Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The exact convex roof for GHZ-W mixtures for three qubits and beyond

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For every rank-two mixture of the three-qubit GHZ and W states, this paper determines the exact convex roof of the square root of the threetangle and describes every optimal decomposition.

desk verdict A plausible exact convex roof for the GHZ-W family that extends the known two-tetrahedron picture, but the completeness argument leans on an unproved non-intersection assumption and a local proof of zero-state locking. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07084 v3 pith:5VQUZEPH submitted 2025-01-13 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Andreas Osterloh This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP MSC 81P40 PACS 03.67.Mn
keywords convexroofthreetangleGHZ-Wmixturezero-statelockingentanglementmeasureBlochsphererank-twodensitymatrixSL-invarianttangle
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

Entanglement measures on mixed states are usually defined through a convex roof: a minimization over all pure-state decompositions of a state, a problem that is generally NP-hard. This paper proves that for the family of rank-two density matrices mixing the three-qubit GHZ state with the W state, the convex roof of the square root of the threetangle $\sqrt{\tau_3}$ can be evaluated exactly over the entire Bloch sphere. The solution is geometric: optimal decompositions must contain as many zero-tangle states as are visible, a property the paper calls zero-state locking, and the remaining optimal pure states are confined to four tetrahedra, a set of circles, and one-parameter families. This converts one nontrivial NP-hard minimization into an explicit closed-form prescription and yields a complete exact convex roof for a genuine multipartite entanglement measure on a full rank-two family.

What carries the argument

The working horse is the zero-state locking theorem: in any optimal decomposition, every pure state on the zero polytope that can be obtained as a convex combination of the density matrix's eigenstates must itself appear in the decomposition. This is proved from the scaling $\tau_d \propto (z-z_j)^{m/d}$ of an SL-invariant tangle near a root, which makes a shifted zero state raise the average tangle when the root multiplicity satisfies $m<d$. Together with the assertion that optimal decompositions are intransparent and cannot intersect, this reduces the candidates to $(n_z,n_e)$ simplices with at most four vertices. The paper also derives the inequality $|\tau''(0)|>\tau_0\rho/d_1$ that decides whether a $(2,1)$ decomposition beats a $(0,2)$ one, and evaluates it for the GHZ-W Bloch sphere.

What would settle it

Take any rank-two GHZ-W state and run a global numerical minimization of the average $\sqrt{\tau_3}$ over all pure-state decompositions. If any decomposition that excludes all visible zero-polytope states returns a value below the paper's (2,1)/(1,1) curve, the claim of completeness is false; the inequality $|\tau''(0)|<\tau_0\rho/d_1$ identifies exactly the region where such a counterexample would have to live.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the convex roof of $\sqrt{\tau_3}$ for $\rho[p] = p\,|GHZ\rangle\langle GHZ| + (1-p)\,|W\rangle\langle W|$ is completely determined by a small set of decomposition types. The optimal decomposition consists of the zero polytope, four three-dimensional tetrahedra — one with the GHZ state as its tip and three new ones with tips $|N_1\rangle, |N_2\rangle, |N_3\rangle$ — three (2,1) curves on azimuthal grand circles, three (2,1) curves on small circles at distance 0.0711148 from the center of the Bloch sphere, and (1,1) decompositions covering the rest. The paper proves zero-state locking for root multiplicities $m<d$ and derives the inequality that decides when $(2,1)$ beats $(0,2)$; for GHZ-W mixtures the inequality is evaluated explicitly, ruling out optimal decompositions made only of entangled states. Because the measure is SL-invariant, the same structure transfers to every state in the SL class of the GHZ-W mixture.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the assertion that optimal decompositions are intransparent: they cannot intersect one another, and every zero-tangle pure state visible from the given density matrix must belong to the optimal decomposition for that state. If that fails, a decomposition built entirely from entangled states could sit below the claimed roof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every rank-two GHZ-W mixture has an exactly computable $\sqrt{\tau_3}$, removing the need for numerical convex-roof searches for this family.
  • The optimal decomposition for a given $\rho[p]$ is known in advance from its location on the Bloch sphere: which tetrahedron, circle, or one-parameter family supplies the minimizing pure states.
  • Zero-state locking gives a general necessary condition for optimality: any visible zero-tangle state must be in the decomposition whenever its root multiplicity is below the tangle's degree.
  • SL-invariance extends the solution from the single GHZ-W line to the whole SL-equivalence class, so the pattern covers all rank-two states in that class.
  • The same construction applies to symmetric mixtures of generalized GHZ and W states for any number of qubits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The inequality (6) is derived in the GHZ-W setting but is a purely rank-two statement; applying it to other SL-invariant measures with different zero-root multiplicities could either confirm zero-state locking as a universal feature or produce the first known counterexamples.
  • If optimal decompositions are genuinely intransparent as assumed, exact convex roofs for rank-three and higher mixed states might be assembled from the rank-two faces of the state space, turning a global NP-hard search into local face-by-face convexification.
  • The reported curve data (circle distance 0.0711148 and normal vectors) provide a sharp quantitative benchmark; any numerical convex-roof routine should reproduce the linear tangle profile along exactly those curves.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims to give an exact solution of the convex roof of the square root of the threetangle for rank-two density matrices, in particular for all states in the Bloch sphere spanned by the GHZ and W states. The solution is described by a zero polytope, four three-dimensional tetrahedra (three of them new, with tips |N1>, |N2>, |N3>), (2,1) decompositions along certain circles, and (1,1) decompositions covering the rest. The two main tools are a "zero-state locking" theorem, proved by a Taylor-expansion argument in Section II, and an inequality (Eq. (6)) that is claimed to decide between (2,1) and (0,2) decompositions. The paper also claims that SL-invariance extends the result to all states in the SL-class of GHZ and W, and it presents numerical evidence from a grating with errors below 4 per mille.

Significance. If the claimed exact convex roof is correct, this is an important result: exact convex roofs for multipartite entanglement measures are rare, and the problem is NP-hard in general. The geometric classification into zero polytope, tetrahedra, curves, and remaining (1,1) decompositions is explicit and could be used to benchmark numerical convex-roof algorithms. The paper also gives a proof attempt of zero-state locking, a structural property that is interesting in its own right. However, the manuscript does not, as written, establish the global optimality that the word "exact" requires: the key arguments are local or rely on an unproved geometric assertion about non-intersection of optimal decompositions. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or reproducible code; the numerical grating, while suggestive, is not a proof.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The zero-state locking proof is local: it shows that if an optimal decomposition contains a zero-state, then shifting that state slightly increases the average tangle for m<d. It does not show that a decomposition that omits the zero-state entirely cannot have lower or equal average tangle. Therefore the statement that every visible zero-state must belong to an optimal decomposition is not established. This is load-bearing because the subsequent classification into (n_z,n_e) types with the maximal number of zero-states uses it.
  2. [Section II, paragraph 'Optimal decompositions do not intersect...'] The exclusion of (0,n_e) decompositions with n_e>1 rests on the assertion that optimal decompositions cannot intersect and can be viewed as intransparent. This assertion is stated but not proved, and the cited Refs. [32,33] only bound the number of pure states in an optimal decomposition; they do not imply disjointness of different optimal decompositions. Without a proof of intransparency, the claimed completeness of the catalog (zero polytope plus four tetrahedra plus (2,1) curves plus (1,1) decompositions) is not established: other decomposition types could lower the convex roof in some regions.
  3. [Section 'n_z,n_e-decompositions with n_e>1', Eq. (6)] Inequality (6) is derived from a second-order Taylor expansion around a zero-state and is evaluated only at p0 for one particular plane (Eq. (9)). It is not shown to be valid globally over the entire Bloch sphere. The paper itself later states that it would be interesting to find examples where the inequality points towards (0,2) decompositions in parts of the Bloch sphere. Consequently, the claim that (2,1) decompositions are always optimal and (0,2) decompositions never are optimal is not proven, and the exactness of the resulting convex roof remains conditional.
  4. [Appendix C, 'Optimal (2,1) decompositions in between...'] The identification of the circular arcs and their distance 0.0711148 from the Bloch-sphere center is justified by a numerical grating with errors smaller than 4 per mille, together with a check of orthogonality of the derivative. Since these arcs are part of the claimed exact classification, the manuscript should either provide an analytic derivation or a rigorous error bound for these quantities. Numerical evidence alone does not establish an exact convex roof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] The text switches between first-person singular and plural ("I" vs. "we") without a consistent convention; this should be harmonized.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The phrase "the two complex conjugated yero states" contains a typo: "yero" should be "zero".
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B4)] There is an unbalanced parenthesis in Eq. (B4), which makes the displayed formula difficult to parse; please check the typesetting.
  4. [Appendix C] The text refers to "the right panel in Fig. 1" when marking the states M_i, but Fig. 1 in the main text appears to have no right panel; the intended reference may be to Fig. 4. Please correct the cross-references.
  5. [References] Several reference entries contain typographical artifacts, such as "D– okovi´ c" and "A VS Quant. Sci."; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the zero-state locking proof and optimality inequality are derived in-paper, and the self-cited structural inputs are parameter-free rather than refitted to the target result.

full rationale

I find no step where a claimed prediction is equivalent by construction to its input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The central new tools are derived in the paper itself: zero-state locking is proved by a local expansion around a zero-polytope root for m<d, and the optimality inequality (6) is derived from a direct comparison of (2,1) and (0,2) decompositions and evaluated using the analytic tangle expressions (7)-(9). The restriction to at most four decomposition states is supported by the external Carathéodory/Uhlmann bounds [32,33]. The decomposition-type framework and the constant p0 are taken from [23] and [28], which are self-citations; however, these enter as parameter-free structural inputs (general rank-two SL-invariant tangle behavior and a fixed root position) and are not refitted to the specific GHZ-W tiling, so under the stated rules they count as independent support rather than circularity. The numerical quantities, such as the circle distance 0.0711148 and the normal vector, are outputs of the minimization procedure on a grating, not inputs that force the claimed result. The 'intransparency'/non-intersection assumption used to exclude (0,n_e) decompositions is asserted rather than proved from first principles, which is a correctness and rigor risk, but it is not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to another by definition, and the completeness claim does not reduce to the inputs by construction.

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

The central construction rests on standard convex-geometry theorems and on two paper-specific assumptions: the intransparency of optimal decompositions and the sufficiency of the second-order expansion. No external data are fitted; numerical constants such as p_c, the angles of |N_i> and |M_i>, and the circle distance 0.0711148 are computed from the stated equations, though not in closed form.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Carathéodory's theorem bounds the number of pure states in an optimal decomposition by (rank ρ)^2, so at most 4 for rank-two density matrices.
    Used in Appendix B to restrict to at most four states and to three-dimensional simplices.
  • ad hoc to paper Optimal decompositions cannot intersect and are intransparent, so only zero-states visible from the density matrix can participate in an optimal decomposition.
    Stated without proof in Section II and used to exclude (0,n_e) decompositions with n_e > 1.
  • domain assumption The d-th root of an SL-invariant tangle of degree 2d scales linearly with probabilities, so convex combinations on the Bloch sphere can be compared by linear interpolation.
    Invoked in the zero-state locking proof and throughout the decomposition analysis.
  • domain assumption For real wavefunction coefficients the zero-polytope roots occur in complex-conjugated pairs, reducing the optimization to a real plane.
    Assumed in Section II and used to derive Eq. (6) via the geometry of two complex-conjugated zero states.
  • ad hoc to paper A second-order Taylor expansion around a zero state is sufficient to decide between (2,1) and (0,2) optimal decompositions.
    Eq. (5) and the inequality (6) rely on truncating at order δφ^2, assuming τ''(0)<0; higher orders are not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The exact convex roof for GHZ-W mixtures for three qubits and beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5VQUZEPH

@misc{pith2026250107084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The exact convex roof for GHZ-W mixtures for three qubits and beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5VQUZEPH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07084}
}
read the original abstract

I present an exact solution for the convex roof of the square root of the threetangle for rank two density matrices and for all states within the Bloch sphere. Aside the formerly known two tetrahedra it contains three additional optimal tetrahedra and connecting triangular optimal decompositions. The remaining optimal decompositions are one-dimensional. Optimal decompositions are proved to contain as many states from the zero-polytope as possible, a property that is called zero-state locking; it will be the working horse throughout this work. In addition, an inequality is derived which decides about the optimality of the decompositions under consideration. The footprint of the measure of entanglement consists in a characteristic pattern for the fixed pure states on the Bloch sphere surface which constitute the optimal solution. This solution is subject to transformation properties due to the SL-invariance of the entanglement measure which renders the optimal decomposition found here to all the states within the SL-class of GHZ and W. The method presented here is directly applicable to the symmetric mixture of generalized GHZ and W states for arbitrary number of qubits but the main structure of the 3-dimensional tetrahedra is general for all rank-two mixtures of states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07084 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Optimal decompositions are obtained for the rank [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left: The zero-polytope is shown (blue) in the Bloch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Difference ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left: States within the Bloch sphere. For a given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Convexification procedure of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Left: Difference of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. From triangles to prisms: towards a geometric extension of concurrence fill for three-qubit mixed states

    quant-ph 2026-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    For rank-2 mixtures of GHZ and W states, the convex-roof concurrence fill is exactly (5λ² - 4λ + 8)/9, derived through a new prism visualization of pure-state decompositions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Vidal, J

    G. Vidal, J. Mod. Opt.47, 355–376 (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    These have to be substituted inm 2(p1, ϕ1;p ′ 2, ϕ′

    work page

  3. [3]

    Therefore, it is enough to perform the classification in a wedge of the Bloch sphere given by the azimuthal an- gleϕ∈[−π/3, π/3] only

    A three-fold rotational symmetry due to cyclic permutations of the qubits exist for both states. Therefore, it is enough to perform the classification in a wedge of the Bloch sphere given by the azimuthal an- gleϕ∈[−π/3, π/3] only. The rest of the sphere is ob- tained by symmetry requirements. Superposition can be given as|Ψ[z]⟩:=|W⟩+z|GHZ⟩with a complex ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    wherex ′ 2 = 2 p p′ 2(1−p ′

    work page

  5. [5]

    8 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00p 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 τ3 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00p 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Δ τ3 FIG

    cosϕ′ 2. 8 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00p 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 τ3 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00p 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Δ τ3 FIG. 6. Convexification procedure of the two corresponding pure states lying on the line given by the vector|Z 1⟩+|Z 2⟩ in a mixed state. The curves are made convex with a line touching atp c = 0.962243, as is highlighted in the inset, were we plot the differe...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Therefore, it is enough to perform the classification in a wedge of the Bloch sphere given by the azimuthal angle ϕ∈[−π/3, π/3] only

    A three-fold rotational symmetry due to cyclic permutations of the qubits exist for both states. Therefore, it is enough to perform the classification in a wedge of the Bloch sphere given by the azimuthal angle ϕ∈[−π/3, π/3] only. The rest of the sphere is obtained by symmetry requirements. One of the pure entangled state is the maximally entan- gled GHZ ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Gurvits, inProceedings of the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, STOC03 (ACM,

    L. Gurvits, inProceedings of the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, STOC03 (ACM,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Gurvits, J

    L. Gurvits, J. Comp. Sys. Sci.69, 448–484 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature464, 45 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    S. S. Gill, A. Kumar, H. Singh, M. Singh, K. Kaur, M. Us- man, and R. Buyya, Software: Practice and Experience 52, 66 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Or´ us, S

    R. Or´ us, S. Mugel, and E. Lizaso, Rev. Phys.4, 100028 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, Nature Physics18, 1053 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Nature photonics1, 165 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    W. Luo, L. Cao, Y. Shi, L. Wan, H. Zhang, S. Li, G. Chen, Y. Li, S. Li, Y. Wang,et al., Light: Science & Applications12, 175 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Cozzolino, B

    D. Cozzolino, B. Da Lio, D. Bacco, and L. K. Oxenløwe, Adv. Quant. Tech.2, 1900038 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    De Santis, K

    G. De Santis, K. Kravtsov, S. Amairi-Pyka, and J. A. Grieve, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08562 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    F. A. Narducci, A. T. Black, and J. H. Burke, Advances in Physics: X7, 1946426 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Reviews of modern physics89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    S. E. Crawford, R. A. Shugayev, H. P. Paudel, P. Lu, M. Syamlal, P. R. Ohodnicki, B. Chorpening, R. Gen- try, and Y. Duan, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 2100049 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, and S. Kais, Photonic Quantum Tech- nologies: Science and Applications2, 651 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Aslam, H

    N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Nature Reviews Physics5, 157 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Schnabel, N

    R. Schnabel, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, and P. K. Lam, Nature Comm.1, 121 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Pezze, A

    L. Pezze, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Polino, M

    E. Polino, M. Valeri, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, A VS Quant. Sci.2(2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, Phys. Rev. A68(2003), 10.1103/physreva.68.012103

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    Osterloh and J

    A. Osterloh and J. Siewert, Phys. Rev. A72, 012337 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    D. ˇZ. D– okovi´ c and A. Osterloh, J. Math. Phys.50, 033509 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Neveling and A

    J. Neveling and A. Osterloh, arXiv:2411.15032 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Hill and W

    S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 5022 (1997)

    1997

  22. [30]

    W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245–2248 (1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    Coffman, J

    V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A61(2000), 10.1103/physreva.61.052306

    2000 doi

  24. [32]

    Eltschka, A

    C. Eltschka, A. Osterloh, and J. Siewert, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032313 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Lohmayer, A

    R. Lohmayer, A. Osterloh, J. Siewert, and A. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 260502 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Eltschka, A

    C. Eltschka, A. Osterloh, J. Siewert, and A. Uhlmann, New J. Phys.10, 043014 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Viehmann, C

    O. Viehmann, C. Eltschka, and J. Siewert, Appl. Phys. B106, 533 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Osterloh, Phys

    A. Osterloh, Phys. Rev. A94, 062333 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Carath´ eodory, Rendiconti Del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-1940)32, 193 (1911)

    C. Carath´ eodory, Rendiconti Del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-1940)32, 193 (1911)

    1911

  30. [38]

    Uhlmann, Open Syst

    A. Uhlmann, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.5, 209 (1998)

    1998

  31. [39]

    Viehmann, C

    O. Viehmann, C. Eltschka, and J. Siewert, Phys. Rev. A83(2011), 10.1103/physreva.83.052330. 10

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    In thez j the tangleτ d is represented by τd = Q2d j=1(z−z j)

    I emphasize thatzis the stereographic projection of the Bloch sphere. In thez j the tangleτ d is represented by τd = Q2d j=1(z−z j)

  33. [41]

    The stereographic projection would lead to a stretching ofθ by the value 1 +|z j|2/4

    The two variables could for example beφandθ. The stereographic projection would lead to a stretching ofθ by the value 1 +|z j|2/4. We therefore prefer to leave it more general

  34. [42]

    Uhlmann, Phys

    A. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. A62, 032307 (2000)

    2000

  35. [43]

    Wong and N

    A. Wong and N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. A63(2001), 10.1103/physreva.63.044301

    2001 doi

  36. [44]

    Cayley, Journal f¨ ur reine und angewandte Mathematik 30, 1 (1846)

    A. Cayley, Journal f¨ ur reine und angewandte Mathematik 30, 1 (1846)

  37. [45]

    Miyake and M

    A. Miyake and M. Wadati, Quant. Info. Comp.2, 540 (2002)

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.