Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Mitigating shot noise in local overlapping quantum tomography with semidefinite programming

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Classical SDP post-processing of local quantum measurement data tightens ground-state energy bounds and can cut required samples by 10 to 100 times.

desk verdict A useful heuristic for post-processing noisy local tomography data, but the advertised 10^1-10^2 sample reduction compares uncalibrated SDP intervals with calibrated QST intervals and needs a coverage test before the bounds claim is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18546 v2 pith:MFTQVWI7 submitted 2025-01-30 quant-ph

Zherui Jerry Wang , David Dechant , Yash J. Patel , Jordi Tura This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords reduceddensitymatricessemidefiniteprogrammingshotnoisequantumstatetomographyoverlappingmarginalproblemalgorithmiccoolingvariationalalgorithms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that shot noise in estimating local reduced density matrices (RDMs) can be partially undone in classical post-processing. By solving a polynomial-size semidefinite program that re-imposes positivity, unit trace, and approximate compatibility constraints on overlapping RDMs, the method produces tighter two-sided bounds on ground-state energy than standard tomography alone. Simulations on the 1D XY model show that the SDP approach matches standard tomography's precision with 10 to 100 times fewer samples, and it makes an algorithmic-cooling loop more monotone at low shot counts.

What carries the argument

The central object is a hierarchy of semidefinite relaxations of the quantum marginal problem applied to estimated local RDMs, with the Hamiltonian represented as a hypergraph whose hyperedges are the local interaction terms. Overlapping-compatibility (OC) constraints force two RDM estimates to agree on their shared qubits; enhanced-compatibility (EC) constraints require that each pair of neighboring RDMs be marginals of some larger positive semidefinite matrix. A bisection search (Algorithm 1) tunes a per-coefficient tolerance, proportional to the estimator variance, to the smallest feasible search region, which yields the energy interval compatible with the data.

What would settle it

Repeatedly run Algorithm 1 on synthetic data from a known 4-qubit XY ground state with a small fixed shot budget, and record the fraction of runs where the reported SDP interval excludes the true energy; if that fraction exceeds the nominal confidence level (e.g., more than 1% of runs at the 99% level), the bracketing claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that compatibility constraints inherited from the quantum marginal problem can be re-imposed on noisy tomographic estimates of overlapping RDMs at polynomial cost, and that doing so yields tighter bounds on the energy of a local Hamiltonian than estimating each RDM independently. The paper constructs a semidefinite program whose decision variables are the local RDMs, each constrained to be positive semidefinite, unit trace, pairwise consistent on shared qubits (overlapping-compatibility), and pairwise extendable to a larger positive matrix (enhanced-compatibility), with every Pauli coefficient allowed to vary inside a confidence interval set by the shot-noise variance. Minimizing and maximizing the energy over this feasible set brackets the exact ground-state energy. Numerically, for the 1D XY model with 3 to 8 qubits, the SDP bracket is narrower than the 99% confidence interval from standard tomography at the same shot budget, and the paper reports a $10^{1}$ to $10^{2}$ reduction in required samples for equal precision in lower-bounding the energy.

Load-bearing premise

The bounds are trustworthy only if the true state's reduced density matrices actually lie inside the SDP feasible set whenever the bisection finds the set non-empty; the tolerance is tuned by feasibility, not by a coverage guarantee, and the paper concedes that in low-shot regimes the lower bound can dip below the exact ground-state energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For variational algorithms that rely on local RDMs, the same measurement budget can yield tighter energy estimates, reducing the number of shots or iterations needed.
  • The SDP feasible set bounds not only energy but any linear function of the local RDMs, so correlation functions and other local observables inherit the same tightening.
  • Because the SDP is polynomial in system size for fixed interaction locality, the post-processing remains efficient as the number of qubits grows, unlike full quantum state tomography.
  • Embedding the SDP in algorithmic cooling makes the energy descent more monotone in the low-shot regime, making the heuristic more robust to shot noise.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If a calibration or coverage certificate could be added to the feasibility test, the reported 10- to 100-fold sample reduction might transfer from the XY model to other local Hamiltonians, but this is untested in the paper.
  • The same feasible-set construction could certify expectation values of non-linear local quantities, such as entanglement witnesses, with the same caveat that feasibility does not by itself guarantee coverage of the true state.
  • A testable extension would be to use the SDP-reconstructed RDMs to pre-process classical shadow data, potentially reducing the number of shadow samples needed for local observables.
  • Systematic measurement errors are outside the paper's scope; combining the SDP with error-calibration strategies could determine whether the bounds stay valid on real hardware.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semidefinite-programming (SDP) post-processing step for local overlapping quantum tomography. Starting from noisy estimates of local reduced density matrices (RDMs) obtained via random Pauli measurements, the method enforces positivity, overlapping-compatibility (OC), and enhanced-compatibility (EC) constraints, then minimizes and maximizes the energy expectation value over the resulting feasible set. The authors claim that, for a fixed number of measurements, this yields tighter energy bounds than standard tomography without compatibility constraints, with reported sample reductions of 10^1 to 10^2 in lower-bounding the ground-state energy of the 1D XY model. They also embed the SDP reconstruction in an algorithmic cooling (AC) procedure and present numerical simulations for n=3,...,8 qubits and various sample counts.

Significance. If the reported tightening is statistically valid, the method would be a useful classical post-processing tool for near-term quantum experiments, allowing better energy estimates from the same measurement budget. The SDP formulation is clearly presented, the constraints are polynomial-size, and the numerical experiments span several system sizes and shot counts, with an explicit disclosure that AC is a heuristic and that no single-run advantage is guaranteed. However, the central comparison to standard tomography currently lacks a calibration or coverage guarantee, so the claimed improvement may be an artifact of comparing an uncalibrated feasible set with a calibrated confidence interval. A coverage analysis would be needed to establish the significance of the numerical claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.C.2, Eq. (22), Algorithm 1] The bracketing inequality in Eq. (22) is stated conditionally on the search region being large enough to contain the true RDMs, but Algorithm 1's bisection only certifies non-emptiness of the feasible set, not containment of the true state. The text in Section III.C.2 explicitly concedes that in low-shot regimes the SDP lower bound can exceed the exact ground-state energy. Consequently, the SDP interval is not a calibrated confidence interval, and the claimed 10^1 to 10^2 sample reduction relative to the 99% standard-QST interval compares an uncalibrated region with a calibrated one. Please add an empirical coverage analysis (e.g., the fraction of trials in which the true ground-state energy lies between the SDP bounds for each shot count) and, if coverage is below the nominal level, either adjust the alpha values to restore coverage or rephrase the claims as heuristic tightening rather than certified bounds.
  2. [Section III.B, Eq. (13), Algorithm 1] The free parameter alpha, which sets the width of the per-coefficient intervals epsilon_i^j, is tuned by feasibility bisection rather than by any coverage guarantee. The Chernoff bound motivation applies to each individual Pauli coefficient estimate, but containment of the true state's RDMs in the global feasible set is a joint, correlated condition; per-coefficient intervals with any finite alpha do not automatically imply joint containment. The paper should state explicitly what statistical guarantee, if any, the SDP feasible set carries, or provide numerical or analytical evidence of coverage.
  3. [Conclusion, Refs. [49,50]] The closest prior approaches that enforce N-representability conditions on tomographic estimates under shot noise (Refs. [49,50]) are mentioned only as future work in the Conclusion, and no numerical comparison is provided. Since the paper's headline claim is tighter bounds at equal shot count, a comparison against these methods under matched coverage would be needed to establish that the proposed method improves on the state of the art rather than only on independent unconstrained tomography.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.C, Fig. 5 caption] The 1D nearest-neighbor XY model is described as a 'frustrated Hamiltonian' in the caption of Fig. 5, but this model is not frustrated in the standard sense (no conflicting interaction constraints); please reword or justify the terminology.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that the green curves use tolerance parameters Δ0 = 0.1 and Δ1 = 0.001, but both are labeled Δ0 in the text; please clarify which tolerance applies to minimization and which to maximization.
  3. [Algorithm 1] In Algorithm 1, lines 17 and 18 update the solution and energy estimate inside the while loop even when the SDP is infeasible (in which case S may be undefined from a previous iteration); the pseudocode should guard these assignments so they occur only after a feasible solution is found.
  4. [Section VII] The code availability statement says the code is available 'upon reasonable request'; for a numerical methods paper, depositing the code in a public repository would improve reproducibility and allow readers to verify the coverage concerns raised above.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The SDP ground-state bounds are not circular and are benchmarked externally, but the AC comparison reports the SDP energy objective as the improved energy, making part of the claimed cooling advantage an in-sample artifact.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV C, Fig. 5 caption; SDP objective in Eq. (19)]
    "the orange curve depicts AC with SDP-refined RDMs, still using their reconstructed expectation value for energy."

    The SDP-refined RDMs are obtained by minimizing the energy objective in Eq. (19), namely min Σ_j Tr[ρ̃_j H_j]. The orange curve's 'reconstructed expectation value for energy' is therefore the value of the very objective that defines the refinement, not an independent estimate of the energy of the state actually prepared by the cooling circuit. Comparing this optimized value with the naive tomographic energy makes a portion of the reported improvement a direct consequence of the minimization, so the AC comparison cannot by itself show that SDP-assisted cooling prepares better states. The paper's own remark that the green SDP lower bound lies below the orange curve 'by construction' highlights the same issue.

full rationale

The central tomographic claim is not circular: the SDP feasible set is built from independent measurement data and standard quantum-marginal/PSD constraints, the Hamiltonian enters only as the objective, and the ground-state benchmarks are checked against exact diagonalization. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Refs. [29], [43], [47]) are pointers to related hierarchy and cooling work and are not load-bearing. The adaptive choice of α by feasibility is a statistical calibration/coverage concern, not a circular derivation, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that low-shot SDP bounds can fall below the exact ground-state energy. The one genuine circular element is the AC orange-curve evaluation: because the SDP-refined RDMs are defined as energy minimizers, reporting their expectation value as the achieved energy makes the improvement partly an optimization artifact. This is localized to the application benchmark; the main SDP interval construction retains independent content, so the overall score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method builds on standard Pauli tomography and quantum marginal relaxations. The alpha parameter is an adaptive, data-dependent knob, and the low-order compatibility relaxation is a chosen approximation level. The load-bearing coverage assumption that a feasible set contains the true state is explicit and unproven. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (confidence-interval scale) = not reported; found per dataset by bisection in Algorithm 1
    In Eq. (13), epsilon_j^i = alpha Var(C_hat_j^i). Larger alpha gives wider intervals and a larger feasible set. The reported bound tightness depends on the chosen alpha, which is tuned by feasibility rather than fixed by an a priori confidence level.
  • bisection tolerance Delta = 0.1 for minimization, 0.001 for maximization
    Algorithm 1 uses Delta to stop the alpha bisection. The paper chooses Delta0=0.1 and Delta1=0.001 for the two sides, which affects the tightness of the resulting bounds as shown in Fig. 3.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The density matrix of an n-qubit state can be expanded in the Pauli basis and its coefficients estimated as sample averages of +/-1 outcomes (Eqs. 2-4).
    Standard quantum state tomography framework; assumed throughout Section II B.
  • standard math Physical reduced density matrices are positive semidefinite and have unit trace (Eq. 14).
    Familiar quantum mechanics; basis of the SDP constraints.
  • domain assumption Any global quantum state satisfies the quantum marginal constraints at all levels, so enforcing low-order compatibility (OC and EC) is a valid relaxation.
    Used to justify constraints R and G in Eqs. 15-18. The relaxation is necessarily incomplete because exact consistency is QMA-complete, as noted in Refs. [14,15].
  • ad hoc to paper The true state's RDMs are contained in the SDP feasible set whenever the bisection in Algorithm 1 finds a non-empty feasible set.
    This is the statistical coverage assumption; it is needed for the reported values to be valid energy bounds. The paper concedes in Section III C 2 that low-shot regimes can violate this assumption and the lower bound can exceed the exact ground-state energy.
  • domain assumption Algorithmic cooling with exact RDMs monotonically decreases energy and converges.
    Stated in Section IV A 1 as a heuristic with no guarantee of reaching the true ground state; it underlies the application benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mitigating shot noise in local overlapping quantum tomography with semidefinite programming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MFTQVWI7

@misc{pith2026250118546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mitigating shot noise in local overlapping quantum tomography with semidefinite programming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MFTQVWI7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18546}
}
read the original abstract

Reduced density matrices (RDMs) are fundamental in quantum information processing, allowing the computation of local observables, such as energy and correlation functions, without the exponential complexity of fully characterizing quantum states. In the context of near-term quantum computing, RDMs provide sufficient information to effectively design variational quantum algorithms. However, their experimental estimation is challenging, as it involves preparing and measuring quantum states in multiple bases--a resource-intensive process susceptible to producing non-physical RDMs due to shot noise from limited measurements. To address this, we propose a method to mitigate shot noise by re-enforcing certain physicality constraints on RDMs. While verifying RDM compatibility with a global state is quantum Merlin-Arthur complete, we relax this condition by enforcing compatibility constraints up to a certain level using a polynomial-size semidefinite program to reconstruct overlapping RDMs from simulated data. Our approach yields, on average, tighter bounds for the same number of measurements compared to tomography without compatibility constraints. We demonstrate the versatility and efficacy of our method by integrating it into an algorithmic cooling procedure to prepare low-energy states of local Hamiltonians. Simulations on frustrated Hamiltonians reveal notable improvements in accuracy and resource efficiency, highlighting the potential of our approach for practical applications in near-term quantum computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18546 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. illustrates two feasible sets under the same search region but with or without EC constraints. These feasible sets are defined by all RDMs satisfying both the overlapping- (R) and enhanced-compatibility (G ) con￾straints or only the overlapping (R) constraints, respec￾tively, while the search region refers to the intersection of positive semidefinite cones restricted by the confidence intervals in Eq. (13). Introduc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [34, 37]

    Semidefinite relaxations Relaxations of polynomial optimization problems based on semidefinite constraints play a central role in our method, in a similar spirit as Refs. [34, 37]. In this section, we describe the construction of these constraints. Consider a local Hamiltonian associated with hyper- graphG= (V G, EG). For each hyperedgee j ∈E G, we introd...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In this work, we focus on finding the minimum and maximum energies consistent with the simulated data used to esti- mate the tomographic local RDMs{ˆρj}

    SDP problem formulation The relaxations defined in the previous sub-section al- low us to specify a feasible set of local RDMs. In this work, we focus on finding the minimum and maximum energies consistent with the simulated data used to esti- mate the tomographic local RDMs{ˆρj}. Specifically, we consider the following optimization problem for deter- min...

    work page

  3. [3]

    We now examine the performance of SDP-assisted overlapping tomography in estimating ground states of local Hamiltonians

    Studies on ground-state scenario Semidefinite relaxations have long been used to inves- tigate ground-state properties of many-body systems [34, 37]. We now examine the performance of SDP-assisted overlapping tomography in estimating ground states of local Hamiltonians. D ̂ρ H=∑Hj ρ ̂ρOC,EC max Eg ̂ρOC,EC min ̂ρOC min ̂ρOC max Search region of SDP SDP fea...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Here, ndenotes the total number of qubits, andJis the inter- action strength

    Problem description The Hamiltonian of the 1D-chainXYmodel is given by HC = n−1X j=1 Hj =J n−1X j=1 (XjXj+1 +Y jYj+1).(23) whereH j is the local two-qubit Hamiltonian term cap- turing the interaction between qubitsjandj+ 1. Here, ndenotes the total number of qubits, andJis the inter- action strength. The subscript ”C” stands for ”chain”. Although the accu...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Explanation on the results For the SDP-assisted tomography, we are firstly given a number of identical copies of theXYmodel ground state, as in Eq. (23). We perform a series of measurements in randomly chosen Pauli basisσ i, withiuniformly sam- pled from{1,2,3} n. From these measurement outcomes, we reconstruct the local RDMs via standard tomography and e...

    work page

  6. [6]

    We begin by intro- ducing the cooling principle

    Optimization step We now describe the optimization routine in AC, which incrementally builds a shallow circuit to prepare a low- energy state for local Hamiltonians. We begin by intro- ducing the cooling principle. Consider a HamiltonianHof the form in Eq. (9) and an operatorh∈hsuch that [H, h]̸= 0 and, for simplicity, h2 =I. The last assumption can be re...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Note that there are many ways to con- struct the heuristic, each with a different performance depending on the problem

    Algorithmic cooling circuit compilation This subsection explains how we construct the layout of the variational circuit by integrating the optimization step from Section IV A 1 into the algorithmic cooling (AC) method. Note that there are many ways to con- struct the heuristic, each with a different performance depending on the problem. Here, we outline a...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Select an operatorh, computet ∗, and updateV l ← Vl e−iht∗

    work page

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    However, each new operator choice requires a full state preparation and measurement cycle

    Repeat for the next operatorh ′, findingt ′∗, and so on. However, each new operator choice requires a full state preparation and measurement cycle. SinceHis local, it can become more resource-efficient to collect a suitable set of RDMs for the current layout ofVl and then perf...

  2. [10]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Continuous-variable optical quantum-state tomography, Reviews of modern physics81, 299 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Cramer, M

    M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y.-K. Liu, Efficient quantum state tomography, Na- ture communications1, 149 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Kliesch and I

    M. Kliesch and I. Roth, Theory of quantum system cer- tification, PRX Quantum2, 010201 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio,et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics16, 1050–1057 (2020). 13

    2020

  8. [16]

    J. Liu, Z. Li, and J. Yang, An efficient adaptive varia- tional quantum solver of the schr¨ odinger equation based on reduced density matrices, The Journal of chemical physics154(2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    B. G. Ara´ ujo, M. M. Taddei, D. Cavalcanti, and A. Ac ´ ın, Local quantum overlapping tomography, Physical Re- view A106, 062441 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Davidson,Reduced density matrices in quantum chem- istry, Vol

    E. Davidson,Reduced density matrices in quantum chem- istry, Vol. 6 (Elsevier, 2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Linden, S

    N. Linden, S. Popescu, and W. Wootters, Almost ev- ery pure state of three qubits is completely determined¡? format?¿ by its two-particle reduced density matrices, Physical review letters89, 207901 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Linden and W

    N. Linden and W. Wootters, The parts determine the whole in a generic pure quantum state, Physical review letters89, 277906 (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    Cotler and F

    J. Cotler and F. Wilczek, Quantum overlapping tomog- raphy, Physical review letters124, 100401 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    A. A. Klyachko, Quantum marginal problem and n- representability, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 36, 72 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Broadbent and A

    A. Broadbent and A. B. Grilo, Qma-hardness of con- sistency of local density matrices with applications to quantum zero-knowledge, SIAM Journal on Computing 51, 1400 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Kamminga and D

    J. Kamminga and D. Rudolph, On the complexity of pure-state consistency of local density matrices (2024), arXiv:2411.03096 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. J. McCaskey, Z. P. Parks, J. Jakowski, S. V. Moore, T. D. Morris, T. S. Humble, and R. C. Pooser, Quan- tum chemistry as a benchmark for near-term quantum computers, npj Quantum Information5, 99 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Hansenne, R

    K. Hansenne, R. Qu, L. T. Weinbrenner, C. de Gois, H. Wang, Y. Ming, Z. Yang, P. Horodecki, W. Gao, and O. G¨ uhne, Optimal overlapping tomography, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05730 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Skrzypczyk and D

    P. Skrzypczyk and D. Cavalcanti,Semidefinite Program- ming in Quantum Information Science(IOP Publishing, 2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    A. Aloy, M. Fadel, and J. Tura, The quantum marginal problem for symmetric states: applications to variational optimization, nonlocality and self-testing, New Journal of Physics23, 033026 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Schwemmer, L

    C. Schwemmer, L. Knips, D. Richart, H. Weinfurter, T. Moroder, M. Kleinmann, and O. G¨ uhne, Systematic errors in current quantum state tomography tools, Phys- ical review letters114, 080403 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    P. O. Boykin, T. Mor, V. Roychowdhury, F. Vatan, and R. Vrijen, Algorithmic cooling and scalable nmr quan- tum computers, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences99, 3388 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Polla, Y

    S. Polla, Y. Herasymenko, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum digital cooling, Physical Review A104, 012414 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nature communications10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    J. B. Altepeter, D. F. James, and P. G. Kwiat, 4 qubit quantum state tomography, Quantum state estimation , 113 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    Google, Sycamore data sheet (2024), accessed: 2024-07- 22

    2024

  27. [35]

    Torlai, G

    G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, J. Carrasquilla, M. Troyer, R. Melko, and G. Carleo, Neural-network quantum state tomography, Nature physics14, 447 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Karmarkar, A new polynomial-time algorithm for lin- ear programming, inProceedings of the sixteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(1984) pp

    N. Karmarkar, A new polynomial-time algorithm for lin- ear programming, inProceedings of the sixteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(1984) pp. 302–311

    1984

  29. [37]

    Jiang, T

    H. Jiang, T. Kathuria, Y. T. Lee, S. Padmanabhan, and Z. Song, A faster interior point method for semidefinite programming, in2020 IEEE 61st annual symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2020) pp. 910–918

    2020

  30. [38]

    Requena, G

    B. Requena, G. Mu˜ noz-Gil, M. Lewenstein, V. Dunjko, and J. Tura, Certificates of quantum many-body prop- erties assisted by machine learning, Physical Review Re- search5, 013097 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Bonet-Monroig, R

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Babbush, and T. E. O’Brien, Nearly optimal measurement scheduling for partial to- mography of quantum states, Physical Review X10, 031064 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    J. O. de Almeida, M. Kleinmann, and G. Sent ´ ıs, Compar- ison of confidence regions for quantum state tomography, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07136 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Westerheim, J

    H. Westerheim, J. Chen, Z. Holmes, I. Luo, T. Nu- radha, D. Patel, S. Rethinasamy, K. Wang, and M. M. Wilde, Dual-vqe: A quantum algorithm to lower bound the ground-state energy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03083 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Zambrano, D

    L. Zambrano, D. Farina, E. Pagliaro, M. M. Taddei, and A. Acin, Certification of quantum state functions un- der partial information, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06094 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. Wang, J. Surace, I. Fr´ erot, B. Legat, M.-O. Renou, V. Magron, and A. Ac ´ ın, Certifying ground-state prop- erties of many-body systems, Physical Review X14, 031006 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    I. Kull, N. Schuch, B. Dive, and M. Navascu´ es, Lower bounds on ground-state energies of local hamiltonians through the renormalization group, Physical Review X 14, 021008 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Fawzi, O

    H. Fawzi, O. Fawzi, and S. O. Scalet, Entropy constraints for ground energy optimization (2023), arXiv:2305.06855 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Barthel and R

    T. Barthel and R. H¨ ubener, Solving condensed-matter ground-state problems by semidefinite relaxations, Phys- ical review letters108, 200404 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Y.-K. Liu, M. Christandl, and F. Verstraete, Quantum computational complexity of the n-representability prob- lem: Qma complete, Physical review letters98, 110503 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain, Annals of Physics16, 407 (1961)

    1961

  41. [49]

    D. A. Mazziotti, Variational reduced-density-matrix method using three-particle n-representability conditions with application to many-electron molecules, Physical Review A74, 032501 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    D. A. Mazziotti, Realization of quantum chemistry with- out wave functions through first-order semidefinite pro- gramming, Physical review letters93, 213001 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    Navascu´ es, S

    M. Navascu´ es, S. Pironio, and A. Ac ´ ın, Bounding the set of quantum correlations, Physical Review Letters98, 010401 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    K. S. Rai, I. Kull, P. Emonts, J. Tura, N. Schuch, and F. Baccari, A hierarchy of spectral gap certifi- cates for frustration-free spin systems, arXiv preprint 14 arXiv:2411.03680 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross,et al., Quantum computing with qiskit, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Agrawal, R

    A. Agrawal, R. Verschueren, S. Diamond, and S. Boyd, A rewriting system for convex optimization problems, Jour- nal of Control and Decision5, 42 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Diamond and S

    S. Diamond and S. Boyd, CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization, Journal of Machine Learning Research17, 1 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Markovich, S

    L. Markovich, S. Malikis, S. Polla, and J. Tura, Parame- ter shift rule with optimal phase selection, Physical Re- view A109, 062429 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Schuch and J

    N. Schuch and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state and mean-field solutions for one-dimensional systems can be found efficiently, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics82, 012314 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    G.-L. R. Anselmetti, M. Degroote, N. Moll, R. Santa- gati, and M. Streif, Classical optimisation of reduced density matrix estimations with classical shadows using n-representability conditions under shot noise considera- tions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18430 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Avdic and D

    I. Avdic and D. A. Mazziotti, Fewer measurements from shadow tomography with n-representability conditions, Physical Review Letters132, 220802 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Rosset, R

    D. Rosset, R. Ferretti-Sch¨ obitz, J.-D. Bancal, N. Gisin, and Y.-C. Liang, Imperfect measurement settings: Impli- cations for quantum state tomography and entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. A86, 062325 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.