Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 82 references

Representations of two-qubit and ququart states via discrete Wigner functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The paper derives discrete SU(2)⊗SU(2) and SU(4) Wigner representations of two-qubit and ququart states and introduces a difference function that marks quantum correlations in X-states.

desk verdict Useful SU(4) discrete Wigner formulas, but the ΔX entanglement indicator fails a basic separable-state control. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02410 v2 pith:4BIOUT6P submitted 2019-08-07 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Marcelo A. Marchiolli , Diogenes Galetti This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords discreteWignerfunctionfinite-dimensionalphasespacestwo-qubitstatesququartX-statesSchwingerunitaryoperatorsquantumcorrelationsentanglement
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

This paper aims to show that the discrete Wigner function, built from a mapping between Schwinger unitary operators and the generators of SU(N), gives a workable phase-space description of both two-qubit and ququart states. It produces explicit closed forms for the SU(2)⊗SU(2) and SU(4) Wigner functions and connects them by an explicit change-of-basis correspondence, so that a two-qubit state can be visualized on a 16-point discrete phase space. For two-qubit X-states, the antidiagonal density-matrix elements enter only through the marginal $R_X(\nu)$, and the paper proposes the difference $\Delta_X(\mu,\nu)=W_X(\mu,\nu)-Q_X(\mu)R_X(\nu)$ as a qualitative marker of the quantum correlations in the state. The payoff is a genuinely discrete, finite-dimensional phase-space tool that can be applied directly to tomographically reconstructed density matrices, such as those from NMR experiments on a single ququart.

What carries the argument

The engine is the mod($N$)-invariant operator basis built from Schwinger unitary operators $\hat{U},\hat{V}$, which maps each generator $\hat{g}_i$ of $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ to a function $(\hat{g}_i)(\mu,\nu)$ on an $N\times N$ discrete phase space. This produces the discrete $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ Wigner function $W(\mu,\nu)=\frac1N+\frac12\sum_i\langle\hat{g}_i\rangle(\hat{g}_i)(\mu,\nu)$. Applied to $N=2\otimes2$ and $N=4$, the same object yields the two-qubit and ququart descriptions; for X-states the new functional $\Delta_X=W_X-Q_XR_X$ is defined as the difference between the full Wigner function and the product of its marginals.

What would settle it

For the Werner state at $F=1/2$, the paper's own formula gives $\Delta_W=-1/4$ or $1/12$, although that state is separable. If $\Delta_X$ is claimed to recognize entanglement, this is already a counterexample; if it is claimed to recognize broader quantum correlations, the decisive test is to compare $\Delta_X$ with quantum discord across the same family of X-states and check whether $\Delta_X$ vanishes exactly when discord vanishes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the same Schwinger-operator framework that yields a discrete SU(N) Wigner function can be specialized to $N=2\otimes2$ and $N=4$, producing two related but distinct representations of two-qubit and ququart density matrices. The $\mathrm{SU}(2)\otimes\mathrm{SU}(2)$ form is written directly in Fano's tensor-product coefficients $a_i,b_j,c_{ij}$; the $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ form is written in the fifteen $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ generators and in density-matrix elements, with explicit linear relations expressing the Fano coefficients in terms of the $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ generators. Through the ququart–two-qubit isomorphism, a two-qubit state acquires a 16-point phase-space plot. For X-states, the paper defines $\Delta_X=W_X-Q_XR_X$ and argues that this function isolates the phase-space contribution of the antidiagonal coherences, making pre-existing quantum correlations visible; it illustrates the behavior on Bell, Werner, Peres–Horodecki, and Gisin states.

Load-bearing premise

The indicator $\Delta_X$ treats the product of the two marginal distributions as the complete correlation-free reference, so any nonzero difference is assigned to quantum correlations; if that reference is not truly the classical part, a separable state could show a nonzero $\Delta_X$ without actually having the quantum correlations claimed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A tomographically reconstructed two-qubit density matrix can be displayed as a discrete $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ Wigner function on a 4×4 grid, so experiments that already perform state tomography can attach phase-space images to their data.
  • The Bell and Werner states acquire compact closed-form discrete Wigner functions; for Bell states $\Delta$ takes only two values, $\pm\tfrac34$ or $\pm\tfrac14$, giving a crisp phase-space signature of maximal entanglement.
  • Because $Q_X(\mu)$ depends only on diagonal density-matrix entries and $R_X(\nu)$ only on antidiagonal entries, $\Delta_X$ measures the phase-space weight carried by the coherence terms of an X-state.
  • The same algebraic construction extends the framework to discrete Husimi and Glauber–Sudarshan functions, and the $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ overlap formula gives a Wigner-function route to the fidelity $\mathrm{Tr}[\hat\rho\hat\sigma]$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If $\Delta_X$ is read as a quantitative correlation witness, it needs calibration against known separability and discord criteria: the paper itself reports nonzero $\Delta_X$ for separable Werner states at $F=1/2$, so $\Delta_X$ is best read as a marker of general quantum correlations, not of entanglement alone.
  • The same marginal-subtraction recipe could be applied to the $\mathrm{SU}(2)\otimes\mathrm{SU}(2)$ Wigner function itself or to higher-dimensional discrete Wigner functions, giving correlation markers for qutrit or ququart–ququart states once tomography data are available.
  • The ordering of maximal $|\Delta_X|$ across Bell (0.65), Gisin (0.60), and Peres–Horodecki (0.46) states suggests $\Delta_X$ might serve as a qualitative ranking of correlation strength within the X-state family, which the paper does not yet formalize.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript constructs discrete Wigner functions for two-qubit and ququart states using a Schwinger-operator mapping to SU(N) generators, following the authors' companion paper [26]. It derives explicit formulas for the SU(2)⊗SU(2) Wigner function (Eq. 13 and 16) and the SU(4) Wigner function (Eq. 25), applies them to Bell and Werner states, and reproduces an NMR ququart experiment [11]. The central new claim, developed in Sections 4–5, is that for two-qubit X-states the quantity ΔX(μ,ν) = WX(μ,ν) − QX(μ)RX(ν), where QX and RX are marginal distributions, recognizes quantum correlations (Section 4, Table 5) and, in the concluding section, entanglement effects.

Significance. If the ΔX claim were correct, the paper would provide a simple, parameter-free phase-space indicator for correlations in X-states, complementing tomographic reconstruction techniques. The algebraic formulas are internally consistent, explicit, and directly usable; the expressions for Bell and Werner states and the ququart experiment are concrete and reproducible. However, the interpretive claim about ΔX is currently unsupported and is contradicted by a separable-state counterexample. The formalism itself is a legitimate contribution to the discrete phase-space literature, mainly because it provides explicit SU(2)⊗SU(2) and SU(4) Wigner functions, which are verified by spot checks and are of practical value for state visualization and fidelity computations (Eq. 42).

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 5, and Section 5] The claim that ΔX recognizes quantum correlations, explicitly attributed to entanglement effects in Section 5, fails a separable-state control. For the X-state ρ = (|Φ+⟩⟨Φ+| + |Ψ+⟩⟨Ψ+|)/2, with ρ11 = ρ22 = ρ33 = ρ44 = 1/4 and ρ14 = ρ23 = 1/4, the partial transpose leaves the density matrix unchanged, so the state is PPT and, for two qubits, separable; the concurrence is 2 max(0, |ρ14| − √(ρ22ρ33), |ρ23| − √(ρ11ρ44)) = 0. Yet Table 5 gives ΔX(0,0) = −[√(2−√2)/2](1 + √2 ρ11) Re(ρ14 + ρ23) ≈ −0.26 ≠ 0. Nonzero ΔX therefore does not imply entanglement. If 'quantum correlations' is meant in a broader sense such as discord, that notion is not defined in the paper and no connection between ΔX and any discord measure is established. The authors should either prove a rigorous statement about what ΔX quantifies, restrict the claim accordingly, or provide control tests on a family of separable X-states.
  2. [Section 4, definition of ΔX] The product QX(μ)RX(ν) is asserted to represent the uncorrelated classical part of WX without derivation or justification. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim. It is also false under the entanglement interpretation, as the counterexample above shows. The paper needs a formal definition of 'quantum correlations' in the discrete-phase-space context and a proof (or at least a demonstrated monotonic relation with a known correlation measure such as concurrence or discord) for the X-state family.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (25)] Equation (25), the general SU(4) Wigner function, is the basis for Table 4 and all subsequent X-state formulas, but its derivation from Eq. (7) and the mapped generator expressions (A.4) is summarized only as 'promptly calculated' in Appendix A. Given that (A.4) contains numerous trigonometric factors, a more explicit derivation for at least the off-diagonal contributions would strengthen the paper and help readers verify the table entries. This is not a fatal flaw, but it is a load-bearing point that would benefit from expansion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'computacional basis' should be 'computational basis', 'M orever' should be 'Moreover', 'monitorate' should be 'monitor', 'genuinelly' should be 'genuinely', and 'Ressonance' should be 'Resonance'.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (4)] The mod-N Kronecker delta δ[4] is used in Eq. (25) and footnote f of Appendix A but is not defined before its first use; please define δ[4] explicitly in Section 2.
  3. [Section 4, Table 5] The correspondence between the two-qubit matrix elements ρ and the ququart matrix elements ̺ is mentioned briefly, but readers would benefit from a direct restatement of the mapping for the X-state case (e.g., ̺11 = ρ11, ̺22 = ρ22, ̺33 = ρ33, ̺44 = ρ44, ̺14 = ρ14, ̺23 = ρ23).
  4. [Section 5, Eq. (39)] The state in Eq. (39) is called the 'Peres-Horodecki (PH)' state, but Peres-Horodecki's work refers to a separability criterion, not a family of states; the terminology is misleading and should be replaced with a reference to the Werner or X-state family.
  5. [Figures 1–4] The three-dimensional plots lack axis labels and numerical scales, which reduces their usefulness as quantitative illustrations; adding labels or color bars would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all Wigner-function expressions are derived explicitly from the mod(N)-invariant basis, and the ΔX indicator is a defined quantity rather than a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The discrete Wigner function W(μ,ν)=Tr[Ĝ†(μ,ν)ρ] is defined in Eq. (6), and the SU(N) expression (7) follows from the mod(N)-invariant operator basis of Ref. [27]; the SU(4) function (25) is obtained by direct substitution of the mean values (A.3) and the mapped generators (A.4). No free parameter is fitted and no external dataset is used, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The paper does lean on the authors' companion paper [26] for the Schwinger-operator mapping and on their earlier X-state universality theorem [24], but both are independent, parameter-free mathematical constructions with stated assumptions that do not include the present target results; citing them is therefore normal scientific support, not load-bearing circularity. The central interpretive step is the identification of ΔX(μ,ν)=WX(μ,ν)−QX(μ)RX(ν) with "quantum correlations" or "entanglement effects" (Sec. 4 and Sec. 5). This is a definitional functional, not a quantity obtained by fitting or by derivation from an entanglement measure. If a separable X-state yields nonzero ΔX, that would refute the interpretive claim as a matter of correctness, but it does not make the claim circular, because the paper never defines "quantum correlations" in terms of ΔX (which would make the statement tautological) nor reduces ΔX to a previously fitted target. Accordingly, no load-bearing step of the derivation is equivalent by construction to its own input.

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

The framework introduces no free parameters fitted to data. It relies on the authors' previously developed Schwinger-operator mapping, a basis choice, and an interpretive assumption that ΔX represents quantum correlations.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The mod(N)-invariant operator basis and the discrete Fourier transform relation to Schwinger unitary operators provide a complete orthonormal operator basis for SU(N) generators.
    This is the framework from the authors' companion paper [26] and earlier work [27-29]; the present paper relies on it for the definition of W(μ,ν) in Eq (7) without reproving it.
  • domain assumption The computational-basis isomorphism between ququart states and two-qubit states preserves the discrete phase-space representation.
    Section 3.2.1 invokes Refs [10,33] to identify |0⟩↔|00⟩, |1⟩↔|01⟩, |2⟩↔|10⟩, |3⟩↔|11⟩; the physical correspondence is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The product of marginal distributions QX(μ)RX(ν) represents the uncorrelated part of the discrete Wigner function, so ΔX quantifies quantum correlations.
    Section 4 asserts this interpretation without a theorem or control study on separable X-states; this is the load-bearing interpretive assumption behind the paper's main new contribution.
  • standard math The generators of SU(4) used in Appendix A form a standard Gell-Mann-like basis with Tr[g_i g_j]=2δ_ij.
    Standard Lie algebra normalization from Refs [43-45], used to derive mean values in (A.3) and mapped expressions in (A.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Representations of two-qubit and ququart states via discrete Wigner functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BIOUT6P

@misc{pith2026190802410,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Representations of two-qubit and ququart states via discrete Wigner functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BIOUT6P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02410}
}
abstract

By means of a well-grounded mapping scheme linking Schwinger unitary operators and generators of the special unitary group $\mathrm{SU(N)}$, it is possible to establish a self-consistent theoretical framework for finite-dimensional discrete phase spaces which has the discrete $\mathrm{SU(N)}$ Wigner function as a legitimate by-product. In this paper, we apply these results with the aim of putting forth a detailed study on the discrete $\mathrm{SU(2)} \otimes \mathrm{SU(2)}$ and $\mathrm{SU(4)}$ Wigner functions, in straight connection with experiments involving, among other things, the tomographic reconstruction of density matrices related to the two-qubit and ququart states. Next, we establish a formal correspondence between both the descriptions that allows us to visualize the quantum correlation effects of these states in finite-dimensional discrete phase spaces. Moreover, we perform a theoretical investigation on the two-qubit X-states, which combines discrete Wigner functions and their respective marginal distributions in order to obtain a new function responsible for describing qualitatively the quantum correlation effects. To conclude, we also discuss possible extensions to the discrete Husimi and Glauber-Sudarshan distribution functions, as well as future applications on spin chains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02410 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three-dimensional plots of the discrete SU(4) Wigne [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three-dimensional plots of the discrete SU(4) Wigne [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three-dimensional plots of the discrete SU(4) Wigne [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three-dimensional plots of WX(µ, ν; γ) and ∆X(µ, ν; γ) versus 0 ≤ µ, ν ≤ 3 for two distinct values of γ: (a) WX(µ, ν; 3 4 ), (b) ∆X(µ, ν; 3 4 ), (c) WX(µ, ν; 1 2 ), and (d) ∆X(µ, ν; 1 2 ). In both cases, the quantum correlations associated with the non-accessed state |…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    M. A. Marchiolli and D. Galetti (2019), On the discrete Wigner function for SU(N) , to appear in J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ab3bab (arXiv: 1908.01096 [quant-ph])

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [11]

    Gedik, I

    Z. Gedik, I. A. Silva, B. C ¸ akmak, G. Karpat, E. L. G. Vidot o, D. O. Soares-Pinto, E. R. de Azevedo, and F. F. Fanchini (2015), Computational speed-up with a single qudit , Sci. Rep., 5, pp. 14671

    work page 2015

  3. [1]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen (1935), Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? , Phys. Rev., 47, pp. 777-780

    1935

  4. [2]

    Schr¨ odinger (1935),Die gegenw¨ artige Situation in der Quantenmechanick, Naturwissenschaften, 23, pp

    E. Schr¨ odinger (1935),Die gegenw¨ artige Situation in der Quantenmechanick, Naturwissenschaften, 23, pp. 807-812, 823-828, and also 844-849

    1935

  5. [3]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki (2009), Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys., 81, pp. 865-942

    work page 2009

  6. [4]

    Perseguers, G

    S. Perseguers, G. J. Lapeyre Jr, D. Cavalcanti, M. Lewenst ein, and A. Ac´ ın (2013),Distribution of entanglement in large-scale networks , Rep. Prog. Phys., 76, pp. 096001

    work page 2013

  7. [5]

    Aolita, F

    L. Aolita, F. de Melo, and L. Davidovich (2015), Open-system dynamics of entanglement: a key issues review, Rep. Prog. Phys., 78, pp. 042001

    work page 2015

  8. [6]

    De Chiara and A

    G. De Chiara and A. Sanpera (2018), Genuine quantum correlations in quantum many-body sys- tems: a review of recent progress , Rep. Prog. Phys., 81, pp. 074002

    work page 2018

Show all 82 references
  1. [7]

    Li and C-F

    J-L. Li and C-F. Qiao (2018), A Necessary and Sufficient Criterion for the Separability of Q uantum State, Sci. Rep., 8, pp. 1442

    2018

  2. [8]

    Witten (2018), APS Medal for Exceptional Achievement in Research: Invited article on entan- glement properties of quantum field theory , Rev

    E. Witten (2018), APS Medal for Exceptional Achievement in Research: Invited article on entan- glement properties of quantum field theory , Rev. Mod. Phys., 90, pp. 045003

    2018

  3. [9]

    Nagali, D

    E. Nagali, D. Giovannini, L. Marrucci, S. Slussarenko, E. Santamato, and F. Sciarrino (2010), Experimental Optimal Cloning of Four-Dimensional Quantum States of Photons , Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, pp. 073602

    2010

  4. [10]

    Svetitsky, H

    E. Svetitsky, H. Suchowski, R. Resh, Y. Shalibo, J. M. Mar tinis, and N. Katz (2014), Hidden two-qubit dynamics of a four-level Josephson circuit , Nat. Comm., 5, pp. 5617

    2014

  5. [12]

    M. Kues, C. Reimer, P. Roztocki, L. R. Cort´ es, S. Sciara,B. Wetzel, Y. Zhang, A. Cino, S. T. Chu, B. E. Little, D. J. Moss, L. Casparini, J. Aza˜ na, and R. Morandotti (2017), On-chip generation of high-dimensional entangled quantum states and their coher ent control, Nature...

    2017

  6. [13]

    X-M. Hu, Y. Guo, B-H. Liu, Y-F. Huang, C-F. Li, and G-C. Guo (2018), Beating the channel capacity limit for superdense coding with entangled ququar ts, Sci. Adv., 4, pp. eaat9304. Marchiolli and Galetti 27

    2018

  7. [14]

    Micadei, J

    K. Micadei, J. P. S. Peterson, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, G. T. Landi, T. B. Batalh˜ ao, R. M. Serra, and E. Lutz (2019), Reversing the direction of heat flow using quantum correlations, Nat. Comm., 10, pp. 2456

    2019

  8. [15]

    Schneeloch, C

    J. Schneeloch, C. C. Tison, M. L. Fanto, P. M. Alsing, and G . A. Howland (2019), Quantifying entanglement in a 68-billion-dimensional quantum state sp ace, Nat. Comm., 10, pp. 2785

    2019

  9. [16]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang (2001), Quantum Computation and Quantum Information , Cam- bridge University Press (Cambridge)

    2001

  10. [17]

    Vedral (2006), Introduction to Quantum Information Science , Oxford University Press (New York)

    V. Vedral (2006), Introduction to Quantum Information Science , Oxford University Press (New York)

    2006

  11. [18]

    M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani (2007), An introduction to entanglement measures , Quantum Inf. Comput., 7, pp. 001-051

    2007

  12. [19]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski (2008), Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement, Cambridge University Press (New York)

    2008

  13. [20]

    S. M. Barnett (2009), Quantum Information , Oxford University Press (New York)

    2009

  14. [21]

    Desurvire (2009), Classical and Quantum Information Theory: An Introduction for the Telecom Scientist, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge)

    E. Desurvire (2009), Classical and Quantum Information Theory: An Introduction for the Telecom Scientist, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge)

    2009

  15. [22]

    D. C. Marinescu and G. M. Marinescu (2012), Classical and Quantum Information , Academic Press (Oxford)

    2012

  16. [23]

    M. M. Wilde (2013), Quantum Information Theory , Cambridge University Press (New York)

    2013

  17. [24]

    P. E. M. F. de Mendon¸ ca, M. A. Marchiolli, and D. Galetti ( 2014), Entanglement universality of two-qubit X-states , Ann. Phys. (NY), 351, pp. 79-103

    2014

  18. [25]

    P. E. M. F. de Mendon¸ ca, M. A. Marchiolli, and S. R. Hedema nn (2017), Maximally entangled mixed states for qubit-qutrit systems , Phys. Rev. A, 95, pp. 022324

    2017

  19. [27]

    Galetti and A

    D. Galetti and A. F. R. de Toledo Piza (1992), Discrete quantum phase spaces and the mod N invariance, Physica A, 186, pp. 513-523

    1992

  20. [28]

    Galetti and M

    D. Galetti and M. A. Marchiolli (1996), Discrete Coherent States and Probability Distributions in Finite-Dimensional Spaces, Ann. Phys., 249, pp. 454-480

    1996

  21. [29]

    Aldrovandi and D

    R. Aldrovandi and D. Galetti (1990), On the structure of quantum phase space , J. Math. Phys., 31, pp. 2987-2995

    1990

  22. [30]

    Fano (1957), Description of States in Quantum Mechanics by Density Matri x and Operator Techniques, Rev

    U. Fano (1957), Description of States in Quantum Mechanics by Density Matri x and Operator Techniques, Rev. Mod. Phys., 29, pp. 74-93

    1957

  23. [31]

    Fano (1983), Pairs of two-level systems , Rev

    U. Fano (1983), Pairs of two-level systems , Rev. Mod. Phys., 55, pp. 855-874

    1983

  24. [32]

    R. F. Werner (1989), Quantum states with Einstein-Podolski-Rosen correlation s admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A, 40, pp. 4277-4281

    1989

  25. [33]

    E. O. Kiktenko, A. K. Fedorov, O. V. Man’ko, and V. I. Man’ko (2015), Multilevel superconducting circuits as two-qubit systems: Operations, state preparat ion, and entropic inequalities , Phys. Rev. A, 91, pp. 042312

    2015

  26. [34]

    Kimura (2003), The Bloch vector for N -level systems , Phys

    G. Kimura (2003), The Bloch vector for N -level systems , Phys. Lett. A, 314, pp. 339-349

    2003

  27. [35]

    M. S. Byrd and N. Khaneja (2003), Characterization of the positivity of the density matrix in terms of the coherence vector representation , Phys. Rev. A, 68, pp. 062322

    2003

  28. [36]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson (2010), Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press (New York)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Kraus (1983), States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quan tum Theory, Lec- ture Notes in Physics 190, Springer-Verlag (Berlin)

    K. Kraus (1983), States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quan tum Theory, Lec- ture Notes in Physics 190, Springer-Verlag (Berlin)

    1983

  30. [38]

    Peres (1996), Separability Criterion for Density Matrices , Phys

    A. Peres (1996), Separability Criterion for Density Matrices , Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, pp. 1413-1415

    1996

  31. [39]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki (1996), Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions , Phys. Lett. A, 223, pp. 1-8

    1996

  32. [40]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. W. Shor, and M. B. Ruskai (2003), Entanglement Breaking Channels, Rev. Math. Phys., 15, pp. 629-641

    2003

  33. [41]

    M. B. Ruskai (2003), Qubit Entanglement Breaking Channels , Rev. Math. Phys., 15, pp. 643-662. 28 Representations of two-qubit and ququart states via discre te Wigner functions

    2003

  34. [42]

    Jagadish and F

    V. Jagadish and F. Petruccione (2018), An Invitation to Quantum Channels , Quanta, 7, pp. 54-67

    2018

  35. [43]

    F. T. Hioe and J. H. Eberly (1981), N -Level Coherence Vector and Higher Conservation Laws in Quantum Optics and Quantum Mechanics , Phys. Rev. Lett., 47, pp. 838-841

    1981

  36. [44]

    Pfeifer (2003), The Lie Algebras su(N): An introduction , Birkh¨ auser (Berlin)

    W. Pfeifer (2003), The Lie Algebras su(N): An introduction , Birkh¨ auser (Berlin)

    2003

  37. [45]

    Mahler and V

    G. Mahler and V. A. Weberruss (1998), Quantum Networks: Dynamics of Open Nanostructures , Springer (Berlin)

    1998

  38. [46]

    Alicki and K

    R. Alicki and K. Lendi (1987), Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications , Springer-Verlag (Berlin)

    1987

  39. [47]

    Kimura and A

    G. Kimura and A. Kossakowski (2005), The Bloch-Vector Space for N -Level Systems: the Spherical- Coordinate Point of View , Open Systems & Information Dynamics, 12, pp. 207-229

    2005

  40. [48]

    Schwinger (2001), Quantum Mechanics: Symbolism of Atomic Measurements , Springer (Berlin)

    J. Schwinger (2001), Quantum Mechanics: Symbolism of Atomic Measurements , Springer (Berlin)

    2001

  41. [49]

    M. A. Marchiolli and P. E. M. F. Mendon¸ ca (2013), Theoretical formulation of finite-dimensional discrete phase spaces: II. On the uncertainty principle for Schwinger unitary operators, Ann. Phys., 336, pp. 76-97

    2013

  42. [50]

    Tilma and K

    T. Tilma and K. Nemoto (2012), SU (N )-symmetric quasi-probability distribution functions , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 45, pp. 015302

    2012

  43. [51]

    Tilma, M

    T. Tilma, M. J. Everitt, J. H. Samson, W. J. Munro, and K. Ne moto (2016), Wigner Functions for Arbitrary Quantum Systems , Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, pp. 180401

    2016

  44. [52]

    G. Baio, D. Chru´ sci´ nski, P. Horodecki, A. Messina, andG. Sarbicki (2019), Bounds on the entan- glement of two-qutrit systems from fixed marginals , Phys. Rev. A, 99, pp. 062312

    2019

  45. [53]

    E. F. Galv˜ ao (2005),Discrete Wigner functions and quantum computational speed up, Phys. Rev. A, 71, pp. 042302

    2005

  46. [54]

    Ishizaka and T

    S. Ishizaka and T. Hiroshima (2000), Local and nonlocal properties of Werner states , Phys. Rev. A, 62, pp. 044302

    2000

  47. [55]

    Horodecki and P

    M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki (1999), Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols , Phys. Rev. A, 59, pp. 4206-4216

    1999

  48. [56]

    Ishizaka and T

    S. Ishizaka and T. Hiroshima (2000), Maximally entangled mixed states under nonlocal unitary operations in two qubits , Phys. Rev. A, 62, pp. 022310

    2000

  49. [57]

    Verstraete, K

    F. Verstraete, K. Audenaert, and B. De Moor (2001), Maximally entangled mixed states of two qubits, Phys. Rev. A, 64, pp. 012316

    2001

  50. [58]

    W. J. Munro, D. F. V. James, A. G. White, and P. G. Kwiat (2001), Maximizing the entanglement of two mixed qubtis , Phys. Rev. A, 64, pp. 030302

    2001

  51. [59]

    T-C. Wei, K. Nemoto, P. M. Goldbart, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munr o, and F. Verstraete, Maximal entanglement versus entropy for mixed quantum states , Phys. Rev. A, 67, pp. 022110

  52. [60]

    Ishizaka (2003), Analytical formula connecting entangled states and the clo sest disentangled state, Phys

    S. Ishizaka (2003), Analytical formula connecting entangled states and the clo sest disentangled state, Phys. Rev. A, 67, pp. 060301

    2003

  53. [61]

    I. S. Oliveira, T. J. Bonagamba, R. S. Sarthour, J. C. C. Fr eitas, and E. R. de Azevedo (2007), NMR Quantum Information Processing , Elsevier (Amsterdan)

    2007

  54. [62]

    M. A. Yurischev (2015), On the quantum discord of general X states , Quantum Inf. Process., 14, pp. 3399-3421

    2015

  55. [63]

    Bartkiewicz, J

    K. Bartkiewicz, J. Beron, K. Lemr, M. Norek, and A. Miranowicz (2015), Quantifying entanglement of a two-qubit system via measurable and invariant moments o f its partially transposed density matrix, Phys. Rev. A, 91, pp. 022323

    2015

  56. [64]

    Nandi, C

    S. Nandi, C. Datta, A. Das, and P. Agrawal (2018), Two-qubit mixed states and teleportation fidelity: purity, concurrence, and beyond , Eur. Phys. J. D, 72, pp. 182

    2018

  57. [65]

    S. R. Hedemann (2018), Candidates for universal measures of multipartite entangl ement, Quant. Inf. Comp., 18, pp. 443-471

    2018

  58. [66]

    S. R. Hedemann (2018), X states of same spectrum and entanglement as all two-qubit s tates, Quantum Inf. Process., 17, pp. 293

    2018

  59. [67]

    M. A. Yurischev (2019), Phase diagram for the one-way quantum deficit of two-qubit X s tates, Quantum Inf. Process., 18, pp. 124

    2019

  60. [68]

    Yu and J

    T. Yu and J. H. Eberly (2007), Evolution from entanglement to decoherence , Quantum Inf. Com- Marchiolli and Galetti 29 put., 7, pp. 459-468

    2007

  61. [69]

    J. Wang, H. Batelaan, J. Podany, and A. F. Starace (2006),Entanglement evolution in the presence of decoherence, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 39, pp. 4343-4353

    2006

  62. [70]

    M. A. Yurischev (2017), Extremal properties of conditional entropy and quantum dis cord for XXZ, symmetric quantum states , Quantum Inf. Process., 16, pp. 249

    2017

  63. [71]

    Park (2019), Thermal entanglement and thermal discord in two-qubit Heis enberg XYZ chain with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions , Quantum Inf

    D. Park (2019), Thermal entanglement and thermal discord in two-qubit Heis enberg XYZ chain with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions , Quantum Inf. Process., 18, pp. 172

    2019

  64. [72]

    W. J. Munro, D. F. V. James, A. G. White, and P. G. Kwiat (2001), Maximizing the entanglement of two mixed qubits , Phys. Rev. A, 64, pp. 030302

    2001

  65. [73]

    Gisin (1996), Hidden quantum nonlocality revealed by local filters , Phys

    N. Gisin (1996), Hidden quantum nonlocality revealed by local filters , Phys. Lett. A, 210, pp. 151-156

    1996

  66. [74]

    Braga, S

    H. Braga, S. Souza, and S. S. Mizrahi (2010), Geometrical meaning of two-qubit entanglement and its symmetries , Phys. Rev. A, 81, pp. 042310

    2010

  67. [75]

    Giscard and C

    P-L. Giscard and C. Bonhomme (2019), General solutions for quantum dynamical systems driven by time-varying Hamiltonians: applications to NMR , arXiv: 1905.04024 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Boette and R

    A. Boette and R. Rossignoli (2018), History states of systems and operators , Phys. Rev. A, 98, pp. 032108

    2018

  69. [77]

    Liang, Y-H

    Y-C. Liang, Y-H. Yeh, P. E. M. F. Mendon¸ ca, R. Y. Teh, M. D. Reid, and P. D. Drummond (2019), Quantum fidelity measures for mixed states , Rep. Prog. Phys., 82, pp. 076001

    2019

  70. [78]

    P. E. M. F. Mendon¸ ca, R. D. J. Napolitano, M. A. Marchiolli, C. J. Foster, and Y-C. Liang (2008), Alternative fidelity measure between quantum states , Phys. Rev. A, 78, pp. 052330

    2008

  71. [79]

    J. A. Miszczak, Z. Pucha/suppress la, P. Horodecki, A. Uhlmann, and K. Zyczkowski (2009), Sub- and super-fidelity as bounds for quantum fidelity , Quantum Inf. Comput., 9, pp. 103-130

    2009

  72. [80]

    Ruzzi, M

    M. Ruzzi, M. A. Marchiolli, and D. Galetti (2005), Extended Cahill-Glauber formalism for finite- dimensional spaces: I. Fundamentals , J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 38, pp. 6239-6251

    2005

  73. [81]

    M. A. Marchiolli, M. Ruzzi, and D. Galetti (2005), Extended Cahill-Glauber formalism for finite- dimensional spaces. II. Applications in quantum tomograph y and quantum teleportation , Phys. Rev. A, 72, pp. 042308

    2005

  74. [82]

    K-C. Ha, K. H. Han, and S-H. Kye (2019), Separability of multi-qubit states in terms of diagonal and anti-diagonal entries , Quantum Inf. Process., 18, pp. 34. Appendix A The mathematical prescription adopted to obtain the generators of SU(4) basically follows that outlined in...

    2019

Pith tools

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