Polynomial Resource Classification of Quantum Circuit Familes via Classical Shadows

Abstract

We compare four polynomial-resource measurement strategies, (I) Z-basis-only, (II) nearest-neighbor ZZ (NN), (III) multi-basis (Z, X, Y), and (IV) classical shadows, for classifying three quantum circuit families: IQP, Clifford, and Clifford+T. We find Z-only measurements outperform multi-basis and classical shadows across all qubit counts and all four classifiers evaluated, and the O()-feature NN strategy matches Z-only to within 0.02 in Random Forest accuracy. The best result is a Random Forest accuracy of 0.91 at 4--5 qubits under Z-only (0.89 for NN, 0.85 for multi-basis, 0.67 for shadows). All four strategies collapse to near-chance accuracy (≈ 0.33) above approximately 12 qubits under the quadratic shot budget = 162. These findings indicate that the discriminative signal between these circuit families is concentrated in local, nearest-neighbor Z-basis correlations, consistent with the diagonal gate structure of IQP circuits, and that additional Pauli correlator types or long-range correlations carry no compensating discriminative power for this task. We provide a formal theoretical framework showing that circuits with high diagonal fraction in a given basis concentrate their correlator structure in that basis, and that any deviation from the dominant basis incurs a provably higher estimator variance. These results establish that a quadratic shot budget is insufficient for reliable classification above approximately 12 qubits, but do not rule out the existence of a subquadratic or otherwise more efficient polynomial-resource strategy; whether any polynomial measurement protocol can classify these families at large qubit counts remains an open question.

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…