Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Mixed States Uniquely Determined by Marginals and Additivity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes exact conditions under which a multipartite mixed quantum state is the only state compatible with its k-partite marginals, and proves a sharp rank threshold beyond which uniqueness is impossible.

desk verdict Several UDA characterizations are plausible and the bipartite additivity theorem is clean, but the three-qubit additivity theorem is not proved and Lemma 6 is shaky. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.20133 v3 pith:FEZCX3BV submitted 2025-12-23 quant-ph

Xinyu Qiu , Lin Chen , Genwei Li , Delin Chu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581P40 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords UDAstatesquantummarginalsmultipartitemixeduniquedeterminationadditivitylocalstatetomographyrankthresholdcertification
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

Mixed quantum states are rarely fixed by their local marginals. The paper proves complete necessary-and-sufficient conditions for several families: a bipartite state is 1-UDA exactly when one of its 1-marginals is pure; product mixed states of three, four, and five qubits are 2-UDA under explicit rank-and-range conditions; and an n-fold tensor product is k-UDA exactly when at least n−k factors are pure. It also shows that any n-partite mixed state of rank at least d1...dn−1 is not k-UDA, which implies almost all mixed states fail this kind of certification. Finally it gives additivity criteria: the tensor product of two bipartite 1-UDA states is 1-UDA if and only if one factor is a pure product state, and it states the analogous three-qubit additivity rule. Why care: these conditions are directly checkable, so they turn the abstract UDA notion into a practical tool for local tomography and certification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is range inclusion for compatible states. Lemma 6 asserts that if ρ = ρ_A1...An ⊗ ρ_An+1...Am and the second factor is n-UDA, then every compatible σ satisfies R(σ) ⊆ R(ρ); combined with the vanishing of the k-marginals of χ = ρ−σ, this forces χ = 0 in the characterized cases. Lemma 5 (if a state in the face of R(ρ) is not UDA, ρ is not UDA) drives the high-rank negative results, and Proposition 9 (bipartite 1-UDA iff one marginal pure) seeds the additivity analysis. The explicit form D⊕0 for rank-two two-qubit states (Lemma 12) is the concrete normal form that makes the four- and five-qubit conditions checkable.

What would settle it

An explicit rank-7 three-qubit mixed state whose three two-qubit marginals admit a unique compatible state would refute the high-rank claim of Proposition 26; generating random rank-7 states and solving the marginal polytope program is a direct search. For the additivity theorem, a concrete counterexample would be two bipartite 1-UDA states, each with one pure marginal but neither a pure product, whose tensor product is 1-UDA — Theorem 28 says such a pair cannot exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that UDA-ness of a mixed state is controlled by purity of its marginals and by a rank threshold. Proposition 9 shows a bipartite state is 1-UDA iff one of its 1-marginals is pure. Theorems 15, 22, and 24 give the full 2-UDA characterizations for three-, four-, and five-qubit product states: each condition is a statement about which factors or marginals are pure and about the rank and special form (D⊕0) of the non-product factors. Proposition 26 proves that rank ≥ d1...dn−1 excludes k-UDA for every k, with Corollary 27 saying that almost all n-partite mixed states are not k-UDA under Hilbert–Schmidt or Bures measures. The additivity theorems

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the second tensor factor of a product state can serve as a purification of the first factor, so that every compatible state can be written as I⊗Λ(|ψ⟩⟨ψ|) with the Kraus images inside the second factor's range; this purification compatibility is assumed rather than demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the characterized product families, deciding whether a state is k-UDA reduces to checking the rank and purity of its marginals, so local tomography with polynomial observable counts becomes possible exactly for those states.
  • The rank bound d1...dn−1 means any certification scheme that uses fixed-order k-marginals will fail on all sufficiently high-rank mixed states; such states require either more marginals or additional structural assumptions.
  • UDA additivity fails generically: combining two UDA mixed states by tensor product almost always loses uniqueness, so scalable certification must keep at least one factor pure or fall in the special classes of Theorem 29.
  • The three-step procedure (reduce systems, reduce rank, check components) gives a decision algorithm for k-UDA for the product families, and a construction method for non-k-UDA examples.
  • The additivity criteria imply that entanglement of a UDA state is certified by marginals alone; for tensor products of two mixed UDA states the marginals cannot certify genuine multipartite entanglement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to conjecture that the rank threshold d1...dn−1 holds for every n-partite state, not just product states; testing random high-rank states for unique compatibility would provide evidence.
  • If the range-inclusion lemma survives scrutiny, it yields a stronger rigidity statement: any state sharing the same k-marginals must have support contained in the original state's support; this could be probed experimentally by checking whether reconstructed states have nested supports.
  • The additivity theorems suggest an operational test for 'non-classicality' of the certification: if a bipartite 1-UDA state's tensor with any other 1-UDA state fails to be 1-UDA, then the state must be a pure product state, giving a device-like criterion.
  • The complete characterization of 2-UDA product states might be lifted to graph states or symmetric states by combining the range-inclusion argument with the symmetry constraints used for Dicke states.
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 studies states uniquely determined among all states (UDA) by their k-partite marginals. It proves structural lemmas about ranges, faces, and compatibility; gives complete characterizations of 2-UDA product states for three qubits (Theorem 15), four qubits (Theorem 22), and five qubits (Theorem 24); establishes a high-rank non-UDA statement (Proposition 26) and a corollary that almost all mixed states are not k-UDA (Corollary 27); and states complete characterizations of additivity for bipartite 1-UDA states (Theorem 28) and three-qubit 2-UDA states (Theorem 29). A systematic procedure for deciding k-UDA is also proposed.

Significance. If all the main claims are correct, the paper would provide a useful toolbox for local-marginal reconstruction and certification: explicit necessary and sufficient conditions for several product-state families, a recursive reduction method, and a sharp high-rank obstruction. Several auxiliary results (Lemma 5, Lemma 8, Proposition 9) are elementary and generally well argued. The advertised complete characterization of additivity in Theorem 29, however, is not actually proved, and the proof of the high-rank obstruction in Proposition 26 contains a substantial gap. These issues affect the central claims of the paper, so the work is not yet ready in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Theorem 29] The proof of the main additivity theorem is incomplete. After listing four normal forms for each factor, the text states that this gives ten cases and that 'the following analysis holds, up to swapping'; it then analyzes only α1⊗β1 and dismisses the remaining nine cases with 'Similarly.' The conditions (i)–(iv) of Theorem 29 are intricate, depending on which marginals are pure, which two-qubit factors have rank two, and on local unitary equivalence. Nothing in the manuscript demonstrates that the other nine pairs lead to exactly these conditions, nor that no additional class of 2-UDA tensor products exists. As written, the claimed complete characterization of three-qubit 2-UDA additivity is unsupported.
  2. [Appendix A, Lemma 6] The proof of Lemma 6 is under-justified and is used later in Proposition 20(iii) and Theorem 22(iv). The text says 'For any n-partite channel Λ ... we have σ = I⊗Λ(|ψ><ψ|)'; the quantifier should be existential: every compatible σ can be represented in that form for some Λ. This requires a purification argument that is not supplied. The step 'Since ρ_{An+1...Am} is n-UDA, we have σ_{An+1...Am}=ρ_{An+1...Am}' also needs an explicit justification that compatibility of σ and ρ at the global level implies n-compatibility of σ_{An+1...Am} with ρ_{An+1...Am}. Finally, the conclusion M_j|β_k> ∈ R(ρ_{An+1...Am}) does not follow immediately from σ_E=ρ_E and should be derived. Because the lemma is load-bearing for the four-qubit characterization, this gap must be repaired.
  3. [Section III E, Proposition 26] The proof of the rank D−1 case is too sketchy to be verifiable. For n qubits, it invokes an unstated algebraic-geometry fact from [29] about the kernel of a seven-dimensional subspace, asserts the existence of a range vector LU-equivalent to a quasi-GHZ state, and then says 'Using the proof for n=3' for n>3 and for unequal local dimensions. The exact statement needed from [29] is not given, and the reduction to general dimensions is not spelled out. The full-rank part also asserts without proof the existence of a nonzero Hermitian χ with vanishing k-partite marginals. Since Proposition 26 supports the high-rank non-UDA claim and the measure-zero discussion leading to Corollary 27, this needs either a rigorous proof or a precise reference with the exact lemma stated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 22] The statement has indexing errors: condition (ii) refers to ρ_A5 in a four-qubit system, and condition (iii) uses undefined indices n, m1, m2. The labeling of H and D in equations (8), (15), and in the theorem statements is inconsistent and should be unified.
  2. [Appendix C, Proposition 21] The text 'if rank(ρ_A1A2) = and rank(ρ_A3A4) = 4' is missing the value of the first rank; it should presumably be 2. Please correct this typo.
  3. [Lemma 18] The operator α = D⊗ρ_A3A4 defined in equation (9) is not normalized. The argument can be applied after normalization, but this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Appendix A, Lemma 6] The proof would be easier to follow if the channel Λ were defined as 'there exists a CPTP map Λ' rather than 'for any n-partite channel Λ'. Also, the notation R(ρ_{An+1...Am}) should be defined as the support of the reduced density operator on that subsystem, consistent with the rest of the paper.
  5. [General exposition] Several proofs in the appendices (e.g., Proposition 20(iii) and Lemma 23) are lengthy but do not state the simplifying assumption that local unitaries have been applied; adding a one-line 'up to LU equivalence' at the start of each would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main characterizations are derived from explicit compatible-state constructions and range arguments; the self-citation [26] is background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The central results (Proposition 9, Theorems 15, 22, 24, Proposition 25, Theorems 28 and 29) are obtained by either explicitly constructing a compatible state to disprove UDA or by deriving all compatible states and showing they must equal the target state, using the stated Lemmas 2–8 and direct matrix calculations. The only overlap with the authors' prior work [26] is the elementary Lemma 2 (a pure marginal forces a product global state) and a remark that [26, Thm. 1] is subsumed by Theorem 29(ii); neither is used to assume the target conclusion. Lemma 6 applies the n-UDA assumption to an auxiliary factor to obtain a range-inclusion statement, which is a legitimate use of the definition rather than a circular import of the theorem being proved. Proposition 26 and Corollary 27 rest on explicitly constructed compatible full-rank states and a standard measure-zero fact about rank-deficient density matrices; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is forced solely by a self-citation chain. The proof of Theorem 29 delegates nine of ten additivity cases to 'Similarly,' which is a proof omission and a correctness risk, but it is not a circular step because the omitted cases are not asserted to reduce to the analyzed case by definition or by a fitted input. Accordingly, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical fitting and no invented physical entities. The mathematical assumptions are the UDA setting, the Segre-variety product-vector fact, the quasi-GHZ orbit fact, the measure-zero fact for rank-deficient states, and the purification representation in Lemma 6; the last is under-justified.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Every n-partite state is a trace-one positive semidefinite operator; k-UDA is defined as uniqueness among all states with the same k-marginals.
    Used throughout; this is the mathematical setting of the paper, not an extra physical assumption.
  • standard math Any subspace of C^m ⊗ C^n of dimension at least (m-1)(n-1)+1 contains a nonzero product vector.
    Used in Lemma 12 to place a bipartite state into M⊕0 form; justified by 'the theory of Segre variety' without proof.
  • domain assumption Every 7-dimensional subspace of an 8-dimensional three-qubit space contains a pure state locally unitarily equivalent to a|000>+b|111>.
    Used in Proposition 26(i); the proof cites [29] but does not state the exact geometric theorem it needs.
  • standard math Rank-deficient density matrices have measure zero under unitarily invariant induced measures.
    Used in Corollary 27; cited to [30].
  • ad hoc to paper Any state σ compatible with ρ = ρ_{A1...An} ⊗ ρ_{An+1...Am} can be represented as I ⊗ Λ(|ψ><ψ|) for a CPTP map Λ on the second factor, and Λ(ρ_E)=ρ_E forces M_j|β_k> ∈ R(ρ_E).
    Assumed in Lemma 6 without matching dimensions/spectra between the purification and the given second factor; this is the weakest assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixed States Uniquely Determined by Marginals and Additivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEZCX3BV

@misc{pith2026251220133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixed States Uniquely Determined by Marginals and Additivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEZCX3BV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.20133}
}
abstract

Identifying whether a mixed quantum state is uniquely determined among all states (UDA) by its local marginals is a basic problem in quantum information theory. We establish necessary and sufficient conditions under which several classes of multipartite mixed states are UDA by their $k$-partite marginals. We also prove structural properties based on ranges and marginals, and formulate a recursive procedure for the determination of UDA states. We show that sufficiently high rank rules out unique determination from fixed-order marginals, implying that almost all multipartite mixed states are not UDA from such marginals. Finally, we completely characterize the additivity of bipartite UDA states, three-qubit and several families of $n$-qubit product UDA states. These results clarify the boundary between UDA and non-UDA mixed states and provide a framework for local-marginal reconstruction and related certification tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.20133 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Process for the determination of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references

  1. [29]

    Preeti Parashar and Swapan Rana.n-qubitwstates are determined by their bipartite marginals.Phys. Rev. A, 80:012319, Jul 2009

    2009

  2. [1]

    A. J. Coleman. Structure of fermion density matrices.Rev. Mod. Phys., 35:668–686, Jul 1963

    1963

  3. [2]

    Up to local unitaries, we assume thata 1 ≥a 2 >0 and b1 ≥b 2 >0

    Sinceρ Ak ’s are diagonal, there is another stateσ 1 =η⊗ξthat is compatible withρ, whereη=ρ A1 := diag{a1, a2, ..., ad1 }andξ=ρ A2 := diag{b 1, b2, ..., bd2 }. Up to local unitaries, we assume thata 1 ≥a 2 >0 and b1 ≥b 2 >0. There is a 0< ε <min{a 1, a2, b1, b2}. The stateσ 1 can be decomposed as σ1 = (α1 +α 2)⊗(β 1 +β 2),(5) whereα 1 =β 1 = diag{ε, ε,0, ...

  4. [3]

    Second, the range ofρ A3A4 is given as in (11)

    0 0 0y 2 1 y1y2 0y 1y2 y2 2   fory i >0 small enough and y1 y2 = u v . Second, the range ofρ A3A4 is given as in (11). Formg̸= 0, we chooseB 1 = 1 µ   x2 1x2 4 −x 2 2x2 3 x1x2(x2 3 +x 2 4)−x 3µ x1x2(x2 3 +x 2 4)x 2 2(x2 3 +x 2

  5. [4]

    Since rank(ρA3A4 ) = 2, there is a unitaryVsuch thatHis congruent to ϵ1ρA3A4 BV V †B† I2 ⊕0 2

    0 −x3µ0−x 4µ   forµ=x 4(x2 1 +x 2 2),x i >0 small enough, x1 x2 = m n and x3 x4 = g h . Since rank(ρA3A4 ) = 2, there is a unitaryVsuch thatHis congruent to ϵ1ρA3A4 BV V †B† I2 ⊕0 2 . Using (13), we obtain thatR(BV)⊂ R(I 2 ⊕0 2), and thusHis also congruent to (ϵ2ρA3A4 −BB †)⊕I 2 ⊕0 2. Using Lemma 3 and (14), forx i, yi small enough, we have (ϵ2ρA3A4 −BB...

  6. [5]

    Ivan ˇSupi´ c, Joseph Bowles, Marc Olivier Renou, Antonio Acin, and Matty J. Hoban. Quantum networks self-test all entangled states.Nat. Phys., 19:670–675, 2023

    2023

  7. [6]

    Measurement device-independent quantum state discrimination.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 649:129985, 2024

    Xinyu Qiu and Lin Chen. Measurement device-independent quantum state discrimination.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 649:129985, 2024

    2024

  8. [7]

    Quantum marginal problem and representations of the symmetric group

    Alexander Klyachko. Quantum marginal problem and representations of the symmetric group. arXiv: 0409113 [quant-ph]

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Bisio, G

    A. Bisio, G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, S. Facchini, and P. Perinotti. Optimal quantum tomography of states, measure- ments, and transformations.Phys. Rev. Lett., 102:010404, Jan 2009

    2009

  2. [9]

    We show that it is also hold for ak+ 1-partite stateλ=⊗ k+1 i=1 ρAi

    Suppose the fact holds fork-partite state. We show that it is also hold for ak+ 1-partite stateλ=⊗ k+1 i=1 ρAi . Sinceλ A1...Ak =⊗ k i=1ρAi is not (k−1)-UDA, there is a different stateσ ′ that is (k−1)-compatible withλ A1...Ak . Thenσ=σ ′ ⊗ρ Ak+1 isk-compatible withλ, andσ̸=λ....

  3. [10]

    Quantum process tomography with digital twins of error matrices.Phys

    Tangyou Huang, Akshay Gaikwad, Ilya Moskalenko, Anuj Aggarwal, Tahereh Abad, et al. Quantum process tomography with digital twins of error matrices.Phys. Rev. Lett., 135:230601, Dec 2025

    2025

  4. [11]

    Sanders, and David L

    Pengcheng Liao, Barry C. Sanders, and David L. Feder. Topological graph states and quantum error-correction codes. Phys. Rev. A, 105:042418, Apr 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Wakin, and Zhihui Zhu

    Zhen Qin, Casey Jameson, Zhexuan Gong, Michael B. Wakin, and Zhihui Zhu. Quantum state tomography for matrix product density operators.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 70(7):5030–5056, 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    ifq k >0, then rank(ρ A2A3 ) = 2 implies that|D|= 0, andρis 2-UDA by Proposition 13 (ii)

    Next, Ifq 2 = 0 orq 3 = 0 inD, thenρis 2-UDA by Proposition 13 (i). ifq k >0, then rank(ρ A2A3 ) = 2 implies that|D|= 0, andρis 2-UDA by Proposition 13 (ii). Ifq 1 = 0 and rank(ρ A2A3 ) = 2, then|x|< √q2q3, andρis not 2-UDA by Proposition 13 (iii). Finally, if rank(ρ A1 ) = 2 ...

  7. [14]

    Plenio, Steven T

    Marcus Cramer, Martin B. Plenio, Steven T. Flammia, Rolando Somma, David Gross, Stephen D. Bartlett, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, David Poulin, and Yi-Kai Liu. Efficient quantum state tomography.Nature Communications, 1(1):149, 2010

    2010

  8. [15]

    Experimental sample-efficient quantum state tomography via parallel measurements.Phys

    Chang-Kang Hu, Chao Wei, Chilong Liu, Liangyu Che, Yuxuan Zhou, Guixu Xie, Haiyang Qin, Guantian Hu, Haolan Yuan, Ruiyang Zhou, Song Liu, Dian Tan, Tao Xin, and Dapeng Yu. Experimental sample-efficient quantum state tomography via parallel measurements.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133:16...

    2024

  9. [16]

    Johnson, Francesco Ticozzi, and Lorenza Viola

    Salini Karuvade, Peter D. Johnson, Francesco Ticozzi, and Lorenza Viola. Uniquely determined pure quantum states need not be unique ground states of quasi-local hamiltonians.Phys. Rev. A, 99:062104, Jun 2019

    2019

  10. [17]

    Linden, S

    N. Linden, S. Popescu, and W. K. Wootters. Almost every pure state of three qubits is completely determined by its two-particle reduced density matrices.Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:207901, Oct 2002

    2002

  11. [18]

    Walck and David W

    Scott N. Walck and David W. Lyons. Onlyn-qubit greenberger-horne-zeilinger states are undetermined by their reduced density matrices.Phys. Rev. Lett., 100:050501, Feb 2008

    2008

  12. [19]

    Quantum state tomography via reduced density matrices.Phys

    Tao Xin, Dawei Lu, Joel Klassen, Nengkun Yu, Zhengfeng Ji, Jianxin Chen, Xian Ma, Guilu Long, Bei Zeng, and Raymond Laflamme. Quantum state tomography via reduced density matrices.Phys. Rev. Lett., 118:020401, Jan 2017

    2017

  13. [20]

    Optimal reducibility of allwstates equivalent under stochastic local operations and classical communication.Phys

    Swapan Rana and Preeti Parashar. Optimal reducibility of allwstates equivalent under stochastic local operations and classical communication.Phys. Rev. A, 84:052331, Nov 2011

    2011

  14. [21]

    Multipartitew-type state is determined by its single-particle reduced density matrices among allw-type states.Phys

    Nengkun Yu. Multipartitew-type state is determined by its single-particle reduced density matrices among allw-type states.Phys. Rev. A, 87:052310, May 2013

    2013

  15. [22]

    Almost all even-particle pure states are determined by their half-body marginals.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 57(49):495302, nov 2024

    Wanchen Zhang, Fei Shi, and Xiande Zhang. Almost all even-particle pure states are determined by their half-body marginals.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 57(49):495302, nov 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    Modi, and Marco Piani

    Lin Chen, Oleg Gittsovich, K. Modi, and Marco Piani. Role of correlations in the two-body-marginal problem.Phys. Rev. A, 90:042314, Oct 2014

    2014

  17. [24]

    Observation of entanglement transition of pseudo-random mixed states.Nature Communications, 14(1):1971, 2023

    Tong Liu, Shang Liu, Hekang Li, Hao Li, Kaixuan Huang, Zhongcheng Xiang, Xiaohui Song, Kai Xu, Dongning Zheng, and Heng Fan. Observation of entanglement transition of pseudo-random mixed states.Nature Communications, 14(1):1971, 2023

    1971

  18. [25]

    Mixed-state topological order under coherent noise.PRX Quantum, 6:030355, Sep 2025

    Seunghun Lee and Eun-Gook Moon. Mixed-state topological order under coherent noise.PRX Quantum, 6:030355, Sep 2025

    2025

  19. [26]

    Uniqueness of quantum states compatible with given measurement results.Phys

    Jianxin Chen, Hillary Dawkins, Zhengfeng Ji, Nathaniel Johnston, David Kribs, Frederic Shultz, and Bei Zeng. Uniqueness of quantum states compatible with given measurement results.Phys. Rev. A, 88:012109, Jul 2013

    2013

  20. [27]

    Jones and Noah Linden

    Nick S. Jones and Noah Linden. Parts of quantum states.Phys. Rev. A, 71:012324, Jan 2005

    2005

  21. [28]

    Almost all four-particle pure states are determined by their two-body marginals.Phys

    Nikolai Wyderka, Felix Huber, and Otfried G¨ uhne. Almost all four-particle pure states are determined by their two-body marginals.Phys. Rev. A, 96:010102, Jul 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Linden and W

    N. Linden and W. K. Wootters. The parts determine the whole in a generic pure quantum state.Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:277906, Dec 2002

    2002

  23. [31]

    Additivity of states uniquely determined by marginals.Phys

    Yi Shen and Lin Chen. Additivity of states uniquely determined by marginals.Phys. Rev. A, 108:062418, Dec 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Reversibility conditions for quantum operations.Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 24(07):1250016, 2012

    ANNA JENCOV A. Reversibility conditions for quantum operations.Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 24(07):1250016, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Entanglement detection length of multipartite quantum states.Phys

    Fei Shi, Lin Chen, Giulio Chiribella, and Qi Zhao. Entanglement detection length of multipartite quantum states.Phys. Rev. Lett., 134:050201, Feb 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    A. Acin, A. Andrianov, L. Costa, E. Janie, 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

  27. [35]

    Induced measures in the space of mixed quantum states.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 34(35):7111–7125, 2001

    Karol ˙Zyczkowski and Hans-J¨ urgen Sommers. Induced measures in the space of mixed quantum states.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 34(35):7111–7125, 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    Multipartite entanglement certification, with or without tomography.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 66(10):6369–6377, 2020

    Nengkun Yu. Multipartite entanglement certification, with or without tomography.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 66(10):6369–6377, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    D. L. Zhou. Irreducible multiparty correlations in quantum states without maximal rank.Phys. Rev. Lett., 101:180505, Oct 2008

    2008

  30. [38]

    Certifying almost all quantum states with few single-qubit measurements.Nature Physics, 21(11):1834–1841, 2025

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, John Preskill, and Mehdi Soleimanifar. Certifying almost all quantum states with few single-qubit measurements.Nature Physics, 21(11):1834–1841, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Brian Swingle and Isaac H. Kim. Reconstructing quantum states from local data.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:260501, Dec 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Gupta, Neereja Sundaresan, Thomas Alexander, Christopher J

    Riddhi S. Gupta, Neereja Sundaresan, Thomas Alexander, Christopher J. Wood, Seth T. Merkel, Michael B. Healy, Marius Hillenbrand, Tomas Jochym-O’Connor, James R. Wootton, Theodore J. Yoder, Andrew W. Cross, Maika Takita, and Benjamin J. Brown. Encoding a magic state with beyon...

    2024

  33. [41]

    M. Will, T. A. Cochran, E. Rosenberg, B. Jobst, N. M. Eassa, P. Roushan, M. Knap, A. Gammon-Smith, and F. Pollmann. Probing non-equilibrium topological order on a quantum processor.Nature, 645(8080):348–353, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.