Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Simultaneous Estimation of Nonlinear Functionals of a Quantum State

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any known observable $O$, one batch of $n$ copies of a quantum state can simultaneously estimate all moments $\operatorname{tr}(O\rho),\dots,\operatorname{tr}(O\rho^k)$ with $\widetilde O(k)$ samples, and this is optimal up to a log…

desk verdict Resolves the sample complexity of simultaneous nonlinear functional estimation up to a log factor; the main theorem is sound, with a fixable gap in a corollary. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16715 v1 pith:QNXLAHDI submitted 2025-05-22 quant-ph

Kean Chen , Qisheng Wang , Zhan Yu , Zhicheng Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords quantumstateestimationnonlinearfunctionalstraceofpowerssimultaneoussamplecomplexityweightedpermutationsentanglementspectroscopyvirtualcooling
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 a single batch of $n$ copies of a quantum state $\rho$ can supply unbiased, low-variance estimates of $\operatorname{tr}(O\rho), \operatorname{tr}(O\rho^2), \dots, \operatorname{tr}(O\rho^k)$ simultaneously for any known observable $O$, using $O(k\log k\,\|O\|^2/\varepsilon^2)$ copies to reach additive error $\varepsilon$. It proves a matching lower bound: even estimating the single hardest term $\operatorname{tr}(O\rho^k)$ needs $\Omega(k\|O\|^2/\varepsilon^2)$ copies. If correct, estimating all $k$ moments costs almost the same as estimating the hardest one, replacing the $O(k^2\log k)$ cost of estimating the values one by one. The improvement transfers directly to entanglement spectroscopy and to quantum virtual cooling of many-body thermal states, where samples were previously wasted on separate estimates.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the monoid of weighted permutations $W_n \simeq S_n \ltimes \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}^n$, where $\mu(\pi^w)=U_\pi(O^{w_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes O^{w_n})$. Each orbit under conjugation by $S_n$ is encoded by a weighted cycle type, a directed cycle graph with integer weights on edges. The load-bearing structural fact is Lemma 2.11: the involution $(\pi^w)^\dagger = (\pi^{-1})^{w_{\pi^{-1}}}$ preserves weighted cycle type whenever total weight $|w|_1\le2$. Since each estimator has total weight 1 and each product $O_iO_j$ has total weight 2, this preservation yields Hermiticity of $O_k$ and then, by comparing coefficients on each orbit, the pairwise commutativity $O_iO_j=O_jO_i$. Variance control uses the fact that $O_k$ is the symmetrization of a block-local estimator $T_k$, so the Kadison-Schwarz inequality gives $\operatorname{Var}[O_k]\le\operatorname{Var}[T_k]\le2k\|O\|^2/n$.

What would settle it

Take a small case such as $n=4$, $O$ a generic $2\times2$ observable, and symbolically compute $[O_2,O_3]=O_2O_3-O_3O_2$ in the monoid ring $\mathbb{C}W_4$ using Definitions 2.13 and 2.14. If any coefficient is nonzero, Proposition 2.16 is false and the claimed simultaneous measurement cannot be performed; the paper's proof predicts all coefficients are zero.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a family of Hermitian, pairwise-commuting observables $O_1,\dots,O_n$ on the $n$-copy Hilbert space, each supported on the symmetrized orbit of a weighted cyclic shift: $O_k = \mu(\Phi(s_k e_1))$. Measuring all of them on the same $n$ copies returns variables $p_k$ with $\mathbb{E}[p_k]=\operatorname{tr}(O\rho^k)$ and $\operatorname{Var}[p_k]\le 2k\|O\|^2/n$. Because the observables commute, one round of measurements yields every moment estimate, and Chebyshev plus median boosting gives the $\widetilde O(k)$ bound. The matching lower bound comes from a two-level pair of states whose $k$-th power traces differ by $\Theta(\varepsilon)$ while their fidelity gap is $O(\varepsilon^2/k)$, forcing $\Omega(k/\varepsilon^2)$ samples by state-discrimination.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Lemma 2.11: for weighted permutations, the involution preserves the weighted cycle type whenever the total weight is at most 2; if this failed, the estimators $O_i$ and $O_j$ would not be simultaneously measurable and the entire sample-reuse argument would fall apart.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simultaneously estimating the $k$ values costs $\widetilde O(k\|O\|^2/\varepsilon^2)$ copies, versus $O(k^2\log k)$ by estimating each term separately, and the matching lower bound makes this optimal up to the log factor.
  • Entanglement spectroscopy can extract $\operatorname{tr}(\rho^2),\dots,\operatorname{tr}(\rho^{k_{\max}})$ with $O(k_{\max}\log k_{\max}/\varepsilon^2)$ copies, improving the prior $O(k_{\max}^2\log k_{\max}/\varepsilon^2)$.
  • Quantum virtual cooling can obtain observables at fractional temperatures $T/2,\dots,T/n$ from $O(n\log n)$ copies of the thermal state, a quadratic reduction over the direct approach.
  • Estimating $\operatorname{tr}(Of(\rho))$ for any degree-$k$ polynomial $f$ costs $O(k\|f\|_1^2\|O\|^2/\varepsilon^2)$ copies, which is optimal up to constants by the hard instance $f(x)=x^k$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The hard instance in the lower bound is a two-level state, so the $k$-dependence is not an artifact of high dimension; the same $\Omega(k/\varepsilon^2)$ barrier should apply to any protocol that must output $\operatorname{tr}(O\rho^k)$ with additive error.
  • Because the commuting family contains estimators for every $k\le n$, the same $n$-copy data could be reused for any polynomial approximation of a target function; the paper's Corollary 3.2 makes this explicit only for degree-$k$ polynomials.
  • The weighted-cycle-type argument is specialized to total weight $\le2$; if it can be extended to weight 3 or more, the same sample-reuse trick might apply to products like $\operatorname{tr}((\rho\sigma)^k)$ or to simultaneous estimation of Rényi entropies at several orders.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the simultaneous estimation of the nonlinear functionals tr(Oρ), tr(Oρ²), ..., tr(Oρ^k) from copies of an unknown state ρ with a known observable O. The main contribution is a construction of pairwise commuting, permutation-symmetrized observables O_k whose joint measurement yields unbiased estimators with variance O(k||O||²/n), leading to an O(k log(k)||O||²/ε²) sample upper bound for simultaneous estimation of all k values. This is complemented by a lower bound Ω(k||O||²/ε²) for the single term tr(Oρ^k), obtained by a two-state discrimination hard instance together with the Helstrom-Holevo bound. The paper also extends the method to polynomial functionals of ρ via linear combinations of the simultaneous estimators, and discusses applications to entanglement spectroscopy and quantum virtual cooling.

Significance. If correct, the main theorem is significant: it removes a factor of k from the naive O(k² log k) sample bound and shows that simultaneous estimation of all k power functionals is essentially as hard as estimating the single hardest term. The construction is elegant and largely self-contained: the weighted-permutation formalism, the commutativity proof via weighted cycle types, and the variance comparison via the Kadison-Schwarz inequality are clearly presented. The lower bound is a clean application of standard quantum state discrimination, with a concrete hard instance and no fitted parameters. The extensions to polynomial functionals and the applications to entanglement spectroscopy and virtual cooling give the results practical relevance. The proofs are direct and appear internally consistent, with no circularity.

major comments (2)
  1. [Corollary 3.2, proof (m ≤ k case)] The m ≤ k branch of the proof does not establish the claimed O(k log m max_i ||f_i||₁² ||O||²/ε²) sample bound. The preceding single-polynomial argument only guarantees failure probability at most 1/3 per run, and the text asserts without proof that each of the m estimates can be boosted to failure probability 1/(3m) with only an O(log m) overhead. As written, a naive application would either incur an extra factor of m by estimating each f_i separately or fail the union bound if one only boosts the underlying p_j's. The natural fix is to repeat the whole k-value measurement O(log m) times, compute all m linear combinations in every run, and take the coordinatewise median; since each run already produces all m estimates, the total sample count is O(k max_i ||f_i||₁² ||O||² log m / ε²), matching the corollary. This repair does not affect Theorem 1.1.
  2. [Theorems 4.3 and 4.4] The statements of Theorems 4.3 and 4.4 quantify over all finite-dimensional observables O, but the proof constructs a two-dimensional hard instance, and the lower bound is false for d = 1: when the Hilbert space is one-dimensional, tr(Oρ^k) = tr(O) is a known constant, so zero samples suffice. Please add an explicit assumption that the Hilbert space has dimension at least 2, or otherwise exclude the trivial one-dimensional case, in both theorem statements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The notation 'π0 ∈ Mn' appears to be a typo: it should read 'π0 ∈ Wn'.
  2. [Proof of Theorem 4.4] The inequality |tr(Oρ_+^k) - tr(Oρ_-^k)| ≥ tr(ρ_+^k) - tr(ρ_-^k) is not immediate for a ∈ [-1,1]; it follows because the term a((1/k - ε/k)^k - (1/k + ε/k)^k) is at least -((1/k + ε/k)^k - (1/k - ε/k)^k). Adding this one-line justification would improve readability.
  3. [Proof of Theorem 4.4] The reduction to ⟨0|O|0⟩ = 1 should mention the sign flip O → -O when the eigenvalue of largest magnitude is -1; this keeps ||O|| unchanged and preserves the estimation problem up to a known sign.
  4. [Corollary 3.2, proof] The phrase 'standard variation' should be 'standard deviation'.
  5. [Theorem 3.1, proof] When ε is large relative to ||O||, the expression 6k||O||²/ε² can be smaller than k; the proof implicitly relies on the trivial zero estimator in that regime, or one should set n = max(k, ⌈6k||O||²/ε²⌉).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the upper and lower bounds are derived from explicit constructions and independent external results.

full rationale

The central claim Theorem 1.1 is a constructive upper bound: the estimators O_k are defined directly as symmetrized weighted permutations O_k = µ(Φ(s_k e_1)) in Definition 2.14, and the proof establishes unbiasedness by the trace identity tr(O_k ρ^⊗n) = tr(Oρ^k), commutativity by the weighted-cycle-type argument of Lemma 2.11 and Proposition 2.16, and the variance bound Var[O_k] ≤ 2k||O||^2/n from the Kadison-Schwarz inequality plus a direct variance computation on the natural product estimator T_k. No parameter is fitted to the target values, and the estimated quantities are not defined in terms of the estimators. The sample-complexity conversion uses standard Chebyshev and Hoeffding bounds rather than assuming the conclusion. The lower bound in Theorem 4.4 is a reduction to quantum state discrimination between two explicitly constructed states ρ_+ and ρ_-, with the separation tr(Oρ_+^k) - tr(Oρ_-^k) = Ω(ε) computed directly and the sample-complexity lower bound supplied by the independent Helstrom-Holevo framework cited from [Hel67, Hol73, Wil13, Hay16]. Citations to earlier works by overlapping authors, such as [LW25] and [CW25] in Table 1, are used only for comparison or context and are not load-bearing for the main theorems. The proof of Corollary 3.2 has a minor expository gap in the m ≤ k case concerning the log(min{k,m}) overhead, but that is a precision-of-proof issue rather than circularity, because the stated bound is not obtained by assuming the target claim. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces a weighted-permutation monoid and weighted cycle types as mathematical proof tools, but these are definitions with proven properties rather than physical postulates or fitted inputs. There are no free parameters fitted to data, no ad hoc physical entities, and no constants chosen to force the desired result. The only inputs are the observable O, the state dimension, the number k, and the error ε, all of which are part of the problem statement.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard quantum measurement postulates: measuring a Hermitian observable Q on ρ⊗n yields outcomes with expectation tr(Qρ⊗n) and variance tr(Q²ρ⊗n) - tr(Qρ⊗n)².
    Used throughout Section 2.5 and Theorem 3.1 to interpret the estimators O_k as measurable observables and to apply Chebyshev's inequality.
  • standard math Kadison-Schwarz inequality for unital positive maps: Φ(T)² ≤ Φ(T²) for a unital positive map Φ.
    Used in Lemma 2.17 to bound the variance of the symmetrized estimator O_k by that of the natural block estimator T_k.
  • standard math Helstrom-Holevo bound and the fidelity-based sample complexity lower bound for quantum state discrimination.
    Used in Section 4.1 and 4.2 to derive the Ω(k/ε²) lower bound from the infidelity of the constructed hard states ρ±; cited to [Hel67], [Hol73], [Wil13], and [Hay16].
  • standard math Hoeffding's inequality for bounded independent random variables.
    Used in the median trick in Theorem 3.1 to amplify the success probability to 1 - 1/(3k) for each of the k estimates.
  • standard math Cyclic property of the trace and permutation invariance of ρ⊗n.
    Used in Proposition 2.15 to prove unbiasedness of O_k and in Equation (6) to simplify tr(Φ(T_k²)ρ⊗n) to tr(T_k²ρ⊗n).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simultaneous Estimation of Nonlinear Functionals of a Quantum State." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QNXLAHDI

@misc{pith2026250516715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simultaneous Estimation of Nonlinear Functionals of a Quantum State},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QNXLAHDI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16715}
}
abstract

We consider a fundamental task in quantum information theory, estimating the values of $\operatorname{tr}(O\rho)$, $\operatorname{tr}(O\rho^2)$, ..., $\operatorname{tr}(O\rho^k)$ for an observable $O$ and a quantum state $\rho$. We show that $\widetilde\Theta(k)$ samples of $\rho$ are sufficient and necessary to simultaneously estimate all the $k$ values. This means that estimating all the $k$ values is almost as easy as estimating only one of them, $\operatorname{tr}(O\rho^k)$. As an application, our approach advances the sample complexity of entanglement spectroscopy and the virtual cooling for quantum many-body systems. Moreover, we extend our approach to estimating general functionals by polynomial approximation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16715 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagrammatic illustration of operations on the weighted permutations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Weighted cycle types before/after the involution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A weighted permutation with the corresponding weighted cycle type. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Information-Theoretic Lower Bounds for Approximating Monomials via Optimal Quantum Tsallis Entropy Estimation

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A quantum estimator achieves near-optimal query complexity for integer-order Tsallis entropy, and the same technique yields a new information-theoretic proof that approximating x^n needs polynomials of degree Ω(√n).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Shadow tomography of quantum states

    Scott Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 325--338, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3188745.3188802 doi:10.1145/3188745.3188802

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Quantum algorithmic measurement

    Dorit Aharonov, Jordan Cotler, and Xiao-Liang Qi. Quantum algorithmic measurement. Nature Communications , 13(1):887, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27922-0 doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27922-0

    doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27922-0 2022

  3. [3]

    Shende, and Aaron B

    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. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAIT.2020.3015235 doi:10.1109/JSAIT.2020.3015235

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    A polynomial quantum algorithm for approximating the Jones polynomial

    Dorit Aharonov, Vaughan Jones, and Zeph Landau. A polynomial quantum algorithm for approximating the Jones polynomial. Algorithmica , 55(3):395--421, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-008-9168-0 doi:10.1007/s00453-008-9168-0

    doi:10.1007/s00453-008-9168-0 2009

  5. [5]

    Distributed quantum inner product estimation

    Anurag Anshu, Zeph Landau, and Yunchao Liu. Distributed quantum inner product estimation. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 44--51, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3519935.3519974 doi:10.1145/3519935.3519974

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Quantum fingerprinting

    Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, John Watrous, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum fingerprinting. Physical Review Letters , 87(16):167902, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.167902 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.167902

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.167902 2001

  7. [7]

    Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation

    Gilles Brassard, Peter H yer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. In Samuel J. Lomonaco, Jr. and Howard E. Brandt, editors, Quantum Computation and Information , volume 305 of Contemporary Mathematics , pages 53--74. AMS, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1090/conm/305/05215 doi:10.1090/conm/305/05215

    doi:10.1090/conm/305/05215 2002

  8. [8]

    Improved quantum data analysis

    Costin Bădescu and Ryan O'Donnell. Improved quantum data analysis. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 1398--1411, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406325.3451109 doi:10.1145/3406325.3451109

    arXiv 2021

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum state certification

    Costin B a descu, Ryan O'Donnell, and John Wright. Quantum state certification. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 503--514, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313276.3316344 doi:10.1145/3313276.3316344

    2019

  2. [10]

    Todd A. Brun. Measuring polynomial functions of states. Quantum Information and Computation , 4(5):401--408, 2004. https://doi.org/10.26421/QIC4.5-6 doi:10.26421/QIC4.5-6

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memory

    Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li. Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memory. In Proceedings of the 62nd IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages 574--585, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS52979.202...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Eric Tai, Matthew Rispoli, Robert Schittko, Philipp M

    Jordan Cotler, Soonwon Choi, Alexander Lukin, Hrant Gharibyan, Tarun Grover, M. Eric Tai, Matthew Rispoli, Robert Schittko, Philipp M. Preiss, Adam M. Kaufman, Markus Greiner, Hannes Pichler, and Patrick Hayden. Quantum virtual cooling. Physical Review X , 9(3):031013, 2019. h...

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Mucciolo

    Claudio Chamon, Alioscia Hamma, and Eduardo R. Mucciolo. Emergent irreversibility and entanglement spectrum statistics. Physical Review Letters , 112(24):240501, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.240501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.240501

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    The quantum complexity of computing Schatten p -norms

    Chris Cade and Ashley Montanaro. The quantum complexity of computing Schatten p -norms. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography , pages 4:1--4:20, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2018.4 doi:10.4230/LIP...

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Improved sample upper and lower bounds for trace estimation of quantum state powers

    Kean Chen and Qisheng Wang. Improved sample upper and lower bounds for trace estimation of quantum state powers. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on Learning Theory , 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09563 arXiv:2505.09563

    2025

  8. [16]

    Unitarity estimation for quantum channels

    Kean Chen, Qisheng Wang, Peixun Long, and Mingsheng Ying. Unitarity estimation for quantum channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 69(8):5116--5134, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2023.3263645 doi:10.1109/TIT.2023.3263645

    2023

  9. [17]

    De Chiara, L

    G. De Chiara, L. Lepori, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera. Entanglement spectrum, critical exponents, and order parameters in quantum spin chains. Physical Review Letters , 109(23):237208, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.237208 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.237208

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Optimal randomized measurements for a family of non-linear quantum properties

    Zhenyu Du, Yifan Tang, Andreas Elben, Ingo Roth, Jens Eisert, and Zhenhuan Liu. Optimal randomized measurements for a family of non-linear quantum properties. ArXiv e-prints, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09206 arXiv:2505.09206

    2025

  11. [19]

    Ekert, Carolina Moura Alves, Daniel K

    Artur K. Ekert, Carolina Moura Alves, Daniel K. L. Oi, Micha Horodecki, Pawe Horodecki, and L. C. Kwek. Direct estimations of linear and nonlinear functionals of a quantum state. Physical Review Letters , 88(21):217901, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.217901 doi:1...

    2002 doi

  12. [20]

    Entanglement spectrum of topological insulators and superconductors

    Lukasz Fidkowski. Entanglement spectrum of topological insulators and superconductors. Physical Review Letters , 104(13):130502, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.130502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.130502

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    Flammia and Yi-Kai Liu

    Steven T. Flammia and Yi-Kai Liu. Direct fidelity estimation from few Pauli measurements. Physical Review Letters , 106(23):230501, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.230501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.230501

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    Quantum simulations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices

    Christian Gross and Immanuel Bloch. Quantum simulations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices. Science , 357(6355):995--1001, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal3837 doi:10.1126/science.aal3837

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Sublinear quantum algorithms for estimating von Neumann entropy

    Tom Gur, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, and Sathyawageeswar Subramanian. Sublinear quantum algorithms for estimating von Neumann entropy. ArXiv e-prints, 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11139 arXiv:2111.11139

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    On the sample complexity of purity and inner product estimation

    Weiyuan Gong, Jonas Haferkamp, Qi Ye, and Zhihan Zhang. On the sample complexity of purity and inner product estimation. ArXiv e-prints, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12712 arXiv:2410.12712

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Distributional property testing in a quantum world

    Andr \'a s Gily \'e n and Tongyang Li. Distributional property testing in a quantum world. In Proceedings of the 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference , pages 25:1--25:19, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2020.25 doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2020.25

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Andr\' a s Gily\' e n, 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. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.220502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.220502

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Nonlinear transformation of complex amplitudes via quantum singular value transformation

    Naixu Guo, Kosuke Mitarai, and Keisuke Fujii. Nonlinear transformation of complex amplitudes via quantum singular value transformation. Physical Review Research , 6(4):043227, December 2024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043227 doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043227

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Improved quantum algorithms for fidelity estimation

    Andr\' a s Gily\' e n and Alexander Poremba. Improved quantum algorithms for fidelity estimation. ArXiv e-prints, 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.15993 arXiv:2203.15993

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation

    Masahito Hayashi. Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation . Cambridge University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49725-8 doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49725-8

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Measuring quantum relative entropy with finite-size effect

    Masahito Hayashi. Measuring quantum relative entropy with finite-size effect. Quantum , 9:1725, 2025. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-05-05-1725 doi:10.22331/q-2025-05-05-1725

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    Method for direct detection of quantum entanglement

    Pawe Horodecki and Artur Ekert. Method for direct detection of quantum entanglement. Physical Review Letters , 89(12):127902, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.127902 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.127902

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    Helstrom

    Carl W. Helstrom. Detection theory and quantum mechanics. Information and Control , 10(3):254--291, 1967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(67)90302-6 doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(67)90302-6

    1967 doi

  25. [33]

    Localized virtual purification

    Hideaki Hakoshima, Suguru Endo, Kaoru Yamamoto, Yuichiro Matsuzaki, and Nobuyuki Yoshioka. Localized virtual purification. Physical Review Letters , 133(8):080601, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.080601 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.080601

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu

    Jeongwan Haah, Aram W. Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu. Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 63(9):5628--5641, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2017.2719044 doi:10.1109/TIT.2017.2719044

    2017

  27. [35]

    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):337--394, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7 doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning. Physical Review Letters , 126(19):190505, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.190505 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.190505

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Huggins, Sam McArdle, Thomas E

    William J. Huggins, Sam McArdle, Thomas E. O'Brien, Joonho Lee, Nicholas C. Rubin, Sergio Boixo, K. Birgitta Whaley, Ryan Babbush, and Jarrod R. McClean. Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation. Physical Review X , 11(4):041036, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX...

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables

    Wassily Hoeffding. Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 58(301):13--30, 1963. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500830 doi:10.1080/01621459.1963.10500830

    1963

  31. [39]

    Alexander S. Holevo. Statistical decision theory for quantum systems. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 3(4):337--394, 1973. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-259X(73)90028-6 doi:10.1016/0047-259X(73)90028-6

    1973 doi

  32. [40]

    Steiger, and Matthias Troyer

    Sonika Johri, Damian S. Steiger, and Matthias Troyer. Entanglement spectroscopy on a quantum computer. Physical Review B , 96(19):195136, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.195136 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.195136

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Richard V. Kadison. A generalized Schwarz inequality and algebraic invariants for operator algebras. Annals of Mathematics , 56(3):494--503, 1952. https://doi.org/10.2307/1969657 doi:10.2307/1969657

    1952 doi

  34. [42]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme. Power of one bit of quantum information. Physical Review Letters , 81(25):5672, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5672 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5672

    1998 doi

  35. [43]

    Hui Li and F. D. M. Haldane. Entanglement spectrum as a generalization of entanglement entropy: identification of topological order in non-abelian fractional quantum Hall effect states. Physical Review Letters , 101(1):010504, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.0105...

    2008 doi

  36. [44]

    Unified multivariate trace estimation and quantum error mitigation

    Jin-Min Liang, Qiao-Qiao Lv, Zhi-Xi Wang, and Shao-Ming Fei. Unified multivariate trace estimation and quantum error mitigation. Physical Review A , 107(1):012606, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.012606 doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.107.012606

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    On estimating the trace of quantum state powers

    Yupan Liu and Qisheng Wang. On estimating the trace of quantum state powers. In Proceedings of the 2025 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms , pages 947--993, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611978322.28 doi:10.1137/1.9781611978322.28

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    Mishra, Felix Leditzky, and Mark M

    Theshani Nuradha, Hemant K. Mishra, Felix Leditzky, and Mark M. Wilde. Multivariate fidelities. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 2025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/adc645 doi:10.1088/1751-8121/adc645

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    Efficient quantum tomography

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright. Efficient quantum tomography. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 899--912, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1145/2897518.2897544 doi:10.1145/2897518.2897544

    2016

  40. [48]

    Efficient quantum tomography II

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright. Efficient quantum tomography II . In Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 962--974, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1145/3055399.3055454 doi:10.1145/3055399.3055454

    2017

  41. [49]

    Turner, Erez Berg, and Masaki Oshikawa

    Frank Pollmann, Ari M. Turner, Erez Berg, and Masaki Oshikawa. Entanglement spectrum of a topological phase in one dimension. Physical Review B , 81(6):064439, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.81.064439 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.81.064439

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    Beating full state tomography for unentangled spectrum estimation

    Angelos Pelecanos, Xinyu Tan, Ewin Tang, and John Wright. Beating full state tomography for unentangled spectrum estimation. ArXiv e-prints, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02785 arXiv:2504.02785

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Yihui Quek, Eneet Kaur, and Mark M. Wilde. Multivariate trace estimation in constant quantum depth. Quantum , 8:1220, 2024. https://doi.org/10.22331/Q-2024-01-10-1220 doi:10.22331/Q-2024-01-10-1220

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Soorya Rethinasamy, Rochisha Agarwal, Kunal Sharma, and Mark M. Wilde. Estimating distinguishability measures on quantum computers. Physical Review A , 108(1):012409, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.012409 doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.108.012409

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Yi g it Suba s , Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Entanglement spectroscopy with a depth-two quantum circuit. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 52(4):044001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aaf54d doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aaf54d

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Quantum algorithm for estimating -renyi entropies of quantum states

    Sathyawageeswar Subramanian and Min-Hsiu Hsieh. Quantum algorithm for estimating -renyi entropies of quantum states. Physical Review A , 104(2):022428, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022428 doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022428

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    Computation with unitaries and one pure qubit

    Dan Shepherd. Computation with unitaries and one pure qubit. ArXiv e-prints, 2006. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608132 arXiv:quant-ph/0608132

    2006 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Shor and Stephen P

    Peter W. Shor and Stephen P. Jordan. Estimating Jones polynomials is a complete problem for one clean qubit. Quantum Information and Computation , 8(8--9):681--714, 2008. https://doi.org/10.26421/QIC8.8-9-1 doi:10.26421/QIC8.8-9-1

    2008 doi

  49. [57]

    Resource-efficient algorithm for estimating the trace of quantum state powers

    Myeongjin Shin, Junseo Lee, Seungwoo Lee, and Kabgyun Jeong. Resource-efficient algorithm for estimating the trace of quantum state powers. ArXiv e-prints, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00314 arXiv:2408.00314

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Michailidis, Dmitry A

    Maksym Serbyn, Alexios A. Michailidis, Dmitry A. Abanin, and Z. Papi \'c . Power-law entanglement spectrum in many-body localized phases. Physical Review Letters , 117(16):160601, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.160601 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.160601

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Optimal trace distance and fidelity estimations for pure quantum states

    Qisheng Wang. Optimal trace distance and fidelity estimations for pure quantum states. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 70(12):8791--8805, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2024.3447915 doi:10.1109/TIT.2024.3447915

    2024

  52. [60]

    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. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2024.3399014 doi:10.1109/TIT.2024.3399014

    2024

  53. [61]

    Mark M. Wilde. Quantum Information Theory . Cambridge University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525343 doi:10.1017/CBO9781139525343

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    Fast quantum algorithms for trace distance estimation

    Qisheng Wang and Zhicheng Zhang. Fast quantum algorithms for trace distance estimation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 70(4):2720--2733, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2023.3321121 doi:10.1109/TIT.2023.3321121

    2024

  55. [63]

    Time-efficient quantum entropy estimator via samplizer

    Qisheng Wang and Zhicheng Zhang. Time-efficient quantum entropy estimator via samplizer. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual European Symposium on Algorithms , pages 101:1--101:15, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ESA.2024.101 doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ESA.2024.101

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    Quantum algorithm for fidelity estimation

    Qisheng Wang, Zhicheng Zhang, Kean Chen, Ji Guan, Wang Fang, Junyi Liu, and Mingsheng Ying. Quantum algorithm for fidelity estimation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 69(1):273--282, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2022.3203985 doi:10.1109/TIT.2022.3203985

    2023

  57. [65]

    A quantum algorithm framework for discrete probability distributions with applications to R\' e nyi entropy estimation

    Xinzhao Wang, Shengyu Zhang, and Tongyang Li. A quantum algorithm framework for discrete probability distributions with applications to R\' e nyi entropy estimation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 70(5):3399--3426, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2024.3382037 doi:...

    2024

  58. [66]

    Quantum phase processing and its applications in estimating phase and entropies

    Youle Wang, Lei Zhang, Zhan Yu, and Xin Wang. Quantum phase processing and its applications in estimating phase and entropies. Physical Review A , 108(6):062413, December 2023. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.062413 doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.108.062413

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    Mucciolo

    Zhi-Cheng Yang, Claudio Chamon, Alioscia Hamma, and Eduardo R. Mucciolo. Two-component structure in the entanglement spectrum of highly excited states. Physical Review Letters , 115(26):267206, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.267206 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.267206

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    Giampaolo, Eduardo R

    Zhi-Cheng Yang, Alioscia Hamma, Salvatore M. Giampaolo, Eduardo R. Mucciolo, and Claudio Chamon. Entanglement complexity in quantum many-body dynamics, thermalization, and localization. Physical Review B , 96(2):020408, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.020408 doi:10.1...

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    Nonlinear functions of quantum states

    Hongshun Yao, Yingjian Liu, Tengxiang Lin, and Xin Wang. Nonlinear functions of quantum states. ArXiv e-prints, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01696 arXiv:2412.01696

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Entanglement entropy and entanglement spectrum of the Kitaev model

    Hong Yao and Xiao-Liang Qi. Entanglement entropy and entanglement spectrum of the Kitaev model. Physical Review Letters , 105(8):080501, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.080501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.080501

    2010 doi

  63. [71]

    Qubit-efficient entanglement spectroscopy using qubit resets

    Justin Yirka and Yi g it Suba s . Qubit-efficient entanglement spectroscopy using qubit resets. Quantum , 5:535, 2021. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-09-02-535 doi:10.22331/q-2021-09-02-535

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.