Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Optimal tradeoffs for estimating Pauli observables

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.19105 v2 pith:PZHH7RMS submitted 2024-04-29 quant-ph cs.ITmath.IT

classification quant-phcs.ITmath.IT
keywords epsiloncopiesmemorytextestimateoptimalpaulimeasurements
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

We revisit the problem of Pauli shadow tomography: given copies of an unknown $n$-qubit quantum state $\rho$, estimate $\text{tr}(P\rho)$ for some set of Pauli operators $P$ to within additive error $\epsilon$. This has been a popular testbed for exploring the advantage of protocols with quantum memory over those without: with enough memory to measure two copies at a time, one can use Bell sampling to estimate $|\text{tr}(P\rho)|$ for all $P$ using $O(n/\epsilon^4)$ copies, but with $k\le n$ qubits of memory, $\Omega(2^{(n-k)/3})$ copies are needed. These results leave open several natural questions. How does this picture change in the physically relevant setting where one only needs to estimate a certain subset of Paulis? What is the optimal dependence on $\epsilon$? What is the optimal tradeoff between quantum memory and sample complexity? We answer all of these questions. For any subset $A$ of Paulis and any family of measurement strategies, we completely characterize the optimal sample complexity, up to $\log |A|$ factors. We show any protocol that makes $\text{poly}(n)$-copy measurements must make $\Omega(1/\epsilon^4)$ measurements. For any protocol that makes $\text{poly}(n)$-copy measurements and only has $k < n$ qubits of memory, we show that $\widetilde{\Theta}(\min\{2^n/\epsilon^2, 2^{n-k}/\epsilon^4\})$ copies are necessary and sufficient. The protocols we propose can also estimate the actual values $\text{tr}(P\rho)$, rather than just their absolute values as in prior work. Additionally, as a byproduct of our techniques, we establish tight bounds for the task of purity testing and show that it exhibits an intriguing phase transition not present in the memory-sample tradeoff for Pauli shadow tomography.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dimension-Free Polylogarithmic Quantum Shadow Tomography from Sequential Pretty-Good Measurements

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    New sequential pretty-good measurement protocol achieves dimension-free shadow tomography with sample complexity O(1/eps^2 * (log(M/delta))^4 / (log log(M/delta))^3).

  2. Information-Computation Gaps in Quantum Learning via Low-Degree Likelihood

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A quantum extension of the low-degree method shows that state designs imply computational hardness for many single-copy quantum measurement strategies, yielding new information-computation gaps.

  3. Quantum channel learning with limited parallel access

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For qudit channels, learning is exponentially hard with c < d parallel copies and becomes efficient at c = d with tight ε^(-2d) scaling; access to the complex-conjugate channel gives tight ε^(-4) bounds, and bosonic c...

  4. Online Shadow Tomography Matching the Classical Bounds

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Online shadow tomography can be solved with O(log m sqrt(log d)/eps^3) or O(sqrt(m)/eps^2) copies, matching known classical rates, but the first bound's key proof lemma contains an invalid inequality.

  5. Lower Bounds on Relative Error Quantum Compression and Classical Shadows

    quant-ph 2025-06 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The claimed Ω(√(2^n)ε^{-2}) lower bounds for relative-error quantum state compression are not established because the reductions' error propagation is quantitatively invalid.

Pith tools