--- abstract: 'We generate and characterise entangled states of a register of 20 individually controlled qubits, where each qubit is encoded into the electronic state of a trapped atomic ion. Entanglement is generated amongst the qubits during the out-of-equilibrium dynamics of an Ising-type Hamiltonian, engineered via laser fields. Since the qubit-qubit interactions decay with distance, entanglement is generated at early times predominantly between neighbouring groups of qubits. We characterise entanglement between these groups by designing and applying witnesses for genuine multipartite entanglement. Our results show that, during the dynamical evolution, all neighbouring qubit pairs, triplets, most quadruplets, and some quintuplets simultaneously develop genuine multipartite entanglement. Witnessing genuine multipartite entanglement in larger groups of qubits in our system remains an open challenge.' author: - Nicolai Friis - Oliver Marty - Christine Maier - Cornelius Hempel - 'Milan Holz<span>ä</span>pfel' - Petar Jurcevic - 'Martin B. Plenio' - Marcus Huber - Christian Roos - Rainer Blatt - Ben Lanyon bibliography: - 'bibfile.bib' title: 'Observation of Entangled States of a Fully Controlled 20-Qubit System' --- [^1] [^2] [^3] Introduction {#sec:introduction} ============ The ability to generate quantum entanglement @PlenioVirmani2007 [@HorodeckiEntanglementReview2009] between large numbers of spatially-separated and individually-controllable quantum systems such as qubits is of fundamental importance to a broad range of current research endeavours, including studies of nonlocality @BrunnerCavalcantiPironioScaraniWehner2014, quantum computing @NielsenChuang2000, quantum simulation @Lloyd1996, quantum communication @GisinRibordyTittelZbinden2002 [@Kimble08], and quantum metrology @WinelandBollingerItanoMooreHeinzen1992 [@HuelgaMacchiavelloPellizzariEkertPlenioCirac1997; @GiovannettiLloydMaccone2006; @FriisOrsucciSkotiniotisSekatskiDunjkoBriegelDuer2017]. For example, in order for quantum computers and simulators to go beyond the capabilities of conventional computers, large amounts of entanglement (or other quantum correlations) must be generated between their components @Vidal2003. As such, there is an ongoing effort to generate and characterise entangled states of increasing numbers of qubits, in systems which permit preparation of arbitrary initial states, the control of interactions between constituent particles, and readout of individual sites. In such systems, the largest number of qubits entangled to date is 14, achieved in a trapped-ion system @MonzEtAl2011, followed by 10 entangled superconducting qubits @SongEtAl2017, and 10 entangled photonic qubits @WangEtAl2016. Since every qubit added to an experimental system doubles the Hilbert space dimension in which the collective quantum state is described, the task of characterisation of an unknown state in the laboratory can soon become a significant challenge. Indeed, all generated entangled states of more than 6 qubits to date have been of a highly symmetric form, such as Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) or W states, for which efficient characterisation techniques exist @GuehneToth2009. How to generate and detect more complex multiqubit entangled states remains an open challenge. In this paper, we report on the deterministic generation of complex entangled states of 20 trapped-ion qubits and their partial characterisation via custom-built witnesses for genuine multipartite entanglement (GME). Our states are complex in the sense that they are generated during quench dynamics of an engineered many-body Hamiltonian and their exact description requires specifying a number of parameters that grows exponentially in the number of qubits involved. Each qubit in our system can be, and is in this work, individually manipulated and read out, as required for universal quantum computation and quantum simulation. This paper is structured as follows. Section \[sec:experimental setup\] presents the experimental system and explains how the $20$-qubit quantum states are generated and measured in the laboratory. Section \[sec:initial results\] presents results of basic properties measured for the generated $20$-qubit states, using established methods. Section \[sec:Vienna witnesses main text\] introduces and applies analytically derived GME witnesses to reveal genuine tripartite entanglement in all groups of $3$ neighbouring qubits. To go beyond tripartite correlations, we then turn to more computationally demanding witnesses in Sec. \[sec:Ulm witnesses main text\], which enable GME to be detected in groups of up to $5$ neighbouring qubits. Finally, we discuss our results and possible future directions in Sec. \[sec:discussion\]. Experimental Setup {#sec:experimental setup} ================== Our register of $N=20$ qubits is realized using a 1D string of $^{40}$Ca$^+$ ions confined in a linear Paul trap, with axial (radial) centre-of-mass vibrational frequency of 220 kHz (2.712 MHz) @HempelPHD. A qubit is encoded into two long-lived states of the outer valence electron in each ion. That is, the computational basis states of the qubits are chosen as $\ket{0}=\ket{S_{J{=}1/2,m_j{=}1/2}}$, $\ket{1}=\ket{D_{J{=}5/2,m_j{=}5/2}}$, which are connected by an electric quadrupole transition at 729 nm @SchindlerEtAl2013. Under the influence of laser-induced forces that off-resonantly drive all 40 transverse normal vibrational modes of the ion string, the interactions between the qubits are well described by an "$XY$" model in a dominant transverse field @LanyonEtAl2017 [@JurcevicPHD; @KimChangIslamKorenblitDuanMonroe2009], with Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned} H_{XY} & =\hbar \sum_{i<j}J_{ij}(\sigma_i^+\sigma_j^-{+}\sigma_i^-\sigma_j^+)+\hbar B\sum_{j}\sigma_j^z.\end{aligned}$$ Here $J_{ij}$ is an $N \times N$ qubit-qubit coupling matrix, $\sigma_i^{+}$ ($\sigma_i^{-}$) is the qubit raising (lowering) operator for qubit $i$, $B$ is the transverse field strength ($B\gg \max\{|J_{ij}|\}$) and $\sigma_j^z\equiv Z_{j}$ is the Pauli $Z$ matrix for qubit $j$ with eigenvectors satisfying $Z\ket{0}=-\ket{0}$ and $Z\ket{1}=\ket{1}$. Interactions reduce approximately with a power law $J_{ij}\propto1/|i-j|^{\alpha}$ with qubit separation number $|i-j|$, where in this work $\alpha \approx 1.1$. ![<span>**Conceptual schematic of the experiment**. The experimental sequence proceeds as follows. **a**. Standard Doppler cooling, optical pumping, and resolved-sideband cooling prepare the initial qubit state $\ket{0,0,0,...,0}$ and all 40 transverse vibrational string modes close ($<1$ phonon per mode) to the motional ground state @LanyonEtAl2017 [@JurcevicPHD]. An image of the 20 ions in our trap during state-dependent fluorescence detection of the state $\ket{0,0,0,...,0}$ is shown. The string length is 108 $\mu$m. **b**. A combination of single-ion-focused and global laser beams prepares the initial state $\ket{\psi(t=0)}=\ket{1,0,1,...}$. **c**. A bichromatic light field is applied to $\ket{\psi(t=0)}$, subsequently inducing qubit-qubit interactions (not shown) as described in the text @LanyonEtAl2017 [@JurcevicPHD; @KimChangIslamKorenblitDuanMonroe2009]. **d**. After any desired evolution time, the interactions are turned off, leaving a nonclassical state of qubits (well approximated by) $\ket{\psi(t)}$. **e**. A combination of single-ion-focused and global laser beams is used to rotate the basis of individual qubits, determining the desired measurement basis in the next step. An example laser pattern is shown. **f**. The standard state-dependent resonant fluoresce technique is used to determine the state of each qubit (see Methods in Ref. @LanyonEtAl2017 for more details). An example outcome, imaged on an EMCCD camera, is shown schematically. The ions are then cooled again and initialised, ready for the sequence to be repeated.</span> <span data-label="figure0"></span>](figure_1_exp.pdf){width="0.98\columnwidth"} The ground state of $H_{XY}$ has all qubits in the state $\ket{0}$. The excited states are split into $m$ uncoupled and nondegenerate manifolds. Each manifold contains an integer number of qubit excitations (qubits in the state $\ket{1}$), with the $m$th manifold containing states with $m$ qubit excitations. In previous work, we have shown that an initial state consisting of a single localised qubit excitation coherently disperses in the system, distributing quantum correlations as it propagates @JurcevicEtAl2014. Here, we study the entanglement generated during the time evolution of the initial 20-qubit Néel-ordered product state $\ket{\psi(t=0)}=\ket{1,0,1,...}$ under $H_{XY}$. That is, we study the state in the laboratory that is ideally described by $\ket{\psi(t)}=\exp(-i H_{XY}t)\ket{\psi(0)}$. The initial Néel state $\ket{\psi(0)}$ contains localised qubit excitations at every other site, which should ideally coherently disperse in the subsequent dynamics, entangling groups of neighbouring qubits, as we have previously shown for neighbouring pairs with a string of up to 14 qubits @LanyonEtAl2017. While Ref. @LanyonEtAl2017 presented scalable tomography techniques @CramerPlenio2010 [@FlammiaGrossBartlettSomma2010; @CramerPlenioFlammiaSommaGrossBartlettLandonCardinalPoulinLiu2010], here we study multipartite entanglement dynamics in the system. The initial state is prepared as follows. Standard Doppler cooling, optical pumping, and resolved-sideband cooling prepare the initial qubit state $\ket{0,0,0,...,0}$ and all 40 transverse vibrational string modes into the motional ground state @LanyonEtAl2017 [@JurcevicPHD]. Next, a combination of qubit-resonant laser beams that illuminate all ions simultaneously and off-resonant single-ion-focused laser beams flip every second qubit, preparing the state $\ket{\psi(0)}$. The interactions (laser-induced forces) simulating $H_{XY}$ are then turned on. After the desired evolution time $t$, the interactions are turned off and the state \[ideally $\ket{\psi(t)}$\] is measured via qubit-state-dependent resonance fluorescence, using a single-ion-resolved electron multiplying charge coupled device (EMCCD) camera. Specifically, detecting a fluorescing (nonfluorescing) ion corresponds to the measurement outcome $\ket{0}$ ($\ket{1}$). Such a measurement corresponds to projecting each of the 20 qubits into the eigenstates of the Pauli $Z$ operator, for which there are $2^{20}$ possible outcomes each corresponding to a 20-qubit projective measurement outcome. After repeated state preparations and measurements in the "$Z$ basis" any single-qubit expectation value ($\langle Z_i \rangle$), $2$-qubit correlator ($\langle Z_i Z_j \rangle$), or indeed any other $n$-qubit "$Z$-type" correlator can be estimated between any qubits (up to $n=20$). Performing single-qubit operations, with a single-ion-focused laser, before the aforementioned measurement process enables projective measurement of any qubit in any desired basis, and therefore the construction of any multiqubit correlation function. That is, in this work full local control over the individual <span>qubits</span> is available and necessary for state preparation and analysis. <span>A conceptual schematic of our experimental protocol is presented in Fig. \[figure0\]</span>. One approach to studying the entanglement properties of an $N$-qubit system is to perform full quantum state tomography to estimate the $N$-qubit density matrix and then develop and apply entanglement measures to that matrix. While this is technically possible for our 20-qubit system (i.e., the required measurements can each be performed in principle), it is practically not feasible as, e.g., billions of measurement bases are required. In general, the number of measurement bases required for full state tomography grows exponentially in $N$ as $3^N$. <span>Several</span> of us have recently shown that matrix product state (MPS) tomography can provide a pure-state estimate of states generated in quantum systems with finite-range interactions, using a number of measurements (and all other resources) that scales efficiently (polynomially) with the system size @LanyonEtAl2017. However, MPS tomography failed to produce a useful pure-state description in our present 20-qubit system, probably due to errors in preparation of the initial state that lead to mixed states and the long-range nature of the interactions present in our 20-qubit Hamiltonian. A more favourable approach to detecting and characterising entanglement in $N$-qubit systems is to develop entanglement witnesses that are not a function of every element of the density matrix and can be directly measured in the laboratory with a practical number of measurements. Initial Results: Magnetisation and Entanglement {#sec:initial results} =============================================== As the first experimental step, we prepare the time-evolved state of our system \[ideally described by $\ket{\psi(t)}$\] and measure each qubit in the $Z$ basis. The dynamical evolution of $\langle Z_i \rangle$ (proportional to the probability of finding a qubit excitation at site $i$) shows how the multiple excitations in the initial state disperse, and then partially refocus at later times, in close agreement with predictions from the exact model (see Figs. \[figure1\] a and \[figure1\] b). One sees in the data and theory (Figs. \[figure1\] a and \[figure1\] b) that the qubit excitations at the ends of the string disperse more slowly than those in the centre of the string (the green color representing "delocalised" excitations appears at later times for qubits farther from the centre of the string). The qubit-qubit interactions ($J_{ij}$) are not homogeneous across the string, leading to slower evolution for qubits farther away from the centre. $J_{ij}$ for spin pairs near the string centre is approximately 25% larger than for spin pairs located at either end of the string. The physical origin of this effect is a combination of the Gaussian intensity profile of the laser fields involved in generating the interactions (the laser beam is centred on the middle ions and therefore weaker on the outer ions) and the intrinsic interaction inhomogeneity across the string set by the ion-string vibrational mode frequencies, for our chosen trapping parameters. Both effects are taken into account in the theoretical model presented in Fig. \[figure1\] b. ![**Quantum dynamics of the 20-qubit register**. **a**. Experimental data. Single-qubit magnetisation $\langle Z_i \rangle$. **b**. Theoretical model. Single-qubit magnetisation $\langle Z_i \rangle$ for the exact time-evolved state $\ket{\psi(t)}$. **c**. Experimental data. Entanglement in all 19 neighbouring qubit pairs at evolution time $t=2$ ms, quantified by the genuine multipartite negativity @JungnitschMoroderGuehne2011 [@HofmannMoroderGuehne2014]. Values for entanglement are calculated from experimentally reconstructed $2$-qubit density matrices. Errors are 1 s.d. derived from Monte Carlo simulation of finite measurement number. <span data-label="figure1"></span>](figure_2_GMN.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"} As the final experimental step, we perform the set of measurements that would be sufficient to reconstruct (via full quantum state tomography) the density matrices of all neighbouring $k=3$ qubits (qubit triplets), during the simulator dynamics. This set consists of $3^k=27$ measurement bases (with 1000 measurements performed per basis), corresponding to all possible combinations of choosing three Pauli operators. We carry out a simple scheme (choice of measured Pauli operators) that allows measurements on all 18 neighbouring qubit triplets (out of the 20-qubit string) to be performed in parallel, requiring a total of only twenty-seven 20-qubit measurement bases. From this data set, we could reconstruct the density matrices of all single qubits, neighbouring qubit pairs, and neighbouring qubit triplets. Generalising this approach to arbitrary $k$, all $N-k+1$ groups of neighbouring $k$-qubit density matrices in an $N$-qubit string can be fully characterised by measuring in $3^k$ bases (independent of the number of qubits $N$). For fixed $k$, this measurement approach is clearly efficient (constant overhead) in the system size $N$. We nonetheless stop at $k=3$, as the number of measurement bases for $k=4$ is already quite demanding and, as we show, <span>$k=3$</span> is already sufficient to observe genuine multipartite entanglement in groups of up to five qubits. We reconstruct the density matrices of all neighbouring qubit pairs from the experimental data, via the standard maximum likelihood method, which finds the most likely physical density matrix to have produced the data. For each of the reconstructed $2$-qubit states we evaluate the genuine multipartite negativity $\mathcal{N}_g$, an established measure for GME @JungnitschMoroderGuehne2011 [@HofmannMoroderGuehne2014]. A positive value of $\mathcal{N}_g$ for a given $k$-qubit state implies the existence of genuine $k$-partite entanglement in this state, since $\mathcal{N}_g$ vanishes for all biseparable states. For two qubits, $\mathcal{N}_g$ is directly related to the logarithmic negativity @Plenio2005. More details on $\mathcal{N}_g$ are given in Sec. \[sec:Ulm witnesses main text\]. From the results one sees that all neighbouring qubit pairs become entangled during the time evolution of the system, as is shown for $t=2$ ms in Fig. \[figure1\] c. Error bars, on properties calculated using the tomographically reconstructed density matrices, are derived from the finite number of measurements (1000 for each global basis) used to estimate expectation values and calculated using the standard <span>Monte Carlo method @EfronTibshirani1986</span>. Naturally, one may wonder if entanglement extends beyond qubit pairs, for instance, in the form of bipartite entanglement between distant qubits or in terms of genuine multipartite entanglement between groups of more than two (adjacent) qubits. In fact, one may even be tempted to ask, *is multipartite entanglement not implied if every neighbouring qubit pair is entangled?* The answer to this question is simply no. One can indeed have states that feature entanglement in every $2$-qubit reduction, yet still feature only bipartite entanglement[^4]. Nonetheless, in theory, it is often possible to detect GME purely from inspection of the reduced density matrices of overlapping groups of qubits @GuehneToth2009. This is the basis for our first approach to detecting GME, presented in the next section, where we derive GME witnesses purely from neighbouring two-body observables. In general, the task of determining if and how an $N$-qubit quantum system is entangled is highly nontrivial. For an arbitrary *known* mixed state (e.g., reconstructed via full state tomography), the problem is at least NP hard and even the best known relaxations are semidefinite programs (SDPs) that are not feasible beyond 5 qubits with our computers @JungnitschMoroderGuehne2011 [@LancienGuehneSenguptaHuber2015]. However, if the density matrix is close to a given pure target state $\ket{\psi_T}$, then targeted witnesses can be constructed to detect its entanglement without resorting to full tomography @GuehneToth2009. There, the canonical ansatz would be to estimate the fidelity to the ideal target state ${\textnormal{Tr}}(\rho\ket{\psi_T}\!\!\bra{\psi_T})$ and check whether it is above the maximum possible fidelity of a biseparable state. That is, a corresponding witness would be $W=\beta{\mathbbm{1}}-\ket{\psi_T}\!\!\bra{\psi_T}$, where $\beta:=\min_{A|\overline{A}}||{\textnormal{Tr}}_{\overline{A}}(\ket{\psi_T}\!\!\bra{\psi_T})||_\infty$, see, e.g., Ref. @GuehneToth2009 [Sec. 3.6]. While this witness could in principle be successful in detecting GME if the experimental state is indeed very close to the intended pure state, it suffers from poor noise resistance[^5] and the task of determining the state fidelity for arbitrary pure states still requires <span>a number of measurement settings that scales exponentially in qubit number</span> @FlammiaLiu2011. For example, if the state is "well conditioned" @FlammiaLiu2011, i.e., if only few Pauli-expectation values are of a significant size and all others vanish, one could estimate the fidelity via randomised measurements @FlammiaLiu2011 <span>with effort that scales efficiently in qubit number</span>. Although our states are not well conditioned, in Ref. @LanyonEtAl2017 we implemented this randomised measurement strategy to obtain a fidelity estimate for a 14-qubit version of the states presented here, at one time step. <span>That experiment required preparing 5$\times10^5$ sequential copies of the state and involved over 5 hours of data taking (with periodic recalibration of experimental parameters). Numerical simulations of the randomised measurement technique applied to the 20-qubit states considered in this work show that more than 3 times the number of copies, and therefore impractical measurement time, would be required to yield accurate fidelity estimations. As such, we aim to develop novel, and more time-efficient, approaches to characterising entanglement in our 20-qubit system. As a first step in this direction, we focus on the dynamics of subsystem entanglement percolating through the system and are able to make statements about the entanglement using measurements completed in a few tens of minutes in our system.</span> GME witnesses based on $2$-qubit observables {#sec:Vienna witnesses main text} ============================================ In this section, we construct analytical witnesses for GME based on $2$-qubit observables and use them to detect GME in groups of up to three neighbouring qubits ($k=3$) within the $20$-qubit ($N=20$) register. Recall that a (multipartite) pure state $\ket{\psi}$ is called biseparable if there exists a bipartition $A|B$ such that $\ket{\psi}=\ket{\phi}_{A}\ket{\chi}_{B}$ for some $\ket{\phi}_{A}$ and $\ket{\chi}_{B}$, and is called genuinely multipartite entangled otherwise. Mixed states are GME if their density operators cannot be written as convex combinations of biseparable pure states. For more details, see Appendix . Following the observation in the previous section of strong entanglement between neighbouring qubits, the first type of GME witnesses we consider is based on average fidelities of the $2$-qubit density matrices with Bell states. As such, only expectation values of pairs of Pauli operators, on $k$-qubit subsets of choice, are required. Linear combinations of these expectation values are then evaluated and compared to their respective thresholds for biseparable $k$-qubit states. Surpassing a $k$-qubit biseparability threshold then detects genuine $k$-partite entanglement. We now present a short technical summary of our method, and refer the reader to Appendix \[appendix:vienna witnesses\] for more details. The main quantity of interest for detecting $k$-qubit GME in this section is the $k$-qubit *symmetric average Bell fidelity* $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(k)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}$, which we define as $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(k)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}& := \tfrac{1}{4b_{k}}\Bigl(b_{k}\!+\!\!\sum\limits_{\substack{i,j=1 \\ i<j}}^{k} \bigl(|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! \tilde{X}_{i}\tilde{X}_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\!+\!|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! \tilde{Y}_{i}\tilde{Y}_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\!+\!|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! \tilde{Z}_{i}\tilde{Z}_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\bigr) \Bigr), \label{eq:NQB symm average Bell fid intro}\end{aligned}$$ where $b_{k}=\tbinom{k}{2}=\tfrac{1}{2}\tfrac{k!}{(k-2)!}$, and the subscripts $i$ and $j$ denote operators acting nontrivially only on the $i$th and $j$th qubits, i.e., $O_{i} \equiv \mathds{1}_{1}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mathds{1}_{i-1}\otimes O_{i}\otimes\mathds{1}_{i+1}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mathds{1}_{N}$. The operator triple $\tilde{X}_{i}=U_{i}XU_{i}^{\dagger}$, $\tilde{Y}_{i}=U_{i}YU_{i}^{\dagger}$, and $\tilde{Z}_{i}=U_{i}ZU_{i}^{\dagger}$ is chosen unitarily equivalent to the usual triple of Pauli operators $X$, $Y$, and $Z$, although the unitary $U_{i}\in SU(2)$ may be chosen differently for each qubit (for each $i$). This ensures that $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(k)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}$ can be written as a linear combination (the absolute values can be replaced by appropriate sign changes) of pairs of Pauli operators. As we show in detail in Appendix \[appendix:vienna witnesses\], any quantum state of $k$ qubits for which $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(k)}_{\mathrm{Bell}} &> \begin{cases} \tfrac{1}{12}\bigl(3+\sqrt{15}\bigr) & \mbox{for $k=3$}\\[1mm] \tfrac{1}{4}\bigl(1+\sqrt{3}\bigr)-\tfrac{1}{2k}\bigl(\sqrt{3}-1\bigr) & \mbox{for $k\geq 4$} \end{cases} \label{eq:NQB symm average Bell fid witness}\end{aligned}$$ is genuinely $k$-partite entangled for any choice of $U_{1}, \ldots, U_{k}$. For example, for $k=3$ and $k=4$ one can detect GME for $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(3)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}>\tfrac{1}{12}\bigl(3+\sqrt{15}\bigr)\approx0.573$ and for $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(4)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}>\tfrac{1}{8}\bigl(3+\sqrt{3}\bigr)\approx0.592$, respectively. <span>Meanwhile</span>, the threshold for $k=2$ qubits, $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(2)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}>0.5$, is a well-known result. If the underlying $N$-partite quantum state is known (the $U_i$ are known), one could directly measure all of the $3b_{k}$ $2$-qubit correlators ${\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! \tilde{O}_{i}\tilde{O}_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}$ appearing in Eq. (\[eq:NQB symm average Bell fid intro\]) for optimally chosen $\{U_{i}\}$. However, when the optimal local measurements are unknown, one strategy is to measure the $6k$ $k$-qubit basis settings corresponding to the set $$\begin{aligned} \{O{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}_{XY},O{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}_{YX},O{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}_{XZ},O{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}_{ZX},O{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}_{YZ},O{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}_{ZY}\}_{i=1,\ldots,k},\end{aligned}$$ where $O{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}_{AB}=A_{i}\prod_{i\neq j}B_{j}$, and perform the optimisation when evaluating the corresponding results. From the $2^{k}$ outcomes of each of these simultaneous measurements of $k$ qubits one can obtain the expectation values of all pairwise combinations of Pauli operators. \[ht!\] For our purposes, we exploit the fact that the results from the twenty-seven $20$-qubit measurement bases already taken in the laboratory are also sufficient to calculate all the expectation values appearing in the witnesses $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(k)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}$ for $k=2$ and $k=3$. That is, they contain as a subset, all the 2-qubit observables required to calculate $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(2)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}$ and $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(3)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}$, without knowledge of the states. The results, for increasing system interaction times and for the optimisation of the $U_{i}$ limited to the $X$-$Y$ plane for each qubit, are shown in Fig. \[figure2\]. First, the witness for bipartite entanglement ($\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(2)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}>0.5$) reaffirms that all qubits are (bipartite) entangled with their direct neighbours throughout the interaction time (from time 0.5 to 3.5 ms). Second, genuine tripartite entanglement between neighbouring qubit triples builds up more slowly and is initially detected at time 1.5 ms. At time 2 ms, <span>most triples of neighbouring qubits are genuinely tripartite entangled,</span> before the GME gradually disappears again at later times. The experimental uncertainties (error bars) in Fig. \[figure2\] originate from a finite number of measurements used to estimate expectation values. Specifically, the error bars show an estimate of 1 standard deviation of the mean. When estimating the standard deviation of the mean, one must consider possible correlations between $2$-qubit expectation values if they are estimated from outcomes of the same 20-qubit measurement basis. We estimate the relevant variance as described in Ref. @LanyonEtAl2017 [Supplementary Information Sections IV.A.4 and IV.A.5 on pages 9–13]. The small deviations between the theoretical and measured dynamics of $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(2)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}$ and $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(3)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}$ in Fig. \[figure2\] are due to experimental imperfections, which we discuss in the next section. A number of interesting observations, based on analyses beyond those presented in Fig. \[figure2\], are now made. First, up to the evolution time presented in Fig. \[figure2\], entanglement between any $2$-qubits spaced farther apart than direct neighbours was never detectedin agreement with the ideal theoretical model. For instance, on these timescales, qubit 1 does not directly become entangled with qubit 3 alone, but qubits 1, 2, and 3 do become genuinely tripartite entangled with each other. In fact, the absence of next-nearest neighbour pairwise entanglement was necessary to detect 3-qubit GME. Specifically, we found that a GME witness based only on the entanglement between direct neighbours (see Appendix ) is not able to verify genuine tripartite entanglement, and it was only possible to do so once the (separable) correlations between non-neighbouring qubits (e.g., qubits 1 and 3) are also taken into account. Second, although there are states for which the witness of Eqs. (\[eq:NQB symm average Bell fid intro\]) and (\[eq:NQB symm average Bell fid witness\]) could be used to detect GME between more than 3 parties[^6], it is not sensitive enough to do so for the states presented here in our setup (neither for the theoretical predictions nor for the experimental data). To address the question of whether genuine multipartite quantum correlations occur in groups of more than 3 qubits, in our setup, we hence turn to more computationally demanding procedures, which we present in the next section. <span>The observed and predicted entanglement peak amplitude and dynamics for qubits near the centre and those near the ends (Fig. \[figure2\]) are markedly different. We attribute those differences to the interaction inhomogeneity across the qubit string and boundary effects.</span> GME Witnesses based on numerical search {#sec:Ulm witnesses main text} ======================================= In this section, we present and apply a method that employs a numerical search to find $k$-qubit witnesses for GME. This search is computationally intensive: an optimisation is performed that takes computational resources that increase exponentially with $k$. Finding a GME witness operator for mixed $5$-qubit states is already at the practical limit of our available computers and algorithms. Nonetheless, we find witnesses that succeed in detecting GME in groups of up to 5 qubits in our 20-qubit experimental system. In the following, we give a brief overview of the new witnesses and defer to Appendix for a more detailed discussion of the technical aspects. We make use of the genuine multipartite negativity ($\mathcal N_{\rm g}$), an established measure for GME @JungnitschMoroderGuehne2011 [@HofmannMoroderGuehne2014]. A positive value of $\mathcal N_{\rm g}$ for a given $k$-qubit state implies the existence of genuine $k$-partite entanglement in this state, since $\mathcal N_{\rm g}$ vanishes for all biseparable states. The $\mathcal N_{\rm g}$ can be calculated given knowledge of the density matrix @JungnitschMoroderGuehne2011 [@HofmannMoroderGuehne2014]. However, we have not performed a tomographically complete set of measurements for more than $k=3$ qubits (we do not have the density matrices for the state in the lab, for $k>3$). Our approach, to detect GME in any given group $i$, of $k$ qubits, is to find a $k$-qubit witness operator $Q^{(k)}_i$ whose expectation value provides a lower bound on the $k$-qubit $\mathcal N_{\rm g}$, and which can be written as a function of the set of measurements that were carried out in our experiment. We now provide more details on this approach. \[ht\] We perform a search to find a $k$-qubit operator $Q^{(k)}_i$, subject to two important constraints. First, we search for an operator which both maximises the following inequality, $$\label{QEW} -{\textnormal{Tr}}(Q^{(k)}_i \rho^k_i) \equiv \mathcal{S}_i^{(k)} \le \mathcal{N}_{\rm g}({\rho^k_i})$$ for a specific $k$-qubit state of interest $\rho^k_i$, and satisfies the inequality for all possible $k$-qubit states. We call $Q^{(k)}_i$ a quantitative entanglement witness (QEW) because it provides a lower bound on $\mathcal N_g$. It is straightforward to constrain the search in this way and also to verify that any given $Q^{(k)}_i$ is a QEW. When searching for the optimal witness, we use a theoretical model for the time-evolved $k$-qubit state for $\rho^k_i$. Second, we include the additional constraint that the $Q^{(k)}_i$ can be written as a linear function of the $k$-qubit measurement operators (projectors) that were done, involving qubit group $i$. Specifically, we restrict $Q^{(k)}_i$ to the form $$\label{projector QEW} Q^{(k)}_i = \sum_{\vec{s},\vec{\alpha}} c^{(k)}_{i;\vec{s},\vec{\alpha}} P_{\vec{s},\vec{\alpha}}^{(k)}, \vspace*{-2mm}$$ where the projectors $P_{\vec{s},\vec{\alpha}}^{(k)}$ correspond to the marginal distributions of the twenty-seven 20-qubit projective measurement settings carried out in the lab (Sec. \[sec:initial results\]), and $c^{(k)}_{i;\vec{s},\vec{\alpha}}$ denote some coefficients. Here, $\vec{s}$ and $\vec{\alpha}$ label, respectively, the qubit outcome and the local basis of the measurements, see also Appendix . The search for the optimal witnesses operator $Q^{(k)}_i$ is carried out using a semidefinite program. The run time of the SDP is polynomial in the dimension of the Hilbert space @BoydVandenbergheBook2004 [@TutuncuTohTodd2003] but the dimension of our Hilbert space naturally increases exponentially with the number of qubits $k$. This makes the optimisation demanding already for medium numbers of qubits: Our available computational resources are not sufficient to determine optimal witnesses for states of more than 5 qubits. The $Q^{(k)}_i$ which satisfies Eqs. and , and maximises the left-hand side of Eq. , determines an optimal witness tailored to the target state (from a theoretical model) and the available measurements. Once this optimal $Q^{(k)}_i$ is found we can calculate its expectation value from the outcomes of the measurement done on the state in the laboratory. A witness expectation value ($\mathcal{S}_i^{(k)}$) larger than zero then detects $k$-qubit GME ($\mathcal N_{\rm g}>0$), for the $i$th group of $k$ qubits. The experimental results for $k=3$ <span>presented in Fig. \[figure3\] a</span> show that all neighbouring qubit triplets soon develop GME during the dynamics, to within many standard deviations, reaching a maximum at $t=2$ ms. Furthermore, for the times 2, 2.5, and 3 ms, <span>Figs. \[figure3\] b and \[figure3\] c show that</span> GME is detected in the majority of all neighbouring groups of 4 and 5 qubits, to within at least 1 standard deviation of experimental uncertainty. Figure \[figure3\] compares the witness results obtained from the data with those derived from two theoretical models. The first "pure" model employs the perfect pure 20-qubit time-evolved state \[$\ket{\psi(t)}$\] and uses exact knowledge of $k$-qubit density matrices to optimise and apply the witnesses. <span>The</span> witness expectation value for the pure model yields $\mathcal{S}_i^{(k)}=\mathcal{N}_{\rm g}({\rho^k_i})$. Although the pure model succeeds in qualitatively describing the multipartite entanglement dynamics, the witness expectation values from the data are generally offset to lower values. A more sophisticated "mixed" model is able to explain part of this offset, which includes known imperfections in preparing the initial Néel-ordered state. Specifically, out of 1000 attempts to generate the Néel state, we observe the correct output state 829 times. In the remaining 171 cases, 146 correspond to single qubit flip errors and the rest to errors with two or more qubit flips. We attribute these errors to uncontrolled fluctuations in laser intensity and frequency, and model them as leading to the preparation of a statistical mixture of those different logical initial states, with corresponding weights. The witnesses used for the data were obtained by a search involving the mixed-model reduced states for the targets. We attribute the remaining small differences between data and theory, in Fig. \[figure3\], to additional mixing processes that occur in the laser-induced qubit-qubit interactions. The mixed theory predictions in Fig. \[figure3\] include error bars due to the use of a finite number of numerically simulated measurements per measurement basis (1000). Error bars indicate 1 standard deviation of the mean, which is estimated as in Sec. \[sec:Vienna witnesses main text\], and show that the fluctuations in the data are largely consistent with those expected from such statistical noise. We conclude that, in order to witness 4- and 5-partite GME with greater statistical significance in future work, we could benefit from taking more measurements. However, it will be challenging to ensure that the experimental configuration remains stable over the longer time required to take such additional measurements. <span>The</span> sizes of the error bars on both data and mixed theory points, in Fig. \[figure3\], increase with increasing $k$. This can be understood as follows: there are more measurement outcomes available in the data for the $k=3$ witness calculations than for larger $k$. Amongst the twenty-seven 20-qubit measurement bases, 3-qubit measurements are repeated (duplicated) more often in the measurement pattern than 4-qubit or 5-qubit measurements, leading to better statistics. Discussion and Conclusion {#sec:discussion} ========================= We have experimentally generated and detected the presence of entanglement in a register of 20 qubits. In particular, we detected the dynamical evolution of genuine multipartite entanglement in the system following a quench, and developed new characterisation techniques to do so. While we cannot say that 20-qubit GME was generated, we can say that every qubit simultaneously became genuine multipartite entangled with a least two of its neighbours and, in most cases, three and four of its neighbours. Our experimental apparatus represents the largest joint system of individually controllable subsystems to date where the presence of entanglement has been demonstrated. Each qubit can be individually controlled and qubit-qubit interactions can be turned on and off as desired (and tuned to have various forms). As such, our system has the capability to perform universal quantum simulation and quantum computation. Confirming GME beyond groups of 5 qubits, even for the ideal states, is currently beyond our available classical computational resources and algorithms. A possible approach to overcome that problem is to exploit symmetries in the system and initial state, to reduce the size of the search space for witnesses. Another is to tune the experimental system Hamiltonian into regimes where more symmetries are apparent or approximated, e.g., infinite or nearest-neighbour-only qubit-qubit interaction ranges. Finally, witnesses based on average Bell-state fidelities are straightforward to use and measure in the lab. As with all such witnesses, they detect entanglement without the need to carry out state tomography and can be evaluated with only a few measurements. This can be important for the detection of weakly entangled states, where estimates based on state tomography are known to overestimate entanglement @SchwemmerKnipsRichartWeinfurterMoroderKleinmannGuehne2013. Our witnesses based on brute-force numerical searching have the advantage of placing the least constraints on the form of the state in the lab and the measurements that should be taken: this can be important in the case of unknown local rotations of qubits during the dynamics. As such, our witnesses should find application beyond the present trapped-ion setting. The work in Innsbruck was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under Grant No. P25354-N20, by the European Commission via the integrated project SIQS, and by the Army Research Laboratory under Cooperative Agreement No. W911NF-15-2-0060. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Laboratory or the U.S. Government. B. L. acknowledges funding from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through the START project Y 849-N20. N. F. and M. Huber acknowledge funding from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through the START project Y879-N27 and the joint Czech-Austrian project MultiQUEST (I 3053-N27). The work in Ulm was supported by an Alexander von Humboldt Professorship, the ERC Synergy grant BioQ, the EU projects QUCHIP, and the U.S. Army Research Office Grant No. W91-1NF-14-1-0133, as well as by computational resources by the state of Baden-W<span>ü</span>rttemberg through bwHPC and the German Research Foundation (DFG) through Grant No. INST 40/467-1 FUGG. Appendices {#appendices .unnumbered} ========== GME Witnesses Based on Bipartite Correlators {#appendix:vienna witnesses} ============================================ In this section of the appendix, we introduce a method for the detection of *genuine multipartite entanglement* in $N$-qubit systems. This method is based on $2$-qubit observables and does not require full state tomography. In particular, our detection criteria can be phrased as biseparability thresholds for average Bell fidelities, i.e., expectation values of linear combinations of pairs of Pauli operators. At the heart of this method lies the *anticommutativity theorem* (ACT) from Refs. @TothGuehne2005 [@AsadianErkerHuberKlockl2016], which we use to provide bounds on the average Bell fidelities. Although our approach is not able to detect all types of GME in multipartite systems, its advantage lies in providing linear entanglement witnesses that can be practically evaluated with only a few measurements. More specifically, our approach does not require obtaining a good estimate of the $N$-partite correlation tensor @WuKampermannBrussKloecklHuber2012 [@KloecklHuber2015] with $3^{N}$ components, but instead only needs at most $6N$ measurements of strings of $N$ local Pauli operators to test for $N$-partite GME. As we discuss, the linearity of the witness also makes it amenable to a simple treatment of the potentially correlated statistical errors arising from deriving expectation values of bipartite observables from simultaneous measurements of $N$ qubits. Following the brief description of these results in Sec. \[sec:Vienna witnesses main text\] of the main text, we now present more detailed derivations of the quantities and bounds that we consider. In Appendix we briefly define and motivate the basic quantities of interest, before we construct our GME witnesses in Appendix . Framework {#sec:framework} --------- In this section, we explain the basic quantities and notions of interest, i.e., the anticommutativity theorem of Ref. @AsadianErkerHuberKlockl2016 and the average Bell fidelities to establish a basis for the more detailed discussion of GME that is to follow in Appendix . ### The Anticommutativity Theorem {#sec:ACT theorem} Let us consider a set $\{A_{n}\}_{n=1,2,\ldots,k}$ of self-adjoint, normalized, anticommuting operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ with $\dim(\mathcal{H})=d$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} {\textnormal{Tr}}\{A_{m},A_{n}\}_{+} &={\textnormal{Tr}}\bigl(A_{m}A_{n}+A_{n}A_{m}\bigr)=2d\delta_{mn} \label{eq: normalized anticomm operators}\end{aligned}$$ for all $m,n=1,\ldots,k$. The *anticommutativity theorem* @TothGuehne2005 [@AsadianErkerHuberKlockl2016] then states that for all states $\rho\in L(\mathcal{H})$, $$\begin{aligned} \sum\limits_{n=1}^{k}{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! A_{n} \!\left.\right\rangle}}^{2}_{\rho} &\leq\,\max_{n}{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! A_{n}^{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}\,. \label{eq:anticomm theorem}\end{aligned}$$ A simple example for the applicability of this theorem is the set of single-qubit Pauli operators $\{X,Y,Z\}$. Since all of these operators anticommute and square to the identity, the ACT then simply requires that $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X \!\left.\right\rangle}}^{2}_{\rho}\,+\,{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y \!\left.\right\rangle}}^{2}_{\rho}\,+\,{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z \!\left.\right\rangle}}^{2}_{\rho} &\leq\,{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! \mathds{1} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}\,=\,1. \label{eq:ACT for single qubit Paulis}\end{aligned}$$ In other words, for single-qubit Pauli operators, the ACT is equivalent to demanding that Bloch vectors are (sub)normalized, i.e., positivity of the density operator $\rho$. A less trivial example of the ACT arises for 2 qubits. Consider the set of operators $$\begin{aligned} \{X_{1}X_{2},\,Y_{1}Y_{2},\,Z_{1}Z_{2},\,X_{2}X_{3},\,Y_{2}Y_{3},\,Z_{2}Z_{3}\}\,, \label{eq:nearest neighbour Bell fid operators 3 qubits}\end{aligned}$$ where the shorthand notation for $N$-qubit operators is $$\begin{aligned} O_{i} &\equiv \mathds{1}_{1}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mathds{1}_{i-1}\otimes O_{i}\otimes\mathds{1}_{i+1}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mathds{1}_{N}, \label{eq:N qubit operator shorthand}\end{aligned}$$ and $O\in\{X,Y,Z\}$. We can sort the six operators in the set displayed in Eq. (\[eq:nearest neighbour Bell fid operators 3 qubits\]) into three pairs of anticommuting operators, e.g., \[eq:anticommuting bipartite Paulis sets\] $$\begin{aligned} \{X_{1}X_{2},Y_{2}Y_{3}\}_{+} &=0\,,\\ \{Y_{1}Y_{2},Z_{2}Z_{3}\}_{+} &=0\,,\\ \{Z_{1}Z_{2},X_{2}X_{3}\}_{+} &=0.\end{aligned}$$ Since the spectra of all six operators are $\{\pm1\}$ (with twofold degeneracy), we further have ${\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! O_{i}O_{i+1} \!\left.\right\rangle}}^{2}\leq1$, and the ACT theorem hence tells us that \[eq:anticommuting bipartite Paulis sets ACT\] $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}^{2}\,+\,{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{2}Y_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}^{2} &\leq1\,,\\ {\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{1}Y_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}^{2}\,+\,{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{2}Z_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}^{2} &\leq1\,,\\ {\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{1}Z_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}^{2}\,+\,{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{2}X_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}^{2} &\leq1\,.\end{aligned}$$ To see where these bounds can be of use, let us next examine fidelities with $2$-qubit Bell states. ### Average Bell State Fidelities {#sec:average bell state fidelities} We now want to consider ways of quantifying how close a given $2$-qubit state is to a maximally entangled Bell state. To this end, note that the density operators for the four Bell states can be written in a generalized Bloch decomposition as \[eq:Bell state density operator Bloch decomp\] $$\begin{aligned} \rho_{\psi^{-}} &=\ket{\psi^{-}}\!\!\bra{\psi^{-}}=\tfrac{1}{4}\bigl(\mathds{1}_{1,2}-X_{1}X_{2}-Y_{1}Y_{2}-Z_{1}Z_{2}\bigr), \label{eq:psi minus bloch decomp}\\ \rho_{\psi^{+}} &=\ket{\psi^{+}}\!\!\bra{\psi^{+}}=\tfrac{1}{4}\bigl(\mathds{1}_{1,2}+X_{1}X_{2}+Y_{1}Y_{2}-Z_{1}Z_{2}\bigr), \label{eq:psi plus bloch decomp}\\ \rho_{\phi^{-}} &=\ket{\phi^{-}}\!\!\bra{\phi^{-}}=\tfrac{1}{4}\bigl(\mathds{1}_{1,2}-X_{1}X_{2}+Y_{1}Y_{2}+Z_{1}Z_{2}\bigr), \label{eq:phi minus bloch decomp}\\ \rho_{\phi^{+}} &=\ket{\phi^{+}}\!\!\bra{\phi^{+}}=\tfrac{1}{4}\bigl(\mathds{1}_{1,2}+X_{1}X_{2}-Y_{1}Y_{2}+Z_{1}Z_{2}\bigr). \label{eq:phi plus bloch decomp}\end{aligned}$$ For any $2$-qubit density operator $\rho$, we can then compute the fidelity with any of the Bell states. For this purpose we use the Uhlmann fidelity $\mathcal{F}$, given by $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{F}(\rho,\sigma) &=\,\Bigl({\textnormal{Tr}}\sqrt{\sqrt{\sigma}\rho\sqrt{\sigma}}\Bigr)^{2}\,, \label{eq:Uhlmann fidelity general}\end{aligned}$$ which reduces to $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{F}(\rho,\ket{\psi}\!\!\bra{\psi}) &=\,\bra{\psi}\rho\ket{\psi}={\textnormal{Tr}}\bigl(\rho\ket{\psi}\!\!\bra{\psi}\bigr) \label{eq:Uhlmann fidelity pure state}\end{aligned}$$ if one of the arguments is a pure state. For example, for the Bell state $\ket{\psi^{-}}$ one can use Eq. (\[eq:psi minus bloch decomp\]) and the fact that all Pauli operators are traceless to find $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{F}(\rho,\rho_{\psi^{-}}) &=\, \tfrac{1}{4}\bigl(1-{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}-{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{1}Y_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}-{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{1}Z_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\rho}\bigr). \label{eq:Uhlmann fidelity psi minus}\end{aligned}$$ Since the only difference to the fidelities with any of the other Bell states are the relative signs between the different expectation values, we can immediately note that the fidelity of $\rho$ with any of the four Bell states is bounded according to $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{F}(\rho,\rho_{\mathrm{Bell}}) &\leq\, \tfrac{1}{4}\bigl(1+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{1}Y_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{1}Z_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\bigr), \label{eq:Uhlmann fidelity with arbitrary Bell state}\end{aligned}$$ where we have dropped the subscript for the state $\rho$ on the expectation values for brevity. ### Nearest-Neighbour Average Bell Fidelity When the system consists of more than 2 qubits, we can evaluate the fidelity with $2$-qubit Bell states for any two of the constituent qubits. For simplicity, let us first consider the nearest neighbours for now and examine the case of 3 qubits. The average fidelity with arbitrary nearest-neighbour Bell states is then $$\begin{aligned} & \tfrac{1}{2}\bigl(\mathcal{F}(\rho,\rho_{\mathrm{Bell},12})+\mathcal{F}(\rho,\rho_{\mathrm{Bell},23})\bigr) \,\leq\,\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}}, \label{eq:3QB average Bell fid bound}\end{aligned}$$ where we define the quantity $\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}}$ as the upper bound $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}}&:=\tfrac{1}{8}\bigl(2+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{1}Y_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{1}Z_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!| \nonumber\\[1mm] &\ \ \ \ +|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{2}X_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{2}Y_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{2}Z_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\bigr), \label{eq:3QB average Bell fid}\end{aligned}$$ but we refer to $\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}}$ as the average nearest neighbour Bell fidelity from now on for simplicity. Next, we make use of the relation between the $1$-norm $|\hspace*{-1pt}|\vec{a}|\hspace*{-1pt}|_{1}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_{i}|$ and the $2$-norm $|\hspace*{-1pt}|\vec{a}|\hspace*{-1pt}|_{2}=\bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_{i}|^{2}\bigr)^{1/2}$ in an $n$-dimensional vector space, i.e., the fact that $$\begin{aligned} |\hspace*{-1pt}|\vec{a}|\hspace*{-1pt}|_{1} &=\sum_{i=1}^{n}|a_{i}|\times1=|(\vec{a},\vec{1})| \leq |\hspace*{-1pt}|\vec{a}|\hspace*{-1pt}|_{2}\bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{n}1^{2}\bigr)^{1/2}=\sqrt{n}|\hspace*{-1pt}|\vec{a}|\hspace*{-1pt}|_{2}, \label{eq:relation between 1norm and 2norm}\end{aligned}$$ where we have taken $\vec{1}=(1,1,\ldots,1)^{T}$ to be a vector whose components (w.r.t. whichever basis is chosen for $\vec{a}$) are all equal to $1$, and we have used the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $|(\vec{a},\vec{b})|\leq |\hspace*{-1pt}|\vec{a}|\hspace*{-1pt}|_{2} |\hspace*{-1pt}|\vec{b}|\hspace*{-1pt}|_{2}$. Combining this with the ACT theorem from Eq. (\[eq:anticomm theorem\]) we find, e.g., $$\begin{aligned} |\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{2}Y_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!| &\leq \sqrt{2}\bigl({\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}^{2}\,+\,{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{2}Y_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}^{2}\bigr)\leq\sqrt{2}. \label{eq:bound trick}\end{aligned}$$ Applying the same procedure to the other pairs of expectation values of anticommuting operators in Eq. (\[eq:3QB average Bell fid\]), we arrive at the bound $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}} &\leq\tfrac{1}{8}\bigl(2+3\sqrt{2}\bigr). \label{eq:3QB average Bell fid AC bound}\end{aligned}$$ The average nearest-neighbour Bell state fidelity can of course be generalized to $N$ qubits, i.e., the upper bound on the average nearest-neighbour Bell fidelity is $$\begin{aligned} &\frac{1}{N-1}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N-1}\mathcal{F}(\rho,\rho_{\mathrm{Bell},i(i+1)}) \leq \bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(N)}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}},\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned} &\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(N)}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}}\,:=\,\tfrac{1}{4(N-1)}\Bigl((N-1)+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N-1}\sum\limits_{O=X,Y,Z}|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! O_{1}O_{i+1} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\Bigr) \nonumber\\[1mm] &\ =\tfrac{1}{4(N-1)}\Bigl((N-1)+ |\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{1}Y_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{1}Z_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!| \nonumber\\[1mm] &\ \ \ \ \ +|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{2}X_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{2}Y_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{2}Z_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+\dots\nonumber\\[1mm] &\ \ \ \dots+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{N-1}X_{N} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{N-1}Y_{N} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{N-1}Z_{N} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\Bigr). \label{eq:NQB average Bell fid}\end{aligned}$$ The expression on the right-hand side contains $N-1$ triples of expectation values. If $N$ is odd, then $N-1$ is even, and each expectation value of an operator $O_{i}O_{i+1}$ can be paired with another expectation value of an operator $O{^{\prime}}_{i+1}O{^{\prime}}_{i+2}$ that anticommutes with it, i.e., $O,O{^{\prime}}\in\{X,Y,Z\}$ and $\{O_{i}O_{i+1},O{^{\prime}}_{i+1}O{^{\prime}}_{i+2}\}_{+}=0$. The bound of Eq. (\[eq:bound trick\]) can hence be used $\tfrac{3(N-1)}{2}$ times, and we arrive at $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(N \mathrm{odd})}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}} &\leq\tfrac{1}{4(N-1)}\Bigl((N-1)+\tfrac{3(N-1)}{2}\sqrt{2}\Bigr)=\tfrac{1}{8}\bigl(2+3\sqrt{2}\bigr).\end{aligned}$$ However, when $N$ is even, one triple of expectation values (w.l.o.g. for $i=N-1$) remains unpaired and can only be bounded by $$\begin{aligned} |\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{N-1}X_{N} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{N-1}Y_{N} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{N-1}Z_{N} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!| &\leq3\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we arrive at the following upper bound on the nearest-neighbour average Bell fidelity for arbitrary $N$-qubit states, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(N)}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}} &\leq \begin{cases} \tfrac{1}{8}\bigl(2+3\sqrt{2}\bigr) & \mbox{($N$ odd)}\\ \tfrac{1}{4(N-1)}\Bigl(\!(N\!-\!1)+\tfrac{3(N-2)\sqrt{2}}{2}+3\Bigr) & \mbox{($N$ even)} \end{cases}. \label{eq:NQB nearest neighbour Bell bound general}\end{aligned}$$ ### Symmetric Average Bell Fidelity Instead of restricting the analysis to nearest neighbours as in Eq. (\[eq:3QB average Bell fid\]), one can of course also average over all pairings of 2 qubits, obtaining a quantity that is symmetric w.r.t. the exchange of any 2 qubits. Noting that there are $b_{N}=\tbinom{N}{2}=\tfrac{1}{2}\tfrac{N!}{(N-2)!}$ different such pairings, we have the upper bound $$\begin{aligned} \tfrac{1}{b_{N}}\sum\limits_{\substack{i,j=1 \\ i<j}}^{N}\mathcal{F}(\rho,\rho_{\mathrm{Bell},ij}) &\leq\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(N)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}, \label{eq:NQB symm average Bell fid bound}\end{aligned}$$ with the definition $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(N)}_{\mathrm{Bell}}& := \tfrac{1}{4b_{N}}\Bigl(b_{N}+\!\!\sum\limits_{\substack{i,j=1 \\ i<j}}^{N}\sum\limits_{O=X,Y,Z}|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! O_{i}O_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\Bigr). \label{eq:NQB symm average Bell fid}\end{aligned}$$ For, instance, for 3 qubits we have $b_{3}=3$ and the symmetric average Bell fidelity reads $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(3)}_{\mathrm{Bell}} &\ =\tfrac{1}{12}\Bigl(3 +|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{2}X_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\nonumber\\[1mm] &\hspace*{1.35cm} +\,|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{1}Y_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\ +\ |\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{1}Y_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\,+\,|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{2}Y_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\nonumber\\[1mm] &\hspace*{1.35cm} +|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{2}Z_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\,+\,|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{1}Z_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\,+\,|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{1}Z_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\Bigr). \label{eq:3QB symm average Bell fid}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have arranged the expectation values such that it becomes immediately obvious that the triples of operators corresponding to expectation values listed directly below or above each other mutually anticommute. We can then apply the bound of Eq. (\[eq:relation between 1norm and 2norm\]) and the ACT of Eq. (\[eq:anticomm theorem\]), e.g., as illustrated for the terms $$\begin{aligned} & |\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{1}Y_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{2}Z_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!| \label{eq:trick for three qubits}\\[1mm] &\ \ \leq\sqrt{3}\Bigl(|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|^{2}+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{1}Y_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|^{2}+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{2}Z_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|^{2}\Bigr)\leq\sqrt{3}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We thus arrive at the bound $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(3)}_{\mathrm{Bell}} &\ \leq\tfrac{1}{12}\bigl(3+3\sqrt{3}\bigr)=\tfrac{1}{4}\bigl(1+\sqrt{3}\bigr). \label{eq:3QB symm average Bell fid bound}\end{aligned}$$ In fact, the same bound applies for arbitrary numbers of qubits, since all $3b_{N}$ expectation values can be collected in groups of 3 mutually anticommuting operators. To see this, we use an inductive proof. Assume that we have found $b_{N}$ groups of three anticommuting operators for $N\geq3$ qubits and we wish to add another qubit. This means that we have to additionally consider the operators --------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------ ------------------- $X_{1}X_{N+1}$, $X_{2}X_{N+1}$, $X_{3}X_{N+1}$, $\ldots$ , $X_{N}X_{N+1}$, \[1mm\] $Y_{N}Y_{N+1}$, $Y_{1}Y_{N+1}$, $Y_{2}Y_{N+1}$, $\ldots$ , $Y_{N-1}Y_{N+1}$, \[1mm\] $Z_{N-1}Z_{N+1}$, $Z_{N}Z_{N+1}$, $Z_{1}Z_{N+1}$, $\ldots$ , $Z_{N-2}Z_{N+1}$. --------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------ ------------------- All columns contain three mutually anticommuting operators for $N\geq3$. If the original $3b_{N}$ operators can be arranged in mutually anticommuting triples, then also the new set of $3b_{N+1}$ operators can be grouped in this way, which concludes the inductive step. We have already demonstrated that this statement is true for $N=3$ and have hence shown that for any $N\geq3$ we have the bound $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(N\geq3)}_{\mathrm{Bell}} &\ \leq\bar{\mathcal{F}}^{(N) \mathrm{max}}_{\mathrm{Bell}}:=\tfrac{1}{4}\bigl(1+\sqrt{3}\bigr). \label{eq:NQB symm average Bell fid bound}\end{aligned}$$ Having established these general bounds that apply for arbitrary quantum states, we next examine how these bounds can be improved upon when the states in question are biseparable. This will allow us to formulate criteria for the detection of genuine multipartite entanglement. GME Witnesses {#sec:GME witnesses} ------------- In this section, we establish upper bounds for the nearest-neighbour and symmetric average Bell fidelities for biseparable states. These new upper bounds are below the respective bounds of Eqs. (\[eq:NQB nearest neighbour Bell bound general\]) and (\[eq:NQB symm average Bell fid bound\]) and hence leave room for GME states in between. That is, any states for which the combinations of expectation values discussed above provide values beyond these biseparability bounds are GME. As we shall see, the biseparability bounds for nearest-neighbour Bell fidelities are not directly useful for detecting GME, but these bounds serve as a simple example for discussing the method of construction which will be helpful for identifying GME witnesses based on symmetric average Bell fidelities. ### Outline of the Technique In the following we consider bipartitions $A|B$ of the set $\kappa=\{1,2,\ldots,N\}$ of all $N$ qubits, that is, we split $\kappa$ into two sets, $$\begin{aligned} A &=\{a_{1},a_{2},\ldots,a_{k}|a_{i}\in\kappa, a_{i}\neq a_{j}\forall i\neq j\},\\[1mm] B &=\{b_{1},b_{2},\ldots,b_{N-k}|b_{i}\in\kappa, b_{i}\neq b_{j}\forall i\neq j\},\end{aligned}$$ such that $A\cup B=\kappa$ and $A\cap B=\emptyset$. For $N$ qubits, one has $2^{N-1}-1$ different bipartitions. Before we continue, let us briefly recall the definitions of biseparability and genuine multipartite entanglement. In general, a pure, $N$-partite state $\ket{\psi}\in\mathcal{H}{\ensuremath{_{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ 1,2,\ldots,N$}}}}}=\mathcal{H}{\ensuremath{_{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ 1$}}}}}\otimes\mathcal{H}{\ensuremath{_{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ 2$}}}}}\otimes\ldots\mathcal{H}{\ensuremath{_{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ N$}}}}}$ is called $k$-separable if it can be written as a tensor product with respect to some partition of $\mathcal{H}{\ensuremath{_{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ 1,2,\ldots,N$}}}}}$ into $k\leq N$ subsystems. As a special case of this definition, a pure state is called biseparable, if it can be written as a tensor product w.r.t. some bipartition, i.e., if there exists a bipartition $A|B$ such that $\ket{\psi}=\ket{\phi}_{A}\ket{\chi}_{B}$. Conversely, a pure state $\ket{\psi}\in\mathcal{H}{\ensuremath{_{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ 1,2,\ldots,N$}}}}}$ that is not biseparable is called *genuinely $N$-partite entangled*. A mixed state with density operator $\rho$ is considered to be genuinely multipartite entangled if it cannot be written as a convex combination of biseparable states, that is, if it cannot be written as $$\begin{aligned} \rho_{\mathrm{bisep}} &=\,\sum\limits_{i}p_{i}\ket{\psi_{\mathrm{bisep}}{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}}\!\!\bra{\psi_{\mathrm{bisep}}{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{i}p_{i}=1$ with $0\leq p_{i}\leq1$ and $\ket{\psi_{\mathrm{bisep}}{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}}$ are biseparable pure states. Note that the $\ket{\psi_{\mathrm{bisep}}{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (i)$}}}}}}$ for different $i$ can be separable w.r.t. different bipartitions. Now, consider a bipartition $A|B$ and an operator $O_{i}O_{j}$ such that $i\in A$ and $j\in B$. If the system is in a pure state $\ket{\psi}$ that is separable w.r.t. to this bipartition, i.e., if $\ket{\psi}_{AB}=\ket{\phi}_{A}\ket{\chi}_{B}$, then we have $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! O_{i}O_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\psi} &=\,{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! O_{i} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\phi}{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! O_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}_{\chi}\,.\end{aligned}$$ When we have a triple of operators $X_{i}X_{j}$, $Y_{i}Y_{j}$, and $Z_{i}Z_{j}$ for such a separable state across $A|B$, we have $$\begin{aligned} & |\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{i}X_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{i}Y_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{i}Z_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!| \label{eq:bisep trick}\\[1mm] &\ =\,|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{i} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|.|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{i} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|.|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{i} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|.|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{j} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!| \nonumber\\[1mm] &\ \leq\,\prod_{n=i,j}\sqrt{|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{n} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|^{2}+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{n} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|^{2}+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{n} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|^{2}}\,\leq\,1,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in the second-to-last step and the subnormalization of the Bloch vector in the last step. The inequality (\[eq:bisep trick\]) can be used to bound the Bell fidelities for pure biseparable states for different bipartitions. As an example, consider again the nearest-neighbour average Bell fidelity for 3 qubits from Eq. (\[eq:3QB average Bell fid\]). For the bipartition $1|23$, we can apply (\[eq:bisep trick\]) to the first three expectation values in Eq. (\[eq:3QB average Bell fid\]), while the remaining three can each be bounded by $1$. A similar argument can be made for the bipartition $12|3$ by exchanging the roles of the two triples of expectation values, such that $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}}^{1|23, 12|3} &\leq\tfrac{1}{8}\bigl(2+1+3\bigr)=\tfrac{3}{4}, \label{eq:3QB average Bell fid bipartitions 1vs23 and 12vs3}\end{aligned}$$ where the superscripts indicate that the inequality is satisfied for states that are biseparable w.r.t. (at least one of) the listed bipartitions. When we examine the bipartition $2|13$, the situation is slightly different, since Eq. (\[eq:bisep trick\]) can be used for all expectation values and we have $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}}^{2|13} &\leq\tfrac{1}{8}\bigl(2+1+1\bigr)=\tfrac{1}{2}. \label{eq:3QB average Bell fid bipartitions 2vs13}\end{aligned}$$ Any pure 3-qubit state that is separable w.r.t. one or more of these bipartitions (any pure, biseparable state of 3 qubits) must hence satisfy $\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\mathrm{NN~Bell}}\leq\tfrac{3}{4}$. Moreover, since any mixed state is considered to be biseparable when it can be written as a convex combination of biseparable pure states (not necessarily w.r.t. to the same bipartition), all mixed, biseparable states must also respect this bound. Conversely, the first 3 qubits of any state $\rho$ for which $$\begin{aligned} &\tfrac{1}{8}\bigl(2+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{1}X_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{1}Y_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{1}Z_{2} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!| \nonumber\\[1mm] &\ \ \ \ +|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! X_{2}X_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Y_{2}Y_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|+|\!{\ensuremath{\left\langle\right.\! Z_{2}Z_{3} \!\left.\right\rangle}}\!|\bigr)\,>\,\tfrac{3}{4} \label{eq:3QB GME witness nearest neighbour}\end{aligned}$$ are genuinely 3-partite entangled. ### Nearest-Neighbour Average Bell Fidelity as GME Witness {#sec:Nearest-Neighbour Average Bell Fidelity as GME Witness} In principle, the nearest-neighbour Bell fidelity could hence provide a detection criterion for GME that can be generalized to $N$ qubits. However, at this point a remark on the detection power of this quantity is in order, since even some paradigmatic cases of genuinely tripartite entangled states for 3 qubits cannot be detected with this bound. That is, for the 3-qubit GHZ and W states $\ket{\psi_{\mathrm{GHZ}}{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (3)$}}}}}}$ and $\ket{\psi_{\mathrm{W}}{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (3)$}}}}}}$ (or the local unitarily equivalent $2$-excitation Dicke state $\ket{\psi_{\mathrm{D},2}{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (3)$}}}}}}$), given by \[eq:three QB GME states\] $$\begin{aligned} \ket{\psi_{\mathrm{GHZ}}{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (3)$}}}}}} &=\,\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl(\ket{000}+\ket{111}\bigr),\\[1mm] \ket{\psi_{\mathrm{W}}{\ensuremath{^{\hspace{0 pt}\protect\raisebox{0 pt}{\tiny{$ (3)$}}}}}}
{'source': 'arXiv_out/1711'}