Enhancing Quantum Dense Coding Robustness Using Information Entropy-Based Metrics

Syed Emad Uddin Shubha; Tasnuva Farheen

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Enhancing Quantum Dense Coding Robustness Using Information Entropy-Based Metrics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By monitoring quantum discord and entanglement of formation on pilot pairs, an adaptive global unitary can keep superdense coding robust under amplitude and phase damping without discarding entangled pairs.

desk verdict Plausible new architecture, but the central enhancement claim rests on an asserted inverse that the paper never constructs or simulates. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12565 v1 pith:XCRYWLJS submitted 2025-04-17 quant-ph

Syed Emad Uddin Shubha , Tasnuva Farheen This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P70 PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Mn

keywords superdensecodingquantumdiscordentanglementofformationadaptivepurificationpilotpairsamplitudedampingphasefive-qubitcode

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

Superdense coding sends two classical bits in one qubit, but amplitude and phase damping degrade the shared entanglement that makes this possible. The paper proposes protecting it by combining the five-qubit perfect code with an adaptive global purification step: pilot pairs that carry no data are measured for quantum discord and entanglement of formation, and those values tune a global unitary meant to invert the noise channel. Because the correction acts on all qubits together through an ancilla rather than distilling and discarding pairs, the protocol aims to recover high-fidelity Bell states while keeping the full two-bit-per-qubit capacity. The paper reports that QD and EoF predict fidelity with $R^2\approx0.98$, and argues that this makes them workable real-time noise indicators. The complete protocol simulation and the explicit mapping from metrics to unitary angles are deferred to future work.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the pilot-pair monitoring loop feeding a global adaptive purification circuit. Quantum discord—the gap between total and classical mutual information—and entanglement of formation—the minimum entanglement cost to prepare the state—are computed from noise-only pilot pairs; their values select the rotation angles $\theta_1,\theta_2$ of an ancilla-assisted unitary $U(\theta_1,\theta_2)$. That unitary, after tracing out ancillas, induces a CPTP map $\zeta$ intended to satisfy $\zeta\circ(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathbb{1})\approx\mathbb{1}$ on the noisy Bell state. The five-qubit perfect code sits before this in the pipeline, absorbing single-qubit errors so the global map only needs to handle residual multi-qubit noise.

What would settle it

A direct simulation of the full circuit should settle it: prepare $|\Phi^+\rangle$ pairs, send them through the composite channel $\mathcal{E}$, apply the five-qubit code correction and the proposed $U(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ with angles set from pilot-pair QD and EoF, and compare the output fidelity with the five-qubit code alone; if no $(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ yields $\zeta\circ(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathbb{1})\approx\mathbb{1}$ for moderate damping, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the degradation of superdense coding under combined amplitude and phase damping can be substantially reversed by a two-layer strategy. The five-qubit perfect code handles single-qubit errors, while a novel global purification step—an ancilla-assisted unitary $U(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ acting on the decoded data qubits and ancillas—is tuned so that its induced completely positive map $\zeta$ approximately inverts the composite noise channel, $\zeta\circ(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathbb{1})\approx\mathbb{1}$. The tuning signal comes from pilot pairs that undergo the same channel: Bob computes quantum discord and entanglement of formation from them and uses these to set $\theta_1,\theta_2$. The paper's own simulations support the intermediate claim that QD and EoF are strong linear predictors of fidelity, and the intended consequence is that no entangled pairs are discarded, so channel capacity stays at two bits per qubit.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that a single global operation with two tunable rotation angles can nearly undo the combined amplitude- and phase-damping damage to the entangled pairs, and that the right angle settings can be inferred from pilot-pair discord and entanglement measurements; the paper does not derive or numerically demonstrate that inversion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Superdense coding can keep its two-bit-per-qubit advantage over a range of damping strengths without sacrificing any entangled pairs, because purification no longer consumes one pair to clean another.
Pilot pairs provide a real-time noise estimate in dynamically varying channels, so the protocol can adapt as the environment changes rather than relying on fixed correction parameters.
Quantum discord and entanglement of formation become usable control signals for quantum communication, complementing fidelity, which misses some noise effects.
Combining a stabilizer code with non-local global purification extends the reach of the five-qubit code: the code handles local single-qubit errors, while the global map addresses residual collective noise.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: the same pilot-pair monitoring loop should transfer to other channel families, such as depolarizing or correlated errors, because quantum discord and entanglement of formation are channel-agnostic measures.
Inference: since no end-to-end simulation is reported, the decisive comparison is against DEJMPS at equal pair consumption; a non-discarding scheme should win in delivered bits per sent qubit if the central claim holds.
Inference: a learned control law from QD and EoF to $\theta_1,\theta_2$ would make the protocol fully adaptive, and a natural test is to optimize those angles against worst-case fidelity over all $(p,q)$ pairs.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know first: the new idea is real, but the central claim is not demonstrated. The combination of pilot pairs feeding QD/EoF into a global non-discarding purification for superdense coding is genuinely absent from the adaptive-QEC papers they cite, and the Section IV regression (R^2 ≈ 0.98) is a legitimate numerical observation. But the abstract's claim that simulations show enhanced robustness is not backed by anything in the paper. The load-bearing step, Eq. (25), simply asserts that some unitary U(θ1,θ2) induces a map ζ that approximately inverts the composite noise channel. No construction, no existence argument, no simulation. Section VIII admits the mapping from metrics to optimal parameters is future work, which directly contradicts the abstract.

Other soft spots are real but secondary. Algorithm 1 has a clear bug: it tracks the maximum of C, then takes arg min over f and negates it, which would give a negative classical mutual information. The circuit in Fig. 4 has four data qubits plus ancillas, while Eqs. (23)–(24) are written for a two-qubit state; the mismatch is never explained. The pilot-pair assumption (Section VI.3) that pilot pairs see the same channel as data pairs looks questionable once QEC encoding/decoding is in the path, and the paper does not address it. The parameter count worry — two rotation angles vs two noise parameters — is not fatal by itself, but without any construction it is just a hope.

What is good: the prose is clear, the motivation for avoiding pair loss is sound, and the moderate novelty is real. The QD/EoF correlation with fidelity is worth a footnote. But the paper is a research proposal, not a completed result. I would not cite it in the next year, and I would not send it to a serious referee as is. If a venue tolerates speculative architectures, it could go to review with the expectation that the authors actually simulate the full protocol; otherwise desk reject with a clear pointer to what is missing.

For your use: a good example of the gap between a plausible idea and a demonstration.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an adaptive superdense-coding protocol that combines the five-qubit perfect code with a global, non-discarding purification step. The purification is to be tuned by monitoring quantum discord (QD) and entanglement of formation (EoF) on auxiliary 'pilot pairs' that experience the same noise as the data pairs. The main claimed result is that this integrated strategy significantly enhances the robustness and throughput of superdense coding under combined amplitude and phase damping. The numerical evidence presented in the paper, however, consists only of a regression of fidelity against QD and EoF (Section IV, Table I); the complete protocol is not simulated, and the key inversion step is deferred to future work in Section VIII.

Significance. If the central mechanism were demonstrated, the paper would offer a potentially valuable alternative to discard-based entanglement purification for dense coding, with the attractive feature of preserving all entangled pairs. The paper also gives explicit algorithms for computing QD and EoF (Algorithms 1-3) and reports a regression with R2 = 0.97787 and MSE = 5.74e-4, which is a legitimate numerical observation about these metrics on the studied noisy states. These strengths are outweighed, however, by the fact that the paper's main enhancement claim rests on an unproven existence assertion for an inverse noise map, and the provided numerical work does not test the adaptive protocol itself. The paper therefore does not currently support its abstract-level claims.

major comments (4)

[Section V, Eq. (25)] The central claim of the paper is that a global ancilla-assisted unitary U(θ1,θ2) can be chosen so that the induced CPTP map ζ approximately inverts the composite noise channel, i.e., ζ∘(E⊗I)≈1. No construction, existence argument, or simulation is provided for this inversion. Section VIII explicitly states that deriving the mapping from measured correlations to optimal purification parameters is immediate future work, and that the expressivity limits of the unitary for inverting diverse channels remain to be analyzed. Consequently, the abstract's statement that 'our simulations ... indicate that this integrated strategy could significantly enhance superdense coding robustness' is not supported by any simulation of the complete protocol. Furthermore, Fig. 4 shows a circuit acting on four data qubits plus ancillas, whereas Eqs. (23)-(24) describe a two-qubit state; the relationship between the two is not explained.
[Section III-B, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 contains a sign and optimization error in its computation of classical mutual information. Lines 17-20 maximize C = S(ρA) - H over the measurement angles, but line 21 then seeks the argument that minimizes f(θ,ϕ), and line 22 returns J = -f(θ*,ϕ*). Since f is positive for any non-product state, J would be negative, which contradicts the definition J(A:B) = S(ρB) - min Σ pk S(ρB|k) given in Eq. (19) and the requirement that classical mutual information be non-negative. This error means the reported QD values are not the quantities defined in Section III-B, and the regression in Section IV is therefore based on incorrectly computed inputs.
[Section VI, item 3] The protocol's noise estimation relies on the assumption that pilot pairs experience exactly the same channel as the data-carrying pairs. This assumption is stated but not justified or tested. In a dynamically varying noise environment, the channel acting on pilot pairs at one time may differ from the channel acting on data pairs at another time, and no analysis is given of how the pilot-pair overhead or measurement timing affects the estimate. Because the adaptive unitary is chosen entirely from the pilot-pair metrics, this untested assumption is load-bearing for the claimed robustness to time-varying noise.
[Section IV, Eq. (22), Table I] The linear regression model Fidelity = α + βQD·QD + βEoF·EoF is fitted and evaluated on the same set of noisy states from which QD and EoF are computed. No held-out data, cross-validation, or out-of-sample test is presented. The paper therefore does not demonstrate that the fitted model generalizes to unseen noise regimes, which is a prerequisite for using it as a real-time noise indicator. Moreover, the subsequent claims about channel capacity and throughput are not backed by any calculation of capacity from Eq. (3) for the protocol after purification.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section IV] The abstract and Section VII refer to 'our simulations' in the plural and state that the protocol has been simulated, but the only presented numerical simulation is the fidelity-versus-(QD, EoF) regression in Section IV; the adaptive purification circuit in Fig. 4 is never simulated. Please calibrate the wording to match the actual evidence.
[Section II-B, Eq. (7)] The fidelity formula in Eq. (7) is typeset incorrectly: the expression Tr(√(√ρ σ √ρ))² should be written with the square root and trace placed unambiguously. This is a presentation issue, but it obscures a definition used later in the paper.
[Section II-E, Eq. (13)] Eq. (13) gives the DEJMPS fidelity recurrence without defining the intermediate quantities in terms of the rotation angle θ; the caption of Fig. 2 mentions θ = π/2, but no derivation or reference for the displayed recurrence is provided.
[Section III-B, Algorithm 1] The loops in Algorithm 1 range over continuous intervals θ∈[0,π] and ϕ∈[0,2π], but no discretization is described. To be reproducible, the paper should either specify the grid used in the optimization or state that a continuous optimizer was employed.
[Section V, Eq. (23)] The notation in Eq. (23) is ambiguous: E is described as 'not the quantum channel alone' but includes the whole effect up to the decoding process. Since Eq. (14) defined E(ρ) as a concrete channel acting on Alice's qubit, using the same symbol E with a different meaning is confusing and should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the enhancement claim rests on an unproven existence assertion (Eq. 25), not on a reduction to fitted inputs; the in-sample regression is not load-bearing for the protocol.

full rationale

No load-bearing reduction to inputs found. The only quantitative fit is Eq. 22 and Table I, which regress fidelity on QD and EoF for the same noisy Bell states; this is an in-sample regression, and the table's label 'Fidelity predicted from QD and EoF' is loose, but the conclusion that QD/EoF correlate with fidelity is not an identity: the metrics and fidelity are distinct functions of rho, and a high R^2 is an empirical observation, not a definitional equivalence. The paper's central enhancement claim does not rest on this regression; it rests on Eq. 25, which asserts without construction that an ancilla-assisted U(theta1,theta2) exists with zeta composite (E tensor I) approximately identity. That is an unproven existence assertion, and Section VIII explicitly defers numerical simulation of the complete protocol and the mapping from correlations to optimal purification parameters to future work. Such missing support is an evidential gap rather than circularity; no parameter is fitted and then renamed as the enhancement, and no self-citation chain forces the conclusion. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ledger shows the protocol rests on an unproven inverse map (Eq. 25), an ad hoc noise model, an unvalidated pilot-pair assumption, and a fitted regression, rather than a derived result.

free parameters (3)

alpha (intercept) = 0.47453
Fitted intercept in the linear model predicting fidelity from QD and EoF (Section IV, Table I).
beta_QD = -0.23512
Fitted coefficient for quantum discord in the same regression (Table I).
beta_EoF = 0.76228
Fitted coefficient for entanglement of formation in the same regression (Table I).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The composite noise channel is E(ρ) = (AD(PD(ρ)) + PD(AD(ρ)))/2 ⊗ I (Eq. 14)
The equal mixture of amplitude and phase damping, applied only to Alice's subsystem with identity on Bob's, is introduced ad hoc to model the channel; no evidence is given for this specific form.
ad hoc to paper A global unitary U(θ1,θ2) exists such that the induced CPTP map ζ approximately inverts E⊗I (Eq. 25)
This is the core enabling assumption of the protocol; it is stated without construction, existence proof, or numerical verification.
domain assumption Pilot pairs undergo the same quantum evolution as data-carrying pairs (Section VI item 3)
The noise estimation scheme requires pilot pairs to experience identical channel conditions, which is not guaranteed for time-varying noise and is not justified.
ad hoc to paper Fidelity can be linearly approximated by α + β_QD QD + β_EoF EoF (Eq. 22)
A fitted regression model, not a derived relation; used as evidence that the metrics encode noise.
domain assumption The five-qubit perfect code corrects arbitrary single-qubit errors
Standard background result (ref 23) invoked in Section II D; treated without proof.

invented entities (1)

Pilot pairs
purpose: Extra entangled pairs used to measure QD and EoF so Bob can tune the purification while leaving data pairs untouched
The protocol's monitoring relies on an unverified assumption that pilot-pair metrics reflect the noise on data pairs; no independent evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Quantum Dense Coding Robustness Using Information Entropy-Based Metrics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XCRYWLJS

@misc{pith2026250412565,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Quantum Dense Coding Robustness Using Information Entropy-Based Metrics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XCRYWLJS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12565}
}

read the original abstract

Superdense Coding is a cornerstone in secure quantum communication, exploiting pre-shared entanglement to encode two classical bits within a single qubit. However, noise and decoherence deteriorate entanglement quality, restricting both fidelity and channel capacity in practical settings. Traditional methods, such as error correcting codes or entanglement distillation, are generally inadequate for dynamically varying noise conditions. Moreover, reliance on fidelity alone may fail to capture more subtle noise effects. This work introduces an adaptive protocol that integrates the five-qubit perfect code with a novel global adaptive purification that avoids discarding entangled pairs. By monitoring two information entropy-based metrics, quantum discord (QD) and entanglement of formation (EoF) from pilot pairs, we dynamically tune a global unitary to counteract noise. Our simulations, under both amplitude and phase damping, indicate that this integrated strategy could significantly enhance superdense coding robustness while preserving high throughput, thereby offering a scalable pathway toward a high-capacity quantum internet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12565 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Superdense Coding scheme. If E = I, Bob will receive correct bitstring ij. However, for noisy channels, E ̸= I. II. BACKGROUND AND TECHNICAL OVERVIEW In this section we provide a theoretical overview of the superdense protocol and related concepts. We discuss the noise channels and quantum correlations used in this work. Since Quantum Error Correction and Adaptive Purification are core part of our architecture, we h… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** DEJMPS Protocol where θ is usually set as π/2. stabilizer formalism, a quantum code is defined as the common +1 eigenspace of an abelian subgroup S of the n-qubit Pauli group Pn. Logical qubits are encoded in a subspace (called coding space), and errors are detected by measuring the stabilizer generators [17], [22] without disturbing the encoded information. Say S = ⟨si⟩, where sk’s are the stabilizer generators and… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** shows the circuit diagram for the adaptive purification protocol. Mathematically speaking, after decoding, the whole operation can be given by: ρ = X k (Ek ⊗ I)(Uij |Φ +⟩⟨Φ +|)(E † k ⊗ I) (23) data0 : |0⟩ H • • RY (θ1) • RY (−θ1) data1 : |0⟩ • RY (θ2) • RY (−θ2) data2 : |0⟩ H • • RY (θ1) • RY (−θ1) data3 : |0⟩ • RY (θ2) • RY (−θ2) ancilla0 : |0⟩ Measurement 0 ancilla1 : |0⟩ 1 ancilla2 : |0⟩ 2 ancilla3 : |0⟩ 3 [PIT… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Architecture Before Purification. Alice and Bob share an ebit, and Alice encodes her qubit. Then, she applies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Proposed Architecture. Alice encodes her qubits and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Communication via one-and two- particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states,

C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, “Communication via one-and two- particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states,” Physical review letters, vol. 69, no. 20, p. 2881, 1992

work page 1992
[2]

Classical information capacity of superdense coding,

G. Bowen, “Classical information capacity of superdense coding,” Physical Review A , vol. 63, no. 2, p. 022302, 2001

work page 2001
[3]

Dense coding in experimental quantum communication,

K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, P. G. Kwiat, and A. Zeilinger, “Dense coding in experimental quantum communication,” Physical review letters, vol. 76, no. 25, p. 4656, 1996

work page 1996
[4]

Dis- tributed superdense coding over noisy channels,

Z. Shadman, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, “Dis- tributed superdense coding over noisy channels,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , vol. 85, no. 5, p. 052306, 2012

work page 2012
[5]

Beating the channel capacity limit for linear photonic superdense coding,

J. T. Barreiro, T.-C. Wei, and P. G. Kwiat, “Beating the channel capacity limit for linear photonic superdense coding,” Nature physics , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 282–286, 2008

work page 2008
[6]

Superdense coding over optical fiber links with complete bell-state measurements,

B. P. Williams, R. J. Sadlier, and T. S. Humble, “Superdense coding over optical fiber links with complete bell-state measurements,” Physical review letters, vol. 118, no. 5, p. 050501, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Entanglement purification and quantum error correction,

W. D ¨ur and H. J. Briegel, “Entanglement purification and quantum error correction,” Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 70, no. 8, p. 1381, 2007

work page 2007
[8]

Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,” Physical review letters, vol. 76, no. 5, p. 722, 1996

1996

Show all 23 references

[9]

Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels,

D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, “Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels,” Physical review letters , vol. 77, no. 13, p. 2818, 1996

1996
[10]

Automated error correction in ibm quantum computer and explicit generalization,

D. Ghosh, P. Agarwal, P. Pandey, B. K. Behera, and P. K. Panigrahi, “Automated error correction in ibm quantum computer and explicit generalization,” Quantum Information Processing , vol. 17, pp. 1–24, 2018

2018
[11]

Automated discovery of autonomous quantum error correction schemes,

Z. Wang, T. Rajabzadeh, N. Lee, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, “Automated discovery of autonomous quantum error correction schemes,” PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 020302, 2022

2022
[12]

Superdense coding interleaved with forward error correction,

R. J. Sadlier and T. S. Humble, “Superdense coding interleaved with forward error correction,” Quantum Measurements and Quantum Metrol- ogy, vol. 3, no. 1, 2016

2016
[13]

Automated error correction in superdense coding, with implementation on superconducting quantum computer,

K. Nilesh, P. Joshi, and P. Panigrahi, “Automated error correction in superdense coding, with implementation on superconducting quantum computer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15161 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[14]

Quantum discord as a resource for quantum cryptogra- phy,

S. Pirandola, “Quantum discord as a resource for quantum cryptogra- phy,” Scientific reports, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 6956, 2014

2014
[15]

Teleportation, entanglement and thermo- dynamics in the quantum world,

M. B. Plenio and V . Vedral, “Teleportation, entanglement and thermo- dynamics in the quantum world,” Contemporary physics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 431–446, 1998

1998
[16]

Distributed quantum dense coding,

D. Bruß, G. M. D’Ariano, M. Lewenstein, C. Macchiavello, A. Sen, and U. Sen, “Distributed quantum dense coding,” Physical review letters , vol. 93, no. 21, p. 210501, 2004

2004
[17]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

2010
[18]

Quantum capacity analysis of multi-level amplitude damping channels,

S. Chessa and V . Giovannetti, “Quantum capacity analysis of multi-level amplitude damping channels,” Communications Physics , vol. 4, no. 1, p. 22, 2021

2021
[19]

Qudit states in noisy quantum channels,

S. Dutta, S. Banerjee, and M. Rani, “Qudit states in noisy quantum channels,” Physica Scripta, vol. 98, no. 11, p. 115113, 2023

2023
[20]

Quantifying quantum dis- cord and entanglement of formation via unified purifications,

L.-X. Cen, X.-Q. Li, J. Shao, and Y . Yan, “Quantifying quantum dis- cord and entanglement of formation via unified purifications,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , vol. 83, no. 5, p. 054101, 2011

2011
[21]

Quan- tum entanglement,

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quan- tum entanglement,” Reviews of modern physics , vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 865– 942, 2009

2009
[22]

Quantum error correction: an introductory guide,

J. Roffe, “Quantum error correction: an introductory guide,” Contempo- rary Physics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 226–245, 2019

2019
[23]

Benchmark- ing quantum computers: the five-qubit error correcting code,

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, R. Martinez, and C. Negrevergne, “Benchmark- ing quantum computers: the five-qubit error correcting code,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 86, no. 25, p. 5811, 2001

2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Communication via one-and two- particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states,

C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, “Communication via one-and two- particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states,” Physical review letters, vol. 69, no. 20, p. 2881, 1992

work page 1992

[2] [2]

Classical information capacity of superdense coding,

G. Bowen, “Classical information capacity of superdense coding,” Physical Review A , vol. 63, no. 2, p. 022302, 2001

work page 2001

[3] [3]

Dense coding in experimental quantum communication,

K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, P. G. Kwiat, and A. Zeilinger, “Dense coding in experimental quantum communication,” Physical review letters, vol. 76, no. 25, p. 4656, 1996

work page 1996

[4] [4]

Dis- tributed superdense coding over noisy channels,

Z. Shadman, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, “Dis- tributed superdense coding over noisy channels,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , vol. 85, no. 5, p. 052306, 2012

work page 2012

[5] [5]

Beating the channel capacity limit for linear photonic superdense coding,

J. T. Barreiro, T.-C. Wei, and P. G. Kwiat, “Beating the channel capacity limit for linear photonic superdense coding,” Nature physics , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 282–286, 2008

work page 2008

[6] [6]

Superdense coding over optical fiber links with complete bell-state measurements,

B. P. Williams, R. J. Sadlier, and T. S. Humble, “Superdense coding over optical fiber links with complete bell-state measurements,” Physical review letters, vol. 118, no. 5, p. 050501, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Entanglement purification and quantum error correction,

W. D ¨ur and H. J. Briegel, “Entanglement purification and quantum error correction,” Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 70, no. 8, p. 1381, 2007

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,” Physical review letters, vol. 76, no. 5, p. 722, 1996

1996