Abstract
Entanglement detection, which signifies the task of distinguishing entangled states from separable states, can be generally performed by realizing entanglement witnesses via local measurements on a singlecopy level and classical communication, and are known to be experimenter friendly. We introduce a framework of constructing mirrored entanglement witnesses by showing that an experimental observable is twice as effective since it generally provides bounds from above and below for separable states. Differently stated, a pair of witnesses, mirrored witnesses, exists for the characterization of the bounds, which are two faces of one observable. We show how to generally construct those witnesses and provide examples for bipartite and multipartite systems. We also show that both mirrored witnesses can be improved by introducing nonlinearities, by which a larger set of entangled states can be certified.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Revealing properties of an unknown quantum state of a physical system is of fundamental importance in quantum information theory and its application. By quantum state tomography, the full knowledge of a given physical system can be determined after a series of quantum measurements, which is, however, generally an expensive and costinefficient procedure demanding experimental resources. Moreover, one is often only interested in the question of whether a multipartite state is entangled or not and what type of entanglement is present, for instance bipartite or genuinely multipartite entanglement. Entanglement witnesses (EWs), particular observables, offer the solution with currently feasible technologies. EWs typically require less experimental setups to unambiguously verify the existence of entanglement and even additional information on the type of entanglement may be revealed. This concept relies on the fact that the set of separable states is convex, i.e. EWs correspond to hyperplanes separating some entangled states from the set of separable states in the Hilbert−Schmidt space.^{1} In highdimensional and multipartite systems also the entanglement structure itself becomes of interest which has a nested convex structure.^{2,3,4} In the recent years, there has been much progress in the theory and experimental realization of EWs for multipartite entangled states (see e.g. refs. ^{5,6,7}).
EWs exhibit numerous advantages. They are observables on a singlecopy level and are factored into local observables, namely no entanglement resources are needed to realize EWs. These properties make them suited for experimental investigations. A major drawback is that a priori information about entangled states to be detected is needed to be at hand in advance. This can be explained in Fig. 1 as follows. Suppose that an entangled state τ is detected by a witness W, which however does not detect states ρ and w. The witness W can be optimized to construct a finer one W^{(−)}, that can detect a state ρ but not yet a state w at the other side. Therefore, in order to detect a state w, a priori information about the state is needed such that a relevant witness W^{(+)} can be constructed. Or, to detect a state ρ, one may also need a proper optimization technique to lift W to W^{(−)}.^{8}
In this work, we establish the framework of mirrored EWs that can construct a pair of EWs from an EW, and show that both of the EWs can perform detecting entangled states by realizing a single observable. In other words, an EW W^{(+)} has its “twin” one denoted by W^{(−)}, called a mirrored witness, such that the pair of EWs can be realized by a single observable. In Fig. 1, this can be illustrated that EWs W^{(+)} and W^{(−)} serve the characterization of lower and upper bounds of an observable A for separable states. Then, once an observable A is realized, entangled states are detected from violations of the lower or the upper bounds, which are equivalent to entanglement detection by W^{(+)} or W^{(−)}, respectively. Note that both a state ρ, which is not detected by W^{(+)}, and a state w, not by W^{(−)}, can be detected by realizing a single observable A. Hence, introducing mirrored EWs, one can double the capability of detecting entangled states. We show that mirrored EWs can be constructed from upper and lower bounds of an observable for separable states and also present how mirrored EWs are related to the structural physical approximation. Examples are presented for the illustration of mirrored EWs. Finally, we investigate the construction of nonlinear EWs from mirrored witnesses and show that mirrored EWs can be improved by both subtraction and addition of nonlinear polynomials.
Let us review the basic properties of entanglement witnesses. Throughout, let W denote an EW such that
where S_{sep} is the set of separable states. Assuming bipartite systems, an EW can be factorized into local measurements, i.e., \(W={\sum }_{i}{c}_{i}\,{M}_{i}^{(A)}\otimes {N}_{i}^{(B)}\) for some constants {c_{i}} and positive operatorvalued measure (POVM) \(\{{M}_{i}^{(A)}\}\) and \(\{{N}_{i}^{(B)}\}\), that give descriptions of measurement devices. Note that an EW can be generally factorized into local measurements.^{9} We can restrict the consideration to normalized EW without loss of generality, i.e., \({\rm{tr}}W=1\), on a Hilbert space \({\mathcal{H}}={{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes {{\mathcal{H}}}_{2}\) where \({d}_{i}=\dim {{\mathcal{H}}}_{i}\) and D = d_{1}d_{2}.
Recall, that if W is an EW then geometrically it gives rise to a hyperplane Σ in Ddimensional real space defined by \(\Sigma =\{A={A}^{\dagger }  {\rm{tr}}(WA)=0\}\). A convex set of separable states is located only on one side of Σ (cf. Fig. 1). Denote by D(W) a set of states detected by W. One calls^{8} EW \(W^{\prime}\) finer than W if \(D(W)\subset D(W^{\prime} )\). Finally, W is optimal if there is no witness finer than W. Clearly, when W is optimal the corresponding hyperplane Σ touches a set of separable states (in Fig. 1 the EW W^{(−)} is finer than W since it detects all entangled states of W and more). It is clear that any EW W can be shifted by subtracting a positive operator such that the corresponding Σ touches the border of separable states. An EW W is called decomposable if it has a form W = A + B^{Γ} for A, B ≥ 0, where B^{Γ} denotes the partial transposition on the operator B. An EW that is not of this form is called nondecomposable and can detect bound entangled states. Bound entanglement has been detected experimentally for multipartite systems, such as fourqubit cases with polarization degrees of freedom.^{10,11} Bipartite bound entanglement is the strongest form of bound entanglement and in 2013 it has been experimentally demonstrated by photons entangled in their orbital angular momentum degrees of freedom.^{12}
Using the wellknown duality between linear maps \(\Phi :{\mathcal{B}}({{\mathcal{H}}}_{1})\to {\mathcal{B}}({{\mathcal{H}}}_{2})\) and operators in \({{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes {{\mathcal{H}}}_{2}\) defined by Choi−Jamiołkowski isomorphism
where \({P}_{1}^{+}\) denotes the maximally entangled state in \({{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes {{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\), and “id” is an identity map in \({\mathcal{B}}({{\mathcal{H}}}_{1})\), one may immediately translate all properties of EWs into the corresponding properties of maps and vice versa. In Eq. (2), W is an EW if and only if Φ is a positive but not completely positive map.
Results
Mirrored entanglement witnesses
Consider a Hermitian operator A ≥ 0 in \({{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes {{\mathcal{H}}}_{2}\) such that \({\rm{tr}}A=1\), that can be interpreted as a state of a composite system. Let \({\lambda }_{\max }(A)\) and \({\lambda }_{\min }(A)\) denote the maximal and minimal eigenvalues of A, respectively. Moreover, we introduce the upper (U) and lower (L) borders
such that for any separable state σ ∈ S_{sep} follows
Now, if \({\lambda }_{\min }(A)\, < \,L(A)\) and \({\lambda }_{\max }(A)\, > \,U(A)\), both lower and upper bounds may be used to detect entangled states: if one finds that for a state ρ
then the state is entangled. We call the interval [L(A), U(A)] in Eq. (3) the separability window of an observable A.
A separability window of an observable may be found in terms of separability eigenvalue equations as follows:^{13}
where \({A}_{1}={{\rm{tr}}}_{2}[{{{I}}}_{1}\otimes \left{x}_{2}\right\rangle \left\langle {x}_{2}\right\cdot A]\in {\mathcal{B}}({{\mathcal{H}}}_{1})\) and \({A}_{2}={{\rm{tr}}}_{1}[\left{x}_{1}\right\rangle \left\langle {x}_{1}\right\otimes {{{I}}}_{2}\cdot A]\in {\mathcal{B}}({{\mathcal{H}}}_{2})\). Let λ_{1} and λ_{2} denote minimal and maximal eigenvalues, respectively, in Eq. (5). Then, the separability window of an observable A can be found as [L(A), U(A)] = [λ_{1}, λ_{2}].
As the scheme of detecting entangled states with a separability window in Eq. (4) is linear with respect to quantum states, one may anticipate that both of the bounds may be identified by EWs. In fact, we construct a pair of EWs that can equivalently characterize quantum states within a nontrivial separability window [L(A), U(A)] for an observable A, as follows
where the normalization factors read
and D = d_{1} ⋅ d_{2}. One can immediately prove that \({\rm{tr}}[{W}^{(\pm )}\sigma ]\ge 0\) for all σ ∈ S_{sep} by referring to Eq. (3), i.e., for a state ρ,
We call a pair of EWs (W^{(−)}, W^{(+)}) mirrored entanglement witnesses: they are constructed by an observable that has a nontrivial separability window. That is, entanglement detection with both mirrored EWs W^{(±)} can be equivalently performed by realizing a single observable A, as it is shown in Eq. (4).
Remark. Entangled states detected by a pair of EWs that are mirrored to each other can be realized by a single observable, that is nonnegative and of unittrace, i.e., thus can be interpreted as a quantum state.
It follows that for mirrored EWs, the corresponding hyperplanes in the Hilbert−Schmidt space, denoted by Σ^{(±)}, touch a set of separable states (cf. Fig. 1); see also Eq. (3). This gives rise to a universal relation for mirrored EWs
with Δ(A) = U(A) − L(A) from the separability window of an observable A.
From the relations in Eqs. (6), (7) and (10), mirrored EWs can be directly constructed from each other, without referring to an observable. It is clear that an EW W^{(+)} has its lower bound L(W^{(+)}) = 0 for separable states. It follows that its mirrored EW W^{(−)} is given as,
where m_{−} stands for normalization factor. Equivalently, one finds
and hence
with m = (m_{+} + m_{−} + 2) ∕ D = U(W^{(−)}) + U(W^{(+)}).
Mirrored structural physical approximations
It turns out that our approach is directly related to the structural physical approximation (SPA)^{14,15} of EWs. Recall, that for an EW W its SPA can be written as a nonnegative observable
where p ∈ (0, 1) is a minimal number such that that P ≥ 0. Let us call a positive operator P a positive SPA (pSPA) in the sense that an EW W is admixed with a positive fraction 1 − p > 0. In a similar vein, we introduce the negative SPA (nSPA) with a negative fraction of an EW W as follows
with maximal q > 1 such that Q ≥ 0. Clearly, both P and Q are density operators in \({{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes {{\mathcal{H}}}_{2}\) belonging to the boundary of space of states. We call a pair (P, Q) mirrored SPAs to an EW W.
Proposition. Let (W^{(−)}, W^{(+)}) be mirrored EWs. Then, pSPA to W^{(+)} coincides with nSPA to W^{(−)}.
Proof. Let us begin with pSPA to W^{(+)} and nSPA to W^{(−)},
with p_{+} < 1 < p_{−} and D = d_{1}d_{2}. Then, it holds that for any σ ∈ S_{sep}
which shows \(L(\widetilde{W})={p}_{+}/D\) and \(U(\widetilde{W})={p}_{}/D\). □
The result in Eq. (13) can be compared to Eq. (3) by replacing an observable A with the resulting nonnegative operator \(\widetilde{W}\) after SPA. Note also that the universal relation (10) reads
Note also that mirrored EWs can be constructed by replacing A in Eqs. (6) and (7) with the operator \(\widetilde{W}\) after p (n) SPA of W^{(+)} (W^{(−)}).
Then, if \(\widetilde{W}\) belongs to the boundary of \(S({\mathcal{H}})\), i.e. \({\lambda }_{\min }(\widetilde{W})=0\), then W^{(−)} detects an entanglement of ρ = n(I_{1} ⊗ I_{2} − Π), where Π is a projector onto a support of \(\widetilde{W}\) and n is a normalization factor. Indeed, one has \({\rm{tr}}({W}^{()}\rho )=L(\widetilde{W})n/{n}_{}\,<\,0\). On the other hand, for \({\rm{tr}}{\widetilde{W}}^{2}\,>\, U(\widetilde{W})\), we have \({\rm{tr}}({W}^{()}\widetilde{W})\,<\,0\), and hence W^{(−)} detects entanglement of \(\widetilde{W}\).
The framework may be equivalently applied to completely positive (CP) maps. To simplify the discussion let us restrict to trace preserving maps, that is, a CP map \(\widetilde{\Phi }\) corresponds to a quantum channel. Recall that a linear map Φ is positive if \({\rm{tr}}(P\Phi (Q))\ge 0\) for any pair of rank1 projectors P and Q. A bipartite state ρ is separable if [id ⊗ Φ](ρ) ≥ 0 for all positive maps Φ (where “id” stands for the identity map, that is, id(X) = X). Now, using Choi−Jamiołkowski isomorphism, a map \(\widetilde{\Phi }\) is CP if the following bipartite operator \(\widetilde{W}={\sum }_{i,j}\lefti\right\rangle \left\langle j\right\otimes \widetilde{\Phi }(\lefti\right\rangle \left\langle j\right)\) is positive. Noting that
let us introduce the following bounds
where minimization (maximization) runs over rank1 projectors P and Q. Then, we construct positive maps as follows
with the depolarization channel \({\Phi }_{* }(\rho )={{{I}}}_{2}{\rm{tr}}\rho /{d}_{2}\), \({m}_{}={d}_{2}U(\widetilde{\Phi })1\), and \({m}_{+}=1{d}_{2}L(\widetilde{\Phi })\). For any separable state σ ∈ S_{sep}, one has
where \({\sigma }_{1}={{\rm{tr}}}_{2}\sigma\) denotes a reduced state. Similarly
with \({\sigma }_{2}={{\rm{tr}}}_{1}\sigma\).
An example of such construction has been considered in ref. ^{16}. We recall that a set of product vectors \(\left{\psi }_{j}\right\rangle =\left{\alpha }_{j}\right\rangle \otimes \left{\beta }_{j}\right\rangle\) (j = 1, …, K) defines an unextendible product basis (UPB) in \({{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes {{\mathcal{H}}}_{2}\) if there is no product vector orthogonal to all \(\left{\psi }_{j}\right\rangle\).^{17} Let us choose the projector onto UPB, \({\Pi }_{{\rm{UPB}}}=\left{\psi }_{1}\right\rangle \left\langle {\psi }_{1}\right+\cdots +\left{\psi }_{K}\right\rangle \left\langle {\psi }_{K}\right\). Then, an EW in the following
shares precisely the same structure with W^{(+)}. The witness detects a bound entangled state ρ = (I_{1} ⊗ I_{2} − Π_{UPB}) ∕ (D − K).
The presented framework can be immediately generalized for the multipartite case. Clearly, multipartite case is much more subtle since there are several levels of separability.^{3,4} The simplest notion is the full separability corresponding to pure product vectors \(\left\Psi \right\rangle =\left{\psi }_{1}\right\rangle \otimes \cdots \otimes \left{\psi }_{N}\right\rangle \in {\mathcal{H}}={{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes \cdots \otimes {{\mathcal{H}}}_{N}\). Now for any \(\widetilde{W}\ge 0\) in \({\mathcal{H}}\) one defines \(U(\widetilde{W})={\max }_{\left\Psi \right\rangle }\left\langle \Psi \right\widetilde{W}\left\Psi \right\rangle\) and \(L(\widetilde{W})={\min}_{\Psi \rangle }\langle \Psi \widetilde{W}\Psi \rangle\), where it suffices to consider the optimization over product states. Finally, one defines a pair of EWs via (6) and (7), generalized to multipartite systems (see also ref. ^{18}). For example, the EW in Eq. (14) can be immediately generalized as follows.^{13,16} Let \(\left{\Psi }_{j}\right\rangle \in {\mathcal{H}}\) (j = 1, … , K) denote UPB and \({\Pi }_{{\rm{UPB}}}=\left{\Psi }_{1}\right\rangle \left\langle {\Psi }_{1}\right+\cdots +\left{\Psi }_{K}\right\rangle \left\langle {\Psi }_{K}\right\), from which one can construct a witness W^{(+)} = (Π_{UPB} − L(Π_{UPB})I) ∕ [K − L(Π_{UPB})D], with I = I_{1} ⊗ …I_{N} and D = d_{1} … d_{N}.
Discussion
In this section, we illustrate the systematic construction of mirrored EWs with examples and then give a summary and outlook.
Example 1 (Twoqubit EWs). Consider the following EWs for twoqubit states
which are written as block matrices in the computational basis for qubit states, e.g. \({\rm{Diag}}[1,1,1,1]={\sum }_{i,j=0,1}\lefti\right\rangle \left\langle i\right\otimes \leftj\right\rangle \left\langle j\right\). The EW W^{(+)} can detect entangled states in the oneparameter state family (isotropic states) \({\rho }_{\alpha }=(1\alpha )\left{\phi }^{+}\right\rangle \left\langle {\phi }^{+}\right+\alpha {{{I}}}_{2}\otimes {{{I}}}_{2}/4\) with the Bell state \(\left{\phi }^{+}\right\rangle =(\left00\right\rangle +\left11\right\rangle )/\sqrt{2}\) for α < 3∕5 (its known that for \(\alpha \,<\,\frac{2}{3}\) the states are entangled). The mirrored one, W^{(−)}, detects entangled states in the class of (isotropic) states \({\rho }_{\beta }=(1\beta )\left{\phi }^{}\right\rangle \left\langle {\phi }^{}\right+\beta {{I}}\otimes {{I}}/4\) with the Bell state \(\left{\phi }^{}\right\rangle =(\left00\right\rangle \left11\right\rangle )/\sqrt{2}\) for β < 1∕3. Note also that there is no EW that can detect entangled states ρ_{α} and ρ_{β} at the same time. This is visualized in Fig. 2. The (green) hyperplane corresponds to the witness W^{(+)} and the (orange) hyperplane to the witness W^{(−)}. Both witnesses cover the full state space in this case. The upper and lower bounds are computed to be U(W^{(±)}) = 1∕2 with p_{+} = 3∕5 and p_{−} = 7∕5 which give rise to the single observable as follows,
for which the separability window is given by \([L(\widetilde{W}),U(\widetilde{W})]=[3/20,7/20]\).
Example 2 (Twoqutrits EWs). The Choi EW W^{(+)} obtained from the Choi map in d = 3 ref. ^{19} is given by
where \({{\rm{P}}}_{+}=\left{\phi }^{+}\right\rangle \left\langle {\phi }^{+}\right\) with the Bell state \(\left{\phi }^{+}\right\rangle =(\left00\right\rangle +\left11\right\rangle +\left22\right\rangle )/\sqrt{3}\). The Choi EW is known to be nondecomposable and can detect bound entangled states. One can find U(W^{(+)}) = 2∕9 with p_{+} = 3∕5 and p_{−} = 7∕5 so that the other one W^{(−)} is given by
Interestingly, while W^{(+)} has a single negative eigenvalue −1∕6, its SPAmirrored EW W^{(−)} has two negative eigenvalues both −1∕9. Note that both witnesses W^{(±)} have the same upper bound U(W^{(±)}) = 2∕9. Finally, the separability window \([L(\widetilde{W}),U(\widetilde{W})]\) of the observable reads is [3∕45, 7∕45]. The pSPA of the Choi EW is given by
which corresponds to a separable state as shown in ref. ^{20}. Interestingly, W^{(+)} is nondecomposable, whereas W^{(−)} is decomposable.
Example 3 (No nontrivial partner). Here we show that not every EW W^{(+)} has a nontrivial partner W^{(−)}. Consider \({W}^{(+)}=\left\psi \right\rangle {\left\langle \psi \right}^{\Gamma }\), where
denotes the Schmidt decomposition of \(\left\psi \right\rangle\). We assume s_{1} ≥ s_{2} ≥ ⋯ ≥ s_{d}. One finds \(U({W}^{(+)})={\lambda }_{\max }={s}_{1}^{2}\), and hence
is a positive operator and hence cannot be used as a witness.
Example 4 (Genuine multipartite EWs). In ref. ^{21} a general formalism to detect various types of multipartite entanglement was introduced which works for any number of particles and dimensions. It turned out to be efficient to guarantee the security in quantum secret sharing protocols^{22} or to prove experimentally the genuine multipartite entanglement of four physical photons entangled in their orbital angular momentum degrees of freedom^{23} or of two photons entangled in polarization and orbital angular momentum degrees of freedom.^{24} Let us here consider three qubits. For instance, the function
(with ρ_{ij} being the elements of the density matrix ρ) is ≥0 for all fully separable as well as for all biseparable states. Thus a violation of 0 ≤ Q_{GHZ}(ρ) proves that the state ρ is genuinely multipartite entangled. Moreover, the function is maximized for the Greenberger−Horne−Zeilinger state, e.g. \(\left{\mathrm {GHZ}}\right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\left000\right\rangle +\left111\right\rangle )\). The factor 2 is chosen to set \({Q}_{{\rm{GHZ}}}(\left{\mathrm {GHZ}}\right\rangle \left\langle {\mathrm {GHZ}}\right)=\pm\! 1\). Now let us apply our procedure to obtain a new bound. Different to what we considered so far is that this inequality correspond to a nonlinear witness, but of course this witness can be linearized by using (i) \(\sqrt{{\rho }_{ii}{\rho }_{jj}}\le \frac{{\rho }_{ii}+{\rho }_{jj}}{2}\) and (ii) assuming ρ_{18} to be purely real or imaginary. This gives \({Q}_{{\mathrm {GHZ}}}^{{\mathrm {lin}}}=1{\rho }_{11}{\rho }_{88}+2{\mathrm {Re}}\{{\rho }_{18}\}\) and obviously still the same maxima ±1 for \(\left{\mathrm {GHZ}}\right\rangle\). But considering the optimization over all pure fully separable states σ_{sep} results in
Consequently, the upper bound (mirrored witness) loses its predictive power.
Another physically distinct genuine multipartite entangled state is the W state or Dicke state, e.g. in the computational basis given by \(\left{\mathrm {Dicke}}\right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\{\left001\right\rangle +\left010\right\rangle +\left100\right\rangle \}\) and the function^{21}
which gives −1 for the Dicke state \(\left{\mathrm {Dicke}}\right\rangle\) in the computational basis. However, note that though \(\left{\mathrm {GHZ}}\right\rangle\) is also a genuine multipartite entangled state, but the minimum over all local unitaries leads only to \(\min {Q}_{\rm{Dicke}}(\left{\rm{GHZ}}\right\rangle )=\left.\frac{3}{4}\right)\). Such as an optimization over all local unitaries of the GHZwitness function \({Q}_{{\mathrm {GHZ}}}(\left{\mathrm {Dicke}}\right\rangle )=0.628\) which does not equal the maximal value −1.
Now optimizing over all pure separable states of Q_{Dicke} leads to
Indeed the upper bound is again a nontrivial one since \(\max {Q}_{{\mathrm {Dicke}}}({\rho }_{{\mathrm {ent}}})=1.5\) (actually the ρ_{ent} equals \(\left{\mathrm {GHZ}}\right\rangle\)). Thus this expresses a certain duality between the two possible genuinely multipartite entangled states. Of course, one can also consider the optimization over all fully separable and biseparable states, then, however, both criteria Q_{GHZ∕Dicke} provide no longer nontrivial upper bounds, they are optimal in this sense.
Summary and outlook
We have presented the framework of mirrored EWs. It is shown that a single observable corresponds to a pair of EWs, called mirrored EWs, in the sense that entanglement detection with mirrored EWs can be performed by realizing a single observable in practice. Then, a single observable has both upper and lower bounds for separable states, where mirrored EWs give the characterization of the bounds, respectively. Thus, entangled states can be detected by violations of either of the bounds. It is shown that mirrored EWs can be constructed from bounds of an observable for separable states, as well as via structural physical approximations. Equivalently, mirrored EWs can be rephrased that an EW generally has a nontrivial upper bound for separable states, such that the upper bound is characterized by its pair, i.e., this shows that an EW can generate its paired one. Examples are presented to illustrate how the framework of mirrored EWs works in detail to detect different types of entangled states.
Finally, nonlinearities are introduced to improve mirrored EWs, i.e., mirrored nonlinear EWs. It is shown that both subtraction and addition of nonlinear polynomials can improve mirrored EWs: the subtraction improves standard EWs that detect entangled states from violations of the lower bound, and the addition does the other detection scheme with a nontrivial upper bound. We emphasize that our findings show, via the effort of mirrored EWs, the recorded experimental knowledge that has been used to detect entanglement from Eq. (1) can be utilized once again to see the violation of an upper bound in Eq. (27), without acquiring additional experiments. A larger set of entangled states than the one from the very definition of a witness can be detected.
The structure of SPA behind mirrored EWs can be generalized by replacing the identity operator with some other separable operators. That is, the operator I_{1} ⊗ I_{2}∕D in a positive and negative SPAs in Eqs. (11) and (12) can be replaced with a fullrank, nonnegative and unittrace operator \(X\in {S}_{{\rm{sep}}}({\mathcal{H}})\). Note that for a fullrank, nonnegative and unittrace operator X, there always exist such p_{X} and q_{X}.^{25} In future investigations, it would be interesting to extend mirrored EWs by generalizing SPAs and to explore further structures of entangled states (cf. Fig. 3).
EWs are a useful tool not only to investigate theoretical and experimental aspects of entangled states but also to certify properties having a convex structure, such as fidelities of states or quantum operations; see e.g. refs. ^{26,27} Our results, that the EWs can be indeed mirrored, pave a new avenue in the certification of entanglement and other quantum properties. In future investigations, it would be interesting to find the theoretical characterizations of mirrored EWs in the view of (non)decomposability, extremality of EWs, etc.^{4,8} Although EWs apply singlecopylevel measurements that are feasible with current technologies, it is worth to extend the framework of mirrored EWs to multicopy scenarios, e.g., with more assumptions on state preparation^{28} and with more advanced technologies; see e.g. refs. ^{29,30,31} From a practical point of view it is also worth to consider the statistical errors in an implementation of nonlinear and mirrored EWs, e.g., the implementation should be constructed such that the ranges of statistical errors of the paired EWs do not overlap each other within the separability window.
Methods
EWs can be found as linear hyperplanes that distinguish entangled states from the set of separable states on the space of Hermitian operators. Since the set of separable states is convex, one may improve EWs by introducing nonlinearities such that the convex set is better characterized and a larger set of entangled states can be detected. For instance, it has been found that uncertainty relations in terms of variances offer such a possibility.^{32,33}
A systematic method of constructing nonlinear EWs has been introduced.^{34} Suppose that some entangled state ρ is detected by a positive map Λ, that is, [id ⊗ Λ](ρ) possesses an eigenvector \(\left\varphi \right\rangle \in {{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes {{\mathcal{H}}}_{2}\) corresponding to a negative eigenvalue. Then the following formula
where Λ^{*} denotes a dual map, defines an EW detecting ρ, i.e. \({\rm{tr}}[W\rho ]\,<\,0\). A nonlinear functional is then constructed by subtracting polynomials from an EW. To be specific, let us consider subtracting a single nonlinear polynomial as follows,^{34}
where one can choose \(\widetilde{X}=({\rm{id}}\otimes {\Lambda }^{* })(\left\varphi \right\rangle \left\langle \chi \right)\) for some state \(\left\chi \right\rangle \in {{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes {{\mathcal{H}}}_{2}\) and s(χ) is the largest Schmidt coefficient of \(\left\chi \right\rangle\). The parameters are chosen such that \({{\mathcal{F}}}^{(1)}[\sigma ]\ge 0\) for all σ ∈ S_{sep}. It is clear that a witness W does not detect a larger set of entangled states than its nonlinear functional \({\mathcal{F}}\) since \({\mathcal{F}}[\rho ]\le {\rm{tr}}[W\rho ]\).
In what follows, we revisit mirrored EWs in Example 1 to demonstrate the improvements and illustrate construction of a nonlinear functional from an observable A that links mirrored EWs. With respect to an observable A, the improvement can be made by both adding and subtracting polynomials.
Example 5 (Nonlinear mirrored EWs). We recall that entangled states \(\left{\phi }^{\pm }\right\rangle =(\left00\right\rangle \pm \left11\right\rangle )/\sqrt{2}\) are detected by mirrored EWs W^{(±)} in Example 1,
From the EWs, positive maps \({\Lambda }_{(\pm )}^{* }\) are denoted as follows; see also Eq. (22)
According to Eq. (23), a nonlinear polynomial can be constructed as \({\widetilde{X}}^{(\pm )}=({\rm{id}}\otimes {\Lambda }_{(\pm )}^{* })(\left{\phi }^{\pm }\right\rangle \left\langle {\phi }^{\mp }\right)\), where we have chosen \(\left\chi \right\rangle =\left{\phi }^{\mp }\right\rangle\),
Since \(\left\chi \right\rangle =\left{\phi }^{\mp }\right\rangle\), we have s^{2}(χ) = 1∕2. Then, a pair of nonlinear EWs are obtained from mirrored EWs,
which is nonnegative for all separable states.^{34}
For instance, we consider a state \(\left\mu \right\rangle =a\left00\right\rangle +b\left11\right\rangle\) with \(a,b\in {\mathbb{R}}\) and a^{2} + b^{2}= 1:
The state \(\left\mu \right\rangle\) with ab = 1∕8 is entangled but not detected by W^{(+)} since \({\rm{tr}}[{W}^{(+)}\left\mu \right\rangle \left\langle \mu \right]=0\). It can be detected by the nonlinear witness in Eq. (24): we have that \({{\mathcal{F}}}_{(+)}^{(1)}(\left\mu \right\rangle \left\langle \mu \right)=1/64\,<\,0\). For ab = −3∕8, we have \({\rm{tr}}[{W}^{()}\left\mu \right\rangle \left\langle \mu \right]=0\) but \({{\mathcal{F}}}_{()}^{(1)}(\left\mu \right\rangle \left\langle \mu \right)=9/8\,<\,0\). Thus, the improvement by nonlinear polynomials in Eq. (24) is shown.
We recall that the mirrored witnesses W^{(±)} characterize the lower and upper bounds of an observable A for separable states; see Eqs. (3), (6) and (7). It is straightforward to find a nonlinear functional with the observable A that links mirrored EWs W^{(±)} from Eq. (24): we write by \({\mathcal{G}}\) a nonlinear functional from an observable A via nonlinear EWs in Eq. (24)
where n_{±} are from Eq. (8). Note that both addition and subtraction of nonlinear polynomials are essential to improve an observable A. It holds that for σ ∈ S_{sep},
This shows how to improve an observable A with nonlinear polynomials (cf. Fig. 4). For the lower bound L(A) for separable states, which is characterized by an EW W^{(+)}, the improvement is made by subtracting a nonlinear polynomial, i.e., \({{\mathcal{G}}}_{}\) in Eq. (25). Note that this is similar to the way that a standard EW is improved by nonlinear polynomials; see Eq. (24). For the upper bound U(A), however, the improvement is obtained by adding a nonlinear polynomial, i.e., \({{\mathcal{G}}}_{+}\) in Eq. (25).
The improvement of an observable A can be rephrased on the level of standard EWs. The separability window in Eq. (3) can be rewritten for all σ ∈ S_{sep} by
Note that from Eqs. (6) and (9), there exists a witness \({W}^{^{\prime} }\) that characterizes the upper bound, i.e., for any state ρ on \({{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes {{\mathcal{H}}}_{2}\), it holds that
Let us recall that the detection method by a lower bound \({\rm{tr}}[W\sigma ]\ge 0\) for σ ∈ S_{sep} is improved by subtracting nonlinear polynomials. The improvement in Eq. (26) means the following statements are equivalent:

the detection method by an upper bound
$${\rm{tr}}[W\sigma ]\le U(W)\,{\rm{for}}\,\sigma \in {S}_{{\rm{sep}}}$$is improved by adding nonlinear polynomials, and

the detection method by a lower bound
$${\rm{tr}}[{W}^{^{\prime} }\sigma ]\ge 0\,{\rm{for}}\,\sigma \in {S}_{{\rm{sep}}}$$is improved by subtracting nonlinear polynomials.
Thus, it is shown that nonlinear EWs can be generally constructed by both subtracting and adding nonlinear polynomials.
Data availability
Datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Code availability
The results were computed by pencil or the use of commercial computer software as Mathematica.
References
Terhal, B. M. Bell inequalities and separability criterion. Phys. Lett. A 271, 319 (2000).
Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M. & Horodecki, K. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
Gühne, O. & Tóth, G. Entanglement detection. Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009).
Chruściński, D. & Sarbicki, G. Entanglement witnesses: construction, analysis and classification. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 483001 (2014).
Tura, J. et al. Detecting nonlocality in manybody quantum states. Science 344, 1256 (2014).
Bavaresco, J. et al. Measurements in two bases are sufficient for certifying highdimensional entanglement. Nat. Phys. 14, 1032 (2018).
Friis, N., Vitagliano, G., Malik, M. & Huber, M. Entanglement certification from theory to experiment. Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 72 (2019).
Lewenstein, M., Kraus, B., Cirac, J. I. & Horodecki, P. Optimization of entanglement witnesses. Phys. Rev. A 62, 052310 (2000).
Gühne, O. et al. Experimental detection of entanglement via witness operators and local measurements. J. Mod. Opt. 50, 1079–1102 (2003).
Amselem, E. & Bourennane, M. Experimental fourqubit bound entanglement. Nat. Phys. 5, 748–752 (2009).
Lavoie, J. et al. Experimental bound entanglement in a fourphoton state. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 130501 (2010).
Hiesmayr, B. C. & Löffler, W. Complementarity reveals bound entanglement of two twisted photons. New J. Phys. 15, 083036 (2013).
Sperling, J. & Vogel, W. Necessary and sufficient conditions for bipartite entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 79, 022318 (2009).
Shultz, F. The structural physical approximation conjecture. J. Math. Phys. 57, 015218 (2016).
Bae, J. Designing quantum information processing via structural physical approximation. Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 10 (2017).
Augusiak, R. et al. Bell inequalities with no quantum violation and unextendable product bases. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 070401 (2011).
Bennett, C. H. et al. Unextendible product basis and bound entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5385 (1999).
Sperling, J. & Vogel, W. Multipartite entanglement witnesses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 110503 (2013).
Choi, M. D. Some assorted inequalities for positive linear maps on C*algebras. J. Operat. Theor. 4, 271 (1980).
Korbicz, J. K. et al. Structural approximations to positive maps and entanglement breaking channels. Phys. Rev. A 78, 062105 (2008).
Huber, M., Mintert, F., Gabriel, A. & Hiesmayr, B. C. Detection of highdimensional genuine multipartite entanglement of mixed states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 210501 (2010).
Schauer, S., Huber, M. & Hiesmayr, B. C. Experimentally feasible security check for nqubit quantum secret sharing. Phys. Rev. A 82, 062311 (2010).
Hiesmayr, B. C., de Dood, M. J. A. & Löffler, L. Fourphoton orbital angular momentum entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 073601 (2016).
Carvacho, G. et al. Experimental investigation on the geometry of GHZ states. Sci. Rep. 7, 13265 (2017).
Augusiak, R., Bae, J., Czekaj, L. & Lewenstein, M. On structural physical approximations and entanglement breaking maps. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 185308 (2011).
Haeffner, H. Scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ions. Nature 438, 643–646 (2005).
Gühne, O. Toolbox for entanglement detection and fidelity estimation. Phys. Rev. A 76, 030305 (2007).
van Enk, S. The joys of permutation symmetry: direct measurements of entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 190503 (2009).
Augusiak, R., Demianowicz, M. & Horodecki, P. Universal observable detecting all twoqubit entanglement and determinantbased separability tests. Phys. Rev. A 77, 030301(R) (2008).
Lemr, K., Bartkiewicz, K. & Cernoch, A. Experimental measurement of collective nonlinear entanglement witness for two qubits. Phys. Rev. A 94, 052334 (2016).
Bartkiewicz, K., Chimczak, G. & Lemr, K. Direct method for measuring and witnessing quantum entanglement of arbitrary twoqubit states through HongOuMandel interference. Phys. Rev. A 95, 022331 (2017).
Hofmann, F. & Takeuchi, S. Violation of local uncertainty relations as a signature of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 68, 032103 (2003).
Gühne, O. Characterizing characterizing entanglement via uncertainty relations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 117903 (2004).
Gühne, O. & Lütkenhaus, N. Nonlinear entanglement witnesses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 170502 (2006).
Baumgartner, B., Hiesmayr, B. C. & Narnhofer, H. The state space for two qutrits has a phase space structure in its core. Phys. Rev. A 74, 032327 (2006).
Baumgartner, B., Hiesmayr, B. C. & Narnhofer, H. A special simplex in the state space for entangled qudits. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 7919 (2007).
Baumgartner, B., Hiesmayr, B. C. & Narnhofer, H. The geometry of bipartite qutrits including bound entanglement. Phys. Lett. A 372, 2190 (2008).
Acknowledgements
J.B. is supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF2019M3E4A1080001, O2NQ2A), an Institute of Information and Communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP), (Grant No. 2019000831, EQGIS), ITRC Program (IITP20202018001402) and BK21PLUS. D.C. was supported by the Polish National Science Centre project 2015/19/B/ST1/03095. B.C.H. acknowledges gratefully the Austrian Science Fund (FWFP26783). This article was first submitted under the title: Entanglement Witness 2.0: Compressed Entanglement Witnesses since the authors wanted to stress that their framework upgrades any entanglement witness to two and, therefore, in the context of new computer software releases upgrades entanglement witnesses.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors have equally contributed to the main result, the examples and the writing.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bae, J., Chruściński, D. & Hiesmayr, B.C. Mirrored entanglement witnesses. npj Quantum Inf 6, 15 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s415340200242z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s415340200242z
This article is cited by

Comparing bound entanglement of bell diagonal pairs of qutrits and ququarts
Scientific Reports (2023)

On the structure of mirrored operators obtained from optimal entanglement witnesses
Scientific Reports (2023)

Bound entanglement is not Lorentz invariant
Scientific Reports (2023)

Entanglement inspired approach for determining the preeminent arrangement of static cameras in a multiview computer vision system
The Visual Computer (2023)

Almost complete solution for the NPhard separability problem of Bell diagonal qutrits
Scientific Reports (2022)