Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Approximate k-uniform states: definition, construction and applications

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper defines epsilon-approximate k-uniform states, proves Haar-random and shallow-circuit constructions, and derives approximate quantum error-correcting codes from them.

desk verdict A genuinely useful new framework for approximate k-uniform states with a clean Haar-random existence proof, but the advertised no-go for shallow random circuits is not supported and the numerics are not reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19018 v2 pith:NPPSUU3W submitted 2025-07-25 quant-ph

Kaiyi Guo , Fei Shi , You Zhou , Qi Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581P68 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Pp
keywords approximatek-uniformstatesquantumerror-correctingcodesHaarrandomcircuitsunitaryt-designsinformationmaskingabsolutelymaximallyentangledconcentrationofmeasure
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

This paper introduces $\epsilon$-approximate $k$-uniform states, pure states whose $k$-body reduced density matrices are nearly maximally mixed, and argues that these relaxed states replace exact $k$-uniform states in practice. Exact $k$-uniform states are often nonexistent or experimentally inaccessible, while approximate ones are locally indistinguishable from the exact ideal unless a massive number of measurements are made. The paper proves that Haar random states are $\epsilon$-approximate $k$-uniform with probability close to one, and that low-depth random circuits achieve the same under broad parameter choices. It defines approximate quantum error-correcting codes through the same $\epsilon$, shows random subspaces yield codes with linear rate and distance, and argues shallow random circuits cannot match that performance. The results make $k$-uniform resources available under noise and connect them to approximate quantum information masking.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the purity-based definition of approximate $k$-uniformity: a state is $\epsilon$-approximate $k$-uniform when every $k$-body reduced density matrix has purity at most $1/d^k + \epsilon^2$, equivalently Hilbert-Schmidt distance at most $\epsilon$ from the maximally mixed state. The proof machinery combines concentration of measure (Levy's lemma) applied to the reduced purity function, whose Lipschitz constant is bounded by $4$, with an $\epsilon$-net argument that lifts the single-state bound to an entire $K$-dimensional subspace; the circuit construction passes through approximate unitary $t$-designs and a monomial-based deviation bound. Weight enumerators provide the bridge from approximate uniformity to approximate QECCs, and shadow inequalities give non-existence thresholds for approximate AME states.

What would settle it

Construct a family of one-dimensional random circuits of depth $o(nK^2)$, with $K = d^{\Theta(n)}$ and $\delta = \Theta(n)$, that produces an $\epsilon$-approximate pure $((n,K,\delta))_d$ QECC with $\epsilon \to 0$ and high probability; such a family would refute Theorem 9's separation. Alternatively, compute the actual failure probability in Eq. (82) for design orders $t$ below the stated threshold and show it still vanishes, which would break the claimed circuit-depth lower bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that relaxing 'k-uniform' to '$\epsilon$-approximate' turns a fragile, often nonexistent ideal into an abundant resource. Theorem 2 and Corollary 1 state that a Haar random state is an $\epsilon$-approximate $(\alpha n)$-uniform state, with the negative logarithm of the failure probability asymptotically at least $d^n \epsilon^4 / (72\pi^3 \log 2)$, provided $\epsilon = \omega(d^{-n(1-\alpha)/2})$; the failure probability vanishes quickly when $\epsilon = \omega(d^{-n/4})$. Theorem 5 makes $\epsilon$-approximate pure $((n,K,\delta))_d$ QECCs equivalent to code subspaces whose every state is an $\epsilon$-approximate $(\delta-1)$-uniform state. Theorem 8 shows that a random $K$-dimensional subspace is such a code with high probability whenever $K \ll d^n \epsilon^4$, giving linear rate and linear distance, while Theorem 9 shows that a one-dimensional random circuit requires depth $O(nK^2\, \mathrm{poly}(k))$, so shallow circuits cannot produce constant-rate, linear-distance approximate codes.

Load-bearing premise

The no-go claim that shallow random circuits cannot build good approximate codes assumes the $\epsilon$-net failure bound in Eq. (82) is tight enough to force circuit depth to grow with the logical dimension $K$; the proof only rules out the regime where the design order $t$ is as large as $K$, not every smaller $t$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Approximate AME(4,2) states exist with $\epsilon \approx 0.2887$ even though exact AME(4,2) states do not, so the relaxation opens parameter regimes that are closed exactly.
  • A Haar random state on $n$ qudits is an $\epsilon$-approximate $(\alpha n)$-uniform state with $\log$ failure probability at least $\Omega(d^n \epsilon^4)$ under the stated constraints, making such states essentially free in large systems.
  • A random $K$-dimensional subspace is an $\epsilon$-approximate pure $((n,K,\delta))_d$ QECC with high probability whenever $K \ll d^n \epsilon^4$, yielding codes with linear rate and linear distance.
  • Approximate $k$-uniform states are locally indistinguishable from maximally mixed states unless on the order of $2/(d^k \epsilon^2)$ measurements are performed.
  • Low-depth random circuits generate $\epsilon$-approximate $k$-uniform states in linear depth, but the same circuit model cannot produce good approximate QECCs with constant rate and linear distance in shallow depth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the authors leave implicit is that unresolved existence questions for exact AME states become less practically relevant: if the abundance results hold, approximate AME states would inherit most operational value, and the numerical data suggest such states exist in many dimensions.
  • The separation between Haar-random and shallow-circuit approximate QECCs points to a sharp resource distinction: constant-order approximate $t$-designs suffice for uniform states but not for codes, a distinction that could be probed experimentally by measuring code distance versus circuit depth.
  • The no-go strength rests on the technical gap in Eq. (82): a tighter analysis of the $\epsilon$-net bound could either confirm linear-depth-in-$K$ as fundamental or show that much shallower circuits reach good codes.
  • Through the approximate QIM connection, any good approximate code yields approximate masking, which may lead to noise-tolerant secret-sharing protocols; this application is suggested by the paper but not developed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper defines epsilon-approximate k-uniform states, where every k-partite reduced density matrix has purity within epsilon^2 of the maximally mixed value, and shows that such states are locally almost indistinguishable from exact k-uniform states. The main existence results are concentration bounds: Theorem 2 proves that a Haar-random state is an epsilon-approximate k-uniform state with high probability, and Theorem 4 extends this to states generated by low-depth random circuits that form approximate t-designs. The paper also introduces a definition of approximate pure QECCs, proves equivalence with approximate uniform states (Theorem 5), derives weight-enumerator bounds for approximate codes (Theorems 6 and 7), proves existence of good approximate QECCs from Haar-random subspaces (Theorem 8), and connects approximate QECCs with approximate quantum information masking (Theorem 10). Numerical optimization results for small systems are reported in Table I.

Significance. If the central results hold, approximate k-uniform states are a useful and experimentally accessible relaxation of exact k-uniform states, and the connection to approximate QECCs is a valuable conceptual bridge. The paper's positive contributions are substantial: Theorem 2 and Corollary 1 give explicit, parameter-free concentration bounds with stated constants; Theorem 8 extends this to random code subspaces via an epsilon-net argument; Theorems 6 and 7 provide clean weight-enumerator inequalities for approximate codes; and Theorem 10 gives a simple but useful implication for approximate quantum information masking. The numerical table supports the theoretical nonexistence/existence bounds in a small case. However, the advertised no-go claim about shallow random circuits in Section II.F is not supported by the derived inequalities, and Corollary 1 as stated omits a necessary constraint. These issues affect load-bearing claims in the abstract and summary, so the paper needs revision before the results can be accepted as stated.

major comments (5)
  1. [II.F, Eq. (82), Theorem 9, abstract, and Summary] The advertised no-go conclusion that shallow random circuits cannot generate good approximate QECCs is not justified. Equation (82) is a lower bound on -log Prob(fail), i.e. an upper bound on the failure probability; it gives a sufficient condition, t = Omega(K), for the net-based certification argument to have small failure probability. It does not give a lower bound on the failure probability for smaller t, because when the right-hand side of (82) is negative the inequality is vacuous. The sentence 'the circuit depth has to grow exponentially with k' and the abstract/summary claim that random circuits cannot construct codes with linear rate in shallow depth therefore do not follow from the stated inequalities. Please rephrase Theorem 9 and the related claims as positive depth guarantees for the proposed construction, or provide a genuine lower bound on the failure probability of any shallow-circuit construction.
  2. [II.B, Corollary 1, Eq. (20)] Corollary 1 states the asymptotic bound gamma >= d^n epsilon^4/(72 pi^3 log 2) under only the constraint epsilon = omega(d^{-n(1-alpha)/2}). For alpha < 1/2 this condition alone does not force d^n epsilon^4 to diverge; for example, epsilon = d^{-n(1-alpha)/2} log n gives d^n epsilon^4 = d^{n(2 alpha - 1)} (log n)^4 -> 0. Hence gamma = omega(1) and vanishing failure probability are not implied. The text immediately before the corollary correctly requires both epsilon = omega(d^{-n(1-alpha)/2}) and epsilon = omega(d^{-n/4}); the corollary should state both constraints explicitly.
  3. [II.C, proof of Theorem 4, Eq. (44)] In the first case of the proof, after assuming log(1/epsilon') >= (sigma + 1/4) n t log d, the displayed lower bound gamma >= -n S(alpha) + t log epsilon + (n/4) t log d drops the nonnegative term max(0, -log(1/epsilon') + (sigma + 1/4) n t log d). Dropping a positive term strengthens the inequality, so the stated bound is not a valid consequence of Eq. (44) for all parameter choices in that case. The argument works when log(1/epsilon') is chosen so that the max term is O(1), but this choice should be stated explicitly and the lower bound written with the max term retained.
  4. [II.E, Eq. (77), proof of Theorem 8] The step bounding the maximum over the epsilon'-net by |N_C| times a full-space Haar probability is not fully justified as written, because the net N_C depends on the randomly chosen subspace C. The argument can be repaired by constructing N_C as the image under the random isometry of a fixed net of the reference subspace, so that each net element is Haar-distributed over the full space, but this construction should be stated explicitly. As written, the inequality 'Prob(max over net...) <= |N_C| Prob_{|psi>~mu_H}(...)' relies on an unstated property of the net.
  5. [II.F, Theorem 9 statement] The proximity constraint in Theorem 9 is stated as epsilon = omega(d^{-(n-k)/2}), where k = log_d K is the number of logical qudits. However, the proof applies Theorem 4 with alpha = (delta-1)/n, so the needed constraint is on the code distance delta, e.g. epsilon = omega(d^{-(n-delta)/2}), together with epsilon = omega(d^{-n/4}). The statement as written therefore does not match the proof and should be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II.F and Definition 1] The symbol k is used both for the uniformity parameter in Definition 1 and for the logical qudit number k = log_d K in Theorem 9. This overloaded notation is confusing; please use a different symbol, such as r or k_log, for the logical qudit count.
  2. [II.A, Eq. (15)] The displayed denominator surrounding the AME(4,2) example is mis-formatted: 1*2^4 + 6*2^0 + 1*2^4 equals 38, not 76, and the bound is 1/76 = (1/2)/38. Please correct the fraction so that the arithmetic is clear.
  3. [References] Reference [36] lists arXiv:2410.10116 in brackets but arXiv:1609.08172 in the arXiv field, and this number appears again as reference [58]. Please reconcile the reference entries.
  4. [II.B, Corollary 1] The phrase 'given the constraint that epsilon = omega(d^{-n(1-alpha)/2})' in Corollary 1 is inconsistent with the preceding discussion, which also imposes epsilon = omega(d^{-n/4}); please unify the statement, as noted in the major comments.
  5. [II.C, proof of Theorem 4] In Eq. (44), the notation '≃' is used inside a chain of inequalities for -log Prob(fail); please clarify which steps are asymptotic equalities and which are upper or lower bounds, since the direction of the bounds is important for the final depth claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Haar and random-circuit existence proofs rest on independent concentration results, and the only identified flaw (the Section II F no-go inference) is a logical gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The core derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 2 and Corollary 1 derive the abundance of approximate k-uniform states from Levy's lemma with explicit constants, an external Lipschitz bound (Lemma III.8 of Hayden-Leung-Winter), and an exact Haar average purity calculation (Lemma 3); the event 'purity ≤ 1/d_S + ε²' is the definition of approximate uniformity, but the probabilistic bound is independently established and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Theorem 4 likewise applies an external monomial-based deviation bound for approximate t-designs (Loew 2009) and low-depth design constructions (Schuster et al. and other cited work), again without assuming the claim. Theorem 5's equivalence between pure approximate QECCs and approximate uniform states is proved as an iff from Definition 4 and Definition 1, so it is definitional but it does not smuggle in the random-subspace theorem; Theorem 8 uses the standard epsilon-net argument with independent net-cardinality bounds and the purity concentration theorem. Self-citations (Refs. 5, 16, 22, 53) appear only in the introduction or as auxiliary enumerator-circuit facts and are not load-bearing for the central existence or no-go statements. I did examine the advertised shallow-circuit no-go claim in Section II F: Eq. (82) upper-bounds the failure probability, so it cannot by itself establish a depth lower bound, and the stated proof only gives a sufficient design order t = O(K); however, that is a logical gap in the argument rather than a reduction of a prediction to its inputs, a fitted-input-as-prediction step, or a self-citation chain, so under the hard rules it is not counted as circularity. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard concentration, unitary design, and quantum information background results. No parameters are fitted to data to obtain the main theorems; the numerical optimization only reports example values. The no-go depth claim additionally depends on an unstated tightness premise in the epsilon-net argument, which is not established.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Levy's lemma concentration of measure on the sphere, as stated in Lemma III.1.1 of Hayden-Leung-Winter [28], with the Lipschitz constant bound for reduced purity.
    Used in Theorems 2 and 8 to convert the Haar average purity into high-probability bounds for random states and random subspaces.
  • standard math Approximate unitary t-design concentration bound of Low [43], reproduced as Lemma 6.
    Basis for the random circuit construction of approximate k-uniform states and approximate QECCs; the constants and the monomial-error conversion are assumed valid.
  • domain assumption Quantum relative entropy gives a sample-complexity lower bound for quantum state discrimination (Vedral et al. [37,38]).
    Used in Lemma 2 to claim that at least N much greater than 2/(d_S epsilon^2) measurements are needed to distinguish an approximate from an exact uniform state.
  • standard math Shadow inequalities s_T(rho) >= 0 hold for all quantum states (Rains [39]).
    Used in Theorem 1 to prove nonexistence of approximate AME states for small epsilon.
  • domain assumption A subspace is a pure QECC if and only if every codeword is a k-uniform state [4,44].
    Carried to the approximate setting in Theorem 5; this is the bridge from approximate uniform states to approximate QECCs.
  • standard math Shallow random circuits generate epsilon-prime-approximate t-designs with depth O(log(n/epsilon-prime) t polylog(t)), from Schuster-Haferkamp-Huang [27].
    Used in Theorems 4 and 9 to convert design order t into circuit depth.
  • standard math There exists an epsilon-net of size at most (5/epsilon)^{2K} for a K-dimensional subspace, from Hayden et al. [28,54].
    Used in Theorems 8 and 9 to reduce the maximum purity over a subspace to a maximum over a discrete net.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Approximate k-uniform states: definition, construction and applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NPPSUU3W

@misc{pith2026250719018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Approximate k-uniform states: definition, construction and applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NPPSUU3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19018}
}
abstract

$k$-Uniform states are fundamental to quantum information and computing, with applications in multipartite entanglement and quantum error-correcting codes (QECCs). Prior work has primarily focused on constructing exact $k$-uniform states or proving their nonexistence. However, due to inevitable theoretical approximations and experimental imperfections, generating exact $k$-uniform states is neither feasible nor necessary in practice. In this work, we initiate the study of approximate $k$-uniform states, demonstrating that they are locally indistinguishable from their exact counterparts unless massive measurements are performed. We prove that such states can be constructed with high probability from the Haar-random ensemble and, more efficiently, via shallow random quantum circuits. Furthermore, we establish a connection between approximate $k$-uniform states and approximate QECCs, showing that Haar random constructions yield high-performance codes with linear rates, vanishing proximity, and exponentially small failure probability while random circuits can't construct codes with linear code rate in shallow depth. Finally, we investigate the relationship between approximate QECCs and approximate quantum information masking. Our work lays the foundation for the practical application of $k$-uniform states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19018 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The performance of Haar random construction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Description of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Equi-Entropic Maps for Four-Partite Quantum States

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new map built from reshuffling and partial transposition produces four-partite states with exactly equal bipartition entropies, approaching maximal entanglement in large local dimension.

  2. Absolutely maximally entangled pure states of multipartite quantum systems

    quant-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    An updated survey of methods to generate absolutely maximally entangled states, with new analyses of reduced-state entanglement, GHZ superpositions, orthogonal frequency square representations, and local unitary equiv...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    We can calculate the Haar average of this function: 7 FIG

    Proof of Average Purity Define the purity function of |ψ⟩ with density matrix ρ =|ψ⟩⟨ψ| for some subsystem A⊆ [n] as fA(ψ) := Trρ2 A, and we denote B :=Ac so that A,B is a bipartition of the total system. We can calculate the Haar average of this function: 7 FIG. 1. The performance of Haar random construction of ϵ-approximatek-uniform states under large n...

    work page

  2. [2]

    asymptotically greater or equal to

    Note that ∆ = 1 dn−k +O( 1 dn max( 1 dk, 1 dn−k )) under large n limit. Since k <n, we takeϵ≥ √ 2∆ = √ 2(d−(n−k)/2 +O(d−(2n−k)/2)), and use the inequality on combinatorial numbers log n nα ≤nS(α) + log(n + 1)− 1, (18) where S(α) :=−α logα− (1−α) log(1−α) is the Shannon entropy. We have ProbH(success)≥ 1− exp " nS(α) + log(n + 1) + (log 2− 1)− dn 72π3 log ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Select the subsystem size|A| =k, so dA =dk and dB =dn−k, we can prove the concentration result (Theorem 2) on Haar random state|ψ⟩ on dAdB-dimensional Hilbert space: Proof

    Final Proof With the mean and Lipschitz constant of the purity function, taking n qudits and with each local dimension d. Select the subsystem size|A| =k, so dA =dk and dB =dn−k, we can prove the concentration result (Theorem 2) on Haar random state|ψ⟩ on dAdB-dimensional Hilbert space: Proof. (Proof of Theorem 2) By applying Levy’s lemma (see Lemma III.1...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Proof of Upper Bound on Lipschitz Constant Next we find an upper bound for the Lipschitz constant of purity function: 8 FIG. 2. Description of Eq. (29) when ϵ2≥ 2∆. Since Tr ρ2 A < 1 dA is impossible (red region), setting δ = ϵ2− ∆ converts the concentration results centering average value (blue region) to the probability lower bound of event EA (green re...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Q. Zhao, Y. Zhou, and A. M. Childs, arXiv:2406.02379 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    good” approximate QECC can probably be constructed from Haar random unitaries, or even low depth random quantum circuits, with small failure probability. Next we show that “good

    In such conditions we can also construct high-performance k-uniform states within linear circuit depth. D. Approximate QECCs In this section we propose a definition of approximate QECCs based on approximate k-uniform states. We first introduce the notion of QECC. Let {ej}i∈Zd2 (e0 =Id) be an orthogonal basis on linear operators acting on Cd, i.e., Tr(e† i...

    work page

  7. [7]

    A. J. Scott, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052330 (2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    Helwig, W

    W. Helwig, W. Cui, J. I. Latorre, A. Riera, and H.-K. Lo, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052335 (2012)

    2012

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Cleve, D

    R. Cleve, D. Gottesman, and H.-K. Lo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 648 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    Shi, M.-S

    F. Shi, M.-S. Li, L. Chen, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 104, 032601 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    S.-Q. Pang, X. Zhang, X. Lin, and Q.-J. Zhang, npj Quantum Infor. 5, 52 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Horodecki, L

    P. Horodecki, L. Rudnicki, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, PRX Quantum 3, 010101 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    S. A. Rather, A. Burchardt, W. Bruzda, G. Rajchel-Mieldzio´ c, A. Lakshminarayan, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 080507 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    K. Feng, L. Jin, C. Xing, and C. Yuan, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 63, 5618 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Goyeneche and K

    D. Goyeneche and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022316 (2014)

    2014

  8. [17]

    K. Feng, L. Jin, C. Xing, and C. Yuan, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 69, 5845 (2023)

    2023

  9. [18]

    Goyeneche, D

    D. Goyeneche, D. Alsina, J. I. Latorre, A. Riera, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Phys. Rev. A 92, 032316 (2015)

    2015

  10. [19]

    Goyeneche, Z

    D. Goyeneche, Z. Raissi, S. Di Martino, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062326 (2018)

    2018

  11. [20]

    Raissi, A

    Z. Raissi, A. Teixid´ o, C. Gogolin, and A. Ac´ ın, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033411 (2020)

    2020

  12. [21]

    Y. Zang, P. Facchi, and Z. Tian, J. Phys. A-Math. Theor. 54, 505204 (2021)

    2021

  13. [22]

    F. Shi, Y. Shen, L. Chen, and X. Zhang, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 68, 3115 (2022)

    2022

  14. [23]

    Y. Ning, F. Shi, T. Luo, and X. Zhang, arXiv:2503.02222 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Rains, IEEE Trans

    E. Rains, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 45, 2361 (1999)

    1999

  16. [25]

    Higuchi and A

    A. Higuchi and A. Sudbery, Phys. Lett. A 273, 213 (2000)

    2000

  17. [26]

    Huber, O

    F. Huber, O. G¨ uhne, and J. Siewert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 200502 (2017)

    2017

  18. [27]

    Huber, C

    F. Huber, C. Eltschka, J. Siewert, and O. G¨ uhne, J. Phys. A-Math. Theor. 51, 175301 (2018)

    2018

  19. [28]

    F. Shi, Y. Ning, Q. Zhao, and X. Zhang, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 71, 413 (2025)

    2025

  20. [29]

    Sen, Phys

    S. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1–3 (1996)

    1996

  21. [30]

    Huber and N

    F. Huber and N. Wyderka, Table of absolutely maximally entangled states, accessed on 17 May., 2025

    2025

  22. [31]

    Li and Y.-L

    M.-S. Li and Y.-L. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042332 (2019)

    2019

  23. [32]

    LaRacuente and F

    N. LaRacuente and F. Leditzky, arXiv:2407.07876 (2024), 2407.07876 [quant-ph]

    2024

  24. [33]

    Schuster, J

    T. Schuster, J. Haferkamp, and H.-Y. Huang, arXiv:2407.07754 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Hayden, D

    P. Hayden, D. W. Leung, and A. Winter, Commun. Math. Phys. 265, 95–117 (2006)

    2006

  26. [35]

    Zhu, Physical Review A 96, 10.1103/physreva.96.062336 (2017)

    H. Zhu, Physical Review A 96, 10.1103/physreva.96.062336 (2017)

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    Bouland, B

    A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, C. Nirkhe, and U. Vazirani, Nature Physics 15, 159–163 (2018)

    2018

  28. [37]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011)

    2011

  29. [38]

    Zhou and A

    Y. Zhou and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012410 (2022)

    2022

  30. [39]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, Y. Zhou, and A. Hamma, Quantum 5, 453 (2021)

    2021

  31. [40]

    To study the property of Haar random states within the framework of k-uniform states, we can relax the condition to approximate k-uniform states

    have fully investigated the eigenvalue distribution of reduced Haar random states. To study the property of Haar random states within the framework of k-uniform states, we can relax the condition to approximate k-uniform states. With Definition 1 of approximate k-uniform state...

  32. [41]

    Webb, Quantum Information and Computation 16 (2015)

    Z. Webb, Quantum Information and Computation 16 (2015)

    2015

  33. [43]

    Vedral, M

    V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, K. Jacobs, and P. L. Knight, Physical Review A 56, 4452–4455 (1997)

    1997

  34. [44]

    Vedral, Reviews of Modern Physics 74, 197–234 (2002)

    V. Vedral, Reviews of Modern Physics 74, 197–234 (2002)

    2002

  35. [45]

    Rains, IEEE Trans

    E. Rains, IEEE Trans. Infor. Theory 46, 54 (2000)

    2000

  36. [46]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291–1294 (1993)

    1993

  37. [47]

    A. A. Mele, Quantum 8, 1340 (2024)

    2024

  38. [48]

    R. A. Low, Pseudo-randomness and learning in quantum computation (2010), arXiv:1006.5227 [quant-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [49]

    R. A. Low, P. Roy. Soc. A-Math. Phys. 465, 3289–3308 (2009)

    2009

  40. [50]

    Huber and M

    F. Huber and M. Grassl, Quantum 4, 284 (2020)

    2020

  41. [51]

    Schumacher and M

    B. Schumacher and M. D. Westmoreland, Quantum Infor. Process. 1, 5 (2002)

    2002

  42. [52]

    D. W. Leung, M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A 56, 2567–2573 (1997)

    1997

  43. [53]

    Liu and S

    Z.-W. Liu and S. Zhou, npj Quantum Infor. 9, 119 (2023)

    2023

  44. [54]

    J. Yi, W. Ye, D. Gottesman, and Z.-W. Liu, Nat. Phys. 20, 1798–1803 (2024)

    2024

  45. [55]

    G. Liu, Z. Du, Z.-W. Liu, and X. Ma, arXiv:2503.17759 (2025), 2503.17759 [quant-ph]

    2025

  46. [56]

    Shor and R

    P. Shor and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1600 (1997)

    1997

  47. [57]

    Rains, IEEE Trans

    E. Rains, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 44, 1388 (1998)

    1998

  48. [58]

    Miller, K

    D. Miller, K. Levi, L. Postler, A. Steiner, L. Bittel, G. A. L. White, Y. Tang, E. J. Kuehnke, A. A. Mele, S. Khatri, L. Leone, J. Carrasco, C. D. Marciniak, I. Pogorelov, M. Guevara-Bertsch, R. Freund, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, M. Ringbauer, and J. Eisert, arXiv:2408.1...

    2024 arXiv

  49. [59]

    F. Shi, K. Guo, X. Zhang, and Q. Zhao, arXiv:2406.18280 (2024)

    2024

  50. [60]

    Hayden, D

    P. Hayden, D. Leung, P. W. Shor, and A. Winter, Communications in Mathematical Physics 250, 371–391 (2004)

    2004

  51. [61]

    K. Modi, A. K. Pati, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 230501 (2018). 22

    2018

  52. [62]

    P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, M

    D. P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, M. M. Wolf, D. Petz, and M. B. Ruskai, J. Math. Phys47, 083506 (2006)

    2006

  53. [63]

    Harrow, P

    A. Harrow, P. Hayden, and D. Leung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004)

    2004

  54. [64]

    Ma and H.-Y

    F. Ma and H.-Y. Huang, arXiv:2410.10116 (2025), 2410.10116 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.