Schmidhuber, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, Z. Holmes, and H.-Y. Huang, Classically estimating observables of noiseless quantum circuits, arXiv:2409.01706.
  43. N. Dowling, P. Kos, and X. Turkeshi, Magic resources of the Heisenberg picture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 050401 (2025).
  44. F. Arute et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  45. Q. Zhu, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong et al., Quantum computational advantage via 60-qubit 24-cycle random circuit sampling, Sci. Bull. 67, 240 (2022).
  46. A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandra, A. Bengtsson, P. Klimov, Z. Chen, S. Hong, C. Erickson, I. Drozdov et al., Phase transitions in random circuit sampling, Nature (London) 634, 328 (2024).
  47. D. A. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, G. Aigeldinger, A. Ajoy, R. Alcaraz, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute et al., Constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergodic dynamics, arXiv:2506.10191.
  48. D. Gao, D. Fan, C. Zha, J. Bei, G. Cai, J. Cai, S. Cao, F. Chen, J. Chen, K. Chen et al., Establishing a new benchmark in quantum computational advantage with 105-qubit Zuchongzhi 3.0 processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 090601 (2025).
  49. D. Boneh, The decision Diffie-Hellman problem, in Proceedings of the International Algorithmic Number Theory Symposium (Springer, New York, 1998), pp. 48–63.
  50. V. Shoup, Lower bounds for discrete logarithms and related problems, in Proceedings of the International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques (Springer, New York, 1997), pp. 256–266.
  51. A. Schmidhuber, R. O’Donnell, R. Kothari, and R. Babbush, Quartic quantum speedups for planted inference, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021077 (2025).
  52. D. Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant overhead, Quantum Inf. Comput. 14, 1338 (2014).
  53. Q. T. Nguyen and C. A. Pattison, Quantum fault tolerance with constant-space and logarithmic-time overheads, in Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, 2025), pp. 730–737.
  54. S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Achieving the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction, Nat. Commun. 9, 78 (2018).
  55. M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography, Commun. ACM 24, 381 (1981).
  56. R. Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 58, 267 (1996).
  57. N. Natarajan, I. S. Dhillon, P. K. Ravikumar, and A. Tewari, Learning with noisy labels, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 26, 1196 (2013).
  58. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 190505 (2021).
  59. S. Chen, J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and J. Li, Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memory, in Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California, 2022), pp. 574–585.
  60. H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Babbush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, and J. R. McClean, Quantum advantage in learning from experiments, Science 376, 1182 (2022).
  61. H.-Y. Huang, S. T. Flammia, and J. Preskill, Foundations for learning from noisy quantum experiments, arXiv:2204.13691.
  62. S. Chen, J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and J. Li, The complexity of NISQ, Nat. Commun. 14, 6001 (2023).
  63. Z.-H. Liu, R. Brunel, E. E. Østergaard, O. Cordero, S. Chen, Y. Wong, J. A. Nielsen, A. B. Bregnsbo, S. Zhou, H.-Y. Huang et al., Quantum learning advantage on a scalable photonic platform, arXiv:2502.07770.
  64. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity of linear optics, Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, 2011), 333.
  65. R. Orús, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 349, 117 (2014).
  66. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
  67. S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani et al., Advances in quantum cryptography, Adv. Opt. Photonics 12, 1012 (2020).
  68. A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gilyén, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica et al., Quantum algorithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end complexities, arXiv:2310.03011.
  69. S. P. Jordan, Quantum algorithm zoo, https://quantumalgorithmzoo.org.
  70. E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, Quantum complexity theory, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, 1993), pp. 11–20.
  71. D. R. Simon, On the power of quantum computation, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1474 (1997).
  72. L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of The Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, 1996), pp. 212–219.
  73. E. Farhi and S. Gutmann, Quantum computation and decision trees, Phys. Rev. A 58, 915 (1998).
  74. A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, E. Deotto, E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, and D. A. Spielman, Exponential algorithmic speedup by a quantum walk, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, 2003), pp. 59–68.
  75. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum algorithm for the Hamiltonian NAND tree, arXiv:quant-ph/0702144.
  76. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  77. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
  78. G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017).
  79. S. Lee, J. Lee, H. Zhai, Y. Tong, A. M. Dalzell, A. Kumar, P. Helms, J. Gray, Z.-H. Cui, W. Liu et al., Evaluating the evidence for exponential quantum advantage in ground-state quantum chemistry, Nat. Commun. 14, 1952 (2023).
  80. H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, M. Mohseni, R. Babbush, S. Boixo, H. Neven, and J. R. McClean, Power of data in quantum machine learning, Nat. Commun. 12, 2631 (2021).
  81. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, G. Torlai, V. V. Albert, and J. Preskill, Provably efficient machine learning for quantum many-body problems, Science 377, eabk3333 (2022).
  82. L. Lewis, H.-Y. Huang, V. T. Tran, S. Lehner, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Improved machine learning algorithm for predicting ground state properties, Nat. Commun. 15, 895 (2024).
  83. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004).
  84. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006).
  85. R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Kołodyński, and M. Guţă, The elusive Heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrology, Nat. Commun. 3, 1063 (2012).
  86. T. L. S. Collaboration, A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit, Nat. Phys. 7, 962 (2011).
  87. B. P. Abbott et al., Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016).
  88. R. Schnabel, Squeezed states of light and their applications in laser interferometers, Phys. Rep. 684, 1 (2017).
  89. D. Ganapathy, W. Jia, M. Nakano, V. Xu, N. Aritomi, T. Cullen, N. Kijbunchoo, S. Dwyer, A. Mullavey, L. McCuller et al., Broadband quantum enhancement of the LIGO detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041021 (2023).
  90. J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. Lukin, High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution, Nat. Phys. 4, 810 (2008).
  91. I. Lovchinsky, A. Sushkov, E. Urbach, N. P. de Leon, S. Choi, K. De Greve, R. Evans, R. Gertner, E. Bersin, C. Müller et al., Nuclear magnetic resonance detection and spectroscopy of single proteins using quantum logic, Science 351, 836 (2016).
  92. P. Bhattacharyya, W. Chen, X. Huang, S. Chatterjee, B. Huang, B. Kobrin, Y. Lyu, T. J. Smart, M. Block, E. Wang et al., Imaging the Meissner effect in hydride superconductors using quantum sensors, Nature (London) 627, 73 (2024).
  93. M. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Liu, G. Xu, B. Yang, P. Yu, H. Sun, X. Ye, J. Zhou, A. F. Goncharov et al., Imaging magnetic transition of magnetite to megabar pressures using quantum sensors in diamond anvil cell, Nat. Commun. 15, 8843 (2024).
  94. A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015).
  95. T. Bothwell, C. J. Kennedy, A. Aeppli, D. Kedar, J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, A. Staron, and J. Ye, Resolving the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample, Nature (London) 602, 420 (2022).
  96. T. L. Nicholson, S. Campbell, R. Hutson, G. E. Marti, B. Bloom, R. L. McNally, W. Zhang, M. Barrett, M. S. Safronova, G. Strouse et al., Systematic evaluation of an atomic clock at 2×10−18 total uncertainty, Nat. Commun. 6, 6896 (2015).
  97. N. Schine, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, M. J. Martin, and A. M. Kaufman, Long-lived Bell states in an array of optical clock qubits, Nat. Phys. 18, 1067 (2022).
  98. D. Aharonov, J. Cotler, and X.-L. Qi, Quantum algorithmic measurement, Nat. Commun. 13, 1 (2022).
  99. S. Chen, C. Oh, S. Zhou, H.-Y. Huang, and L. Jiang, Tight bounds on Pauli channel learning without entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 180805 (2024).
  100. C. Oh, S. Chen, Y. Wong, S. Zhou, H.-Y. Huang, Jens A. Nielsen, Z.-H. Liu, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, U. L. Andersen, L. Jiang, and J. Preskill, Entanglement-enabled advantage for learning a bosonic random displacement channel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 230604 (2024).
  101. R. R. Allen, F. Machado, I. L. Chuang, H.-Y. Huang, and S. Choi, Quantum computing enhanced sensing, arXiv:2501.07625.
  102. C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theor. Comput. Sci. 560, 7 (2014).
  103. R. Colbeck and R. Renner, Free randomness can be amplified, Nat. Phys. 8, 450 (2012).
  104. M. Liu, R. Shaydulin, P. Niroula, M. DeCross, S.-H. Hung, W. Y. Kon, E. Cervero-Martín, K. Chakraborty, O. Amer, S. Aaronson et al., Certified randomness using a trapped-ion quantum processor, Nature (London), 640, 1 (2025).
  105. S. Wiesner, Conjugate coding, ACM SIGACT News 15, 78 (1983).
  106. A. Broadbent and R. Islam, Quantum encryption with certified deletion, in Proceedings of the Theory of Cryptography Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 12552 (Springer, New York, 2020), pp. 92–122.
  107. S. Aaronson, Quantum copy-protection and quantum money, in Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 2009), pp. 229–242.
  108. S. Goldwasser, Y. T. Kalai, and G. N. Rothblum, One-time programs, in Proceedings of the Annual International Cryptology Conference (Springer, New York, 2008), pp. 39–56.
  109. D. Ding and L. Jiang, Coordinating decisions via quantum telepathy, arXiv:2407.21723.
  110. J. Kallaugher, O. Parekh, and N. Voronova, Exponential quantum space advantage for approximating maximum directed cut in the streaming model, in Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, 2024), pp. 1805–1815.
  111. H. Ren and R. Santhanam, A relativization perspective on meta-complexity, in Proceedings of the 39th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2022) (Schloss Dagstuhl—Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik GmbH, Wadern/Saarbrücken, Germany, 2022), pp. 54–1.
  112. Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing, Meta-complexity program, Online Program with Videos and Materials (2023) (accessed July 3, 2025). https://simons.berkeley.edu/programs/meta23.
  113. H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner et al., Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature (London) 551, 579 (2017).
  114. C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papić, Weak ergodicity breaking from quantum many-body scars, Nat. Phys. 14, 745 (2018).
  115. M. Ippoliti and W. W. Ho, Solvable model of deep thermalization with distinct design times, Quantum 6, 886 (2022).
  116. J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, F. Hernández, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, M. Endres, and S. Choi, Emergent quantum state designs from individual many-body wave functions, PRX Quantum 4, 010311 (2023).
  117. A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).
  118. S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972).
  119. J. Preskill, Lecture notes for physics 229: Quantum Information and Computation, Lecture notes, California Institute of Technology (1998).
  120. L. Devroye, Nonuniform random variate generation, Handb. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. 13, 83 (2006).
  121. M. D. Vose, A linear algorithm for generating random numbers with a given distribution, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17, 972 (1991).
  122. H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, and R. de Wolf, Nonlocality and communication complexity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 665 (2010).
  123. M. W. Mahoney, Randomized algorithms for matrices and data, Found. Trends Mach. Learn. 3, 123 (2011).
  124. H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Quantum fingerprinting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167902 (2001).
  125. W.-T. Kuo, A. A. Akhtar, D. P. Arovas, and Y.-Z. You, Markovian entanglement dynamics under locally scrambled quantum evolution, Phys. Rev. B 101, 224202 (2020).
  126. H.-Y. Hu, S. Choi, and Y.-Z. You, Classical shadow tomography with locally scrambled quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023027 (2023).
  127. M. C. Caro, H.-Y. Huang, N. Ezzell, J. Gibbs, A. T. Sornborger, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and Z. Holmes, Out-of-distribution generalization for learning quantum dynamics, Nat. Commun. 14, 3751 (2023).
  128. J. Gibbs, Z. Holmes, M. C. Caro, N. Ezzell, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, A. T. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, Dynamical simulation via quantum machine learning with provable generalization, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013241 (2024).
  129. H.-Y. Huang, S. Chen, and J. Preskill, Learning to predict arbitrary quantum processes, PRX Quantum 4, 040337 (2023).
  130. H.-K. Zhang, S. Liu, and S.-X. Zhang, Absence of barren plateaus in finite local-depth circuits with long-range entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 150603 (2024).
  131. J. Napp, Quantifying the barren plateau phenomenon for a model of unstructured variational ansätze, arXiv:2203.06174.
  132. P. Braccia, P. Bermejo, L. Cincio, and M. Cerezo, Computing exact moments of local random quantum circuits via tensor networks, Quantum Mach. Intell. 6, 54 (2024).
  133. A. Letcher, S. Woerner, and C. Zoufal, Tight and efficient gradient bounds for parameterized quantum circuits, Quantum 8, 1484 (2024).
  134. A. Pesah, M. Cerezo, S. Wang, T. Volkoff, A. T. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, Absence of barren plateaus in quantum convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041011 (2021).
  135. A. W. Harrow and R. A. Low, Random quantum circuits are approximate 2-designs, Commun. Math. Phys. 291, 257 (2009).
  136. F. G. Brandao, A. W. Harrow, and M. Horodecki, Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs, Commun. Math. Phys. 346, 397 (2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. X 16, 030501– Published 9 July, 2026
  • Received 7 August 2025
  • Revised 19 March 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation