Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Data Sketches

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that a random measurement with only $O(\log(1/\delta)/\iota^2)$ outcomes can embed two pure $d$-dimensional quantum states into a low-dimensional probability space, preserving their trace distance up to a factor…

desk verdict Promising framework for sketching quantum states for database operations, but the main vector-sketch theorem has a real proof gap; the shadow-seed part is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06705 v1 pith:CCUHY5HT submitted 2025-01-12 cs.DB quant-ph

Qin Zhang , Mohsen Heidari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBquant-ph MSC 68Q1268P15
keywords quantumdatarepresentationsketchingqueryexecutiontracedistancelocalitysensitivehashingclassicalshadowsdatabasestatetomography
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 data—the states of photons, molecules, or other systems—live in spaces of dimension exponential in the number of qubits, so storing each state classically is infeasible. This paper asks what database operations can be supported by a small classical 'sketch' of each state, and it gives two sketches with size and query time independent of the state dimension. The main technical result is a vector sketch of size $O(\log(1/\delta)/\iota^2)$ that preserves the trace distance between two pure states up to a $(1\pm\iota)$ distortion: a random measurement with $k$ outcomes produces outcome distributions whose scaled $\ell_1$ distance concentrates around the trace distance. With these sketches, equality testing, search, and join become classical distance computations, and search and join can be accelerated by locality-sensitive hashing to run in time sublinear in the database size and independent of dimension. A second sketch, based on classical shadows, estimates the expectation value of any $k$-local observable to additive error $\varepsilon$, enabling selection and sorting on quantum data.

What carries the argument

The central object is a random projective measurement $M_k$ built by drawing a Haar-random orthonormal basis (via complex Gaussian vectors and the pretty good measurement), grouping the $d$ basis vectors into $k$ equal-size groups, and using the group projectors as the $k$ measurement outcomes. The proof shows that for any two pure states $\varphi$ and $\psi$, the $\ell_1$ distance between their outcome distributions, scaled by $\sqrt{d/(k c_\tau)}$ with $c_\tau\in[0.48,\sqrt{2}]$, concentrates within $(1\pm\iota)$ of the trace distance $D(\varphi,\psi)$ as long as $k = c\log(1/\delta)/\iota^2$; an $\ell_2$ version scales by $\sqrt{d/2}$. The efficient implementation replaces Haar sampling with the Clifford group, a unitary 2-design, sampled in $O(\log^8 d)$ classical time and realized as a circuit with $O(\log^2 d)$ gates. The shadow-seed sketch uses a different mechanism: random single-qubit Clifford rotations followed by computational-basis measurements produce a classical seed matrix, and at query time the $k$-local observable's expectation is estimated from these seeds, with a quantum-classical-quantum-classical (QCQC) procedure that reduces query time from $O(16^k)$ to $O(9^k)$.

What would settle it

Compute the third moment (or the full moment generating function) of $W = d\bigl(|\langle 1|\gamma\rangle|^2 - |\langle 2|\gamma\rangle|^2\bigr)$ for a basis vector $\gamma$ drawn from the Clifford 2-design and from the Haar measure; if the values differ, the Chernoff step in Section B.1 that yields the $O(\log(1/\delta)/\iota^2)$ sketch size does not follow for the efficient construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let $\varphi$ and $\psi$ be two pure $d$-dimensional quantum states. The paper's main discovery is that there is a distribution over measurements with $k = c\log(1/\delta)/\iota^2$ outcomes, where $k$ does not depend on the dimension $d$, such that a random measurement $M_k$ from this distribution yields outcome distributions whose $\ell_1$ distance, after scaling by $\sqrt{d/(k c_\tau)}$ with a universal computable constant $c_\tau \in [0.48, \sqrt{2}]$, lies within a factor $(1\pm\iota)$ of the trace distance $D(\varphi,\psi)$, with probability at least $1-\delta$. An analogous $\ell_2$ statement holds with scale $\sqrt{d/2}$. This turns trace-distance estimation into an $\ell_1$/ $\ell_2$ problem in a fixed low-dimensional space, so equality testing becomes an $O(k)$-time distance computation and search and join become sublinear-time operations via locality-sensitive hashing. The paper also gives a shadow-seed sketch, based on classical shadows, that estimates the expectation of any $k$-local observable to additive error $\varepsilon$ using $O(Nn)$ classical bits, with query time independent of $d$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that sampling the measurement from the Clifford group instead of the full Haar distribution leaves the tail behavior of the distance estimator unchanged, although the proof in Section B.1.1 establishes only a match of the first two moments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $(\varepsilon,\beta)$-equality-test reduces to computing the $\ell_1$ or $\ell_2$ distance between two $O(\log(1/\delta)/\varepsilon^2)$-dimensional sketch vectors, using no fresh copies of the database states.
  • The $(\varepsilon,\beta)$-search problem can be answered with an LSH index of size $O(m \log m/\varepsilon^2 + m^{1+1.05/\beta^2})$ and classical query time $O(m^{1.05/\beta^2} \log m/\varepsilon^2)$, which is sublinear in $m$ for $\beta > \sqrt{1.05}$ and independent of the state dimension $d$.
  • The $(\varepsilon,\beta)$-natural-join can be done by hashing all sketch vectors and verifying each colliding pair, with time depending on the join output size but not on $d$.
  • For any $k$-local observable, $(\eta,\varepsilon)$-selection and $\varepsilon$-sorting are solved with an index of $O(9^k n W^2 \log m/\varepsilon^2)$ classical bits and query time $O(9^k m \log m W^2 \mathrm{poly}(k)/\varepsilon^2)$, where $W$ bounds the observable's operator norm.
  • The sketch construction uses only $O(d/\varepsilon^2)$ copies of each state (a one-time preprocessing cost), far less than the $O(d^2/\varepsilon^5)$ time of full tomography followed by dimension reduction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Clifford-replacement step survives scrutiny, the vector sketch becomes implementable on near-term quantum hardware ($O(\log^2 d)$ gates per state), which would make quantum-data indexing a plausible near-term application; the open question is whether higher moments of the Clifford-sampled estimator match Haar.
  • The dimension-independence suggests a way around the general lower bound for $\ell_1$ dimension reduction: the sketch exploits the special geometry of pure-state trace distance, so an analogous embedding for mixed (density-matrix) states is a natural next target.
  • A numerical study comparing Clifford-sampled and Haar-sampled sketch distances on random state pairs could both test the 2-design assumption empirically and potentially tighten the universal constant $c_\tau$ beyond the $[0.48, \sqrt{2}]$ interval.
  • The shadow-seed QCQC estimator trades more quantum time for fewer classical bits than storing full classical shadows, which points toward a design space for hybrid query engines that minimize either storage or quantum circuit depth depending on the workload.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper formalizes approximate versions of basic database operations for pure quantum states represented as classical sketches: equality test, search, join, selection, and sorting. It proposes two sketching tools. The first is a random k-outcome projective measurement sketch, claimed to embed the trace distance between two pure states into the ℓ1 or ℓ2 distance of the outcome distributions with distortion (1±ι) using k = O(log(1/δ)/ι^2) outcomes, independent of the state dimension, with a Clifford-group construction that samples the measurement in O(log^8 d) classical time. The second is a shadow-seed sketch, based on the classical shadow tomography of Huang, Kueng, and Preskill, used to estimate expectation values of k-local observables, with a proposed QCQC speedup. The paper then applies LSH-based ANN search to the vector sketches and the shadow-seed estimator to selection and sorting.

Significance. If Theorem 13 and its corollaries were correct, the vector-sketch contribution would be significant: a classical, dimension-independent sketch preserving trace distance would be a first step toward sustainable quantum data management, and the reduction to LSH-based sublinear search is conceptually attractive. The paper also gives creditably explicit problem definitions, a no-free-parameters analysis, and the shadow-seed part is built on established results with a self-contained estimator proof. However, the central concentration proof for Theorem 13 is not valid as written, and the empirical-distribution corollaries are ambiguous and currently unsupported. The significance of the paper therefore rests on a load-bearing claim that needs substantial additional work.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B.1, Eq. (17)] The assertion 'Since Z_j’s are i.i.d.' is false, and this invalidates the Chernoff step. The vectors |γ_t⟩ are columns of a single Haar-distributed unitary, so the block variables Z_j are not independent: summing the definition gives ∑_{j=1}^k Z_j = 0 up to normalization, because the |γ_t⟩ form an orthonormal basis. For k = 2 this forces Z_1 = −Z_2, so the moment-generating-function product factorization in Eq. (17) collapses. The same defect appears in the ℓ2 proof in Appendix B.2 around Eq. (32). This is exactly the step that yields the dimension-independent bound k = c log(1/δ)/ι^2 in Theorem 13.
  2. [Appendix B.1.1] A unitary 2-design is not sufficient for the tail bound as argued. The Chernoff/MGF argument requires control of the whole moment generating function of |Z_j|; Eq. (18) bounds the Taylor remainder ζη by cηη^3, which requires control of higher moments or of the MGF itself. A 2-design matches only polynomials of degree at most 2 in U and U*, so matching the first two moments of W_jℓ does not control E[exp(t|Z|)] or its remainder. Additionally, the Berry-Esseen lower bound in Eq. (23) is applied to the sum of W_ℓ^1 variables, which are not i.i.d. because they are entries from the same Haar unitary. Consequently the O(log^8 d) Clifford-based construction inherits an unsupported concentration claim.
  3. [Corollaries 14 and 16] The empirical-distribution corollaries are ambiguous and, on the natural reading, false. If each copy is measured with an independently sampled M_k, the empirical vector estimates E_{M_k}[M_k(φ)], which by unitary invariance is the uniform distribution for every φ; the difference of the two empirical vectors then has mean zero, so the claimed (1±ι)D preservation cannot hold. If instead a single sampled M_k is fixed for all copies and all states (the only reading that supports the subsequent LSH application), the text must say this explicitly and the algorithm must ensure the database sketches and the query sketch use the same measurement. As written, the search and join constructions in Section 4.1 are not supported.
  4. [Theorem 13] The theorem statement omits necessary domain conditions. The described construction requires k ≤ d and also requires d/k to be a large enough constant for the Berry-Esseen lower bound in Eqs. (23)–(24). For fixed small d, the promised k = c log(1/δ)/ι^2 can exceed d, making the statement impossible; more generally, the proof's concentration conclusion cannot hold for k = 2, where Z_1 = −Z_2 and the averaged quantity has a non-degenerate distribution. The theorem should state the required relationship among d, k, δ, and ι, or the proof must handle these cases.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1] The binning instruction is inconsistent: measuring the first ⌈log k⌉ qubits gives 2^{⌈log k⌉} outcomes, and then taking the result mod k is a different partition of {0,1}^n unless k is a power of two. Please specify one concrete binning rule.
  2. [References] Reference [16] is cited for the O(n^8)-time uniform Clifford sampling algorithm, but that reference is titled 'Quantum data hiding' and does not appear to contain such a sampling algorithm; a correct citation should be supplied.
  3. [Appendix B.3, Lemma 27] The reconstruction in Lemma 27 uses U_j|B_j⟩ rather than the standard classical-shadow convention U_j†|B_j⟩; please clarify the relationship to the inverse shadow channel, since the proof as written is easy to misread and may contain a transpose error.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and formatting errors, including 'dimentionality', 'Another ser', 'Articial Intelligence', and the placeholder venue 'CVIT 2016'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central sketch constructions and database-operation reductions are derived from stated assumptions and standard external results, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's main technical claims, Theorem 13 and Theorem 15, are derived in Appendix B from first-principles concentration analysis over Haar-random measurements, with universal constants (c, c_tau, c_s) that are not fitted to any data. The Clifford-group construction in Section B.1.1 relies on external, well-established results on unitary 2-designs and efficient Clifford sampling. The shadow-seed method is explicitly based on the external classical-shadow framework of Huang, Kueng, and Preskill, and Theorem 19's proof derives the unbiasedness of the estimator largely in-line. The single self-citation in that proof, to Lemma 6 of reference [32] (Heidari et al.), asserts a standard shadow-channel reconstruction identity that is also a core result of the classical-shadow literature; it is not a fitted value and is not load-bearing for the paper's novel database-sketches contribution. The reductions to search and join use standard LSH theorems from Indyk-Motwani and successors. No quantity is fitted to a subset of data and then called a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed as new. Possible mathematical gaps in the concentration argument (e.g., the asserted independence of the Z_j blocks and the sufficiency of a 2-design for the Chernoff tail bound) concern correctness risk, not circularity, and are outside this pass. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or invented physical entities. Its central claims rely on standard quantum-mechanics axioms, known concentration inequalities, the classical shadows framework, and the unproven assumption that a unitary 2-design suffices for the concentration analysis of random measurements.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard quantum mechanics postulates: pure states as unit vectors, unitary evolution, projective measurements with Born rule.
    Assumed throughout as the model of quantum data.
  • standard math Haar measure on the unitary group and concentration inequalities (Hoeffding, Chernoff, Berry-Esseen).
    Used in the analysis of random measurements in Appendix B.1.
  • domain assumption The Clifford group is a unitary 2-design and can be sampled efficiently.
    Borrowed from prior literature, but the citation for the sampling algorithm appears incorrect (should be Aaronson-Gottesman, not DiVincenzo et al.).
  • ad hoc to paper A unitary 2-design suffices for the concentration bound in the proof of Theorem 13.
    The authors assert this without proving that higher moments of the relevant random variables match Haar; this is the main gap in the paper.
  • domain assumption Classical shadows framework from Huang, Kueng, Preskill [37] for estimating k-local observables.
    Used in Section 4.2 for shadow seeds and as a baseline for the QCQC algorithm.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Data Sketches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCUHY5HT

@misc{pith2026250106705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Data Sketches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCUHY5HT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06705}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in quantum technologies, particularly in quantum sensing and simulation, have facilitated the generation and analysis of inherently quantum data. This progress underscores the necessity for developing efficient and scalable quantum data management strategies. This goal faces immense challenges due to the exponential dimensionality of quantum data and its unique quantum properties such as no-cloning and measurement stochasticity. Specifically, classical storage and manipulation of an arbitrary n-qubit quantum state requires exponential space and time. Hence, there is a critical need to revisit foundational data management concepts and algorithms for quantum data. In this paper, we propose succinct quantum data sketches to support basic database operations such as search and selection. We view our work as an initial step towards the development of quantum data management model, opening up many possibilities for future research in this direction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Improved Classical Shadow Tomography Using Quantum Computation

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A quantum-to-classical-to-quantum protocol prepares states from classical shadows and measures observables directly, achieving exponential space savings for Clifford shadows and faster post-processing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [16]

    DiVincenzo, D.W

    D.P. DiVincenzo, D.W. Leung, and B.M. Terhal. Quantum data hiding. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 48(3):580--598, March 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/18.985948 doi:10.1109/18.985948

    doi:10.1109/18.985948 2002

  2. [1]

    The learnability of quantum states

    Scott Aaronson. The learnability of quantum states. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 463(2088):3089--3114, 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    Shadow tomography of quantum states

    Scott Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. In Ilias Diakonikolas, David Kempe, and Monika Henzinger, editors, STOC , pages 325--338. ACM , 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits

    Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. Physical Review A , 70(5):052328, nov 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physreva.70.052328 doi:10.1103/physreva.70.052328

    doi:10.1103/physreva.70.052328 2004

  5. [4]

    Alexandr Andoni, Moses Charikar, Ofer Neiman, and Huy L. Nguyen. Near linear lower bound for dimension reduction in L1 . In Rafail Ostrovsky, editor, FOCS , pages 315--323. IEEE Computer Society, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Near-optimal hashing algorithms for approximate nearest neighbor in high dimensions

    Alexandr Andoni and Piotr Indyk. Near-optimal hashing algorithms for approximate nearest neighbor in high dimensions. In FOCS , pages 459--468. IEEE Computer Society, 2006

    2006

  7. [6]

    Improved quantum data analysis

    Costin Badescu and Ryan O'Donnell. Improved quantum data analysis. In Samir Khuller and Virginia Vassilevska Williams, editors, STOC , pages 1398--1411. ACM , 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Quantum state certification

    Costin Badescu, Ryan O'Donnell, and John Wright. Quantum state certification. CoRR , abs/1708.06002, 2017

    arXiv 2017

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Quantum fingerprinting

    Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, John Watrous, and Ronald De Wolf. Quantum fingerprinting. Physical Review Letters , 87(16):167902, 2001

    2001

  2. [9]

    Opportunities for quantum acceleration of databases: Optimization of queries and transaction schedules

    Umut C alikyilmaz, Sven Groppe, Jinghua Groppe, Tobias Winker, Stefan Prestel, Farida Shagieva, Daanish Arya, Florian Preis, and Le Gruenwald. Opportunities for quantum acceleration of databases: Optimization of queries and transaction schedules. Proc. VLDB Endow. , 16(9):2344...

    2023

  3. [10]

    Clément L. Canonne. A short note on learning discrete distributions, 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.11457 arXiv:2002.11457

    2020 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Testing and learning quantum juntas nearly optimally

    Thomas Chen, Shivam Nadimpalli, and Henry Yuen. Testing and learning quantum juntas nearly optimally. In Nikhil Bansal and Viswanath Nagarajan, editors, SODA , pages 1163--1185

  5. [12]

    Sample efficient algorithms for learning quantum channels in PAC model and the approximate state discrimination problem

    Kai - Min Chung and Han - Hsuan Lin. Sample efficient algorithms for learning quantum channels in PAC model and the approximate state discrimination problem. In Min - Hsiu Hsieh, editor, TQC , volume 197 of LIPIcs , pages 3:1--3:22. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum f \" u r ...

    2021

  6. [13]

    Quantum relational databases, 1997

    Paul Cockshott. Quantum relational databases, 1997. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9712025 arXiv:quant-ph/9712025

    1997 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation

    Christoph Dankert, Richard Cleve, Joseph Emerson, and Etera Livine. Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation. Physical Review A , 80(1):012304, July 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physreva.80.012304 doi:10.1103/physreva.80.012304

    2009 doi

  8. [15]

    Mirrokni

    Mayur Datar, Nicole Immorlica, Piotr Indyk, and Vahab S. Mirrokni. Locality-sensitive hashing scheme based on p-stable distributions. In Jack Snoeyink and Jean - Daniel Boissonnat, editors, SOCG , pages 253--262. ACM , 2004

    2004

  9. [17]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2014

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2014. http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028 arXiv:1411.4028 , http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1411.4028 doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1411.4028

    2014 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors

    Edward Farhi and Hartmut Neven. Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors. February 2018. http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.06002 arXiv:1802.06002

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Daniel Stilck Fran c a, Fernando G. S. L. Brand \ a o, and Richard Kueng. Fast and robust quantum state tomography from few basis measurements. In Min - Hsiu Hsieh, editor, 16th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography, TQC 2021, July 5-8...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Advances in quantum deep learning: An overview

    Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. Advances in quantum deep learning: An overview. arXiv:2005.04316 , May 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.04316 arXiv:2005.04316

    2005 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Learning distributions over quantum measurement outcomes

    Weiyuan Gong and Scott Aaronson. Learning distributions over quantum measurement outcomes. CoRR , abs/2209.03007, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Gary L. Miller, editor, STOC , pages 212--219. ACM , 1996

    1996

  15. [23]

    Harrow, Zheng - Feng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu

    Jeongwan Haah, Aram W. Harrow, Zheng - Feng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu. Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states. In Daniel Wichs and Yishay Mansour, editors, STOC , pages 913--925. ACM , 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    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 Transactions on Information Theory , pages 1--1, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/tit.2017.2719044 doi:10.1109/tit.2017.2719044

    2017

  17. [25]

    Quantum data management: From theory to opportunities

    Rihan Hai, Shih - Han Hung, and Sebastian Feld. Quantum data management: From theory to opportunities. In ICDE , pages 5376--5381. IEEE , 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00410, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00410 doi:10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00410

    2024

  18. [26]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations

    Aram W Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical review letters , 103(15):150502, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    Harrow, Cedric Yen - Yu Lin, and Ashley Montanaro

    Aram W. Harrow, Cedric Yen - Yu Lin, and Ashley Montanaro. Sequential measurements, disturbance and property testing. In Philip N. Klein, editor, SODA , pages 1598--1611. SIAM , 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Harrow and John C

    Aram W. Harrow and John C. Napp. Low-depth gradient measurements can improve convergence in variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. Physical Review Letters , 126(14):140502, apr 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.126.140502 doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.140502

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Harrow and Andreas J

    Aram W. Harrow and Andreas J. Winter. How many copies are needed for state discrimination? IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , 58(1):1--2, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    Shor, and Andreas Winter

    Patrick Hayden, Peter W. Shor, and Andreas Winter. Random quantum codes from gaussian ensembles and an uncertainty relation. Open Systems &\ Information Dynamics , 15(01):71--89, mar 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Grama, and Wojciech Szpankowski

    Mohsen Heidari, Ananth Y. Grama, and Wojciech Szpankowski. Toward physically realizable quantum neural networks. Association for the Advancement of Articial Intelligence (AAAI) , 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Quantum shadow gradient descent for variational quantum algorithms

    Mohsen Heidari, Mobasshir A Naved, Zahra Honjani, Wenbo Xie, Arjun Jacob Grama, and Wojciech Szpankowski. Quantum shadow gradient descent for variational quantum algorithms. 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06935, http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06935 arXiv:2310.06935

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A theoretical framework for learning from quantum data

    Mohsen Heidari, Arun Padakandla, and Wojciech Szpankowski. A theoretical framework for learning from quantum data. In IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory ( ISIT ) , 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    The Semicircle Law, Free Random Variables and Entropy (Mathematical Surveys &\ Monographs)

    Fumio Hiai and Denes Petz. The Semicircle Law, Free Random Variables and Entropy (Mathematical Surveys &\ Monographs) . American Mathematical Society, 2006

    2006

  27. [35]

    Alexander S. Holevo. Quantum Systems, Channels, Information . De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110273403 [cited 2023-08-27], http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1515/9783110273403 doi:doi:10.1515/9783110273403

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    On asymptotically optimal hypotheses testing in quantum statistics

    Alexander Semenovich Holevo. On asymptotically optimal hypotheses testing in quantum statistics. Teoriya Veroyatnostei i ee Primeneniya , 23(2):429--432, 1978

    1978

  29. [37]

    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 16, 1050--1057 (2020) , February 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Lossy compression for schr\"odinger-style quantum simulations, 2024

    Noah Huffman, Dmitri Pavlichin, and Tsachy Weissman. Lossy compression for schr\"odinger-style quantum simulations, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11088, http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11088 arXiv:2401.11088

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Approximate nearest neighbors: Towards removing the curse of dimensionality

    Piotr Indyk and Rajeev Motwani. Approximate nearest neighbors: Towards removing the curse of dimensionality. In Jeffrey Scott Vitter, editor, STOC , pages 604--613. ACM , 1998

    1998

  32. [40]

    E. Joos, H. D. Zeh, C. Kiefer, D. J. W. Giulini, J. Kupsch, and I. O. Stamatescu. Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory . Springer, 2003

    2003

  33. [41]

    Jordan, Keith S

    Stephen P. Jordan, Keith S. M. Lee, and John Preskill. Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories. Science , 336(6085):1130--1133, jun 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1217069 doi:10.1126/science.1217069

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    Kitaev, and Oded Regev

    Julia Kempe, Alexei Y. Kitaev, and Oded Regev. The complexity of the local hamiltonian problem. SIAM J. Comput. , 35(5):1070--1097, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Kivlichan, Craig Gidney, Dominic W

    Ian D. Kivlichan, Craig Gidney, Dominic W. Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Jarrod McClean, Wei Sun, Zhang Jiang, Nicholas Rubin, Austin Fowler, Al \' a n Aspuru-Guzik, Hartmut Neven, and Ryan Babbush. Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via ...

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Deleting a marked item from an unsorted database with a single query, 2007

    Yang Liu and Gui Lu Long. Deleting a marked item from an unsorted database with a single query, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3301 arXiv:0710.3301

    2007 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A leap among entanglement and neural networks: A quantum survey

    Fabio Valerio Massoli, Lucia Vadicamo, Giuseppe Amato, and Fabrizio Falchi. A leap among entanglement and neural networks: A quantum survey. arXiv:2107.03313 , July 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03313 arXiv:2107.03313

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Chuang Michael A

    Isaac L. Chuang Michael A. Nielsen. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information . Cambridge University Pr., December 2010

    2010

  39. [47]

    Chuang Michael A

    Isaac L. Chuang Michael A. Nielsen. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information . Cambridge University Pr., December 2010. URL: https://www.ebook.de/de/product/13055864/michael_a_nielsen_isaac_l_chuang_quantum_computation_and_quantum_information.html

    2010

  40. [48]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii. Quantum circuit learning. Physical Review A , 98(3):032309, sep 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physreva.98.032309 doi:10.1103/physreva.98.032309

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Efficient quantum tomography

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright. Efficient quantum tomography. In Daniel Wichs and Yishay Mansour, editors, STOC , pages 899--912. ACM , 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Quantum computing for near-term applications in generative chemistry and drug discovery

    Alexey Pyrkov, Alex Aliper, Dmitry Bezrukov, Yen-Chu Lin, Daniil Polykovskiy, Petrina Kamya, Feng Ren, and Alex Zhavoronkov. Quantum computing for near-term applications in generative chemistry and drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today , page 103675, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Modern quantum mechanics, revised edition, 1995

    Jun John Sakurai and Eugene D Commins. Modern quantum mechanics, revised edition, 1995

    1995

  44. [52]

    The quest for a quantum neural network

    Maria Schuld, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione. The quest for a quantum neural network. Quantum Information Processing , 13(11):2567–2586, Aug 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11128-014-0809-8 doi:10.1007/s11128-014-0809-8

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    Random measurement bases, quantum state distinction and applications to the hidden subgroup problem

    Pranab Sen. Random measurement bases, quantum state distinction and applications to the hidden subgroup problem. In CCC , pages 274--287. IEEE Computer Society, 2006

    2006

  46. [54]

    Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput. , 26(5):1484--1509, 1997

    1997

  47. [55]

    Simulating quantum many-body dynamics on a current digital quantum computer

    Adam Smith, MS Kim, Frank Pollmann, and Johannes Knolle. Simulating quantum many-body dynamics on a current digital quantum computer. npj Quantum Information , 5(1):106, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Asymptotically optimal circuit depth for quantum state preparation and general unitary synthesis, 2023

    Xiaoming Sun, Guojing Tian, Shuai Yang, Pei Yuan, and Shengyu Zhang. Asymptotically optimal circuit depth for quantum state preparation and general unitary synthesis, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.06150 arXiv:2108.06150

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Multiple query optimization on the d-wave 2x adiabatic quantum computer

    Immanuel Trummer and Christoph Koch. Multiple query optimization on the d-wave 2x adiabatic quantum computer. Proc. VLDB Endow. , 9(9):648--659, 2016. URL: http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol9/p648-trummer.pdf, http://dx.doi.org/10.14778/2947618.2947621 doi:10.14778/2947618.2947621

    2016

  50. [58]

    Whitfield, Jacob Biamonte, and Al \' a n Aspuru-Guzik

    James D. Whitfield, Jacob Biamonte, and Al \' a n Aspuru-Guzik. Simulation of electronic structure hamiltonians using quantum computers. Molecular Physics , 109(5):735--750, mar 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00268976.2011.552441 doi:10.1080/00268976.2011.552441

    2011

  51. [59]

    Quantum machine learning: Foundation, new techniques, and opportunities for database research

    Tobias Winker, Sven Groppe, Valter Uotila, Zhengtong Yan, Jiaheng Lu, Maja Franz, and Wolfgang Mauerer. Quantum machine learning: Foundation, new techniques, and opportunities for database research. In Sudipto Das, Ippokratis Pandis, K. Sel c uk Candan, and Sihem Amer - Yahia,...

    2023

  52. [60]

    Xin - Chuan Wu, Sheng Di, Emma Maitreyee Dasgupta, Franck Cappello, Hal Finkel, Yuri Alexeev, and Frederic T. Chong. Full-state quantum circuit simulation by using data compression. In Michela Taufer, Pavan Balaji, and Antonio J. Pe \ n a, editors, SC , pages 80:1--80:24. ACM , 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Database manipulation on quantum computers, 2007

    Ahmed Younes. Database manipulation on quantum computers, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4303 arXiv:0705.4303

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.