pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01608 · v1 · pith:TNAYUJGBnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · 🪐 quant-ph · math.OC

Structured Factorization Approaches for Quantum State Tomography

Zhen Qin , Joseph M. Lukens , Brian T. Kirby , Zhihui Zhu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 13:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math.OC
keywords quantum state tomographystructured factorizationdensity matrixBurer-Monteiro factorizationlow-rank statesmatrix product operatorsneural density operatorsprojected gradient descent
0
0 comments X

The pith

Quantum state tomography is formulated as optimization over a structured factor F in the parametrization of the density matrix as FF^dagger.

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

The paper establishes a unified framework called structured factorization for quantum state tomography. It parametrizes the density matrix as FF^dagger, constraining the factor F to structured classes such as low-rank matrices, matrix product operators, or neural networks. This ensures the reconstructed matrix is always a valid density matrix. The framework allows statistical analysis of sample complexity and development of optimization algorithms like projected gradient descent and a power method for maximum likelihood estimation.

Core claim

By building on Burer-Monteiro-type factorization and constraining the factor F to a structured model class, the density matrix is parametrized as FF^dagger. This guarantees physical validity by construction and incorporates structural priors directly through the choice of the factor space, enabling formulation of QST as an optimization problem over the factor space from measurement data.

What carries the argument

Structured factorization of the density matrix as FF^dagger with F belonging to a structured model class, which carries the argument by allowing priors to be incorporated while ensuring positivity and normalization.

If this is right

  • Unified statistical analysis shows sample complexity for least-squares estimation over a broad class of structured quantum states.
  • Projected gradient descent operates on the factor space for various structural parametrizations.
  • A power method yields a step-size-free algorithm with fast convergence, recovering Cover's method as a special case when the factor is unconstrained.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar factorization could apply to quantum process tomography or other quantum information tasks.
  • Choosing neural architectures for F might enable tomography of states with complex correlations not captured by traditional structures.
  • The approach could lead to hybrid methods combining different structures for even better efficiency in large systems.

Load-bearing premise

The true quantum state belongs to or is well approximated by one of the structured model classes imposed on the factor F.

What would settle it

If the optimization over the factor space fails to recover accurate density matrices for states that do belong to the assumed structured classes, even with increasing numbers of measurements, that would falsify the claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01608 by Brian T. Kirby, Joseph M. Lukens, Zhen Qin, Zhihui Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Summary of different physically compatible structured density matrix factorizations, where the definition of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Experiment 2—Convergence performance comparison between LR-PGD-MLE and LR-PM-MLE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Experiment 2—Convergence performance comparison between LR-MPO-PGD-MLE and LR-MPO-PM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experiment 3—Performance comparison between LR-PM-MLE and MPO-PM-MLE for the thermal state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experiment 4—Performance comparison of MLP- and Transformer-based QST for the thermal state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experiment 4—Performance comparison of MLP- and Transformer-based QST for the thermal state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Since the complexity of quantum state tomography (QST) scales exponentially with system size, exploiting priors such as low-rankness, tensor-network structures, and neural-network representations is essential for scalable QST in terms of sample complexity and parameter complexity. In this paper, we introduce a unified framework, termed structured factorization, that builds on BurerMonteiro-type factorization by parametrizing the density matrix as $FF^\dagger$, where the factor $F$ is constrained to belong to a structured model class. This factorization guarantees physical validity by construction while allowing a broad range of structural priors to be incorporated directly through the choice of the factor space, ranging from the generic Cholesky decomposition to low-rank matrices, matrix product operators, and neural density operators based on multilayer perceptron and transformer architectures. Building on this structured factorization framework, we formulate QST as an optimization problem over the factor space from measurement data. We first develop a unified statistical analysis of the sample complexity of least-squares estimation for a broad class of structured quantum states. We then propose a projected gradient descent method that operates directly on the factor space and accommodates a wide range of structural parametrizations and reconstruction objectives. To further exploit the geometry of the maximum-likelihood estimation formulation and the constraints on the factors, we derive a power method that yields a step-size-free algorithm with fast convergence, recovering Covers method as a special case when the factor is unconstrained.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a unified structured factorization framework for quantum state tomography (QST). The density matrix is parametrized as FF^dagger where the factor F is constrained to a structured model class (ranging from Cholesky factors to low-rank matrices, matrix product operators, and neural density operators). This guarantees physical validity by construction. QST is reduced to optimization over the factor space; the paper provides a unified statistical analysis of sample complexity for least-squares estimation over a broad class of structured states, proposes a projected gradient descent algorithm on the factor space, and derives a power method for the maximum-likelihood formulation that is step-size-free and recovers Cover's method as a special case when F is unconstrained.

Significance. If the statistical analysis and convergence claims hold, the framework unifies a wide range of structural priors under a single parametrization that automatically enforces positivity and unit trace, offering a flexible route to scalable QST. The explicit recovery of Cover's method as a special case and the geometry-aware power method are concrete strengths. The modeling approach is standard in spirit but the breadth of structures covered (including neural architectures) could facilitate reproducible implementations across different priors.

major comments (2)
  1. [Statistical analysis section] The unified statistical analysis of sample complexity for least-squares estimation (described after the framework introduction) is stated at high level with no explicit error bounds, concentration inequalities, or derivations visible; this is load-bearing for the claim that the framework yields improved sample complexity for a broad class of structured states.
  2. [Power method derivation] The derivation of the power method (in the section proposing the algorithm) is presented without convergence rates, iteration complexity, or comparison to projected gradient descent; the claim of 'fast convergence' therefore lacks the quantitative support needed to evaluate its advantage over existing methods.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The notation for the structured model class and the precise definition of the factor space F could be introduced with a short table or diagram in the introduction to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with Burer-Monteiro factorization.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] Several sentences in the abstract and introduction repeat the same high-level description of the framework; condensing these would improve conciseness without loss of content.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. The two major comments identify areas where additional detail would strengthen the presentation of the statistical analysis and the power method. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate explicit derivations and quantitative comparisons.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Statistical analysis section] The unified statistical analysis of sample complexity for least-squares estimation (described after the framework introduction) is stated at high level with no explicit error bounds, concentration inequalities, or derivations visible; this is load-bearing for the claim that the framework yields improved sample complexity for a broad class of structured states.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation of the unified statistical analysis remains at a high level and does not display the explicit error bounds or concentration inequalities. In the revised manuscript we will expand this section to include the key concentration inequalities (e.g., matrix Bernstein or covering-number arguments adapted to the factor space) and the resulting sample-complexity bounds expressed in terms of the structured model class. These additions will make the load-bearing claims fully explicit while preserving the unified character of the analysis. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Power method derivation] The derivation of the power method (in the section proposing the algorithm) is presented without convergence rates, iteration complexity, or comparison to projected gradient descent; the claim of 'fast convergence' therefore lacks the quantitative support needed to evaluate its advantage over existing methods.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the power-method section currently lacks explicit convergence rates, iteration complexity, and a direct comparison with projected gradient descent. In the revision we will add a convergence analysis that exploits the geometry of the maximum-likelihood objective on the factor manifold, derive iteration-complexity bounds, and include a side-by-side comparison (both theoretical and numerical) with the projected-gradient method. This will provide the quantitative support required to substantiate the claim of fast convergence. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper presents a modeling framework that parametrizes density matrices as FF^dagger with F drawn from a chosen structured class (low-rank, MPO, neural nets, etc.). This is an explicit modeling choice that enforces positivity by construction, followed by standard least-squares analysis and projected gradient / power-method optimization over the factor space. No step equates a claimed prediction or uniqueness result to a fitted parameter or self-citation chain; the statistical sample-complexity bounds and algorithmic derivations are independent of the target state once the structural class is fixed. The framework therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the modeling assumption that useful quantum states admit a factorization representation whose factor belongs to a chosen structured class; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The density matrix of the quantum state can be written as FF^dagger for some factor F belonging to a structured model class that encodes the desired prior.
    This is the central modeling choice stated in the abstract that guarantees positivity and allows incorporation of structural priors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5785 in / 1384 out tokens · 40280 ms · 2026-07-03T13:08:42.137497+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A tomographic approach to Wigner’s function.Found

    Jacqueline Bertrand and Pierre Bertrand. A tomographic approach to Wigner’s function.Found. Phys., 17(4):397– 405, 1987

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    Determination of quasiprobability distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase.Phys

    K V ogel and H Risken. Determination of quasiprobability distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase.Phys. Rev. A, 40(5):2847, 1989

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Quantum-state tomography and discrete wigner function.Phys

    Ulf Leonhardt. Quantum-state tomography and discrete wigner function.Phys. Rev. Lett., 74(21):4101, 1995

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    Quantum-state estimation.Phys

    Zdenek Hradil. Quantum-state estimation.Phys. Rev. A, 55(3):R1561, 1997

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Daniel F. V . James, Paul G. Kwiat, William J. Munro, and Andrew G. White. Measurement of qubits.Phys. Rev. A, 64:052312, Oct 2001

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 63(9):5628–5641, 2017

    J Haah, AW Harrow, Z Ji, X Wu, and N Yu. Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 63(9):5628–5641, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018. 25

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconduct- ing processor.Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconduct- ing processor.Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Ibm quantum breaks the 100-qubit processor barrier.IBM Research Blog, 2021

    Jerry Chow, Oliver Dial, and Jay Gambetta. Ibm quantum breaks the 100-qubit processor barrier.IBM Research Blog, 2021

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators.New Journal of Physics, 14(9):095022, 2012

    Steven T Flammia, David Gross, Yi-Kai Liu, and Jens Eisert. Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators.New Journal of Physics, 14(9):095022, 2012

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    Quantum Tomography From Few Full-Rank Observables

    Vladislav V oroninski. Quantum tomography from few full-rank observables.arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.7669, 2013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    Low rank matrix recovery from rank one measurements

    Richard Kueng, Holger Rauhut, and Ulrich Terstiege. Low rank matrix recovery from rank one measurements. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 42(1):88–116, 2017

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Fast state tomography with optimal error bounds

    Madalin Gut ¸˘a, Jonas Kahn, Richard Kueng, and Joel A Tropp. Fast state tomography with optimal error bounds. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 53(20):204001, 2020

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Fast and robust quantum state tomography from few basis measurements

    Daniel Stilck Franc ¸a, Fernando GS Brand ˜ao, and Richard Kueng. Fast and robust quantum state tomography from few basis measurements. In16th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2021). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum f¨ur Informatik, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Optimal allocation of pauli measurements for low-rank quantum state tomography.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 7:1–16, 2026

    Zhen Qin, Casey Jameson, Zhexuan Gong, Michael B Wakin, and Zhihui Zhu. Optimal allocation of pauli measurements for low-rank quantum state tomography.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 7:1–16, 2026

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    Existence of temperature on the nanoscale.Physical review letters, 93(8):080402, 2004

    Michael Hartmann, G ¨unter Mahler, and Ortwin Hess. Existence of temperature on the nanoscale.Physical review letters, 93(8):080402, 2004

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio. Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy.Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:277–306, Feb 2010

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    Matrix product operator representations

    Bogdan Pirvu, Valentin Murg, J Ignacio Cirac, and Frank Verstraete. Matrix product operator representations. New Journal of Physics, 12(2):025012, 2010

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Efficient classical simulation of noisy random quantum circuits in one dimension.Quantum, 4:318, 2020

    Kyungjoo Noh, Liang Jiang, and Bill Fefferman. Efficient classical simulation of noisy random quantum circuits in one dimension.Quantum, 4:318, 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Quantum state tomography for matrix product density operators.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 70(7):5030–5056, 2024

    Zhen Qin, Casey Jameson, Zhexuan Gong, Michael B Wakin, and Zhihui Zhu. Quantum state tomography for matrix product density operators.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 70(7):5030–5056, 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Sample-efficient quantum state tomography for structured quantum states in one dimension.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02583, 2024

    Zhen Qin, Casey Jameson, Alireza Goldar, Michael B Wakin, Zhexuan Gong, and Zhihui Zhu. Sample-efficient quantum state tomography for structured quantum states in one dimension.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02583, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Enhancing quantum state reconstruction with structured classical shadows.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):147, 2025

    Zhen Qin, Joseph M Lukens, Brian T Kirby, and Zhihui Zhu. Enhancing quantum state reconstruction with structured classical shadows.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):147, 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Sketch Tomography: Hybridizing Classical Shadow and Matrix Product State

    Xun Tang, Haoxuan Chen, Yuehaw Khoo, and Lexing Ying. Sketch tomography: Hybridizing classical shadow and matrix product state.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.03333, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Learning mixed quantum states in large-scale experiments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12550, 2025

    Matteo V otto, Marko Ljubotina, C ´ecilia Lancien, J Ignacio Cirac, Peter Zoller, Maksym Serbyn, Lorenzo Piroli, and Beno ˆıt Vermersch. Learning mixed quantum states in large-scale experiments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12550, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Quantum state tomography for tensor networks in two dimensions.Physical Review A, 113(2):022414, 2026

    Zhen Qin and Zhihui Zhu. Quantum state tomography for tensor networks in two dimensions.Physical Review A, 113(2):022414, 2026. 26

    work page 2026

  26. [26]

    Statistical and Algorithmic Foundations of Probing Quantum Systems with Compressive Measurements: A Review

    Zhen Qin, Michael B Wakin, and Zhihui Zhu. Statistical and algorithmic foundations of probing quantum systems with compressive measurements: A review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.27191, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Neural-network quantum state tomography.Nature Physics, 14(5):447–450, 2018

    Giacomo Torlai, Guglielmo Mazzola, Juan Carrasquilla, Matthias Troyer, Roger Melko, and Giuseppe Carleo. Neural-network quantum state tomography.Nature Physics, 14(5):447–450, 2018

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Integrating neural networks with a quantum simulator for state reconstruction.Physical review letters, 123(23):230504, 2019

    Giacomo Torlai, Brian Timar, Evert PL Van Nieuwenburg, Harry Levine, Ahmed Omran, Alexander Keesling, Hannes Bernien, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti ´c, Mikhail D Lukin, et al. Integrating neural networks with a quantum simulator for state reconstruction.Physical review letters, 123(23):230504, 2019

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Approximating quantum many-body wave functions using artificial neural networks.Phys

    Zi Cai and Jinguo Liu. Approximating quantum many-body wave functions using artificial neural networks.Phys. Rev. B, 97(3):035116, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    U (1)-symmetric recurrent neural networks for quantum state reconstruction.Physical Review A, 104(1):012401, 2021

    Stewart Morawetz, Isaac JS De Vlugt, Juan Carrasquilla, and Roger G Melko. U (1)-symmetric recurrent neural networks for quantum state reconstruction.Physical Review A, 104(1):012401, 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Neural network enhanced measurement efficiency for molecular groundstates.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 4(1):015016, 2023

    Dmitri Iouchtchenko, J ´erˆome F Gonthier, Alejandro Perdomo-Ortiz, and Roger G Melko. Neural network enhanced measurement efficiency for molecular groundstates.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 4(1):015016, 2023

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Attention-based quantum tomography.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 3(1):01LT01, 2021

    Peter Cha, Paul Ginsparg, Felix Wu, Juan Carrasquilla, Peter L McMahon, and Eun-Ah Kim. Attention-based quantum tomography.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 3(1):01LT01, 2021

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Tomography of quantum states from structured measurements via quantum-aware transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05433, 2023

    Hailan Ma, Zhenhong Sun, Daoyi Dong, Chunlin Chen, and Herschel Rabitz. Tomography of quantum states from structured measurements via quantum-aware transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05433, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Lattice convolutional net- works for learning ground states of quantum many-body systems

    Cong Fu, Xuan Zhang, Huixin Zhang, Hongyi Ling, Shenglong Xu, and Shuiwang Ji. Lattice convolutional net- works for learning ground states of quantum many-body systems. InProceedings of the 2024 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM), pages 490–498. SIAM, 2024

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Learning hard quan- tum distributions with variational autoencoders.npj Quantum Information, 4(1):28, 2018

    Andrea Rocchetto, Edward Grant, Sergii Strelchuk, Giuseppe Carleo, and Simone Severini. Learning hard quan- tum distributions with variational autoencoders.npj Quantum Information, 4(1):28, 2018

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Description of states in quantum mechanics by density matrix and operator techniques.Rev

    Ugo Fano. Description of states in quantum mechanics by density matrix and operator techniques.Rev. Mod. Phys., 29(1):74, 1957

    work page 1957

  37. [37]

    Iterative algorithm for reconstruction of entangled states.Phys

    J ˇReh´aˇcek, Z Hradil, and M Je ˇzek. Iterative algorithm for reconstruction of entangled states.Phys. Rev. A, 63(4):040303, 2001

    work page 2001

  38. [38]

    Approxi- mate message passing for quantum state tomography.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.12857, 2025

    Noah Siekierski, Kausthubh Chandramouli, Christian K ¨ummerle, Bojko N Bakalov, and Dror Baron. Approxi- mate message passing for quantum state tomography.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.12857, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Quantum state tomography with tensor train cross approximation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.06397, 2022

    Alexander Lidiak, Casey Jameson, Zhen Qin, Gongguo Tang, Michael B Wakin, Zhihui Zhu, and Zhexuan Gong. Quantum state tomography with tensor train cross approximation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.06397, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    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

    work page 2010

  41. [41]

    Practical bayesian tomography.new Journal of Physics, 18(3):033024, 2016

    Christopher Granade, Joshua Combes, and DG Cory. Practical bayesian tomography.new Journal of Physics, 18(3):033024, 2016

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    A practical and efficient approach for Bayesian quantum state estimation.New J

    Joseph M Lukens, Kody J H Law, Ajay Jasra, and Pavel Lougovski. A practical and efficient approach for Bayesian quantum state estimation.New J. Phys., 22(6):063038, 2020

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Robust error bars for quantum tomography

    Robin Blume-Kohout. Robust error bars for quantum tomography.arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.5270, 2012

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [44]

    Practical and reliable error bars in quantum tomography.Physical review letters, 117(1):010404, 2016

    Philippe Faist and Renato Renner. Practical and reliable error bars in quantum tomography.Physical review letters, 117(1):010404, 2016. 27

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    Machine learning assisted quantum state estimation.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 1(3):035007, 2020

    Sanjaya Lohani, Brian T Kirby, Michael Brodsky, Onur Danaci, and Ryan T Glasser. Machine learning assisted quantum state estimation.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 1(3):035007, 2020

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Fast and robust quantum state tomography from few basis measurements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08216, 2020

    Fernando GSL Brand ˜ao, Richard Kueng, and Daniel Stilck Franc ¸a. Fast and robust quantum state tomography from few basis measurements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08216, 2020

    work page arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    On the connection between least squares, regularization, and classical shadows.Quantum, 8:1455, 2024

    Zhihui Zhu, Joseph M Lukens, and Brian T Kirby. On the connection between least squares, regularization, and classical shadows.Quantum, 8:1455, 2024

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems.Physical review letters, 93(20):207204, 2004

    Frank Verstraete, Juan J Garcia-Ripoll, and Juan Ignacio Cirac. Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems.Physical review letters, 93(20):207204, 2004

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    Empirical sample complexity of neural network mixed state reconstruction.Quantum, 8:1358, 2024

    Haimeng Zhao, Giuseppe Carleo, and Filippo Vicentini. Empirical sample complexity of neural network mixed state reconstruction.Quantum, 8:1358, 2024

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    A nonlinear programming algorithm for solving semidefinite programs via low-rank factorization.Mathematical programming, 95(2):329–357, 2003

    Samuel Burer and Renato DC Monteiro. A nonlinear programming algorithm for solving semidefinite programs via low-rank factorization.Mathematical programming, 95(2):329–357, 2003

    work page 2003

  51. [51]

    Local minima and convergence in low-rank semidefinite programming

    Samuel Burer and Renato DC Monteiro. Local minima and convergence in low-rank semidefinite programming. Mathematical programming, 103(3):427–444, 2005

    work page 2005

  52. [52]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2004

    David S Watkins.Fundamentals of matrix computations. John Wiley & Sons, 2004

    work page 2004

  53. [53]

    Global optimality in low-rank matrix optimization

    Zhihui Zhu, Qiuwei Li, Gongguo Tang, and Michael B Wakin. Global optimality in low-rank matrix optimization. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 66(13):3614–3628, 2018

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    Nonconvex optimization meets low-rank matrix factorization: An overview.IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 67(20):5239–5269, 2019

    Yuejie Chi, Yue M Lu, and Yuxin Chen. Nonconvex optimization meets low-rank matrix factorization: An overview.IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 67(20):5239–5269, 2019

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Efficient factored gradient descent algorithm for quantum state tomography.Physical Review Research, 6(3):033034, 2024

    Yong Wang, Lijun Liu, Shuming Cheng, Li Li, and Jie Chen. Efficient factored gradient descent algorithm for quantum state tomography.Physical Review Research, 6(3):033034, 2024

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Quantum state tomography via nonconvex riemannian gradient descent.Physical Review Letters, 132(24):240804, 2024

    Ming-Chien Hsu, En-Jui Kuo, Wei-Hsuan Yu, Jian-Feng Cai, and Min-Hsiu Hsieh. Quantum state tomography via nonconvex riemannian gradient descent.Physical Review Letters, 132(24):240804, 2024

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Online quantum state tomography via stochastic gradient descent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07601, 2025

    Jian-Feng Cai, Yuling Jiao, Yinan Li, Xiliang Lu, Jerry Zhijian Yang, and Juntao You. Online quantum state tomography via stochastic gradient descent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07601, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Rigorous maximum-likelihood estimation for quantum states.Physical Review A, 112(5):052436, 2025

    Kuchibhotla Aditi and Stephen Becker. Rigorous maximum-likelihood estimation for quantum states.Physical Review A, 112(5):052436, 2025

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Experimental estimation of quantum state properties from classical shadows.PRX Quantum, 2(1):010307, 2021

    GI Struchalin, Ya A Zagorovskii, EV Kovlakov, SS Straupe, and SP Kulik. Experimental estimation of quantum state properties from classical shadows.PRX Quantum, 2(1):010307, 2021

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    Bootstrapping classical shadows for neural quantum state tomography.arXiv:2405.06864, 2024

    Wirawat Kokaew, Bohdan Kulchytskyy, Shunji Matsuura, and Pooya Ronagh. Bootstrapping classical shadows for neural quantum state tomography.arXiv:2405.06864, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Rank-based model selection for multiple ions quantum tomography.New Journal of Physics, 14(10):105002, 2012

    M ˘ad˘alin Gut ¸˘a, Theodore Kypraios, and Ian Dryden. Rank-based model selection for multiple ions quantum tomography.New Journal of Physics, 14(10):105002, 2012

    work page 2012

  62. [62]

    Quantum tomography of entangled qubits by time-resolved single-photon counting with time- continuous measurements: A

    Artur Czerwinski. Quantum tomography of entangled qubits by time-resolved single-photon counting with time- continuous measurements: A. czerwinski.Quantum Information Processing, 21(9):332, 2022

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    Neural-network quantum state tomography.Physical Review A, 106(1):012409, 2022

    Dominik Koutn `y, Libor Motka, Zden ˇek Hradil, Jaroslav ˇReh´aˇcek, and Luis L S ´anchez-Soto. Neural-network quantum state tomography.Physical Review A, 106(1):012409, 2022

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Improvements to quantum interior point method for linear optimization.ACM Transactions on Quantum Com- puting, 6(1):1–24, 2025

    Mohammadhossein Mohammadisiahroudi, Zeguan Wu, Brandon Augustino, Arielle Carr, and Tam ´as Terlaky. Improvements to quantum interior point method for linear optimization.ACM Transactions on Quantum Com- puting, 6(1):1–24, 2025. 28

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    Pseudorandom quantum states

    Zhengfeng Ji, Yi-Kai Liu, and Fang Song. Pseudorandom quantum states. InAdvances in Cryptology–CRYPTO 2018: 38th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 19–23, 2018, Pro- ceedings, Part III 38, pages 126–152. Springer, 2018

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    Oseledets

    I. Oseledets. Tensor-train decomposition.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 33(5):2295–2317, 2011

    work page 2011

  67. [67]

    Projection Onto A Simplex

    Yunmei Chen and Xiaojing Ye. Projection onto a simplex.arXiv:1101.6081, 2011

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  68. [68]

    From architectures to applications: A review of neural quantum states.Quantum Science and Technology, 2024

    Hannah Lange, Anka Van de Walle, Atiye Abedinnia, and Annabelle Bohrdt. From architectures to applications: A review of neural quantum states.Quantum Science and Technology, 2024

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    Liouville-space neural network representation of density matrices.Physical Review A, 109(6):062215, 2024

    Simon Kothe and Peter Kirton. Liouville-space neural network representation of density matrices.Physical Review A, 109(6):062215, 2024

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Latent space purification via neural density operators.Physical review letters, 120(24):240503, 2018

    Giacomo Torlai and Roger G Melko. Latent space purification via neural density operators.Physical review letters, 120(24):240503, 2018

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    Purifying deep boltzmann machines for thermal quantum states.Physical review letters, 127(6):060601, 2021

    Yusuke Nomura, Nobuyuki Yoshioka, and Franco Nori. Purifying deep boltzmann machines for thermal quantum states.Physical review letters, 127(6):060601, 2021

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    Deep neural networks as variational solutions for correlated open quantum systems.Communications Physics, 7(1):268, 2024

    Johannes Mellak, Enrico Arrigoni, and Wolfgang von der Linden. Deep neural networks as variational solutions for correlated open quantum systems.Communications Physics, 7(1):268, 2024

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function.Mathematics of control, signals and systems, 2(4):303–314, 1989

    George Cybenko. Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function.Mathematics of control, signals and systems, 2(4):303–314, 1989

    work page 1989

  74. [74]

    Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    A Self-Attention Ansatz for Ab-initio Quantum Chemistry

    Ingrid von Glehn, James S Spencer, and David Pfau. A self-attention ansatz for ab-initio quantum chemistry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13672, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    Solving schr\” odinger equation with a language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09343, 2023

    Honghui Shang, Chu Guo, Yangjun Wu, Zhenyu Li, and Jinlong Yang. Solving schr\” odinger equation with a language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09343, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    Nnqs-transformer: an efficient and scalable neural network quantum states approach for ab initio quantum chemistry

    Yangjun Wu, Chu Guo, Yi Fan, Pengyu Zhou, and Honghui Shang. Nnqs-transformer: an efficient and scalable neural network quantum states approach for ab initio quantum chemistry. InProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1–13, 2023

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    Autoregressive neural network for simulating open quantum systems via a probabilistic formulation.Physical review letters, 128(9):090501, 2022

    Di Luo, Zhuo Chen, Juan Carrasquilla, and Bryan K Clark. Autoregressive neural network for simulating open quantum systems via a probabilistic formulation.Physical review letters, 128(9):090501, 2022

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    Quantum computation and quantum information, 2002

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information, 2002

    work page 2002

  80. [80]

    Provable compressed sensing quantum state tomography via non-convex methods.npj Quantum Inf., 4(1):36, 2018

    Anastasios Kyrillidis, Amir Kalev, Dohyung Park, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Constantine Caramanis, and Sujay Sang- havi. Provable compressed sensing quantum state tomography via non-convex methods.npj Quantum Inf., 4(1):36, 2018

    work page 2018

Showing first 80 references.