{"id":1213,"date":"2020-11-30T14:30:58","date_gmt":"2020-11-30T12:30:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/giq\/seminar\/shadow-tomography-of-quantum-states-progress-and-prospects\/"},"modified":"2020-11-30T14:30:58","modified_gmt":"2020-11-30T12:30:58","slug":"shadow-tomography-of-quantum-states-progress-and-prospects","status":"publish","type":"seminar","link":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/giq\/seminar\/shadow-tomography-of-quantum-states-progress-and-prospects\/","title":{"rendered":"Shadow Tomography of Quantum States: Progress and Prospects"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Given an unknown quantum state rho, and a known list of two-outcome measurements E_1,&#8230;,E_M, \u00abshadow tomography\u00bb is the task of estimating the probability that each E_i accepts rho, by carefully measuring only a few copies of rho. In 2018, I gave the first nontrivial protocol for this task. In 2019, Guy Rothblum and I exploited a new connection between&nbsp;gentle&nbsp;measurement&nbsp;of quantum states and the field of&nbsp;differential&nbsp;privacy, to give a protocol that requires fewer copies of rho in some cases, and has the additional advantage of being online (that is, the measurements are processed one at a time).&nbsp; Huge challenges remain in making shadow tomography practical with near-term devices; extremely recently Huang, Kueng, and Preskill took some promising steps in that direction.&nbsp; I&#8217;ll survey these developments and the challenges that remain.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Papers:&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><a data-saferedirecturl=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?q=https:\/\/www.scottaaronson.com\/papers\/batch.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1606810593693000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFJqNSgnOXUgshJDalaglowrTfcWQ\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scottaaronson.com\/papers\/batch.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.scottaaronson.com\/<wbr \/>papers\/batch.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a data-saferedirecturl=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?q=https:\/\/www.scottaaronson.com\/papers\/dpgentle.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1606810593693000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEfs3OPrUh4BH3zsMaq6ktyceKayg\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scottaaronson.com\/papers\/dpgentle.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.scottaaronson.com\/<wbr \/>papers\/dpgentle.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a data-saferedirecturl=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?q=https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2002.08953&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1606810593693000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEpqN6sXgGfkq_yoHDn3r2Y240KyQ\" href=\"https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2002.08953\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2002.<wbr \/>08953<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Given an unknown quantum state rho, and a known list of two-outcome measurements E_1,&#8230;,E_M, \u00abshadow tomography\u00bb is the task of estimating the probability that each E_i accepts rho, by carefully measuring only a few copies of rho. In 2018, I gave the first nontrivial protocol for this task. In 2019, Guy Rothblum and I exploited [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-1213","seminar","type-seminar","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/giq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/seminar\/1213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/giq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/seminar"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/giq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/seminar"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/giq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/giq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}