arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 7 Nov 2016

Transcription

1 Brazilian Journal of Physics manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Computing partial transposes and related entanglement functions Jonas Maziero arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 7 Nov 2016 Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract The partial transpose (PT) is an important function for entanglement testing and quantification and also for the study of geometrical aspects of the quantum state space. In this article, considering general bipartite and multipartite discrete systems, explicit formulas ready for the numerical implementation of the PT and of related entanglement functions are presented and the Fortran code produced for that purpose is described. What is more, we obtain an analytical expression for the Hilbert-Schmidt entanglement of two-qudit systems and for the associated closest separable state. In contrast to previous works on this matter, we only use the properties of the PT, not applying Lagrange multipliers. Keywords quantum information entanglement partial transpose Hilbert-Schmidt 1 Introduction The correlations among the constituent particles of physical systems are of central importance for science [1]. In quantum information science (QIS) [2, 3, 4], there are several types of correlations [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Entanglement is one kind of quantum correlation, one which is widely recognizes being the fuel for the more efficient realization of several information manipulation tasks [11,12,13,14]. Jonas Maziero Departamento de Física, Centro de Ciências Naturais e Exatas, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Avenida Roraima 1000, , Santa Maria, RS, Brazil Instituto de Física, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de la República, J. Herrera y Reissig 565, 11300, Montevideo, Uruguay jonas.maziero@ufsm.br Entanglement quantifiers (EQs) are functions which are null only for states that can be prepared using local quantum operations and classical communication (the separable states) and which do not increase under such kind of transformation [6]. Nowadays, there are several proposals of EQs in the literature [15, 16]. One common feature of these quantities is that they are very hard to compute analytically in the general case [17, 18]. This motivates the consideration of entanglement functions (EFs), which possess some, but not all, of the properties one may request for a good EQ. The partial transposition (PT) provides the most famous and tractable separability criterion and EFs [19, 20, 21, 22], and is relevant for a myriad of investigations in QIS. In this article, we present a detailed description of the partial transposition map and of related EFs. In addition to that, we obtain an analytical formula for the Hilbert-Schmidt entanglement (HSE) of two-qudit 1 systems and for the associated nearest separable state. We also describe Fortran code 2 produced to compute all the functions regarded here. The remainder of this article is structures follows. In the next section, we start introducing the transposition map (Sec. 2.1). In the sequence we use it to discuss the partial transposition operation in the contexts of bipartite (Sec. 2.2) and of multipartite discrete systems (Sec. 2.3). In Sec. 2.4, we recall the Peres separability criterion and some related EFs. The analytical calculation of the HSE is addressed in Sec. 3. Some final remarks and open questions are included in Sec A qudit is a d-level quantum system. 2 The Fortran code used in this article is part of the Fortran Library for Quantum Information Science and can be accessed freely in: For the description of some related tools, see Refs. [23,24,25, 26,27].

2 2 Jonas Maziero 2 Partial transposes and related entanglement functions 2.1 The transposition map Before introducing the partial transposition map, let s discuss the transposition operation. Let ρ be a general linear operator defined on the Hilbert space H. Let { j } d j1 be an orthonormal basis for H, with d dim H. Then we can write the matrix representation: ρ d j,k1 j ρ k j k. In the sequence, j is assumed to be the standard computational basis in H. By definition, the transposition map T is linear ancts on the computational basis as follows: T( j,k c jk j k ) : j,k with c jk C. Thus, T(ρ) T( d j ρ k j k ) j,k1 d j ρ k k j j,k1 c jk T( j k ) : j,k c jk k j, d j ρ k T( j k ) j,k1 (1) d k T(ρ) j k j. (2) j,k1 Hence the familiar relation between the matrix elements of ρ and of T(ρ) is obtained, i.e., k T(ρ) j j ρ k. We remark that the definition in Eq. (1) is base dependent. So, for another basis β j : U j, with UU I (I is the identity operator in H), the last simple relation would be valid only for the rotated versions of T(ρ) and of ρ, i.e., β k (UT(ρ)U ) β j β j (UρU ) β k. Let s end this sub-section observing that once we have det(t(ρ λi)) det(ρ λi) [28] and T(ρ λi) T(ρ) λi, then the eigenvalues of T(ρ) are the same as those of ρ. An immediate consequence of this result is that their traces are also equal, i.e., Tr(T(ρ)) Tr(ρ). Thus, if ρ is a density operator, i.e., it is positive semidefinite (ρ 0) and has unit trace (Tr(ρ) 1), then T(ρ) is also a valid density operator. This fact is key for the Peres separability criterion, which shall be recalled in Sec Partial transposition for bipartitions In what follows we shall introduce the partial transposition (PT) operation and obtain expressions which are useful for its numerical implementation. Let s start regarding a bipartition of H, H a H b, with dimensions d s : dimh s for s a, b. Any computational base state in H can be cast in terms of the local computational bases as follows: j j a j b j a j b (j a 1)d b +j b, with j s being the computational basis in H s. Hereafter, we assume the the matrix elements of ρ in the product-local computational basis j a j b are known: ρ d b j b,k b 1 j a j b ρ k a k b j a k a j b k b. (3) With this, we arereadyto introduce the, alsolinear, partial transposition operator, which, when taken over sub-system a, is defined by T a T id, with id being the identity map, i.e., id(x) X for all linear operator X on H s. So, T a (ρ) T id(ρ) d b j b,k b 1 j a j b ρ k a k b T( j a k a ) id( j b k b ) j b,k b 1 j aj b ρ k a k b k a j a j b k b j b,k b 1 j aj b ρ k a k b k a j b j a k b. (4) In an analogous manner, when applied to sub-system b the partial transpose leads to T b (ρ) id T(ρ) d b j b,k b 1 j a j b ρ k a k b j a k a T( j b k b ) j b,k b 1 j aj b ρ k a k b j a k a k b j b j b,k b 1 j aj b ρ k a k b j a k b k a j b. (5) In terms of matrix elements we get k a j b T a (ρ) j a k b j a j b ρ k a k b, (6) j a k b T b (ρ) k a j b j a j b ρ k a k b. (7) For numerical calculations, with the notation ρ Ts T s (ρ), we just set ρ Ta ((k a 1)d b +j b,(j a 1)d b +k b ) ρ(α,β), (8) ρ T b ((j a 1)d b +k b,(k a 1)d b +j b ) ρ(α,β), (9) with α (j a 1)d b + j b and β (k a 1)d b + k b for all j s,k s 1,,d s. The PT for bipartite systems is returnedbythe subroutinespartial transpose s(, d b, ρ, T s (ρ)), with s a,b. 2.3 Partial transposition for multipartitions Let s consider a density operator ρ in the Hilbert space H a H b H c : ρ j a j b j c ρ k a k b k c j a j b j c k a k b k c, (10)

3 Computing partial transposes and related entanglement functions 3 with j s and k s being the computational base for H s (s a,b,c) and the sum is made over all j s s and k s s, whichrunfrom1tod s.analogouslytothepreviouscalculations, we apply the definition for the partial transposition over the inner sub-system, T b (ρ) id T id(ρ), (11) to see that j a k b j c ρ T b k a j b k c j a j b j c ρ k a k b k c. (12) For numerical calculations, we use xyz (x 1)d b d c +(y 1)d c +z (13) to directly relate the matrix elements of ρ T b and of ρ in the global computational basis. The subroutine provided to compute the inner partial transposition map is: partial transpose 3(, d b, d c, ρ, T b (ρ)). Now,givenanymultipartite statespace H s 1 H s H s+1 H s 1 H s H s +1, we notice that the partial transposition over the parties s and s can be composes follows: T ss (ρ) T s T s (ρ). (14) With this, the partial transposition over an arbitrary number of subsystems(with arbitrary finite dimensions), can be computed through the composition of the left (Eq. (4)), right (Eq. (5)), and inner (Eq. (11)) partial transpositions describebove. We also provide a subroutine, partial transpose(d, ρ, T p (ρ), nss, di, ssys), which returns the partial transposition in the general case. Regarding the arguments therein, nss is the number of sub-systems, d is the total dimension, di is a vector containing the dimensions of the subsystems, and ssys is a vector with components equal to 0 or 1 for those subsystems over which the PT shall or shall not be applied, respectively. The dimension of di and ssys is equal to nss. 2.4 Peres criterion and entanglement negativity In 1996, A. Peres [19] made the insightful observation that if a state is separable, i.e., if it can be cast as σ j p jσ a j σb j (15) with p j being a probability distribution and σ s j being valid density operators for the sub-system s, then its PT, σ T b (σ) j p jσ a j T(σ b j) j p jσ a j σ b j, (16) isalsoavalid(andseparable)state,because σ b j T(σb j ) are valid density operators (see Sec. 2.1) and the convex combination of positive semidefinite matrices is also a positive semidefinite matrix [29]. So, σ is a positive semidefinite matrix. Therefore, if the PT of a generic density matrix ρ is negative, then this state has to be entangled. This fact indicates that the sum of the absolute values of the negative eigenvalues of the PT of a state would be a possible entanglement quantifier. Actually, the entanglement negativity [21], E n (ρ) 2 1 ( T b (ρ) tr 1), (17) is an entanglement function [6]. In the last equation X tr : Tr X X is the trace norm. The Fortran function negativity(d, T p (ρ)) returns E n once provided the PT of ρ and its dimension. In order to obtain the logarithmic negativity [21, 22], E ln (ρ) : log 2 (2E n (ρ)+1), (18) just change the name of the function to log negativity. It was shown later that the Peres condition is necessary and sufficient only for systems with dimension up to six [20]. For larger dimensions, there may exist entangled states with positive PT [30]. As a matter of fact, there is no known analytically computable entanglement measure for general states [6]. In the next section we ll consider another entanglement function which is not an entanglement quantifier, but which may be a useful analytical tool in several circumstances. 3 Analytical formula for the Hilbert-Schmidt entanglement In this section we shall obtain an analytical expression for the Hilbert-Schmidt entanglement (HSE) and for the associated closest separable state. Our approach is motivatedby Ref. [31], but herewe donot uselagrange multipliers. With this our calculations gain in clarity anvoid possible drawbacks of that method [32]. As mentioned in Sec. 1, computing entanglement quantifiers (EQs) for general states is a very complex task. So, one of the motivations for studying entanglement functions, such as the HSE, is that the insights gained while doing that can shed some light on how we can effectively tackle the complicated optimizations problems involved in the calculation of EQs. On the other hand, the consideration of the HSE, in addition to the entanglement negativity (EN), is appealing because of the geometrical nature of the first. For instance, contrarytotheen,whencomputingthehsewecangetas a byproduct the closest separable state. And this kind of information can be useful, for example, for studying the geometrical aspects of the quantum state space and as an initial ansatz for the calculation of EQs induced by other, more faithful, distinguishability measures.

4 4 Jonas Maziero Let s recall that the Hilbert-Schmidt (HS) norm of a matrix A is definend given by A hs : Tr(A A) j,k j A k 2. (19) The HSE of a state ρ is then defined, using the HS distance, as E hs (ρ) : min σ ρ σ hs, (20) with the minimization running over all separable states. Since the HS norm is invariant under unitary transformations, i.e., it is base independent, we can use the computational basis to verify that the HS distance does not change under taking the PT of its arguments: T b (ρ σ) 2 hs d b j b,k b 1 j b,k b 1 j aj b (T b (ρ) T b (σ)) k a k b 2 j a j b T b (ρ) k a k b j a j b T b (σ) k a k b 2 j b,k b 1 j ak b ρ k a j b j a k b σ k a j b 2 k b,j b 1 j aj b ρ k a k b j a j b σ k a k b 2 j b,k b 1 j aj b (ρ σ) k a k b 2 ρ σ 2 hs. (21) Thus, using this equivalence, we can write E hs (ρ) min σ T b (ρ) T b (σ) hs : min σ ρ T b σ hs. (22) In the sequence we use once more the invariance under unitaries of the HS norm to see that: E hs (ρ) min σ U(ρ T b σ)u hs : min D hs, (23) where, considering that T b (ρ) is an Hermitian operator: (T b (ρ)) d b j b,k b 1 j a j b ρ k a k b ( j a k b k a j b ) j b,k b 1 k ak b ρ j a j b k a j b j a k b (24) j b,k b 1 j aj b ρ k a k b j a k b k a j b T b (ρ), we assumed that U diagonalizes ρ T b, i.e., Uρ T b U D : d j1 D j D j D j, (25) with d d b. Besides we defined the, in principle general and possibly entangled, density operator: U σu. (26) We remark at this point that once we find the optimal, let s call it, then, as T b ( σ) T b (T b (σ)) σ, (27) we have founlso the optimal separable state: σ T b ( σ ) T b (U U). (28) Following with the calculation of the HSE, we use Eqs. (23), (25), and (26) to write E hs (ρ) min Tr(D ) 2 (29) min d j1 D j (D ) d k1 D k D k (D ) D j min ( j,k ( D j D D k D j D k ) min min ( D k D D j D k D j )) 1/2 (D j δ jk D j D k )(D j δ jk D k D j ) j,k jk(d j D j D j ) 2 + j k D j D k 2. From this last expression, we see that E hs is minimized if has no coherences in the eigenbasis of D, i.e., if d j1 j D j D j. (30) So, E hs (ρ) min { j} d j1 d j1 (D j j ) 2. (31) In what follows, it will be useful noticing that, as is a density operator, we have to have j 0 and Tr() d j1 j 1. In addition to that, it will be importantforourcalculationsseeingthatt b (ρ)hasunit trace: Tr(T b (ρ)) d b j b,k b 1 j a1 j a j b ρ k a k b Tr( j a k b k a j b ) j b,k b 1 j aj b ρ k a k b δ jak a δ kb j b j b 1 j aj b ρ j a j b Tr(ρ) 1. (32) Now, let D j +, D j, and D0 j denote the (real) positive, negative, and null eigenvalues of D (and of T b (ρ)). The dimension of the corresponding eigenspaces are denoted, respectively, by d +, d, and d 0 ; thus d + +d + d 0 d. Hence, the unit trace of T b (ρ) leads to: Tr(ρ T b ) 1 Tr(Uρ T b U ) Tr(D) d j1 D j (33) d + j1 d D + j + d 0 D j + 0 j1 j1 d + j1 which is obtained only if d + j1 D+ j in Eq. (31) can be written as E hs (ρ) min { j} d j1 d D + j D j, j1 1. Thus, the HSE ( d+ j1 (D+ j + j )2 (34) + d j1 (D j j )2 + d 0 j1 (0 0 j) 2) 1/2,

5 Computing partial transposes and related entanglement functions 5 where + j, j, and 0 j aretheeigenvaluesof witheigenvectors in the positive, negative, and null eigenspaces of D, respectively. Of course, we shall minimize E hs if we set j 0 : 0 for j 1,,d 0. We also minimize E hs if we set j : 0 for j 1,,d (because any j > 0 would make D j j more negative and hence lead to a greater value of (D j j )2 ). Next, let the positive eigenvalues D j + be arranged in decreasing order and let d + be defined such that 1 ξ : d + 1 j1 D+ j 1 and d + j1 D+ j > 1. (35) Then, considering that S. Rana showed in Ref. [33] that for two-qudit states the eigenvalues of the PT of ρ lie in interval [ 1/2,1], we shall minimize E hs if we set + j D + j for j 1,,d + 1, + d + ξ, (36) + j 0 for j d + +1,,d +. With these choices for j, we ll have a valid density operator. Thus, substituting these values of j in Eq. (34), the minimum value for the Hilbert-Schmidt entanglement of an arbitrary bipartite density matrix shall be given by: Ehs(ρ) 2 (D + d ξ) 2 + d + + jd + +1(D+ j )2 + d j1 (D j )2 d 2 d + + d D + j 1 + (D + j )2 + (D j )2 j1 jd + +1 j1 ( d ) 2 j1 D j d + jd + +1D+ j + d + jd + +1(D+ j )2 + d j1 (D j )2. (37) We observe that E hs is written above in terms of (all) the negative eigenvalues of T b (ρ) and in terms of its d + d + smaller positive eigenvalues. If the state under analysis is separable, then, in addition to the eigenvalues of T b (ρ) being positive (i.e., d 0), we have d + d + 1 and therefore E hs (σ) 0, as expected. Besides, E hs (ρ) > 0 whenever E n (ρ) > 0. To obtain the closest separable state (CSS), we start using the optimal j s to write Eq. (30) as follows: d j1 j D j D j (38) d + 1 j1 D+ j D+ j D+ j +ξ D+ d + D + d + + d + jd D+ j D+ j + d j1 0 D j D j + d 0 j1 0 D0 j D0 j d + 1 j1 D+ j D+ j D+ j +ξ D+ d + D + d +. Thus, using Eq. (28) and noticing from Eq. (25) that if T b (ρ) : d j1 D j R j R j then R j U D j, we get σ T b ( d + 1 j1 D+ j R+ j R+ j +ξ R+ d + R + d + ) : T b (Ξ). (39) So, as R + j is the eigenvector of T b(ρ) corresponding to its j-th positive eigenvalue, we have written σ in terms of quantities directly related to the PT of ρ. Actually, the closest separable state from ρ is seem to be the PT of the mixture of the d + eigenvectors of T b (ρ) corresponding to its d + greater eigenvalues; with the weights given by the eigenvalues themselves or by ξ. The HSE, Eq. (37), and the matrix Ξ in Eq. (39), whoseptgivesthecss,arereturnedbythesubroutine entanglement hs(d, T b (ρ), E hs, css), with css being a character(1) variable. If css y then, on exit,ξ isreturnedint b (ρ).if css n and/ore hs (ρ) 0 then Ξ is not computend T b (ρ) is not modified. As an example, in Fig. 1 we show E n and E hs calculated for the two- and three-qubit Werner states: ρ w n w Φ n Φ n +(1 w)2 n I 2 n, (40) where w [0,1], Φ 2 2 1/2 ( ), Φ 3 2 1/2 ( ), and I 2 n is the 2 n x2 n identity matrix Fig. 1 (color online) Entanglement negativity and Hilbert- Schmidt entanglement for the two- and three-qubit Werner states of Eq. (40). These states are fully separable for w less than 1/3 and 1/5, respectively [34]. In the two cases we apply the partial transposition to one of the qubits, the other two are regardes a ququart. For ρ w 2 the positive eigenvalues of its partial transpose are not usend the increasing rate of E hs with w is constant. However, for ρ w 3, because of the changes of d + with w, the number of positive eigenvalues involved in the calculation of E hs also changes, and this leads to the behavior shown in the plot.

6 6 Jonas Maziero 4 Concluding remarks In this article, we presente thorough description of the partial transposition (PT) map and of related entanglement functions. We producend described free Fortran code to compute all of these functions. Besides, considering two-qudit systems, we obtainen analytical expression for the Hilbert-Schmidt entanglement (HSE) and for the associated nearest separable state. In our derivation, we used basically the properties of the PT of a state. So, in addition to its simplicity and clarity, our approach may be more suitable when compared to the application of Lagrange multipliers [32]. It is worthwhile remarking that the HS distance (HSD) is not generally contractive under quantum operations [35, 36]. This fact has motivated critiques regarding its use for quantum correlations quantification [37,38]. Although the HSD can still be a formidable tool for several kinds of inquires [39,40,41,42,43,44, 45, 46], it would be interesting verifying if the procedure presented here to compute the HSE can be extended to other distance measures possessing more of the wanted good properties. In this direction, it is interesting observing that the l 1 -norm, which when computed using the basis B { b j } is given by A B l 1 j,k b j A b k, was shown to lead to a faithful quantum coherence quantifier (in contrast to A hs ) [47]. In fact, if B is the computational basis: C { j a j b }, we can show, in an analogous manner to the verification in Sec. 3, that ρ σ C l 1 T b (ρ σ) C l 1. (41) However, the lack of unitary invariance of the l 1 -norm [48] seems to complicate its application in this scenario; so we leave the verification of this possibility as an open problem. As an alternative, it would be interesting considering also the r 1 -norm, introduced in Ref. [49], and its quantum extension for application in this context. It remains though to be investigated if the induced distance measure retains the properties of unitary-invariance, computability, PT-invariance, and contractivity under quantum operations. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Brazilian funding agencies: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), processes / and /2014-2, Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia de Informação Quântica (INCT-IQ), process 2008/ , and Coordenação de Desenvolvimento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), process 6531/ I thank the hospitality of the Physics Institute and Laser Spectroscopy Group at the Universidad de la República, Uruguay. I also thank Adriana Auyuanet for bringing Ref. [31] to my attention. References 1. N.D. Mermin, What is quantum mechanics trying to tell us? Am. J. Phys. 66, 753 (1998) 2. M.A. Nielsen, I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000) 3. J. Preskill, Quantum Information and Computation, theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph M.M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2013) 5. B. Groisman, S. Popescu, A. Winter, On the quantum, classical and total amount of correlations in a quantum state. Phys. Rev. A 72, (2005) 6. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009) 7. L.C. Céleri, J. Maziero, R.M. Serra, Theoretical and experimental aspects of quantum discornd related measures. Int. J. Quantum Inf. 9, 1837 (2011) 8. D.O. Soares-Pinto, R. Auccaise, J. Maziero, A. Gavini- Viana, R.M. Serra, L.C. Celeri, On the quantumness of correlations in nuclear magnetic resonance. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 4821 (2012) 9. N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality. Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014) 10. D. Cavalcanti, P. Skrzypczyk, Quantum steering: A short review with focus on semidefinite programming. arxiv: M.D. Reid, P.D. Drummond, W.P. Bowen, E.G. Cavalcanti, P.K. Lam, H.A. Bachor, U.L. Andersen, G. Leuchs, The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: From concepts to applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1727 (2009) 12. C.S. Castro, O.S. Duarte, D.P. Pires, D.O. Soares-Pinto, M.S. Reis, Thermal entanglement and teleportation in a dipolar interacting system. Phys. Lett. A 380, 1571 (2016) 13. N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, Quantum cryptography. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002) 14. L. Maccone, Quantum metrology: Why entanglement? Phys. Rev. A 88, (2013) 15. M.B. Plenio, S. Virmani, An introduction to entanglement measures. Quant. Inf. Comput. 7, 1 (2007) 16. L. Aolita, F. de Melo, L. Davidovich, Open-system dynamics of entanglement. Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, (2015) 17. S. Gharibian, Strong NP-hardness of the quantum separability problem. Quant. Inf. Comp. 10, 343 (2010) 18. Y. Huang, Computing quantum discord is NP-complete. New J. Phys. 16, (2014) 19. A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996) 20. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Separability of mixed states: Necessary and sufficient conditions. Phys. Lett. A 223, 1 (1996) 21. G. Vidal, R.F. Werner, A computable measure of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 65, (2002) 22. M.B. Plenio, The logarithmic negativity: A full entanglement monotone that is not convex. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005) 23. J. Maziero, Generating pseudo-random discrete probability distributions: About the iid, normalization, and trigonometric methods. Braz. J. Phys. 45, 377 (2015) 24. J. Maziero, Random sampling of quantum states: A survey of methods. Braz. J. Phys. 45, 575 (2015) 25. J. Maziero, Fortran code for generating random probability vectors, unitaries, and quantum states. Front. ICT 3, 4 (2016)

7 Computing partial transposes and related entanglement functions J. Maziero, Computing coherence vectors and correlation matrices, with application to quantum discord quantification. Adv. Math. Phys. 2016, (2016) 27. J. Maziero, Computing partial traces and reduced density matrices. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 28, (2017) 28. K. Kuttler, Elementary Linear Algebra (Textbook Equity Edition, 2014) 29. R.A. Horn, C.R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 2013) 30. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Mixed-state entanglement and distillation: Is there a bound entanglement in nature? Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5239 (1998) 31. F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, B. De Moor, On the geometry of entangled states. J. Mod. Opt. 49, 1277 (2002) 32. N. Jing, B. Yu, Quantum discord of X-states as optimization of one variable function. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, (2016) 33. S. Rana, Negative eigenvalues of partial transposition of arbitrary bipartite states. Phys. Rev. A 87, (2013) 34. A.O. Pittenger, M.H. Rubin, Note on separability of the Werner states in arbitrary dimensions. Opt. Comm. 179, 447 (2000) 35. D. Pérez-García, M.M. Wolf, D. Petz, M.B. Ruskai, Contractivity of positive and trace-preserving maps under L p norms. J. Math. Phys. 47, (2006) 36. X. Wang, S.G. Schirmer, Contractivity of the Hilbert- Schmidt distance under open-system dynamics. Phys. Rev. A 79, (2009) 37. M. Ozawa, Entanglement measures and the Hilbert- Schmidt distance. Phys. Lett. A 268, 158 (2000) 38. M. Piani, The problem with the geometric discord. Phys. Rev. A 86, (2012) 39. B. Dakic, Y.O. Lipp, X. Ma, M. Ringbauer, S. Kropatschek, S. Barz, T. Paterek, V. Vedral, A. Zeilinger, C. Brukner, P. Walther, Quantum discors resource for remote state preparation. Nat. Phys. 8, 666 (2012) 40. R.A. Bertlmann, H. Narnhofer, W. Thirring, A geometric picture of entanglement and Bell inequalities. Phys. Rev. A 66, (2002) 41. R.A. Bertlmann, K. Durstberger, B.C. Hiesmayr, P. Krammer, Optimal entanglement witnesses for qubits and qutrits. Phys. Rev. A 72, (2005) 42. J. Lee, M.S. Kim, C. Brukner, Operationally invariant measure of the distance between quantum states by complementary measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, (2003) 43. B. Tamir, E. Cohen, A Holevo-type bound for a Hilbert Schmidt distance measure. J. Quant. Inf. Science 05, 127 (2015) 44. V.V. Dodonov, O.V. Man ko, V.I. Man ko, A. Wünsche, Hilbert-Schmidt distance and non-classicality of states in quantum optics. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 633 (2000) 45. K. Zyczkowski, H.-J. Sommers, Hilbert-Schmidt volume of the set of mixed quantum states. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36, (2003) 46. S. Popescu, A.J. Short, A. Winter, Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics. Nat. Phys. 2, 754 (2006) 47. T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, M.B. Plenio, Quantifying coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, (2014) 48. T. Nakano, M. Piani, G. Adesso, Negativity of quantumness and its interpretations. Phys. Rev. A 88, (2013) 49. C. Ding, D. Zhou, X. He, H. Zha, R1-PCA: Rotational invariant L1-norm principal component analysis for robust subspace factorization. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine Learning (ACM, 2006)