Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Pauli Measurements Are Near-Optimal for Single-Qubit Tomography

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Any adaptive single-qubit measurement scheme needs $\Omega(10^N/(\sqrt{N}\varepsilon^2))$ copies to learn an $N$-qubit state, making Pauli measurements near-optimal.

desk verdict Clever hard-instance construction, but the constants as written are internally inconsistent, so the lower bound does not yet follow; still deserves serious review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22001 v1 pith:2ZKQ2Q5N submitted 2025-07-29 quant-ph cs.CC

Jayadev Acharya , Abhilash Dharmavarapu , Yuhan Liu , Nengkun Yu This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.CC MSC 81P6881P15
keywords quantumstatetomographysingle-qubitmeasurementsPaulicopycomplexitylowerboundmeasurementinformationchanneltracedistanceadaptivity
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

The paper answers a long-standing question: how many copies of an unknown $N$-qubit state are needed to learn it when each measurement touches only one qubit at a time? It proves a lower bound of $\Omega(10^N/(\sqrt{N}\varepsilon^2))$ copies for every adaptive single-qubit measurement scheme, matching the known Pauli-measurement upper bound $O(10^N/\varepsilon^2)$ up to a $\sqrt{N}$ factor. The result nearly settles the copy complexity of single-qubit tomography and shows Pauli measurements are near-optimal among all single-qubit schemes. The proof's crucial step is a hard-case construction using far fewer than the ambient $d^2$ degrees of freedom—only high-weight Pauli directions—combined with a mutual-information bound for arbitrary single-qubit POVMs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the measurement information channel (MIC) of a single-qubit measurement, the super-operator $C_M = \sum_x |M_x\rangle\!\rangle\langle\!\langle M_x| / \operatorname{Tr}[M_x]$ that records how much state information survives a measurement when the outcome is discarded. The paper proves a spectral bound for arbitrary single-qubit POVMs: summing this channel over the high-weight Pauli observables used in the hard case gives at most $\sum_{m=\lceil 9N/10\rceil}^{N} \binom{N}{m}$, the same bound that Pauli measurements achieve. That bound, fed into the mutual-information upper bound and a trace-distance/Hamming-separation lower bound, yields the copy complexity.

What would settle it

Evaluate the constants in the matrix concentration theorem used for Theorem 5.2: if no choice with $c \le 1/200$ satisfies $4C/c \le 0.41$, the Section 5 construction cannot be both valid and $\varepsilon$-far, so Theorem 1.1 lacks a hard case. Alternatively, a single-qubit measurement scheme that learns $N$-qubit states to error $\varepsilon$ with $o(10^N/(\sqrt{N}\varepsilon^2))$ copies would refute the lower bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for any adaptive single-qubit measurement scheme, estimating an $N$-qubit state $\rho$ to trace distance $\varepsilon$ with probability at least $0.9$ requires $n = \Omega(10^N/(\sqrt{N}\varepsilon^2))$ copies. Combined with the known Pauli upper bound, this means the copy complexity of all single-qubit measurements is $\widetilde{\Theta}(10^N/\varepsilon^2)$, so Pauli measurements are near-optimal. The paper establishes the bound by constructing a hard family of states that perturb the maximally mixed state along $\ell = o(d^2)$ Pauli directions of weight at least $9N/10$, and by proving that any single-qubit measurement scheme's information channel cannot extract information along these directions faster than a combinatorial term that scales like $10^N/\sqrt{N}$.

Load-bearing premise

The hard-case states in Section 5 must be valid quantum states that are $\varepsilon$-far from the maximally mixed state, which requires the concentration constant $C$ and the perturbation constant $c$ to satisfy $4C/c \le 0.41$; the paper asserts $c \le 1/200$ but does not prove it is compatible with $C$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pauli measurements are within a $\sqrt{N}$ factor of the best possible single-qubit measurement scheme, so the most experiment-friendly strategy is also essentially optimal.
  • Adaptivity does not help: the lower bound holds for adaptive schemes, so no adaptive single-qubit algorithm can beat the $10^N$ barrier.
  • The copy complexity of single-qubit tomography is separated from single-copy unentangled measurements ($\Theta(8^N/\varepsilon^2)$) and entangled measurements ($\Theta(4^N/\varepsilon^2)$), so restricting to one-qubit-at-a-time measurements is provably costly.
  • Any future claim of a faster single-qubit scheme must confront the same $10^N$ barrier.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 'less is more' construction suggests that other restricted measurement models may admit subdimensional hard instances, potentially simplifying lower-bound proofs for other tomography settings.
  • If the constants in Theorem 5.2 can be made explicit and compatible, the $\sqrt{N}$ gap to the Pauli upper bound could be closed, giving the exact constant $10^N$.
  • The mutual-information/MIC spectral technique may transfer to classical distributed-estimation problems with per-coordinate information constraints, since the POVM parametrization resembles convex information constraints.
  • One testable extension is to numerically verify the concentration constants for finite $N$; if the hard-case condition fails at modest $N$, the practical regime of the lower bound may begin later than the asymptotic statement suggests.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims the first non-trivial lower bound for tomography with arbitrary single-qubit POVMs, showing that any adaptive scheme needs Ω(10^N/(√N ε²)) copies to learn an N-qubit state to trace distance ε. The proof combines a hard ensemble that perturbs the maximally mixed state along high-weight Pauli directions (only ℓ≈o(d²) degrees of freedom), a matrix-concentration argument for validity and separation, and mutual-information bounds computed through the measurement information channel (MIC). Combined with the known O(10^N/ε²) Pauli upper bound, this would establish near-optimality of Pauli measurements.

Significance. If the proof can be completed, this is an important result: it nearly settles the copy complexity of single-qubit tomography, shows that adaptivity cannot improve the rate, and introduces a novel 'less is more' hard-instance construction with sub-extensive degrees of freedom. The use of the MIC to handle the uncountable family of single-qubit POVMs is elegant, and the combinatorial identity 10 = 1 + 3² together with the weight-threshold argument is genuinely illuminating. The paper is a serious theory contribution. However, as submitted, the hard-instance constants are internally inconsistent, and the main theorem is not fully supported by the given proof.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Theorem 5.2 and Definition 5.1] The claimed simultaneous validity and ε-farness of the hard ensemble is not established. From the proof's own bounds, ∥W∥_op ≤ C√(ℓ/d) and ∥W∥_F² = ℓ, Hölder's inequality gives ∥σ_z − ρ_mm∥_1 = (cε/√(dℓ)) ∥W∥_1 ≥ (cε/√(dℓ)) · ℓ / ∥W∥_op ≥ cε/C. With c ≤ 1/200 and any realistic universal constant C ≥ 1, this lower bound is at most ε/200, not ε; to get distance ≥ ε one needs c ≥ C. In addition, validity of σ_z requires ∥Δ_z∥_op ≤ 1/(2d), which by the same bound is cεC/d ≤ 1/(2d), i.e. ε ≤ 1/(2cC). This ε-restriction is absent from Theorem 1.1. Thus the hard construction does not support the lower bound as stated.
  2. [Lemma 6.2, Eq. (14)] The mutual-information lower bound requires 4C/c + Pr[z ∉ G] ≤ 0.41, i.e. c ≳ 9.76C. This directly contradicts the c ≤ 1/200 given in Theorem 5.2. The sentence 'for large enough d and c' does not resolve the issue, because c and C are universal constants and the constant from Theorem 5.3 cannot be taken to be as small as 5×10^{-4}. The authors need to exhibit explicit compatible choices of c and C and verify that the validity, ε-farness, and Hamming-separation inequalities hold simultaneously.
  3. [Lemma 6.3, Eq. (13)] The step 'Cz = 1 since ∥Wz∥_op ≤ C√(ℓ/d) ≤ C√d' is not a valid inference. The clipping factor in Definition 5.1 is 1 only when 1/(2d∥Δ_z∥_op) ≥ 1, which is equivalent to cεC ≤ 1/2. Without proving this for every z ∈ G, the linear relation between trace distance and Hamming distance in Eq. (13) is not established, and the subsequent proof of Lemma 6.2 inherits this gap.
  4. [Theorem 1.1] Even after fixing the constant c, the positivity constraint imposes ε ≤ 1/(2cC), so the hard-instance argument can at best yield the lower bound for small ε. The paper does not state this restriction, nor does it provide a reduction showing that the lower bound for small ε implies the claimed lower bound for all ε > 0. Since sample-complexity lower bounds do not automatically extend from small to large accuracy parameters, Theorem 1.1 as stated is not supported for the full parameter range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Theorem 5.2] The stated failure probability '1 − exp(−d)' for the operator-norm bound does not match the proof, which applies Theorem 5.3 with t = ℓ^{1/4} and would give a failure probability of order d exp(−ℓ^{1/4}); the two probability statements should be reconciled.
  2. [Section 6.3] The display containing '20.1N log 10+0.9N log 10/9' appears to be a typo: it should read 2^{N(0.1 log₂ 10 + 0.9 log₂(10/9))} (base-2 logarithms) in order to yield the claimed 10^N in the denominator.
  3. [Section 6.2] The POVM parameterization uses β_{i,o}^σ in the constraints but β_{i,o,σ} in the MIC formula; please make the notation consistent. Also, the statement 'assuming β_I = 1' should be derived from the normalization of M_i^o rather than introduced as an assumption.
  4. [General] There are several proofreading issues, e.g. 'total-variantion' in Section 3.2, and inconsistent use of 'M' versus 'M_n' for measurement schemes. A careful pass would improve readability.
  5. [Theorem 6.1] Theorem 6.1 is cited from prior work without proof; since it is load-bearing, please state explicitly that it applies to adaptive measurement schemes and to the clipped distribution D_{ℓ,c}(V) appearing in Definition 5.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the lower bound is derived from counting, matrix concentration, and a cited prior theorem whose assumptions do not include the target claim.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The 10^N rate is not inserted by assumption: it emerges in Section 6.3 from the counting identity 3^{0.9N}2^{H(0.1)N} ≈ 10^N after substituting the chosen ℓ and the spectral bound on the measurement information channel. The ε-far property of the hard instance is asserted via the external matrix-concentration theorem from [BBvH23], not by definition or by fitting c to a data subset. The paper's heavy use of [ADLY25] is a normal mathematical dependency: Theorem 6.1 is quoted as a prior theorem with stated assumptions about the hard ensemble, it does not assume the target single-qubit lower bound, and the new content supplies the MIC spectral bound for arbitrary single-qubit POVMs. The apparent tension in the constant c between the validity/ε-far argument and Lemma 6.2 is a correctness concern about the range of a universal constant, not a circularity in the sense of deriving a quantity from itself. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation chain forces the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three pillars: an external matrix-concentration theorem, an imported mutual-information bound from the authors' earlier work, and a POVM parameterization for the MIC spectral bound. The paper introduces no new physical entities; the hard ensemble is a mathematical construction over high-weight Pauli directions. The two hand-chosen numbers are the perturbation constant c and the weight threshold 9N/10.

free parameters (2)
  • perturbation constant c = universal constant in Definition 5.1; text suggests c≤1/200, but the proof needs c comparable to the concentration…
    Controls the perturbation size in the hard ensemble (Eq. 10). It is a hand-chosen constant that must satisfy conflicting requirements: validity and separation in Theorem 5.2, and the constant mutual-information requirement 4C/c≤0.41 in Lemma 6.2. The submitted text does not give a consistent range.
  • weight threshold 9N/10 = 0.9 N
    Design choice for the minimum Pauli weight in the hard ensemble. It is set so that a binomial tail at its mean contributes a constant probability (Section 2.2); a different constant threshold in (0,1) would work with different constants, making this a hand-chosen design parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The matrix concentration theorem of Bandeira, Boedihardjo, and van Handel (Theorem 5.3) provides ∥W∥_op ≤ C√(ℓ/d) with probability 1−exp(−d) for Rademacher sums of normalized Pauli matrices when ℓ ≥ d^{3/2}.
    Invoked in Theorem 5.2 to certify the hard states; the whole validity argument depends on this external bound.
  • standard math Theorem 6.1 from [ADLY25, Theorem 4.4], the mutual-information upper bound for adaptive measurements on the hard ensemble, is correct.
    The lower-bound proof starts from this imported theorem; it is not proved in this manuscript and the source is the authors' own companion paper.
  • domain assumption Single-qubit POVMs can be parameterized as M_i^o = α_i^o(I + β_{i,o,X}X + β_{i,o,Y}Y + β_{i,o,Z}Z), with ∑_o α_i^o = 1 and ∑_σ (β_{i,o,σ})² ≤ 1, and in the MIC calculation one may take β_I = 1 for every qubit.
    Used in Lemma 6.5. The paper does not fully justify that β_I = 1 is without loss for the quadratic-form bound, which is central to the spectral bound for arbitrary POVMs.
  • standard math The trace-norm Hamming separation in Lemma 6.3 follows from trace-norm duality and orthonormality of normalized Pauli matrices.
    This lemma converts tomography accuracy into an information-theoretic estimation problem over Rademacher vectors; it relies on Schatten norm properties.
  • standard math The binomial tail P[Bin(N, 1/10) ≤ N/10] is at least 2^{NH(0.1)}/√N, giving ℓ ≥ d^{3/2}.
    Used in Section 6.3 to lower-bound the number of perturbation directions and to ensure the concentration theorem applies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pauli Measurements Are Near-Optimal for Single-Qubit Tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ZKQ2Q5N

@misc{pith2026250722001,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pauli Measurements Are Near-Optimal for Single-Qubit Tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ZKQ2Q5N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22001}
}
abstract

We provide the first non-trivial lower bounds for single-qubit tomography algorithms and show that at least ${\Omega}\left(\frac{10^N}{\sqrt{N} \varepsilon^2}\right)$ copies are required to learn an $N$-qubit state $\rho\in\mathbb{C}^{d\times d},d=2^N$ to within $\varepsilon$ trace distance. Pauli measurements, the most commonly used single-qubit measurement scheme, have recently been shown to require at most $O\left(\frac{10^N}{\varepsilon^2}\right)$ copies for this problem. Combining these results, we nearly settle the long-standing question of the complexity of single-qubit tomography.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Randomized simulation of quantum channels using small ancilla

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Any unital quantum channel on d dimensions admits exact simulation with ancilla dimension k and success probability Ω(k/log d) via randomization and postselection; the bound is tight and fails for strongly non-unital ...

  2. Beating three-parameter precision trade-offs with entangling collective measurements

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Optimal entangling measurements on two qubits violate the three-parameter precision trade-off bound by an average of 16 standard deviations, achieving tomography precision unreachable by individual measurements.

  3. Sample-optimal single-copy quantum state tomography via shallow depth measurements

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Shallow-depth Clifford circuits achieve near-optimal sample complexity for rank-r quantum state tomography and optimal O(d^3/epsilon^2) complexity for full-rank states.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Shadow tomography of quantum states

    Scott Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. SIAM J. Comput. , 49(5), 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Canonne, Yuhan Liu, Ziteng Sun, and Himanshu Tyagi

    Jayadev Acharya, Clément L. Canonne, Yuhan Liu, Ziteng Sun, and Himanshu Tyagi. Interactive inference under information constraints. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 68(1):502--516, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Unified lower bounds for interactive high-dimensional estimation under information constraints

    Jayadev Acharya, Cl\' e ment L Canonne, Ziteng Sun, and Himanshu Tyagi. Unified lower bounds for interactive high-dimensional estimation under information constraints. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 36, pages 51133--51165. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Distributed signal detection under communication constraints

    Jayadev Acharya, Cl \'e ment L Canonne, and Himanshu Tyagi. Distributed signal detection under communication constraints. In Jacob Abernethy and Shivani Agarwal, editors, Proceedings of Thirty Third Conference on Learning Theory , volume 125 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 41--63. PMLR, 09--12 Jul 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Canonne, and Himanshu Tyagi

    Jayadev Acharya, Cl \' e ment L. Canonne, and Himanshu Tyagi. Inference under information constraints I: lower bounds from chi-square contraction. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , 66(12):7835--7855, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Inference under Information Constraints II: Communication Constraints and Shared Randomness

    Jayadev Acharya, Cl\' e ment L. Canonne, and Himanshu Tyagi. Inference under information constraints II : C ommunication constraints and shared randomness. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , 66(12):7856--7877, 2020. Available at abs/1905.08302

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    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. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computation (STOC) , volume abs/2502.18170, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Bandeira, March T

    Afonso S. Bandeira, March T. Boedihardjo, and Ramon van Handel. Matrix concentration inequalities and free probability. Inventiones mathematicae , 234(1):419–487, June 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Entanglement is necessary for optimal quantum property testing

    S \' e bastien Bubeck, Sitan Chen, and Jerry Li. Entanglement is necessary for optimal quantum property testing. In Sandy Irani, editor, 61st IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2020, Durham, NC, USA, November 16-19, 2020 , pages 692--703. IEEE , 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Lower bounds for learning distributions under communication constraints via fisher information

    Leighton Pate Barnes, Yanjun Han, and Ayfer Ozgur. Lower bounds for learning distributions under communication constraints via fisher information. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 21(236):1--30, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Sanders, and Peng Xue

    Zhihao Bian, Jian Li, Hao Qin, Xiang Zhan, Rong Zhang, Barry C. Sanders, and Peng Xue. Realization of single-qubit positive-operator-valued measurement via a one-dimensional photonic quantum walk. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 114:203602, May 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Quantum state certification

    Costin Badescu, Ryan O'Donnell, and John Wright. Quantum state certification. In Moses Charikar and Edith Cohen, editors, Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 23-26, 2019 , pages 503--514. ACM , 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    N. Bent, H. Qassim, A. A. Tahir, D. Sych, G. Leuchs, L. L. S\'anchez-Soto, E. Karimi, and R. W. Boyd. Experimental realization of quantum tomography of photonic qudits via symmetric informationally complete positive operator-valued measures. Phys. Rev. X , 5:041006, Oct 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Bergou, Shi-Yao Zhu, and Guang-Can Guo

    Ping-Xing Chen, J\'anos A. Bergou, Shi-Yao Zhu, and Guang-Can Guo. Ancilla dimensions needed to carry out positive-operator-valued measurement. Phys. Rev. A , 76:060303, Dec 2007

    2007

  7. [15]

    Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memory

    Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin - Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li. Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memory. In 62nd IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2021, Denver, CO, USA, February 7-10, 2022 , pages 574--585. IEEE , 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Canonne, Ilias Diakonikolas, Daniel M

    Clément L. Canonne, Ilias Diakonikolas, Daniel M. Kane, and Alistair Stewart. Testing bayesian networks. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 66(5):3132--3170, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Optimal tradeoffs for estimating pauli observables

    Sitan Chen, Weiyuan Gong, and Qi Ye. Optimal tradeoffs for estimating pauli observables. pages 1086--1105, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Sitan Chen, Brice Huang, Jerry Li, Allen Liu, and Mark Sellke. When does adaptivity help for quantum state learning? In 64th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2023, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, November 6-9, 2023 , pages 391--404. IEEE , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Tony Cai, Donggyu Kim, Yazhen Wang, Ming Yuan, and Harrison H. Zhou. Optimal large-scale quantum state tomography with Pauli measurements . The Annals of Statistics , 44(2):682 -- 712, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Tight bounds for quantum state certification with incoherent measurements

    Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, Brice Huang, and Allen Liu. Tight bounds for quantum state certification with incoherent measurements. In 63rd IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2022, Denver, CO, USA, October 31 - November 3, 2022 , pages 1205--1213. IEEE , 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    An optimal tradeoff between entanglement and copy complexity for state tomography

    Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, and Allen Liu. An optimal tradeoff between entanglement and copy complexity for state tomography. In Bojan Mohar, Igor Shinkar, and Ryan O'Donnell, editors, Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2024, Vancouver, BC, Can...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Quantum overlapping tomography

    Jordan Cotler and Frank Wilczek. Quantum overlapping tomography. Physical Review Letters , 124(10), Mar 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Parameterized complexity

    Rodney G Downey and Michael Ralph Fellows. Parameterized complexity . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    User-friendly confidence regions for quantum state tomography

    Carlos de Gois and Matthias Kleinmann. User-friendly confidence regions for quantum state tomography. Physical Review A , 109(6), June 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Duchi, Michael I

    John C. Duchi, Michael I. Jordan, and Martin J. Wainwright. Local privacy and statistical minimax rates. In 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2013, 26-29 October, 2013, Berkeley, CA, USA , pages 429--438. IEEE Computer Society, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Evans, Robin Harper, and Steven T

    Tim J. Evans, Robin Harper, and Steven T. Flammia. Scalable bayesian hamiltonian learning. arXiv:1912.07636 , 2019

    1912 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators

    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, Sep 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Flammia and Ryan O'Donnell

    Steven T. Flammia and Ryan O'Donnell. Quantum chi-squared tomography and mutual information testing. Quantum , 8:1381, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Fast state tomography with optimal error bounds

    Madalin Gu t 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

  22. [30]

    Flammia, Stephen Becker, and Jens Eisert

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

    2010

  23. [31]

    Guillermo García-Pérez, Matteo A. C. Rossi, Boris Sokolov, Elsi-Mari Borrelli, and Sabrina Maniscalco. Pairwise tomography networks for many-body quantum systems. Physical Review Research , 2(2), Jun 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Rossi, Boris Sokolov, Francesco Tacchino, Panagiotis Kl

    Guillermo Garc\' a-P\'erez, Matteo A.C. Rossi, Boris Sokolov, Francesco Tacchino, Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos, Guglielmo Mazzola, Ivano Tavernelli, and Sabrina Maniscalco. Learning to measure: Adaptive informationally complete generalized measurements for quantum algorithms. PRX...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu

    Jeongwan Haah, Aram W. Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu. Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , 63(9):5628--5641, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics , Jun 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    A random matrix theory of pauli tomography, 2025

    Nathan Keenan, John Goold, and Alex Nico-Katz. A random matrix theory of pauli tomography, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    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

  29. [37]

    Quantum state testing with restricted measurements

    Yuhan Liu and Jayadev Acharya. Quantum state testing with restricted measurements. CoRR , abs/2408.17439, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    The role of randomness in quantum state certification with unentangled measurements

    Yuhan Liu and Jayadev Acharya. The role of randomness in quantum state certification with unentangled measurements. In Shipra Agrawal and Aaron Roth, editors, Proceedings of Thirty Seventh Conference on Learning Theory , volume 247 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research ,...

    2024

  31. [39]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition . Cambridge University Press, 10th edition, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    Quantum spectrum testing

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright. Quantum spectrum testing. In Rocco A. Servedio and Ronitt Rubinfeld, editors, Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2015, Portland, OR, USA, June 14-17, 2015 , pages 529--538. ACM , 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Efficient quantum tomography

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright. Efficient quantum tomography. In Daniel Wichs and Yishay Mansour, editors, Proceedings of the 48th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2016, Cambridge, MA, USA, June 18-21, 2016 , pages 899--912. ACM , 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Efficient quantum tomography II

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright. Efficient quantum tomography II . In Hamed Hatami, Pierre McKenzie, and Valerie King, editors, Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2017, Montreal, QC, Canada, June 19-23, 2017 , pages 962--974. ACM , 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    A coincidence-based test for uniformity given very sparsely sampled discrete data

    Liam Paninski. A coincidence-based test for uniformity given very sparsely sampled discrete data. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , 54(10):4750--4755, 2008

    2008

  36. [44]

    Experimental scheme for qubit and qutrit symmetric informationally complete positive operator-valued measurements using multiport devices

    Gelo Noel M Tabia. Experimental scheme for qubit and qutrit symmetric informationally complete positive operator-valued measurements using multiport devices. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 86(6):062107, 2012

    2012

  37. [45]

    Joel A. Tropp. User-friendly tail bounds for sums of random matrices. Foundations of Computational Mathematics , 12(4):389–434, August 2011

    2011

  38. [46]

    Sample efficient tomography via P auli measurements

    Nengkun Yu. Sample efficient tomography via P auli measurements. CoRR , abs/2009.04610, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Almost tight sample complexity analysis of quantum identity testing by pauli measurements

    Nengkun Yu. Almost tight sample complexity analysis of quantum identity testing by pauli measurements. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 69(8):5060--5068, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    An improved sample complexity lower bound for (fidelity) quantum state tomography

    Henry Yuen. An improved sample complexity lower bound for (fidelity) quantum state tomography. Quantum , 7:890, January 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Learning marginals suffices! CoRR , abs/2303.08938, 2023

    Nengkun Yu and Tzu-Chieh Wei. Learning marginals suffices! CoRR , abs/2303.08938, 2023

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.