pith. sign in

arxiv: 2206.02820 · v5 · pith:MGWBEK5Gnew · submitted 2022-06-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Iterative optimization in quantum metrology and entanglement theory using semidefinite programming

\'Arp\'ad Luk\'acs , R\'obert Tr\'enyi , Tam\'as V\'ertesi , G\'eza T\'oth This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 09:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum metrologysemidefinite programmingquantum Fisher informationentanglementbound entanglementCCNR criterioniterative optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

For a given quantum state, an iterative see-saw algorithm using semidefinite programming finds the local Hamiltonian that gives the largest metrological advantage over separable states.

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

The paper develops methods to optimize the choice of local Hamiltonians in bipartite quantum systems to maximize how much a given state beats separable states in quantum metrology. It reduces this to maximizing the quantum Fisher information over a certain set of Hamiltonians and solves it with an iterative see-saw algorithm where each step uses semidefinite programming. The same technique applies to finding bound entangled states that maximally violate the CCNR criterion. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach provides fast and robust convergence for these bilinear optimization tasks without machine learning or variational circuits.

Core claim

For a given quantum state the best local Hamiltonian for metrological advantage is found by maximizing the quantum Fisher information over a set of Hamiltonians using an iterative see-saw method based on semidefinite programming that alternates optimizations on the bilinear form of the QFI. The same framework determines the bound entangled quantum states that maximally violate the CCNR criterion.

What carries the argument

Iterative see-saw method that maximizes the bilinear form of the quantum Fisher information by alternating semidefinite programs on the local Hamiltonians.

Load-bearing premise

The iterative see-saw procedure converges to a globally optimal Hamiltonian rather than a local stationary point.

What would settle it

On small bipartite systems where the true optimum can be found by exhaustive search over local Hamiltonians, compare whether the see-saw output matches the exhaustive result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2206.02820 by \'Arp\'ad Luk\'acs, G\'eza T\'oth, R\'obert Tr\'enyi, Tam\'as V\'ertesi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The convex set of local Hamiltonians fulfilling Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We discuss efficient methods to optimize the metrological performance over local Hamiltonians in a bipartite quantum system. For a given quantum state, our methods find the best local Hamiltonian for which the state outperforms separable states the most from the point of view of quantum metrology. We show that this problem can be reduced to maximizing the quantum Fisher information over a certain set of Hamiltonians. We present the quantum Fisher information in a bilinear form and maximize it by an iterative see-saw (ISS) method, in which each step is based on semidefinite programming. We also solve the problem with the method of moments that works very well for smaller systems. Our approach is one of the efficient methods that can be applied for an optimization of the unitary dynamics in quantum metrology, the other methods being, for example, machine learning, variational quantum circuits, or neural networks. The advantage of our method is the fast and robust convergence due to the simple mathematical structure of the approach. We also consider a number of other problems in quantum information theory that can be solved in a similar manner. For instance, we determine the bound entangled quantum states that maximally violate the Computable Cross Norm-Realignment (CCNR) criterion.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that for a given bipartite quantum state, the task of identifying the local Hamiltonian maximizing its metrological advantage over separable states reduces to maximizing the quantum Fisher information over a suitable set of Hamiltonians. This bilinear QFI objective is then solved via an iterative see-saw procedure whose steps are semidefinite programs; the same framework is applied to other tasks such as locating bound entangled states that maximally violate the CCNR criterion, and results are compared with the method of moments on small instances.

Significance. If the iterative procedure returns globally optimal Hamiltonians, the bilinear SDP formulation supplies a computationally efficient and robust alternative to heuristic approaches (machine learning, variational circuits) for optimizing unitary dynamics in quantum metrology and for related entanglement problems. The explicit bilinearization of the QFI and the resulting SDP structure constitute a clear technical strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [Iterative see-saw procedure (abstract and § describing the ISS algorithm)] The central claim that the ISS method finds the Hamiltonian maximizing metrological advantage rests on the assumption that its fixed points are global optima. The manuscript reports rapid practical convergence and numerical agreement with the method of moments on small systems, yet supplies neither a convergence proof to the global maximum, a duality-gap bound, nor exhaustive verification on the non-convex bilinear objective; this gap is load-bearing for the assertion that the returned Hamiltonian is optimal.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the problem 'can be reduced to maximizing the QFI' but does not indicate the precise set of Hamiltonians over which the maximization is performed; a brief clarifying sentence would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the ISS method finds the Hamiltonian maximizing metrological advantage rests on the assumption that its fixed points are global optima. The manuscript reports rapid practical convergence and numerical agreement with the method of moments on small systems, yet supplies neither a convergence proof to the global maximum, a duality-gap bound, nor exhaustive verification on the non-convex bilinear objective; this gap is load-bearing for the assertion that the returned Hamiltonian is optimal.

    Authors: We agree that the bilinear objective is non-convex and that the iterative see-saw procedure lacks a convergence proof to the global optimum, a duality-gap bound, or exhaustive verification. The manuscript presents the ISS method as an efficient heuristic whose practical performance is supported by rapid convergence and agreement with the method of moments on small instances. We will revise the abstract and the sections describing the algorithm to clarify that the procedure yields high-quality local optima with strong numerical evidence, without asserting global optimality. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: SDP see-saw is an external optimization procedure on bilinear QFI

full rationale

The paper reduces the metrological advantage task to maximization of quantum Fisher information over local Hamiltonians, then applies an iterative see-saw algorithm whose steps are standard semidefinite programs on the bilinear form. No equation or claim reduces a prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citation, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The convergence assumption is stated as a practical property rather than a definitional identity, leaving the central claim independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms; the method relies on standard convex optimization and the known definition of quantum Fisher information.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5764 in / 1210 out tokens · 28201 ms · 2026-05-25T09:10:24.994709+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

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    (35) Then, the following series of inequalities prove the subaddi- tivity property √ δ2(H′ 1 +H′′ 1 ) +δ2(H′ 2 +H′′ 2 ) ≤ √ [δ(H′

    work page

  2. [2]

    +δ(H′′ 1 )]2 + [δ(H′

    work page

  3. [3]

    +δ(H′′ 2 )]2 ≤ √ δ2(H′

    work page

  4. [4]

    +δ2(H′′ 1 ) + √ δ2(H′

    work page

  5. [5]

    Met. useful PPT

    +δ2(H′′ 2 ). (36) The first inequality in Eq. (36) is due to the subadditivity of δ(X) and the monotonicity of √ x2 +y2 inx andy. The sec- ond inequality is due to the subadditivity of √ x2 +y2. (ii) Absolute homogeneity, √ F(sep) Q (cH) =|c| √ F(sep) Q (H) (37) for any realc follows directly from its expression withδ(Hn). (iii) Non-negativity is trivial. ...

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Horodecki, P

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

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Phys. Rep.474, 1 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Friis, G

    N. Friis, G. Vitagliano, M. Malik, and M. Huber, Entanglement certification from theory to experiment, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 72 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Horodecki, Quantum information, Acta Phys

    R. Horodecki, Quantum information, Acta Phys. Pol A139, 197 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Pezzé and A

    L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Entanglement, nonlinear dynamics, and the Heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 100401 (2009)

    work page 2009

  11. [11]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Fisher information and multiparticle entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022321 (2012)

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrol- ogy, Phys

    G. Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrol- ogy, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Hyllus, O

    P. Hyllus, O. Gühne, and A. Smerzi, Not all pure entangled states are useful for sub-shot-noise interferometry, Phys. Rev. 12 A 82, 012337 (2010)

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Quantum Fisher Information: Variational principle and simple iterative algorithm for its efficient computation

    K. Macieszczak, Quantum Fisher Information: Variational principle and simple iterative algorithm for its efficient com- putation, arXiv:1312.1356 (2013)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [16]

    Tóth and T

    G. Tóth and T. Vértesi, Quantum states with a positive partial transpose are useful for metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 020506 (2018)

    work page 2018

  16. [17]

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

    work page 2021

  17. [18]

    Koczor, S

    B. Koczor, S. Endo, T. Jones, Y . Matsuzaki, and S. C. Benjamin, Variational-state quantum metrology, New J. Phys. 22, 083038 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [19]

    G. Tóth, T. Vértesi, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Activating hidden metrological usefulness, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 020402 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [20]

    Morris, B

    B. Morris, B. Yadin, M. Fadel, T. Zibold, P. Treutlein, and G. Adesso, Entanglement between identical particles is a useful and consistent resource, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041012 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [21]

    Gessner, L

    M. Gessner, L. Pezzè, and A. Smerzi, Efficient entanglement criteria for discrete, continuous, and hybrid variables, Phys. Rev. A 94, 020101 (2016)

    work page 2016

  21. [22]

    Gessner, L

    M. Gessner, L. Pezzè, and A. Smerzi, Resolution-enhanced en- tanglement detection, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032326 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [23]

    K. C. Tan, V . Narasimhachar, and B. Regula, Fisher information universally identifies quantum resources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 200402 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [24]

    Chitambar and G

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

    work page 2019

  24. [25]

    J. J. Meyer, Fisher Information in Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Applications, Quantum 5, 539 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [26]

    Albarelli, J

    F. Albarelli, J. F. Friel, and A. Datta, Evaluating the Holevo Cramér-Rao bound for multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 200503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [27]

    Chabuda, J

    K. Chabuda, J. Dziarmaga, T. J. Osborne, and R. Demkowicz- Dobrzanski, Tensor-network approach for quantum metrology in many-body quantum systems, Nat. Commun.11, 250 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [28]

    Gessner, A

    M. Gessner, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezzè, Multiparameter squeez- ing for optimal quantum enhancements in sensor networks, Nat. Commun. 11, 3817 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [29]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, W

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, W. Górecki, and M. Gu¸ t˘a, Multi- parameter estimation beyond quantum fisher information, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 363001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [30]

    Zhang, H.-M

    M. Zhang, H.-M. Yu, H. Yuan, X. Wang, R. Demkowicz- Dobrza´nski, and J. Liu, QuanEstimation: an open-source toolkit for quantum parameter estimation, arXiv:2205.15588 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [31]

    J. J. Meyer, J. Borregaard, and J. Eisert, A variational toolbox for quantum multi-parameter estimation, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 89 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [32]

    Leibfried, M

    D. Leibfried, M. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chi- averini, W. Itano, J. Jost, C. Langer, and D. Wineland, Toward heisenberg-limited spectroscopy with multiparticle entangled states, Science 304, 1476 (2004)

    work page 2004

  32. [33]

    Napolitano, M

    M. Napolitano, M. Koschorreck, B. Dubost, N. Behbood, R. Sewell, and M. W. Mitchell, Interaction-based quantum metrology showing scaling beyond the heisenberg limit, Nature (London) 471, 486 (2011)

    work page 2011

  33. [34]

    M. F. Riedel, P. Böhi, Y . Li, T. W. Hänsch, A. Sinatra, and P. Treutlein, Atom-chip-based generation of entanglement for quantum metrology, Nature (London) 464, 1170 (2010)

    work page 2010

  34. [35]

    Gross, T

    C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Esteve, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precision limit, Nature (London) 464, 1165 (2010)

    work page 2010

  35. [36]

    Lücke, M

    B. Lücke, M. Scherer, J. Kruse, L. Pezzé, F. Deuretzbacher, P. Hyllus, J. Peise, W. Ertmer, J. Arlt, L. Santos, A. Smerzi, and C. Klempt, Twin matter waves for interferometry beyond the classical limit, Science 334, 773 (2011)

    work page 2011

  36. [37]

    Krischek, C

    R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, P. Hyllus, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Useful multiparticle entan- glement and sub-shot-noise sensitivity in experimental phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 080504 (2011)

    work page 2011

  37. [38]

    Strobel, W

    H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, D. B. Hume, L. Pezzé, A. Smerzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Fisher information and entanglement of non-Gaussian spin states, Science345, 424 (2014)

    work page 2014

  38. [39]

    Rudolph, Further results on the cross norm criterion for sep- arability, Quant

    O. Rudolph, Further results on the cross norm criterion for sep- arability, Quant. Inf. Proc. 4, 219 (2005)

    work page 2005

  39. [40]

    Chen and L.-A

    K. Chen and L.-A. Wu, A matrix realignment method for rec- ognizing entanglement, Quant. Inf. Comp. 3, 193 (2003)

    work page 2003

  40. [41]

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

    work page 1989

  41. [42]

    Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys

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

    work page 1996

  42. [43]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions, Phys. Lett. A 223, 1 (1996)

    work page 1996

  43. [44]

    Horodecki, Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition, Phys

    P. Horodecki, Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition, Phys. Lett. A232, 333 (1997)

    work page 1997

  44. [45]

    Horodecki, P

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

    work page 1998

  45. [46]

    Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Aca- demic Press, New York, 1976)

    C. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Aca- demic Press, New York, 1976)

    work page 1976

  46. [47]

    Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    A. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    work page 1982

  47. [48]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    work page 1994

  48. [49]

    Petz, Quantum information theory and quantum statistics (Springer, Berlin, Heilderberg, 2008)

    D. Petz, Quantum information theory and quantum statistics (Springer, Berlin, Heilderberg, 2008)

    work page 2008

  49. [50]

    S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. J. Milburn, Generalized uncertainty relations: Theory, examples, and Lorentz invari- ance, Ann. Phys. 247, 135 (1996)

    work page 1996

  50. [51]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

    work page 2004

  51. [52]

    Quantum limits in optical interferometry

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kolodynski, Chapter four - Quantum limits in optical interferometry, Prog. Optics 60, 345 (2015), arXiv:1405.7703

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  52. [53]

    Quantum theory of phase estimation

    L. Pezze and A. Smerzi, Quantum theory of phase estima- tion, in Atom Interferometry (Proc. Int. School of Physics ’En- rico Fermi’, Course 188, V arenna) , edited by G. Tino and M. Kasevich (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2014) pp. 691–741, arXiv:1411.5164

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [54]

    Tóth and I

    G. Tóth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 424006 (2014)

    work page 2014

  54. [55]

    Pezzè, A

    L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  55. [56]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quant. Inf. 07, 125 (2009). 13

    work page 2009

  56. [57]

    Hotta and M

    M. Hotta and M. Ozawa, Quantum estimation by local observ- ables, Phys. Rev. A 70, 022327 (2004)

    work page 2004

  57. [58]

    B. M. Escher, Quantum Noise-to-Sensibility Ratio, arXiv:1212.2533 (2012)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  58. [59]

    Fröwis, R

    F. Fröwis, R. Schmied, and N. Gisin, Tighter quantum uncer- tainty relations following from a general probabilistic bound, Phys. Rev. A 92, 012102 (2015)

    work page 2015

  59. [60]

    M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, and F. Sciarrino, Quantum-enhanced multiparameter estimation in multiarm interferometers, Sci. Rep. 6, 28881 (2016)

    work page 2016

  60. [61]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and J. Geremia, Gen- eralized limits for single-parameter quantum estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 090401 (2007)

    work page 2007

  61. [62]

    Lower bounds on the quantum Fisher information based on the variance and various types of entropies

    Inequalities similar to Eq. (28), also involving the purity of the state and the variance, can be found at G. Tóth, Lower bounds on the quantum Fisher information based on the variance and various types of entropies, arXiv:1701.07461 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [63]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of modern mathematical physics I: Functional analysis (Academic Press, San Diego, 1990)

    work page 1990

  63. [64]

    Rudin, Functional analysis (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991)

    W. Rudin, Functional analysis (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991)

    work page 1991

  64. [65]

    Konno, Maximization of a convex quadratic function under linear constraints, Math

    H. Konno, Maximization of a convex quadratic function under linear constraints, Math. Program. 11, 117 (1976)

    work page 1976

  65. [66]

    Konno, A cutting plane algorithm for solving bilinear pro- grams, Math

    H. Konno, A cutting plane algorithm for solving bilinear pro- grams, Math. Program. 11, 14 (1976)

    work page 1976

  66. [67]

    C. A. Floudas and V . Visweswaran, Quadratic optimization, in Handbook of Global Optimization, edited by R. Horst and P. M. Pardalos (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1995) pp. 217–269

    work page 1995

  67. [68]

    Vandenberghe and S

    L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, Semidefinite programming, SIAM Review 38, 49 (1996)

    work page 1996

  68. [69]

    MATLAB, 9.9.0.1524771(R2020b) (The MathWorks Inc., Nat- ick, Massachusetts, 2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [70]

    V ersion 9.0.(2019)

    MOSEK ApS, The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. V ersion 9.0.(2019)

    work page 2019

  70. [71]

    Löfberg, Yalmip : A toolbox for modeling and optimization in matlab, in In Proceedings of the CACSD Conference (Taipei, Taiwan, 2004)

    J. Löfberg, Yalmip : A toolbox for modeling and optimization in matlab, in In Proceedings of the CACSD Conference (Taipei, Taiwan, 2004)

    work page 2004

  71. [72]

    Tóth, QUBIT4MATLAB V3.0: A program package for quantum information science and quantum optics for MAT- LAB, Comput

    G. Tóth, QUBIT4MATLAB V3.0: A program package for quantum information science and quantum optics for MAT- LAB, Comput. Phys. Commun. 179, 430 (2008)

    work page 2008

  72. [73]

    The actual version of the package QUBIT4MATLAB is available at http://gtoth.eu/qubit4matlab.html

    The package QUBIT4MATLAB V5.8 is available at https://es.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/8433- qubit4matlab-v5-8. The actual version of the package QUBIT4MATLAB is available at http://gtoth.eu/qubit4matlab.html

    work page

  73. [74]

    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)

    work page 1999

  74. [75]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, T. Mor, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal, Unextendible product bases, uncompletable prod- uct bases and bound entanglement, Commun. Math. Phys. 238, 379 (2003)

    work page 2003

  75. [76]

    Badzi ˛ ag, K

    P. Badzi ˛ ag, K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, J. Jenkinson, and S. J. Szarek, Bound entangled states with extremal properties, Phys. Rev. A 90, 012301 (2014)

    work page 2014

  76. [77]

    We started from a random initial Hermitian Hamiltonian, where the real and imaginary parts of the elements had a normal dis- tribution with a zero mean and a unit variance, and they were independent from each other, apart from the requirement of the Hermitianity

    work page

  77. [78]

    R. F. Werner and M. M. Wolf, Bell inequalities and entangle- ment, Quantum Inf. Comput. 1, 1 (2001)

    work page 2001

  78. [79]

    R. F. Werner and M. M. Wolf, All-multipartite bell-correlation inequalities for two dichotomic observables per site, Phys. Rev. A 64, 032112 (2001)

    work page 2001

  79. [80]

    Liang and A

    Y .-C. Liang and A. C. Doherty, Bounds on quantum correlations in bell-inequality experiments, Phys. Rev. A75, 042103 (2007)

    work page 2007

  80. [81]

    K. F. Pál and T. Vértesi, Maximal violation of a bipartite three- setting, two-outcome bell inequality using infinite-dimensional quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 82, 022116 (2010)

    work page 2010

Showing first 80 references.