format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

.

10 Mar 2024 11:33 a.m.

FTUAM 02-1

(hep-ph/xxx)

Basic Parameters and Some Precision Tests of the Standard Model(\*)(\*) Talk given at the XXX International Meeting on Fundamental Physics, Jaca, January 28 – February 1, 2002.

F. J. Ynduráin Departamento de Física Teórica, C-XI, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Canto Blanco, E-28049, Madrid, Spain.

Abstract   We present a review of the masses (except for neutrino masses) and interaction strengths in the standard model. Special emphasis is put on quantities that have been determined with significantly improved precision in the last few years. In particular, a number of determinations of $`\alpha _s`$ and the electromagnetic coupling on the $`Z`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{QED}}(M_Z^2)`$ are presented and their implications for the Higgs mass discussed; the best prediction that results for this last quantity being
$$M_H=102_{36}^{+54}GeV/c^2.$$
Besides this, we also discuss a few extra precision tests of the standard model: the electron magnetic moment and dipole moment, and the muon magnetic moment.

MTypeset with PHys MaTEX

1. Introduction

The standard model (SM) of particle physics, based on the gauge interactions described by the group $`SU(3)\times SU_L(2)\times U(1)`$ supplemented by the Higgs-Weinberg mechanism for spontaneously breaking the symmetry, represents an incredibly precise and successful description of the microscopic Universe. Up to the highest energies explored by our accelerators, a few hundreds of GeV (per constituent, in the case of the Tevatron or HERA) and to an accuracy that reaches the 12 exact digits, for some electromagnetic processes, the standard model provides answers to essentially all the non-gravitational observed phenomena.11 Of course, I am aware that this is not strictly true, as there are questions which, while not contradicting the standard model, have also not been given a satisfactory answer in its context. I am referring to the existence of the Higgs particle: the observational evidence for its existence is not compelling; to the the question of the neutrino masses (it is unclear how to accommodate the nonzero masses in the model), and to the unexplained smallness of the strong CP violating phase, $`\theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. What is more, there is no established observation that contradicts the predictions of the SM: the scares that, from time to time, lead to hundreds of papers being written on possible new physics signals, have invariably evaporated, and arguments (for example, of naturalness) about new physics lurking just around the bend are, at best, wishful thinking.

In this talk I will concentrate on the determination of some basic parameters; to be precise, masses (except neutrino masses, already widely discussed at this Meeting) and couplings. I will also discuss a few of the precision tests of the standard model, with special emphasis on those to which I have had the occasion to contribute through some of the corresponding theoretical evaluations.

2. Masses and charges of electron, $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$

2.1. Charge and mass of the electron. The electron magnetic moment

When, in 1897, J. J. Thomson discovered the electron, he also tried to find its charge and mass. He could, however, not measure accurately enough the charge deposited in the anode. So, he only was able, by measuring the deviation of the electron in Crooke’s tube, to determine the ratio $`e/m`$. This ratio was useful, for example, to identify the $`\beta `$ rays in radioactive decays of electrons (Fig. 1). Nowadays, one measures independently the charge of the electron and, once this known, one derives its mass from the ratio $`e/m`$, measured by the bending of the trajectories of electrons in magnetic fields, just as Thomson and Chadwick did.

figure 1.  The bending of the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ rays in a magnetic field allows identification of their nature. (According to a drawing of Chadwick, 1921) X X

The more precise of the traditional methods for determining the charge of the electron are based on the Hall and Josephson effects. One finds, for $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi \mathrm{}c`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha =& \frac{1}{\mathrm{137.035\hspace{0.17em}977\hspace{0.17em}0}[77]}\text{[Josephson effect]}\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha =& \frac{1}{\mathrm{137.036\hspace{0.17em}003\hspace{0.17em}7}[33]}\text{[Quantum Hall effect]}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.1)`$
Note that these numbers differ by more than three standard deviations. The more precise and independent determination of $`\alpha `$ from the electron magnetic moment, to be discussed presently, favours the value obtained from the quantum Hall effect.

The more precise value for $`\alpha `$, as anticipated, is an indirect one. Consider the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, $`a(\mathrm{e})`$. To fourth order in electromagnetic interactions, we can write

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a(\mathrm{e})=& \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)+c_2\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2+c_3\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2+c_4\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2;\hfill \\ \hfill c_2=& \mathrm{0.328\hspace{0.17em}478\hspace{0.17em}965},c_3\mathrm{1.181\hspace{0.17em}241\hspace{0.17em}456},c_41.610\pm 0.038.\hfill \end{array}$$

(Actually, $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ are known exactly, the analytical evaluation of last completed very recently; only for $`c_4`$ there exists only numerical evaluations). Including also the very small \[$`(4.393\pm 0.027)\times 10^{12}`$\] $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ loop and weak and strong corrections one has, using (2.1), and comparing with experiment,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a(\mathrm{e})=& \left(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}159\hspace{0.17em}652\hspace{0.17em}140}\pm 27\right)\times 10^{12}\text{[Theory]},\hfill \\ \hfill a(\mathrm{e})=& \left(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}159\hspace{0.17em}652\hspace{0.17em}188}\pm 3\right)\times 10^{12}\text{[Experimental].}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.2)`$
The agreement is astonishing: eleven significant digits! Indeed, one should remember that the magnetic moment is given by the formula

$$\mu _\mathrm{e}=[1+a(\mathrm{e})]\mu _\mathrm{B}$$

where $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ is the Bohr magneton, given by the Dirac equation: theory predicts the whole of $`\mu _\mathrm{e}`$, not merely the anomaly.

What is perhaps even more impressive is that most of the theoretical error comes from the experimental error in $`\alpha `$, Eq. (2.1). This suggests that we reverse the argument and deduce $`\alpha `$ from $`a(\mathrm{e})`$. If we do this, we get

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{\mathrm{137.035\hspace{0.17em}999\hspace{0.17em}6}[5]}\text{[Deduced from }a(\mathrm{e})\text{]},$$
$`(2.3)`$
almost six times more precise than the values obtained with the traditional methods based on the Hall and Josephson effects.

Because of radiative corrections, the intensity of the interactions depend on the energy at which they are measured. The value we have recorded for $`\alpha `$ is that measured at zero energy. In many applications one needs the value of $`\alpha `$ at the rest energy of the $`Z`$ particle, $`\alpha (M_Z^2)`$. The more recent figure for this quantity is

$$\alpha (M_Z^2)=\frac{1}{128.965[17]}.$$
$`(2.4)`$
Once $`\alpha `$ known one can obtain the mass of the electron from the ratio $`e/m_e`$. According to the Particle Data Group (PDG) one has

$$m_e=\mathrm{0.510\hspace{0.17em}999\hspace{0.17em}05}[15]MeV/c^2.$$
$`(2.5)`$
2.2. Charge and masses of $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$

The identity of the charges of the electron, $`\mu `$ ad $`\tau `$ follow from charge conservation, implied by the masslessness of the photon. This is because of the existence of the decays

$$\mu \overline{\nu }\nu e,\tau \overline{\nu }\nu l,l=e,\mu $$

and the zero electric charge of the neutrinos,22 That the charge of the neutrinos must be zero or at least extremely small follows from the fact that solar $`\nu `$’s arrive on Earth. These neutrinos are produced at the center of the Sun and, if they had the minutest charge, they could not have escaped traversing the whole of the Sun. very well established.

The masslesness of the photon, in turn, is linked to the range of electromagnetic interactions. Since these have been measured at some $`\mathrm{200\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ Km from the source (the magnetic field of Jupiter), we have a bound on the photon mass of

$$m_\gamma 10^{32}MeV/c^2.$$

In view of this, we are justified in assuming the charges of $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$ to be identical to that of the electron.

As for the masses of these particles, that of the $`\tau `$ follows from measurements of the location of the threshold for $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ production at the Beijing collider. The PDG give the figure

$$m_\tau =1777.03_{0.26}^{+0.30}MeV/c^2.$$
$`(2.6)`$
The $`\mu `$ particle lives long enough (a millionth of a second) that it leaves clear tracks, and hence its mass can be obtained (since its charge is known) as for the electron, measuring the curvature of these tracks. This way one gets,

$$m_\mu =105.658389\pm 0.000034MeV/c^2.$$
$`(2.7)`$
However, and as for the electron charge, an indirect method exists that gives a more precise value. Consider the hyperfine splitting, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, in the hydrogen-like bound state $`(\mu ^+e^{})`$. It can be measured experimentally, and evaluated theoretically. The (very complicated) theoretical calculation is discussed in the contribution of J. Sapiristein and D. Yennie in ref. 4. One has,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\nu =\frac{8}{3}\frac{m_r\alpha ^3}{m_em_\mu }\left[1+a(\mu )\right]& \{1+a(\mathrm{e})+(\mathrm{log}21)\alpha ^2(\mathrm{log}\alpha 2\mathrm{log}2+\frac{281}{480})\frac{8\mathrm{log}\alpha }{3\pi }\alpha ^3+D\alpha ^3\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{3\alpha }{\pi }\frac{m_em_\mu \mathrm{log}(m_\mu /m_e)}{m_\mu ^2m_e^2}+\frac{m_e\alpha ^2}{m_\mu }\left[2\mathrm{log}\frac{m_r}{2\gamma }6\mathrm{log}2+\frac{11}{6}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill +& \left(\frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi }\right)\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }[2\mathrm{log}^2\frac{m_\mu }{m_e}+\frac{13}{12}\mathrm{log}\frac{m_\mu }{m_e}+\frac{21}{2}\zeta (3)+\frac{\pi ^2}{6}+\frac{35}{9}+(1.9\pm 0.3)]\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`m_r`$ is the reduced mass, $`m_r^1=m_e^1+m_\mu ^1`$, $`\gamma =m_e\alpha `$ and $`D=(15.38\pm 0.29)/\pi +D_1`$, with $`D_1`$ an as yet uncalculated constant related to diagrams involving two virtual photons; see the quoted article of Sapiristein and Yennie. If we took the value of $`m_\mu `$ from direct measurements, (2.7), we would find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\nu =& \mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}463\hspace{0.17em}303.11}\pm 2.6\text{[Theory]}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\nu =& \mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}463\hspace{0.17em}302.88}\pm 0.16\text{[Experiment]}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.8)`$
The error in the theoretical evaluation is due almost exclusively to that of $`m_\mu `$ from direct measurements. Hence, as with the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and its charge, we may reverse the argument and obtain, from the experimental hyperfine splitting, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, and the theoretic calculations, a figure for the muon mass seven times more precise than the value obtained with traditional methods:

$$m_\mu =105.658357\pm 0.000005MeV/c^2.$$
$`(2.9)`$
3. The strong interaction coupling, $`\alpha _s`$, and quark masses

3.1. The strong interaction coupling

There are, in the recent years, a number of theoretical calculations that have been carried to NNLO (next to next to leading order) in $`\alpha _s`$. This has permitted an evaluation of $`\alpha _s`$ to an error of 1%; the consistency of the calculations furnishes a set of tests of QCD at the level of a few percent. The processes in question are

1. Hadronic decays of the $`\tau `$.

2. Hadronic decays of the $`Z`$.

3. Hadronic annihilations of $`e^+e^{}`$.

4. Deep inelastic collisions of electrons, muons and neutrinos with nucleons (DIS). In addition we have sum rules, in particular the Bjorken and Gross–Llewelyn Smith sum rules.

X

figure 2.  Hadronic decay of the $`\tau `$, and scheme of the decay into leptons and quarks.   X

The ratio of the decays of $`\tau `$ into hadrons and leptons (Fig. 2), and the like ratios for $`Z`$ decays and $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations

$$R=\frac{\sigma (e^+e^{}\text{hadrons})}{\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}},$$

yielded some of the first precise measurements of $`\alpha _s`$, because they were the first to be evaluated to NNLO. For example, one has, with $`s^{1/2}`$ the c.m. energy, and neglecting quark masses,

$$R(s)=3\underset{f=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}Q_f^2\left\{1+\frac{\alpha _s(s)}{\pi }+r_2\left(\frac{\alpha _s(s)}{\pi }\right)^2+r_3\left(\frac{\alpha _s(s)}{\pi }\right)^3\right\}+O(\alpha _s^4),$$
$`(3.1\mathrm{a})`$
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill r_2=& \frac{365}{24}11\zeta (3)+\left[\frac{2}{3}\zeta (3)\frac{11}{12}\right]n_f2.00.12n_f.\hfill \\ \hfill r_3=& 6.6371.200n_f0.005n_f^21.240\left(\underset{1}{\overset{n_f}{}}Q_f\right)^2\left(3\underset{1}{\overset{n_f}{}}Q_f^2\right)^1.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.1\mathrm{b})`$
$`Q_f`$ are the quark charges, and $`n_f`$ the number of active flavours. The three loop expression for the running constant has to be used here:33 Actually, $`\alpha _s`$ is known to four loops; cf. ref. 6.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _s(Q^2)=& \frac{4\pi }{\beta _0L}\left\{1\frac{\beta _1\mathrm{log}L}{\beta _0^2L}+\frac{\beta _1^2\mathrm{log}^2L\beta _1^2\mathrm{log}L+\beta _2\beta _0\beta _1^2}{\beta _0^4L^2}\right\},\hfill \\ \hfill L=& \mathrm{log}Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

The values of the $`\beta _i`$ are given after Eq. (3.7).

DIS (Fig. 3) furnished the first NLO evaluations of $`\alpha _s`$, and now provide the more precise NNLO results, because their energy range is so large. Moreover, they also give an important check of QCD in that the theoretical evaluations successfully predict the experimental scaling violations.

figure 3.  Deep inelastic scattering of leptons, $`l`$, $`l^{}`$, with a hadron $`h`$. The virtual particle $`V`$ may be a photon, $`W`$ or $`Z`$.   X

The results are summarized in Table 1. There, DIS means deep inelastic scattering, Bj stands for the Bjorken, and GLS for the Gross–Llewellyn Smith sum rules. The values given for $`Z\text{hadrons}`$ assume the Higgs mass constrained by $`100M_H200GeV`$, with the central value for $`M_H=115GeV`$. We have presented two results here for $`e/\mu p`$ DIS, the one for the smaller $`Q^2`$ range (I, probably the more reliable) and the extended range one, labeled II. DIS provides the more precise determination of $`\alpha _s`$, which is not surprising: the extended $`Q^2`$ range allows a sizable variation to the logarithmic dependence of $`\alpha _s`$ on $`Q^2`$.

Process  $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{Average}Q^2}{\text{or}Q^2\text{range}[GeV]^2}`$ $`\alpha _s(M_Z^2)`$                  DIS; $`\nu `$, Bj  1.58 $`0.121_{0.009}^{+0.005}`$    DIS; $`\nu `$, GLS  3 $`0.112\pm 0.010`$    $`\tau `$ decays  $`(1.777)^2`$ $`0.1181\pm 0.0031`$    $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons}`$  $`1001600`$ $`0.128\pm 0.025`$    $`Z\mathrm{hadrons};\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$  $`(91.2)^2`$ $`0.1230\pm 0.0038`$    $`Z\mathrm{hadrons};\text{GrandLEP}`$  $`(91.2)^2`$ $`0.1185\pm 0.0030`$    $`Z\mathrm{jets}`$  $`(91.2)^2`$ 0.117    DIS($`\nu N;xF_3`$)  $`8120`$ $`0.1153\pm 0.0041`$    DIS ($`ep`$, I)  $`3.5230`$ $`0.1166\pm 0.0013`$    DIS ($`ep`$, II)  $`3.55000`$ $`0.1163\pm 0.0014`$

Table 1

As is seen, the more precise evaluations use DIS for $`ep`$ scattering. These in turn employ the calculations for the so-called Wilson coefficients and anomalous dimensions. Of these, only the ones relating to a few moments (six- seven) are known. This number increased in the last year; before, only four were known. Using only these four, the value obtained would be

$$\alpha _s(M_Z^2)=0.1172\pm 0.0024ep,\text{(DIS, only four moments)}.$$

The consistency with the values quoted in the Table is a proof of the stability of the DIS calculations.

All determination are compatible with one another, within errors. The world average is

$$\alpha _s(M_Z^2)=0.1173\pm 0.0011.$$
$`(3.2)`$
3.2.The mass of the $`t`$ quark

The quark $`t`$ was predicted theoretically long before it was found experimentally. In 1977, Veltman showed, from an analysis of radiative corrections, that the measurements of the parameters of electroweak interactions could be made compatible only if $`m_t`$ was less than some $`300GeV/c^2`$. Then the measurements of those parameters were refined, especially after the beginning of operations of LEP, and the error in the theoretical prediction improved to 10%, which was the value just prior to experimental discovery. It, of course, has gone on improving, as we will show presently.

The reason why one gets so sensitive results is that the $`\rho `$-parameter (essentially, the ratio of the $`Z`$, $`W`$ masses) depends quadratically on $`m_t`$. To one loop,

$$M_W/M_Z=\left\{1+\frac{3G_Fm_t^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}\right\}\mathrm{cos}\theta _W.$$

$`\theta _W`$ is called the weak mixing angle, and measures the mixing of electromagnetic and neutral weak currents. $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, given below.

Presently, we have two evaluations of the mass of the quark $`t`$. The mass deduced from observables other than the $`t`$ quark itself is, for the pole mass,

$$m_t=168.2_{7.4}^{+9.6}GeV/c^2\text{[Radiative corrections]}$$
$`(3.3)`$
while the direct experimental value, obtained after seven years of measurements, is

$$m_t=174.3\pm 5.1GeV/c^2\text{[Tevatron]}.$$
$`(3.4)`$
The agreement is more impressive if we realize that part of the theoretical error is due to the uncertainty in the mass of the Higgs particle.

We have taken both values from the PDG. Note that the mass obtained with the direct measurement can only be identified with the pole mass if one neglects the decay of the $`t`$, so (3.4) should have an extra error, likely small, of order $`m_t\alpha _s\alpha _W0.6GeV`$.44 I am grateful to P. Langacker for discussions and information on this.

3.3. The masses of the quarks $`b`$, $`c`$

The more precise evaluations of the masses of these quarks are those obtained from quarkonia states. Here the precision is of $`O(\alpha _s^4)`$ and the leading nonperturbative correction, involving the gluon condensate $`\alpha _sG^2_{\mathrm{vac}.}`$ is also incorporated. For the $`b`$ quark mass, the corrections due to the finite mass of the $`c`$ quark, and the leading correction of order $`O(\alpha _s^5\mathrm{log}\alpha _s)`$ can also be included. The subleading nonperturbative corrections can be estimated, and are (relatively) small. Thus, we have a very precise evaluation of the mass of this quark. For the $`c`$ quark, however, the nominally subleading corrections are so large that it is not even clear to what extent the inclusion of the perturbative corrections of $`O(\alpha _s^4)`$ improve the results.

The mass of the heavy $`b`$, $`c`$ quarks may then be obtained by solving the implicit equation that gives, in terms of it, the mass of the ground state (for which one sets $`n=1,l=0`$ below) of the corresponding quarkonium state,

$$E_{nl}=2mm\frac{C_F^2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_s^2}{4n^2}+\underset{V}{}\delta _V^{(1)}E_{nl}+\delta _{V_1^{(L)}}^{(2)}E_{nl}+\delta _{\mathrm{NP}}E_{nl}.$$
$`(3.5)`$
We define the analogue of the Bohr radius,

$$a(\mu ^2)=\frac{2}{mC_F\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_s(\mu ^2)},$$

and one has55 The one loop static correction can be found in ref. 10; the velocity dependent one in ref. 11. Two loop corrections are from ref. 12, and the rest of the $`O(\alpha _s^4)`$ contributions are from ref. 13.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_s(\mu ^2)=& \alpha _s(\mu ^2)\{1+(a_1+\frac{\gamma _\mathrm{E}\beta _0}{2})\frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{\pi }\hfill \\ & +[\gamma _\mathrm{E}(a_1\beta _0+\frac{\beta _1}{8})+(\frac{\pi ^2}{12}+\gamma _\mathrm{E}^2)\frac{\beta _0^2}{4}+b_1]\frac{\alpha _s^2}{\pi ^2}\};\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.6\mathrm{a})`$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_1=& \frac{31C_A20T_Fn_f}{36}1.47;\hfill \\ \hfill b_1=& \frac{1}{16}\{[\frac{4343}{162}+4\pi ^2\frac{1}{4}\pi ^4+\frac{22}{3}\zeta (3)]C_A^2\hfill \\ & [\frac{1798}{81}+\frac{56}{3}\zeta (3)]C_AT_Fn_f[\frac{55}{3}16\zeta (3)]C_FT_Fn_f+\frac{400}{81}T_F^2n_f^2\}\hfill \\ & 13.2.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.6\mathrm{b})`$
Moreover, the sum over $`V`$ in (3.5) runs over the following pieces:

$$\delta _{V_{\mathrm{tree}}}^{(1)}E_{nl}=\frac{2}{n^3m^3a^4}\left[\frac{1}{2l+1}\frac{3}{8n}\right]+\frac{C_F\alpha _s}{m^2}\frac{2l+14n}{n^4(2l+1)a^3};$$
$`(3.7\mathrm{a})`$
$$\delta _{V_1^{(L)}}^{(1)}E_{nl}=\frac{\beta _0C_F\alpha _s^2(\mu ^2)}{2\pi n^2a}\left[\mathrm{log}\frac{na\mu }{2}+\psi (n+l+1)\right];$$
$`(3.7\mathrm{b})`$
$$\delta _{V_2^{(L)}}^{(1)}E_{nl}=\frac{C_Fc_2^{(L)}\alpha _s^3}{\pi ^2n^2a}\left[\mathrm{log}\frac{na\mu }{2}+\psi (n+l+1)\right];$$
$`(3.7\mathrm{c})`$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta _{V^{(LL)}}^{(1)}E_{nl}=\frac{C_F\beta _0^2\alpha _s^3}{4\pi ^2n^2a}\{\mathrm{log}^2\frac{na\mu }{2}+2\psi (n+l+1)\mathrm{log}\frac{na\mu }{2}& \\ \hfill +\psi (n+l+1)^2+\psi ^{}(n+l+1)& \\ \hfill +\theta (nl2)\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(nl)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+l+1)}\underset{j=0}{\overset{nl2}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2l+2+j)}{j!(nlj1)^2}\};& \end{array}$$
$`(3.7\mathrm{d})`$
$$\delta _{V_{\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{rel}}}^{(1)}E_{nl}=\frac{C_Fa_2\alpha _s^2}{m}\frac{1}{n^3(2l+1)a^2}$$
$`(3.7\mathrm{e})`$
and

$$\delta _{V_1^{(L)}}^{(2)}E_{nl}m\frac{C_F^2\beta _0^2\alpha _s^4}{4n^2\pi ^2}\left\{N_0^{(n,l)}+N_1^{(n,l)}\mathrm{log}\frac{na\mu }{2}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{log}^2\frac{na\mu }{2}\right\}.$$
$`(3.7\mathrm{f})`$
Here,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill N_1^{(1,0)}=\frac{\gamma _E}{2}0.288608& \\ \hfill N_1^{(2,0)}=\frac{12\gamma _E}{4}0.0386078& \\ \hfill N_1^{(2,1)}=\frac{56\gamma _E}{12}0.128059& \\ \hfill N_0^{(1,0)}=\frac{3+3\gamma _E^2\pi ^2+6\zeta (3)}{12}0.111856& \\ \hfill N_0^{(2,0)}=\frac{5}{16}\frac{\gamma _E}{4}+\frac{\gamma _E^2}{4}\frac{\pi ^2}{12}+\zeta (3)0.00608043& \\ \hfill N_0^{(2,1)}=\frac{865}{432}\frac{5\gamma _E}{12}+\frac{\gamma _E^2}{4}\frac{11\pi ^2}{36}+\zeta (3)0.0314472,\text{etc.}& \end{array}$$

For the vector states ($`\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{},\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{\prime \prime };J/\psi ,\psi ^{},\mathrm{}`$) one has to add the hyperfine shift, at tree level (setting $`s`$, the spin, equal to unity):

$$\delta _{V_{\mathrm{spin}}}^{(1)}E_{nl}=\delta _{s1}\delta _{l0}\frac{8C_F\alpha _s}{3n^3m^2a^3}.$$
$`(3.7\mathrm{g})`$
In these formulas,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta _0=& 11\frac{2}{3}n_f;\beta _1=102\frac{38}{3}n_f\hfill \\ \hfill \beta _2=& \frac{2847}{2}\frac{5033}{18}n_f+\frac{325}{54}n_f^2\hfill \\ \hfill c_2^{(L)}=& a_1\beta _0+\frac{1}{8}\beta _1+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _\mathrm{E}\beta _0^2,\hfill \\ \hfill C_F=& 4/3,C_A=3,T_F=1/2,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\mu `$ is a reference momentum, usually taken to be $`\mu =2/na`$.

In addition to this one has to consider the nonperturbative (NP) contributions to the energy levels. The dominant ones are associated with the gluon condensate and are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta _{\mathrm{NP}}E_{nl}=mϵ_{nl}n^2\pi \alpha _sG^2\left(\frac{na}{2}\right)^4=m\frac{ϵ_{nl}n^6\pi \alpha _sG^2}{(mC_F\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_s)^4};& \\ \hfill ϵ_{10}=\frac{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}872}}{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}275}},ϵ_{20}=\frac{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}102}}{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}326}},ϵ_{21}=\frac{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}929}}{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}945}}.& \end{array}$$
$`(3.8)`$
We will not give explicit formulas for the subleading nonperturbative effects, the $`O(\alpha _s^5\mathrm{log}\alpha _s)`$ corrections or the finite $`c`$ mass contribution (for the $`b`$ quark). The result is, taking them into account,\[16a\]

$$m_b=\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}022}\pm 58MeV/c^2;\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b^2)=\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}285}\pm 36MeV/c^2.$$
$`(3.9)`$
The relation between the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass and the pole mass is evaluated taking into account one, two and three loop corrections, so, while $`m_b`$ is exact to $`O(\alpha _s^5\mathrm{log}\alpha _s)`$, $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b^2)`$ is “only” correct to $`O(\alpha _s^3)`$.

For the $`c`$ quark we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill m_c=& \mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}866}_{133}^{+215}MeV/c^2;O(\alpha _s^4)\hfill \\ \hfill m_c=& \mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}570}\pm 100MeV/c^2;O(\alpha _s^3)+O(v^2).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.10\mathrm{a})`$
Here the first result is that of ref. 13, the second from ref. 11. As stated, it is unclear which is more believable. The reason is that adding two loop corrections shifts the mass beyond the errors that are obtained for the one loop result. The corresponding values of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass are,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{m}_c=& \mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}542}_{104}^{+163}MeV/c^2\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{m}_c=& \mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}306}\pm 90MeV/c^2\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.10\mathrm{b})`$
Other methods for estimating the masses use the decay $`Z\overline{b}b+G`$, lattice calculations or sum rules.66 For a summary see ref. 18. While giving results compatible with the former, they are less precise.

We finish this subsection with a few words to clarify a matter which is at times misunderstood. Evaluating the $`E_{nl}`$ as we have done here is not a model calculation; no assumptions about “confining potentials” or the like are made. The method of solving the Schrödinger equation with a static potential obtained from a field-theoretic calculation to a fixed order $`N`$ (two loops, in our case) and perturbing with relativistic and other corrections is indeed fully equivalent to a field theoretic evaluation, in which one rearranges the perturbative series adding infinite ladders to a kernel, obtained at order $`N`$, as in Fig. 4.

figure 4.  “Ladders” at both sides of the kernel $`F_N`$, to evaluate the $`S`$ matrix, and hence the bound state spectrum, for $`\overline{q}q`$.

3.4. The masses of the light quarks: $`u,d,s`$

Light quark masses are smaller than the QCD parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so bound state evaluations are useless to get them. One may use lattice calculations, or chiral perturbation arguments (for the ratios) and chiral sum rules, for the values of specific combinations of masses. Only bounds may be obtained from first principles; to get specific values models are needed.

In these methods one considers the pseudoscalar condensate,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_5^{12}(t)=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{d}^4x\mathrm{vac}|T^\mu A_\mu ^{ud}(x)^\nu A_\nu ^{ud}(0)^{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{vac},$$
$`(3.11\mathrm{a})`$
$`t=q^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{vac}`$ is the physical vacuum; the axial current is

$$A_\mu ^{ud}(x)=\overline{q}_u(x)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5q_d(x),$$
$`(3.11\mathrm{b})`$
(for, e.g., the $`ud`$ combination). Then one writes the dispersion relation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F_5^{12}(t)=& _0^{\mathrm{}}ds\frac{1}{(s+t)^3}\frac{2Im\mathrm{\Psi }_5^{12}(s)}{\pi };\hfill \\ \hfill F_5^{12}(t)=& ^2\mathrm{\Psi }_5^{12}(t)/t^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

One can then calculate the l.h.s. with QCD, at large $`t`$; to leading order,77 For higher order corrections, see ref. 21.

$$F_5^{12}(t)\underset{\mathrm{LO}}{=}\frac{3}{8\pi ^2}\frac{[m_u(t)+m_d(t)]^2}{t},t\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,$$

and the r.h.s. is evaluated with the pion contribution, for small $`s`$ and, for large $`s`$, again with QCD. Then one either writes an inequality, noting that in the remaining intermediate energy region $`Im\mathrm{\Psi }_5^{12}(s)0`$, or one approximates $`Im\mathrm{\Psi }_5^{12}(s)`$ for intermediate $`s`$ by the $`\pi ^{}`$ pole. In this way, we get two types of results: the rigorous, model independent bounds

$$\overline{m}_d(1GeV)+\overline{m}_u(1GeV)9MeV/c^2,\overline{m}_d\overline{m}_u3MeV/c^2,\overline{m}_s(1GeV)150MeV/c^2$$
$`(3.12)`$
or the (somewhat model dependent) absolute values

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{m}_d(1GeV)& +\overline{m}_u(1GeV)=13\pm 4MeV/c^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{m}_s(1GeV)& =200\pm 50MeV/c^2,\overline{m}_d(1GeV)=8.9\pm 4.3MeV/c^2,\overline{m}_u(1GeV)=4.2\pm 2MeV/c^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.13)`$
From decays into strange particles of the $`\tau `$ one also obtains a precise determination of the mass of the $`s`$ quark:

$$m_s(1GeV)=235_{42}^{+35}MeV/c^2,$$
$`(3.14)`$
in agreement with the former results, but with the advantage that it does not require the use of models.

Lattice results are compatible with these, but less reliable in that the quenched approximation (necessary to obtain meaningful calculations) is not well justified for the corresponding evaluations. Indeed, at times lattice results are incompatible with the values reported above, even with the bounds (3.12). The values of the light quark masses obtained with these other methods are discussed in some detail in the text of the author, ref. 18.

4. Masses and interaction intensity for weak interactions

4.1. $`\alpha _W`$ and $`G_F`$

Traditionally, instead of the intensity of the weak interaction, $`\alpha _W0.034`$, one gives the precision value for the Fermi coupling, $`G_F`$, linked to the former via the $`W`$ mass by the relation (to first order)

$$G_F=\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{2}M_W^2}\alpha _W.$$

According to the PDG,

$$G_F=1.16639[1]\times 10^5GeV^2.$$
$`(4.1)`$
4.2. $`M_W`$, $`M_Z`$ and the mass of the Higgs particle, $`M_H`$

As for the masses of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ particles the precision measurements of LEP and Tevatron give (PDG, ref. 3)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_W=& 80.419\pm 0.056GeV/c^2,\hfill \\ \hfill M_Z=& 91.1882\pm 0.0022GeV/c^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.2)`$
From these masses, the value of $`\alpha (M_Z)`$, and $`G_F`$, it is possible to deduce the mass of the Higgs particle by consistency. Using the LEPEWWG method one finds,

$$M_H=102_{36}^{+54}GeV/c^2\text{[Radiative corrections]}$$
$`(4.3)`$
(Grünwald, private communication). A similar (but much less precise) value follows from consistency of determinations of $`\alpha _s`$ (M. J. Herrero and the author, unpublished). One may take the value of this quantity obtained from processes involving energies much smaller than $`91.2GeV`$, and extrapolate to predict $`\alpha _s(M_Z^2)`$. Comparing this with measurements of $`\alpha _s(M_Z^2)`$ on the $`Z`$ itself (see the Table in Sect. 3.1) one gets consistency at $`1.5\sigma `$ level only if $`M_H133GeV`$, and at $`2\sigma `$ if $`M_H493GeV`$.

In the months prior to the decomissioning of LEP, evidence was found for this particle with a mass of $`115GeV/c^2`$. The same experiments produced the bound $`M_H114GeV`$. While the evidence is inconclusive, the coincidence with the value found from radiative corrections, (4.3), is encouraging.

5. A note on the magnetic moment of the muon, and the dipole moment of the electron

In this last section we present two precision tests of the standard model, beyond those afforded by the consistencies already noted. The first is an extension of that already discussed, the magnetic moment of the muon. Besides its recent popularity, this is interesting because it involves all three interactions. The second is the dipole moment of the electron, that furnishes the best lower bound on new physics.

5.1. The muon anomaly

We have in Subsect. 2.2 mentioned the equality of the $`e`$, $`\mu `$ charges. This is, in particular, a consequence of the structure of the standard model, especially of so-called electron-muon universality that specifies that all properties, except the mass, of $`e`$ and $`\mu `$ are identical. As a consequence of this it follows that we can evaluate the magnetic moment of the muon like we did for the electron, but taking into account the difference in masses.

Figure 5.  The order $`\alpha ^2`$ hadronic contributions to the muon magnetic moment. The blob represents an arbitrary hadronic state. XX

In 2001 a very precise measurement of the muon anomaly, $`a(\mu )`$, was carried over in Brookhaven.\[23a\] It improved the previous CERN precision\[23b\] by a factor of about six, and (according to hasty voices) showed signs of discrepancy with experiment. This discrepancy was due to two factors. First, a somewhat overoptimistic and incomplete evaluation of the hadronic part of the photon vacuum polarization (h.v.p.) contribution, (Fig. 5); and secondly, a sign mistake in one of the $`O(\alpha ^3)`$ pieces, the so-called hadronic light by light diagram, Fig. 6.

The various theoretical contributions may be grouped into three sets: purely QED, weak and hadronic. The first and second are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 10^{11}\times a(\text{QED})=\mathrm{116\hspace{0.17em}584\hspace{0.17em}705}& \pm 1.8\hfill \\ \hfill 10^{11}\times a(\text{Weak})=151& \pm 4.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.1)`$
Figure 6.  A typical diagram for the hadronic light by light contribution to $`a_\mu `$.

The hadronic contributions may in turn be split into four pieces: the $`O(\alpha ^2)`$ hadronic photon vacuum polarization (h.v.p.) piece (Fig. 5), and the same, to order $`O(\alpha ^3)`$; we take both from ref. 24, which gives a much improved calculation with the help of very recent experimental data. We next have the light-by-light contribution (Fig. 6), with the sign mistake redressed; and the rest, evaluated by Krause. Thus, one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 10^{11}\times a^{(2+3)}(\text{h.v.p.})=& \mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}002}\pm 66;\hfill \\ \hfill 10^{11}\times a(\text{Hadronic light by light})=& 92\pm 20;\hfill \\ \hfill 10^{11}\times a(\text{Rest})=& 101\pm 6.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.2)`$
Once these added, the theoretical value is

$$a_\mu =(116591849\pm 72)\times 10^{11}\text{[Theory, standard model]},$$
$`(5.3)`$
perfectly compatible (at $`1.1\sigma `$) with the experimental figure,

$$a_\mu =(116592030\pm 150)\times 10^{11}\text{[Experiment]}.$$
$`(5.4)`$
We may write the comparison, perhaps more transparently, as

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{Exp}.)a_\mu (\mathrm{Theory})=(1.81\pm 1.66)\times 10^9.$$

This thus checks all three sectors of the the standard model (electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions are necessary to get the agreement) to nine digits. This is also the degree of accuracy of the verification of electron-muon universality.

5.2.The electron dipole moment

The interaction of a fermion, say the electron, with an electromagnetic field through an electric and a magnetic moments may be described with the phenomenological interactions

$$\frac{1}{2}\mu _e\overline{\psi }_e\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\psi ,\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}d_e\overline{\psi }_e\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\psi .$$
$`(5.3)`$
We have already commented on the implications of the observed and calculated values of $`\mu _e`$, $`\mu _\mu `$. What about the dipole moment? Let us write $`d_e=(e/m)\delta _e`$. The present experimental bound on $`d_e`$, $`2\times 10^{27}e\mathrm{cm}`$, implies

$$|\delta _e|5\times 10^{16}.$$
$`(5.4)`$
In the standard model, $`\delta _e`$ is zero, except for corrections of very high order, much smaller than the experimental bound; but this is not the case in other theories: therefore, the smallness of $`d_e`$ is a stringent test on structures beyond the standard model. Specifically, in the minimal suspersymmetric (SUSY) extension of the standard model the bound (5.4) implies a lower bound of the order of 1 TeV for the SUSY partners, if the SUSY CP-violating phases and mixing angles are of the same order of magnitude as the non-SUSY ones.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to P. Langacker and M. Grünwald for information on the more recent value and estimate for the masses of $`t`$ quark and Higgs particle. Thanks are also due to the organizers of the XXX International Meeting for the opportunity to talk here.

References

1.- The values of $`\alpha `$ and the calculations of $`a(\mathrm{e})`$, and (some of) those of $`a_\mu `$, with references, may be found in the review of V. W. Hughes and T. Kinoshita, Rev. Mod. Phys., 71, S133 (1999).

2.- J. F. de Trocóniz and F. J. Ynduráin, FTUAM 01-15, 2001 (hep-ph/0107318), in press in Phys. Rev. D. A calculation with only slightly less good precision is that of A. D. Martin, J. Outhwaite and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J., C19, 681 (2001). Its central value is comprised within the error bars of the Trocóniz–Ynduráin result.

3.- PDG: D. E. Groom et al., Eur. Phys. J., C15, 1 (2000).

4.- For a review of this, see the text T. Kinoshita et al., Quantum Electrodynamics, World Scientific, 1990.

5.- (a) $`\tau `$ decay: See A. Pich, Tau Physics, In Heavy Flavours, II (Buras and Lidner, eds.), World Scientific, Singapore, (1997) and work quoted there. (b) $`Z`$ decay: for a review, see K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn,, and A. Kwiatowski, Phys. Rep., C277, 189 (1996). (c) $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations. The NNLO corrections calculated by S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kataev and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett., B259, 144 (1991) and L. R. Sugurladze, and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Rev. Lett., 66, 560 (1991), where references to lower order ones may be found.

6.- The four loop coefficients for $`\alpha _s`$ were calculated by T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett., B400, 379 (1997). The results for the Bjorken and Gross–Llewellyn Smith sum rules are taken from the review of S. Bethke, J. Phys., G26, R27 (2000).

7.- Four moments: J. Santiago and F. J. Ynduráin, Nucl. Phys., B563, 45 (1999). Six moments: J. Santiago and F. J. Ynduráin, Nucl. Phys., B611, 447 (2001). An evaluation for neutrino scattering was also given by A. L. Kataev, G. Parente and A. V. Sidorov, CERN TH-2001-058 (hep-ph/0106221). The calculations of the anomalous dimensions and coefficient functions at NNLO with respectively four and six moments used here come from S. A. Larin et al., Nucl. Phys., B427, 41 (1994) and B492 (1997), 338; and A. Retey and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys., B604, 281 (2001), where references to earlier work may be found. The perspectives for a full calculation for the anomalous dimensions are discussed by S. Moch, Proc. HEP Europhysics Conf., Budapest, 2001.

8.- D. Strom, “Electroweak measurements on the $`Z`$ resonance”, Talk presented at the 5th Int. Symposium on Radiative Corrections, RadCor2000, Carmel, Ca., September 2000. For discussion of the Higgs, see also E. Tournefier, Talk at the Int. Seminar “QUARKS ’98”, Suzdal (hep-ex/9810042).

9.-  M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys., B123, 89 (1977).

10.-  W. Fischler, Nucl. Phys., B129, 157 (1977); A. Billoire,  Phys. Lett., B92, 343 (1980).

11.-  S. Titard and F. J. Ynduráin, Phys. Rev., D49, 6007 (1994).

12.-  M. Peter, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78, 602 (1997); checked and corrected by Y. Schröder, Phys. Lett., B447, 321 (1999).

13.-  A. Pineda and F. J. Ynduráin, Phys. Rev., D58, 3003 (1998) and A. Pineda and F. J. Ynduráin, Phys. Rev., D61, 077505 (2000)

14.-  M. B. Voloshin, Nucl. Phys., B154, 365 (1979) and Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 36, 143 (1982); H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett., B98, 447 (1981).

15.-  N. Brambilla et al.,, Phys. Lett., B470, 215 (1999);

16.- (a) F. J. Ynduráin, Proc. 11 Int. Seminar on High Energy Physics “Quarks-2000”, Pushkin, Rusia (hep-ph/0002237); (b) A. H. Hoang, Proc. RADCOR2000, Carmel, Calif., 2000 (hep-ph/0102292).

17.-  R. Coquereau, Phys. Rev., D23, 1365 (1981), R. Tarrach, Nucl. Phys.,  B183, 384 (1981) to one loop; N. Gray et al., , Z. Phys.,  C48, 673 (1990) to two loops; K. Melnikov and T. van Ritbergen, Phys. Letters, B482, 99 (2000), to three loops.

18.- F. J. Ynduráin, The Theory of Quark and Gluon Interactions, 3rd. ed., Springer Verlag, 1999.

19.- V. A. Novikov et al., Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 27 (1978) 2, 274.

20.- Bounds: C. Becchi S. Narison, E. de Rafael and F. J. Ynduráin, Z. Phys., C8 (1981) 335.; F. J. Ynduráin, Nucl. Phys., B517, 324 (1998). Ratios and estimates: D. B. Kaplan and A. V. Manohar Phys. Rev. Lett., 56 (1986) 2004; K. G. Chetyrkin, D. Pirjol and K. Schilcher, Phys. Lett., B404, 337 (1997); J. Bijnens, J. Prades and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett., B348, 226. (1995)

21.- D. J. Broadhurst, Phys. Lett., B101 (1981) 423; K. G. Chetyrkin, D. Pirjol and K. Schilcher, Phys. Lett., BB404 (1997) 337; S. C. Generalis, J. Phys., G16 (1990) 787; L. R. Sugurladze, and F. V. Tkachov, Nucl. Phys., BB331 (1990) 35; K. G. Chetyrkin, S. G. Groshny and F. V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett., B119 (1982) 407; S. G. Groshny, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin and L. R. Sugurladze, Phys. Rev., D43 (1991) 1633; P. Pascual and E. de Rafael, Z. Phys., 12 (1982) 127; J. A. M. Vermaseren et al., Phys. Lett., BB405 (1997) 327; K. G. Chetyrkin, Phys. Lett., BB404 (1997) 161.

22.- See S. Chen, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 64, 265 (1998) for a recent review of the experimental situation.

23.- BNL: H.N. Brown et al., Phys. Rev. Letters, 86, 2227 (2001). CERN: J. Bailey et al., Nucl. Phys., B150, 1 (1979).

24.- J. F. de Trocóniz and F. J. Ynduráin, FTUAM 01-08 (hep-ph/0106025), in press in Phys. Rev. D.

25.- M. Knecht and A. Nyffeler (hep-ph/0111058), confirmed in M. Hayakawa and T. Kinoshita (hep-ph/0112102).

26.-  B. Krause, Phys. Letters, B390, 392 (1997).

27.-  E. D. Commins et al., Phys. Rev., A50, 2960 (1994).


text:
# Further results on the cross norm criterion for separability

## I Introduction

The greatest cross norm on the tensor product of the sets of trace class operators on two (or more) Hilbert spaces captures the concept of entanglement in quantum theory in a mathematically natural way: in  a separability criterion for mixed quantum states was proven using the greatest cross norm on the tensor product of sets of trace class operators on finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. It was shown that a density operator $`\varrho `$ is separable if and only if the greatest cross norm of $`\varrho `$ is equal to 1. In  the value of the greatest cross norm for pure states has been computed in terms of the Schmidt coefficients of the state. In the first part of this paper we determine the value of the greatest cross norm for Werner states and for isotropic states. We use methods to compute entanglement measures under symmetry recently discussed by Vollbrecht and Werner  and by Terhal and Vollbrecht . We also clarify the relationship of the greatest cross norm with the robustness of entanglement and determine the value of the greatest cross norm for Bell diagonal states.

In the second part of this paper we introduce and study a novel necessary separability criterion for bipartite systems induced by the greatest cross norm criterion. We show that the new criterion completely characterizes the separability properties of pure states, Bell diagonal states, isotropic states in arbitrary dimensions and Werner states in dimension $`d=2`$ while in dimension $`d3`$ some inseparable Werner states satisfy the criterion as well. Our results imply that the new criterion is neither weaker nor stronger than the Peres-Horodecki positive partial transpose (ppt) criterion . \[We call a separability criterion (A) weaker than a separability criterion (B) if every state that violates (A) also violates (B).\] Our results also show that the new criterion is not weaker than both the reduction criterion for separability , and the separability criterion introduced by Nielsen and Kempe . By the results of  this also implies that our criterion is not weaker than the entropic separability criteria based on the generalized Rényi and Tsallis entropies. Moreover, violating our criterion does not imply distillability.

This paper is organized as follows: In Section II A we collect some basic definitions and results. In Section II B the greatest cross norm is evaluated for operators of rank one. In Section II C we proceed to compute the value of the greatest cross norm for Werner states, in Section II D for isotropic states and in Section II E for Bell diagonal states. In Section II F we clarify the relation of the greatest cross norm with the robustness of entanglement introduced in . In Section III we introduce and study our computable separability criterion.

Throughout this paper the set of trace class operators on some Hilbert space $`𝙷`$ is denoted by $`𝚃(𝙷)`$, the set of Hilbert-Schmidt operators on $`𝙷`$ by $`\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷)`$ and the set of bounded operators on $`𝙷`$ by $`𝙱(𝙷)`$. A density operator is a positive trace class operator with trace one. We use the Dirac bra/ket notation throughout.

## II Separability and the greatest cross norm

### A Preliminaries

###### Definition 1

Let $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ be two Hilbert spaces of arbitrary dimension. A density operator $`\varrho `$ on the tensor product $`𝙷_1𝙷_2`$ is called *separable* if there exist a family $`\left\{\omega _i\right\}`$ of positive real numbers, a family $`\left\{\rho _i^{(1)}\right\}`$ of density operators on $`𝙷_1`$ and a family $`\left\{\rho _i^{(2)}\right\}`$ of density operators on $`𝙷_2`$ such that

$$\varrho =\underset{i}{}\omega _i\rho _i^{(1)}\rho _i^{(2)},$$
(1)
where the sum converges in trace class norm. A non-separable state is called entangled.

The Schmidt decomposition is of central importance in the characterization and quantification of entanglement associated with pure states.

###### Lemma 2

Let $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ be Hilbert spaces of arbitrary dimension and let $`|\psi 𝙷_1𝙷_2`$. Then there exist a family of non-negative real numbers $`\{p_i\}_i`$ and orthonormal bases $`\{|a_i\}_i`$ and $`\{|b_i\}_i`$ of $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ respectively such that

$`|\psi ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sqrt{p_i}|a_ib_i.`$

The family of positive numbers $`\{p_i\}_i`$ is called the family of *Schmidt coefficients* of $`|\psi `$.

Consider the spaces $`𝚃(𝙷_1)`$ and $`𝚃(𝙷_2)`$ of trace class operators on $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ respectively. Both spaces are Banach spaces when equipped with the trace class norm $`_1^{(1)}`$ or $`_1^{(2)}`$ respectively, see, e.g., Schatten . In the sequel we shall drop the superscript and write $`_1`$ for both norms, slightly abusing the notation; it will be always clear from the context which norm is meant. The algebraic tensor product $`𝚃(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃(𝙷_2)`$ of $`𝚃(𝙷_1)`$ and $`𝚃(𝙷_2)`$ is defined as the set of all finite linear combinations of elementary tensors $`uv`$, i.e., the set of all finite sums $`_{i=1}^nu_iv_i`$ where $`u_i𝚃(𝙷_1)`$ and $`v_i𝚃(𝙷_2)`$ for all $`i`$.

###### Definition 3

A norm $``$ on $`𝚃(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃(𝙷_2)`$ is called a *subcross norm* if $`t_1t_2t_1_1t_2_1`$ for all $`t_1𝚃(𝙷_1)`$ and $`t_2𝚃(𝙷_2)`$. It is called a cross norm if $`t_1t_2=t_1_1t_2_1`$ for all $`t_1𝚃(𝙷_1)`$ and $`t_2𝚃(𝙷_2)`$.

It is known that we can define a norm on $`𝚃(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃(𝙷_2)`$ by

$$t_\gamma :=inf\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_i_1v_i_1|t=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_iv_i\},$$
(2)
where $`t𝚃(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃(𝙷_2)`$ and where the infimum runs over all finite decompositions of $`t`$ into elementary tensors .

The norm $`_\gamma `$ defined in Equation (2) is born to be subcross and can be shown to be cross (for a proof see, e.g., ). Moreover, $`_\gamma `$ majorizes any subcross norm on $`𝚃(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃(𝙷_2)`$ and is therefore often also referred to as the *greatest cross norm* on $`𝚃(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃(𝙷_2)`$. The completion of $`𝚃(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃(𝙷_2)`$ with respect to $`_\gamma `$ is denoted by $`𝚃(𝙷_1)_\gamma 𝚃(𝙷_2)`$. In finite dimensions we have $`𝚃(𝙷_1)_\gamma 𝚃(𝙷_2)=𝚃(𝙷_1𝙷_2)`$ .

In analogy we can also define a cross norm on $`\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_2)`$ by

$$t_g:=inf\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_i_2v_i_2|t=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_iv_i\},$$
(3)
where $`t\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_2)`$ and where the infimum runs over all finite decompositions of $`t`$ into elementary tensors. $`_2`$ denotes the Hilbert-Schmidt norm.

In the following we are mainly interested in the situation where both $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ are finite dimensional, hence $`𝚃(𝙷_1)=𝙱(𝙷_1)`$ and $`𝚃(𝙷_2)=𝙱(𝙷_2)`$.

The following theorem demonstrates that $`_\gamma `$ captures the concept of entanglement in quantum theory in a mathematically natural way. For a proof see .

###### Theorem 4

Let $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ be finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and $`\varrho `$ be a density operator on $`𝙷_1𝙷_2`$. Then the following statements are equivalent:

* $`\varrho `$ is separable
* $`\varrho _\gamma =1`$.

### B Operators of rank one

The following proposition is a slight generalization of a proposition that has been proven in . It shows that on pure states $`_\gamma `$ can be expressed by the Schmidt coefficients of the state. We reproduce the proof here as the proof method is essential for the results in Section III.

###### Proposition 5

Let $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ be finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and let $`|\psi ,|\omega 𝙷_1𝙷_2`$ be unit vectors and $`|\psi =_i\sqrt{p_i}|\varphi _i|\chi _i`$ and $`|\omega =_j\sqrt{q_j}|\alpha _j|\beta _j`$ their Schmidt representations respectively. Here $`\{|\varphi _i\}_i`$ and $`\{|\alpha _j\}_j`$ are orthonormal bases of $`𝙷_1`$ while $`\{|\chi _i\}_i`$ and $`\{|\beta _j\}_j`$ are orthonormal bases of $`𝙷_2`$. Moreover, $`p_i0`$ and $`q_j0`$ and $`_ip_i=_jq_j=1`$. Let $`S:=|\psi \omega |`$. Then

$`S_\gamma ={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\sqrt{p_iq_j}=\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sqrt{p_i}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sqrt{q_i}\right).`$

*Proof*: Without loss of generality we assume that $`𝙷_1=𝙷_2`$ which can always be achieved by possibly suitably enlarging one of the two Hilbert spaces. Further, we identify $`𝙷_1=𝙷_2`$ with $`^n`$, where $`n=dim𝙷_1`$, i.e., we fix an orthonormal basis in $`𝙷_1`$ which we identify with the canonical real basis in $`^n`$. With respect to this canonical real basis in $`^n`$ we can define complex conjugates of elements of $`𝙷_1`$ and the complex conjugate as well as the transpose of a linear operator acting on $`𝙷_1`$. From the Schmidt decomposition it follows that

$$S=|\psi \omega |=\underset{ij}{}\sqrt{p_iq_j}|\varphi _i\alpha _j||\chi _i\beta _j|.$$
(4)
From the definition of $`_\gamma `$ it is thus obvious that $`S_\gamma _{ij}\sqrt{p_iq_j}`$. Now consider the Hilbert space $`\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_1𝙷_2)`$ of Hilbert-Schmidt operators on $`𝙷_1𝙷_2`$ equipped with the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product $`f|g=\mathrm{tr}(f^{}g)`$. Equation (4) induces an operator $`𝔄_S`$ on $`\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_1𝙷_2)`$ as follows. Every element $`\zeta `$ in $`\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_1𝙷_2)`$ can be written $`\zeta =_kx_ky_k`$ where $`x_k`$ and $`y_k`$ are trace class operators on $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ respectively. Then $`𝔄_S`$ is defined on $`\zeta `$ as $`𝔄_S(\zeta ):=_{ijk}\sqrt{p_iq_j}\chi _i^{}|x_k|\beta _j^{}|\varphi _i\alpha _j|y_k`$ where $`|\chi _i^{}`$ and $`|\beta _j^{}`$ denote, respectively, the complex conjugates of the vectors $`|\chi _i`$ and $`|\beta _j`$ with respect to the canonical real basis in $`^n`$. Proposition 11.1.8 in  implies that $`𝔄_S(\zeta )`$ is independent of the representation of $`\zeta `$. Consider a representation $`S=_{i=1}^ru_iv_i`$ of $`S`$ as sum over simple tensors. Denote the transpose of $`v_i`$ by $`v_i^T`$. Then the operator defined by

$$𝒜_S(\zeta ):=\underset{i,k=1}{\overset{r}{}}\mathrm{tr}(v_i^Tx_k)u_iy_k$$
(5)
is equal to $`𝔄_S`$ (by virtue of Proposition 11.1.8 in ). We denote the trace class norm on $`𝚃(\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_1𝙷_2))`$ by $`\tau ()`$. The operator $`𝔄_S`$ is of trace class and the right hand side of Equation (4) is the so-called polar representation of $`𝔄_S`$ which implies $`\tau (𝔄_S)=_{ij}\sqrt{p_iq_j}`$, see . $`𝔄_S`$ admits also many other representations $`𝔄_S_if_ig_i`$ with families of operators $`\{f_i\}`$ and $`\{g_i\}`$ acting on $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ respectively. It is known that

$$\tau (𝔄_S)=inf\{\underset{i}{}f_i_2g_i_2|𝔄_S\underset{i}{}f_ig_i\}S_\gamma ,$$
(6)
where the latter inequality follows from $`z_2z_1`$ and from the fact that by construction each decomposition of $`𝔄_S`$ corresponds in an obvious one-to-one fashion to a decomposition of $`S`$. For a proof of the first identity in Equation (6) see , page 42. This proves the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 6

Let $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ be finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and let $`\rho `$ be a density operator on $`𝙷_1𝙷_2`$. Let $`\{|\varphi _i\}_i`$ and $`\{|\alpha _j\}_j`$ be orthonormal bases of $`𝙷_1`$ and let $`\{|\chi _i\}_i`$ and $`\{|\beta _j\}_j`$ be orthonormal bases of $`𝙷_2`$. If $`\rho =_{ij}a_{ij}|\varphi _i\alpha _j||\chi _i\beta _j|`$, then $`\rho _\gamma =_{ij}|a_{ij}|.`$

Now consider the following expression

$$\alpha :𝚃(𝙷_1𝙷_2),\alpha (\sigma ):=inf\{\underset{i}{}\lambda _iS_i_\gamma |\sigma =\underset{i}{}\lambda _iS_i,\text{ where }\lambda _i0,S_i\text{ of rank 1}\}$$
(7)
where the infimum is over all decompositions of $`\sigma `$ into operators of rank 1. Obviously, $`\sigma _\gamma \alpha (\sigma )`$ for all $`\sigma 𝚃(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃(𝙷_2)`$. We first show a little lemma

###### Lemma 7

Let $`\sigma 𝚃(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃(𝙷_2)`$, then $`\alpha (\sigma )=\sigma _\gamma `$.

*Proof*: $`\alpha `$ is obviously a norm on $`𝚃(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃(𝙷_2)`$. Let $`\sigma =\sigma _1\sigma _2`$ with $`\sigma _1𝚃(𝙷_1)`$ and $`\sigma _2𝚃(𝙷_2)`$. Then let $`\sigma _1=_i\lambda _i^{(1)}S_i^{(1)}`$ and $`\sigma _2=_j\lambda _j^{(2)}S_j^{(2)}`$ be the polar decompositions of $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ respectively . Then $`S_i^{(1)}`$ and $`S_j^{(2)}`$ are operators of rank 1 for all $`i,j`$. Thus $`\alpha (\sigma _1\sigma _2)_{ij}\left|\lambda _i^{(1)}\lambda _j^{(2)}\right|=\sigma _1\sigma _2_1`$. This proves that $`\alpha `$ is a subcross norm. As $`_\gamma `$ majorizes each subcross seminorm we find that $`\alpha (\sigma )\sigma _\gamma `$ for all $`\sigma 𝚃(𝙷_1𝙷_2)`$. Hence $`\alpha (\sigma )=\sigma _\gamma `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### C Werner states

Let $`𝙷`$ be a finite dimensional Hilbert space and let $`d:=dim𝙷>1`$. Define

$`𝔽:={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}|ijji|`$where $`(|i)`$ is a orthonormal basis of $`𝙷`$. Werner states (first considered in ) are mixed quantum states in $`𝚃(𝙷𝙷)`$. They can be parametrized by a real parameter $`f`$ with $`1f1`$ and are given by

$$\varrho _f:=\frac{1}{d^3d}\left((df)\mathrm{𝟷}+(df1)𝔽\right).$$
(8)
Note that $`\mathrm{tr}(\varrho _f𝔽)=f`$. Let $`\mathrm{G}`$ be the group of all unitary operators on $`𝙷𝙷`$ of the form $`UU`$ where $`U`$ is a unitary on $`𝙷`$. Then a mixed quantum state is invariant under the action of $`\mathrm{G}`$, i.e., $`\varrho =V\varrho V^{}`$ for all $`V\mathrm{G}`$ if and only if $`\varrho =\varrho _f`$ for some $`f`$, see . Define the *twirling operator* $`𝐏_G`$ by

$`𝐏_G(\sigma ){\displaystyle 𝑑U(UU)\sigma (U^{}U^{})}`$where the integration is with respect to the Haar measure of the unitary group on $`𝙷`$.

From the definitions of $`𝐏_G`$ and $`_\gamma `$ it readily follows that $`𝐏_G(\sigma )_\gamma \sigma _\gamma `$ for all $`\sigma 𝚃(𝙷𝙷).`$

Let $`M`$ denote the set of operators of rank 1 on $`𝙷𝙷`$, and consider the expression

$$\beta (\varrho _f):=inf\{\underset{i}{}\lambda _iS_i_\gamma |S_iM,\lambda _i0,\varrho _f=\underset{i}{}\lambda _i𝐏_G(S_i)\}.$$
(9)
###### Lemma 8

Let $`f[1,1]`$ and let $`\varrho _f`$ be the Werner state to $`f`$, then $`\beta (\varrho _f)=\varrho _f_\gamma `$.

*Proof*: Every admissible decomposition of $`\varrho _f=_i\lambda _iS_i`$ in Equation (7) induces via $`\varrho _f=𝐏_G(\varrho _f)=_i\lambda _i𝐏_G(S_i)`$ an admissible decomposition in Equation (9). Hence $`\beta (\varrho _f)\alpha (\varrho _f)`$. In turn for every decomposition $`\varrho _f=_i\lambda _i𝐏_G(S_i)`$ in Equation (9) we find $`\varrho _f_\gamma _i\lambda _i𝐏_G(S_i)_\gamma _i\lambda _iS_i_\gamma `$. Thus it follows that also $`\varrho _f_\gamma \beta (\varrho _f)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to compute the greatest cross norm for Werner states.

###### Theorem 9

Let $`\varrho _f`$ be a Werner state, then

$$\varrho _f_\gamma =\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1:& \text{ for }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}f1\hfill \\ \hfill 1f:& \text{ for }1f<0\hfill \end{array}.$$
(10)
*Proof*: Let $`\varrho _f=_i\lambda _i𝐏_G(S_i)`$ be an admissible decomposition in Equation (9), then we write $`S_i=|\phi _i\psi _i|`$ for all $`i.`$ We write the Schmidt decompositions of $`|\phi _i`$ and $`|\psi _i`$ as, respectively,

$`|\phi _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}}|a_j^{(i)}b_j^{(i)}`$
$`|\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{q_k^{(i)}}|d_k^{(i)}e_k^{(i)}`$
where $`\left(a_j^{(i)}\right)_j,\left(b_j^{(i)}\right)_j,\left(d_k^{(i)}\right)_k`$ and $`\left(e_k^{(i)}\right)_k`$ are orthonormal bases of $`𝙷`$ respectively for all $`i`$ and $`_jp_j^{(i)}=_kq_k^{(i)}=1`$ for all $`i`$. The condition $`\mathrm{tr}(\varrho _f𝔽)=f`$ reads

$$f=\underset{ijk}{}\lambda _i\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}q_k^{(i)}}e_k^{(i)}|a_j^{(i)}d_k^{(i)}|b_j^{(i)}.$$
(11)
Thus

$`\beta (\varrho _f)=inf\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\lambda _i\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}q_k^{(i)}}\right|\varrho _f={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i𝐏_G\left(|\phi _i\psi _i|\right)\}`$where the infimum is over all decompositions of $`\varrho _f`$ of the form $`\varrho _f=_i\lambda _i𝐏_G\left(|\phi _i\psi _i|\right)`$ and where $`\left(p_j^{(i)}\right)_j`$ and $`\left(q_k^{(i)}\right)_k`$ are the Schmidt coefficients of $`|\phi _i`$ and $`|\psi _i`$ respectively. Clearly $`\beta (\varrho _f)1`$. Now for $`0f1`$ choose $`\lambda _i=\delta _{i1}`$ and $`p_1^{(1)}=q_1^{(1)}=1`$ and $`p_j^{(1)}=q_k^{(1)}=0`$ for $`j>1`$ and $`k>1`$. Moreover choose $`e_1^{(1)}|a_1^{(1)}=d_1^{(1)}|b_1^{(1)}=\sqrt{f}`$, then Equation (11) is satisfied and $`_{ijk}|\lambda _i|\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}q_k^{(i)}}=1`$ showing that the infimum is attained $`\varrho _f_\gamma =\beta (\varrho _f)=1`$. In the case $`1f<0`$ we note that

$`1f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\lambda _i\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}q_k^{(i)}}\left(d_k^{(i)}|a_j^{(i)}e_k^{(i)}|b_j^{(i)}e_k^{(i)}|a_j^{(i)}d_k^{(i)}|b_j^{(i)}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\lambda _i\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}q_k^{(i)}}\left|d_k^{(i)}|a_j^{(i)}e_k^{(i)}|b_j^{(i)}e_k^{(i)}|a_j^{(i)}d_k^{(i)}|b_j^{(i)}\right|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\lambda _i\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}q_k^{(i)}}.`$
The last inequality follows readily by considering the Schmidt decomposition of an unnormalized vector of the form $`|deed`$. Thus in general $`\beta (\varrho _f)1f`$. Now choose $`\lambda _i=\delta _{i1}`$ again and

$`|\phi _1=|\psi _1\sqrt{p_1^{(1)}}|a_1^{(1)}b_1^{(1)}\sqrt{p_2^{(1)}}|b_1^{(1)}a_1^{(1)}`$where $`p_1^{(1)}=1p_2^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1f^2}`$ and where $`|a_1^{(1)}`$ and $`|b_1^{(1)}`$ satisfy $`b_1^{(1)}|a_1^{(1)}=0`$. For this choice Equation (11) is satisfied and we have $`1=_{ij}\lambda _i\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}p_j^{(i)}}`$ and $`f=_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ijk}{jk}}\lambda _i\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}p_k^{(i)}}`$. Thus $`\varrho _f_\gamma =\beta (\varrho _f)=1f`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### D Isotropic states

Again let $`𝙷`$ be a finite dimensional Hilbert space with dimension $`d:=dim𝙷>1`$. Consider the group $`\widehat{G}`$ of a local unitary transformations on $`𝙷𝙷`$ of the form $`U\overline{U}`$ where $`U`$ is a unitary on $`𝙷`$ and $`\overline{U}`$ denotes the complex conjugate of $`U`$ with respect to an arbitrary but fixed orthonormal basis in $`𝙷`$. The set of states invariant under all elements of $`\widehat{G}`$ are the so-called *isotropic states*, see, e.g., . The isotropic states can be parametrized by a positive real parameter $`F[0,1]`$ and are given by

$$\varrho _F\frac{1F}{d^21}\left(\mathrm{𝟷}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|\right)+F|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|.$$
(12)
Here $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}_{i=1}^d|ii`$ and $`\left(|i\right)_i`$ is an arbitrary orthonormal basis in $`𝙷`$. We define

$`\widehat{𝔽}:=d|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}|iijj|.`$Then $`\mathrm{tr}(\varrho _F\widehat{𝔽})=dF`$. We proceed in analogy to Section II C and define the twirling operator $`\widehat{𝐏}_{\widehat{G}}`$ for $`\widehat{G}`$ by

$`\widehat{𝐏}_{\widehat{G}}(\sigma ):={\displaystyle 𝑑U(U\overline{U})\sigma (U^{}\overline{U}^{})}`$where the integration is again with respect to the Haar measure of the unitary group on $`𝙷`$. Let $`M`$ denote the set of operators of rank 1 on $`𝙷𝙷`$, then consider the expression

$$\widehat{\beta }(\varrho _F):=inf\{\underset{i}{}\lambda _iS_i_\gamma |S_iM,\lambda _i0,\varrho _F=\underset{i}{}\lambda _i\widehat{𝐏}_{\widehat{G}}(S_i)\}.$$
(13)
###### Lemma 10

Let $`F[0,1]`$ and let $`\varrho _F`$ be the isotropic state to $`F`$, then $`\widehat{\beta }(\varrho _F)=\varrho _F_\gamma `$.

*Proof*: Analogous to the proof of Lemma 8. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 11

Let $`F[0,1]`$ and $`\varrho _F`$ be the isotropic state to $`F`$, then

$$\varrho _F_\gamma =\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1:& \text{ for }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}F\frac{1}{d}\hfill \\ \hfill dF:& \text{ for }\frac{1}{d}<F1\hfill \end{array}.$$
(14)
*Proof*: The proof proceeds in analogy to the proof of Theorem 9. Let $`\varrho _F=_i\lambda _i\widehat{𝐏}_{\widehat{G}}(S_i)`$ be an admissible decomposition in Equation (13), then we write $`S_i=|\phi _i\psi _i|`$ for all $`i.`$ We write the Schmidt decompositions of $`|\phi _i`$ and $`|\psi _i`$ as $`|\phi _i=_j\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}}|a_j^{(i)}b_j^{(i)}`$ and $`|\psi _i=_k\sqrt{q_k^{(i)}}|d_k^{(i)}e_k^{(i)}`$ where $`\left(a_j^{(i)}\right)_j,\left(b_j^{(i)}\right)_j,\left(d_k^{(i)}\right)_k`$ and $`\left(e_k^{(i)}\right)_k`$ are orthonormal bases of $`𝙷`$ respectively for all $`i`$ and $`_jp_j^{(i)}=_kq_k^{(i)}=1`$ for all $`i`$. The condition $`\mathrm{tr}(\varrho _F\widehat{𝔽})=dF`$ reads

$$dF=\underset{ijk}{}\lambda _i\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}q_k^{(i)}}a_{j}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{}|b_j^{(i)}d_k^{(i)}|e_{k}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{}$$
(15)
where $`|a_{j}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`|e_{k}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{}`$ denote the complex conjugates of $`|a_j^{(i)}`$ and $`|e_k^{(i)}`$ respectively. Thus

$`\widehat{\beta }(\varrho _F)=inf\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\lambda _i\sqrt{p_j^{(i)}q_k^{(i)}}\right|\varrho _F={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i\widehat{𝐏}_{\widehat{G}}\left(|\phi _i\psi _i|\right)\}`$where the infimum is over all decompositions of $`\varrho _f`$ of the form $`\varrho _f=_i\lambda _i𝐏_{\widehat{G}}\left(|\phi _i\psi _i|\right)`$ and where $`\left(p_j^{(i)}\right)_j`$ and $`\left(q_k^{(i)}\right)_k`$ are the Schmidt coefficients of $`|\phi _i`$ and $`|\psi _i`$ respectively. From (15) it follows immediately that $`\beta (\varrho _F)dF`$.

For $`dF1`$, consider a state $`|\psi `$ of the form $`|\psi =_i\sqrt{\mu _i}|e_ie_i`$ where $`\{e_i\}_i`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`𝙷`$ and where $`\left(_i\sqrt{\mu _i}\right)^2=dF`$. It has been shown in  that $`\varrho _F=\widehat{𝐏}_{\widehat{G}}(|\psi \psi |)`$. Now Proposition 5 implies that $`\varrho _F_\gamma =\beta (\varrho _F)=dF`$.

For $`0dF<1`$, consider two states $`|a`$ and $`|b`$ in $`𝙷`$ with $`a^{}|b=\sqrt{dF}`$. Again, it has been shown in  that $`\varrho _F=\widehat{𝐏}_{\widehat{G}}(|abab|).`$ As by Theorem 4 we have $`\beta (\varrho _F)1`$, this proves $`\varrho _F_\gamma =\beta (\varrho _F)=1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### E Bell diagonal states

Consider $`^2`$ and let $`\{|1,|2\}`$ be an orthonormal basis of $`^2`$. Then the Bell basis of $`^2^2`$ is given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|11+|22,`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}|12+|21`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|21|12,`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}|11|22.`$
Bell diagonal states are the density operators on $`^2^2`$ which are diagonal in the Bell basis

$`\varrho ={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}}\lambda _i|\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|.`$Bell diagonal states are known to be separable if and only if $`\lambda _i\frac{1}{2}`$ for all $`i`$, .

###### Theorem 12

Let $`\varrho 𝚃(^2^2)`$ be a Bell diagonal state, i.e., $`\varrho =_{i=0}^3\lambda _i|\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|`$ with $`\lambda _i0`$ for all $`i`$. Then

$$\varrho _\gamma =\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i:& \text{ for }\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i>\frac{1}{2}\hfill \\ \hfill 1:& \text{ for }\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i\frac{1}{2}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(16)
*First part of the proof*: First consider the case $`\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i\frac{1}{2}`$. In this case there is an explicit decomposition of $`\varrho `$ as a mixture of eight unentangled pure states (see  for details). Thus $`\varrho _\gamma =1`$. Now consider the case that $`\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i>\frac{1}{2}`$. In this case there exists an explicit decomposition of $`\varrho `$ as an equal probability mixture of eight entangled pure states, each of which has $`\{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i4(\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i)^2},\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i4(\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i)^2}\}`$ as its Schmidt coefficients (again, see  for details). From the subadditivity of $`_\gamma `$ and Proposition 5 it follows readily that $`\varrho _\gamma 2\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i.`$ We postpone the proof for the remaining inequality $`\varrho _\gamma 2\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i`$ until Section III E. $`\mathrm{}`$

### F Relationship with the robustness of entanglement

Denote the set of Hermitean trace class operators on a Hilbert space $`𝙷`$ by $`𝚃^\mathrm{h}(𝙷)`$. A norm closely related to $`_\gamma `$ can be defined on $`𝚃^\mathrm{h}(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃^\mathrm{h}(𝙷_2)`$ by

$$t_S:=inf\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_i_1v_i_1|t=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_iv_i\}$$
(17)
where $`t𝚃^\mathrm{h}(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃^\mathrm{h}(𝙷_2)`$ and where the infimum runs over all finite decompositions of $`t`$ into elementary *Hermitean* tensors. From the definitions of $`_\gamma `$ and $`_S`$ it is obvious that in general $`t_\gamma t_S`$ for all Hermitean trace class operators $`t`$. For a density operator $`\sigma `$ it is also obvious that $`\sigma _S=1`$ if and only if $`\sigma `$ is separable. Clearly, $`_S`$ is the greatest cross norm on $`𝚃^\mathrm{h}(𝙷_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}𝚃^\mathrm{h}(𝙷_2)`$.

###### Lemma 13

Let $`𝙷`$ be a finite dimensional Hilbert space and let $`\sigma `$ be a Hermitean operator on $`𝙷𝙷`$, then

$`\sigma _S=\kappa (\sigma ):=inf\left\{a_++a_{}\right|\sigma =a_+\varrho _+a_{}\varrho _{},a_\pm 0,\varrho _\pm \text{ separable density operators}\}.`$

Proof: Obviously, for every $`\sigma `$ there are $`a_\pm 0`$ and separable density operators $`\varrho _\pm `$ such that $`\sigma =a_+\varrho _+a_{}\varrho _{}`$. \[It is always possible to write $`\sigma `$ as a sum of Hermitean simple tensors $`\sigma =_ix_iy_i`$; to get the desired decomposition just decompose all $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ into their positive and negative parts and rearrange terms\]. The inequality $`\sigma _S\kappa (\sigma )`$ is obvious. If $`\sigma =\sigma _1\sigma _2`$, then $`\kappa (\sigma )\sigma _1_1\sigma _2_1`$. Thus $`\kappa `$ is a subcross norm and thus $`\kappa (\sigma )\sigma _S`$ for all Hermitean $`\sigma `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For a density operator $`\sigma `$ the quantity $`E_R(\sigma )\frac{1}{2}\left(\sigma _S1\right)`$ is called *robustness of entanglement* , see also . The robustness of entanglement has the physical meaning of the minimal amount of separable noise that destroys the entanglement of a given state.

###### Proposition 14

Let $`𝙷`$ be a finite dimensional Hilbert space. Then the robustness of entanglement and the greatest cross norm on $`𝚃(𝙷𝙷)`$ are related by

$$E_R(\sigma )\sigma _\gamma 1$$
(18)
where $`\sigma `$ is a positive trace class operator with trace one.

*Proof*: The analogue of Lemma 7 holds for $`_S`$. Let $`|\psi 𝙷𝙷`$ and let $`P_\psi =|\psi \psi |.`$ In  it has been shown that $`P_\psi _S=2\left(_i\sqrt{p_i}\right)^21`$. Thus Proposition 5 implies that $`P_\psi _S=2P_\psi _\gamma 1`$. Therefore Lemma 7 and the analogue statement for $`_S`$ imply that $`\sigma _S2\sigma _\gamma 1`$ for all positive Hermitean $`\sigma `$ with trace one. This proves the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

For projection operators we have equality in Equation (18). Moreover, in  Vidal and Werner computed the robustness of entanglement for density operators with symmetry. The results of Vidal and Werner show that for Werner and isotropic states there is also an equality in Equation (18). However, a proof of whether or not equality holds in (18) in general has not been found by this author.

## III A computable separability criterion

### A Formulation of the criterion

Every finite dimensional Hilbert space $`𝙷`$ is isomorphic to $`^n`$, with $`n=dim(𝙷)`$. This corresponds to identifying a fixed orthonormal basis in $`𝙷`$ with the canonical real basis in $`^n`$. In $`^n`$ there is a notion of complex conjugation. We denote the complex conjugate of $`|\psi ^n`$ by $`|\psi ^{}`$.

###### Proposition 15

Let $`𝙺_1^n`$ and $`𝙺_2^m`$ be finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. There is a one-to-one correspondence between states $`|\psi 𝙺_1𝙺_2`$ and Hilbert-Schmidt operators $`A:𝙺_2𝙺_1`$ according to the rule: let $`|\psi =_{ij}c_{ij}|a_i|b_j`$ be a decomposition of $`|\psi `$ in terms of orthonormal bases $`\{|a_i\}`$ and $`\{|b_j\}`$ of $`𝙺_1`$ and $`𝙺_2`$ respectively. Then $`A(\psi )`$ is given by $`A(\psi )=_{ij}c_{ij}|a_ib_j^{}|`$. Conversely, if $`A=_{ij}c_{ij}|a_ib_j|`$ for some orthonormal bases $`\{|a_i\}`$ and $`\{|b_j\}`$ of $`𝙺_1`$ and $`𝙺_2`$ respectively, then $`|\psi _A=_{ij}c_{ij}|a_i|b_j^{}`$.

*Proof*: We only need to show that $`A(\psi )`$ is well-defined and independent of the decomposition of $`|\psi `$ and similarly that $`|\psi _A`$ is independent of the representation of $`A`$ chosen. But this follows immediately from, e.g., Proposition 11.1.8 in . $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 16

Let $`𝙺_1^n`$ and $`𝙺_2^m`$ be finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. The one-to-one correspondence between pure states $`|\psi 𝙺_1𝙺_2`$ and Hilbert-Schmidt operators $`A:𝙺_2𝙺_1`$ from Proposition 15 is isometric, i.e., $`A(\psi _1)|A(\psi _2)_{HS}=\psi _1|\psi _2`$ and $`\psi _A|\psi _B=A|B_{HS}.`$

*Proof*: Denote the canonical real bases of $`𝙺_1`$ and $`𝙺_2`$ by $`\{|e_i\}_i`$ and $`\{|f_j\}_j`$ respectively. Let $`|\psi _1=_{ij}c_{ij}|e_i|f_j`$ and $`|\psi _2=_{pq}d_{pq}|e_p|f_q`$ the decompositions of $`|\psi _1𝙺_1`$ and $`|\psi _2𝙺_2`$ in terms of these bases. Then $`A(\psi _1)=_{ij}c_{ij}|e_if_j^{}|=_{ij}c_{ij}|e_if_j|`$ and $`A(\psi _2)=_{pq}d_{pq}|e_pf_q^{}|=_{pq}d_{pq}|e_pf_q|`$. Therefore $`A(\psi _1)|A(\psi _2)_{HS}=\mathrm{tr}(A^{}(\psi _1)A(\psi _2))=_{ijpq}c_{ij}^{}d_{pq}f_q|f_je_i|e_p=_{ijpq}c_{ij}^{}d_{pq}f_j|f_qe_i|e_p=\psi _1|\psi _2.`$ This proves the corollary. $`\mathrm{}`$

To derive the next theorem we use Proposition 15 in the case that $`𝙺_1`$ and $`𝙺_2`$ are the spaces of Hilbert-Schmidt operators on some other Hilbert spaces $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ respectively, i.e., $`𝙺_1=\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_1)`$ and $`𝙺_2=\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_2)`$.

###### Theorem 17

Let $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ be finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and let $`𝙺_1=\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_1)^n`$ and $`𝙺_2=\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_2)^m`$ be the spaces of Hilbert-Schmidt operators on $`𝙷_1`$ and $`𝙷_2`$ respectively. Then there exists a one-to-one correspondence between Hilbert-Schmidt operators $`T\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_1𝙷_2)`$ and Hilbert-Schmidt operators $`𝔄(T):\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_2)\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷_1)`$ analogous to the correspondence in Proposition 15.

*Proof*: It is well-known that $`\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷)`$ furnished with the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product $`A|B_{HS}\mathrm{tr}(A^{}B)`$ is a Hilbert space. Therefore Theorem 17 is an immediate consequence of Proposition 15. $`\mathrm{}`$

The correspondence described in Proposition 15 and Theorem 17 has been known and applied in the quantum optics literature for some time, see  and references therein for more details.

In the sequel we always assume without loss of generality that $`𝙷_1=𝙷_2`$ and as in the proof of Proposition 5 we denote the trace class norm of $`𝔄(T)`$ by $`\tau (𝔄(T))`$.

###### Corollary 18

With the notation from Theorem 17, let $`T\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷𝙷)`$ be a Hilbert-Schmidt operator on $`𝙷𝙷`$. Then there exist a family $`\{\lambda _i\}_i`$ of non-negative real numbers, orthonormal bases $`\{E_i\}_i`$ and $`\{F_i\}_i`$ of $`\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷)`$ respectively such that

$$T=\underset{i}{}\lambda _iE_iF_i.$$
(19)
Moreover we have $`\tau (𝔄(T))=_i\lambda _i`$.

*Proof*: This is an immediate consequence of Proposition 15 and Theorem 17. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 18 can be viewed as an analogue of the Schmidt decomposition for density operators.

We now apply our results to the separability problem for density operators on $`𝙷𝙷`$. It is known that for any operator $`A:\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷)\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷)`$ the following identity holds (see , page 42, and also Equation (6))

$$\tau (A)inf\{\underset{i}{}f_i_2g_i_2|A=\underset{i}{}|f_ig_i|,|f_i,|g_i\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(𝙷)\}$$
(20)
where the infimum is over all finite decompositions of $`A`$ into simple tensors of Hilbert-Schmidt operators. The next Proposition is our new necessary separability criterion.

###### Proposition 19

Let $`𝙷`$ be a finite dimensional Hilbert space. Let $`\varrho 𝚃(𝙷𝙷)`$ be a density operator. If $`\varrho `$ is separable, then

$$\tau (𝔄(\varrho ))1.$$
(21)
*Proof*: This follows immediately from Equation (20) and Theorem 4. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 20

Let $`𝙷`$ be a finite dimensional Hilbert space. Let $`|\psi 𝙷𝙷`$ be a pure state. $`|\psi `$ is separable if and only if $`\tau (𝔄(P_\psi ))=1.`$

*Proof*: This follows immediately from the proof of Proposition 5. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 21

To check whether the separability criterion in Proposition 19 is satisfied by a given density operator $`\varrho `$ reduces to the evaluation of the trace class norm of the Hilbert-Schmidt operator $`𝔄(\varrho ).`$ This is completely straightforward using standard linear algebra packages and accordingly Equation (21) is a computable separability criterion for density operators.

In the next two subsections we compute $`\tau (𝔄(\varrho ))`$ in the situations that $`\varrho `$ is an isotropic state or a Werner state respectively. Moreover, in the subsequent subsections we study other families of states for which Equation (21) can be computed.

### B Isotropic states

We continue to use our notation from Section II D. We rewrite $`\varrho _F`$ as

$$\varrho _F=\frac{1\alpha _F}{d^2}I+\alpha _F|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|,$$
(22)
where $`\alpha _F\frac{d^2F1}{d^21}`$. We prove

###### Proposition 22

Let $`F[0,d]`$ and $`\varrho _F`$ be the corresponding isotropic state, then

$`\tau (𝔄(\varrho _F))=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill dF:& \text{ for }\frac{1}{d^2}F1\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{2}{d}dF:& \text{ for }0F<\frac{1}{d^2}\hfill \end{array}.`$

For the proof of this proposition we need Ferrers’ formula .

###### Lemma 23 (Ferrers)

Let $`0<n`$ and $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n\backslash \{0\},`$ then

$`det\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1+a_1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& 1+a_2& 1& \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& 1& 1+a_3& \mathrm{}& 1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& 1+a_n\end{array}\right)=a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_n\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1}}+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_n}}\right).`$

Ferrers’ formula follows readily by induction.

*Proof of Proposition 22*: Denote by $`\{|i\}_i`$ the canonical real basis of $`^d`$. From Equation (22) it follows that

$`𝔄(\varrho _F)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _F}{d}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}|E_{ij}E_{ij}|+{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha _F}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}|E_{ii}E_{jj}|,`$where $`E_{ij}|ij|`$ and where we use the notation $`|E_{ij}`$ for $`E_{ij}`$ to stress that we think of $`E_{ij}`$ as an element of $`\mathrm{𝙷𝚂}(^d).`$ Thus $`𝔄(\varrho _F)^{}=𝔄(\varrho _F)`$ and

$`𝔄(\varrho _F)^{}𝔄(\varrho _F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _F^2}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}|E_{ij}E_{ij}|+{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha _F^2}{d^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}|E_{ii}E_{jj}|`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _F^2}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ij}{ij}}{}}|E_{ij}E_{ij}|+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _F^2}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|E_{ii}E_{ii}|+{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha _F^2}{d^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}|E_{ii}E_{jj}|.`$ (24)
From the formula (24) we see that $`\frac{\alpha _F^2}{d^2}`$ is an Eigenvalue of $`𝔄(\varrho _F)^{}𝔄(\varrho _F)`$ with multiplicity (at least) $`d^2d`$. The second two terms in Equation (24) act only on the subspace $`𝒮_d`$ spanned by the elements $`|E_{ii}`$. The matrix representation of the second two terms in Equation (24) in the basis $`\{|E_{ii}\}_i`$ of $`𝒮_d`$ is

$$\frac{\alpha _F^2}{d^2}\underset{i}{}|E_{ii}E_{ii}|+\frac{1\alpha _F^2}{d^3}\underset{ij}{}|E_{ii}E_{jj}|\frac{1\alpha _F^2}{d^3}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1+\frac{d\alpha _F^2}{1\alpha _F^2}& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& 1+\frac{d\alpha _F^2}{1\alpha _F^2}& 1& \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& 1& 1+\frac{d\alpha _F^2}{1\alpha _F^2}& \mathrm{}& 1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& 1+\frac{d\alpha _F^2}{1\alpha _F^2}\end{array}\right).$$
(25)
The Eigenvalues of this matrix can readily be evaluated with the help of Lemma 23 and are found to be $`\lambda _1=\frac{\alpha _F^2}{d^2}`$ with $`d1`$-fold multiplicity and $`\lambda _2=\frac{1}{d^2}`$ (with multiplicity one). Therefore adding the absolute values of the square roots of all Eigenvalues, we arrive at $`\tau (𝔄(\varrho _F))=|\alpha _F|(d\frac{1}{d})+\frac{1}{d}`$. This proves the Proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 24

$`\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho _F))=dF`$ and $`\varrho _F_g=\sqrt{\alpha _F^2\frac{d^21}{d^2}+\frac{1}{d^2}}`$.

Proposition 22 implies that an isotropic state $`\varrho _F`$ is separable if and only if $`\tau (𝔄(\varrho _F))1`$.

### C Werner states

###### Proposition 25

Let $`f[1,1]`$ and $`\varrho _f`$ be the corresponding Werner state, then

$`\tau (𝔄(\varrho _f))=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{2}{d}f:& \text{ for }1f\frac{1}{d}\hfill \\ \hfill f:& \text{ for }1f\frac{1}{d}\hfill \end{array}.`$

*Proof*: We write

$`𝔄(\varrho _f)={\displaystyle \frac{df}{d^3d}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}|E_{ii}E_{jj}|+{\displaystyle \frac{df1}{d^3d}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}|E_{ij}E_{ji}|.`$An argument as above shows that $`𝔄(\varrho _f)^{}𝔄(\varrho _f)`$ has the simple Eigenvalue $`\lambda _0=\frac{1}{d^2}`$ and the degenerate Eigenvalue $`\lambda _1=\frac{(df1)^2}{(d^3d)^2}`$ with multiplicity $`d^21.`$ This shows that $`\tau (𝔄(\varrho _f))=\frac{|df1|}{d}+\frac{1}{d}.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 25 shows that the criterion in Equation (21) is satisfied whenever $`f[\frac{2}{d}1,1]`$. This proves that for Werner states the criterion in Equation (21) is exact if and only if $`d=2`$. In higher dimension $`d3`$ there will always be inseparable Werner states (i.e., those corresponding to $`f[\frac{2}{d}1,0[`$) which satisfy the criterion in Proposition 19 while other inseparable Werner states (i.e., those corresponding to $`f[1,\frac{2}{d}1[`$) violate it.

###### Corollary 26

$`\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho _f))=\frac{f+1}{d+1}`$ and $`𝔄(\varrho _f)_g=\sqrt{\frac{1+f^2}{d^21}\frac{2f}{d(d^21)}}.`$

### D A two qubit example

Denote the canonical real basis in $`^2`$ by $`\{|0,|1\}`$ and consider the following family of states on $`^2^2`$

$`\varrho _pp|0000|+(1p)|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|,`$where $`0p1`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01+|10)`$. Then

$`𝔄(\varrho _p)=p|E_{00}E_{00}|+{\displaystyle \frac{1p}{2}}\left(|E_{00}E_{11}|+|E_{11}E_{00}|+|E_{10}E_{01}|+|E_{01}E_{10}|\right).`$It is straightforward to compute the trace class norm of $`𝔄(\varrho _p)`$. The result is

$`\tau (𝔄(\varrho _p))`$ $`=`$ $`1p+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p)^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\sqrt{p^2+(1p)^2}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p)^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\sqrt{p^2+(1p)^2}}`$
$``$ $`1p+p\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p)^2}{2p^2}}}1`$
with equality if and only if $`p=1`$. Therefore Equation (21) implies that $`\varrho _p`$ is separable if and only if $`p=1`$.

### E Bell diagonal states

We continue to use our notation from Section II E but assume now that (without loss of generality) $`\{|1,|2\}`$ denotes the canonical real basis in $`^2`$. Let $`\varrho `$ be a Bell diagonal state, i.e., a density operator on $`^2^2`$ of the form

$`\varrho ={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}}\lambda _i|\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|.`$Then

$`𝔄(\varrho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0+\lambda _3}{2}}\left(|E_{11}E_{11}|+|E_{22}E_{22}|\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{2}}\left(|E_{11}E_{22}|+|E_{22}E_{11}|\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0\lambda _3}{2}}\left(|E_{12}E_{12}|+|E_{21}E_{21}|\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2}{2}}\left(|E_{12}E_{21}|+|E_{21}E_{12}|\right).`$
Hence

$`𝔄(\varrho )^{}𝔄(\varrho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _0+\lambda _3)^2+(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)^2}{4}}\left(|E_{11}E_{11}|+|E_{22}E_{22}|\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _0+\lambda _3)(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)}{2}}\left(|E_{11}E_{22}|+|E_{22}E_{11}|\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _0\lambda _3)^2+(\lambda _1\lambda _2)^2}{4}}\left(|E_{12}E_{12}|+|E_{21}E_{21}|\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _0\lambda _3)}{2}}\left(|E_{12}E_{21}|+|E_{21}E_{12}|\right).`$
It is straightforward to compute the trace class norm of $`𝔄(\varrho )`$. The result is

$`\tau (𝔄(\varrho ))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+|\lambda _0+\lambda _3\lambda _1\lambda _2|+|\lambda _1\lambda _2|+|\lambda _0\lambda _3|+\left||\lambda _0\lambda _3||\lambda _1\lambda _2|\right|\right)`$ (25-a)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i:\hfill & \text{ if }\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{either}& \lambda _0+\lambda _3\lambda _1+\lambda _2,|\lambda _0\lambda _3||\lambda _1\lambda _2|\hfill \\ \hfill \text{or}& \lambda _0+\lambda _3\lambda _1+\lambda _2,|\lambda _0\lambda _3||\lambda _1\lambda _2|\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ 12\mathrm{min}_i\lambda _i:\hfill & \text{ otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}.`$ (25-f)
To see Equation (25-f) note that

* if $`\lambda _0+\lambda _3\lambda _1+\lambda _2`$ and $`|\lambda _0\lambda _3||\lambda _1\lambda _2|`$, then $`\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i=\mathrm{max}\{\lambda _0,\lambda _3\}`$. Similarly, if $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2\lambda _0+\lambda _3`$ and $`|\lambda _1\lambda _2||\lambda _0\lambda _3|`$, then $`\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i=\mathrm{max}\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2\}`$.
* Conversely, if $`\lambda _0+\lambda _3\lambda _1+\lambda _2`$ and $`|\lambda _0\lambda _3|<|\lambda _1\lambda _2|`$, we find $`\mathrm{min}_i\lambda _i=\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2\}`$. Similarly, if $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2\lambda _0+\lambda _3`$ and $`|\lambda _1\lambda _2|<|\lambda _0\lambda _3|`$, we find $`\mathrm{min}_i\lambda _i=\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _0,\lambda _3\}`$.
* Note also that if $`\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i\frac{1}{2},`$ then we have either the situation that $`\lambda _0+\lambda _3\lambda _1+\lambda _2`$ and $`|\lambda _0\lambda _3||\lambda _1\lambda _2|`$ or that $`\lambda _0+\lambda _3\lambda _1+\lambda _2`$ and $`|\lambda _0\lambda _3||\lambda _1\lambda _2|`$.
*Proof*: To see this, assume without loss of generality that $`\lambda _0=\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i=\frac{1}{2}+\delta `$ for some $`\delta 0.`$ Write $`\lambda _3=\lambda _0ϵ`$, for $`ϵ0.`$ Now assume that $`\lambda _0+\lambda _3\lambda _1+\lambda _2`$, but $`|\lambda _0\lambda _3|<|\lambda _1\lambda _2|`$. Then $`ϵ=\lambda _0\lambda _3<|\lambda _1\lambda _2|\lambda _1+\lambda _2=1\lambda _0\lambda _3=2\delta +ϵ`$. Hence $`2\delta >0`$. This is a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$
* $`|\lambda _0\lambda _3|=|\lambda _1\lambda _2|`$ implies $`2\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i=12\mathrm{min}_i\lambda _i`$.
* $`\lambda _0+\lambda _3=\lambda _1+\lambda _2`$ implies $`2\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i=12\mathrm{min}_i\lambda _i`$.

Thus $`\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i\frac{1}{2}`$ implies that $`\tau (𝔄(\varrho ))=2\mathrm{max}_i\lambda _i`$. Therefore we conclude that $`\tau (𝔄(\varrho ))1`$ if and only if $`\varrho `$ is separable.

*Conclusion of the proof of Theorem 12*: The remaining inequality in the proof of Theorem 12 now follows immediately from $`\tau (𝔄(\varrho ))\varrho _\gamma `$ and the results of this subsection. $`\mathrm{}`$

### F A two qutrit example

Consider $`^3^3`$ and let $`\{|0,|1,|2\}`$ be the canonical real basis in $`^3`$. Consider the following family of qutrit mixed states defined on $`^3^3`$

$$\varrho _\alpha :=\frac{2}{7}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(3)}^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{(3)}^+|+\frac{\alpha }{7}\sigma _++\frac{5\alpha }{7}\sigma _{},$$
(26)
where we restrict ourselves to the parameter range $`2\alpha 5`$, and where

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(3)}^+`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|0|0+|1|1+|2|2\right),`$
$`\sigma _+`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(|0|10|1|+|1|21|2|+|2|02|0|\right)`$
$`\sigma _{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(|1|01|0|+|2|12|1|+|0|20|2|\right).`$
It is known  that $`\varrho _\alpha `$ is (i) separable if and only if $`2\alpha 3`$, (ii) bound entangled if and only if $`3<\alpha 4`$ and (iii) entangled and distillable if and only if $`4<\alpha 5`$.

We have

$`𝔄(\varrho _\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{21}}(|E_{00}E_{00}|+|E_{01}E_{01}|+|E_{02}E_{02}|+|E_{10}E_{10}|+|E_{11}E_{11}|`$
$`+|E_{12}E_{12}|+|E_{20}E_{20}|+|E_{21}E_{21}|+|E_{22}E_{22}|)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{21}}\left(|E_{00}E_{11}|+|E_{11}E_{22}|+|E_{22}E_{00}|\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{5\alpha }{21}}\left(|E_{11}E_{00}|+|E_{22}E_{11}|+|E_{00}E_{22}|\right).`$
Accordingly

$`𝔄(\varrho _\alpha )^{}𝔄(\varrho _\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{441}}\left(|E_{01}E_{01}|+|E_{02}E_{02}|+|E_{10}E_{10}|+|E_{20}E_{20}|+|E_{12}E_{12}|+|E_{21}E_{21}|\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^210\alpha +29}{441}}\left(|E_{00}E_{00}|+|E_{11}E_{11}|+|E_{22}E_{22}|\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{10+5\alpha \alpha ^2}{441}}(|E_{00}E_{11}|+|E_{00}E_{22}|+|E_{11}E_{00}|+|E_{11}E_{22}|`$
$`+|E_{22}E_{00}|+|E_{22}E_{11}|).`$
The corresponding Eigenvalue problem can readily be solved using Ferrers’ formula and we arrive at

$$\tau (𝔄(\varrho _\alpha ))=\frac{19}{21}+\frac{2}{21}\sqrt{1915\alpha +3\alpha ^2}.$$
(27)
It is easy to see that $`\tau (𝔄(\varrho _\alpha ))1`$ if and only if $`2\alpha 3`$, i.e., if and only if $`\varrho _\alpha `$ is separable. This example shows that there are inseparable (bound entangled) states which violate Equation (21) but satisfy the reduction criterion.

### G Concluding remarks

It is known that for $`d3`$ all inseparable Werner states violate the Peres-Horodecki positive partial transpose (ppt) criterion for separability (see ) but do not violate the reduction criterion introduced in . As moreover the bound entangled states in subsection III F satisfy the ppt criterion, it follows from our results in subsections III C and III F that the separability criterion in Equation (21) is neither stronger nor weaker than the positive partial transpose criterion. Moreover, it also follows that the criterion Equation (21) is not weaker than the reduction criterion for separability. By the results of  this also implies that our criterion is not weaker than the entropic separability criteria based on the generalized Rényi and Tsallis entropies. The example in subsection III D implies that the separability criterion in Equation (21) is also not weaker than the criterion proposed by Nielsen and Kempe in  (as the criterion in  completely characterizes the separability properties of isotropic states in arbitrary dimension, but fails for the states $`\varrho _p`$ discussed in subsection III D and for all inseparable Werner states in dimension $`d3`$, see also ). Finally, violating our criterion does not imply distillability.

Acknowledgement Thanks to the members of the Quantum Optics & Information Group at Pavia for their hospitality and in particular to Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano and Shashank Virmani for helpful discussions about entanglement and about quantum information in general. Funding by the European Union project ATESIT (contract IST-2000-29681) is gratefully acknowledged.