pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.20075 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-25 · 🪐 quant-ph

Randomized hypergraph states and their entanglement properties

Vin\'icius Salem , Alison A. Silva , Fabiano M. Andrade This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 07:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords hypergraph statesentanglementrandomized statesquantum noisemultipartite entanglemententanglement witnessesnoisy gates
0
0 comments X

The pith

Randomized hypergraph states under noisy gates show rich and sometimes nonmonotonic entanglement properties.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper extends randomized mixed graph states to hypergraphs by modeling mixed states created when imperfect generalized multi-qubit gates are applied with probability that decreases for higher-order hyperedges. Numerical checks on configurations up to four qubits show that both bipartite and genuine multipartite entanglement can rise or fall in nonmonotonic ways as noise strength changes, depending on which qubits share hyperedges. Analytical expressions for entanglement witnesses are given using the overlap between the ideal and randomized states for several new hypergraph families. These results map how hypergraph states might survive the gate errors that occur in current quantum hardware.

Core claim

The central claim is that randomized mixed hypergraph states formed by probabilistic application of imperfect generalized multi-qubit gates exhibit rich, sometimes nonmonotonic entanglement behavior arising from the interplay between hyperedge structure and decreasing gate fidelity with hyperedge order, while analytical expressions for entanglement witnesses based on randomization overlap can be derived for new hypergraph families.

What carries the argument

Randomized mixed hypergraph state generated by probabilistic application of imperfect generalized multi-qubit gates whose fidelity decreases with increasing hyperedge order.

If this is right

  • Analytical witnesses based on randomization overlap allow direct detection of entanglement without full state tomography for selected hypergraph families.
  • Both bipartite and genuine multipartite entanglement display complex dependence on hyperedge connectivity and noise strength.
  • Hypergraph states can retain usable entanglement at intermediate noise levels for certain structures.
  • The model supplies a concrete way to assess resilience of hypergraph-based resources in realistic noisy devices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Hypergraph topology could be chosen deliberately to maximize entanglement survival under this specific noise scaling.
  • The same randomization-overlap witnesses might extend to other multi-qubit noise channels beyond the hyperedge-order model.
  • Larger-system simulations would test whether the nonmonotonic regime persists or averages out with more qubits.

Load-bearing premise

Gate fidelity decreases as the number of qubits in a hyperedge grows.

What would settle it

A calculation for any four-qubit hypergraph configuration that instead shows strictly monotonic loss of entanglement as noise increases would contradict the reported nonmonotonic patterns.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20075 by Alison A. Silva, Fabiano M. Andrade, Vin\'icius Salem.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Hypergraphs with 4 qubits that are of interest in this work. The cases H3, H9 and H14, that are 3- uniform hypergraphs are of special interest because the reduced single qubit matrices are maximally mixed [32]. (|0⟩+|1⟩)/ √ 2, in such a way that the initial state is |+⟩ ⊗n . Then, we perform the application of a non-local multiqubit phase gate Ce acting on the Hilbert spaces associated with vertices vi ∈ e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Randomization process of the symmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Negativity N (ρH) for selected RH states with 4 qubits shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Genuine multipartite negativity for RH states of hypergraphs shown in the Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Genuine multipartite negativity for RH states of hypergraphs shown in the Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Genuine multipartite entanglement as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 3-uniform (a-d) Clover hypergraphs Cln and (e-g) the Hyperflower hypergraphs Fln. of hypergraphs on n vertices, or Cln, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Expectation values for the witness W ob￾tained from the randomization overlap for the Clover hypergraph states Cln. The horizontal line at the zero value represents the threshold pw, the values for which tr W ρp Cln  becomes negative and the state is entan￾gled. Note the gap between the threshold pw for the first Clover state, Cl3, and the other hypergraphs tend￾ing to the saturation for greater n. 0.0 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the entanglement properties of randomized mixed hypergraph states, extending the concept of randomized mixed graph states to encompass hypergraph-based quantum states. In our model, imperfect generalized multi-qubit gates are applied probabilistically, simulating experimentally realistic noisy gate operations where gate fidelity decreases with increasing hyperedge order. We analyze bipartite and genuine multipartite entanglement of these mixed multi-qubit states. Numerical results for various hypergraph configurations with up to four qubits reveal rich, sometimes nonmonotonic entanglement behavior stemming from the interplay between hyperedge structure and gate imperfections. We derive analytical expressions for entanglement witnesses based on randomization overlap for new hypergraph families. Our findings contribute to understanding entanglement resilience under gate imperfections, providing insight into the experimental implementation of hypergraph states in noisy quantum devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the randomized mixed graph state construction to hypergraph states. Imperfect generalized multi-qubit gates are applied probabilistically to generate mixed states, with the model assuming that gate fidelity decreases with increasing hyperedge order. Numerical results for hypergraph configurations on up to four qubits are presented, showing rich and sometimes nonmonotonic bipartite and genuine multipartite entanglement behavior. Analytical expressions for entanglement witnesses based on randomization overlap are derived for selected new hypergraph families.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work adds to the literature on entanglement resilience in noisy hypergraph states and supplies concrete analytical witnesses that could be useful for experimental verification. The explicit connection between hyperedge structure and observed nonmonotonicity under the chosen noise parametrization is the main potential contribution.

major comments (1)
  1. [§2 (model definition)] §2 (model definition): The assumption that gate fidelity decreases with hyperedge cardinality is introduced without derivation from a microscopic error model such as local depolarizing noise on a two-qubit decomposition of the generalized gate or from measured hardware error rates. Because the reported nonmonotonic entanglement curves and the claimed interplay between hyperedge structure and imperfections are obtained under this specific parametrization, the qualitative results are tied to the functional form chosen; altering the fidelity scaling can change the shape of the curves. A derivation or a robustness check against alternative scalings is required to support the central claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Numerical results] The numerical section should state the number of Monte-Carlo samples, the convergence criterion for the entanglement measures, and whether any data points were excluded.
  2. [Abstract and §4] Clarify early in the text which specific new hypergraph families receive the analytical witness expressions, rather than leaving the phrase 'new hypergraph families' only in the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comment, which has prompted us to strengthen the presentation of our model assumptions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2 (model definition)] §2 (model definition): The assumption that gate fidelity decreases with hyperedge cardinality is introduced without derivation from a microscopic error model such as local depolarizing noise on a two-qubit decomposition of the generalized gate or from measured hardware error rates. Because the reported nonmonotonic entanglement curves and the claimed interplay between hyperedge structure and imperfections are obtained under this specific parametrization, the qualitative results are tied to the functional form chosen; altering the fidelity scaling can change the shape of the curves. A derivation or a robustness check against alternative scalings is required to support the central claims.

    Authors: We agree that the chosen fidelity scaling with hyperedge order is introduced as a phenomenological model rather than derived from a specific microscopic error model such as local depolarizing noise applied to a two-qubit decomposition. The parametrization is motivated by the experimental observation that higher-order multi-qubit gates typically exhibit lower fidelities due to increased control complexity and decoherence exposure, but we did not provide an explicit derivation from hardware data or a microscopic channel. To address the concern that the reported nonmonotonic behaviors and structure-imperfection interplay may be sensitive to this functional form, we will add a robustness analysis in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we will numerically compare the entanglement measures under the original scaling, a constant-fidelity model, and a linear scaling, and we will discuss the regimes in which the qualitative features persist. We will also expand the motivation in §2 with additional references to experimental multi-qubit gate characterizations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results follow directly from explicit model assumptions and computations.

full rationale

The paper constructs randomized mixed hypergraph states by applying generalized multi-qubit gates probabilistically with an explicit fidelity scaling that decreases with hyperedge order. Entanglement measures and witnesses are then computed numerically or derived analytically from this defined construction. No equation reduces an output quantity to an input by construction, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing step relies on self-citation for uniqueness or ansatz smuggling. The fidelity scaling is presented as a modeling choice simulating realistic noise rather than an empirically fitted input. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the stated assumptions and external benchmarks for the reported numerical and analytical results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard framework of mixed quantum states and the specific modeling choice for noisy multi-qubit gates; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Imperfect generalized multi-qubit gates are applied probabilistically with fidelity that decreases as hyperedge order increases.
    This modeling assumption directly shapes the mixed states whose entanglement is then analyzed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5653 in / 1226 out tokens · 30065 ms · 2026-05-19T07:41:38.872837+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multipartite entanglement detection for hypergraph states

    Maddalena Ghio, Daniele Malpetti, Matteo Rossi, Dagmar Bruß, and Chiara Macchi- avello. “Multipartite entanglement detection for hypergraph states”. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 51, 045302 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Entangle- ment detection in the stabilizer formalism

    Géza Tóth and Otfried Gühne. “Entangle- ment detection in the stabilizer formalism”. Phys. Rev. A72, 022340 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Graph states for quantum secret sharing

    Damian Markham and Barry C. Sanders. “Graph states for quantum secret sharing”. Phys. Rev. A78, 042309 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Einstein-podolsky- rosen steering in gaussian weighted graph states

    Meihong Wang, Xiaowei Deng, Zhongzhong Qin, and Xiaolong Su. “Einstein-podolsky- rosen steering in gaussian weighted graph states”. Phys. Rev. A100, 022328 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Bell inequali- ties for graph states

    Otfried Gühne, Géza Tóth, Philipp Hyl- lus, and Hans J Briegel. “Bell inequali- ties for graph states”. Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 120405 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Can quantum-mechanical descrip- tion of physical reality be considered com- plete?

    Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. “Can quantum-mechanical descrip- tion of physical reality be considered com- plete?”. Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935)

    work page 1935

  7. [7]

    All entangled quantum states are nonlocal

    Francesco Buscemi. “All entangled quantum states are nonlocal”. Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 200401 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox

    John S Bell. “On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox”. Physics1, 195 (1964)

    work page 1964

  9. [9]

    A one-way quantum computer

    Robert Raussendorf and Hans J. Briegel. “A one-way quantum computer”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188–5191 (2001)

    work page 2001

  10. [10]

    Ef- ficient verification of hypergraph states

    Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. “Ef- ficient verification of hypergraph states”. Phys. Rev. Applied 12, 054047 (2019). arXiv:1806.05565

    work page arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Quantumcomputational 13 universality of hypergraph states with pauli- x and z basis measurements

    Yuki Takeuchi, Tomoyuki Morimae, and MasahitoHayashi. “Quantumcomputational 13 universality of hypergraph states with pauli- x and z basis measurements”. Sci. Rep.9, 1–14 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Analysis of quantum error correction with symmetric hypergraph states

    T Wagner, H Kampermann, and D Bruß. “Analysis of quantum error correction with symmetric hypergraph states”. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.51, 125302 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Extreme viola- tion of local realism in quantum hypergraph states

    Mariami Gachechiladze, Costantino Bu- droni, and Otfried Gühne. “Extreme viola- tion of local realism in quantum hypergraph states”. Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 070401 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Hypergraph states in grover 's quantum search algorithm

    M Rossi, D Bruß, and C Macchiavello. “Hypergraph states in grover 's quantum search algorithm”. Phys. Scripta T160, 014036 (2014)

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Permutation symmetric hypergraph states and multipartite quantum entanglement

    Supriyo Dutta, Ramita Sarkar, and Pras- anta K Panigrahi. “Permutation symmetric hypergraph states and multipartite quantum entanglement”. Internat. J. Theoret. Phys. 58, 1–18 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Local unitary symmetries of hypergraph states

    David W Lyons, Daniel J Upchurch, Scott N Walck, and Chase D Yetter. “Local unitary symmetries of hypergraph states”. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.48, 095301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Repeat-until-success quantum com- puting using stationary and flying qubits

    Yuan Liang Lim, Sean D Barrett, Al- mut Beige, Pieter Kok, and Leong Chuan Kwek. “Repeat-until-success quantum com- puting using stationary and flying qubits”. Phys. Rev. A73, 012304 (2006)

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    Error-protected qubits in a sil- icon photonic chip

    Caterina Vigliar, Stefano Paesani, Yunhong Ding, Jeremy C Adcock, Jianwei Wang, Sam Morley-Short, Davide Bacco, Leif K Ox- enløwe, Mark G Thompson, John G Rar- ity, et al. “Error-protected qubits in a sil- icon photonic chip”. Nat. Phys.17, 1137– 1143 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Demonstration of hypergraph- state quantum information processing

    Jieshan Huang, Xudong Li, Xiaojiong Chen, Chonghao Zhai, Yun Zheng, Yulin Chi, Yan Li, Qiongyi He, Qihuang Gong, and Jian- wei Wang. “Demonstration of hypergraph- state quantum information processing”. Na- ture Communications15, 2601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Efficient verification of continuous-variable quantum states and de- vices without assuming identical and inde- pendent operations

    Ya-Dong Wu, Ge Bai, Giulio Chiribella, and Nana Liu. “Efficient verification of continuous-variable quantum states and de- vices without assuming identical and inde- pendent operations”. Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 240503 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Quantum hypergraph states in continuous variables

    Darren W. Moore. “Quantum hypergraph states in continuous variables”. Phys. Rev. A 100, 062301 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Optimal preparation of graph states

    Adán Cabello, Lars Eirik Danielsen, Anto- nio J López-Tarrida, and José R Portillo. “Optimal preparation of graph states”. Phys. Rev. A83, 042314 (2011)

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Randomized graph states and their entanglement properties

    Jun-Yi Wu, Matteo Rossi, Hermann Kam- permann, Simone Severini, Leong Chuan Kwek, Chiara Macchiavello, and Dagmar Bruß. “Randomized graph states and their entanglement properties”. Phys. Rev. A89, 052335 (2014)

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    Symmetric hypergraph states: entanglement quantification and ro- bust bell nonlocality

    Jan Nöller, Otfried Gühne, and Mari- ami Gachechiladze. “Symmetric hypergraph states: entanglement quantification and ro- bust bell nonlocality”. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56, 375302 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Entan- glement purification of hypergraph states

    Lina Vandré and Otfried Gühne. “Entan- glement purification of hypergraph states”. Phys. Rev. A108, 062417 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Entangle- ment of random hypergraph states

    You Zhou and Alioscia Hamma. “Entangle- ment of random hypergraph states”. Phys. Rev. A106, 012410 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Repeat-until-success linear optics distributed quantum comput- ing

    Yuan Liang Lim, Almut Beige, and Leong Chuan Kwek. “Repeat-until-success linear optics distributed quantum comput- ing”. Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 030505 (2005)

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    A repeat-until-success quantum computing scheme

    A. Beige, Y. L. Lim, and L. C. Kwek. “A repeat-until-success quantum computing scheme”. New J. Phys.9, 197–197 (2007)

    work page 2007

  29. [29]

    The theory of graphs

    Claude Berge. “The theory of graphs”. Courier Corporation. (2001). url: https://www.ebook.de/de/product/ 3359853/claude_berge_mathematics_ theory_of_graphs.html

    work page 2001

  30. [30]

    Matching theory

    L. Lovász. “Matching theory”. North- Holland Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier Science Pub. Co. (1986). url: Book.Lovasz.1986

    work page 1986

  31. [31]

    Hypergraph theory

    Alain Bretto. “Hypergraph theory”. Springer. (2013)

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Entanglement and nonclassi- cal properties of hypergraph states

    Otfried Gühne, Martí Cuquet, Frank ES Steinhoff, Tobias Moroder, Matteo Rossi, Dagmar Bruß, Barbara Kraus, and Chiara Macchiavello. “Entanglement and nonclassi- cal properties of hypergraph states”. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47, 335303 (2014). 14

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    Encoding hypergraphs into quan- tumstates

    Ri Qu, Juan Wang, Zong-shang Li, and Yan- ru Bao. “Encoding hypergraphs into quan- tumstates”. Phys.Rev.A87, 022311(2013)

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    Quantum hypergraph states

    M Rossi, M Huber, D Bruß, and C Macchi- avello. “Quantum hypergraph states”. New J. Phys.15, 113022 (2013)

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    Stabilizer formalism for oper- ator quantum error correction

    David Poulin. “Stabilizer formalism for oper- ator quantum error correction”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230504 (2005)

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    Magic of quantum hypergraph states

    Junjie Chen, Yuxuan Yan, and You Zhou. “Magic of quantum hypergraph states”. Quantum 8, 1351 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    En- tanglement in graph states and its appli- cations

    M. Hein, W. Dür, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. Van den Nest, and H.-J. Briegel. “En- tanglement in graph states and its appli- cations”. In Quantum Computers, Algo- rithms and Chaos. Volume 162, pages 115–

    work page

  38. [38]

    IOS Press

    City (2006). IOS Press. arXiv:quant- ph/0602096

    work page arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    Quantum experiments and hypergraphs: Multiphoton sources for quantum interfer- ence, quantum computation, and quan- tum entanglement

    Xuemei Gu, Lijun Chen, and Mario Krenn. “Quantum experiments and hypergraphs: Multiphoton sources for quantum interfer- ence, quantum computation, and quan- tum entanglement”. Phys. Rev. A 101, 033816 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Detecting quantum en- tanglement entanglement witnesses and uncertainty relations

    O. Gühne. “Detecting quantum en- tanglement entanglement witnesses and uncertainty relations”. PhD the- sis. Universität Hannover. (2004). url: http://inis.iaea.org/search/ search.aspx?orig_q=RN:36041967

    work page 2004

  41. [41]

    Logarithmicnegativity: Afull entanglement monotone that is not convex

    M.B.Plenio. “Logarithmicnegativity: Afull entanglement monotone that is not convex”. Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 090503 (2005)

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    Multipartite entangle- ment sudden death and birth in random- ized hypergraph states

    Vinicius Salem, Alison A Silva, and Fabi- ano M Andrade. “Multipartite entangle- ment sudden death and birth in random- ized hypergraph states”. Phys. Rev. A109, 012416 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Classification of mixed three-qubit states

    Antonio Acin, Dagmar Bruß, Maciej Lewen- stein, and Anna Sanpera. “Classification of mixed three-qubit states”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 040401 (2001)

    work page 2001

  44. [44]

    Multi-partite entanglement can speed up quantum key distribution in networks

    Michael Epping, Hermann Kampermann, Chiara macchiavello, and Dagmar Bruß. “Multi-partite entanglement can speed up quantum key distribution in networks”. New J. Phys.19, 093012 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Quantum secret sharing

    Mark Hillery, Vladimír Bužek, and An- dré Berthiaume. “Quantum secret sharing”. Phys. Rev. A59, 1829–1834 (1999)

    work page 1999

  46. [46]

    Dense coding with multipartite quantum states

    Dagmar Bruß, Maciej Lewenstein, Aditi Sen(De) Ujjwal Sen, Giacomo Mauro D’Adriano, and Chiara Macchiavello. “Dense coding with multipartite quantum states”. Int. J. Quantum Inf.04, 415–428 (2006)

    work page 2006

  47. [47]

    Separability criterion for den- sity matrices

    Asher Peres. “Separability criterion for den- sity matrices”. Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413– 1415 (1996)

    work page 1996

  48. [48]

    Entanglement witnesses for graph states: General theory and examples

    Bastian Jungnitsch, Tobias Moroder, and Otfried Gühne. “Entanglement witnesses for graph states: General theory and examples”. Phys. Rev. A84, 032310 (2011)

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    Taming multiparticle entanglement

    Bastian Jungnitsch, Tobias Moroder, and Otfried Gühne. “Taming multiparticle entanglement”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 190502 (2011)

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    Quantifying en- tanglement with witness operators

    Fernando G. S. L Brandao. “Quantifying en- tanglement with witness operators”. Phys. Rev. A72, 022310 (2005)

    work page 2005

  51. [51]

    Bellinequalitiesandthe separability criterion

    BarbaraM.Terhal. “Bellinequalitiesandthe separability criterion”. Phys. Lett. A271, 319–326 (2000)

    work page 2000

  52. [52]

    Information-theoretic aspects of insepara- bility of mixed states

    Ryszard Horodecki and Michal/ Horodecki. “Information-theoretic aspects of insepara- bility of mixed states”. Phys. Rev. A54, 1838 (1996)

    work page 1996

  53. [53]

    Separability of n- particle mixed states: necessary and suffi- cient conditions in terms of linear maps

    Michał Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki. “Separability of n- particle mixed states: necessary and suffi- cient conditions in terms of linear maps”. Phys. Lett. A283, 1–7 (2001)

    work page 2001

  54. [54]

    PPTMixer: A tool to detect genuine multipartite entanglement

    Bastian. “PPTMixer: A tool to detect genuine multipartite entanglement”. PPT- Mixer (2021). url:http://www.mathworks. com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/ 30968-pptmixer-a-tool-to-detect-genuine-multipartite-entanglement

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    YALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in mat- lab

    J. Löfberg. “YALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in mat- lab”. In In Proceedings of the CACSD Conference. Taipei, Taiwan (2004). arXiv:Inproceedings.Loefberg.2004

    work page 2004

  56. [56]

    The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. version 9.3

    MOSEK ApS. “The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. version 9.3.”. (2021). url: http://docs.mosek.com/9.3/ toolbox/index.html. 15

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    Spectra of signless normalized laplace op- erators for hypergraphs

    Eleonora Andreotti and Raffaella Mulas. “Spectra of signless normalized laplace op- erators for hypergraphs”. Electronic Jour- nal of Graph Theory and Applications10, 485 (2020). 16

    work page 2020