Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 162 references

Packaged Quantum States for Gauge-Invariant Quantum Computation and Communication

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes necessary and sufficient conditions for when a particle–antiparticle pair can encode a gauge-invariant qubit, and builds universal packaged circuits that stay in one charge sector.

desk verdict A comprehensive but largely reformulative framework for gauge-invariant quantum information that stands or falls on an unproven packaging principle; useful as a catalog, not as a foundation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02205 v1 pith:VTNA7MH6 submitted 2025-05-04 quant-ph cs.IThep-thmath-phmath.ITmath.MP

Rongchao Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.IThep-thmath-phmath.ITmath.MP
keywords packagedquantumstatesgaugeinvariancesuperselectionrulesinternalnumbersqubitshybrid-packagedquditserrorcorrectionkeydistribution
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

The paper develops packaged quantum states—gauge-invariant states in which all internal quantum numbers are locked into indivisible blocks—as a foundation for quantum computation and communication. Its central result (Proposition 1) is that a particle and its antiparticle can be coherently superposed to encode a qubit if and only if they carry zero net gauge charge and differ only by a global quantum number such as flavor or strangeness. On that basis the paper constructs packaged qubits, qudit gates, and circuits that commute with the total charge operator, and adapts Shor, Steane, and surface codes, quantum Fourier transform, phase estimation, Grover's algorithm, teleportation, dense coding, and quantum key distribution to a (d×D)-dimensional hybrid-packaged subspace. The payoff would be quantum information processing that remains inside a fixed superselection sector, automatically suppressing gauge-violating errors and raising fault-tolerant thresholds.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the pure-packaged subspace: a Hilbert subspace of a fixed charge sector on which every local gauge transformation acts by one global phase. The load-bearing constraint is the commutant relation [V,Q̂]=0, meaning every physical gate, circuit, Kraus operator, and channel must commute with the total charge operator. The packaging principle (Appendix A), asserted from prior work, supplies the indivisibility of internal quantum numbers. The hybrid construction H_hyb = H_int^(d) ⊗ H_ext^(D) couples gauge-locked internal degrees of freedom with gauge-free external degrees of freedom to give N=dD levels per qudit. Universality is obtained from a Clifford single-index set {X_N, Z_N, H_N, CSUM_N} plus the non-Clifford diagonal phase Θ_r, which together generate a group dense in SU(H_Q=0) with Solovay–Kitaev overhead L=O(log^κ $ε^{{-1}}$).

What would settle it

Find a gauge-invariant physical state whose internal quantum numbers are only partially entangled—say, two particles with entangled color charges but factorizable flavor quantum numbers—while the state remains in a single superselection sector. Existence of such a state would falsify the packaging principle and with it Proposition 1. In the opposite direction, verifying coherent $K^{0}$–K̄^0 oscillation already confirms the two conditions of Proposition 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, a packaged superposition of a single particle |P⟩ and its antiparticle |P̄⟩, written α|P⟩+β|P̄⟩, is physically allowed and nontrivial if and only if both states have zero net gauge charge (Q̂|P⟩=Q̂|P̄⟩=0) and differ only by a global quantum number F̂ with F̂|P⟩=f|P⟩ and F̂|P̄⟩=−f|P̄⟩ for f≠0. The proof shows necessity because superselection rules forbid superpositions across different charge sectors and the packaging principle forbids mixing different irreducible representations of the local gauge group; sufficiency holds because states in the same sector differing only by a gauged-neutral global number can be coherently superposed. A corollary is that every such superposition transforms by a single global phase under local gauge transformations and hence is gauge-invariant. For multi-particle states the paper generalizes this to four conditions: fixed total charge, Gauss law at every site, identical local gauge character, and linear independence.

Load-bearing premise

The framework rests on the packaging principle—that in any physical state with local gauge symmetry all internal quantum numbers must appear in indivisible blocks transforming by a global phase—which is assumed from the author's prior work and not proved here; if partial entanglement of internal quantum numbers were physically allowed while still respecting gauge constraints, the validity conditions of Proposition 1 would lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any packaged circuit built from gates commuting with the total charge is gauge-invariant and cannot leak amplitude out of its superselection sector.
  • Conventional quantum error-correcting codes lift to hybrid-packaged space with the same code distances, while gauge-violating errors are either energetically forbidden or detected, improving the threshold bound.
  • Quantum algorithms including QFT, QPE, Grover search, and quantum walks carry into the N=dD hybrid space with unchanged asymptotic scaling, such as O(√(dD)) Grover iterations.
  • Communication protocols adapt to packaged messengers and resource states; for example, six-state QKD in dimension N gives an eavesdropper success probability 1/3+2/(3N), which decreases as N grows.
  • Neutral meson pairs such as (K^0, K̄^0) provide concrete carriers, since they satisfy both conditions of Proposition 1.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to treat superselection as a built-in erasure channel: gauge-violating errors are not merely corrected but never occur, so packaged quantum error correction could be modeled as a code with an additional physical symmetry filter.
  • The framework suggests a direct experimental test in lattice-gauge-theory simulators: measure the logical error rate of a packaged surface code as a function of energy penalty and temperature to confirm the predicted e^{−Δ/k_BT} suppression of gauge-violating faults.
  • Neutral-meson oscillation experiments already realize the superpositions of Proposition 1, so in principle packaged-qubit teleportation or QKD could be tested in high-energy flavor factories, bounded in practice by the short meson lifetimes.
  • The d×D hybrid construction points toward continuous-variable packaged qudits, where the external Fock sector serves as H_ext^(D) and gauge-locked internal quantum numbers as H_int^(d), an extension the paper mentions but does not develop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 paper develops a framework for gauge-invariant quantum information processing based on 'packaged quantum states', in which all internal quantum numbers are claimed to be locked into an inseparable block. It proposes necessary and sufficient conditions for single-particle and multi-particle packaged superpositions, constructs packaged qubits/qudits, gates, and circuits that commute with the total charge operator, and translates a wide range of quantum error-correction codes, algorithms, metrology schemes, and communication protocols into a (d×D)-dimensional hybrid-packaged subspace. The central claim is that valid packaged superpositions require zero net gauge charge and a difference only in global quantum numbers, and that the resulting framework provides intrinsic protection against gauge-violating errors.

Significance. If the foundational claims hold, the paper is ambitious and potentially unifying: it gives explicit constructions of gauge-invariant qudits, universal gate sets, QEC codes, and communication protocols, and it identifies concrete platforms such as neutral mesons, trapped ions, and Rydberg atoms. The manuscript contains many explicit algebraic derivations and detailed constructions, which is a genuine strength; the protocol translations are systematic and extensive. However, the central criterion rests on the 'packaging principle', which is invoked from the author's prior work rather than derived here, and several load-bearing technical statements in the foundations and in the error analysis are incorrect or internally inconsistent. The significance is therefore conditional: the proposed framework is a plausible research program, but the current manuscript does not establish the claimed necessary-and-sufficient characterization on its stated assumptions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.2, Proposition 1] The necessity proof of Proposition 1 relies on the packaging principle to rule out superpositions of neutral states whose internal structures belong to different irreps of the local gauge group. This step is not justified in the manuscript: under the standard superselection rule for the total charge operator \hat Q, a state with \hat Q=0 is a gauge singlet, and the internal representation content is not itself a gauge-invariant label. The packaging principle is cited to the author's earlier works [7,8] and Appendix A is referenced, but the argument is not reproduced in the paper. As written, the 'iff' in Proposition 1 is therefore conditional on an additional postulate. Please either prove the principle from the stated assumptions or state it explicitly as a postulate and restrict the claims accordingly; in either case, discuss why standard examples such as a color-singlet meson with definite flavor, where color is entangled but flavor is factorized, do not violate the principle.
  2. [Sec. 2.3, Proposition 3 and Sec. 3.1.3] Condition C3 of Proposition 3 requires every local matter transformation U_g^{(i)} to act on both |\Psi_1> and |\Psi_2> by the same one-dimensional character. This is inconsistent with the particle-antiparticle qubit construction in Sec. 3.1.3, where P and \bar P carry opposite gauge charges: for |\Psi_1>=|P\bar P> and |\Psi_2>=|\bar P P>, U_g^{(1)} acts with phases e^{iq\theta} and e^{-iq\theta} respectively, so C3 fails even though both states have zero total charge and are the advertised packaged qubit basis in Eq. (15). Either C3 should be reformulated in terms of the total gauge transformation U_g = \otimes_i U_g^{(i)}, allowing conjugate characters on different factors, or the two-particle qubit construction must be restricted to neutral constituents. As written, Proposition 3 rules out the paper's own main examples.
  3. [Sec. 2.3.1, Lemma 1] Lemma 1 states that the tensor product of two pure-packaged subspaces with the same fixed charge Q0 'lies in charge 2Q0 (or still Q0 if the charges are additive mod something)'. The first statement is correct for the additive charge operator, but the parenthetical is not a well-defined caveat; for Q0≠0 the tensor product is not in the same sector. The later applications only need the neutral case Q0=0, where the closure statement is true. Please restate and prove the lemma for the neutral sector, or give the correct general charge bookkeeping; as written, the lemma is mathematically false and is used as a general foundation.
  4. [Sec. 6.3.1, Eq. (68)] The claimed threshold bound p_th ≳ [1/(2(N-1))](1 - e^{-Δ/kT}) is inconsistent with the text immediately following it. For N=2 and Δ→0 the bound gives p_th ≳ 0, not the stated p_th≈0.104; for Δ→∞ it gives p_th≳1/2, also not 0.104. Thus Eq. (68) does not 'reproduce the familiar value', and the claimed effects of larger N and finite gap are not supported by this bound as written. Please correct the limiting argument or the bound, and re-check the union-bound step p→p+q that leads to the multiplicative factor (1 - e^{-Δ/kT}).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting issues, including 'Ca nada' in the author affiliation and the rendering 'p_th /greaterorsimilar' in Sec. 6.3.1; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Table 3 and Eq. (29)] The non-Clifford gate is labelled T_P in Table 3 but written as T in the universal set G^(2) in Eq. (29); please unify the notation.
  3. [Sec. 5.4.4, Step 4 of Theorem 3] The proof writes Θ_r = diag(1, e^{2πi/r}, ...), which does not match Eq. (58)'s definition exp(2πirJ^2/N^2); please use a single consistent definition of Θ_r.
  4. [Sec. 9.3] The security analysis computes Eve's guessing probability for an intercept-resend attack only; the text should state that a full composable security proof for the packaged QKD protocol is not given.
  5. [Secs. 5.5.3 and 6.1.4] The text refers to 'Eq. (5.1)-(5.2)' and 'Eq. (6.2)', but these equation numbers are not labeled in the manuscript; please add the missing labels or correct the references.
  6. [Sec. 4.2.2] The statement that 'only the two maximal packaged entangled states ... are available' before introducing the logical qubit basis is confusing, because the full Bell basis is then constructed from the logical basis; please clarify the distinction between bare-particle states and logical packaged basis states.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Central Proposition 1 rests on the unproven, self-cited packaging principle; error suppression is built into the error model by definition.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 2 (p. 4) and Sec. 2.1.2, Proposition 1 proof]
    "The packaging principle (see Appendix A) states that, whenever a local gauge symmetry and superselection rules are present, the internal quantum numbers (IQNs) must appear in indivisible packaged blocks. ... If the states differed by a gauged quantum number (e.g., electric charge), then (even if they were both overall neutral) their internal structures would belong to different irreducible representations of the local gauge group (by the packaging principle) and coherent superpositions between different irreps are forbidden by superselection."

    Proposition 1 is the paper's central necessary-and-sufficient characterization, but its second necessary condition is justified solely by the packaging principle, which is imported from the author's earlier works [7,8] and is not proved or independently verified in this manuscript. The packaging principle is exactly the assumption that forbids superposing states whose internal constituents sit in different irreps of the gauge group even when the total charge is zero. In standard gauge-invariant states the total state can transform trivially despite nontrivial internal representation content, so without this principle the claimed 'iff' has no independent support. The central result is therefore conditional on a self-cited, unproven ansatz rather than derived from gauge symmetry alone.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 6.1.1–6.1.2 (Definition 14 and 'Gauge-Conserving (GC) Errors')]
    "By definition, all packaged operations satisfy [V, ˆQtot] = 0, the effective error model is restricted to gauge-conserving errors {Ek} with [Ek, ˆQtot] = 0. This restriction is crucial for ensuring that the entire computation remains in the physical subspace HQ."

    The advertised advantage of packaged states—suppression of gauge-violating errors and higher fault-tolerance thresholds—follows directly from defining the allowed error operators to be precisely those commuting with Qhat. Gauge-violating Kraus operators are excluded from the effective model by Definition 14, so the claimed robustness is an input to the error model rather than a derived consequence. The later Boltzmann suppression argument (Proposition 4) similarly assumes an energy penalty; it does not derive gauge-conservation from the underlying dynamics. Thus the 'error suppression' portion of the framework is self-definitional.

full rationale

The core derivation claim is Proposition 1, which purports to give necessary and sufficient conditions for packaged superpositions. Its necessity proof leans on the packaging principle, which the paper cites only to the same author's prior works and does not prove here. If the packaging principle is instead a postulate, the central 'iff' restates that postulate: the condition that two neutral states differ only by a global, non-gauged number is already the content of the principle. Separately, the paper's headline robustness advantage is partly manufactured by defining the allowed error algebra to be the commutant of the charge operator and then quoting that restriction as protection. The substantial algorithmic and cryptographic sections are standard protocols lifted into a defined subspace and are internally consistent; they do not add further circularity beyond this foundation. The score reflects the load-bearing self-citation and the definitional error model, not the correctness of the protocol translations.

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

The framework rests on the packaging principle and assumptions about superselection, energy penalties, and existence of packaged bases, all taken from prior self-cited work or asserted without derivation. No free parameters are fitted.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The packaging principle: all internal quantum numbers in a physical state with local gauge symmetry form an indivisible block that transforms by a global phase under gauge transformations.
    Assumed from the author's prior works [7,8]; not proven in this paper. It underlies the definition of pure-packaged subspaces and the superposition conditions.
  • domain assumption Any physical state in a fixed charge sector HQ transforms under a gauge transformation by a single global phase chi(g), independent of the state.
    Used throughout Sec. 2 to define pure-packaged subspaces and to justify the validity of superpositions.
  • domain assumption Gauge-violating errors are exponentially suppressed by a Boltzmann factor e^{-Delta/kBT} due to an energy penalty.
    Prop. 4 in Sec. 6.1.2 asserts this without a microscopic derivation; it is used to claim higher fault-tolerance thresholds.
  • domain assumption A complete orthonormal basis of packaged entangled states exists for every charge sector (cited to Ref [7]).
    Used to construct Bell bases and resource states in Sec. 2.3 and 4; no proof is given here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Packaged Quantum States for Gauge-Invariant Quantum Computation and Communication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VTNA7MH6

@misc{pith2026250502205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Packaged Quantum States for Gauge-Invariant Quantum Computation and Communication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VTNA7MH6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02205}
}
abstract

Packaged quantum states are gauge-invariant states in which all internal quantum numbers (IQNs) form an inseparable block. This feature gives rise to novel packaged entanglements that encompass all IQNs, which is important both for fundamental physics and for quantum technology. Here we develop a framework for gauge-invariant quantum information processing based on packaged quantum states. We propose the necessary and sufficient conditions for a valid packaged superposition state of a single particle and multi-particle. We then present the details of constructing gauge-invariant packaged qubits (or qudits), packaged gates, and packaged circuits (which commute with the total charge operator). These serve as alternative foundation for gauge-invariant quantum information science. We then adapt conventional quantum error-correction codes, quantum algorithms, and quantum communication protocols to the ($d \times D$)-dimensional hybrid-packaged subspace. This high-dimensional hybrid-packaged subspace is flexible for pruning and scaling to match available physics systems. Thus, packaged quantum information processing becomes feasible and testable. Our results show that the gauge-invariant packaged quantum states may provide a possible route toward robust, fault-tolerant, and secure quantum technologies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

162 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peskin, Daniel V

    Michael E. Peskin, Daniel V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (Westview Press, Boulder, 1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139644167

    Steven Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridg e University Press, Cambridge, 1995). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139644167

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139644167 1995

  3. [3]

    Erez Zohar, J Ignacio Cirac and Benni Reznik, Quantum sim ulations of lattice gauge theories using ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Rep. Pr og. Phys. 79, 014401 (2016). 10.1088/0034-4885/79/1/014401

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/1/014401 2016

  4. [4]

    David Poulin, Stabilizer Formalism for Operator Quantu m Error Correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230504 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.230504

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.230504 2005

  5. [5]

    Dave Bacon, Operator quantum error-correcting subsyst ems for self- correcting quantum memories, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012340 (2006) . https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012340

    doi:10.1103/physreva.73.012340 2006

  6. [6]

    https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424942417500050

    Rongchao Ma, Theory of packaged entangled states, Repor ts in Advances of Physical Sciences 1 (03), 1750005 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424942417500050

    doi:10.1142/s2424942417500050 2017

  7. [7]

    Packaged Quantum States in Field Theory: No Partial Factorization, Multi-Particle Packaging, and Hybrid Gauge-Invariant Entanglement

    Rongchao Ma, Packaged Quantum States in Field Theory: No Partial Fac- torization, Multi-Particle Packaging, and Hybrid Gauge-I nvariant Entanglement, arXiv:2502.00766. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.00766

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.00766

  8. [8]

    Symmetry Packaging II: A Group-Theoretic Framework for Packaging Under Finite, Compact, Higher-Form, and Hybrid Symmetries

    Rongchao Ma, Packaged Quantum States and Symmetry: A Gro up-Theoretic Framework for Gauge-Invariant Packaged Entanglements, ar Xiv:2503.20295. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.20295

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.20295

Show all 162 references
  1. [9]

    G. C. Wick, A. S. Wightman, and E. P. Wigner, The Intrinsic Parity of Elementary Particles, Phys. Rev. 88, 101 (1952). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.88.101

    1952 doi

  2. [10]

    Roberts, Loca l observ- ables and particle statistics I, Commun

    Sergio Doplicher, Rudolf Haag and John E. Roberts, Loca l observ- ables and particle statistics I, Commun. Math. Phys. 23, 199 -230 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01877742 124

    1971 doi

  3. [11]

    Roberts, Loca l observ- ables and particle statistics II, Commun

    Sergio Doplicher, Rudolf Haag and John E. Roberts, Loca l observ- ables and particle statistics II, Commun. Math. Phys. 35, 49 -85 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01646454

    1974 doi

  4. [12]

    Streater and Arthur S

    Raymond F. Streater and Arthur S. Wightman, PCT, Spin an d Statistics, and All That (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    R. P. Feynman, Space-Time Approach to Quantum Electrod ynamics, Phys. Rev. 76, 769 (1949). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.76.769

    1949 doi

  6. [14]

    C. N. Yang and R. L. Mills, Conservation of Isotopic Spin and Isotopic Gauge In- variance, Phys. Rev. 96, 191 (1954). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.96.191

    1954 doi

  7. [15]

    Ryoyu Utiyama, Invariant Theoretical Interpretation of Interaction, Phys. Rev. 101, 1597 (1956). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.101.1597

    1956 doi

  8. [16]

    Steven Weinberg, A Model of Leptons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 , 1264 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1264

    1967 doi

  9. [17]

    Rongchao Ma, Packaged Quantum States for Quantum Simul ation of Lattice Gauge Theories, arXiv:2502.14654, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.14654

    doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    C. S. Wu and I. Shaknov, The Angular Correlation of Scatt ered Annihilation Radi- ation, Phys. Rev. 77, 136 (1950). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.77.136

    1950 doi

  11. [19]

    K. Abe, K. Abe, R. Abe, I. Adachi, Byoung Sup Ahn, H. Aihar a, M. Akatsu, G. Alimonti, K. Asai et al. (Belle Collaboration), Observat ion of Large CP Vi- olation in the Neutral B Meson System, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 09 1802 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.091802

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    Aubert, D

    B. Aubert, D. Boutigny, J.-M. Gaillard et al., Study of t ime-dependent CP-violating asymmetries and flavor oscillations in neutral B decays at th e γ(4s), Phys. Rev. D 66, 032003 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.032003

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    Brandelik, W

    R. Brandelik, W. Braunschweig, K. Gather et al., Eviden ce for planar events in e+e− annihilation at high energies, Physics Letters B 86 (2), 243 -249 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(79)90830-X

    1979 doi

  14. [22]

    V. M. Abazov, B. Abbott, B. S. Acharya, M. Adams48, T. Ada ms, G. D. Alexeev, G. Alkhazov, A. Alton, G. Alverson et al. (D0 Collab oration), Evi- dence for Spin Correlation in Production, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1 08, 032004 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.032004

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    The CMS Collaboration, Observation of quantum entangl ement in top quark pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Rep. Prog. Phys. 87 117801 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ad7e4d

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07824-z 125

    The ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of quantum entan glement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Nature 633, 542-547 (2 024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07824-z 125

    doi

  17. [25]

    Marco Fabbrichesi, Roberto Floreanini and Emidio Gabr ielli, Constraining new physics in entangled two-qubit systems: top-quark, tau-le pton and photon pairs, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 162 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11307-2

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.04402

    Yoav Afik, Yevgeny Kats, Juan Ramón Muñoz de Nova, Abner S offer, David Uzan, Entanglement and Bell nonlocality with bottom-quark pairs at hadron colliders, arXiv:2406.04402. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.04402

    doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hayrapetyan, A

    A. Hayrapetyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, J. W. Andrejkovic , L. Benato, T. Bergauer, S. Chatterjee, K. Damanakis, M. Dragicevic et a l. (CMS Col- laboration), Measurements of polarization and spin correl ation and observa- tion of entanglement in top quark pairs using lepton+jets...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena and F. Illuminati, En- tanglement in neutrino oscillations, EPL 85 50002 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/85/50002

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    A. Go, A. Bay, K. Abe, H. Aihara, D. Anipko, V. Aulchenko, T. Aushev, A. M. Bakich, E. Barberio et al. (Belle Collaboration), Measurem ent of Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen-Type Flavor Entanglement in γ(4s)→ B0 ¯B0 Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 131802 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/...

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    Barr, Testing Bell inequalities in Higgs boson d ecays, Physics Letters B 825, 10, 136866 (2022)

    Alan J. Barr, Testing Bell inequalities in Higgs boson d ecays, Physics Letters B 825, 10, 136866 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136866

    2022

  23. [31]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, A. Bernal, J. A. Casas, and J. M. Moreno, Testing en- tanglement and Bell inequalities in H → ZZ , Phys. Rev. D 107, 016012 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.016012

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-09-29-820

    Yoav Afik and Juan Ramón Muñoz de Nova, Quantum informati on with top quarks in QCD, Quantum 6, 820 (2022). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-09-29-820

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Yoav Afik, Federica Fabbri, Matthew Low et al., Quantum I nformation meets High- Energy Physics: Input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics, arXiv:2504.00086, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.00086

    doi

  26. [34]

    A. M. Steane, Error Correcting Codes in Quantum Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.793

    1996 doi

  27. [35]

    A. Yu. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by a nyons, Annals of Physics 303 (1), 2-30 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00018-0

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    Bombin and M

    H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Topological Quantu m Distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 180501 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.180501

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    Weyl, On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneo us Lorentz Group, Math- ematische Zeitschrift, 23, 271-309 (1925)

    H. Weyl, On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneo us Lorentz Group, Math- ematische Zeitschrift, 23, 271-309 (1925). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01506234

    1925 doi

  30. [38]

    Wigner, On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogen eous Lorentz Group, An- nals of Mathematics, 40(1), 149-204

    E. Wigner, On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogen eous Lorentz Group, An- nals of Mathematics, 40(1), 149-204. https://doi.org/10.2307/1968551 126

    doi

  31. [39]

    Gell-Mann and A

    M. Gell-Mann and A. Pais, Behavior of Neutral Particles under Charge Conjugation, Phys. Rev. 97, 1387 (1955). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.97.1387

    1955 doi

  32. [40]

    R. H. Good, R. P. Matsen, F. Muller, O. Piccioni, W. M. Pow ell, H. S. White, W. B. Fowler, and R. W. Birge, Regeneration of Neutral K Mesons and Their Mass Differ- ence, Phys. Rev. 124, 1223 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.124.1223

    1961 doi

  33. [41]

    Nielsen, Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen, Isaac L. Chuang, Quantum Computati on and Quantum Information, (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2 010). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667

    doi

  34. [42]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in Spontaneous Radiation Proces ses, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.93.99

    1954 doi

  35. [43]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01011339

    Paul Benioff, The computer as a physical system: A micros copic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing mac hines, J Stat Phys 22, 563-591 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01011339

    1980 doi

  36. [44]

    Feynman, Simulating physics with computers , Int J Theor Phys 21, 467- 488 (1982)

    Richard P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers , Int J Theor Phys 21, 467- 488 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179

    1982 doi

  37. [45]

    David Deutsch, Quantum theory, the Church-Turing prin ciple and the uni- versal quantum computer, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 400, 97-117 (1 985) https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1985.0070

    1985

  38. [46]

    Benjamin Schumacher, Quantum coding, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2 738 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738

    1995 doi

  39. [47]

    David Elieser Deutsch, Quantum computational network s, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 425, 73-90 (1989). http://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1989.0099

    1989

  40. [48]

    Bennett, Richard Cleve, Da vid P

    Adriano Barenco, Charles H. Bennett, Richard Cleve, Da vid P. DiVincenzo, Nor- man Margolus, Peter Shor, Tycho Sleator, John A. Smolin, and Harald Wein- furter, Elementary gates for quantum computation, Phys. Re v. A 52, 3457 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.52.3457

    1995 doi

  41. [49]

    DiVincenzo, Two-bit gates are universal for qu antum computation, Phys

    David P. DiVincenzo, Two-bit gates are universal for qu antum computation, Phys. Rev. A 51, 1015 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.1015

    1995 doi

  42. [50]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quantum Computations with Col d Trapped Ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.4091

    1995 doi

  43. [51]

    DiCarlo, J

    L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, Lev S. Bishop, B. R . Johnson, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin and R. J . Schoelkopf, Demon- stration of two-qubit algorithms with a superconducting qu antum processor, Nature 460, 240-244 (2009). https://doi...

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    Chi-Chih Yao, Quantum circuit complexity, Proceedi ngs of 1993 IEEE 34th Annual Foundations of Computer Science, 352 (1993 )

    A. Chi-Chih Yao, Quantum circuit complexity, Proceedi ngs of 1993 IEEE 34th Annual Foundations of Computer Science, 352 (1993 ). https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1993.366852 127

    1993

  45. [53]

    P. W. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discre te logarithms and factor- ing, Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Co mputer Science, 124 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700

    1994

  46. [54]

    Monroe, D

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Demon- stration of a Fundamental Quantum Logic Gate, Phys. Rev. Let t. 75, 4714 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4714

    1995 doi

  47. [55]

    Chuang, Lieven M

    Isaac L. Chuang, Lieven M. K. Vandersypen, Xinlan Zhou, Debbie W. Leung and Seth Lloyd, Experimental realization of a quantum algorith m, Nature 393, 143-146 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/30181

    1998 doi

  48. [56]

    Coppersmith, An approximate Fourier transform usef ul in quantum factoring, arXiv:quant-ph/0201067

    D. Coppersmith, An approximate Fourier transform usef ul in quantum factoring, arXiv:quant-ph/0201067. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0201067

    doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    W. H. Zurek, Environment-induced superselection rule s, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1862 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1862

    1982 doi

  50. [58]

    Seth Lloyd, Almost Any Quantum Logic Gate is Universal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 346 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.346

    1995 doi

  51. [59]

    A Yu Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and erro r correction, Russ. Math. Surv. 52, 1191 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1070/RM1997v052n06ABEH002155

    1997 doi

  52. [60]

    Dawson and Michael A

    Christopher M. Dawson and Michael A. Nielsen, The Solov ay-Kitaev algorithm, arXiv:quant-ph/0505030. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0505030

    doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9608012

    Emanuel Knill, Raymond Laflamme, Concatenated Quantum Codes, arXiv:quant- ph/9608012. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9608012

    doi

  54. [62]

    Dorit Aharonov and Michael Ben-Or, Fault-Tolerant Qua ntum Computa- tion with Constant Error Rate, SIAM J. Comput. 38, 1207 (2008 ). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539799359385

    2008 doi

  55. [63]

    Oscar Boykin, Tal Mor, Matthew Pulver, Vwani Roychow dhury, Farrokh Vatan On Universal and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing, arXiv: quant-ph/9906054

    P. Oscar Boykin, Tal Mor, Matthew Pulver, Vwani Roychow dhury, Farrokh Vatan On Universal and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing, arXiv: quant-ph/9906054. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9906054

    doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    Rechtsman, Julia M

    Mikael C. Rechtsman, Julia M. Zeuner, Yonatan Plotnik, Yaakov Lumer, Daniel Podolsky, Felix Dreisow, Stefan Nolte, Mordechai Segev and Alexander Sza- meit, Photonic Floquet topological insulators, Nature 496 , 196-200 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12066

    2013 doi

  57. [65]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0193-5

    Manuel Erhard, Mario Krenn and Anton Zeilinger, Advanc es in high- dimensional quantum entanglement, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 365-381 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0193-5

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    Brennen, Stephen S

    Gavin K. Brennen, Stephen S. Bullock, Dianne P. O’Leary , Efficient Cir- cuits for Exact-Universal Computations with Qudits, arXiv :quant-ph/0509161. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0509161 128

    doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    Brennen, Dianne P

    Gavin K. Brennen, Dianne P. O’Leary, and Stephen S. Bull ock, Cri- teria for exact qudit universality, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052318 ( 2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052318

    2005 doi

  60. [68]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2015.2409842

    Vadym Kliuchnikov, Dmitri Maslov, and Michele Mosca, P ractical Approx- imation of Single-Qubit Unitaries by Single-Qubit Quantum Clifford and T Circuits, IEEE Transactions on Computers 65 (1), 161-172 ( 2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2015.2409842

    2016

  61. [69]

    Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, R ichard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K

    Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, R ichard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum sta te via dual clas- sical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Le tt. 70, 1895 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895

    1993 doi

  62. [70]

    Hussain Anwar, Earl T Campbell and Dan E Browne, Qutrit magic state distillation, New J. Phys. 14, 063006 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/6/063006

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    Bullock, Dianne P

    Stephen S. Bullock, Dianne P. O’Leary, and Gavin K. Bren nen, Asymptotically Optimal Quantum Circuits for d-Level Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230502 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.230502

    2005 doi

  64. [72]

    Bennett, David P

    Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin , and William K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Ph ys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.3824

    1996 doi

  65. [73]

    John Preskill, Reliable quantum computers, Proc. R. So c. Lond. A 454, 385 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1998.0167

    1998

  66. [74]

    Cory, and Raymond Laflamme, Symmetr ized Char- acterization of Noisy Quantum Processes, Science 317 (5846 ), 1893-1896 (2007)

    Joseph Emerson, Marcus Silva, Osama Moussa, Colm Ryan, Martin Laforest, Jonathan Baugh, David G. Cory, and Raymond Laflamme, Symmetr ized Char- acterization of Noisy Quantum Processes, Science 317 (5846 ), 1893-1896 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1145699

    2007 doi

  67. [75]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(71)90108-4

    K Kraus, General state changes in quantum theory, Annal s of Physics 64 (2), 311-335 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(71)90108-4

    1971 doi

  68. [76]

    H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of operator s, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 10, 545-551 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-1959-0108732-6

    1959 doi

  69. [77]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(90)90962-N

    Masuo Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential op erators with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Physics Le tters A 146 (6), 319-323 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(90)90962-N

    1990 doi

  70. [78]

    Terhal and Guido Burkard, Fault-tolerant qu antum compu- tation for local non-Markovian noise, Phys

    Barbara M. Terhal and Guido Burkard, Fault-tolerant qu antum compu- tation for local non-Markovian noise, Phys. Rev. A 71, 01233 6 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.012336

    2005 doi

  71. [79]

    Brown, Approx- imation of realistic errors by Clifford channels and Pauli me asurements, Phys

    Mauricio Gutiérrez, Lukas Svec, Alexander Vargo, and K enneth R. Brown, Approx- imation of realistic errors by Clifford channels and Pauli me asurements, Phys. Rev. A 87, 030302(R) (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.030302 129

    2013 doi

  72. [80]

    L. Sun, A. Petrenko, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchm air, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, J. Blumoff, L. Frunzio, M. M irrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Tracking photon jumps wi th repeated quantum non-demolition parity measurements, Nature 511,...

    2014 doi

  73. [81]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03588-y

    Google Quantum AI, Exponential suppression of bit or ph ase er- rors with cyclic error correction, Nature 595, 383-387 (202 1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03588-y

    doi

  74. [82]

    Lorenza Viola and Seth Lloyd, Dynamical suppression of decoher- ence in two-state quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (199 8). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.58.2733

    doi

  75. [83]

    Lutchyn, Cody P

    Łukasz Cywiński, Roman M. Lutchyn, Cody P. Nave, and S. D as Sarma, How to enhance dephasing time in superconducting qubits, Phys. Re v. B 77, 174509 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.77.174509

    2008 doi

  76. [84]

    Ognyan Oreshkov, Holonomic Quantum Computation in Sub systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 090502 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.090502

    2009 doi

  77. [85]

    Norris, Fei Yan , David K

    Youngkyu Sung, Félix Beaudoin, Leigh M. Norris, Fei Yan , David K. Kim, Jack Y. Qiu, Uwe von Lüpke, Jonilyn L. Yoder, Terry P. Orlando , Simon Gus- tavsson, Lorenza Viola and William D. Oliver, Non-Gaussian noise spectroscopy with a superconducting qubit sensor, Nature Communi...

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-01098-8

    Alexandre Marciniak, Stefano Marcantoni, Francesca G iusti, Filippo Glerean, Gior- gia Sparapassi, Tobia Nova, Andrea Cartella, Simone Latini , Francesco Valiera, An- gel Rubio, Jeroen van den Brink, Fabio Benatti and Daniele Fa usti, Vibrational coherent control of localized ...

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    Terhal, Fault-tolerant qua ntum computation for lo- cal leakage faults, Quantum Information & Computation 7 (1) , 139 - 156 (2007)

    Panos Aliferis, Barbara M. Terhal, Fault-tolerant qua ntum computation for lo- cal leakage faults, Quantum Information & Computation 7 (1) , 139 - 156 (2007). https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2011706.2011715

    2007

  80. [88]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhe lm, Simple Pulses for Elimination of Leakage in Weakly Nonlinear Qubits, Phys. Re v. Lett. 103, 110501 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.110501

    2009 doi

  81. [89]

    Battistel, B.M

    F. Battistel, B.M. Varbanov, and B.M. Terhal, Hardware -Efficient Leakage-Reduction Scheme for Quantum Error Correction wit h Su- perconducting Transmon Qubits, PRX Quantum 2, 030314 (2021 ). https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.030314

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    Gehér, Alexand er V

    Joan Camps, Ophelia Crawford, György P. Gehér, Alexand er V. Gramolin, Matthew P. Stafford, Mark Turner, Leakage Mobilit y in Su- perconducting Qubits as a Leakage Reduction Unit, arXiv:24 06.04083. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.04083 130

    doi

  83. [91]

    Andrew Steane, Multiple-particle interference and qu antum error correction, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 452 (1954), 2551-2577 (19 96). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1996.0136

    1954

  84. [92]

    A. R. Calderbank and Peter W. Shor, Good quantum error-c orrecting codes exist Phys. Rev. A 54, 1098 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.1098

    1996 doi

  85. [93]

    S. B. Bravyi, A. Yu. Kitaev, Quantum codes on a lattice wi th boundary arXiv:quant- ph/9811052. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9811052

    doi

  86. [94]

    Eric Dennis, Alexei Kitaev, Andrew Landahl and John Pre skill, Topological quantum memory, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4452-4505 (2 002). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1499754

    doi

  87. [95]

    Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quan- tum computer memory, Phys

    Peter W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quan- tum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493(R) (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.52.R2493

    1995 doi

  88. [96]

    A. M. Steane Simple quantum error-correcting codes Phy s. Rev. A 54, 4741 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.4741

    1996 doi

  89. [97]

    Sergey Bravyi and Robert König, Classification of Topol ogically Protected Gates for Local Stabilizer Codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 1705 03 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.170503

    2013 doi

  90. [98]

    A. Yu. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian Sta bilizer Problem, arXiv:quant-ph/9511026. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9511026

    doi arXiv

  91. [99]

    Lambrecht, M

    A. Lambrecht, M. T. Jaekel, S. Reynaud, Generating phot on pulses with an oscillating cavity, Europhys.Lett. 43, 147- 152 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1209/epl/i1998-00333-0

    1998 doi

  92. [100]

    https://doi.org/10.1080/00107151031000110776

    Julia Kempe, Quantum random walks - an introductory ov erview Contemporary Physics 44 (4), 307-327 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/00107151031000110776

    2003 doi

  93. [101]

    Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, STOC ’96: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Com- puting Pages 212 - 219

    Lov K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, STOC ’96: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Com- puting Pages 212 - 219. https://doi.org/10.1145/237814.237866

  94. [102]

    Harrow, A vinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd, Qua ntum Algo- rithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys

    Aram W. Harrow, A vinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd, Qua ntum Algo- rithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502

    2009 doi

  95. [103]

    X.-D. Cai, C. Weedbrook, Z.-E. Su, M.-C. Chen, Mile Gu, M.-J. Zhu, Li Li1, Nai-Le Liu, Chao-Yang Lu et al., Experimental Quantum C omputing to Solve Systems of Linear Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 2 30501 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.230501

    2013 doi

  96. [104]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06115 131

    Stefanie Barz, Ivan Kassal, Martin Ringbauer, Yannic k Ole Lipp, Borivoje Dakić, Alán Aspuru-Guzik and Philip Walther, A two-qubit photonic quantum processor and its application to solving systems of linear equations, Sci Rep 4, 6115 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06115 131

    2014 doi

  97. [105]

    Jian Pan, Yudong Cao, Xiwei Yao, Zhaokai Li, Chenyong J u, Hongwei Chen, Xin- hua Peng, Sabre Kais, and Jiangfeng Du, Experimental realiz ation of quantum al- gorithm for solving linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022313 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.022313

    2014 doi

  98. [106]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/37539

    Dik Bouwmeester, Jian-Wei Pan, Klaus Mattle, Manfred Eibl, Harald Weinfurter and Anton Zeilinger, Experimental quantum teleportation, Nature 390, 575-579 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/37539

    1997 doi

  99. [107]

    https://doi.org/10.103 8/nature23675

    Ji-Gang Ren, Ping Xu, Hai-Lin Yong et al., Ground-to-s atellite quantum telepor- tation, Nature 549, 70-73 (2017). https://doi.org/10.103 8/nature23675

    2017

  100. [108]

    Bennett and Stephen J

    Charles H. Bennett and Stephen J. Wiesner, Communicat ion via one- and two- particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states, Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2881

    1992 doi

  101. [109]

    Schaetz, M

    T. Schaetz, M. D. Barrett, D. Leibfried, J. Chiaverini , J. Britton, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, Quantum Dense Coding with Atomic Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040505 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.040505

    2004 doi

  102. [110]

    Williams, Ronald J

    Brian P. Williams, Ronald J. Sadlier, and Travis S. Hum ble, Superdense Coding over Optical Fiber Links with Complete Bell-State Measurem ents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 050501 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.050501

    2017 doi

  103. [111]

    Bernard Yurke and David Stoler, Einstein-Podolsky-R osen effects from independent particle sources Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1251 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.1251

    1992 doi

  104. [112]

    Żukowski, A

    M. Żukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, A. K. Ekert, Eve nt-ready-detectors Bell experiment via entanglement swapping, Phys. Rev. Lett . 71, 4287 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.4287

    1993 doi

  105. [113]

    Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Quantum cryptog raphy: Public key distribu- tion and coin tossing

    Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Quantum cryptog raphy: Public key distribu- tion and coin tossing. Proceedings of the International Con ference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India. Vol. 1. Ne w York: IEEE. pp. 175- 179 (1984)

    1984

  106. [114]

    Bennett, François Bessette, Gilles Brassa rd, Louis Salvail and John Smolin, Experimental quantum cryptography, J

    Charles H. Bennett, François Bessette, Gilles Brassa rd, Louis Salvail and John Smolin, Experimental quantum cryptography, J. Cryptology 5, 3-28 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00191318

    1992 doi

  107. [115]

    Bennett and Gilles Brassard, Quantum crypt ography: Public key dis- tribution and coin tossing, Theoretical Computer Science 5 60 (1), 7-11 (2014)

    Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard, Quantum crypt ography: Public key dis- tribution and coin tossing, Theoretical Computer Science 5 60 (1), 7-11 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025

    2014 doi

  108. [116]

    Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Quantum cryptog ra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing arXiv:2003.0 6557

    Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Quantum cryptog ra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing arXiv:2003.0 6557. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.06557

    2003 doi arXiv

  109. [117]

    Bennett, Quantum cryptography using any tw o nonorthogonal states, Phys

    Charles H. Bennett, Quantum cryptography using any tw o nonorthogonal states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3121 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3121 132

    1992 doi

  110. [118]

    Dagmar Bruss, Optimal Eavesdropping in Quantum Cryp- tography with Six States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3018 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3018

    1998 doi

  111. [119]

    Bechmann-Pasquinucci and N

    H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci and N. Gisin, Incoherent and coherent eavesdropping in the six-state protocol of quantum cryptography, Phys. Re v. A 59, 4238 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.59.4238

    1999 doi

  112. [120]

    Ekert, Quantum Cryptography Based on Bell’s T heorem, Phys

    Artur K. Ekert, Quantum Cryptography Based on Bell’s T heorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661

    1991 doi

  113. [121]

    Bennett, Gilles Brassard, N

    Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, N. David Mermin, Quantum cryptography without Bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 5 57 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.557

    1992 doi

  114. [122]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9809039

    Dominic Mayers and Andrew Yao, Quantum Cryptog- raphy with Imperfect Apparatus, arXiv:quant-ph/9809039. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9809039

    doi arXiv

  115. [123]

    Jonathan Barrett, Lucien Hardy, and Adrian Kent, No Si gnaling and Quantum Key Distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010503 (2 005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.010503

    doi

  116. [124]

    Antonio Acín, Nicolas Brunner, Nicolas Gisin, Serge M assar, Stefano Piro- nio, and Valerio Scarani, Device-Independent Security of Q uantum Cryp- tography against Collective Attacks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 2 30501 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.230501

    2007 doi

  117. [125]

    Stefano Pironio, Antonio Acín, Nicolas Brunner, Nico las Gisin, Serge Massar and Valerio Scarani, Device-independent quantum ke y distribu- tion secure against collective attacks, New J. Phys. 11 0450 21 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/4/045021

    2009 doi

  118. [126]

    Daniel Collins, Nicolas Gisin, Noah Linden, Serge Mas sar, and Sandu Popescu, Bell Inequalities for Arbitrarily High-Dimensional Systems, P hys. Rev. Lett. 88, 040404 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.040404

    2002 doi

  119. [127]

    Pironio, A

    S. Pironio, A. Acín, S. Massar, A. Boyer de la Giroday, D . N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, L. Luo, T. A. Manning and C. M on- roe, Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem, Nature 464, 1021-1024 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09008

    2010 doi

  120. [128]

    Anders Karlsson, Masato Koashi, and Nobuyuki Imoto, Q uantum entangle- ment for secret sharing and secret splitting, Phys. Rev. A 59 , 162 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.59.162

    1999 doi

  121. [129]

    Mark Hillery, Vladimír Bužek, and André Berthiaume, Q uantum secret sharing, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1829 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1829

    1999 doi

  122. [130]

    Richard Cleve, Daniel Gottesman, and Hoi-Kwong Lo, Ho w to Share a Quantum Secret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 648 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.648 133

    1999 doi

  123. [131]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0911.3814

    Roger Colbeck, Quantum And Relativistic Protocols Fo r Secure Multi-Party Com- putation, arXiv:0911.3814. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0911.3814

    doi arXiv

  124. [132]

    Umesh Vazirani and Thomas Vidick, Fully Device-Indep endent Quantum Key Distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140501 (201 4). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.140501

    doi

  125. [133]

    Rakonja c, Alessandro Seri and Hugues de Riedmatten, Telecom-heralded entanglem ent be- tween multimode solid-state quantum memories, Nature 594, 37-40 (2021)

    Dario Lago-Rivera, Samuele Grandi, Jelena V. Rakonja c, Alessandro Seri and Hugues de Riedmatten, Telecom-heralded entanglem ent be- tween multimode solid-state quantum memories, Nature 594, 37-40 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03481-8

    2021 doi

  126. [134]

    Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation th eory, J Stat Phys 1, 231- 252 (1969)

    Carl W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation th eory, J Stat Phys 1, 231- 252 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01007479

    1969 doi

  127. [135]

    Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an inte rferometer, Phys

    Carlton M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an inte rferometer, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.1693

    1981 doi

  128. [136]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore , and D. J. Heinzen Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 46, R6797(R) (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.46.R6797

    1992 doi

  129. [137]

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1104149

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccon e, Quantum-Enhanced Mea- surements: Beating the Standard Quantum Limit, Science 306 (5700), 1330-1336 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1104149

    2004 doi

  130. [138]

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccon e, Quantum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.010401

    2006 doi

  131. [139]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2083

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, A gravitational wa ve observatory operat- ing beyond the quantum shot-noise limit, Nature Physics 7, 9 62-965 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2083

    2011 doi

  132. [140]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum se nsing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.035002

    2017 doi

  133. [141]

    Helstrom, Minimum mean-squared error of estimat es in quantum statistics, Physics Letters A 25 (2), 101-102 (1967 )

    C.W. Helstrom, Minimum mean-squared error of estimat es in quantum statistics, Physics Letters A 25 (2), 101-102 (1967 ). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(67)90366-0

    1967 doi

  134. [142]

    Braunstein and Carlton M

    Samuel L. Braunstein and Carlton M. Caves, Statistica l distance and the geometry of quantum states Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (199 4). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.3439

    doi

  135. [143]

    Matteo G. A. Paris, Quantum Estimation for Quantum Tec hnology, International Journal of Quantum InformationVol. 07, 125- 137 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749909004839

    2009 doi

  136. [144]

    Banerjee, M

    D. Banerjee, M. Dalmonte, M. Müller, E. Rico, P. Steble r, U.-J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, Atomic Quantum Simulation of Dynamical Gauge Fie lds Coupled to Fermionic Matter: From String Breaking to Evolution after a Quench, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 175302 (2012). https://doi.org/10.11...

    2012 doi

  137. [145]

    Martinez, Christine A

    Esteban A. Martinez, Christine A. Muschik, Philipp Sc hindler, Daniel Nigg, Alexander Erhard, Markus Heyl, Philipp Hauke, Marcello Dal monte, Thomas Monz, Peter Zoller and Rainer Blatt, Real-time dynamics of l attice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer, Nature 534...

    2016 doi

  138. [146]

    Kielpinski, C

    D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe and D. J. Wineland, Architect ure for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer, Nature 417, 709-71 1 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00784

    2002 doi

  139. [147]

    Wiseman, and Dominic W

    π-Corrected Heisenberg Limit, Wojciech Górecki, Rafał Demk owicz-Dobrzański, Howard M. Wiseman, and Dominic W. Berry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 , 030501 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.030501

    2020 doi

  140. [148]

    Marcos, P

    D. Marcos, P. Rabl, E. Rico, and P. Zoller, Superconduc ting Circuits for Quan- tum Simulation of Dynamical Gauge Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1 11, 110504 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.110504

    2013 doi

  141. [149]

    Freedman, Alexei Kitaev, Michael J

    Michael H. Freedman, Alexei Kitaev, Michael J. Larsen and Zhenghan Wang, Topological quantum computation, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 40 , 31-38 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1090/S0273-0979-02-00964-3

    2003 doi

  142. [150]

    Simon, Ady Stern, Michael Free dman, and Sankar Das Sarma, Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computa tion, Rev

    Chetan Nayak, Steven H. Simon, Ady Stern, Michael Free dman, and Sankar Das Sarma, Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computa tion, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1083

    2008 doi

  143. [151]

    Mourik, K

    V. Mourik, K. Zuo, S. M. Frolov, S. R. Plissard, E. P. A. M . Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Signatures of Majorana Fermions in Hybri d Superconductor- Semiconductor Nanowire Devices, Science 336 (6084), 1003- 1007 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222360

    2012 doi

  144. [152]

    DiVincenzo, Quantum computat ion with quantum dots, Phys

    Daniel Loss and David P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computat ion with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.120

    1998 doi

  145. [153]

    B. E. Kane, A silicon-based nuclear spin quantum compu ter, Nature 393, 133-137 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/30156

    1998 doi

  146. [154]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Y acoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Coherent Manipu lation of Cou- pled Electron Spins in Semiconductor Quantum Dots, Science 309 (5744), 2180-2184 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1126/scienc...

    2005 doi

  147. [155]

    Gross and Frank Wilczek, Ultraviolet Behavio r of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories, Phys

    David J. Gross and Frank Wilczek, Ultraviolet Behavio r of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973 ). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1343

    1973 doi

  148. [156]

    David Politzer, Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions?, Phys

    H. David Politzer, Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1346

    1973 doi

  149. [157]

    Lidar, Towards Fault Tolerant Adiabatic Qua n- tum Computation, Phys

    Daniel A. Lidar, Towards Fault Tolerant Adiabatic Qua n- tum Computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 160506 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.160506 135

    2008 doi

  150. [158]

    Jordan, Edward Farhi, and Peter W

    Stephen P. Jordan, Edward Farhi, and Peter W. Shor, Err or-correcting codes for adiabatic quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 74, 05 2322 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.052322

    2006 doi

  151. [159]

    G. L. Long and X. S. Liu, Theoretically efficient high-ca pacity quantum-key-distribution scheme, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032302 ( 2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032302

    2002 doi

  152. [160]

    Kim Boström and Timo Felbinger, Deterministic Secure Direct Com- munication Using Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 187902 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.187902

    2002 doi

  153. [161]

    Fu-Guo Deng and Gui Lu Long, Secure direct communicati on with a quantum one-time pad, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052319 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.69.052319

    2004 doi

  154. [162]

    Wei Zhang, Dong-Sheng Ding, Yu-Bo Sheng, Lan Zhou, Bao - Sen Shi, and Guang-Can Guo, Quantum Secure Direct Communica - tion with Quantum Memory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 220501 (2017 ). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.220501 136

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.