Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Entanglement and non-local magic in a non-unitarily deformed non-Hermitian bipartite system

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Central claim: applying an invertible non-unitary similarity to a degenerate Hermitian operator leaves the spectrum unchanged while the right eigenstates interpolate from product to maximally entangled states.

desk verdict A correct and mostly new two-qubit toy model separating non-defective degeneracy from eigenvector entanglement; the math holds, but the physical-state convention needs clearer framing and the numerical part is unfinished. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08346 v1 pith:2LKYFW67 submitted 2026-08-08 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Chen-Huan Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords non-Hermitianquantummechanicsnon-defectivedegeneracybipartiteentanglementSchmidtspectrumnon-localmagicstabilizerRényientropypartialtransposenegativityCHSHinequality
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

This paper proves that a non-Hermitian degeneracy need not be an exceptional point and that the spectrum does not control how entangled the degenerate eigenstates are. It builds a two-qubit Hamiltonian by conjugating a Hermitian operator with a degenerate eigenspace under the invertible non-unitary map $S_\gamma=e^{\gamma\,\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x}$; the spectrum stays $\{\lambda_0,\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\lambda_2\}$ for every finite $\gamma$, yet the right eigenstates interpolate continuously from product states at $\gamma=0$ to Bell states as $|\gamma|\to\infty$. The paper supplies closed formulas for the resulting entanglement, PPT negativity, CHSH violation, and Schmidt-gauged non-local magic, and it warns that the biorthogonal left-right reduction is non-positive and cannot be compared with Haar-random Page benchmarks. The payoff is a compact diagnostic tuple separating algebraic degeneracy, spectral sensitivity, entanglement typicality, and non-stabilizer structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the invertible non-unitary similarity map $S_\gamma=e^{\gamma G}$ with $G=\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x$, applied to a Hermitian $H_0$ with an $r$-fold degenerate eigenvalue. Because similarity preserves characteristic and minimal polynomials and maps the degenerate subspace bijectively onto $\ker(H_\gamma-\lambda_0 I)$, the degeneracy remains non-defective at every finite $\gamma$; the orthogonal projector $Q_0^R$ onto the right eigenspace gives a basis-independent geometric description. On the state side, the right eigenvectors $|R\rangle=S_\gamma|\mu\rangle$ carry Schmidt probabilities controlled by $\operatorname{sech}2\gamma$, and all diagnostic formulas—entropies, PPT negativity, CHSH bound, and Schmidt-gauged magic—are evaluated from that positive right-state reduction, with the biorthogonal reduction kept separate.

What would settle it

Prepare the two-qubit state $|\tilde R_{00}(\gamma)\rangle$ for a finite nonzero $\gamma$ and measure the eigenvalues of the partial transpose and the maximal CHSH value; if the negativity is not $\tfrac12|\tanh 2\gamma|$ or the CHSH value does not exceed 2, the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that eigenvector entanglement can change continuously while the spectrum and the algebraic structure of a degenerate eigenvalue are held fixed. For the two-qubit realization, the normalized right eigenstates $|\tilde R_{00}\rangle = (\cosh\gamma\,|00\rangle+\sinh\gamma\,|11\rangle)/\sqrt{\cosh 2\gamma}$ have Schmidt probabilities $p_\pm = \tfrac12(1\pm \operatorname{sech} 2\gamma)$, so the von Neumann entropy, second Rényi entropy, PPT negativity $\tfrac12|\tanh 2\gamma|$, and maximal CHSH value $2\sqrt{1+\tanh^2 2\gamma}$ all increase monotonically with $|\gamma|$ and saturate at the Bell values, while the Schmidt-gauged magic $M_2^{\mathrm{Sch}}=-\log_2(1-u^2+u^4)$ with $u=\operatorname{sech}2\gamma$ vanishes at both endpoints and peaks at $\log_2(4/3)$ when $u^2=1/2$. The same construction separates the physical positive reduction $\rho_A^R=\mathrm{Tr}_B(|\tilde R\rangle\langle\tilde R|)$ from the generally non-positive biorthogonal reduction $\rho_A^{RL}$, whose entropy can become complex.

Load-bearing premise

The physical-state interpretation assumes the normalized right eigenvectors $|R_\mu\rangle=S_\gamma|\mu\rangle$ are the real states of the degenerate eigenspace; if one instead uses the biorthogonal left-right pairing, the reduced density matrix is non-positive and the monotonic entanglement and CHSH results do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For finite $\gamma\neq 0$, the normalized two-qubit right eigenstate violates the CHSH inequality ($B_{\max}>2$) and reaches the Tsirelson bound only as $|\gamma|\to\infty$, so the model provides a one-parameter isospectral family that is provably nonlocal.
  • Entanglement growth and proximity to a defective exceptional point are decoupled: the condition number $\kappa_2(S_\gamma)=e^{2|\gamma|}$ grows without bound while the degeneracy stays non-defective, so exponential spectral sensitivity can coexist with an ordinary diagonalizable degeneracy.
  • Non-local magic is not inherited from entanglement: the Schmidt-gauged magic vanishes for both product and maximally entangled states and is largest at $u^2=1/2$, so entropy and non-stabilizer content answer different questions.
  • The two-qubit right state can be verified by two local measurements—one in the Schmidt basis and one in a mutually unbiased basis—with spectral gap $1/2$, avoiding full tomography.
  • In larger $N\times M$ bipartitions, Haar-typicality benchmarks must be applied to the right eigenspace through projected sampling rather than by substituting the rank $r$ into full-space Page formulas; the resulting deficits diagnose localized or entanglement-restricted sectors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same isospectral mechanism should work for any Hermitian generator $G$ whose degenerate-sector eigenvectors have nonzero variance under $G$; the two-qubit choice $G=\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x$ is the simplest instance of a general 'entanglement without spectral change' phenomenon.
  • Because the entanglement and CHSH results follow only if the normalized right eigenstates define the physical states, a direct measurement of CHSH or reduced purity on a prepared $S_\gamma|\mu\rangle$ state would empirically select the right-state convention over the biorthogonal one.
  • The dark-state construction in the paper turns the static family into a resource: the two-mode-squeezing Lindbladian with the stated jump operators has $|\psi_\gamma\rangle$ as a steady state, suggesting a concrete dissipative preparation route.
  • The exact equality between the computational-basis inverse participation ratio and the reduced purity is a coincidence of basis alignment; a generic global basis rotation would break it, so numerical uses of IPR as an entanglement proxy should check the basis first.
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 a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H_gamma = S_gamma H_0 S_gamma^{-1} with S_gamma = exp(gamma sigma_x otimes sigma_x), starting from a Hermitian H_0 with a degenerate sector. It proves that the degenerate eigenvalue remains non-defective for all finite gamma, solves the two-qubit realization exactly, and derives closed expressions for the Schmidt probabilities, von Neumann and Rényi entropies, PPT negativity, Schmidt-gauged non-local magic, a triangle-criterion magic witness, CHSH violation, and comparisons with Page/Haar benchmarks. The central algebraic claims are internally consistent, but the physical interpretation of the results depends on a specific choice of basis inside the degenerate eigenspace and on the convention that normalized right eigenstates are the physical states.

Significance. The paper provides a clean, fully analytic demonstration that a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian can have an unchanged degenerate spectrum while a specially selected family of right eigenstates interpolates from product to maximally entangled states. The closed forms for the negativity, magic, and CHSH violation are useful, and the explicit warning against using the non-positive biorthogonal reduction for entropy comparisons is well taken. The main value is pedagogical and technical: it isolates the distinction between spectral degeneracy, eigenvector entanglement, and eigenvector geometry. However, the claimed physical conclusions rest on a basis-selection and inner-product convention that the manuscript does not fully justify, so the presentation needs substantial reframing before the results can be stated as physical rather than conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A, Eqs. (18)-(21), and abstract] The monotonic growth of entanglement, PPT negativity, and CHSH violation is a property of the particular basis {|R00>, |R01>} = {S_gamma|00>, S_gamma|01>}, not of the degenerate eigenspace of H_gamma or of H_gamma itself. The paper explicitly acknowledges after Eq. (9) that an entropy assigned to a single vector in a degenerate eigenspace depends on the chosen basis and offers the projector Q_R0 as the basis-independent diagnostic, yet the abstract and Section VII present the monotonic entanglement as the physical result. The Hamiltonian alone does not single out this basis, so either a physical selection rule (e.g., analytic continuation in gamma from the Hermitian eigenbasis, or a preparation protocol) must be stated and used, or the claims must be explicitly qualified as holding for a chosen similarity-selected basis. This is load-bearing because a different orthonormal basis of the same eigenspace gives different Schmidt probabilities, entropies, negativity, and CHSH values.
  2. [Sections V and VI, Eqs. (127)-(131)] Despite the title 'Numerical Implementation in Larger Dimensions,' Section VI contains no numerical results, no code, no tables, and no figures; it lists only a protocol. The ensemble diagnostics in Eqs. (127)-(131) are defined but never evaluated, even for the exactly solvable two-qubit case where a closed-form subspace average would be straightforward to compute. The abstract and Section VII state that Page and Haar benchmarks provide reference values for eigenstate typicality, but this is not demonstrated for the model. Please supply actual numerical or analytic evaluations, or explicitly state that Sections V and VI are proposed protocols rather than executed computations.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (10) and (14), and Section VII] The identification of the normalized right-state density matrix in Eq. (10) as the physical state is a convention rather than a consequence of the formalism. The paper correctly shows that the biorthogonal reduction is non-positive and should not be compared with Page values, but the opposite convention is logically allowed in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics; under the biorthogonal convention none of the monotonic entanglement, PPT, or CHSH results follow. The paper should state this conventional dependence explicitly at the point where Eq. (10) is introduced and in the abstract, rather than presenting the right-state results as the unique physical ones.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (41)] The phrase 'p spherical symmetry of Haar measurement' appears to contain a typo; it should probably read 'the spherical symmetry of the Haar measure'.
  2. [Section VI] The heading 'Numerical Implementation in Larger Dimensions' is misleading because no numerical implementation is reported; renaming the section to 'Proposed Numerical Protocol' or adding actual computational results would remove the mismatch.
  3. [Eqs. (15) and (26)] The branch choice of the matrix logarithm is not specified at the definition in Eq. (15); the principal branch is invoked only later in Eq. (26). State the branch convention explicitly at the definition.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The notation in Eq. (4) is confusing: S_gamma^dagger = e^{gamma G^dagger} = e^{gamma G} = S_gamma should be written with the Hermiticity of G stated before the equality, to avoid the impression that S_gamma is being defined in terms of itself.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained from the similarity definition; the one self-citation is motivational only.

full rationale

The paper constructs H_gamma = S_gamma H0 S_gamma^-1 with S_gamma = exp(gamma sigma_x ⊗ sigma_x), diagonalizes the two-qubit case directly, and computes Schmidt probabilities p± = (1±sech(2γ))/2, entropies, PPT negativity, CHSH value, and Schmidt-gauged magic from that explicit state. These are analytic evaluations from the definition, not parameters fitted to data. Page and Haar benchmarks are standard external results and are used only as comparisons, not as fitted inputs. The sole self-citation [5] motivates the model but is not used to derive Proposition 1 or any quantitative result. The paper explicitly acknowledges that individual vectors in a degenerate eigenspace are basis-dependent and introduces the projector Q_R0 and the projected ensemble (Eq. 127) for invariant diagnostics; the CHSH/entanglement claims are therefore transparently tied to the chosen right-state convention rather than hidden as predictions from spectra alone. The numerical section promises a protocol and uses Haar references but gives no code; that is a reproducibility limitation, not circularity. No step of the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces one tunable parameter gamma and relies on standard linear algebra plus the conventional right-state density matrix choice; no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • gamma (non-Hermiticity deformation parameter) = tunable, not fitted
    Controls S_gamma = e^{gamma G}; entanglement, magic, and negativity are functions of it, but no observation is fitted to determine it.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Similarity transformation preserves algebraic and geometric multiplicity of eigenvalues, so non-defective degeneracy is inherited from H_0.
    Used in Proposition 1 (Section II).
  • domain assumption The normalized right eigenvector with standard inner product defines the physical density matrix rho_A^R for entanglement and Bell diagnostics.
    Adopted in Eq. (10) and Section III; the biorthogonal reduction is rejected as non-positive, but this is a convention in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics.
  • domain assumption Complex Haar-random states are the correct reference ensemble for eigenstate typicality of the projected right eigenspace.
    Used in Sections IV and V, Eq. (127); the real-Haar alternative is discussed but not used for the main benchmarks.
  • domain assumption Definitions and properties of Schmidt-gauged non-local magic (Ref. [15]) and the triangle criterion (Ref. [20]) are accepted.
    Central to Section III.E-F; the paper imports these measures from cited preprints.
  • domain assumption The reference Hamiltonian H_0 has distinct displayed eigenvalues lambda_0, lambda_1, lambda_2 and rank(pi_0) = r > 1.
    Used to construct the model in Eqs. (1)-(3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement and non-local magic in a non-unitarily deformed non-Hermitian bipartite system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2LKYFW67

@misc{pith2026260808346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement and non-local magic in a non-unitarily deformed non-Hermitian bipartite system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2LKYFW67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08346}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Hermitian degeneracies are usually discussed through spectral coalescence, whereas entanglement is a property of eigenvectors and need not be fixed by the eigenvalues alone. We formulate a compact bipartite model that separates these two notions. A Hermitian operator with a degenerate eigenspace is transformed by an invertible non-unitary similarity map. The resulting Hamiltonian is non-Hermitian and retains a non-defective degeneracy at every finite value of the non-Hermiticity parameter. For an exactly solvable two-qubit realization, the right eigenstates evolve continuously from product states to maximally entangled states although the spectrum is unchanged. We distinguish the positive right-state reduced density matrix from the generally non-positive biorthogonal reduction, for which entropy may become complex. The same two-qubit solution gives a closed partial-transpose negativity and a Schmidt-gauged non-local magic. Entanglement grows monotonically with the non-Hermiticity parameter, whereas the non-local magic vanishes for both the product and maximally entangled limits and is largest at an intermediate coupling. In larger bipartite spaces, the Page entropy and Haar-averaged purity provide reference values for eigenstate typicality. These diagnostics separate non-defective degeneracy, exceptional-point sensitivity, Haar-typical entanglement, and non-stabilizer correlations without relying on a proliferation of basis-dependent spectral quantities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    (127), reshape every state as anN × Mcoefficient matrixC, and computeρ A =CC †/Tr(CC †)

    Draw states using Eq. (127), reshape every state as anN × Mcoefficient matrixC, and computeρ A =CC †/Tr(CC †)

    work page

  2. [1]

    ConstructH 0 with a prescribed multiplicity-reigenvalue and choose an invertible non- unitaryS γ containing anA–Bcoupling

    work page

  3. [2]

    This provides information that neither the eigenvalue degeneracy nor the entropy alone contains

    Hence the amount of entanglement grows monoton- ically while non-local magic is nonmonotonic. This provides information that neither the eigenvalue degeneracy nor the entropy alone contains. It also obeys the general spectral bound MSch 2 ≤2S R 2,bits, S R 2,bits =−log 2 Tr[(ρR A)2] = S(2,R) A ln 2 .(66) F. A T riangle-Criterion witness for mixed-state ma...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Verify non-defectiveness from rank(Hγ −λ 0I) =D −r

    FormH γ =S γH0S−1 γ without diagonalizing it. Verify non-defectiveness from rank(Hγ −λ 0I) =D −r

    work page

  5. [4]

    Obtain an orthonormal basis of the right eigenspace by a QR or singular value decom- position and constructQ R 0 . 24

    work page

  6. [6]

    (11) and (12) and compare them with Eqs

    Average Eqs. (11) and (12) and compare them with Eqs. (114) and (116)

    work page

  7. [7]

    (61)– (62); for positive two-qubit mixed reductions, evaluate the PPT spectrum in Eq

    For qubit bipartitions, optionally evaluate the Schmidt-gauged magic from Eqs. (61)– (62); for positive two-qubit mixed reductions, evaluate the PPT spectrum in Eq. (56)

    work page

  8. [8]

    2−2n X P∈P n ⟨P⟩ 4 # (141) =−log 2(2−n)−log 2

    Reportκ 2(Sγ) or the eigenvector condition number beside the entropy deficits, PPT negativity, and non-local magic, thereby separating entanglement typicality from prox- imity to defectiveness. Only two copies of a state are required to estimate the purity in Eq. (115); the von Neumann entropy requires the complete Schmidt spectrum. On a quantum processor...

    work page

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Forl→0 (Renyi-0 limit),C X(0) = Tr[(ρ0 AX) 2] Tr[ρ0 A] = Tr[X2] Tr[I2] = Tr[I2] Tr[I2] = 1

    Forl= 1,C X(l) reduce to 1−u2 1+u2 . Forl→0 (Renyi-0 limit),C X(0) = Tr[(ρ0 AX) 2] Tr[ρ0 A] = Tr[X2] Tr[I2] = Tr[I2] Tr[I2] = 1. For every finite|γ|one hasp + > p− and henceC X(ℓ)→0 asℓ→ ∞, whereas the Bell limit hasp + =p − = 1/2 andC X(ℓ) = 1. This is a finite-dimensional no...

  2. [10]

    ”Non-hermitian physics.” Advances in Physics 69.3 (2020): 249-435

    Ashida, Yuto, Zongping Gong, and Masahito Ueda. ”Non-hermitian physics.” Advances in Physics 69.3 (2020): 249-435

    2020

  3. [11]

    Bergholtz, Emil J., Jan Carl Budich, and Flore K. Kunst. ”Exceptional topology of non- Hermitian systems.” Reviews of Modern Physics 93.1 (2021): 015005

    2021

  4. [12]

    ”Introduction to the theory of operators in Banach spaces.” Perturbation theory for linear operators

    Kato, Tosio. ”Introduction to the theory of operators in Banach spaces.” Perturbation theory for linear operators. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1995. 126-188. 38

    1995

  5. [13]

    ”Protection of all nondefective twofold degeneracies by antiunitary sym- metries in non-Hermitian systems.” Physical Review Research 4.4 (2022): 043213

    Sayyad, Sharareh. ”Protection of all nondefective twofold degeneracies by antiunitary sym- metries in non-Hermitian systems.” Physical Review Research 4.4 (2022): 043213

    2022

  6. [14]

    ”Non-defective degeneracy in non-Hermitian bipartite system.” Physica Scripta 99.10 (2024): 105237

    Wu, Chen-Huan. ”Non-defective degeneracy in non-Hermitian bipartite system.” Physica Scripta 99.10 (2024): 105237

    2024

  7. [15]

    ”Biorthogonal quantum mechanics.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47.3 (2014): 035305

    Brody, Dorje C. ”Biorthogonal quantum mechanics.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47.3 (2014): 035305

    2014

  8. [16]

    ”Average entropy of a subsystem.” Physical review letters 71.9 (1993): 1291

    Page, Don N. ”Average entropy of a subsystem.” Physical review letters 71.9 (1993): 1291

    1993

  9. [17]

    ”Entropy of an n-system from its correlation with ak-reservoir.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 19.5 (1978): 1028-1031

    Lubkin, Elihu. ”Entropy of an n-system from its correlation with ak-reservoir.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 19.5 (1978): 1028-1031

    1978

  10. [18]

    ”Induced measures in the space of mixed quantum states.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34.35 (2001): 7111-7125

    Zyczkowski, Karol, and Hans-J¨ urgen Sommers. ”Induced measures in the space of mixed quantum states.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34.35 (2001): 7111-7125

    2001

  11. [19]

    ”Average R´ enyi entropy of a subsystem in random pure state: M

    Kim, MuSeong, et al. ”Average R´ enyi entropy of a subsystem in random pure state: M. Kim et al.” Quantum Information Processing 23.2 (2024): 37

    2024

  12. [20]

    Short, and Andreas Winter

    Popescu, Sandu, Anthony J. Short, and Andreas Winter. ”Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics.” Nature Physics 2.11 (2006): 754-758

    2006

  13. [21]

    ”Eigenstate thermalization for degenerate observables.” Physical review letters 120.15 (2018): 150603

    Anza, Fabio, Christian Gogolin, and Marcus Huber. ”Eigenstate thermalization for degenerate observables.” Physical review letters 120.15 (2018): 150603

    2018

  14. [22]

    ”Symmetry and topology in non-Hermitian physics.” Physical Review X 9.4 (2019): 041015

    Kawabata, Kohei, et al. ”Symmetry and topology in non-Hermitian physics.” Physical Review X 9.4 (2019): 041015

    2019

  15. [23]

    ”Separability criterion for density matrices.” Physical Review Letters 77.8 (1996): 1413

    Peres, Asher. ”Separability criterion for density matrices.” Physical Review Letters 77.8 (1996): 1413

    1996

  16. [24]

    ”Non-Local Magic from the Entanglement Spectrum.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.07808 (2026)

    Torre, Gianpaolo, Fabio Franchini, and Salvatore Marco Giampaolo. ”Non-Local Magic from the Entanglement Spectrum.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.07808 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Baul, Anshumitra, Xiao Xiao, and Phillip C. Lotshaw. ”Probing two-spin entanglement at quantum criticality on a quantum processor.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.08967 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    ”Adiabatic eigenstate deformations as a sensitive probe for quantum chaos.” Physical Review X 10.4 (2020): 041017

    Pandey, Mohit, et al. ”Adiabatic eigenstate deformations as a sensitive probe for quantum chaos.” Physical Review X 10.4 (2020): 041017

    2020

  19. [27]

    ”Anticoncentration in clifford circuits and beyond: From random tensor networks to pseudomagic states.” Physical Review X 15.3 (2025): 031071

    Magni, Beatrice, et al. ”Anticoncentration in clifford circuits and beyond: From random tensor networks to pseudomagic states.” Physical Review X 15.3 (2025): 031071

    2025

  20. [28]

    ”Anticoncentration and state design of doped real Clifford circuits and tensor networks.” Physical Review A 113.6 (2026): 062446

    Magni, Beatrice, et al. ”Anticoncentration and state design of doped real Clifford circuits and tensor networks.” Physical Review A 113.6 (2026): 062446. 39

    2026

  21. [29]

    ”Triangle Criterion: a mixed-state magic criterion with applications in distillation and detection.” PRX Quantum 7.3 (2026): 033016

    Liu, Zhenhuan, et al. ”Triangle Criterion: a mixed-state magic criterion with applications in distillation and detection.” PRX Quantum 7.3 (2026): 033016

    2026

  22. [30]

    ”Universal and efficient quantum state verification via schmidt decomposition and mutually unbiased bases.” Quantum 10 (2026): 2011

    Li, Yunting, and Huangjun Zhu. ”Universal and efficient quantum state verification via schmidt decomposition and mutually unbiased bases.” Quantum 10 (2026): 2011

    2026

  23. [31]

    ”Exploiting many-body localization for scalable variational quantum simulation.” Quantum 9 (2025): 1942

    Cao, Chenfeng, et al. ”Exploiting many-body localization for scalable variational quantum simulation.” Quantum 9 (2025): 1942

    2025

  24. [32]

    ”Stabilizer entanglement enhances magic injection.” npj Quantum Information (2026)

    Hou, Zong-Yue, ChunJun Cao, and Zhi-Cheng Yang. ”Stabilizer entanglement enhances magic injection.” npj Quantum Information (2026)

    2026

  25. [33]

    ”Magic entropy in hybrid spin-boson systems.” Reports on Progress in Physics 89.2 (2026): 027602

    Crew, Samuel, et al. ”Magic entropy in hybrid spin-boson systems.” Reports on Progress in Physics 89.2 (2026): 027602

    2026

  26. [34]

    ”Entanglement holography in quantum phases via twisted R´ enyi-N corre- lators.” Quantum Science and Technology 11.2 (2026): 025017

    Sala, Pablo, et al. ”Entanglement holography in quantum phases via twisted R´ enyi-N corre- lators.” Quantum Science and Technology 11.2 (2026): 025017

    2026

  27. [35]

    ”Statek-designs from Hamiltonian evolution.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.18537 (2026)

    Hou, Shengxian, Zong-Yue Hou, and Zhi-Cheng Yang. ”Statek-designs from Hamiltonian evolution.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.18537 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Yao, Mingxing, and Aashish A. Clerk. ”Floquet Reservoir Engineering for Remote Logical Entanglement.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.21360 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  29. [37]

    ”Adaptively secure unitary designs with constant non- Clifford cost.” Physical Review Letters 136.21 (2026): 210802

    Bittel, Lennart, and Lorenzo Leone. ”Adaptively secure unitary designs with constant non- Clifford cost.” Physical Review Letters 136.21 (2026): 210802

    2026

  30. [38]

    ”Violating Bell inequality by mixed spin-12 states: necessary and sufficient condition.” Physics Letters A 200.5 (1995): 340-344

    Horodecki, Ryszard, Pawel Horodecki, and Michal Horodecki. ”Violating Bell inequality by mixed spin-12 states: necessary and sufficient condition.” Physics Letters A 200.5 (1995): 340-344

    1995

  31. [39]

    ”Efficient verification of bipartite pure states.” Physical Review A 100.3 (2019): 032316

    Li, Zihao, Yun-Guang Han, and Huangjun Zhu. ”Efficient verification of bipartite pure states.” Physical Review A 100.3 (2019): 032316

    2019

Pith tools

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