Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Variational-toolbox-based separability detection of multiqubit states

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The structure of the optimal variational circuit reveals a state's separability.

desk verdict The pure-state graph idea is a genuinely neat observation, but the mixed-state algorithms treat a small positive Hilbert-Schmidt distance as proof of separability, and that unsound step sinks the central advertised claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04674 v2 pith:ANTLDJYI submitted 2025-06-05 quant-ph

Jin-Min Liang , Shao-Ming Fei , Qiongyi He This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords k-separabilityvariationalquantumalgorithmsparameterizedcircuitsentanglementdetectionmultiqubitstatesvirtualdistillationconvex-roofdecompositionHilbert-Schmidtdistance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the optimal parameterized quantum circuit (PQC) used to prepare a state is not just a recipe: its structure is a certificate of how entangled the state is. For pure states, the authors build two circuit pools, one with only local single-qubit gates and one with a single layer of two-qubit gates. If the target state is reproduced by the local pool it is fully separable; if it is reproduced by the two-qubit pool, the pattern of which qubit pairs are entangled, read off from reduced-state purities, determines the state's k-separability as the number of connected components of a graph. For mixed states, they propose adaptive searches over parameterized separable ensembles, stopping when the Hilbert-Schmidt distance to the target falls below a threshold. The motivation is that entanglement-structure detection is exponentially hard, and this method controls fewer parameters for low-rank states than fixed decompositions.

What carries the argument

Two PQC pools carry the argument. $P_1$ consists of local unitaries $W(\alpha)$ built from single-qubit rotations; $P_2$ consists of circuits $V_l(\alpha,\theta)W(\gamma)$ with exactly one layer of two-qubit interaction unitaries $Q(\theta)$ placed in parallel across qubit pairs. The cost function that drives the variational search is a fidelity-based expression that reaches zero when the circuit exactly produces the target pure state. Post-processing computes single-qubit reduced-state purities to decide which two-qubit gates actually created entanglement, converts that information into a graph, and reads $k$-separability from the number of connected components. For mixed states, the same circuit families are mixed classically into parameterized ensembles, and the optimization minimizes the Hilbert-Schmidt distance to the target; the adaptive rule increases the number of ensemble terms $S$ only as needed, so low-rank states are handled with fewer parameters than a fixed $4^n(1+2n)$-term decomposition.

What would settle it

Take a two-qubit state $|\psi(\varepsilon)\rangle = \sqrt{1-\varepsilon}\,|00\rangle + \sqrt{\varepsilon}\,|11\rangle$ for a tiny $\varepsilon>0$ and run Algorithm 1 with a threshold larger than the state's Hilbert-Schmidt distance to the nearest fully separable state; the algorithm declares the state fully separable even though every $\varepsilon>0$ is a non-product state with nonzero concurrence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the optimal parameterized circuit encodes the target state's entanglement structure. If the optimized unitary lies in pool $P_1$, the state is fully separable, because $P_1$ contains only local gates. If it lies in pool $P_2$, the single layer of two-qubit interaction gates is examined one pair at a time through reduced-state purities: a purity below one for a pair signals that its two-qubit gate created entanglement, and an edge is drawn in a graph; the number of connected components of this graph is the $k$ in the state's $k$-separability. The paper extends this pure-state logic to noisy preparation by using purification-based error mitigation on $m$ copies of the noisy state, and to mixed states by minimizing the Hilbert-Schmidt distance to convex ensembles built from the same circuit families, increasing the ensemble size adaptively until the distance is small.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a Hilbert-Schmidt distance below a small positive threshold between the target mixed state and some parameterized separable state is enough to conclude that the target is $k$-separable; no bound links that approximation error to the true distance from the separable set, so a state with small but real entanglement could pass the test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any pure state expressible by these pools, $k$-separability is certified from the circuit structure using at most $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ two-qubit gates, rather than inspecting all $n(n-1)/2$ pairs.
  • Preparation noise does not destroy the certificate: with $m$ copies and purification-based error mitigation, the ideal pure state's separability is recoverable from the noisy mixture.
  • Mixed-state separability can be probed adaptively with $S(1+2n)$ parameters per step, versus $4^n(1+2n)$ for the fixed decomposition, with $S=O(n^2)$ for rank $O(n)$ states.
  • The output is richer than a yes/no label: the graph identifies which specific qubits are entangled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the stopping rule is a positive threshold on Hilbert-Schmidt distance, the mixed-state algorithms as written cannot exclude false positives: a weakly entangled state within the threshold of a separable ensemble would be declared separable, and a certificate-grade version would need a quantitative bound between the two distances.
  • The pure-state method only covers states preparable by one layer of two-qubit gates, so genuine three-qubit or deeper entanglement is outside its reach; the paper itself notes that adding more entangled layers destroys the structural inference.
  • A testable extension would estimate the reduced purities and the Hilbert-Schmidt distance with randomized measurements or classical shadows, which could push the method to more qubits.
  • The graph criterion can be compared with entanglement witnesses on families of partially separable states to find where the one-layer ansatz is tight.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes variational 'toolbox' methods to detect k-separability of n-qubit states. For pure states, it constructs two PQC pools, P1 (local unitaries) and P2 (one layer of pairwise two-qubit gates), and after variational state reconstruction reads off the entanglement structure from the chosen pool and from single-qubit purities, yielding a graph whose connected components determine k-separability. For noisy pure states, it adds a purification-based error mitigation step based on powers of the noisy state. For mixed states, it introduces two adaptive algorithms that minimize the Hilbert-Schmidt distance between the target state and a convex combination of parameterized product states (Algorithm 1) or states built from P2 (Algorithm 2), declaring separability when the distance falls below a positive threshold. Numerical simulations on 3- and 4-qubit examples are presented, and the open-source code is linked.

Significance. The underlying idea is appealing: the structure of an optimized parameterized circuit can carry information about the state it prepares, and adaptively controlling the number of terms is potentially useful for low-rank states. The pure-state graph construction is correct within the restricted family of states preparable by P1/P2, and the paper is candid about this limitation. The numerical demonstrations and the linked code are helpful. However, the mixed-state decision rules are logically unsound as certificates: a positive Hilbert-Schmidt threshold cannot establish separability, since entangled states can be arbitrarily close to the separable set. Because this issue lies at the center of the two algorithms and of the abstract's general claim, the paper cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Algorithms 1 and 2 (Eqs. (18) and (23))] The decision rules conclude separability from ‖ρ−σ(Φ*)‖_HS² ≤ ε for a fixed positive ε. This is not a valid separability certificate. For example, the 4-qubit pure state |ψ_δ⟩ = √(1−δ²)|0000⟩ + δ|1100⟩ is entangled for every δ>0, yet its squared Hilbert-Schmidt distance to the fully separable state |0000⟩⟨0000| is exactly 2δ². Choosing δ < √(ε/2), Algorithm 1 (with S=1 and σ_1=|0000⟩⟨0000|) would satisfy the termination condition and output ‘fully separable’. Algorithm 2 has the same problem because its ansatz includes this product state. The paper provides no bound relating the achieved HS error to the true distance to the k-separable set, so the implication F_S(Φ*)≤ε ⇒ ρ is k-separable is false. Moreover, Step 4 of Algorithm 2 outputs the separability of the approximating state σ(Φ*), not of ρ; the convex-roof decomposition of σ does not transfer to ρ under HS proximity. This invalidates the central mixed-state claims.
  2. [Section III.A] The pure-state protocol suffers from the same threshold issue. The text states that training terminates when F(Φ)<ε and Case 1 then declares full separability if the optimal circuit lies in P1. For the weakly entangled state |ψ_δ⟩ above, the P1 circuit preparing |0000⟩ gives F = 1−√(1−δ²) ≈ δ²/2, which is below ε for small δ; the algorithm would terminate on P1 and misclassify the state as fully separable. The method is sound only in the idealized limit F(Φ*)=0. In addition, the abstract's phrasing ‘identify the k-separability of pure states’ overstates the scope, since the paper's own Remark in this section restricts the method to states preparable by P1/P2 and notes that at most ⌈n/2⌉-separable states can be produced and that three-or-more-qubit interactions are outside the method.
  3. [Section IV] The efficiency comparison rests on two unproven or incorrect statements. First, the text states ‘According to Carathéodory’s theorem, M ≤ 4n’ and sets M=4n for the fixed parametrization; for an n-qubit density matrix the Carathéodory bound is on the order of 4^n, not 4n. If this is a typographical error, all occurrences should be corrected; if taken literally, the bound is false. Second, the assertion that for rank R(ρ)=Ω(n) ‘M=O(n²) suffices to learn the state’ is not proved or referenced. The paper needs a precise decomposition theorem for separable low-rank states, or a citation to one, before claiming that the adaptive method controls fewer parameters than the fixed parametrization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A11)] Equation (A11) is algebraically inconsistent with the examples in the same appendix: for n=4 it gives L=5, while the text correctly gives L=3, and for n=8 it gives L=11, while the text gives L=9. The displayed formula L = 3n/2 − 1 should be corrected; the number of layers needed to cover all edges of K_n by disjoint pairs is n−1 for even n and n for odd n, and the construction should be checked accordingly.
  2. [Section V, Figure 3(d)] The caption and surrounding text say that the purity of the reduced state obtained by tracing out the second and third qubits shows that ‘the qubit pair (1,2) is entangled’. Tracing out qubits 2 and 3 leaves the reduced state of qubit 1, whose purity certifies that qubit 1 is entangled with the rest of the system; the identification of the specific partner qubit comes from the circuit structure (the active Q_{1,2} gate), not from the purity measurement alone. This distinction should be explained explicitly.
  3. [Section IV, Algorithm 2] In Step 3, the text says the algorithm terminates ‘and output a convex-roof decomposition of ρ’, but Eq. (24) defines a decomposition of the approximating state σ(Φ*), not of the target ρ. The wording should be corrected to avoid implying that ρ itself has been decomposed.
  4. [General] The numerical section reports final cost values below thresholds but does not give details on optimization runs, such as initialization, number of restarts, or how the reported minima were certified. Such details would be useful for reproducibility and for assessing whether the claimed minima are genuine.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the variational method reads separability off circuit structure rather than reducing to fitted values.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. For pure states, the separability conclusion is a direct structural consequence of the PQC pools: P1 consists of local unitaries (so any exactly reproduced state is fully separable), and P2 has a single layer of two-qubit gates whose entangling pattern is read from reduced-state purities. These are valid witnesses, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The mixed-state algorithms minimize the Hilbert-Schmidt distance to a parameterized separable or k-separable ansatz; the final label is the structure of the ansatz, not a quantity computed from the fitted parameters. The paper explicitly acknowledges its scope limitation (states preparable by the defined pools) in Sec. III A and Appendix A, which is a limitation rather than circularity. The positive-threshold decision rules in Eq. (18) and (23) are mathematically unsound because approximate distance does not imply exact separability, but this is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. No load-bearing self-citation, ansatz smuggling, or imported uniqueness theorem is present; the paper compares with external works [34,60] rather than relying on its own prior results. Hence the central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on two unproven foundations: the restricted ansatz expressibility (pure and mixed states) and the approximate-match-as-certificate logic (mixed states). The efficiency claim for low-rank states depends on an unproved scaling bound. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • threshold epsilon = 1e-4 in numerics
    Used in Algorithms 1 and 2 to decide separability; the choice is arbitrary and no error bound links it to the true separability distance.
  • max term number S_max = n^2
    Adaptive algorithms stop when S reaches n^2; set by hand with no guarantee that a separable decomposition exists within this budget.
  • noise copy number m = <= 5 in demonstration
    Number of noisy copies used to approximate the ideal pure state via power iteration; chosen heuristically.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The target pure states under study are exactly preparable by the PQC pools P1 and P2 (single layer of two-qubit gates).
    Invoked in Sec III A remarks; the method fails to detect separability for states with three-or-more-qubit interactions, so the claim only applies inside this family.
  • ad hoc to paper A decomposition with S = O(n^2) terms suffices to approximate any low-rank separable state with rank R(rho) = Omega(n).
    Stated in Sec IV without proof or reference; the Caratheodory bound gives up to 4^n terms in general.
  • domain assumption The variational optimization reaches a global minimum of the non-convex cost functions F_S and F_hat_S.
    Algorithms rely on successful optimization; local minima would cause false negatives.
  • domain assumption For preparation noise, the dominant eigenvector of the noisy state is the ideal pure state, so m-th power iteration recovers it.
    True for global depolarizing noise, shown in Sec III B; not established for general noise channels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational-toolbox-based separability detection of multiqubit states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANTLDJYI

@misc{pith2026250604674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational-toolbox-based separability detection of multiqubit states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANTLDJYI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04674}
}
abstract

Parametrized quantum circuits (PQCs) are crucial in variational quantum algorithms. While it is commonly believed that the optimal PQC is solely used to reproduce the target state, we here reveal that the optimal PQC can also provide valuable insights into the state's properties. We propose variational toolboxes to identify the $k$-separability of pure states, with or without preparation noise, by checking the structure within the optimal PQCs. Additionally, we introduce adaptive optimization strategies to detect the $k$-separability of mixed states. Compared to fixed PQCs, our approach controls fewer parameters for low-rank states. Finally, we validate our methods through numerical demonstrations for various states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04674 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A 4-qubit example. (a) The circuit for calculating the purity tr(ϱ 2 1). (b) The circuit for calculating the purity tr(ϱ 2 3). After examining all the two-qubit interaction unitaries, we construct a graph G = (V, E) with n vertices V = {1, 2, · · · , n} representing individual qubits, and edges E = {Eij} for different (i, j), where Eij denotes that the vertices (qubit pair) (i, j) are connected. Based on the graph, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of (a) algorithm 1 and (b) algorithm 2. Note that we set a threshold for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (c) shows the optimization process of the state ϱ3(0.7) by setting S = 1, 2, 3 in Algorithm 2. When S = 3, the minimal value of the cost function Fˆ 3 is lower than a threshold 10−4 . Note that there are three PQC in P2, in which V1(α, θ) = W(α) [Q1,2(θi) ⊗ 12] , V2(α, θ) = W(α) [12 ⊗ Q2,3(θi)] , V3(α, θ) = W(α) [12 ⊗ Q1,3(θi)] . (26) Hence, the state ϱ3(0.7) is either a 2-separable or a 3- separable state. Denote t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows examples for 4- and 10-qubit systems. The first two unitaries V1 and V2 follow the definition of Eqs.(5) and (6) such as V1(α, θ)=W(α) " nO−1 i=1 Qi,i+1(θi) # , (A12) V2(α, θ)=W(α)  Q1,n(θ1) ⊗   nO−2 j=2 Qj,j+1(θj )     , (A13) where i runs over odd numbe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (24) Step 4

    is lower than the threshold ϵ, we terminate the loop and output a convex- roof decomposition of ϱ, σ(Φ∗) = X m q∗ mσ∗ m. (24) Step 4. Use the postprocessing step in Sec. III A to detect the separability of each pure state σ∗ m in Eq.(24). Suppose σ∗ m is km-separable. Then ϱ is k-separable, where k = minm km. Here, all PQCs in P2 are used to generate a pa...

    work page

  2. [2]

    To detect the entangle- ment of the state |Bell⊗5⟩ from the noisy mixed state ϱg(q), we use m copies of ϱg(q) and learn the state ϱm noise tr[ϱm noise] by the cost function (14)

    It is clear that the source state |Bell⊗5⟩⟨Bell⊗5| is 5-separable state. To detect the entangle- ment of the state |Bell⊗5⟩ from the noisy mixed state ϱg(q), we use m copies of ϱg(q) and learn the state ϱm noise tr[ϱm noise] by the cost function (14). Figure 3(a) shows the infidelity f (q) = 1 − ⟨Bell⊗5|ϱm g (q)|Bell⊗5⟩ tr[ϱmg (q)] , (16) as a function of...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Hu, C.-X

    X.-M. Hu, C.-X. Huang, Y .-B. Sheng, L. Zhou, B.-H. Liu, Y . Guo, C. Zhang, W.-B. Xing, Y .-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, et al. , Long-distance entanglement purification for quantum commu- nication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 010503 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Bulla, M

    L. Bulla, M. Pivoluska, K. Hjorth, O. Kohout, J. Lang, S. Ecker, S. P. Neumann, J. Bittermann, R. Kindler, M. Huber, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Nonlocal temporal interferometry for highly resilient free-space quantum communication, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Pompili, S

    M. Pompili, S. L. N. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. C. Beukers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. L. Vermeulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. dos Santos Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, and R. Hanson, Realization of a multinode quantum network of re- mote solid-state qubits, Science 372, 259 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Colombo, E

    S. Colombo, E. Pedrozo-Peñafiel, A. F. Adiyatullin, Z. Li, E. Mendez, C. Shu, and V . Vuleti´c, Time-reversal-based quan- tum metrology with many-body entangled states, Nat. Phys.18, 925 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Long, W.-T

    X. Long, W.-T. He, N.-N. Zhang, K. Tang, Z. Lin, H. Liu, X. Nie, G. Feng, J. Li, T. Xin, Q. Ai, and D. Lu, Entanglement- enhanced quantum metrology in colored noise by quantum zeno effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 070502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Phys. Rep.474, 1 (2009)

    2009

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Shahandeh, J

    F. Shahandeh, J. Sperling, and W. V ogel, Structural quantifica- tion of entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 260502 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    H. Lu, Q. Zhao, Z.-D. Li, X.-F. Yin, X. Yuan, J.-C. Hung, L.- K. Chen, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Z. Peng, Y .-C. Liang, X. Ma, Y .-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Entanglement structure: Entangle- ment partitioning in multipartite systems and its experimental detection using optimizable wi...

    2018

  3. [11]

    A. S. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Entanglement and extreme spin squeezing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4431 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Horodecki, Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition, Phys

    P. Horodecki, Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition, Phys. Lett. A232, 333 (1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    Chen and L.-A

    K. Chen and L.-A. Wu, A matrix realignment method for rec- ognizing entanglement, Quantum Inf. Comput. 3, 193 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Rudolph, Some properties of the computable cross-norm cri- terion for separability, Phys

    O. Rudolph, Some properties of the computable cross-norm cri- terion for separability, Phys. Rev. A67, 032312 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separability of mixed quantum states: linear contractions and permutation criteria, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 13, 103 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Z. Liu, Y . Tang, H. Dai, P. Liu, S. Chen, and X. Ma, Detecting entanglement in quantum many-body systems via permutation moments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 260501 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Girardin, N

    A. Girardin, N. Brunner, and T. Kriváchy, Building separable approximations for quantum states via neural networks, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023238 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Z. Chen, X. Lin, and Z. Wei, Certifying unknown genuine mul- tipartite entanglement by neural networks, Quantum Sci. Tech- nol. 8, 035029 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Cramer, M

    M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y .-K. Liu, Efficient quantum state tomography, Nat. Commun. 1, 149 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Elben, R

    A. Elben, R. Kueng, H.-Y . R. Huang, R. van Bijnen, C. Kokail, M. Dalmonte, P. Calabrese, B. Kraus, J. Preskill, P. Zoller, and B. Vermersch, Mixed-state entanglement from local random- ized measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 200501 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Neven, J

    A. Neven, J. Carrasco, V . Vitale, C. Kokail, A. Elben, M. Dal- monte, P. Calabrese, P. Zoller, B. Vermersch, R. Kueng, and B. Kraus, Symmetry-resolved entanglement detection using partial transpose moments, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 152 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    X.-D. Yu, S. Imai, and O. Gühne, Optimal entanglement certi- fication from moments of the partial transpose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 060504 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Ketterer, S

    A. Ketterer, S. Imai, N. Wyderka, and O. Gühne, Statistically significant tests of multiparticle quantum correlations based on randomized measurements, Phys. Rev. A106, L010402 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Cie ´sli´nski, S

    P. Cie ´sli´nski, S. Imai, J. Dziewior, O. Gühne, L. Knips, W. Laskowski, J. Meinecke, T. Paterek, and T. Vértesi, Analysing quantum systems with randomised measurements, Phys. Rep. 1095, 1 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin- Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. S. Kottmann, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Meta-variational quantum eigensolver: Learning energy pro- files of parameterized hamiltonians for quantum simulation, PRX Quantum 2, 020329 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    H. Chen, L. Wossnig, S. Severini, H. Neven, and M. Mohseni, Universal discriminative quantum neural networks, Quantum Mach. Intell. 3, 1 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Bravo-Prieto, D

    C. Bravo-Prieto, D. García-Martín, and J. I. Latorre, Quantum singular value decomposer, Phys. Rev. A101, 062310 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    J. L. Beckey, N. Gigena, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Com- putable and operationally meaningful multipartite entangle- ment measures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 140501 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Muñoz Moller, L

    A. Muñoz Moller, L. Pereira, L. Zambrano, J. Cortés-Vega, and A. Delgado, Variational determination of multiqubit geometri- cal entanglement in noisy intermediate-scale quantum comput- ers, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 024048 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    K. Wang, Z. Song, X. Zhao, Z. Wang, and X. Wang, Detecting and quantifying entanglement on near-term quantum devices, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 52 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    R. Chen, B. Zhao, and X. Wang, Near-term efficient quantum algorithms for entanglement analysis, Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 024071 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Liu, Y .-D

    X.-Q. Liu, Y .-D. Qu, J. Wang, M. Li, and S.-Q. Shen, Solving the fully entangled fraction on near-term quantum devices, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 62, 69 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Consiglio, T

    M. Consiglio, T. J. G. Apollaro, and M. Wie ´sniak, Variational approach to the quantum separability problem, Phys. Rev. A 106, 062413 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Philip, S

    A. Philip, S. Rethinasamy, V . Russo, and M. M. Wilde, Schrödinger as a quantum programmer: Estimating entangle- ment via steering, Quantum 8, 1366 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y . Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many prop- erties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Nagata, M

    K. Nagata, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Configuration of separa- bility and tests for multipartite entanglement in bell-type exper- iments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 260401 (2002). 9

    2002

  32. [40]

    Dür and J

    W. Dür and J. I. Cirac, Classification of multiqubit mixed states: Separability and distillability properties, Phys. Rev. A 61, 042314 (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Seevinck and J

    M. Seevinck and J. Uffink, Partial separability and entangle- ment criteria for multiqubit quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 78, 032101 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Gessner, L

    M. Gessner, L. Pezzè, and A. Smerzi, Sensitivity bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 130503 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Z. Ren, W. Li, A. Smerzi, and M. Gessner, Metrological detec- tion of multipartite entanglement from young diagrams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 080502 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    W. J. Huggins, S. McArdle, T. E. O’Brien, J. Lee, N. C. Rubin, S. Boixo, K. B. Whaley, R. Babbush, and J. R. McClean, Vir- tual distillation for quantum error mitigation, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041036 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Koczor, Exponential error suppression for near-term quan- tum devices, Phys

    B. Koczor, Exponential error suppression for near-term quan- tum devices, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031057 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Kraus and J

    B. Kraus and J. I. Cirac, Optimal creation of entanglement using a two-qubit gate, Phys. Rev. A 63, 062309 (2001)

    2001

  39. [47]

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

    2010

  40. [48]

    A. K. Ekert, C. M. Alves, D. K. L. Oi, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and L. C. Kwek, Direct estimations of linear and nonlinear functionals of a quantum state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 217901 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    Y . Quek, E. Kaur, and M. M. Wilde, Multivariate trace estima- tion in constant quantum depth, Quantum 8, 1220 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded ran- dom variables, The collected works of Wassily Hoeffding , 409 (1994)

    W. Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded ran- dom variables, The collected works of Wassily Hoeffding , 409 (1994)

    1994

  43. [51]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Quantum fingerprinting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167902 (2001)

    2001

  44. [52]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets, nature 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    H. L. Tang, V . Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ansätze on a quantum processor, PRX Quantum 2, 020310 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Hybrid quantum- classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 032001 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y . Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitiga- tion, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    K. C. Tan and T. V olkoff, Variational quantum algorithms to es- timate rank, quantum entropies, fidelity, and fisher information via purity minimization, Phys. Rev. Research3, 033251 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Zhou and Z

    Y . Zhou and Z. Liu, A hybrid framework for estimating non- linear functions of quantum states, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 62 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix computations (JHU press, Baltimore, 2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  52. [60]

    Uhlmann, Roofs and convexity, Entropy 12, 1799 (2010)

    A. Uhlmann, Roofs and convexity, Entropy 12, 1799 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    Vedral and M

    V . Vedral and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement measures and purifi- cation procedures, Phys. Rev. A 57, 1619 (1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    Ezzell, E

    N. Ezzell, E. M. Ball, A. U. Siddiqui, M. M. Wilde, A. T. Sorn- borger, P. J. Coles, and Z. Holmes, Quantum mixed state com- piling, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 035001 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Gühne and M

    O. Gühne and M. Seevinck, Separability criteria for genuine multiparticle entanglement, New J. Phys. 12, 053002 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. V olkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nat. Commun. 12, 1791 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    X.-F. Yin, Y . Du, Y .-Y . Fei, R. Zhang, L.-Z. Liu, Y . Mao, T. Liu, M.-H. Hsieh, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, D. Tao, Y .-A. Chen, and J.- W. Pan, Efficient bipartite entanglement detection scheme with a quantum adversarial solver, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 110501 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    https://github.com/jmliang24/Variational-toolbox-based- separability-detection-of-multiqubit-states.git

  60. [68]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Geometric the- ory of nonlocal two-qubit operations, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042313 (2003)

    2003

  61. [69]

    V . V . Shende, I. L. Markov, and S. S. Bullock, Minimal uni- versal two-qubit controlled-not-based circuits, Phys. Rev. A69, 062321 (2004)

    2004

  62. [70]

    Vatan and C

    F. Vatan and C. Williams, Optimal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032315 (2004)

    2004

Pith tools

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