Protocols for sharing genuine multipartite entanglement by employing copies of biseparable states

Saronath Halder; Swati Choudhary; Ujjwal Sen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Protocols for sharing genuine multipartite entanglement by employing copies of biseparable states

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two copies of certain three-qutrit biseparable states can be converted, using only local operations and classical communication, into a genuinely multipartite entangled state with nonzero probability.

desk verdict Correct and clean two-copy LOCC activation protocol for a special family of qutrit biseparable states, but the abstract overclaims universality — worth reviewing with a required revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.16840 v2 pith:7B2BXKX4 submitted 2026-01-23 quant-ph

Swati Choudhary , Ujjwal Sen , Saronath Halder This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords genuinemultipartiteentanglementactivationbiseparablestatesLOCCqutritGHZstatenonlocalityquantumresourcetheory

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

Biseparable states are entangled across every bipartition but lack genuine multipartite entanglement; the paper asks whether copies of such states can be used to create genuine multipartite entanglement. It shows that two copies of a rank-two three-qutrit biseparable state suffice, provided the state has the form where the non-entangled party sits in a fixed product state. The protocol processes one copy at a time, using only local projective measurements and classical communication, and never performs joint measurements on the copies. The output is a pure GHZ-type state, which is genuinely multipartite entangled and genuinely nonlocal, so the scheme activates a stronger resource than entanglement alone. The construction also extends to four and more parties, with the required number of copies growing accordingly.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the 'orthogonal spectator' structure of the biseparable state: in each term, the party not sharing the bipartite entanglement sits in a fixed product state (|0⟩). A single local projective measurement that includes that product state cleanly discards the unwanted term, leaving a pure bipartite entangled state. The second ingredient is a two-qubit combining step: the party holding one qubit of each of the two resulting Bell-like states performs a joint two-qubit measurement {|00⟩⟨00|+|11⟩⟨11|, |01⟩⟨01|+|10⟩⟨10|} followed by a |+⟩/|−⟩ basis measurement and a trace-out, which projects the three-party state onto a GHZ-type state a²|000⟩+b²|111⟩. This avoids any joint mea

What would settle it

Find a rank-two three-qutrit biseparable state, entangled across every bipartition, whose two pure terms have non-orthogonal spectator states (e.g., |0⟩ and |+⟩ = (|0⟩+|1⟩)/√2), and show that no single local projective measurement on either copy can yield a pure bipartite entangled state; such a state would fall outside Proposition 2 and disprove the generality claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the heart of the paper is Proposition 2: from two copies of a three-qutrit rank-two biseparable state of the form ρ = p|ψ⟩⟨ψ|_AB ⊗ |0⟩⟨0|_C + (1−p)|0⟩⟨0|_A ⊗ |ψ⟩⟨ψ|_BC, with |ψ⟩ = Σ a_i|ii⟩ of Schmidt rank 3, the three parties can, via LOCC, prepare a genuinely multipartite entangled state with nonzero probability. The proof works by measuring the spectator subsystem (Charlie on one copy, Alice on the other) in a basis that contains the fixed product state; the successful branch leaves a pure bipartite entangled state between the remaining pair. Two such pure states, shared as AB and BC, are then combined by Bob — the party holding one half of each — into a GHZ-type state a²|000⟩+b²|111⟩

Load-bearing premise

The two-copy protocol relies on the biseparable state having (or being reducible to) a form in which the non-entangled party in each term is in a fixed product state, so a single local projection cleanly isolates a pure bipartite entangled state; the paper asserts this reduction without proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Two copies of a three-qutrit rank-two biseparable state with full Schmidt-rank entanglement suffice for genuine multipartite entanglement activation; three-qubit states of the same rank require distillation and many copies.
The protocol never performs joint measurements on the copies; each copy is processed by a local projection alone, so it is experimentally milder than multi-copy correlated measurement schemes.
The output is a pure state of GHZ type, which is genuinely nonlocal; hence the scheme activates genuine multipartite nonlocality, not just entanglement.
For the C³⊗C²⊗C³ class σ, the probability of extracting a Bell pair from a copy is 1 (one of the two outcomes always succeeds), and repeated trials push the overall success probability to 1 asymptotically.
The construction generalizes to four parties using three copies of a rank-three biseparable state, and to more parties with correspondingly more copies and higher rank.

Reading between the lines

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

This suggests a broader principle: for rank-two biseparable states with orthogonal spectators, the minimal number of copies needed for activation may equal one less than the Schmidt rank of the entangled branches — two copies for Schmidt rank three, three for rank four — which would explain why three qubits (Schmidt rank two) require distillation and many copies.
If the asserted reduction of arbitrary rank-two biseparable forms to the orthogonal-spectator form is correct, the two-copy result would apply to a wide family of states, not just the explicit example; testing this reduction is the most direct way to extend the result.
The same 'measure the spectator, then combine the two surviving bipartite resources' template could be applied to other quantum resources, such as genuine multipartite steering or conference key agreement, wherever the input state has the same structural form.
A photonic experiment with two qutrit copies could confirm the activation by checking that the output violates a genuine tripartite Bell inequality; the protocol's success branch is heralded, so the not-yet-entangled failures can be discarded.

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

Let me give you the quick version. The paper has one solid, genuinely new construction: from two copies of a three-qutrit biseparable state of the form p|ψ><ψ|_AB⊗|0><0|_C + (1-p)|0><0|_A⊗|ψ><ψ|_BC, with |ψ> of Schmidt rank 3, local projections on A and C leave pure two-qubit entangled states between AB and BC, and a two-outcome measurement on Bob's two qubits fuses them into an (unnormalized) GHZ-like state. That is a legitimate LOCC activation protocol with minimal copies, no joint measurements across copies, and it generalizes cleanly to more parties. The proof is explicit and builds on standard distillation results, so the math checks out as far as I can see. Credit where it's due: this is a simple and useful idea, and the paper is honest about what the protocol does.

The soft spot is scope. Proposition 2 proves the two-copy activation for the specific family in Eq. (8), but the abstract says 'two copies of rank-two biseparable states ... are sufficient' with no qualifier. That reads as a universal claim, and it isn't shown. The paper asserts, in the proof of Proposition 1, that other rank-2 biseparable forms reduce to the canonical one; no proof is given, and it's not obvious that an arbitrary rank-2 biseparable qutrit state has the orthogonal-spectator structure this protocol needs. So the headline result is really an existential statement about a constructed family, not a general activation theorem. That's a meaningful difference. The claimed contrast with the three-qubit scenario ('many copies might be required') is also not established, since no lower bound is shown for qubits. And the comparison with the existing multi-copy activation literature ([9,10,11,26]) is thin; the paper doesn't explicitly rule out that a similar protocol is already known.

None of this sinks the core construction. But the abstract and the propositions should be rewritten to match the proven family, and the reduction claim should either be proved or removed. A referee should push on the gap between the existential result and the advertised generality, and on the novelty comparison.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. The protocol is correct, the paper is clearly written, and the overclaim is fixable. I'd send it for review with a request for revision. I'd also bring it to a reading group if someone is working on entanglement activation.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies activation of genuine multipartite entanglement (GME) from copies of biseparable states that are entangled across every bipartition but not genuinely multipartite entangled. It presents three constructions: (1) Proposition 1 claims that any three-qubit rank-2 biseparable state is useful for GME activation by distilling bipartite Bell pairs and teleporting locally prepared GME states; (2) Proposition 2 claims that, for three-qutrit systems, two copies of a rank-2 biseparable state suffice: one copy is projected to produce an entangled AB pair, the other to produce a BC pair, and Bob's local measurement merges them into a GHZ-like state; (3) Section III.C generalizes the two-copy idea to four parties with three copies. The paper also analyses a special family in Section III.B where Bell pairs are obtained deterministically conditioned on measurement outcomes, and notes that the output pure GHZ states can exhibit genuine nonlocality.

Significance. The constructive parts of the paper are explicit and plausible: the measurements are simple, the output states are pure GHZ-like states, and the protocol does not require joint measurements across copies in the sense of simultaneous correlated measurements on the copies. If the advertised universality were established, the two-copy qutrit result would be a clean contrast to the three-qubit distillation-based protocol. However, as written the central claims are broader than what the proofs establish. The two-copy claim is proved only for the special family in Eq. (8), and Proposition 1 rests on an unproved reduction of general rank-2 biseparable states to a special form. The ideas are valuable, but the manuscript requires a major revision to align its claims with its proofs.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Proposition 1, paragraph after Eq. (3)] The proof assumes that every relevant three-qubit rank-2 biseparable state can be written as in Eq. (3), i.e. as a convex combination of exactly two pure biseparable terms with partitions AB|C and A|BC. The text states that 'the type of states we talk about here can have different forms other than the above form' but that activation for the above form implies activation for the other forms. This reduction is asserted, not proved. The filtering step at C or A relies on being able to kill one term by projecting out a fixed single-qubit spectator state; this mechanism is not shown to work for rank-2 states whose pure biseparable terms use the partitions AB|C and AC|B, or for rank-2 states whose biseparable decompositions require more than two pure terms. Proposition 1's universal statement is therefore unsupported as it stands.
[Abstract and Section III.A, Proposition 2] The abstract claims that 'two copies of rank-two biseparable states, entangled across every bipartition, are sufficient' to generate GME. Proposition 2 and its proof, however, construct the protocol only for the special family in Eq. (8), where the spectator systems are fixed to |0> and the two terms have the orthogonal-spectator structure. The first step of the protocol is the projective measurement I−|0><0| on Charlie or Alice; this kills one term exactly only because that term has the spectator in |0>. No argument is given that every three-qutrit rank-2 biseparable state entangled across every bipartition can be reduced, by local filtering or otherwise, to this form. Thus the advertised two-copy sufficiency is not established for general rank-2 states; at most, the proof establishes the existence of a family for which two copies suffice.
[Section III.C, Proposition 3] The same generality gap appears in the multipartite generalization. Proposition 3 states that 'there are rank-3 biseparable states in C^4⊗C^4⊗C^4⊗C^4' and that three copies of such states suffice. This is an existence statement, which is fine, and the proof for the specific family in Eq. (11) is plausible. However, the surrounding text and the conclusion suggest a broader claim that the protocol generalizes to arbitrary rank-3 biseparable states. The proof does not show this; the measurement at C and D relies on the spectator states |0> and |1> being orthogonal product states that can be killed by projectors. The scope of Proposition 3 should be stated as 'there exist rank-3 states...' and the generalization sentence after the proof should be qualified accordingly.

minor comments (4)

[Section III, example after Proposition 1, Eq. (6)] The unnormalized post-measurement state in Eq. (6) omits the probabilities and normalization factors. The actual unnormalized state after Charlie's |0> outcome is p|φ+><φ+| + ((1−p)/2)|10><10|, not |φ+><φ+|+|10><10|. This does not change the inseparability conclusion but should be corrected.
[Section III.A, end of Proposition 2 and Section III.C] In the construction that combines two (or three) pure entangled pairs, the authors describe Bob's measurement in the {|+>,|−>} basis and state that the outcome gives the GHZ-like state. This is true for the |+> outcome; for the |−> outcome the state is locally equivalent up to a sign/Pauli correction. Since the protocol only needs nonzero success probability, the claim is acceptable, but the text should either say 'for the |+> outcome' or state that the other outcome is equivalent under a local unitary.
[Section III.B, Eq. (10)] The formula P_n = 1 − (1−p)^n is the success probability for obtaining the second Bell pair conditioned on already having obtained the first one. The overall success probability for the whole two-pair protocol is not written explicitly. The conditioning should be stated to avoid ambiguity.
[Section II and reference list] Reference [12] ('Non-existence of bipartite bound entanglement with negative partial transposition') appears in the resource-theory citation block [12–18] and seems unrelated to the statement being cited. The authors should check the citation placement. In addition, the claim that Eq. (8) is entangled across every bipartition is not proved; although it is plausible, a short argument would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: protocols are explicit constructions using external entanglement-distillation results; the sole self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is explicit and constructive rather than circular. Proposition 1 reduces the activation task to standard, externally established results: two-qubit distillability ([41,47]) followed by a teleportation-based assembly of a GHZ-type state. Proposition 2 gives a concrete two-copy protocol for the family in Eq. (8), and its final step reuses the explicit three-qubit assembly already constructed in Eq. (7). Proposition 3 likewise builds the target state from produced bipartite entangled pairs via explicit local measurements. No parameter is fitted and no quantity is defined in terms of the target genuinely multipartite entangled state. The only self-citation by the present authors, [45], appears in Definition 1 as background for pure k-separable states and plays no load-bearing role in the protocols; it is not invoked to forbid alternatives or to justify a uniqueness claim. The paper does contain an unsupported generality assertion after Eq. (3) — that success on the special form implies success on other rank-2 biseparable forms — and the abstract's wording is broader than the proven special case, but this is a proof-coverage/correctness concern, not a circularity: the paper does not reduce its conclusion to its own premise by construction. Thus the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The central claims rest on standard quantum information primitives (projective measurements, distillation of two-qubit entangled states, teleportation) and on a structural assumption about the form of the biseparable states. No free parameters are fitted. No new entities are introduced. The main 'hidden input' is the assumption that the considered spectator-product state forms represent the general class of rank-2 biseparable states; this is asserted without proof.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Any rank-2 two-qubit state that is a convex combination of a pure entangled state and a product state is entangled (hence distillable).
Invoked in Proposition 1 to establish distillability of the post-measurement state; citation [47] is given, but the specific inference is not proven in the text.
ad hoc to paper The considered biseparable states, written with spectator parties in fixed product states, are representative of general rank-2 biseparable states entangled across every bipartition.
The paper asserts this after Eq. (3) without proof; the two-copy protocol depends on the spectator-product structure.
domain assumption Standard LOCC primitives (projective measurements on single copies, tracing out, teleportation using Bell pairs, local joint measurements on a single party's qubits) are available and preserve locality.
Used throughout; standard in quantum information.
domain assumption Teleportation of qubits using Bell pairs allows Bob to distribute a locally prepared GME state to the other parties.
Used in Proposition 1 and Section III.B to convert Bell pairs into a shared genuine multipartite entangled state.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Protocols for sharing genuine multipartite entanglement by employing copies of biseparable states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7B2BXKX4

@misc{pith2026260116840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Protocols for sharing genuine multipartite entanglement by employing copies of biseparable states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7B2BXKX4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.16840}
}

read the original abstract

Sharing genuine multipartite entanglement by considering collective use of copies of biseparable states, which are entangled across all bipartitions but lack genuine multipartite entanglement at the single-copy level, plays a central role in several quantum information processing protocols, and has been referred as genuine multipartite entanglement activation. We present a protocol for three-qutrit systems showing that two copies of rank-two biseparable states, entangled across every bipartition, are sufficient to generate a genuinely multipartite entangled state with nonzero probability. This contrasts with the three-qubit scenario where many copies of biseparable states might be required for sharing genuine multipartite entanglement. We subsequently generalize our protocols to the case of an arbitrary number of parties. Interestingly, the proposed construction naturally leads to the activation of genuinely nonlocal correlations, yielding a result that is stronger than genuine multipartite entanglement activation alone.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

Weinar, W

R. Weinar, W. Laskowski, and M. Pawłowski, Activation of en- tanglement in teleportation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical46, 435301 (2013)

2013
[2]

These pairs of parties are {A, B} and {B, C}

(|00⟩±|11⟩)] and they are shared between different pairs of parties. These pairs of parties are {A, B} and {B, C}. The states|0⟩and|1⟩are possessed by C and A respec- tively. We analyze the effect of a local projective measure- ment performed by Charlie on his qubit in the computational basis{|0⟩,|1⟩}. This measurement yields two possible out- comes. With...

2019
[3]

Adesso, M

G. Adesso, M. Cianciaruso, and M. Piani, Experimental entan- glement activation from discord in a programmable quantum measurement, Physical Review Letters112, 140501 (2014)

2014
[4]

Kłobus, W

W. Kłobus, W. Laskowski, M. Markiewicz, and A. Grudka, Nonlocality activation in entanglement swapping chains, Phys- ical Review A86, 020302 (2012)

2012
[5]

Palazuelos, Super-activation of quantum nonlocality, Physi- cal Review Letters109, 190401 (2012)

C. Palazuelos, Super-activation of quantum nonlocality, Physi- cal Review Letters109, 190401 (2012)

2012
[6]

L.-F. Qiao, A. Streltsov, J. Gao, S. Rana, R.-J. Ren, Z.-Q. Jiao, C.-Q. Hu, X.-Y . Xu, C.-Y . Wang, H. Tang, A.-L. Yang, Z.-H. Ma, M. Lewenstein, and X.-M. Jin, Entanglement activation from quantum coherence and superposition, Phys. Rev. A98, 052351 (2018)

2018
[7]

Tendick, H

L. Tendick, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Activation of non- locality in bound entanglement, Physical Review Letters124, 050401 (2020)

2020
[8]

Bandyopadhyay and S

S. Bandyopadhyay and S. Halder, Genuine activation of non- locality: From locally available to locally hidden information, Physical Review A104, L050201 (2021)

2021

Show all 48 references

[9]

Villegas-Aguilar, Activation of nonlocality for bell local states, inPhotonics for Quantum 2023, V ol

L. Villegas-Aguilar, Activation of nonlocality for bell local states, inPhotonics for Quantum 2023, V ol. PC12633 (SPIE,

2023
[10]

Yamasaki, S

H. Yamasaki, S. Morelli, M. Miethlinger, J. Bavaresco, N. Friis, and M. Huber, Activation of genuine multipartite entanglement: Beyond the single-copy paradigm of entanglement characteri- sation, Quantum6, 695 (2022)

2022
[11]

Palazuelos and J

C. Palazuelos and J. I. d. Vicente, Genuine multipartite entan- glement of quantum states in the multiple-copy scenario, Quan- tum6, 735 (2022)

2022
[12]

Baksová, O

K. Baksová, O. Leskovjanová, L. Mišta Jr., E. Agudelo, and N. Friis, Multi-copy activation of genuine multipartite entangle- ment in continuous-variable systems, Quantum9, 1699 (2025)

2025
[13]

Sperling and W

J. Sperling and W. V ogel, Non-existence of bipartite bound entanglement with negative partial transposition, arXiv:quant- ph/0910.0744 (2009)

2009 arXiv
[14]

Chitambar and M.-H

E. Chitambar and M.-H. Hsieh, Relating the resource theories of entanglement and quantum coherence, Physical Review Let- ters117, 020402 (2016)

2016
[15]

Chitambar and G

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

2019
[16]

Takagi and B

R. Takagi and B. Regula, General resource theories in quan- tum mechanics and beyond: Operational characterization via discrimination tasks, Physical Review X9, 031053 (2019)

2019
[17]

Sparaciari and B

C. Sparaciari and B. Regula, The first law of general quantum resource theories, Quantum4, 259 (2020)

2020
[18]

Miller, The power of noisy quantum states and the advantage of resource dilution, Physical Review A109, 022404 (2024)

M. Miller, The power of noisy quantum states and the advantage of resource dilution, Physical Review A109, 022404 (2024)

2024
[19]

Regula, Reversibility of quantum resources through proba- bilistic protocols, Nature Communications15, 47243 (2024)

B. Regula, Reversibility of quantum resources through proba- bilistic protocols, Nature Communications15, 47243 (2024)

2024
[20]

Horodecki, P

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

2009
[21]

Brunner, D

N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V . Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 419 (2014)

2014
[22]

Giulini, C

D. Giulini, C. Kiefer, E. Joos, J. Kupsch, I. O. Stamatescu, and H. D. Zeh,Decoherence and the appearance of a classi- cal world in quantum theory(1996)

1996
[23]

W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum ori- gins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

2003
[24]

Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev

M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 1267 (2005)

2005
[25]

Im and Y .-H

D.-G. Im and Y .-H. Kim, Decoherence-induced sudden death of entanglement and bell nonlocality, Photonics9, 58 (2022)

2022
[26]

Trényi, P

T. Trényi, P. Lévay, G. Horváth, G. Varga, and G. Tóth, Acti- vation of metrologically useful genuine multipartite entangle- ment, inNew Journal of Physics (forthcoming)/BME DTP Seminar(2024)

2024
[27]

L. T. Weinbrenner, K. Baksová, S. Denker, S. Morelli, X.- D. Yu, N. Friis, and O. Guhne, Superactivation and in- compressibility of genuine multipartite entanglement, arxiv: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.18331 (2024)

2024 doi arXiv
[28]

Hillery, V

M. Hillery, V . Bužek, and A. Berthiaume, Quantum secret shar- ing, Physical Review A59, 1829 (1999)

1999
[29]

Cleve, D

R. Cleve, D. Gottesman, and H.-K. Lo, Quantum secret sharing and quantum codes, Physical Review Letters83, 648 (1999)

1999
[30]

Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrol- ogy, Physical Review A82, 012301 (2010)

G. Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrol- ogy, Physical Review A82, 012301 (2010)

2010
[31]

Epping, H

M. Epping, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Multi-partite entan- glement speeds up quantum key distribution in networks, New Journal of Physics18, 053036 (2016)

2016
[32]

Caleffi, Entanglement access control for the quantum inter- net, IEEE Network32, 34 (2017)

M. Caleffi, Entanglement access control for the quantum inter- net, IEEE Network32, 34 (2017)

2017
[33]

Pompili, P

M. Pompili, P. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, and et al., Real- ization of a multi-node quantum network of remote solid-state qubits, Science372, 259 (2021)

2021
[34]

Glaser, G

S. Glaser, G. Toth, G. Alagic, A. Kalev, M. G. A. Paris, and P. van Loock, Bell inequalities for multipartite systems, New Journal of Physics18, 073017 (2016)

2016
[35]

K. F. Lai, A. Z. Khakode, S. D. Hutchison, and M. B. Plenio, Multipartite nonlocal correlations require genuine multipartite entanglement, Physical Review Letters126, 120402 (2021)

2021
[36]

A. Z. Khakode, K. F. Lai, and M. B. Plenio, Genuine multipar- tite entanglement as a resource for nonlocal correlations, Quan- tum3, 164 (2022)

2022
[37]

A. Acín, D. Cavalcanti, L. Masanes, N. Gisin, and R. Renner, Multipartite bell correlations and genuine entanglement, Physi- cal Review Letters98, 230501 (2007)

2007
[38]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996)

1996
[39]

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Physical Review A54, 3824 (1996)

1996
[40]

Deutsch, A

D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels, Physical Review Letters77, 2818 (1996)

1996
[41]

C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher, Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations, Physi- cal Review A53, 2046 (1996)
[42]

Horodecki, P

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

1997
[43]

Horodecki, P

M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Mixed-state en- tanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound” entanglement?, Physical Review Letters80, 5239 (1998). 7

1998
[44]

Gühne and G

O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Physics Re- ports474, 1 (2009)

2009
[45]

S. Das, T. Chanda, M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, A. Sen De, and U. Sen, The separability versus entanglement problem, in Quantum Information: From F oundations to Quantum Technol- ogy Applications(Springer, 2016) pp. 127–156

2016
[46]

Ghoshal, S

A. Ghoshal, S. Choudhary, and U. Sen, All multipartite en- tanglements are quantum coherences in locally distinguishable bases, Phys. Rev. A112, 032433 (2025)

2025
[47]

Gabriel, B

A. Gabriel, B. C. Hiesmayr, and M. Huber, Detection of gen- uine multipartite entanglement in the vicinity of symmetric states, Quantum Information and Computation10, 829 (2010)

2010
[48]

Horodecki, J

P. Horodecki, J. A. Smolin, B. M. Terhal, and A. V . Thapliyal, Rank two bipartite bound entangled states do not exist, Theoret- ical Computer Science292, 589 (2003), algorithms in Quantum Information Prcoessing

2003

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Weinar, W

R. Weinar, W. Laskowski, and M. Pawłowski, Activation of en- tanglement in teleportation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical46, 435301 (2013)

2013

[2] [2]

These pairs of parties are {A, B} and {B, C}

(|00⟩±|11⟩)] and they are shared between different pairs of parties. These pairs of parties are {A, B} and {B, C}. The states|0⟩and|1⟩are possessed by C and A respec- tively. We analyze the effect of a local projective measure- ment performed by Charlie on his qubit in the computational basis{|0⟩,|1⟩}. This measurement yields two possible out- comes. With...

2019

[3] [3]

Adesso, M

G. Adesso, M. Cianciaruso, and M. Piani, Experimental entan- glement activation from discord in a programmable quantum measurement, Physical Review Letters112, 140501 (2014)

2014

[4] [4]

Kłobus, W

W. Kłobus, W. Laskowski, M. Markiewicz, and A. Grudka, Nonlocality activation in entanglement swapping chains, Phys- ical Review A86, 020302 (2012)

2012

[5] [5]

Palazuelos, Super-activation of quantum nonlocality, Physi- cal Review Letters109, 190401 (2012)

C. Palazuelos, Super-activation of quantum nonlocality, Physi- cal Review Letters109, 190401 (2012)

2012

[6] [6]

L.-F. Qiao, A. Streltsov, J. Gao, S. Rana, R.-J. Ren, Z.-Q. Jiao, C.-Q. Hu, X.-Y . Xu, C.-Y . Wang, H. Tang, A.-L. Yang, Z.-H. Ma, M. Lewenstein, and X.-M. Jin, Entanglement activation from quantum coherence and superposition, Phys. Rev. A98, 052351 (2018)

2018

[7] [7]

Tendick, H

L. Tendick, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Activation of non- locality in bound entanglement, Physical Review Letters124, 050401 (2020)

2020

[8] [8]

Bandyopadhyay and S

S. Bandyopadhyay and S. Halder, Genuine activation of non- locality: From locally available to locally hidden information, Physical Review A104, L050201 (2021)

2021