Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107060

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Physics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rinp

Detecting multipartite entanglement via complete orthogonal basis

Hui Zhao a ,∗, Jia Hao a , Jing Li b , Shao-Ming Fei c , Naihuan Jing d , Zhi-Xi Wang c
a
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
b
Interdisciplinary Research Institute, Faculty of Science, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
c
School of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China
d
Department of Mathematics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: We study genuine tripartite entanglement and multipartite entanglement in arbitrary 𝑛-partite quantum systems
Genuine tripartite entanglement based on complete orthogonal basis (COB). While the usual Bloch representation of a density matrix uses three
Complete orthogonal basis types of generators, the density matrix with COB operators has one uniformed type of generators which may
Entanglement
simplify related computations. We take the advantage of this simplicity to derive useful and operational criteria
to detect genuine tripartite entanglement and multipartite entanglement. We first convert the general states to
simpler forms by using the relationship between general symmetric informationally complete measurements
and COB. Then we derive an operational criteria to detect genuine tripartite entanglement. We study
multipartite entanglement in arbitrary dimensional multipartite systems. By providing detailed examples, we
demonstrate that our criteria can detect more genuine entangled and multipartite entangled states than the
previously existing criteria.

Introduction high-dimensional bipartite systems in terms of the GSICMs. The authors

Quantum entanglement is a fundamental phenomenon in quan-
tum systems and plays a crucial role in various quantum information
processes, including quantum cryptography [1,2], teleportation [3]
and dense coding [4]. The genuine multipartite entanglement (GME)
has remarkable properties with particular significance in quantum
computation and information processing. Therefore, the measure and
detection of genuine multipartite entanglement have been the essential
tasks in the theory of quantum entanglement.
There have been many results in detecting entanglement and GME,
such as positive partial transposition criterion [5,6], entanglement wit-
ness criterion [7] and realignment criterion [8]. In [9–11], the authors
provided criteria for separability and k-separability in general n-partite
quantum states. In [12,13], the authors derived criteria for detecting
genuine tripartite entanglement based on quantum Fisher information.
By using the Bloch representation of density matrices and the norms
of correlation tensors, the genuine multipartite entangled criteria were
presented in [14–18]. Criteria for GME based on Heisenberg–Weyl
representation [19] of density matrix have been also presented. In [20]
Gour and Kalev constructed the set of general symmetric informa-
tionally complete measurements (GSICMs) from generalized Gell-Mann
matrices. In [21] the authors studied the quantum entanglement cri-
teria by using the GSICMs for both bipartite and multipartite systems.
In [22] the authors introduced an entanglement criterion for arbitrary
in [23] studied not only the arbitrary dimensional multipartite entan-
glement but also the arbitrary dimensional tripartite GME by using
the GSICMs. In [24] the authors demonstrated the connection between
GSICMs and a complete orthogonal basis (COB).
Many approaches are based on the Bloch representation of den-
sity matrices, which becomes more complicated for high dimensional
quantum systems, partly due to that the Bloch representation relies on
the Gell-Mann basis given by three kinds of basis elements: the upper,
diagonal and lower matrices. Different from the Bloch representations,
the GSICMs consist of uniformed basis elements. Nevertheless, since the
trace relationship of GSICM operators is given by certain parameters,
the related calculations become complex when the dimension increases.
In contrast to GSICMs, the trace relationship of COB operators depends
only on the dimension. Based on the relationship between GSICMs
and COB, we find that the computational complexity can be further
reduced.
In this paper, we study the genuine tripartite entanglement and mul-
tipartite entanglement by using COB operators. The paper is organized
as follows. In Section ‘‘Genuine tripartite entanglement criterion based
on COB’’, we first review some basic concepts and present the quantum
state representation in terms of COB. Then we construct matrices by
using the correlation probabilities and derive the criteria of detecting

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China.
E-mail address: zhaohui@bjut.edu.cn (H. Zhao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2023.107060
Received 11 August 2023; Received in revised form 17 September 2023; Accepted 4 October 2023
Available online 6 October 2023
2211-3797/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
H. Zhao et al. Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107060

the genuine tripartite entanglement. By detailed example, we show Proof. For any quantum state 𝜌, we have 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌2 ) = 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌𝜌† ) = 𝑑‖𝑇 (1) ‖2 ,
that our criteria are more efficient than the existing ones. In Section where † represents the conjugate transposition. Then we obtain
‘‘Multipartite entanglement criterion based on COB’’, we present an 1 1
‖𝑇 (1) ‖2 = 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌2 ) ≤ . (12)
approach to detect multipartite entanglement for arbitrary dimensional 𝑑 𝑑
systems, which detects more multipartite entangled states than the When 𝜌 is a pure state, we obtain 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌2 ) = 1 and the equality holds. □
existing criteria by detailed examples. Conclusions are given in Section
For bipartite case, one can verify that the operator 𝐴(1) (2)
𝛼1 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼2 in
‘‘Conclusion’’. 𝑑 𝑑2
𝐻1 1 2
⊗ 𝐻2 is linearly independent, where 𝛼1 = 1, 2, … , 𝑑1 and 𝛼2 =
∑𝑑 2 ∑𝑑 2
Genuine tripartite entanglement criterion based on COB 1, 2, … , 𝑑22 . This can be seen that if 𝛼1 =1 𝛼2 =1 𝑥𝛼1 𝛼2 𝐴(1) (2)
𝛼1 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼2 = 0,
1 2
from (5) one obtains
We first review some basic concepts. A set of 𝑑 2 positive operators in 𝑑2 𝑑2
2 ∑
1 ∑
2
a 𝑑-dimensional Hilbert spaces 𝐻 𝑑 , {𝑃𝛼 }𝑑𝛼=1 ∈ C𝑑 , is said to be general 𝑥𝛼1 𝛼2 (𝐴(1) (2) (1) (2)
𝑇 𝑟( 𝛼 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼 )(𝐴 ′ ⊗ 𝐴 ′ ))
1 2 𝛼1 𝛼2
symmetric informationally complete measurement operators if 𝛼1 =1 𝛼2 =1

∑
𝑑2 =𝑥11 𝑇 𝑟(𝐴(1)
1
𝐴(1)′ )𝑇 𝑟(𝐴(2)
1
𝐴(2)′ ) + ⋯ + 𝑥𝛼′ 𝛼′ 𝑇 𝑟(𝐴(1)′ 𝐴(1)′ )𝑇 𝑟(𝐴(2)′ 𝐴(2)′ ) + ⋯
𝛼1 𝛼2 1 2 𝛼1 𝛼1 𝛼2 𝛼2
𝑃𝛼 = I, (1)
𝛼=1 + 𝑥𝑑 2 𝑑 2 𝑇 𝑟(𝐴(1)2 𝐴(1)′ )𝑇 𝑟(𝐴(2)2 𝐴(2)′ )
1 2 𝑑1 𝛼1 𝑑2 𝛼2
2
𝑇 𝑟((𝑃𝛼 ) ) = 𝑎, (2) 1
= 𝑥 ′ ′ = 0,
𝑑1 𝑑2 𝛼1 𝛼2
1 − 𝑑𝑎 (13)
𝑇 𝑟(𝑃𝛼 𝑃𝛽 ) = , (3)
𝑑(𝑑 2 − 1)
where = 𝛼1′ and 1, 2, … , 𝑑12
= 𝛼2′ 1, 2, … , 𝑑22 . Hence, 𝐴(1) (2)
𝛼1 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼2 linearly
where I is the identity operator, 𝛼, 𝛽 ∈ {1, 2, … , 𝑑 2 }, 𝛼 ≠ 𝛽, the independent and any bipartite state 𝜌12 ∈
𝑑1 𝑑2
𝐻1 ⊗ 𝐻2 can be expressed
parameter 𝑎 satisfies 𝑑13 < 𝑎 ≤ 𝑑12 , 𝑎 = 𝑑12 if and only if all 𝑃𝛼 are as
2
rank one. Given a GSICM {𝑃𝛼 }𝑑𝛼=1 and a quantum state 𝜌, one has 𝑑2 𝑑2
1 ∑
∑ 2
the probabilities of measurement outcome, 𝑝𝛼 = ⟨𝑃𝛼 ⟩ = 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌𝑃𝛼 ). The 𝜌12 = 𝑑1 𝑑2 𝜇𝛼1 𝛼2 𝐴(1) (2)
(14)
𝛼 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼 ,1 2
quantum state 𝜌 can be expressed in terms of these probabilities [22], 𝛼1 =1 𝛼2 =1

𝑑(𝑑 2 − 1) ∑
𝑑 2
𝑑(1 − 𝑎𝑑) where 𝜇𝛼1 𝛼2 = ⟨𝐴(1) (2) (1) (2)
𝛼1 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼2 ⟩ = 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌𝐴𝛼1 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼2 ). Let 𝑇
(12) be the column
𝜌= 𝑝𝛼 𝑃𝛼 − I. (4) vector with entries 𝜇𝛼1 𝛼2 . We have
𝑎𝑑 3 − 1 𝛼=1 𝑎𝑑 3 − 1
2 𝑑 𝑑
An operator basis {𝐴𝛼 }𝑑𝛼=1 of Hermitian operators is called a com- Lemma 2. For any bipartite quantum state 𝜌12 ∈ 𝐻1 1 ⊗𝐻2 2 , the following
plete orthogonal basis (COB) if inequality holds,
1
𝑇 𝑟(𝐴𝛼 𝐴𝛽 ) =
1
𝛿 , (5) ‖𝑇 (12) ‖2 ≤ . (15)
𝑑 𝛼𝛽 𝑑1 𝑑2

∑
𝑑2
Proof. For any bipartite quantum state 𝜌12 , one has 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌212 ) = 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌12 𝜌†12 )
𝐴𝛼 = I. (6) = 𝑑1 𝑑2 ‖𝑇 (12) ‖2 . Since 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌212 ) ≤ 1, we have
𝛼=1
1 1
1 ‖𝑇 (12) ‖2 = 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌212 ) ≤ , (16)
From (5) and (6), one verifies that 𝑇 𝑟(𝐴𝛼 ) = 𝑑
. It has been shown 𝑑1 𝑑2 𝑑1 𝑑2
2 1
in [24] that for any COB {𝐴𝛼 }𝑑𝛼=1 , 𝜆 ∈ (0, 𝜆∗ ] and 𝜆∗ ≤ √ , the where the upper bound is attained if and only if 𝜌12 is a pure state. □
𝑑+1
following operators
Similarly, it can be shown that any tripartite quantum state 𝜌 ∈
𝑑 𝑑 𝑑
𝑃𝛼 = 𝜆𝐴𝛼 + (1 − 𝜆)
I
(7) 𝐻1 1 ⊗ 𝐻2 2 ⊗ 𝐻3 3 can be expressed as
𝑑2
𝑑2 𝑑2 𝑑2
give rise to a GSICM. ∑
1 ∑
2 ∑
3
𝜌 = 𝑑1 𝑑2 𝑑3 𝜇𝛼1 𝛼2 𝛼3 𝐴(1) (2) (3)
𝛼 ⊗ 𝐴 𝛼 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼 , (17)
From (4) and (7), we have 𝛼1 =1 𝛼2 =1 𝛼3 =1
1 2 3

2
𝑑𝜆(𝑑 2 − 1) ∑
𝑑
1 𝜆(𝑑 2 − 1) where 𝜇𝛼1 𝛼2 𝛼3 = 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌𝐴(1) (2) (3)
𝛼1 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼2 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼3 ). A tripartite quantum state
𝜌= 𝑝 𝛼 𝐴𝛼 + ( − )I. (8) ∑
𝑎𝑑 3 − 1 𝛼=1 𝑑 𝑑(𝑎𝑑 3 − 1) 𝜌 = 𝑧 𝑟𝑧 𝜌𝑓 ⊗ 𝜌𝑔ℎ is said to be biseparable under the bipartition 𝑓 |𝑔ℎ,
𝑧 𝑧
∑
where 𝑓 ≠ 𝑔 ≠ ℎ ∈ {1, 2, 3}, 𝑟𝑧 > 0, 𝑧 𝑟𝑧 = 1, 𝜌𝑧𝑓 and 𝜌𝑧𝑔ℎ are the
Then the probability 𝜇𝛼 = 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌𝐴𝛼 ) of obtaining the measurement 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑
density matrices in 𝐻𝑓 𝑓 and 𝐻𝑔 𝑔 ⊗ 𝐻ℎ ℎ , respectively. A quantum state
outcome 𝛼 is
is said to be genuine tripartite entangled if it cannot be written as a
𝜆(𝑑 2 − 1) 1 𝜆(𝑑 2 − 1) convex combination of biseparable states. Let ‖ ⋅√
‖𝑡𝑟 stand for the trace
𝑝𝛼 + − . (9) ∑ √
𝑎𝑑 3 − 1 𝑑 2 𝑑 2 (𝑎𝑑 3 − 1) norm defined by ‖𝐴‖𝑡𝑟 = 𝑖 𝜉𝑖 = 𝑇 𝑟 𝐴𝐴† = 𝑇 𝑟 𝐴† 𝐴 with respect to
Therefore, a quantum state 𝜌 can be expressed as a matrix 𝐴 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛 , where 𝜉𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, √2, … , 𝑚𝑖𝑛{𝑚, 𝑛}) are the singular
2
values of the matrix 𝐴, and ‖𝐴‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ min{𝑚, 𝑛}‖𝐴‖ for any matrix 𝐴.
∑
𝑑
For tripartite quantum state 𝜌, 𝑐11 , 𝑐12 , 𝑐21 , 𝑐22 , 𝑐31 and 𝑐32 are
𝜌=𝑑 𝜇𝛼 𝐴𝛼 . (10)
real numbers, we define the 𝑑𝑓2 × {𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑔2 𝑑ℎ2 } matrix 𝐵 𝑓 |𝑔ℎ with entries
𝛼=1
given by 𝜇𝛼𝑓 𝛼𝑔 𝛼ℎ and 0, where 𝛼𝑓 = 1, 2, … , 𝑑𝑓2 , 𝛼𝑔 = 1, 2, … , 𝑑𝑔2 and
Let 𝑇 (1) be the column vector with entries 𝜇𝛼 . We have the following 𝛼ℎ = 1, 2, … , 𝑑ℎ2 . For example, for 𝜌 ∈ 𝐻12 ⊗ 𝐻22 ⊗ 𝐻32 , we have
lemma.
⎡𝜇111 ⋯ 𝜇441 0 ⋯ 0⎤
⎢ ⎥
Lemma 1. For any quantum state 𝜌, the following inequality holds 𝜇 ⋯ 𝜇442 0 ⋯ 0⎥
𝐵 3|12
= 𝑐31 ⎢ 112
⎢𝜇113 ⋯ 𝜇443 0 ⋯ 0⎥
1 ⎢𝜇
‖𝑇 (1) ‖2 ≤ . (11) ⎣ 114 ⋯ 𝜇444 0 ⋯ 0⎥⎦
𝑑

2
H. Zhao et al. Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107060

⎡ 𝜇114 ⋯ 𝜇444 0 ⋯ 0 ⎤ 𝑓ℎ
𝑐𝑓 2 (𝑇 (𝑔) )† ⊗ (𝐵21 𝑓ℎ
+ 𝐵22 𝑓ℎ
+ ⋯ + 𝐵2𝑑 ), where 𝐵1𝑓 ℎ is a 𝑑𝑓2 × 𝑑ℎ2 matrix,
⎢ ⎥ 𝑓
𝜇113 ⋯ 𝜇443 0 ⋯ 0 ⎥
+ 𝑐32 ⎢
𝑓ℎ 𝑓ℎ 𝑓ℎ
. (18) 𝐵21 , 𝐵22 , …, 𝐵2𝑑 are 𝑑𝑓2 × {𝑑𝑓 𝑑ℎ2 } matrices as follows,
⎢ 0 ⋯ 0 𝜇112 ⋯ 𝜇442 ⎥ 𝑓
⎢ 0 ⋯ 0 𝜇111 ⋯ 𝜇441 ⎥⎦
⎣
⎡ 𝜇11 ⋯ 𝜇1𝑑 2 ⎤
⎢ ℎ ⎥

Theorem 1. If the biseparable tripartite quantum pure state 𝜌 ∈

𝑑
𝐻1 1 ⊗ ⎢ 𝜇21 ⋯ 𝜇2𝑑 2 ⎥
𝑑 𝑑
𝐵1𝑓 ℎ =⎢ ℎ
⎥,
𝐻2 2 ⊗ 𝐻3 3 and 𝑓 ≠ 𝑔 ≠ ℎ ∈ {1, 2, 3}, we obtain ⎢ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
(i)if 𝜌 is separable under the bipartition 𝑓 |𝑔ℎ, then ⎢ 𝜇𝑑 2 1 ⋯ 𝜇𝑑 2 𝑑 2 ⎥
⎣ 𝑓 𝑓 ℎ⎦
√ √
1 1 ⎡ 0 ⋯ 0 ⋯ 0 ⋯ 0⎤
𝑓 |𝑔ℎ
‖𝐵 ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ |𝑐𝑓 1 | + |𝑐𝑓 2 | , (19) ⎢ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮⎥
𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ
⎢ 0 ⋯ 𝜇𝑖𝑑𝑓 ,1 ⋯ 𝜇𝑖𝑑 ⋯ 0⎥⎥
⎢ 2
𝑓 ,𝑑ℎ
(ii)if 𝜌 is separable under the bipartition 𝑔|𝑓 ℎ, then 𝑓ℎ
𝐵2𝑖 =⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮⎥ , (28)
√ √ ⎢ ⎥
√ 𝑑𝑓 ⎢ 0 ⋯ 𝜇(𝑖−1)𝑑𝑓 +1,1 ⋯ 𝜇(𝑖−1)𝑑 2 ⋯ 0⎥
1 𝑓 +1,𝑑ℎ
‖𝐵 𝑓 |𝑔ℎ ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ |𝑐𝑓 1 | min{𝑑𝑓2 , 𝑑ℎ2 } + |𝑐𝑓 2 | , (20) ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮⎥⎥
𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ ⎢
⎣ 0 ⋯ 0 ⋯ 0 ⋯ 0⎦
(iii)if 𝜌 is separable under the bipartition ℎ|𝑓 𝑔, then
√ √ 𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑑𝑓 . For matrix 𝐴 and 𝐵, we use ‖𝐴 ⊗ 𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 = ‖𝐴‖𝑡𝑟 ‖𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 ,
√ 𝑑𝑓 √
𝑓 |𝑔ℎ 1 ‖𝐴 + 𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ ‖𝐴‖𝑡𝑟 + ‖𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 and ‖𝐴𝑚×𝑛 ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ min{𝑚, 𝑛}‖𝐴‖, thus
‖𝐵 ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ |𝑐𝑓 1 | min{𝑑𝑓 , 𝑑𝑔 }
2 2 + |𝑐𝑓 2 | . (21)
𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ
‖𝐵 𝑓 |𝑔ℎ ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ |𝑐𝑓 1 |‖(𝑇 (𝑔) 0 ⋯ 0)† ⊗ 𝐵 𝑓 ℎ ‖𝑡𝑟
Proof. (i) If the tripartite pure state 𝜌 is separable under bipartition 𝑓ℎ 𝑓ℎ 𝑓ℎ
+ |𝑐𝑓 2 |‖(𝑇 (𝑔) )† ⊗ (𝐵21 + 𝐵22 + ⋯ + 𝐵2𝑑 )‖𝑡𝑟
𝑓 |𝑔ℎ, it can be expressed as 𝜌 = 𝜌𝑓 ⊗ 𝜌𝑔ℎ , where 𝑓

= |𝑐𝑓 1 |‖(𝑇 (𝑔) )† ‖𝑡𝑟 ‖𝐵 𝑓 ℎ ‖𝑡𝑟

𝑑𝑓2
∑ 𝑓ℎ
+ |𝑐𝑓 2 |‖(𝑇 (𝑔) )† ‖𝑡𝑟 ‖(𝐵21 + 𝐵22𝑓ℎ
+ ⋯ + 𝐵2𝑑 𝑓ℎ
)‖𝑡𝑟
𝜌𝑓 = 𝑑𝑓 𝜇𝛼𝑓 𝐴𝛼(𝑓 ) , (22) 𝑓
𝛼𝑓 =1
𝑓 √
≤ |𝑐𝑓 1 | min{𝑑𝑓2 , 𝑑ℎ2 }‖𝑇 (𝑔) ‖‖𝑇 (𝑓 ℎ) ‖ + |𝑐𝑓 2 |‖𝑇 (𝑔) ‖𝑑𝑓 ‖𝑇 (𝑓 ℎ) ‖
∑
𝑑2
∑
𝑑2 √ √ √ √
𝑔 ℎ
√
𝜌𝑔ℎ = 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ 𝜇𝛼𝑔 𝛼ℎ 𝐴(𝑔) (ℎ)
𝛼 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼 . (23) ≤ |𝑐𝑓 1 | min{𝑑𝑓2 , 𝑑ℎ2 }
1 1
+ |𝑐𝑓 2 |
1
𝑑𝑓
1
𝑔 ℎ
𝛼𝑔 =1 𝛼ℎ =1 𝑑𝑔 𝑑𝑓 𝑑ℎ 𝑑𝑔 𝑑𝑓 𝑑ℎ
√ √
Let 𝑇 (𝑓 ) and 𝑇 (𝑔ℎ) be the column vectors with entries 𝜇𝛼𝑓 and 𝜇𝛼𝑔 𝛼ℎ , √ 𝑑𝑓
1
= |𝑐𝑓 1 | min{𝑑𝑓 , 𝑑ℎ }
2 2 + |𝑐𝑓 2 | .
respectively. Thus we have 𝐵 𝑓 |𝑔ℎ = 𝑐𝑓 1 (𝑇 (𝑓 ) )(𝑇 (𝑔ℎ) 0 ⋯ 0)† +𝑐𝑓 2 𝐵2𝑔ℎ ⊗ 𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ
(𝑇 (𝑔ℎ) )† , where 𝐵2𝑔ℎ is a 𝑑𝑓2 × 𝑑𝑓 matrix as follows,
(29)
𝑇
⎡ 𝜇𝑑 2 ⋯ 𝜇𝑑 2 −𝑑 ⋯ 0 ⋯ 0⎤
𝑓 +1
⎢ 𝑓 𝑓 ⎥ (iii) Using similar method, if 𝜌 is separable under the bipartition
𝐵2𝑔ℎ = ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮⎥ . (24)
⎢ 0 ⋯ 0 ⋯ 𝜇𝑑𝑓 ⋯ 𝜇1 ⎥⎦ ℎ|𝑓 𝑔, we obtain 𝐵 𝑓 |𝑔ℎ = 𝑐𝑓 1 [𝐵1𝑓 𝑔 0𝑑 2 ×{(𝑑 2
𝑓𝑔
] ⊗ (𝑇 (ℎ) )† + 𝑐𝑓 2 (𝐵21 +
⎣ 𝑓 𝑓 −1)𝑑𝑔 }
𝑓𝑔 𝑓𝑔
𝐵22 + ⋯ + 𝐵2𝑑 ) ⊗ (𝑇 (ℎ) )† , where 𝐵1𝑓 𝑔 is a 𝑑𝑓2 × 𝑑𝑔2 matrix, 𝐵21
𝑓𝑔 𝑓𝑔
, 𝐵22 , …,
For matrix 𝐴, 𝐵 and vectors |𝑎⟩ and |𝑏⟩, we use ‖𝐴 ⊗ 𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 = ‖𝐴‖𝑡𝑟 ‖𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 , 𝑓𝑔
𝑓

‖𝐴 + 𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ ‖𝐴‖𝑡𝑟 + ‖𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 and ‖|𝑎⟩⟨𝑏|‖𝑡𝑟 = ‖|𝑎⟩‖‖|𝑏⟩‖, then we obtain 𝐵2𝑑 are 𝑑𝑓2 × {𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑔2 } matrix. Thus
𝑓

√ √
‖𝐵 𝑓 |𝑔ℎ ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ |𝑐𝑓 1 |‖(𝑇 (𝑓 ) )(𝑇 (𝑔ℎ) 0 ⋯ 0)† ‖𝑡𝑟 + |𝑐𝑓 2 |‖𝐵2𝑔ℎ ⊗ (𝑇 (𝑔ℎ) )† ‖𝑡𝑟 √ 𝑑𝑓
𝑓 |𝑔ℎ 1
‖𝐵 ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ |𝑐𝑓 1 | min{𝑑𝑓2 , 𝑑𝑔2 } + |𝑐𝑓 2 | . □ (30)
= |𝑐𝑓 1 |‖𝑇 (𝑓 ) ‖‖𝑇 (𝑔ℎ) ‖ + |𝑐𝑓 2 |‖𝐵2𝑔ℎ ‖𝑡𝑟 ‖(𝑇 (𝑔ℎ) )† ‖𝑡𝑟 𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ
√
≤ |𝑐𝑓 1 |‖𝑇 (𝑓 ) ‖‖𝑇 (𝑔ℎ) ‖ + |𝑐𝑓 2 | 𝑑𝑓 ‖𝑇 (𝑓 ) ‖‖𝑇 (𝑔ℎ) ‖
We are now ready √ to consider√genuine tripartite √ entanglement.
√
√ √ √ √
√ Set 𝑄1 = max{|𝑐11 | 𝑑 𝑑1 𝑑 + |𝑐12 | 𝑑 1𝑑 , |𝑐11 | min{𝑑12 , 𝑑32 } 𝑑 𝑑1 𝑑 +
1 1 1 1
≤ |𝑐𝑓 1 | + |𝑐𝑓 2 | 𝑑𝑓 √ √ 1 2 3
√ 2 3 √ 1 2 3
𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ 𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ 𝑑 𝑑
√ √ |𝑐12 | 𝑑 𝑑1 , |𝑐11 | min{𝑑12 , 𝑑22 } 𝑑 𝑑1 𝑑 + +|𝑐12 | 𝑑 𝑑1 }, 𝑄2 =
1 1
2 3
√ √
1 2 3
√ √
2 3
√
= |𝑐𝑓 1 | + |𝑐𝑓 2 | , max{|𝑐21 | 𝑑 𝑑1 𝑑 + |𝑐22 | 𝑑 1𝑑 , |𝑐21 | min{𝑑22 , 𝑑32 } 𝑑 𝑑1 𝑑 + |𝑐22 | 𝑑 𝑑2 ,
𝑑
𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ 𝑑𝑔 𝑑ℎ
√
1 2 3
√
1 3
√ 1 2 3
√
1 3

(25) 1 𝑑2 1
|𝑐21 | min{𝑑2 , 𝑑1 } 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 + |𝑐22 | 𝑑 𝑑 }, 𝑄3 = max{|𝑐31 | 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 +
2 2

√ √
1 2 3
√
1 3
√ √
1 2 3

where we have used Lemmas 1 and 2 in the third inequality. 𝑑

|𝑐32 | 𝑑 1𝑑 , |𝑐31 | min{𝑑32 , 𝑑22 } 𝑑 𝑑1 𝑑 + |𝑐32 | 𝑑 𝑑3 , |𝑐31 | min{𝑑32 , 𝑑12 }
(ii) If the tripartite pure state 𝜌 is separable under bipartition 𝑔|𝑓 ℎ, 1 2
√ 1 2 3 1 2
√
it can be expressed as 𝜌 = 𝜌𝑔 ⊗ 𝜌𝑓 ℎ , where 1
+ |𝑐 |
𝑑3
} and 𝐵(𝜌) = 1
(‖𝐵 1|23 ‖ + ‖𝐵 2|13 ‖ + ‖𝐵 3|12 ‖ ),
𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 32 𝑑 𝑑 3 𝑡𝑟 𝑡𝑟 𝑡𝑟
1 2 3 1 2
𝑑2 where 𝑐11 , 𝑐12 , 𝑐21 , 𝑐22 , 𝑐31 and 𝑐32 are real numbers. We have the
∑
𝑔
𝜌𝑔 = 𝑑𝑔 𝜇𝛼𝑔 𝐴(𝑔)
𝛼𝑔 , (26) following Theorem.
𝛼𝑔 =1

𝑑2 𝑑2 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑
∑
𝑓
∑
ℎ Theorem 2. A quantum mixed state 𝜌 ∈ 𝐻1 1 ⊗ 𝐻2 2 ⊗ 𝐻3 3 is genuine
𝜌𝑓 ℎ = 𝑑𝑓 𝑑ℎ 𝜇𝛼𝑓 𝛼ℎ 𝐴(𝑓
𝛼𝑓
)
⊗ 𝐴(ℎ)
𝛼ℎ . (27) tripartite entangled if 𝐵(𝜌) > 13 (𝑄1 + 𝑄2 + 𝑄3 ).
𝛼𝑓 =1 𝛼ℎ =1

∑ ∑
Let 𝑇 (𝑔) and 𝑇 (𝑓 ℎ) be the column vectors with entries 𝜇𝛼𝑔 and 𝜇𝛼𝑓 𝛼ℎ , Proof. If 𝜌 is a biseparable, one has 𝜌 = 𝑖 𝑜𝑖 𝜌1𝑖 ⊗ 𝜌23 2 13
∑ ∑ ∑ 𝑖 + ∑ 𝑗 𝑟𝑗 𝜌𝑗 ⊗ 𝜌𝑗 +
respectively. Then we obtain 𝐵 𝑓 |𝑔ℎ = 𝑐𝑓 1 (𝑇 (𝑔) 0 ⋯ 0)† ⊗ 𝐵1𝑓 ℎ + 3 12
𝑘 𝑠𝑘 𝜌𝑘 ⊗ 𝜌𝑘 with 0 ≤ 𝑜𝑖 , 𝑟𝑗 , 𝑠𝑘 ≤ 1 and 𝑖 𝑜𝑖 + 𝑗 𝑟𝑗 + 𝑘 𝑠𝑘 = 1. By

3
H. Zhao et al. Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107060
√ √ √ √
𝑥2 −2𝑥+2 3 2|𝑥−1|
Theorem 1, we have that
8
+ − 13 (2 12 + 18 ) > 0. Thus 𝜌 is genuine tripartite
8
entangled for 0 ≤ 𝑥 < 0.1919. The Theorem 1 in √ [16] implies that 𝜌 is
1 ( 1|23 )
𝐵(𝜌) = ‖𝐵 (𝜌)‖𝑡𝑟 + ‖𝐵 2|13 (𝜌)‖𝑡𝑟 + ‖𝐵 3|12 (𝜌)‖𝑡𝑟 genuine tripartite entangled if 𝑔1 (𝑥) = 2 − 2𝑥 − 3 > 0, i.e., 0 ≤ 𝑥 <
3[ ( )
∑ ∑ ∑ 0.134. Theorem 1√ in [25] shows that 𝜌 is genuine tripartite entangled if
1 1|23 1 23 2 13 3 12
= ‖𝐵 𝑜𝑖 𝜌𝑖 ⊗ 𝜌𝑖 + 𝑟 𝑗 𝜌𝑗 ⊗ 𝜌 𝑗 + 𝑠𝑘 𝜌𝑘 ⊗ 𝜌𝑘 ‖𝑡𝑟 𝑔2 (𝑥) = 𝐶3 (𝜌) − 12 6 − 25𝑥 + 25 𝑥2 ≤ 0, i.e., 0 ≤ 𝑥 < 0.08349. Our result
3 𝑖 𝑗 𝑘
2
( ) clearly outperforms these two results, see Fig. 1.
∑ ∑ ∑
2|13 1 23 2 13 3 12
+‖𝐵 𝑜𝑖 𝜌𝑖 ⊗ 𝜌𝑖 + 𝑟𝑗 𝜌𝑗 ⊗ 𝜌𝑗 + 𝑠𝑘 𝜌𝑘 ⊗ 𝜌𝑘 ‖𝑡𝑟
The range of genuine entanglement for (34) given in [26] is better
𝑖 𝑗 𝑘
( ) ] than our conclusion. However, [26] only considered the qubit case.
∑ ∑ ∑
+‖𝐵 3|12 𝑜𝑖 𝜌1𝑖 ⊗ 𝜌23
𝑖 + 𝑟𝑗 𝜌2𝑗 ⊗ 𝜌13
𝑗 + 𝑠𝑘 𝜌3𝑘 ⊗ 𝜌12
𝑘 ‖𝑡𝑟 Our method can detect genuine tripartite entanglement for arbitrary
𝑖 𝑗 𝑘 dimensions. We take the following 3 × 3 × 2 quantum state to illustrate
[
1 ∑ ∑ our method. We use the matrices provided in [24] through construction
≤ 𝑜𝑖 ‖𝐵 1|23 (𝜌1𝑖 ⊗ 𝜌23
𝑖 )‖𝑡𝑟 + 𝑟𝑗 ‖𝐵 1|23 (𝜌2𝑗 ⊗ 𝜌13
𝑗 )‖𝑡𝑟 2. When 𝑑 = 3,
3 𝑖 𝑗
∑ √
𝑠𝑘 ‖𝐵 1|23 (𝜌3𝑘 ⊗ 𝜌12 ⎡ −7+3𝐢 7 ⎤
+ 𝑘 )‖𝑡𝑟 ⎢ − 29 √
𝐢
√
1
√
− ⎥
84 3 6 5 6 7
∑
𝑘
∑ ⎢ √ √ ⎥
𝐴1 = ⎢ ⎥,
−7−3𝐢 7
+ 𝑜𝑖 ‖𝐵 2|13 (𝜌1𝑖 ⊗ 𝜌23
𝑖 )‖𝑡𝑟 + 𝑟𝑗 ‖𝐵 2|13 (𝜌2𝑗 ⊗ 𝜌13
𝑗 )‖𝑡𝑟 √
1
− −5𝐢+√ 15
𝑖 𝑗 ⎢ 84 3 9 30 2 ⎥
⎢ √ ⎥
∑ 1 5𝐢+ 15 4
+ 𝑠𝑘 ‖𝐵 2|13 (𝜌3𝑘 ⊗ 𝜌12
𝑘 )‖𝑡𝑟
⎢ − √𝐢 − √ − √ ⎥
⎣ 6 5 6 7 30 2 9 ⎦
𝑘
∑ ∑ 1 2
+ 𝑜𝑖 ‖𝐵 3|12 (𝜌1𝑖 ⊗ 𝜌23
𝑖 )‖𝑡𝑟 + 𝑟𝑗 ‖𝐵 3|12 (𝜌2𝑗 ⊗ 𝜌13
𝑗 )‖𝑡𝑟
⎡ 9
√ 0 ⎤
𝑖 𝑗 ⎢ 3 3 ⎥
] 𝐴2 = ⎢ 2
√
1
0 ⎥,
∑ ⎢ 3 3 9 ⎥
3|12
+ 𝑠𝑘 ‖𝐵 (𝜌3𝑘 ⊗ 𝜌12
𝑘 )‖𝑡𝑟 ⎢ 1 ⎥
𝑘 ⎣ 0 0 9
⎦
[( ) ( ) √
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ⎡
1 0 ⎤
1 −1−3𝐢 7
≤ 𝑜𝑖 + 𝑟𝑗 + 𝑠𝑘 𝑄 1 + 𝑜𝑖 + 𝑟𝑗 + 𝑠𝑘 𝑄2 √
3 ⎢ 9 12 3 ⎥
𝑖 𝑗 𝑘 𝑖 𝑗 𝑘 ⎢ √ ⎥
( ) ] 𝐴3 = ⎢ −1+3𝐢 7
∑ ∑ ∑ √
1
0 ⎥,
+ 𝑜𝑖 + 𝑟𝑗 +
1
𝑠𝑘 𝑄3 = (𝑄1 + 𝑄2 + 𝑄3 ). ⎢ 12 3 9 ⎥
3 ⎢ 1 ⎥
𝑖 𝑗 𝑘 ⎣ 0 0 9 ⎦
√
(31) ⎡ 1 −7+3𝐢 7 1 ⎤
√ √
1 ⎢ 9 84 3 7 ⎥
Consequently, if 𝐵(𝜌) > (𝑄1 + 𝑄2 + 𝑄3 ), 𝜌 is genuine tripartite ⎢ √ ⎥
3 −7−3𝐢 7 1
entangled. □ 𝐴4 = ⎢ √ 0 ⎥,
9
⎢ 84 3 ⎥
⎢ √
1
0 1 ⎥
In particular, for states that are invariant under any permutation ⎣ 7 9 ⎦
of basis, 𝜌 = 𝜌𝑝 = 𝑝𝜌𝑝† , where 𝑝 is any permutation operator. Let √ √
⎡ −7+3𝐢 7 ⎤
𝑑1 = 𝑑2 = 𝑑3 = 𝑑, 𝑐11 = 𝑐21 = 𝑐31 and 𝑐12 = 𝑐22 = 𝑐32 , the following ⎢
1
9
√ − 𝐢 65 − 1
√
⎥
84 3 6 7
corollary can be deduced. ⎢ √ ⎥
𝐴5 = ⎢ ⎥,
−7−3𝐢 7 1
√ 0
⎢ 84 3 9 ⎥
Corollary 1. If a permutational invariant mixed state is biseparable, then ⎢ √ ⎥ (35)
𝐢 5 1 1
we have ⎢ − √ 0 ⎥
⎣ 6 6 7 9 ⎦
1 √
𝐵(𝜌) = (‖𝐵 1|23 ‖𝑡𝑟 + ‖𝐵 2|13 ‖𝑡𝑟 + ‖𝐵 3|12 ‖𝑡𝑟 ) ⎡ 1 −7+3𝐢 7 𝐢 1 ⎤
3 √ √ − √
√ √ √ ⎢ 9 84 3 6 5 6 7 ⎥
1 1 1 1 1 ⎢ √ √ ⎥
𝐴6 = ⎢ ⎥
≤ (𝑐11 + 𝑐12 + 2𝑐11 + 2𝑐12 ). (32) −7−3𝐢 7 1 2
√
3 𝑑3 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 ⎢ 84 3 9 15 ⎥
√ √ √ ⎢ √ ⎥
1 2 1
Therefore if 𝐵(𝜌) > 13 (𝑐11 𝑑13 + 𝑐12 𝑑1 + 2𝑐11 𝑑1 + 2𝑐12 𝑑1 ), 𝜌 is genuine ⎢ − √𝐢 − √ ⎥
⎣ 6 5 6 7 15 9 ⎦
tripartite entangled. √
⎡ 1 −7+3𝐢 7
√
𝐢
√ √
1 ⎤
⎢ − ⎥
To illustrate our criterion, we consider the case of 𝑑 = 2. We use 9 84 3 6 5 6 7
⎢ √ √ ⎥
the four matrices provided in [24] through construction 1,
𝐴7 = ⎢ ⎥,
−7−3𝐢 7
√
1
− 15𝐢+√ 15
[ 1 1−𝐢 ] [ −1−𝐢 ] ⎢ 84 3 9 30 2 ⎥
0 ⎢ √ ⎥
2 4 4
𝐴1 = 1+𝐢 , 𝐴2 = −1+𝐢 , ⎢ − √𝐢 − √ 1
− −15𝐢+√ 15 1
⎥
0 1 ⎣ 6 5 6 7 30 2 9 ⎦
4 4 2
[ 1+𝐢 ] [ 1 −1+𝐢 ]
(33) √
0 ⎡ 4 −7+3𝐢 7
√
𝐢
√
1
√
⎤
4 2 4 ⎢ − ⎥
𝐴3 = 1−𝐢 , 𝐴 4 = , 9 84 3 6 5 6 7
1 −1−𝐢
0 ⎢ √ √ ⎥
𝐴8 = ⎢ ⎥,
4 2 4 −7−3𝐢 7
√ √ − 29 − −5𝐢+√ 15
⎢ 84 3 30 2 ⎥
where 𝐢 = −1. ⎢ √ ⎥
⎢ − √𝐢 − √ 1
− 5𝐢+√15 1
⎥
⎣ 6 5 6 7 30 2 9 ⎦
Example 1. Consider the 2 × 2 × 2 quantum state 𝜌𝐺𝐻𝑍 , √
⎡ 1 −7+3𝐢 7
√
𝐢
√
1
√
⎤
𝑥 ⎢ 9
− ⎥
𝜌𝐺𝐻𝑍 = I + (1 − 𝑥)|𝐺𝐻𝑍⟩⟨𝐺𝐻𝑍|, 0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 1, (34) 84 3 6 5 6 7
8 8 ⎢ √ √ ⎥
𝐴9 = ⎢ ⎥.
−7−3𝐢 7
1 √
4
− −5𝐢+√ 15
where |𝐺𝐻𝑍⟩ = + |111⟩]. Let 𝑐11 = 𝑐21 = 𝑐31 = 1 and
√ [|000⟩ ⎢ 84 3 9 30 2 ⎥
2 √ √ ⎢ √ ⎥
1 5𝐢+ 15
𝑐12 = 𝑐22 +𝑐32 = 0, by Corollary 1 we have 𝑓1 (𝑥) = 𝐵(𝜌)− 13 (2 12 + 18 ) = ⎢ − √𝐢 − √ − √ − 29 ⎥
⎣ 6 5 6 7 30 2 ⎦

4
H. Zhao et al. Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107060

Fig. 1. 𝑓1 (𝑥) from our result (solid blue line) and 𝑔1 (𝑥) in [16] (dotted red line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)

When 𝑑 = 2, Lemma 3. For any 𝑛-partite quantum state 𝜌, the following inequality
√ hold,
1 1 1
⎡ − 4
√ − √ + √𝐢 ⎤ ⎡ 1 3 ⎤
𝐴1 = ⎢ ⎥ , 𝐴2 = ⎢ ⎥,
2 2 4 3 2 6 4 4 1
√ ‖𝑇 (12⋯𝑛) ‖2 ≤ . (39)
⎢ − √ −
1 𝐢
√
1
+ 1
√ ⎥ ⎢ 3 1 ⎥ 𝑑1 𝑑2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑛
⎣ 4 3 2 6 4 2 2 ⎦ ⎣ 4 4
⎦
1 1 𝐢
⎡ 4
− √ − √ ⎤ Proof. For any 𝑛-partite quantum state 𝜌, we have 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌2 ) = 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌𝜌† ) =
𝐴3 = ⎢ ⎥,
4 3 6
(36) 𝑑1 𝑑2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑛 ‖𝑇 (12⋯𝑛) ‖2 . Since 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌2 ) ≤ 1,
⎢ − √
1
√
𝐢 1 ⎥
⎣ 4 3+ 6 4 ⎦
1 1
1 1 1 𝐢 ‖𝑇 (12⋯𝑛) ‖2 = 𝑇 𝑟(𝜌2 ) ≤ . (40)
⎡ 4
+ √ − √ + √ ⎤ 𝑑1 𝑑2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑛 𝑑1 𝑑2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑛
𝐴4 = ⎢ 2 2 4 3 2 6 ⎥.
⎢ − √1 𝐢 1 1 ⎥ The upper bound is attained if and only if 𝜌 is a pure state. □
⎣ 4 3 − 2√6 4
− √
2 2 ⎦
𝑑 𝑑 𝑑
If an 𝑛-partite state 𝜌 ∈ 𝐻1 1 ⊗ 𝐻2 2 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐻𝑛 𝑛 is fully separable.
We define 𝐵 1|2|⋯|𝑛 2 2 2 2
is a 𝑑1 × {𝑑2 𝑑3 ⋯ 𝑑𝑛 } matrix with entries given by
Example 2. Consider the 3 × 3 × 2 quantum state,
(𝐵 1|2|⋯|𝑛 )𝛼1 𝛼2 ⋯𝛼𝑛 = 𝜇𝛼1 𝛼2 ⋯𝛼𝑛 . For example, for 𝜌 ∈ 𝐻12 ⊗ 𝐻22 ⊗ 𝐻32 ⊗ 𝐻42 ,
1−𝑥
𝜌= 𝐼 + 𝑥|𝜑⟩⟨𝜑|, (37) we obtain
18
1 ⎡𝜇1111 𝜇1112 ⋯ 𝜇1444 ⎤
where |𝜑⟩ = √ [(|10⟩ + |21⟩)|0⟩ + (|00⟩ + |11⟩ + |22⟩)|1⟩].
⎢ ⎥
5 𝜇 𝜇2112 ⋯ 𝜇2444 ⎥
𝐵 1|2|3|4 = ⎢ 2111 . (41)
⎢𝜇3111 𝜇3112 ⋯ 𝜇3444 ⎥
√ From Theorem 1(i), when 𝑐31 = 0 and 𝑐32 = 1, we have ‖𝐵 ‖𝑡𝑟 >
3|12
⎢𝜇 𝜇4112 ⋯ ⎥
𝜇4444 ⎦
1
. We can detect the entanglement of 𝜌 for 0.496 < 𝑥 ≤ 1. In Ref. [27] ⎣ 4111
9
the entanglement is only detected for 𝑥 = 1. Hence, our method can
detect more entanglement. Using Theorem 2 and setting 𝑐11 √ = 𝑐12 = Theorem 3. If the 𝑛-partite quantum state 𝜌 is fully separable, then we
get
𝑐21 = 𝑐22 = 𝑐31 = 0 and 𝑐32 = 1, we get that 𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝐵(𝜌) − 29 . 𝜌 is
√
genuine entangled for 𝑓 (𝑥) > 0, i.e., 0.7152 < 𝑥 ≤ 1. While the criterion 1
given in [27] cannot detect the genuine tripartite entanglement in this ‖𝐵 1|2|⋯|𝑛 ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ . (42)
𝑑1 𝑑2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑛
case.

Proof. If the 𝑛-partite state 𝜌 is fully separable, it can be expressed as

Multipartite entanglement criterion based on COB ∑ 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 ∑
𝑧 𝑟𝑧 𝜌1 ⊗ 𝜌2 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝜌𝑛 , 0 < 𝑟𝑧 ≤ 1, 𝑧 𝑟𝑧 = 1, where

Now we consider multipartite entanglement in 𝑛-partite quantum 𝑑2

𝑑2
∑
𝑙

systems. Let {𝐴𝛼(𝑠)𝑠 }𝛼𝑠 =1 be the COB of the 𝑠th 𝑑𝑠 -dimensional Hilbert 𝜌𝑧𝑙 = 𝑑𝑙 𝜇𝛼𝑧 𝐴𝛼(𝑙) , 𝑙 ∈ {1, 2, … , 𝑛}. (43)
𝑠 𝑙 𝑙
𝑑 𝛼𝑙=1
space 𝐻𝑠 𝑠 . It is direct to verify that the set of operators ⊗ ⊗ 𝐴(1)
𝛼1 𝐴(2)
𝛼2
⋯ ⊗ 𝐴(𝑛)𝛼𝑛 are linearly independent. Therefore, any 𝑛-partite quantum Let 𝑇 (𝑙) be the column vectors with entries of 𝜇𝛼𝑧 . Then we obtain
𝑙
𝑑
state 𝜌 ∈ 𝐻1 1
𝑑 𝑑
⊗ 𝐻2 2 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐻𝑛 𝑛 can be expressed as ∑
1|2|⋯|𝑛 (1) (2) † (𝑛) †
‖𝐵 ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ 𝑟𝑧 ‖𝑇 ⊗ (𝑇 ) ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ (𝑇 ) ‖𝑡𝑟
𝑧
𝑑2
∑
1 ∑
2
𝑑2 2
𝑑𝑛
∑ ∑
𝜌 = 𝑑1 𝑑2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑛 ⋯ 𝜇𝛼1 𝛼2 ⋯𝛼𝑛 𝐴(1) (2) (𝑛)
(38) = 𝑟𝑧 ‖𝑇 (1) ‖𝑡𝑟 ‖(𝑇 (2) )† ‖𝑡𝑟 ⋯ ‖(𝑇 (𝑛) )† ‖𝑡𝑟
𝛼 ⊗ 𝐴𝛼 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐴𝛼 ,
1 2 𝑛 𝑧
𝛼1 =1 𝛼2 =1 𝛼𝑛 =1 ∑ (44)
= 𝑟𝑧 ‖𝑇 (1) ‖‖𝑇 (2) ‖ ⋯ ‖𝑇 (𝑛) ‖
where 𝜇𝛼1 𝛼2 ⋯𝛼𝑛 = ⊗𝑇 𝑟(𝜌𝐴(1)
⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐴(2) Let 𝐴(𝑛)
be the
𝛼𝑛 ). 𝑇 (12⋯𝑛) 𝑧
𝛼1 𝛼2 √ √ √ √
column vector with entries 𝜇𝛼1 𝛼2 ⋯𝛼𝑛 . An 𝑛-partite quantum state 𝜌 = ∑
∑ 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 ≤ 𝑟𝑧
1 1
⋯
1
=
1
,
𝑧 𝑟𝑧 𝜌𝑙1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 ⊗ 𝜌𝑙𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 +𝑣 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝜌𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 is said to be 𝑘-separable un- 𝑑1 𝑑2 𝑑𝑛 𝑑1 𝑑2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑛
1 1 1 2 𝑘 ∑ 𝑧
der the partition 𝑙1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑣1 |𝑙𝑣1 +1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑣1 +𝑣2 | ⋯ |𝑙𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑛 , where 𝑘𝑖=1 𝑣𝑖 =
𝑑𝑙 where we have used ‖𝐴 ⊗ 𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 = ‖𝐴‖𝑡𝑟 ‖𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 for matrices 𝐴 and 𝐵 and
𝑛, 𝜌𝑧𝑙 ⋯𝑙 , 𝜌𝑧𝑙 , …, and 𝜌𝑧𝑙 are pure states in 𝐻𝑙 1
⊗⋯⊗ Lemma 1 in the second inequality. □
1 𝑣1 𝑣1 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑣1 +𝑣2 𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 1
𝑑𝑙𝑣 𝑑𝑙 𝑑𝑙𝑣 +𝑣 𝑑𝑙 𝑑𝑙
𝑣1 +1 𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑
𝐻𝑙 1 , 𝐻𝑙 ⊗⋯⊗𝐻𝑙 1 2 , …, and 𝐻𝑙 ⊗⋯⊗𝐻𝑙 𝑛 , respectively, If an 𝑛-partite state 𝜌 ∈ 𝐻1 1 ⊗ 𝐻2 2 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐻𝑛 𝑛 is biseparable under
𝑣1 𝑣1 +1 𝑣1 +𝑣2 𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 𝑛
𝑙1 ≠ 𝑙2 ≠ ⋯ ≠ 𝑙𝑛 ∈ {1, 2, … , 𝑛}. the bipartition 𝑙1 |𝑙2 ⋯ 𝑙𝑛 , we define a 𝑑𝑙2 × {𝑑𝑙2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙2 } matrix 𝐵 𝑙1 |𝑙2 ⋯𝑙𝑛
1 2 𝑛

5
H. Zhao et al. Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107060

with entries given by (𝐵 𝑙1 |𝑙2 ⋯𝑙𝑛 )𝛼1 𝛼2 ⋯𝛼𝑛 = 𝜇𝛼1 𝛼2 ⋯𝛼𝑛 . For example, for ⋯
𝜌 ∈ 𝐻12 ⊗ 𝐻22 ⊗ 𝐻32 ⊗ 𝐻42 , we have
𝑑2
𝑙𝑞
∑
𝑛 ∑ (𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ) (𝑙 )
⎡𝜇1111 𝜇1112 ⋯ 𝜇4144 ⎤ 𝜌𝑧𝑙 = 𝑑𝑙𝑛−𝑣 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑛 𝜇𝛼𝑧 𝐴𝛼𝑙 𝑘
⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐴𝛼𝑙𝑛 .
𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝛼𝑙𝑛
⎢ ⎥ 𝑘 +1
𝑞=𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 𝛼𝑙𝑞 =1 𝑘 𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 𝑛
𝜇 𝜇1212 ⋯ 𝜇4244 ⎥
𝐵 2|134 = ⎢ 1211 . (45)
⎢𝜇1311 𝜇1312 ⋯ 𝜇4344 ⎥ (53)
⎢𝜇 𝜇1412 ⋯ ⎥
𝜇4444 ⎦
⎣ 1411 (𝑙 ⋯𝑙 ) (𝑙 ⋯𝑙 )
Let 𝑇 1 𝑣1 , 𝑇 𝑣1 +1 𝑣1 +𝑣2 , …, 𝑇 (𝑙𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ) be the column vectors with
If 𝜌 is 𝑘-separable under the bipartition 𝑙1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑣1 |𝑙𝑣1 +1 ⋯ entries of 𝜇𝛼𝑧 ⋯𝛼 , 𝜇𝛼𝑧 , …, 𝜇𝛼𝑧
⋯𝛼 ⋯𝛼 , respectively. And
𝑙 ⋯𝑙 |𝑙 ⋯𝑙 |⋯|𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 𝑙1 𝑙𝑣 𝑙𝑣 +1 𝑙𝑣 +𝑣 𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 𝑙𝑛
𝑙𝑣1 +𝑣2 | ⋯ |𝑙𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑛 , we denote 𝐵 1 𝑣1 𝑣1 +1 𝑣1 +𝑣2 𝑘 = (𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 )
1 1 1 2 𝑘

𝑙1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 |𝑙𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 +𝑣 |⋯|𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 𝑇𝑗 𝑘

be the column vectors composed with a part of 𝜇𝛼𝑧 ,
(𝐵 1 1 1 2 𝑘 )𝛼𝑙 𝛼𝑙 ⋯𝛼𝑙 = 𝜇𝛼𝑙 𝛼𝑙 ⋯𝛼𝑙 is a {𝑑𝑙2 ⋯ 𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝛼𝑙𝑛
𝑘
1 2 𝑛 1 2 𝑛 𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1
𝛼𝑙𝑛 = (𝑗 − 1)𝑑𝑙𝑛 + 1, … , 𝑗𝑑𝑙𝑛 , 𝑗 = 1, 2, … , 𝑑𝑙𝑛 . We have
𝑑𝑙2 𝑑𝑙𝑛 } × {𝑑𝑙2 𝑑𝑙2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙2 } matrix. For example, for 𝜌 ∈ 𝐻12 ⊗ 𝐻22 ⊗
𝑛−1 1 2 𝑛−1
𝐻32 ⊗ 𝐻42 , we obtain 𝐵1
𝑙 ⋯𝑙𝑣 |𝑙𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 +𝑣 |⋯|𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛
1 1 1 2 𝑘
∑ (𝑙1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 ) † (𝑙𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 +𝑣 ) † (𝑙𝑛−𝑣 −𝑣 ⋯𝑙𝑛−𝑣 ) †
⎡ 𝜇1111 𝜇1113 ⋯ 𝜇4411 𝜇4413 ⎤ = 𝑟𝑧 (𝑇 1 ) ⊗ (𝑇 1 1 2 ) ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ (𝑇 𝑘 𝑘−1 +1 𝑘 )
⎢ ⎥ 𝑧
𝜇1121 𝜇1123 ⋯ 𝜇4421 𝜇4423 ⎥ ( (𝑙
𝐵 12|34 =⎢ . (46) 𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ) (𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ) (𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ) )
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥ ⊗ 𝑇1 𝑘 𝑇2 𝑘 ⋯ 𝑇𝑑 𝑘
⎢ 𝜇1142 𝜇1144 ⋯ 𝜇4442 𝜇4444 ⎥⎦
𝑙𝑛
⎣
(54)
Theorem 4. If an 𝑛-partite quantum state is 𝑘-separable under the Then we derive
bipartition 𝑙1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑣1 |𝑙𝑣1 +1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑣1 +𝑣2 | ⋯ |𝑙𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑛 , 𝑙 ⋯𝑙 |𝑙 ⋯𝑙 |⋯|𝑙 ⋯𝑙
‖𝐵 1 𝑣1 𝑣1 +1 𝑣1 +𝑣2 𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 𝑛
‖𝑡𝑟
then the following inequalities
√ hold, ∑ (𝑙1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 ) † (𝑙𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 +𝑣 ) † (𝑙 ⋯𝑙𝑛−𝑣 ) †
≤ 𝑟𝑧 ‖(𝑇 1 ) ‖ ‖(𝑇 1 1 2 ) ‖ ⋯ ‖(𝑇 𝑛−𝑣𝑘 −𝑣𝑘−1 +1 𝑘 ) ‖
(i) ‖𝐵 𝑙1 |𝑙2 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ 1
𝑑𝑙 𝑑𝑙 ⋯𝑑𝑙𝑛
, 𝑡𝑟 𝑡𝑟 𝑡𝑟
𝑧
1 2
√ ( (𝑙 (𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ) )
𝑙 ⋯𝑙 |𝑙 |⋯|𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ) (𝑙𝑛−𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 )
(ii)
⋯𝑙
‖𝐵 1 𝑣1 𝑣1 +1 𝑣1 +𝑣2 𝑘 ‖ 𝑡𝑟 ≤ 1
. ‖ 𝑇1 𝑘 𝑇2 𝑘 ⋯ 𝑇𝑑 𝑘 ‖𝑡𝑟
𝑑𝑙 𝑑𝑙 ⋯𝑑𝑙 𝑙𝑛
1 2 𝑛−1 ∑ (𝑙1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 ) (𝑙𝑣 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑣 +𝑣 )
≤ 𝑟𝑧 ‖𝑇 1 ‖‖𝑇 1 1 2 ‖
𝑧
Proof. (i) If the 𝑛-partite state 𝜌 is biseparable under the bipartition √
∑ ∑ ⋯ ‖𝑇
(𝑙𝑛−𝑣 −𝑣
𝑘 𝑘−1 +1
⋯𝑙𝑛−𝑣 )
𝑘 ‖ 𝑑𝑙𝑛 ‖𝑇 (𝑙𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ) ‖
𝑙1 |𝑙2 ⋯ 𝑙𝑛 , it can be expressed as 𝑧 𝑟𝑧 𝜌𝑧𝑙 ⊗ 𝜌𝑧𝑙 ⋯𝑙 , 0 < 𝑟𝑧 ≤ 1, 𝑧 𝑟𝑧 = 1,
1 2 𝑛
√ √
where ∑ 1 1
≤ 𝑟𝑧
𝑑𝑙2 𝑑𝑙1 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑣 𝑑𝑙𝑣 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑣 +𝑣
∑1 𝑧 1 1 +1 1 2
√ √ √
(𝑙 )
𝜌𝑧𝑙 = 𝑑𝑙1 𝜇𝛼𝑧 𝐴𝛼𝑙1 , (47)
1 𝑙1 1 1 1
𝛼𝑙 =1
1 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑛
𝑑𝑙𝑛−𝑣 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑛−𝑣 𝑑𝑙𝑛−𝑣 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑛
𝑘 −𝑣𝑘−1 +1 𝑘 𝑘 +1
𝑙𝑞
𝑑2 √
∑
𝑛 ∑
(𝑙 ) (𝑙 ) 1
𝜌𝑧𝑙 ⋯𝑙 = 𝑑𝑙2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑛 𝜇𝛼𝑧 𝐴𝛼𝑙2 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐴𝛼𝑙𝑛 . (48) = ,
2 𝑛 𝑙2 ⋯𝛼𝑙𝑛 2 𝑛 𝑑𝑙1 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑛−1
𝑞=2 𝛼𝑙𝑞 =1

(55)
Let 𝑇 (𝑙1 ) and 𝑇 (𝑙2 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ) be the column vectors with entries of 𝜇𝛼𝑧 and
𝑙1
𝜇𝛼𝑧 ⋯𝛼 , respectively. We have
𝑙2 𝑙𝑛
where we have√ used ‖𝐴 ⊗ 𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 = ‖𝐴‖𝑡𝑟 ‖𝐵‖𝑡𝑟 for matrices 𝐴 and 𝐵,
∑ ∑ ‖𝐴𝑚×𝑛 ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ min{𝑚, 𝑛}‖𝐴𝑚×𝑛 ‖ in the second inequality and Lemma 3
‖𝐵 𝑙1 |𝑙2 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ‖𝑡𝑟 ≤ 𝑟𝑧 ‖(𝑇 (𝑙1 ) )(𝑇 (𝑙2 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ) )† ‖𝑡𝑟 = 𝑟𝑧 ‖𝑇 (𝑙1 ) ‖‖𝑇 (𝑙2 ⋯𝑙𝑛 ) ‖ in the third inequality. □
𝑧 𝑧
√ √ √ (49) In the following example, we use the four matrices from (33).
∑ 1 1 1
≤ 𝑟𝑧 = ,
𝑧
𝑑𝑙1 𝑑𝑙2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑛 𝑑𝑙1 𝑑𝑙2 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑛 Example 3. Consider the four-qubit state 𝜌 ∈ 𝐻12 ⊗ 𝐻22 ⊗ 𝐻32 ⊗ 𝐻42 ,
where we have used ‖|𝑎⟩⟨𝑏|‖𝑡𝑟 = ‖|𝑎⟩‖‖|𝑏⟩‖ for vectors |𝑎⟩ and |𝑏⟩, 1−𝑥
𝜌= I + 𝑥|𝜓⟩⟨𝜓|, 0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 1, (56)
Lemmas 1 and 3 in the second inequality. 16 16
(ii) If 𝑛-partite quantum state 𝜌 is separable under the partition 1
where |𝜓⟩ = √ (|0000⟩+|1111⟩), I16 is the 16 × 16 identity matrix. From
2 √
𝑙1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑣1 |𝑙𝑣1 +1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑣1 +𝑣2 | ⋯ |𝑙𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 ⋯ 𝑙𝑛 , 2
then 𝜌 can be expressed as Theorem 4, we obtain that if 𝑓2 (𝑥) = ‖𝐵 𝑙1 |𝑙2 𝑙3 𝑙4 ‖𝑡𝑟 − 41 = 3|𝑥|
8
+ 3𝑥16 +1 − 41 >
∑ 0, i.e., 0.4545 < 𝑥 ≤ 1, 𝜌 is entangled under the bipartition 𝑙1 |𝑙2 𝑙3 𝑙4 . By
𝜌= 𝑟𝑧 𝜌𝑧𝑙 ⋯𝑙 ⊗ 𝜌𝑧𝑙 ⋯𝑙 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝜌𝑧𝑙 ⋯𝑙 , (50) the Theorem 3 in [28], 𝜌 is entangled under the bipartition 𝑙1 |𝑙2 𝑙3 𝑙4 if
1 𝑣1 𝑣1 +1 𝑣1 +𝑣2 𝑛−𝑣𝑘 +1 𝑛
𝑧 𝑔3 (𝑥) = 9𝑥2 − 4 > 0, i.e., 0.6667 < 𝑥 ≤ 1.
where Using Theorem 4, we have √ obtained√ that√ 𝜌 is entangled under the
2
𝑣1
𝑑𝑙2 partition 𝑙1 𝑙2 |𝑙3 𝑙4 for 𝑓3 (𝑥) = 𝑥16+1 + 7 162|𝑥| − 18 > 0, i.e., 0.4602 < 𝑥 ≤
∑ ∑ 𝑞
(𝑙 ) (𝑙𝑣 )
𝜌𝑧𝑙 ⋯𝑙 = 𝑑𝑙1 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑣 𝜇𝛼𝑧 𝐴𝛼𝑙1 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐴𝛼𝑙 1 , (51) 1. The Theorem 4 in√[11] says √ that 𝜌 is entangled under the partition
1 𝑣1 1 𝑙1 ⋯𝛼𝑙𝑣 1 𝑣1 2
𝑞=1 𝛼𝑙𝑞 =1 1 𝑙1 𝑙2 |𝑙3 𝑙4 for 𝑔4 (𝑥) = 1 + 𝑥2 + 2 2𝑥 + 𝑥−𝑥 1+𝑥2
− 4 > 0, i.e., 0.915 < 𝑥 ≤ 1.
The result in [26] implies that 𝜌 is entangled (not biseparable) if 17
𝜌𝑧𝑙 21
𝑣1 +1 ⋯𝑙𝑣1 +𝑣2 (≈ 0.8095) < 𝑥 ≤ 1. Thus, our results outperform these existing results
𝑣1 +𝑣2
𝑑2
𝑙𝑞
in detecting the entanglement, see Fig. 2.
∑ ∑ (𝑙𝑣 +1 ) (𝑙𝑣 +𝑣 )
= 𝑑𝑙𝑣 ⋯ 𝑑𝑙𝑣 𝜇𝛼𝑧 𝐴𝛼𝑙 1 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐴 𝛼𝑙 1 2
,
𝑙𝑣 +1 ⋯𝛼𝑙𝑣 +𝑣
1 +1 1 +𝑣2
𝑞=𝑣1 +1 𝛼𝑙𝑞 =1 1 1 2 𝑣1 +1 𝑣1 +𝑣2 Example 4. Consider the quantum state 𝜌 ∈ 𝐻12 ⊗ 𝐻22 ⊗ 𝐻32 ⊗ 𝐻42 ,

(52) 1−𝑥
𝜌= I + 𝑥|𝑊 ⟩⟨𝑊 |, 0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 1, (57)
16 16

6
H. Zhao et al.
Fig. 2. 𝑓2 (𝑥) from Theorem 4 (solid blue line), 𝑔3 (𝑥) from Theorem 3 in [28] (dotted red line), 𝑓3 (𝑥) from Theorem 3 (solid blue line), 𝑔4 (𝑥) from Theorem 4 in [11] (dotted red
line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 3. 𝑓4 (𝑥) from Theorem 3 (solid blue line), 𝑔5 (𝑥) from Theorem 3 in [11] (dotted red line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
where |𝑊 ⟩ = 12 (|0001⟩ + |0010⟩ + |0100⟩ + |1000⟩). By using Theorem 4,
we obtain 𝜌 is entanglement under the bipartition 𝑙1 |𝑙2 𝑙3 𝑙4 for 𝑓4 (𝑥) =
𝐵 𝑙1 |𝑙2 𝑙3 𝑙4 − 14 > 0, i.e., 0.4891 < 𝑥 ≤ 1. Theorem 3 in [11] shows that 𝜌 is
4+2𝑥2
entanglement under the partition 𝑙1 |𝑙2 𝑙3 𝑙4 for 𝑔5 (𝑥) = √ + 𝑥 − 2 > 0,
2 4+𝑥2
i.e., 0.783 < 𝑥 ≤ 1. Fig. 3 shows that our method can detects more
entanglement.
Conclusion
By using GSICM, COB and their relations, we have derived finer up-
per bounds for the norms of correlation probabilities and presented the
criteria for detecting the genuine tripartite entanglement. And then we
have studied multipartite entanglement for arbitrary dimensional mul-
tipartite systems. Detailed examples demonstrate that our criteria can
detect better genuine entanglement and multipartite entanglement. The
method of detecting entanglement with GSICM depends on some local
measurements. While GSICM has been shown to possess operational
advantages in many quantum tasks over projective measurements.
Based on the relationship between GSICM and COB, the trace rela-
tionship of COB depends only on the dimensions. Thus the detection
of entanglement in COB could be relatively easy to be implemented
experimentally. Furthermore, the authors in [29] show that GSICM can
be applied to study different types of quantum correlations. Therefore,
our approach may highlight further investigations on detection of other
quantum correlations.
7
Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107060
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hui Zhao: Formal analysis, Writing, Calculation and figure. Jia
Hao: Formal analysis, Writing, Calculation and figure. Jing Li: Writing
– review & editing. Shao-Ming Fei: Writing – review & editing. Nai-
huan Jing: Writing – review & editing. Zhi-Xi Wang: Writing – review
& editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China
under Grant No. (2022YFB3806000), National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China under Grants (12272011, 12075159, 12126351 and
12171044), Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Z190005), the Aca-
demician Innovation Platform of Hainan Province.
References
[1] Hillery M, Bužek V, Berthiaume A. Phys Rev A 1999;59:1829.
[2] Gisin N, Ribordy G, Tittel W, Zbinden H. Rev Modern Phys 2002;74:145.
H. Zhao et al. Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107060

[3] Ekert AK. Phys Rev Lett 1991;67:661. [15] de Vicente JI, Huber M. Phys Rev A 2011;84:062306.
[4] Bennett CH, Wiesner SJ. Phys Rev Lett 1992;69:2881. [16] Zhao H, Liu L, Wang ZX, Jing N, Li J. Int J Quantum Inf 2022;20:2150038.
[5] Peres A. Phys Rev Lett 1996;77:1413. [17] Zhao JY, Zhao H, Jing N, Fei SM. Internat J Theoret Phys 2019;58:3181.
[6] Horodecki M, Horodecki P, Horodecki R. Phys Lett A 2001;283:1. [18] Zhao H, Liu YQ, Jing N, Wang ZX, Fei SM. Quantum Inf Process 2022;21:116.
[7] Tóth G, Wieczorek W, Krischek R, Kiesel N, Michelberger P, Weinfurter H. New [19] Zhao H, Yang Y, Jing N, Wang ZX, Fei SM. Internat J Theoret Phys 2022;61.
J Phys 2009;11:083002. [20] Gour G, Kalev A. J Phys A Math Theor 2014;47:335302.
[8] Li M, Wang J, Shen S, Chen Z, Fei SM. Sci Rep 2017;7:17274. [21] Chen B, Li T, Fei SM. Quantum Inf Process 2015;14:2281.
[9] Li M, Wang J, Fei SM, Li-Jost X. Phys Rev A 2014;89:022325. [22] Lai LM, Li T, Fei SM, Wang ZX. Quantum Inf Process 2018;17:1.
[10] Xu W, Zhu CJ, Zheng ZJ. Quantum Inf Process 2020;19:200. [23] Hao J, Zhao H, Fei SM, Xie C, Wang ZX. Phys Rev E 2023;107:054134.
[11] Zhao H, Zhang MM, Jing N, Wang ZX. Quantum Inf Process 2020;19:1. [24] Yoshida M, Kimura G. Phys Rev A 2022;106:022408.
[12] Hong Y, Gao T, Yan FL. Phys Lett A 2021;401:127347. [25] Wang J, Li M, Li H, Fei SM, Li-Jost X. Quantum Inf Process 2016;15:4211.
[13] Yang LM, Sun BZ, Chen B, Fei SM, Wang ZX. Quantum Inf Process 2020;19:1. [26] Gühne O, Seevinck M. New J Phys 2010;12:053002.
[14] Li M, Jia L, Wang J, Shen S, Fei SM. Phys Rev A 2017;96:052314. [27] Akbari-Kourbolagh Y, Azhdargalam M. Phys Lett A 2018;97:042333.
[28] Li M, Wang Z, Wang J, Shen S, Fei SM. Europhys Lett 2019;125:20006.
[29] Bej P, Ghosal A, Roy A, Mal S, Das D. Phys Lett A 2022;106:022428.