Imagine you're shaking a box of dice. You know that if you shake long enough, the dice will settle into the expected distribution — sixes appear 1/6 of the time, and so on. But how long is 'long enough'? If you only shake for a second, the distribution is biased by the starting positions. Shake for an hour, and you're wasting time. The question is: what's the minimum shaking time to get a fair-looking distribution? That's exactly the question this paper answers for random quantum circuits and the Porter-Thomas distribution — the quantum analogue of 'fair dice.' The committed claim: for a brickwork random circuit on n qubits built from nearest-neighbor Haar random two-qubit gates, a circuit depth of O(n^{2m+1} log n) suffices for the output probability distribution over any fixed bitstring to be within O(1/n^m) total variation distance of the Porter-Thomas distribution. This is the first rigorous polynomial-depth convergence bound for Porter-Thomas. Prior work either proved convergence for unitary designs (a weaker, averaged notion) or assumed Porter-Thomas convergence without proof in the context of random circuit sampling experiments like Google's Sycamore. Why does this matter? Every quantum supremacy claim — Google 2019, USTC's Jiuzhang, IBM's recent experiments — rests on the assumption that low-depth random circuits produce output distributions that are approximately Porter-Thomas. The cross-entropy benchmarking (XEB) metric used to verify quantum advantage literally compares measured output probabilities against the Porter-Thomas prediction. Without a proof that circuits actually converge to Porter-Thomas at the depths used experimentally, the entire verification framework has a theoretical gap. This paper closes it. The proof architecture is elegant and leverages three distinct tools in combination. First, they use moment bounds from the theory of approximate unitary designs — the machinery that tells you when random circuits start 'looking random' in a statistical sense. Second, they employ analytic estimates of characteristic functions to translate moment-level convergence into distributional convergence. Third, and this is the novel technical ingredient, they establish a 'local anticoncentration property for inverse moments' — a bound showing that the inverse moments of the output distribution don't blow up, which is necessary because Porter-Thomas convergence requires controlling the tails, not just the bulk. The ladder here is subtle because the paper isn't competing against alternative results — it's proving something that was previously unproven. The closest prior art is the approximate design convergence results (Brandão-Harrow-Horodecki 2016, and recent improvements), which show that random circuits form approximate k-designs in polynomial depth. But being a k-design is strictly weaker than converging to Porter-Thomas: a k-design means the first k moments match, while Porter-Thomas convergence requires ALL moments to match (or equivalently, distributional convergence). The authors' key insight is showing how to bootstrap from finite-moment design convergence to full distributional convergence using characteristic function methods — a nontrivial analytic step. Integrity is strong for a theoretical paper. This is a mathematical proof, not a simulation or experiment. The validation is internal: either the proof is correct or it isn't. The 28-page paper provides the full argument. There are no benchmarks to cherry-pick, no hyperparameters to tune, no datasets to select. The key question for integrity is whether the proof has gaps or errors, which only peer review and community scrutiny will reveal. The authors are based at reputable institutions (Hunter-Jones has prior work on random circuits and scrambling), and the techniques are drawn from well-established mathematical machinery. The depth scaling — O(n^{2m+1} log n) for O(1/n^m) closeness — is polynomial but not tight. For the most basic convergence (m=1, meaning O(1/n) closeness), the depth is O(n^3 log n). Google's Sycamore experiment used depth ~20 on 53 qubits — far below n^3. The obvious question is whether the bound can be tightened to match experimental reality, or whether experimental circuits converge faster for reasons this proof doesn't capture (e.g., specific gate sets, non-worst-case initial states). The gap between the proven bound and experimental practice is the next frontier.
