pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.19122 · v3 · submitted 2025-06-23 · 🪐 quant-ph

Existence of a robust optimal control process for efficient measurements in a two-qubit system

Ricardo Rodriguez , Nam Nguyen , Elizabeth Behrman , Andrew C. Y. Li , James Steck This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 07:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords two-qubit entanglementconcurrenceunitary transformationoptimal controlentanglement verificationquantum state tomographyrobust control
0
0 comments X

The pith

A unitary transformation exists that lets a single observable measurement yield the concurrence of any two-qubit state.

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

The paper sets out to prove that entanglement between two qubits can be read out exactly by measuring one expectation value after the right unitary is applied. This sidesteps quantum state tomography, which normally demands many separate measurements. If the unitary can be realized and kept stable, the method would let engineers check entanglement quality with far fewer operations during state preparation. The authors establish the existence of the required unitary mathematically and then locate a concrete control sequence that achieves it.

Core claim

We prove the existence of a unitary transformation that drives the initial state of a two-qubit system to a designated final state, where the trace over a chosen observable directly yields the concurrence of the initial state. An optimal control process realizes this transformation and numerical simulations show it remains effective in the presence of environmental noise.

What carries the argument

The unitary transformation that maps any initial two-qubit state to a final state in which concurrence equals the expectation value of one fixed observable.

If this is right

  • Entanglement verification becomes possible with a single expectation-value measurement instead of full tomography.
  • The protocol requires only low circuit depth.
  • The control sequence remains effective under environmental noise according to the simulations.
  • The approach is positioned for industrial-scale checks of entanglement sources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same control technique might be tested on other entanglement monotones or on three-qubit states to see whether direct readout generalizes.
  • If the unitary can be compiled to native gates with low error, the method would reduce the measurement overhead in entanglement-distribution networks.
  • Hardware calibration data could reveal whether the simulated noise tolerance holds when actual decoherence channels are present.

Load-bearing premise

Numerical simulations are sufficient to guarantee that the optimal control sequence will produce the needed unitary and stay stable when real noise is present.

What would settle it

Run the controlled unitary on quantum hardware for several known input states and check whether the measured observable value matches the independently computed concurrence within experimental error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19122 by Andrew C. Y. Li, Elizabeth Behrman, James Steck, Nam Nguyen, Ricardo Rodriguez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Scatter plot for the concurrence of the initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Histogram for the relative error between the concur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The verification of quantum entanglement is essential for quality control in quantum communication. In this work, we propose an efficient protocol to directly verify the two-qubit entanglement of a known target state through a single expectation value measurement. Our method provides exact entanglement quantification using the currencence measure without performing quantum state tomography. We prove the existence of a unitary transformation that drives the initial state of a two-qubit system to a designated final state, where the trace over a chosen observable directly yields the concurrence of the initial state. Furthermore, we implement an optimal control process of that transformation and demonstrate its effectiveness through numerical simulations. We also show that this process is robust to environmental noise. Our approach offers advantages in directly verifying entanglement with low circuit depth, making it suitable for industrial-scale quality control of entanglement generation. Our results, presented here, provide mathematical justification for our earlier computational experiments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to prove the existence of a unitary transformation on a two-qubit system that maps an initial state to a final state such that the expectation value of a single chosen observable equals the concurrence of the initial state. It further describes an optimal control implementation of this unitary and reports numerical simulations showing that the process remains effective under environmental noise, offering a low-depth alternative to full tomography for entanglement verification.

Significance. If the existence proof is rigorous and the numerical robustness generalizes, the protocol could reduce resource overhead for entanglement verification in quantum networks and industrial quality control. The work provides mathematical justification for prior computational experiments and demonstrates a concrete optimal-control route, which strengthens the practical angle.

major comments (1)
  1. [Numerical simulations / optimal control implementation section] The central robustness claim (that the optimal-control process yields accurate concurrence under noise) rests on numerical simulations under specific noise models. No analytic perturbation bounds, Lipschitz constants on the control-to-concurrence map, or worst-case error estimates are derived, leaving unclear whether the single-expectation-value protocol remains accurate for noise deviating from the simulated ensemble. This is load-bearing for the industrial-scale applicability asserted in the abstract.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the apparent typo 'currencence' (should be 'concurrence').
  2. [Main text] Notation for the target observable and the final state could be introduced more explicitly with an equation number to aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive feedback on the robustness claims. We address the major comment below and outline the changes we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical simulations / optimal control implementation section] The central robustness claim (that the optimal-control process yields accurate concurrence under noise) rests on numerical simulations under specific noise models. No analytic perturbation bounds, Lipschitz constants on the control-to-concurrence map, or worst-case error estimates are derived, leaving unclear whether the single-expectation-value protocol remains accurate for noise deviating from the simulated ensemble. This is load-bearing for the industrial-scale applicability asserted in the abstract.

    Authors: We agree that the robustness demonstration relies on numerical simulations under the specific noise models detailed in the optimal control section, rather than on derived analytic perturbation bounds, Lipschitz constants, or worst-case error estimates. The manuscript's primary contributions are the existence proof for the unitary and the numerical illustration of the control process, including its performance under noise; we do not claim a general analytic guarantee of accuracy for arbitrary noise. The simulations show that the single-expectation protocol recovers the concurrence to high accuracy across the tested noise ensemble, which supports the practical utility asserted in the abstract. To address the referee's concern, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the discussion section that explicitly states the numerical nature of the robustness results, notes the absence of analytic bounds, and qualifies the industrial-scale applicability as suggestive rather than rigorously proven for all noise regimes. This revision clarifies the scope without altering the core claims. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper claims to prove existence of a unitary mapping an initial two-qubit state to a final state whose expectation value of a chosen observable equals the initial concurrence, then numerically implements an optimal control realizing that unitary and tests robustness under simulated noise. These steps rely on standard controllability arguments for two-qubit systems and independent numerical optimization rather than defining the target concurrence in terms of the fitted control or renaming a fitted quantity as a prediction. The reference to providing mathematical justification for earlier computational experiments is the reverse direction (new analysis supporting prior numerics) and does not create a self-referential loop in the derivation. No load-bearing self-citation, ansatz smuggling, or uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work appears in the presented chain. The protocol is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks of quantum control and concurrence definitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum mechanics assumptions about unitary evolution and the definition of concurrence; the optimal control step introduces numerical parameters that are optimized rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)
  • optimal control parameters
    The pulses or Hamiltonians used in the optimal control process are chosen or optimized numerically to reach the target final state.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Unitary transformations exist that map any two-qubit state to a form where concurrence equals the expectation value of a fixed observable
    Invoked in the existence proof for the transformation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5688 in / 1243 out tokens · 31594 ms · 2026-05-19T07:16:17.717882+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Existence of a robust optimal control process for efficient measurements in a two-qubit system

    and quantum computing [7]. In particular, entangle- ment serves as an important resource in quantum cryp- tography and its various manifestations [8]. For exam- ple, quantum key distribution [9] quantum secure direct communications [10], quantum secret sharing [11], and quantum key secure communication [12] all depend, in a large part, on the sharing of e...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Initialize all of the control variables {uk; k = 1, · · · N −1} (randomly or with a priori knowledge)

    work page

  3. [3]

    Compute the state variables ρk using: ρk+1 = e− i∆t ℏ H(uk+1)ρke i∆t ℏ H(uk+1) , k = 0, · · · , N − 1 with initial condition ρ0. 6

    work page

  4. [4]

    Compute the adjoint variables λk using: λk = e i∆t ℏ H(uk)λk+1e −i∆t ℏ H(uk) , k = N − 1, · · · , 1 with final condition λN

    work page

  5. [5]

    In terms of the components: X l N −1X k=1 1 iℏ Tr λk+1 ∂H(ul,k) ∂uk , ρk + ul,k < ϵ

    Stop when ∂H ∂uk ≈ 0. In terms of the components: X l N −1X k=1 1 iℏ Tr λk+1 ∂H(ul,k) ∂uk , ρk + ul,k < ϵ

    work page

  6. [6]

    This is done by setting: uk,new = uk,old − η ∂H(uk) ∂uk where η is known as the learning rate

    If the stopping criterion is not satisfied, improve u with the update rule in the equation. This is done by setting: uk,new = uk,old − η ∂H(uk) ∂uk where η is known as the learning rate. This last step is justified by the decrease in the cost function: (i) If ∂H ∂uk > 0, then du < 0 will produce δJ < 0 and hence J will decrease. (ii) If ∂H ∂uk < 0, then d...

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Google Quantum AI et al., Quantum error correction be- low the surface code threshold, Nature 638, 920 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Drmota, D

    P. Drmota, D. Main, E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, G. Araneda, D. P. Nadlinger, B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, A. Cabello, and D. M. Lucas, Experimental quantum ad- vantage in the odd-cycle game, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 070201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    M. C. Smith, A. D. Leu, K. Miyanishi, M. F. Gely, and D. M. Lucas, Single-qubit gates with errors at the 10 −7 level, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 230601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    T. Kim, T. Roy, X. You, A. C. Y. Li, H. Lamm, O. Pronitchev, M. Bal, S. Garattoni, F. Crisa, D. Bafia, D. Kurkcuoglu, R. Pilipenko, P. Heidler, N. Bornman, D. van Zanten, S. Zorzetti, R. Harnik, A. Murthy, S. Zhu, C. Wang, A. Vallieres, Z. Huang, J. Koch, A. Gras- sellino, S. Chakram, A. Romanenko, and Y. Lu, Ultraco- herent superconducting cavity-based m...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03286

  11. [11]

    Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379 (1948)

    C. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379 (1948)

    work page 1948

  12. [12]

    P. P. Rohde, Z. Huang, Y. Ouyang, H.-L. Huang, Z.-E. Su, S. Devitt, R. Ramakrishnan, A. Mantri, S.-H. Tan, N. Liu, S. Harrison, C. Radhakrishnan, G. K. Brennen, B. Q. Baragiola, J. P. Dowling, T. Byrnes, and W. J. Munro, The quantum internet (technical version) (2025), arXiv:2501.12107 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation 9 and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    work page 2000

  14. [14]

    Mastriani, Simplified entanglement swapping protocol for the quantum Internet, Sci

    M. Mastriani, Simplified entanglement swapping protocol for the quantum Internet, Sci. Rep. 13, 21998 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theoreti- cal Computer Science 560, 7–11 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    C. H. Bennett, Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3121 (1992)

    work page 1992

  17. [17]

    D. Joy, M. Sabir, B. K. Behera, and P. K. Panigrahi, Implementation of quantum secret sharing and quantum binary voting protocol in the ibm quantum computer, Quantum Information Processing 19, 10.1007/s11128- 019-2531-z (2019)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128- 2019

  18. [18]

    Mastriani, Quantum key secure communication pro- tocol via enhanced superdense coding, Opt

    M. Mastriani, Quantum key secure communication pro- tocol via enhanced superdense coding, Opt. Quant. Elec- tron. 55, 10 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    G. A. Kavuri, J. Palfree, D. V. Reddy, Y. Zhang, J. C. Bienfang, M. D. Mazurek, M. A. Alhejji, A. U. Siddiqui, J. M. Cavanagh, A. Dalal, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, M. W. Mitchell, K. E. Stange, P. D. Beale, L. T. A. N. Brand˜ ao, H. Booth, R. Peralta, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, M. J. Stevens, E. Knill, and L. K. Shalm, Traceable random numbers from a nonlocal q...

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Pallister, N

    S. Pallister, N. Linden, and A. Montanaro, Optimal ver- ification of entangled states with local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 170502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Goswami, S

    S. Goswami, S. Chakraborty, S. Ghosh, and A. S. Ma- jumdar, Universal detection of entanglement in two-qubit states using only two copies, Phys. Rev. A 99, 012327 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Wang and M

    K. Wang and M. Hayashi, Optimal verification of two- qubit pure states, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032315 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Riccardi, D

    G. Riccardi, D. E. Jones, X.-D. Yu, O. G¨ uhne, and B. T. Kirby, Exploring the relationship between the faithful- ness and entanglement of two qubits, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042417 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Riera-S` abat, J

    F. Riera-S` abat, J. Miguel-Ramiro, and W. D¨ ur, Nonde- structive verification of entangled states via fidelity wit- nessing, Phys. Rev. A 107, 022414 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    S. Chen, W. Xie, P. Xu, and K. Wang, Quantum memory assisted entangled state verification with local measure- ments, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013003 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Steffen, M

    M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, N. Katz, E. Lucero, R. McDermott, M. Neeley, E. M. Weig, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Measurement of the entan- glement of two superconducting qubits via state tomog- raphy, Science 313, 1423 (2006)

    work page 2006

  27. [27]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9709029

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  28. [28]

    J. D. Biamonte and P. J. Love, Realizable Hamiltonians for universal adiabatic quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 78, 012352 (2008)

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    Behrman, J

    E. Behrman, J. Steck, P. Kumar, and K. A. Walsh, Quan- tum algorithm design using dynamic learning, Quantum Information and Computation 8, 0012 (2008)

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    D’Alessandro, Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, 2nd Ed

    D. D’Alessandro, Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, 2nd Ed. (CRC Press, 2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Markiewicz, Z

    M. Markiewicz, Z. Pucha la, A. de Rosier, W. Laskowski, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Quantum noise generated by local random hamiltonians, Physical Review A 95, 042327 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Horn and C

    R. Horn and C. Johnson, Matrix Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 1985)

    work page 1985

  33. [33]

    Bryson and Y.-C

    A. Bryson and Y.-C. Ho, Applied optimal control (Taylor & Francis, New York, 1975)

    work page 1975

  34. [34]

    R. F. Stengel, Optimal control and estimation (Dover Publications, 1994)

    work page 1994

  35. [35]

    M. S. Trimboli, Lecture notes and recordings for ECE5570: Optimization for Systems and Control, http: //mocha-java.uccs.edu/ECE5570-NEW/index.html (2018), [Online; accessed July 09, 2024]

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    O. C. W. Kong and H. K. Ting, Mixed State Parametriza- tion and Two-qubit Entanglement, Quant. Inf. Proc. 21, 241 (2022), arXiv:2112.10011 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Nguyen, E

    N. Nguyen, E. Behrman, and J. Steck, Quantum learning with noise and decoherence: a robust quantum neural network, Quantum Machine Intelligence 2, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Thompson, N

    N. Thompson, N. Nguyen, E. Behrman, and J. Steck, Experimental pairwise entanglement estimation for an n- qubit system: A machine learning approach for program- ming quantum hardware, Quantum Information Process- ing 19, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Mintert, A

    F. Mintert, A. R. Carvalho, M. Ku´ s, and A. Buchleit- ner, Measures and dynamics of entangled states, Physics Reports 415, 207 (2005)

    work page 2005

  40. [40]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996)

    work page 1996

  41. [41]

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

    work page 1997