Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 88 references

Measurement-based quantum computation with variable-range interacting systems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weighted graph states from power-law Ising interactions can implement universal measurement-based quantum gates, with average fidelity above 90% once the fall-off rate $\alpha$ passes thresholds near 2.8 for single-qubit gates and 5.3 for…

desk verdict Solid small-graph numerics for MBQC with power-law weighted graph states, but the universal claim needs a size-scaling check before it generalizes. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11909 v1 pith:LH4YZQZL submitted 2025-06-13 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.quant-gas

Debkanta Ghosh , Keshav Das Agarwal , Pritam Halder , Aditi Sen De This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.quant-gas
keywords measurement-basedquantumcomputationweightedgraphstateslong-rangeIsingmodelpower-lawinteractionsfall-offrateaveragegatefidelityunsharpmeasurementsdisorder
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 establishes that the entangled states generated by power-law (long-range) Ising interactions can serve as the resource for measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC), not just as a source of error to be suppressed. Evolving a product state under $H_\alpha=\sum_{k

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the weighted graph state $|\Phi_e(\alpha)\rangle$ formed by evolving a product of $|+\rangle$ states with the power-law Ising Hamiltonian $H_\alpha$ for time $\pi$; the exponent $\alpha$ (the fall-off rate) tunes continuously between genuinely long-range interactions ($\alpha<2$) and the nearest-neighbor cluster-state limit ($\alpha\to\infty$). The protocol keeps the local projective measurement bases of the original MBQC, with angles $\eta_k$ fixed by the target gate, and compensates for the deformed state by optimizing over local Pauli corrections $U_{c,G}^{\alpha,s}=\sigma_x^{c_0+\sum c_k s_k}\sigma_z^{d_0+\sum d_k s_k}$ on each outcome string $s$. The quality measure is the average gate fidelity $\bar{F}_G$, evaluated through the Hilbert-Schmidt formula from the measurement map $\Lambda_{\alpha}^{\lambda,n}$; its comparison with the classical benchmarks produces the reported thresholds. Unsharp measurements are modeled by replacing projectors with $\lambda|\eta_s^k\rangle\langle\eta_s^k|+(1-\lambda)I/2$, and disorder by quenched Gaussian couplings $\{J_i\}$.

What would settle it

A direct numerical simulation of the same protocol on a larger resource, for example a ten-qubit chain at $\alpha=3$ implementing $H$ followed by $T$, would settle whether the 90% threshold persists: if $\bar{F}_G$ falls below 0.9, the threshold is an artifact of the small graphs studied rather than a general property. An ion-trap experiment with effective $\alpha\approx3$ measuring the $T$-gate process fidelity and comparing with 0.9 would test the same claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a weighted graph state produced at time $\pi$ by a variable-range Ising Hamiltonian is a viable MBQC resource, provided the local corrective unitaries are chosen for the actual fall-off rate $\alpha$ rather than taken from the nearest-neighbor limit. For single-qubit gates on a five-qubit chain and for CNOT on a four-qubit graph, the average gate fidelity $\bar{F}_G$, computed from the CPTP map that includes measurements and corrections, exceeds the classical benchmark once the state is not too long-ranged (for Hadamard, $\alpha\gtrsim1.82$; for CNOT, for all $\alpha$). With optimized corrections, the maximum fidelity in the genuinely long-range regime $\alpha<2$ reaches 0.84 for the $T$ gate and 0.76 for CNOT, and the fidelity crosses 0.9 at $\alpha_\mathrm{th}^{\min}\approx 2.8$ for single-qubit gates and $\approx5.31$ for CNOT. For $\alpha \gtrsim 4.5$ (single-qubit) and $\alpha\gtrsim 8.66$ (CNOT) the fidelities saturate to unity up to $O(10^{-3})$, recovering the ideal cluster-state behavior. The conclusion drawn is that finite-range, non-nearest-neighbor interactions can support universal MBQC.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the time-$\pi$ weighted graph state, together with the unchanged local measurement bases and a finite family of optimized local Pauli corrections, is sufficient to realize each gate at the reported fidelity; this has been checked numerically only on a five-qubit chain for single-qubit gates and a four-qubit graph for CNOT.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Universal single-qubit gates ($H$, $R_z(\pi/2)$, $T$) and CNOT can be run on weighted graph states from power-law Ising models with average fidelity above the classical benchmark, so perfect nearest-neighbor cluster states are not necessary for MBQC.
  • Above $\alpha\approx2.8$ for single-qubit gates and $\alpha\approx5.31$ for CNOT, the average fidelity exceeds 90%, the level currently quoted for single-qubit gates in real architectures; beyond $\alpha\approx4.5$ and $8.66$ the fidelities saturate to near unity.
  • In the truly long-range regime $\alpha<2$, optimizing corrections yields maximum fidelities of 0.84 for the $T$ gate and 0.76 for CNOT, so long-range interactions can act as a computational resource rather than only a noise source.
  • Unsharp measurements degrade fidelity only mildly: at $\lambda=0.85$ the relative fidelity loss saturates around 5--17% for single-qubit gates depending on how many measurements are noisy, and around 6--11% for CNOT.
  • Gaussian disorder in the coupling strengths leaves the quenched average fidelity close to the ordered value, with relative errors at most about 4.6% for single-qubit gates and 2% for CNOT at disorder strength $\sigma=0.1$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Optimizing the local measurement angles as well as the corrective unitaries, which the paper does systematically only for the Hadamard case, is a natural extension; it could lower the 90% thresholds or raise fidelities in the $\alpha<2$ regime.
  • The thresholds are established for one five-qubit chain and one four-qubit graph; whether they survive in larger resource states, other geometries, or multi-gate circuits is an open scaling question that the small-system numerics do not answer.
  • The robustness claims cover white-noise unsharp measurements and random static disorder drawn from a Gaussian distribution; other realistic errors, such as dephasing during the entangling evolution or correlated measurement noise, are not modeled.
  • Because finite-$\alpha$ weighted graph states are non-stabilizer states, the scheme provides MBQC with a non-stabilizer resource from the start; whether this helps or hurts fault tolerance is a question the paper leaves open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using weighted graph states (WGS) generated by a power-law Ising Hamiltonian H_α to implement measurement-based quantum computation. For single-qubit gates (H, Rz(π/2), T) realized on a five-qubit chain and the CNOT gate on a four-qubit graph, the authors keep the measurement bases of the original MBQC protocol and optimize the local Pauli corrective unitaries, computing average gate fidelities. They report a threshold fall-off rate α_th above which fidelities exceed 90% (α_th≈2.78–2.89 for single-qubit gates and ≈5.31 for CNOT), near-unit fidelity for α≳4.5 (single-qubit) and α≳8.66 (CNOT), and fidelities above the classical bound for some strongly long-range cases with α<2. They also analyze the effect of unsharp measurements and of quenched Gaussian disorder in the coupling strengths.

Significance. The protocol is conceptually appealing: it treats a naturally present long-range interaction as a resource rather than a nuisance, and it provides quantitative benchmarks (Table I, Fig. 2) that are directly testable in small trapped-ion or cold-atom systems. The analytic restricted-fidelity formulas (Eqs. (11), (12), (B1)) are a useful check on the numerics, and the robustness study covers two realistic imperfections. However, the universal-gate claim is supported only by finite-size numerics on four- and five-qubit graphs, and several specification gaps currently prevent the results from being reproduced or extrapolated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 2, Table I] The headline thresholds (α_th≈2.78–2.89 and ≈5.31, saturation at α≈4.5 and 8.66) are obtained from a five-qubit chain and a four-qubit graph, yet the figure caption describes the five-qubit WGS as 'part of a bigger cluster'. In an actual MBQC resource, the power-law Hamiltonian H_α generates long-range edges not only within the gate block but also between that block and the rest of the cluster. These additional edges are absent from the simulated graphs and are not corrected by the Pauli corrections optimized on the small graphs, because the measurement bases are fixed to the pMBQC values. Without a finite-size scaling analysis or an argument that the extra edges can be absorbed, the claimed thresholds and the statement that WGS is a resilient and effective resource for MBQC are not established beyond the specific small graphs. This is the central claim of the paper, so it needs either a scaling check or a clearly restricted claim.
  2. [Sec. III B and Fig. 2 caption] The classical fidelity threshold for the CNOT gate is stated inconsistently: Fig. 2 says F_c=1/2 for two-qubit gates, while Sec. III B states F_c=0.4. If the correct value for a two-qubit gate is 1/2, the claim that the CNOT fidelity exceeds the classical limit for all α is not supported, because the text only establishes F>0.4. If 0.4 is correct, the figure caption and the abstract should be corrected. The nonclassical-advantage claim in the abstract and in Sec. III B depends on this value, so the discrepancy must be resolved and the chosen definition justified with a citation.
  3. [Sec. V, Eq. (14)] The disorder model is underspecified. The Hamiltonian is defined with g_kl=J/|k-l|^α, but the disordered case refers to 'site-dependent couplings {J_i}' without giving the functional form of g_kl in terms of the J_i (e.g., J_i J_j/|k-l|^α or independent bond disorder). Moreover, the quenched average is computed from 10^3 realizations, but no error bars, standard deviations, or convergence checks are reported. Since the robustness claim is a main result of the paper, the model and the statistical uncertainty of the plotted curves should be specified.
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (6)] The optimization over corrective unitaries U^{α,s}_{c,G} is not fully described. It is not stated whether the maximum in Eq. (6) is taken by exhaustive search over the affine Pauli family (5), how many outcome branches are optimized jointly, or which algorithm was used. The statement that 'other local measurements do not help' (Sec. III A) is asserted without supporting data. Because the plotted fidelities are the output of this optimization, the numerical results in Fig. 2 and Table I are not reproducible as written, and the claim about measurement optimality should either be documented in an appendix or removed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The second M^{λ,n}_{s,G} in the trace is missing a dagger; compare with Eq. (4).
  2. [Table I] The quantities α_s and α_th_min are used without definitions in the table caption; define them in the caption or in the text near the table.
  3. [Sec. II] The notation V I(G), V M(G), V O(G) is typeset inconsistently (e.g., V^I versus V I) in the text; please unify the notation.
  4. [Fig. 5] The inset showing α∈(0.4,1.8) is not mentioned in the caption; please describe it.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] The presence of both sine and cosine terms inside a single cosine prefactor makes the expression easy to misread; please check the parentheses and define all variables in one place.
  6. [Sec. III B] The classical fidelity limit for two-qubit gates should be defined with a citation in the text, not only in the figure caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the gate fidelities are computed from the specified Hamiltonian evolution, measurements, and Pauli corrections, with alpha thresholds read off the resulting curves.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. It specifies a concrete resource evolution H_alpha (Sec. II, step 2), the time-pi evolved state |Phi_e(alpha)>, the pMBQC measurement bases, and the family of Pauli corrections U^{alpha,s}_{c,G} in Eqs. (4)-(5). The reported fidelities are computed from the channel Lambda in Eq. (3) using the standard average-gate-fidelity formula Eq. (8). No parameter is fitted to a data subset and then relabeled as a prediction; the alpha thresholds in Table I are read off the computed fidelity curves, and the analytic restricted-fidelity expressions in Eqs. (11), (12), and (B1) are direct outputs of the model. The optimization over corrective unitaries is a legitimate protocol design choice rather than circular fitting, because the resource Hamiltonian is known in advance and the corrections are local Pauli operations conditioned on measurement outcomes. The self-citations [32] and [50] are used only as background on entanglement properties of weighted graph states and on alpha-dependent features of the evolved state; the gate-fidelity results do not reduce to any claim in those papers. Therefore, no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input, and no circularity is present.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the paper scans α, λ, and σ as independent variables. It relies on standard stabilizer formalism and weighted graph state definitions. No new particles or postulates are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The evolution e^{-iH_α π} on |+⟩^N yields the weighted graph state with edge weights φ_ij = π/|i-j|^α.
    Standard calculation: H_α is diagonal in the computational basis with matrix elements J/|i-j|^α on the |1...1> state; at t=π each pair acquires phase π/|i-j|^α, forming a WGS.
  • standard math Classical fidelity limits are F_c = 2/3 for qubit gates and F_c = 2/5 for two-qubit (d=4) gates.
    From Massar-Popescu and Horodecki bounds; note the paper's Fig.2 caption incorrectly states 1/2 for two-qubit gates, though Sec. III.B uses 0.4.
  • domain assumption The optimal corrective unitaries for the disordered case are the same as for the ordered case.
    Sec. V justifies this by assuming disorder appears during implementation and corrections are precomputed with J=1. This is conservative and could underestimate performance.
  • domain assumption Gaussian distribution for disorder with mean 1 and standard deviation σ, with quenched averaging over 10^3 realizations.
    Model choice; represents static disorder in cold atom and trapped ion platforms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement-based quantum computation with variable-range interacting systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LH4YZQZL

@misc{pith2026250611909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement-based quantum computation with variable-range interacting systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LH4YZQZL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11909}
}
abstract

We demonstrate that weighted graph states (WGS) generated via variable-range interacting Ising spin systems where the interaction strength decays with distance as a power law, characterized by the fall-off rate, can successfully implement single- and two-qubit gates with fidelity exceeding classical limits by performing suitable measurements. In the regime of truly long-range interactions (small fall-off rate), optimizing over local unitary operations, while retaining the local measurement scheme in the original measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC) set-up, enables the scheme to achieve nonclassical average fidelities. Specifically, we identify a threshold fall-off rate of the interaction above which the fidelity of both universal single- and two-qubit gates consistently exceeds $90\%$ accuracy. Moreover, we exhibit that the gate-implementation protocol remains robust under two realistic imperfections -- noise in the measurement process, modeled via unsharp measurements, and disorder in the interaction strengths. These findings confirm WGS produced through long-range systems as a resilient and effective resource for MBQC.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Initialization.Initialize the qubits as∣Φ in⟩= ∣ϕin⟩VI (G)⊗ ⊗i∈(VM∪VO)∖VI ∣+⟩i

  2. [2]

    Evolving Hamiltonian and dynamical states.The interacting Hamiltonian between the qubits, used to evolve the initial state, is given byH α = ∑N k,l=1,k<l Hkl, whereH kl =g kl( 1−σ(k) z 2 )( 1−σ(l) z 2 )withσ i (i=x,y,z)be- ing the Pauli operators at sites(k)and(l), and power- law interaction strength are represented asg kl = J ∣k−l∣ α , withαbeing the fal...

  3. [3]

    The local projective measurements (PV) on the qubitsk∈V m of the evolved state∣Φ e(α)⟩are performed in the basis ∣ηsk⟩ = ∣0⟩k+eι(sk π+ηk )∣1⟩k√ 2 , (where ι= √ −1)

    Local measurements for creating outputs.First, we de- fine the set of qubitsV m =(V I(G)∪V M(G))∖V O entitled to measurements. The local projective measurements (PV) on the qubitsk∈V m of the evolved state∣Φ e(α)⟩are performed in the basis ∣ηsk⟩ = ∣0⟩k+eι(sk π+ηk )∣1⟩k√ 2 , (where ι= √ −1). Heres k ∈{0, 1}are the measurement out- come for thekth qubit and...

  4. [4]

    Is the de- crease of fidelity with the unsharp parameters, non- monotonic with the variation ofα?

    Optimal local corrective unitaries for gate implemen- tation.In the case of PV measurements performed onV m, the output state onW(G)corresponding to the outcomesis given by∣Φ out⟩= (⊗k∈Vm ∣ηsk⟩)⊗∣ϕ out⟩VO . In the outcome sector, the state has the form∣ϕ out⟩VO = Us c,GUG ∣ϕin⟩forα→∞. Here,U s c,G =⊗ k∈Vm(σk x)xk(σk z)zk is the local corrective unitary wh...

  5. [5]

    R. P . Feynman, Quantum mechanical computers, Foun- dations of Physics16,507–531(1986)

    1986

  6. [6]

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

    2010

  7. [7]

    Barenco, C

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

    1995

  8. [8]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and er- ror correction, Russian Mathematical Surveys52,1191 (1997)

    1997

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052[quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052[quant-ph]. 9

    1997 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics303,2(2003)

    A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics303,2(2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    Raussendorf and H

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

    2001

  4. [12]

    Raussendorf, D

    R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states, Phys. Rev. A68,022312(2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

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

    2004

  6. [14]

    M. Hein, W. D ¨ur, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. V . den Nest, and H. J. Briegel,Quantum Computers, Algorithms and Chaos, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi” (IOS Press,2006) pp.115–218

    2006

  7. [15]

    Casati, D

    G. Casati, D. L. Shepelyansky, and P . Zoller,Quantum computers, algorithms and chaos, Vol.162(IOS press,2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Browne and H

    D. Browne and H. Briegel,One-Way Quantum Computa- tion(Wiley,2016) pp.449–473

    2016

  9. [17]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D ¨ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Measurement-based quantum compu- tation, Nature Physics5,19(2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Gross and J

    D. Gross and J. Eisert, Novel schemes for measurement- based quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.98,220503 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    Gross, J

    D. Gross, J. Eisert, N. Schuch, and D. Perez-Garcia, Measurement-based quantum computation beyond the one-way model, Phys. Rev. A76,052315(2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    H. P . Nautrup and T.-C. Wei, Symmetry-protected topo- logically ordered states for universal quantum computa- tion, Phys. Rev. A92,052309(2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Raussendorf, D.-S

    R. Raussendorf, D.-S. Wang, A. Prakash, T.-C. Wei, and D. T. Stephen, Symmetry-protected topological phases with uniform computational power in one dimension, Phys. Rev. A96,012302(2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    D. T. Stephen, D.-S. Wang, A. Prakash, T.-C. Wei, and R. Raussendorf, Computational power of symmetry- protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. Lett.119,010504 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, N. C. Menicucci, T. C. Ralph, and P . van Loock, Quantum computing with continuous- variable clusters, Phys. Rev. A79,062318(2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Ohliger and J

    M. Ohliger and J. Eisert, Efficient measurement-based quantum computing with continuous-variable systems, Phys. Rev. A85,062318(2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Kissinger and J

    A. Kissinger and J. van de Wetering, Universal mbqc with generalised parity-phase interactions and pauli measure- ments, Quantum3,134(2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Descamps and B

    E. Descamps and B. Dakic, On the stabilizer formalism and its generalization, Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical57,455301(2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    G. Wong, R. Raussendorf, and B. Czech, The gauge the- ory of measurement-based quantum computation, Quan- tum8,1397(2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Hartmann, J

    L. Hartmann, J. Calsamiglia, W. D ¨ur, and H. J. Briegel, Weighted graph states and applications to spin chains, lattices and gases, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecu- lar and Optical Physics40, S1(2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Khromova, C

    A. Khromova, C. Piltz, B. Scharfenberger, T. F. Gloger, M. Johanning, A. F. Var ´on, and C. Wunderlich, Designer spin pseudomolecule implemented with trapped ions in a magnetic gradient, Phys. Rev. Lett.108,220502(2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Islam, E

    R. Islam, E. Edwards, K. Kim, S. Korenblit, C. Noh, H. Carmichael, G.-D. Lin, L.-M. Duan, C.-C. J. Wang, J. Freericks, and C. Monroe, Onset of a quantum phase transition with a trapped ion quantum simulator, Nature Communications2,377(2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    J. W. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, A. C. Keith, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, Engi- neered two-dimensional ising interactions in a trapped- ion quantum simulator with hundreds of spins, Nature 484,489(2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V . Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Ultracold atomic gases in op- tical lattices: mimicking condensed matter physics and beyond, Advances in Physics56,243(2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    Sowi ´nski, O

    T. Sowi ´nski, O. Dutta, P . Hauke, L. Tagliacozzo, and M. Lewenstein, Dipolar molecules in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.108,115301(2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Mahto, V

    C. Mahto, V . Pathak, A. K. S., and A. Shaji, Nonclassical correlations in subsystems of globally entangled quan- tum states, Phys. Rev. A106,012427(2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Frantzeskakis, C

    R. Frantzeskakis, C. Liu, Z. Raissi, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Extracting perfect ghz states from imperfect weighted graph states via entanglement concentration, Phys. Rev. Res.5,023124(2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Ghosh, K

    D. Ghosh, K. Das Agarwal, P . Halder, and A. Sen(De), Entanglement of weighted graphs uncovering transitions in variable-range interacting models, Phys. Rev. A110, 022431(2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Anders, M

    S. Anders, M. B. Plenio, W. D ¨ur, F. Verstraete, and H.-J. Briegel, Ground-state approximation for strongly inter- acting spin systems in arbitrary spatial dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett.97,107206(2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Anders, H

    S. Anders, H. J. Briegel, and W. D ¨ur, A variational method based on weighted graph states, New Journal of Physics9,361(2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    A. D. K. Plato, O. C. Dahlsten, and M. B. Plenio, Ran- dom circuits by measurements on weighted graph states, Phys. Rev. A78,042332(2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    M. S. Tame, i. m. c. K. ¨Ozdemir, M. Koashi, N. Imoto, and M. S. Kim, Compact toffoli gate using weighted graph states, Phys. Rev. A79,020302(2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Xue, Spin-squeezing property of weighted graph states, Phys

    P . Xue, Spin-squeezing property of weighted graph states, Phys. Rev. A86,023812(2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 277(2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Koffel, M

    T. Koffel, M. Lewenstein, and L. Tagliacozzo, Entangle- ment entropy for the long-range ising chain in a trans- verse field, Phys. Rev. Lett.109,267203(2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Schachenmayer, B

    J. Schachenmayer, B. P . Lanyon, C. F. Roos, and A. J. Da- ley, Entanglement growth in quench dynamics with vari- able range interactions, Phys. Rev. X3,031015(2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Cadarso, M

    A. Cadarso, M. Sanz, M. M. Wolf, J. I. Cirac, and D. P´erez-Garc´ıa, Entanglement, fractional magnetization, and long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. B87,035114 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    M. F. Maghrebi, Z.-X. Gong, M. Foss-Feig, and A. V . Gor- shkov, Causality and quantum criticality in long-range lattice models, Phys. Rev. B93,125128(2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Z.-X. Gong, M. Foss-Feig, F. G. S. L. Brand ˜ao, and A. V . Gorshkov, Entanglement area laws for long-range inter- acting systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.119,050501(2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    F. Ares, J. G. Esteve, F. Falceto, and A. R. de Queiroz, En- tanglement entropy in the long-range kitaev chain, Phys. Rev. A97,062301(2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    F. Ares, J. G. Esteve, F. Falceto, and Z. Zimbor ´as, Sublogarithmic behaviour of the entanglement entropy in fermionic chains, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: The- 10 ory and Experiment2019,093105(2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    L. G. C. Lakkaraju, S. Ghosh, S. Roy, and A. Sen(De), Distribution of entanglement with variable range inter- actions, Physics Letters A418,127703(2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    M. Pons, V . Ahufinger, C. Wunderlich, A. Sanpera, S. Braungardt, A. Sen(De), U. Sen, and M. Lewenstein, Trapped ion chain as a neural network: Error resistant quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.98,023003(2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    Liu and M

    Y. Liu and M. B. Plenio, Resource state generation in a hybrid matter-photon quantum information processor (2024), arXiv:2408.17265[quant-ph]

    2024

  45. [53]

    D ¨ur, L

    W. D ¨ur, L. Hartmann, M. Hein, M. Lewenstein, and H.- J. Briegel, Entanglement in spin chains and lattices with long-range ising-type interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 097203(2005)

    2005

  46. [54]

    Ghosh, K

    D. Ghosh, K. D. Agarwal, P . Halder, and A. S. De, Re- vealing transition in fall-off rates of spin-s ising model through multiqudit graph states (2023), arXiv:2311.08232 [quant-ph]

    2023

  47. [55]

    Massar and S

    S. Massar and S. Popescu, Optimal extraction of informa- tion from finite quantum ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 1259(1995)

    1995

  48. [56]

    Busch, P

    P . Busch, P . J. Lahti, and P . Mittelstaedt,The Quantum Theory of Measurement, Vol.2(Springer,2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Silva, N

    R. Silva, N. Gisin, Y. Guryanova, and S. Popescu, Multi- ple observers can share the nonlocality of half of an en- tangled pair by using optimal weak measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.114,250401(2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    S. Mal, A. S. Majumdar, and D. Home, Sharing of nonlo- cality of a single member of an entangled pair of qubits is not possible by more than two unbiased observers on the other wing, Mathematics4,10.3390/math4030048(2016)

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Peres, How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states, Physics Letters A128,19(1988)

    A. Peres, How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states, Physics Letters A128,19(1988)

    1988

  52. [60]

    Huttner, A

    B. Huttner, A. Muller, J. D. Gautier, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Unambiguous quantum measurement of nonorthogonal states, Phys. Rev. A54,3783(1996)

    1996

  53. [61]

    Derka, V

    R. Derka, V . Buz˘ek, and A. K. Ekert, Universal algorithm for optimal estimation of quantum states from finite en- sembles via realizable generalized measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett.80,1571(1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    G. G. Gillett, R. B. Dalton, B. P . Lanyon, M. P . Almeida, M. Barbieri, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, K. J. Resch, S. D. Bartlett, and A. G. White, Experimental feedback control of quantum systems using weak measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.104,080503(2010)

    2010

  55. [63]

    Sayrin, I

    C. Sayrin, I. Dotsenko, X. Zhou, B. Peaudecerf, T. Rybar- czyk, S. Gleyzes, P . Rouchon, M. Mirrahimi, H. Amini, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Real-time quantum feedback prepares and stabilizes photon num- ber states, Nature477,10.1038/nature10376(2011)

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    Tavakoli, M

    A. Tavakoli, M. Smania, T. V ´ertesi, N. Brunner, and M. Bourennane, Self-testing nonprojective quantum mea- surements in prepare-and-measure experiments, Science Advances6,10.1126/sciadv.aaw6664(2020)

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    Miklin, J

    N. Miklin, J. J. Borkała, and M. Pawłowski, Semi- device-independent self-testing of unsharp measure- ments, Phys. Rev. Res.2,033014(2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Hu, Z.-Y

    M.-J. Hu, Z.-Y. Zhou, X.-M. Hu, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and Y.-S. Zhang, Observation of non-locality sharing among three observers with one entangled pair via op- timal weak measurement, npj Quantum Information4, 10.1038/s41534-018-0115-x (2018)

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    G ´omez, A

    S. G ´omez, A. Mattar, E. S. G ´omez, D. Cavalcanti, O. J. Far´ıas, A. Ac ´ın, and G. Lima, Experimental nonlocality- based randomness generation with nonprojective mea- surements, Phys. Rev. A97,040102(2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Halder, R

    P . Halder, R. Banerjee, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Limits of network nonlocality probed by timelike-separated ob- servers, Phys. Rev. A106,052413(2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Srivastava, S

    C. Srivastava, S. Mal, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Sequen- tial measurement-device-independent entanglement de- tection by multiple observers, Phys. Rev. A103,032408 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Halder, S

    P . Halder, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Measurement-based multipartite entanglement inflation, Phys. Rev. A104, 062412(2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    S. Roy, A. Bera, S. Mal, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Recycling the resource: Sequential usage of shared state in quan- tum teleportation with weak measurements, Physics Let- ters A392,127143(2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    S. Das, P . Halder, R. Banerjee, and A. Sen(De), Sequential reattempt of telecloning, Phys. Rev. A107,042414(2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Ahufinger, L

    V . Ahufinger, L. Sanchez-Palencia, A. Kantian, A. San- pera, and M. Lewenstein, Disordered ultracold atomic gases in optical lattices: A case study of fermi-bose mix- tures, Phys. Rev. A72,063616(2005)

    2005

  66. [74]

    Sanchez-Palencia and M

    L. Sanchez-Palencia and M. Lewenstein, Disordered quantum gases under control, Nature Physics6,87 (2010)

    2010

  67. [75]

    Jendrzejewski, A

    F. Jendrzejewski, A. Bernard, K. M ¨uller, P . Cheinet, V . Josse, M. Piraud, L. Pezz´e, L. Sanchez-Palencia, A. As- pect, and P . Bouyer, Three-dimensional localization of ul- tracold atoms in an optical disordered potential, Nature Physics8,398(2012)

    2012

  68. [76]

    Sen(De), U

    A. Sen(De), U. Sen, V . Ahufinger, H. J. Briegel, A. San- pera, and M. Lewenstein, Quantum-information process- ing in disordered and complex quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A74,062309(2006)

    2006

  69. [77]

    Prabhu, S

    R. Prabhu, S. Pradhan, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Disorder overtakes order in information concentration over quan- tum networks, Phys. Rev. A84,042334(2011)

    2011

  70. [78]

    Shtanko and R

    O. Shtanko and R. Movassagh, Unitary subharmonic re- sponse and floquet majorana modes, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 086804(2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Ghosh, T

    S. Ghosh, T. Chanda, and A. Sen(De), Enhancement in the performance of a quantum battery by ordered and disordered interactions, Phys. Rev. A101,032115(2020)

    2020

  72. [80]

    T. K. Konar, L. G. C. Lakkaraju, S. Ghosh, and A. Sen(De), Quantum battery with ultracold atoms: Bosons versus fermions, Phys. Rev. A106,022618(2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    T. K. Konar, S. Ghosh, A. K. Pal, and A. Sen(De), De- signing robust quantum refrigerators in disordered spin models, Phys. Rev. A105,022214(2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Halder, R

    P . Halder, R. Banerjee, S. Roy, and A. Sen(De), Hybrid nonlocality via atom-photon interactions with and with- out impurities, Phys. Rev. A111,012431(2025)

    2025

  75. [83]

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

    2001

  76. [84]

    Shenoy H., S

    A. Shenoy H., S. Designolle, F. Hirsch, R. Silva, N. Gisin, and N. Brunner, Unbounded sequence of observers ex- hibiting einstein-podolsky-rosen steering, Phys. Rev. A 99,022317(2019)

    2019

  77. [85]

    M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fi- delity of a quantum dynamical operation, Physics Letters A303,249(2002). 11

    2002

  78. [86]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, General teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistilla- tion, Phys. Rev. A60,1888(1999)

    1999

  79. [87]

    Wright, K

    K. Wright, K. M. Beck, S. Debnath, J. M. Amini, Y. Nam, N. Grzesiak, J.-S. Chen, N. C. Pisenti, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, K. M. Hudek, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Wong- Campos, S. Allen, J. Apisdorf, P . Solomon, M. Williams, A. M. Ducore, A. Blinov, S. M. Kreikemeier, V . Chap- lin, ...

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    graph” and “cluster

    We use the words “graph” and “cluster” alternatively, since cluster states are a special kind of graph states with only nearest-neighbour interactions

Pith tools

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