Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 57 references

Scaling Bound Entanglement through Local Extensions

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Local extensions, the inverse of peel-off projections, are introduced as a constructive scaffold: a PPT state with Schmidt number 3 in 4×5, rising to Schmidt number 5 in 9×9.

desk verdict The local-extension framework is a real contribution, but the headline 4×5 record rests on a false polynomial identity and the 7×7/9×9 records on unreleased computations. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07086 v1 pith:66G46QMW submitted 2025-09-08 quant-ph

Robin Krebs , Mariami Gachechiladze This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Mn
keywords SchmidtnumberPPTstatesboundentanglementlocalextensionsgeneralizedgridpeel-offtheoremsrangecriterionhigh-dimensional
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 introduces local extensions—the inverse operation of peel-off projections—as a systematic way to grow the local dimension of a bipartite state while controlling its Schmidt number, the number of entangled degrees of freedom. Its central theorem bounds how fast the Schmidt number can grow: extending one local dimension can raise it by at most one, and projecting can lower it by at most one. Using this, the authors construct a positive-partial-transpose (PPT) state with Schmidt number three in local dimensions 4×5, which they claim is the smallest system known to host such entanglement, and a family of generalized grid states reaching Schmidt number four in 7×7 and five in 9×9. If the algebraic certificates hold, these are the lowest-dimensional hosts known for bound entangled states of high Schmidt number, and the construction gives a concrete route toward probing how this number scales.

What carries the argument

The central object is the local extension: ρ is a local extension of a core state ρ_c when ρ_c is obtained by projecting ρ onto a local block, and the new rows and columns are chosen so that both ρ and its partial transpose stay positive. A dimension-counting inequality (p+q−mn)n−m bounds how many nontrivial extensions any core admits. The explicit examples are generalized grid states, graphs whose vertices are basis states and whose hyperedges are vectors; the family ρ^(k) has one large diagonal hyperedge plus low-rank edges. Its Schmidt number is certified by the range criterion: every vector of Schmidt rank k−1 in the range must be orthogonal to that large hyperedge. This orthogonality is

What would settle it

Expand the polynomial identity printed in the proof of Theorem 5: substituting g1 through g5 gives ψ00(g5−g3−g4)−ψ02 g1 + ψ20 g2 = ψ00^4 + ψ02ψ20(ψ00^2 + 2ψ01ψ10), not ψ00^4. So the printed Nullstellensatz step is not a valid certificate. A corrected identity, or a certified Gröbner-basis membership test for the same ideal, would settle whether the 4×5 state really has Schmidt number 3; without one, that record claim is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that every high-Schmidt-number state sits on top of a chain of lower-Schmidt-number cores, and that building upward—local extension rather than peel-off projection—is a constructive tool. Theorem 2 states that deleting one local dimension lowers the Schmidt number by at most one, so a one-step extension raises it by at most one. The authors then exhibit explicit grid states: ρ_4×5 is a (1,2)-extension of a 3×3 Schmidt-number-2 grid state and is certified by the range criterion to have Schmidt number 3; the recursive family ρ^(k) reaches Schmidt number k in (2k−1)×(2k−1) for k=2,3,4,5, improving earlier constructions in dimensions 2k×2k and (2k−1)×k(k+1)/2. The pa

Load-bearing premise

The record dimensional claims rest on exact algebraic certificates proving that every low-Schmidt-rank vector in a grid state's range has a zero first coordinate; if any of those certificates—including the one printed for the 4×5 case—fails, the Schmidt-number lower bounds for the record dimensions are not established, even though the extension framework itself may stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 4×5 PPT state with Schmidt number 3 would be the smallest known host of such bound entanglement, living in a 20-dimensional bipartite space.
  • The recursive grid-state family would place Schmidt number 4 in 7×7 and Schmidt number 5 in 9×9, improving the best previous dimensional thresholds.
  • The (d+1)/2 scaling conjecture, if true, implies Schmidt number grows only linearly with local dimension for odd d×d PPT states.
  • The framework converts the search for high-Schmidt-number PPT states into an algebraic certification task: check whether a monomial lies in the ideal of minors.
  • The general projection bound means no local dimension reduction can remove more than one Schmidt-number level, a structural constraint on both constructions and witnesses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: Supplying a repaired identity for the 4×5 case, or a certified Gröbner-basis computation for k=4 and 5, is the immediate testable next step; the same software pipeline would settle whether k=6 continues the linear scaling.
  • Editorial: The 4×5 construction extends the two subsystems asymmetrically, suggesting that non-square dimensions tailored to the core state may beat the homogeneous (2k−1)×(2k−1) family in future searches.
  • Editorial: The unextendibility results for low-dimensional PPT states of fixed rank hint that the presence of product vectors in the range is the dividing line between extendible and unextendible cores; mapping that boundary would sharpen guesses about where high-Schmidt-number states can exist.
  • Editorial: Because the Schmidt-number certificate is independent of the state's weights, the lower bound in the grid-state family is robust to renormalization; only the PPT property depends on choosing the weights correctly.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'local extensions' as the inverse of peel-off projections and uses them to construct bipartite PPT states with high Schmidt number. The main framework result (Theorem 2) states that a local projection drops the Schmidt number by at most one; the authors also derive counts of local extensions from birank data and prove some low-dimensional unextendibility results. The headline application is a claimed PPT state of Schmidt number 3 in 4×5 dimensions, called the smallest system known, followed by 7×7 (Schmidt number 4) and 9×9 (Schmidt number 5) examples from a recursive family of generalized grid states. The lower bounds on Schmidt number are proved via the range criterion, with the algebraic core being an ideal-membership statement certified by a displayed polynomial identity in Theorem 5 and, for larger k, by SAGE Groebner-basis computations reported in SM F.

Significance. If the central construction is valid, the paper would supply a genuinely useful constructive toolkit for high-dimensional bound entanglement: Theorem 2 and its Schur-complement reformulation (Theorem 6) are clean, explicit, and appear sound, and the grid-state family is elegant. The claimed 4×5 Schmidt-number-3 PPT state would be a record threshold, and the (2k−1)×(2k−1) family with Schmidt number k would improve on earlier constructions and suggest an interesting (d+1)/2 scaling conjecture. The paper also has the virtue of framing the lower-bound certification as an exact algebraic problem (integer-coefficient polynomial ideal membership), which is the right approach for reproducible proofs. However, the record claims stand or fall on the correctness of those algebraic certificates, and as printed the main certificate is not correct.

major comments (3)
  1. [Proof of Theorem 5, Eq. (12) and following displayed identity] The proof that SN(ρ_4x5)>2 rests entirely on the claimed identity ψ00(g5 − g3 − g4) − ψ02 g1 + ψ20 g2 = ψ00^4. Expanding the left-hand side using the definitions in Eq. (12) gives ψ00^4 + ψ02 ψ20 (ψ00^2 + 2 ψ01 ψ10), not ψ00^4. The ψ02 ψ20 term does not vanish identically, so the displayed Nullstellensatz certificate is algebraically false. Consequently, the membership of ψ00^4 in the ideal generated by {g1,...,g5} is not established, and the conclusion that every Schmidt-rank-2 state in the range is orthogonal to |e*> is unsupported. Unless a correct polynomial identity (or another valid membership certificate) is supplied, the 4×5 'smallest known' claim is not proven.
  2. [SM F, ideal-membership claims for k=4 and k=5] The statements that α^k lies in the ideal of k×k minors for k=4,5 are asserted from SAGE Groebner-basis runs, but no code, computation logs, or certificates are provided. Because the ideal-membership certificates are the only evidence for SN(ρ^(4))=4 and SN(ρ^(5))=5, these record claims are not independently verifiable. This is especially concerning given the false identity in Theorem 5: the reader has no way to check whether the SAGE computations suffer from a similar issue. Please include reproducible scripts (or a human-checkable algebraic certificate) for each claimed membership, or state precisely which polynomial reductions were performed.
  3. [Theorem 5, range parametrization] The proof parametrizes a vector |ψ> in R(ρ_4x5) by the matrix in Eq. (11) without deriving why every vector in the range has this coordinate pattern. If the parametrization intentionally defines the range (e.g., via the grid-state edges), this should be stated explicitly and justified; if it is only a subset, then the range-criterion argument does not cover all Schmidt-rank-2 vectors in R(ρ_4x5), and the contradiction would fail even with a correct ideal-membership certificate.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (12)] The notation 'g:={...}=0' is confusing: it suggests a set of equations rather than a set of polynomials. Please write g_i explicitly and then state the polynomial equations g_i=0.
  2. [SM F, Eq. (F2)] The definition of d_i uses d_i ≡ min(i, 2k−1−i), but the index range of δ_i is not stated precisely; the text later uses 1≤i≤2k−2. Please make the index ranges of all edge variables uniform.
  3. [General notation] The partial transpose is applied to subsystem A in Eq. (7) but to subsystem B in SM D (where (ρ_3×3)^TB is computed). The asymmetry is harmless but should be flagged so readers do not misread the formulas as inconsistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained; the identified defects are an arithmetically false polynomial identity and unreleased SAGE certificates, which are correctness/reproducibility issues, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Local extensions are defined as the inverse of SLOCC projections, and Theorem 2's Schmidt-number bound is proven directly from a Schur-complement ansatz. The Schmidt-number lower bounds for the constructed states are obtained via the range criterion and ideal membership, not from the fitted weights d_i; SM F explicitly notes that the Schmidt-number result is independent of the d_i. The self-citations to [35] are used as dimension benchmarks and as a source of grid-state notation, which the paper redefines in place, so no load-bearing argument is imported from the authors' prior work. The serious defects are non-circular: in Theorem 5, the displayed Nullstellensatz identity psi_00(g5 - g3 - g4) - psi_02 g1 + psi_20 g2 = psi_00^4 expands to psi_00^4 + psi_02 psi_20 (psi_00^2 + 2 psi_01 psi_10), so the printed algebraic certificate is false; and in SM F, the k=4,5 ideal-membership assertions are reported from SAGE runs without shipped code or certificates. These are correctness and reproducibility gaps in the record-dimensionality claims, not cases where the output is equivalent to the input by construction. Thus the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to a target prediction: all weights and extension operators are disclosed construction choices, and the Schmidt-number proofs are independent of the d_i. No new physical entities are postulated; the local extension is a mathematical construction, not a new force, particle, or dimension. The paper relies on standard algebraic geometry (Nullstellensatz), standard results on positive maps, and external classifications of low-rank PPT states, all cited. The only questionable premise is the computational certificate, which fails verification for k = 3 and is absent for k = 4, 5.

free parameters (3)
  • weights d_i = min(i, 2k−1−i) in rho^(k) = min(i, 2k−1−i), i = 1..2k−2
    Hand-chosen in SM F to make the 2k x 2k block D of the partial transpose positive semidefinite. Disclosed construction choice; the Schmidt-number proof is explicitly independent of d_i.
  • core weights r_i = (1,1,1,3,3) of rho_3x3 = (1,1,1,3,3)
    Hand-chosen weights of the five edges defining the 3x3 grid state (SM D). They fix the rank (5) and the specific range structure used in the extension.
  • extension operators chi = |20><3| and |02><3| = described in Theorem 5 construction
    Concrete choices of off-diagonal blocks used in the two nontrivial B-extensions. Disclosed design choices, not fitted to a target.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Choi decomposition: every k-positive map phi from B(C^m) to B(C^n) decomposes as psi + gamma o eta with psi completely positive, gamma (k−1)-positive on B(C^(m−1)), and eta(rho) = V rho V^dagger.
    Used in Observation 1 and restated from Ref. [40] without proof.
  • domain assumption 3x3 rank-4 PPT entangled states have exactly six product states in the kernel (five linearly independent, one dependent).
    Load-bearing for Theorem 4 (unextendibility); cited to Chen and Djokovic [47].
  • domain assumption Every 2xn PPT state with a product vector in its kernel is separable.
    Used in Observation 3 and in SM E's separability step; cited to Kraus et al. [45].
  • domain assumption Range criterion: a state rho has Schmidt number > k if every Schmidt rank <= k vector in R(rho) is orthogonal to some |e*⟩ in R(rho) with non-zero overlap with rho.
    Core certification tool in Theorem 5 and SM F; cited to Sanpera, Bruss, Lewenstein [51].
  • standard math Hilbert's Nullstellensatz over C: if a power of psi_00 lies in the ideal generated by the minors, then psi_00 vanishes on all common complex zeros.
    Explicitly invoked in the Theorem 5 proof; standard algebraic geometry.
  • domain assumption All 4x4 PPT states of rank 6 are classified and all are unextendible.
    One-sentence claim in 'Results on PPT local extensions'; cited to Leinaas, Myrheim, Sollid [48].
  • ad hoc to paper The polynomial identity in Theorem 5 and the SAGE ideal-membership checks for k = 4, 5 are correct.
    Load-bearing computational premise. The k = 3 identity fails direct term-by-term expansion (left side equals psi_00^4 + psi_02 psi_20 (psi_00^2 + 2 psi_01 psi_10)), and the k = 4, 5 checks are not supplied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Bound Entanglement through Local Extensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/66G46QMW

@misc{pith2026250907086,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Bound Entanglement through Local Extensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/66G46QMW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07086}
}
abstract

Entanglement is a central resource in quantum information science, yet its structure in high dimensions remains notoriously difficult to characterize. One of the few general results on high-dimensional entanglement is given by peel-off theorems, which relate the entanglement of a state to that of its lower-dimensional local projections. We build on this idea by introducing local extensions, the inverse process to peel-off projections, which provide a systematic way to construct higher-dimensional entangled states from lower-dimensional ones. This dual perspective leads to general bounds on how the Schmidt number can change under projections and extensions, and reveals new mechanisms for generating bound entangled states of higher dimensionality. As a concrete application, we construct a positive-partial-transpose state of Schmidt number three in local dimensions $4\times 5$, the smallest system known to host such entanglement. We further extend this approach to identify an elegant family of generalized grid states with increasing Schmidt number, including explicit examples of a $7\times 7$ state with Schmidt number four and a $9\times 9$ state with Schmidt number five, suggesting $(d+1)/2$ scaling in odd local dimensions $d\times d$. Taken together, our results provide a constructive toolkit for probing the scaling of bound entanglement in high dimensions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem,

    Artur K Ekert, “Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem,” Physical review letters67,661(1991)

    work page 1991

  2. [2]

    3 Proof.We use the notation in Eq

    We now prove Theorem2(See Supplemental ma- terial (SM) A for the equivalent statement in terms of k-positive maps). 3 Proof.We use the notation in Eq. (3). We show that for any conic decomposition ofρ c into vectors{|ψ c i ⟩}i<N we can induce a conic decompositionρ= ∑i | ˜ψi⟩ ⟨˜ψi|+ ρsep, with SR(| ˜ψi⟩)≤SR(|ψ c i ⟩) +1 and a separableρ sep, with the foll...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Then, there exists a PPT local extension with χ= |αβ⟩ ⟨γ|, which satisfies Eq. (8). Curiously, in this construction, the associated state| ˜χ⟩AB ¯B is a prod- uct state, and thus contains no entanglement. How- ever, this simple form of an extension can be used to increase the Schmidt number. Finally, we choose ρe with a minimal rank,ρ e =⟨αβ|ρ −1 c |αβ⟩ |...

    work page

  4. [4]

    ,g5}, and the Nullstellensatz guarantees that every common zero of theg i must satisfyψ 00 =0, concluding the proof

    Thus,ψ 4 00 belongs to the ideal generated by{g 1, . . . ,g5}, and the Nullstellensatz guarantees that every common zero of theg i must satisfyψ 00 =0, concluding the proof. 5 To conclude, we discuss the scaling of the Schmidt number with increasing local dimensions. In earlier work, an infinite family of Schmidt numberkPPT states was constructed in nonho...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (D6) This property hints at the existence of Schmidt number 3 extensions ofρ 3×3, which are confirmed in Theorem5. Supplementary Material E: A single extension ofρ 3×3 is insufficient As discussed in the main text, after performing a trivial extension on subsystem A ofρ 3×3, and a single nontrivial extension with |20⟩ ⟨3| on subsystem B, the resulting sta...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Quantum cryptography,

    Nicolas Gisin, Grégoire Ribordy, Wolfgang Tittel, and Hugo Zbinden, “Quantum cryptography,” Reviews of modern physics74,145(2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    The quantum internet,

    H Jeff Kimble, “The quantum internet,” Nature453, 1023–1030(2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,

    Stephanie Wehner, David Elkouss, and Ronald Hanson, “Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,” Sci- ence362, eaam9288(2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    A one-way quantum computer,

    Robert Raussendorf and Hans J Briegel, “A one-way quantum computer,” Physical review letters86,5188 (2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

    Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the stan- dard quantum limit,

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone, “Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the stan- dard quantum limit,” Science306,1330–1336(2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    Quantum en- tanglement,

    Ryszard Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki, “Quantum en- tanglement,” Reviews of modern physics81,865–942 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    An introduc- tion to entanglement measures,

    Martin B Plenio and Shashank Virmani, “An introduc- tion to entanglement measures,” arXiv preprint quant- ph/0504163(2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    Entanglement detec- tion,

    Otfried Gühne and Géza Tóth, “Entanglement detec- tion,” Physics Reports474,1–75(2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Classical complexity and quantum en- tanglement,

    Leonid Gurvits, “Classical complexity and quantum en- tanglement,” Journal of Computer and System Sciences 69,448–484(2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    Classical deterministic complexity of edmonds’ problem and quantum entanglement,

    Leonid Gurvits, “Classical deterministic complexity of edmonds’ problem and quantum entanglement,” inPro- ceedings of the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(2003) pp.10–19

    2003

  8. [16]

    Strong np-hardness of the quantum separability problem,

    Sevag Gharibian, “Strong np-hardness of the quantum separability problem,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0810.4507 11 (2008)

    2008 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Separability criterion for density matri- ces,

    Asher Peres, “Separability criterion for density matri- ces,” Physical Review Letters77,1413(1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition,

    Pawel Horodecki, “Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition,” Physics Letters A232,333–339(1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    Positive maps of low di- mensional matrix algebras,

    Stanisław Lech Woronowicz, “Positive maps of low di- mensional matrix algebras,” Reports on Mathematical Physics10,165–183(1976)

    1976

  12. [20]

    A decomposition theorem for positive maps, and the projection onto a spin factor,

    Erling Størmer, “A decomposition theorem for positive maps, and the projection onto a spin factor,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.3332(2013)

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Violations of local realism by two entangled n- dimensional systems are stronger than for two qubits,

    Dagomir Kaszlikowski, Piotr Gnaci ´ nski, Marek ˙Zukowski, Wieslaw Miklaszewski, and Anton Zeilinger, “Violations of local realism by two entangled n- dimensional systems are stronger than for two qubits,” Physical Review Letters85,4418(2000)

    2000

  14. [22]

    Experimental violation of a spin-1bell in- equality using maximally entangled four-photon states,

    John C Howell, Antia Lamas-Linares, and Dik Bouwmeester, “Experimental violation of a spin-1bell in- equality using maximally entangled four-photon states,” Physical Review Letters88,030401(2002)

    2002

  15. [23]

    Entanglement of the orbital angular momen- tum states of photons,

    Alois Mair, Alipasha Vaziri, Gregor Weihs, and Anton Zeilinger, “Entanglement of the orbital angular momen- tum states of photons,” Nature412,313–316(2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    Orbital angular momentum of photons and the entanglement of laguerre–gaussian modes,

    Mario Krenn, Mehul Malik, Manuel Erhard, and Anton Zeilinger, “Orbital angular momentum of photons and the entanglement of laguerre–gaussian modes,” Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathemat- ical, Physical and Engineering Sciences375,20150442 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Ad- vances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement,

    Manuel Erhard, Mario Krenn, and Anton Zeilinger, “Ad- vances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement,” Nature Reviews Physics2,365–381(2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Experimental high- dimensional quantum teleportation,

    Xiao-Min Hu, Chao Zhang, Bi-Heng Liu, Yu Cai, Xiang- Jun Ye, Yu Guo, Wen-Bo Xing, Cen-Xiao Huang, Yun- Feng Huang, Chuan-Feng Li,et al., “Experimental high- dimensional quantum teleportation,” Physical Review Letters125,230501(2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Characterizing genuine multilevel entanglement,

    Tristan Kraft, Christina Ritz, Nicolas Brunner, Marcus Huber, and Otfried Gühne, “Characterizing genuine multilevel entanglement,” Physical review letters120, 060502(2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Schmidt num- ber for density matrices,

    Barbara M Terhal and Paweł Horodecki, “Schmidt num- ber for density matrices,” Physical Review A61,040301 (2000)

    2000

  21. [29]

    Detection of entanglement with few local mea- surements,

    Otfried Gühne, Philipp Hyllus, Dagmar Bruß, Artur Ek- ert, Maciej Lewenstein, Chiara Macchiavello, and Anna Sanpera, “Detection of entanglement with few local mea- surements,” Physical Review A66,062305(2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Optimization of entanglement wit- nesses,

    Maciej Lewenstein, Barabara Kraus, J Ignacio Cirac, and Pawel Horodecki, “Optimization of entanglement wit- nesses,” Physical Review A62,052310(2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    Mixed-state entanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound

    Michał Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki, “Mixed-state entanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound” entanglement in nature?” Physical Re- view Letters80,5239(1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    Steering bound entangled states: a coun- terexample to the stronger peres conjecture,

    Tobias Moroder, Oleg Gittsovich, Marcus Huber, and Ot- fried Gühne, “Steering bound entangled states: a coun- terexample to the stronger peres conjecture,” Physical re- view letters113,050404(2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Disproving the peres conjecture by showing bell nonlocality from bound entanglement,

    Tamás Vértesi and Nicolas Brunner, “Disproving the peres conjecture by showing bell nonlocality from bound entanglement,” Nature communications5,5297(2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Secure key from bound en- tanglement,

    Karol Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, and Jonathan Oppenheim, “Secure key from bound en- tanglement,” Physical review letters94,160502(2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Unextendible product bases and bound entanglement,

    Charles H Bennett, David P DiVincenzo, Tal Mor, Pe- ter W Shor, John A Smolin, and Barbara M Terhal, “Unextendible product bases and bound entanglement,” Physical Review Letters82,5385(1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    Quantum entanglement and geometry of de- terminantal varieties,

    Hao Chen, “Quantum entanglement and geometry of de- terminantal varieties,” Journal of mathematical physics 47,052101(2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    High-dimensional entangle- ment in states with positive partial transposition,

    Marcus Huber, Ludovico Lami, Cécilia Lancien, and Alexander Müller-Hermes, “High-dimensional entangle- ment in states with positive partial transposition,” Phys- ical Review Letters121,200503(2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Class of genuinely high-dimensionally-entangled states with a positive par- tial transpose,

    Károly F Pál and Tamás Vértesi, “Class of genuinely high-dimensionally-entangled states with a positive par- tial transpose,” Physical Review A100,012310(2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    High schmidt number concentration in quantum bound entangled states,

    Robin Krebs and Mariami Gachechiladze, “High schmidt number concentration in quantum bound entangled states,” Physical Review Letters132,220203(2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Cones of positive maps and their duality re- lations,

    Łukasz Skowronek, Erling Størmer, and Karol ˙Zy- czkowski, “Cones of positive maps and their duality re- lations,” Journal of Mathematical Physics50(2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Characterization of k-positive maps,

    Tomasz Młynik, Hiroyuki Osaka, and Marcin Marciniak, “Characterization of k-positive maps,” Communications in Mathematical Physics406,62(2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Positive- partial-transpose square conjecture for n=3,

    Lin Chen, Yu Yang, and Wai-Shing Tang, “Positive- partial-transpose square conjecture for n=3,” Physical Review A99,012337(2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Positivity of linear maps under tensor powers,

    Alexander Müller-Hermes, David Reeb, and Michael M Wolf, “Positivity of linear maps under tensor powers,” Journal of Mathematical Physics57(2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    All2- positive linear maps from m3(c) to m3(c) are decompos- able,

    Yu Yang, Denny H Leung, and Wai-Shing Tang, “All2- positive linear maps from m3(c) to m3(c) are decompos- able,” Linear Algebra and its Applications503,233–247 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Superactivation and incompressibility of genuine multipartite entanglement,

    Lisa T Weinbrenner, Klára Baksová, Sophia Denker, Simon Morelli, Xiao-Dong Yu, Nicolai Friis, and Otfried Gühne, “Superactivation and incompressibility of genuine multipartite entanglement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18331(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Positive linear maps on c*-algebras,

    Man-Duen Choi, “Positive linear maps on c*-algebras,” Canadian Journal of Mathematics24,520–529(1972)

    1972

  39. [47]

    Entanglement of pure states for a single copy,

    Guifré Vidal, “Entanglement of pure states for a single copy,” Physical Review Letters83,1046(1999)

    1999

  40. [48]

    Characterization of distillability of en- tanglement in terms of positive maps,

    Lieven Clarisse, “Characterization of distillability of en- tanglement in terms of positive maps,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics71,032332 (2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

    Separability in2×n composite quan- tum systems,

    Barabara Kraus, J Ignacio Cirac, Siniša Karnas, and Ma- ciej Lewenstein, “Separability in2×n composite quan- tum systems,” Physical Review A61,062302(2000)

    2000

  42. [50]

    Extreme points of the set of density matrices with pos- itive partial transpose,

    Jon Magne Leinaas, Jan Myrheim, and Eirik Ovrum, “Extreme points of the set of density matrices with pos- itive partial transpose,” Physical Review A76,034304 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    Description of rank four entangled states of two qutrits having posi- tive partial transpose,

    Lin Chen and Dragomir Ž Ðokovi´ c, “Description of rank four entangled states of two qutrits having posi- tive partial transpose,” Journal of mathematical physics 12 52(2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Numerical studies of entangled positive-partial- transpose states in composite quantum systems,

    Jon Magne Leinaas, Jan Myrheim, and Per Øyvind Sollid, “Numerical studies of entangled positive-partial- transpose states in composite quantum systems,” Phys- ical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 81,062329(2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Quantum grid states and hy- brid graphs,

    Biswash Ghimire, Thomas Wagner, Hermann Kamper- mann, and Dagmar Bruß, “Quantum grid states and hy- brid graphs,” Physical Review A107,042425(2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Entanglement properties of quantum grid states,

    Joshua Lockhart, Otfried Gühne, and Simone Severini, “Entanglement properties of quantum grid states,” Phys- ical Review A97,062340(2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Schmidt-number witnesses and bound entanglement,

    Anna Sanpera, Dagmar Bruß, and Maciej Lewenstein, “Schmidt-number witnesses and bound entanglement,” Physical Review A63,050301(2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    Order properties of bounded self- adjoint operators,

    Richard V Kadison, “Order properties of bounded self- adjoint operators,” Proceedings of the American Mathe- matical Society2,505–510(1951)

    1951

  49. [57]

    The Sage Developers,SageMath, the Sage Math- ematics Software System (Version10.04)(2025), https://www.sagemath.org

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.