Extremal Maximal Entanglement

Fei Shi; Wanchen Zhang; Xiande Zhang; Yu Ning

Extremal Maximal Entanglement

T0 review · 0 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every eight-qubit pure state has at most 56 maximally mixed 4-party reductions; the graph state |T4⟩ attains the bound and is perfectly extremal.

desk verdict Qex(8)=56 is proven and the Turán-link framework is the real contribution; the paper is sound and deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12208 v1 pith:7NNG7OL2 submitted 2024-11-19 quant-ph

Wanchen Zhang , Yu Ning , Fei Shi , Xiande Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 05C6505D0581P40 PACS 03.67.Mn03.67.-a

keywords quantumextremalnumberabsolutelymaximallyentangledstatesk-uniformgraphTurán'sproblemBlochrepresentationmixedreductionsqubitentanglement

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies a scarcity: an absolutely maximally entangled (AME) state of n qubits exists only for n = 2, 3, 5, and 6, so for every other n one asks which pure state realizes the most "half-body" entanglement, i.e. the most ⌊n/2⌋-party reductions that are maximally mixed. The paper defines the quantum extremal number Qex(n) for this maximum, connects it to Turán's problem in hypergraph theory to get a general upper bound, and builds explicit graph states giving lower bounds. Its main result is Qex(8) = 56: no eight-qubit pure state has more than 56 maximally mixed 4-party reductions, and the graph state |T4⟩ attains 56. It also shows that any 8-qubit state achieving 56 must be 3-uniform and hence perfectly extremal, and that similar reasoning proves any 4m-qubit state achieving the new bound must be (2m−1)-uniform.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quantum extremal number Qex(n,k), the largest number of k-party reductions that can be maximally mixed in an n-qubit pure state, specialized to k = ⌊n/2⌋. A pure state is encoded as a k-uniform hypergraph on its n parties, with a hyperedge exactly where the reduction is maximally mixed. The upper bound comes from the parity rule (Lemma 1): in the Bloch expansion, a nonvanishing anticommutator of two Pauli tensors has weight congruent to the sum of the weights modulo 2, which forces certain odd-weight Bloch terms to vanish and yields the forbidden complete hypergraph $K^{{2m}}$_{2m+1} for n = 4m. Turán's extremal number then supplies the numerical ceiling. The lower bound is carried by graph states: for a graph state |G⟩, a k-party reduction is maximally mixed exactly when the k×(n−k) submatrix of the adjacency matrix has full rank over F_2, which turns the counting problem into linear algebra; the graph T4 gives the 56 case.

What would settle it

An explicit 8-qubit pure state with 57 maximally mixed 4-party reductions would refute Qex(8)=56. Short of that, any 8-qubit state with 56 such reductions whose 3-party reductions are not all maximally mixed would refute Theorem 2's claim that every 4-EME 8-qubit state is PEME.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Qex(8) = 56, the third determined value of the quantum extremal number, after Qex(4) = 4 and Qex(7) = 32. The proof has two halves. On the upper-bound side, every n-qubit pure state is associated with the uniform hypergraph whose edges are the k-subsets with maximally mixed reductions; the authors show that for n = 2k this hypergraph must avoid K^k_{k+2}, and for n = 4m it must avoid $K^{{2m}}$_{2m+1}, and then bound the number of edges by Turán's theorem. For n = 8 this yields the bound 56. On the lower-bound side, the graph state |T4⟩, defined in Eq. (16) by an 8×8 adjacency matrix over F_2, has exactly 56 full-rank 4×4 submatrices, so by the rank criterion for graph states it has 56 maximally mixed 4-party reductions. The paper further proves that any state reaching the bound must be 3-uniform, so |T4⟩ is a PEME state.

Load-bearing premise

The upper bound rests on the parity rule inherited from [10], that a nonvanishing anticommutator of two Pauli tensors has weight parity equal to the sum of the weights; if this rule failed for the weight-selected Bloch sums P_j inside the reduced density matrices, the proof that Qex(8) ≤ 56 would no longer go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For eight qubits, 4-EME and PEME coincide: every state with the maximum 56 maximally mixed 4-party reductions is 3-uniform, so |T4⟩ and the orthogonal-array state of [21] are two non-locally-equivalent PEME states.
For twelve qubits the improved upper bound is 792, the graph state |T6⟩ gives 512, and a 5-uniform 12-qubit graph state gives 540 maximally mixed 6-party reductions; the 792 bound is not reachable by stabilizer states.
For every m ≥ 2, any pure state of 4m qubits that attains the new Turán-type bound must be (2m−1)-uniform and therefore perfectly extremal.
Asymptotically, a random graph state on 2k qubits has, in expectation, at least C(2k,k) times product_{l=0}^{k-1}(1 − 2^{l−k}) maximally mixed k-party reductions, so the density π(2k,k) approaches at least ∏_{l=1}^{∞}(1 − 2^{−l}) ≈ 0.2888.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension: the same Turán translation suggests a route to sharper values for n = 10 and n = 12, since any improvement on the hypergraph Turán number for K^k_{k+2} or K^{2m}_{2m+1} would immediately sharpen Qex; known hypergraph Turán densities may apply directly.
Extension: the paper documents that PEME states for 4, 7, and 8 qubits also minimize the potential of multipartite entanglement, but it does not claim a general equivalence; testing whether a 9- or 10-qubit state with the maximum number of maximally mixed half-body reductions also minimizes that potential would be a concrete next check.
Extension: a probabilistic test of the lower bound would be to sample random 8-qubit graph states and count the maximum number of full-rank 4×4 submatrices; the empirical maximum should be 56, and the observed density should lie near the expected product formula as the number of qubits grows.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: Qex(8)=56 is now a proven statement, the Turán link is the real contribution, and the proof holds up. The lower bound was already known from Zha et al. and Li-Wang, but the matching upper bound is new and is the load-bearing piece. The paper gives general upper bounds for Qex(2k) and Qex(2k+1) expressed as Turán numbers, improves the 4m case by a sharp parity argument, and supplies explicit graph-state constructions plus a probabilistic lower bound with asymptotic density at least 0.288788. The 4-EME graph state T4 is shown to be 3-uniform, hence PEME, by a neat equality-condition argument.

I checked the main line of proof. Theorem 1's parity step is sound: the odd-weight part of (I+P)^2 gives 2P=4P, forcing P=0. The Turán bound ex_4(8,K_5^4)≤56 checks out, and the rank counts for T4's 4-cuts are consistent with 56 full-rank cuts. The appendices are detailed and the algebra works. I do not see a circular step—the parity rule and graph-state rank criterion are external tools, and no parameter is fitted to the target value.

Soft spots are minor. Eq. (19) has a block-dimension typo, Eq. (22) a summation-index typo. The count m4(|T4>)=56 is stated as 'it can be checked' rather than tied directly to the general rank analysis in Section V.B; it is true, but it would be cleaner to compute it there. The abstract's 'third known value' is loose—Qex(5)=10 and Qex(6)=20 follow immediately from AME existence, so 8 is the fifth known value if trivial cases are counted; the introduction correctly says the third nontrivial extremal case. Also, the asymptotic statement is a liminf, not a proven limit, as written. None of these affect the central claim.

This paper is for people who care about near-AME states, k-uniform states, and quantum-error-correction-motivated combinatorics. It deserves a serious referee; I would accept with minor revisions.

Referee Report

0 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper studies the maximum number of maximally mixed half-body reductions that an n-qubit pure state can have, denoted Qex(n). The main result is the exact determination Qex(8)=56: every 8-qubit pure state has at most 56 maximally mixed 4-party reductions, and an explicit graph state |T4⟩ attains this bound, making it a 4-EME and, by Theorem 2, a PEME state. The upper bound follows from a new structural theorem (Theorem 1) showing that the hypergraph of maximally mixed 2m-party reductions of a 4m-qubit state is K^{2m}_{2m+1}-free, combined with a Turán bound. General lower bounds are obtained from explicit graph states T_k and from a probabilistic argument on random graph states. The paper also discusses the relation to maximally multipartite entangled states and shows that any state attaining the 4m-qubit upper bound must be (2m-1)-uniform.

Significance. If correct, Qex(8)=56 is the third nontrivial exact value of Qex(n), after Qex(4)=4 and Qex(7)=32, and it is the first value obtained by a method that does not assume the state is already (floor(n/2)-1)-uniform. The connection between quantum extremal numbers and Turán numbers is elegant and likely to be useful for further values. The proof is rigorous: the upper bound is derived from the structural theorem and a standard Turán bound, while the lower bound is supplied by an explicit graph state with a verifiable rank count. The paper also provides new families of graph states and a probabilistic lower bound that gives a constant limiting density for even n. The identification of PEME states and the discussion of their LU-inequivalence add further value. I find the central derivation sound and the contributions significant for the quantum information and combinatorics communities.

minor comments (8)

[Eq. (19)] In Eq. (19), the displayed P2 is written as I_{(k-s+1)×(k-s+1)}, but P2 is a (k-s)×(k-s) block; the correct rank-(k-s-1) form should be I_{(k-s-1)×(k-s-1)} (with appropriate zero padding). Please correct this dimension error.
[Eq. (22)] The summation in Eq. (22) for the odd-k case is written as "Pk i=0 C(k,s)"; the index of summation should be s, not i, and the range should be stated consistently with the text (s=1,...,k-1, with the two boundary terms accounted for by the +2 term).
[Section V.A] The claim "It can be checked that there are 56 subsets K of four rows such that A_{K×\bar K} has rank four" is not tied directly to the rank analysis that follows in Section V.B. Please add an explicit count (e.g., 48 cases with i=1, 6 cases with i=2, and 2 cases K=B,C) or refer the reader to Eq. (22) with k=4.
[Abstract] The phrase "the third known value for this problem" is imprecise because Qex(5)=10 and Qex(6)=20 follow trivially from the existence of AME(5,2) and AME(6,2). Suggest "the third nontrivial value" or a short clarification.
[Section III] In the sentence discussing the 9-qubit lower bound, "ex3(9,H4)" should be "ex4(9,H4)".
[Section V.B] The counting for the i=1 cases jumps from "2 × sum_{s=ceil(k/2)}^{k-1} ..." to the final symmetric sum; this is correct but would be clearer if the factor of 2 and the symmetry between B and C were spelled out explicitly.
[Theorem 1 proof] After deriving P_{2m+1}=0 and concluding ρ_A is the maximally mixed state on 2m+1 qubits, the proof states "a contradiction" without explaining why this is impossible; adding a rank argument (the complement has only 2m-1 parties, so the rank cannot exceed 2^{2m-1}) would improve clarity.
[Section V.C] Minor typo: "expectataion" should be "expectation".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Qex(8)=56 is derived from an external parity-rule theorem and an explicit graph-state construction, not from its own inputs.

full rationale

The derivation of Qex(8)=56 is self-contained relative to external inputs. The upper bound Qex(8)≤56 follows from Theorem 1's parity-rule argument, which uses Lemma 1 cited from Huber et al. (not the present authors), and from the Turán bound T(8,5,4)≥14 in Proposition 1; neither ingredient states or presupposes the target value 56. The lower bound is supplied by the explicit graph state T4 with adjacency matrix Eq. (16), and m4(|T4⟩)=56 is obtained by rank checks over F2 on the 4×4 cuts; this is a finite verification rather than a fitted parameter or a renamed result. Theorem 2's claim that a 4-EME 8-qubit state is automatically 3-uniform uses the equality condition of Eq. (15), namely that distinct non-maximally-mixed 4-cuts intersect in at most two parties; this condition is independent of the T4 construction. The paper's only self-citations (Refs. [25,26]) support contextual remarks about k-uniform bounds and are not load-bearing for the central claim. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction, and no prediction is obtained from a fitted subset of the target data.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim pulls no fitted parameters and introduces no new physical entities. It rests on standard quantum-information facts (parity rule, Schmidt relations, graph-state criterion) and standard extremal-combinatorial bounds; these are external, citable inputs rather than results of this paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Parity rule (Lemma 1 from [10]): the weight of a nonvanishing anticommutator of two Pauli terms has parity equal to the sum of the two weights.
Stated and cited, not reproved in this paper; used in Theorem 1 and Appendices A and B to collect odd-weight Bloch terms.
domain assumption Graph-state reduction criterion (Corollary 2 from [11,32]): the reduction to K is maximally mixed iff the submatrix A_{K x bar K} has full rank over F2.
Used to compute m_k(|T_k>) and the random graph-state expectation; taken from prior literature.
standard math De Caen and Moon-Moser lower bound on T(n,l,k) (Proposition 1 from [28,29]).
Used to bound Turán numbers and to characterize equality in Eq. (15).
domain assumption Rains bound on k-uniform states in (C2)^(6j+l).
Used in Section V A to argue that the Eq. (15) upper bound is not tight for m >= 4.
domain assumption Schmidt decomposition spectral equality and Eqs. (5)-(6) relating complementary reductions of pure states.
Standard quantum mechanics used in Theorem 1 and Appendices A and B to relate reductions of complementary subsystems.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extremal Maximal Entanglement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7NNG7OL2

@misc{pith2026241112208,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extremal Maximal Entanglement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7NNG7OL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12208}
}

abstract

A pure multipartite quantum state is called absolutely maximally entangled if all reductions of no more than half of the parties are maximally mixed. However, an $n$-qubit absolutely maximally entangled state only exists when $n$ equals $2$, $3$, $5$, and $6$. A natural question arises when it does not exist: which $n$-qubit pure state has the largest number of maximally mixed $\lfloor n/2 \rfloor$-party reductions? Denote this number by $Qex(n)$. It was shown that $Qex(4)=4$ in [Higuchi et al.Phys. Lett. A (2000)] and $Qex(7)=32$ in [Huber et al.Phys. Rev. Lett. (2017)]. In this paper, we give a general upper bound of $Qex(n)$ by linking the well-known Tur\'an's problem in graph theory, and provide lower bounds by constructive and probabilistic methods. In particular, we show that $Qex(8)=56$, which is the third known value for this problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12208 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. A (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Exploring pure quantum states with maximally mixed reductions,

L. Arnaud and N. J. Cerf, “Exploring pure quantum states with maximally mixed reductions,” Physical Review A, vol. 87, p. 012319, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

Multipartite entanglement, quantum-error-correcting codes, and entangling power of quantum evolutions,

A. J. Scott, “Multipartite entanglement, quantum-error-correcting codes, and entangling power of quantum evolutions,” Physical Review A, vol. 69, p. 052330, 2004

work page 2004
[3]

Entanglement in many-body systems,

L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, “Entanglement in many-body systems,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 80, pp. 517–576, 2008

work page 2008
[4]

Multiqubit systems: highly entangled states and entanglement distribution,

A. Borras, A. R. Plastino, J. Batle, C. Zander, M. Casas, and A. Plastino, “Multiqubit systems: highly entangled states and entanglement distribution,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 40, no. 44, p. 13407, 2007

work page 2007
[5]

Maximally multipartite entangled states,

P. Facchi, G. Florio, G. Parisi, and S. Pascazio, “Maximally multipartite entangled states,” Physical Review A, vol. 77, p. 060304, 2008

work page 2008
[6]

Characterizing multipartite entanglement without shared reference frames,

C. Kl¨ ockl and M. Huber, “Characterizing multipartite entanglement without shared reference frames,”Physical Review A, vol. 91, p. 042339, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Absolute maximal entanglement and quantum secret sharing,

W. Helwig, W. Cui, J. I. Latorre, A. Riera, and H.-K. Lo, “Absolute maximal entanglement and quantum secret sharing,” Physical Review A, vol. 86, p. 052335, 2012

work page 2012
[8]

Absolutely maximally entangled states, combinatorial designs, and multiunitary matrices,

D. Goyeneche, D. Alsina, J. I. Latorre, A. Riera, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, “Absolutely maximally entangled states, combinatorial designs, and multiunitary matrices,” Physical Review A, vol. 92, p. 032316, 2015

work page 2015

Show all 37 references

[9]

Searching for highly entangled multi-qubit states,

I. D. K. Brown, S. Stepney, A. Sudbery, and S. L. Braunstein, “Searching for highly entangled multi-qubit states,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, vol. 38, no. 5, p. 1119, 2005

2005
[10]

Absolutely maximally entangled states of seven qubits do not exist,

F. Huber, O. G¨ uhne, and J. Siewert, “Absolutely maximally entangled states of seven qubits do not exist,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 118, p. 200502, 2017

2017
[11]

Multipartite entangled states, symmetric matrices, and error-correcting codes,

K. Feng, L. Jin, C. Xing, and C. Yuan, “Multipartite entangled states, symmetric matrices, and error-correcting codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 5618–5627, 2017

2017
[12]

How entangled can two couples get?

A. Higuchi and A. Sudbery, “How entangled can two couples get?” Physics Letters A, vol. 273, no. 4, pp. 213–217, 2000

2000
[13]

Quantum weight enumerators,

E. M. Rains, “Quantum weight enumerators,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1388–1394, 1998

1998
[14]

Quantum shadow enumerators,

E. M. Rains, “Quantum shadow enumerators,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 2361–2366, 1999

1999
[15]

G. Nebe, E. M. Rains, and N. J. A. Sloane, Self-dual codes and invariant theory. Springer, 2006, vol. 17

2006
[16]

Distributed entanglement,

V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, “Distributed entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 61, p. 052306, 2000

2000
[17]

Potential multiparticle entanglement measure,

A. Wong and N. Christensen, “Potential multiparticle entanglement measure,” Physical Review A, vol. 63, p. 044301, 2001

2001
[18]

Operational classification and quantification of multipartite entangled states,

G. Rigolin, T. R. de Oliveira, and M. C. de Oliveira, “Operational classification and quantification of multipartite entangled states,” Physical Review A, vol. 74, p. 022314, 2006

2006
[19]

A maximally entangled seven-qubit state,

X. Zha, H. Song, J. Qi, D. Wang, and Q. Lan, “A maximally entangled seven-qubit state,” Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical, vol. 45, no. 25, p. 255302, 2012

2012
[20]

A criterion to identify maximally entangled four-qubit state,

X. Zha, H. Song, and F. Feng, “A criterion to identify maximally entangled four-qubit state,” Communications in Theo- retical Physics, vol. 56, no. 5, p. 827, 2011

2011
[21]

k-Uniform quantum states arising from orthogonal arrays,

M. Li and Y. Wang, “ k-Uniform quantum states arising from orthogonal arrays,” Physical Review A, vol. 99, p. 042332, 2019

2019
[22]

n-Qubit states with maximum entanglement across all bipartitions: A graph state approach,

S. Sudevan and S. Das, “ n-Qubit states with maximum entanglement across all bipartitions: A graph state approach,” arXiv:2201.05622, 2022

2022 arXiv
[23]

Multipartite entanglement in heterogeneous systems,

D. Goyeneche, J. Bielawski, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, “Multipartite entanglement in heterogeneous systems,” Physical Review A, vol. 94, p. 012346, 2016

2016
[24]

Quantum combinatorial designs and k-uniform states,

Y. Zang, P. Facchi, and Z. Tian, “Quantum combinatorial designs and k-uniform states,” Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical, vol. 54, no. 50, p. 505204, 2021

2021
[25]

k-Uniform quantum information masking,

F. Shi, M. Li, L. Chen, and X. Zhang, “ k-Uniform quantum information masking,” Physical Review A, vol. 104, p. 032601, 2021

2021
[26]

Bounds on k-uniform quantum states,

F. Shi, Y. Ning, Q. Zhao, and X. Zhang, “Bounds on k-uniform quantum states,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2024

2024
[27]

Description of states in quantum mechanics by density matrix and operator techniques,

U. Fano, “Description of states in quantum mechanics by density matrix and operator techniques,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 29, pp. 74–93, 1957. 15

1957
[28]

Hypergraph Tur´ an problems,

P. Keevash, “Hypergraph Tur´ an problems,”Surveys in combinatorics, vol. 392, pp. 83–140, 2011

2011
[29]

De Caen, Extension of a theorem of Moon and Moser on complete subgraphs

D. De Caen, Extension of a theorem of Moon and Moser on complete subgraphs. Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo, 1983

1983
[30]

A criterion to identify maximally entangled nine-qubit state,

X. Zha, I. Ahmed, D. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, “A criterion to identify maximally entangled nine-qubit state,” Laser Physics Letters, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 035201, 2020

2020
[31]

Two forms for 3-uniform states of eight-qubits,

X. Zha, Z. Da, I. Ahmed, and Y. Zhang, “Two forms for 3-uniform states of eight-qubits,” Laser Physics Letters, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 055206, 2018

2018
[32]

Absolutely maximally entangled states: Existence and applications,

W. Helwig and W. Cui, “Absolutely maximally entangled states: Existence and applications,” arXiv:1306.2536, 2013

2013 arXiv
[33]

On the classification of all self-dual additive codes over GF(4) of length up to 12,

L. E. Danielsen and M. G. Parker, “On the classification of all self-dual additive codes over GF(4) of length up to 12,” Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, vol. 113, no. 7, pp. 1351–1367, 2006

2006
[34]

S. R. Finch, Mathematical constants. Cambridge university press, 2003

2003
[35]

The on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences, Entry A048651,

N. J. A. Sloane, “The on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences, Entry A048651,” Online available at https://oeis.org/, 1964, accessed on 2024-11-05

1964
[36]

Genuinely multipartite entangled states and orthogonal arrays,

D. Goyeneche and K. ˙Zyczkowski, “Genuinely multipartite entangled states and orthogonal arrays,” Physical Review A, vol. 90, no. 2, 2014

2014
[37]

Database of self-dual quantum codes, Graphs in nauty’s format,

L. E. Danielsen, “Database of self-dual quantum codes, Graphs in nauty’s format,” Online available at https://www.ii. uib.no/∼larsed/vncorbits, 2011, accessed on 2024-11-05

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Exploring pure quantum states with maximally mixed reductions,

L. Arnaud and N. J. Cerf, “Exploring pure quantum states with maximally mixed reductions,” Physical Review A, vol. 87, p. 012319, 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Multipartite entanglement, quantum-error-correcting codes, and entangling power of quantum evolutions,

A. J. Scott, “Multipartite entanglement, quantum-error-correcting codes, and entangling power of quantum evolutions,” Physical Review A, vol. 69, p. 052330, 2004

work page 2004

[3] [3]

Entanglement in many-body systems,

L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, “Entanglement in many-body systems,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 80, pp. 517–576, 2008

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Multiqubit systems: highly entangled states and entanglement distribution,

A. Borras, A. R. Plastino, J. Batle, C. Zander, M. Casas, and A. Plastino, “Multiqubit systems: highly entangled states and entanglement distribution,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 40, no. 44, p. 13407, 2007

work page 2007

[5] [5]

Maximally multipartite entangled states,

P. Facchi, G. Florio, G. Parisi, and S. Pascazio, “Maximally multipartite entangled states,” Physical Review A, vol. 77, p. 060304, 2008

work page 2008

[6] [6]

Characterizing multipartite entanglement without shared reference frames,

C. Kl¨ ockl and M. Huber, “Characterizing multipartite entanglement without shared reference frames,”Physical Review A, vol. 91, p. 042339, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Absolute maximal entanglement and quantum secret sharing,

W. Helwig, W. Cui, J. I. Latorre, A. Riera, and H.-K. Lo, “Absolute maximal entanglement and quantum secret sharing,” Physical Review A, vol. 86, p. 052335, 2012

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Absolutely maximally entangled states, combinatorial designs, and multiunitary matrices,

D. Goyeneche, D. Alsina, J. I. Latorre, A. Riera, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, “Absolutely maximally entangled states, combinatorial designs, and multiunitary matrices,” Physical Review A, vol. 92, p. 032316, 2015

work page 2015