mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

When Does Adaptivity Help for Quantum State Learning?

arXiv 2206.05265 ↗First posted 10 Jun 2022quant-ph cs.CC cs.ITcited by 12

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

  1. 2021Quantum advantage in learning from experimentscited by 186
  2. 2021Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learningcited by 95
  3. 2016Efficient quantum tomography IIcited by 54
  4. 2021Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memorycited by 50
  5. 2020Computational Barriers to Estimation from Low-Degree Polynomialscited by 38
  6. 2020Entanglement is Necessary for Optimal Quantum Property Testingcited by 22
  7. 2021A Hierarchy for Replica Quantum Advantagecited by 16
  8. 2017Quantum state certificationcited by 13
  9. 2021Toward Instance-Optimal State Certification With Incoherent Measurementscited by 12
  10. 2022Tight Bounds for Quantum State Certification with Incoherent Measurementscited by 11

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 4; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

12 papers.