Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3618260.3649704acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

An Optimal Tradeoff between Entanglement and Copy Complexity for State Tomography

Published: 11 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

There has been significant interest in understanding how practical constraints on contemporary quantum devices impact the complexity of quantum learning. For the classic question of tomography, recent work tightly characterized the copy complexity for any protocol that can only measure one copy of the unknown state at a time, showing it is polynomially worse than if one can make fully-entangled measurements. While we now have a fairly complete picture of the rates for such tasks in the near-term and fault-tolerant regimes, it remains poorly understood what the landscape in between these extremes looks like, and in particular how to gracefully scale up our protocols as we transition away from NISQ. In this work, we study tomography in the natural setting where one can make measurements of t copies at a time. For sufficiently small є, we show that for any td2, Θ(d3/√tє2) copies are necessary and sufficient to learn an unknown d-dimensional state ρ to trace distance є. This gives a smooth and optimal interpolation between the known rates for single-copy measurements and fully-entangled measurements. To our knowledge, this is the first smooth entanglement-copy tradeoff known for any quantum learning task, and for tomography, no intermediate point on this curve was known, even at t = 2. An important obstacle is that unlike the optimal single-copy protocol, the optimal fully-entangled protocol is inherently a biased estimator. This bias precludes naive batching approaches for interpolating between the two protocols. Instead, we devise a novel two-stage procedure that uses Keyl’s algorithm to refine a crude estimate for ρ based on single-copy measurements. A key insight is to use Schur-Weyl sampling not to estimate the spectrum of ρ, but to estimate the deviation of ρ from the maximally mixed state. When ρ is far from the maximally mixed state, we devise a novel quantum splitting procedure that reduces to the case where ρ is close to maximally mixed.

References

[1]
Dorit Aharonov, Jordan Cotler, and Xiao-Liang Qi. 2022. Quantum algorithmic measurement. Nature communications, 13, 1 (2022), 1–9.
[2]
Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, and David A Buell. 2019. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574, 7779 (2019), 505–510.
[3]
Costin Bădescu and Ryan O’Donnell. 2021. Improved quantum data analysis. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1398–1411.
[4]
Sebastien Bubeck, Sitan Chen, and Jerry Li. 2020. Entanglement is necessary for optimal quantum property testing. In 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 692–703.
[5]
Matthias C Caro. 2022. Learning quantum processes and Hamiltonians via the Pauli transfer matrix. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04471.
[6]
Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li. 2021. A hierarchy for replica quantum advantage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05874.
[7]
Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li. 2022. Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memory. In 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 574–585.
[8]
Sitan Chen and Weiyuan Gong. 2023. Futility and utility of a few ancillas for Pauli channel learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14326.
[9]
S. Chen, B. Huang, J. Li, A. Liu, and M. Sellke. 2023. When Does Adaptivity Help for Quantum State Learning? In 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA. 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS57990.2023.00029
[10]
Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, Brice Huang, and Allen Liu. 2022. Tight Bounds for Quantum State Certification with Incoherent Measurements. In 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 1205–1213. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS54457.2022.00118
[11]
Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, and Ryan O’Donnell. 2022. Toward Instance-Optimal State Certification With Incoherent Measurements. In Proceedings of Thirty Fifth Conference on Learning Theory, Po-Ling Loh and Maxim Raginsky (Eds.) (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 178). PMLR, 2541–2596. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v178/chen22b.html
[12]
Senrui Chen, Changhun Oh, Sisi Zhou, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Liang Jiang. 2023. Tight bounds on Pauli channel learning without entanglement. arxiv:2309.13461.
[13]
Senrui Chen, Sisi Zhou, Alireza Seif, and Liang Jiang. 2022. Quantum advantages for Pauli channel estimation. Physical Review A, 105, 3 (2022), 032435.
[14]
Ilias Diakonikolas and Daniel M Kane. 2016. A new approach for testing properties of discrete distributions. In 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 685–694.
[15]
Omar Fawzi, Nicolas Flammarion, Aurélien Garivier, and Aadil Oufkir. 2023. Quantum Channel Certification with Incoherent Measurements. In Proceedings of Thirty Sixth Conference on Learning Theory, Gergely Neu and Lorenzo Rosasco (Eds.) (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 195). PMLR, 1822–1884. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v195/fawzi23a.html
[16]
Roe Goodman and Nolan R Wallach. 2009. Symmetry, representations, and invariants. 255, Springer.
[17]
Madalin Guţă, Jonas Kahn, Richard Kueng, and Joel A Tropp. 2020. Fast state tomography with optimal error bounds. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 53, 20 (2020), 204001.
[18]
Jeongwan Haah, Aram W Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu. 2016. Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states. In Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing. 913–925.
[19]
Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Jordan Cotler, Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, Masoud Mohseni, Hartmut Neven, Ryan Babbush, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. 2022. Quantum advantage in learning from experiments. Science, 376, 6598 (2022), 1182–1186.
[20]
Rajibul Islam, Ruichao Ma, Philipp M Preiss, M Eric Tai, Alexander Lukin, Matthew Rispoli, and Markus Greiner. 2015. Measuring entanglement entropy in a quantum many-body system. Nature, 528, 7580 (2015), 77–83.
[21]
Michael Keyl. 2006. Quantum state estimation and large deviations. Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 18, 01 (2006), 19–60.
[22]
M. Keyl and R. F. Werner. 2001. Estimating the spectrum of a density operator. Physical Review A, 64, 5 (2001), Oct., issn:1094-1622 https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.64.052311
[23]
Richard Kueng, Holger Rauhut, and Ulrich Terstiege. 2017. Low rank matrix recovery from rank one measurements. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 42, 1 (2017), 88–116.
[24]
Norbert M Linke, Sonika Johri, Caroline Figgatt, Kevin A Landsman, Anne Y Matsuura, and Christopher Monroe. 2018. Measuring the Rényi entropy of a two-site Fermi-Hubbard model on a trapped ion quantum computer. Physical Review A, 98, 5 (2018), 052334.
[25]
Qipeng Liu, Ran Raz, and Wei Zhan. 2023. Memory-Sample Lower Bounds for Learning with Classical-Quantum Hybrid Memory. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 1097–1110. isbn:9781450399135 https://doi.org/10.1145/3564246.3585129
[26]
Ashley Montanaro. 2017. Learning stabilizer states by Bell sampling. arxiv:1707.04012.
[27]
Michael A Nielsen and Isaac Chuang. 2002. Quantum computation and quantum information.
[28]
Ryan O’Donnell and John Wright. 2015. Quantum spectrum testing. In Proceedings of the forty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. 529–538.
[29]
Ryan O’Donnell and John Wright. 2016. Efficient quantum tomography. In Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing. 899–912.
[30]
Ryan O’Donnell and John Wright. 2017. Efficient quantum tomography II. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing. 962–974.
[31]
Dan Romik. 2015. The surprising mathematics of longest increasing subsequences. Cambridge University Press.
[32]
Bruce E Sagan. 2013. The symmetric group: representations, combinatorial algorithms, and symmetric functions. 203, Springer Science & Business Media.
[33]
John Wright. 2016. How to learn a quantum state. Ph. D. Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Machine Learning Model using Tsetlin Machine to Predict HbA1c Levels in Homeopathy2024 8th International Conference on Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology (ICECA)10.1109/ICECA63461.2024.10801108(1454-1460)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Optimal Tradeoffs for Estimating Pauli Observables2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)10.1109/FOCS61266.2024.00072(1086-1105)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024

Index Terms

  1. An Optimal Tradeoff between Entanglement and Copy Complexity for State Tomography

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    STOC 2024: Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
    June 2024
    2049 pages
    ISBN:9798400703836
    DOI:10.1145/3618260
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 11 June 2024

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Quantum learning
    2. Schur Sampling
    3. Schur-Weyl distribution
    4. limited entanglement
    5. memory-sample tradeoff
    6. quantum state tomography

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • National Science Foundation
    • Hertz Foundation

    Conference

    STOC '24
    Sponsor:
    STOC '24: 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
    June 24 - 28, 2024
    BC, Vancouver, Canada

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,469 of 4,586 submissions, 32%

    Upcoming Conference

    STOC '25
    57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2025)
    June 23 - 27, 2025
    Prague , Czech Republic

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)200
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)34
    Reflects downloads up to 16 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Machine Learning Model using Tsetlin Machine to Predict HbA1c Levels in Homeopathy2024 8th International Conference on Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology (ICECA)10.1109/ICECA63461.2024.10801108(1454-1460)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2024
    • (2024)Optimal Tradeoffs for Estimating Pauli Observables2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)10.1109/FOCS61266.2024.00072(1086-1105)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media