Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 86 references

The PPT criterion plus overlapping tomography maps all two-spin entanglement at quantum criticality on noisy hardware up to 20 qubits.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 05:25 UTC pith:NKJLFZFV

load-bearing objection Solid hardware demo of PPT + overlapping tomography that fully maps two-spin entanglement across TFIM and XXZ critical points up to 20 qubits, with quantitative MPS agreement after mitigation. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08967 v1 pith:NKJLFZFV submitted 2026-07-09 quant-ph

Probing two-spin entanglement at quantum criticality on a quantum processor

Anshumitra Baul , Xiao Xiao , Phillip C. Lotshaw This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum phase transitionsentanglement witnesspositive partial transposeoverlapping tomographytransverse-field Ising modelXXZ modelnoisy intermediate-scale quantum devicesvariational quantum circuits
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.

Quantum phase transitions produce highly entangled ground states, but standard entanglement entropy is hard to interpret for mixed or noisy states and costly to measure. This paper shows that the Positive Partial Transpose (PPT) test, applied to every two-spin reduced density matrix reconstructed by overlapping state tomography, is a practical and scalable witness of pairwise entanglement that works for pure and mixed states alike. The authors prepare critical ground states of the transverse-field Ising and XXZ chains with variational brick-wall circuits of up to 20 qubits on a superconducting processor, apply readout and zero-noise error mitigation, and recover the full spatial map of two-spin entanglement. Negative eigenvalues of the partial transpose peak near the critical points, match matrix-product-state benchmarks after mitigation, and cleanly separate quantum from classical correlations. The result supplies a model-independent, near-term-compatible tool both for diagnosing entanglement structure in condensed-matter simulations and for benchmarking quantum hardware.

Core claim

The PPT criterion combined with quantum overlapping tomography efficiently reconstructs every two-spin reduced density matrix of a many-body state prepared on noisy hardware and certifies pairwise entanglement whenever the smallest eigenvalue of the partial transpose is negative. Applied to variationally prepared critical states of the TFIM and XXZ models (N≤20), the witness yields statistically significant negative eigenvalues that are strongest nearest-neighbor (and next-nearest for XXZ), peak at the quantum phase transitions, and agree with exact MPS results after error mitigation.

What carries the argument

Positive Partial Transpose (PPT) criterion: for any two-spin reduced density matrix ρ_AB, form the partial transpose with respect to one spin; a negative eigenvalue λ_min < 0 is necessary and sufficient for entanglement of two qubits and supplies the negativity |λ_min| as a quantitative witness, obtained for all pairs via O(log N) overlapping tomography measurements.

Load-bearing premise

That the limited-depth variational circuits plus the chosen readout and zero-noise extrapolation steps recover the true ground-state two-spin matrices near criticality closely enough that residual noise does not flip the sign of the smallest partial-transpose eigenvalue.

What would settle it

Prepare the same critical TFIM or XXZ states on hardware or a high-fidelity simulator, reconstruct all two-spin matrices with the same tomography protocol, and check whether the mitigated λ_min values remain negative and quantitatively match independent high-accuracy MPS or exact-diagonalization benchmarks within bootstrap error bars; a systematic sign flip or large quantitative mismatch would falsify the claim.

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the positive partial transpose (PPT) criterion, combined with quantum overlapping tomography, as a scalable witness of two-spin entanglement for quantum-critical states prepared on noisy hardware. Using variational brick-wall circuits (optimized for fidelity to DMRG/MPS ground states) they prepare TFIM and XXZ chains of up to 20 qubits on ibm_boston, reconstruct all two-qubit reduced density matrices, apply M3 readout mitigation plus partial-fold zero-noise extrapolation, and extract the minimum eigenvalue λ_min of the partial transpose. Negative λ_min values (with bootstrap uncertainties) peak near the critical points, recover nearest- and (for XXZ) next-nearest-neighbor entanglement that matches MPS benchmarks after mitigation, and distinguish quantum from classical long-range correlations.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a practical, model-independent, mixed-state-compatible entanglement witness that is far cheaper than entanglement entropy or controlled-SWAP protocols and is therefore well-suited both for NISQ benchmarking and for condensed-matter simulations on near-term devices. The direct hardware demonstration (20 k shots, side-by-side heat-maps versus MPS, quantitative energy and correlation agreement after mitigation, bootstrap error bars) is a concrete strength; the pipeline is immediately extensible to finite temperature and multipartite witnesses. These features make the paper a useful methodological contribution at the intersection of quantum information and quantum materials.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III B 2, III C 1; Figs. 2d, 4c] Sec. III B 2 and III C 1 explicitly note that partial-fold ZNE extrapolations are occasionally unstable and produce large uncertainties. Because the weaker next-nearest-neighbor negativity in the XXZ gapless phase (Figs. 2d, 4c) is recovered only after mitigation and is load-bearing for the claim of a “complete map” of two-spin entanglement, residual coherent or non-Markovian bias that survives translational averaging could still flip the sign of a near-zero λ_min. A quantitative bound on residual systematic error (e.g., fraction of unstable fits, comparison against an independent noise model, or additional intermediate scale factors) should be supplied so that the statistical significance of the NNN signal can be assessed.
  2. [Table I, Sec. II D 4, Fig. 8] Table I reports ansatz fidelities of 0.982–0.998, with deeper circuits required near criticality (Fig. 8). The hardware λ_min is compared to the exact MPS ground state, yet the prepared state is only approximately the ground state. A short analysis of how the residual variational error propagates into the two-spin RDMs (and therefore into λ_min) would clarify whether the observed peak is free of preparation bias, especially for the XXZ model where fidelity is lowest.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion, Sec. II headings] Conclusion contains the typo “simualtions”; several section headings have stray spaces (“ENT ANGLEMENT”, “T ranspose”). A global proof-read would remove these.
  2. [Fig. 1(e), Sec. II C] Fig. 1(e) caption and main text both describe the QOT measurement settings; a single concise statement of the O(log N) scaling would avoid repetition.
  3. [Sec. II C] The bootstrap procedure (1000 resamples) is described clearly, yet the precise definition of “one standard error below zero” as the significance threshold could be stated once in the methods for reproducibility.
  4. [Appendix A] Appendix A gives the initial linear schedule for the variational angles; a short remark on whether the final optimized angles remain close to that schedule (or deviate strongly near criticality) would help readers assess trainability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: PPT/QOT witnesses and criticality peaks are independently benchmarked against external DMRG/MPS ground states; variational parameters maximize fidelity to those states, not to the entanglement signal.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Ground states are obtained independently via DMRG/MPS (classical, external). Variational brick-wall circuits (Appendix A, Trotterized adiabatic evolution from valence-bond product states) are optimized solely by maximizing fidelity |⟨ψ_ansatz(θ)|ψ_gs⟩|^2 and energy error to those external states (Sec. II D 4, Table I; fidelities 0.982–0.998). Hardware execution, QOT reconstruction of all two-spin RDMs (Cotler–Wilczek), partial-transpose eigenvalues λ_min, and error mitigation (M3 + partial-fold ZNE) then produce the reported entanglement maps and criticality peaks (Figs. 2–4). These are compared site-by-site and as functions of control parameters against the same independent MPS benchmarks; no free parameter is fitted to λ_min or to the PPT signal itself, and no equation reduces the observed negativity peak to an input by construction. Self-citations (e.g., the authors’ prior conference abstract) are peripheral and non-load-bearing. Standard tools (PPT criterion, overlapping tomography, ZNE) are applied without uniqueness claims or ansatz smuggling that would force the result. Residual noise/fidelity issues affect correctness risk but do not create circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claim rests on standard quantum-information theorems (PPT for 2×2 systems), standard condensed-matter models, a physics-motivated but approximate variational ansatz, and conventional NISQ error-mitigation techniques. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the usual variational angles, layer counts, and mitigation hyperparameters.

free parameters (4)
  • variational angles θ (even/odd layers)
    Optimized layer-by-layer to maximize fidelity to DMRG ground state; values are not unique and depend on initialization schedule.
  • number of brick-wall layers L
    Chosen by hand (L=4–10) to reach target fidelity; increases near criticality (Fig. 8).
  • ZNE noise scale factors λ ∈ {1.5,…,5.0} and partial-fold chunking
    Hyper-parameters of the extrapolation; authors note occasional unstable fits.
  • bootstrap sample count (1000) and shot count (20 000)
    Statistical parameters that set the reported standard errors on λ_min.
axioms (4)
  • standard math PPT criterion is necessary and sufficient for entanglement of two-qubit (2 imes2) mixed states
    Invoked throughout Sec. II C; classic Peres–Horodecki result.
  • domain assumption For even N the product of valence-bond states on odd bonds is adiabatically connected to the true ground state of the full Hamiltonian
    Used to justify the U_init + brick-wall ansatz (Sec. II D 3, Appendix A).
  • domain assumption Global depolarizing noise model plus exponential fit is adequate for zero-noise extrapolation of Pauli correlators
    Underlying model for the ZNE procedure (Sec. III B 2).
  • domain assumption Symmetries of TFIM (global parity) and XXZ (U(1)) force certain two-point correlators to vanish, so they may be set to zero
    Used to reduce the number of measured correlators (Sec. III B 3).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 26337 in / 2740 out tokens · 35274 ms · 2026-07-13T05:25:40.776337+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum phase transitions in many-body systems give rise to highly entangled states, and understanding their quantum correlations is crucial for characterizing quantum materials. However, traditional entanglement measures such as entanglement entropy are difficult to interpret for noisy or mixed states and require complex circuits to evaluate. Therefore, we explore the Positive Partial Transpose (PPT) criterion, coupled with overlapping state tomography, as an efficient and scalable spin-spin entanglement witness. It detects pairwise entanglement from reduced density matrices, distinguishes quantum from classical correlations, and applies to both pure and mixed states. It is ideal for studying condensed matter systems prepared on noisy quantum devices as well as future extensions to finite temperatures. We demonstrate the approach on quantum hardware, using variational circuits to prepare quantum critical states with up to 20 qubits and completely map their two-spin entanglement across various quantum phase transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08967 by Anshumitra Baul, Phillip C. Lotshaw, Xiao Xiao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a) Schematic 1D spin-model used to investigate two-spin entanglement on the quantum hardware. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Heatmaps of the PPT entanglement witness for all spin pairs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Physical properties of the critical TFIM from quantum simulations. (a) The energy is extrapolated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Quantum simulation results for the XXZ model analogous to Fig. 3 (green/orange lines at lower [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Encoding a two qubit Matrix Product [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Ansatz circuit for TFIM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Ansatz circuit for XXZ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: State preparation of the spin models. (a) Number of circuit layers required to optimize the fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (a) Zero-noise extrapolation applied to cloud-based experimental measurements of the correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (a) Zero-noise extrapolation applied to cloud-based experimental measurements of the correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Heatmaps (a,c,e) and corresponding error maps (b,d,f) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Heatmaps (a,c,e) and corresponding error maps (b,d,f) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.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

86 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    We consider an Ising model with trans- 5 verse field [40, 44]

    Transverse Field Ising Model(TFIM) The Ising model was designed to determine whether or not local interactions between magnetic spins could produce a macroscopic net magnetic mo- ment [43]. We consider an Ising model with trans- 5 verse field [40, 44]. The Hamiltonian is given as ˆHTFIM =−J N−1X i=1 σz i σz i+1 +h NX i=1 σx i ,(11) whereJ= 1 is the coupli...

  2. [2]

    The system is in a gapless phase for−1<∆≤1, exhibiting highly entangled states

    XXZ model The spin-1/2 XXZ model is defined by the Hamil- tonian ˆHXXZ =−J NX i=1 (σx i σx i+1 +σ y i σy i+1) + ∆ NX i=1 σz i σz i+1 (12) ∆ is the anisotropy parameter. The system is in a gapless phase for−1<∆≤1, exhibiting highly entangled states. It undergoes a first-order phase transition to the ferromagnetic phase at ∆ =−1, while at ∆ = 1 there is an ...

  3. [3]

    1(d) [46]

    Quantum state preparation To prepare quantum states at and near the ex- pected critical points, we utilize a family of physics- motivated variational ans¨ atze featuring a state- initialization layer (U init) followed by depth-Llay- ers of one and two-qubit gates arranged in a brick- work pattern, as shown in Fig. 1(d) [46]. This circuit topology is desig...

  4. [4]

    We maximize the fidelity|⟨ψ ansatz(θ)|ψgs⟩|2 with respect to the true ground state|ψ gs⟩, with energy Egs, computed from DMRG, to obtain the optimal parametersθ ∗

    Analysis of simulated circuit optimization We optimize our ground state preparation circuits using qubit sizesN= 12,20 that are consistent with periodic linear qubit arrays on IBM hardware. We maximize the fidelity|⟨ψ ansatz(θ)|ψgs⟩|2 with respect to the true ground state|ψ gs⟩, with energy Egs, computed from DMRG, to obtain the optimal parametersθ ∗. We ...

  5. [5]

    Measurement (Readout) Error Mitigation Readout error mitigation is useful for recovering accurate prob- ability distributions from measured counts. To characterize how the measurement process maps ideal input states to observed outcomes, we es- timate the measurement assignment matrixMsat- isfying ⃗Pmeasured =M ⃗Pideal,(14) where ⃗Pmeasured and ⃗Pideal de...

  6. [6]

    This method corrects the expectation values themselves rather than the un- derlying quantum state

    Zero-noise Extrapolation (ZNE) Several earlier works have addressed the gate er- rors by extrapolating measured observables to the zero-error limit [49–51]. This method corrects the expectation values themselves rather than the un- derlying quantum state. We start with the variational ansatz U given in Eq. 13. The approach builds on the technique introduc...

  7. [7]

    In the TFIM, the global parity operatorQ i Xi is a sym- metry of the Hamiltonian and its eigenstates, which ensures that terms like⟨XY⟩,⟨XZ⟩,⟨ZI⟩,⟨Y I⟩and ⟨Y X⟩vanish [11]

    Symmetry of the Hamiltonians Symmetry constraints within the two Hamiltoni- ans directly eliminate several correlation functions to reconstruct the reduced density matricesρ AB. In the TFIM, the global parity operatorQ i Xi is a sym- metry of the Hamiltonian and its eigenstates, which ensures that terms like⟨XY⟩,⟨XZ⟩,⟨ZI⟩,⟨Y I⟩and ⟨Y X⟩vanish [11]. We the...

  8. [8]

    Transverse Field Ising Model(TFIM) From the TFIM experimental data in Fig. 3(a), we fit the total energy of the optimal ansatz state and obtain the ZNE value -25.37, which has accuracy of 99.53% with the numerical MPS value -25.49, for the state near criticality,h= 1.0. We then measure all the relevant correlations for the ground state mentioned in Sec. I...

  9. [9]

    From the XXZ experimental data in Fig

    XXZ Model We repeated all of the above analyses for the XXZ model. From the XXZ experimental data in Fig. 4(a), we obtain the ZNE value -12.58, which has accuracy of 99.05% with the numerical MPS value -12.70, for the state near QPT at ∆ =−0.68, again improving significantly on the unmitigated value. We average the correlations over all equivalent spin se...

  10. [10]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?Phys. Rev., 47:777–780, May 1935

    1935

  11. [11]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral. Entanglement in many-body systems.Rev. Mod. Phys., 80(2):517–576, 2008

    2008

  12. [12]

    Horodecki M

    P. Horodecki M. Horodecki and R. Horodecki. Sep- arability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions.Phys. Lett. A, 223:1, 1997

    1997

  13. [13]

    Quantum spin liq- uids: a review.Rep

    Lucile Savary and Leon Balents. Quantum spin liq- uids: a review.Rep. Prog. Phys., 80(1):016502, November 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    Colloquium: Zoo of quantum- topological phases of matter.Rev

    Xiao-Gang Wen. Colloquium: Zoo of quantum- topological phases of matter.Rev. Mod. Phys., 89:041004, Dec 2017

    2017

  15. [15]

    E. Rico G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre and A. Kitaev. En- tanglement in quantum critical phenomena.Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:227902, 2003

    2003

  16. [16]

    Mukherjee, Michael M

    Pontus Laurell, Allen Scheie, Chiron J. Mukherjee, Michael M. Koza, Mechtild Enderle, Zbigniew Tyl- czynski, Satoshi Okamoto, Radu Coldea, D. Alan Tennant, and Gonzalo Alvarez. Quantifying and controlling entanglement in the quantum magnet cs2cocl4.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:037201, Jul 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    Quantum entan- glement.Rev

    Ryszard Horodecki, Pawe l Horodecki, Micha l Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki. Quantum entan- glement.Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:865–942, Jun 2009

    2009

  18. [18]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang.Quantum Compu- tation and Quantum Information. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 1st edition, 2000

    2000

  19. [19]

    Bell nonlocality.Rev

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Piro- nio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner. Bell nonlocality.Rev. Mod. Phys., 86:419–478, Apr 2014

    2014

  20. [20]

    Cam- bridge University Press, 2011

    Subir Sachdev.Quantum Phase Transitions. Cam- bridge University Press, 2011. [12]{S. L.}Sondhi,{S. M.}Girvin,{J. P.}Carini, and D. Shahar. Continuous quantum phase transitions. Rev. Mod. Phys., 69(1):315–333, January 1997

    2011

  21. [21]

    Amico, H

    Andreas Osterloh, L. Amico, H. Falci, and R. Fazio. Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition.Nature, 416(6881):608–610, 2002

    2002

  22. [22]

    Cramer J

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

    2010

  23. [23]

    R. P. Feynman. Simulating physics with computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys., 21:467–488, 1982

    1982

  24. [24]

    Bench- marking highly entangled states on a 60-atom ana- logue quantum simulator.Nature, 628:1–7, 03 2024

    Adam Shaw, Zhuo Chen, Joonhee Choi, Daniel Mark, Pascal Scholl, Ran Finkelstein, Andreas El- ben, Soonwon Choi, and Manuel Endres. Bench- marking highly entangled states on a 60-atom ana- logue quantum simulator.Nature, 628:1–7, 03 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Bremner, John Martinis, and Hartmut Neven

    Sergio Boixo, Sergei Isakov, Vadim Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, Nan Ding, Zhang Jiang, Michael J. Bremner, John Martinis, and Hartmut Neven. Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices.Nat. Phys., 14:595–600, 2018

    2018

  26. [26]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, August 2018

    John Preskill. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, August 2018

    2018

  27. [27]

    Entanglement certification from theory to experiment.Nat

    Nicolai Friis, Giuseppe Vitagliano, Mehul Malik, and Marcus Huber. Entanglement certification from theory to experiment.Nat. Rev. Phys., 1(1):72–87, 2019

    2019

  28. [28]

    Hamilton, Nouamane Laanait, Akhil Francis, Sophia E

    Kathleen E. Hamilton, Nouamane Laanait, Akhil Francis, Sophia E. Economou, George S. Barron, K¨ ubra Yeter-Aydeniz, Titus Morris, Harrison Coo- ley, Muhun Kang, Alexander F. Kemper, and Raphael Pooser. An entanglement-based volumetric benchmark for near-term quantum hardware.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00678, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Plenio, Steven T

    Marcus Cramer, Martin B. Plenio, Steven T. Flam- mia, Rolando Somma, David Gross, Stephen D. Bartlett, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, David Poulin, and Yi-Kai Liu. Efficient quantum state tomogra- phy.Nat. Commun., 1(1):149, 2010

    2010

  30. [30]

    Preiss, M

    Rajibul Islam, Ruichao Ma, Philipp M. Preiss, M. Eric Tai, Alexander Lukin, Matthew Rispoli, and Markus Greiner. Measuring entanglement entropy in a quantum many-body system.Nature, 528:77– 83, 2015

    2015

  31. [31]

    Kaufman, M

    Adam M. Kaufman, M. Eric Tai, Alexander Lukin, Matthew Rispoli, Robert Schittko, Philipp M. Preiss, and Markus Greiner. Quantum thermal- ization through entanglement in an isolated many- body system.Science, 353(6301):794–800, 2016

    2016

  32. [32]

    The controlled swap test for determining quantum entanglement.Quantum Sci

    Steph Foulds, Viv Kendon, and Timothy Spiller. The controlled swap test for determining quantum entanglement.Quantum Sci. Technol., 6, 04 2021

    2021

  33. [33]

    Witnessing entangle- ment and quantum correlations in condensed mat- ter: A review.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 8(3):2400196, 2025

    Pontus Laurell, Allen Scheie, Elbio Dagotto, and D Alan Tennant. Witnessing entangle- ment and quantum correlations in condensed mat- ter: A review.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 8(3):2400196, 2025

    2025

  34. [34]

    Measuring multipartite entangle- ment through dynamic susceptibilities.Nat

    Philipp Hauke, Markus Heyl, Luca Tagliacozzo, and Peter Zoller. Measuring multipartite entangle- ment through dynamic susceptibilities.Nat. Phys., 12(8):778–782, 2016

    2016

  35. [35]

    A. Peres. Separability criterion for density matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 77(8):1413–1416, 1996

    1996

  36. [36]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. R. McClean, P. Shadbolt, and et al. Variational quantum eigensolver: A hy- brid quantum-classical approach.Nat. Commun., 5:4213, 2014

    2014

  37. [37]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki. Sep- arability of mixed states and entanglement criterion. 13 Phys. Rev. Lett., 77(8):1419–1422, 1996

    1996

  38. [38]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac. Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully.Phys. Rev. B, 73:094423, Mar 2006

    2006

  39. [39]

    The density-matrix renormaliza- tion group in the age of matrix product states.Ann

    Ulrich Schollw¨ ock. The density-matrix renormaliza- tion group in the age of matrix product states.Ann. Phys. (N. Y.), 326(1):96–192, 2011. January 2011 Special Issue

    2011

  40. [40]

    J. R. McClean and et al. The standard for quan- tum state tomography and measurement.Sci. Adv., 2(5):e1501827, 2016

    2016

  41. [41]

    Springer Publishing Company, Incorpo- rated, 1st edition, 2018

    Stefan Hollands and Ko Sanders.Entanglement Measures and Their Properties in Quantum Field Theory. Springer Publishing Company, Incorpo- rated, 1st edition, 2018

    2018

  42. [42]

    Anshumitra Baul and Phillip C. Lotshaw. Entangle- ment benchmarking in quantum simulations of spin systems. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol- ume 02, pages 594–595, 2025

    2025

  43. [43]

    A compar- ison of the entanglement measures negativity and concurrence.J

    Verstraete, Frank and Audenaert, Koenraad and Dehaene, Jeroen and De Moor, Bart. A compar- ison of the entanglement measures negativity and concurrence.J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 34(47):10327– 10332, 2001

    2001

  44. [44]

    Guifr´ e Vidal and Reinhard F. Werner. Com- putable measure of entanglement.Physical Review A, 65:032314, 2002

    2002

  45. [45]

    Quantum over- lapping tomography.Phys

    Jordan Cotler and Frank Wilczek. Quantum over- lapping tomography.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:100401, Mar 2020

    2020

  46. [46]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nat

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nat. Phys., 16(10):1050–1057, 2020

    2020

  47. [47]

    Statistical learning on randomized data to verify quantum state approximate k-designs, 2023

    Kaustav Mukherjee, Sarah Chehade, Lorenzo Versini, Karim Alaa El-Din, Florian Mintert, and Rick Mukherjee. Statistical learning on randomized data to verify quantum state approximate k-designs, 2023

    2023

  48. [48]

    P. Pfeuty. The one-dimensional ising model with a transverse field.Ann. Phys. (N. Y.), 57:79–90, 1970

    1970

  49. [49]

    Osborne and M

    T.J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen. Entanglement in a simple quantum phase transition.Phys. Rev. A, 66(3):032110, 2002

    2002

  50. [50]

    A. R. Its, F. Mezzadri, and M. Y. Mo. Entanglement entropy in quantum spin chains with finite range interaction.Commun. Math. Phys., 284:117–185, 2008

    2008

  51. [51]

    Beitrag zur theorie des ferromag- netismus.Z

    Ernst Ising. Beitrag zur theorie des ferromag- netismus.Z. Phys., 31(1):253–258, 1925

    1925

  52. [52]

    R. B. Stinchcombe. Ising model in a transverse field. i. basic theory.J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys., 6:2459, 1973

    1973

  53. [53]

    C. N. Yang and C. P. Yang. One-dimensional chain of anisotropic spin-spin interactions. i. proof of bethe’s hypothesis for ground state in a finite sys- tem.Phys. Rev., 150:321–327, Oct 1966

    1966

  54. [54]

    Scalable preparation of matrix prod- uct states with sequential and brick wall quantum circuits.Quantum Sci

    Tomasz Szo ldra, Rick Mukherjee, and Peter Schmelcher. Scalable preparation of matrix prod- uct states with sequential and brick wall quantum circuits.Quantum Sci. Technol., 2026

    2026

  55. [55]

    Simulating large-size quantum spin chains on cloud- based superconducting quantum computers.Phys

    Hongye Yu, Yusheng Zhao, and Tzu-Chieh Wei. Simulating large-size quantum spin chains on cloud- based superconducting quantum computers.Phys. Rev. Res., 5:013183, Mar 2023

    2023

  56. [56]

    Nation, Hwajung Kang, Neereja Sundare- san, and Jay M

    Paul D. Nation, Hwajung Kang, Neereja Sundare- san, and Jay M. Gambetta. Scalable mitigation of measurement errors on quantum computers.PRX Quantum, 2:040326, Nov 2021

    2021

  57. [57]

    Benjamin, and Ying Li

    Suguru Endo, Simon C. Benjamin, and Ying Li. Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications.Phys. Rev. X, 8:031027, 2018

    2018

  58. [58]

    Gam- betta

    Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi, and Jay M. Gam- betta. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:180509, 2017

    2017

  59. [59]

    C´ orcoles, Antonio Mezzacapo, Jerry M

    Abhinav Kandala, Kristan Temme, Antonio D. C´ orcoles, Antonio Mezzacapo, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor. Nature, 567:491–495, 2019

    2019

  60. [60]

    Tudor Giurgica-Tiron, Yassine Hindy, Ryan LaRose, Andrea Mari, and William J. Zeng. Dig- ital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation. InIEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 306–316, Denver, CO, USA, 2020

    2020

  61. [61]

    Dynamics of non- markovian open quantum systems.Rev

    In´ es de Vega and Daniel Alonso. Dynamics of non- markovian open quantum systems.Rev. Mod. Phys., 89:015001, Jan 2017

    2017

  62. [62]

    Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors.Quantum, 4:321, 09 2020

    Mohan Sarovar, Timothy Proctor, Kenneth Rudinger, Kevin Young, Erik Nielsen, and Robin Blume-Kohout. Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors.Quantum, 4:321, 09 2020

    2020

  63. [63]

    Ritajit Majumdar, Pedro Rivero, Friedrike Metz, Areeq Hasan, and Derek S. Wang. Best Practices for Quantum Error Mitigation with Digital Zero- Noise Extrapolation . In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE), pages 881–887, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, September 2023. IEEE Computer Society

    2023

  64. [64]

    Sara Murciano, Pablo Sala, Yue Liu, Roger S. K. Mong, and Jason Alicea. Measurement-altered ising quantum criticality.Phys. Rev. X, 13:041042, Dec 2023

    2023

  65. [65]

    Logarithmic terms in entanglement en- tropies of 2d quantum critical points¡? format?¿ and shannon entropies of spin chains.Phys

    Michael P Zaletel, Jens H Bardarson, and Joel E Moore. Logarithmic terms in entanglement en- tropies of 2d quantum critical points¡? format?¿ and shannon entropies of spin chains.Phys. Rev. Lett., 107(2):020402, 2011

    2011

  66. [66]

    Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways.Physical Review A, 62(6):062314, 2000

    Wolfgang D¨ ur, Guifre Vidal, and J Ignacio Cirac. Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways.Physical Review A, 62(6):062314, 2000

    2000

  67. [67]

    Entanglement witness for indistinguishable electrons using solid-state spectroscopy.Phys

    Tongtong Liu, Luogen Xu, Jiarui Liu, and Yao Wang. Entanglement witness for indistinguishable electrons using solid-state spectroscopy.Phys. Rev. X, 15:011056, Mar 2025

    2025

  68. [68]

    Marsh, Ronen M

    Brendan P. Marsh, Ronen M. Kroeze, Surya Gan- guli, Sarang Gopalakrishnan, Jonathan Keeling, and Benjamin L. Lev. Entanglement and replica symmetry breaking in a driven-dissipative quantum 14 spin glass.Phys. Rev. X, 14:011026, Feb 2024

    2024

  69. [69]

    Quantum interferometric metrology with entangled photons.Front

    Yuanyuan Chen, Ling Hong, and Lixiang Chen. Quantum interferometric metrology with entangled photons.Front. Phys., Volume 10 - 2022, 2022

    2022

  70. [70]

    A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected en- tangled pair states.Ann

    Roman Orus. A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected en- tangled pair states.Ann. Phys. (N. Y.), 349, 06 2013

    2013

  71. [71]

    Multiparty entanglement loops in quan- tum spin liquids.Nat

    Liuke Lyu, Deeksha Chandorkar, Samarth Kapoor, So Takei, Erik Sorensen, and William Witczak- Krempa. Multiparty entanglement loops in quan- tum spin liquids.Nat. Commun., 04 2026

    2026

  72. [72]

    Taming multiparticle entanglement.Phys

    Bastian Jungnitsch, Tobias Moroder, and Otfried G¨ uhne. Taming multiparticle entanglement.Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:190502, May 2011

    2011

  73. [73]

    Entanglement spectrum degeneracy and cardy for- mula in 1+1 dimensional conformal field theories.J

    Vincenzo Alba, Pasquale Calabrese, and Erik Tonni. Entanglement spectrum degeneracy and cardy for- mula in 1+1 dimensional conformal field theories.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 51, 12 2017

    2017

  74. [74]

    Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed interacting quantum systems.Rev

    Anatoli Polkovnikov, Krishnendu Sengupta, Alessandro Silva, and Mukund Vengalattore. Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed interacting quantum systems.Rev. Mod. Phys., 83:863–883, Aug 2011

    2011

  75. [75]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor.Nature, 574:505–510, 10 2019

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando Brandao, David Buell, Brian Burkett, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Ben Chiaro, Roberto Collins, William Courtney, An- drew Dunsworth, Edward Farhi, Brooks Foxen, and John Martinis. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor.Nat...

    2019

  76. [76]

    Steven R. White. Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups.Phys. Rev. Lett., 69:2863–2866, Nov 1992

    1992

  77. [77]

    Steven R. White. Early days of dmrg.Nat. Rev. Phys., 5:264, 2023

    2023

  78. [78]

    Thermody- namic limit of density matrix renormalization.Phys

    Stellan ¨Ostlund and Stefan Rommer. Thermody- namic limit of density matrix renormalization.Phys. Rev. Lett., 75:3537–3540, Nov 1995

    1995

  79. [79]

    Martin-Delgado, Tomotoshi Nishino, and German Sierra

    Jorge Dukelsky, M. Martin-Delgado, Tomotoshi Nishino, and German Sierra. Equivalence of the variational matrix product method and the density matrix renormalization group applied to spin chains. EPL (Europhys. Lett.), 43, 10 1997

    1997

  80. [80]

    Hackbusch.Tensor Spaces and Numerical Ten- sor Calculus

    W. Hackbusch.Tensor Spaces and Numerical Ten- sor Calculus. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012

    2012

Showing first 80 references.