Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Direct Fidelity Estimation for Generic Quantum States

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A protocol for generic quantum state fidelity estimation that uses classical shadow tomography on one side and quantum amplitude estimation on the other achieves $O(\sqrt d)$ operations and finite measurements, a quadratic improvement…

desk verdict Clever QAE+CST combination with a real quadratic query-speedup, but the main theorem's proof has two fixable constant/parameter errors and the resource claims need an oracle-model caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07623 v1 pith:SJDETEQY submitted 2024-12-10 quant-ph

Christopher Vairogs , Bin Yan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Ac
keywords quantumfidelityestimationdirectclassicalshadowtomographyamplitudequadraticspeedupgenericstatesmedian-of-meansestimatorHilbertspacedimension
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 proposes a protocol for directly estimating the fidelity $F=\langle\psi|\rho|\psi\rangle$ between a pure target state $|\psi\rangle$ held by Alice and an arbitrary (possibly mixed) state $\rho$ held by Bob. The main result is that Alice can certify the fidelity to accuracy $\varepsilon$ with failure probability at most $\delta$ using $N_A=O(\ln(1/\varepsilon^2)\ln(1/\delta)\sqrt d/\varepsilon^4)$ iterations of quantum amplitude estimation, while Bob needs only $N_B=O(\ln(1/\delta)/\varepsilon^2)$ copies of his state, independent of the Hilbert-space dimension $d$. If correct, this is a quadratic improvement over previous direct fidelity estimation approaches, which use $O(d)$ state copies, and it reduces the communication between the two parties to a finite amount. The protocol works for generic states, including states without efficient classical descriptions, because Alice's amplitude estimation step never requires a classical description of $|\psi\rangle$.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two tools and one identity. Classical shadow tomography supplies the snapshot operator $\hat\rho=(d+1)C^\dagger|b\rangle\langle b|C-I_d$, whose expectation reproduces $\rho$; applying it to the projector $|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ yields the identity $F=(d+1)\,\mathbb{E}[|\langle b|C|\psi\rangle|^2]-1$, with shadow variance at most $3/(d+1)^2$. Quantum amplitude estimation, an algorithm that estimates the probability of a marked measurement outcome, then estimates each probability $|\langle b|C|\psi\rangle|^2$: with $M$ iterations the estimate is within $O(1/M)$ except with constant probability, and because each shadow sample uses a different bit string $b$, taking the median of $K$ repetitions makes that error small. A median-of-means estimator combines the $N$ samples, using Chebyshev's inequality and the small shadow variance to control the statistical spread. The mechanism producing the $\sqrt d$ scaling is the combination of the $O(1/M)$ amplitude-estimation error with the $1/(d+1)^2$ shadow variance, which forces the number of QAE iterations per amplitude to scale like $\sqrt d$.

What would settle it

Implement the protocol on a family of target states with known preparation unitaries $A$ and count physical two-qubit gates instead of quantum amplitude estimation iterations. If the total gate count grows like $2^{n/2}\,\mathrm{depth}(A)$, with $\mathrm{depth}(A)$ exponential in $n$, then the claimed $O(\sqrt d)$ computational cost is not realized as a gate cost; if the total count stays at $O(2^{n/2}\,\mathrm{poly}(n))$ for such families, the claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that fidelity can be rewritten as a shadow expectation and then evaluated quantumly: for a random Clifford $C$ and a computational-basis outcome $b$ obtained by measuring $C\rho C^\dagger$, Lemma 3 gives $F=(d+1)\,\mathbb{E}[\,|\langle b|C|\psi\rangle|^2\,]-1$. Bob samples $N$ such pairs $(C_i,b_i)$ by classical shadow tomography and sends only classical data to Alice; Alice, for each pair, uses quantum amplitude estimation on her own copies of $|\psi\rangle$ to estimate $|\langle b_i|C_i|\psi\rangle|^2$. Taking the median of $K$ amplitude estimates for each pair and then a median-of-means over pairs makes the estimator concentrate: Theorem 1 states that with the $N_A$ and $N_B$ above, $|\hat F_{\rm med}-F|\le\varepsilon$ with probability at least $1-\delta$. The quadratic speedup comes from the fact that quantum amplitude estimation estimates a probability with error $O(1/M)$ after $M$ iterations, whereas direct sampling of the same probability would only give $O(1/\sqrt M)$.

Load-bearing premise

The resource guarantee counts each quantum amplitude estimation iteration as one unit and assumes Alice can apply the unitary that prepares her target state at unit cost; if that preparation requires a number of gates that grows with system size, the true cost can be far larger than $O(\sqrt d)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 1 is correct, generic-state fidelity estimation—where the target has no efficient classical description—becomes quadratically cheaper than the established $O(d)$ approach, since the certifier's cost is $O(\sqrt d)$ operations.
  • Bob's measurement budget and the classical communication from Bob to Alice become finite and independent of dimension, so a remote party can certify a device while sending only $O(\ln(1/\delta)/\varepsilon^2)$ shadow samples.
  • The protocol inherits the robustness of classical shadows: it handles arbitrary unknown $\rho$ and any pure $|\psi\rangle$ whose preparation unitary is available, without needing a classical description of the target state.
  • Because the speedup has a quantum origin, it invites a matching lower bound; a quadratic lower bound would make the $O(\sqrt d)$ cost optimal for this task.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's operation count is a query count, not a gate count; as an editorial inference, for target states whose preparation unitary has exponential depth the actual gate cost would be $\sqrt d$ times that depth, so the practical speedup depends on $A$ being inexpensive.
  • The same design—write an observable as a shadow expectation, then estimate the individual probabilities with quantum amplitude estimation—could estimate other observables such as overlaps with several pure states or expectation values of low-rank projectors, potentially carrying the $\sqrt d$ improvement to those tasks.
  • An optimality proof may be within reach: since the speedup comes from amplitude amplification, a matching quadratic lower bound of the kind known for unstructured search would establish that $O(\sqrt d)$ is the best possible query cost for this fidelity estimation problem.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a protocol for two parties, Alice and Bob, to estimate the fidelity F = ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩ between Alice's known pure state |ψ⟩ and Bob's arbitrary (possibly mixed) state ρ. Bob performs classical shadow tomography with random Clifford unitaries and sends the classical data to Alice; for each shadow snapshot, Alice runs quantum amplitude estimation (QAE) to estimate the overlap |⟨b|C|ψ⟩|², aggregates the estimates via a median, and then forms a median-of-means fidelity estimator. The main theorem claims that for any ε, δ ∈ (0,1), the protocol achieves error ≤ ε with failure probability ≤ δ using N_B = O(ln(1/δ)/ε²) copies for Bob and N_A = O(ln(1/ε²)ln(1/δ)√d/ε⁴) QAE iterations for Alice, giving an O(√d) computational scaling and a system-size-independent measurement count for Bob. The proof is based on a classical-shadow identity (Lemma 3), Chebyshev and Hoeffding-type concentration bounds, and the QAE error bound of Brassard–Hoyer–Mosca–Tapp. Numerical simulations on noisy GHZ states exhibit the predicted √d scaling of the QAE iteration count.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a notable advance: standard direct fidelity estimation for generic states requires O(d) resources, and this protocol claims a quadratic improvement to O(√d) while reducing Bob's copy count to a d-independent value. The combination of classical shadows with QAE is a conceptually clean and novel idea, and the paper provides a concrete falsifiable scaling prediction that the simulations corroborate. The proof strategy is transparent, built on published external results rather than fitted parameters. However, the current manuscript contains formal gaps in the derivation of the performance guarantee that must be repaired before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Material, Corollary 10] The proof of Corollary 10 asserts that 'Since δ < 0.09, we have ⌈24/(ε²δ0)⌉ ≤ (13/6)^4 δ0/(12ε^4)' with δ0 = 1/3. This inequality is independent of δ and is false for large ε: with δ0 = 1/3 it reads 72/ε² ≤ (13/6)^4/(36ε^4), which holds only for ε ≲ 0.092. For example, ε = 0.5 gives 288 ≤ 9.8, which is false. Consequently, Proposition 9, and hence Theorem 1, is proved only for small ε, not for 'any ε ∈ (0,1)' as claimed. This is a load-bearing gap in the central guarantee. The asymptotic O(√d/ε⁴) form could likely be recovered by running the protocol with ε' = min(ε, 0.09), but the manuscript does not state this, and the stated reason is incorrect.
  2. [Supplemental Material, Proposition 9 (Eq. (41)) and Corollary 10 (Eq. (74))] The chosen value K ≥ (1/2)(8/π² − 1/2)² ln(4N/δ) does not satisfy the requirement that follows from Lemma 5 and the proof's Eq. (64). The proof needs K ≥ ln(4N/δ)/(2(8/π² − 1/2)²) so that N exp(−2(8/π² − 1/2)² K) ≤ δ/4. The stated K is smaller by a factor of (8/π² − 1/2)⁴ ≈ 0.0093, i.e., about two orders of magnitude, so the displayed failure bound (65) does not follow as written. The constant in the resource bound must be corrected to K = ⌈ln(4N/δ)/(2(8/π² − 1/2)²)⌉; the asymptotic O(√d/ε⁴) scaling is not affected, but the proof is currently invalid.
  3. [Main text, Abstract and Theorem 1; SM, Protocol 8] The advertised 'overall computational cost O(√d)' counts QAE iterations and treats the state-preparation unitary A (and its controlled versions inside Q) as a unit-cost oracle. For generic states, the circuit depth of A can grow exponentially in n, so the actual gate count is O(√d · depth(A)) plus the cost of Bob's Clifford shadow measurements. The manuscript should explicitly state that the O(√d) claim is a query complexity statement in a black-box model for A. As it stands, the abstract's 'overall computational cost' overstates what is proven for physically implemented generic states.
minor comments (5)
  1. [SM, Protocol 8, step 1] The pronouns in step 1 are inconsistent: Bob 'rotates N copies of her state ρ' and later 'sends a classical description of her sampled data ... over to Bob'; the sender should be Bob and the recipient should be Alice.
  2. [Main text, Simulations section] The sentence 'we plot the scaling of the number of iterations M that Bob requires' should refer to Alice, since M is the number of QAE iterations performed by Alice.
  3. [SM, Lemma 5 proof] In the proof of Lemma 5, the text says 'ˆB(N, δ) is a binomial random variable with N trials and success probability ε'; this should say 'failure probability δ' (or 'success probability δ', depending on convention).
  4. [Main text, Abstract] The phrase 'reduces the number of required measurements and the communication cost between parties to finite' is grammatically awkward; it should be 'to finite values' or 'to a finite value independent of system size.'
  5. [SM, Corollary 10] There is a typo: 'Alices uses' should be 'Alice uses.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fidelity estimation guarantee derives from external theorems (CST, QAE) and standard concentration bounds, not from its own assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—Theorem 1, that fidelity can be estimated with O(√d) QAE iterations and O(ln(1/δ)/ε²) copies—is derived by combining external published results: classical shadow tomography (Proposition 2, from Huang et al. [4]), quantum amplitude estimation (Proposition 7, from Brassard et al. [11]), and standard Hoeffding/Chebyshev inequalities. The estimator is defined in Protocol 8 as (d+1)/N Σ med(...) −1, and Lemma 3 shows its expectation equals the true fidelity using only Proposition 2 and linearity. No parameter is fitted to the data being predicted; the resource bounds (N, M, K) are chosen a priori from the desired accuracy ε and failure δ. There are no self-citations that carry a load-bearing argument: all cited results are external and independently published. Although the proof contains a numerical gap in Corollary 10 (the inequality used there does not hold for all ε as claimed), this is a correctness or rigor issue, not a circularity issue, because the purported derivation does not reduce Equation (12) to its inputs by construction. The protocol's assumption that the state-preparation unitary A has unit cost is a modeling choice, not a circular reduction. Therefore the derivation is self-contained and no circularity is present.

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

The central claim rests on standard theorems from classical shadow tomography and quantum amplitude estimation, plus the practical assumption that Alice has a circuit preparing |ψ⟩ whose depth is not counted in the resource bound. No numeric parameters are fitted to make the derivation work.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Clifford classical shadow tomography yields an unbiased estimator of Tr(Oρ) with variance ≤ 3 Tr(O²) (Proposition 2, SM).
    Used in Lemma 3 to express fidelity as an expectation over random Clifford measurement outcomes; the variance bound drives Bob's O(1/ε²) copy count.
  • standard math Quantum amplitude estimation returns an estimate â of a with Pr(|â−a| > 2π√(a(1−a))/M + π²/M²) ≤ 1 − 8/π² (Brassard et al., Proposition 7, SM).
    This error bound is the source of the O(1/M) precision and hence the O(√d) iteration count via M ~ √d/ε².
  • domain assumption Alice can prepare |ψ⟩ with a unitary A and can implement the QAE circuit, including controlled-A, with the cost of A's implementation not counted in the resource bound.
    SM Protocol 8 assumes this; the claimed computational cost counts QAE iterations, not the depth of A.
  • standard math Hoeffding's inequality, Chebyshev's inequality, and the median concentration lemma (Lemma 5, SM) are valid.
    Used in the proof of Proposition 9 and Corollary 10 to combine the N shadow samples and K QAE repetitions.
  • domain assumption Bob measures Clifford-rotated copies of ρ and sends the classical (C_i, b_i) data to Alice; neither party has a classical description of their own state.
    Defines the distributed verification setting; Bob's measurement outcomes are the only data Alice receives.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct Fidelity Estimation for Generic Quantum States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJDETEQY

@misc{pith2026241207623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct Fidelity Estimation for Generic Quantum States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJDETEQY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07623}
}
read the original abstract

Verifying the proper preparation of quantum states is essential in modern quantum information science. Various protocols have been developed to estimate the fidelity of quantum states produced by different parties. Direct fidelity estimation is a leading approach, as it typically requires a number of measurements that scale linearly with the Hilbert space dimension, making it far more efficient than full state tomography. In this article, we introduce a novel fidelity estimation protocol for generic quantum states, with an overall computational cost that scales only as the square root of the Hilbert space dimension. Furthermore, our protocol significantly reduces the number of required measurements and the communication cost between parties to finite. This protocol leverages the quantum amplitude estimation algorithm in conjunction with classical shadow tomography to achieve these improvements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Alice and Bob have local access to their respective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The mean and standard deviations of the estimated fidelity for various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Direct fidelity esti- mation from few pauli measurements,

    Steven T. Flammia and Yi-Kai Liu, “Direct fidelity esti- mation from few pauli measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 230501 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Practical characterization of quantum devices without tomography,

    Marcus P. da Silva, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, and David Poulin, “Practical characterization of quantum devices without tomography,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 210404 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Certifying almost all quantum states with few single-qubit measurements,

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, John Preskill, and Mehdi Soleiman- ifar, “Certifying almost all quantum states with few single-qubit measurements,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07281 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    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)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Thrifty shadow esti- mation: Reusing quantum circuits and bounding tails,

    Jonas Helsen and Michael Walter, “Thrifty shadow esti- mation: Reusing quantum circuits and bounding tails,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 240602 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Experimental estimation of quantum state properties from classical shadows,

    G.I. Struchalin, Ya. A. Zagorovskii, E.V. Kovlakov, S.S. Straupe, and S.P. Kulik, “Experimental estimation of quantum state properties from classical shadows,” PRX Quantum 2, 010307 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    The randomized measurement toolbox,

    Andreas Elben, Steven T. Flammia, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, Beno ˆ ıt Vermersch, and Peter Zoller, “The randomized measurement toolbox,” Nature Reviews Physics 5, 9–24 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Fermionic partial tomography via classical shadows,

    Andrew Zhao, Nicholas C. Rubin, and Akimasa Miyake, “Fermionic partial tomography via classical shadows,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 110504 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Ver- satile fidelity estimation with confidence,

    Akshay Seshadri, Martin Ringbauer, Jacob Spainhour, Rainer Blatt, Thomas Monz, and Stephen Becker, “Ver- satile fidelity estimation with confidence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 020402 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Theory of versatile fidelity estimation with confidence,

    Akshay Seshadri, Martin Ringbauer, Jacob Spainhour, Thomas Monz, and Stephen Becker, “Theory of versatile fidelity estimation with confidence,” Phys. Rev. A 110, 012431 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Quantum amplitude amplification and estima- tion,

    Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp, “Quantum amplitude amplification and estima- tion,” (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack,

    Lov K. Grover, “Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325–328 (1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang, Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2000)

    2000

  6. [14]

    Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem,

    Alexei Kitaev, “Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem,” (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 [quant-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Iterative quantum amplitude estimation,

    Dmitry Grinko, Julien Gacon, Christa Zoufal, and Ste- fan Woerner, “Iterative quantum amplitude estimation,” npj Quantum Information 7 (2021), 10.1038/s41534-021- 00379-1

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Am- plitude estimation without phase estimation,

    Yohichi Suzuki, Shumpei Uno, Rudy Raymond, Tomoki Tanaka, Tamiya Onodera, and Naoki Yamamoto, “Am- plitude estimation without phase estimation,” Quantum Information Processing 19 (2020), 10.1007/s11128-019- 2565-2

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Simpler quantum counting,

    Chu-Ryang Wie, “Simpler quantum counting,” Quantum Information and Computation 19 (2019), 10.26421/qic19.11-12

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Quantum approxi- mate counting, simplified,

    Scott Aaronson and Patrick Rall, “Quantum approxi- mate counting, simplified,” in Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (Society for Industrial and Applied Math- ematics, 2020) p. 24–32

    2020

  11. [19]

    Hadamard-free cir- cuits expose the structure of the clifford group,

    Sergey Bravyi and Dmitri Maslov, “Hadamard-free cir- cuits expose the structure of the clifford group,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 67, 4546–4563 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator,

    Craig Gidney, “Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator,” Quantum 5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    The in- formal criteria used here is sufficient to demonstrated a clear scaling of M v.s

    More sophisticated treatment can be employed to extract the value of M for a given accuracy threshold. The in- formal criteria used here is sufficient to demonstrated a clear scaling of M v.s. system size

  14. [22]

    Strengths and weaknesses of quan- tum computing,

    Charles H. Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, and Umesh Vazirani, “Strengths and weaknesses of quan- tum computing,” SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 1510–1523 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    Tight bounds on quantum searching,

    Michel Boyer, Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, and Alain Tapp, “Tight bounds on quantum searching,” Fortschritte der Physik 46, 493–505 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Direct Fidelity Estimation for Generic Quantum States

    It may be tempting to apply Hoeffding’s inequality here. However, we have no guarantee that E " NX i=1 med({ˆai,j}K j=1) # = NX i=1 ˆAi, (15) where the expectation value is over the distribution pro- duced by the measurements in the amplitude estimation protocol. This leads us...

    2024

  17. [25]

    The map M is invertible and M−1 gives the following equality of random variables: M−1( ˆC †|ˆb⟩⟨ˆb| ˆC) = (d + 1) ˆC †|ˆb⟩⟨ˆb| ˆC − In. (18)

  18. [26]

    NX i=1 ˆXi # ≥ ε ! ≤ exp −2ε2 PN i=1(bi − ai)2 ! (28) and Pr NX i=1 ˆXi − E

    Let O be a Hermitian operator over (C2)n. If we define the random variable ˆo ≡ Tr h M−1( ˆC †|ˆb⟩⟨ˆb| ˆC)O i , then E[ˆo] = Tr[Oρ] (19) and var[ˆo] ≤ 3 Tr[O2]. (20) Note that while M is a quantum channel and M−1 is well-defined, the map M−1 is not itself a channel. 2 Lemma 3....

  19. [27]

    Initialize a state register of n qubits and another register of m ancilla qubits, all in the |0⟩ state

  20. [28]

    On the ancilla qubits, apply a quantum Fourier transform QFTM

    On the state register, apply the unitary A. On the ancilla qubits, apply a quantum Fourier transform QFTM

  21. [29]

    (36) Define Q ≡ −AS0A†Sχ

    Define the n-qubit unitaries S0 ≡ In − 2|0⟩⟨0|n and Sχ ≡ In − 2 X z∈{0,...,2n −1}: χ(z)=1 |z⟩⟨z|n. (36) Define Q ≡ −AS0A†Sχ. Apply the gate ΛM (Q) simultaneously to the ancilla and state registers, where ΛM (Q) ≡ M −1X j=0 |j⟩⟨j|m ⊗ Qj. (37) Note that ΛM (Q) may be decomposed ...

  22. [30]

    Apply the inverse quantum Fourier transform QFT† M on the ancilla register

  23. [31]

    Measure the ancilla qubits in the basis {|z⟩m}M −1 z=0 to obtain an integer ˆy ∈ {0, M− 1}

  24. [32]

    The number of iterations of the algorithm described above is defined to be M = 2 m

    Compute ˆa = sin2(π ˆy/M) and declare ˆa to be an estimator of a. The number of iterations of the algorithm described above is defined to be M = 2 m. For an illustration of the algorithm, see Fig. 1 of [11]. The following proposition comes from Theorem 12 of the same paper. Pr...

  25. [33]

    ,ˆCN from the uniformly weighted Clifford group Cn

    Bob draws N independent and identically distributed samples ˆC1, . . . ,ˆCN from the uniformly weighted Clifford group Cn. He then rotates N copies of her state ρ according to her sampled Clifford operators, obtaining the states ˆC1ρ ˆC † 1, . . . ,ˆCN ρ ˆC † N . He measures e...

  26. [34]

    , N}, Alice estimates the probability amplitude ˆAi ≡ |⟨ˆbi| ˆCi|ψ⟩|2 as follows

    For each i ∈ {1, . . . , N}, Alice estimates the probability amplitude ˆAi ≡ |⟨ˆbi| ˆCi|ψ⟩|2 as follows. Fix a one-to-one correspondence between the bit strings{0, 1}n and integers {0, . . . ,2n −1}. Alice uses K independent applications of the quantum amplitude estimation alg...

  27. [35]

    Proposition 9 (Protocol 8 Performance Guarantee)

    Alice computes ˆF ≡ (d + 1) N NX i=1 med({ˆai,j}K j=1) − 1 (40) and declares ˆF to be an estimator of the true fidelity F (ρ, ψ). Proposition 9 (Protocol 8 Performance Guarantee) . Let ε, δ∈ (0, 1) be such that 24 ε2δ ≤ 13 6 4 δ 12ε4 . Suppose we choose N , M , and K in Protoc...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.