A Unified Framework for Sample Complexity of Structured Quantum State Tomography under Noisy Observations

Zhen Qin

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 79 references

A Unified Framework for Sample Complexity of Structured Quantum State Tomography under Noisy Observations

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims a unified non-asymptotic trace-norm guarantee for structured quantum state tomography under depolarizing preparation and measurement noise, with a noise-aware estimator whose sample complexity is governed by covering…

desk verdict A genuinely useful unified framework for structured QST sample complexity, with two proof gaps in the central bounds that need patching before the results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05526 v1 pith:LJGPC2NV submitted 2026-08-06 quant-ph eess.SPmath.OC

Zhen Qin This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-pheess.SPmath.OC MSC 81P6862B10 PACS 03.67.-a03.65.Wj

keywords quantumstatetomographysamplecomplexitydepolarizingnoisetracenormcoveringnumberstensornetworkslow-rankstatesmeasurement

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quantum state tomography usually assumes perfect measurements; this paper instead treats the realistic case where state preparation and measurement are corrupted by depolarizing noise and only finitely many copies are measured. It proposes a unified framework that covers a wide family of structured state classes—general mixed, sparse, low-rank, matrix product states and operators, projected entangled-pair states and operators, and new low-rank tensor-network variants—and derives non-asymptotic trace-norm error bounds for two constrained least-squares estimators. For a noise-aware estimator that knows the calibrated noise model, the bound shows how sample complexity depends on the state class complexity, the measurement ensemble, and the noise levels. For a noise-unaware estimator that ignores noise, the bound splits into a statistical error plus a deterministic bias that cannot be removed by collecting more copies. The intended consequence is a single quantitative picture of when structure and calibration help in noisy tomography.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by four measurement complexity parameters—α1(Q,K), α2(Q,K), β(Q,K), and (for the misspecified estimator) γ1(Q,K), γ2(Q,K)—defined as extremal ratios of measurement-induced inner products over the admissible state class X, together with a unified covering-number analysis (Lemma 1, Table 1) that bounds log N_type for each structured class. The key structural move is to factor states as ρ = FF†, so that low-rank, sparse, and tensor-network constraints live on the factor F, and to bound the empirical-loss concentration by a fixed ε-net argument in which the noise parameters feed only through a multiplicative factor 1/((1-a)²(1-λ)²) and an additive bias term. The normalized complexity ratio ((1-a)β + aα2/K)/α1² governs how many copies are needed, while the bias ratio (λ(1-a)γ2 + aγ1)/α1 governs the irreducible error of the noise-unaware estimator.

What would settle it

Take a single-qubit pure-state class X, the two-outcome measurement {|0⟩⟨0|, |1⟩⟨1|}, and a traceless Δ = ρ̂−ρ* with Δ = |0⟩⟨0| − |1⟩⟨1|. Evaluate the inequality used in Eq. (89), Σ_k ⟨A_k, Δ⟩⟨A_k, ρ*⟩ ≤ γ2(Q,K) trace(Δ(λ I/d − λ ρ*)) − a γ1(Q,K) trace(ρ*Δ); if it fails, the bias term in Theorem 2 is unsupported. Alternatively, simulate depolarized QST at large M and check whether the error indeed plateaus at the predicted bias level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: with high probability, the noise-aware estimator achieves trace-norm error of order sqrt( (( (1-a)β + a α2/K) rank(ρ*) log N_type ) / (α1² (1-a)² (1-λ)² M) ), uniformly over all the structured state classes considered, where α1, α2, β characterize the measurement ensemble, N_type is the covering number of the state class, a and λ are depolarizing noise strengths for measurement and preparation, and M is the number of copies per POVM. Theorem 2 claims that the noise-unaware estimator instead obeys a bound with the same statistical term (without the noise denominator) plus an additive bias of order sqrt(rank(ρ*)) (λ(1-a)γ2 + a γ1)/α1, which does not vanish as M grows. The paper also evaluates the measurement parameters explicitly for spherical 3-designs, approximate spherical 3-designs, unitary 3-designs, and Haar random projective measurements, showing the complexity ratio is constant for designs and scales as 1/Q for random ensembles. If these bounds are correct, they give the first unified non-asymptotic trace-norm sample complexity for structured QST under depolarizing SPAM noise.

Load-bearing premise

The theorem for the noise-unaware estimator assumes that the measurement parameters γ1 and γ2, defined only for pairs of physical density matrices, can be applied to the traceless error operator ρ̂−ρ*, so the claimed derivation of the misspecification bias term goes through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the noise-aware estimator, doubling the measurement budget M cuts the trace-norm error roughly in half, while noisy calibration costs a factor 1/((1-a)(1-λ)) in precision.
Ignoring known depolarizing noise produces an error floor set by the bias term; more copies cannot remove it, so calibration is essential for high-precision tomography.
Unitary 3-designs and Haar random projective measurements benefit from more measurement settings Q, with the complexity ratio shrinking as 1/Q, unlike spherical 3-designs where it stays constant.
The low-rank tensor-network classes (LR-MPO, LR-PEPO) achieve the best scaling in rank, since the effective rank enters linearly and the covering number grows polynomially in system size.
The same trace-norm guarantee applies across all listed state families from a single formula, enabling direct comparison of different structural assumptions under one framework.

Reading between the lines

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

If the bias derivation is repaired, the framework suggests a general recipe: any state class with a covering-number bound and a measurement ensemble with controlled α, β, γ parameters inherits the same noise-aware and noise-unaware guarantees—so the analysis is likely to extend to local POVMs and other noise channels once the parameters are evaluated.
The noise-aware bound's dependence on 1/(1-λ)² hints that stronger state-preparation noise hurts as if the effective rank were inflated; testing whether this factor is information-theoretically necessary would be a natural next step.
For approximate spherical 3-designs, the theory predicts the complexity ratio grows as (1+δ)/(1-δ)²; a numerical check of trace-norm error vs δ could directly validate the framework's constant factors.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Zhen Qin's paper is a serious attempt at a unified sample-complexity theory for structured QST under depolarizing SPAM noise. It does something genuinely new: it brings physical states, sparse states, low-rank states, MPS/MPO, PEPS/PEPO, and the new LR-MPO/LR-PEPO classes under one covering-number umbrella, and it extracts a single measurement-complexity ratio that governs the sample complexity. The noise-aware bound (Theorem 1) is the right shape, and the noise-unaware bias floor (Theorem 2) is the right conceptual contribution—a deterministic term that does not vanish as M grows. The evaluations for spherical and unitary 3-designs are a useful addition.

The main proofs, however, have gaps that need patching. In Appendix B, Eq. (74) bounds the variance proxy Σ⟨A,ρ^(p)⟩²p_{q,k} using β and α2, which are defined as suprema over pairs of admissible density matrices. The covering points ρ^(p) are traceless unit-norm matrices, not differences of two states in the class, so the definitions do not control the required quadratic form. The stress-test note's concrete counterexample does not land for me—the rank-3 diagonal matrix it uses is not in the covering class for rank-1 states (which has rank ≤ 2), and for the physical-states class the β value is large enough. But the underlying concern is real: the proof needs an additional argument, likely redefining the complexity parameters over the difference space or showing that the covering points can be chosen from differences of admissible states. As written, Theorem 1 is not established.

Theorem 2 has a cleaner domain-mismatch problem. The γ parameters in (39)-(40) are defined for pairs of density matrices, but Appendix C applies them to the traceless error Δ = ρ̂−ρ* and to ρ*−I/d^n. The claim that setting ρ1=ρ2=ρ−ρ* reduces γ to α is invalid because ρ−ρ* is not a density matrix. The bias term in (43) lacks a valid derivation.

Minor: the numerical experiments ship no code or error bars, and the sparsity threshold t is tuned per noise level, which weakens the empirical evidence.

The paper will be useful to anyone working on QST sample complexity, both for the unified setup and for the new model classes. It deserves a serious referee, but only with a demand for a rigorous fix of these two proof steps. I'd send it to peer review rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a unified theoretical framework for the sample complexity of structured quantum state tomography under depolarizing state-preparation and measurement noise. The framework introduces measurement complexity parameters α1, α2, β, γ1, and γ2, and collects covering-number bounds for several structured state families (physical, sparse, low-rank, MPS/MPO, PEPS/PEPO, and low-rank variants). Two estimators are analyzed: a noise-aware constrained least-squares estimator, for which Theorem 1 claims a unified trace-norm error bound (Eq. (33)), and a noise-unaware estimator, for which Theorem 2 claims a bound consisting of a statistical error term and a deterministic misspecification bias (Eq. (43)). Numerical experiments on six-qubit thermal and GHZ states illustrate the qualitative predictions. The paper is ambitious in scope, but the proofs of both main theorems contain domain-mismatch errors that invalidate the results as stated.

Significance. If the theorems were correct, the framework would be a valuable unification: it would provide the first non-asymptotic trace-norm guarantees for structured QST under SPAM noise, covering many state classes in one bound with an explicit noise dependence, and it would quantitatively separate the behavior of noise-aware and noise-unaware estimators. The compilation of covering-number bounds into a single table and the abstract measurement-complexity formulation are useful contributions. However, the two central proofs contain load-bearing errors: the variance bound in Theorem 1 applies β to covering points outside its domain, and the bias bound in Theorem 2 applies γ1,γ2 to non-density-matrix arguments. These issues are demonstrated with concrete counterexamples, so the main claims are not established as written.

major comments (2)

The bound on Σ_{q,k} ⟨A_{q,k},ρ^(p)⟩² p_{q,k} uses β(Q,K), which by Eq. (26) is a supremum over pairs ρ,ρ*∈X, i.e., over differences of admissible density matrices. However, the covering points ρ^(p) used in the proof belong to the auxiliary sets of Appendix A, such as X_{LR,2r} = {ρ: trace(ρ)=0, ∥ρ∥_F=1, rank(ρ)≤2r}, which are traceless unit-Frobenius matrices that need not be proportional to differences of admissible states. The inequality is false in general. For example, take X = rank-1 qutrit states, A_k=|k⟩⟨k| for k=1,2,3, ρ*=|1⟩⟨1|, and ρ^(p)=diag(2/√6,−1/√6,−1/√6). Then ρ^(p)∈X_{LR,2}, ∥ρ^(p)∥_F=1, and with a=λ=0 the left side of Eq. (74) equals Σ_k ⟨A_k,ρ^(p)⟩²⟨A_k,ρ*⟩ = 2/3, while β(Q,K)=1/2 for this class, giving 2/3 ≤ 1/2, a contradiction. Consequently the proof of Theorem 1 does not establish the stated guarantee for low-rank, sparse, MPO, and PEPO classes; the covering argument must either use points in the difference set of admissible states or introduce complexity parameters that control the variance on the auxiliary sets.
The parameters γ1(Q,K) and γ2(Q,K) are defined in Eqs. (39)-(40) as inf/sup over pairs ρ1,ρ2∈X of a bilinear form divided by trace(ρ1ρ2). The claim after Eq. (40) that setting ρ1=ρ2=ρ−ρ⋆ reduces γ to α is invalid because ρ−ρ⋆ is not a density matrix and hence not in X. In the proof of Theorem 2, Eq. (89) applies γ2(Q,K) to the traceless error Δ=\hatρ−ρ⋆ and to ρ⋆−I/d^n, and applies γ1(Q,K) to ⟨A_{q,k},ρ⋆⟩⟨A_{q,k},Δ⟩; these arguments fall outside the domain of definitions (39)-(40). The resulting bound on the bias term is therefore not derived from the stated definitions. The bias term in Eq. (43) lacks a valid proof as written; a different argument is needed to control the model-misspecification bias.

minor comments (3)

The symbol XPHY is used both for the set of physical density matrices in Eq. (2) and for the auxiliary traceless set {ρ: trace(ρ)=0, ∥ρ∥_F=1} in Appendix A. This notational clash makes the proof of Theorem 1 difficult to follow and should be resolved, e.g., by using a different symbol for the auxiliary sets.
The text in Appendix A first defines the auxiliary set with the condition trace(ρ)=0, then states that "the constraint trace(ρ)=0 is not explicitly enforced in the covering-number estimate." This is contradictory and should be clarified: does the covering number apply to the trace-zero set or to the density-matrix set, and what is the role of the trace constraint in the estimate?
The figure captions do not define the legend entries (e.g., "PHY", "LR", "LR-MPO", "LR-PEPO", "LR-S") or the encoding of the x-axis (a and λ are plotted together on a single axis). A short description in the captions or text would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the theorems derive bounds from stated noise models and covering lemmas; the proof gaps identified are domain-mismatch errors, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1 (Eq. 33) is obtained from the minimizer inequality f(rho_hat) <= f(rho*), the alpha_1 lower bound in Eq. (62), and a union-bound concentration argument over covering nets in Eqs. (64)-(77); each step uses the definitions (24)-(26) and auxiliary covering lemmas rather than assuming the desired trace-norm bound. Theorem 2 (Eq. 43) follows the same pattern, with the additional bias term bounded via (39)-(40). No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction: the noise levels (lambda, a) are assumed known from calibration, and the numerical experiments do not fit the theory. The cited self-papers ([22], [23], [24]) supply auxiliary concentration inequalities and measurement-complexity evaluations that are parameter-free and are not restatements of the target result, so they constitute independent support rather than load-bearing self-citation. The gaps identified in the skeptic's note—beta(Q,K) applied to traceless covering points in Appendix B Eq. (74), and gamma_1/gamma_2 applied to the non-admissible operator rho_hat - rho* in Appendix C Eq. (89)—are genuine domain-of-definition errors that would invalidate the proofs as written, but they are not circularity: the erroneous step misapplies a parameter definition; it does not assume the conclusion or reduce the theorem to its own input. Consequently, no circular step is established, and the paper's central derivation is self-contained apart from the correctness concerns noted above.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorems introduce no fitted constants: the noise parameters (λ,a) are treated as calibrated inputs, and the measurement parameters are evaluated from design properties. The only hand-chosen number is the sparsity threshold t in the numerical section. The main axioms are the depolarizing noise model, the cited design evaluations, and standard concentration/covering lemmas. The unjustified γ2 step in Appendix C is a proof gap rather than an additional axiom.

free parameters (1)

sparsity threshold t in numerical experiments = 8 for a=λ in {0,0.1,0.2}, 16 otherwise
Hand-tuned in Section 5 to achieve reliable support identification; affects experimental curves but not the theoretical theorems.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Depolarizing channel model for state preparation noise, eρ=(1-λ)ρ+(λ/d^n)I, and isotropic POVM perturbation eA=(1-a)A+(a/K)I.
Introduced in Sections 2.1-2.2 and used throughout. Actual SPAM noise in devices may include dephasing, amplitude damping, or correlated errors, which the framework does not cover.
domain assumption The measurement complexity parameters α1, α2, β, γ1, γ2 take the Θ values stated in (28) and (42) for the considered designs.
The paper cites [23] and [60] for these evaluations rather than re-deriving them; the theorems assume these scalings.
standard math The concentration inequality of [22, Lemma 14] bounds the multinomial empirical fluctuation term.
Applied in Appendices B and C to control the stochastic term; assumed to hold as stated.
standard math The relation between factor error and state error (Lemma 41 of [78]) and the trace-norm to Frobenius-norm conversion (inequality of [79]) hold.
Used to convert ||F F† - F* F*†||_F bounds into trace-norm bounds and to handle pure tensor-network states.
domain assumption The covering-number estimates of Lemma 1, especially the new LR-MPO and LR-PEPO bounds, are correct.
These bounds are constructed by embedding LR-MPO/LR-PEPO into MPO/PEPO with squared bond dimensions; plausible but not independently verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unified Framework for Sample Complexity of Structured Quantum State Tomography under Noisy Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJGPC2NV

@misc{pith2026260805526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unified Framework for Sample Complexity of Structured Quantum State Tomography under Noisy Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJGPC2NV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05526}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum state tomography (QST) has attracted considerable attention due to its fundamental role in quantum information processing. In this paper, we develop a unified theoretical framework for analyzing the sample complexity of structured QST under noisy observations arising from state preparation noise, measurement noise, and finite-shot statistical noise. The proposed framework applies to a broad family of structured quantum-state classes, including general mixed states, sparse states, low-rank states, matrix product states (MPSs), matrix product operators (MPOs), projected entangled-pair states (PEPSs), and projected entangled-pair operators (PEPOs), while further introducing physically consistent structured models---including low-rank and sparse states, low-rank MPOs (LR-MPOs), and low-rank PEPOs (LR-PEPOs)---that simultaneously exploit low-dimensional structures and preserve the physical constraint. Within this framework, we derive unified non-asymptotic sample complexity guarantees for two constrained least-squares estimators under noisy observations: a noise-aware estimator that incorporates the calibrated noise model and a noise-unaware estimator based on the ideal Born measurement model. For the noise-aware estimator, we derive unified trace-norm recovery guarantees that explicitly characterize the dependence of the sample complexity on three fundamental quantities: the complexity of the underlying structured state class, the complexity of the measurement ensemble, and the state preparation and measurement noise levels. For the noise-unaware estimator, we establish a unified non-asymptotic recovery guarantee consisting of a statistical error term and an additional deterministic bias term arising from the mismatch between the assumed reconstruction model and the noisy observation process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05526 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Trace-norm reconstruction error for the GHZ state under different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

A tomographic approach to wigner’s function.Foundations of Physics, 17(4):397–405, 1987

Jacqueline Bertrand and Pierre Bertrand. A tomographic approach to wigner’s function.Foundations of Physics, 17(4):397–405, 1987. 27

work page 1987
[2]

Determination of quasiprobability distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase.Physical Review A, 40(5):2847, 1989

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

work page 1989
[3]

Quantum-state tomography and discrete wigner function.Physical review letters, 74(21):4101, 1995

Ulf Leonhardt. Quantum-state tomography and discrete wigner function.Physical review letters, 74(21):4101, 1995

work page 1995
[4]

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

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

work page 1997
[5]

Measurement of qubits.Physical Review A, 64(5):052312, 2001

Daniel FV James, Paul G Kwiat, William J Munro, and Andrew G White. Measurement of qubits.Physical Review A, 64(5):052312, 2001

work page 2001
[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

2017
[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

2018
[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

2019

Show all 79 references

[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

2021
[10]

Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information.Reviews of Modern Physics, 79(2):555–609, 2007

Stephen D Bartlett, Terry Rudolph, and Robert W Spekkens. Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information.Reviews of Modern Physics, 79(2):555–609, 2007

2007
[11]

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

2004
[12]

Optimal quantum state tomography with local informationally complete measurements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07115, 2024

Casey Jameson, Zhen Qin, Alireza Goldar, Michael B Wakin, Zhihui Zhu, and Zhexuan Gong. Optimal quantum state tomography with local informationally complete measurements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07115, 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

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

2010
[14]

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

2010
[15]

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

2020
[16]

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

2012
[17]

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

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

2013 arXiv
[18]

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

2017
[19]

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

2020
[20]

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 Info...

2021
[21]

Optimal allocation of pauli measurements for low-rank quantum state tomography.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 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, 2026. 28

2026
[22]

Quantum state tomography for matrix product density operators.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 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, 2024

2024
[23]

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

2024
[24]

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

2025
[25]

Sketch tomography: Hybridizing classical shadow and matrix product state.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.03333, 2025

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

2025 arXiv
[26]

Learning mixed quantum states in large-scale experiments.Physical Review Letters, 136(9):090801, 2026

Matteo V otto, Marko Ljubotina, C´ecilia Lancien, J Ignacio Cirac, Peter Zoller, Maksym Serbyn, Lorenzo Piroli, and Benoˆıt Vermersch. Learning mixed quantum states in large-scale experiments.Physical Review Letters, 136(9):090801, 2026

2026
[27]

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

2026
[28]

Online riemannian gradient descent for quan- tum state tomography with matrix product operators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.04533, 2026

Jian-Feng Cai, Jingyang Li, Xiaoqun Zhang, and Yuanwei Zhang. Online riemannian gradient descent for quan- tum state tomography with matrix product operators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.04533, 2026

2026 arXiv
[29]

Statistical and algorithmic foundations of probing quantum systems with compressive measurements: A review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.27191, 2026

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

2026 arXiv
[30]

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
[31]

Robust quantum state tomography method for quantum sensing.Sensors, 22(7):2669, 2022

Ahmad Farooq, Uman Khalid, Junaid ur Rehman, and Hyundong Shin. Robust quantum state tomography method for quantum sensing.Sensors, 22(7):2669, 2022

2022
[32]

Optimal quantum state tomography with noisy gates.EPJ Quantum Technology, 10(1):1–23, 2023

Violeta N Ivanova-Rohling, Niklas Rohling, and Guido Burkard. Optimal quantum state tomography with noisy gates.EPJ Quantum Technology, 10(1):1–23, 2023

2023
[33]

Readout error mitigated quantum state tomography tested on superconducting qubits.Communications Physics, 7(1):301, 2024

Adrian Skasberg Aasen, Andras Di Giovanni, Hannes Rotzinger, Alexey V Ustinov, and Martin G¨arttner. Readout error mitigated quantum state tomography tested on superconducting qubits.Communications Physics, 7(1):301, 2024

2024
[34]

Quantum neural networks under depolarization noise: Exploring white-box attacks and defenses.Quantum Machine Intelligence, 6(2):83, 2024

David Winderl, Nicola Franco, and Jeanette Miriam Lorenz. Quantum neural networks under depolarization noise: Exploring white-box attacks and defenses.Quantum Machine Intelligence, 6(2):83, 2024

2024
[35]

Quantum network tomography.IEEE Network, 38(5):114–122, 2024

Matheus Guedes De Andrade, Jake Navas, Saikat Guha, In `es Monta˜no, Michael Raymer, Brian Smith, and Don Towsley. Quantum network tomography.IEEE Network, 38(5):114–122, 2024

2024
[36]

Noisy quantum learning theory.Nature Communications, 2026

Jordan Cotler, Weiyuan Gong, and Ishaan Kannan. Noisy quantum learning theory.Nature Communications, 2026

2026
[37]

Cambridge university press, 2010

Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang.Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

2010
[38]

Cambridge university press, 2013

Mark M Wilde.Quantum information theory. Cambridge university press, 2013

2013
[39]

Quantum computation and quantum information, 2002

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

2002
[40]

Cambridge University Press, 2005

Thomas A Severini.Elements of distribution theory, volume 17. Cambridge University Press, 2005

2005
[41]

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. 29

2018
[42]

Symmetries and entanglement of stabilizer states.Physical Review A, 101(6):062302, 2020

Matthias Englbrecht and Barbara Kraus. Symmetries and entanglement of stabilizer states.Physical Review A, 101(6):062302, 2020

2020
[43]

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

2003
[44]

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

2005
[45]

A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states.Annals of physics, 349:117–158, 2014

Rom ´an Or ´us. A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states.Annals of physics, 349:117–158, 2014

2014
[46]

Tensor networks for complex quantum systems.Nature Reviews Physics, 1(9):538–550, 2019

Rom ´an Or´us. Tensor networks for complex quantum systems.Nature Reviews Physics, 1(9):538–550, 2019

2019
[47]

A one-way quantum computer.Physical review letters, 86(22):5188, 2001

Robert Raussendorf and Hans J Briegel. A one-way quantum computer.Physical review letters, 86(22):5188, 2001

2001
[48]

Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons.Annals of physics, 303(1):2–30, 2003

A Yu Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons.Annals of physics, 303(1):2–30, 2003

2003
[49]

The resonating valence bond state in la2cuo4 and superconductivity.science, 235(4793):1196–1198, 1987

Philip W Anderson. The resonating valence bond state in la2cuo4 and superconductivity.science, 235(4793):1196–1198, 1987

1987
[50]

Valence bond ground states in isotropic quantum antiferromagnets.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 115(3):477–528, 1988

Ian Affleck, Tom Kennedy, Elliott H Lieb, and Hal Tasaki. Valence bond ground states in isotropic quantum antiferromagnets.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 115(3):477–528, 1988

1988
[51]

Affleck-kennedy-lieb-tasaki state on a honeycomb lattice is a universal quantum computational resource.Physical review letters, 106(7):070501, 2011

Tzu-Chieh Wei, Ian Affleck, and Robert Raussendorf. Affleck-kennedy-lieb-tasaki state on a honeycomb lattice is a universal quantum computational resource.Physical review letters, 106(7):070501, 2011

2011
[52]

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

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

2011
[53]

Projection onto a simplex.arXiv:1101.6081, 2011

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

2011 arXiv
[54]

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

2004
[55]

Deterministic preparation of dicke states

Andreas B ¨artschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. Deterministic preparation of dicke states. InInternational Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory, pages 126–139. Springer, 2019

2019
[56]

Distinguishability of quantum states under restricted families of measurements with an application to quantum data hiding.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 291:813–843, 2009

William Matthews, Stephanie Wehner, and Andreas Winter. Distinguishability of quantum states under restricted families of measurements with an application to quantum data hiding.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 291:813–843, 2009

2009
[57]

Evenly distributed unitaries: On the structure of unitary designs.Journal of mathematical physics, 48(5), 2007

David Gross, Koenraad Audenaert, and Jens Eisert. Evenly distributed unitaries: On the structure of unitary designs.Journal of mathematical physics, 48(5), 2007

2007
[58]

Exact and approximate unitary 2- designs and their application to fidelity estimation.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 80(1):012304, 2009

Christoph Dankert, Richard Cleve, Joseph Emerson, and Etera Livine. Exact and approximate unitary 2- designs and their application to fidelity estimation.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 80(1):012304, 2009

2009
[59]

Unitary designs and codes.Designs, codes and cryptography, 53:13–31, 2009

Aidan Roy and Andrew J Scott. Unitary designs and codes.Designs, codes and cryptography, 53:13–31, 2009

2009
[60]

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

2020
[61]

Fast low-rank estimation by projected gradient descent: General statisti- cal and algorithmic guarantees.arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.03025, 2015

Yudong Chen and Martin J Wainwright. Fast low-rank estimation by projected gradient descent: General statisti- cal and algorithmic guarantees.arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.03025, 2015

2015 arXiv
[62]

Learning model-based sparsity via projected gradient descent.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(4):2092–2099, 2016

Sohail Bahmani, Petros T Boufounos, and Bhiksha Raj. Learning model-based sparsity via projected gradient descent.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(4):2092–2099, 2016. 30

2016
[63]

Non-convex projected gradient descent for generalized low-rank tensor regression.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(5):1–37, 2019

Han Chen, Garvesh Raskutti, and Ming Yuan. Non-convex projected gradient descent for generalized low-rank tensor regression.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(5):1–37, 2019

2019
[64]

Structured factorization approaches for quantum state tomography.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.01608, 2026

Zhen Qin, Joseph M Lukens, Brian T Kirby, and Zhihui Zhu. Structured factorization approaches for quantum state tomography.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.01608, 2026

2026 arXiv
[65]

Guaranteed nonconvex factorization approach for tensor train recovery.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(383):1–48, 2024

Zhen Qin, Michael B Wakin, and Zhihui Zhu. Guaranteed nonconvex factorization approach for tensor train recovery.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(383):1–48, 2024

2024
[66]

A scalable factorization approach for high-order structured tensor recovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16032, 2025

Zhen Qin, Michael B Wakin, and Zhihui Zhu. A scalable factorization approach for high-order structured tensor recovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16032, 2025

2025 arXiv
[67]

Iterative hard thresholding for compressed sensing.Applied and computational harmonic analysis, 27(3):265–274, 2009

Thomas Blumensath and Mike E Davies. Iterative hard thresholding for compressed sensing.Applied and computational harmonic analysis, 27(3):265–274, 2009

2009
[68]

Pauli measurements are not optimal for single-copy tomography

Jayadev Acharya, Abhilash Dharmavarapu, Yuhan Liu, and Nengkun Yu. Pauli measurements are not optimal for single-copy tomography. InProceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 718–729, 2025

2025
[69]

Distinguishing multi-partite states by local measurements.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 323:555–573, 2013

C ´ecilia Lancien and Andreas Winter. Distinguishing multi-partite states by local measurements.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 323:555–573, 2013

2013
[70]

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

2009 arXiv
[71]

Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 77(1):012307, 2008

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.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 77(1):012307, 2008

2008
[72]

Mitigation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography.Quantum, 4:257, 2020

Filip B Maciejewski, Zolt ´an Zimbor´as, and Michał Oszmaniec. Mitigation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography.Quantum, 4:257, 2020

2020
[73]

Quantum error correction against correlated noise.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 69(6):062313, 2004

James P Clemens, Shabnam Siddiqui, and Julio Gea-Banacloche. Quantum error correction against correlated noise.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 69(6):062313, 2004

2004
[74]

Tight oracle inequalities for low-rank matrix recovery from a minimal number of noisy random measurements.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 57(4):2342–2359, 2011

Emmanuel J Candes and Yaniv Plan. Tight oracle inequalities for low-rank matrix recovery from a minimal number of noisy random measurements.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 57(4):2342–2359, 2011

2011
[75]

On the role of sparsity in compressed sensing and random matrix theory

Roman Vershynin. On the role of sparsity in compressed sensing and random matrix theory. In2009 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP), pages 189–192. IEEE, 2009

2009
[76]

On manifolds of tensors of fixed tt-rank.Nu- merische Mathematik, 120(4):701–731, 2012

Sebastian Holtz, Thorsten Rohwedder, and Reinhold Schneider. On manifolds of tensors of fixed tt-rank.Nu- merische Mathematik, 120(4):701–731, 2012

2012
[77]

Tensor svd: Statistical and computational limits.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 64(11):7311–7338, 2018

Anru Zhang and Dong Xia. Tensor svd: Statistical and computational limits.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 64(11):7311–7338, 2018

2018
[78]

No spurious local minima in nonconvex low rank problems: A unified geometric analysis

Rong Ge, Chi Jin, and Yi Zheng. No spurious local minima in nonconvex low rank problems: A unified geometric analysis. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 1233–1242. PMLR, 2017

2017
[79]

Strong bound between trace distance and hilbert-schmidt distance for low-rank states.Physical Review A, 100(2):022103, 2019

Patrick J Coles, M Cerezo, and Lukasz Cincio. Strong bound between trace distance and hilbert-schmidt distance for low-rank states.Physical Review A, 100(2):022103, 2019. 31

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A tomographic approach to wigner’s function.Foundations of Physics, 17(4):397–405, 1987

Jacqueline Bertrand and Pierre Bertrand. A tomographic approach to wigner’s function.Foundations of Physics, 17(4):397–405, 1987. 27

work page 1987

[2] [2]

Determination of quasiprobability distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase.Physical Review A, 40(5):2847, 1989

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

work page 1989

[3] [3]

Quantum-state tomography and discrete wigner function.Physical review letters, 74(21):4101, 1995

Ulf Leonhardt. Quantum-state tomography and discrete wigner function.Physical review letters, 74(21):4101, 1995

work page 1995

[4] [4]

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

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

work page 1997

[5] [5]

Measurement of qubits.Physical Review A, 64(5):052312, 2001

Daniel FV James, Paul G Kwiat, William J Munro, and Andrew G White. Measurement of qubits.Physical Review A, 64(5):052312, 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

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

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

2019