Abstract
Quantum entanglement has a central role in many areas of physics. To grasp the essence of this phenomenon, it is fundamental to understand how different manifestations of entanglement relate to each other. In 1999, Peres conjectured that Bell nonlocality is equivalent to distillability of entanglement. The intuition of Peres was that the nonclassicality of an entangled state, as witnessed via Bell inequality violation, implies that pure entanglement can be distilled from this state, hence making it useful for quantum information protocols. Subsequently, the Peres conjecture was shown to hold true in several specific cases, and became a central open question in quantum information theory. Here we disprove the Peres conjecture by showing that an undistillable bipartite entangled state—a bound entangled state—can violate a Bell inequality. Hence Bell nonlocality implies neither entanglement distillability, nor nonpositivity under partial transposition. This clarifies the relation between three fundamental aspects of entanglement.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The predictions of quantum theory are incompatible with any physical model that satisfies a natural principle of locality, as shown by Bell^{1,2}. Specifically, the correlations obtained by performing local measurements on an entangled quantum state violate an inequality, Bell’s inequality, which is satisfied by all local correlations. Understanding the link between entanglement and Bell nonlocality is a longstanding and challenging problem^{2,3}. While the observation of Bell inequality violation implies the presence of entanglement, it is still not known whether all entangled states can lead to Bell inequality violation.
While nonlocality turns out to be a generic feature of all entangled pure states^{4,5}, the situation is however much more complex for mixed states. There exist mixed entangled states which are local, as they admit a local hidden variable model^{6}, even for the most general type of nonsequential measurements^{7}. Nevertheless, it turns out that certain local entangled states can violate a Bell inequality when a more general scenario is considered. If preprocessing by local operations and classical communication (LOCC) is performed before the local measurements, the ‘hidden nonlocality’ of some local entangled states can be revealed^{8,9,10}. Alternatively, when several copies of the state can be jointly measured in each run of the Bell test, nonlocality can be superactivated^{11,12}. Finally, the nonlocality of certain local entangled states can be revealed by placing several copies of the state in a quantum network^{13,14}.
In the most general case, an arbitrary number of copies of the state can be preprocessed by LOCC operations before performing the Bell test. Hence the problem becomes intimately related to entanglement distillation^{15}. A bipartite entangled state is said to be distillable if, from an arbitrary number of copies, it is possible to extract pure entanglement by LOCC^{16}. It thus follows that any entangled state that is distillable can lead to Bell inequality violation.
There exist however entangled states which are not distillable, socalled ‘bound entangled’ states^{17}, shown to be relevant for instance in quantum manybody systems^{18,19,20}. Hence the phenomenon of entanglement displays a form of irreversibility. On the one hand, entanglement is required to produce a bound entangled state, that is, the state cannot be produced via LOCC. On the other hand, no pure entanglement can ever be extracted from a bound entangled state by LOCC. This leads naturally to the question of whether bound entangled states can also violate a Bell inequality. In 1999, Peres^{21} first discussed this problem and conjectured that bound entanglement can never lead to Bell inequality violation. Originally, the conjecture was formulated using the notion of partial transposition^{22}, one of the most useful tools for characterizing entanglement^{23}, directly related to symmetry under time reversal and to distillability of entanglement^{17}. Specifically, Peres suggested that entangled quantum states with positive partial transpose (PPT)^{22}, and hence no distillable entanglement, can never give rise to nonlocality. An alternative formulation of the conjecture is that any entangled state that leads to Bell inequality violation must be nonpositive under partial transposition (NPT). Peres’ intuition was that distillability of entanglement is equivalent to nonlocality, that is, the violation of a Bell inequality by measurements on a quantum state necessarily implies that some pure entanglement can be distilled out of this state.
In recent years, an intense research effort has been devoted to this problem. Several works provided evidence in favour of the Peres conjecture, showing that the violation of important classes of Bell inequalities implies distillability^{24,25} and nonpositivity under partial transposition^{26,27}. On the other hand, weaker versions of the conjecture were disproven, in the multipartite case^{28,29,30}, and more recently considering the notion of quantum steering^{31,32,33}. However, Peres’ original conjecture remained open, and has become known as one of the main conjectures in quantum information theory. Solving this problem is thus an important challenge as it would lead to a deeper understanding of how different manifestations of the phenomenon of entanglement relate to each other (see Fig. 1).
Here, we disprove the original Peres conjecture. Specifically, we present a bipartite entangled state which is PPT, hence bound entangled, but which can nevertheless violate a Bell inequality. This shows that Bell nonlocality is fundamentally different from both entanglement distillability and nonpositivity under partial transposition. Finally, we show that bound entanglement can be useful in nonlocalitybased quantum information protocols, in particular for deviceindependent randomness certification^{34,35}.
Results
Bound entangled state
We start by constructing the bound entangled state, and will later show that it violates a simple Bell inequality. We consider a state of two qutrits, that is, of local Hilbert space dimension d=3. Note that there are no PPT entangled states for qubit–qubit and qubit–qutrit systems^{23}. Specifically, we consider an entangled state of the form
The eigenvalues are , and the eigenvectors are given by
where . The state ρ is part of a family of states recently discussed in ref. 31. Importantly the above choice of eigenvalues and eigenvectors ensures that the state ρ is invariant under the partial transposition map^{22}, that is, PT(ρ)=(⊗T_{B})(ρ)=ρ, where T_{B} denotes the transposition operation on the second subsystem. This ensures that the state ρ is PPT, that is, PT(ρ)0, and therefore undistillable^{17}.
Bell inequality violation
Nevertheless, the state ρ is entangled, hence bound entangled, as it can lead to Bell inequality violation. To prove this, we consider a Bell test with two distant observers, Alice and Bob. Alice chooses between three measurement settings, xε{0, 1, 2}, and Bob among two settings, yε{0, 1}. Alice’s settings yield a binary outcome, aε{0, 1}. Bob’s first setting (y=0) has a ternary outcome, bε{0, 1, 2}, and his second setting (y=1) is binary, bε{0, 1}. The experiment is thus characterized by the joint probability distribution p(abxy). These statistics can be reproduced by a local model if they admit a decomposition of the form:
where λ represents the shared local variable distributed according to the density μ (λ). For the Bell test considered here, all statistics of the above form satisfy the Bell inequality^{36}:
where p_{A}(ax) and p_{B}(by) denote Alice’s and Bob’s marginal distributions. Hence a violation of the above inequality, that is, I>0, implies the presence of nonlocality.
In particular, this can be achieved by performing judiciously chosen local measurements on the bound entangled state ρ. The local measurement operators, acting on , are denoted M_{ax} for Alice and M_{by} for Bob. The measurement operators of Alice are rank1 realvalued projectors M_{0x}=A_{x}›‹A_{x}, with
where p=1/5. We have that M_{1x}=−M_{0x}, where denotes the identity operator in . Bob’s first measurement is given by (for b=0, 1) by
and M_{20}=−M_{00}−M_{10}. For Bob’s second setting, we take M_{01}=2›‹2 and M_{11}=−M_{01}. The resulting statistics is given by the probability distribution
These statistics do not admit a decomposition of the form (3), as they lead to a violation of the Bell inequality (4), given analytically by
This proves that a bipartite bound entangled state can give rise to nonlocality, thus disproving the Peres conjecture (see Fig. 2).
To derive this result, we followed a numerical optimization method based on semidefinite programming (SDP)^{37}, briefly outlined in the Methods section. The construction described above is however analytical, and was reconstructed from the output of the optimization procedure. In fact, slightly higher Bell violations, up to I_{PPT} =2.6526 × 10^{−4}, could be found numerically for twoqutrit PPT states. Moreover, using the SPD techniques of ref. 38, an upper bound on the largest possible violation obtainable from PPT states is here found to be , hence leaving the possibility open for a slightly higher violation using PPT states of arbitrary Hilbert space dimension.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that our result implies that the set of PPT states violating Bell inequality (4) is of nonzero measure. Although the Bell violation we observe is small, it is nevertheless finite. Hence it follows that any state obtained by adding a sufficiently small (but finite) amount of an arbitrary separable state to the bound entangled state ρ, will also violate the Bell inequality. As the set of separable states is of nonzero measure, the result follows.
Randomness certification
The fact that a bound entangled state can violate a Bell inequality suggests potential applications in quantum information processing, in particular in nonlocalitybased tasks. Here we consider randomness expansion based on Bell nonlocality^{34,35}, in which true quantum randomness can be certified without relying on a detailed knowledge about the functioning of the devices used in the protocol. The security of the protocol is therefore called ‘deviceindependent’. Following the techniques of refs 39, 40, we obtained lower bounds on the amount of randomness that can be certified from the nonlocal statistics. The randomness is captured by the probability of guessing the outcome of Bob’s (or Alice’s) measurement p_{g}(by). Note that this guessing probability is computed by a maximization over all possible realizations that are compatible with the observed data p(abxy), see refs 39, 40 for details. To quantify the randomness it is useful to consider the minentropy, H_{min}=−log_{2}p_{g}(by), which represents the number of random bits that can be extracted per run of the Bell test (using adequate postprocessing) from Bob’s measurement setting y. The results, summarized in Table 1, show that randomness can indeed be certified using a bipartite bound entangled state. Note that in practice, implementing such a protocol would be extremely challenging, as the Bell violation is very small, and hence very sensitive to noise.
Finally, it would be interesting to see if bound entanglement is useful for other quantum information protocols based on nonlocality. First, given its usefulness in quantum key distribution (QKD)^{41}, it would be interesting to see if bound entanglement could also be used to establish a secret key in the context of deviceindependent QKD^{42}. Second, our bound entangled state could be useful in communication complexity, a task which is strongly connected to quantum nonlocality. Using the techniques of ref. 43 (see also ref. 44), it should be possible to construct a communication complexity problem for which bound entanglement helps reducing the amount of communication compared to classical resources.
Discussion
To summarize, we have shown that bipartite bound entangled states can lead to Bell inequality violation, thus disproving the longstanding conjecture of Peres. This represents significant progress in our understanding of the relation between entanglement and Bell nonlocality, demonstrating in particular that nonlocality does not imply nonpositivity under partial transposition or entanglement distillability (see Fig. 1). The main open question now is whether all bound entangled states can give rise to Bell inequality violation, which would imply that entanglement and nonlocality are basically equivalent. From a more applied perspective, we also showed that bound entanglement can be useful in nonlocalitybased quantum information tasks, in particular deviceindependent randomness certification.
Methods
Numerical method
Consider a Bell inequality of the form
with real coefficients c_{abxy} and local bound L. To find efficiently violations of such an inequality for PPT states of local Hilbert space dimension d, we use the semidefinite programming procedure described in Box 1.
Additional information
How to cite this article: Vértesi, T. & Brunner, N. Disproving the Peres conjecture by showing Bell nonlocality from bound entanglement. Nat. Commun. 5:5297 doi: 10.1038/ncomms6297 (2014).
References
Bell, J. S. On the EPR paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964).
Brunner, N., Cavalcanti, D., Pironio, S., Scarani, V. & Wehner, S. Bell nonlocality. Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014).
Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M. & Horodecki, K. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
Gisin, N. Bell's inequality holds for all nonproduct states. Phys. Lett. A 154, 201–202 (1991).
Popescu, S. & Rohrlich, D. Generic quantum nonlocality. Phys. Lett. A 166, 293 (1992).
Werner, R. F. Quantum states with EinsteinPodolskyRosen correlations admitting a hiddenvariable model. Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277–4281 (1989).
Barrett, J. Nonsequential positiveoperatorvalued measurements on entangled mixed states do not always violate a Bell inequality. Phys. Rev. A 65, 042302 (2002).
Popescu, S. Bell's Inequalities and Density Matrices: Revealing Hidden Nonlocality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2619 (1995).
Masanes, L., Liang, Y.C. & Doherty, A. C. All Bipartite Entangled States Display Some Hidden Nonlocality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 090403 (2008).
Hirsch, F., Quintino, M. T., Bowles, J. & Brunner, N. Genuine hidden quantum nonlocality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 160402 (2013).
Palazuelos, C. Superactivation of quantum nonlocality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 190401 (2012).
Cavalcanti, D., Acin, A., Brunner, N. & Vértesi, T. All quantum states useful for teleportation are nonlocal resources. Phys. Rev. A 87, 042104 (2013).
Cavalcanti, D., Almeida, M. L., Scarani, V. & Acin, A. Quantum networks reveal quantum nonlocality. Nat. Commun. 2, 184 (2011).
Sen(De), A., Sen, U., Brukner, C., Buzek, V. & Zukowski, M. Entanglement swapping of noisy states: A kind of superadditivity in nonclassicality. Phys. Rev. A 72, 042310 (2005).
Peres, A. Collective tests for quantum nonlocality. Phys. Rev. A 54, 2685–2689 (1996).
Bennett, C. H. et al. Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722–725 (1996).
Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P. & Horodecki, R. Mixedstate entanglement and distillation: is there a “bound” entanglement in nature? Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5239 (1998).
Patané, D., Fazio, R. & Amico, L. Bound entanglement in the XY model. New J. Phys. 9, 322 (2007).
Tóth, G., Knapp, C., Gühne, O. & Briegel, H. J. Optimal spin squeezing inequalities detect bound entanglement in spin models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250405 (2007).
Ferraro, A., Cavalcanti, D., GarciaSaez, A. & Acin, A. Thermal bound entanglement in macroscopic systems and area laws. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 080502 (2008).
Peres, A. All the Bell inequalities. Found Phys. 29, 589 (1999).
Peres, A. Separability criterion for density matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413–1415 (1996).
Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P. & Horodecki, R. Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions. Phys. Lett. A 223, 210 (1996).
Acin, A. Distillability, Bell inequalities, and multiparticle bound entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 027901 (2001).
Masanes, Ll. Asymptotic violation of Bell inequalities and distillability. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 050503 (2006).
Werner, R. F. & Wolf, M. M. Bell’s inequalities for states with positive partial transpose. Phys. Rev. A 61, 062102 (2000).
Cavalcanti, D., Salles, A. & Acin, A. Quantum nonlocality and partial transposition for continuousvariable systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 040404 (2008).
Dür, W. Multipartite bound entangled states that violate Bell’s inequality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 230402 (2001).
Augusiak, R. & Horodecki, P. Bound entanglement maximally violating Bell inequalities: quantum entanglement is not equivalent to quantum security. Phys. Rev. A 74, 010305 (2006).
Vértesi, T. & Brunner, N. Quantum nonlocality does not imply entanglement distillability. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 030403 (2012).
Moroder, T., Gittsovich, O., Huber, M. & Gühne, O. Steering bound entangled states: a counterexample to the stronger Peres conjecture. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 050404 (2014).
Pusey, M. F. Negativity and steering: a stronger Peres conjecture. Phys. Rev. A 88, 032313 (2013).
Skrzypczyk, P., Navascués, M. & Cavalcanti, D. Quantifying EinsteinPodolskyRosen steering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 180404 (2014).
Colbeck, R. Quantum and Relativistic Protocols for Secure MultiParty Computation (PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge (2007).
Pironio, S. et al. Random numbers certified by Bell's theorem. Nature 464, 1021–1024 (2010).
Pironio, S. All CHSH polytopes, Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6914 (2014).
Boyd, S. P. & Vandenberghe, L. Convex Optimization Cambridge University Press (2004).
Moroder, T., Bancal, J.D., Liang, Y.C., Hofmann, M. & Gühne, O. Deviceindependent entanglement quantification and related applications. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 030501 (2013).
NietoSilleras, O., Pironio, S. & Silman, J. Using complete measurement statistics for optimal deviceindependent randomness evaluation. New J. Phys. 16, 013035 (2014).
Bancal, J.D., Sheridan, L. & Scarani, V. More randomness from the same data. New J. Phys. 16, 033011 (2014).
Horodecki, K., Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P. & Oppenheim, J. Secure key from bound entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 160502 (2005).
Acin, A. et al. Deviceindependent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 230501 (2007).
Brukner, C., Zukowski, M., Pan, J.W. & Zeilinger, A. Violation of Bell's inequality: criterion for quantum communication complexity advantage. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 127901 (2004).
Epping, M. & Brukner, C. Bound entanglement helps to reduce communication complexity. Phys. Rev. A 87, 032305 (2013).
DiVincenzo, D. P., Shor, P. W., Smolin, J. A., Terhal, B. M. & Thapliyal, A. V. Evidence for bound entangled states with negative partial transpose. Phys. Rev. A 61, 062312 (2000).
Dür, W., Cirac, J. I., Lewenstein, M. & Bruß, D. Distillability and transposition in bipartite systems. Phys. Rev. A 61, 062313 (2000).
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge financial support from the János Bolyai Programme of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund OTKA (PD101461), the TÁMOP4.2.2.C11/1/KONV20120001 project and from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant PP00P2_138917 and QSIT), SEFRI (COST action MP1006) and the EU DIQIP.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to all aspects of this work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vértesi, T., Brunner, N. Disproving the Peres conjecture by showing Bell nonlocality from bound entanglement. Nat Commun 5, 5297 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6297
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6297
This article is cited by

Relating an entanglement measure with statistical correlators for twoqudit mixed states using only a pair of complementary observables
Quantum Information Processing (2024)

Bound entanglement is not Lorentz invariant
Scientific Reports (2023)

Negativity vs. purity and entropy in witnessing entanglement
Scientific Reports (2023)

Detecting the genuine multipartite twoway steerability with linear steering inequalities
Quantum Information Processing (2022)

Free versus bound entanglement, a NPhard problem tackled by machine learning
Scientific Reports (2021)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.