Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Robust quantum metrology with explicit symmetric states

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that explicit symmetric probe states drawn from permutation-invariant quantum codes retain Heisenberg scaling of the quantum Fisher information after constant erasure or dephasing errors, giving a quantum advantage in…

desk verdict Erasure results are solid; the i.i.d. dephasing extension is overclaimed and (V.12) doesn't follow as written. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02378 v4 pith:5U77BAZ5 submitted 2019-08-06 quant-ph

Yingkai Ouyang , Nathan Shettell , Damian Markham This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantummetrologyFisherinformationpermutation-invariantcodesDickestatesHeisenbergscalingerasureerrorsdephasingnoiseNISQ
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that explicitly constructed symmetric probe states—gnu probe states, formed as the equal superposition of the two logical codewords of a permutation-invariant quantum code—remain useful for quantum metrology after a constant number of erasure errors or after a single dephasing error. For erasures, the authors prove an analytical lower bound on the quantum Fisher information of the partially traced state, and in the limit of many qubits this bound grows as a constant times $N^2$, recovering Heisenberg scaling. For dephasing, they obtain a similar lower bound for a channel that applies at most one phase error, and for i.i.d. dephasing with a fixed expected number of errors they derive an asymptotic bound with a positive Heisenberg coefficient when that expected number is small. If these claims are right, near-term noisy quantum sensors could achieve a provable quantum advantage without active error correction, and the paper gives an explicit family of states to prepare.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gnu probe state $|\phi_u\rangle$, an equal superposition of the two logical codewords of a permutation-invariant code with parameters $g,n,u$, expanded as a superposition of Dicke states $|D^N_w\rangle$. Two structural ingredients carry the argument: the partial trace of $|\phi_1\rangle$ over $t$ erased qubits has an explicit sparse representation in terms of orthogonal vectors $|\theta_u\rangle$, and inner products of Dicke states with products of Pauli $Z$ operators are expressed through Krawtchouk polynomials. These reduce the commutator lower bound on the QFI to binomial sums of the form $\sum_{j=0}^n \binom{n}{j} j^x$, which are evaluated in closed form.

What would settle it

Compute the full quantum Fisher information of the dephased state $\sigma$ in Eq. (V.1) for a small but finite $t=pN$, say $t=1$ with $n=2,g$ large, and compare it with the claimed lower bound $(e^{-2t}/(2n)-2te)N^2$; if the exact value divided by $N^2$ falls below the claimed coefficient, or if inequality (V.12) fails for that explicit $\sigma_1$, the Heisenberg-scaling claim for i.i.d. dephasing collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gnu probe state $|\phi_u\rangle = (|0_L\rangle+|1_L\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ from Eq. (II.6), which lies inside a permutation-invariant quantum code with parameters $g,n,u$ and $N=gnu$ qubits, remains a good metrological resource after noise. With $u=1$ and $t$ erased qubits, the QFI is lower-bounded by the explicit expression in Theorem 2; for one erasure and large $g$ this becomes $\frac{n-1}{n^2}(N^2+(n-2)N-(n-1))$, and for two erasures a similar quadratic, so the asymptotic scaling is Heisenberg, $O(N^2)$. With $u=2$, the dephasing channel $D_\lambda$ (which applies zero or one phase error) yields the closed-form lower bound of Theorem 7, and for large $g$ the QFI divided by $N^2$ is at least $\frac{\lambda^2}{2n}+\frac{\lambda(1-\lambda)(n-1)}{4n^2}+\frac{(1-\lambda)^2(n^3+n-2)}{32n^4}$; at $\lambda=1/2$ this coefficient is $25/(128n)-1/(16n^2)+1/(128n^3)-1/(64n^4)$, whereas a GHZ state would become classically useless. A further approximation for i.i.d. dephasing with expected error count $t=pN$ gives an asymptotic lower bound of $(e^{-2t}/(2n)-2te)N^2$. All bounds come from evaluating the generator lower bound $\|[\rho,H]\|_1^2\ge\|[\rho,H]\|_2^2$ through the sparse structure of the partially traced state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing step is the approximation in Corollary 9, where the fully dephased state is replaced by the state with at most one phase error, and an asserted inequality bounds the damage done by the discarded noise tail; that inequality is not derived in full and may be too optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With one erasure, the lower bound $O(N^2)$ beats the classical shot-noise limit $O(N)$ once $N$ is sufficiently large, so a fixed erasure rate leaves a quantum advantage in the NISQ regime.
  • The same probe state with $u=2$ remains useful for dephasing even in the worst case $\lambda=1/2$, where a GHZ state would be reduced to a classically useless mixture.
  • For i.i.d. dephasing with an expected number $t$ of errors held constant, Heisenberg scaling survives whenever $t$ is small enough that $e^{-2t}/(2n)-2te>0$.
  • The authors conjecture that any permutation-invariant code detecting at least one error is good for metrology under erasures, which would place the construction inside a broad family of codes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The dephasing result is more delicate than the erasure result: the bound $(e^{-2t}/(2n)-2te)N^2$ is positive only for $t$ below roughly $0.03$, so in the i.i.d. case 'constant number of dephasing errors' means a very small constant; a direct check of inequality Eq. (V.12) on explicit small states would settle whether the stated coefficient is reliable.
  • The same Dicke/Krawtchouk machinery should extend to other Pauli noise models such as amplitude damping or depolarizing noise, at the cost of evaluating inner products with non-diagonal Pauli strings; the paper lists these as open directions.
  • Because the probe states are symmetric and explicit, they can in principle be generated by Dicke-state preparation circuits, but whether the scheme is practical depends on the overhead of that preparation, which the paper does not quantify.
  • The generator lower bound $\|[\rho,H]\|_2^2$ is looser than the full quantum Fisher information, so the stated constants are conservative; the true advantage could be larger than reported.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes explicit symmetric 'gnu' probe states, drawn from the permutation-invariant quantum code family of Ref. [29], and asks whether they retain a metrological advantage after small, constant numbers of erasure or dephasing errors. For erasures, the authors derive an explicit form for the partially traced density matrix (Lemma 1) and a closed-form lower bound on the QFI (Theorem 2), then evaluate the leading large-g asymptotics for t=1,2 erasures (Theorem 4), obtaining a constant fraction of Heisenberg scaling when n is fixed. For dephasing, they analyze a single-error channel D_lambda using Dicke-state inner products expressed through Krawtchouk polynomials (Lemmas 5-6), obtaining a lower bound in Theorem 7 and its asymptotic form in Corollary 8; they then attempt to extend this to i.i.d. dephasing via an at-most-one-error approximant (Corollaries 9-10). The central claim is that the probe states yield a quantum advantage in the NISQ regime and recover Heisenberg scaling asymptotically under a constant number of erasure errors and a constant number of dephasing errors.

Significance. If the technical results held as stated, the paper would provide one of the first explicit, code-inspired state families that provably retain Heisenberg scaling under a bounded number of erasures, complementing the random-state results of Oszmaniec et al. The erasure section is a genuine calculational contribution: the partial-trace formula and the resulting lower bound are explicit and do not rely on fitting or on unproved error-correction folklore. The dephasing analysis for D_lambda is also a concrete calculation whose finite-N and asymptotic forms can be used directly. The main value is therefore the explicit construction and the transparent lower-bound methodology. The main weakness is that the i.i.d. dephasing extension, which is needed for the abstract's 'constant number of dephasing errors' claim, is not established by the proof as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (V.12)] The asserted inequality ||[sigma,H]||_1^2 >= ||[sigma_1,H]||_1^2 - 2N^2 tau_1 is not derived by the bounds preceding it. The triangle inequality gives ||[sigma,H]||_1 >= ||[sigma_1,H]||_1 - ||[epsilon_1,H]||_1, and the correct Holder bound is ||epsilon_1 H||_1 <= N tau_1, not N, so ||[epsilon_1,H]||_1 <= 2N tau_1. Since ||[sigma_1,H]||_1 <= 2N, squaring can only yield, in the worst case, ||[sigma,H]||_1^2 >= ||[sigma_1,H]||_1^2 - 8N^2 tau_1, not the advertised 2N^2 tau_1. This factor is material because tau_1 = O(t), and the threshold in Corollary 10 depends linearly on this coefficient.
  2. [Section V, Corollary 10] As stated, the lower bound e^{-2t}/(2n) - 2te is negative for every integer t >= 1; for n=2, t=1 it equals e^{-2}/4 - 2e, which is approximately -5.40. Thus Corollary 10 does not establish robustness to a constant number of i.i.d. dephasing errors. Even granting Eq. (V.12), the bound becomes positive only for t below roughly 1/(4en), i.e. for an expected number of errors that is not a fixed positive constant. This is inconsistent with the abstract's 'constant number of dephasing errors' and with the introduction's stated regime. The authors should either provide a corrected tail/penalty analysis or explicitly restate the i.i.d. result as a t -> 0 statement.
  3. [Section V and Introduction] There is an internal inconsistency in the stated asymptotic regime for i.i.d. dephasing. Section V says 'consider the limit of large N where the average number of phase errors is held constant,' which gives p = t/N, i.e. p decays as 1/N. The introduction, by contrast, says the probability of dephasing per qubit 'approaches zero faster than the reciprocal of the number of qubits,' which would require t -> 0. These are different claims, and the formal result in Corollary 10 corresponds to the first, while the positivity of the bound requires the second. The paper should state unambiguously which regime is being claimed and adjust the abstract accordingly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section II, dephasing paragraph] The text says the dephasing bound is 'given explicitly in Theorem 2' and later references an unresolved 'Theorem ??'; the correct statement is Theorem 7, and the placeholder should be fixed.
  2. [Lemma 3 proof] The proof of Lemma 3 takes limits as g -> infinity but repeatedly writes lim_{n->infinity}; this is notationally incorrect, although the intended calculation is clear from the context.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'Explictly' in Eq. (V.1), 'Thereom' in the caption of Figure 2, and 'completees' in the proof of Lemma 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QFI bounds are derived directly from the explicit Dicke-state formulas; the self-citation to Ref. [29] supplies only the probe-state family and does no load-bearing work.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The probe states |φ_u⟩ are written explicitly in (II.6) as normalized superpositions of Dicke states, and every QFI lower bound is obtained by direct calculation: Lemma 1 gives the partial trace under erasures, Theorem 2 evaluates 2 Tr(ρ²H²) − 2 Tr(ρHρH) from that representation, and Lemma 3 with Theorem 4 take explicit large-g limits. Likewise, Section IV computes the Dicke inner products v1–v4 via Krawtchouk polynomials and Lemma 6, and Theorem 7 uses those values to bound the QFI of D_λ. Corollaries 9 and 10 connect the artificial D_λ channel to i.i.d. dephasing by the exact identity σ₁ = (1−p)^{N−1} D_{1−p}(|φ₂⟩⟨φ₂|) and triangle/Hölder estimates, not by importing the conclusion. The citation to Ref. [29], an author's earlier paper, is real but not load-bearing: the paper does not invoke the error-correction capability of those codes in the QFI proofs, and the explicit state formulas are restated in the present paper. There is no fitting of parameters to data, no prediction that is an input by construction, and no uniqueness or ansatz theorem imported from the authors' prior work. A separate correctness concern, not a circularity, is that Corollary 9's inequality (V.12) is asserted with only a sketch, and Corollary 10's lower bound e^{−2t}/(2n) − 2te is negative for fixed integer t ≥ 1; this affects whether the stated 'constant number of dephasing errors' follows from the i.i.d. extension, but it does not make the derivation circular. The paper's own stated limitations—no end-to-end protocol, no SLD-optimal measurement, and open preparation/readout issues—likewise do not indicate circularity.

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

The central claim rests on standard quantum metrology inequalities and on explicit combinatorial manipulations of Dicke states. No free parameters are fitted to data. The state family is taken from prior work on permutation-invariant codes (including the authors' own Ref. [29]), but the metrology calculations do not use the error-correction properties as inputs. The i.i.d. dephasing result carries an additional assumption about the validity of the truncation bound (V.12).

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The quantum Fisher information is bounded below by the squared trace norm of the commutator: QFI ≥ ||[ρ,H]||_1^2 ≥ ||[ρ,H]||_2^2 (Eq. II.2).
    Used throughout to convert commutator computations into QFI lower bounds; cited to [19].
  • domain assumption The probe states |ϕ_u⟩ defined in Eq. (II.6) are valid quantum states with the stated overlap and orthogonality properties of the Dicke components.
    The state construction is taken from the permutation-invariant code family of Ref. [29]; the paper relies on the explicit amplitudes and Dicke state orthogonality.
  • standard math Dicke inner products with Pauli operators are correctly evaluated through Krawtchouk polynomials (Lemma 6), and the binomial summation identities in the proofs are correct.
    The asymptotic and finite-size bounds in Theorems 2, 4, and 7 depend on these combinatorial identities.
  • domain assumption For the i.i.d. dephasing channel, truncating σ to σ_1 and bounding the tail with τ_1 ≤ t e (Eq. V.14) is valid.
    This is the basis of Corollaries 9 and 10; the penalty coefficient in Eq. (V.12) may be questionable, so this is a load-bearing assumption for the i.i.d. result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust quantum metrology with explicit symmetric states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5U77BAZ5

@misc{pith2026190802378,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust quantum metrology with explicit symmetric states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5U77BAZ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02378}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum metrology is a promising practical use case for quantum technologies, where physical quantities can be measured with unprecedented precision. In lieu of quantum error correction procedures, near term quantum devices are expected to be noisy, and we have to make do with noisy probe states. We prove that, for a set of carefully chosen symmetric probe states that lie within certain quantum error correction codes, quantum metrology exhibits an advantage over classical metrology even after the probe states are corrupted by a constant number of erasure and dephasing errors. These probe states prove useful for robust metrology not only in the NISQ regime, but also in the asymptotic setting where they achieve Heisenberg scaling. This brings us closer towards making robust quantum metrology a technological reality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02378 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Lower bounds for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. which illustrates the results in Thereom 7 numeri￾cally. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 N, number of qubits 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 lo g N(Q FI) Dephasing, n=1 Dephasing, n=2 Dephasing, n=3 Dephasing, n=4 Dephasing, n=5 FIG. 2. Lower bounds for the QFI of Dλ(|ϕ2ihϕ2|) where |ϕ2i is the ideal symmetric probe state and Dλ is a special dephasing channel with λ = 1 2 that dephases up to 1 qubit. When the l… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Variational-State Quantum Metrology

    quant-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A variational algorithm finds non-symmetric quantum probe states that significantly outperform conventional symmetric states for noisy quantum metrology on up to 9 qubits.

  2. Graph States as a Resource for Quantum Metrology

    quant-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bundled graph states achieve near-Heisenberg-limited phase estimation and retain a quantum advantage under iid dephasing and, on average, under a few qubit erasures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [29]

    Pauli Exchange Errors in Quantum Compu- tation,

    M. B. Ruskai, “Pauli Exchange Errors in Quantum Compu- tation,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 85, pp. 194–197, July 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [1]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and be- yond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and be- yond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, Aug. 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    The generator corresponds only to the unerased qubits, and is given by H =∑N−t i=1 Zi

    The uncorrupted probe state is the pure state |ϕ1⟩⟨ϕ1|, and when t qubits are erased, the resultant probe state is the density matrix ρ = Trt(|ϕ1⟩⟨ϕ1|). The generator corresponds only to the unerased qubits, and is given by H =∑N−t i=1 Zi. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 N, number of qubits 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6logN(QFI) 1 Erasure, n=2 1 Erasure, n=3 1 E...

    work page

  4. [3]

    We then count the num- ber of instances in which the resultant Pauli operator acts non-trivially on zero, one, two, three and four qubits

    (V.7) We show this first using permutation-invariance of the probe state to reorder the Pauli Z operators to only act non- trivially on the first few qubits. We then count the num- ber of instances in which the resultant Pauli operator acts non-trivially on zero, one, two, three and four qubits. Since Dicke states of different weights when multiplied by diag...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Observation of gravitational waves from a bi- nary black hole merger,

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, F. Ac- ernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Ad- hikari, et al., “Observation of gravitational waves from a bi- nary black hole merger,” Physical review letters , vol. 116, no. 6, p. 061102, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Quantum radar

    L. Maccone and C. Ren, “Quantum radar,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.02672, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1905

  7. [6]

    Quantum metrology and its application in biology,

    M. A. Taylor and W. P. Bowen, “Quantum metrology and its application in biology,” Physics Reports, vol. 615, pp. 1–59, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    Quantum phase estimation with lossy interferometers,

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walms- ley, “Quantum phase estimation with lossy interferometers,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 80, p. 013825, Jul 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Quantum metrology enhanced by repetitive quantum error correction,

    T. Unden, P. Balasubramanian, D. Louzon, Y. Vinkler, M. B. Plenio, M. Markham, D. Twitchen, A. Stacey, I. Lovchin- sky, A. O. Sushkov, et al. , “Quantum metrology enhanced by repetitive quantum error correction,” Physical review let- ters, vol. 116, no. 23, p. 230502, 2016

    2016

  2. [9]

    Quantum hamiltonian identifica- tion from measurement time traces,

    J. Zhang and M. Sarovar, “Quantum hamiltonian identifica- tion from measurement time traces,” Physical review letters, vol. 113, no. 8, p. 080401, 2014

    2014

  3. [10]

    Finite-error metrological bounds on multiparameter hamiltonian estimation,

    N. Kura and M. Ueda, “Finite-error metrological bounds on multiparameter hamiltonian estimation,” Physical Review A, vol. 97, no. 1, p. 012101, 2018

    2018

  4. [11]

    Quantum metrology of spatial defor- mation using arrays of classical and quantum light emitters,

    J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, “Quantum metrology of spatial defor- mation using arrays of classical and quantum light emitters,” Physical Review A, vol. 95, no. 6, p. 063829, 2017

    2017

  5. [12]

    Quantum fisher information for general spatial deformations of quantum emitters,

    J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, “Quantum fisher information for general spatial deformations of quantum emitters,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01601, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Quantum error correction for metrology,

    E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum error correction for metrology,” Physical review letters, vol. 112, no. 15, p. 150802, 2014

    2014

  7. [14]

    Improved quantum metrology using quantum error correction,

    W. D¨ ur, M. Skotiniotis, F. Froewis, and B. Kraus, “Improved quantum metrology using quantum error correction,” Physi- cal Review Letters, vol. 112, no. 8, p. 080801, 2014

    2014

  8. [15]

    In- creasing sensing resolution with error correction,

    G. Arrad, Y. Vinkler, D. Aharonov, and A. Retzker, “In- creasing sensing resolution with error correction,” Physical review letters, vol. 112, no. 15, p. 150801, 2014

    2014

  9. [16]

    Magnetic-field sensing with quantum error detection under the effect of energy relax- ation,

    Y. Matsuzaki and S. Benjamin, “Magnetic-field sensing with quantum error detection under the effect of energy relax- ation,” Physical Review A, vol. 95, no. 3, p. 032303, 2017

    2017

  10. [17]

    Achieving the heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction,

    S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, “Achieving the heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction,” Nature Communications , vol. 9, no. 1, p. 78, 2018

    2018

  11. [18]

    Ancilla- free quantum error correction codes for quantum metrology,

    D. Layden, S. Zhou, P. Cappellaro, and L. Jiang, “Ancilla- free quantum error correction codes for quantum metrology,” Physical review letters, vol. 122, no. 4, p. 040502, 2019

    2019

  12. [19]

    Quantum error correction in multi-parameter quantum metrology,

    W. Gorecki, S. Zhou, L. Jiang, and R. Demkowicz- Dobrzanski, “Quantum error correction in multi-parameter quantum metrology,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.00896, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  13. [20]

    The elusive heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrol- ogy,

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J. Ko lody´ nski, and M. Gut ¸˘ a, “The elusive heisenberg limit in quantum-enhanced metrol- ogy,” Nature Communications, vol. 3, Jan. 2012

    2012

  14. [21]

    Random bosonic states for robust quantum metrology,

    M. Oszmaniec, R. Augusiak, C. Gogolin, J. Ko lody´ nski, A. Ac´ ın, and M. Lewenstein, “Random bosonic states for robust quantum metrology,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 6, p. 041044, Dec 2016

    2016

  15. [22]

    Quantum spin squeezing,

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C.-P. Sun, and F. Nori, “Quantum spin squeezing,” Physics Reports, vol. 509, no. 2-3, pp. 89–165, 2011

    2011

  16. [23]

    Quantum enhanced estima- tion of a multidimensional field,

    T. Baumgratz and A. Datta, “Quantum enhanced estima- tion of a multidimensional field,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 116, p. 030801, January 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

    Quantum error detection .II. Bounds,

    A. E. Ashikhmin, A. M. Barg, E. Knill, and S. N. Litsyn, “Quantum error detection .II. Bounds,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 46, pp. 789–800, May 2000

    2000

  18. [25]

    A finite Gilbert-Varshamov bound for pure stabilizer quantum codes,

    K. Feng and Z. Ma, “A finite Gilbert-Varshamov bound for pure stabilizer quantum codes,” IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3323–3325, 2004

    2004

  19. [26]

    The asymptotic probability distribution of the rela- tive distance of additive quantum codes,

    Y. Ma, “The asymptotic probability distribution of the rela- tive distance of additive quantum codes,” Journal of Math- ematical Analysis and Applications , vol. 340, pp. 550–557, 2008

    2008

  20. [27]

    Quantum Gilbert-Varshamov bound through symplectic self-orthogonal codes,

    L. Jin and C. Xing, “Quantum Gilbert-Varshamov bound through symplectic self-orthogonal codes,” in IEEE In- ternational Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings (ISIT), pp. 455–458, Aug. 2011

    2011

  21. [28]

    Concatenated quantum codes can attain the quantum gilbertvarshamov bound,

    Y. Ouyang, “Concatenated quantum codes can attain the quantum gilbertvarshamov bound,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, pp. 3117–3122, June 2014. 10

    2014

  22. [30]

    Permutationally invariant codes for quantum error correction,

    H. Pollatsek and M. B. Ruskai, “Permutationally invariant codes for quantum error correction,” Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 392, no. 0, pp. 255–288, 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    Permutation-invariant quantum codes,

    Y. Ouyang, “Permutation-invariant quantum codes,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 90, no. 6, p. 062317, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Permutation-invariant codes encoding more than one qubit,

    Y. Ouyang and J. Fitzsimons, “Permutation-invariant codes encoding more than one qubit,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 93, p. 042340, Apr 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Permutation-invariant qudit codes from polyno- mials,

    Y. Ouyang, “Permutation-invariant qudit codes from polyno- mials,” Linear Algebra and its Applications , vol. 532, pp. 43 – 59, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Permutation-invariant constant-excitation quantum codes for amplitude damping,

    Y. Ouyang, “Permutation-invariant constant-excitation quantum codes for amplitude damping,” 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Initializing a permutation-invariant quantum error- correction code,

    C. Wu, Y. Wang, C. Guo, Y. Ouyang, G. Wang, and X.-L. Feng, “Initializing a permutation-invariant quantum error- correction code,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 99, p. 012335, Jan 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Entanglement and symmetry in permutation-symmetric states,

    D. J. H. Markham, “Entanglement and symmetry in permutation-symmetric states,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 83, p. 42332, Apr. 2011

    2011

  29. [37]

    New class of quan- tum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode,

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, “New class of quan- tum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 6, p. 031006, Jul 2016. Appendix A: Commutation identities For Hermitian matrices A and B,...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.