Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Resources of the advantage in quantum illumination: Discord and entanglement

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In quantum illumination with two-qubit mixed probes, the achievable advantage is set by an interplay: initial discord is a necessary resource and initial entanglement a sufficient one, with the advantage exactly equal to the discord consume

desk verdict A focused numerical study with a plausible resource classification, but the central monotonicity claims rest on 1/80-mesh heat maps without error analysis, and the abstract promises a multi-measure robustness check that the paper does not contain. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.09468 v2 pith:DLLVVC3K submitted 2026-02-10 quant-ph

Mojtaba Asadollahi , Mohammad Hossein Zarei This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P45 PACS 03.67.Mn
keywords quantumilluminationdiscordentanglementofformationmaximallymixedmarginalstatesencodingadvantageHolevoinformationhigh-noiseregime
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 sets out to determine which quantum correlation actually powers the advantage in quantum illumination when the probe is a maximally mixed marginal (MMM) two-qubit state. It first shows that the quantum advantage equals the 'discord of encoding' — the discord consumed to encode the presence of the object — and then asks how initial discord and initial entanglement each constrain that advantage. By grouping states that share the same discord and advantage and examining the distribution of entanglement within each group, and by doing the symmetric exercise with entanglement and discord swapped, the authors conclude that higher entanglement is sufficient but not necessary for higher advantage, while higher discord is necessary but not always sufficient. In the high-noise regime the advantage becomes a linear function of initial discord, which they read as evidence that discord is the resource that survives noise.

What carries the argument

The central object is the family of maximally mixed marginal (MMM) two-qubit states, ρ = (1 + Σ c_i σ_i⊗σ_i)/4, with |c_i|≤1. Two identities carry the argument: (i) for these states the state conditioned on target presence and the noise state commute, so the accessible information saturates the Holevo bound and the quantum advantage can be computed as a difference of Holevo informations; and (ii) the resulting advantage equals the discord of encoding, δ_enc = p0 δ(ρ0) − δ(ρ̄). The conditional extremal analysis is the method that converts these identities into resource statements: states are clustered by equal (advantage, discord) or (advantage, entanglement), and the max/min of the other cor

What would settle it

Compute the same conditional extrema on a finer mesh (or analytically) and find either a pair of MMM states with equal initial discord where the state with lower advantage has greater maximum entanglement than a higher-advantage state, or a pair with equal initial entanglement where a higher-advantage state has lower minimum discord than a lower-advantage state. Any such pair would falsify the sufficient/necessary claims. The natural test regions are the separable/entangled boundary near δ_in ≈ 0.33 and the α/Werner crossover where the upper/lower bounds switch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For MMM states — two-qubit states whose reduced states are completely mixed, described by a correlation vector (c1,c2,c3) — the quantum advantage A in illumination is exactly the discord of encoding δ_enc. A conditional extremal analysis then shows that, among states with a fixed initial discord, the maximum initial entanglement in a cluster sharing the same advantage increases monotonically with A, while the minimum entanglement does not; hence entanglement is sufficient but not necessary for higher advantage. Conversely, for fixed initial entanglement, the minimum initial discord in each advantage-cluster increases monotonically with A, while the maximum discord increases only in the low-a

Load-bearing premise

The classification rests on the assumption that the monotonic trends seen in the 1/80-mesh heat maps of conditional extrema — maximum entanglement for fixed discord, minimum discord for fixed entanglement — are the true trends of the continuous state space; no analytic proof or error analysis is given for these monotonicities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every MMM state the quantum advantage equals the discord of encoding, so the advantage can be computed from the discord formula without a full POVM optimization.
  • Among states with fixed initial discord, the maximum entanglement at a given advantage rises monotonically with advantage while the minimum entanglement does not — entanglement is a sufficient resource, not a necessary one.
  • Among states with fixed initial entanglement, the minimum discord at a given advantage rises monotonically with advantage while the maximum discord rises only in the low-advantage regime — discord is necessary but not always sufficient.
  • In the high-noise limit the advantage becomes linear in initial discord, A = p0 η² (1−p0) δ_in, so discord persists as the resource when noise pushes the probe toward the completely mixed state.
  • The same necessary/sufficient pattern is reported for relative entropy of entanglement, Bures measure of entanglement, and geometric discord, indicating the result is not tied to one particular quantifier.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The monotonicity claims are read off 1/80-mesh heat maps without convergence or error analysis; an analytic proof, or a finer-mesh check near the separable/entangled boundary (the horn at δ_in ≈ 0.33) and the α/Werner crossover, would convert the sufficient/necessary classification from a numerical inference into a theorem.
  • The linear high-noise relation suggests a direct experimental probe: with near-maximally-mixed probes, measuring the advantage at two reflectivities η would extract the slope p0 η² (1−p0) and test whether discord, not entanglement, is the noise-resilient resource in practice.
  • The conditional-extremal clustering could be applied to other families of two-qubit states or to other correlation measures; if the asymmetry (entanglement sufficient, discord necessary) persists outside MMM states, it would be a generic feature of discrete-variable quantum illumination.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantum illumination with two-qubit maximally mixed marginal (MMM) states as the initial probe resource. It claims that the quantum advantage (QA) equals the discord of encoding (δ_enc), and then performs a conditional extremal analysis on the set of MMM states to determine how initial entanglement and initial discord relate to the advantage. The central conclusions are that (i) for fixed initial discord, the maximum initial entanglement in the cluster increases with advantage, so higher entanglement is sufficient but not necessary for higher advantage; (ii) for fixed initial entanglement, the minimum initial discord in the cluster increases with advantage, so higher discord is necessary but not always sufficient; and (iii) in the high-noise regime, QA is linearly proportional to initial discord with coefficient p_0 η²(1−p_0). The paper also claims in the abstract that the analysis is repeated with relative entropy of entanglement, Bures measure, and geometric discord, but this is not carried out in the body.

Significance. If the conclusions are correct, the paper provides a refined, operational characterization of when entanglement and discord contribute to the quantum-illumination advantage, going beyond the known QA=δ_enc theorem. The conditional extremal approach is a sensible way to address the broadened advantage-correlation relations. However, the significance is heavily undermined by a likely error in the printed discord formula, by the absence of the promised other-measure analyses, and by the reliance on finite mesh heat maps without convergence or error estimates. These issues prevent the reader from trusting the central necessary/sufficient claims as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (13)] The printed Bell-diagonal discord formula, δ = 2 + Σλ_k log₂λ_k − C(ρ), is incorrect. For Bell-diagonal states the standard formula is δ = 1 + Σλ_k log₂λ_k − C(ρ), where C(ρ) is defined as in Eq. (14). With the printed constant 2, the completely mixed state (c_i=0) has δ=1, whereas its true discord is 0; for a Bell state the printed formula gives δ=2 instead of 1. Appendix A, however, expands to δ ≈ (c₂²+c₃²)/(2 ln 2), which is consistent with the correct constant (1), not with the printed 2. Since no code or data is provided, it is impossible to determine which formula generated Figs. 3–7. If the printed Eq. (13) was used, then δ_enc = p₀δ(ρ⁰)−δ(ρ̄) carries an extra (p₀−1) offset; for the typical p₀=1/2 the claimed equality QA=δ_enc in Fig. 4(b) cannot hold. This issue is load-bearing for the resource classification in Sec. IV and must be resolved.
  2. [Abstract versus body] The abstract states: 'We also repeat our analysis with other measures of quantum correlation. In particular, we show that relative entropy of entanglement, Bures measure of entanglement and geometric discord lead to the same conclusion...' The full manuscript contains no such analysis; these measures are not defined, computed, or even mentioned after the abstract. This is a significant discrepancy between the claimed scope and the actual content, and it misrepresents the paper's contributions.
  3. [Sec. IV, Figs. 5–7] The central necessary/sufficient conclusions are read off finite heat maps with mesh precision 1/80. The claims that E_max(δ_in, A) increases with A for fixed δ_in and that δ_min(E_in, A) increases with A for fixed E_in are inferred from grid extrema. No convergence analysis, error bars, or analytic proof is provided. The grid may miss the true continuous extrema, especially near the separable/entangled transition (the δ_in≈0.33 horn), the α/Werner crossover, and the entangled-state boundary. Without either an analytic proof or a convergence study, the classification 'higher entanglement sufficient, higher discord necessary' is not established.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (16)–(19)] The quantum advantage QA is defined as the difference of Holevo informations, but the explicit expression for QA for general MMM states is never derived or displayed. The text says 'it is a simple task' and plots Fig. 4(a). Since the equality QA=δ_enc and all subsequent extremal analysis depend on the values of QA, the reader cannot verify the calculations. The paper relies on the prior theorem of [33] for the qualitative equality, but the numerical heat maps require the actual formula. Provide the explicit expression for QA (or at least for χ_q and χ_c) in terms of c_i, η, and p₀.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are many typographical errors, e.g., 'quantum advanatge' (Sec. V), 'preicisely' (Sec. IV), 'refelecivity' (Fig. 7 inset), and inconsistent notation (ε vs. η in Eq. (2)). The manuscript needs careful proofreading.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (2)] Eq. (2) uses η for reflectivity, but the text near it uses ε. Please standardize the notation.
  3. [Fig. 4(b)] The equality QA=δ_enc is shown as a scatter plot without numeric verification or fitting. A quantitative statement (e.g., maximum deviation) would strengthen the claim.
  4. [Appendix A] The expansion is performed only for the case max(|c_i|)=|c_1|, and single-axis paths (e.g., c₂=c₃=0) are excluded. This is stated, but the resulting limit in Eq. (24) is then presented as the generic high-noise behavior. Please clarify the domain of validity and whether the single-axis exception affects the conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: QA, discord, and entanglement are computed from independent formulas; the QA=δ_enc equality is an external theorem, and extremal claims are numerical observations, not definitions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The quantum advantage QA is computed via Holevo information (Eqs. 16-19), while initial discord, entanglement of formation, and discord of encoding are computed from independent standard formulas (Eqs. 10-15, 20); no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The equality QA=δ_enc is explicitly imported from the external theorem in Ref. [33] (cited as 'consistent with the general theorem proved in [33]'), not defined into existence, and the present authors are not the authors of [33]. The conditional-extremal conclusions (Sec. IV, Figs. 5-7) are read off the computed heat maps and are not consequences of how the measures were defined. The only numerical limitation is explicitly flagged in the text ('Precision of the mesh is 1/80', Sec. IV), which is a robustness/error-analysis concern and does not constitute circular reasoning. No self-citation chain is load-bearing, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the present authors, and no known result is merely renamed. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything central is built on previously published formulas (Wootters, Maziero et al., Weedbrook et al.); the only new mathematics is the expansion in Appendix A and the numerical grid analysis. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • prior probability p0 = 1/2 (used in plots; high-noise slope p0(1-p0) depends on it)
    The main heat maps and the high-noise linear coefficient assume a symmetric prior; resource conclusions are not shown to be independent of p0.
  • reflectivity η = 0.5 for main diagrams
    Most conditional-extremal plots use η=0.5; the text notes the Werner/α transition point depends on η, so the claimed monotonicity may depend on this choice.
  • mesh precision = 1/80
    The conditional extremal analysis samples the MMM parameter space on a grid with precision 1/80; no convergence or error study is supplied.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Wootters concurrence and entanglement-of-formation formula (Eqs. 10-12)
    Used to compute initial entanglement for MMM states; taken from prior literature.
  • standard math Analytical quantum-discord formula for Bell-diagonal/MMM states (Eqs. 13-15, from [38])
    Underlies all discord and discord-of-encoding calculations.
  • standard math Accessible information equals Holevo information when ρ⁰ and ρ¹ commute (Fuchs-Caves)
    Used to justify computing QA via Holevo information in Sec. IV.
  • domain assumption During the illumination channel an MMM correlation vector simply scales by η (Eq. 22)
    Models the target reflection and noise; assumed without derivation in the paper.
  • domain assumption Quantum advantage equals discord of encoding, QA=δ_enc, taken from [33]
    The paper confirms this identity numerically for MMM states but does not prove it; it is a prior theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper High-noise Taylor expansion assumes generic paths with max|c_i|=|c1| and excludes single-axis paths where the ratio is 0/0
    Appendix A expands only for the case max(|c1|,|c2|,|c3|)=|c1|, and the paper acknowledges exceptional single-axis paths are indeterminate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resources of the advantage in quantum illumination: Discord and entanglement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLLVVC3K

@misc{pith2026260209468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resources of the advantage in quantum illumination: Discord and entanglement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLLVVC3K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.09468}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate how the quantum advantage in quantum illumination is determined by an interplay between entanglement and discord of the probe state. In particular, we consider a setup in which the probe is a maximally mixed marginal (MMM) state and the environmental state is completely mixed where the quantum advantage equals the amount of discord consumed for illumination. We perform a conditional extremal analysis to consider the relation between the advantage and entanglement of formation and the standard measure of quantum discord in the probe state. We demonstrate that for states with fixed initial discord, the maximum (and not minimum) entanglement increases by increment of the advantage. On the other hand, for states with identical initial entanglement, we show that the minimum (and not always maximum) discord scales monotonically with advantage. These results imply that higher discord and higher entanglement in MMM states are necessary and sufficient resources for higher advantage, respectively. We also repeat our analysis with other measures of quantum correlation. In particular, we show that relative entropy of entanglement, Bures measure of entanglement and geometric discord lead to the same conclusion about the role of entanglement and discord for quantum illumination. The consistency of our results across multiple conceptually distinct measures indicates that the observed resource-advantage relation is not an artifact of a specific quantifier, but a robust feature of the protocol within the family of MMM states. We finally find a persistent linear dependence of the advantage on initial discord in the high-noise regime of the probe device, highlighting discord as the key resource for resilience to noise in the protocol.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.09468 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Probability of a correct guess, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mutual information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. a) Entanglement of formation for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. a) Quantum advantage for MMM-states for dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (b) are related to Werner states. We should also emphasize that we have plotted the diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [33]

    Madhok and A

    V. Madhok and A. Datta, Quantum discord as a resource in quantum communication, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B27, 1345041 (2013)

    2013

  2. [1]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource the- ories, Reviews of modern physics91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  3. [2]

    +O(c 4 i ).(23) In this regard, we can simply find the desired limit in the following form: lim (c1,c2,c3)→0 p0δ(0) − ¯δ δin =p 0η2(1−p 0),(24) It shows that quantum advantage is a linear function of the initial discord in high-noise regime and in the following form: δenc =p 0η2(1−p 0)δin.(25) This linear behavior reveals the role of quantum dis- cord as ...

  4. [3]

    +O(c 4 i ), ¯δ= p2 0η2 2 ln 2(c2 2 +c 2

  5. [4]

    +O(x 4),(A17) where the cubic terms iny k also cancel. For expanding the classical-correlation − 1− |x1| 2 log2(1− |x1|)− 1 +|x 1| 2 log2(1 +|x 1|), (A18) we have again: log2(1± |x1|) =± |x1| ln 2 − x2 1 2 ln 2 +O(x 3).(A19) Linear terms cancel again and quadratic term sur- vives: log2(1± |x1|) =− 1 2 ln 2x2 1 +O(x 4).(A20) So Eq. (A18) becomes − 1 2 (− 1...

  6. [5]

    +O(c 4 i ),(A22) and ¯δ= p2 0η2 2 ln 2(c2 2 +c 2

  7. [6]

    +O(c 4 i ).(A23) and also δin = 1 2 ln 2(c2 2 +c 2

  8. [7]

    +O(c 4 i ).(A24) Finally, we have: lim (c1,c2,c3)→0 p0δ(0) − ¯δ δin =p 0η2(1−p 0).(A25) 12

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    F. F. Fanchini, D. d. O. S. Pinto, and G. Adesso, Lectures on general quantum correlations and their applications(Springer, 2017)

    2017

  2. [9]

    Adesso, T

    G. Adesso, T. R. Bromley, and M. Cianciaruso, Measures and applications of quantum correlations, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.49, 473001 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    Anshu, M.-H

    A. Anshu, M.-H. Hsieh, and R. Jain, Quantifying resources in general resource theory with catalysts, Physical review letters121, 190504 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Vedral, Classical correlations and entanglement in quantum measurements, Phys

    V. Vedral, Classical correlations and entanglement in quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 050401 (2003)

    2003

  5. [12]

    Vedral, M

    V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, Quantifying entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997)

    1997

  6. [13]

    Horodecki, Entanglement measures, Quantum Inf

    M. Horodecki, Entanglement measures, Quantum Inf. Comput.1, 3 (2001)

    2001

  7. [14]

    Henderson and V

    L. Henderson and V. Vedral, Classical, quantum and total correlations, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.34, 6899 (2001)

    2001

  8. [15]

    Ollivier and W

    H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Quantum discord: a measure of the quantumness of correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 017901 (2001)

    2001

  9. [16]

    K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Vedral, The classical-quantum boundary for cor- relations: quantum discord and related measures, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1655 (2012)

    2012

  10. [17]

    A. A. Qasimi and D. F. James, Comparison of the attempts of quantum discord and quantum en- tanglement to capture quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. A83, 032101 (2011)

    2011

  11. [18]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quan- tum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  12. [19]

    Ekert and R

    A. Ekert and R. Jozsa, Quantum algorithms: entanglement–enhanced information processing, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A356, 1769 (1998)

    1998

  13. [20]

    Steane, Quantum computing, Rep

    A. Steane, Quantum computing, Rep. Prog. Phys. 61, 117 (1998)

    1998

  14. [21]

    Jozsa and N

    R. Jozsa and N. Linden, On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathemat- ical, Physical and Engineering Sciences459, 2011 (2003)

    2011

  15. [22]

    J.-W. Pan, C. Simon, ˇC. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, Entanglement purification for quantum communica- tion, Nature410, 1067 (2001)

    2001

  16. [23]

    Pirandola, J

    S. Pirandola, J. Eisert, C. Weedbrook, A. Furusawa, and S. L. Braunstein, Advances in quantum telepor- tation, Nat. Photonics9, 641 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    J. F. Sherson, H. Krauter, R. K. Olsson, B. Juls- gaard, K. Hammerer, I. Cirac, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum teleportation between light and matter, Nature443, 557 (2006)

    2006

  18. [25]

    Vaidman, Teleportation of quantum states, Phys

    L. Vaidman, Teleportation of quantum states, Phys. Rev. A49, 1473 (1994)

    1994

  19. [26]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an un- known quantum state via dual classical and einstein- podolsky-rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

    1993

  20. [27]

    Jennewein, C

    T. Jennewein, C. Simon, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Quantum cryptography with en- tangled photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 4729 (2000)

    2000

  21. [28]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and A. K. Ekert, Quan- tum cryptography, Sci. Am.267, 50 (1992)

    1992

  22. [29]

    Tittel, J

    W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Quantum cryptography using entangled photons in energy-time bell states, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 4737 (2000)

    2000

  23. [30]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, En- tanglement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  24. [31]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computa- tion and quantum information(Cambridge univer- sity press, 2010)

    2010

  25. [32]

    Datta, A

    A. Datta, A. Shaji, and C. M. Caves, Quantum dis- cord and the power of one qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 050502 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Pirandola, Quantum discord as a resource for quantum cryptography, Sci

    S. Pirandola, Quantum discord as a resource for quantum cryptography, Sci. Rep.4, 6956 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Brodutch, Discord and quantum computational resources, Phys

    A. Brodutch, Discord and quantum computational resources, Phys. Rev. A88, 022307 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Datta and A

    A. Datta and A. Shaji, Quantum discord and quan- tum computing—an appraisal, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 9, 1787 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    M. Gu, H. M. Chrzanowski, S. M. Assad, T. Symul, K. Modi, T. C. Ralph, V. Vedral, and P. K. Lam, Observing the operational significance of discord consumption, Nat. Phys.8, 671 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination, Science321, 1463 (2008)

    S. Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination, Science321, 1463 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, J. Thompson, V. Ve- dral, and M. Gu, How discord underlies the noise re- silience of quantum illumination, New J. Phys.18, 043027 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Kim, M.-R

    M. Kim, M.-R. Hwang, E. Jung, and D. Park, Is entanglement a unique resource in quantum illumi- nation?, Quantum Information Processing22, 98 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    M.-H. Yung, F. Meng, X.-M. Zhang, and M.-J. Zhao, One-shot detection limits of quantum illumi- nation with discrete signals, npj Quantum Inf.6, 75 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Y. Jo, T. Jeong, J. Kim, D. Y. Kim, Y. S. Ihn, Z. Kim, and S.-Y. Lee, Quantum illumina- tion with asymmetrically squeezed two-mode light, arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.17006 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bradshaw, S

    M. Bradshaw, S. M. Assad, J. Y. Haw, S.-H. Tan, P. K. Lam, and M. Gu, Overarching framework be- tween gaussian quantum discord and gaussian quan- tum illumination, Phys. Rev. A95, 022333 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Maziero, L

    J. Maziero, L. C. Celeri, R. Serra, and V. Vedral, Classical and quantum correlations under decoher- 13 ence, Phys. Rev. A80, 044102 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves, Quantum discord and the geometry of bell-diagonal states, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 150501 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Q. Quan, H. Zhu, S.-Y. Liu, S.-M. Fei, H. Fan, and W.-L. Yang, Steering bell-diagonal states, Sci. Rep. 6, 22025 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  40. [48]

    P. Xu, T. Wu, and L. Ye, The quantum correlations of the werner state under quantum decoherence, Int. J. Theor. Phys.54, 1958 (2015)

    1958

  41. [49]

    Daki´ c, V

    B. Daki´ c, V. Vedral, andˇC. Brukner, Necessary and sufficient condition for nonzero quantum discord, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 190502 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    A. S. Holevo, The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal states, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 44, 269 (2002)

    2002

  43. [51]

    C. A. Fuchs and C. M. Caves, Ensemble-dependent bounds for accessible information in quantum me- chanics, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 3047 (1994)

    1994

  44. [52]

    C. A. Fuchs, Distinguishability and accessible infor- mation in quantum theory, arXiv preprint quant- ph/9601020 (1996)

    1996

  45. [53]

    S. Ray, J. Schneeloch, C. C. Tison, and P. M. Als- ing, Maximum advantage of quantum illumination, Phys. Rev. A100, 012327 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.