Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Estimation of Nonlinear Physical Quantities By Measuring Ancillas

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper gives a copy-only quantum algorithm that estimates Rényi and von Neumann entropies by building a block encoding of the state and measuring ancillas, with sample complexity improved over prior copy-based methods in both rank and…

desk verdict A coherent QSVT framework for copy-based entropy estimation, but the central Lemma 1 is unproven and likely wrong: DME gives a channel, not a unitary block encoding, and all the claimed improvements rest on that step. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07571 v1 pith:52V6VNSZ submitted 2025-02-11 quant-ph

Nhat A. Nghiem , Tzu-Chieh Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581P68 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Lx
keywords quantumentropyestimationRényivonNeumannblockencodingsingularvaluetransformationsamplecomplexityancillameasurementdensitymatrixexponentiation
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

This paper claims that the Rényi and von Neumann entropies of an unknown quantum state ρ can be estimated using only copies of ρ, without any unitary that prepares a purification of the state. The core construction turns copies of ρ into a block encoding of πρ/4, then uses quantum-singular-value-transformation tools to raise that encoding to arbitrary powers and reads out a probability proportional to Tr(ρ^α), or to a constant plus the von Neumann entropy, by measuring ancilla qubits. For non-integer Rényi order α>1, the claimed sample complexity is roughly $r^{{3(α-1)}}$/$ε^{3}$ up to logarithmic factors, an almost power-of-two improvement in rank and error over the previous copy-based approach of Ref. [29]. A sympathetic reader would care because entropy estimation is a central subroutine in quantum information and because the method removes the need for purification access while improving on existing copy-only protocols.

What carries the argument

The central object is a block encoding of the operator πρ/4: a unitary matrix whose upper-left block equals πρ/4, constructed from copies of ρ via density-matrix exponentiation and quantum singular value transformation (Lemma 1). The argument then rides on QSVT lemmas that convert this encoding into block encodings of (πρ/4)^k for integer k, of (πρ/4)^c for fractional c>0, and of (ρ/ρ_min)^c for fractional c<0, each with a controlled approximation error; these transformed operators are applied to ρ (or to the maximally mixed state) with an ancilla, and the ancilla measurement probability is the fundamental quantity whose sample complexity drives the bounds.

What would settle it

For a fixed small quantum state, count the number of copies the protocol actually consumes to estimate S_α to error ε, and compare with the Table I bound; since the derivation hinges on Lemma 1's copy-to-error rate and Lemma 5's polynomial degree, a disagreement beyond the stated poly-log factors would show one of those lemmas fails at the assumed parameter ranges.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that nonlinear functions of a density matrix—specifically Tr(ρ^α) and Tr(ρ log ρ)—can be extracted from copies of ρ by constructing a block encoding of ρ, applying quantum-singular-value-transformation (QSVT) based transformations to obtain block encodings of arbitrary powers of ρ, and measuring an ancilla register. Concretely, the probability that the ancilla of the block-encoded operator A=(πρ/4)^k returns |0⟩ after being applied to ρ is Tr((πρ/4)^k ρ (πρ/4)^k) = (π/4)^{2k+1} Tr($ρ^{{2k+1}}$), so choosing 2k+1=α yields Tr(ρ^α) up to a known constant; for 0<α<1 the same idea with a maximally mixed input gives a factor of the dimension times Tr(ρ^α), and for the von Neumann entropy a block encoding of γ log($4ρ^{{-1}}$/π) yields a probability γ log(4/π)+γ S_v. The paper derives sample-complexity bounds for each regime and compares them with the two most relevant prior copy-based algorithms, claiming an almost power-of-two improvement in both the rank dependence and the error tolerance for non-integer α.

Load-bearing premise

The bounds require a known, strictly positive lower bound ρ_min on the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of ρ, because the power-manipulation and logarithm-approximation steps need a spectral gap; rank-deficient states with ρ_min=0 are not covered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For non-integer Rényi order 1<α<2, the protocol's sample complexity is O(ε^{-3} ρ_min^{-2} r_ρ^3 log^5(r_ρ/(ρ_min ε))), compared with O(ε^{-5} ρ_min^{-2} r_ρ^5) for the previous copy-based method—an almost power-of-two saving in both rank and error.
  • For non-integer α>2, the complexity scales as O(ε^{-3} |1-α|^{-3} r_ρ^{3(α-1)}...) (with an extra ρ_min^{-3c} factor when the floor of α is even), again improving the rank and error exponents of the prior bound.
  • For 0<α<1, using a maximally mixed register, the cost scales with (dim ρ)^2 rather than (dim ρ)^{2/α} of the prior dimension-dependent method, a power-of-two improvement in dimension for fixed error.
  • For von Neumann entropy, the polynomial-approximation variant achieves O(ε^{-2} ρ_min^{-2} log^4(1/ρ_min) log^2(1/ε)) copies, removing the dimension dependence and improving the error dependence of the QSVT-based approach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bounds are right, entropy estimation from copies becomes practical for low-rank states, so quantum certification and entanglement-quantity estimation that currently rely on full state tomography could adopt copy-only protocols; the paper does not discuss these downstream applications.
  • The ρ_min^{-2} factors suggest a scaling bottleneck for nearly pure states; an extension that truncates small eigenvalues or adapts to rank-deficient ρ would be needed before the method applies to, say, ground states with exponentially small spectral gaps.
  • The same block-encoding-plus-ancilla-measurement skeleton could be turned on other nonlinear functionals of ρ, such as non-integer purity moments Tr(ρ^k), since the machinery already constructs arbitrary real powers of ρ; this is an extension the authors do not pursue.
  • A numerical test on small systems—comparing the empirical copy count against Table I for a fixed ρ_min—would reveal whether the hidden constants and poly-log factors make the bound tight or loose in practice, which the paper does not address.
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 manuscript proposes quantum algorithms for estimating the Rényi entropy S_α = (1/(1−α)) log Tr(ρ^α) and the von Neumann entropy S_v = −Tr(ρ log ρ) from copies of an unknown state ρ. The central idea is to convert copies of ρ into an approximate unitary block encoding of πρ/4 via density-matrix exponentiation and a corollary of quantum singular value transformation, then use block-encoding arithmetic to implement powers of ρ, measure an ancilla, and convert the measurement probability into an estimate of the desired entropy. The paper reports sample-complexity bounds in Tables I and II, claiming improvements over the prior works of Wang et al. (Ref. [29]) and Acharya et al. (Ref. [31]), especially in low-rank regimes.

Significance. If the central construction were valid, the claimed results would be significant: they would give the first copy-based entropy-estimation algorithms with sample complexity polynomial in rank and 1/ϵ with power improvements over prior art, and they would demonstrate a new application of QSVT. The paper is mostly self-contained in its use of external lemmas, and the asymptotic claims are concrete and falsifiable. However, the entire edifice rests on Lemma 1, which is asserted without a proof and, as stated, appears to be false. The manuscript also contains a clear algebraic error in the negative-c case of Section III B. Because these issues affect the central derivation rather than presentation, the significance cannot be assessed until they are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III B, after Eq. (31)] Lemma 1 is unproven and the justification given is invalid. The text claims that density-matrix exponentiation (Ref. [39]) simulates exp(−iρ/2), and then Corollary 71 of Ref. [23] converts this into an approximate block encoding of πρ/4. But density-matrix exponentiation implements a quantum channel, not a fixed unitary oracle: it consumes fresh copies of ρ and approximates the map σ ↦ e^{−iρt}σe^{iρt}. Corollary 71, on the other hand, requires a controlled unitary U = exp(−iH) and its inverse. The Appendix's own Lemma 6 likewise requires a purification unitary, which is not assumed in this paper. No argument is given that the density-matrix-exponentiation channel can be dilated to a Δ-approximated block-encoding unitary with O((1/Δ)log(1/Δ)) copies. Since Eq. (7), the probability expressions p0, and all sample complexities in Tables I and II depend on this block encoding, the central claim of the paper is not established.
  2. [Section III B, after Eq. (31)] The identity after Eq. (31) is algebraically wrong. The paper defines α = 2k+1+c, but then states that 2k+1 = α and concludes that 1/4 (π/4)^{2k} (1/ρ_min^c) Tr(ρ^α) = (1/ρ_min^c)(1/π) Tr((πρ/4)^α). This equality holds only when c=0. The correct relation has an extra factor (π/4)^c: p0 = (1/ρ_min^c)(1/π)(π/4)^c Tr((πρ/4)^α). The subsequent rescaling δ → δ/(4ρ_min^c) and the derived sample complexity for negative c in Eq. (47) are therefore not justified.
  3. [Sections III and IV, Lemmas 3–5] The algorithms require a positive lower bound on the smallest nonzero eigenvalue ρ_min of ρ, and the sample-complexity claims in Tables I and II diverge as ρ_min → 0. Lemmas 12, 13, and 5 all require a spectral lower bound I/κ ≤ A; for a rank-deficient state, ρ_min = 0 and these lemmas do not apply. The manuscript calls ρ_min the 'non-zero minimum eigenvalue' but does not analyze rank-deficient states, nor does it propose truncating small eigenvalues. This is a substantive scope limitation on the main claim, not a technical footnote.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) is written as an exact equality for an approximate block encoding. For an approximate block encoding, the off-block terms are not exactly orthogonal to |0⟩⟨0| ⊗ AρA†, so the measurement probability differs from Tr(AρA†) by terms that must be bounded using the approximation error. The paper later says errors add linearly, but this is not derived.
  2. [References [38] and [39]] The text says 'density matrix exponentiation method in [39]' after citing Ref. [38] for the block-encoding recipe, but Ref. [39] is the supervised/unsupervised machine-learning paper, while density-matrix exponentiation is introduced in Ref. [38] (quantum principal component analysis). The citations appear to be swapped.
  3. [Table I] Table I is difficult to read because the O-arguments are not formatted clearly; for example, the 0 < α < 1 entry contains a large log^5 expression whose arguments are ambiguous. The table would be easier to verify if the asymptotic expressions were typeset more carefully.
  4. [Section III A and III B] The symbol δ is used both for the additive error in estimating Tr(ρ^α) and for the block-encoding approximation error, sometimes in the same paragraph. Please use distinct notation for these two error parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entropy estimates follow from external block-encoding/QSVT lemmas plus exact algebraic identities; the only self-citations are auxiliary and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. Lemma 1 (block encoding of πρ/4 from copies of ρ) is imported from prior external work [38, 23, 28]; the power manipulations and the measurement formula p0 = Tr((πρ/4)^α ρ) = (π/4)^{α−1} Tr(ρ^α) are algebraic consequences of the block-encoding definition, not fitted or assumed values of the target entropy. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and renamed as a prediction. The paper's self-citations (Refs. 24–26) appear mainly in the introduction and in Lemma 14, which is used only to estimate the auxiliary minimum eigenvalue ρmin; this subroutine does not make the central entropy estimate equal to its input by construction. The unproved status of Lemma 1 is a genuine correctness risk, but it is a validity concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; complexity bounds depend on ρmin and rank, which are properties of the input state. The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main external inputs are prior QSVT and block-encoding lemmas, plus the positivity assumption on ρmin.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Lemma 1: from O(1/Δ log(1/Δ)) copies of ρ, one can construct a Δ-approximated block encoding of πρ/4 (Sec. II).
    Foundational conversion of copies into a block-encoded density operator; quoted from Refs. [23,38,39] without proof.
  • standard math Power-exponent lemmas (Lemma 3 positive, Lemma 4 negative) let a block encoding of A be transformed into A^{c/2} or A^{-c/(2κ^c)} when I/κ ≤ A ≤ I.
    Quoted from Refs. [23,41,42]; requires a positive spectral lower bound.
  • standard math Lemma 5: on [β,1], log(1/x) is approximated by a polynomial of degree O((1/β)log(1/ϵ)).
    Used for von Neumann entropy via QSVT and polynomial expansion.
  • standard math Error propagation from Tr(ρ^α) to Sα follows Eq. (13) from Ref. [29].
    Used to turn δ into final ϵ complexity.
  • domain assumption Minimum eigenvalue ρmin is nonzero and can be estimated with O(log dimρ) copies (Lemma 14).
    The paper does not analyze rank-deficient states; this is a limitation not stated upfront.
  • standard math For integer k, Tr(ρ^k) can be estimated with O(1/δ^2) copies using random single-copy measurements (Ref. [40]).
    Used in integer α and polynomial-approximation approaches.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimation of Nonlinear Physical Quantities By Measuring Ancillas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/52V6VNSZ

@misc{pith2026250207571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimation of Nonlinear Physical Quantities By Measuring Ancillas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/52V6VNSZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07571}
}
abstract

In this article, we present quantum algorithms for estimating von Neumann entropy and Renyi entropy, which are crucial physical and information-theoretical properties of a given quantum state $\rho$. Although there have been existing works that achieved the same goal, some prior developments assume the unitary that prepares the purification to the target state $\rho$. Here, we consider an alternative setting where only copies of $\rho$ are given and construct a quantum algorithm that estimates the desired entropy. Our framework can complete the given task by measuring a small number of ancilla qubits without directly measuring the system, and that it achieves significant improvement over prior relevant developments. For example, for the Renyi entropy of the order of non-integral $\alpha$, our method achieves almost power-of-two improvement in sample complexity with respect to the rank of the given state and almost a power-of-two improvement in error tolerance compared with the work by Wang et al. [Phys. Rev. Applied 19, 044041 (2023)].

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics

    Andr´ as Gily´ en, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 193–204, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [29]

    Quantum algorithms for estimating quantum entropies

    Youle Wang, Benchi Zhao, and Xin Wang. Quantum algorithms for estimating quantum entropies. Physical Review Applied, 19(4):044041, 2023

    2023

  3. [31]

    Estimating quantum entropy

    Jayadev Acharya, Ibrahim Issa, Nirmal V Shende, and Aaron B Wagner. Estimating quantum entropy. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, 1(2):454–468, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [39]

    Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning

    Seth Lloyd, Masoud Mohseni, and Patrick Rebentrost. Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.0411, 2013

    arXiv 2013

  5. [1]

    Simulating physics with computers

    Richard P Feynman. Simulating physics with computers. In Feynman and computation, pages 133–153. CRC Press, 2018. 14

    work page 2018

  6. [2]

    Quantum theory, the church–turing principle and the universal quantum computer

    David Deutsch. Quantum theory, the church–turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 400(1818):97–117, 1985

    work page 1985

  7. [3]

    Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation

    David Deutsch and Richard Jozsa. Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 439(1907):553–558, 1992

    1907

  8. [4]

    Universal quantum simulators

    Seth Lloyd. Universal quantum simulators. Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, 1996

    1996

Show all 45 references
  1. [5]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer

    Peter W Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM review, 41(2):303–332, 1999

    1999

  2. [6]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

    Lov K Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 212–219, 1996

    1996

  3. [7]

    Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse hamiltonians

    Dominic W Berry, Graeme Ahokas, Richard Cleve, and Barry C Sanders. Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse hamiltonians. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 270(2):359–371, 2007

    2007

  4. [8]

    Black-box hamiltonian simulation and unitary implementation

    Dominic W Berry and Andrew M Childs. Black-box hamiltonian simulation and unitary implementation. Quantum Information and Computation, 12:29–62, 2009

    2009

  5. [9]

    High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations

    Dominic W Berry. High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47(10):105301, 2014

    2014

  6. [10]

    Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters

    Dominic W Berry, Andrew M Childs, and Robin Kothari. Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters. In 2015 IEEE 56th annual symposium on foundations of computer science, pages 792–809. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  7. [11]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, 2020

    2020

  8. [12]

    Efficient estimation of pauli observables by derandomization

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Efficient estimation of pauli observables by derandomization. Physical review letters, 127(3):030503, 2021

    2021

  9. [13]

    Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang. Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing. Physical review letters, 118(1):010501, 2017

    2017

  10. [14]

    Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang. Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization. Quantum, 3:163, 2019

    2019

  11. [15]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    2019

  12. [16]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    2018

  13. [17]

    Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer

    John Preskill. Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10085, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  14. [18]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations

    Aram W Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009

    2009

  15. [19]

    Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision

    Andrew M Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D Somma. Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision. SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

    1920

  16. [20]

    Quantum algorithm for data fitting

    Nathan Wiebe, Daniel Braun, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for data fitting. Physical review letters, 109(5):050505, 2012

    2012

  17. [21]

    Quantum walk algorithm for element distinctness

    Andris Ambainis. Quantum walk algorithm for element distinctness. SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(1):210–239, 2007

    2007

  18. [22]

    On the relationship between continuous-and discrete-time quantum walk

    Andrew M Childs. On the relationship between continuous-and discrete-time quantum walk. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 294(2):581–603, 2010

    2010

  19. [24]

    Quantum algorithm for estimating eigenvalue

    Nhat A Nghiem and Tzu-Chieh Wei. Quantum algorithm for estimating eigenvalue. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06179, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  20. [25]

    An improved method for quantum matrix multiplication

    Nhat A Nghiem and Tzu-Chieh Wei. An improved method for quantum matrix multiplication. Quantum Information Processing, 22(8):299, 2023

    2023

  21. [26]

    Improved quantum algorithms for eigenvalues finding and gradient descent

    Nhat A Nghiem and Tzu-Chieh Wei. Improved quantum algorithms for eigenvalues finding and gradient descent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14786, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Quantum gradient descent and newton’s method for constrained polynomial optimization

    Patrick Rebentrost, Maria Schuld, Leonard Wossnig, Francesco Petruccione, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum gradient descent and newton’s method for constrained polynomial optimization. New Journal of Physics, 21(7):073023, 2019

    2019

  23. [28]

    Quantum algorithm for petz recovery channels and pretty good measurements

    Andr´ as Gily´ en, Seth Lloyd, Iman Marvian, Yihui Quek, and Mark M Wilde. Quantum algorithm for petz recovery channels and pretty good measurements. Physical Review Letters, 128(22):220502, 2022

    2022

  24. [30]

    Qubit-efficient entanglement spectroscopy using qubit resets.Quantum, 5:535, 2021

    Justin Yirka and Yi˘ git Suba¸ sı. Qubit-efficient entanglement spectroscopy using qubit resets.Quantum, 5:535, 2021

    2021

  25. [32]

    Distributional property testing in a quantum world

    Andr´ as Gily´ en and Tongyang Li. Distributional property testing in a quantum world. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.00814, 2019

    1902 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Quantum algorithm for estimating α-renyi entropies of quantum states

    Sathyawageeswar Subramanian and Min-Hsiu Hsieh. Quantum algorithm for estimating α-renyi entropies of quantum states. Physical review A, 104(2):022428, 2021

    2021

  27. [34]

    Sublinear quantum algorithms for estimating von neumann entropy

    Tom Gur, M Hsieh, and Sathyawageeswar Subramanian. Sublinear quantum algorithms for estimating von neumann entropy. arxiv e-prints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.11139, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Quantum neural estimation of entropies

    Ziv Goldfeld, Dhrumil Patel, Sreejith Sreekumar, and Mark M Wilde. Quantum neural estimation of entropies. Physical Review A, 109(3):032431, 2024. 15

    2024

  29. [36]

    New quantum algorithms for computing quantum entropies and distances

    Qisheng Wang, Ji Guan, Junyi Liu, Zhicheng Zhang, and Mingsheng Ying. New quantum algorithms for computing quantum entropies and distances. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 70(8):5653–5680, 2024

    2024

  30. [37]

    Variational quantum algorithm for estimating the quantum fisher information

    Jacob L Beckey, M Cerezo, Akira Sone, and Patrick J Coles. Variational quantum algorithm for estimating the quantum fisher information. Physical Review Research, 4(1):013083, 2022

    2022

  31. [38]

    Quantum principal component analysis

    Seth Lloyd, Masoud Mohseni, and Patrick Rebentrost. Quantum principal component analysis. Nature Physics, 10(9):631– 633, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Measuring tr ρ n on single copies of ρ using random measurements

    Steven J van Enk and Carlo WJ Beenakker. Measuring tr ρ n on single copies of ρ using random measurements. Physical review letters, 108(11):110503, 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    PhD thesis, University of Amster- dam, 2019

    Andr´ as Gily´ en.Quantum singular value transformation & its algorithmic applications. PhD thesis, University of Amster- dam, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    The power of block-encoded matrix powers: improved regres- sion techniques via faster hamiltonian simulation

    Shantanav Chakraborty, Andr´ as Gily´ en, and Stacey Jeffery. The power of block-encoded matrix powers: improved regres- sion techniques via faster hamiltonian simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.01973, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block encodings

    Patrick Rall. Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block encodings. Physical Review A, 102(2):022408, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Approximate quantum circuit synthesis using block encodings

    Daan Camps and Roel Van Beeumen. Approximate quantum circuit synthesis using block encodings. Physical Review A, 102(5):052411, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Lecture notes on quantum algorithms

    Andrew M Childs. Lecture notes on quantum algorithms. Lecture notes at University of Maryland, 2017. 16 Appendix A: Preliminaries Here, we summarize the main recipes of our work. We keep their statements brief but precise for simplicity, with their proofs/ constructions referr...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.