Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 44 references

Breaking the Quadratic Barrier for von Neumann Entropy Estimation

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes the first o(d^2)-sample estimator for von Neumann entropy, breaking the quadratic barrier faced by all previous estimators.

desk verdict A credible subquadratic von Neumann entropy estimator whose internal math is solid, but whose headline claim is conditional on two unproved primitives from an unpublished preprint. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11151 v1 pith:PEUXG75U submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph cs.ITmath.IT

Minbo Gao , Qisheng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ITmath.IT MSC 68Q1281P4581P6894A17 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords vonNeumannentropyestimationsamplecomplexityquantumstatetomographysubquadraticestimatorpolynomialapproximationpinchinginequalityspectruminformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims the first subquadratic-sample estimator for the von Neumann entropy of an unknown $d$-dimensional quantum state. For additive error $\varepsilon$, the estimator uses $O(d^2 (\log\log d)^2 \log(1/\varepsilon)/(\varepsilon^2 (\log d)^2) + \log^2(d/\varepsilon)/\varepsilon^2)$ samples, which for constant $\varepsilon$ is $o(d^2)$ and therefore beats the $d^2$ barrier that all previous estimators, in particular all plug-in estimators, faced. The estimator avoids full tomography: it uses a small amount of mixed-state tomography to separate large and small eigenvalues, estimates each block separately, and corrects the bias of the plug-in estimate. If the claim is right, von Neumann entropy estimation is strictly easier than full quantum state tomography for fixed precision, and the sample count is close to the best known lower bound.

What carries the argument

Algorithm 1 splits the Hilbert space at threshold $B=\Theta(\varepsilon K^2/d)$, where $K=\Theta(\log d/\log\log d)$. The high block is estimated by $S(\tilde\rho_{hi})$ plus a linear bias-correction term involving the observable $-\log \tilde\rho_{hi} - P$; the low block is estimated by $\sum_{k=1}^K a_k \hat p_k$, where $\sum_k a_k x^k$ is a polynomial approximating $-x\log x$ on $[0,2B]$ with coefficient bounds $|a_1|\le C\log(eK/M)$ and $|a_k|\le C_{\mathrm{poly}}^K M^{1-k}$. The two blocks are tied together by the pinching inequality of Lemma 4.8, which bounds $0\le S(\rho_{hi})+S(\rho_{lo})-S(\rho)\le t\log(e/t)$ with $t=\operatorname{tr}(X^\dagger \rho_{hi}^{-1}X)$, and this $t$ is controlled by the imported RelativeTomography guarantee.

What would settle it

Run the two imported primitives at exactly the sample counts used in Algorithm 1\u2014$n=\Theta(d^2\log(1/\varepsilon)/(\varepsilon^2K^2))$ for RelativeTomography and $n=\Theta(d^2/(\varepsilon K^2\zeta^2))$ for ProjectedMoments\u2014on states whose large-eigenvalue block has rank about $d/K$ and whose small block has eigenvalues just below $2B$; if the simultaneous observable errors or the projected-moment errors exceed the bounds of Lemmas 2.10 and 2.12, the claimed sample complexity of Theorem 1.1 is not achieved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.1 states that for every $d$-dimensional quantum state $\rho$, there is an estimator that outputs $\hat S$ with $|\hat S - S(\rho)| \le \varepsilon$ and success probability at least $2/3$, using $O(d^2 (\log\log d)^2 \log(1/\varepsilon)/(\varepsilon^2 (\log d)^2) + \log^2(d/\varepsilon)/\varepsilon^2)$ samples. For constant error this is $O_\varepsilon(d^2(\log\log d)^2/(\log d)^2)=o(d^2)$, the first subquadratic sample complexity for this problem. The estimator is not a plug-in estimator: it applies a bias-corrected plug-in estimate to the large-eigenvalue block of the state and a bounded-coefficient polynomial approximation of $-x\log x$ to the small-eigenvalue block, and it controls the entropy lost in the split through a new pinching inequality.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on two unproved imported guarantees\u2014the simultaneous-observable tomography bound and the projected-moment estimator\u2014and on the assumption that the hidden constants in the algorithm can be fixed to satisfy all of the proof's inequalities; if any of these fails, the subquadratic sample count does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any fixed additive error $\varepsilon$, the sample complexity is $O_\varepsilon(d^2(\log\log d)^2/(\log d)^2)=o(d^2)$, so entropy estimation now costs strictly fewer copies than full quantum state tomography at fixed precision.
  • The upper bound is within a factor $O(\log^2 d/(\log\log d)^2)$ of the best known lower bound in $d$ and within $O(\log(1/\varepsilon))$ in $\varepsilon$, so under the current lower bounds the rate is nearly optimal in both parameters.
  • Since the estimator is not a plug-in estimator, it escapes the $\Omega(d^2/\varepsilon)$ plug-in lower bound for empirical Young diagram estimators, showing that the quadratic barrier was an artifact of the plug-in strategy rather than of entropy itself.
  • The protocol is implementable from independent copies of $\rho$: it measures a two-outcome projector on one sample block, a bounded logarithmic observable on another, and uses a projected-moment estimation primitive on a third.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the imported RelativeTomography and ProjectedMoments guarantees can be tightened or made fully explicit, the same split-threshold template would likely yield a cleaner $d^2(\log\log d)^2/(\log d)^2$ bound without the separate $\log(1/\varepsilon)$ factor; this is an extension, not a claim of the paper.
  • The pinching inequality of Lemma 4.8 is a general statement about entropy loss under a direct-sum decomposition and may transfer to other spectral functionals such as R\u00e9nyi entropies or to entanglement entropy estimation of projected states; the paper does not discuss those applications.
  • A numerical test of Algorithm 1 on random $d$-dimensional states with explicit constants would reveal whether the asymptotic $o(d^2)$ regime appears at realistic dimensions; the paper reports no such experiment.
  • The bounded-coefficient polynomial construction for small eigenvalues mirrors the classical Shannon entropy machinery and suggests that the same split-and-correct approach may apply to quantum analogues of other additive distribution functionals.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents an estimator for the von Neumann entropy of an unknown d-dimensional quantum state with sample complexity O(d^2 log^2(log d) log(1/ε)/(ε^2 log^2 d) + log^2(d/ε)/ε^2), which for constant ε is O_ε(d^2 log^2(log d)/log^2 d) = o(d^2). The algorithm thresholding (Algorithm 1) splits the eigenspaces into large and small eigenvalues determined by a relative-tomography output, estimates the large-eigenvalue entropy with a bias-corrected plug-in, and estimates the small-eigenvalue entropy with a polynomial in estimated moments. The proof introduces a pinching inequality (Lemma 4.8) and a bounded-coefficient polynomial approximation (Lemma 6.1). The internal derivations are detailed, but the main theorem is conditional on two imported algorithmic guarantees from the preprint [PSTW26].

Significance. If the result is established, it breaks the long-standing quadratic barrier for von Neumann entropy estimation and is nearly optimal in d and ε in view of the recent lower bound [Wan26]. The pinching inequality and the construction of an entropy polynomial with well-controlled coefficients are interesting and potentially reusable tools. The paper is honest about its methodological debt: the lower bound is cited only for comparison, and the core proofs are not circular. However, the significance is currently tempered because the central claim rests on unproved statements from another preprint, and the universal constants in the algorithm are not made explicit.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.3, Lemmas 2.10 and 2.12] Theorem 1.1 is conditional on two imported algorithmic guarantees from the preprint [PSTW26] that are stated without proof. These lemmas are load-bearing: Lemma 2.10 enters through Corollary 4.6 and Corollary 4.9 to produce the pinching-loss bound t ≤ C d/(n_tom B) that ultimately gives (29), and Lemma 2.12 enters through Lemma 6.5 and Corollary 6.6 to bound the moment-estimation error with n_mom = Θ(d^2/(ε K^2 ζ^2)). If Lemma 2.10 carries an extra rank factor or requires n ≳ d^2 rank(O), the inequality t log(e/t) ≤ ε/2 in (29) fails; if Lemma 2.12 requires n = Ω(d^2/(B ε^2)) or has a worse k-dependence, the error budget (28) fails and the sample complexity could become Ω(d^2/ε) or worse. Since the present manuscript does not provide proofs or independent verification of these statements, Theorem 1.1 is not established as a self-contained result. Please either include proofs of the two lemmas (for example, in an appendix) or state Theorem 1.1 as conditional on [PSTW26] and clearly flag the dependence.
  2. [Algorithm 1 and Section 7] The universal constants in the Θ choices for K, B, ζ, n_tom, n_hi, n_mass, and n_mom are never made explicit, yet the proof requires them to satisfy a sequence of inequalities: 3δ^2 ≤ ε/10 in Corollary 5.5, the bias budget dM/K^2 ≤ ε/10 in (27), the higher-moment budget (28), and t log(e/t) ≤ ε/2 in Section 7. Corollary 6.6 gives a partial explicit compatibility check, but it leaves the constant C_K in (26) and the constants in n_tom and n_mom unspecified and relies on 'sufficiently large d' without stating the threshold. Because the subquadratic rate rests on K = Θ(log d/log log d) and B = Θ(ε K^2/d), an explicit instantiation of the constants or a formal proof of their existence is needed for the theorem as stated.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Lemma 6.5, Eq. (22), and Corollary 6.6] The condition is written as ζ√(M d) ≤ 1/2, but the proof defines z := ζ/√(M d) and uses z ≤ 1/2; the displayed verification 'ζ√(M d) ≤ c_ζ√(2c_B)' is only correct if the intended condition is z = ζ/√(M d) ≤ 1/2. Please correct the typo in Eq. (22) and in the corresponding sentence in Corollary 6.6.
  2. [Section 2.3] Since Lemmas 2.9–2.12 are taken from an unreviewed preprint [PSTW26], it would be helpful to state explicitly at the start of Section 2.3 which statements are proved in this paper and which are imported from other work.
  3. [Table 1] The reference [BMW16] is listed as a private communication; if it is not publicly available, the corresponding row in Table 1 and the text should say so, since readers cannot verify the comparative bound independently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the upper-bound proof composes proven pinching and polynomial-approximation arguments with two independent external primitives from [PSTW26]; the only self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation of Theorem 1.1 is a composition of three logically separate parts. First, the pinching inequality (Lemma 4.8) and the off-diagonal bound (Lemma 4.5, Corollary 4.9) are proved in the paper from the imported RelativeTomography guarantee of [PSTW26]; the entropy-loss quantity t log(e/t) is bounded by algebra, not by assumption. Second, the large-eigenvalue estimator (Section 5) is analyzed through a deterministic relative-entropy bound (Lemma 5.1, Proposition 5.2) and a statistical correction whose error is D(rho_hi || e_rho_hi) plus measurement noise; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Third, the small-eigenvalue estimator (Section 6) uses a bounded-coefficient polynomial whose existence and approximation error are fully proven in Lemmas 6.1-6.3, and whose moment-estimation error is imported from the independent ProjectedMoments guarantee of [PSTW26]. The constants K, B, zeta and the sample counts in Algorithm 1 are universal parameter choices, tuned in the proof to satisfy explicit inequalities, not data-fitted quantities. The only load-bearing external inputs are the two [PSTW26] primitives (Lemmas 2.10 and 2.12), which come from an independent set of authors and are not restatements of the present theorem; their unproved status is a completeness or correctness risk, not circularity. The self-citations [Wan26] (a lower bound by co-author Qisheng Wang) and [WZ25b] are used only for comparison and related-work context and are not invoked in the proof of the upper bound. There is an internal tension between the abstract's 'first subquadratic' claim and the Table 1 row 'Implied by [PSTW26]', which is also o(d^2) for constant epsilon; however, that is a priority/state-of-the-art inconsistency, not a circular reduction. No equation is defined in terms of the target result, and no prediction reduces to its own fitting input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and no data-fitted constants. Its three design parameters (K, B, zeta) are chosen by hand to make the proof work, and the main external inputs are the two algorithmic guarantees from [PSTW26], both of which are taken as axioms here.

free parameters (3)
  • K = Theta(log d / log log d), defined implicitly by inequality (26)
    Degree of the approximation polynomial. Chosen by hand in Algorithm 1 to balance approximation error against the growing coefficient bounds and moment-estimation errors.
  • B = Theta(epsilon K^2 / d)
    Threshold separating large and small eigenvalues. Its size controls the tomography sample number and the pinching loss, and is set so that d/(n_tom B) is suitably small.
  • zeta = Theta(min{1, K sqrt(epsilon)})
    Precision parameter for the ProjectedMoments subroutine. Set to make the moment-estimation error budget in Lemma 6.5 satisfiable.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption There exists an algorithm RelativeTomography that, given n samples of rho, outputs a Hermitian matrix brho satisfying the simultaneous observable error bound in Lemma 2.10.
    Imported from [PSTW26, Theorem 4.12]. The projector P and the large-eigenvalue analysis rely on this bound being valid with the stated d/n scaling.
  • domain assumption There exists an algorithm ProjectedMoments that, for a projector Pi and B > 0, outputs moment estimates bp_k satisfying the error bound in Lemma 2.12.
    Imported from [PSTW26, Corollary 5.7]. The small-eigenvalue polynomial estimator depends on these moment estimates with the stated sample complexity.
  • standard math The relative-entropy subadditivity over sums D(A0+A1 || B0+B1) <= D(A0||B0) + D(A1||B1) holds for the specific decomposition in Lemma 4.8.
    Used in the proof of the pinching inequality. It follows from joint convexity and homogeneity of relative entropy, so it is a standard mathematical fact rather than an ad hoc assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Breaking the Quadratic Barrier for von Neumann Entropy Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PEUXG75U

@misc{pith2026260811151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Breaking the Quadratic Barrier for von Neumann Entropy Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PEUXG75U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11151}
}
abstract

We study the sample complexity of estimating the von Neumann entropy of an unknown $d$-dimensional quantum state. All previously known estimators require $\Omega(d^2)$ samples, and plug-in estimators are known to face a quadratic barrier. We give the first subquadratic-sample estimator: for additive error $\varepsilon$, our estimator uses \[ O\!\left(\frac{d^2 \log^2(\log(d)) \log(1/\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon^2 \log^2(d)} + \frac{\log^2(d/\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon^2}\right) \] samples. In particular, for constant $\varepsilon$, the complexity is $O_\varepsilon(d^2\log^2(\log(d))/\log^2(d))=o(d^2)$. Our analysis introduces a new pinching inequality that bounds the entropy loss under a space direct-sum decomposition, together with a bias-corrected estimator for large eigenvalues and a new bounded-coefficient polynomial estimator for small eigenvalues.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Wagner, Aaron B

    Acharya, Jayadev and Issa, Ibrahim and Shende, Nirmal V. and Wagner, Aaron B. , year = 2020, month = aug, journal =. Estimating. doi:10.1109/JSAIT.2020.3015235 , copyright =

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =

    Entropy Inequalities , author =. Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =. doi:10.1007/BF01646092 , copyright =

    doi:10.1007/bf01646092

  3. [3]

    Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =

    The Proper Formula for Relative Entropy and Its Asymptotics in Quantum Probability , author =. Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =. doi:10.1007/BF02100287 , copyright =

    doi:10.1007/bf02100287

  4. [4]

    Minimax Estimation of the

    Jiao, Jiantao and Han, Yanjun and Weissman, Tsachy , year = 2018, journal =. Minimax Estimation of the

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =

    Minimax Estimation of Functionals of Discrete Distributions , author =. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =. doi:10.1109/TIT.2015.2412945 , issue_date =

    work page arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    O'Donnell, Ryan and Wright, John , year = 2021, month = oct, journal =. Quantum

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Pelecanos, Angelos and Spilecki, Jack and Tang, Ewin and Wright, John , year = 2026, month = jul, number =. The. 2607.27117 , primaryclass =

    arXiv 2026

  8. [9]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =

    Minimax Rates of Entropy Estimation on Large Alphabets via Best Polynomial Approximation , author =. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =. doi:10.1109/TIT.2016.2548468 , copyright =

    work page arXiv 2016

Show all 44 references
  1. [10]

    and Erman, Batu and Mastrandrea, Lucy D

    Shenkin, Peter S. and Erman, Batu and Mastrandrea, Lucy D. , title =. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics , volume =. doi:10.1002/prot.340110408 , year =

    doi

  2. [11]

    Physical Review E , volume =

    Nemenman, Ilya and Bialek, William and van Steveninck, Rob de Ruyter , title =. Physical Review E , volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.69.056111 , year =

    doi

  3. [12]

    Neural Computation , volume =

    Paninski, Liam , title =. Neural Computation , volume =. doi:10.1162/089976603321780272 , year =

    doi

  4. [13]

    ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review , volume =

    Lall, Ashwin and Sekar, Vyas and Ogihara, Mitsunori and Xu, Jun and Zhang, Hui , title =. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review , volume =. doi:10.1145/1140103.1140295 , year =

  5. [14]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =

    Paninski, Liam , title =. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =. doi:10.1109/TIT.2004.833360 , year =

    2004

  6. [15]

    Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =

    Valiant, Gregory and Valiant, Paul , title =. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =. doi:10.1145/1993636.1993727 , year =

  7. [16]

    Proceedings of the 52nd IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages =

    Valiant, Gregory and Valiant, Paul , title =. Proceedings of the 52nd IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages =. doi:10.1109/FOCS.2011.81 , year =

    2011 doi

  8. [17]

    Journal of the ACM , volume =

    Valiant, Gregory and Valiant, Paul , title =. Journal of the ACM , volume =. doi:10.1145/3125643 , year =

    doi

  9. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =

    Jiao, Jiantao and Venkat, Kartik and Han, Yanjun and Weissman, Tsachy , title =. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =. doi:10.1109/TIT.2017.2733537 , year =

    2017

  10. [19]

    SIAM Journal on Computing , volume=

    The complexity of approximating the entropy , author=. SIAM Journal on Computing , volume=. 2005 , doi=

    2005

  11. [20]

    SIAM Journal on Computing , volume=

    Testing symmetric properties of distributions , author=. SIAM Journal on Computing , volume=. 2011 , doi=

    2011

  12. [22]

    Shannon, C. E. , title =. The Bell System Technical Journal , volume =. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x , year =

    1948

  13. [23]

    Neumann, J

    v. Neumann, J. , title =. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse , volume =. doi:, url =

  14. [24]

    Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik , url =

    von Neumann, John , publisher =. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik , url =

  15. [25]

    and Tai, M

    Islam, Rajibul and Ma, Ruichao and Preiss, Philipp M. and Tai, M. Eric and Lukin, Alexander and Rispoli, Matthew and Greiner, Markus , title =. Nature , volume =. doi:10.1038/nature15750 , year =

    doi

  16. [26]

    , title =

    Wu, Jingxiang and Hsieh, Timothy H. , title =. Physical Review Letters , volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.220502 , year =

    doi

  17. [27]

    and Low, Guang Hao and Wiebe, Nathan , title =

    Chowdhury, Anirban N. and Low, Guang Hao and Wiebe, Nathan , title =. 2002.00055 , year =

    2002 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Physical Review Applied , volume =

    Wang, Youle and Li, Guangxi and Wang, Xin , title =. Physical Review Applied , volume =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.16.054035 , year =

    doi

  19. [29]

    Nature Physics , volume =

    Anshu, Anurag and Arunachalam, Srinivasan and Kuwahara, Tomotaka and Soleimanifar, Mehdi , title =. Nature Physics , volume =. doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01232-0 , year =

    doi

  20. [30]

    and Harrow, Aram W

    Childs, Andrew M. and Harrow, Aram W. and Wocjan, Pawe. Weak. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science , pages =. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70918-3_51 , year =

    doi

  21. [31]

    Bavarian, Mohammad and Mehraban, Saeed and Wright, John , title =

  22. [32]

    Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =

    O'Donnell, Ryan and Wright, John , title =. Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =. doi:10.1145/3055399.3055454 , year =

  23. [33]

    2608.02600 , year =

    Wang, Qisheng , title =. 2608.02600 , year =

    arXiv

  24. [34]

    2607.29680 , year =

    Spectrum Estimation is Almost as Hard as Tomography , author =. 2607.29680 , year =

    arXiv

  25. [35]

    , title =

    Fannes, M. , title =. Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =. doi:10.1007/BF01646490 , year =

    doi

  26. [36]

    Audenaert, Koenraad M. R. , title =. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , volume =. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/40/28/S18 , year =

    doi

  27. [37]

    SIAM Journal on Computing , volume =

    Wang, Qisheng and Zhang, Zhicheng , title =. SIAM Journal on Computing , volume =. doi:10.1137/24M1638616 , year =

    doi

  28. [38]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =

    Wang, Qisheng and Zhang, Zhicheng , title =. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =. doi:10.1109/TIT.2025.3576137 , year =

    2025

  29. [39]

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

    Gily\'. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics , booktitle =. doi:10.1145/3313276.3316366 , year =

  30. [40]

    Belavkin, V. P. and Staszewski, P. , title =. Annales de l'institut Henri Poincar\'e. Section A, Physique Th\'eorique , pages =. 1982 , publisher =

    1982

  31. [41]

    Algorithmica , volume =

    Aharonov, Dorit and Jones, Vaughan and Landau, Zeph , title =. Algorithmica , volume =. doi:10.1007/s00453-008-9168-0 , year =

    doi

  32. [42]

    Conditional Expectation in an Operator Algebra

    Umegaki, Hisaharu , year = 1962, month = jan, journal =. Conditional Expectation in an Operator Algebra

    1962

  33. [43]

    Watrous, John , year = 2018, month = apr, edition =. The. doi:10.1017/9781316848142 , isbn =

    2018 doi

  34. [44]

    Probability

    Hoeffding, Wassily , year = 1963, month = mar, journal =. Probability

    1963

  35. [45]

    2511.15806 , primaryclass =

    Mixed State Tomography Reduces to Pure State Tomography , author =. 2511.15806 , primaryclass =

  36. [46]

    Quantum , volume =

    Sample-Optimal Classical Shadows for Pure States , author =. Quantum , volume =

Pith tools

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