pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05628 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Estimation of trace distance between two arbitrary quantum states

Sanchita Ghosh , Anumita Mukhopadhyay , Anindita Bera , Prasenjit Deb , Shibdas Roy This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords trace distancequantum algorithmdensity matrix exponentiationquantum phase estimationmixed quantum statesIBM quantum hardwarestate discrimination
0
0 comments X

The pith

A quantum algorithm computes trace distance between any two states by exponentiating their density matrices and applying improved phase estimation.

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

The paper sets out to give a practical quantum procedure for finding the trace distance between two arbitrary quantum states, whether pure or mixed. Trace distance is a standard measure for how distinguishable two states are, yet classical calculation grows expensive for large systems. The method exponentiates each density matrix, feeds the result into an improved quantum phase estimation routine, and extracts the distance from the resulting eigenvalues. The claimed runtime is O(N^8) in the number of qubits N. Proof-of-principle runs on simulators and on IBM quantum processors are used to show that the circuit produces usable estimates on present-day hardware.

Core claim

By preparing the exponentiated density matrices of the two input states and applying improved quantum phase estimation to the combined operator, the trace distance D(ρ,σ) is recovered as half the sum of the absolute values of the eigenvalues of the difference operator, and this procedure works for both pure and mixed states with polynomial scaling in the number of qubits.

What carries the argument

Density-matrix exponentiation followed by improved quantum phase estimation (IQPE) applied to the operator that encodes the difference between the two states.

If this is right

  • The same circuit applies unchanged to both pure and mixed states.
  • The procedure yields an estimate whose precision scales with the number of phase-estimation bits chosen.
  • Demonstration on IBM hardware indicates the method is compatible with near-term devices.
  • The O(N^8) scaling arises from the cost of controlled exponentiation and phase estimation steps.
  • No separate classical post-processing beyond reading out the phase register is required.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The approach may be combined with error-mitigation techniques to reach larger qubit numbers.
  • Similar exponentiation-plus-phase-estimation blocks could be reused for other trace-based functionals such as fidelity.
  • Hybrid classical-quantum variants might reduce the exponentiation cost by using classical pre-processing for low-rank states.

Load-bearing premise

That density-matrix exponentiation and improved phase estimation can be executed on quantum hardware with error rates low enough that the final trace-distance estimate remains accurate for arbitrary input states.

What would settle it

Implement the circuit for two known mixed states whose trace distance is classically computable, run it on a quantum processor, and check whether the output matches the exact classical value to within the expected shot-noise and hardware-error bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05628 by Anindita Bera, Anumita Mukhopadhyay, Prasenjit Deb, Sanchita Ghosh, Shibdas Roy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ,to obtain the following output 1 2N+1 2 NX+1−1 k=0 |λ˜ k⟩⟨λ˜ k| ⊗ |ξk⟩⟨ξk|. (13) Here |λ˜ k⟩ are the estimated eigenvalues correspond￾ing to eigenstates |ξk⟩. M N+1 |Ψ0⟩ QF T† 1/2 N+1 UAB a0 Rotation γ a1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Second QPE b. Calculating κ2: Similarly, if we take UAB = e i(1+Ω/2)t + O(t 2 ), where O(t 2 ) is the Trotter error, then 1 2N+1 P k λ˜2 k 4 = κ2, which, in turn, yields: κ2 = 1 2N+1 2 NX+1−1 k=0 λ˜2 k 4 = 1 4 · 2N+1 2 XN −1 l=0 " 1 − ϖ˜ l 4 2 +  1 + ˜ϖl 4 2 # = 1 2N+3   2 XN −1 l=0 1 8 + 2 XN −1 l=0 ϖ˜ 2 l 8   . (18) c. Calculating ˜ℓ: Combining (17) and (18) allows us to extract the trace distanc… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plotting the software simulated trace distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

When it comes to discriminating between two quantum states, trace distance is one of the well-known metrics used in quantum computation and quantum information theory. While there are several quantum algorithms for calculating the trace distance between two quantum states, computing it for any two general density matrices remains computationally demanding. In this paper, we propose a quantum algorithm based on the exponentiation of the density matrix and the improved quantum phase estimation (IQPE) to determine the trace distance for both pure and mixed states, with a time complexity of $O(N^8)$ where $N$ is the number of qubits of the given states. We demonstrate its ability to predict the quantity with proof-of-principle simulations and also quantum hardware computations on the IBM quantum computers, confirming its promise for near-term quantum devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum algorithm for estimating the trace distance between two arbitrary quantum states (pure or mixed) that combines density-matrix exponentiation with improved quantum phase estimation (IQPE). It claims an overall time complexity of O(N^8) where N is the number of qubits, and reports proof-of-principle classical simulations together with experimental runs on IBM quantum hardware.

Significance. If the claimed complexity and accuracy can be rigorously established, the method would offer a concrete route to trace-distance estimation on near-term devices. The inclusion of both simulation and hardware results is a positive step toward practical validation, but the absence of detailed resource analysis, error bounds, and scaling data prevents a clear assessment of whether the approach improves on existing techniques.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (algorithm description): the stated O(N^8) complexity omits any dependence on the target precision ε or on the simulation time t required for density-matrix exponentiation. Standard analyses of QPE and Hamiltonian simulation incur polynomial factors in 1/ε and t; without these terms the headline bound cannot be verified for general inputs.
  2. [§4 and §5] §4 (numerical results) and §5 (hardware experiments): no quantitative accuracy metrics, error bars, or scaling plots with system size or precision are supplied. The abstract asserts “proof-of-principle simulations and hardware computations” yet the text provides neither derivation of the circuit nor analysis of how readout or decoherence errors affect the extracted trace distance.
  3. [§2 and §3] §2 (state preparation) and §3: for arbitrary mixed states the algorithm presupposes access to the density operators ρ and σ. The gate cost of preparing or block-encoding general mixed states is not bounded; standard techniques require resources exponential in N unless a compact circuit description is given, which would invalidate the O(N^8) claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] Notation for the improved quantum phase estimation (IQPE) variant is introduced without an explicit circuit diagram or reference to the precise phase-estimation subroutine used.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a short table comparing the new method’s resource requirements with existing trace-distance algorithms (e.g., those based on swap tests or direct fidelity estimation).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below. Revisions have been made to strengthen the complexity analysis, add quantitative metrics to the results sections, and clarify assumptions on state access.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (algorithm description): the stated O(N^8) complexity omits any dependence on the target precision ε or on the simulation time t required for density-matrix exponentiation. Standard analyses of QPE and Hamiltonian simulation incur polynomial factors in 1/ε and t; without these terms the headline bound cannot be verified for general inputs.

    Authors: We agree that the full complexity expression must incorporate the dependence on precision ε and simulation time t. The O(N^8) term in the original manuscript captures the leading qubit scaling arising from the combination of density-matrix exponentiation (O(N^3) per step) and the IQPE circuit depth for the trace-distance estimation. To address this, we will revise the manuscript to state the complete bound as O(N^8 poly(1/ε, t)), making the polynomial factors explicit while preserving the dominant N dependence. This clarification does not alter the algorithm but improves rigor. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 and §5] §4 (numerical results) and §5 (hardware experiments): no quantitative accuracy metrics, error bars, or scaling plots with system size or precision are supplied. The abstract asserts “proof-of-principle simulations and hardware computations” yet the text provides neither derivation of the circuit nor analysis of how readout or decoherence errors affect the extracted trace distance.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the presented results lack quantitative error bars, accuracy metrics, and scaling analysis. In the revised version we will add error bars derived from multiple runs, report the absolute deviation from classically computed exact trace distances, and include small-system scaling plots versus N. We will also expand the discussion of circuit derivation (already present in the supplementary material) and provide a qualitative analysis of how readout and decoherence errors propagate to the final trace-distance estimate, based on the IBM hardware data already collected. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§2 and §3] §2 (state preparation) and §3: for arbitrary mixed states the algorithm presupposes access to the density operators ρ and σ. The gate cost of preparing or block-encoding general mixed states is not bounded; standard techniques require resources exponential in N unless a compact circuit description is given, which would invalidate the O(N^8) claim.

    Authors: The algorithm assumes that ρ and σ are accessible via efficient oracles or block-encodings, consistent with the standard model for density-matrix exponentiation algorithms. Under this model the estimation procedure itself scales as O(N^8 poly(1/ε, t)). For completely unstructured arbitrary mixed states, preparing the block-encoding does incur exponential cost in the worst case; we will explicitly state this modeling assumption in the revised manuscript and note that the quoted complexity applies once such access is granted. When the states admit compact circuit descriptions, the total cost remains polynomial. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct algorithm proposal with independent construction

full rationale

The paper presents a quantum algorithm for trace distance estimation via density-matrix exponentiation combined with IQPE. The claimed O(N^8) complexity and the algorithm steps are constructed from standard quantum primitives (exponentiation, phase estimation) without any reduction to fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations. Proof-of-principle simulations serve only for validation, not as input to the derivation. No equation or claim equates the output to its own inputs by construction. The derivation chain remains self-contained and externally falsifiable on quantum hardware.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No information available from the abstract to identify free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5439 in / 1117 out tokens · 70673 ms · 2026-05-10T19:33:23.119270+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1− ˜ϖl 4 2 + ˜ϖl 4 2# + 1 4·2 N+1 2N −1X l=0 ˜ϖl=0

    Calculatingκ 1,κ 2 andℓ The state in the clock register after the second QPE is ˜Λ1 ≈Λ 1/4 = 1 2N+1 P k ˜λ2 k/4, if we take the time variables,t,t 0, for the two QPEs in the algorithm as t=t 0 =π/2. This is the result that is of interest to us and it changes based on the unitaryUAB used in the First QPE. a. Calculatingκ 1:LetU AB =U A ·U B =e i(Ω/2)t + O(...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010). 8

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, A single quantum cannot be cloned, Nature299, 802 (1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Dieks, Communication by EPR devices, Physics Let- ters A92, 271 (1982)

    D. Dieks, Communication by EPR devices, Physics Let- ters A92, 271 (1982)

    work page 1982

  5. [5]

    H.P.Yuen,Amplificationofquantumstatesandnoiseless photon amplifiers, Physics Letters A113, 405 (1986)

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Gilchrist, N

    A. Gilchrist, N. K. Langford, and M. A. Nielsen, Distance measures to compare real and ideal quantum processes, Physical Review A71, 062310 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Measure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems, Physical Review Letters103, 210401 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Amato, H.-P

    G. Amato, H.-P. Breuer, and B. Vacchini, Generalized trace distance approach to quantum non-Markovianity and detection of initial correlations, Physical Review A 98, 012120 (2018)

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Dajka, J

    J. Dajka, J. Łuczka, and P. Hänggi, Distance be- tween quantum states in the presence of initial qubit- environment correlations: A comparative study, Physical Review A84, 032120 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Wißmann, B

    S. Wißmann, B. Leggio, and H.-P. Breuer, Detecting initial system-environment correlations: Performance of various distance measures for quantum states, Physical Review A88, 022108 (2013)

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Smirne, D

    A. Smirne, D. Brivio, S. Cialdi, B. Vacchini, and M. G. A. Paris, Experimental investigation of initial system-environment correlations via trace-distance evo- lution, Physical Review A84, 032112 (2011)

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    S. G. A. Brito, B. Amaral, and R. Chaves, Quantifying Bell nonlocality with the trace distance, Physical Review A97, 022111 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Y. Fan, X. Guo, and X. Yang, Quantifying coherence of quantum channels via trace distance, Quantum Informa- tion Processing21, 339 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Ai-Xi and L

    C. Ai-Xi and L. Jia-Hua, Effect of noise on trace distance of remote state preparation, Chinese Physics14, 1507 (2005)

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    J. T. M. Campbell, N. Marchetti, J. Dooley, and I. Dey, Testing Link Fidelity in a Quantum Network using Op- erational Form of Trace Distance with Error Bounds (2024), arXiv:2404.10803

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    S.-H. S. Pankaj Kumar, Binayak Kar, Trace-distance based end-to-end entanglement fidelity with information preservation in quantum networks, Journal of Network and Computer Applications244, 104366 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    C. W. Helstrom, Detection theory and quantum mechan- ics, Information and Control10, 254 (1967)

    work page 1967

  18. [18]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, Journal of Statistical Physics1, 231 (1969)

    work page 1969

  19. [19]

    transition probability

    A. Uhlmann, The “transition probability" in the state space of a∗-algebra, Reports on Mathematical Physics 9, 273 (1976)

    work page 1976

  20. [20]

    Li, J.-M

    S.-J. Li, J.-M. Liang, S.-Q. Shen, and M. Li, Variational quantum algorithms for trace norms and their applica- tions, Communications in Theoretical Physics73, 105102 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    R. Chen, Z. Song, X. Zhao, and X. Wang, Variational quantum algorithms for trace distance and fidelity es- timation, Quantum Science and Technology7, 015019 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Q. Wang, J. Guan, J. Liu, Z. Zhang, and M. Ying, New quantum algorithms for computing quantum entropies and distances, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 70, 5653 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Wang and Z

    Q. Wang and Z. Zhang, Fast quantum algorithms for trace distance estimation, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory70, 2720 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Rethinasamy, R

    S. Rethinasamy, R. Agarwal, K. Sharma, and M. M. Wilde, Estimating distinguishability measures on quan- tum computers, Physical Review A108, 012409 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Zhang, P

    J. Zhang, P. Ruggiero, and P. Calabrese, Subsystem trace distanceinquantumfieldtheory,PhysicalReviewLetters 122, 141602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    M. L. DÁriano G M and P. M, Spin tomography, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics5, 77–84 (2003)

    work page 2003

  27. [27]

    Lloyd, M

    S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost, Quantum prin- cipal component analysis, Nature Physics10, 631 (2014)

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, A. Greene, G. O. Samach,et al., Demonstration of density matrix expo- nentiation using a superconducting quantum processor, Physical Review X12, 011005 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders, Ef- ficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamil- tonians, Communications in Mathematical Physics270, 359 (2007)

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum al- gorithm for linear systems of equations, Physical Review Letters103, 150502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  31. [31]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. De Wolf, Quantum fingerprinting, Physical Review Letters87, 167902 (2001)

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    Quantum computing: Lecture notes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.09415, 2019

    R. de Wolf, Quantum computing: Lecture notes (2023), arXiv:1907.09415 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Kobayashi, K

    H. Kobayashi, K. Matsumoto, and T. Yamakami, Quan- tum Merlin-Arthur proof systems: Are multiple Mer- lins more helpful to Arthur?, inAlgorithms and Com- putation: 14th International Symposium, ISAAC 2003, Kyoto, Japan, December 15-17, 2003. Proceedings 14 (Springer, 2003) pp. 189–198

    work page 2003