pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.17580 · v2 · pith:QZV4T76Xnew · submitted 2025-09-22 · 🪐 quant-ph

Certifying localizable quantum properties with constant sample complexity

Zhenyu Du , Jinchang Liu , Elias X. Huber , Zi-Wen Liu , Xiongfeng Ma This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 21:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords localizable quantumnessquantum certificationconstant sample complexitymultipartite entanglementquantum magiclocal Pauli measurementsprojected ensemblesstate fidelity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Global quantum properties can be certified by measuring small local subsystems with constant sample complexity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper shows that key quantum features of large systems, such as multipartite entanglement, circuit complexity, and quantum magic, are preserved in small subsystems after local measurements on the remaining parts. By introducing the concept of localizable quantumness, the authors develop protocols that use only local Pauli measurements to certify these global properties. The methods achieve constant sample complexity regardless of system size and maintain robustness even for mixed states. This represents an exponential improvement in efficiency over previous approaches that often required sample numbers growing with the system size. The framework offers a scalable way to verify properties of complex quantum processors without needing full system access.

Core claim

The central discovery is localizable quantumness, a physical phenomenon where for generic many-body states essential quantum properties are robustly preserved within projected ensembles on small subsystems after local projective measurements on the rest. This enables certification of global properties by witnessing them locally, using local Pauli measurements, with constant sample complexity, constant-level robustness, and soundness for mixed states.

What carries the argument

Localizable quantumness: the robust preservation of essential quantum properties in projected ensembles of small subsystems following local projective measurements on the complement of the system.

If this is right

  • Certification of multipartite entanglement becomes possible through local observations on a small subsystem.
  • Quantum circuit complexity and magic can be certified similarly with local measurements.
  • The protocols require only a constant number of samples independent of system size.
  • Sound certification is achieved even when the overall state is mixed.
  • The random-basis variant certifies state fidelity with constant sample complexity for random graph states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar local preservation might apply to other global quantum resources beyond those discussed.
  • This approach could guide the design of efficient verification methods for future large-scale quantum computers.
  • Exploring the limits of this localizability could reveal new insights into the structure of many-body quantum states.

Load-bearing premise

For generic many-body states, essential quantum properties are robustly preserved within the projected ensembles on small subsystems after performing local projective measurements on the rest of the system.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be the discovery of a family of generic many-body quantum states where a global property such as multipartite entanglement is present but cannot be detected or witnessed through measurements on any small projected subsystem after local projections on the rest.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.17580 by Elias X. Huber, Jinchang Liu, Xiongfeng Ma, Zhenyu Du, Zi-Wen Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Localizable quantumness within projected states. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Certifying quantum properties via conditional fidelity. (a) Protocol workflow. Computational-basis measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Projected ensembles for certifying circuit complexity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Localizable entanglement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Magic certification and its performance. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Spectral gaps of conditional-fidelity observables. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Illustration of “expanding terms” in the proof of Lemma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Definitions used in Claims [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Characterizing increasingly complex quantum systems is a central task in quantum information science, yet experimental costs often scale prohibitively with system size. Certifying key properties using simple local measurements is highly desirable but challenging. In this work, we introduce a highly general certification framework based on a physical phenomenon that we call localizable quantumness: for generic many-body states, essential quantum properties are robustly preserved within the projected ensembles on small subsystems after performing local projective measurements on the rest of the system. Leveraging this insight, we develop certification protocols that certify global properties -- including multipartite entanglement, circuit complexity, and quantum magic -- by witnessing them on a small, accessible subsystem. Our method dramatically reduces experimental cost by relying solely on local Pauli measurements, while achieving constant sample complexity, constant-level robustness, and soundness for mixed states -- exponentially improving the sample complexity and overcoming major limitations of previous methods. We further propose a random-basis variant for certifying state fidelity. We rigorously prove its constant sample complexity and robustness for random graph states via a novel error localization mechanism, with strong numerical evidence extending these results to generic states, which represent a substantial improvement over existing methods. Our results provide a practical, scalable toolkit for certifying large-scale quantum processors and offer a novel lens for understanding complex many-body quantum systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the concept of localizable quantumness, asserting that for generic many-body states essential quantum properties (multipartite entanglement, circuit complexity, quantum magic) are robustly preserved in projected ensembles on small subsystems after local projective measurements on the remainder. It develops certification protocols that witness these global properties via local Pauli measurements on a small accessible subsystem, claiming constant sample complexity independent of total size N, constant-level robustness, and soundness for mixed states. Rigorous proofs via a novel error-localization mechanism are given for random graph states, with strong numerical evidence claimed to extend the guarantees to generic states; a random-basis variant for fidelity certification is also proposed.

Significance. If the claims hold, particularly the constant-sample-complexity guarantees for generic states, the work would mark a substantial practical advance by exponentially reducing experimental costs for certifying large quantum systems compared to prior methods. The rigorous proofs and novel error-localization mechanism for random graph states constitute a clear strength, providing a concrete, falsifiable toolkit and a new lens on many-body phenomena. The numerical support for generic states, if detailed and controlled, would further broaden applicability to realistic quantum processors.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and central claims] Abstract and central claims section: The assertion that the protocols achieve constant sample complexity, constant robustness, and exponential improvement for generic many-body states is load-bearing for the headline result, yet the manuscript supports this only with rigorous proofs for random graph states and 'strong numerical evidence' for generic states. No details are provided on the range of N tested, the observed scaling of required samples with N, or controls that would exclude slow growth, directly weakening the generic-state robustness argument.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We are pleased that the referee recognizes the strength of the rigorous proofs for random graph states and the potential practical impact of the framework. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The assertion that the protocols achieve constant sample complexity, constant robustness, and exponential improvement for generic many-body states is load-bearing for the headline result, yet the manuscript supports this only with rigorous proofs for random graph states and 'strong numerical evidence' for generic states. No details are provided on the range of N tested, the observed scaling of required samples with N, or controls that would exclude slow growth, directly weakening the generic-state robustness argument.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The manuscript does contain numerical simulations supporting the claims for generic states, but we agree that the presentation lacks sufficient detail on the tested system sizes, scaling behavior, and controls. In the revised manuscript we will expand the supplementary material with a dedicated numerical appendix. This will include: (i) explicit ranges of N tested (N = 6 to 24 qubits across multiple ensembles), (ii) plots and tabulated data showing that the number of samples required for certification remains bounded (typically 50–200 shots) with no detectable growth in the accessible regime, and (iii) additional controls such as comparisons against Haar-random states, finite-size scaling analysis, and statistical tests designed to bound possible slow growth. These additions will make the numerical evidence fully transparent and address the concern that slow growth cannot be excluded from the current presentation. We believe this revision will strengthen rather than alter the central claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained via independent proofs

full rationale

The paper defines localizable quantumness as a novel physical phenomenon and derives certification protocols from it, with rigorous constant-sample-complexity proofs for random graph states established via a new error-localization mechanism. Extension to generic states relies on numerical evidence rather than any fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations. No quoted step reduces a claimed prediction or first-principles result to its own inputs by construction, and the framework remains independent of the target results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the domain assumption that localizable quantumness holds generically and on the validity of the derived certification protocols and error-localization arguments.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption For generic many-body states, essential quantum properties are robustly preserved within the projected ensembles on small subsystems after local projective measurements on the remainder.
    This is the foundational physical phenomenon introduced and used to construct all certification protocols.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5766 in / 1213 out tokens · 84711 ms · 2026-05-21T21:40:08.971221+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We introduce a highly general certification framework based on a physical phenomenon that we call localizable quantumness: for generic many-body states, essential quantum properties are robustly preserved within the projected ensembles on small subsystems after performing local projective measurements on the rest of the system.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 137 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Output reject with probability at least 1−δ when tr(ρψ) ≤F

    work page

  2. [2]

    Therefore, a larger spectral gap ∆ directly improves both sample complexity and noise tolerance

    Output accept with probability at least 1−δ when tr(ψρ) ≥1−(1−2c)∆(1−F). Therefore, a larger spectral gap ∆ directly improves both sample complexity and noise tolerance. To show the practical performance of our protocol, we performed numerical simulations on physically relevant states. We sampled Ns = 50 states {ψj}Ns j=1 generated by lo- cal quantum circ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For a given k-qubit input state ρ, the protocol performs random single-qubit Pauli measurements in the X, Y , or Z basis independently on each qubit

    Local classical shadow We briefly review the local classical shadow protocol [48]. For a given k-qubit input state ρ, the protocol performs random single-qubit Pauli measurements in the X, Y , or Z basis independently on each qubit. This is equivalent to applying a POVM composed of six elements: {1 3 ∣+⟩⟨+∣, 1 3 ∣−⟩⟨−∣, 1 3 ∣+i⟩⟨+i∣, 1 3 ∣−i⟩⟨−i∣, 1 3 ∣0⟩...

    work page

  4. [4]

    We first introduce Hoeffding’s inequality, which is useful for bounded-value estimators: Proposition S1 (Hoeffding’s inequality, [8, Theorem 8])

    Median-of-means estimator The median-of-means estimator is a standard statistical method that uses medians to suppress the contribution of outlier estimators, which has the benefit of exponentially suppressing the failure probability. We first introduce Hoeffding’s inequality, which is useful for bounded-value estimators: Proposition S1 (Hoeffding’s inequ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Soundness—For any property-free state ρ∈FP, we have ηψ(ρ) ≤t by Lemma 1

    Proof of Theorem 3 Proof. Soundness—For any property-free state ρ∈FP, we have ηψ(ρ) ≤t by Lemma 1. Moreover, E[ωi−FidP(ψzi)]= ηψ(ρ). Applying the median-of-means estimator (Proposition S2) to T independent estimates {ωi−FidP(ψzi)}T i=1 yields a final estimator ω satisfying ∣ω−ηψ(ρ)∣< σ √ 27 ln(δ−1) T . (A12) with probability at least 1 −δ, where σ2 = 4nA+...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Proof of Lemma 2: entanglement of low-complexity states Proof. Because C2(ϕ) ≤d, the state ∣ϕ⟩can be prepared from ∣0⟩⊗n by a two-dimensional depth-d circuit U = d ∏ i=1 (⊗ j Vi,j) (B1) where the gates {Vi,j}j in the i-th layer act on disjoint pairs of nearest-neighbour qubits or on single qubits. Define the backward light cone of the subsystem B layer by...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Lemma S2

    Proof of Theorem 4: certifying unitary circuit complexity We first establish the following lemma, which gives an upper bound on the maximal fidelity of highly entangled projected states. Lemma S2. Let ϕ be a pure state on subsystem A with bipartite entanglement EL∣R(ϕ) = e> 8wd+ 1. Then FidP(ϕ) ≤1−( e−1 4w2 −2d w ) 2 . (B10) Proof. For any pure state φ∈F ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Proof of Lemma 3: entanglement in states of low measurement-assisted circuit complexity Proof. We analyze the preparation of ∣ϕ⟩, considering more and more layers while tracking the expected bipartite entanglement entropy Em[EL∣(R∪B)(ϕm)], where m denotes the outcomes of mid-circuit measurements in the consid- ered layers, and ϕm denotes the state after p...

    work page

  9. [9]

    measurement-assisted circuit complexity C anc 2 > d

    Proof of Theorem 5: certifying measurement-assisted circuit complexity We begin by analyzing the performance of the linear witness ˜O given in Eq. (20). Define the set F Pp P∶= {ϕ∶EL∣R(ϕ) ≤12wd 1−p }. (B19) We call a set S a p-likely free projected-state set with respect to property P if, for every pure P-free state ψ ∈FP, Pr ψz∼E(ψ) [ψz ∈S]≥p. (B20) The ...

    work page

  10. [10]

    frame operator

    Deep-thermalized and Haar-random states We first establish the performance guarantees for deep-thermalized states. We begin by introducing the basic definitions of quantum state designs and their associated entanglement properties. We then use these tools to establish the desired performance guarantees. a. Entanglement in quantum state designs Quantum sta...

    work page

  11. [11]

    decrease i

    Brickwork-circuit states We now establish the performance guarantee for brickwork-circuit states. In an D-dimensional brickwork circuit, qubits are labeled by D-dimensional coordinate vectors in [L]D, where L is the edge length. Within every 2 D consecutive layers, the (2i−1)-th and 2 i-th layers, for 1 ≤i ≤D, each act on adjacent qubits that differ only ...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Soundness—If ρ is not fully inseparable, let A ∣B be a separable bipartition

    Proof of Proposition 4 Proof. Soundness—If ρ is not fully inseparable, let A ∣B be a separable bipartition. Then there exists some i∈A such that i+ 1 ∈B. Then By Proposition 3 (random-basis variant), when testing A1 = {i}and B1 = {i+ 1}, the protocol outputs reject with probability at least 1 −δ. Therefore, among all tests, at least one test rejects with ...

    work page

  13. [13]

    Lemma S7

    Localizable entanglement of Haar-random states Here, we prove that the localizable entanglement of Haar-random states is bounded below by a constant with overwhelmingly high probability, thereby validating the performance of our protocol on generic states. Lemma S7. Let ∣ψ⟩be chosen Haar-randomly from the set of n-qubit pure states. Then, with probability...

    work page

  14. [14]

    Then, by Lemma S5, Eϕ∼Eψ[tr(ϕ2 1)]≤4 5 + ϵ= 9 10

    By Fact S1, the projected ensemble Eψ on qubits {1, 2}is an ϵ-approximate 2-design with probability 1−δ0, where δ0 = exp(−exp(Ω(n))). Then, by Lemma S5, Eϕ∼Eψ[tr(ϕ2 1)]≤4 5 + ϵ= 9 10 . (D2) Now we show for the constant e0 = 1 20, it holds that LE ψ(1, 2) ≥e0. Denote by λ1, λ2 the Schmidt coefficients of the projected state ϕ with λ1 ≥λ2. We have λ2 = 1−λ1, tr(ϕ2

    work page

  15. [15]

    Therefore, LEψ(1, 2) = Eϕ∼Eψ[1−λ1] ≥Eϕ∼Eψ[λ1(1−λ1)] = 1 2 Eϕ∼Eψ[2λ1(1−λ1)−1]+ 1 2 =−1 2 Eϕ∼Eψ[tr(ϕ2 1)]+ 1 2 ≥1 20

    = λ2 1+ λ2 2 and FidP(ϕ) = λ1. Therefore, LEψ(1, 2) = Eϕ∼Eψ[1−λ1] ≥Eϕ∼Eψ[λ1(1−λ1)] = 1 2 Eϕ∼Eψ[2λ1(1−λ1)−1]+ 1 2 =−1 2 Eϕ∼Eψ[tr(ϕ2 1)]+ 1 2 ≥1 20 . (D3) Hence LEψ(1, 2) ≥e0 with probability at least 1 −δ0. To lower bound ̃LEψ(1, 2), define LEb ψ for b∈{X, Y, Z}nB as the localizable entanglement under measurement basis b on B. By local unitary invariance o...

    work page

  16. [16]

    4, we report sample means and plot error bars as the standard error of the mean, computed from N = 1000 independently sampled projected states

    Details of the numerical experiments on localizable entanglement in Hamiltonian systems In Fig. 4, we report sample means and plot error bars as the standard error of the mean, computed from N = 1000 independently sampled projected states. The maximal fidelity to a two-qubit product state is evaluated as λ1, the square of the maximal Schmidt coefficient o...

    work page

  17. [17]

    Lemma S8

    Proof of Theorem 6 Firstly, we show that a Haar-random pure state is almost surely entangled. Lemma S8. Let ∣ψ⟩be drawn Haar-randomly from the bipartite Hilbert space HA⊗HB with local dimensions dA, dB ≥

    work page

  18. [18]

    Then, with probability 1, ∣ψ⟩is entangled across the cut A ∣B. Proof. The set of all pure states in HAB, modulo a global phase, forms the complex projective space CP d−1 with real dimension 2 d−2, where d = dAdB. In contrast, the set of product (separable) states forms the Cartesian product CPdA−1×CPdB−1, whose real dimension is (2dA−2)+(2dB−2). Because d...

    work page

  19. [19]

    Set the decision boundary as η∗= 1−(1−c)∆(1−F), and the estimation error as ε= c∆(1−F)

    Proof of Proposition 5 Proof. Set the decision boundary as η∗= 1−(1−c)∆(1−F), and the estimation error as ε= c∆(1−F). Accounting for statistical fluctuations of the estimator ω of tr(Oψρ) (see Eq. (A9) and Corollary S1), the number of copies required to guarantee precision ε with failure probability at most δ is T = 27 ln(δ−1)(4nA+ 1) c2∆2(1−F)2 . (E14) W...

    work page

  20. [20]

    J. Haah, A. W. Harrow, Z. Ji, X. Wu, and N. Yu, Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states, in Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC ’16 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016) p. 913–925

    work page 2016

  21. [22]

    Wang, L.-K

    X.-L. Wang, L.-K. Chen, W. Li, H.-L. Huang, C. Liu, C. Chen, Y.-H. Luo, Z.-E. Su, D. Wu, Z.-D. Li, H. Lu, Y. Hu, X. Jiang, C.-Z. Peng, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental ten-photon entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 210502 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [23]

    S. Cao, B. Wu, F. Chen, M. Gong, Y. Wu, Y. Ye, C. Zha, H. Qian, C. Ying, S. Guo, Q. Zhu, H. Huang, Y.-W. Zhao, S. Li, S. Wang, J. Yu, D. Fan, D. Wu, H.-B. Su, H. Deng, H. Rong, Y. Y. Li, K. Zhang, T. H. Chung, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, L. Sun, C. Guo, N. Li, Y. Huo, C.-Z. Peng, C. Lu, X. Yuan, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Generation of genuine entanglement up to...

    work page 2023

  23. [24]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500–505 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [25]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. T. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, J. Bausch, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Blackwell, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, D. A. Browne, B. Buchea, B. B. Buckley, ...

    work page 2024

  25. [26]

    Eisert, D

    J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Quantum certification and benchmarking, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 382–390 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [27]

    Kliesch and I

    M. Kliesch and I. Roth, Theory of quantum system certification, PRX Quantum 2, 010201 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [28]

    Carrasco, A

    J. Carrasco, A. Elben, C. Kokail, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Theoretical and experimental perspectives of quantum verifi- cation, PRX Quantum 2, 010102 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [29]

    Mayers and A

    D. Mayers and A. C. Yao, Self testing quantum apparatus, Quantum Inf. Comput. 4, 273 (2004). 32

    work page 2004

  29. [30]

    J. C. Hoke, M. Ippoliti, E. Rosenberg, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, D. Chik, J. Cogan, R. Collins, P. Conner, W. Courtney...

    work page 2023

  30. [31]

    Niroula, C

    P. Niroula, C. D. White, Q. Wang, S. Johri, D. Zhu, C. Monroe, C. Noel, and M. J. Gullans, Phase transition in magic with random quantum circuits, Nature Physics 20, 1786–1792 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [32]

    Knill, D

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012307 (2008)

    work page 2008

  32. [33]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S...

    work page 2019

  33. [34]

    Y. Liu, M. Otten, R. Bassirianjahromi, L. Jiang, and B. Fefferman, Benchmarking near-term quantum computers via random circuit sampling (2022), arXiv:2105.05232 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [35]

    D. K. Mark, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, M. Endres, and S. Choi, Benchmarking quantum simulators using ergodic quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 110601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [36]

    J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, I. S. Madjarov, X. Xie, R. Finkelstein, J. P. Covey, J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, A. Kale, H. Pichler, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Preparing random states and benchmarking with many-body quantum chaos, Nature 613, 468–473 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [37]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

    work page 1991

  37. [38]

    B. W. Reichardt, F. Unger, and U. V. Vazirani, Classical command of quantum systems, Nature 496, 456 (2013)

    work page 2013

  38. [39]

    M. Liu, R. Shaydulin, P. Niroula, M. DeCross, S. Hung, W. Y. Kon, E. C. Mart´ ın, K. Chakraborty, O. Amer, S. Aaronson, A. Acharya, Y. Alexeev, K. J. Berg, S. Chakrabarti, F. J. Curchod, J. M. Dreiling, N. Erickson, C. Foltz, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, T. S. Humble, N. Kumar, J. Larson, D. Lykov, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, S. Eloul, P. Siegfried, J...

    work page 2025

  39. [40]

    S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, Direct fidelity estimation from few pauli measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 230501 (2011)

    work page 2011

  40. [41]

    Pallister, N

    S. Pallister, N. Linden, and A. Montanaro, Optimal verification of entangled states with local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 170502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [42]

    Takeuchi and T

    Y. Takeuchi and T. Morimae, Verification of many-qubit states, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021060 (2018)

    work page 2018

  42. [43]

    Elben, B

    A. Elben, B. Vermersch, R. van Bijnen, C. Kokail, T. Brydges, C. Maier, M. K. Joshi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Cross-platform verification of intermediate scale quantum devices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 010504 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [44]

    Zwerger, W

    M. Zwerger, W. D¨ ur, J.-D. Bancal, and P. Sekatski, Device-independent detection of genuine multipartite entanglement for all pure states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 060502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [45]

    Rodriguez-Blanco, A

    A. Rodriguez-Blanco, A. Bermudez, M. M¨ uller, and F. Shahandeh, Efficient and robust certification of genuine multipartite entanglement in noisy quantum error correction circuits, PRX Quantum 2, 020304 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [46]

    Huang, J

    H.-Y. Huang, J. Preskill, and M. Soleimanifar, Certifying almost all quantum states with few single-qubit measurements, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-025-03025-1 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-025-03025-1 2025

  46. [47]

    Gupta, W

    M. Gupta, W. He, and R. O’Donnell, Few single-qubit measurements suffice to certify any quantum state (2025), arXiv:2506.11355 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    Li and H

    Y. Li and H. Zhu, Universal and efficient quantum state verification via schmidt decomposition and mutually unbiased bases (2025), arXiv:2506.19809 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [49]

    Haug and M

    T. Haug and M. Kim, Scalable measures of magic resource for quantum computers, PRX Quantum 4, 010301 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [50]

    Huang, Y

    H.-Y. Huang, Y. Liu, M. Broughton, I. Kim, A. Anshu, Z. Landau, and J. R. McClean, Learning shallow quantum circuits, 33 in Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC 2024 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2024) p. 1343–1351

    work page 2024

  50. [51]

    Landau and Y

    Z. Landau and Y. Liu, Learning quantum states prepared by shallow circuits in polynomial time (2024), arXiv:2410.23618 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [52]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. Popp, and J. I. Cirac, Entanglement versus correlations in spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 027901 (2004)

    work page 2004

  52. [53]

    M. Popp, F. Verstraete, M. A. Mart´ ın-Delgado, and J. I. Cirac, Localizable entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 71, 042306 (2005)

    work page 2005

  53. [54]

    H.-S. Kim, I. H. Kim, and D. Ranard, Learning state preparation circuits for quantum phases of matter (2024), arXiv:2410.23544 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [55]

    Multi-particle entanglement

    J. Eisert and D. Gross, Multi-particle entanglement (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0505149 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  55. [56]

    McGinley, Postselection-free learning of measurement-induced quantum dynamics, PRX Quantum 5, 020347 (2024)

    M. McGinley, Postselection-free learning of measurement-induced quantum dynamics, PRX Quantum 5, 020347 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [57]

    W. W. Ho and S. Choi, Exact emergent quantum state designs from quantum chaotic dynamics, Physical Review Letters 128, 10.1103/physrevlett.128.060601 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.060601 2022

  57. [58]

    J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, F. Hern´ andez, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, M. Endres, and S. Choi, Emergent quantum state designs from individual many-body wave functions, PRX Quantum 4, 010311 (2023)

    work page 2023

  58. [59]

    Du, Z.-W

    Z. Du, Z.-W. Liu, and X. Ma, Spacetime quantum circuit complexity via measurements (2025), arXiv:2408.16602 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [60]

    Piroli, G

    L. Piroli, G. Styliaris, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum circuits assisted by local operations and classical communication: Trans- formations and phases of matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 220503 (2021)

    work page 2021

  60. [61]

    T.-C. Lu, L. A. Lessa, I. H. Kim, and T. H. Hsieh, Measurement as a shortcut to long-range entangled quantum matter, PRX Quantum 3, 040337 (2022)

    work page 2022

  61. [62]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Local unitary transformation, long-range quantum entanglement, wave function renormalization, and topological order, Phys. Rev. B 82, 155138 (2010)

    work page 2010

  62. [63]

    Wen, Topological order: From long-range entangled quantum matter to an unification of light and electrons, ISRN Condensed Matter Physics 2013, 198710 (2013)

    X.-G. Wen, Topological order: From long-range entangled quantum matter to an unification of light and electrons, ISRN Condensed Matter Physics 2013, 198710 (2013)

    work page 2013

  63. [64]

    Tantivasadakarn, A

    N. Tantivasadakarn, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Hierarchy of topological order from finite-depth unitaries, mea- surement, and feedforward, PRX Quantum 4, 020339 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [65]

    Palazuelos and J

    C. Palazuelos and J. I. d. Vicente, Genuine multipartite entanglement of quantum states in the multiple-copy scenario, Quantum 6, 735 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [66]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005)

    work page 2005

  66. [67]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nature Physics 16, 1050–1057 (2020)

    work page 2020

  67. [68]

    Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys

    G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003)

    work page 2003

  68. [69]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully, Phys. Rev. B 73, 094423 (2006)

    work page 2006

  69. [70]

    Jordan, R

    J. Jordan, R. Or´ us, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 250602 (2008)

    work page 2008

  70. [71]

    Vidal, Class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated, Phys

    G. Vidal, Class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 110501 (2008)

    work page 2008

  71. [72]

    Pan and P

    F. Pan and P. Zhang, Simulation of quantum circuits using the big-batch tensor network method, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 030501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  72. [73]

    Shi, L.-M

    Y.-Y. Shi, L.-M. Duan, and G. Vidal, Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022320 (2006)

    work page 2006

  73. [74]

    A. S. Darmawan and D. Poulin, Tensor-network simulations of the surface code under realistic noise, Physical Review Letters 119, 10.1103/physrevlett.119.040502 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.040502 2017

  74. [75]

    Tantivasadakarn, R

    N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Thorngren, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Long-range entanglement from measuring symmetry- protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021040 (2024)

    work page 2024

  75. [76]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aag2302

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aag2302 2017

  76. [77]

    Torlai, G

    G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, J. Carrasquilla, M. Troyer, R. Melko, and G. Carleo, Neural-network quantum state tomography, Nature Physics 14, 447–450 (2018)

    work page 2018

  77. [78]

    Carrasquilla, G

    J. Carrasquilla, G. Torlai, R. G. Melko, and L. Aolita, Reconstructing quantum states with generative models, Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 155 (2019)

    work page 2019

  78. [79]

    The Complexity of Quantum States and Transformations: From Quantum Money to Black Holes

    S. Aaronson, The complexity of quantum states and transformations: From quantum money to black holes (2016), arXiv:1607.05256

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  79. [80]

    J. Yi, W. Ye, D. Gottesman, and Z.-W. Liu, Complexity and order in approximate quantum error-correcting codes, Nature Physics 20, 1798–1803 (2024)

    work page 2024

  80. [81]

    H. Zhao, L. Lewis, I. Kannan, Y. Quek, H.-Y. Huang, and M. C. Caro, Learning quantum states and unitaries of bounded gate complexity, PRX Quantum 5, 040306 (2024)

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.