Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Efficient quantum state tomography with Chebyshev polynomials

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper makes approximate tomography of function-encoding quantum states far cheaper by measuring only a truncated Chebyshev expansion, with measurement and post-processing costs that do not grow with qubit count.

desk verdict Clever spectral readout for states with known preparation circuits, but the 'tomography' framing overreaches and the shot-count scaling is wrong by a factor of ε. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02112 v2 pith:DUN2CTL4 submitted 2025-09-02 quant-ph

Hao Su , Shiying Xiong , Yue Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6841A10 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords quantumstatetomographyChebyshevpolynomialsHadamardtestamplitudeencodingspectraltruncationfluiddynamicsreadoutcomplexityscaling
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

Full quantum state tomography is exponentially expensive because an n-qubit state has $4^n$ independent parameters. This paper argues that when the state encodes a smooth, physically structured function—say a fluid velocity field—most of that information lives in a few large-scale modes. Its method expands the encoded function in Chebyshev polynomials, measures the expansion coefficients as inner products with Hadamard-test circuits, and reconstructs the state from the truncated series. For such states the measurement repetition count and classical post-processing are independent of the number of qubits, scaling only with the truncation order and spatial dimension. Numerical tests on analytic functions and turbulent flow fields recover dominant structures with fidelities from about 78% to 98% at modest truncation orders.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is $\langle T_{s,n} | \psi \rangle = \langle F, \tilde{T}_{s,2^n} \rangle_{2^n}$: the overlap between the target state and a Chebyshev basis state equals the discrete Chebyshev inner product, so every expansion coefficient becomes a circuit-measurable quantity. The basis state $|T_{s,n}\rangle$ is prepared by a quantum-Fourier-transform-style circuit whose $|0\rangle$ branch carries $\cos\left(\frac{(2k+1)s\pi}{2^{n+1}}\right)$ at position $k$, with overall 75% success probability; the Hadamard test with an optional S gate then reads the real and imaginary parts of the overlap. The discrete orthogonality of Chebyshev polynomials at their zeros supplies normalization, and the classical convergence bound for truncated Chebyshev series justifies

What would settle it

Run QST-CP on a state encoding a function whose Chebyshev coefficients decay slowly, for example $f(x)=\operatorname{sgn}(x)$ or a sinusoid whose frequency grows with n, at fixed threshold $A_c=0.9$ and increasing qubit count n. If achieving the threshold forces the stopping order m to grow with n, then the claimed n-independence of measurement repetitions fails outside scale-concentrated states; if m stays constant while fidelity remains high, the claim is universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

QST-CP reduces approximate tomography of a pure state encoding a continuous function to estimating Chebyshev expansion coefficients. Normalized Chebyshev basis states are constructed so that their inner product with the target equals the discrete Chebyshev coefficient; a Hadamard test with an optional S gate reads real and imaginary parts. The partial sum $A_m$ of squared coefficients tracks captured energy, and measurement stops once $A_m \geq A_c$. When energy concentrates in low-order modes, m stays small as n grows: measurement repetitions are $O\left(\frac{(4m/3)^d}{\epsilon d!}\right)$ and post-processing $O\left(\frac{m^d}{d!}\right)$, both independent of n, with linear-depth circuits. Analytic and turbulent-flow tests recover dominant l

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the target state has a known preparation unitary that can be controlled for the Hadamard test and that its encoded function concentrates its squared amplitude in low-order Chebyshev modes; if either condition fails, the coefficients either cannot be measured at all or the truncated reconstruction stops being faithful as n grows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Measurement repetitions and post-processing do not grow with qubit count for function-encoding states whose energy is concentrated in low-order modes, directly removing the exponential bottleneck of full tomography in that setting.
  • The stopping rule A_m ≥ A_c gives a built-in accuracy-efficiency tradeoff: lowering the threshold gives a cheaper coarse reconstruction, while raising it resolves finer scales.
  • Circuit depth stays linear in n whenever the target state has a shallow preparation circuit, so the method is compatible with near-term hardware for moderate n.
  • For d-dimensional functions the basis count grows like m^d/d!, so low-dimensional fields are practical; the (4/3)^d factor in repetition count penalizes high-dimensional cases.
  • The method is tailored to large-scale feature recovery, so it can serve as a readout protocol for quantum PDE solvers whose outputs are smooth fields rather than a replacement for full tomography of arbitrary states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the practical reach of the protocol is states whose preparation circuit is known and controllable; for a genuinely unknown state the controlled preparation required by the Hadamard test is not available, so the 'tomography' label applies only in that narrower setting.
  • Extension: the 75%-success basis preparation contributes the (4/3)^d factor; amplitude amplification on the basis-preparation ancilla would likely reduce this to a constant overhead, improving high-dimensional cases the paper does not explore.
  • Extension: the same coefficient-estimation loop could be embedded as a readout head in variational or block-encoding solvers, with the solver's own ansatz supplying the controlled preparation unitary and A_m acting as a convergence monitor.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes QST-CP, an approximate tomography method for pure quantum states that encode continuous (possibly multivariate) complex-valued functions. The target state is expanded in a truncated Chebyshev basis; the expansion coefficients are obtained as inner products between the target state and Chebyshev-basis states, measured via a Hadamard test. The authors give a circuit for preparing the normalized Chebyshev basis states, a stopping criterion based on the cumulative coefficient energy A_m, and complexity claims stating that the number of measurement repetitions and the classical post-processing are independent of the qubit count n. Numerical simulations on analytic functions and on turbulent-flow data are used to validate the method.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would offer a practical readout method for quantum states produced by known circuits, particularly in quantum computational fluid dynamics, where states encode smooth flow fields. The mathematical core is largely self-contained: the expansion coefficients are defined as discrete inner products and are directly measured, so the procedure is not circular in the sense of fitting parameters from the measured data. The manuscript also provides explicit circuits, a clear stopping criterion, reproducible code, and numerical demonstrations on realistic flow data. However, the protocol's dependence on a known and controllable state-preparation unitary is a major scope restriction, and the complexity analysis contains a shot-count error and an unclear post-processing claim. These issues affect the paper's central efficiency and tomography claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A, Fig. 2] The Hadamard-test inner-product measurement requires a controlled version of U_psi for the target state. For a genuinely unknown state—the standard QST setting—U_psi is not available, and a swap test yields only |<psi|T_{s,n}>|^2, losing the sign/phase needed for the complex coefficients. Thus QST-CP is a readout protocol for states whose preparation circuit is known and controllable, not a general tomography method. The abstract and Section II.A compare to full measurement-based QST without flagging this restriction. Please state this limitation explicitly and temper the tomography framing, or provide a sign-recovery scheme that does not require U_psi.
  2. [Section III.C, Table I] The measurement-repetition count is underestimated by a power of epsilon. Estimating an inner product to precision epsilon with a Hadamard test requires O(1/epsilon^2) shots, not O(1/epsilon). Consequently the total repetition count should be O((4m/3)^d/(epsilon^2 d!)) for the multivariate case and O(4m/(3 epsilon^2)) for the single-variable case, not the expressions in the text and Table I. The qualitative n-independence survives, but the stated complexity is incorrect and must be corrected.
  3. [Section III.C, Table I] The post-processing claim is ambiguous and, as stated, inconsistent with reconstructing a quantum state. If the output is a reconstructed state vector of length 2^n, evaluating the truncated Chebyshev series at all grid points costs at least Omega(2^n) (or Omega(2^n m^d) depending on the evaluation method), so the post-processing cannot be O(1) or O(m^d/d!) independent of n. If the output is only the set of expansion coefficients or a single amplitude, that is not full state reconstruction. Please clarify what 'post-processing' computes and reconcile it with the tomography claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The discrete orthogonality relation is stated for 0 <= s,t <= p, but for s=t=p the sum is zero because T_p vanishes at its own zeros. The correct statement is for 0 <= s,t < p. Since the expansions use P <= p-1, this does not affect the main results, but the displayed equation is formally false.
  2. [Eq. (12)] The notation is inconsistent: the subscript list is written as (s_1,...,s_n,n_1,...,n_d) and (s_1,...,s_n) in the summation in Eq. (13). The number of variables is d, not n. Please correct the subscripting.
  3. [Section IV.A] All numerical results use only 500 measurement repetitions per coefficient. The visible deviations in Figs. 6(b,d) are attributed to sampling error; a brief note on the expected amplitude of statistical fluctuations at 500 shots would help the reader interpret the fidelity numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QST-CP measures Chebyshev coefficients directly via inner products and reconstructs from them without fitted-input redirection.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. Equation (9) defines the Chebyshev basis states; Eq. (5) gives the discrete orthogonality relation; Eq. (10) and Fig. 3 show how to prepare them; and the Hadamard-test circuit of Fig. 2 measures Re/Im of ⟨T_s,n|ψ⟩, which by Eq. (8) is exactly the expansion coefficient a_s. Reconstruction is just the truncated Chebyshev series using the measured coefficients. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then presented as a prediction of closely related data; the stopping criterion A_m in Eq. (11) is an adaptive rule based on measured coefficients, not a source of the reconstructed amplitudes. The complexity claims in Section III.C follow from circuit depth and repetition counting, not from any fitted quantity. The paper contains self-citations (e.g., refs. [5], [10], [18], [19], [25], [43]), but these are contextual or code-availability citations and are not load-bearing for the central mathematical derivation. The main caveat—that the Hadamard test requires access to the controlled state-preparation unitary U_ψ (Section III.A)—is a scope restriction on the method's applicability to known, controllable state preparations, not a circular step; it concerns the framing as 'tomography' rather than the internal consistency of the derivation. No circular reduction is evident, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It rests on the assumption of smooth, pure, amplitude-encoded quantum states, and on the availability of a controlled state preparation. The free parameters are experimental controls (threshold, truncation order, shots), not fitted constants used to derive the central claim.

free parameters (3)
  • Stopping threshold A_c = 0.85, 0.5, 0.9 (chosen per experiment)
    A_c controls the truncation order m and thus the fidelity-cost tradeoff. It is user-selected, not derived from first principles.
  • Truncation order m = 3, 7, 11, 19, 30, 60, 90 (in experiments)
    The polynomial degree at which measurement stops. Determined online by A_c in some runs, but also set directly to specific values in the channel-flow z-y section (Fig. 10).
  • Number of measurement shots per coefficient = 500
    Chosen as a fixed experimental parameter; affects the precision of the estimated coefficients and the reported fidelities.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The target quantum state is a pure state with amplitudes equal to function values on a grid (Eq. 1).
    The method only applies to states of this amplitude-encoded form; arbitrary quantum states are out of scope.
  • domain assumption The function's Chebyshev spectrum decays fast enough that low-order truncation captures dominant energy.
    The efficiency independence from n rests on this. If the spectrum does not decay, m grows and complexity returns to exponential.
  • domain assumption The state preparation unitary U_psi is known and can be controlled.
    The Hadamard test in Fig. 2 requires controlled-U_psi; the paper assumes this availability in Section III.A without flagging it as a limitation for general QST.
  • standard math Hadamard test measurements give unbiased estimates of inner products with standard sampling error.
    The circuit in Fig. 2 follows standard quantum information results; the paper relies on this to estimate the Chebyshev coefficients.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient quantum state tomography with Chebyshev polynomials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUN2CTL4

@misc{pith2026250902112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient quantum state tomography with Chebyshev polynomials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUN2CTL4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02112}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computing shows promise for addressing computationally intensive problems but is constrained by the exponential resource requirements of general quantum state tomography (QST), which fully characterizes quantum states through parameter estimation. We introduce the QST with Chebyshev polynomials, an approximate tomography method for pure quantum states encoding complex-valued functions. This method reformulates tomography as the estimation of Chebyshev expansion coefficients, expressed as inner products between the target quantum state and Chebyshev basis functions, measured using the Hadamard test circuit. By treating the truncation order of the Chebyshev polynomials as a controllable parameter, the method provides a practical balance between efficiency and accuracy. For quantum states encoding functions dominated by large-scale features, such as those representing fluid flow fields, appropriate truncation enables faithful reconstruction of the dominant components via quantum circuits with linear depth, while keeping both measurement repetitions and post-processing independent of qubit count, in contrast to the exponential scaling of full measurement-based QST methods. Validation on analytic functions and numerically generated flow-field data demonstrates accurate reconstruction and effective extraction of large-scale features, indicating the method's suitability for systems governed by macroscopic dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02112 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of QST-CP. (a) A pure quantum state encoding a continuous function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Circuit for measuring inner product ⟨ϕ|ψ⟩, where Uϕ and Uψ are the preparation circuit for |ϕ⟩ and |ψ⟩. The measurement output switches between obtaining the real and imaginary parts of the inner product controlled by removal or inclusion of S gate enclosed by dashed line. ancilla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Preparation circuit for |Ts,n⟩ with n = 3, θ = sπ/2 n , and φ = sπ/2 n+1. The |0⟩ ⟨0| operation on the end of ancilla qubit refers to measuring the qubit so that the result is |0⟩. quantum Fourier transform circuit [1]. The controlled-gate segment generates the quan￾tum state |ψ⟩ = 1 2 n/2 2 Xn−1 k=0 e −ikθ |0⟩ ⊗ |k⟩ + 2 Xn−1 k=0 e ikθ |1⟩ ⊗ |k⟩ ! . To convert the relative phase between the |0⟩ and |1⟩ components in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The complete circuit for measuring the inner product [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of a circuit measuring the inner product between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation results of the QST-CP method for measuring one-dimensional functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Approximate tomography result of function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between (a) a snapshot of the 2D DNS velocity field (arrows) and vorticity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Result of quantum measuring a x-y section of turbulent channel flow with 512 × 128 uniform grid points (corresponding to 16 qubits). (a) Target flow field from DNS data. (b) Quantum measuring result with Ac = 0.9, leading to m = 11. (c) Theoretical expansion result at …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Result of quantum measuring a z-y section of turbulent channel flow with 512 × 128 uniform grid points (corresponding to 16 qubits). Quantum results of three polynomial degrees m = 30, 60, and 90 are provided on the left column, with theoretical results on the right c…

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. Quantum simulation of real-world nonlinear dynamics via Koopman method

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A learned Koopman embedding plus shallow LCHS circuits simulates moderately nonlinear dynamics on NISQ hardware and marks the noise-to-representation performance boundary.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Wittek, Quantum machine learning: what quantum computing means to data mining, Academic Press, 2014

    P. Wittek, Quantum machine learning: what quantum computing means to data mining, Academic Press, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, et al., Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing, Chem. Rev. 119 (2019) 10856–10915

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, Y. Yu, Quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications and detailed analysis, Phys. Rev. A 108 (2023) 032603

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Z. Meng, J. Zhong, S. Xu, K. Wang, J. Chen, F. Jin, X. Zhu, Y. Gao, Y. Wu, C. Zhang, N. Wang, Y. Zou, A. Zhang, Z. Cui, F. Shen, Z. Bao, Z. Zhu, Z. Tan, T. Li, P. Zhang, S. Xiong, H. Li, Q. Guo, Z. Wang, C. Song, H. Wang, Y. Yang, Simulating unsteady fluid flows on a superconducting quantum processor, Commun. Phys. 7 (2024) 349

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Y. Xiao, L. M. Yang, C. Shu, S. C. Chew, B. C. Khoo, Y. D. Cui, Y. Y. Liu, Physics- informed quantum neural network for solving forward and inverse problems of partial dif- ferential equations, Phys. Fluids 36 (2024) 9

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Succi, W

    S. Succi, W. Itani, K. Sreenivasan, R. Steijl, Quantum computing for fluids: Where do we stand?, Europhys. Lett. 144 (2023) 10001

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    S. S. Bharadwaj, K. R. Sreenivasan, Towards simulating fluid flows with quantum comput- ing, S¯ adhan¯ a 50 (2025) 1–19

    work page 2025

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Tennie, S

    F. Tennie, S. Laizet, S. Lloyd, L. Magri, Quantum computing for nonlinear differential equations and turbulence, Nat. Rev. Phys. 7 (2025) 220–230

    2025

  2. [10]

    Z. Y. Meng, C. Song, Y. Yang, Challenges of simulating fluid flows on near-term quantum computer, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 68 (2025) 104705. 21

    2025

  3. [11]

    Steijl, G

    R. Steijl, G. N. Barakos, Parallel evaluation of quantum algorithms for computational fluid dynamics, Comput. Fluids 173 (2018) 22–28

    2018

  4. [12]

    Gaitan, Finding flows of a Navier-Stokes fluid through quantum computing, NPJ Quantum Inf

    F. Gaitan, Finding flows of a Navier-Stokes fluid through quantum computing, NPJ Quantum Inf. 6 (2020) 61

    2020

  5. [13]

    Lubasch, J

    M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, D. Jaksch, Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems, Phys. Rev. A 101 (2020) 010301

    2020

  6. [14]

    Gourianov, M

    N. Gourianov, M. Lubasch, S. Dolgov, Q. Y. van den Berg, H. Babaee, P. Givi, M. Kiffner, D. Jaksch, A quantum-inspired approach to exploit turbulence structures, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2 (2022) 30–37

    2022

  7. [15]

    Pfeffer, F

    P. Pfeffer, F. Heyder, J. Schumacher, Hybrid quantum-classical reservoir computing of thermal convection flow, Phys. Rev. Res. 4 (2022) 033176

    2022

  8. [16]

    Zylberman, G

    J. Zylberman, G. D. Molfetta, M. Brachet, N. F. Loureiro, F. Debbasch, Quantum sim- ulations of hydrodynamics via the Madelung transformation, Phys. Rev. A 106 (2022) 032408

    2022

  9. [17]

    Fukagata, Towards quantum computing of turbulence, Nat

    K. Fukagata, Towards quantum computing of turbulence, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2 (2022) 68–69

    2022

  10. [18]

    Z. Y. Meng, Y. Yang, Quantum computing of fluid dynamics using the hydrodynamic Schr¨ odinger equation, Phys. Rev. Research 5 (2023) 033182

    2023

  11. [19]

    Z. Y. Meng, Y. Yang, Quantum spin representation for the Navier-Stokes equation, Phys. Rev. Research 6 (2024) 043130

    2024

  12. [20]

    Jaksch, P

    D. Jaksch, P. Givi, A. J. Daley, T. Rung, Variational quantum algorithms for computational fluid dynamics, AIAA J. 61 (2023) 1885–1894

    2023

  13. [21]

    Y. Liu, Z. Chen, C. Shu, P. Rebentrost, Y. Liu, S. Chew, B. Khoo, Y. Cui, A variational quantum algorithm-based numerical method for solving potential and Stokes flows, Ocean Eng. 292 (2024) 116494

    2024

  14. [22]

    Z. Y. Chen, T. Y. Ma, C. C. Ye, L. Xu, W. Bai, L. Zhou, M. Y. Tan, X. N. Zhuang, X. F. Xu, Y. J. Wang, Enabling large-scale and high-precision fluid simulations on near-term quantum computers, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 432 (2024) 117428

    2024

  15. [23]

    S. S. Bharadwaj, K. R. Sreenivasan, Hybrid quantum algorithms for flow problems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 120 (2023) e2311014120

    2023

  16. [24]

    Itani, K

    W. Itani, K. R. Sreenivasan, S. Succi, Quantum algorithm for lattice Boltzmann (QALB) simulation of incompressible fluids with a nonlinear collision term, Phys. Fluids 36 (2024) 22 017112

    2024

  17. [25]

    B. Y. Wang, Z. Y. Meng, Y. M. Zhao, Y. Yang, Quantum lattice Boltzmann method for simulating nonlinear fluid dynamics, arXiv:2502.16568 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gross, Y

    D. Gross, Y. K. Liu, S. T. Flammia, S. Becker, J. Eisert, Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 150401

    2010

  19. [27]

    C. A. Riofrio, D. Gross, S. T. Flammia, T. Monz, D. Nigg, R. Blatt, J. Eisert, Experimental quantum compressed sensing for a seven-qubit system, Nature Commun. 8 (2017) 15305

    2017

  20. [28]

    Banaszek, G

    K. Banaszek, G. M. D’ariano, M. G. A. Paris, M. F. Sacchi, Maximum-likelihood estimation of the density matrix, Phys. Rev. A 61 (1999) 010304

    1999

  21. [29]

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

    2017

  22. [30]

    Ferrie, Self-guided quantum tomography, Phys

    C. Ferrie, Self-guided quantum tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 190404

    2014

  23. [31]

    Bolduc, G

    E. Bolduc, G. C. Knee, E. M. Gauger, J. Leach, Projected gradient descent algorithms for quantum state tomography, npj Quantum Information 3 (2017) 44

    2017

  24. [32]

    Torlai, R

    G. Torlai, R. G. Melko, Machine-learning quantum states in the NISQ era, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11 (2020) 325–344

    2020

  25. [33]

    Ahmed, M

    S. Ahmed, M. C. Sanchez, F. Nori, A. F. Kockum, Quantum state tomography with conditional generative adversarial networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 140502

    2021

  26. [34]

    Koutn` y, L

    D. Koutn` y, L. Motka, Z. Hradil, J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, L. L. S. Soto, Neural-network quantum state tomography, Phys. Rev. A 106 (2022) 012409

    2022

  27. [35]

    H. Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nature Phys. 16 (2020) 1050–1057

    2020

  28. [36]

    Cotler, F

    J. Cotler, F. Wilczek, Quantum overlapping tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 100401

    2020

  29. [37]

    Y. Liu, D. Y. Wang, S. C. Xue, A. Q. Huang, X. Fu, X. G. Qiang, P. Xu, H. L. Huang, M. T. Deng, C. Guo, et al., Variational quantum circuits for quantum state tomography, Phys. Rev. A 101 (2020) 052316

    2020

  30. [38]

    Steffens, C

    A. Steffens, C. A. Riofr ´ ıo, W. McCutcheon, I. Roth, B. A. Bell, A. McMillan, M. S. Tame, J. G. Rarity, J. Eisert, Experimentally exploring compressed sensing quantum tomography, Quantum Sci. Technol. 2 (2017) 025005

    2017

  31. [39]

    Cramer, M

    M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. L. Cardinal, D. Poulin, Y. K. Liu, Efficient quantum state tomography, Nat. Commun. 1 23 (2010) 149

    2010

  32. [40]

    B. P. Lanyon, C. Maier, M. Holz¨ apfel, T. Baumgratz, C. Hempel, P. Jurcevic, I. Dhand, A. S. Buyskikh, A. J. Daley, M. Cramer, et al., Efficient tomography of a quantum many- body system, Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 1158–1162

    2017

  33. [41]

    Kyriienko, A

    O. Kyriienko, A. E. Paine, V. E. Elfving, Solving nonlinear differential equations with differentiable quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 103 (2021) 052416

    2021

  34. [42]

    Sarma, T

    A. Sarma, T. W. Watts, M. Moosa, Y. Liu, P. L. McMahon, Quantum variational solving of nonlinear and multidimensional partial differential equations, Phys. Rev. A 109 (2024) 062616

    2024

  35. [43]

    Codes available athttps://github.com/YYgroup/ChebyMeasure, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    A. N. Kolmogorov, The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluid for very large Reynolds numbers, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 30 (1941) 301–305

    1941

  37. [45]

    T. J. Rivlin, Chebyshev polynomials, Courier Dover Publications, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    L. N. Trefethen, Approximation theory and approximation practice, extended edition, SIAM, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    A. J. Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit, arXiv.2405.08810 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    S. A. Orszag, Numerical methods for the simulation of turbulence, Phys. Fluids 12 (1969) II–250

    1969

  41. [49]

    Graham, K

    J. Graham, K. Kanov, X. I. A. Yang, M. K. Lee, N. Malaya, C. C. Lalescu, R. Burns, G. Eyink, A. Szalay, R. D. Moser, C. Meneveau, A web services accessible database of turbulent channel flow and its use for testing a new integral wall model for LES, Journal of Turbulence 17 (2...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.