Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Robustness of tripartite entangled states in passive PT-symmetric qubits

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three dissipative qubits operated at an exceptional point can generate genuine tripartite GHZ and W states faster than Hermitian qubits, and these states survive non-uniform couplings and detuned driving.

desk verdict A competent numerical extension of the same group's earlier EP-based GHZ/W generation; the conditional-state results hold together, but the abstract overclaims practicality without quantifying the post-selected no-jump success probability. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17457 v2 pith:QORK67QN submitted 2024-11-26 quant-ph

C. G. Feyisa , Cheng-Yu Liu , Muhammad S. Hasan , J. S. You , Huan-Yu Ku , H. H. Jen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords non-HermitianquantumsystemsexceptionalpointsPTsymmetrytripartiteentanglementGHZstatesWsuperconductingqubitspost-selection
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 tries to establish that non-Hermitian (lossy) superconducting qubits, tuned near a higher-order exceptional point, are not just a mathematical curiosity but a practical resource for fast multipartite entanglement. The central claim is that three such qubits evolve into a GHZ state when coupled all-to-all and into a W state when coupled only between neighbours, reaching these states at the same early time of about 3.23 microseconds, well before a comparable Hermitian system would. The paper further argues that this entanglement is robust: it survives a broad range of non-uniform coupling strengths and detunings up to the optimal coupling strength, and strong Rabi driving can sustain it by shifting the system into the PT-symmetric phase. Hybrid systems containing one or two Hermitian qubits, by contrast, produce only biseparable entanglement because the Hermitian and non-Hermitian parts evolve on incompatible timescales. If correct, the result matters because fast, robust multipartite entanglement is a scarce resource for quantum communication and computation within coherence times.

What carries the argument

The engine of the effect is the eighth-order exceptional point of the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), the point where all eigenvalues and eigenvectors coalesce. Operating near this EP makes the qubits highly sensitive to even tiny inter-qubit couplings, which redistributes population and phase among the three qubits, producing entanglement on a timescale set by the EP structure rather than by the coupling strength. The evolution is computed with the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian and manual renormalization, equivalent to post-selection of the no-jump trajectory. The diagnostics used to identify the states are the pairwise concurrences, the residual three-tangle, and the von Neumann entropies of the reduced single-qubit states, whose values distinguish GHZ states ($S_j=\ln2$, $\tau=1$) from W states ($S_j\approx0.637$, $\tau=0$).

What would settle it

A direct test would be a full Liouvillian master-equation simulation of the same three-qubit system including quantum jumps, evaluated at $t \approx 3.23\,\mu\text{s}$ without post-selection. If the unconditional density matrix shows vanishing three-tangle and entanglement entropies far from the GHZ/W values, the central claim, as stated, would be falsified. An experimental alternative is to measure the success probability of the post-selected protocol on a superconducting transmon platform and check whether genuine tripartite entanglement survives when trajectories are averaged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the passive PT-symmetric Hamiltonian for three coupled transmons, with manual normalization that corresponds to post-selecting no-jump trajectories, the authors find that all-to-all coupled qubits generate a state whose pairwise concurrences vanish while entanglement entropies reach $\ln 2$ and the residual three-tangle reaches unity—the signatures of a GHZ state. Nearest-neighbour coupled qubits instead reach entanglement entropies $S_j = \ln 3 - (2/3)\ln 2$ with vanishing three-tangle, signalling a W state; both appear at $t \approx 3.23\,\mu\text{s}$, independent of the coupling topology. The same entangled states persist when the couplings are made non-uniform and when the driving field is detuned, as long as the detuning stays below the optimal inter-qubit coupling. Adding one or two Hermitian qubits destroys genuine tripartite entanglement: the mismatched evolution times produce only biseparable states. Finally, increasing the Rabi frequency drives the system from the PT-broken to the PT-symmetric phase and sustains the tripartite entanglement, whereas increasing the coupling strength alone helps only in the low-dissipation regime.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis relies on the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian with manual normalization, which is equivalent to keeping only the no-jump quantum trajectory; if that post-selection cannot be performed with a realistically high success probability in an experiment, the fast and robust entangled states described here will not appear in the unconditioned dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Three-qubit GHZ and W states can be generated in roughly $3\,\mu\text{s}$, much faster than Hermitian qubits with the same couplings, making the scheme viable within coherence times.
  • The entanglement survives detunings up to the optimal coupling and moderate coupling disorder, so the protocol does not require fine-tuned fabrication.
  • Strong Rabi driving sustains tripartite entanglement by moving the system into the PT-symmetric phase and counteracting losses.
  • Hybrid Hermitian/non-Hermitian arrays can rapidly produce biseparable states, which may serve as resources that retain entanglement when some qubits are lost.
  • Optimal GHZ and W generation occurs for uniform couplings; large coupling asymmetries suppress the entanglement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not carry out is to compute the post-selection success probability and the unconditional (jump-included) fidelity; if the success probability decays with qubit number, the practical speed-up may not survive full Liouvillian dynamics.
  • The same EP mechanism might be used to engineer specific target states by choosing the coupling graph, since the all-to-all versus nearest-neighbour distinction selects GHZ versus W classes.
  • One could test the robustness predictions directly by sweeping a single coupling asymmetry in a three-transmon experiment and measuring the three-tangle at the predicted time.
  • The claim that strong driving sustains entanglement suggests a possible connection to Floquet engineering of non-Hermitian phases, a direction the paper does not explore.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies three-qubit entanglement generated by passive PT-symmetric non-Hermitian superconducting qubits with the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1). It uses the non-unitary evolution of Eq. (2) with manual renormalization, i.e., postselected no-jump dynamics, and computes pairwise concurrences, residual tangle, and von Neumann entropies. The main claims are that all-to-all coupling generates GHZ states, nearest-neighbour coupling generates W states, these states are robust to non-uniform couplings and off-resonant driving, hybrid Hermitian/non-Hermitian setups produce only biseparable states, and strong driving sustains entanglement in the PT-symmetric phase.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a concrete resource for accelerated multipartite entanglement generation in superconducting circuits using higher-order exceptional points, with explicit parameter regimes and quantitative comparisons to Hermitian qubits. The numerics are straightforward and appear internally consistent; the use of multiple entanglement monotones is appropriate. The main caveat is that all entanglement statements concern the conditional no-jump state, and the manuscript does not quantify the corresponding success probability or fidelity, so the practical/robustness claims extend beyond the presented evidence. With those quantities added, the work would be a useful contribution to the non-Hermitian quantum information literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II (Eq. (2)) and Sec. VII] The manuscript acknowledges that manual normalization is equivalent to postselecting no-jump trajectories, but it never reports the success probability P(t)=||e^{-iHt}|ψ(0)>||^2 at the optimal times used in Figs. 1-4. For the initial state with equal weights on |e> and |f>, P(t) may not be exponentially small (in the noninteracting limit it is roughly (1/2 + e^{-γt}/2)^3 ~ 1/8 for t=3.23 µs), but the paper should verify this for the coupled dynamics. Without P(t), the abstract's statements that the states are 'useful for quantum technologies' and that strong driving 'sustains' entanglement are not supported for unconditional operation. Please add P(t) curves or clearly restrict all practical claims to the conditional postselected state.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 1(b)] The identification of the nearest-neighbour state as a W state rests on the three reduced entropies approximately reaching ln3 - (2/3)ln2 and the tangle vanishing. These are necessary signatures, but they are indirect; the same entropy triple could in principle occur for a state in the W class that is not locally equivalent to the symmetric |W> state. To make the classification rigorous, report the fidelity of the generated state with |W> (or with the W class after optimization over local unitaries), and give the state amplitudes at t=3.23 µs.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 2(b)] The text states that entanglement remains robust for Δ ≲ J_opt with J_opt = 10^-3 rad/µs, but the figure shows detunings up to 10^-1 rad/µs. This leaves the quantitative robustness window ambiguous: is Δ=10^-2 rad/µs inside or outside the claimed regime? Please specify the threshold Δ_max for a chosen entanglement tolerance and reconcile the statement with the plotted curves, since the abstract's 'resilient to off-resonant driving' depends on this window.
  4. [Sec. VI, Fig. 4] The claim that strong Rabi driving 'counteracts losses' and sustains entanglement is made in the renormalized conditional-state picture; in the unconditional Lindblad evolution the norm still decays and the no-jump branch occurs with probability that is not reported. Please either present the unconditional (jump-included) dynamics for the strong-driving regime or explicitly state that the sustained entanglement is a property of the conditional trajectory only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The formula for Wootters concurrence has a typesetting corruption ('q p ... p ...'); please replace it with the standard expression using the Hermitian matrix sqrt(sqrt(ρ) ilde{ρ} sqrt(ρ)).
  2. [Sec. III] The relation t_opt^NHQ ∝ J_jk × t_opt^HQ has incompatible units (J is a rate, t a time); please rewrite it in dimensionless form or clarify the intended scaling.
  3. [Fig. 2(a)] The axes labels are partially garbled in the figure caption and image; please ensure the axes for J12/J23 and the color scale for τ are legible.
  4. [Sec. V] The text says 'tripartite entanglement entanglement' (duplicate word); please fix this typo.
  5. [Sec. IV] Please define 'optimal coupling' J_opt in the text before using it in the robustness criterion; currently it is introduced parenthetically in a way that is easy to miss.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GHZ/W generation and robustness claims are computed directly from the stated Hamiltonian, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (1) fixes the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, Eq. (2) defines the conditional no-jump evolution, Eq. (4) expands the state in the computational basis, and Eqs. (5)-(7) supply standard GHZ/W witnesses. The GHZ and W identifications in Sec. III and the robustness scans in Secs. IV-VI are obtained from the authors' own numerical solution of Eq. (1), not from a fitted parameter or from another result. The only same-group citation with any substantive role is Ref. [33], used in Secs. II and III for the higher-order exceptional-point location and the optimal-time heuristic; however, Figs. 1-3 of the present paper reproduce the relevant entanglement dynamics directly, so that citation is contextual rather than load-bearing proof. The paper explicitly acknowledges the post-selection/no-jump caveat in Sec. VII ('future research could consider the effects of quantum jumps ... particularly to enhance success rates of entanglement generation'), which is a genuine scope limitation and affects how the robust-state claim should be read operationally, but it is not a logical circle: the conditional state is not defined in terms of the GHZ/W conclusion. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the derivation is self-contained against its own model, with only minor self-citation; the circularity score is 2 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the post-selected non-Hermitian model, the specific two-level transmon Hamiltonian, and the chosen initial state. The parameters Omega, J, and gamma are control parameters chosen by hand rather than fitted to data. No new particles, forces, or other entities are introduced. The main risk is the post-selection assumption and the narrow window for off-resonant robustness.

free parameters (3)
  • Driving amplitude Omega = 1.576 rad/microseconds (optimal); 2.04 rad/microseconds (strong driving)
    Chosen by hand to sit in the passive PT-symmetric phase near the eighth-order exceptional point at Omega = gamma/4 = 1.5 rad/microseconds; entanglement generation depends on this choice.
  • Inter-qubit coupling J = 10^-3 rad/microseconds (optimal); 0.1 rad/microseconds (strong coupling)
    Chosen by hand; optimal values maximize the residual tangle and entanglement entropies. The robustness scans vary J around these values.
  • Dissipation rate gamma = 6 rad/microseconds
    Chosen as a representative superconducting qubit dissipation scale; all dynamics scale with gamma.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Manual normalization of the non-Hermitian evolution is equivalent to post-selection of no-jump trajectories.
    Eq. (2) is non-unitary; the state is renormalized at each time, which the paper states amounts to post-selection. All entanglement measures are computed on this conditional state, and the full Liouvillian dynamics including quantum jumps are not analyzed.
  • domain assumption Each transmon is truncated to a two-level system with ladder operators sigma = |e><f|.
    Eq. (1) models each qubit with only two excited states; validity requires negligible population of higher transmon levels.
  • standard math The evolution can be expanded in the biorthogonal eigenbasis of the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian.
    Eq. (3) expresses the state as a superposition of right eigenstates with coefficients from left eigenstates, which is the standard biorthogonal expansion for non-Hermitian systems.
  • domain assumption The passive PT-symmetric condition requires zero detuning, Delta_j = 0.
    The Hamiltonian is passive PT-symmetric only for Delta_j = 0, as stated in Sec. II. Parts of the robustness study vary Delta away from zero, but the central entanglement-generation claims use Delta = 0.
  • domain assumption The initial state is a product of identical coherent superpositions, |psi(0)> = 2^(-3/2) (|f> - i|e>)^(x3).
    All numerical results use this specific initial state; the behavior for other initial states may differ, as the paper notes in Sec. III that the optimal time depends on the initial state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robustness of tripartite entangled states in passive PT-symmetric qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QORK67QN

@misc{pith2026241117457,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robustness of tripartite entangled states in passive PT-symmetric qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QORK67QN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17457}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Hermitian quantum systems have attracted significant interest in recent years due to the presence of unique spectral singularities known as exceptional points (EPs), where eigenvalues and eigenvectors coalesce. The drastic changes in these systems around their EPs have led to unique entanglement dynamics, which remained elusive until quite recently. In this work, we theoretically investigate the robustness of tripartite entanglement induced by EPs of the passive PT-symmetric non-Hermitian superconducting qubits, both in stand-alone configurations and hybrid setups with Hermitian qubits. In particular, we consider the qubits with both all-to-all and nearest-neighbour couplings under uniform and non-uniform coupling strengths. Our results reveal that non-Hermitian qubits with all-to-all coupling generate GHZ states, while those with nearest-neighbour interactions produce W states. These entangled states are resilient to non-uniform couplings and off-resonant driving fields. Moreover, the hybrid configurations combining Hermitian and non-Hermitian qubits suggest the importance of EPs for generating and maintaining genuine tripartite entanglement in our system. Additionally, driving the PT-symmetric qubits with a strong Rabi frequency can help sustain tripartite entanglement over time by countering losses, while strong inter-qubit coupling can benefit these entangled states in the low dissipation regime. These findings suggest that exploiting non-Hermitian systems and their associated EPs can create robust entangled states which are useful for both fundamental studies and quantum technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17457 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Dynamics of three non-Hermitian superconducting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Effect of non-uniform coupling and off-resonant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dynamics of quantum entanglement in the hybrid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effect of strong coupling and strong driving on en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

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. Evidence for Exceptional Points as Topological Defects

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Encircling an exceptional point once changes a transported quantum state by an order-four operator, so the exceptional point acts as a topological defect in the full Hilbert space bundle.

  2. High-fidelity multipartite entanglement creation in non-Hermitian qubits

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A postselected model of non-Hermitian superconducting qubits reaches GHZ and GHZ-class states of three and four qubits with fidelity above 0.99 under strong driving or strong all-to-all coupling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [33]

    C. G. Feyisa, J. You, H.-Y. Ku, and H. Jen, Accelerating multipartite entanglement generation in non-hermitian superconducting qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03414 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-hermitian physics, Advances in Physics 69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  3. [2]

    E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Ex- ceptional topology of non-hermitian systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 015005 (2021)

    2021

  4. [3]

    Edvardsson and E

    E. Edvardsson and E. Ardonne, Sensitivity of non- hermitian systems, Physical Review B 106, 115107 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    W. Chen, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Quantum jumps in the non-hermitian dynamics of a superconducting qubit, Physical Review Letters 127, 140504 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Li, Y.-Y

    E.-Z. Li, Y.-Y. Liu, M.-X. Dong, D.-S. Ding, and B.- S. Shi, Non-hermitian unidirectional routing of photonic qubits, Physical Review Applied 21, L061002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Kawabata, T

    K. Kawabata, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu, Entanglement phase transition induced by the non-hermitian skin effect, Physical Review X 13, 021007 (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    Naghiloo, M

    M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. Murch, Quantum state tomography across the exceptional point in a single dissipative qubit, Nature Physics 15, 1232 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Zhang, C

    K. Zhang, C. Fang, and Z. Yang, Dynamical degener- acy splitting and directional invisibility in non-hermitian systems, Physical Review Letters 131, 036402 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    Wang, J.-S

    Y.-C. Wang, J.-S. You, and H.-H. Jen, A non-hermitian optical atomic mirror, Nature Communications 13, 4598 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    L. Feng, R. El-Ganainy, and L. Ge, Non-hermitian pho- tonics based on parity–time symmetry, Nature Photonics 11, 752 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    C. M. Bender, Making sense of non-hermitian hamiltoni- ans, Reports on Progress in Physics 70, 947 (2007)

    2007

  5. [12]

    K. Ding, C. Fang, and G. Ma, Non-hermitian topol- ogy and exceptional-point geometries, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 745 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    A. Li, H. Wei, M. Cotrufo, W. Chen, S. Mann, X. Ni, B. Xu, J. Chen, J. Wang, S. Fan, et al., Exceptional points and non-hermitian photonics at the nanoscale, Na- ture Nanotechnology 18, 706 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    C. Chen, L. Jin, and R.-B. Liu, Sensitivity of parameter estimation near the exceptional point of a non-hermitian system, New Journal of Physics 21, 083002 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    Das Agarwal, T

    K. Das Agarwal, T. K. Konar, L. G. C. Lakkaraju, and A. Sen, Detecting exceptional points through dynamics in non-hermitian systems, Physical Review A 110, 012226 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany, I. I. Arkhipov, and F. Nori, Hybrid-liouvillian formalism con- necting exceptional points of non-hermitian hamiltonians and liouvillians via postselection of quantum trajectories, Physical Review A 101, 062112 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    Khandelwal, W

    S. Khandelwal, W. Chen, K. W. Murch, and G. Haack, Chiral bell-state transfer via dissipative liouvillian dy- namics, Physical Review Letters 133, 070403 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    I. I. Arkhipov, F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, and F. Nori, Restoring adiabatic state trans- fer in time-modulated non-hermitian systems, Physical Review Letters 133, 113802 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    M. V. Berry and M. Wilkinson, Diabolical points in the spectra of triangles, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 392, 15 (1984)

    1984

  13. [20]

    I. I. Arkhipov, A. Miranowicz, F. Minganti, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, and F. Nori, Dynamically crossing diabolic points while encircling exceptional curves: A pro- grammable symmetric-asymmetric multimode switch, Nature communications 14, 2076 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    K.¨Ozdemir, S

    S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, S. Rotter, F. Nori, and L. Yang, Parity– time symmetry and exceptional points in photonics, Na- ture materials 18, 783 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    C. M. Bender and D. W. Hook, Pt-symmetric quan- tum mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics 96, 045002 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    T. Gao, E. Estrecho, K. Bliokh, T. Liew, M. Fraser, S. Brodbeck, M. Kamp, C. Schneider, S. H¨ ofling, Y. Ya- mamoto, et al., Observation of non-hermitian degenera- cies in a chaotic exciton-polariton billiard, Nature 526, 554 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    Chang, X

    L. Chang, X. Jiang, S. Hua, C. Yang, J. Wen, L. Jiang, G. Li, G. Wang, and M. Xiao, Parity–time symmetry and variable optical isolation in active–passive-coupled microresonators, Nature photonics 8, 524 (2014)

    2014

  18. [25]

    Regensburger, C

    A. Regensburger, C. Bersch, M.-A. Miri, G. On- ishchukov, D. N. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, Parity– time synthetic photonic lattices, Nature 488, 167 (2012)

    2012

  19. [26]

    G¨ unther and B

    U. G¨ unther and B. F. Samsonov, Naimark-dilated pt- symmetric brachistochrone, Physical review letters 101, 230404 (2008)

    2008

  20. [27]

    Dogra, A

    S. Dogra, A. A. Melnikov, and G. S. Paraoanu, Quan- tum simulation of parity–time symmetry breaking with a superconducting quantum processor, Communications Physics 4, 26 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Y. Wu, W. Liu, J. Geng, X. Song, X. Ye, C.-K. Duan, X. Rong, and J. Du, Observation of parity-time symme- try breaking in a single-spin system, Science 364, 878 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    C. M. Bender, Introduction to pt-symmetric quantum theory, Contemporary physics 46, 277 (2005)

    2005

  23. [30]

    Deffner and A

    S. Deffner and A. Saxena, Jarzynski equality in pt- symmetric quantum mechanics, Physical review letters 114, 150601 (2015)

    2015

  24. [31]

    C. M. Bender, PT symmetry: In quantum and classical physics (World Scientific, 2019). 8

    2019

  25. [32]

    Z.-Z. Li, W. Chen, M. Abbasi, K. W. Murch, and K. B. Whaley, Speeding up entanglement generation by prox- imity to higher-order exceptional points, Physical Review Letters 131, 100202 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Liu, S.-L

    B.-B. Liu, S.-L. Su, Y.-L. Zuo, G. Chen, S ¸. ¨Ozdemir, and H. Jing, Faster preparation of multi-qubit en- tanglement with higher success rates, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08525 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zhang, Y.-L

    J. Zhang, Y.-L. Zhou, Y. Zuo, H. Zhang, P.-X. Chen, H. Jing, and L.-M. Kuang, Exceptional entanglement and quantum sensing with a parity-time-symmetric two-qubit system, Advanced Quantum Technologies 7, 2300350 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Zhang, Z.-T

    Y.-X. Zhang, Z.-T. Zhang, X.-Z. Wei, B.-L. Liang, F. Mei, and Z.-S. Yang, Entanglement dynamics of two non-hermitian qubits, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 57, 085501 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    D¨ ur and H.-J

    W. D¨ ur and H.-J. Briegel, Stability of macroscopic entan- glement under decoherence, Physical review letters 92, 180403 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. D¨ ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quan- tum communication, Physical Review Letters 81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

  31. [39]

    Zeilinger, M

    A. Zeilinger, M. Horne, and D. Greenberger, Proceedings of squeezed states and quantum uncertainty, in NASA Conf. Publ, Vol. 3135 (1992) p. 73

    1992

  32. [40]

    Bouwmeester, J.-W

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, M. Daniell, H. Wein- furter, and A. Zeilinger, Observation of three-photon greenberger-horne-zeilinger entanglement, Physical Re- view Letters 82, 1345 (1999)

    1999

  33. [41]

    M. Eibl, N. Kiesel, M. Bourennane, C. Kurtsiefer, and H. Weinfurter, Experimental realization of a three-qubit entangled w state, Physical review letters 92, 077901 (2004)

    2004

  34. [42]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Physical Review A 62, 062314 (2000)

    2000

  35. [43]

    A. Guo, G. J. Salamo, D. Duchesne, R. Morandotti, M. Volatier-Ravat, V. Aimez, G. A. Siviloglou, and D. N. Christodoulides, Observation of pt-symmetry breaking in complex optical potentials, Physical review letters 103, 093902 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    S. S. Bhosale, B. Rath, and P. K. Panigrahi, On bell’s inequality in pt-symmetric quantum systems, Quantum Reports 3, 417 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    D. C. Brody, Biorthogonal quantum mechanics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 035305 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an arbi- trary state of two qubits, Physical Review Letters 80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  39. [47]

    Coffman, J

    V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Distributed entanglement, Physical Review A 61, 052306 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Islam, R

    R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. Eric Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, Measuring entanglement en- tropy in a quantum many-body system, Nature 528, 77 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Verstraete, K

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

    2001

  42. [50]

    Ac ´ ın, A

    A. Ac ´ ın, A. Andrianov, L. Costa, E. Jan´ e, J. Latorre, and R. Tarrach, Generalized schmidt decomposition and classification of three-quantum-bit states, Physical Re- view Letters 85, 1560 (2000)

    2000

  43. [51]

    D. Li, M. Cheng, X. Li, and S. Li, A relation among tan- gle, 3-tangle, and von neumann entropy of entanglement for three qubits, Quantum Information Processing 22, 14 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    and can be related to the timescale of the all-to-all coupled non-Hermitian qubits as tOpt NHQs ∝ Jjk × tOpt HQs, where tOpt NHQs and tOpt HQs represent the optimal entangle- ment generation times for the non-Hermitian and Her- mitian qubits, respectively. Furthermore, our num...

  45. [53]

    Majer, J

    J. Majer, J. Chow, J. Gambetta, J. Koch, B. John- son, J. Schreier, L. Frunzio, D. Schuster, A. A. Houck, A. Wallraff, et al., Coupling superconducting qubits via a cavity bus, Nature 449, 443 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    Kumar, K

    A. Kumar, K. W. Murch, and Y. N. Joglekar, Maximal quantum entanglement at exceptional points via unitary and thermal dynamics, Physical Review A 105, 012422 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Localization transitions in non-hermitian quantum mechanics, Physical review let- ters 77, 570 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    T. Roy, S. Hazra, S. Kundu, M. Chand, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, Programmable superconducting processor with native three-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Applied 14, 014072 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    C. Zhou, P. Lu, M. Praquin, T.-C. Chien, R. Kaufman, X. Cao, M. Xia, R. S. Mong, W. Pfaff, D. Pekker, et al., Realizing all-to-all couplings among detachable quantum modules using a microwave quantum state router, npj Quantum Information 9, 54 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.