Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Towards scalable active steering protocols for genuinely entangled state manifolds

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A greedy measurement-feedback rule built on the Quantum Fisher Information steers N-qubit states into the genuinely entangled GHZ manifold, with numerical evidence for up to 22 qubits and a step count growing only logarithmically with N.

desk verdict Useful new QFI-based steering protocol with real numerical evidence; the scalability claim is softer than the abstract suggests because the metric is always measurement-averaged QFI, never per-trajectory fidelity. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04168 v3 pith:N7PORMWX submitted 2024-12-05 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Samuel Morales , Silvia Pappalardi , Reinhold Egger This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords activesteeringquantumfeedbackFisherInformationmultipartiteentanglementGHZstatesweakmeasurementsBellDicke
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 introduces an active steering protocol that uses the Quantum Fisher Information (QFI) as the cost function to guide a chain of qubits into a genuinely entangled GHZ manifold. Instead of optimizing fidelity, which becomes exponentially costly, the protocol greedily chooses, for each qubit pair at each step, the weak measurement coupling that maximizes the expected QFI increase. Numerical simulations for up to 22 qubits show the QFI approaching its maximum $N^2$ after roughly two hundred steps, with the required step count growing only logarithmically with $N$. The same protocol, using a fixed target QFI as the cost, also prepares Dicke-state manifolds. If the numerics hold, it offers a measurement-and-feedback route to scalable multipartite entanglement that avoids exponential overhead in the control algorithm.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the measurement-averaged QFI increment $\langle dF_Q\rangle_{\mathrm{ms}}$. For every allowed steering coupling $K=(K_n,K_{n+1})$, chosen from Pauli system operators $\sigma_x,\sigma_y,\sigma_z$ and detector operators $\tau_x,\tau_z$, the protocol computes how much the QFI is expected to change after one weak coupling step followed by a Bell-basis measurement of the detector pair, then applies the coupling with the largest $\langle dF_Q\rangle_{\mathrm{ms}}$ and repeats. The evaluation is done in a Bloch tensor representation, and the formula for $\langle dF_Q\rangle_{\mathrm{ms}}$ depends only on single-qubit Bloch vectors and two-qubit correlators, so the classical control computation costs polynomially in $N$ rather than exponentially.

What would settle it

Run the same protocol for, say, $N=30$ or $N=40$ and record both the step count needed to reach $F_Q=0.9N^2$ and the direct overlap with the GHZ manifold; the scalability claim fails if the step count departs from the $A+B\ln N$ fit, if the QFI saturates below $N^2$, or if the state's fidelity to the manifold is low.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a purely local, greedy optimization of the measurement-averaged QFI—choosing the system-detector coupling $(K_n,K_{n+1})$ for each qubit pair independently at every timestep—drives the $N$-qubit state into the one-parameter family of GHZ states $|\Psi\rangle = (|0\cdots0\rangle + e^{i\phi}|1\cdots1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ that saturates the QFI bound $F_Q = N^2$. The evidence is numerical: for $N$ up to 22, the averaged QFI reaches $0.9N^2$ in a number of steps that fits $A + B\ln N$, and for $N=5$ the phase $\phi$ is sampled uniformly across the manifold, indicating that trajectories keep cycling through the manifold rather than settling into a dark state. The paper further claims that the same QFI-based cost, applied to a fixed target value $F_Q^*$, prepares Dicke-state manifolds.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the numerical finding that greedily choosing, for each qubit pair, the couplings that maximize the expected QFI increase steers the whole $N$-qubit state into the GHZ manifold; there is no analytic convergence proof, and the simulations stop at $N=22$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $N$ up to 22, the averaged QFI approaches its maximum $N^2$ after roughly 200 steps, essentially independent of $N$, so repeated weak measurements plus feedback can create genuine multipartite entanglement without deep circuits.
  • The number of steps needed to reach $F_Q = 0.9N^2$ fits $A + B\ln N$, which is the basis of the paper's scalability claim for larger systems.
  • Because the phase $\phi$ of the GHZ state keeps cycling uniformly over the manifold under continued steering, adding a termination rule lets the experimenter select a GHZ state with a predetermined phase.
  • Replacing the cost function by $|F_Q - F_Q^*|$ targets other highly entangled manifolds such as symmetric Dicke states, which converge in roughly 70 steps for the cases shown.
  • Allowing Bell measurements between arbitrary detector-qubit pairs speeds up convergence compared with nearest-neighbor-only pairings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the log-step scaling extends beyond $N=22$, this is a practical preparation route for GHZ states in platforms with fast weak measurement and feedback, because the per-step classical control cost is only polynomial in $N$.
  • Since $\langle dF_Q\rangle_{\mathrm{ms}}$ depends only on one- and two-body correlators, the algorithm could in principle run without storing the full quantum state, using weak measurements of those correlators; that version would remove the exponential simulation bottleneck and make noisy-system tests feasible.
  • The uniform cycling over $\phi$ under active steering, in contrast to passive steering's convergence to a dark state, suggests that the phase could be exploited as an effectively random but steerable parameter, for example for random-access phase encoding in quantum sensing.
  • By changing the collective operator $O$ in the QFI definition, the same greedy protocol should target other maximal-QFI manifolds, such as spin-squeezed states, not just GHZ and Dicke states.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an active steering protocol for preparing multipartite entangled states. Each protocol step couples qubit pairs to detector qubits, evolves under a feedback Hamiltonian chosen to maximize the measurement-averaged change of the Quantum Fisher Information, and then performs weak Bell-pair measurements on the detectors. The protocol is applied to the one-parameter GHZ manifold of Eq. (1), with numerical simulations for N up to 22 showing that the average QFI approaches N^2 and that the number of steps to reach F_Q = 0.9 N^2 grows approximately logarithmically with N. The same cost-function framework is also used to target Dicke states for N up to 18. The paper claims that using the QFI as a cost function makes active steering scalable to larger system sizes, and it provides source code and data for the simulations.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, this is a genuinely useful step: replacing fidelity-based cost functions with the QFI avoids the exponential classical overhead of fidelity-based active steering and extends the reach of such protocols to larger N. The manuscript also provides reproducible code and data, and it demonstrates a concrete non-GHZ application to Dicke states. However, the convergence and scalability claims rest on trajectory-averaged QFI values and fits without error bars, rather than on direct per-trajectory fidelity to the target manifold or on success probabilities. Those gaps need to be closed before the abstract-level claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Figs. 2 and 3] The assertion that the protocol 'efficiently reaches' the GHZ manifold is supported only by the trajectory-averaged QFI and by an N=5 phase histogram. For a pure state, F_Q/N^2 >= 0.9 does imply a large overlap with the GHZ subspace, but the average over trajectories could be dominated by a subset of successful runs. Please report the full distribution of F_Q at the final time (or at first-passage time), the fraction of trajectories satisfying F_Q >= 0.9 N^2, and the per-trajectory fidelity to the manifold of Eq. (1). Without these data, the convergence claim is not established at the level stated in the abstract.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 5] The scalability conclusion n_t ~ A + B ln N is based on fits to data points without error bars, and the text reports fit parameters for only one curve (A ≈ 104.7, B ≈ 123.9 for nearest-neighbor couplings with J δt = 0.1). Please provide statistical uncertainties for A and B, fit residuals, and the number of trajectories used for each N; also clarify whether n_t is the average first-passage time per trajectory or the time at which the averaged QFI first crosses 0.9 N^2. With only about 100 trajectories for the largest N and visible scatter in Fig. 5, the logarithmic scaling is not yet compelling against other slowly growing scalings.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (6) and Table I] The protocol chooses (K_n, K_{n+1}) by greedy local maximization of the measurement-averaged QFI change, and global convergence to the GHZ manifold is demonstrated only numerically for N ≤ 22. Because the state space grows exponentially, the possibility of local traps for larger N is not addressed. Since the scalability claim extrapolates beyond the simulated range, please either provide a convergence argument or report additional diagnostics, such as dependence on the initial state and long-time saturation behavior for intermediate N. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The paper refers to 'Green-Hornberger-Zeilinger (GHZ) states'; the standard name is 'Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger' and should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. II] The entanglement-depth criterion is stated imprecisely: F_Q > m N implies that at least m+1 parties are entangled, so m is not itself 'the size of the biggest entangled block' as written.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (9)] The quantity Γ_m in Eq. (9) is not defined in the main text; please define it or state explicitly that it follows Ref. [6].
  4. [Abstract and Sec. III] The phrase 'efficiently reaches' should be qualified as referring to numerical simulations of the ideal, noiseless model, since the paper explicitly leaves error channels and non-ideal measurements for future work.
  5. [Data availability] The dataset and code titles contain the typo 'manifods'; this should be corrected in the Zenodo records as well as in the reference list.
  6. [Sec. III, Fig. 2 inset] The three individual measurement trajectories shown in the inset are not labeled; please clarify whether they are representative, best, or worst cases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QFI-based target choice is a control design, and the claimed convergence and scaling rest on direct numerical simulation rather than on equations or citations that presuppose the result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a greedy feedback rule maximizing the measurement-averaged QFI change steers a product state close to the GHZ manifold. Although the QFI appears both as the controller's cost function and as the reported success metric, this is a design choice, not a circular reduction: the nontrivial assertion is that the local, per-pair maximization of Eq. (6) actually drives the full many-body pure state to FQ = N^2, and this is verified by propagating the stochastic Schrödinger equation (Eq. (4)) over many trajectories and by phase histograms (Fig. 3). The identification of the target manifold with the states of Eq. (1) follows from the standard saturation condition of the QFI for collective observables, not from a parameter fitted to the target. The claim nt ~ A + B ln N in Fig. 5 is a fit to simulation data and is explicitly presented as a scaling observation, not as a prediction derived from the model; no fitted parameter is renamed as an outcome. The self-citations to Ref. [6] supply explicit formulas for the measurement-averaged correlator updates and background on entanglement swapping, but they are not used to prove convergence or to rule out alternatives, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The paper also transparently labels its extrapolations and open problems, including the lack of an analytic convergence proof and the cost of error-channel simulations. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its numerical evidence, and no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the weak-measurement evolution, the pure-state noiseless assumption, and the unproven greedy convergence heuristic. The main fitted quantities are the protocol time step, the observable orientation that defines the target manifold, and the parameters of the log-fit used to support the scaling claim.

free parameters (3)
  • time step delta_t (as J*delta_t) = 0.1 and 0.2
    The weak-measurement step size is a protocol hyperparameter; convergence speed and accuracy depend on it (Figs. 4 and 5).
  • local observable orientation s_n = (1,0,1)/sqrt(2)
    The target GHZ manifold is defined by the collective observable O = 1/2 sum s_n dot sigma_n; the orientation is fixed by hand, and robustness is claimed only under small rotations.
  • fit parameters A and B in nt* = A + B ln N = A ~ 104.7, B ~ 123.9 for NN, J*delta_t = 0.1
    The O(ln N) scaling claim for the step count is based on fitting these parameters to simulated data (Fig. 5).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The weak-measurement stochastic Schrodinger equation (4) and the averaged QFI change formula (8) correctly describe the protocol for J*delta_t << 1.
    The paper adopts standard continuous measurement theory and formulas from the authors' prior work (Ref. [6]); no independent derivation of Eq. (8) is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption The system state remains pure, with no external noise and ideal detectors.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. I: 'for simplicity, we thus neglect external noise channels and non-ideal measurement efficiencies, and study the error-free case with ideal measurements below.'
  • ad hoc to paper Greedy local maximization of <dFQ>_ms yields global convergence to the GHZ manifold.
    This is the key control heuristic. The paper provides numerical evidence up to N=22 but no analytic convergence proof; its failure would invalidate the central claim.
  • standard math The QFI witness criterion FQ > mN signals at least (m+1)-party entanglement.
    Used to interpret the simulated QFI values as evidence of genuine multipartite entanglement (Sec. I, Refs. [13-15]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards scalable active steering protocols for genuinely entangled state manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N7PORMWX

@misc{pith2026241204168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards scalable active steering protocols for genuinely entangled state manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N7PORMWX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04168}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce and analyze an active steering protocol designed to target multipartite entangled states. The protocol involves multiple qubits subjected to weak Bell pair measurements with active feedback, where the feedback operations are optimized to maximize the Quantum Fisher Information. Our scheme efficiently reaches a genuinely entangled one-parameter state manifold. Numerical simulations for systems with up to 22 qubits suggest that the protocol is scalable and allows high multipartite entanglement across the system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04168 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Average QFI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Active steering protocol for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Scaling of the accuracy of the asymptotic value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Scaling of the step number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Viewing protected superconducting qubits through the lens of the cat qubit

    quant-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Fluxonium's heavy-limit ground states are squeezed coherent states, producing exponential bit-flip protection in E_j/(k_B T) with constant phase-flip rate, analogous to a squeezed cat code.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, H. Liu, B. Royer, I. Tsioutsios, and M. H. Devoret, Model-Free Quantum Control with ReinforcementLearning,Phys.Rev.X 12,011059(2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    symmetry

    Symmetric (η = +1) 0 200 400 nt 0 100 200 300 400FQ N = 18 N = 19 N = 20 0 200 400 0 5 10 15 20 25FQ N = 5 FIG. 2. Average QFIFQ vs number of time stepsnt = t/δt for different N and J δt= 0.2. Note thatFQ ≤ N 2. Averages are over 100 trajectories. The inset showsFQ vs nt (solid curve) for N = 5 (averaged over 8000 trajectories), together with three indivi...

  3. [3]

    Q. Liu, K. Ziegler, D. A. Kessler, and E. Barkai, Driving quantum systems with periodic conditional measurements, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023129 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    A. J. Friedman, O. Hart, and R. Nandkishore, Measurement-Induced Phases of Matter Require Feedback, PRX Quantum4, 040309 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Herasymenko, I

    Y. Herasymenko, I. Gornyi, and Y. Gefen, Measurement- Driven Navigation in Many-Body Hilbert Space: Active- Decision Steering, PRX Quantum4, 020347 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Ravindranath, Y

    V. Ravindranath, Y. Han, Z.-C. Yang, and X. Chen, Entanglement steering in adaptive circuits with feedback, Phys. Rev. B108, L041103 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Morales, Y

    S. Morales, Y. Gefen, I. Gornyi, A. Zazunov, and R. Egger, Engineering unsteerable quantum states with active feedback, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013244 (2024). 8

    2024

  8. [8]

    Hauser, Y

    J. Hauser, Y. Li, S. Vijay, and M. P. A. Fisher, Continuous symmetry breaking in adaptive quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. B109, 214305 (2024)

    2024

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Ackermann, S

    N. Ackermann, S. Morales, A. L. Yeyati, S. Diehl, and R. Egger, Error threshold in active steering protocols for few-qubit systems, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013045 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    S. Roy, J. T. Chalker, I. V. Gornyi, and Y. Gefen, Measurement-induced steering of quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033347 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. Gühne, Quantum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015001 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum measurements and control (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, Journal of Statistical Physics , 231 (1969)

    1969

  6. [14]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature photonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Fisher information and multiparticle entanglement, Phys. Rev. A85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Phys

    G. Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    M. G. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, International Journal of Quantum Information 7, 125 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Pezzé and A

    L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Entanglement, nonlinear dynamics, andtheheisenberglimit,Phys.Rev.Lett. 102, 100401 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Tóth and I

    G. Tóth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Pezzè, A

    L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P.Treutlein,Quantummetrologywithnonclassicalstates of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    E. H. Chen, G.-Y. Zhu, R. Verresen, A. Seif, E. Bäumer, D. Layden, N. Tantivasadakarn, G. Zhu, S. Sheldon, A. Vishwanath, S. Trebst, and A. Kandala, Nishimori transition across the error threshold for constant-depth quantum circuits, Nature Physics21, 161 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Sahay and R

    R. Sahay and R. Verresen, Classifying One-Dimensional Quantum States Prepared by a Single Round of Measurements, PRX Quantum6, 010329 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Sahay and R

    R. Sahay and R. Verresen, Finite-Depth Preparation of Tensor Network States from Measurement (2024), arXiv:2404.17087 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hosten and P

    O. Hosten and P. Kwiat, Observation of the Spin Hall Effect of Light via Weak Measurements, Science319, 787 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    P. B. Dixon, D. J. Starling, A. N. Jordan, and J. C. Howell, Ultrasensitive Beam Deflection Measurement via Interferometric Weak Value Amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 173601 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Palacios-Laloy, F

    A. Palacios-Laloy, F. Mallet, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, D. Esteve, and A. N. Korotkov, Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality in time with weak measurement, Nature Physics6, 442 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Riste, M

    D. Riste, M. Dukalski, C. A. Watson, G. de Lange, M. J. Tiggelman, Y. M. Blanter, K. W. Lehnert, R. N. Schouten, and L. DiCarlo, Deterministic entanglement of superconducting qubits by parity measurement and feedback, Nature 502, 359 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    J. P. Groen, D. Ristè, L. Tornberg, J. Cramer, P. C. de Groot, T. Picot, G. Johansson, and L. DiCarlo, Partial-Measurement Backaction and Nonclassical Weak Values in a Superconducting Circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090506 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Zhang, Y

    J. Zhang, Y. Liu, R.-B. Wu, K. Jacobs, and F. Nori, Quantum feedback: Theory, experiments, and applications, Physics Reports679, 1 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Z. K. Minev, S. O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Gutiérrez-Jáuregui, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H. J. Carmichael, and M. H. Devoret, To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight, Nature 570, 200 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    K. S. Cujia, J. M. Boss, K. Herb, J. Zopes, and C. L. Degen, Tracking the precession of single nuclear spins by weak measurements, Nature571, 230 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Kim, D.-G

    Y. Kim, D.-G. Im, Y.-S. Kim, S.-W. Han, S. Moon, Y.-H. Kim, and Y.-W. Cho, Observing the quantum Cheshire cat effect with noninvasive weak measurement, npj Quantum Information7, 13 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Jacobs and D

    K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, A straightforward introduction to continuous quantum measurement, Contemporary Physics 47, 279 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Janvier, L

    C. Janvier, L. Tosi, L. Bretheau, Ç. Ö. Girit, M. Stern, P. Bertet, P. Joyez, D. Vion, D. Esteve, M. F. Goffman, H. Pothier, and C. Urbina, Coherent manipulation of Andreev states in superconducting atomic contacts, Science 349, 1199 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Pita-Vidal, J

    M. Pita-Vidal, J. J. Wesdorp, and C. K. Andersen, BlueprintforAll-to-All-ConnectedSuperconductingSpin Qubits, PRX Quantum6, 010308 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Volya and P

    D. Volya and P. Mishra, Quantum steering of surface error correcting codes, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01 (2023) p. 1394

    2023

  31. [39]

    Volya and P

    D. Volya and P. Mishra, FL State Preparation on Quantum Computers via Quantum Steering, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , 1 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Boschi, S

    D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy, and S. Popescu, Experimental Realization of Teleporting an Unknown Pure Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1121 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental Entanglement Swapping: Entangling Photons That Never Interacted, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3891 (1998)

    1998

  34. [42]

    Jennewein, G

    T. Jennewein, G. Weihs, J.-W. Pan, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental Nonlocality Proof of Quantum Teleportation and Entanglement Swapping, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017903 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    de Riedmatten, I

    H. de Riedmatten, I. Marcikic, J. A. W. van Houwelingen, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Long-distance entanglement swapping with photons from separated sources, Phys. Rev. A71, 050302 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Riebe, T

    M. Riebe, T. Monz, K. Kim, A. S. Villar, P. Schindler, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Deterministic 9 entanglement swapping with an ion-trap quantum computer, Nature Physics4, 839 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Kaltenbaek, R

    R. Kaltenbaek, R. Prevedel, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, High-fidelity entanglement swapping with fully independent sources, Phys. Rev. A 79, 040302 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

  39. [47]

    Huang, C.-F

    C.-X.Huang, X.-M.Hu, Y.Guo, C.Zhang, B.-H.Liu, Y.- F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, N. Gisin, C. Branciard, and A. Tavakoli, Entanglement Swapping and Quantum Correlations via Symmetric Joint Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 030502 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    Schumacher and M

    B. Schumacher and M. A. Nielsen, Quantum data processing and error correction, Physical Review A54, 2629 (1996)

    1996

  42. [50]

    Lloyd, Capacity of the noisy quantum channel, Physical Review A55, 1613 (1997)

    S. Lloyd, Capacity of the noisy quantum channel, Physical Review A55, 1613 (1997)

    1997

  43. [51]

    R. Fan, Y. Bao, E. Altman, and A. Vishwanath, Diagnostics of Mixed-State Topological Order and Breakdown of Quantum Memory, PRX Quantum 5, 020343 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Buchhold, Y

    M. Buchhold, Y. Minoguchi, A. Altland, and S. Diehl, Effective Theory for the Measurement-Induced Phase Transition of Dirac Fermions, Phys. Rev. X11, 041004 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    J. F. Kam, H. Kang, C. D. Hill, G. J. Mooney, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Characterization of entanglement on superconducting quantum computers of up to 414 qubits, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033155 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    E.Medina-Guerra, P.Kumar, I.V.Gornyi,andY.Gefen, Quantum state engineering by steering in the presence of errors, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023159 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum Reservoir Engineering with Laser Cooled Trapped Ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 4728 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nat. Phys. 4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nature Physics5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    J. T. Barreiro, M. Müller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, C. F. Roos, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, An open-system quantum simulator with trapped ions, Nature470, 486 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Krauter, C

    H. Krauter, C. A. Muschik, K. Jensen, W. Wasilewski, J. M. Petersen, J. I. Cirac, and E. S. Polzik, Entanglement generated by dissipation and steady state entanglement of two macroscopic objects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 080503 (2011)

    2011

  52. [60]

    J. P. Paz and W. H. Zurek, Continuous error correction, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 454, 355 (1998)

    1998

  53. [61]

    J. P. Barnes and W. S. Warren, Automatic Quantum Error Correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 856 (2000)

    2000

  54. [62]

    C. Ahn, A. C. Doherty, and A. J. Landahl, Continuous quantum error correction via quantum feedback control, Phys. Rev. A65, 042301 (2002)

    2002

  55. [63]

    C. Ahn, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Milburn, Quantum error correction for continuously detected errors, Phys. Rev. A 67, 052310 (2003)

    2003

  56. [64]

    Sarovar, C

    M. Sarovar, C. Ahn, K. Jacobs, and G. J. Milburn, Practical scheme for error control using feedback, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052324 (2004)

    2004

  57. [65]

    Oreshkov and T

    O. Oreshkov and T. A. Brun, Continuous quantum error correction for non-markovian decoherence, Phys. Rev. A 76, 022318 (2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

    Kerckhoff, H

    J. Kerckhoff, H. I. Nurdin, D. S. Pavlichin, and H. Mabuchi, Designing Quantum Memories with Embedded Control: Photonic Circuits for Autonomous Quantum Error Correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 040502 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    Kapit, Hardware-Efficient and Fully Autonomous Quantum Error Correction in Superconducting Circuits, Phys

    E. Kapit, Hardware-Efficient and Fully Autonomous Quantum Error Correction in Superconducting Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 150501 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Kapit, Error-Transparent Quantum Gates for Small Logical Qubit Architectures, Phys

    E. Kapit, Error-Transparent Quantum Gates for Small Logical Qubit Architectures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 050503 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    M. Gau, R. Egger, A. Zazunov, and Y. Gefen, Driven Dissipative Majorana Dark Spaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 147701 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    M. Gau, R. Egger, A. Zazunov, and Y. Gefen, Towards dark space stabilization and manipulation in driven dissipative Majorana platforms, Phys. Rev. B 102, 134501 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    S. Lieu, R. Belyansky, J. T. Young, R. Lundgren, V. V. Albert, and A. V. Gorshkov, Symmetry Breaking and Error Correction in Open Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240405 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    Lieu, Y.-J

    S. Lieu, Y.-J. Liu, and A. V. Gorshkov, Candidate for a Passively Protected Quantum Memory in Two Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 030601 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Shtanko, Y.-J

    O. Shtanko, Y.-J. Liu, S. Lieu, A. V. Gorshkov, and V. V. Albert, Bounds on Autonomous Quantum Error Correction (2023), arXiv:2308.16233 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    L. B. Kristensen, M. Kjaergaard, C. K. Andersen, and N. T. Zinner, Hybrid quantum error correction in qubit architectures, Phys. Rev. A108, 022403 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    Leghtas, U

    Z. Leghtas, U. Vool, S. Shankar, M. Hatridge, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, Stabilizing a Bell state of two superconducting qubits by dissipation engineering, Phys. Rev. A88, 023849 (2013)

    2013

  68. [76]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, A

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, S. Touzard, E. Zalys- Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, S. Shankar, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Quantum error correction of a qubit encoded in grid states of an oscillator, Nature584,...

    2020

  69. [77]

    J. M. Gertler, B. Baker, J. Li, S. Shirol, J. Koch, and C. Wang, Protecting a bosonic qubit with autonomous quantum error correction, Nature590, 243 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    W. P. Livingston, M. S. Blok, E. Flurin, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, and I. Siddiqi, Experimental demonstration of continuous quantum error correction, Nature Communications 13, 2307 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    Lachance-Quirion, M.-A

    D. Lachance-Quirion, M.-A. Lemonde, J. O. Simoneau, L. St-Jean, P. Lemieux, S. Turcotte, W. Wright, A. Lacroix, J. Fréchette-Viens, R. Shillito, F. Hopfmueller, M. Tremblay, N. E. Frattini, J. Camirand Lemyre, and P. St-Jean, Autonomous Quantum Error Correction of Gottesman-Ki...

    2024

  72. [80]

    Zanardi and L

    P. Zanardi and L. Campos Venuti, Coherent Quantum Dynamics in Steady-State Manifolds of Strongly Dissipative Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 240406 (2014)

    2014

  73. [81]

    Ticozzi and L

    F. Ticozzi and L. Viola, Stabilizing entangled states with quasi-local quantum dynamical semigroups, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370, 5259 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Ahmadi and E

    A. Ahmadi and E. Greplova, Quantifying non- stabilizerness via information scrambling, SciPost Phys. 16, 043 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    P. S. Tarabunga, M. Frau, T. Haug, E. Tirrito, and L. Piroli, A nonstabilizerness monotone from stabilizerness asymmetry (2024), arXiv:2411.05766 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Davis, G

    E. Davis, G. Bentsen, and M. Schleier-Smith, Approaching the Heisenberg Limit without Single- Particle Detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 053601 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Macrì, A

    T. Macrì, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezzè, Loschmidt echo for quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. A94, 010102 (2016)

    2016

  78. [86]

    Dooley, S

    S. Dooley, S. Pappalardi, and J. Goold, Entanglement enhanced metrology with quantum many-body scars, Phys. Rev. B107, 035123 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Towards scalable active steering protocols for genuinely entangled state manifods

    S. Morales, S. Pappalardi, and R. Egger, Data for "Towards scalable active steering protocols for genuinely entangled state manifods" (2025), [Data Set] Zenodo

    2025

  80. [88]

    Towards scalable active steering protocols for genuinely entangled state manifods

    S. Morales, S. Pappalardi, and R. Egger, Code for "Towards scalable active steering protocols for genuinely entangled state manifods" (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.