Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Optimal Distributed Similarity Estimation for Unitary Channels

Congcong Zheng, Kun Wang, Xutao Yu, Ping Xu, Zaichen Zhang

TL;DR

This work scrutinizes cross-platform benchmarking of quantum devices by addressing distributed similarity estimation for unitary channels (DSEU). It proves that estimating $\mathrm{Tr}[U^\dagger V]^2/d^2$ with LOCC requires $\Theta(\sqrt{d})$ queries, and presents two randomized-measurement protocols (incoherent with SPAM shared randomness and coherent with state-prep shared randomness) achieving this bound. The authors also establish matching lower bounds under both access models, demonstrating that coherence does not reduce the fundamental cost, while shared randomness provides a quadratic advantage over independent classical shadow. A comparative analysis shows the proposed methods outperform independent classical shadow by a square-root factor in query complexity, underscoring the practical value for distributed quantum learning and device benchmarking. Overall, the paper delivers theoretically optimal tools for assessing similarity of unitary channels across quantum devices and clarifies the role of shared randomness in distributed quantum learning.

Abstract

We study distributed similarity estimation for unitary channels (DSEU), the task of estimating the similarity between unitary channels implemented on different quantum devices. We completely address DSEU by showing that, for $n$-qubit unitary channels, the query complexity of DSEU is $Θ(\sqrt{d})$, where $d=2^n$, for both incoherent and coherent accesses. First, we propose two estimation algorithms for DSEU with these accesses utilizing the randomized measurement toolbox. The query complexities of these algorithms are both $O(\sqrt{d})$. Although incoherent access is generally weaker than coherent access, our incoherent algorithm matches this complexity by leveraging additional shared randomness between devices, highlighting the power of shared randomness in distributed quantum learning. We further establish matching lower bounds, proving that $Θ(\sqrt{d})$ queries are both necessary and sufficient for DSEU. Finally, we compare our algorithms with independent classical shadow and show that ours have a square-root advantage. Our results provide practical and theoretically optimal tools for quantum devices benchmarking and for distributed quantum learning.

Optimal Distributed Similarity Estimation for Unitary Channels

TL;DR

This work scrutinizes cross-platform benchmarking of quantum devices by addressing distributed similarity estimation for unitary channels (DSEU). It proves that estimating with LOCC requires queries, and presents two randomized-measurement protocols (incoherent with SPAM shared randomness and coherent with state-prep shared randomness) achieving this bound. The authors also establish matching lower bounds under both access models, demonstrating that coherence does not reduce the fundamental cost, while shared randomness provides a quadratic advantage over independent classical shadow. A comparative analysis shows the proposed methods outperform independent classical shadow by a square-root factor in query complexity, underscoring the practical value for distributed quantum learning and device benchmarking. Overall, the paper delivers theoretically optimal tools for assessing similarity of unitary channels across quantum devices and clarifies the role of shared randomness in distributed quantum learning.

Abstract

We study distributed similarity estimation for unitary channels (DSEU), the task of estimating the similarity between unitary channels implemented on different quantum devices. We completely address DSEU by showing that, for -qubit unitary channels, the query complexity of DSEU is , where , for both incoherent and coherent accesses. First, we propose two estimation algorithms for DSEU with these accesses utilizing the randomized measurement toolbox. The query complexities of these algorithms are both . Although incoherent access is generally weaker than coherent access, our incoherent algorithm matches this complexity by leveraging additional shared randomness between devices, highlighting the power of shared randomness in distributed quantum learning. We further establish matching lower bounds, proving that queries are both necessary and sufficient for DSEU. Finally, we compare our algorithms with independent classical shadow and show that ours have a square-root advantage. Our results provide practical and theoretically optimal tools for quantum devices benchmarking and for distributed quantum learning.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 26 sections, 18 theorems, 102 equations, 2 figures, 1 table, 3 algorithms.

Key Result

Theorem 1

The expectation and variance of estimator $\tilde{\omega}$ defined in Eq. eq:incoherent estimator are given by Consequently, the query complexity is $\mathcal{O}(\max\{1/\varepsilon^2, \sqrt{d}/\varepsilon\})$.

Figures (2)

  • Figure 1: Learning models for distributed similarity estimation of unitary channels. (a) Learning access: (i) Incoherent access: the unknown channel is queried once before each measurement. (ii) Coherent access: the unknown channel is queried $T$ times before each measurement, with arbitrary intermediate quantum channels $\{\mathcal{C}_t\}$. (b) Shared randomness: (i) Devices share randomness used in both state preparation and measurement (SPAM) settings. (ii) Devices share randomness only for state preparation. (iii) Devices have no shared randomness.
  • Figure 2: The visualization of key proof steps. (a) The visualization of permutation map $\mathcal{R}$ (defined in Eq. \ref{['eq:defintion of map R']}) when $T=3$. (b) The visualization of of $\mathcal{R}^\dagger$ when $T=3$. (c) The visualization of Eq. \ref{['eq: convert J_U^T to J_H^2T']} when $T = 2$. (d) The visualization of Eq. \ref{['eq: convert J_a^2T to Pi']} when $T=2$.

Theorems & Definitions (27)

  • Theorem 1
  • Theorem 2
  • Theorem 3
  • proof : Proof sketch of Theorem \ref{['the:incoherent lower bound']}
  • Theorem 4
  • proof : Proof sketch of Theorem \ref{['the:coherent lower bound']}
  • Theorem 5
  • Lemma 6: Weingarten Calculus mele2024introductionschuster2025random
  • Lemma 7: Special Cases of Weingarten Calculus, $k=1$ and $k=2$ cases mele2024introduction
  • Lemma 8: Lemma 2 of chen2023unitarity
  • ...and 17 more