Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 93 references

Characterizing pairwise swapping capabilities of dense coding channels

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pure three-qubit state supports dense coding swapping from AE to AB if and only if its Schmidt coefficients obey $|\lambda_2|>|\lambda_3|$ with $\lambda_0\neq 0$ and $\rho_{AB}$ is not ACVENN.

desk verdict A clean pure-state characterization of dense coding swapping, undermined by a mixed-state extension that overstates its domain and relies on a numerical threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03184 v1 pith:RBTVAWJ5 submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

Abhishek Muhuri , Nirman Ganguly , Aditi Sen De , Indranil Chakrabarty This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581P68
keywords densecodingswappingconditionalvonNeumannentropyexclusionprincipleACVENNstatesSchmidtcoefficientsgeneralizedWcorrelationmatrixgenuinemultipartiteentanglement
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

The paper introduces a communication task it calls dense coding swapping: inside a multipartite shared state, one sender–receiver pair has a quantum advantage in superdense coding while another pair sharing the same sender does not, and the goal is to transfer that advantage to the second pair by a joint unitary on the sender and the desired receiver, without involving the first receiver. For pure three-qubit states the paper proves this is possible exactly when the Schmidt coefficients satisfy $|\lambda_2|>|\lambda_3|$ with $\lambda_0\neq 0$ and the reduced state $\rho_{AB}$ is not in the ACVENN class, the class whose conditional entropy stays non-negative under every global unitary. For mixed states it provides a sufficient criterion based on the singular values of the bipartite correlation matrices, and for generalized W states it identifies the optimal two-qubit unitary that performs the swap. The task matters because it turns the dense coding exclusion principle, normally a limitation, into a controllable way to reroute a communication advantage away from a compromised receiver.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the conditional von Neumann entropy $S(A|B)=S(\rho_{AB})-S(\rho_B)$, whose negativity is the dense-coding quantum advantage. The key identity is $S(A|B)+S(A|E)=0$ for a pure three-qubit state, which forces the two reduced pairs to have opposite signs of conditional entropy and is what makes a swap possible at all. The classification then uses the Schmidt decomposition of the tripartite state, the ACVENN characterisation of when no global unitary can make $\rho_{AB}$ dense codeable, and the inequality $|\lambda_2|>|\lambda_3|$ to decide which pair holds the negative conditional entropy. The explicit swapping tool is the $SU(4)$ unitary $U_{AB}=\exp[-i(J_x\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x+J_y\sigma_y\otimes\sigma_y+J_z\sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z)]$, and for generalized W states optimality is pinned down by the condition $\tan 2J_x^*\tan 2J_y^*=(1-2b)/(1-2a-2b)$. For mixed states the machinery is the singular-value decomposition of the correlation matrix together with a lower bound on relative entropy in terms of trace distance and a numerical upper bound on relative entropy, which produce the thresholds used in the sufficient criteria.

What would settle it

Prepare (or numerically simulate) the three-qubit generalized W state with $a=1/2$ and small $b>0$; the paper's Lemma 2 places $\rho_{AB}$ in the ACVENN class, so Theorem 2 predicts that no two-qubit unitary on $AB$ can make it dense codeable. If any $U_{AB}\in SU(4)$ yields $C(\rho_{AB})>1$ bit while $C(\rho_{AE})=1$ bit, the 'if and only if' claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that dense codeability can be moved between pairs of a multipartite state by acting only on the sender and the target receiver. For pure three-qubit states, the paper gives a complete classification in Schmidt coefficients: writing the state as $\lambda_0|000\rangle+\lambda_1 e^{i\phi}|100\rangle+\lambda_2|101\rangle+\lambda_3|110\rangle+\lambda_4|111\rangle$, the advantage can be swapped from $AE$ to $AB$ if and only if $|\lambda_2|>|\lambda_3|$, $\lambda_0\neq 0$, and the algebraic condition (8) that would put $\rho_{AB}$ in the ACVENN class does not hold. Under those conditions some two-qubit unitary $U_{AB}$ makes $\rho_{AB}$ dense codeable while $\rho_{AE}$ becomes non-dense codeable. For mixed states, the paper proves that when the sender's local Bloch vector vanishes, a two-qubit state is dense codeable if the sum of the singular values of its correlation matrix exceeds $2\sqrt{2\ln 2}\approx 2.355$, and is non-dense codeable if that sum is at most $1.569$; a corollary adapts this test to a three-qubit mixed state. It also characterizes the optimal swapping unitaries for generalized W states and shows that the resource states tolerate white and colored noise while requiring only small genuine multipartite entanglement.

Load-bearing premise

The mixed-state characterization assumes the sender's local Bloch vector $\vec m$ vanishes, justified by a preparation in which Alice's reduced state is maximally mixed; if a candidate state has nonvanishing sender magnetization, the correlation-matrix thresholds are not proven to classify it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any pure three-qubit state satisfying the theorem's conditions admits a two-qubit unitary that activates dense coding between Alice and Bob while shutting off the Alice–Evan channel; the advantage is redistributed, not duplicated.
  • For generalized W states the optimal swapping unitaries obey $\tan 2J_x^*\tan 2J_y^*=(1-2b)/(1-2a-2b)$, and the activated capacity reaches $2-H(\{a,1-a\})$ bits; the same parameter condition remains optimal when white noise is admixed.
  • Useful generalized W states tolerate white noise up to a state-dependent probability before losing their swapping capability; with $b$ close to zero the tolerance is around $0.165$, and orthogonal colored noise can in some parameter regions be tolerated even better.
  • Resource states for dense coding swapping become rare as the number of parties grows (about 3.15% of four-qubit Haar-random states, almost none for five qubits), but asymmetric single-excitation Dicke states continue to support swapping, and the amount of genuine multipartite entanglement they need, measured by the generalized geometric measure, is small and decreases with system size.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the three-qubit theorem looks like the base case of an $N$-party rule: if the sender–target marginal is non-ACVENN and the sender–compromised marginal has negative conditional entropy, the same unitary construction should swap the advantage in larger networks.
  • Beyond the paper, the mixed-state thresholds should shift when the sender's Bloch vector is nonzero; a biparametric criterion involving $\beta$ and trace distance $T$ would extend the classification and could be checked numerically by searching states with $\vec m\neq 0$.
  • Beyond the paper, the protocol is directly testable in existing photonic three-qubit superdense-coding setups: prepare a generalized W resource, measure $C(\rho_{AB})$ and $C(\rho_{AE})$, apply $U_{AB}$, and verify that the advantage has changed sides.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'dense coding swapping,' a multipartite communication task in which a global unitary on the sender-target pair transfers the dense-coding advantage from one bipartite marginal (A-E) to another (A-B), while the exclusion principle guarantees the original channel becomes non-dense-codeable. The main results are: (i) an if-and-only-if condition for three-qubit pure states in terms of the parameters of a canonical form (Theorem 2); (ii) a sufficient condition for mixed states based on the singular values of bipartite correlation matrices, obtained via Pinsker-type bounds (Theorem 3, Proposition 1, and the Corollary); (iii) an explicit characterization of optimal swapping unitaries for generalized W states and their white/colored-noise admixtures; and (iv) numerical evidence that resource states have low genuine multipartite entanglement, with the required entanglement decreasing with system size. The pure-state derivation is the central analytic contribution; the mixed-state criterion is the part that needs the most careful scrutiny.

Significance. If the pure-state Theorem 2 is correct, it gives a clean and exact operational classification of three-qubit pure states for this new task, together with explicit unitary families that realize the swapping. This is a genuinely useful contribution to the study of conditional-entropy resources and dense coding. The explicit optimum-unitary analysis for generalized W states and the noise-tolerance study are also valuable, and the numerical data on the entanglement requirements is suggestive. The main weakness is that the mixed-state 'sufficient criterion' is stated more broadly than it is derived: it relies on a vanishing sender-magnetization assumption and on a numerically obtained threshold, so the abstract's claim of a sufficient criterion for mixed states is not yet established in full generality.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III B, Theorem 3 and the Corollary (Eqs. 10, 12, 14-21)] The mixed-state criterion silently drops the key assumption ⃗m=0. Theorem 3 is explicitly restricted to two-qubit states with vanishing sender Bloch vector, and Proposition 1 has the same restriction. The Corollary, however, states sufficient conditions for 'the three-qubit arbitrary state in Eq. (10)' without restating that the sender's local Bloch vector m^(1) must vanish. For a general Fano state with m^(1)≠0, the operator ρ_12 − I/2⊗ρ_2 contains the extra term (1/4)Σ_i m_i σ_i⊗I, so the trace-distance formulas in Eq. (16) and the thresholds derived from them are not applicable. The abstract's 'sufficient criterion for mixed states' is therefore not established outside the special preparation scenario described in Sec. III B. Please either restrict the Corollary, the abstract, and the concluding remarks to the case m^(1)=0, or extend the derivation to nonvanishing sender magnetization.
  2. [§III B, Proposition 1 (Eqs. 18-21)] The non-dense-codeability threshold Σ c_i ≤ 1.569 is not a rigorous theorem. The proof depends on β_opt = 0.152863 obtained by numerical optimization over 10^5–10^6 Haar-random states, and the text itself states that 'the bound should be regarded as numerical.' As a result, condition 2 of the Corollary is a numerical heuristic, not a proven sufficient condition. In addition, Proposition 1 does not state the necessary condition c_1 < c_2 + c_3 under which the trace distance equals Σ c_i/4. When c_1 ≥ c_2 + c_3, the trace distance is c_1/2, so the inequality Σ c_i ≤ 1.569 does not imply T ≤ 0.392; an example is (c_1,c_2,c_3)=(1,0,0), for which Σ c_i=1 but T=0.5. The proposition and the Corollary must either be rephrased as numerical observations with the c_1 < c_2 + c_3 restriction, or be replaced by an analytic bound.
  3. [§III A, Lemma 2 (Eq. 8)] Lemma 2 is stated as an 'if and only if' characterization of ACVENN for all pure three-qubit states, but as stated it is false. Taking |ψ⟩=|000⟩ gives λ0=1 and all other λ_i=0, so Eq. (8) is not satisfied (the left-hand side equals 1), yet ρ_AB is the pure product state |00⟩⟨00|, which is certainly in the ACVENN class. The intended statement appears to be valid only under the standing hypotheses of Lemma 1 (λ0≠0 and |λ2|>|λ3|), but these assumptions are not mentioned in Lemma 2. Moreover, the proof asserts 'ρ_AB belongs to ACVENN only when S(ρ_E)=1' without a derivation; this is the load-bearing step of the lemma. Because Theorem 2 uses the negation of Eq. (8), this gap needs to be repaired before the pure-state iff can be considered fully rigorous as published.
  4. [§III B, Corollary threshold values] The Corollary uses the threshold 2.335, while Theorem 3 derives 2√(2 ln 2) ≈ 2.355. If these are meant to be different quantities, the derivation of 2.335 is missing; if it is a typographical error, it must be corrected, since the Corollary is the main mixed-state criterion advertised in the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout, but see Eq. (2)] The parameters λ_i in Eq. (2) are referred to as 'Schmidt coefficients,' but Eq. (2) is not a Schmidt decomposition across any single bipartition; it is the Acín-type canonical form. Please use terminology that distinguishes these canonical amplitudes from the actual Schmidt coefficients of the A:BE cut, as the distinction is important for the proof of Lemma 1.
  2. [§IV, numerical percentages] The text reports that 'the percentage of states that are suitable is 100% in the case of tripartite states' for Haar-random states. This appears inconsistent with Theorem 2, since the condition |λ2|>|λ3| should select roughly half of the relevant parameter space unless the random generation is conditioned in some way. Please clarify the conditioning used in this numerical statement.
  3. [§VI, Theorem 3] Section VI reuses the theorem number 'Theorem 3' for the generalized-W unitary characterization, even though Theorem 3 already appears in Sec. III B. Please renumber the later theorems.
  4. [§III B, Corollary] The sentence describing the correlation matrices appears to mislabel the reduced states: the condition Σ c_i^{(1,3)} > 2.335 is a condition on ρ_AE (parties 1 and 3), while Σ c_i^{(1,2)} ≤ 1.569 is a condition on ρ_AB (parties 1 and 2). The text says these are 'of ρ_AB and ρ_AE respectively,' which is the opposite order and should be corrected.
  5. [§III B, Proposition 1 proof] The numerical optimization that produces β_opt is described only tersely, and the statement that f(β,T) decreases monotonically in β is followed by a minimization that is hard to parse. A more explicit description of the optimization domain and the meaning of 'the minimum of the optimal β-s' would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: pure-state DC-swapping criterion follows from entropy identities and independent external theorems, with numerical and domain limitations confined to the mixed-state corollary.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Theorem 1 and Lemma 1 derive the condition |λ2|>|λ3| directly from the pure-state identity S(A|B)+S(A|E)=0 and the explicit spectra of the reduced states, with no fitted parameters and no hidden use of the target result. Lemma 2 and Theorem 2 invoke the ACVENN characterization [18] and the dense-coding exclusion principle [39]; these references share authors with the present paper, but they are published, parameter-free results whose assumptions do not include the swapping claim, so they constitute independent support rather than a self-citation loop. The gW example and the unitary constructions in Sec. VI are explicit computations. The weakest part is the mixed-state analysis: Theorem 3 is derived only for vanishing sender Bloch vector m; Proposition 1's threshold 1.569 rests on a numerically optimized β_opt, which the paper itself labels 'should be regarded as numerical'; and the Corollary omits the m=0 restriction when stating a condition for 'the three-qubit arbitrary state.' These are limitations of rigor and domain of validity, not circular reductions: the numerical threshold is openly identified as numerical and is not used to manufacture the pure-state characterization. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to its own input by construction.

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

The central pure-state result rests on the DC exclusion principle, the ACVENN class, and the Schmidt form of three-qubit states; these are published results, though two key references are by the same authors. The mixed-state criterion adds the m=0 assumption and a numerically fitted constant β_opt.

free parameters (1)
  • β_opt = 0.152863
    Numerical threshold in the upper bound f(β,T) for relative entropy; used in Proposition 1 to derive the non-dense-codeability condition Σ c_i ≤ 1.569. Obtained by optimization over 10^5 Haar-random states and admitted by the authors to be numerical.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dense coding exclusion principle: among pairs sharing a common party, at most one can have negative conditional entropy
    Used throughout, e.g., in the sufficiency proof of Theorem 1 and to guarantee that activating ρ_AB deactivates ρ_AE. Cited to [39].
  • domain assumption ACVENN characterization: a bipartite state in the ACVENN class cannot be made dense codeable by any global unitary
    Condition 2 of the resource definition and Lemma 2 rely on this from [18], by the same research group.
  • ad hoc to paper Vanishing sender's local Bloch vector m=0 for the mixed-state criteria
    Theorem 3 and Proposition 1 are proven only for two-qubit states with m=0; the Corollary applies them to tripartite states without restating this restriction.
  • standard math Numerical upper bound f(β,T) from Audenaert-Eisert (2005) is a valid upper bound on relative entropy
    Used in Proposition 1 for the non-dense-codeability bound.
  • standard math Standard quantum information axioms, including strong subadditivity and the capacity formula for dense coding
    Basis for conditional entropy, capacity, and Pinsker inequality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterizing pairwise swapping capabilities of dense coding channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RBTVAWJ5

@misc{pith2026260803184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterizing pairwise swapping capabilities of dense coding channels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RBTVAWJ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03184}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel multipartite entanglement-assisted classical communication task, referred to as dense coding swapping, in which legitimate parties collaboratively swap the dense codeability from one communication channel to another through suitable joint unitary operations. Due to the dense coding (DC) exclusion principle, the scheme enhances the dense codeability of a target pair while simultaneously reducing it for a non-target branch in the network. This swapping capability has broader implications, as it may be viewed as a form of process swapping, distinct from resource swapping, while also providing a prevention measure when one of the receivers is compromised. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions, expressed in terms of the Schmidt coefficients, for three-qubit pure states to support DC swapping, while we obtain a sufficient criterion for mixed states using their Bloch correlation parameters. Furthermore, we identify the optimal two-qubit unitary operators capable of realizing the swapping of dense codeability between communication channels. We further examine the tolerance of these eligible states against both colored and white noise, demonstrating the resilience of the proposed task under environmental perturbations. We also show that multipartite states supporting DC swapping require only a small amount of genuine multipartite entanglement and that this requirement decreases with increasing system size.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Substituting the explicit expression ofT, we arrive at Eq

    Although this equation does not admit a closed-form solution, numerical evaluation shows that it reduces to the conditionT≤T opt =0.392278. Substituting the explicit expression ofT, we arrive at Eq. (21), i.e., the sum of singular values of the bipartite correlation for this class of states is upper bounded by 1.569. 9 Note:We emphasize that the parameter...

  2. [2]

    +λ 2 3(−1+λ 2 1 +2λ 2 4) i 1 2 ) . , (3) Since|ψ⟩ABE is pure,S(ρ AE) =S(ρ B)andS(ρ AB ) = S(ρE), and the spectra of the reduced statesρ B andρ E are given by ρB : ( 1 2± 1 2 h 1+4 λ4 3 +2λ 1λ2λ3λ4 cosϕ +λ2 4(−1+λ 2 2 +λ 2

  3. [3]

    +λ 2 3(−1+λ 2 1 +2λ 2 4) i 1 2 ) , (4) and ρE : ( 1 2± 1 2 h 1+4 λ4 2 +2λ 1λ2λ3λ4 cosϕ+ +λ2 4(−1+λ 2 3 +λ 2

  4. [4]

    +λ 2 2(−1+λ 2 1 +2λ 2 4) i 1 2 ) , and ρAE : ( 0, 0, 1 2± 1 2 h 1+4 λ4 3 +2λ 1λ2λ3λ4 cosϕ +λ2 4(−1+λ 2 2 +λ 2

  5. [5]

    (5) It follows thatS(A|B) =−S(A|E), thus implying that both of the reduced density matrices can be simultane- ously non-dense codeable unless both the conditional entropies vanish

    +λ 2 2(−1+λ 2 1 +2λ 2 4) i 1 2 ) . (5) It follows thatS(A|B) =−S(A|E), thus implying that both of the reduced density matrices can be simultane- ously non-dense codeable unless both the conditional entropies vanish. This happens only when λ4 3 +λ 2 4(−1+λ 2 2 +λ 2

  6. [6]

    +λ 2 3(−1+λ 2 1 +2λ 2 4) =λ 4 2 +λ 2 4(−1+λ 2 3 +λ 2

  7. [7]

    (6) The last line clearly contradicts the assumptionS2 which demands that the state |ψ⟩ABE needs to be per- mutationally symmetric between the partiesBandE

    +λ 2 2(−1+λ 2 1 +2λ 2 4) =⇒λ 4 3 +λ 2 4λ2 2 +λ 2 3(−1+λ 2 1 +2λ 2 4) =λ 4 2 +λ 2 4λ2 3 +λ 2 2(−1+λ 2 1 +2λ 2 4) =⇒(λ 2 2−λ 2 3) h λ2 2 +λ 2 3 +λ 2 4 +λ 2 1−1 i =0 =⇒λ 0 =0 orλ 2 =λ 3. (6) The last line clearly contradicts the assumptionS2 which demands that the state |ψ⟩ABE needs to be per- mutationally symmetric between the partiesBandE. To prove the suf...

  8. [8]

    All the three-qubit states satisfying Lemma 1 may not be suitable for DC swapping

    +λ 2 4 +1−λ 2 1−2λ 2 4]>0 =⇒λ 2 0(λ2 2−λ 2 3)>0=⇒ |λ 2|>|λ 3|, (7) where, in the last step, we useλ 0 ̸=0, which refers to the trivial case when the tripartite state is separable acrossA:BEcut and hence the proof. All the three-qubit states satisfying Lemma 1 may not be suitable for DC swapping. As mentioned before, to activate dense codeability inABwhile...

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Proof.From Lemma1,e b ande e cannot vanish, since in that case,S(ρ B) =S(ρ AE) =1 andS(ρ E) =S(ρ AB ) =1

    =0. Proof.From Lemma1,e b ande e cannot vanish, since in that case,S(ρ B) =S(ρ AE) =1 andS(ρ E) =S(ρ AB ) =1. The first cannot hold becauseρ AE is dense codeable while the second is also not true sinceρ AB does not be- long to ACVENN. Note thatρ AB belongs to ACVENN only whenS...

  2. [10]

    This type of states cannot be useful for dense coding swapping

    =0 (8) holds. This type of states cannot be useful for dense coding swapping. FIG.2: Dense coding capacity of the reduced stateρ AE as a function of the Schmidt coefficients .The map plot ofC(ρ AE ) for reduced statesρ AE =Tr B[|ψ⟩⟨ ψ|ABE ]with respect toλ 2 (ordinate) andλ 3 ...

  3. [11]

    Can the parameters in two-qubit unitaries in Eq. (9) follow certain rules, suitable for DC swapping?

    ∑i c(1,2) i ≤1.569 where c (1,3) i -s and c (1,2) i -s are the singular values of the bipartite correlation matrices c (1,3) and c (1,2) ofρ AB and ρAE respectively. Remark.This characterization can be easily extended to multipartite scenario, by replacingc (1,3) by the bipart...

    2024

  4. [12]

    N. J. Cerf and C. Adami, Physical Review Letters79,5194(1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    N. J. Cerf and C. Adami, Physical Review A60,893(1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Friis, S

    N. Friis, S. Bulusu, and R. A. Bertlmann, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50,125301(2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Physical Review Letters69,2881 (1992)

    1992

  8. [16]

    D. Bruß, G. D’Ariano, M. Lewenstein, C. Macchiavello, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett93,210501

  9. [17]

    Horodecki, J

    M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Communications in Mathematical Physics269,107(2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Horodecki, J

    M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Nature436,673 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and engineering sciences461,207(2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Gyongyosi and S

    L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.1270(2012), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1208.1270

    2012 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Berta, M

    M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Renner, Nature Physics6,659(2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    L. d. Rio, J. Åberg, R. Renner, O. Dahlsten, and V . Vedral, Nature 474,61(2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. Subramanian, and G. Kato, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06753(2018), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1807.06753

    2018 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Azuma and G

    K. Azuma and G. Kato, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.02897(2020), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.02897

    2020 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Vempati, N

    M. Vempati, N. Ganguly, I. Chakrabarty, and A. K. Pati, Physical Review A104,012417(2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Vedral, M

    V . Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P . L. Knight, Physical Review Letters78,2275(1997)

    1997

  19. [27]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Reviews of modern physics81,865(2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Vempati, S

    M. Vempati, S. Shah, N. Ganguly, and I. Chakrabarty, Quantum 6,641(2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Patro, I

    S. Patro, I. Chakrabarty, and N. Ganguly, Physical Review A96, 062102(2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    ˙Zyczkowski, P

    K. ˙Zyczkowski, P . Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, Physical Review A58,883(1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P . W. Shor, and M. B. Ruskai, Reviews in Mathe- matical Physics15,629(2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    Moravˇ cíková and M

    L. Moravˇ cíková and M. Ziman, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical43,275306(2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Srinidhi, I

    P . Srinidhi, I. Chakrabarty, S. Bhattacharya, and N. Ganguly, Physical Review A110,042423(2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Muhuri, A

    A. Muhuri, A. Patra, R. Gupta, and A. S. De, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03108(2023), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.03108

    2023 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Srivastava, A

    C. Srivastava, A. Bera, A. Sen, U. Sen,et al., Physical Review A 100,052304(2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    T. Das, R. Prabhu, A. Sen, and U. Sen, Physical Review A92, 052330(2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    S. Roy, T. Chanda, T. Das, A. S. De, and U. Sen, Physics Letters A382,1709(2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein, A. Sen, U. Sen, G. M. D’ARIANO, and C. Macchiavello, International Journal of Quantum Information 4,415(2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Nepal, R

    R. Nepal, R. Prabhu, A. Sen, and U. Sen, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics87,032336(2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    T. Das, R. Prabhu, A. Sen, and U. Sen, Physical Review A90, 022319(2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Samanta, A

    M. Samanta, A. Patra, R. Gupta, and A. S. De, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07609(2024), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.07609

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hao, C.-F

    J.-C. Hao, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Physical Review A63,054301 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Zhang, C

    J. Zhang, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Physical Review A66,032318 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    J. Jing, J. Zhang, Y. Yan, F. Zhao, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Physical review letters90,167903(2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    C.-B. Fu, Y. Xia, B.-X. Liu, S. Zhang, K.-H. Yeon, and C.-I. Um, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0601144(2006)

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C. Oh, H. Kim, K. Jeong, and H. Jeong, Scientific Reports7,3765 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Hausladen, R

    P . Hausladen, R. Jozsa, B. Schumacher, M. Westmoreland, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A54,1869(1996)

    1996

  40. [48]

    Bowen, Phys

    G. Bowen, Phys. Rev. A63,022302(2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, R. Horodecki, D. W. Leung, and B. M. Terhal, Quantum Info. Comput.1,70–78(2001)

    2001

  42. [50]

    Prabhu, A

    R. Prabhu, A. K. Pati, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A87, 052319(2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Nepal, R

    R. Nepal, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A87, 032336(2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    A. K. Pati, P . Parashar, and P . Agrawal, Phys. Rev. A72,012329 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    Shadman, H

    Z. Shadman, H. Kampermann, C. Macchiavello, and D. Bruß, New Journal of Physics12,073042(2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Shadman, H

    Z. Shadman, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, Phys. Rev. A84,042309(2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Shadman, H

    Z. Shadman, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, Phys. Rev. A85,052306(2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    Shadman, H

    Z. Shadman, H. Kampermann, C. Macchiavello, and D. Bruß, Quantum Measurements and Quantum Metrology1,21(2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    ˙Zukowski, A

    M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert, Phys. 15 Rev. Lett.71,4287(1993)

    1993

  50. [58]

    S. Bose, V . Vedral, and P . L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A57,822(1998)

    1998

  51. [59]

    Sen(De) and U

    A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A81,012308(2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A67, 042313(2003)

    2003

  53. [61]

    A. Acín, D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Physical Re- view Letters87,040401(2001)

    2001

  54. [62]

    W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A62,062314(2000)

    2000

  55. [63]

    Vatan and C

    F. Vatan and C. Williams, Phys. Rev. A69,032315(2004)

    2004

  56. [64]

    Hirota, arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.04553(2020), https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.04553

    O. Hirota, arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.04553(2020), https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.04553

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    K. M. R. Audenaert and J. Eisert, J. Math. Phys.46,102104(2005)

    2005

  58. [66]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett.71,1291(1993)

    1993

  59. [67]

    V . M. Kendon, K. ˙Zyczkowski, and W. J. Munro, Phys. Rev. A 66,062310(2002)

    2002

  60. [68]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.93,99(1954)

    1954

  61. [69]

    Bergmann and O

    M. Bergmann and O. Gühne, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.46,385304 (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    Kumar, H

    A. Kumar, H. S. Dhar, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Lett. A381,1701(2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Lücke, J

    B. Lücke, J. Peise, G. Vitagliano, J. Arlt, L. Santos, G. Tóth, and C. Klempt, Phys. Rev. Lett.112,155304(2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    Chiuri, C

    A. Chiuri, C. Greganti, M. Paternostro, G. Vallone, and P . Mat- aloni, Phys. Rev. Lett.109,173604(2012)

    2012

  65. [73]

    Banerjee, A

    R. Banerjee, A. K. Pal, and A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A101,042339 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    Wei and P

    T.-C. Wei and P . M. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. A68,042307(2003)

    2003

  67. [75]

    T. Das, S. S. Roy, S. Bagchi, A. Misra, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A94,022336(2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, (2007), 10.48550/arXiv.0712.0921

    2007 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    Yimsiriwattana and S

    A. Yimsiriwattana and S. J. Lomonaco Jr., inCoding theory and quantum computing, Contemp. Math., Vol.381(Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,2005) pp.131–147

    2005

  70. [78]

    Sen(De), U

    A. Sen(De), U. Sen, M. Wie´ sniak, D. Kaszlikowski, and M. ˙Zukowski, Phys. Rev. A68,062306(2003)

    2003

  71. [79]

    Mattle, H

    K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, P . G. Kwiat, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.76,4656(1996)

    1996

  72. [80]

    Shimizu, N

    K. Shimizu, N. Imoto, and T. Mukai, Phys. Rev. A59,1092 (1999)

    1999

  73. [81]

    Mizuno, K

    J. Mizuno, K. Wakui, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. A 71,012304(2005)

    2005

  74. [82]

    Pan, Z.-B

    J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and M. ˙Zukowski, Rev. Mod. Phys.84,777(2012)

    2012

  75. [83]

    T. E. Northup and R. Blatt, Nature Photonics8,356(2014)

    2014

  76. [84]

    J. T. Barreiro, T.-C. Wei, and P . G. Kwiat, Nature Physics4,282 (2014)

    2014

  77. [85]

    Krenn, J

    M. Krenn, J. Handsteiner, M. Fink, R. Fickler, R. Ursin, M. Ma- lik, and A. Zeilinger, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113,13648(2016)

    2016

  78. [86]

    X. Fang, X. Zhu, M. Feng, X. Mao, and F. Du, Phys. Rev. A61, 022307(2000)

    2000

  79. [87]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys.75,281(2003)

    2003

  80. [88]

    L. M. K. Vandersypen and I. L. Chuang, Rev. Mod. Phys.76,1037 (2005)

    2005

  81. [89]

    Yang and Z

    W. Yang and Z. Gong, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics40,1245(2007)

    2007

  82. [90]

    Sanderson and R

    C. Sanderson and R. Curtin, Mathematical and Computational Applications24(2019)

    2019

  83. [91]

    Sanderson and R

    C. Sanderson and R. Curtin, in2025 17th International Conference on Computer and Automation Engineering (ICCAE)(2025) pp.303– 307. Appendix A: Schmidt form of generalized W states One of the exemplary multipartite pure states is the generalized W states, which has the followin...

    2025

  84. [92]

    Thus the unitary onAhas the formU A = 0u 01 u10 u11

    =0, which impliesu 00 =0. Thus the unitary onAhas the formU A = 0u 01 u10 u11 . Putting the condition of unitary: U† AUA = |u10|2 u∗ 10u11 u10u∗ 11 |u01|2 +|u 11|2 = 1 0 0 1 (A6) also, UAU† A = |u01|2 u01u∗ 11 u∗ 01u11 |u10|2 +|u 11|2 = 1 0 0 1 (A7) which is possible only when...

  85. [93]

    The reduced stateσ B =Tr A[U AB ρAB (U AB )†]is diagonal in computational basis and its eigenvalues are:{ 1 2 (1− a(1−s)cos 2J x−y−(1−a−2b)(1−s)cos 2J x+y ), 1 2 (1+a(1−s)cos 2J x−y + (1−a−2b)(1−s)cos 2J x+y )}. Important thing to notice is that the entropy ofρ AB does not cha...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.