Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

A Design Space Study of Density Matrix Parameterizations for Diffusion-Based Quantum State Tomography

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A parameterization's geometric conditioning does not predict end-to-end diffusion quantum state tomography quality, and bounded representations win at three qubits.

desk verdict Useful geometric calibration study, but the headline 3-qubit ranking is not reproducible because the measurement model is never specified—and the SDR tables disagree with each other. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09625 v2 pith:BIOXLUME submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Shuangu Chang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords diffusionquantumstatetomographydensitymatrixparameterizationJacobianGramgeometricconditioningprojectionlossBloch/Gell-MannrepresentationCholeskynoiseschedulecalibration
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 establishes a design-space principle for diffusion-based quantum state tomography (QST): the coordinate system used to represent a density matrix is a first-order design axis, not an implementation detail. It introduces a geometric toolbox based on the Jacobian Gram matrix J⊤J, calibrates seven parameterizations at 2 and 3 qubits, and trains identical diffusion models on the three most distinct ones. The headline result is that local conditioning does not predict reconstruction quality: at 3-qubit scale the near-isotropic Hermitian direct parameterization (κ = 2.0×) scores 0.394 fidelity at 300 shots, worse than Cholesky (κ = 27×) at every shot level, while the bounded Bloch/Gell-Mann parameterization reaches 0.907. The paper's explanation is that unbounded coordinates routinely leave the set of valid density matrices, and the ensuing projection destroys measurement information, whereas Bloch's maximally mixed state sits at the center of its valid region. A sympathetic reader should care because the field's default (Cholesky) may be the wrong baseline, and the paper offers a principled selection rule that favours bounded or constraint-preserving representations as system size grows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Jacobian Gram matrix G = J^T J, where J = ∂ρ/∂y maps infinitesimal coordinate changes to changes in the density matrix. Its eigenvalues define two diagnostics: the spectral dynamic range κ_spec = λ_max/λ_min, measuring overall coordinate isotropy, and the diagonal anisotropy κ_diag = max_i G_ii / min_i G_ii, measuring per-coordinate scale variation. These two numbers are used to rank seven parameterizations (Cholesky, Hermitian direct, trace-norm, fix-trace, Bloch/Gell-Mann, exponential map, log-Cholesky) and to derive selection heuristics, but the paper's own end-to-end experiments show the metrics are necessary yet not sufficient: projection behaviour at the valid-domain boundary, not local conditioning, governs the final fidelity.

What would settle it

Train the three 3-qubit models under two or more explicitly specified informationally complete measurement schemes (e.g., Pauli 6-basis measurements with different shot allocations, and a SIC-POVM) with identical training protocols; if Hermitian direct outperforms Bloch at 300 shots under any such scheme, the claimed geometric explanation is incomplete. A cheaper check: compute the correlation between each model's raw-output projection cost F_proj − F_raw and its end-to-end fidelity across shot levels; the paper's mechanism predicts the projection cost ordering fully explains the fidelity ordering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that geometric conditioning alone does not predict end-to-end performance in diffusion QST, because the projection that enforces physical constraints acts as a non-linear, many-to-one information bottleneck. At 3-qubit scale, Hermitian direct (κ_spec = 2.0×) performs worse than Cholesky (κ_spec = 27×) at all shot levels, a 13.5× isotropy advantage turning into a fidelity disadvantage of up to +0.51; the Bloch/Gell-Mann representation (κ = 1.0×) achieves 0.907 while Hermitian direct reaches only 0.394 at 300 shots. The geometric mechanism identified is that the positive semidefinite constraint couples diagonal and off-diagonal coordinates through |ρ_ij|² ≤ ρ_ii ρ_jj, a coupling an unconstrained model cannot respect, so its outputs violate the constraint and the projection annihilates spectral components carrying the measurement signal. In the Bloch representation the maximally mixed state lies at the centre of a bounded valid ball, providing a buffer against such violations; this also explains why training validation fidelity, measured before projection, reverses the ranking (Hermitian direct 0.799 vs Bloch 0.451) relative to end-to-end reconstruction (0.394 vs 0.907).

Load-bearing premise

The end-to-end fidelity rankings presuppose a specific measurement protocol—POVM, shot allocation, and the computation of the measurement-consistency loss—that the paper never specifies, so the observed ordering could be partly a property of that protocol rather than pure parameterization geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Parameterization choice should be a reported and controlled experimental variable in diffusion QST; at 3 qubits, the best and worst parameterizations differ by up to 0.51 fidelity at 300 shots.
  • The community default Cholesky parameterization becomes a poor choice as qubit count grows (κ 33×→1265×), and its 3-qubit end-to-end fidelity (0.535 at 300 shots) trails Bloch (0.907).
  • Bounded-domain representations (Bloch/Gell-Mann) and constraint-preserving ones (fix-trace) are recommended for n≥3 qubits; the paper's decision tree guides when automatic constraint satisfaction is preferred over isotropy.
  • Training/validation fidelity in parameter space is not a reliable proxy for reconstruction quality; the projection step must be included, otherwise rank reversals (0.799 training vs 0.394 reconstruction for Hermitian direct) appear paradoxical.
  • Per-coordinate noise-schedule calibration (σ_data ∝ √G_ii) is the correct extension of EDM-style schedules once parameterization anisotropy is strong.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the projection-loss mechanism will strengthen at 4+ qubits: the paper's pure geometric calibration shows Cholesky degrading to κ~10³ and log-Cholesky to κ~10⁹, and the codimension of the valid manifold grows with d, so unbounded parameterizations have more directions in which to violate the PSD constraint.
  • We infer the same design-space logic applies to other constrained-manifold generative problems, e.g., correlation matrices, SPD tensors in imaging, and quantum process tomography; a bounded or constraint-satisfying coordinate system should systematically beat an unbounded one whenever a projection step is applied to enforce the constraint.
  • We infer that the paper's comparison would be hardened by a fully specified measurement model; if a different informationally complete POVM or shot allocation changed the ordering, the geometric story would need revision, since the measurement posterior interacts with the parameterization through the consistency loss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 proposes a geometric framework for comparing density-matrix parameterizations in diffusion-based quantum state tomography. It defines two metrics on the Jacobian Gram matrix J^T J: spectral dynamic range (SDR) and diagonal anisotropy (DA); calibrates seven parameterizations at 2- and 3-qubit scales; and trains three of them (Bloch/Gell-Mann, Hermitian direct, Cholesky) end-to-end at 2 and 3 qubits. The main claims are that geometric conditioning alone does not predict end-to-end fidelity, that bounded-domain parameterizations (Bloch) suffer less projection-induced information loss at 3 qubits (0.907 vs 0.394 for Hermitian direct at 300 shots), and that fix-trace provides the best conditioning-constraint tradeoff. The paper also presents matched-learning-rate controls, multi-seed validation, and a coordinate-aware sigma_data calibration recipe.

Significance. The J^T J diagnostics are simple, inexpensive, and do not require fitting to the end-to-end results; the use of analytical Jacobians for Cholesky, Hermitian direct, and Expmap strengthens the calibration. The matched-learning-rate experiments and global-sigma_data control in Appendix E are the right kinds of ablations for isolating the geometric claim. If the 3-qubit end-to-end result survives a fully specified measurement protocol, the paper would establish parameterization as a first-order design axis and provide practical guidance for diffusion QST. However, the current manuscript does not specify the measurement model, contains inconsistent calibration numbers, and frames a learning-rate artifact as a 'reversal'; these issues must be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §4.7, Tables 6 and 9] The evaluation protocol does not specify the measurement model. Section 4.1 states only '100 test states × 6 shot levels [10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 300] × K = 20 samples' with CFG w=4.0, and Section 4.7 adds 'no CFG' for Table 9, but nowhere is the POVM or measurement basis defined, the rule for distributing shots across settings specified, or the encoding of measurement statistics as the denoiser conditioning vector described; the measurement-consistency loss lambda_meas is only stated as 0.0. Since the central quantitative claims (Bloch 0.907 vs Hermitian direct 0.394 at 300 shots in Table 9, and the comparison with the MLE baseline in Table 6) depend on how much posterior information each shot count provides, the headline ordering could be an artifact of the unspecified measurement scheme. Please provide the complete measurement protocol, including basis, shot allocation, conditioning representation, and the exact role of lambda_meas, or explicitly state that 'shots' enter only through a fixed conditioning vector with no measurement-consistency term.
  2. [Tables 2, 3, 14, 15; §5.4] The zero-noise Cholesky calibration is internally inconsistent. Table 2 reports the 2-qubit SDR as 33x and Table 3 reports the 3-qubit SDR as 1265x (repeated in Table 15), while Table 14 reports the p=0.0 values as 99x (2q) and 1793x (3q), and Section 5.4 uses the Table 14 values to quote an 87% (2q) and 98.8% (3q) degradation under depolarizing noise. Both tables are described as medians over the same 30-state protocol, so the discrepancy cannot be attributed to a different sampling scheme. Please reconcile these numbers; the calibration atlas in Section 3 is a central contribution and cannot contain two mutually inconsistent versions of the same quantity.
  3. [Abstract; §4.4; §4.7; Appendix E, Table 23] The 'reversal' of the 2-qubit ranking is not supported by the controlled experiments. The abstract and Section 4.7 compare the 2-qubit result of Table 7 (Hermitian direct above Bloch) with the 3-qubit result of Table 9 (Bloch above Hermitian direct), but Section 4.5 and Appendix E state that Table 7 used parameterization-specific learning rates and extra tuning, and Table 23 shows that at matched learning rate with no CFG, Bloch already outperforms Hermitian direct at every shot level at 2 qubits (+0.26 to +0.38). Thus the ranking does not reverse under a controlled comparison; what changes is the size of the Bloch advantage (roughly +0.38 at 300 shots at 2q vs +0.51 at 3q). The abstract and the Section 3.8 decision-tree text should be rewritten to describe a growing advantage rather than a reversal, and the Table 7 result should not be presented as the 2-qubit baseline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Running header] The running header states 'Accepted in Quantum 2017-05-09' for a manuscript dated 2026; this is impossible and should be corrected or removed.
  2. [§3.6–§3.10] Figures 1–4 are referenced in Sections 3.6–3.10 but no figure images appear in the supplied text; the published version must include them.
  3. [Appendix C.3 vs Appendix E] C.3 reports Bloch sigma_data,diag=0.1546 and Herm-direct sigma_data,diag=0.2341, while Appendix E says the per-coordinate values are sigma_data,diag=0.2341 and sigma_data,off=0.2183 for both parameterizations; please make the calibration values consistent.
  4. [§2.3] Section 2.3 contains an unresolved cross-reference '(see §??)' immediately after the EDM noise-schedule discussion; fix the reference.
  5. [§4.5] The phrase '3 measurement repeats' appears only in the two-by-two cross-validation; the main evaluation protocol in §4.1 does not define repeats and should be harmonized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the geometric metrics are defined independently of the end-to-end fidelity results, and the paper's central claim is an empirical negative finding.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that geometric conditioning alone does not predict end-to-end performance. The geometric metrics (SDR and DA) are defined from the Jacobian Gram matrix J^T J computed by finite differences on the parameterization maps, not fitted to the fidelity results. The end-to-end fidelities come from separately trained diffusion models evaluated on test states, and the paper explicitly controls for learning-rate, sigma-data, and measurement-consistency-loss confounds (matched learning rate, global sigma-data baseline, and lambda_meas cross-validation). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain is used, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The missing measurement-protocol specification is a reproducibility and correctness concern, not a circularity: it does not make any derived quantity equal to an input by construction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its load-bearing choices are numerical/experimental settings: the ambient metric, the balanced training distribution, the projection rule, and the learning rates. These are reasonable but should be stated as assumptions rather than derived facts.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-coordinate sigma_data values = Bloch 0.1546/0.1092; Herm-direct 0.2341/0.2183 (2q)
    Computed as standard deviations of training coordinates (or sqrt(G_ii)); used in EDM noise schedule for all trained models. The paper's global-sigma ablation (Table 22) suggests the ranking is not sensitive to this, so it is not load-bearing for the central claim.
  • Learning rates = 2q matched: 2e-3; 3q: 2e-4; illustrative 2q: 4e-3 (Herm) / 2e-3 (Bloch)
    Hand-chosen. The 2-qubit ranking reverses between lr=2e-3 and lr=4e-3 (Table 7 vs Table 23), so the choice of learning rate is load-bearing for the empirical ranking claims. The paper's own matched-lr appendices are an attempt to control this.
  • CFG weight = w=4.0 (2q experiments)
    Selected after a scan (Section 3.9). Used for Table 6 results. Not used in 3-qubit no-CFG results.
  • Scaling exponents for Cholesky/Expmap/Log-Cholesky = d^3.5 / e^d / d^4 (empirical fit)
    Fitted to the 2q/3q/4q calibration medians; descriptive of scaling classes, not load-bearing for the end-to-end fidelity claims.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hilbert-Schmidt (Frobenius) inner product is the relevant ambient metric for the Gram matrix
    Section 5.3 states the choice is deliberate because EDM assumes isotropic Gaussian noise in ambient space; the authors note the Bures metric would give different conditioning near pure states.
  • domain assumption The training distribution (balanced mix of Haar-pure, Hilbert-Schmidt, Ginibre, thermal, product) is representative of the QST problem
    Used for calibration (30 states) and training (50,000 states); the paper does not justify representativeness for measurement-based tomography.
  • domain assumption Eigen-clipping projection into Eq. (4) is the relevant post-sampling map
    Defined in Section 5.1 and used for all F_proj evaluations; the paper does not consider alternative projections.
  • standard math Finite-difference Jacobians with delta=1e-6 are accurate for all seven parameterizations
    Verified for well-conditioned cases against complex-step and analytical Jacobians; authors admit loss of precision for Expmap/Log-Cholesky near singularities (Appendix B.1).
  • domain assumption The EDM noise schedule interacts with coordinate conditioning as described
    Section 2.3 asserts an implicit isotropic-noise assumption in EDM; this motivates the framework but is not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Design Space Study of Density Matrix Parameterizations for Diffusion-Based Quantum State Tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIOXLUME

@misc{pith2026260809625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Design Space Study of Density Matrix Parameterizations for Diffusion-Based Quantum State Tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIOXLUME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09625}
}
abstract

Diffusion-based quantum state tomography (QST) has shown promising results, but all existing methods implicitly adopt a single parameterization (typically Cholesky) without systematic evaluation. We present the first design space study of density matrix parameterizations for diffusion QST, introducing a geometric framework based on the Jacobian Gram matrix $\mathbf{J}^\top\mathbf{J}$. Our calibration of seven parameterizations at 2- and 3-qubit scales, validated by end-to-end training, reveals that \emph{geometric conditioning alone does not predict end-to-end performance}: at 3-qubit scale, Hermitian direct ($\kappa = 2.0\times$) performs worse than Cholesky ($\kappa = 27\times$) at all shot levels---a $13.5\times$ isotropy advantage that translates into a fidelity \emph{disadvantage} of up to $+0.51$. The 2-qubit ranking (Hermitian $>$ Bloch) reverses at 3 qubits (Bloch 0.907 vs.\ Hermitian 0.394). We provide a geometric explanation: unbounded parameterizations suffer projection-induced information loss because the PSD constraint couples diagonal and off-diagonal coordinates in ways the unconstrained model cannot respect, whereas the Bloch representation places the maximally mixed state at the center of the valid region, minimizing projection loss.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09625 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mean eigenvalue spectra of J ⊤J for all seven parameterizations (log scale). Bloch shows flat spectrum at 1.0; Cholesky spans 2 orders of magnitude; log-Cholesky spans 4 orders. 3.7 Selection Decision Tree Based on our calibrations, we summarize the parameterization selection criteria as a decision tree ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Mean eigenvalue spectra of J ⊤J for all seven pa￾rameterizations (log scale). Bloch shows flat spectrum at 1.0; Cholesky spans 2 orders of magnitude; log-Cholesky spans 4 orders. Accepted in Quantum 2017-05-09, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Parameterization selection decision tree for diffusion QST. Green = recommended; yellow = acceptable with caveats; red = avoid. The primary recommendation is Hermitian direct (unbounded domain, stable conditioning) or fix-trace (automatic trace, excellent isotropy). that CFG also amplifies boundary effects (see §4.5 and §5.4), which should be considered when selecting w for parameterizations with unbounded valid dom… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Parameterization selection decision tree for dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Effect of CFG weight on 2-qubit QST (Bloch parameterization). Each curve shows fidelity vs. shots for a fixed w. Low-shot regimes benefit from stronger guidance; w = 3–4 offers the best overall tradeoff. growth: fix-trace (4× → 8×) and trace-norm (3× → 2.9×) exhibit mi…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Effect of CFG weight on 2-qubit QST (Bloch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fidelity vs. CFG weight at each shot level. The optimal w shifts from ≈ 3 (low shots) to ≈ 2 (high shots), suggesting shot-adaptive CFG as a future improvement. Evaluation protocol: 100 test states × 6 shot levels [10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 300] × K = 20 samples, with class…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training dynamics by parameterization (parameterization-specific learning rates). Herm-direct (2.0×) achieves higher training validation fidelity than Bloch (1.0×) under its higher learning rate (4 × 10−3 vs. 2 × 10−3 ). This measures parameter-space fit, not reconstru…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training dynamics by parameterization. Herm B (2.0×) converges faster and achieves higher final fidelity than Bloch (1.0×), despite worse nominal isometry. Caveat: The Bloch vs. Herm B comparison is not a controlled test of the parameterization alone: the two models we…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter plot of κdiag vs. final validation fidelity. Clear negative correlation: better conditioning → faster convergence. Pearson ρ = −0.87, n = 3 (indicative rather than conclusive). 4.5 Protocol Confound Check: Two-by-Two Cross-Validation Because the two main models…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pseudocode for coordinate-aware σdata calibration. 5.3 Extension to Higher Dimensions Our 3-qubit calibration ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Variational quan- tum state tomography with generative mod- els

    Catalin Chitu and others. “Variational quan- tum state tomography with generative mod- els” (2022). arXiv:2206.05566

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    De- noising diffusion models for quantum state tomography

    H Chung, J Kim, J Lee, and others. “De- noising diffusion models for quantum state tomography”. Physical Review Letters132, 100602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Diffusion- based quantum state tomography

    Yuanlong Zhu, Zhiding Wu, Zidong Liu, Zhen Wang, and others. “Diffusion- based quantum state tomography” (2024). arXiv:2406.04070

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    The the- ory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. “The the- ory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms”. New Journal of Physics 18, 023023 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning mod- els

    Marcello Benedetti, Erika Lloyd, Stefan Sack, and Mattia Fiorentini. “Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning mod- els”. Quantum Science and Technology 4, 043001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Quan- tum state tomography with regularized lin- ear estimation

    S Kryszewski and J Chwedenczuk. “Quan- tum state tomography with regularized lin- ear estimation”. Physical Review A 104, 032413 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models (EDM)

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. “Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models (EDM)”. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 35 (2022). url:https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/ a988f1eb76c4eb22a9429e84308238e2- Abstract-Conference.html

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. “Classifier-free diffusion guidance” (2022). arXiv:2207.12598

    arXiv 2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Efficient method for comput- ing the maximum likelihood quantum state from measurements with additive Gaus- sian noise

    John A Smolin, Jay M Gambetta, and Graeme Gupt. “Efficient method for comput- ing the maximum likelihood quantum state from measurements with additive Gaus- sian noise”. Physical Review Letters 108, 070502 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Information geometry and its applications

    Shun-ichi Amari. “Information geometry and its applications”. Volume 194. Springer. (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Quantum natural gra- dient

    James Stokes, Josh Izaac, Nathan Killoran, and Giuseppe Carleo. “Quantum natural gra- dient”. Quantum4, 269 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Geometry of quantum states: An introduc- tion to quantum entanglement

    Ingemar Bengtsson and Karol Życzkowski. “Geometry of quantum states: An introduc- tion to quantum entanglement”. Cambridge University Press. (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Geometries of quantum states

    Dénes Petz and Csaba Sudár. “Geometries of quantum states”. Journal of Mathematical Physics37, 2662–2673 (1996)

    1996

  6. [14]

    A geometric perspective on quantum parame- ter estimation

    Jasminder S Sidhu and Pieter Kok. “A geometric perspective on quantum parame- ter estimation”. AVS Quantum Science 2, 014701 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Quantum estimation for quantum technology

    Matteo G A Paris. “Quantum estimation for quantum technology”. International Journal of Quantum Information7, 125–137 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shal- low parameterized quantum circuits

    Marco Cerezo, Akira Sone, Tyler Volkoff, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. “Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shal- low parameterized quantum circuits”. Na- ture Communications12, 1791 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum op- timal control

    Martin Larocza, Piotr Czarnik, Kunal Sharma, and Patrick J Coles. “Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum op- timal control”. Quantum6, 822 (2022). Accepted in Quantum 2017-05-09, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0.14

    2022

  10. [18]

    Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices

    Man-Duen Choi. “Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices”. Linear Algebra and its Applications10, 285–290 (1975)

    1975

  11. [19]

    Linear transfor- mations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators

    Andrzej Jamiołkowski. “Linear transfor- mations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators”. Reports on Mathematical Physics3, 275–278 (1972)

    1972

  12. [20]

    Quan- tum process tomography with diffusion mod- els

    Shreyasi Chowdhury and others. “Quan- tum process tomography with diffusion mod- els” (2023). arXiv:2301.03714

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing

    David Gross, Yi-Kai Liu, Steven T Flammia, Stephen Becker, and Jens Eisert. “Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing”. Physical Review Letters105, 150401 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Universal low-rank ma- trix recovery from pauli measurements

    Yi-Kai Liu. “Universal low-rank ma- trix recovery from pauli measurements”. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (NeurIPS) 24 (2011). url:https://proceedings. neurips.cc/paper/2011/hash/ 8f14e45fceea167a5a36dedd4bea2543- Abstract.html

    2011

  15. [23]

    The quantum geometric tensor

    M V Berry. “The quantum geometric tensor”. JournalofPhysicsA:MathematicalandThe- oretical43, 355301 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Quantum neural tangent kernel

    Amira Abbas, David Sutter, Christa Zoufal, Aurelien Lucchi, Alessio Figalli, and Stefan Woerner. “Quantum neural tangent kernel”. Nature Communications12, 1–8 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Bloch vector forn-level systems

    Gen Kimura. “Bloch vector forn-level systems”. Physics Letters A 314, 339– 349 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    Quan- tum state tomography with generative ad- versarial networks

    Sharmilar Ahmed, Carlos S Muñoz, Franco Nori, and Anton Frisk Kockum. “Quan- tum state tomography with generative ad- versarial networks”. Physical Review A105, 062423 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Riemannian diffusion models

    Chin-Wei Huang, Milad Aghajohari, Avishek J Bose, Prakash Panangaden, and Aaron Courville. “Riemannian diffusion models”. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 35 (2022). url:https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/ riemannian-diffusion

    2022

  20. [28]

    Projected dif- fusion models for constrained image synthe- sis

    Valentin De Bortoli, Emile Mathieu, Michael Hutchinson, James Thornton, Yee Whye Teh, and Arnaud Doucet. “Projected dif- fusion models for constrained image synthe- sis” (2022). arXiv:2202.06307

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Variational inference with normaliz- ing flows

    Jimenez Rezende and Stavros Mohamed. “Variational inference with normaliz- ing flows”. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2015). url:http://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/ rezende15.html

    2015

  22. [30]

    Variational diffusion models

    Diederik Kingma, Tim Salimans, Ben Poole, and Jonathan Ho. “Variational diffusion models”. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 34 (2021). url:https://proceedings. neurips.cc/paper/2021/hash/ b578c541c35a5476b0021b693202f6b7- Abstract.html

    2021

  23. [31]

    Flow matching for generative model- ing

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky T. Q. Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matt Le. “Flow matching for generative model- ing” (2022). arXiv:2210.02747

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gen- erative modeling by estimating gra- dients of the data distribution

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. “Gen- erative modeling by estimating gra- dients of the data distribution”. Ad- vances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (NeurIPS) 32 (2019). url:https://proceedings. neurips.cc/paper/2019/hash/ 3001ef257407d5a371a96dcd947c7d93- Abstract.html

    2019

  25. [33]

    Consistencymodels

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, andIlyaSutskever. “Consistencymodels”. In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2023). url:https://proceedings. mlr.press/v202/song23a.html

    2023

  26. [34]

    Quantum to- mography

    GiovanniMauroD’Ariano, MatteoGAParis, and Massimiliano F Sacchi. “Quantum to- mography”. Advances in Imaging and Elec- tron Physics128, 206–309 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Quan- tum state estimation

    Matteo Paris and Jaroslav Řeháček. “Quan- tum state estimation”. Volume 649 of Lec- ture Notes in Physics. Springer. (2004)

    2004

  28. [36]

    Continuous- variable quantum-state tomography of sin- gle photons and atoms

    AI Lvovsky and MG Raymer. “Continuous- variable quantum-state tomography of sin- gle photons and atoms”. Reviews of Modern Physics81, 299 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Abhimanyu Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models”. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 33, 6840– 6851 (2020). url:https://proceedings. neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/ 4c5bcfec8584af0d967f1ab10179ca4b- Abstract.html

    2020

  30. [38]

    Quantum machine learn- ing

    Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pan- Accepted in Quantum 2017-05-09, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0.15 cotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. “Quantum machine learn- ing”. Nature549, 195–202 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Quantum machine learning and the geom- etry of Hilbert space

    Maria Schuld and Francesco Petruccione. “Quantum machine learning and the geom- etry of Hilbert space”. Pattern Recognition Letters126, 7–12 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Overview of quantum algo- rithms for systems of linearax = λbxequa- tions

    Mark S Byrd. “Overview of quantum algo- rithms for systems of linearax = λbxequa- tions” (2003). arXiv:quant-ph/0310042

    2003 arXiv

  33. [41]

    The complex-step deriva- tive approximation

    Joaquim R R A Martins, Peter Sturdza, and Juan J Alonso. “The complex-step deriva- tive approximation”. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software29, 245–262 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Accuracy and stability of numerical algorithms

    Nicholas J Higham. “Accuracy and stability of numerical algorithms”. SIAM. (2002). A Parameterization Definitions (Com- plete) A.1 Cholesky Factorization Lis lower-triangular with real non-negative diag- onal.ρ = LL†/Tr(LL†). Dimension:d 2. Guar- antees: PSD + trace. A.2 Hermi...

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.