Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Chiral Symmetries and Multiparticle Entanglement

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Chiral symmetry forces entire subspaces of three-qubit states to be maximally entangled.

desk verdict Core chiral-subspace results are solid and worth reading, but the paper overstates Observation 6 as a theorem when it is only a numerically supported conjecture. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15609 v1 pith:AKT6GEXT submitted 2025-06-18 quant-ph

Sophia Denker , Satoya Imai , Otfried Gühne This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Ud03.67.Mn
keywords chiralsymmetrygeometricmeasureofentanglementgenuinemultipartitewitnessespositivepartialtransposeunitarilyinvariantstatesthree-qubitflip-conjugate
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

Chiral symmetry—being an eigenstate of the cyclic shift operator with a nontrivial complex phase—shapes entanglement as strongly as bosonic or fermionic exchange symmetry does. The paper shows that for three qubits every pure state in the chiral subspace has geometric measure $G=5/9$, exactly the value of the W state, so an entire subspace rather than a single state saturates the three-qubit maximum. The same symmetry argument yields $G\ge 5/9$ for all local dimensions $d\ge 3$, and in the qutrit case a two-dimensional chiral subspace consists entirely of genuinely multipartite entangled states with the maximal $G_{\mathrm{GME}}=2/3$. These results turn chiral projectors into entanglement witnesses and into a three-outcome measurement that estimates generalized concentratable entanglement. The paper also proves that genuine multipartite entanglement of $U^{\otimes 3}$-invariant three-particle states is decided by one semidefinite programme, exposing states that are genuinely entangled yet positive under partial transpose for every bipartition.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cyclic translation operator $T$ on $(\mathbb{C}^d)^{\otimes 3}$, with $T|abc\rangle=|cab\rangle$. Its eigenspaces are the symmetric subspace (eigenvalue $+1$), the chiral subspace $H_J$ (eigenvalue $\omega$), and the antichiral subspace $H_{\bar J}$ (eigenvalue $\omega^2$). The load-bearing identity is that a product-state overlap with the complement of $H_J$ reduces to minimizing the smallest eigenvalue of a small hermitian matrix, and in any local dimension the $d\times d$ matrix has only the same two nonzero eigenvalues as the qubit case; this is why $G\ge 5/9$ is dimension-independent. For $U^{\otimes 3}$-invariant states, Schur-Weyl duality rewrites every invariant operator as a combination of permutation operators, and the biseparability optimization reduces to the largest eigenvalue of a conditional observable $\langle 0|W|0\rangle$ on two systems; this is the mechanism behind the SDP solution and the witnesses $W_\pm, P, \bar P$. For flip-conjugate symmetry, the basis vectors are connected by $U^*\otimes U\otimes U$ actions, so all states in $H_I$ are locally unitary equivalent, turning the geometric-measure computation into a Schmidt-coefficient bound.

What would settle it

Compute all principal minors of the reduced operator $Y_{BC}$ from Appendix F for $d=4$ and look for a negative value; a negative minor would falsify the witness $P$. Independently, a numerical maximization over product states $|abc\rangle$ for any state in the three-qubit chiral subspace that returned $G<5/9$ would falsify Observation 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the chiral subspace $H_J$ and its complex conjugate $H_{\bar J}$, eigenspaces of the cyclic translation operator $T$ with eigenvalues $\omega=e^{2\pi i/3}$ and $\omega^2$, are reservoirs of extremal entanglement. Observation 1 states that for three qubits all pure states in $H_J$ have $G=5/9$, equal to the W state's geometric measure, while states in $H_J\oplus H_{\bar J}$ have $G\ge 1/4$. Observation 2 lifts the $5/9$ bound to all $d\ge 3$; Observation 3 states that the qutrit subspace $H_{J2}$, spanned by two absolutely maximally entangled (AME) vectors, contains no biseparable states and all its states have $G_{\mathrm{GME}}=2/3$, the maximum possible for three qutrits. Observation 5 states that genuine multipartite entanglement (GME) for $U^{\otimes 3}$-invariant tripartite states is decided by a single semidefinite programme (SDP) and that $P=\Pi_J-\Pi_A$ and $\bar P=\Pi_{\bar J}-\Pi_A$ are GME witnesses detecting states $\varrho=a\Pi_A+b\Pi_S+c\Pi_{\bar J}$ which are positive under partial transpose (PPT) for all bipartitions in $d\ge 3$. Observation 6 states that all states in the flip-conjugate subspace $H_I$ are locally unitary equivalent and achieve $G=1-d^2/[(d+1)(d^2-1)]$ for $d\le 12$, approaching $1$ for large $d$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reduced operator used to certify the PPT-GME witnesses is positive semidefinite in every local dimension; the paper verifies this by checking all principal minors, a case analysis rather than a closed-form proof, so a single overlooked negative minor would destroy the witness construction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All pure states in the three-qubit chiral subspace have $G=5/9$, so any state prepared in this space is guaranteed to be as entangled as the W state.
  • The qutrit subspace $H_{J2}$ yields $G_{\mathrm{GME}}=2/3$ for every state, making it a genuine-entangled subspace with the maximum possible value.
  • Genuine multipartite entanglement of $U^{\otimes 3}$-invariant tripartite states can be decided by one semidefinite programme.
  • $U^{\otimes 3}$-invariant states that are GME but positive under partial transpose for every bipartition exist for $d\ge 3$, and the witnesses $P$ and $\bar P$ detect them.
  • In the flip-conjugate subspace, the geometric measure tends to $1$ as $d$ grows, so these subspaces suppress local distinguishability and are natural candidates for quantum data hiding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the principal-minor positivity gap is closed, the same witness construction may yield explicit PPT-GME states for all $d$ with simple coefficient formulas, rather than only SDP-generated examples.
  • The same eigenspace-overlap argument could be run for any subgroup of the symmetric group on four or more particles; the paper names this as future work, and it may produce extremal-entanglement subspaces in larger systems.
  • Because the three-outcome chiral POVM estimates generalized concentratable entanglement, an experimental implementation on three qubits would give a direct measurement of $\mathrm{Tr}(\varrho^3)$ and higher-order purity invariants without full state tomography.
  • The flip-conjugate subspace's geometric measure approaching $1$ suggests a quantitative data-hiding guarantee; a testable next step is to compute the one-copy LOCC discrimination norm for $H_I$ and compare it with random subspaces of the same dimension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 studies three-particle chiral symmetric subspaces and their entanglement properties. It proves that for three qubits every pure state in the chiral subspace H_J (or the antichiral subspace) has geometric measure G=5/9, and that every state in H_J ⊕ H_\bar{J} has G≥1/4. These results are generalized to local dimension d≥3, where the lower bound G≥5/9 holds for the (anti)chiral subspace and G≥1/4 for the direct sum. For qutrits, the authors identify a two-dimensional subspace H_{J2} whose states have genuine-multipartite entanglement measure G_GME=2/3, which they argue is maximal for three-qutrit spaces. The paper then constructs U^{⊗3}-invariant observables W_±, proves separability and biseparability bounds, and uses them to derive entanglement witnesses. Observation 5 claims that genuine multipartite entanglement of U^{⊗3}-invariant states can be decided by a single semidefinite programme and that the operators P=Π_J−Π_A and \bar{P}=Π_\bar{J}−Π_A detect U^{⊗3}-invariant states that are GME but have positive partial transpose with respect to all bipartitions. Finally, the paper introduces a flip-conjugate symmetric subspace H_I, proves a lower bound on its geometric measure for all d, and claims an exact value for d≤12. Appendices contain proofs of Observations 1–4 and of parts of Observation 5, together with numerical and semidefinite-programme evidence for Observation 6.

Significance. If fully established, the results would be significant: they identify entire subspaces of maximally entangled states, provide a qutrit subspace where every state attains the maximal GME measure, construct explicit U^{⊗3}-invariant witnesses, and produce the first U^{⊗3}-invariant tripartite states that are GME yet PPT with respect to all bipartitions. The paper is also strong in its use of explicit, parameter-free derivations for the core bounds, and the appendices give detailed proofs for Observations 1–4. The claimed single-SDP solution of the GME problem for U^{⊗3}-invariant states, if fully proven, would be a useful tool for the community. However, two load-bearing points currently need work: Observation 6 is stated as an exact theorem in the main text while Appendix H labels the same statement a conjecture and supports it only numerically, and the proof of the witness property for P in Appendix F relies on an asserted case analysis of principal minors that is not fully written out. These issues do not undermine the qualitative chiral-entanglement results, but they do affect the strength of the central claims as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI and Appendix H] Observation 6 is stated in the main text as an exact result for d≤12, but Appendix H explicitly labels Eq. (H4) a 'Conjecture'. The SDP relaxation in Eq. (H14) gives only an upper bound on the product-state overlap unless tightness of the relaxation is proved; the 'partly numerical' maximization over 4d real parameters asserts, without derivation, that the maximum occurs when Re((z_d^*)^2 b_n^* c_n ⟨c|b⟩)=0 and |b_n|^2=|c_n|^2=d/(d+1). Consequently the equality G(|ψ⟩)=1−d^2/[(d+1)(d^2−1)] is not established for any d≥3; the proven statement is only G(|ψ⟩)≥1−d/(d^2−1). Please either supply a proof of tightness or downgrade the main-text claim to a conjecture and make the lower bound the stated theorem.
  2. [Appendix F, Eq. (F1)] The proof that P=Π_J−Π_A is a GME witness reduces to showing that the reduced operator Y_BC=⟨0|_A 6P|0⟩_A is positive semidefinite. The manuscript verifies the order-one and order-two principal minors explicitly, then asserts that every principal minor of order k≥3 reduces to a product of nonnegative diagonal entries and det(M_2)=0. This is the only argument establishing Y_BC≥0, and hence the witness property of P, but the higher-order case is not actually carried out for all index choices and all k. A complete verification, or an alternative proof such as an explicit sum-of-squares or block-decomposition argument, is needed for the claim in Observation 5(b).
  3. [Section V, Observation 5(a)] The claim that the GME question for every U^{⊗3}-invariant tripartite state can be decided by a single semidefinite programme is not proven in the manuscript. The main text gives a heuristic reduction to conditional observables ⟨0|W|0⟩ having no negative eigenvalues, and Appendix F proves positivity for the specific operators P and \bar{P} and characterizes the PPT-GME states, but it does not state or prove the general equivalence between biseparability and feasibility of the proposed SDP. Please provide a precise algorithm with a proof of correctness and complexity, or weaken the claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The definition of |φ_1⟩ is missing a closing parenthesis: it should read |φ_1⟩=(1/√3)(|001⟩+ω|010⟩+ω²|100⟩).
  2. [Introduction] The phrase 'symmetric and and antisymmetric spaces' contains a duplicated 'and'.
  3. [Appendix H, part b] The numerical maximization over 4d parameters is reported as stable for d≤10, while Observation 6 states the exact value for d≤12. Please clarify that the d=11 and d=12 values rest only on the SDP relaxation, not on the partly numerical maximization.
  4. [Appendix I, subsection U⊗U⊗U-invariant subspaces] The phrase 'the entire Jonathan space H_J' appears to be a typo; presumably this should be 'chiral space H_J'.
  5. [References] Reference [39] is listed as 'private communication with Albert Rico'; if a published source is available for the witness bound mentioned there, it would strengthen the paper to cite it instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the chiral geometric-measure results are proven from explicit lemmas, and the self-citations are motivational or supporting rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is self-contained. Observations 1 and 2 (G=5/9 for the three-qubit chiral subspace and G≥5/9 for d≥3) are proved in Appendix A by reducing the geometric measure to the bound Re(e^{iα}⟨abc|T|abc⟩)≥−1/6 and then computing the smallest eigenvalue of the explicit matrix M in Eqs. (A10)–(A21). This is an independent analytical proof, not a restatement of the result. The numerical observation from the self-cited Ref. [31] is only a starting point and is explicitly reproven. Observation 3 uses a Schmidt decomposition of the two qutrit basis vectors and the fact that the largest Schmidt coefficient in C^3⊗C^D is at least 1/√3; the 1/3 overlap bound is derived, not assumed. Observation 4's witness bounds are computed from explicit spectra and reduced operators in Appendices C and D. Observation 5's witnesses are proven in Appendix F by a principal-minor positivity check of the reduced operator Y_BC; the U⊗3-invariant structure is imported from Eggeling and Werner [13] as an external tool, while the witness proof is the paper's own. The SDP is used to exhibit PPT-GME states, not to fit the GME conclusion. The only notable weakness is Observation 6: Appendix H explicitly labels the tight value a 'Conjecture', supports it by an SDP relaxation and a partly numerical maximization, and proves only the bound G≥1−d/(d²−1). This is a rigor gap—the exact equality for d≤12 is not established—but it is not circularity, because the conjectured value is not an input that is later read out as a prediction. Self-citations such as Refs. [23], [31], and [36] are motivational, methodological, or reproven, so they do not carry any numbered result. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central chiral claims depend only on standard representation theory and the definition of the geometric measure; no free parameters are fitted. The only ad hoc ingredient is the numerical tightness assumption behind the flip-conjugate exact formula, and the only hand-chosen constants appear in a secondary construction, the phases alpha_d.

free parameters (1)
  • phase alpha_d in generalized flip-conjugate construction = pi/2 or 3pi/2 for d=3,4,5
    In Section VI and Appendix I, the coefficients x_d and y_d are scanned numerically and the best values are chosen. This affects the example subspace with G=1-1/[2(d-1)], not the main chiral results.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Schur-Weyl duality: every U⊗3-invariant operator is a linear combination of permutation operators
    Used throughout to decompose W± and to fix one party to |0⟩ in optimizations; invoked via Refs. [13] and [40].
  • domain assumption The geometric measure of entanglement is defined by the largest product-state overlap, and the maximum for three qubits is 5/9 (Ref. [32])
    The equality G=5/9 for three-qubit chiral states uses the known global maximum; without it only the lower bound G≥5/9 would follow.
  • ad hoc to paper Tightness of the SDP relaxation for the flip-conjugate subspace for d≤12
    Observation 6 states exact GM for d≤12, but Appendix H provides only an SDP relaxation upper bound and numerical optimization; exact equality is conjectured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral Symmetries and Multiparticle Entanglement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AKT6GEXT

@misc{pith2026250615609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral Symmetries and Multiparticle Entanglement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AKT6GEXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15609}
}
read the original abstract

Bosons and fermions are defined by their exchange properties and the underlying symmetries determine the structure of the corresponding state spaces. For two particles there are two possible exchange symmetries, resulting in symmetric or antisymmetric behaviour, but when exploring multiparticle systems also quantum states with chiral symmetries appear. In this work we demonstrate that chiral symmetries lead to extremal forms of quantum entanglement. More precisely, we show that subspaces with this symmetry are highly entangled with respect to the geometric measure of entanglement, leading to observables which can be useful for entanglement characterization. Along the way, we develop a simple method to solve the problem of genuine multiparticle entanglement for unitarily invariant three-particle states and use it to identify genuine multipartite entangled states whose partial transposes with respect to all bipartitions are positive. Finally, we consider generalizations with less symmetry and discuss potential applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15609 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. State space of three ququads parametrized by the expectation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Three-qutrit (left) and three-ququad (right) state space, parametrized by the expectation values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Bound entanglement for three ququads: Left: The states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. PPT GME for three qutrits: Left: The states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Three-qutrit (left) and three-ququad (right) state space, parametrized by the expectation values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the results for the geometric measure: The SDP results correspond to the conjectured values, but cannot be obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    K. R. Parthasarathy, On the maximal dimension of a completely entangled subspace for finite level quantum systems, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Math. Sci.)114, 365–374 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [1]

    The qubit case (Observation 1) We will now give a proof of the first part of Observation 1

    Bound for the direct sum of the chiral and antichiral subspace a. The qubit case (Observation 1) We will now give a proof of the first part of Observation 1. Observation 1a:All states in the direct sum of the chiral and antichiral spaceH J ⊕H ¯J have an entanglement of at least G(∣ψ⟩)≥ 1/4. Proof.First, recall that the projectors onto all subspaces sum up...

    work page

  3. [2]

    basis vectors of types∣φ α⟩and∣φ β⟩and (d

  4. [3]

    Therefore, the total dimension of the chiral subspace isdim(Hd J)=2 (d 2)+2(d 3)=d(d 2−1)/3∼O(d 3)

    basis vectors of types ∣φγ⟩and∣φ δ⟩. Therefore, the total dimension of the chiral subspace isdim(Hd J)=2 (d 2)+2(d 3)=d(d 2−1)/3∼O(d 3). So, one can split the chiral subspace into two subspaces: HJ =H J1 ⊕H J2, whereH J1 is spanned by the2 (d

  5. [4]

    vec- tors of types∣φ α⟩and∣φ β⟩andH J2 by the2 (d

  6. [5]

    Note that, in contrast to the full chiral subspace,H J1 andH J2 are notU ⊗3-invariant

    vectors of types∣φγ⟩and∣φ δ⟩, respectively. Note that, in contrast to the full chiral subspace,H J1 andH J2 are notU ⊗3-invariant. For local dimensiond=3, however, the subspaceH J2 has inter- esting properties. First, for qutritsH J2 is a two-dimensional subspace, spanned by∣φ γ=(0,1,2)⟩and∣φ δ=(0,1,2)⟩using the indices (i,j,k)=(0,1,2). These two states a...

    work page

  7. [6]

    In this way,H J2 has analogous properties to the spaceH J for three qubits in Observation 1. We can summarize: Observation 3.The chiral symmetric three-qutrit subspace HJ2, which is spanned by two AME vectors∣φ γ=(0,1,2)⟩and ∣φδ=(0,1,2)⟩does not contain any biseparable or fully sep- arable states. All states therein have a geometric measure GGME(∣ψ⟩)= 2/3...

    work page

  8. [7]

    The largest eigenvalue corresponds to the antisymmetric basis vectors and implies the quantum bound forW+

    The operatorW + has full rank and can be written as W+ =c SΠS +c AΠA +c J(ΠJ +Π ¯J), withc S = 2/d(d− 1)(d−2),c A = 2/d(d+1)(d+2)andc J =− 1/d(d+2)(d−2). The largest eigenvalue corresponds to the antisymmetric basis vectors and implies the quantum bound forW+. Note that this representation also implies thatW − andW + commute. Finally, for the biseparabili...

    work page 2022

Show all 83 references
  1. [8]

    Bound for the (anti)chiral subspace We now show that the GM for all states in the (anti)chiral subspace is lower bounded by5/9. Observation 1b & Observation 2b:For qubit (d=2) and higher-dimensional systems (d≥3), any pure state in the chiral spaceH J (or, equivalently, the an...

  2. [9]

    More precise, we want to show the following: Re(eiαη)≥{ −1/8forα=0 −1/6forα= π 3 },(A9) forη=⟨abc∣T∣abc⟩

    Proof of Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 We now want to give the proof of the previously introduced Lemma 1 and Lemma 2. More precise, we want to show the following: Re(eiαη)≥{ −1/8forα=0 −1/6forα= π 3 },(A9) forη=⟨abc∣T∣abc⟩. Proof.We minimize Re(⟨abc∣T∣abc⟩e iα)=Re(⟨abc∣cab⟩e iα) =Re(⟨a...

  3. [10]

    16 Proof.Note that the proof is analogous for ¯P=Π ¯J −Π A, as it is just the complex conjugated

    The witnesses Observation 5:The operatorsP=Π J −Π A and ¯P=Π ¯J −Π A, are entanglement witnesses for genuine multipartite entanglement. 16 Proof.Note that the proof is analogous for ¯P=Π ¯J −Π A, as it is just the complex conjugated. SincePisU⊗U⊗U-invariant, we can assume that...

  4. [11]

    Pick a row (and the respective column, such that they meet at the diagonal) that has nonzero entries on the off-diagonal

  5. [12]

    In that row, pick the column (and its respective row) corresponding to the nonzero entry on the off-diagonal

  6. [13]

    In the previously chosen row, pick another column (and its respective row) with a nonzero entry on the off-diagonal

  7. [14]

    To find the main minors of second order, we start choosing a row⟨ij∣withi≠j

    Repeat untilkrows and their respective columns are chosen, all other rows and columns are crossed out. To find the main minors of second order, we start choosing a row⟨ij∣withi≠j. Since the operatorY BC is symmetric, the second row we pick is⟨ji∣. Then we obtain 2 det(M2)=∣ 1+...

  8. [15]

    Discussion of the PPT GME states Now, let us characterize the PPT GME states that are detected by the witnessP, again for ¯Pwe can proceed analogously as ¯P=P ∗. From the semidefinite programme (SDP) we find that the states are of the following form: ϱ=aΠ A+bΠ S+cΠ ¯J.(F6) We ...

  9. [16]

    This means that for a given basis vector we can always find uniariesUA,UB andUC such that we can reach an arbitrary state inHI

    Local unitary equivalence As mentioned in the main text, the whole flip-conjugate symmetric subspace is local unitary (LU) equivalent. This means that for a given basis vector we can always find uniariesUA,UB andUC such that we can reach an arbitrary state inHI. Let us write d...

  10. [17]

    Proof of Observation 6 Let us consider the geometric measure of entanglement. Although knowing that the states in the flip-conjugate symmetric subspace are LU equivalent simplifies the proof, it is still not straightforward to analytically prove the tight bound for arbitrary d...

  11. [18]

    D. J. Gross, Symmetry in Physics: Wigner’s Legacy, Physics Today48(12), 46–50 (1995)

    1995

  12. [19]

    Coleman, Aspects of Symmetry, ISNB 9780511565045, Cambridge University Press, (2010)

    S. Coleman, Aspects of Symmetry, ISNB 9780511565045, Cambridge University Press, (2010)

    2010

  13. [20]

    Weyl, Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik (Hirzel, Leipzig, 1928)

    H. Weyl, Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik (Hirzel, Leipzig, 1928)

    1928

  14. [21]

    E. P. Wigner, Gruppentheorie und ihre Anwendungen auf Atomspektren (Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1931)

    1931

  15. [22]

    Wang and K

    Z. Wang and K. R. A. Hazzard, Particle exchange statistics beyond fermions and bosons, Nature637, 314-318 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

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

    1993

  17. [24]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit, Science306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

  18. [25]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone, Quantum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  19. [26]

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

    1991

  20. [27]

    R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A40, 4277 (1989)

    1989

  21. [28]

    Toth and O

    G. Toth and O. Gühne, Entanglement and permutational symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 170503 (2009)

    2009

  22. [29]

    K. G. H. V ollbrecht and R. F. Werner, Entanglement Measures under Symmetry, Phys. Rev. A64, 062307 (2001)

    2001

  23. [30]

    Eggeling and R

    T. Eggeling and R. F. Werner, Separability properties of tripartite states withU⊗U⊗Usymmetry, Phys. Rev. A63, 042111 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Hansenne, Z.-P

    K. Hansenne, Z.-P. Xu, T. Kraft and O. Gühne, Symmetries in quantum networks lead to no-go theorems for entanglement distribution and to verification techniques, Nat. Comm.13, 496 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Felix Huber, Igor Klep, Victor Magron, Jurij V ol ˇciˇc, Dimension-free entanglement detection in multipartite Werner states, Commun. Math. Phys.396, 1051–1070 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    X. G. Wen, Frank Wilczek and A. Zee, Chiral spin states and superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B39, 11413 (1989)

    1989

  27. [35]

    Zimborás, M

    Z. Zimborás, M. Faccin, Z. Kádáe, J. D. Whitfield, B. P. Lanyon and J. Biamonte, Quantum Transport Enhancement by Time-Reversal Symmetry Breaking, Sci. Rep.3, 2361 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    D. Lu, J. D. Biamonte, J. Li, H. Li, T. H. Johnson, V . Bergholm, M. Faccin, Z. Zimborás, R. Laflamme, J. Baugh and S. Lloyd, Chiral quantum walks, Phys. Rev. A93, 042302 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Fruchart, Complex classes of periodically driven topological lattice systems, Phys

    M. Fruchart, Complex classes of periodically driven topological lattice systems, Phys. Rev. B93, 115429 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Roy and F

    R. Roy and F. Harper, Periodic table for Floquet topological insulators, Phys. Rev. B96, 155118 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Wei and P

    T.-C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart, Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. A68, 042307 (2003)

    2003

  32. [40]

    L. T. Weinbrenner and O. Gühne, Quantifying entanglement from the geometric perspective, arXiv:2505.01394

  33. [41]

    Xiaoyu Liu, Johannes Knörzer, Zherui Jerry Wang and Jordi Tura, Generalized Concentratable Entanglement via Parallelized Permutation Tests, arXiv:2406.18517 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. L. Beckey, G. Pelegrí, S. Foulds and N. J. Pearson, Multipartite entanglement measures via Bell-basis measurements, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062425 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Hayashi, D

    M. Hayashi, D. Markham, M. Murao, M. Owari and S. Virmani, Bounds on Multipartite Entangled Orthogonal State Discrimination Using Local Operations and Classical Communication, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 040501 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    B. M. Terhal, D. P. DiVincenzo and D. W. Leung, Hiding Bits in Bell States, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5807 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    A. W. Harrow, Applications of coherent classical communication and the Schur transform to quantum information theory, Ph.D thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    Bacon, I

    D. Bacon, I. Chuang and A. Harrow, Efficient Quantum Circuits for Schur and Clebsch-Gordan Transforms, Phys. Rev. Lett.,97, 170502 (2006)

    2006

  39. [47]

    D’Alessandro and J

    D. D’Alessandro and J. T. Hartwig, Dynamical Decomposition of Bilinear Control Systems subject to Symmetries, J. Dyn. Control. Syst. 27, 1–30 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Jonathan Steinberg and Otfried Gühne, Finding maximal quantum resources, Phys. Rev. A110, 062428 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Tamaryan, T.-C

    S. Tamaryan, T.-C. Wei and D. Park, Maximally entangled three-qubit states via geometric measure of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A80, 052315 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    Derksen, S

    H. Derksen, S. Friedland, L.-H. Lim, L. Wang, Theoretical and computational aspects of entanglement, arXiv:1705.07160

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Higuchi and A

    A. Higuchi and A. Sudbery, How entangled can two couples get?, Phys. Lett. A273, 213-217 (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

    Brierley and A

    S. Brierley and A. Higuchi, On maximal entanglement between two pairs in four-qubit pure states, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40, 8455-8465 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    S. Imai, G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Collective Randomized Measurements in Quantum Information Processing, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 060203 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    A. Acín, D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein and A. Sanpera, Classification of Mixed Three-Qubit States, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 040401 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports474, 1 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    private communication with Albert Rico 26

  49. [57]

    Weyl, The Classical Groups, Princeton University (1946)

    H. Weyl, The Classical Groups, Princeton University (1946)

    1946

  50. [58]

    Huber, O

    F. Huber, O. Gühne and J. Siewert, Absolutely Maximally Entangled States of Seven Qubits Do Not Exist, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 200502 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

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

    2004

  52. [60]

    S. A. Rather, A. Burchardt, W. Bruzda, G. Rajchel-Mieldzióc, A. Lakshminarayan and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Thirty-six entangled officers of Euler, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 080507 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Demianowicz and R

    M. Demianowicz and R. Augusiak, From unextendible product bases to genuinely entangled subspaces, Phys. Rev. A98, 012313 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Demianowicz and R

    M. Demianowicz and R. Augusiak, Entanglement of genuinely entangled subspaces and states: exact, approximate, and numerical results, Phys. Rev. A100, 062318 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Sen De and U

    A. Sen De and U. Sen, Channel capacities versus entanglement measures in multiparty quantum states, Phys. Rev. A81, 012308 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    Prabhu, A

    R. Prabhu, A. K. Pati, A. Sen De and U. Sen, Relating monogamy of quantum correlations and multisite entanglement, Phys. Rev. A86, 052337 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    Georgi, Lie algebras in particle physics, Frontiers in physics,54(Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1982)

    H. Georgi, Lie algebras in particle physics, Frontiers in physics,54(Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1982)

    1982

  58. [66]

    Horodecki P

    M. Horodecki P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions, Phys. Lett. A223, 1 (1996)

    1996

  59. [67]

    Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices, Phys

    A. Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  60. [68]

    Eltschka and J

    C. Eltschka and J. Siewert, Distribution of entanglement and correlations in all finite dimensions, Quantum2, 64 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Sanpera, D

    A. Sanpera, D. Bruß and M. Lewenstein, Schmidt-number witnesses and bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. A63, 050301(R) (2001)

    2001

  62. [70]

    Bravyi, G

    S. Bravyi, G. Smith and J. A. Smolin, Trading Classical and Quantum Computational Resources, Phys. Rev. X6, 021043 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Nico-Katz and S

    A. Nico-Katz and S. Bose, Entanglement-complexity geometric measure, Phys. Rev. Research5, 013041 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Lee, Z. Li and B. Yoshida, How Much Entanglement Is Needed for Quantum Error Correction?, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 210602 (2025)

    2025

  65. [73]

    Z. Li, D. Lee and B. Yoshida, How Much Entanglement Is Needed for Topological Codes and Mixed States with Anomalous Symmetry?, Phys. Rev. X15, 021090 (2025)

    2025

  66. [74]

    A. Rico, L. Zaw and R. Krebs, Genuine multipartite and bound entanglement from irreducible projective measurenents, in preparation

  67. [75]

    D’Alessandro, Entanglement of quantum states which are zero on the symmetric sector, arXiv:2311.17260 (2023)

    D. D’Alessandro, Entanglement of quantum states which are zero on the symmetric sector, arXiv:2311.17260 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Schur, Über Potenzreihen, die im Innern des Einheitskreises Beschränkt sind, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik,147, 205–232 (1917)

    J. Schur, Über Potenzreihen, die im Innern des Einheitskreises Beschränkt sind, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik,147, 205–232 (1917)

    1917

  69. [77]

    Tsallis, Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics, J

    C. Tsallis, Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics, J. Stat. Phys.52, 479 (1988)

    1988

  70. [78]

    Caruso and C

    F. Caruso and C. Tsallis, Nonadditive entropy reconciles the area law in quantum systems with classical thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E 78, 021102 (2008)

    2008

  71. [79]

    Collins, S

    B. Collins, S. Matsumoto and J. Novak, The Weingarten Calculus, NOTICES OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY69, 734 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Köstenberger, Weingarten Calculus, arXiv:2101.00921 (2021)

    G. Köstenberger, Weingarten Calculus, arXiv:2101.00921 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Jungnitsch, T

    B. Jungnitsch, T. Moroder and O. Gühne, Taming Multiparticle Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 190502 (2011)

    2011

  74. [82]

    W. S. Burnside, A. W. Panton, Theory of Equations- With an Introduction to the Theory of Binary Algebraic Forms. Second Edition, ISBN: 9783337251260, Hansebooks (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    Albertini and D

    F. Albertini and D. D’Alessandro, Symmetric States and Dynamics of Three Quantum Bits, arXiv:2111.07208 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.