Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 38 references

Optimal fidelity estimation when one state is pure via algorithmic Uhlmann transform

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read When at least one of two quantum states is pure, their Uhlmann fidelity can be estimated to additive error ε with Θ(1/ε) queries and Θ(1/ε²) samples, without knowing which state is pure.

desk verdict A short, correct paper that closes a small but real gap in fidelity estimation complexity, with the main identity cleanly derived; the only load-bearing external lemma checks out. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10674 v1 pith:3RLIOXCC submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph cs.DScs.ITmath.IT

Yupan Liu , Qisheng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.DScs.ITmath.IT MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords Uhlmannfidelityquantumstateestimationpurifiedqueryaccesscrossoperatorsquare-rootamplitudecomplexitysamplepure
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

This paper proves that estimating the Uhlmann fidelity F(ρ0,ρ1) between two unknown n-qubit quantum states requires Θ(1/ε) queries and Θ(1/ε²) samples when at least one of the states is pure, and that this optimal performance is achievable without knowing in advance which state is pure. The previous optimal estimator of Fang and Wang required the user to know which side was pure; removing that requirement is the paper's contribution. The key reduction is an identity: F(ρ0,ρ1) equals the larger of two square-root amplitudes, obtained by applying the Uhlmann cross operator X=tr_A(|ψ0⟩⟨ψ1|) (or its adjoint) to one of the two purifications. Because these amplitudes can be estimated with O(1/ε) queries using quantum amplitude estimation, the estimator matches the lower bound and quadratically improves the O(1/ε²)-query SWAP-test-based baseline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Uhlmann cross operator $X=\operatorname{tr}_A(|\psi_0\rangle\langle\psi_1|)$, which becomes rank-one when one of the two states is pure, with operator norm equal to the fidelity. It is implemented through the unitary dilation $W=Q_1^\dagger(\mathbb{I}_A\otimes\mathrm{SWAP}_{R,S})Q_0$, whose zero block is exactly $X$, so each of the two quantities $a_0,a_1$ is a square-root amplitude of a simple circuit. Square-root amplitude estimation then estimates each amplitude to $\varepsilon$ at cost $O(1/\varepsilon)$, and the identity $F=\max\{a_0,a_1\}$ turns the two estimates into a fidelity estimate.

What would settle it

On a two-qubit example, e.g. ρ0=|0⟩⟨0| and ρ1=(1−λ)|0⟩⟨0|+λ|1⟩⟨1|, implement U0 and U1 from Eq. (8) and count queries until the estimate is within ε of √(1−λ); query growth beyond O(1/ε) would falsify Theorem 3.3, and a direct projection of W|0⟩ onto |0⟩ comparing with tr_A(|ψ0⟩⟨ψ1|) would test the dilation identity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, under the sole promise that at least one of the two states is pure, the Uhlmann fidelity admits the alternative expression $F(\rho_0,\rho_1)=\max\{a_0,a_1\}$, where $a_1=\lVert(\mathbb{I}_A\otimes X_S)|\psi_1\rangle\rVert$ and $a_0=\lVert(\mathbb{I}_A\otimes X_S^\dagger)|\psi_0\rangle\rVert$, with $X=\operatorname{tr}_A(|\psi_0\rangle\langle\psi_1|)$ the Uhlmann cross operator and $|\psi_0\rangle,|\psi_1\rangle$ the purifications prepared by the state-preparation circuits. Because a purification of a pure state factorizes, $X$ has rank at most one and $\lVert X\rVert=F(\rho_0,\rho_1)$, which makes the max of the two amplitudes equal to the fidelity. The estimator constructs the explicit unitary dilation $W=Q_1^\dagger(\mathbb{I}_A\otimes \mathrm{SWAP}_{R,S})Q_0$ whose zero block is $X$, estimates $a_0$ and $a_1$ to additive error $\varepsilon$ with $O(1/\varepsilon)$ queries using square-root amplitude estimation, and returns their maximum. This yields query complexity $\Theta(1/\varepsilon)$, and applying quantum sample-to-query lifting gives sample complexity $\Theta(1/\varepsilon^2)$; both match lower bounds and neither requires knowing which state is pure.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction depends on a previously established fact about quantum circuits: the swap-based circuit built from the two purification circuits has, in its zero block, exactly the partial trace that defines the Uhlmann cross operator; the paper cites this fact without reproving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The optimal query complexity for one-pure-state fidelity estimation is Θ(1/ε) even when the pure side is unknown, matching the known-which-side-is-pure case.
  • The optimal sample complexity is Θ(1/ε²), obtained by sample-to-query lifting, so the no-prior-knowledge estimator matches the known-side sample complexity.
  • Compared with the SWAP-test-based estimator that works without prior knowledge, query complexity improves from O(1/ε²) to Θ(1/ε) and sample complexity from O(1/ε⁴) to Θ(1/ε²).
  • Because the estimator uses purified query access, it also works in settings where copies are replaced by state-preparation circuits with controlled inverses; the same circuit construction implements both U0 and U1.
  • The lower bound is inherited from pure-state fidelity estimation, so the result is tight in the constant-error regime ε<1/4.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The max-of-two-amplitudes identity is a rank-one phenomenon: if the promise were relaxed to 'one state has rank at most k', the cross operator would have rank at most k and its norm might be estimated by a low-rank variant of amplitude estimation; the paper does not explore this.
  • The construction suggests a general recipe for other Uhlmann-type quantities: express the target as the operator norm of a low-rank cross operator between two purifications, implement a dilation of that operator, estimate the two induced amplitudes, and take the max.
  • Because the paper relies on a prior dilation lemma rather than proving it, a direct numerical check of Eq. (5) on a small system would be a quick way to gain confidence in the estimator's correctness.
  • The estimator's accuracy degrades only through the sub-dominant singular values of X when neither state is exactly pure; quantifying that robustness could extend the result to 'near-pure' promises, which is not analyzed here.
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.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers the problem of estimating the Uhlmann fidelity F(ρ0, ρ1) under the promise that at least one of the two states is pure, with no prior knowledge of which state is pure. The main contribution is Theorem 3.3, a quantum estimator with purified query access that achieves additive-error ε using O(1/ε) queries, matching an Ω(1/ε) lower bound, and Corollary 3.4, which gives sample complexity Θ(1/ε²) via quantum sample-to-query lifting. The technical core is Proposition 3.2, which expresses the fidelity as F = max{a0, a1}, where a0 and a1 are norms of states obtained by applying a unitary dilation of the Uhlmann cross operator X = tr_A(|ψ0⟩⟨ψ1|) to the respective purifications. The proof uses Uhlmann's theorem, a rank-one simplification of the Uhlmann transform when one state is pure, and a unitary-dilation identity (Eq. (5)) cited from prior work.

Significance. If the result holds, it removes the prior-knowledge requirement in one-pure-state fidelity estimation and achieves the same optimal query and sample complexities as the known-pure-side setting. This is a clean and natural closing of a gap in the fidelity-estimation literature. The estimator is explicit, the lower bounds transfer from prior work, and the proof of the central identity is short and verifiable. The paper is likely to be useful to researchers in quantum algorithms and quantum state discrimination, and it demonstrates a nice application of the algorithmic Uhlmann transform. The main caveat is that the key unitary-dilation identity is imported rather than proved, but the cited sources are appropriate and the identity is directly checkable.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (5)] The identity (⟨0|_{AR} ⊗ I_S) W (|0⟩_{AR} ⊗ I_S) = tr_A(|ψ0⟩⟨ψ1|) is load-bearing for Proposition 3.2 and Theorem 3.3, but it is only cited to [UNWT25, Section 5.1] and [LLW26a, Lemma 4.8], not proved. A short proof sketch in an appendix or a footnote would make the paper substantially more self-contained; the calculation is straightforward and confirms the cited result.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (4) and Section 3.2, Eq. (8)] The register conventions are confusing: Eq. (4) uses R as the reference register for both Q0 and Q1, while Eq. (8) applies Q1 to A,S and W to A′,R′,S′. Please clarify that S plays the role of the reference register in the circuits U1 and U0 and state explicitly that dim(S) = dim(R) so that the SWAP operation is well-defined.
  3. [Section 3.2, Proposition 3.2, Eq. (9)] The notation in Eq. (9) is terse; writing the unnormalized states explicitly, e.g., |bι1⟩ = (I_A ⊗ X)|ψ1⟩_{AS}, would help the reader connect Eq. (9) to the discussion in Section 1.2 and to Lemma 3.1.
  4. [Theorem 3.3, proof of lower bound] The sentence 'the matching lower bound follows immediately from [Wan24, Theorem V.4]' should be expanded: the authors should state that any estimator for the unknown-pure-side problem also solves the known-pure-side subproblem, and therefore the Ω(1/ε) query lower bound from [Wan24] applies.
  5. [Section 2 (Preliminaries)] The term 'purified query access' is used throughout but never formally defined. A precise definition (including the allowed controlled and inverse accesses to the state-preparation circuits) should be added to the preliminaries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central identity is derived, not fitted, and the cited dilation lemma is parameter-free external support.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Proposition 3.2, derives F(ρ0,ρ1) = max{a0,a1} from Lemma 3.1 and the unitary dilation identity Eq. (5). The quantities a0 and a1 are explicitly defined amplitudes, not fitted parameters, and the proof shows directly that at least one of them equals F depending on which input is pure. The only imported external statement is Eq. (5), the zero-block identity for W = Q1†(I_A ⊗ SWAP_{R,S}) Q0, cited to [UNWT25, Section 5.1] and [LLW26a, Lemma 4.8]. Although those references involve the present authors, the identity is parameter-free, checkable by direct computation, and is not equivalent to the target fidelity result: it gives the Uhlmann cross operator as a partial trace of a purification overlap, which is a standard mathematical fact independent of the estimation theorem. The lower bounds are inherited from prior pure-state results, which is legitimate transfer of known lower bounds rather than circularity. Consequently, no step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input, and there is no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a theoretical algorithm with no free parameters, no data fitting, and no invented entities. Its correctness depends on standard quantum information lemmas from prior works, most importantly a unitary dilation lemma from UNWT25 (which shares an author with this paper) and amplitude estimation from Wan24. These are parameter-free mathematical results with stated assumptions in the cited works.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Unitary dilation of the Uhlmann cross operator: W = Q1†(I_A ⊗ SWAP_{R,S}) Q0 has zero block X = tr_A(|ψ0⟩⟨ψ1|).
    Used at Eqs. (4)-(5) and in Proposition 3.2; cited to [UNWT25, Section 5.1] and [LLW26a, Lemma 4.8]. The algorithm's amplitudes a0 and a1, and hence the max identity, depend on this identity. It is not reproved in this paper.
  • domain assumption Square-root amplitude estimation (Lemma 2.1, from [Wan24, Theorem III.4]): the amplitude a = ||ΠU|0⟩|| can be estimated to additive error ε with O(1/ε) queries.
    Used to estimate a0 and a1 in Algorithm 1. Quoted without proof.
  • domain assumption Quantum sample-to-query lifting (Lemma 2.2, from [TWZ26, Theorem 1.5]): a q-query algorithm can be simulated using O(q²) samples.
    Converts the query-optimal upper bound of Theorem 3.3 into the sample-optimal upper bound of Corollary 3.4. The lemma assumes a fixed constant number of unknown states, which is satisfied here.
  • domain assumption Pure-state query and sample lower bounds from [Wan24, Theorems V.4 and B.4]: fidelity estimation between two pure states requires Ω(1/ε) queries and Ω(1/ε²) samples.
    Used to claim the matching lower bounds in Theorem 3.3 and Corollary 3.4. These lower bounds apply because the pure-pure case is a special case of the one-pure promise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal fidelity estimation when one state is pure via algorithmic Uhlmann transform." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3RLIOXCC

@misc{pith2026260810674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal fidelity estimation when one state is pure via algorithmic Uhlmann transform},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3RLIOXCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10674}
}
abstract

The Uhlmann fidelity ${\rm F}(\rho_0,\rho_1) = {\rm tr}|\sqrt{\rho_0}\sqrt{\rho_1}|$ is one of the most fundamental quantities in quantum information theory for quantifying the closeness between two quantum states. Estimating the Uhlmann fidelity to within additive error $\varepsilon$ requires a number of copies of the states, or queries to their state-preparation circuits, that depends at least linearly on the smaller of the ranks of $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$. Consequently, this rank dependence disappears when either state is pure, in which case the query and sample complexities depend only polynomially on $1/\varepsilon$. However, the known optimal estimator for ${\rm F}(\rho,|\psi\rangle\!\langle\psi|)$ due to Fang and Wang (ESA 2025) requires prior knowledge of which state is pure. In this work, we remove this mathematically unnecessary prior-knowledge requirement and establish an optimal estimator for ${\rm F}(\rho, |\psi\rangle\!\langle\psi|)$ under the sole promise that one of the two states is pure, without knowing which one. Our estimator is obtained by specializing the refined algorithmic Uhlmann transform of Utsumi, Nakata, Wang, and Takagi (2025) to the case where one state is pure. In this setting, the Uhlmann fidelity can be recovered as follows: apply a unitary dilation of ${\rm tr}_{\sf A}(|\psi_0\rangle\!\langle\psi_1|)$ (or its inverse) to the reference register $\sf R$ of the purification $|\psi_1\rangle$ (or $|\psi_0\rangle$) on the registers $\sf A$ and $\sf R$, estimate the corresponding square-root amplitude in each case, and take the maximum of the resulting two estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10674 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Uhlmann cross operator X and the zero block of its unitary dilation W. 2 Preliminaries We assume basic knowledge of quantum computation and quantum information theory. For an introduction, we refer the reader to the textbook [NC10]. Throughout the paper, we use the following notation: (1) Oe(f) denotes O(f polylog(f)), while Ω( e f) denotes Ω(f / polylog(f)); (2) |¯0⟩ denotes |0⟩ ⊗a for an integer a > 1; (3) we adop… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum circuit U1. |¯0⟩ |¯0⟩ |¯0⟩ |¯0⟩ Q0 Q1 SWAP Q † 0 W† A S R ′ A′ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels

    Charles H Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Sandu Popescu, Benjamin Schumacher, John A Smolin, and William K Wootters. Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels. Physical review letters , 76(5):722, 1996. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9511027 arXiv:quant-ph/9511027 , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.722 doi:10.1103/Ph...

    arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    Quantum fingerprinting

    Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, John Watrous, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum fingerprinting. Physical Review Letters , 87(16):167902, 2001. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102001 arXiv:quant-ph/0102001 , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.167902 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.167902

    arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    Unitary complexity and the Uhlmann transformation problem

    John Bostanci, Yuval Efron, Tony Metger, Alexander Poremba, Luowen Qian, and Henry Yuen. Unitary complexity and the Uhlmann transformation problem. In Proceedings of the 17th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference ( ITCS 2026) , volume 362 of LIPIcs , pages 24:1--24:17. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum f \" u r Informatik, 2026. https://...

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation

    Gilles Brassard, Peter H yer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. In Samuel J. Lomonaco, Jr. and Howard E. Brandt, editors, Quantum Computation and Information , volume 305 of Contemporary Mathematics , pages 53--74. AMS, 2002. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0005055 arXiv:quant-ph/0005055 , https://doi.org/10.109...

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    Local transformations of bipartite entanglement are rigid

    John Bostanci, Tony Metger, and Henry Yuen. Local transformations of bipartite entanglement are rigid. In Proceedings of the 17th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2026) , volume 362 of LIPIcs , pages 26:1--26:8. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum f \" u r Informatik, 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05257 arXiv:2509.05257 , htt...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    A list of complexity bounds for property testing by quantum sample-to-query lifting, 2025

    Kean Chen, Qisheng Wang, and Zhicheng Zhang. A list of complexity bounds for property testing by quantum sample-to-query lifting, 2025. ArXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01971 arXiv:2512.01971

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Fuchs and Jeroen Graaf v an de Graaf

    Christopher A. Fuchs and Jeroen Graaf v an de Graaf. Cryptographic distinguishability measures for quantum-mechanical states. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 45(4):1216--1227, 1999. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9712042 arXiv:quant-ph/9712042 , https://doi.org/10.1109/18.761271 doi:10.1109/18.761271

    arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    Quantum conditional mutual information and approximate markov chains

    Omar Fawzi and Renato Renner. Quantum conditional mutual information and approximate markov chains. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 340(2):575--611, 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0664 arXiv:1410.0664 , https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-015-2466-x doi:10.1007/s00220-015-2466-x

    arXiv 2015

Show all 38 references
  1. [10]

    Query-optimal and sample-optimal quantum algorithms for estimating fidelity to a pure state

    Wang Fang and Qisheng Wang. Query-optimal and sample-optimal quantum algorithms for estimating fidelity to a pure state. ArXiv preprint, 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23650v2 arXiv:2506.23650v2

    2026 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Improved quantum algorithms for fidelity estimation

    Andr\' a s Gily\' e n and Alexander Poremba. Improved quantum algorithms for fidelity estimation. ArXiv e-prints, 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.15993 arXiv:2203.15993

    2022 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics

    Andr \'a s Gily \'e n, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 193--204, 2019. htt...

    2019

  4. [13]

    General teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistillation

    Micha Horodecki, Pawe Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki. General teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistillation. Physical Review A , 60(3):1888, 1999. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9807091 arXiv:quant-ph/9807091 , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.60.1888 doi:10...

    1999 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Fidelity for mixed quantum states

    Richard Jozsa. Fidelity for mixed quantum states. Journal of modern optics , 41(12):2315--2323, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500349414552171 doi:10.1080/09500349414552171

    1994 doi

  6. [15]

    Universal recovery maps and approximate sufficiency of quantum relative entropy

    Marius Junge, Renato Renner, David Sutter, Mark M Wilde, and Andreas Winter. Universal recovery maps and approximate sufficiency of quantum relative entropy. In Annales Henri Poincar \'e , volume 19, pages 2955--2978. Springer, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.07127 arXiv:1509...

    2018 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Parallelization, amplification, and exponential time simulation of quantum interactive proof systems

    Alexei Kitaev and John Watrous. Parallelization, amplification, and exponential time simulation of quantum interactive proof systems. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 608--617, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1145/335305.335387 doi:10.114...

  8. [17]

    The sample complexity of fidelity estimation to a known rank- r reference state is (r^2/ ^2)

    Gye Jin Lee and Sunghyeon Jo. The sample complexity of fidelity estimation to a known rank- r reference state is (r^2/ ^2) . ArXiv preprint, 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01770 arXiv:2608.01770

    2026 arXiv

  9. [18]

    A slightly improved upper bound for quantum statistical zero-knowledge

    Fran c ois Le Gall , Yupan Liu, and Qisheng Wang. A slightly improved upper bound for quantum statistical zero-knowledge. In Proceedings of the 51st International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science ( MFCS 2026) , volume 386 of LIPIcs , pages 12:1--12:20....

    2026 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Space-bounded quantum state testing via space-efficient quantum singular value transformation

    Fran c ois Le Gall , Yupan Liu, and Qisheng Wang. Space-bounded quantum state testing via space-efficient quantum singular value transformation. To appear in computational complexity , 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00037-025-00284-5 doi:10.1007/s00037-025-00284-5

    2026 doi

  11. [20]

    Random dimension reduction and learning symmetric properties of quantum states

    Angus Lowe and Xinyu Tan. Random dimension reduction and learning symmetric properties of quantum states. ArXiv preprints, 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23592 arXiv:2606.23592

    2026 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible

    Dominic Mayers. Unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible. Physical review letters , 78(17):3414, 1997. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605044 arXiv:quant-ph/9605044 , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.3414 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.3414

    1997 arXiv

  13. [22]

    stateQIP = statePSPACE

    Tony Metger and Henry Yuen. stateQIP = statePSPACE . In Proceedings of the 64th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages 1349--1356. IEEE , 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07730 arXiv:2301.07730 , https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS57990.2023.00082 doi:10.110...

    2023 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information . Cambridge University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976667

    2010 doi

  15. [24]

    Sending entanglement through noisy quantum channels

    Benjamin Schumacher. Sending entanglement through noisy quantum channels. Physical Review A , 54(4):2614, 1996. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9604023 arXiv:quant-ph/9604023 , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.2614 doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.54.2614

    1996 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol

    Peter W Shor and John Preskill. Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol. Physical review letters , 85(2):441, 2000. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003004 arXiv:quant-ph/0003004 , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.441 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.441

    arXiv

  17. [26]

    Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptography

    Marco Tomamichel, Charles Ci Wen Lim, Nicolas Gisin, and Renato Renner. Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptography. Nature communications , 3(1):634, 2012. https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4130 arXiv:1103.4130 , https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1631 doi:10.1038/ncomms1631

    2012 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Quantum oracles, weak and strong

    Ewin Tang, John Wright, and Mark Zhandry. Quantum oracles, weak and strong. To appear in the Proceedings of the 67th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07622 arXiv:2510.07622

    2026 arXiv

  19. [28]

    The ``transition probability'' in the state space of A^* -algebra

    Armin Uhlmann. The ``transition probability'' in the state space of A^* -algebra. Reports on Mathematical Physics , 9(2):273--279, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4877(76)90060-4 doi:10.1016/0034-4877(76)90060-4

    1976 doi

  20. [29]

    Quantum algorithms for Uhlmann transformation

    Takeru Utsumi, Yoshifumi Nakata, Qisheng Wang, and Ryuji Takagi. Quantum algorithms for Uhlmann transformation. ArXiv preprint, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.03619 arXiv:2509.03619

    2025

  21. [30]

    Optimal trace distance and fidelity estimations for pure quantum states

    Qisheng Wang. Optimal trace distance and fidelity estimations for pure quantum states. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 70(12):8791--8805, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.16655 arXiv:2408.16655 , https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2024.3447915 doi:10.1109/TIT.2024.3447915

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Estimating fidelity to a reference quantum state

    Qisheng Wang. Estimating fidelity to a reference quantum state. ArXiv preprint, 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.26034 arXiv:2606.26034

    2026 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Nearly tight lower bounds for estimating quantum functionals: Uhlmann fidelity, trace distance, and von Neumann entropy

    Qisheng Wang. Nearly tight lower bounds for estimating quantum functionals: Uhlmann fidelity, trace distance, and von Neumann entropy. ArXiv e-prints, 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02600 arXiv:2608.02600

    2026 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Limits on the power of quantum statistical zero-knowledge

    John Watrous. Limits on the power of quantum statistical zero-knowledge. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages 459--468. IEEE, 2002. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0202111 arXiv:quant-ph/0202111 , https://doi.org/10.1109/SF...

    2002 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Zero-knowledge against quantum attacks

    John Watrous. Zero-knowledge against quantum attacks. SIAM Journal on Computing , 39(1):25--58, 2009. STOC 2006 . https://doi.org/10.1137/060670997 doi:10.1137/060670997

    2009 doi

  26. [35]

    New quantum algorithms for computing quantum entropies and distances

    Qisheng Wang, Ji Guan, Junyi Liu, Zhicheng Zhang, and Mingsheng Ying. New quantum algorithms for computing quantum entropies and distances. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 70(8):5653--5680, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.13522 arXiv:2203.13522 , https://doi.org/10....

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Quantum lower bounds by sample-to-query lifting

    Qisheng Wang and Zhicheng Zhang. Quantum lower bounds by sample-to-query lifting. SIAM Journal on Computing , 54(5):1294--1334, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01794 arXiv:2308.01794 , https://doi.org/10.1137/24M1638616 doi:10.1137/24M1638616

    2025

  28. [37]

    Time-efficient quantum entropy estimator via samplizer

    Qisheng Wang and Zhicheng Zhang. Time-efficient quantum entropy estimator via samplizer. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 71(12):9569--9599, 2025. ESA 2024 . https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.09947 arXiv:2401.09947 , https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2025.3576137 doi:10.1109/TIT.2...

    2025

  29. [38]

    Sample-optimal quantum estimators for pure-state trace distance and fidelity via samplizer

    Qisheng Wang and Zhicheng Zhang. Sample-optimal quantum estimators for pure-state trace distance and fidelity via samplizer. In Proceedings of the 53rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming , pages 154:1--154:21, 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.2120...

    2026 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Quantum algorithm for fidelity estimation

    Qisheng Wang, Zhicheng Zhang, Kean Chen, Ji Guan, Wang Fang, Junyi Liu, and Mingsheng Ying. Quantum algorithm for fidelity estimation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 69(1):273--282, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.09076 arXiv:2103.09076 , https://doi.org/10.1109/TI...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.