text:
# Fission widths of hot nuclei from Langevin dynamics

## I INTRODUCTION

Fission of highly excited compound nuclei formed in heavy ion induced fusion reactions has emerged as a topic of considerable theoretical and experimental interest in recent years. Multiplicity measurements of light particles and photons emitted in the prescission stage strongly suggest  that fission is a much slower process for hot nuclei than that determined from the statistical model of Bohr and Wheeler  based on phase space arguements. This led to a revival of theoretical studies based on the original work of Kramers  who considered fission of excited nuclei as a consequence of thermal fluctuations. Dynamical models for fission based on Fokker-Planck equation  and Langevin equation  were subsequently developed.

The most extensive application of Langevin equation to study fission dynamics was made by Froebrich et. al . A combined dynamical and statistical model for fission was employed in their calculations where a switching over to a statistical model description was made when the fission process reached the stationary regime. Fission widths which are required for the statistical branch of the calculation were obtained from the stationary limits of fission rates from Langevin equation . The dissipative property of nuclei is an important input to the Langevin dynamical calculations, the choice of which is not yet fully settled and continues to be an open question. A detailed comparison  of the calculated fission probability and prescission neutron multiplicity excitation functions for a number of nuclei with the experimental data led to a phenomenological shape dependent nuclear friction. The phenomenological friction turned out to be considerably smaller ($`10\%`$) than the standard wall formula value for nuclear friction for compact shapes of the fissioning nucleus whereas a strong increase of this friction was found to be necessary at large deformations. A clear physical picture for such a friction is yet to be developed and the present work is an effort in this direction.

The wall formula for nuclear friction was developed by Blocki et al.  in a simple classical picture of one-body dissipation. It was also derived from a formal theory based on classical linear response theory . One crucial assumption of the wall formula concerns the randomization of the particle (nucleon) motion due to the successive collisions it suffers at the nuclear surface. In other words, a complete mixing in the classical phase space of the particle motion is required. It was early realized  that any deviation from this randomization assumption would give rise to a reduced strength of the wall formula. Further, Nix and Sierk suggested  in their analysis of mean fragment kinetic energy data that the dissipation is about four times weaker than that predicted by the wall plus window formula of one-body dissipation. However, it is only recently that a modification of the wall formula has been proposed  in which the full randomization assumption is relaxed in order to make it applicable to systems in which the mixing in phase space is partial. Considering only those chaotic particle trajectories which arise due to irregularity in the shape of the one-body potential and which are responsible for irreversible energy tranfer, a modified friction coefficient was obtained in Ref.. In what follows, we shall use the term ”chaos weighted wall formula” (CWWF) for this modified friction in order to distinguish it from the original wall formula (WF) friction. As was shown in Ref., the CWWF friction coefficient $`\eta _{cwwf}`$ will be given as,

$`\eta _{cwwf}=\mu \eta _{wf},`$ (1)
where $`\eta _{wf}`$ is the friction coefficient as was given by the original wall formula  and $`\mu `$ is a measure of chaos (chaoticity) in the single-particle motion and depends on the instantaneous shape of the nucleus. The value of chaoticity $`\mu `$ changes from 0 to 1 as the nucleus evolves from the spherical shape to a highly deformed one. The CWWF friction is thus much smaller than WF friction for compact nuclear shapes while they become closer at large deformations. The CWWF friction was subsequently found  to describe satisfactorily the collective energy damping of cavities containing classical particles and undergoing time-dependent shape evolutions. Thus the supression of the strength of wall formula friction achieved in chaos weighted wall formula suggests that chaos in single particle motion (rather lack of it) can provide a physical explanation for the reduction in strength of friction for compact nuclear shapes as required in the phenomenological friction of Ref. and this has motivated us to apply CWWF friction to fission dynamics in the present work.

We shall present in this paper a systematic study of fission rates by using both CWWF and WF frictions in Langevin equation. The aim of our study is twofold. First, we would like to find the effect of introducing the chaoticity factor in friction on fission rate at different excitation energies and spins of the compound nucleus. The second one concerns a parametric representation of the fission widths the need for which arises as follows. Fission width is an essential input along with particle and $`\gamma `$ widths for a statistical theory in the stationary branch of compound nucleus decay. Kramers  obtained a simple expression for the stationary fission width assuming a large separation between the saddle and scission points and a constant friction. Gontchar et. al  later derived a more general expression taking the scission point explicitly into account but still assuming a constant friction coefficient. The CWWF friction however is not constant and is strongly shape dependent and hence the corresponding stationary fission width cannot be analytically obtained. Thus it becomes necessary to find a suitable parametrization of the numerically obtained stationary fission widths using CWWF friction in order to use them in the statistical regime of the compound nucleus decay. We shall concentrate upon the parametric representation of fission widths in the present work while the application of CWWF friction in a full dynamical plus statistical model will be reported in a future publication.

We shall describe the Langevin equation along with the necessary inputs as used in the present calculation in the next section. The calculated fission rates and the systematics of the stationary fission widths will be given in Sec.III. A summary of the results will be presented in the last section.

## II LANGEVIN EQUATION FOR FISSION

### A  Nuclear shape, potential and inertia

In order to specify the collective coordinates for a dynamical description of nuclear fission, we will use the $`c,h,\alpha `$ parametrisation of Brack et. al . We will consider only symmetric fission ($`\alpha =0`$) and will further neglect the neck degree of freedom ($`h=0`$) to simplify the calculation. The surface of a nucleus of mass number $`A`$ will then be defined as,

$`\rho ^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{c_o^2}}\right)(a_oc_o^2+b_oz^2),`$ (2)
where

$`c_o`$ $`=`$ $`cR,`$ (3)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`1.16A^{\frac{1}{3}},`$ (4)
and

$`a_o`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_o}{5}},`$ (5)
$`b_o`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c1}{2}},`$ (6)
in cylindrical coordinates for the elongation parameter $`c`$. Considering $`c`$ and its conjugate momentum $`p`$ as the dynamical variables, the Langevin equation in one dimension will be given  as,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{c}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{F}{c}}\eta \dot{c}+R(t),`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dc}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{m}}.`$ (8)
In the above equations, $`m`$ and $`\eta `$ are the shape-dependent collective inertia and friction coefficients respectively. The free energy of the system is denoted by $`F`$ while $`R(t)`$ represents the random part of the interaction between the fission degree of freedom and the rest of the nuclear degrees of freedom considered as a thermal bath in the present picture.

We will use the Werner-Wheeler approximation for incompressible irrotational flow to calculate the collective inertia . The driving force in a thermodynamic system should be derived from the free energy for which we will use the following expression valid for the Fermi gas model ,

$$F(c,T)=V(c)a(c)T^2,$$
(9)
where $`T`$ is the temperature of the system and $`a(c)`$ is the coordinate dependent level density parameter which is given as ,

$$a(c)=a_vA+a_sA^{\frac{2}{3}}B_s(c).$$
(10)
The values for the parameters $`a_v`$, $`a_s`$ and the dimensionless surface area $`B_s`$ are chosen following Ref..

For the potential energy $`V(c)`$, it is only the deformation dependent part of it which is relevant for our calculation. This deformation dependent potential energy is obtained from the finite range liquid drop model  where we calculate the generalized nuclear energy by double folding the uniform density within the surface (Eq.2) with a Yukawa-plus-exponential potential. The Coulomb energy is obtained by double folding another Yukawa function with the density distribution. The various input parameters are taken from Ref. where they were determined from fitting fission barriers of a wide range of nuclei. The centrifugal part of the potential is calculated using the rigid body moment of inertia.

The instantaneous random force $`R(t)`$ plays a very crucial role in the Langevin description of nuclear fission. As a result of receiving incessant random kicks, the fission degree of freedom can finally pick up enough kinetic energy to overcome the fission barrier. This random force is modelled after that of a typical Brownian motion and is assumed to have a stochastic nature with a Gaussian distribution whose average is zero . It is further assumed that $`R(t)`$ has extremely short correlation time implying that the intrinsic nuclear dynamics is Markovian. Consequently the strength of the random force can be obtained from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem and the properties of $`R(t)`$ can be written as,

$`R(t)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)
$`R(t)R(t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta T\delta (tt^{}).`$ (12)
### B One-body dissipation

One-body dissipation was used more successfully in fission dynamics than two-body viscosity in the past . Accordingly, we shall consider the one-body wall-and-window dissipation  to account for the friction coefficient $`\eta `$ in the Langevin equation. For the one-body wall dissipation, we shall use the chaos weighted wall formula (Eq.1) introduced in the preceeding section. In order to arrive at this expression, the particle trajectories moving in the one-body nuclear potential were identified as either regular or chaotic depending on their nature of time evolution . Originating from a given point near the nuclear surface and moving in a given direction, a regular trajectory closes smoothly in phase space. On the other hand, another trajectory leaving the same point but in a different direction could be a chaotic one which does not close in phase space. Considering the contributions of these two types of trajectories separately, it was argued in Refs.  that only the chaotic trajectories give rise to the irreversible energy transfer and the resulting friction coefficient acting on the wall motion will be as given in Eq.1 . The chaoticity $`\mu `$ is a measure of chaos in the single-particle motion of the nucleons within the nuclear volume and in the present classical picture will be given as the average fraction of the trajectories which are chaotic when the sampling is done uniformly over the nuclear surface.

The chaoticity is a specific property of the nonintegrability of the nuclear shape. Thus it is required to be calculated for all possible shapes upto the scission configuration. A typical calculation of chaoticity for a given shape proceeds as follows. The initial coordinates of a classical trajectory starting from the nuclear surface is chosen by sampling of a suitably defined set of random numbers such that all the initial coordinates follow an uniform distribution over the nuclear surface. The initial direction of the trajectory is also chosen randomly and its Lyapunov exponent is then obtained by following the trajectory for a considerable length of time. Each trajectory is identified as regular or chaotic by considering the magnitude of its Lyapunov exponent and the nature of its variation with time. The details of this procedure are given in Ref..

We have calculated the chaoticity for a range of shapes from oblate to the scission configuration (at $`c=2.08`$ where the neck radius becomes zero) at small steps of $`c`$, the elongation coordinate. Figure 1 shows the calculated values of chaoticity which will be subsequently employed to obtain the chaos weighted wall formula friction. It is important to note here that chaoticity is very small for near spherical shapes ($`c1`$). This immediately implies, through Eq.1, a strong suppression of the original wall formula friction for compact shapes of the compound nucleus. Chaoticity however increases as the shape becomes more oblate or changes towards scission configuration. We find here that the full chaotic regime ($`\mu =1`$) in single particle dynamics is not reached even at the scission configuration. This observation is specific to the shape parametrization (Eq.2) used in the present calculation. It was observed earlier that the value of chaoticity reaches $`1`$ near the scission point when Legendre polynomial $`P_2`$ deformed quadrupole shapes were considered . It is difficult to speculate at this point to what extent the final calculated observables will be sensitive to the choice of the shape parametrisation.

We shall use the following expression to calculate the wall formula friction coefficient ,

$`\eta _{wf}(c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi \rho _m\overline{v}\{{\displaystyle _{z_{min}}^{z_N}}({\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{c}})^2[\rho ^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{z}}\right)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}dz`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle _{z_N}^{z_{max}}}({\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_2}{c}})^2[\rho ^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{z}}\right)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}dz\},`$
where $`\rho _m`$ is the mass density of the nucleus, $`\overline{v}`$ is the average nucleon speed inside the nucleus and $`D_1`$, $`D_2`$ are the positions of the centers of mass of the two parts of the fissioning system relative to the center of mass of the whole system. $`z_{min}`$ and $`z_{max}`$ are the two extreme ends of the nuclear shape along the $`z`$ axis and $`z_N`$ is the position of the neck plane which divides the nucleus into two parts. The chaos weighted wall formula friction is subsequently obtained from Eq.1 as $`\eta _{cwwf}(c)=\mu (c)\eta _{wf}(c)`$. Defining a quantity $`\beta (c)=\eta (c)/m(c)`$ as the reduced friction coefficient, its dependence on the elongation coordinate is shown in Fig.2 for both WF and CWWF frictions for the $`{}_{}{}^{200}Pb`$ nucleus. The reduction in the strength of the wall friction due to chaos considerations is evident from this figure.

We shall now consider the role of window friction in one-body dissipation. The window friction is expected to be effective after a neck is formed in the nuclear system . Further, the radius of the neck connecting the two future fragments should be sufficiently narrow in order to enable a particle which has crossed the window from one side to the other to remain within the other fragment for a sufficiently long time. This is necessary to allow the particle to suffer enough collisions within the other side and make the energy transfer irreversible. It therefore appears that the window friction should be very nominal when neck formation just begins. Its strength should however increase as the neck becomes narrower reaching its classical value when the neck radius becomes much smaller than the typical radii of the fragments. Little is however known regarding the detailed nature of such a transition. We shall therefore refrain from making any further assumption regarding the onset of window friction. Instead, we shall define a critical elongation coordinate $`c_{win}`$ beyond which the window friction will be switched on. The window friction coefficient will then be given as,

$$\eta _{win}(c)=\theta (cc_{win})\frac{1}{2}\rho _m\overline{v}\left(\frac{R}{c}\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ,$$
(15)
where

$`\theta (cc_{win})`$ $`=`$ $`0forc<c_{win},`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`1forcc_{win},`$ (17)
and $`R`$ is the distance between centers of mass of future fragments and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ is the area of the window between the two parts of the system. The full one-body friction will now be written as,

$$\eta (c)=\eta _{wall}(c)+\eta _{win}(c),$$
(18)
and in what follows, we will use either $`\eta _{wf}`$ or $`\eta _{cwwf}`$ for $`\eta _{wall}`$ in the above expression. For the window friction, the value of $`c_{win}`$ is taken as 1.9 where the neck radius is half of the fragment radius. Figure 3 shows the reduced one-body friction coefficients. The phenomenological reduced friction obtained in Ref. is also shown in Fig.3. Though the one-body friction with CWWF agrees qualitatively with the phenomenological friction for $`c<1.5`$, it is beyond its scope to explain the steep increase of phenomenological friction for $`c>1.5`$. It may be noted however that the compulsion of having a very strong friction at large deformations was to allow enough neutrons to evaporate during the saddle to scission transition ( i.e. after fission has taken place) in order to fit the experimental prescission neutron multiplicities for very heavy nuclei . Therefore, the role of a very strong friction beyond the saddle point will not be significant for fission rates which is of our present concern.

## III RESULTS

With all the necessary inputs defined as above, the Langevin equation (Eq.8) is numerically integrated following the procedure outlined in Ref.. A very small time step of $`0.005\mathrm{}/MeV`$ for numerical integration is used in the present work. The numerical stability of the results is checked by repeating a few calculations with still smaller time steps. The initial distribution of the coordinates and momenta are assumed to be close to equilibrium and hence the initial values of $`(c,p)`$ are chosen from sampling random numbers following the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Starting with a given total excitation energy ($`E^{}`$) and angular momentum ($`l`$) of the compound nucleus, the energy conservation in the following form,

$$E^{}=E_{int}+V(c)+p^2/2m$$
(19)
gives the intrinsic excitation energy $`E_{int}`$ and the corresponding nuclear temperature $`T=(E_{int}/a)^{1/2}`$ at each integration step. The centrifugal potential is included in $`V(c)`$ in the above equation. A Langevin trajectory will be considered as undergone fission if it reaches the scission point ($`c_{sci}`$) in course of its time evolution. The calculations are repeated for a large number (typically 100,000 or more) of trajectories and the number of fission events are recorded as a function of time. From these, the fission rates can be easily evaluated .

A typical Langevin trajectory which has reached the scission point and has ended up as a fission event is shown in Fig.4 (upper panel). Another trajectory, the kind of which is less frequent, is shown in the lower panel of the same figure. The Langevin trajectory in this case crosses the saddle point and after spending some time beyond the saddle point drifts back into the potential pocket again. Such trajectories may or may not finally reach the scission point within the observation time and corresponds to a to-and-fro motion across the saddle and essentially portrays the stochastic nature of the dynamics. This point is further illustrated in Fig.5 where time development of the fission rates are plotted. Two different criteria are used to define a fission event here. The filled circles correspond to fission events defined as those trajectories reaching the scission point whereas the open circles correspond to those crossing the saddle point. The fission rate is very small for both the cases at the beginning when the compound nucleus is just formed and the Langevin dynamics has just been turned on. Subsequently the fission rate grows with time and after a certain equilibration time it reaches a stationary value which corresponds to a steady flow across the barrier. The fission rate defined at the saddle point reaches the stationary value earlier than that defined at the scission point. The time difference between them gives the average time of descent from the saddle to the scission. This observation was also made in earlier works . The main purpose of the present discussion is to investigate the role of backstreaming in the fission process. It is observed in Fig.5 that the stationary fission rate at saddle point is higher than that at the scission point. The difference between these two stationary rates can be regarded as due to backstreaming. The backstreaming is thus small compared to the steady outward flow though it is not negligible. This also shows that crossing the saddle point is not an adequate criteria for fission in stochastic calculations and can lead to an overestimation of the fission rate.

We shall now compare fission rates calculated with chaos weighted wall-and- window friction with those obtained with wall-and-window friction (Eq.18). Figure 6 shows the fission widths at three spins of the compound nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{200}Pb`$. The effect of suppression in the chaos weighted wall formula shows up as an enhancement by about a factor of 2 of the stationary fission rates. Similar enhancement of the stationary fission rate calculated with chaos weighted wall-and-window friction in comparison with that obtained with wall-and-window friction are also observed for a wide range of compound nuclear spin and temperature. The enhancement factor (of about 2) remains almost the same when different choices of $`c_{win}`$ are used in the window friction (Eq.15).

We next systematically extracted the stationary fission widths at different temperatures for a given spin of the compound nucleus. This was done by taking the average of the fission rates in the plateau region. These fission rates are essentially the Kramers’ limit of the Langevin equation under consideration and we expect the stationary fission widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ to depend upon the temperature $`T`$ as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f(l,T)=A_l\mathrm{exp}(b_f/T)`$ for a given spin ($`l`$) of the compound nucleus where $`b_f`$ is the height of the fission barrier in the free energy profile and $`A_l`$ is a parameter. Such a dependence of stationary fission widths on temperature was indeed found and is shown in Fig.7. The parameter $`A_l`$ can now be extracted by fitting the calculated fission widths with the above expression. Subsequently we looked into the dependence of the parameter $`A_l`$ on $`l`$, a few typical plots of which are shown in Fig.8. Using these values of $`A_l`$, one can now obtain this parameter value for any arbitrary spin by interpolation. Even with a limited number of calculated values, the interpolated values will be quite reliable since $`A_l`$ depends on $`l`$ rather weakly as can be seen in Fig.8. Consequently it becomes possible to extract the fission width of a compound nucleus of any given temperature and spin from a set of a limited number of calculated widths. This fact will be very useful in statistical model calculations where fission widths are required at numerous values of temperature and spin which are encountered during evolution of a compound nucleus. Therefore in such cases where analytical expressions for fission widths cannot be obtained, the above systematics can generate fission widths from a limited set of calculations.

Two time scales are of physical significance in the Langevin description of dynamics of fission. One is the equilibration time $`\tau _{eq}`$, the time required to attain a steady flow across the barrier. The other is the fission life time $`\tau _f=\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$. Figure 9 shows these time intervals for different values of spin of the compound nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{200}Pb`$. At very small values of spin, the fission life time is many times longer than the equilibration time. This means that a statistical theory for compound nuclear decay is applicable in such cases. On the other hand, $`\tau _{eq}`$ and $`\tau _f`$ become comparable at higher values of the compound nuclear spin and this corresponds to a dynamics dominated decay of the compound nucleus. Statistical models are not meaningful in these cases and dynamical descriptions such as Langevin equation become essential for fission of a compound nucleus.

## IV SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

In the preceeding sections, we have presented a systematic study of fission dynamics using Langevin equation. Among the various physical inputs required for solving the Langevin equation, we paid particular attention to the dissipative force for which we chose the wall-and-window one-body friction. We used a modified form of wall friction, the chaos weighted wall formula, in our calculation. The chaos weighted wall formula took into account the nonintegrabilty of single particle motion in the nucleus and it resulted in a strong suppression of friction strength for near spherical shapes of the nucleus. The fission widths calculated with chaos weighted wall formula turned out to be about twice the widths calculated with the normal wall formula friction. The chaos weighted wall friction thus enhances the fission rate substantially compared to that obtained with normal wall friction.

We further made a parametric representation of the calculated fission widths in terms of the temperature and spin of the compound nucleus. It was found that this parametrised form can be well determined from the fission widths calculated over a grid of spin and temperature values of limited size. This fact would make it possible to perform statistical model calculation of the decay of a highly excited compound nucleus where the fission widths are to be determined from a dynamical model such as the Langevin equation. When the friction form factor has a strong shape dependence as in the chaos weighted wall formula, the corresponding fission widths cannot be obtained in an analytic form. In such cases, the frequently required values of the fission width in a statistical model calculation can be made economically accessible through the parametrised representation of the fission width which has to be obtained in a separate calculation similar to the present one. We shall report on such applications of the parametrised fission widths in compound nuclear decay in our future works.


format: text

text:
# Relaxation Method For Calculating Quantum Entanglement

## Abstract

In a previous paper, we showed how entanglement of formation can be defined as a minimum of the quantum conditional mutual information (a.k.a. quantum conditional information transmission). In classical information theory, the Arimoto-Blahut method is one of the preferred methods for calculating extrema of mutual information. In this paper, we present a new method, akin to the Arimoto-Blahut method, for calculating entanglement of formation. We also present several examples computed with a computer program called Causa Común that implements the ideas of this paper.

## 1 Introduction

This paper continues a series of papers- investigating the connection between quantum entanglement and conditional information transmission (a.k.a conditional mutual information, abbreviated CMI). In the last paper of that series, we expressed the entanglement of formation as a minimum of the quantum CMI. Eureka! In classical information theory, one of the preferred methods for numerically calculating extrema of mutual information is the Arimoto-Blahut algorithm -. One wonders whether something akin to that algorithm can be used to calculate entanglement. After much huffing and puffing, we have found the answer to be yes. In this paper we present our first results. More specifically, we present a new algorithm that yields the entanglement of formation of any bi-partite density matrix and a corresponding optimum decomposition of that density matrix. Generalization of the algorithm to n-partite systems appears straightforward but we do not address it here. We also describe a C++ computer program called Causa Común that implements the ideas of this paper. Finally, we present some examples computed with Causa Común.

Prior to us, as far as we know, only one group of researchers has ever used a quantum version of the Arimoto-Blahut algorithm. They used it to calculate quantum channel capacities.

There exist other excellent computer programs, written prior to ours, that can calculate various features of quantum entanglement. See Ref. and . The software described in Ref. also calculates entanglement of formation and optimal decompositions, but it uses a conjugate gradient method that is very different from ours.

## 2 Notation

In this section, we will introduce certain notation which is used throughout the paper.

Let $`Bool=\{0,1\}`$. For any finite set $`S`$, let $`|S|`$ denote the number of elements in $`S`$. The Kronecker delta function $`\delta (x,y)`$ equals one if $`x=y`$ and zero otherwise. We will often abbreviate $`\delta (x,y)`$ by $`\delta _y^x`$. Sometimes we will replace an index by the symbol “$``$”. By this we mean that all values of the index are included. For example, if we are dealing with $`w_\alpha `$ where $`\alpha \{1,2,\mathrm{}n\}`$, $`w_{}`$ will represent the vector $`(w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_n)`$. For any Hilbert space $``$, $`dim()`$ will stand for the dimension of $``$. If $`|\psi `$, then we will often represent the projection operator $`|\psi \psi |`$ by $`\pi (\psi )`$.

We will underline random variables. For example, we might write $`P(\underset{¯}{x}=x)`$ or $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}}(x)`$ for the probability that the random variable $`\underset{¯}{x}`$ assumes value $`x`$. $`P(\underset{¯}{x}=x)=P_{\underset{¯}{x}}(x)`$ will often be abbreviated by $`P(x)`$ when no confusion is likely. $`S_{\underset{¯}{x}}`$ will denote the set of values which the random variable $`\underset{¯}{x}`$ may assume, and $`N_{\underset{¯}{x}}`$ will denote the number of elements in $`S_{\underset{¯}{x}}`$. With each random variable $`\underset{¯}{x}`$, we will associate an orthonormal basis $`\{|x|xS_{\underset{¯}{x}}\}`$ which we will call the $`\underset{¯}{x}`$ basis. $`_{\underset{¯}{x}}`$ will represent the Hilbert space spanned by the $`\underset{¯}{x}`$ basis. For any $`|\psi _{\underset{¯}{x}}_{\underset{¯}{x}}`$, we will use $`\psi _x`$ to represent $`x|\psi _{\underset{¯}{x}}`$.

For any two random variables $`\underset{¯}{x}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{y}`$, $`S_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}`$ will represent the direct product set $`S_{\underset{¯}{x}}\times S_{\underset{¯}{y}}=\{(x,y)|xS_{\underset{¯}{x}},yS_{\underset{¯}{y}}\}`$. Furthermore, $`_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}`$ will represent $`_{\underset{¯}{x}}_{\underset{¯}{y}}`$, the tensor product of Hilbert spaces $`_{\underset{¯}{x}}`$ and $`_{\underset{¯}{y}}`$. If $`|x`$ for all $`x`$ is the $`\underset{¯}{x}`$ basis and $`|y`$ for all $`y`$ is the $`\underset{¯}{y}`$ basis, then $`_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ is the vector space spanned by $`\{|x,y|xS_{\underset{¯}{x}},yS_{\underset{¯}{y}}\}`$, where $`|x,y=|x|y`$.

$`\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{x}})`$ will denote the set of all probability distributions $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}}`$ for the random variable $`\underset{¯}{x}`$; i.e., all functions $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}}:S_{\underset{¯}{x}}[0,1]`$ such that $`_xP_{\underset{¯}{x}}(x)=1`$. $`\mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}})`$ will denote the set of all density matrices $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}`$ acting on the Hilbert space $`_{\underset{¯}{x}}`$; i.e., the set of all $`N_{\underset{¯}{x}}`$ dimensional Hermitian matrices with unit trace and non-negative eigenvalues.

Whenever we use the word “ditto”, as in “X (ditto, Y)”, we mean that the statement is also true if X is replaced by Y. For example, if we say “A (ditto, X) is smaller than B (ditto, Y)”, we mean “A is smaller than B” and “X is smaller than Y”.

Given any function $`f(x)`$ defined for all $`xA`$, we define

$$\frac{f(x)}{_{xA}numerator}=\frac{f(x)}{_{xA}f(x)}.$$
(1)
This is just a shorthand, useful when $`f(x)`$ is a long expression, to avoid writing $`f(x)`$ explicitly twice.

This paper will also utilize certain notation associated with classical and quantum entropy. See Refs., for definitions and examples of such notation. In particular, we will assume that the reader is familiar with the definition of the classical entropies $`H(\underset{¯}{x})`$, $`H(\underset{¯}{x}|\underset{¯}{y})`$ (conditional entropy) and $`H(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y})`$ (mutual entropy) associated with any $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$. We will also assume that the reader is familiar with the definitions of the quantum entropies $`S_{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}(\underset{¯}{x})`$, $`S_{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}(\underset{¯}{x}|\underset{¯}{y})`$ and $`S_{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y})`$ associated with any $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$.

For $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}},P_{\underset{¯}{x}}^{}\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{x}})`$, the classical Kullback-Leibler (KL) distance is defined by

$$D(P_{\underset{¯}{x}}//P_{\underset{¯}{x}}^{})=\underset{x}{}P(x)\mathrm{log}_2[P(x)/P^{}(x)].$$
(2)
For $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}},\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^{}\mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}})`$, the quantum KL distance is defined by

$$D(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}//\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^{})=\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x}}[\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}(\mathrm{log}_2\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}\mathrm{log}_2\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^{})].$$
(3)
The classical (and quantum) KL distance is always non-negative and equals zero iff its two arguments are equal. It has many other useful properties. For more information about the KL distance, see  for the classical case and  for the quantum one.

When discussing classical physics (ditto, quantum physics), we will refer to various probability distributions (ditto, density matrices) which are “descendants” of (i.e., can be derived from) a parent $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }})`$ (ditto, $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$). As an aid to the reader, here is a table mapping the classical descendants to their quantum counterparts. The reader may find it helpful to continue returning to this “Cast of Characters” table as he advances through this play.

| Classical | Quantum |
| --- | --- |
| $`\left\{P(x,y|\alpha )|x,y\right\}\mathrm{pd}\left(S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\right)`$ | $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{dm}\left(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\right)`$ |
| $`\left\{P\left(\alpha \right)\right|\alpha \}\mathrm{pd}\left(S_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\right)`$ | $`\left\{w_\alpha \right|\alpha \}\mathrm{pd}\left(S_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\right)`$ |
| $`P(x,y,\alpha )=P(x,y|\alpha )P\left(\alpha \right)`$ | $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =w_\alpha \rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ |
|  | $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=_\alpha |\alpha \alpha |K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ |
| $`P\left(x|\alpha \right)=_yP(x,y|\alpha )`$ | $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha =\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{y}}\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ |
| $`P(x,\alpha )=_yP(x,y,\alpha )`$ | $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha =\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{y}}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ |
| $`P\left(y|\alpha \right)=_xP(x,y|\alpha )`$ | $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x}}\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ |
| $`P(y,\alpha )=_xP(x,y,\alpha )`$ | $`K_{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x}}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ |
| $`P(x,y)=_\alpha P(x,y,\alpha )`$ | $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=_\alpha K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ |
| $`R(x,y,\alpha )=\frac{P(x,\alpha )P(y,\alpha )}{P\left(\alpha \right)}`$ | $`R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =\frac{K_{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha K_{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha }{w_\alpha }`$ |

In the classical case, we will use a functional $`R[P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}]`$ of $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ defined by

$$R[P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}](x,y,\alpha )=\frac{P(x,\alpha )P(y,\alpha )}{P(\alpha )}=P(x|\alpha )P(y|\alpha )P(\alpha ).$$
(4)
We will often abbreviate $`R[P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}]`$ by $`R`$ if no confusion is likely. Note that $`R(x,y,\alpha )0`$ and $`_{x,y,\alpha }R(x,y,\alpha )=1`$ so $`R\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }})`$. In the quantum case, we will use a functional $`R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha [K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ]`$ of $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ defined by

$$R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha [K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ]=\frac{K_{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha K_{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha }{w_\alpha }=w_\alpha \rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha \rho _{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha .$$
(5)
We will often abbreviate $`R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha [K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ]`$ by $`R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ if no confusion is likely. Note that $`R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha /w_\alpha \mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$ for all $`\alpha `$.

Suppose $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$ has eigensystem $`\{(\lambda _j,|\varphi _j)|j\}`$. Thus,

$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=\underset{j}{}\lambda _j|\varphi _j\varphi _j|.$$
(6)
According to Ref., $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ can be expressed as

$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=\underset{\alpha }{}w_\alpha |\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |,$$
(7)
where $`w_{}\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }})`$, and $`|\psi _\alpha _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ for all $`\alpha `$, if and only if there exists a transformation $`T_j^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha S_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$, $`jS_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$) which is “right unitary”:

$$\underset{\alpha }{}T_j^\alpha T_j^{}^\alpha =\delta _j^j^{},$$
(8)
and which satisfies

$$\underset{j}{}T_j^\alpha \sqrt{\lambda _j}|\varphi _j=\sqrt{w_\alpha }|\psi _\alpha .$$
(9)
Suppose $`A:`$ is an operator with eigensystem $`\{(\lambda _j,|\varphi _j)|j\}`$. Thus,

$$A=\underset{j}{}\lambda _j|\varphi _j\varphi _j|.$$
(10)
The support (ditto, kernel) of $`A`$ is the subspace of $``$ consisting of the zero vector and all those vectors in $``$ for which $`A`$ does not (ditto, does) vanish. Suppose $`ϵ`$ is a very small positive number and $`\chi _{[0,ϵ]}(x)`$ for real $`x`$ is an indicator function that equals 1 if $`x[0,ϵ]`$ and vanishes otherwise. Then we define the projectors $`\pi _{ker}(A)`$ and $`\pi _{supp}(A)`$ by

$$\pi _{ker}(A)=\underset{j}{}\chi _{[0,ϵ]}(\lambda _j)|\varphi _j\varphi _j|,$$
(11)
$$\pi _{supp}(A)=1\pi _{ker}(A).$$
(12)
## 3 Classical Physics Minimization

In this section, we will discuss a minimization of the CMI for classical probabilities.

The CMI for $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ can be expressed as

$`H(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y}|\underset{¯}{\alpha })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x,y,\alpha }{}}P(x,y,\alpha )\mathrm{log}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{P(x,y|\alpha )}{P(x|\alpha )P(y|\alpha )}}\right)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x,y,\alpha }{}}P(x,y,\alpha )\mathrm{log}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{P(x,y,\alpha )P(\alpha )}{P(x,\alpha )P(y,\alpha )}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x,y,\alpha }{}}P(x,y,\alpha )\mathrm{log}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{P(x,y,\alpha )}{R(x,y,\alpha )}}\right).`$
Let $`𝒫_{cla}`$ be the set of those $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }})`$ for which the sum over $`\alpha `$ of $`P(x,y,\alpha )`$ equals a fixed $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$:

$$𝒫_{cla}=\{P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }})|P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=\stackrel{~}{P}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\}.$$
(14)
We define the entanglement $`E_{cla}`$ by

$$E_{cla}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\underset{P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}𝒫_{cla}}{\mathrm{min}}H(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y}|\underset{¯}{\alpha }).$$
(15)
In this definition of $`E_{cla}`$, $`N_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ is assumed to be fixed . Clearly, for $`N_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ large enough, $`E_{cla}=0`$. Indeed, suppose $`N_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=N_{\underset{¯}{x}}N_{\underset{¯}{y}}`$ and $`\alpha (x_\alpha ,y_\alpha )`$ is a 1-1 onto function from $`S_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ to $`S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$. Then $`H(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y}|\underset{¯}{\alpha })=0`$ for $`P(x,y,\alpha )=\stackrel{~}{P}(x_\alpha ,y_\alpha )\delta _x^{x_\alpha }\delta _y^{y_\alpha }`$.

It is convenient to consider the following “Lagrangian” functional of two probability distributions:

$$(P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{})=\underset{x,y,\alpha }{}P(x,y,\alpha )\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{P(x,y,\alpha )}{R^{}(x,y,\alpha )}\right),$$
(16)
where $`R^{}=R[P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}]`$. $`E_{cla}`$ can be defined in terms of this Lagrangian by

$$E_{cla}=\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}\right)\underset{P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}𝒫_{cla}}{\mathrm{min}}(P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}).$$
(17)
###### Lemma 3.1

$`(P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{})`$ is convex ($``$) in its first argument.

proof:

The proof is very similar to the proof that the classical entropy $`H(P)`$ is concave ($``$) in $`P`$. Let $`f(x)=x\mathrm{ln}x`$. If we can show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(P)=_{x,y,\alpha }f(P(x,y,\alpha ))`$ is convex in $`P`$, we will be done, because the remaining part $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is linear in $`P`$. Let $`\lambda [0,1]`$, $`\overline{\lambda }=1\lambda `$, and $`P=\lambda P^{(1)}+\overline{\lambda }P^{(2)}`$, where $`P^{(1)},P^{(2)}pd(S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }})`$. Since $`f(x)`$ is convex in $`x`$,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x,y,\alpha }{}}f\left(P(x,y,\alpha )\right)`$ (18)
$``$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{x,y,\alpha }{}}f\left(P^{(1)}(x,y,\alpha )\right)+\overline{\lambda }{\displaystyle \underset{x,y,\alpha }{}}f\left(P^{(2)}(x,y,\alpha )\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }(P^{(1)})+\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }(P^{(2)}).`$
QED

(On the other hand, $`(P,P^{})`$ is not generally convex or concave in its second argument. This can be seen by taking the second derivative of $``$ with respect to that argument.)

###### Theorem 3.1

Let

$$𝒫_{cla}^{}=\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}).$$
(19)
At fixed $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}𝒫_{cla}`$, $`(P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{})`$ is minimized over all $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}𝒫_{cla}^{}`$ iff $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}`$ satisfies

$$P_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}=P_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }},$$
(20a)
$$P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}=P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},$$
(20b)
and

$$P_{\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}=P_{\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}.$$
(20c)
Thus,

$$(P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }})=\underset{P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}𝒫_{cla}^{}}{\mathrm{min}}(P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}),$$
(21)
and

$$E_{cla}=\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}\right)\underset{P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}𝒫_{cla}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}𝒫_{cla}^{}}{\mathrm{min}}(P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}).$$
(22)
proof:

The Lagrangian $``$ can be expressed in terms of the KL distance as follows:

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}2}(P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{})=\{\begin{array}{c}D(P_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}//P_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{})\hfill \\ +_\alpha P(\alpha )D(P(x,y|\alpha )//P(x|\alpha )P(y|\alpha ))\hfill \\ +_\alpha P(\alpha )D(P(x|\alpha )//P^{}(x|\alpha ))\hfill \\ +_\alpha P(\alpha )D(P(y|\alpha )//P^{}(y|\alpha ))\hfill \end{array}.$$
(23)
The KL distance is always non-negative and equals zero iff its two arguments are equal. Hence, Eqs.(20c) are necessary and sufficient conditions for $`(P,P^{})`$ to have a global minimum in $`P^{}`$ at fixed $`P`$. QED

###### Theorem 3.2

At fixed $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}𝒫_{}^{}{}_{cla}{}^{}`$, $`(P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{})`$ is minimized over all $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}𝒫_{cla}`$ iff $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ satisfies

$$P(\alpha |x,y)=R^{}(\alpha |x,y)$$
(24)
for all $`x,y,\alpha `$.

proof:

Suppose a minimum is achieved. Define a new Lagrangian $`_{tot}`$ by adding to $``$ a Lagrange multiplier term that enforces the constraint that the sum over $`\alpha `$ of $`P(x,y,\alpha )`$ equals a fixed probability distribution $`\stackrel{~}{P}(x,y)\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$:

$$_{tot}=(P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }},P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{})+\underset{x,y}{}\lambda (x,y)[\underset{\alpha }{}P(x,y,\alpha )\stackrel{~}{P}(x,y)].$$
(25)
$`_{tot}`$ should not change if we vary infinitesimally and independently the quantities $`\lambda (x,y)`$ and $`P(x,y,\alpha )`$ for all $`x,y,\alpha `$. Thus,

$$0=\frac{_{tot}}{P(x_o,y_o,\alpha _o)}=\mathrm{ln}P(x_o,y_o,\alpha _o)+1\mathrm{ln}R^{}(x_o,y_o,\alpha _o)+\lambda (x_o,y_o).$$
(26)
Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y)=1\lambda (x,y).$$
(27)
Then

$$\mathrm{ln}P(x,y,\alpha )=\mathrm{ln}R^{}(x,y,\alpha )+\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y).$$
(28)
Taking the exponential of both sides of the last equation and summing them over $`\alpha `$ yields the following constraint on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y)`$:

$$P(x,y)=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{ln}R^{}(x,y,\alpha )+\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y)].$$
(29)
Solving the last equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y)`$ yields:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R^{}(x,y)}{P(x,y)}\right).$$
(30)
Eq.(24) now follows from Eqs.(28) and (30).

$`(P,P^{})`$ has an extremum in $`P`$ at fixed $`P^{}`$ iff Eq.(24) is true. Furthermore, since $``$ is convex in its first argument, the extremum must be a global minimum. QED

###### Theorem 3.3

The CMI minimum which defines $`E_{cla}`$ is achieved iff

$$P(x,y,\alpha )=P(x,y)\frac{R(x,y,\alpha )}{_\alpha R(x,y,\alpha )}.$$
(31)
Furthermore,

$$E_{cla}=\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(32)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R(x,y)}{P(x,y)}\right),$$
(33)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{x,y}{}P(x,y)\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y).$$
(34)
This justifies calling $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ an “entanglement operator”.

proof:

The first part of this claim just brings together results obtained in the previous two theorems. The second part where $`E_{cla}`$ is expressed in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ follows from:

$`E_{cla}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{x,y,\alpha }{}}P(x,y,\alpha )\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{P(x,y,\alpha )}{R(x,y,\alpha )}}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{x,y,\alpha }{}}P(x,y,\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y).`$
QED

The last theorem gives certain conditions obeyed by any $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ which achieves $`E_{cla}`$. Next we will define a sequence of probability distributions, $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{(n)}`$ for $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. The sequence will converge to $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. We will define our sequence recursively. In the following diagram, each quantity is defined in terms of the quantities that point to it.

$$P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{(0)}P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{(1)}P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{(2)}\mathrm{}$$
(36)
Let $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{(0)}`$ be chosen arbitrarily from $`𝒫_{cla}`$. For any $`n0`$, let

$$P^{(n+1)}(x,y,\alpha )=P(x,y)\left[\frac{R^{(n)}(x,y,\alpha )}{_\alpha R^{(n)}(x,y,\alpha )}\right],$$
(37)
where $`R^{(n)}=R[P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{(n)}]`$.

In this paper, we won’t prove that the sequence of $`P_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{(n)}`$ converges. We defer that to future papers, confining ourselves here to presenting some empirical and intuitive motivations for the sequence. In Section 6, we give some computer results that are good empirical evidence of convergence. Note that if the limit of the sequence does exist, then the limit of Eq.(37) is Eq.(31).

## 4 Quantum Physics, Mixed Minimization

In this section, we will discuss a quantum counterpart of the classical minimization problem discussed in the previous section.

Consider all $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }})`$ of the special form:

$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=\underset{\alpha }{}|\alpha \alpha |w_\alpha \rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =\underset{\alpha }{}|\alpha \alpha |K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,$$
(38)
where $`|\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha `$ is an orthonormal basis of $`_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$, $`w_{}\mathrm{pd}(S_\alpha )`$, and $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$. As shown in Ref., the CMI for $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ can be expressed as

$`S_{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}}(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y}|\underset{¯}{\alpha })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}w_\alpha S_{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha }(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y})`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}w_\alpha [S(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha )+S(\rho _{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )S(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}\left[K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha (\mathrm{log}_2K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{log}_2{\displaystyle \frac{K_{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha K_{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha }{w_\alpha }})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}\left[K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha (\mathrm{log}_2K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{log}_2R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )\right].`$
Let

$$𝒦_{mixed}^{}=\{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}|\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =w_\alpha \rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,w_{}\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}),\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})\},$$
(40)
and

$$𝒦_{mixed}=\{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{mixed}^{}|\underset{\alpha }{}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\}.$$
(41)
We define the entanglement $`E_{mixed}`$ by

$$E_{mixed}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\underset{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{mixed}}{\mathrm{min}}S_{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}}(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y}|\underset{¯}{\alpha }).$$
(42)
In this definition of $`E_{mixed}`$, $`N_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ will be assumed to tend to infinity. Ref. shows that the limit is reached at a finite $`N_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}(N_{\underset{¯}{x}}N_{\underset{¯}{y}})^2`$.

It is convenient to consider the following “Lagrangian” functional of two density matrices:

$$(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}\left[K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha (\mathrm{ln}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )\right],$$
(43)
where $`R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha =R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha [K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha ]`$. $`E_{mixed}`$ can be defined in terms of this Lagrangian by

$$E_{mixed}=\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}\right)\underset{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{mixed}}{\mathrm{min}}(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ).$$
(44)
###### Lemma 4.1

$`(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )`$ is convex ($``$) in its first argument.

proof:

The proof is very similar to the proof that the quantum entropy $`S(\rho )`$ is concave ($``$) in $`\rho `$ (see Ref.). Let $`f(x)=x\mathrm{ln}x`$. If we can show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )=_\alpha \mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}f(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )`$ is convex in $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$, we will be done, because the remaining part $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is linear in $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$. Let $`\lambda [0,1]`$, $`\overline{\lambda }=1\lambda `$, and $`K^\alpha =\lambda K^{(1)\alpha }+\overline{\lambda }K^{(2)\alpha }`$. Here $`K^{(1)\alpha }`$ and $`K^{(2)\alpha }`$ belong to $`\mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$ if we normalize them by dividing them by their trace. Let $`K^\alpha `$ have eigensystem $`\{(m_j^\alpha ,|\varphi _j^\alpha )|j\}`$. Since $`f(x)`$ is convex in $`x`$,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(K^\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,j}{}}f(m_j^\alpha )={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,j}{}}f(\varphi _j^\alpha |K^\alpha |\varphi _j^\alpha )`$ (45)
$``$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,j}{}}f(\varphi _j^\alpha |K^{(1)\alpha }|\varphi _j^\alpha )+\overline{\lambda }{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,j}{}}f(\varphi _j^\alpha |K^{(2)\alpha }|\varphi _j^\alpha )`$
$``$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,j}{}}\varphi _j^\alpha |f(K^{(1)\alpha })|\varphi _j^\alpha +\overline{\lambda }{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,j}{}}\varphi _j^\alpha |f(K^{(2)\alpha })|\varphi _j^\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }(K^{(1)\alpha })+\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }(K^{(2)\alpha }).`$
QED

###### Theorem 4.1

Let

$$𝒦_{}^{}{}_{mixed}{}^{}=𝒦_{mixed}^{}.$$
(46)
At fixed $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{mixed}`$, $`(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )`$ is minimized over all $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{{}_{}{}^{}}𝒦_{}^{}{}_{mixed}{}^{}`$ iff $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{{}_{}{}^{}}`$ satisfies

$$w_\alpha ^{}=w_\alpha ,$$
(47a)
$$K_{\underset{¯}{x}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha =K_{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha ,$$
(47b)
and

$$K_{\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha =K_{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha .$$
(47c)
Thus,

$$(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )=\underset{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{{}_{}{}^{}}𝒦_{}^{}{}_{mixed}{}^{}}{\mathrm{min}}(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha ),$$
(48)
and

$$E_{mixed}=\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}\right)\underset{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{mixed}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{{}_{}{}^{}}𝒦_{}^{}{}_{mixed}{}^{}}{\mathrm{min}}(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha ).$$
(49)
proof:

The Lagrangian $``$ can be expressed in terms of the KL distance as follows:

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}2}(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )=\{\begin{array}{c}D(w_\alpha //w_\alpha ^{})\hfill \\ +_\alpha w_\alpha D(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha //\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha \rho _{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )\hfill \\ +_\alpha w_\alpha D(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha //\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )\hfill \\ +_\alpha w_\alpha D(\rho _{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha //\rho _{\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )\hfill \end{array}.$$
(50)
Hence, Eqs.(47c) are necessary and sufficient conditions for $`(K,K^{})`$ to have a global minimum in $`K^{}`$ at fixed $`K`$. QED

###### Theorem 4.2

At fixed $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{{}_{}{}^{}}𝒦_{}^{}{}_{mixed}{}^{}`$, $`(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )`$ is minimized over all $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{mixed}`$ iff $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{ln}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}},$$
(51a)
and
$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}).$$
(51b)
proof:

Suppose a minimum is achieved. Define a new Lagrangian $`_{tot}`$ by adding to $``$ a Lagrange multiplier term that enforces the constraint that the sum over $`\alpha `$ of $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ equals a fixed density matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$:

$$_{tot}=(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )+\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}[\lambda _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}(\underset{\alpha }{}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})].$$
(52)
$`_{tot}`$ should not change if we vary infinitesimally and independently the operators $`\lambda _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ and $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha `$. Thus,

$$0=\delta _{tot}=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}\left[\delta K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha (\mathrm{ln}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha +1\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha +\lambda _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})\right].$$
(53)
Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=1\lambda _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}.$$
(54)
Then

$$\mathrm{ln}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}.$$
(55)
Taking the exponential of both sides of the last equation and summing them over $`\alpha `$ yields the following constraint on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$:

$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}].$$
(56)
$`(K,K^{})`$ has an extremum in $`K`$ at fixed $`K^{}`$ iff Eqs.(51b) are true. Furthermore, since $``$ is convex in its first argument, the extremum must be a global minimum. QED

###### Theorem 4.3

The CMI minimum which defines $`E_{mixed}`$ is achieved iff

$$\mathrm{ln}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}},$$
(57a)
and
$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}].$$
(57b)
Furthermore,

$$E_{mixed}=\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(58)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}).$$
(59)
This justifies calling $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ an “entanglement operator”.

proof:

The first part of this claim just brings together results obtained in the previous two theorems. The second part where $`E_{mixed}`$ is expressed in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ follows from:

$`E_{mixed}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}[K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha (\mathrm{ln}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )]`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}}\right)\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}).`$
QED

The last theorem gives certain conditions obeyed by any pair $`(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$ which achieves $`E_{mixed}`$. In the classical mixed minimization problem, we were able to solve for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ explicitly and substitute it into the remaining equations. Non-commutativity now prevents us from doing this. The way we will overcome the obstacle of non-commutativity is to solve for both $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ simultaneously. Next, we will define two sequences of operators, $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}`$ for $`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$. The sequences will converge to $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$, respectively, as $`n\mathrm{}`$. We will define our two sequences recursively. In the following diagram, each quantity is defined in terms of the quantities that point to it.

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (0)}& & K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (1)}& & K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (2)}& \mathrm{}\\ & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(0)}& & \mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(1)}& & \mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(2)}& \mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(61)
Roughly speaking, our strategy is: estimate $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$, use the latter to get a better estimate of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$, use the latter to get a better estimate of $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$, use the latter to get a better estimate of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$, and so on. Let $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (0)}`$ be chosen arbitrarily from $`𝒦_{mixed}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(0)}=0`$. For any $`n0`$, let

$$K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n+1)}=\frac{\pi _1\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}\right]\pi _1}{_\alpha \mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}(numerator)},$$
(62a)
(now use this $`K`$ to produce an even better $`K`$, which we call $`K`$ tilde:)
$$\stackrel{~}{K}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n+1)}=\frac{\pi _1\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n+1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}\right]\pi _1}{_\alpha \mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}(numerator)},$$
(62b)
$$I^{(n+1)}=\left(\pi _1\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}}\pi _1\right)\left\{\underset{\alpha }{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n+1)}\right\}\left(\pi _1\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}}\pi _1\right)+\pi _0,$$
(62c)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n+1)}=\mathrm{ln}\left(e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}}{2}}I^{(n+1)}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}}{2}}\right),$$
(62d)
where $`R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n)}=R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha [K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n)}]`$, $`\pi _0=\pi _{ker}(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$ and $`\pi _1=1\pi _0`$.

In this paper, we won’t prove that the sequences $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}`$ converge. We defer that to future papers, confining ourselves here to presenting some empirical and intuitive motivations for the sequences. In Section 6, we give some computer results that are good evidence of convergence. It is easy to see that if the sequences do converge, then their limit satisfies Eqs.(57b). Indeed, as $`n\mathrm{}`$, Eqs.(62d) become

$$K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =\pi _1\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\right]\pi _1.$$
(63a)
$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=\underset{\alpha }{}\pi _1\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}]\pi _1,$$
(63b)
Eq.(63a) arises from combining the limits of Eqs.(62a) Eqs.(62b). Eq.(63b) arises from combining the limits of Eqs.(62c) and (62d). Note also that when all operators are diagonal and therefore commute, Eqs.(62c) and (62d) give Eq.(33), the definition of the classical $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If we set $`\pi _1=1`$ and $`\pi _0=0`$ for now, then Eq.(63a) is the same as Eq.(57a). And Eq.(63b) is the same as Eq.(57b).

Now let us explain the purpose of the $`\pi `$ operators. Ideally, we would want to define $`I^{(n+1)}`$ by

$$I^{(n+1)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}}\rho ^{(n+1)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}},$$
(64)
where

$$\rho ^{(n+1)}=\underset{\alpha }{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n+1)}.$$
(65)
However, if $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ has any zero eigenvalues, its inverse square root does not exist. Note $`\rho ^{(n+1)}`$ tends to $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$. For some small positive real $`ϵ`$, we can define

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}}}\rho ^{(n+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}+ϵ\pi _0}}}(\pi _1\rho ^{(n+1)}\pi _1+ϵ\pi _0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}+ϵ\pi _0}}}`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`\left(\pi _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}}}\pi _1\right)\rho ^{(n+1)}\left(\pi _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}}}\pi _1\right)+\pi _0.`$ (67)
(The $`ϵ\pi _0`$ summands come into play only when $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ vanishes.) This justifies Eq.(62c). $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=_\alpha K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ so we must also require that $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ vanish over the kernel space of $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$. We force this to happen by pre and post multiplying the right hand side of Eq.(63a) by $`\pi _1`$.

Another potential source of singular behavior in Eqs.(62d) is the function $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ln}R+D)`$ where $`R,D`$ are Hermitian matrices and $`R`$ can be singular. This is not a theoretical disaster because even though the log of a zero eigenvalue of $`R`$ gives minus infinity, upon taking the exponential of that minus infinity, we get a zero contribution. From a numerical point of view, calculating $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ln}R+D)`$ accurately when $`R`$ is singular poses a challenge. Our first impulse is to calculate the eigenvalue expansion of $`R`$, take the log of the eigenvalues of the latter expansion, add $`D`$ to the result, calculate the eigenvalue expansion of $`\mathrm{ln}R+D`$, exponentiate the eigenvalues of the latter expansion. Finding the eigensystem of $`\mathrm{ln}R+D`$ can be hard to do accurately when $`R`$ is nearly singular and therefore $`\mathrm{ln}R+D`$ contains some nearly infinite eigenvalues. There are, however, other ways of exponentiating a matrix which do not require calculating its eigensystem. Ref. describes 19 “dubious” ways of exponentiating a matrix. Its authors use the adjective dubious because none of these methods is ideal. Some work only for certain types of matrices, others entail an excessive number of operations, others are too sensitive, etc. In our case, whenever we use $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ln}R+D)`$, the matrix $`\mathrm{ln}R+D`$ is expected to be Hermitian with non-positive eigenvalues. Method 4 of Ref. fits this situation perfectly. The method, first proposed by Colby et al in Ref., is to approximate $`\mathrm{exp}(A)`$ by a ratio of two $`n`$’th degree polynomials in A. The method works well even if some of the eigenvalues of $`A`$ are nearly infinite, as long as they are all non-negative.

## 5 Quantum Physics, Pure Minimization

In this section, we will discuss another quantum minimization problem. This minimization will differ from the quantum mixed minimization discussed previously in that now the range of our minimization will be restricted to those $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$ of the special form:

$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =|\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |,$$
(68)
where $`|\psi _\alpha _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$.

As in the quantum mixed minimization problem, the CMI for $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ can be expressed as

$`S_{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}}(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y}|\underset{¯}{\alpha })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}w_\alpha S_{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha }(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y})`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}w_\alpha [S(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha )+S(\rho _{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )S(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}\left[K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha (\mathrm{log}_2K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{log}_2R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )\right].`$
Let

$$𝒦_{pure}^{}=\{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}|\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =w_\alpha |\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |,w_{}\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}),|\psi _\alpha _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\},$$
(70)
and

$$𝒦_{pure}=\{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{pure}^{}|\underset{\alpha }{}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\}.$$
(71)
We define the entanglement $`E_{pure}`$ by

$$E_{pure}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\underset{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{pure}}{\mathrm{min}}S_{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}\underset{¯}{\alpha }}}(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y}|\underset{¯}{\alpha }).$$
(72)
In this definition of $`E_{pure}`$, $`N_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ will be assumed to tend to infinity. Ref. shows that the limit is reached at a finite $`N_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}(N_{\underset{¯}{x}}N_{\underset{¯}{y}})^2`$.

Note that since we are now assuming that the $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ are pure for all $`\alpha `$,

$`S_{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha }(\underset{¯}{x}:\underset{¯}{y})`$ $`=`$ $`S(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha )+S(\rho _{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )S(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`2S(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha ).`$
Note also that

$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha =\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{y}}|\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |.$$
(74)
If $`e=\{(w_\alpha ,|\psi _\alpha )|\alpha S_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\}`$ where $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=_\alpha w_\alpha |\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |`$, we call $`e`$ a $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ ensemble or preparation. Thus, our definition of $`E_{pure}`$ can be re-expressed as

$$E_{pure}=\underset{e}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{\alpha }{}w_\alpha S(\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{y}}|\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |),$$
(75)
where the minimum is taken over all $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ ensembles $`e`$. This is precisely the definition usually given for the entanglement of formation. Thus, $`E_{pure}`$ is identical to the entanglement of formation.

It is convenient to consider the following “Lagrangian” functional of two density matrices:

$$(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}\left[K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha (\mathrm{ln}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )\right],$$
(76)
where $`R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha =R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha [K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha ]`$. $`E_{pure}`$ can be defined in terms of this Lagrangian by

$$E_{pure}=\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}\right)\underset{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{pure}}{\mathrm{min}}(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ).$$
(77)
###### Lemma 5.1

$`(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )`$ is convex ($``$) in its first argument.

proof:

See proof of analogous lemma in the section on quantum mixed minimization. QED

###### Theorem 5.1

Let

$$𝒦_{}^{}{}_{pure}{}^{}=𝒦_{pure}^{}.$$
(78)
At fixed $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{pure}`$, $`(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )`$ is minimized over all $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{{}_{}{}^{}}𝒦_{}^{}{}_{pure}{}^{}`$ iff $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha `$ satisfies

$$w_\alpha ^{}=w_\alpha ,$$
(79a)
$$K_{\underset{¯}{x}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha =K_{\underset{¯}{x}}^\alpha ,$$
(79b)
and

$$K_{\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha =K_{\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha .$$
(79c)
Thus,

$$(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha )=\underset{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{{}_{}{}^{}}𝒦_{}^{}{}_{pure}{}^{}}{\mathrm{min}}(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha ),$$
(80)
and

$$E_{pure}=\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}\right)\underset{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{pure}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{{}_{}{}^{}}𝒦_{}^{}{}_{pure}{}^{}}{\mathrm{min}}(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha ).$$
(81)
proof:

See proof of analogous theorem in the section on quantum mixed minimization. QED

###### Theorem 5.2

At fixed $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{{}_{}{}^{}}𝒦_{}^{}{}_{pure}{}^{}`$, $`(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )`$ is minimized over all $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}𝒦_{pure}`$ iff $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha =w_\alpha |\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{ln}(w_\alpha )|\psi _\alpha =(\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})|\psi _\alpha ,$$
(82a)
and
$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=\underset{\alpha }{}w_\alpha |\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |.$$
(82b)
proof:

Let

$$|n_\alpha =\sqrt{w_\alpha }|\psi _\alpha $$
(83)
and

$$A_\alpha =\mathrm{ln}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha .$$
(84)
Then the Lagrangian $``$ can be expressed as:

$$(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\left(|n_\alpha n_\alpha |A_\alpha \right).$$
(85)
Suppose a minimum is achieved. Define a new Lagrangian $`_{tot}`$ by adding to $``$ a Lagrange multiplier term that enforces the constraint that the sum over $`\alpha `$ of $`|n_\alpha n_\alpha |`$ equals a fixed density matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\mathrm{dm}(_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$:

$$_{tot}=(K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha ,K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )+\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}[\lambda _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}(\underset{\alpha }{}|n_\alpha n_\alpha |\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})].$$
(86)
$`_{tot}`$ should not change if we vary infinitesimally and independently the operators $`\lambda _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ and $`|n_\alpha n_\alpha |`$ for all $`\alpha `$. Thus,

$$0=\delta _{tot}=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}\left[\delta (|n_\alpha n_\alpha |)(A_\alpha +1+\lambda _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})\right].$$
(87)
Suppose we have an arbitrary Hermitian operator $`A`$ acting on some Hilbert space $``$ and $`|n`$. If

$$0=\mathrm{tr}\left[\delta (|nn|)A\right],$$
(88)
then

$$0=n|A\delta (|n)+(\delta n|)A|n$$
(89)
so

$$A|n=0.$$
(90)
Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=1\lambda _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}.$$
(91)
Then Eq.(87) implies that

$$(\mathrm{ln}K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha \mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})|\psi _\alpha =0.$$
(92)
(Assume $`w_\alpha 0`$ for all $`\alpha `$). Suppose $`w(0,1]`$. Given any column vector $`|\psi `$, we can always find a unitary matrix $`U`$ such that $`|\psi =U|0`$, where $`|0`$ is the unit vector which has one as its first component and zero for all others. Thus

$`\mathrm{ln}\left(w|\psi \psi |\right)|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`U\mathrm{ln}\left(w|00|\right)U^{}U|0`$ (97)
$`=`$ $`Udiag(\mathrm{ln}w,\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{})\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(w)|\psi .`$ (98)
Thus, Eq.(92) implies that

$$\mathrm{ln}w_\alpha |\psi _\alpha =(\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})|\psi _\alpha .$$
(99)
$`(K,K^{})`$ has an extremum in $`K`$ at fixed $`K^{}`$ iff Eqs.(82b) are true. Furthermore, since $``$ is convex in its first argument, the extremum must be a global minimum. QED

###### Theorem 5.3

The CMI minimum which defines $`E_{pure}`$ is achieved iff

$$\mathrm{ln}(w_\alpha )|\psi _\alpha =(\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})|\psi _\alpha ,$$
(100a)
and
$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=\underset{\alpha }{}w_\alpha |\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |.$$
(100b)
Furthermore,

$$E_{pure}=\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{ln}2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(101)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{y}}(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}).$$
(102)
This justifies calling $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ an “entanglement operator”.

proof:

The first part of this claim just brings together results obtained in the previous two theorems. For a proof of the second part where $`E_{pure}`$ is expressed in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, see the analogous theorem for quantum mixed minimization. QED

As in the quantum mixed minimization problem, we will define two sequences of operators, $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n)}=w_\alpha ^{(n)}|\psi _\alpha ^{(n)}\psi _\alpha ^{(n)}|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}`$ for $`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$. The sequences will converge to $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$, respectively, as $`n\mathrm{}`$. We will define our two sequences recursively. Let $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (0)}`$ be chosen arbitrarily from $`𝒦_{pure}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(0)}=0`$. For any $`n0`$, let

$$w_\alpha ^{(n+1)}|\psi _\alpha ^{(n+1)}=\pi _1\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}\right]\pi _1|\psi _\alpha ^{(n+1)},$$
(103a)
$$K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n+1)}=\frac{w_\alpha ^{(n+1)}|\psi _\alpha ^{(n+1)}\psi _\alpha ^{(n+1)}|}{_\alpha \mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}(numerator)},$$
(103b)
$$\stackrel{~}{w}_\alpha ^{(n+1)}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha ^{(n+1)}=\pi _1\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{ln}R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n+1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}\right]\pi _1|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha ^{(n+1)},$$
(103c)
$$\stackrel{~}{K}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n+1)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{w}_\alpha ^{(n+1)}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha ^{(n+1)}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha ^{(n+1)}|}{_\alpha \mathrm{tr}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}(numerator)},$$
(103d)
$$I^{(n+1)}=\left(\pi _1\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}}\pi _1\right)\left\{\underset{\alpha }{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n+1)}\right\}\left(\pi _1\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}}}\pi _1\right)+\pi _0,$$
(103e)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n+1)}=\mathrm{ln}\left(e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}}{2}}I^{(n+1)}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}}{2}}\right),$$
(103f)
where $`R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n)}=R_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^\alpha [K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n)}]`$, $`\pi _0=\pi _{ker}(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})`$ and $`\pi _1=1\pi _0`$. In Eqs.(103a) and (103c), we choose the largest eigenvalue and the corresponding eigenvector of the operator on the right hand side of the equation. As $`n`$ tends to infinity, said operator tends towards a projection operator, so its eigenvalues all go to zero except for possibly one of them.

In this paper, we won’t prove that the sequences $`K_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{\alpha (n)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{(n)}`$ converge. We defer that to future papers, confining ourselves here to presenting some empirical and intuitive motivations for the sequences. In Section 6, we give some computer results that are good evidence of convergence. It is easy to see that if the sequences do converge, then their limit satisfies Eqs.(100b).

## 6 Causa Común

We have written a C++ program called Causa Común (“Common Cause” in Spanish). It’s called this because entanglement is a manifestation of causality; it occurs between several events with a common cause. Causa Común can do all three minimizations considered in this paper (classical, quantum mixed and quantum pure). For each of these three cases, it can find the entanglement, entanglement operator, and an optimal state decomposition. Next, we will discuss Causa Común output for two examples of quantum states: Bell Mixtures, and Horodecki States.

### 6.1 Bell Mixtures

In this example

$$S_{\underset{¯}{x}}=S_{\underset{¯}{y}}=Bool.$$
(104)
The following four states are usually called the “Bell basis” of $`_{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$:

$$|\psi ^\pm =|^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01\pm |10),$$
(105)
and

$$|\varphi ^\pm =|=^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\pm |11).$$
(106)
Let $`|B(\mu )`$ with $`\mu \{0,1,2,3\}`$ represent the four Bell states. Call a “Bell mixture” any density matrix $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$ expressible in the form

$$\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}=\underset{\mu }{}m_\mu |B(\mu )B(\mu )|,$$
(107)
where $`m_{}\mathrm{pd}(S_{\underset{¯}{\mu }})`$. For any $`p[0,1]`$, define the binary entropy $`h(p)`$ by

$$h(p)=[p\mathrm{log}_2(p)+(1p)\mathrm{log}_2(1p)].$$
(108)
Ref. showed that for any Bell mixture $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}`$, the entanglement of formation is given by:

$$E_{form.}(\rho _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}})=h\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1t}}{2}\right),$$
(109a)
$$t=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \mathrm{if}m_{max}<\frac{1}{2}\hfill \\ (2m_{max}1)^2\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array},$$
(109b)
where $`m_{max}`$ refers to the maximum of the weights $`m_\mu `$.

We will refer to the following one parameter family of Bell mixtures as the “Werner States”:

$$W(F)=F|=^+=^+|+\frac{(1F)}{3}(|=^{}=^{}|+|^+^+|+|^{}^{}|),$$
(110)
for $`F[0,1]`$.

Fig.1 is Causa Común output for $`E_{pure}`$ and $`E_{mixed}`$ of the Werner States using $`N_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=6`$. We also got $`E_{mixed}=E_{pure}=0`$ for $`0F\frac{1}{2}`$ (not shown in graph). We compared $`E_{pure}`$ obtained using our algorithm and $`E_{form}`$ obtained using Eq.(109b), and found them to agree well over the entire range $`F[0,1]`$. Note that $`E_{mixed}`$ behaves like the entanglement of distillation: both are non-negative, less than or equal to $`E_{form}`$, and equal to $`E_{form}`$ for pure density matrices. In a future paper, we will explain the close connection between $`E_{mixed}`$ and entanglement of distillation.

### 6.2 Horodecki States

In this example,

$$S_{\underset{¯}{x}}=S_{\underset{¯}{y}}=\{0,1,2\}.$$
(111)
Let

$$x,y|\psi ^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\delta _{xy}^{00}+\delta _{xy}^{11}+\delta _{xy}^{22}),$$
(112)
$$(\sigma _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^+)_{xy,x^{}y^{}}=\frac{\delta _{xy}^{x^{}y^{}}}{3}(\delta _{xy}^{01}+\delta _{xy}^{12}+\delta _{xy}^{20}),$$
(113)
$$(\sigma _{\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{y}}^{})_{xy,x^{}y^{}}=\frac{\delta _{xy}^{x^{}y^{}}}{3}(\delta _{xy}^{10}+\delta _{xy}^{21}+\delta _{xy}^{02}).$$
(114)
We will refer to the following one parameter family of density matrices as the “Horodecki States”:

$$\sigma (\alpha )=\frac{2}{7}|\psi ^+\psi ^+|+\frac{\alpha }{7}\sigma ^++\frac{5\alpha }{7}\sigma ^{},$$
(115)
where $`\alpha [2,5]`$. These states where first introduced in Ref.(), where it was shown that they are separable for $`\alpha (2,3)`$, bound entangled for $`\alpha (3,4)`$, and free entangled for $`\alpha (4,5)`$.

Fig.2 is Causa Común output for $`E_{pure}`$ and $`E_{mixed}`$ of the Horodecki States using $`N_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=12`$. We also got $`E_{mixed}=E_{pure}=0`$ for $`2\alpha 3`$ (not shown in graph).

## Acknowledgements

I thank K. Audenaert and K. Zyczkowski for interesting email about entanglement.