1: % a sample file for Journal of Quantum Information and Computation (QIC) in

2: % LaTex2e by inputing macro file "qic.sty" with command \usepackage{qic},

3: % all the macros have been defined in the style file, so it is no need to

4: % put many macros at the beginning of the text file

5: 

6: \documentclass[twoside]{article}

7: \usepackage{qic,epsfig}

8: \usepackage{amsmath}

9: %\usepackage{amssymb}

10: %\usepackage{amsthm}

11: 

12: 

13: \bibliographystyle{unsrtnat} % Bibliography entries appear in order cited

14: %\bibliographystyle{alpha}

15:  \usepackage[square,numbers,sort&compress]{natbib}

16: 

17: 

18: %%%%%%%%%%%%

19: %%%%%%%%%%%%

20: 

21: %\theoremstyle{plain}

22: %\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

23: %\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

24: %\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

25: %\newtheorem{prop}[theorem]{Proposition}

26: %\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

27: %\newtheorem{fact}[theorem]{Fact}

28: %\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

29: %\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}

30: %

31: %\theoremstyle{definition}

32: %\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}

33: %\newtheorem{problem}{Problem}

34: 

35: \renewcommand{\proof}[1]{{\bf Proof} #1 $\square$}

36: \newtheorem{mytheorem}{Theorem}

37: \newtheorem{fact}{Fact}

38: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}

39: \newtheorem{problem}{Problem}

40: 

41: %\newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1 \rangle}

42: %\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle #1|}

43: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}}

44: 

45: %\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\ensuremath{\left|#1\right>}}

46: %\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\ensuremath{\left<#1\right|}}

47: %\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\ensuremath{\left<#1|#2\right>}}

48: %\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\ensuremath{\left|\!\left|#1\right|\!\right|}}

49: %\newcommand{\ketbra}[2]{| #1 \rangle\langle #2 |}

50: %\newcommand{\comment}[1]{\emph{\color{red}{\{#1\}}}}

51: 

52: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{{|#1\rangle}}

53: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{{\langle#1|}}

54: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{{\langle#1|#2\rangle}}

55: \newcommand{\ketbra}[2]{| #1 \rangle\langle #2 |}

56: 

57: 

58: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

59: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

60: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

61: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

62: \newcommand{\h}[1]{\mathcal{H}_{#1} }

63: \newcommand{\tr}{\textrm{tr}}

64: \renewcommand{\sp}{\textrm{span}}

65: \newcommand{\poly}{\textrm{poly}}

66: \newcommand{\proj}{\textrm{proj}}

67: \newcommand{\rank}{\textrm{rank}}

68: \newcommand{\W}{\mathcal{W}}

69: \newcommand{\id}{\mathbf{I}}

70: \def\opone{\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\kern-3.8pt\normalsize1}}

71: 

72: %some definitions to make life easier for the Separation from Optimization paper

73: \newcommand{\w}{\omega}

74: \newcommand{\grad}{\nabla}

75: \newcommand{\hess}{\nabla^2}

76: \renewcommand{\d}{\mathrm{d}}

77: \renewcommand{\a}{\mathrm{a}}

78: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}

79: \newcommand{\hessfw}{\hess F(\w)}

80: \newcommand{\hessfx}{\hess F(x)}

81: \newcommand{\hessfz}{\hess F(z)}

82: 

83: 

84: 

85: 

86: \newcommand{\p}{\rho}

87: %from thesis

88: %to homogenise notation

89: 

90: %Hilbert spaces

91: \newcommand{\hilba}{\mathcal{H}_A}

92: \newcommand{\hilbb}{\mathcal{H}_B}

93: \newcommand{\hilbab}{\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B}

94: 

95: %dimensions

96: \newcommand{\dima}{M}

97: \newcommand{\dimb}{N}

98: 

99: %bounded ops

100: \newcommand{\bddops}[1]{\mathcal{B}(#1)}

101: 

102: %Hermitian ops

103: \newcommand{\hermops}{\mathbf{H}_{\dima, \dimb}}

104: \newcommand{\hermopsa}{\mathbf{H}_{\dima}}

105: \newcommand{\hermopsb}{\mathbf{H}_{\dimb}}

106: 

107: 

108: %density operators

109: 

110: \newcommand{\densops}{\mathcal{D}_{\dima,\dimb}}

111: \newcommand{\densopsgen}[1]{\mathcal{D}(#1)}

112: \newcommand{\sep}{\mathcal{S}_{\dima, \dimb}}

113: \newcommand{\ent}{\mathcal{E}_{\dima, \dimb}}

114: \newcommand{\CMotimesCN}{\mathbf{C}^{\dima}\otimes\mathbf{C}^{\dimb}}

115: 

116: 

117: 

118: %convexity

119: \newcommand{\conv}{\mathrm{conv}}

120: 

121: %\n

122: \newcommand{\n}{\dima^2\dimb^2}

123: 

124: %labels for subsystems

125: \newcommand{\A}{\mathrm{A}}

126: \newcommand{\B}{\mathrm{B}}

127: 

128: %sets of instances

129: \newcommand{\D}{\mathrm{D}}

130: \newcommand{\Y}{\mathrm{Y}}

131: \newcommand{\No}{\mathrm{N}}

132: 

133: 

134: 

135: 

136: 

137: %complexity classes

138: \renewcommand{\P}{\mathrm{P}}

139: \newcommand{\NP}{\mathrm{NP}}

140: \newcommand{\coNP}{\mathrm{co-NP}}

141: \newcommand{\NPCK}{\mathrm{NPC_\K}}

142: \newcommand{\NPCT}{\mathrm{NPC_\T}}

143: 

144: %Karp and Turing

145: \newcommand{\K}{\mathrm{K}}

146: \newcommand{\T}{\mathrm{T}}

147: 

148: %row and col

149: \newcommand{\row}{\mathrm{row}}

150: \newcommand{\col}{\mathrm{col}}

151: 

152: %n choose k (binomial coefficient)

153: \newcommand{\nchoosek}[2]{\left(\! \begin{array}{c}#1\\#2\end{array}\! \right)}

154: 

155: %special S

156: \renewcommand{\S}{\mathcal{S}}

157: 

158: %absolute error for Perez-Garcia algorithm

159: \newcommand{\Abs}{\mathrm{Abs}}

160: \newcommand{\M}{\mathrm{Max}}

161: 

162: %short forms for oracles/subroutines

163: \newcommand{\OSOPT}{\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{SOPT}}}

164: \newcommand{\OWOPT}{\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{WOPT}}}

165: \newcommand{\OSSEP}{\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{SSEP}}}

166: 

167: \newcommand{\OSOPTK}{\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{SOPT}(K)}}

168: \newcommand{\OWOPTK}{\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{WOPT}(K)}}

169: 

170: \newcommand{\OSSEPKprime}{\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{SSEP}(K')}}

171: \newcommand{\OSSEPKstar}{\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{SSEP}(K^\star)}}

172: \newcommand{\OSSEPQp}{\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{SSEP}(Q_p)}}

173: 

174: %%%%%%%%%%%

175: %%%%%%%%%%%

176: 

177: 

178: 

179: \textwidth=5.6truein

180: \textheight=8.0truein

181: 

182: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}  %use symbolic footnote

183: 

184: %%%%%%% starting the text file

185: 

186: \begin{document}

187: \setlength{\textheight}{8.0truein}    %FOR 2ND PAGE ONWARDS

188: 

189: \runninghead{COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY OF THE QUANTUM SEPARABILITY

190: PROBLEM}% $\ldots$}

191:             {LAWRENCE M. IOANNOU}% $\ldots$}

192: 

193: \normalsize\textlineskip

194: \thispagestyle{empty}

195: \setcounter{page}{1}

196: 

197: %\copyrightheading{Vol.}{No.}{Year}{Page Nos.}

198: \copyrightheading{0}{0}{2003}{000--000}

199: 

200: \vspace*{0.88truein}

201: 

202: \alphfootnote

203: 

204: \fpage{1}

205: 

206: \centerline{\bf

207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

208: %Put in titiles here

209: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

210: COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY OF} \vspace*{0.035truein} \centerline{\bf

211: THE QUANTUM SEPARABILITY PROBLEM} \vspace*{0.37truein}

212: \centerline{\footnotesize

213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

214: %put authors' name and address here

215: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

216: LAWRENCE M. IOANNOU} \vspace*{0.015truein}

217: \centerline{\footnotesize\it Department of Applied Mathematics and

218: Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road}

219: \baselineskip=10pt \centerline{\footnotesize\it Cambridge,

220: Cambridgeshire, CB3 0WA, United Kingdom}

221: %\vspace*{10pt}

222: %\centerline{\footnotesize SECOND AUTHOR} \vspace*{0.015truein}

223: %\centerline{\footnotesize\it Group, Laboratory, Address}

224: %\baselineskip=10pt \centerline{\footnotesize\it City, State

225: %ZIP/Zone, Country}

226: \vspace*{0.225truein} \publisher{(received

227: date)}{(revised date)}

228: 

229: \vspace*{0.21truein}

230: 

231: %% \abstracts{first paragraph}{second paragraph}{third paragraph}

232: %% If there is only one paragraph, just keep the second and third empty

233: %% like the following one

234: \abstracts{

235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

236: % put abstract here

237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

238: Ever since entanglement was identified as a computational and

239: cryptographic resource, researchers have sought efficient ways to

240: tell whether a given density matrix represents an unentangled, or

241: \emph{separable}, state.  This paper gives the first systematic and

242: comprehensive treatment of this (bipartite) quantum separability

243: problem, focusing on its deterministic (as opposed to randomized)

244: computational complexity.  First, I review the one-sided tests for

245: separability, paying particular attention to the semidefinite

246: programming methods.  Then, I discuss various ways of formulating

247: the quantum separability problem, from exact to approximate

248: formulations, the latter of which are the paper's main focus. I then

249: give a thorough treatment of the problem's relationship with the

250: complexity classes NP, NP-complete, and co-NP.  I also discuss

251: extensions of Gurvits' NP-hardness result to strong NP-hardness of

252: certain related problems.  A major open question is whether the

253: NP-contained formulation (QSEP) of the quantum separability problem

254: is Karp-NP-complete; QSEP may be the first natural example of a

255: problem that is Turing-NP-complete but not Karp-NP-complete.

256: Finally, I survey all the proposed (deterministic) algorithms for

257: the quantum separability problem, including the bounded search for

258: symmetric extensions (via semidefinite programming), based on the

259: recent quantum de Finetti theorem \cite{DPS02,DPS04,qphCKMR06}; and

260: the entanglement-witness search (via interior-point algorithms and

261: global optimization) \cite{ITCE04,IT06}. These two algorithms have

262: the lowest complexity, with the latter being the best under advice

263: of asymptotically optimal point-coverings of the sphere.

264:  }{}{}

265: 

266: \vspace*{10pt}

267: 

268: \keywords{The contents of the keywords}

269: \vspace*{3pt}

270: \communicate{to be filled by the Editorial}

271: 

272: \vspace*{1pt}\textlineskip    %) USE THIS MEASUREMENT WHEN THERE IS

273:    %) A SECTION HEADING

274: %\vspace*{-0.5pt}

275: %\noindent

276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

277: %put the text of the paper here

278: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

279: 

280: \section{Introduction}\label{ChapterIntro}

281: 

282: 

283: %The is represented mathematically by a complex unit-vector

284: %$\ket{\psi}\in\mathbf{C}^d$, where the ``global phase'' of

285: %$\ket{\psi}$ is irrelevant; that is, for any real $\phi$,

286: %$e^{i\phi}\ket{\psi}$ represents the same physical state as

287: %$\ket{\psi}$.

288: If a $d$-dimensional quantum physical system can be physically

289: partitioned into two subsystems (denoted by superscripts $\A$ and

290: $\B$) of dimensions $\dima$ and $\dimb$, such that $d=\dima\dimb$,

291: then the pure state $\ket{\psi}$ of this total system may be

292: $\emph{separable}$, which means

293: $\ket{\psi}=\ket{\psi^{\A}}\otimes\ket{\psi^\B}$, for

294: $\ket{\psi^\A}\in\mathbf{C}^\dima$ and

295: $\ket{\psi^\B}\in\mathbf{C}^\dimb$ and where ``$\otimes$'' denotes

296: the Kronecker (tensor) product. Without loss of generality, assume

297: $\dima\leq \dimb$ (except in Section

298: \ref{subsubsec_StrongNPHness}).  If $\ket{\psi}$ is not separable,

299: then it is \emph{entangled} (with respect to that particular

300: partition).

301: 

302: Denote  by $\densopsgen{V}$ the set of all density operators

303: mapping complex vector space $V$ to itself; let

304: $\densops:=\densopsgen{\CMotimesCN}$. The \emph{maximally mixed

305: state} is $I_{\dima,\dimb}:=I/\dima\dimb$, where $I$ denotes the

306: identity operator.  %A density operator $\rho$ satisfies $0\leq

307: %\tr(\rho^2)\leq 1$ and represents a pure state if and only if

308: %$\tr(\rho^2)=1$.

309: A pure state $\ket{\psi}$ is separable if and only if

310: $\tr_\B(\ketbra{\psi}{\psi})$ is a pure state, where ``$\tr_\B$''

311: denotes the partial trace with respect to subsystem $\B$; a pure

312: state is called \emph{maximally entangled} if

313: $\tr_\B(\ketbra{\psi}{\psi})$ is the maximally mixed state

314: $I/\dima$ in the space of density operators on the $\A$-subsystem

315: $\densopsgen{\mathbf{C}^\dima}$. Thus, the mixedness of

316: $\tr_\B(\ketbra{\psi}{\psi})$ is some ``measure'' of the

317: entanglement of $\ket{\psi}$.

318: %(see Section

319: %\ref{subsec_EntanglementMeasures}).

320: 

321: 

322: A mixed state $\rho\in\densops$ is \emph{separable} if and only if

323: it may be written $\rho=\sum_{i=1}^k p_i\rho^\A_i\otimes\rho^\B_i$

324: with $p_i\geq 0$ and $\sum_ip_i=1$, and where

325: $\rho^\A_i\in\densopsgen{\mathbf{C}^\dima}$ is a (mixed or pure)

326: state of the $A$-subsystem (and similarly for

327: $\rho^\B_i\in\densopsgen{\mathbf{C}^\dimb}$); when $k=1$, $\rho$

328: is a \emph{product state}. Let $\sep\subset\densops$ denote the

329: separable states; let $\ent:=\densops\setminus\sep$ denote the

330: entangled states.  The following fact will be used several times

331: throughout this work: \vspace*{12pt}

332: \begin{fact}[\cite{Hor97}]\label{fact_FiniteDecompOfSepState}  If $\sigma\in\sep$, then $\sigma$ may be written as

333: a convex combination of $\n$ pure product states, that is,

334: \begin{eqnarray}

335: \sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{\n}p_i

336: \ketbra{\psi^\A_i}{\psi^\A_i}\otimes\ketbra{\psi^\B_i}{\psi^\B_i},

337: \end{eqnarray}

338: where $\sum_{i=1}^{\n}p_i=1$ and $0\leq p_i\leq 1$ for all

339: $i=1,2,\ldots,\n$.

340: \end{fact}

341: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent Recall that a set of points

342: $\{x_1,\ldots,x_j\}\subset\mathbf{R}^n$ is \emph{affinely

343: independent} if and only if the set

344: $\{x_2-x_1,x_3-x_1,\ldots,x_j-x_1\}$ is linearly independent in

345: $\mathbf{R}^n$.  Recall also that the \emph{dimension} of

346: $X\subset\mathbf{R}^n$ is defined as the size of the largest

347: affinely-independent subset of $X$ minus 1.  Fact

348: \ref{fact_FiniteDecompOfSepState} is based on the well-known

349: theorem of Carath{\'{e}}odory that any point in a compact convex

350: set $X\subset\mathbf{R}^n$ of dimension $k$ can be written as a

351: convex combination of $k+1$ affinely-independent extreme points of

352: $X$.

353: 

354: 

355: %Thus, the set of

356: %all separable mixed states $\sep$ is simply the convex hull of the

357: %set of pure separable states.  By the isomorphism above,

358: %$S_{N_A,N_B}$ is a convex subset of $\mathbf{R}^n$ where, in this

359: %case, $n=N_A^2N_B^2-1$.

360: %In preparing physical systems in the laboratory for use in quantum

361: %information processing, usually only mixed states can be achieved

362: %due to uncontrollable physical factors.

363: \vspace*{12pt}

364: \begin{definition}[Formal quantum separability problem]\label{def_FormalQuSep} Let $\rho\in\densops$ be a mixed state.  Given the

365: matrix\footnote{We do not yet define how the entries of this

366: matrix are encoded; at this point, we assume all entries have some

367: finite representation (e.g. ``$\sqrt{2}$'') and that the

368: computations on this matrix can be done exactly.}~ $[\rho]$ (with

369: respect to the standard basis of

370: $\mathbf{C}^\dima\otimes\mathbf{C}^\dimb$) representing $\rho$,

371: decide whether $\rho$ is separable.

372: \end{definition}

373: \vspace*{12pt}

374: 

375: 

376: 

377: 

378: \subsection{One-sided tests and

379: restrictions}\label{sec_OneSidedTestsAndRestrictions}

380: 

381: 

382: Shortly after the importance of the quantum separability problem was

383: recognized in the quantum information community, efforts were made

384: to solve it reasonably efficiently.  In this vein, many one-sided

385: tests have been discovered. A \emph{one-sided test (for

386: separability)} is a computational procedure (with input $[\rho]$)

387: whose output can only ever imply \emph{one} of the following (with

388: certainty):

389: \begin{itemize}\item $\rho$ is

390: entangled (in the case of a \emph{necessary test})\item $\rho$ is

391: separable (in the case of a \emph{sufficient test}).

392: \end{itemize}

393: 

394: There have been many good articles (e.g. \cite{Bru02, Ter02,

395: qphSSLS05}) which review the one-sided (necessary) tests. As this

396: work is concerned with algorithms that are both necessary and

397: sufficient tests for separability for all $\dima$ and $\dimb$ --

398: and whose computer-implementations have a hope of being useful in

399: low dimensions -- I only review in detail the one-sided tests

400: which give rise to such algorithms (see Section

401: \ref{sec_OneSidedTestsOnSDP}).  But here is a list of popular

402: conditions on $\rho$ giving rise to efficient one-sided tests for

403: finite-dimensional bipartite separability:

404: 

405: \vspace{3mm}

406: 

407: \noindent\textbf{Necessary conditions for $\rho$ to be separable}

408: \begin{itemize}

409: 

410: \item PPT test \cite{Per96}: $\rho^{T_\B}\geq 0$, where ``$T_\B$''

411: denotes partial transposition

412: 

413: \item Reduction criterion \cite{HH99}: $\rho^\A\otimes I-\rho \geq

414: 0$ and $I\otimes\rho^\B-\rho \geq 0$, where $\rho_\A :=

415: \tr_\B(\rho)$ and ``$\tr_\B$'' denotes partial trace (and

416: similarly for $\rho_\B$)

417: 

418: \item Entropic criterion for $\alpha=2$ and in the limit

419: $\alpha\rightarrow 1$ \cite{HHH96a}: $S_\alpha (\rho)\geq\max

420: \{S_\alpha (\rho_\A),S_\alpha (\rho_\B)\}$; where, for $\alpha>1$,

421: $S_\alpha(\rho):=\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\textrm{ln}(\tr(\rho^\alpha))$

422: %is the quantum analogue of the ``R\'{e}nyi $\alpha$-entropy''

423: 

424: \item Majorization criterion \cite{NK01}: $\lambda_\rho^\downarrow

425: \prec \lambda_{\rho^\A}^\downarrow$ and $\lambda_\rho^\downarrow

426: \prec \lambda_{\rho^\B}^\downarrow$, where

427: $\lambda_\tau^\downarrow$ is the list of eigenvalues of $\tau$ in

428: nonincreasing order (padded with zeros if necessary), and $x\prec

429: y$ for two lists of size $s$ if and only if the sum of the first

430: $k$ elements of list $x$ is less than or equal to that of list $y$

431: for $k=1,2,...,s$; the majorization condition implies

432: $\max\{\rank(\rho^\A), \rank(\rho^\B)\}\leq \rank(\rho)$.

433: 

434: \item Computable cross-norm/reshuffling criterion

435: \cite{qphRud02,CW03}: $||\mathcal{U}(\rho)||_1\leq 1$, where

436: $||X||_1:=\tr(\sqrt{X^\dagger X})$ is the trace norm; and

437: $\mathcal{U}(\rho)$, an $\dima^2\times\dimb^2$ matrix, is defined

438: on product states as $\mathcal{U}(A\otimes B):=v(A)v(B)^T$, where,

439: relative to a fixed basis,

440: $[v(A)]=(\col_1([A])^T,\ldots,\col_\dima([A])^T)^T$ (and similarly

441: for $v(B)$), where $\col_i([A])$ is the $i$th column of matrix

442: $[A]$; more generally \cite{qphHHH02}, any linear map

443: $\mathcal{U}$ that does not increase the trace norm of product

444: states may be used.

445: 

446: \end{itemize}

447: 

448: \noindent\textbf{Sufficient conditions for $\rho$ to be separable}

449: \begin{itemize}

450: 

451: \item Distance from maximally mixed state (see also

452: \cite{BCJLPS99}):

453: 

454: \begin{itemize}\item \cite{GB02}: e.g. $\tr(\rho - I_{\dima,

455: \dimb})^2\leq1/\dima\dimb(\dima\dimb-1)$\end{itemize}

456: 

457: \begin{itemize}\item \cite{ZHSL98,VT99} $\lambda_{\min}(\rho)\geq

458: (2+\dima\dimb)^{-1}$, where $\lambda_{\min}(\rho)$ denotes the

459: smallest eigenvalue of $\rho$\end{itemize}

460: 

461: \item When $\dima=2$ \cite{KCKL00}: $\rho=\rho^{T_A}$.

462: \end{itemize}

463: 

464: 

465: When $\rho$ is of a particular form, the PPT test is necessary and

466: sufficient for separability. This happens when

467: \begin{itemize}

468: \item $\dima\dimb \leq 6$ \cite{HHH96}; or

469: 

470: \item $\rank(\rho)\leq \dimb$ \cite{KCKL00,HLVC00}, see also

471: \cite{AFG01}.

472: \end{itemize}

473: 

474: The criteria not based on eigenvalues are obviously efficiently

475: computable; i.e. computing the natural logarithm can be done with

476: a truncated Taylor series, and the rank can be computed by

477: Gaussian elimination. That the tests based on the remaining

478: criteria are efficiently computable follows from the efficiency of

479: algorithms for calculating the spectrum of a Hermitian operator.

480: The method of choice for computing the entire spectra is the QR

481: algorithm (see any of \cite{WR71, GL96, SB02}), which has been

482: shown to have good convergence properties \cite{Wil68}.

483: %Wilkinson tome (power method): \cite{Wil65}

484: %Handbook for automatic comp.: \cite{WR71}

485: %intro to numerical analysis \cite{SB02}

486: %proof of quadratic convergence QR: \cite{Wil68}

487: 

488: 

489: In a series of articles (\cite{LS98}, \cite{KCKL00},

490: \cite{HLVC00}), various conditions for separability were obtained

491: which involve product vectors in the ranges of $\rho$ and

492: $\rho^{T_A}$. Any constructive separability checks given therein

493: involve computing these product vectors, but no general bounds

494: were obtained by the authors on the complexity of such

495: computations.

496: 

497: 

498: 

499: 

500: 

501: 

502: \subsection{One-sided tests based on semidefinite

503: programming}\label{sec_OneSidedTestsOnSDP}

504: 

505: %maybe move these two paragraphs to Chapter 2...

506: Let $\hermops$ denote the set of all Hermitian operators mapping

507: $\mathbf{C}^\dima\otimes\mathbf{C}^\dimb$ to

508: $\mathbf{C}^\dima\otimes\mathbf{C}^\dimb$; thus,

509: $\densops\subset\hermops$. This vector space is endowed with the

510: Hilbert-Schmidt inner product $\langle X, Y \rangle\equiv

511: \tr(AB)$, which induces the corresponding norm

512: $||X||\equiv\sqrt{\tr(X^2)}$ and distance measure $||X-Y||$. By

513: fixing an orthogonal Hermitian basis for $\hermops$, the elements

514: of $\hermops$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the elements

515: of the real Euclidean space $\mathbf{R}^{\n}$.  If the Hermitian

516: basis is orthonormal, then the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product in

517: $\hermops$ corresponds exactly to the Euclidean dot product in

518: $\mathbf{R}^{\n}$.

519: 

520: Let us be more precise.  Let

521: $\mathcal{B}=\{X_i:i=0,1,\ldots,\n-1\}$ be an orthonormal,

522: Hermitian basis for $\mathbf{H}_{M,N}$, where

523: $X_0\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{MN}}I$. For concreteness, we can assume

524: that the elements of $\mathcal{B}$ are tensor-products of the

525: (suitably normalized) canonical generators of SU(M) and SU(N),

526: given e.g. in \cite{TNWM02}. Note $\tr(X_i)=0$ for all $i>0$.

527: Define $v:\hermops\rightarrow \mathbf{R}^{\dima^2\dimb^2-1}$ as

528: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_MappingFromHermopsToRealVecs}

529: v(A):=\begin{bmatrix} \tr(X_1 A) \\ \tr(X_2 A) \\

530: \vdots \\ \tr(X_{\dima^2\dimb^2-1} A)\end{bmatrix}.

531: \end{eqnarray}

532: Via the mapping $v$, the set of separable states $\sep$ can be

533: viewed as a full-dimensional convex subset of

534: $\mathbf{R}^{\dima^2\dimb^2-1}$

535: \begin{eqnarray}

536: \{v(\sigma)\in \mathbf{R}^{\dima^2\dimb^2-1}: \sigma\in\sep\},

537: \end{eqnarray}

538: which properly contains the origin

539: $v(I_{\dima,\dimb})=\overline{0}\in\mathbf{R}^{\dima^2\dimb^2-1}$

540: (recall that there is a ball of separable states of nonzero radius

541: centred at the maximally mixed state $I_{\dima,\dimb}$).

542: 

543: Thus $\densops$ and $\sep$ may be viewed as subsets of the Euclidean

544: space $\mathbf{R}^{\n}$; actually, because all density operators

545: have unit trace, $\densops$ and $\sep$ are full-dimensional subsets

546: of $\mathbf{R}^{\n-1}$.  This observation aids in solving the

547: quantum separability problem, allowing us to apply easily

548: well-studied mathematical-programming tools. The following is from

549: the popular review article of semidefinite programming in

550: \cite{VB96}. \vspace*{12pt}

551: \begin{definition}[Semidefinite program (SDP)] Given the

552: vector $c\in\mathbf{R}^m$ and Hermitian matrices

553: $F_i\in\mathbf{C}^{n\times n}$, $i=0,1,\ldots,m$,

554: \begin{eqnarray}

555: &\textrm{minimize} \hspace{2mm}& c^Tx\\

556: &\textrm{subject to:}\hspace{2mm}& F(x)\geq 0,

557: \end{eqnarray}

558: where $F(x):= F_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{m}x_iF_i$.

559: \end{definition}

560: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent Call $x$ \emph{feasible} when $F(x)\geq

561: 0$. When $c=0$, the SDP reduces to the \emph{semidefinite

562: feasibility problem}, which is to find an $x$ such that $F(x)\geq

563: 0$ or assert that no such $x$ exists. Semidefinite programs can be

564: solved efficiently, in time $O(m^2n^{2.5})$.  Most algorithms are

565: iterative.  Each iteration can be performed in time $O(m^2n^{2})$.

566: The number of required iterations has an analytical bound of

567: $O(\sqrt{n})$, but in practice is more like $O(\log(n))$ or

568: constant.

569: 

570: 

571: 

572: \subsubsection{A test based on symmetric

573: extensions}\label{sec_DohertyEtalApproach}

574: 

575: Consider a separable state

576: %\begin{eqnarray}

577: $\sigma=\sum_i p_i

578: \ketbra{\psi^\A_i}{\psi^\A_i}\otimes\ketbra{\psi^\B_i}{\psi^\B_i}$,

579: %\end{eqnarray}

580: and consider the following \emph{symmetric extension of $\sigma$

581: to $k$ copies of subsystem $\A$} ($k\geq 2$):

582: \begin{eqnarray}

583: \tilde{\sigma}_k=\sum_i p_i

584: (\ketbra{\psi^\A_i}{\psi^\A_i})^{\otimes

585: k}\otimes\ketbra{\psi^\B_i}{\psi^\B_i}.

586: \end{eqnarray}

587: \noindent The state $\tilde{\sigma}_k$ is so called because it

588: satisfies two properties: (i) it is symmetric (unchanged) under

589: permutations (swaps) of any two copies of subsystem $\A$; and (ii)

590: it is an extension of $\sigma$ in that tracing out any of its

591: $(k-1)$ copies of subsystem $\A$ gives back $\sigma$.  For an

592: arbitrary density operator $\rho\in\densopsgen{\CMotimesCN}$,

593: define a \emph{symmetric extension of $\rho$ to $k$ copies of

594: subsystem $\A$} as any density operator

595: $\rho'\in\densopsgen{(\mathbf{C}^\dima)^{\otimes

596: k}\otimes\mathbf{C}^\dimb}$ that satisfies (i) and (ii) with

597: $\rho$ in place of $\sigma$. If $\rho$ does not have a symmetric

598: extension to $k_0$ copies of subsystem $\A$ for some $k_0$, then

599: $\rho\notin\sep$ (else we could construct $\tilde{\rho}_{k_0}$).

600: Thus a method for searching for symmetric extensions of $\rho$ to

601: $k$ copies of subsystem $\A$ gives a sufficient test for

602: separability.

603: 

604: Doherty et al.\ \cite{DPS02, DPS04} showed that the search for a

605: symmetric extension to $k$ copies of $\rho$ (for any fixed $k$)

606: can be phrased as a SDP\@. This result, combined with the

607: ``quantum de Finetti theorem'' \cite{FLV88, CFS02} that

608: $\rho\in\sep$ if and only if, for all $k$, $\rho$ has a symmetric

609: extension to $k$ copies of subsystem $\A$, gives an infinite

610: hierarchy (indexed by $k=2,3,\ldots$) of SDPs with the property

611: that, for each entangled state $\rho$, there exists a SDP in the

612: hierarchy whose solution will imply that $\rho$ is entangled.

613: 

614: Actually, Doherty et al.\ develop a stronger test, inspired by

615: Peres' PPT test.  The state $\tilde{\sigma}_k$, which is positive

616: semidefinite, satisfies a third property: (iii) it remains

617: positive semidefinite under all possible partial transpositions.

618: Thus $\tilde{\sigma}_k$ is more precisely called a \emph{PPT

619: symmetric extension}.  The SDP can be easily modified to perform a

620: search for PPT symmetric extensions without any significant

621: increase in computational complexity (one just needs to add

622: constraints that force the partial transpositions to be positive

623: semidefinite). This strengthens the separability test, because a

624: given (entangled) state $\rho$ may have a symmetric extension to

625: $k_0$ copies of subsystem $\A$ but may not have a PPT symmetric

626: extension to $k_0$ copies of subsystem $\A$ (Doherty et al.\ also

627: show that the $(k+1)$st test in this stronger hierarchy subsumes

628: the $k$th test).

629: 

630: The final SDP has the following form:

631: \begin{equation}\label{prob_DohertyEtalSDP}

632: \begin{array}{rlrcl}

633: &\textrm{minimize} \hspace{2mm} & 0 && \\

634: &\textrm{subject to:}\hspace{2mm}& \tilde{X}_k &\geq& 0  \\

635: &\hspace{2mm}&  (\tilde{X}_k)^{T_j}&\geq&0,\hspace{2mm} j\in J,

636: \end{array}

637: \end{equation}

638: where $\tilde{X}_k$ is a parametrization of a symmetric extension

639: of $\rho$ to $k$ copies of subsystem $\A$, and $J$ is the set of

640: all subsets of the $(k+1)$ subsystems that give rise to

641: inequivalent partial transposes $(\tilde{X}_k)^{T_j}$ of

642: $\tilde{X}_k$.  By noting that we can restrict our search to

643: so-called \emph{Bose-symmetric extensions}, where $(I\otimes

644: P)\rho'=\rho'$ for all $k!$ permutations $P$ of the $k$ copies of

645: subsystem $\A$ (as opposed to just extensions where $(I\otimes

646: P)\rho'(I\otimes P^\dagger)=\rho'$ for all permutations $P$), the

647: number of variables of the SDP is

648: $m=((d_{S_k})^2-\dima^2)\dimb^2$, where $d_{S_k}$=

649: %\begin{pmatrix}

650: %\textrm{choose}(\dima+k-1, %\\

651: %k) %\end{pmatrix}

652: ${\dima+k-1} \choose k$ is the dimension of the symmetric subspace

653: of $(\mathbf{C}^\dima)^{\otimes k}$.  The size of the matrix

654: $\tilde{X}_k$ for the first constraint is $(d_{S_k})^2\dimb^2$.

655: The number of inequivalent partial transpositions is

656: $|J|=k$.\footnote{Choices are: transpose subsystem $\B$, transpose

657: 1 copy of subsystem $\A$, transpose 2 copies of subsystem $\A$,

658: ..., transpose $k-1$ copies of subsystem $\A$. Transposing all $k$

659: copies of subsystem $\A$ is equivalent to transposing subsystem

660: $\B$.  Transposing with respect to both subsystem $\B$ and $l$

661: copies of subsystem $\A$ is equivalent to transposing with respect

662: to $k-l$ copies of subsystem $\A$.}~~ The constraint corresponding

663: to the transposition of $l$ copies of $\A$, $l=1,2,...,k-1$, has a

664: matrix of size $(d_{S_l})^2(d_{S_{(k-l)}})^2\dimb^2$ \cite{DPS04}.

665: I will estimate the total complexity of this approach to the

666: quantum separability problem in Section

667: \ref{sec_DohertyEtalKonigRenner}.

668: 

669: %In \cite{Rud03}, it is noted that the same idea can be applied to

670: %the computable cross-norm criterion.

671: 

672: \subsubsection{A test based on semidefinite

673: relaxations}\label{subsec_EisertsEtalApproach}

674: 

675: Doherty et al.\ formulate a \emph{hierarchy of necessary criteria}

676: for separability in terms of semidefinite programming -- each

677: separability criterion in the hierarchy may be checked by a SDP\@.

678: As it stands, their approach is manifestly a one-sided test for

679: separability, in that at no point in the hierarchy can one

680: conclude that the given $[\rho]$ corresponds to a separable state

681: (happily, recent results show that, for sufficiently large $k$,

682: the symmetric-extension test is a complete approximate

683: separability test; see Section \ref{sec_DohertyEtalKonigRenner}).

684: 

685: Eisert et al. \cite{EHGC04} formulate a \emph{necessary and

686: sufficient criterion} for separability as a hierarchy of SDPs.

687: Define the function

688: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_DefnOfQuasiRelEntropy}

689: E_{d^2_2}(\rho) := \min_{x\in\sep} \tr((\rho - x)^2)

690: \end{eqnarray}

691: for $\rho\in\densops$.  As $\tr((\rho - x)^2)$ is the square of

692: the Euclidean distance from $\rho$ to $x$, $\rho$ is separable if

693: and only if $E_{d^2_2}(\rho)=0$.  The problem of computing

694: $E_{d^2_2}(\rho)$ (to check whether it is zero) is already

695: formulated as a constrained optimization. The following

696: observation helps to rewrite these constraints as low-degree

697: polynomials in the variables of the problem: \vspace*{12pt}

698: \begin{fact}[\cite{EHGC04}]\label{fact_EisertPurityFact}

699: Let $O$ be a Hermitian operator and let $\alpha\in\mathbf{R}$

700: satisfy $0<\alpha\leq 1$.  If $\tr(O^2)=\alpha^2$ and

701: $\tr(O^3)=\alpha^3$, then $\tr(O)=\alpha$ and $\rank(O)=1$ (i.e.

702: $O$ corresponds to an unnormalized pure state).

703: \end{fact}\vspace*{12pt}

704: \noindent Combining Fact \ref{fact_EisertPurityFact} with Fact

705: \ref{fact_FiniteDecompOfSepState}, the problem is equivalent to

706: \begin{equation}\label{prob_EisertsQSEP}

707: \begin{array}{rlrcl}

708: &\textrm{minimize} \hspace{2mm} & \tr((\rho - \sum_{i=1}^{\n}X_{i})^2) && \\

709: &\textrm{subject to:     }\hspace{10mm}& \tr(\sum_{i=1}^{\n}X_{i}) &=& 1  \\

710: %&\hspace{2mm}& X &=&\sum_{i=1}^{\n}X_{i}  \\

711: %&\hspace{2mm}& \tr(\sum_{i=1}^{\n}X_{i}) &=& 1  \\

712: &\hspace{2mm}& \tr((\tr_{j}(X_{i}))^2)&=& (\tr(X_i))^2,\hspace{2mm}\\

713: &&&&\textrm{for $i=1,2,\ldots,\n$ and $j\in\{\A,\B\}$}  \\

714: &\hspace{2mm}& \tr((\tr_{j}(X_{i}))^3)&=& (\tr(X_i))^3,\hspace{2mm}\\

715: &&&&\textrm{for $i=1,2,\ldots,\n$ and $j\in\{\A,\B\}$},

716: \end{array}

717: \end{equation}

718: where the new variables are Hermitian matrices $X_{i}$ for

719: $i=1,2,\ldots,\n$.  The constraints do \emph{not} require $X_{i}$

720: to be tensor products of \emph{unit-trace} pure density operators,

721: because the positive coefficients (probabilities summing to 1)

722: that would normally appear in the expression

723: $\sum_{i=1}^{\n}X_{i}$ are absorbed into the $X_{i}$, in order to

724: have fewer variables (i.e. the $X_i$ are constrained to be density

725: operators corresponding to unnormalized pure product states). Once

726: an appropriate Hermitian basis is chosen for $\hermops$, the

727: matrices $X_{i}$ can be parametrized by the real coefficients with

728: respect to the basis; these coefficients form the real variables

729: of the feasibility problem. The constraints in

730: (\ref{prob_EisertsQSEP}) are polynomials in these variables of

731: degree less than or equal to 3.\footnote{Alternatively, we could

732: parametrize the pure states (composing $X_i$) in

733: $\mathbf{C}^\dima$ and $\mathbf{C}^\dimb$ by the real and

734: imaginary parts of rectangularly-represented complex coefficients

735: with respect to the standard bases of $\mathbf{C}^\dima$ and

736: $\mathbf{C}^\dimb$:

737: \begin{equation}\label{prob_EisertsQSEPStandardBasis}

738: \begin{array}{rlrcl}

739: &\textrm{minimize} \hspace{2mm} & 0 && \\

740: &\textrm{subject to:     }\hspace{10mm}& \tr((\rho - \sum_{i=1}^{\n}\ketbra{\psi^{\A}_i}{\psi^{\A}_i}\otimes\ketbra{\psi^{\B}_i}{\psi^{\B}_i})^2)&=& 0  \\

741: %&\hspace{2mm}& X &=&\sum_{i=1}^{\n}X_{i}  \\

742: &\hspace{2mm}& \tr\left(\sum_{i=1}^{\n}\ketbra{\psi^{\A}_i}{\psi^{\A}_i}\otimes\ketbra{\psi^{\B}_i}{\psi^{\B}_i}\right)  &=& 1.  \\

743: \end{array}

744: \end{equation}

745: This parametrization hard-wires the constraint that the

746: $\ketbra{\psi^{\A}_i}{\psi^{\A}_i}\otimes\ketbra{\psi^{\B}_i}{\psi^{\B}_i}$

747: are (unnormalized) pure product states, but increases the degree

748: of the polynomials in the constraint to 4 (for the unit trace

749: constraint) and 8 (for the distance constraint).}

750: 

751: Polynomially-constrained optimization problems can be approximated

752: by, or \emph{relaxed} to, semidefinite programs, via a number of

753: different approaches (see references in

754: \cite{EHGC04}).\footnote{For our purposes, the idea of a

755: relaxation can be briefly described as follows. The given problem

756: is to solve $\min_{x\in\mathbf{R}^n}\{p(x):\hspace{1mm}g_k(x)\geq

757: 0, k=1,\ldots,m\}$, where

758: $p(x),g_i(x):\hspace{1mm}\mathbf{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbf{R}$ are

759: real-valued polynomials in $\mathbf{R}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$.  By

760: introducing new variables corresponding to products of the given

761: variables (the number of these new variables depends on the

762: maximum degree of the polynomials $p,g_i$), we can make the

763: objective function linear in the new variables; for example, when

764: $n=2$ and the maximum degree is 3, if

765: $p(x)=3x_1+2x_1x_2+4x_1x_2^2$ then the objective function is

766: $c^Ty$ with $c=(0,3,0,0,2,0,0,0,4,0)\in\mathbf{R}^{10}$ and

767: $y\in\mathbf{R}^{10}$, where $10$ is the total number of monomials

768: in $\mathbf{R}[x_1,x_2]$ of degree less than or equal to 3. Each

769: polynomial defining the feasible set

770: $G:=\{x\in\mathbf{R}^n:\hspace{1mm}g_k(x)\geq 0, k=1,\ldots,m\}$

771: can be viewed similarly.  A relaxation of the original problem is

772: a SDP with objective function $c^Ty$ and with a (convex) feasible

773: region (in a higher-dimensional space) whose projection onto the

774: original space $\mathbf{R}^n$ approximates $G$. Better

775: approximations to $G$ can be obtained by going to higher

776: dimensions.}~ Some approaches even give an asymptotically complete

777: hierarchy of SDPs, indexed on, say, $i=1,2,\ldots$.  The SDP at

778: level $i+1$ in the hierarchy gives a better approximation to the

779: original problem than the SDP at level $i$; but, as expected, the

780: size of the SDPs grows with $i$ so that better approximations are

781: more costly to compute.  The hierarchy is asymptotically complete

782: because, under certain conditions, the optimal values of the

783: relaxations converge to the optimal value of the original problem

784: as $i\rightarrow\infty$. Of these approaches, the method of

785: Lasserre \cite{Las01} is appealing because a computational package

786: \cite{HL03} written in MATLAB is freely available. Moreover, this

787: package has built into it a method for recognizing when the

788: optimal solution to the original problem has been found (see

789: \cite{HL03} and references therein). Because of this feature, the

790: one-sided test becomes, in practice, a full algorithm for the

791: quantum separability problem.  However, no analytical worst-case

792: upper bounds on the running time of the algorithm for arbitrary

793: $\rho\in\densops$ are presently available.

794: 

795: 

796: %\subsection{Remarks and other tests}

797: \subsubsection{Entanglement

798: Measures}\label{subsec_EntanglementMeasures}

799: 

800: 

801: The function $E_{d^2_2}(\rho)$ defined in

802: (\ref{eqn_DefnOfQuasiRelEntropy}), but first defined in

803: \cite{VPRK97}, is also known as an \emph{entanglement measure},

804: which, at the very least, is a nonnegative real function defined

805: on $\densops$ (for a comprehensive review of entanglement

806: measures, see \cite{Chr05}).  If an entanglement measure $E(\rho)$

807: satisfies

808: \begin{eqnarray}\label{crit_VanSepAndPosEnt}

809: E(\rho)=0\hspace{2mm}\Leftrightarrow\hspace{2mm}\rho\in\sep,

810: \end{eqnarray}

811: then, in principle, any algorithm for computing $E(\rho)$ gives an

812: algorithm for the quantum separability problem. Note that most

813: entanglement measures $E$ do not satisfy

814: (\ref{crit_VanSepAndPosEnt}); most just satisfy

815: $E(\rho)=0\Leftarrow\rho\in\sep$.

816: 

817: A class of entanglement measures that do satisfy

818: (\ref{crit_VanSepAndPosEnt}) are the so-called ``distance

819: measures'' $E_d(\rho):= \min_{\sigma\in\sep} d(\rho,\sigma)$, for

820: any reasonable measure of ``distance'' $d(x,y)$ satisfying

821: $d(x,y)\geq 0$ and $(d(x,y)=0)\Leftrightarrow (x=y)$. If $d$ is

822: the square of the Euclidean distance, we get $E_{d^2_2}(\rho)$.

823: Another ``distance measure'' is the von Neumann relative entropy

824: $S(x,y):= \tr(x(\log x - \log y))$.

825: 

826: In Eisert et al.'s approach, we could replace $E_{d^2_2}$ by $E_d$

827: for any ``distance function'' $d(\rho,\sigma)$ that is expressible

828: as a polynomial in the variables of $\sigma$.  What dominates the

829: running time of Eisert et al.'s approach is the implicit

830: minimization over $\sep$, so using a different ``distance

831: measure'' (i.e. only changing the first constraint in

832: (\ref{prob_EisertsQSEP})) like $(\tr(\rho-\sigma))^2$ would not

833: improve the analytic runtime (because the degree of the polynomial

834: in the constraint is still 2), but may help in practice.

835: 

836: Another entanglement measure $E$ that satisfies

837: (\ref{crit_VanSepAndPosEnt}) %, and the only one that is not too

838: %ugly to consider computing,

839:  is the \emph{entanglement of formation} \cite{BDSW96}

840: \begin{eqnarray}

841: E_F(\rho):= \min_{\{p_i,\ketbra{\psi_i}{\psi_i}\}_i:\hspace{2mm}

842: \rho=\sum_ip_i\ketbra{\psi_i}{\psi_i}}\sum_ip_iS(\tr_{\B}(\ketbra{\psi_i}{\psi_i})),

843: \end{eqnarray}

844: where $S(\rho):=-\tr(\rho\log(\rho))$ is the von Neumann entropy.

845: This gives another strategy for a separability algorithm: search

846: through all decompositions of the given $\rho$ to find one that is

847: separable.  We can implement this strategy using the same

848: relaxation technique of Eisert et al., but first we have to

849: formulate the strategy as a polynomially-constrained optimization

850: problem. The role of the function $S$ is to measure the

851: entanglement of $\ketbra{\psi_i}{\psi_i}$ by measuring the

852: mixedness of the reduced state

853: $\tr_{\B}(\ketbra{\psi_i}{\psi_i})$.  For our purposes, we can

854: replace $S$ with any other function $T$ that measures mixedness

855: such that, for all $\rho\in\densops$, $T(\rho)\geq 0$ and

856: $T(\rho)=0$ if and only if $\rho$ is pure. Recalling that, for any

857: $\rho\in\densops$, $\tr(\rho^2)\leq 1$ with equality if and only

858: if $\rho$ is pure, the function $T(\rho):= 1 - \tr(\rho^2)$

859: suffices; this function $T$ may be written as a (finite-degree)

860: polynomial in the real variables of $\rho$, whereas $S$ could not.

861: Defining

862: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_DefnMyPurityEntanglementMeasure}

863: E'_F(\rho):= \min_{\{p_i,\ketbra{\psi_i}{\psi_i}\}_i:\hspace{2mm}

864: \rho=\sum_ip_i\ketbra{\psi_i}{\psi_i}}\sum_ip_iT(\tr_{\B}(\ketbra{\psi_i}{\psi_i})),

865: \end{eqnarray}

866: we have that $E'_F$ satisfies (\ref{crit_VanSepAndPosEnt}). Using

867: an argument similar to the proof of Lemma 1 in \cite{Uhl98}, we

868: can show that the minimum in

869: (\ref{eqn_DefnMyPurityEntanglementMeasure}) is attained by a

870: \emph{finite} decomposition of $\rho$ into $\n+1$ pure states.

871: Thus, the following polynomially-constrained optimization problem

872: can be approximated by semidefinite relaxations:

873: \begin{equation}\label{prob_MyEisert-likeQSEP}

874: \begin{array}{rlrcl}

875: &\textrm{minimize} \hspace{2mm} & \sum_{i=1}^{\n+1}\tr(X_{i})T(\tr_{\B}(X_{i})) && \\

876: &\textrm{subject to:     }& \tr(\sum_{i=1}^{\n+1}X_{i}-[\rho])^2 &=& 0 \\

877: &\hspace{2mm}& \tr(\sum_{i=1}^{\n+1}X_{i}) &=& 1  \\

878: &\hspace{2mm}& \tr(X_{i}^2)&=& (\tr(X_i))^2,\hspace{2mm}\\

879: &&&&\textrm{for $i=1,2,\ldots,\n+1$}\\

880: &\hspace{2mm}& \tr(X_{i}^3)&=& (\tr(X_i))^3,\hspace{2mm}\\

881: &&&&\textrm{for $i=1,2,\ldots,\n+1$}.

882: \end{array}

883: \end{equation}

884: The above has about half as many constraints as

885: (\ref{prob_EisertsQSEP}), so it would be interesting to compare

886: the performance of the two approaches.

887: 

888: 

889: 

890: \subsubsection{Other tests}\label{subsubsec_OtherTests}

891: 

892: 

893: There are several one-sided tests which do not lead to full

894: algorithms for the quantum separability problem for $\sep$.

895: \vspace*{12pt}

896: \begin{definition}[Robust semidefinite program] Given the

897: vector $c\in\mathbf{R}^m$, Hermitian matrices

898: $F_i\in\mathbf{C}^{n\times n}$, $i=0,1,\ldots,m$, and vector space

899: $\mathcal{D}$,

900: \begin{eqnarray}

901: &\textrm{minimize} \hspace{2mm}& c^Tx\\

902: &\textrm{subject to:}\hspace{2mm}& F(x,\Delta)\geq 0 \textrm{, for

903: all $\Delta \in \mathcal{D}$,}

904: \end{eqnarray}

905: where $F(x,\Delta):= F_0(\Delta) + \sum_{i=1}^{m}x_iF_i(\Delta)$.

906: \end{definition}

907: \vspace*{12pt} Brand{\~{a}}o and Vianna \cite{BV04} have a set of

908: one-sided necessary tests based on deterministic relaxations of a

909: robust semidefinite program, but this set is not an asymptotically

910: complete hierarchy. The same authors also have a related

911: \emph{randomized} quantum separability algorithm which uses

912: probabilistic relaxations of the same robust semidefinite program

913: \cite{BV04a} (but randomized algorithms are outside of our scope).

914: I give their robust semidefinite program at the end of Section

915: \ref{subsubsec_LargeSDPPerezGarcia}, where we will see a similar

916: (nonrobust) SDP -- essentially, a discretization of the robust

917: semidefinite program -- that solves the (approximate) quantum

918: separability problem.

919: 

920: 

921: Woerdeman \cite{Woe03} has a set of one-sided tests for the case

922: where $\dima=2$.  His approach might be described as the

923: mirror-image of Doherty et al.'s: Instead of using an infinite

924: hierarchy of necessary criteria for separability, he uses an

925: infinite hierarchy of sufficient criteria.  Each criterion in the

926: hierarchy can be checked with a SDP.

927: 

928: 

929: 

930: 

931: 

932: \section{Separability as a Computable Decision

933: Problem}\label{ChapterSepAsDecisionProblem}

934: 

935: 

936: Definition \ref{def_FormalQuSep} gave us a concrete definition of

937: the quantum separability problem that we could use to explore some

938: important results.  Now we step back from that definition and, in

939: Section \ref{subsec_FormulatingQuSep}, consider more carefully how

940: we might formulate the quantum separability problem for the

941: purposes of computing it.  After considering exact formulations in

942: Section \ref{subsubsec_ExactFormulations}, we settle on

943: approximate formulations of the problem in Section

944: \ref{subsubsec_ApproxFormulations}, and give a few examples that

945: are, in a sense, equivalent.

946: 

947: In Section \ref{subsec_CompComplexity}, I discuss various aspects

948: of the computational complexity of the quantum separability

949: problem.  Section \ref{subsubsec_ReviewNPCness} contains a review

950: of NP-completeness theory.  In Sections \ref{subsubsec_DefnInNP}

951: and \ref{subsubsec_NPHardnessOfQSEP}, I give a formulation of the

952: quantum separability problem that is NP-complete with respect to

953: Turing reductions.    In Section

954: \ref{subsubsec_NonmembershipInCoNP}, I consider the quantum

955: separability problem's membership in co-NP\@.  In Section

956: \ref{subsubsec_StrongNPHness}, I explore the problem of strong

957: NP-hardness of the (approximate) quantum separability problem.

958:  Finally, in Section \ref{subsubsec_TowardsKarp}, I discuss the

959: open problem of whether the quantum separability problem is

960: NP-complete with respect to Karp reductions.

961: 

962: 

963: 

964: 

965: 

966: 

967: 

968: 

969: \subsection{Formulating the quantum separability problem}\label{subsec_FormulatingQuSep}

970: 

971: The nature of the quantum separability problem and the possibility

972: for quantum computers allows a number of approaches, depending on

973: whether the input to the problem is classical (a matrix

974: representing $\rho$) or quantum ($T$ copies of a physical system

975: prepared in state $\rho$) and whether the processing of the input

976: will be done on a classical computer or on a quantum computer. The

977: use of entanglement witnesses\footnote{An \emph{entanglement

978: witness (for $\rho$)} is defined to be any operator $A\in\hermops$

979: such that $\tr(A\sigma)<\tr(A\rho)$ for all $\sigma\in\sep$ and

980: some $\rho\in\ent$; we say that ``$A$ detects $\rho$''.  Every

981: $\rho\in\ent$ has an entanglement witness that detects it

982: \cite{HHH96}.}\label{footnote_DefnEW}~~ in the laboratory is a

983: case of a quantum input and very limited quantum processing in the

984: form of measurement of each copy of $\rho$.  The case of

985: more-sophisticated quantum processing on either a quantum or

986: classical input is not well studied (see \cite{HE02} for an

987: instance of more-sophisticated quantum processing on a quantum

988: input). For the remainder of the paper, I focus on the case where

989: input and processing are classical (though the algorithm in

990: Section \ref{sec_NewSepAlg} can be applied in an experimental

991: setting \cite{ITCE04,IT06}).

992: 

993: \subsubsection{Exact formulations}\label{subsubsec_ExactFormulations}

994: 

995: Let us examine Definition \ref{def_FormalQuSep}

996: %(or, equivalently, Definition \ref{def_SMEM})

997: from a computational viewpoint.  The

998: matrix $[\rho]$ is allowed to have real entries.  Certainly there

999: are real numbers that are uncomputable (e.g. a number whose $n$th

1000: binary digit is 1 if and only if the $n$th Turing machine halts on

1001: input $n$); we disallow such inputs.  However, the real numbers

1002: $e$, $\pi$, and $\sqrt{2}$ are computable to any degree of

1003: approximation, so in principle they should be allowed to appear in

1004: $[\rho]$.  In general, we should allow any real number that can be

1005: approximated arbitrarily well by a computer subroutine. If

1006: $[\rho]$ consists of such real numbers (subroutines), say that

1007: ``$\rho$ is given as an approximation algorithm for $[\rho]$.'' In

1008: this case, we have a procedure to which we can give an accuracy

1009: parameter $\delta>0$ and out of which will be returned a matrix

1010: $[\rho]_\delta$ that is (in some norm) at most $\delta$ away from

1011: $[\rho]$.  Because $\sep$ is closed, the sequence

1012: $([\rho]_{1/n})_{n=1,2,\ldots}$ may converge to a point on the

1013: boundary of $\sep$ (when $\rho$ is on the boundary of $\sep$). For

1014: such $\rho$, the formal quantum separability problem may be

1015: ``undecidable'' because the $\delta$-radius ball centred at

1016: $[\rho]_\delta$ may contain both separable and entangled states

1017: for all $\delta>0$ \cite{Myr97} (more generally, see ``Type II

1018: computability'' in \cite{Wei87}).

1019: 

1020: If we really want to determine the complexity of deciding

1021: membership in $\sep$, it makes sense not to confuse this with the

1022: complexity of specifying the input.  To give the computer a

1023: fighting chance, it makes more sense to restrict to inputs that

1024: have finite exact representations that can be readily subjected to

1025: elementary arithmetic operations begetting exact answers. For this

1026: reason, we might restrict the formal quantum separability problem

1027: to instances where $[\rho]$ consists of rational entries:

1028: \vspace*{12pt}

1029: \begin{definition}[Rational quantum separability problem (EXACT QSEP)]\label{def_RationalQuSep}

1030: Let \\$\rho\in\densops$ be a mixed state such that the matrix

1031: $[\rho]$ (with respect to the standard basis of

1032: $\mathbf{C}^\dima\otimes\mathbf{C}^\dimb$) representing $\rho$

1033: consists of rational entries.  Given $[\rho]$, is $\rho$

1034: separable?

1035: \end{definition}

1036: \vspace*{12pt}

1037: 

1038: As pointed out in \cite{DPS04}, Tarski's

1039: algorithm\footnote{Tarski's result is often called the

1040: ``Tarski-Seidenberg'' theorem, after Seidenberg, who found a

1041: slightly better algorithm \cite{Sei54} (and elaborated on its

1042: generality) in 1954, shortly after Tarski managed to publish his;

1043: but Tarski discovered his own result in 1930 (the war prevented

1044: him from publishing before 1948).}~ \cite{Tar51} can be used to

1045: solve EXACT QSEP\@.  The Tarski-approach is as follows. Note that

1046: the following first-order logical formula\footnote{Recall the

1047: logical connectives: $\vee$ (``OR''), $\wedge$ (``AND''), $\neg$

1048: (``NOT''); the symbol $\rightarrow$ (``IMPLIES''), in

1049: ``$x\rightarrow y$'', is a shorthand, as ``$x\rightarrow y$'' is

1050: equivalent to ``$(\neg x) \vee y $''; as well, we can consider

1051: ``$x\vee y$'' shorthand for ``$\neg((\neg x)\wedge (\neg y))$''.

1052: Also recall the existential and universal quantifiers $\exists$

1053: (``THERE EXISTS'') and $\forall$ (``FOR ALL''); note that the

1054: universal quantifier $\forall$ is redundant as ``$\forall x

1055: \phi(x)$'' is equivalent to ``$\neg\exists x\neg\phi(x)$''.}~ is

1056: true if and only if $\rho$ is separable:

1057: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_FOLogicalStatementOfSep}

1058: \forall A[(\forall \Psi (\tr(A\Psi)\geq 0))\rightarrow (\tr

1059: A\rho\geq 0)],

1060: \end{eqnarray}

1061: where $A\in\hermops$ and $\Psi$ is a pure product state. To see

1062: this, note that the subformula enclosed in square brackets means

1063: ``$-A$ is not an entanglement witness for $\rho$'', so that if

1064: this statement is true for all $A$ then there exists no

1065: entanglement witness detecting $\rho$. When $[\rho]$ is rational,

1066: our experience in Section \ref{subsec_EisertsEtalApproach} with

1067: polynomial constraints tells us that the formula in

1068: (\ref{eqn_FOLogicalStatementOfSep}) can be written in terms of

1069: ``quantified polynomial inequalities'' with rational coefficients:

1070: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_FOLS}

1071: \forall X   \lbrace (\forall Y \left[ Q(Y)\rightarrow (r(X,Y)\geq

1072: 0)\right])\rightarrow (s(X)\geq 0) \rbrace,

1073: \end{eqnarray}

1074: where

1075: \begin{itemize}

1076: \item $X$ is a block of real variables parametrizing the matrix

1077: $A\in\hermops$ (with respect to an orthogonal rational Hermitian

1078: basis of $\hermops$); the ``Hermiticity'' of $X$ is hard-wired by

1079: the parametrization;

1080: 

1081: \item $Y$ is a block of real variables parametrizing the matrix

1082: $\Psi$;

1083: 

1084: \item $Q(Y)$ is a conjunction of four polynomial equations that

1085: are equivalent to the four constraints $\tr((\tr_{j}(\Psi))^2)=1$

1086: and $\tr((\tr_{j}(\Psi))^3)=1$ for $j\in\{\A,\B\}$;%, and the

1087: %constraint $\tr(\Psi)=1$;

1088: 

1089: \item $r(X,Y)$ is a polynomial representing the expression

1090: $\tr(A\Psi)$;\footnote{To ensure the Hermitian basis is rational,

1091: we do not insist that each of its elements has unit Euclidean

1092: norm. If the basis is $\{X_i\}_{i=0,1,\ldots,\dima^2\dimb^2}$,

1093: where $X_0$ is proportional to the identity operator, then we can

1094: ignore the $X_0$ components write

1095: $A=\sum_{i=1}^{\dima^2\dimb^2}A_iX_i$ and

1096: $\Psi=\sum_{i=1}^{\dima^2\dimb^2}\Psi_iX_i$.  An expression for

1097: $\tr(A\Psi)$ in terms of the real variables $A_i$ and $\Psi_i$ may

1098: then look like $\sum_{i=1}^{\dima^2\dimb^2}A_i\Psi_i\tr(X_i^2)$.}

1099: 

1100: \item $s(X)$ is a polynomial representing the expression

1101: $\tr(A[\rho])$.

1102: \end{itemize}

1103: %Converting this into ``prenex'' form \cite{Pap94}, where all

1104: %quantifiers are out in front, gives the equivalent sentence

1105: %\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_FOLogicalStatementOfSepPrenex}

1106: %\forall X \exists Y \neg \lbrace [Q\rightarrow (r\geq 0)]\wedge

1107: %\neg (s\geq 0)\rbrace.

1108: %\end{eqnarray}

1109: The main point of Tarski's result is that the quantifiers (and

1110: variables) in the above sentence can be eliminated so that what is

1111: left is just a formula of elementary algebra involving Boolean

1112: connections of atomic formula of the form $(\alpha \diamond 0)$

1113: involving terms $\alpha$ consisting of rational numbers, where

1114: $\diamond$ stands for any of $<, >, =, \neq$; the truth of the

1115: remaining (very long) formula can be computed in a straightforward

1116: manner.  The best algorithms for deciding (\ref{eqn_FOLS}) require

1117: a number of arithmetic operations roughly equal to

1118: $(PD)^{O(|X|)\times O(|Y|)}$, where $P$ is the number of

1119: polynomials in the input, $D$ is the maximum degree of the

1120: polynomials, and $|X|$ ($|Y|$) denotes the number of variables in

1121: block $X$ ($Y$) \cite{BPR96}. Since $P=6$ and $D=3$, the running

1122: time is roughly $2^{O(\dima^4\dimb^4)}$.

1123: 

1124: \subsubsection{Approximate formulations}\label{subsubsec_ApproxFormulations}

1125: 

1126: The benefit of EXACT QSEP is that, compared to Definition

1127: \ref{def_FormalQuSep}, it eliminated any uncertainty in the input

1128: by disallowing irrational matrix entries. Consider the following

1129: motivation for an alternative to EXACT QSEP, where, roughly, we

1130: only ask whether the input $[\rho]$ corresponds to something

1131: \emph{close to} separable:

1132: \begin{itemize}

1133: \item Suppose we really want to determine the separability of a

1134: density operator $\rho$ such that $[\rho]$ has irrational entries.

1135: If we use the EXACT QSEP formulation (so far, we have no decidable

1136: alternative), we must first find a rational approximation to

1137: $[\rho]$.  Suppose the (Euclidean) distance from $[\rho]$ to the

1138: approximation is $\delta$.  The answer that the Tarski-style

1139: algorithm gives us might be wrong, if $\rho$ is not more than

1140: $\delta$ away from the boundary of $\sep$.

1141: 

1142: \item Suppose the input matrix came from measurements of many

1143: copies of a physical state $\rho$.  Then we only know $[\rho]$ to

1144: some degree of approximation.

1145: 

1146: \item The best known Tarski-style algorithms for EXACT QSEP

1147: have gigantic running times. %\footnote{I seem to be implying that

1148: %Tarski's approach is the best way to solve EXACT QSEP.

1149: %Honestly, I do not know if this is the case, but it seems quite

1150: %plausible.}

1151:  Surely, we can achieve better asymptotic running

1152: times if we use an approximate formulation.

1153: \end{itemize}

1154: \noindent Thus, in many cases of interest, insisting that an

1155: algorithm says exactly whether the input matrix corresponds to a

1156: separable state is a waste of time. In Section

1157: \ref{subsubsec_DefnInNP}, we will see that there is another reason

1158: to use an approximate formulation, if we would like the problem to

1159: fit nicely in the theory of NP-completeness.

1160: 

1161: Gurvits was the first to use the weak membership formulation of

1162: the quantum separability problem \cite{GLS88, Gur03}.  For

1163: $x\in\mathbf{R}^n$ and $\delta>0$, let $B(x,\delta):=

1164: \{y\in\mathbf{R}^n: ||x-y||\leq\delta\}$.  For a convex subset

1165: $K\subset\mathbf{R}^n$, let $S(K,\delta):=\cup_{x\in K}

1166: B(x,\delta)$ and $S(K,-\delta):=\{x: B(x,\delta)\subseteq K\}$.

1167: 

1168: \vspace*{12pt}

1169: \begin{definition}[Weak membership problem for $K$ (WMEM($K$))]\label{def_WMEM}

1170: Given a rational vector $p\in\mathbf{R}^n$ and rational

1171: $\delta>0$, assert either that

1172: \begin{eqnarray}

1173: p&\in& S(K,\delta), \hspace{2mm}\textrm{or}\label{eqn_WMEMSepAssertion}\\

1174: p&\notin& S(K,-\delta)\label{eqn_WMEMEntAssertion}.

1175: \end{eqnarray}

1176: \end{definition}

1177: 

1178: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent Denote by WMEM($\sep$) the quantum

1179: separability problem formulated as the weak membership problem. An

1180: algorithm solving WMEM($\sep$) is a separability test with

1181: two-sided ``error'' in the sense that it may assert

1182: (\ref{eqn_WMEMSepAssertion}) when $p$ represents an entangled

1183: state and may assert (\ref{eqn_WMEMEntAssertion}) when $p$

1184: represents a separable state.  Any formulation of the quantum

1185: separability problem will have (at least) two possible answers --

1186: one corresponding to ``$p$ approximately represents a separable

1187: state'' and the other corresponding to ``$p$ approximately

1188: represents an entangled state''. Like in WMEM($\sep$), there may

1189: be a region of $p$ where both answers are valid. We can use a

1190: different formulation where this region is shifted to be either

1191: completely outside $\sep$ or completely inside $\sep$:

1192: \vspace*{12pt}

1193: \begin{definition}[In-biased

1194: weak membership problem for $K$

1195: (WMEM$_\textrm{In}$($K$))]\label{def_WMEMS} Given a rational

1196: vector $p\in\mathbf{R}^n$ and rational $\delta>0$, assert either

1197: that

1198: \begin{eqnarray}

1199: p&\in& S(K,\delta), \hspace{2mm}\textrm{or}\label{eqn_WMEMSSepAssertion}\\

1200: p&\notin& K\label{eqn_WMEMSEntAssertion}.

1201: \end{eqnarray}

1202: \end{definition}

1203: \vspace*{12pt}

1204: \begin{definition}[Out-biased weak membership problem for $K$ (WMEM$_\textrm{Out}$($K$))]\label{def_WMEME}

1205: Given a rational vector $p\in\mathbf{R}^n$ and rational

1206: $\delta>0$, assert either that

1207: \begin{eqnarray}

1208: p&\in& K, \hspace{2mm}\textrm{or}\label{eqn_WMEMESepAssertion}\\

1209: p&\notin& S(K,-\delta)\label{eqn_WMEMEEntAssertion}.

1210: \end{eqnarray}

1211: \end{definition}

1212: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent We can also formulate a ``zero-error''

1213: version such that when $p$ is in such a region, then any algorithm

1214: for the problem has the option of saying so, but otherwise must

1215: answer exactly: \vspace*{12pt}

1216: \begin{definition}[Zero-error weak membership problem for $K$ (WMEM$^0$($K$))]\label{def_WMEM0}

1217: Given a rational vector $p\in\mathbf{R}^n$ and rational

1218: $\delta>0$, assert either that

1219: \begin{eqnarray}

1220: p&\in& K, \hspace{2mm}\textrm{or}\label{eqn_WMEM0SepAssertion}\\

1221: p&\notin& K, \hspace{2mm}\textrm{or}\label{eqn_WMEM0EntAssertion}\\

1222: p&\in& S(K,\delta)\setminus

1223: S(K,-\delta)\label{eqn_WMEM0BoundaryAssertion}

1224: \end{eqnarray}

1225: \end{definition}

1226: \vspace*{12pt}

1227: 

1228: All the above formulations of the quantum separability problem are

1229: based on the Euclidean norm and use the isomorphism between

1230: $\hermops$ and $\mathbf{R}^{\n}$. We could also make similar

1231: formulations based on other operator norms in $\hermops$.  In the

1232: next section, we will see yet another formulation of an entirely

1233: different flavour.  While each formulation is slightly different,

1234: they all have the property that in the limit as the error

1235: parameter approaches 0, the problem coincides with EXACT QSEP\@.

1236: Thus, despite the apparent inequivalence of these formulations, we

1237: recognize that they all basically do the same job. In fact,

1238: WMEM$(\sep)$, WMEM$_\textrm{In}(\sep)$, WMEM$_\textrm{Out}(\sep)$,

1239: and WMEM$(\sep)^0$ are equivalent: given an algorithm for one of

1240: the problems, one can solve an instance $(\rho,\delta)$ of any of

1241: the other three problems by just calling the given algorithm at

1242: most twice (with various parameters).\footnote{To show this

1243: equivalence, it suffices to show that given an algorithm for

1244: WMEM$(\sep)$, one can solve WMEM$_\textrm{Out}(\sep)$ with one

1245: call to the given algorithm (the converse is trivial); a similar

1246: proof shows that one can solve WMEM$_\textrm{In}(\sep)$ with one

1247: call to the algorithm for WMEM$(\sep)$. The other relationships

1248: follow immediately.  Let $(\rho,\delta)$ be the given instance of

1249: WMEM$_\textrm{Out}(\sep)$. Define

1250: $\rho_0:=\rho+\delta(\rho-I_{\dima,\dimb})/2$ and

1251: $\delta_0:=\delta/(2\sqrt{\dima\dimb(\dima\dimb-1)})$. Call the

1252: algorithm for WMEM$(\sep)$ with input $(\rho_0,\delta_0)$. Suppose

1253: the algorithm asserts $\rho_0\notin S(\sep,-\delta_0)$. Then,

1254: because $||\rho-\rho_0||=\frac{\delta}{2}||\rho-I_{\dima,\dimb}||$

1255: and $||\rho-I_{\dima,\dimb}||\leq 1$, we have $\rho\notin

1256: S(\sep,-(\delta_0+\delta/2))$ hence $\rho\notin S(\sep,-\delta)$.

1257: Otherwise, suppose the algorithm asserts $\rho_0\in

1258: S(\sep,\delta_0)$. By way of contradiction, assume that $\rho$ is

1259: entangled.  But then, by convexity of $\sep$ and the fact that

1260: $\sep$ contains the ball

1261: $B(I_{\dima,\dimb},{1}/{\sqrt{\dima\dimb(\dima\dimb-1)}})$, we can

1262: derive that the ball $B(\rho_0,\delta_0)$ does not intersect

1263: $\sep$.  But this implies $\rho_0\notin S(\sep,\delta_0)$ -- a

1264: contradiction.  Thus, $\rho\in\sep$. This proof is a slight

1265: modification of the argument given in \cite{Lut05}.  See also

1266: Lemma 4.3.3 in \cite{GLS88}.}

1267: 

1268: 

1269: 

1270: 

1271: \subsection{Computational complexity}\label{subsec_CompComplexity}

1272: 

1273: 

1274: This section addresses how the quantum separability problem fits

1275: into the framework of complexity theory. I assume the reader is

1276: familiar with concepts such as \emph{problem}, \emph{instance} (of

1277: a problem), \emph{(reasonable, binary) encodings},

1278: \emph{polynomially relatedness}, \emph{size} (of an instance),

1279: \emph{(deterministic and nondeterministic) Turing machine}, and

1280: \emph{polynomial-time algorithm}; all of which can be found in any

1281: of \cite{GJ79, Pap94, NC00}.

1282: 

1283: Generally, the weak membership problem is defined for a class

1284: $\mathcal{K}$ of convex sets.  For example, in the case of

1285: WMEM($\sep$), this class is $\{\sep\}_{M,N}$ for all integers

1286: $\dima$ and $\dimb$ such that $2\leq\dima\leq\dimb$.  An instance

1287: of WMEM thus includes the specification of a member $K$ of

1288: $\mathcal{K}$.  The size of an instance must take into account the

1289: size $\langle K \rangle$ of the encoding of $K$.  It is reasonable

1290: that $\langle K \rangle\geq n$ when $K\in\mathbf{R}^n$, because an

1291: algorithm for the problem should be able to work efficiently (in

1292: time that is upper-bounded by a polynomial in the size of an

1293: instance) with points in $\mathbf{R}^n$. But the complexity of $K$

1294: matters, too. For example, if $K$ extends (doubly-exponentially)

1295: far from the origin (but contains the origin) then $K$ may contain

1296: points that require large amounts of precision to represent;

1297: again, an algorithm for the problem should be able to work with

1298: such points efficiently (for example, it should be able to add

1299: such a point and a point close to the origin, and store the result

1300: efficiently).  In the case of WMEM($\sep$), the size of the

1301: encoding of $\sep$ may be taken as $\dimb$ (assuming

1302: $\dima\leq\dimb$), as $\sep$ is not unreasonably long or

1303: unreasonably thin: it is contained in the unit sphere in

1304: $\mathbf{R}^{\n-1}$ and contains a ball of separable states of

1305: radius $\Omega(1/\poly(\dimb))$ (see Section

1306: \ref{sec_OneSidedTestsAndRestrictions}).\footnote{Recall that a

1307: function $f(n)$ is in $\Omega(g(n))$ when there exist constants

1308: $c$ and $n_0$ such that $cg(n)\leq f(n)$ for all $n>n_0$.} Thus,

1309: the total size of an instance of WMEM($\sep$), or any formulation

1310: of the quantum separability problem, may also be taken to be

1311: $\dimb$ plus the size of the encoding of $(\rho, \delta)$.

1312: 

1313: 

1314: 

1315: 

1316: \subsubsection{Review of NP-completeness}\label{subsubsec_ReviewNPCness}

1317: 

1318: Complexity theory, and, particularly, the theory of

1319: NP-completeness, pertains to \emph{decision problems} -- problems

1320: that pose a yes/no question.  Let $\Pi$ be a decision problem.

1321: Denote by $\D_\Pi$ the set of instances of $\Pi$, and denote the

1322: yes-instances of $\Pi$ by $\Y_\Pi$. Recall that the complexity

1323: class P (respectively, NP) is the set of all problems the can be

1324: decided by a deterministic Turing machine (respectively,

1325: nondeterministic Turing machine) in polynomial time. The following

1326: equivalent definition of NP is perhaps more intuitive:

1327: \vspace*{12pt}

1328: \begin{definition}[NP] A decision problem $\Pi$ is in NP if there exists

1329: a deterministic Turing machine $T_\Pi$ such that for every

1330: instance $I\in \Y_\Pi$ there exists a string $C_I$ of length

1331: $|C_I|\in O(\poly(|I|))$ such that $T_\Pi$, with inputs $C_I$ and

1332: (an encoding of) $I$, can check that $I$ is in $\Y_\Pi$ in time

1333: $O(\poly(|I|))$.

1334: \end{definition}

1335: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent  The string $C_I$ is called a

1336: \emph{(succinct) certificate}.  Let $\Pi^c$ be the complementary

1337: problem of $\Pi$, i.e. $\D_{\Pi^c}\equiv \D_{\Pi}$ and

1338: $\Y_{\Pi^c}:=\D_\Pi \setminus \Y_\Pi$. The class co-NP is thus

1339: defined as $\{\Pi^c: \hspace{2mm}\Pi\in\NP\}$.

1340: 

1341: Let us briefly review the different notions of ``polynomial-time

1342: reduction'' from one problem $\Pi'$ to another $\Pi$. Let

1343: $\mathcal{O}_\Pi$ be an oracle, or black-boxed subroutine, for

1344: solving $\Pi$, to which we assign unit complexity cost. A

1345: \emph{(polynomial-time) Turing reduction} from $\Pi'$ to $\Pi$ is

1346: any polynomial-time algorithm for $\Pi'$ that makes calls to

1347: $\mathcal{O}_\Pi$.  Write $\Pi'\leq_\T\Pi$ if $\Pi'$ is

1348: Turing-reducible to $\Pi$. A \emph{polynomial-time

1349: transformation}, or \emph{Karp reduction}, from $\Pi'$ to $\Pi$ is

1350: a Turing reduction from $\Pi'$ to $\Pi$ in which $\mathcal{O}_\Pi$

1351: is called at most once and at the end of the reduction algorithm,

1352: so that the answer given by $\mathcal{O}_\Pi$ is the answer to the

1353: given instance of $\Pi'$. In other words, a Karp reduction from

1354: $\Pi'$ to $\Pi$ is a polynomial-time algorithm that (under a

1355: reasonable encoding) takes as input an (encoding of an) instance

1356: $I'$ of $\Pi'$ and outputs an (encoding of an) instance $I$ of

1357: $\Pi$ such that $I'\in \Y_{\Pi'}\Leftrightarrow I\in \Y_{\Pi}$.

1358: Write $\Pi'\leq_\K\Pi$ if $\Pi'$ is Karp-reducible to $\Pi$.  Karp

1359: and Turing reductions are on the extreme ends of a spectrum of

1360: polynomial-time reductions; see \cite{LLS75} for a comparison of

1361: several of them.

1362: 

1363: Reductions between problems are a way of determining how hard one

1364: problem is relative to another.  The notion of NP-completeness is

1365: meant to define the hardest problems in NP\@.  We can define

1366: NP-completeness with respect to any polynomial-time reduction; we

1367: define \emph{Karp-NP-completeness} and

1368: \emph{Turing-NP-completeness}:

1369: \begin{eqnarray}

1370: \NPCK &:=& \{\Pi\in\NP:\hspace{2mm} \Pi'\leq_\K\Pi \textrm{ for

1371: all

1372: $\Pi'\in\NP$ }\}\\

1373: \NPCT &:=& \{\Pi\in\NP:\hspace{2mm} \Pi'\leq_\T\Pi \textrm{ for

1374: all $\Pi'\in\NP$ }\}.

1375: \end{eqnarray}

1376: We have $\NPCK\subseteq\NPCT$.  Let $\Pi$, $\Pi'$, and $\Pi''$ be

1377: problems in NP, and, furthermore, suppose $\Pi'$ is in $\NPCK$. If

1378: $\Pi'\leq_\T \Pi$, then, in a sense, $\Pi$ is at least as hard as

1379: $\Pi'$ (which gives an interpretation of the symbol

1380: ``$\leq_\T$''). Suppose $\Pi'\leq_\T \Pi$ but suppose also that

1381: $\Pi'$ is not Karp-reducible to $\Pi$. If $\Pi'\leq_\K \Pi''$,

1382: then we can say that ``$\Pi''$ is at least as hard as $\Pi$'',

1383: because, to solve $\Pi'$ (and thus any other problem in NP),

1384: $\mathcal{O}_\Pi$ has to be used at least as many times as

1385: $\mathcal{O}_{\Pi''}$; if any Turing reduction proving

1386: $\Pi'\leq_\T \Pi$ requires more than one call to

1387: $\mathcal{O}_\Pi$, then we can say ``$\Pi''$ is harder than

1388: $\Pi$''. Therefore, if $\NPCK\neq\NPCT$, then the problems in

1389: $\NPCK$ are harder than the problems in $\NPCT\setminus\NPCK$;

1390: thus $\NPCK$ are the hardest problems in NP (with respect to

1391: polynomial-time reductions).

1392: 

1393: A problem $\Pi$ is \emph{NP-hard} when $\Pi'\leq_T\Pi$ for some

1394: Karp-NP-complete problem $\Pi'\in\NPCK$.  The term ``NP-hard'' is

1395: also used for problems other than decision problems. For example,

1396: let $\Pi'\in\NPCK$; then WMEM($\sep$) is NP-hard if there exists a

1397: polynomial-time algorithm for $\Pi'$ that calls

1398: $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{WMEM}(\sep)}$.

1399: 

1400: 

1401: 

1402: \subsubsection{Quantum separability problem in

1403: NP}\label{subsubsec_DefnInNP}

1404: 

1405: Fact \ref{fact_FiniteDecompOfSepState} suggests that the quantum

1406: separability problem is in NP: a nondeterministic Turing machine

1407: guesses $\{(p_i, [\ket{\psi^\A_i}],

1408: [\ket{\psi^\B_i}])\}_{i=1}^{\n}$,\footnote{I use square brackets

1409: to denote a matrix with respect to the standard basis.}~ and then

1410: easily checks that

1411: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_NPCheck}

1412: [\rho]=\sum_{i=1}^{\n}p_i

1413: [\ket{\psi^\A_i}][\bra{\psi^\A_i}]\otimes

1414: [\ket{\psi^\B_i}][\bra{\psi^\B_i}].

1415: \end{eqnarray}

1416: 

1417: Technically, membership in NP is only defined for decision

1418: problems. Since none of the weak membership formulations of the

1419: quantum separability problem can be rephrased as decision problems

1420: (because problem instances corresponding to states near the

1421: boundary of $\sep$ can satisfy both possible answers), we cannot

1422: consider their membership in NP (but see Section

1423: \ref{subsubsec_NonmembershipInCoNP}, where we define NP for

1424: promise problems). However, EXACT QSEP \emph{is} a decision

1425: problem. \vspace*{12pt}

1426: \begin{problem}

1427: Is \emph{EXACT QSEP} in \emph{NP}?

1428: \end{problem}

1429: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent Hulpke and Bru{\ss} \cite{HB05} have

1430: formalized some important notions related to this problem.  They

1431: show that if $\rho\in S(\sep,-\delta)$, for some $\delta>0$,

1432: %, or if $\rho$ has less than

1433: %full rank;

1434: then each of the extreme points $x_i\in\sep$ in the expression

1435: $\rho=\sum_{i=1}^{\dima^2\dimb^2}p_ix_i $ can be replaced by

1436: $\tilde{x}_i$, where $[\tilde{x}_i]$ has rational entries.  This

1437: is possible because the extreme points (pure product states) of

1438: $\sep$ with rational entries are dense in the set of all extreme

1439: points of $\sep$. However, when $\rho\notin S(\sep,-\delta)$, then

1440: this argument breaks down. For example, when $\rho$ has full rank

1441: and is on the boundary of $\sep$, then ``sliding'' $x_i$ to a

1442: rational position $\tilde{x}_i$ might cause $\tilde{x}_i$ to be

1443: outside of the affine space generated by $\{x_i\}_{i=1,\ldots,k}$.

1444: Figure \ref{QSEPNotInNP} illustrates this in $\mathbf{R}^3$.

1445: %\begin{figure}[ht]

1446: %\centering \resizebox{100mm}{!}{\includegraphics{QSEPNotInNP.eps}}

1447: %\caption[Surface on boundary of $\sep$]{The dashed triangle

1448: %outlines the convex hull of $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$, shown as dots

1449: %at the triangle's vertices.  This convex hull contains $\rho$,

1450: %shown as a dot inside the triangle, and forms a (schematic) facet

1451: %of $\sep$. The curves represent the allowable choices for the

1452: %$\tilde{x}_i$. Sliding any of the $x_i$ takes

1453: %$\conv\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$ outside of the facet.} \label{QSEPNotInNP}

1454: %\end{figure}

1455: \begin{figure} [htbp]

1456: \vspace*{13pt}

1457: \centerline{\epsfig{file=QSEPNotInNP.eps, width=8.2cm}} %100 percent

1458: \vspace*{13pt} \fcaption{\label{QSEPNotInNP}The dashed triangle

1459: outlines the convex hull of $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$, shown as dots

1460: at the triangle's vertices.  This convex hull contains $\rho$,

1461: shown as a dot inside the triangle, and forms a (schematic) face

1462: of $\sep$. The curves represent the allowable choices for the

1463: $\tilde{x}_i$. Sliding any of the $x_i$ takes

1464: $\conv\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$ outside of the face.  Incidentally, $\sep$

1465: has no maximum-dimensional faces (facets); this follows from

1466: results in \cite{GL06}.}

1467: \end{figure}

1468: \noindent Furthermore, even if $x_i$ can be nudged comfortably to

1469: a rational $\tilde{x}_i$, one would have to prove that

1470: $\langle\tilde{x}_i\rangle\in O(\poly(\langle[\rho]\rangle))$,

1471: where $\langle X\rangle$ is the size of the encoding of $X$.

1472: 

1473: So, either the definition of NP does not apply (for weak

1474: membership formulations), or we possibly run into problems near

1475: the boundary of $\sep$ (for exact formulations).  Below we give an

1476: alternative formulation that is in NP; we will refer to this

1477: problem as QSEP\@.  The definition of QSEP is just a precise

1478: formulation of the question ``Given a density operator $\rho$,

1479: does there exist a separable density operator $\hat{\sigma}$ that

1480: is close to $\rho$?''  \vspace*{12pt}

1481: \begin{definition}[QSEP] Given a rational density matrix $[\rho]$ of dimension

1482: $MN$-by-$MN$, and positive rational numbers $\delta_p$,

1483: $\epsilon'$ and $\delta'$; does there exist a distribution

1484: $\{(\tilde{p}_i;

1485: \tilde{\alpha}_i,\tilde{\beta}_i)\}_{i=1,2,...,\n}$ of

1486: unnormalized pure states $\tilde{\alpha}_i\in\mathbf{C}^M$,

1487: $\tilde{\beta}_i\in\mathbf{C}^N$ where $\tilde{p}_i\geq 0$, and

1488: $\tilde{p}_i$ and all elements of $\tilde{\alpha}_i$ and

1489: $\tilde{\beta}_i$ are $\lceil \log_2(1/\delta_p)\rceil$-bit

1490: numbers (complex elements are $x+iy$, $x,y\in\mathbf{R}$; where

1491: $x$ and $y$ are $\lceil \log_2(1/\delta_p)\rceil$-bit numbers)

1492: such that

1493: \begin{eqnarray}\label{QSEP_Requirement1}

1494: \left|1-

1495: ||\tilde{\alpha}_i||^2||\tilde{\beta}_i||^2\sum_{j=1}^{\n}

1496: \tilde{p}_j\right| < \epsilon'\hspace{5mm}\textrm{for all $i$}

1497: \end{eqnarray}

1498: and

1499: \begin{eqnarray}\label{QSEP_Requirement2}

1500: ||[\rho] -\tilde{\sigma}||^2_2:= \tr(([\rho] -\tilde{\sigma})^2) <

1501: \delta'^2,

1502: \end{eqnarray}

1503: where $\tilde{\sigma}:= \sum_{i=1}^{\n} \tilde{p}_i

1504: \tilde{\alpha}_i\tilde{\alpha}_i^\dagger\otimes

1505: \tilde{\beta}_i\tilde{\beta}_i^\dagger $?

1506: \end{definition}

1507: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent Note that these checks can be done

1508: exactly in polynomial-time, as they only involve elementary

1509: arithmetic operations on rational numbers. To reconcile this

1510: definition with the above question, we define $\hat{\sigma}$ as

1511: the separable density matrix that is the ``normalized version'' of

1512: $\tilde{\sigma}$:

1513: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_DefnOfSigmaHat}

1514: \hat{\sigma} := \sum_{i=1}^{\n} \hat{p}_i

1515: \hat{\alpha}_i\hat{\alpha}_i^\dagger\otimes

1516: \hat{\beta}_i\hat{\beta}_i^\dagger,

1517: \end{eqnarray}

1518: where $\hat{p}_i:=\tilde{p}_i/\sum_i \tilde{p}_i$,

1519: $\hat{\alpha}_i:=\tilde{\alpha}_i/||\tilde{\alpha}_i||$, and

1520: $\hat{\beta}_i:=\tilde{\beta}_i/||\tilde{\beta}_i||$.  Using the

1521: triangle inequality, we can derive that

1522: \begin{eqnarray}

1523: ||\hat{\sigma}-\tilde{\sigma}||_2 \leq \sum_{i}\hat{p}_i \left|1-

1524: ||\tilde{\alpha}_i||^2||\tilde{\beta}_i||^2\sum_j

1525: \tilde{p}_j\right|,

1526: \end{eqnarray}

1527: where the righthand side is less than $\epsilon'$ when

1528: (\ref{QSEP_Requirement1}) is satisfied.  If

1529: (\ref{QSEP_Requirement2}) is also satisfied, then we have

1530: \begin{eqnarray}

1531: ||[\rho]-\hat{\sigma}||_2 \leq ||[\rho] -\tilde{\sigma}||_2+

1532: ||\hat{\sigma}-\tilde{\sigma}||_2 \leq \delta' + \epsilon',

1533: \end{eqnarray}

1534: which says that the given $[\rho]$ is no further than $\delta' +

1535: \epsilon'$ away from a separable density matrix (in Euclidean

1536: norm).\footnote{I have formulated these checks to avoid division;

1537: this makes the error analysis of the next section simpler.}

1538: 

1539: 

1540: The decision problem QSEP is trivially in NP, as a

1541: nondeterministic Turing machine need only guess the $\lceil\log_2(

1542: 1/\delta_p)\rceil$-bit distribution $\{(\tilde{p}_i;

1543: \tilde{\alpha}_i,\tilde{\beta}_i)\}_{i=1,2,...,\n}$ and verify (in

1544: polytime) that (\ref{QSEP_Requirement1}) and

1545: (\ref{QSEP_Requirement2}) are satisfied.

1546: 

1547: 

1548: \subsubsection{NP-Hardness}\label{subsubsec_NPHardnessOfQSEP}

1549: 

1550: Gurvits has shown WMEM($\sep$) to be NP-hard (with respect to the

1551: complexity-measures $M$ and  $\langle\delta\rangle$, i.e.

1552: $\min\{M,N\}$ and $1/\delta$ must be allowed to increase)

1553: \cite{Gur03}. More details about this result appear in Section

1554: \ref{subsubsec_StrongNPHness}.

1555: 

1556: 

1557: %\cite{BN98}%ben-Tal Nemirovskii

1558: 

1559: 

1560: We check now that QSEP is NP-hard, by way of a Karp-reduction from

1561: WMEM($\sep$).  We assume we are given an instance

1562: $I:=([\rho],\delta)$ of WMEM($\sep$) and we seek an instance

1563: $I':=([\rho'],\delta_p,\epsilon',\delta')$ of QSEP such that if

1564: $I'$ is a ``yes''-instance of QSEP, then $I$ satisfies

1565: (\ref{eqn_WMEMSepAssertion}); otherwise $I$ satisfies

1566: (\ref{eqn_WMEMEntAssertion}). It suffices to use $[\rho']=[\rho]$.

1567: It is clear that if $\delta'$ and $\epsilon'$ are chosen such that

1568: $\delta \geq \delta'+\epsilon'$, then $I'$ is a ``yes''-instance

1569: only if $I$ satisfies (\ref{eqn_WMEMSepAssertion}).  For the other

1570: implication, we need to bound the propagation of some

1571: truncation-errors.  Let $p:=\lceil\log_2( 1/\delta_p)\rceil$.

1572: 

1573: Recall how absolute errors accumulate when multiplying and adding

1574: numbers.  Let $x=\tilde{x}+\Delta_x$ and $y=\tilde{y}+\Delta_y$

1575: where $x$, $y$, $\tilde{x}$, $\tilde{y}$, $\Delta_x$, and

1576: $\Delta_y$ are all real numbers.  Then we have

1577: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_errorMult}

1578: xy &=& \tilde{x}\tilde{y} + \tilde{x}\Delta_y+ \tilde{y}\Delta_x +

1579: \Delta_x\Delta_y\\

1580: x+y &=& \tilde{x}+\tilde{y}+\Delta_x+\Delta_y.

1581: \end{eqnarray}

1582: For $|\tilde{x}|,|\tilde{y}|<1$, because we will be dealing with

1583: summations of products with errors, it is sometimes convenient

1584: just to use

1585: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_errorMult}

1586: |xy -\tilde{x}\tilde{y}| &\leq&   |\Delta_y|+ |\Delta_x| +

1587: \textrm{max}\{|\Delta_x|,|\Delta_y|\}

1588: \end{eqnarray}

1589: to obtain our cumulative errors (which do not need to be tight to

1590: show NP-hardness).  For example, if $\tilde{x}$ and $\tilde{y}$

1591: are the $p$-bit truncations of $x$ and $y$, where $|x|,|y|<1$,

1592: then $|\Delta_x|, |\Delta_y|<2^{-p}$; thus a conservative bound on

1593: the error of $\tilde{x}\tilde{y}$ is

1594: \begin{eqnarray}

1595: |xy- \tilde{x}\tilde{y}| < |\Delta_y|+|\Delta_x|+|\Delta_x| =

1596: 3|\Delta_x|<2^2|\Delta_x|= 2^{-(p-2)}.

1597: \end{eqnarray}

1598: 

1599: 

1600: 

1601: \begin{proposition}\label{Prop_BoundDist__Sigma_SigmaTilde} Let $\sigma\in \sep$ be such that

1602: $\sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{\n}p_i\alpha_i\alpha_i^\dagger\otimes\beta_i\beta_i^\dagger$,

1603: and let \\ $\{(\tilde{p}_i;

1604: \tilde{\alpha}_i,\tilde{\beta}_i)\}_{i=1,2,...,\n}$ be the $p$-bit

1605: truncation of $\{({p}_i;

1606: {\alpha}_i,{\beta}_i)\}_{i=1,2,...,\n}$.\\

1607: Then $||\sigma-\tilde{\sigma}||_2< M^3N^32^{-(p-7.5)}$, where

1608: \begin{eqnarray}

1609: \tilde{\sigma} :=

1610: \sum_{i=1}^{\n}\tilde{p}_i\tilde{\alpha}_i\tilde{\alpha}_i^\dagger\otimes\tilde{\beta}_i\tilde{\beta}_i^\dagger.

1611: \end{eqnarray}

1612: \end{proposition}

1613: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent \textbf{Proof} Letting

1614: $\gamma_i:=p_i\alpha_i\alpha_i^\dagger\otimes\beta_i\beta_i^\dagger

1615: -

1616: \tilde{p}_i\tilde{\alpha}_i\tilde{\alpha}_i^\dagger\otimes\tilde{\beta}_i\tilde{\beta}_i^\dagger$,

1617: we use the triangle inequality to get

1618: \begin{eqnarray}

1619: ||\sigma  - \tilde{\sigma}||_2 &\leq& \sum_i ||\gamma_i||_2

1620: =\sum_i \sqrt{\tr(\gamma_i^2)}.

1621: \end{eqnarray}

1622: It suffices to bound the absolute error on the elements of

1623: $[\tilde{p}_i\tilde{\alpha}_i\tilde{\alpha}_i^\dagger\otimes\tilde{\beta}_i\tilde{\beta}_i^\dagger]$;

1624: using our conservative rule (\ref{eqn_errorMult}), these elements

1625: have absolute error less than $2^{-(p-7)}$.  Thus $[\gamma_i]$ is

1626: an $MN$-by-$MN$ matrix with elements no larger than $2^{-(p-7)}$

1627: in absolute value.  It follows that $(\tr(\gamma_i^2))^{1/2}$ is

1628: no larger than $\sqrt{MN}2^{-(p-7.5)}$ in absolute value. Finally,

1629: we get

1630: \begin{eqnarray}

1631: ||\sigma - \tilde{\sigma}||_2 \leq\sum_i

1632: \sqrt{\tr(\gamma_i^2)}\leq M^{3}N^{3}2^{-(p-7.5)}.\square

1633: \end{eqnarray}

1634: 

1635: \vspace*{12pt}

1636: \begin{proposition}\label{Prop_BoundOnNormalisedSigma}

1637: Let $\tilde{\sigma}$ be as in Proposition

1638: \ref{Prop_BoundDist__Sigma_SigmaTilde}.  Then for all

1639: $i=1,2,\ldots \n$

1640: \begin{eqnarray}

1641: \left|1-

1642: ||\tilde{\alpha}_i||^2||\tilde{\beta}_i||^2\sum_{j=1}^{\n}

1643: \tilde{p}_j\right| < \dima^3\dimb^3 2^{-(p-5)}.

1644: \end{eqnarray}

1645: \end{proposition}

1646: 

1647: \vspace*{12pt}\noindent\textbf{Proof} The absolute error on

1648: $\sum_j \tilde{p}_j$ is $\n2^{-p}$. The absolute error on

1649: $||\tilde{\alpha}_i||^2$ (resp. $||\tilde{\beta}_i||^2$) is no

1650: more than $M2^{-(p-3)}$ (resp. $N2^{-(p-3)}$).  This gives total

1651: absolute error of

1652: \begin{eqnarray}

1653: \left|1-{||\tilde{\alpha}_i||^2||\tilde{\beta}_i||^2}\sum_j

1654: \tilde{p}_j\right| < \dima^3\dimb^3 2^{-(p-5)}.\square

1655: \end{eqnarray}

1656: \vspace*{12pt}

1657: 

1658: Let $\delta':= M^{3}N^{3}2^{-(p-8)}$ and

1659: $\epsilon':=\dima^3\dimb^3 2^{-(p-5)}$ and set $p$ such that

1660: $\epsilon'+\delta'\leq\delta$. Suppose there exists a separable

1661: density matrix $\sigma$ such that $||[\rho]-\sigma||_2=0$.  Then

1662: Propositions \ref{Prop_BoundDist__Sigma_SigmaTilde} and

1663: \ref{Prop_BoundOnNormalisedSigma} say that there exists a

1664: certificate $\tilde{\sigma}$ such that (\ref{QSEP_Requirement1})

1665: and (\ref{QSEP_Requirement2}) are satisfied. Therefore, if $I'$ is

1666: a ``no''-instance, then for all separable density matrices

1667: $\sigma$, $||[\rho]-\sigma||_2>0$; which implies that $I$

1668: satisfies (\ref{eqn_WMEMEntAssertion}).  This concludes a polytime

1669: Karp-reduction from WMEM($\sep$) to QSEP (actually, from

1670: $\textrm{WMEM}_{\textrm{In}}(\sep)$ to QSEP):\vspace*{12pt}

1671: \begin{fact}\label{Prop_QSEPisNPHard}

1672: \emph{QSEP} is in $\NPCT$.

1673: \end{fact}

1674: 

1675: 

1676: 

1677: \subsubsection{Nonmembership in

1678: co-NP}\label{subsubsec_NonmembershipInCoNP}

1679: 

1680: 

1681: Technically, WMEM($\sep$) is not in NP because it is not a

1682: decision problem; but it is a promise problem.  Recall that a

1683: \emph{promise problem} $\Pi$ may be defined as a generalization of

1684: a decision problem, where, instead of just yes-instances $\Y_\Pi$

1685: and no-instances $\No_\Pi$, we allow a third set of

1686: maybe-instances (the ``promise'' is that the given instance is in

1687: $\Y_\Pi \cup \No_\Pi$). For $\Pi= \textrm{WMEM($\sep$)}$, we have

1688: $\Y_{\Pi} = \{(x,\delta): x\in S(\sep,-\delta),\delta>0\}$ and

1689: $\No_\Pi = \{(x,\delta): x\in \densops\setminus

1690: S(\sep,\delta),\delta>0\}$ (where we have implicitly restricted

1691: all states to being rational density matrices $[\rho]$). For our

1692: purposes, a promise problem $\Pi$ is defined to be in

1693: \emph{Promise-NP} if every yes-instance has a succinct certificate

1694: of being a yes-instance or a maybe-instance. Accordingly,

1695: WMEM($\sep$) is clearly in Promise-NP.

1696: 

1697: Is either EXACT QSEP or QSEP in co-NP?   To avoid possible

1698: technicalities, we might first consider the presumably easier

1699: question of whether WMEM($\sep$) is in Promise-co-NP: Does every

1700: entangled state $\rho\notin S(\sep,\delta)$ have a succinct

1701: certificate of not being in $S(\sep,-\delta)$?  It may or may not

1702: be the case that P equals NP$\cap$co-NP, but a problem's

1703: membership in NP$\cap$co-NP can be ``regarded as suggesting'' that

1704: the problem is in P \cite{GJ79}. Thus, we might believe that

1705: WMEM($\sep$) is not in Promise-co-NP (since WMEM($\sep$) is

1706: NP-hard).

1707: 

1708: Let us consider this with regard to entanglement witnesses, which

1709: are candidates for succinct certificates of entanglement. We know

1710: that every entangled state has an entanglement witness

1711: $A\in\hermops$ that detects it (see footnote on page

1712: \pageref{footnote_DefnEW}). However, it follows from the

1713: NP-hardness of WMEM($\sep$) and Theorem 4.4.4 in \cite{GLS88} that

1714: the weak validity problem for $K=\sep$ (WVAL($\sep$)) is

1715: NP-hard:\footnote{Theorem 4.4.4 in \cite{GLS88}, applied to

1716: $\sep$, states that there exists an oracle-polynomial-time

1717: algorithm that solves the WSEP($\sep$) given an oracle for

1718: WVAL($\sep$).}\vspace*{12pt}

1719: \begin{definition}[Weak validity problem for $K$ (WVAL($K$))]\label{def_WVAL}

1720: Given a rational vector $c\in\mathbf{R}^n$, a rational number

1721: $\gamma$, and rational $\epsilon>0$, assert either that

1722: \begin{eqnarray}

1723: c^Tx &\leq& \gamma+\epsilon\textrm{ for all }x\in K, \hspace{2mm}\textrm{or}\label{WVAL_AssertIsASepPlane}\\

1724: c^Tx &\geq& \gamma-\epsilon \textrm{ for some }x\in K.

1725: \end{eqnarray}

1726: \end{definition}\vspace*{12pt}

1727: \noindent So there is no known way to check efficiently that a

1728: hyperplane $\pi_{A,b}$ separates $\rho$ from $\sep$ (given just

1729: the hyperplane); thus, an entanglement witness alone does not

1730: serve as a succinct certificate of a state's entanglement unless

1731: WVAL($\sep$) is polytime solvable.  However, one could imagine

1732: that there is a succinct certificate of the fact that a hyperplane

1733: $\pi_{A,b}$ separates $\rho$ from $\sep$. If such a certificate

1734: exists, then WVAL($\sep$) is in Promise-NP (and thus WMEM($\sep$)

1735: is in Promise-co-NP).\footnote{WVAL(K) is in Promise-NP if, for

1736: any instance $c$, $\gamma$, $\epsilon$ satisfying

1737: $c^Tx\leq\gamma-\epsilon\textrm{ for all }x\in K$, there exists a

1738: succinct certificate of the fact that $c^Tx \leq

1739: \gamma+\epsilon\textrm{ for all }x\in K$.}

1740: 

1741: With regard to QSEP, we have the following:\vspace*{12pt}

1742: \begin{fact}\label{Fact_QSEPincoNPmeansNPiscoNP} QSEP is not in co-NP, unless NP equals co-NP.

1743: \end{fact}\vspace*{12pt}

1744: \noindent This follows from the fact that if any

1745: Turing-NP-complete problem is in co-NP, then NP equals co-NP

1746: \cite{Pap94}.

1747: %\footnote{Let $\Pi\in\NPCT$ be in co-NP.  Since $\Pi$ is in

1748: %co-NP, $\Pi^c$ is in NP\@. Let $\Pi'$ be any problem in co-NP\@.

1749: %To show that co-NP equals NP, it suffices to show that co-NP is

1750: %contained in NP; thus, it suffices to show that $\Pi'$ is in NP.

1751: % The following reduction chain holds, since $\Pi'^c$ is in NP:

1752: %$\Pi' \leq_\T \Pi'^c \leq_\T \Pi$. Because both $\Pi$ and $\Pi^c$

1753: %are in NP, the reduction

1754: %$\Pi'\leq_\T \Pi$ can be carried out by a polytime

1755: %nondeterministic Turing machine, which can ``solve'' any query to

1756: %$\mathcal{O}_\Pi$ by nondeterministically guessing and checking in

1757: %polynomial-time the ``yes''-certificate (if the query is a

1758: %``yes''-instance of $\Pi$) or the ``no''-certificate (if the query

1759: %is a ``no''-instance of $\Pi)$.  Thus $\Pi'$ is in NP.}

1760: It is strongly conjectured that NP and co-NP are different

1761: \cite{Pap94}, thus we might believe that QSEP is not in co-NP\@.

1762: We would like to be able to use Fact

1763: \ref{Fact_QSEPincoNPmeansNPiscoNP} to show that WVAL($\sep$) is

1764: not in Promise-NP unless NP equals co-NP\@. However, for this, we

1765: would require that WVAL($\sep$) is in Promise-NP implies QSEP is

1766: in co-NP; but this is not the case, because exhibiting a

1767: separating hyperplane for $\rho$ (i.e. showing that $\rho$ is

1768: entangled) does not make $\rho$ a no-instance of QSEP.

1769: 

1770: 

1771: \subsubsection{Strong NP-hardness}\label{subsubsec_StrongNPHness}

1772: 

1773: The NP-complete problem known as PARTITION may be defined as

1774: follows: Given a nonnegative integral vector $a\in \mathbf{Z}^n$,

1775: does there exist a solution $z\in \{-1,1\}^n$ to the equation

1776: $a^Tz=0$? It is well known that there exists a ``dynamic

1777: programming'' algorithm that solves PARTITION in time $O(\poly(n

1778: ||a||_1))$, where $||a||_1$ is the sum of the elements of $a$

1779: \cite{GJ79}. This is known as a \emph{pseudopolynomial-time

1780: algorithm}, because \emph{if} $a$ is restricted such that $||a||_1

1781: \in O(\poly (n))$, \emph{then} the algorithm runs in ``polynomial

1782: time''.

1783: 

1784: 

1785: Aaronson \cite{Aar05} notes that Gurvits' original NP-hardness

1786: result (in \cite{Gur03}) more precisely shows that WMEM($\sep$) is

1787: NP-hard provided that $1/\delta$ is exponentially large, as I

1788: briefly explain now. For this section only, we switch convention:

1789: $M\geq N$. The full reduction chain that Gurvits uses to prove

1790: NP-hardness is

1791: \begin{equation}

1792: \textrm{PARTITION} \leq_\K \textrm{RSDF} \leq_\K

1793: \textrm{WVAL}(\sep) \leq_\T \textrm{WMEM}(\sep),

1794: \end{equation}

1795: where the robust semidefinite feasibility (RSDF) problem is

1796: defined as follows: \vspace*{12pt}

1797: \begin{definition}[RSDF] Given $k$ $l\times l$, rational, symmetric matrices

1798: $B_1,\ldots, B_k$ and rational numbers $\zeta$ and $\eta$, assert

1799: either that

1800: \begin{eqnarray}

1801: F(B_1,\ldots,B_k)

1802: &\leq& \zeta+\eta, \hspace{2mm}\textrm{or}\\

1803: F(B_1,\ldots,B_k) &\geq& \zeta-\eta,

1804: \end{eqnarray}

1805: where $F(B_1,\ldots,B_k):=\max_{x\in\mathbf{R}^l, ||x||_2=1}

1806: \sum_{i'=1}^k (x^T B_{i'} x)^2$.

1807: \end{definition}

1808: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent  Given a PARTITION instance

1809: $a\in\mathbf{Z}^l$, we want to solve it using an oracle for RSDF.

1810: The reduction (in \cite{BN98}) from PARTITION to RSDF says that

1811: $\eta$ needs to be on the order of $1/\poly(l||a||_2)$.  But this

1812: implies that, for $a$ to be an NP-hard instance of PARTITION,

1813: $1/\eta$ needs to be exponentially large in $l$.  In other words,

1814: WVAL($\sep$) (and hence WMEM($\sep$)) is only shown to be NP-hard

1815: when the accuracy parameter is very small. It is still

1816: conceivable, though, that WVAL($\sep$) (resp. WMEM($\sep$)) is

1817: tractable when $1/\epsilon$ (resp. $1/\delta$) is in

1818: $O(\poly(M,N))$.  Below, I show that a new reduction discovered by

1819: Gurvits \cite{Gur06} (inspired by the proof of Lemma 3 in

1820: \cite{GB05}) removes the possibility for such a family of

1821: WVAL($\sep$) instances in a certain regime of $\epsilon$;

1822: moreover, I also remove this possibility for a problem slightly

1823: more difficult than the weak membership problem for $\sep$.

1824: 

1825: 

1826: The new reduction chain is

1827: \begin{equation}

1828: \textrm{CLIQUE} \leq_\K \textrm{WMQS} \leq_\K \textrm{RSDF}

1829: \leq_\K \textrm{WVAL}(\sep) \leq_\T \textrm{WMEM}(\sep),

1830: \end{equation}

1831: where CLIQUE $\in\NPCK$ (see \cite{GJ79}) is the problem of

1832: deciding whether the number of vertices in the largest complete

1833: subgraph (clique) of a given simple graph on $n$ vertices is at

1834: least $c$ (given also integer $c\leq n$), and WMQS is the problem

1835: of weakly deciding a bound on the maximum of the quadratic form

1836: $y^TAy$ over the simplex $\Delta_n :=\{y\in\mathbf{R}^n: y_i\geq

1837: 0, ||y||_1=1\}$: \vspace*{12pt}

1838: \begin{definition}[WMQS] Given rational,

1839: symmetric $A\in\mathbf{R}^{n\times n}$ with nonnegative entries

1840: $A_{ij}$ and rational numbers $\zeta'$ and $\eta'>0$, assert

1841: either that

1842: \begin{eqnarray}

1843: H(A)

1844: &\leq& \zeta'+\eta', \hspace{2mm}\textrm{or}\\

1845: H(A) &\geq& \zeta'-\eta',

1846: \end{eqnarray}

1847: where $H(A):=\max_{y\in\Delta_n} y^T A y$.

1848: \end{definition}

1849: \vspace*{12pt}

1850: 

1851: 

1852: The first link in this chain is well known via the following

1853: theorem:\footnote{Thanks to Etienne de Klerk at University of

1854: Waterloo for pointing me to this theorem.} \vspace*{12pt}

1855: \begin{mytheorem}[\cite{MS65}]\label{thm_MAXCLIQUESIMPLEX}

1856: Let $G$ be a simple graph on $n$ vertices, and let $A_G$ be the

1857: adjacency matrix for $G$.\footnote{$A_G$ has a 1 in position

1858: $(i,j)$ whenever $(i,j)$ is an edge of $G$, and otherwise has a 0

1859: ($A_G$ has just zeros on the diagonal).}~ Let $\kappa$ be the size

1860: of the maximum complete subgraph of $G$. Then

1861: \begin{eqnarray}

1862: \max_{y\in\Delta_n} y^T A_G y = 1-1/\kappa.

1863: \end{eqnarray}

1864: \end{mytheorem}

1865: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent Suppose $(G,c)$ is a given CLIQUE

1866: instance, where $G$ has $n$ vertices.  To transform $(G,c)$ into a

1867: WMQS-instance, just set $\zeta'$ to be the midpoint of interval

1868: $I_c=[1-1/(c-1), 1-1/c]$ and set $\eta'$ so that the interval

1869: $[\zeta'-\eta', \zeta'+\eta']$ is strictly contained in $I_c$ (and

1870: set $A:=A_G$). Note that such an $\eta'$ exists in

1871: $\Omega((c-1)^{-1} - c^{-1}) \in \Omega(n^{-2})$. Therefore, WMQS

1872: is NP-hard (with respect to $n$ and $\langle \eta' \rangle$) even

1873: when $1/\eta'$ is restricted to being in $O(\poly(n))$, which we

1874: call \emph{strong} NP-hardness (see \cite{GJ79}).

1875: 

1876: The second link Gurvits establishes by noting that, via a change

1877: of variables $y_i \rightarrow x_i^2$,

1878: \begin{eqnarray}

1879: \max_{y\in\Delta_n} y^T A y = \max_{x\in\mathbf{R}^n,||x||_2=1}

1880: \sum_{i,j=1}^n A_{ij}x_i^2x_j^2,

1881: \end{eqnarray}

1882: and

1883: \begin{eqnarray}

1884: \sum_{i,j=1}^n A_{ij}x_i^2x_j^2 = \sum_{i,j=1}^n

1885: (\sqrt{A_{ij}}x_ix_j)^2 = 2\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq

1886: n}(\sqrt{A_{ij}}x_ix_j)^2 =\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} (x^TB^{ij}x)^2,

1887: \end{eqnarray}

1888: where $B^{ij}$, for all $1\leq i<j\leq n$, is the matrix with

1889: $\sqrt{A_{ij}}$ in positions $(i,j)$ and $(j,i)$, and zeros

1890: elsewhere (note there are $n(n-1)/2$ matrices $B^{ij}$). Thus RSDF

1891: is strongly NP-hard (with respect to $l$ and $\langle\eta\rangle$)

1892: in the regime $k\geq l(l-1)/2$, because we can make some of the

1893: blocks $B_{i'}$ zero-blocks (the rest of the

1894: instance-transformation is $(\zeta, \eta):=(\zeta',\eta')$).

1895: 

1896: The third link is established in \cite{Gur03}, where Gurvits shows

1897: that, for

1898: \begin{eqnarray}

1899: B:= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & B_1 & \cdots & B_{M-1}   \\

1900: B_1 & 0 & \cdots &0\\

1901: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\

1902: B_{M-1} & 0 & \cdots & 0

1903:  \end{pmatrix},

1904: \end{eqnarray}

1905: where the zeros are $N\times N$ blocks of 0 and the $B_i$ are real

1906: symmetric $N\times N$ matrices, the following holds:

1907: \begin{eqnarray}

1908: \max_{\sigma\in\sep} \tr(B\sigma) =

1909: \max_{x\in\mathbf{R}^N,||x||_2=1}\sum_{i'=1}^{M-1}(x^T B_{i'}

1910: x)^2.

1911: \end{eqnarray}

1912: It follows that WVAL($\sep$) is strongly NP-hard (with respect to

1913: $N$ and $\langle\epsilon\rangle$) in the regime $M \geq

1914: N(N-1)/2+1$ (again, the rest of the instance-transformation is

1915: trivial: $(\gamma,\epsilon):=(\zeta,\eta)$). But suppose we had an

1916: oracle for WVAL($\sep$)$_{N \leq M \leq N(N-1)/2}$ and wanted to

1917: solve the instance of CLIQUE. Then, by setting $M:=N:=n(n-1)/2 +1$

1918: and making each $B_{i'}$ block ($i'=1,\ldots,N-1$) zeros but for

1919: the upper left $n\times n$ submatrix (into which we put $B^{ij}$),

1920: we have that

1921: \begin{eqnarray}

1922: \max_{x\in\mathbf{R}^N,||x||_2=1}\sum_{i'=1}^{M-1}(x^T B_{i'} x)^2

1923: =\max_{x\in\mathbf{R}^n,||x||_2=1}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}

1924: (x^TB^{ij}x)^2.

1925: \end{eqnarray}

1926: Thus WVAL($\sep$) is also strongly NP-hard (with respect to $N$

1927: and $\langle\epsilon\rangle$) in the regime $2\leq N\leq M$.

1928: 

1929: 

1930: 

1931: 

1932: 

1933: 

1934: The last link in the reduction is more correctly split up into two

1935: links:

1936: \begin{equation}

1937: \textrm{WVAL}(\sep) \leq_\K \textrm{WVIOL}(\sep) \leq_\T

1938: \textrm{WMEM}(\sep),

1939: \end{equation}

1940: where the following definition applies:

1941: 

1942: 

1943: \vspace*{12pt}

1944: \begin{definition}[Weak violation problem for $K$ ($\textrm{WVIOL($K$)}$)]\label{def_WVAL}

1945: Given a rational vector $c\in\mathbf{R}^n$, a rational number

1946: $\gamma$, and rational $\epsilon>0$, either

1947: \begin{itemize}

1948: \item \textrm{assert $c^Tx \leq \gamma+\epsilon$ for all $x\in K$, or}\label{WVAL_AssertIsASepPlane}\\

1949: \item \textrm{find a vector $y\in S(K,\epsilon)$ with $c^Ty \geq

1950: \gamma - \epsilon$}.

1951: \end{itemize}

1952: \end{definition}

1953: \vspace*{12pt}

1954: 

1955: \noindent It is clear that WVIOL($\sep$) is also strongly NP-hard.

1956: But the Turing-reduction from WVIOL($\sep$) to WMEM($\sep$) is

1957: highly nontrivial in that the only proof of this reduction,

1958: appearing in Theorem 4.3.2 of \cite{GLS88}, requires the

1959: shallow-cut ellipsoid method.  The accuracy parameters for the

1960: WMEM($\sep$)-oracle queries in this reduction only have

1961: exponentially small lower bounds.  Thus the problem remains:

1962: 

1963: \vspace*{12pt}

1964: \begin{problem} Is \emph{WMEM}$(\sep)$ tractable when $1/\delta$ is in

1965: $O(\poly(M,N))$?

1966: \end{problem}

1967: \vspace*{12pt}

1968: 

1969: Let us consider the following problem, which is more difficult

1970: than the weak membership problem because it asks for the normal

1971: vector to a separating hyperplane in the case where the given

1972: point is not inside the convex set: \vspace*{12pt}

1973: \begin{definition}[Weak separation problem for $K$ ($\textrm{WSEP($K$)}$)]\label{def_WSEP}

1974: Given a rational vector $p\in\mathbf{R}^n$ and rational

1975: $\delta>0$, either

1976: \begin{itemize}

1977: \item \textrm{assert $p\in S(K,\delta)$,

1978: or}\label{eqn_WSEPSepAssertion}\\

1979: \item \textrm{find a rational vector $c\in\mathbf{R}^n$ with

1980: $||c||_\infty= 1$ such that $c^Tx < c^Tp+\delta$ for every $x\in

1981: K$.}\label{eqn_WSEPEntAssertion}

1982: \end{itemize}

1983: \end{definition}

1984: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent  Note that WSEP($\sep$) asks either to

1985: assert that the given density matrix is almost separable, or to

1986: find an approximate entanglement witness.  A Turing reduction from

1987: WVIOL($\sep$) to WSEP($\sep$) (one of which appears in Theorem

1988: 4.2.2 of \cite{GLS88}), is much more straightforward and does not

1989: require the ellipsoid method -- any cutting-plane algorithm for

1990: the weak nonemptiness problem\footnote{The weak nonemptiness

1991: problem for $K$ is merely to find a point in $S(K,\epsilon)$ or

1992: assert that $S(K,-\epsilon)$ is empty.}~ relative to a weak

1993: separation oracle suffices. Applying the analytic-center algorithm

1994: of Atkinson and Vaidya \cite{AV95} gives a Turing-reduction that

1995: only needs to make polynomially-accurate WSEP($\sep$)-queries:

1996: 

1997: \vspace*{12pt}

1998: \begin{fact}

1999: \emph{WSEP}$(\sep)$ is strongly NP-hard (w.r.t. $N$ and

2000: $\langle\delta\rangle$) in the regime $2\leq N\leq M$.

2001: \end{fact}

2002: \vspace*{12pt}

2003: 

2004: 

2005: 

2006: \subsubsection{Possibility of a Karp Reduction}\label{subsubsec_TowardsKarp}

2007: 

2008: To date, every decision problem (except for QSEP) that is known to

2009: be in $\NPCT$ is also known to be in $\NPCK$

2010: \cite{PS01}.\footnote{By ``known to be in $\NPCT$'', I mean that

2011: the language corresponding to the decision problem can be defined

2012: and shown to be Turing-NP-complete, independent of any unproven

2013: assumptions. See \cite{Pav03} for languages that are suspected to

2014: be Turing-but-not-Karp-NP-complete, whose existence depends on

2015: unproven assumptions about NP.}~~ While it is strongly suspected

2016: that Karp and Turing reductions are inequivalent within NP, it

2017: would be surprising if QSEP, or some other formulation of the

2018: quantum separability problem,\footnote{By ``formulation of the

2019: quantum separability problem'', I mean an NP-contained approximate

2020: formulation that tends to EXACT QSEP as the accuracy parameters of

2021: the problem tend to zero.}~ is the first example that proves this

2022: inequivalence: \vspace*{12pt}

2023: \begin{problem}\label{prob_QSEPinNPCK}

2024: Is \emph{QSEP} in $\NPCK$?

2025: \end{problem}\vspace*{12pt}

2026: \noindent One reason to believe that a Turing reduction is

2027: necessary to prove the NP-hardness of the quantum separability

2028: problem is that a proof (see Section

2029: \ref{subsubsec_StrongNPHness}) seems to require a reduction from

2030: $\textrm{WVAL}(\sep)$ to $\textrm{WMEM}(\sep)$; in turn, this

2031: reduction seems to require the shallow-cut ellipsoid method (a

2032: Turing reduction). It is a long-standing open problem as to

2033: whether the reduction from $\textrm{WVAL}(\sep)$ to

2034: $\textrm{WMEM}(\sep)$ can be done differently.  However, as the

2035: NP-hardness of WMEM($\sep$) is a relatively recent result, there

2036: may be an altogether different proof of it that does not require a

2037: reduction from $\textrm{WVAL}(\sep)$ to $\textrm{WMEM}(\sep)$.

2038: 

2039: 

2040: 

2041: Note that, because of Fact \ref{Prop_QSEPisNPHard}, a negative

2042: answer to Problem \ref{prob_QSEPinNPCK} implies that $\P\neq\NP$.

2043: Note also that a direct reduction from some $\Pi'\in\NPCK$ to QSEP

2044: (or some other formulation) would depend heavily on the precise

2045: definition of QSEP rather than the true spirit of the quantum

2046: separability problem captured by WMEM($\sep$).  Thus, if the

2047: answer to Problem \ref{prob_QSEPinNPCK} is positive, it might be

2048: easier to look for a Karp-reduction from some $\Pi \in \NPCK$ to

2049: WMEM($\sep$).

2050: 

2051: 

2052: 

2053: 

2054: 

2055: 

2056: 

2057: 

2058: 

2059: 

2060: 

2061: 

2062: 

2063: \section{Survey and complexity analysis of algorithms for the quantum separability

2064: problem}\label{sec_SurveyOfAlgorithms}

2065: 

2066: For the survey, I concentrate on proposed algorithms that solve an

2067: approximate formulation of the quantum separability problem and

2068: have (currently known) asymptotic analytic bounds on their running

2069: times.  For this reason, the SDP relaxation algorithm of Eisert et

2070: al.\ is not mentioned here (see Section

2071: \ref{subsec_EisertsEtalApproach}); though, I do not mean to

2072: suggest that in practice it could not outperform the following

2073: algorithms on typical instances.  As well, I do not analyze the

2074: complexity of the naive implementation of every necessary and

2075: sufficient criterion for separability, as it is presumed that this

2076: would yield algorithms of higher complexity than the following

2077: algorithms.  For an exhaustive list of all such criteria, see the

2078: book by Bengtsson and Zyczkowski \cite{BZ06}.

2079: 

2080: I give complexity estimates for several of the algorithms

2081: surveyed. The main purpose below is to get a time-complexity

2082: estimate in terms of the parameters $\dima$, $\dimb$, and

2083: $\delta$, where $\delta$ is the accuracy parameter in

2084: WMEM($\sep$).

2085: %In the following, the only way precision and error

2086: %are dealt with is similar to the above discussion, where we have a

2087: %truncation-error resulting from approximating the continuum of

2088: %pure product states by a finite set of finitely precise product

2089: %vectors.

2090: The running-time estimates are based on the number of elementary

2091: arithmetic operations and do not attempt to deal with computer

2092: round-off error; I do not give estimates on the total amount of

2093: machine precision required.  Instead, where rounding is necessary

2094: in order to avoid exponential blow-up of the representation of

2095: numbers during the computation, I assume that the working

2096: precision\footnote{``Working precision'' is defined as the number

2097: of significant digits the computer uses to represent numbers

2098: during the computation.}~ can be set large enough that the overall

2099: effect of the round-off error on the final answer is either much

2100: smaller than $\delta$ or no larger than, say, $\delta/2$ (so that

2101: doubling $\delta$ takes care of the error due to round-off).

2102: 

2103: 

2104: 

2105: 

2106: \subsection{Naive algorithm and $\delta$-nets}\label{sec_BasicAlgorithm}

2107: 

2108: The naive algorithm for any problem in NP consists of a search

2109: through all potential succinct certificates that the given problem

2110: instance is a ``yes''-instance.  Thus QSEP immediately gives an

2111: algorithm for the quantum separability problem.   Hulpke and

2112: Bru{\ss} \cite{HB05} have demonstrated another hypothetical

2113: guess-and-check procedure that does not involve the probabilities

2114: $p_i$. They noticed that, given the vectors $\{[\ket{\psi^\A_i}],

2115: [\ket{\psi^\B_i}]\}_{i=1}^{\n}$, one can check that

2116: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_NPCheckHulpkeBruss1}

2117: \textrm{$\{[\ket{\psi^\A_i}][\bra{\psi^\A_i}]\otimes

2118: [\ket{\psi^\B_i}][\bra{\psi^\B_i}]\}_{i=1}^{\n}$ is affinely

2119: independent; and}

2120: \end{eqnarray}

2121: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_NPCheckHulpkeBruss2}

2122: [\rho]\in\conv \{[\ket{\psi^\A_i}][\bra{\psi^\A_i}]\otimes

2123: [\ket{\psi^\B_i}][\bra{\psi^\B_i}]\}_{i=1}^{\n}

2124: \end{eqnarray}

2125: in polynomially many arithmetic operations (and they give an

2126: algorithm for the separability problem based on this observation).

2127: We can, in principle, reformulate QSEP to incorporate the ideas of

2128: Hulpke and Bru{\ss} in order to get a better naive algorithm. The

2129: reader is referred to \cite{qphIoa05} for details (and for how our

2130: approach differs from theirs -- essentially, their algorithm

2131: solves a more exact formulation of the separability problem); we

2132: quote the asymptotic running-time estimate of

2133: $(MN/\delta)^{O(M^3N^2 +M^2N^3)}$.

2134: 

2135: 

2136: QSEP can be further reformulated to avoid searching through

2137: \emph{all} $p$-bit-precise pure states by using the concept of a

2138: net on (or covering of) the unit sphere.  Let $\mathbf{S}_\dima$

2139: be the Euclidean unit sphere in $\mathbf{C}^M$. In principle, we

2140: can use a \emph{Euclidean $\delta$-net of $\mathbf{S}_\dima$},

2141: which is a minimal set of points

2142: $\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}:=\{\ket{x_i}\}_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}|}\subset

2143: \mathbf{S}_\dima$ such that for any $\ket{x}\in\mathbf{S}_\dima$

2144: there exists $\ket{x_i}\in \mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}$ such that

2145: $||\ket{x}-\ket{x_i}||_2\leq\delta$.  The optimal size of a

2146: $\delta$-net on the real sphere is known to be no larger than $(1

2147: + 2/\delta)^{M}$ \cite{P89}, thus we can take

2148: $|\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}|\leq (1 +

2149: 2/\delta)^{2M}$.\footnote{Recall that the Euclidean distance

2150: between two vectors in $\mathbf{C}^M$ depends only on the real

2151: part of their inner product, which behaves exactly like the

2152: dot-product of real vectors in $\mathbf{R}^{2M}$.}~ Assuming the

2153: availability of asymptotically optimal $\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}$

2154: for all $M$ and $\delta$ (where the real elements in each

2155: $\ket{x_i}$ have $p$ bits of precision), the complexity of the

2156: naive algorithm for separability is reduced to

2157: $(2/\delta)^{O(M^3N^2+M^2N^3)}$, which simply corresponds to the

2158: number of $M^2N^2$-subsets of $\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta} \times

2159: \mathcal{N}^N_{\delta}$.  We will assume availability, or

2160: \emph{advice}, of $\delta$-nets for the complexity estimates of

2161: several of the following algorithms.

2162: 

2163: 

2164: 

2165: 

2166: \subsection{Bounded search for symmetric extensions}\label{sec_DohertyEtalKonigRenner}

2167: 

2168: In Section \ref{sec_DohertyEtalApproach}, we considered two tests

2169: -- one that searches for symmetric extensions of $\rho$, and a

2170: stronger one that searches for PPT symmetric extensions.  Now I

2171: show that recent results can put an upper bound on the number $k$

2172: of copies of subsystem $\A$ when solving an approximate

2173: formulation of the separability problem. The bound only assumes

2174: symmetric extensions, \emph{not} PPT symmetric extensions, so it

2175: is possible that a better bound may be found for the stronger test

2176: (Problem \ref{Problem_CanBoundOnkBeImproved}).

2177: 

2178: If a symmetric state

2179: $\varrho\in\densopsgen{(\mathbf{C}^d)^{\otimes n}}$ has a

2180: symmetric extension to $\densopsgen{(\mathbf{C}^d)^{\otimes

2181: (n+m)}}$ for all $m>0$, then it is called \emph{(infinitely)

2182: exchangeable}.  The quantum de Finetti theorem (see \cite{DPS04}

2183: and references therein) says that the infinitely exchangeable

2184: state $\varrho$ is separable. Recalling the terminology of Section

2185: \ref{sec_DohertyEtalApproach}, it is also possible to derive that,

2186: for $\rho\in\densopsgen{\CMotimesCN}$, if there exists a symmetric

2187: extension of $\rho$ to $k$ copies of subsystem $\A$ for all $k>0$,

2188: then $\rho\in\sep$.  This is the result that proves that Doherty

2189: et al.'s hierarchy of tests is complete:  if $\rho$ is entangled,

2190: then the SDP at some level $k_0$ of the hierarchy will not be

2191: feasible (i.e. will not find a symmetric extension of $\rho$ to

2192: $k_0$ copies of subsystem $\A$).

2193: 

2194: It seems reasonable that, if we are only interested in whether

2195: $\rho$ is $\delta$-close to $\sep$, we should not need to check

2196: for extensions of $\rho$ to $k$ copies of subsystem $\A$ for $k$

2197: larger than some bound $\bar{k}=\bar{k}(M,N,\delta)$.  In fact, we

2198: can use results of Christandl et al. \cite{qphCKMR06} to compute

2199: just such a $\bar{k}$.\footnote{Thanks to Andrew Doherty for

2200: calling my (and Christandl et al.'s!) attention to this;

2201: otherwise, I would be deriving a worse bound on $k$, based on

2202: results in \cite{KR05}.}~  We require the following theorem:

2203: \vspace*{12pt}

2204: \begin{mytheorem}[\cite{qphCKMR06}]

2205: Suppose $\rho\in\densops$ and there exists a Bose-symmetric

2206: extension $\rho'$ of $\rho$ to $k\geq 2$ copies of subsystem $\A$,

2207: i.e. $(I\otimes P)\rho'=\rho'$ for all $k!$ permutations $P$ of

2208: the $k$ copies of subsystem $\A$. Then

2209: \begin{eqnarray}

2210: \tr|\rho - \sigma|\leq \frac{4\dima}{{k}},

2211: \end{eqnarray}

2212: for some $\sigma\in\sep$.

2213: \end{mytheorem}

2214: \vspace*{12pt} \noindent Note that the result uses the \emph{trace

2215: distance}, $\tr|X-Y|$, between two operators $X$ and $Y$.  Let us

2216: assume we are solving the weak membership formulation of the

2217: quantum separability problem with respect to the trace distance,

2218: and with accuracy parameter $\delta$.  Then, setting

2219: $\delta={4\dima}/{{k}}$, we get the following upper bound for $k$:

2220: \vspace*{12pt}

2221: \begin{corollary} To solve \emph{WMEM($\sep$)} (with respect to the trace distance)

2222: with accuracy parameter $\delta$ by searching for symmetric

2223: extensions (as described in Section

2224: \ref{sec_DohertyEtalApproach}), it suffices to look for symmetric

2225: extensions to

2226: \begin{eqnarray}

2227: \bar{k}:=\lceil 4\dima/\delta\rceil

2228: \end{eqnarray}

2229: copies of subsystem A.

2230: \end{corollary}

2231: \vspace*{12pt} To estimate the total complexity of the algorithm,

2232: note that

2233: \begin{eqnarray}

2234: d_{S_k} &=& {{M+k-1}\choose{k}} \approx {{M+k}\choose{k}} =

2235: \frac{(M+k)!}{k!M!} \\

2236: &\approx&

2237: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{(M+k)^{M+k}}{k^kM^M}  \left({\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{M}}\right)^{1/2},\\

2238: \end{eqnarray}

2239: where in the last line we used Stirling's approximation $n!\approx

2240: n^n\sqrt{2\pi n}/e^n$.  Substituting $\bar{k}\approx 4M/\delta$

2241: for $k$, we get

2242: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_MainDohertEtalKonigRennerComplexity}

2243: \left({\frac{1}{\bar{k}}+\frac{1}{M}}\right)^{-1/2}d_{S_{\bar{k}}}&\approx&

2244: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}

2245: \frac{(M+4M/\delta)^{M+\bar{k}}}{(4M/\delta)^{\bar{k}}M^M}

2246: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}

2247: \frac{(1+4/\delta)^{M+\bar{k}}}{(4/\delta)^{\bar{k}}} \\

2248: &\approx& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}(4/\delta)^M\\

2249: d_{S_{\bar{k}}}&\approx& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}(4/\delta)^M

2250: \left({{\delta}/{{4M}}+{1}/{M}}\right)^{1/2}\\

2251: &\approx& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}(4/\delta)^M

2252: \left({1}/{M}\right)^{1/2}.

2253: \end{eqnarray}

2254: Just to solve the first constraint in (\ref{prob_DohertyEtalSDP})

2255: requires $\sqrt{n}$ (but usually far fewer) iterations of a

2256: procedure that requires $O(m^2n^2)$ arithmetic operations, for

2257: $m=((d_{S_{\bar{k}}})^2-\dima^2)\dimb^2$ and

2258: $n=(d_{S_{\bar{k}}})^2\dimb^2$ \cite{DPS04}.  That is, the

2259: complexity of each iteration is on the order of\\

2260: $(d_{S_{\bar{k}}})^8\poly(M,N,\log(1/\delta))$.

2261: 

2262: 

2263: %One

2264: %possible reason for the lower bound on $d_{S_{\bar{k}}}$ being so

2265: %big is that our bound $\bar{k}$ on $k$ does not take into account

2266: %the PPT constraints of the symmetric extensions.

2267: \vspace*{12pt}

2268: \begin{problem}\label{Problem_CanBoundOnkBeImproved}

2269: Can the upper bound $\bar{k}$ be improved by taking into

2270: consideration the PPT constraints in (\ref{prob_DohertyEtalSDP})?

2271: \end{problem}

2272: \vspace*{12pt}

2273: 

2274: 

2275: \noindent We mention that a larger bound $\bar{k}'\gg \bar{k}$ on

2276: $k$ can be derived from a theorem in \cite{KR05}, which also can

2277: be used to compute an approximate separable decomposition of

2278: $\rho$ in the case where the SDP algorithm finds a symmetric

2279: extension of $\rho$ to $\bar{k}'$ copies of subsystem $\A$.

2280: 

2281: \subsection{Entanglement-witness search via global optimization}\label{sec_NewSepAlg}

2282: 

2283: Recall that an \emph{entanglement witness (for $\rho$)} is defined

2284: to be any operator $A\in\hermops$ such that

2285: $\tr(A\sigma)<\tr(A\rho)$ for all $\sigma\in\sep$ and some

2286: $\rho\in\ent$; we say that ``$A$ detects $\rho$''. Since every

2287: $\rho\in\ent$ has an entanglement witness that detects it

2288: \cite{HHH96}, one way to solve the quantum separability problem is

2289: to exhaustively (but not naively!) search for an entanglement

2290: witness for the given $\rho$.  We mention that the dual of the SDP

2291: in the symmetric-extension search algorithm can be used to find an

2292: (approximate) entanglement witness for $\rho$ (when the SDP is

2293: infeasible) \cite{DPS04}.

2294: 

2295: 

2296: 

2297: 

2298: \subsubsection{Large SDP method}\label{subsubsec_LargeSDPPerezGarcia}

2299: 

2300: P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia and Cirac \cite{PC06} note that the following

2301: SDP effectively searches for an approximate entanglement witness

2302: $-A$ for $\rho$:

2303: \begin{eqnarray}

2304: &\textrm{minimize} \hspace{2mm}& \tr(A\rho)\\

2305: &\textrm{subject to:}\hspace{2mm}& \bra{x_i}A\ket{x_i}\geq 0,

2306: \textrm{ for all $\ket{x_i}\in\mathcal{N}^M_\delta$, and

2307: $\tr(A)=1$}.

2308: \end{eqnarray}

2309: \noindent Define the following convex hull:

2310: \begin{eqnarray}

2311: C:= \conv \{\ketbra{x_i}{x_i}\otimes\ketbra{b}{b}:

2312: \ket{x_i}\in\mathcal{N}^M_\delta, \ket{b}\in\mathbf{C}^N\}.

2313: \end{eqnarray}

2314: \noindent If the minimum is negative, then $-A$ is an approximate

2315: entanglement witness for $\rho$ because there is a hyperplane with

2316: normal $-A$ that separates $\rho$ from $C$ (otherwise $\rho$ is in

2317: $C$ and is thus in $\sep$).  This is justified because for any

2318: $\rho\in\sep$ there exists a $\sigma\in C$ such that $||\rho -

2319: \sigma||_1 \leq 2\delta$, as we now verify.  First, note that if

2320: $||\ket{x}-\ket{y}||_2 \leq \delta <1$, then

2321: $\textrm{Re}\braket{x}{y} \geq 1-\delta^2/2$ (since

2322: $||\ket{x}-\ket{y}||^2_2=2-2\textrm{Re}\braket{x}{y}$) and thus

2323: \begin{eqnarray}

2324: ||\ketbra{x}{x}-\ketbra{y}{y}||_1 &=& 2\sqrt{1-|\braket{x}{y}|^2}\hspace{10mm}\textrm{(see \cite{NC00}, p. 415)} \\

2325: &\leq& 2 \sqrt{1-(\textrm{Re}\braket{x}{y})^2} \\

2326: &\leq& 2 \sqrt{1-(1-\delta^2/2)^2}\\

2327: &=& 2\delta \sqrt{1-\delta^2/4}\\

2328: &<& 2\delta.

2329: \end{eqnarray}

2330: \noindent If $\rho =

2331: \sum_j\lambda_j\ketbra{u_j}{u_j}\otimes\ketbra{v_j}{v_j}$, for

2332: $\lambda_j\geq 0$ and $\sum_j\lambda_j=1$, then choosing

2333: $\ket{x_{i_j}}\in \mathcal{N}^M_\delta$ such that $||\ket{x_{i_j}}

2334: - \ket{u_j}||_2\leq\delta$ makes $\sigma:=

2335: \sum_j\lambda_j\ketbra{x_{i_j}}{x_{i_j}}\otimes\ketbra{v_j}{v_j}$

2336: in $C$ with $||\rho - \sigma||_1 \leq 2\delta$.

2337: 

2338: The size (up to a constant factor) of the constraint of the SDP is

2339: $n=|\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}| N$ (and the number of real variables

2340: to parametrize $A$ is $m = M^2N^2-1$), thus the complexity of one

2341: iteration of the SDP is of the order

2342: $|\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}|^2\poly(M,N,\log(1/\delta))$ (assuming

2343: $\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}$ is available).

2344: 

2345: This approach is a discretization of Brand{\~{a}}o and Vianna's

2346: robust semidefinite program (see Section

2347: \ref{subsubsec_OtherTests}), which is

2348: %\vspace*{12pt}

2349: %\begin{definition}[Robust semidefinite program] Given the

2350: %vector $c\in\mathbf{R}^m$ and Hermitian matrices

2351: %$F_i\in\mathbf{C}^{n\times n}$, $i=0,1,\ldots,m$,

2352: %\begin{eqnarray}

2353: %&\textrm{minimize} \hspace{2mm}& c^Tx\\

2354: %&\textrm{subject to:}\hspace{2mm}& F(x,\Delta)\geq 0 \textrm{, for

2355: %all $\Delta \in \mathcal{D}$,}

2356: %\end{eqnarray}

2357: %where $F(x,\Delta):= F_0(\Delta) + \sum_{i=1}^{m}x_iF_i(\Delta)$,

2358: %and $\mathcal{D}$ is a given vector space.

2359: %\end{definition}

2360: %\vspace*{12pt}

2361: %\noindent Their robust semidefinite program is

2362: \begin{eqnarray}

2363: &\textrm{minimize} \hspace{2mm}& \tr(A\rho)\\

2364: &\textrm{subject to:}\hspace{2mm}& x^\dagger A x\geq 0, \textrm{

2365: for all $x\in\mathbf{C}^M$, and $\tr(A)=1$}.

2366: \end{eqnarray}

2367: \noindent (Note that, combined with Gurvits' NP-hardness result

2368: \cite{Gur03}, this demonstrates that robust semidefinite programs

2369: are, in general, NP-hard.)  Essentially, P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia and

2370: Cirac have removed the robustness by using a $\delta$-net, which

2371: clarifies the complexity of the approach for deterministically

2372: solving WMEM($\sep$).

2373: 

2374: 

2375: 

2376: 

2377: 

2378: 

2379: 

2380: \subsubsection{Interior-point cutting-plane algorithm with global optimization

2381: subroutine}\label{subsubsec_IoannouAlgorithm}

2382: 

2383: The algorithms in \cite{ITCE04,IT06} solve WMEM($\sep$) by solving

2384: $\textrm{WSEP}(\sep)$ using a subroutine for WOPT($\sep$):

2385: 

2386: \vspace*{12pt}

2387: \begin{definition}[Weak optimization problem for $K$ (WOPT(K))]\label{def_WOPT}

2388: Given a rational vector $c\in\mathbf{R}^n$ and rational

2389: $\epsilon>0$, either

2390: \begin{itemize}

2391: \item find a rational vector $y\in\mathbf{R}^n$ such that $y\in

2392: S(K,\epsilon)$ and  $c^Tx\leq c^Ty +\epsilon$ for every $x\in K$;

2393: or

2394: 

2395: \item assert that $S(K,-\epsilon)$ is empty.\footnote{For

2396: $\epsilon$ we consider, this will never be the case for us, as we

2397: only consider WOPT($\sep$) and $\sep$ is far from

2398: empty.}\label{eqn_WSEPEntAssertion}

2399: \end{itemize}

2400: \end{definition}

2401: \vspace*{12pt}

2402: 

2403: \noindent Clearly, using a subroutine for WOPT($\sep$) allows one

2404: to test whether a Hermitian operator $A$ approximately detects

2405: $\rho$. The algorithms effectively perform a binary search through

2406: the space of all entanglement witnesses.  For example, the

2407: algorithm in \cite{ITCE04} searches through the space

2408: $\mathcal{W}:=\{A \in\hermops: \tr(A)=0, \tr(A)\leq 1\}$ of all

2409: normalized entanglement witnesses by iterating the following:

2410: \begin{romanlist}

2411: 

2412: \item Let $A$ be an approximate center (interior point) of the

2413: current search space (which is initialized to $\mathcal{W}\cap

2414: \{x\in\hermops: \tr(\rho x)\geq 0\}$, but subsequently gets

2415: approximately halved in each iteration, in step (iv) below).

2416: 

2417: \item Set $A:=A/||A||_2$ and give $(A,\epsilon:=\delta/5)$ to

2418: WOPT($\sep$) subroutine, which outputs $\sigma_A$.

2419: 

2420: \item If $A$ approximately detects $\rho$, then return $A$;

2421: 

2422: \item otherwise, use $\sigma_A$ to generate a cutting plane which

2423: approximately halves the current search space (cuts it through $A$

2424: and the origin).  If current search space is too small to contain

2425: a hyperplane that separates $\rho$ from $S(\sep,\delta)$, then

2426: return ``$\rho\in S(\sep,\delta)$''.

2427: 

2428: \end{romanlist}

2429: 

2430: %\begin{romanlist}

2431: % \item item one

2432: % \item item two

2433: %          \begin{alphlist}

2434: %          \item Lists within lists can be numbered with lowercase

2435: %              roman letters,

2436: %          \item second item.

2437: %          \end{alphlist}

2438: %\end{romanlist}

2439: 

2440: 

2441: %Of the algorithms already surveyed, this fifth algorithm is most

2442: %closely related, in spirit, to Zapatrin's algorithm of Section

2443: %\ref{sec_Zapatrin}. This is because both algorithms reduce the

2444: %quantum separability problem to

2445: %$\poly(\dima,\dimb,\log(1/\delta))$ iterations of a difficult

2446: %function evaluation: in Zapatrin's case, the difficulty is a

2447: %numerical integration; in the algorithm of \cite{ITCE04,qphIT06},

2448: %the difficulty is the computation of a global maximum.

2449: 

2450: The number of arithmetic operations required by the algorithm

2451: described in \cite{ITCE04} is

2452: \begin{eqnarray}

2453: O((T+

2454: \dima^6\dimb^6\log(1/\delta))\dima^2\dimb^2\log^2(\dima^2\dimb^2/\delta)),

2455: \end{eqnarray}

2456: where $T$ is the cost of one call to the WOPT($\sep$) subroutine

2457: (see \cite{qphIoa05} for details).

2458: 

2459: Now consider the complexity of computing an instance

2460: $(A,\epsilon)$ of WOPT($\sep$), $||A||_2=1$. For each $x_i\in

2461: \mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}$, we compute $\ket{j_i}:=

2462: \textrm{argmax}_{\ket{j}}|\bra{x_i}\bra{j}A\ket{x_i}\ket{j}|$ via

2463: eigenvector analysis of $\bra{x_i}A\ket{x_i}$ (which is

2464: Hermitian).\footnote{Thanks to David P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia for

2465: suggesting this method.}  Let $\tilde{i}$ denote the index $i$ of

2466: an element $\ket{x_i}$ of $\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}$ that maximizes

2467: $|\bra{x_i}\bra{j_i}A\ket{x_i}\ket{j_i}|$.  Then

2468: $\ket{x_{\tilde{i}}}\ket{j_{\tilde{i}}}$ may be taken as a

2469: solution to WOPT($\sep$) because

2470: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq_netmaximizer}

2471: |\bra{x_{\tilde{i}}} \bra{j_{\tilde{i}}} A  \ket{x_{\tilde{i}}}

2472: \ket{j_{\tilde{i}}}

2473: -\max_{\ket{\alpha}\ket{\beta}}\bra{\alpha}\bra{\beta}A\ket{\alpha}\ket{\beta}|

2474: \leq 2\delta,

2475: \end{eqnarray}

2476: as we now verify.  Let $\ket{a}\ket{b}:=

2477: \textrm{argmax}_{\ket{\alpha}\ket{\beta}}\bra{\alpha}\bra{\beta}A\ket{\alpha}\ket{\beta}$

2478: and let $i^*$ denote the index $i$ of an element $\ket{x_i}$ of

2479: $\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}$ such that $||\ket{x_i}-\ket{a}||_2 \leq

2480: \delta$.  Writing $\ket{yb}$ for $\ket{y}\ket{b}$ for any

2481: $\ket{y}$,

2482: \begin{eqnarray}

2483: &&|\bra{x_{i^*}b}A\ket{x_{i^*}b} - \bra{ab}A\ket{ab}| \\

2484: &=& |\bra{x_{i^*}b}A\ket{x_{i^*}b} - \bra{ab}A\ket{x_{i^*}b}+

2485: \bra{ab}A\ket{x_{i^*}b} - \bra{ab}A\ket{ab}| \\

2486: &=& ||\ket{x_{i^*}}-\ket{a}||_2\left|

2487: \frac{\bra{x_{i^*}}-\bra{a}}{||\ket{x_{i^*}}-\ket{a}||_2}\bra{b}A\ket{x_{i^*}b}

2488: +

2489: \bra{ab}A\frac{\ket{x_{i^*}}-\ket{a}}{||\ket{x_{i^*}}-\ket{a}||_2}\ket{b}\right|\\

2490: &\leq&

2491: 2\delta\max_{\ket{c},\ket{d} \in \mathbf{C}^M}|\bra{c}\bra{b}A\ket{d}\ket{b}|\\

2492: &\leq& 2\delta\max_{\ket{c'},\ket{d'} \in \mathbf{C}^M\otimes\mathbf{C}^N}|\bra{c'}A\ket{d'}|\\

2493: &=& 2\delta\max\{\sqrt{\lambda}: \textrm{$\lambda$ an eigenvalue

2494: of $A^\dagger A$}\}\hspace{10mm}\textrm{(see \cite{HJ85}, p. 312)}\\

2495: &\leq& 2\delta \sqrt{\sum_i \lambda_i(A^\dagger A)}\hspace{10mm}\textrm{(where $\lambda_i(X)$ denotes eigenvalues of $X$)} \\

2496: &=& 2\delta ||A||_2 \hspace{10mm}\textrm{(since $A$ is normal, see \cite{HJ85}, p. 316)}\\

2497: &=& 2\delta.

2498: \end{eqnarray}

2499: \noindent The inequality (\ref{ineq_netmaximizer}) follows from

2500: noting

2501: \begin{eqnarray}

2502: \bra{x_{i^*}}\bra{b}A\ket{x_{i^*}}\ket{b} \leq

2503: \bra{x_{i^*}}\bra{j_{i^*}}A\ket{x_{i^*}}\ket{j_{i^*}} \leq

2504: \bra{x_{\tilde{i}}}\bra{j_{\tilde{i}}}A\ket{x_{\tilde{i}}}\ket{j_{\tilde{i}}}

2505: \leq \bra{a}\bra{b}A\ket{a}\ket{b}.

2506: \end{eqnarray}

2507: 

2508: 

2509: Therefore, the complexity of the whole algorithm is on the order

2510: of \\$|\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}| \poly(M,N,\log(1/\delta))$

2511: (assuming $\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}$ is available).

2512: 

2513: 

2514: 

2515: 

2516: 

2517: 

2518: 

2519: 

2520: 

2521: \subsection{Other algorithms}

2522: 

2523: We mention two other algorithms, whose running times cannot be

2524: easily compared to that of the above algorithms.

2525: 

2526: \subsubsection{Cross-norm criterion via linear

2527: programming}\label{sec_Rudolf&PerezGarcia}

2528: 

2529: Rudolph \cite{Rud00} derived a simple characterization of

2530: separable states in terms of a computationally complex operator

2531: norm $||\cdot||_\gamma$.  For a finite-dimensional vector space

2532: $V$, let $\mathcal{T}(V)$ be the class of all linear operators on

2533: $V$. The norm is defined on $\mathcal{T}(\mathbf{C}^\dima) \otimes

2534: \mathcal{T}(\mathbf{C}^\dimb)$ as

2535: \begin{eqnarray}

2536: ||t||_\gamma := \inf \lbrace \sum_{i=1}^{k}||u_i||_1 ||v_i

2537: ||_1:\hspace{1mm} t = \sum_{i=1}^{k}u_i\otimes v_i \rbrace,

2538: \end{eqnarray}

2539: where the infimum is taken over all decompositions of $t$ into

2540: finite summations of elementary tensors, and

2541: $||X||_1:=\tr(\sqrt{X^\dagger X})$.  Rudolph showed that

2542: $||\rho||_\gamma \leq 1$ if and only if $||\rho||_\gamma = 1$, and

2543: that a state $\rho$ is separable if and only if $||\rho||_\gamma =

2544: 1$.

2545: 

2546: P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia \cite{Per04} showed that approximately

2547: computing this norm can be reduced to a linear program (which is a

2548: special case of a semidefinite program): $\min\{ c^Tx :

2549: \hspace{2mm}Ax=b, x\geq 0\}$,

2550: %\begin{eqnarray} %Linear program definition

2551: %& \textrm{minimise} \hspace{2mm}& c^Tx\\

2552: %& \textrm{subject to:} \hspace{2mm}&Ax=b, x\geq 0,

2553: %\end{eqnarray}

2554: where $A\in\mathbf{R}^{n\times m}$, $b\in\mathbf{R}^n$,

2555: $c\in\mathbf{R}^m$, and $x$ is a vector of $m$ real variables;

2556: here, $x\geq 0$ means that all entries in the vector are

2557: nonnegative.  An LP can be solved in $O(m^{3}L')$ arithmetic

2558: operations, where $L'$ is the length of the binary encoding of the

2559: LP \cite{Ye97}.

2560: %The linear program has on the order of

2561: %$\dima^2\dimb^2$ variables and

2562: %$\dima^{2\dima}\dimb^{2\dimb}(2k)^{2(\dima + \dimb)}$ constraints,

2563: %where $k$ is an integer that determines the relative

2564: %error\footnote{The \emph{relative error} of an approximation

2565: %$\tilde{x}$ of $x$ is defined as $|x-\tilde{x}|/x$.}~

2566: %$(k/(k-1))^4-1$ on the computation of the norm.  Thus it may be

2567: %solved in

2568: %\begin{eqnarray}

2569: %O(\dima^{2\dima+2}\dimb^{2\dimb+2}(2k)^{2(\dima + \dimb)})

2570: %\end{eqnarray}

2571: %arithmetic operations.

2572: The linear program has on the order of $\dima^2\dimb^2$ variables

2573: and $|\mathcal{N}^M_{1/k}|^2|\mathcal{N}^N_{1/k}|^2$ constraints,

2574: where $k$ is an integer that determines the relative

2575: error\footnote{The \emph{relative error} of an approximation

2576: $\tilde{x}$ of $x$ is defined as $|x-\tilde{x}|/x$.}~

2577: $(k/(k-1))^4-1$ on the computation of the norm.  Thus the

2578: complexity of the whole algorithm is on the order of

2579: $|\mathcal{N}^M_{1/k}|^2|\mathcal{N}^N_{1/k}|^2

2580: \poly(M,N,\log(1/\delta))$ (assuming availability of Euclidean

2581: $(1/k)$-nets).

2582: 

2583: 

2584: 

2585: 

2586: 

2587: Suppose $|| \rho ||_\gamma$ is found to be no greater than

2588: $1+\eta$. Then, we would like to use $\eta$ to upper-bound the

2589: distance, with respect to either trace or Euclidean norm, from

2590: $\rho$ to $\sep$.  Unfortunately, we do not know how to do this.

2591: This drawback, along with the fact that the error on the computed

2592: norm is relative as opposed to absolute, does not allow this

2593: algorithm to be easily compared to the other algorithms we

2594: consider. %Still, there may be a way to overcome this problem, as

2595: %follows.

2596: %

2597: %Following Rudolph \cite{qphRud02}, a norm closely related to

2598: %$||\cdot||_\gamma$ is

2599: %\begin{eqnarray}

2600: %||t||_\S := \inf \lbrace \sum_{i=1}^{k}||u_i||_1 ||v_i

2601: %||_1:\hspace{1mm} t = \sum_{i=1}^{k}u_i\otimes v_i \rbrace,

2602: %\end{eqnarray}

2603: %where the infimum is taken over all decompositions of $t$ into

2604: %finite summations of elementary \emph{Hermitian} tensors.  This

2605: %restriction on the decomposition implies that $||t||_\gamma\leq

2606: %||t||_\S$; thus, if $||\rho||_\S\leq 1$, then $\rho\in\sep$.

2607: %Conversely, if $\rho\in\sep$, then $\rho=\sum_i (p_i

2608: %\rho^\A_i)\otimes \rho^\B_i$; and this decomposition ensures

2609: %$||\rho||_\S\leq 1$.  Thus $||\rho||_\S\leq 1$ if and only if

2610: %$\rho\in\sep$.  The norm $||\cdot||_\S$ is related to an

2611: %entanglement measure called ``robustness''.

2612: %

2613: %

2614: %The \emph{robustness of entanglement} \cite{VT99} of

2615: %$\rho\in\densops$ is defined as

2616: %\begin{eqnarray}

2617: %R(\rho):=\inf \{a^- :\hspace{2mm} \rho = a^+\sigma^+

2618: %-a^-\sigma^-,\hspace{1mm} a^\pm\geq0,\sigma^\pm\in\sep\}.

2619: %\end{eqnarray}

2620: %In other words, the robustness is (a simple function of) the

2621: %minimal $p$, $0\leq p\leq 1$, such that

2622: %\begin{eqnarray}

2623: %\sigma^+ = p\sigma^- + (1-p)\rho

2624: %\end{eqnarray}

2625: %for separable states $\sigma^\pm$; the minimal $p$ is

2626: %$p_{R(\rho)}:=R(\rho)/(R(\rho)+1)$. Thus, $R(\rho)$ corresponds to

2627: %the minimal amount of separable ``noise'' ($\sigma^-$) that must

2628: %be added to $\rho$ in order to eliminate all the entanglement in

2629: %$\rho$.

2630: %

2631: %Using properties of ``subcross norms'' (see references in

2632: %\cite{qphRud02}), Rudolph shows \cite{qphRud02} that for

2633: %$\rho\in\densops$

2634: %\begin{eqnarray}

2635: %R(\rho) \equiv \frac{1}{2}(||\rho||_\S -1);

2636: %\end{eqnarray}

2637: %the proof is based on the ideas of ``base norm'' used in

2638: %\cite{VW02}.

2639: %

2640: %The point is that \emph{if} we could modify P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia's

2641: %algorithm so that it approximately computes $||\cdot||_\S$, then

2642: %we could relate the result to a standard norm, as follows. Suppose

2643: %the algorithm allows us to assert that $||\rho||_\S\leq 1+2\eta$.

2644: %Then $R(\rho)\leq \eta$.  Now, we have

2645: %\begin{eqnarray}

2646: %||\rho - \sigma^+|| &=& ||p_{R(\rho)}(\rho - \sigma^-)|| \\

2647: %&=& p_{R(\rho)}||\rho - \sigma^-|| \\

2648: %&=& \frac{R(\rho)}{1+R(\rho)}||\rho - \sigma^-||\\

2649: %&\leq& \frac{2\eta}{1+\eta} ,

2650: %\end{eqnarray}

2651: %where 2 is a an upper bound on the Euclidean diameter of the set

2652: %of (normalized) density operators.

2653: %\vspace*{12pt}

2654: %\begin{problem} Can the algorithm of P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia be

2655: %modified so that it approximately computes the norm

2656: %$||\cdot||_\S$?

2657: %\end{problem}

2658: %\vspace*{12pt} Continuing with our hypothetical run-time analysis,

2659: %how would we assert $||\rho||_\S\leq 1+2\eta$?  The actual

2660: %algorithm returns an approximation $x$ such that

2661: %$||\rho||_\gamma\leq x\leq (k/(k-1))^4||\rho||_\gamma$.  Let us

2662: %assume that a modification of the algorithm which computes

2663: %$||\rho||_\S$ would do the same.  If the modified algorithm

2664: %returns a number that is less than 1, then we know that

2665: %$||\rho||_\S\leq 1$.  Otherwise, all that we need is an upper

2666: %bound $\Abs$ on the \emph{absolute} error of the computation of

2667: %$||\rho||_\S$, since, if $\Abs\leq\eta$, then we can comfortably

2668: %conclude that either $||\rho||_\S\leq 1+2\eta$, or

2669: %$||\rho||_\S>1$. Using the canonical basis $\mathcal{B}$ of

2670: %$\hermops$ described in Section \ref{subsubsec_ReformulationQSEP},

2671: %we have $\M:=\max_{\rho\in\densops}||\rho||_\S\in

2672: %O(\poly(\dima,\dimb))$, which says the absolute error

2673: %$||\rho||_\S((k/(k-1))^4-1)$ is upper-bounded by $\Abs\in

2674: %O(((k/(k-1))^4-1)\poly(\dima,\dimb))$. The requirement $\Abs<\eta$

2675: %leads to a lower bound for $k$ of

2676: %\begin{eqnarray}

2677: %k > \frac{\M^{1/4}}{(\eta + \M)^{1/4}-\M^{1/4}}.

2678: %\end{eqnarray}

2679: %

2680: %

2681: %

2682: %Rudolph \cite{qphRud02} has also shown that, for

2683: %$\rho\in\densops$,

2684: %\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn_GammaNorm}

2685: %R(\rho)\geq ||\rho||_\gamma -1.

2686: %\end{eqnarray}

2687: %If equality holds in equation (\ref{eqn_GammaNorm}), then an

2688: %argument similar to the one above could be used. Rudolph notes

2689: %that equality holds for pure states and ``Werner'' and

2690: %``isotropic'' states (see \cite{VW02}).

2691: 

2692: 

2693: \subsubsection{Fixed-point iterative method}\label{sec_Zapatrin}

2694: 

2695: Zapatrin \cite{qphZap05c} suggests an iterative method that solves

2696: the separability problem.\footnote{Facts about iterative methods:

2697: First, the basic Newton-Raphson method in one variable. Suppose

2698: $\xi$ is a zero of a function $f:\mathbf{R}\rightarrow\mathbf{R}$

2699: and that $f$ is twice differentiable in a neighbourhood $U(\xi)$

2700: of $\xi$. Then the Taylor expansion of $f$ about $x_0\in U(\xi)$

2701: gives

2702: \begin{eqnarray}

2703:  0 =f(\xi) &=& f(x_0)+(\xi-x_0)f'(x_0)+ \cdots\\

2704: &=& f(x_0)+(\tilde{\xi}-x_0)f'(x_0),

2705: \end{eqnarray}

2706: where $\tilde{\xi}= x_0 -f(x_0)/f'(x_0)$ is an approximation of

2707: $\xi$. Repeating the process, with a truncated Taylor expansion of

2708: $f$ about $\tilde{\xi}$, gives a different approximation

2709: $\tilde{\tilde{\xi}}=\tilde{\xi}-f(\tilde{\xi})/f'(\tilde{\xi})$.

2710: This suggests the iterative method $x_{i+1}=\Phi(x_i)$, for

2711: $\Phi(x):=x-f(x)/f'(x)$.  If $f'(\xi)\neq 0$, the sequence

2712: $(x_i)_i$ converges to $\xi$ if $x_0$ is sufficiently close to

2713: $\xi$. More generally, if $\Phi(x):\mathbf{R}^n\rightarrow

2714: \mathbf{R}^n$ is a contractive mapping on $B(x_0,r)$, then the

2715: sequence $(x_0, \Phi(x_0),\Phi(\Phi(x_0)),\ldots)$ converges to

2716: the unique fixed point in $B(x_0,r)$ (as long as $\Phi(x_0)\in

2717: B(x_0,r)$) \cite{SB02}.}~~  He defines the function

2718: $\Phi:\hermops\rightarrow\hermops$:

2719: \begin{eqnarray}

2720: \Phi(X):= X + \lambda\left( \rho - \int\int

2721: e^{\bra{\psi^\A}\otimes\bra{\psi^\B}X\ket{\psi^\A}\otimes\ket{\psi^\B}}\ketbra{\psi^\A}{\psi^\A}\otimes\ketbra{\psi^\B}{\psi^\B}d\mathbf{S}_\dima

2722: d\mathbf{S}_\dimb\right),

2723: \end{eqnarray}

2724: where $\mathbf{S}_\dima$ and $\mathbf{S}_\dimb$ are the complex

2725: origin-centred unit spheres (containing, respectively,

2726: $\ket{\psi^\A}$ and $\ket{\psi^\B}$), and $\lambda$ is a constant

2727: dependent on the derivative (with respect to $X$) of the quantity

2728: in parentheses ($\lambda$ is chosen so that $\Phi$ is a

2729: contraction mapping). In earlier work \cite{qphZap04, qphZap05a,

2730: qphZap05b}, Zapatrin proves that any state $\sigma$ in the

2731: interior $\sep^\circ$ of $\sep$ may be expressed

2732: \begin{eqnarray}

2733:  \sigma=\int\int

2734: e^{\bra{\psi^\A}\otimes\bra{\psi^\B}X_\sigma\ket{\psi^\A}\otimes\ket{\psi^\B}}\ketbra{\psi^\A}{\psi^\A}\otimes\ketbra{\psi^\B}{\psi^\B}d\mathbf{S}_\dima

2735: d\mathbf{S}_\dimb \in \sep,

2736: \end{eqnarray}

2737: for some Hermitian $X_\sigma$. Thus the function $\Phi$ has a

2738: fixed point $X_\rho=\Phi(X_\rho)$ if and only if

2739: $\rho\in\sep^\circ$. When $\rho\in\sep^\circ$, then a

2740: neighbourhood (containing $0$) in the domain of $\Phi$ can be

2741: found where iterating $X_{i+1}:=\Phi(X_i)$, starting at $X_0:=0$,

2742: will produce a sequence $(X_i)_i$ that converges to $X_\rho$ when

2743: $\rho\in\sep^\circ$, but diverges otherwise.

2744: 

2745: Each evaluation of $\Phi(X)$ requires $\dima^2\dimb^2/2

2746: +\dima\dimb$ integrations of the form

2747: \begin{eqnarray}

2748: \int\int

2749: e^{\bra{\psi^\A}\otimes\bra{\psi^\B}X\ket{\psi^\A}\otimes\ket{\psi^\B}}

2750: \braket{\textbf{e}^\A_j}{\psi^\A}\braket{\textbf{e}^\B_{j'}}{\psi^\B}

2751: \braket{\psi^\A}{\textbf{e}^\A_k}\braket{\psi^\B}{\textbf{e}^\B_{k'}}

2752: d\mathbf{S}_\dima d\mathbf{S}_\dimb,

2753: \end{eqnarray}

2754: where $\{\textbf{e}^\A_j\}_j$ and $\{\textbf{e}^\B_k\}_k$ are the

2755: standard bases for $\mathbf{C}^\dima$ and $\mathbf{C}^\dimb$.

2756: However, the off-diagonal ($j\neq k$, $j'\neq k'$) integrals have

2757: a complex integrand so are each really two real integrals; thus

2758: the total number of real integrations is $\dima^2\dimb^2$.  Let

2759: $\Xi_\delta$ represent the number of pure states at which the

2760: integrand needs to be evaluated in order to perform each real

2761: numerical integration, in order to solve the overall separability

2762: problem with accuracy parameter $\delta$. Zapatrin shows that the

2763: approximate number of iterations required is upper-bounded by

2764: $2\dimb(\dimb+1)L(\log(1/\delta),\log(\dimb))$, where $L$ is a

2765: bilinear function of its arguments.  The complexity of the entire

2766: algorithm is roughly $\Xi_\delta

2767: \poly(\dima,\dimb,\log(1/\delta))$ (ignoring $\log(\dimb)$

2768: factors). We can use nets on $\mathcal{S}_M$ and $\mathcal{S}_N$

2769: to estimate the complexity of $\Xi_\delta$.  It is clear that the

2770: numerical integration is more complex than solving WOPT($\sep$);

2771: at the very least, it needs to sample points in $\mathcal{S}_N$ as

2772: well as $\mathcal{S}_M$. Thus, I make the reasonable presumption

2773: that $\Xi_\delta \geq

2774: |\mathcal{N}^M_\delta||\mathcal{N}^N_\delta|$.

2775: 

2776: 

2777: 

2778: 

2779: 

2780: 

2781: 

2782: 

2783: 

2784: 

2785: 

2786: 

2787: 

2788: 

2789: 

2790: 

2791: 

2792: 

2793: 

2794: 

2795: 

2796: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2797: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2798: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2799: \subsection{Complexity comparison of

2800: algorithms and practical

2801: considerations}\label{sec_ComplexityComparison}

2802: 

2803: 

2804: The complexity estimates in the survey show that the two best

2805: algorithms are the bounded search for symmetric extensions

2806: (Section \ref{sec_DohertyEtalKonigRenner}) and the cutting-plane

2807: entanglement-witness search algorithm (Section

2808: \ref{subsubsec_IoannouAlgorithm}).  The dominant (exponential)

2809: factors in the asymptotic complexity estimates are

2810: \begin{eqnarray}

2811: (d_{S_{\bar{k}}})^8 &\approx& 2^M\times

2812: (1/\delta)^{8M}\hspace{10mm}{\textrm{(symmetric-extensions

2813: search)}} \\|\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}|&\approx& 2^M\times

2814: (1/\delta)^{2M} \hspace{10mm}{\textrm{(entanglement-witness

2815: search)}}.

2816: \end{eqnarray}

2817: \noindent As a caveat, recall that the estimate for the

2818: entanglement-witness search algorithm assumes the advice of

2819: asymptotically optimal $\mathcal{N}^M_{\delta}$, which in

2820: principle can be precomputed for the $M$ and $\delta$ of interest

2821: \cite{HSS}.

2822: 

2823: %http://www.research.att.com/~njas/coverings/index.html

2824: %R. H. Hardin, N. J. A. Sloane and W. D. Smith, Spherical Codes, book in preparation.

2825: 

2826: 

2827: The bounded symmetric-extension search algorithm only experiences

2828: ``exponential slow-down'' when $k$ approaches $\bar{k}$. The SDP

2829: relaxation algorithm of Section \ref{subsec_EisertsEtalApproach}

2830: behaves similarly, in that successive SDP relaxations get larger,

2831: while the first SDP relaxation is feasible. Thus, a good strategy

2832: for a deterministic WMEM($\sep$) solver might be to start with

2833: these algorithms (after exhausting all the other efficient

2834: one-sided tests), and proceed until the SDPs get infeasibly large;

2835: then, switch to the entanglement-witness search algorithm, whose

2836: complexity bottleneck is the WOPT($\sep$) subroutine, which has

2837: constant worst-case complexity throughout the execution of the

2838: algorithm, but whose task -- essentially, searching the domain of

2839: the function

2840: $f(\ket{\alpha},\ket{\beta}):=\bra{\alpha}\bra{\beta}A\ket{\alpha}\ket{\beta}$

2841: -- can be parallelized.  Interestingly, the subroutine need not

2842: find a certified optimum of $f$ until its final execution, and

2843: even then only in the case where the algorithm will output

2844: $\rho\in S(\sep,\delta)$ \cite{ITCE04}; thus, comparing the

2845: outputs of executions of a local optimum finder seeded at a few

2846: random points in the domain may suffice for at least some of the

2847: WOPT($\sep$) calls.  Finally, instead of using $\delta$-nets, the

2848: subroutine should benefit from more-sophisticated, continuous

2849: global optimization methods (which may utilize calculus to

2850: eliminate large chunks of the domain of $f$) such as the

2851: semidefinite programming relaxation method of Lasserre

2852: \cite{Las01}, Lipschitz optimization \cite{HP95}, and Hansen's

2853: global optimization algorithm using interval analysis

2854: \cite{Han92}.

2855: 

2856: 

2857: 

2858: 

2859: 

2860: 

2861: 

2862: 

2863: 

2864: %\section{Introduction}

2865: %The journal of {\it Quantum Information and Computation},

2866: %for both on-line and in-print editions,

2867: %will be produced by using the latex files of manuscripts

2868: %provided by the authors. It is therefore essential that the manuscript

2869: %be in its final form, and in the format designed for the journal

2870: %because there will be no futher editing. The authors are strongly encouraged

2871: %to use Rinton latex template to prepare their manuscript. Or, the authors

2872: %should please follow the instructions given here if they prefer to use other

2873: %software. In the latter case, the authors ought to

2874: %provide a postscript file of their paper for publication.

2875: %

2876: %\section{Text}

2877: %\noindent

2878: %Contributions are to be in English. Authors are encouraged to

2879: %have their contribution checked for grammar.

2880: %Abbreviations are allowed but should be spelt

2881: %out in full when first used.

2882: %

2883: %\setcounter{footnote}{0}

2884: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}

2885: %

2886: %The text is to be typeset in 10 pt Times Roman, single spaced

2887: %with baselineskip of 13 pt. Text area (excluding running title)

2888: %is 5.6 inches across and 8.0 inches deep.

2889: %Final pagination and insertion of running titles will be done by

2890: %the editorial. Number each page of the manuscript lightly at the

2891: %bottom with a blue pencil. Reading copies of the paper can be

2892: %numbered using any legible means (typewritten or handwritten).

2893: %

2894: %\section{Headings}

2895: %\noindent Major headings should be typeset in boldface with the

2896: %first letter of important words capitalized.

2897: %

2898: %\subsection{Sub-headings}

2899: %\noindent

2900: %Sub-headings should be typeset in boldface italic and capitalize

2901: %the first letter of the first word only. Section number to be in

2902: %boldface roman.

2903: %

2904: %\subsubsection{Sub-subheadings}

2905: %\noindent

2906: %Typeset sub-subheadings in medium face italic and capitalize the

2907: %first letter of the first word only. Section number to be in

2908: %roman.

2909: %

2910: %\subsection{Numbering and Spacing}

2911: %\noindent

2912: %Sections, sub-sections and sub-subsections are numbered in

2913: %Arabic.  Use double spacing before all section headings, and

2914: %single spacing after section headings. Flush left all paragraphs

2915: %that follow after section headings.

2916: %

2917: %\subsection{Lists of items}

2918: %\noindent

2919: %Lists may be laid out with each item marked by a dot:

2920: %\begin{itemlist}

2921: % \item item one,

2922: % \item item two.

2923: %\end{itemlist}

2924: %Items may also be numbered in lowercase roman numerals:

2925: %\begin{romanlist}

2926: % \item item one

2927: % \item item two

2928: %          \begin{alphlist}

2929: %          \item Lists within lists can be numbered with lowercase

2930: %              roman letters,

2931: %          \item second item.

2932: %          \end{alphlist}

2933: %\end{romanlist}

2934: %

2935: %\section{Equations}

2936: %\noindent

2937: %Displayed equations should be numbered consecutively in each

2938: %section, with the number set flush right and enclosed in

2939: %parentheses.

2940: %

2941: %\begin{equation}

2942: %\mu(n, t) = {

2943: %\sum^\infty_{i=1} 1(d_i < t, N(d_i) = n) \over \int^t_{\sigma=0} 1(N(\sigma)

2944: %= n)d\sigma}\,. \label{this}

2945: %\end{equation}

2946: %

2947: %Equations should be referred to in abbreviated form,

2948: %e.g.~``Eq.~(\ref{this})'' or ``(2)''. In multiple-line

2949: %equations, the number should be given on the last line.

2950: %

2951: %Displayed equations are to be centered on the page width.

2952: %Standard English letters like x are to appear as $x$

2953: %(italicized) in the text if they are used as mathematical

2954: %symbols. Punctuation marks are used at the end of equations as

2955: %if they appeared directly in the text.

2956: %

2957: %\vspace*{12pt}

2958: %\noindent

2959: %{\bf Theorem~1:} Theorems, lemmas, etc. are to be numbered

2960: %consecutively in the paper. Use double spacing before and after

2961: %theorems, lemmas, etc.

2962: %

2963: %\vspace*{12pt}

2964: %\noindent

2965: %{\bf Proof:} Proofs should end with \square\,.

2966: %

2967: %\section{Illustrations and Photographs}

2968: %\noindent

2969: %Figures are to be inserted in the text nearest their first

2970: %reference. The postscript files of figures can be imported by using

2971: %the commends used in the examples here.

2972: %

2973: %\begin{figure} [htbp]

2974: %%\vspace*{13pt}

2975: %\centerline{\epsfig{file=QSEPNotInNP.eps, width=8.2cm}} %100 percent

2976: %\vspace*{13pt} \fcaption{\label{motion}figure caption goes here.}

2977: %\end{figure}

2978: %

2979: %Figures are to be sequentially numbered in Arabic numerals. The

2980: %caption must be placed below the figure. Typeset in 8 pt Times

2981: %Roman with baselineskip of 10~pt. Use double spacing between a

2982: %caption and the text that follows immediately.

2983: %

2984: %Previously published material must be accompanied by written

2985: %permission from the author and publisher.

2986: %

2987: %\section{Tables}

2988: %\noindent

2989: %Tables should be inserted in the text as close to the point of

2990: %reference as possible. Some space should be left above and below

2991: %the table.

2992: %

2993: %Tables should be numbered sequentially in the text in Arabic

2994: %numerals. Captions are to be centralized above the tables.

2995: %Typeset tables and captions in 8 pt Times Roman with

2996: %baselineskip of 10 pt.

2997: %

2998: %\vspace*{4pt}   %only when needed

2999: %\begin{table}[hb]

3000: %\tcaption{Number of tests for WFF triple NA = 5, or NA = 8.}

3001: %\centerline{\footnotesize NP}

3002: %\centerline{\footnotesize\smalllineskip

3003: %\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c}\\

3004: %\hline

3005: %{} &{} &3 &4 &8 &10\\

3006: %\hline

3007: %{} &\phantom03 &1200 &2000 &\phantom02500 &\phantom03000\\

3008: %NC &\phantom05 &2000 &2200 &\phantom02700 &\phantom03400\\

3009: %{} &\phantom08 &2500 &2700 &16000 &22000\\

3010: %{} &10 &3000 &3400 &22000 &28000\\

3011: %\hline\\

3012: %\end{tabular}}

3013: %\end{table}

3014: %

3015: %If tables need to extend over to a second page, the continuation

3016: %of the table should be preceded by a caption, e.g.~``({\it Table

3017: %2. Continued}).''

3018: %

3019: %\section{References Cross-citation}

3020: %\noindent

3021: %References cross-cited in the text are to be numbered consecutively in

3022: %Arabic numerals, in the order of first appearance. They are to

3023: %be typed in brackets such as \cite{first}  and \cite{cal, niel, mar}.

3024: %%superscripts after punctuation marks,

3025: %%e.g.~``$\ldots$ in the statement.$^5$''.

3026: %

3027: %\section{Sections Cross-citation}\label{sec:abc}

3028: %\noindent

3029: %Sections and subsctions can be cross-cited in the text by using the latex command

3030: %shown here. In Section~\ref{sec:abc}, we discuss ....

3031: %%\newpage

3032: %

3033: %\section{Footnotes}

3034: %\noindent

3035: %Footnotes should be numbered sequentially in superscript

3036: %lowercase Roman letters.\fnm{a}\fnt{a}{Footnotes should be

3037: %typeset in 8 pt Times Roman at the bottom of the page.}

3038: 

3039: 

3040: 

3041: 

3042: \nonumsection{Acknowledgements} \noindent Thanks to Matthias

3043: Christandl, Roger Colbeck, Anuj Dawar, Andrew Doherty, Daniel

3044: Gottesman, Alastair Kay, Michele Mosca, Renato Renner, and Tom

3045: Stace for helpful discussions. Special thanks to David

3046: P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia for his help with Section \ref{sec_NewSepAlg}.

3047: This work was supported by the CESG (UK), NSERC (Canada), ORS

3048: (UK), RESQ (EU grant IST-2001-37559), and EPSRC.

3049: 

3050: 

3051: %\nonumsection{References}

3052: %\noindent

3053: 

3054: %\bibliography{NewRefs}

3055: \begin{thebibliography}{82}

3056: \providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}

3057: \providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}} \expandafter\ifx\csname

3058: urlstyle\endcsname\relax

3059:   \providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else

3060:   \providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi

3061: 

3062: \bibitem[Doherty et~al.(2002)Doherty, Parrilo, and Spedalieri]{DPS02}

3063: A.~C. Doherty, P.~A. Parrilo, and F.~M. Spedalieri.

3064: \newblock Distinguishing separable and entangled states.

3065: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 88:\penalty0 187904, 2002.

3066: 

3067: \bibitem[Doherty et~al.(2004)Doherty, Parrilo, and Spedalieri]{DPS04}

3068: A.~C. Doherty, P.~A. Parrilo, and F.~M. Spedalieri.

3069: \newblock Complete family of separability criteria.

3070: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 69:\penalty0 022308, 2004.

3071: 

3072: \bibitem[Christandl et~al.(2006)Christandl, K{\"{o}}nig, Mitchison, and

3073:   Renner]{qphCKMR06}

3074: M.~Christandl, R.~K{\"{o}}nig, G.~Mitchison, and R.~Renner.

3075: \newblock One-and-a-half quantum de finetti theorems, 2006.

3076: \newblock quant-ph/0602130.

3077: 

3078: \bibitem[Ioannou et~al.(2004)Ioannou, Travaglione, Cheung, and Ekert]{ITCE04}

3079: L.~M. Ioannou, B.~C. Travaglione, D.~C. Cheung, and A.~K. Ekert.

3080: \newblock Improved algorithm for quantum separability and entanglement

3081:   detection.

3082: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 70:\penalty0 060303(R), 2004.

3083: 

3084: \bibitem[Ioannou and Travaglione(2006)]{IT06}

3085: L.~M. Ioannou and B.~C. Travaglione.

3086: \newblock Quantum separability and entanglement detection via

3087:   entanglement-witness search and global optimization.

3088: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 73:\penalty0 052314, 2006.

3089: 

3090: \bibitem[Horodecki(1997)]{Hor97}

3091: P.~Horodecki.

3092: \newblock Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive

3093:   partial transposition.

3094: \newblock \emph{Phys. Lett. A}, 232:\penalty0 333, 1997.

3095: 

3096: \bibitem[Bru\ss(2002)]{Bru02}

3097: Dagmar Bru\ss.

3098: \newblock Characterizing entanglement.

3099: \newblock \emph{J. Math. Phys.}, 43:\penalty0 4237, 2002.

3100: 

3101: \bibitem[Terhal(2002)]{Ter02}

3102: B.~M. Terhal.

3103: \newblock Detecting quantum entanglement.

3104: \newblock \emph{Journal Theoretical Computer Science}, 287(1):\penalty0

3105:   313--335, 2002.

3106: 

3107: \bibitem[De et~al.(2005)De, Sen, Lewenstein, and Sanpera]{qphSSLS05}

3108: A.~Sen De, U.~Sen, M.~Lewenstein, and A.~Sanpera.

3109: \newblock The separability versus entanglement problem, 2005.

3110: \newblock quant-ph/0508032.

3111: 

3112: \bibitem[Peres(1996)]{Per96}

3113: A.~Peres.

3114: \newblock Separability criterion for density matrices.

3115: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 77:\penalty0 1413--1415, 1996.

3116: 

3117: \bibitem[Horodecki and Horodecki(1999)]{HH99}

3118: M.~Horodecki and P.~Horodecki.

3119: \newblock Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of

3120:   distillation protocols.

3121: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 59:\penalty0 4206, 1999.

3122: 

3123: \bibitem[Horodecki et~al.(1996{\natexlab{a}})Horodecki, Horodecki, and

3124:   Horodecki]{HHH96a}

3125: R.~Horodecki, P.~Horodecki, and M.~Horodecki.

3126: \newblock Quantum $\alpha$-entropy inequalities: independent condition for

3127:   local realism?

3128: \newblock \emph{Phys. Lett. A}, 210:\penalty0 377--381, 1996{\natexlab{a}}.

3129: 

3130: \bibitem[Nielsen and Kempe(2001)]{NK01}

3131: M.~Nielsen and J.~Kempe.

3132: \newblock Separable states are more disordered globally than locally.

3133: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 86:\penalty0 5184--7, 2001.

3134: 

3135: \bibitem[Rudolph(2002)]{qphRud02}

3136: O.~Rudolph.

3137: \newblock Further results on the cross norm criterion for separability, 2002.

3138: \newblock quant-ph/0202121.

3139: 

3140: \bibitem[Chen and Wu(2003)]{CW03}

3141: K.~Chen and L.-A. Wu.

3142: \newblock A matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement.

3143: \newblock \emph{Quant. Inf. Comp.}, 3:\penalty0 193, 2003.

3144: 

3145: \bibitem[Horodecki et~al.(2002)Horodecki, Horodecki, and Horodecki]{qphHHH02}

3146: Michal Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki.

3147: \newblock Separability of mixed quantum states: linear contractions approach,

3148:   2002.

3149: \newblock quant-ph/0206008.

3150: 

3151: \bibitem[Braunstein et~al.(1999)Braunstein, Caves, Jozsa, Linden, Popescu, and

3152:   Schack]{BCJLPS99}

3153: S.~L. Braunstein, C.~M. Caves, R.~Jozsa, N.~Linden, S.~Popescu,

3154: and R.~Schack.

3155: \newblock Separability of very noisy mixed states and implications for {NMR}

3156:   quantum computing.

3157: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 83:\penalty0 1054, 1999.

3158: 

3159: \bibitem[Gurvits and Barnum(2002)]{GB02}

3160: L.~Gurvits and H.~Barnum.

3161: \newblock Largest separable balls around the maximally mixed bipartite quantum

3162:   state.

3163: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 66:\penalty0 062311, 2002.

3164: 

3165: \bibitem[Zyczkowski et~al.(1998)Zyczkowski, Horodecki, Sanpera, and

3166:   Lewenstein]{ZHSL98}

3167: K.~Zyczkowski, P.~Horodecki, A.~Sanpera, and M.~Lewenstein.

3168: \newblock Volume of the set of separable states.

3169: \newblock \emph{Phys.Rev. A}, 58:\penalty0 883, 1998.

3170: 

3171: \bibitem[Vidal and Tarrach(1999)]{VT99}

3172: G.~Vidal and R.~Tarrach.

3173: \newblock Robustness of entanglement.

3174: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 59:\penalty0 141, 1999.

3175: 

3176: \bibitem[Kraus et~al.(2000)Kraus, Cirac, Karnas, and Lewenstein]{KCKL00}

3177: B.~Kraus, J.~I. Cirac, S.~Karnas, and M.~Lewenstein.

3178: \newblock Separability in $2\times n$ composite quantum systems.

3179: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 61:\penalty0 062302, 2000.

3180: 

3181: \bibitem[Horodecki et~al.(1996{\natexlab{b}})Horodecki, Horodecki, and

3182:   Horodecki]{HHH96}

3183: M.~Horodecki, P.~Horodecki, and R.~Horodecki.

3184: \newblock Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions.

3185: \newblock \emph{Phys. Lett. A}, 223:\penalty0 1--8, 1996{\natexlab{b}}.

3186: 

3187: \bibitem[Horodecki et~al.(2000)Horodecki, Lewenstein, Vidal, and Cirac]{HLVC00}

3188: P.~Horodecki, M.~Lewenstein, G.~Vidal, and I.~Cirac.

3189: \newblock Operational criterion and constructive checks for the separabilty of

3190:   low-rank density matrices.

3191: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 62:\penalty0 032310, 2000.

3192: 

3193: \bibitem[Albeverio et~al.(2001)Albeverio, Fei, and Goswami]{AFG01}

3194: S.~Albeverio, Shao-Ming Fei, and Debashish Goswami.

3195: \newblock Separability of rank two quantum states.

3196: \newblock \emph{Phys. Lett. A}, 286:\penalty0 91--96, 2001.

3197: 

3198: \bibitem[Wilkinson and Reinsch(1971)]{WR71}

3199: J.~H. Wilkinson and C.~Reinsch.

3200: \newblock \emph{Linear Algebra, Handbook for Automatic Computation Vol. II}.

3201: \newblock Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971.

3202: 

3203: \bibitem[Golub and van Loan(1996)]{GL96}

3204: Gene~H. Golub and Charles~F. van Loan.

3205: \newblock \emph{Matrix Computations}.

3206: \newblock The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1996.

3207: 

3208: \bibitem[Stoer and Bulirsch(2002)]{SB02}

3209: J.~Stoer and R.~Bulirsch.

3210: \newblock \emph{Introduction to numerical analysis}.

3211: \newblock Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002.

3212: 

3213: \bibitem[Wilkinson(1968)]{Wil68}

3214: J.~H. Wilkinson.

3215: \newblock Global convergence of tridiagonal {QR} algorithm with origin shifts.

3216: \newblock \emph{Lin. Alg. Appl.}, 1:\penalty0 409--420, 1968.

3217: 

3218: \bibitem[Lewenstein and Sanpera(1998)]{LS98}

3219: M.~Lewenstein and A.~Sanpera.

3220: \newblock Separability and entanglement of composite quantum systems.

3221: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 80:\penalty0 2261, 1998.

3222: 

3223: \bibitem[Thew et~al.(2002)Thew, Nemoto, White, and Munro]{TNWM02}

3224: R.~T. Thew, K.~Nemoto, A.~G. White, and W.~J. Munro.

3225: \newblock Qudit quantum-state tomography.

3226: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 66:\penalty0 012303, 2002.

3227: 

3228: \bibitem[Vandenberghe and Boyd(1996)]{VB96}

3229: Lieven Vandenberghe and Stephen Boyd.

3230: \newblock Semidefinite programming.

3231: \newblock \emph{SIAM Review}, 38(1):\penalty0 49--95, 1996.

3232: 

3233: \bibitem[Fannes et~al.(1988)Fannes, Lewis, and Verbeure]{FLV88}

3234: M.~Fannes, J.~T. Lewis, and A.~Verbeure.

3235: \newblock Symmetric states of composite systems.

3236: \newblock \emph{Lett. Math. Phys.}, 15:\penalty0 255, 1988.

3237: 

3238: \bibitem[Caves et~al.(2002)Caves, Fuchs, and Schack]{CFS02}

3239: C.~M. Caves, C.~A. Fuchs, and R.~Schack.

3240: \newblock Unknown quantum states: The quantum de finetti representation.

3241: \newblock \emph{J. Math. Phys.}, 43:\penalty0 4537, 2002.

3242: 

3243: \bibitem[Eisert et~al.(2004)Eisert, Hyllus, G{\"{u}}hne, and Curty]{EHGC04}

3244: Jens Eisert, Philipp Hyllus, Otfried G{\"{u}}hne, and Marcos

3245: Curty.

3246: \newblock Complete hierarchies of efficient approximations to problems in

3247:   entanglement theory.

3248: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 70:\penalty0 062317, 2004.

3249: 

3250: \bibitem[Lasserre(2001)]{Las01}

3251: Jean~B. Lasserre.

3252: \newblock Global optimization with polynomials and the problem of moments.

3253: \newblock \emph{SIAM J. Optim.}, 11(3):\penalty0 796--817, 2001.

3254: 

3255: \bibitem[Henrion and Lasserre(2003)]{HL03}

3256: Didier Henrion and Jean-Bernard Lasserre.

3257: \newblock Glopti{P}oly: {G}lobal optimization over polynomials with {M}atlab

3258:   and {S}e{D}u{M}i.

3259: \newblock \emph{ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software}, 29(2):\penalty0

3260:   165--194, 2003.

3261: 

3262: \bibitem[Vedral et~al.(1997)Vedral, Plenio, Rippin, and Knight]{VPRK97}

3263: V.~Vedral, M.~Plenio, M.~A. Rippin, and P.~L. Knight.

3264: \newblock Quantifying entanglement.

3265: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 78:\penalty0 2275--2279, 1997.

3266: 

3267: \bibitem[Christandl(2005)]{Chr05}

3268: Matthias Christandl.

3269: \newblock \emph{Bipartite Entanglement: A Cryptographic point of view}.

3270: \newblock PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2005.

3271: 

3272: \bibitem[Bennett et~al.(1996)Bennett, DiVincenzo, Smolin, and Wootters]{BDSW96}

3273: C.~H. Bennett, D.~P. DiVincenzo, J.~A. Smolin, and W.~K. Wootters.

3274: \newblock Mixed state entanglementand quantum error correction.

3275: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 54(5):\penalty0 3824--3851, 1996.

3276: 

3277: \bibitem[Uhlmann(1998)]{Uhl98}

3278: Armin Uhlmann.

3279: \newblock Optimizing entropy relative to a channel or a subalgebra.

3280: \newblock \emph{OPEN SYS.AND INF.DYN.}, 5:\penalty0 209, 1998.

3281: \newblock URL \url{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9701014}.

3282: 

3283: \bibitem[Brand{\~{a}}o and Vianna(2004{\natexlab{a}})]{BV04}

3284: Fernando G. S.~L. Brand{\~{a}}o and Reinaldo~O. Vianna.

3285: \newblock Robust semidefinite programming approach to the separability problem.

3286: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 70:\penalty0 062309(R), 2004{\natexlab{a}}.

3287: 

3288: \bibitem[Brand{\~{a}}o and Vianna(2004{\natexlab{b}})]{BV04a}

3289: Fernando G. S.~L. Brand{\~{a}}o and Reinaldo~O. Vianna.

3290: \newblock Separable multipartite mixed states: {O}perational asymptotically

3291:   necessary and sufficient conditions.

3292: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 93:\penalty0 220503, 2004{\natexlab{b}}.

3293: 

3294: \bibitem[Woerdeman(2003)]{Woe03}

3295: Hugo~J. Woerdeman.

3296: \newblock Checking $2\times m$ quantum separability via semidefinite

3297:   programming.

3298: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 67:\penalty0 010303(R), 2003.

3299: 

3300: \bibitem[Horodecki and Ekert(2002)]{HE02}

3301: P.~Horodecki and A.~Ekert.

3302: \newblock Method for direct detection of quantum entanglement.

3303: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 89:\penalty0 127902, 2002.

3304: 

3305: \bibitem[Myrvold(1997)]{Myr97}

3306: W.~C. Myrvold.

3307: \newblock The decision problem for entanglement.

3308: \newblock In R.~S. Cohen, M.~Horne, and J.~Stachel, editors,

3309:   \emph{Potentiality, entanglement and passion-at-a-distance}, pages 177--190.

3310:   Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.

3311: 

3312: \bibitem[Weihrauch(1987)]{Wei87}

3313: K.~Weihrauch.

3314: \newblock \emph{Computability}.

3315: \newblock Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.

3316: 

3317: \bibitem[Seidenberg(1954)]{Sei54}

3318: A.~Seidenberg.

3319: \newblock A new decision method for elementary algebra.

3320: \newblock \emph{Annals of Mathematics}, 60(2):\penalty0 365--374, 1954.

3321: 

3322: \bibitem[Tarski(1951)]{Tar51}

3323: Alfred Tarski.

3324: \newblock A decision method for elementary algebra and geometry.

3325: \newblock Technical report, University of California, Berkeley, 1951.

3326: 

3327: \bibitem[Basu et~al.(1996)Basu, Pollack, and Roy]{BPR96}

3328: Saugata Basu, Richard Pollack, and Marie-Fran{\c{c}}oise Roy.

3329: \newblock On the combinatorial and algebraic complexity of quantifier

3330:   elimination.

3331: \newblock \emph{Journal of the ACM}, 43(6):\penalty0 1002--1045, 1996.

3332: 

3333: \bibitem[Gr{\"{o}}tschel et~al.(1988)Gr{\"{o}}tschel, Lov{\'{a}}sz, and

3334:   Schrijver]{GLS88}

3335: M.~Gr{\"{o}}tschel, L.~Lov{\'{a}}sz, and A.~Schrijver.

3336: \newblock \emph{Geometric algorithms and combinatorial optimization}.

3337: \newblock Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.

3338: \newblock ISBN 038713624x.

3339: 

3340: \bibitem[Gurvits(2003)]{Gur03}

3341: L.~Gurvits.

3342: \newblock Classical deterministic complexity of {E}dmonds' problem and quantum

3343:   entanglement.

3344: \newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the thirty-fifth {ACM} symposium on Theory of

3345:   computing}, pages 10--19, New York, 2003. ACM Press.

3346: 

3347: \bibitem[Luttmer(2005)]{Lut05}

3348: Kristopher Luttmer.

3349: \newblock The complexity of separability testing.

3350: \newblock Master's thesis, University of {C}algary, 2005.

3351: 

3352: \bibitem[Garey and Johnson(1979)]{GJ79}

3353: Michael~R. Garey and David~S. Johnson.

3354: \newblock \emph{Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the theory of

3355:   {NP}-completeness}.

3356: \newblock W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1979.

3357: 

3358: \bibitem[Papadimitriou(1994)]{Pap94}

3359: C.~H. Papadimitriou, editor.

3360: \newblock \emph{Computational complexity}.

3361: \newblock Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, Massachusetts, 1994.

3362: 

3363: \bibitem[Nielsen and Chuang(2000)]{NC00}

3364: M.~Nielsen and I.~Chuang.

3365: \newblock \emph{Quantum Computation and Quantum Information}.

3366: \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.

3367: 

3368: \bibitem[Ladner et~al.(1975)Ladner, Lynch, and Selman]{LLS75}

3369: R.~Ladner, N.~Lynch, and A.~Selman.

3370: \newblock Comparison of polynomial-time reducibilities.

3371: \newblock \emph{Theoretical Computer Science}, 1:\penalty0 103--123, 1975.

3372: 

3373: \bibitem[Hulpke and Bru{\ss}(2005)]{HB05}

3374: Florian Hulpke and Dagmar Bru{\ss}.

3375: \newblock A two-way algorithm for the entanglement problem.

3376: \newblock \emph{J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.}, 38:\penalty0 5573, 2005.

3377: 

3378: \bibitem[G{\"{u}}hne and L{\"{u}}tkenhaus(2006)]{GL06}

3379: Otfried G{\"{u}}hne and Norbert L{\"{u}}tkenhaus.

3380: \newblock Nonlinear entanglement witnesses.

3381: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 96:\penalty0 170502, 2006.

3382: 

3383: \bibitem[Aaronson(2005)]{Aar05}

3384: S.~Aaronson.

3385: \newblock Private communication.

3386: \newblock 2005.

3387: 

3388: \bibitem[Ben-Tal and Nemirovskii(1998)]{BN98}

3389: A.~Ben-Tal and A.~Nemirovskii.

3390: \newblock Robust convex optimization.

3391: \newblock \emph{Mathematics of Operational Research}, 23(4):\penalty0 769--805,

3392:   1998.

3393: 

3394: \bibitem[Gurvits(2006)]{Gur06}

3395: L.~Gurvits.

3396: \newblock Private communication.

3397: \newblock 2006.

3398: 

3399: \bibitem[Gurvits and Barnum(2005)]{GB05}

3400: L.~Gurvits and H.~Barnum.

3401: \newblock Better bound on the exponent of the radius of the multipartite

3402:   separable ball.

3403: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, 72:\penalty0 032322, 2005.

3404: 

3405: \bibitem[Motzkin and Straus(1965)]{MS65}

3406: T.~S. Motzkin and E.~G. Straus.

3407: \newblock Maxima for graphs and a new proof of a theorem of tur{\'{a}}n.

3408: \newblock \emph{Canadian J. Math.}, 17:\penalty0 533--540, 1965.

3409: 

3410: \bibitem[Atkinson and Vaidya(1995)]{AV95}

3411: David~S. Atkinson and Pravin~M. Vaidya.

3412: \newblock A cutting plane algorithm for convex programming that uses analytic

3413:   centers.

3414: \newblock \emph{Mathematical Programming}, 69:\penalty0 1--43, 1995.

3415: 

3416: \bibitem[Pavan and Selman(2001)]{PS01}

3417: A.~Pavan and Alan~L. Selman.

3418: \newblock Separation of {NP}-completeness notions.

3419: \newblock \emph{SIAM J. Comput.}, 31(3):\penalty0 906--918, 2001.

3420: 

3421: \bibitem[Pavan(2003)]{Pav03}

3422: A.~Pavan.

3423: \newblock Comparison of reductions and completeness notions.

3424: \newblock \emph{SIGACT News}, 40, 2003.

3425: 

3426: \bibitem[Bengtsson and Zyczkowski(2006)]{BZ06}

3427: Ingemar Bengtsson and Karol Zyczkowski.

3428: \newblock \emph{Geometry of separable states}.

3429: \newblock Cambridge {U}niversity {P}ress, Cambridge, 2006.

3430: 

3431: \bibitem[Ioannou(2005)]{qphIoa05}

3432: L.~M. Ioannou.

3433: \newblock Computing finite-dimensional bipartite quantum separability, 2005.

3434: \newblock {PhD} thesis, available at http://arXiv.org/abs/cs/0504110.

3435: 

3436: \bibitem[Pisier(1989)]{P89}

3437: G.~Pisier, editor.

3438: \newblock \emph{The volume of convex bodies and Banach space geometry}.

3439: \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.

3440: 

3441: \bibitem[K{\"{o}}nig and Renner(2005)]{KR05}

3442: Robert K{\"{o}}nig and Renato Renner.

3443: \newblock A {d}e {F}inetti representation for finite symmetric quantum states.

3444: \newblock \emph{J. Math. Phys.}, 46:\penalty0 122102, 2005.

3445: 

3446: \bibitem[P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia and Cirac(2006)]{PC06}

3447: D.~P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia and I.~Cirac.

3448: \newblock Private communication.

3449: \newblock 2006.

3450: 

3451: \bibitem[Horn and Johnson(1985)]{HJ85}

3452: Roger~A. Horn and Charles~R. Johnson.

3453: \newblock \emph{Matrix Analysis}.

3454: \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.

3455: 

3456: \bibitem[Rudolph(2000)]{Rud00}

3457: Oliver Rudolph.

3458: \newblock A separability criterion for density operators.

3459: \newblock \emph{J. Phys. A}, 33:\penalty0 3951--3955, 2000.

3460: 

3461: \bibitem[P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia(2004)]{Per04}

3462: David P{\'{e}}rez-Garcia.

3463: \newblock Deciding sepability with a fixed error.

3464: \newblock \emph{Phys. Lett. A}, 330:\penalty0 149--154, 2004.

3465: 

3466: \bibitem[Ye(1997)]{Ye97}

3467: Y.~Ye.

3468: \newblock \emph{Interior Point Algorithms: Theory and Analysis}.

3469: \newblock John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1997.

3470: 

3471: \bibitem[Zapatrin(2005{\natexlab{a}})]{qphZap05c}

3472: Rom{\`{a}}n~R. Zapatrin.

3473: \newblock An asymptotical separability criterion for bipartite density

3474:   operators, 2005{\natexlab{a}}.

3475: \newblock quant-ph/0504169.

3476: 

3477: \bibitem[Zapatrin(2004)]{qphZap04}

3478: Rom{\`{a}}n~R. Zapatrin.

3479: \newblock A note on continuous ensemble expansions of quantum states, 2004.

3480: \newblock quant-ph/0403105.

3481: 

3482: \bibitem[Zapatrin(2005{\natexlab{b}})]{qphZap05a}

3483: Rom{\`{a}}n~R. Zapatrin.

3484: \newblock Continuous optimal ensembles i: A geometrical characterization of

3485:   robustly separable quantum states, 2005{\natexlab{b}}.

3486: \newblock quant-ph/0503173.

3487: 

3488: \bibitem[Zapatrin(2005{\natexlab{c}})]{qphZap05b}

3489: Rom{\`{a}}n~R. Zapatrin.

3490: \newblock Continuous optimal ensembles ii: Reducing the separability condition

3491:   to numerical equations, 2005{\natexlab{c}}.

3492: \newblock quant-ph/0504034.

3493: 

3494: \bibitem[Hardin et~al.(see

3495:   {http://www.research.att.com/{$\sim$}njas/coverings/index.html})Hardin,

3496:   Sloane, and Smith]{HSS}

3497: R.~H. Hardin, N.~J.~A. Sloane, and W.~D. Smith.

3498: \newblock \emph{Spherical Codes}.

3499: \newblock {I}n preparation, see

3500:   {http://www.research.att.com/{$\sim$}njas/coverings/index.html}.

3501: 

3502: \bibitem[Horst and Pardalos(1995)]{HP95}

3503: R.~Horst and P.~Pardalos, editors.

3504: \newblock \emph{Handbook of Global Optimization}.

3505: \newblock Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995.

3506: 

3507: \bibitem[Hansen(1992)]{Han92}

3508: E.~Hansen.

3509: \newblock \emph{Global Optimization Using Interval Analysis}.

3510: \newblock Marcel Dekker Incorporated, Boston, 1992.

3511: \newblock ISBN 0824786963.

3512: 

3513: \end{thebibliography}

3514: 

3515: 

3516: 

3517: 

3518: 

3519: 

3520: 

3521: %\begin{thebibliography}{000}

3522: %\bibitem{first}

3523: %P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki (2001), {\it Distillation and bound entanglement},

3524: %Quantum Inf. Comput., Vol.1, pp. 045-075.

3525: %

3526: %\bibitem{cal}

3527: %R. Calderbank and P. Shor (1996), {\it Good quantum error

3528: %       correcting codes exist},

3529: %Phys. Rev. A, 54, pp. 1098-1106.

3530: %

3531: %\bibitem{niel}

3532: %M.A. Nielsen and J. Kempe (2001), {\it Separable states are

3533: %more disordered globally than locally}, quant-ph/0105090.

3534: %

3535: %\bibitem{mar}

3536: %A.W. Marshall and I. Olkin (1979), {\it Inequalities: theory of majorization and its applications},

3537: %Academic Press (New York).

3538: %\end{thebibliography}

3539: 

3540: %\appendix

3541: %

3542: %\noindent

3543: %Appendices should be used only when absolutely necessary. They

3544: %should come after the References. If there is more than one

3545: %appendix, number them alphabetically. Number displayed equations

3546: %occurring in the Appendix in this way, e.g.~(\ref{that}), (A.2),

3547: %etc.

3548: %\begin{equation}

3549: %\langle\hat{O}\rangle=\int\psi^*(x)O(x)\psi(x)d^3x~.

3550: %\label{that}

3551: %\end{equation}

3552: 

3553: \end{document}

3554: