Entanglement for any definition of two subsystems

Yu Cai,1 Baichu Yu,2 Pooja Jayachandran,2 Nicolas Brunner,1 Valerio Scarani,2, 3 and Jean-Daniel Bancal1 1Department of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland 2Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore 117543, Singapore 3Department of Physics, National University of Singapore, 2 Science Drive 3, Singapore 117542, Singapore The notion of entanglement of quantum states is usually defined with respect to a fixed bipartition. Indeed, a global basis change can always map an entangled state to a separable one. The situation is however different when considering a set of states. In this work we define the notion of an “absolutely entangled set” of quantum states: for any possible choice of global basis, at least one of the states in the set is entangled. Hence, for all bipartitions, i.e. any possible definition of the subsystems, the set features entanglement. We present examples of such sets, including sets with minimal size. Moreover, we propose a quantitative measure for absolute set entanglement. To lower-bound this quantity, we develop a method based on polynomial optimization to perform convex optimization over unitaries, which is of independent interest.

Introduction.— Composite quantum systems can be written as product by changing modes [9], since it is equal † † found to be in entangled states, a direct consequence of to |1, 1i = A A |vacuumi for A = √1 (a ± ia ). But + − ± 2 1 2 the linearity of quantum mechanics. This concept has there is no mode transformation in which the same state 2 far-reaching implications, and is by now considered as can be written √1 A† |vacuumi = |2, 0i; not to mention one of the defining features of quantum theory [1,2]. 2 the impossibility of connecting states with different num- The notion of entanglement relies on partitioning the ber of photons. In this context, some states were recently system into subsystems. Some choice may be very natu- found that remain entangled under any mode transfor- ral to us, notably the one based on localization: what mation [10]. is accessible in Alice’s location, versus what is acces- sible in Bob’s location. In other cases, the arbitrari- Such results are clearly impossible if one considers all ness of the partition is more patent. Consider a two- the unitaries U in the Hilbert space, as we plan to do path interference for a molecule. If one chooses the N here (in the context of distinguishable systems). In this atoms that form the molecule as subsystems, the state case, given |ψi, there exists U such that U |ψi = |φi for of the molecule in the interferometer will be a highly any target state |φi. However, the situation becomes entangled state of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger type: completely different when one considers sets of quan- N N tum states, as we discuss in this work. Indeed, there N |~x + d~ i + N |~x + d~ i, where ~x is the posi- j=1 j I j=1 j II j exist sets of quantum states, from which the entangle- tion of the j-th atom. But if one chooses the centre- ment cannot be removed even by global unitaries. That of-mass (CM) and the relative coordinates as subsys- ~ is, entanglement will remain no matter what definition tems, the state of the molecule will be product: (|dI i + of the subsystems is adopted. We term such sets “ab- ~ |dII i)CM ⊗ |~r1i ⊗ ... ⊗ |~rN−1i, where ~rk are the rela- solutely entangled”. We formally define this notion, fol- tive coordinates. Philosophers may discuss whether some lowed by a warm-up discussion. We prove a general lower choices of subsystems represent “reality” better than oth- bound on the size of an absolutely entangled set: for ers [3,4]. In the practice of the physicist, the definition d d1 d2 C = C ⊗C , one needs a set of at least max (d1, d2)+2 of subsystems relies on operational convenience [5–7]. To pure states, while for any smaller set there is a choice of stay with the example (see also [8]): we may well believe global basis such that all states become product. Then that molecules are “really” made of atoms; this division we present an explicit construction of an absolutely en- may also prove suited for calculations in quantum chem- tangled set consisting of d1 + d2; this set is therefore istry; but the description of CM and relative coordinates minimal if min (d1, d2) = 2. Further, we quantify the arXiv:2006.07165v2 [quant-ph] 11 Nov 2020 is more convenient to describe path interference. amount of entanglement present in an absolutely entan- For another related example, consider the second quan- gled set. For this, we develop a method for performing tisation of bosons. The Fock space is constructed as a convex optimization over unitaries, which can be cast as tensor product of spaces, each representing a bosonic a semidefinite programming (SDP). We present several mode. A change of mode decomposition reads Aj = illustrative case studies. Finally, we discuss the potential † Uaj = UajU , where U is a unitary operator acting on applications of these ideas, as well as some open ques- the modes and U is the corresponding representation in tions. the Hilbert space. Any U is allowed, but the correspond- Context and definition.— As mentioned above, a sin- ing U must be a linear-optics transformation. Thus, if gle quantum pure state is always unitarily equivalent to a one assumes that the only meaningful tensor decomposi- product state. Similarly, for any mixed quantum state ρ, tions of the field are those in modes, not all quantum which can always be expressed as a probabilistic mixture states can be connected. For instance, the entangled of pure states forming an orthonormal basis {|ψji}, there †2 †2 state √1 (|2, 0i + |0, 2i) = 1 (a + a ) |vacuumi can be 2 2 1 2 exists a unitary U that maps {|ψji} to the computational 2

∗ 0 basis (containing only product states), and thus maps c2,1c3,1 = hψ2|ψ3i. Now, the overlap of the (d + 1)- ρ to a separable state. Hence a single quantum state, th state with the previous ones will be fully encoded in whether pure or mixed, can only be entangled with re- the component with the second system in state |0i: we spect to some bipartitions [11]. Note that this is in fact are therefore completely free to choose how to write the not even always the case: there exist mixed states (in component with the second system in an orthogonal state particular in the vicinity of the maximally mixed state) |1i. In particular, we can write that remain separable for any global basis choice [12]. d−1 ! d−1 ! The situation becomes completely different if one con- X X sider sets of states. Indeed, there exist sets of states, for |ψd+1i = cd+1,i |ii |0i + cd+1,d+1 cd+1,i |ii |1i which any global basis choice will leave at least one state i=0 i=0 in the set entangled. A trivial example is the set of all d−1 ! d d X pure states in a given Hilbert space C 1 ⊗C 2 : clearly no = cd+1,i |ii (|0i + cd+1,d+1 |1i). unitary can map all those states into product ones [13]. i=0 This motivates the following: (2) Definition: absolutely entangled set (AES). Thus, there exists a basis in which all the d0 +1 states are Consider a set of quantum states {ρ1, ..., ρK } in a fixed d product. It is natural to ask whether this construction Hilbert space C of non-prime dimension. The set is said to be absolutely entangled with respect to all bipartitions is tight, i.e. if one can find absolutely entangled sets of d0 + 2 states. The next explicit construction proves that into subsystems of dimension (d1, d2), if for every uni- † this is the case for min (d , d ) = 2 (i.e. for d = 2d0). tary U ∈ SU(d), at least one state UρkU is entangled 1 2 d1 d2 Tighteness for min (d , d ) > 2 remains an open question, with respect to C ⊗ C . 1 2 When d is not a product of primes, one could consider as well as proving that the lower bound on the size of a a stronger definition, by requesting that at least one state AES remains valid for mixed states. d d1 Minimal absolutely entangled sets.— Our first explicit remains entangled for all d1, d2 ≥ 2 such that C = C ⊗ d2 , rather than for a fixed pair of dimensions; but we construction of an AES is as follows. Consider d non- C d d d shall leave this stronger definition for further work. prime and the bipartition C = C 1 ⊗ C 2 , and let d Let us discuss a warm-up example in C4. As noted {|ξii}i=1,...,d be an orthonormal basis of C . The K ≡ above, any orthonormal basis (such as the Bell ba- d1 + d2 states sis) is unitarily equivalent to the computational basis. |φ i = |ξ i , Then, a natural AES candidate that comes to mind 1 1 √ (3) |φ i = c |ξ i + 1 − c2 |ξ i , k = 2, ..., K (at least for the authors) is the set in C4 consisting k 1 k of the computational basis and the four Bell states: q + − + − form an AES when c ∈ ( (d1−1)(d2−1) , 1). In particular, {|00i , |01i , |10i , |11i , |Φ i , |Φ i , |Ψ i , |Ψ i}. But this d1d2 0 0 set is easily dismissed: a standard CNOT unitary trans- for d = 2d and the partition d1 = d and d2 = 2, this + 0 forms all those states into products, since UCNOT |Φ i = set consists of K = d + 2 states. In view of the previous |+i |0i and so on. By the same token, we see immediately result, this is the minimal size of a AES of pure states in that any set of states can be made product by a suitable that partition. Notice also that in general K ≤ d, with global unitary (a CNOT), whenever these states are all equality if and only if d = 4. Schmidt-diagonal in the same computational basis, i.e. if The proof for arbitrary (d1, d2) is given in AppendixA. some can be written as cos θj |00i + sin θj |11i and the Here we give a proof for d = 4 (i.e. d1 = d2 = 2) that 0 0 others as cos θj |01i + sin θj |10i. actually applies to a larger family: for k = 2, 3, 4, we Lower bound on the number of states.— For any bipar- allow |φki = ck1 |ξ1i + ckk |ξki with possibly different d d1 d2 tition C = C ⊗ C , we are going to show that no set coefficients ck1. Without loss of generality, let’s con- 0 of max (d1, d2) + 1 ≡ d + 1, or fewer, pure states is an sider a global U such that U |φ1i is product and denoted AES. Indeed, without loss of generality, one can always U |φ1i = U |ξ1i = |00i. Thus, for k = 2, 3, 4, we have 0 write the first d + 1 states as: U |ξki = bk2 |01i + bk3 |10i + bk4 |11i. So

|ψ1i = |0i |0i , U |φki = ck1 |00i + ckk(bk2 |01i + bk3 |10i + bk4 |11i)(4) |ψ2i = (c2,0 |0i + c2,1 |1i) |0i , and we want to see if these three states can all be made |ψ i = (c |0i + c |1i + c |2i) |0i , 3 3,0 3,1 3,2 product too, which is the case if and only if . (1) . ck1bk4 = ckkbk2bk3 (5) d0−1  X for k = 2, 3, 4 (notice that ckk 6= 0, otherwise |φki = |φ1i |ψd0 i =  cd0,i |ii |0i . and the problem becomes trivial). Let us now impose i=0 |c | ∈ ( 1 , 1) for all k = 2, 3, 4: it follows from (3) k1 2 √ The coefficient are determined by the Gram matrix that 0 <√|ckk/ck1| < 3, which inserted into (5) gives ∗ hψi|ψji, for example c2,0 = hψ1|ψ2i and c2,0c3,0 + |bk4| < 3|bk2bk3|. But by normalization, |bk2bk3| ≤ 3

1 2 2 (1 − |bk4| ). So we have found that a necessary con- In some cases, unitary optimization can be greatly sim- 1 dition for U |φki to be product is |bk4| < √ . We have plified though. For instance, when considering such op- 3 timization with a linear (or concave) objective function, not yet used the fact that the three U |ξki must be or- thogonal. That condition implies that it is impossible for the non-convexity can be avoided by considering a simple 1 (tight) relaxation of the problem, namely the optimiza- all three |bk4| to be strictly smaller than √ [14]. Thus, it 3 tion of the same objective function over the set of convex is impossible to make all three U |φ i product. As soon k mixtures of unitaries. Since this set is convex by assump- as one of the |c | ≤ 1 , there are instances where one can k1 2 tion, the optimal value for both optimizations coincides. make all four states in (3) separable (see AppendixB). Moreover, optimizing over convex mixtures of unitaries Quantitative approach: absolute set negativity— More can be achieved easily by writing the problem in the Choi features of AESs can be uncovered by a quantitative ap- formalism, in which case the nonlinearity amounts to a proach to the minimal amount of entanglement present semi-definite constraint which can be described efficiently in a set of states. Let again {ρk}k=1,...,K be a set of K (see for instance Eq.(39) and Supplementary Information states in dimension d = d1d2. The absolute set entangle- B.3.1 of [18]). ment with respect to all bipartitions d = d1 ⊗ d2 can C C C In the case of Eq. (7), however, we cannot benefit from be then quantified as this simplification: a mixture of all two-qubit unitaries constitute a depolarizing channel which leave no state X † E(d ,d )[{ρk}k] = min E(d ,d )(UρkU ) (6) 1 2 U∈SU(d) 1 2 entangled, and therefore relaxing Eq. (7) to allow op- k timization over mixture of unitaries only provides the trivial lower bound 0. In order to obtain a strict and where E is an entanglement measure [1,2]. This (d1,d2) nontrivial lower bound, we reformulate our optimization figure of merit can be understood as follows: if a user as a particular case of polynomial optimization [17]. For receives states from a source that samples uniformly from this, we parametrize U as a d × d complex matrix with the set {ρk}k=1,...,K , the average amount of entanglement components ui,j ∈ C. The unitarity conditions then cor- he receives per round is at least E(d ,d )[{ρk}k]/K. In 1 2 respond to quadratic constraints on the components ui,j: what follows, we drop the subscript (d1, d2). As an entanglement measure, we choose negativity [15] X − N [{ρk}] = min Tr[σ ] (in AppendixC we consider also the entropy of entan- ± k ui,j ,σ glement for some examples of sets of pure states). The k k ± negativity of a quantum state ρ is given by N [ρ] = s.t. σk are PPT, kρTA k −1 X 1 = P |λ | where λ are the eigenvalues u (ρ ) u∗ = (σ+ − σ−) , 2 λi<0 i i i,l k l,m j,m k k i,j TA of ρ , and TA refers to partial transposition on sub- l,m X X system A. Alternatively, the negativity can be ex- u∗ u = u u∗ = δ pressed through its variational definition as N [ρ] = m,i m,j i,m j,m i,j − ± + − m m {minσ± Tr[σ ] | σ are PPT, ρ = σ − σ }, where PPT (8) stands for positive partial transpose. This allows one to express the absolute set negativity of {ρk} as At this stage it is clear that applying the SDP relax- ation method of [17] to the polynomial variables ui,j al- X − N [{ρk}] = min Tr[σk ] lows one to obtain a hierarchy of SDP that captures the U,σ± k k unitarity part of Eq. (7). Introducing additionally a no- s.t. σ± are PPT, tion of localizing matrices for semidefinite constraints in- k (7) ± † + − volving the matrix variables σk allows us to formulate UρkU = σk − σk , our problem (7) fully in terms of semi-definite program- UU † = U †U = 11. ming (see AppendixD for full details, including the local- izing matrix for each constraint used to obtain the results Note that this optimization is not an SDP, because the in the case studies). second and third constraints are quadratic in U. To solve Case studies — The above SDP relaxation method al- this problem, we now introduce a method to relax uni- lows one to obtain a certifiable lower-bound on the abso- tary constraints based on polynomial optimization, which lute set negativity. On the other hand, an upper bound allows us to cast the above problem as a family of semi- can be computed by heuristic numerical minimization definite programs. In turn, we generalize the notion of (here we use fminunc in Matlab). localizing matrices to semi-definite constraints [16, 17]. We study first the one-parameter family of states Convex optimization over unitaries — Since unitary (3). The results are plotted in Fig.1. The gap be- operators are defined by a quadratic constraint UU † = I, tween the upper and lower bounds suggests that the unitary optimization is nonlinear. Moreover, the set of SDP method does not give tight bounds (we expect the unitaries is not convex: typically, (U1 + U2)/2 is not a heuristic method to given values which are close to op- unitary. This makes unitary optimization particularly timal, as optimisation involves here 15 real parameters non-trivial in general. for parametrizing U ∈ SU(4)): nonetheless, the SDP 4

0.35 Heuristic Heuristic 0.3 SDP 0.4 SDP

0.25 0.3 0.2

0.15 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.05

0 0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6

FIG. 1. Absolute set negativity N , as defined in Eq.(7), for FIG. 2. Absolute set negativity N for the set of four states the one parameter set of states Eqs.(3) for d = 4. The heuris- in Eqs.(9) mixed with an amount 1 − v of white noise. From tic upper bound (magenta line) is computed by fminunc; the heuristic optimization, it appears that the set for v = 1 fea- 4 lower bound (black dashed) is computed by the SDP relax- tures the largest absolute set negativity in C . The curves are ation. For the heuristic minimization, we plot also the nega- the upper and lower bounds as in Fig.1. tivity in the first state (blue circles) and in one of the other three (red triangles).

are seen as states in C2(n−1). This observation may be method does provide a nontrivial and certifiable lower given a polemic twist: if we are ready to redefine subsys- 1 tems, shouldn’t we also question the identification of the bound, i.e. N > 0, for the entire range c ∈ ( 2 , 1) cov- ered by the analytical proof. Moreover, in the heuristic relevant degrees of freedom, i.e. the identification of the optimization one can check how negativity is distributed total system, at least in principle? Leaving again meta- among the states. By inspection, it turns out that it is physics aside, one may answer that the reductionism in- better to concentrate all the negativity in one state. For volved in identifying a system is a necessary step of the < c ∼ 0.65, this is the first state (which has scalar product scientific method. But when quantum entanglement is > equal to c with the three other states); for c ∼ 0.65, it is involved, more is possible, specifically in the situations one of the other three symmetric states. of self-testing (see [19] for a recent review). Device- Next, we look for the set of four state featuring the independent self-testing relies on no-signaling, that is, largest absolute set negativity. Via a heuristic see-saw on having spatially separated subsystems; but one of the algorithm we found the following candidate: possible deductions is that inside one of the black boxes there is a composite system [20, 21]. The initial neces- |ϕ1i = |ξ1i , sity of spatially separated subsystems can be replaced by

|ϕ2i = a |ξ1i + b |ξ2i + b |ξ3i + c |ξ4i , computational assumptions on the verifier [22]. Thus, (9) |ϕ i = a |ξ i + b |ξ i + c |ξ i + b |ξ i , with these tools, a “total system under study” can be 3 1 2 3 4 identified operationally within one black-box, including |ϕ4i = a |ξ1i + c |ξ2i + b |ξ3i + b |ξ4i , the fact that it must be composite in character. Further where a = 0.6245, certifying that there is an entangled state inside one black q √ box was proved feasible in very special setups [20, 23]. b = 1 −3a2 + a − 2(1 − a) 3a + 1 + 2 and c = √ 3 Our notion of AESs provides a much greater freedom 1 − a2 − 2b2. For this set, the SDP lower bound is N = in designing such certifications. It may also help in ad- 0.2213 and the heuristic upper bound is N = 0.4609, dressing some open problems, notably finding a robust both clearly exceeding the maximal values for the previ- bound for the device-independent certification of “irre- ous case study shown in Fig.1. ducible dimension”[24]. We start from the same family of states to extend the Conclusion.— We have introduced a notion of abso- definition of AESs to mixed states and show that absolute lutely entangled sets (AESs) of quantum states, i.e. fea- entanglement is robust to noise. Specifically, we consider turing entanglement for any possible definition of two 11 the set of mixed states ρk = v |ϕkihϕk| + (1 − v) 4 , where subsystems. We have given several explicit examples of each pure state in (9) is mixed with a given amount of such sets of pure states, that are provably minimal for 0 white noise. The upper and lower bound on N are shown partitions Cd = Cd ⊗ C2. We also developed a quan- in Fig.2, as a function of the visibility v. Entanglement titative approach to this phenomenon: the minimal en- vanishes below a critical visibility, whose value is between tanglement present in a set of states was upper bounded 0.82 (SDP) and 0.6 (heuristic). by heuristic optimisation, and lower bounded by a new Towards an operational application.— Our first result, method of convex optimization over unitaries, also gener- namely, that d + 1 states in C2d can always be made all alizing the concept of localizing matrices to semi-definite product, can be rephrased as: any set of n states can constraints (the latter method may be of independent in- always be transformed into all product states, if they terest and apply to a broader range of problems). With 5 these tools, we proved also that a pure-state AES is ro- Acknowledgements — We thank Alastair Abbott, bust with respect to the mixture with noise, thus provid- Shuming Cheng and Rotem Arnon-Friedmann for useful ing an example of an AES of mixed states. discussions. This research is supported by the National A few technical questions and several generalisations Research Foundation and the Ministry of Education, Sin- remain open: these were mentioned in the paper. More gapore, under the Research Centres of Excellence pro- broadly, the study of absolute entangled set of states gramme. We acknowledge financial support from the will have to be extended to multipartitions; and one can Swiss National Science Foundation (Starting grant DIAQ consider the correlative definition of absolutely entangled and NCCR SwissMap). quantum measurements.

[1] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and [22] T. Metger and T. Vidick, “Self-testing of a single quan- K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009). tum device under computational assumptions,” (2020), [2] O. G¨uhneand G. Toth, Phys. Reports 474, 1 (2009). preprint arXiv:2001.09161. [3] R. E. Kastner, J. Jekni´c-Dugi´c, and G. Jaroszkiewicz, [23] J.-D. Bancal, M. Navascu´es,V. Scarani, T. V´ertesi, and Quantum Structural Studies (World Scientific (Europe), T. H. Yang, Phys. Rev. A 91, 022115 (2015). 2017). [24] W. Cong, Y. Cai, J.-D. Bancal, and V. Scarani, Phys. [4] J. Earman, Erkenntnis 80, 303 (2015). Rev. Lett. 119, 080401 (2017). [5] P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 077901 (2001). [25] J. L. Romero, G. Bj¨ork,A. B. Klimov, and L. L. S´anchez- [6] P. Zanardi, D. A. Lidar, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. Soto, Phys. Rev. A 72, 062310 (2005). 92, 060402 (2004). [26] M. Wie´sniak,T. Paterek, and A. Zeilinger, New Journal [7] N. L. Harshman and K. S. Ranade, Phys. Rev. A 84, of Physics 13, 053047 (2011). 012303 (2011). [8] J. Jekni´c-Dugi´c,M. Arsenijevic, and M. Dugic, Quan- tum Structures: A View of the Quantum World (Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken, 2013). [9] S. J. van Enk, Phys. Rev. A 67, 022303 (2003). [10] J. Sperling, A. Perez-Leija, K. Busch, and C. Silberhorn, Phys. Rev. A 100, 062129 (2019). [11] W. Thirring, R. A. Bertlmann, P. K¨ohler, and H. Narn- hofer, The European Physical Journal D 64, 181–196 (2011). [12] N. Johnston, Phys. Rev. A 88, 062330 (2013). [13] Given the vast body of work on quantum entanglement, it is not surprising that absolutely entangled sets of states have been chanced upon while investigating other proper- ties. Concretely, in the study of mutually unbiased bases (MUBs), it was noticed early on that the five MUBs in 4 C constitute a set of 20 pure states, only 12 of which 2 2 (3 bases) can be made product when seen in C ⊗ C [25]. The maximal number of MUBs that can be prod- uct was later given for any number of parties of arbitrary dimensions [26]. [14] The proof is straightforward: if the vectors U |ξki are orthogonal, the 3 × 3 matrix W whose coefficients are wij = bi−1,j−1 is unitary. Thus, the square of the el- ements of each row and column must sum up to 1. In particular, the column j = 3 must be such that 2 2 2 |b24| + |b34| + |b44| = 1. [15] G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002). [16] S. Pironio, M. Navasc´es, and A. Ac´ın, SIAM J. Optim. 20, 2157 (2010). [17] J. B. Lasserre, SIAM Journal on optimization 11, 796 (2001). [18] C. Branciard, Scientific reports 6, 26018 (2016). [19]I. Supi´candˇ J. Bowles, Quantum 4, 337 (2020). [20] R. Rabelo, M. Ho, D. Cavalcanti, N. Brunner, and V. Scarani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 050502 (2011). [21] B. W. Reichardt, F. Unger, and U. Vazirani, Nature 496, 456 (2013). 6

Appendix A: Proof of the example of absolutely Summing up Eq. (A7) we have entangled set K K 2 X X a (1 − Bk) Sk = 2 . (A8) In this section we prove that for generic bipartition Bk + a (1 − Bk) k=2 k=2 d d1 d2 C = C ⊗ C , the set of K ≡ d1 + d2 state PK Let B = Bk, using the unitarity of Us we know |φ1i = |ξ1i , k=2 (A1) that B ≤ d1 − 1. Substituting one of the variables Bk in |φki = ck1 |ξ1i + ckk |ξki , k = 2, ..., K PK−1 (A8) (say BK ) with BK = B − k=2 Bk and taking the d PK where {|ξii}i=1,...,d is an orthonormal basis of C , is abso- derivatives of S with respect to every other B , q k=2 k k (d1−1)(d2−1) with simple calculation we can see that the lower bound lutely entangled when all |ck1| = a ∈ ( , 1). d1d2 PK of Sk is attained if and only if we let B = d1 − 1 Consider a certain bipartition d = d1 ⊗ d2 , any pure k=2 C C C d1−1 and all Bk equal, namely, Bk = for every k. So we state |φii can be written with the product of local com- K−1 putational basis as have K 2 X (K − 1)(K − d1)a Sk ≥ 2 2 , (A9) (d1 − 1)(1 − a ) + (K − 1)a |ψi = a1 |11i + a2 |12i + ...ad |d1d2i . (A2) k=2 A necessary and sufficient condition for separablity of |ψi From Eq. (A9) we can also see the intuition of choosing is K = d1 +d2. If we choose an a very close to 1, then using PK Eq. (A9) we see that k=2 Sk would be close to K − d1. PK On the other hand, since k=2 Sk sums up the squared a1 · an·d +j = an·d +1 · aj, (A3) 2 2 norm of part of the elements in d2 − 1 column of Us, we 2 have where integers n ∈ [1, d1 −1], j ∈ [2, d2]. Take |·| of both sides of Eq. (A3) and summing over n and j we obtain K X Sk ≤ d2 − 1, (A10) d −1 d d −1 d 1 2 1 2 k=2 2 X X 2 X 2 X 2 |a1| · ( |an·d2+j)| ) = |an·(d2+1)| · |aj| . n=1 j=2 n=1 j=2 therefore if K > d1 + d2 − 1 we can find contradiction. (A4) Now we calculate the range of a of having AE. From Now we prove that no unitary matrix can take the all Eq. (A9) and (A10) we know that a necessary condition states in the constructed set into separable states, by for not having AE is showing the contradiction between the necessary condi- (K − 1)(K − d )a2 tion (A4) for separability and the unitarity of the matrix. 1 d2 − 1 ≥ 2 2 , (A11) Suppose a unitary matrix U takes all states into separa- (d1 − 1)(1 − a ) + (K − 1)a ble form, we can always let the first transformed state inserting K = d1 + d2 and with simple calculation we U |φ1i = U |ξ1i to be |11i. Then the remaining trans- obtain : formed states U |ξ i (i > 1) are i (d − 1)(d − 1) a2 ≤ 1 2 . (A12) U |ξii = bi2 |12i + bi3 |13i + ... + bid |d1d2i . (A5) d1d2 Since {|ξ i} is an orthogonal basis, if we take coefficients Eq. (A12) shows that if we let a2 > (d1−1)(d2−1) , then i d1d2 b to be the (i−1, j −1)-th element of a (d−1, d−1) ma- PK ij Sk > d2 −1, which violates the unitarity condition. trix, the matrix would also be an unitary matrix, which is k=2 q Therefore when a > (d1−1)(d2−1) , there is no unitary a submatrix of U under the computational product basis d1d2 representation. We will denote this submatrix of U by Us that can take all the K states into separable form, the and let all |ck1| = a hereinafter. Applying separability set of states is absolutely entangled. condition (A4) to the K − 1 transformed states U |φki, we have Appendix B: Constructive proof of separability 2 2 a · Tk = (1 − a )Bk · Sk, (A6) Here we give a constructive proof that it is possible to Pd2 2 Pd1−1 Pd2 2 where Sk = j=2 |bkj| , Tk = n=1 j=2 |bk(n·d2+j)| , turn the input set Pd1−1 2 Bk = n=1 |bk(n·d2+1)| . Since every row and column |φ1i = |ξ1i , of Us is normalized, we have Sk + Tk + Bk = 1 (k > 1), therefore |φ2i = c21 |ξ1i + c22 |ξ2i , (B1) 2 |φ3i = c31 |ξ1i + c33 |ξ3i , a (1 − Bk) Sk = 2 (A7) |φ4i = c41 |ξ1i + c44 |ξ4i , Bk + a (1 − Bk) 7 separable by a general unitary, when one of the coeffi- for m, n, l ∈ {2, 3, 4} and m 6= n 6= l. This means that cients cj1 is in (0, 0.5]. we can always assign phases to let the second row vector be orthogonal to the third one. Now that we have two 1 We let |c21| ∈ (0, 0.5] and |c31| = |c41| = ∈ orthogonal vectors in a three dimensional Hilbert space, 2|c21|+1 [0.5, 1), and show that we can construct a unitary U that it is clear that we can have the third by assigning proper take |ξ1i to |00i and phases to the first row, to make the matrix unitary.  0 0 0  b22 b23 b24 0 0 0 0 U|ξ2i = b22|01i + b23|10i + b24|11i, Let Ub = b32 b33 b34 denote the unitary matrix 0 0 0 U|ξ3i = b32|01i + b33|10i + b34|11i, (B2) b42 b43 b44 we construct, together with Eq. (B8) we have U|ξ4i = b42|01i + b43|10i + b44|11i. c b0 = δ c b0 b0 , (B10) such that i1 i4 i ii i2 i3

  where δi is some phase. Then we see that we can add b22 b23 b24 0 phase −δi to row i of U to let Eq. (B4) hold for every Ub = b32 b33 b34 (B3) b b b b i while keeping the unitarity of it, so by choosing the 42 43 44 elements as is unitary and 0 Ubij = −δiUbij, (B11) ci1bi4 = ciibi2bi3 (B4) we can construct an Ub which is unitary and satisfies for i = 2, 3, 4, and therefore the four states can be taken Eq. (B4). separable by U. To conclude, for the states we give, we can always find U to take them separable.

We know that with fixed ci1 and cii, the largest value of |b | attainable under separability condition (B4) i4 max Appendix C: Another entanglement measurement is attained when |bi2| = |bi3|, and we can obtain the one- to-one correspondence between |ci1| and |bi4|max as The main text presents a quantitative measure of abso- 2 2 lutely entangled sets constructed from negativity. Here, |bi4|max = − 1. (B5) |ci1| + 1 we study the quantity given in Eq. (6) with a different choice of entanglement measure, namely the entropy of By inspection, we can see that the input set we construct entanglement S[ρ] = −Tr(ρA log ρA) where ρA = TrB(ρ) satisfies is the reduced state. Contrary to the negativity, the en- X 2 tropy of entanglement is additive. This gives a new pos- = 4, (B6) |c | + 1 sible interpretation to the quantity S[{ρk}k] constructed i i1 in this way, namely as the minimum entanglement of tot N indicating that a global state ρ = k ρk comprising all states in the ensemble {ρk}k, over joint unitaries of the form tot X 2 U = N U, i.e. |bi4|max = 1. (B7) k i tot tot tot † S[{ρk}k] = min S(U ρ (U ) ). (C1) U∈U(d) Now we can see that if and only if |bi4| = |bi4|max, the sum of the squared norm of elements in every row (col- In general, entanglement measures for pure two-qubit umn) of matrix (B3) is 1 (a necessary condition of uni- states can be related to each other. For instance, the tarity) with our input set. Also we have negativity of the state |ψθi = cos θ |00i + sin θ |11i with θ ∈ [0, π/4] is N [|ψθi] = cos θ sin θ, from which we can |ci1bi4| = |ciibi2bi3| (B8) deduce holds for i = 2, 3, 4.  2N  θ = arctan √ . (C2) As the modulus of the elements in matrix (B3) have 1 + 1 − 4N 2 been determined, now it is left to show that we can al- ways assign proper phases to each elements of matrix Therefore, the entropy of entanglement can be expressed   |b22| |b23| |b24| from the negativity for these states as S = f(N ) with |b32| |b33| |b34| to make it a unitary matrix, while √ ! 1 + 1 − 4N 2 |b42| |b43| |b44| f(N ) = h , (C3) keeping Eq. (B4) satisfied at the same time. With sim- 2 ple calculation we can see that and h(x) the binary entropy function. Since f is a ∗ ∗ ∗ |b3m · b4m| + |b3n · b4n| > |b3l · b4l|, (B9) monotonically-increasing convex function, we can further 8 0.35 Heuristic 0.3 SDP methods to define a hierarchy of SDP relaxing optimiza- tion Eq. (7) of the main text. 0.25

0.2 1. Lasserre relaxation for unitary optimization 0.15

0.1 Let U ∈ U(d) be a unitary acting on a Hilbert space of dimension d ≥ 1. A generic unitary optimization can 0.05 be written as

0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 min f(U) (D1) U∈U(d)

FIG. 3. Absolute set entanglement entropy Eq.(C1) for the s.t. gk(U) ≥ 0 ∀k ∈ K one parameter set of states Eqs.(3) with c21 = c31 = c41 = c. d The heuristic upper bound (magenta line) is computed by where f, gk : L(C ) → R are forms. We are interested fminunc; the lower bound (black dashed) is computed via in the case where the these functions are polynomials in (C4) and the SDP lower-bound on negativity. Albeit small the components of U with a finite degree. To capture the the lower bound is nonzero for c ∈ (0.5, 1) since f(N ) > 0 unitarity constraint, we choose a parametrization for U. when N > 0. (Blue circle) Entanglement entropy in the first One way to parametrize a unitary operator in L(Cd) is state; (red triangle) Entanglement entropy in the other three d to write U = exp(H) for a hermitian matrix H ∈ L(C ). states, which is equally distributed in the three states. This only requires in total d2 real scalar parameters, but involves the exponential operator. In order to avoid expo- nentiation, we rather parametrize U as a d × d complex bound the absolute set entropy of entanglement directly matrix with components ui,j ∈ C [? ]. This requires from the absolute set negativity: 2d2 real parameters, i.e. twice more than necessary, but X † avoids exponentiation. The unitary condition then cor- S[{ρk}k] = min S(UρkU ) U∈U(d) responds to a set of quadratic constraints on the compo- k nents ui,j: X †
= min f N (UρkU ) U∈U(d) k min f({ui,j}) (D2) ui,j ∈C X 1 †
= min K f N (UρkU ) s.t. g ({u }) ≥ 0 ∀k U∈U(d) K k i,j k X ∗ ! um,ium,j = δi,j ∀1 ≤ i, j ≤ d X † m ≥ min Kf N (UρkU )/K U∈U(d) X k ∗ ui,muj,m = δi,j ∀1 ≤ i, j ≤ d. ! m X † = Kf min N (UρkU )/K U∈U(d) k This is a special instance of polynomial optimization with polynomial objective functions and constraints. = Kf (N [{ρk}k] /K) . (C4) Such problems can be relaxed to a hierarchy of SDPs Fig.3 shows an upper bounds on the absolute set en- which converges to the optimal solution via the so-called tropy of entanglement we obtain for the family of states Lasserre relaxation of polynomial optimization [17]. For described in (3) with c21 = c31 = c41 = c. This bound completeness, we briefly describe it here in the simple is obtained with a heuristic optimization as discussed in case where the objective function f is linear in the vari- the main text. Contrary to the case of negativity, we ables and the optimization involves only one nonlinear observe that the entropy of entanglement is distributed constraint g (optimization (D2) includes |K| + 8d2 real among the four states, equally among the three symmet- inequality constraints). ric states. This figure also shows a lower bound computed First, consider the following unconstrained optimiza- from the SDP lower bound on the absolute set negativity tion with n real variables collected in the vector x = through Eq. (C4). (x1, x2, . . . , xn) and polynomial p as objective function:

p∗ := min p(x). (D3) x∈ n Appendix D: Convex optimization over unitaries R α Qn αi For short, we denote monomials in x as x = i=1 xi , In this appendix, we present a hierarchy of convex op- where αi denotes the power of variable xi (in partic- α timization problems that relax the non-convex optimiza- ular αi = 0 if xi does not appear in x ) and α = n tion over unitary operators. We also discuss the localiza- α1, α2, . . . , αn ∈ N (for conciseness, we ignore the paren- tion of semi-definite constraints. Finally, we apply these theses in α). Since any polynomial can be expressed as a 9

2 linear combination of monomials, the objective function if we localize x1 + x2 ≥ 0 by X = {1, x1, x2}, we have P α can be written p(x) = α pαx , with coefficients {pα}. n   Considering now a probability measure µ(x) on R , y + y y + y y + y we write the moment associated to each monomial 1,0 0,2 2,0 1,2 1,1 0,3 M 2 (X ) =   . R α x1+x2 y2,0 + y1,2 y3,0 + y2,2 y2,1 + y1,3 yα = yα1,α2,...,αn = dµ(x)x . For simplicity, we ex-   press averaging over the measure µ for arbitrary poly- y1,1 + y0,3 y2,1 + y1,3 y1,2 + y0,4 nomial as a function application by y. For example, (D7) R R y(1) = dµ(x) = 1 = y0,0,...,0, y(x1) = dµ(x)x1 = 2 R 2 y1,0,...,0, y(x x2) = dµ(x)x x2 = y2,1,0,...,0, y(p(x)) = P 1 1 Similarly to the case of the moment matrix M(X ), pαyα, etc. α the matrix Mg(X ) is semi-definite positive, which gives The moments yα satisfy specific constraints. To rise to a constraint that can be imposed when the mo- see this, consider a matrix of moments M(X ) = ments y are seen as variables. Indeed, hv| M |vi = R T T α q(x) dµ(x)X X = y(X X ) defined for a set of monomials R dµ(x)q(x)(hv| X T )(X |vi) = R dµ(x)q(x)||X |vi ||2 ≥ 0 X (here we regard a set of monomials X as a row vector T for all |vi. Therefore, optimization Eq. (D6) is relaxed to and (·) denotes transposition). In particular, let Xm be the set containing all monomials of degree up to m ≥ 0. ∗ X These sets form a hierarchy: X = {1}, X = X ∪ {x } , p ≥ min pαyα (D8) 0 1 0 i i y X2 = X1 ∪ {xixj}i,j and so on. For n = 2 variables and α level m = 2 the moment matrix takes the form s.t. M(X 1) ≥ 0, 2   Mg(X ) ≥ 0, 1 y1,0 y0,1 y2,0 y1,1 y0,2  y y y y y y   1,0 2,0 1,1 3,0 2,1 1,2  for any set of monomials X 1, X 2.    y0,1 y1,1 y0,2 y2,1 y1,2 y0,3  M(X2) =   . (D4)  y2,0 y3,0 y2,1 y4,0 y3,1 y2,2     y1,1 y2,1 y1,2 y3,1 y2,2 y1,3  2. Localizing semi-definite positive constraints y0,2 y1,2 y0,3 y2,2 y1,3 y0,4

For every set of monomials X this matrix is positive Coming back to optimization (7) of the main text, we semidefinite, hence constraining the possible values of see that we are now able to address its unitarity con- R T the moments yα: hv| M |vi = dµ(x)(hv| X )(X |vi) = straint. Namely, choosing a suitable parametrization of R 2 dµ(x)||X |vi || ≥ 0 for all |vi. U, the unitarity constraint takes the form of a polyno- Seeing now the moments yα as variables, we can define mial constraint which can be relaxed with the methods a hierarchy of semi-definite program indexed by m: of polynomial optimization as described above. Our op- timization (8) also involves semi-definite constraints on ∗ X ± q = min pαyα (D5) the density matrices σk . We thus need to localize these y α constraints as well. While localizing matrices have been described for scalar equality and inequality constraints s.t. M(Xm) ≥ 0, (and therefore for element-wise constraints on matrices elements) we are not aware of a description of localizing where y is the vector containing all moments {yα}. If x∗ is a solution to the original minimization (D3) with matrices for semi-definite constraints. We describe this optimal value p∗ = p(x∗), then the Dirac distribution now. µ(x) = δ(x∗) gives rise to a valid variable assignment Denoting again by x the set of scalar variables, we for the new optimization (D8) yielding an identical value consider a matrix G(x) with elements gi,j(x) polynomials P ∗ in x. To localize the semi-definite constraint G(x) ≥ 0, for the objective function: α pαyα = p . Therefore we must have q∗ ≤ p∗, i.e. (D8) is a relaxation of (D3). The we consider again a basis of monomials X . The localizing hierarchy was shown to converge, that is q∗ = p∗ when matrix then reads m tend to infinity. Z Now we turn to the constrained case. If the optimiza- T MG(X ) = dµ(x)G(x) ⊗ X X . (D9) tion is also subjected to polynomial constraints, such as

p∗ := min p(x) (D6) Since the Kronecker product of two PSD matrices is PSD, n x∈R G(x) ⊗ X T X ≥ 0. Then by convexity, we must have s.t. g(x) ≥ 0, MG(X ) ≥ 0. Thus semi-definite positive constraints G(x) ≥ 0 is relaxed to MG(x)(X ) ≥ 0. each constraint must be localized with respect to a mono- " # x x mial basis X . This is achieved by constructing the mo- As an example, the constraint G = 1 2 ≥ 0 lo- R T ment matrix Mg(X ) = dµ(x)X X g(x). For example, x2 x3 10

± calized by X = {1, x1, x2, x3} is given by the matrix U with 32 real variables (ua)a∈[32], and each σk with 16 variables (ξk,s,b)b∈[16], where k ∈ [4] and s ∈ {±}. MG(X ) = (D10) Optimization (8) thus involves in total n = 160 variables   y1,0,0 y0,1,0 y2,0,0 y1,1,0 y1,1,0 y0,2,0 y1,0,1 y0,1,1 xi, i = 1, . . . , n.  y y y y y y y y  As discussed above, our SDP relaxation is defined on  0,1,0 0,0,1 1,1,0 1,0,1 0,2,0 0,1,1 0,1,1 0,0,2    variables yα corresponding to moments involving the  y2,0,0 y1,1,0 y3,0,0 y2,1,0 y2,1,0 y1,2,0 y2,0,1 y1,1,1    variables in x. Only moments appearing in some con-  y1,1,0 y1,0,1 y2,1,0 y2,0,1 y1,2,0 y1,1,1 y1,1,1 y1,0,2    . straints are taken into account, and all corresponding  y y y y y y y y   1,1,0 0,2,0 2,1,0 1,2,0 1,2,0 0,3,0 1,1,1 0,2,1  variables are considered as free variables.    y0,2,0 y0,1,1 y1,2,0 y1,1,1 y0,3,0 y0,2,1 y0,2,1 y0,1,2  To limit the number of constraints in the optimization,   each constraint of Eq. (8) is localized with a specific set y1,0,1 y0,1,1 y2,0,1 y1,1,1 y1,1,1 y0,2,1 y1,0,2 y0,1,2   r y y y y y y y y of monomials. For conciseness, we write X = {u } for 0,1,1 0,0,2 1,1,1 1,0,2 0,2,1 0,1,2 0,1,2 0,0,3 the set of all monomials appearing in powers of u up to r, 2 Note that this construction of localizing matrices e.g. {u} = {1}∪{ui}i and {u } = {1}∪{ui}i ∪{uiui0 }i,i0 . for semi-definite constraints generalizes directly to non- Also, we do not include the constraint U †U = 11 since it commutative polynomial optimization [16]. In particu- doesn’t seem to be very helpful. The SDP then reads: lar, the hierarchy presented in [? ] can be understood as a relaxation of the Gram matrix constraint in a non- X − commutative algebra. N [{ρk}] ≥ min Tr[σk ] yα k s.t. M({u2}) ≥ 0, 3. Full optimization 2 M({(ξk,±) }) ≥ 0, (D11)

M ± TA ({u}) ≥ 0, We can now formulate the full SDP relaxation of our (σk ) original problem (7). MUρ U †−σ++σ− ({u}) = 0, Let us start by defining all scalar variables appearing in k k k Eq. (8). After separating complex numbers into real and MUU †−11({u, ξk}) = 0 imaginary components, we parametrize 4-by-4 complex