REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by
General framework for verifying pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario
T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Verifying quantum states under attack costs at most 3x more
desk verdict Strong, well-proven framework for adversarial pure-state verification; the only real weakness is an implicit secrecy assumption on the verifier's random choice. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the hedged verification operator $\Omega_p = (1-p)\Omega + p\mathbb{1}$, formed by performing the original tests with probability $1-p$ and a trivial always-pass test with probability $p$. Hedging lifts the smallest eigenvalue from $\tau$ to $\tau_p = (1-p)\tau + p$, removing the singular small-eigenvalue behavior that would otherwise make the required number of tests scale poorly with $1/\delta$. Efficiency is controlled by the function $h(p,\nu,\tau) = [\min\{\beta_p \ln \beta_p^{-1},\ \tau_p \ln \tau_p^{-1}\}]^{-1}$ with $\beta_p = 1 - \nu + p\nu$; the optimum is nearly achieved at $p = \nu/e$. The other main tool is the convex-polygon region $R_{N,\Omega}$ of pairs (passing probability, fidelity contribution) over permutation-invariant states, which reduces the figures of merit to linear programs and yields closed forms for homogeneous strategies.
What would settle it
For a homogeneous strategy with $\lambda = 1/e$ and target precision $\epsilon = \delta = 0.1$, evaluate the exact number of tests from Theorem 2 and compare it with the nonadversarial benchmark $\lceil \ln \delta / \ln(1-\epsilon)\rceil$. The paper predicts the ratio is below $3$ and tends to $e$ as $\epsilon$ and $\delta$ go to zero; a ratio at or above $3$ at this point would refute the threefold-overhead theorem.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that every pure state can be verified in the adversarial scenario at essentially the same resource cost as in the nonadversarial scenario. For a verification operator $\Omega$ with spectral gap $\nu$, the paper constructs the hedged operator $\Omega_p = (1-p)\Omega + p\mathbb{1}$ (the original test with probability $1-p$ and a trivial always-pass test with probability $p$). Theorem 7 proves that for $p = \nu/e$ the number of tests obeys $N(\epsilon,\delta,\Omega_p) < h(e^{-1}\nu,\nu,\tau)\ \ln[(F\delta)^{-1}]/\epsilon$, and comparing with the nonadversarial benchmark $N_{\mathrm{NA}}(\epsilon,\delta,\Omega)$ yields an overhead ratio bounded by a constant; in particular the ratio is below three whenever $\epsilon,\delta \le 1/10$ and approaches $1$ as $\nu$, $\epsilon$, and $\delta$ tend to zero. The paper also derives exact expressions for homogeneous strategies, clarifies when a single test suffices, and shows that entangling measurements are often unnecessary for optimal adversarial verification.
Load-bearing premise
The guarantee assumes the verifier's random choice of which $N$ of the $N+1$ systems to test is made after the adversary fixes the joint state and is not known to the adversary, so the effective state may be taken permutation-invariant; if the adversary can anticipate or influence which system will be kept, it can pass all tests while leaving that system garbage.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Any pure state with an efficient nonadversarial verification protocol automatically gets an efficient adversarial protocol by mixing in the trivial test with probability $p = \nu/e$; no entangling measurements are required beyond the original protocol.
- For high-precision verification, the overhead ratio is bounded by a constant that approaches $1$ as $\nu$, $\epsilon$, and $\delta$ tend to zero, so adversarial verification becomes essentially as cheap as honest verification.
- Bipartite pure states, GHZ states, qubit and qudit stabilizer states, hypergraph states, weighted graph states, and Dicke states can all be verified in the adversarial scenario with $O(\epsilon^{-1}\ln \delta^{-1})$ tests using local projective measurements.
- The optimal homogeneous strategy in the high-precision adversarial limit has $\beta = 1/e$, giving an overhead of $e$ over the ideal nonadversarial strategy; singular strategies with $\beta = 0$ are inefficient in the adversarial scenario.
- A single test can verify a pure state within infidelity $\epsilon$ and significance level $\delta$ exactly when $\delta$ satisfies a simple closed-form condition, which is relevant to single-copy entanglement detection.
Reading between the lines
- If the secrecy of the random selection of tested systems is ever compromised, the central bound collapses: hedging does not help because the adversary can place the target state on the tested systems and garbage on the kept one. Securing that random choice is a natural practical prerequisite that the paper leaves implicit.
- Because the overhead depends only on the spectral gap and the smallest eigenvalue, protocol designers may safely optimize the spectral gap alone and ignore the rest of the eigenvalue spectrum; this makes the recipe a plug-in for future nonadversarial protocols.
- A testable extension would allow $p$ to adapt as data accumulate; the fixed choice $p = \nu/e$ is proven near-optimal, but adaptive policies might reduce the constant at moderate precision, which this paper does not analyze.
- The same hedged construction may transfer to device-independent or semi-device-independent settings if a spectral gap can be certified without trusting the measurement devices; that is an extrapolation beyond the paper's trusted-measurement assumption.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper develops a general framework for verifying pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario, where an untrusted device may produce arbitrarily correlated or entangled states. The verifier receives N+1 systems, randomly chooses N of them to test, and accepts the remaining system only if all tests pass. The main figures of merit are defined in Eq. (20), and the central results are: analytical formulas for homogeneous strategies (Theorems 1-3), conditions for single-copy verification (Theorem 4), general bounds for arbitrary verification operators (Theorems 5-6), and a hedging recipe in which the trivial test is added with probability p to obtain the operator Ω_p = (1-p)Ω + p1 (Sec. IX). Theorem 7 shows that with p = ν/e, the number of tests is within a constant factor of the nonadversarial benchmark, with overhead at most three times when ε, δ ≤ 1/10. The framework is applied to bipartite pure states, GHZ states, stabilizer states, hypergraph states, weighted graph states, and Dicke states, with the results summarized in Table I. Explicit proofs of the main theorems and lemmas are provided in Appendices A-H.
Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a substantial advance: it reduces adversarial-scenario verification of arbitrary pure states to nonadversarial protocols, with only a constant overhead in the high-precision regime. The paper is self-contained and gives explicit, detailed derivations rather than numerical evidence alone: Theorems 1-7 are proved in the appendices, the figures of merit are computed by transparent linear-programming and geometric arguments, and the overhead bound in Theorem 7 is a concrete, falsifiable quantitative statement. The applications to hypergraph states and Dicke states are particularly valuable because previous adversarial protocols for these families were extremely resource-intensive. The main caveat is a security-model assumption about the timing and secrecy of the verifier's random choice of tested systems, which is discussed below; under the standard convention that the adversary fixes the joint state before the private random permutation is chosen, the derivations appear sound.
major comments (1)
- [Sec. IV A, Eqs. (14)-(20)] The reduction 'we may assume that ρ is permutation invariant without loss of generality' is valid only if the adversary fixes the joint state ρ before the verifier samples the random N-subset and if the adversary never learns which system is retained. This timing and secrecy convention is not stated explicitly. If the order is reversed, the framework collapses: for a known kept system, the adversary can prepare |Ψ⟩ on all systems that will be tested and arbitrary garbage on the kept system, so every test passes with probability 1 while the accepted state has fidelity 0. The figures of merit in Eq. (20) are therefore defined for a specific security game. I recommend adding a short paragraph in Sec. IV A that states the game explicitly: the adversary chooses ρ first; the verifier then draws a private uniformly random permutation and tests all but one system; the figures of merit are defined with respect to the induced permutation-invariant state. Under that standard convention, the subsequent derivations in Appendices A-H appear to support the claimed guarantees.
minor comments (4)
- [Sec. IV B, Eq. (20)] The phrase 'with significance level at least δ' is easy to misread. Since any state with p_ρ < δ already has false-acceptance probability below δ, only states with p_ρ ≥ δ need to be constrained; a one-sentence clarification after Eq. (20) would prevent confusion about the direction of the threshold.
- [Table I] In the rows for hypergraph states, weighted graph states, and Dicke states, the adversarial numbers are written with floor brackets, although the text derives upper bounds on N. Use a ceiling or an explicit '≤' notation so that the entries are not read as exact minimal values.
- [Sec. X F] The comparison with the protocol of Ref. [42] quotes a test number 'more than (2 ln 2)n^3 ε^{-18}' in a restricted parameter range; please state the precise parameter range and check the exponent, since the typography makes it easy to misread the exponent of ε.
- [Sec. IX C, Eq. (152)] The statement 'the overhead becomes negligible when ν, ε, δ approach zero' is supported by Lemma 11(4), but the displayed bound in Eq. (152) is not tight in that limit. A brief note that the threefold bound is an upper bound on a worst-case ratio, rather than an exact asymptotic constant, would improve the presentation.
Circularity Check
No load-bearing circularity: the adversarial overhead theorem is derived analytically from spectral data and measured against the external PLM benchmark; self-citations appear only as input examples.
full rationale
The central claim, Theorem 7, is an analytic upper bound on N(eps,delta,Omega_p) for the hedged operator Omega_p=(1-p)Omega+p I. The bound is derived from Lemma 9, Theorem 6, and Lemma 12, which express the adversarial figures of merit in terms of the eigenvalues beta, tau, and h of the verification operator. No parameter is fitted to the claimed overhead; the choices p=nu/e and lambda=1/e come from minimizing the analytic function h, not from matching the target statement. The nonadversarial benchmark NNA(eps,delta,Omega) in Eq. (2) is the independent PLM formula, for which the paper gives its own proof in Appendix A, and the 'overhead at most three times' statement is a numerical consequence of the derived inequality rather than an input. The only self-referential material is in Section X, where the authors' own nonadversarial protocols from Refs. [44,45,49,50,51] are used to instantiate the recipe for hypergraph states, weighted graph states, Dicke states, and related examples; those examples are not needed for the general theorem and do not carry its weight. The symmetrization step in Sec. IV A ('Since N systems are chosen randomly, we may assume that rho is permutation invariant without loss of generality') is a standard game-modeling convention about the verifier's private random choice and the timing of the adversary's strategy; it is a soundness condition, not a self-definitional reduction. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained against the external benchmark and shows no significant circularity; the low nonzero score only acknowledges the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations in the applications section.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (1)
- trivial-test probability p =
nu/e (near-optimal) or p*(nu,tau) for optimal
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption Each test operator El satisfies El|Psi>=|Psi>, so the target state always passes.
- domain assumption Measurement devices are trusted; only the state-preparation device is adversarial.
- domain assumption The joint state rho can be taken permutation-invariant because the verifier chooses test systems randomly.
- standard math The target state and measurements live in finite-dimensional Hilbert space, and Omega has spectral decomposition 1=lambda_1>lambda_2>=...>=lambda_D>=0.
- domain assumption The verifier is allowed to perform the trivial test E=1 with some probability.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of General framework for verifying pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TER5YANU
@misc{pith2026190901943,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: General framework for verifying pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TER5YANU}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01943}
}
read the original abstract
Bipartite and multipartite entangled states are of central interest in quantum information processing and foundational studies. Efficient verification of these states, especially in the adversarial scenario, is a key to various applications, including quantum computation, quantum simulation, and quantum networks. However, little is known about this topic in the adversarial scenario. Here we initiate a systematic study of pure-state verification in the adversarial scenario. In particular, we introduce a general method for determining the minimal number of tests required by a given strategy to achieve a given precision. In the case of homogeneous strategies, we can even derive an analytical formula. Furthermore, we propose a general recipe to verifying pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario by virtue of protocols for the nonadversarial scenario. Thanks to this recipe, the resource cost for verifying an arbitrary pure state in the adversarial scenario is comparable to the counterpart for the nonadversarial scenario, and the overhead is at most three times for high-precision verification. Our recipe can readily be applied to efficiently verify bipartite pure states, stabilizer states, hypergraph states, weighted graph states, and Dicke states in the adversarial scenario, even if only local projective measurements are accessible. This paper is an extended version of the companion paper Zhu and Hayashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 260504 (2019).
Figures
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Verifying a stabilizer state with few observables but many shots
A random-basis, minimum-of-means stabilizer certification protocol accepts good states and rejects bad states with error probabilities exponentially small in qubit number under a wide fidelity gap.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Proofs of Lemmas 1 to 3 Proof of Lemma 1. Let ρ be an arbitrary permutation- invariant diagonal density matrix on H⊗(N +1) with de- compositionρ =∑ k∈SNckρk, where ck form a probabil- ity distribution on SN . Recall that SN is the set of all sequences k = (k1,k 2,...,k D) ofD nonnegative integers that sum up to N + 1, that is, ∑ jkj =N + 1. If fρ = 0, the...
-
[2]
˜ζ(N,δ, Ω) is convex and nondecreasing in δ for 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1 and is strictly increasing for δc ≤δ ≤ 1
-
[3]
˜η(N,f, Ω) is concave and strictly increasing in f for 0 ≤f ≤ 1
-
[4]
˜F (N,δ, Ω) is nondecreasing in δ for 0<δ ≤ 1 and is strictly increasing for δc ≤δ ≤ 1. 28
-
[5]
˜F(N,f, Ω) is strictly increasing in f for 0<f ≤ 1. Here δc is defined in Eq. (31). The convexity of ˜ζ(N,δ, Ω) means ˜ζ(N,δ, Ω) ≤ (1 −s)˜ζ(N,δ 1, Ω) + s˜ζ(N,δ 2, Ω) (B4) for δ = (1 −s)δ1 +sδ2 and 0 ≤ s,δ 1,δ 2 ≤ 1. Note that this inequality is trivial when δ1 = δ2 or s = 0, 1. The concavity of ˜η(N,f, Ω) means ˜η(N,f, Ω) ≥ (1 −s)˜η(N,f 1, Ω) + s˜η(N,f 2, ...
-
[6]
Proofs of Lemmas 4 to 7 Proof of Lemma 4. To prove Eq. (38a) in the lemma, let f1 = ζ(N,δ, Ω) and δ1 = η(N,f 1, Ω) . If δ satisfies the condition 0 ≤δ ≤δc, then f1 = 0 and δ1 =δc according to Lemma 1, which confirms Eq. (38a). 29 Now suppose δc < δ ≤ 1; then max{δ,δ c} = δ. In addition, there exists a quantum state ρ on H⊗(N +1) such that pρ = δ and fρ = f1...
-
[7]
Auxiliary results on homogeneous strategies Before proving the results on homogeneous strategies presented in the main text, we need to introduce a few auxiliary results. For j,k ∈ Z≥0 and 0<λ< 1, define gjk(λ) = gkj(λ) := ζk(λ) −ζj (λ) ηk(λ) −ηj(λ), j ⁄=k, (C1) gk(λ) := gk(k+1)(λ) = ζk(λ) −ζk+1(λ) ηk(λ) −ηk+1(λ), (C2) whereηk(λ) and ζk(λ) are defined in Eq...
-
[8]
Proofs of Theorems 1-3 and Eq. (72) Proof of Theorem 1. According to Lemma 2, we have F (N,δ,λ ) = ζ(N,δ,λ )/δ. If δ ≤ δc = λN , then we have ζ(N,δ,λ ) = 0 by Eq. (32). If δ >λN , then ζ(N,δ,λ ) = min 0≤k<j≤N +1 (cjζj +ckζk), (C38) where ζj,ζ k are shorthands for ζj(λ),ζ k(λ), and the pa- rameters k,j are restricted by the requirements ηk ≥ δ andηj <δ . T...
Show all 75 references
-
[9]
By the definition of F (N,δ, Ω) in Eq
Main body of the proofs Proof of Lemma 8. By the definition of F (N,δ, Ω) in Eq. (20c), to prove the inequality in Eq. (111) in the lemma, it suffices to find a permutation-invariant quan- tum state ρ on H⊗(N +1) such that pρ =δ and fρ =pρ − 1 N + 1 (E1) for each δ in the interval...
-
[10]
In addition, β = λ2 and τ =λD are the second largest and the smallest eigenval- ues; meanwhile, ν = 1 −β
Auxiliary lemmas Here we assume that λj are the eigenvalues of a verifi- cation operator Ω that are arranged in decreasing order 1 = λ1 > λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ λD ≥ 0. In addition, β = λ2 and τ =λD are the second largest and the smallest eigenval- ues; meanwhile, ν = 1 −β. Lemma 22. ηk(...
-
[11]
convex” is replaced by “concave
Auxiliary lemmas Before proving Lemma 9 and Theorem 6, wee need to introduce a few auxiliary notations and results. Denote by ¯SN the convex hull of SN , then ¯SN is composed of real vectors k = (k1,k 2,...,k D) that satisfy∑ D j=1kj =N + 1 andkj ≥ 0 forj = 1, 2,...D . When Ω ...
-
[12]
Proof of Lemma 9
Main body of the proofs Now we are ready to prove Lemma 9. Proof of Lemma 9. We shall first prove Eq. (121). Ac- cording to Lemma 25, F (N,f, Ω) = f η(N,f, Ω) ≥ f ¯η(N,f, Ω) = min k∈ ¯SN |ζk(λ )=f ζk(λ ) ηk(λ ) = min k∈ ¯SN |ζk(λ )=f k1∑ j(kj/λj) = min k∈ ¯SN |ζk(λ )=f k1 k1 +∑...
-
[13]
Quantum entanglement,
R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)
2009
-
[14]
Entanglement detection,
O. Gühne and G. Tóth, “Entanglement detection,” Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009)
2009
-
[15]
Multiparty en- tanglement in graph states,
M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, “Multiparty en- tanglement in graph states,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 062311 (2004)
2004
-
[16]
Local entanglability and multipartite entanglement,
C. Kruszynska and B. Kraus, “Local entanglability and multipartite entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 052304 (2009)
2009
-
[17]
Encoding hy- pergraphs into quantum states,
R. Qu, J. Wang, Z.-s. Li, and Y.-r. Bao, “Encoding hy- pergraphs into quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 87, 022311 (2013)
2013
-
[18]
Quantum hypergraph states,
M. Rossi, M. Huber, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, “Quantum hypergraph states,” New J. Phys. 15, 113022 (2013)
2013
-
[19]
Qudit hypergraph states,
F. E. S. Steinhoff, C. Ritz, N. I. Miklin, and O. Gühne, “Qudit hypergraph states,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 052340 (2017)
2017
-
[20]
Qudit hypergraph states and their properties,
F.-L. Xiong, Y.-Z. Zhen, W.-F. Cao, K. Chen, and Z.- B. Chen, “Qudit hypergraph states and their properties,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 012323 (2018)
2018
-
[21]
A one-way quantum computer,
R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, “A one-way quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188–5191 (2001)
2001
-
[22]
Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states,
R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, “Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states,” Phys. Rev. A 68, 022312 (2003)
2003
-
[23]
Uni- versal blind quantum computation,
A. Broadbent, J. Fitzsimons, and E. Kashefi, “Uni- versal blind quantum computation,” in Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE Computer Society, Washing- ton, DC, USA, 2009) pp. 517–526
2009
-
[24]
Blind quantum computation protocol in which Alice only makes measurements,
T. Morimae and K. Fujii, “Blind quantum computation protocol in which Alice only makes measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 87, 050301(R) (2013)
2013
-
[25]
Verifiable measurement- only blind quantum computing with stabilizer testing,
M. Hayashi and T. Morimae, “Verifiable measurement- only blind quantum computing with stabilizer testing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 220502 (2015)
2015
-
[26]
Verifiable fault tolerance in measurement-based quantum computation,
K. Fujii and M. Hayashi, “Verifiable fault tolerance in measurement-based quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 030301(R) (2017)
2017
-
[27]
Self-guaranteed measurement-based quantum computation,
M. Hayashi and M. Hajdušek, “Self-guaranteed measurement-based quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 052308 (2018)
2018
-
[28]
Quantum computational universality of hypergraph states with Pauli-X and Z basis measurements,
Y. Takeuchi, T. Morimae, and M. Hayashi, “Quantum computational universality of hypergraph states with Pauli-X and Z basis measurements,” Sci. Rep. 9, 13585 (2019)
2019
-
[29]
Hierarchy of universal entang le- ment in 2D measurement-based quantum computation,
J. Miller and A. Miyake, “Hierarchy of universal entang le- ment in 2D measurement-based quantum computation,” npj Quantum Inf. 2, 16036 (2016)
2016
-
[30]
Verification of hypergraph states,
T. Morimae, Y. Takeuchi, and M. Hayashi, “Verification of hypergraph states,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 062321 (2017)
2017
-
[31]
Chang- ing the circuit-depth complexity of measurement-based quantum computation with hypergraph states,
M. Gachechiladze, O. Gühne, and A. Miyake, “Chang- ing the circuit-depth complexity of measurement-based quantum computation with hypergraph states,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 052304 (2019)
2019
-
[32]
Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quan- tum Error Correction , Ph.D
D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quan- tum Error Correction , Ph.D. thesis, Califor- nia Institute of Technology (1997), available at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9705052
1997 arXiv
-
[33]
Quantum error- correcting codes associated with graphs,
D. Schlingemann and R. F. Werner, “Quantum error- correcting codes associated with graphs,” Phys. Rev. A 65, 012308 (2001)
2001
-
[34]
Distribution of entanglement in large-scale quantum networks,
S. Perseguers, G. J. Lapeyre Jr, D. Cavalcanti, M. Lewen - stein, and A. Acín, “Distribution of entanglement in large-scale quantum networks,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 76, 096001 (2013). 43
2013
-
[35]
Ex- perimental verification of multipartite entanglement in quantum networks,
W. McCutcheon, A. Pappa, B. A. Bell, A. McMillan, A. Chailloux, T. Lawson, M. Mafu, D. Markham, E. Dia- manti, I. Kerenidis, J. G. Rarity, and M. S. Tame, “Ex- perimental verification of multipartite entanglement in quantum networks,” Nat. Commun. 7, 13251 (2016)
2016
-
[36]
A simple protocol for cer- tifying graph states and applications in quantum net- works,
D. Markham and A. Krause, “A simple protocol for cer- tifying graph states and applications in quantum net- works,” (2018), arXiv:1801.05057
2018 arXiv
-
[37]
Bell’s theorem without inequalities,
D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, “Bell’s theorem without inequalities,” Amer - ican J. Phys. 58, 1131–1143 (1990)
1990
-
[38]
Nonlocality of cluster states of qubits,
V. Scarani, A. Acín, E. Schenck, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Nonlocality of cluster states of qubits,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 042325 (2005)
2005
-
[39]
Bell inequalities for graph states,
O. Gühne, G. Tóth, P. Hyllus, and H. J. Briegel, “Bell inequalities for graph states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 120405 (2005)
2005
-
[40]
Extreme violation of local realism in quantum hypergraph states,
M. Gachechiladze, C. Budroni, and O. Gühne, “Extreme violation of local realism in quantum hypergraph states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 070401 (2016)
2016
-
[41]
Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses,
R. H. Dicke, “Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses,” Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)
1954
-
[42]
Scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ions,
H. Häffner, W. Hänsel, C. F. Roos, J. Benhelm, D. Chek- al-kar, M. Chwalla, T. Körber, U. D. Rapol, M. Riebe, P. O. Schmidt, C. Becher, O. Gühne, W. Dür, and R. Blatt, “Scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ions,” Nature 438, 643–646 (2005)
2005
-
[43]
Quantum metrol- ogy with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles,
L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, “Quantum metrol- ogy with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018)
2018
-
[44]
Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin sys- tems,
F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. I. Cirac, “Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin sys- tems,” Adv. Phys. 57, 143–224 (2008)
2008
-
[45]
A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states,
R. Orús, “A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states,” Ann. Phys. 349, 117–158 (2014)
2014
-
[46]
M. G. A. Paris and J. Řeháček, eds., Quantum State Es- timation, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 649 (Springer, Berlin, 2004)
2004
-
[47]
Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing,
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)
2010
-
[48]
Direct fidelity estimation from few Pauli measurements,
S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, “Direct fidelity estimation from few Pauli measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 230501 (2011)
2011
-
[49]
Self testing quantum apparatus,
D. Mayers and A. Yao, “Self testing quantum apparatus,” Quantum Info. Comput. 4, 273–286 (2004)
2004
-
[50]
Self-testing of quantum system s: a review,
I. Šupić and J. Bowles, “Self-testing of quantum system s: a review,” (2019), arXiv:1904.10042
2019 arXiv
-
[51]
A study of LOCC-detection of a maximally entangled state using hypothesis testing,
M. Hayashi, K. Matsumoto, and Y. Tsuda, “A study of LOCC-detection of a maximally entangled state using hypothesis testing,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 14427 (2006)
2006
-
[52]
Group theoretical study of LOCC-detectio n of maximally entangled states using hypothesis testing,
M. Hayashi, “Group theoretical study of LOCC-detectio n of maximally entangled states using hypothesis testing,” New J. Phys. 11, 043028 (2009)
2009
-
[53]
Re- liable quantum certification of photonic state prepara- tions,
L. Aolita, C. Gogolin, M. Kliesch, and J. Eisert, “Re- liable quantum certification of photonic state prepara- tions,” Nat. Commun. 6, 8498 (2015)
2015
-
[54]
Verification of many-qubit states,
Y. Takeuchi and T. Morimae, “Verification of many-qubit states,” Phys. Rev. X 8, 021060 (2018)
2018
-
[55]
Optimal verification of entangled states with local measurements,
S. Pallister, N. Linden, and A. Montanaro, “Optimal verification of entangled states with local measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 170502 (2018)
2018
-
[56]
Optimal verification and fidelity estimation of maximally entangled states,
H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, “Optimal verification and fidelity estimation of maximally entangled states,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 052346 (2019)
2019
-
[57]
Efficient verification of bipartite pure states,
Z. Li, Y.-G. Han, and H. Zhu, “Efficient verification of bipartite pure states,” Phys. Rev. A 100, 032316 (2019)
2019
-
[58]
Optimal verification of two- qubit pure states,
K. Wang and M. Hayashi, “Optimal verification of two- qubit pure states,” Phys. Rev. A 100, 032315 (2019)
2019
-
[59]
Optimal verification of general bipartite pure states,
X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, and O. Gühne, “Optimal verification of general bipartite pure states,” npj Quantum Inf. 5, 112 (2019)
2019
-
[60]
Optimal Verifica- tion of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger States,
Z. Li, Y.-G. Han, and H. Zhu, “Optimal Verifica- tion of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger States,” (2019), arXiv:1909.08979
2019 arXiv
-
[61]
Efficient verification of hyper- graph states,
H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, “Efficient verification of hyper- graph states,” Phys. Rev. Applied 12, 054047 (2019)
2019
-
[62]
Verifying commut- ing quantum computations via fidelity estimation of weighted graph states,
M. Hayashi and Y. Takeuchi, “Verifying commut- ing quantum computations via fidelity estimation of weighted graph states,” New J. Phys. 21, 093060 (2019)
2019
-
[63]
Efficient verification of Dicke states,
Y.-C. Liu, X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, H. Zhu, and X. Zhang, “Efficient verification of Dicke states,” Phys. Rev. Ap- plied 12, 044020 (2019)
2019
-
[64]
Experimental Optimal Verification of Entangled States using Local Measurements,
W.-H. Zhang, Z. Chen, X.-X. Peng, X.-Y. Xu, P. Yin, X.-J. Ye, J.-S. Xu, G. Chen, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, “Experimental Optimal Verification of Entangled States using Local Measurements,” (2019), arXiv:1905.12175
2019 arXiv
-
[65]
Resource-efficient verification of quan- tum computing using Serfling’s bound,
Y. Takeuchi, A. Mantri, T. Morimae, A. Mizutani, and J. F. Fitzsimons, “Resource-efficient verification of quan- tum computing using Serfling’s bound,” npj Quantum Inf. 5, 27 (2019)
2019
-
[66]
Efficient verification of pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario,
H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, “Efficient verification of pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 260504 (2019)
2019
-
[67]
Single-copy entanglement de- tection,
A. Dimić and B. Dakić, “Single-copy entanglement de- tection,” npj Quantum Inf. 4, 11 (2018)
2018
-
[68]
Efficient verification of quantum gates with local operations,
H. Zhu and H. Zhang, “Efficient verification of quantum gates with local operations,” (2019), arXiv:1910.14032
2019 arXiv
-
[69]
Efficient and practical verification of quantum processes,
Y.-C. Liu, J. Shang, X.-D. Yu, and X. Zhang, “Efficient and practical verification of quantum processes,” (2019), arXiv:1910.13730
2019 arXiv
-
[70]
All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested,
A. Coladangelo, K. T. Goh, and V. Scarani, “All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested,” Nat. Com- mun. 8, 15485 (2017)
2017
-
[71]
Stabilizer codes can be realized as graph codes,
D. Schlingemann, “Stabilizer codes can be realized as graph codes,” Quantum Info. Comput. 2, 307–323 (2002)
2002
-
[72]
Graphs, quadratic forms, and quantum codes,
M. Grassl, A. Klappenecker, and M. Rötteler, “Graphs, quadratic forms, and quantum codes,” in Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (IEEE Information Theory Society, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2002) available at arXiv:quant-ph/0703112
2002 arXiv
-
[73]
Weighted graph states and applications to spin chains, lattices and gases,
L. Hartmann, J. Calsamiglia, W. Dür, and H. J. Briegel, “Weighted graph states and applications to spin chains, lattices and gases,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 40, S1–S44 (2007)
2007
-
[74]
Self-testing multipartite entangled states through pro- jections onto two systems,
I. Šupić, A. Coladangelo, R. Augusiak, and A. Acín, “Self-testing multipartite entangled states through pro- jections onto two systems,” New J. Phys. 20, 083041 (2018)
2018
-
[75]
Self-testing Dicke states,
M. Fadel, “Self-testing Dicke states,” (2017), arXiv:1707.01215
2017 arXiv
Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.