Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Geometric Aspects of Entanglement Generating Hamiltonian Evolutions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For stationary two-qubit Hamiltonians, the paper constructs a one-parameter family of time-suboptimal evolutions and shows that time-optimal evolutions are singled out by geodesic efficiency 1, zero curvature, no energy waste, and lower ave

desk verdict Eq. (47) is a genuinely useful explicit family of stationary suboptimal Hamiltonians and the Section VI examples are worth having, but the abstract overclaims: the paper's own time-optimal examples violate the 'no energy wastage' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.10662 v2 pith:UOQ7C7MO submitted 2026-01-15 quant-ph

Carlo Cafaro , James Schneeloch This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx03.67.Ac03.65.-w
keywords quantumspeedlimitentanglementgenerationgeodesicefficiencycurvaturecoefficienttwo-qubitHamiltoniansentanglingpowertime-optimalcontrol
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 tries to prove that geometric labels of a quantum evolution—geodesic efficiency, speed efficiency, and curvature coefficient—can identify which stationary two-qubit Hamiltonians generate entanglement in a time-optimal way. It builds a one-parameter family of suboptimal stationary Hamiltonians connecting arbitrary nonorthogonal states (Eq. 47), with the optimal Hamiltonian returned at δ=1, and a hand-built four-dimensional example for orthogonal states, then compares four separable-to-maximally-entangled evolutions. Its central claim: time-optimal trajectories have no energy waste, no curvature, lower average path entanglement, higher average entanglement speed, and systematically different short-time nonlocality than suboptimal trajectories, with the nonlocality ordering reversed between nonorthogonal and orthogonal cases. A sympathetic reader would care because these are three cheaply computable scalars that could in principle certify near-optimal entanglement generation without solving the full time-dependent dynamics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-parameter family of time-suboptimal stationary Hamiltonians in Eq. (47), defined by forcing the eigenstate expansion coefficients of the initial and final states to satisfy δ|α1|=|α2| and δ|β1|=|β2|. This family makes the energy spread ΔE=(2δ/(1+δ²))E lower than the optimal value and reduces to the optimal Hamiltonian Hopt at δ=1; it supplies the comparison trajectories for nonorthogonal states, while an ad hoc four-dimensional Hamiltonian with spectrum {-2E,-E,E,2E} is used for the orthogonal suboptimal case. The diagnostic apparatus consists of three geometric scalars—geodesic efficiency (geodesic distance over actual path length), Uzdin speed efficiency

What would settle it

Rescan the nonorthogonal comparison without fixing δ=1+√2 and φα−φβ=π: for any other δ>0 with the same geodesic distance θAB=π/2 and same energy spread ΔE=E/√2, compute the suboptimal evolution's average path entanglement and the coefficient of the t² term in its Yukalov entanglement production. The paper's claimed ordering predicts the average entanglement stays above 2/π and the short-time nonlocality stays below the optimal coefficient; a single δ that violates either inequality falsifies the representative-example conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the one-parameter family of stationary Hamiltonians in Eq. (47)—obtained by imposing δ|α1|=|α2| and δ|β1|=|β2| on the eigenstate amplitudes, with δ=1 recovering the time-optimal Hopt—provides a controlled departure from optimality whose geometric and entanglement signatures can be compared. Using this family for nonorthogonal states and a separately constructed four-dimensional Hamiltonian for orthogonal states, the paper demonstrates on four examples that time-optimal evolutions from separable to maximally entangled two-qubit states are geodesic (efficiency 1), energy-frugal (speed efficiency 1), and unbent (curvature 0), while suboptimal evolutions waste e

Load-bearing premise

The global ordering of optimal versus suboptimal behavior rests on hand-picked representative Hamiltonians—δ=1+√2 with phase difference π for the nonorthogonal suboptimal case, and a custom four-level spectrum for the orthogonal suboptimal case—so the sweeping conclusions hold only if those choices are typical of all suboptimal evolutions with the same energy spread.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the geometric signatures hold, geodesic efficiency, speed efficiency, and curvature coefficient offer a cheap diagnostic for near-optimal entanglement generation in stationary two-qubit control problems.
  • Time-optimal evolutions should be expected to carry less average path entanglement but higher average entanglement speed than suboptimal ones under the same energy spread—a tradeoff that could guide pulse design.
  • The one-parameter family in Eq. (47) gives an explicit knob (δ) for tuning a Hamiltonian from optimal to suboptimal while keeping the initial and final states fixed, useful for sensitivity studies of quantum gates.
  • Equal entangling power or equal entanglement production does not identify a unitary propagator up to local equivalence; any classification scheme for two-qubit entanglers needs finer invariants.
  • An energy-efficient optimal evolution can produce the same maximally entangled target with lower Zanardi entangling power than an energy-wasteful optimal evolution of the same duration, so entangling power alone is not a figure of merit for optimality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same amplitude-ratio construction could be extended to qudits or to multipartite systems, where the suboptimal family would likely still interpolate to the optimal Hamiltonian at δ=1; testing that is a direct follow-up.
  • Editorial inference: because Section VI contains time-optimal propagators with speed efficiency 1/2 and 2/3, the abstract's 'no energy resource wastage' statement should be read as applying to the Section V two-dimensional stationary construction, not to all time-optimal evolutions.
  • Editorial inference: the claimed inverse relation between average path entanglement speed and travel time suggests a resource tradeoff that could be tested experimentally by monitoring concurrence along known two-qubit pulses with fixed energy budget.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs explicit time-independent Hamiltonians describing time-optimal and time-suboptimal evolutions between separable and maximally entangled two-qubit states, for both nonorthogonal and orthogonal endpoint pairs. It computes geometric quantifiers (geodesic efficiency, Uzdin speed efficiency, curvature coefficient) and entanglement quantifiers (concurrence, Yukalov entanglement production, Zanardi entangling power) for these evolutions. The central claims are that the constructed optimal evolutions are geodesic, energy-efficient, curvature-free, and have lower average path entanglement than the suboptimal ones, and that time-optimality interacts in a specific way with the nonlocal/entangling character of the propagators.

Significance. The paper provides a useful set of exactly solvable examples and closed-form Hamiltonians linking geometric efficiency measures to entanglement generation. The derivations of H_opt and H_subopt and the analytic formulas for entanglement production are valuable, and the paper is honest in Section VII about its limitations. However, the broad statements in the abstract exceed what the four examples establish, and one central technical claim in Section VI rests on an incorrect Weyl-chamber identification. With appropriate qualifications and corrections, the worked examples can serve as useful testbeds for quantum control and for further study of the geometry of entanglement-generating evolutions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §VI] The abstract's opening claim that time-optimal trajectories have 'no energy resource wastage' is contradicted by the paper itself. Section VI explicitly labels all three evolutions as time-optimal ('Each of these evolutions is time-optimal', §VI) and reports η_Uzdin = 1/2 (Example 1, after Eq. (70)) and η_Uzdin = 2/3 (Example 2, after Eq. (77)), both < 1 by the paper's own measure (Eq. (15)). Thus time-optimality does not imply η_Uzdin = 1; the 'no wastage' property holds only for the special H_opt family of Eqs. (24), (48), (57), (83). The abstract and §VII must be reworded to state this qualification, otherwise the headline result is false as stated.
  2. [§VI, Eqs. (74) and (87)] The comparison of Examples 1 and 3 in §VI C is based on an incorrect use of the Weyl-chamber parameterization. The vector c = (Et/ℏ, 0, Et/ℏ) in Eq. (74) violates the ordering convention c1 ≥ c2 ≥ c3 ≥ 0; reordering gives (Et/ℏ, Et/ℏ, 0), which is exactly the vector in Eq. (87). Hence the propagators in Eqs. (71) and (84) lie at the same point in the Weyl chamber and are locally equivalent. Their equal Zanardi entangling power and equal Yukalov entanglement production are therefore expected, not evidence that these measures fail to distinguish equivalence classes. The paper should use Example 2 vs Example 3 (which have different c) for that claim.
  3. [§V B, §V D, Abstract, Table III] The global conclusions in the abstract and Table III are inferred from four hand-picked examples. In §V B, δ = 1 + √2 and φα − φβ = π are chosen to force ΔE = E/√2; in §V D, the four-dimensional spectrum {−2E, −E, E, 2E} is chosen ad hoc. No argument is given that these choices are representative, and §VII itself limits the work to stationary Hamiltonians and specific initial/final states. The abstract's 'our findings indicate' statements should be explicitly restricted to the constructed examples, or supplemented by a robustness check over the free parameters (δ, relative phase, spectrum).
minor comments (4)
  1. [§VI (intro)] The list of three goals in the Section VI introduction has two items labeled 'ii)' and no item 'i)'.
  2. [§VI C] In Example 3, 'After diagonalizing the matrix in Eq. (77)' should refer to Eq. (83), and 'ε_EP(0) = 0 in Eq. (72)' should refer to Eq. (85).
  3. [Table III] The 'Nonlocal character' column mixes 'High' and 'Higher'. If these entries are meant to be ordinal comparisons, they should use the same scale consistently.
  4. [Eqs. (52), (56), (60), (68)] The short-time expansions switch signs for the t^4 term: +1/384 in Eq. (52), −1/384 in Eq. (56), and similar differences occur elsewhere. Since the sign is used to support the short-time nonlocality ordering, please verify the algebra and state explicitly which coefficient determines the ordering.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. (47) is an explicit construction and all comparisons are direct analytic evaluations; abstract overgeneralization is a scope issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. Hopt (Eq. 24) is quoted from Mostafazadeh/Cafaro-Alsing and is independently checkable; Hsubopt (Eq. 47) is explicitly constructed from the stated ansatz δ|α1|=|α2|, δ|β1|=|β2| (Eq. 26) and reduces to Hopt at δ=1 by the algebra displayed in the paper. No parameter is fitted to a target outcome: δ=1+√2 and φα−φβ=π in Sec. V.B are chosen to equalize ΔE=E/√2 for an energetically fair comparison, and the 4D orthogonal suboptimal Hamiltonian is an ad hoc example built to have the same ΔE. These are modeling constraints, not hidden fits. The reported quantities (C̄, η_Uzdin, κ_AC, ε_EP) are exact analytic evaluations of the constructed Hamiltonians; they are not predictions forced by a fitted value. Self-citations ([33], [37], [38]) supply definitions and a standard formula, but the core tools also rest on independent sources ([68], [32], [35]); no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from the authors' prior work. The abstract's sweeping statement that time-optimal evolutions always have no energy wastage is contradicted by the paper's own Sec. VI examples (η_Uzdin=1/2 and 2/3 for evolutions explicitly labeled time-optimal), and the paper itself limits the analysis to stationary Hamiltonians and specific initial/final states in Sec. VII. Those are overgeneralization and scope concerns, not circularity: the examples still evaluate independent constructions correctly.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The paper's technical novelty is an explicit Hamiltonian family (Eq. (47)) and worked examples; the main extras are hand-chosen parameters (δ, phase difference, 4D spectrum) rather than new ontological entities.

free parameters (3)
  • δ (amplitude-imbalance parameter) = 1+√2 in the nonorthogonal suboptimal example
    Eq. (26) defines the suboptimal family with equal δ for |A> and |B>; in Sec. V B it is set to 1+√2 to force ΔE²=E²/2, so the comparison with the time-optimal case is selected by hand.
  • φα−φβ (relative phase of the suboptimal basis states) = π in Sec. V B
    Set by hand together with δ to satisfy Eq. (36) for θ_AB=π/2.
  • 4D suboptimal orthogonal spectrum = {−2E,−E,E,2E}
    Sec. V D introduces H with this spectrum by hand to realize an orthogonal suboptimal evolution with ΔE=√(5/2)E; other spectra would give different curvature and entanglement production.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard unitary Schrödinger evolution, Fubini-Study metric, and the relation ds=2ΔE dt/ℏ (Eqs. (13)-(14))
    Used throughout; definitions from Anandan-Aharonov and prior literature.
  • standard math Concurrence formula and Schmidt decomposition for two-qubit pure states (Eqs. (1)-(3))
    Input entanglement measure from Wootters.
  • standard math Definitions of Yukalov entanglement production and Zanardi entangling power (Eqs. (6), (8), (12))
    Background measures from Refs. [42-43,61-62] adopted as given.
  • domain assumption Stationary (time-independent) Hamiltonians suffice for the evolutions under study
    Explicitly stated limitation (a) in Sec. VII; all conclusions are restricted to this class.
  • ad hoc to paper The specific separable-to-maximally-entangled state pairs and the equal-ΔE normalization are representative
    Sec. V chooses |A>=|00>, Bell-state targets, and forces ΔE=E/√2 or √(5/2)E by hand; the generalization of the qualitative ordering is assumed, not proven.
  • domain assumption A suboptimal stationary Hamiltonian connecting orthogonal two-qubit states must act in a higher-dimensional subspace
    Invoked in Sec. V D to justify the ad hoc 4D construction; based on Ref. [69] and the impossibility of unequal-amplitude 2D final states.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometric Aspects of Entanglement Generating Hamiltonian Evolutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UOQ7C7MO

@misc{pith2026260110662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometric Aspects of Entanglement Generating Hamiltonian Evolutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UOQ7C7MO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.10662}
}
read the original abstract

We examine the pertinent geometric characteristics of entanglement that arise from stationary Hamiltonian evolutions transitioning from separable to maximally entangled two-qubit quantum states. From a geometric perspective, each evolution is characterized by means of geodesic efficiency, speed efficiency, and curvature coefficient. Conversely, from the standpoint of entanglement, these evolutions are quantified using various metrics, such as concurrence, entanglement power, and entangling capability. Overall, our findings indicate that time-optimal evolution trajectories are marked by high geodesic efficiency, with no energy resource wastage, no curvature (i.e., zero bending), and an average path entanglement that is less than that observed in time-suboptimal evolutions. Additionally, when analyzing separable-to-maximally entangled evolutions between nonorthogonal states, time-optimal evolutions demonstrate a greater short-time degree of nonlocality compared to time-suboptimal evolutions between the same initial and final states. Interestingly, the reverse is generally true for separable-to-maximally entangled evolutions involving orthogonal states. Our investigation suggests that this phenomenon arises because suboptimal trajectories between orthogonal states are characterized by longer path lengths with smaller curvature, which are traversed with a higher energy resource wastage compared to suboptimal trajectories between nonorthogonal states. Consequently, a higher initial degree of nonlocality in the unitary time propagators appears to be essential for achieving the maximally entangled state from a separable state. Furthermore, when assessing optimal and suboptimal evolutions...

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.10662 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: In (a), there is a plot of the temporal behavior of the entanglement of the path that connects nonorthogonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Entanglement-based comparative analysis of two distinct optimal time evolutions (Example 2 and Example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Examine the progression of a state vector|ψ(t)⟩as articulated by the time-dependent Schr¨ odinger equation,iℏ∂t |ψ(t)⟩= H (t)|ψ(t)⟩, over the intervalt A ≤t≤t B

    Geodesic efficiency We start with the concept of geodesic efficiency. Examine the progression of a state vector|ψ(t)⟩as articulated by the time-dependent Schr¨ odinger equation,iℏ∂t |ψ(t)⟩= H (t)|ψ(t)⟩, over the intervalt A ≤t≤t B. As a result, the geodesic efficiencyη GE for this quantum evolution is a scalar value that remains invariant over time (globa...

  2. [2]

    (|00⟩ ± |11⟩) and|Ψ±⟩ def = (1/ √

  3. [3]

    static” concepts of state entanglement and the nonlocal characteristics of an operator, Yukalov’s concept of entanglement production is a “dynamic

    (|01⟩ ± |10⟩) represent the four maximally entangled Bell states, expressed as|ψ⟩=µ 1 |Φ1⟩+µ 2 |Φ2⟩+µ 3 |Φ3⟩+µ 4 |Φ4⟩, the concurrence C [|ψ⟩] as defined in Eq. (1) simplifies to C [|ψ⟩] = µ2 1 +µ 2 2 +µ 2 3 +µ 2 4 . Furthermore, let us assume that the Schmidt decomposition of|ψ⟩is provided by |ψ⟩= 2X k=1 p λk v(A) k E ⊗ v(B) k E , (3) Approved for Public...

    2026

  4. [4]

    I”denotes the identity operator inHN . The subscript “AC

    Speed efficiency We proceed here with the concept of speed efficiency. We start by recalling that appropriate families of nonstationary Hamiltonians capable of generating predetermined dynamical trajectories with minimal energy resource expenditure were first introduced in Ref. [35]. While these trajectories are energy-efficient, they do not usually corre...

    2026

  5. [5]

    Before finding the time optimal Hamiltonian, we can observe that in this scenario, the geodesic distances 0 between|A⟩and|B⟩iss 0 = 2 arccos [|⟨A|B⟩|] =π/2

    The choice of taking ∆E def =E/ √ 2 is dictated by the fact that this choice allows for an energetically fair comparison with the time suboptimal evolution between the same nonorthogonal initial and final states|A⟩ and|B⟩, respectively, that we consider in the next example. Before finding the time optimal Hamiltonian, we can observe that in this scenario,...

  6. [6]

    = (ℏπ)/(2 √ 2E). Having stated that, the matrix representation of the time optimal Hamiltonian in the canonical basis BH2 2 def ={|00⟩,|01⟩,|10⟩,|11⟩}ofH 2 2 (i.e., the Hilbert space of two-qubit quantum states) is given by Hopt = E√ 2   0 0 0−i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i0 0 0   . (48) For completeness, we note from Eq. (48) that H opt = H† opt, tr(H opt...

    2026

  7. [7]

    (78), Example 2) in order to reach maximally entangled target states

    do not necessarily need to achieve entangling power values ofεZanardi EP that are as high as those linked to energetically inefficient time-optimal evolutions (as indicated in Eq. (78), Example 2) in order to reach maximally entangled target states. A comparative analysis of the temporal behaviors of path entanglement, Yukalov’s entanglement production, a...

    2026

  8. [8]

    In (a), there is a plot of the temporal behavior of the entanglement of the paths that connect|A⟩and|B⟩

    from an initial (separable) state to a final (maximally entangled) state|A⟩ def =|01⟩and|B⟩ def = 1+i 2 |01⟩+ 1−i 2 |10⟩, respectively, with|⟨A|B⟩| ̸= 0. In (a), there is a plot of the temporal behavior of the entanglement of the paths that connect|A⟩and|B⟩. State entanglement is specified by the concurrence C(t) which exhibits an identical time behavior ...

    2026

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Peres and W

    A. Peres and W. K. Wootters,Optical detection of quantum information, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 1119 (1991)

    1991

  2. [10]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, Ch. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters,Quantum nonlocality without entanglement, Phys. Rev.A59, 1070 (1999)

    1999

  3. [11]

    Halder, M

    S. Halder, M. Banik, S. Agrawal, and S. Bandyopadhyay,Strong quantum nonlocality without entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 040403 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Bhattacharya, S

    S. Bhattacharya, S. Saha, T. Guha, and M. Banik,Nonlocality without entanglement: Quantum theory and beyond, Phys. Rev. Research2, 012068(R) (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    J. S. Bell,On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  6. [14]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt,Proposed experiment to test local hidden variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  7. [15]

    Aspect, P

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger,Experimental realization of Einstein-Podoslky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 91 (1982)

    1982

  8. [16]

    Cafaro, Ch

    C. Cafaro, Ch. Corda, P. Cairns, and A. Bingolbali,Violation of Bell’s inequality in the Clauser-Horne-Shimony Holt form with entangled quantum states revisited, Int. J. Theor. Phys.63, 112 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Collins, N

    D. Collins, N. Linden, and S. Popescu,Nonlocal content of quantum operations, Phys. Rev.A64, 032302 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    W. Dur, G. Vidal, J. I. Cirac, N. Linden, and S. Popescu,Entanglement capabilities of nonlocal Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. Lett.87,137901 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. lloyd, and L. Maccone,The role of entanglement in dynamical evolution, Europhys. Lett.62, 615 (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. lloyd, and L. Maccone,Quantum limits to dynamical evolution, Phys. Rev.A67, 052109 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. lloyd, and L. Maccone,The speed limit of quantum unitary evolution, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt.6, S807 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Batle, M

    J. Batle, M. Casas, A. Plastino, and A. R. Plastino,Connection between entanglement and the speed of quantum evolution, Phys. Rev.A72, 032337 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Batle, M

    J. Batle, M. Casas, A. Plastino, and A. R. Plastino,Erratum:Connection between entanglement and the speed of quantum evolution, Phys. Rev.A73, 049904(E) (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Borras, M

    A. Borras, M. Casas, A. R. Plastino, and A. Plastino,Entanglement and the lower bounds on the speed of quantum evolution, Phys. Rev.A74, 022326 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Curilef, C

    S. Curilef, C. Zander, and A. R. Plastino,Two particles in a double well: Illustrating the connection between entanglement and the speed of quantum evolution, Eur. J. Phys.27, 1193 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Zander, A

    C. Zander, A. R. Plastino, A. Plastino, and M. Casas,Entanglement and the speed of evolution of multi-partite quantum systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40, 2861 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    Curilef, C

    S. Curilef, C. Zander, and A. R. Plastino,Speed of quantum evolution of entangled two qubit states: Local vs. global evolution, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.134, 012003 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Connection between entanglement and the speed of quantum evolution

    H. F. Chau,Comment on“Connection between entanglement and the speed of quantum evolution”, Phys. Rev.A82, 056301 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Kupferman and B

    J. Kupferman and B. Reznik,Entanglement and the speed of evolution in mixed states, Phys. Rev.A78, 042305 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Frowis,Kind of entanglement that speeds up quantum evolution, Phys

    F. Frowis,Kind of entanglement that speeds up quantum evolution, Phys. Rev.A85, 052127 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Rudnicki,Quantum speed limit and geometric measure of entanglement, Phys

    L. Rudnicki,Quantum speed limit and geometric measure of entanglement, Phys. Rev.A104, 032417 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Shrimali, S

    D. Shrimali, S. Bhowmick, V. Pandey, and A. K. Pati,Capacity of entanglement for a nonlocal Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. A106, 042419 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Pandey, D

    V. Pandey, D. Shrimali, B. Mohan, S. Das, and A. K. Pati,Speed limits on correlations in bipartite quantum systems, Phys. Rev.A107, 052419 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Pandey, S

    V. Pandey, S. Bhowmick, B. Mohan, Sohail, and U. Sen,Fundamental speed limits on entanglement dynamics of bipartite quantum systems, Phys. Rev.A110, 052420 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Deb,Geometry of quantum state space and quantum correlations, Quantum Inf

    P. Deb,Geometry of quantum state space and quantum correlations, Quantum Inf. Process.15, 1629 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Bej and P

    P. Bej and P. Deb,Geometry of quantum state space and entanglement, Quantum Inf. Process.18, 72 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Luo,Wigner-Yanase skew information and uncertainty relations, Phys

    S. Luo,Wigner-Yanase skew information and uncertainty relations, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 180403 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    A. M. Frydryszak, M. Gieysztor, and A. Kuzmak,Probing the geometry of two-qubit state space by evolution, Quantum Inf. Process.18, 84 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Z. H. Saleem etal.,Quantum Fisher information and the curvature of entanglement, arXiv:quant-ph/2504.13729 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Anandan and Y

    J. Anandan and Y. Aharonov,Geometry of quantum evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 1697 (1990). Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited: PA#: AFRL-2026-0209

    1990

  33. [41]

    Cafaro and P

    C. Cafaro and P. M. Alsing,Qubit geodesics on the Bloch sphere from optimal-speed Hamiltonian evolutions, Class. Quantum Grav.40, 115005 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Rossetti, C

    L. Rossetti, C. Cafaro, and N. Bahreyni,Constructions of optimal-speed quantum evolutions: A comparative study, Physica Scripta99, 095121 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Uzdin, U

    R. Uzdin, U. G¨ unther, S. Rahav, and N. Moiseyev,Time-dependent Hamiltonians with 100% evolution speed efficiency, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.45, 415304 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Rossetti, C

    L. Rossetti, C. Cafaro, and P. M. Alsing,Deviations from geodesic evolutions and energy waste on the Bloch sphere, Phys. Rev.A111, 022441 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    P. M. Alsing and C. Cafaro,From the classical Frenet–Serret apparatus to the curvature and torsion of quantum-mechanical evolutions. Part I. Stationary Hamiltonians, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.21, 2450152 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    P. M. Alsing and C. Cafaro,From the classical Frenet–Serret apparatus to the curvature and torsion of quantum-mechanical evolutions. Part II. Nonstationary Hamiltonians, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.21, 2450151 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Cafaro, L

    C. Cafaro, L. Rossetti, and P. M. Alsing,Curvature of quantum evolutions for qubits in time-dependent magnetic fields, Phys. Rev.A111, 012408 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    W. K. Wootters,Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  41. [49]

    Shimony,Degree of entanglement, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences755, 675 (1995)

    A. Shimony,Degree of entanglement, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences755, 675 (1995)

    1995

  42. [50]

    V. I. Yukalov and E. P. Yukalova,Evolutional entanglement production, Phys. Rev.A92, 052121 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Zanardi, C

    P. Zanardi, C. Zalka, and L. Faoro,Entangling power of quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev.A62, 030301(R) (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

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

    1997

  45. [53]

    W. K. Wootters,Entanglement of formation and concurrence, Quantum Information and Computation1, 27 (2001)

    2001

  46. [54]

    C. P. Williams,Explorations in Quantum Computing, Springer-Verlag London (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves,Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  48. [56]

    Wei and P

    T.-C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart,Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev.A68, 042307 (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    V. I. Yukalov,Entanglement measure for composite systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 167905 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    V. I. Yukalov,Quantifying entanglement production of quantum operators, Phys. Rev.A68, 022109 (2003)

    2003

  51. [59]

    V. I. Yukalov and E. P. Yukalova,Entanglement production by evolution operator, Journal of Physics: Conf. Series826, 012021 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    A. J. Coleman and V. I. Yukalov,Reduced Density Matrices, Springer-Verlag (2000)

    2000

  53. [61]

    V. I. Yukalov,Matrix order indices in statistical mechanics, PhysicaA310, 413 (2002)

    2002

  54. [62]

    Witte and M

    C. Witte and M. Trucks,A new entanglement measure induced by the Hilbert-Schmidt norm, Phys. Lett.A257, 14 (1999)

    1999

  55. [63]

    Magne Leinaas, J

    J. Magne Leinaas, J. Myrheim, and E. Ovrum,Geometrical aspects of entanglement, Phys. Rev.A74, 012313 (2006)

    2006

  56. [64]

    V. I. Yukalov,Order indices and entanglement production in quantum systems, Entropy22, 565 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Pandya, O

    P. Pandya, O. Sakarya, and M. Wiesniak,Hilbert-Schmidt distance and entanglement witnessing, Phys. Rev.A102, 012409 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Siewert,On orthogonal bases in the Hilbert-Schmidt space of matrices, J

    J. Siewert,On orthogonal bases in the Hilbert-Schmidt space of matrices, J. Phys. Commun.6, 055014 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Zanardi,Entanglement of quantum evolutions, Phys

    P. Zanardi,Entanglement of quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev.A63, 040304(R) (2001)

    2001

  60. [68]

    Wang and P

    X. Wang and P. Zanardi,Quantum entanglement of unitary operators on bi-partite systems, Phys. Rev.A66, 044303 (2002)

    2002

  61. [69]

    A. T. Rezakhani,Characterization of two-qubit perfect entanglers, Phys. Rev.A70, 052313 (2004)

    2004

  62. [70]

    Balakrishnan and R

    S. Balakrishnan and R. Sankaranarayanan,Entangling power and local invariants of two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev.A82, 034301 (2010)

    2010

  63. [71]

    Cafaro and S

    C. Cafaro and S. Mancini,A geometric algebra perspective on quantum computational gates and universality in quantum computing, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras21, 493 (2011)

    2011

  64. [72]

    Cafaro, S

    C. Cafaro, S. Ray, and P. M. Alsing,Geometric aspects of analog quantum search evolutions, Phys. Rev.A102,052607 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    P. M. Alsing and C. Cafaro,Upper limit on the acceleration of a quantum evolution in projective Hilbert space, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.21, 2440009 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Samuel and R

    J. Samuel and R. Bhandari,General setting for Berry’s phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 2339 (1988)

    1988

  67. [75]

    P. M. Alsing, C. Cafaro, O. Luongo, C. Lupo, S. Mancini, and H. Quevedo,Comparing metrics for mixed quantum states: Sj¨ oqvist and Bures, Phys. Rev.A107, 052411 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Mostafazadeh,Hamiltonians generating optimal-speed evolutions, Phys

    A. Mostafazadeh,Hamiltonians generating optimal-speed evolutions, Phys. Rev.A79, 014101 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    D. C. Brody,Elementary derivation for passage times, J. Phys.: Math. Gen.36, 5587 (2003)

    2003

  70. [78]

    Hetenyi and P

    B. Hetenyi and P. Levay,Fluctuations, uncertainty relations, and the geometry of quantum state manifolds, Phys. Rev. A108, 032218 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Chryssomalakos etal.,Curves in quantum state space, geometric phases, and the brachistophase, J

    C. Chryssomalakos etal.,Curves in quantum state space, geometric phases, and the brachistophase, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.56, 285301 (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    Chryssomalakos etal.,Speed axcess and total acceleration: A kinematical approach to entanglement, Phys

    C. Chryssomalakos etal.,Speed axcess and total acceleration: A kinematical approach to entanglement, Phys. Scr.99, 125116 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    D’Alessandro,Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, Chapman and Hall/CRC (2021)

    D. D’Alessandro,Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, Chapman and Hall/CRC (2021). Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited: PA#: AFRL-2026-0209

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.