Arxiv:0807.1793V7

arXiv:0807.1793v7 [math.GM] 14 Apr 2021 arbitrary sntpstv eient n ooeo oeo t eigenval its of more or one so and semidefinite positive not is transpose, ρ ee 1:I iatt tt ersne ytedniyma density the by represented state bipartite a If [1]: Peres -ui aeadte hwta hs eut o -ui sys 2-qubit for results these that show then and case 2-qubit twste hw yM ooek ta.2 htti necessa 2 this and that et.al.[2] Horodecki M. by shown then was It ASnmes 36.n 36.a 03.65.Ud 03.65.Ca, 03.67.Mn, numbers: o PACS status entanglement the testing for paper few this discuss We in proposed lines. similar the along proceeding by system if ae edvlpanwapoc n e rtro o decidi for matrix, criterion density new the by a represented and state approach new a 3 develop for we paper transpose partial positive counte with providing states by general mixed in Hor sufficient P. not by is shown [1] was Peres it A. to fact In nothing. general, In entangled? ∗ N ρ [email protected] epeetancsayadsffiin odto odtriet determine to condition sufficient and necessary a present We . a oiiepriltasoe(P) hnwa a esyab say we can what then (PPT)) transpose partial positive has eesr odto aifidb eaal iatt quan bipartite separable by satisfied condition necessary A eateto hsc,Svtia hl nvriyo Pune of University Phule Savitribai Physics, of Department × iesoa ytm.Hwvr nohrdmnin if dimensions other in However, systems. dimensional 3 N ρ qbtqatmsae(a epr rmxd ersne yth by represented mixed) or pure be (may state quantum -qubit T , spstv eient i.e. semidefinite positive is nEtnlmn n Separability and Entanglement On hnna .Mehendale P. Dhananjay Dtd pi 5 2021) 15, April (Dated: ρ ρ N Abstract T , , orsodn to corresponding a ongtv ievle.I te od,if words, other In eigenvalues. negative no has 1 × n 2 and 3 ycniini losffiin o 2 for sufficient also is condition ry e r eaiethen negative are ues eape ntrso h entangled the of terms in rexamples trix, e est matrices. density few f ∗ xmlst lutaetemethod the illustrate to examples × e a eetne to extended be can tem N dci[]ta h rtro due criterion the that [3] odecki iesoa ytm.I this In systems. dimensional 4 u ttswsotie yA. by obtained was states tum qbtsses ebgnwith begin We systems. -qubit getnlmn ttso the of status entanglement ng ρ, ρ, eetnlmn ttso an of status entanglement he u whether out ssprbete t partial its then separable is spstv eient (i.e. semidefinite positive is ,Pune,India-411007. est matrix, density e ρ ssprbeor separable is ρ sentangled. is N -qubit ρ × T 2 , I. INTRODUCTION

One of the central issues in quantum information theory is whether a given N-qubit pure or mixed quantum state represented by the density matrix, ρN , is separable or entangled [1–9]. This important question of deciding whether a given N-qubit (pure or mixed) quantum state represented by the density matrix, ρN , is separable or entangled is completely solved in this paper. In this paper, we present a criterion which leads to an algorithm for deciding the entanglement status of an arbitrary N-qubit pure or mixed N N quantum state, represented in terms of a density matrix, ρN , of size 2 2 . × Our result for N-qubit “pure” quantum state is as follows: A quantum state repre- N N sented by a density matrix, ρN of size 2 2 is a “pure separable” state if and only if × there is a matrix called basic matrix of size 4 4 whose rank is equal to one and other × (N 2) matrices of size 4 4 (in all 4 − in number including the basic matrix) made up of × certain coeﬃcients that arise in the representation for this density matrix, ρN , in terms of the Generalized Pauli Basis and all these other matrices are certain constant multiples of this basic matrix.

Our result for N-qubit “mixed” quantum state is as follows: A quantum state repre- N N sented by a density matrix, ρN of size 2 2 is a “mixed separable” state if and only if × there is a matrix called basic matrix of size 4 4 and other matrices of size 4 4 (in × × (N 2) all 4 − in number including the basic matrix) made up of certain coefficients that arise in the representation for this density matrix, ρN , in terms of the Generalized Pauli Basis such that all the other matrices are certain constant multiples of this basic matrix and this basic matrix can be split into sum of certain other matrices of rank one and of size 4 4. × Entanglement describes a correlation between different parts of a quantum system that exceeds anything that is possible classically. When a quantum system is in such an entangled state, actions performed on one sub-system will have effects on another sub-system even though that sub-system is not acted upon directly and could be far away. This leads to many highly counterintuitive phenomena. All the known quantum

2 algorithms that display an exponential speedup over their classical counterparts exploit such entanglement-induced side eﬀects in one way or another [10]. Therefore, to study, understand, and characterize entanglement is one of the very important problems in quantum information theory.

II. GENERALIZED PAULI BASIS

Let I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ denote the well-known Pauli matrices: { 0 1 2 3}

1 0 I = 0 1

0 1 σ1 = 1 0

0 i σ2 = − i 0 

1 0  σ3 = 0 1  − 

Let A = [aij] and B = [bij] be some 2 2 hermitian matrices then we denote their scalar × 2 2 or dot product as A.B and define it as A.B = a∗ bij, where a∗ denotes the Pi=1 Pj=1 ij ij complex conjugate of aij. Pauli matrices I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ form the orthogonal vector { 0 1 2 3} space basis for 2 2 hermitian matrices i.e. every 2 2 hermitian matrix can be uniquely × × 4 expressed as linear combination of Pauli matrices over reals, R. Thus, if A = αiσi Pi=1 then αi = A.σi/σi.σi It is easy to check that σi.σi = 2 for all i, and σi.σj = 0 if i = j 6 i, j 0, 1, 2, 3 . The density operator is a positive semidefinite operator with nonnegative ∈{ } N N eigenvalues. The density matrix, ρN , corresponding to an N-qubit state is a 2 2 matrix × with certain well defined properties: For example, (i) the sum of the diagonal elements of ρ, tr(ρ), is equal to one. (ii) ρ is hermitian, (iii) If ρ corresponds to a pure state then tr(ρ2)=1, (iv) If ρ corresponds to a mixed state then tr(ρ2) < 1, etc.

3 We now deﬁne the Generalized Pauli matrices. Deﬁnition 2.1: Generalized Pauli matrices of size 2N 2N are those obtained from × usual Pauli matrices, I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ , by taking their all possible tensor products: { 0 1 2 3}

Gi1i2 is iN = σi1 σi2 σis σiN , where each σis is a usual Pauli matrix i.e. ··· ··· ⊗ ⊗···⊗ ⊗···⊗ σis I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ . ∈{ 0 1 2 3} N N Now, let C = [cij] and D = [dij] be some 2 2 hermitian matrices then we × 2N 2N denote their scalar or dot product as C.D and deﬁne it as C.D = c∗ dij, Pi=1 Pj=1 ij where cij∗ denotes the complex conjugate of cij. Similar to the well-known simple result stated above, namely, Pauli matrices I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ form the orthogonal vector { 0 1 2 3} space basis for 2 2 hermitian matrices i.e. every 2 2 hermitian matrix can be uniquely × × expressed as linear combination of Pauli matrices over reals, R, one can easily obtain the following generalization by proceeding on similar lines: Generalized Pauli matrices

Gi1i2 ir iN = σi1 σi2 σir σiN , where each σir is a usual Pauli matrix i.e. σir ··· ··· ⊗ ⊗···⊗ ⊗···⊗ ∈ I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ , form the orthogonal vector space basis for 2N 2N hermitian matrices { 0 1 2 3} × i.e. every 2N 2N hermitian matrix can be uniquely expressed as linear combination of × Generalized Pauli matrices over reals, R. Let A be 2N 2N hermitian matrix then A can × be uniquely expressed as

A = αi1i2 ir iN Gi1i2 ir iN X ··· ··· ··· ··· i1,i2, ,ir, ,iN ··· ··· where

αi1i2 ir iN =(A).(Gi1i2 ir iN )/(Gi1i2 ir iN ).(Gi1i2 ir iN ) ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ···

N It is easy to check that the scalar or dot product (Gi1i2 ir iN ).(Gi1i2 ir iN )=2 and ··· ··· ··· ··· also the scalar or dot product (Gi1i2 ir iN ).(Gj1j2 jr jN ) = 0 if some ir = jr, r ··· ··· ··· ··· 6 ∈ 1, 2, , , N . { ··· } The vectors in the Generalized Pauli basis for N-dimensional case are actually the matrices of size 2N 2N and they have a special form. × (i) For the case of N = 2 these “sixteen” matrices (each of these matrices are of size 4 4 and have exactly “four” nonzero elements C, the ﬁeld of complex numbers) × ∈ 4 representing basis vectors have “four” types of forms and so they can be divided into “four” (independent and disjoint) groups as given below: Group 1: The 4 4 matrices representing basis vectors in × (I, σ ) (I, σ )= I I,I σ , σ I, σ σ 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ ⊗ 3 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 3 and they have the form of a “Diagonal” matrix:

a 0 0 0  11  0 a 0 0  22     0 0 a 0   33     0 0 0 a44

Group 2: The 4 4 matrices representing basis vectors in × (I, σ ) (σ , σ )= I σ ,I σ , σ σ , σ σ 3 ⊗ 1 2 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 2 3 ⊗ 1 3 ⊗ 2 and they have the form as given below:

0 a 0 0  12  a 0 0 0  21     0 0 0 a   34    0 0 a43 0 

Group 3: The 4 4 matrices representing basis vectors in × (σ , σ ) (I, σ )= σ I, σ σ , σ I, σ σ 1 2 ⊗ 3 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 3 2 ⊗ 2 ⊗ 3 and they have the form as given below:

0 0 a 0  13  0 0 0 a  24   a 0 0 0   31     0 a42 0 0 

Group 4: The 4 4 matrices representing basis vectors in × (σ , σ ) (σ , σ )= σ σ σ σ , σ σ σ σ 1 2 ⊗ 1 2 1 ⊗ 1 1 ⊗ 2 2 ⊗ 1 2 ⊗ 2 5 and they have the form of an “Oﬀ-Diagonal” matrix:

0 0 0 a  14 0 0 a 0  23     0 a 0 0   32    a41 0 0 0 

(ii) For the case of N = 3 these “sixtyfour” matrices (each of these matrices are of size 8 8 and have exactly “eight” nonzero elements C, the ﬁeld of complex numbers) × ∈ representing basis vectors have “eight” types of forms and so they can be divided into “eight” (independent and disjoint) groups as given below:

Group 1: The 8 8 matrices representing basis vectors in × (I, σ ) (I, σ ) (I, σ ), are “eight” in number 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 3 and they have the form of a “Diagonal” matrix.

Group 2: The 8 8 matrices representing basis vectors in × (I, σ ) (I, σ ) (σ , σ ), are “eight” in number 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 1 2 and they have the form as given below:

 0 a12 000000  a21 0000000       0 0 0 a34 0 0 0 0     0 0 a 00000   43     00000 a 0 0   56     0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0   65     0000000 a78      000000 a87 0 

Group 3: The 8 8 matrices representing basis vectors in × (I, σ ) (σ , σ ) (I, σ ), are “eight” in number 3 ⊗ 1 2 ⊗ 3 6 and they have the form as given below:

 0 0 a13 00000   0 0 0 a24 0 0 0 0      a31 0000000     0 a 000000   42     000000 a 0   57     0000000 a   68    0 0 0 0 a75 0 0 0       00000 a86 0 0 

Group 4: The 8 8 matrices representing basis vectors in × (I, σ ) (σ , σ ) (σ , σ ), are “eight” in number 3 ⊗ 1 2 ⊗ 1 2 and they have the form as given below:

 0 0 0 a14 0 0 0 0   0 0 a23 00000       0 a32 000000    a 0000000   41     0000000 a   58    000000 a 0   67     00000 a76 0 0       0 0 0 0 a85 0 0 0 

Group 5: The 8 8 matrices representing basis vectors in × (σ , σ ) (I, σ ) (I, σ ), are “eight” in number 1 2 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 3 7 and they have the form as given below:

 0 0 0 0 a15 0 0 0   00000 a26 0 0       000000 a37 0     0000000 a   48   a 0000000   51     0 a 000000   62     0 0 a73 00000       0 0 0 a84 0 0 0 0 

Group 6: The 8 8 matrices representing basis vectors in × (σ , σ ) (I, σ ) (σ , σ ), are “eight” in number 1 2 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 1 2 and they have the form as given below:

 00000 a16 0 0   0 0 0 0 a25 0 0 0       0000000 a38    000000 a 0   47     0 a 000000   52    a 0000000   61     0 0 0 a74 0 0 0 0       0 0 a83 00000 

Group 7: The 8 8 matrices representing basis vectors in × (σ , σ ) (σ , σ ) (I, σ ), are “eight” in number 1 2 ⊗ 1 2 ⊗ 3 8 and they have the form as given below:

 000000 a17 0   0000000 a28      0 0 0 0 a35 0 0 0     00000 a 0 0   46     0 0 a 00000   53     0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0   64    a71 0000000       0 a82 000000 

Group 8: The 8 8 matrices representing basis vectors in × (σ , σ ) (σ , σ ) (σ , σ ), are “eight” in number 1 2 ⊗ 1 2 ⊗ 1 2 and they have the form of an “Oﬀ-Diagonal” matrix.

III. PRELIMINARIES

All 1-qubit states represented by their corresponding 2 2 density matrices being non- × composite are separable. On the other hand N-qubit (N 2) states represented by their ≥ corresponding 2N 2N density matrices being composite can be separable or entangled. × An N-qubit register is in a state of the form:

ψ = ci1i2 iN i1i2 iN | i X ··· | ··· i i1,i2, ,iN 0,1 ··· ∈{ }

2 such that ci1i2 iN =1. This state expressible as a superposition of orthonormal basis P | ··· | states is said to be a “pure” state. We have complete knowledge of this N-qubit state. The states about which we do not have complete knowledge and which are statistical mixture of certain pure states and further these pure states are not necessarily mutually orthogonal are called “mixed” states. Thus, we have only partial (probabilistic) knowledge about these mixed states and we only know that a mixed state is in one of the (not necessarily orthogonal) states among the states ψ , ψ , , ψN with probabilities p ,p , ,pN | 1i | 2i ··· | i 1 2 ··· 9 respectively such that pi = 1. The mixed states being a statistical mixture of pure P states we are therefore a little uncertain of what a mixed state actually is. The best description of such a mixed state is given by the density operator:

ρN = pi ψi ψi X | ih | i=1 where pi = 1 and in general ψi ψj = 0 when i = j. Note that the decomposition of a P h | i 6 6 given density operator into a weighted sum of pure states is non-unique. Any decomposition that synthesizes the density operator is as legitimate as any other. This means that there is no unique mixed state to which each density operator corresponds. Entanglement describes a correlation between diﬀerent parts of a quantum system which persists regardless of how far apart these parts scatter. Some tasks such as telepor- tation of a quantum state use entanglement in an essential way. It is therefore important to develop simple and useful criteria to determine which states are entangled and which are not. The states which are not entangled are called separable states. Separable States: Deﬁnition 3.1: A pure (mixed) bipartite state, represented by the wavefunction,

ψAB , (represented by the density operator, ρAB,) of a composite quantum system deﬁned | i on a Hilbert space HA HB is separable if and only if it can be written as ψAB = ⊗ | i A B ψA ψB (it can be represented or approximated by ρAB = piρ ρ where pi = 1). | i⊗| i P i ⊗ i P Deﬁnition 3.2: A pure (mixed) multipartite state, represented by the wavefunction,

ψA1A2 AN , (represented by the density operator, ρA1A2 AN ) of a composite quantum | ··· i ··· system deﬁned on a Hilbert space HA1 HA2 HAN is separable if and only if it ⊗ ⊗···⊗ can be written as ψA1A2 AN = ψA1 ψA2 ψAN (it can be represented or | ··· i | i⊗| i⊗···⊗| i A1 A2 AN approximated by ρA1A2 AN = piρi ρi ρi where pi = 1). ··· P ⊗ ⊗···⊗ P Entangled States: If a state of a composite quantum system is not a separable state then it is an entangled state. States can be of four possible types: Separable Pure, Separable Mixed, Entangled Pure, Entangled Mixed. We make use of the above given deﬁnitions and give a construc-

10 tive procedure to check the type of the given state. The density matrix corresponding to 1-qubit state is a 21 21 =2 2 matrix, ρ , thus × × 1

ρ11 ρ12 ρ1 = ρ21 ρ22

Note that ρ1 is hermitian and the sum of its diagonal elements, tr(ρ1)=1. Using the above mentioned standard result, namely, “Every 2 2 hermitian matrix can be uniquely × expressed as linear combination of Pauli matrices over reals, R” it is easy to check that

ρ1 can be expressed as I ρ =( + α σ + α σ + α σ ) 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3

αi R, i 1, 2, 3 . It is easy to check that if a matrix expressed as above is hermitian, ∈ ∈{ } its trace is equal to one, and further if it is positive semidefinite then it will correspond to density matrix of 1-qubit states. Using this representation for density matrix of a 1-qubit state we will make the following definitions for “separable pure” and “separable mixed” states and develop the criteria to test the entanglement status in terms of a systematic procedure. Note that all the αs appearing in all the definitions given below are some real constants.

Deﬁnition 3.3: A 2-qubit “pure” state, represented by the density matrix ρ2 is separable if and only if it can be represented as

I I ρ = ρ1 ρ2 =( + α1σ + α1σ + α1σ ) ( + α2σ + α2σ + α2σ ) 2 1 ⊗ 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 ⊗ 2 1 1 2 2 3 3

1 2 where ρ1, ρ1 are density matrices for 1-qubit states.

Deﬁnition 3.4: An N-qubit “pure” state, represented by the density matrix ρN is separable if and only if it can be represented as

N N ⊗ ⊗ I ρ = ρi = ( + αi σ + αi σ + αi σ ) N Y 1 Y 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 i=1 i=1

i where ρ1 are density matrices for 1-qubit states for all i.

11 Deﬁnition 3.5: A 2-qubit “mixed” state, represented by the density matrix ρ2 is separable if and only if it can be represented as

M M 1j 2j I 1j 1j 1j I 2j 2j 2j ρ = βj(ρ ) (ρ )= βj( + α σ + α σ + α σ ) ( + α σ + α σ + α σ ) 2 X 1 ⊗ 1 X 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 ⊗ 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 j=1 j=1

M for some M 2 and βj = 1 and where tensor products are over density matrices of ≥ Pj=1 1-qubit states.

Deﬁnition 3.6: An N-qubit “mixed” state, represented by the density matrix ρN is separable if and only if it can be represented as

M N M N ⊗ ⊗ I ρ = β (ρij)= β ( + αijσ + αijσ + αijσ ) N X j Y 1 X j Y 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1

M for some M 2 and βj = 1 and where tensor products are over density matrices of ≥ Pj=1 1-qubit states.

IV. A NEW CRITERION AND METHOD FOR TESTING ENTANGLEMENT STATUS OF 2-QUBIT STATES

In this section we will present our new criterion and the method that follows from it for testing entanglement status of N = 2-qubit states. The density operator for (N = 2)-qubit states is represented by a 22 22 = 4 4 × × density matrix, ρ2 say, thus,

ρ ρ ρ ρ  11 12 13 14 ρ ρ ρ ρ  21 22 23 24 ρ2 =   ρ ρ ρ ρ   31 32 33 34   ρ41 ρ42 ρ43 ρ44

2 We determine whether ρ2 corresponds to a pure state (tr(ρ2) = 1), or, ρ2 corresponds to 2 a mixed state (tr(ρ2) < 1).

Case(i) Suppose ρ2 corresponds to a “pure” state.

12 We now express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli Basis. Thus,

3 ρ = α G 2 X ij ij i,j=0 where αij =(ρ ).(Gij)/(Gij).(Gij) and Gij = σi σj, σi, σj I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ 2 ⊗ ∈{ 0 1 2 3} We form the matrix of coeﬃcients, B = [αij].

Theorem 4.1 A 2-qubit “pure” quantum state represented by the density matrix ρ2 1 B is separable if and only if α11 = 4 and the rank of the associated matrix, = [αij], of the coeﬃcients that arises when ρ2 is expressed in terms of the Generalized Pauli basis, is equal to one and this unit value of the rank makes it possible to express ρ = ρ1 ρ2 2 1 ⊗ 1 where ρ1 ρ2 is tensor product of density matrices for 1-qubit states. 1 ⊗ 1 Proof: Let ρ2 be a 2-qubit separable pure state. According to the deﬁnition 3.3 we can express ρ2 in terms of the tensor product of two density matrices for 1-qubit states:

I I ρ = ρ1 ρ2 =( + α1σ + α1σ + α1σ ) ( + α2σ + α2σ + α2σ ) 2 1 ⊗ 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 ⊗ 2 1 1 2 2 3 3

Carrying out this tensor product and collecting the coeﬃcients of the basis elements of Generalized Pauli basis we can form the matrix B = [αij] as

2 2 2 1 α1 α2 α3 4 2 2 2  1  α1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 α1α1 α1α2 α1α3 B =  1   α2 1 2 1 2 1 2  2 α2α1 α2α2 α2α3  1   α3 1 2 1 2 1 2  2 α3α1 α3α2 α3α3

1 B Clearly, α11 = 4 and it is easy to check that the rank of is equal to one as required.

Conversely, let ρ2 be a 2-qubit pure state and suppose the rank of the corresponding matrix formed by the coeﬃcients when ρ2 is expressed in terms of the Pauli basis, B = [αij] is equal to one. Therefore, the rows of B will be mutually proportional. Let rowi =

δi row where i 2, 3, 4 . Since B corresponds to the density matrix, ρ , therefore, × 1 ∈ { } 2 1 α11 = 4 . It is now easy to check that we can express the density matrix, ρ2, as follows: I δ δ δ I ρ = ρ1 ρ2 =( + 2 σ + 3 σ + 4 σ ) ( +2α σ +2α σ +2α σ ) 2 1 ⊗ 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 ⊗ 2 12 1 13 2 14 3

13 s where α j are the matrix elements of the ﬁrst row of the matrix B and δ R. Therefore, 1 ∈ as per deﬁnition 3.3 given above this pure state represented by the density matrix, ρ2, is separable.

Case(ii) Suppose ρ2 corresponds to a “mixed” state.

We now express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli Basis. Thus,

3 ρ = α G 2 X ij ij i,j=0 where αij =(ρ ).(Gij)/(Gij).(Gij) and Gij = σi σj, σi, σj I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ 2 ⊗ ∈{ 0 1 2 3} As stated in section 1, the matrix B = [αij].

Theorem 4.2 A 2-qubit mixed quantum state represented by the density matrix ρ2 is separable if and only if the associated matrix of coeﬃcients that arises when ρ2 is M expressed in the Pauli basis, B = [αij], can be split into sum of matrices βkBk, Pk=1 M k 1 k where βk =1, α = , and the rank of each Bk = [α ] is equal to one for all k. Pk=1 11 4 ij In other words, a 2-qubit mixed quantum state represented by the density matrix ρ2 is separable if and only if the corresponding matrix of coeﬃcients, B = [αij], that arises when ρ2 is expressed in the Pauli basis can be split into sum of matrices as follows:

M M B = [α ]= β B = β [αk ] ij X k k X k ij k=1 k=1

k 1 M k where α = , βk =1, and each matrix Bk = [α ] has rank one, for all k. 11 4 Pk=1 ij Proof: Let ρ2 be a 2-qubit separable mixed state. According to deﬁnition 3.5 ρ2 can be expressed as sum over tensor products of density matrices of 1-qubit states:

M M 1k 2k I 1k 1k 1k I 2k 2k 2k ρ = βk(ρ ρ )= βk( + α σ + α σ + α σ ) ( + α σ + α σ + α σ ) 2 X 1 ⊗ 1 X 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 ⊗ 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 k=1 k=1

M for some M 2 and βk = 1. Carrying out the tensor products and collecting the ≥ Pk=1 B k coeﬃcients we can form the matrices k = [αij] which are all of the same type as the matrix B = [αij] given above in the proof of Theorem 4.1 and therefore it is easy to check that rank of each Bk is equal to one as required.

14 Conversely, let ρ2 be a 2-qubit mixed state and suppose the corresponding matrix of coeﬃcients that arises when ρ2 is expressed in the Pauli basis, B = [αij], can be M M k 1 split into sum of matrices βkBk, where βk = 1 and α = and the rank of Pk=1 Pk=1 11 4 B k B each k = [αij] is equal to one for all k. Therefore, the rows of each k are mutually proportional. Therefore, it will be possible to associate a tensor product of type I δk δk δk I ( + 2 σ + 3 σ + 4 σ ) ( +2αk σ +2αk σ +2αk σ ) 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 ⊗ 2 12 1 13 2 14 3 with each Bk and using the equation

M M B = [α ]= β B = β [αk ] ij X k k X k ij k=1 k=1 we will get

M M k k k k I δ2 δ3 δ4 I k k k ρ = βkρ = βk( + σ + σ + σ ) ( +2α σ +2α σ +2α σ ) 2 X 2 X 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 ⊗ 2 12 1 13 2 14 3 k=1 k=1 implying that ρ2 is separable state. Note: As stated in the introduction we have seen that for (N = 2)-qubit case we get (N 2) 0 4 − = 4 = 1 matrix, B = [αij], called basic matrix, made up of coeﬃcients of the basis vectors, Gij, that arise while expressing the density matrix, ρ2, as the unique linear combination in terms of the Generalized Pauli basis. We will now proceed to see that for general N-qubit case along with certain basic matrix of size 4 4, which is similar to × (N 2) B = [αij], there arise other matrices. In total there arise 4 − matrices of size 4 4. To × understand how these matrices arise we think that it is better to consider in details the (N 2) (3 2) 1 case for (N = 3)-qubits and to know and record those 4 − =4 − =4 = 4 matrices. So we now proceed with

V. A NEW CRITERION AND METHOD FOR TESTING ENTANGLEMENT STATUS OF 3-QUBIT STATES

The density operator for (N = 3)-qubit states is represented by a 23 23 = 8 8 × × density matrix, ρ3. The Generalized Pauli basis, for (N = 3)-qubit case contains in all

15 64 basis elements, Gijk = σi σj σk, where σi, σj, σk I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ . All basis ⊗ ⊗ ∈ { 0 1 2 3} elements Gijk, are 8 8 matrices. × We ﬁrst determine whether ρ3 under consideration corresponds to a pure state 2 2 (tr(ρ3) = 1), or, ρ3 corresponds to a mixed state (tr(ρ3) < 1).

Case(i) Suppose ρ3 corresponds to a “pure” state.

We now express ρ3 in terms of Generalized Pauli Basis. Thus,

3 ρ = α G 3 X ijk ijk i,j,k=0 where Gijk = σi σj σk, σi, σj, σk I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ and αijk =(ρ ).(Gijk)/(Gijk).(Gijk). ⊗ ⊗ ∈{ 0 1 2 3} 3 Theorem 5.1 A 3-qubit pure quantum state represented by the density matrix ρ3 is separable if and only if α = 1 and among the following four 4 4 matrices of 000 8 × coeﬃcients Ai, i 0, 1, 2, 3 , the rank of the matrix A (called the basic matrix) is ∈ { } 0 equal to one, and Aj = kjA where kj are some constants and j 1, 2, 3 (thus, the 0 ∈ { } matrices Aj, j 1, 2, 3 are some constant multiples of the basic matrix A and so ∈ { } 0 obviously their rank is also equal to one). These matrices, Ai, i 0, 1, 2, 3 are as ∈ { } follows: α α α α  000 001 002 003 α α α α  010 011 012 013 A0 =   α α α α   020 021 022 023   α030 α031 α032 α033

α α α α  100 101 102 103 α α α α  110 111 112 113 A1 =   α α α α   120 121 122 123   α130 α131 α132 α133

α α α α  200 201 202 203 α α α α  210 211 212 213 A2 =   α α α α   220 221 222 223   α230 α231 α232 α233

16 α α α α  300 301 302 303 α α α α  310 311 312 313 A3 =   α α α α   320 321 322 323   α330 α331 α332 α333

Proof: Let ρ3 be a 3-qubit separable pure state. According to deﬁnition 3.4 ρ3 can be represented as 3 ⊗ I ρ = ( + αi σ + αi σ + αi σ ) 3 Y 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 i=1 Carrying out the tensor product and collecting the coeﬃcients we can form the basic matrix A0 as 3 3 3 1 α1 α2 α3 8 4 4 4  2 2 3 2 3 2 3  α1 α1α1 α1α2 α1α3  4 2 2 2  A0 = 2 2 3 2 3 2 3  α2 α2α1 α2α2 α2α3   4 2 2 2   2 2 3 2 3 2 3   α3 α3α1 α3α2 α3α3   4 2 2 2  1 Clearly, α000 = 8 and it is easy to check that the rank of A0 is equal to one as required. 1 1 1 Further, it is easy to check that A1 =2α1A0, A2 =2α2A0, A3 =2α3A0 as required.

Conversely, let ρ3 be a 3-qubit pure state and suppose the rank of the associated matrix, A is equal to one and the matrices Aj, j 1, 2, 3 are some constant multiples 0 ∈{ } of the basic matrix A0 and so obviously their rank is also equal to one. Therefore, the rows of A are mutually proportional. Let rowi = δi row where i 2, 3, 4 . Since A 0 × 1 ∈{ } 0 1 corresponds to the density matrix of 3-qubit state ρ3, therefore, α000 = 8 . It is now easy to check that we can express the density matrix, ρ3, as follows: I γ γ γ I δ δ δ I ρ =( + 1 σ + 2 σ + 3 σ ) ( + 2 σ + 3 σ + 4 σ ) ( +4α σ +4α σ +4α σ ) 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 ⊗ 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 ⊗ 2 001 1 002 2 003 3 Therefore, as per deﬁnition 3.4 given above this pure state represented by the density matrix, ρ3, is separable.

Note: A0 is made up of the coeﬃcients of the basis elements in the Generalized Pauli basis that occur in the expansion of I I δ δ δ I ( ) ( + 2 σ + 3 σ + 4 σ ) ( +4α σ +4α σ +4α σ ) 2 ⊗ 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 ⊗ 2 001 1 002 2 003 3

17 Similarly, A1 is made up of the coeﬃcients of the basis elements in the Generalized Pauli basis that occur in the expansion of

γ I δ δ δ I ( 1 σ ) ( + 2 σ + 3 σ + 4 σ ) ( +4α σ +4α σ +4α σ ) 2 1 ⊗ 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 ⊗ 2 001 1 002 2 003 3

A2 is made up of the coeﬃcients of the basis elements in the Generalized Pauli basis that occur in the expansion of

γ I δ δ δ I ( 2 σ ) ( + 2 σ + 3 σ + 4 σ ) ( +4α σ +4α σ +4α σ ) 2 2 ⊗ 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 ⊗ 2 001 1 002 2 003 3

A3 is made up of the coeﬃcients of the basis elements in the Generalized Pauli basis that occur in the expansion of

γ I δ δ δ I ( 3 σ ) ( + 2 σ + 3 σ + 4 σ ) ( +4α σ +4α σ +4α σ ) 2 3 ⊗ 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 ⊗ 2 001 1 002 2 003 3

Case(ii) Suppose ρ3 corresponds to a “mixed” state.

We now express ρ3 in terms of Generalized Pauli Basis. Thus,

3 ρ = α G 3 X ijk ijk i,j,k=0 where Gijk = σi σj σk, and αijk = (ρ ).(Gijk)/(Gijk).(Gijk) σi, σj, σk I(= ⊗ ⊗ 3 ∈ { σ ), σ , σ , σ 0 1 2 3} Theorem 5.2 A 3-qubit mixed quantum state represented by the density matrix ρ3 is separable if and only if the associated basic matrix, A0, of coeﬃcients that arises when M k ρ3 is expressed in the Pauli basis can be split into sum of matrices βkA , where Pk=1 0 M k 1 k βk = 1 and α = and the rank of each A is equal to one for all k and the other Pk=1 000 8 0 matrices Aj, j 1, 2, 3 are some constant multiples of the basic matrix A . ∈{ } 0 In other words, a 3-qubit mixed quantum state represented by the density matrix ρ3 is separable if and only if the associated basic matrix of coeﬃcients, A0, that arises when

ρ3 is expressed in the Pauli basis can be split into sum of matrices as follows:

M A = β Ak 0 X k 0 k=1

18 k k 1 M where each matrix A has rank one and α = for all k. Further, βk = 1 and the 0 000 8 Pk=1 other matrices Aj, j 1, 2, 3 are some constant multiples of the basic matrix A . ∈{ } 0 Proof: The proof will be similar to the proofs of the Theorem 4.2 and Theorem 5.1 given above and can be easily obtained by proceeding on similar lines.

VI. ALGORITHMS:

When a quantum state containing N-qubits is given in terms of its corresponding density matrix, ρN , it is important to know for various applications whether this state is “entangled” or “separable”.

2 It turns out, whatever the dimensions of the density operator, ρN , that (ρN ) = ρN 2 and tr((ρN ) ) = 1 if and only if ρN is the density operator corresponding to a pure state. 2 If the state described by ρN is not pure, but is instead mixed, then (ρN ) = ρN and 6 2 tr((ρN ) ) < 1. These properties can be used to decide whether a given state is pure or mixed. Before proceeding to check its entanglement status it is useful to know whether the state deﬁned in terms of the density matrix ρN corresponds to a “pure” state or a “mixed” state and as stated above there is available an easy test for it. One simply needs to 2 determine the trace, tr(ρN ). 2 (i) The state is “pure” if and only if tr(ρN )=1. 2 (ii) The state is “mixed” if and only if tr(ρN ) < 1. We now proceed to develop algorithms to test the entanglement status of 2-qubit states given in terms of their corresponding density matrix, ρ2. Algorithms for 2-qubit states: We ﬁrst determine using the above given criteria whether the state under consideration is “pure” or “mixed”.

Case(i) Suppose ρ2 corresponds to a “pure” state. Algorithm 1:

19 Step 1: Express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli Basis. Thus,

3 ρ = α G 2 X ij ij i,j=0 where αij = (ρ ).(Gij)/(Gij).(Gij) and Gij = σi σj, σi, σj I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ and 2 ⊗ ∈ { 0 1 2 3} form the matrix B = [αij]. Step 2: Check whether the rank of B is equal to one or not. (a) If the rank of B is equal to one then declare that the state is separable and ﬁnd out the expression for ρ as ρ = ρA ρB using Theorem 4.1. 2 2 1 ⊗ 1 (b) If the rank of B is not equal to one then declare that the state is entangled.

Case(ii) Suppose ρ2 corresponds to a “mixed“ state. Algorithm 2:

Step 1: Express ρ3 in terms of Generalized Pauli Basis. Thus,

3 ρ = α G 2 X ij ij i,j=0 where αij = (ρ ).(Gij)/(Gij).(Gij) and Gij = σi σj, σi, σj I(= σ ), σ , σ , σ and 2 ⊗ ∈ { 0 1 2 3} form the matrix B = [αij]. Step 2: Check whether the rank of the sub-matrix of B formed by the second, third, and fourth rows is equal to one and whether it is possible to split the elements of the ﬁrst B 1 2 B B B1 B2 row of as α1j = α1j + α1j and rewrite the matrix, , as = + where

α1 α1 α1 α1  11 12 13 14 α α α α B1  21 22 23 24 =   α α α α   31 32 33 34   α41 α42 α43 α44 and α2 α2 α2 α2  11 12 13 14 0 0 0 0 B2   =    0 0 0 0       0 0 0 0 

20 such that now the rank of the matrix B1 is indeed equal to one (note that the rank of the matrix B2 is obviously equal to one).

(c) If yes, then declare using Theorem 4.2 that the mixed state ρ2 is separable and then one can easily express ρ as ρ = β (ρA ρB)+ β (ρC ρD), where β + β =1. 2 2 1 1 ⊗ 1 2 1 ⊗ 1 1 2 (d) If no, then proceed to Step 3: Check whether the rank of the sub-matrix of B formed by any two rows, say the second and third rows is equal to one and whether it is possible to split the elements B 1 2 3 B B B1 B2 B3 of the ﬁrst row of as α1j = α1j +α1j +α1j and rewrite the matrix, , as = + + where α1 α1 α1 α1  11 12 13 14 α α α α B1  21 22 23 24 =   α α α α   31 32 33 34    0 0 0 0 

α2 α2 α2 α2  11 12 13 14 0 0 0 0 B2   =    0 0 0 0      α41 α42 α43 α44 and α3 α3 α3 α3  11 12 13 14 0 0 0 0 B3   =    0 0 0 0       0 0 0 0  such that now the rank of the matrix B1, B2 is indeed equal to one (note that the rank of the matrix B3 is obviously equal to one).

(e) If yes, then declare using Theorem 4.2 that the mixed state ρ2 is separable and then one can easily express ρ as ρ = β (ρA ρB)+ β (ρC ρD + β (ρE ρF ), where 2 2 1 1 ⊗ 1 2 1 ⊗ 1 3 1 ⊗ 1 β1 + β2 + β3 =1. (f) If no, then proceed to

21 Step 4: Suppose now that the rank of the sub-matrix of B formed by any two of the two rows is not equal to one. Check now whether it is possible to split the elements of B 1 2 3 4 B the ﬁrst row of as α1j = α1j + α1j + α1j + α1j and we can rewrite the matrix, , as B = B1 + B2 + B3 + B4 where

α1 α1 α1 α1  11 12 13 14 α α α α B1  21 22 23 24 =    0 0 0 0       0 0 0 0 

α2 α2 α2 α2  11 12 13 14 0 0 0 0 B2   =   α α α α   31 32 33 34    0 0 0 0 

α3 α3 α3 α3  11 12 13 14 0 0 0 0 B3   =    0 0 0 0      α41 α42 α43 α44 and α4 α4 α4 α4  11 12 13 14 0 0 0 0 B4   =    0 0 0 0       0 0 0 0  such that now the rank of the matrix B1, B2, B3 is indeed equal to one (note that the rank of the matrix B4 is obviously equal to one).

(g) If yes, then declare using Theorem 4.2 that the mixed state ρ2 is separable and then one can easily express ρ as ρ = β (ρA ρB)+β (ρC ρD +β (ρE ρF )+β (ρG ρH ), 2 2 1 1 ⊗ 1 2 1 ⊗ 1 3 1 ⊗ 1 4 1 ⊗ 1 where β1 + β2 + β3 + β4 =1.

(h) If no, then as per Theorem 4.2 the state ρ2 is not separable and so declare that the state is entangled.

22 Algorithms for 3-qubit states: We ﬁrst determine using the above given criteria whether the state under consideration is “pure” or “mixed”.

Case(i) Suppose ρ3 corresponds to a “pure” state. Algorithm 3:

Step 1: Express ρ3 in terms of Generalized Pauli Basis. Thus,

3 ρ = α G 3 X ijk ijk i,j,k=0 where αijk = (ρ ).(Gijk)/(Gijk).(Gijk) and Gijk = σi σj σk, σi, σj, σk I(= 3 ⊗ ⊗ ∈ { σ ), σ , σ , σ and form the matrices A , A , A , A 0 1 2 3} 0 1 2 3 Step 2: Check whether the rank of A0 is equal to one or not.

(a) If the rank of A is equal to one and Ai = ki A , i (1, 2, 3) where ki are some 0 × 0 ∈{ } constants, then declare that the state is separable and ﬁnd out the expression for ρ3 as ρ = ρA ρB ρC using Theorem 5.1. 3 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 (b) If the rank of A0 is not equal to one then declare that the state is entangled.

(c) If the rank of A is equal to one but Ai = ki A for some one or more i (1, 2, 3) 0 6 × 0 ∈{ } where ki are some constants, then declare that the state is entangled.

Case(ii) Suppose ρ3 corresponds to a “mixed“ state. Algorithm 4:

Step 1: Express ρ3 in terms of Generalized Pauli Basis. Thus,

3 ρ = α G 3 X ijk ijk i,j,k=0 where αijk = (ρ ).(Gijk)/(Gijk).(Gijk) and Gijk = σi σj σk, σi, σj, σk I(= 3 ⊗ ⊗ ∈ { σ ), σ , σ , σ and form the matrices A , A , A , A and check whether Ai = ki A , i 0 1 2 3} 0 1 2 3 × 0 ∈ (1, 2, 3) where ki are some constants. { } Case (1): Suppose Ai = ki A , i (1, 2, 3) where ki are some constants. × 0 ∈{ } Step 2: Check whether the rank of the sub-matrix of A0 formed by the second, third, and fourth rows is equal to one and whether it is possible to split the elements of the ﬁrst

23 1 2 1 2 row of A0 as α00j = α00j + α00j and rewrite the matrix, A0 as A0 = A0 + A0 where

α1 α1 α1 α1  000 001 002 003 α α α α 1  010 011 012 013 A0 =   α α α α   020 021 022 023   α030 α031 α032 α033 and α2 α2 α2 α2  000 001 002 003 0 0 0 0 2   A0 =    0 0 0 0       0 0 0 0 

1 such that now the rank of the matrix A0 is indeed equal to one (note that the rank of the 2 matrix A0 is obviously equal to one).

(c) If yes, then declare using Theorem 5.2 that the mixed state ρ3 is separable and then one can easily express ρ as ρ = β (ρA ρB ρC )+ β (ρD ρE ρF ), where β + β =1. 3 3 1 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 2 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 1 2 (d) If no, then proceed to

Step 3: Check whether the rank of the sub-matrix of A0 formed by any two rows, say the second and third rows is equal to one and whether it is possible to split the 1 2 3 elements of the ﬁrst row of A0 as α00j = α00j + α00j + α00j and rewrite the matrix, A0 as 1 2 3 A0 = A0 + A0 + A0 where

α1 α1 α1 α1  000 001 002 003 α α α α 1  010 011 012 013 A0 =   α α α α   020 021 022 023    0 0 0 0 

α2 α2 α2 α2  000 001 002 003 0 0 0 0 2   A0 =    0 0 0 0      α030 α031 α032 α033

24 and α3 α3 α3 α3  000 001 002 003 0 0 0 0 3   A0 =    0 0 0 0       0 0 0 0 

1 2 such that now the rank of the matrix A0, A0 is indeed equal to one (note that the rank of 3 the matrix A0 is obviously equal to one).

(e) If yes, then declare using Theorem 5.2 that the mixed state ρ3 is separable and then one can easily express ρ as ρ = β (ρA ρB ρC )+ β (ρD ρE ρF )+ β (ρG ρH ρI ), 3 3 1 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 2 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 3 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 where β1 + β2 + β3 =1. (f) If no, then proceed to

Step 4: Suppose now that the rank of the sub-matrix of A0 formed by any two rows out of second,third and fourth rows is not equal to one. Check now whether it is possible 1 2 3 4 to split the elements of the ﬁrst row of A0 as α00j = α00j + α00j + α00j + α00j and we can 1 2 3 4 rewrite the matrix, A0 as A0 = A0 + A0 + A0 + A0 where

α1 α1 α1 α1  000 001 002 003 α α α α 1  010 011 012 013 A0 =    0 0 0 0       0 0 0 0 

α2 α2 α2 α2  000 001 002 003 0 0 0 0 2   A0 =   α α α α   020 021 022 023    0 0 0 0 

α3 α3 α3 α3  000 001 002 003 0 0 0 0 3   A0 =    0 0 0 0      α030 α031 α032 α033

25 and α4 α4 α4 α4  000 001 002 003 0 0 0 0 4   A0 =    0 0 0 0       0 0 0 0 

1 2 3 such that now the rank of the matrix A0, A0, A0 is indeed equal to one (note that the rank 4 of the matrix A0 is obviously equal to one).

(g) If yes, then declare using Theorem 5.2 that the mixed state ρ3 is separable and then one can easily express ρ as ρ = β (ρA ρB ρC )+ β (ρD ρE ρF )+ β (ρG 3 3 1 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 2 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 3 1 ⊗ ρH ρI )+ β (ρJ ρK ρL), where β + β + β + β =1. 1 ⊗ 1 4 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 1 2 3 4 (h) If no, then as per Theorem 5.2 the state ρ3 is not separable and so declare that the state is entangled.

Case (2): Suppose Ai = ki A for some one or more i (1, 2, 3) where ki are 6 × 0 ∈ { } some constants, then declare that the state is entangled.

VII. FURTHER GENERALIZATIONS:

It is possible for one to continue on these lines and to deal with the higher dimensional cases by proceeding on similar lines. One will need to form the associated 4 4 matrices of × coeﬃcients and check whether they posses required properties as seen in the above cases. As mentioned above the number of these matrices grow with the dimensions as they are (N 2) 4 − in number for the N dimensional case. Are the matrices that arise in N dimensional case related to the matrices that arise in (N 1) dimensional case? Yes. − We give below this relation for the case of N = 4 with the case of N =3, i.e. we will relate these 16 matrices, say B , B , , B , that arise for the case N = 4 with the four 0 1 ··· 15 matrices A0, A1, A2, A3 that aroused for the case of N =3.

(1) The matrix B0 is the one obtained by attaching additional suffix “0” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence etc. 0 0 → 00 26 (2) The matrix B1 is the one obtained by attaching additional suffix “0” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence etc. 1 1 → 01 (3) The matrix B2 is the one obtained by attaching additional suffix “0” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence etc. 2 2 → 02 (4) The matrix B3 is the one obtained by attaching additional suffix “0” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence etc. 3 3 → 03 (5) The matrix B4 is the one obtained by attaching additional suffix “1” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence etc. 0 0 → 10 (6) The matrix B5 is the one obtained by attaching additional suffix “1” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence etc. 1 1 → 11 (7) The matrix B6 is the one obtained by attaching additional suffix “1” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence etc. 2 2 → 12 (8) The matrix B7 is the one obtained by attaching additional suffix “1” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence etc. 3 3 → 13 (9) The matrix B8 is the one obtained by attaching additional suffix “2” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence etc. 0 0 → 20 (10) The matrix B9 is the one obtained by attaching additional suffix “2” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence 1 1 → 21 etc.

(11) The matrix B10 is the one obtained by attaching additional suﬃx “2” from left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence etc. 2 2 → 22 (12) The matrix B11 is the one obtained by attaching additional suﬃx “2” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence 3 3 → 23 etc.

(13) The matrix B12 is the one obtained by attaching additional suﬃx “3” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence 0 0 → 30 etc.

(14) The matrix B13 is the one obtained by attaching additional suﬃx “3” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence 1 1 → 31 27 etc.

(15) The matrix B14 is the one obtained by attaching additional suﬃx “3” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence 2 2 → 32 etc.

(16) The matrix B15 is the one obtained by attaching additional suﬃx “3” from the left side to each element of the above matrix A , e.g. an element, say α bc α bc. Hence 3 3 → 33 etc.

VIII. EXAMPLES:

Example 1: We consider a 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the following density matrix, ρ2, as given below:

1 1 1 1  36 9√2 12√3 3√6  1 2 1 2  9√2 9 3√6 3√3  ρ2 =    1 1 1 1   12√3 3√6 12 3√2   1 2 1 2   3√6 3√3 3√2 3  2 It is easy to see that tr((ρ2) ) = 1 therefore ρ2 represents a “pure” state.

We now express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli basis and construct the matrix of coeﬃcients, B, as given below:

1 √2 0 7  4 9 − 36  √3 √6 0 7√3 B  8 18 72  =  −   0 00 0       1 √2 0 7  − 8 − 18 72 1 and apply Theorem 4.1 to it. Note that α11 = 4 . It is easy to check that the rank of

B is equal to one therefore the 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the density matrix, ρ2, is a pure separable state. We can now easily check that (i) row = √3 row , (ii) 2 2 × 1 row =0 row , and (iii) row = 1 row . Therefore, following Algorithm 1 we have 3 × 1 4 − 2 × 1 I √3 1 I 2√2 7 ρ =( + σ σ ) ( + σ σ ) 2 2 4 1 − 4 3 ⊗ 2 9 1 − 18 3

28 It is easy to check that the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of ρ are 1, 0, 0, 0 . As 2 { } all of these eigenvalues are nonnegative this guarantees, by the Peres-Horodecki criterion,

[1, 2], that ρ2 is indeed a separable state. Example 2: We consider a 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the following density matrix, ρ2, as given below:

4 6 4√314 4i  49 − 35 735 − 21  6 9 2√314 2i  35 25 175 5  ρ2 =  − −   4√314 2√314 1256 4i√314   735 175 11025 315   − −   4i 2i 4i√314 4  21 − 5 315 9 2 It is easy to see that tr((ρ2) ) = 1 therefore ρ2 represents a “pure“ state.

We now express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli basis and construct the matrix of coeﬃcients, B, as given below:

1 √3 2√314 6713 4 35 315 4 11025  − − − ×  2√314 √314 2 2√314 B  735 175 21 735  =  − −   1 2 √314 1   5 − 21 − 175 − 5   1287 3 2√314 575   4 11025 35 315 4 11025  − × − − × 1 B and apply Theorem 4.1 to it. Note that α11 = 4 . It is easy to check that the rank of is not equal to one therefore the 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the density matrix, ρ2, is a pure entangled state. It is easy to check that the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of ρ are 0.2780, 0.0844, 0.2780, 0.9156 . 2 {− } As one of these eigenvalues is negative this guarantees, by the Peres-Horodecki criterion,

[1, 2], that ρ2 is indeed an entangled state. Example 3: We consider a 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the following density matrix, ρ2, as given below:

11 i + i 1 i  72 − 18 8√3 24 8√3  i i 25 i 7  18 8√3 72 8√3 24  ρ2 =  − −   1 i 11 i + i   24 8√3 72 18 8√3   −   i 7 i i 25  − 8√3 24 18 − 8√3 72 29 2 It is easy to see that tr((ρ2) ) < 1 therefore ρ2 represents a “mixed“ state.

We now express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli basis and construct the matrix of coeﬃcients, B, as given below:

1 0 ( 1 1 ) 7  4 18 − 8√3 − 72  1 0 1 1 B  6 8√3 8  =  − −  00 0 0      00 0 0 

As per Algorithm 2 we split the elements of the ﬁrst row of B and rewrite the matrix, B, as B = B1 + B2 where 1 0 1 1  6 − 8√3 − 8  1 0 1 1 B1  6 8√3 8  =  − −  00 0 0      00 0 0  and 1 0 1 1  12 18 36  000 0 B2   =    000 0       000 0  such that now the rank of the matrix B1 is indeed equal to one (note that the rank 2 of the matrix B is obviously equal to one). Therefore, as per Theorem 4.2 ρ2 is a mixed separable state. We can now easily check in B1 that (i) row = 1 row , (ii) 2 × 1 row =0 row , and (iii) row =0 row . Therefore, following Algorithm 2 and Theorem 3 × 1 4 × 1 4.2 we have

2 I 1 I √3 3 1 I I 1 1 ρ = ( + σ ) ( σ σ )+ ( ) ( + σ + σ ) 2 3 2 2 1 ⊗ 2 − 8 2 − 8 3 3 2 ⊗ 2 3 2 6 3

It is easy to check that the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of ρ are all 0. As 2 ≥ all of these eigenvalues are nonnegative this guarantees, by the Peres-Horodecki criterion,

[1, 2], that ρ2 is indeed a separable state.

30 Example 4: We consider a 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the following density matrix, ρ2, as given below:

00 00   0 1 1 0  2 2  ρ2 =  −  0 1 1 0  2 2   −  00 00

2 It is easy to see that tr((ρ2) ) = 1 therefore ρ2 represents a “pure” state.

We now express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli basis and construct the matrix of coeﬃcients, B, as given below:

1 0 0 0  4  0 1 0 0 B  4  =  −  0 0 1 0   4   −  00 0 1  − 4

1 and apply Theorem 4.1 and Algorithm 1 to it. Note that α11 = 4 . It is easy to check that the rank of B is greater than one. Therefore, the 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the density matrix, ρ2, is a pure entangled state. It is easy to check that the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of ρ are 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 . 2 {− 2 2 2 2 } As one of these eigenvalues is negative this guarantees, by the Peres-Horodecki criterion,

[1, 2], that ρ2 is indeed an entangled state. Example 5: We consider a 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the following density matrix, ρ2, as given below:

1 0 0 1  6 6  0 1 1 0  3 3  ρ2 =  −  0 1 1 0  − 3 3   1 1   6 0 0 6 

2 It is easy to see that tr((ρ2) ) < 1 therefore ρ2 represents a “mixed” state.

31 We now express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli basis and construct the matrix of coeﬃcients, B, as given below:

1 0 0 0  4  0 1 0 0 B  3  =  −  0 0 1 0     −  00 0 1  − 3 1 and apply Theorem 4.2 and Algorithm 2 to it. Note that α11 = 4 . It is easy to check that B does not satisfy any of the cases described in Algorithm 2. Therefore, the 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the density matrix, ρ2, is a mixed entangled state. It is easy to check that the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of ρ are 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 . 2 { 2 2 − 6 6 } As one of these eigenvalues is negative this guarantees, by the Peres-Horodecki criterion,

[1, 2], that ρ2 is indeed an entangled state. Example 6: Consider the following 2-qubit mixed entangled state deﬁned by the a following density matrix, ρ2.

1 0 0 r  3 2  0 1 0 0 a  3  ρ2 =   0000    r 1   2 0 0 3  where 0 r 2 . This state is a “maximally” entangled state [11]. ≤ ≤ 3 a We now express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli basis and construct the matrix of coeﬃcients, Ba, as given below:

1 0 0 1  4 − 12  0 r 0 0 Ba  4  =    0 0 r 0   − 4   1 1   12 0 0 12  1 and apply Theorem 4.2 and Algorithm 2 to it. Note that α11 = 4 . It is easy to check that as long as r =0 Ba does not satisfy any of the cases described in Algorithm 2. Therefore, 6 a the 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the density matrix, ρ2, is a mixed entangled state.

32 It is easy to check that the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of ρa are 1 + 2 { 6 ( 1 (1+9r2)), 1 ( 1 (1+9r2)), 1 , 1 . The second of these eigenvalues will be nega- 6 p 6 − 6 p 3 3 } tive for 0

1 000  3  0 1 0 0 a  3  ρ2 =   0000    1  0 00 3 

a We now express this ρ2 at r = 0 in terms of Generalized Pauli basis and construct the matrix of coeﬃcients, Ba, as given below:

1 0 0 1  4 − 12  000 0 Ba   =    000 0     1 1   12 0 0 12 

1 and apply Theorem 4.2 and Algorithm 2 to it. Note that α11 = 4 . It is easy to check that we can split Ba as Ba = Ba1 + Ba2 where

1 0 0 1  4 4  0000 Ba1   =1/3   0000    1 1   4 0 0 4  and 1 0 0 1  4 − 4  000 0 Ba2   =2/3   000 0      000 0 

33 Ba a Using above splitting of we can easily write ρ2 at r = 0 as follows:

1 I σ I σ 2 I I σ ρa = [( + 3 ) ( + 3 )] + [( ) ( 3 )] 2 3 2 2 ⊗ 2 2 3 2 ⊗ 2 − 2 a Therefore, when r = 0 the 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the density matrix, ρ2, becomes a mixed separable state. a It is easy to check that the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of ρ2 at r = 0 are 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 . As all of these eigenvalues are now positive (nonnegative) therefore by the { 3 3 3 3 } a Peres-Horodecki criterion, [1, 2], ρ2 for r = 0 case is indeed a separable state. For the other range, namely, 2 r 1, we have 3 ≤ ≤ r 0 0 r  2 2  0 1 0 0 b  3  ρ2 =   0000    r 1   2 0 0 3 

b We now express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli basis and construct the matrix of coef- ﬁcients, Bb, as given below:

( r + 1 )0 0 ( r 1 )  8 6 8 − 6  0 r 0 0 Bb  4  =    0 0 r 0   − 4   r r   8 0 0 8  and apply Theorem 4.2 and Algorithm 2 to it. It is easy to check that for the entirs range of r Bb does not satisfy any of the cases described in Algorithm 2. Therefore, the 2-qubit b quantum state deﬁned by the density matrix, ρ2, is a mixed entangled state. Example 7: In this example and the next example we will see that the density matrices apparently look similar in the form as they both contain the same 2 2 matrix × 1 1  2 2  1 1  2 2  surrounded by zeros. But we will see below that the density matrix in this example corresponds to a 2-qubit “entangled” state while the density matrix in the next example

34 corresponds to a 3-qubit “separable” state. The 2-qubit state we consider here is deﬁned by the following density matrix, ρ2 :

0000   0 1 1 0  2 2  ρ2 =   0 1 1 0  2 2    0000

2 It is easy to see that tr((ρ2) ) = 1 therefore ρ2 represents a “pure” state.

We now express ρ2 in terms of Generalized Pauli basis and construct the matrix of coeﬃcients, B, as given below:

1 00 0  4  0 1 0 0 B  4  =   0 0 1 0   4    0 0 0 1  − 4 1 and apply Theorem 4.1 and Algorithm 1 to it. Note that α11 = 4 . It is easy to check that the rank of B is greater than one. Therefore, the 2-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the density matrix, ρ2, is a pure entangled state. Example 8: We now consider a similar looking 3-qubit quantum state deﬁned by the following density matrix, ρ3, which as we will see below is a pure separable state:

00000000 00000000     00000000   00000000   ρ3 =   0000 1 1 0 0  2 2    0000 1 1 0 0  2 2    00000000     00000000

2 It is easy to see that tr((ρ2) ) = 1 therefore ρ3 represents a “pure” state. Therefore we

35 proceed to apply Theorem 5.1 and Algorithm 3. It is easy to check that

1 1 0 0  8 8  0000   A0 =   0000    1 1   8 8 0 0

Therefore the rank of A0 is equal to one. It is easy to check further that A = 0 A , A = 0 A , and A = ( 1) A . 1 × 0 2 × 0 3 − × 0 Therefore, as per Algorithm 3 the state defined by the above given density matrix ρ3 is a pure separable state. We can easily find the following expression for this density matrix, ρ3, consistent with Definition 3.4, by proceeding as per Algorithm 3, Step 2 (a): ρ =(ρ1) (ρ2) (ρ3)=( I σ3 ) ( I + σ3 ) ( I + σ1 ). 3 1 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 2 − 2 ⊗ 2 2 ⊗ 2 2 Example 9: We consider a 3-qubit quantum state defined by the following density matrix, ρ3, as given below:

1 1 0000 1 1  4 − 4 4 − 4  1 1 0000 1 1  4 4 4 4  − −     0 000000 0     0 000000 0    ρ3 =    0 000000 0       0 000000 0       1 1 0000 1 1   4 − 4 4 − 4   1 1 1 1   0000  − 4 4 − 4 4 2 It is easy to see that tr((ρ2) ) = 1 therefore ρ3 represents a “pure” state. Therefore we proceed to apply Theorem 5.1 and Algorithm 3. It is easy to check that

1 1 0 0  8 − 8  0 0 00   A0 =   0 0 00      1 1 0 0 8 − 8 36 Therefore the rank of A0 is equal to one. But

0 0 00   1 1 0 0  8 8  A1 =  −  0 0 00     0 0 00 therefore, A = k A , where k a constant, and so ρ is a pure entangled state as per 1 6 1 × 0 1 3 (c) in Algorithm 3. Remarks: We can proceed as above and can work out some examples for 3-qubit and 4-qubit cases. We have not done it here since it involves huge calculations. We just make few remarks in this regard and stop. For 3-qubit and 4-qubit cases the density matrices will be of sizes 8 8 and 16 16 respectively. The matrices that forms the Generalized × × Pauli basis for 3-qubit and 4-qubit cases will also be of sizes 8 8 and 16 16 respectively. × × The cardinality of the basis vectors for 3-qubit and 4-qubit cases (in terms of the matrices of sizes 8 8 and 16 16 respectively) will be 64 and 256 in number respectively. Thus, × × the size of the computation involved for solving problems in the higher dimensional cases increases very rapidly although the procedures for solving these problems remain quite similar. Acknowledgement: I thank Dr. M. R. Modak, S. P. College, Pune-411030, India, for useful discussion.

[1] A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1997) 1413. [2] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 574. [3] P. Horodecki, Phys.Lett. A232, 333 (1997). [4] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, K. Horodecki, arXiv:quant-ph/0702225v2 (2007). [5] Werner R.F. Phys.Rev.A 40 4277 (1989). [6] Alber G., Beth T, Horodecki M, Horodecki P, Horodecki R, Rotteler M, Weinfurter H,

37 Werner R and Zeilinger A Quantum Information : An Introduction to Basic Theoretical Concepts and Experiments (Berlin : Springer) (2001). [7] Bouwmeester D, Ekert A, and Zeilinger A The Physics of Quantum Information (Berlin : Springer) (2000). [8] Nielsen A and Chuang I Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge : Cambridge university Press) (2000). [9] Peres A Quantum Theory : Concepts and Methods (Dordrecht : Kluwer) (1993). [10] Colin P. Williams, Explorations in Quantum Computing, second edition, Springer-Verlag London Limited (2011). [11] T. Wei, K. Nemoto, P. M. Goldbart, P. Kwiat, W. Munro, and F. Verstraete, Max- imal Entanglement versus Entropy for Mixed Quantum States, Phys. Rev. A, Volume 67,022110,(2003).