Entanglement in Quantum Systems Based on Directed Graphs

Lucio De Simone; Roberto Franzosi

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Entanglement in Quantum Systems Based on Directed Graphs

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a large class of directed graph states, entanglement per qubit is fixed by the degree sequence alone.

desk verdict The paper's degree-only entanglement formula is only valid for oriented graphs (no 2-cycles), and the paper never says that; the two-vertex bidirectional graph is a clean counterexample. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05214 v1 pith:HQ4EIC3N submitted 2025-09-05 quant-ph

Lucio De Simone , Roberto Franzosi This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Mn

keywords entanglementdistancedirectedgraphstatesdegreedistributionFubini–Studymetricmultipartitequantumnetworkstopologycontrolled-rotationgates

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

Graph states are many-qubit quantum states built by applying a fixed entangling gate along each edge of a graph. This paper studies directed graphs, where edges have a chosen orientation, and asks how much multipartite entanglement the resulting state carries, as measured by the Entanglement Distance derived from the Fubini–Study metric. The central finding is that the per-qubit entanglement depends only on the total number of edges touching each vertex, the degree d(i), through E(θ; {d(i)}) = 1 − (1/M) Σᵢ [cos θ]^(2d(i)). Edge orientation and vertex numbering drop out entirely, so the measure is a topological invariant of the graph. A derivation in Appendix A extends this to arbitrary identical single-qubit input states, again yielding a degree-only formula. This matters because it turns a complex combinatorial entanglement calculation into a function of one local statistic, offering a practical handle for designing quantum networks whose entanglement is controlled by topology.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the Entanglement Distance (ED), E = 1 − (1/M) Σᵢ ||⟨G|σ⁽ⁱ⁾|G⟩||², a Fubini–Study-derived local-unitary invariant for pure multipartite states, applied to graph states built from a single commuting entangling gate U_ab = Π₀ᵃIᵇ + Π₁ᵃŪᵇ with Ū diagonal (Eq. 5). The calculation hinges on phase cancellations in the expectation values of σₓ and σᵧ at each vertex; because the gate is diagonal and identical across edges, the net effect of all incident links collapses to a power cos^(2d(i)) θ, erasing any distinction between incoming and outgoing edges.

What would settle it

Take two three-vertex directed graphs with the same total degree sequence (2,2,2) but different orientations: a directed cycle 1→2→3→1 and a directed acyclic graph 1→2, 1→3, 2→3. Prepare both graph states with |φ⟩ = (|0⟩+|1⟩)/√2 and θ = π/3, measure the per-qubit expectation values ||⟨σ⁽ⁱ⁾⟩||, and compute the ED. Equation (13) predicts identical ED for both; any observed difference falsifies the degree-only claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim, stated on its own terms: for directed graph states generated by a commuting controlled-rotation gate (Eq. 2 with Ū diagonal, Eq. 5) from an identical pure product input, the Entanglement Distance per qubit is exactly E(θ; {d(i)}) = 1 − (1/M) Σᵢ∈V [cos θ]^(2d(i)) (Eq. 13). Each vertex contributes a power of cos²θ equal to its total degree; incoming and outgoing links contribute identically, and vertex relabeling changes nothing. Appendix A proves the same degree-only dependence for a generic identical input state |φ⟩ = α₀|0⟩ + α₁|1⟩, giving E⁽ⁱ⁾ = 1 − (1−2p)² − 4p(1−p) r^(2d(i)) with r = √(cos²θ + sin²θ (1−2p)²). The maximal-entanglement choice p = 1/2, θ = π/2 recovers Eq.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes every edge applies the same commuting diagonal controlled-rotation gate and every qubit starts in the identical pure product state; if either condition fails, the phase cancellations that erase edge orientation no longer occur, and entanglement can depend on edge direction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The ED of any state in this gate class can be computed from the degree sequence alone, bypassing the full adjacency matrix.
Graphs with the same degree distribution have identical per-qubit entanglement, even if their edge orientations or vertex labels differ.
For layered graphs (variant of the Young–Fibonacci graph and the full binary tree), the infinite-size limit yields closed asymptotic bounds such as 1 − cos⁸θ and 1 − (cos²θ/2)(1 + cos⁴θ).
The linear bridged cycle formula E(θ; M, N) = 1 − (cos⁴θ/M)(M − 2(N−1) sin²θ) shows explicitly how entanglement changes with the number of bridges and cycle sizes.
Any identical single-qubit input state preserves the degree-only character; the input state only rescales the radial factor r in the per-vertex contribution.

Reading between the lines

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

If the degree-only formula holds across this gate class, then ED cannot distinguish two graph states that share a degree sequence but differ in connectivity; a natural next test is whether other entanglement measures also collapse to degree statistics on this gate class.
A direct experimental falsifier: prepare a three-vertex directed cycle and a three-vertex directed acyclic graph with the same total degree sequence (2,2,2) but different edge orientations, using |φ⟩ = (|0⟩+|1⟩)/√2 and θ = π/3; Eq. (13) predicts identical ED, and any measured difference would refute the claim.
The dependence on identical input states suggests a design principle for quantum networks: tune the global input state to maximize the r^(2d(i)) response, concentrating entanglement on high-degree hubs; the authors hint at this for dynamic topology learning in quantum machine learning.
Weighted or non-commuting gates would likely bring back orientation dependence, so the degree-only collapse should be understood as a property of this specific commuting controlled-rotation gate, not of directed graph states in general.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know upfront: the central formula, Eq. (13), is not valid for all directed simple graphs as claimed. The derivation in Appendix A implicitly assumes that no vertex appears in both the outgoing and incoming neighbor sets of another vertex—i.e., no directed 2-cycles. The paper defines a directed simple graph as any set of ordered pairs, which allows both (a,b) and (b,a). For the two-vertex graph with both arcs, a direct calculation gives E = 1 − cos²2θ, while Eq. (13) with the paper's own degree definition (number of distinct neighbors, d=1) gives 1 − cos²θ. So the orientation-independence claim fails. The stress-test note gets the counterexample right, though it misstates the degree as 2; the paper defines degree as the union of in- and out-neighbors, so d=1. Either way, the formula is wrong for 2-cycles.

The good news is that the paper has real content once you add the missing hypothesis. For oriented graphs (no antiparallel edges), the Appendix A derivation is algebraically sound and gives a clean extension to arbitrary identical single-qubit input states. The four example families—Young-Fibonacci, feed-forward neural network, full binary tree, and linear bridged cycle—are all oriented, so the closed-form ED expressions are correct apart from a likely typo in Eq. (21) (the coefficient of cos⁶θ should be 2^{N-1}−2, not 2^N−3). The examples are worked carefully, and the degree-distribution method is clearly explained. The paper is a straightforward extension of the authors' own prior work, but it does add the general-α formula and the four specific families, which are not in the cited references.

Minor issues: the text says "The ED equals M" for maximally entangled states, but Eq. (4) is per qubit and maxes at 1; that's a typo. The paper also leans heavily on Ref. [18] without crisply stating what is new here, though the appendix mitigates that.

Bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee, but the referee should require the oriented-graph condition to be stated explicitly and the theorem re-proven under that condition. The counterexample is not fatal to the oriented version, which is still useful for the graph families considered. I would not cite it in its current form, but I'd recommend sending it to peer review with the expectation of a revision.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies entanglement in pure multipartite states associated with directed graphs. The states are generated by products of commuting controlled rotations U_ab = Pi_0^a I^b + Pi_1^a Ubar^b with diagonal Ubar, acting on identical single-qubit product inputs. The central claim is that the Entanglement Distance per qubit (Eq. 4) depends only on the total degree sequence: E(theta;{d(i)}) = 1 - (1/M) sum_i [cos theta]^(2 d(i)) (Eq. 13), independent of edge orientation. Appendix A extends this to arbitrary identical single-qubit input states, obtaining E^(i) = 1 - (1-2p)^2 - 4p(1-p) r^(2d(i)) with r = sqrt(cos^2 theta + sin^2 theta (1-2p)^2) (Eq. A5). The paper applies these formulas to four graph families: a Young-Fibonacci-like graph, deep feed-forward networks, full binary trees, and linear bridged cycle graphs.

Significance. If the degree-only characterization were valid for general directed graph states, it would be a strong and useful result: multipartite entanglement in this class would be fully determined by the degree distribution, and the explicit closed forms for nontrivial graph families would be valuable for quantum-network design. The appendix derivation is algebraically transparent and, under the correct graph restriction, reproduces Eq. (13); the application formulas are consistent with the stated degree distributions (apart from a typesetting issue in Eq. (21)). However, the central claim as stated is not valid for arbitrary directed graphs, because the derivation double-counts vertices that are both incoming and outgoing neighbors. This is a load-bearing defect, but it can be repaired by explicitly restricting to oriented graphs, and the paper's own examples already satisfy that restriction.

major comments (1)

[§II, §III.A, Appendix A (Eqs. A1–A5)] The degree-only formula requires Gamma->(i) ∩ Gamma<-(i) = ∅ for every vertex i, but this disjointness is never stated. The definition of L in §II permits both (a,b) and (b,a), and condition i) does not exclude this because U_ab and U_ba commute. When a neighbor is both incoming and outgoing, the binomial partial-trace argument in Appendix A counts the same qubit twice. Concrete counterexample: M=2, L={(1,2),(2,1)}, p=1/2, ψ=0. Then U_12 U_21 |++> = (1/2)(|00> + e^{iθ}|01> + e^{iθ}|10> + e^{-2iθ}|11>). The reduced single-qubit state has off-diagonal element ρ_01 = (1/2)e^{iθ} cos 2θ, so ||<σ>||^2 = cos^2 2θ and E = 1 − cos^2 2θ. Equation (13) with d(1)=d(2)=2 gives E = 1 − cos^4 θ; at θ=π/4 the two values are 1 and 3/4. Thus the orientation-independence and degree-only claims are false for directed graphs containing 2-cycles. Please restrict the theorem to oriented graphs (no opposite ar

minor comments (5)

[§IV.C, Eq. (21)] The full binary tree expression appears to have lost superscripts: the factors written as 2N−1 should be 2^{N−1}, and the last coefficient should be 2^{N−1}−2. As typeset, the formula is inconsistent with the degree distribution N(d)=2^{N−1}δ_{d,1}+δ_{d,2}+2(2^{N−2}−1)δ_{d,3}.
[§III.A, Eq. (4)] The sentence 'The ED equals M if |G> is maximally entangled' conflicts with the per-qubit definition in Eq. (4), whose maximum is 1. Either define a total ED that sums over qubits or change the sentence to refer to the per-qubit value.
[§II] Please clarify the graph terminology: exclude loops explicitly and state whether opposite arcs are allowed. In the standard 'simple directed graph' convention both (a,b) and (b,a) may coexist; the theorem requires the stricter 'oriented graph' convention.
[Figure 5 caption] The caption says 'recurrent neural network' but the section describes a deep feed-forward neural network; the caption should match the text.
[Throughout] Minor language issues: 'commutate' should be 'commute'; 'direct graph' in a few places should be 'directed graph'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; Eq. (13) is cited from the authors' own Ref. [18], but Appendix A independently re-derives a more general degree-only formula from the stated gate and input-state assumptions.

full rationale

The central formula Eq. (13) is introduced in Sec. III.C by citing the authors' own prior work: 'In Ref. [18], we have shown that the ED per qubit for a general graph is ...' This is a self-citation. However, the manuscript does not rely on it as an unverifiable premise: Appendix A re-derives a more general result, Eq. (A5), starting from the commuting controlled-rotation gate (5), the product structure (A1), and an arbitrary identical single-qubit input state, and presents the Pauli expectation values (A4). These stated assumptions do not include the target degree-only conclusion, and the calculation is parameter-free rather than fitted to the examples. The applications in Sec. IV are just substitutions of degree distributions into the formula, not predictions of fitted quantities. No parameter is fitted and no quantity is defined in terms of the output it is supposed to predict. A separate technical concern about graphs containing 2-cycles (where the incoming and outgoing neighbor sets overlap) concerns the correctness of the factorization in Appendix A, not circularity; an invalid step is not the same as a step that is true by construction. Thus the only circularity-relevant feature is the minor self-citation, which is not load-bearing because the derivation is substantially reproduced in the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters fitted to data or invented entities. Its result rests on the chosen gate model, the homogeneous initial state, and standard linear algebra and binomial identities.

free parameters (2)

gate angle theta = arbitrary real angle
Appears as cos theta in the ED formula; it is a physical interaction parameter of the controlled-rotation gate, not fitted to data, but the ED's dependence on it is the subject of the paper.
initial-state population p = |alpha1|^2 = 1/2 in the main text, general p in Appendix A
The initial single-qubit state is parameterized by p; the paper sets p=1/2 to maximize entanglement. In the appendix, p is kept general to show the degree-only dependence persists.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The two-qubit gate is U_ab = Pi_0^a I^b + Pi_1^a Ubar^b with Ubar = e^(-i psi) diag(e^(i theta), e^(-i theta)) (Eq. 5), and all such gates commute (condition i in Sec. III.A).
This is the model class for which the degree-only result is derived; the paper explicitly states that this restriction is necessary for the graph-state definition and for the derivation.
domain assumption The initial state is the homogeneous product state |phi>^M with |phi> = (|0>+|1>)/sqrt(2) (Sec. II.B, III.B), or more generally a product state with identical single-qubit factors (Appendix A).
The derivation assumes every qubit starts identically; the paper calls this assumption 'crucial for performing our topological analysis'.
standard math The Entanglement Distance (Eq. 4) is a valid entanglement measure derived from the Fubini-Study metric (Refs. [3,4,9]).
The paper adopts this measure without reproof; it is background from prior literature.
standard math Binomial generating function identity: sum_k B(k;n,p) e^(-2ik theta) = (1-p + p e^(-2i theta))^n used in Appendix A.
Standard binomial theorem; no independent justification needed.
domain assumption The Pauli operator expectation values are computed with the interaction pattern defined in Eq. (3) with a fixed ordering of the product, which is well-defined because the U_ab commute.
The product over edges is independent of order only if the operators commute; the paper assumes this in condition i).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement in Quantum Systems Based on Directed Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HQ4EIC3N

@misc{pith2026250905214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement in Quantum Systems Based on Directed Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HQ4EIC3N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05214}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate the entanglement properties of quantum states associated with directed graphs. Using a measure derived from the Fubini-Study metric, we quantitatively relate multipartite entanglement to the local connectivity of the graph. In \emph{Entanglement in Directed Graph States}, (2025), arXiv:2505.10716, it is demonstrated that the vertex degree distribution fully determines this entanglement measure and remains invariant under vertex relabeling, highlighting its topological character. As a consequence, the measure depends only on the total degree of each vertex, making it independent of the distinction between incoming and outgoing edges. We apply our framework to several specific graph structures, including hierarchical networks, neural network-inspired graphs, full binary tree and linear bridged cycle graphs, demonstrating how their combinatorial properties influence entanglement distribution. These results provide a geometric perspective on quantum correlations in complex systems, offering potential applications in the design and analysis of quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05214 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** von Neumann entropy S(ργ), for γ = a, b, as a function of p and θ. From the calculations reported above, it is clear that the entanglement properties of a graph state do not depend on the phase of α0 and α1 in the initial state |ϕ⟩, but rather on their modulus. Additionally, a maximally entangled network is obtained only when |α0| = |α1| = 1/ √ 2. Therefore, from now on, we will adopt the initial state |ϕ⟩ = (|0⟩ +… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** This figure reports the color map of D 2 HS(ργ, ρM), for γ = a, b, as a function of p and θ. the distance between ργ, for γ = a, b and I/2 is zero if and only if p = 1/2 and θ = π/2. Alternatively, the initial state |ϕ⟩ ⊗M that allows one to generate maximally entangled states can also be derived through the analysis of entanglement, either by the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrices ργ, γ = a, b, whi… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Graph topology for the ED per qubit (18). We see that, in the limit N → +∞, the entanglement per qubit asymptotically approaches the bound E(θ; +∞) = 1 − cos8 θ . (19) This suggests that the predominant contribution comes from the internal vertices. Fig. (4) shows the plots of this function for various values of N. B. Deep Feed Forward Neural Network The topology of this graph consists of an input layer C1, an outpu… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The figure reports the entanglement E(θ; N) for N = 3 (dashed line), N = 5 (dot-dashed line), N = 10 (dotted line) and N =+∞ (continuous line) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: An example of a recurrent neural network, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The figure reports the ED per qubit for N = 2 (dashed line), N = 4 (dot-dashed line) and N = +∞ (continuous line). D. Linear Bridged Cycle Graph The design of this graph is shown in Fig. (8). Let Ci be the i-th circle, with C1 being the leftmost circle and CN the righ…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The figure reports the graph for the ED per qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[18]

P. Liao, B. C. Sanders, and D. L. Feder, Topological graph states and quantum error-correction codes, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042418 (2022)

work page 2022
[1]

Here, by |0⟩ and |1⟩ we denote the computational basis, i.e., the eigenstates of the σz operator with eigenvalues +1 and −1 respectively

is the projector of the subspace of the a-th qubit onto the state |0⟩a (|1⟩a), Ib and ¯U b are re- spectively the identity matrix and a generic U (2) oper- ator acting on the subspace of the b-th qubit. Here, by |0⟩ and |1⟩ we denote the computational basis, i.e., the eigenstates of the σz operator with eigenvalues +1 and −1 respectively. The matrix ¯U b ...

work page
[2]

Therefore, from now on, we will adopt the initial state |ϕ⟩ = (|0⟩ + |1⟩)/ √ 2. C. Entanglement Distance Computation To compute the ED (4) for a general graph G(V, L), one has to calculate the value || ⟨G| σ(i) |G⟩ ||2 for each i ∈ V . Let Γ →(i) (Γ←(i)) denote the set of vertex labels connected to i by an outgoing (incoming) link, Γ→(i) = {j ∈ V |(i, j) ...

work page 2022
[3]

G¨ uhne and G

O. G¨ uhne and G. Toth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports 474, 1 (2009)

work page 2009
[4]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

2009
[5]

Cocchiarella, S

D. Cocchiarella, S. Scali, S. Ribisi, B. Nardi, G. Bel- Hadj-Aissa, and R. Franzosi, Entanglement distance for arbitrary $M$-qudit hybrid systems, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042129 (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

Vesperini, G

A. Vesperini, G. Bel-Hadj-Aissa, and R. Franzosi, Entan- glement and quantum correlation measures for quantum multipartite mixed states, Scientific Reports 13, 2852 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

Vafafard, A

A. Vafafard, A. Nourmandipour, and R. Franzosi, Mul- tipartite stationary entanglement generation in the pres- ence of dipole-dipole interaction in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. A 105, 052439 (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 31 references

[8]

Nourmandipour, A

A. Nourmandipour, A. Vafafard, A. Mortezapour, and R. Franzosi, Entanglement protection of classically driven qubits in a lossy cavity, Scientific Reports 11, 16259 (2021)

2021
[9]

Vesperini, G

A. Vesperini, G. Bel-Hadj-Aissa, and R. Franzosi, En- tanglement and quantum correlation measures for quan- tum multipartite mixed states, Scientific Reports 13, 10.1038/s41598-023-29438-7 (2023)

2023 doi
[10]

Vesperini, Correlations and projective measurements in maximally entangled multipartite states, Annals of Physics 457, 169406 (2023)

A. Vesperini, Correlations and projective measurements in maximally entangled multipartite states, Annals of Physics 457, 169406 (2023)

2023
[11]

Vesperini, G

A. Vesperini, G. Bel-Hadj-Aissa, L. Capra, and R. Fran- zosi, Unveiling the geometric meaning of quantum entan- glement: Discrete and continuous variable systems, Fron- tiers of Physics 19, 10.1007/s11467-024-1403-x (2024)

2024 doi
[12]

H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Persistent Entangle- ment in Arrays of Interacting Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 910 (2001)

2001
[13]

M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Multi-party entan- glement in graph states, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062311 (2004)

2004
[14]

M. Hein, W. D¨ ur, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. V. d. Nest, and H.-J. Briegel, Entanglement in Graph States and its Applications, arXiv:quant-ph/0602096 (2006)

2006 arXiv
[15]

Raussendorf and T.-C

R. Raussendorf and T.-C. Wei, Quantum computation by local measurement, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 3, 239 (2012)

2012
[16]

P lodzie´ n, M

M. P lodzie´ n, M. Lewenstein, and J. Chwede´ nczuk, Many-body quantum resources of graph states (2024), arXiv:2410.12487 [quant-ph]

2024
[17]

Raussendorf and H

R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001)

2001
[19]

Markham and B

D. Markham and B. C. Sanders, Graph states for quan- tum secret sharing, Phys. Rev. A 78, 042309 (2008)

2008
[20]

De Simone and R

L. De Simone and R. Franzosi, Entanglement in directed graph states, to appear in Journal of Physics A (2025) (2025), arXiv:2505.10716 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[21]

Verdon, T

G. Verdon, T. McCourt, E. Luzhnica, V. Singh, S. Le- ichenauer, and J. Hidary, Quantum graph neural net- works (2019), arXiv:1909.12264 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[22]

Liao, X.-M

Y. Liao, X.-M. Zhang, and C. Ferrie, Graph neural net- works on quantum computers (2024), arXiv:2405.17060 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[23]

Ceschini, F

A. Ceschini, F. Mauro, F. D. Falco, A. Sebastianelli, A. Verdone, A. Rosato, B. L. Saux, M. Panella, P. Gamba, and S. L. Ullo, From graphs to qubits: A critical review of quantum graph neural networks (2024), arXiv:2408.06524 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[24]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computa- tion and quantum information: 10th anniversary edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

2010
[25]

Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 (1997)

D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 (1997)

1997 arXiv
[26]

M. A. Nielsen, Cluster-state quantum computation, Re- ports on Mathematical Physics 57, 147 (2006)

2006
[27]

D¨ ur, G

W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A 62, 8 062314 (2000)

2000
[28]

M. G. Genoni, P. Giorda, and M. G. A. Paris, Optimal estimation of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 78, 032303 (2008)

2008
[29]

K. P. Gnatenko and V. M. Tkachuk, Entanglement of graph states of spin system with Ising interaction and its quantifying on IBM’s quantum computer, Physics Letters A 396, 127248 (2021)

2021
[30]

K. P. Gnatenko and N. A. Susulovska, Geometric mea- sure of entanglement of multi-qubit graph states and its detection on a quantum computer, EPL 136, 40003 (2022), publisher: EDP Sciences, IOP Publishing and Societ` a Italiana di Fisica

2022
[31]

M. Hein, W. D¨ ur, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. V. den Nest, and H. J. Briegel, Entanglement in graph states and its applications, in Casati, G. and Shepelyansky, D. L. and Zoller, P. and Benenti, G., Quantum Computer, Algorithms and Chaos: Volume 162 International School of ...

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [18]

P. Liao, B. C. Sanders, and D. L. Feder, Topological graph states and quantum error-correction codes, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042418 (2022)

work page 2022

[2] [1]

Here, by |0⟩ and |1⟩ we denote the computational basis, i.e., the eigenstates of the σz operator with eigenvalues +1 and −1 respectively

is the projector of the subspace of the a-th qubit onto the state |0⟩a (|1⟩a), Ib and ¯U b are re- spectively the identity matrix and a generic U (2) oper- ator acting on the subspace of the b-th qubit. Here, by |0⟩ and |1⟩ we denote the computational basis, i.e., the eigenstates of the σz operator with eigenvalues +1 and −1 respectively. The matrix ¯U b ...

work page

[3] [2]

Therefore, from now on, we will adopt the initial state |ϕ⟩ = (|0⟩ + |1⟩)/ √ 2. C. Entanglement Distance Computation To compute the ED (4) for a general graph G(V, L), one has to calculate the value || ⟨G| σ(i) |G⟩ ||2 for each i ∈ V . Let Γ →(i) (Γ←(i)) denote the set of vertex labels connected to i by an outgoing (incoming) link, Γ→(i) = {j ∈ V |(i, j) ...

work page 2022

[4] [3]

G¨ uhne and G

O. G¨ uhne and G. Toth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports 474, 1 (2009)

work page 2009

[5] [4]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

2009

[6] [5]

Cocchiarella, S

D. Cocchiarella, S. Scali, S. Ribisi, B. Nardi, G. Bel- Hadj-Aissa, and R. Franzosi, Entanglement distance for arbitrary $M$-qudit hybrid systems, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042129 (2020)

work page 2020

[7] [6]

Vesperini, G

A. Vesperini, G. Bel-Hadj-Aissa, and R. Franzosi, Entan- glement and quantum correlation measures for quantum multipartite mixed states, Scientific Reports 13, 2852 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [7]

Vafafard, A

A. Vafafard, A. Nourmandipour, and R. Franzosi, Mul- tipartite stationary entanglement generation in the pres- ence of dipole-dipole interaction in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. A 105, 052439 (2022)

work page 2022