pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.04555 · v2 · submitted 2024-12-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Near-optimal pure state estimation with adaptive Fisher-symmetric measurements

C. Vargas , L. Pereira , A. Delgado This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 07:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum state estimationadaptive quantum measurementspure statesFisher-symmetric measurementsGill-Massar boundquantum metrologyfinite-sample bounds
0
0 comments X

The pith

A three-stage adaptive protocol estimates arbitrary pure quantum states with error scaling O(d/N) and infidelity near the Gill-Massar bound.

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

The paper introduces a three-stage adaptive method to estimate arbitrary d-dimensional pure quantum states. It relies on locally informationally complete Fisher-symmetric measurements in the initial stages followed by a single-shot measurement. Finite-sample high-probability error bounds are derived that scale as O(d/N) for large sample sizes, confirming the benefit of adaptation. Numerical results show the average infidelity approaches the optimal value set by the Gill-Massar bound. The method requires a total number of measurement outcomes that scales linearly with 7d minus 3, without needing collective measurements on multiple copies.

Core claim

We present a three-stage adaptive method for estimating arbitrary d-dimensional pure quantum states using locally informationally complete Fisher symmetric measurements (FSM) and a single-shot measurement basis. We derive finite-sample high-probability error bounds for the protocol and demonstrate that our approach scales as O(d/N) for large sample sizes, thereby guaranteeing the advantage of adaptation. Moreover, numerical simulations indicate that the protocol achieves an average infidelity close to the optimal given by the Gill-Massar lower bound (GMB). The total number of measurement outcomes scales linearly with 7d-3, avoiding the need for collective measurements on multiple copies of a

What carries the argument

Three-stage adaptive estimation protocol employing locally informationally complete Fisher-symmetric measurements (FSM) and a final single-shot measurement basis.

If this is right

  • The protocol provides finite-sample high-probability error bounds for pure state estimation.
  • It demonstrates the advantage of adaptation by achieving O(d/N) scaling.
  • The approach reaches infidelity close to the Gill-Massar lower bound in simulations.
  • Measurement outcomes total scales linearly with 7d-3 without collective measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This method could enable more efficient characterization in quantum devices by reducing the need for many copies.
  • Similar adaptive strategies might extend to estimating mixed states or other quantum parameters.
  • The linear scaling in d suggests practicality for higher-dimensional systems.
  • Further analysis could compare the finite-sample bounds to asymptotic limits.

Load-bearing premise

The three-stage adaptive procedure with locally informationally complete Fisher-symmetric measurements and a single-shot basis applies to arbitrary d-dimensional pure states and yields the stated error bounds without further restrictions on the state or measurements.

What would settle it

A numerical simulation or physical experiment on a d-dimensional pure state where the achieved average infidelity significantly exceeds the Gill-Massar bound or where the estimation error fails to scale proportionally to d/N for large N would falsify the central claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04555 by A. Delgado, C. Vargas, L. Pereira.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic representation of the adaptive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Average infidelity and standard deviation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Average infidelity and standard deviation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Average infidelity achieved using the ensamble distribution of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Average infidelity achieved using the ensamble distribution of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Average infidelity achieved using the ensamble distribution of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum state estimation is important for various quantum information processes, including quantum communications, computation, and metrology, which require the characterization of quantum states for evaluation and optimization. We present a three-stage adaptive method for estimating arbitrary $d$-dimensional pure quantum states using locally informationally complete Fisher symmetric measurements (FSM) and a single-shot measurement basis. We derive finite-sample high-probability error bounds for the protocol and demonstrate that our approach scales as $O(d/N)$ for large sample sizes, thereby guaranteeing the advantage of adaptation. Moreover, numerical simulations indicate that the protocol achieves an average infidelity close to the optimal given by the Gill-Massar lower bound (GMB). The total number of measurement outcomes scales linearly with $7d-3$, avoiding the need for collective measurements on multiple copies of the unknown state. This work highlights the potential of adaptive estimation techniques in quantum state characterization while maintaining efficiency in the number of measurement outcomes.

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.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a three-stage adaptive protocol for estimating arbitrary d-dimensional pure quantum states. It employs locally informationally complete Fisher-symmetric measurements (FSM) together with a single-shot measurement basis, derives finite-sample high-probability error bounds that scale as O(d/N) for large N (thereby claiming an adaptation advantage), and reports numerical simulations in which the average infidelity approaches the Gill-Massar lower bound. The total number of measurement outcomes is stated to scale linearly with 7d-3, avoiding collective measurements.

Significance. If the finite-sample bounds are established rigorously and uniformly for all pure states, the work would be significant: it would supply a concrete, resource-efficient adaptive scheme that demonstrably outperforms non-adaptive methods at the level of high-probability bounds while remaining close to the information-theoretic optimum in simulations. The linear scaling in d for the number of outcomes is a practical strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and bound derivation] Abstract (and the section containing the finite-sample bound derivation): the O(d/N) high-probability bound is asserted for arbitrary pure states under the three-stage adaptive protocol. Because later-stage FSM choices are conditioned on the stage-1 estimate, the bound requires uniform control over the probability that a poor stage-1 outcome produces a measurement sequence whose information matrix is too singular for the subsequent stages to recover the claimed rate. No such uniform control, nor any minimum-distance assumption away from problematic states, is stated; this is load-bearing for the central scaling claim and the asserted advantage of adaptation.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the total number of outcomes scales linearly with 7d-3; a short sentence explaining the origin of the factor 7 would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and bound derivation] Abstract (and the section containing the finite-sample bound derivation): the O(d/N) high-probability bound is asserted for arbitrary pure states under the three-stage adaptive protocol. Because later-stage FSM choices are conditioned on the stage-1 estimate, the bound requires uniform control over the probability that a poor stage-1 outcome produces a measurement sequence whose information matrix is too singular for the subsequent stages to recover the claimed rate. No such uniform control, nor any minimum-distance assumption away from problematic states, is stated; this is load-bearing for the central scaling claim and the asserted advantage of adaptation.

    Authors: We agree that the adaptive dependence on the stage-1 estimate requires an explicit uniform control argument to rigorously establish the O(d/N) high-probability bound for arbitrary pure states. The current manuscript derives the scaling conditionally on a sufficiently accurate stage-1 estimate but does not detail the probability of bad stage-1 outcomes or the resulting information-matrix properties. In the revised version we will add a dedicated lemma (and supporting calculations) in the finite-sample bound section that (i) bounds the probability of a poor stage-1 estimate by an exponentially small term in the stage-1 sample size and (ii) shows that the subsequent locally informationally complete FSM choices still guarantee a sufficiently well-conditioned information matrix with high probability, thereby recovering the claimed rate uniformly. No minimum-distance assumption will be introduced. This revision will be reflected in both the abstract and the main text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation chain self-contained against external benchmarks

full rationale

The provided abstract and context present the three-stage adaptive protocol, finite-sample bounds, and O(d/N) scaling as derived results from the method design using locally IC FSMs, with numerical simulations compared to the external Gill-Massar bound. No equations, self-citations, or steps are quoted that reduce any prediction or bound to a fitted input, self-definition, or load-bearing prior work by the same authors. The reader's noted score of 2.0 aligns with minor or absent circularity; the skeptic concern addresses uniform control on adaptive error propagation (a correctness issue) rather than any definitional or constructional reduction in the derivation itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete; standard quantum mechanics and pure-state assumption are implicit but not detailed.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The unknown state is an arbitrary pure quantum state in d dimensions.
    The protocol is explicitly restricted to pure states; this is invoked throughout the abstract.
  • domain assumption Locally informationally complete Fisher-symmetric measurements exist and can be implemented in a single-shot basis.
    Central to the three-stage method described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5684 in / 1396 out tokens · 21368 ms · 2026-05-23T07:37:45.375346+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    These probabilities are used to obtain an estimate of |Ψ⟩ by solving the system of equations (4)

    (1)] Acquisition of data through FSMs E± to obtain probabilities P α ±. These probabilities are used to obtain an estimate of |Ψ⟩ by solving the system of equations (4). This preliminary estimate is refined through maximum likelihood estimation [34, 35], leading to the first estimate | ˜Ψ⟩. This is shown in Fig. 1(b). (2) The adapted FSM ˜E allows to obta...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Quantum Fisher Information The Quantum FIM of the state ρ is a symmetric matrix Q with elements Qjσ,kτ = 1 2 tr[ρ(Ljσ Lkτ + Lkτ Ljσ)], (A6) where the {Ljσ } are the symmetric logarithmic derivative operators, implicitly determined by the equation ∂ρ ∂xjσ = 1 2(Ljσ ρ + ρLjσ). (A7) When the state is pure, that is ρ(x) = |ψ⟩⟨ψ|, the Quantum Fisher Informatio...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (A11) with {βα k } and {γα k } are real coefficients

    Classical Fisher Information Let us consider an arbitrary POVM with n rank-1 elements, E = {Eα = |φα⟩ ⟨φα|}, where |φα⟩ = d−1X k=0 (βα k + iγα k ) |k⟩ . (A11) with {βα k } and {γα k } are real coefficients. Considering the completeness condition, P α Eα = I, we have X α Eα = X α X k,j (βα k + iγα k )(βα j − iγα k ) |k⟩ ⟨j| (A12) = X α X k,j βα k βα j + γα...

    work page

  4. [4]

    , d− 1, ⃗βj · ⃗βk = ⃗ γj · ⃗ γk = 1 2 δjk

    FSM conditions We can summarize the conditions on the coefficients {βα j } and {γα j } to Eα being a FSM as ⃗β0 · ⃗β0 = 1, ⃗β0 · ⃗βj = ⃗β0 · ⃗ γj = ⃗βj · ⃗ γk = 0, j, k = 1, . . . , d− 1, ⃗βj · ⃗βk = ⃗ γj · ⃗ γk = 1 2 δjk . (A31) 8 Thereby, the set of 2 d − 1 real vectors {β0, √ 2βk, √ 2γk}d−1 k=1 form an orthonormal set. Consequently, the number of eleme...

    work page

  5. [5]

    We can see that the coefficients are well approximated by α ≈ 0.66, β = 1 and γ = 1 .84 at the first stage, and α ≈ 1.1, β ≈ 1 and γ ≈ 1.15 at the second stage

    Distribution 2/3 d ˆα ± ∆α ˆβ ± ∆β log10N ˆγ ± ∆γ 4 0.78 ± 0.02 1.01 ± 0.01 5 1.85 ± 0.08 8 0.562 ± 0.005 1.006 ± 0.005 5.5 1.86 ± 0.08 16 0.565 ± 0.008 0.988 ± 0.006 6 1.81 ± 0.09 32 0.64 ± 0.01 1.023 ± 0.008 6.5 1.83 ± 0.06 64 0.74 ± 0.02 1.03 ± 0.01 7 1.84 ± 0.06 a First Stage d ˆα ± ∆α ˆβ ± ∆β log10N ˆγ ± ∆γ 4 1.165 ± 0.008 0.999 ± 0.005 5 1.25 ± 0.08...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Finally, we can approximate the average infidelity at each stage as ¯I1(|Ψ⟩) ≈ 1.32(d − 1)1.84 N , (F4) ¯I2(|Ψ⟩) ≈ 1.45(d − 1) N

    Distribution 2/4 We can see that the coefficients are well approximated by α ≈ 0.66, β = 1 and γ = 1 .84 at the first stage, and α ≈ 1.45, β ≈ 1 and γ ≈ 1 at the second stage. Finally, we can approximate the average infidelity at each stage as ¯I1(|Ψ⟩) ≈ 1.32(d − 1)1.84 N , (F4) ¯I2(|Ψ⟩) ≈ 1.45(d − 1) N . (F5) 14 101 d 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 I 1st Estim...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Finally we can approximate the average infidelity at each stage as ¯I1(|Ψ⟩) ≈ 1.32(d − 1)1.84 N , (F6) ¯I2(|Ψ⟩) ≈ 1.6(d − 1) N

    Distribution 2/5 We can see that the coefficients are well approximated by α ≈ 0.66, β = 1 and γ = 1 .84 at the first stage, and α ≈ 1.45, β ≈ 1 and γ ≈ 1 in the second stage. Finally we can approximate the average infidelity at each stage as ¯I1(|Ψ⟩) ≈ 1.32(d − 1)1.84 N , (F6) ¯I2(|Ψ⟩) ≈ 1.6(d − 1) N . (F7) 15 101 d 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 I 1st Estimat...

    work page

  8. [8]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic, New York, 1976)

    work page 1976

  9. [9]

    A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    work page 1982

  10. [10]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, England, 2000)

    work page 2000

  11. [11]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-Enhanced Measurements: Beating the Standard Quantum Limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

    Nagata, R

    T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Beating the Standard Quantum Limit with Four- Entangled Photons, Science 316, 726 (2007)

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    Okamoto, H

    R. Okamoto, H. F. Hofmann, T. Nagata, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Beating the standard quantum limit: phase super-sensitivity of N-photon interferometers, New J. Phys. 10, 073033 (2008)

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    G. Y. Xiang, B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Entanglement-enhanced measurement of a completely unknown optical phase, Nature Photon. 5, 43 (2010)

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    J. A. Jones, S. D. Karlen, J. Fitzsimons, A. Ardavan, S. C. Benjamin, G. A. D. Briggs and J. J. L. Morton, Magnetic Field Sensing Beyond the Standard Quantum Limit Using 10-Spin NOON States, Science 324, 1166 (2009)

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Jozsa, Fidelity for Mixed Quantum States Journal of Modern Optics 41, 2315–2323 (1994)

    R. Jozsa, Fidelity for Mixed Quantum States Journal of Modern Optics 41, 2315–2323 (1994)

    work page 1994

  17. [17]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    work page 1994

  18. [18]

    Straupe, Adaptive quantum tomography

    S.S. Straupe, Adaptive quantum tomography. Jetp Lett. 104, 510–522 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    D. H. Mahler, L. A. Rozema, A. Darabi, C. Ferrie, R. Blume-Kohout, and A. M. Steinberg, Adaptive Quantum State Tomography Improves Accuracy Quadratically, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 183601 (2013)

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Pereira, L

    L. Pereira, L. Zambrano, J. Cort´ es-Vega, S. Niklitschek, and A. Delgado, Adaptive quantum tomography in high dimen- sions, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012339 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    G. I. Struchalin, E. V. Kovlakov, S. S. Straupe, and S. P. Kulik, Adaptive quantum tomography of high-dimensional bipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032330 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Pereira, D

    L. Pereira, D. Mart´ ınez, G. Ca˜ nas, E. S. G´ omez, S. P. Walborn, G. Lima, and A. Delgado, High-accuracy adaptive quantum tomography for high-dimensional quantum systems, arXiv:2009.04791 (2020)

    work page arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    Lange, M

    H. Lange, M. Kebriˇ c, M. Buser, U. Schollw¨ ock, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt Quantum7, 1129 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    N. Li, C. Ferrie, J. A. Gross, A. Kalev, and C. M. Caves, Fisher-Symmetric Informationally Complete Measurements for Pure States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 180402 (2016). 16

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    R. D. Gill and S. Massar, State estimation for large ensembles, Phys. Rev. A 61, 042312 (2000)

    work page 2000

  26. [26]

    Complex Field Formulation of the Quantum Estimation Theory

    M. Mu˜ noz, L. Pereira, S. Niklitschek, and A. Delgado, Complex Field Formulation of the Quantum Estimation Theory, arXiv:2203.03064 (2022)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Zhu and M

    H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Universally Fisher-Symmetric Informationally Complete Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 030404 (2018)

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Goyeneche, G

    D. Goyeneche, G. Ca˜ nas, S. Etcheverry, E.S. G´ omez, G. B. Xavier, G. Lima, and A. Delgado, Five Measurement Bases Determine Pure Quantum States on Any Dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 090401 (2015)

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Okamoto, M

    R. Okamoto, M. Iefuji, S. Oyama, K. Yamagata, H. Imai, A. Fujiwara, and S. Takeuchi, Experimental Demonstration of Adaptive Quantum State Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 130404 (2012)

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Nagaoka, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information Theory, 1988 (unpublished)

    H. Nagaoka, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information Theory, 1988 (unpublished)

    work page 1988

  31. [31]

    Nagaoka, in Proceeding of the 12th Symposium on Information Theory and Its Application, 1989 (unpublished)

    H. Nagaoka, in Proceeding of the 12th Symposium on Information Theory and Its Application, 1989 (unpublished)

    work page 1989

  32. [32]

    Nagaoka, in Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference , edited by M

    H. Nagaoka, in Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference , edited by M. Hayashi (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005), p. 125

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Fujiwara, Strong consistency and asymptotic efficiency for adaptive quantum estimation problems, J

    A. Fujiwara, Strong consistency and asymptotic efficiency for adaptive quantum estimation problems, J. Phys. A 39, 12489 (2006)

    work page 2006

  34. [34]

    Ferrie, Self-Guided Quantum Tomography, Phys

    C. Ferrie, Self-Guided Quantum Tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 190404 (2014)

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Utreras-Alarc´ on, M

    A. Utreras-Alarc´ on, M. Rivera-Tapia, S. Niklitschek, and A. Delgado, Stochastic optimization on complex variables and pure-state quantum tomography, Sci. Rep. 9, 16143 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Zambrano, L

    L. Zambrano, L. Pereira, S. Niklitschek, and A. Delgado, Estimation of pure quantum states in high dimension at the limit of quantum accuracy through complex optimization and statistical inference, Sci. Rep. 10, 12781 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Granade, C

    C. Granade, C. Ferrie and S. T. Flammia, Practical adaptive quantum tomography, New J. Phys. 19 113017 (2017)

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Farooq, M

    A. Farooq, M. A. Ullah, J. ur Rehman, K. Lee, and H. Shin, Self-guided quantum state learning for mixed states, Quantum Inf. Process. 21, 243 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    H. P. Yuen and M. Lax, Multiple-parameter quantum estimation and measurement of nonselfadjoint observables, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 19, 740 (1973)

    work page 1973

  40. [40]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53 023001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Hradil, Quantum-state estimation, Phys

    Z. Hradil, Quantum-state estimation, Phys. Rev. A 55, R1561(R) (1997)

    work page 1997

  42. [42]

    Shang, Z

    J. Shang, Z. Zhang, and H. K. Ng, Superfast maximum-likelihood reconstruction for quantum tomography, Phys. Rev. A 95, 062336 (2017)

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Francesco Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups, Notices of the American Math- ematical Society 54 592-604 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Zambrano, L

    L. Zambrano, L. Pereira, and A. Delgado, Improved estimation accuracy of the 5-bases-based tomographic method, Phys. Rev. A 100, 022340 (2019)

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    Pereira, L

    L. Pereira, L. Zambrano and A. Delgado, Scalable estimation of pure multi-qubit states, npj Quantum Information 8, 57 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Zambrano, L

    L. Zambrano, L. Pereira, and A. Delgado, Minimal orthonormal bases for pure quantum state estimation, Quantum 8, 1244 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Mazurek, Kent A

    Xian Ma, Tyler Jackson, Hui Zhou, Jianxin Chen, Dawei Lu, Michael D. Mazurek, Kent A. G. Fisher, Xinhua Peng, David Kribs, Kevin J. Resch, Zhengfeng Ji, Bei Zeng, and Raymond Laflamme, Pure-state tomography with the expectation value of Pauli operators, Phys. Rev. A 93, 032140 (2016)

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    Tariq, A

    S. Tariq, A. Farooq, J. U. Rehman, T. Q. Duong, and H. Shin, Efficient quantum state estimation with low-rank matrix completion, EPJ Quantum Technol. 11, 50 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Quantum Technol

    Yu Wang and Keren Li, Pure State Tomography with Fourier Transformation, Adv. Quantum Technol. 5, 2100091 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Claudio Carmeli, Teiko Heinosaari, Michael Kech, Jussi Schultz and Alessandro Toigo, Stable pure state quantum tomog- raphy from five orthonormal bases, EPL 115 30001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    Zambrano, L

    L. Zambrano, L. Pereira, D. Mart´ ınez, G. Ca˜ nas, G. Lima, and A. Delgado, Estimation of Pure States Using Three Measurement Bases, Phys. Rev. Applied 14, 064004 (2020)

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    I. L. Chuang and M. A. Nielsen, Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box, Journal of Modern Optics 44, 11-12 (1997)

    work page 1997

  53. [53]

    Nielsen, J

    E. Nielsen, J. K. Gamble, K. Rudinger, T. Scholten, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, Gate Set Tomography, Quantum 5, 557 (2021)

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Cari˜ ne, G

    J. Cari˜ ne, G. Ca˜ nas, P. Skrzypczyk, I.ˇSupi´ c, N. Guerrero, T. Garcia, L. Pereira, M. A. S. Prosser, G. B. Xavier, A. Delgado, S. P. Walborn, D. Cavalcanti, and G. Lima, Multi-core fiber integrated multi-port beam splitters for quantum information processing, Optica 7, 542-550 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Mart´ ınez, E.S

    D. Mart´ ınez, E.S. G´ omez, J. Cari˜ ne. et al, Certification of a non-projective qudit measurement using multiport beamsplit- ters, Nat. Phys. 19, 190–195 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Stricker, M

    R. Stricker, M. Meth, L. Postler, C. Edmunds, C. Ferrie, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, and R. Kueng, Experimental Single-Setting Quantum State Tomography PRX Quantum 3, 040310 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Ivashkov, G

    P. Ivashkov, G. Uchehara, L. Jiang, D, S. Wang, and A. Seif, High-Fidelity, Multiqubit Generalized Measurements with Dynamic Circuits, PRX Quantum 5, 030315 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Aaronson, Shadow Tomography of Quantum States, SIAM Journal on Computing49, STOC18-368-STOC18-394 (2020)

    S. Aaronson, Shadow Tomography of Quantum States, SIAM Journal on Computing49, STOC18-368-STOC18-394 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    V. Wei, W. A. Coish, P. Ronagh, and C. A. Muschik, Neural-shadow quantum state tomography, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 023250 (2024). 17

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Cramer, M

    M. Cramer, M. Plenio, S. Flammia, et al., Efficient quantum state tomography, Nat Commun 1, 149 (2010)

    work page 2010

  61. [61]

    Lanyon, C

    B. Lanyon, C. Maier, M. Holz¨ apfel, et al., Efficient tomography of a quantum many-body system, Nature Phys 13, 1158–1162 (2017)

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    Baumgratz, A

    T. Baumgratz, A. N¨ ußeler, M. Cramer and M. B. Plenio, A scalable maximum likelihood method for quantum state tomography, New J. Phys. 15 125004 (2013)

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Torlai, G

    G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, J. Carrasquilla, et al. Neural-network quantum state tomography, Nature Phys 14, 447–450 (2018)

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Y. Quek, S. Fort, and H.K. Ng, Adaptive quantum state tomography with neural networks. npj Quantum Inf 7, 105 (2021)

    work page 2021