Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

A Schmidt-based five-type classification turns any three-qubit pure state into an explicit circuit whose gates are read off from the target amplitudes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:47 UTC pith:IKE2IG7W

load-bearing objection The five-type classification and class-specific circuits are genuinely useful, but a concrete typo in the two-qubit Schmidt formula (Eq. 13) breaks the generic D≠0 case, so the circuits as written don't prepare arbitrary states. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.00845 v1 pith:IKE2IG7W submitted 2026-03-01 quant-ph

Three-Qubit State Preparation: Classification and Explicit Circuits

Yonghae Lee , Taewan Kim This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881P40 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Lx
keywords three-qubit state preparationSchmidt decompositionentanglement classificationconcurrenceCNOT circuit synthesisGHZ stateW statecircuit depth
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to make three-qubit state preparation fully algorithmic. It classifies every three-qubit pure state into five types according to the Schmidt decomposition across the A|BC bipartition, then supplies a concrete circuit template for each type. The gate parameters — rotation angles and single-qubit unitaries — are determined step by step from the amplitudes of the target state, with CNOT gates acting only between adjacent qubits. If the construction is right, a user can take an arbitrary three-qubit target, identify its type by simple separability and concurrence tests, and output a low-depth circuit without search or trial-and-error; common states such as GHZ, W, cluster, and phase-flip states become especially cheap to prepare.

Core claim

The central claim is that the entanglement structure of a three-qubit pure state, viewed across a one-qubit/two-qubit cut, is enough to organize state preparation into five canonical cases. After the state is written in Schmidt form λ0|α0⟩|β0⟩ + λ1|α1⟩|β1⟩, the paper calls it fully separable or biseparable when the Schmidt rank across A|BC is 1, and otherwise SS, SE, or EE according to whether the two Schmidt partners on BC are both separable, exactly one separable, or both entangled across B|C. For each case the paper derives a circuit built from R_y/R_z rotations and CNOT gates that realizes the required conditional mapping on the BC pair, and an identification procedure uses the concurren

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Schmidt decomposition of the target state across the A|BC cut. Type identification reduces to evaluating the concurrence of the two-qubit Schmidt vectors; circuit synthesis reduces to implementing the two-qubit unitary U_BC only on the two orthogonal input states that actually occur, using controlled rotations assembled from the identities R_y(−θ) I R_y(θ) = I and R_y(−θ) X R_y(θ) = a rotation. Working on just two inputs instead of on all two-qubit basis states is why each type needs only a small number of CNOT gates and why the CNOTs can be placed between adjacent qubits.

Load-bearing premise

The unambiguity claim rests on a definite choice of eigenbasis for ρ_A; when λ0=λ1 that eigenbasis is not unique, and the paper defines the correct choice as the computational basis but its identification steps do not enforce that choice, so a generic eigensolver could return a different basis and change the inferred SS/SE/EE type.

What would settle it

Run the identification pipeline on the GHZ state (|000⟩+|111⟩)/√2, first with the computational-basis eigenvectors of ρ_A, then with the same state after applying a Hadamard gate to qubit A (or with ρ_A eigenvectors rotated by any single-qubit unitary). If the two runs report different SS/SE/EE labels, the claimed procedural unambiguity in type identification is not upheld.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any three-qubit state can be compiled by a deterministic pipeline — compute ρ_A, run the concurrence tests, pick one of five templates — with no numerical optimization step.
  • Class-specific circuits for GHZ-like, W-like, cluster/graph, and phase-flip states use fewer gates and shallower depth than the universal comparison template; for the R1 class the paper reports 2 CNOTs and depth 3 against 6 CNOTs and depth 14.
  • Because entangling gates are restricted to adjacent qubits, the circuits map more cheaply onto restricted-coupling hardware and reduce the need for SWAP routing.
  • The factoring of separable targets into single- and two-qubit modules means any entangled two-qubit pure state is prepared with one CNOT rather than the three required for an arbitrary two-qubit unitary.
  • Any state locally unitarily equivalent to an Rk-class state is obtained by appending single-qubit gates, so the templates cover broad families beyond their exact computational-basis supports.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The five-type label is best understood as a circuit-design handle rather than an intrinsic state invariant: in the degenerate λ0=λ1 case the label can change if one chooses a different eigenbasis for ρ_A, so the identification procedure needs an explicit eigenvector-selection rule to match the definition.
  • Choosing a different 1|2 cut (B|CA or C|AB) would produce different type labels and potentially different CNOT layouts; that freedom could be used to match a specific qubit-connectivity graph, an option the paper mentions but does not develop.
  • The same two-input reduction suggests an iterative extension: an n-qubit preparation routine might be lifted to n+1 qubits by treating one side of a bipartition as a two-input block, keeping the gate count tied to Schmidt rank rather than to the full Hilbert-space dimension.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a deterministic, Schmidt-decomposition-based framework for preparing arbitrary three-qubit pure states. It classifies states into five types relative to the A|BC bipartition (fully separable, biseparable, SS, SE, EE), gives an identification procedure from the computational-basis amplitudes, and derives explicit circuit templates for each type, as well as specialized circuits for four commonly used state classes (R1–R4). The claimed advantages are a fully algorithmic pipeline with no procedural ambiguity, connectivity-aware CNOT layout, and reduced gate counts/depths for structured families.

Significance. If the constructions are correct, the paper would provide a useful, explicitly instantiable compilation strategy for three-qubit state preparation, complementary to existing universal templates and particularly attractive for repeated preparation of small resource states. The classification and the explicit parameter formulas for the R1–R4 classes are convenient. However, the central two-qubit Schmidt decomposition used for the generic D≠0 case contains a concrete algebraic error, and the degenerate-eigenvalue case is not treated consistently with the stated invariance and determinism claims. These issues are load-bearing because they affect the correctness of the two-qubit preparation module, the biseparable circuits, and the EE-type circuits.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (13)] The definition B_j = τ_j^2 − |d0|^2 − |d3|^2 is not the correct second component of the right singular vector of the coefficient matrix M = [[d0,d1],[d2,d3]]. The reduced density matrix on subsystem C has diagonal entries |d0|^2+|d2|^2 and |d1|^2+|d3|^2, so the correct formula is B_j = τ_j^2 − (|d0|^2+|d2|^2). With the printed definition, Eq. (16) is not a Schmidt decomposition: the two vectors on each side are not orthonormal. For the normalized example d0=0.6, d1=0.2, d2=0.3, d3=√0.51, Eq. (16) gives u0·u1≈−0.234 and v0·v1≈0.511. This is not a measure-zero case: D≠0 is generic. Consequently the two-qubit preparation circuit in Fig. 3(a), the biseparable construction in Sec. V B, and the EE-type circuit in Sec. VI C, which all rely on Eq. (16), do not prepare the target state for generic D≠0 inputs. This must be corrected and the affected constructions re-verified.
  2. [Sec. II, Definition 1; Sec. IV B, Eq. (19)] The claim that the entanglement type is invariant under single-qubit unitaries is false in the degenerate case λ0=λ1. For the GHZ state, Definition 1 fixes the Schmidt basis on A to the computational basis and yields SS type. After applying H to qubit A, the same definition yields EE type because the two Schmidt vectors on BC become (|00⟩±|11⟩)/√2. Thus the type is a property of the state together with the chosen computational-basis convention, not an invariant under local unitaries. Moreover, the identification procedure in Sec. IV B does not enforce the computational-basis convention of Definition 1: when ρ_A = I/2, a generic eigensolver may return arbitrary eigenvectors, which changes the computed SS/SE/EE type. This contradicts the paper's 'no procedural ambiguity' claim. The fix is to add an explicit rule: if λ0=λ1, set |α0⟩=|0⟩, |α1⟩=|1⟩ (equivalently, use the computational basis d
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (5) and Sec. IV B] The pipeline claims to be fully deterministic, but the extraction of the BC-side Schmidt basis states via Eq. (20) requires projecting onto the chosen eigenvectors of ρ_A. In the degenerate case this choice is unspecified, as noted above. In the nondegenerate case the procedure is sound, but the presentation should explicitly state that the phases of |α0⟩ and |α1⟩ are fixed (e.g., by the chosen eigen-solver convention) and that |β00⟩,|β10⟩ are then phase-consistent by construction. As written, the text acknowledges phase ambiguity for eigenvectors of ρ_BC but does not fully resolve it for ρ_A.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II] The phrase 'Moreover, the entanglement type is invariant under single-qubit unitaries' should be restated with the nondegenerate caveat or explicitly tied to the convention in Definition 1. As it stands, it is misleading.
  2. [Eq. (13)] If the intended formula is B_j = τ_j^2 − |d0|^2 − |d2|^2, this is a typographical error that nevertheless propagates through Eq. (16), Fig. 3(a), and Sec. VI C. Please also check that the normalization denominators in Eq. (16) are nonzero for all D≠0 states under the corrected definition.
  3. [Fig. 3(a)] The circuit caption says the parameters are defined in Eq. (16), but the figure labels use quantities such as |E_0|, |F_0|, |D|, |B_0|; please make the correspondence explicit and ensure the labels match after correcting Eq. (13).
  4. [Sec. VII, Table III] The resource comparison with Ref. [9] is informative, but the gate counts for the R4 class depend on the corrected EE-type implementation. Please recompute if the correction changes the circuit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity found: the circuit construction is a parameter-free derivation from the target amplitudes, and the self-cited Schmidt formulas are used as stated external lemmas rather than as results defined by the target.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: given amplitudes, compute the A|BC Schmidt decomposition, classify into five types, then instantiate circuit templates whose parameters are explicit algebraic functions of the computed Schmidt data. No free parameter is fitted to a subset of data and later called a prediction, and no type or circuit parameter is defined circularly in terms of the final circuit output. The one notable self-citation, Ref. [23], supplies the two-qubit Schmidt decomposition formulas in Eqs. (11)-(17); although the first author overlaps, the formulas are quoted as a stated mathematical lemma, are parameter-free, and are externally checkable, so they are not a concealed self-referential premise. The degenerate-eigenvector gap noted in Sec. IV B (the unenforced computational-basis choice in Definition 1) and the apparent algebraic error in Eq. (13) are correctness/robustness concerns, not circular reductions: neither makes a derived quantity equal to an input by construction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on standard bipartite-Schmidt mathematics, the concurrence criterion, and two external schemes (Refs. [20] and [23]). The only internally invented assumption is the degenerate-case basis convention, which is not consistently enforced by the identification algorithm. There are no fitted free parameters and no new physical entities.

axioms (7)
  • standard math Schmidt decomposition of pure bipartite states exists and the spectral decomposition of ρ_A provides Schmidt coefficients and bases.
    Used throughout; Sec. II Eq. (1) and Sec. IV B Eq. (19).
  • standard math Concurrence C = 0 iff a two-qubit pure state is separable.
    Used in Sec. IV to distinguish fully separable vs biseparable and the SS/SE/EE types; based on Refs. [21,22].
  • domain assumption The analytic two-qubit Schmidt decomposition formulas in Ref. [23] (Eqs. 12–17 here) are correct for all entangled two-qubit states.
    Used in Sec. IV A and the two-qubit circuit Fig. 3(a); the formulas are imported without re-derivation and are self-cited.
  • domain assumption The general preparation scheme (Ry, CNOT, UA, UBC) of Ref. [20] correctly prepares any three-qubit state from its Schmidt data.
    Used in Sec. III Fig. 1; this scheme is taken from the literature.
  • standard math Every single-qubit unitary can be decomposed as in Eq. (29) (Z–Y–Z with phases) per Ref. [24].
    Used to implement UA, WB, WC in the circuits.
  • ad hoc to paper The entanglement type (Definition 1) is invariant under single-qubit unitaries.
    Stated in Sec. II without proof; false in the degenerate case λ0=λ1 (GHZ is SS, but after H on A the same definition gives EE).
  • ad hoc to paper In the degenerate case λ0=λ1, fixing the Schmidt basis on A to the computational basis yields a well-defined type that the identification procedure will respect.
    Definition 1 pins the type to the computational basis, but Sec. IV B does not specify choosing those eigenvectors, creating a gap between definition and procedure.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21426 in / 25283 out tokens · 240160 ms · 2026-08-02T19:47:50.139838+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a deterministic framework for preparing an arbitrary three-qubit pure state. To leverage entanglement structure in the state-preparation task, we classify three-qubit pure states into five types with respect to a $1|2$ bipartition. Given a target state specified by its amplitudes, we provide concrete criteria and concurrence-based tests that determine its type. For each type, we derive an explicit circuit template composed of elementary single-qubit rotations and CNOT gates, with gate parameters determined systematically from the Schmidt decomposition. The full construction is described step by step from the target amplitudes, with no procedural ambiguity. As an application, we further group frequently encountered three-qubit pure states in quantum information into four classes and provide an explicit circuit for each class. Compared with prior approaches, our circuits are designed for practical use: they admit a direct algorithmic instantiation, use only CNOT gates between adjacent qubits, and for certain classes achieve smaller gate counts and circuit depth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.00845 by Taewan Kim, Yonghae Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. General scheme [20] for preparing an arbitrary three-qubit pure state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Circuit for preparing an arbitrary single-qubit state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Circuit for preparing an arbitrary two-qubit state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a). B. State-preparation circuit for SE-type states We present an explicit circuit for preparing an SE-type target state |ψ3⟩. In analogy with the SS-type case, we identify the core action that the two-qubit unitary UBC in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Explicit circuits for preparing the R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018), arXiv:1801.00862 [quant-ph]

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018), arXiv:1801.00862 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate, SIAM Journal on Computing 38, 1207 (2008), arXiv:quant-ph/9906129 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    Note that, in Proposition 2, the first and second conditions correspond to degenerate cases where subsystemAis fixed to|1⟩or|0⟩, respectively

    The coefficient vectors(c 0, c1, c2, c3)and(c 4, c5, c6, c7)are proportional; equivalently, there exists a nonzero k∈Csuch thatc j+4 =kc j (j= 0,1,2,3). Note that, in Proposition 2, the first and second conditions correspond to degenerate cases where subsystemAis fixed to|1⟩or|0⟩, respectively. If the third condition holds, then for anyj ′ ∈ {0,1,2,3}with...

    2023

  4. [4]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quantum computation, Science279, 342 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Plesch and v

    M. Plesch and v. Brukner, Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions, Physical Review A83, 032302 (2011), arXiv:1003.5760 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    M¨ ott¨ onen, J

    M. M¨ ott¨ onen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, and M. M. Salomaa, Transformation of quantum states using uniformly controlled rotations, Quantum Inform. Compu.5, 467 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    V. V. Shende, S. S. Bullock, and I. L. Markov, Synthesis of quantum-logic circuits, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst.25, 1000 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0406176 [quant-ph]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    R. Iten, R. Colbeck, I. Kukuljan, J. Home, and M. Christandl, Quantum circuits for isometries, Phys. Rev. A93, 032318 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    Giraud, M

    O. Giraud, M. ˇZnidariˇ c, and B. Georgeot, Quantum circuit for three-qubit random states, Phys. Rev. A80, 042309 (2009)

    2009

  11. [11]

    Perdomo, N

    O. Perdomo, N. Castaneda, and R. Vogeler, Preparation of 3-qubit states (2022), arXiv:2201.03724 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A62, 062314 (2000)

    2000

  13. [13]

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

    1993

  14. [14]

    H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Persistent entanglement in arrays of interacting particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 910 (2001)

    2001

  15. [15]

    M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Multiparty entanglement in graph states, Phys. Rev. A69, 062311 (2004)

    2004

  16. [16]

    Raussendorf and H

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

    2001

  17. [17]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, B. De Moor, and H. Verschelde, Four qubits can be entangled in nine different ways, Phys. Rev. A65, 052112 (2002)

    2002

  18. [18]

    ˇZnidariˇ c, O

    M. ˇZnidariˇ c, O. Giraud, and B. Georgeot, Optimal number of controlled-not gates to generate a three-qubit state, Phys. Rev. A77, 032320 (2008)

    2008

  19. [19]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  20. [20]

    M. M. Wilde,Quantum Information Theory(Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  21. [21]

    Murta, P

    B. Murta, P. M. Q. Cruz, and J. Fern´ andez-Rossier, Preparing valence-bond-solid states on noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013190 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    S. A. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 5022 (1997)

    1997

  23. [23]

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

    1998

  24. [24]

    Y. Lee, Y. Min, S. Bae, and Y. Lim, Formulas for Schmidt decompositions of mutually orthogonal quantum states in two-qubit systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.58, 445303 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  26. [26]

    Vidal and C

    G. Vidal and C. M. Dawson, Universal quantum circuit for two-qubit transformations with three controlled-not gates, Phys. Rev. A69, 010301 (2004)

    2004

  27. [27]

    Vatan and C

    F. Vatan and C. Williams, Optimal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A69, 032315 (2004)

    2004

  28. [28]

    M¨ ott¨ onen, J

    M. M¨ ott¨ onen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, and M. M. Salomaa, Quantum circuits for general multiqubit gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 130502 (2004)

    2004

  29. [29]

    Khaneja, R

    N. Khaneja, R. Brockett, and S. J. Glaser, Time optimal control in spin systems, Phys. Rev. A63, 032308 (2001)

    2001

  30. [30]

    Kraus and J

    B. Kraus and J. I. Cirac, Optimal creation of entanglement using a two-qubit gate, Phys. Rev. A63, 062309 (2001)

    2001

  31. [31]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Geometric theory of nonlocal two-qubit operations, Phys. Rev. A67, 042313 (2003)

    2003

  32. [32]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s theorem without inequalities, Am. J. Phys.58, 1131 (1990)

    1990

  33. [33]

    Fortescue and H.-K

    B. Fortescue and H.-K. Lo, Random bipartite entanglement fromWandW-like states, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 260501 (2007)

    2007

  34. [34]

    Singh, S

    D. Singh, S. Kumar, and B. K. Behera, Complexity analysis of quantum teleportation via different entangled channels in the presence of noise, IET Quantum Communication4, 1 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Roy and B

    S. Roy and B. Ghosh, Study of controlled dense coding with some discrete tripartite and quadripartite states, Int. J. Quantum Inf.13, 1550033 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749915500331

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219749915500331 2015

  36. [36]

    Eltschka, A

    C. Eltschka, A. Osterloh, J. Siewert, and A. Uhlmann, Three-tangle for mixtures of generalized GHZ and generalized W states, New J. Phys.10, 043014 (2008)

    2008

  37. [37]

    Sab ´ ın and G

    C. Sab ´ ın and G. Garc ´ ıa-Alcaine, A classification of entanglement in three-qubit systems, Eur. Phys. J. D48, 435 (2008)

    2008

  38. [38]

    Li and S

    X.-H. Li and S. Ghose, Control power in perfect controlled teleportation via partially entangled channels, Phys. Rev. A 90, 052305 (2014)

    2014

  39. [39]

    Luna-Hern´ andez, M

    S. Luna-Hern´ andez, M. Enr ´ ıquez, and O. Rosas-Ortiz, A geometric formulation to measure global and genuine entanglement in three-qubit systems, Sci. Rep.14, 25684 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Man, Y.-J

    Z.-X. Man, Y.-J. Xia, and N. B. An, Quantum teleportation of an unknown N-qubit W-like state, JETP Lett.85, 662 (2007)

    2007

  41. [41]

    Sun, H.-F

    L.-L. Sun, H.-F. Wang, S. Zhang, and K.-H. Yeon, Entanglement purification for a three-qubit W-like state in amplitude damping, J. Korean Phys. Soc.61, 1938 (2012)

    1938

  42. [42]

    you Nie, Y

    Y. you Nie, Y. hua Li, J. chang Liu, and M. huang Sang, Quantum state sharing of an arbitrary three-qubit state by using four sets of W-class states, Opt. Commun.284, 1457 (2011)

    2011

  43. [43]

    I. N. Artawan and A. Purwanto, Quantum teleportation of a three-qubit entangled states via W-class states, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1170, 012016 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    Marconi, G

    C. Marconi, G. M¨ uller-Rigat, J. Romero-Pallej` a, J. Tura, and A. Sanpera, Symmetric quantum states: a review of recent progress (2025), arXiv:2506.10185 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    A. M. Frydryszak,η-trigonometric states of four qubits and entanglement measures (2009), arXiv:0902.3553 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  46. [46]

    Prakash and A

    H. Prakash and A. K. Maurya, Quantum teleportation using entangled 3-qubit states and the ‘magic bases’, Opt. Commun. 284, 5024 (2011)

    2011

  47. [47]

    K. Yang, L. Huang, W. Yang, and F. Song, Quantum teleportation via GHZ-like state, Int. J. Theor. Phys.48, 516 (2009). 19

    2009

  48. [48]

    Zhu, Perfect teleportation of an arbitrary two-qubit state via GHZ-like states, Int

    H.-p. Zhu, Perfect teleportation of an arbitrary two-qubit state via GHZ-like states, Int. J. Theor. Phys.53, 4095 (2014)

    2014

  49. [49]

    Ac ´ ın, J

    A. Ac ´ ın, J. I. Latorre, and P. Pascual, Three-party entanglement from positronium, Phys. Rev. A63, 042107 (2001)

    2001

  50. [50]

    Singh, V

    D. Singh, V. Gulati, Arvind, and K. Dorai, Experimental construction of a symmetric three-qubit entangled state and its utility in testing the violation of a bell inequality on an nmr quantum simulator, Europhys. Lett.140, 68001 (2022)

    2022

  51. [51]

    Aulbach, D

    M. Aulbach, D. Markham, and M. Murao, The maximally entangled symmetric state in terms of the geometric measure, New J. Phys.12, 073025 (2010)

    2010

  52. [52]

    Nusur, Quantum teleportation of two-qubit states via W-state and GHZ-like states, J

    F. Nusur, Quantum teleportation of two-qubit states via W-state and GHZ-like states, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1951, 012070 (2021)

    1951

  53. [53]

    Huang and X

    L. Huang and X. Wu, New construction of nine-qubit error-correcting code (2021), arXiv:2110.05130 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Huang, The advantage of the concatenated three-qubit codes (2024), arXiv:2209.15435 [quant-ph]

    L. Huang, The advantage of the concatenated three-qubit codes (2024), arXiv:2209.15435 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    The IBM quantum heavy-hex lattice, IBM Quantum Blog (2021), jul 7, 2021

    2021

  56. [56]

    G. Li, Y. Ding, and Y. Xie, Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices, inProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS ’19 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019) p. 1001–1014

    2019

  57. [57]

    Sabreswap (latest version) — ibm quantum documentation, IBM Quantum Documentation (Qiskit API)

  58. [58]

    Zhang, T

    X.-M. Zhang, T. Li, and X. Yuan, Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applica- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 230504 (2022)

    2022