CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 77Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Mechanics and Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Variational Quantum Algorithm for Estimating the Quantum Fisher Information

Open access
Beckey, Jacob L., Cerezo, M., Sone, Akira, Coles, Patrick J.·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2010.10488arXiv 2010.10488
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Quantum Fisher information (QFI) quantifies the ultimate precision of estimating a parameter from a quantum state, and can be regarded as a reliability measure of a quantum system as a quantum sensor. However, estimation of the QFI for a mixed state is in general a computationally demanding task. In this work we present a variational quantum algorithm called Variational Quantum Fisher Information Estimation (VQFIE) to address this task. By estimating lower and upper bounds on the QFI, based on bounding the fidelity, VQFIE outputs a range in which the actual QFI lies. This result can then be used to variationally prepare the state that maximizes the QFI, for the application of quantum sensing. In contrast to previous approaches, VQFIE does not require knowledge of the explicit form of the sensor dynamics. We simulate the algorithm for a magnetometry setup and demonstrate the tightening of our bounds as the state purity increases. For this example, we compare our bounds to literature bounds and show that our bounds are tighter.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2010.10488

Cites

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Variational-state quantum metrology variationally searches for the optimal probe state.

    “Variational-state quantum metrology variationally searches for the optimal probe state [190-193].”

    From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [191]

  • Recent works have explored quantum metrology to prepare a better probe state in a VQA set-up using quantum Fisher information as a cost function.

    “Using it as a cost function, recent works have explored quantum metrology to prepare a better probe state in a VQA set-up (Beckey et al. , 2020; Kaubruegger et al. , 2019; Koczor et al. , 2020; Ma et al. , 2020).”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Beckey et al., 2020

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 87

  1. L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Entanglement, Nonlinear Dynam- ics, and the Heisenberg Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 100401 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  2. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quan- tum metrology, Nat. Photonics 5, 222 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  3. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  4. S. Bhattacharjee, U. Bhattacharya, W. Niedenzu, V. Mukherjee, and A. Dutta, Quantum magnetometry using two-stroke thermal machines, New J. Phys. 22, 013024 (2020). · DOI
  5. J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. R. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale reso- lution, Nat. Phys. 4, 810 (2008). · DOI
  6. A. Sone, Q. Zhuang, and P. Cappellaro, Quantifying precision loss in local quantum thermometry via diagonal discord, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012115 (2018). · DOI
  7. A. Sone, Q. Zhuang, C. Li, Y.-X. Liu, and P. Cappellaro, Nonclassical correlations for quantum metrology in thermal equilibrium, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052318 (2019). · DOI
  8. L. A. Correa, M. Mehboudi, G. Adesso, and A. Sanpera, Indi- vidual Quantum Probes for Optimal Thermometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 220405 (2015). · DOI
  9. A. De Pasquale, D. Rossini, R. Fazio, and V. Giovannetti, Local quantum thermal susceptibility, Nat. Commun. 7, 12782 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  10. S. Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination, Science 321, 1463 (2008). · DOI
  11. Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, Optimum Mixed-State Discrimination for Noisy Entanglement-Enhanced Sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 040801 (2017). · DOI
  12. Q. Zhuang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Distributed quantum sens- ing enhanced by continuous-variable error correction, New J. Phys. 20, 022001 (2020). · DOI
  13. T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Multiparame- ter Estimation in Networked Quantum Sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 080501 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  14. D. Burgarth and K. Yuasa, Quantum System Identification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 080502 (2012). · DOI
  15. J. Zhang and M. Sarovar, Quantum Hamiltonian Identification from Measurement Time Traces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 080401 (2014). · DOI
  16. D. Burgarth and K. Maruyama, Indirect Hamiltonian identifica- tion through a small gateway, New J. Phys. 11, 103019 (2009). · DOI
  17. A. Sone and P. Cappellaro, Hamiltonian identifiability assisted by single-probe measurement, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022335 (2017). · DOI
  18. C. Di Franco, M. Paternostro, and M. S. Kim, Hamiltonian Tomography in an Access-Limited Setting without State Initial- ization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 187203 (2009). · DOI
  19. Y. Wang, D. Dong, A. Sone, I. R. Petersen, H. Yonezawa, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum Hamiltonian identifiability via a similarity transformation approach and beyond, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 65, 4632 (2020). · DOI
  20. Y. Kato and N. Yamamoto, Structure identification and state initialization of spin networks with limited access, New J. Phys. 16, 023024 (2014). · DOI
  21. A. Sone and P. Cappellaro, Exact dimension estimation of inter- acting qubit systems assisted by a single quantum probe, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062334 (2017). · DOI
  22. M. Owari, K. Maruyama, T. Takui, and G. Kato, Probing an un- touchable environment for its identification and control, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012343 (2015). · DOI
  23. A. Ajoy, Y.-X. Liu, K. Saha, L. Marseglia, J.-C. Jaskula, U. Bissbort, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum interpolation for high- resolution sensing, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 2149 (2017). · DOI
  24. I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, E. Urbach, N. P. de Leon, S. Choi, K. De Greve, R. Evans, R. Gertner, E. Bersin, C. Müller, L. McGuinness, F. Jelezko, R. L. Walsworth, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Nuclear magnetic resonance detection and spec- troscopy of single proteins using quantum logic, Science 351, 836 (2016). · DOI
  25. J. Choi, H. Zhou, R. Landig, H.-Y. Wu, X. Yu, S. V. Stetina, G. Kucsko, S. Mango, D. Needleman, A. D. T. Samuel, P. Maurer, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Probing and manipulating embryoge- nesis via nanoscale thermometry and temperature control, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14636 (2020). · DOI
  26. M. Fujiwara, S. Sun, A. Dohms, Y. Nishimura, K. Suto, Y. Takezawa, K. Oshimi, L. Zhao, N. Sadzak, Y. Umehara, Y. Teki, N. Komatsu, O. Benson, Y. Shikano, and E. Kage-Nakadai, Real-time nanodiamond thermometry probing in-vivo thermo- genic responses, Sci. Adv. 6, eaba9636 (2020). · DOI
  27. C. S. Wolfe, S. A. Manuilov, C. M. Purser, R. Teeling-Smith, C. Dubs, P. C. Hammel, and V. P. Bhallamudi, Spatially resolved detection of complex ferromagnetic dynamics using optically detected nitrogen-vacancy spins, Appl. Phys. Lett. 108, 232409 (2016). · DOI
  28. F. Casola, T. van der Sar, and A. Yacoby, Probing condensed matter physics with magnetometry based on nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamond, Nat. Rev. Mater. 3, 17088 (2018). · DOI
  29. S. Rajendran, N. Zobrist, A. O. Sushkov, R. Walsworth, and M. Lukin, A method for directional detection of dark matter using spectroscopy of crystal defects, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035009 (2017). · DOI
  30. L. McCuller, C. Whittle, D. Ganapathy, K. Komori, M. Tse, A. Fernandez-Galiana, L. Barsotti, P. Fritschel, M. MacInnis, F. Matichard, K. Mason, N. Mavalvala, R. Mittleman, H. Yu, M. E. Zucker, and M. Evans, Frequency-Dependent Squeezing for Advanced LIGO, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 171102 (2020). · DOI
  31. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016). · DOI
  32. M. Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foun- dation, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, 2004).
  33. J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  34. A. Fujiwara and H. Nagaoka, Quantum Fisher metric and estimation for pure state models, Phys. Lett. A 201, 119 (1995). · DOI · Paper page
  35. K. Matsumoto, A new approach to the Cramér-Rao-type bound of the pure-state model, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, 3111 (2002). · DOI
  36. L. J. Fiderer, J. M. E. Fraïsse, and D. Braun, Maximal Quan- tum Fisher Information for Mixed States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 250502 (2019). · DOI
  37. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  38. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  39. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O'Brien, A varia- tional eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  40. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approxi- mate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028. · arXiv
  41. J. Romero, J. P. Olson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum autoen- coders for efficient compression of quantum data, Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 045001 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  42. S. Khatri, R. LaRose, A. Poremba, L. Cincio, A. T. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, Quantum-assisted quantum com- piling, Quantum 3, 140 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  43. R. LaRose, A. Tikku, É. O'Neel-Judy, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum state diagonalization, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 57 (2019); 5, 67(E) (2019). · DOI
  44. A. Arrasmith, L. Cincio, A. T. Sornborger, W. H. Zurek, and P. J. Coles, Variational consistent histories as a hybrid algorithm for quantum foundations, Nat. Commun. 10, 3438 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  45. M. Cerezo, A. Poremba, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum fidelity estimation, Quantum 4, 248 (2020). · DOI
  46. K. Sharma, S. Khatri, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Noise re- silience of variational quantum compiling, New J. Phys. 22, 043006 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  47. C. Bravo-Prieto, D. García-Martín, and J. I. Latorre, Quan- tum singular value decomposer, Phys. Rev. A 101, 062310 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  48. M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Arrasmith, and P. J. Coles, Varia- tional quantum state eigensolver, arXiv:2004.01372. · arXiv
  49. C. Cirstoiu, Z. Holmes, J. Iosue, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Variational fast forwarding for quantum sim- ulation beyond the coherence time, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 82 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  50. X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum 3, 191 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  51. H.-L. Huang, Y. Du, M. Gong, Y. Zhao, Y. Wu, C. Wang, S. Li, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, R. Yang, T. Liu, M.-H. Hsieh, H. Deng, H. Rong, C.-Z. Peng, C.-Y. Lu, Y.-A. Chen, D. Tao, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental Quantum Generative Adversarial Networks for Image Generation, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 024051 (2021). · DOI
  52. J. Carolan, M. Mohseni, J. P. Olson, M. Prabhu, C. Chen, D. Bunandar, M. Y. Niu, N. C. Harris, F. N. C. Wong, M. Hochberg, S. Lloyd, and D. Englund, Variational quantum un- sampling on a quantum photonic processor, Nat. Phys. 16, 322 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  53. C. Bravo-Prieto, R. LaRose, M. Cerezo, Y. Subasi, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum linear solver: A hybrid algorithm for linear systems, arXiv:1909.05820. · arXiv
  54. E. Anschuetz, J. Olson, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and Y. Cao, Vari- ational quantum factoring, in International Workshop on Quantum Technology and Optimization Problems (Springer, New York, 2019), pp. 74-85.
  55. J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  56. M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nat. Commun. 12, 1791 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  57. K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Trainabil- ity of dissipative perceptron-based quantum neural networks, arXiv:2005.12458. · arXiv
  58. T. Volkoff and P. J. Coles, Large gradients via correlation in random parameterized quantum circuits, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 025008 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  59. S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Commun. 12, 6961 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  60. M. Cerezo and P. J. Coles, Impact of barren plateaus on the Hessian and higher order derivatives, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 035006 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  61. Z. Holmes, A. Arrasmith, B. Yan, P. J. Coles, A. Albrecht, and A. T. Sornborger, Barren Plateaus Preclude Learning Scram- blers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 190501 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  62. A. Hentschel and B. C. Sanders, Machine Learning for Precise Quantum Measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 063603 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  63. H. Xu, J. Li, L. Liu, Y. Wang, H. Yuan, and X. Wang, Generalizable control for quantum parameter estimation through reinforcement learning, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 82 (2019). · DOI
  64. T. Xiao, J. Huang, J. Fan, and G. Zeng, Continuous-variable quantum phase estimation based on machine learning, Sci. Rep. 9, 12410 (2019). · DOI
  65. R. Kaubruegger, P. Silvi, C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, A. M. Rey, J. Ye, A. M. Kaufman, and P. Zoller, Variational Spin-Squeezing Algorithms on Programmable Quantum Sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 260505 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  66. L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018). · DOI
  67. B. Koczor, S. Endo, T. Jones, Y. Matsuzaki, and S. C. Benjamin, Variational-state quantum metrology, New J. Phys. 22, 083038 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  68. J. J. Meyer, J. Borregaard, and J. Eisert, A variational toolbox for quantum multi-parameter estimation, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 89 (2021). · DOI
  69. K. Modi, L. C. Céleri, J. Thompson, and M. Gu, Fragile states are better for quantum metrology, arXiv:1608.01443. · arXiv
  70. X. Yang, J. Thompson, Z. Wu, M. Gu, X. Peng, and J. Du, Probe optimization for quantum metrology via closed-loop learning control, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 62 (2020). · DOI
  71. J. Liu, J. Chen, X.-X. Jing, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information and symmetric logarithmic derivative via anti- commutators, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 275302 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  72. D. Girolami, Observable Measure of Quantum Coherence in Fi- nite Dimensional Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 170401 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  73. C. Zhang, B. Yadin, Z.-B. Hou, H. Cao, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, R. Maity, V. Vedral, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and D. Girolami, Detecting metrologically useful asymmetry and entanglement by a few local measurements, Phys. Rev. A 96, 042327 (2017). · DOI
  74. V. Katariya and M. M. Wilde, Geometric distinguishability measures limit quantum channel estimation and discrimination, Quantum Inf. Process. 20, 78 (2021). · DOI
  75. A. Sone, M. Cerezo, J. L. Beckey, and P. J. Coles, Generalized measure of quantum Fisher information, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062602 (2021). · DOI
  76. J. A. Miszczak, Z. Puchala, P. Horodecki, A. Uhlmann, and K. Zyczkowski, Sub-and super-fidelity as bounds for quantum fidelity, Quantum Inf. Comput. 9, 103 (2009). · DOI
  77. M. Tomamichel, Quantum Information Processing with Fi- nite Resources: Mathematical Foundations, Springer Briefs in Mathematical Physics (Springer, New York, 2016), Vol. 5.
  78. A. K. Ekert, C. M. Alves, D. K. L. Oi, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and L. C. Kwek, Direct Estimations of Linear and Nonlinear Functionals of a Quantum State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 217901 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  79. M. Cerezo, A. Sone, J. L. Beckey, and P. J. Coles, Sub- quantum Fisher information, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 035008 (2021). · DOI
  80. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  81. L. Cincio, Y. Subaşı, A. T. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, Learn- ing the quantum algorithm for state overlap, New J. Phys. 20, 113022 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  82. T. A. Brun, Measuring polynomial functions of states, Quantum Inf. Comput. 4, 401 (2004). · DOI
  83. M. J. D. Powell, The BOBYQA algorithm for bound con- strained optimization without derivatives, Technical Report No. DAMTP 2009/NA06, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, 2009.
  84. A. Arrasmith, Z. Holmes, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Equiv- alence of quantum barren plateaus to cost concentration and narrow gorges, arXiv:2104.05868. · arXiv
  85. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011).
  86. K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Quantum circuit learning, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032309 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  87. M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032331 (2019). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Beckey, J. L., Cerezo, M., Sone, A., & Coles, P. J.
Affiliations
Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
4
Issue
1
ISSN
2643-1564 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2010.10488
arXiv
2010.10488
OpenAlex
W3094023472
Cited by
77
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8
FWCI
4.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Physical Review Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1650115)
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Keywords
quantum Fisher information, variational quantum algorithms, quantum parameter estimation, quantum sensing, fidelity bounds, mixed quantum states, magnetic field measurement, state purity

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