Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Visualizing Three-Qubit Entanglement

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For non-generic GHZ states, the tangle is conjectured to be a pure function of Bloch-norm geometry, making Cayley's hyperdeterminant measurable from single-qubit data.

desk verdict A useful geometric picture with a false central lower bound; the spin-chain analysis is solid and the error looks fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23638 v2 pith:4CW4WXBE submitted 2025-05-29 quant-ph

Alfred Benedito , Germán Sierra This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P42 PACS 03.65.Ud03.67.Mn
keywords three-qubitentanglementtangleCayley'shyperdeterminantBloch-normrepresentationpolytopeGHZclassspin-chaineigenstateslevelrepulsion
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

Three-qubit entanglement is usually classified by algebraic invariants that have no clear geometric meaning. This paper maps every pure three-qubit state to a point $(r_A,r_B,r_C)$ inside a triangular bipyramid and shows that the tangle $\tau$ – the measure of genuine tripartite entanglement – is tightly constrained by the radial distance $R = \sqrt{r_A^2+r_B^2+r_C^2}$ within each entanglement class. The derived bounds $\tau_*(R)\leq\tau(R)\leq\tau_M(R)$, with $\tau_M(R)=1-R^2/3$ attained by generalized GHZ states on the main diagonal, lead to the paper's central conjecture: for all non-generic GHZ states the tangle is $\tau(\vec r)=1-|\vec r|^2/3-d(\vec r,V_{\mathrm{line}})F(\vec r)$, so Cayley's hyperdeterminant is a purely geometric quantity. The paper applies this picture to energy eigenstates of spin-chain Hamiltonians, identifying which states keep genuine tripartite entanglement under symmetry-breaking perturbations and level repulsion. If the conjecture holds, the most opaque invariant of tripartite entanglement becomes a feature of a point in a simple polytope.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the Bloch-norm representation together with the canonical decomposition of three-qubit states. Each state is written as $\lambda_0|000\rangle+\lambda_1e^{i\varphi}|100\rangle+\lambda_2|101\rangle+\lambda_3|110\rangle+\lambda_4|111\rangle$, in which the tangle takes the simple form $\tau=4\lambda_0^2\lambda_4^2$ and $R^2$ is a polynomial in the $\lambda_j$; this makes the relation $\tau$ vs $R$ accessible to an explicit fibration by curves $\lambda_j(R)$. The bounds come from selecting the curve that minimizes $\tau$ at fixed $R$, with the help of a reality condition and the limit $R\to0$ recovering the GHZ state. The geometric ansatz adds the distance to the main diagonal $V_{\mathrm{line}}=\{(t,t,t)\}$, so that the unknown nonnegative function $F$ in Eq. (15) is the term that carries all type-dependent deviation from the diagonal.

What would settle it

Enumerate the canonical-decomposition parameters densely for each GHZ type, compute $(R,\tau,d)$ exactly, and search for a point below the claimed $\tau_\star(R)$, $\tau_\uparrow(R)$, or $\tau_\downarrow(R)$, or for two states with identical $(R,d)$ but different $\tau$. The first such point would refute the class bounds; the first such pair would refute the geometric ansatz Eq. (15).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the tangle of a pure three-qubit state is controlled by its Bloch-norm vector, not by the full algebraic structure. For states in the GHZ class, the paper derives explicit allowed regions in the $(R,\tau)$ plane: generalized GHZ states (type 2b) lie on the curve $\tau_M(R)=1-R^2/3$; types 3b and 4b fill the region $\tau_\star(R)\le\tau\le\tau_M(R)$ with $\tau_\star$ given by a piecewise curve; types 4c and 5 fill a larger region bounded by two branches. These plots motivate the ansatz that for every GHZ state except the generic type 5, $\tau(\vec r)=1-|\vec r|^2/3-d(\vec r,V_{\mathrm{line}})F(\vec r)$, where $d$ is the distance to the main diagonal and the nonnegative function $F$ encodes the asymmetry of the state. Since the tangle equals four times Cayley's hyperdeterminant, the paper conjectures that the hyperdeterminant of such states is a geometrical quantity computable from single-qubit reduced density matrices. Applied to the transverse-field Ising and XZX chains, the same geometric language separates robust eigenstates – those lying on the diagonal with translation-invariant Bloch norms – from fragile ones whose tangle comes from degenerate superpositions and disappears under perturbations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the plotted sample regions for GHZ types 3b, 4b, 4c and 5 exhaust all states of those types, and that the piecewise lower-envelope curve $\tau_\star(R)$, with its numerically chosen crossover at $R\approx0.56$, is the true universal lower bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For generalized GHZ (type 2b) states, the tangle is fixed exactly by the Bloch-norm radius, $\tau=1-R^2/3$, with no other state information needed.
  • For GHZ types 3b and 4b, if the lower bound holds, every state with $R\lesssim0.56$ has tangle at least $5\tau_M(R)-4\sqrt{\tau_M(R)}$, so near-GHZ states cannot be almost W-like in their genuine tripartite entanglement.
  • Cayley's hyperdeterminant for non-generic GHZ states becomes computable from the three single-qubit Bloch norms and the distance to the diagonal, bypassing the full state coefficients.
  • In the studied spin chains, eigenstates with robust tangle are exactly those whose Bloch-norm vector lies on the main diagonal, corresponding to translation-invariant states; tangle produced by degenerate superpositions vanishes when symmetry-breaking perturbations remove the degeneracy.
  • Level crossings change the tangle only by enlarging the available superposition space, and the resulting tangle is fragile under level repulsion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Eq. (15) is correct, experimental determination of the tangle reduces to measuring the three single-qubit reduced density matrices, suggesting a resource-efficient entanglement witness for non-generic GHZ states that does not require full state tomography.
  • The numerically selected crossover at $R\approx0.56$ in the lower-envelope construction is a hint of an analytic bifurcation in the fibration; deriving it from the reality and consistency conditions could turn the empirical bounds into a theorem.
  • A direct test of the ansatz's completeness would be a scan for pairs of non-generic GHZ states with identical $(R,d)$ but different $\tau$; finding one would sharply delimit the domain of the geometric formula.
  • The same $(R,\tau)$ diagram could serve as a classification witness: any measured point outside the claimed region for its presumed type signals either a misidentified type or an unaccounted geometric zone.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Bloch-norm representation of three-qubit states, studies the resulting geometry by entanglement class and type, and uses it to claim class-dependent bounds on the tangle as a function of R = sqrt(r_A^2 + r_B^2 + r_C^2). It then conjectures a purely geometric formula for the tangle and Cayley's hyperdeterminant of non-generic GHZ states, Eq. (15), and applies the framework to the energy eigenstates of several three-qubit spin-chain Hamiltonians, for which exact diagonalizations and canonical decompositions are presented.

Significance. The spin-chain part is a solid piece of exact analysis: Appendix C gives explicit eigenstates, Bloch norms, canonical-decomposition parameters, and tangle formulas for TFIM, XX, XXX, and XZX chains, and the conclusion that robust tangle is associated with translation-invariant states on the main diagonal is clearly supported. The geometric bounds in Section III are the advertised central result, but they are not reliable: one of the claimed bounds, Eq. (12), is falsified by an explicit one-parameter family, and the Appendix B procedure is not a complete minimization. The ansatz Eq. (15) is, as written, a tautology until the function F is specified. If the bounds and the ansatz are corrected and proved, the paper would offer a useful visualization tool; in its present form, the main claim is overstated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (12)] The claimed lower bound tau_*(R) = 5 tau_M(R) - 4 sqrt(tau_M(R)) for R <~ 0.56 is false. Consider the type-3b-12 family |psi(c)> = 2^{-1/2}|000> + sqrt(c)|110> + sqrt(1/2-c)|111>. Its CD parameters are lambda0 = 1/sqrt(2), lambda3 = sqrt(c), lambda4 = sqrt(1/2-c), so tau = 4 lambda0^2 lambda4^2 = 1 - 2c. Direct partial traces give r_A = r_B = 0 and r_C = sqrt(1-tau) = sqrt(2c); hence R^2 = 2c and tau = 1 - R^2 exactly. For every R in (0,1), 1 - R^2 is strictly below 5 tau_M - 4 sqrt(tau_M) (the inequality reduces to 2 sqrt(tau_M) < tau_M + 1, which holds for tau_M < 1). For example, at R^2 = 0.2, tau = 0.8000 while the branch gives 0.8023. The derivation in Appendix B misses this family because it selects a minimizing curve on the reality-condition boundary (B5) rather than minimizing the exact relation tau(R, lambda3) from Eq. (B2) over all admissible lambda3; the counterexample has lambda3^2 strictly inside the reality region. Thus the universal type-3b/4b lower bound in Eq. (12) is not correct as stated.
  2. [Section III and Appendix B] Even setting the explicit counterexample aside, the paper does not prove that the plotted zones exhaust all states of types 3b, 4b, 4c, and 5. The text states 'We find that there are 3 zones where states lie' (Section III) and then selects a piecewise curve with a numerically chosen crossover at R ~ 0.56 (Appendix B), but no argument excludes additional branches or disconnected regions. The upper branch tau_up and lower branch tau_down in Eqs. (13)-(14) are simply reported as 'end results' without a derivation. A bound presented as a derived universal statement requires a global minimization over the full CD parameter range, not a fit to sampled numerical data. The Appendix B method should be replaced or supplemented by a rigorous envelope calculation before the claims of Section III can stand.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (15) and Appendix B, Eqs. (B10)-(B12)] Equation (15) is an identity until F is specified: for any state with tau <= tau_M one can define F(r) = (tau_M - tau)/d, so it carries no predictive content by itself. The paper gives only leading-order examples for F, not a closed form, and the examples are inconsistent with the exact tangle. For the family |psi(c)> above, d^2 = (2/3)(R^2 - sum_{i<j} r_i r_j) = (2/3)(2c) = 4c/3, and Eq. (15) forces F = (tau_M - tau)/d = sqrt(4c/3) = sqrt(2/3) r_C. Equation (16)/(B12) instead states F ~ 2 r_C sqrt(2/3), off by a factor of 2; the error traces to the distance estimate in Eq. (B10), which gives d^2 ~ c/3 rather than the exact 4c/3. The advertised 'purely geometric expression for both the tangle and Cayley's hyperdeterminant' is therefore not yet a well-defined conjecture, and the provided example does not support it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (B11)] The expression contains '3R^3' where the surrounding algebra requires 3R^2; please correct the typographical error.
  2. [Equation (12)] The threshold R <~ 0.56 should be stated precisely, since the position of the crossover is chosen numerically and the claimed bound depends on it.
  3. [Equation (5)] The notation uses r both for the Bloch vector and for its norm; this is a source of confusion and should be clarified.
  4. [Conclusions] The conclusions state that the paper 'derived bounds' for the tangle; given the issues in Section III, this wording should be tempered until the bounds are proved.
  5. [Appendix C] The authors mention a Python library for the analytic computations but do not provide code or a reproducibility statement; including the library or a script would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Eq. (15)'s geometric tangle formula is tautological: F is unconstrained, so the claimed purely geometric hyperdeterminant expression is a placeholder, though the class bounds and spin-chain results are not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section III, Eq. (15) (after Fig. 4)]
    "which leads us to the following geometrical ansatz for the tangle: τ (⃗r) = 1 − |⃗r|2/3 − d (⃗r, Vline) · F(⃗r) (15) where |ψ⟩ ∈ GHZ excluding type 5 and F (⃗r) ≥ 0."

    For every state with d>0, Eq. (15) is satisfied by defining F = (τ_M − τ)/d, where τ_M = 1 − |r|^2/3, so the equation imposes no constraint on τ. The paper supplies only approximate leading-order examples for F (Eq. 16), not a closed form. Hence the advertised purely geometric expression for Cayley's hyperdeterminant is an identity with an undetermined function, not a derived prediction.

full rationale

The concrete bounds of Sec. III (Eqs. 11–14) are obtained from the exact canonical-decomposition formulas for R² (Eq. 9) and the tangle (Eq. 10), so they are not circular; their correctness or completeness is a separate issue, and the numerically selected crossover in Appendix B is a fit rather than a proof, but that is not circularity. The spin-chain analysis in Sec. IV is self-contained and does not rely on Eq. (15). The central geometric claim, Eq. (15), is however an identity: writing τ = τ_M − d·F is always possible by defining F=(τ_M−τ)/d, and no closed-form F is given. Thus the advertised purely geometric expression for the hyperdeterminant is a placeholder, not a derived result. Because the paper explicitly labels it an ansatz/conjecture and the remaining results are independent, the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivations rely on the SLOCC classification and entanglement polytope as background, the canonical decomposition of Acin et al. as the parametrization, and two paper-specific ingredients: an unnamed nonnegative function F(r) in the ansatz, and the assumption that numerically sampled (R, tau) regions are complete. There are no free physical constants beyond a hand-chosen crossover scale; the spin-chain models themselves have no fitted parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • crossover R_c approximately 0.56 in tau_*(R) = 0.56 (chosen numerically)
    Appendix B defines lambda_3*(R) by splicing asymptotic curves at R approximately 0.56; the location is not derived, and Eq. (12) depends on it.
  • F(r) in geometric ansatz (Eq. 15) = unspecified, F >= 0
    The claimed geometric tangle formula is tau = tau_M - d*F; F is not given in closed form, so the formula is not predictive.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Entanglement polytope inequalities for one-qubit reduced states fully characterize SLOCC classes.
    Used in Sec. II to locate classes in the triangular bipyramid; relies on Walter et al. [40].
  • standard math Canonical decomposition (CD) exists and is unique for every pure 3-qubit state.
    Eq. (3) from Acin et al. [1] is the basis of all lambda-parametrizations in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The sampled states in Fig. 4 are representative of all states in each GHZ type.
    The paper infers universal (R, tau) zones from plots without an exhaustive proof; Appendix B makes this assumption when choosing lambda_3*(R).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Visualizing Three-Qubit Entanglement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4CW4WXBE

@misc{pith2026250523638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Visualizing Three-Qubit Entanglement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4CW4WXBE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23638}
}
read the original abstract

We present a graphical framework to represent entanglement in three-qubit states. The geometry associated with each entanglement class and type is analyzed, revealing distinct structural features. We explore the connection between this geometric perspective and the tangle, deriving bounds that depend on the entanglement class. Based on these insights, we conjecture a purely geometric expression for both the tangle and Cayley's hyperdeterminant for non-generic states. As an application, we analyze the energy eigenstates of physical Hamiltonians, identifying the sufficient conditions for genuine tripartite entanglement to be robust under symmetry-breaking perturbations and level repulsion effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23638 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Entanglement classes (from [10]) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Non GHZ classes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: GHZ class [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: GHZ entanglement class states in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Energy spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Tangle of TFIM levels (C3) (C5). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: d). This is because the parameters controlling the Bloch-norm values are the weights of the allowed superposition. Notice that when increasing ∆, levels n = 1, 2 loose their tangle slower than the other levels (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Trajectory for TFIM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Tangle of XX levels(C22) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Tangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: XZX trajectories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    It is the equivalence class of |000⟩ under LUs: [|000⟩]

    Product state class/Type 1: con- taining all 3-qubit states with no en- tanglement, denoted [A-B-C]. It is the equivalence class of |000⟩ under LUs: [|000⟩]. All have Jr = 0 ∀r and rI = 1 ∀I, so all are mapped to (1 , 1, 1) in the polytope

    work page

  2. [2]

    These states have Jl = 0 for all l but one, which can be J1, J2 or J3

    Bipartite classes/Type 2a:states of the form |φ⟩I ⊗ |Entangled pair⟩I, that is rI = 1 and rI ′ < 1. These states have Jl = 0 for all l but one, which can be J1, J2 or J3. States with J1 > 0 correspond to class [BC-A], J2 > 0 to [B-AC] and J3 > 0 to [C-AB]. Each class covers one of the three edges of the upper tetrahedron connected to (1, 1, 1) (see Fig. 2b)

    work page

  3. [3]

    They can always be brought to the form: √c |000⟩ + √ d |100⟩ +√a |101⟩ + √ b |110⟩ (7) with a, b, c >0 and d ≥ 0 [10]

    W class: includes all states with all three qubits entangled, without gen- uine tripartite entanglement. They can always be brought to the form: √c |000⟩ + √ d |100⟩ +√a |101⟩ + √ b |110⟩ (7) with a, b, c >0 and d ≥ 0 [10]. They can be of two types: Type 3a tri- Bell states and Type 4a. Type 3a lie exclusively on the faces of the up- per tetrahedron and h...

    work page

  4. [4]

    There are 5 types: Type 2b generalized GHZ states

    GHZ class: contains states with gen- uine tripartite entanglement. There are 5 types: Type 2b generalized GHZ states . They have Jl = 0 , ∀l except for J4 = τ /4 = ⇒ λj = 0 for j ∈ {1, 2, 3}. The standard GHZ state corresponds to the values λ0 = λ4 = 1/ √

    work page

  5. [5]

    They lie on the central diagonal con- necting (0 , 0, 0) and (1 , 1, 1) (see Fig. 3a). Notice that for λ0 ∈ {1/ √ 3, p 2/3}, they occupy the same point in the polytope as the W state. Type 3b extended GHZ states : They have λi = λj = 0 for j, k∈ {1, 2, 3} with j ̸= k, so either λ1 = λ2 = 0 or λ1 = λ3 = 0 or λ2 = λ3 = 0. Each one spans a differ- ent triang...

    work page

  6. [6]

    States of type 2b maximize τ for a given R (see Fig. 4a). Moreover, they lie in the main diagonal of the polytope (i.e., d(⃗ r,⃗Vline) = 0, see Fig. 3a)

    work page

  7. [7]

    which leads us to the following geometrical ansatz for the tangle: τ (⃗ r) = 1 − |⃗ r|2 3 − d (⃗ r, Vline) · F(⃗ r) (15) where |ψ⟩ ∈ GHZ excluding type 5 and F (⃗ r) ≥ 0

    States of types 3b, 4b and 4c de- viate from the main diagonal (i.e., d(⃗ r,⃗Vline) > 0) and have τ < τM (R). which leads us to the following geometrical ansatz for the tangle: τ (⃗ r) = 1 − |⃗ r|2 3 − d (⃗ r, Vline) · F(⃗ r) (15) where |ψ⟩ ∈ GHZ excluding type 5 and F (⃗ r) ≥ 0. An example of this function for types 3b-12 and 4b-1 respectively: F (⃗ r(λ1...

    work page

  8. [8]

    This is because translation invariance causes all 3 Bloch-norms to be equal

    Eigenstates with robust tangle ∈ ⃗Vline. This is because translation invariance causes all 3 Bloch-norms to be equal. This also explains why the instances of Bloch-norms that are not in the main diagonal correspond to degenerate sub- spaces. Hence, the states with robust tangle belong to the GHZ class type 5 subset spanned by simultaneous eigen- states of...

    work page

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Out-of-level-crossing degenerate levels in HT F IMand HXZX have null tangle. This is because, when projected onto those subspaces, the kinetic piece of the Hamiltonian will commute with the po- tential term [PnH0Pn, V] = 0, causing (a) |n = 0⟩ (b) |n = 1⟩ (c) |n = 4⟩ (d) |n = ...

    2026

  2. [10]

    Ac ´ ın, A

    A. Ac ´ ın, A. Andrianov, L. Costa, E. Jan´ e, J. I. Latorre, and R. Tarrach. Generalized schmidt decomposition and classification of three-quantum-bit states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 85:1560–1563, Aug 2000

    2000

  3. [11]

    Three-qubit pure-state canonical forms

    A Ac ´ ın, A Andrianov, E Jan´ e, and R Tar- rach. Three-qubit pure-state canonical forms. Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and General , 34(35):6725, aug 2001

    2001

  4. [12]

    J. S. Bell. On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika , 1:195– 200, Nov 1964

    1964

  5. [13]

    Bennett, David P

    Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters. Mixed-state entanglement and quantum er- ror correction. Phys. Rev. A, 54:3824–3851, Nov 1996

    1996

  6. [14]

    Briegel and Robert Raussendorf

    Hans J. Briegel and Robert Raussendorf. Persistent entanglement in arrays of inter- acting particles. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 86:910– 913, Jan 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    H. A. Carteret, A. Higuchi, and A. Sudbery. Multipartite generalization of the schmidt decomposition. Journal of Mathematical 12 Physics, 41(12):7932–7939, 12 2000

    2000

  8. [16]

    A. Cayley. On the theory of determi- nants. Trans. Camb. Philos. Soc. , pages 1– 16, 1843

  9. [17]

    Multipartite entanglement in spin chains and the hyper- determinant

    Alba Cervera-Lierta, Albert Gasull, Jos´ e I Latorre, and Germ´ an Sierra. Multipartite entanglement in spin chains and the hyper- determinant. Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical, 51(50):505301, nov 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Wootters

    Valerie Coffman, Joydip Kundu, and William K. Wootters. Distributed entangle- ment. Phys. Rev. A , 61:052306, Apr 2000

    2000

  11. [19]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac. Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways. Phys. Rev. A , 62:062314, Nov 2000

    2000

  12. [20]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev., 47:777–780, May 1935

    1935

  13. [21]

    Entanglement of three- qubit random pure states

    Marco Enr ´ ıquez, Francisco Delgado, and Karol ˙Zyczkowski. Entanglement of three- qubit random pure states. Entropy, 20(10), 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    U. Fano. Description of states in quantum mechanics by density matrix and operator techniques. Rev. Mod. Phys., 29:74–93, Jan 1957

    1957

  15. [23]

    Classical analogy to quantum mechani- cal level repulsion

    Winfried Frank and Peter von Brentano. Classical analogy to quantum mechani- cal level repulsion. American Journal of Physics, 62(8):706–709, 08 1994

    1994

  16. [24]

    Gelfand, M.M

    I.M. Gelfand, M.M. Kapranov, and A.V. Zelevinsky. Discriminants, Resultants, and Multidimensional Determinants . Birkh¨ auser Boston, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994

    1994

  17. [25]

    Entangled graphs: a classifi- cation of four-qubit entanglement

    Masoud Gharahi Ghahi and Seyed Javad Akhtarshenas. Entangled graphs: a classifi- cation of four-qubit entanglement. The Eu- ropean Physical Journal D , 70(3):54, Mar 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Greenberger, Michael A

    Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Anton Zeilinger. Bell’s theorem without inequalities. American Journal of Physics , 58(12):1131–1143, 12 1990

    1990

  19. [27]

    Level Repulsion, pages 37–45

    Fritz Haake. Level Repulsion, pages 37–45. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2001

    2001

  20. [28]

    Hill and William K

    Sam A. Hill and William K. Wootters. En- tanglement of a pair of quantum bits. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:5022–5025, Jun 1997

    1997

  21. [29]

    Entanglement measures

    Micha l Horodecki. Entanglement measures. Quantum Info. Comput. , 1(1):3–26, Jan- uary 2001

    2001

  22. [30]

    Horodecki and P

    R. Horodecki and P. Horodecki. Perfect correlations in the einstein-podolsky-rosen experiment and bell’s inequalities. Physics Letters A, 210(4):227–231, 1996

    1996

  23. [31]

    Linden, S

    N. Linden, S. Popescu, and S. Popescu. On multi-particle entanglement. Fortschritte der Physik , 46(4-5):567–578, 1998

    1998

  24. [32]

    A geometric formu- lation to measure global and genuine entan- glement in three-qubit systems

    Salvio Luna-Hern´ andez, Marco Enr ´ ıquez, and Oscar Rosas-Ortiz. A geometric formu- lation to measure global and genuine entan- glement in three-qubit systems. Scientific Reports, 14(1):25684, Oct 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Tao Ma and R. A. Serota. Level repulsion in integrable systems. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 26(13):1250095, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    R. Mosseri. Two-Qubit and Three-Qubit Geometry and Hopf Fibrations , pages 187–

  27. [35]

    A. R. Rajwade. Convex Polyhedra with Regularity Conditions and Hilbert’s Third Problem. Texts and Readings in Mathe- matics. Hindustan Book Agency Gurgaon, 1 edition, 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    Ge- ometry of entangled states, bloch spheres and hopf fibrations

    R´ emy Mosseri and Rossen Dandoloff. Ge- ometry of entangled states, bloch spheres and hopf fibrations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 34(47):10243, nov 2001

    2001

  29. [37]

    This can be concluded by observing that all its 1-qubit reduced density matrices are just the maximally mixed state

    It also turned out to be the unique state that is maximally entangled in 3-qubit sys- tems [37], which means that all its informa- tion is encoded purely on its entanglement. This can be concluded by observing that all its 1-qubit reduced density matrices are just the maximall...

  30. [38]

    Moreover, Wooters, Coffman and Kundu conjectured that such a relation should also exist for systems of more qubits (known as the CKW conjecture, later proven true by Osborne and Verstraete [33]). 13

  31. [39]

    The methods can be used to classify 4 qubit states as well [39]

  32. [40]

    The phenomenon of level repulsion is known to arise even in classical systems [14, 24, 32]

  33. [41]

    Which are none other than the operators Kj defining the cluster state [5] for a closed chain of 3 qubits: Kj ϕ{κ} = (−1)κj ϕ{κ} where Kj = Zj ⊗l∈nn(j) Xl (24)

  34. [42]

    Strong coupling, energy splitting, and level crossings: A classical perspective

    Lukas Novotny. Strong coupling, energy splitting, and level crossings: A classical perspective. American Journal of Physics , 78(11):1199–1202, 11 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    Osborne and Frank Verstraete

    Tobias J. Osborne and Frank Verstraete. General monogamy inequality for bipar- tite qubit entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 96:220503, Jun 2006

    2006

  36. [44]

    Adri´ an P´ erez-Salinas, Diego Garc ´ ıa- Mart ´ ın, Carlos Bravo-Prieto, and Jos´ e I. Latorre. Measuring the tangle of three- qubit states. Entropy, 22(4), 2020

    2020

  37. [46]

    Norbert Rosenzweig and Charles E. Porter. ”repulsion of energy levels” in complex atomic spectra. Phys. Rev., 120:1698–1714, Dec 1960

    1960

  38. [47]

    Schlienz and G

    J. Schlienz and G. Mahler. The maxi- mal entangled three-particle state is unique. Physics Letters A , 224(1):39–44, 1996

    1996

  39. [48]

    On local invariants of pure three-qubit states

    Anthony Sudbery. On local invariants of pure three-qubit states. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 34(3):643, jan 2001

    2001

  40. [49]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, B. De Moor, and H. Verschelde. Four qubits can be entan- gled in nine different ways. Phys. Rev. A , 65:052112, Apr 2002

    2002

  41. [50]

    Entangle- ment polytopes: Multiparticle entangle- ment from single-particle information

    Michael Walter, Brent Doran, David Gross, and Matthias Christandl. Entangle- ment polytopes: Multiparticle entangle- ment from single-particle information. Sci- ence, 340(6137):1205–1208, 2013

    2013

  42. [51]

    Wootters

    William K. Wootters. Entanglement of for- mation of an arbitrary state of two qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 80:2245–2248, Mar 1998. 14 Appendix A: Proofs of the geometrical properties of the entanglement types We now provide the aforementioned proofs for the polytope structure. S...

    1998

  43. [52]

    Instead, we want a curve λ(⋆) 3 (R) such that τ− R, λ(⋆) 3 (R) = τ⋆ (R) which must fulfill the requirement τ− R = 1, λ(⋆) 3 (R = 1) = 0

    Moreover, it does not fit the requirement observed in figures 4b, 4c that it makes the tangle vanish at R = 1, meaning that this is not the curve we are looking for. Instead, we want a curve λ(⋆) 3 (R) such that τ− R, λ(⋆) 3 (R) = τ⋆ (R) which must fulfill the requirement τ− R...

  44. [53]

    The end results are (13) (14)

    + 26λ2 2λ2 3 (B8) which makes the computations more cumbersome. The end results are (13) (14). Finally, we now show where the (B13) (B14) results come from: start by considering an arbitrary point ⃗ r∈ [0, 1]3, then the distance from that point to the straight line spanned by ...

  45. [54]

    = 0 equation of the CD procedure is chosen: U = z w −w∗ z∗ |z|2 + |w|2 = 1 and det ( T ′

  46. [55]

    The exception to this is the tangle, which is the same for both solutions [1]

    = 0 where T ′ i = X j UijTj (C1) which means one must specify which solution is picked each time. The exception to this is the tangle, which is the same for both solutions [1]. We will label the energy levels by their integer ordering n (with n = 0 corresponding to the Ground ...

  47. [56]

    TFIM analytics Let’s first consider the TFIM (17). It can be solved exactly giving, an energy spectrum: 18 E0 = −∆ − 2 √ ∆2 − ∆ + 1 − 1; m = 1 E1 = ∆ − 2 √ ∆2 + ∆ + 1− 1; m = 1 E2 = −∆ + 2 √ ∆2 − ∆ + 1 − 1; m = 1 E3 = 1 − ∆; m = 2 E4 = ∆ + 1; m = 2 E5 = ∆ + 2 √ ∆2 + ∆ + 1− 1; ...

  48. [57]

    The energy spectrum is: E0 = −∆ − 4; m = 1 E1 = +∆ − 4; m = 1 E2 = −3∆; m = 1 E3 = +3∆; m = 1 E4 = 2 − ∆; m = 2 E5 = 2 + ∆; m = 2 (C21) a

    XX analytics We now consider the XX chain (19). The energy spectrum is: E0 = −∆ − 4; m = 1 E1 = +∆ − 4; m = 1 E2 = −3∆; m = 1 E3 = +3∆; m = 1 E4 = 2 − ∆; m = 2 E5 = 2 + ∆; m = 2 (C21) a. XX outside level-crossing points We start by computing the energy eigenstates outside of l...

  49. [58]

    The energy spectrum is: E0 = +3∆; m = 2 E1 = 4 − ∆; m = 2 E2 = −∆ − 2; m = 4 (C25) for ∆ ∈ R

    XXX analytics We now consider the XX chain (20). The energy spectrum is: E0 = +3∆; m = 2 E1 = 4 − ∆; m = 2 E2 = −∆ − 2; m = 4 (C25) for ∆ ∈ R. At ∆ = −1/2 there is a level crossing, where the role of the GS changes from n = 0 to n = 1. We will still keep the labels used in ∆ ∈...

  50. [59]

    XZX analytics The energy spectrum of the XZX chain (22) reads: E0 = +∆ − 2a(∆) − 1; m = 1 E1 = −∆ − 2a(∆) + 1; m = 1 E2 = −1 + ∆; m = 2 E3 = +1 − ∆; m = 2 E4 = +∆ + 2a(∆) − 1; m = 1 E5 = −∆ + 2a(∆) + 1; m = 1 (C29) where a(∆) is defined as in (C9). a. XZX outside level-crossin...

  51. [203]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.