An angular momentum approach to quantum insertion errors

Lewis Bulled; Yingkai Ouyang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

An angular momentum approach to quantum insertion errors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a two-stage syndrome measurement of total angular momentum and its z-projection modulo the code gap to correct single insertion errors on gapped permutation-invariant codes, with teleportation-based recovery.

desk verdict Syndrome extraction is a solid new piece; the recovery protocol's logical-X changes the syndrome sector, so the central correction claim is not supported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03413 v1 pith:5OFKODL3 submitted 2025-09-03 quant-ph

Lewis Bulled , Yingkai Ouyang This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P7081P4594B60 PACS 03.67.Pp

keywords quantuminsertionerrorspermutation-invariantcodesgnuangularmomentumsyndromeextractionteleportationrecoverysynchronisationClebsch-Gordancoefficients

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 claims the first general quantum error-correction protocol that corrects a single insertion error—an unknown extra qubit appearing among the encoded qubits—on gapped permutation-invariant (gnu) codes. The entire syndrome is two classical bits, obtained by measuring the total angular momentum J^2 and its z-projection modulo the code gap g. Those two global measurements project the corrupted state onto a new codespace, and the paper proves that the projected logical states form a legitimate orthonormal code. A teleportation circuit then returns the state to a permutation-invariant code on the desired number of qubits, using only operations implementable with geometric phase gates. If correct, this gives a general correction framework for a dimension-changing error class that previously had only bespoke examples.

What carries the argument

The machinery is angular-momentum coupling plus two projective measurements. The encoded state is a spin-N/2 object; an inserted qubit is a spin-1/2 object, so angular-momentum addition forces the whole system into total angular momentum j=N+1/2 (symmetric) or j=N-1/2 (mixed-symmetry). The projector P_j selects one of these sectors, and P^w_j selects states whose magnetic quantum number m satisfies j+m≡w mod g. Schur-Weyl duality provides the basis in which these projections dephase the state, and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients carry the position dependence. The equal-norm Lemma 1 is the identity that turns the projected states into orthonormal logical codewords, which is what allows a single t

What would settle it

Simulate the full recovery on the four-qubit code (g=n=2,u=1) for every insertion position a=0,...,4: prepare a logical state, insert a qubit, measure J^2 then J_z mod 2, run the proposed logical-CNOT teleportation with a |+_L> ancilla, and compare the final register with the original logical state after the known correction. If the logical CNOT's action depends on a, if the mixed-symmetry branch produces nonzero weight for a syndrome outside {0,g-1}, or if Lemma 1's equal-norm condition fails numerically, the central claim is false. This is a finite, directly checkable calculation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a gnu code on N=gnu qubits, a single inserted qubit is treated as a spin-1/2 particle coupled to the logical state's spin N/2. Measuring J^2 then J_z modulo the code gap g projects the post-insertion state onto one of four syndromes—(j,w) with j=N+1/2, w=0,1 or j=N-1/2, w=0,g-1—and, crucially, Lemma 1 shows the two projected logical codewords for each syndrome have equal norm, so they genuinely encode a qubit. A logical-CNOT teleportation circuit, implemented with geometric phase gates, then maps that projected spin code back to a permutation-invariant code on the desired number of qubits. The four-qubit gnu code with g=n=2,u=1 is worked out explicitly.

Load-bearing premise

The recovery step assumes that the logical controlled-NOT gate treats the projected post-insertion state identically no matter where the extra qubit was inserted, and that a conditional logical-X gate can be built for odd code gaps; both are asserted without derivation, and if either is false the teleportation recovery fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Single insertion errors on any gnu code with gap g are correctable with a two-bit syndrome, making decoding a lookup rather than a search.
When the first measurement gives j=N+1/2, the projected state already lives in the symmetric space on N+1 qubits, so the protocol can switch to a permutation-invariant code with better error-correction properties instead of merely undoing the insertion.
When it gives j=N-1/2, the teleportation step can map to either N or N+1 qubits, giving flexible code-length recovery.
Because every stage is expressible with geometric phase gates, the protocol does not require individual qubit addressability, which matters for photonic and bosonic hardware.
The four-qubit code example exhibits the general syndrome patterns, showing the framework is not vacuous at the smallest code size.

Reading between the lines

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

The same J^2, J_z mod g syndrome is a plausible candidate for detecting and correcting deletion errors too, since a missing qubit also changes the total angular momentum sector; if that holds, it would give a unified insertion-deletion framework without relying on the classical Levenshtein equivalence.
The position-independence of the logical CNOT is the one step a numerical simulation should probe first: check the action of the logical CNOT on the projected states for every insertion position on a small gnu code; if it misbehaves, a Schur-transform-based recovery could replace the teleportation step.
Lemma 1's proof only needs the squared Clebsch-Gordan coefficients to be linear in the Dicke index, so the equal-norm property may extend to other permutation-invariant code families with affine weight profiles; verifying the norm-preserving condition for those families would test this.
The odd-gap requirement for the conditional logical-X gate suggests an open design question: either devise a modified recovery for even-gap gnu codes or prove that the two-measurement syndrome cannot support teleportation recovery there.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here's my take on Bulled and Ouyang. The genuinely new thing is the two-stage angular-momentum syndrome extraction for insertion errors: measure J^2 then J_z mod g, and the claim that the two resulting bits (j,w) project the post-insertion state onto a well-defined codespace. The norm-equality lemma is proved in the appendix with standard CG and binomial identities, and the four-qubit example is concrete. That part looks right and is a real step toward a quantum analogue of insdel codes. The paper also honestly frames itself as building on Ouyang and Brennen's AM program, and the citations to that program and to [29] are appropriate.

The soft spot is the recovery protocol, and it's not minor. The logical-X gate in Eq. (18), |j,m> -> |j,-m>, does not preserve the syndrome sector. For a code with fixed j and w, applying X_L sends m to -m, so j+m becomes j-m, which is congruent to 2j-w mod g. Since 2j = gnu ± 1, you get w' = 1-w for j=N+1/2 and w' = -1-w for j=N-1/2. In no case is w'=w. So X_L maps the code to an orthogonal syndrome subspace; it is a code-switching map, not a logical operator. The CNOT of Eq. (19) then acts on the target by X_L^m, which sends a legitimate codeword into the wrong sector when m is odd, and the subsequent measurement in the original logical-Z basis will not reliably recover the state. The figure-3 caption asserts CAXB acts identically for all insertion positions without proof, and the assertion about odd g does not fix the arithmetic. This is a load-bearing flaw: the paper's central claim is correcting insertion errors, and the proposed recovery doesn't do that as written.

The syndrome-extraction half survives, and the idea of projecting onto an AM sector modulo g is worth keeping. But the recovery needs a different construction, or a revised definition of X_L that actually preserves w. As is, the protocol is incomplete.

My recommendation: send it to a serious referee. The mathematical core is nontrivial and mostly sound, and the flaw is specific and fixable in principle. But don't let it through as is; the recovery must be reworked or proven. If you read it, skip the discussion of GPGs and focus on Eqs. (18)-(19) and Fig. 3.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum error-correction protocol for single insertion errors on a family of permutation-invariant codes called gnu codes. After an insertion error increases the qubit count from N to N+1, the authors measure the total angular momentum J^2 and the magnetic quantum number J_z modulo the code gap g. They claim that these two measurements yield a two-bit syndrome (j,w) with j=N±1/2 and w restricted to two possible values, and that the post-measurement state is a valid quantum code on N+1 qubits. The central technical lemma (Lemma 1) asserts equality of the norms of the two projected logical codewords, which is proved in the appendix using Clebsch-Gordan identities, Vandermonde's identity, and binomial sums. The paper then describes a teleportation-based recovery protocol, using an ancilla in a gnu code, a logical controlled-NOT, and a conditional logical-X gate, intended to map the projected state back to a permutation-invariant code on the desired number of qubits.

Significance. If the protocol were correct, it would be the first general angular-momentum-based QEC protocol for single quantum insertion errors. The syndrome extraction stage is worked out in non-trivial detail: the post-insertion projections onto the symmetric and mixed-symmetry sectors are computed explicitly, and Lemma 1 is a substantive norm-equality result with a self-contained proof. The approach is parameter-free and uses only standard CG and binomial identities. However, the recovery stage as written is not sound. The logical-X gate defined in Eq. (18) does not preserve the syndrome sector of the projected code, so the logical-CNOT of Eq. (19) can move the target state out of its code subspace, and the subsequent logical-Z measurement on that subspace is not a valid measurement of the resulting state. Because the abstract's central claim ('we detail a QEC protocol that can correct single insertion errors') depends on this recovery procedure, the paper needs a major revision before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Recovery, Eq. (18) and Fig. 3] The logical-X gate X_L: |j,m>_p -> |j,-m>_p is not a logical operator on the syndrome-(j,w) code. The code subspace is defined by j+m≡w (mod g). Under X_L, a state with quantum number m maps to m'=-m, so j+m' = 2j-w (mod g). For j=N+1/2, 2j = gnu+1 ≡ 1 (mod g), hence w' = 1-w and X_L swaps w=0 and w=1. For j=N-1/2, 2j ≡ -1 (mod g), hence w' = -1-w and X_L swaps w=0 and w=g-1. Thus X_L maps the code to an orthogonal syndrome sector, not to itself. Consequently, in the CNOT of Eq. (19), when the control qubit is in the logical |1> component, the target leaves its codespace. The subsequent measurement of register B in the logical-Z basis of the original sector is then undefined or has nonzero probability of projecting onto the complement, and the teleportation protocol of Fig. 3 does not implement the claimed recovery. The statement that a conditional logical-X is 'possible for odd code gap
[Fig. 3 caption and Recovery paragraph] The caption asserts that 'The logical controlled-NOT gate CAXB acts identically on |Ψ^{a,w}_j> for all a=0,...,N.' While this is plausible for the symmetric sector j=N+1/2, where the post-insertion state is independent of a, the mixed-symmetry codewords |x^{a,w}_{N-1/2}> defined in the appendix explicitly depend on a through the coefficients d_{a,p} and β_{k,l}. No proof is given that a fixed logical CNOT is well-defined across all insertion positions. If X_L is replaced by a code-preserving logical-X (as required by the previous comment), this point may become straightforward, but as written the claim is unsupported and essential to the recovery argument.
[Recovery section, second paragraph] The statement 'Such a unitary exists by the Knill-Laflamme QEC criterion' is not justified. The Knill-Laflamme condition gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a set of errors to be correctable by some recovery operation, but it does not by itself assert the existence of a unitary that maps one specific code space to another. If the authors intend to use a known result or construction, they should cite it; otherwise the claim should be removed or replaced with an explicit construction.

minor comments (4)

[Main text, Lemma 1] Lemma 1 states 'Proof. Omitted for brevity.' but a proof is provided in the appendix. This is harmless, but the statement should read 'Proof: see Appendix' to avoid confusion.
[Eq. (14) and surrounding text] The protocol is described as yielding a 'two-bit syndrome' although w takes g possible values. The paper correctly notes that only two values of w have non-zero projection, but this is an important structural fact; it would help to state explicitly that the syndrome is effectively two bits because the two possible w values depend on j and the code gap.
[Appendix, Eqs. (35)-(37) and (55)] The index notation in the norm computations is dense and occasionally ambiguous (e.g., the use of k, l, l' and the CG-coefficient subscripts). A short explanation of the summation ranges and the orthogonalization of the SCB would improve readability.
[Example 1, Eq. (16)] The normalization of the displayed states in Eq. (16) is not immediately obvious; a brief comment confirming that the states are normalized and orthogonal would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's syndrome extraction and recovery protocol rest on explicit angular-momentum decompositions, Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, and standard binomial identities; no parameter is fitted to data and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the target result. The norm equalities in Lemma 1 are proved in the appendix using O'Hara's theorem, a standard CG recursion, Vandermonde's identity, and [29, Eq. (12)] as a parameter-free binomial identity with independent published support—this is not the paper's target result and does not make the argument circular. Self-citations to [20], [29], and [35] provide background and code-family definitions, but the central derivation does not reduce to those citations. The unsupported assertions about the logical-CNOT acting identically for all insertion positions and the conditional logical-X for odd gaps are correctness concerns, not circularity: they do not define the syndrome or recovery in terms of the claimed outcome. No load-bearing step is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The protocol relies on standard angular momentum theory, the existing gnu code family, and a few implementation-level assumptions about geometric phase gates and logical gate behavior that are not fully proven in the paper.

assumptions (7)

standard math Schur-Weyl duality decomposes the (N+1)-qubit Hilbert space into irreducible representations of S_{N+1} and SU(2).
Used in the Syndrome extraction section to justify projecting onto subspaces of fixed total angular momentum.
standard math Clebsch-Gordan coefficient identities, including O'Hara's theorem [44] and recursion [45, Eq. (3.369)], are correct and applicable.
Used throughout the Appendix to compute post-measurement states and norm equalities.
standard math Vandermonde identity and binomial sum identities, including [29, Eq. (12)], hold.
Used in the Appendix to simplify binomial sums and prove Lemma 1.
domain assumption Geometric phase gates can implement the required measurements of J^2 and J_z mod g, and the logical gates X_L and CNOT.
Stated in the Introduction and Recovery sections, referencing [23]. This is an implementation assumption about existing hardware capabilities.
domain assumption gnu codes from [29] exist with the stated coefficient structure and distance min(g,n).
The protocol is defined specifically for these codes, and their properties are taken from prior published work.
ad hoc to paper The logical CNOT gate CAXB acts identically on |Psi_{a,w}> for all insertion positions a=0,...,N.
Stated in the Fig. 3 caption without proof. This is load-bearing for the teleportation recovery to be position-independent.
ad hoc to paper The conditional logical-X gate X_L is implementable for odd code gaps g.
Stated in the Recovery section without derivation. It is unclear why odd g is required and how this works for even-g examples like g=2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An angular momentum approach to quantum insertion errors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OFKODL3

@misc{pith2026250903413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An angular momentum approach to quantum insertion errors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OFKODL3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03413}
}

abstract

Quantum insertion errors are a class of errors that increase the number of qubits in a quantum system. Despite a wealth of research on classical insertion errors, there has been limited progress towards a general framework for correcting quantum insertion errors. We detail a quantum error correction protocol that can correct single insertion errors on a class of gapped permutation-invariant codes. We provide a simple two-stage syndrome extraction protocol that yields a two-bit syndrome, by measuring the total angular momentum and its projection along the $z$-axis (modulo the code gap) of the post-insertion state. We demonstrate that these measurements project the state onto a new codespace, and we detail a teleportation protocol to map the projected state back to a permutation-invariant code on the desired number of qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03413 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Summary of our two-stage syndrome extraction protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Quantum circuit for our teleportation protocol. The logical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[29]

M. B. Ruskai, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 194 (2000)

work page 2000
[1]

Permutation-invariant quantum coding for quantum deletion channels

Y. Ouyang, in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2021) pp. 1499–1503, arXiv:2102.02494 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[2]

Here, the subscript zero emphasises that |j, k + m− N/2〉0 depends on position a = 0

By angular momenta coupling laws, we obtain |Ψ0〉 = X j,k,m αmβkC j,k+m− N 2 1 2 ,m; N 2 ,k− N 2 |j, k + m− N/2〉0 , (21) where j = N±1 2 . Here, the subscript zero emphasises that |j, k + m− N/2〉0 depends on position a = 0. This basis is non-orthogonal, so we move to the Schur-Weyl basis [40] |j, k + m− N/2〉0 = X p d0,p|j, k + m− N/2〉p , (22) where 1≤ p≤ N...

work page
[3]

S. E. Vinay and P . Kok, Physical Review A97, 10.1103/Phys- RevA.97.042335 (2018)

doi:10.1103/phys- 2018
[4]

N. Jain, B. Stiller, I. Khan, V . Makarov, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Elec- tronics 21, 168–177 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

Navarrete and M

A. Navarrete and M. Curty , Quantum Science and Technology 7, 035021 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

Nasedkin, F

B. Nasedkin, F . Kiselev, I. Filipov, D. Tolochko, A. Ismag- ilov, V . Chistiakov, A. Gaidash, A. Tcypkin, A. Kozubov, and V . Egorov, Physical Review Applied20, 014038 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

V . I. Levenshtein, Soviet physics. Doklady10, 707 (1966)

work page 1966

Show all 48 references

[8]

L. J. Schulman and D. Zuckerman, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor.45, 2552–2557 (1999)

1999
[9]

Haeupler and A

B. Haeupler and A. Shahrasbi, in Proceedings of the 49th An- nual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ’17) (2017) p. 33–46

2017
[10]

T . D. Duc, S. Liu, I. Tjuawinata, and C. Xing, IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory 67, 2808 (2021)

2021
[11]

Y. M. Chee, H. M. Kiah, A. Vardy , V . K. Vu, and E. Yaakobi, Coding for racetrack memories (2017), arXiv:1701.06874 [cs.IT]

2017 arXiv
[12]

Buschmann and L

T . Buschmann and L. Bystrykh, BMC Bioinformatics14, 272 (2013)

2013
[13]

Nakayama and M

A. Nakayama and M. Hagiwara, IEICE Communications Ex- press 9, 100 (2020)

2020
[14]

Nakayama and M

A. Nakayama and M. Hagiwara, Single quantum dele- tion error-correcting codes (2020), arXiv:2004.00814 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[15]

Shibayama and M

T . Shibayama and M. Hagiwara, in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2021) pp. 1493– 1498

2021
[16]

Leahy , D

J. Leahy , D. Touchette, and P . Yao, Quantum insertion-deletion channels (2019), arXiv:1901.00984 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Hagiwara, IEICE Communications Express 10, 10.1587/comex.2020XBL0191 (2021)

M. Hagiwara, IEICE Communications Express 10, 10.1587/comex.2020XBL0191 (2021)

2021 doi
[18]

Shibayama and M

T . Shibayama and M. Hagiwara, in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2022) pp. 2957– 2962

2022
[19]

Shibayama and Y

T . Shibayama and Y. Ouyang, in2021 IEEE Information The- ory Workshop (ITW) (2021) pp. 1–6

2021
[20]

Shibayama, Necessary and sufficient condition for con- structing a single qudit insertion /deletion code and its de- coding algorithm (2025), arXiv:2501.07027 [quant-ph]

T . Shibayama, Necessary and sufficient condition for con- structing a single qudit insertion /deletion code and its de- coding algorithm (2025), arXiv:2501.07027 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[21]

Ouyang and G

Y. Ouyang and G. K. Brennen, Finite-round quantum er- ror correction on symmetric quantum sensors (2025), arXiv:2212.06285 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[22]

Luis, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34, 7677 (2001)

A. Luis, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34, 7677 (2001)

2001
[23]

Wang and P

X. Wang and P . Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A65, 032327 (2002)

2002
[24]

M. T . Johnsson, N. R. Mukty , D. Burgarth, T . Volz, and G. K. Brennen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 190403 (2020)

2020
[25]

Eickbusch, V

A. Eickbusch, V . Sivak, A. Z. Ding, S. S. Elder, S. R. Jha, J. Venkatraman, B. Royer, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Nature Physics 18, 1464 (2022)

2022
[26]

Y. Wang, Y. Wang, S. van Geldern, T . Connolly , A. A. Clerk, and C. Wang, Science Advances 10, eadj8796 (2024)

2024
[27]

Maioli, T

P . Maioli, T . Meunier, S. Gleyzes, A. Auffeves, G. Nogues, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 113601 (2005)

2005
[28]

J. Du, T . Vogt, and W . Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 143004 (2023)

2023
[30]

Ouyang, Physical Review A 90, 062317 (2014), arXiv:1302.3247 [quant-ph]

Y. Ouyang, Physical Review A 90, 062317 (2014), arXiv:1302.3247 [quant-ph]

2014 arXiv
[31]

Pollatsek and M

H. Pollatsek and M. B. Ruskai, Permutationally in- variant codes for quantum error correction (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0304153 [quant-ph]

2004 arXiv
[32]

Ouyang and J

Y. Ouyang and J. Fitzsimons, Phys. Rev. A 93, 042340 (2016), arXiv:1512.02469 [quant-ph]

2016 arXiv
[33]

Ouyang, Linear Algebra and its Applications 532, 43–59 (2017), arXiv:1604.07925 [quant-ph]

Y. Ouyang, Linear Algebra and its Applications 532, 43–59 (2017), arXiv:1604.07925 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[34]

Hagiwara and A

M. Hagiwara and A. Nakayama, A four-qubits code that is a quantum deletion error-correcting code with the optimal length (2020), arXiv:2001.08405 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Aydin, M

A. Aydin, M. A. Alekseyev, and A. Barg, Quantum 8, 1321 (2024), arXiv:2310.05358 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[36]

Ouyang, Y

Y. Ouyang, Y. Jing, and G. K. Brennen, Measurement-free code-switching for low overhead quantum computation us- 14 ing permutation invariant codes (2025), arXiv:2411.13142 [quant-ph]

2025
[37]

Plesch and C

M. Plesch and C. Brukner, Physical Review A 83, 032302 (2011)

2011
[38]

Bärtschi and S

A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, Deterministic preparation of dicke states, in Fundamentals of Computation Theory (Springer International Publishing, 2019) p. 126–139

2019
[39]

Havlíˇcek, S

V . Havlíˇcek, S. Strelchuk, and K. Temme, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062336 (2019)

2019
[40]

Wills and S

A. Wills and S. Strelchuk, Generalised coupling and an ele- mentary algorithm for the quantum schur transform (2024), arXiv:2305.04069 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[41]

Bacon, I

D. Bacon, I. L. Chuang, and A. W . Harrow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 170502 (2006)

2006
[42]

A. W . Harrow, Applications of coherent classical communica- tion and the schur transform to quantum information theory (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0512255 [quant-ph]

2005 arXiv
[43]

Havlíˇcek and S

V . Havlíˇcek and S. Strelchuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 060505 (2018)

2018
[44]

R. D. P . East, G. Alonso-Linaje, and C. Park, All you need is spin: Su(2) equivariant variational quantum circuits based on spin networks (2023), arXiv:2309.07250 [quant-ph]

2023
[45]

O’Hara, Clebsch-gordan coefficients and the binomial dis- tribution (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0112096 [quant-ph]

P . O’Hara, Clebsch-gordan coefficients and the binomial dis- tribution (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0112096 [quant-ph]

2001 arXiv
[46]

J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano,Modern Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

2020
[47]

X. Zhou, D. W . Leung, and I. L. Chuang, Phys. Rev. A 62, 052316 (2000)

2000
[48]

Knill and R

E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A 55, 900 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9604034 [quant-ph]

1997 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [29]

M. B. Ruskai, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 194 (2000)

work page 2000

[2] [1]

Permutation-invariant quantum coding for quantum deletion channels

Y. Ouyang, in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2021) pp. 1499–1503, arXiv:2102.02494 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[3] [2]

Here, the subscript zero emphasises that |j, k + m− N/2〉0 depends on position a = 0

By angular momenta coupling laws, we obtain |Ψ0〉 = X j,k,m αmβkC j,k+m− N 2 1 2 ,m; N 2 ,k− N 2 |j, k + m− N/2〉0 , (21) where j = N±1 2 . Here, the subscript zero emphasises that |j, k + m− N/2〉0 depends on position a = 0. This basis is non-orthogonal, so we move to the Schur-Weyl basis [40] |j, k + m− N/2〉0 = X p d0,p|j, k + m− N/2〉p , (22) where 1≤ p≤ N...

work page

[4] [3]

S. E. Vinay and P . Kok, Physical Review A97, 10.1103/Phys- RevA.97.042335 (2018)

doi:10.1103/phys- 2018

[5] [4]

N. Jain, B. Stiller, I. Khan, V . Makarov, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Elec- tronics 21, 168–177 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [5]

Navarrete and M

A. Navarrete and M. Curty , Quantum Science and Technology 7, 035021 (2022)

work page 2022

[7] [6]

Nasedkin, F

B. Nasedkin, F . Kiselev, I. Filipov, D. Tolochko, A. Ismag- ilov, V . Chistiakov, A. Gaidash, A. Tcypkin, A. Kozubov, and V . Egorov, Physical Review Applied20, 014038 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [7]

V . I. Levenshtein, Soviet physics. Doklady10, 707 (1966)

work page 1966