pith. sign in

arxiv: 2307.15949 · v2 · submitted 2023-07-29 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.str-el

Logarithmic growth of peripheral entanglement concentrated via noisy measurements in a star network of spins

Jithin G. Krishnan , Harikrishnan K. J. , Amit Kumar Pal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 07:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el
keywords quantum entanglementstar networkHeisenberg interactionlocalizable entanglementanisotropyunsharp measurementsperipheral qubits
0
0 comments X

The pith

In a star network of spins with XYZ Heisenberg interactions, localizable bipartite peripheral entanglement grows logarithmically with periphery size when xy-anisotropy vanishes.

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

The paper examines entanglement that can be concentrated between peripheral qubits in a star-shaped network by performing measurements on the central qubit. It shows that this localizable bipartite peripheral entanglement increases logarithmically as more peripheral spins are added, provided the xy-anisotropy term is zero. The logarithmic scaling survives even when the central measurement is noisy or unsharp, but disappears once anisotropy is introduced unless the system is driven out of equilibrium by a local magnetic field. In limits with a large central spin or competing central and peripheral sizes the scaling changes qualitatively. The authors contrast this with entanglement obtained by simply tracing out the center, which follows similar behavior only in the large-periphery regime.

Core claim

In the large-periphery limit of an XYZ Heisenberg star network, the localizable bipartite peripheral entanglement obtained by projective or unsharp measurements on the central qubit grows as the logarithm of the number of peripheral qubits when the xy-anisotropy parameter is zero; this logarithmic growth persists for arbitrary noise strength in the unsharp-measurement description.

What carries the argument

Localizable bipartite peripheral entanglement (LBPE) concentrated by measurements performed solely on the central qubit of the star network.

If this is right

  • In the large-periphery limit the logarithmic growth remains for any strength of unsharp measurement noise.
  • Nonzero xy-anisotropy suppresses the logarithmic scaling unless a local magnetic field is applied to the central qubit.
  • In the large-center and competing-center limits the peripheral entanglement no longer exhibits logarithmic growth with periphery size.
  • Partial-trace entanglement between periphery qubits behaves like LBPE only in the large-periphery limit.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the logarithmic scaling survives in real devices, star networks could serve as scalable entanglement concentrators without requiring direct control over every peripheral qubit.
  • The anisotropy dependence suggests that small symmetry-breaking terms could be used as a diagnostic for whether a fabricated network has reached the large-periphery regime.
  • The persistence under unsharp measurements indicates that the effect may be observable even when the central qubit suffers significant decoherence during readout.

Load-bearing premise

The interactions must be exactly of XYZ Heisenberg form between center and periphery, and entanglement must be localized exclusively by measurements on the central qubit.

What would settle it

Calculate the localizable entanglement for a star network with twenty or more peripheral qubits at zero xy-anisotropy; the value should increase by roughly ln(2) each time the periphery size doubles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2307.15949 by Amit Kumar Pal, Harikrishnan K. J., Jithin G. Krishnan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Color online.) Star networks of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Variations of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Variations of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A typical snapshot of the time-variations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In a star-network of qubits interacting via Heisenberg interaction of XYZ-type, we demonstrate a logarithmic growth of the localizable bipartite peripheral entanglement with increasing periphery-size and vanishing xy-anisotropy. This feature disappears when xy-anisotropy becomes non-zero, exhibiting an anisotropy effect, which can be negated by taking the system out of equilibrium by a qubit-local magnetic field. In the large-center and the competing-center limits of the model, the behaviour of LBPE is qualitatively different from that of the large-periphery limit. Also, the bipartite peripheral entanglement computed via a partial trace-based approach behaves qualitatively similarly to the LBPE in the large periphery limit, while in the other two limits, it behaves differently. We further consider the generalized description of localizable entanglement using unsharp measurements, and demonstrate that the logarithmic growth of LBPE is present for all noise strengths in the large-periphery limit, while in the competing-center limit, it does not.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies localizable bipartite peripheral entanglement (LBPE) in a star network of qubits coupled by XYZ Heisenberg interactions. It reports that LBPE grows logarithmically with periphery size N in the large-periphery limit when the xy-anisotropy vanishes; this scaling persists for all noise strengths when localizable entanglement is defined via unsharp measurements. The scaling is absent for nonzero anisotropy (unless a local magnetic field is applied) and the behavior differs qualitatively in the large-center and competing-center limits. Partial-trace entanglement is compared to LBPE across these regimes.

Significance. A robust logarithmic scaling of LBPE under arbitrary noise would be of interest for entanglement concentration protocols in noisy quantum networks. The generalization from projective to unsharp measurements and the contrast across the three scaling limits are the main technical contributions. The result is currently limited by its reliance on finite-N numerics without an analytical large-N derivation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Large-periphery limit (results and discussion of LBPE scaling)] Large-periphery limit: the central claim that LBPE(N) ~ log(N) as N→∞ (for vanishing xy-anisotropy and all noise strengths) rests on numerical observations for finite N. No analytical derivation, exact diagonalization in the thermodynamic limit, or closed-form expression for the optimized measurement is provided to confirm that the growth does not saturate or cross over due to sub-leading corrections.
  2. [Unsharp measurements and noise analysis] Unsharp-measurement generalization: the statement that logarithmic growth survives for all noise strengths in the large-periphery limit inherits the same finite-size extrapolation issue; the manuscript does not supply an analytic argument showing that the unsharp-measurement optimization preserves the scaling when N→∞.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model definition] Notation for the three limits (large-periphery, large-center, competing-center) should be defined once with explicit parameter regimes rather than introduced piecemeal.
  2. [Numerical results figures] Figure captions for the LBPE vs. N plots should explicitly state the range of N used and whether error bars or fitting uncertainties are shown.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We appreciate the recognition of the potential interest in robust logarithmic scaling of LBPE. We address the major comments below, noting that our results rely on finite-N numerics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Large-periphery limit: the central claim that LBPE(N) ~ log(N) as N→∞ (for vanishing xy-anisotropy and all noise strengths) rests on numerical observations for finite N. No analytical derivation, exact diagonalization in the thermodynamic limit, or closed-form expression for the optimized measurement is provided to confirm that the growth does not saturate or cross over due to sub-leading corrections.

    Authors: We agree that the logarithmic scaling claim is based on numerical observations for finite N and that no analytical derivation, exact diagonalization in the thermodynamic limit, or closed-form expression is provided. The manuscript shows consistent log(N) growth across accessible system sizes with no saturation observed. We will revise the discussion to include more details on the finite-size scaling fits, the maximum N reached, and an explicit statement on the absence of an analytic large-N proof. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Unsharp-measurement generalization: the statement that logarithmic growth survives for all noise strengths in the large-periphery limit inherits the same finite-size extrapolation issue; the manuscript does not supply an analytic argument showing that the unsharp-measurement optimization preserves the scaling when N→∞.

    Authors: The unsharp-measurement results are likewise obtained from finite-N numerical optimization over measurement strength for each noise level. No analytic argument for preservation of the scaling at infinite N is supplied. We will revise the relevant section to emphasize the numerical character of the observation and to note the extrapolation limitation explicitly. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Analytical derivation confirming logarithmic growth of LBPE (projective or unsharp) in the thermodynamic limit

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: logarithmic scaling is a numerical observation from the model, not a tautological reduction

full rationale

The paper defines the star-network Hamiltonian with XYZ Heisenberg interactions and localizable bipartite peripheral entanglement (LBPE) via projective/unsharp measurements on the central spin. The claimed log(N) growth in the large-periphery limit (vanishing xy-anisotropy, any noise) is presented as an observed feature from finite-N computations, not derived by fitting a parameter that is then renamed as a prediction or by self-referential definition. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain, ansatz smuggled via prior work, or uniqueness theorem from the same authors. The distinction between large-periphery, large-center, and competing-center regimes is model-dependent but does not create circularity. The result is self-contained against external benchmarks (exact diagonalization or measurement optimization on the given Hamiltonian) and does not equate the output to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the XYZ Heisenberg Hamiltonian on the star graph, the operational definition of localizable entanglement via central measurements, and the large-periphery scaling limit; no free parameters or invented entities are visible in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The system is governed by the XYZ Heisenberg interaction on a star geometry.
    Invoked in the first sentence of the abstract as the interaction model.
  • domain assumption Localizable bipartite peripheral entanglement is defined via measurements on the central qubit.
    Central to the reported quantity and its comparison with partial-trace approach.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5704 in / 1360 out tokens · 18756 ms · 2026-05-24T07:31:25.787527+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

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    We group the basis states according to Eq

    np = 2 We first consider the case of Jp = 1 (mp = −1, 0, 1) among the allowed values Jp = 0, 1 for np = 2. We group the basis states according to Eq. (24) as {|−1/2⟩ |−1⟩ , |1/2⟩ |0⟩ , |−1/2⟩ |1⟩} and {|1/2⟩ |−1⟩ , |−1/2⟩ |0⟩ , |1/2⟩ |1⟩} 10 respectively, leading to the H1 block having the form (23), with A1 and A2 being two 3 × 3 matrices given by A1 = 1...

    work page

  2. [2]

    ∆ 2 γα+ − 1 2 γα− 1 2 ∆ 2 # , A2 = 1 2

    np = 3 In this case, Jp = 3 /2, 1/2, 1/2, and we start with the block Hs(Jp = 3/2), where grouping the basis as {|−1/2⟩ |3/2⟩ , |1/2⟩ |1/2⟩ , |−1/2⟩ |−1/2⟩ , |1/2⟩ |−3/2⟩} and {|1/2⟩ |3/2⟩ , |−1/2⟩ |1/2⟩ , |1/2⟩ |−1/2⟩ , |−1/2⟩ |−3/2⟩} makes H3/2 of the form (23) with the 4 × 4 matrices A1 and A2 given by A1 = 1 2   3∆ 2 0 γα+ 1 2 0 0 − ∆ 2 α− 1 2 γ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009); O. G¨uhne and G. T´oth, Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992); C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr ´epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993); K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, P. G. Kwiat, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4656 (1996); D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nat...

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991); T. Jennewein, C. Simon, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4729 (2000); J. Yin, Y .-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, M. Yang, Y . Cao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y . Liu, S.-L. Li, R. Shu, Y .-M. Huang, L. Deng, L. Li, Q. Zhang, N.-L. Liu, Y .-A. Chen, C.-Y . Lu, X.-B. Wang, F. Xu, J.-Y ...

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    Dalmonte, B

    M. Dalmonte, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics14, 827 (2018); C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics17, 936 (2021)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    M. F. Riedel, P. B ¨ohi, Y . Li, T. W. H ¨ansch, A. Sinatra, and P. Treutlein, Nature 464, 1170 (2010); J. Joo, W. J. Munro, and T. P. Spiller, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 083601 (2011); R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´nski and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 250801 (2014)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001); H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D ¨ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Nat. Phys. 5, 19 (2009)

    work page 2001

  9. [9]

    Bruß and C

    D. Bruß and C. Macchiavello, Phys. Rev. A 83, 052313 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V . Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008); J. I. Latorre and A. Riera, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 504002 (2009); G. D. Chiara and A. Sanpera, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074002 (2018)

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003); D. Porras and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 207901 (2004); X.-L. Deng, D. Porras, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 72, 063407 (2005)

    work page 2003

  12. [12]

    L. M. K. Vandersypen and I. L. Chuang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1037 (2005); K. R. K. Rao, H. Katiyar, T. S. Mahesh, A. Sen (De), U. Sen, and A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022312 (2013)

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 090402 (2003); O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T. W. Hansch, and I. Bloch, Nature425, 937 (2003); I. Bloch, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 38, S629 (2005); P. Treutlein, T. Steinmetz, Y . Colombe, B. Lev, P. Hommelhoff, J. Reichel, M. Greiner, O. Mandel, A. Widera, T. Rom, I. Bloch, a...

    work page 2003

  14. [14]

    Schechter and P

    M. Schechter and P. C. E. Stamp, Phys. Rev. B 78, 054438 (2008)

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Spin chains as data buses, logic buses and entanglers,

    S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 207901 (2003); S. Bose, A. Bayat, P. Sodano, L. Banchi, and P. Verrucchi, “Spin chains as data buses, logic buses and entanglers,” in Quan- tum State Transfer and Network Engineering , edited by G. M. Nikolopoulos and I. Jex (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013) Chap. 1, pp. 1–38

    work page 2003

  16. [16]

    M. Hein, W. D ¨ur, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. Van den Nest, and H. J. Briegel, arXiv:quant-ph/0602096 (2006)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  17. [17]

    Schollw ¨ock, Rev

    U. Schollw ¨ock, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005); F. Verstraete, V . Murg, and J. Cirac, Advances in Physics 57, 143 (2008); U. Schollw ¨ock, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue; R. Or ´us, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014); J. C. Bridgeman and C. T. Chubb, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50, 223001 (2017)

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Renormalization algorithms for Quantum-Many Body Systems in two and higher dimensions

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066 (2004); G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 220405 (2007); Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 110501 (2008); M. Rizzi, S. Montangero, and G. Vi- dal, Phys. Rev. A 77, 052328 (2008); M. Aguado and G. Vi- dal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 070404 (2008); L. Cincio, J. Dziar- maga, and M. M. Rams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 240603 (2008...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  19. [19]

    B. E. Kane, Nature 393, 133 (1998); Y . Makhlin, G. Sc ¨ohn, and A. Shnirman, Nature 398, 305 (1999); A. Imamog ¯lu, D. D. Awschalom, G. Burkard, D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Loss, M. Sherwin, and A. Small, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4204 (1999); S.-B. Zheng and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2392 (2000); J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Nature404, 579 (2000)

    work page 1998

  20. [20]

    Hutton and S

    A. Hutton and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A 69, 042312 (2004)

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    N. Y . Yao, L. Jiang, A. V . Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, A. Zhai, L.-M. Duan, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 040505 (2011); Y . Ping, B. W. Lovett, S. C. Benjamin, and E. M. Gauger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 100503 (2013); Y .-M. Zhu and L. Ma, Physics Letters A 382, 1651 (2018); R. Grimaudo, A. S. Magalh ˜aes de Castro, A. Messina, and D. Valenti, Fortschr...

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Yung, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics 44, 135504 (2011)

    M.-H. Yung, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics 44, 135504 (2011)

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Deng and X.-M

    H.-L. Deng and X.-M. Fang, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 41, 025503 (2008)

    work page 2008

  24. [24]

    A. O. Sushkov, I. Lovchinsky, N. Chisholm, R. L. Walsworth, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 197601 (2014)

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Haddadi, M

    S. Haddadi, M. Ghominejad, A. Akhound, and M. R. Pourkarimi, Scientific Reports 11, 22691 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    T urkpence, F

    D. T urkpence, F. Altintas, M. Paternostro, and Ozg ur E. M ustecaplio˘glu, Europhysics Letters 117, 50002 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Arisoy and ¨O

    O. Arisoy and ¨O. E. M ¨ustecaplıo˘glu, Scientific Reports 11, 12981 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Liu, H.-L

    J.-X. Liu, H.-L. Shi, Y .-H. Shi, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 104, 245418 (2021); L. Peng, W.-B. He, S. Chesi, H.-Q. Lin, and X.-W. Guan, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052220 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Anz `a, B

    F. Anz `a, B. Militello, and A. Messina, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 43, 205501 (2010); B. Militello and A. Messina, Phys. Rev. A83, 042305 (2011); X. S. Ma, G. X. Zhao, J. Y . Zhang, and A. M. Wang, 13 Quantum Information Processing 12, 321 (2013); W.-B. He, S. Chesi, H.-Q. Lin, and X.-W. Guan, Phys. Rev. B 99, 174308 (201...

    work page doi:10.3390/molecules28104037 2010

  30. [30]

    Haddadi, M

    S. Haddadi, M. R. Pourkarimi, A. Akhound, and M. Ghominejad, Modern Physics Letters A 34, 1950175 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Radhakrishnan, Z

    C. Radhakrishnan, Z. L ¨u, J. Jing, and T. Byrnes, Phys. Rev. A 100, 042333 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V . Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1655 (2012); A. Bera, T. Das, D. Sad- hukhan, S. S. Roy, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 024001 (2017)

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    V . E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, and A. G. Izergin,Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions , Cam- bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1993); F. Mila, European Journal of Physics 21, 499 (2000); T. Giamarchi, Quantum physics in one dimen- sion, International series of monographs on physics (Claren- do...

    work page 1993

  34. [34]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, H. Mabuchi, J. A. Smolin, A. Thapliyal, and A. Uhlmann, arXiv:quant-ph/9803033 (1998)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  35. [35]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. Popp, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 027901 (2004); M. Popp, F. Verstraete, M. A. Mart ´ın- Delgado, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 71, 042306 (2005)

    work page 2004

  36. [36]

    Sadhukhan, S

    D. Sadhukhan, S. S. Roy, A. K. Pal, D. Rakshit, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022301 (2017); J. G. Krishnan, H. K. J., and A. K. Pal, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042411 (2023)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Banerjee, A

    R. Banerjee, A. K. Pal, and A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A 101, 042339 (2020); Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023035 (2022)

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    J. I. Latorre, R. Or ´us, E. Rico, and J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. A 71, 064101 (2005); R. G. Unanyan, C. Ionescu, and M. Fleis- chhauer, Phys. Rev. A72, 022326 (2005)

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005)

    work page 2005

  40. [40]

    Peres, Phys

    A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996); M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 223, 1 (1996); K. ˙Zyczkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewen- stein, Phys. Rev. A58, 883 (1998); G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002); J. Lee, M. S. Kim, Y . J. Park, and S. Lee, Journal of Modern Optics 47, 2151 (2000)

    work page 1996

  41. [41]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954); M. Bergmann and O. G ¨uhne, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- ical 46, 385304 (2013); B. L ¨ucke, J. Peise, G. Vitagliano, J. Arlt, L. Santos, G. T ´oth, and C. Klempt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 155304 (2014); A. Kumar, H. S. Dhar, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Physics Letters A 381, 1701 (2017)

    work page 1954

  42. [42]

    T. J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032110 (2002)

    work page 2002

  43. [43]

    J. K. Stockton, J. M. Geremia, A. C. Doherty, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. A 67, 022112 (2003)

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    Barouch, B

    E. Barouch, B. M. McCoy, and M. Dresden, Phys. Rev. A 2, 1075 (1970); E. Barouch and B. M. McCoy, Phys. Rev. A 3, 786 (1971); Phys. Rev. A 3, 2137 (1971)

    work page 1970

  45. [45]

    Chanda, T

    T. Chanda, T. Das, D. Sadhukhan, A. K. Pal, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042310 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    De Dominicis and I

    C. De Dominicis and I. Giardina, Random Fields and Spin Glasses: A Field Theory Approach (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

    work page 2006

  47. [47]

    Y . Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Frontiers in Physics 8 (2020), 10.3389/fphy.2020.589504

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2020.589504 2020