1: % ****** Start of file Schack.tex ******
2: %
3: % This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
4: % Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
5: %
6: % Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
7: %
8: % See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
9: %
10: % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed
11: % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0
12: %
13: % See the REVTeX 4 README file
14: % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:
15: %
16: % 1) latex Schack.tex
17: % 2) bibtex Schack
18: % 3) latex Schack.tex
19: % 4) latex Schack.tex
20: %
21: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
22: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
23:
24: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities\input{../../../../../../../../Network/Servers/lorien/Volumes/u1/residents/slater/Husimi.tex}
25:
26: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
27: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
28: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
29:
30: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
31: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
32: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
33:
34:
35: %\nofiles
36:
37: \begin{document}
38:
39: \preprint{}
40:
41: \title{Univariate Functions for the Hilbert-Schmidt
42: Volumes of
43: the Real and Complex Separable Two-Qubit Systems}
44:
45:
46: \author{Paul B. Slater}%
47: \email{slater@kitp.ucsb.edu}
48: \affiliation{%
49: ISBER, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106\\
50: }%
51: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
52: % but any date may be explicitly specified
53:
54: \begin{abstract}
55: The (complex) two-qubit systems comprise a 15-dimensional convex set and
56: the real two-qubit systems, a 9-dimensional convex set. While formulas
57: for the Hilbert-Schmidt volumes of these two sets are known --- owing to
58: recent important work of Sommers and \.Zyczkowski
59: ({\it J. Phys. A} {\bf{36}}, 10115 [2003]) --- formulas
60: have not been so far obtained for the volumes of the
61: {\it separable} subsets. We reduce these two
62: problems to the determination of certain functions ($f_{real}(\mu)$
63: and $f_{complex}(\mu)$)
64: of a {\it single} variable $\mu =
65: \sqrt{\frac{\rho_{11} \rho_{44}}{\rho_{22} \rho_{33}}}$, where $\rho$
66: is the corresponding $4 \times 4$ density matrix, and the $\rho_{ii}$'s
67: ($i=1,\ldots4$) its diagonal entries.
68: The desired separable volumes are, then, of the form
69: $V_{sep/real}= 2 \int_{0}^{1} jac_{real}(\mu) f_{real}(\mu) d \mu$ and
70: $V_{complex/real} = 2 \int_{0}^{1} jac_{complex}(\mu)
71: f_{complex}(\mu) d \mu$.
72: Here $jac$ denotes
73: the corresponding (known) jacobian function.
74: We provide estimates of the two sets of $f(\mu)$'s and $V$'s.
75: \newline
76: \newline
77: {\bf Mathematics Subject Classification (2000):} 81P05, 52A38, 15A90, 81P15
78: \end{abstract}
79:
80: \pacs{Valid PACS 03.67.-a, 2.40.Dr, 02.40.Ft, 02.60.-x}
81: % Classification Scheme.
82: \keywords{Hilbert-Schmidt metric, separable volumes, separable probabilities,
83: two-qubits, univariate functions, monotone functions, jacobians, quartic polynomial}
84:
85: \maketitle
86: \section{Introduction}
87: In a pair of major, skillful papers, making use of the theory of
88: random matrices \cite{random}, Sommers and \.Zyczkowski were able to
89: derive explicit formulas for the volumes occupied by the
90: $d= (n^2-1)$-dimensional convex set of $n \times n$ (complex)
91: density matrices (as well as the $d=\frac{(n-1)(n+2)}{2}$-dimensional
92: convex set of real (symmetric) $n \times n$ density matrices),
93: both in terms of the Hilbert-Schmidt (HS) metric \cite{szHS} --- inducing the flat, Euclidean geometry --- and
94: the Bures metric \cite{szBures} (cf. \cite{szMore}).
95: Of course, it would be of obvious
96: considerable quantum-information-theoretic
97: interest in the cases that $n$ is a composite
98: number, to also obtain HS and Bures volume
99: formulas restricted to those states that
100: are separable --- the sum of
101: product states --- in terms of some factorization of $n$ \cite{ZHSL}.
102: Then, by taking ratios --- employing these Sommers-\.Zyczkowski
103: results --- one would obtain corresponding
104: separability {\it probabilities}.
105: (In an {\it asymptotic} regime, in which the dimension of the state space
106: grows to infinity, Aubrun and Szarek
107: recently concluded \cite{aubrun} that for
108: qubits and larger-dimensional particles, the proportion of the
109: states that are separable is superexponentially small in the dimension
110: of the set.)
111:
112: In particular, again for the 15-dimensional complex
113: case, $n=4 = 2 \times 2$, numerical
114: evidence has been adduced
115: that the Bures volume of separable states is
116: (quite elegantly) $2^{-15} (\frac{\sqrt{2}-1}{3}) \approx
117: 4.2136 \cdot 10^{-6}$ \cite[Table VI]{slaterJGP}
118: and the HS volume
119: $(5 \sqrt{3})^{-7}
120: \approx 2.73707 \cdot 10^{-7}$ \cite[eq. (41)]{slaterPRA}.
121: Then, taking ratios (using the corresponding Sommers-\.Zyczkowski results),
122: we have the derived conjectures that the Bures separability
123: probability
124: is $\frac{1680 (\sqrt{2}-1)}{\pi^8} \approx 0.0733389$
125: and the HS one,
126: considerably larger, $\frac{2^2 \cdot 3 \cdot 7^2 \cdot 11 \cdot 13 \sqrt{3}}{5^4 \pi^{6}} \approx 0.242379$ \cite[eq. (43), but misprinted as $5^3$ not
127: $5^4$ there]{slaterPRA}.
128: (Szarek, Bengtsson and \.Zyczkowski --- motivated by the numerical
129: findings of \cite{slaterPRA,slaterChinese} --- have recently
130: formally demonstrated
131: ``that the probability to find a random state to be separable equals 2 times the probability to find a random boundary state to be separable, provided the random states are generated uniformly with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt (Euclidean) distance. An analogous property holds for the set of positive-partial-transpose states for an arbitrary bipartite system'' \cite{sbz}
132: (cf. \cite{innami}). These authors
133: also noted \cite[p. L125]{sbz} that ``one could try to obtain similar
134: results for a general class of multipartite systems''. In this
135: latter vein, recent
136: numerical analyses of ours give some [but certainly not yet conclusive]
137: indication that for the {\it three}-qubit
138: {\it tri}separable states, there is an analogous probability ratio of
139: 6 --- rather than 2.)
140:
141: However, the analytical derivation of (conjecturally) exact
142: formulas for these HS and Bures (as well as other, such as the Kubo-Mori
143: \cite{petz1994} and Wigner-Yanase
144: \cite{wigneryanase,slaterPRA})
145: separable volumes has seemed quite remote --- the only analytic
146: progress to report so far being
147: certain exact formulas
148: when the number of dimensions of the 15-dimensional space of $4 \times 4$
149: density matrices has been severely
150: curtailed (nullifying or holding
151: constant {\it most} of the 15 parameters) to $d \leq 3$
152: \cite{pbsJak,pbsCanosa} (cf. \cite{slaterC}).
153: Most notably, in this research direction,
154: in \cite[Fig. 11]{pbsCanosa}, we were able to find
155: a highly interesting/intricate (one-dimensional) continuum
156: ($-\infty < \beta <\infty$) of two-dimensional
157: (the associated
158: parameters being $b_{1}$, the mean, and $\sigma_{q}^2$,
159: the variance of the Bell-CHSH observable)
160: HS separability
161: probabilities, in which the {\it golden ratio} \cite{livio} was
162: featured, among other items. (The associated
163: HS volume element --- $\frac{1}{32 \beta (1+\beta)}
164: d \beta d b_{q} d \sigma^2_{q}$ --- is
165: independent of $b_{1}$ and $\sigma_{q}^2$ in this
166: three-dimensional scenario.)
167: Further, in \cite{pbsJak}, building upon work of
168: Jak\'obczyk and Siennicki \cite{jak}, we obtained a
169: remarkably wide-ranging variety of exact HS
170: separability ($n=4, 6$) and PPT (positive partial transpose)
171: ($n=8, 9, 10$) probabilities based on
172: {\it two}-dimensional sections of sets of
173: (generalized) Bloch vectors corresponding to $n \times n$
174: density matrices.
175:
176:
177: The full $d=9$ and/or $d =15$, $n=4$ real and complex
178: two-qubit scenarios
179: are quite daunting --- due to the numerous
180: separability constraints at work, some being active [binding]
181: in certain regions and
182: in complementary regions, inactive [nonbinding].
183: ``The geometry of the $15$-dimensional set of separable states of two
184: qubits is not easy to describe'' \cite[p. L125]{sbz}.
185: We will seek to make substantial progress in these directions here,
186: by recasting both these problems within a {\it one}-dimensional
187: framework.
188:
189: To proceed in our study,
190: we employ the (quite simple) form of parameterization of the density matrices
191: put forth by Bloore \cite{bloore,slaterJPAreject} some thirty years ago.
192: (Of course, there are a number of
193: other possible parametrizations \cite{kk,byrd,sudarshan,vanik,fano,scutaru,stan}, a number of
194: which we have also utilized in various studies \cite{slaterA,slaterqip}
195: to estimate volumes of
196: separable states. Our greatest progress at this stage,
197: in terms of increasing dimensionality, has been achieved
198: with the Bloore parameterization --- due to a certain
199: computationally attractive feature of it, allowing us to
200: decouple diagonal and non-diagonal parameters --- as detailed
201: shortly below.)
202:
203: \section{Bloore parameterization of the density matrices} \label{sc1}
204: The main presentation of Bloore \cite{bloore}
205: was made in terms of the $3 \times 3$ ($n=3$)
206: density matrices. It is clearly easily extendible to cases
207: $n > 3$.
208: The fundamental idea is to scale the off-diagonal elements $(\rho_{ij},
209: i \neq j)$
210: of the density matrix in terms of the square roots of the diagonal
211: entries ($\rho_{ii}$). That is, we set (introducing the new [Bloore]
212: variables $z_{ij}$),
213: \begin{equation}
214: \rho_{ij} = \sqrt{\rho_{ii}
215: \rho_{jj}} z_{ij}.
216: \end{equation}
217: This allows the determinant of $\rho$ (and analogously
218: all its
219: principal minors) to be expressible as the product
220: ($|\rho| = A B$) of
221: two factors, one ($A = \Pi_{i=1}^{4} \rho_{ii}$)
222: of which is itself simply the product of
223: (nonnegative)
224: diagonal entries ($\rho_{ii}$).
225: In the real $n=4$ case under investigation here --- we have
226: \begin{equation} \label{B}
227: B= \left(z_{34}^2-1\right) z_{12}^2+2 \left(z_{14}
228: \left(z_{24}-z_{23} z_{34}\right)+z_{13}
229: \left(z_{23}-z_{24} z_{34}\right)\right)
230: z_{12}-z_{23}^2-z_{24}^2-z_{34}^2+
231: \end{equation}
232: \begin{displaymath}
233: z_{14}^2
234: \left(z_{23}^2-1\right)+ z_{13}^2
235: \left(z_{24}^2-1\right)+2 z_{23} z_{24} z_{34}+2 z_{13}
236: z_{14} \left(z_{34}-z_{23} z_{24}\right)+1,
237: \end{displaymath}
238: involving (only) the $z_{ij}$'s ($i > j$), where $z_{ji}=z_{ij}$
239: \cite[eqs. (15), (17)]{bloore}.
240: Since, clearly, the factor $A$ is positive in all nondegenerate cases
241: ($\rho_{ii} > 0$),
242: one can --- by only analyzing $B$ --- essentially
243: ignore the diagonal entries, and thus reduce by ($n-1$) the
244: dimensionality of the problem of finding nonnegativity
245: conditions to impose on $\rho$.
246: This is the feature we will seek to maximally
247: exploit here. A fully analogous
248: decoupling property holds in the complex case.
249:
250: It is, of course, necessary and sufficient for $\rho$ to serve
251: as a density matrix (that is, an Hermitian, nonnegative definite, trace
252: one matrix) that all its principal minors be nonnegative
253: \cite{horn}.
254: The condition --- quite natural in the Bloore
255: parameterization --- that all the principal $2 \times 2$ minors be
256: nonnegative requires simply that $-1 \leq z_{ij} \leq 1, i \neq j$. The
257: joint conditions that all the principal minors be nonnegative are not as
258: readily apparent. But for the 9-dimensional {\it real}
259: case $n=4$ --- that is, $\Im(\rho_{ij})=0$ --- we have been able to obtain
260: one such set,
261: using the Mathematica implementation of the {\it cylindrical
262: algorithm decomposition} \cite{cylindrical}.
263: (The set of solutions of any system of real algebraic equations
264: and inequalities can be decomposed into a finite number of
265: ``cylindrical'' parts \cite{strzebonski}.)
266: Applying it, we were able to express the
267: conditions that
268: an arbitrary 9-dimensional $4 \times 4$ real density matrix
269: $\rho$ must fulfill.
270: These took the form, $z_{12}, z_{13}, z_{14} \in [-1,1]$ and
271: \begin{equation} \label{limits}
272: z_{23} \in [Z^-_{23},Z^+_{23}],
273: z_{24} \in [Z^-_{24},Z^+_{24}],
274: z_{34} \in [Z^-_{34},Z^+_{34}],
275: \end{equation}
276: where
277: \begin{equation}
278: Z^{\pm}_{23} =z_{12} z_{13} \pm \sqrt{1-z_{12}^2} \sqrt{1-z_{13}^2} ,
279: Z^{\pm}_{24} =z_{12} z_{14} \pm \sqrt{1-z_{12}^2} \sqrt{1-z_{14}^2} ,
280: \end{equation}
281: \begin{displaymath}
282: Z^{\pm}_{34} = \frac{z_{13} z_{14} -z_{12} z_{14} z_{23} -z_{12} z_{13} z_{24} +z_{23}
283: z_{24} \pm s}{1-z_{12}^2},
284: \end{displaymath}
285: and
286: \begin{equation}
287: s = \sqrt{-1 +z_{12}^2 +z_{13}^2 -2 z_{12} z_{13} z_{23} +z_{23}^2}
288: \sqrt{-1 +z_{12}^2 +z_{14}^2 -2 z_{12} z_{14} z_{24} +z_{24}^2}.
289: \end{equation}
290: Making use of these results, we were able to confirm {\it via} exact
291: symbolic integrations,
292: the (formally demonstrated)
293: result of \.Zyczkowski and Sommers
294: \cite{szHS} that the HS volume of the {\it real}
295: two-qubit ($n=4$) states is
296: $\frac{\pi^4}{60480} \approx 0.0016106$.
297: (This result was also achievable through a somewhat different
298: Mathematica computation, using the implicit integration feature
299: first
300: introduced in version 5.1. That is, the only integration limits employed were
301: that $z_{ij} \in [-1,1], i \neq j$ --- {\it broader} than those in
302: (\ref{limits}) --- while the Boolean constraints were imposed that
303: the determinant of $\rho$ and {\it one} [all that is needed to ensure
304: nonnegativity] of its principal $3 \times 3$ minors be nonnegative.)
305: \subsection{Determinant of the Partial Transpose}
306: However, when we tried to combine these integration limits (\ref{limits})
307: with
308: the (Peres-Horodecki \cite{asher,michal,bruss} $n=4$)
309: separability constraint that the determinant ($C =|\rho_{PT}|$)
310: of the partial
311: transpose of $\rho$ be nonnegative \cite[Thm. 5]{ver},
312: we exceeded the memory availabilities of our workstations.
313: In general, the term $C$ --- unlike the earlier term $B$ --- unavoidably
314: involves
315: the diagonal entries ($\rho_{ii}$), so the
316: dimension of the accompanying integration problems must increase,
317: it would seem, we initially thought ---
318: in the $9$-dimensional real $n=4$ case from 6 to 9.
319:
320: However, we then noted that, in fact, the dimensionality
321: of the required integrations must only
322: essentially be increased by one (rather than three), since
323: $C$ turns out to be (aside from the necessarily nonnegative factor of $A$)
324: expressible solely in terms of
325: the (six, in the real case) distinct
326: $z_{ij}$'s
327: and the square root ratio
328: \begin{equation}
329: \mu = \sqrt{\frac{\rho_{11} \rho_{44}}{\rho_{22} \rho_{33}}}.
330: \end{equation}
331: (Considering $\mu$ as fixed, this is the equation of an hyperboloid of
332: one sheet \cite[p. 227]{CRC}.)
333: That is,
334: \begin{equation}
335: C \equiv |\rho_{PT}| =
336: A \Big(-z_{14}^2 \mu ^4+2 z_{14} \left(z_{12} z_{13}+z_{24}
337: z_{34}\right) \mu ^3 + s \mu^2
338: +2 z_{23}
339: \left(z_{12} z_{24}+z_{13} z_{34}\right) \mu -z_{23}^2 \Big),
340: \end{equation}
341: where
342: \begin{displaymath}
343: s= \left(z_{34}^2-1\right)
344: z_{12}^2-2 \left(z_{14} z_{23}+z_{13} z_{24}\right)
345: z_{34} z_{12}-z_{13}^2+z_{14}^2
346: z_{23}^2+\left(z_{13}^2-1\right) z_{24}^2-z_{34}^2-2
347: z_{13} z_{14} z_{23} z_{24}+1.
348: \end{displaymath}
349:
350: $C$ is, thus, a quartic/biquadratic polynomial in terms of $\mu$
351: (cf. \cite{wang,sudarshan}).
352: (Clearly, the difficulty of the
353: two-qubit separable volume problem under study here
354: is strongly tied to the high [fourth] degree of C in $\mu$.
355: By setting either $z_{14}=0$ or $z_{23}=0$, the degree of $C$
356: can be reduced to 2 (cf. \cite{slaterJPAreject}).)
357: In the {\it complex} case, $C$ once again assumes the form of a
358: quartic polynomial in $\mu$. So one encounters, in that setting,
359: thirteen-dimensional integration
360: problems rather than fifteen-dimensional ones.
361: \section{Analyses}
362: So, the problem of determining the separable volumes
363: can be seen to hinge on (in the
364: real case), a {\it seven}-fold
365: integration involving the six (independent) $z_{ij}$'s and $\mu$.
366: However, such requisite integrations, allowing $\mu$ to vary (or even holding
367: $\mu$ constant at various values, thus, reducing to six-fold integrations),
368: did not appear to be exactly/symbolically
369: performable (using version 5.2 of
370: Mathematica).
371: \subsection{Estimation of the univariate functions
372: $f_{real}(\mu)$ and $f_{complex}(\mu)$}
373: Thus, to make further progress, it seemed necessary, at this stage,
374: to employ
375: numerical methods (not excluding the possibility
376: that exact solutions might, at some point, be revealed).
377:
378: We proceeded along two parallel courses, one for the 9-dimensional
379: real two-qubit case and the other for the 15-dimensional complex case.
380: We sought those functions $f_{real}(\mu)$ and $f_{complex}(\mu)$
381: that would result from imposing the conditions that
382: the expressions $A$, $B$ and $C$
383: (as well as a principal $3 \times 3$ minor of $\rho$), along with
384: their complex counterpart expressions,
385: be {\it simultaneously}
386: nonnegative. (The satisfaction of these
387: joint conditions ensures that we are dealing precisely
388: with {\it separable} $4 \times 4$ density matrices.)
389: It was evident that the relation $f(\mu)=f(\frac{1}{\mu})$ must hold,
390: so we only studied the range $\mu \in [0,1]$. Dividing this unit interval
391: into 2,000 equal nonoverlapping subintervals of length $\frac{1}{2000}$
392: each,
393: we sought to estimate the $f(\mu)$'s at the 2,001 end points of these
394: subintervals.
395:
396: This required ($\mu$ being fixed at these end points) numerical
397: integrations in 6 and 12 dimensions. For this purpose, we utilized the
398: Tezuka-Faure (TF) quasi-Monte Carlo procedure \cite{giray1,tezuka},
399: we had extensively used in
400: our earlier studies of separability probabilities \cite{slaterJGP, slaterPRA}.
401: For each of the 2,001 discrete,
402: equally-spaced values of $\mu$ we employed
403: the same set of 37,000,000 Tezuka-Faure
404: six-dimensional points in the real case and, similarly, the
405: same
406: set of 25,000,000 twelve-dimensional points in the complex case.
407: (The Tezuka-Faure points are defined over unit hypercubes
408: $[0,1]^{n}$, so in our computations, we transform the Bloore variables
409: accordingly. We plan to continue to add such points to our [real and complex]
410: analyses.)
411:
412: In Figs.~\ref{fig:freal} and \ref{fig:fcomplex} we show the results
413: of this procedure.
414: There were some slight deviations from monotonicity \cite{ramsay}
415: (presumably due to limited sample sizes) in the vicinity
416: of $\mu=1$ for both functions.
417:
418: In the real case, our {\it estimate} of
419: {\it known} Hilbert-Schmidt volume of (separable {\it plus}
420: nonseparable) states \cite{szHS},
421: $\frac{\pi^4}{60480} \approx 0.0016106$
422: was larger by only a factor 1.00006. So, we would expect our
423: companion estimates
424: of $f_{real}(\mu)$, at each of the 2,001 sampled points,
425: to be roughly equally precise.
426: (Let us note that $f_{real}(0) = f_{complex}(0)=0$.)
427: In the complex case,
428: our estimate of the known
429: 15-dimensional volume, $\frac{\pi^6}{851350500} \approx
430: 1.12925 \cdot 10^{-6}$ was smaller only by a factor of 0.99965.
431: (As instances of specific values, based on independent analyses using
432: still larger numbers of TF-points,
433: we obtained estimates of $f_{real}(1) = \frac{73430796}{640625} \approx
434: 114.62368,
435: f_{real}(\frac{1}{2}) = \frac{47475904}{640625} \approx
436: 74.108728, f_{real}(\sigma_{Au}) =
437: \frac{56575096}{640625} \approx 88.312344, f_{complex}(1) = 387.33307366,
438: f_{complex}(\frac{1}{2}) = 180.6046580, f_{complex}(\sigma_{Au}) =
439: 251.157815860$, where $\sigma_{Au} =\frac{\sqrt{5}-1}{2}$
440: denotes the golden ratio \cite{livio}. {\it Exact} characterizations
441: of $f_{real}(\mu)$ and $f_{complex}(\mu)$ would, of course, be of
442: great interest, in particular, for the possibility that they might
443: yield exact volume results.)
444: \begin{figure}
445: \includegraphics{freal.eps}
446: \caption{\label{fig:freal}Estimation of $f_{real}(\mu)$ based on the
447: third-order
448: interpolation of 2,001 points ($\mu$),
449: the value at each such point being based
450: on {\it six}-fold numerical integrations employing
451: the same (for each $\mu$) set of thirty-seven million Tezuka-Faure points}
452: \end{figure}
453: \begin{figure}
454: \includegraphics{fcomplex.eps}
455: \caption{\label{fig:fcomplex}Estimation of $f_{complex}(\mu)$ based on the
456: third-order
457: interpolation of 2,001 points ($\mu$), the value at each such point being based
458: on {\it twelve}-fold numerical integrations employing
459: the same (for each $\mu$) set of twenty-five million Tezuka-Faure points}
460: \end{figure}
461:
462: To estimate the desired separable volumes ($V_{sep}$) themselves, one must
463: perform the calculations,
464: \begin{equation} \label{Vreal}
465: V_{sep/real} = 2 \int_{0}^{1} jac_{real} f_{real}(\mu) d \mu
466: \end{equation}
467: and
468: \begin{equation} \label{Vcomplex}
469: V_{sep/complex} = 2 \int_{0}^{1} jac_{complex} f_{complex}(\mu) d \mu.
470: \end{equation}
471: \subsection{Jacobians for the transformations}
472: Now
473: (Fig.~\ref{fig:jacreal}),
474: \begin{equation} \label{jacr}
475: jac_{real}(\mu)=
476: \frac{\mu ^4 \left(12 \left(\left(\mu ^2+2\right)
477: \left(\mu ^4+14 \mu ^2+8\right) \mu ^2+1\right) \log
478: (\mu )-5 \left(5 \mu ^8+32 \mu ^6-32 \mu
479: ^2-5\right)\right)}{1890 \left(\mu ^2-1\right)^9}
480: \end{equation}
481: \begin{figure}
482: \includegraphics{jacreal.eps}
483: \caption{\label{fig:jacreal}Plot of the jacobian function
484: $jac_{real}(\mu)$, given by (\ref{jacr})}
485: \end{figure}
486: and (Fig.~\ref{fig:jaccomplex})
487: \begin{equation} \label{jacc}
488: jac_{complex}(\mu)= -\frac{\mu ^7}{1801800 \left(\mu ^2-1\right)^{15}} V,
489: \end{equation}
490: where
491: \begin{displaymath}
492: V =363 \mu ^{14}+9947 \mu ^{12}+48363 \mu ^{10}+42875 \mu
493: ^8-42875 \mu ^6-48363 \mu ^4-9947 \mu ^2-363
494: \end{displaymath}
495: \begin{displaymath}
496: -140 \left(\mu ^{14}+49 \mu ^{12}+441 \mu ^{10}+1225 \mu
497: ^8+1225 \mu ^6+441 \mu ^4+49 \mu ^2+1\right) \log (\mu
498: ).
499: \end{displaymath}
500: We have that
501: \begin{equation}
502: \int_{0}^{1} jac_{real}(\mu) d
503: \mu = \frac{\pi ^2}{2293760} \approx 4.30281 \cdot
504: 10^{-6},
505: \end{equation}
506: and
507: \begin{equation}
508: \int_{0}^{1} jac_{complex}(\mu) d \mu = \frac{1}{2018016000}
509: \approx 4.95536 \cdot 10^{-10}.
510: \end{equation}
511: (The smallest value of $\mu$ for which $jac_{real}(\mu) =0$ that we were
512: able to find was 0.9685588023, while for $jac_{complex}(\mu)$ we found
513: 0.8395384257.)
514: \begin{figure}
515: \includegraphics{jaccomplex.eps}
516: \caption{\label{fig:jaccomplex}Plot of the jacobian function
517: $jac_{complex}(\mu)$, given by (\ref{jacc})}
518: \end{figure}
519:
520: We obtained the jacobian functions $jac_{real}(\mu)$ and
521: $jac_{complex}(\mu)$, given in (\ref{jacr}) and (\ref{jacc}),
522: by transformations of, say, $\rho_{33}$ to the $\mu$ variable
523: (and subsequent two-fold exact integrations over $\rho_{11}$ and
524: $\rho_{22}$) of
525: the original (three-dimensional) jacobians,
526: involving the diagonal entries, for the Bloore parameterizations. These
527: original
528: jacobians were of the form
529: $(\Pi_{i=1}^{4} \rho_{ii})^k$
530: with
531: $k=\frac{3}{2}$ in the real case, and $k=3$, in the complex case.
532: (Of course, by the unit trace condition,
533: we must have $\rho_{44}=1-\rho_{11}-\rho_{22}-\rho_{33}$.)
534:
535: The direct high-accuracy computation of the desired
536: separable volume integrals (\ref{Vreal}) and
537: (\ref{Vcomplex}) proves challenging due to the highly oscillatory nature
538: of $jac_{real}(\mu)$ and $jac_{complex}(\mu)$ (given by
539: (\ref{jacr}) and
540: (\ref{jacc})) in the vicinity of
541: $\mu=1$, as indicated in Figs.~\ref{fig:jacreal} and \ref{fig:jaccomplex}.
542: (It might be appropriate to sample more points in the vicinity of
543: $\mu=1$ than in other less problematical regions.
544: We have also attempted --- without significant success so far --- to
545: evaluate these integrals using repeated integration
546: by parts \cite{manning}, since the two jacobians in question
547: admit repeated exact integrations.)
548: \subsection{Volume integrals over $\mu \in [0,.95]$}
549: Replacing the upper integration limit of 1 in the integral (\ref{Vreal})
550: by .95, we obtained --- using high precision arithmetic --- a
551: result of 0.0006707668 and
552: consequent {\it lower} bound
553: on the probability of separability of the real two-qubit systems of
554: 0.41647013. (The direct
555: use of upper integration limits greater than .95
556: appeared to lead to unstable results.)
557: For similar reasons, replacing the upper integration limit of 1
558: in the integral (\ref{Vcomplex}) also by .95, we obtained a result of
559: $2.327058044 \cdot 10^{-7}$
560: and consequent lower bound on the probability of separability of the
561: complex two-qubit systems of 0.2060707612.
562: \subsection{Volume integrals over $\mu \in [.95,1]$} \label{mike}
563: In the immediately preceding analysis, we used upper limits of .95
564: rather than 1 in the integrals (\ref{Vreal}) and (\ref{Vcomplex}).
565: To estimate the integrals in the remaining range $[.95,1]$, we replaced
566: the jacobian functions $jac_{real}(\mu)$ and $jac_{complex}(\mu)$, given in
567: (\ref{jacr}) and (\ref{jacc}), by their 100-degree power
568: series expansions about $\mu=1$. (When plotted over [.95,1], both these
569: replacement functions gave the appearances of simple downward-sloping
570: {\it lines} (Figs.~\ref{fig:SeriesReal} and \ref{fig:SeriesComplex}).)
571: \begin{figure}
572: \includegraphics{SeriesReal.eps}
573: \caption{\label{fig:SeriesReal}100-degree power series approximation to
574: $jac_{real}(\mu)$ about $\mu=1$}
575: \end{figure}
576: \begin{figure}
577: \includegraphics{SeriesComplex.eps}
578: \caption{\label{fig:SeriesComplex}100-degree power series approximation to
579: $jac_{complex}(\mu)$ about $\mu=1$}
580: \end{figure}
581:
582:
583: Proceeding in such a manner, again using high-precision arithmetic
584: and summing the results over the two sets of intervals,
585: we arrived at our final (subject to the availability of additional
586: Tezuka-Faure points) estimates
587: $V_{sep/real} \approx 0.0007298112$ and
588: $V_{sep/complex} \approx 2.625622678 \cdot 10^{-7}$.
589: Then, we have
590: $prob_{sep/real} \approx 0.45313001$ and
591: $prob_{complex/real} \approx 0.23250991$.
592: (When we compared these several results, based on interpolation --- to
593: estimate $f_{real}(\mu)$ and $f_{complex}(\mu)$ (Figs.~\ref{fig:freal}
594: and \ref{fig:fcomplex}) --- using
595: {\it third}-degree polynomials with those using {\it sixth}-degree
596: polynomials, we
597: obtained essentially the same set of results.)
598:
599: As noted in the introductory section,
600: we had previously hypothesized that $V_{sep/complex}=
601: (5 \sqrt{3})^{-7} \approx 2.73707 \cdot 10^{-7}$
602: \cite[eq. (41)]{slaterPRA} and
603: $prob_{sep/complex}= \frac{2^2 \cdot 3 \cdot 7^2 \cdot 11
604: \cdot 13 \sqrt{3}}{5^4 \pi^{6}}
605: \approx 0.242379$ \cite[eq. (43), but misprinted as $5^3$ not
606: $5^4$ there]{slaterPRA}. The analysis there was based on a considerably
607: larger number --- 400,000,000 --- of Tezuka-Faure points than here.
608: But each point there was employed only {\it once} for the Peres-Horodecki
609: separability test, while each point here is used in 2,000 such tests
610: (with $\mu$ ranging over [0,1]).
611: (Relatedly, we had initially suspected that if we started
612: checking the Peres-Horodecki criterion for successively larger values
613: of $\mu$, holding the set of $z_{ij}$'s given by a Tezuka-Faure point
614: {\it fixed}, then if we reached one value for which separability held, then
615: {\it all} higher values of $\mu$ would also yield separability. But this turned out
616: not to be invariably the case. So, it appeared that
617: we needed to check the criterion 2,000 times
618: for each point.)
619:
620: \section{Concluding Remarks}
621: In our earlier study \cite{slaterJPAreject}, we had also employed
622: the Bloore parameterization of the
623: two-qubit (and qubit-qutrit) systems
624: to study the Hilbert-Schmidt separability probabilities of
625: specialized systems of
626: less than full dimensionality.
627: We also reported an effort to determine a certain {\it three}-dimensional
628: function (in contrast to the {\it one}-dimensional functions
629: $f_{real}(\mu)$ and $f_{complex}(\mu)$ above, but for somewhat a similar
630: purpose)
631: over the simplex of eigenvalues that would facilitate the
632: calculation of the 15-dimensional volume of the two-qubit systems in terms
633: of (monotone) metrics --- such as the Bures, Kubo-Mori,
634: Wigner-Yanase,\ldots --- other than the (non-monotone
635: \cite{ozawa}) Hilbert-Schmidt one considered here.
636: (The Bloore parameterization \cite{bloore}, used above, did not seem
637: immediately useful in this monotone metric context, since the {\it
638: eigenvalues} of
639: $\rho$ are not explicitly expressed (cf. \cite{Dittmann}).
640: Therefore, we had recourse in \cite{slaterJPAreject} to
641: the Euler-angle parameterization of Tilma, Byrd and Sudarshan
642: \cite{sudarshan}.)
643:
644: Let us direct the reader to some papers of R. Kellerhals concerned, among
645: other items, with the volumes of {\it hyperbolic} polyhedra
646: \cite{ruth1,ruth2} (cf. \cite{freitas}).
647: In this line of work, the dilogarithm and, more generally, the polylogarithm
648: functions play important roles. There have been some indicators in our
649: investigations above (in particular, in integrations of the jacobians)
650: that these functions also may be of relevance in our context.
651:
652: The extension to qubit-{\it qutrit} pairs (and even higher-dimensional compositie systems) of the univariate-function-strategy we have pursued above,
653: for the case of qubit-qubit pairs, seems problematical, although we have not
654: yet examined the matter in
655: great detail. In the qubit-qubit case, the analysis is
656: facilitated by the fact that it is sufficient that the determinant of
657: the partial transpose be nonnegative for the Peres-Horodecki separability
658: criterion to hold \cite[Thm. 5]{ver}.
659: More requirements than this single one
660: are needed in the qubit-qutrit
661: scenario --- even though the criterion on the nonnegativity of the
662: partial transpose is still both necessary and
663: sufficient for $6 \times 6$ density matrices.
664: (In addition to the determinant, the
665: leading minors and/or
666: the individual eigenvalues of the partial transpose of the
667: $6 \times 6$ density matrix
668: would need to be tested for nonnegativity, as well.
669: Also the qubit-qutrit analogue
670: of the ratio ($\mu$) of diagonal entries would have to be defined, if
671: even possible.)
672:
673: \begin{acknowledgments}
674: I wish to express gratitude to the Kavli Institute for Theoretical
675: Physics (KITP)
676: for computational support in this research and to Michael Trott for his
677: suggestion regarding the use of the power series expansion
678: in Sec.~\ref{mike}.
679:
680: \end{acknowledgments}
681:
682:
683: \bibliography{SV1}% Produces the bibliography via BibTeX.
684:
685: \end{document}
686: %
687: % ****** End of file Test2.tex ******