Experimental Verification of Entangled States in the Adversarial Scenario

Chuan-Feng Li; Geng Chen; Gong-Chu Li; Guang-Can Guo; Huangjun Zhu; Wen-Hao Zhang; Xu-Song Hong; Zihao Li

Experimental Verification of Entangled States in the Adversarial Scenario

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Defensive quantum state verification certifies the singlet state even against a malicious source, using 1000 samples to guarantee 97% fidelity at 95% confidence.

desk verdict First experimental demonstration of defensive QSV, with data supporting the central reliability claim; the broad adversarial guarantee leans on cited theory, but the paper is a solid experimental milestone worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10655 v1 pith:53QJJEYU submitted 2025-06-12 quant-ph

Wen-Hao Zhang , Zihao Li , Gong-Chu Li , Xu-Song Hong , Huangjun Zhu , Geng Chen , Chuan-Feng Li , Guang-Can Guo This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumstateverificationadversarialscenarionon-IIDentangledstatessingletPaulimeasurementsfidelitycertificaterandomnumbergenerator

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

The paper is trying to establish that quantum state verification can be made reliable even when the source of entangled states is correlated or adversarial, a situation the standard approach cannot handle. Standard quantum state verification (SQSV) assumes the prepared systems are independent and identically distributed, and the paper shows experimentally that this assumption can lead to fidelity certificates that exceed the true fidelity. Its defensive protocol (DQSV) uses the same local Pauli measurements but certifies the fidelity of the one system left untested, conditioned on the observed test outcomes, and the authors demonstrate that these certificates are reliable and nearly tight for two non-IID states. The headline result is that 1000 samples certify the singlet state at 97% fidelity with 95% confidence, at an efficiency comparable to SQSV when the source is honest.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the homogeneous verification strategy $\Omega = \frac{1}{3}(P^-_{XX}+P^-_{YY}+P^-_{ZZ}) = |\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi| + \lambda(\mathbb{1}-|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|)$ with $\lambda=1/3$, where $P^-_{AA}$ is the projector onto the $-1$ eigenspace of the two-qubit Pauli measurement $A\otimes A$. For any state $\sigma$, the fidelity with the singlet is recovered linearly, $F(\sigma)=(\operatorname{tr}(\Omega\sigma)-\lambda)/(1-\lambda)$, so pass probabilities translate directly into certificate bounds. In DQSV, the certificate $F^D_\lambda(k,N,\delta)$ minimizes the conditional fidelity of the unmeasured system over all permutation-invariant states on $N+1$ systems given at most $k$ failures in $N$ random tests; the explicit formula is Proposition B1, which the paper takes from Theorem S1 of Ref. [60]. In the experiment, Alice's choice of $\{XX,YY,ZZ\}$ is switched at 1 MHz by a quantum random-number generator while Bob modulates at 1 kHz, effectively guaranteeing the random ordering that underlies the permutation-invariant analysis.

What would settle it

One concrete test would be to numerically search (for small N, say N=5) over permutation-invariant two-qubit states ρ on the N+1 systems and compare the exact conditional fidelity F_k(ρ) with the certificate F^D_λ(k,N,δ) from Proposition B1; any state with F_k(ρ) < F^D_λ(k,N,δ) for some k and δ would refute the claim. Equally, the authors could let Bob implement a memory attack correlated with the QRNG outputs and check whether the DQSV certificate still holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that defensive quantum state verification (DQSV) can certify the fidelity of a two-qubit singlet state even when the state-preparation source is correlated or malicious, whereas standard quantum state verification (SQSV) cannot. The authors demonstrate this with a high-speed photonic apparatus in which quantum-random-number generators choose Bob's attack phases and Alice's Pauli measurements. Testing two non-IID states, they find that SQSV certificates are repeatedly violated, while DQSV certificates consistently sit slightly below the measured conditional fidelities. They further show that when Bob is honest, the guaranteed infidelity of DQSV scales as $N^{-1}$ in the first 100 tests, comparable to SQSV, and that 1000 samples certify at least 97% fidelity with 95% confidence.

Load-bearing premise

The general claim that DQSV works for every non-IID or adversarial source rests on Proposition B1, which the paper imports from Ref. [60] without proof, and the experiment tests only two specific correlated states, so a state not of the tested forms could in principle violate the certificate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Standard QSV certificates are unreliable for correlated sources and can be significantly violated, whereas DQSV certificates remain reliable for the tested states.
One thousand samples suffice to certify at least 97% fidelity of the singlet at 95% confidence in the adversarial scenario.
DQSV can be as efficient as SQSV for honest sources, with infidelity certificates scaling as $N^{-1}$ in the first 100 tests.
The same homogeneous strategy works both for verification and for fidelity estimation, enabling a direct experimental benchmark of the true fidelity.
Because DQSV tolerates some test failures (k≥0), it remains usable with realistic imperfect state preparation rather than requiring all N tests to pass.

Reading between the lines

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

The experiment validates DQSV for two specific correlated states, so the general claim for all non-IID sources is not independently proven by this experiment; it rests on the cited theorem in Ref. [60].
The same recipe could be extended to other target states, such as graph states or hypergraph states, for which homogeneous strategies exist, potentially enabling adversarial verification in blind measurement-based quantum computing.
A natural stress test would be to let Bob adapt his modulation based on Alice's previously observed outcomes or to use a memory attack, and check whether the DQSV certificate still holds; the current speed advantage of the QRNG is one practical defense that could be quantified.
The linear connection between fidelity estimation and verification suggests that DQSV could serve as a continuous benchmarking tool for drifting quantum sources, not just an acceptance test.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the first experiment implementing defensive quantum state verification under non-IID/adversarial conditions. The setup is serious: QRNG-controlled measurements at 1 MHz against a 1 kHz adversary. The data show standard QSV certificates can overshoot the measured true fidelity for correlated sources, while DQSV certificates bound it from below, and the honest-source efficiency comparison is fair. For quantum verification, that is a meaningful milestone. The paper does several things well. It tests two natural correlated-state attacks rather than a toy case. The true fidelity benchmark uses Eq. (2), an identity, not a fit, so the comparison is honest. The scaling plots showing both protocols as 1/N in the first 100 tests are useful, and the 1000-sample/97%/95% claim is supported by the data if the underlying theorem holds. The soft spots are real but not load-bearing. The DQSV certificate rests entirely on Proposition B1, whose proof is cited to Theorem S1 of Ref. [60]. That is normal for an experimental paper, but it means the broad 'all non-IID/adversarial scenarios' claim is imported from prior theory and the experiment itself tests only two states. Fine for a demonstration; the abstract should not oversell. Second, in Figs. 3 and 4 the significance level is set to the measured p_k, so the plotted certificates inherit statistical fluctuations that are not propagated. That is a presentation gap, not a protocol flaw. Third, raw data and analysis code are not provided, making independent checks harder. A minor issue: Proposition A1 can return a negative fidelity for small N where the binomial tail is not small enough; it needs a floor at zero, though it does not affect the plotted regimes. Who is this for? Quantum verification specialists will get real value; outsiders will find it readable. I would send it to peer review, with a request for raw data, an explicit domain-of-validity statement for Proposition A1, and a note on uncertainty propagation. The stress-test worry about Proposition B1 being unproved here is not a reason to reject; it is a citation to prior work, and the experiment does not claim to prove theory.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports an experimental demonstration of defensive quantum state verification (DQSV) for a two-qubit photonic singlet, using a homogeneous Pauli strategy with λ=1/3 and high-speed QRNG-controlled measurements. The authors prepare two correlated/adversarial sources, ρ1 (a mixture of all-singlet and all-maximally-mixed blocks) and ρ2 (a permutation-invariant state with one phase-rotated singlet placed at random), and compare standard QSV (SQSV) certificates with DQSV certificates. They find that SQSV certificates exceed the measured true fidelity in these non-IID cases, while DQSV certificates lie below the measured conditional fidelity of the remaining system. For an honest source, they also show that the DQSV infidelity certificate scales as N^{-1} similarly to SQSV. The DQSV certificate formula is stated in Proposition B1 and attributed to Theorem S1 of Ref. [60]; the SQSV formula is given in Proposition A1.

Significance. If the theoretical certificates are correct, the paper provides a valuable practical demonstration that adversarial-scenario state verification can be nearly as sample-efficient as IID verification. Its strengths include a clean, parameter-free benchmark via the exact identity Eq. (2), the use of two independent QRNGs to realize random measurements faster than the source modulation, and an explicit demonstration that SQSV can fail on correlated sources while DQSV remains reliable. The paper does not introduce new theory; its contribution is the experimental validation of the robust DQSV recipe from Ref. [60] for the singlet. The universality claim across all non-IID scenarios is inherited from the cited theorem rather than established by the data alone, and the manuscript should make that separation explicit.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix A, Proposition A1] The formula F^S_λ(k,N,δ) = 1 - ν^{-1}J(N,k,δ) is not valid as stated, because for parameters with ν^{-1}J(N,k,δ)>1 it returns a negative fidelity (e.g., N=2, k=1, δ=0.05 gives J=sqrt(0.95)≈0.975 and ν^{-1}J≈1.46). The proof of Eqs. (A8)-(A10) implicitly assumes ν^{-1}J≤1; the maximization over infidelities must be restricted to [0,1]. The correct statement is F^S_λ = max{0, 1-ν^{-1}J(N,k,δ)}. This does not affect the plotted parameter regimes, but the proposition should be corrected.
[Section IV (Summary) and Abstract] The wording 'our DQSV protocol can successfully defend against various attacks from a correlated or even malicious source' goes beyond what the data alone show: the experiments test the two families ρ1 and ρ2, while the universal guarantee is a theoretical statement inherited from Proposition B1 (Theorem S1 of Ref. [60]). Please qualify the conclusion to make clear that the data validate the certificate for representative attacks and that the universality rests on the cited theorem.
[Section III B, Figs. 3-4] The DQSV and SQSV certificates are computed with δ set to the empirically estimated pk(ρ) without propagating the sampling uncertainty in pk. Because the certificate is monotone in δ, an overestimate of pk would make the certificate artificially high. The reported margins appear large enough that the conclusion is likely robust, but the paper should state this explicitly or add confidence bands to the certificate curves.
[Section III C, Fig. 5] The statement that both ϵD and ϵS scale as N^{-1} within the first 100 tests should be qualified: the N^{-1} behavior holds for the observed k being small compared with N, whereas for k close to N the certificate can be trivial. The text later acknowledges the role of k/N, but the sentence as written is too sweeping.
[Eq. (5) and Eq. (6)] In the expressions (11/4)^{⊗(N+1)}, the symbol '11' appears to be a typesetting artifact for the identity operator; please ensure it is rendered as \mathbb{1}/4.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

DQSV reliability claims in Figs. 3–4 are enforced by choosing δ from the measured p_k, so the certificate lower bound is definitional.

fitted input called prediction [Section III.B 'Verification in the non-IID scenario', paragraph after Eq. (5), where δ is set to p_k(ρ1)]
"In both cases, the verification procedures are repeated 200 times to determine the probability p_k(ρ1) of observing at most k failures among the N tests. The guaranteed fidelities provided by SQSV and DQSV are determined by Eqs. (3) and (4) with δ=p_k(ρ1) and are shown as curves in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), respectively."

F^D_λ(k,N,δ) is defined in Eq. (4) as the minimum of F_k(ρ) over all permutation-invariant ρ with p_k(ρ) ≥ δ. For the experimentally prepared ρ1 (and similarly ρ2), the paper sets δ to the measured p_k(ρ1), so ρ1 itself lies in the minimization set. Consequently, the inequality F_k(ρ1) ≥ F^D_λ(k,N,δ) holds by the definition of the minimum, assuming Proposition B1 evaluates it correctly; it does not require experimental confirmation. The 'reliable' part of the DQSV certificate in Figs. 3(b), 4(b), and 4(d) is therefore not an independent empirical prediction but a definitional consequence of Eq. (4) combined with a data-dependent choice of δ. Only the tightness of the bound and the correctness of Proposition B1 remain as genuinely empirical or external content.

full rationale

The headline 1000-sample/97% fidelity certificate is an evaluation of Proposition B1 using the observed number of failures k, with no parameter fitted to make the certificate match an independently measured fidelity, so that claim is not circular. The main circular element is in the experimental demonstration of DQSV reliability for the correlated states ρ1 and ρ2: the confidence parameter δ is chosen equal to the empirically measured acceptance probability p_k of the very state under test, which places that state inside the feasible set of the minimization in Eq. (4). The certificate F^D is then a lower bound on the conditional fidelity of that state by construction, making the observed 'reliable' certificate a tautology rather than a test. The paper's reliance on Proposition B1, attributed to Theorem S1 of the authors' own Ref. [60], is a load-bearing self-citation and a correctness risk because the theorem is not proved here and only two specific states are probed, but it is not itself circular: Ref. [60] is a cited prior theorem rather than a conclusion derived from the present data. A minor non-circular correctness issue is that Proposition A1 lacks a max(0,·) floor, so for very small N it can return a negative 'fidelity'; this does not affect the plotted large-N regimes. Overall, the central adversarial-verification claim retains independent theoretical content, but a key part of the experimental validation reduces to the definition of the certificate.

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

The central claim depends on no fitted parameters. The paper inherits two theoretical results from the same group's earlier papers: the certificate formula (Prop B1) and the permutation-invariance reduction. It also assumes the implemented measurement matches the ideal Omega. These are external inputs, not invented entities.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Proposition B1 (the DQSV fidelity certificate formula) is correct as stated, following from Theorem S1 of Ref. [60].
The experiment computes all DQSV certificates with this formula; no proof is given in this paper, only a citation to the authors' prior work.
standard math Without loss of generality, the adversarial joint state rho can be assumed permutation-invariant because Alice randomly chooses the N tested systems.
Invoked in Section II B; the random selection symmetrizes the state. Standard in quantum de Finetti arguments.
domain assumption The experimentally implemented measurement strategy corresponds to Omega = (P^-_XX + P^-_YY + P^-_ZZ)/3, so Eq. (2) holds for fidelity estimation.
Used throughout Section III to estimate true fidelities; alignment and calibration errors could make the effective Omega differ from ideal.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental Verification of Entangled States in the Adversarial Scenario." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/53QJJEYU

@misc{pith2026250610655,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental Verification of Entangled States in the Adversarial Scenario},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/53QJJEYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10655}
}

read the original abstract

Efficient verification of entangled states is crucial to many applications in quantum information processing. However, the effectiveness of standard quantum state verification (QSV) is based on the condition of independent and identical distribution (IID), which impedes its applications in many practical scenarios. Here we demonstrate a defensive QSV protocol, which is effective in all kinds of non-IID scenarios, including the extremely challenging adversarial scenario. To this end, we build a high-speed preparation-and-measurement apparatus controlled by quantum random-number generators. Our experiments clearly show that standard QSV protocols often provide unreliable fidelity certificates in non-IID scenarios. In sharp contrast, the defensive QSV protocol based on a homogeneous strategy can provide reliable and nearly tight fidelity certificates at comparable high efficiency, even under malicious attacks. Moreover, our scheme is robust against the imperfections in a realistic experiment, which is very appealing to practical applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10655 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Verification of the correlated state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Verification precisions achieved by SQSV and DQSV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[60]

Z. Li, H. Zhu, and M. Hayashi, Robust and efficient verifi- cation of graph states in blind measurement-based quan- tum computation, npj Quantum Inf.9, 115 (2023)

work page 2023
[1]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky- 8 Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

work page 1993
[2]

Bouwmeester, J.-W

D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. We- infurter, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental quantum tele- portation, Nature390, 575 (1997)

1997
[3]

Gisin, G

N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quan- tum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

2002
[4]

Portmann and R

C. Portmann and R. Renner, Security in quantum cryp- tography, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 025008 (2022)

2022
[5]

Raussendorf and H

R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

2001
[6]

Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

2018
[7]

Eisert, D

J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Quantum certifi- cation and benchmarking, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 382 (2020)

2020

Show all 61 references

[8]

Kliesch and I

M. Kliesch and I. Roth, Theory of quantum system cer- tification, PRX Quantum2, 010201 (2021)

2021
[9]

Carrasco, A

J. Carrasco, A. Elben, C. Kokail, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Theoretical and experimental perspectives of quantum verification, PRX Quantum2, 010102 (2021)

2021
[10]

Morris, V

J. Morris, V. Saggio, A. Gočanin, and B. Dakić, Quan- tum verification and estimation with few copies, Adv. Quantum Technol.5, 2100118 (2022)

2022
[11]

X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, and O. Gühne, Statistical methods for quantum state verification and fidelity estimation, Adv. Quantum Technol.5, 2100126 (2022)

2022
[12]

Gočanin, I

A. Gočanin, I. Šupić, and B. Dakić, Sample-efficient device-independent quantum state verification and cer- tification, PRX Quantum3, 010317 (2022)

2022
[13]

K. J. Resch, P. Walther, and A. Zeilinger, Full charac- terization of a three-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state using quantum state tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 070402 (2005)

2005
[14]

Häffner, W

H. Häffner, W. Hänsel, C. Roos, J. Benhelm, D. Chek- al Kar, M. Chwalla, T. Körber, U. Rapol, M. Riebe, P. Schmidt,et al., Scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ions, Nature438, 643 (2005)

2005
[15]

A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Continuous-variable optical quantum-state tomography, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 299 (2009)

2009
[16]

Sugiyama, P

T. Sugiyama, P. S. Turner, and M. Murao, Precision- guaranteed quantum tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 160406 (2013)

2013
[17]

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

2011
[18]

M. P. da Silva, O. Landon-Cardinal, and D. Poulin, Prac- tical characterization of quantum devices without tomog- raphy, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 210404 (2011)

2011
[19]

Zhang, M

X. Zhang, M. Luo, Z. Wen, Q. Feng, S. Pang, W. Luo, and X. Zhou, Direct fidelity estimation of quantum states using machine learning, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 130503 (2021)

2021
[20]

Pallister, N

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

2018
[21]

Zhu and M

H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, General framework for verifying pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario, Phys. Rev. A100, 062335 (2019)

2019
[22]

Hayashi, K

M. Hayashi, K. Matsumoto, and Y. Tsuda, A study of LOCC-detection of a maximally entangled state using hypothesis testing, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.39, 14427 (2006)

2006
[23]

Gluza, M

M. Gluza, M. Kliesch, J. Eisert, and L. Aolita, Fidelity witnesses for fermionic quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 190501 (2018)

2018
[24]

Zhu and M

H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Optimal verification and fidelity estimation of maximally entangled states, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052346 (2019)

2019
[25]

Wang and M

K. Wang and M. Hayashi, Optimal verification of two- qubit pure states, Phys. Rev. A100, 032315 (2019)

2019
[26]

Li, Y.-G

Z. Li, Y.-G. Han, and H. Zhu, Efficient verification of bipartite pure states, Phys. Rev. A100, 032316 (2019)

2019
[27]

X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, and O. Gühne, Optimal verification of general bipartite pure states, npj Quantum Inf.5, 112 (2019)

2019
[28]

Zhu and M

H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Efficient verification of hyper- graph states, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 054047 (2019)

2019
[29]

Liu, X.-D

Y.-C. Liu, X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, H. Zhu, and X. Zhang, Efficient verification of Dicke states, Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 044020 (2019)

2019
[30]

Dangniam, Y.-G

N. Dangniam, Y.-G. Han, and H. Zhu, Optimal verifica- tion of stabilizer states, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043323 (2020)

2020
[31]

Li, Y.-G

Z. Li, Y.-G. Han, and H. Zhu, Optimal verification of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilingerstates,Phys.Rev.Appl.13, 054002 (2020)

2020
[32]

Li, Y.-G

Z. Li, Y.-G. Han, H.-F. Sun, J. Shang, and H. Zhu, Verifi- cation of phased Dicke states, Phys. Rev. A103, 022601 (2021)

2021
[33]

Y.-C. Liu, J. Shang, and X. Zhang, Efficient verification of entangled continuous-variable quantum states with lo- cal measurements, Phys. Rev. Res.3, L042004 (2021)

2021
[34]

Y.-D. Wu, G. Bai, G. Chiribella, and N. Liu, Efficient verification of continuous-variable quantum states and devices without assuming identical and independent op- erations, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 240503 (2021)

2021
[35]

T. Chen, Y. Li, and H. Zhu, Efficient verification of Affleck-Kennedy-Lieb-Tasaki states, Phys. Rev. A107, 022616 (2023)

2023
[36]

H. Zhu, Y. Li, and T. Chen, Efficient Verification of Ground States of Frustration-Free Hamiltonians, Quan- tum8, 1221 (2024)

2024
[37]

Zhang, C

W.-H. Zhang, C. Zhang, Z. Chen, X.-X. Peng, X.-Y. Xu, P. Yin, S. Yu, X.-J. Ye, Y.-J. Han, J.-S. Xu,et al., Ex- perimental optimal verification of entangled states using localmeasurements,Phys.Rev.Lett.125,030506(2020)

2020
[38]

Zhang, X

W.-H. Zhang, X. Liu, P. Yin, X.-X. Peng, G.-C. Li, X.-Y. Xu, S.Yu, Z.-B.Hou, Y.-J.Han, J.-S.Xu,et al.,Classical communication enhanced quantum state verification, npj Quantum Inf.6, 103 (2020)

2020
[39]

Jiang, K

X. Jiang, K. Wang, K. Qian, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, L. Lu, L. Xia, F. Song, S. Zhu, and X. Ma, Towards the stan- dardization of quantum state verification using optimal strategies, npj Quantum Inf.6, 90 (2020)

2020
[40]

L. Xia, L. Lu, K. Wang, X. Jiang, S. Zhu, and X. Ma, Ex- perimental optimal verification of three-dimensional en- tanglement on a silicon chip, New J. Phys.24, 095002 (2022)

2022
[41]

Google Quantum AI, Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction, Nature595, 383 (2021)

2021
[42]

Z. Zhou, R. Sitler, Y. Oda, K. Schultz, and G. Quiroz, Quantum crosstalk robust quantum control, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 210802 (2023)

2023
[43]

S. J. van Enk, N. Lütkenhaus, and H. J. Kimble, Exper- imental procedures for entanglement verification, Phys. Rev. A75, 052318 (2007). 9

2007
[44]

Zhu and M

H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Efficient verification of pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 260504 (2019)

2019
[45]

Hayashi and T

M. Hayashi and T. Morimae, Verifiable measurement- only blind quantum computing with stabilizer testing, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 220502 (2015)

2015
[46]

Morimae and K

T. Morimae and K. Fujii, Blind quantum computation protocol in which Alice only makes measurements, Phys. Rev. A87, 050301 (2013)

2013
[47]

Fujii and M

K. Fujii and M. Hayashi, Verifiable fault tolerance in measurement-based quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 96, 030301 (2017)

2017
[48]

Hayashi and M

M. Hayashi and M. Hajdušek, Self-guaranteed measurement-based quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A97, 052308 (2018)

2018
[49]

Takeuchi, A

Y. Takeuchi, A. Mantri, T. Morimae, A. Mizutani, and J. F. Fitzsimons, Resource-efficient verification of quan- tum computing using Serfling’s bound, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 27 (2019)

2019
[50]

C.M.Caves, C.A.Fuchs,andR.Schack,Unknownquan- tum states: The quantum de Finetti representation, J. Math. Phys.43, 4537 (2002)

2002
[51]

Christandl, R

M. Christandl, R. König, G. Mitchison, and R. Renner, One-and-a-half quantum de Finetti theorems, Commun. Math. Phys.273, 473 (2007)

2007
[52]

Renner, Symmetry of large physical systems implies independence of subsystems, Nat

R. Renner, Symmetry of large physical systems implies independence of subsystems, Nat. Phys.3, 645 (2007)

2007
[53]

Li and G

K. Li and G. Smith, Quantum de Finetti theorem under fully-one-way adaptive measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 160503 (2015)

2015
[54]

Christandl and R

M. Christandl and R. Renner, Reliable quantum state tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 120403 (2012)

2012
[55]

S. J. van Enk and R. Blume-Kohout, When quantum tomography goes wrong: drift of quantum sources and other errors, New J. Phys.15, 025024 (2013)

2013
[56]

J. M. Arrazola, O. Gittsovich, J. M. Donohue, J. Lavoie, K. J. Resch, and N. Lütkenhaus, Reliable entanglement verification, Phys. Rev. A87, 062331 (2013)

2013
[57]

Morimae, Y

T. Morimae, Y. Takeuchi, and M. Hayashi, Verification of hypergraph states, Phys. Rev. A96, 062321 (2017)

2017
[58]

Takeuchi and T

Y. Takeuchi and T. Morimae, Verification of many-qubit states, Phys. Rev. X8, 021060 (2018)

2018
[59]

Fawzi, R

O. Fawzi, R. Kueng, D. Markham, and A. Oufkir, Learn- ingpropertiesofquantumstateswithouttheIIDassump- tion, Nat. Commun.15, 9677 (2024)

2024
[61]

H. Zhu, Z. Li, and M. Hayashi, Nearly tight uni- versal bounds for the binomial tail probabilities, arXiv:2211.01688 (2022)

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [60]

Z. Li, H. Zhu, and M. Hayashi, Robust and efficient verifi- cation of graph states in blind measurement-based quan- tum computation, npj Quantum Inf.9, 115 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [1]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky- 8 Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

work page 1993

[3] [2]

Bouwmeester, J.-W

D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. We- infurter, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental quantum tele- portation, Nature390, 575 (1997)

1997

[4] [3]

Gisin, G

N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quan- tum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

2002

[5] [4]

Portmann and R

C. Portmann and R. Renner, Security in quantum cryp- tography, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 025008 (2022)

2022

[6] [5]

Raussendorf and H

R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

2001

[7] [6]

Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

2018

[8] [7]

Eisert, D

J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Quantum certifi- cation and benchmarking, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 382 (2020)

2020