Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Detecting entanglement and nonlocality with minimum observable length

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For one family of states, detection length is 2 for plain entanglement and n for genuine multipartite entanglement; SDP-built witnesses achieve prescribed lengths, and shorter witnesses can beat longer ones under bit-flip noise.

desk verdict Solid extension of detection length framework with a correct gap result, but the bit-flip noise-robustness claim rests on an unjustified uniform-shrinkage assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00795 v1 pith:SMNDK3O7 submitted 2024-12-01 quant-ph

Zhuo Chen , Fei Shi , Qi Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4090C22 PACS 03.65.Ud03.67.Mn
keywords detectionlengthentanglementwitnessgenuinemultipartiteBellinequalitynonlocalitysemidefiniteprogrammingnoiserobustnessbit-fliperror
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

Detection length is the size of the largest joint measurement an experiment must perform to certify a quantum property, and this paper asks how that minimum varies across entanglement classes and nonlocality. The paper's central result is a construction of genuinely entangled states for which the entanglement detection length is the smallest possible, $l_{Ent}=2$, while the genuine-multipartite-entanglement detection length is the largest possible, $l_{GME}=n$: two-body marginals fully certify that the state is entangled, yet certifying that it is genuinely multipartite entangled requires one $n$-party measurement. It also extends detection lengths to bipartition entanglement, entanglement depth, and intactness, and proves the ordering $2\le l_{Ent}\le l_{Bipa}(\rho,G)\le l_{GME}(\rho)$ together with $2\le l_{Ent}\le l_{Nol}(\rho)$. Methodologically it gives a semidefinite-programming construction of entanglement witnesses and Bell inequalities with prescribed measurement length, which converts directly into upper bounds on detection length for any given state, and it tables explicit witnesses for W, Dicke, cluster, ring, and Bell-product states. Finally, it analyzes noise robustness and claims that under bit-flip measurement errors a shorter witness can be more noise tolerant than a longer one in a specific parameter window.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the compatibility set $\mathcal{C}(\rho,\mathcal S)$ — the set of all density matrices sharing $\rho$'s marginals on a family $\mathcal S$ of subsystems — with detection length defined as the smallest possible value of $\max_{S\in\mathcal S}|S|$ over families $\mathcal S$ whose compatibility set contains only states with the target property. Proposition 1 works by showing that the marginal on qubits $\{1,2\}$ is NPT entangled, so two-body detection suffices for plain entanglement, while a carefully chosen state sharing all $(n-1)$-body marginals is biseparable, forcing $l_{GME}=n$. For the constructive half, the machinery is the decomposable-witness semidefinite program of Eq. (11), which optimizes $\mathrm{Tr}(W\rho)$ over length-restricted witnesses $W=\sum_{M_j\in\mathcal M} H_{M_j}\otimes I_{\overline{M_j}}$ with $W=P+Q^{T_S}$, turning a negative optimum into a witness of length $l(\mathcal M)$ and hence an upper bound on the detection length; the same SDP, constrained to $X/Z$-type terms and mapped to observables, yields Bell inequalities of prescribed length. The noise claim rests on the identity $\alpha(\rho)=1-(1-2\epsilon)^k(1-\mathrm{Tr}(W\rho))$ for a length-$k$ witness under per-qubit bit-flip error.

What would settle it

Recompute the bit-flip noise tolerance of the cluster-state witness $W_1$ of Eq. (18) term by term: each stabilizer term $S_i$ contains some number of $Z$ factors and some of $X$ factors, and a bit-flip on a measured qubit only changes the sign of a $Z$ outcome, so the decay factor should be $(1-2\epsilon)^{\#Z}$ rather than $(1-2\epsilon)^k$; if the resulting $p^*(W_1)$ fails to exceed $p^*(W_2)$ in the window of Eq. (20), the claimed shorter-witness robustness is refuted. Independently, the Proposition 1 claim can be probed numerically by SDP: minimize $\mathrm{Tr}(W\rho)$ over witnesses using only marginals of size at most $n-1$ and check whether the optimum is nonnegative, which would confirm $l_{GME}=n$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is Proposition 1: for the mixed state $\rho = p|\psi_n\rangle\langle\psi_n| + (1-p)|GHZ_n\rangle\langle GHZ_n|$ with $1/2<p<1$, where $|\psi_n\rangle = (|100\cdots0\rangle+|010\cdots0\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, the state $\rho$ is genuinely entangled with $l_{GME}(\rho)=n$ while $l_{Ent}(\rho)=2$, so the two detection lengths are as far apart as possible; moreover for any bipartition $G$, $l_{Bipa}(\rho,G)=2$ exactly when $G$ separates particles 1 and 2, and equals $n$ otherwise. The paper presents this as a negative answer to the question of whether entanglement and GME detection lengths always coincide, and proves it by showing the compatibility set $\mathcal{C}(\rho,\mathcal{S}_{n-1})$ contains a biseparable state while the two-body marginal $\rho_{\{1,2\}}$ is an NPT (negative partial transpose) entangled state. It further gives Proposition 2, an explicit two-parameter family of genuinely entangled states with $l_{GME}=n$ that for allowed parameter values violates no Bell inequality and hence has $l_{Nol}=+\infty$, and Proposition 3, a formula for the expectation value of a length-$k$ witness under global depolarizing noise plus bit-flip measurement errors, from which it concludes that shorter witnesses can tolerate more bit-flip noise than longer ones in a parameter window such as $0.0857<\epsilon<0.0905$ for the 11-qubit cluster state.

Load-bearing premise

The shorter-witness-beats-longer-witness noise claim rests on the assumption that every term of a length-$k$ witness is a full $k$-qubit Pauli product, so a bit-flip shrinks all terms by the identical factor $(1-2\epsilon)^k$; the paper's own cluster-state witness mixes two- and three-qubit terms and treats $X$ and $Z$ outcomes alike even though a bit-flip does not change an $X$ outcome, so the uniform shrink factor does not apply to it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the states of Proposition 1, no protocol that only ever measures fewer than $n$ parties together can certify genuine multipartite entanglement, no matter how many two-body marginals it collects; the trade-off between detection capability and measurement globality is intrinsic to the state, not a deficiency of a particular witness.
  • The hierarchy $2\le l_{Ent}\le l_{Bipa}(\rho,G)\le l_{GME}(\rho)$ and $2\le l_{Ent}\le l_{Nol}(\rho)$ gives a universal lower bound for experiments: nonlocality detection is never cheaper in measurement globality than entanglement detection, and the same holds for bipartition entanglement relative to plain entanglement.
  • The SDP pipeline converts any target state into an explicit entanglement witness or Bell inequality of prescribed length, so detection-length statements become experimentally testable observables; the paper tables concrete witnesses for W, Dicke, cluster, ring, and Bell-product states.
  • The Bell inequalities derived for the 4-qubit cluster and ring states have quantum-to-classical ratio $1/\sqrt{2}$, tolerating depolarizing noise up to $p<1-1/\sqrt{2}$, which improves on the naive stabilizer-based inequalities with ratio $3/4$ while using only 3-body terms.
  • Under the bit-flip model of Proposition 3, the noise tolerance of a length-$k$ witness shrinks as $(1-2\epsilon)^k$, so for the 11-qubit cluster state a 3-length witness outperforms the near-global witness for bit-flip rates $0.0857<\epsilon<0.0905$ — a concrete regime where fewer-body measurements are the more robust experimental choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The maximal-gap construction suggests an operational reading the paper leaves implicit: the gap $l_{GME}-l_{Ent}$ measures how much measurement globality a state hides, and could serve as a resource quantifier for certification tasks in which parties trust only few-body measurements.
  • Because the proof of Proposition 1 only uses that the state lives in the two-dimensional span of a two-excitation state and the GHZ state, the same maximal gap should obtain for any mixture supported on such a subspace; testing three-parameter mixtures would show whether the gap is generic or special to two-dimensional supports.
  • The noise analysis points to an actionable selection rule not stated by the authors: when measurement errors are dominated by bit flips, the optimal witness length balances the decay factor $(1-2\epsilon)^k$ against the ideal noise tolerance, so an experimenter could choose the length that maximises $p^*$ at the measured $\epsilon$.
  • The SDP-to-Bell pipeline is effectively an automated search for short Bell inequalities with large quantum-to-classical gaps; applying it beyond four-qubit graph states could reveal whether the $1/\sqrt{2}$ ratio at length three is typical or an artefact of small systems.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the "detection length" framework introduced by Shi et al. to bipartite entanglement, genuine multipartite entanglement (GME), nonlocality, entanglement depth, and entanglement intactness. It defines detection lengths for these categories, derives relationships among them, and proves two analytic results: Proposition 1 gives a family of states with a maximal gap between the entanglement detection length (2) and the GME detection length (n), and Proposition 2 identifies a two-parameter family with GME detection length n. The paper also formulates semidefinite programs (SDPs) to construct entanglement witnesses and Bell inequalities of prescribed length, and studies the noise robustness of these witnesses under global depolarizing and bit-flip noise. The central advertised quantitative claim is that, under bit-flip measurement errors, witnesses with shorter detection length can be more noise-tolerant than longer ones (Eq. 20).

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful quantitative framework for determining the minimal measurement globality needed to certify different entanglement classes, and it supplies explicit witness constructions that are directly usable in experiments. The main new conceptual finding is Proposition 1, which shows that the entanglement detection length can be as small as 2 while the GME detection length is maximal; this is a clean separation result. The SDP formulations and the explicit witness/ Bell-inequality examples in Appendix F are concrete and, apart from the issues noted below, reproducible. The paper also makes a welcome connection between detection length and noise robustness, although the bit-flip analysis needs correction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B / Appendix A (Prop. 3, Eqs. 15-16)] The derivation of Proposition 3 assumes that every k-length witness with Tr(W)=d can be written as W = I - sum_i P_i with all non-identity P_i being k-qubit Pauli operators, and that bit-flip errors shrink the expectation of every such term by the same factor (1-2epsilon)^k. This is false for the paper's own witnesses. In Eq. (18), W1 contains S_1 = X1Z2 (weight 2) alongside S_2 = Z1X2Z3 (weight 3), and W2 is a product of factors with mixed-weight terms. An error on a party where the Pauli term acts as identity does not affect that term, and a physical bit-flip error leaves X-type measurement outcomes unchanged while flipping Z/Y outcomes. The correct per-term shrinkage depends on the weight and the Pauli content, so Eqs. (15)-(16) do not follow for the witnesses used in the comparison. Consequently, the inequality p*(W1)>p*(W2) in Eq. (20) is not established by the given argument.
  2. [Eq. (18) and Eq. (20)] The normalization used in the p* formulas is inconsistent with the displayed witnesses. As written, W1 in Eq. (18) has Tr(W1)=1, not d, and its expectation on the cluster state is Tr(W1 rho)=-1/d, not -1. The formula p*(W1)=1-1/[2(1-2epsilon)^3] corresponds to Tr(W rho)=-1, so it does not apply to the displayed W1. Similarly, W2 as defined has trace d^{K-1} rather than d. Therefore the expressions for p*(W1) and p*(W2) in Eq. (20) and the claimed window 0.0857<epsilon<0.0905 for N=11 cannot be reproduced from the displayed constructions. The bit-flip comparison must be redone with correctly normalized witnesses and the correct state expectation values.
  3. [Section IV.A, Eq. (11)] The constraint set is written as 'W = P + Q^{T_S}, exists S subset [n]' inside a minimization. This makes the feasible set a union over bipartitions S, which is not convex, so as written it is not a valid semidefinite program. Please clarify whether the intended procedure is to solve one SDP for each S (or use a max-type formulation), and state the resulting computational cost. The same ambiguity appears in the GME SDP in Appendix C if 'for all S' is meant as a single constraint.
  4. [Appendix A, Proposition 1] The proof asserts that 'all the biproduct states in R(rho) are {a|psi_n> | |a|=1}' without justification. This claim is load-bearing for the conclusion l_GME(rho)=n, since it is used to rule out a biseparable decomposition of rho. Please provide a complete argument, for example by writing a general vector alpha|psi_n>+beta|GHZ_n> in the Schmidt decomposition across each possible bipartition and showing that it is biproduct only when beta=0 (up to global phase).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV.B] The text describes bit-flip errors as physical qubit flips during a Z-basis measurement, but the proof of Proposition 3 uses a classical outcome-flip model in which every single-qubit outcome flips independently with probability epsilon. Please make the noise model consistent and specify whether the analysis applies to measurement-outcome flips or to a bit-flip channel on the qubits.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The mathematical notation in Eq. (20) is garbled (e.g., 'C r 2' and 'C+3 r 1'); please rewrite the inequalities with proper superscripts, roots, and parentheses so that the claimed window can be verified.
  3. [Appendix A and Proposition 2] The number of qubits is denoted by both n and N in Proposition 2 and its proof; please unify the notation.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'expactation' (Appendix A), 'Bell's equalities' (Section II), 'Wernern' (Appendix E), and inconsistent hyphenation of 'bipartitioned'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [Appendix D, Tables II and III] Please explain the meaning of the '#' entries and clearly indicate which numerical values are newly computed in this paper and which are taken from reference [19].
  6. [Eqs. (23)-(24)] The classical bounds beta_C = 4 for the constructed Bell inequalities are quoted without derivation; please specify the method used to compute the classical maximum (e.g., enumeration of local deterministic strategies).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivations are self-contained, and the main weakness is an unsupported noise model rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper inherits the detection-length definitions and several baseline entries in Table I from the authors' prior work (ref. [2]), but those are definitions and background results, not load-bearing inputs for the new claims. Proposition 1 is proved directly by constructing a biseparable state in the compatibility set and exhibiting an NPT two-body marginal, so the stated lengths do not reduce to the definitions. Proposition 2 relies on an external concurrence formula and an external local-model result, and the SDP constructions are explicitly upper bounds by construction, not fitted predictions. Proposition 3 derives p* from an explicit uniform bit-flip model; the qualitative conclusion that shorter witnesses can be more robust is a consequence of that model. The serious problem is that the model's premise, W = I - sum_i P_i with every non-identity P_i a k-length Pauli operator, does not hold for the paper's own mixed-weight witnesses W1 and W2, and the printed normalizations are inconsistent with the stated p* values. That is a correctness and robustness defect in Eq. (20), not a circular equivalence: Eq. (15) is not obtained by reinserting the target conclusion into the premise. No specific reduction of a prediction to its inputs is exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are numerical outputs of SDP optimization; the ad hoc axioms concern the bit-flip error derivation and the sufficiency of the PPT criterion for the Werner-state examples.

free parameters (2)
  • SDP witness coefficients = e.g., 0.125, -0.0559 for |W3> marginal {{12}}
    Numerical optimization outputs in Appendix F; noise tolerance numbers depend on them, though the existence of a witness does not.
  • Bit-flip window endpoints = 0.0857 < epsilon < 0.0905 for 11-qubit cluster state
    Derived from the (unproved) Prop. 3 formula; would shift if the formula is corrected.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Any k-length witness with Tr(W)=d can be written as I - sum_i P_i with all P_i k-length Pauli operators
    Used in the proof of Prop. 3, Appendix A; false for the paper's own W1, which mixes length-2 and length-3 terms.
  • ad hoc to paper Bit-flip measurement errors shrink the expectation of any k-qubit Pauli term by (1-2epsilon)^k regardless of whether the Pauli is X, Y, or Z
    Assumed in Prop. 3 derivation; physically a bit-flip (Pauli X) does not flip the outcome of an X-basis measurement.
  • domain assumption Werner states in 3 and 4 qubits are entangled iff they violate the PPT criterion, so the SDP exactly determines their l_Ent
    Used in Appendix E to claim exact detection lengths for Werner states; relies on ref [30] and the PPT criterion's sufficiency in these cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting entanglement and nonlocality with minimum observable length." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SMNDK3O7

@misc{pith2026241200795,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting entanglement and nonlocality with minimum observable length},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SMNDK3O7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00795}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum entanglement and nonlocality are foundational to quantum technologies, driving quantum computation, communication, and cryptography innovations. To benchmark the capabilities of these quantum techniques, efficient detection and accurate quantification methods are indispensable. This paper focuses on the concept of "detection length" -- a metric that quantifies the extent of measurement globality required to verify entanglement or nonlocality. We extend the detection length framework to encompass various entanglement categories and nonlocality phenomena, providing a comprehensive analytical model to determine detection lengths for specified forms of entanglement. Furthermore, we exploit semidefinite programming techniques to construct entanglement witnesses and Bell's inequalities tailored to specific minimal detection lengths, offering an upper bound for detection lengths in given states. By assessing the noise robustness of these witnesses, we demonstrate that witnesses with shorter detection lengths can exhibit superior performance under certain conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00795 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The relationship between various forms of entanglement and nonlocality. It straightforwardly implies the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Noise tolerance for different witness lengths. Through numerical simulation, we compare the entanglement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Comparison of noise tolerance among different witness lengths. We illustrate that the noise tolerance for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    detection length

    (24) The maximal quantum value βQ = of both can be reached by taking A(0) 1 = (X1 + Z1)/ √ 2, A(1) 1 = (X1 − Z1)/ √ 2 and A(0) i = Xi, A(1) i = Zi for other i. Denote the ratio of the classical bound to the quantum bound of Bell’s inequality by r := βC/βQ. Note that, when mixed with global depolarizing noise p <1 − r, the detected state ρ′ = (1 − p)ρ + pI...

    work page

  2. [1]

    A mixed state is called k-producible if it is a convex combination of pure states that are all at most k-producible

    Entanglement depth For a pure state |Ψ⟩ which is the tensor product of multi-particle quantum states |Ψ⟩ = |ϕ1⟩ ⊗ |ϕ2⟩ ⊗ · · · ⊗ |ϕn⟩, (B1) it is said to be k-producible if all |ϕi⟩ are states of at most k particles. A mixed state is called k-producible if it is a convex combination of pure states that are all at most k-producible. We say a quantum state ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    A mixed state is called s-separable if it is a convex combination of pure states that are all at least s-separable

    Entanglement intactness A pure state |Ψ⟩ which can be written as the tensor product of s pure state |Ψ⟩ = |ϕ1⟩ ⊗ |ϕ2⟩ ⊗ · · · ⊗ |ϕs⟩ (B5) is said to be s-separable. A mixed state is called s-separable if it is a convex combination of pure states that are all at least s-separable. We say a quantum state has an entanglement intactness of s if it is s-separa...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Entanglement witness Concrete construction for entanglement witness W Ent(ρ): • |W3⟩: – Marginal={{12}}: (0.125(II + ZZ ) − 0.0559(IZ + ZI ) − 0.1118(XX + Y Y)) ⊗ I – Marginal={{12},{23},{13}}: 0.125I8 − 0.0236(IZI + IIZ ) − 0.037ZII − 0.0658(XIX + Y IY + XXI + Y Y I) − 0.017I(XX + Y Y) + 0.0843(ZZI + ZIZ ) + 0.054IZZ – Marginal={{123}}: (2I8 + IIZ + IZZ ...

    work page 1938

  5. [5]

    GME witness Concrete construction for GME witness W GM E(ρ): • |W3⟩: – Marginal={{12},{23}}: 0.125I8 − 0.0218(ZII + IIZ ) − 0.0518IZI − 0.0428(XXI + Y Y I+ IXX + IY Y) + 0.0112(IZZ + ZZI ) – Marginal={{12},{23},{13}}: 0.125I8 − 0.0314(ZII + IZI + IIZ ) − 0.0297(IXX + IY Y+ XIX + Y IY+ XXI + Y Y I) + 0.0293(IZZ + ZIZ + ZZI ) • |W4⟩: – Marginal={{12},{23},{...

    work page

  6. [6]

    G¨ uhne and M

    O. G¨ uhne and M. Seevinck, New Journal of Physics 12, 053002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    F. Shi, L. Chen, G. Chiribella, and Q. Zhao, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03367 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [11]

    D. Wu, Q. Zhao, X.-M. Gu, H.-S. Zhong, Y. Zhou, L.-C. Peng, J. Qin, Y.-H. Luo, K. Chen, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 230503 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 65 references
  1. [14]

    Hillery, V

    M. Hillery, V. Buˇ zek, and A. Berthiaume, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1829 (1999)

    1999

  2. [15]

    Duclos-Cianci and D

    G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 050504 (2010)

    2010

  3. [16]

    T´ oth, O

    G. T´ oth, O. G¨ uhne, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A73, 022303 (2006)

    2006

  4. [17]

    Baccari, R

    F. Baccari, R. Augusiak, I. ˇSupi´ c, J. Tura, and A. Ac ´ ın, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 020402 (2020)

    2020

  5. [18]

    Piani and C

    M. Piani and C. E. Mora, Phys. Rev. A 75, 012305 (2007)

    2007

  6. [19]

    Y. Zhu, X. Zhang, and X. Ma, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 045008 (2024)

    2024

  7. [20]

    Santos, D

    R. Santos, D. Saha, F. Baccari, and R. Augusiak, New Journal of Physics 25, 063018 (2023)

    2023

  8. [21]

    Navascu´ es, F

    M. Navascu´ es, F. Baccari, and A. Ac ´ ın, Quantum5, 589 (2021)

    2021

  9. [22]

    Schilling, arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.00299 (2015)

    C. Schilling, arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.00299 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  10. [23]

    Jozsa and N

    R. Jozsa and N. Linden, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 459, 2011 (2003)

    2003

  11. [24]

    Jungnitsch, T

    B. Jungnitsch, T. Moroder, and O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 190502 (2011)

    2011

  12. [25]

    T´ oth and O

    G. T´ oth and O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. A72, 022340 (2005)

    2005

  13. [26]

    Zhao and Y

    Q. Zhao and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043215 (2022)

    2022

  14. [27]

    J. Tura, R. Augusiak, A. Sainz, B. L¨ ucke, C. Klempt, M. Lewenstein, and A. Ac ´ ın, Annals of Physics362, 370 (2015)

    2015

  15. [28]

    Makuta and R

    O. Makuta and R. Augusiak, New Journal of Physics 23, 043042 (2021)

    2021

  16. [29]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Tang, Y. Zhou, and X. Ma, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052426 (2021)

    2021

  17. [30]

    Ichikawa, T

    T. Ichikawa, T. Sasaki, I. Tsutsui, and N. Yonezawa, Phys. Rev. A 78, 052105 (2008)

    2008

  18. [31]

    G¨ uhne, G

    O. G¨ uhne, G. T´ oth, P. Hyllus, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 120405 (2005)

    2005

  19. [32]

    Y. Zhou, B. Xiao, M.-D. Li, Q. Zhao, Z.-S. Yuan, X. Ma, and J.-W. Pan, npj Quantum Information 8, 99 (2022)

    2022

  20. [34]

    M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062311 (2004)

    2004

  21. [35]

    Eggeling and R

    T. Eggeling and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 63, 042111 (2001)

    2001

  22. [36]

    Bowles, J

    J. Bowles, J. Francfort, M. Fillettaz, F. Hirsch, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 130401 (2016). 18

    2016

  23. [37]

    Bowles, F

    J. Bowles, F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. A 93, 022121 (2016)

    2016

  24. [38]

    L. Chen, O. Gittsovich, K. Modi, and M. Piani, Phys. Rev. A 90, 042314 (2014)

    2014

  25. [40]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000)

    2000

  26. [41]

    A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  27. [42]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Theoretical Computer Science560, 7 (2014), theoretical Aspects of Quantum Cryptography – celebrating 30 years of BB84

    2014

  28. [43]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, and R. de Wolf, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 665 (2010)

    2010

  29. [44]

    B. M. Terhal, Theoretical Computer Science 287, 313 (2002), natural Computing

    2002

  30. [45]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  31. [46]

    Ursin, F

    R. Ursin, F. Tiefenbacher, T. Schmitt-Manderbach, H. Weier, T. Scheidl, M. Lindenthal, B. Blauensteiner, T. Jennewein, J. Perdigues, P. Trojek, B. ¨Omer, M. F¨ urst, M. Meyenburg, J. Rarity, Z. Sodnik, C. Barbieri, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature Physics 3, 481 (2007)

    2007

  32. [47]

    T. F. Rønnow, Z. Wang, J. Job, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, D. Wecker, J. M. Martinis, D. A. Lidar, and M. Troyer, Science 345, 420 (2014), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1252319

    2014 doi

  33. [48]

    Hirsch, M

    F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, J. Bowles, T. V´ ertesi, and N. Brunner, New Journal of Physics 18, 113019 (2016)

    2016

  34. [49]

    Chitambar, G

    E. Chitambar, G. Gour, K. Sengupta, and R. Zibakhsh, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052208 (2021)

    2021

  35. [50]

    Scarani, H

    V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Duˇ sek, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and M. Peev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1301 (2009)

    2009

  36. [51]

    Klyachko, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0409113 (2004)

    A. Klyachko, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0409113 (2004)

    2004 arXiv

  37. [52]

    Kliesch and I

    M. Kliesch and I. Roth, PRX Quantum 2, 010201 (2021)

    2021

  38. [53]

    Gottesman, Phys

    D. Gottesman, Phys. Rev. A 61, 042311 (2000)

    2000

  39. [54]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0105032

    2001 arXiv

  40. [55]

    Zanardi and M

    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3306 (1997)

    1997

  41. [57]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

  42. [58]

    T´ oth and O

    G. T´ oth and O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 060501 (2005)

    2005

  43. [59]

    Lewenstein, B

    M. Lewenstein, B. Kraus, J. I. Cirac, and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 62, 052310 (2000)

    2000

  44. [60]

    Huber, I

    F. Huber, I. Klep, V. Magron, and J. Volˇ ciˇ c, Communications in Mathematical Physics396, 1051 (2022)

    2022

  45. [61]

    Gerke, W

    S. Gerke, W. Vogel, and J. Sperling, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031047 (2018)

    2018

  46. [62]

    G. N. M. Tabia, K.-S. Chen, C.-Y. Hsieh, Y.-C. Yin, and Y.-C. Liang, npj Quantum Information 8, 98 (2022)

    2022

  47. [63]

    H. Lu, Q. Zhao, Z.-D. Li, X.-F. Yin, X. Yuan, J.-C. Hung, L.-K. Chen, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Z. Peng, Y.-C. Liang, X. Ma, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021072 (2018)

    2018

  48. [64]

    Gittsovich, P

    O. Gittsovich, P. Hyllus, and O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. A 82, 032306 (2010)

    2010

  49. [65]

    Paraschiv, N

    M. Paraschiv, N. Miklin, T. Moroder, and O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062102 (2018)

    2018

  50. [66]

    Miklin, T

    N. Miklin, T. Moroder, and O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. A 93, 020104 (2016)

    2016

  51. [67]

    Walter, B

    M. Walter, B. Doran, D. Gross, and M. Christandl, Science 340, 1205 (2013), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1232957

    2013 doi

  52. [68]

    Sperling and W

    J. Sperling and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 110503 (2013)

    2013

  53. [69]

    Sawicki, M

    A. Sawicki, M. Oszmaniec, and M. Ku´ s, Phys. Rev. A 86, 040304 (2012)

    2012

  54. [70]

    G. D. Chiara and A. Sanpera, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074002 (2018)

    2018

  55. [71]

    J. Tura, R. Augusiak, A. B. Sainz, T. V´ ertesi, M. Lewenstein, and A. Ac ´ ın, Science 344, 1256 (2014), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1247715

    2014 doi

  56. [72]

    Zou, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1827, 012120 (2021)

    N. Zou, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1827, 012120 (2021)

    2021

  57. [73]

    A. S. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4431 (2001)

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.