Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 92 references

Effect of Weak Measurement Reversal on Quantum Correlations in a Correlated Amplitude Damping Channel, with a Neural Network Perspective

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Applying weak-measurement reversal to both qubits, rather than one, preserves quantum correlations far better under amplitude-damping noise, for all six correlation measures studied.

desk verdict Useful parameter scan of WMR under correlated noise, but the headline claim is built on an unnormalized comparison and the q→1 limit in Fig. 1(f) contradicts the stated evolution. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05642 v1 pith:V7WZSUBL submitted 2025-06-06 quant-ph

Venkat Abhignan , Bidyut Bikash Boruah , R. Srikanth , Ashutosh Singh This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P6881P15 PACS 03.67.-a03.65.Yz03.67.Mn
keywords weakmeasurementreversalcorrelatedamplitudedampingquantumcorrelationsdiscordEPRsteeringdensecodingdecoherenceprotectionneuralnetworkprediction
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 claims that protecting a noisy two-qubit system with the weak-measurement and quantum-measurement-reversal (WMR) protocol works better when the protocol is applied to both qubits rather than to one. The claim is tested on six quantum correlation measures — concurrence, coherence (Jensen–Shannon divergence), trace distance discord, EPR steering, dense coding capacity, and teleportation fidelity — for Bell, Werner, and maximally entangled mixed states, under both memoryless and correlated (memory-carrying) amplitude damping. The paper reports that two-qubit WMR outperforms the single-qubit version for all six measures in the studied cases, that correlated noise is gentler than uncorrelated noise, and that the correlations die in a strict hierarchy in which the strongest resources (steering and dense coding) vanish first. A separate result is that a modest neural network (80 neurons, three hidden layers, Levenberg–Marquardt training) can predict the computationally expensive trace distance discord from the other five correlations with errors around $10^{-4}$ or better, with concurrence and EPR steering carrying the most predictive weight. If correct, the results give a concrete recipe for extending the lifetime of entanglement-based quantum communication in amplitude-damping environments.

What carries the argument

Two devices carry the argument. The first is the WMR protocol: a weak (partial-collapse) measurement of strength $q$ is applied to one or both qubits before the noise channel, and a quantum measurement reversal of strength $r$ is applied afterwards; both operations are non-unitary, and the optimal reversal strength $r$ is found numerically by maximizing the concurrence of the final state for the chosen $p$ and $q$, using closed-form concurrence expressions supplied in the appendices. The second is the correlated amplitude damping (CAD) channel with memory parameter $\eta$, which interpolates between a memoryless amplitude damping channel ($\eta = 0$) and a perfectly correlated one ($\eta = 1$), with Kraus operators that damp the two qubits together when the noise is correlated. For the machine-learning part, the mechanism is a MATLAB fitting network with 80 neurons in three hidden layers (40, 24, 16), using log-sigmoid, tangent-sigmoid, and linear activations, trained with the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm to map Jensen–Shannon divergence, concurrence, teleportation fidelity, EPR steering, and dense coding capacity onto trace distance discord; the first-layer connection weights are then read as measures of each input's influence on the discord prediction.

What would settle it

A reader could settle the central claim by recomputation: for the Bell state with $p = 0.5$, $\eta = 0$, and two-qubit WMR, scan $q \in [0,1]$ and, at each $q$, find $r$ by a documented optimization of the closed-form concurrence (for example golden-section search to tolerance $10^{-8}$); the claim stands only if the resulting $N[\mathrm{QS}]$ and $N[\chi]$ curves reproduce the threshold crossings of Fig. 1(c). A separate check targets Appendix C directly: at $p = 0.5$, $q = 0.5$, $\eta = 0$, $\gamma = 0.8$ the one-qubit MEMS concurrence references $\sigma_5$, which is never defined, so as written the formula cannot be evaluated. An experimental version would prepare polarization-entangled photon pairs, pass them through an engineered amplitude-damping channel with controllable memory while applying the two-qubit WMR sequence, and verify that the range of $q$ where steering and dense coding stay above their classical limits matches the predicted range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms: the two-qubit WMR protocol significantly outperforms the single-qubit approach in preserving quantum correlations under a correlated amplitude damping channel. Concretely, for the Bell state, the Werner state with purity parameter $r_b = 0.8$, and a maximally entangled mixed state with $\gamma = 0.8$, all six normalized correlation measures — concurrence, Jensen–Shannon divergence, trace distance discord, EPR steering, dense coding capacity, and teleportation fidelity — recover more strongly under two-qubit WMR than under one-qubit WMR or no WMR, both with channel memory ($\eta = 1$) and without ($\eta = 0$). The paper further establishes that the decay of the correlations respects the known hierarchy of quantumness — steering and dense coding fall below their classical thresholds first, concurrence and teleportation fidelity next, discord and coherence last — and that channel memory slows the decay, delaying sudden death and turning abrupt drops into asymptotic ones. The one clear exception reported is EPR steering in the maximally entangled mixed state, which recovers better under memoryless noise with two-qubit WMR. Finally, the neural-network analysis claims that trace distance discord can be predicted from the other five correlations with low mean-squared error, and that the learned weights show concurrence and EPR steering as the most positive influences on that prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results assume that the optimal reversal strength $r$ is found correctly by the numerical maximization of concurrence described in Sec. 2.2; the paper gives no algorithm, tolerance, or code for that maximization, and the appendix expressions meant to support it contain undefined symbols (such as $\sigma_5$ in the one-qubit MEMS case) and apparent typographical errors, so the plotted advantage of two-qubit over single-qubit WMR may not be exactly reproducible as stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two-qubit WMR, rather than single-qubit WMR, is the protocol that keeps dense coding capacity and EPR steering above their classical thresholds: for Bell and Werner states it restores both into the useful regime over wide ranges of the weak-measurement strength $q$, where single-qubit WMR often leaves them below threshold.
  • Memory in the noise is an ally: every state studied decays more slowly under $\eta = 1$ than under $\eta = 0$, so quantum communication over correlated or structured environments inherits longer-lived resources even without active protection.
  • Because the six measures decay and recover in a fixed order (steering and dense coding first, discord and coherence last), no single measure is a reliable proxy for another during decoherence; schemes that need a specific resource must track it directly.
  • Teleportation fidelity is not a strict entanglement monotone and dense coding capacity is not a strict monotone of steering, so protection claims require multi-measure characterisation rather than a single figure.
  • Trace distance discord can be estimated from the five easier-to-compute correlations by a trained network with mean-squared error of order $10^{-4}$ or better, bypassing the hard optimisation in the definition of discord.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A fully fair practical comparison would weight each recovered correlation by the probability of successful reversal, which falls as $q$ grows; the paper notes this tradeoff qualitatively but does not compute a cost-adjusted figure of merit, leaving open whether two-qubit WMR still wins per successful run.
  • The neural-network surrogate points to an experimental shortcut: on platforms with existing concurrence and steering witnesses but expensive tomography, a network trained on simulated CAD dynamics could act as a discord estimator, provided the learned weight pattern generalises beyond Bell, Werner, and MEMS families.
  • The MEMS steering exception — memoryless noise beating correlated noise under two-qubit WMR — suggests the optimal protection strategy is resource-dependent; designing a universal WMR setting may be less useful than tailoring $q$ and $r$ to the particular correlation a task needs.
  • The claimed hierarchy could be tested dynamically in a single experiment: with a fixed initial state, verifying the ordering of threshold crossings as decoherence strength $p$ increases, and checking that WMR reverses the crossings in the same order, would confirm or refute the ordering picture independent of the specific measure values.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the evolution of six quantum correlation measures (Jensen-Shannon divergence, concurrence, trace distance discord, EPR steering, dense coding capacity, and teleportation fidelity) for Bell, Werner, and maximally entangled mixed states under a correlated amplitude-damping channel. It applies weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal (WMR) on one or both qubits and claims that the two-qubit protocol significantly outperforms the single-qubit protocol in preserving all studied correlations. The second part trains a MATLAB neural network to predict trace distance discord from the other five correlations, reporting low MSE and interpreting first-layer weights as feature relevance. The central channel and WMR formulas are standard, but the quantitative comparison is compromised by the trace-decreasing nature of the WMR map, the unspecified numerical optimization of the reversal strength, and the lack of statistical validation of the neural network claims.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a useful comparison of WMR-based protection across several correlation quantifiers, including with channel memory. The systematic study of Bell, Werner, and MEMS states under correlated amplitude damping is a reasonable contribution to the existing WMR literature, and the machine-learning section points to an interesting practical question about predicting hard-to-compute discords from more accessible correlations. The paper does not ship machine-checked derivations or reproducible code, and the appendix formulas contain undefined symbols, so the quantitative results are not currently reproducible as stated. The neural network part is conceptually circular as a predictive claim, since inputs and output are deterministic functions of the same density matrix, and no held-out evaluation is reported.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.2, Eq. (11); Sec. 3.1, Fig. 1] The WMR map in Eq. (11) is trace-decreasing because the operators in Eqs. (9)-(10) are non-unitary, and the paper never reports the success probability or normalizes the post-WMR state. This makes the claimed comparison between one-qubit and two-qubit WMR physically ambiguous: unnormalized expectation values are not correlation measures, while normalized values describe only the postselected branch. The inconsistency becomes explicit in Sec. 3.1: for q approaching 1, both M_WM factors project the |1> amplitudes to zero, so the normalized final state is |00><00| with zero concurrence, zero steering, and no dense-coding advantage; the statement that correlations approach their maximum values as q→1 in Fig. 1(f) is therefore incompatible with Eqs. (8)-(11) for any normalized state. The authors must either provide the success probability, normalize the state after WMR, or compare resource-normalized correlations; without this, the central claim that two-qubit WMR significantly outperforms single-qubit WMR is not well defined.
  2. [2.2 and Appendices A-C] The optimization of the QMR strength r is described only as 'can be found numerically by maximizing the entanglement' (Sec. 2.2), with no algorithm, tolerance, grid, or code. The appendix expressions intended to support this are not self-contained: in Appendix C, σ5 is left undefined and σ6 is written as 'if 2/3 ≤ γ ≤ 1'; several σ variables in the MEMS one-qubit blocks are introduced with conditional definitions that do not define the quantities used in the density-matrix entries. As a result, the reported improvement curves cannot be reproduced exactly from the manuscript. The authors should provide well-defined expressions (or a supplementary notebook) for the optimized r and for every density-matrix element and concurrence formula used in Figs. 1-4.
  3. [4, Eq. (30), Figs. 6 and 7] The neural network prediction is presented as a discovery that TDD can be predicted from JSD, concurrence, fidelity, steering, and dense coding capacity, but all six quantities are deterministic functions of the same two-qubit density matrix, so the network is fitting a known functional relation on in-sample data. The evaluation is also not statistically meaningful: the authors state that they ran over 20 iterations and chose the instance with the lowest MSE (Sec. 4), which is selection bias, and no train/test split, cross-validation, or out-of-distribution test is reported. The weight-relevance plots in Fig. 7 are based on a single selected network and lack error bars across independent initializations. A claim of 'successfully predict' requires held-out data and repeated runs with reported mean and spread, not a best-run MSE.
  4. [3, normalization of N[correlation]] The normalized correlations N[correlation] are used throughout Figs. 1-3, but the normalization is described only by an example for N[QS] and a list of 'maximum values and classical limits'. There is no explicit formula for N[χ], N[C], N[TDD], or N[JSD], and the list '2, 1, 1, 6, 1, 0.56 and 1, 2/3, 0, 2, 0, 0' is ambiguous about which number belongs to which measure. Because the paper's hierarchy and recovery comparisons rely on these normalized curves, the normalization must be stated unambiguously and, if the quantities are computed from an unnormalized operator, the trace-normalization issue from Eq. (11) propagates into every panel.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 3(f)] The abstract states that two-qubit WMR significantly outperforms the single-qubit approach in preserving quantum correlations, but Sec. 3.3 reports that for MEMS with memory N[QS] does not recover at all under two-qubit WMR; the claim should be qualified with this exception.
  2. [Sec. 4, first paragraph of the Werner-state discussion] The text says 'Samples of the TDD prediction are shown in Fig. (7),' but Fig. 7 shows average weights; the prediction samples are in Fig. 8. The captions of Figs. 7 and 9 both say 'for Bell state' even though the surrounding text describes the Werner state (and the second occurrence should refer to Fig. 9, not Fig. 7).
  3. [2.6, Eq. (26)] The symbol QS is used both for the left-hand side of the steering inequality and as the name of the steering measure, and the paper later quotes a maximum value 6 and a classical limit 2 without deriving them from Eq. (26); a brief derivation or reference would clarify the range used in the normalized plots.
  4. [5, Conclusion] The concluding paragraph introduces a comparison between WMR and dynamical decoupling without quantitative support or references for the claimed regimes; this is speculative and could be trimmed or backed by specific citations.
  5. [Throughout] The typesetting of several appendix formulas is broken, with fragments such as 'σ5, σ6 = if 2/3 ≤ γ ≤ 1' and missing operators; even aside from the undefined symbols in my second major comment, the appendices should be carefully rewritten with consistent notation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Secondary neural-network 'prediction' of TDD is an in-sample fit; the central WMR claim is independent but has non-circular consistency defects.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract and Section 4 (Analysis with neural networks), especially Eq. (30) and Figs. 6-8]
    "Abstract: 'we successfully predict trace distance discord from other correlations, achieving low prediction errors.' Section 4: 'The neural network prediction performance is assessed using Mean Squared Error (MSE)... We ran over 20 iterations of the neural network predictions and chose the instance with the lowest MSE value.'"

    The network is trained with TDD as the target by minimizing the same MSE that is later reported as 'prediction' error, and no train/test split or held-out set is described. The reported agreement between 'Original TDD' and 'Predicted TDD' is therefore the fitting error, not an independent predictive result. Moreover, all inputs (JSD, C, F, QS, chi) and the output TDD are deterministic functions of the same two-qubit density matrix, so the low MSE reflects fitting a known functional map rather than a falsifiable prediction. This is a fitted input renamed as a prediction, and it affects the secondary neural-network claim, not the main WMR comparison.

full rationale

The central WMR result is not circular: Eq. (11) defines rho_WMR as an explicit sequence of operations (WM, CAD, QMR), and the correlations C, JSD, TDD, QS, chi, and F are computed from the formulas in Secs. 2.1-2.6. The only fitted parameter r is optimized for Concurrence, and the one-qubit versus two-qubit comparison is not encoded in the definitions, so the two-qubit advantage is an independent numerical finding rather than a tautology. The paper's self-citations ([38], [78], [85], [88]) are background or supporting references for the hierarchy; none is load-bearing for the WMR claim. However, the neural-network section reports 'prediction' of TDD when the network is trained by minimizing MSE against the same TDD values, with no held-out data described; the low errors are fitting errors, so that specific abstract claim reduces to curve fitting by construction. Other serious defects are correctness/reproducibility issues rather than circularity: Eq. (11) defines a trace-decreasing operation and no success probability is reported, despite the Conclusion conceding the probabilistic nature; the Sec. 3.1 statement that correlations approach their maximum as q to 1 for two-qubit WMR with memory appears inconsistent with a normalized |00> final state; and Appendix C contains undefined symbols such as sigma_5. These do not make the derivation circular, but they prevent the reported numerical comparison from being reproduced as written. Score 6 reflects the fitted-input-called-prediction step in the secondary neural-network result.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main scientific content rests on the standard CAD/WMR formalism and published correlation formulas; the only hand-fitted quantities are the QMR strength r, the state parameters, and the neural network hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • QMR strength r = optimized numerically for each p, q, η
    Chosen to maximize the concurrence of the WMR-evolved state; the optimization procedure and tolerances are not specified.
  • WM strength q = scanned over [0,1] with p=0.5
    Used as the control parameter for WMR; the choice of p=0.5 is arbitrary but stated.
  • Initial state parameters = r_b = 0.8, γ = 0.8
    Chosen by hand to represent partially entangled states; results may depend on these values.
  • Neural network architecture and run selection = 80 neurons in 3 layers (40,24,16), best of 20 runs
    Hyperparameters chosen by hand; selecting the lowest-MSE run introduces a bias that inflates apparent prediction quality.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CAD channel model Eq. (7) with memory parameter η
    Adopted from Ref [36]; assumed to describe a common structured environment producing correlated noise.
  • domain assumption WMR protocol operations Eqs. (9)-(11)
    Standard weak measurement and reversal maps; assumed to be the relevant protection strategy.
  • standard math TDD formula Eq. (21) for X-states
    Adopted from Ref [41]; assumed correct for the X-state family studied.
  • standard math EPR steering inequality Eq. (26)
    Adopted from Ref [84]; assumed valid for the two-qubit X-states.
  • ad hoc to paper Neural network weights as feature relevance
    The claim that raw weight magnitudes indicate feature influence is asserted without validation, ablation, or comparison to proper feature-importance methods.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of Weak Measurement Reversal on Quantum Correlations in a Correlated Amplitude Damping Channel, with a Neural Network Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V7WZSUBL

@misc{pith2026250605642,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of Weak Measurement Reversal on Quantum Correlations in a Correlated Amplitude Damping Channel, with a Neural Network Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V7WZSUBL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05642}
}
read the original abstract

We study the evolution of quantum correlations in Bell, Werner, and maximally entangled mixed states of two qubits subjected to correlated amplitude-damping channels. Our primary focus is to evaluate the robustness of entanglement as a resource for quantum information protocols such as dense coding, teleportation, and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) steering under the influence of noise. In addition, we investigate the behaviour of other quantum correlations, including quantum discord and coherence, and analyze their hierarchy under decoherence. To counteract the detrimental effects of the channels, we apply the weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal (WMR) protocol, comparing the effectiveness of single-qubit and two-qubit WMR techniques. Our results show that the two-qubit WMR protocol significantly outperforms the single-qubit approach in preserving quantum correlations. Furthermore, we employ a neural network model to enhance our analysis of the relationship between different quantum correlation measures during the evolution. Using a MATLAB-based artificial neural network with 80 neurons across three hidden layers and trained with the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, we successfully predict trace distance discord from other correlations, achieving low prediction errors. Besides, our analysis of the neural network weights suggests that concurrence and EPR steering have the most positive influence on the accurate discord predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05642 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quantum correlations for the Bell state (Werner state with rb = 1, and MEMS with γ = 1). (a) and (d) show the effect of the CAD channel’s decoherence parameter p with correlation parameters η = 0 and η = 1, respectively. (b) and (e) show the effect of the one-qubit WMR protocol, whereas (c) and (f ) show the effect of the two-qubit WMR protocol at p = 0.5 in the absence (η = 0) and presence (η = 1) of memory, respec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum correlations for the Werner state with rb = 0.8. (a) and (d) show the effect of the CAD channel’s decoherence parameter p with correlation parameters η = 0 and η = 1, respectively. (b) and (e) show the effect of the one-qubit WMR protocol, whereas (c) and (f ) show the effect of the two-qubit WMR protocol at p = 0.5 in the absence (η = 0) and presence (η = 1) of memory, respectively, with q being the weak me… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correlations for the MEMS with γ = 0.8. (a) and (d) show the effect of the CAD channel’s decoherence parameter p with correlation parameters η = 0 and η = 1, respectively. (b) and (e) show the effect of the one-qubit WMR protocol, whereas (c) and (f ) show the effect of the two-qubit WMR protocol at p = 0.5 in the absence (η = 0) and presence (η = 1) of memory, respectively, with q being the weak measurement strengt… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Concurrence (C) and TDD for the state |ψ⟩ = α |00⟩ + β |11⟩ for different α. For no WMR and memory parameter η = 0, 1, the decoherence parameter is set to p = 0.5. For WMR on one or two qubits with η = 0, 1, p = 0.5, WM strength is set to q = 0.5, and optimal QMR stren…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MATLAB neural network model consisting of 80 neurons with three hidden layers. actual TDD values. It is provided by MSE = 1 n Xn i=1 (Ti − Tˆ i) 2 , (30) where Tˆ i is the predicted value for n predictions and Ti is the actual value of TDD. Lower MSE values indicate be…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Neural network predictions for TDD from JSD, Concurrence, teleportation Fidelity, EPR steering, and capacity of dense coding for Bell state. The dashed line shows the prediction against the actual value of TDD in a continuous line. (a) Without WMR, η = 0. (b) Without W…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average weights of neurons in the first layer with bars showing variations over different neurons in the prediction of TDD from JSD, Concurrence, teleportation Fidelity, EPR steering, and capacity of dense coding for Bell state as input. For the mixed entangled Werner …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Neural network predictions for TDD from JSD, Concurrence, teleportation Fidelity, EPR steering, and capacity of dense coding for Werner state (rb = 0.8). The dashed line shows the prediction against the actual value of TDD in a continuous line. (a) Without WMR, η = 0. …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average weights of neurons in the first layer with bars showing variations over different neurons in the prediction of TDD from JSD, Concurrence, teleportation Fidelity, EPR steering, and capacity of dense coding for Bell state as input. 5. Summary and Conclusion We ha…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexander Streltsov, Gerardo Adesso, and Martin B. Plenio. Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource.Rev. Mod. Phys., 89:041003, Oct 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    Quantum entanglement.Rev

    Ryszard Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki. Quantum entanglement.Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:865–942, Jun 2009

    2009

  3. [3]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  4. [4]

    Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical.Rev

    Wojciech Hubert Zurek. Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical.Rev. Mod. Phys., 75:715–775, May 2003

    2003

  5. [5]

    Ting Yu and J. H. Eberly. Finite-time disentanglement via spontaneous emission.Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:140404, Sep 2004

    2004

  6. [6]

    Sudden death of entanglement.Science, 323(5914):598–601, 2009

    Ting Yu and JH Eberly. Sudden death of entanglement.Science, 323(5914):598–601, 2009

    2009

  7. [7]

    Kwiat, Salvador Barraza-Lopez, André Stefanov, and Nicolas Gisin

    Paul G. Kwiat, Salvador Barraza-Lopez, André Stefanov, and Nicolas Gisin. Experimental entanglement distillation and ‘hidden’ non-locality.Nature, 409(6823):1014–1017, 2 2001

    2001

  8. [8]

    D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley. Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation.Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:2594–2597, Sep 1998

    1998

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Kwiat, Andrew J

    Paul G. Kwiat, Andrew J. Berglund, Joseph B. Altepeter, and Andrew G. White. Experimental verification of decoherence-free subspaces.Science, 290(5491):498–501, 2000

    2000

  2. [10]

    Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems

    Lorenza Viola, Emanuel Knill, and Seth Lloyd. Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 82:2417–2421, Mar 1999

    1999

  3. [11]

    Jiangfeng Du, Xing Rong, Nan Zhao, Ya Wang, Jiahui Yang, and R. B. Liu. Preserving electron spin coherence in solids by optimal dynamical decoupling.Nature, 461(7268):1265–1268, 10 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Conner, Étienne Dumur, Joel Grebel, Rhys G

    Haoxiong Yan, Youpeng Zhong, Hung-Shen Chang, Audrey Bienfait, Ming-Han Chou, Christopher R. Conner, Étienne Dumur, Joel Grebel, Rhys G. Povey, and Andrew N. Cleland. Entanglement purification and protection in a superconducting quantum network.Phys. Rev. Lett., 128:080504, Fe...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Evolution of tripartite entangled states in a decohering environment and their experimental protection using dynamical decoupling.Phys

    Harpreet Singh, Arvind, and Kavita Dorai. Evolution of tripartite entangled states in a decohering environment and their experimental protection using dynamical decoupling.Phys. Rev. A, 97:022302, Feb 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Facchi, D

    P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar, and S. Pascazio. Unification of dynamical decoupling and the quantum zeno effect.Phys. Rev. A, 69:032314, Mar 2004

    2004

  7. [15]

    Zaffino, Nicola Lo Gullo, and Francesco Plastina

    Sabrina Maniscalco, Francesco Francica, Rosa L. Zaffino, Nicola Lo Gullo, and Francesco Plastina. Protecting entanglement via the quantum zeno effect.Phys. Rev. Lett., 100:090503, Mar 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Reversing the weak quantum measurement for a photonic qubit.Opt

    Yong-Su Kim, Young-Wook Cho, Young-Sik Ra, and Yoon-Ho Kim. Reversing the weak quantum measurement for a photonic qubit.Opt. Express, 17(14):11978–11985, Jul 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Korotkov and Kyle Keane

    Alexander N. Korotkov and Kyle Keane. Decoherence suppression by quantum measurement reversal.Phys. Rev. A, 81:040103, Apr 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    Experimental demonstration of decoherence suppression via quantum measurement reversal.Opt

    Jong-Chan Lee, Youn-Chang Jeong, Yong-Su Kim, and Yoon-Ho Kim. Experimental demonstration of decoherence suppression via quantum measurement reversal.Opt. Express, 19(17):16309–16316, Aug 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Protecting entanglement from decoherence using weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal.Nature Physics, 8(2):117–120, 12 2011

    Yong-Su Kim, Jong Chan Lee, Oh-Min Kwon, and Yoon-Ho Kim. Protecting entanglement from decoherence using weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal.Nature Physics, 8(2):117–120, 12 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    A. R. P. Rau, Mazhar Ali, and G. Alber. Hastening, delaying, or averting sudden death of quantum entanglement.EPL (Europhysics Letters), 82(4):40002, 4 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    Ashutosh Singh, Siva Pradyumna, A. R. P. Rau, and Urbasi Sinha. Manipulation of entanglement sudden death in an all-optical setup.J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, 34(3):681–690, Mar 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Entanglement protection in higher-dimensional systems

    Ashutosh Singh and Urbasi Sinha. Entanglement protection in higher-dimensional systems. Physica Scripta, 97(8):085104, jul 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Saumya Ranjan Behera, Animesh Sinha Roy, Kallol Sen, Ashutosh Singh, A. R. P. Rau, and Urbasi Sinha. Decoherence manipulation through entanglement dynamics: A photonic experiment, arxiv:2505.16622, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Reversing measurement and probabilistic quantum error correction.Phys

    Masato Koashi and Masahito Ueda. Reversing measurement and probabilistic quantum error correction.Phys. Rev. Lett., 82:2598–2601, Mar 1999

    1999

  17. [25]

    Korotkov and Andrew N

    Alexander N. Korotkov and Andrew N. Jordan. Undoing a weak quantum measurement of a solid-state qubit.Phys. Rev. Lett., 97:166805, Oct 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Protecting unknown qubit states from decoherence of qubit channels by weak measurement.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 55(23):235301, may 2022

    Ozra Heibati, Azam Mani, Esfandyar Faizi, and Vahid Karimipour. Protecting unknown qubit states from decoherence of qubit channels by weak measurement.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 55(23):235301, may 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Pramanik and A.S

    T. Pramanik and A.S. Majumdar. Improving the fidelity of teleportation through noisy channels using weak measurement.Physics Letters A, 377(44):3209–3215, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Majumdar

    Shounak Datta, Suchetana Goswami, Tanumoy Pramanik, and A.S. Majumdar. Preservation of a lower bound of quantum secret key rate in the presence of decoherence.Physics Letters A, 381(10):897–902, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Controlling the entropic uncertainty lower bound in two-qubit systems under decoherence.Laser Physics Letters, 16(4):045207, mar 2019

    S Haseli, H Dolatkhah, S Salimi, and A S Khorashad. Controlling the entropic uncertainty lower bound in two-qubit systems under decoherence.Laser Physics Letters, 16(4):045207, mar 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?Phys. Rev., 47:777–780, May 1935

    1935

  23. [31]

    Moctezuma Quistian, Hector Cruz-Ramirez, Sebastián Mur- gueitio Ramirez, Alfred B

    Omar Calderón-Losada, Tonatiuh T. Moctezuma Quistian, Hector Cruz-Ramirez, Sebastián Mur- gueitio Ramirez, Alfred B. U’Ren, Alonso Botero, and Alejandra Valencia. A weak values approach for testing simultaneous Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen elements of reality for non-commuting obse...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Entanglement-preserving measurement of the Bell parameter on a single entangled pair.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(4):045027, 8 2024

    Salvatore Virzì, Enrico Rebufello, Francesco Atzori, Alessio Avella, Fabrizio Piacentini, Rudi Lussana, Iris Cusini, Francesca Madonini, Federica Villa, Marco Gramegna, Eliahu Cohen, Ivo Pietro Degiovanni, and Marco Genovese. Entanglement-preserving measurement of the Bell par...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Experimental Test of Nonlocality Limits from Relativistic Independence.PRX Quantum, 5(4), 12 2024

    Francesco Atzori, Salvatore Virzì, Enrico Rebufello, Alessio Avella, Fabrizio Piacentini, Iris Cusini, Henri Haka, Federica Villa, Marco Gramegna, Eliahu Cohen, Ivo Pietro Degiovanni, and Marco Genovese. Experimental Test of Nonlocality Limits from Relativistic Independence.PR...

    2024

  26. [34]

    W. J. Munro, D. F. V. James, A. G. White, and P. G. Kwiat. Maximizing the entanglement of two mixed qubits.Phys. Rev. A, 64:030302, Aug 2001

    2001

  27. [35]

    W. J. Munro and K. Nemoto. Maximally entangled mixed states and the bell inequality.Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A, 56(1-2):152–154, 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    Time-correlatedquantumamplitude-dampingchannel.Physical Review A, 67(6):064301, 2003

    YeYeoandAndrewSkeen. Time-correlatedquantumamplitude-dampingchannel.Physical Review A, 67(6):064301, 2003

    2003

  29. [37]

    Non-markovian evolution: a quantum walk perspective.Open Systems & Information Dynamics, 25(03):1850014, 2018

    N Pradeep Kumar, Subhashish Banerjee, R Srikanth, Vinayak Jagadish, and Francesco Petruccione. Non-markovian evolution: a quantum walk perspective.Open Systems & Information Dynamics, 25(03):1850014, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Natasha Awasthi, Ashutosh Singh, and Dheeraj Kumar Joshi. Postponing the decay of entanglement and quantum coherence for maximally entangled mixed states under the action of correlated noise channels.Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology, 2:1207793, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Protecting entanglement from correlated amplitude damping channel using weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal.Quantum Information Processing, 15(9):3881–3891, 6 2016

    Xing Xiao, Yao Yao, Ying-Mao Xie, Xing-Hua Wang, and Yan-Ling Li. Protecting entanglement from correlated amplitude damping channel using weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal.Quantum Information Processing, 15(9):3881–3891, 6 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Distributionofquantumcoherenceinmultipartitesystems.Phys

    Chandrashekar Radhakrishnan, Manikandan Parthasarathy, Segar Jambulingam, and Tim Byrnes. Distributionofquantumcoherenceinmultipartitesystems.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:150504, Apr2016

  33. [41]

    Toward computability of trace distance discord.New Journal of Physics, 16(1):013038, jan 2014

    F Ciccarello, T Tufarelli, and V Giovannetti. Toward computability of trace distance discord.New Journal of Physics, 16(1):013038, jan 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    Broadbent, Stephen P

    James Schneeloch, Curtis J. Broadbent, Stephen P. Walborn, Eric G. Cavalcanti, and John C. Howell. Einstein-podolsky-rosen steering inequalities from entropic uncertainty relations.Phys. Rev. A, 87:062103, Jun 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Enhanced superdense coding over correlated amplitude damping channel.Entropy, 21(6):598, 6 2019

    Yan-Ling Li, Dong-Mei Wei, Chuan-Jin Zu, and Xiao Xing. Enhanced superdense coding over correlated amplitude damping channel.Entropy, 21(6):598, 6 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Enhance quantum teleportation under correlated amplitude damping decoherence by weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal

    Yanling Li, Chuan-Jin Zu, and Dong-Mei Wei. Enhance quantum teleportation under correlated amplitude damping decoherence by weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal. Quantum Information Processing, 18(1), 11 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Improving the capacity of quantum dense coding and the fidelity of quantum teleportation by weak measurement and measurement reversal.Entropy, 25(5):736, 4 2023

    Meijiao Wang, Bing Sun, Liqin Cao, Yang Yang, Xia Liu, Xinle Wang, and Jianhua Zhao. Improving the capacity of quantum dense coding and the fidelity of quantum teleportation by weak measurement and measurement reversal.Entropy, 25(5):736, 4 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Measures and applications of quantum correlations.Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical, 49(47):473001, 11 2016

    Gerardo Adesso, Thomas R Bromley, and Marco Cianciaruso. Measures and applications of quantum correlations.Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical, 49(47):473001, 11 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Computingquantumdiscordisnp-complete.New Journal of Physics, 16(3):033027, mar 2014

    YichenHuang. Computingquantumdiscordisnp-complete.New Journal of Physics, 16(3):033027, mar 2014

    2014

  40. [48]

    Neural-network quantum state tomography.Nature Physics, 14(5):447–450, May 2018

    Giacomo Torlai, Guglielmo Mazzola, Juan Carrasquilla, Matthias Troyer, Roger Melko, and Giuseppe Carleo. Neural-network quantum state tomography.Nature Physics, 14(5):447–450, May 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Efficient quantum state tomography with convolutional neural networks.npj Quantum Information, 8(1):115, Sep 2022

    Tobias Schmale, Moritz Reh, and Martin Gärttner. Efficient quantum state tomography with convolutional neural networks.npj Quantum Information, 8(1):115, Sep 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Finding semi-optimal measurements for entanglement detection using autoencoder neural networks.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(4):045006, jul 2020

    Mohammad Yosefpor, Mohammad Reza Mostaan, and Sadegh Raeisi. Finding semi-optimal measurements for entanglement detection using autoencoder neural networks.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(4):045006, jul 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Detecting quantum entanglement with unsupervised learning.Quantum Science and Technology, 7(1):015005, nov 2021

    Yiwei Chen, Yu Pan, Guofeng Zhang, and Shuming Cheng. Detecting quantum entanglement with unsupervised learning.Quantum Science and Technology, 7(1):015005, nov 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Entanglementquantificationfrom collective measurements processed by machine learning.Physics Letters A, 446:128270, 2022

    JanRoik, KarolBartkiewicz, AntonínČernoch, andKarelLemr. Entanglementquantificationfrom collective measurements processed by machine learning.Physics Letters A, 446:128270, 2022. REFERENCES30

    2022

  45. [53]

    Duong, and Hyundong Shin

    Naema Asif, Uman Khalid, Awais Khan, Trung Q. Duong, and Hyundong Shin. Entanglement detection with artificial neural networks.Scientific Reports, 13(1):1562, Jan 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Entanglement detection with classical deep neural networks.Scientific Reports, 14(1):18109, Aug 2024

    Julio Ureña, Antonio Sojo, Juani Bermejo-Vega, and Daniel Manzano. Entanglement detection with classical deep neural networks.Scientific Reports, 14(1):18109, Aug 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Direct entanglement detection of quantum systems using machine learning.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):29, Feb 2025

    Yulei Huang, Liangyu Che, Chao Wei, Feng Xu, Xinfang Nie, Jun Li, Dawei Lu, and Tao Xin. Direct entanglement detection of quantum systems using machine learning.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):29, Feb 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Entanglement classification via witness operators generated by support vector machine.The European Physical Journal Plus, 138(10):936, Oct 2023

    Claudio Sanavio, Edoardo Tignone, and Elisa Ercolessi. Entanglement classification via witness operators generated by support vector machine.The European Physical Journal Plus, 138(10):936, Oct 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    S. V. Vintskevich, N. Bao, A. Nomerotski, P. Stankus, and D. A. Grigoriev. Classification of four-qubit entangled states via machine learning.Phys. Rev. A, 107:032421, Mar 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    Greenwood, Larry T.H

    Alexander C.B. Greenwood, Larry T.H. Wu, Eric Y. Zhu, Brian T. Kirby, and Li Qian. Machine- learning-derived entanglement witnesses.Phys. Rev. Appl., 19:034058, Mar 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    Study on estimating quantum discord by neural network with prior knowledge.Quantum Information Processing, 18(11):355, Oct 2019

    Yong-Lei Liu, An-Min Wang, Yi Sun, Peng-Fei Zhang, and Guo-Dong Wang. Study on estimating quantum discord by neural network with prior knowledge.Quantum Information Processing, 18(11):355, Oct 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    Taghadomi, A

    N. Taghadomi, A. Mani, A. Fahim, and A. Bakouei. Effective detection of quantum discord by using convolutional neural networks.Quantum Machine Intelligence, 7(1):40, Mar 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio. Quantifying coherence.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:140401, Sep 2014

    2014

  54. [62]

    Bromley, Marco Cianciaruso, Marco Piani, Nathaniel Johnston, and Gerardo Adesso

    Carmine Napoli, Thomas R. Bromley, Marco Cianciaruso, Marco Piani, Nathaniel Johnston, and Gerardo Adesso. Robustness of coherence: An operational and observable measure of quantum coherence.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:150502, Apr 2016

    2016

  55. [63]

    Measures and applications of quantum correlations.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 49(47):473001, nov 2016

    Gerardo Adesso, Thomas R Bromley, and Marco Cianciaruso. Measures and applications of quantum correlations.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 49(47):473001, nov 2016

    2016

  56. [64]

    Hill and William K

    Sam A. Hill and William K. Wootters. Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:5022–5025, Jun 1997

    1997

  57. [65]

    Wootters

    William K. Wootters. Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:2245–2248, Mar 1998

    1998

  58. [66]

    Lecture notes for physics 229: Quantum information and computation.California Institute of Technology, 16(1):1–8, 1998

    John Preskill. Lecture notes for physics 229: Quantum information and computation.California Institute of Technology, 16(1):1–8, 1998

    1998

  59. [67]

    Bennett and Stephen J

    Charles H. Bennett and Stephen J. Wiesner. Communication via one- and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states.Phys. Rev. Lett., 69:2881–2884, Nov 1992

    1992

  60. [68]

    Optimal dense coding with mixed state entanglement.Journal of physics, 34(35):6907–6912, 8 2001

    Tohya Hiroshima. Optimal dense coding with mixed state entanglement.Journal of physics, 34(35):6907–6912, 8 2001

    2001

  61. [69]

    Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K

    Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K. Wootters. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels.Phys. Rev. Lett., 70:1895–1899, Mar 1993

    1993

  62. [70]

    Experimental quantum teleportation.Nature, 390(6660):575–579, 12 1997

    Dirk Bouwmeester, Jian-Wei Pan, Klaus Mattle, Manfred Eibl, Harald Weinfurter, and Anton Zeilinger. Experimental quantum teleportation.Nature, 390(6660):575–579, 12 1997

    1997

  63. [71]

    Bennett, David P

    Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters. Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction.Physical Review A, 54(5):3824–3851, 11 1996

    1996

  64. [72]

    Grondalski, D.M

    J. Grondalski, D.M. Etlinger, and D.F.V. James. The fully entangled fraction as an inclusive measure of entanglement applications.Physics Letters A, 300(6):573–580, 2002

    2002

  65. [73]

    Necessary and sufficient condition for nonzero quantum discord.Phys

    Borivoje Dakić, Vlatko Vedral, and Časlav Brukner. Necessary and sufficient condition for nonzero quantum discord.Phys. Rev. Lett., 105:190502, Nov 2010

    2010

  66. [74]

    Xiaoting Wang and S. G. Schirmer. Contractivity of the hilbert-schmidt distance under open- system dynamics.Phys. Rev. A, 79:052326, May 2009

    2009

  67. [75]

    M. Piani. Problem with geometric discord.Phys. Rev. A, 86:034101, Sep 2012. REFERENCES31

    2012

  68. [76]

    Maciel, and Reinaldo O

    Tiago Debarba, Thiago O. Maciel, and Reinaldo O. Vianna. Witnessed entanglement and the geometric measure of quantum discord.Phys. Rev. A, 86:024302, Aug 2012

    2012

  69. [77]

    J. D. Montealegre, F. M. Paula, A. Saguia, and M. S. Sarandy. One-norm geometric quantum discord under decoherence.Phys. Rev. A, 87:042115, Apr 2013

    2013

  70. [78]

    Effects of intrinsic decoherence on discord-like correlation measures of two-qubit spin squeezing model.Physica Scripta, 96(12):125114, nov 2021

    Venkat Abhignan and R Muthuganesan. Effects of intrinsic decoherence on discord-like correlation measures of two-qubit spin squeezing model.Physica Scripta, 96(12):125114, nov 2021

    2021

  71. [79]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty. Steering, entanglement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox.Phys. Rev. Lett., 98:140402, Apr 2007

    2007

  72. [80]

    Reinhard F. Werner. Quantum states with einstein-podolsky-rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model.Phys. Rev. A, 40:4277–4281, Oct 1989

    1989

  73. [81]

    Clauser, Michael A

    John F. Clauser, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A. Holt. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories.Phys. Rev. Lett., 23:880–884, Oct 1969

    1969

  74. [82]

    Uncertainty relations for information entropy in wave mechanics.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 44(2):129–132, Jun 1975

    Iwo Białynicki-Birula and Jerzy Mycielski. Uncertainty relations for information entropy in wave mechanics.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 44(2):129–132, Jun 1975

    1975

  75. [83]

    Hans Maassen and J. B. M. Uffink. Generalized entropic uncertainty relations.Phys. Rev. Lett., 60:1103–1106, Mar 1988

    1988

  76. [84]

    Exploration quantum steering, nonlocality and entanglement of two-qubit X-state in structured reservoirs.Scientific Reports, 7(1):39651, Feb 2017

    Wen-Yang Sun, Dong Wang, Jia-Dong Shi, and Liu Ye. Exploration quantum steering, nonlocality and entanglement of two-qubit X-state in structured reservoirs.Scientific Reports, 7(1):39651, Feb 2017

    2017

  77. [85]

    Creation, characterization, and manipulation of quantum entanglement in a photonic system, 2022, arXiv:2212.10658, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.10658

    Ashutosh Singh. Creation, characterization, and manipulation of quantum entanglement in a photonic system, 2022, arXiv:2212.10658, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.10658

    2022 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    Matlab Deep Learning Toolbox,https://www.mathworks.com/help/releases/ R2024a/deeplearning/ref/fitnet.html, 2024

    MathWorks. Matlab Deep Learning Toolbox,https://www.mathworks.com/help/releases/ R2024a/deeplearning/ref/fitnet.html, 2024

    2024

  79. [87]

    K. G. Paulson and S. V. M. Satyanarayana. Hierarchy in loss of nonlocal correlations of two-qubit states in noisy environments.Quantum Information Processing, 15(4):1639–1647, 1 2016

    2016

  80. [88]

    K. G. Paulson, Ekta Panwar, Subhashish Banerjee, and R. Srikanth. Hierarchy of quantum correlations under non-markovian dynamics.Quantum Information Processing, 20(4), April 2021

    2021

  81. [89]

    Fidelity of mixed states of two qubits.Phys

    Frank Verstraete and Henri Verschelde. Fidelity of mixed states of two qubits.Phys. Rev. A, 66:022307, Aug 2002

    2002

  82. [90]

    Noise effect on fidelity of two-qubit teleportation.Phys

    Xueyuan Hu, Ying Gu, Qihuang Gong, and Guangcan Guo. Noise effect on fidelity of two-qubit teleportation.Phys. Rev. A, 81:054302, May 2010

    2010

  83. [91]

    Quantum teleportation and dense coding in multiple bosonic reservoirs.Entropy, 24(8), 2022

    Yu Wang and Ming-Liang Hu. Quantum teleportation and dense coding in multiple bosonic reservoirs.Entropy, 24(8), 2022

    2022

  84. [92]

    Quantum dense coding with gravitational cat states.Communications in Theoretical Physics, 76(3):035101, mar 2024

    Saeed Haddadi, Mehrdad Ghominejad, and Artur Czerwinski. Quantum dense coding with gravitational cat states.Communications in Theoretical Physics, 76(3):035101, mar 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.