Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 53 references

Long-distance genuine multipartite Entanglement between Magnetic Defects in Spin Chains

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In an XX spin-1/2 chain, three localized magnetic defects create genuine multipartite entanglement among the defect spins, even in parameter regions where every two-qubit concurrence is zero.

desk verdict Solid extension of impurity-based entanglement to three defects, but the abstract's 'whole range' claim fails for h>2 below the bound-state occupation threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12446 v1 pith:ABGGUHWD submitted 2025-01-21 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Mirko Consiglio , Jovan Odavić , Riccarda Bonsignori , Gianpaolo Torre , Marcin Wieśniak , Fabio Franchini , Salvatore M. Giampaolo , Tony J. G. Apollaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords genuinemultipartiteentanglementXXspinchainmagneticdefectsboundstatesGMEconcurrencelong-distanceWreduceddensitymatrix
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 that three localized magnetic impurities placed on an XX spin-1/2 chain can generate genuine multipartite entanglement (GME) among the three defect spins in the ground state, and that this entanglement survives over arbitrarily large defect separations. The key finding is that the effect is not tied to pairwise entanglement: in large parts of the parameter space the two-qubit concurrence vanishes while the tripartite GME concurrence stays positive. The authors support this with an exact formula for the GME concurrence in the case of a single localized bound state, and with numerical lower bounds and separability witnesses when more bound states are involved. If correct, the result offers a simple way to create long-distance multipartite entanglement by local control only, without fine-tuned interactions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reduced density matrix (RDM) of the three defect spins, obtained by tracing out the rest of the chain. Because the XX model maps to free fermions via the Jordan-Wigner transformation, the defect Hamiltonian is a single-particle impurity problem; the defects create up to three bound states exponentially localized at the defect sites, whose number is set by the inequalities 0<ε<1/d, 1/d<ε<3/d, and 3/d<ε. In the one-bound-state region the RDM is rank two and the convex-roof GME concurrence can be computed exactly, Eq. (20); in the higher-rank regions the paper uses numerical lower bounds due to Ma et al. and Hong et al., combined with a biseparability witness, to certify non-biseparability.

What would settle it

For any $h>2$ and $\varepsilon<\sqrt{h^2-4}$, construct the exact ground state of the fermionic Hamiltonian (5) by filling all negative single-particle levels; if the bound level is empty, the three-defect RDM is a product state. Checking whether the numerical GME bounds of Sec. IV A vanish in this region would falsify or confirm the claimed 'whole range' validity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a transverse-field XX chain with equal-strength magnetic defects at three equally spaced sites, the ground-state reduced density matrix of the defect sites exhibits genuine multipartite entanglement at any defect separation d, for both the critical phase |h|≤2 and the paramagnetic phase h≥2. In the single-bound-state regime the reduced density matrix is ρ = p|gW⟩⟨gW| + (1−p)|000⟩⟨000|, and its GME concurrence is exactly C_GME(ρ) = 2 min{√2|ρ12|, √(|ρ14|(1−ρ00−|ρ14|))}, which is positive for all d. When two or three bound states appear, numerical lower bounds for the GME concurrence remain positive up to d=9, and a biseparability witness never detects separability, so the state cannot be decomposed into biseparable parts across any bipartition. The entanglement is of W type, with vanishing three-tangle, so the defects are an instance of long-distance multipartite entanglement in a translationally broken but nearest-neighbour Hamiltonian.

Load-bearing premise

For fields $h>2$, the analytic derivation assumes the single bound state is the one filled in the ground state; this holds only when $\varepsilon>\sqrt{h^2-4}$, and outside that region the defect subsystem is in a product state with zero GME, so the 'whole range' phrasing in the abstract overstates the actual domain of validity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single localized bound state suffices to sustain genuine tripartite entanglement between three distant sites, with the analytical GME concurrence decaying with distance but never reaching zero.
  • Pairwise concurrence can vanish while GME persists, so measuring only two-spin entanglement would miss the resource present in the state.
  • The defect-induced GME works in both the gapless critical phase and the gapped paramagnetic phase, so it does not rely on criticality.
  • The method extends naturally (by the paper's own argument) to more than three defects, providing a route to higher SLOCC entanglement classes, and to the XY model, where GHZ-type states could be produced.
  • Local magnetic control alone can create multipartite entanglement over distances that would be unattainable in a translation-invariant chain, which is relevant for quantum communication and quantum technology applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • For h>2, the paper's 'whole range' statement implicitly assumes the bound state is the occupied one; a reader can test that for small ε at large h the analytic formula (20) would overestimate the entanglement, since the exact ground state is then the product |000⟩⟨000|. This does not invalidate the mechanism, but it sharpens the parameter range.
  • The persistence of GME with vanishing two-qubit concurrence suggests that the defect RDM belongs to a class of states that are tripartite-entangled yet pairwise-separable; this class (generalized W-type with a diagonal kernel) may be a useful resource for quantum repeaters where bistationary entanglement is undesired.
  • One could test the prediction experimentally in a trapped-ion or superconducting-qubit simulator of the XX model by measuring the three-site correlation functions that enter Eq. (20) (the elements ρ12, ρ14, ρ00), rather than full state tomography.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. Consiglio et al. study an XX spin-1/2 chain with three equally spaced transverse-field magnetic defects and ask whether the reduced density matrix (RDM) of the three defect spins can carry long-distance genuine multipartite entanglement (GME). The model is mapped to free fermions; Green's-function methods are used to locate up to three localized single-particle bound states and to partition the (ε,d) plane into regions with one, two, or three such states. For the case of a single occupied bound state the RDM has rank two, for which the authors derive the closed-form GME concurrence C_GME(ρ)=2 min{√2|ρ12|, √(|ρ14|(1−ρ00−|ρ14|))}. For higher-rank cases they compute numerical lower bounds on C_GME at h=2 and h=1, and they apply a biseparability witness. The central reported finding is that long-distance GME persists for arbitrary defect separation, including regions where all two-qubit concurrences vanish.

Significance. The analytical part is a clean example of a parameter-free free-fermion calculation: the model has no fitting parameters, the bound-state thresholds are derived from Green's functions, and the rank-2 convex-roof evaluation leading to Eq. (20) is elegant and internally consistent. The numerical lower bounds at h=2 and h=1 provide useful corroboration, and the observation that W-type GME can coexist with vanishing pairwise concurrence is a worthwhile contribution to the literature on multipartite entanglement generation by local defects. The main weakness is an overbroad parameter-space claim: the argument as written applies to h=2 (or more generally to the region where the relevant bound state is occupied), not to the whole Hamiltonian parameter space.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. IV A, Eqs. (6), (16), (20); Appendix A] The central claim that the defect RDM has non-zero GME "across the whole range of the Hamiltonian parameter space" is not correct for h>2 with small ε. The rank-2 ansatz in Eq. (16) assumes that the localized single-particle bound state is occupied in the ground state. This is automatic at h=2, where the lower band edge h−2 is zero, but for h>2 the band is shifted upward and a bound state below the band can still have positive energy. In the single-defect limit the bound-state energy is E_b = h − √(ε²+4), so it is negative only for ε > √(h²−4). Below this threshold the ground state is the fermion vacuum and the defect RDM is exactly |000⟩⟨000|, for which C_GME=0. The conditions in Eq. (6) and the pole analysis in Appendix A are existence conditions for localized eigenstates below the band, not occupation conditions. The Abstract, the sentence in Sec. IV A that ρ "always has a non-zero GME concurrence independently of the distance d", and the Conclusion should be qualified to h=2 or, more generally, to the region where the lowest pole of Eq. (A16) lies below zero.
  2. [Sec. IV B and Figs. 5, 8] The text moves from numerical results at h=2 and h=1 to statements such as "for any |h|≤2" and "non-zero long-distance entanglement is present for any value of εd". The numerical lower bounds are only shown for h=2 and h=1, and the analytic rank-2 treatment is specific to the occupied-bound-state case. If the authors intend to claim the result for all |h|≤2 or for all h≥2, they need either additional data or an argument that the lower bounds vary continuously with h. Otherwise the parameter-space statements in Sec. IV B and the Abstract should be restricted to the cases actually computed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV A, after Fig. 5] The sentence "we always found W ≥0, that is, the state is not separable for any bipartition" is too strong: the Hofmann criterion certifies biseparability when W<0, so W≥0 only means that the iterative procedure did not find a biseparable decomposition. It should be phrased as numerical evidence rather than as a proof of non-biseparability.
  2. [Fig. 3 and Eq. (6)] The labels "1/2/3 Localized States" in Fig. 3 should be accompanied by an explicit statement that these are thresholds for existence below the band, not for occupation in the ground state; the distinction is important for h>2.
  3. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (20) and Fig. 4] The phrase "independently of the distance d" would be more precise as "for every finite distance d", since Fig. 4 shows that the value of C_GME becomes vanishingly small as d increases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the GME derivation follows from the Hamiltonian via Green's functions and convex-roof results; the h>2 occupancy concern is a scope issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The model (Eqs. 1-4) is mapped by Jordan-Wigner to free fermions, the bound-state existence regions (Eqs. 6) are obtained from Green's-function pole analysis in Appendix A, and the three-defect RDM (Eq. 7) follows from the symmetries of the Hamiltonian (U(1) conservation, reflection symmetry, realness), not from assuming the target entanglement. The rank-2 form in Eq. (16) for 0<ε<1/d is a consequence of having one occupied localized single-particle state; the analytic GME concurrence in Eq. (20) is then computed via the convex-roof extension using external results (Refs. [46,47]), and the numerical lower bounds and witnesses are evaluated directly from the RDM rather than fitted to produce positivity. The self-citations in the paper ([19], [25-27], [35], [50], [52,53]) are background, method, or comparison citations and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The only substantive concern is that for h>2 with small ε the localized bound state may have positive energy and thus be unoccupied, making the defect RDM a product state; this is an unstated occupancy condition and a correctness/scoping issue, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity and the derivation is independent of its conclusions.

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

The model parameters h, epsilon, d are physical inputs, not fitted. The auxiliary variables p and phi in the convex-roof computation are optimization variables, not free fitted parameters. The central derivations rely on standard JW mapping, Green's function methods, and convex-roof results from the literature. The main questionable input is the implicit assumption that the defect-bound level is occupied, which is not generally true for h>2.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner transformation maps the spin chain to non-interacting fermions
    Used in Sec. II, Eq. (4), to diagonalize the Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Ground state is found by filling all single-fermion states with negative energy
    Standard Fermi-sea construction, used throughout Sec. IV to build the RDM.
  • domain assumption The three-defect RDM has the block structure of Eq. (7), with real entries and reflection symmetry
    Follows from U(1) symmetry, realness of the ground state, and reflection symmetry about the central defect, stated in Sec. III.
  • ad hoc to paper The defect-bound single-particle level is occupied for any h>=2 and epsilon>0
    Assumed implicitly in Sec. IV A when writing rho=p|gW><gW|+(1-p)|000><000|. Not stated and false for large h and small epsilon.
  • ad hoc to paper The bound-state counting thresholds epsilon=1/d and 3/d are exact for the lattice model
    Appendix A obtains these via a determinant solved with Mathematica and a continuum delta-potential analogy; not a fully analytic proof for the lattice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long-distance genuine multipartite Entanglement between Magnetic Defects in Spin Chains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ABGGUHWD

@misc{pith2026250112446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long-distance genuine multipartite Entanglement between Magnetic Defects in Spin Chains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ABGGUHWD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12446}
}
abstract

We investigate the emergence and properties of long-distance genuine multipartite entanglement, induced via three localized magnetic defects, in a one-dimensional transverse-field XX spin-$1/2$ chain. Using both analytical and numerical techniques, we determine the conditions for the existence of bound states localized at the defects. We find that the reduced density matrix (RDM) of the defects exhibits long-distance genuine multipartite entanglement (GME) across the whole range of the Hamiltonian parameter space, including regions where the two-qubit concurrence is zero. We quantify the entanglement by using numerical lower bounds for the GME concurrence, as well as by analytically deriving the GME concurrence in regions where the RDM is of rank two. Our work provides insights into generating multipartite entanglement in many-body quantum systems via local control techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12446 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spin-1/2 chain with periodic boundary conditions of even size N, described by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) where on sites l, m and n (the defects) an additional magnetic field ε is applied. The defects l and n are equidistant from the defect located at site m. II. THE MODEL We consider the one-dimensional XX spin-1/2 chain in a transverse magnetic field h, uniform everywhere except for three spins, located at sites k+… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Showcasing the regions where one, two and three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Analytically determined GME concurrence, as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Lower bound on the GME concurrence as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two-qubit concurrence as a function of εd, for defects at a distance of up to 9, and h = 2. (left panel) Concurrence between defects one and two (equivalent to the concurrence between defects two and three). (right panel) Concurrence between defects one and three. The …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Witness W in Eq.( 13) as a function of ϵd for h = 2 and for different distances between the defects. shed light on the properties of multipartite entanglement in density matrices without coherence between different magnetization sectors, where only W-type entanglement …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Lower bound on the GME concurrence as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Witness W in Eq.( 13) as a function of ϵd for h = 1 and for different distances between the defects. and TJGA acknowledge Xjenza Malta for their sup￾port via the project GROUNDS IPAS-2023-059. JO acknowledges the support by the PNRR MUR Project No. PE0000023-NQSTI, and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Epping, H

    M. Epping, H. Kampermann, C. Macchiavello, and D. Bruß, New Journal of Physics 19, 10.1088/1367- 2630/aa8487 (2017), arxiv:1612.05585

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Yeo and W

    Y. Yeo and W. Chua, Physical Review Letters96, 060502 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Tóth, Phys

    G. Tóth, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review A62, 062314 (2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, B. De Moor, and H. Ver- schelde, Phys. Rev. A65, 052112 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Horodecki, L

    P. Horodecki, L. Rudnicki, and K. Życzkowski, Multipar- tite entanglement (2024), arXiv:2409.04566 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    M. Ma, Y. Li, and J. Shang, Fundamental Research https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2024.03.031 (2024)

    doi:10.1016/j.fmre.2024.03.031 2024

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Walter, D

    M. Walter, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, Multipartite Entan- glement, in Quantum Information (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2016) Chap. 14, pp. 293–330

    2016

  2. [10]

    Eltschka and J

    C. Eltschka and J. Siewert, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical47, 424005 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. Życzkowski,Geometry of Quantum States (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Lepori, A

    L. Lepori, A. Trombettoni, D. Giuliano, J. Kombe, 9 J. Yago Malo, A. J. Daley, A. Smerzi, and M. Luisa Chio- falo, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 56, 305302 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Wieśniak, Multipartite Entanglement versus Multi- particle Entanglement (2024), arXiv:2407.13348 [quant- ph]

    M. Wieśniak, Multipartite Entanglement versus Multi- particle Entanglement (2024), arXiv:2407.13348 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Jungnitsch, T

    B. Jungnitsch, T. Moroder, and O. Gühne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 190502 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Cianciaruso, T

    M. Cianciaruso, T. R. Bromley, and G. Adesso, npj Quantum Information 2, 16030 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Sperling and W

    J. Sperling and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 110503 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Gühne, G

    O. Gühne, G. Tóth, and H. J. Briegel, New Journal of Physics 7, 229 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Reviews of Modern Physics80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    S. M. Giampaolo and B. C. Hiesmayr, Phys. Rev. A88, 052305 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Z. Liu, Y. Tang, H. Dai, P. Liu, S. Chen,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 260501 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Campos Venuti, C

    L. Campos Venuti, C. Degli Esposti Boschi, and M. Roncaglia, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 247206 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    S. M. Giampaolo and F. Illuminati, Phys. Rev. A80, 050301 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Campos Venuti, S

    L. Campos Venuti, S. M. Giampaolo, F. Illuminati, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A76, 052328 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    S. M. Giampaolo and F. Illuminati, New Journal of Physics 12, 025019 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    T. J. G. Apollaro and F. Plastina, Phys. Rev. A 74, 062316 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Plastina and T

    F. Plastina and T. J. G. Apollaro, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 177210 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    Apollaro, A

    T. Apollaro, A. Cuccoli, A. Fubini, F. Plastina, and P. Verrucchi, Physical Review A77, 062314 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Ma, Z.-H

    Z.-H. Ma, Z.-H. Chen, J.-L. Chen, C. Spengler, A. Gabriel, et al., Physical Review A83, 062325 (2011), arXiv:1101.2001

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Annals of Physics16, 407 (1961)

    1961

  22. [30]

    Damski and M

    B. Damski and M. M. Rams, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical47, 025303 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Franchini, An Introduction to Integrable Tech- niques for One-Dimensional Quantum Systems , Vol

    F. Franchini, An Introduction to Integrable Tech- niques for One-Dimensional Quantum Systems , Vol. 940 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017) arxiv:1609.02100

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    De Pasquale, G

    A. De Pasquale, G. Costantini, P. Facchi, G. Florio, S. Pascazio, et al., The European Physical Journal Spe- cial Topics160, 127 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    E. N. Economou,Green ’s Functions in Quantum Physics, 3rd ed., Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences (Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev.109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  27. [35]

    T. J. G. Apollaro, A. Cuccoli, A. Fubini, F. Plastina, and P. Verrucchi, International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion 06, 567 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Coffman, J

    V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Physical Review A 61, 052306 (1999), arXiv:9907047 [quant-ph]

    1999

  29. [37]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    A. Acín, D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Phys- ical Review Letters87, 040401 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    Y. Hong, T. Gao, and F. Yan, Phys. Rev. A86, 062323 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical Optimization , 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy,et al., Nature Methods17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Hofmann, A

    M. Hofmann, A. Osterloh, and O. Gühne, Phys. Rev. B 89, 134101 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Gurvits and H

    L. Gurvits and H. Barnum, Phys. Rev. A 66, 062311 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    L.Amico, A.Osterloh, F.Plastina, R.Fazio,andG.Mas- simo Palma, Phys. Rev. A69, 022304 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    Lohmayer, A

    R. Lohmayer, A. Osterloh, J. Siewert, and A. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 260502 (2006)

    2006

  39. [47]

    Eltschka, A

    C. Eltschka, A. Osterloh, J. Siewert, and A. Uhlmann, New Journal of Physics10, 043014 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Osterloh, J

    A. Osterloh, J. Siewert, and A. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032310 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, Phys. Rev. A64, 050101 (2001)

    2001

  42. [50]

    Pandya, O

    P. Pandya, O. Sakarya, and M. Wieśniak, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012409 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    S. M. Hashemi Rafsanjani, M. Huber, C. J. Broadbent, and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. A86, 062303 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    S. M. Giampaolo and B. C. Hiesmayr, New Journal of Physics 16, 093033 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    S. M. Giampaolo and B. C. Hiesmayr, Phys. Rev. A92, 012306 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.