Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Capacity-Achieving Entanglement Purification Protocol for Pauli Dephasing Channel

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an explicit, scalable two-way entanglement purification protocol based on iterated CNOT gates and Hadamard-basis measurements asymptotically achieves the Pauli dephasing channel capacity $1 - H_2(p)$ with residual…

desk verdict A genuinely new explicit two-way N-to-M purification circuit with a clean first-round analysis, but the general capacity and fidelity proofs have unproven averaging and DPI steps, so the central claim needs revision rather than acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14573 v2 pith:6LXA4MEA submitted 2024-11-21 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Ozlem Erkilic , Matthew S. Winnel , Aritra Das , Sebastian Kish , Ping Koy Lam , Jie Zhao , Syed M. Assad This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords entanglementpurificationPaulidephasingchannelquantumcapacityreversecoherentinformationtwo-wayclassicalcommunicationCNOTcircuitBellstatesrepeaters
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 sets out to close a known gap: one-way hashing codes saturate the capacity of the Pauli dephasing channel (the noise that flips a qubit's phase with probability $p$), but no explicit two-way entanglement purification protocol had been shown to reach that bound. It proposes a recursive circuit in which Alice and Bob apply local CNOT gates across $m$ noisy Bell pairs, measure one pair in the Hadamard basis, and then keep both the successful and the failed branches for the next round. The central claim is that this protocol asymptotically achieves the dephasing channel capacity $C = 1 - H_2(p)$ as $m$ grows, while each round suppresses the dephasing error so that after $n$ rounds the residual error is $O\left(p^{2^n}\right)$. If correct, it supplies a practical recipe for making near-perfect Bell pairs for quantum repeaters and for correcting phase-flip errors in distributed quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is the branching identity of Eq. (17): after a round, the probability-weighted mixture of all successful and failed conditional states is exactly $m-1$ copies of the average state from the previous round. This identity turns the concrete CNOT-and-Hadamard circuit into the capacity bound $\left(\frac{m-1}{m}\right)^n C \le \mathrm{RCI}_n \le C$ of Eq. (55), because it guarantees that no entanglement is lost between rounds. The companion fidelity mechanism is the iterative map $p_{n+1} = \tilde p(p_n)$ of Eq. (56), whose fixed point at $p = 0$ has derivative zero and is therefore superstable, which forces the dephasing probability of the reduced states to collapse doubly exponentially with the round number.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to enumerate all phase-flip patterns for the second round with $m=3$ or $m=4$, apply the prescribed CNOT rearrangement, form the probability-weighted mixture of every success and failure branch, and compare its eigenvalue spectrum with that of $m-1$ copies of the first-round average state. Any discrepancy at a non-zero $p$ would falsify Eq. (17), and with it the capacity lower bound of Eq. (55).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a Pauli dephasing channel with flip probability $p$, the paper constructs an explicit two-way purification protocol with this behaviour. Alice distributes $m$ copies of the Bell state $|\phi^+\rangle$; Alice and Bob then apply CNOT gates from one control pair to all the other pairs and measure the control pair in the $|\pm\rangle$ basis. Matching outcomes herald a purified branch, mismatched outcomes a less pure branch, and both branches are carried forward rather than discarded. The key structural claim is that the probability-weighted mixture of all conditional states after a round equals $m-1$ copies of the previous average state, so the reverse coherent information is conserved while the successful branch becomes purer. Iterating for $n$ rounds gives fidelity approaching one and gives a reverse-coherent-information lower bound of $\left(\frac{m-1}{m}\right)^n C$, which tends to $C$ when $m \to \infty$ with $n \ll m$. The paper also shows that the dephasing probability of the reduced states follows an iterative map with a superstable fixed point at zero, producing residual error $O\left(p^{2^n}\right)$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that after any round, the probability-weighted mixture of all successful and failed branches equals $m-1$ copies of the preceding average state; the paper proves this identity by direct computation for the first round and invokes the analogous relation for later rounds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any fixed number of rounds $n$, the residual dephasing error after purification scales as $O\left(p^{2^n}\right)$, so near-perfect Bell pairs can be produced from noisy inputs by adding rounds.
  • Because both success and failure branches are retained, the protocol's rate per channel use approaches $1 - H_2(p)$ as $m$ grows, in contrast with recurrence protocols that discard half of the pairs each round.
  • Purified Bell pairs can be handed to an entanglement-swapping repeater node without the extra degradation a direct Bell-state measurement would cause, allowing end-to-end entanglement distribution at the channel capacity.
  • For $m=2$ the circuit reproduces the known Deutsch purification results, and increasing $m$ moves the first-round reverse coherent information toward capacity, with the paper's numerical evaluation showing near-saturation at $m=30$.
  • The same explicit circuit can be applied to any number of Bell pairs, so it also corrects dephasing errors accumulated inside quantum computers, with the repetition rate adjustable to the user's needs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the averaging identity holds in every round, the protocol can be read as a two-way descendant of a hashing code: the CNOT network plays the role of the parity-check matrix and the retained failure branches are the two-way feature that one-way codes lack, so the same construction may transfer to other Pauli-diagonal channels with the appropriate stabiliser choice.
  • A testable consequence for experiments is that the fidelity after $n$ rounds should follow $1 - O\left(p^{2^n}\right)$ even for small $m$, so two- and three-round photonic implementations with $p \approx 0.1$ should separate this protocol from recurrence protocols whose improvement is only linear in the round number.
  • The paper's suggested extension to depolarising, erasure, and thermal-noise channels would require a new symmetry: the averaging identity relies on phase-flip noise keeping the state diagonal in the Bell basis, whereas depolarising noise introduces bit-flip terms that the CNOT-and-Hadamard measurement does not stabilise.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a recursive two-way entanglement purification protocol for the Pauli dephasing channel. Alice distributes m Bell pairs, Alice and Bob apply local CNOT gates with one designated control rail, measure the control rail in the Hadamard basis, and retain all branches—both the 'successful' matched-outcome branches and the 'failed' mismatched-outcome branches—so that no entanglement is discarded. The protocol is iterated on m copies of each conditional state. The authors claim that the average reverse coherent information (RCI) after n rounds is lower-bounded by ((m-1)/m)^n (1-H_2(p)), which approaches the dephasing capacity 1-H_2(p) when n << m, and that the fidelity of the reduced Bell-pair states approaches 1 with residual dephasing error scaling as O(p^{2^n}). The first-round RCI calculation is explicit, and the m=3 example is checked in detail. Later rounds are analyzed through an asserted averaging identity (Eq. (17) and Eq. (43)), a lower-bounding alternative protocol with a data-processing-inequality argument (Eq. (28)), and numerical simulations for small m and n.

Significance. If fully established, the result would be significant: it would provide the first explicit two-way purification protocol that saturates the dephasing-channel capacity while also purifying the shared Bell pairs, with a concrete circuit applicable to any m. The paper's strengths include an explicit circuit, a complete first-round RCI derivation, a worked m=3 example, and numerical evidence for small sizes; there are no free parameters fitted to data, and the capacity benchmark 1-H_2(p) is an external standard. However, the significance is conditional on closing several load-bearing gaps: the general-round averaging identity is not proven, the fidelity lower bound rests on an unsupported and arguably misapplied data-processing inequality, and the paper does not reconcile the n << m limit used for capacity with the n -> infinity limit needed for purification.

major comments (4)
  1. [III A, Eq. (17) and Eq. (43)] The averaging identity in Eq. (17), and its analogue for the failed branch in Eq. (43), is asserted for the second and all later rounds without proof. This identity is load-bearing: it is exactly what converts the circuit into the capacity bound of Eq. (55). The first-round proof in Appendix V.D does not cover the nested branch structure of later rounds, where the m input copies are conditional first-round states rather than fresh copies of the initial state. I suspect the identity can be proven as a partial-trace property—averaging over the measurement outcome on one of m identically prepared input blocks leaves m-1 copies of the input—but the manuscript does not supply that argument. As written, Eqs. (51)-(55) do not constitute a complete proof of capacity.
  2. [III B, Eq. (28)] The key inequality F^A <= F^R in Eq. (28) is unsupported. The paper invokes the data processing inequality, but the standard quantum DPI states that fidelity is nondecreasing under a CPTP map applied to both arguments; it does not imply that tracing out correlations between Alice's and Bob's modes reduces fidelity to a fixed |phi+> reference. Moreover, the alternative protocol is a different recursive protocol, not a CPTP image of the output of the original protocol, so DPI cannot directly compare the two. The text itself concedes that a general proof is 'challenging' and 'intractable', and the numerical evidence in Fig. 9 compares RCI, not fidelity. Since Appendix V.G proves monotone purification only for the alternative map Eq. (31), the claimed O(p^{2^n}) residual error for the actual protocol is not proven.
  3. [III A, Eqs. (26)-(27), and III B] The capacity limit and the purification limit are imposed in incompatible ways. Eq. (27) takes n fixed while m -> infinity, whereas the fidelity argument in Eqs. (56)-(63) and Fig. 10 requires n -> infinity for fixed p. For fixed n, Eq. (31) gives tilde p(p) -> p as m -> infinity, so no purification occurs in the capacity limit; conversely, if n grows to make the fidelity error small, the factor ((m-1)/m)^n in Eq. (26) can fall well below 1 unless n/m -> 0. The paper needs a joint scaling statement, e.g., n = n(m) with n -> infinity and n/m -> 0, together with a proof that the alternative-protocol error p_n can be made arbitrarily small under that scaling. As written, the abstract's simultaneous claims of capacity saturation and near-perfect Bell pairs are not established.
  4. [Appendix V.E, Eq. (51)] The inequality chain in Eq. (51) is not fully justified. Replacing the weighted sum of RCI terms for the second-round conditional states with the RCI of the average state requires both the averaging identity Eq. (17) and a statement about the reduced entropies on Alice's side: the concavity step in Eqs. (52)-(53) is only tight in the right direction if the conditional states have identical reduced density operators on Alice's side. This is not shown for the failed-branch states. Without these missing arguments, the lower bound ((m-1)/m)^2 C <= RCI_2 in Eq. (54) is not rigorously established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II B] There is a duplicated phrase: 'we only sacrifice one (high-dimensional) state each time each time' should read 'each time' once.
  2. [III A, Eq. (24)] The notation in Eq. (24) is inconsistent with Eq. (25): RCI(rho_ABn) cannot be both 1/m^n times the RCI of the previous round's average state and 1/m^n times RCI(rho_AB^{otimes (m-1)^n}). Please define rho_ABn consistently, including its normalization per channel use.
  3. [III B] The title and abstract say the protocol is 'capacity-achieving', but the proof establishes a lower bound that approaches capacity; the final extraction of Bell pairs at the RCI rate is inherited from the standard RCI achievability theorem rather than from the explicit circuit. Please clarify this distinction.
  4. [Fig. 10] The y-axis label '10-1' appears truncated, and the axis would be clearer if it stated the plotted quantity, e.g., '1 - fidelity' with a consistent log-scale label.
  5. [Table II] The entry '1' for the original protocol at round 3 appears to be a numerical rounding; please state the precision or give the value to more digits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the central capacity claim rests on an unproven averaging identity for later rounds, which is a proof gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the capacity target C = 1 - H2(p) is an external benchmark, not a fitted parameter. The first-round RCI calculation (Eqs. 10-13 and Appendix V.D) is a direct eigenvalue/multiplicity computation from the measurement statistics: the probability-weighted mixture of successful and failed branches is shown to have the same entropy as (m-1) copies of the original noisy state, giving (m-1)/m C. This is an independent calculation, not circular. For later rounds, the paper invokes the averaging identities Eq. (17) and Eq. (43), and Appendix V.E substitutes the RCI of the averaged state for the weighted sum of conditional-state RCIs to obtain ((m-1)/m)^2 C. The paper itself flags that the eigenvalue multiplicities for the second round are not available in closed form and that proving the alternative-protocol lower bound is challenging. These are genuine proof gaps: the identities are asserted rather than derived for general m and n, and the fidelity proof relies on the alternative protocol plus numerical evidence. However, a proof gap is not circularity. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain (the self-citations [25] and [30] are background), and no defined quantity that makes the target result true by construction. The asymptotic capacity claim would stand or fall on a rigorous proof of Eq. (17)/(43); that missing proof burden does not make the derivation circular.

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

The central capacity claim rests on known capacity formulas and an invariance identity. No free parameters are fitted, and no new physical entities are introduced. The most important axiom is the averaging identity, proven for the first round but asserted for later rounds.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dephasing channel capacity is C=1-H2(p) and equals the reverse coherent information for the dephased Bell state ensemble.
    Used as the benchmark throughout Sections II and III, sourced to references [7, 11, 12].
  • ad hoc to paper After each round, the probability-weighted mixture of all conditional states equals (m-1) copies of the previous average state.
    Proven for the first round in Appendix V D, asserted for the second and later rounds, and it is the bridge for the capacity bound Eq. (55).
  • ad hoc to paper The reduced density matrix of the alternative protocol lower-bounds the fidelity of the actual protocol, F_A <= F_R in Eq. (28).
    Justified by DPI and numerical evidence for small m,n; no proof for general m,n.
  • ad hoc to paper The iterative map p_tilde(p) in Eq. (31) is a valid lower-bound model for the actual protocol's per-round dephasing probability.
    Used for the superstable fixed-point argument; the inequality between actual and alternative protocols is not proven in general.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Capacity-Achieving Entanglement Purification Protocol for Pauli Dephasing Channel." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6LXA4MEA

@misc{pith2026241114573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Capacity-Achieving Entanglement Purification Protocol for Pauli Dephasing Channel},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6LXA4MEA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14573}
}
abstract

Quantum communication enables secure information transmission and entanglement distribution, but these tasks are fundamentally limited by the capacities of quantum channels. While quantum repeaters can mitigate losses and noise, entanglement swapping via a central node is ineffective against the Pauli dephasing channel due to degradation from Bell-state measurements. This suggests that purifying distributed Bell states before entanglement swapping is necessary. Although one-way hashing codes are known to saturate the dephasing channel capacity, no explicit two-way purification protocol has previously been shown to achieve this bound. In this work, we present a two-way entanglement purification protocol with an explicit, scalable circuit that asymptotically achieves the dephasing channel capacity. With each iteration, the fidelity of Bell states increases. At the final round, the residual dephasing error is suppressed doubly-exponentially, scaling as $\mathcal{O}(p^{2^{n}})$, enabling near-perfect Bell pairs for any fixed number of purification rounds $n$. The explicit circuit we propose is versatile and applicable to any number of Bell pairs, offering a practical solution for mitigating decoherence in quantum networks and distributed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14573 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. First stage of the protocol: Alice prepares [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Simulation results of the first round of the protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Second stage of the purification protocol, where blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Simulation results of the second round of the pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the fidelity of the reduced successful states with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of the fidelity of the reduced states with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of the RCI between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Dephasing probability of the alternative protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Alice and Bob each prepare a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Thew, R

    Gisin, N. & Thew, R. Quantum communication. Nat. Photonics 1, 165–171 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Dynes, J. F. et al. Efficient entanglement distribu- tion over 200 kilometers. Opt. Express 17, 11440–11449 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    & Takesue, H

    Inagaki, T., Matsuda, N., Tadanaga, O., Asobe, M. & Takesue, H. Entanglement distribution over 300 km of fiber. Opt. Express 21, 23241–23249 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Pirandola, S. et al. Advances in quantum cryptography. Adv. Opt. Photonics 12, 1012–1236 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    & Pan, J.-W

    Xu, F., Ma, X., Zhang, Q., Lo, H.-K. & Pan, J.-W. Se- cure quantum key distribution with realistic devices.Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    M., Tomamichel, M

    Wilde, M. M., Tomamichel, M. & Berta, M. Converse bounds for private communication over quantum chan- nels. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 63, 1792–1817 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    & Banchi, L

    Pirandola, S., Laurenza, R., Ottaviani, C. & Banchi, L. Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communica- tions. Nat. Commun. 8, 15043 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    End-to-end capacities of a quantum com- munication network

    Pirandola, S. End-to-end capacities of a quantum com- munication network. Commun. Phys. 2, 51 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Kimble, H. J. The quantum internet. Nature 453, 1023– 1030 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Pirandola, S., Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, R., Braunstein, S. L. & Lloyd, S. Direct and reverse secret-key capacities of a quantum channel. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 050503 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    & Shapiro, J

    Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, R., Pirandola, S., Lloyd, S. & Shapiro, J. H. Reverse coherent information. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 210501 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Briegel, H.-J., D¨ ur, W., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Quantum repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quan- tum communication. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

  6. [14]

    D¨ ur, W., Briegel, H.-J., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Quantum repeaters based on entanglement purification. Phys. Rev. A 59, 169 (1999)

    1999

  7. [15]

    J., Azuma, K., Tamaki, K

    Munro, W. J., Azuma, K., Tamaki, K. & Nemoto, K. Inside quantum repeaters. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 21, 78–90 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Azuma, K. et al. Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet. Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045006 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Goebel, A. M. et al. Multistage entanglement swapping. Phy. Rev. Lett. 101, 080403 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    & Zeilinger, A

    Kaltenbaek, R., Prevedel, R., Aspelmeyer, M. & Zeilinger, A. High-fidelity entanglement swapping with fully independent sources. Phys. Rev. A 79, 040302 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Muralidharan, S. et al. Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communication. Sci. Rep. 6, 20463 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    L., Dynes, J

    Lucamarini, M., Yuan, Z. L., Dynes, J. F. & Shields, A. J. Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters.Nature 557, 400–403 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    & Hu, X.-L

    Wang, X.-B., Yu, Z.-W. & Hu, X.-L. Twin-field quantum key distribution with large misalignment error. Phys. Rev. A 98, 062323 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Cui, C. et al. Twin-field quantum key distribution with- out phase postselection. Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 034053 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    S., Hosseinidehaj, N

    Dias, J., Winnel, M. S., Hosseinidehaj, N. & Ralph, T. C. Quantum repeater for continuous-variable entanglement distribution. Phys. Rev. A 102, 052425 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    S., Guanzon, J

    Winnel, M. S., Guanzon, J. J., Hosseinidehaj, N. & Ralph, T. C. Overcoming the repeaterless bound in continuous-variable quantum communication without quantum memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03586 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Erkılı¸ c, ¨O. et al. Surpassing the repeaterless bound with a photon-number encoded measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution protocol. npj Quantum Inf. 9, 29 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Bennett, C. H. et al. Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996)

    1996

  19. [27]

    H., DiVincenzo, D

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

    1996

  20. [28]

    Deutsch, D. et al. Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2818 (1996)

    1996

  21. [29]

    & Horodecki, R

    Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P. & Horodecki, R. Insepa- rable two spin-1 2 density matrices can be distilled to a singlet form. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 574 (1997)

    1997

  22. [30]

    S., Guanzon, J

    Winnel, M. S., Guanzon, J. J., Hosseinidehaj, N. & Ralph, T. C. Achieving the ultimate end-to-end rates of lossy quantum communication networks. npj Quan- 19 tum Inf. 8, 129 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    & Briegel, H

    D¨ ur, W. & Briegel, H. J. Entanglement purification and quantum error correction. Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 1381 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    & DeMoor, B

    Verstraete, F., Dehaene, J. & DeMoor, B. Local filter- ing operations on two qubits. Phys. Rev. A 64, 010101 (2001)

    2001

  25. [33]

    & Briegel, H.-J

    D¨ ur, W. & Briegel, H.-J. Entanglement purification for quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 067901 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    & Ver- straete, F

    Dehaene, J., Van den Nest, M., De Moor, B. & Ver- straete, F. Local permutations of products of bell states and entanglement distillation. Phys. Rev. A 67, 022310 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    & Winter, A

    Devetak, I. & Winter, A. Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states. Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 461, 207–235 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    J., Munro, W

    Devitt, S. J., Munro, W. J. & Nemoto, K. Quantum error correction for beginners. Rep. Prog. Phys. 76, 076001 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Wootton, J. R. & Loss, D. Repetition code of 15 qubits. Phys. Rev. A 97, 052313 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Postol, M. S. A proposed quantum low density parity check code. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0108131 (2001)

    2001 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J., Mitchison, G

    MacKay, D. J., Mitchison, G. & McFadden, P. L. Sparse- graph codes for quantum error correction. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 50, 2315–2330 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    & Sakaniwa, K

    Kasai, K., Hagiwara, M., Imai, H. & Sakaniwa, K. Quan- tum error correction beyond the bounded distance de- coding limit. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 58, 1223–1230 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Shor, P. W. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  34. [42]

    Steane, A. M. Error correcting codes in quantum theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996)

    1996

  35. [43]

    Calderbank, A. R. & Shor, P. W. Good quantum error- correcting codes exist. Phys. Rev. A 54, 1098 (1996)

    1996

  36. [44]

    Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    Gottesman, D. Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    1997

  37. [45]

    & Negrevergne, C

    Knill, E., Laflamme, R., Martinez, R. & Negrevergne, C. Benchmarking quantum computers: the five-qubit error correcting code. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5811 (2001)

    2001

  38. [46]

    Conversion of a general quantum sta- bilizer code to an entanglement distillation protocol

    Matsumoto, R. Conversion of a general quantum sta- bilizer code to an entanglement distillation protocol. J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 36, 8113 (2003)

    2003

  39. [47]

    Quantum communication in noisy environ- ments

    Aschauer, H. Quantum communication in noisy environ- ments. Ph.D. thesis, Ludwig–Maximilians–Universit¨ at (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    & Gottesman, D

    Ambainis, A. & Gottesman, D. The minimum distance problem for two-way entanglement purification. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 52, 748–753 (2006)

    2006

  41. [49]

    Completely positive maps and entropy in- equalities

    Lindblad, G. Completely positive maps and entropy in- equalities. Commun. Math. Phys. 40, 147–151 (1975)

    1975

  42. [50]

    Cover, T. M. Elements of information theory (John Wi- ley & Sons, 1999)

    1999

  43. [51]

    Beaudry, N. J. & Renner, R. An intuitive proof of the data processing inequality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.0740 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A new quantum data processing inequality

    Beigi, S. A new quantum data processing inequality. J. Math. Phys. 54 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Schuster, H. G. & Just, W. Deterministic chaos: an introduction (John Wiley & Sons, 2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.