Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Instance-optimal high-precision shadow tomography is solved by a Fisher-information functional: sample complexity is Θ̃(Γ_p/ε²), with matching bounds for the oblivious variant, so quantum learning reduces to a metrology calculation.

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 06:09 UTC pith:HUBAGUJ7

load-bearing objection A serious paper with a genuine bridge between metrology and shadow tomography, but the CR-based necessity proof breaks at the median-of-unbiased-estimators step. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.04952 v1 pith:HUBAGUJ7 submitted 2026-02-04 quant-ph cs.ITcs.LGmath.IT

Instance-optimal high-precision shadow tomography with few-copy measurements: A metrological approach

Senrui Chen , Weiyuan Gong , Sisi Zhou This is my paper
classification quant-ph cs.ITcs.LGmath.IT MSC 81P45 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords shadow tomographyFisher informationquantum metrologysample complexityinstance-optimalhigh-precision regimefew-copy measurementsCramér–Rao bound
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 in the high-precision regime (ε below an explicit instance-dependent threshold), the sample complexity of shadow tomography—estimating expectation values of a known set of observables to ε accuracy in L_p norm with adaptive few-copy measurements—is Θ̃(Γ_p/ε²), where Γ_p is defined by an optimization over single-copy measurements and reference states of the inverse Fisher information matrix. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns an open question in quantum learning into a metrology calculation, yields instance-optimal bounds that depend on which observables are being measured, and shows that entangled measurements across c copies buy at most a factor 1/c in this regime. The paper also derives tight bounds for the oblivious variant, where the observable is chosen after measurement, with Γ_ob_p, and proves Γ_ob_∞ = Γ_∞. The upper bound is achieved by a two-step algorithm—coarse tomography followed by a locally unbiased estimator that is globally unbiased on a finite neighborhood—and lower bounds come from learning-tree distinguishing arguments plus Cramér–Rao variance bounds under an unbiasedness assumption.

Core claim

The central claim is a quantitative correspondence between quantum metrology and quantum learning: for any p∈[1,∞], the high-precision sample complexity of estimating m observables' expectations to ε in L_p error using adaptive single-copy measurements is Θ̃(Γ_p/ε²), where Γ_p({O_i}) = inf_M sup_{ρ0} ||diag((I(ρ0,M)^{-1})_{AA})^{1/2}||_p². For p∈[2,∞], the paper claims this is necessary for every ε>0 when restricted to unbiased, bounded estimators; the oblivious version, where a single linear combination O_α = Σ α_i O_i with ||α||_q ≤ 1 is revealed after measurement, has exact sample complexity Θ(Γ_ob_p/ε²), with Γ_ob_∞ = Γ_∞. The proof couples a duality lemma relating a many-versus-one dist

What carries the argument

The central object is the inverse Fisher information matrix restricted to the observables of interest, (I(ρ0,M)^{-1})_{AA}, and the two functionals Γ_p and Γ_ob_p built from it by optimizing over single-copy measurements M and full-rank reference states ρ0. The duality lemma (Lemma 7.3) is the load-bearing identity: it equates the inverse of the minimal distinguishing quadratic form over (θ,φ) with ||θ||_p = 1 to the maximal estimation variance over α with ||α||_q ≤ 1, via Hölder's inequality. The estimator combines coarse state tomography (locating the state within operator-norm 1/(4d)) with a locally unbiased estimator that is globally unbiased on the whole neighborhood because the measure

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the geometric or coordinate-wise median used to aggregate unbiased estimators in Section 8 yields an unbiased estimator—medians of unbiased estimators are generally biased, so the Cramér–Rao lower bounds for Problem 1 and Problem 2' (Theorems 8.1–8.3) rely on a premise that is not justified; the learning-tree bounds of Section 7 are unaffected but address only the distinguishing task.

What would settle it

For a skewed one-dimensional distribution with nonzero third moment, compute the expectation of the median of K i.i.d. unbiased estimates; if it differs from the true mean for any finite K, the 'aggregated median is unbiased' step in Theorems 8.1–8.2 fails, and the Cramér–Rao bound cannot be applied to the aggregate estimator. A concrete example: take a two-point asymmetric distribution with mean zero, e.g., P(X = -a) = 2/3 and P(X = b) = 1/3 with b = 2a; the sample median is biased toward -a for odd K, and its expectation is not zero.

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

If this is right

  • If the characterization holds, designing optimal shadow-tomography protocols reduces to solving the Fisher-information optimization defining Γ_p, so instance-optimal measurements can be precomputed from the observable set alone.
  • In the high-precision regime, adaptive single-copy measurements are as powerful as any adaptive strategy: adaptivity buys nothing in the leading term, and c-copy entangled measurements improve sample complexity by at most a factor 1/c.
  • The equality Γ_ob_∞ = Γ_∞ implies that for worst-case (L_∞) error, oblivious single-observable estimation and full shadow estimation have the same sample complexity up to log factors, so coordinate-wise estimation incurs only logarithmic overhead.
  • The Pauli example yields new tight bounds for all p ≥ 2 and recovers the known Ω(d/ε²) lower bound for L_∞ Pauli estimation, with explicit high-precision thresholds scaling like poly(d)^{-1}.
  • The two-step estimator gives a finite-sample, non-asymptotic analogue of asymptotic Cramér–Rao attainability: local metrological optimality is global within a radius Ω(1/d) in operator norm.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The median-bias issue in Section 8 may be repairable: if one debiases the median or uses an unbiased aggregation rule, the Θ(Γ_p/ε²) necessity could survive with an extra logarithmic factor; a direct check is to compute the bias of the geometric median for a skewed distribution.
  • The absence of a lower bound for p ∈ [1,2) in the shadow-estimation problem suggests variance-based Cramér–Rao arguments cannot capture small-p accuracy; an open test is whether a direct moment-based or information-theoretic argument closes the gap for p < 2.
  • The c-copy result (at most 1/c improvement) holds only below the high-precision threshold; one could test whether the same ratio persists at intermediate precision or whether larger entangled blocks restore the exponential gains seen at low precision for Pauli estimation.
  • The equality Γ_ob_∞ = Γ_∞ hints at a potential broader duality: for other p, an inequality Γ_ob_p ≤ Γ_p holds with equality only at p = ∞; testing whether a matching converse holds under a different norm would clarify when single-observable oblivious estimation is as hard as full shadow estimation.

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 studies high-precision shadow tomography with p-norm error for a known set of observables. It defines Fisher-information functionals Γ_p and Γ^ob_p, proposes a two-step estimation algorithm (coarse tomography followed by locally optimal unbiased estimation), and claims matching upper and lower bounds Θ~(Γ_p/ε²) below instance-dependent thresholds, with lower bounds applying to unbiased bounded estimators and a factor-1/c penalty for c-copy measurements. The Pauli case is worked out explicitly.

Significance. If established, this would be a substantial conceptual and technical advance: it would give instance-optimal sample complexity for a broad class of shadow tomography problems, connect finite-sample learning to quantum metrology, and clarify the limited power of few-copy entanglement. The paper contains genuinely valuable components: the explicit two-step upper-bound construction (Sections 9.1–9.4), the duality lemma between distinguishing and estimation (Lemma 7.3), the learning-tree lower-bound framework, and explicit Pauli calculations. However, the claimed necessity results rely on a Cramér–Rao argument that has a gap, and the few-copy distinguishing lower bound rests on an unjustified minimax exchange. The advertised exact characterization is therefore not fully proven in the present version.

major comments (3)
  1. [§8.1, Theorem 8.1 Step 3 (also Theorem 8.2 Step 3)] The proof converts a bounded unbiased estimator with high-probability p-norm error into an estimator on N1=N×K copies by taking a geometric (or coordinate-wise) median of K independent unbiased estimates and then asserts this median estimator is unbiased. This is false in general: a median of unbiased estimators need not have expectation equal to the parameter (e.g., a scalar variable with P(X=-1)=1/3, P(X=0)=1/2, P(X=2)=1/6 has mean 0, while the median of three i.i.d. copies has nonzero mean). The locally unbiased estimators from Lemma 9.1 need not have symmetric distributions. Hence the Cramér–Rao bound V⪰(1/N1)I^{-1} does not apply to the amplified estimator, and the necessity of Γ_p/ε² in Theorems 2.3, 2.4 and 8.1–8.3 is not established. The Section 7 learning-tree bounds are unaffected, but they concern only the many-versus-one distinguishing problem and give Γ^ob_p, not Γ_p, and re
  2. [§7.4, Lemma 7.7] Eq. (7.78) exchanges sup_{M∈M} and inf_{π∈eD}. The cited Sion minimax theorem requires the function to be convex in the minimization variable and concave in the maximization variable. Here f(π,M)=Eπ(θ,φ)^T I(ρ0,M)(θ,φ) is linear in π and convex in M, so Sion gives inf_M sup_π f = sup_π inf_M f, not sup_M inf_π f = inf_π sup_M f. In addition eD is a family of distributions over a noncompact set (C1 is unbounded), so compactness is not available. Consequently the existence of the near-optimal π* used in Eq. (7.94) is not justified, and the c-copy lower bound of Theorem 7.8 (and the O(1/c) claim) is not proven as written.
  3. [§7.3.2, Theorem 7.6] The threshold η^ob is defined using Q'(ρ0), which is constructed from M★ that must satisfy Eq. (7.59). This condition involves ε and Q' itself through D_{Q',T}^{3ε,p}(ρ0), so the definition of η^ob is self-referential unless a uniform-in-ε choice of M★ is shown to exist. As written, the statement 'for any ε≤η^ob' is not a fixed threshold in terms of the observables. Please provide an explicit uniform construction or a separate argument that such M★ (and hence Q') can be chosen independent of ε.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] 'allowing c-copy measurements improves the sample complexity by at most Ω(1/c)' should be 'by at most O(1/c)'; the theorem statements use O(1/c).
  2. [Theorem 2.3] After Eq. (2.10), the text says 'Here Γ^ob_p ({O_i}) is a positive function' but the expression is Γ_p; the superscript 'ob' appears to be a typo.
  3. [§9.4.2, Algorithm 2, Step 5] The displayed choice N1 = O(log(1/δ) Γ_p({O_i})/ε²) should use Γ^ob_p, matching the theorem being proved.
  4. [Corollary 10.2] The proof refers to 'Theorem 9.6'; the relevant statement is Lemma 9.6.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular content: the Γ_p upper and lower bounds are derived by independent estimator constructions and CR-bound arguments; the only flagged issue is a non-circular correctness gap in the median-unbiasedness step.

full rationale

No circularity found. Γ_p and Γ_ob_p are defined via explicit optimization formulas over measurements, reference states, and inverse Fisher information (Eqs. 2.5 and 2.11). The lower bounds in Section 8 are genuine Cramér–Rao arguments: they convert a small p-norm error into a p-average RMSE and then apply the CR bound to the variance of unbiased estimators. The upper bounds in Section 9 are independent: they construct a locally unbiased estimator whose MSEM is at most 2(I(ρ0,M)^{-1})_{AA} in a local region, and then use median-of-means to control the p-norm error. Thus the matching Θ(Γ_p/ε²) statement is not the same equation on both sides; it is a nontrivial tightness result. The self-citations to the learning-tree framework (Refs. [13,18,26]) and to locally optimal metrological estimators (Ref. [81]) are prior published tools that do not assume the target theorem, so they are not load-bearing circular inputs. The genuine weakness in the paper is a correctness gap, not circularity: in Theorems 8.1 and 8.2 Step 3, the authors claim 'we obtain an unbiased estimator on N1=N×K copies' after taking a geometric/coordinate-wise median of independent unbiased estimators. A median of unbiased estimators is not generally unbiased, so the CR bound does not apply to that amplified estimator; this undermines the claimed necessity of Γ_p/ε² for unbiased bounded estimation. This is an invalid proof step, but it is not an instance of the theorem reducing by construction to its own definition, so it does not raise the circularity score. The learning-tree distinguishing lower bounds in Section 7 are unaffected and provide independent lower bounds for the distinguishing problem.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No data-fitting parameters or invented physical entities are introduced. The load-bearing inputs are standard statistical and quantum-information facts, the explicit unbiased/bounded-estimator restriction, and the depolarizing-mixing reduction to S_{1/2} used to obtain explicit thresholds. The numerical constants are explicit and not tuned to data.

axioms (7)
  • standard math Cramér–Rao bound for (locally) unbiased estimators: V ⪰ I^{-1}
    Used in Sections 6.3 and 8 for variance lower bounds; requires unbiasedness of the estimator.
  • standard math Learning-tree / Le Cam / martingale lower-bound framework
    Imported from prior work [13,18,26]; used in Section 7 to derive distinguishing lower bounds.
  • standard math Sion's minimax theorem and convexity/compactness of finite-outcome POVM sets
    Used in Lemma 7.7 to exchange inf over distributions and sup over measurements.
  • domain assumption Complete dual-basis parameterization of states and Hölder duality between p and q norms
    Assumes observables are linearly independent and traceless with m≤d²−1; used throughout Eqs. (2.1)-(2.2) and Lemma 7.3.
  • domain assumption Unbiasedness and boundedness of estimators in CR lower bounds
    Theorems 8.1-8.3 are restricted to unbiased, bounded estimators; this is stated but is needed for the CR-bound route.
  • ad hoc to paper Depolarizing-mixing reduction to S_{1/2}
    Used in Sections 7.3 and 9.2 to make thresholds and coarse tomography work; changes target expectation values by a constant factor.
  • standard math Coarse tomography with O(1/d) operator-norm accuracy using O(d^3) copies
    Lemma 9.2 and Eq. (9.21) rely on prior single-copy tomography bounds; this controls the two-step algorithm's coarse-estimation cost.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 64362 in / 19076 out tokens · 214782 ms · 2026-08-04T06:09:53.282961+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the sample complexity of shadow tomography in the high-precision regime under realistic measurement constraints. Given an unknown $d$-dimensional quantum state $\rho$ and a known set of observables $\{O_i\}_{i=1}^m$, the goal is to estimate expectation values $\{\mathrm{tr}(O_i\rho)\}_{i=1}^m$ to accuracy $\epsilon$ in $L_p$-norm, using possibly adaptive measurements that act on $O(\mathrm{polylog}(d))$ number of copies of $\rho$ at a time. We focus on the regime where $\epsilon$ is below an instance-dependent threshold. Our main contribution is an instance-optimal characterization of the sample complexity as $\tilde{\Theta}(\Gamma_p/\epsilon^2)$, where $\Gamma_p$ is a function of $\{O_i\}_{i=1}^m$ defined via an optimization formula involving the inverse Fisher information matrix. Previously, tight bounds were known only in special cases, e.g. Pauli shadow tomography with $L_\infty$-norm error. Concretely, we first analyze a simpler oblivious variant where the goal is to estimate an observable of the form $\sum_{i=1}^m \alpha_i O_i$ with $\|\alpha\|_q = 1$ (where $q$ is dual to $p$) revealed after the measurement. For single-copy measurements, we obtain a sample complexity of $\Theta(\Gamma^{\mathrm{ob}}_p/\epsilon^2)$. We then show $\tilde{\Theta}(\Gamma_p/\epsilon^2)$ is necessary and sufficient for the original problem, with the lower bound applying to unbiased, bounded estimators. Our upper bounds rely on a two-step algorithm combining coarse tomography with local estimation. Notably, $\Gamma^{\mathrm{ob}}_\infty = \Gamma_\infty$. In both cases, allowing $c$-copy measurements improves the sample complexity by at most $\Omega(1/c)$. Our results establish a quantitative correspondence between quantum learning and metrology, unifying asymptotic metrological limits with finite-sample learning guarantees.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.04952 by Senrui Chen, Sisi Zhou, Weiyuan Gong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Relationship between six problems. ⇔ means two problems are equivalent, and ⇐ means one problem is no harder than (reduces to) the other. Note that within each problem, increasing 𝑝 (or decreasing 𝑞) will not increase the hardness of the problem. As we will see later, when 𝑝 = ∞ and 𝜀 is sufficiently small, Problem 3 is as hard as Problem 2 up to a logarithmic overhead. It implies the distinguishing capabi… 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Better Pauli Channel Learning with Maximum Likelihood Estimation

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    MLE for 1D-local sparse Pauli-Lindblad channels reduces to an efficient Bayesian network computation, yielding improved tomography.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum sensing.Reviews of modern physics, 89(3):035002, 2017

    Christian L Degen, Friedemann Reinhard, and Paola Cappellaro. Quantum sensing.Reviews of modern physics, 89(3):035002, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    Advances in photonic quantum sensing.Nature Photonics, 12(12):724–733, 2018

    Stefano Pirandola,B RoyBardhan,Tobias Gehring,Christian Weedbrook,andSethLloyd. Advances in photonic quantum sensing.Nature Photonics, 12(12):724–733, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Dalzell, Sam McArdle, Mario Berta, Przemyslaw Bienias, Chi-Fang Chen, András Gilyén, Connor T

    Alexander M. Dalzell, Sam McArdle, Mario Berta, Przemyslaw Bienias, Chi-Fang Chen, András Gilyén, Connor T. Hann, Michael J. Kastoryano, Emil T. Khabiboulline, Aleksander Kubica, Grant Salton,SamsonWang,andFernandoG. S.L. Brandão.QuantumAlgorithms: ASurveyofApplications and End-to-end Complexities. Cambridge University Press, 2025. 59

    2025

  4. [4]

    Efficient learning of quantum noise.Nature Physics, 16(12):1184–1188, 2020

    Robin Harper, Steven T Flammia, and Joel J Wallman. Efficient learning of quantum noise.Nature Physics, 16(12):1184–1188, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    A practical introduction to benchmarking and characterization of quantum computers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12064, 2024

    Akel Hashim, Long B Nguyen, Noah Goss, Brian Marinelli, Ravi K Naik, Trevor Chistolini, Jordan Hines, JP Marceaux, Yosep Kim, Pranav Gokhale, et al. A practical introduction to benchmarking and characterization of quantum computers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12064, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Advances in quantum metrology.Nature photonics, 5(4):222–229, 2011

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Advances in quantum metrology.Nature photonics, 5(4):222–229, 2011

    2011

  7. [7]

    Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles.Reviews of Modern Physics, 90(3):035005, 2018

    LucaPezze,AugustoSmerzi,MarkusKOberthaler,RomanSchmied,andPhilippTreutlein. Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles.Reviews of Modern Physics, 90(3):035005, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Cambridge university press, 2000

    Aad W Van der Vaart.Asymptotic statistics, volume 3. Cambridge university press, 2000

    2000

  9. [9]

    Guest column: A survey of quantum learning theory

    Srinivasan Arunachalam and Ronald De Wolf. Guest column: A survey of quantum learning theory. ACM Sigact News, 48(2):41–67, 2017

    2017

  10. [10]

    Shadow tomography of quantum states

    Scott Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. InProceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 325–338, 2018

    2018

  11. [11]

    Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993

    StevenMKay.Fundamentalsofstatisticalsignalprocessing: VolumeIEstimationtheory. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993

    1993

  12. [12]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    Erich L Lehmann and George Casella.Theory of point estimation. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  13. [13]

    Optimal tradeoffs for estimating Pauli observables

    Sitan Chen, Weiyuan Gong, and Qi Ye. Optimal tradeoffs for estimating Pauli observables. In2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 1086–1105, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    Quantum advantage in learning from experiments.Science, 376(6598):1182–1186, 2022

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Jordan Cotler, Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, Masoud Mohseni, Hartmut Neven, Ryan Babbush, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, et al. Quantum advantage in learning from experiments.Science, 376(6598):1182–1186, 2022

    2022

  15. [15]

    Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning.Physical Review Letters, 126(19):190505, 2021

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

    2021

  16. [16]

    Quantum algorithmic measurement.Nature Communications, 13(887):1–9, 2022

    Dorit Aharonov, Jordan Cotler, and Xiao-Liang Qi. Quantum algorithmic measurement.Nature Communications, 13(887):1–9, 2022

    2022

  17. [17]

    Entanglement is necessary for optimal quantum property testing

    Sebastien Bubeck, Sitan Chen, and Jerry Li. Entanglement is necessary for optimal quantum property testing. In2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 692–703. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  18. [18]

    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. In2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 574–585. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  19. [19]

    The complexity of nisq.Nat

    Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li. The complexity of nisq.Nat. Commun., 14(1):6001, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    Efficient pauli channel estimation with logarithmic quantum memory.PRX Quantum, 6(2):020323, 2025

    Sitan Chen and Weiyuan Gong. Efficient pauli channel estimation with logarithmic quantum memory.PRX Quantum, 6(2):020323, 2025. 60

    2025

  21. [21]

    Flammia, and Susanne F

    Hong-Ye Hu, Muzhou Ma, Weiyuan Gong, Qi Ye, Yu Tong, Steven T. Flammia, and Susanne F. Yelin. Ansatz-free Hamiltonian learning with heisenberg-limited scaling.PRX Quantum, 6:040315, Oct 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    On general minimax theorems.Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 8(1):171–176, 1958

    Maurice Sion. On general minimax theorems.Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 8(1):171–176, 1958

    1958

  23. [23]

    Fisher information in quantum statistics.J

    O E Barndorff-Nielsen and R D Gill. Fisher information in quantum statistics.J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 33(24):4481–4490, jun 2000

    2000

  24. [24]

    Comparison between the Cramer-Rao andthe mini-maxapproaches in quantum channel estimation.Commun

    Masahito Hayashi. Comparison between the Cramer-Rao andthe mini-maxapproaches in quantum channel estimation.Commun. Math. Phys., 304(3):689–709, 2011

    2011

  25. [25]

    Attaining the ultimate precision limit in quantum state estimation.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 368(1):223–293, 2019

    Yuxiang Yang, Giulio Chiribella, and Masahito Hayashi. Attaining the ultimate precision limit in quantum state estimation.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 368(1):223–293, 2019

    2019

  26. [26]

    The complexity of NISQ.Nature Communications, 14(1):6001, 2023

    Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li. The complexity of NISQ.Nature Communications, 14(1):6001, 2023

    2023

  27. [27]

    Focus on quantum tomography.New Journal of Physics, 15(12):125020, 2013

    Konrad Banaszek, Marcus Cramer, and David Gross. Focus on quantum tomography.New Journal of Physics, 15(12):125020, 2013

    2013

  28. [28]

    Optimal, reliable estimation of quantum states.New Journal of Physics, 12(4):043034, 2010

    Robin Blume-Kohout. Optimal, reliable estimation of quantum states.New Journal of Physics, 12(4):043034, 2010

    2010

  29. [29]

    Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing.Physical Review Letters, 105(15):150401, 2010

    David Gross, Yi-Kai Liu, Steven T Flammia, Stephen Becker, and Jens Eisert. Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing.Physical Review Letters, 105(15):150401, 2010

    2010

  30. [30]

    Quantum state estimation.Physical Review A, 55(3):R1561, 1997

    Zdenek Hradil. Quantum state estimation.Physical Review A, 55(3):R1561, 1997

    1997

  31. [31]

    Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states

    Jeongwan Haah, Aram W Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu. Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states. InProceedings of the Forty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 913–925, 2016

    2016

  32. [32]

    Efficient quantum tomography

    Ryan O’Donnell and John Wright. Efficient quantum tomography. InProceedings of the Forty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 899–912, 2016

    2016

  33. [33]

    Online learning of quantum states

    Scott Aaronson, Xinyi Chen, Elad Hazan, Satyen Kale, and Ashwin Nayak. Online learning of quantum states. InAdvances in neural information processing systems, volume 31, 2018

    2018

  34. [34]

    Gentle measurement of quantum states and differential privacy

    Scott Aaronson and Guy N Rothblum. Gentle measurement of quantum states and differential privacy. InProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 322–333, 2019

    2019

  35. [35]

    Improved quantum data analysis

    Costin Bădescu and Ryan O’Donnell. Improved quantum data analysis. InProceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1398–1411, 2021

    2021

  36. [36]

    Quantum SDP solvers: Large speed-ups, optimality, and applications to quantum learning

    Fernando GSL Brandão, Amir Kalev, Tongyang Li, Cedric Yen-Yu Lin, Krysta M Svore, and Xiaodi Wu. Quantum SDP solvers: Large speed-ups, optimality, and applications to quantum learning. In 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2019). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2019

    2019

  37. [37]

    Learning distributions over quantum measurement outcomes

    Weiyuan Gong and Scott Aaronson. Learning distributions over quantum measurement outcomes. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11598–11613. PMLR, 2023. 61

    2023

  38. [38]

    Quantum event learning and gentle random measurements

    Adam Bene Watts and John Bostanci. Quantum event learning and gentle random measurements. In15th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2024). Schloss-Dagstuhl- Leibniz Zentrum für Informatik, 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    Quantum state certification

    Costin Bădescu, Ryan O’Donnell, and John Wright. Quantum state certification. InProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 503–514, 2019

    2019

  40. [40]

    Optimal high-precision shadow estimation.arXiv:2407.13874, 2024

    Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, and Allen Liu. Optimal high-precision shadow estimation.arXiv:2407.13874, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    The debiased keyl’s algorithm: a new unbiased estimator for full state tomography.arXiv:2510.07788, 2025

    Angelos Pelecanos, Jack Spilecki, and John Wright. The debiased keyl’s algorithm: a new unbiased estimator for full state tomography.arXiv:2510.07788, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, October 2020

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

    2020

  43. [43]

    The randomized measurement toolbox.Nature Reviews Physics, 5(1):9–24, 2023

    Andreas Elben, Steven T Flammia, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, Benoît Vermersch, and Peter Zoller. The randomized measurement toolbox.Nature Reviews Physics, 5(1):9–24, 2023

    2023

  44. [44]

    Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates.Phys

    Emanuel Knill, Dietrich Leibfried, Rolf Reichle, Joe Britton, R Brad Blakestad, John D Jost, Chris Langer, Roee Ozeri, Signe Seidelin, and David J Wineland. Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates.Phys. Rev. A, 77(1):012307, 2008

    2008

  45. [45]

    Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation.Phys

    Christoph Dankert, Richard Cleve, Joseph Emerson, and Etera Livine. Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation.Phys. Rev. A, 80(1):012304, 2009

    2009

  46. [46]

    Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators.Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, 7(10):S347, 2005

    Joseph Emerson, Robert Alicki, and Karol Życzkowski. Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators.Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, 7(10):S347, 2005

    2005

  47. [47]

    Probing Rényi entanglement entropy via randomized measurements.Science, 364(6437):260–263, 2019

    Tiff Brydges,Andreas Elben,Petar Jurcevic,Benoît Vermersch,Christine Maier,Ben P Lanyon,Peter Zoller, Rainer Blatt, and Christian F Roos. Probing Rényi entanglement entropy via randomized measurements.Science, 364(6437):260–263, 2019

    2019

  48. [48]

    Quantum advantages for Pauli channel estimation.Physical Review A, 105(3):032435, 2022

    Senrui Chen, Sisi Zhou, Alireza Seif, and Liang Jiang. Quantum advantages for Pauli channel estimation.Physical Review A, 105(3):032435, 2022

    2022

  49. [49]

    Tight bounds on Pauli channel learning without entanglement.Physical Review Letters, 132(18):180805, 2024

    Senrui Chen, Changhun Oh, Sisi Zhou, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Liang Jiang. Tight bounds on Pauli channel learning without entanglement.Physical Review Letters, 132(18):180805, 2024

    2024

  50. [50]

    Entanglement-enhanced learning of quantum processes at scale.arXiv:2408.03376, 2024

    Alireza Seif, Senrui Chen, Swarnadeep Majumder, Haoran Liao, Derek S Wang, Moein Malekakhlagh, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Liang Jiang, and Zlatko K Minev. Entanglement-enhanced learning of quantum processes at scale.arXiv:2408.03376, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    A hierarchy for replica quantum advantage.arXiv:2111.05874, 2021

    Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li. A hierarchy for replica quantum advantage.arXiv:2111.05874, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Exponential advantage from one more replica in estimating nonlinear properties of quantum states.arXiv:2509.24000, 2025

    Qi Ye, Zhenhuan Liu, and Dong-Ling Deng. Exponential advantage from one more replica in estimating nonlinear properties of quantum states.arXiv:2509.24000, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    An infinite hierarchy of multi-copy quantum learning tasks.arXiv:2510.08070, 2025

    Jan Nöller, Viet T Tran, Mariami Gachechiladze, and Richard Kueng. An infinite hierarchy of multi-copy quantum learning tasks.arXiv:2510.08070, 2025. 62

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Tight bounds for quantum state certification with incoherent measurements

    Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, Brice Huang, and Allen Liu. Tight bounds for quantum state certification with incoherent measurements. In2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 1205–1213. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  55. [55]

    Instance-optimal quantum state certification with entangled measurements.arXiv:2507.06010, 2025

    Ryan O’Donnell and Chirag Wadhwa. Instance-optimal quantum state certification with entangled measurements.arXiv:2507.06010, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Toward instance-optimal state certification with incoherent measurements

    Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, and Ryan O’Donnell. Toward instance-optimal state certification with incoherent measurements. InConference on Learning Theory, pages 2541–2596. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  57. [57]

    Quantum channel certification with incoherent strategies

    Omar Fawzi, Nicolas Flammarion, Aurélien Garivier, and Aadil Oufkir. Quantum channel certification with incoherent strategies. InCOLT 23-36th Annual Conference on Learning Theory, pages 1–58, 2023

    2023

  58. [58]

    Anoptimaltradeoffbetweenentanglementandcopycomplexity for state tomography

    SitanChen,JerryLi,andAllenLiu. Anoptimaltradeoffbetweenentanglementandcopycomplexity for state tomography. InProceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1331–1342, 2024

    2024

  59. [59]

    A survey on the complexity of learning quantum states.Nature Reviews Physics, pages 1–11, 2023

    Anurag Anshu and Srinivasan Arunachalam. A survey on the complexity of learning quantum states.Nature Reviews Physics, pages 1–11, 2023

    2023

  60. [60]

    Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics.Physics Letters A, 25(2):101–102, 1967

    Carl W Helstrom. Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics.Physics Letters A, 25(2):101–102, 1967

    1967

  61. [61]

    The minimum variance of estimates in quantum signal detection.IEEE Trans

    Carl Wilhelm Helstrom. The minimum variance of estimates in quantum signal detection.IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 14(2):234–242, 1968

    1968

  62. [62]

    Quantum detection and estimation theory.Journal of Statistical Physics, 1:231– 252, 1969

    Carl W Helstrom. Quantum detection and estimation theory.Journal of Statistical Physics, 1:231– 252, 1969

    1969

  63. [63]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    Alexander S Holevo.Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory, volume 1. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  64. [64]

    Braunstein and Carlton M

    Samuel L. Braunstein and Carlton M. Caves. Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states.Phys. Rev. Lett., 72(22):3439–3443, May 1994

    1994

  65. [65]

    Quantum estimation for quantum technology.Int

    Matteo GA Paris. Quantum estimation for quantum technology.Int. J. Quantum Inf., 7(supp01):125–137, 2009

    2009

  66. [66]

    Evaluating the holevo Cramér-Rao bound for multiparameter quantum metrology.Physical Review Letters, 123(20):200503, 2019

    Francesco Albarelli, Jamie F Friel, and Animesh Datta. Evaluating the holevo Cramér-Rao bound for multiparameter quantum metrology.Physical Review Letters, 123(20):200503, 2019

    2019

  67. [67]

    Optimal probes and error-correction schemes in multi-parameter quantum metrology.Quantum, 4:288, 2020

    Wojciech Górecki, Sisi Zhou, Liang Jiang, and Rafał Demkowicz-Dobrzański. Optimal probes and error-correction schemes in multi-parameter quantum metrology.Quantum, 4:288, 2020

    2020

  68. [68]

    Quantum semiparametric estimation

    Mankei Tsang, Francesco Albarelli, and Animesh Datta. Quantum semiparametric estimation. Physical Review X, 10(3):031023, 2020

    2020

  69. [69]

    Tight bounds on the simultaneous estimation of incompatible parameters.Physical Review X, 11(1):011028, 2021

    Jasminder S Sidhu, Yingkai Ouyang, Earl T Campbell, and Pieter Kok. Tight bounds on the simultaneous estimation of incompatible parameters.Physical Review X, 11(1):011028, 2021

    2021

  70. [70]

    TightCramér-Raotypeboundsformultiparameterquantum metrology through conic programming.Quantum, 7:1094, 2023

    MasahitoHayashiandYingkaiOuyang. TightCramér-Raotypeboundsformultiparameterquantum metrology through conic programming.Quantum, 7:1094, 2023. 63

    2023

  71. [71]

    Achieving the fundamentalquantumlimitoflinearwaveformestimation.PhysicalReviewLetters,132(13):130801, 2024

    James W Gardner, Tuvia Gefen, Simon A Haine, Joseph J Hope, and Yanbei Chen. Achieving the fundamentalquantumlimitoflinearwaveformestimation.PhysicalReviewLetters,132(13):130801, 2024

    2024

  72. [72]

    Local asymptotic normality for finite dimensional quantum systems

    Jonas Kahn and Mădălin Guţă. Local asymptotic normality for finite dimensional quantum systems. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 289(2):597–652, 2009

    2009

  73. [73]

    Koichi Yamagata, Akio Fujiwara, and Richard D. Gill. Quantum local asymptotic normality based on a new quantum likelihood ratio.The Annals of Statistics, 41(4):2197 – 2217, 2013

    2013

  74. [74]

    A new approach to the Cramér-Rao-type bound of the pure-state model.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 35(13):3111, 2002

    Keiji Matsumoto. A new approach to the Cramér-Rao-type bound of the pure-state model.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 35(13):3111, 2002

    2002

  75. [75]

    Upper bounds on the holevo cram\’er-rao bound for multiparameter quantum parametric and semiparametric estimation.arXiv:1911.11036, 2019

    Francesco Albarelli, Mankei Tsang, and Animesh Datta. Upper bounds on the holevo cram\’er-rao bound for multiparameter quantum parametric and semiparametric estimation.arXiv:1911.11036, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911

  76. [76]

    On quantumness in multi-parameter quantum estimation.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2019(9):094010, 2019

    Angelo Carollo, Bernardo Spagnolo, Alexander A Dubkov, and Davide Valenti. On quantumness in multi-parameter quantum estimation.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2019(9):094010, 2019

    2019

  77. [77]

    Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum fisher information.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 53(36):363001, 2020

    Rafał Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Wojciech Górecki, and Mădălin Guţă. Multi-parameter estimation beyond quantum fisher information.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 53(36):363001, 2020

    2020

  78. [78]

    Fisher-symmetric informationally complete measurements for pure states.Physical Review Letters, 116(18):180402, 2016

    Nan Li, Christopher Ferrie, Jonathan A Gross, Amir Kalev, and Carlton M Caves. Fisher-symmetric informationally complete measurements for pure states.Physical Review Letters, 116(18):180402, 2016

    2016

  79. [79]

    Universally Fisher-symmetric informationally complete measurements.Physical Review Letters, 120(3):030404, 2018

    Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. Universally Fisher-symmetric informationally complete measurements.Physical Review Letters, 120(3):030404, 2018

    2018

  80. [80]

    Near-optimal pure state estimation with adaptive fisher- symmetric measurements.arXiv:2412.04555, 2024

    C Vargas, L Pereira, and A Delgado. Near-optimal pure state estimation with adaptive fisher- symmetric measurements.arXiv:2412.04555, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.