Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

GHZ-W Genuinely Entangled Subspace Verification with Adaptive Local Measurements

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Local measurements verify the GHZ-W subspace at about 2.25 times the optimal sample cost.

desk verdict A solid LOCC subspace-verification paper with a correct analytical spectral-gap computation; needs a few caveats fixed before it is used as a recipe. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19540 v2 pith:PJPVHZLK submitted 2024-12-27 quant-ph

Congcong Zheng , Ping Xu , Kun Wang , Zaichen Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords genuinelyentangledsubspaceGHZ-WstatequantumverificationlocalmeasurementsLOCCadaptivemeasurementsamplecomplexity
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 show that the three-qubit GHZ-W genuinely entangled subspace can be verified efficiently using only local measurements and one-way classical communication, with sample complexity about $2.248\,\epsilon^{-1}\ln\delta^{-1}$ copies needed to reach infidelity $\epsilon$ at confidence level $1-\delta$. That is only about 2.25 times the sample complexity of the globally optimal strategy, which requires an entangled measurement and is therefore hard to implement. The authors also classify every two-dimensional two-qubit subspace into three types and prove that one type, containing exactly one product state in its complement, cannot be verified by any LOCC protocol built from projective measurements. If the claims hold, practical certification of a commonly used three-qubit entangled resource becomes feasible with current technology at a modest overhead in copy count.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the one-way adaptive test operator: measure one qubit in the Pauli $X$ or $Z$ basis and, conditioned on the outcome, apply a tailored two-qubit verification test to the remaining two qubits. Measuring $Z$ leads to the operator $M_Z$, measuring $X$ leads to $M_X$, and local symmetries of $V_3$ (qubit permutations together with the local phase rotations $U_1=R_{2\pi/3}^{\otimes 3}$ and $U_2=R_{4\pi/3}^{\otimes 3}$) generate ten valid test operators. Averaging these operators produces a verification operator whose projected effective operator on the complement of $V_3$ has a spectrum computable in closed form, giving the spectral gap $141/317$. The two-qubit classification is carried by a determinant criterion: representing each two-qubit state by a $2\times 2$ matrix and counting product states through $\det(\alpha+\lambda\beta)=0$ shows that the number of product states in a subspace equals that in its complement.

What would settle it

Take the verification operator $\Omega_{\mu^\star}$ and project it onto the six-dimensional orthogonal complement of $V_3$; compute the largest eigenvalue of the projected operator numerically. If it is not $176/317$, the claimed spectral gap and sample complexity are wrong; equivalently, search over states at infidelity $\epsilon$ and check whether any passes the rotation strategy with probability exceeding $(1-(141/317)\epsilon)^N$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the subspace $V_3=\mathrm{span}\{|GHZ\rangle,|W\rangle\}$ admits verification strategies based on one-way adaptive local measurements. The rotation strategy, built from ten test operators generated by the local symmetries of $V_3$, achieves a spectral gap of $141/317\approx 0.445$ with optimal measurement probability $\mu^\star(X)=240/317$, giving the sample complexity $N=\lceil \frac{317}{141}\epsilon^{-1}\ln\delta^{-1}\rceil\approx 2.248\,\epsilon^{-1}\ln\delta^{-1}$. The simpler XZ strategy uses four test operators and achieves a spectral gap of about $0.262$, with sample complexity $N\approx 3.817\,\epsilon^{-1}\ln\delta^{-1}$. Along the way, the paper proves that every two-dimensional two-qubit subspace contains either 1, 2, or infinitely many product states in its complement, which yields three classes: unverifiable, verifiable, and perfectly verifiable; the unverifiable class cannot be certified by any LOCC strategy using projective measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The proof's copy-count guarantee assumes the $N$ state copies are prepared independently; if an adversary can supply correlated copies, the stated $2.248\,\epsilon^{-1}\ln\delta^{-1}$ bound is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The rotation strategy certifies the GHZ-W subspace to infidelity $\epsilon$ and confidence $1-\delta$ with about $2.248\,\epsilon^{-1}\ln\delta^{-1}$ copies, only a factor of roughly 2.25 above the entangled-measurement ideal.
  • Because the protocol uses only local projective measurements and one-way classical communication, it is implementable on current qubit platforms without entangled measurements.
  • The XZ strategy provides a four-setting alternative whose sample complexity is about $3.817\,\epsilon^{-1}\ln\delta^{-1}$, trading some efficiency for fewer measurement settings.
  • A two-dimensional two-qubit subspace whose complement contains exactly one product state cannot be verified by any LOCC strategy using projective measurements, so some entangled subspaces are fundamentally beyond local verification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This is an inference beyond the paper: the factor $2.248$ is likely near the best possible for LOCC verification of $V_3$, but the paper does not prove a lower bound, so that optimality question remains open.
  • This is an inference beyond the paper: because the copy-count guarantee assumes independent state preparation, an adversary supplying correlated copies could in principle defeat the bound; a formal analysis of that adversarial model would be a direct stress test of the claim.
  • This is an inference beyond the paper: the two-qubit classification suggests a general diagnostic that a subspace is locally verifiable exactly when its complement is spanned by product states, which could be tested in larger dimensions.
  • This is an inference beyond the paper: the special single-qubit states in the $X$ measurement are fixed by a parameter involving $\sqrt{5}$, and understanding why that parameter is optimal may yield a systematic construction of analytic strategies for other symmetric subspaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies verification of the three-qubit GHZ-W subspace using local measurements and one-way classical communication. It first classifies two-dimensional two-qubit subspaces into verifiable, perfectly verifiable, and unverifiable types, then constructs two adaptive verification strategies for the GHZ-W subspace: the XZ strategy and the rotation strategy. The main quantitative claim is an analytical sample-complexity bound for the rotation strategy of approximately 2.248 ε^{-1} ln δ^{-1}, obtained by computing the spectral gap of the averaged verification operator in Proposition 3. The paper also reports a numerical optimization for the XZ strategy and discusses the gap to the globally optimal entangled-measurement strategy.

Significance. If the main claim holds, the paper provides an experimentally realistic LOCC protocol for verifying a genuinely entangled subspace with only a constant-factor overhead relative to the global optimum. A genuine strength is Proposition 3: the symmetrization of the test operators and the resulting eigenvalue calculation are explicit and checkable, and the reported constants (240/317 and 141/317) are consistent with the intersection of 47/80 μ(X) and 1−11/15 μ(X). The two-qubit classification section is also potentially useful, though its impossibility claim needs tightening. The paper does not rely on circular fitting; the only numerically optimized quantity is the mixing probability for the XZ strategy, which is a protocol parameter and not an inferred physical quantity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (3); Abstract; Section V] The sample-complexity guarantee N ≈ 2.248 ε^{-1} ln δ^{-1} is proven only for independently prepared copies, as Eq. (3) explicitly states, but the abstract, Eq. (49), and the conclusions present it without that qualifier. This is not a stylistic issue: a correlated joint source can violate the bound. For example, take ρ_g ∈ V3 and ρ_b with Tr[Πρ_b] = 1/2 and Tr[Ωρ_b] = 1 − ν/2, and consider ρ = (ρ_g⊗ρ_g + ρ_b⊗ρ_b)/2. Each reduced copy has Tr[Πσ_i] = 3/4, so the source is Bad for ε = 1/4, yet the two-copy acceptance probability is 1/2 + (1/2)(1 − ν/2)^2 ≈ 0.802, which exceeds the independent-copy bound (1 − ν/4)^2 ≈ 0.790. The authors should either add the independence assumption to every statement of the claimed sample complexity or analyze the correlated/adversarial scenario.
  2. [Section III.A, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The claimed impossibility result for unverifiable two-qubit subspaces is not proven as stated. The text analyzes only the single test operator Ω_u = I − |τ⟩⟨τ|, shows that an entangled state |τ′⟩ in V⊥ orthogonal to |τ⟩ passes it with certainty, and concludes that no LOCC projective verification strategy exists. A complete proof must rule out any mixed strategy built from other local projective test operators that each accept V. Concretely, the authors need to show that every local projective test M with M|v⟩ = |v⟩ for all |v⟩ ∈ V also satisfies Tr[M|τ′⟩⟨τ′|] = 1, or provide an equivalent argument. Without this step, the classification theorem is stronger than the evidence presented.
  3. [Section III.B, Eq. (11) and following paragraph] There is an internal inconsistency in the perfectly verifiable case. Equation (11) defines Ω_p = |τ0⟩⟨τ0| + |τ1⟩⟨τ1|, but the text says ν(Ω_p) = 0, which would imply that no finite sample size suffices, while Eq. (12) immediately gives N = ε^{-1} ln δ^{-1}. The intended statement is presumably that Ω_p is the projector onto the target subspace (or the corresponding projector onto its complement) and that ν(Ω_p) = 1. The location of the product states τ_i (in V or in V⊥) should also be aligned with the conventions used in Eqs. (7)-(8).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A, Lemma 1 proof] In the second case of the proof, "|b⟩ = 0" should read "|b⟩ = |0⟩".
  2. [Section III.B, end of subsection] The term "local subspace" is introduced without definition; either define it or remove it.
  3. [Section IV.C, Remark] The statement that including Y measurements is unnecessary is supported only by numerical optimization; either provide an analytic argument or explicitly label this as a numerical observation.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (4)] The formula for the required number of copies would be clearer if the denominator were written as ln((1 − ν ε)^{-1}), rather than with the reciprocal logarithm notation used here.
  5. [Eq. (46)] The reduction to min{47/80 μ(X), 1 − 11/15 μ(X)} should mention that 1 − 13/20 μ(X) ≤ 1 − 47/80 μ(X) and 131/240 μ(X) ≤ 11/15 μ(X) for all μ(X) ∈ [0,1].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rotation strategy sample complexity is a direct spectral-gap computation, not a re-labeled fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The paper defines the verification operator Ω and the spectral gap ν(Ω)=1−λ_max(Ω̂) in Section II (Eqs. (1)–(4)), constructs explicit one-way adaptive test operators M_Z and M_{X,i} in Section IV A, and in Proposition 3 computes the eigenvalues of the averaged operator Ω_µ=µ(Z)M_Z+µ(X)cM_X directly from the displayed 8×8 matrix (Eqs. (34)–(46)). The optimized value µ*(X)=240/317 and spectral gap 141/317 are obtained analytically by balancing the two terms in Eq. (47), and Eq. (49) is then just the standard substitution into Eq. (4). No parameter is fitted to the target result: the target subspace enters only through the requirement that the test operators pass V_3. The numerical search in the XZ strategy is an internal optimization of the measurement distribution, not a prediction. Self-citations ([34], [53]) occur in contextual related-work citations and are not load-bearing for Eq. (49). The abstract omits the 'independently prepared' qualifier of Eq. (3), which is a correctness caveat for correlated adversarial sources, but this is not a circularity because the spectral-gap calculation itself is independent of that assumption.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main contribution is a protocol-level calculation. The only fitted number is the numerical µ(Z) for the XZ strategy; the rotation strategy's µ*(X)=240/317 is derived analytically. No new physical entities are introduced. The classification of two-qubit subspaces relies on the standard result about the maximum dimension of a completely entangled subspace and on an unproven assertion about the scope of LOCC projective strategies.

free parameters (1)
  • µ(Z) for the XZ strategy = ≈0.424
    Chosen by numerical scan over [0,1] with step 0.001 to maximize the spectral gap of Ω_XZ. The claimed constant 3.817 depends on this scan.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The states to be verified are prepared independently, so the per-copy pass probability bound in Eq. (3) applies.
    Section II, Eq. (3) states 'If the states are independently prepared'; without this, the sample complexity formula is not proven.
  • domain assumption A verification strategy is fully characterized by a convex combination of local projective test operators, as in Eq. (1).
    Section II defines Ω = Σ μ(M)M; this restricts the later impossibility claim to projective local measurements.
  • standard math The maximum dimension of a completely entangled subspace in a two-qubit Hilbert space is 1.
    Used in Lemma 1 and cited to refs. [65,66].
  • ad hoc to paper For an unverifiable two-qubit subspace, the only possible local projective test operator is 1-|τ><τ|, so a complement state orthogonal to τ passes with certainty.
    Section III.A states this, but it is not proven for all LOCC projective strategies; this is the point that needs a rigorous argument.
  • standard math Applying local symmetry unitaries and qubit permutations to valid test operators yields valid test operators.
    Section IV.A invokes invariance of Π3 under U1, U2, and the permutation operators Vσ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GHZ-W Genuinely Entangled Subspace Verification with Adaptive Local Measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PJPVHZLK

@misc{pith2026241219540,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GHZ-W Genuinely Entangled Subspace Verification with Adaptive Local Measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PJPVHZLK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19540}
}
abstract

Genuinely entangled subspaces (GESs) are valuable resources in quantum information science. Among these, the three-qubit GHZ-W GES, spanned by the three-qubit Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) and W states, is a universal and crucial entangled subspace resource for three-qubit systems. In this work, we develop two adaptive verification strategies, the XZ strategy and the rotation strategy, for the three-qubit GHZ-W GES using local measurements and one-way classical communication. These strategies are experimentally feasible, efficient and possess a concise analytical expression for the sample complexity of the rotation strategy, which scales approximately as $2.248\epsilon^{-1}\ln\delta^{-1}$, where $\epsilon$ is the infidelity and $1-\delta$ is the confidence level. Furthermore, we comprehensively analyze the two-dimensional two-qubit subspaces and classify them into three distinct types, which include unverifiable entangled subspaces, revealing intrinsic limitations in local verification of entangled subspaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19540 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The one-way adaptive verification strategy for GHZ-W subspace. We first randomly select [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Comparison of the total number of state copies required to verify the three-qubit GHZ-W subspace for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Good: for all i ∈ [N ], Tr[Πσi] = 1

    work page

  2. [2]

    pass” and the 1 − M outputs “fail

    Bad: for all i ∈ [N ], Tr[Πσi] ≤ 1 − ϵ for some fixed ϵ. To achieve this, assume that we have access to a set of POVM elementsM. Define a probability mass µ : M →[0, 1], satisfyingP M ∈M µ(M ) = 1. For each state, we select a POVM element M ∈ Mwith probability µ(M ) and perform the corresponding POVM with two results {M, 1 − M }, where the M outputs “pass...

    work page

  3. [3]

    If |a⟩ = |0⟩ or |b⟩ = 0, there are infinitely many product states in V, e.g., V = span{|00⟩, |01⟩} or V = span{|00⟩, |10⟩}. In both cases, the orthogonal complementV ⊥ also contains infinitely many product states, with{|10⟩, |11⟩} or {|01⟩, |11⟩} being orthogonal product bases in this subspace, respectively. 4

    work page

  4. [4]

    The above constructive proof reveals that, if V has at least two distinct product states, then the number of distinct product states in V equals that in V ⊥, and is either 2 or +∞

    Otherwise, |00⟩ and |ab⟩ (|1¯b⟩ and |¯a1⟩) are the only product states in V (V ⊥). The above constructive proof reveals that, if V has at least two distinct product states, then the number of distinct product states in V equals that in V ⊥, and is either 2 or +∞. Then, we consider the case N = 1, where there is only one product state in V. Again, since th...

    work page

  5. [5]

    −” results. Likewise, for the post-measurement subspace induced by the X measurement, if the outcome is “ +

    The subspace spanned by (|00⟩ + |11⟩)/ √ 2 and (|00⟩ − |11⟩)/ √ 2 is a perfectly verifiable subspace, since its complement subspace contains two orthogonal product states |01⟩ and |10⟩. Unverifiable subspace. On the other hand, if there is only one product state in V, then, by Lemma 1, we cannot span V ⊥ with product states . This type of subspace is call...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Qubit permutations: Vσ := X i1,i2,i3 |iσ−1(1)iσ−1(2)iσ−1(3)⟩ ⟨i1i2i3|, (25) where σ ranges over all elements of the symmetric group S3; and

    work page

  7. [7]

    One can check that VσΠ3V † σ = Π3 and UiΠ3U † i = Π3 for σ ∈ S3 and i = 1, 2

    Local unitaries: U1 := R2π/3 ⊗ R2π/3 ⊗ R2π/3, (26) U2 := R4π/3 ⊗ R4π/3 ⊗ R4π/3, (27) where Rϕ := |0⟩ ⟨0| + eiϕ|1⟩ ⟨1| and U2 = U 2 1 . One can check that VσΠ3V † σ = Π3 and UiΠ3U † i = Π3 for σ ∈ S3 and i = 1, 2. Using these two local symmetries of V3, we can construct additional test operators. Notice that MZ is invariant under the above local symmetries...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Quantum Entanglement

    Ryszard Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki. Quantum Entanglement. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2):865–942, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Multipartite Entanglement

    Pawel Horodecki, Łukasz Rudnicki, and Karol ˙Zyczkowski. Multipartite Entanglement. arXiv:2409.04566, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Quantum Entanglement Allocation Through a Central Hub

    Yu-Ao Chen, Xia Liu, Chenghong Zhu, Lei Zhang, Junyu Liu, and Xin Wang. Quantum Entanglement Allocation Through a Central Hub. arXiv:2409.08173, 2024. 12

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac. Three Qubits Can Be Entangled in Two Inequivalent Ways. Physical Review A, 62(6):062314, 2000

    2000

  4. [12]

    A. Acín, D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera. Classification of Mixed Three-Qubit States. Physical Review Letters, 87(4):040401, 2001

    2001

  5. [13]

    Walther, K

    P. Walther, K. J. Resch, and A. Zeilinger. Local Conversion of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger States to Approximate W States. Physical Review Letters, 94(24):240501, 2005

    2005

  6. [14]

    Absolutely Maximally Entangled States, Quantum-Maximum-Distance-Separable Codes, and Quan- tum Repeaters

    Daniel Alsina and Mohsen Razavi. Absolutely Maximally Entangled States, Quantum-Maximum-Distance-Separable Codes, and Quan- tum Repeaters. Physical Review A, 103(2):022402, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Gilad Gour and Nolan R. Wallach. Entanglement of Subspaces and Error-Correcting Codes. Physical Review A, 76(4):042309, 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    Quantum Codes of Maximal Distance and Highly Entangled Subspaces

    Felix Huber and Markus Grassl. Quantum Codes of Maximal Distance and Highly Entangled Subspaces. Quantum, 4:284, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Optimal Quantum Error Correcting Codes from Absolutely Maximally Entangled States

    Zahra Raissi, Christian Gogolin, Arnau Riera, and Antonio Acín. Optimal Quantum Error Correcting Codes from Absolutely Maximally Entangled States. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 51(7):075301, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Maximally Nonlocal Subspaces

    Akshata H Shenoy and R Srikanth. Maximally Nonlocal Subspaces. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 52(9):095302, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Universal Construction of Genuinely Entangled Subspaces of Any Size

    Maciej Demianowicz. Universal Construction of Genuinely Entangled Subspaces of Any Size. Quantum, 6:854, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Device-Independent Certification of Genuinely Entangled Sub- spaces

    Flavio Baccari, Remigiusz Augusiak, Ivan Šupi ´c, and Antonio Acín. Device-Independent Certification of Genuinely Entangled Sub- spaces. Physical Review Letters, 125(26):260507, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Self-Testing Maximally-Dimensional Genuinely Entangled Subspaces within the Stabilizer Formalism

    Owidiusz Makuta and Remigiusz Augusiak. Self-Testing Maximally-Dimensional Genuinely Entangled Subspaces within the Stabilizer Formalism. New Journal of Physics, 23(4):043042, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    From Unextendible Product Bases to Genuinely Entangled Subspaces

    Maciej Demianowicz and Remigiusz Augusiak. From Unextendible Product Bases to Genuinely Entangled Subspaces. Physical Review A, 98(1):012313, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Simple Sufficient Condition for Subspace to Be Com- pletely or Genuinely Entangled

    Maciej Demianowicz, Grzegorz Rajchel-Mieldzio ´c, and Remigiusz Augusiak. Simple Sufficient Condition for Subspace to Be Com- pletely or Genuinely Entangled. New Journal of Physics, 23(10):103016, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Entanglement of Genuinely Entangled Subspaces and States: Exact, Approximate, and Numerical Results

    Maciej Demianowicz and Remigiusz Augusiak. Entanglement of Genuinely Entangled Subspaces and States: Exact, Approximate, and Numerical Results. Physical Review A, 100(6):062318, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Self-Testing of Symmetric Three-Qubit States

    Xinhui Li, Yukun Wang, Yunguang Han, Sujuan Qin, Fei Gao, and Qiaoyan Wen. Self-Testing of Symmetric Three-Qubit States. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 38(3):589–597, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Multiqubit Symmetric States with High Geometric Entangle- ment

    John Martin, Olivier Giraud, PA Braun, Daniel Braun, and Thierry Bastin. Multiqubit Symmetric States with High Geometric Entangle- ment. Physical Review A, 81(6):062347, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Role of Three-Qubit Mixed-States Entanglement in Teleportation Scheme

    DaeKil Park, Sayatnova Tamaryan, and Jin-Woo Son. Role of Three-Qubit Mixed-States Entanglement in Teleportation Scheme. arXiv:0808.4045, 2008

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Teleportation via a Mixture of a Two Qubit Subsystem of a N-Qubit W and GHZ State

    Indranil Chakrabarty. Teleportation via a Mixture of a Two Qubit Subsystem of a N-Qubit W and GHZ State. The European Physical Journal D, 57(2):265–269, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Entangled Three-Qubit States without Concurrence and Three- Tangle

    Robert Lohmayer, Andreas Osterloh, Jens Siewert, and Armin Uhlmann. Entangled Three-Qubit States without Concurrence and Three- Tangle. Physical Review Letters, 97(26):260502, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Classifying Entanglement in the Superposition of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger and W States.Physical Review A, 92(4):042318, 2015

    Xuan Wang and Xian Shi. Classifying Entanglement in the Superposition of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger and W States.Physical Review A, 92(4):042318, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Songbo Xie, Daniel Younis, and Joseph H. Eberly. Evidence for Unexpected Robustness of Multipartite Entanglement Against Sudden Death from Spontaneous Emission. Physical Review Research, 5(3):L032015, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Nonlocality and Efficiency of Three-Qubit Partially Entangled States

    Jyoti Faujdar, Hargeet Kaur, Parvinder Singh, Atul Kumar, and Satyabrata Adhikari. Nonlocality and Efficiency of Three-Qubit Partially Entangled States. Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, 10(1):27–40, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Deterministic Interconversions Between the Greenberger-Horne- Zeilinger States and the W States by Invariant-Based Pulse Design

    Ri-Hua Zheng, Yi-Hao Kang, Du Ran, Zhi-Cheng Shi, and Yan Xia. Deterministic Interconversions Between the Greenberger-Horne- Zeilinger States and the W States by Invariant-Based Pulse Design. Physical Review A, 101(1):012345, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Häffner, W

    H. Häffner, W. Hänsel, C. F. Roos, J. Benhelm, D. Chek-al kar, M. Chwalla, T. Körber, U. D. Rapol, M. Riebe, P. O. Schmidt, C. Becher, O. Gühne, W. Dür, and R. Blatt. Scalable Multiparticle Entanglement of Trapped ions. Nature, 438(7068):643–646, 2005

    2005

  27. [35]

    Variational Entanglement-Assisted Quantum Process Tomography with Arbitrary Ancillary Qubits.Physical Review Letters, 129:133601, 2022

    Shichuan Xue, Yizhi Wang, Junwei Zhan, Yaxuan Wang, Ru Zeng, Jiangfang Ding, Weixu Shi, Yong Liu, Yingwen Liu, Anqi Huang, Guangyao Huang, Chunlin Yu, Dongyang Wang, Xiang Fu, Xiaogang Qiang, Ping Xu, Mingtang Deng, Xuejun Yang, and Junjie Wu. Variational Entanglement-Assisted...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Quan- tum Certification and Benchmarking

    Jens Eisert, Dominik Hangleiter, Nathan Walk, Ingo Roth, Damian Markham, Rhea Parekh, Ulysse Chabaud, and Elham Kashefi. Quan- tum Certification and Benchmarking. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(7):382–390, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Theory of Quantum System Certification

    Martin Kliesch and Ingo Roth. Theory of Quantum System Certification. PRX Quantum, 2(1):010201, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Predicting Many Properties of a Quantum System from Very Few Measurements

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting Many Properties of a Quantum System from Very Few Measurements. Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Roos, and Peter Zoller

    Andreas Elben, Benoît Vermersch, Rick van Bijnen, Christian Kokail, Tiff Brydges, Christine Maier, Manoj Joshi, Rainer Blatt, Christian F. Roos, and Peter Zoller. Cross-Platform Verification of Intermediate Scale Quantum Devices. Physical Review Letters , 124(1):010504, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Flammia, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, Benoît Vermersch, and Peter Zoller

    Andreas Elben, Steven T. Flammia, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, Benoît Vermersch, and Peter Zoller. The Random- ized Measurement Toolbox. Nature Reviews Physics, 5(1):9–24, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Cross-Platform Comparison of Arbitrary Quantum Processes

    Congcong Zheng, Xutao Yu, and Kun Wang. Cross-Platform Comparison of Arbitrary Quantum Processes. npj Quantum Information, 10(1):1–9, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Optimal Verification of Entangled States with Local Measurements.Physical Review Letters, 120(17):170502, 2018

    Sam Pallister, Noah Linden, and Ashley Montanaro. Optimal Verification of Entangled States with Local Measurements.Physical Review Letters, 120(17):170502, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Optimal Verification of Two-Qubit Pure States

    Kun Wang and Masahito Hayashi. Optimal Verification of Two-Qubit Pure States. Physical Review A, 100(3):032315, 2019. 13

    2019

  36. [44]

    Group Theoretical Study of LOCC-Detection of Maximally Entangled States Using Hypothesis Testing

    Masahito Hayashi. Group Theoretical Study of LOCC-Detection of Maximally Entangled States Using Hypothesis Testing. New Journal of Physics, 11(4):043028, 2009

    2009

  37. [45]

    Optimal Verification and Fidelity Estimation of Maximally Entangled States

    Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. Optimal Verification and Fidelity Estimation of Maximally Entangled States. Physical Review A, 99(5):052346, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Optimal Verification of General Bipartite Pure States

    Xiao-Dong Yu, Jiangwei Shang, and Otfried Gühne. Optimal Verification of General Bipartite Pure States. npj Quantum Information, 5(1):1–5, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Efficient Verification of Pure Quantum States in the Adversarial Scenario.Physical Review Letters, 123(26):260504, 2019

    Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. Efficient Verification of Pure Quantum States in the Adversarial Scenario.Physical Review Letters, 123(26):260504, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Statistical Methods for Quantum State Verification and Fidelity Estimation

    Xiao-Dong Yu, Jiangwei Shang, and Otfried Gühne. Statistical Methods for Quantum State Verification and Fidelity Estimation. Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies, 5(5):2100126, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Optimal Verification of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger States

    Zihao Li, Yun-Guang Han, and Huangjun Zhu. Optimal Verification of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger States. Physical Review Applied, 13(5):054002, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Optimal Verification of the Bell State and Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger States in Untrusted Quantum Networks

    Yun-Guang Han, Zihao Li, Yukun Wang, and Huangjun Zhu. Optimal Verification of the Bell State and Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger States in Untrusted Quantum Networks. npj Quantum Information, 7(1):1–7, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Optimal Verification of Stabilizer States.Physical Review Research, 2(4):043323, 2020

    Ninnat Dangniam, Yun-Guang Han, and Huangjun Zhu. Optimal Verification of Stabilizer States.Physical Review Research, 2(4):043323, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Efficient Verification of Hypergraph States

    Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. Efficient Verification of Hypergraph States. Physical Review Applied, 12(5):054047, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    Quantum Memory Assisted Entangled State Verification with Local Measurements

    Siyuan Chen, Wei Xie, Ping Xu, and Kun Wang. Quantum Memory Assisted Entangled State Verification with Local Measurements. Physical Review Research, 7(1):013003, 2025

    2025

  46. [54]

    Verification of Phased Dicke States

    Zihao Li, Yun-Guang Han, Hao-Feng Sun, Jiangwei Shang, and Huangjun Zhu. Verification of Phased Dicke States. Physical Review A, 103(2):022601, 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    General Framework for Verifying Pure Quantum States in the Adversarial Scenario

    Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. General Framework for Verifying Pure Quantum States in the Adversarial Scenario. Physical Review A, 100(6):062335, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Towards the Standardization of Quantum State Verification Using Optimal Strategies

    Xinhe Jiang, Kun Wang, Kaiyi Qian, Zhaozhong Chen, Zhiyu Chen, Liangliang Lu, Lijun Xia, Fangmin Song, Shining Zhu, and Xiaosong Ma. Towards the Standardization of Quantum State Verification Using Optimal Strategies. npj Quantum Information, 6(1):90, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Experimental Optimal Verification of Entangled States Using Local Measurements

    Wen-Hao Zhang, Chao Zhang, Zhe Chen, Xing-Xiang Peng, Xiao-Ye Xu, Peng Yin, Shang Yu, Xiang-Jun Ye, Yong-Jian Han, Jin-Shi Xu, Geng Chen, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo. Experimental Optimal Verification of Entangled States Using Local Measurements. Physical Review Letters, ...

    2020

  50. [58]

    Experimental Optimal Verification of Three- Dimensional Entanglement on a Silicon Chip

    Lijun Xia, Liangliang Lu, Kun Wang, Xinhe Jiang, Shining Zhu, and Xiaosong Ma. Experimental Optimal Verification of Three- Dimensional Entanglement on a Silicon Chip. New Journal of Physics, 24(9):095002, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Everything You Always Wanted to Know About LOCC (But Were Afraid to Ask)

    Eric Chitambar, Debbie Leung, Laura Man ˇcinska, Maris Ozols, and Andreas Winter. Everything You Always Wanted to Know About LOCC (But Were Afraid to Ask). Communications in Mathematical Physics, 328(1):303–326, 2014

    2014

  52. [60]

    Efficient Verification of Stabilizer Code Subspaces with Local Measurements

    Congcong Zheng, Xutao Yu, Zaichen Zhang, Ping Xu, and Kun Wang. Efficient Verification of Stabilizer Code Subspaces with Local Measurements. arXiv:2409.19699, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Quantum Subspace Verification for Error Correction Codes

    Junjie Chen, Pei Zeng, Qi Zhao, Xiongfeng Ma, and You Zhou. Quantum Subspace Verification for Error Correction Codes. arXiv:2410.12551, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Efficient Verification of Affleck-Kennedy-Lieb-Tasaki States

    Tianyi Chen, Yunting Li, and Huangjun Zhu. Efficient Verification of Affleck-Kennedy-Lieb-Tasaki States. Physical Review A , 107(2):022616, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    Efficient Verification of Ground States of Frustration-Free Hamiltonians.Quantum, 8:1221, 2024

    Huangjun Zhu, Yunting Li, and Tianyi Chen. Efficient Verification of Ground States of Frustration-Free Hamiltonians.Quantum, 8:1221, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Verifiable Fault Tolerance in Measurement-Based Quantum Computation

    Keisuke Fujii and Masahito Hayashi. Verifiable Fault Tolerance in Measurement-Based Quantum Computation. Physical Review A , 96(3):030301, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Secure Modulo Zero-Sum Randomness as Cryptographic Resource

    Masahito Hayashi and Takeshi Koshiba. Secure Modulo Zero-Sum Randomness as Cryptographic Resource. Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2018

    2018

  58. [66]

    Quantum Verifiable Protocol for Secure Modulo Zero-Sum randomness

    Masahito Hayashi and Takeshi Koshiba. Quantum Verifiable Protocol for Secure Modulo Zero-Sum randomness. Quantum Information Processing, 21(8):291, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Efficient Verification of Dicke States

    Ye-Chao Liu, Xiao-Dong Yu, Jiangwei Shang, Huangjun Zhu, and Xiangdong Zhang. Efficient Verification of Dicke States. Physical Review Applied, 12(4):044020, 2019

    2019

  60. [68]

    Efficient Verification of Arbitrary Entangled States with Homogeneous Local Measurements

    Ye-Chao Liu, Yinfei Li, Jiangwei Shang, and Xiangdong Zhang. Efficient Verification of Arbitrary Entangled States with Homogeneous Local Measurements. Advanced Quantum Technologies, 6(8):2300083, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Kinematics of Qubit Pairs

    Berthold-Georg Englert and Nasser Metwally. Kinematics of Qubit Pairs. In Mathematics of Quantum Computation . Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2002

    2002

  62. [70]

    Wootters

    William K. Wootters. Entanglement of Formation of an Arbitrary State of Two Qubits. Physical Review Letters , 80(10):2245–2248, 1998

    1998

  63. [71]

    Distinguishability of Quantum States by Separable Operations

    Runyao Duan, Yuan Feng, Yu Xin, and Mingsheng Ying. Distinguishability of Quantum States by Separable Operations. IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory, 55(3):1320–1330, 2009

    2009

  64. [72]

    An Approach to Constructing Genuinely Entangled Subspaces of Maximal Dimension

    Maciej Demianowicz and Remigiusz Augusiak. An Approach to Constructing Genuinely Entangled Subspaces of Maximal Dimension. Quantum Information Processing, 19(7):199, 2020

    2020

  65. [73]

    K. R. Parthasarathy. On the Maximal Dimension of a Completely Entangled Subspace for Finite Level Quantum Systems. Proceedings Mathematical Sciences, 114(4):365–374, 2004

    2004

  66. [74]

    Verifiable Measurement-Only Blind Quantum Computing with Stabilizer Testing

    Masahito Hayashi and Tomoyuki Morimae. Verifiable Measurement-Only Blind Quantum Computing with Stabilizer Testing. Physical Review Letters, 115(22):220502, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

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