Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 117 references

Unbounded entanglement-sustaining sequential local quantum state discrimination

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any two entangled two-qubit states, sequential observers can beat random guessing indefinitely while preserving entanglement.

desk verdict Correct special-case result, but Theorem 3 rests on a basis-dependent error in Appendix B that breaks the arbitrary-round claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06466 v1 pith:PATT75AW submitted 2025-06-06 quant-ph

Debarupa Saha , Priya Ghosh , Kornikar Sen , Chirag Srivastava , Ujjwal Sen This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords sequentialstatediscriminationlocaloperationsandclassicalcommunicationminimum-errorunsharpmeasuremententanglementpreservationwitnesslogarithmicnegativitytwo-qubitpurestates
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 asks whether sequential state discrimination—multiple pairs of observers measuring the same bipartite state one after another—can be done without destroying the entanglement being measured. Standard protocols can distinguish any two orthogonal pure states perfectly, but the sharp measurement collapses the state into a separable one. The authors replace sharp measurements with unsharp (noisy) ones and show that in each round the success probability stays above the 1/2 random-guessing level while the post-measurement states keep finite entanglement. For a special family of two-qubit states they compute the residual entanglement exactly and can push the success probability arbitrarily close to 1. For arbitrary orthogonal entangled two-qubit states they claim a witness-operator argument certifies entanglement retention for any number of rounds.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the unsharp POVM: each sharp rank-one projector P_j is replaced by Q_j = λP_j + (1−λ) I/d, so part of the measurement acts as a ‘do nothing’ channel. Tuning λk controls the trade-off between information gain and entanglement damage. The state is propagated between rounds by the von Neumann–Lüders update ρ_k^b = Σ_j √(O_j^k) ρ_{k−1}^b √(O_j^k). Entanglement retention is quantified by logarithmic negativity for the special family and certified by the witness operator W_k^b for the general family; the next round’s sharpness parameter is set to λ_{k+1} = (1+ε_k) times the maximum of the ratios (1+Tr[σ3⊗σ3 ρ_k^b])/Tr[σ2⊗σ2 ρ_k^b], designed to keep the witness negative.

What would settle it

Take the paper's own initial state |Φ1⟩ = √µ1|00⟩ + √(1−µ1)|1⟩(cosθ|0⟩ + sinθ|1⟩) and compute Tr[σ3⊗σ3|Φ1⟩⟨Φ1|] = µ1 − (1−µ1)cos2θ. For µ1 = 0.4 and θ = π/3 this equals 0.7, not −1, so the Appendix B basis for concluding λ2→0 fails for that generic choice; running the witness inequality (20) explicitly for round 2 with these parameters would settle whether arbitrarily many rounds can all certify entanglement for every state in the claimed family.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any two orthogonal, entangled, two-qubit pure states prepared with equal probability, there exist unsharp one-way LOCC measurements such that an arbitrary number of sequential pairs can discriminate the states with average success probability strictly greater than 1/2 at every round, while the state handed on by each pair remains entangled. The protocol starts from the optimal sharp LOCC measurement for two orthogonal two-qubit states and replaces each projector with a noisy version whose sharpness parameter λk is chosen round by round. For the special family |κ1⟩ and |κ2⟩, the success probability at round k is 1/2 + λ̄_k²/2 and the logarithmic negativity of each post-measurement state is log2[1 + 2ϑ_b(1 − S_k)], both strictly positive for λ̄_k ∈ (0,1). For the general family, entanglement is certified by a witness operator W_k^b = (1/4)(I⊗I + σ3⊗σ3 − g2^k σ2⊗σ2), with g2^k chosen so that Tr[W_k^b ρ_k^b] < 0, and the success probability is claimed to exceed 1/2 for arbitrarily many rounds.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that both initial states have Tr[σ3⊗σ3ρ0_b] = −1; in the paper's own parametrization of general two-qubit states this equality holds only for special parameter choices, so the chain λ2→0, λ3→0, ... that keeps the witness valid for arbitrarily many rounds is not guaranteed for all states the theorem claims to cover.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the main theorem is correct, arbitrarily many receiver pairs can extract classical information from an entangled two-qubit resource while preserving a usable entangled state for later tasks.
  • For the special family, each round's success probability depends only on that round's sharpness parameter, so earlier observers' choices do not degrade later discrimination power.
  • A final pair that declines to decode can still use the remaining entangled state, since every two-qubit entangled state is distillable.
  • The protocol works under one-way LOCC, so it uses the same experimental resources as standard sequential state discrimination.
  • For the special family, the success probability can be made arbitrarily close to 1 by taking λ̄_k close to 1 while keeping nonzero logarithmic negativity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the missing σ3⊗σ3 condition is enforced by rotating the initial states into a basis where each is Schmidt anti-correlated, the witness construction might extend cleanly to all entangled pairs; this is an editorial projection, not a claim in the paper.
  • One testable extension is to apply the same unsharp-measurement replacement to unambiguous sequential discrimination or to multipartite states; the paper only treats the minimum-error two-qubit case.
  • The numerical checks at k = 2 in the general-case proof could likely be replaced by a fully analytic computation of the R and R′ recursion coefficients in closed form, which would remove the remaining numerical step.
  • The sharpness parameter acts like an entanglement budget that each observer can choose independently; for the special family the budget is not depleted by previous rounds, suggesting a modular resource interpretation that the paper does not develop.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sequential state discrimination protocol (SSDSE) in which multiple pairs of observers distinguish two orthogonal entangled two-qubit pure states by unsharp local measurements with classical communication, while aiming to keep the post-measurement states entangled at every round. For a particular two-state family (Sec. IV) the authors derive the per-round success probability and the residual logarithmic negativity; for general orthogonal entangled two-qubit states (Sec. V) they claim, in Theorem 3, that arbitrarily many rounds can succeed with probability above random guessing while entanglement is witnessed in each round. The general-case proof relies on a witness construction in Sec. V A and on Appendices B and C.

Significance. The specific-case results are concrete and checkable: Theorems 1 and 2 give P^k_suc = 1/2 + λ_k^2/2 and E^k_b = log2[1 + 2ϑ_b(1 − S_k)], and direct calculation confirms these formulae. If the general claim were established, the paper would be a useful contribution to the recent literature on recycling quantum correlations by sequential weak measurements. However, the general-case Theorem 3 is the central new assertion of the paper, and its proof is invalid at a load-bearing point: the witness construction does not certify the initial states in the computational basis used by the protocol, and the arbitrary-round success-probability proof is not rigorous. The general claim is therefore not established by this manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B; Sec. V A] The chain argument for arbitrarily many rounds is based on the claim that Tr[σ3⊗σ3 ρ0_b] = −1 for both initial states. Appendix B obtains this by writing a pure entangled state, up to local unitary, as √m|01⟩+√(1−m)|10⟩. But the states in Eq. (1) are fixed in a computational basis that is not the Schmidt basis of either state, and the protocol's measurements are defined in that same computational basis. In the computational basis, for |Φ1⟩=√µ1|00⟩+√(1−µ1)|1ς1⟩ one obtains Tr[σ3⊗σ3 ρ0_1] = µ1−(1−µ1)cos2θ, which equals −1 only for µ1=0 or special θ, outside the entangled regime µ1∈(0,1). For |Φ2⟩=√µ2|01⟩+√(1−µ2)|1ς1⊥⟩ one obtains Tr[σ3⊗σ3 ρ0_2] = −µ2+(1−µ2)cos2θ, which is also not −1 in general. Hence the inference λ1→0 ⇒ λ2→0 ⇒ ⋯ in Eq. (B1) has no valid base, and the claimed existence of witnesses W^k_b for arbitrarily many rounds is unsupported.
  2. [Sec. V A, Eqs. (19)–(22)] The witness condition is transcribed with the wrong inequality direction when Tr[σ2⊗σ2 ρ] is negative. For W^k_b = 1/4(I + σ3⊗σ3 − g^k_2 σ2⊗σ2), the condition Tr[W^k_b ρ] < 0 is 1 + Tr[σ3⊗σ3 ρ] − g Tr[σ2⊗σ2 ρ] < 0. For both initial states in Eq. (1), with the standard Pauli σ2 and in the computational basis, Tr[σ2⊗σ2 ρ0_b] < 0; for example, at µ1=µ2=1/2, θ=π/2, Tr[σ2⊗σ2 ρ0_1] = Tr[σ2⊗σ2 ρ0_2] = −1. In this case the correct inequality is g < (1+Tr[σ3⊗σ3 ρ])/Tr[σ2⊗σ2 ρ], not the > in Eq. (20), and since 1+Tr[σ3⊗σ3 ρ] ≥ 0 for any state, no g∈[0,1] can make Tr[W ρ] < 0. Thus the witness operator of Eq. (19) cannot certify the entanglement of the initial states in the protocol's measurement basis, and the recursive construction in Eq. (22) has no valid starting point.
  3. [Appendix C; Theorem 3] The proof that Q^k_b > 0 for θ∈(π/4,π/2] and hence that P^k_suc > 1/2 for all k is not a proof as written. Several key steps are justified only by numerical inspection for k = 2 (Figs. 2–5) or by assertions such as 'it can be shown' and 'it can be checked numerically' for functions h, a, c whose sign properties are stated to hold 'in the limit λ_k→0' without closed-form demonstration. The induction to arbitrary k also requires the sequence {λ_k} to be strictly increasing while satisfying the witness-prescribed recursion (22) and remaining in (0,1], but no argument establishes that such a sequence exists for every finite k. Consequently, Theorem 3's claim of arbitrarily many rounds with per-round success probability strictly above 1/2 is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I and Sec. IV] There are several typographical errors: the Introduction ends with 'lastly conclude in Sec. V B', which should refer to the conclusion section; Sec. IV says 'discriminating |κ1⟩ and |κ1⟩' where the second state should be |κ2⟩; and the sentence 'the states ¯ρb are pure entangled states of the form ¯ρb = |κb⟩⟨κb|' uses an undefined index b before the states are introduced.
  2. [Sec. II B 1, Eq. (1)] The parameterization in Eq. (1) is taken from Ref. [91] and the entangled regime is stated as µ1,2∈(0,1), θ∈(0,π/2]. The paper should explicitly note that this covers all orthogonal entangled pairs only up to local unitary, since the subsequent witness construction is basis-dependent; the present wording could mislead the reader into thinking the computational basis is the Schmidt basis.
  3. [Sec. V A, Eq. (18)] The witness form in Eq. (18) is cited from Refs. [109,118,119] with |g_q|≤1. The paper then restricts to g_1=0, g_3=1, g_2∈[0,1] without justifying that this restricted family can witness every entangled two-qubit state in the computational basis; as shown in the major comments, it cannot for the states considered.
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (5)] The definition of unsharp measurement in Eq. (5) requires λ∈(0,1), but later the paper also discusses λ=1 and λ→0. Please clarify the allowed range of λ in each statement and whether λ=0 corresponds to a valid measurement or only to a limiting case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the protocol's construction and success-probability proofs are self-contained, and the only author-overlapping citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The witness form in Eq. (18) is cited to Refs. [109, 118, 119]; Ref. [109] shares two authors with this paper, but the same witness form is independently established in Refs. [118, 119] and the bound Tr[W Sigma] >= 0 for all separable states is a standard result, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The construction in Eq. (22), where lambda_{k+1} is set equal to the witness parameter g^k_2, is a constructive existence argument rather than a fit-then-predict cycle: the subsequent success-probability bound P^k_suc > 1/2 is derived analytically from the explicit recursion relations in Eqs. (A1) and (C1), not assumed. The positivity of Q^k_b is proved for an increasing sequence lambda_k -> 0, which is the same regime required for the witness bound; satisfying both constraints is a parameter-choice argument, not an input-output identity. The Appendix B step Tr[sigma_3 tensor sigma_3 rho^0_b] = -1, even if mathematically incorrect due to a basis mismatch, is a correctness defect rather than a circular reduction: it is used as a lemma to justify the existence of witnesses, not assumed as the conclusion of the paper. No step in the paper's derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The central claim rests on standard quantum measurement and state discrimination results, plus one ad hoc assumption in Appendix B that is actually false for generic parameters in Eq (1). The sharpness parameters in the general case are not fitted to data; they are chosen constructively, with free ε_k introduced to satisfy the proof's inequalities.

free parameters (2)
  • epsilon_k (k=1,...,K) = unspecified positive reals
    Chosen in Eq (22) / Appendix B to make the sharpness sequence λ_k increasing and bounded by 1; these are introduced ad hoc to satisfy the proof's inequalities.
  • lambda_1 (initial sharpness, general case) = tends to 0
    Set in the limit λ_1→0 so that Appendix B's claimed chain λ_k→0 would hold; the limit is essential for the witness-existence argument.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Any two pure orthogonal two-qubit states can, up to local unitary, be written as in Eq (1) with parameters µ1,µ2,θ
    This is a known result from Walgate et al. [91], used to parameterize the ensemble.
  • standard math Unsharp measurements of the form Q_j=λP_j+(1-λ)I/d are valid quantum measurements and can be implemented in LOCC by sequential local unsharp measurements
    Standard quantum measurement formalism; the product form used in Eq (6) sums to identity.
  • standard math The post-measurement state after an unsharp measurement follows the von Neumann-Lüders rule (Eq 9)
    Standard rule for ideal measurements; used recursively to obtain Eq (10).
  • standard math The witness operator form in Eq (18) with |g_q|≤1 is an entanglement witness on C2⊗C2
    Known result from Gühne et al. [118,119] and related works; used to define W^k_b.
  • ad hoc to paper Tr[σ3⊗σ3ρ0_b]=-1 for both initial states in the computational basis
    Assumed in Appendix B on the basis of the Schmidt decomposition, but false for the parameterization Eq (1) except when the states happen to align with the |01>,|10> Schmidt form. This is the load-bearing unproven premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unbounded entanglement-sustaining sequential local quantum state discrimination." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PATT75AW

@misc{pith2026250606466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unbounded entanglement-sustaining sequential local quantum state discrimination},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PATT75AW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06466}
}
read the original abstract

Two pure orthogonal quantum states can be perfectly distinguished by sequential local action of multiple pairs of parties. However, this process typically leads to the complete dissolution of entanglement in the states being discriminated. We propose a protocol that allows an arbitrary number of pairs of parties to distinguish between any two orthogonal, entangled, two-qubit pure states using local quantum operations and classical communication, with a success probability greater than that of random guessing, while ensuring that at each step, the individual ensemble states retain a finite amount of entanglement. Our protocol employs the minimum-error state discrimination approach. For demonstrating the retention of entanglement in the ensemble states at each step, we use logarithmic negativity as well as the concept of entanglement witnessing. For a large family of sets of the two states, the success probability of discrimination can be as close as required to unity, while sustaining a finite amount of entanglement in each step.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06466 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Contour plot illustrating three positive surfaces of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Contour plot showing three positive surfaces of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Contour plot showing three representative constant-value surfaces of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Contour plot depicting three positive surfaces of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Example: LOCC discrimination of two pure orthogonal two-qubit states According to Ref. [91], any two pure orthogonal two- qubit states, |Φ1⟩ and |Φ2⟩, up to local unitary, can be expressed as follows: |Φ1⟩ = √µ1 |00⟩AB + p 1 − µ1 |1ς1⟩AB , |Φ2⟩ = √µ2 |01⟩AB + p 1 − µ2 1ς ⊥ 1 AB . (1) Here 0 ≤ µ1, µ2 ≤ 1, ⟨0|1⟩A/B = 0 and ς1 ς ⊥ 1 B = 0. Without loss of ge...

  2. [2]

    p 1 + λk + p 1 − λk I2 + p 1 + λk − p 1 − λk σ3 # , q Ak 1 = q Bk 1|0 = 1 2 √ 2

    (8) To compute the average success probability for the subsequent round, k > 1, we first determine the post- measurement state at an arbitrary ( k − 1)th round. For this, we recall that if the state at the end of (k−2)th round is ¯ρk−2 b then the post-measurement state after ( k − 1)th round by using the von Neumann-L¨ uder’s rule [117] ¯ρk−1 b = X j q ¯O...

  3. [3]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nat. 299, 803 (1982)

    1982

  4. [4]

    Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing,

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing,” Theor. Comput. Sci. 560, 11 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Quantum state discrimination,

    A. Chefles, “Quantum state discrimination,” Contemp. Phys. 41, 424 (2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    J. A. Bergou, U. Herzog, and M. Hiller, Quantum state estimation (Springer, 2004) p. 465

    2004

  7. [7]

    Quantum state discrimination and se- lected applications,

    J. A. Bergou, “Quantum state discrimination and se- lected applications,” 84, 012001 (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    Quantum state discrimi- nation,

    S. M. Barnett and S. Croke, “Quantum state discrimi- nation,” AOP 1, 278 (2009)

    2009

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    Discrimination of quantum states,

    J. A. Bergou, “Discrimination of quantum states,” J. Mod. Opt. 57, 180 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Quantum state discrimination 19 and its applications,

    J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek, “Quantum state discrimination 19 and its applications,” Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical 48, 083001 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Quantum state sepa- ration, unambiguous discrimination and exact cloning,

    A. Chefles and S. M. Barnett, “Quantum state sepa- ration, unambiguous discrimination and exact cloning,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 31, 10097 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    Unambigu- ous state discrimination in quantum cryptography with weak coherent states,

    M. Duˇ sek, M. Jahma, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, “Unambigu- ous state discrimination in quantum cryptography with weak coherent states,” Phys. Rev. A 62, 022306 (2000)

    2000

  5. [13]

    Unambiguous discrimination between lin- early dependent states with multiple copies,

    A. Chefles, “Unambiguous discrimination between lin- early dependent states with multiple copies,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 062305 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    Optimum un- ambiguous discrimination between linearly independent nonorthogonal quantum states and its optical realiza- tion,

    Y. Sun, M. Hillery, and J. A. Bergou, “Optimum un- ambiguous discrimination between linearly independent nonorthogonal quantum states and its optical realiza- tion,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 022311 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Optimum unam- biguous discrimination between subsets of nonorthogo- nal quantum states,

    Y. Sun, J. A. Bergou, and M. Hillery, “Optimum unam- biguous discrimination between subsets of nonorthogo- nal quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 66, 032315 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Unambiguous state discrimination of co- herent states with linear optics: Application to quantum cryptography,

    S. J. van Enk, “Unambiguous state discrimination of co- herent states with linear optics: Application to quantum cryptography,” Phys. Rev. A 66, 042313 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    A semidefinite programming approach to optimal unambiguous discrimination of quantum states,

    Y. C. Eldar, “A semidefinite programming approach to optimal unambiguous discrimination of quantum states,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 49, 446 (2003)

    2003

  10. [19]

    Unambiguous dis- crimination between mixed quantum states,

    Y. Feng, R. Duan, and M. Ying, “Unambiguous dis- crimination between mixed quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 70, 012308 (2004)

    2004

  11. [20]

    Optimum unambiguous discrimination of two mixed quantum states,

    U. Herzog and J. A. Bergou, “Optimum unambiguous discrimination of two mixed quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 050301 (2005)

    2005

  12. [21]

    Universal programmable quantum state discriminator that is optimal for un- ambiguously distinguishing between unknown states,

    J. A. Bergou and M. Hillery, “Universal programmable quantum state discriminator that is optimal for un- ambiguously distinguishing between unknown states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 160501 (2005)

    2005

  13. [22]

    A general approach to physi- cal realization of unambiguous quantum-state discrimi- nation,

    B. He and J. A. Bergou, “A general approach to physi- cal realization of unambiguous quantum-state discrimi- nation,” Phys. Lett. A 356, 306 (2006)

    2006

  14. [23]

    Optimal unambiguous discrimination of quan- tum states,

    M. A. Jafarizadeh, M. Rezaei, N. Karimi, and A. R. Amiri, “Optimal unambiguous discrimination of quan- tum states,” Phys. Rev. A 77, 042314 (2008)

    2008

  15. [24]

    Struc- tural approach to unambiguous discrimination of two mixed quantum states,

    M. Kleinmann, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, “Struc- tural approach to unambiguous discrimination of two mixed quantum states,” J. Math. Phys. 51 (2010)

    2010

  16. [25]

    Unam- biguous discrimination of mixed quantum states: Opti- mal solution and case study,

    M. Kleinmann, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, “Unam- biguous discrimination of mixed quantum states: Opti- mal solution and case study,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 020304 (2010)

    2010

  17. [26]

    Unambiguous discrimination of lin- early independent pure quantum states: Optimal aver- age probability of success,

    S. Bandyopadhyay, “Unambiguous discrimination of lin- early independent pure quantum states: Optimal aver- age probability of success,” Phys. Rev. A 90, 030301 (2014)

    2014

  18. [27]

    Unambiguous discrimination of nonorthogonal quan- tum states in cavity QED,

    R. J. de Assis, J. S. Sales, and N. G. de Almeida, “Unambiguous discrimination of nonorthogonal quan- tum states in cavity QED,” Phys. Lett. A 381, 2927 (2017)

    2017

  19. [28]

    Protocol for unambiguous quan- tum state discrimination using quantum coherence,

    S. Kim, L. Li, A. Kumar, X. Chunhe, S. Das, U. Sen, A. Pati, and J. Wu, “Protocol for unambiguous quan- tum state discrimination using quantum coherence,” QIC 21, 931 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    Quantum detection and estimation theory,

    C. W. Helstrom, “Quantum detection and estimation theory,” J Stat Phys 1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  21. [30]

    Minimum-error discrimi- nation between subsets of linearly dependent quantum states,

    U. Herzog and J. A. Bergou, “Minimum-error discrimi- nation between subsets of linearly dependent quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 65, 050305 (2002)

    2002

  22. [31]

    Finding op- timal strategies for minimum-error quantum-state dis- crimination,

    M. Jeˇ zek, J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, and J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, “Finding op- timal strategies for minimum-error quantum-state dis- crimination,” Phys. Rev. A 65, 060301 (2002)

    2002

  23. [32]

    Minimum-error discrimina- tion between symmetric mixed quantum states,

    C.-L. Chou and L. Y. Hsu, “Minimum-error discrimina- tion between symmetric mixed quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 68, 042305 (2003)

    2003

  24. [33]

    Distinguishing mixed quantum states: Minimum-error discrimination versus optimum unambiguous discrimination,

    U. Herzog and J. A. Bergou, “Distinguishing mixed quantum states: Minimum-error discrimination versus optimum unambiguous discrimination,” Phys. Rev. A 70, 022302 (2004)

    2004

  25. [34]

    Minimum-error discrimination between mixed quantum states,

    D. Qiu, “Minimum-error discrimination between mixed quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 77, 012328 (2008)

    2008

  26. [35]

    On the conditions for dis- crimination between quantum states with minimum er- ror,

    S. M. Barnett and S. Croke, “On the conditions for dis- crimination between quantum states with minimum er- ror,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0810.1919 (2008)

    2008 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Minimum-error discrimination of quantum states: Bounds and comparisons,

    D. Qiu and L. Li, “Minimum-error discrimination of quantum states: Bounds and comparisons,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 042329 (2010)

    2010

  28. [37]

    Effi- cient optimal minimum error discrimination of symmet- ric quantum states,

    A. Assalini, G. Cariolaro, and G. Pierobon, “Effi- cient optimal minimum error discrimination of symmet- ric quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 012315 (2010)

    2010

  29. [39]

    Minimum error discrimination between similarity- transformed quantum states,

    M. A. Jafarizadeh, R. Sufiani, and M. Y. Khi- avi, “Minimum error discrimination between similarity- transformed quantum states,”

  30. [40]

    Structure of minimum-error quantum state dis- crimination,

    J. Bae, “Structure of minimum-error quantum state dis- crimination,” New Journal of Physics15, 073037 (2013)

    2013

  31. [41]

    Experimental minimum- error quantum-state discrimination in high dimensions,

    M. A. Sol ´ ıs-Prosser, M. F. Fernandes, O. Jim´ enez, A. Delgado, and L. Neves, “Experimental minimum- error quantum-state discrimination in high dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 100501 (2017)

    2017

  32. [42]

    General lower and upper bounds under minimum-error quantum state discrimination,

    E. R. Loubenets, “General lower and upper bounds under minimum-error quantum state discrimination,” Phys. Rev. A 105, 032410 (2022)

    2022

  33. [43]

    Bound on local minimum-error discrimination of bipartite quantum states,

    D. Ha and J. S. Kim, “Bound on local minimum-error discrimination of bipartite quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 105, 032421 (2022)

    2022

  34. [44]

    Minimal- error quantum state discrimination versus robustness of entanglement: More indistinguishability with less entan- glement,

    D. Saha, K. Sen, C. Srivastava, and U. Sen, “Minimal- error quantum state discrimination versus robustness of entanglement: More indistinguishability with less entan- glement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05074 (2024)

    2024

  35. [45]

    The opera- tional meaning of min-and max-entropy,

    R. Konig, R. Renner, and C. Schaffner, “The opera- tional meaning of min-and max-entropy,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 55, 4347 (2009)

    2009

  36. [46]

    Dimension witnesses and quantum state discrimination,

    N. Brunner, M. Navascu´ es, and T. V´ ertesi, “Dimension witnesses and quantum state discrimination,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 150501 (2013)

    2013

  37. [47]

    Dense quantum coding and a lower bound for 1-way quantum automata,

    A. Ambainis, A. Nayak, A. Ta-Shma, and U. Vazirani, “Dense quantum coding and a lower bound for 1-way quantum automata,” (1999)

    1999

  38. [48]

    Optimal lower bounds for quantum au- tomata and random access codes,

    A. Nayak, “Optimal lower bounds for quantum au- tomata and random access codes,” in 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.99CB37039) (1999) p. 376

    1999

  39. [49]

    Dense quantum coding and quantum finite automata,

    A. Ambainis, A. Nayak, A. Ta-Shma, and U. Vazirani, “Dense quantum coding and quantum finite automata,” 20 49, 496 (2002)

    2002

  40. [50]

    Quantum random access codes with shared random- ness,

    A. Ambainis, D. Leung, L. Mancinska, and M. Ozols, “Quantum random access codes with shared random- ness,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0810.2937 (2008)

    2008 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Biased ran- dom access codes,

    G. P. Alves, N. Gigena, and J. Kaniewski, “Biased ran- dom access codes,” Phys. Rev. A 108, 042608 (2023)

    2023

  42. [52]

    Generalized parity-oblivious com- munication games powered by quantum preparation contextuality,

    P. Roy and A. Pan, “Generalized parity-oblivious com- munication games powered by quantum preparation contextuality,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04490 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Quantum- enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit,

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, “Quantum- enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit,” Science 306, 1336 (2004)

    2004

  44. [54]

    Quantum metrology,

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, “Quantum metrology,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  45. [55]

    Quantum estimation for quantum tech- nology,

    M. G. Paris, “Quantum estimation for quantum tech- nology,” Int. J. Quantum Inf 7, 125 (2009)

    2009

  46. [56]

    General framework for estimating the ultimate preci- sion limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology,

    B. M. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, “General framework for estimating the ultimate preci- sion limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology,” Nat. Phys 7, 406 (2011)

    2011

  47. [57]

    Advances in quantum metrology,

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, “Advances in quantum metrology,” Nat. Photonics 5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  48. [58]

    Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective,

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, “Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective,” J. Phys. A Math. Theor. . 47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

  49. [59]

    Quantum metrology with nonclassi- cal states of atomic ensembles,

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, “Quantum metrology with nonclassi- cal states of atomic ensembles,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  50. [60]

    Quantum- enhanced measurements without entanglement,

    D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Mar- zolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, “Quantum- enhanced measurements without entanglement,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035006 (2018)

    2018

  51. [61]

    A fidelity measure for quantum chan- nels,

    M. Raginsky, “A fidelity measure for quantum chan- nels,” Physics Letters A 290, 11–18 (2001)

    2001

  52. [62]

    Minimum error discrimination of Pauli channels,

    M. F. Sacchi, “Minimum error discrimination of Pauli channels,” J. opt., B Quantum semiclass. 7, S333 (2005)

    2005

  53. [63]

    Mem- ory effects in quantum channel discrimination,

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, “Mem- ory effects in quantum channel discrimination,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 180501 (2008)

    2008

  54. [64]

    Base norms and discrimination of general- ized quantum channels,

    A. Jenˇ cov´ a, “Base norms and discrimination of general- ized quantum channels,” JMP 55, 022201 (2014)

    2014

  55. [65]

    Conditions for optimal input states for discrimination of quantum channels,

    A. Jenˇ cov´ a and M. Pl´ avala, “Conditions for optimal input states for discrimination of quantum channels,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 57, 122203 (2016)

    2016

  56. [66]

    Channel discrimination power of bipartite quantum states,

    M. Caiaffa and M. Piani, “Channel discrimination power of bipartite quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 032334 (2018)

    2018

  57. [67]

    Coherent quantum channel discrimination,

    M. Wilde, “Coherent quantum channel discrimination,” in 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2020) pp. 1915–1920

    2020

  58. [68]

    Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen states,

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, “Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992)

    1992

  59. [69]

    Optimal dense coding with mixed state entanglement,

    T. Hiroshima, “Optimal dense coding with mixed state entanglement,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 34, 6907 (2001)

    2001

  60. [70]

    Gen- eral scheme for superdense coding between multipar- ties,

    X. S. Liu, G. L. Long, D. M. Tong, and F. Li, “Gen- eral scheme for superdense coding between multipar- ties,” Phys. Rev. A 65, 022304 (2002)

    2002

  61. [71]

    Entangled graphs: Bipartite entanglement in multiqubit systems,

    M. Plesch and V. Buˇ zek, “Entangled graphs: Bipartite entanglement in multiqubit systems,” Phys. Rev. A 67, 012322 (2003)

    2003

  62. [72]

    Distributed quantum dense coding,

    D. Bruß, G. M. D’Ariano, M. Lewenstein, C. Macchi- avello, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, “Distributed quantum dense coding,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 210501 (2004)

    2004

  63. [73]

    Determinis- tic dense coding with partially entangled states,

    S. Mozes, J. Oppenheim, and B. Reznik, “Determinis- tic dense coding with partially entangled states,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 012311 (2005)

    2005

  64. [74]

    On quantum advantage in dense coding,

    M. Horodecki and M. Piani, “On quantum advantage in dense coding,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 105306 (2012)

    2012

  65. [75]

    One- shot conclusive multiport quantum dense coding capac- ities,

    C. Srivastava, A. Bera, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, “One- shot conclusive multiport quantum dense coding capac- ities,” Phys. Rev. A 100, 052304 (2019)

    2019

  66. [76]

    Experimental demonstration of optimal unambiguous state discrimination,

    R. B. M. Clarke, A. Chefles, S. M. Barnett, and E. Riis, “Experimental demonstration of optimal unambiguous state discrimination,” Phys. Rev. A 63, 040305 (2001)

    2001

  67. [77]

    Experimental realization of optimal detection strategies for overcomplete states,

    R. B. M. Clarke, V. M. Kendon, A. Chefles, S. M. Bar- nett, E. Riis, and M. Sasaki, “Experimental realization of optimal detection strategies for overcomplete states,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 012303 (2001)

    2001

  68. [79]

    Op- tical realization of optimal unambiguous discrimination for pure and mixed quantum states,

    M. Mohseni, A. M. Steinberg, and J. A. Bergou, “Op- tical realization of optimal unambiguous discrimination for pure and mixed quantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 200403 (2004)

    2004

  69. [80]

    Minimum-error discrimination of en- tangled quantum states,

    Y. Lu, N. Coish, R. Kaltenbaek, D. R. Hamel, S. Croke, and K. J. Resch, “Minimum-error discrimination of en- tangled quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 042340 (2010)

    2010

  70. [81]

    M -ary- state phase-shift-keying discrimination below the homo- dyne limit,

    F. E. Becerra, J. Fan, G. Baumgartner, S. V. Polyakov, J. Goldhar, J. T. Kosloski, and A. Migdall, “ M -ary- state phase-shift-keying discrimination below the homo- dyne limit,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 062324 (2011)

    2011

  71. [82]

    Experimental demonstration of a receiver beating the standard quan- tum limit for multiple nonorthogonal state discrimina- tion,

    F. E. Becerra, J. Fan, G. B. Baumgartner, J. Gold- har, J. T. Kosloski, and A. L. Migdall, “Experimental demonstration of a receiver beating the standard quan- tum limit for multiple nonorthogonal state discrimina- tion,” Nat. Photonics 7, 147 (2013)

    2013

  72. [83]

    Implementation of generalized quantum measurements for unambigu- ous discrimination of multiple non-orthogonal coherent states,

    F. Becerra, J. Fan, and A. Migdall, “Implementation of generalized quantum measurements for unambigu- ous discrimination of multiple non-orthogonal coherent states,” Nat. Commun. 4, 2028 (2013)

    2013

  73. [85]

    Multi-state discrimination below the quantum noise limit at the single-photon level,

    A. R. Ferdinand, M. T. DiMario, and F. E. Becerra, “Multi-state discrimination below the quantum noise limit at the single-photon level,” Npj Quantum Inf 3, 43 (2017)

    2017

  74. [86]

    Time-resolving quantum measurement en- ables energy-efficient, large-alphabet communication,

    I. A. Burenkov, M. V. Jabir, A. Battou, and S. V. Polyakov, “Time-resolving quantum measurement en- ables energy-efficient, large-alphabet communication,” PRX Quantum 1, 010308 (2020)

    2020

  75. [87]

    Quantum receiver for phase-shift keying at the single-photon level,

    J. S. Sidhu, S. Izumi, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, C. Lupo, and U. L. Andersen, “Quantum receiver for phase-shift keying at the single-photon level,” PRX Quantum 2, 010332 (2021)

    2021

  76. [88]

    Exper- imental multi-state quantum discrimination in the fre- 21 quency domain with quantum dot light,

    A. Laneve, M. B. Rota, F. B. Basset, N. P. Fiorente, T. M. Krieger, S. F. C. da Silva, Q. Buchinger, S. Stroj, S. Hoefling, T. Huber-Loyola, et al. , “Exper- imental multi-state quantum discrimination in the fre- 21 quency domain with quantum dot light,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

    2022 arXiv

  77. [89]

    Extracting information from a qubit by multiple observers: Toward a theory of sequential state discrimination,

    J.A. Bergou, E. Feldman, and M. Hillery, “Extracting information from a qubit by multiple observers: Toward a theory of sequential state discrimination,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 100501 (2013)

    2013

  78. [90]

    Sequential discrimination of qudits by multiple observers,

    M. Hillery and J. Mimih, “Sequential discrimination of qudits by multiple observers,” J. Phys. A-Math. 50, 435301 (2017)

    2017

  79. [91]

    Experimental multiparty sequential state discrimina- tion,

    M. A. Sol ´ ıs-Prosser, P. Gonz´ alez, J. Fuenzalida, S. G´ omez, G. B. Xavier, A. Delgado, and G. Lima, “Experimental multiparty sequential state discrimina- tion,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 042309 (2016)

    2016

  80. [92]

    Discriminating bipartite mixed states by local operations,

    J.-H. Zhang, F.-L. Zhang, Z. Wang, L.-M. Lai, and S.- M. Fei, “Discriminating bipartite mixed states by local operations,” Physical Review A 101, 032316 (2020)

    2020

  81. [93]

    Local distinguishability of multipartite orthogonal quantum states,

    J. Walgate, A. J. Short, L. Hardy, and V. Vedral, “Local distinguishability of multipartite orthogonal quantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4972 (2000)

    2000

  82. [94]

    Optimal local discrimination of two mul- tipartite pure states,

    S. Virmani, M. F. Sacchi, M. B. Plenio, and D. Markham, “Optimal local discrimination of two mul- tipartite pure states,” Physics Letters A 288, 68 (2001)

    2001

  83. [95]

    Optimal sequential measurements for bipartite state discrimina- tion,

    S. Croke, S. M. Barnett, and Graeme Weir, “Optimal sequential measurements for bipartite state discrimina- tion,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 052308 (2017)

    2017

  84. [96]

    Generalized bipartite quantum state discrimination problems with sequential measurements,

    K. Nakahira, K. Kato, and T. S. Usuda, “Generalized bipartite quantum state discrimination problems with sequential measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 022340 (2018)

    2018

  85. [97]

    Sequential state discrimination with quantum correlation,

    J.-H. Zhang, F.-L. Zhang, and M.-L. Liang, “Sequential state discrimination with quantum correlation,” Quan- tum Inf. Process. 17 (2017)

    2017

  86. [98]

    Sequential state discrimination and require- ment of quantum dissonance,

    C.-Q. Pang, F.-L. Zhang, L.-F. Xu, M.-L. Liang, and J.- L. Chen, “Sequential state discrimination and require- ment of quantum dissonance,” Phys. Rev. A 88, 052331 (2013)

    2013

  87. [99]

    Deterministic and probabilistic entanglement swapping of nonmaximally entangled states assisted by optimal quantum state discrimination,

    M. A. Sol ´ ıs-Prosser, A. Delgado, O. Jim´ enez, and L. Neves, “Deterministic and probabilistic entanglement swapping of nonmaximally entangled states assisted by optimal quantum state discrimination,” Phys. Rev. A 89, 012337 (2014)

    2014

  88. [100]

    Conclusive discrim- ination by sequential receivers between arbitrary quan- tum states,

    E. R. Loubenets and M. Namkung, “Conclusive discrim- ination by sequential receivers between arbitrary quan- tum states,” Russian Journal of Mathematical Physics 30, 238 (2021)

    2021

  89. [101]

    Two-sequential conclusive discrimination between binary coherent states via indirect measurements,

    M. Namkung and E. R. Loubenets, “Two-sequential conclusive discrimination between binary coherent states via indirect measurements,” Phys. Scr.96 (2021)

    2021

  90. [102]

    Discrimination of coherent states via atom–field interaction without rotation wave approx- imation,

    J.-H. Zhang, F.-L. Zhang, M.-L. Liang, Z. Wang, and S.-M. Fei, “Discrimination of coherent states via atom–field interaction without rotation wave approx- imation,” Communications in Theoretical Physics 75 (2023)

    2023

  91. [103]

    Sequential quantum maximum confidence discrimination,

    H. Lee, K. Flatt, and J. Bae, “Sequential quantum maximum confidence discrimination,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12550 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  92. [104]

    Teleporting an un- known quantum state via dual classical and Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen channels,

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

    1993

  93. [105]

    Experimental realization of teleporting an unknown pure quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels,

    D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy, and S. Popescu, “Experimental realization of teleporting an unknown pure quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1121 (1998)

    1998

  94. [106]

    Rank two bipartite bound entangled states do not exist,

    P. Horodecki, J. A Smolin, B. M. Terhal, and A. V. Thapliyal, “Rank two bipartite bound entangled states do not exist,” Theor. Comput. Sci 292, 596 (2003)

    2003

  95. [107]

    Multiple observers can share the nonlocality of half of an entangled pair by using optimal weak measure- ments,

    R. Silva, N. Gisin, Y. Guryanova, and S. Popescu, “Multiple observers can share the nonlocality of half of an entangled pair by using optimal weak measure- ments,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 250401 (2015)

    2015

  96. [108]

    Sharing of nonlocality of a single member of an entangled pair of qubits is not possible by more than two unbiased observers on the other wing,

    S. Mal, A. S. Majumdar, and D. Home, “Sharing of nonlocality of a single member of an entangled pair of qubits is not possible by more than two unbiased observers on the other wing,” Mathematics 4 (2016), 10.3390/math4030048

    2016 doi

  97. [109]

    Arbitrarily many inde- pendent observers can share the nonlocality of a single maximally entangled qubit pair,

    P. J. Brown and R. Colbeck, “Arbitrarily many inde- pendent observers can share the nonlocality of a single maximally entangled qubit pair,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 090401 (2020)

    2020

  98. [110]

    Sequen- tial measurement-device-independent entanglement de- tection by multiple observers,

    C. Srivastava, S. Mal, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, “Sequen- tial measurement-device-independent entanglement de- tection by multiple observers,” Phys. Rev. A 103, 032408 (2021)

    2021

  99. [111]

    Entanglement witnessing by arbitrarily many independent observers recycling a local quantum shared state,

    C. Srivastava, M. Pandit, and U. Sen, “Entanglement witnessing by arbitrarily many independent observers recycling a local quantum shared state,” Phys. Rev. A 105, 062413 (2022)

    2022

  100. [112]

    Recycled entan- glement detection by arbitrarily many sequential and independent pairs of observers,

    M. Pandit, C. Srivastava, and U. Sen, “Recycled entan- glement detection by arbitrarily many sequential and independent pairs of observers,” Phys. Rev. A 106, 032419 (2022)

    2022

  101. [113]

    Unbounded recycling of genuine multiparty entanglement for any number of qubits,

    C. Srivastava, M. Pandit, and U. Sen, “Unbounded recycling of genuine multiparty entanglement for any number of qubits,” Phys. Rev. A 111, 012413 (2025)

    2025

  102. [114]

    Lo- cal entanglement transfer to multiple pairs of spatially separated observers,

    T. Mondal, K. Sen, C. Srivastava, and U. Sen, “Lo- cal entanglement transfer to multiple pairs of spatially separated observers,” (2023), arXiv:2307.10961 [quant- ph]

    2023

  103. [115]

    Volume of the set of separable states,

    K. ˙Zyczkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, “Volume of the set of separable states,” Phys. Rev. A 58, 883 (1998)

    1998

  104. [116]

    Computable measure of entanglement,

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, “Computable measure of entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  105. [117]

    Logarithmic negativity: A full entangle- ment monotone that is not convex,

    M. B. Plenio, “Logarithmic negativity: A full entangle- ment monotone that is not convex,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  106. [118]

    Entanglement in quantum information the- ory,

    J. Eisert, “Entanglement in quantum information the- ory,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/0610253 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  107. [119]

    Lahti, and Peter Mittel- staedt, The Quantum Theory of Measurement , 2nd ed

    Paul Busch, Pekka J. Lahti, and Peter Mittel- staedt, The Quantum Theory of Measurement , 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996)

    1996

  108. [120]

    Detection of entan- glement with few local measurements,

    O. G¨ uhne, P. Hyllus, D. Bruß, A. Ekert, M. Lewenstein, C. Macchiavello, and A. Sanpera, “Detection of entan- glement with few local measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 66, 062305 (2002)

    2002

  109. [121]

    Experimental de- tection of entanglement via witness operators and local measurements,

    O. G¨ uhne, P. Hyllus, D. Bruß, A. Ekert, M. Lewenstein, C. Macchiavello, and A. Sanpera, “Experimental de- tection of entanglement via witness operators and local measurements,” J. Mod. Opt. 50, 1102 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

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