Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Efficient Verification of Entangled Measurements with Local States
arXiv
Authors: Kun Wang, Masahito Hayashi
Year
2026
Paper ID
69955
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
102
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We develop a framework for quantum measurement verification (QMV) using only local state preparations. For locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements, we prove that symmetry reduces locality constrained QMV to quantum state verification of a single basis state, thereby reducing protocol design to the optimization of homogeneous verification operators. We apply the framework to generalized Bell measurements, single-parameter measurements on two qubits, elegant joint measurements, and stabilizer state induced measurements, and derive explicit local protocols together with closed form verification operators, success probabilities, and sample complexities. We further show that homogeneous QMV protocols can estimate measurement fidelity directly from observed passing frequencies.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We develop a framework for quantum measurement verification (QMV) using only local state preparations.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.