Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 152 references

Hierarchy of entanglement detection criteria for random high-dimensional states

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For Haar-random bipartite states, entropic and realignment tests provably stop working above rank thresholds set by the local dimensions.

desk verdict The numerics are useful and the empirical hierarchy looks plausible, but the two headline propositions infer universal failure from Haar averages and are directly contradicted by the paper's own tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21787 v1 pith:DESY7RNR submitted 2025-07-29 quant-ph

Akhil Kumar Awasthi , Sudipta Mondal , Rivu Gupta , Aditi Sen De This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P68 PACS 03.67.Mn03.65.Ud
keywords entanglementdetectionHaarrandomstatesrankthresholdsrealignmentcriterionentropicmajorizationreductionsubsystemasymmetry
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 asks how well four standard entanglement detection criteria—majorization, reduction, realignment, and entropy—perform on Haar-random bipartite mixed states of a given rank in $d_1 \otimes d_2$. It proves rank thresholds beyond which the entropic and realignment criteria cannot detect entanglement for these states: entropy fails when rank $k > \max(d_1, d_2)$, and realignment fails when $k \geq (d_1^3 d_2 - 1)/(d_1(d_2 - d_1))$. It then establishes an ordering $P = R_d > M > R_l > E$ in qubit-qudit systems and a different ordering in higher dimensions, where realignment overtakes majorization and can even beat reduction at moderate ranks. The paper also shows that the spread between subsystem dimensions controls how well any criterion works, with realignment staying effective at high ranks when $d_2 - d_1$ is small.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two Haar-average formulas plus a norm inequality. First, the standard Haar-average entropies for a rank-$k$ state, $\langle S\rangle \approx \log k - k/(2d_1d_2)$ and $\langle S_1\rangle \approx \log d_1 - d_1/(2d_2 k)$, turn the entropic criterion into a calculus problem on the rank $k$. Second, the average purity $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho^2) = (d_1d_2 + k)/(d_1d_2 k + 1)$, combined with $\|\rho^{R_l}\|_1 \leq d_1 \|\rho\|_F$, converts the realignment criterion into a monotonically decreasing function of $k$ with an explicit zero at $k_0$. The equivalence of partial transposition and reduction in $2 \otimes d$ is proven separately by noting that the reduction operator $r = I_1 \otimes \rho_2 - \rho_{12}$ is unitarily related to $\rho^{T_1}$ via $U = I_1 \otimes \sigma_y$.

What would settle it

Generate any single Haar-random rank-$k$ state in $2 \otimes 5$ with $k = 6$ (above $\max(d_1, d_2) = 5$) and compute $S_{12} - S_1$ and $S_{12} - S_2$; if either is negative for at least one sample, Proposition 1's universal failure claim is disproved. The paper's own Table I, reporting $F_E = 0.054$ at $k = 6$, already provides such evidence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for Haar-uniform random states, two widely used entanglement tests have provable dead zones in rank. Proposition 1 uses ensemble-averaged von Neumann entropies, $\langle S_{12}\rangle \approx \log k - k/(2d_1d_2)$ and $\langle S_1\rangle \approx \log d_1 - d_1/(2d_2 k)$, to show that when $k > \max(d_1, d_2)$, the averaged conditional entropies are non-negative, so the entropic criterion never declares such states entangled on average. Proposition 2 bounds the realignment trace norm by $\|\rho^{R_l}\|_1 \leq d_1 \sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}(\rho^2)}$ using the Frobenius norm and the Haar-average purity $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho^2) = (d_1d_2 + k)/(d_1d_2 k + 1)$, giving the threshold $k_0 = (d_1^3 d_2 - 1)/(d_1(d_2 - d_1))$ above which realignment cannot certify entanglement. Simulations of NPT states then yield a hierarchy of detection power that depends on rank and on the difference $|d_1 - d_2|$: qubit-qudit systems obey $P \equiv R_d > M > R_l > E$, while for $d_1, d_2 \geq 3$ realignment overtakes majorization and can surpass reduction at moderate ranks.

Load-bearing premise

The proofs replace each individual random state's entropy and purity with the ensemble-averaged values, and the paper's own simulations show nonzero detection fractions above the claimed cutoffs, so the 'fails to detect' conclusion holds only if every state in the ensemble is well represented by its average.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Entropy-based tests are effectively useless for typical mixed states once the rank exceeds the larger local dimension.
  • Realignment tests on typical states have a hard rank ceiling fixed by $d_1$ and $d_2$, so realignment cannot serve as a general high-rank detector despite its ability to catch some bound entangled states.
  • In qubit-qudit systems, majorization is strictly more powerful than realignment for typical NPT states, reversing the intuition drawn from bound-entanglement detection.
  • In dimensions 3 and above, realignment overtakes majorization and can exceed reduction at moderate ranks, giving a dimension-dependent hierarchy.
  • For fixed total dimension, the most asymmetric split produces higher mean detectable entanglement, while realignment only stays alive near the full-rank regime when $|d_1 - d_2|$ is small.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Concentration inequalities would turn these average statements into 'with overwhelming probability' statements; without them, the universal rank thresholds overclaim what one can say about a single random draw.
  • The formula for $k_0$ implies that the realignment criterion's critical rank diverges as $d_2 \to d_1$, so near-square systems are exactly the regime where realignment should be tested experimentally at high ranks.
  • The same average-purity machinery could be applied to other trace-norm criteria, such as the computable cross-norm criterion or Schmidt-number witnesses, to produce analogous rank cutoffs.
  • The dimension-asymmetry trends suggest a benchmark design: fix total dimension $d_1 d_2$ and compare detection fractions across all factorizations of that product, as the paper's Table VI begins to do for $d_{12} = 12, 16, 18, 24, 36$.
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 analyzes four entanglement detection criteria (majorization, reduction, realignment, and entropic) for Haar-random bipartite mixed states of fixed rank, benchmarking them against the partial transposition criterion. The headline contribution is a pair of analytic propositions (Propositions 1 and 2) claiming to establish lower bounds on the rank beyond which the entropic and realignment criteria fail to detect entanglement. The paper also reports extensive numerical simulations (5×10^5 states per parameter set), introducing normalized fractions, mean detectable entanglement, and minimum detectable entanglement as figures of merit, and uses these to propose a hierarchy of criteria in qubit-qudit and qudit-qudit systems. A separate proposition gives an independent proof of the equivalence of the partial transposition and reduction criteria in 2⊗d systems.

Significance. If the analytic propositions were correct, the paper would provide a useful and surprising limitation on two standard entanglement criteria. The numerical study is extensive and the three figures of merit are natural and clearly presented; the observed dimension- and rank-dependence of the criteria is informative. The paper also gives a clean proof of the known P–R_d equivalence for qubit-qudit systems. However, the central claims rest on the two propositions, and those proofs are not logically sound. The paper's own simulation tables contradict the universal reading of the propositions. The remaining numerical content is of interest, but it does not justify the headline theoretical statements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A, Proposition 1 (Eqs. (3)–(6))] The proof establishes inequalities only for Haar-averaged conditional entropies: ⟨S12⟩−⟨S2⟩ ≥ 0 and ⟨S1⟩ ≤ ⟨S2⟩ for k > d2. The entropic criterion, however, is state-dependent: a state is detected when S12−S1 < 0 or S12−S2 < 0. Nonnegativity of the averages does not preclude a subset of states with negative conditional entropy, and no concentration or extreme-value bound is supplied. The paper's own Table I reports FE = 0.054 at k = 6 for 2⊗5 (with max(d1,d2) = 5), and Remark 1 reports FE = 0.055 at k = 9 for 2⊗8, both above the claimed threshold. These numerical results directly contradict the universal claim in Proposition 1. The proposition is therefore unsupported as stated and would require either a proof of concentration or a reformulation as a statement about typical states.
  2. [Sec. II A, Proposition 2 (Eqs. (7)–(8))] The proof bounds ||ρ_Rl||_1 ≤ d1 sqrt(Tr ρ^2) and then substitutes the ensemble-average purity (d1d2+k)/(d1d2k+1) as if it were the purity of each individual state. The inequality used in the proof requires an upper bound on Tr ρ^2 that holds for every state in the ensemble; the average purity being below a threshold says nothing about the maximum of the purity distribution. For 2⊗5, the claimed cutoff is k0 = (d1^3 d2 − 1)/(d1(d2−d1)) = 6.5, so Proposition 2 predicts F_Rl = 0 for k ≥ 7. Table I instead reports F_Rl = 0.021 at k = 7. The proposed universal threshold is thus both unproven and contradicted by the authors' own numerics. Without a concentration bound or a per-state argument, the proposition cannot be accepted.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. II A] The abstract and Section II A present the central claim as 'we prove lower bounds on the rank of mixed quantum states beyond which the realignment and entropic criteria fail to detect entanglement.' This is a universal statement about all states of a given rank. The proofs in Propositions 1 and 2 are ensemble-average arguments and cannot support such a universal conclusion. Even if reinterpreted as average or typical-state statements, the simulations in Tables I and II show nonzero detection fractions above the claimed thresholds, so the quantitative predictions of the propositions are not consistent with the numerical evidence. The headline result of the paper is therefore not established by the material presented.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The derivative of ⟨S12⟩−⟨S2⟩ is miscomputed: differentiating ⟨S2⟩ ≈ log d2 − d2/(2d1k) contributes +d2/(2d1k^2), so the numerator should be 2d1d2k − k^2 + d2^2 rather than 2d1d2k − k^2 − d2^2. The monotonicity conclusion is unaffected, but the printed formula is incorrect.
  2. [Sec. II B 3, Eq. (9)] The definition of F_E is ambiguous: E^{(i)} is described as 'the number of states that can be detected by a fixed criterion E', but the formula requires an indicator variable (0 or 1) for each state i. Please clarify the notation, e.g., by writing the indicator as 1_E(i).
  3. [Tables I and II] The normalized fractions are reported without statistical uncertainties. Given that the hierarchy is based on small differences at moderate ranks (e.g., F_E vs F_Rl at k = 5 in 2⊗5), a confidence interval or a statement about the number of detected states would be helpful.
  4. [Sec. II A and Remark 1] The wording 'the entropy criterion fails to detect the entanglement of Haar uniformly generated states' is too strong and is inconsistent with Remark 1 and Table I, which report nonzero detection fractions above the claimed thresholds. If the intended statement is an average or typical-state statement, the wording should be changed accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rank bounds use external Haar-average formulas and are benchmarked independently; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain for the two proclaimed rank bounds. Proposition 1 (Sec. II A) proves non-negativity of averaged conditional entropies using the external Page/Sen/Foong-Kanno average-entropy formulas of Eq. (3), and Proposition 2 uses the external Haar-average purity formula Tr(rho^2) = (d1 d2 + k)/(d1 d2 k + 1) from Ref. [72]. These inputs are not fitted to the paper's own detection fractions, and the empirical fractions F_E and F_Rl in Tables I-II are computed independently by simulation; hence the reported hierarchy is not forced by the analytic claims. The self-citations in the reference list (e.g., Refs. [87-89,92-93,125]) provide background statistics on random-state entanglement and are not load-bearing for the propositions. The known equivalence of P and R_d in 2 x d is not imported as a self-citation: the paper gives its own proof in Proposition 3. The strongest concerns raised by the proof structure are logical rather than circular: Proposition 1 replaces per-state conditional entropies with their Haar averages, and Proposition 2 replaces the actual purity in the inequality ||rho_Rl||_1 <= d1 sqrt(Tr rho^2) with the average purity, so a universal 'fails to detect' conclusion does not follow without concentration or maximum bounds. The paper's own Remark 1 and Table I, reporting nonzero F_E at k=6 in 2 x 5 and F_Rl at k=7, underscore this gap. However, an invalid quantifier step or a mismatch between an average and an extreme value is not a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs by construction; the outputs are not definitionally equal to the inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. I therefore find no circular step and assign score 1 only to reflect the presence of minor background self-citations, not any load-bearing circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. Its analytical bounds rely on known average formulas for random states; the fragile step is the unstated assumption that individual states concentrate on those averages, which is what makes the propositions overclaim.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Page-type average entropy formulas for Haar-induced rank-k states (Eq. 3)
    Quoted from [72,108-110]; valid as ensemble averages for Haar-random pure states.
  • standard math Average purity formula Tr(rho^2)=(d1d2+k)/(d1d2 k+1) (Prop 2, Eq. 8)
    From [72] for rank-k induced states; invoked to bound the realignment singular-value sum.
  • ad hoc to paper Concentration of induced random states around average entropy and purity
    Needed to turn average results into the universal 'fails to detect' claims of Propositions 1 and 2; not proven and contradicted by small nonzero fractions in Tables I and II.
  • domain assumption Benchmark through partial transposition; PPT states discarded
    The hierarchy is defined only for NPT states, justified in Sec. II B 1, but conclusions do not cover bound-entangled PPT states.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchy of entanglement detection criteria for random high-dimensional states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DESY7RNR

@misc{pith2026250721787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchy of entanglement detection criteria for random high-dimensional states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DESY7RNR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21787}
}
read the original abstract

Entanglement is a cornerstone in quantum information science, yet detecting it efficiently remains a challenging task. Focusing on non-positive partially transposed (NPT) states, we establish a hierarchy among entropy-based, majorization, realignment, and reduction criteria for Haar uniformly generated random states in finite dimensions, analyzing their performance based on rank and subsystem dimension. We prove lower bounds on the rank of mixed quantum states beyond which the realignment and entropic criteria fail to detect entanglement. We evaluate the relative effectiveness of the considered detection methods using three key indicators -- fraction of detected states, mean detectable entanglement, and minimum required entanglement. Our results provide insights into the entanglement thresholds needed for reliable detection, showing that, beyond a certain level of entanglement, all criteria become equally powerful for low-rank states, while hierarchy among various criteria emerges with moderate to high ranks. Intriguingly, the proposed ordering among the considered criteria in qubit-qudit systems is different from that in higher dimensions. Additionally, we establish that the detection efficiency is influenced by the asymmetry in the subsystem dimensions, by illustrating how the realignment criterion behaves more efficiently than other detection methods when the difference between the subsystem dimensions is small.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dependence on rank: For a fixed total system of dimension d1d2, how does the performance of the different entanglement criteria vary with the rank, k, of the states?

  2. [2]

    ,l(m), for two lists x, and y, containing l and m elements respectively ar- ranged in descending order

    Effect of subsystem dimensions: What effect do the dimensions of the individual subsystems have on the efficacy of a criterion for a given rank? 1 λ(σ) is the set of eigenvalues of the denisty matrix, σ, arranged in de- scending order, and x ≺ y =⇒ ∑l i=1 xi ≤ ∑m i=1 yi ∀ i = 1, 2, . . . ,l(m), for two lists x, and y, containing l and m elements respectiv...

  3. [3]

    Using the relation between the Frobenius norm, ∥·∥F [97, 100], and the trace norm, we can write ρRl 12 1 ≤ d1 ρRl 12 F , where, ∥·∥F = q ∑i,j |aij |2 for a matrix with elements aij

    = d2 1, assuming d2 ≥ d1 without loss of generality. Using the relation between the Frobenius norm, ∥·∥F [97, 100], and the trace norm, we can write ρRl 12 1 ≤ d1 ρRl 12 F , where, ∥·∥F = q ∑i,j |aij |2 for a matrix with elements aij. Since ρRl 12 has the same elements as ρ12, we obtain ρRl 12 1 ≤ d1 ∥ρ12∥F = d1 q Tr(ρ2 12), ( 7) where the last equality f...

  4. [4]

    ,l(m), for two lists x, and y, containing l and m elements re- spectively arranged in descending order

    Majorization: For a separable state, ρ12, the follow- ing inequalities hold λ(ρ12) ≺ λ(ρ1), λ(ρ12) ≺ λ(ρ2), (A 4) where, λ(σ) is the set of eigenvalues of the denisty matrix, σ, arranged in descending order, and x ≺ y =⇒ ∑l i=1 xi ≤ ∑m i=1 yi ∀ i = 1, 2, . . . ,l(m), for two lists x, and y, containing l and m elements re- spectively arranged in descending...

  5. [5]

    We focus exclusively on states that are entan- gled under the partial transposition criterion, i.e., only non-positive partial transpose (NPT) states are consid- ered

    Benchmarking via partial transposition The comparison between the entanglement detection methods will be carried out with respect to partial trans- position P. We focus exclusively on states that are entan- gled under the partial transposition criterion, i.e., only non-positive partial transpose (NPT) states are consid- ered. An immediate question arises ...

  6. [6]

    Each mixed state is obtained by tracing out the third subsystem from a random pure state, |ψ⟩123 = ∑l,m,k(almk + iblmk ) |l⟩1 ⊗ |m⟩2 ⊗ |k⟩3, defined on d1 ⊗ d2 ⊗ k

    Generation of bipartite mixed states We simulate 5× 105 random states, sampled uniformly according to the Haar measure [ 121]. Each mixed state is obtained by tracing out the third subsystem from a random pure state, |ψ⟩123 = ∑l,m,k(almk + iblmk ) |l⟩1 ⊗ |m⟩2 ⊗ |k⟩3, defined on d1 ⊗ d2 ⊗ k. The coefficients, 2 Note that NPT bound entangled states have bee...

  7. [7]

    does the efficiency of the entanglement detection method depend on the amount of entanglement possessed by random quantum states?

    Hierarchy among entanglement identification conditions To establish the hierarchy among criteria belonging to S, we now introduce the notion of fraction of randomly generated states with respect to the nonvanishing LN. For a quantitative comparison, we define a normalized fraction of a given entanglement criterion, E, as FE = ∑i E (i) ∑i LN(i) , ( 9) wher...

  8. [8]

    The PT, ρT1 12, of ρ12 with respect to the subsystem 1, is defined as ρT1 12 = ∑ 1≤i,j≤d1 ∑ 1≤µ,ν≤d2 aµν ij (|j⟩⟨i|)1 ⊗ (|µ⟩⟨ν|)2

    Partial transposition criterion. The PT, ρT1 12, of ρ12 with respect to the subsystem 1, is defined as ρT1 12 = ∑ 1≤i,j≤d1 ∑ 1≤µ,ν≤d2 aµν ij (|j⟩⟨i|)1 ⊗ (|µ⟩⟨ν|)2. (A 1) If a state ρ12 is separable, then ρT1 12 ≥ 0 and sim- ilarly for the partial transposition with respect to

Show all 152 references
  1. [9]

    Here, σ ≥ 0 means that the matrix, σ, has only positive semi-definite eigenvalues. States with non- positive partial transpose (NPT) possess entangle- ment which is distillable [ 130] (convertible via local operations and classical communications on a large number of copies to...

  2. [10]

    I1(2) denotes the d1(2)-dimensional identity matrix, whereas ρ1(2) = Tr2(1) ρ12 is the reduced density matrix correspond- ing to subsystem 1 (2)

    Reduction: ρ12 is separable if ρ1 ⊗ I2 − ρ12 ≥ 0 and I1 ⊗ ρ2 − ρ12 ≥ 0, (A 2) otherwise the state is entangled. I1(2) denotes the d1(2)-dimensional identity matrix, whereas ρ1(2) = Tr2(1) ρ12 is the reduced density matrix correspond- ing to subsystem 1 (2)

  3. [11]

    The von Neumann en- tropy, S(σ) is defined as S(σ) = − Trσ log2 σ for a quantum state, σ [97–100]

    Entropy: If a state ρ12 is separable, then S(ρ12) ≥ S(ρ1), S(ρ12) ≥ S(ρ2), (A 3) otherwise it is entangled. The von Neumann en- tropy, S(σ) is defined as S(σ) = − Trσ log2 σ for a quantum state, σ [97–100]

  4. [12]

    This leads to ρRl 12 1 ≤ d1 s d1d2 + k d1d2k + 1 = q fRl (k, d1, d2), ( 8) with fRl (k, d1, d2) = d2 1 d1d2+k d1d2k+1 > 0, ∀ k ∈ (2, d1d2)

    = d1d2+k d1d2k+1, [72] for ρ12 on d1 ⊗ d2 of rank k. This leads to ρRl 12 1 ≤ d1 s d1d2 + k d1d2k + 1 = q fRl (k, d1, d2), ( 8) with fRl (k, d1, d2) = d2 1 d1d2+k d1d2k+1 > 0, ∀ k ∈ (2, d1d2). Taking its derivative, we find that d fRl dk = d2 1(1 − 4 d2 1d2 2)/(1 + d1d2k)2 < 0...

  5. [13]

    Let {gi} min[d2 1,d2 2] i=1 be the set of singular values of G

    Realignment: For a state, ρ12, its realignment ma- trix, G, is defined as ρRl 12 = ∑ k,l Gkl ˜G1 k ⊗ ˜G2 l , (A 5) 10 with 1 ≤ k(l) ≤ d2 1(2), and ˜G1(2) k = {|i(µ)⟩⟨j(ν)|} are complete sets of orthonormal Hermitian oper- ators acting on the respective Hilbert spaces. Let {gi}...

  6. [14]

    Existing relations between the criteria We aim to investigate the interconnections among the elements of the set S defined in Eq. ( 2). Prior founda- tional results on the relationships between these crite- ria [ 40] guide this analysis. For the 2 ⊗ 2 and 2 ⊗ 3 sys- tems, the ...

  7. [15]

    Ollivier and W

    H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Quantum discord: A mea- sure of the quantumness of correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    Adesso, M

    G. Adesso, M. Cianciaruso, and T. R. Bromley, An intro- duction to quantum discord and non-classical correlations beyond entanglement (2016), arXiv:1611.01959 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. Bera, T. Das, D. Sadhukhan, S. S. Roy, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Quantum discord and its allies: a review of recent progress, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 024001 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. Gühne, Quantum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015001 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V . Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via one- and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992)

    1992

  14. [22]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen chan- nels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)

    1993

  15. [23]

    Pirandola, J

    S. Pirandola, J. Eisert, C. Weedbrook, A. Furusawa, and S. L. Braunstein, Advances in quantum teleportation, Na- ture Photonics 9, 641 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theo- rem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  17. [25]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quantum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  18. [26]

    Scarani, H

    V . Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1301 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. Dür, R. Raussendorf, and M. V . den Nest, Measurement-based quantum computa- tion, Nature Physics 5, 19 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    R. F. Werner, Quantum states with einstein-podolsky- rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

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

    1998

  23. [31]

    Sentís, C

    G. Sentís, C. Eltschka, O. Gühne, M. Huber, and J. Siewert, Quantifying entanglement of maximal dimension in bi- partite mixed states, Physical Review Letters 117, 190502 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Wei and P

    T.-C. Wei and P . M. Goldbart, Geometric measure of en- tanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042307 (2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    Sen(De) and U

    A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Channel capacities versus entan- glement measures in multiparty quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012308 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, A brief introduction to multipartite entanglement ( 2016), arXiv: 1612.07747 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Horodecki, Łukasz Rudnicki, and K

    P . Horodecki, Łukasz Rudnicki, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Mul- tipartite entanglement ( 2024), arXiv: 2409.04566 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Vaziri, G

    A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental two- photon, three-dimensional entanglement for quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 240401 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    R. T. Thew, A. Acín, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Bell-type test of energy-time entangled qutrits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 010503 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Vértesi, S

    T. Vértesi, S. Pironio, and N. Brunner, Closing the detec- tion loophole in bell experiments using qudits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 060401 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Ecker, F

    S. Ecker, F. Bouchard, L. Bulla, F. Brandt, O. Kohout, 11 F. Steinlechner, R. Fickler, M. Malik, Y. Guryanova, R. Ursin, and M. Huber, Overcoming noise in entangle- ment distribution, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041042 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Designolle, V

    S. Designolle, V . Srivastav, R. Uola, N. H. Valencia, W. McCutcheon, M. Malik, and N. Brunner, Genuine high-dimensional quantum steering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 200404 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    L. A. Correa, Multistage quantum absorption heat pumps, Phys. Rev. E 89, 042128 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    J. Wang, Y. Lai, Z. Ye, J. He, Y. Ma, and Q. Liao, Four-level refrigerator driven by photons, Phys. Rev. E 91, 050102 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    A. C. Santos, B. Çakmak, S. Campbell, and N. T. Zin- ner, Stable adiabatic quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 100, 032107 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Dou, Y.-J

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Closed-loop three- level charged quantum battery, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 131, 43001 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    A. Usui, W. Niedenzu, and M. Huber, Simplifying the de- sign of multilevel thermal machines using virtual qubits, Phys. Rev. A 104, 042224 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Ghosh and A

    S. Ghosh and A. Sen(De), Dimensional enhancements in a quantum battery with imperfections, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022628 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    T. K. Konar, S. Ghosh, A. K. Pal, and A. Sen(De), De- signing refrigerators in higher dimensions using quantum spin models, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032602 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    K. Wei, N. Tischler, S.-R. Zhao, Y.-H. Li, J. M. Arrazola, Y. Liu, W. Zhang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, B. C. Sanders, Q. Zhang, G. J. Pryde, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental quantum switching for exponentially supe- rior quantum communication complexity, Phys. Rev....

    2019

  41. [49]

    Nagali, D

    E. Nagali, D. Giovannini, L. Marrucci, S. Slussarenko, E. Santamato, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental optimal cloning of four-dimensional quantum states of photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 073602 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Bouchard, R

    F. Bouchard, R. Fickler, R. W. Boyd, and E. Karimi, High- dimensional quantum cloning and applications to quan- tum hacking, Science Advances 3, 10.1126/sciadv.1601915 (2017)

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    B. P . Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. P . Almeida, T. Jennewein, T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, Simplifying quantum logic using higher-dimensional hilbert spaces, Nature Physics 5, 134 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    Babazadeh, M

    A. Babazadeh, M. Erhard, F. Wang, M. Malik, R. Nouroozi, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, High- dimensional single-photon quantum gates: Concepts and experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180510 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Muralidharan, C.-L

    S. Muralidharan, C.-L. Zou, L. Li, J. Wen, and L. Jiang, Overcoming erasure errors with multilevel systems, New Journal of Physics 19, 013026 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    B. M. Terhal, Detecting quantum entanglement, Theoreti- cal Computer Science 287, 313 (2002)

    2002

  47. [55]

    H. F. Hofmann and S. Takeuchi, Violation of local uncer- tainty relations as a signature of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 68, 032103 (2003)

    2003

  48. [56]

    Yu and N.-l

    S. Yu and N.-l. Liu, Entanglement detection by local or- thogonal observables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150504 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    de Vicente, Separability criteria based on the bloch representation of density matrices, Quantum Information and Computation 7, 624 (2007)

    J. de Vicente, Separability criteria based on the bloch representation of density matrices, Quantum Information and Computation 7, 624 (2007)

    2007

  50. [58]

    J. I. de Vicente, Further results on entanglement detection and quantification from the correlation matrix criterion, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 41, 065309 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    Zhang, Y.-S

    C.-J. Zhang, Y.-S. Zhang, S. Zhang, and G.-C. Guo, Entan- glement detection beyond the computable cross-norm or realignment criterion, Phys. Rev. A 77, 060301 (2008)

    2008

  52. [61]

    Shapourian, S

    H. Shapourian, S. Liu, J. Kudler-Flam, and A. Vish- wanath, Entanglement negativity spectrum of random mixed states: A diagrammatic approach, PRX Quantum 2, 030347 (2021)

    2021

  53. [62]

    J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  54. [63]

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

    1969

  55. [64]

    B. M. Terhal, Bell inequalities and the separability crite- rion, Physics Letters A 271, 319 (2000)

    2000

  56. [65]

    Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys

    A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  57. [66]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separa- bility of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions, Physics Letters A 223, 1 (1996)

    1996

  58. [67]

    Horodecki and M

    R. Horodecki and M. Horodecki, Information-theoretic as- pects of inseparability of mixed states, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1838 (1996)

    1996

  59. [68]

    Horodecki and P

    M. Horodecki and P . Horodecki, Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4206 (1999)

    1999

  60. [69]

    N. J. Cerf, C. Adami, and R. M. Gingrich, Reduction crite- rion for separability, Phys. Rev. A 60, 898 (1999)

    1999

  61. [70]

    M. A. Nielsen, Conditions for a class of entanglement transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 436 (1999)

    1999

  62. [71]

    M. A. Nielsen and J. Kempe, Separable states are more disordered globally than locally, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5184 (2001)

    2001

  63. [72]

    Chen and L.-A

    K. Chen and L.-A. Wu, A matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement ( 2003), arXiv:quant- ph/0205017 [quant-ph]

    2003

  64. [73]

    Rudolph, A separability criterion for density operators, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 33, 3951 (2000)

    O. Rudolph, A separability criterion for density operators, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 33, 3951 (2000)

    2000

  65. [74]

    Rudolph, Some properties of the computable cross- norm criterion for separability, Phys

    O. Rudolph, Some properties of the computable cross- norm criterion for separability, Phys. Rev. A 67, 032312 (2003)

    2003

  66. [75]

    Rudolph, Further results on the cross norm criterion for separability, Quantum Information Processing 4, 219 (2005)

    O. Rudolph, Further results on the cross norm criterion for separability, Quantum Information Processing 4, 219 (2005)

    2005

  67. [76]

    B. M. Terhal, A family of indecomposable positive linear maps based on entangled quantum states, Linear Algebra and its Applications 323, 61 (2001)

    2001

  68. [77]

    Gühne, P

    O. Gühne, P . Hyllus, D. Bruss, A. Ekert, M. Lewenstein, C. Macchiavello, and A. Sanpera, Experimental detection of entanglement via witness operators and local measure- ments, Journal of Modern Optics 50, 1079 (2003)

    2003

  69. [78]

    Chru´ sci ´ nski and G

    D. Chru´ sci ´ nski and G. Sarbicki, Entanglement wit- nesses: construction, analysis and classification, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 483001 (2014)

    2014

  70. [79]

    Gühne, P

    O. Gühne, P . Hyllus, O. Gittsovich, and J. Eisert, Covari- ance matrices and the separability problem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 130504 (2007)

    2007

  71. [80]

    Gittsovich, O

    O. Gittsovich, O. Gühne, P . Hyllus, and J. Eisert, Unifying several separability conditions using the covariance ma- trix criterion, Phys. Rev. A 78, 052319 (2008)

    2008

  72. [81]

    D. Bruß, J. I. Cirac, P . Horodecki, F. Hulpke, B. Kraus, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Reflections upon separa- bility and distillability, Journal of Modern Optics 49, 1399 (2002)

    2002

  73. [82]

    A. C. Doherty, P . A. Parrilo, and F. M. Spedalieri, Com- plete family of separability criteria, Phys. Rev. A 69, 022308 (2004)

    2004

  74. [83]

    Hulpke and D

    F. Hulpke and D. Bruß, A two-way algorithm for the en- tanglement problem, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 38, 5573 (2005)

    2005

  75. [84]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of entan- glement, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  76. [85]

    M. B. Plenio, Logarithmic negativity: A full entanglement monotone that is not convex, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  77. [86]

    V . M. Kendon, K. ˙Zyczkowski, and W. J. Munro, Bounds 12 on entanglement in qudit subsystems, Phys. Rev. A 66, 062310 (2002)

    2002

  78. [87]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement , 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2017)

    2017

  79. [88]

    Hayden, D

    P . Hayden, D. Leung, and A. Winter, Aspects of generic entanglement, Commun. Math. Phys 265, 95 (2006)

    2006

  80. [89]

    Enriquez, F

    M. Enriquez, F. Delgado, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Entangle- ment of three qubit random pure states, Entropy 20, 745 (2018)

    2018

  81. [90]

    Kłobus, A

    W. Kłobus, A. Burchardt, A. Kołodziejski, M. Pandit, T. Vértesi, K. ˙Zyczkowski, and W. Laskowski, k-uniform mixed states, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032112 (2019)

    2019

  82. [91]

    Gross, S

    D. Gross, S. T. Flammia, and J. Eisert, Most quantum states are too entangled to be useful as computational re- sources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 190501 (2009)

    2009

  83. [92]

    Rethinasamy, S

    S. Rethinasamy, S. Roy, T. Chanda, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Universality in distribution of monogamy scores for ran- dom multiqubit pure states, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042302 (2019)

    2019

  84. [94]

    Hastings, Superadditivity of communication capacity using entangled input, Nature Physics 5, 255 (2009)

    M. Hastings, Superadditivity of communication capacity using entangled input, Nature Physics 5, 255 (2009)

    2009

  85. [95]

    J. J. Wallman and S. T. Flammia, Randomized benchmark- ing with confidence, New Journal of Physics 16, 103032 (2014)

    2014

  86. [96]

    J. M. Epstein, A. W. Cross, E. Magesan, and J. M. Gam- betta, Investigating the limits of randomized benchmark- ing protocols, Phys. Rev. A 89, 062321 (2014)

    2014

  87. [97]

    Granade, C

    C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory, Accelerated randomized benchmarking, New Journal of Physics 17, 013042 (2015)

    2015

  88. [98]

    R. N. Alexander, P . S. Turner, and S. D. Bartlett, Random- ized benchmarking in measurement-based quantum com- puting, Phys. Rev. A 94, 032303 (2016)

    2016

  89. [99]

    Žnidariˇ c, T

    M. Žnidariˇ c, T. Prosen, G. Benenti, and G. Casati, Detect- ing entanglement of random states with an entanglement witness, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- ical 40, 13787 (2007)

    2007

  90. [100]

    Hamma, S

    A. Hamma, S. Santra, and P . Zanardi, Quantum entan- glement in random physical states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 040502 (2012)

    2012

  91. [101]

    Gupta, S

    R. Gupta, S. Gupta, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Construc- tive feedback of non-markovianity on resources in ran- dom quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 105, 012424 (2022)

    2022

  92. [102]

    Gupta, A

    R. Gupta, A. Maity, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Statistics of entanglement transformation with hierarchies among cat- alysts, Phys. Rev. A 106, 052402 (2022)

    2022

  93. [103]

    Iannotti, G

    D. Iannotti, G. Esposito, L. C. Venuti, and A. Hamma, Entanglement and stabilizer entropies of random bipartite pure quantum states, Quantum 9, 1797 (2025)

    2025

  94. [104]

    DeCross, R

    M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, Y. Alexeev, et al., Computational power of random quan- tum circuits in arbitrary geometries, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021052 (2025)

    2025

  95. [105]

    S.-B. B. Lee, H. R. Choi, D. D. Ohm, and S.-S. B. Lee, Scalable simulation of random quantum circuits using projected entangled-pair states ( 2025), arXiv: 2504.04769 [quant-ph]

    2025

  96. [106]

    Gupta, S

    R. Gupta, S. Gupta, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Performance of dense coding and teleportation for random states: Aug- mentation via preprocessing, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032608 (2021)

    2021

  97. [107]

    Muhuri, R

    A. Muhuri, R. Gupta, S. Ghosh, and A. Sen(De), Superior- ity in dense coding through non-markovian stochasticity, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032616 (2024)

    2024

  98. [108]

    Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

    F. Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  99. [109]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Physical Review 47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  100. [110]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports 474, 1 (2009)

    2009

  101. [111]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  102. [112]

    Preskill, in Lecture Notes for Physics 229:Quantum Infor- mation and Computation (CreateSpace Independent Pub- lishing Platform, 2015)

    J. Preskill, in Lecture Notes for Physics 229:Quantum Infor- mation and Computation (CreateSpace Independent Pub- lishing Platform, 2015)

    2015

  103. [113]

    M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  104. [114]

    Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  105. [115]

    Batle, A

    J. Batle, A. R. Plastino, M. Casas, and A. Plastino, In- clusion relations among separability criteria, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 37, 895 (2004)

    2004

  106. [116]

    Wehrl, General properties of entropy, Rev

    A. Wehrl, General properties of entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 221 (1978)

    1978

  107. [117]

    A. W. Marshall, I. Olkin, and B. C. Arnold, Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications (Springer New York, 2011)

    2011

  108. [118]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 461, 207 (2005)

    2005

  109. [119]

    Horodecki, J

    M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Quantum state merging and negative information, Communications in Mathematical Physics 269, 107 (2006)

    2006

  110. [120]

    Berta, M

    M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Renner, The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory, Nature Physics 6, 659 (2010)

    2010

  111. [121]

    D. Yang, K. Horodecki, and A. Winter, Distributed pri- vate randomness distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170501 (2019)

    2019

  112. [122]

    D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291 (1993)

    1993

  113. [123]

    Sen, Average entropy of a quantum subsystem, Phys

    S. Sen, Average entropy of a quantum subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1 (1996)

    1996

  114. [124]

    S. K. Foong and S. Kanno, Proof of page’s conjecture on the average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1148 (1994)

    1994

  115. [125]

    C. Lupo, P . Aniello, and A. Scardicchio, Bipartite quantum systems: on the realignment criterion and beyond, Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 41, 415301 (2008)

    2008

  116. [126]

    Jozsa, Entanglement and quantum computation ( 1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9707034 [quant-ph]

    R. Jozsa, Entanglement and quantum computation ( 1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9707034 [quant-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  117. [127]

    A. K. Srivastava, G. Müller-Rigat, M. Lewenstein, and G. Rajchel-Mieldzio´ c, Introduction to Quantum Entangle- ment in Many-Body Systems (2024) pp. 225–285

    2024

  118. [128]

    D. P . DiVincenzo, P . W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, B. M. Terhal, and A. V . Thapliyal, Evidence for bound entangled states with negative partial transpose, Phys. Rev. A 61, 062312 (2000)

    2000

  119. [129]

    W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, and D. Bruß, Distilla- bility and partial transposition in bipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A 61, 062313 (2000)

    2000

  120. [130]

    Horodecki, M

    P . Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Bound entanglement can be activated, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1056 (1999)

    1999

  121. [131]

    Horodecki, M

    K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, and J. Oppen- heim, Secure key from bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 160502 (2005)

    2005

  122. [132]

    Masanes, All bipartite entangled states are useful for information processing, Phys

    L. Masanes, All bipartite entangled states are useful for information processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 150501 (2006)

    2006

  123. [133]

    Moroder, O

    T. Moroder, O. Gittsovich, M. Huber, and O. Gühne, Steer- ing bound entangled states: A counterexample to the stronger peres conjecture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 050404 (2014)

    2014

  124. [134]

    K. F. Pál, G. Tóth, E. Bene, and T. Vértesi, Bound entan- gled singlet-like states for quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023101 (2021)

    2021

  125. [135]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, Geometry of Quantum States (Cambridge University Press, 2006). 13

    2006

  126. [136]

    Ozols, How to generate a random unitary matrix, Es- say on generation of random unitary matrices ( 2009)

    M. Ozols, How to generate a random unitary matrix, Es- say on generation of random unitary matrices ( 2009)

    2009

  127. [137]

    Zyczkowski, K

    K. Zyczkowski, K. A. Penson, I. Nechita, and B. Collins, Generating random density matrices, J. Math. Phys. 52, 062201 (2011)

    2011

  128. [138]

    O. C. O. Dahlsten, C. Lupo, S. Mancini, and A. Serafini, Entanglement typicality, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical 47, 363001 (2014)

    2014

  129. [139]

    Banerjee, A

    R. Banerjee, A. K. Pal, and A. Sen(De), Uniform decoher- ence effect on localizable entanglement in random multi- qubit pure states, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042339 (2020)

    2020

  130. [140]

    ˙Zyczkowski, P

    K. ˙Zyczkowski, P . Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewen- stein, Volume of the set of separable states, Phys. Rev. A 58, 883 (1998)

    1998

  131. [141]

    Sanderson and R

    C. Sanderson and R. Curtin, Armadillo: a template-based c++ library for linear algebra, The Journal of Open Source Software 1, 26 (2016)

    2016

  132. [142]

    Sanderson and R

    C. Sanderson and R. Curtin, Practical sparse matrices in c++ with hybrid storage and template-based expression optimisation, Mathematical and Computational Applica- tions 24, 70 (2019)

    2019

  133. [143]

    Chanda, Quantum information and computation library (qiclib), https://github.com/titaschanda/ QIClib (2017)

    T. Chanda, Quantum information and computation library (qiclib), https://github.com/titaschanda/ QIClib (2017)

    2017

  134. [144]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Mixed- state entanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound” entanglement in nature?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5239 (1998)

    1998

  135. [145]

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

    1996

  136. [146]

    Horodecki, Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition, Physics Letters A 232, 333 (1997)

    P . Horodecki, Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition, Physics Letters A 232, 333 (1997)

    1997

  137. [147]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P . DiVincenzo, T. Mor, P . W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal, Unextendible product bases and bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5385 (1999)

    1999

  138. [148]

    D. P . DiVincenzo, T. Mor, P . W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal, Unextendible product bases, uncompletable product bases and bound entanglement, Communications in Mathematical Physics 238, 379 (2003)

    2003

  139. [149]

    Hiroshima, Majorization criterion for distillability of a bipartite quantum state, Phys

    T. Hiroshima, Majorization criterion for distillability of a bipartite quantum state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 057902 (2003)

    2003

  140. [150]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Geometry of Quantum States, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  141. [151]

    T. O. Kvalseth, Entropies and their concavity and schur- concavity conditions, IEEE Access 10, 96006 (2022)

    2022

  142. [152]

    Augusiak and J

    R. Augusiak and J. Stasi ´ nska, Positive maps, majorization, entropic inequalities and detection of entanglement, New Journal of Physics 11, 053018 (2009)

    2009

  143. [153]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Mixed- state entanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound” entanglement in nature?, Physical Review Letters 80, 5239–5242 (1998)

    1998

  144. [154]

    A. S. De, U. Sen, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, The separability versus entanglement problem ( 2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0508032 [quant-ph]

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.