Quantum Overlapping Tomography

Frank Wilczek; Jordan Cotler

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

Quantum Overlapping Tomography

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 All $k$-qubit reduced density matrices of an $n$-qubit state can be recovered from $e^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \log^2(n)$ rounds of parallel measurements.

desk verdict The overlapping tomography idea is sound and genuinely useful, but the reconstruction formulas as written miss the 1/2^k Pauli normalization; that is a one-line fix, not a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02754 v2 pith:XU6C3H7L submitted 2019-08-07 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el

Jordan Cotler , Frank Wilczek This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el MSC 81P6881P4081P50 PACS 03.65.Ud03.67.Lx06.20.Dk

keywords quantumoverlappingtomographyperfecthashfamiliesparallelmeasurementsreduceddensitymatricesPaulientanglementcharacterizationmany-bodystate

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

Quantum overlapping tomography aims to solve a measurement bottleneck: experiments can entangle thousands of qubits but cannot fully tomograph a state of that size. The paper claims that all $k$-qubit reduced density matrices of an $n$-qubit state can be determined, to fixed accuracy and with high probability, in $e^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \log^2(n)$ rounds of parallel single-qubit measurements. The trick is to treat the overlap between $k$-qubit subsystems as a resource: a round of measurements chosen from a perfect hash family provides complete tomographic data for every $k$-qubit subset that the hash function separates. If the claim is right, the entanglement of every pair in a 1000-qubit system—about 500,000 pairs—could be fully characterized in days rather than weeks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an $(n,k)$ family of perfect hash functions: a set of functions from the $n$ qubits to $k$ colors such that every $k$-qubit subset is assigned all distinct colors by at least one function in the set. The QOT protocol runs one full block of $3^k$ parallel Pauli-basis measurements for each function, repeated $M$ times, so the round for a separating function yields complete tomographic data for every $k$-qubit subsystem it separates. For $k=2$, the family is the binary-digit coloring of qubit indices: $f_i(j)$ is the $i$-th bit of $j-1$, giving $\lceil\log_2 n\rceil$ functions and an explicit total of $3M+6M\lceil\log_2 n\rceil$ measurement rounds.

What would settle it

A numerical simulation of the $k=2$ protocol for $n=256,512,1024$ with known true two-qubit marginals would settle the practical scaling claim: using the paper's repetition counts, all reconstructed expectation values should be within $\varepsilon=0.05$ with about 97% probability, and the total number of rounds should grow only like $\log^2 n$. If success rates fall substantially below that, or the round count must rise faster than $\log^2 n$, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that overlapping measurements are an advantage rather than an obstacle. Using an $(n,k)$ family of perfect hash functions—functions $f:[n]\to[k]$ in which every $k$-element subset is injectively colored by at least one function—the protocol colors all qubits by each hash function, performs all $3^k$ Pauli-basis assignments on the color classes, and repeats $M$ times. Whenever a particular $k$-qubit subsystem receives distinct colors under one hash function, the data from that function's round is a complete $k$-qubit tomography of that subsystem; because every $k$-subset is separated by some function in the family, all reduced density matrices are recovered. The paper proves the round count $e^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \log^2(n)$, gives the explicit $k=2$ construction based on binary digits of the qubit indices, and notes that the procedure adapts to qudits and to $(n,t,k)$ hash families.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every measurement round can address all $n$ qubits at once, each in an independently chosen single-qubit basis, and that fresh identical copies of the same state can be prepared for every round.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For fixed $k$, the number of measurement rounds is polylogarithmic in $n$, so $k$-body correlations in systems of thousands of qubits become experimentally accessible.
Complete pairwise entanglement characterization of a 1024-qubit state requires about 1,000,800 rounds; at 250 ms per round this is about three days of data taking.
Only product measurements are needed—each qubit is measured in its own Pauli basis—so the protocol does not rely on entangled or non-demolition measurements.
The reconstructed marginals supply the inputs needed for entanglement measures, $k$-local Hamiltonian expectation values, and the quantum marginal problem.
The method adapts to qudits and to $(n,t,k)$ perfect hash families, giving flexibility to trade color count against round count.

Reading between the lines

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

A practical cross-check follows from the overlap structure: when several hash functions separate the same $k$-qubit subsystem, the reconstructed marginals are independent estimates of the same object, so their agreement gives a noise diagnostic the paper does not develop.
For lattice systems, the same idea can be specialized from all $k$-subsets to geometrically local subsets; the paper sketches a checkerboard example for nearest-neighbor pairs, and the general graph-coloring formulation with its round-count tradeoffs remains open.
The constant in $e^{\mathcal{O}(k)}$ and the repetition factor $M$ could be improved in practice by using balanced hash families, which spread the separating functions evenly and allow the number of repetitions to be divided by the multiplicity $T$; the paper notes the construction but leaves implementation choices open.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core QOT idea is sound and genuinely new as a measurement protocol. The paper's contribution is organizing overlapping tomographic data with perfect hash families: for any k-subset, some hash function separates it, so a single round of product measurements on the color classes yields data for all k-qubit reduced density matrices. The k=2 binary coloring is concrete, and the asymptotic round count e^{O(k)} log^2(n) is derived cleanly from union bounds and Chernoff-Hoeffding. That is a real improvement over the naive n^k scaling and over Aaronson's shadow tomography, which needs entangled measurements and poly(n) copies. I also appreciate the explicit discussion of balanced hash families and (n,t,k) generalizations, which shows the authors thought about practical variants.

The main defect is real: Eqs. (1), (4), and (8) omit the 1/2^k factor required by the Pauli basis expansion. The stress-test note is correct. As written, the protocol reconstructs 2^k times the density matrix, so feeding those matrices into an entanglement measure would be wrong. The fix is a one-line normalization on the right-hand sides, and it does not affect the scaling argument or the measurement bound. Still, it needs to be corrected before publication; the claim that QOT determines the reduced density matrices is literally false until that factor appears.

Minor issues: the final number in Section VI, 1,000,800, is a typo for 1,008,000. The M estimate in the appendix is a bit loose but in the right ballpark. The comparison with shadow tomography is compressed; a direct sample-complexity comparison with classical shadows would be helpful, though that work appeared later, so the citation pattern is fine.

The central argument holds up. The paper is worth a serious referee, and with the normalization fixed and a few small edits, it should be accepted. I would take it seriously if I were in the quantum-information or many-body metrology area.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Quantum Overlapping Tomography (QOT), a protocol for determining all k-qubit reduced density matrices of an n-qubit state using only product measurements. The key idea is to use (n,k) perfect hash families to assign the n qubits to k 'colors' in multiple rounds, so that every k-qubit subset is separated by at least one coloring. Each coloring yields all k-site Pauli correlations for the subsystems whose qubits receive distinct colors, and the data from different colorings are combined to reconstruct every reduced density matrix. With N = e^{O(k)} log n hash functions and M repetitions per setting, the total number of parallel measurement rounds is claimed to be e^{O(k)} log^2(n). A concrete protocol is given for k=2, together with an experimental estimate for n=1024 qubits claiming that all pairwise reduced density matrices can be characterized in about three days.

Significance. If correct, QOT would improve the measurement complexity of determining all k-body reduced density matrices from the naive e^{O(k)} n^k to polylogarithmic in n for fixed k, using only parallel single-qubit measurements that are already available in cold-atom and ion-trap platforms. The core combinatorial insight is sound, the k=2 protocol is explicit and checkable, and the paper provides a concrete experimental scenario with quantitative estimates. The asymptotic scaling argument is essentially correct in spirit, and the claimed n-dependence is right. However, the reconstruction equations omit the Pauli normalization and the derivation of the hash-family size contains a reversed inequality; both are correctable but make the present text not literally correct.

major comments (2)

[Section II, Eqs. (1) and (4); Section IV, Eq. (8)] The Pauli expansion as written omits the factor 1/2^k. Because tr(σ_a σ_b) = 2^k δ_{a,b}, the correct expansion is ρ = 2^{-k} Σ tr((⊗σ)ρ) ⊗σ. As written, Eq. (8) reconstructs 2^k ρ_rs; for the maximally mixed two-qubit state it returns I⊗I instead of I/4. Since Section VI feeds these matrices into entanglement-of-formation formulas, the protocol as stated would compute entanglement measures of an unnormalized operator. The fix is a one-line normalization and does not affect the round count, but it is required for the central claim that QOT determines the reduced density matrices.
[Section III, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The inequality direction is reversed. The probability (n choose k)(1 - k!/k^k)^N decreases as N increases, so condition (5) requires N to be at least roughly e^{O(k)}(k log n + log(1/δ)), not at most that quantity. The sentence 'N needs to be at most' does not follow from (5). The intended conclusion—that there exists a perfect hash family of size O(e^{O(k)} log n)—is true and is supported by the cited literature, but it should be derived either by the standard probabilistic-method expectation argument (expected number of bad subsets less than 1) or by direct reference to [12-25]. The present derivation is therefore not logically sound as written.

minor comments (3)

[Section IV, Step 2.j] The bullet list under Step 2.j says '9 measurements' but contains only six settings; the subsequent count uses 6M, so this is a typographical error.
[Section VI, experimental estimate] For n=1024, q=10, and M=16,000, the formula 3M + 6Mq gives 1,008,000 rounds, not 1,000,800 as stated. The discrepancy does not change the 'a few days' conclusion, since both values correspond to roughly 70 hours at 250 ms per round.
[Appendix, Eq. (11)] The event in the union bound should be 'there exists an i' (or 'for some i'), not 'for all i'. The union bound is applied correctly in spirit, but the displayed event is misstated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QOT sampling bound is derived from external perfect-hash-family bounds and a standard concentration inequality, not from the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that all k-qubit reduced density matrices can be determined in e^{O(k)} log^2(n) rounds, follows from two independent ingredients: (i) the size of an (n,k) perfect-hash family, bounded probabilistically in Eq. (6) and supplied by external references [12-25], and (ii) the repetition count M ~ k log(n)/epsilon^2 from the Chernoff-Hoeffding inequality and a union bound in the Appendix, Eq. (13). Neither ingredient is defined in terms of the log^2(n) round count, and neither is fitted to the final claim. The k=2 protocol in Section IV reconstructs each two-qubit reduced density matrix from directly measured Pauli expectation values via Eq. (8); any missing normalization in Eq. (8) is a correctness defect, not a circularity, because the reconstruction formula is not equivalent to the claimed round bound by construction. The paper does not rely on self-citation: the cited perfect-hash-family constructions and concentration results are external, and no load-bearing step reduces to a prior result by the same authors. Thus the derivation is self-contained rather than circular.

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

No numbers are fitted to data; the resource bound is derived from external combinatorial and concentration results. The main assumptions are standard mathematical facts plus experimental capabilities of parallel measurement and repeated state preparation. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

standard math Chernoff-Hoeffding inequality as stated in Eq. (9)
Used in the Appendix to set M ~ k log(n)/epsilon^2 so all estimated Pauli expectation values lie within epsilon of their true values with high probability. This is unproved background.
standard math Existence and efficient construction of (n,k) families of perfect hash functions of size e^{O(k)} log n
The paper uses these families to cover every k-subset (Sections III and V) but does not prove the constructions, citing references [12-25].
standard math Pauli expansion of a k-qubit density matrix, rho = (1/2^k) sum tr(P rho) P
Eqns (1), (4), and (8) invoke this identity but omit the 1/2^k factor; the correct identity is standard and is needed for reconstruction.
domain assumption Many identical copies of the unknown n-qubit state can be prepared, and all qubits can be measured in parallel in chosen single-qubit bases
The round count and the i.i.d. statistics in the Appendix assume repeated stable preparation and parallel readout. Invoked in Sections I, II, and VI.
domain assumption Per-qubit measurement fault probability Delta satisfies k Delta = O(1)
Section II requires Delta ~ 1/k so that products of k single-qubit measurement outcomes are not dominated by faults.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Overlapping Tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XU6C3H7L

@misc{pith2026190802754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Overlapping Tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XU6C3H7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02754}
}

abstract

It is now experimentally possible to entangle thousands of qubits, and efficiently measure each qubit in parallel in a distinct basis. To fully characterize an unknown entangled state of $n$ qubits, one requires an exponential number of measurements in $n$, which is experimentally unfeasible even for modest system sizes. By leveraging (i) that single-qubit measurements can be made in parallel, and (ii) the theory of perfect hash families, we show that all $k$-qubit reduced density matrices of an $n$ qubit state can be determined with at most $e^{\mathcal{O}(k)} \log^2(n)$ rounds of parallel measurements. We provide concrete measurement protocols which realize this bound. As an example, we argue that with current experiments, the entanglement between every pair of qubits in a system of 1000 qubits could be measured and completely characterized in a few days. This corresponds to completely characterizing entanglement of nearly half a million pairs of qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02754 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Optimal estimation of high-dimensional quantum states using locally gentle measurements
math.ST 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

α-gentle tomography of rank-r qudits has minimax Frobenius rate Θ(rd²/(nα²)), with gentleness penalty scaling as ambient dimension d rather than parameter count rd.
Locally Gentle State Certification for High Dimensional Quantum Systems
quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Locally α-gentle quantum state certification against the maximally mixed state has minimax sample complexity Θ(d^3/(ε^2 α^2)) for fixed unentangled measurements, a factor d/α^2 over the non-gentle rate.
Nearly Optimal Measurement Scheduling for Partial Tomography of Quantum States
quant-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

All elements of a qubit k-RDM can be measured with O(3^k log^{k-1} N) circuits, and all elements of a fermionic 2-RDM with O(N^2) circuits, matching a new Ω(N^2) lower bound for Clifford measurements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Quantum computers

Ladd, Thaddeus D., et al. “Quantum computers.” Nature 464.7285 (2010): 45

work page 2010
[2]

Scaling the ion trap quantum processor

Monroe, Christopher, and Jungsang Kim. “Scaling the ion trap quantum processor.” Science 339.6124 (2013): 1164-1169

work page 2013
[3]

Super- conducting circuits for quantum information: an out- look

Devoret, Michel H., and Robert J. Schoelkopf. “Super- conducting circuits for quantum information: an out- look.” Science 339.6124 (2013): 1169-1174

work page 2013
[4]

Quantum spintronics: en- gineering and manipulating atom-like spins in semicon- ductors

Awschalom, David D., et al. “Quantum spintronics: en- gineering and manipulating atom-like spins in semicon- ductors.” Science 339.6124 (2013): 1174-1179

work page 2013
[5]

Probing many-body dynam- ics on a 51-atom quantum simulator

Bernien, Hannes, et al. “Probing many-body dynam- ics on a 51-atom quantum simulator.” Nature 551.7682 (2017): 579

work page 2017
[6]

10-qubit entanglement and parallel logic operations with a superconducting circuit

Song, Chao, et al. “10-qubit entanglement and parallel logic operations with a superconducting circuit.”Physical Review Letters 119.18 (2017): 180511

work page 2017
[7]

Eﬃcient quan- tum tomography

O’Donnell, Ryan, and John Wright. “Eﬃcient quan- tum tomography.” Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing . ACM, 2016

work page 2016
[8]

Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states

Haah, Jeongwan, et al. “Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 63.9 (2017): 5628-5641

work page 2017

Show all 52 references

[9]

Eﬃcient quantum state tomog- raphy

Cramer, Marcus, et al. “Eﬃcient quantum state tomog- raphy.” Nature Communications 1 (2010): 149

2010
[10]

Eﬃcient tomography of a quantum many-body system

Lanyon, B. P., et al. “Eﬃcient tomography of a quantum many-body system.” Nature Physics 13.12 (2017): 1158

2017
[11]

Shadow tomography of quantum states

Aaronson, Scott. “Shadow tomography of quantum states.” Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing . ACM, 2018

2018
[12]

Data Structures and Algorithms. 1. Sorting and Searching

Mehlhorn, Kurt. “Data Structures and Algorithms. 1. Sorting and Searching.” Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1984)

1984
[13]

Storing a sparse table with O(1) access time

Fredman, Michael L., J´ anos Koml´ os and Endre Sze- mer´ edi, “Storing a sparse table with O(1) access time.” Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 31 (1984): 538-544. 7

1984
[14]

On the size of separating systems and families of perfect hash func- tions

Fredman, Michael L., and J´ anos Koml´ os. “On the size of separating systems and families of perfect hash func- tions.” SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods 5.1 (1984): 61-68

1984
[15]

Explicit construction of exponential sized families of k-independent sets

Alon, Noga. “Explicit construction of exponential sized families of k-independent sets.” Discrete Mathematics 58.2 (1986): 191-193

1986
[16]

New bounds for per- fect hashing via information theory

Korner, J., and Katalin Marton. “New bounds for per- fect hashing via information theory.” European Journal of Combinatorics 9.6 (1988): 523-530

1988
[17]

The spatial com- plexity of oblivious k-probe hash functions

Schmidt, Jeanette P., and Alan Siegel. “The spatial com- plexity of oblivious k-probe hash functions.” SIAM Jour- nal on Computing 19.5 (1990): 775-786

1990
[18]

Color- coding

Alon, Noga, Raphael Yuster, and Uri Zwick. “Color- coding.” J. ACM 42.4 (1995): 844-856

1995
[19]

Splitters and near-optimal derandomization

Naor, Moni, Leonard J. Schulman, and Aravind Srini- vasan. “Splitters and near-optimal derandomization.” Proceedings of IEEE 36th Annual Foundations of Com- puter Science. IEEE, 1995

1995
[20]

Some recursive constructions for per- fect hash families

Atici, M., et al. “Some recursive constructions for per- fect hash families.” Journal of Combinatorial Designs 4.5 (1996): 353-363

1996
[21]

Perfect hashing

Czech, Zbigniew J., George Havas, and Bohdan S. Ma- jewski. “Perfect hashing.” Theoretical Computer Science 182.1-2 (1997): 1-143

1997
[22]

Optimal linear perfect hash families

Blackburn, Simon R., and Peter R. Wild. “Optimal linear perfect hash families.” Journal of Combinatorial Theory , Series A 83.2 (1998): 233-250

1998
[23]

Perfect hash families: probabilistic methods and explicit constructions

Blackburn, Simon R. “Perfect hash families: probabilistic methods and explicit constructions.” Journal of Combi- natorial Theory, Series A 92.1 (2000): 54-60

2000
[24]

New constructions for perfect hash families and related struc- tures using combinatorial designs and codes

Stinson, Douglas R., Ruizhong Wei, and L. Zhu. “New constructions for perfect hash families and related struc- tures using combinatorial designs and codes.” Journal of Combinatorial Designs 8.3 (2000): 189-200

2000
[25]

Balanced families of per- fect hash functions and their applications

Alon, Noga, and Shai Gutner. “Balanced families of per- fect hash functions and their applications.” ACM Trans- actions on Algorithms (TALG) 6.3 (2010): 54

2010
[26]

Perfect hashing and probability

Nilli, Alon. “Perfect hashing and probability.” Combina- torics, Probability and Computing 3.3 (1994): 407-409

1994
[27]

Beating Fredman-Koml´ o s for perfect k-hashing

Guruswami, Venkatesan, and Andrii Riazanov. “Beating Fredman-Koml´ o s for perfect k-hashing.” arXiv:1805.04151 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[28]

Quantum com- putation and quantum information

Nielsen, Michael A., and Isaac Chuang. “Quantum com- putation and quantum information.” (2002): 558-559

2002
[29]

Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits

Wootters, William K. “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits.” Physical Review Letters 80.10 (1998): 2245

1998
[30]

Optimal local preparation of an arbitrary mixed state of two qubits: Closed expression for the single-copy case

Vidal, Guifr´ e. “Optimal local preparation of an arbitrary mixed state of two qubits: Closed expression for the single-copy case.” Physical Review A 62.6 (2000): 062315

2000
[31]

Harmony for 2-Qubit Entanglement

Osuga, Kento, and Don N. Page. “Harmony for 2-Qubit Entanglement.” arXiv:1906.09273 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[32]

http:/www.public.asu.edu/∼ redoughe/ phf pages/phf tables.html

Dougherty, Ryan. http:/www.public.asu.edu/∼ redoughe/ phf pages/phf tables.html
[33]

Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold-atom quantum simulators

Kuhr, Stefan. “Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold-atom quantum simulators.”National Science Re- view 3.2 (2016): 170-172

2016
[34]

An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays

Barredo, Daniel, et al. “An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays.” Science 354.6315 (2016): 1021-1023

2016
[35]

Observation of a many-body dy- namical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simu- lator

Zhang, Jiehang, et al. “Observation of a many-body dy- namical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simu- lator.” Nature 551.7682 (2017): 601

2017
[36]

String-net con- densation: A physical mechanism for topological phases

Levin, Michael A., and Xiao-Gang Wen. “String-net con- densation: A physical mechanism for topological phases.” Physical Review B 71.4 (2005): 045110

2005
[37]

Detecting topo- logical order in a ground state wave function

Levin, Michael, and Xiao-Gang Wen. “Detecting topo- logical order in a ground state wave function.” Physical Review Letters 96.11 (2006): 110405

2006
[38]

Topological order: From long-range entangled quantum matter to a uniﬁed origin of light and electrons

Wen, Xiao-Gang. “Topological order: From long-range entangled quantum matter to a uniﬁed origin of light and electrons.” ISRN Condensed Matter Physics 2013 (2013)

2013
[39]

The complexity of the local Hamiltonian problem

Kempe, Julia, Alexei Kitaev, and Oded Regev. “The complexity of the local Hamiltonian problem.” SIAM Journal on Computing 35.5 (2006): 1070-1097

2006
[40]

Classical and quantum compu- tation

Kitaev, Alexei Yu, et al. Classical and quantum compu- tation. No. 47. American Mathematical Soc., 2002

2002
[41]

Solving the quantum many-body problem with artiﬁcial neural net- works

Carleo, Giuseppe, and Matthias Troyer. “Solving the quantum many-body problem with artiﬁcial neural net- works.” Science 355.6325 (2017): 602-606

2017
[42]

Learning phase transitions by confusion

Van Nieuwenburg, Evert PL, Ye-Hua Liu, and Sebastian D. Huber. “Learning phase transitions by confusion.”Na- ture Physics 13.5 (2017): 435

2017
[43]

Machine learn- ing phases of matter

Carrasquilla, Juan, and Roger G. Melko. “Machine learn- ing phases of matter.” Nature Physics 13.5 (2017): 431

2017
[44]

Discovering phase transitions with unsuper- vised learning

Wang, Lei. “Discovering phase transitions with unsuper- vised learning.” Physical Review B 94.19 (2016): 195105

2016
[45]

Quantum entanglement in deep learning architectures

Levine, Yoav, et al. “Quantum entanglement in deep learning architectures.” Physical Review Letters 122.6 (2019): 065301

2019
[46]

Quantum loop topography for machine learning

Zhang, Yi, and Eun-Ah Kim. “Quantum loop topography for machine learning.” Physical Review Letters 118.21 (2017): 216401

2017
[47]

Neural-network quantum state tomography

Torlai, Giacomo, et al. “Neural-network quantum state tomography.” Nature Physics 14.5 (2018): 447

2018
[48]

Multipartite quantum states and their marginals

Walter, Michael. “Multipartite quantum states and their marginals.” arXiv:1410.6820 (2014)

2014 arXiv
[49]

Quantum marginal problem and its physical relevance

Schilling, Christian. “Quantum marginal problem and its physical relevance.” arXiv:1507.00299 (2015)

2015 arXiv
[50]

Quantum state tomography via reduced density matrices

Xin, Tao, et al. “Quantum state tomography via reduced density matrices.” Physical Review Letters 118.2 (2017): 020401

2017
[51]

Eﬃcient learning of quantum noise

Harper, Robin, Steven T. Flammia, and Joel J. Wallman. “Eﬃcient learning of quantum noise.” arXiv:1907.13022 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[52]

Eﬃcient es- timation of Pauli channels

Flammia, Steven T., and Joel J. Wallman. “Eﬃcient es- timation of Pauli channels.” arXiv:1907.12976 (2019). 8 Appendix: Application of the Chernoﬀ-Hoeﬀding Inequality One version of the Chernoﬀ-Hoeﬀding inequality is as follows. Given M i.i.d. random variables Xj, each valued ...

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Quantum computers

Ladd, Thaddeus D., et al. “Quantum computers.” Nature 464.7285 (2010): 45

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Scaling the ion trap quantum processor

Monroe, Christopher, and Jungsang Kim. “Scaling the ion trap quantum processor.” Science 339.6124 (2013): 1164-1169

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Super- conducting circuits for quantum information: an out- look

Devoret, Michel H., and Robert J. Schoelkopf. “Super- conducting circuits for quantum information: an out- look.” Science 339.6124 (2013): 1169-1174

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Quantum spintronics: en- gineering and manipulating atom-like spins in semicon- ductors

Awschalom, David D., et al. “Quantum spintronics: en- gineering and manipulating atom-like spins in semicon- ductors.” Science 339.6124 (2013): 1174-1179

work page 2013

[5] [5]

Probing many-body dynam- ics on a 51-atom quantum simulator

Bernien, Hannes, et al. “Probing many-body dynam- ics on a 51-atom quantum simulator.” Nature 551.7682 (2017): 579

work page 2017

[6] [6]

10-qubit entanglement and parallel logic operations with a superconducting circuit

Song, Chao, et al. “10-qubit entanglement and parallel logic operations with a superconducting circuit.”Physical Review Letters 119.18 (2017): 180511

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Eﬃcient quan- tum tomography

O’Donnell, Ryan, and John Wright. “Eﬃcient quan- tum tomography.” Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing . ACM, 2016

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states

Haah, Jeongwan, et al. “Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 63.9 (2017): 5628-5641

work page 2017