- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Highly-entangled, highly-doped states that are efficiently cross-device verifiable

Janek Denzler1, Santiago Varona2, Tommaso Guaita1, and Jose Carrasco1,*

  • *Contact author: jose.carrasco@fu-berlin.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 023320 – Published 27 June, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/b6rb-yr6c

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a class of highly entangled real quantum states that cannot be approximated by circuits with log-many non-Clifford gates and prove that Bell sampling enables efficient cross-device verification (or distributed inner product estimation) for these states. That is, two remote parties can estimate the inner product tr(ρσ), each having black-box access to copies of a state ρ (or respectively σ) in this class. This is significant because it is clear that this task can be achieved in those cases (such as low entanglement or low non-Clifford gate count) where one can independently learn efficient classical descriptions of each state using established techniques and share the description to compute the overlap. Instead, our results demonstrate that this is possible even in more complex scenarios where these “learn and share” methods are insufficient. Our proposal is scalable, as it just requires a number of two-copy Bell measurements and single-copy Pauli measurements that grows polynomially with both the number of qubits and the desired inverse error, and can be implemented in the near term. Moreover, the required number of samples can be efficiently experimentally determined by the parties in advance, and our findings are robust against preparation errors. We anticipate that these results could have applications in quantum cryptography and verification.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (39)

  1. J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Quantum certification and benchmarking, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 382 (2020).
  2. R. O'Donnell and J. Wright, Efficient quantum tomography, in Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '16 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016), pp. 899–912.
  3. M. P. da Silva, O. Landon-Cardinal, and D. Poulin, Practical characterization of quantum devices without tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 210404 (2011).
  4. S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, Direct fidelity estimation from few Pauli measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 230501 (2011).
  5. N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Entropy scaling and simulability by matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030504 (2008).
  6. N.-H. Chia, C.-Y. Lai, and H.-H. Lin, Efficient learning of t-doped stabilizer states with single-copy measurements, Quantum 8, 1250 (2024).
  7. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Learning t-doped stabilizer states, Quantum 8, 1361 (2024).
  8. U. Mahadev, Classical verification of quantum computations, in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE, Paris, France, 2018), pp. 259–267.
  9. Z. Brakerski, V. Koppula, U. Vazirani, and T. Vidick, Simpler proofs of quantumness, in Proceedings of the 15th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2020), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 158 (Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, 2020), pp. 8:1–8:14.
  10. Z. Brakerski, P. Christiano, U. Mahadev, U. Vazirani, and T. Vidick, A cryptographic test of quantumness and certifiable randomness from a single quantum device, J. ACM 68, 1 (2021).
  11. A. Elben, B. Vermersch, R. van Bijnen, C. Kokail, T. Brydges, C. Maier, M. Joshi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Cross-platform verification of intermediate scale quantum devices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 010504 (2020).
  12. J. Carrasco, A. Elben, C. Kokail, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Theoretical and experimental perspectives of quantum verification, PRX Quantum 2, 010102 (2021).
  13. A. Anshu, Z. Landau, and Y. Liu, Distributed quantum inner product estimation, in Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, New York, 2022), pp. 44–51.
  14. J. Knörzer, D. Malz, and J. I. Cirac, Cross-platform verification in quantum networks, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062424 (2023).
  15. W. Gong, J. Haferkamp, Q. Ye, and Z. Zhang, On the sample complexity of purity and inner product estimation, arXiv:2410.12712.
  16. S. Arunachalam and L. Schatzki, Distributed inner product estimation with limited quantum communication, arXiv:2410.12684.
  17. Y. Qian, Y. Du, Z. He, M.-H. Hsieh, and D. Tao, Multimodal deep representation learning for quantum cross-platform verification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 130601 (2024).
  18. M. Hinsche, M. Ioannou, S. Jerbi, L. Leone, J. Eisert, and J. Carrasco, Efficient distributed inner product estimation via Pauli sampling, arXiv:2405.06544.
  19. A. Montanaro, Learning stabilizer states by bell sampling, arXiv:1707.04012.
  20. Here and in what follows, P will denote the probability with respect to the internal randomness of rDIPE for fixed inputs.
  21. A. K. Hashagen, S. T. Flammia, D. Gross, and J. J. Wallman, Real randomized benchmarking, Quantum 2, 85 (2018).
  22. R. Ruiz, A. Sopena, B. Pozsgay, and E. López, Efficient eigenstate preparation in an integrable model with Hilbert space fragmentation, arXiv:2411.15132.
  23. The proof is analogous for arbitrary non-Clifford gates acting on a constant number of qubits.
  24. D. Aharonov, A simple proof that Toffoli and Hadamard are quantum universal, arXiv:quant-ph/0301040.
  25. Y. Shi, Both Toffoli and Controlled-NOT need little help to do universal quantum computation, arXiv:quant-ph/0205115.
  26. J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325 (2016).
  27. A. Dvoretzky, J. Kiefer, and J. Wolfowitz, Asymptotic minimax character of the sample distribution function and of the classical multinomial estimator, Ann. Math. Stat. 27, 642 (1956).
  28. P. Massart, The Tight Constant in the Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz inequality, Ann. Probab. 18, 1269 (1990).
  29. H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Babbush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, and J. R. McClean, Quantum advantage in learning from experiments, Science 376, 1182 (2022).
  30. C. Schmid, N. Kiesel, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, Experimental direct observation of mixed state entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 260505 (2008).
  31. 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, Experimental measurement and a physical interpretation of quantum shadow enumerators, arXiv:2408.16914.
  32. R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. Eric Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, Measuring entanglement entropy in a quantum many-body system, Nature (London) 528, 77 (2015).
  33. D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays, Nature (London) 604, 451 (2022).
  34. D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature (London) 626, 58 (2024).
  35. J. Hauschild, J. Unfried, S. Anand, B. Andrews, M. Bintz, U. Borla, S. Divic, M. Drescher, J. Geiger, M. Hefel et al., Tensor network Python (TeNPy) version 1, SciPost Phys. Codebases 41, 1 (2024).
  36. A. A. Mele, Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner's tutorial, Quantum 8, 1340 (2024).
  37. B. Collins and P. Ŋniady, Integration with respect to the haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic group, Commun. Math. Phys. 264, 773 (2006).
  38. D. Galvin, Three tutorial lectures on entropy and counting, arXiv:1406.7872.
  39. Indeed, TV(qρ′,qρ)⩽∥ρ⊗ρ−ρ′⊗ρ′∥tr/2 since the Bell distribution is the (diagonal) output of a quantum channel acting on two copies of a state, and ∥ρ⊗ρ−ρ′⊗ρ′∥tr⩽2∥ρ−ρ′∥tr.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 023320– Published 27 June, 2025
  • Received 28 January 2025
  • Revised 7 April 2025
  • Accepted 2 June 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation