pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09775 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🪐 quant-ph

Rigorous quantum state tomography for distributed quantum computing

Hans M\"attig-V\'asquez , Aldo Delgado , Luciano Pereira This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords distributed quantum computingquantum state tomographyprojected least-squarestrace-norm boundsentanglement negativitymutually unbiased baseslocal operationsclassical communication
0
0 comments X

The pith

A protocol reconstructs the quantum state of systems spread across multiple processors using only local operations and classical communication between nodes.

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

The paper introduces a quantum state tomography method designed specifically for distributed quantum computers that avoids any requirement for entanglement shared between separate processors. It builds on projected least-squares estimation by performing projective measurements locally within each processor and exchanging only classical information. The authors derive explicit non-asymptotic bounds on the reconstruction error measured in trace norm, showing how the error grows exponentially with the number of processors. They further supply certified bounds that apply when the same estimator is used to compute entanglement negativity. This approach matters because generating and preserving entanglement across distant devices remains a major practical obstacle.

Core claim

The central claim is that projected least-squares tomography, when extended to multi-processor systems via local measurements in mutually unbiased bases on each trusted processor, yields rigorous trace-norm error bounds with explicit exponential dependence on the number of nodes, together with certified bounds on the error of estimated entanglement negativity, all without invoking remote entanglement as a resource.

What carries the argument

Projected least-squares estimator extended to distributed systems through local projective measurements in mutually unbiased bases on each processor.

If this is right

  • State reconstruction becomes possible even when inter-processor entanglement cannot be maintained.
  • The number of measurements required grows exponentially with added processors, setting a concrete scaling limit for network size.
  • Entanglement negativity can be estimated with certified accuracy from the same data set.
  • The method applies directly to any set of projective 2-design measurements performed locally on each node.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Networks that already possess reliable intra-processor entanglement could adopt this protocol immediately to perform tomography without upgrading inter-node links.
  • The exponential node dependence suggests that error-mitigation or adaptive measurement strategies may be needed for systems larger than a handful of processors.
  • The same local-plus-classical framework could be tested on other distributed tasks such as parameter estimation or channel tomography.
  • Hybrid architectures that mix trusted local entanglement with purely classical communication become more viable for near-term hardware.

Load-bearing premise

Entanglement within each separate quantum processor can be trusted and used to implement the required local measurements.

What would settle it

An experimental run on a multi-processor device where the measured trace-norm distance between the reconstructed state and the true state exceeds the paper's stated bound by a factor larger than the explicit exponential term in the number of nodes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09775 by Aldo Delgado, Hans M\"attig-V\'asquez, Luciano Pereira.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Diagram of the PLS tomography in a distributed quantum device. (a) The circuit illustrates a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Numerical simulation of PLS tomography for a sample size of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Noisy numerical simulation of PLS tomography for a sample size of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Error on estimating entanglement negativity from the PLS for a sample size of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Numerical simulation of PLS tomography with sample sizes (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Numerical simulation of PLS tomography for depolarization noises (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Numerical simulation of entanglement Negativity estimation from PLS tomography for depolariza [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Distributed quantum computing offers a promising approach to scaling quantum devices by networking multiple quantum processors. We present a quantum state tomography protocol tailored for distributed quantum computers that avoids assuming remote entanglement as a primitive resource. The protocol extends projected least-squares (PLS) tomography based on projective 2-designs to systems composed of multiple quantum processors, using only local operations within each processor and classical communication between nodes. Assuming entanglement within each individual quantum processor is trusted, the protocol can be executed using mutually unbiased bases. We derive rigorous, non-asymptotic trace-norm error bounds for the PLS estimator, with explicit exponential dependence on the number of nodes. In addition, we establish certified error bounds for estimating entanglement negativity from the PLS estimator. Numerical simulations for systems of up to seven qubits distributed across several devices validate the theoretical error bounds.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a quantum state tomography protocol for distributed quantum computing that extends projected least-squares (PLS) estimation based on projective 2-designs to multi-processor systems. It relies solely on local operations within each processor (using mutually unbiased bases under the assumption of trusted intra-processor entanglement) and classical communication to assemble global statistics. The central contributions are rigorous non-asymptotic trace-norm error bounds for the PLS estimator that exhibit explicit exponential dependence on the number of nodes, together with certified error bounds for estimating entanglement negativity from the reconstructed state. Numerical simulations up to seven qubits are used to validate the theoretical bounds.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the work supplies a resource-efficient tomography method that avoids remote entanglement as a primitive, which is directly relevant to near-term distributed quantum architectures. The provision of explicit, non-asymptotic bounds with clear node scaling and the Lipschitz-based certification of negativity are concrete strengths that enable quantitative error analysis. The numerical validation for small distributed systems adds practical support. These elements collectively advance the theoretical toolkit for characterizing states across networked processors.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from an explicit statement of the precise range of node counts and qubit distributions used in the numerical simulations (beyond the total of seven qubits), to allow readers to assess how well the exponential scaling is probed.
  2. Notation for the distributed POVM and the classical post-processing step that assembles the global estimator could be clarified with a short diagram or pseudocode, as the transition from local 2-design measurements to the joint PLS estimator is central but described at a high level.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our manuscript, accurate summary of the contributions, and recommendation for minor revision. The referee correctly identifies the extension of projected least-squares tomography to distributed systems, the non-asymptotic trace-norm bounds with explicit node scaling, the certified negativity bounds, and the numerical validation. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The central claims derive non-asymptotic trace-norm bounds for the distributed PLS estimator and certified negativity bounds directly from the second-moment properties of a product POVM formed by local projective 2-designs (or MUBs) on each processor, with classical communication assembling the global statistics. These properties carry over from established single-node tomography without requiring remote entanglement or fitted parameters. The explicit exponential node dependence is stated as a direct consequence of the product structure rather than introduced by ansatz or self-reference. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, and no load-bearing step relies on a self-citation whose validity is presupposed within the paper itself. The protocol is mathematically sufficient for density-matrix reconstruction under the stated trust assumption on intra-processor entanglement.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption of trusted intra-processor entanglement and on the mathematical properties of projective 2-designs and mutually unbiased bases, which are imported from prior literature without new derivation here.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Entanglement within each individual quantum processor is trusted
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the condition allowing use of mutually unbiased bases and local operations only.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5431 in / 1301 out tokens · 58103 ms · 2026-05-10T18:01:57.192568+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.

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

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Infor- mation: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Peter W. Shor. Fault-tolerant quantum computation, 1996

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Springer New York, 2009

    Markus Grassl and Martin R¨ otteler.Quantum Error Correction and Fault Tolerant Quantum Computing, page 7324–7342. Springer New York, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    An introduction to quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quan- tum computation, 2009

    Daniel Gottesman. An introduction to quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quan- tum computation, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Andersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Ba- con, Joseph C

    Rajeev Acharya, Igor Aleiner, Richard Allen, Trond I. Andersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Ba- con, Joseph C. Bardin, Joao Basso, Andreas Bengtsson, Sergio Boixo, Gina Bortoli, Alexandre Bourassa, Jenna Bovaird, Leon Brill, Michael Broughton, Bob B. Buckley, David A. Buell, Tim Burger, Brian Bu...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Multilayer microwave integrated quantum circuits for scalable quantum computing.npj Quantum Information, 2(1):16002, February 2016

    Teresa Brecht, Wolfgang Pfaff, Chen Wang, Yiwen Chu, Luigi Frunzio, Michel H Devoret, and Robert J Schoelkopf. Multilayer microwave integrated quantum circuits for scalable quantum computing.npj Quantum Information, 2(1):16002, February 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Norris, Christian Kraglund Andersen, Markus M¨ uller, Alexandre Blais, Christopher Eichler, and Andreas Wallraff

    Sebastian Krinner, Nathan Lacroix, Ants Remm, Agustin Di Paolo, Elie Genois, Cather- ine Leroux, Christoph Hellings, Stefania Lazar, Francois Swiadek, Johannes Herrmann, Graham J. Norris, Christian Kraglund Andersen, Markus M¨ uller, Alexandre Blais, Christopher Eichler, and Andreas Wallraff. Realizing repeated quantum error correc- tion in a distance-thr...

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), page 1433–1440

    Joschka Roffe. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), page 1433–1440. IEEE, September 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Distributed quantum computing: A survey.Computer Networks, 254:110672, December 2024

    Marcello Caleffi, Michele Amoretti, Davide Ferrari, Jessica Illiano, Antonio Manzalini, and Angela Sara Cacciapuoti. Distributed quantum computing: A survey.Computer Networks, 254:110672, December 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Javier Cardama, Guillermo D´ ıaz-Camacho, Daniel Fa´ ılde, Iago F

    David Barral, F. Javier Cardama, Guillermo D´ ıaz-Camacho, Daniel Fa´ ılde, Iago F. Llovo, Mariamo Mussa-Juane, Jorge V´ azquez-P´ erez, Juan Villasuso, C´ esar Pi˜ neiro, Natalia Costas, Juan C. Pichel, Tom´ as F. Pena, and Andr´ es G´ omez. Review of distributed quan- 24 tum computing: From single qpu to high performance quantum computing.Computer Scien...

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Schiffer, and Jordi Tura

    Johannes Kn¨ orzer, Xiaoyu Liu, Benjamin F. Schiffer, and Jordi Tura. Distributed quan- tum information processing: A review of recent progress, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Magnard, S

    P. Magnard, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, J. Sch¨ ar, F. Marxer, J. L¨ utolf, T. Walter, J.-C. Besse, M. Gabureac, K. Reuer, A. Akin, B. Royer, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff. Microwave quantum link between superconducting circuits housed in spatially separated cryogenic systems.Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:260502, Dec 2020

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    D. Main, P. Drmota, D. P. Nadlinger, E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, and D. M. Lucas. Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link.Nature, 638(8050):383–388, February 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Norris, Andr´ es Rosario, Ferran Martin, Jos´ e Martinez, Waldimar Amaya, Morgan W

    Simon Storz, Josua Sch¨ ar, Anatoly Kulikov, Paul Magnard, Philipp Kurpiers, Janis L¨ utolf, Theo Walter, Adrian Copetudo, Kevin Reuer, Abdulkadir Akin, Jean-Claude Besse, Mihai Gabureac, Graham J. Norris, Andr´ es Rosario, Ferran Martin, Jos´ e Martinez, Waldimar Amaya, Morgan W. Mitchell, Carlos Abellan, Jean-Daniel Bancal, Nicolas Sangouard, Baptiste R...

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Lomonaco Jr

    Anocha Yimsiriwattana and Samuel J. Lomonaco Jr. Distributed quantum computing: a distributed shor algorithm. In Eric Donkor, Andrew R. Pirich, and Howard E. Brandt, editors,Quantum Information and Computation II, volume 5436, page 360. SPIE, August 2004

    work page 2004

  16. [16]

    Sch¨ ar, Victor Barizien, Xavier Valcarce, Florence Berterotti` ere, Nicolas Sangouard, Jean-Daniel Bancal, and Andreas Wallraff

    Simon Storz, Anatoly Kulikov, Josua D. Sch¨ ar, Victor Barizien, Xavier Valcarce, Florence Berterotti` ere, Nicolas Sangouard, Jean-Daniel Bancal, and Andreas Wallraff. Complete self-testing of a system of remote superconducting qubits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 135:030801, Jul 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Resource-efficient cross-platform verification with modular superconducting devices.PRX Quantum, 6:040365, Dec 2025

    Kieran Dalton, Johannes Kn¨ orzer, Finn Hoehne, Yongxin Song, Alexander Flasby, Dante Colao Zanuz, Mohsen Bahrami Panah, Ilya Besedin, Jean-Claude Besse, and Andreas Wallraff. Resource-efficient cross-platform verification with modular superconducting devices.PRX Quantum, 6:040365, Dec 2025. [18]Quantum State Estimation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Focus on quantum tomography.New Journal of Physics, 15(12):125020, December 2013

    K Banaszek, M Cramer, and D Gross. Focus on quantum tomography.New Journal of Physics, 15(12):125020, December 2013

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Klappenecker and M

    A. Klappenecker and M. Rotteler. Mutually unbiased bases are complex projective 2- designs. InProceedings. International Symposium on Information Theory, 2005. ISIT 2005., pages 1740–1744, 2005

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    Renes, Robin Blume-Kohout, A

    Joseph M. Renes, Robin Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and Carlton M. Caves. Symmet- ric informationally complete quantum measurements.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 45(6):2171–2180, June 2004. 25

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    Amara Katabarwa, Katerina Gratsea, Athena Caesura, and Peter D. Johnson. Early fault-tolerant quantum computing.PRX Quantum, 5:020101, Jun 2024

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Towards fault-tolerant distributed quantum computation (ft-dqc): Taxonomy, recent progress, and challenges.ICT Express, 11(3):417–435, June 2025

    Harashta Tatimma Larasati and Byung-Soo Choi. Towards fault-tolerant distributed quantum computation (ft-dqc): Taxonomy, recent progress, and challenges.ICT Express, 11(3):417–435, June 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Joel A. Tropp. User-friendly tail bounds for sums of random matrices.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 12(4):389–434, August 2011

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    Fast state tomography with optimal error bounds.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 53(20):204001, April 2020

    M Gut ¸˘ a, J Kahn, R Kueng, and J A Tropp. Fast state tomography with optimal error bounds.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 53(20):204001, April 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner. Computable measure of entanglement.Phys. Rev. A, 65:032314, Feb 2002

    work page 2002

  26. [26]

    Geometrical description of quantal state determination.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 14(12):3241–3245, December 1981

    I D Ivonovic. Geometrical description of quantal state determination.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 14(12):3241–3245, December 1981

    work page 1981

  27. [27]

    Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements.Annals of Physics, 191(2):363–381, May 1989

    William K Wootters and Brian D Fields. Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements.Annals of Physics, 191(2):363–381, May 1989

    work page 1989

  28. [28]

    Introduction to Haar Measure Tools in Quantum Information: A Beginner’s Tutorial.Quantum, 8:1340, May 2024

    Antonio Anna Mele. Introduction to Haar Measure Tools in Quantum Information: A Beginner’s Tutorial.Quantum, 8:1340, May 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    An efficient quantum circuit construction method for mutually unbiased bases inn-qubit systems, 2023

    Wang Yu and Wu Dongsheng. An efficient quantum circuit construction method for mutually unbiased bases inn-qubit systems, 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Smolin, Jay M

    John A. Smolin, Jay M. Gambetta, and Graeme Smith. Efficient method for computing the maximum-likelihood quantum state from measurements with additive gaussian noise. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:070502, Feb 2012

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    2053-2563

    Paul Skrzypczyk and Daniel Cavalcanti.Semidefinite Programming in Quantum Infor- mation Science. 2053-2563. IOP Publishing, 2023

    work page 2053

  32. [32]

    Projected least-squares quantum process tomography.Quantum, 6:844, October 2022

    Trystan Surawy-Stepney, Jonas Kahn, Richard Kueng, and Madalin Guta. Projected least-squares quantum process tomography.Quantum, 6:844, October 2022

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Fast quantum mea- surement tomography with dimension-optimal error bounds, 2025

    Leonardo Zambrano, Sergi Ramos-Calderer, and Richard Kueng. Fast quantum mea- surement tomography with dimension-optimal error bounds, 2025

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Javadi-Abhari

    Ali et al. Javadi-Abhari. Quantum computing with Qiskit, 2024

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Github repository: Distributed quantum tomography software.https://github.com/ Usarix/Distributed-Quantum-Tomography-Software, 2025

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups

    Francesco Mezzadri. How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 54(5):592–604, 2007

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    Penson, Ion Nechita, and Benoˆ ıt Collins

    Karol ˙Zyczkowski, Karol A. Penson, Ion Nechita, and Benoˆ ıt Collins. Generating random density matrices.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 52(6):062201, 2011

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    Zehang Bao, Shibo Xu, Zixuan Song, Ke Wang, Liang Xiang, Zitian Zhu, Jiachen Chen, Feitong Jin, Xuhao Zhu, Yu Gao, Yaozu Wu, Chuanyu Zhang, Ning Wang, Yiren Zou, Ziqi Tan, Aosai Zhang, Zhengyi Cui, Fanhao Shen, Jiarun Zhong, Tingting Li, Jinfeng 26 Deng, Xu Zhang, Hang Dong, Pengfei Zhang, Yang-Ren Liu, Liangtian Zhao, Jie Hao, Hekang Li, Zhen Wang, Chao ...

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Distributed multi-parameter quantum metrology with a superconducting quantum network.Nature Communications, 17(1), January 2026

    Jiajian Zhang, Lingna Wang, Yong-Ju Hai, Jiawei Zhang, Ji Chu, Ji Jiang, Wenhui Huang, Yongqi Liang, Jiawei Qiu, Xuandong Sun, Ziyu Tao, Libo Zhang, Yuxuan Zhou, Yuanzhen Chen, Weijie Guo, Xiayu Linpeng, Song Liu, Wenhui Ren, Youpeng Zhong, Jingjing Niu, Haidong Yuan, and Dapeng Yu. Distributed multi-parameter quantum metrology with a superconducting quan...

    work page 2026

  40. [40]

    Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu

    Jeongwan Haah, Aram W. Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu. Sample- optimal tomography of quantum states.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 63(9):5628–5641, 2017

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, August 2018

    John Preskill. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, August 2018

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Cross, Lev S

    Andrew W. Cross, Lev S. Bishop, Sarah Sheldon, Paul D. Nation, and Jay M. Gam- betta. Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits.Phys. Rev. A, 100:032328, Sep 2019

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J

    Zhenyu Cai, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J. Huggins, Ying Li, Jarrod R. McClean, and Thomas E. O’Brien. Quantum error mitigation.Rev. Mod. Phys., 95:045005, Dec 2023

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    A. D. C´ orcoles, Maika Takita, Ken Inoue, Scott Lekuch, Zlatko K. Minev, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Exploiting dynamic quantum circuits in a quantum algorithm with superconducting qubits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:100501, Aug 2021

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Circuit knitting with classical communication

    Christophe Piveteau and David Sutter. Circuit knitting with classical communication. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 70(4):2734–2745, 2024

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Grace Johnson, Aniello Esposito, Gaurav Gyawali, Xin Zhan, Rohit Ganti, Namit Anand, Raymond G

    K. Grace Johnson, Aniello Esposito, Gaurav Gyawali, Xin Zhan, Rohit Ganti, Namit Anand, Raymond G. Beausoleil, and Masoud Mohseni. Distributed quantum computing via adaptive circuit knitting, 2026

    work page 2026

  47. [47]

    Almudena Carrera Vazquez, Caroline Tornow, Diego Rist` e, Stefan Woerner, Maika Takita, and Daniel J. Egger. Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication.Nature, 636(8041):75–79, November 2024

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    A hardware-aware gate cutting framework for practical quantum circuit knitting

    Xiangyu Ren, Mengyu Zhang, and Antonio Barbalace. A hardware-aware gate cutting framework for practical quantum circuit knitting. InProceedings of the 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, ICCAD ’24, New York, NY, USA,

    work page

  49. [49]

    Association for Computing Machinery

    work page

  50. [50]

    Circuit knitting faces exponential sampling overhead scaling bounded by entanglement cost, 2024

    Mingrui Jing, Chengkai Zhu, and Xin Wang. Circuit knitting faces exponential sampling overhead scaling bounded by entanglement cost, 2024. 27

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Goyeneche, G

    D. Goyeneche, G. Ca˜ nas, S. Etcheverry, E. S. G´ omez, G. B. Xavier, G. Lima, and A. Del- gado. Five measurement bases determine pure quantum states on any dimension.Phys. Rev. Lett., 115:090401, Aug 2015

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    Stable pure state quantum tomography from five orthonormal bases.EPL (Europhysics Letters), 115(3):30001, August 2016

    Claudio Carmeli, Teiko Heinosaari, Michael Kech, Jussi Schultz, and Alessandro Toigo. Stable pure state quantum tomography from five orthonormal bases.EPL (Europhysics Letters), 115(3):30001, August 2016

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    Scalable estimation of pure multi-qubit states.npj Quantum Information, 8(1):57, May 2022

    Luciano Pereira, Leonardo Zambrano, and Aldo Delgado. Scalable estimation of pure multi-qubit states.npj Quantum Information, 8(1):57, May 2022

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    Minimal orthonormal bases for pure quantum state estimation.Quantum, 8:1244, February 2024

    Leonardo Zambrano, Luciano Pereira, and Aldo Delgado. Minimal orthonormal bases for pure quantum state estimation.Quantum, 8:1244, February 2024

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Efficient state estimation on quantum processors, 2025

    Victor Gonzalez Avella, Abraham Vega Vargas, Tomas Merlo Vergara, Kevin de la Ossa Doria, Jakub Czartowski, Dougal Main, Gabriel Araneda, Aldo Delgado, and Dardo Goyeneche. Efficient state estimation on quantum processors, 2025

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Flammia, Stephen Becker, and Jens Eisert

    David Gross, Yi-Kai Liu, Steven T. Flammia, Stephen Becker, and Jens Eisert. Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing.Phys. Rev. Lett., 105:150401, Oct 2010

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators.New Journal of Physics, 14(9):095022, September 2012

    Steven T Flammia, David Gross, Yi-Kai Liu, and Jens Eisert. Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators.New Journal of Physics, 14(9):095022, September 2012

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    Plenio, Steven T

    Marcus Cramer, Martin B. Plenio, Steven T. Flammia, Rolando Somma, David Gross, Stephen D. Bartlett, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, David Poulin, and Yi-Kai Liu. Efficient quantum state tomography.Nature Communications, 1(1):149, December 2010

    work page 2010

  59. [59]

    B. P. Lanyon, C. Maier, M. Holz¨ apfel, T. Baumgratz, C. Hempel, P. Jurcevic, I. Dhand, A. S. Buyskikh, A. J. Daley, M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos. Effi- cient tomography of a quantum many-body system.Nature Physics, 13(12):1158–1162, September 2017

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    Wood, Atithi Acharya, Giuseppe Carleo, Juan Car- rasquilla, and Leandro Aolita

    Giacomo Torlai, Christopher J. Wood, Atithi Acharya, Giuseppe Carleo, Juan Car- rasquilla, and Leandro Aolita. Quantum process tomography with unsupervised learning and tensor networks.Nature Communications, 14(1):2858, May 2023

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    Ignacio Cirac, Peter Zoller, Maksym Serbyn, Lorenzo Piroli, and Benoˆ ıt Vermersch

    Matteo Votto, Marko Ljubotina, C´ ecilia Lancien, J. Ignacio Cirac, Peter Zoller, Maksym Serbyn, Lorenzo Piroli, and Benoˆ ıt Vermersch. Learning mixed quantum states in large- scale experiments.Phys. Rev. Lett., 136:090801, Mar 2026

    work page 2026

  62. [62]

    Quantum overlapping tomography.Phys

    Jordan Cotler and Frank Wilczek. Quantum overlapping tomography.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:100401, Mar 2020

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Bruna G. M. Ara´ ujo, M´ arcio M. Taddei, Daniel Cavalcanti, and Antonio Ac´ ın. Local quantum overlapping tomography.Phys. Rev. A, 106:062441, Dec 2022

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Pereira, J

    L. Pereira, J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, and T. Ramos. Parallel tomography of quantum non- demolition measurements in multi-qubit devices.npj Quantum Information, 9(1):22, March 2023. 28

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Method for direct detection of quantum entanglement

    Pawe l Horodecki and Artur Ekert. Method for direct detection of quantum entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:127902, Aug 2002

    work page 2002

  66. [66]

    Measuring quantum entanglement without prior state reconstruction

    Pawe l Horodecki. Measuring quantum entanglement without prior state reconstruction. Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:167901, Apr 2003

    work page 2003

  67. [67]

    S. J. van Enk. Direct measurements of entanglement and permutation symmetry.Phys. Rev. Lett., 102:190503, May 2009

    work page 2009

  68. [68]

    Detecting and quantifying entanglement on near-term quantum devices.npj Quantum Information, 8(1):52, May 2022

    Kun Wang, Zhixin Song, Xuanqiang Zhao, Zihe Wang, and Xin Wang. Detecting and quantifying entanglement on near-term quantum devices.npj Quantum Information, 8(1):52, May 2022

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    Mu˜ noz Moller, L

    A.D. Mu˜ noz Moller, L. Pereira, L. Zambrano, J. Cort´ es-Vega, and A. Delgado. Varia- tional determination of multiqubit geometrical entanglement in noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers.Phys. Rev. Appl., 18:024048, Aug 2022

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    Avoiding barren plateaus in the variational determination of geometric entanglement.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(2):025016, February 2024

    L Zambrano, A D Mu˜ noz-Moller, M Mu˜ noz, L Pereira, and A Delgado. Avoiding barren plateaus in the variational determination of geometric entanglement.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(2):025016, February 2024

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    Cort´ es-Vega, J

    J. Cort´ es-Vega, J. F. Barra, L. Pereira, and A. Delgado. Detecting entanglement of unknown states by violating the clauser–horne–shimony–holt inequality.Quantum Infor- mation Processing, 22(5):203, May 2023

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    Lucas Friedrich, Marcos L. W. Basso, Alberto B. P. Junior, Joab M. Varela, Leandro Morais, Rafael Chaves, and Jonas Maziero. Variational quantum algorithm for entangle- ment quantification.Phys. Rev. A, 112:052452, Nov 2025

    work page 2025

  73. [73]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, June 2020

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, June 2020

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    Shadow tomography of quantum states

    Scott Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. InProceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2018, page 325–338, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    Mixed-state entanglement from local randomized mea- surements.Phys

    Andreas Elben, Richard Kueng, Hsin-Yuan (Robert) Huang, Rick van Bijnen, Christian Kokail, Marcello Dalmonte, Pasquale Calabrese, Barbara Kraus, John Preskill, Peter Zoller, and Benoˆ ıt Vermersch. Mixed-state entanglement from local randomized mea- surements.Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:200501, Nov 2020

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    Ignacio Cirac, Peter Zoller, Maksym Serbyn, and Lorenzo Piroli

    Benoˆ ıt Vermersch, Marko Ljubotina, J. Ignacio Cirac, Peter Zoller, Maksym Serbyn, and Lorenzo Piroli. Many-body entropies and entanglement from polynomially many local measurements.Phys. Rev. X, 14:031035, Aug 2024. 29

    work page 2024