Direct reconstruction of the quantum density matrix elements with classical shadow tomography

Yu Wang

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Direct reconstruction of the quantum density matrix elements with classical shadow tomography

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that $K$ off-diagonal density-matrix entries can be estimated from one shadow dataset with $O(\log K/\epsilon^2)$ samples

desk verdict Clifford half is correct but derivative; the MUB constant-factor claim has an unnormalized distribution and an unproved partition, so the advertised improvement is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15243 v1 pith:MXNXUWVF submitted 2025-05-21 quant-ph

Yu Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords classicalshadowtomographydirectmeasurementprotocolsdensitymatrixelementsoff-diagonalcoherencesmutuallyunbiasedbasessamplecomplexityquantumstatetracedistance

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's goal is to make direct estimation of density-matrix entries a global, reusable procedure rather than a per-entry experiment. It proves that a single classical shadow dataset, built from random Clifford or biased mutually-unbiased-basis measurements, determines any set of $K$ off-diagonal entries to additive error $\epsilon$ using $O(\log K/\epsilon^2)$ samples. It also proves a full state-tomography version: estimating every entry with error $O(\epsilon/d^{3/2})$ gives trace-distance error at most $\epsilon$ with sample complexity $O(d^3\log d/\epsilon^2)$, near the tight single-copy lower bound. A reader should care because entrywise reconstruction with this scaling would make high-dimensional state verification practical and remove the post-selection losses that limit older direct measurement protocols.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the classical shadow inverse channel and its shadow norm. For each measurement ensemble the protocol estimates observables via $M^{-1}(U^{\dagger}|k\rangle\langle k|U)$ and applies median-of-means; the sample count is set by $\max_i \|O_i\|^2_{\mathrm{shadow}}$. For the observables $\{|\phi_{jk}\rangle\langle\phi_{jk}|, |\psi_{jk}\rangle\langle\psi_{jk}|\}$, the Clifford shadow norm is bounded by $3(1-1/2^n)$. For the biased MUB ensemble, with the computational basis chosen with probability $1/2$ and the other $2^n$ MUBs uniform, the proof splits the nontrivial MUB unitaries into two equal classes $U_{O,1}$ and $U_{O,2}$ by relative phase between the two support components; tracked through the variance formula, this yields shadow norm below $3/2$, the entire source of the factor-two saving and of the simpler $H$--$S$--$CZ$ circuit implementation.

What would settle it

Take $d=4$ or $d=8$, fix a target observable $O=|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|$ with $|\phi\rangle=(|\ell_1\rangle+i|\ell_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, and enumerate all nontrivial MUB projectors in Eq. (11), counting how many unitaries fall in $U_{O,1}$ and $U_{O,2}$; if the counts are unequal or the computed variance sum exceeds $3/2$ for some state $\sigma$, the factor-two MUB claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that off-diagonal density-matrix elements are not structurally harder to estimate in bulk than diagonal ones. Any entry $\rho_{jk}$ can be recovered from projections onto $|j\rangle$, $|k\rangle$, $(|j\rangle+|k\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, and $(|j\rangle+i|k\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, so the estimation task becomes a shadow-norm question about rank-one observables supported on two computational basis states. For random Clifford measurements the shadow norm of each such observable is at most $3(1-1/d)$, giving $O(\log K/\epsilon^2)$ samples for $K$ entries by median-of-means. For biased MUB measurements the paper derives a shadow norm below $3/2$, a constant-factor improvement that halves the sample count. Setting the per-entry error to $\epsilon_1 = 2\epsilon/d^{3/2}$ converts entrywise estimates into a full density matrix with trace distance at most $\epsilon$ using $O(d^3\log d/\epsilon^2)$ samples, with Clifford or MUB circuits and lightweight post-processing instead of global convex optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The halving claim for biased MUB measurements rests on an unproved symmetry assertion that the nontrivial MUB unitaries split into two equal-size classes for each target observable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any collection of $K$ target coherences, only $O(\log K/\epsilon^2)$ copies of $\rho$ are needed, so the data cost stops growing linearly with the number of entries one wants.
Full tomography to trace distance $\epsilon$ is achieved with $O(d^3\log d/\epsilon^2)$ samples and no convex-optimization reconstruction step.
The number of distinct measurement settings needed for entrywise reconstruction of all $d^2$ entries drops from $\Omega(d)$ for conventional direct protocols to $O(\log d/\epsilon^2)$ random settings, an exponential reduction in settings when $K$ is large.
Once the dataset is collected, any additional off-diagonal element can be estimated from the same data without new measurements.
Biased MUB sampling offers a constant-factor (roughly two) reduction in sample count and uses simpler one- and two-qubit gate circuits than general Clifford circuits.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same shared-data reasoning applies to any sparse set of linear observables: the $\log K$ overhead is generic to classical shadows, so the entrywise scaling is not special to the four-projector representation.
The proof asserts rather than demonstrates the equal partition of MUB unitaries; a numerical enumeration for a representative observable would settle that subclaim without affecting the main $O(\log K)$ scaling.
If the trace-distance protocol holds with reasonable constants, it offers a calibration and verification routine for near-term devices that avoids semidefinite solvers, which could matter when classical compute is the bottleneck.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's my take on Wang's DMP-ST paper. The Clifford part is essentially correct and useful as an explicit protocol, but it is a direct application of the classical shadow framework to rank-one projectors. The O(log K / ε²) bound for K off-diagonal entries follows immediately from Huang–Kueng–Preskill once you note the shadow norm of such projectors is O(1). The paper is honest that this is the mechanism, though it could say more plainly that this is a corollary rather than a new theorem. The diagonal estimation bound (Theorem 1) is just Hoeffding, and the trace-distance conversion in Theorem 3 is a standard Frobenius argument; both are fine.

The genuinely new piece is the claim that biased MUB sampling halves the sample complexity due to a shadow norm of 3/2 for observables of the form |j⟩±|k⟩ and |j⟩±i|k⟩. This is where I have real concerns. First, the biased distribution defined in Eq. (9) does not normalize: if there are 2^n nontrivial MUB bases, the probabilities sum to 1/2 + 2^n/(2^n+1) ≈ 1.5, so the protocol as written is not a probability distribution over measurements. That alone invalidates the reconstruction channel and the variance calculation in Eq. (11). Second, the partition of MUB unitaries into U_{O,1} and U_{O,2}, each of size 2^{n-1}, is asserted with “Due to the symmetric structure” but no proof; it is load-bearing for the 3/2 bound. The reliance on the author's own refs [35] and [36], one an unpublished preprint, makes verification harder. I suspect the factor-1/2 claim may be salvageable with a corrected distribution and a proper argument, but as written it is not established.

The paper does have value: the Clifford-based protocol for directly estimating many off-diagonal elements from one dataset is clean, the reuse argument is explicit, and Theorem 3 is a pleasant, if not deep, packaging of entrywise tomography with trace-distance guarantees. That part deserves a serious referee. The MUB lemma, however, needs to be either removed or completely reworked.

My recommendation: send to peer review, but with the expectation of major revision on the MUB portion. The Clifford core will survive; the advertised constant-factor improvement will not, unless the author fixes the normalization and supplies a rigorous partition proof.

Would I bring it to reading group? Maybe, if we want to discuss how much of shadow tomography is just "plug in the right observables." I wouldn't cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DMP-ST, a classical-shadow-based protocol for direct estimation of density matrix elements. The central claims are: (i) estimating K off-diagonal elements of a d-dimensional density matrix to additive error epsilon requires only O(log K / epsilon^2) samples; (ii) full state tomography with trace distance error at most epsilon can be achieved with O(d^3 log d / epsilon^2) samples; and (iii) a biased mutually-unbiased-bases (MUB) measurement scheme reduces the sample complexity by an additional constant factor of about one half relative to random Clifford measurements. The reconstruction uses the identity that each off-diagonal element rho_jk is a linear combination of expectation values of three rank-one projectors, together with the classical shadow sample-complexity theorem. The Clifford-based O(log K / epsilon^2) result and the d^3 log d tomography scaling follow from standard shadow tomography plus a Frobenius-to-trace-norm bound.

Significance. If correct, the paper gives a clean and practically relevant application of classical shadow tomography: a single shared dataset can be reused to estimate many off-diagonal density matrix elements with logarithmic overhead, and the resulting full tomography protocol matches the best known single-copy upper bound. The Clifford-based part is a direct and sound application of Huang--Kueng--Preskill, and the trace-distance reduction in Theorem 3 is a standard Frobenius-norm argument. A rigorous proof of the claimed MUB factor-one-half improvement would be a genuine constant-factor advance in measurement efficiency, and the proposed H--S--CZ implementation is attractive for near-term devices. The main weaknesses are that the MUB factor claim rests on an unproved partition of MUB unitaries, and that the tomography protocol as stated does not produce a physical density matrix without an additional projection step.

major comments (2)

[III.B, Lemma 2] The factor-1/2 MUB reduction rests on the assertion that, for every O in the set O, the nontrivial MUB unitaries split into two equally sized classes U_{O,1} and U_{O,2} according to the relative phase between the two computational-basis components. The text supports this only with the sentence "Due to the symmetric structure of MUB states expression," followed by an example; no rigorous counting argument is given. This partition is load-bearing: if it fails, the nontrivial-MUB contribution in Eq. (11) can be twice as large and the bound ||O_0||^2_shadow < 3/2 is not established. Please provide a complete proof of the partition, or state it as a lemma with a full derivation; an explicit check for d=4 would be a useful sanity test. The proof also relies on Results 6(i) and 6(ii) of the unpublished preprint [36]; these should be stated explicitly and proved, or replaced by a peer-reviewed reference.
[IV.C, Theorem 3] The estimator rho_tilde defined by entrywise estimates of rho_jk is not guaranteed to be positive semidefinite or trace-one, so it is not a density matrix and D_tr(rho, rho_tilde) is not literally a trace distance between quantum states. Since Theorem 3 is presented as full quantum state tomography, the protocol should include a projection of the Hermitian estimate onto the set of density matrices, together with a proof that the trace-distance bound is preserved (a Frobenius-norm projection suffices given the current bound), or the theorem should be restated as a trace-norm approximation by a Hermitian matrix rather than as a tomographic reconstruction of a quantum state.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typos: "notrivial" in Section III.B, "meaasurements" in Section IV.C, and "closed to" instead of "close to" in the abstract and conclusion; these should be corrected.
[III.B, Lemma 2] The proof invokes Eq. (B12) of [35] without restating its assumptions; since the prefactor 2^{n+1} in Eq. (11) is essential to the final bound, please state the variance formula and the biased sampling model explicitly in a self-contained way, or give a precise pointer to the exact statement in [35].
[III.C] The text says DMP-ST requires O(log(K/δ)/epsilon^2) distinct random unitary settings, but since each sample uses a freshly drawn unitary, this is the same as the number of samples; the phrase "measurement configurations" may misleadingly suggest a distinct fixed device setting per unitary, so the terminology should be clarified.
[References] Reference [36] is an arXiv preprint; if it is the source of a load-bearing technical statement, please cite the published version if one exists, or include the relevant results explicitly in the present paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the O(log K/ε²) result is a direct application of classical shadow bounds to explicit rank-one observables, and the trace-distance tomography bound follows by norm inequalities; the MUB half-factor depends on an unproved equal-split assertion but is not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the paper's principal results is not circular. Theorem 1 is a direct Hoeffding bound on empirical frequencies. Theorem 2 reduces each off-diagonal density-matrix element to a fixed linear combination, given by Eqs. (5)–(6) and the proof of Theorem 2, of expectation values of the explicitly defined rank-one observables in Eq. (4). Applying the classical shadow sample-complexity bound, Eq. (3), to those 2K observables yields O(log K/ε²) without taking the target element values as input. The reconstruction constants come from the identities ⟨φ|ρ|φ⟩ and ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩, not from fitting. Theorem 3 is a norm-conversion argument: the elementwise precision ε₁ = 2ε/d^{3/2} implies trace-distance error ε via the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, and substituting this into Theorem 2 gives O(d³ log d/ε²). The only point where the proof leans heavily on same-author material is the biased-MUB half-factor in Lemma 2, where the text asserts, 'Due to the symmetric structure of MUB states expression, the two sets of unitaries UO,1 and UO,2 each contain exactly half of the nontrivial MUB unitaries,' and cites [35] and [36]. That is an omitted proof and a self-citation dependency for a non-central constant factor, but it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and it is not a conclusion assumed by definition. The central O(log K) and O(d³ log d/ε²) scalings stand even without the factor-1/2 MUB claim. Under the stated rules, self-citation by itself does not make the derivation circular, so the score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no free parameters. The central claims rely on the standard shadow tomography theorem and on properties of MUBs taken from the author's own prior publications, one of which is an unpublished preprint.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Existence of complete sets of mutually unbiased bases for n-qubit systems with the amplitude properties stated in Result 6 of [36] (same-author arXiv preprint).
The biased MUB shadow norm bound in Lemma 2 uses the distribution of rescaled MUB amplitudes being uniformly ±1, ±i, and the even split of unitaries by relative phase. This is not proved in the paper.
standard math Classical shadow tomography sample complexity bound: N = O(log(K/delta)/epsilon^2 max_i ||O_i||^2_shadow) for estimating K observables.
Taken from Huang, Kueng, Preskill (2020), used in Eq. (3) and Lemma 2.
domain assumption Biased MUB reconstruction channel and variance expression from Eq. (B12) of [35] (same-author peer-reviewed paper).
Used to compute the shadow norm; the expression is assumed without re-derivation.
standard math Frobenius norm bounds trace distance: ||Delta||_1 <= sqrt(d) ||Delta||_F.
Used in Theorem 3 to convert per-entry error to trace distance.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct reconstruction of the quantum density matrix elements with classical shadow tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXNXUWVF

@misc{pith2026250515243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct reconstruction of the quantum density matrix elements with classical shadow tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXNXUWVF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15243}
}

abstract

We introduce a direct estimation framework for reconstructing multiple density matrix elements of an unknown quantum state using classical shadow tomography. Traditional direct measurement protocols (DMPs), while effective for individual elements, suffer from poor scalability due to post-selection losses and the need for element-specific measurement configurations. In contrast, our method, DMP-ST, leverages random Clifford or biased mutually unbiased basis measurements to enable global estimation: a single dataset suffices to estimate arbitrary off-diagonal entries with high accuracy. We prove that estimating $K$ off-diagonal matrix elements up to additive error $\epsilon$ requires only $\mathcal{O}(\log K/\epsilon^2)$ samples, achieving exponential improvement over conventional DMPs. The number of required measurement configurations can also be exponentially reduced for large K. When extended to full state tomography, DMP-ST attains trace distance error $\le \epsilon$ with sample complexity $\mathcal{O}(d^3 \log d/\epsilon^2)$, which is closed to the optimal scaling for single-copy measurements. Moreover, biased MUB measurements reduce sample complexity by a constant factor than random Clifford measurements. This work provides both theoretical guarantees and explicit protocols for efficient, entrywise quantum state reconstruction. It significantly advances the practicality of direct tomography, especially for high-dimensional systems and near-term quantum platforms.

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

Tomography by Design: An Algebraic Approach to Low-Rank Quantum States
quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Given enough overlapping principal submatrices of a low-rank density matrix, the full matrix can be recovered algebraically via subspace intersection and least squares, using only O(RD) measurement settings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[35]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Reviews of modern physics 81, 865 (2009)

work page 2009
[36]

Ringbauer, T

M. Ringbauer, T. R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, L. Lami, W. S. Lau, G. Adesso, A. G. White, A. Fedrizzi, and M. Piani, Physical Review X 8, 041007 (2018)

work page 2018
[1]

For estimating a single diagonal element ρjj : N ≥ ln(2/δ) 2ϵ2 . (1)

work page
[2]

, ρjK jK } simultaneously: N ≥ ln(2K/δ) 2ϵ2

For estimating K different diagonal elements {ρj1j1 , . . . , ρjK jK } simultaneously: N ≥ ln(2K/δ) 2ϵ2 . (2) Proof. To estimate diagonal elements of ρ, we per- form projective measurements in the computational basis {|j⟩⟨j|}d−1 j=0 . According to Born’s rule, the probability of obtaining outcome j is pj = tr(ρ|j⟩⟨j|) = ρjj . Suppose we perform N independ...

work page
[3]

• UO,2: The relative phase differs from that of |ϕ⟩, leading to cancellation of cross terms and uniform projection: tr(OPjk ) = 1 2n , ⇒ tr(O0Pjk ) = 0

Therefore, tr2(O0Pjk ) = 1 4n . • UO,2: The relative phase differs from that of |ϕ⟩, leading to cancellation of cross terms and uniform projection: tr(OPjk ) = 1 2n , ⇒ tr(O0Pjk ) = 0. Continuing the above example with|ϕ⟩ = 1√ 2 (|ℓ1⟩+ i|ℓ2⟩), we observe that for all MUB states U † j |k⟩ in this class, their projection onto the subspace spanned by {|ℓ1⟩, ...

work page
[4]

The sample complexity for this step is O log K ϵ2

Diagonal Elements: Perform projective measure- ments in the computational basis to estimate up to min(2K, d) = O(K) diagonal entries. The sample complexity for this step is O log K ϵ2

work page
[5]

Off-Diagonal Elements: Perform DMP-ST with random Clifford measurements or biased MUB measurements to estimate the rank-1 observables {|ϕjtkt ⟩⟨ϕjtkt |, |ψjtkt ⟩⟨ψjtkt | |t = 1, . . . , K} . The sample complexity for this step is also O log K ϵ2 . Proof. By Eqs. (5) and (6), each off-diagonal element ρjk can be recovered from a linear combination of three...

work page
[6]

Paris and J

M. Paris and J. Rehacek, Quantum state estimation, Vol. 649 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

work page 2004

Show all 52 references

[7]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

2010
[8]

Friis, G

N. Friis, G. Vitagliano, M. Malik, and M. Huber, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 72 (2019)

2019
[9]

Streltsov, G

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 041003 (2017)

2017
[10]

Gross, Y.-K

D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, S. T. Flammia, S. Becker, and J. Eisert, Physical review letters 105, 150401 (2010)

2010
[11]

S. T. Flammia, D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, and J. Eisert, New 10 Journal of Physics 14, 095022 (2012)

2012
[12]

J. S. Lundeen, B. Sutherland, A. Patel, C. Stewart, and C. Bamber, Nature 474, 188 (2011)

2011
[13]

J. S. Lundeen and C. Bamber, Physical Review Letters 108, 070402 (2012)

2012
[14]

J. Z. Salvail, M. Agnew, A. S. Johnson, E. Bolduc, J. Leach, and R. W. Boyd, Nature Photonics 7, 316 (2013)

2013
[15]

Bamber and J

C. Bamber and J. S. Lundeen, Physical Review Letters 112, 070405 (2014)

2014
[16]

Z. Shi, M. Mirhosseini, J. Margiewicz, M. Malik, F. Rivera, Z. Zhu, and R. W. Boyd, Optica 2, 388 (2015)

2015
[17]

G. S. Thekkadath, L. Giner, Y. Chalich, M. J. Horton, J. Banker, and J. S. Lundeen, Physical Review Letters 117, 120401 (2016)

2016
[18]

Bolduc, G

E. Bolduc, G. Gariepy, and J. Leach, Nature Communi- cations 7, 1 (2016)

2016
[19]

Vallone and D

G. Vallone and D. Dequal, Physical review letters 116, 040502 (2016)

2016
[20]

Calderaro, G

L. Calderaro, G. Foletto, D. Dequal, P. Villoresi, and G. Vallone, Physical Review Letters 121, 230501 (2018)

2018
[21]

Pan, X.-Y

W.-W. Pan, X.-Y. Xu, Y. Kedem, Q.-Q. Wang, Z. Chen, M. Jan, K. Sun, J.-S. Xu, Y.-J. Han, C.-F. Li, et al., Physical Review Letters 123, 150402 (2019)

2019
[22]

Zhang, M.-J

C.-R. Zhang, M.-J. Hu, Z.-B. Hou, J.-F. Tang, J. Zhu, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and Y.-S. Zhang, Physical Review A 101, 012119 (2020)

2020
[23]

L. Xu, M. Zhou, R. Tao, Z. Zhong, B. Wang, Z. Cao, H. Xia, Q. Wang, H. Zhan, A. Zhang, et al., Physical Review Letters 132, 030201 (2024)

2024
[24]

Huang, R

H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Nature Physics 16, 1050 (2020)

2020
[25]

Aaronson, in Proceedings of the 50th annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing(2018) pp

S. Aaronson, in Proceedings of the 50th annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing(2018) pp. 325–338

2018
[26]

Kokail, R

C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics 17, 936 (2021)

2021
[27]

Hadfield, S

C. Hadfield, S. Bravyi, R. Raymond, and A. Mezza- capo, Communications in Mathematical Physics391, 951 (2022)

2022
[28]

Seif, Z.-P

A. Seif, Z.-P. Cian, S. Zhou, S. Chen, and L. Jiang, PRX Quantum 4, 010303 (2023)

2023
[29]

Jnane, J

H. Jnane, J. Steinberg, Z. Cai, H. C. Nguyen, and B. Koczor, PRX Quantum 5, 010324 (2024)

2024
[30]

Zhao and A

A. Zhao and A. Miyake, npj Quantum Information 10, 57 (2024)

2024
[31]

Huang, R

H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, G. Torlai, V. V. Albert, and J. Preskill, Science 377, eabk3333 (2022)

2022
[32]

Jerbi, C

S. Jerbi, C. Gyurik, S. C. Marshall, R. Molteni, and V. Dunjko, Nature Communications 15, 5676 (2024)

2024
[33]

Kueng, H

R. Kueng, H. Rauhut, and U. Terstiege, Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 42, 88 (2017)

2017
[34]

S. Chen, B. Huang, J. Li, A. Liu, and M. Sellke, in 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2023) pp. 391–404

2023
[37]

T. Feng, C. Ren, and X. Zhou, Physical Review A 104, 042403 (2021)

2021
[38]

Y. Wang, H. Jiang, Y. Liu, and K. Li, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03435 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[39]

C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4537 (2002)

2002
[40]

Wang and W

Y. Wang and W. Cui, Physical Review A 109, 062406 (2024)

2024
[41]

Yu and W

W. Yu and W. Dongsheng, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11698 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[42]

Aaronson and D

S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Physical Review A 70, 052328 (2004)

2004
[43]

Koenig and J

R. Koenig and J. A. Smolin, Journal of Mathematical Physics 55, 122202 (2014)

2014
[44]

Maslov and M

D. Maslov and M. Roetteler, IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory 64, 4729 (2018)

2018
[45]

van den Berg, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)(2021) pp

E. van den Berg, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)(2021) pp. 54–59

2021
[46]

Bravyi and D

S. Bravyi and D. Maslov, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory 67, 4546 (2021)

2021
[47]

C. A. Fuchs and J. Van De Graaf, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 45, 1216 (1999)

1999
[48]

J. Haah, A. W. Harrow, Z. Ji, X. Wu, and N. Yu, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 63, 5628 (2017)

2017
[49]

O’Donnell and J

R. O’Donnell and J. Wright, in Proceedings of the forty- eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) (2016) pp. 899–912

2016
[50]

J. Haah, A. W. Harrow, Z. Ji, X. Wu, and N. Yu, in Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing(2016) pp. 913–925

2016
[51]

S. T. Flammia, A. Silberfarb, and C. M. Caves, Foun- dations of Physics 35, 1985 (2005)

2005
[52]

Heinosaari, L

T. Heinosaari, L. Mazzarella, and M. M. Wolf, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics 318, 355 (2013)

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [35]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Reviews of modern physics 81, 865 (2009)

work page 2009

[2] [36]

Ringbauer, T

M. Ringbauer, T. R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, L. Lami, W. S. Lau, G. Adesso, A. G. White, A. Fedrizzi, and M. Piani, Physical Review X 8, 041007 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [1]

For estimating a single diagonal element ρjj : N ≥ ln(2/δ) 2ϵ2 . (1)

work page

[4] [2]

, ρjK jK } simultaneously: N ≥ ln(2K/δ) 2ϵ2

For estimating K different diagonal elements {ρj1j1 , . . . , ρjK jK } simultaneously: N ≥ ln(2K/δ) 2ϵ2 . (2) Proof. To estimate diagonal elements of ρ, we per- form projective measurements in the computational basis {|j⟩⟨j|}d−1 j=0 . According to Born’s rule, the probability of obtaining outcome j is pj = tr(ρ|j⟩⟨j|) = ρjj . Suppose we perform N independ...

work page

[5] [3]

• UO,2: The relative phase differs from that of |ϕ⟩, leading to cancellation of cross terms and uniform projection: tr(OPjk ) = 1 2n , ⇒ tr(O0Pjk ) = 0

Therefore, tr2(O0Pjk ) = 1 4n . • UO,2: The relative phase differs from that of |ϕ⟩, leading to cancellation of cross terms and uniform projection: tr(OPjk ) = 1 2n , ⇒ tr(O0Pjk ) = 0. Continuing the above example with|ϕ⟩ = 1√ 2 (|ℓ1⟩+ i|ℓ2⟩), we observe that for all MUB states U † j |k⟩ in this class, their projection onto the subspace spanned by {|ℓ1⟩, ...

work page

[6] [4]

The sample complexity for this step is O log K ϵ2

Diagonal Elements: Perform projective measure- ments in the computational basis to estimate up to min(2K, d) = O(K) diagonal entries. The sample complexity for this step is O log K ϵ2

work page

[7] [5]

Off-Diagonal Elements: Perform DMP-ST with random Clifford measurements or biased MUB measurements to estimate the rank-1 observables {|ϕjtkt ⟩⟨ϕjtkt |, |ψjtkt ⟩⟨ψjtkt | |t = 1, . . . , K} . The sample complexity for this step is also O log K ϵ2 . Proof. By Eqs. (5) and (6), each off-diagonal element ρjk can be recovered from a linear combination of three...

work page

[8] [6]

Paris and J

M. Paris and J. Rehacek, Quantum state estimation, Vol. 649 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

work page 2004