alphaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Rényi multi-entropy of graph states and the n−>1n -> 1 limit

AI contributions
  • Claude Opus 5.5
  • GPT-6 Astra
View details

Abstract

Rényi multi-entropy extends the Rényi entropy to pure states of more than two parties. It is defined by a replica contraction at integer replica number nn, and the multi-entropy is its n→1n\to1 limit. In holography this limit is conjectured to compute the area of a minimal soap-film web in the bulk. Understanding multi-entropy for general states, however, is harder. Unlike the bipartite case, the replica contraction is not a moment of a density matrix, and the continuation to n=1n=1 has to be found by other means. We study this problem for qubit graph states. We show that at every odd nn the contraction equals 2−k/22^{-k/2}, where kk is a sum of ranks of matrices over a finite field, one row and one column per qubit. We define a class of graphs that we call collision-controlled, for which the rank sum is a polynomial in nn. This class includes graphs without even cycles and all complete bipartite graphs. The natural polynomial n→1n \to 1 continuation is a finite sum over partitions of the parties. While the Rényi multi-entropy is non-increasing under single-qubit Pauli measurements at every odd integer n>1n>1, the continuation to n=1n=1 is not. A ZZ measurement on one qubit of an odd ring with 2r+1≥72r + 1 \geq 7 qubits raises it from (r+1)log⁡2(r+1)\log 2 to (2r−1)log⁡2(2r-1) \log 2. Thus the continuation is not an entanglement monotone.

Introduction

The Rényi entropies of a reduced density matrix ρA\rho_A are determined by the moments Tr⁡ρAn\operatorname{Tr}\rho_A^n, and each moment has a simple replica representation: take nn copies of the state and contract the indices of AA cyclically. The Rényi multi-entropy [1] extends this construction to a pure state on qq parties. The copies are placed on a periodic (q−1)(q - 1)-dimensional lattice with nn sites in each direction, and each of the first q−1q - 1 parties is contracted cyclically along its lattice direction. This gives a party-symmetric local-unitary invariant built from nq−1n^{q-1} copies. The multi-entropy is the limit n→1n \to1. At q=2q = 2, it reduces to the usual entanglement entropy.

For holographic states, the n→1n \to1 limit has a simple geometric description. At leading semiclassical order the Rényi multi-entropy is conjectured to be the area of a web of branes anchored on the boundary partition [1], in analogy with the cosmic branes that compute holographic Rényi entropies [2, 3]. As n→1n \to1, the branes become light and no longer backreact on the bulk geometry. The limiting web is a minimal soap-film configuration, whose area is conjectured to compute the multi-entropy, in analogy with the Ryu–Takayanagi prescription for entanglement entropy [4, 5]. The proposal has since been tested in two-dimensional conformal field theory [6] and in random tensor networks [7, 8, 9], extended to mixed states through a reflected construction [10], placed within a larger family of replica contractions defined by permutations [11], and studied under coarse graining [12].

In holography, the bulk geometry gives a natural n→1n \to1 limit, and the resulting soap-film area suggests that the multi-entropy captures something genuine about multipartite entanglement [13, 14]. To identify what, we want

to take the n→1n \to1 limit for a general multipartite state. This is, however, much harder than in the bipartite case. For two parties, the replica invariant is the moment of a positive operator, whose spectrum gives the continuation to real nn. For q>2q > 2, no such universal continuation prescription is known [1, 11]. We ask what the integer replica data alone can determine, and what additional input is required for a general definition of the multi-entropy.

Qubit graph states [15, 16] make the question tractable. They are stabilizer states [17], meaning each is the unique joint eigenstate of a maximal set of commuting Pauli operators, and they are labeled by simple graphs; they include the cluster states of measurement-based quantum computation [18, 19], and their entanglement properties translate into properties of the graph [20, 21]. Local Clifford gates, which map Pauli operators to Pauli operators under conjugation, and local Pauli measurements take the form of elementary graph operations [22]. For these states the replica contraction can be carried out exactly at every odd nn. It reduces to linear algebra over the finite field F2\mathbb{F}_2, and the whole computation becomes a sum of ranks of matrices with one row and one column per qubit [23, 24].

Our results are as follows. For a class of graphs that we call collision-controlled, and for odd nn, the rank sum rG(n)r_G(n) that determines the Rényi multi-entropy is a polynomial in nn. The collision-controlled class includes every graph without an even cycle, and all complete bipartite graphs. The n→1n \to1 polynomial continuation is a finite sum over partitions of the party set {1,…,q}\{1,\ldots,q\}. Some results of the analytic continuation are shown in Table I. Our second result is that the Rényi multi-entropy is non-increasing under single-qubit Pauli measurements at every odd integer n>1n > 1, whereas its polynomial continuation to n=1n = 1 need not be. This implies, in particular, that the continuation to n=1n = 1 is not an entanglement monotone [25, 26, 27, 28]. For example, a ZZ measurement on one qubit of a seven-vertex ring lowers the Rényi multi-entropy at every odd integer n>1n>1, but raises the value of the n=1n=1 continuation (see Figure 1). Both the ring and the resulting path are collision-controlled, so the failure of monotonicity occurs within the class where the entire odd-nn sequence has a unique polynomial continuation.

A ring graph transformed into a path graph by a Z measurement on vertex 7

Figure 1. A ZZ measurement on one qubit of the seven-vertex ring C7C_7 results in the six-vertex path P6P_6. The measurement lowers the Rényi multi-entropy at every odd integer n>1n>1, but raises the n→1n\to1 multi-entropy. Both graphs are collision-controlled, so the odd-nn Rényi multi-entropy has a unique polynomial continuation.

In section II, show how the Rényi multi-entropy reduces to a rank problem over the finite field F2\mathbb{F}_2. In section III we define collision-controlled graphs, and show how the rank problem simplifies to give a formula for the Rényi multi-entropy for odd nn. Then we study the behavior of Rényi multi-entropy for odd nn and also in the n→1n\to1 limit. In section IV, we show the natural n→1n\to1 limit is not monotonic under local measurements. The rank proofs and the calculations for forests, odd cycles, and complete bipartite graphs are collected in the two appendices A and B.

Rényi multi-entropy as a rank sum

Let ∣ψ⟩∈H1⊗⋯⊗Hq|\psi\rangle\in\mathcal{H}_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathcal{H}_q be a normalized pure state on q≥2q\ge2 parties. For a positive integer nn we take nq−1n^{q-1} copies of ∣ψ⟩⟨ψ∣|\psi\rangle\langle\psi| and label them by points of the periodic lattice Λn=Zq−1\Lambda_n=\mathbb{Z}^{q-1}. Let eae_a be the unit vector in the aath lattice direction for a=1,…,q−1a=1,\ldots,q-1, and set eq=0e_q=0. On the copies of party aa, let σa\sigma_a be the permutation that sends the copy at ss to the copy at s+eas+e_a; in particular σq\sigma_q is the identity. The replica partition function is [1]

Zn(q)(ψ)=⟨ψ∣⊗nq−1(σ1⊗⋯⊗σq)∣ψ⟩⊗nq−1.(1)Z_n^{(q)}(\psi)=\langle\psi|^{\otimes n^{q-1}}\left(\sigma_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\sigma_q\right)|\psi\rangle^{\otimes n^{q-1}}. \tag*{(1)}
Replica lattice for q=3 and n=3

Figure 2. Replica lattice for q=3q=3 and n=3n=3. Each site carries one copy of the state. The permutations of the first and second parties translate the copy label along the horizontal and vertical directions, while the third party is not shifted. Dashed arrows indicate the periodic identifications.

Figure 2 shows the case q=n=3q=n=3. Singling out party qq as the one that is not shifted removes a common translation of all copies; the result is nevertheless a local unitary invariant that is symmetric under permutations of all qq parties. For q=2q=2 the lattice is Zn\mathbb{Z}_n, σ1\sigma_1 is an nn-cycle, and Zn(2)=Tr⁡ρ1nZ_n^{(2)}=\operatorname{Tr}\rho_1^n, where ρ1\rho_1 is the reduced density matrix of the first party.

For n>1n>1, we define the Rényi multi-entropy as

Sn(q)(ψ)=11−nlog⁡Zn(q)(ψ).(2)S_n^{(q)}(\psi)=\frac{1}{1-n}\log Z_n^{(q)}(\psi). \tag*{(2)}

Ref. [1] includes an extra factor n−(q−2)n^{-(q-2)}. It tends to one as n→1n\to1, so the two conventions have the same multi-entropy whenever the limit exists, and we drop it because it clutters the rank formulas below.

Qubit graph states. Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a simple graph with NN vertices and binary adjacency matrix γ\gamma. Each vertex carries a qubit, and a map α:V→{1,…,q}\alpha:V\to\{1,\ldots,q\} assigns the qubit at vv to party α(v)\alpha(v). Let ∣+⟩=(∣0⟩+∣1⟩)/2|+\rangle=(|0\rangle+|1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}. The graph state ∣G⟩|G\rangle is obtained from ∣+⟩⊗N|+\rangle^{\otimes N} by applying a controlled-ZZ gate along every edge, i.e.,

∣G⟩=(∏{u,v}∈ECZuv)∣+⟩⊗N.(3)|G\rangle=\left(\prod_{\{u,v\}\in E}CZ_{uv}\right)|+\rangle^{\otimes N}. \tag*{(3)}

The controlled-ZZ gates commute with each other, so the state does not depend on the order in which these gates are applied. Any stabilizer state is local-unitary equivalent to a graph state [22, 29, 30]. Therefore, our results hold more generally for stabilizer states.

Given the graph GG, let us define the quadratic form

ΦG(x)=∑u<vγuvxuxv.(4)\Phi_G(x)=\sum_{u<v}\gamma_{uv}x_ux_v. \tag*{(4)}

where xx is a binary vector in F2N\mathbb{F}_2^N. Substituting the graph state from Eq. (3) in the expression for the replica partition function in Eq. (1), we get [23, 24]

Zn(q)=⟨+⋯+∣G⟩=12d∑x∈F2d(−1)ΦG(x),(5)Z_n^{(q)}=\langle+\cdots+|\mathcal{G}\rangle=\frac{1}{2^d}\sum_{x\in\mathbb{F}_2^d}(-1)^{\Phi_{\mathcal{G}}(x)}, \tag*{(5)}

where G\mathcal{G} is the “big graph” state obtained from GG over d=Nnq−1d=Nn^{q-1} vertices. These vertices are labeled by the tuple (a,u)(a,u) where aa is a replica label running from 11 to nq−1n^{q-1} and uu is the vertex label running from 11 to NN. Introduce the shorthand σu\sigma_u for the permutation σα(u)\sigma_{\alpha(u)} corresponding to the party α(u)\alpha(u) that the vertex uu belongs to. The adjacency matrix for the big graph G\mathcal{G} is

Γ(a,u),(b,v)=γuv(δab+δσu(a)σv(b))(mod2).(6)\Gamma_{(a,u),(b,v)}=\gamma_{uv}\left(\delta_{ab}+\delta_{\sigma_u(a)\sigma_v(b)}\right)\pmod2. \tag*{(6)}

See Figure 3 for an example of the big graph G\mathcal{G} constructed from the triangle graph and the n=2n=2, q=3q=3 Rényi multi-entropy.

The big graph $\mathcal{G}$ for $q=3$ and $n=2$

Figure 3. The big graph G\mathcal{G} for q=3q=3 and n=2n=2, built from the triangle with its vertices A,B,CA,B,C in three different parties. Each of the nq−1=4n^{q-1}=4 copies carries a copy of G\mathcal{G} (black edges), from the term δab\delta_{ab} in Γ\Gamma. The red edges come from the term δσu(a)σv(b)\delta_{\sigma_u(a)\sigma_v(b)}. They join vertices of different copies whose bra indices are contracted by the permutations of the Rényi multi-entropy.

The rank formula. The Gauss sum in Eq. (5) vanishes if ΦG\Phi_{\mathcal{G}} is not identically zero on ker⁡Γ\ker\Gamma, and can pick up a negative sign depending on the Arf invariant [24, 31]. Let rG(n)r_{\mathcal{G}}(n) be the rank over F2\mathbb{F}_2 of the adjacency matrix Γ\Gamma of the big graph G\mathcal{G}. For odd nn, we show in Appendix § 3.1 that the Gauss sum neither vanishes nor acquires a negative sign, giving

Zn(q)(G)=2−rG(n)/2,Sn(q)(G)=log⁡22(n−1)rG(n).(7)Z_n^{(q)}(G)=2^{-r_{\mathcal{G}}(n)/2},\qquad S_n^{(q)}(G)=\frac{\log2}{2(n-1)}r_{\mathcal{G}}(n). \tag*{(7)}

For even nn, we do not have a proof, although numerical checks support the same result.

The idea is that the permutations defining the Rényi multi-entropy can simultaneously be diagonalized in the replica momentum basis, and the eigenvalues are nthn^{\mathrm{th}} roots of unity. For odd nn, these roots can be embedded in a

field extension F2m\mathbb{F}_{2^m} of F2\mathbb{F}_2, where mm is such that nn divides 2m−12^m-1. For even nn, this is not possible, and we stick to odd nn for the rest of the paper.

A simple check: for two parties, we have rG(n)=2(n−1)rank⁡F2γ12r_{\mathcal{G}}(n)=2(n-1)\operatorname{rank}_{\mathbb{F}_2}\gamma_{12}, where γ12\gamma_{12} is the block of γ\gamma joining the two parties, and Eq. (7) gives Sn(2)=rank⁡F2(γ12)log⁡2S_n^{(2)}=\operatorname{rank}_{\mathbb{F}_2}(\gamma_{12})\log2 for every odd nn, the familiar flat spectrum of a bipartite graph state.

The n→1n\to1 limit, therefore, depends on the rank rG(n)r_{\mathcal{G}}(n) of the adjacency matrix Γ\Gamma. This is a large matrix, but it becomes simple in the replica momentum basis. A joint eigenspace of the Rényi multi-entropy translations is labeled by assigning one root of unity to each party: t=(t1,…,tq−1)t=(t_1,\ldots,t_{q-1}), with tq=1t_q=1 for the reference party. These roots are to be thought of as elements of the finite field F2m\mathbb{F}_{2^m}. On this eigenspace, the adjacency matrix Γ\Gamma becomes (up to a diagonal rescaling) the N×NN\times N matrix

(Γ(t))uv=γuv(tα(u)−tα(v)).(8)\left(\Gamma(t)\right)_{uv}=\gamma_{uv}\left(t_{\alpha(u)}-t_{\alpha(v)}\right). \tag*{(8)}

It is the adjacency matrix of GG with edge {u,v}\{u,v\} weighted by the difference of the replica momenta of its endpoints. It is alternating and also symmetric in characteristic two.

For every odd nn, the F2\mathbb{F}_2 rank of Γ\Gamma is simply the sum of ranks of Γ(t)\Gamma(t) over all collective momentum labels tt:

rG(n)=∑trank⁡Γ(t).(9)r_{\mathcal{G}}(n)=\sum_t\operatorname{rank}\Gamma(t). \tag*{(9)}

The dependence on the Rényi index nn only appears in the replica momenta tt. We prove Eq. (9) in Appendix § 3.1. Let us test this formula in a simple case. The qq-party GHZ state is locally unitarily equivalent to the graph state of the star graph (see Figure 4), with the center in one party and one leaf in each of the others [15]. Choose the center as the reference party, so that tq=1t_q=1, and define w=(t1−1,…,tq−1−1)Tw=(t_1-1,\ldots,t_{q-1}-1)^{\mathsf T}. Ordering the leaves first and the center last, the weighted adjacency matrix is

The star graph with center $A_q$ and leaves $A_1,\ldots,A_{q-1}$

Figure 4. The star graph with center AqA_q and leaves A1,…,Aq−1A_1,\ldots,A_{q-1}, each vertex in its own party. A Hadamard gate on every leaf, which is a local Clifford (LC) operation, maps the star graph state to the qq-party GHZ state. The two states therefore have the same Rényi multi-entropy.

Υ(t)=(0(q−1)×(q−1)wwT0).\Upsilon(t)=\begin{pmatrix} 0_{(q-1)\times(q-1)} & w \\ w^{\mathsf T} & 0 \end{pmatrix}.

Every leaf column has entries only in the center row, so the leaf columns are all proportional. If w≠0w \ne0, at least one leaf column is nonzero, and the center column (wT,0)T(w^{\mathsf T},0)^{\mathsf T} is independent of it because its nonzero entries lie in the leaf rows. The rank is therefore two. If w=0w=0, the entire matrix vanishes. For odd nn, each of the q−1q-1 leaf momenta has nn possible values, giving nq−1n^{q-1} assignments. Exactly one, with every ti=1t_i=1, gives rank zero; all others give rank two. Hence

rGHZ(n)=2(nq−1−1),Sn(q)(GHZ)=nq−1−1n−1log⁡2.(10)r_{\mathrm{GHZ}}(n)=2(n^{q-1}-1),\qquad S_n^{(q)}(\mathrm{GHZ})=\frac{n^{q-1}-1}{n-1}\log2. \tag*{(10)}

This agrees with a direct evaluation of the Rényi multientropy of the GHZ state. The ket copies must be all-zero or all-one, and the permutations force every copy to take the same value, so Zn(q)=2⋅2nq−1−1Z_n^{(q)}=2\cdot2^{n^{q-1}-1}.

For the star graph, the rank of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) depends only on which replica momenta coincide, and not on their particular values. Counting these momenta assignments gives a polynomial in nn that reproduces the rank sum at every odd integer. We turn this property of the GHZ state into the definition of collision-controlled graphs. The rank of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) does not depend on the individual momenta of tt, but rather only on the pattern of equalities or “collisions” in tt. These patterns can then be counted using simple combinatorics, and the result can be analytically continued to n→1n\to1.

Collision-controlled graphs

The equalities among t1,…,tqt_1,\ldots,t_q divide the parties into groups. We call this partition π(t)\pi(t) the collision partition of tt. Let Πq\Pi_q be the set of all partitions of the qq parties, and ∣π∣|\pi| be the number of groups in a given partition π\pi. For each π∈Πq\pi\in\Pi_q, let GπG_\pi be the graph obtained from GG by deleting every edge whose endpoints belong to parties in the same group. When π(t)=π\pi(t)=\pi, the nonzero entries of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) are exactly the edges of GπG_\pi.

For a fixed assignment of vertices to parties, we say that GG is collision-controlled if the rank of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) depends only on the collision partition π\pi of tt for every assignment of replica momenta tt, over every finite extension of F2\mathbb{F}_2. We denote this rank by ϱG(π)\varrho_G(\pi): for a fixed graph GG, it depends on the momentum assignment tt only through its collision partition π\pi.

The number of replica momenta with a given collision partition is easy to count. If π\pi has kk groups, the group containing the reference party has replica momentum one, and the remaining k−1k-1 groups have distinct replica momenta picked from the other n−1n-1 roots of unity. This can be done in (n−1)k−1(n-1)_{k-1} ways, where (x)0=1(x)_0=1 and

(x)k=x(x−1)⋯(x−k+1)(x)_k=x(x-1)\cdots(x-k+1) is the falling factorial. Summing over partitions gives the following result:

rG(n)=PG(n),PG(x)=∑π∈Πq(x−1)∣π∣−1ϱG(π).(11)r_G(n)=P_G(n),\qquad P_G(x)=\sum_{\pi\in\Pi_q}(x-1)_{|\pi|-1}\varrho_G(\pi). \tag*{(11)}

The polynomial PGP_G satisfies PG(1)=0P_G(1)=0, so Eq. (7) has a regular limit at n=1n=1. Since the derivative of (x−1)k−1(x-1)_{k-1} at x=1x=1 is (−1)k(k−2)!(-1)^k(k-2)! for k≥2k\ge2, the multi-entropy for a collision-controlled graph state is

S1(q)(G)=log⁡22∑π∈Πq∣π∣≥2(−1)∣π∣(∣π∣−2)! ϱG(π).(12)S_1^{(q)}(G)=\frac{\log2}{2}\sum_{\substack{\pi\in\Pi_q\\|\pi|\ge2}}(-1)^{|\pi|}(|\pi|-2)!\,\varrho_G(\pi). \tag*{(12)}

For the GHZ state, ϱG(π)=2\varrho_G(\pi)=2 unless π\pi has a single group, and Eq. (12) reproduces (q−1)log⁡2(q-1)\log2.

The polynomial PGP_G is the unique analytic continuation of the odd-replica ranks within the following growth class. Suppose f(n)=rG(n)f(n)=r_G(n) at every odd integer n≥1n\ge1, and f(z)f(z) is analytic on a neighborhood of Re⁡z≥1\operatorname{Re}z\ge1, with ∣f(z)∣≤Cec∣z∣|f(z)|\le Ce^{c|z|} there and ∣f(1+iy)∣≤Ceτ∣y∣|f(1+iy)|\le Ce^{\tau|y|} for real yy, where C,cC,c are finite positive constants and 0≤τ<π/20\le\tau<\pi/2. Setting z=2w+1z=2w+1 and applying Carlson’s theorem [32] to f(2w+1)−PG(2w+1)f(2w+1)-P_G(2w+1) gives f=PGf=P_G.

We now ask which graphs are collision-controlled. Fix tt and let π=π(t)\pi=\pi(t). The nonzero entries of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) sit exactly on the edges of GπG_\pi. The idea is to now bound the rank of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t). A fundamental result in graph theory [33] says

rank⁡Υ(t)≤2ν(Gπ).(13)\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon(t)\le2\nu(G_\pi). \tag*{(13)}

where ν(Gπ)\nu(G_\pi) is the number of edges in a maximum matching of GπG_\pi. We give a short proof of this bound below. Recall that a matching of a graph is a collection of its edges with no common vertex. A maximum matching is a matching with largest number of edges.

If our graph is such that the bound is always saturated, then the rank depends only on the collision partition π\pi, so the graph is collision-controlled. We therefore ask when the bound is saturated.

To answer this, let us also bound the rank of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) from below. Consider a subset of vertices UU of GπG_\pi and the induced weighted adjacency matrix A(t)A(t) on the vertices UU. If A(t)A(t) is nonsingular, i.e., det⁡A(t)≠0\det A(t)\ne0, then we have

∣U∣≤rank⁡Υ(t).(14)|U|\le\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon(t). \tag*{(14)}

Let UU be the set of vertices covered by a maximum matching MM of GπG_\pi. Then ∣U∣=2ν(Gπ)|U|=2\nu(G_\pi). To apply the above bound, however, we need A(t)A(t) to be nonsingular. The Pfaffian of A(t)A(t) is a sum over perfect matchings of the induced subgraph HπH_\pi on the vertices UU:

Pf⁡A(t)=∑M∏{u,v}∈MA(t)uv.(15)\operatorname{Pf}A(t)=\sum_M\prod_{\{u,v\}\in M}A(t)_{uv}. \tag*{(15)}

The Pfaffian satisfies det⁡A(t)=(Pf⁡A(t))2\det A(t)=(\operatorname{Pf}A(t))^2. This expansion also explains the upper bound on rank⁡Υ(t)\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon(t). If Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) has rank 2k2k, it has a nonsingular principal submatrix of size 2k2k, obtained by choosing 2k2k vertices and retaining corresponding rows and columns. The Pfaffian of this submatrix is nonzero, so its expansion contains at least one nonzero term, corresponding to a perfect matching on these 2k2k vertices. Thus GπG_\pi contains a matching of kk edges, implying k≤ν(Gπ)k\leq\nu(G_\pi) and hence rank Υ(t)≤2ν(Gπ)\Upsilon(t)\leq2\nu(G_\pi).

Recall that a perfect matching covers all vertices of the graph. If HπH_\pi is such that MM is the only perfect matching, then since A(t)uv≠0A(t)_{uv}\ne0 for every edge {u,v}\{u,v\} of HπH_\pi, we get Pf⁡A(t)≠0\operatorname{Pf} A(t)\ne0, and

rank⁡Υ(t)=2ν(Gπ).(16)\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon(t)=2\nu(G_\pi). \tag*{(16)}

An example is shown in Figure 5.

A maximum matching covering the blue vertices

Figure 5. A maximum matching MM (red edges) that covers the blue vertices UU. Numbering the blue vertices from the left, every edge touches the first, third, or fifth one, so no matching has more than three edges and ν=3\nu=3. The subgraph induced on UU is a path, and MM is its only perfect matching. The Pfaffian of A(t)A(t) is therefore the product of the three red edge weights. It is nonzero, so rank Υ(t)=∣U∣=2ν=6\Upsilon(t)=|U|=2\nu=6.

We call GG matching-controlled if, for every collision partition π\pi, the graph GπG_\pi has a maximum matching that is the only perfect matching of the subgraph induced on the vertices it covers.

Proposition 1. Every matching-controlled graph is collision-controlled, with ϱG(π)=2ν(Gπ)\varrho_G(\pi)=2\nu(G_\pi) for every collision partition π\pi.

The discussion so far might suggest matching-controlled graphs are very special and complicated. However, we have the following:

Proposition 2. If GG contains no even cycle, then GG is matching-controlled.

Proof. Each GπG_\pi is obtained by deleting edges, so it has no even cycle either. If a maximum matching MM of GπG_\pi is not a unique perfect matching of the subgraph induced on its vertices, there is a second perfect matching M′M' on the same vertices, and the symmetric difference of MM and M′M' would contain a cycle alternating between the two, necessarily of even length. □

This covers all forests and all graphs whose cycles are odd. For a forest with one qubit per party, Eq. (12) gives one unit of log⁡2\log2 per edge, and for an odd cycle C2r+1C_{2r+1} it gives (r+1)log⁡2(r+1)\log2. We derive both values in Appendix B.

Local complementation

Local complementation at a vertex vv toggles the edges between its neighbors, adding absent edges and removing present ones, while leaving all other edges unchanged. Denote the resulting graph by LC⁡v(G)\operatorname{LC}_v(G), and write ΥG(t)\Upsilon_G(t) for the weighted adjacency matrix associated with GG. Local complementation is implemented by local Clifford unitaries on graph states [22].

Proposition 3. If GG is collision-controlled and H=LC⁡v(G)H=\operatorname{LC}_v(G), with the assignment of vertices to parties unchanged, then HH is collision-controlled with ϱH(π)=ϱG(π)\varrho_H(\pi)=\varrho_G(\pi) for every collision partition π\pi.

In fact, local complementation preserves the weighted rank even without assuming collision control. For any graph GG and H=LC⁡v(G)H=\operatorname{LC}_v(G), with the same party assignment,

rank⁡ΥH(t)=rank⁡ΥG(t)\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon_H(t)=\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon_G(t)

for every momentum assignment over every finite extension of F2\mathbb{F}_2. We prove this stronger statement in Appendix § 3.1. Thus every graph obtained from a matching-controlled graph by local complementations is collision-controlled and has the same polynomially continued multi-entropy, even if it is not itself matching-controlled.

The four-cycle illustrates why matching control need not be preserved. It is related by local complementations to the four-vertex path, which is matching-controlled, but its two perfect matchings prevent it from being matching-controlled itself. Proposition 3 nevertheless guarantees collision control. We can also verify this directly. Taking the edge weights wuv=tu−tvw_{uv}=t_u-t_v, its two perfect matchings contribute

Pf⁡ΥC4(t)=w12w34+w23w41=(t1−t3)(t2−t4),(17)\operatorname{Pf}\Upsilon_{C_4}(t)=w_{12}w_{34}+w_{23}w_{41}=(t_1-t_3)(t_2-t_4), \tag*{(17)}

so the rank drops only when opposite momenta coincide. Thus C4C_4 is collision-controlled even though it has two perfect matchings.

More generally, let Km1,m2K_{m_1,m_2} have vertex classes of sizes m1m_1 and m2m_2, with every edge between them, and one vertex in each party. Denote the momenta on the two classes by uiu_i and vjv_j, with vm2=1v_{m_2}=1 as the reference. The weighted adjacency matrix is

Υ=(0LLT0),Lij=ui+vj,(18)\Upsilon=\begin{pmatrix}0 & L\\ L^{T} & 0\end{pmatrix},\qquad L_{ij}=u_i+v_j, \tag*{(18)}

so rank⁡Υ=2rank⁡L\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon=2\operatorname{rank}L. Let u=(u1,…,um1)Tu=(u_1,\ldots,u_{m_1})^{T} and v=(v1,…,vm2)Tv=(v_1,\ldots,v_{m_2})^{T}, and let 1k\mathbf{1}_k denote the column vector of kk ones. Writing L=u1m2T+1m1vTL=u\mathbf{1}_{m_2}^{T}+\mathbf{1}_{m_1}v^{T} shows that rank⁡L≤2\operatorname{rank}L\leq2, with rank L=2L=2 unless all uiu_i are equal or all vjv_j are equal, and rank L=0L=0 only when all momenta coincide. The rank is therefore controlled by collisions. The two degenerate sets contain nm2n^{m_2} and nm1n^{m_1} momenta and intersect in nn of them, which gives, at every odd nn,

PKm1,m2(n)=4nm1+m2−1−2nm1−2nm2+2n−2(19)P_{K_{m_1,m_2}}(n)=4n^{m_1+m_2-1}-2n^{m_1}-2n^{m_2}+2n-2 \tag*{(19)}

and S1(Km1,m2)=(m1+m2−1)log⁡2S_1(K_{m_1,m_2})=(m_1+m_2-1)\log2. Here and below we suppress the superscript (q)(q) when every vertex is its own party. Collision control can again be understood through Proposition 3. Choose an edge abab, with aa in the first vertex class and bb in the second. Local complementations successively at aa, bb, aa transform Km1,m2K_{m_1,m_2} into a tree with two adjacent centers, with m1−1m_1-1 leaves attached to aa and m2−1m_2-1 leaves attached to bb. This tree is matching-controlled, so its LC-equivalent graph Km1,m2K_{m_1,m_2} is collision-controlled.

We now ask whether this polynomial continuation behaves like an entanglement measure.

Monotonicity under local measurements

A measure of entanglement should not increase, on average, under local operations. For graph states the natural test is a local Pauli measurement, which acts on the graph by a local Clifford transformation followed by deletion of the measured vertex [18, 20, 22]. By Proposition 3, the local complementations leave every weighted rank unchanged, so it suffices to study vertex deletion.

Deleting a vertex vv removes the row and the column of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) that belong to vv, resulting in Υ′(t)\Upsilon'(t). The resulting matrices are principal submatrices, and a principal submatrix cannot have larger rank. Therefore,

rank⁡Υ(t)≥rank⁡Υ′(t)(20)\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon(t) \ge\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon'(t) \tag*{(20)}

for every assignment of replica momenta. Summing over tt we conclude that the Rényi multi-entropy, for any odd n>1n>1, does not increase under a local Pauli measurement, i.e.,

Sn(q)(G∖v)≤Sn(q)(G).(21)S_n^{(q)}(G\setminus v) \le S_n^{(q)}(G). \tag*{(21)}

One bookkeeping remark is needed before comparing continued values. Choose an unmeasured party as the reference. If the measured vertex was alone in its party, the replica momentum of that party no longer appears in Υ′(t)\Upsilon'(t), and summing over it multiplies the rank sum by nn. Since the polynomial vanishes at n=1n=1, this factor does not change its derivative there, so keeping or discarding the empty party gives the same continued value.

The inequality holds at each odd nn separately, but the continued value is a signed combination of the ranks, Eq. (12), and deleting a vertex can remove negative terms as well as positive ones. A ZZ measurement at any vertex of the seven-cycle C7C_7 leaves the six-vertex path P6P_6 (see Figure 1), and their multi-entropies are S1(C7)=4log⁡2S_1(C_7)=4\log2 and S1(P6)=5log⁡2S_1(P_6)=5\log2. This demonstrates that the n→1n\to1 limit is not monotonic even though the Rényi versions are monotonic at every odd integer n>1n>1.

For instance, at n=3n=3, we have rC7(3)=3976r_{C_7}(3)=3976, while the path with an empty seventh party has rank sum 3rP6(3)=31803r_{P_6}(3)=3180. The reversal is produced entirely by the continuation. More generally, deleting a vertex of C2r+1C_{2r+1} leaves the path P2rP_{2r} on 2r2r vertices, and S1(C2r+1)=(r+1)log⁡2S_1(C_{2r+1})=(r+1)\log2, S1(P2r)=(2r−1)log⁡2S_1(P_{2r})=(2r-1)\log2. The continued value increases for every r≥3r\ge3.

All outcomes of a Pauli measurement on a graph state differ by local Clifford corrections and have the same continued value, so the increase survives averaging over outcomes. The polynomial continuation is not an entanglement monotone under local operations and classical communication [26]. Monotonicity at every odd integer n>1n>1, therefore, does not imply monotonicity of the continued value at n=1n=1.

Discussion. For qubit graph states, the replica contraction at every odd replica number is 2−rG(n)/22^{-r_G(n)/2}, where rG(n)r_G(n) is a sum of ranks of small matrices over a finite field. When these ranks depend only on which replica momenta coincide, the odd-nn sequence has a unique polynomial continuation. This class contains all graphs without even cycles and all complete bipartite graphs. Since rG(n)r_G(n) is a local-unitary invariant, the same polynomial continuation also holds for every graph locally equivalent to one of these. Even within this class, the multi-entropy can increase under a local Pauli measurement, although the odd-nn value is non-increasing. The multi-entropy in Eq. (12) weighs the collision partitions with alternating signs, so the pointwise rank inequality does not carry over to the derivative at n=1n=1. For C7C_7 and P6P_6, the exact ranks at n=3n=3 are monotonic, 3976>31803976>3180, yet the continued values are 4log⁡2<5log⁡24\log2<5\log2. Every odd cycle with seven or more vertices gives such a violation.

Our proofs use odd nn, but numerically the even-nn values behave the same way. In the examples checked at n=2,4,6n=2,4,6, the exact rank rG(n)r_G(n) agrees with the odd-nn polynomial, and the Gauss sums are positive and nonzero. If this holds in general, the polynomial reproduces the data at every integer n≥2n\ge2. Carlson’s theorem then fixes the continuation within its usual growth class.

If monotonicity under local operations is required, the n→1n\to1 prescription must therefore differ from this polynomial continuation. By Carlson’s theorem, any alternative analytic continuation of the same odd-replica ranks must fall outside the specified growth class. This leaves open which analytic or physical conditions should select the limit for a general state. In holography the bulk geometry supplies a prescription through the soap-film area. Identifying its counterpart for general quantum states would clarify which multipartite property that area computes.

For graph states of qudits with prime local dimension pp, the replica contraction is a quadratic Gauss sum over the finite field Fp\mathbb{F}_p. The replica translations can again be diagonalized when nn is not divisible by pp, reducing the calculation to small finite-field matrices. To obtain an entropy-rank formula, we must also determine the phase of the Gauss sum. It remains to formulate the appropriate notion of collision control for qudit graph states and determine when it gives a polynomial continuation.

Acknowledgments. This work is supported by the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, under Project Identification No. RTI-4012, and the Infosys Endowment for the study of the Quantum Structure of Spacetime.

AI Usage Statement. We used Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) and GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI) in the preparation of this paper. Drafting. The appendices were first drafted using LLMs and later edited by the authors. The main text was written by the authors. Figures. The TikZ code for all the figures was LLM-generated. Language. LLMs were used to correct typos, ensure correct grammar usage, and improve the clarity of some sentences in the main text. Error-checking. LLMs were used to check for errors and gaps in the argument. Research Content. The research question and the main results are the authors’ own. The definition of collision-controlled graphs, the matching/Pfaffian criterion, and the proof of the positivity of the Gauss sum in Appendix § 3.1 3 were developed with LLM assistance. No AI tool is an author, and the authors take full responsibility for the content of the paper.

References

Proofs for odd nn

In this appendix we show that, for odd nn, the replica partition function of a graph state is Zn(q)=2−rG(n)/2Z_n^{(q)} = 2^{-r_{\mathcal{G}}(n)/2}, where rG(n)=∑trank⁡Υ(t)r_{\mathcal{G}}(n) = \sum_t \operatorname{rank}\mathit{\Upsilon}(t) [Eqs. (7) and (9)]. We also prove that local complementation does not change the ranks of Υ(t)\mathit{\Upsilon}(t) (Proposition 3). We sketch the arguments rather than write them out in full. The standard facts about finite fields that we use can be found in Ref. [34].

The idea. The big graph G\mathcal{G} is made of nq−1n^{q-1} identical copies of GG, one at each site of the replica lattice. If we move every copy by the same lattice vector, G\mathcal{G} does not change. The calculation of Zn(q)Z_n^{(q)} is therefore a translation-invariant quadratic problem on a lattice, like a free field, and we solve it in the same way: in momentum space. Three familiar facts carry over.

  1. Momentum is conserved. The adjacency matrix Γ\Gamma of G\mathcal{G} does not mix different replica momenta tt. It splits into small N×NN \times N blocks, one for each tt, and the block is Υ(t)\mathit{\Upsilon}(t). The rank of Γ\Gamma is then the sum of the ranks of the blocks. This is the rank sum.

  1. The modes decouple. Zn(q)Z_n^{(q)} is an average of (−1)ΦG(-1)^{\Phi_{\mathcal{G}}} over bit strings, which is a discrete version of a Gaussian integral. In momentum space, each mode tt couples only to the mode t−1t^{-1}, just as ϕk\phi_k couples only to ϕ−k\phi_{-k}. The average therefore becomes a product of small averages, each over a few modes.

  1. Each small average is positive. It contributes a factor 2−rank⁡Υ(t)/22^{-\operatorname{rank}\mathit{\Upsilon}(t)/2} for each momentum tt that it contains. A minus sign can occur only for modes that are their own “complex conjugates.” There it cancels, because Υ(t)\mathit{\Upsilon}(t) is alternating and its rank is even.

The only new feature is that all arithmetic is modulo two. The Fourier phases e2πik/ne^{2\pi i k/n} must be replaced by nnth roots of unity in a finite field, and there are enough of them only for odd nn. This is the origin of the restriction to odd nn.

Fourier transform modulo two

A Fourier transform on nn sites needs nn distinct nnth roots of unity. The field F2={0,1}\mathbb{F}_2 = \{0,1\} has only one, namely 11. We therefore enlarge F2\mathbb{F}_2, just as one enlarges the real numbers to the complex numbers to find e2πi/ne^{2\pi i/n}. The finite field F2m\mathbb{F}_{2^m} with 2m2^m elements contains F2\mathbb{F}_2, and its nonzero elements form a cyclic group of order 2m−12^m-1. It therefore contains nn distinct nnth roots of unity whenever nn divides 2m−12^m-1, and for odd nn we can always choose mm so that it does. For example, for n=3n=3, the four-element field F4={0,1,ω,ω2}\mathbb{F}_4 = \{0,1,\omega,\omega^2\}, with ω2=ω+1\omega^2 = \omega+1, contains the cube root of unity ω\omega. We fix such a field and call it F\mathbb{F}. For even nn the construction fails, because there are not enough distinct roots.

A replica momentum t=(t1,…,tq−1)t=(t_1,\ldots,t_{q-1}) assigns an nnth root of unity tα∈Ft_\alpha\in\mathbb{F} to each lattice direction. As in the main text, tq=1t_q=1 for the reference party. For a vertex uu of GG, we write tu=tα(u)t_u=t_{\alpha(u)} and eu=eα(u)e_u=e_{\alpha(u)} for the momentum and the lattice direction of its party. The plane wave with momentum tt at the replica site s=(s1,…,sq−1)s=(s_1,\ldots,s_{q-1}) is

χt(s)=t1s1t2s2⋯tq−1sq−1,(22)\chi_t(s)=t_1^{s_1}t_2^{s_2}\cdots t_{q-1}^{s_{q-1}}, \tag*{(22)}

which is the analogue of eik⋅se^{i k\cdot s}. Plane waves are orthogonal for the usual reason: a nontrivial root of unity, summed over a full period, gives zero. Hence the replica Fourier transform

x^(t)=∑sχt(s)−1xs,xs=∑tχt(s)x^(t),(23)\hat{x}(t)=\sum_s \chi_t(s)^{-1}x_s,\qquad x_s=\sum_t \chi_t(s)\hat{x}(t), \tag*{(23)}

works as usual. Because n=1n=1 modulo two, it does not even need a factor of 1/n1/n. It also has the familiar properties. A shift xs→xs+cx_s\to x_{s+c} multiplies x^(t)\hat{x}(t) by the phase χt(c)\chi_t(c), and Parseval’s theorem reads

∑sxsys=∑tx^(t)y^(t−1),(24)\sum_s x_s y_s=\sum_t \hat{x}(t)\hat{y}(t^{-1}), \tag*{(24)}

with the inverse momentum t−1=(t1−1,…,tq−1−1)t^{-1}=(t_1^{-1},\ldots,t_{q-1}^{-1}) in the role of −k-k.

Momentum conservation and the rank sum

The matrix Γ\Gamma commutes with the replica translations, so it cannot mix different momenta. In the sector with momentum tt, it acts as an N×NN\times N matrix. We now show that this matrix is Υ(t)\mathit{\Upsilon}(t), up to a rescaling that does not change the rank.

A vector xx on the big graph has one bit xs,ux_{s,u} for each copy ss and each vertex uu of GG. We Fourier transform in ss separately for each uu, and we collect the results in a vector x^(t)\hat{x}(t) with entries x^u(t)\hat{x}_u(t). Each edge {u,v}\{u,v\} of GG gives two kinds of edges in G\mathcal{G} (the black and red edges in Figure 3). An edge of the first kind joins uu and vv inside the copy ss. An edge of the second kind comes from the permutations, and joins uu in copy ss to vv in copy s+eu−evs+e_u-e_v. Thus

(Γx)s,u=∑vγuv(xs,v+xs+eu−ev,v).(25)(\Gamma x)_{s,u}=\sum_v \gamma_{uv}\left(x_{s,v}+x_{s+e_u-e_v,v}\right). \tag*{(25)}

In momentum space, the shift in the second term becomes the phase χt(eu−ev)=tu/tv\chi_t(e_u-e_v)=t_u/t_v. The edge therefore carries the weight

1+tutv=tu−tvtv,(26)1+\frac{t_u}{t_v}=\frac{t_u-t_v}{t_v}, \tag*{(26)}

where we used 1=−11=-1 modulo two. The factor 1/tv1/t_v only rescales column vv. Apart from it, this is the entry of Υ(t)\mathit{\Upsilon}(t) in Eq. (8). The rank of Γ\Gamma is therefore ∑trank⁡Υ(t)\sum_t \operatorname{rank}\mathit{\Upsilon}(t), which is Eq. (9).

The weight tu−tvt_u-t_v has a simple meaning: an edge is invisible when its two endpoints carry the same momentum. In particular, an edge inside one party always drops out. In the big graph, the two edges that it produces then join the same pair of vertices, and they cancel modulo two. This is as it should be: a controlled-ZZ gate inside one party is a local unitary, so it cannot change the Rényi multi-entropy.

The Gauss sum is positive

The rank fixes only the magnitude of Zn(q)Z_n^{(q)}. For a general quadratic form, the average of (−1)Φ(-1)^\Phi is either zero or ±2−rank⁡Γ/2\pm2^{-\operatorname{rank}\Gamma/2} [24, 31]. To find the sign, we evaluate Zn(q)Z_n^{(q)} as one evaluates the Gaussian integral of a free lattice field. We write the exponent in momentum space, find the independent modes, and integrate over them one group at a time.

The exponent in momentum space. If we list the edges of G\mathcal{G} copy by copy, as in Eq. (25), we get

ΦG(x)=∑(u,v)∑sxs,u(xs,v+xs+eu−ev,v).(27)\Phi_{\mathcal{G}}(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{(u,v)} \sum_s x_{s,u}(x_{s,v} + x_{s+e_u-e_v,v}). \tag*{(27)}

With Parseval’s theorem and the shift rule, this becomes

ΦG(x)=∑{t,t−1}x^(t)TM(t)x^(t−1).(28)\Phi_{\mathcal{G}}(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{\{t,t^{-1}\}} \hat{x}(t)^{\mathsf{T}}M(t)\hat{x}(t^{-1}). \tag*{(28)}

Here M(t)M(t) is Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) with row uu divided by tut_u, and the sum is over the unordered pairs {t,t−1}\{t,t^{-1}\} other than zero momentum, which drops out. As for a free field, each mode couples only to the mode with the opposite momentum.

Independent modes. The bits xs,ux_{s,u} are independent, but their Fourier components are not. For a real field, ϕ−k=ϕk∗\phi_{-k}=\phi_k^*, so only half of the modes are independent. The analogue here is

x^(t)2=x^(t2),(29)\hat{x}(t)^2=\hat{x}(t^2), \tag*{(29)}

which holds entry by entry, because a bit is equal to its own square and (a+b)2=a2+b2(a+b)^2=a^2+b^2 modulo two. Squaring thus plays the role of complex conjugation. Repeated squaring moves tt around an orbit O={t,t2,t4,…}O=\{t,t^2,t^4,\ldots\}, and Eq. (29) fixes every mode on the orbit in terms of one of them, x^(tO)\hat{x}(t_O). If the orbit has kOk_O momenta, then kOk_O squarings bring x^(tO)\hat{x}(t_O) back to itself, so its entries lie in the subfield F2kO\mathbb{F}_{2^{k_O}}. These representative modes are the independent variables: an average over all bit strings x\mathbf{x} is the same as independent averages over the x^(tO)\hat{x}(t_O).

Factorization. A term of Eq. (28) contains the modes on an orbit OO and on the inverse orbit O−1={t−1:t∈O}O^{-1}=\{t^{-1}:t\in O\}. We collect the terms in groups, one for each set O∪O−1O\cup O^{-1}. Different groups contain different independent modes, so Zn(q)Z_n^{(q)} is a product of averages, one for each group. The zero-momentum orbit {1}\{1\} does not appear, and it contributes 1. We show below that every other group contributes

2−∣O∪O−1∣ϱO/2,(30)2^{-|O\cup O^{-1}|\varrho_O/2}, \tag*{(30)}

which is a factor 2−rank⁡Υ(t)/22^{-\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon(t)/2} for each momentum tt in the group. Here ϱO\varrho_O is the rank of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t), which is the same for every tt in the group: replacing tt by t2t^2 squares the entries of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t), replacing tt by t−1t^{-1} rescales its rows and columns, and neither changes the rank. The product over all groups is 2−∑trank⁡Υ(t)/2=2−rG(n)/22^{-\sum_t\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon(t)/2}=2^{-r_G(n)/2}, which is the result.

There are two kinds of groups. They behave like the two familiar kinds of Gaussian integral: over two independent fields, and over one complex field.

  • If O−1≠OO^{-1}\ne O, the modes x^(t)\hat{x}(t) and x^(t−1)\hat{x}(t^{-1}) are independent. The group is like two independent fields aa and bb with the action aTMba^{\mathsf{T}}Mb. The average over bb gives a delta function, which has no sign.

  • If O−1=OO^{-1}=O, the mode x^(t−1)\hat{x}(t^{-1}) is fixed by x^(t)\hat{x}(t): it is its “complex conjugate.” The group is like one complex field aa with a Hermitian action a†Maa^\dagger Ma. A sign can now occur, but it cancels because the rank of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) is even.

The trace. The modes x^(t)\hat{x}(t) take values in the large field F\mathbb{F}, but the exponent ΦG\Phi_{\mathcal{G}} is a bit. The reality condition connects the two. Within a group, the terms of Eq. (28) are successive squares of a single quantity XX, which lies in a subfield F2k\mathbb{F}_{2^k}. They therefore add up to

tr⁡k(X)=X+X2+X4+⋯+X2k−1.(31)\operatorname{tr}_k(X)=X+X^2+X^4+\cdots+X^{2^{k-1}}. \tag*{(31)}

This field trace (not a matrix trace) plays the role of X+X∗=2Re⁡XX+X^*=2\operatorname{Re}X, which turns a complex number into a real one. It is linear, and its value is always 0 or 1. Its key property is the analogue of ∫dz eiRe⁡(zˉc)∝δ(c)\int dz\,e^{i\operatorname{Re}(\bar{z}c)}\propto\delta(c):

⟨(−1)tr⁡k(cz)⟩z={1,c=0,0,c≠0.(32)\left\langle(-1)^{\operatorname{tr}_k(cz)}\right\rangle_z = \begin{cases} 1, & c=0,\\ 0, & c\ne0. \end{cases} \tag*{(32)}

where ⟨⋯ ⟩z\langle\cdots\rangle_z is the average over all zz in F2k\mathbb{F}_{2^k}.

Groups with O≠O−1O\ne O^{-1}: two independent fields. Let kk be the number of elements of OO, and let M=M(tO)M=M(t_O), a=x^(tO)a=\hat{x}(t_O), and b=x^(tO−1)b=\hat{x}(t_O^{-1}). The group contributes tr⁡k(aTMb)\operatorname{tr}_k(a^{\mathsf{T}}Mb) to the exponent. This is linear in bb, so by Eq. (32) the average over bb is a delta function: it is 1 if aTM=0a^{\mathsf{T}}M=0 and otherwise. What remains is the fraction of vectors aa with aTM=0a^{\mathsf{T}}M=0. These vectors form a subspace of codimension ϱO\varrho_O over F2k\mathbb{F}_{2^k}, so the fraction is 2−kϱO2^{-k\varrho_O}. The group has 2k2k momenta, so this is Eq. (30). In continuum language, this is the integral ∫da db eiaTMb\int da\,db\,e^{i a^{\mathsf{T}}Mb}, which is a delta function in disguise and has no sign.

Groups with O=O−1O=O^{-1}: one complex field. Now tO−1t_O^{-1} is on the orbit of tOt_O, exactly halfway around: tO−1=tOQt_O^{-1}=t_O^Q, where Q=2jQ=2^j and the orbit has 2j2j points. The map z↦zˉ≡zQz\mapsto\bar{z}\equiv z^Q is then a true complex conjugation. If we apply it twice we get the identity, and it leaves the subfield FQ\mathbb{F}_Q unchanged. The pair FQ2⊃FQ\mathbb{F}_{Q^2}\supset\mathbb{F}_Q thus plays the role of C⊃R\mathbb{C}\supset\mathbb{R}. Let a=x^(tO)a=\hat{x}(t_O) and M=M(tO)M=M(t_O). Eq. (29) gives x^(tO−1)=aˉ\hat{x}(t_O^{-1})=\bar{a}, and similarly Mˉ=MT\bar{M}=M^{\mathsf{T}}, so MM is Hermitian. The group contributes tr⁡j(aTMaˉ)\operatorname{tr}_j(a^{\mathsf{T}}M\bar{a}) to the exponent, which is the analogue of a single complex field with a Hermitian action. By the lemma below, the average over aa is (−1/Q)ϱO(-1/Q)^{\varrho_O}. The matrix Υ(tO)\Upsilon(t_O) is alternating, so ϱO\varrho_O is even and the sign cancels. The average is therefore Q−ϱO=2−jϱOQ^{-\varrho_O}=2^{-j\varrho_O}. The group has 2j2^j momenta, so this is again Eq. (30).

Lemma 1. Let MM be an N×NN\times N Hermitian matrix over FQ2\mathbb{F}_{Q^2}, that is, M‾=MT\overline{M}=M^{\mathsf T}, and let ϱ\varrho be its rank. Then the average of (−1)tr⁡j(aTMa‾)(-1)^{\operatorname{tr}_{j}(a^{\mathsf T}M\overline{a})} over all a∈FQ2Na\in\mathbb{F}_{Q^2}^{N} is (−1/Q)ϱ(-1/Q)^{\varrho}.

Sketch of proof. As for an ordinary Hermitian matrix, a change of basis makes the form diagonal,3

aTMa‾=∑i=1ϱciaiai‾,0≠ci∈FQ,(33)a^{\mathsf T}M\overline{a}=\sum_{i=1}^{\varrho}c_i a_i\overline{a_i},\qquad0\ne c_i\in\mathbb{F}_Q, \tag*{(33)}

and the average becomes a product of ϱ\varrho averages over one variable each. For one variable λ∈FQ2\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_{Q^2}, we count the points on “circles.” The product λλ‾=λQ+1\lambda\overline{\lambda}=\lambda^{Q+1} is the analogue of ∣λ∣2|\lambda|^2. It is zero only for λ=0\lambda=0, and it takes each of the Q−1Q-1 nonzero values w∈FQw\in\mathbb{F}_Q exactly Q+1Q+1 times. By Eq. (32) for FQ\mathbb{F}_Q, the nonzero values give ∑w≠0(−1)tr⁡j(cw)=0−1=−1\sum_{w\ne0}(-1)^{\operatorname{tr}_j(cw)}=0-1=-1. The average over λ\lambda is therefore

1+(Q+1)(−1)Q2=−1Q.(34)\frac{1+(Q+1)(-1)}{Q^2}=-\frac{1}{Q}. \tag*{(34)}

Each nonzero direction of a Hermitian form thus gives a factor −1/Q-1/Q. This is the only possible source of a minus sign in the Gauss sum, and it cancels because the rank of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) is even. We conclude that Zn(q)=2−rG(n)/2Z_n^{(q)}=2^{-r_G(n)/2} for every odd nn: the Gauss sum is never zero and never negative. In the language of the main text, ΦG\Phi_G vanishes on the kernel of Γ\Gamma, and the Arf invariant is zero.

Local complementation

Local complementation at a vertex vv toggles every edge between two neighbors of vv. For the weighted matrix Υ(t)\Upsilon(t), the same toggling is produced by a few row and column operations, and these cannot change the rank. This works because the weights are momentum differences, like potential differences in a circuit. The weight from uu to ww through vv is the same as the weight of a direct edge from uu to ww:

(tu−tv)+(tv−tw)=tu−tw.(35)(t_u-t_v)+(t_v-t_w)=t_u-t_w. \tag*{(35)}

Proof of Proposition 3. Fix a momentum assignment and let A=ΥG(t)A=\Upsilon_G(t). Add row vv of AA to the row of each neighbor of vv. Then add column vv to the column of each neighbor of vv. For two neighbors uu and ww of vv, the row operation adds Avw=tv−twA_{vw}=t_v-t_w to the entry AuwA_{uw}, and the column operation adds Auv=tu−tvA_{uv}=t_u-t_v. Together they add tu−twt_u-t_w, which is the weight of a direct edge from uu to ww. If {u,w}\{u,w\} was not an edge, it now is. If it was an edge, the two equal weights cancel modulo two, and the edge is removed. No other entry changes. The result is ΥLCv(G)(t)\Upsilon_{LC_v(G)}(t), so the two matrices have the same rank. This is true for every momentum assignment over every finite field of characteristic two. Local complementation therefore preserves collision control and the ranks ϱG(t)\varrho_G(t).

Derivation of Table 1

graphS1/log⁡2S_1/\log2
forest with mm edgesmm
odd cycle on 2r+12r+1 verticesr+1r+1
complete bipartite, class sizes m1,m2m_1,m_2m1+m2−1m_1+m_2-1

Table 1. Values S1S_1 obtained by polynomial continuation to n=1n=1, with one qubit per party. The derivations are given in Appendix B.

In this appendix, each vertex is its own party. Thus q=Nq=N, and each vertex uu has its own momentum tut_u.

The idea. Think of the nn possible momenta as colors. A momentum assignment is then a coloring of the vertices of GG, with no constraint between neighbors. We call an edge active if its two endpoints have different colors. Only the active edges appear in Υ(t)\Upsilon(t), because the weight tu−tvt_u-t_v is zero on the other edges. For each graph in Table 1, the rank of Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) depends only on which edges are active. The rank sum is therefore a counting problem. We sort the colorings by their set of active edges, count each class, and add up the ranks. The multi-entropy is then the slope of the result at n=1n=1.

The slope at n=1n=1 has a simple meaning. At n=1n=1 there is only one color, so no edge can be active. Near n=1n=1, a class of colorings contributes only through the part of its size that is linear in n−1n-1. In a tree, each active edge needs its own choice of a new color, which gives a factor n−1n-1. So only the colorings with a single active edge contribute, and each edge gives one unit of log⁡2\log2. In a cycle, the colors must also match up after one full turn. This constraint gives a term linear in n−1n-1 for every set of active edges, with alternating signs. The net effect is that an odd cycle with 2r+12r+1 edges has S1=(r+1)log⁡2S_1=(r+1)\log2, about half of the value that one unit per edge would give. Complete bipartite graphs have even cycles, but their Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) is simple enough that we can find its rank directly.

Summing over all colorings

The main text fixes the momentum of the reference party to tq=1t_q=1. This is like fixing a gauge: if we multiply all momenta by the same root of unity, Υ(t)\Upsilon(t) is multiplied by a constant, and its rank does not change. It is simpler to sum over all nNn^N colorings. This counts each term of rG(n)r_G(n) exactly nn times:

RG(n)≡∑all trank⁡Υ(t)=n rG(n).(36)R_G(n)\equiv\sum_{\text{all }t}\operatorname{rank}\Upsilon(t)=n\,r_G(n). \tag*{(36)}

The extra factor of nn does not affect the limit n→1n \to1, because the rank sum vanishes at n=1n = 1, and Eq. (7) gives

S1(G)=log⁡22RG′(1).(37)S_1(G) = \frac{\log2}{2} R'_G(1). \tag*{(37)}

Graphs without even cycles

For a graph without even cycles, Propositions 1 and 2 give rank Υ(t)=2ν(F)\Upsilon(t) = 2\nu(F). Here FF is the set of active edges, and ν(F)\nu(F) is the size of the largest matching made of edges in FF. Let NF(n)N_F(n) be the number of colorings whose active edges are exactly the edges in FF. Then RG(n)=2∑FNF(n)ν(F)R_G(n) = 2\sum_F N_F(n)\nu(F), and Eq. (37) gives

S1(G)=log⁡2∑F⊆ENF′(1)ν(F).(38)S_1(G) = \log2 \sum_{F \subseteq E} N'_F(1)\nu(F). \tag*{(38)}

Each set of edges FF contributes its matching number, weighted by the slope at n=1n = 1 of the number of colorings in which exactly these edges are active.

Forests

Let GG be a forest with mm edges. To count the colorings with active set FF, give the root of each tree any of the nn colors, and move outward. Across an inactive edge the color is copied, which gives one choice. Across an active edge the color must change, which gives n−1n - 1 choices. Hence

NF(n)=n#trees(n−1)∣F∣.(39)N_F(n) = n^{\#\mathrm{trees}}(n-1)^{|F|}. \tag*{(39)}

At n=1n = 1, this has slope one if FF is a single edge, and slope zero if FF has two or more edges. A single edge has ν=1\nu= 1, so each edge contributes one unit of log⁡2\log2:

S1(G)=mlog⁡2.(40)S_1(G) = m\log2. \tag*{(40)}

Odd cycles

Let G=C2r+1G = C_{2r+1}. To count the colorings with active set FF, merge the two endpoints of each inactive edge, since they have the same color. This leaves a shorter cycle with ∣F∣|F| vertices, in which neighbors have different colors. We count these colorings with a transfer matrix. One step around the cycle must change the color, so it is described by the n×nn \times n matrix J−IJ-I, where JJ is the matrix of all ones. Closing the cycle gives a trace. The eigenvalues of J−IJ-I are n−1n-1 (once) and −1-1 (n−1n-1 times), so

NF(n)=Tr⁡(J−I)∣F∣=(n−1)∣F∣+(−1)∣F∣(n−1).(41)N_F(n) = \operatorname{Tr}(J-I)^{|F|} = (n-1)^{|F|} + (-1)^{|F|}(n-1). \tag*{(41)}

This is the chromatic polynomial of a cycle. The first term is the same as for a tree. The second term comes from closing the cycle, and it is linear in n−1n-1 for every FF. It also makes NF=0N_F = 0 for a single active edge: the color cannot change exactly once around the cycle and still return to its initial value. So no single edge contributes, but every set of two or more active edges does, with slope NF′(1)=(−1)∣F∣N'_F(1) = (-1)^{|F|}. Eq. (38) thus becomes an alternating sum,

S1(C2r+1)log⁡2=∑∣F∣≥2(−1)∣F∣ν(F).(42)\frac{S_1(C_{2r+1})}{\log2} = \sum_{|F|\ge2} (-1)^{|F|}\nu(F). \tag*{(42)}

These alternating signs are what allow the cycle to have a smaller continued value than the path that remains when one of its vertices is deleted (see the main text).

To evaluate the sum, we first include the empty set and the single edges, and we remove them again at the end. The active edges of FF form runs, which are maximal blocks of consecutive active edges. A run of ℓ\ell edges is a path. Its maximum matching takes every other edge, so it has ⌈ℓ/2⌉\lceil\ell/2\rceil edges. Hence 2ν(F)=∣F∣+o(F)2\nu(F) = |F| + o(F), where o(F)o(F) is the number of runs of odd length. The only exception is the whole cycle FF, for which 2ν(E)=2r=∣E∣−12\nu(E) = 2r = |E| - 1 (we set o(E)=0o(E) = 0). Thus

2∑F(−1)∣F∣ν(F)=∑F(−1)∣F∣∣F∣+∑F(−1)∣F∣o(F)+1,(43)2\sum_F (-1)^{|F|}\nu(F) = \sum_F (-1)^{|F|}|F| + \sum_F (-1)^{|F|}o(F) + 1, \tag*{(43)}

where the final +1+1 is the correction for F=EF = E.

Most terms of these alternating sums cancel in pairs. If an edge can be switched on or off without a change in the summand, the two choices have opposite signs and cancel. Only the configurations without such a free edge remain.

  • The sum of (−1)∣F∣∣F∣(-1)^{|F|}|F| counts, for each edge ee, the sets FF that contain ee. Every other edge is free, so this sum is zero.

  • The sum of (−1)∣F∣o(F)(-1)^{|F|}o(F) counts, for each run RR of odd length, the sets FF in which RR is a run. For this, RR must be active and the two edges next to RR must be inactive, and all other edges are free. So a run contributes only if there are no other edges, that is, it has 2r−12r-1 edges and F=RF = R. There are 2r+12r+1 such runs, each with sign −1-1, so this sum is −(2r+1)-(2r+1).

The sum over all FF is therefore 12[0−(2r+1)+1]=−r\frac{1}{2}[0-(2r+1)+1] = -r. The empty set contributes nothing, and each of the 2r+12r+1 single edges contributes −1-1. When we remove them, we get

S1(C2r+1)=(−r+2r+1)log⁡2=(r+1)log⁡2.(44)S_1(C_{2r+1}) = (-r+2r+1)\log2 = (r+1)\log2. \tag*{(44)}

As a check, the triangle (r=1r = 1) gives 2log⁡22\log2. This is the value for the three-party GHZ state, as it must be. The triangle is obtained by local complementation at the middle vertex of the three-vertex path, which is the star graph of Figure 4 for q=3q = 3.

References

  1. [1]A. Gadde, V. Krishna, and T. Sharma, A new multi-partite entanglement measure and its holographic dual, Phys. Rev. D 106, 126001 (2022), arXiv:2206.09723 [hep-th].DOI
  2. [2]A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, Generalized gravitational entropy, JHEP 08, 090, arXiv:1304.4926 [hep-th].DOI
  3. [3]X. Dong, The Gravity Dual of Renyi Entropy, Nature Commun. 7, 12472 (2016), arXiv:1601.06788 [hep-th].DOI
  4. [4]S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 181602 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603001.DOI
  5. [5]S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy, JHEP 08, 045, arXiv:hep-th/0605073.DOI
  6. [6]J. Harper, T. Takayanagi, and T. Tsuda, Multi-entropy at low rényi index in 2d CFTs, SciPost Phys. 16, 125 (2024), arXiv:2401.04236 [hep-th].DOI
  7. [7]G. Penington, M. Walter, and F. Witteveen, Fun with replicas: tripartitions in tensor networks and gravity, JHEP 05, 008, arXiv:2211.16045 [hep-th].DOI
  8. [8]S. Akella and N. Izuka, Structural Obstruction to Replica Symmetry Breaking for Multi-Entropy in Random Tensor Networks (2026), arXiv:2604.13261 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2604.13261
  9. [9]M. Hu, S. Lin, and I. Nechita, Multi-entropy in random tensor networks, JHEP 08, 136, arXiv:2606.04470 [hep-th].DOI
  10. [10]M.-K. Yuan, M. Li, and Y. Zhou, Reflected multientropy and its holographic dual, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 091604 (2025), arXiv:2410.08546 [hep-th].DOI
  11. [11]A. Gadde, V. Krishna, and T. Sharma, Towards classification of holographic multi-partite entanglement measures, JHEP 08, 202, arXiv:2304.06082 [hep-th].DOI
  12. [12]A. Gadde, S. Jain, V. Krishna, H. Kulkarni, and T. Sharma, Monotonicity conjecture for multi-party entanglement I, JHEP 02, 025, arXiv:2308.16247 [hep-th].DOI
  13. [13]M. Walter, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, Multi-partite entanglement (2016), arXiv:1612.02437 [quant-ph].arxiv.org/abs/1612.02437
  14. [14]P. Horodecki, L. Rudnicki, and K. Życzkowski, Multipartite entanglement (2024), arXiv:2409.04566 [quant-ph].
  15. [15]M. Hein, W. Dür, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. Van den Nest, and H. J. Briegel, Entanglement in Graph States and its Applications (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0602096.DOI
  16. [16]D. Schlingemann and R. F. Werner, Quantum error-correcting codes associated with graphs, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012308 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0012111.DOI
  17. [17]D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052.DOI
  18. [18]R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001).
  19. [19]H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Persistent Entanglement in Arrays of Interacting Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 910 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0004051.DOI
  20. [20]M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Multipartite entanglement in graph states, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062311 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0307130.
  21. [21]D. Fattal, T. S. Cubitt, Y. Yamamoto, S. Bravyi, and I. L. Chuang, Entanglement in the stabilizer formalism (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0406168.DOI
  22. [22]M. V. den Nest, J. Dehaene, and B. D. Moor, Graphical description of the action of local Clifford transformations on graph states, Phys. Rev. A 69, 022316 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0308151.DOI
  23. [23]S. Akella, A. Gadde, and J. Pandey, Multi-invariants in stabilizer states (2026), arXiv:2601.16258 [quant-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2601.16258
  24. [24]B. Czech, Y. Feng, X. Wu, and M. Xie, Fun with Graph States: Nonlocal Bell Pairs and the Arf Invariant (2026), arXiv:2606.06582 [quant-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2606.06582
  25. [25]V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, Quantifying entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9702027.DOI
  26. [26]G. Vidal, Entanglement monotones, J. Mod. Opt. 47, 355 (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/9807077.DOI
  27. [27]M. B. Plenio and S. S. Virmani, An Introduction to Entanglement Theory, Quant. Inf. Comput. 7, 001 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0504163.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504163
  28. [28]R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225.DOI
  29. [29]D. Schlingemann, Stabilizer codes can be realized as graph codes (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0111080.DOI
  30. [30]M. Grassl, A. Klappenecker, and M. Roetteler, Graphs, Quadratic Forms, and Quantum Codes (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0703112.DOI
  31. [31]C. Arf, Untersuchungen über quadratische formen in körpern der charakteristik 2. (teil i.), Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 1941, 148 (1941).DOI
  32. [32]E. C. Titchmarsh, The Theory of Functions, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1939).
  33. [33]W. T. Tutte, The factorization of linear graphs, J. London Math. Soc. s1-22, 107 (1947).DOI
  34. [34]R. Lidl and H. Niederreiter, Finite Fields, 2nd ed., Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 20 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_gt957zdj
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 1

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Physics and Astronomy

Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents