pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16711 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🪐 quant-ph

Adversarial quantum teleportation

Nehad AttaElmanan AbdElrahim Mabrouk , Barry C Sanders This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum teleportationfidelity thresholdadversarial modelcheating partiesmulti-partite protocolquantum logic circuitsaverage fidelity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Adversarial models justify fidelity thresholds of 1/2 and 2/3 for quantum teleportation claims.

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

The paper builds models of quantum teleportation that explicitly include cheating parties who attempt to make unsuccessful protocols appear successful. It shows that the average-fidelity thresholds of 1/2 and 2/3, long used in the field, emerge directly from considering different types of adversaries rather than being chosen arbitrarily. A sympathetic reader cares because this grounds the debate over performance metrics in concrete cheating scenarios, offering a way to evaluate whether a claimed teleportation has truly occurred against potential falsifiers. The work frames the protocol as multi-partite with explicit quantum-logic circuits that distinguish honest from adversarial behavior.

Core claim

By modeling quantum teleportation as a multi-partite protocol that incorporates cheating parties, the average-fidelity thresholds of 1/2 and 2/3 arise naturally depending on the adversary type, providing justification for these values in claims of successful teleportation.

What carries the argument

Adversarial quantum teleportation described as a multi-partite protocol with explicit quantum-logic circuits in both honest and cheating settings.

If this is right

  • Fidelity thresholds gain justification tied to the specific adversary under consideration.
  • The multi-partite circuit approach extends directly to evaluating other quantum-information tasks against cheating.
  • Teleportation claims can be assessed by comparing performance against explicit adversarial circuits rather than fixed rules alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This framing could guide the design of teleportation protocols that remain robust even when the adversary type is unknown in advance.
  • Similar adversarial modeling might clarify threshold debates in related tasks such as quantum state discrimination.
  • Testing the circuits on small-scale quantum devices could reveal whether the derived thresholds hold under realistic noise.

Load-bearing premise

The constructed adversarial models accurately represent all relevant cheating strategies possible in quantum teleportation protocols.

What would settle it

An experiment showing average fidelity above the threshold yet allowing a defined cheating party to falsely demonstrate successful teleportation would falsify the justification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16711 by Barry C Sanders, Nehad AttaElmanan AbdElrahim Mabrouk.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Elements of quantum circuits. (a) Single-qubit rota [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Quantum circuits representing standard single-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quantum circuits representing teleporting a one-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantum circuit representing ℘ AB. A and B trash their qubits. parties execute perfectly, the analogue of Certificate 1 is the following, which replaces Certificate 2. Certificate 2 (Perfect ℘ A1 and ℘ A2). A employs more than zero qubits from D for the QTPs. Of course such a certificate is useless, both because it can only be issued if perfection is attained and also because a certificate that someone is … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantum circuits represent two A cheating protocols: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantum circuit representing ℘ B. B trashes his qubit and replacew his X-gate by 1 and his Z-gate with by an X￾gate. C / m−1 R(Ψ) / m−1 A C H • X D B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: As with C, we write the isometry over m+2 qubits so, in this case, D’s action involves an m-qubit identity operator. D executes the entangling gadget (2.23) as part of D’s overall (m + 2)-qubit transformation 1 m ⊗ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Claims of successful quantum teleportation are backed up by showing that fidelity exceeds some specified threshold, but whether fidelity is the performance metric and what the threshold should be has been a subject of vigorous debate. We construct adversarial models for quantum teleportation, i.e., involving cheating parties, and show that fidelity thresholds can be justified in the context of the type of adversary trying to prove unsuccessful quantum teleportation has been successful. In particular we show how previously established average-fidelity thresholds of 1/2 and 2/3 arise from our adversarial approach. Mathematically, we describe adversarial quantum teleportation as a multi-partite protocol with explicit quantum-logic circuits in both honest and cheating settings, and our methods are relevant beyond quantum teleportation to other quantum-information gadgets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an adversarial framework for assessing quantum teleportation by incorporating cheating parties into the protocol. Using multi-partite quantum circuits with explicit gates for both honest and adversarial behaviors, it derives the average fidelity thresholds of 1/2 and 2/3 as the critical points separating successful from unsuccessful faking attempts by the adversary. The methods are claimed to generalize to other quantum information tasks.

Significance. This approach is significant because it grounds the choice of fidelity thresholds in the concrete capabilities of an adversary rather than abstract arguments, potentially resolving part of the debate on what constitutes successful teleportation. The provision of explicit circuits is particularly valuable as it enables direct simulation and verification, which is a strong point for the paper. If the thresholds indeed emerge parameter-free from the models, this strengthens the theoretical foundation of the field.

minor comments (1)
  1. Ensure that the quantum circuits are presented with sufficient detail, including the specific gates and qubit connections, to allow readers to reproduce the threshold calculations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary and significance assessment of our manuscript on adversarial quantum teleportation. The review accurately reflects the paper's focus on deriving fidelity thresholds from explicit adversarial models and the provision of multi-partite circuits. No specific major comments were listed in the report, so we provide no point-by-point responses below. We remain available to incorporate any minor revisions once concrete suggestions are supplied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper constructs explicit multi-partite protocols equipped with quantum-logic circuits for honest and adversarial (cheating) parties in quantum teleportation. It shows that the known average-fidelity thresholds of 1/2 and 2/3 emerge directly as the success/failure points for the adversary in faking a valid teleportation outcome. This modeling is independent of prior parameter fits or self-referential definitions; the thresholds are derived from the adversary's explicit capabilities rather than presupposed. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or smuggled ansatzes are present in the provided derivation steps. The framework is presented as generalizable beyond teleportation, confirming it is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard quantum mechanics and teleportation protocols without introducing new free parameters or entities; the adversarial models are the primary addition.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard assumptions of quantum mechanics and quantum information theory for teleportation protocols
    The paper extends existing quantum teleportation concepts with adversarial analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5423 in / 1006 out tokens · 59225 ms · 2026-05-10T07:52:51.095632+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (2.1) to the two-qubit case, we write |Ψ⟩= 1X i,j=0 ψij |ij⟩, ψ=   ψ00 ψ01 ψ10 ψ11   ∈CP 4 (2.3) forCP 4 four-dimensional complex projective space

    Generalising Eq. (2.1) to the two-qubit case, we write |Ψ⟩= 1X i,j=0 ψij |ij⟩, ψ=   ψ00 ψ01 ψ10 ψ11   ∈CP 4 (2.3) forCP 4 four-dimensional complex projective space. Linear operators, which are homomorphisms onH, are ‘lifted’ from states by using the inner product to map a vector|ψ⟩to a covector⟨ψ|, and|ψ⟩ ⟨ψ| ′ is an operator, which reduces to a p...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Then we calculate the fidelity threshold between the state C sends to A and the final state received by C from B

    First we calculate the state after each cycle. Then we calculate the fidelity threshold between the state C sends to A and the final state received by C from B. For℘ A1, A receives the target qubit (4.1) from C in the first cycle. In the second cycle, D applies the entan- glement gadget (2.23); then the resultant state is ψ0√ 2 |000⟩+|011⟩ + ψ1√ 2 |100⟩+|...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Cr´ epeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K

    Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Cr´ epeau, 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

    work page 1993

  4. [4]

    Guzman-Silva, R

    D. Guzman-Silva, R. Br¨ uning, F. Zimmermann, C. Vet- ter, M. Gr¨ afe, M. Heinrich, S. Nolte, M. Duparr´ e, A. Aiello, M. Ornigotti, and A. Szameit. Demonstra- tion of local teleportation using classical entanglement. Laser Photonics Rev., 10:317–321, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. D¨ ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller. Quantum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quan- tum communication.Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:5932–5935, Dec 1998

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Event-ready-detectors

    M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ek- ert. “Event-ready-detectors” Bell experiment via entan- glement swapping.Phys. Rev. Lett., 71:4287–4290, Dec 1993

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Demonstrat- ing the viability of universal quantum computation us- ing teleportation and single-qubit operations.Nature, 402(6760):390–393, 1999

    Gottesman Daniel and Isaac Chuang. Demonstrat- ing the viability of universal quantum computation us- ing teleportation and single-qubit operations.Nature, 402(6760):390–393, 1999

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Pirandola, Jens Eisert, Christian Weedbrook, Akira Furusawa, and Samuel L

    S. Pirandola, Jens Eisert, Christian Weedbrook, Akira Furusawa, and Samuel L. Braunstein. Advances in quan- tum teleportation.Nat. Photonics, 9:641—-652, 2015

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Progress in quantum teleporta- tion.Nat

    Xiao-Min Hu, Yu Guo, Bi-Heng Liu, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo. Progress in quantum teleporta- tion.Nat. Rev. Phys, 5(6):339–353, Jun 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Braunstein, Christopher A

    Samuel L. Braunstein, Christopher A. Fuchs, H. J. Kim- ble, and P. van Loock. Quantum versus classical domains for teleportation with continuous variables.Phys. Rev. A, 64:022321, Jul 2001

    work page 2001

  11. [11]

    Braunstein and H

    Samuel L. Braunstein and H. J. Kimble. Teleportation of continuous quantum variables.Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:869– 872, Jan 1998

    work page 1998

  12. [12]

    Jeffrey Kimble

    Samuel Braunstein and H. Jeffrey Kimble. A posteriori teleportation.Nature, 394:840–841, 1998. 16

    work page 1998

  13. [13]

    Quantum cloning and teleportation criteria for continuous quan- tum variables.Phys

    Fr´ ed´ eric Grosshans and Philippe Grangier. Quantum cloning and teleportation criteria for continuous quan- tum variables.Phys. Rev. A, 64:010301, Jun 2001

    work page 2001

  14. [14]

    Bennett, Richard Cleve, David P

    Adriano Barenco, Charles H. Bennett, Richard Cleve, David P. DiVincenzo, Norman Margolus, Peter Shor, Ty- cho Sleator, John A. Smolin, and Harald Weinfurter. El- ementary gates for quantum computation.Phys. Rev. A, 52:3457–3467, Nov 1995

    work page 1995

  15. [15]

    Sanders, and Sabre Kais

    Yuchen Wang, Zixuan Hu, Barry C. Sanders, and Sabre Kais. Qudits and high-dimensional quantum computing. Front. Phys., 8:589504, Nov 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Wybourne.Classical Groups for Physicists

    Brian G. Wybourne.Classical Groups for Physicists. Wi- ley, New York, 1974

    work page 1974

  17. [17]

    Teleportation of quantum states.Phys

    Lev Vaidman. Teleportation of quantum states.Phys. Rev. A, 49:1473–1476, Feb 1994

    work page 1994

  18. [18]

    A. Mann, B. C. Sanders, and W. J. Munro. Bell’s inequal- ity for an entanglement of nonorthogonal states.Phys. Rev. A, 51:989–991, Feb 1995

    work page 1995

  19. [19]

    Majumdar, Sovik Roy, Biplab Ghosh, and Nilkantha Nayak

    Satyabrata Adhikari, Archan S. Majumdar, Sovik Roy, Biplab Ghosh, and Nilkantha Nayak. Teleportation via maximally and non-maximally entangled mixed states. arXiv, 2016

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Somshubhro Bandyopadhyay and Barry C. Sanders. Concatenated quantum teleportation. In Ronald E. Mey- ers and Yanhua Shih, editors,Quantum Communications and Quantum Imaging III, volume 5893, pages 300 – 307. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 2005

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    Fidelity deviation in quantum teleportation.J

    Jeongho Bang, Junghee Ryu, and Dagomir Kaszlikowski. Fidelity deviation in quantum teleportation.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 51(13):135302, Feb 2018

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Bouwmeester, J

    D. Bouwmeester, J. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Wein- furter, and A. Zeilinger. Experimental quantum telepor- tation.Nature, 390(6660):575–579, 1997

    work page 1997

  23. [23]

    Boschi, S

    D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy, and S. Popescu. Experimental realization of teleporting an unknown pure quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels.Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:1121–1125, Feb 1998

    work page 1998

  24. [24]

    Furusawa, J

    A. Furusawa, J. L. Sørensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. Kimble, and E. S. Polzik. Uncondi- tional quantum teleportation.Science, 282(5389):706– 709, 1998

    work page 1998

  25. [25]

    Nielsen, E

    M. Nielsen, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme. Complete quan- tum teleportation using nuclear magnetic resonance.Na- ture, 396:52–55, 1998

    work page 1998

  26. [26]

    Benevides, and Thiago P

    Bas Hensen, Niccol´ o Fiaschi, Andreas Wallucks, Jie Li, Simon Groeblacher, Rodrigo S. Benevides, and Thiago P. M. Alegre. Optomechanical quantum teleportation. In Selim M. Shahriar and Jacob Scheuer, editors,Optical and Quantum Sensing and Precision Metrology, volume 11700. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Pfaff, B

    W. Pfaff, B. J. Hensen, H. Bernien, S. B. van Dam, M. S. Blok, T. H. Taminiau, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and R. Hanson. Uncondi- tional quantum teleportation between distant solid-state quantum bits.Science, 345(6196):532–535, 2014

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Effi- cient teleportation between remote single-atom quantum memories.Phys

    Christian N¨ olleke, Andreas Neuzner, Andreas Reiserer, Carolin Hahn, Gerhard Rempe, and Stephan Ritter. Effi- cient teleportation between remote single-atom quantum memories.Phys. Rev. Lett., 110(14):140403, Apr 2013

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Ryan-Anderson, N

    C. Ryan-Anderson, N. C. Brown, C. H. Baldwin, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, N. Hewitt, C. Holliman, C. V. Horst, J. Johansen, D. Lucchetti, T. Mengle, M. Matheny, Y. Matsuoka, K. Mayer, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, J. Pino, P. Siegfried, R. P. Stutz, J. Walker, and D. Hayes. High- fidelity teleportation of a logical qub...

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Quantum teleportation in high dimensions

    Yi-Han Luo, Han-Sen Zhong, Manuel Erhard, Xi-Lin Wang, Li-Chao Peng, Mario Krenn, Xiao Jiang, Li Li, Nai-Le Liu, Chao-Yang Lu, Anton Zeilinger, and Jian- Wei Pan. Quantum teleportation in high dimensions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:070505, Aug 2019

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Braunstein, Christopher A

    Samuel L. Braunstein, Christopher A. Fuchs, and H. J. Kimble. Criteria for continuous-variable quantum tele- portation.J. Mod. Opt., 47(2-3):267–278, Feb 2000

    work page 2000

  32. [32]

    Terry Rudolph and Barry C. Sanders. Continuous vari- able teleportation requires optical coherence. InTechni- cal Digest. Summaries of papers presented at the Quan- tum Electronics and Laser Science Conference. Postcon- ference Technical Digest (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37172), 2001

    work page 2001

  33. [33]

    Terry Rudolph and Barry C. Sanders. Requirement of optical coherence for continuous-variable quantum tele- portation.Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:077903, Jul 2001

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    S. J. van Enk and Christopher A. Fuchs. Quantum state of an ideal propagating laser field.Phys. Rev. Lett., 88:027902, Dec 2001

    work page 2001

  35. [35]

    Howard M. Wiseman. Optical coherence and teleporta- tion: why a laser is a clock, and not a quantum channel. InProc. Fluctuations and Noise in Photonics and Quan- tum Optics, volume 5111, 2003

    work page 2003

  36. [36]

    Braunstein

    Kae Nemoto and Samuel L. Braunstein. Quantum co- herence: myth or fact?Phys. Lett. A, 333(5):378–381, 2004

    work page 2004

  37. [37]

    John A. Smolin. The continuous variable quantum tele- portation controversy, 2004. quant-ph/0407009

    work page arXiv 2004

  38. [38]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 10th anniversary edition, 2010

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    Cabrera and W.E

    R. Cabrera and W.E. Baylis. Average fidelity inn-qubit systems.Phys. Lett. A, 368(1):25–28, 2007

    work page 2007

  40. [40]

    Johnson, Stephen D

    Tyler J. Johnson, Stephen D. Bartlett, and Barry C. Sanders. Continuous-variable quantum teleportation of entanglement.Phys. Rev. A, 66:042326, Oct 2002

    work page 2002

  41. [41]

    Quantum state tomography of a sin- gle qubit: comparison of methods.J

    Roman Schmied. Quantum state tomography of a sin- gle qubit: comparison of methods.J. Mod. Opt., 63(18):1744–1758, Feb 2016

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    The solovay-kitaev algorithm

    Christopher M Dawson and Michael A Nielsen. The solovay-kitaev algorithm.arXiv preprint quant- ph/0505030, 2005

    work page arXiv 2005

  43. [43]

    Bernstein, and Philip Bertani

    Michael Reck, Anton Zeilinger, Herbert J. Bernstein, and Philip Bertani. Experimental realization of any discrete unitary operator.Phys. Rev. Lett., 73:58–61, Jul 1994

    work page 1994

  44. [44]

    de Guise H., Sanders B.C

    Bartlett S.D. de Guise H., Sanders B.C. and Weiping Zhang. Geometric phase in su(n) interferometry.Czech. J. Phys., 51(4):312–320, 2001

    work page 2001

  45. [45]

    Digital Integrated Circuits, a Design Perspective

    Borivoje Nikolic Jan Rabaey, Anantha Chandrakasan. Digital Integrated Circuits, a Design Perspective. Pear- son, 2nd edition, 2002

    work page 2002

  46. [46]

    Dodd, Michael A

    Jennifer L. Dodd, Michael A. Nielsen, Michael J. Brem- ner, and Robert T. Thew. Universal quantum compu- tation and simulation using any entangling hamiltonian and local unitaries.Phys. Rev. A, 65:040301, Apr 2002. 17

    work page 2002

  47. [47]

    L. Blum, M. Blum, and M. Shub. A simple unpredictable pseudo-random number generator.SIAM J. Comput., 15(2):364–383, 1986

    work page 1986

  48. [48]

    Greenberger, Michael A

    Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne, and Anton Zeilinger.Going Beyond Bell’s Theorem, pages 69–72. Springer, Dordrecht, 1989

    work page 1989

  49. [49]

    David Mermin

    N. David Mermin. Quantum mysteries revisited.Am. J. Phys., 58(8):731–734, Aug 1990

    work page 1990

  50. [50]

    Multiparticle entan- glement of hot trapped ions.Phys

    Klaus Mølmer and Anders Sørensen. Multiparticle entan- glement of hot trapped ions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 82:1835– 1838, Mar 1999

    work page 1999

  51. [51]

    Quantum fan-out is pow- erful.Theory Comput

    Peter Hoyer and Robert Spalek. Quantum fan-out is pow- erful.Theory Comput. Syst., 1(1):81–103, 2005

    work page 2005

  52. [52]

    Telecom-wavelength quantum telepor- tation using frequency-converted photons from remote quantum dots.Nat

    Tim Strobel, Michal Vyvlecka, Ilenia Neureuther, To- bias Bauer, Marlon Sch¨ afer, Stefan Kazmaier, Nand Lal Sharma, Raphael Joos, Jonas H Weber, Cornelius Nawrath, et al. Telecom-wavelength quantum telepor- tation using frequency-converted photons from remote quantum dots.Nat. Com., 16(1):10027, 2025

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    A quantum gate architecture via teleportation and en- tanglement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.04171, 2025

    Samuel J Sheldon, Pieter Kok, and Callum W Duncan. A quantum gate architecture via teleportation and en- tanglement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.04171, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    An introduction to measurement based quantum computation.NATO Science Series, III: Computer and Systems Sciences

    Richard Jozsa. An introduction to measurement based quantum computation.NATO Science Series, III: Computer and Systems Sciences. Quantum Information Processing-From Theory to Experiment, 199:137–158, 2006

    work page 2006

  55. [55]

    Measurement- induced entanglement and teleportation on a noisy quan- tum processor.Nature, 622(7983):481–486, 2023

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators. Measurement- induced entanglement and teleportation on a noisy quan- tum processor.Nature, 622(7983):481–486, 2023

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Dis- tributed quantum computing across an optical network link.Nature, 638(8050):383–388, 2025

    Dougal Main, Peter Drmota, David P Nadlinger, Ellis M Ainley, Ayush Agrawal, Bethan C Nichol, Raghavendra Srinivas, Gabriel Araneda, and David M Lucas. Dis- tributed quantum computing across an optical network link.Nature, 638(8050):383–388, 2025

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Progress in quantum teleporta- tion.Nat

    Xiao-Min Hu, Yu Guo, Bi-Heng Liu, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo. Progress in quantum teleporta- tion.Nat. Rev. Phy., 5(6):339–353, 2023

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Afzal, M

    Photonic Inc, Francis Afzal, Mohsen Akhlaghi, Stefanie J Beale, Olinka Bedroya, Kristin Bell, Laurent Bergeron, Kent Bonsma-Fisher, Polina Bychkova, Zachary ME Chaisson, et al. Distributed quantum computing in sili- con.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01704, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Majorization, doubly stochastic matri- ces, and comparison of eigenvalues.Linear Algebra and its Appl., 118:163–248, 1989

    Tsuyoshi Ando. Majorization, doubly stochastic matri- ces, and comparison of eigenvalues.Linear Algebra and its Appl., 118:163–248, 1989

    work page 1989

  60. [60]

    Gheorghiu, T

    A. Gheorghiu, T. Kapourniotis, and Elham Kashefi. Ver- ification of quantum computation: An overview of exist- ing approaches.Theory Comput. Syst., 63:715–808, 2018

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    Aolita, C

    L. Aolita, C. Gogolin, M. Kliesch, and J. Eisert. Reli- able quantum certification of photonic state preparations. Nat. Commun., 6:8498, 2015

    work page 2015

  62. [62]

    da Silva, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, and David Poulin

    Marcus P. da Silva, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, and David Poulin. Practical characterization of quantum devices without tomography.Phys. Rev. Lett., 107:210404, Nov 2011

    work page 2011

  63. [63]

    Theoretical and Mathematical Physics

    Fabio Benatti.Dynamics, Information and Complex- ity in Quantum Systems. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. Springer, 1st edition, 2009

    work page 2009

  64. [64]

    Teleportation: who was first? Phys

    Francesco De Martini. Teleportation: who was first? Phys. World, 11:23–24, 1998

    work page 1998

  65. [65]

    Eisert, D

    J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi. Quantum cer- tification and benchmarking, 2019

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Wootters and W

    W. Wootters and W. Zurek. A single quantum cannot be cloned.Nature, 299:802–803, 1982

    work page 1982

  67. [67]

    N. Herbert. Flash—a superluminal communicator based upon a new kind of quantum measurement.Found. Phys., 12:1171–1179, 1982

    work page 1982

  68. [68]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki. Quantum entanglement.Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:865–942, Jun 2009

    work page 2009

  69. [69]

    Entanglement certification from theory to experiment.Nat

    Nicolai Friis, Giuseppe Vitagliano, Mehul Malik, and Marcus Huber. Entanglement certification from theory to experiment.Nat. Rev. Phys., 1:72–87, Dec 2018

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    N. Gisin. Quantum measurements and stochastic pro- cesses.Phys. Rev. Lett., 52:1657–1660, May 1984

    work page 1984

  71. [71]

    Hughston, Richard Jozsa, and William K

    Lane P. Hughston, Richard Jozsa, and William K. Woot- ters. A complete classification of quantum ensembles hav- ing a given density matrix.Phys. Lett. A, 183(1):14–18, 1993

    work page 1993

  72. [72]

    Properties of mixtures on non- orthogonal states.Lett

    Nicolas Hadjisavvas. Properties of mixtures on non- orthogonal states.Lett. Math. Phys., 5(4):327–332, 1981

    work page 1981

  73. [73]

    Robinson.An Introduction to Abstract Alge- bra

    Derek J.S. Robinson.An Introduction to Abstract Alge- bra. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2003

    work page 2003

  74. [74]

    Fidelity for mixed quantum states.J

    Richard Jozsa. Fidelity for mixed quantum states.J. Mod. Opt., 41(12):2315–2323, 1994

    work page 1994

  75. [75]

    transition probability

    A. Uhlmann. The “transition probability” in the state space of a∗-algebra.Rep. Math. Phys., 9(2):273–279, 1976

    work page 1976

  76. [76]

    On a measure of divergence between two statistical populations defined by their probability distributions.Bull

    Anil Bhattacharyya. On a measure of divergence between two statistical populations defined by their probability distributions.Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc., 35:99–109, 1943

    work page 1943

  77. [77]

    Sending entanglement through noisy quantum channels.Phys

    Benjamin Schumacher. Sending entanglement through noisy quantum channels.Phys. Rev. A, 54:2614–2628, Oct 1996

    work page 1996

  78. [78]

    Sanders, and Barry C

    Wei-Wei Zhang, Yuval R. Sanders, and Barry C.. Sanders. Discord and distortion, 2020

    work page 2020

  79. [79]

    Mahnaz Jafarzadeh, Yadong Wu, Yuval R Sanders, and Barry C. Sanders. Randomized benchmarking for qudit Clifford gates.New J. Phys., 2020

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Optimization of a solid-state electron spin qubit using gate set tomography.New J

    Juan P., Juha T., Robin B., Kenneth M., John K., Erik N., Arne L., Stephanie S., Rachpon K., Andrew S., and Andrea M. Optimization of a solid-state electron spin qubit using gate set tomography.New J. Phys., 18(10):103018, Oct 2016

    work page 2016

Showing first 80 references.