Skip to main content
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2021 May 5;11:9640. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89067-w

Multipartite entanglement criterion via generalized local uncertainty relations

Jia-Bin Zhang 1, Tao Li 2,, Qing-Hua Zhang 1, Shao-Ming Fei 1, Zhi-Xi Wang 1
PMCID: PMC8099892  PMID: 33953299

Abstract

We study the detection of multipartite entanglement based on the generalized local uncertainty relations. A sufficient criterion for the entanglement of four-partite quantum systems is presented in terms of the local uncertainty relations. Detailed examples are given to illustrate the advantages of our criterion. The approach is generalized to general multipartite entanglement cases.

Subject terms: Quantum information, Quantum physics

Introduction

Quantum entanglement is a remarkable feature in quantum physics1 and has attracted much attention in recent years. Entangled states are recognized as the essential resources in quantum information processing, with many experimental realizations2,3 and applications in such as quantum algorithms4, quantum teleportation4,5, quantum cryptography6. Recently, it was shown that quantum entanglement is tightly connected to wave-particle duality, and it can create a wave-particle entangled state of two photons7. Detecting entanglement of multipartite systems is a fundamental problem in the theory of quantum entanglement. Separability criteria to determine whether a given state is separable or not are of crucial importance8. Enormous efforts have been dedicated to solve the separability problems937. Nevertheless, the characterization and quantification of multipartite entanglement are less understood than that of bipartite case, as multipartite states can be entangled in more different ways.

There have been many efficient entanglement criteria such as local uncertainty relations (LUR)11,12, covariance matrix criterion (CMC)13, computable cross-norm or realignment criterion (CCNR)14, permutation separability criteria15, criterion based on Bloch representations17,18, entanglement witnesses21, Bell-type inequalities criteria22, and criterion based on quantum Fisher information23. Generally, these criteria are only necessary condition for separable states and have different advantages in detect different entanglements.

The LUR criterion, the symmetric CMC criterion and the realignment criterion are usually considered as complementary to the the positive partial transposition criterion. The main advantage of LUR criterion is that it allows us to detect the entanglement of quantum states without having to fully understand them, and it can detect bound entangled states more effectively.

Recently, based on the local sum uncertainty relations, some entanglement criteria have been proposed for both discrete and continuous variable bipartite systems and three-qubit systems3133. Zhang et al. proposed a tighter form of the original LUR criterion to improve the range of entanglement detection31, Akbari-Kourbolagh and Azhdargalam generalized the LUR criterion to the tripartite systems33.

This paper is structured as follows. We start by introducing the entanglement criterion based on LUR for tripartite systems and generalize the entanglement criterion to four-partite quantum systems. Some detail examples are then given to illustrate the advantages of the criterion. Then, the entanglement criterion for N-partite systems (N>4) is discussed. Brief discussion and summary are given at last.

Results

Let H=H1H2HN be an N-partite system with Hk the dk-dimensional vector space associated with the k-th subsystem. An N-partite state ρH is said to be separable if ρ can be written as

ρ=ipiρi1ρi2ρiN, 1

where ρik are density matrices of the subsystem Hk, 0pi1, ipi=1.

In quantum theory, the observables of a quantum system are represented by a set of Hermitian operators {Ai}. The uncertainty principle shows that it is impossible to predict the measurement results of all observables of the system at the same time. The variance of Ai with respect to ρ is the uncertainty of an observable Ai, defining as (ΔAi)ρ2=Ai2ρ-Aiρ2, where Aiρ=Tr(ρAi) is the mean value. For a set of quantum observables {Ai}, there exits a constant U such that i(ΔAi)ρ2U. This inequality gives a universally valid limitation of the measurement outcomes. Generally, it is difficult to determine the value U. For the case of Pauli matrices σx, σy and σz, one has (Δσx)ρ2+(Δσy)ρ2+(Δσz)ρ2232.

In Ref.33, based on the local sum uncertainty relations, an entanglement criterion has been presented for tripartite systems.

Let {A1i}, {A2i} and {A3i} be the set of local observables associated to the subsystems H1, H2 and H3, respectively. U1,U2,U3 are lower bound of these local observables, such that iΔ(A2i)2U1, iΔ(A2i)2U2 and iΔ(A3i)2U3. For any separable tripartite states, the following inequalities hold under any permutations of {1,2,3}33:

Fρ12|3iΔ(A1i+A2i+A3i)ρ2-(U1+U2+U3+M122+M12|32)0, 2

where M12=iΔ(A1i)2-U1-iΔ(A2i)2-U2, M12|3=Fρ12-iΔ(A3i)2-U3, Fρ12=iΔ(A1i+A2i)2-(U1+U2+M122), A1i, A2i and A3i are the operators acting on the first, the second and the third subsystem with the rest subsystems as identity operators in the tripartite systems, respectively.

Generalizing the criterion (2) to four-partite systems, we consider the set of local observables {A1i}, {A2i}, {A3i} and {A4i} associated to the subsystems H1, H2, H3 and H4, respectively. From the local sum uncertainty relations, there must exists lower bounds Uj>0 for each nonsimultaneous observable {Aji} for j=1,2,3,4. That is to say,

iΔ(A2i)2U1,iΔ(A2i)2U2,iΔ(A3i)2U3,iΔ(A4i)2U4. 3

Then for four-partite quantum systems, we have the following conclusion.

Theorem 1

For any four-partite separable states, the following inequalities hold simultaneously under any permutations of {1,2,3,4},

Fρ123|4=F-(M122+M12|32+M123|42)0,Fρ12|34=F-(M122+M342+M12|342)0, 4

where F=iΔ(A1i+A2i+A3i+A4i)ρ2-j=14Uj, M123|4=Fρ12|3-iΔ(A4i)2-U4, M12|34=Fρ12-Fρ34.

Theorem 1provides a necessary condition of separable four-partite states. The violations of the inequalities in (1) sufficiently imply entanglement. For the four-qubit W state, ρ=|W4W4| with |W4=12(|1000+|0100+|0010+|0001). Let A11=A21=A31=-A41=σx, A12=A22=A32=-A42=σy and A13=A23=A33=-A43=σz, thus we get iΔ(Aji)22, M12=0, M34=0, M12|3=3-34, M123|4=274-M12|32-34 and M12|34=3, which give rise to Fρ123|4=3-M12|32-M123|42<0 and Fρ12|34=0, which provide a violation for the inequalities (4). Therefore, the criterion identifies four-qubit W state is entangled. By taking use of Theorem 1, more generally states can be detected and we consider some detailed examples for mixed states below.

Example 1

(Four-qubit W state mixed with white noise)   We first consider ρ1=p16I+(1-p)|W4W4|, 0p1. For this state, we choose -A11=-A21=-A31=A41=σx, -A12=-A22=A32=A42=σy and -A13=-A23=-A33=-A43=σz, hence iΔ(Aji)22, M12=M34=0, M12|3=3-p2-1-14(1-p)2, M123|4=10p-9p2+114-M12|32-1-14(1-p)2 and M12|34=3-p2-2p-p2+1. Then, we get Fρ1123|4=10p-4p2-2-M12|32-M123|42 and Fρ112|34=10p-4p2-2-M12|342. When p0.3605, Fρ1123|40, so the state ρ1 violates one of the inequalities (4). Therefore, the four-partite LUR criterion identifies the ρ1 as an entangled state, see Fig. 1. While, ρ1 is detected based on the witness W=34I-|W4W4| which is proposed in Ref.27 when p<0.267, see Fig. 2. That is to say our result detects better the entanglement than the criterion of Ref.27.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

For the four-partite W state mixed with the white noise ρ1. The the blue line stands for Fρ1123|4 and the red dash line stands for Fρ112|34 in Theorem 1. We can see that when p0.3605, state ρ1 violates one of the inequalities (4), hence ρ1 is entangled for p0.3605.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

For the four-partite W state mixed with the white noise ρ1. The the black line represents Tr(ρ1W) in Ref.27. We can see that ρ1 is detected by the witness 34I-|W4W4|, thus ρ1 is entangled for p0.267.

Example 2

(Four-qubit Dicke state mixed with white noise)   Now, we take ρ2=p16I+(1-p)(|D24D24|), 0p1, where |D24=16(|1100+|1010+|1001+|0110+|0101+|0011). For this state, we choose -A11=-A21=A31=A41=σx, A12=A22=A32=-A42=σy, -A13=-A23=-A33=-A43=σz. By direct calculations, we get M12=0, M34=0, M12|3=4-2p-1, M123|4=353-263p-M1232-1 and M12|34=4-2p-2p, which yield Fρ2123|4=223(p-1)+2632p-2+34-2p and Fρ212|34=8p-8+44-p23. When p0.437, Fρ212|340, and Fρ2123|40 for p0.543. It can be seen, from Fig. 3, that the ρ2 violate inequalities (4) for p0.543. Furthermore, comparing with the result in Ref.27 which show that ρ2 is entangled for p<0.356 (see Fig. 4), the Theorem 1 also detects more entanglement.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

For the four-partite Dicke state D24 mixed with the white noise ρ2. The the blue line stands for Fρ2123|4 and the red dash line stands for Fρ2123|4 and the red dash line stands for Fρ212|34 in Theorem 1. When p0.3605, we can see that the state ρ2 violates one of the inequalities (4), whence our criterion detects the entanglement of ρ2 for 0p0.543.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

For the four-partite Dicke state D24 mixed with the white noise ρ2. The the black line stands for Tr(ρW) in Ref.27. By using the witness W, we can see that ρ2 is entangled for p0.356.

For a more general case, we consider the set of local observable {A1i}, {A2i}, , {ANi} associated to the subsystems H1, H2, , HN, respectively. Every local observable has a lower bound Uj (j=1,2,,N) satisfies i(Aji)2Uj. In order to simplify calculation, let iN represent {AiNi} and the bi-partition index (i1i2iK|iK+1iN) is denoted as k1|k0, where k1=i1i2iK and k0=iK+1iK+2iN, N2K<N and 1i1<i2<<iKN. For instance, if N=4, hence K=2, and k1|k0={12|34,13|24,14|23}, which represents three classes of bi-partition index of local observable set in N-body quantum system. Similar to the derivation of the Theorem 1, we obtain the following lemma and theorem.

Lemma 2

For multipartite separable states, the following inequalities must hold:

Fρ12N-1iΔ(ANi)2-UN±i[(A1i++AN-1i)ANi-A1i++AN-1iANi]0, 5

and

Fρk0Fρk1±i[(A1i++AKi)(AK+1i++ANi)-A1i++AKiAK+1i++ANi]0, 6

where Fρ12N-1=iΔ(A1i+A2i++AN-1i)2-(j=1N-1Uj+M122+M12|32++M12N-2|N-12), Fρk0=iΔ(A1i+A2i++AKi)2-(j=1KUj+M122+M12|32++M12K-1|K2), Fρk1=iΔ(AK+1i++ANi)2-(j=K+1NUj+MK+1K+22++MK+1K+2N-1|N2).

Theorem 2

For any multipartite separable states, the following inequalities hold under any permutations of the subsystems,

Fρk1|k0=F-(Mi1i22+Mi1i2i32++Mi1i2iK2+MiK+1iK+22++MiK+1iK+2iN2+Mi1i2iN2)0,

where

F=i=1NΔ(A1i+A2i++ANi)ρ2-j=1NUj, 7

and

Mk1|k0=Fρk1|k0-iΔ(AiNi)2-UiN,forK=N-1,Mk1|k0=Fρk1-Fρk0,forK<N-1. 8

Ai1i is an operator acting on the i1-th subsystem Hi1 with the rest subsystems as identity operators in N-partite quantum systems.

Let us consider five-partite quantum systems to illustrate the theorem. In the case of N=5, we can have

k1{123,124,125,134,135,145,234,235,245,345}andk0{45,35,34,25,24,23,15,14,13,12}K=3;k1{1234,1235,1245,1345,2345}andk0{5,4,3,2,1}K=4.

Hence we have

Fρ1234|5=F-(M122+M12|32+M123|42(M12|342)+M1234|52),Fρ1235|4=F-(M122+M12|32+M123|52(M12|352)+M1235|42),Fρ1345|2=F-(M132+M13|42+M134|52(M13|452)+M1345|22),Fρ2345|1=F-(M232+M23|42+M234|52(M23|452)+M2345|12),Fρ1245|3=F-(M122+M12|32+M124|52(M12|452)+M1245|32),Fρ123|45=F-(M122+M12|32+M452+M123|452),Fρ124|53=F-(M122+M12|42+M532+M124|532),Fρ125|34=F-(M122+M12|52+M342+M125|342),Fρ134|52=F-(M132+M13|42+M522+M134|522),Fρ135|24=F-(M132+M13|52+M242+M135|242),Fρ145|23=F-(M142+M14|52+M232+M145|232),Fρ234|51=F-(M232+M23|42+M512+M234|512),Fρ235|41=F-(M232+M23|52+M412+M235|412),Fρ245|13=F-(M242+M24|52+M132+M245|132),Fρ345|12=F-(M342+M34|52+M122+M345|122), 9

where F=iΔ(A1i+A2i++A5i)ρ2-j=15Uj, M1234|5=Fρ123|4-iΔ(A5i)2-U5, M123|45=Fρ12|3-Fρ45. M2345|1, M1345|2, M1245|3, M1235|4, M124|53, M125|34, M134|52, M135|24, M145|23, M234|51, M235|41, M245|13, M345|12 have similar representations.

As a simple example, consider the five-qubit state ρ=|W5W5|, with |W5=15(|10000+|01000+|00100+|00010+|00001). Let -A11=A21=-A31=-A41=A51=σx, -A12=-A22=-A32=A42=A52=σy, A13=-A23=-A33=A43=A53=σz. We have U1=U2=U3=U4=U5=2, M12=M34=0, M123=0.2161, M123|4=1.218, M12|34=0, M1234|5=0.2797 and M123|45=0.8536, which give rise to Fρ1234|5=3-M1232-M12342-M1234|52<0 and Fρ123|45<0, namely, the state is entangled.

Conclusion

We have generalized the LUR criterion for three qubit quantum systems to multiqubit quantum systems, and obtained new entanglement criteria for four-partite quantum systems as well as for general multipartite systems. By detailed examples we have shown that our criteria can detect better the entanglement than some existing criteria. It is further known that in certain situations they can provide a nonlinear refinement of linear entanglement witnesses35, and it can be measured in experimental settings similar to those of entanglement witnesses. The effectiveness of the LUR criteria relies heavily on certain notions of information content of quantum states and choice of observables.

Quantum entanglement is fundamentally connected to the quantum steering, local uncertainty relations (LURs) are a common tool for entanglement detection, and the underlying idea can be directly generalized to steering detection36.

The considered system here is closed systems with no decoherence effects taken into account. Also, it would be interesting to find criteria for open quantum systems, since realistic quantum systems inevitably interact with the environment. It would be also interesting if our approach may highlight further investigations on the k-separability37 of multipartite systems and genuine multipartite entanglement detection.

Methods

Proof of the Theorem 1

By straightforward computation, we have

iΔ(A1i+A2i+A3i+A4i)ρ2=iΔ(A1i+A2i+A3i)2+iΔ(A4i)2+2i[(A1i+A2i+A3i)A4i-A1i+A2i+A3iA4i].

Taking into account that for any tripartite separable states ρH1H2H333,

Fρ12iΔ(A3i)2-U3±i[(A1i+A2i)A3i-A1i+A2iA3i]0, 10

where Fρ12=iΔ(A1i+A2i)2-(U1+U2+M122), we obtain

iΔ(A1i+A2i+A3i+A4i)ρ2U1+U2+U3+U4+M122+M12|32+M123|42,

namely, Fρ123|40. By relabeling the sub-indices, we have Fρ124|30, Fρ134|20 and Fρ234|10, similarly. Concerning Fρ12|34, we have

iΔ(A1i+A2i+A3i+A4i)ρ2=iΔ(A1i+A2i)2+iΔ(A3i+A4i)2+2i[(A1i+A2i)(A3i+A4i)-A1i+A2iA3i+A4i].

Since for any bipartite separable states ρH1H2, the following inequality holds33,

iΔ(A2i)2-U1iΔ(A2i)2-U2±i[A1iA2i-A1iA2i]0, 11

we get

iΔ(A1i+A2i+A3i+A4i)ρ2U1+U2+U3+U4+M122+M342+M12|342,

namely, Fρ12|340. Similarly one can show that Fρ23|410 and Fρ13|420.

Proof of the Theorem 2

 We denote the length of k0 as |k0|. From above, one has |k0|+|k1|=N.

When K=N-1, one has |k0|=1, by straightforward computation, we have

iΔ(A1i+A2i++ANi)ρ2=iΔ(A1i+A2i++AN-1i)2+iΔ(ANi)2+2i[(A1i+A2i++AN-1i)ANi-A1i+A2i++AN-1iANi].

By Lemma 2, for any multipartite separable states ρH1H2HN,

Fρ12N-1iΔ(ANi)2-UN±i[(A1i+A2i++AN-1i)ANi-A1i+A2i++AN-1iANi]0, 12

via calculation, we obtain

iΔ(A1i+A2i++ANi)ρ2j=1NUj+M122+M12|32++M12N-1|N2,

namely, Fρ12N-1|N0. By relabeling the sub-indices, we have Fρk1|k00.

When K<N-1, one has |k0|2,

iΔ(A1i++ANi)ρ2=iΔ(A1i++AKi)2+iΔ(AK+1i++ANi)2+2i[(A1i++AKi)(AK+1i++ANi)-A1i++AKiAK+1i++ANi].

By using Lemma 2, we get

iΔ(A1i+A2i++ANi)ρ2j=1NUj+(M122+M12|32++M12|K2+MK+1K+22++MK+1|N2+M12|N2),

namely, Fρ12K|K+1K+2N0. By relabeling the sub-indices, one can show that Fρk0|k10.     

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11675113; Beijing Municipal Commission of Education (KZ201810028042); Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. Z190005); Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies, Capital Normal University; Shenzhen Institute for Quantum Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China (No. SIQSE202001).

Author contributions

The first and the second authors wrote the main manuscript text and all authors reviewed the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Nielsen MA, Chuang IL. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information Anniversary. Cambridge University Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Leibfried D, Knill E, Seidelin S, Britton J, Blakestad RB, Chiaverini J, et al. Creation of a six-atom ‘Schrödinger cat’ state. Nature (London) 2005;438:639. doi: 10.1038/nature04251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lu CY, Zhou XQ, Gühne O, Gao WB, Zhang J, Yuan ZS, Goebel A, Yang T, Pan JW. Experimental entanglement of six photons in graph states. Nat. Phys. 2007;3:91. doi: 10.1038/nphys507. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Verstraete F, Verschelde H. Optimal teleportation with a mixed state of two qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003;90:097901. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.097901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lee S, Joo J, Kim J. Teleportation capability, distillability, and nonlocality on three-qubit states. Phys. Rev. A. 2007;76:012311. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.012311. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cleve R, Gottesman D, Lo HK. How to share a quantum secret. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1999;83:648. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.648. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rab Adil S, Polino E, Man ZX, et al. Entanglement of photons in their dual wave-particle nature. Nat. Commun. 2017;8:915. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01058-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Werner RF. Quantum states with Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model. Phys. Rev. A. 1989;40:4277. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liu B, Li JL, Li X, Qiao CF. Local unitary classification of arbitrary dimensional multipartite pure states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012;108:050501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.050501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gour G, Wallach NR. Classification of multipartite entanglement of all finite dimensionality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013;111:060502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.060502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hofmann HF, Takeuchi S. Violation of local uncertainty relations as a signature of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A. 2003;68:032103. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.032103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hofmann HF. Bound entangled states violate a nonsymmetric local uncertainty relation. Phys. Rev. A. 2003;68:034307. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.034307. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gühne O, Hyllus P, Gittsovich O, Eisert J. Covariance matrices and the separability problem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007;99:130504. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.130504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chen K, Wu LA. A matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement. Quan. Inf. Comput. 2003;3:193. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Horodecki M, Horodecki P, Horodecki R. Separability of mixed quantum states: linear contractions and permutation criteria. Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 2006;13:103. doi: 10.1007/s11080-006-7271-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Horodecki M, Horodecki P, Horodecki R. Separablity of mixed stated states: Necessary and sufficient conditions. Phys. Lett. A. 1996;223:1. doi: 10.1016/S0375-9601(96)00706-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.de Julio IV. Separability criteria based on the Bloch representation of density matrices. Quan. Inf. Comput. 2007;7:624. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.de Julio IV. Further results on entanglement detection and quantification from the correlation matrix criterion. J. Phys. A. 2008;41:065309. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/41/6/065309. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fei SM, Zhao MJ, Chen K, Wang ZX. Experimental determination of entanglement for arbitrary pure states. Phys. Rev. A. 2009;80:032320. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.032320. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Peres A. Separability criterion for density matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996;77:1413. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gühne O, Lütkenhaus N. Nonlinear entanglement witnesses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006;96:170502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.170502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Laskowski W, Zukowski M. Detection of N-particle entanglement with generalized Bell inequalities. Phys. Rev. A. 2005;72:062112. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.062112. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kourbolagh YA, Azhdargalam M. Entanglement criterion for multipartite systems based on quantum Fisher information. Phys. Rev. A. 2019;99:12304. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.012304. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Briegel HJ, Browne DE, Dür W, Raussendorf R, Van den Nest M. Measurement-based quantum computation. Nat. Phys. 2009;5:19. doi: 10.1038/nphys1157. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Amico L, Fazio R, Osterloh A, Vedral V. Entanglement in many-body systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2008;80:517. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.517. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Horodecki R, Horodecki P, Horodecki M, Horodecki K. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2009;81:865. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gühne O, Tóth G. Entanglement detection. Phys. Rep. 2009;474:1. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2009.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shi Y, Duan L, Vidal G. Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network. Phys. Rev. A. 2006;74:022320. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.022320. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Li M, Fei SM, Wang ZX. Separability and entanglement of quantum states based on covariance matrices. J. Phys. A. 2008;41:202002. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/41/20/202002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhang CJ, Zhang YS, Zhang S, Guo GC. Entanglement detection beyond the computable cross-norm or realignment criterion. Phys. Rev. A. 2008;77:060301(R). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.060301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zhang CJ, Nha H, Zhang YS, Guo GC. Entanglement detection via tighter local uncertainty relations. Phys. Rev. A. 2010;81:012324. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.012324. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zhao MJ, Wang ZX, Fei SM. Multiqubits entanglement witness based on W state. Rep. Math. Phys. 2009;63:409. doi: 10.1016/S0034-4877(09)90012-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kourbolagh YA, Azhdargalam M. Entanglement criterion for tripartite systems based on local sum uncertainty relations. Phys. Rev. A. 2018;97:042333. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.042333. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Aulbach M. Classification of entanglement in symmetric states. Int. J. Quantum Inf. 2012;10:1230004. doi: 10.1142/S0219749912300045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gühne O, Mechler M, Peter Adam GT. Entanglement criteria based on local uncertainty relations are strictly stronger than the computable cross norm criterion. Phys. Rev. A. 2006;74:010301(R). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.010301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Uola R, Costa ACS, Nguyen HC, Gühne O. Quantum steering. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2020;92:015001. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hong Y, Luo SL. Detecting k-nonseparability via local uncertainty relations. Phys. Rev. A. 2016;93:042310. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.042310. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES