Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 44 min ago
PreprintCC BY 4.0arXiv

A Design Space Study of Density Matrix Parameterizations for Diffusion-Based Quantum State Tomography

Abstract

Diffusion-based quantum state tomography (QST) has shown promising results, but all existing methods implicitly adopt a single parameterization (typically Cholesky) without systematic evaluation. We present the first design space study of density matrix parameterizations for diffusion QST, introducing a geometric framework based on the Jacobian Gram matrix J⊤J. Our calibration of seven parameterizations at 2- and 3-qubit scales, validated by end-to-end training, reveals that \emph{geometric conditioning alone does not predict end-to-end performance}: at 3-qubit scale, Hermitian direct (κ= 2.0×) performs worse than Cholesky (κ= 27×) at all shot levels---a 13.5× isotropy advantage that translates into a fidelity \emph{disadvantage} of up to +0.51. The 2-qubit ranking (Hermitian > Bloch) reverses at 3 qubits (Bloch 0.907 vs.\ Hermitian 0.394). We provide a geometric explanation: unbounded parameterizations suffer projection-induced information loss because the PSD constraint couples diagonal and off-diagonal coordinates in ways the unconstrained model cannot respect, whereas the Bloch representation places the maximally mixed state at the center of the valid region, minimizing projection loss.

Related

  1. Task-Directed Spectral Design for Local Quantum Tomography
    Guy Hay, Nir Sharon
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textStatisticsQuantum physics & quantum informationarXiv
  2. Generative SDEs with Trainable Diffusion and Density-Based Losses
    Angxiu Ni
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textDynamical systemsarXiv
  3. Random Jump Intensities and Bernstein Density Estimation in Ergodic Basic Affine Jump-Diffusion Processes
    Hamdi Fathallah
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textStatisticsarXiv
  4. Optimal sampling density design for homotopic off-the-grid deconvolution
    Joseph Gabet, Maxime Ferreira Da Costa, Kiryung Lee
    HALPreprintPublisher termsFull textNumerical analysis & scientific computingOptimisation & controlHAL
  5. Connecting Quantum Tomography and Quantum Retrodiction
    Sebastian Murk, Ian Tan, Fabian Müller +1
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textMathematical physicsStatisticsarXiv
BibTeX
@misc{chang2026design,
  title = {{A Design Space Study of Density Matrix Parameterizations for Diffusion-Based Quantum State Tomography}},
  author = {Shuangu Chang},
  howpublished = {arXiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2608.09625},
  eprint = {2608.09625},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09625},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - A Design Space Study of Density Matrix Parameterizations for Diffusion-Based Quantum State Tomography
AU  - Shuangu Chang
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/19
PB  - arXiv
DO  - 10.48550/arxiv.2608.09625
UR  - https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09625
AB  - Diffusion-based quantum state tomography (QST) has shown promising results, but all existing methods implicitly adopt a single parameterization (typically Cholesky) without systematic evaluation. We present the first design space study of density matrix parameterizations for diffusion QST, introducing a geometric framework based on the Jacobian Gram matrix J^⊤J. Our calibration of seven parameterizations at 2- and 3-qubit scales, validated by end-to-end training, reveals that \emph{geometric conditioning alone does not predict end-to-end performance}: at 3-qubit scale, Hermitian direct (κ= 2.0×) performs worse than Cholesky (κ= 27×) at all shot levels---a 13.5× isotropy advantage that translates into a fidelity \emph{disadvantage} of up to +0.51. The 2-qubit ranking (Hermitian > Bloch) reverses at 3 qubits (Bloch 0.907 vs.\ Hermitian 0.394). We provide a geometric explanation: unbounded parameterizations suffer projection-induced information loss because the PSD constraint couples diagonal and off-diagonal coordinates in ways the unconstrained model cannot respect, whereas the Bloch representation places the maximally mixed state at the center of the valid region, minimizing projection loss.
ER  -