Paper detail

Error probability analysis in quantum tomography: a tool for evaluating experiments

We expand the scope of the statistical notion of error probability, i.e., how often large deviations are observed in an experiment, in order to make it directly applicable to quantum tomography. We verify that the error probability can decrease at most exponentially in the number of trials, derive the explicit rate that bounds this decrease, and show that a maximum likelihood estimator achieves this bound. We also show that the statistical notion of identifiability coincides with the tomographic notion of informational completeness. Our result implies that two quantum tomographic apparatuses that have the same risk function, (e.g. variance), can have different error probability, and we give an example in one qubit state tomography. Thus by combining these two approaches we can evaluate, in a reconstruction independent way, the performance of such experiments more discerningly.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.