Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Verification of Quantum Computations: Hardware-Efficient Security Proofs

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A modular split of verification into remote state preparation, traps, and embedding lets limited users check untrusted quantum servers with far lighter hardware while keeping statistical security.

desk verdict Clean HDR synthesis of the author’s own modular VBQC stack; useful architectural map, no new theorems, FT chapter still needs logical ops on the verifier. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.03983 v1 pith:3BO3ZP3E submitted 2026-07-04 quant-ph

Harold Ollivier This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx03.67.Dd03.67.Hk
keywords quantumverificationblindcomputationremotestatepreparationcomposabilityfault-tolerantdelegationweakcoherentpulsessecuremultipartymeasurement-based
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

A user with only limited quantum resources needs a way to confirm that an untrusted, fully quantum server correctly executed a computation and did not secretly alter the result. This work shows that the task can be cleanly partitioned into three independent primitives—remote state preparation that hides the client’s secrets, trap-based tests that detect harmful deviations, and an embedding that amplifies detection by spreading the real computation across redundant structure. Once the pieces are separate, each can be improved in isolation: the server no longer needs extra qubits per run, the client need never prepare computational-basis dummy states, and single-photon sources can be replaced by trusted rotations or ordinary weak coherent pulses. The same modules also lift to multi-party settings with a single powerful server and to the full fault-tolerant regime under gate-level noise. The result is a practical architectural guide rather than another monolithic protocol.

What carries the argument

The three-module template (remote state preparation + trappified scheme + proper embedding) together with the abstract-cryptography compiler that converts local detection/insensitivity/correctness parameters into a composable security error for the secure delegated quantum computation resource.

What would settle it

Construct a concrete attack in which a prover, given only physical single-qubit operations from the verifier or correlated compromise events, extracts secret measurement angles or forces an undetected logical error while still passing the trap tests of the level-k protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Verification of quantum computations under information-theoretic security reduces to three composable modules—remote state preparation for blindness, trappified canvases for deviation detection, and proper embedding for amplification—whose local properties (detection, insensitivity, correctness) lift directly to global security bounds. Instantiating these modules yields concrete protocols that eliminate spatial overhead on the prover, restrict the verifier to equatorial-plane states or even trusted rotations and weak coherent pulses, and extend without reopening the security ledger to asymmetric multi-party computation and gate-level fault-tolerant delegation.

Load-bearing premise

In the fault-tolerant extension the verifier must be able to prepare and operate on single logical qubits of a concatenated code, and physical imperfections must behave as independent stochastic compromise events of constant probability below a fixed threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Provers can run verified BQP computations with zero extra qubits per computation round, only sequential test rounds.
  • Verifiers can replace cryogenic single-photon sources with phase modulators plus random bit flips, or with off-the-shelf attenuated lasers, while retaining statistical security.
  • A classical secure multiparty computation among light clients plus one quantum server yields composable multi-party quantum computation for classical-input classical-output tasks.
  • Once the verifier can handle single logical qubits, gate-level noise below a constant threshold no longer forces abort or leaks secrets, so verification scales with circuit size.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Trap statistics collected during honest runs can double as real-time device characterisation, giving hardware vendors an immediate operational incentive to expose the required interfaces.
  • The same modular split should translate almost unchanged into the circuit model, removing any dependence on measurement-based computation for superconducting platforms.
  • If the remaining open question—statistical soundness with a fully classical client—can be solved inside the same modules, the hardware barrier for verification would drop to zero.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a conceptual synthesis (HDR-style) of the author’s prior peer-reviewed works on statistically secure verification of quantum computations. It partitions verification into three composable modules—remote state preparation (RSP), trap-based deviation detection via trappified schemes, and error-correcting embedding—then shows how the modules systematically relax hardware requirements of early VBQC protocols (zero space overhead via round-based repetition, dummyless XY-plane states, trusted rotations or multi-intensity weak coherent pulses) while preserving Abstract Cryptography security. The same modules are extended to asymmetric multi-party computation (via collective RSP) and to gate-level fault-tolerant delegation under a stochastic-compromise noise model.

Significance. If the modular reductions hold as claimed, the work supplies a practical architectural blueprint that removes the security-versus-computation trade-off and lowers verifier-side quantum requirements to levels compatible with existing QKD hardware or trusted phase modulators. The explicit composability and the concrete extensions to multi-party and fault-tolerant settings are valuable for hardware vendors and cloud providers. The synthesis itself is useful as a guide; all technical security claims rest on six already-published papers, so the novelty is organizational rather than foundational.

major comments (2)
  1. [Chapter 10 / Resource 9 / Theorem 15] Chapter 10 (Resource 9, Definitions 13–15, Theorems 15–17) grants the verifier the ability to prepare and operate on single logical qubits of a concatenated Reed–Muller code with transversal Z(θ) and models imperfections as independent stochastic compromise events of constant probability pc below a fixed threshold. The quadratic leakage suppression and the threshold theorem rely on these assumptions; if the verifier is restricted to physical single-qubit operations or if compromise events are correlated/adaptive, the side-channel argument fails. The limitation is stated but should be elevated to a clear caveat in the abstract and conclusions so that the claimed “gate-level” robustness is not over-read.
  2. [Part II / Theorems 3–5 and subsequent chapters] All formal security statements (Theorems 5–17) are deferred to the six cited papers; the present text supplies only resource definitions, informal sketches and takeaway claims. While this is appropriate for an HDR synthesis, a journal reader cannot independently verify the load-bearing reductions (detection/insensitivity/correctness → AC security, WCP batch statistics, split-compilation privacy) without consulting the external literature. A short self-contained appendix summarizing the key lemmas, or an explicit statement that the manuscript is not intended to stand alone, would strengthen the submission.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1] Notation for the set of angles Θ and for the flow function f is introduced early but occasionally overloaded (e.g., ϕ′ versus δ). A single consolidated notation table would help.
  2. [Chapters 2 and 5] Figures 2.7–2.9 and 5.1 are helpful but lack captions that explicitly link the pictorial elements (primary/added vertices, trap/dummy/computation labels) to the formal definitions of trappified canvases.
  3. [Front matter] The Foreword and Acknowledgments contain personal and administrative remarks that are customary for an HDR but sit awkwardly in a journal article; they can be shortened or moved to a separate note.
  4. [Bibliography] Several citations appear only as arXiv identifiers or “in preparation”; final bibliographic details should be supplied where available.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

HDR synthesis defers all proofs to prior peer-reviewed works by the author; no self-definitional loops, fitted predictions, or forced uniqueness inside this text.

  1. self citation load bearing [Foreword + Chapter 4 (Framework) + Theorems 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15–17]
    "this manuscript is synthesized from the following works: [LMKO21, KKL+24, KKL+25, KLMO24, GLMO24, KLMO25]. … Rather than duplicating the dense technical proofs of the underlying publications, our focus here is on the physical motivations, the structural connections … Theorem 5. Security and Noise-Robustness of Protocol 4, Theorem 13 from [KKL+24]"

    Every concrete security bound and module property is justified solely by citation to the author’s own prior papers. In an HDR this is expected and does not create a definitional loop, but it does make the present text non-self-contained for the load-bearing claims.

full rationale

The manuscript is explicitly a conceptual synthesis (Foreword, Abstract) of six earlier publications [LMKO21, KKL+24, KKL+25, KLMO24, GLMO24, KLMO25]. Every security theorem (Theorems 1–17), resource definition, and protocol is stated as a consequence of those works; the present text supplies only modular interfaces, physical motivations, and architectural takeaways. No quantity is defined in terms of a later claim, no parameter is fitted to data and then re-presented as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported solely to forbid alternatives. Self-citation is load-bearing only in the ordinary sense that an HDR reviews the candidate’s own results; those results were independently published and peer-reviewed, so they constitute external evidence under the evaluation rules. The sole non-trivial modeling assumption (stochastic compromise events of constant pc for the FT extension) is openly declared (Resource 9, Definitions 13–15) rather than smuggled. Consequently the derivation chain contains no circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central architectural claims rest on the Abstract Cryptography composability framework, the standard MBQC measurement calculus, the existence of suitable graph-state stabilizers without Z operators, a stochastic independent-compromise noise model, and the security of the cited sub-protocols. No free parameters are fitted to data; the invented entities are the modular resources themselves, which are definitional rather than physical postulates.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Abstract Cryptography (Maurer-Renner) composability: sequential and parallel composition of resources preserves security up to additive distinguishing advantage.
    Used throughout to lift local module properties to global SDQC security (Appendix A, Theorems 3–5, 11, 14, 17).
  • domain assumption Any adversarial CPTP map on a UBQC-encrypted computation reduces, via Pauli twirling, to a convex combination of Pauli operators.
    Standard twirling lemma invoked to justify analysing only Pauli deviations for detection/insensitivity/correctness (Section 4.1).
  • standard math For classical-I/O MBQC there exists a non-trivial Pauli deviation (product of Z on odd-degree vertices) that leaves the output distribution invariant.
    Lemma 1–2 / Theorem 8; used to justify dummyless traps that ignore this harmless error.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical imperfections on the verifier side are independent stochastic compromise events of constant probability pc below a fixed threshold.
    Resource 9 and the FT threshold theorem (Chapter 10); required for quadratic suppression of leakage under split-compilation.
  • domain assumption The [[15,1,3]] Reed-Muller code admits transversal Z(θ) and two consecutive EC blocks erase syndrome dependence on secret angles unless both are compromised.
    Definition 13–15 and Theorem 15; load-bearing for private fault-tolerant RSP.
invented entities (3)
  • Trappified canvas / trappified scheme
    purpose: Abstract the placement, acceptance function and distribution of multi-qubit traps so that detection, insensitivity and correctness become local, checkable properties.
    Definitions 3–6; the modular core that lets traps be swapped without re-proving the whole protocol.
  • Remote Rotation with Dephasing (RRD) resource
    purpose: Replace trusted state preparation by trusted Z(θ) + random X on a prover-supplied qubit while restoring θ-independence.
    Resource 5 / Protocol 9; enables the ‘no single-photon source’ verifier.
  • BatchRSP resource constructed from multi-intensity WCPGenerator
    purpose: Guarantee at least one genuine single-photon pulse inside a batch despite multi-photon leakage and loss acknowledgments.
    Resource 7 / Protocol 10; the statistical test that restores composable RSP from weak coherent pulses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Verification of Quantum Computations: Hardware-Efficient Security Proofs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3BO3ZP3E

@misc{pith2026260703983,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Verification of Quantum Computations: Hardware-Efficient Security Proofs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3BO3ZP3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.03983}
}
read the original abstract

How can a user with limited quantum resources verify the output of an untrusted, fully quantum server? This manuscript provides a conceptual synthesis of some recent developments toward answering this question under statistical (information-theoretic) security. Rather than duplicating the dense technical proofs of the underlying publications, our focus here is on the physical motivations, the structural connections between different protocols, and the path toward hardware-efficient implementation. We begin by introducing a modular, composable framework that partitions verification into three distinct, independent primitives: remote state preparation, trap-based deviation detection, and error-correcting embedding. Using this framework, we show how the demanding hardware requirements of early protocols can be systematically relaxed. We review schemes that eliminate the spatial overhead, remove the need to prepare computational-basis dummy states, and replace single-photon sources with trusted local rotations or weak coherent pulses. Finally, we examine how these techniques scale, both to asymmetric multi-party settings and to the delegation of fully fault-tolerant computations in the presence of gate-level noise. This document is intended as a guide to the architectural principles of practical quantum verification.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Interactive proofs for quantum computation

    Dorit Aharonov, Michael Ben-Or, and Elad Eban. Interactive proofs for quantum computation. In Proceedings of Innovations of Computer Science (ICS 2010) , page 453–469, 2010

    2010

  2. [2]

    Interactive proofs for quantum computations

    Dorit Aharonov, Michael Ben-Or, Elad Eban, and Urmila Mahadev. Interactive proofs for quantum computations. arxiv:1704.04487 , 2017. Updated and corrected version of arxiv:0810.5375

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Requirements for a processing-node quantum repeater on a real-world fiber grid

    Guus Avis, Francisco Ferreira da Silva, Tim Coopmans, Axel Dahlberg, Hana Jirovská, David Maier, Julian Rabbie, Ariana Torres-Knoop, and Stephanie Wehner. Requirements for a processing-node quantum repeater on a real-world fiber grid. npj Quantum Information , 9(1), October 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Quantum accuracy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes

    Panos Aliferis, Daniel Gottesman, and John Preskill. Quantum accuracy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes. Quant. Inf. Comput. , 6:97--165, 2006

    2006

  5. [5]

    Vazirani

    Dorit Aharonov and Umesh V. Vazirani. Is Quantum Mechanics Falsifiable? A Computational Perspective on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics , page 329–350. The MIT Press, June 2013

    2013

  6. [6]

    Security Limitations of Classical-Client Delegated Quantum Computing , page 667–696

    Christian Badertscher, Alexandru Cojocaru, Léo Colisson, Elham Kashefi, Dominik Leichtle, Atul Mantri, and Petros Wallden. Security Limitations of Classical-Client Delegated Quantum Computing , page 667–696. Springer International Publishing, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Universal blind quantum computation

    Anne Broadbent, Joseph Fitzsimons, and Elham Kashefi. Universal blind quantum computation. In IEEE, editor, 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , 2009

    2009

  8. [8]

    Generalized flow and determinism in measurement-based quantum computation

    Daniel E Browne, Elham Kashefi, Mehdi Mhalla, and Simon Perdrix. Generalized flow and determinism in measurement-based quantum computation. New Journal of Physics , 9(8):250, 2007

    2007

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Secure multiparty quantum computation with (only) a strict honest majority

    Michael Ben-Or, Claude Crepeau, Daniel Gottesman, Avinatan Hassidim, and Adam Smith. Secure multiparty quantum computation with (only) a strict honest majority. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , FOCS '06, pages 249--260, Wash...

    2006

  2. [10]

    How to verify a quantum computation

    Anne Broadbent. How to verify a quantum computation. Theory of Computing , 14(11):1--37, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Secure multi-party quantum computation

    Claude Cr \'e peau, Daniel Gottesman, and Adam Smith. Secure multi-party quantum computation. In Proceedings of the Thiry-fourth Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing , STOC '02, page 643, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM

    2002

  4. [12]

    Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation

    Christoph Dankert, Richard Cleve, Joseph Emerson, and Etera Livine. Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation. Physical Review A , 80(1), July 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Fitzsimons, Christopher Portmann, and Renato Renner

    Vedran Dunjko, Joseph F. Fitzsimons, Christopher Portmann, and Renato Renner. Composable security of delegated quantum computation. In Palash Sarkar and Tetsu Iwata, editors, Advances in Cryptology -- ASIACRYPT 2014 , pages 406--425, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014. Springer Berlin H...

    2014

  6. [14]

    Grilo, Stacey Jeffery, Christian Majenz, and Christian Schaffner

    Yfke Dulek, Alex B. Grilo, Stacey Jeffery, Christian Majenz, and Christian Schaffner. Secure multi-party quantum computation with a dishonest majority. In Anne Canteaut and Yuval Ishai, editors, Advances in Cryptology -- EUROCRYPT 2020 , pages 729--758, Cham, 2020. Springer In...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Determinism in the one-way model

    Vincent Danos and Elham Kashefi. Determinism in the one-way model. Phys. Rev. A , 74:052310, Nov 2006

    2006

  8. [16]

    Universal blind quantum computing with weak coherent pulses

    Vedran Dunjko, Elham Kashefi, and Anthony Leverrier. Universal blind quantum computing with weak coherent pulses. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 108(200502), 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    The measurement calculus

    Vincent Danos, Elham Kashefi, and Prakash Panangaden. The measurement calculus. J. ACM , 54(2), April 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    Actively secure two-party evaluation of any quantum operation

    Fr \'e d \'e ric Dupuis, Jesper Buus Nielsen, and Louis Salvail. Actively secure two-party evaluation of any quantum operation. In Advances in Cryptology--CRYPTO 2012 , pages 794--811. Springer, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Fitzsimons, Michal Hajdu s s ek, and Tomoyuki Morimae

    Joseph F. Fitzsimons, Michal Hajdu s s ek, and Tomoyuki Morimae. Post hoc verification of quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 120:040501, Jan 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Fitzsimons and Elham Kashefi

    Joseph F. Fitzsimons and Elham Kashefi. Unconditionally verifiable blind quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A , 96:012303, Jul 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Reducing resources for verification of quantum computations

    Samuele Ferracin, Theodoros Kapourniotis, and Animesh Datta. Reducing resources for verification of quantum computations. Physical Review A , 98(2):022323, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Accrediting outputs of noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing devices

    Samuele Ferracin, Theodoros Kapourniotis, and Animesh Datta. Accrediting outputs of noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing devices. New Journal of Physics , 21(11):113038, nov 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Robustness and device independence of verifiable blind quantum computing

    Alexandru Gheorghiu, Elham Kashefi, and Petros Wallden. Robustness and device independence of verifiable blind quantum computing. New Journal of Physics , 17(8):083040, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Composably secure delegated quantum computation with weak coherent pulses

    Maxime Garnier, Dominik Leichtle, Luka Music, and Harold Ollivier. Composably secure delegated quantum computation with weak coherent pulses. In 2024 International Conference on Quantum Communications, Networking, and Computing (QCNC) , page 221–225. IEEE, July 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Multi-pulse protocol for securely preparing a single (qu)bit (in preparation), 2025

    Maxime Garnier, Dominik Leichtle, Luka Music, and Harold Ollivier. Multi-pulse protocol for securely preparing a single (qu)bit (in preparation), 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Direct certification of a class of quantum simulations

    D Hangleiter, M Kliesch, M Schwarz, and J Eisert. Direct certification of a class of quantum simulations. Quantum Science and Technology , 2(1):015004, feb 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Remote blind state preparation with weak coherent pulses in the field

    Yang-Fan Jiang, Kejin Wei, Liang Huang, Ke Xu, Qi-Chao Sun, Yu-Zhe Zhang, Weijun Zhang, Hao Li, Lixing You, Zhen Wang, Hoi-Kwong Lo, Feihu Xu, Qiang Zhang, and Jian-Wei Pan. Remote blind state preparation with weak coherent pulses in the field. Physical Review Letters , 123(10...

    2019

  20. [28]

    Efficient verification of universal and intermediate quantum computing

    Theodoros Kapourniotis. Efficient verification of universal and intermediate quantum computing . PhD thesis, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    On optimising quantum communication in verifiable quantum computing, 2015

    Theodoros Kapourniotis, Vedran Dunjko, and Elham Kashefi. On optimising quantum communication in verifiable quantum computing, 2015. Presented at AQIS'15 conference; arXiv:1506.06943

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Unifying quantum verification and error-detection: Theory and tools for optimisations

    Theodoros Kapourniotis, Elham Kashefi, Dominik Leichtle, Luka Music, and Harold Ollivier. Unifying quantum verification and error-detection: Theory and tools for optimisations. Quantum Science and Technology , 9(3):035036, May 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Asymmetric quantum secure multi-party computation with weak clients against dishonest majority

    Theodoros Kapourniotis, Elham Kashefi, Dominik Leichtle, Luka Music, and Harold Ollivier. Asymmetric quantum secure multi-party computation with weak clients against dishonest majority. Quantum Science and Technology , 10(2):025015, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Verification of quantum computations without trusted preparations or measurements

    Elham Kashefi, Dominik Leichtle, Luka Music, and Harold Ollivier. Verification of quantum computations without trusted preparations or measurements. CoRR , 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Plugging leaks in fault-tolerant quantum computation and verification, 2025

    Theodoros Kapourniotis, Dominik Leichtle, Luka Music, and Harold Ollivier. Plugging leaks in fault-tolerant quantum computation and verification, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Multiparty delegated quantum computing

    Elham Kashefi and Anna Pappa. Multiparty delegated quantum computing. Cryptography , 1(2):1--20, 7 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Optimised resource construction for verifiable quantum computation

    Elham Kashefi and Petros Wallden. Optimised resource construction for verifiable quantum computation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical; preprint arXiv:1510.07408 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Verifying BQP computations on noisy devices with minimal overhead

    Dominik Leichtle, Luka Music, Elham Kashefi, and Harold Ollivier. Verifying BQP computations on noisy devices with minimal overhead. PRX Quantum , 2:040302, Oct 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Classical-communication cost in distributed quantum-information processing: A generalization of quantum-communication complexity

    Hoi-Kwong Lo. Classical-communication cost in distributed quantum-information processing: A generalization of quantum-communication complexity. Physical Review A , 62(1), June 2000

    2000

  30. [38]

    Leung and Peter W

    Debbie W. Leung and Peter W. Shor. Oblivious remote state preparation. Physical Review Letters , 90(12), March 2003

    2003

  31. [39]

    Classical verification of quantum computations

    Urmila Mahadev. Classical verification of quantum computations. In Mikkel Thorup, editor, 59th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2018, Paris, France, October 7-9, 2018 , pages 259--267. IEEE Computer Society, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Constructive cryptography -- a new paradigm for security definitions and proofs

    Ueli Maurer. Constructive cryptography -- a new paradigm for security definitions and proofs. In Sebastian M \"o dersheim and Catuscia Palamidessi, editors, Theory of Security and Applications , pages 33--56, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2012

  33. [41]

    Fitzsimons

    Tomoyuki Morimae and Joseph F. Fitzsimons. Post hoc verification with a single prover. CoRR , 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    QEnclave -- a practical solution for secure quantum cloud computing

    Yao Ma, Elham Kashefi, Myrto Arapinis, Kaushik Chakraborty, and Marc Kaplan. QEnclave -- a practical solution for secure quantum cloud computing. npj Quantum Information , 8(1):128, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Shadow pauli flow: Characterising determinism in mbqcs involving pauli measurements

    Mehdi Mhalla, Simon Perdrix, and Luc Sanselme. Shadow pauli flow: Characterising determinism in mbqcs involving pauli measurements. CoRR , 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Abstract cryptography

    Ueli Maurer and Renato Renner. Abstract cryptography. In Innovations in Computer Science , pages 1 -- 21. Tsinghua University Press, jan 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    A quantum linearity test for robustly verifying entanglement

    Anand Natarajan and Thomas Vidick. A quantum linearity test for robustly verifying entanglement. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC ’17. ACM, June 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Multi-client distributed blind quantum computation with the qline architecture, 2023

    Beatrice Polacchi, Dominik Leichtle, Leonardo Limongi, Gonzalo Carvacho, Giorgio Milani, Nicolò Spagnolo, Marc Kaplan, Fabio Sciarrino, and Elham Kashefi. Multi-client distributed blind quantum computation with the qline architecture, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Robert Raussendorf and Hans J. Briegel. A one-way quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 86:5188--5191, May 2001

    2001

  40. [48]

    Reichardt, Reichardt Falk Unger, and Umesh Vazirani

    Ben W. Reichardt, Reichardt Falk Unger, and Umesh Vazirani. Classical command of quantum systems. Nature , 496:456--460, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Relating measurement patterns to circuits via pauli flow

    Will Simmons. Relating measurement patterns to circuits via pauli flow. CoRR , 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.