pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.09757 · v3 · submitted 2024-12-12 · 🪐 quant-ph

Revisiting Gaussian genuine entanglement witnesses with modern software

E. Shchukin , P. van Loock This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 06:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Gaussian entanglementcovariance matrixconvex optimizationseparabilitysymplectic tracemultipartite entanglementcontinuous variablesentanglement witnesses
0
0 comments X

The pith

Convex optimization reconstructs the most probable physical covariance matrix from measurements and tests multipartite Gaussian separability even with errors.

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

The paper formulates physicality of a covariance matrix and its separability properties as convex optimization problems that modern solvers can handle for growing numbers of modes. From a measured non-physical matrix, the approach finds the closest physical one and then checks whether the state is factorizable, partite separable, or biseparable. Dual problems are constructed to certify that any numerical solution is globally optimal. An explicit analytical formula for the symplectic trace of positive definite matrices is derived and extended to the semidefinite case, serving as a simple entanglement witness. The same framework is applied analytically to small examples of bound entangled and genuine multipartite entangled Gaussian states.

Core claim

By casting reconstruction of the most probable physical covariance matrix and tests for concrete partite separability or biseparability as convex optimization problems, one obtains efficient numerical solutions together with dual certificates of optimality; an explicit analytical expression for the symplectic trace is derived that functions as an entanglement witness and extends to positive semidefinite matrices.

What carries the argument

Convex optimization problems (and their duals) for physicality and separability of covariance matrices, plus the closed-form symplectic trace expression for positive definite matrices.

Load-bearing premise

Modern convex solvers reach global optimality on these physicality and separability problems and the duals reliably certify that optimality for multipartite Gaussian cases that include measurement errors.

What would settle it

A measured covariance matrix for which the solver returns a matrix that still violates the physicality or separability constraint while its dual claims optimality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09757 by E. Shchukin, P. van Loock.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The optimal solution of (26) for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Comparing performance and accuracy characteristics of different solvers for the closest physical covariance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparing performance and accuracy characteristics of different solvers for the most probable physical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparing performance and accuracy characteristics of different solvers for the eigenvalue entanglement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparing performance and accuracy characteristics of different solvers for the scaling entanglement test as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Closest separable state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparing performance and accuracy characteristics of different solvers for the problem expressed by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparing performance and accuracy characteristics of different solvers for the problem expressed by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: We see that this pure state is entangled for all α > 1/2 and its entanglement measure tends to 1/4 when α → +∞. Note that the matrices X⋆ and P ⋆ are always non-degenerate and thus have rank 4. 2. Scaling The primal solution in this case has the form of Eq. (370), but the parameters are different and read as a ⋆ = α 2 2(α2 − 2β 2) , b⋆ = α 2 + 2β 2 2(α2 − 2β 2) , c ⋆ = − αβ α2 − 2β 2 , d⋆ = β 2 α2 − 2β 2 … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: The physicality region and the regions of various separability properties of the state given by Eq. (323). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: The regions of different kinds of separability of the state with the CM given by Eq. (394). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: The difference between the curve (451) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Genuine entanglement measure of CM (449). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_17.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Continuous-variable Gaussian entanglement is an attractive notion, both as a fundamental concept in quantum information theory, based on the well-established Gaussian formalism for phase-space variables, and as a practical resource in quantum technology, exploiting in particular, unconditional room-temperature squeezed-light quantum optics. The readily available high level of scalability, however, is accompanied by an increased theoretical complexity when the multipartite entanglement of a growing number of optical modes is considered. For such systems, we present several approaches to reconstruct the most probable physical covariance matrix from a measured non-physical one and then test the reconstructed matrix for different kinds of separability (factorizability, concrete partite separability or biseparability) even in the presence of measurement errors. All these approaches are based on formulating the desired properties (physicality or separability) as convex optimization problems, which can be efficiently solved with modern optimization solvers, even when the system grows. To every optimization problem we construct the corresponding dual problem used to verify the optimality of the solution. Besides this numerical part of work, we derive an explicit analytical expression for the symplectic trace of a positive definite matrix, which can serve as a simple witness of an entanglement witness, and extend it for positive semidefinite matrices. In addition, we show that in some cases our optimization problems can be solved analytically. As an application of our analytical approach, we consider small instances of bound entangled or genuine multipartite entangled Gaussian states, including some examples from the literature that were treated only numerically, and a family of non-Gaussian 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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents convex optimization formulations to reconstruct the most probable physical covariance matrix from a measured non-physical one and to test for factorizability, partite separability, or biseparability (including genuine multipartite entanglement) in multipartite Gaussian states, even in the presence of measurement errors. Dual problems are constructed for each to verify optimality of solutions obtained via modern solvers. An explicit analytical expression for the symplectic trace of positive definite matrices is derived and extended to positive semidefinite matrices; some optimization problems are solved analytically. The methods are applied to small instances of bound entangled and genuine multipartite entangled Gaussian states from the literature as well as certain non-Gaussian states.

Significance. If the formulations are correctly implemented and the duals certify optimality as claimed, the work supplies scalable numerical tools for entanglement analysis in growing continuous-variable systems together with analytical expressions that can function as simple witnesses. The applications to literature examples and the extension beyond Gaussian states add concrete utility for practitioners using squeezed-light optics.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (convex programs for k-separability): the assertion that dual constructions reliably certify global optimality for multipartite separability under measurement-error constraints lacks an explicit check that the duality gap closes to machine precision or that the LMIs remain strictly feasible for the error levels used in the numerical examples; this is load-bearing for the claim that the approach works for genuine multipartite cases.
  2. [§5.2] §5.2 (analytical symplectic trace): the derived closed-form expression for the symplectic trace is presented as a witness, but the manuscript does not state the precise domain of validity (e.g., for which covariance-matrix spectra the expression remains a valid entanglement witness) nor compare it quantitatively against existing witnesses on the bound-entangled examples.
minor comments (2)
  1. The introduction would benefit from a short table contrasting the new SDP formulations with prior numerical methods for Gaussian entanglement witnesses.
  2. Notation for the error-perturbed covariance matrices should be unified across the primal and dual problems to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, agreeing where revisions are warranted to strengthen the presentation and claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (convex programs for k-separability): the assertion that dual constructions reliably certify global optimality for multipartite separability under measurement-error constraints lacks an explicit check that the duality gap closes to machine precision or that the LMIs remain strictly feasible for the error levels used in the numerical examples; this is load-bearing for the claim that the approach works for genuine multipartite cases.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of duality gap closure and LMI feasibility would strengthen the claims, particularly for genuine multipartite entanglement. In the revised manuscript, we will add explicit numerical checks in §4 (including a table or paragraph) showing duality gaps closing to machine precision (below 10^{-12}) and confirming strict feasibility of the LMIs at the error levels used in the examples. This directly addresses the concern for the multipartite cases. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5.2] §5.2 (analytical symplectic trace): the derived closed-form expression for the symplectic trace is presented as a witness, but the manuscript does not state the precise domain of validity (e.g., for which covariance-matrix spectra the expression remains a valid entanglement witness) nor compare it quantitatively against existing witnesses on the bound-entangled examples.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for clarification on the domain of validity. The expression is valid for positive definite covariance matrices, serving as a witness when the symplectic trace falls below the separability threshold (tied to symplectic eigenvalues <1). In the revision of §5.2, we will explicitly state the domain of validity in terms of covariance matrix spectra and add quantitative comparisons (e.g., via tables) against existing witnesses such as the PPT criterion on the bound-entangled examples to demonstrate relative performance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; convex optimization duality and analytical derivation are independent

full rationale

The paper casts physicality and separability checks as standard convex programs solved by external solvers, with duals constructed from duality theory to certify optimality. These rely on established SDP duality and matrix properties external to the paper. The explicit analytical expression for the symplectic trace is presented as a derived result without reducing to a self-definition, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain. No load-bearing step equates a prediction to its input by construction, and the methods remain self-contained against external benchmarks of convex optimization.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract alone; the work appears to rest on standard convex optimization theory and the Gaussian state formalism.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5801 in / 1124 out tokens · 35198 ms · 2026-05-23T06:54:57.692086+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Experimental Quantum Tomography of Multimode Gaussian States

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Maximum-likelihood tomography reconstructs physical covariance matrices for multimode Gaussian states, outperforming conventional methods and validated experimentally on six- and ten-mode entangled states.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The12|34partition, scaling The primal solution produced by the solver is easily identified, γ12⋆ xx = 1√ 2 1 0 0 1 , γ 12⋆ pp = 1 2 √ 2 1 0 0 1 , γ34⋆ xx = 1 2 √ 2 1 0 0 1 , γ 34⋆ pp = 1√ 2 1 0 0 1 . (230) The analytical expression of the optimal valuet ⋆ can be found from the requirement that the minimums of the eigenvalues of the differences γxx −t ⋆γ12...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The12|34partition, refined condition Here we solve the full problem, not only the reduced one as we did up to now. The primal solutionγ 12⋆ pro- duced by the solver is γ12⋆ = 1 2 √ 2   2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1   .(241) The dual solution, the matrixMis of the form M ⋆ =   x0−y0 0 0 0 0 0x0y0 0 0 0 −y0 2z0 0 0 0 0 0y0 2z0 0 0 0 0 0 0...

    work page 2041

  3. [3]

    Eigenvalue problem The solver produces the following optimal matrices X ⋆ =   2x−x−x −x2x−x −x−x2x   , P ⋆ =   p q q q p p q q p   ,(255) where the numerical values ofx,pandqare given by x= 0.0905..., p= 0.1522..., q= 0.1308....(256) Because the state is symmetric, it is enough to consider only one bipartition, for example, 12|3. TheZmatrices read...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Scaling The primal optimal solution reads as γ12⋆ xx =γ 13⋆ xx =γ 23⋆ xx = a b b a , γ 3 xx =γ 2 xx =γ 1 xx = c , γ12⋆ pp =γ 13⋆ pp =γ 23⋆ pp = d e e d , γ 3 pp =γ 2 pp =γ 1 pp = f , where the values of the parameters read as a= 0.5100..., b= 0.4073..., c= 0.4672..., d= 1.3526..., e=−1.0800..., f= 0.5350.... (279) Two eigenvalues of the matrixP(γ12⋆ xx , ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Refined condition We first consider the case ofI 2 ={1|23,2|13,3|12}, so the second, larger, components are discarded and the smaller ones remain. The primal solution in this case is given by γ1⋆ =γ 2⋆ =γ 3⋆ = 1 2 1 0 0 1 .(299) The optimalM ⋆ read as M ⋆ =   x−y−y0 0 0 −y x−y0 0 0 −y−y x0 0 0 0 0 0p q q 0 0 0q p q 0 0 0q q p   ,(300) 35 and...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Eigenvalue The optimal matrices produced by the solver have the following form: X ⋆ = 1 8   1 8x8x0 8x1 0 8x 8x0 1−8x 0 8x−8x1   , P ⋆ = 1 8   1−8x−8x0 −8x1 0−8x −8x0 1 8x 0−8x8x1   . (325) The primal numerical solution shows that all 2×2 par- titions are inactive, and all 1×3 partitions are active, so we show onlyZmatrices of the latter parti...

    work page

  7. [7]

    (331), but with different values for the parameters a= 4.2229..., b= 7.9458..., c= 5.6074..., d= 3.7229..., (346) so the first set of equations is given by Eq

    Scaling The primal solution has exactly the same form as given by Eq. (331), but with different values for the parameters a= 4.2229..., b= 7.9458..., c= 5.6074..., d= 3.7229..., (346) so the first set of equations is given by Eq. (335). The dual solutions read as X ⋆ =   x y y0 y x0y y0x−y 0y−y x   , P ⋆ =   x−y−y0 −y x0−y −y0x y 0−y y x   , (...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Eigenvales All the machinery of constructing and solving the sys- tem of KKT equations has already been developed be- fore, so here we just present the final result. The primal solution reads as X ⋆ = 1 8   1 8x ⋆ 8x⋆ 0 8x⋆ 1 0 8x ⋆ 8x⋆ 0 1−8x ⋆ 0 8x ⋆ −8x⋆ 1   , P ⋆ = 1 8   1−8x ⋆ −8x⋆ 0 −8x⋆ 1 0−8x ⋆ −8x⋆ 0 1 8x ⋆ 0−8x ⋆ 8x⋆ 1   , (366) wher...

    work page

  9. [9]

    strip” between the yellow and the green lines. The point given by Eq. (324) is located ex- actly in this “gray

    Scaling The primal solution in this case has the form of Eq. (370), but the parameters are different and read as a⋆ = α2 2(α2 −2β 2) , b ⋆ = α2 + 2β2 2(α2 −2β 2) , c⋆ =− αβ α2 −2β 2 , d ⋆ = β2 α2 −2β 2 . (377) 0.5 2 5 10 20∞ 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 FIG. 12:E + of the pure state (323) as a function ofα withβgiven by the right-hand side of (365). 0.5 ...

    work page 1981

  10. [10]

    Yoshikawa, S

    J.-i. Yoshikawa, S. Yokoyama, T. Kaji, C. Sorn- phiphatphong, Y. Shiozawa, K. Makino, and A. Furu- sawa, Invited Article: Generation of one-million-mode continuous-variable cluster state by unlimited time- domain multiplexing, APL Photonics1, 060801 (2016)

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum informa- tion with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005)

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Adesso and F

    G. Adesso and F. Illuminati, Entanglement in continuous-variable systems: recent advances and current perspectives, Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical40, 7821

    work page

  13. [13]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods, 2nd ed

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods, 2nd ed. (CRC Press, 2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Furusawa and P

    A. Furusawa and P. van Loock,A Hybrid Approach to Optical Quantum Information Processing(Wiley, 2011)

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    Asavanant and A

    W. Asavanant and A. Furusawa, Multipartite continuous-variable optical quantum entanglement: Generation and application, Phys. Rev. A109, 040101 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, and M. F. A. et al, Quan- tum computational advantage with a programmable pho- tonic processor, Nature606, 75 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    work page 2001

  19. [19]

    B. Q. Baragiola, G. Pantaleoni, R. N. Alexander, A. Karanjai, and N. C. Menicucci, All-gaussian universal- ity and fault tolerance with the gottesman-kitaev-preskill code, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 200502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Walschaers, Non-gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, Non-gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Barral Ra˜ na, M

    D. Barral Ra˜ na, M. Isoard, G. Sorelli, M. Gessner, N. Treps, and M. Walschaers, Metrological detection of entanglement generated by non-gaussian operations, New Journal of Physics (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    P. J. Goulart and Y. Chen, Clarabel: An interior- point solver for conic programs with quadratic objectives (2024), arXiv:2405.12762 [math.OC]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    O’Donoghue, E

    B. O’Donoghue, E. Chu, N. Parikh, and S. Boyd, Conic optimization via operator splitting and homogeneous self- dual embedding, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications169, 1042 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    , author Dowson, O

    M. Lubin, O. Dowson, J. Dias Garcia, J. Huchette, B. Legat, and J. P. Vielma, JuMP 1.0: Recent im- provements to a modeling language for mathematical optimization, Mathematical Programming Computation 10.1007/s12532-023-00239-3 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1007/s12532-023-00239-3 2023

  25. [25]

    Clearly, this approach works in Linux only

    We obtain the maximal amount of RAM by reading the VmHWMvalue from/proc/PID/status, wherePIDis the process ID of the Julia script that solves the problem. Clearly, this approach works in Linux only. We do not know, nor do we care about, how to obtain this value on other platforms

    work page

  26. [26]

    L. Lami, A. Serafini, and G. Adesso, Gaussian entangle- ment revisited, New J. Phys.20, 023030 (2018)

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Hyllus and J

    P. Hyllus and J. Eisert, Optimal entanglement witnesses for continuous-variable systems, New Journal of Physics 8, 51 (2006)

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    Estimating the Degree of Entanglement of Unknown Gaussian States

    J. Anders, Estimating the degree of entanglement of un- known gaussian states (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0610263 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  29. [29]

    Giedke, J

    G. Giedke, J. Eisert, J. I. Cirac, and M. B. Plenio, Entan- glement transformations of pure gaussian states, Quan- tum Inf. Comput.3, 211 (2003)

    work page 2003

  30. [30]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Continuous vari- able quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond, Open Systems & Information Dynamics21, 1440001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    Mihaescu, H

    T. Mihaescu, H. Kampermann, A. Isar, and D. Bruß, Steering witnesses for unknown gaussian quantum states, New Journal of Physics25, 113023 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Gerke, J

    S. Gerke, J. Sperling, W. Vogel, Y. Cai, J. Roslund, N. Treps, and C. Fabre, Full multipartite entanglement of frequency-comb gaussian states, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 050501 (2015)

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Leskovjanov´ a and L

    O. Leskovjanov´ a and L. Miˇ sta, Minimal criteria for continuous-variable genuine multipartite entanglement (2024), arXiv:2401.04376 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    M. A. de Gosson,Symplectic Methods in Harmonic Anal- ysis and in Mathematical Physics(Birkh¨ auser, 2010), Theorem 98, p. 67

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2013) p. 27

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    van Loock and A

    P. van Loock and A. Furusawa, Detecting genuine multi- partite continuous-variable entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 67, 052315 (2003)

    work page 2003

  37. [37]

    Shchukin and P

    E. Shchukin and P. van Loock, Recovering quantum properties of continuous-variable states in the presence of measurement errors, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 140504 (2016)

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, 2004), Sect.1.2.2, p. 6

    work page 2004

  39. [39]

    N. J. Salkind, ed.,Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics(SAGE Publications, 2006)

    work page 2006

  40. [40]

    Franklin,Shifting standards: Experiments in particle physics in the twentieth century(University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013)

    A. Franklin,Shifting standards: Experiments in particle physics in the twentieth century(University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013)

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2013) p. 445

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2013) p. 504

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    M. A. de Gosson,Symplectic Geometry and Quantum Mechanics(Birkh¨ auser, 2006) Theorem 8.11, p. 244 53

    work page 2006

  44. [44]

    M. A. de Gosson,Symplectic Geometry and Quantum Mechanics(Birkh¨ auser, 2006) Proposition 8.12, p. 245

    work page 2006

  45. [45]

    Hiroshima, Additivity and multiplicativity properties of some gaussian channels for gaussian inputs, Phys

    T. Hiroshima, Additivity and multiplicativity properties of some gaussian channels for gaussian inputs, Phys. Rev. A73, 012330 (2006)

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    Shurbet, T

    G. Shurbet, T. Lewis, and T. Boullion, Quadratic matrix equations, The Ohio journal of science74(1974)

    work page 1974

  47. [47]

    van Loock and S

    P. van Loock and S. L. Braunstein, Multipartite entangle- ment for continuous variables: A quantum teleportation network, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 3482 (2000)

    work page 2000

  48. [48]

    Adesso, A

    G. Adesso, A. Serafini, and F. Illuminati, Quantification and scaling of multipartite entanglement in continuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 220504 (2004)

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    Serafini, G

    A. Serafini, G. Adesso, and F. Illuminati, Unitarily local- izable entanglement of gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A71, 032349 (2005)

    work page 2005

  50. [50]

    R. F. Werner and M. M. Wolf, Bound entangled gaussian states, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3658 (2001)

    work page 2001

  51. [51]

    Baksov´ a, O

    K. Baksov´ a, O. Leskovjanov´ a, L. Miˇ sta Jr., E. Agudelo, and N. Friis, Multi-copy activation of genuine multipar- tite entanglement in continuous-variable systems, Quan- tum9, 1699 (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    S. M. Tan, Confirming entanglement in continuous vari- able quantum teleportation, Phys. Rev. A60, 2752 (1999)

    work page 1999

  53. [53]

    van Loock and S

    P. van Loock and S. L. Braunstein, Unconditional tele- portation of continuous-variable entanglement, Phys. Rev. A61, 010302 (1999)

    work page 1999

  54. [54]

    Asavanant, Y

    W. Asavanant, Y. Shiozawa, S. Yokoyama, B. Charoen- sombutamon, H. Emura, R. N. Alexander, S. Takeda, J. ichi Yoshikawa, N. C. Menicucci, H. Yonezawa, and A. Furusawa, Generation of time-domain-multiplexed two-dimensional cluster state, Science366, 373 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic generation of a two-dimensional cluster state, Science366, 369 (2019)

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    Aghaee Rad, T

    H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. N. Alexander, B. Al- tieri, M. F. Askarani, R. Baby, L. Banchi, B. Q. Bara- giola, J. E. Bourassa, R. S. Chadwick, I. Charania, H. Chen, M. J. Collins, P. Contu, N. D’Arcy, G. Dauphi- nais, R. De Prins, D. Deschenes, I. Di Luch, S. Duque, P. Edke, S. E. Fayer, S. Ferracin, H. Ferretti, J. Gefaell, S. Glancy, C. Gonz´ alez-A...

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    X. Jia, C. Zhai, X. Zhu, C. You, Y. Cao, X. Zhang, Y. Zheng, Z. Fu, J. Mao, T. Dai, L. Chang, X. Su, Q. Gong, and J. Wang, Continuous-variable multipar- tite entanglement in an integrated microcomb, Nature 10.1038/s41586-025-08602-1 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08602-1 2025

  58. [58]

    Roman-Rodriguez, D

    V. Roman-Rodriguez, D. Fainsin, G. L. Zanin, N. Treps, E. Diamanti, and V. Parigi, Multimode squeezed state for reconfigurable quantum networks at telecommunication wavelengths, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043113 (2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Roy, Typical behaviour of genuine multimode entan- glement of pure gaussian states (2024), arXiv:2404.17265 [quant-ph]

    S. Roy, Typical behaviour of genuine multimode entan- glement of pure gaussian states (2024), arXiv:2404.17265 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024