- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Hierarchy of entanglement detection criteria for random high-dimensional states

Akhil Kumar Awasthi1,2, Sudipta Mondal1,2, Rivu Gupta3, and Aditi Sen(De)1,2

PDF

Phys. Rev. A 114, 042461 – Published 27 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/4hm3-tqwr

Abstract

Entanglement is a cornerstone in quantum information science, yet detecting it efficiently remains a challenging task. Focusing on states with nonpositive partial transpose, we establish a hierarchy among entropy-based, majorization, realignment, and reduction criteria for Haar uniformly generated random states in finite dimensions, analyzing their performance based on rank and subsystem dimension. We prove lower bounds on the rank of mixed quantum states beyond which the realignment and entropic criteria fail to detect entanglement. We evaluate the relative effectiveness of the considered detection methods using three key indicators—fraction of detected states, mean detectable entanglement, and minimum required entanglement. Our results provide insights into the entanglement thresholds needed for reliable detection, showing that, beyond a certain level of entanglement, all criteria become equally powerful for low-rank states, while a hierarchy emerges among the various criteria for moderate to high ranks. Intriguingly, the proposed ordering among the considered criteria in qubit-qudit systems is different from that in higher dimensions. Additionally, we establish that the detection efficiency is influenced by the asymmetry in the subsystem dimensions by illustrating how the realignment criterion behaves more efficiently than other detection methods when the difference between the subsystem dimensions is small.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (136)

  1. H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Quantum discord: A measure of the quantumness of correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001).
  2. G. Adesso, T. R. Bromley, and M. Cianciaruso, Measures and applications of quantum correlations, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 473001 (2016).
  3. A. Bera, T. Das, D. Sadhukhan, S. Singha Roy, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Quantum discord and its allies: A review of recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 024001 (2018).
  4. R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. Gühne, Quantum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015001 (2020).
  5. N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014).
  6. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  7. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992).
  8. 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).
  9. S. Pirandola, J. Eisert, C. Weedbrook, A. Furusawa, and S. L. Braunstein, Advances in quantum teleportation, Nat. Photon. 9, 641 (2015).
  10. A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on Bell's theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
  11. N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quantum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002).
  12. V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1301 (2009).
  13. R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001).
  14. H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. Dür, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Measurement-based quantum computation, Nat. Phys. 5, 19 (2009).
  15. R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
  16. W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998).
  17. G. Sentís, C. Eltschka, O. Gühne, M. Huber, and J. Siewert, Quantifying entanglement of maximal dimension in bipartite mixed states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 190502 (2016).
  18. T.-C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart, Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042307 (2003).
  19. A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Channel capacities versus entanglement measures in multiparty quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012308 (2010).
  20. I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, A brief introduction to multipartite entanglement, arXiv:1612.07747.
  21. P. Horodecki, Ł. Rudnicki, and K. Życzkowski, Multipartite entanglement, arXiv:2409.04566.
  22. A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental two-photon, three-dimensional entanglement for quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 240401 (2002).
  23. R. T. Thew, A. Acín, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Bell-type test of energy-time entangled qutrits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 010503 (2004).
  24. T. Vértesi, S. Pironio, and N. Brunner, Closing the detection loophole in Bell experiments using qudits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 060401 (2010).
  25. S. Ecker, F. Bouchard, L. Bulla, F. Brandt, O. Kohout, F. Steinlechner, R. Fickler, M. Malik, Y. Guryanova, R. Ursin, and M. Huber, Overcoming noise in entanglement distribution, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041042 (2019).
  26. S. Designolle, V. Srivastav, R. Uola, N. H. Valencia, W. McCutcheon, M. Malik, and N. Brunner, Genuine high-dimensional quantum steering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 200404 (2021).
  27. L. A. Correa, Multistage quantum absorption heat pumps, Phys. Rev. E 89, 042128 (2014).
  28. J. Wang, Y. Lai, Z. Ye, J. He, Y. Ma, and Q. Liao, Four-level refrigerator driven by photons, Phys. Rev. E 91, 050102(R) (2015).
  29. A. C. Santos, B. Çakmak, S. Campbell, and N. T. Zinner, Stable adiabatic quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 100, 032107 (2019).
  30. F.-Q. Dou, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Closed-loop three-level charged quantum battery, Europhys. Lett. 131, 43001 (2020).
  31. A. Usui, W. Niedenzu, and M. Huber, Simplifying the design of multilevel thermal machines using virtual qubits, Phys. Rev. A 104, 042224 (2021).
  32. S. Ghosh and A. Sen(De), Dimensional enhancements in a quantum battery with imperfections, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022628 (2022).
  33. T. K. Konar, S. Ghosh, A. K. Pal, and A. Sen(De), Designing refrigerators in higher dimensions using quantum spin models, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032602 (2023).
  34. K. Wei, N. Tischler, S.-R. Zhao, Y.-H. Li, J. M. Arrazola, Y. Liu, W. Zhang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, B. C. Sanders, Q. Zhang, G. J. Pryde, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental quantum switching for exponentially superior quantum communication complexity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 120504 (2019).
  35. E. Nagali, D. Giovannini, L. Marrucci, S. Slussarenko, E. Santamato, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental optimal cloning of four-dimensional quantum states of photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 073602 (2010).
  36. F. Bouchard, R. Fickler, R. W. Boyd, and E. Karimi, High-dimensional quantum cloning and applications to quantum hacking, Sci. Adv. 3, e1601915 (2017).
  37. B. P. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. P. Almeida, T. Jennewein, T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O'Brien, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, Simplifying quantum logic using higher-dimensional Hilbert spaces, Nat. Phys. 5, 134 (2009).
  38. A. Babazadeh, M. Erhard, F. Wang, M. Malik, R. Nouroozi, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, High-dimensional single-photon quantum gates: Concepts and experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180510 (2017).
  39. S. Muralidharan, C.-L. Zou, L. Li, J. Wen, and L. Jiang, Overcoming erasure errors with multilevel systems, New J. Phys. 19, 013026 (2017).
  40. B. M. Terhal, Detecting quantum entanglement, Theor. Comput. Sci. 287, 313 (2002).
  41. H. F. Hofmann and S. Takeuchi, Violation of local uncertainty relations as a signature of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 68, 032103 (2003).
  42. S. Yu and N.-L. Liu, Entanglement detection by local orthogonal observables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150504 (2005).
  43. J. de Vicente, Separability criteria based on the Bloch representation of density matrices, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 624 (2007).
  44. J. I. de Vicente, Further results on entanglement detection and quantification from the correlation matrix criterion, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 065309 (2008).
  45. C.-J. Zhang, Y.-S. Zhang, S. Zhang, and G.-C. Guo, Entanglement detection beyond the computable cross-norm or realignment criterion, Phys. Rev. A 77, 060301(R) (2008).
  46. O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009).
  47. H. Shapourian, S. Liu, J. Kudler-Flam, and A. Vishwanath, Entanglement negativity spectrum of random mixed states: A diagrammatic approach, PRX Quantum 2, 030347 (2021).
  48. J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1, 195 (1964).
  49. J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
  50. B. M. Terhal, Bell inequalities and the separability criterion, Phys. Lett. A 271, 319 (2000).
  51. A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996).
  52. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separability of mixed states: Necessary and sufficient conditions, Phys. Lett. A 223, 1 (1996).
  53. R. Horodecki and M. Horodecki, Information-theoretic aspects of inseparability of mixed states, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1838 (1996).
  54. M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4206 (1999).
  55. N. J. Cerf, C. Adami, and R. M. Gingrich, Reduction criterion for separability, Phys. Rev. A 60, 898 (1999).
  56. M. A. Nielsen, Conditions for a class of entanglement transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 436 (1999).
  57. M. A. Nielsen and J. Kempe, Separable states are more disordered globally than locally, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5184 (2001).
  58. K. Chen and L.-A. Wu, A matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement, Quantum Inf. Comput. 3, 193 (2003).
  59. O. Rudolph, A separability criterion for density operators, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33, 3951 (2000).
  60. O. Rudolph, Some properties of the computable cross-norm criterion for separability, Phys. Rev. A 67, 032312 (2003).
  61. O. Rudolph, Further results on the cross norm criterion for separability, Quantum Info. Proc. 4, 219 (2005).
  62. B. M. Terhal, A family of indecomposable positive linear maps based on entangled quantum states, Linear Algebra Appl. 323, 61 (2001).
  63. O. Gühne, P. Hyllus, D. Bruss, A. Ekert, M. Lewenstein, C. Macchiavello, and A. Sanpera, Experimental detection of entanglement via witness operators and local measurements, J. Mod. Opt. 50, 1079 (2003).
  64. D. Chruściński and G. Sarbicki, Entanglement witnesses: Construction, analysis and classification, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 483001 (2014).
  65. O. Gühne, P. Hyllus, O. Gittsovich, and J. Eisert, Covariance matrices and the separability problem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 130504 (2007).
  66. O. Gittsovich, O. Gühne, P. Hyllus, and J. Eisert, Unifying several separability conditions using the covariance matrix criterion, Phys. Rev. A 78, 052319 (2008).
  67. D. Bruß, J. Ignacio Cirac, P. Horodecki, F. Hulpke, B. Kraus, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Reflections upon separability and distillability, J. Mod. Opt. 49, 1399 (2002).
  68. A. C. Doherty, P. A. Parrilo, and F. M. Spedalieri, Complete family of separability criteria, Phys. Rev. A 69, 022308 (2004).
  69. F. Hulpke and D. Bruß, A two-way algorithm for the entanglement problem, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, 5573 (2005).
  70. G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002).
  71. M. B. Plenio, Logarithmic negativity: A full entanglement monotone that is not convex, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005).
  72. V. M. Kendon, K. Życzkowski, and W. J. Munro, Bounds on entanglement in qudit subsystems, Phys. Rev. A 66, 062310 (2002).
  73. I. Bengtsson and K. Życzkowski, Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2017).
  74. P. Hayden, D. Leung, and A. Winter, Aspects of generic entanglement, Commun. Math. Phys. 265, 95 (2006).
  75. M. Enríquez, F. Delgado, and K. Życzkowski, Entanglement of three qubit random pure states, Entropy 20, 745 (2018).
  76. W. Kłobus, A. Burchardt, A. Kołodziejski, M. Pandit, T. Vértesi, K. Życzkowski, and W. Laskowski, k-uniform mixed states, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032112 (2019).
  77. D. Gross, S. T. Flammia, and J. Eisert, Most quantum states are too entangled to be useful as computational resources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 190501 (2009).
  78. S. Rethinasamy, S. Roy, T. Chanda, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Universality in distribution of monogamy scores for random multiqubit pure states, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042302 (2019).
  79. R. Banerjee, A. K. Pal, and A. Sen(De), Uniform decoherence effect on localizable entanglement in random multiqubit pure states, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042339 (2020).
  80. M. Hastings, Superadditivity of communication capacity using entangled input, Nat. Phys. 5, 255 (2009).
  81. J. J. Wallman and S. T. Flammia, Randomized benchmarking with confidence, New J. Phys. 16, 103032 (2014).
  82. J. M. Epstein, A. W. Cross, E. Magesan, and J. M. Gambetta, Investigating the limits of randomized benchmarking protocols, Phys. Rev. A 89, 062321 (2014).
  83. C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory, Accelerated randomized benchmarking, New J. Phys. 17, 013042 (2015).
  84. R. N. Alexander, P. S. Turner, and S. D. Bartlett, Randomized benchmarking in measurement-based quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 94, 032303 (2016).
  85. M. Žnidarič, T. Prosen, G. Benenti, and G. Casati, Detecting entanglement of random states with an entanglement witness, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 13787 (2007).
  86. A. Hamma, S. Santra, and P. Zanardi, Quantum entanglement in random physical states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 040502 (2012).
  87. R. Gupta, S. Gupta, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Constructive feedback of non-Markovianity on resources in random quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 105, 012424 (2022).
  88. R. Gupta, A. Maity, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Statistics of entanglement transformation with hierarchies among catalysts, Phys. Rev. A 106, 052402 (2022).
  89. D. Iannotti, G. Esposito, L. Campos Venuti, and A. Hamma, Entanglement and stabilizer entropies of random bipartite pure quantum states, Quantum 9, 1797 (2025).
  90. M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, Y. Alexeev, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, E. Chertkov, J. Cline, J. Colina, D. DelVento, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, C. N. Gilbreth, J. Giles, D. Gresh, et al., Computational power of random quantum circuits in arbitrary geometries, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021052 (2025).
  91. S.-B. B. Lee, H. R. Choi, D. D. Ohm, and S.-S. B. Lee, Scalable projected entangled-pair state representation of random quantum circuit states, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033252 (2025).
  92. R. Gupta, S. Gupta, S. Mal, and A. Sen(De), Performance of dense coding and teleportation for random states: Augmentation via preprocessing, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032608 (2021).
  93. A. Muhuri, R. Gupta, S. Ghosh, and A. Sen(De), Superiority in dense coding through non-Markovian stochasticity, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032616 (2024).
  94. F. Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010).
  95. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
  96. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996).
  97. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Mixed-state entanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound” entanglement in nature? Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5239 (1998).
  98. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010).
  99. J. Preskill, Lecture Notes for Physics 229:Quantum Information and Computation (CreateSpace, California, 2015).
  100. M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013).
  101. J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2018).
  102. P. Horodecki, Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition, Phys. Lett. A 232, 333 (1997).
  103. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, T. Mor, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal, Unextendible product bases and bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5385 (1999).
  104. D. P. DiVincenzo, T. Mor, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal, Unextendible product bases, uncompletable product bases and bound entanglement, Commun. Math. Phys. 238, 379 (2003).
  105. J. Batle, A. R. Plastino, M. Casas, and A. Plastino, Inclusion relations among separability criteria, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37, 895 (2004).
  106. T. Hiroshima, Majorization criterion for distillability of a bipartite quantum state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 057902 (2003).
  107. I. Bengtsson and K. Życzkowski, Geometry of Quantum States, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2017).
  108. T. O. Kvalseth, Entropies and their concavity and Schur-concavity conditions, IEEE Access 10, 96006 (2022).
  109. A. Wehrl, General properties of entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 221 (1978).
  110. A. W. Marshall, I. Olkin, and B. C. Arnold, Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications (Springer, New York, 2011).
  111. R. Augusiak and J. Stasińska, Positive maps, majorization, entropic inequalities and detection of entanglement, New J. Phys. 11, 053018 (2009).
  112. C. Lupo, P. Aniello, and A. Scardicchio, Bipartite quantum systems: On the realignment criterion and beyond, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 415301 (2008).
  113. S. Das, T. Chanda, M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, A. Sen De, and U. Sen, The separability versus entanglement problem, Quantum Information (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2016), Chap. 8, pp. 127–174.
  114. V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, Quantifying entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997).
  115. I. Devetak and A. Winter, Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states, Proc. R. Soc. A 461, 207 (2005).
  116. M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Quantum state merging and negative information, Commun. Math. Phys. 269, 107 (2006).
  117. M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Renner, The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory, Nat. Phys. 6, 659 (2010).
  118. D. Yang, K. Horodecki, and A. Winter, Distributed private randomness distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170501 (2019).
  119. D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291 (1993).
  120. S. Sen, Average entropy of a quantum subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1 (1996).
  121. S. K. Foong and S. Kanno, Proof of Page's conjecture on the average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1148 (1994).
  122. R. Jozsa, Entanglement and quantum computation, arXiv:quant-ph/9707034.
  123. A. K. Srivastava, G. Müller-Rigat, M. Lewenstein, and G. Rajchel-Mieldzioć, Introduction to quantum entanglement in many-body systems, in New Trends and Platforms for Quantum Technologies, edited by R. Aguado, R. Citro, M. Lewenstein, and M. Stern (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024), pp. 225–285.
  124. D. P. DiVincenzo, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, B. M. Terhal, and A. V. Thapliyal, Evidence for bound entangled states with negative partial transpose, Phys. Rev. A 61, 062312 (2000).
  125. W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, and D. Bruß, Distillability and partial transposition in bipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A 61, 062313 (2000).
  126. K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and J. Oppenheim, Secure key from bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 160502 (2005).
  127. T. Moroder, O. Gittsovich, M. Huber, and O. Gühne, Steering bound entangled states: A counterexample to the stronger Peres conjecture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 050404 (2014).
  128. K. F. Pál, G. Tóth, E. Bene, and T. Vértesi, Bound entangled singlet-like states for quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023101 (2021).
  129. I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, Geometry of Quantum States (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2006).
  130. M. Ozols, How to Generate a Random Unitary Matrix (2009), http://home.lu.lv/~sd20008/papers/essays/Random%20unitary%20[paper].pdf.
  131. K. Życzkowski, K. A. Penson, I. Nechita, and B. Collins, Generating random density matrices, J. Math. Phys. 52, 062201 (2011).
  132. O. C. O. Dahlsten, C. Lupo, S. Mancini, and A. Serafini, Entanglement typicality, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 363001 (2014).
  133. K. Życzkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, Volume of the set of separable states, Phys. Rev. A 58, 883 (1998).
  134. C. Sanderson and R. Curtin, Armadillo: A template-based C++ library for linear algebra, J. Open Source Softw. 1, 26 (2016).
  135. C. Sanderson and R. Curtin, Practical sparse matrices in C++ with hybrid storage and template-based expression optimisation, Math. Comput. Appl. 24, 70 (2019).
  136. T. Chanda, Quantum information and computation library (qiclib), 2017, https://github.com/titaschanda/QIClib.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 114, 042461– Published 27 October, 2026
  • Received 6 January 2026
  • Accepted 14 September 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation