Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A classical-shadows protocol that groups qubits by measured correlations and builds state-aware dual frames estimates any observable with far fewer shots than standard shadows, using only single-qubit measurements.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:09 UTC pith:OSH3KQ7J

load-bearing objection Useful practical recipe for state-aware shadows, but the headline claim of unbiasedness is not established for the same-data protocol; the paper's own appendix leaves the finite-sample case open. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.02555 v2 pith:OSH3KQ7J submitted 2025-11-04 quant-ph

Improving shadow estimation with locally-optimal dual frames

Keijo Korhonen , Stefano Mangini , Joonas Malmi , Hetta Vappula , Daniel Cavalcanti This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords classical shadowsdual framesquantum observable estimationmeasurement groupingmutual informationstate tomographysemidefinite programmingvariance reduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that the statistical error of classical shadow estimation can be reduced without changing the measurement circuit: keep single-qubit random Pauli measurements, but replace the state-agnostic inversion rule with a state-aware one. After measuring, it uses the observed frequencies to compute pairwise mutual information between qubits, partitions the qubits into correlated blocks of at most k qubits, tomographs each block's reduced state, and constructs the variance-optimal dual frame for each block. Multiplying these local optimal duals gives an unbiased estimator for any observable in pure post-processing. In numerical tests on molecular Hamiltonians up to 40 qubits and a 50-qubit spin chain, the estimator consistently beats canonical classical shadows and most competing methods, often by orders of magnitude in variance. The advantage is heuristic: no general optimality proof is given, and Appendix A exhibits states where k-LO shadows perform worse than canonical ones.

Core claim

The central claim is that for informationally overcomplete local measurements, the best post-processing is not the canonical dual frame but a correlated, state-dependent one: for each group of qubits that are strongly correlated according to the measured data, one can construct the locally optimal dual frame from the group's tomographed reduced state, and the tensor product of these frames is a valid shadow with lower variance for any observable. This turns classical shadows from state-agnostic to state-aware while retaining single-qubit measurements and observable-agnostic, informationally complete acquisition. The paper validates the claim numerically, showing variance reductions by orders

What carries the argument

The machinery is the locally optimal dual frame. In frame theory, an overcomplete POVM admits many dual frames; the optimal one for a given state uses the state probabilities in the frame operator and minimizes estimator variance for every observable. The paper approximates that ideal with k-local dual frames: partition qubits into groups of size at most k using pairwise classical mutual information of outcome frequencies, estimate each group's reduced state by semidefinite-program tomography, and use the resulting probabilities to build the optimal dual on each group. The tensor product of these group duals is the k-LO shadow. This machinery injects state information into the post-processin

Load-bearing premise

The promise rests on an unproven heuristic: the qubit blocks chosen by pairwise correlation in single-qubit measurement outcomes are the right blocks for building low-variance shadows, and the paper itself shows two-qubit states where this loses to standard shadows.

What would settle it

Run the k-LO protocol on a state whose correlations are spread across many qubits, such as a Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-type state, and compare single-shot variance on a global observable against canonical classical shadows; the paper's Appendix A toy examples show there are parameter regions where canonical duals win, and any such region found for k≥2 on a scalable state would falsify the practical claim of universal improvement.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Because acquisition is identical to standard classical shadows, any existing single-qubit Pauli dataset can be re-post-processed with k-LO duals to obtain lower-variance estimates without new measurements.
  • The method estimates many observables simultaneously from one informationally complete dataset, including molecular energies, excitation gaps, and spin correlation functions.
  • In the reported benchmarks, k-LO duals achieve comparable or better precision than methods that require entangling measurement circuits or observable-tailored adaptive loops, while remaining observable-agnostic.
  • Even local observables benefit from correlated global post-processing, as demonstrated by the Ising-model correlation-function results.
  • The protocol is compatible with any local informationally complete POVM, so it can be combined with other measurement strategies rather than replacing them.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the correlation-graph heuristic generalizes, the same mutual-information grouping could guide a second measurement round, making acquisition state-aware as well as post-processing.
  • Editorial inference: the practical value depends on whether the MI-based partition stays near-optimal for shallow-circuit states preparable on hardware; the truncated-matrix-product-state tests may favor local methods, so hardware-native states are the natural next testbed.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's own Appendix A suggests a research program—compare k-LO duals against globally optimized k-local duals on many states; any systematic gap would indicate room for further gains from optimization.
  • Editorial inference: because the duals are state-aware but observable-agnostic, they could serve as a drop-in post-processing layer for noise-mitigated energy estimation pipelines without changing the measurement hardware.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a state-aware, k-locally optimal (k-LO) shadow estimation protocol. After measuring an n-qubit state with single-qubit Pauli POVMs, the same S measurement outcomes are used (i) to estimate pairwise classical mutual informations, (ii) to partition qubits into disjoint groups of size at most k, (iii) to perform local SDP-based state tomography in each group, and (iv) to build locally optimal dual frames via Eq. (15). These correlated dual frames are then applied in Eq. (5) to estimate any observable. The authors benchmark energy estimation for molecules up to 16 qubits, for TLD1433 up to 40 qubits using truncated MPS states, and for a 50-qubit TFIM, reporting large variance reductions relative to standard classical shadows and several other methods. Appendices provide toy counterexamples, a comparison of grouping algorithms, and a study of finite-shot tomography variants.

Significance. If the protocol performs as claimed, it is practically valuable: it requires only single-qubit measurements, remains observable-agnostic, and moves the optimization to classical post-processing. The paper is also commendably transparent: Appendix A explicitly shows that k-LO duals can be worse than canonical duals, Appendix B shows that the grouping heuristic strongly affects performance, and Appendix C acknowledges an open finite-sample bias question. The core theoretical ingredients—dual-frame reconstruction and locally optimal duals—are standard and correctly used. The significance is conditional, however, on resolving whether the same-dataset estimator is unbiased and on whether the large-system benchmarks are representative, rather than artifacts of truncated states and the chosen grouping heuristic.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eq. (5) and App. C] The central claim of unbiased estimators is not established for the protocol as implemented. Eq. (5) is unbiased when the duals D_m are fixed independently of the evaluation data, but in the proposed workflow the same S shots determine the mutual-information grouping, the SDP tomography (14), and the frame operator (15). App. C explicitly shows that the empirical-frequency variant is biased under exactly this data reuse, and the authors state they 'cannot provide a reason as to why SDP and closest PSD seem to produce unbiased estimates.' This is a load-bearing gap: the abstract promises 'unbiased estimators,' and the numerical evidence in Fig. 2 reports exact single-shot variances, not finite-sample biases of the same-dataset estimator. Please either prove unbiasedness for the SDP/closest-PSD construction under stated conditions, or weaken the claims and report finite-shot bias diagnosti
  2. [§V B, Fig. 3] The largest numerical demonstrations—TLD1433 at 28 and 40 qubits—use truncated MPS representations with bond dimension at most 50. The authors acknowledge that 'MPS truncation ... may favor local measurements and k-LO duals.' Since the 40-qubit order-of-magnitude error reduction is the main evidence for scalability, this is not a minor caveat. The claim that k-LO duals reduce errors by orders of magnitude for large molecules would be substantially strengthened by tests on higher-bond-dimension or untruncated ansatz states, or by an explicit demonstration that the observed advantage is robust to the truncation parameter.
  3. [App. A and App. B] The paper correctly frames the method as heuristic, but the abstract and conclusions use unqualified language ('we obtain unbiased estimators that outperform state-of-the-art methods'). Appendix A constructs states for which 1-LO duals have larger observable variance than canonical duals, and Appendix B shows that naive grouping nearly eliminates the advantage. Thus the central performance claim is not a theorem but an empirical observation dependent on the mutual-information grouping heuristic. The manuscript would be more accurate if the abstract and concluding claims were qualified accordingly, e.g., 'in the benchmarked systems, k-LO shadows reduce estimation errors,' rather than implying a general superiority.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (15) and Sec. IV C] Notation is inconsistent: Eq. (15) writes |D^{G_i}_{m_{G_i}}> = F^{-1}_{G_i} |Pi^{G_i}_{m_{G_i}}>, but the frame operator is defined as F_{\rho_{G_i}}. Please clarify that local optimal duals are constructed from the reconstructed RDM, not from the exact state.
  2. [Figure captions] The caption for Fig. 2 in Sec. V A appears to be a duplicate of the Fig. 1 caption inserted before the results discussion. The caption should describe the molecular variance comparison properly.
  3. [App. A.4] The text says 'MSE error' where 'MSE' already includes 'error'; also the phrase 'the 2-LO duals ... in fact proves to be the best' should be 'prove.' Minor language issues throughout the appendices.
  4. [General] The paper would benefit from a short statement on code/data availability. The benchmarks use public data sets, but the implementation details for grouping, SDP tomography, and variance calculations are not specified sufficiently for exact reproduction without access to the authors' code.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: k-LO duals are constructed from established frame theory and benchmarked externally; limitations are explicitly stated, not hidden.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The k-LO estimator is the standard Monte-Carlo mean (Eq. (5)) over dual-frame coefficients, where the dual frame is built by applying the externally established optimal-frame construction (Eq. (9), credited to Refs. [17,18]) to locally reconstructed RDMs (Eqs. (14)-(15)). No fitted constant is renamed as a prediction: the state-dependent duals are a post-processing choice, and the variance claims are checked against standard baselines (CS-Pauli, LBCS, GBCS, OGM, etc.) using either exact probability variances (Fig. 2) or same-dataset comparisons (Fig. 3) that treat all methods equally. The paper explicitly disclaims general optimality: Appendix A says "the method remains and heuristic one and it is not possible to prove that, in general, it will provide estimator with better statistical performances that standard classical shadows." It also flags the finite-shot same-dataset concern in Appendix C: "we cannot provide a reason as to why SDP and closest PSD seem to produce unbiased estimates for the finite dataset or whether they also produce biased estimators but at a much smaller and unnoticeable scale." That is an admitted correctness/robustness caveat, not a circular reduction. Self-citations [19,22,31] are used for context or alternative optimization avenues and are not load-bearing for the central estimator.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no physics entities and no fitted constants. The key premises are prior theory of optimal duals, invertibility of local frame operators, validity of SDP-based local tomography, and the heuristic adequacy of mutual-information grouping. The only tunables are the locality k, a benchmark-dependent S_bias, and the MPS bond dimension used in simulations.

free parameters (3)
  • locality k (max group size) = 1, 2, 4 (evaluated, not fitted)
    The locality parameter k trades variance against tomographic cost; the paper reports results for k=1,2,4 without a principled selection rule.
  • MPS bond dimension chi = chi <= 50
    TLD1433 simulations use truncated MPS representations; results may differ for untruncated states, as the authors acknowledge.
  • S_bias (for empirical-frequency benchmark only) = 1296 (=6^4)
    Used only in Appendix C for the naive empirical-frequency duals to stabilize the frame operator; not part of the main k-LO method.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Optimal duals (Eq 9) minimize estimation variance for any observable (Zhu 2014, Innocenti et al. 2023)
    Relied on in Sec II B and Eq (10) to justify the 'locally optimal' construction.
  • standard math The Pauli POVM (Eq 17) is informationally overcomplete and the frame operator for a full-rank local state is invertible
    Needed in Sec IV C, Eq (15) to build duals via F^{-1}.
  • domain assumption SDP tomography (Eq 14) yields a valid density matrix and the duals built from it satisfy the reconstruction identity (Eq 2)
    Required for unbiasedness; Appendix C shows finite-sample behavior is not fully characterized.
  • ad hoc to paper Pairwise classical mutual information of measurement outcomes is an adequate proxy for the optimal qubit grouping
    Used in Sec IV A; Appendix B shows sensitivity to grouping, Appendix A shows no general guarantee of advantage.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23927 in / 26357 out tokens · 239325 ms · 2026-08-04T00:09:19.566950+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving shadow estimation with locally-optimal dual frames." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OSH3KQ7J

@misc{pith2026251102555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving shadow estimation with locally-optimal dual frames},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OSH3KQ7J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.02555}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Accurate estimation of observables in quantum systems is a central challenge in quantum information science, yet practical implementations are fundamentally constrained by the limited number of measurement shots. In this work we explore a variation of the classical shadows protocol in which the measurements are kept local while allowing the resulting classical shadows themselves to be correlated. By constructing locally optimal shadows, we obtain unbiased estimators that are competitive with state-of-the-art methods in terms of measurement overhead, while requiring only single-qubit measurements and allowing for the estimation of any observable in pure post-processing, reducing estimation errors by orders of magnitude over standard classical shadows. We validate our approach through numerical experiments on molecular Hamiltonians with up to 40 qubits consistently observing significant reductions in estimation errors, including for estimations of multiple chemically relevant observables simultaneously.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.02555 by Daniel Cavalcanti, Hetta Vappula, Joonas Malmi, Keijo Korhonen, Stefano Mangini.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The standard error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The estimation variance of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of partitioning methods to obtain groups of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Mutual information graph obtained from measuring the ground state of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of methods to obtain the optimal frame operator for the ground state energy estimation of 4-qubit H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Certified Optimal Measurement Reduction over Quantum Context Landscapes

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A second-order cone program certifiably minimizes the shot cost of quantum Hamiltonian measurement over any declared context dictionary, with independently checkable lower-bound witnesses, validated on molecules and 2...

  2. Combining non-parametric quantum states and MERA tensor networks for ground-state optimization

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A hybrid method uses fixed quantum annealing states as boundary resources for classical MERA tensor networks to improve ground-state approximations without deeper quantum circuits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    It corresponds to panel (a) in Fig

    Data acquisition—collect S measurement shots of the OC-POVM {Πm} on the target state ρ. It corresponds to panel (a) in Fig. 1

  2. [2]

    Construct the graph of the mutual information where each node represents a qubit and edges connecting them their pairwise mutual information

    Quantifying correlations—compute the classical mutual information of the outcomes’ frequencies for each pair of qubits in the system. Construct the graph of the mutual information where each node represents a qubit and edges connecting them their pairwise mutual information. It corresponds to panel (b) in Fig. 1

  3. [3]

    Different groups can have different sizes, but the biggest one can contain at most k qubits

    Defining groups of qubits—partition the MI graph into disjoint groups of qubits so that qubits within the same group are highly-correlated with each other. Different groups can have different sizes, but the biggest one can contain at most k qubits. It corresponds to panel (c) in Fig. 1

  4. [4]

    It corresponds to panel (d) in Fig

    Local tomography—for each of group of qubits, use the S measurement samples to construct the corresponding reduced density matrices (RDMs). It corresponds to panel (d) in Fig. 1

  5. [5]

    bitwise commuting

    Locally-optimal duals construction—for each of the groups and corresponding RDMs, use Eq. (9) to construct the locally optimal duals for that group. Finally take the tensor product of these local duals as the final duals for the estimation. It corresponds to panel (d) in Fig. 1. For this procedure to hold, we are assuming that the measurement of step 1 ac...

  6. [6]

    , qn}, begin by finding the two qubits qi and qj with the largest mutual information

    Given the set of all qubits Q = {q1, . . . , qn}, begin by finding the two qubits qi and qj with the largest mutual information. Define group G1 = {qi, qj} composed by these two qubits

  7. [7]

    (12) for the joint marginal outcomes of qubits in G1 and the marginal frequencies of qubit ql

    For the remaining qubits q∈Q\G 1, find the qubit ql with the largest mutual information with group G1, obtained by generalizing Eq. (12) for the joint marginal outcomes of qubits in G1 and the marginal frequencies of qubit ql. Then add ql to group, thus obtainingG 1 ={q i, qj, ql}

  8. [8]

    Repeat step 2 by adding qubits toG1 until it reaches a previously specified maximum group sizek

  9. [9]

    S3ArUb+j6acSKW3edSXDVlZdNF0=

    Once group G1 has reached the maximum size, cre- ate a new group, G2, and repeat the steps above using the remaining qubits Q\G 1. Continue until all qubits are allocated to a group. The final result of this procedure is a splitting of the qubits into L disjoint groups, each containing at most k qubits: G= (G 1, . . . , GL) with|G ℓ| ≤k , Gℓ ⊂[n], [ G∈G G...

  10. [10]

    Massar, Uncertainty relations for positive-operator- valued measures, Phys

    S. Massar, Uncertainty relations for positive-operator- valued measures, Phys. Rev. A76, 042114 (2007)

    2007

  11. [11]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simu- lation, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum com- puting, Chemical Reviews119, 10856–10915 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    B. Wu, J. Sun, Q. Huang, and X. Yuan, Overlapped grouping measurement: A unified framework for measur- ing quantum states, Quantum7, 896 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Crawford, B

    O. Crawford, B. v. Straaten, D. Wang, T. Parks, E. Camp- bell, and S. Brierley, Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli operators in the presence of finite sampling error, Quantum5, 385 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    T.-C. Yen, A. Ganeshram, and A. F. Izmaylov, Deter- ministic improvements of quantum measurements with grouping of compatible operators, non-local transforma- tions, and covariance estimates, npj Quantum Inf9, 14 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Gresch and M

    A. Gresch and M. Kliesch, Guaranteed efficient energy estimation of quantum many-body hamiltonians using shadowgrouping, Nat Commun16, 689 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nat. Phys.16, 1050–1057 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Paini, A

    M. Paini, A. Kalev, D. Padilha, and B. Ruck, Estimating expectation values using approximate quantum states, Quantum5, 413 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Bertoni, J

    C. Bertoni, J. Haferkamp, M. Hinsche, M. Ioannou, J. Eis- ert, and H. Pashayan, Shallow shadows: Expectation es- timation using low-depth random clifford circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 020602 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Efficient estima- tion of pauli observables by derandomization, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 030503 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    K. V. Kirk, C. Kokail, J. Kunjummen, H.-Y. Hu, Y. Teng, M. Cain, J. Taylor, S. F. Yelin, H. Pichler, and M. Lukin, 10 Derandomized shallow shadows: Efficient pauli learning with bounded-depth circuits, arXiv:2412.18973 [quant-ph] (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    A. J. Scott, Tight informationally complete quantum measurements, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General39, 13507 (2006)

    2006

  24. [24]

    G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and M. F. Sacchi, Informa- tionally complete measurements and group representation, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 6, S487 (2004)

    2004

  25. [25]

    Perinotti and G

    P. Perinotti and G. M. D’Ariano, Optimal estimation of ensemble averages from a quantum measurement, arXiv:0701231 [quant-ph] (2007)

    2007

  26. [26]

    Innocenti, S

    L. Innocenti, S. Lorenzo, I. Palmisano, F. Albarelli, A. Fer- raro, M. Paternostro, and G. M. Palma, Shadow tomog- raphy on general measurement frames, PRX Quantum4, 040328 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Zhu, Quantum state estimation with informationally overcomplete measurements, Phys

    H. Zhu, Quantum state estimation with informationally overcomplete measurements, Phys. Rev. A90, 012115 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    Malmi, K

    J. Malmi, K. Korhonen, D. Cavalcanti, and G. Garc ´ ıa- P´ erez, Enhanced observable estimation through classical optimization of informationally overcomplete measure- ment data: Beyond classical shadows, Phys. Rev. A109, 062412 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    L. E. Fischer, T. Dao, I. Tavernelli, and F. Tacchino, Dual- frame optimization for informationally complete quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A109, 062415 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Caprotti, J

    A. Caprotti, J. Morris, and B. Daki´ c, Optimizing quantum tomography via shadow inversion, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033301 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Mangini and D

    S. Mangini and D. Cavalcanti, Low variance estima- tions of many observables with tensor networks and informationally-complete measurements, Quantum9, 1812 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Hadfield, charleshadfield github / variances: Mea- surement in noisy quantum computers

    C. Hadfield, charleshadfield github / variances: Mea- surement in noisy quantum computers. (2020), [Accessed 2025-07-02]

    2020

  33. [33]

    Carrasquilla, G

    J. Carrasquilla, G. Torlai, R. G. Melko, and L. Aolita, Reconstructing quantum states with generative models, Nature Machine Intelligence1, 155–161 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    Funded at Scale

    Q4Bio Program Details — Wellcome Leap: Uncon- ventional Projects. Funded at Scale. — wellcome- leap.org, https://wellcomeleap.org/q4bio/program/ (2025), [Accessed 20-10-2025]

    2025

  35. [35]

    Hadfield, S

    C. Hadfield, S. Bravyi, R. Raymond, and A. Mezzacapo, Measurements of quantum hamiltonians with locally- biased classical shadows, Communications in Mathemati- cal Physics391, 951–967 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Hillmich, C

    S. Hillmich, C. Hadfield, R. Raymond, A. Mezzacapo, and R. Wille, Decision diagrams for quantum measurements with shallow circuits, in2021 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (2021) pp. 24–34

    2021

  37. [37]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  38. [38]

    P. G. Casazza, G. Kutyniok, and F. Philipp, Introduc- tion to finite frame theory, inFinite Frames(Birkh¨ auser Boston, 2013) p. 1–53

    2013

  39. [39]

    C. J. Wood, J. D. Biamonte, and D. G. Cory, Tensor net- works and graphical calculus for open quantum systems, Quantum Information and Computation15, 759–811 (2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    Korhonen, H

    K. Korhonen, H. Vappula, A. Glos, M. Cattaneo, Z. Zim- bor´ as, E.-M. Borrelli, M. A. C. Rossi, G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, and D. Cavalcanti, Practical techniques for high-precision measurements on near-term quantum hardware and ap- plications in molecular energy estimation, npj Quantum Inf11, 110 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Shlosberg, A

    A. Shlosberg, A. J. Jena, P. Mukhopadhyay, J. F. Haase, F. Leditzky, and L. Dellantonio, Adaptive estimation of quantum observables, Quantum7, 906 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    H.-Y. Hu, S. Choi, and Y.-Z. You, Classical shadow tomog- raphy with locally scrambled quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023027 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Ippoliti, Classical shadows based on locally-entangled measurements, Quantum8, 1293 (2024)

    M. Ippoliti, Classical shadows based on locally-entangled measurements, Quantum8, 1293 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    Schlag, T

    S. Schlag, T. Heuer, L. Gottesb¨ uren, Y. Akhremtsev, C. Schulz, and P. Sanders, High-quality hypergraph par- titioning, ACM J. Exp. Algorithmics27, 1.9 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    V. A. Traag, L. Waltman, and N. J. van Eck, From louvain to leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities, Sci Rep9, 5233 (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    Skrzypczyk and D

    P. Skrzypczyk and D. Cavalcanti,Semidefinite Program- ming in Quantum Information Science, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2023)

    2053

  47. [47]

    Cattaneo, M

    M. Cattaneo, M. A. C. Rossi, K. Korhonen, E.-M. Borrelli, G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, Z. Zimbor´ as, and D. Cavalcanti, Self- consistent quantum measurement tomography based on semidefinite programming, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033154 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    Monro, K

    S. Monro, K. L. Col´ on, H. Yin, J. Roque, P. Konda, S. Gujar, R. P. Thummel, L. Lilge, C. G. Cameron, and S. A. McFarland, Transition metal complexes and photodynamic therapy from a tumor-centered approach: Challenges, opportunities, and highlights from the de- velopment of TLD1433, Chemical Reviews119, 797–828 (2018)

    2018

  49. [49]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. May- hall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nat Commun10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  50. [50]

    Miller, Z

    A. Miller, Z. Holmes, ¨Ozlem Salehi, R. Chakraborty, A. Nyk¨ anen, Z. Zimbor´ as, A. Glos, and G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, Simulation of fermionic circuits using majorana propaga- tion, arXiv:2503.18939 [quant-ph] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  52. [52]

    Carrasquilla, carrasqu github / povm genmodel: Recon- structing quantum states with generative models (2019), [Accessed 2025-07-02]

    J. Carrasquilla, carrasqu github / povm genmodel: Recon- structing quantum states with generative models (2019), [Accessed 2025-07-02]

    2019

  53. [53]

    G. M. D’Ariano and P. Perinotti, Optimal data processing for quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 020403 (2007)

    2007

  54. [54]

    A. A. Hagberg, D. A. Schult, and P. J. Swart, Explor- ing network structure, dynamics, and function using Net- workX, inProceedings of the 7th Python in Science Confer- ence, edited by G. Varoquaux, T. Vaught, and J. Millman (Pasadena, CA USA, 2008) pp. 11 – 15

    2008

  55. [55]

    N. J. Higham, Computing a nearest symmetric positive semidefinite matrix, Linear Algebra and its Applications 103, 103 (1988). 11 Appendix A: Remarks on the optimality ofk−LO duals Despite the physically motivated intuition behind k-LO duals explained in Sec. III, the method remains and heuristic one and it is not possible to prove that, in general, it wi...

    1988

  56. [56]

    Optimal duals Consider a state ρ and an OC-POVM with effects Π = {Πm}, each occurring with a measurement probability pm = Tr[ρΠm]. Also consider a set of duals D = {Dm} to the POVM effects, that is a set of operators that satisfies the reconstruction formula O= X m Tr[DmO]Πm ,∀O .(A1) Let D denote the set of all possible valid duals,i.e.the set of all ope...

  57. [57]

    Specifically, let n be the number of sites in ρ, consider 12 a partition G = ( g1,

    Optimalk−local duals Let us now restrict ourselves to duals with a k-local structure, that is we consider duals that can be written as tensor products of operators each acting at most on k qubits. Specifically, let n be the number of sites in ρ, consider 12 a partition G = ( g1, . . . , g|G|) of these sites into |G| disjoint subsets each containing at mos...

  58. [58]

    Also, we see that k-LO duals can, in fact, even yield worse estimators than canonical ones in some pathological cases

    T oy examples We illustrate these subtleties through some toy examples on n = 2 qubits, where we compare the different types of duals introduced above. Also, we see that k-LO duals can, in fact, even yield worse estimators than canonical ones in some pathological cases. Consider the following two-qubit states parameterized by a single parameter q∈ [0, 1],...