Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 358

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators

Open access
Flammia, Steven T, Gross, David, Liu, Yi-Kai, Eisert, Jens·2012·New Journal of Physics

Abstract

Intuitively, if a density operator has small rank, then it should be easier to estimate from experimental data, since in this case only a few eigenvectors need to be learned. We prove two complementary results that confirm this intuition. Firstly, we show that a low-rank density matrix can be estimated using fewer copies of the state, i.e. the sample complexity of tomography decreases with the rank. Secondly, we show that unknown low-rank states can be reconstructed from an incomplete set of measurements, using techniques from compressed sensing and matrix completion. These techniques use simple Pauli measurements, and their output can be certified without making any assumptions about the unknown state. In this paper, we present a new theoretical analysis of compressed tomography, based on the restricted isometry property for low-rank matrices. Using these tools, we obtain near-optimal error bounds for the realistic situation where the data contain noise due to finite statistics, and the density matrix is full-rank with decaying eigenvalues. We also obtain upper bounds on the sample complexity of compressed tomography, and almost-matching lower bounds on the sample complexity of any procedure using adaptive sequences of Pauli measurements. Using numerical simulations, we compare the performance of two compressed sensing estimators—the matrix Dantzig selector and the matrix Lasso—with standard maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE). We find that, given comparable experimental resources, the compressed sensing estimators consistently produce higher fidelity state reconstructions than MLE. In addition, the use of an incomplete set of measurements leads to faster classical processing with no loss of accuracy. Finally, we show how to certify the accuracy of a low-rank estimate using direct fidelity estimation, and describe a method for compressed quantum process tomography that works for processes with small Kraus rank and requires only Pauli eigenstate preparations and Pauli measurements.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1367-2630/14/9/095022

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 80 references

Cited by

See all 358

Metadata

Authors
Flammia, S. T., Gross, D., Liu, Y.-K., & Eisert, J.
Venue
New Journal of Physics
Published
2012-09-27
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
095022
ISSN
1367-2630 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2140336578
Cited by
358
References
80
FWCI
21.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/1367-2630/14/9/095022
The paper
Flammia, S. T., Gross, D., Liu, Y.-K., & Eisert, J. (2012). Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators. New Journal of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/9/095022

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.