When Does Adaptivity Help for Quantum State Learning?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We consider the classic question of state tomography: given copies of an unknown quantum state ρ∈mathbbCd× d, output widehatρ which is close to ρ in some sense, e.g. trace distance or fidelity. When one is allowed to make coherent measurements entangled across all copies, Theta(d2/ε2) copies are necessary and sufficient to get trace distance ε. Unfortunately, the protocols achieving this rate incur large quantum memory overheads that preclude implementation on near-term devices. On the other hand, the best known protocol using incoherent (single-copy) measurements uses O(d3/ε2) copies, and multiple papers have posed it as an open question to understand whether or not this rate is tight. In this work, we fully resolve this question, by showing that any protocol using incoherent measurements, even if they are chosen adaptively, requires Omega(d3/ε2) copies, matching the best known upper bound. We do so by a new proof technique which directly bounds the ``tilt'' of the posterior distribution after measurements, which yields a surprisingly short proof of our lower bound, and which we believe may be of independent interest. While this implies that adaptivity does not help for tomography with respect to trace distance, we show that it actually does help for tomography with respect to infidelity. We give an adaptive algorithm that outputs a state which is γ-close in infidelity to ρ using only tildeO(d3/γ) copies, which is optimal for incoherent measurements. In contrast, it is known that any nonadaptive algorithm requires Omega(d3/γ2) copies. While it is folklore that in 2 dimensions, one can achieve a scaling of O(1/γ), to the best of our knowledge, our algorithm is the first to achieve the optimal rate in all dimensions.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2022.
Builds on
10 of 36 references.
References · 10
- 2021Quantum advantage in learning from experimentscited by 186
- 2021Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learningcited by 95
- 2016Efficient quantum tomography IIcited by 54
- 2021Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memorycited by 50
- 2020Computational Barriers to Estimation from Low-Degree Polynomialscited by 38
- 2020Entanglement is Necessary for Optimal Quantum Property Testingcited by 22
- 2021A Hierarchy for Replica Quantum Advantagecited by 16
- 2017Quantum state certificationcited by 13
- 2021Toward Instance-Optimal State Certification With Incoherent Measurementscited by 12
- 2022Tight Bounds for Quantum State Certification with Incoherent Measurementscited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 4; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
12 papers.
- 2022Lower Bounds for Learning Quantum States with Single-Copy Measurementscited by 6
- 2023Lower Bounds on Learning Pauli Channels with Individual Measurementscited by 5
- 2024Learning pure quantum states (almost) without regretcited by 5
- 2024On the sample complexity of purity and inner product estimationcited by 4
- 2024An optimal tradeoff between entanglement and copy complexity for state tomographycited by 2
- 2023Fast Minimization of Expected Logarithmic Loss via Stochastic Dual Averagingcited by 1
- 2025Online Learning of Pure States is as Hard as Mixed Statescited by 1
- 2025Quantum state-agnostic work extraction (almost) without dissipationcited by 1
- 2024Adaptivity can help exponentially for shadow tomographycited by 0
- 2025Efficient learning of bosonic Gaussian unitariescited by 0
- 2026Learning Pure Quantum States in Any Dimension (Almost) Without Regretcited by 0
- 2026Tight Lower Bounds for State Tomography with Limited Entanglementcited by 0
- 2026Tight Lower Bounds for State Tomography with Limited Entanglement4 Sep 2026
- 2026Learning Pure Quantum States in Any Dimension (Almost) Without Regret9 May 2026
- 2025Efficient learning of bosonic Gaussian unitaries7 Oct 2025
- 2025Quantum state-agnostic work extraction (almost) without dissipation14 May 2025
- 2025Online Learning of Pure States is as Hard as Mixed States2 Feb 2025
- 2024Adaptivity can help exponentially for shadow tomography26 Dec 2024
- 2024On the sample complexity of purity and inner product estimation16 Oct 2024
- 2024Learning pure quantum states (almost) without regret26 Jun 2024
- 2024An optimal tradeoff between entanglement and copy complexity for state tomography26 Feb 2024
- 2023Fast Minimization of Expected Logarithmic Loss via Stochastic Dual Averaging5 Nov 2023
- 2023Lower Bounds on Learning Pauli Channels with Individual Measurements22 Jan 2023
- 2022Lower Bounds for Learning Quantum States with Single-Copy Measurements29 Jul 2022