The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Exact interferometers for the concurrence and residual 3-tangle
Abstract
In this paper we describe a set of circuits that can measure the concurrence of a two qubit density matrix without requiring the deliberate addition of noise. We then extend these methods to obtain a circuit to measure one type of three qubit entanglement for pure states, namely the 3-tangle.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Early proposals based on polynomial moments enabled sharp two-qubit entanglement tests but required nonlinear postprocessing of the data.
“They enabled sharp two-qubit entanglement tests, but required nonlinear postprocessing of the data to retrieve the original information about entanglement.”
From Method for universal detection of two-photon polarization entanglement (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
The UWE is a linear observable that does not require solving nonlinear polynomial equations, which are more sensitive to errors.
“The main advantage of this UWE compared to other universal methods of two-qubit entanglement detection is that this is a linear observable that does not require solving (unfolding) nonlinear polynomial equations, which are more sensitive to errors”
From Method for universal detection of two-photon polarization entanglement (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 52 (1995), 3457.
- Todd A. Brun, Measuring polynomial functions of states, Quantum Information and Computation 4 (2004), 401.
- H. A. Carteret and A. Sudbery, Local Symmetry properties of pure 3-qubit states, J. Phys. A. 33 (2000), 4981-5002.
- Hilary A. Carteret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005), 040502.
- Valerie Coffman, Joydip Kundu, and William K. Wootters, Distributed Entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 61 (2000), 052306.
- Artur K. Ekert, Carolina Moura Alves, Daniel K. L. Oi, Michal Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, and L. C. Kwek, Direct estimations of linear and non-linear functionals of a quantum state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002), 217901.
- Marie Ericsson, Erik Sjöqvist, Johan Brännlund, Daniel K. L. Oi, and Arun K. Pati, Generalization of geometric phase to completely positive maps, Phys. Rev. A 67 (2003), 020101(R).
- Radim Filip, Overlap and entanglement witness measurements, Phys. Rev. A. 65 (2002), 062320.
- Stephen T. Flammia, Andrew Silberfarb, and Carlton M. Caves, Minimal Informationally Complete Measurements for Pure States, 2004, quant-ph/0404137. · arXiv
- Pawe l Horodecki, From limits of quantum nonlinear operations to multicopy entanglement witnesses and state spectrum estimation, Phys. Rev. A 68 (2003), 052101.
- Measuring quantum entanglement without prior state reconstruction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003), 167901.
- Pawe l Horodecki and Artur Ekert, Method for direct detection of quantum entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002), 127902.
- M. Keyl and R. F. Werner, Estimating the spectrum of a density operator, Phys. Rev. A 64 (2001), 052311.
- M. S. Leifer, N. Linden, and A. Winter, Measuring Polynomial Invariants of Multiparty Quantum States, Phys. Rev. A 69 (2004), 052304.
- Yuriy Makhlin, Nonlocal properties of two-qubit gates and mixed states and optimization of quantum computations, Quant. Info. Proc. 1 (2002), 243-252.
- Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information, Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN =0521635039, see page 187.
- Peter D. D. Schwindt, Paul G. Kwiat, and Berthold-Georg Englert, Quantitative wave-particle duality and non-erasing quantum erasure, Phys. Rev. A 60 (1999), 4285-4290.
- Erik Sjöqvist, Arun K. Pati, Artur Ekert, Jeeva S. Anandan, Marie Ericsson, Daniel K. L. Oi, and Vlatko Vedral, Geometric phases for mixed states in interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000), 2845.
- Anthony Sudbery, On local invariants of pure three-qubit states, J. Phys. A 34 (2001), 643-652.
- William K. Wootters, Entanglement of Formation of an Arbitrary State of Two Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1997), 2245-2248.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Method for universal detection of two-photon polarization entanglement
Bartkiewicz, K., Horodecki, P., Lemr, K., Miranowicz, A., & Życzkowski, K. (2015) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.91.032315 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Carteret, H. A.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2003
- arXiv
- quant-ph/0309212
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
