Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Transition from statistical to hardware-limited scaling in photonic quantum state reconstruction

Attila Baumann1, Zsolt Kis2, János Koltai1, and Gábor Vattay1,*

  • 1Institute for Physics and Astronomy, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter s 1/A, 1117 Budapest, Hungary
  • 2Institute for Solid State Physics and Optics, HUN-REN Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Konkoly-Thege Miklós út 29-33, 1117 Budapest, Hungary

  • *Contact author: gabor.vattay@ttk.elte.hu

Phys. Rev. A 114, 023709 – Published 10 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/3gsc-krrq

Abstract

The theoretical efficiency of classical shadow tomography is predicated on a perfect Haar-random unitary ensemble, yet this mathematical ideal remains physically unattainable in near-term hardware. Here, we report the experimental characterization of a hardware-induced systematic error floor on integrated photonic processors: an operational Hardware Horizon, where the reconstruction error undergoes a sharp crossover. While the error initially obeys the predicted statistical scaling O(M−1/2) in a variance-dominated regime, it abruptly saturates at a floor determined by the spectral distortions of the realized unitary group, marking a transition to a bias-dominated regime. By deriving a phenomenological error model, we decouple the competing mechanisms of static coherent spectral distortion and dynamic decoherence, demonstrating that this device-specific noise floor imposes a systematic saturation limit that statistical accumulation cannot overcome. These findings establish that the utility of shadow tomography on NISQ (noisy intermediate-scale quantum) hardware is defined by a specific scaling law involving hardware parameters, necessitating active compensation strategies to bridge the gap between theoretical purity and the noisy reality of integrated photonics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (18)

  1. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050 (2020).
  2. Z. Hradil, Quantum-state estimation, Phys. Rev. A 55, R1561 (1997).
  3. R. T. Thew, K. Nemoto, A. G. White, and W. J. Munro, Qudit quantum-state tomography, Phys. Rev. A 66, 012303 (2002).
  4. D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, S. T. Flammia, S. Becker, and J. Eisert, Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 150401 (2010).
  5. M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y.-K. Liu, Efficient quantum state tomography, Nat. Commun. 1, 149 (2010).
  6. S. Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states, in Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018), pp. 325–338.
  7. S. Slussarenko and G. J. Pryde, Photonic quantum information processing: A concise review, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 041303 (2019).
  8. S. Shekhar, W. Bogaerts, L. Chrostowski, J. E. Bowers, M. Hochberg, R. Soref, and B. J. Shastri, Roadmapping the next generation of silicon photonics, Nat. Commun. 15, 751 (2024).
  9. C. G. Roeloffzen, M. Hoekman, E. J. Klein, L. S. Wevers, R. B. Timens, D. Marchenko, D. Geskus, R. Dekker, A. Alippi, and R. Grootjans, Low-loss Si3N4 TriPleX optical waveguides: Technology and applications overview, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 24, 1 (2018).
  10. Quix quantum, https://www.quixquantum.com, accessed November 28, 2025.
  11. B. Collins, S. Matsumoto, and J. Novak, The Weingarten calculus, Not. Am. Math. Soc. 69, 734 (2022).
  12. W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Optimal design for universal multiport interferometers, Optica 3, 1460 (2016).
  13. C. Taballione, R. van der Meer, H. J. Snijders, P. Hooijschuur, J. P. Epping, M. de Goede, B. Kassenberg, P. Venderbosch, C. Toebes, and H. van den Vlekkert, A universal fully reconfigurable 12-mode quantum photonic processor, Mater. Quantum Technol. 1, 035002 (2021).
  14. C. Taballione, T. A. W. Wolterink, J. Lugani, A. Eckstein, B. A. Bell, R. Grootjans, I. Visscher, D. Geskus, C. G. H. Roeloffzen, J. J. Renema, I. A. Walmsley, P. W. H. Pinkse, and K.-J. Boller, 8 × 8 reconfigurable quantum photonic processor based on silicon nitride waveguides, Opt. Express 27, 26842 (2019).
  15. R. Jozsa, Fidelity for mixed quantum states, J. Mod. Opt. 41, 2315 (1994).
  16. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Information and Quantum Computation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
  17. A. Strikis, S. C. Benjamin, and B. J. Brown, Quantum computing is scalable on a planar array of qubits with fabrication defects, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064081 (2023).
  18. F. Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups, Not. Am. Math. Soc. 54, 592 (2007).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation