The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Complete family of separability criteria
Open accessAbstract
We introduce a family of separability criteria that are based on the existence of extensions of a bipartite quantum state \ensuremath{\rho} to a larger number of parties satisfying certain symmetry properties. It can be easily shown that all separable states have the required extensions, so the nonexistence of such an extension for a particular state implies that the state is entangled. One of the main advantages of this approach is that searching for the extension can be cast as a convex optimization problem known as a semidefinite program. Whenever an extension does not exist, the dual optimization constructs an explicit entanglement witness for the particular state. These separability tests can be ordered in a hierarchical structure whose first step corresponds to the well-known positive partial transpose (Peres-Horodecki) criterion, and each test in the hierarchy is at least as powerful as the preceding one. This hierarchy is complete, in the sense that any entangled state is guaranteed to fail a test at some finite point in the hierarchy, thus showing it is entangled. The entanglement witnesses corresponding to each step of the hierarchy have well-defined and very interesting algebraic properties that, in turn, allow for a characterization of the interior of the set of positive maps. Coupled with some recent results on the computational complexity of the separability problem, which has been shown to be NP hard, this hierarchy of tests gives a complete and also computationally and theoretically appealing characterization of mixed bipartite entangled states.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quantum Computation and Quantum Information
Nielsen, M. A., Chuang, I., & Grover, L. K. (2002) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1463744 · Cited by 21,895
Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935) · Physical Review · doi:10.1103/physrev.47.777 · Cited by 16,654
Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model
Werner, R. F. (1989) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.40.4277 · Cited by 4,062
Optimization of entanglement witnesses
Lewenstein, M., Kraus, B., Cirac, J. I., & Horodecki, P. (2000) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.62.052310 · Cited by 684
Cited by
Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., & Horodecki, K. (2009) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.865 · Cited by 10,118
Brunner, N., Cavalcanti, D., Pironio, S., Scarani, V., & Wehner, S. (2014) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.86.419 · Cited by 2,688
Gühne, O., & Tóth, G. (2009) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.02.004 · Cited by 2,401
Quantum Discord and the Power of One Qubit
Datta, A., Shaji, A., & Caves, C. M. (2008) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.050502 · Cited by 1,258
Taming Multiparticle Entanglement
Jungnitsch, B., Moroder, T., & Gühne, O. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.190502 · Cited by 326
Metadata
- Authors
- Doherty, A. C., Parrilo, P. A., & Spedalieri, F. M.
- Venue
- Physical Review A
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2004-02-18
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
- 1050-2947
- 1094-1622
- OpenAlex
- W2016990905
- Cited by
- 418
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 19.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Complete family of separability criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physreva.69.022308
- The paper
- Doherty, A. C., Parrilo, P. A., & Spedalieri, F. M. (2004). Complete family of separability criteria. Physical Review A. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.69.022308
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.