quantum-computing

Hamiltonian Property Testing

Andreas Bluhm, Matthias C. Caro, and Aadil Oufkir

36 min read

0 likes

⚡ Quantum Brief

Researchers introduced the first rigorous framework for testing Hamiltonian locality, addressing a critical gap in quantum physics. Their work enables verifying whether an unknown Hamiltonian is k-local or far from all such Hamiltonians using only time-evolution access. The choice of distance metric proves pivotal: worst-case operator norm testing requires exponential resources (Ω(2ⁿ) queries), while average-case Frobenius norm allows efficient, scalable testing with randomized measurements and short evolution times. A novel incoherent algorithm achieves sample-, time-, and computational efficiency under the Frobenius norm, extending beyond locality to test sparsity, interaction graphs, and other Hamiltonian properties with modest experimental demands. The study establishes a fundamental separation: while testing Hamiltonian properties can be efficient, learning general Hamiltonians remains exponentially hard, even under average-case metrics, highlighting testing’s practical advantage for large systems. This work pioneers Hamiltonian property testing as a distinct research field, offering scalable diagnostic tools for quantum devices and complementing Hamiltonian learning by enabling assumption verification before costly simulations.

AI Audio Summary

0:00 / 0:00

Click to play

Quantum News · Media Library

Understand this faster with AI

Ask ChatGPT

Research with Perplexity

Explain with Claude

Discuss on Grok

AbstractLocality is a fundamental feature of many physical time evolutions. Assumptions on locality and related structural properties also underlie recently proposed procedures for learning an unknown Hamiltonian from access to the induced time evolution. However, no protocols to rigorously test whether an unknown Hamiltonian is local were known. We investigate Hamiltonian locality testing as a property testing problem, where the task is to determine whether an unknown $n$-qubit Hamiltonian $H$ is $k$-local or $\varepsilon$-far from all $k$-local Hamiltonians, given access to the time evolution along $H$. First, we emphasize the importance of the chosen distance measure: With respect to the operator norm, a worst-case distance measure, incoherent quantum locality testers require $\tilde{\Omega}(2^n)$ many time evolution queries and an expected total evolution time of $\tilde{\Omega}(2^n / \varepsilon)$, and even coherent testers need $\Omega(2^{n/2})$ many queries and $\Omega(2^{n/2}/\varepsilon)$ total evolution time. In contrast, when distances are measured according to the normalized Frobenius norm, corresponding to an average-case distance, we give a sample-, time-, and computationally efficient incoherent Hamiltonian locality testing algorithm based on randomized measurements. In fact, our procedure can be used to simultaneously test a wide class of Hamiltonian properties beyond locality. Finally, we prove that learning a general Hamiltonian remains exponentially hard with this average-case distance, thereby establishing an exponential separation between Hamiltonian testing and learning. Our work initiates the study of property testing for quantum Hamiltonians, demonstrating that a broad class of Hamiltonian properties is efficiently testable even with limited quantum capabilities, and positioning Hamiltonian testing as an independent area of research alongside Hamiltonian learning.Featured image: Illustration of an adaptive incoherent strategy for learning properties of a Hamiltonian $H$ from its time evolution channel $\mathcal{U}_t(\cdot)= \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}tH}(\cdot) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}tH}$. The classical computer processes the observations $(i_1, \dots, i_N)$ to distinguish between two hypotheses $H_0/H_1$ (in testing) or to produce an approximate Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ (in learning).Popular summaryIn quantum physics, the behavior of a system over time is governed by its Hamiltonian, which encodes all interactions in the system. In most realistic physical settings, these interactions are local, i.e., each interaction term involves only a small number of particles. This assumption underlies much of quantum simulation and quantum computing theory. Yet surprisingly, until now there was no rigorous way to test whether an unknown Hamiltonian is truly local, based only on access to the corresponding time evolution. Our paper introduces a new framework called Hamiltonian property testing, which asks: instead of learning all details of an unknown Hamiltonian, can we efficiently decide whether it has a certain property—such as locality—or is far from having it? This focus on testing rather than full reconstruction is crucial. While fully learning a Hamiltonian is often infeasible for large quantum systems, testing specific properties can be dramatically easier. A key insight of the work is that how we measure distance between Hamiltonians matters enormously. If we use a worst-case notion of distance (based on the operator norm), then testing locality requires resources that grow exponentially with system size. In sharp contrast, if we adopt an average-case notion of distance (based on the normalized Frobenius norm), the situation changes completely. Under this more forgiving but physically meaningful metric, we design an efficient test that uses only short time evolutions, simple measurements, and a number of experiments that depends only on the desired accuracy—not on the size of the system. Additionally, our paper shows a fundamental separation between testing and learning. While locality and many other structural properties of Hamiltonians can be tested efficiently in the average-case sense, learning a general Hamiltonian remains exponentially hard. This highlights how Hamiltonian property testing can complement Hamiltonian learning: deciding whether a system has a property can be far easier than figuring out exactly what the system is. Beyond locality, our methods apply to a wide range of Hamiltonian properties, such as sparsity or properties of the interaction graph, and require only modest experimental capabilities. As quantum devices continue to scale up, Hamiltonian testing can play an important role for diagnosing errors and verifying functionality—checking assumptions before attempting costly learning or simulation tasks. More broadly, our work opens a new research direction at the intersection of quantum physics and property testing, showing that meaningful questions about complex quantum systems can sometimes be answered without fully decoding them.► BibTeX data@article{Bluhm2026hamiltonianproperty, doi = {10.22331/q-2026-01-21-1979}, url = {https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2026-01-21-1979}, title = {Hamiltonian {P}roperty {T}esting}, author = {Bluhm, Andreas and Caro, Matthias C. and Oufkir, Aadil}, journal = {{Quantum}}, issn = {2521-327X}, publisher = {{Verein zur F{\"{o}}rderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften}}, volume = {10}, pages = {1979}, month = jan, year = {2026} }► References [1] Scott Aaronsonand Andris Ambainis ``Forrelation: A Problem That Optimally Separates Quantum from Classical Computing'' SIAM Journal on Computing 47, 982-1038 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1137/15M1050902 [2] Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, and Ryan Babbush, ``Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor'' Nature 574, 505–510 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 [3] Scott Aaronson ``Shadow Tomography of Quantum States'' SIAM Journal on Computing 49, 368–394 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1137/18M120275X [4] Google Quantum AIand Collaborators ``Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold'' Nature 638, 920–926 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y [5] Andris Ambainis, Andrew M. Childs, and Yi-Kai Liu, ``Quantum property testing for bounded-degree graphs'' International Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization 365–376 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22935-0_31 [6] Dorit Aharonov, Jordan Cotler, and Xiao-Liang Qi, ``Quantum algorithmic measurement'' Nature Communications 13, 887 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27922-0 [7] Srinivasan Arunachalam, Arkopal Dutt, and Francisco Escudero Gutiérrez, ``Testing and Learning Structured Quantum Hamiltonians'' Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 1263–1270 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3717823.3718289 [8] Scott Aaronsonand Daniel Gottesman ``Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits'' Physical Review A 70, 052328 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.052328 [9] Scott Aaronsonand Greg Kuperberg ``Quantum versus Classical Proofs and Advice'' (2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2007.27 [10] Richard R. Allen, Francisco Machado, Isaac L. Chuang, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Soonwon Choi, ``Quantum Computing Enhanced Sensing'' (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.07625 arXiv:2501.07625 [11] Noga Alon, Tali Kaufman, Michael Krivelevich, Simon Litsyn, and Dana Ron, ``Testing low-degree polynomials over $GF(2)$'' International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science 188–199 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45198-3_17 [12] Andris Ambainis, Aleksandrs Belovs, Oded Regev, and Ronald de Wolf, ``Efficient Quantum Algorithms for (Gapped) Group Testing and Junta Testing'' Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 903–922 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974331.ch65 [13] Antonio Anna Mele ``Introduction to Haar Measure Tools in Quantum Information: A Beginner's Tutorial'' Quantum 8, 1340 (2024). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-05-08-1340 [14] Anurag Anshu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, Tomotaka Kuwahara, and Mehdi Soleimanifar, ``Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems'' Nature Physics 17, 931–935 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01232-0 [15] Srinivasan Arunachalam, Sergey Bravyi, Arkopal Dutt, and Theodore J. Yoder, ``Optimal Algorithms for Learning Quantum Phase States'' 18th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography 266, 3:1–3:24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2023.3 [16] Alp Atıcıand Rocco A. Servedio ``Quantum algorithms for learning and testing juntas'' Quantum Information Processing 6, 323–348 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-007-0061-6 [17] Ainesh Bakshi, Allen Liu, Ankur Moitra, and Ewin Tang, ``Learning quantum Hamiltonians at any temperature in polynomial time'' Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 1470–1477 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3618260.3649619 [18] Eyal Bairey, Itai Arad, and Netanel H. Lindner, ``Learning a local Hamiltonian from local measurements'' Physical Review Letters 122, 020504 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.020504 [19] Somshubhro Bandyopadhyay, P. Oscar Boykin, Vwani Roychowdhury, and Farrokh Vatan, ``A new proof for the existence of mutually unbiased bases'' Algorithmica 34, 512–528 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-002-0980-7 [20] Sebastien Bubeck, Sitan Chen, and Jerry Li, ``Entanglement is necessary for optimal quantum property testing'' 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 692–703 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS46700.2020.00070 [21] Charles H. Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, and Umesh Vazirani, ``Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing'' SIAM Journal on Computing 26 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539796300933 [22] Sergey Bravyi, Aram W. Harrow, and Avinatan Hassidim, ``Quantum algorithms for testing properties of distributions'' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 57, 3971–3981 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2011.2134250 [23] Eric Blais ``Testing juntas nearly optimally'' Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing 151–158 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1536414.1536437 [24] Manuel Blum, Michael Luby, and Ronitt Rubinfeld, ``Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems'' Journal of Computer and System Sciences 47, 549–595 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0000(93)90044-W [25] Costin Bădescuand Ryan O’Donnell ``Lower bounds for testing complete positivity and quantum separability'' Latin American Symposium on Theoretical Informatics 375–386 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61792-9_30 [26] Costin Bădescuand Ryan O'Donnell ``Improved quantum data analysis'' Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing 1398–1411 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3406325.3451109 [27] Harry Buhrman, Lance Fortnow, Ilan Newman, and Hein Röhrig, ``Quantum property testing'' SIAM Journal on Computing 37, 1387–1400 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539704442416 [28] Arnab Bhattacharyyaand Yuichi Yoshida ``Property Testing: Problems and Techniques'' Springer (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8622-1 [29] Zongbo Baoand Penghui Yao ``On Testing and Learning Quantum Junta Channels'' Proceedings of 36th Conference on Learning Theory 195, 1064–1094 (2023). https://proceedings.mlr.press/v195/bao23b.html [30] Claudio Carmeli, Teiko Heinosaari, Jussi Schultz, and Alessandro Toigo, ``Probing quantum state space: does one have to learn everything to learn something?'' Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 473, 20160866 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2016.0866 [31] Matthias C. Caro, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Nicholas Ezzell, Joe Gibbs, Andrew T. Sornborger, Lukasz Cincio, Patrick J. Coles, and Zoë Holmes, ``Out-of-distribution generalization for learning quantum dynamics'' Nature Communications 14 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-39381-w [32] Matthias C. Caro ``Learning Quantum Processes and Hamiltonians via the Pauli Transfer Matrix'' ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 5 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3670418 [33] Sourav Chakraborty, Eldar Fischer, Arie Matsliah, and Ronald de Wolf, ``New Results on Quantum Property Testing'' IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science 8, 145–156 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2010.145 [34] Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li, ``Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memory'' 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 574–585 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS52979.2021.00063 [35] Kean Chen, Qisheng Wang, Peixun Long, and Mingsheng Ying, ``Unitarity estimation for quantum channels'' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 69, 5116–5134 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2023.3263645 [36] Sitan Chen, Brice Huang, Jerry Li, Allen Liu, and Mark Sellke, ``When does adaptivity help for quantum state learning?'' 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 391–404 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS57990.2023.00029 [37] Thomas Chen, Shivam Nadimpalli, and Henry Yuen, ``Testing and learning quantum juntas nearly optimally'' Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 1163–1185 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977554.ch43 [38] Benoît Collinsand Piotr Śniady ``Integration with respect to the Haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic group'' Communications in Mathematical Physics 264, 773–795 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-006-1554-3 [39] Juan Castanedaand Nathan Wiebe ``Hamiltonian Learning via Shadow Tomography of Pseudo-Choi States'' Quantum 9, 1700 (2025). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-04-09-1700 [40] Marcel Dall'Agnol, Tom Gur, Subhayan Roy Moulik, and Justin Thaler, ``Quantum Proofs of Proximity'' Quantum 6, 834 (2022). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-10-13-834 [41] Giacomo De Palma, Milad Marvian, Dario Trevisan, and Seth Lloyd, ``The quantum Wasserstein distance of order 1'' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 67, 6627–6643 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2021.3076442 [42] David Deutsch ``Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer'' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 400, 97–117 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1985.0070 [43] David Deutschand Richard Jozsa ``Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation'' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 439, 553–558 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1992.0167 [44] Alicja Dutkiewicz, Thomas E. O'Brien, and Thomas Schuster, ``The advantage of quantum control in many-body Hamiltonian learning'' Quantum 8, 1537 (2024). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-11-26-1537 [45] Andreas Elben, Steven T. Flammia, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, Benoît Vermersch, and Peter Zoller, ``The randomized measurement toolbox'' Nature Reviews Physics 5, 9–24 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2 [46] Francisco Escudero Gutiérrez ``Simple algorithms to test and learn local Hamiltonians'' (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.06282 arXiv:2404.06282 [47] Omar Fawzi, Nicolas Flammarion, Aurélien Garivier, and Aadil Oufkir, ``On Adaptivity in Quantum Testing'' Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2023). https://openreview.net/forum?id=Hf95zFnQ7H [48] Omar Fawzi, Nicolas Flammarion, Aurélien Garivier, and Aadil Oufkir, ``Quantum Channel Certification with Incoherent Measurements'' Proceedings of 36th Conference on Learning Theory 195, 1822–1884 (2023). https://proceedings.mlr.press/v195/fawzi23a.html [49] Omar Fawzi, Richard Kueng, Damian Markham, and Aadil Oufkir, ``Learning properties of quantum states without the IID assumption'' Nature Communications 15, 9677 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53765-6 [50] Eldar Fischer, Guy Kindler, Dana Ron, Shmuel Safra, and Alex Samorodnitsky, ``Testing juntas'' Journal of Computer and System Sciences 68, 753–787 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2003.11.004 [51] Steven T. Flammia, David Gross, Yi-Kai Liu, and Jens Eisert, ``Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators'' New Journal of Physics 14, 095022 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/9/095022 [52] Omar Fawzi, Aadil Oufkir, and Daniel Stilck França, ``Lower Bounds on Learning Pauli Channels With Individual Measurements'' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 71, 2642–2661 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2025.3527902 [53] Christopher A.

Fuchsand Jeroen Van De Graaf ``Cryptographic distinguishability measures for quantum-mechanical states'' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 45, 1216–1227 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1109/18.761271 [54] Steven T. Flammiaand Joel J. Wallman ``Efficient estimation of Pauli channels'' ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 1, 1–32 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3408039 [55] Andi Gu, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles, ``Practical Hamiltonian learning with unitary dynamics and Gibbs states'' Nature Communications 15, 312 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44008-1 [56] Oded Goldreich, Shari Goldwasser, and Dana Ron, ``Property testing and its connection to learning and approximation'' Journal of the ACM 45, 653–750 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1145/285055.285060 [57] Vittorio Gorini, Andrzej Kossakowski, and Ennackal Chandy George Sudarshan, ``Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems'' Journal of Mathematical Physics 17, 821–825 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.522979 [58] András Gilyénand Tongyang Li ``Distributional Property Testing in a Quantum World'' 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference 151, 25:1–25:19 (2020). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2020.25 [59] David Gross, Sepehr Nezami, and Michael Walter, ``Schur–Weyl duality for the Clifford group with applications: Property testing, a robust Hudson theorem, and de Finetti representations'' Communications in Mathematical Physics 385, 1325–1393 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-021-04118-7 [60] Oded Goldreich ``Introduction to Property Testing'' Cambridge University Press (2017). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108135252 [61] Parikshit Gopalan, Ryan O'Donnell, Rocco A Servedio, Amir Shpilka, and Karl Wimmer, ``Testing Fourier dimensionality and sparsity'' SIAM Journal on Computing 40, 1075–1100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1137/100785429 [62] Sabee Grewal, Vishnu Iyer, William Kretschmer, and Daniel Liang, ``Improved Stabilizer Estimation via Bell Difference Sampling'' Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 1352–1363 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3618260.3649738 [63] Yinzheng Gu ``Moments of random matrices and Weingarten functions'' (2013) Master's thesi. https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/cee37ba4-2035-48e0-ac08-2974e082a0a9/content [64] Mark Hilleryand Erika Andersson ``Quantum tests for the linearity and permutation invariance of Boolean functions'' Physical Review A 84, 062329 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.062329 [65] Jeongwan Haah, Aram W. Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu, ``Sample-Optimal Tomography of Quantum States'' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 63, 5628–5641 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2017.2719044 [66] Jeongwan Haah, Robin Kothari, Ryan O’Donnell, and Ewin Tang, ``Query-optimal estimation of unitary channels in diamond distance'' 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 363–390 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS57990.2023.00028 [67] Jeongwan Haah ``Algebraic methods for quantum codes on lattices'' Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas 50, 299–349 (2016). https://doi.org/10.15446/recolma.v50n2.62214 [68] Hsin-Yuan Huang, Sitan Chen, and John Preskill, ``Learning to predict arbitrary quantum processes'' PRX Quantum 4, 040337 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.040337 [69] Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill, ``Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements'' Nature Physics 16, 1050–1057 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7 [70] Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill, ``Information-Theoretic Bounds on Quantum Advantage in Machine Learning'' Physical Review Letters 126, 190505 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.190505 [71] Jeongwan Haah, Robin Kothari, and Ewin Tang, ``Optimal learning of quantum Hamiltonians from high-temperature Gibbs states'' 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 135–146 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS54457.2022.00020 [72] Aram W. Harrow, Cedric Yen-Yu Lin, and Ashley Montanaro, ``Sequential measurements, disturbance and property testing'' Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 1598–1611 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974782.105 [73] Aram W.

Harrowand Ashley Montanaro ``Testing product states, quantum Merlin-Arthur games and tensor optimization'' Journal of the ACM 60, 1–43 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2432622.2432625 [74] Wassily Hoeffding ``Probability Inequalities for Sums of Bounded Random Variables'' Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, 13–30 (1963). https://doi.org/10.2307/2282952 [75] Alexander Semenovich Holevo ``Bounds for the quantity of information transmitted by a quantum communication channel'' Problems of Information Transmission 9, 177–183 (1973). [76] Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Jordan Cotler, Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, Masoud Mohseni, Hartmut Neven, Ryan Babbush, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, and Jarrod R. McClean, ``Quantum advantage in learning from experiments'' Science 376, 1182–1186 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn7293 [77] Hsin-Yuan Huang, Yu Tong, Di Fang, and Yuan Su, ``Learning many-body Hamiltonians with Heisenberg-limited scaling'' Physical Review Letters 130, 200403 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.200403 [78] Hsin-Yuan Huang, Yunchao Liu, Michael Broughton, Isaac Kim, Anurag Anshu, Zeph Landau, and Jarrod R McClean, ``Learning shallow quantum circuits'' Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 1343–1351 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3618260.3649722 [79] Andreas Klappeneckerand Martin Rötteler ``Mutually unbiased bases are complex projective 2-designs'' Proceedings. International Symposium on Information Theory, 2005. 1740–1744 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT.2005.1523643 [80] Lucien LeCam ``Convergence of estimates under dimensionality restrictions'' The Annals of Statistics 1, 38–53 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1193342380 [81] Haoya Li, Yu Tong, Tuvia Gefen, Hongkang Ni, and Lexing Ying, ``Heisenberg-limited Hamiltonian learning for interacting bosons'' npj Quantum Information 10, 83 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-024-00881-2 [82] Göran Lindblad ``On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups'' Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119–130 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01608499 [83] Angus Loweand Ashwin Nayak ``Lower bounds for learning quantum states with single-copy measurements'' ACM Transactions on Computation Theory 17, 1–42 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3717450 [84] Margarite L. LaBordeand Mark M. Wilde ``Quantum algorithms for testing Hamiltonian symmetry'' Physical Review Letters 129, 160503 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.160503 [85] Elizabeth Meckesand Mark Meckes ``Spectral measures of powers of random matrices'' Electronic Communications in Probability 18, 1–13 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1214/ECP.v18-2551 [86] Tim Möbus, Andreas Bluhm, Matthias C. Caro, Albert H. Werner, and Cambyse Rouzé, ``Dissipation-enabled bosonic Hamiltonian learning via new information-propagation bounds'' (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.15026 arXiv:2307.15026 [87] Wolfgang Mulzer ``Five Proofs of Chernoff’s Bound with Applications'' Bulletin of EATCS 124 (2018). http://bulletin.eatcs.org/index.php/beatcs/article/view/525 [88] Ashley Montanaroand Ronald de Wolf ``A Survey of Quantum Property Testing'' Theory of Computing Library (2016). https://doi.org/10.4086/toc.gs.2016.007 [89] Nikhil S. Mandeand Ronald de Wolf ``Tight Bounds for Quantum Phase Estimation and Related Problems'' 31st Annual European Symposium on Algorithms 274, 81:1–81:16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ESA.2023.81 [90] Shivam Nadimpalli, Natalie Parham, Francisca Vasconcelos, and Henry Yuen, ``On the Pauli Spectrum of QAC0'' Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 1498–1506 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3618260.3649662 [91] Michael A. Nielsenand Isaac L. Chuang ``Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition'' Cambridge University Press (2010). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667 [92] Michael A. Nielsen ``A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical operation'' Physics Letters A 303, 249–252 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(02)01272-0 [93] Aadil Oufkir ``Sample-Optimal Quantum Process Tomography with non-adaptive Incoherent Measurements'' 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory 1919–1924 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT54713.2023.10206538 [94] Ryan O'Donnelland John Wright ``Quantum spectrum testing'' Proceedings of the 47th annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing 529–538 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2746539.2746582 [95] Michal Parnas, Dana Ron, and Ronitt Rubinfeld, ``Tolerant property testing and distance approximation'' Journal of Computer and System Sciences 72, 1012–1042 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2006.03.002 [96] Dana Ron ``Property testing: A learning theory perspective'' Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 1, 307–402 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000004 [97] Cambyse Rouzé, Daniel Stilck França, Emilio Onorati, and James D. Watson, ``Efficient learning of ground and thermal states within phases of matter'' Nature Communications 15, 7755 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51439-x [98] Cambyse Rouzéand Daniel Stilck França ``Learning quantum many-body systems from a few copies'' Quantum 8, 1319 (2024). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-04-30-1319 [99] Ronitt Rubinfeldand Madhu Sudan ``Robust characterizations of polynomials with applications to program testing'' SIAM Journal on Computing 25, 252–271 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539793255151 [100] Erwin Schrödinger ``An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules'' Physical Review 28, 1049 (1926). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.28.1049 [101] Erwin Schrödinger ``Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem'' Annalen der Physik 384, 361–376 (1926). https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19263840404 [102] Willi-Hans Steeband Yorick Hardy ``Spin Operators, Pauli Group, Commutators, Anti-Commutators, Kronecker Product and Applications'' (2014). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1405.5749 arXiv:1405.5749 [103] Daniel R. Simon ``On the power of quantum computation'' SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 1474–1483 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539796298637 [104] Marcus P. da Silva, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, and David Poulin, ``Practical characterization of quantum devices without tomography'' Physical Review Letters 107, 210404 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.210404 [105] Daniel Stilck França, Liubov A. Markovich, V. V. Dobrovitski, Albert H. Werner, and Johannes Borregaard, ``Efficient and robust estimation of many-qubit Hamiltonians'' Nature Communications 15, 311 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44012-5 [106] Marshall H. Stone ``On One-Parameter Unitary Groups in Hilbert Space'' Annals of Mathematics 33, 643–648 (1932). https://doi.org/10.2307/1968538 [107] Mehdi Soleimanifarand John Wright ``Testing matrix product states'' Proceedings of the 2022 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 1679–1701 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977073.68 [108] Adrian Sheand Henry Yuen ``Unitary Property Testing Lower Bounds by Polynomials'' 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference 251, 96:1–96:17 (2023). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2023.96 [109] Ewin Tangand John Wright ``Amplitude amplification and estimation require inverses'' (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.23787 arXiv:2507.23787 [110] Francisca Vasconcelosand Hsin-Yuan Huang ``Learning shallow quantum circuits with many-qubit gates'' (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.16693 arXiv:2410.16693 [111] John Watrous ``The theory of quantum information'' Cambridge University Press (2018). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316848142 [112] William K. Woottersand Brian D. Fields ``Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements'' Annals of Physics 191, 363–381 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(89)90322-9 [113] Frederik Wilde, Augustine Kshetrimayum, Ingo Roth, Dominik Hangleiter, Ryan Sweke, and Jens Eisert, ``Scalably learning quantum many-body Hamiltonians from dynamical data'' (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.14328 arXiv:2209.14328 [114] Wenjun Yu, Jinzhao Sun, Zeyao Han, and Xiao Yuan, ``Robust and efficient Hamiltonian learning'' Quantum 7, 1045 (2023). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-06-29-1045 [115] Nengkun Yu ``Sample Efficient Identity Testing and Independence Testing of Quantum States'' 12th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference 185, 11:1–11:20 (2021). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2021.11 [116] Haimeng Zhao, Laura Lewis, Ishaan Kannan, Yihui Quek, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Matthias C. Caro, ``Learning Quantum States and Unitaries of Bounded Gate Complexity'' PRX Quantum 5, 040306 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.040306 [117] Assaf Zubida, Elad Yitzhaki, Netanel H. Lindner, and Eyal Bairey, ``Optimal short-time measurements for Hamiltonian learning'' (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.08824 arXiv:2108.08824Cited byCould not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2026-01-21 10:15:06: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2026-01-21-1979 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently. Could not fetch ADS cited-by data during last attempt 2026-01-21 10:15:08: No response from ADS or unable to decode the received json data when getting the list of citing works.This Paper is published in Quantum under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Copyright remains with the original copyright holders such as the authors or their institutions. AbstractLocality is a fundamental feature of many physical time evolutions. Assumptions on locality and related structural properties also underlie recently proposed procedures for learning an unknown Hamiltonian from access to the induced time evolution. However, no protocols to rigorously test whether an unknown Hamiltonian is local were known. We investigate Hamiltonian locality testing as a property testing problem, where the task is to determine whether an unknown $n$-qubit Hamiltonian $H$ is $k$-local or $\varepsilon$-far from all $k$-local Hamiltonians, given access to the time evolution along $H$. First, we emphasize the importance of the chosen distance measure: With respect to the operator norm, a worst-case distance measure, incoherent quantum locality testers require $\tilde{\Omega}(2^n)$ many time evolution queries and an expected total evolution time of $\tilde{\Omega}(2^n / \varepsilon)$, and even coherent testers need $\Omega(2^{n/2})$ many queries and $\Omega(2^{n/2}/\varepsilon)$ total evolution time. In contrast, when distances are measured according to the normalized Frobenius norm, corresponding to an average-case distance, we give a sample-, time-, and computationally efficient incoherent Hamiltonian locality testing algorithm based on randomized measurements. In fact, our procedure can be used to simultaneously test a wide class of Hamiltonian properties beyond locality. Finally, we prove that learning a general Hamiltonian remains exponentially hard with this average-case distance, thereby establishing an exponential separation between Hamiltonian testing and learning. Our work initiates the study of property testing for quantum Hamiltonians, demonstrating that a broad class of Hamiltonian properties is efficiently testable even with limited quantum capabilities, and positioning Hamiltonian testing as an independent area of research alongside Hamiltonian learning.Featured image: Illustration of an adaptive incoherent strategy for learning properties of a Hamiltonian $H$ from its time evolution channel $\mathcal{U}_t(\cdot)= \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}tH}(\cdot) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}tH}$. The classical computer processes the observations $(i_1, \dots, i_N)$ to distinguish between two hypotheses $H_0/H_1$ (in testing) or to produce an approximate Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ (in learning).Popular summaryIn quantum physics, the behavior of a system over time is governed by its Hamiltonian, which encodes all interactions in the system. In most realistic physical settings, these interactions are local, i.e., each interaction term involves only a small number of particles. This assumption underlies much of quantum simulation and quantum computing theory. Yet surprisingly, until now there was no rigorous way to test whether an unknown Hamiltonian is truly local, based only on access to the corresponding time evolution. Our paper introduces a new framework called Hamiltonian property testing, which asks: instead of learning all details of an unknown Hamiltonian, can we efficiently decide whether it has a certain property—such as locality—or is far from having it? This focus on testing rather than full reconstruction is crucial. While fully learning a Hamiltonian is often infeasible for large quantum systems, testing specific properties can be dramatically easier. A key insight of the work is that how we measure distance between Hamiltonians matters enormously. If we use a worst-case notion of distance (based on the operator norm), then testing locality requires resources that grow exponentially with system size. In sharp contrast, if we adopt an average-case notion of distance (based on the normalized Frobenius norm), the situation changes completely. Under this more forgiving but physically meaningful metric, we design an efficient test that uses only short time evolutions, simple measurements, and a number of experiments that depends only on the desired accuracy—not on the size of the system. Additionally, our paper shows a fundamental separation between testing and learning. While locality and many other structural properties of Hamiltonians can be tested efficiently in the average-case sense, learning a general Hamiltonian remains exponentially hard. This highlights how Hamiltonian property testing can complement Hamiltonian learning: deciding whether a system has a property can be far easier than figuring out exactly what the system is. Beyond locality, our methods apply to a wide range of Hamiltonian properties, such as sparsity or properties of the interaction graph, and require only modest experimental capabilities. As quantum devices continue to scale up, Hamiltonian testing can play an important role for diagnosing errors and verifying functionality—checking assumptions before attempting costly learning or simulation tasks. More broadly, our work opens a new research direction at the intersection of quantum physics and property testing, showing that meaningful questions about complex quantum systems can sometimes be answered without fully decoding them.► BibTeX data@article{Bluhm2026hamiltonianproperty, doi = {10.22331/q-2026-01-21-1979}, url = {https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2026-01-21-1979}, title = {Hamiltonian {P}roperty {T}esting}, author = {Bluhm, Andreas and Caro, Matthias C. and Oufkir, Aadil}, journal = {{Quantum}}, issn = {2521-327X}, publisher = {{Verein zur F{\"{o}}rderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften}}, volume = {10}, pages = {1979}, month = jan, year = {2026} }► References [1] Scott Aaronsonand Andris Ambainis ``Forrelation: A Problem That Optimally Separates Quantum from Classical Computing'' SIAM Journal on Computing 47, 982-1038 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1137/15M1050902 [2] Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, and Ryan Babbush, ``Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor'' Nature 574, 505–510 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 [3] Scott Aaronson ``Shadow Tomography of Quantum States'' SIAM Journal on Computing 49, 368–394 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1137/18M120275X [4] Google Quantum AIand Collaborators ``Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold'' Nature 638, 920–926 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y [5] Andris Ambainis, Andrew M. Childs, and Yi-Kai Liu, ``Quantum property testing for bounded-degree graphs'' International Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization 365–376 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22935-0_31 [6] Dorit Aharonov, Jordan Cotler, and Xiao-Liang Qi, ``Quantum algorithmic measurement'' Nature Communications 13, 887 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27922-0 [7] Srinivasan Arunachalam, Arkopal Dutt, and Francisco Escudero Gutiérrez, ``Testing and Learning Structured Quantum Hamiltonians'' Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 1263–1270 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3717823.3718289 [8] Scott Aaronsonand Daniel Gottesman ``Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits'' Physical Review A 70, 052328 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.052328 [9] Scott Aaronsonand Greg Kuperberg ``Quantum versus Classical Proofs and Advice'' (2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2007.27 [10] Richard R. Allen, Francisco Machado, Isaac L. Chuang, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Soonwon Choi, ``Quantum Computing Enhanced Sensing'' (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.07625 arXiv:2501.07625 [11] Noga Alon, Tali Kaufman, Michael Krivelevich, Simon Litsyn, and Dana Ron, ``Testing low-degree polynomials over $GF(2)$'' International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science 188–199 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45198-3_17 [12] Andris Ambainis, Aleksandrs Belovs, Oded Regev, and Ronald de Wolf, ``Efficient Quantum Algorithms for (Gapped) Group Testing and Junta Testing'' Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 903–922 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974331.ch65 [13] Antonio Anna Mele ``Introduction to Haar Measure Tools in Quantum Information: A Beginner's Tutorial'' Quantum 8, 1340 (2024). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-05-08-1340 [14] Anurag Anshu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, Tomotaka Kuwahara, and Mehdi Soleimanifar, ``Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems'' Nature Physics 17, 931–935 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01232-0 [15] Srinivasan Arunachalam, Sergey Bravyi, Arkopal Dutt, and Theodore J. Yoder, ``Optimal Algorithms for Learning Quantum Phase States'' 18th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography 266, 3:1–3:24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2023.3 [16] Alp Atıcıand Rocco A. Servedio ``Quantum algorithms for learning and testing juntas'' Quantum Information Processing 6, 323–348 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-007-0061-6 [17] Ainesh Bakshi, Allen Liu, Ankur Moitra, and Ewin Tang, ``Learning quantum Hamiltonians at any temperature in polynomial time'' Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 1470–1477 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3618260.3649619 [18] Eyal Bairey, Itai Arad, and Netanel H. Lindner, ``Learning a local Hamiltonian from local measurements'' Physical Review Letters 122, 020504 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.020504 [19] Somshubhro Bandyopadhyay, P. Oscar Boykin, Vwani Roychowdhury, and Farrokh Vatan, ``A new proof for the existence of mutually unbiased bases'' Algorithmica 34, 512–528 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-002-0980-7 [20] Sebastien Bubeck, Sitan Chen, and Jerry Li, ``Entanglement is necessary for optimal quantum property testing'' 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 692–703 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS46700.2020.00070 [21] Charles H. Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, and Umesh Vazirani, ``Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing'' SIAM Journal on Computing 26 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539796300933 [22] Sergey Bravyi, Aram W. Harrow, and Avinatan Hassidim, ``Quantum algorithms for testing properties of distributions'' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 57, 3971–3981 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2011.2134250 [23] Eric Blais ``Testing juntas nearly optimally'' Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing 151–158 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1536414.1536437 [24] Manuel Blum, Michael Luby, and Ronitt Rubinfeld, ``Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems'' Journal of Computer and System Sciences 47, 549–595 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0000(93)90044-W [25] Costin Bădescuand Ryan O’Donnell ``Lower bounds for testing complete positivity and quantum separability'' Latin American Symposium on Theoretical Informatics 375–386 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61792-9_30 [26] Costin Bădescuand Ryan O'Donnell ``Improved quantum data analysis'' Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing 1398–1411 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3406325.3451109 [27] Harry Buhrman, Lance Fortnow, Ilan Newman, and Hein Röhrig, ``Quantum property testing'' SIAM Journal on Computing 37, 1387–1400 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539704442416 [28] Arnab Bhattacharyyaand Yuichi Yoshida ``Property Testing: Problems and Techniques'' Springer (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8622-1 [29] Zongbo Baoand Penghui Yao ``On Testing and Learning Quantum Junta Channels'' Proceedings of 36th Conference on Learning Theory 195, 1064–1094 (2023). https://proceedings.mlr.press/v195/bao23b.html [30] Claudio Carmeli, Teiko Heinosaari, Jussi Schultz, and Alessandro Toigo, ``Probing quantum state space: does one have to learn everything to learn something?'' Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 473, 20160866 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2016.0866 [31] Matthias C. Caro, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Nicholas Ezzell, Joe Gibbs, Andrew T. Sornborger, Lukasz Cincio, Patrick J. Coles, and Zoë Holmes, ``Out-of-distribution generalization for learning quantum dynamics'' Nature Communications 14 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-39381-w [32] Matthias C. Caro ``Learning Quantum Processes and Hamiltonians via the Pauli Transfer Matrix'' ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 5 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3670418 [33] Sourav Chakraborty, Eldar Fischer, Arie Matsliah, and Ronald de Wolf, ``New Results on Quantum Property Testing'' IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science 8, 145–156 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2010.145 [34] Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li, ``Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memory'' 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 574–585 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS52979.2021.00063 [35] Kean Chen, Qisheng Wang, Peixun Long, and Mingsheng Ying, ``Unitarity estimation for quantum channels'' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 69, 5116–5134 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2023.3263645 [36] Sitan Chen, Brice Huang, Jerry Li, Allen Liu, and Mark Sellke, ``When does adaptivity help for quantum state learning?'' 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 391–404 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS57990.2023.00029 [37] Thomas Chen, Shivam Nadimpalli, and Henry Yuen, ``Testing and learning quantum juntas nearly optimally'' Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 1163–1185 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977554.ch43 [38] Benoît Collinsand Piotr Śniady ``Integration with respect to the Haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic group'' Communications in Mathematical Physics 264, 773–795 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-006-1554-3 [39] Juan Castanedaand Nathan Wiebe ``Hamiltonian Learning via Shadow Tomography of Pseudo-Choi States'' Quantum 9, 1700 (2025). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-04-09-1700 [40] Marcel Dall'Agnol, Tom Gur, Subhayan Roy Moulik, and Justin Thaler, ``Quantum Proofs of Proximity'' Quantum 6, 834 (2022). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-10-13-834 [41] Giacomo De Palma, Milad Marvian, Dario Trevisan, and Seth Lloyd, ``The quantum Wasserstein distance of order 1'' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 67, 6627–6643 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2021.3076442 [42] David Deutsch ``Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer'' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 400, 97–117 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1985.0070 [43] David Deutschand Richard Jozsa ``Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation'' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 439, 553–558 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1992.0167 [44] Alicja Dutkiewicz, Thomas E. O'Brien, and Thomas Schuster, ``The advantage of quantum control in many-body Hamiltonian learning'' Quantum 8, 1537 (2024). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-11-26-1537 [45] Andreas Elben, Steven T. Flammia, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, Benoît Vermersch, and Peter Zoller, ``The randomized measurement toolbox'' Nature Reviews Physics 5, 9–24 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2 [46] Francisco Escudero Gutiérrez ``Simple algorithms to test and learn local Hamiltonians'' (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.06282 arXiv:2404.06282 [47] Omar Fawzi, Nicolas Flammarion, Aurélien Garivier, and Aadil Oufkir, ``On Adaptivity in Quantum Testing'' Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2023). https://openreview.net/forum?id=Hf95zFnQ7H [48] Omar Fawzi, Nicolas Flammarion, Aurélien Garivier, and Aadil Oufkir, ``Quantum Channel Certification with Incoherent Measurements'' Proceedings of 36th Conference on Learning Theory 195, 1822–1884 (2023). https://proceedings.mlr.press/v195/fawzi23a.html [49] Omar Fawzi, Richard Kueng, Damian Markham, and Aadil Oufkir, ``Learning properties of quantum states without the IID assumption'' Nature Communications 15, 9677 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53765-6 [50] Eldar Fischer, Guy Kindler, Dana Ron, Shmuel Safra, and Alex Samorodnitsky, ``Testing juntas'' Journal of Computer and System Sciences 68, 753–787 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2003.11.004 [51] Steven T. Flammia, David Gross, Yi-Kai Liu, and Jens Eisert, ``Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: error bounds, sample complexity and efficient estimators'' New Journal of Physics 14, 095022 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/9/095022 [52] Omar Fawzi, Aadil Oufkir, and Daniel Stilck França, ``Lower Bounds on Learning Pauli Channels With Individual Measurements'' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 71, 2642–2661 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2025.3527902 [53] Christopher A.

Read Original

Source Information

Source: Quantum Science and Technology (arXiv overlay)

Website: https://quantum-journal.org/feed

Discussion

0 professional contributions

Be the first to add a constructive contribution.

Hamiltonian Property Testing

Tags

Source Information