pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.12085 · v2 · submitted 2024-12-16 · 🪐 quant-ph

Noisy initial-state qubit-channel metrology with additional undesirable noisy evolution

David Collins , Taylor Larrechea This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 06:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum metrologyqubit channelquantum Fisher informationspectator qubitsnoisy evolutionparameter estimationcorrelated statesunital channel
0
0 comments X

The pith

Algebraic expressions determine when n-qubit correlated protocols outperform single-qubit ones under spectator noise in mixed-state channel metrology.

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

The paper establishes conditions under which an n-qubit protocol that prepares correlated states and applies the channel to one qubit can yield higher quantum Fisher information than a single-qubit protocol, even when the initial states are highly mixed and the unused qubits undergo extra noisy evolution. A sympathetic reader would care because the expressions give a direct way to decide whether adding qubits improves estimation of the channel parameter or makes it worse. The work extends earlier comparisons by incorporating the spectator noise and supplies a method that can reduce the effect of some noise types. It concludes that superiority holds only for certain classes of noisy evolution on the spectators.

Core claim

We compare two protocols, each invoking a single-parameter unital qubit channel once, via their quantum Fisher informations when initial states have very low purity. One protocol uses n qubits prepared in a particular correlated input state and queries the channel on one qubit; the other uses a single qubit. We extend prior results by allowing additional noisy evolution on the spectator qubits and provide simple algebraic expressions that determine when the n-qubit protocol is superior. We show that for certain types of noisy evolution the n-qubit protocol will be inferior but for others it will be superior, and we give a technique that can alleviate certain types of noise.

What carries the argument

Comparison of quantum Fisher informations between the n-qubit correlated-state protocol and the single-qubit protocol when spectator qubits experience additional noisy evolution.

If this is right

  • When the algebraic expressions indicate higher quantum Fisher information, the n-qubit protocol should be preferred over the single-qubit protocol.
  • For other noise types the expressions show the n-qubit protocol yields lower quantum Fisher information and should not be used.
  • A provided technique can reduce the impact of certain spectator noise types on the estimation precision.
  • The expressions allow immediate determination of protocol superiority without requiring full numerical optimization for each noise instance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Experimenters using multi-qubit devices must characterize spectator noise separately before deciding on the number of qubits to employ.
  • The conditional advantage suggests that error-mitigation methods tailored to spectator qubits could expand the range of noise types for which the n-qubit protocol wins.
  • Similar algebraic comparisons might apply when extending the setup to non-unital channels or to estimation of multiple parameters simultaneously.

Load-bearing premise

The additional noisy evolution on spectator qubits belongs to classes for which the quantum Fisher information admits closed-form algebraic comparison with the single-qubit case.

What would settle it

Pick a concrete noise model on the spectators, compute the quantum Fisher information for both protocols, and check whether the n-qubit value exceeds the single-qubit value exactly when the paper's algebraic expressions predict superiority.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12085 by David Collins, Taylor Larrechea.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Possible metrology protocols. The protocol in a) use [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Single channel qubit estimation protocols. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Symmetric pairwise correlated protocol preparator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Symmetric pairwise correlated protocol with twiste [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Generic measurement scheme. The projection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Tailored measurement scheme. The measurement op [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We consider protocols for estimating the parameter in a single-parameter unital qubit channel, assuming that the available initial states are highly mixed with very low purity. We compare two protocols, each invoking the channel once, via their quantum Fisher informations. One uses $n$ qubits prepared in a particular correlated input state and subsequently queries the channel on one qubit. The other uses a single qubit. We extend the results of Collins [1] by allowing for additional noisy evolution on the spectator qubits in the $n$-qubit protocol. We provide simple algebraic expressions that will determine when the $n$-qubit protocol is superior. We provide a technique that can alleviate certain types of noise. We show that for certain types of noisy evolution the $n$-qubit protocol will be inferior but for others it will be superior.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares two protocols for estimating a parameter in a single-parameter unital qubit channel when only highly mixed initial states are available: a single-qubit protocol versus an n-qubit protocol that prepares a correlated state, applies the channel to one qubit, and permits additional noisy evolution on the spectator qubits. Extending Collins (2023), the authors derive algebraic expressions for the quantum Fisher information (QFI) of both protocols and identify conditions under which the n-qubit protocol yields higher QFI, depending on the noise type; they also present a technique to mitigate certain spectator noises and illustrate cases of both superiority and inferiority.

Significance. If the closed-form QFI expressions and the resulting comparison criteria are correct, the work supplies concrete, noise-type-dependent guidance for protocol selection in low-purity qubit metrology. This is practically relevant for near-term experiments and extends the Collins framework by incorporating spectator noise, with the algebraic nature of the results enabling direct evaluation without numerical optimization.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3, after Eq. (12): the definition of the correlated n-qubit input state should explicitly state the normalization factor and confirm that the state remains valid (positive semidefinite) for the full range of the mixing parameter p.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1: the column headers for the three noise models are not defined in the caption; add a sentence clarifying the Kraus operators or channel parameters used for each model.
  3. [§4.2] §4.2: the mitigation technique is introduced via an example; a general statement of the conditions under which the technique applies (e.g., which noise classes) would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript, positive assessment of its significance, and recommendation for minor revision. The report summarizes our extension of Collins (2023) to include spectator noise but does not list any specific major comments or points requiring clarification or correction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation of base case; central QFI comparison is independent

full rationale

The derivation compares n-qubit and single-qubit protocols via the standard definition of quantum Fisher information for unital qubit channels under additional spectator noise. Algebraic expressions for superiority are obtained by direct computation on the permitted noise classes, without reducing any claimed prediction to a fitted parameter or redefining quantities in terms of each other. The reference to Collins [1] supplies only the zero-additional-noise baseline; the extension to noisy spectators is self-contained and does not rely on a self-citation chain for its validity. No self-definitional, fitted-input, or ansatz-smuggling patterns appear in the supplied abstract or claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard quantum information theory; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Quantum Fisher information is the appropriate figure of merit for comparing single-parameter channel estimation protocols under the given noise models.
    The entire comparison is performed via QFI, which is a standard object in quantum metrology.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5662 in / 1110 out tokens · 33430 ms · 2026-05-23T06:44:18.911360+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Describe the spectator channels by channel Bloch-sphere matri- ces Mj for j = 2,

    Describe the parameter-dependent channel by the channel Bloch-sphere matrix M1. Describe the spectator channels by channel Bloch-sphere matri- ces Mj for j = 2, . . . n. 10

    work page

  2. [2]

    Determine the diagonal decompositions ˙M ⊤ 1 ˙M1 = α aa⊤ + β bb⊤ + δ dd⊤ and (46) M ⊤ j Mj = σj sjs⊤ j + τj tjt⊤ j + υjuju⊤ j (47) where α ⩾ β ⩾ δ ⩾ 0 and 1 ⩾ σj ⩾ τj ⩾ υj ⩾ 0

    work page

  3. [3]

    Let Σ := σ2 . . . σ n. If nΣ ⩽ 1 then the SQSC pro- tocol is optimal regardless of any other considera- tions. If nΣ > 1 then the CS protocol might yield an advantage

    work page

  4. [4]

    4, where the ˆUj is the unitary cor- responding to Bloch-sphere rotation Rj = sja⊤ + tjb⊤ + ujd⊤

    Implement the symmetric pairwise correlated pro- tocol of Fig. 4, where the ˆUj is the unitary cor- responding to Bloch-sphere rotation Rj = sja⊤ + tjb⊤ + ujd⊤ . Choose c = a and r0 = b. The CS protocol QFI is bounded from below via Hs opt   β α + n∑ j=2 τj σj   Σ ⩽ Hcorr. (48)

    work page

  5. [5]

    If it does, use the generic measure- ment scheme of Fig

    Determine whether ˙M1 admits a real diagonal de- composition. If it does, use the generic measure- ment scheme of Fig. 5 yielding a Fisher information that saturates the lower bound, i.e. F = Hs opt   β α + n∑ j=2 τj σj   Σ . (49) If ˙M1 does not admit a real diagonal decomposi- tion, determine the singular value decomposition ˙M1 = ASB , where A and ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Collins, Qubit-channel metrology with very noisy ini- tial states, Phys

    D. Collins, Qubit-channel metrology with very noisy ini- tial states, Phys. Rev. A 99, 012123 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic Press, New York, 1976)

    work page 1976

  8. [8]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981)

    work page 1981

  9. [9]

    S. L. Braunstein, Quantum limits on precision measure- ments of phase, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 3598 (1992)

    work page 1992

  10. [10]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    work page 1994

  11. [11]

    P. K. Hwang Lee and J. P. Dowling, A quantum Rosetta stone for interferometry, J. Mod. Opt. 49, 2325 (2002)

    work page 2002

  12. [12]

    Sarovar and G

    M. Sarovar and G. J. Milburn, Optimal estimation of one-parameter quantum channels, J. Phys. A 39, 8487 (2006)

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int

    M. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Information 7, 125 (2009)

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Kok and B

    P. Kok and B. W. Lovett, Introduction to Optical Quantum Information Processing (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Nature Photonics 5, 222 (2011)

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Ko/suppress lody´ nski and R

    J. Ko/suppress lody´ nski and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Efficient tools for quantum metrology with uncorrelated noise, New Journal of Physics 15, 073043 (2013)

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 424006 (2014)

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko/suppress lody´ nski, Chapter four – quantum limits in optical interferometry (Elsevier, 2015) pp. 345–435

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Braun, G

    D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Mar- zolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Quantum- enhanced measurements without entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035006 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Fujiwara, Quantum channel identification problem, Phys

    A. Fujiwara, Quantum channel identification problem, Phys. Rev. A 63, 042304 (2001)

    work page 2001

  24. [24]

    Sasaki, M

    M. Sasaki, M. Ban, and S. M. Barnett, Optimal param- eter estimation of a depolarizing channel, Phys. Rev. A 66, 022308 (2002)

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    M. Frey, D. Collins, and K. Gerlach, Probing the qudit depolarizing channel, J. Phys A: Mathematical and The- oretical 44, 205306 (2011)

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    Fujiwara and H

    A. Fujiwara and H. Imai, Quantum parameter estima- tion of a generalized Pauli channel, J. Phys. A 36, 8093 (2003)

    work page 2003

  27. [27]

    Z. Ji, G. Wang, R. Duan, Y. Feng, and M. Ying, Param- eter estimation of quantum channels, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 54, 5172 (2008)

    work page 2008

  28. [28]

    Fujiwara, Estimation of a generalized amplitude- damping channel, Phys

    A. Fujiwara, Estimation of a generalized amplitude- damping channel, Phys. Rev. A 70, 012317 (2004)

    work page 2004

  29. [29]

    G. M. D’Ariano, C. Macchiavello, and P. Perinotti, Op- timal phase estimation for qubits in mixed states, Phys. Rev. A 72, 042327 (2005)

    work page 2005

  30. [30]

    Datta, L

    A. Datta, L. Zhang, N. Thomas-Peter, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum metrology with im- perfect states and detectors, Phys. Rev. A 83, 063836 (2011)

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    K. Modi, H. Cable, M. Williamson, and V. Vedral, Quan- tum correlations in mixed-state metrology, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021022 (2011)

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    Pinel, P

    O. Pinel, P. Jian, N. Treps, C. Fabre, and D. Braun, Quantum parameter estimation using general single- mode Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 88, 040102 (2013)

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Collins, Mixed-state Pauli-channel parameter estima- tion, Phys

    D. Collins, Mixed-state Pauli-channel parameter estima- tion, Phys. Rev. A 87, 032301 (2013)

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    Collins and J

    D. Collins and J. Stephens, Depolarizing-channel param- eter estimation using noisy initial states, Phys. Rev. A 92, 032324 (2015)

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    Micadei, D

    K. Micadei, D. A. Rowlands, F. A. Pollock, L. C. C´ eleri, R. M. Serra, and K. Modi, Coherent measurements in quantum metrology, New Journal of Physics 17, 023057 (2015)

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Serrano-Ens´ astiga, C

    E. Serrano-Ens´ astiga, C. Chryssomalakos, and J. Martin, Quantum metrology of rotations with mixed spin states, Phys. Rev. A 111, 022435 (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    C. P. Slichter, Principles of Magnetic Resonance (Springer, Berlin, 1996)

    work page 1996

  38. [38]

    R. S. Piera, S. P. Walborn, and G. H. Aguilar, Experi- mental demonstration of the advantage of using coherent measurements for phase estimation in the presence of de- 18 polarizing noise, Phys. Rev. A 103, 012602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    G. M. D’Ariano, P. Lo Presti, and M. G. A. Paris, Using entanglement improves the precision of quantum mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 270404 (2001)

    work page 2001

  40. [40]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski and L

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski and L. Maccone, Using entan- glement against noise in quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 250801 (2014)

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Sekatski, M

    P. Sekatski, M. Skotiniotis, J. Ko/suppress lody´ nski, and W. D¨ ur, Quantum metrology with full and fast quantum control, Quantum 1, 27 (2017)

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Polino, M

    E. Polino, M. Valeri, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quantum metrology, A VS Quantum Science 2, 024703 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Y. Len, T. Gefen, A. Retzker, and J. Ko/suppress lody´ nski, Quan- tum metrology with imperfect measurements, Nat. Com- mun. 13, 6971 (2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    L. Jiao, W. Wu, S.-Y. Bai, and J.-H. An, Quantum metrology in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era, Advanced Quantum Technologies n/a, 2300218 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    J. A. H. Nielsen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic quantum phase estimation beyond n00n states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 123603 (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Zhang, C

    Z. Zhang, C. You, O. S. M. na Loaiza, R. Fickler, R. de J. Le´ on-Montiel, J. P. Torres, T. S. Humble, S. Liu, Y. Xia, and Q. Zhuang, Entanglement-based quantum in- formation technology: a tutorial, Adv. Opt. Photon. 16, 60 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Cram´ er,Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Prince- ton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1946)

    H. Cram´ er,Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Prince- ton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1946)

    work page 1946

  48. [48]

    Topics in Estimation of Quantum Channels

    C. O’Loan, Topics in estimation of quantum channels, e-print (2010), arXiv:1001.3971v1 [quant-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    Nagaoka, in Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statis- tical Inference , edited by M

    H. Nagaoka, in Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statis- tical Inference , edited by M. Hayashi (World Scientific, Singapore, 2012) Chap. 9, pp. 113–124

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estima- tion, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Chapeau-Blondeau, Optimized probing states for qubit phase estimation with general quantum noise, Phys

    F. Chapeau-Blondeau, Optimized probing states for qubit phase estimation with general quantum noise, Phys. Rev. A 91, 052310 (2015)

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    L. J. Fiderer, J. M. E. Fra ¨ ısse, and D. Braun, Maximal quantum Fisher information for mixed states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 250502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    Toscano, W

    F. Toscano, W. P. Bastos, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Attainability of the quantum information bound in pure- state models, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042125 (2017)

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen and R. D. Gill, Fisher informa- tion in quantum statistics, J. Phys A: Math. Gen. 33, 4481 (2000)

    work page 2000

  55. [55]

    Pang and A

    S. Pang and A. Jordan, Optimal adaptive control for quantum metrology with time-dependent Hamiltonians, Nat. Commun. 8, 14695 (2017)

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    M. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Garc ´ ıa, I. P. Castillo, and P. Barberis- Blostein, Efficient qubit phase estimation using adaptive measurements, Quantum 5, 467 (2021)

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    Hotta, T

    M. Hotta, T. Karasawa, and M. Ozawa, Ancilla-assisted enhancement of channel estimation for low-noise param- eters, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052334 (2005)

    work page 2005

  58. [58]

    B. M. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, General framework for estimating the ultimate preci- sion limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology, Nature Phys. 7, 406 (2011)

    work page 2011

  59. [59]

    Zwierz, C

    M. Zwierz, C. A. P´ erez-Delgado, and P. Kok, Ultimate limits to quantum metrology and the meaning of the Heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. A 85, 042112 (2012)

    work page 2012

  60. [60]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J. Czajkowski, and P. Sekatski, Adaptive quantum metrology under general Markovian noise, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041009 (2017)

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    Zhou and L

    S. Zhou and L. Jiang, Asymptotic theory of quantum channel estimation, PRX Quantum 2, 010343 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

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

    work page 2000

  63. [63]

    J. A. Jones, Quantum computing with NMR, Prog. NMR Spectrosc. 59, 91 (2011)

    work page 2011

  64. [64]

    Collins, K

    D. Collins, K. W. Kim, W. C. Holton, H. Sierzputowska- Gracz, and E. O. Stejskal, NMR quantum computation with indirectly coupled gates, Phys. Rev. A 62, 022304 (2000)

    work page 2000

  65. [65]

    Teklemariam, E

    G. Teklemariam, E. M. Fortunato, M. A. Pravia, T. F. Havel, and D. G. Cory, NMR analog of the quantum dis- entanglement eraser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5845 (2001)

    work page 2001

  66. [66]

    Y. S. Weinstein, T. F. Havel, J. Emerson, N. Boulant, M. Saraceno, S. Lloyd, and D. G. Cory, Quantum process tomography of the quantum Fourier transform, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 6117 (2004)

    work page 2004

  67. [67]

    C. Ju, J. Zhu, X. Peng, B. Chong, X. Zhou, and J. Du, Experimental demonstration of deterministic one-way quantum computation on a NMR quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012322 (2010)

    work page 2010

  68. [68]

    D. Lu, T. Xin, N. Yu, Z. Ji, J. Chen, G. Long, J. Baugh, X. Peng, B. Zeng, and R. Laflamme, Tomography is nec- essary for universal entanglement detection with single- copy observables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 230501 (2016)

    work page 2016

  69. [69]

    J. Wen, C. Zheng, X. Kong, S. Wei, T. Xin, and G. Long, Experimental demonstration of a digital quantum simu- lation of a general PT -symmetric system, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062122 (2019)

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

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

    work page 2013

  71. [71]

    Chapeau-Blondeau, Optimized entanglement for quantum parameter estimation from noisy qubits, Int

    F. Chapeau-Blondeau, Optimized entanglement for quantum parameter estimation from noisy qubits, Int. J. Quantum Information 16, 1850056 (2018)

    work page 2018