Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 56 references

Verifiable blind quantum computing: Comparative analysis and design considerations for client architectures

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Two client designs stand out for verifiable blind quantum computing: measurement-based remote state preparation and cavity reflection.

desk verdict Solid multi-axis comparison of VBQC client hardware with usable rate/cutoff formulas; defaults are carefully scoped, not oversold. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05650 v1 pith:33U3I6YD submitted 2026-07-06 quant-ph

Janice van Dam , Jeroen Grimbergen , Stephanie D.C. Wehner This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords verifiableblindquantumcomputingclientarchitecturesmeasurement-basedcomputationremotestatepreparationcavityreflectionnoiserobustnessgraph-statecutoffsmatter-qubitserver
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

Building a quantum computer is expensive, so a thin client device that can safely hand a computation to a remote server without leaking the input, the program, or the answer is valuable. This paper restricts attention to single-server, information-theoretic protocols that use measurement-based quantum computation and a matter-qubit server, then systematically compares every client architecture that fits that scope. Clients are grouped into emission-based, measurement-based, and rotation-based families, with sub-variants that differ in how photons are prepared, measured, or rotated and how they couple back into the server. For each design the authors inventory existing security proofs (composability, noise robustness, generality, overhead), derive attempt success probabilities and expected graph-generation times under memory cutoffs, catalogue dominant error modes, and weigh hardware cost and server requirements. Measurement-based remote state preparation and single-photon cavity-reflection teleportation emerge as the strongest default near-term candidates; they combine access to noise-robust prepare-and-send proofs, relatively mild loss scaling, fewer compounding errors, and no dual-source photon-matching demand. The paper therefore supplies both a ranking and a decision framework so that labs can choose according to the constraints they actually face.

What carries the argument

A three-family taxonomy (emission-based, measurement-based, rotation-based) together with explicit rate formulas (success probability per attempt, time per attempt, expected attempts under qubit-wise or column-wise cutoffs for linear and brickwork graphs) and side-by-side tables of security guarantees, error modes, and hardware requirements that convert qualitative architectural differences into quantitative comparison axes.

What would settle it

Build or simulate a complete end-to-end protocol for a brickwork graph of realistic size under laboratory loss, coherence, and dark-count numbers; if a direct-measurement or multi-pass fixed-gate client finishes with higher verified success rate and lower abort probability than measurement-RSP or cavity-reflection under the same noise, the default ranking is overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the stated scope, client architectures that implement measurement-based remote state preparation or single-photon cavity-reflection interaction are the strongest default candidates for near-term verifiable blind quantum computing, because they simultaneously enjoy noise-robust prepare-and-send security proofs, favorable loss structure, limited compounding error modes, and no dual-source Hong-Ou-Mandel matching requirement; the final choice remains setting-dependent and is guided by the multi-axis comparison the authors provide.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking treats the present absence of noise-robust verification proofs for direct-measurement and fixed-gate clients as a hard near-term filter; if those proofs appear soon, or if honest noise proves milder than assumed, the preference ordering can change.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript provides a comparative analysis of client architectures for single-server, single-client, information-theoretically secure verifiable blind quantum computing (VBQC) based on measurement-based quantum computation with a matter-qubit server. It organizes existing proposals into emission-based, measurement-based, and rotation-based categories (with prepare-and-send vs receive-and-measure roles), then evaluates them along four axes: existing security proofs and overheads (Table I), derived rate expressions including loss, attempt duration, and cutoff-limited graph generation (Table II, Eqs. 1–20, Appendix A), dominant error modes (Table III), and hardware cost/complexity. Under the stated scope and the practical filter of noise-robust prepare-and-send verification, measurement-based remote state preparation and single-photon cavity-reflection clients are identified as strong default candidates, while the authors emphasize that the optimal choice remains context-dependent and supply a multi-axis decision framework rather than a hard ranking.

Significance. This is a timely systems-level contribution for experimental and architectural work on delegated quantum computing. The field has accumulated many client proposals with incompatible assumptions; a carefully scoped taxonomy that ties each architecture to concrete security proofs, rate scalings, and error inventories is useful for near-term hardware choices. Strengths include: (i) explicit, non-overclaimed security mapping with caveats for non-composable or incomplete proofs (Table I); (ii) architecture-specific success probabilities and attempt times (Eqs. 1–20); (iii) a rigorous renewal-process treatment of measure-as-you-go graph generation under qubitwise cutoffs, with closed forms for linear graphs and columnwise bounds for brickwork graphs (Appendix A, Eqs. A19, A51, A63); and (iv) transparent framing that the ranking is literature-status-dependent and context-dependent. The work does not invent free parameters to force a ranking; free parameters (c, p, μ, k, L, α) are physical or protocol inputs. If the comparative framework is adopted, it should help experimental groups prioritize client designs without re-deriving the security and rate landscape from scratch.

major comments (2)
  1. Section IIIB and Table II derive architecture-specific p and t, and Appendix A gives E(K) under cutoffs, but the manuscript never evaluates end-to-end expected round time under a single shared, realistic parameter set (e.g., fixed L, α, p_emit, p_detect, C_i, t_emit, t_switch). The qualitative ranking in §IV (measurement RSP and cavity reflection as strong defaults) therefore rests on structural comparisons (loss exponents, HOM matching, compounding round-trips) plus partial illustrations (transmission-only R_X at L=25 km; brickwork bounds in Figs. 3–4). A compact numerical comparison—even for one metropolitan distance and a few efficiency points—would make the rate axis load-bearing rather than largely structural, and would clarify when rotation-based clients remain competitive at short range.
  2. Section IIIA and §IV treat absence of noise-robust verification as a near-term disqualifier for direct-measurement and fixed-gate clients. That filter is stated transparently and is consistent with the cited literature (e.g., Takeuchi–Morimae on honest noise), but it is load-bearing for the ‘strong default’ claim. The manuscript should state more explicitly what would reverse the ranking (e.g., a composable noise-robust receive-and-measure proof, or a fixed-gate reduction into prepare-and-send with one-time pads), so that the framework remains usable if those proofs appear. This is a framing fix, not a re-derivation.
minor comments (7)
  1. Typo: ‘Leicthel et al.’ should be ‘Leichtle et al.’ (Section IIIA, security overhead discussion).
  2. Capitalization of ‘Hayashi-morimae’ is inconsistent; use ‘Hayashi–Morimae’ throughout.
  3. Table I legend uses filled/open/blue-grey circles; ensure the rendered symbols remain distinguishable in grayscale print and that the ‘caveat’ cases (blue-grey) are cross-referenced to the exact paragraph that explains each caveat.
  4. Equation (3) for the multi-photon factor g is dense; a short sentence stating the regime in which g→1 (μ→0) and when g>1 improves rate at fidelity cost would help non-specialists.
  5. Figure 2 caption and surrounding text discuss mid-point vs end-point heralding; consider adding the corresponding t expressions (Eqs. 12–15) to the figure for quick reference.
  6. In Appendix A, the Mathematica notebook link is useful; please confirm the repository will remain available and that the notebook reproduces Figs. 3–4 from the stated parameters.
  7. The FeMoco estimate (~46 h absolute lower bound at L=25 km) is effective; state explicitly that this ignores security overhead and p≪n_r/c resets so readers do not treat it as a protocol runtime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: comparative framework and rate/error models are built from external parameters and cited security results, not from self-defined predictions.

full rationale

This is a comparative design paper, not a first-principles derivation that claims to predict a fitted quantity. The taxonomy (emission / measurement / rotation; prepare-and-send vs receive-and-measure) is definitional organization of existing protocols. Rate equations (1)–(11) are assembled from standard physical loss and timing parameters (fiber loss α, emission efficiencies, BSM/cavity success probabilities, communication time L/c_fibre). Appendix A derives E(K) for linear and brickwork graphs under cutoffs via renewal processes and Wald’s equation applied to geometric attempts; success probability p and cutoff c are free inputs, not defined by the ranking conclusion. Security comparisons (Table I) rest on external proofs (Leichtle et al., Kapourniotis et al., Fitzsimons–Kashefi, Hayashi–Morimae, etc.) plus the authors’ own prior reductions for WCP and measurement-only clients; those self-citations supply protocol overheads and hardware requirements but do not force the multi-axis ranking by construction. The Abstract and §IV explicitly present measurement-based RSP and cavity-reflection clients as strong defaults under the transparent filter of existing noise-robust prepare-and-send proofs, while stating that the choice remains context-dependent. No equation equates a claimed prediction to a fitted input; no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The comparative ranking rests on standard MBQC/BQC domain assumptions, literature security theorems taken as given, and idealized physical loss/error models. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters appear as model inputs (distance, cutoff, efficiencies, μ, Ci) used for illustration and scaling, not as fitted constants that force the default-candidate conclusion.

free parameters (4)
  • qubitwise cutoff c (attempts)
    Chosen relative to coherence time and p; controls rate–fidelity trade-off and appears in E(K) scalings (Appendix A, Table II). Illustrative values (e.g., c=1000) are hand-chosen for figures.
  • single-qubit success probability p and component efficiencies
    p_emit, η_trans, p_BSM, p_detect, p_gate(Ci), etc. are left symbolic or given example values; comparative ordering depends on regime (e.g., p ≫ nr/c vs p ≪ nr/c).
  • WCP mean photon number μ and gadget size k
    Security overhead and multi-photon correction g depend on μ and k; optimal choice is stated as a non-trivial trade-off, not fixed by data fit.
  • client–server distance L and fiber loss α
    Used for numerical slowdown examples (e.g., L=25 km, α=0.2 dB/km); not fitted to experimental outcomes in this paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Scope restriction to single-server, single-client, information-theoretic, MBQC-based VBQC with matter-qubit servers interfacing to photons.
    Stated in Introduction; excludes multi-server, multi-client Qline, and computational-security classical-client schemes that would change the taxonomy.
  • domain assumption Existing prepare-and-send composable noise-robust security proofs (e.g., Leichtle et al., Kapourniotis et al., Fitzsimons–Kashefi + Dunjko et al.) apply to emission, measurement-RSP, WCP (via reductions), and Z-rotation clients as claimed.
    Table I and §IIIA treat these proofs as given inputs to the comparison.
  • domain assumption Measure-as-you-go graph generation with qubitwise memory cutoffs models realistic decoherence constraints for prepare-and-send clients.
    §IIIB and Appendix A; drives the cn−1 pn vs pn scaling distinction versus direct measurement.
  • domain assumption Linear-optical BSM success ≤1/2, fiber transmission η=10^(−αL/10), and cavity gate success depending on cooperativity Ci are adequate dominant loss models.
    §IIIB loss equations; standard quantum-network modeling assumptions.
  • standard math Renewal-process / Wald equation analysis correctly gives E(K) for failed and successful busy periods under cutoffs.
    Appendix A cites Ross stochastic processes; standard for attempt-based quantum network protocols.
  • ad hoc to paper Noise robustness of verification is a practical near-term requirement that disqualifies protocols that abort under honest noise.
    §IIIA and §IV elevate this criterion to filter direct-measurement and fixed-gate clients; reasonable but policy-like rather than a theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Verifiable blind quantum computing: Comparative analysis and design considerations for client architectures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/33U3I6YD

@misc{pith2026260705650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Verifiable blind quantum computing: Comparative analysis and design considerations for client architectures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/33U3I6YD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05650}
}
read the original abstract

Blind quantum computing (BQC) allows a client to delegate quantum computations to a remote server without revealing the input, computation, or output. In addition to being blind, the client can sometimes also verify that the server has performed their instructions correctly, a property known as verifiability. A key part of realizing such verifiable BQC (VBQC) is choosing the design of the client device: many architectures have been proposed, each with different hardware requirements, security properties, and performance characteristics, making it difficult to identify which is most suitable for a given implementation. In this work, we present a comparative analysis of client architectures for VBQC with a matter-qubit server. We restrict our analysis to single-server, single-client protocols with information-theoretic security based on measurement-based quantum computation. We identify three main categories of client: emission-based, measurement-based, and rotation-based, each with multiple variants depending on how the client interacts with the server. We evaluate each across different dimensions: we compare guarantees of existing corresponding security proofs, we derive equations for the rate at which each client can execute a protocol, we provide an overview of each architecture's error behaviour, and discuss hardware cost and design considerations. Client architectures implementing measurement-based remote state preparation and reflection-based teleportation emerge as strong default candidates, but as the right choice remains context-dependent, we provide a framework for navigating considerations to guide the selection of the most suitable architecture for a given setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05650 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Overview of client architecture taxonomy. Three categories based on client capabilities: Emission-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The time per attempt ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Upper and lower bounds to expected number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Expected number of attempts for generating brickwork graph state with cutoffs. Legend of (a) applies to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Universal blind quantum computation

    Anne Broadbent, Joseph Fitzsimons, and Elham Kashefi. Universal blind quantum computation. In2009 50th an- nual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer sci- ence, pages 517–526. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  2. [2]

    Uncondition- ally verifiable blind quantum computation.Physical Re- view A, 96(1):012303, 2017

    Joseph F Fitzsimons and Elham Kashefi. Uncondition- ally verifiable blind quantum computation.Physical Re- view A, 96(1):012303, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Secure entangle- ment distillation for double-server blind quantum com- putation.Physical Review Letters, 111:020502, Jul 2013

    Tomoyuki Morimae and Keisuke Fujii. Secure entangle- ment distillation for double-server blind quantum com- putation.Physical Review Letters, 111:020502, Jul 2013

    2013

  4. [4]

    Deterministic entanglement distillation for secure double-server blind quantum com- putation.Scientific reports, 5(1):7815, 2015

    Yu-Bo Sheng and Lan Zhou. Deterministic entanglement distillation for secure double-server blind quantum com- putation.Scientific reports, 5(1):7815, 2015

    2015

  5. [5]

    Triple-server blind quantum computation using en- tanglement swapping.Physical Review A, 89(4):040302, 2014

    Qin Li, Wai Hong Chan, Chunhui Wu, and Zhonghua Wen. Triple-server blind quantum computation using en- tanglement swapping.Physical Review A, 89(4):040302, 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Verifiable blind quantum computation with identity authentication for multi-type clients.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2023

    Junyu Quan, Qin Li, and Lvzhou Li. Verifiable blind quantum computation with identity authentication for multi-type clients.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Multi-client distributed blind quantum computation with the qline architecture.Nature Communications, 14(1):7743, 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.Nature Communications, 14(1):7743, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M

    Colin D. Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M. Sage. Trapped-ion quantum comput- ing: Progress and challenges.Applied Physics Reviews, 6(2):021314, 2019

    2019

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Doherty, Neil B

    Marcus W. Doherty, Neil B. Manson, Paul Delaney, Fe- dor Jelezko, Jörg Wrachtrup, and Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg. The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond.Physics Reports, 528(1):1–45, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Quantum computing with neutral atoms.Quantum, 4:327, 2020

    Loïc Henriet, Lucas Beguin, Adrien Signoles, Thierry La- haye, Antoine Browaeys, Georges-Olivier Reymond, and Christophe Jurczak. Quantum computing with neutral atoms.Quantum, 4:327, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Classical verification of quantum com- putations

    Urmila Mahadev. Classical verification of quantum com- putations. In2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 259– 267, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Quantum homomor- phic encryption for circuits of low T-gate complexity

    Anne Broadbent and Stacey Jeffery. Quantum homomor- phic encryption for circuits of low T-gate complexity. In Advances in Cryptology–CRYPTO 2015, pages 609–629. Springer, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Qenclave-a practical so- lutionforsecurequantumcloudcomputing.npj Quantum Information, 8(1):128, 2022

    Yao Ma, Elham Kashefi, Myrto Arapinis, Kaushik Chakraborty, and Marc Kaplan. Qenclave-a practical so- lutionforsecurequantumcloudcomputing.npj Quantum Information, 8(1):128, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Aone-wayquan- tum computer.Physical Review Letters, 86(22):5188, 2001

    RobertRaussendorfandHansJBriegel. Aone-wayquan- tum computer.Physical Review Letters, 86(22):5188, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Mul- tiparty entanglement in graph states.Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 69(6):062311, 2004

    Marc Hein, Jens Eisert, and Hans J Briegel. Mul- tiparty entanglement in graph states.Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 69(6):062311, 2004

    2004

  8. [16]

    Secure assisted quantum computa- tion.Quantum Information & Computation, 5(6):456– 466, 2005

    Andrew M Childs. Secure assisted quantum computa- tion.Quantum Information & Computation, 5(6):456– 466, 2005

    2005

  9. [17]

    Verification of quantum computation: An overview of existing approaches.Theory of computing systems, 63(4):715–808, 2019

    Alexandru Gheorghiu, Theodoros Kapourniotis, and El- ham Kashefi. Verification of quantum computation: An overview of existing approaches.Theory of computing systems, 63(4):715–808, 2019. 18

    2019

  10. [18]

    Verification for measurement- only blind quantum computing.Physical Review A, 89(6):060302(R), 2014

    Tomoyuki Morimae. Verification for measurement- only blind quantum computing.Physical Review A, 89(6):060302(R), 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Verifiable measurement-only blind quantum computing with sta- bilizer testing.Physical review letters, 115(22):220502, 2015

    Masahito Hayashi and Tomoyuki Morimae. Verifiable measurement-only blind quantum computing with sta- bilizer testing.Physical review letters, 115(22):220502, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication

    Phillippe H Eberhard and Ronald R Ross. Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication. Foundations of Physics Letters, 2(2):127–149, 1989

    1989

  13. [21]

    Single-click protocols for re- mote state preparation using weak coherent pulses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14857, 2025

    Janice van Dam, Emil R Hellebek, Tzula B Propp, Junior R Gonzales-Ureta, Anders S Sørensen, and Stephanie DC Wehner. Single-click protocols for re- mote state preparation using weak coherent pulses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14857, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear op- tics.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 71(6):060310, 2005

    Sean D Barrett and Pieter Kok. Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear op- tics.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 71(6):060310, 2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    Measurement- based entanglement under conditions of extreme photon loss.Physical review letters, 101(13):130502, 2008

    Earl T Campbell and Simon C Benjamin. Measurement- based entanglement under conditions of extreme photon loss.Physical review letters, 101(13):130502, 2008

    2008

  16. [24]

    Single photon ab- sorption by a single quantum emitter.Physical review letters, 100(9):093603, 2008

    Dorothea Pinotsi and Atac Imamoglu. Single photon ab- sorption by a single quantum emitter.Physical review letters, 100(9):093603, 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    Analysis of deterministic swapping of photonic and atomic states through single-photon raman interaction

    Serge Rosenblum, Adrien Borne, and Barak Dayan. Analysis of deterministic swapping of photonic and atomic states through single-photon raman interaction. Physical Review A, 95(3):033814, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Scalable photonic quantum computation through cavity-assisted interactions.Phys- ical review letters, 92(12):127902, 2004

    L-M Duan and HJ Kimble. Scalable photonic quantum computation through cavity-assisted interactions.Phys- ical review letters, 92(12):127902, 2004

    2004

  19. [27]

    Passive quantum interconnects: High- fidelity quantum networking at higher rates with less overhead.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01229, 2025

    Seigo Kikura, Kazufumi Tanji, Akihisa Goban, and Shinichi Sunami. Passive quantum interconnects: High- fidelity quantum networking at higher rates with less overhead.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01229, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hardware requirements for trapped- ion-based verifiable blind quantum computing with a measurement-only client.Quantum Science and Tech- nology, 9(4):045031, 2024

    Janice van Dam, Guus Avis, Tz B Propp, Francisco Fer- reira da Silva, Joshua A Slater, Tracy E Northup, and Stephanie Wehner. Hardware requirements for trapped- ion-based verifiable blind quantum computing with a measurement-only client.Quantum Science and Tech- nology, 9(4):0...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Verification of quantum computations without trusted preparations or measurements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10464, 2024

    Elham Kashefi, Dominik Leichtle, Luka Music, and Harold Ollivier. Verification of quantum computations without trusted preparations or measurements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10464, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Blind quantum computation where a user only performs single-qubit gates.Optics & Laser Technology, 142:107190, 2021

    Qin Li, Chengdong Liu, Yu Peng, Fang Yu, and Cai Zhang. Blind quantum computation where a user only performs single-qubit gates.Optics & Laser Technology, 142:107190, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Blind quantum computation with a client performing different single- qubit gates.Chinese Physics B, 32(11):110302, 2023

    Guang-Yang Wu, Zhen Yang, Yu-Zhan Yan, Yuan-Mao Luo, Ming-Qiang Bai, and Zhi-Wen Mo. Blind quantum computation with a client performing different single- qubit gates.Chinese Physics B, 32(11):110302, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Verification of many-qubit states.Phys

    Yuki Takeuchi and Tomoyuki Morimae. Verification of many-qubit states.Phys. Rev. X, 8:021060, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Verifying bqp computations on noisy devices with minimal overhead.PRX Quantum, 2(4):040302, 2021

    Dominik Leichtle, Luka Music, Elham Kashefi, and Harold Ollivier. Verifying bqp computations on noisy devices with minimal overhead.PRX Quantum, 2(4):040302, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Unifying quan- tum verification and error-detection: theory and tools for optimisations.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(3):035036, 2024

    Theodoros Kapourniotis, Elham Kashefi, Dominik Le- ichtle, Luka Music, and Harold Ollivier. Unifying quan- tum verification and error-detection: theory and tools for optimisations.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(3):035036, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Composable security of del- egated quantum computation

    Vedran Dunjko, Joseph F Fitzsimons, Christopher Port- mann, and Renato Renner. Composable security of del- egated quantum computation. InInternational Confer- ence on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security, pages 406–425. Springer, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    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. In2024 Inter- national Conference on Quantum Communications, Net- working, and Computing (QCNC), pages 221–225. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Asymmet- ric quantum secure multi-party computation with weak clients against dishonest majority.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08865, 2023

    Theodoros Kapourniotis, Elham Kashefi, Dominik Le- ichtle, Luka Music, and Harold Ollivier. Asymmet- ric quantum secure multi-party computation with weak clients against dishonest majority.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08865, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Janice van Dam, Michal van Hooft, and Stephanie D.C. Wehner. Optimizing resource costs: A practical guide to achieving target security in verifiable blind quantum computing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.28139, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  31. [39]

    En- tanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 me- ters.Physical Review Letters, 130(5):050803, 2023

    Viktor Krutyanskiy, Maria Galli, Vojtech Krcmarsky, Si- mon Baier, DA Fioretto, Yunfei Pu, Azadeh Mazloom, Pavel Sekatski, Marco Canteri, Markus Teller, et al. En- tanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 me- ters.Physical Review Letters, 130(5):050803, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    The measurement calculus.Journal of the ACM (JACM), 54(2):8–es, 2007

    Vincent Danos, Elham Kashefi, and Prakash Panan- gaden. The measurement calculus.Journal of the ACM (JACM), 54(2):8–es, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    John Wiley & Sons, 1995

    Sheldon M Ross.Stochastic processes. John Wiley & Sons, 1995

    1995

  34. [42]

    Elucidatingreactionmech- anisms on quantum computers.Proceedings of the na- tional academy of sciences, 114(29):7555–7560, 2017

    Markus Reiher, Nathan Wiebe, Krysta M Svore, Dave Wecker, andMatthiasTroyer. Elucidatingreactionmech- anisms on quantum computers.Proceedings of the na- tional academy of sciences, 114(29):7555–7560, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Quan- tum strategies to overcome classical multiplexing limits

    TzulaBPropp, JeroenGrimbergen, EmilRHellebek, Ju- nior R Gonzales-Ureta, Janice van Dam, Joshua A Slater, Anders S Sørensen, and Stephanie DC Wehner. Quan- tum strategies to overcome classical multiplexing limits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06099, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Time-resolvedtwo-photonquantuminterference

    Thomas Legero, Tatjana Wilk, Axel Kuhn, and Gerhard Rempe. Time-resolvedtwo-photonquantuminterference. Applied Physics B, 77(8):797–802, 2003

    2003

  37. [45]

    Directphotoniccouplingofasemiconductor quantum dot and a trapped ion.Physical review letters, 114(12):123001, 2015

    HM Meyer, R Stockill, M Steiner, C Le Gall, Clemens Matthiesen, E Clarke, A Ludwig, J Reichel, M Atatüre, andMKöhl. Directphotoniccouplingofasemiconductor quantum dot and a trapped ion.Physical review letters, 114(12):123001, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic mo- ments in a solid.Physical review, 69(1-2):37, 1946

    Edward M Purcell, Henry Cutler Torrey, and Robert V Pound. Resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic mo- ments in a solid.Physical review, 69(1-2):37, 1946

    1946

  39. [47]

    Veri- fiable blind quantum computing with trapped ions and single photons.Physical Review Letters, 132(15):150604, 2024

    Peter Drmota, David P Nadlinger, Dougal Main, Bethan C Nichol, Ellis M Ainley, Dominik Leichtle, Atul Mantri, Elham Kashefi, Raghavendra Srinivas, Gabriel Araneda, Chris J Ballance, and David M Lucas. Veri- fiable blind quantum computing with trapped ions and single photons.Ph...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Classical homomorphic encryption for quantum circuits.SIAM Journal on Computing, 52(6):FOCS18–189, 2020

    Urmila Mahadev. Classical homomorphic encryption for quantum circuits.SIAM Journal on Computing, 52(6):FOCS18–189, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Computationally-secure and composable remote state preparation

    Alexandru Gheorghiu and Thomas Vidick. Computationally-secure and composable remote state preparation. In2019 IEEE 60th Annual Symposium 19 on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 1024–1033. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    Tools for the analysis of quan- tum protocols requiring state generation within a time window.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12673, 2023

    Bethany Davies, Thomas Beauchamp, Gayane Vardoyan, and Stephanie Wehner. Tools for the analysis of quan- tum protocols requiring state generation within a time window.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12673, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Exact rate analysis for quantum repeaters with imperfect memories and entanglement swapping as soon as possible.Physical Review Research, 5(2):023086, 2023

    LarsKamin, EvgenyShchukin, FrankSchmidt, andPeter Van Loock. Exact rate analysis for quantum repeaters with imperfect memories and entanglement swapping as soon as possible.Physical Review Research, 5(2):023086, 2023. 20 Appendix A: Expected delivery time of graph states with ...

    2023

  44. [52]

    For the graph state generation problem the events are the times at which graph states are successfully delivered, or at which a cutoff condition is violated

    Renewal process formulation A renewal process is a counting process in which the interarrival times of events are independent and identically distributed with an arbitrary distribution [41, Chapter 3]. For the graph state generation problem the events are the times at which gr...

  45. [53]

    Linear graph Consider a linear graph ofnqubits, indexedi= 1, . . . , n. The flow is to generate the qubits in order of increasing index. Let cdenote the qubitwise cutoff on the maximum number of attempts any qubit may be stored in memory. If the next qubit in the flow has not ...

  46. [54]

    We consider a brickwork graph with nr rows andn c columns for a total ofn=n rnc qubits

    Brickwork graph A graph state of particular interest in blind quantum computing is a brickwork graph. We consider a brickwork graph with nr rows andn c columns for a total ofn=n rnc qubits. In the measure-as-you-go flow the qubits are generated from top to bottom in each colum...

  47. [55]

    The reduction in dependencies is achieved by usingcolumnwise cutoffin which the cutoffs are on the number of attempts per column

    Bounds for brickwork graph The idea for obtaining lowerbounds topB andE(B)is to consider more stringent cutoff conditions, and to obtain upperbounds by relaxing the cutoff conditions, in such a way that there are less dependencies between cutoff conditions on different qubits....

  48. [56]

    This gives the brickwork with columnwise cutoffs the same structure as a linear graph with qubitwise cutoffs

    Evaluation of the bounds for brickwork graphs The columnwise cutoffs were introduced to obtain bounds that these would be easier to evaluate than the exact result for qubitwise cutoffs because the columns are independent. This gives the brickwork with columnwise cutoffs the sa...

    2000

Pith tools

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