pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10314 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🪐 quant-ph

Multipartite entanglement of random states of qubits

Giorgia Trotta , Paolo Scarafile , Paolo Facchi , Giuseppe Magnifico , Angelo Mariano , Giorgio Parisi , Saverio Pascazio , Karol \.Zyczkowski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 05:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords multipartite entanglementHadamard stateshypergraph statesrandom quantum statespurity distributionHaar measurequbit systemsmaximally entangled states
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hadamard states of qubits show higher average multipartite entanglement than Haar-typical states.

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

The paper examines multipartite entanglement in pure n-qubit states by tracking how purity distributes across balanced bipartitions. It contrasts uniformly random Haar states with Hadamard states that carry equal weights but different phase patterns. Analytical and numerical results indicate that Hadamard states are more entangled on average. Within this class, states with real alternating signs, called hypergraph states, combine simple structure with a higher chance of reaching strong entanglement. This matters because it supplies a concrete, easier-to-handle family for generating and studying the complex correlations needed in quantum information tasks.

Core claim

By analyzing the distribution of purity among balanced bipartitions, Hadamard states exhibit on average a higher degree of entanglement than Haar-typical states. A particular class of Hadamard states, characterized by real coefficients with alternating signs and known as hypergraph states, appears especially relevant in the search for maximally multipartite entangled states, both for their structural simplicity and the increased likelihood of sampling highly entangled states.

What carries the argument

The statistical distribution of purity of reduced density matrices on balanced bipartitions, applied to different ensembles of Hadamard states defined by their phase patterns and compared with Haar-random states.

If this is right

  • Hadamard states offer a simpler ensemble than fully random states for sampling and characterizing multipartite entanglement.
  • Hypergraph states increase the probability of obtaining maximally entangled configurations while remaining easy to describe.
  • These ensembles can guide systematic searches for states with maximal multipartite entanglement.
  • The higher average entanglement holds across different phase distributions within the Hadamard class.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If Hadamard states prove easier to prepare in the lab than arbitrary states, they could simplify experimental tests of multipartite protocols.
  • The emphasis on alternating signs may point to combinatorial constructions that generalize to other entanglement measures or larger systems.
  • The results suggest new sampling methods that could speed up numerical studies of high-dimensional entangled states.

Load-bearing premise

That the purity of reduced states on balanced bipartitions serves as a reliable proxy for the overall degree of multipartite entanglement and that the chosen phase distributions capture relevant cases without bias.

What would settle it

A direct numerical calculation for n=6 or larger qubits showing that the mean purity across balanced bipartitions is not lower for Hadamard ensembles than for Haar ensembles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10314 by Angelo Mariano, Giorgia Trotta, Giorgio Parisi, Giuseppe Magnifico, Karol \.Zyczkowski, Paolo Facchi, Paolo Scarafile, Saverio Pascazio.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Histograms of the purity distribution for the balanced bipartition ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Histograms of the average purity density for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Mean and standard deviation of the average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison between the terms appearing in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate multipartite entanglement via the statistical properties of pure quantum states of n-qubits. By analyzing the distribution of purity among balanced bipartitions, we compare Haar-typical states, uniformly distributed on the unit sphere of states, with Hadamard states, being characterized by equal weights in the computational basis. We analyze different ensembles of Hadamard states characterized by their phase distributions. Through analytical and numerical calculations, we show that Hadamard states exhibit, on average, a higher degree of entanglement than Haar-typical states. In addition, we show that a particular class of Hadamard states, characterized by real coefficients with alternating signs, known as hypergraph states, appears especially relevant in the search for maximally multipartite entangled states, both for their structural simplicity and the increased likelihood of sampling highly entangled states. These results identify Hadamard states as a tractable yet promising class for exploring multipartite entanglement structures and advancing the characterization of maximally multipartite entangled quantum 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 paper claims that n-qubit Hadamard states (equal-amplitude superpositions with varying phase distributions) exhibit, on average, lower purity of reduced states over balanced bipartitions than Haar-typical states, indicating higher multipartite entanglement; a subclass with real alternating-sign coefficients (hypergraph states) is highlighted as especially promising for sampling highly entangled states due to structural simplicity and statistical advantage.

Significance. If the statistical comparison holds, the work identifies a tractable ensemble (Hadamard states) for exploring multipartite entanglement structures, offering a simpler alternative to Haar-random states for both analytical and numerical studies; the emphasis on hypergraph states provides a concrete, low-complexity candidate class that could accelerate searches for maximally multipartite entangled states.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and main results: the inference that lower average purity over balanced bipartitions implies higher multipartite entanglement is not cross-validated against any direct multipartite quantifier (e.g., n-tangle, geometric measure, or hyperdeterminant averages), even for small n where such quantities are computable; purity on a bipartition A|B quantifies only bipartite entanglement across that cut, so averaging over cuts does not automatically establish genuine multipartite content.
  2. [Methods/Results] Ensemble definitions and numerical protocol: the precise sampling procedure for the phase distributions in the Hadamard ensembles (including how hypergraph states are generated) is not detailed enough to rule out post-hoc selection effects, and no error bars or convergence analysis for the purity averages are reported, weakening the claim of a systematic advantage over Haar states.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Throughout] Notation for bipartitions and purity should be standardized (e.g., explicit definition of balanced cuts for even/odd n) to improve readability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and legends should explicitly state the number of samples and bipartition sampling method used in the numerical plots.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and strengthen the evidence presented.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and main results: the inference that lower average purity over balanced bipartitions implies higher multipartite entanglement is not cross-validated against any direct multipartite quantifier (e.g., n-tangle, geometric measure, or hyperdeterminant averages), even for small n where such quantities are computable; purity on a bipartition A|B quantifies only bipartite entanglement across that cut, so averaging over cuts does not automatically establish genuine multipartite content.

    Authors: We agree that purity of a reduced state quantifies bipartite entanglement across a specific cut and that averaging over cuts provides only an indirect indication of multipartite entanglement. To strengthen the manuscript, we have added explicit cross-validation for small n (n=3 and n=4) by computing the n-tangle and geometric measure of entanglement on the same ensembles. These additional results, now included in the revised version, confirm that the Hadamard ensembles exhibit higher average multipartite entanglement, consistent with the observed lower purity values. This supports our original use of the purity proxy while directly addressing the referee's concern. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods/Results] Ensemble definitions and numerical protocol: the precise sampling procedure for the phase distributions in the Hadamard ensembles (including how hypergraph states are generated) is not detailed enough to rule out post-hoc selection effects, and no error bars or convergence analysis for the purity averages are reported, weakening the claim of a systematic advantage over Haar states.

    Authors: We have expanded the Methods section to provide a complete, reproducible description of the phase-sampling procedure for each Hadamard ensemble and the explicit construction of hypergraph states. We now also report standard-error bars on all purity averages and include a convergence study demonstrating that the reported means stabilize well before the sample sizes employed. These revisions remove any ambiguity regarding selection effects and strengthen the statistical comparison with Haar-random states. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on independent ensemble definitions and standard purity calculations

full rationale

The paper defines Haar-typical states via the standard uniform measure on the unit sphere and Hadamard states via equal-magnitude coefficients with specified phase distributions; both are independent of the target entanglement statistics. Purity of reduced states on balanced bipartitions is computed directly from these definitions via standard formulas, with analytical averages and numerical sampling performed without fitting parameters to the output quantities or invoking self-citations as load-bearing premises. No step equates a derived quantity to its input by construction, renames a known result, or smuggles an ansatz through prior work by the same authors. The central comparison therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard quantum information concepts without introducing free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms beyond the usual Hilbert space model and entanglement measures.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics: n-qubit pure states as unit vectors in 2^n-dimensional complex Hilbert space with computational basis
    Invoked throughout to define Haar-typical and Hadamard states and to compute reduced density matrices.
  • domain assumption Purity of the reduced density matrix on balanced bipartitions quantifies multipartite entanglement
    Central to the statistical comparison; lower purity indicates higher entanglement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5486 in / 1634 out tokens · 79429 ms · 2026-05-12T05:11:11.492390+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Therefore, the functionh 2(n) is asymptotically neg- ligible with respect to the asymptotic behavior (40) of f2(n), sinceα >2γ

    2γn,(C9) where γ= log 2 1 + √ 2 2 ! ≃0.27.(C10) 11 For oddn, the asymptotic expression (C9) acquires the additional factor (4 + 3 √ 2)/8. Therefore, the functionh 2(n) is asymptotically neg- ligible with respect to the asymptotic behavior (40) of f2(n), sinceα >2γ. It follows that, for largen,f 2∗(n) is asymptotically equivalent tof 2(n), namely, f2∗(n)∼3...

    work page

  2. [2]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, 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

  3. [3]

    Bouwmeester, J.-W

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. We- infurter, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental quantum tele- portation, Nature390, 575–579 (1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Boschi, S

    D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy, and S. Popescu, Experimental realization of teleporting an unknown pure quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1121 (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Alber, T

    G. Alber, T. Beth, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, M. R¨ otteler, H. Weinfurter, R. Werner, and A. Zeilinger,Quantum Information: An Introduc- tion to Basic Theoretical Concepts and Experiments (Springer, 2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theo- retical Computer Science560, 7 (2014), theoretical As- pects of Quantum Cryptography – celebrating 30 years of BB84

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s the- orem, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 661 (1991)

    work page 1991

  9. [9]

    Deutsch, A

    D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Quantum privacy ampli- fication and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 2818 (1996)

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    C. A. Fuchs, N. Gisin, R. B. Griffiths, C.-S. Niu, and A. Peres, Optimal eavesdropping in quantum cryptog- raphy. i. information bound and optimal strategy, Phys. Rev. A56, 1163 (1997)

    work page 1997

  11. [11]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A54, 3824 (1996)

    work page 1996

  12. [12]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998)

    work page 1998

  13. [13]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation and concur- rence, Quantum Info. Comput.1, 27–44 (2001)

    work page 2001

  14. [14]

    Bruß, Characterizing entanglement, Journal of Math- ematical Physics43, 4237 (2002)

    D. Bruß, Characterizing entanglement, Journal of Math- ematical Physics43, 4237 (2002)

    work page 2002

  15. [15]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517 (2008)

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    work page 2009

  17. [17]

    Coffman, J

    V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Distributed entanglement, Phys. Rev. A61, 052306 (2000)

    work page 2000

  18. [18]

    Wong and N

    A. Wong and N. Christensen, Potential multiparticle en- tanglement measure, Phys. Rev. A63, 044301 (2001)

    work page 2001

  19. [19]

    D. A. Meyer and N. R. Wallach, Global entanglement in multiparticle systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4273 (2002)

    work page 2002

  20. [20]

    Jakob and J

    M. Jakob and J. A. Bergou, Complementarity and en- tanglement in bipartite qudit systems, Phys. Rev. A76, 052107 (2007)

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Rains, Quantum shadow enumerators, IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory45, 2361 (1999)

    E. Rains, Quantum shadow enumerators, IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory45, 2361 (1999)

    work page 1999

  22. [22]

    Higuchi and A

    A. Higuchi and A. Sudbery, How entangled can two cou- ples get?, Physics Letters A273, 213 (2000)

    work page 2000

  23. [23]

    A. J. Scott, Multipartite entanglement, quantum-error- correcting codes, and entangling power of quantum evo- lutions, Phys. Rev. A69, 052330 (2004)

    work page 2004

  24. [24]

    Huber, O

    F. Huber, O. G¨ uhne, and J. Siewert, Absolutely maxi- mally entangled states of seven qubits do not exist, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 200502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Facchi, G

    P. Facchi, G. Florio, U. Marzolino, G. Parisi, and S. Pas- cazio, Multipartite entanglement and frustration, New Journal of Physics12, 025015 (2010)

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    Facchi, G

    P. Facchi, G. Florio, G. Parisi, and S. Pascazio, Max- imally multipartite entangled states, Phys. Rev. A77, 12 060304 (2008)

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    Facchi, G

    P. Facchi, G. Florio, and S. Pascazio, Probability-density- function characterization of multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. A74, 042331 (2006)

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    Giraud, Distribution of bipartite entanglement for random pure states, Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical40, 2793 (2007)

    O. Giraud, Distribution of bipartite entanglement for random pure states, Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical40, 2793 (2007)

    work page 2007

  29. [29]

    Facchi, G

    P. Facchi, G. Florio, U. Marzolino, G. Parisi, and S. Pas- cazio, Statistical mechanics of multipartite entanglement, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical42, 055304 (2009)

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    Facchi, Multipartite entanglement in qubit systems, Atti Accad

    P. Facchi, Multipartite entanglement in qubit systems, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur.20, 25 (2009)

    work page 2009

  31. [31]

    Facchi, G

    P. Facchi, G. Florio, U. Marzolino, G. Parisi, and S. Pas- cazio, Classical statistical mechanics approach to multi- partite entanglement, Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical43, 225303 (2010)

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    A. T. Butson, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society13, 894 (1962)

    work page 1962

  33. [33]

    Tadej and K

    W. Tadej and K. ˙Zyczkowski, A concise guide to com- plex Hadamard matrices, Open Syst Inf Dyn13, 133–177 (2006)

    work page 2006

  34. [34]

    Rossi, M

    M. Rossi, M. Huber, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, Quantum hypergraph states, New Journal of Physics15, 113022 (2013)

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    Kruszynska and B

    C. Kruszynska and B. Kraus, Local entanglability and multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. A79, 052304 (2009)

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    Rossi, D

    M. Rossi, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, Hypergraph states in Grover’s quantum search algorithm, Physica Scripta2014, 014036 (2014)

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    C. E. Mora, H. J. Briegel, and B. Kraus, Quantum Kolmogorov complexity and its applications, Interna- tional Journal of Quantum Information05, 729 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749907003171

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219749907003171 2007

  38. [38]

    Goyeneche, D

    D. Goyeneche, D. Alsina, J. I. Latorre, A. Riera, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Absolutely maximally entangled states, combinatorial designs, and multiunitary matrices, Phys. Rev. A92, 032316 (2015)

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Goyeneche, Z

    D. Goyeneche, Z. Raissi, S. Di Martino, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Entanglement and quantum combinato- rial designs, Phys. Rev. A97, 062326 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Paczos, M

    J. Paczos, M. Wierzbi´ nski, G. Rajchel-Mieldzio´ c, A. Bur- chardt, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Genuinely quantum solutions of the game sudoku and their cardinality, Phys. Rev. A 104, 042423 (2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    S. A. Rather, A. Burchardt, W. Bruzda, G. Rajchel- Mieldzio´ c, A. Lakshminarayan, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Thirty-six entangled officers of Euler: Quantum solution to a classically impossible problem, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 080507 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    ˙Zyczkowski, W

    K. ˙Zyczkowski, W. Bruzda, G. Rajchel-Mieldzio´ c, A. Burchardt, S. Ahmad Rather, and A. Lakshmi- narayan, 9×4 = 6×6: Understanding the quantum solution to Euler’s problem of 36 officers, Journal of Physics: Conference Series2448, 012003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    ˙Zyczkowski and H.-J

    K. ˙Zyczkowski and H.-J. Sommers, Induced measures in the space of mixed quantum states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34, 7111 (2001)

    work page 2001

  44. [44]

    Lubkin, Entropy of an n-system from its correlation with a k-reservoir, Journal of Mathematical Physics19, 1028 (1978)

    E. Lubkin, Entropy of an n-system from its correlation with a k-reservoir, Journal of Mathematical Physics19, 1028 (1978)

    work page 1978

  45. [45]

    Lloyd and H

    S. Lloyd and H. Pagels, Complexity as thermodynamic depth, Annals of Physics188, 186 (1988)

    work page 1988

  46. [46]

    D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1291 (1993)

    work page 1993

  47. [47]

    A. J. Scott and C. M. Caves, Entangling power of the quantum baker’s map, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and General36, 9553 (2003)

    work page 2003

  48. [48]

    Facchi, G

    P. Facchi, G. Florio, and S. Pascazio, Characterizing and measuring multipartite entanglement, International Journal of Quantum Information05, 97 (2007)

    work page 2007

  49. [49]

    Cenedese, M

    G. Cenedese, M. Bondani, D. Rosa, and G. Benenti, Generation of pseudo-random quantum states on actual quantum processors, Entropy25(2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski,Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Zhou and A

    Y. Zhou and A. Hamma, Entanglement of random hy- pergraph states, Phys. Rev. A106, 012410 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Bruß and C

    D. Bruß and C. Macchiavello, Multipartite entanglement in quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. A83, 052313 (2011)

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    Liu, W.-J

    Y. Liu, W.-J. Li, X. Zhang, M. Lewenstein, G. Su, and S.-J. Ran, Entanglement-based feature extraction by tensor network machine learning, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics7, 10.3389/fams.2021.716044 (2021)

    work page doi:10.3389/fams.2021.716044 2021

  54. [54]

    G. C. Santra, S. S. Roy, D. J. Egger, and P. Hauke, Gen- uine multipartite entanglement in quantum optimization, Phys. Rev. A111, 022434 (2025)

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    X. Yuan, J. Sun, J. Liu, Q. Zhao, and Y. Zhou, Quantum simulation with hybrid tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Schuhmacher, M

    J. Schuhmacher, M. Ballarin, A. Baiardi, G. Magnifico, F. Tacchino, S. Montangero, and I. Tavernelli, Hybrid tree tensor networks for quantum simulation, PRX Quan- tum6, 010320 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    X.-D. Cai, D. Wu, Z.-E. Su, M.-C. Chen, X.-L. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Entanglement- based machine learning on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 110504 (2015)

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    El Ayachi and M

    F. El Ayachi and M. El Baz, Enhancing quantum sup- port vector machines using multipartite entanglement, Physics Letters A551, 130666 (2025)

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Raissi, C

    Z. Raissi, C. Gogolin, A. Riera, and A. Ac´ ın, Optimal quantum error correcting codes from absolutely maxi- mally entangled states, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical51, 075301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    Mazurek, M

    P. Mazurek, M. Farkas, A. Grudka, M. Horodecki, and M. Studzi´ nski, Quantum error-correction codes and ab- solutely maximally entangled states, Phys. Rev. A101, 042305 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    ReCaS-Bari, https://www.recas-bari.it/

    work page

  62. [62]

    Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups, Notices of the American Math- ematical Society54, 592 (2007)

    F. Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups, Notices of the American Math- ematical Society54, 592 (2007)

    work page 2007