Entanglement witnesses for stabilizer states and subspaces beyond qubits

Jakub Szczepaniak; Owidiusz Makuta; Remigiusz Augusiak

arxiv: 2508.13734 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-19 · 🪐 quant-ph

Entanglement witnesses for stabilizer states and subspaces beyond qubits

Jakub Szczepaniak , Owidiusz Makuta , Remigiusz Augusiak This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 22:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords entanglement witnessesgenuine multipartite entanglementstabilizer statesmulti-qudit systemsgraph statesnoise robustnessquantum error correction

0 comments

The pith

A generalization of qubit entanglement witnesses detects genuine multipartite entanglement in multi-qudit stabilizer states and subspaces.

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

The paper extends an earlier method for building entanglement witnesses to cover states and subspaces that come from the stabilizer formalism when each particle has more than two levels. This extension covers graph states defined over any local dimension and provides explicit operators that can certify genuine multipartite entanglement. The resulting witnesses turn out to be more tolerant to certain kinds of noise than the corresponding qubit constructions. A reader would care because genuine multipartite entanglement is required for many quantum information tasks, and practical detection in noisy laboratories benefits from witnesses that remain effective at higher noise levels.

Core claim

We generalize the results of Toth and Guhne to provide a construction of witnesses of genuine multipartite entanglement tailored to entangled subspaces originating from the multi-qudit stabilizer formalism, including graph states of arbitrary local dimension, and show superiority in noise robustness in certain situations.

What carries the argument

Witness operators built directly from the multi-qudit stabilizer formalism that are designed to detect genuine multipartite entanglement in the corresponding states and subspaces.

If this is right

The same construction applies to any graph state whose vertices carry qudits of arbitrary dimension.
The witnesses can certify genuine multipartite entanglement inside subspaces used for quantum error correction.
In some noise models the higher-dimensional witnesses remain negative at noise strengths where the qubit versions have already become positive.
The method supplies a systematic route to witnesses for both pure stabilizer states and mixed states supported on stabilizer subspaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Experimental groups working with qutrits or ququarts could test the noise-robustness claim on small stabilizer states.
The construction may be combined with existing stabilizer-code decoders to give entanglement certification inside fault-tolerant protocols.
If the witnesses remain efficient to measure, they could be used to certify resources for quantum metrology in higher-dimensional systems.

Load-bearing premise

The states and subspaces must be generated by the stabilizer construction for particles with more than two levels each, and the resulting operators must remain valid without checking every possible noise model.

What would settle it

Prepare a noisy version of a three-dimensional graph state, measure the expectation value of the new witness, and check whether it is negative while the qubit-derived witness for the analogous state is not.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13734 by Jakub Szczepaniak, Owidiusz Makuta, Remigiusz Augusiak.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Genuine multipartite entanglement is arguably the most valuable form of entanglement in the multipartite case, with applications, for instance, in quantum metrology. In order to detect that form of entanglement in multipartite quantum states, one typically uses entanglement witnesses. The aim of this paper is to generalize the results of [G. T\'oth and O. G\"uhne, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{72}, 022340 (2005)] in order to provide a construction of witnesses of genuine multipartite entanglement tailored to entangled subspaces originating from the \textit{multi-qudit} stabilizer formalism -- a framework well known for its role in quantum error correction, which also provides a very convenient description of a broad class of entangled multipartite states (both pure and mixed). Our construction includes graph states of arbitrary local dimension. We then show that in certain situations, the obtained witnesses detecting genuine multipartite entanglement in quantum systems of higher local dimension are superior in terms of noise robustness to those derived for multiqubit 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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This generalizes the Toth-Guhne witnesses to multi-qudit stabilizer states and subspaces with some noise-robustness gains in selected cases.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors extend the Toth-Guhne construction of genuine multipartite entanglement witnesses from qubits to multi-qudit systems via the stabilizer formalism, covering graph states of arbitrary local dimension. They build the witnesses using Heisenberg-Weyl operators tied to the stabilizer group and then compare noise robustness against the qubit versions in a few explicit cases, claiming an edge in certain situations. That extension is the concrete new piece, and the algebraic grounding in the existing stabilizer framework looks direct rather than circular. The noise comparisons add a practical angle that the original qubit work did not emphasize as much. The construction itself appears to rest on standard properties of stabilizer subspaces, so the validity for detecting entanglement in biseparable states should follow from the same logic as the qubit case once the operators are defined properly. The soft spot is that the robustness advantage is limited to selected situations and noise models; it is not presented as a universal improvement, which keeps the claim proportionate but also narrows the immediate payoff. Without seeing the full derivations it is hard to judge how tight the witnesses are or whether additional checks against other noise channels would change the picture. This is incremental work aimed at people already working on entanglement detection, stabilizer codes, or higher-dimensional graph states in quantum information. A reader who knows the qubit witnesses and needs the qudit version for metrology or error-correction applications would find the explicit construction useful. The paper is grounded enough and the central claim is a straightforward mathematical extension, so it deserves a serious referee to check the details and scope of the comparisons rather than a desk reject.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript generalizes the Toth-Gühne construction of genuine multipartite entanglement witnesses to the multi-qudit stabilizer formalism. It provides an explicit construction of witnesses tailored to entangled subspaces (including graph states of arbitrary local dimension) via Heisenberg-Weyl operators and compares their noise robustness to the qubit case, claiming superiority in selected situations.

Significance. If the algebraic construction holds, the work supplies a systematic, stabilizer-based method for detecting genuine multipartite entanglement in higher-dimensional systems that are central to quantum error correction and metrology. The extension beyond qubits is a natural and useful step; credit is due for grounding the witnesses directly in the multi-qudit stabilizer group without introducing free parameters.

minor comments (2)

The abstract states superiority 'in certain situations' without naming the noise models or dimensions; adding a short explicit list or reference to the relevant comparison (e.g., the section containing the numerical or analytic robustness plots) would improve clarity for readers.
Notation for the generalized Pauli operators and stabilizer generators in the multi-qudit case could be introduced with one additional sentence or a small table to avoid any ambiguity when the local dimension d > 2.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary of our manuscript and for recommending minor revision. We appreciate the acknowledgment that extending the Toth-Gühne construction to the multi-qudit stabilizer formalism supplies a systematic method for detecting genuine multipartite entanglement in higher-dimensional systems relevant to quantum error correction and metrology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is a self-contained algebraic generalization

full rationale

The paper constructs entanglement witnesses by generalizing the Toth-Guhne approach to multi-qudit stabilizer subspaces via Heisenberg-Weyl operators and the algebraic structure of the stabilizer group. This is a direct mathematical extension resting on established properties of graph states and quantum error correction codes, with explicit noise-robustness checks performed as separate calculations. No step reduces by definition to its own output, no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction, and the cited prior result (Toth-Guhne 2005) is external and independent. The derivation chain therefore remains non-circular and externally grounded.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of the stabilizer formalism to multi-qudit systems and the validity of the witness construction method from the 2005 reference; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Stabilizer formalism provides a convenient description of entangled multipartite states in higher dimensions
Invoked in abstract as the framework for the subspaces and states considered.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5715 in / 1178 out tokens · 27584 ms · 2026-05-18T22:48:13.517657+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

generalize the results of Tóth and Gühne to provide a construction of witnesses of genuine multipartite entanglement tailored to entangled subspaces originating from the multi-qudit stabilizer formalism

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

All together, these two conditions give us c − α d + α − dK ⩾ 0, c − α d − d(K − 1) ⩾ 0

This is achieved, if gj = 0 for all Ci except for one. All together, these two conditions give us c − α d + α − dK ⩾ 0, c − α d − d(K − 1) ⩾ 0. (41) The minimal c is achieved when both of these bounds coin- cide, which implies α = d and so minimal c equals c = (K − 1)d + 1, (42) which ends the proof. Notice, that since c = (K − 1)d + 1, the threshold prob...

work page 2019
[2]

A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

work page 1991
[3]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)

work page 1993
[4]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 865–942 (2009)

work page 2009
[5]

J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

work page 1964
[6]

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

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

work page 2012
[7]

Hyllus, W

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

work page 2012
[8]

Horodecki, P

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

work page 1996
[9]

Horodecki, P

M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separability of n-particle mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of linear maps, Physics Letters A 283, 1 (2001)

work page 2001
[10]

B. M. Terhal, Bell inequalities and the separability criterion, Physics Letters A 271, 319 (2000)

work page 2000
[11]

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

work page 1989
[12]

Tóth and O

G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Detecting genuine multipartite entangle- ment with two local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 060501 (2005)

work page 2005
[13]

Tóth and O

G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Entanglement detection in the stabilizer formalism, Phys. Rev. A 72, 022340 (2005)

work page 2005
[14]

Lewenstein, B

M. Lewenstein, B. Kraus, J. I. Cirac, and P. Horodecki, Opti- mization of entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. A 62, 052310 (2000)

work page 2000
[15]

Augusiak, G

R. Augusiak, G. Sarbicki, and M. Lewenstein, Optimal decom- posable witnesses without the spanning property, Phys. Rev. A 84, 052323 (2011)

work page 2011
[16]

L. O. Hansen, A. Hauge, J. Myrheim, and P. O. Sol- lid, Extremal entanglement witnesses, International Journal of Quantum Information 13, 1550060 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749915500604

work page doi:10.1142/s0219749915500604 2015
[17]

Chru ´sci´nski, J

D. Chru ´sci´nski, J. Pytel, and G. Sarbicki, Constructing optimal entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. A 80, 062314 (2009)

work page 2009
[18]

Sperling and W

J. Sperling and W. V ogel, Multipartite entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 110503 (2013)

work page 2013
[19]

A. Aloy, J. Tura, F. Baccari, A. Acín, M. Lewenstein, and R. Augusiak, Device-independent witnesses of entanglement depth from two-body correlators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100507 (2019). 14

work page 2019
[20]

Chru ´sci´nski, G

D. Chru ´sci´nski, G. Sarbicki, and F. Wudarski, Entanglement witnesses from mutually unbiased bases, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032318 (2018)

work page 2018
[21]

Gühne and G

O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Physics Re- ports 474, 1 (2009)

work page 2009
[22]

Chru ´sci´nski and G

D. Chru ´sci´nski and G. Sarbicki, Entanglement witnesses: con- struction, analysis and classification, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 483001 (2014)

work page 2014
[23]

J. Wang, S. Paesani, Y . Ding, R. Santagati, P. Skrzypczyk, A. Salavrakos, J. Tura, R. Augusiak, L. Man ˇcinska, D. Bacco, D. Bonneau, J. W. Silverstone, Q. Gong, A. Acín, K. Rot- twitt, L. K. Oxenløwe, J. L. O’Brien, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Multidimensional quantum entanglement with large-scale integrated optics, Science 360, 285 (2018), https://ww...

work page doi:10.1126/science.aar7053 2018
[24]

Reimer, S

C. Reimer, S. Sciara, P. Roztocki, M. Islam, L. Romero Cortés, Y . Zhang, B. Fischer, S. Loranger, R. Kashyap, A. Cino, S. T. Chu, B. E. Little, D. J. Moss, L. Caspani, W. J. Munro, J. Azaña, M. Kues, and R. Morandotti, High-dimensional one-way quan- tum processing implemented on d-level cluster states, Nature Physics 15, 148 (2019)

work page 2019
[25]

Ringbauer, M

M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions, Nature Physics 18, 1053 (2022)

work page 2022
[26]

A. M. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996)

work page 1996
[27]

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996)

work page 1996
[28]

Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction

D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997
[29]

Laflamme, C

R. Laflamme, C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, Perfect quantum error correcting code, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 198 (1996)

work page 1996
[30]

Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, An- nals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, An- nals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

work page 2003
[31]

M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Multiparty entanglement in graph states, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062311 (2004)

work page 2004
[32]

M. Hein, W. Dür, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. V . den Nest, and H. J. Briegel, Entanglement in graph states and its applications (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0602096 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[33]

fully non-positive- partial-transpose genuinely entangled subspaces

O. Makuta, B. Kuzaka, and R. Augusiak, "fully non-positive- partial-transpose genuinely entangled subspaces", Quantum 7, 915 (2023)

work page 2023
[34]

Gheorghiu, Standard form of qudit stabilizer groups, Physics Letters A 378, 505 (2014)

V . Gheorghiu, Standard form of qudit stabilizer groups, Physics Letters A 378, 505 (2014)

work page 2014
[35]

Raissi, E

Z. Raissi, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Deterministic gen- eration of qudit photonic graph states from quantum emitters, PRX Quantum 5, 10.1103/prxquantum.5.020346 (2024)

work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020346 2024
[36]

D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going be- yond bell’s theorem, in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe , edited by M. Kafatos (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 69–72

work page 1989
[37]

Makuta, B

O. Makuta, B. Kuzaka, and R. Augusiak, Frus- tration graph formalism for qudit observables https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.22400 (2025), arXiv:2503.22400 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22400 2025
[38]

Gour and N

G. Gour and N. R. Wallach, Entanglement of subspaces and error-correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042309 (2007)

work page 2007
[39]

Gühne, C.-Y

O. Gühne, C.-Y . Lu, W.-B. Gao, and J.-W. Pan, Toolbox for en- tanglement detection and fidelity estimation, Physical Review A 76, 10.1103/physreva.76.030305 (2007)

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.76.030305 2007
[40]

Englbrecht, T

M. Englbrecht, T. Kraft, and B. Kraus, Transformations of Sta- bilizer States in Quantum Networks, Quantum 6, 846 (2022)

work page 2022
[41]

Knill, R

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, R. Martinez, and C. Negrevergne, Benchmarking quantum computers: The five-qubit error cor- recting code, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5811 (2001)

work page 2001
[42]

Tóth, Detection of multipartite entanglement in the vicin- ity of symmetric dicke states, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 24, 275 (2007)

G. Tóth, Detection of multipartite entanglement in the vicin- ity of symmetric dicke states, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 24, 275 (2007)

work page 2007
[43]

Demianowicz and R

M. Demianowicz and R. Augusiak, Entanglement of genuinely entangled subspaces and states: Exact, approximate, and nu- merical results, Phys. Rev. A 100, 062318 (2019)

work page 2019
[44]

Branciard, H

C. Branciard, H. Zhu, L. Chen, and V . Scarani, Evaluation of two different entanglement measures on a bound entangled state, Phys. Rev. A 82, 012327 (2010)

work page 2010
[45]

Bourennane, M

M. Bourennane, M. Eibl, C. Kurtsiefer, S. Gaertner, H. We- infurter, O. Gühne, P. Hyllus, D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Experimental detection of multipartite entangle- ment using witness operators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 087902 (2004)

work page 2004

[1] [1]

All together, these two conditions give us c − α d + α − dK ⩾ 0, c − α d − d(K − 1) ⩾ 0

This is achieved, if gj = 0 for all Ci except for one. All together, these two conditions give us c − α d + α − dK ⩾ 0, c − α d − d(K − 1) ⩾ 0. (41) The minimal c is achieved when both of these bounds coin- cide, which implies α = d and so minimal c equals c = (K − 1)d + 1, (42) which ends the proof. Notice, that since c = (K − 1)d + 1, the threshold prob...

work page 2019

[2] [2]

A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

work page 1991

[3] [3]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)

work page 1993

[4] [4]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 865–942 (2009)

work page 2009

[5] [5]

J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

work page 1964

[6] [6]

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

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

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Hyllus, W

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

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Horodecki, P

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

work page 1996

[9] [9]

Horodecki, P

M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separability of n-particle mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of linear maps, Physics Letters A 283, 1 (2001)

work page 2001

[10] [10]

B. M. Terhal, Bell inequalities and the separability criterion, Physics Letters A 271, 319 (2000)

work page 2000

[11] [11]

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

work page 1989

[12] [12]

Tóth and O

G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Detecting genuine multipartite entangle- ment with two local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 060501 (2005)

work page 2005

[13] [13]

Tóth and O

G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Entanglement detection in the stabilizer formalism, Phys. Rev. A 72, 022340 (2005)

work page 2005

[14] [14]

Lewenstein, B

M. Lewenstein, B. Kraus, J. I. Cirac, and P. Horodecki, Opti- mization of entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. A 62, 052310 (2000)

work page 2000

[15] [15]

Augusiak, G

R. Augusiak, G. Sarbicki, and M. Lewenstein, Optimal decom- posable witnesses without the spanning property, Phys. Rev. A 84, 052323 (2011)

work page 2011

[16] [16]

L. O. Hansen, A. Hauge, J. Myrheim, and P. O. Sol- lid, Extremal entanglement witnesses, International Journal of Quantum Information 13, 1550060 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749915500604

work page doi:10.1142/s0219749915500604 2015

[17] [17]

Chru ´sci´nski, J

D. Chru ´sci´nski, J. Pytel, and G. Sarbicki, Constructing optimal entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. A 80, 062314 (2009)

work page 2009

[18] [18]

Sperling and W

J. Sperling and W. V ogel, Multipartite entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 110503 (2013)

work page 2013

[19] [19]

A. Aloy, J. Tura, F. Baccari, A. Acín, M. Lewenstein, and R. Augusiak, Device-independent witnesses of entanglement depth from two-body correlators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100507 (2019). 14

work page 2019

[20] [20]

Chru ´sci´nski, G

D. Chru ´sci´nski, G. Sarbicki, and F. Wudarski, Entanglement witnesses from mutually unbiased bases, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032318 (2018)

work page 2018

[21] [21]

Gühne and G

O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Physics Re- ports 474, 1 (2009)

work page 2009

[22] [22]

Chru ´sci´nski and G

D. Chru ´sci´nski and G. Sarbicki, Entanglement witnesses: con- struction, analysis and classification, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 483001 (2014)

work page 2014

[23] [23]

J. Wang, S. Paesani, Y . Ding, R. Santagati, P. Skrzypczyk, A. Salavrakos, J. Tura, R. Augusiak, L. Man ˇcinska, D. Bacco, D. Bonneau, J. W. Silverstone, Q. Gong, A. Acín, K. Rot- twitt, L. K. Oxenløwe, J. L. O’Brien, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Multidimensional quantum entanglement with large-scale integrated optics, Science 360, 285 (2018), https://ww...

work page doi:10.1126/science.aar7053 2018

[24] [24]

Reimer, S

C. Reimer, S. Sciara, P. Roztocki, M. Islam, L. Romero Cortés, Y . Zhang, B. Fischer, S. Loranger, R. Kashyap, A. Cino, S. T. Chu, B. E. Little, D. J. Moss, L. Caspani, W. J. Munro, J. Azaña, M. Kues, and R. Morandotti, High-dimensional one-way quan- tum processing implemented on d-level cluster states, Nature Physics 15, 148 (2019)

work page 2019

[25] [25]

Ringbauer, M

M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions, Nature Physics 18, 1053 (2022)

work page 2022

[26] [26]

A. M. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996)

work page 1996

[27] [27]

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996)

work page 1996

[28] [28]

Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction

D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

[29] [29]

Laflamme, C

R. Laflamme, C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, Perfect quantum error correcting code, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 198 (1996)

work page 1996

[30] [30]

Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, An- nals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, An- nals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

work page 2003

[31] [31]

M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Multiparty entanglement in graph states, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062311 (2004)

work page 2004

[32] [32]

M. Hein, W. Dür, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. V . den Nest, and H. J. Briegel, Entanglement in graph states and its applications (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0602096 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

[33] [33]

fully non-positive- partial-transpose genuinely entangled subspaces

O. Makuta, B. Kuzaka, and R. Augusiak, "fully non-positive- partial-transpose genuinely entangled subspaces", Quantum 7, 915 (2023)

work page 2023

[34] [34]

Gheorghiu, Standard form of qudit stabilizer groups, Physics Letters A 378, 505 (2014)

V . Gheorghiu, Standard form of qudit stabilizer groups, Physics Letters A 378, 505 (2014)

work page 2014

[35] [35]

Raissi, E

Z. Raissi, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Deterministic gen- eration of qudit photonic graph states from quantum emitters, PRX Quantum 5, 10.1103/prxquantum.5.020346 (2024)

work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020346 2024

[36] [36]

D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going be- yond bell’s theorem, in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe , edited by M. Kafatos (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 69–72

work page 1989

[37] [37]

Makuta, B

O. Makuta, B. Kuzaka, and R. Augusiak, Frus- tration graph formalism for qudit observables https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.22400 (2025), arXiv:2503.22400 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22400 2025

[38] [38]

Gour and N

G. Gour and N. R. Wallach, Entanglement of subspaces and error-correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042309 (2007)

work page 2007

[39] [39]

Gühne, C.-Y

O. Gühne, C.-Y . Lu, W.-B. Gao, and J.-W. Pan, Toolbox for en- tanglement detection and fidelity estimation, Physical Review A 76, 10.1103/physreva.76.030305 (2007)

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.76.030305 2007

[40] [40]

Englbrecht, T

M. Englbrecht, T. Kraft, and B. Kraus, Transformations of Sta- bilizer States in Quantum Networks, Quantum 6, 846 (2022)

work page 2022

[41] [41]

Knill, R

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, R. Martinez, and C. Negrevergne, Benchmarking quantum computers: The five-qubit error cor- recting code, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5811 (2001)

work page 2001

[42] [42]

Tóth, Detection of multipartite entanglement in the vicin- ity of symmetric dicke states, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 24, 275 (2007)

G. Tóth, Detection of multipartite entanglement in the vicin- ity of symmetric dicke states, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 24, 275 (2007)

work page 2007

[43] [43]

Demianowicz and R

M. Demianowicz and R. Augusiak, Entanglement of genuinely entangled subspaces and states: Exact, approximate, and nu- merical results, Phys. Rev. A 100, 062318 (2019)

work page 2019

[44] [44]

Branciard, H

C. Branciard, H. Zhu, L. Chen, and V . Scarani, Evaluation of two different entanglement measures on a bound entangled state, Phys. Rev. A 82, 012327 (2010)

work page 2010

[45] [45]

Bourennane, M

M. Bourennane, M. Eibl, C. Kurtsiefer, S. Gaertner, H. We- infurter, O. Gühne, P. Hyllus, D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Experimental detection of multipartite entangle- ment using witness operators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 087902 (2004)

work page 2004