pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01375 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-02 · 🪐 quant-ph

Observable measures of multipartite entanglement

Francois Payn , Davide Girolami This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 14:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords multipartite entanglementobservable boundsstate puritycorrelation functionsentanglement of formationsquashed entanglementGHZ statesW states
0
0 comments X

The pith

Observable bounds on multipartite entanglement are derived from local and global state purities plus correlation functions for systems of any size.

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

The paper develops practical upper and lower bounds on multipartite entanglement that experiments can access without reconstructing the full quantum state. It begins by applying the strong subadditivity of entropy and the Koashi-Winter monogamy relation to obtain measurable limits on bipartite entanglement of formation and squashed entanglement. These limits are then converted into bounds on entanglement involving up to k parties and on genuine k-partite entanglement. The resulting expressions depend only on easily measured quantities such as local and global purities and two-point correlation functions, and they are checked analytically and numerically on standard families of states.

Core claim

Upper and lower observable bounds to the bipartite entanglement of formation and squashed entanglement are first obtained from entropy strong subadditivity and the Koashi-Winter relation; these are then converted, via an existing method, into bounds on the entanglement up to degree k and on genuine k-partite entanglement that hold for arbitrary states and depend only on local and global purities together with correlation functions.

What carries the argument

Observable bounds on entanglement of formation and squashed entanglement, constructed from purities and correlations via strong subadditivity and Koashi-Winter monogamy, then converted to multipartite and genuine k-partite forms.

If this is right

  • Experiments can place quantitative limits on multipartite entanglement using only local measurements of purity and a few correlation functions.
  • The bounds apply uniformly to systems containing any number of particles.
  • Explicit analytic bounds are obtained for the GHZ, Dicke, and W families and for random pure states.
  • Both upper and lower limits are available, allowing interval estimates rather than one-sided statements.
  • The construction covers both the total entanglement up to k parties and the stricter notion of genuine k-partite entanglement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These purity-based bounds could be combined with existing shadow tomography techniques to reduce the number of measurements needed in large-scale quantum processors.
  • The same functional form might be adapted to bound other multipartite resources such as multipartite quantum discord or steering.
  • If the bounds remain tight for noisy experimental states, they would allow real-time certification of entanglement resources during quantum algorithm runs.

Load-bearing premise

The step that turns bipartite bounds into multipartite and genuine k-partite bounds is assumed to work for the tested states and mixtures without further restrictions.

What would settle it

Compute the observable lower bound for a three-qubit GHZ state using its known purity and correlation values; if the bound is non-positive while the state is known to possess genuine tripartite entanglement, the conversion method fails for that case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01375 by Davide Girolami, Francois Payn.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. We study the scaling with the particle number view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. We investigate the entanglement structure of ran view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Multipartite entanglement is the premier resource for quantum technologies. Yet, its exact quantification in the laboratory is notoriously challenging, typically requiring the full knowledge of high dimensional quantum states. Here, we construct observable bounds to multipartite entanglement for systems of arbitrary size, which are functions of the local and global state purities, and correlation functions. First, we derive experimentally accessible upper and lower limits to both the bipartite entanglement of formation and the squashed entanglement of bipartite systems, by leveraging cornerstone results of quantum information theory: the entropy strong subadditivity inequality and the Koashi-Winter monogamy relation. Then, we convert them into bounds to the entanglement up to degree k for arbitrary states, and to the genuine k-partite entanglement, by employing a recently proposed method. Finally, we analytically and numerically test these results, by bounding the multipartite entanglement of several relevant states and mixtures, including the important classes of GHZ, Dicke, W states, and random pure states.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs observable upper and lower bounds on multipartite entanglement (entanglement up to degree k and genuine k-partite entanglement) for systems of arbitrary size. These bounds are functions of local and global state purities and correlation functions. Bipartite bounds on entanglement of formation and squashed entanglement are first derived from strong subadditivity and the Koashi-Winter relation; these are then converted to the multipartite setting via a recently proposed method. The results are tested analytically and numerically on GHZ, Dicke, W states, random pure states, and mixtures.

Significance. If the conversion step holds generally, the work supplies experimentally accessible bounds on multipartite entanglement without full state tomography, a valuable contribution to quantum technologies. Strengths include reliance on cornerstone results (strong subadditivity, Koashi-Winter monogamy) with no free parameters, plus explicit tests on standard entangled states and mixtures. These elements support the claim of observable, practical measures.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and conversion section] Abstract and the section converting bipartite bounds to multipartite entanglement: the conversion via the recently proposed method is applied to arbitrary states and mixtures without additional proofs, restrictions, or domain analysis establishing its validity beyond the reported numerical tests. This step is load-bearing for the central claim that the resulting multipartite bounds are generally valid.
  2. [Numerical tests section] Numerical tests on mixtures (GHZ, Dicke, W, random states): while tests are performed, the manuscript does not verify or discuss whether the conversion method remains applicable for all relevant mixed states, leaving open the possibility that the multipartite bounds fail for some mixtures even if the underlying bipartite bounds are correct.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Definitions and notation] Clarify the precise definitions of the correlation functions and purities used in the final observable bounds to ensure they are directly measurable in experiment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and presentation of our results. We address the major comments point by point below, agreeing that additional discussion is needed to make the applicability of the conversion method fully explicit. We will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and conversion section] Abstract and the section converting bipartite bounds to multipartite entanglement: the conversion via the recently proposed method is applied to arbitrary states and mixtures without additional proofs, restrictions, or domain analysis establishing its validity beyond the reported numerical tests. This step is load-bearing for the central claim that the resulting multipartite bounds are generally valid.

    Authors: The conversion method employed is the general procedure introduced in the cited reference, which applies to arbitrary quantum states (pure or mixed) by using the hierarchical definitions of entanglement up to degree k and genuine k-partite entanglement together with the bipartite bounds derived from strong subadditivity and the Koashi-Winter relation. No additional restrictions are required beyond those already implicit in the bipartite bounds. To address the concern, we will revise the conversion section to include a concise recap of the method's key steps and its domain of validity for mixed states, making the general applicability explicit without altering the core claims. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Numerical tests section] Numerical tests on mixtures (GHZ, Dicke, W, random states): while tests are performed, the manuscript does not verify or discuss whether the conversion method remains applicable for all relevant mixed states, leaving open the possibility that the multipartite bounds fail for some mixtures even if the underlying bipartite bounds are correct.

    Authors: The tested mixtures were selected to probe both highly entangled and near-separable regimes, and the bounds remained consistent with the underlying bipartite results. We agree that an explicit discussion of applicability to mixed states strengthens the presentation. In the revised manuscript we will expand the numerical tests section with a dedicated paragraph analyzing why the conversion remains valid for the considered mixed states (based on the convexity properties and the fact that the bipartite bounds hold for all states), and we will add one or two further numerical examples with generic mixed states to illustrate robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to conversion method; core bounds derived from independent QIT results

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "Then, we convert them into bounds to the entanglement up to degree k for arbitrary states, and to the genuine k-partite entanglement, by employing a recently proposed method."

    The multipartite extension step depends on a recently proposed method. When this method originates from overlapping authors' prior work, the final observable bounds on multipartite entanglement rest on that self-citation without re-derivation or additional domain restrictions proven here, though numerical tests on specific states mitigate the dependence.

full rationale

The paper first derives bipartite entanglement bounds using strong subadditivity and the Koashi-Winter relation, which are external cornerstone results. These are then converted to multipartite bounds via a recently proposed method. This constitutes one minor self-citation that is not load-bearing for the central claim, as the paper provides analytic and numeric tests on GHZ, Dicke, W states, and random states to support applicability. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or reductions by construction appear in the derivation chain. The overall result remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on two standard quantum-information inequalities without introducing new free parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Entropy strong subadditivity inequality
    Invoked to obtain upper and lower limits on bipartite entanglement of formation and squashed entanglement.
  • standard math Koashi-Winter monogamy relation
    Used to relate bipartite entanglement measures in the initial derivation step.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5456 in / 1194 out tokens · 35944 ms · 2026-05-09T14:45:23.736643+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

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We then choose anotherk-particle clusterX 2 k that does not containX 1

    · · · X1 [k] , whereEis an arbitrary bipartite entanglement quanti- fier. We then choose anotherk-particle clusterX 2 k that does not containX 1

    work page

  2. [2]

    Iterating this procedure generates a sequence of bipartitions involving clusters of sizekuntil fewer thankparticles remain

    (generallyX 1 [i] ̸=X 2 [i]), and evalu- ate the analogous bipartite contribution. Iterating this procedure generates a sequence of bipartitions involving clusters of sizekuntil fewer thankparticles remain. One then considers progressively smaller clusters, down to the final bipartition of two particles. For a given ordering of the particles, this procedu...

    work page

  3. [3]

    :X 1 [2]...X 1 [k] , X 2

    work page

  4. [4]

    :X 2 [2]...X 2 [k] , ..., X N−k+2

    work page

  5. [5]

    X N−k+2 [k−1] , ..., X N−1

    work page

  6. [6]

    :X N−1 [2] o (14) whose associated sum of bipartite contributions is de- noted as sN,k(ρN) := n E[ρN] X 1

    work page

  7. [7]

    :X 1 [2]...X 1 [k] +E[ρ N] X 2

    work page

  8. [8]

    :X 2 [2]...X 2 [k] + ...+E[ρ N] X N−k+2

    work page

  9. [9]

    X N−k+2 [k−1] + ...+E[ρ N] X N−1

    work page

  10. [10]

    Entanglement vector

    :X N−1 [2] o .(15) LetS N,k be the set of all these sums obtained from all possible valid sequences of particles. The total amount of entanglement up to degreekis then defined as E2↔k(ρN) := max sN,k ∈SN,k sN,k(ρN).(16) This quantity meets the canonical properties of entangle- ment measures: •Faithfulness: If and only if a quantum state is a mixture of pa...

    work page

  11. [11]

    for examples). III. OBSER V ABLE BOUNDS TO MUL TIP AR TITE ENT ANGLEMENT A. General framework: bounds to multipartite entanglement from limits to bipartite entanglement The protocol described in the previous Section enables one to define multipartite entanglement measures from an arbitrary bipartite entanglement quantifier, including the entanglement of f...

    work page

  12. [12]

    (20) in several inter- esting cases

    Dephased GHZ state We compute the bounds in Eq. (20) in several inter- esting cases. Consider the experimental preparation of anNqubit GHZ state affected by depolarizing noise: ρ(p) =p|GHZ N⟩ ⟨GHZN|+ (1−p)ρ deph N ,0≤p≤1, |GHZN ⟩= 1√ 2 |0⟩⊗N +|1⟩ ⊗N , ρdeph N = 1 2 |0⟩ ⟨0|⊗N + 1 2 |1⟩ ⟨1|⊗N .(21) It is well known that the GHZ state possesses onlyN- partit...

    work page

  13. [13]

    Genuine Multipartite Entan- glement Under Particle Symmetry We now generalize the study to other states that are symmetric under particle exchange. In particular, we track the lower bound to the genuineN-partite entan- glement of formation, which for a genericρare LN(ρ) =L 2↔N(ρ)−U 2↔N−1(ρ),(25) in important classes of highly entangled pure states ofN par...

    work page

  14. [14]

    This is a rare occurrence, as we usu- ally do know something about the system we want to engineer

    Random Pure States We now assume absolute ignorance about the prepared quantum state. This is a rare occurrence, as we usu- ally do know something about the system we want to engineer. Yet, this exercise is instructive, showing how bounds to thek-partite entanglement of formation can be still computable and informative, even when, for exam- ple, unknown (...

    work page

  15. [15]

    a pivot particlea∈R,

    work page

  16. [16]

    dynamic programming

    a subsetu k ⊆R\{a}with|u k|= min(k−1, m−1), which generates a bipartite contribution associated with the cluster{a} ∪u k. Here, we add a lower indexktou k to keep track of the rule 2. After this step the particle ais removed, leaving one with the reduced setR\ {a}. Hence, the optimal summed contribution starting from a generic subsetRdepends only on the o...

    work page

  17. [17]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 2 (2009)

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    Jozsa and N

    R. Jozsa and N. Linden, On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Phys- ical and Engineering Sciences 459.2036, pp. 2011–2032 (2003)

    work page 2036

  19. [19]

    D¨ ur, J

    W. D¨ ur, J. I. Cirac, R. Tarrach, Separability and distilla- bility of multiparticle quantum systems, Physical Review Letters, pp. 3562-3565 (1999)

    work page 1999

  20. [20]

    Guehne and M

    O. Guehne and M. Seevinck, Separability criteria for gen- uine multiparticle entanglement, New J. Phys. 12 053002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  21. [21]

    J. D. Bancal, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, and Y. C. Liang, Detecting Genuine Multipartite Quantum Nonlocality: A Simple Approach and Generalization to Arbitrary Di- mensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 020405 (2011)

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Huber, F

    M. Huber, F. Mintert, A. Gabriel, B. C. Hiesmayr, De- tection of high-dimensional genuine multi-partite entan- glement of mixed states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 210501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    J. L. Beckey, N. Gigena, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Computable and Operationally Meaningful Multipartite Entanglement Measures, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    J. D. Bancal, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, and Y. C. Liang, Detecting Genuine Multipartite Quantum Nonlocality: A Simple Approach and Generalization to Arbitrary Di- mensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 020405 (2011)

    work page 2011

  25. [25]

    Huber, F

    M. Huber, F. Mintert, A. Gabriel, B. C. Hiesmayr, De- tection of high-dimensional genuine multi-partite entan- glement of mixed states, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 210501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    Huber and J

    M. Huber and J. I. de Vicente, Structure of Multidimen- sional Entanglement in Multipartite Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 030501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    F. Payn, M. Minervini, and D. Girolami, Quantify- ing the Operational Cost of Multipartite Entanglement, arXiv:2602.04760 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000)

    work page 2000

  29. [29]

    D¨ ur, J

    W. D¨ ur, J. I. Cirac, R. Tarrach, Separability and distilla- bility of multiparticle quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3562-3565 (1999)

    work page 1999

  30. [30]

    Szalay, k-stretchability of entanglement, and the dual- ity of k-separability and k-producibility, Quantum 3, 204 (2019)

    S. Szalay, k-stretchability of entanglement, and the dual- ity of k-separability and k-producibility, Quantum 3, 204 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    G¨uhne, G

    O. G¨uhne, G. T´oth, and H. J. Briegel, Multipartite entanglement in spin chains, New J. Phys. 7, 229 (2005)

    work page 2005

  32. [32]

    Woelk and O

    S. Woelk and O. Guehne, Characterizing the width of entanglement, New Journal of Physics 18, 123024 (2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Multi- particle Interferometry and the Superposition Principle, Physics Today 46.8, pp. 22–29 (1993)

    work page 1993

  34. [34]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be en- tangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A 62 (2000)

    work page 2000

  35. [35]

    T´ oth, Multipartite entanglement and highprecision metrology

    G. T´ oth, Multipartite entanglement and highprecision metrology. Phys. Rev. A 85, 022322, (2012)

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    Tashima, T

    T. Tashima, T. Wakatsuki, S¸. K. Ozdemir, T. Ya- mamoto,¨M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Local transfor- mation of two einstein-podolsky-rosen photon pairs into a three-photon W state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 130502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Physical Review A 54.5, pp. 3824–3851 (1996)

    work page 1996

  38. [38]

    Ma, Z.-H

    Z.-H. Ma, Z.-H. Chen, J.-L. Chen, C. Spengler, A. Gabriel, and M. Huber, Measure of genuine multipar- tite entanglement with computable lower bounds, Phys. Rev. A83, 062325 (2011)

    work page 2011

  39. [39]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwem- mer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz´ e, and A. Smerzi, Fisher information and multiparticle entangle- ment. Phys. Rev. A85, 022321, 2012

    work page 2012

  40. [40]

    Z. Qin, M. Gessner, Z. Ren, X. Deng, D. Han, W. Li, X. Su, A. Smerzi, and K. Peng, Characterizing the multi- partite continuous-variable entanglement structure from squeezing coefficients and the fisher information. NPJ Quant Inf. 5, 3 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Huber, F

    M. Huber, F. Mintert, A. Gabriel, and B. C. Hies- mayr, Detection of High-Dimensional Genuine Multipar- tite Entanglement of Mixed States, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 210501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  42. [42]

    L¨ ucke, J

    B. L¨ ucke, J. Peise, G. Vitagliano, J. Arlt, L. Santos, G. T´ oth, and C. Klempt. Detecting multiparticle entan- glement of Dicke states. Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 155304 (2014). 9

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    Saggio, A

    V. Saggio, A. Dimi´ c, C. Greganti, L. A. Rozema, P. Walther, and B. Daki´ c, Experimental few-copy multipar- tite entanglement detection, Nature Phys. 15, 935–940 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    H. Cao, S. Morelli, L. A. Rozema, C. Zhang, A. Tavakoli, and P. Walther, Genuine Multipartite Entanglement De- tection with Imperfect Measurements: Concept and Ex- periment, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 150201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Zou, L.-N

    Y.-Q. Zou, L.-N. Wu, Q. Liu, X.-Y. Luo, S.-F. Guo, J.-H. Cao, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Beating the classical preci- sion limit with spin-1 Dicke states of more than 10,000 atoms, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sc. USA115, 6381–6385 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    Measure of multipartite entanglement with computable lower bounds Y. Hong, T. Gao, and F. Yan, Phys. Rev. A 86, 062323 (2012)

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Y.-J. Luo, X. Leng, and C. Zhang, Genuine multipar- tite entanglement verification with convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042412 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    R. K. Malla, A. Weichselbaum, T.-C. Wei, and R. M. Konik, Detecting Multipartite Entanglement Patterns Using Single-Particle Green’s Functions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 260202 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    F. Shi, L. Chen, G. Chiribella, and Q. Zhao, Entangle- ment Detection Length of Multipartite Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 050201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Mukherjee, B

    S. Mukherjee, B. Mallick, S. Gopalkrishna Naik, A. G. Maity, and A. S. Majumdar, Detecting genuine multipar- tite entanglement using moments of positive maps, Phys. Rev. A 112, 062428 (2025)

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwem- mer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz´ e, and A. Smerzi, Fisher information and multiparticle entangle- ment. Phys. Rev. A, 85, 022321,2012

    work page 2012

  52. [52]

    Squashed entanglement

    M. Christandl and A. Winter, “Squashed entanglement”: an additive entanglement measure, J. Math. Phys. 45.3, 829-840 (2004)

    work page 2004

  53. [53]

    E. A. Carlen and E. H. Lieb, Bounds for Entanglement via an Extension of Strong Subadditivity of Entropy. Lett. Math. Phys. 101, 1–11 (2012)

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    M.M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, M. B. Hastings, and J. I. Cirac, Area laws in quantum systems: mutual information and correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100.7, 070502 (2008)

    work page 2008

  55. [55]

    Koashi and A

    M. Koashi and A. Winter, Monogamy of quantum en- tanglement and other correlations, Phys. Rev. A 69.2, 022309 (2004)

    work page 2004

  56. [56]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306.5700, 1330-1336 (2004)

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    Hillery, V

    M. Hillery, V. Buˇ zek, and A. Berthiaume, Quantum se- cret sharing, Phys. Rev. A 59.3, pp. 1829–1834 (1999)

    work page 1999

  58. [58]

    Agrawal and A

    P. Agrawal and A. Pati, Perfect teleportation and super- dense coding with W states, Phys. Rev. A 74, 062320 (2006)

    work page 2006

  59. [59]

    Karlsson and M

    A. Karlsson and M. Bourennane, Quantum teleportation using three-particle entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 58, pp. 4394– 4400 (1998)

    work page 1998

  60. [60]

    G¨ uhne and G

    O. G¨ uhne and G. T´ oth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports 474.1-6, pp. 1–75 (2009)

    work page 2009

  61. [61]

    B. M. Terhal, Detecting Quantum Entanglement, J. Th. Comp. Sci. 287(1), 313-335 (2002)

    work page 2002

  62. [62]

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

    work page 1998

  63. [63]

    T. J. Osborne, Entanglement for rank-2 mixed states, Phys. Rev. A 72, 022309 (2005)

    work page 2005

  64. [64]

    H. Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments. Nat. Phys. 16, 1050–1057 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    Brydges, A

    T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch, C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos , Probing entanglement entropy via randomized measure- ments, Science 364, 260 (2019)

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Zhang, G

    T. Zhang, G. Smith, J. A. Smolin, L. Liu, X.-J. Peng, Q. Zhao, D. Girolami, X. Ma, X. Yuan, and H. Lu, Quan- tification of Entanglement and Coherence with Purity Detection, NPJ Quantum Inf 10, 60 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    A. J. Daley, H. Pichler, J. Schachenmayer, and P. Zoller, Measuring entanglement growth in quench dynamics of bosons in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020505 (2012)

    work page 2012

  68. [68]

    Henderson and V

    L. Henderson and V. Vedral, Classical, quantum and to- tal correlations, J. Phys. A 34, 6899 (2001)

    work page 2001

  69. [69]

    Yu and J

    T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Evolution from Entanglement to Decoherence of Bipartite Mixed “X” States, Quant. Inf. and Comp. 7, 459-468 (2007)

    work page 2007

  70. [70]

    Bergmann and O

    M. Bergmann and O. Guehne, Entanglement criteria for Dicke states, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46, 385304 (2013)

    work page 2013

  71. [71]

    J. K. Stockton, J. M. Geremia, A. C. Doherty, and H. Mabuchi, Characterizing the entanglement of symmetric many-particle spin-1/2 systems, Phys.Rev. A, 69, 032109 (2004)

    work page 2004

  72. [72]

    Girolami, T

    D. Girolami, T. Tufarelli, and C. E. Susa, Quantify- ing Genuine Multipartite Correlations and their Pattern Complexity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119.14, 140505 (2017)

    work page 2017