Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 66 references

Local-available quantum correlation swapping in one-parameter X states

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that local-available quantum correlations (LAQC) can be redistributed through a projective measurement on two pairs of X states, and that in several one-parameter families the final state is separable yet still…

desk verdict New combination, but the central Bloch formulas have sign errors and the headline separability claims are false; needs major recalculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23142 v4 pith:7I7QL7V5 submitted 2025-07-30 quant-ph physics.app-ph

Hermann L. Albrecht This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.app-ph
keywords local-availablequantumcorrelationscorrelationswappingXstatesone-parameterX-statefamiliesconcurrencediscordBell-diagonalmutuallyunbiasedbases
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

Local-available quantum correlations (LAQC) quantify how much quantum mutual information survives when a bipartite state is measured in two complementary local bases. This paper asks whether LAQC can be swapped from two independent two-qubit X states to a final two-qubit state by a projective measurement, in the same way entanglement is swapped in repeaters. The answer is yes, with a simple sufficient condition: if both input X states have non-zero $T_1$ and $T_2$ coherence parameters and the measurement state is entangled, then the output has non-null LAQC. The paper derives explicit post-measurement Bloch parameters and applies them to five one-parameter families; in the $\alpha$-state, MEMS, and much of the $\rho_v$ sector the output is separable (zero concurrence) while LAQC remains positive. The author reads this as evidence that LAQC can serve as a genuine quantum-information resource independent of entanglement.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the closed-form LAQC quantifier for X states, $L(\rho_X)=\max\{u(T_1),u(T_2),g_3(x_3,y_3,T_3)\}$ with $u(x)=(1+x)\log_2(1+x)+(1-x)\log_2(1-x)$, together with the post-measurement Bloch-parameter formulas (51a--e). The quantifier reduces the question 'does the swapped state have LAQC?' to checking whether the final $T_1$ or $T_2$ parameters are non-zero, and those parameters factor as $T_1^{AD}=T_1^{AB}T_1^{CD}\sin\xi$ and $T_2^{AD}=T_2^{AB}T_2^{CD}\sin\xi$. That multiplicative structure is the mechanism behind Theorems 1 and 2: non-zero input coherences propagate through the measurement unless one input lacks $T_1$ and the other lacks $T_2$.

What would settle it

Take two $\alpha$-states with $\alpha_{AB}=\alpha_{CD}=1$ and project onto $|\phi^+\rangle$ ($\xi=\pi/2$), then compute the output state directly from the trace definition $T_{ij}=\mathrm{Tr}((\sigma_i\otimes\sigma_j)\rho_{AD}^X)$. If the output has $T_1=T_2=1$ as Eqs. (56c--d) claim, it violates the X-state positivity bound $(T_1+T_2)^2\le 1$ from Eq. (9), so the $\alpha$-state swapping claim would be unphysical; this single calculation settles the matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LAQC is a swappable correlation for 2-qubit X states. Starting from the post-measurement Bloch parameters (51a--e), it proves Theorem 1: whenever both initial X states have non-null $T_1$ and $T_2$, the final state $\rho_{AD}^X$ has non-null LAQC; Theorem 2 gives the only way two non-classical X inputs can produce a classical output, namely a crossing of zero $T_1$ in one input with zero $T_2$ in the other. The author then evaluates the exact X-state LAQC formula for Werner, $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\rho_v$, and MEMS one-parameter families. The distinctive results are that $\alpha$-state and MEMS outputs have vanishing concurrence yet non-vanishing LAQC, and $\rho_v$ outputs are separable over a wide parameter range while keeping non-zero LAQC.

Load-bearing premise

The central load-bearing premise is that the post-measurement Bloch-parameter formulas (51a--e) are correct; the paper states them without derivation, and the $\alpha$-state specialization gives $T_1=T_2=1$ at $\alpha_{AB}=\alpha_{CD}=1$, $\xi=\pi/2$, which would violate the positivity constraint $(T_1+T_2)^2\le 1$, so the formulas are the point that must hold for the conclusions to stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any X-state quantum correlation swapping scheme with non-classical inputs and an entangled measurement state transfers LAQC unless the cross-zero $T_1$/$T_2$ pattern of Theorem 2 occurs.
  • For Werner and $\beta$ inputs, the output LAQC has a closed analytic form and vanishes only when an input is separable or the measurement state is unentangled ($\xi=0$).
  • For $\alpha$ and MEMS inputs, the output can be completely separable while LAQC stays positive, so entanglement need not be the distributed resource.
  • Since LAQC vanishes only on classical states, the range of parameters with non-zero swapped LAQC is generically larger than the range with non-zero concurrence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $T_1^{AD}$ and $T_2^{AD}$ are products of input coherence parameters, a multi-hop repeater chain built on this scheme would accumulate LAQC multiplicatively, changing error-threshold and noise-robustness estimates relative to additive figures of merit.
  • The separable-but-LAQC-positive outputs are directly testable: preparing two $\alpha$-state or MEMS pairs, performing the Bell projection, and tomographing the output would verify $L>0$ together with zero concurrence without relying on the paper's algebraic formulas.
  • The unproved status and apparent positivity violation of Eqs. (51a--e) deserves a direct re-derivation from the trace definition before the $\alpha$-state and MEMS conclusions are used as design rules.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the redistribution of local-available quantum correlations (LAQC) in a quantum correlation swapping protocol for two-qubit X states. It uses the exact LAQC expression for X states from earlier work (refs. [46,47]) and states, without derivation, a general Bloch-parameter transformation (Eq. (51)) for the post-measurement state after a projective measurement on two subsystems. It then applies this transformation to five one-parameter X-state families (Werner, alpha, beta, rho_v, and MEMS) and claims, among other things, that for alpha-states and MEMS the final state is separable while having non-zero LAQC. Theorems 1 and 2 give conditions for non-null and vanishing LAQC in the final state.

Significance. If the central results were correct, the paper would provide a useful extension of correlation swapping to a less-studied quantum correlation, including the notable claim that LAQC can be transferred to separable final states. The use of an exact closed form for LAQC of X states is a legitimate and potentially valuable starting point. However, the main illustrative claims depend on a general transformation that is both unproven and, in its currently stated form, incorrect; the advertised phenomenon of separable final states with non-zero LAQC is not established and is false at the maximally entangled endpoints.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (51c)-(51d) and Section III.B, Eq. (56d)] The general transformation has a sign error in the T2 component. Direct calculation for alpha_AB = alpha_CD = 1 and xi = pi/2, where both initial states are |Phi+> and the projective state is |Phi+>_BC, gives the final state |Phi+>_AD, whose Bloch parameters are T1 = 1 and T2 = -1. Equation (56d), however, gives T2 = alpha_AB alpha_CD sin(xi) = +1. This is not a harmless endpoint artifact: with the correct sign, the equal-parameter alpha-state final state has concurrence alpha(3alpha - 2) for alpha >= 2/3, so it is entangled. The claim in Section III.B that C(rho_AD_alpha) = 0 for all alpha is therefore false.
  2. [Section III.E, Eqs. (65c)-(65d)] The same sign error propagates into the MEMS family. For gamma_AB = gamma_CD = 1, the initial states are again |Phi+>, and the post-measurement state is |Phi+>_AD with T2 = -1. Equation (65d) instead gives T2 = + (1/2) gamma_AB gamma_CD sin(xi) before normalization, which after normalization is +1. The statement in Section III.E that the MEMS swapping protocol always produces a separable state is consequently unsupported and is false at gamma_AB = gamma_CD = 1. The quantitative LAQC expression for MEMS, which relies on these parameters, is also affected.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (51)] Equation (51) is the load-bearing result of the paper, but no derivation or reference is provided for it. Since the subsequent family-specific formulas are obtained by substitution into Eq. (51), the sign error in Eq. (51d) directly invalidates all later results that involve T2. The manuscript needs a complete derivation of Eq. (51) and a verification against direct computation for simple cases such as two |Phi+> inputs.
  4. [Section III, Theorems 1 and 2] Theorems 1 and 2 are stated without the hypothesis that the projective state is entangled, i.e., that sin(xi) is non-zero. As stated, for xi = 0 or xi = pi, Eqs. (51c)-(51d) give T_AD1 = T_AD2 = 0 even when the initial T1 and T2 parameters are non-zero, so the final state can be classical. The proofs implicitly assume sin(xi) != 0, which should be made an explicit condition in both theorem statements.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section I, after Eq. (9)] There are several typos: 'we proceed' appears as 'w proceed', 'rely on' appears as 'relay on', and 'TWe' appears in the conclusions. These should be corrected.
  2. [Section II.A, Eqs. (41), (43), (47), (49)] The factor of 1/2 in the LAQC expressions for Werner, alpha, rho_v, and MEMS states is not accounted for by the definition of u(x) in Eq. (39). For example, Eq. (40) gives L = max{u(T1), u(T2), g3}, so for Werner states one expects u(z), not u(z)/2. Please clarify the intended formula and make the notation consistent.
  3. [Section III.D, Eq. (61)] The expressions for x3, y3, and T3 in Eq. (61) are complicated and are not derived; given the sign error found in the general formulas, these should also be rechecked against direct calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No structural circularity: the results are substitutions into the authors' previously derived exact LAQC formula for X states; heavy self-citation creates a minor transparency burden but no by-construction reduction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: (1) take the exact LAQC quantifier for two-qubit X states, Eq. (40), from the group's earlier published results [46,47]; (2) state the post-measurement Bloch-parameter map, Eqs. (51a-e); (3) substitute the five one-parameter families to obtain LAQC and concurrence values. No parameter is fitted and no output quantity is renamed as an input. Theorem 1 is a direct consequence of Eq. (40) together with the multiplicative relations T1_AD = T1_AB T1_CD sin xi and T2_AD = T2_AB T2_CD sin xi, but Eq. (40) is a parameter-free published formula whose assumptions do not include the swapping result, so the self-citation is independent support rather than a circular reduction. The heavy use of refs [44-47] by the same group is a self-citation burden, and the unproven status of Eqs. (51a-e), including possible sign errors, is an omitted-proof/correctness concern rather than circularity. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction, so the circularity score is minor rather than structural.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted; the one-parameter families are inputs. The main unstated assumptions are the correctness of the LAQC X-state formula and of the unproven swapped-state formulas (51).

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The closed-form LAQC quantifier L(ρX)=max{u(T1),u(T2),g3} from refs. [46,47] is correct.
    The paper uses this result as a black box without re-deriving it; the LAQC definition itself is from ref. [43].
  • domain assumption The post-measurement state of an X-state QCS protocol is again an X state with Bloch parameters given by Eqs. (51a-e).
    Asserted in Section III without proof; the formulas contain sign errors and can violate positivity, as seen for α=1, ξ=π/2.
  • domain assumption The projective measurement state |φ⟩=cos(ξ/2)|00⟩+sin(ξ/2)|11⟩, together with the unitary U=1⊗σ2, covers the relevant entangled measurement bases.
    This restricts the analysis to a one-angle family; the mapping to ψ states is stated but not proven to cover all cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Local-available quantum correlation swapping in one-parameter X states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7I7QL7V5

@misc{pith2026250723142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Local-available quantum correlation swapping in one-parameter X states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7I7QL7V5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23142}
}
read the original abstract

Although introduced for entanglement, quantum repeaters and swapping protocols have been analyzed for other quantum correlations (QC), such as quantum discord. In 2015, Mundarain and Ladr\'on de Guevara [Quantum Inf. Process. 14, 4493 (2015)] introduced local-available quantum correlations (LAQC), which are a promising yet understudied quantum correlation. Recently, Bellorin et al. [Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 36, 22500990 (2022), Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 36, 2250154 (2022)] obtained exact analytical results for the LAQC quantifier of general 2-qubit X states. Building up from those results, we analyzed the LAQC swapping for 2-qubit X states. As expected, we find that if the initial states are non-classical and the one used for the projective measurement is entangled, the final state will generally have non-zero LAQC. Using the properties of this quantum correlation, we establish the conditions for a QCS scheme that leads to a final state with a non-zero LAQC measure. We illustrate these results by analyzing five families of one-parameter 2-qubit X states, including families where the projective measure leads to a separable state, but whose LAQC measure is non-zero. This feature opens the possibility for this quantum correlation to be considered a genuine resource in quantum information technology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23142 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of quantum correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Concurrence (dashed) and LAQC (solid) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Concurrence (dashed) and LAQC (solid) for Werner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Concurrence (dashed) and LAQC (solid) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LAQC of the resulting state ρ AD w , considering ξ = π/2 (left) and z AB = z CD = Z (right). With these parameters, we can directly determine the LAQC quantifier, given by L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Concurrence of the resulting state ρ AD w , considering ξ = π/2 (left) and z AB = z CD = Z (right). 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: LAQC of the resulting state ρ AD β , considering ξ = π/2 (left) and β AB = β CD = β (right). As for the Concurrence,we have that, after some alge￾braic manipulation, C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Concurrence of the resulting state ρ AD β , considering ξ = π/2 (left) and β AB = β CD = β (right). D. One-Parameter Mixed States involving a basis element By considering ρv (21) as our initial states, with F AB and F CD characterizing each of them, the resulting ρ AD …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Concurrence of the resulting state ρ AD v , consider￾ing ξ = π/2 (left) and F AB = F CD = F (right). ρv states (21) have the same parameter, that is, when F AB = F CD = F. Unlike what we observed for the initial states, where the LAQC quantifier is always less than Co…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: LAQC of the resulting state ρ AD v , considering ξ = π/2 (left) and F AB = F CD = F (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nakahara and T

    M. Nakahara and T. Ohmi,Quantum Computing: From Linear Algebra to Physical Realizations(CRC Press, 2008), ISBN 9781420012293

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Nielsen and I

    M. Nielsen and I. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cam- bridge University Press, 2010), ISBN 9781139495486

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    S. I. Davis, R. Valivarthi, A. Cameron, C. Pena, S. Xie, L. Narvaez, N. Lauk, C. Li, K. Taylor, R. Youssef, et al., arXiv (2025), 2503.18906, URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2503.18906

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Phys. Rev. A80(2009), ISSN 1050-2947, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.80.022339. 10

    doi:10.1103/physreva.80.022339 2009

  5. [5]

    Nokkala, J

    J. Nokkala, J. Piilo, and G. Bianconi, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.57, 233001 (2024), ISSN 1751-8113, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ad41a6

    doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad41a6 2024

  6. [6]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Rev. Mod. Phys.95 (2023), ISSN 0034-6861, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/RevModPhys.95.045006

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225, URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Ollivier and W

    H. Ollivier and W. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 017901 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0105072

    arXiv 2001

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Henderson and V

    L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A34, 6899 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0105028

    2001 arXiv

  2. [10]

    K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Ve- dral, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1655 (2012), arXiv:1112.6238

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.47.777

    1935

  4. [12]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993), ISSN 0031-9007, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895

    1993

  5. [13]

    Vaidman, Phys.l Rev

    L. Vaidman, Phys.l Rev. A49, 1473 (1994), ISSN 1050- 2947, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physreva.49. 1473

    1994 doi

  6. [14]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Re- views of Modern Physics74, 145 (2002), ISSN 0034-6861, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.145

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, et al., Advances in Optics and Photonics12, 1012 (2020), ISSN 1943-8206, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1364/AOP.361502

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Cavalcanti, L

    D. Cavalcanti, L. Aolita, S. Boixo, K. Modi, M. Piani, and A. Winter, Physical Review A83(2011), ISSN 1050- 2947, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83. 032324

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    M. Gu, H. M. Chrzanowski, S. M. Assad, T. Symul, K. Modi, T. C. Ralph, V. Vedral, and P. K. Lam, Na- ture Phys.8, 671 (2012), ISSN 1745-2473, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2376

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Daki´ c, Y

    B. Daki´ c, Y. O. Lipp, X. Ma, M. Ringbauer, S. Kropatschek, S. Barz, T. Paterek, V. Vedral, A. Zeilinger, ˇC. Brukner, et al., Nature Phys.8, 666 (2012), ISSN 1745-2473, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/nphys2377

    2012

  11. [19]

    Madhok and A

    V. Madhok and A. Datta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B27, 1345041 (2012), ISSN 0217-9792, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1142/S0217979213450410

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    Datta and V

    A. Datta and V. Madhok, inQuantum Science and Tech- nology(Springer International Publishing, 2017), pp. 241–255, ISBN 9783319534107

    2017

  13. [21]

    Pirandola, Scientific Reports4(2014), ISSN 2045- 2322, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep06956

    S. Pirandola, Scientific Reports4(2014), ISSN 2045- 2322, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep06956

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Yurke and D

    B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 1251 (1992), ISSN 0031-9007, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.68.1251

    1992

  15. [23]

    Yurke and D

    B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Phys. Rev. A46, 2229 (1992), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 46.2229

    1992 doi

  16. [24]

    ˙Zukowski, A

    M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 4287 (1993), ISSN 0031-9007, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.4287

    1993 doi

  17. [25]

    Walln¨ ofer, F

    J. Walln¨ ofer, F. Hahn, F. Wiesner, N. Walk, and J. Eis- ert, PRX Quantum5(2024), ISSN 2691-3399, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.010351

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 3891 (1998), ISSN 0031-9007, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.80.3891

    1998

  19. [27]

    Jennewein, G

    T. Jennewein, G. Weihs, J.-W. Pan, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.88(2001), ISSN 0031-9007, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.017903

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    Boulant, E

    N. Boulant, E. M. Fortunato, M. A. Pravia, G. Tekle- mariam, D. G. Cory, and T. F. Havel, Phys. Rev. A 65, 024302 (2002), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.024302

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    Gl¨ ockl, S

    O. Gl¨ ockl, S. Lorenz, C. Marquardt, J. Heersink, M. Brownnutt, C. Silberhorn, Q. Pan, P. van Loock, N. Korolkova, and G. Leuchs, Phys. Rev. A68, 012319 (2003), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.68.012319

    2003

  22. [30]

    Xiao-Juan, F

    Z. Xiao-Juan, F. Mao-Fa, C. Jian-Wu, and L. Xiang- Ping, Chinese Phys.15, 492 (2006), ISSN 1009- 1963, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1009-1963/ 15/3/007

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    Riebe, T

    M. Riebe, T. Monz, K. Kim, A. S. Villar, P. Schindler, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Nat. Phys.4, 839 (2008), ISSN 1745-2473, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nphys1107

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    Schmid, N

    C. Schmid, N. Kiesel, U. K. Weber, R. Ursin, A. Zeilinger, and H. Weinfurter, New J. Phys.11, 033008 (2009), ISSN 1367-2630, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0031-8949/11/3/033008

    2009

  25. [33]

    J. M. Torres, J. Z. Bern´ ad, and G. Alber, Phys. Rev. A90, 012304 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.012304

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Z. Cai, C. Ren, T. Feng, X. Zhou, and J. Chen, Phys. Rep.1098, 1 (2025), ISSN 0370-1573, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2024.10.003

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    L. Roa, A. Mu˜ noz, and G. Gr¨ uning, Phys. Rev. A89 (2014), ISSN 1050-2947, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevA.89.064301

    2014

  28. [36]

    C. Xie, Y. Liu, H. Xing, J. Chen, and Z. Zhang, Quantum Information Processing14, 653 (2014), ISSN 1570-0755, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11128-014-0875-y

    2014

  29. [37]

    Luo, Phys

    S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A77, 022301 (2008), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.022301

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    Girolami, M

    D. Girolami, M. Paternostro, and G. Adesso, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.44, 352002 (2011), URLhttps://doi. org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/35/352002

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    S. Wu, U. Poulsen, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A80, 032319 (2009), ISSN 1094-1622, URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.032319

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    C. Xie, Y. Liu, J. Chen, and Z. Zhang, Quantum In- formation Processing18(2019), ISSN 1570-0755, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11128-019-2222-9

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Girolami, T

    D. Girolami, T. Tufarelli, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013), ISSN 0031-9007, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.240402

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    C. Xie, S. Tian, Z. Zhang, J. Yu, J. Chen, and X. Yin, Laser Physics Letters22, 075205 (2025), ISSN 1612-2011, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1612-202X/adf046

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    Mundarain and M

    D. Mundarain and M. de Guevara, Quantum Inf. Process. 14, 4493 (2015). 11

    2015

  36. [44]

    Albrecht Q., M

    H. Albrecht Q., M. Caicedo S., and D. Mundarain, Rev. Mex. F ´ ıs.64, 662 (2018), arXiv:1803.02426

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bellorin and H

    D. Bellorin and H. Albrecht Q., Rev. Mex. F ´ ıs.67, 052301 (2021), arXiv:2105.15166

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Albrecht Q., D

    H. Albrecht Q., D. Bellorin, and D. F. Mundarain, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B36, 22500990 (2022), arXiv:2107.00158., URLhttps://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10. 1142/S0217979222500990

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bellorin, H

    D. Bellorin, H. Albrecht Q., and D. F. Mundarain, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B36, 2250154 (2022), arXiv:2104.07552., URLhttps://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10. 1142/S0217979222501545

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Werner, Phys

    R. Werner, Phys. Rev. A40, 4277 (1989)

    1989

  41. [49]

    Al-Qasimi and D

    A. Al-Qasimi and D. F. V. James, Phys. Rev. A83, 032101 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.83.032101

    2011

  42. [50]

    Verstraete and H

    F. Verstraete and H. Verschelde, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 097901 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0303007

    2003 arXiv

  43. [51]

    W. J. Munro, D. F. V. James, A. G. White, and P. G. Kwiat, Physical Review A64(2001), ISSN 1050- 2947, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.64. 030302

    2001 doi

  44. [52]

    Yu and J

    T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Quantum Info. Comput.7, 459 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0503089

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Quesada, A

    N. Quesada, A. Al-Qasimi, and D. James, J. Mod. Opt. 59, 1322 (2012), arXiv:1207.3689

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    P. E. M. F. Mendon¸ ca, M. A. Marchiolli, and D. Galetti, Ann. Phys.351, 79 (2014), arXiv:1407.3021

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hedemann, Quantum Inf

    S. Hedemann, Quantum Inf. Process.17, 293 (2018), arXiv:1802.03038

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Zhou, T.-G

    C. Zhou, T.-G. Zhang, S.-M. Fei, N. Jing, and X. Li- Jost, Phys. Rev. A86, 010303 (2012), URLhttps:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.010303

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    Fano, Rev

    U. Fano, Rev. Mod. Phys.55, 855 (1983), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.55.855

    1983 doi

  50. [58]

    S. A. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.78.5022

    1997

  51. [59]

    Schwinger, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences46, 570 (1960), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.46.4.570, URLhttps://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas

    J. Schwinger, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences46, 570 (1960), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.46.4.570, URLhttps://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas. 46.4.570

    1960 doi

  52. [60]

    Bengtsson, AIP Conference Proceedings889, 40 (2007), ISSN 0094-243X, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10

    I. Bengtsson, AIP Conference Proceedings889, 40 (2007), ISSN 0094-243X, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1063/1.2713445

    2007

  53. [61]

    Durt, B.-G

    T. Durt, B.-G. Englert, I. Bengtsson, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Int. J. Quantum Inf.8, 535 (2010), ISSN 0219-7499, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219749910006502

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    Girolami and G

    D. Girolami and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. A83, 052108 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.83.052108

    2011

  55. [63]

    Huang, Phys

    Y. Huang, Phys. Rev. A88, 014302 (2013), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.014302

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    Luo, Phys

    S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A77(2008), ISSN 1050-2947, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.042303

    2008 doi

  57. [65]

    Wootters, Phys

    W. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998), arXiv:quantph/9709029

    1998

  58. [66]

    Yu and J

    T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Science323, 598 (2009), arXiv:0910.1396. 12

    2009 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.