text:
# X-ray Emitting Groups in the Infall Region of Abell 2199

## 1 Introduction

Hierarchical structure formation predicts that rich clusters of galaxies should be surrounded by less massive, infalling clusters or groups. Many authors have discussed substructure within the virial region (e.g., Geller & Beers (1982); Dressler & Shectman (1988); White, Briel, & Henry (1993); Mohr, Fabricant, & Geller (1993)). Reisenegger et al. (2000, hereafter RQCM) recently demonstrated dynamical connections between many clusters in the Shapley Supercluster and A3558, the central cluster. We describe similar observations of the infall region around A2199 (Abell (1958)) and show that it contains A2197, one or two X-ray emitting groups, and up to five additional groups identified in redshift surveys, all of which lie outside the virial region of A2199.

In redshift space, the infall regions of clusters form a characteristic trumpet-shaped pattern (bounded by caustics) as galaxies fall into the cluster as the cluster potential overwhelms the Hubble flow (Kaiser (1987); Regös & Geller (1989); Diaferio & Geller (1997)). Galaxies outside the caustics are outside the infall region; within the caustics, there are few interlopers. Here, we use the observed caustics around A2199 to identify members of the infall region and to compare the structure of the supercluster as seen in galaxies to the X-ray structure revealed by the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS111The RASS is available at http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/cgi-bin/rosat-survey/ ; Voges et al. (1999)). We use the X-ray data to show that the infall region contains bound systems destined for accretion. The physical scale at the redshift of the supercluster ($`cz=9156\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) is $`1^{}=1.53h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ ($`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$).

## 2 Observations

We have collected 1216 redshifts (957 new or remeasured) in a large region (95 square degrees) surrounding A2199/A2197. Two of us (JJM and GW) used the Decaspec (Fabricant & Hertz (1990)) at the 2.4-m MDM telescope on Kitt Peak to obtain 249 (248 unique) redshifts of galaxies in the central $`1^{}`$ of this region for a separate Jeans’ analysis of the central region of A2199 (J.J. Mohr et al. in preparation).

We used the FAST spectrograph (Fabricant et al. (1998)) on the 1.5-m Tillinghast telescope of the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory (FLWO) to obtain 684 spectra of galaxies within $`5^{}`$.5 ($``$8.4$`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$) of the center of A2199. The observations are similar to those described in Rines et al. (2000) and will appear in K. Rines et al. (in preparation). We observed infall galaxy candidates in two campaigns. We selected targets from digitized images of the POSS I from the Automated Plate Scanner222The APS databases are supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the University of Minnesota, and are available at http://aps.umn.edu/. We initially selected galaxies using the automatic classification system of APS; we visually inspected these targets to eliminate stars. The first campaign yielded a deep sample in the central $`4^{}\times 4^{}`$ region around A2199. This sample is complete to 103aE magnitude $`E<16.5`$ (roughly equivalent to R$`<`$16.0) and consists of 305 redshifts. The second campaign (379 redshifts) was a shallower survey ($`E<16.1`$ or $`R15.6`$) of all galaxies within $`5.^{}58.4h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ of A2199. The completeness limits are not very precise because the magnitudes come from multiple plate scans and because we could not obtain redshifts for some low surface brightness galaxies. We include 84 redshifts associated with the groups NRGs385 and NRGs388 obtained by FAST for a separate study of the X-ray and optical properties of groups of galaxies (59 published in Mahdavi et al. (1999); Mahdavi et al. (2000), hereafter MBGR).

We collected the remaining 200 redshifts from ZCAT333Available at http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/$``$huchra/zcat and/or the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database444The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database is available at http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html. X-ray data for these systems are available from the RASS.

## 3 Defining the Infall Region with Caustics

Figure 1 displays the projected radii and redshifts of galaxies surrounding A2199. The expected caustic pattern is easily visible; we calculate the shape with the technique described in Diaferio (1999) using a smoothing parameter of $`q=25`$. We use a hierarchical clustering analysis to determine the center of the largest system, A2199; we use this as the center of the supercluster. The caustics shown in Figure 1 do not include the symmetry and first derivative constraints of Diaferio (1999). We will determine the caustics and the supercluster mass profile in more detail in Rines et al. (in preparation). Preliminary results indicate that the total supercluster mass is in the range $`510\times 10^{14}h^1M_{}`$ within a radius of $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. For comparison, Markevitch et al. (1999, hereafter MVFS) use X-ray data to estimate a mass of $`1.7\times 10^{14}h^1M_{}`$ within $`0.6h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for A2199. The A2199 supercluster is located within the Great Wall (Geller & Huchra (1989); Figure 6b of Falco et al. (1999)), which may complicate the interpretation of the dynamics of the system.

The sky positions of galaxies in the infall region (crosses in Figure 2) show several groups in addition to the main cluster. Table 1 lists the coordinates and basic properties of these systems (MBGR). Figure 2 displays X-ray contours from the RASS (red) and contours of the local galaxy density overlaid (blue). Purple regions in the figure therefore show regions with both significant galaxy overdensities and X-ray emission; X-ray emission confirms that a system is bound. The largest purple region is A2199, at least one background X-ray source and A2197 are to the N, and NRGs388 and NRGs385 are to the SW of A2199. The X-ray emission from A2199 is quite symmetric relative to other clusters (Mohr et al. (1995); MVFS ), which suggests that the inner region of A2199 has not undergone any recent major mergers. The infalling groups are all located at projected radii significantly larger than the virial radius ($`R_{vir}1.6h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, Girardi et al. (1998); $`R_{vir}1.8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, MVFS ). We identify galaxies within $`1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ of these systems in Figure 1.

NRGs385, NRGs388, and A2199 are roughly colinear (Figure 2). This alignment may be coincidental or it may indicate the presence of a filament of galaxies and/or dark matter. A2197 and an optical group with no X-ray counterpart in the RASS lie roughly along the extension of this line to the NE. The apparent X-ray excess in a NE-SW band, coincidentally along the broad apparent filament, is probably an artifact of the RASS scan pattern. Archival pointed PSPC observations indicate that the X-ray surface brightness of the filament is less than $`4\times 10^{16}`$erg cm-2s-1arcmin-2. Briel & Henry (1995) obtain similar limits for other clusters.

## 4 Infalling Systems

### 4.1 Abell 2197

Rood (1976) first suggested that, due to their close proximity on the sky and in redshift space, A2197 and A2199 are part of a supercluster. Gregory & Thompson (1984) analyzed the pair as a binary cluster. A2197 is an optically rich Abell cluster with an apparent velocity dispersion comparable to A2199 (Girardi et al. (1998)), but X-ray data suggest that A2197 is significantly less massive than A2199 (e.g., White, Jones & Forman (1997); Jones & Forman (1999)). The absence of a sharp spike in the caustic pattern at the projected radius of A2197 (Figure 1) indicates that the infall pattern is dominated by A2199 and that the apparently large velocity dispersion of A2197 is due in part to its proximity to A2199.

A2199 and A2197 provide an interesting contrast. A2199 is a rich, regular cluster with both a centrally concentrated galaxy distribution and X-ray emission. The galaxies around A2197 are significantly elongated to the SE and NW and they are much less centrally concentrated than in A2199. Archival ROSAT data reveals that the X-ray emission has at least three components (all three are evident in Figure 2). The central component is centered on NGC 6173, the more luminous component to the W is centered on NGC 6160, and the source to the E is not centered on any bright galaxies and is probably a background source (C. Jones 2000, private communication; note also that a point source is evident between A2199 and A2197). The galaxy distribution in A2197 is quite different from the X-ray emission, though not as dramatically as A754 (Zabludoff & Zaritsky (1995)). We suggest that A2197 is either forming from the merger of two groups or that it is being disrupted by A2199.

### 4.2 NRGs388

The X-ray emission from NRGs388 is centered on a bright elliptical which dominates the group (see Figure 6 of MBGR). There is no significant substructure in either the X-ray emission or the galaxy distribution within NRGs388. The apparent absence of ram pressure stripping or tidal distortions may constrain the distribution of intercluster gas or the shape of the gravitational potential of the supercluster.

### 4.3 NRGs385

NRGs385 is located $`5.^{}1=8.0h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ or $`5`$ virial radii from A2199. Although other investigators have found X-ray emitting groups around rich clusters (e.g., Briel, Henry, & Böhringer (1992); Wang, Connolly, & Brunner (1997); Kull & Böhringer (1999); Donnelly et al. (1999); RQCM ), to our knowledge no other X-ray group so far outside the virial radius of a cluster has been linked to it kinematically. While the kinematic connection is clear, NRGs385 may not be bound to the supercluster (Rines et al. in preparation).

NRGs385 is sufficiently massive that it distorts the caustic pattern in its vicinity (Figure 1). This effect is expected; subclustering increases the amplitude of the caustics at all radii (Diaferio (1999)), but spikes in the amplitude of the caustics can reveal the presence of massive subclusters. The existence of this distortion confirms the hypothesis that subclusters can alter the sharp caustics expected from spherical infall. It is striking that the expected distortion is evident from this group but no such distortions are evident in the infall region of A3558 (see Figure 1 of RQCM ) even though it contains infalling clusters which are probably more massive than NRGs385. The reason for this difference is unclear, although it might depend on the galaxy population included by the selection criteria of RQCM.

The peak of the X-ray emission in NRGs385 is offset (at roughly the 3$`\sigma `$ level) from the center of the galaxy distribution. The X-ray center is located $`218h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ SW of the optical center, away from A2199. If this offset is not due to a projection effect, it could indicate that either the galaxies do not trace the gravitational potential of the group or the group has recently undergone a merger. We rule out the possibility of ram pressure stripping (e.g., Gunn & Gott (1972)) by the warm/hot ionized medium (WHIM) because the required gas density in the WHIM would produce X-ray emission above our upper limit on the surface brightness of any filament ($`\mathrm{\S }3`$).

The shape of the X-ray contours may provide information about the physical processes occuring in the infalling groups. NRGs385 is visibly elongated in the direction of A2199 and along the possible filament; the width of the $`10\sigma `$ contour is approximately $`26^{}=720h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ NE-SW and approximately $`19^{}=525h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ SE-NW (see Figure 6 of Mahdavi et al. (1999)). This elongation may be caused by tidal effects and/or the presence of a filament.

### 4.4 X-ray Faint Groups

Several small knots of galaxies are evident in Figure 2. Many of these are probably chance superpositions rather than physical groups. Four of them are contained in the RASSCALS optical catalog (MBGR), though none has significant extended X-ray emission (we list upper limits from the RASS in Table 1). A fifth possible group, NRGs396 (Ramella et al. (1997); named according to the convention of MBGR), is located $`5^{}.0=7.6h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ NE of A2199, but is too poor (4 group members in the CfA redshift survey) for inclusion in the RASSCALS catalog (MBGR require a minimum of 5 group members in the CfA redshift survey). The X-ray faint group NRGs389 lies between NRGs385 and NRGs388 and is aligned with the possible filament.

We find marginal evidence ($`2.7\sigma `$) of X-ray emission near NRGs396 in the RASS; pointed observations of these groups with XMM-Newton or Chandra would place tighter constraints on their X-ray properties. Like NRGs385, NRGs396 and NRGs400 are sufficiently distant from the center of the supercluster that they may not be gravitationally bound.

## 5 Discussion

The infall pattern in redshift space (delineated by the caustics) indicates that A2197 and one or two X-ray groups (NRGs388 and NRGs385) are connected kinematically to A2199. The three systems are located at projected radii of $`1.^{}4,1.^{}9`$, and $`5.^{}1`$ (2.2, 3.1, and $`8.0h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$) respectively; we also identify five X-ray faint groups in the infall region. All three systems with X-ray emission are significantly less massive than A2199.

To our knowledge, NRGs388 (and possibly NRGs385) is the first X-ray group demonstrably bound to a cluster even though it lies well outside the virial radius (RQCM  demonstrate similar connections between X-ray clusters in the Shapley supercluster). The identification of caustics delineating the infall regions of clusters reveals the kinematic connections between clusters and distant, infalling subclusters.

At large radii from rich clusters, it is difficult to observe the WHIM directly with current X-ray instruments (Kull & Böhringer (1999); Pierre, Bryan, & Gastaud (2000); Cen & Ostriker (1999)). The presence of hot gas in at least some infalling groups shows that the intracluster medium in clusters of galaxies can be accreted from infalling groups. Like groups at smaller radii (White et al. 1993, Donnelly et al. (1999)), these groups may interact with the WHIM and thus yield insight into its properties and processes such as cooling and feedback (Pierre et al. 2000).

This project would not have been possible without the assistance of Perry Berlind and Michael Calkins, the remote observers at FLWO, and Susan Tokarz, who processed the spectroscopic data. We thank Lars Hernquist and Christine Jones for helpful discussions. KR, AM, and MG are supported in part by the Smithsonian Institution. JJM is supported by Chandra Fellowship grant PF8-1003, awarded through the Chandra Science Center. The Chandra Science Center is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for NASA under contract NAS8-39073. We thank the Max-Planck Institut für Astrophysik where some of the computing for this work was done. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.


format: text

text:
# A computable measure of entanglement

## I Introduction

In recent years it has been realized that quantum mechanics offers unexpected possibilities in information transmission and processing, and that quantum entanglement of composite systems plays a major role in many of them. Since then, a remarkable theoretical effort has been devoted both to classifying and quantifying entanglement.

Pure-state entanglement of a bipartite system is presently well-understood, in that the relevant parameters for its optimal manipulation under local operations and classical communication (LOCC) have been identified, in some asymptotic sense  as well as for the single copy case . Given an arbitrary bipartite pure state $`|\psi _{AB}`$, the entropy of entanglement $`E(\psi _{AB})`$ , namely the von-Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix $`\rho _A\text{Tr}_B|\psi _{AB}\psi _{AB}|`$, tells us exhaustively about the possibilities of transforming, using LOCC, $`|\psi _{AB}`$ into other pure states, in an asymptotic sense. When manipulating a single copy of $`|\psi _{AB}`$, this information is provided by the $`n`$ entanglement monotones $`E_l=_{i=l}^n\lambda _i`$ ($`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$) , where $`\lambda _i`$ are the eigenvalues of $`\rho _A`$ in decreasing order.

Many efforts have also been devoted to the study of mixed-state entanglement. In this case several measures have been proposed. The entanglement of formation $`E_F(\rho )`$  —or, more precisely, its renormalized version, the entanglement cost $`E_C(\rho )`$ — and the distillable entanglement $`E_D(\rho )`$  quantify, respectively, the asymptotic pure-state entanglement required to create $`\rho `$, and that which can be extracted from $`\rho `$, by means of LOCC. The relative entropy of entanglement  appears as a third, related measure  which interpolates between $`E_C`$ and $`E_D`$ .

However, in practice it is not known how to effectively compute these measures, nor any other, for a generic mixed state, because they involve variational expressions. To our knowledge, the only exceptions are Wootter’s closed expression for the entanglement of formation $`E_F(\rho )`$ \[and concurrence $`C(\rho )`$\] of two-qubit states , and its single-copy analog $`E_2(\rho )`$ also for two qubits .

Multipartite pure-state entanglement represents the next order of complexity in the study of entanglement, and is of interest, because one hopes gain a better understanding of the correlations between different registers of a quantum computer. Consider a tripartite state $`|\psi _{ABC}`$. Some of its entanglement properties depend on those of the two-party reduced density matrices, which are in a mixed state. For instance, the relative entropy of $`\rho _{AB}`$ tr$`{}_{C}{}^{}|\psi _{ABC}\psi _{ABC}|`$ has been used to prove that bipartite and tripartite pure-state entanglement are asymptotically inequivalent . Thus, the lack of an entanglement measure that can be easily computed for bipartite mixed states is not only a serious drawback in the study of mixed-state entanglement, but also a limitation for understanding multipartite pure-state entanglement.

The aim of this paper is to introduce a computable measure of entanglement , and thereby fill an important gap in the study of entanglement. It is based on the trace norm of the partial transpose $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ of the bipartite mixed state $`\rho `$, a quantity whose evaluation is completely straightforward using standard linear algebra packages. It essentially measures the degree to which $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ fails to be positive, and therefore it can be regarded as a quantitative version of Peres’ criterion for separability . From the trace norm of $`\rho ^{T_A}`$, denoted by $`\rho ^{T_A}_1`$, we will actually construct two useful quantities. The first one is the negativity,

$$𝒩(\rho )\frac{\rho ^{T_A}_11}{2},$$
(1)
which corresponds to the absolute value of the sum of negative eigenvalues of $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ , and which vanishes for unentangled states. As we will prove here, $`𝒩(\rho )`$ does not increase under LOCC, i.e., it is an entanglement monotone , and as such it can be used to quantify the degree of entanglement in composite systems. We will also consider the logarithmic negativity,

$$E_𝒩(\rho )\mathrm{log}_2\rho ^{T_A}_1,$$
(2)
which again exhibits some form of monotonicity under LOCC (it does not increase during deterministic distillation protocols) and is, remarkably, an additive quantity.

The importance of $`𝒩`$ and $`E_𝒩`$ is boosted, however, beyond their practical computability by two results that link theses measures with relevant parameters characterizing entangled mixed states. The negativity will be shown to bound the extent to which a single copy of the state $`\rho `$ can be used, together with LOCC, to perform quantum teleportation . In turn, the logarithmic negativity bounds the distillable entanglement $`E_D^ϵ`$ contained in $`\rho `$, that is, the amount of “almost pure”-state entanglement that can be asymptotically distilled from $`\rho ^N`$, where “almost” means that some small degree $`ϵ`$ of imperfection is allowed in the output of the distillation process.

Remarkably, this last result has already found an application in the context of asymptotic transformations of bipartite entanglement , as a means to prove that (PPT) bound entangled states  cannot be distilled into entangled pure states even if loaned (i.e. subsequently recovered for replacement) pure-state entanglement is used to assist the distillation process. In this way, the bound on distillability implied by $`E_𝒩`$ has contributed to prove that, in a bipartite setting, asymptotic local manipulation of mixed-state entanglement is sometimes, in contrast to its pure-state counterpart, an inherently irreversible process.

We have divided this paper into VII sections. In section II some properties of the negativity $`𝒩`$, such as its monotonicity under LOCC, and of the logarithmic negativity $`E_𝒩`$ are proved. We also discuss a more general construction leading to several other (non-increasing under LOCC) negativities. In sections III and IV we derive, respectively, the bounds on teleportation capacity and on asymptotic distillability. Then in section V we calculate the explicit expression of $`𝒩`$ and $`E_𝒩`$ for pure states and for some highly symmetric mixed states, also for Gaussian states of light field. In section VI extensions of these quantities to multipartite systems are briefly considered, and section VII contains some discussion and conclusions.

## II Monotonicity of $`𝒩(\rho )`$ under LOCC.

In this section we show that the negativity $`𝒩(\rho )`$ is an entanglement monotone. We first give a rather detailed proof of this result. Then we sketch an argument extending this observation to several other similarly constructed negativities—like the robustness of entanglement .

### A Definition and basic properties

From now on we will denote by $`\rho `$ a generic state of a bipartite system with finite dimensional Hilbert space $`_A_B\text{ }\text{C}^{d_A}\text{ }\text{C}^{d_B}`$ shared by two parties, Alice and Bob. $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ denotes the partial transpose of $`\rho `$ with respect to Alice’s subsystem, that is the hermitian, trace-normalized operator defined to have matrix elements,

$$i_A,j_B|\rho ^{T_A}|k_A,l_Bk_A,j_B|\rho |i_A,l_B,$$
(3)
for a fixed but otherwise arbitrary orthonormal product basis $`|i_A,j_B|i_A|j_B_A_B`$. The trace norm of any hermitian operator $`A`$ is $`A_1\mathrm{tr}\sqrt{A^{}A}`$ \[19, Sec.VI.6\], which is equal to the sum of the absolute values of the eigenvalues of $`A`$, when $`A`$ is hermitian . For density matrices all eigenvalues are positive and thus $`\rho _1=\mathrm{tr}\rho =1`$. The partial transpose $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ also satisfies $`\mathrm{tr}[\rho ^{T_A}]=1`$, but since it may have negative eigenvalues $`\mu _i<0`$, its trace norm reads in general

$$\rho ^{T_A}_1=1+2|\underset{i}{}\mu _i|1+2𝒩(\rho ).$$
(4)
Therefore the negativity $`𝒩(\rho )`$ —the sum $`|_i\mu _i|`$ of the negative eigenvalues $`\mu _i`$ of $`\rho ^{T_A}`$—measures by how much $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ fails to be positive definite. Notice that for any separable or unentangled state $`\rho _s`$ ,

$$\rho _s=\underset{k}{}p_k|e_k,f_ke_k,f_k|;p_k0,\underset{k}{}p_k=1,$$
(5)
its partial transposition is also a separable state ,

$$\rho _s^{T_A}=\underset{k}{}p_k|e_k^{},f_ke_k^{},f_k|0,$$
(6)
and therefore $`\rho _s^{T_A}_1=1`$ and $`𝒩(\rho _s)=0`$.

The practical computation of $`𝒩(\rho )`$ is straightforward, using standard linear algebra packages for eigenvalue computation of hermitian matrices. On the other hand, this representation is not necessarily the best for proving estimates and general properties of $`𝒩(\rho )`$. To begin with a simple example, consider the property that $`𝒩(\rho )`$ does not increase under mixing:

Proposition 1: $`𝒩`$ is a convex function, i.e.,

$$𝒩\left(\underset{i}{}p_i\rho _i\right)\underset{i}{}p_i𝒩\left(\rho _i\right),$$
(7)
whenever the $`\rho _i`$ are hermitian, and $`p_i0`$ with $`_ip_i=1`$.

There is nothing to prove here, when we write $`𝒩(\rho )=(\rho ^{T_A}_11)/2`$, and observe that $`_1`$, like any norm, satisfies the triangle inequality and is homogeneous of degree $`1`$ for positive factors, hence convex.

However, the fact that $`\rho _1`$ is indeed a norm is not so obvious, when it is defined in terms of the eigenvalues. This is shown best by rewriting it as a variational expression. Our reason for recalling this standard observation from the theory of the trace norm is that the same variational expression will be crucial for showing monotonicity under LOCC operations. The variational expression is simply the representation of a general hermitian matrix $`A`$ as a difference of positive operators: Since we are in finite dimension we can always write

$$A=a_+\rho ^+a_{}\rho ^{},$$
(8)
where $`\rho ^\pm 0`$ are density matrices ($`\mathrm{tr}[\rho ^\pm ]=1`$) and $`a_\pm 0`$ are positive numbers. Note that by taking the trace of this equation we simply have $`\mathrm{tr}[A]=a_+a_{}`$.

Lemma 2: For any hermitian matrix $`A`$ there is a decomposition of the form (8) for which $`a_++a_{}`$ is minimal. For this decomposition, $`A_1=a_++a_{}`$, and $`a_{}`$ is the absolute sum of the negative eigenvalues of $`A`$.

Proof: Let $`P^{}`$ be the projector onto the negative eigenvalued subspace of $`A`$, and $`𝒩=\mathrm{tr}[AP^{}]`$ the absolute sum of the negative eigenvalues. We can reverse the decomposition (8) to obtain that $`A+a_{}\rho ^{}`$ is positive semidefinite. This implies that

$$0\mathrm{tr}[(A+a_{}\rho ^{})P^{}]=𝒩+a_{}\mathrm{tr}[\rho ^{}P^{}]$$
(9)
But $`\mathrm{tr}[\rho ^{}P^{}]1`$, that is $`a_{}𝒩`$. This bound can be saturated with the choice $`a_{}\rho ^{}P^{}AP^{}`$ (corresponding to the Jordan decomposition of $`A`$, where $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`\rho ^+`$ have disjoint support), which ends the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

For the negativity we therefore get the formula

$$𝒩(A)=inf\left\{a_{}\right|A^{T_A}=a_+\rho ^+a_{}\rho ^{}\},$$
(10)
where the infimum is over all density matrices $`\rho ^\pm `$ and $`a_\pm 0`$.

Another remarkable property of $`𝒩(\rho )`$ is the easy way in which $`𝒩(\rho _1\rho _2)`$ relates to the negativity of $`\rho _1`$ and that of $`\rho _2`$. This relationship is an important, but notoriously difficult issue for discussing asymptotic properties of entanglement measures (see, e.g.,  for a discussion and a counterexample to the conjectured additivity of the relative entropy of entanglement).

For the entanglement measure proposed in this paper we get additivity for free. We start from the identity $`\rho _1\rho _2_1=\rho _1_1\rho _2_1`$, which is best shown by using the definition of the trace norm via eigenvalues, and observe that partial transposition commutes with taking tensor products. After taking logarithms, we find for the logarithmic negativity:

$$E_𝒩(\rho _1\rho _2)=E_𝒩(\rho _1)+E_𝒩(\rho _2).$$
(11)
It might seem from this that $`E_𝒩`$ is a candidate for the much sought for canonical measure of entanglement. However, it has other drawbacks. For instance, it is not convex, as is already suggested by the combination of a convex functional (the trace norm) with the concave log function, which implies that it increases under some LOCC. And although it has an interesting, monotonic behavior during asymptotic distillation (as shown in section IV), it does not correspond to the entropy of entanglement for pure states (see section V).

### B Negativity as a mixed-state entanglement monotone.

By definition, a LOCC operation (possibly for many parties) consists of a sequence of steps, in each of which one of the parties performs a local measurement, and broadcasts the result to all other parties. In each round the local measurement chosen is allowed to depend on the results of all prior measurements. If at the end of a LOCC operation with initial state $`\rho `$ the classical information available is “$`i`$”, which occurs with probability $`p_i`$, and final state conditional on this occurrence is $`\rho _i^{}`$, we require of an entanglement monotone  $`E`$ that

$$E(\rho )\underset{i}{}p_iE(\rho _i^{}).$$
(12)
It is clear by iteration that this may be proved by looking at just one round of a LOCC protocol, consisting of a single local operation. In the present case, since $`𝒩`$ makes no distinction between Alice and Bob, it suffices to consider just one local measurement by Bob.

Now the most general local measurement is described by a family $`_i`$ of completely positive linear maps such that, in the notation used in the previous paragraph, $`_i(\rho )=p_i\rho _i^{}`$. These maps satisfy the normalization condition $`_i\mathrm{tr}(_i(\rho ))=\mathrm{tr}(\rho )`$. This can be further simplified  when some $`_i`$ can be decomposed further into completely positive maps, e.g., $`_i=_i^{}+_i^{\prime \prime }`$. Then we may simply consider the finer decomposition as a finer measurement, with the result $`i`$ replaced by two others, $`i^{}`$ and $`i^{\prime \prime }`$. Using the convexity already established it is clear that it suffices to prove (12) for the finer measurement. That is, we can assume that there are no proper decompositions of the $`_i`$, or that $`_i`$ is “pure”. This is equivalent to $`_i`$ taking pure states to pure states, or to the property  that it can be written with a single Kraus summand. Taking into account that this describes a local measurement by Bob, we can write

$$_i(\rho )=(I_AM_i)\rho (I_AM_i^{}),$$
(13)
where the Kraus operators $`M_i`$ must satisfy the normalization condition $`_iM_i^{}M_iI_B`$. For computing the right hand side of Eq. (12) we need that

$$_i(\rho )^{T_A}=_i\left(\rho ^{T_A}\right),$$
(14)
which immediately follows from (13) by expanding $`\rho `$ as a sum of (not necessarily positive) tensor products. A similar formula holds for Alice’s local operations, but with a modified operation $`_i`$ on the right hand side, in which the Kraus operators have been replaced by their complex conjugates.

Consider the decomposition

$$\rho ^{T_A}=(1+N)\rho ^+N\rho ^{}.$$
(15)
with density operators $`\rho ^\pm `$ and $`N=𝒩(\rho )`$. Then we can also decompose the partially transposed output states:

$`p_i(\rho _i^{})^{T_A}`$ $`=`$ $`_i(\rho )^{T_A}=_i(\rho ^{T_A})`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`(1+N)_i(\rho ^+)N_i(\rho ^{}).`$ (17)
Dividing by $`p_i`$ we get a decomposition of precisely the sort (10) defining $`𝒩(\rho _i^{})`$. The coefficient $`a_{}=N/p_i`$ must be larger than the infimum, i.e., $`𝒩(\rho _i^{})N/p_i`$. Multiplying by $`p_i`$ and summing, we find the following inequality.

Proposition 3:

$$\underset{i}{}p_i𝒩(\rho _i^{})𝒩(\rho ),$$
(18)
i.e., $`𝒩(\rho )`$ is indeed an entanglement monotone.

### C Other negativities.

Both the proof of convexity and the proof of monotonicity are based on the variational representation of the trace norm in Lemma 2. The abstract version of this Lemma is the definition of the so-called base norm $`_S`$ associated with a compact set $`S`$ in a real vector space . The negativity introduced above then corresponds to a special choice of $`S`$, and we can easily find the property of $`S`$ required for proving LOCC monotonicity in the abstract setting. Other choices of $`S`$ then lead to other entanglement monotones, some of which have been proposed in the literature.

For our purposes we can take $`S`$ as an arbitrary compact convex subset of the hermitian operators with unit trace, whose real linear hull equals all hermitian operators. Then, in analogy to Lemma 2, we define the associated base norm and “$`S`$-negativity” as

$`A_S`$ $`=`$ $`inf\{a_++a_{}|A=a_+\rho ^+a_{}\rho ^{},.`$ (20)
$`.a_\pm 0,\rho ^\pm S\},`$
$`𝒩_S(A)`$ $`=`$ $`inf\left\{a_{}\right|A=a_+\rho ^+a_{}\rho ^{},.`$ (22)
$`.a_\pm 0,\rho ^\pm S\},`$
Note that once again, if $`A`$ has trace $`1`$ we have that $`A_S=1+2𝒩_S(A)`$. Then norm and convexity properties of $`𝒩_S`$ and $`_S`$ follow exactly as before.

Taking $`S`$ as the set of all density matrices, we get $`A_S=A_1`$, for all hermitian $`A`$, and a totally uninteresting entanglement quantity, as $`𝒩_S(\rho )`$ vanishes for all density matrices. The negativity of the previous section corresponds to the choice of $`S`$ equal to the set of all matrices $`A`$ such that $`A=A^{}`$, $`\mathrm{tr}A=1`$, and $`A^{T_A}0`$ (additionally, we have replaced $`A^{T_A}`$ with $`A`$ in the LHS of eq. (10) $`A`$, so that we can write $`𝒩(\rho )`$ instead of $`𝒩(\rho ^{T_A})`$).

We could have also taken $`S`$ as the subset of density matrices with positive partial transpose, $`\rho ^\pm 0`$ and $`\rho ^{\pm T_A}0`$. In this case $`S`$ corresponds to all states such that its partial transpose is also a state. The resulting quantity we will denote by $`𝒩_{ppts}`$. Even more restrictively, if we take for $`S`$ the set of separable density operators, i.e. we take $`\rho ^\pm `$ (and therefore also $`\rho ^{\pm T_A}`$) in eqs. (20,22) to be separable, the corresponding quantity $`𝒩_{ss}`$ amounts to the robustness of entanglement, originally introduced in  (see also ) as the minimal amount of separable noise needed to destroy the entanglement of $`\rho `$. From the inclusions between the respective sets $`S`$ we immediately get the inequalities

$$𝒩_{ss}(\rho )𝒩_{ppts}(\rho )𝒩(\rho )0.$$
(24)
In general, all these inequalities are strict. For example, $`𝒩_{ss}(\rho )`$ vanishes only on separable states, whereas $`𝒩_{ppts}(\rho )`$ and $`𝒩(\rho )`$ vanish for all ppt-states.

We claim that also $`𝒩_{ss}`$ and $`𝒩_{ppts}`$ are entanglement monotones. The proof is quite simple. An analysis of the arguments given in the previous section shows that we really used only one property of $`S`$, namely that for all operations $`_i`$ appearing in a LOCC protocol, we have $`_i(\rho )S^{}`$, whenever $`\rho S^{}`$, where $`S^{}`$ notes the cone generated by $`S`$ (equivalently the set of $`\lambda \rho `$ with $`\lambda 0,\rho S`$). But this is obvious for both separable states and ppt-states.

## III Upper bound to teleportation capacity

Sections III and IV are devoted to discuss applications of the previous results. More specifically, we derive bounds to some properties characterizing the entanglement both of a single copy of a mixed state $`\rho `$ (this section) and of asymptotically many copies of it (next section).

For a single copy of a bipartite state $`\rho `$ acting on $`\text{ }\text{C}^{d_1}\text{ }\text{C}^{d_2}`$, where we set $`d_1=d_2m`$ for simplicity, an important question in quantum information theory is to what extend this state can be used to implement some given tasks requiring entanglement, such as teleportation. The best approximation $`P_{opt}(\rho )`$ to a maximally entangled state,

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{m}{}}|\alpha _A\alpha _B,$$
(25)
that can be obtained from $`\rho `$ by means of LOCC is then interesting, because it determines, for instance, how useful the state $`\rho `$ is to approximately teleport $`\mathrm{log}_2m`$ qubits of information. In this section we will show that the negativity $`𝒩(\rho )`$ provides us with an explicit lower bound on how close $`\rho `$ can be taken, by means of LOCC, to the state $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$. From here a lower bound on the teleportation distance (i.e., an upper bound on how good teleportation results from $`\rho `$) will also follow.

### A Singlet distance

In order to characterize the optimal state $`P_{opt}(\rho )`$ achievable from $`\rho `$ by means of LOCC, we need to quantify its closeness to the maximally entangled state $`P_+|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|`$. Let $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ be two density matrices. The trace norm of $`\rho _1\rho _2`$, (or absolute distance ), is a measure of the degree of distinguishability of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, and it is therefore reasonable to use it to measure how much $`P(\rho )`$—the state resulting from applying a local protocol $`P`$ to state $`\rho `$—resembles $`P_+`$. In what follows we will prove that the negativity is a lower bound to the singlet distance of $`\rho `$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(P_+,\rho )\underset{P}{inf}P_+P(\rho )_1,$$
(26)
where the infimum is taken over local protocols $`P`$.

We start be recalling that the absolute distance $`D(\rho _1,\rho _2)\rho _1\rho _2_1`$ is a convex function ,

$$\underset{i}{}p_iD(\sigma ,\rho _i)D(\sigma ,\underset{i}{}p_i\rho _i),$$
(27)
which confirms, as already assumed, that the optimal approximation $`P(\rho )`$ to $`P_+`$ can always be chosen to be a single state—as opposed to a distribution of states $`\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$ corresponding to the output of a probabilistic transformation. Therefore, in eq. (26) we need only consider deterministic protocols $`P`$ based on LOCC.

A second feature of the absolute distance that we need is that

$$D(W\rho _1W^{},W\rho _2W^{})=D(\rho _1,\rho _2),$$
(28)
for any unitary transformation $`W`$. Properties (27) and (28) together imply that the best approximation to the maximally entangled state $`P_+`$ can always be “twirled” without losing optimality. Consider the state

$$𝑑UUU^{}P_{opt}(\rho )U^{}U^{},$$
(29)
which the parties can locally obtain from $`P_{opt}(\rho )`$ by Alice applying an arbitrary unitary $`U`$, by Bob applying $`U^{}`$, and by then deleting the classical information concerning which unitary has been applied. It follows from the invariance of $`P_+`$ under $`UU^{}`$ and from property (28) that $`D(UU^{}P_{opt}(\rho )U^{}U^{},P_+)=D(P_{opt}(\rho ),P_+)`$ for any $`U`$. Then property (27) implies that the mixture in eq. (29) is not further away from $`P_+`$ than $`P_{opt}(\rho )`$. But $`P_{opt}(\rho )`$ was already minimizing eq. (26), and therefore state (29) must also be optimal.

We can then assume that $`P_{opt}(\rho )`$ has already undergone a twirling operation. This means that it is a noisy singlet ,

$$\rho _p=pP_++(1p)\frac{II}{m^2},$$
(30)
from which the absolute distance to $`P_+`$ can be easily computed, $`D(P_+,\rho _p)=2(1p)(m^21)/m^2.`$ Similarly, the trace norm of $`\rho _p^{T_A}`$ reads $`\rho _p^{T_A}_1=mp+(1p)/m`$, and therefore

$$D(P_+,\rho _p)=2(1\frac{\rho _p^{T_A}_1}{m}).$$
(31)
The lower bound to the singlet distance (26) follows now straightforwardly from the monotonicity of $`\rho ^{T_A}_1`$ (or $`𝒩(\rho )`$) under LOCC, that is, $`\rho ^{T_A}_1P_{opt}(\rho )^{T_A}_1`$, and therefore

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(P_+,\rho )2(1\frac{\rho ^{T_A}_1}{m}).$$
(32)
Therefore we have proved the following bound for the singlet distance.

Proposition 4:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(P_+,\rho )2(1\frac{1+2𝒩(\rho )}{m}).$$
(33)
### B Teleportation distance

A quantum state $`\rho `$ shared by Alice and Bob can be used as a teleportation channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . That is, given the shared state $`\rho `$ and a classical channel between the parties, Alice can transmit an arbitrary (unknown) state $`\varphi 𝒞^m`$ to Bob with some degree of approximation. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{T,\rho }(\varphi )`$ be the state that Bob obtains when Alice sends $`\varphi `$ using $`\rho `$ and some protocol $`T`$ involving LOCC only. The teleportation distance

$$d(\mathrm{\Lambda })𝑑\varphi D(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )),$$
(34)
where $`D(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi ))|\varphi \varphi |\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )_1`$, can be used to quantify the degree of performance of the channel. The measure $`d\varphi `$ is consistent with the Haar measure $`dU`$ in $`SU(m)`$, and thus $`d(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is invariant under the twirling of the channel, that is the application of an arbitrary unitary $`U`$ to $`\varphi `$ previous to the teleportation, followed by the application of $`U^{}`$ after the teleportation scheme. Indeed,

$$d(\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝑑WD(WP_0W^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }(WP_0W^{})),$$
(35)
for some reference state $`P_0|\varphi _0\varphi _0|`$, and using property (28) of the trace norm, eq. (35) is also equal to

$$𝑑Wd(WP_0W^{},U^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(UWP_0W^{}U^{})U).$$
(36)
We can now average over $`U`$ to obtain

$$d(\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝑑U𝑑\varphi D(\varphi ,U^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(U\varphi )U),$$
(37)
where the right side of the equation corresponds to the teleportation distance of the twirled channel.

We next adapt a reasoning of the Horodeckis  to our present situation. It uses an isomorphism between states $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and channels $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ due to Jamiołkowski . Let us ascribe the channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=(I\mathrm{\Lambda })P_+`$. The state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be produced by sending Bob’s part of the bipartite system in state $`P_+`$ down the channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Conversely, the standard teleportation protocol  (or a slight and obvious modification of it) applied to state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reproduces the channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with probability $`1/m^2`$. However, if the state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a noisy singlet $`\rho _p`$, then the corresponding channel is the depolarizing channel

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^{dep}(\varrho )=p\varrho +(1p)\frac{I}{m},$$
(38)
which the standard teleportation scheme reproduces with certainty using state $`\rho _p`$. For this case $`d(\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^{dep})=2(1p)(m1)/m`$. Therefore there is a complete physical equivalence between noisy singlets and depolarizing teleportation channels. In addition,

$$d(\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^{dep})=\frac{m}{m+1}D(P_+,\rho _p).$$
(39)
Now, since both quantities $`d`$ and $`D`$ are invariant under twirling, and any channel (state) can be taken into the depolarizing (noisy singlet) form, this equality holds for any channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Lemma 5 (adapted from ): The minimal distance $`d_{min}(\rho )`$ that can be achieved when using the bipartite state $`\rho `$ to construct an arbitrary teleportation channel is given by

$$d_{min}(\rho )=\frac{m}{m+1}\mathrm{\Delta }(P_+,\rho ).$$
(40)
Proof: $`d_{min}(\rho )m\mathrm{\Delta }(P_+,\rho )/(m+1)`$, because a possible way to use $`\rho `$ as a teleportation channel is by using a twirled version of an optimal state $`P(\rho )`$ and the standard teleportation scheme, which produces a depolarizing teleportation channel with $`d=mD(P_+,P(\rho ))/(m+1)`$ (recall eq. (39)). On the other hand $`d_{min}(\rho )`$ is at least $`m\mathrm{\Delta }(P_+,\rho )/(m+1)`$. Indeed, take an optimal teleportation scheme employing the state $`\rho `$ and LOCC only. It will produce some optimal teleportation channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, that we can turn into a depolarizing channel without increasing $`d(\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^{dep})=d_{min}(\rho )`$. Then we can send half of $`P_+`$ through the channel to obtain a noisy singlet $`\rho _p`$ that satisfies eq. (39). The desired inequality follows then from the fact that $`D(P_+,\rho _p)𝒟(P_+,P_{opt}(\rho ))`$.

Therefore, using (32) we can announce the following upper bound to the optimal teleportation distance $`d_{min}(\rho )`$ achievable with state $`\rho `$ and LOCC

Proposition 6:

$$d_{min}(\rho )\frac{2}{m+1}(m1+2𝒩(\rho )).$$
(41)
The two results of this section can also be derived in terms of fidelities (the so-called singlet and channel fidelities, see for instance ). The upper bounds one obtains read,

$`F_{opt}`$ $``$ $`\underset{P}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Phi }^+|P(\rho )|\mathrm{\Phi }^+{\displaystyle \frac{1+2𝒩(\rho )}{m}};`$ (42)
$`f_{opt}(\rho )`$ $``$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho }{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi \varphi |\mathrm{\Lambda }(|\varphi \varphi |)|\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{2d(𝒩(\rho )+1)}{m+1}}.`$ (43)
## IV Upper bound to distillation rates

We now move to consider a second application of the previous measures, namely a bound on the asymptotic distillability of a mixed state $`\rho `$ in terms of $`E_𝒩(\rho )`$.

The distillation rate of a bipartite state $`\rho `$ is the best rate at which we can extract near perfect singlet states from multiple copies of the state by means of LOCC. The asymptotic (in the number of copies) distillation rate is the so-called entanglement of distillation $`E_D(\rho )`$ , one of the fundamental measures of entanglement. In this section we will show that the logarithmic negativity $`E_𝒩`$ is always at least as great as the entanglement of distillation $`E_D^ϵ(\rho )`$, where $`ϵ`$ denotes the degree of imperfection allowed in the distilled singlets.

Let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ denote a maximally entangled state of two qubits, and consider, for some number $`n_\alpha `$ of copies of $`\rho `$, the best approximation to $`m_\alpha `$ copies of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ that can be obtained from $`\rho ^{n_\alpha }`$ by means of LOCC. Similarly to the previous section we define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{m_\alpha },\rho ^{n_\alpha })\underset{P}{inf}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{m_\alpha }P(\rho ^{n_\alpha })_1,$$
(44)
where $`P`$ runs over all deterministic protocols built from LOCC. We say that $`c`$ is an achievable distillation rate for $`\rho `$, if for any sequences $`n_\alpha ,m_\alpha \mathrm{}`$ of integers such that $`lim\; sup_\alpha (n_\alpha /m_\alpha )c`$ we have

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{n_\alpha },\rho ^{m_\alpha })=0.$$
(45)
The distillable entanglement $`E_D(\rho )`$ corresponds then to the supremum of all achievable distillation rates. Several variants of this definition are available in the literature, which are however, equivalent to the one given here. In particular, we may replace ‘$`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$’ by a ‘fidelity$`1`$’, and we may consider selective protocols, in which operations produce variable numbers of output systems on the same input, and the expected rate is optimized. Of course, restricting the amount of classical communication between Alice and Bob will in in general change the rate.

The above definition requires that the errors go to zero, but in many applications one can live with a small but finite error level. Therefore we introduce $`E_D^ϵ(\rho )`$, the distillable entanglement at error level $`ϵ`$, which is defined exactly as above, but (45) is replaced by

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim\; sup}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{n_\alpha },\rho ^{m_\alpha })ϵ.$$
(46)
Of course, $`E_D^0(\rho )=E_D(\rho )`$, and $`ϵE_D^ϵ(\rho )`$ is a non-decreasing function. The main result of this section is the following bound.

Proposition 7:

$$E_D^ϵ(\rho )E_𝒩(\rho ),$$
(47)
for all $`0ϵ<1`$.

Proof: The only property of LOCC operations used in the proof is that for any such operation $`P`$, there is another, $`P^{}`$ such that $`P(\rho )^{T_A}=P^{}(\rho ^{T_A})`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_d`$ the maximally entangled state on a pair of $`d`$-dimensional spaces. Then, as shown below, we have $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_d^{T_A}_1=d`$. In some sense this is the worst case: for general hermitian operators we have $`A^{T_A}_1dA_1`$.

Now suppose that $`P`$ is the transformation for which the infimum (44) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_d,\rho )`$ is attained. Then

$$\rho ^{T_A}_1P^{}(\rho ^{T_A})_1=P(\rho )^{T_A}_1,$$
(48)
where the first estimate holds, because $`P^{}`$, as a bona fide LOCC operation, does not increase the trace norm (recall the monotonicity of $`𝒩(\rho )`$). On the other hand,

$`P(\rho )^{T_A}_1`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_d^{T_A}_1(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_dP(\rho ))^{T_A}_1`$ (49)
$``$ $`dd\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_d,\rho ).`$ (50)
Taking the logarithm, we find

$$E_𝒩(\rho )\mathrm{log}_2(d)+\mathrm{log}_2(1\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_d,\rho )).$$
(51)
Now let $`n_\alpha ,m_\alpha `$ be diverging integer sequences as in the definition of achievable rate $`c`$. Then, using the additivity of $`E_𝒩`$, and the last inequality with $`d=2^{n_\alpha }`$, we find

$`E_𝒩(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\alpha }}E_𝒩(\rho ^{m_\alpha })`$ (52)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\alpha }}\left(n_\alpha +\mathrm{log}_2\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{n_\alpha },\rho ^{m_\alpha })\right)\right).`$ (53)
We now go to the limit superior with respect to $`\alpha `$, observing that the error $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is uniformly bounded away from $`1`$, and $`m_\alpha \mathrm{}`$. Hence $`E_𝒩(\rho )c`$ for every achievable rate $`c`$, which concludes the proof.

## V Explicit examples

In this section we display explicit expressions for the negativity for some particular classes of bipartite states, namely for arbitrary pure states, for mixed states with a high degree of symmetry, and finally also for Gaussian states of a light field.

### A Pure states

All entanglement measures based on asymptotic distillation and dilution of pure-state entanglement, in particular the entanglement of formation $`E_F`$ and the distillable entanglement $`E_D`$ , but also the relative entropy of entanglement  agree on pure states, where they give the von Neumann entropy of the restricted states. Negativity gives a larger value: Let $`\rho =|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ be a pure state, and write the wave vector in its Schmidt decomposition $`\mathrm{\Phi }=_\alpha c_\alpha e_\alpha ^{}e_\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`c_\alpha >0`$ are the Schmidt coefficients of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and the $`e_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ are suitable orthonormal basis. Then we get the following result.

Proposition 8:

$$𝒩(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(\underset{\alpha }{}c_\alpha \right)^21\right).$$
(54)
This is precisely $`𝒩_{ss}/2`$, i.e. half of the robustness of entanglement, as computed in .

Proof: Introducing the operators “flip” $`𝐅e_\alpha ^{}e_\beta ^{\prime \prime }=e_\beta ^{}e_\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`C^{}=_\alpha c_\alpha |e_\alpha ^{}e_\alpha ^{}|`$, and a similar $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ for the second tensor factor, we find

$`\left(|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|\right)^{T_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}c_\alpha c_\beta |e_\alpha ^{}e_\beta ^{\prime \prime }e_\beta ^{}e_\alpha ^{\prime \prime }|`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`𝐅(C^{}C^{\prime \prime }).`$ (56)
From the trace norm $`X_1=\mathrm{tr}\sqrt{X^{}X}`$ we may omit unitary factors like $`𝐅`$, so the trace norm is equal to the trace of the positive operator $`(C^{}C^{\prime \prime })`$, namely $`\left(_\alpha c_\alpha \right)^2`$.

Since $`E_𝒩`$ is an upper bound on the distillation rate, and that rate is known to be $`E(\rho )`$, the von Neumann entropy of the restricted state, we know that $`E_𝒩(\rho )E(\rho )`$. But of course, we can get this more directly: using the concavity of the logarithm, we get

$$E(\rho )=2\underset{\alpha }{}c_\alpha ^2\mathrm{log}_2(\frac{1}{c_\alpha })2\mathrm{log}_2\left(\underset{\alpha }{}c_\alpha \right)=E_𝒩(\rho ).$$
(57)
This derivation also allows the characterization of the cases of equality: Since the logarithm is strictly concave, we get equality if and only if all non-zero $`c_\alpha `$ are equal. Hence equality for pure states holds exactly for maximally entangled states (which may have been expanded by zeros to live on a larger Hilbert space).

### B States with symmetry

All entanglement measures can be computed more easily for states that are invariant under some large group of local unitary transformations . The negativity is no exception. The main gain from local symmetries is that the partial transpose lies in a low dimensional algebra, and is hence easily diagonalized. For this background we refer to . But often a direct computation is just as easy.

Consider, for example, the states $`\rho `$ on $`\text{ }\text{C}^d\text{ }\text{C}^d`$, which commute with all unitaries of the form $`UU`$, where $`U`$ is real orthogonal. These can be written as

$$\rho =ad|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|+b𝐅+c1\mathrm{I},$$
(58)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+=(_{\alpha =1}^d|\alpha \alpha )/\sqrt{d}`$ is again the standard maximally entangled vector, and $`a,b,c`$ are suitable real coefficients. This family includes both the so-called Werner states  with $`a=0`$ and, with $`b=0`$, the so-called isotropic states  (or noisy singlets, compare Eq. (30) above). The three operators in this expansion commute, so all operators of the form (58) can be diagonalized simultaneously, with spectral projections

$`p_0`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$$`\mathrm{\Phi }^+|`$ (59)
$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mathrm{I}𝐅)/2`$ (60)
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mathrm{I}+𝐅)/2|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|.`$ (61)
We parameterize the states of the form (58) by the two expectation values $`f=d\mathrm{tr}(\rho |\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|)`$ and $`g=\mathrm{tr}(\rho 𝐅)`$, the third parameter for determining $`a,b,c`$ being given by the normalization. Then the states correspond to the triangle $`0fd`$, $`1g1`$, $`fd(1+g)/2`$.

Since partial transposition simply swaps the operators $`𝐅`$ and $`d|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|`$, leaving $`1\mathrm{I}`$ unchanged, we can apply the same method to compute the trace norm of the partial transpose, and hence $`𝒩(\rho )`$. Explicitly, we get

$$𝒩(\rho )=\frac{1}{4}|1f|+\frac{1}{4}|1+f2g/d|+\frac{1}{2}|g/d|\frac{1}{2}$$
(62)
It turns out  that in this class of states the Peres-Horodecki separability criterion holds (in spite of arbitrary dimension $`d`$), i.e., the set of ppt-states is the same as the set of separable states, and in the parameterization chosen equal to the square $`f,g[0,1]`$. Hence $`𝒩_{ss}(\rho )=𝒩_{ppts}(\rho )`$. Evaluating a simple variational expression we get

$$𝒩_{ss}(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}\{|2f1|1,|2g1|1,0\}.$$
(63)
### C Gaussian states

Gaussian states frequently occur in applications in quantum optics, where they describe the light field. Alice’s and Bob’s systems are then described by a certain number of canonical degrees of freedom such as field quadratures of suitable modes. However, the same formalism applies when the canonical operators are positions and momenta of a certain number of harmonic oscillators. Gaussian states are then defined as those (possibly mixed) states with Gaussian Wigner function.

For simplicity we denote the full collection of canonical operators by $`R_\alpha ,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},2n`$, where Alice holds $`n_A`$ oscillators and Bob holds $`n_B`$, and $`n=n_A+n_B`$. These are either position or momentum operators, whose commutation relations are of the form

$$[R_\alpha ,R_\beta ]=i\sigma _{\alpha \beta }1\mathrm{I},$$
(64)
with an antisymmetric scalar matrix $`\sigma `$, called the symplectic matrix, which has the block matrix decomposition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _A& 0\\ & \\ 0& \sigma _B\end{array}\right)$$
(65)
with respect to a decomposition of the set of indices into Alice’s and Bob’s. This form expresses the fact that all variables of Alice commute with all of Bob’s.

A Gaussian state is determined by its first two moments $`m_\alpha =\mathrm{tr}(\rho R_\alpha )`$ and

$$\gamma _{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{tr}(\rho R_\alpha R_\beta )\frac{i}{2}\sigma _{\alpha \beta },$$
(66)
where the subtraction is chosen as the antisymmetric part of $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho R_\alpha R_\beta )`$, which is fixed by the commutation relations, independently of the state. $`\gamma `$ is then a real symmetric matrix. Since the mean $`m_\alpha `$ can be made zero by a local unitary transformation (a translation in phase space) it is irrelevant for entanglement, and we choose it to be zero. The second moment $`\gamma `$ is then the same as the covariance matrix of the state. The uncertainty relation, the universal lower bound on variances, is then expressed as the positive definiteness of $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }+(i/2)\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$. It will be crucial for later that for a classical Gaussian it is only necessary that $`\gamma `$ itself is positive definite. Hence we can have non-positive operators, whose Wigner function is an ordinary, if somewhat sharply peaked Gaussian.

In order to compute the trace norm of such an operator or, more generally, to compute the spectrum or other characteristics not depending on the Alice—Bob partition of the system, we can bring $`\gamma `$ into a standard form by a process known as symplectic diagonalization or normal mode decomposition. This means choosing a suitable canonical linear transformation (i.e., a transformation leaving the symplectic form $`\sigma `$ invariant), which can be implemented on the Hilbert space level by unitary operators (known as the metaplectic representation). Assuming $`\sigma `$ to be in standard form, i.e., block diagonal with $`n`$ $`2\times 2`$ blocks of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ this results in a diagonal $`\gamma `$, with equal eigenvalues for each block, i.e. $`\gamma =\mathrm{diag}(c_1,c_1,c_2,c_2,\mathrm{},c_n,c_n)`$. We call $`(c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_n)`$ the symplectic spectrum of $`\gamma `$. The fast way to compute it is via the eigenvalues of the matrix $`\sigma ^1\gamma `$, which are $`\pm ic_1,\mathrm{},\pm ic_n`$. At the Hilbert space level the normal mode decomposition transforms the state into a tensor product of independent harmonic oscillators, each of which is in a thermal oscillator state, the temperature being a function of $`c_\alpha `$. The smallest value allowed by uncertainty is $`c_\alpha =1/2`$, which gives the oscillator ground state.

In this context transposition is best identified with time reversal. Indeed, in the general scheme we can choose a basis in which the transpose is computed, but all these choices are equivalent via a local unitary transformation. In this case we choose the position representation, in which transposition is the same as reversing all momenta, keeping all positions, and to lift this to products by observing that transposition reverses operator products. Partial transposition $`T_A`$ is completely analogous. Only in this case just Alice’s momenta are reversed and Bob’s are left unchanged. On the level of Wigner functions and covariance matrices of Gaussians, we just have to apply the corresponding linear transformations on phase space. That is, $`\gamma ^{T_A}`$, the covariance matrix of the partial transpose of a Gaussian state with covariance matrix $`\gamma `$ is constructed by multiplying by $`1`$ all matrix elements, which connect one of Alice’s momenta to either a position, or a degree of freedom belonging to Bob, and leaving all other matrix elements unchanged.

The point is, of course, that while this transformation preserves the positive definiteness of $`\gamma `$, and hence we get another Gaussian Wigner function, it does not respect the uncertainty relation, so the partially transposed operator may fail to be positive. However, the whole formalism of normal mode decomposition for $`\gamma `$ works exactly as before: we get a representation of the partial transpose as a tensor product of (not necessarily positive) trace class operators. The trace norm of this operator is just the product of the trace norms, so we have completely reduced the computation of the trace norm to the single mode case. To summarize the results so far:

Let $`\rho `$ be a Gaussian density operator with covariance matrix $`\gamma `$, and let $`(\stackrel{~}{c}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{c}_n)`$ be the symplectic spectrum of $`\gamma ^{T_A}`$. Then

$$E_𝒩(\rho )=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}F(\stackrel{~}{c}_\alpha ),$$
(67)
where $`F(c)=\mathrm{log}_2\rho _c_1`$, and $`\rho _c`$ is the operator whose Wigner function is a Gaussian with covariance $`\mathrm{diag}(c,c)`$.

Of course, the function $`F`$ vanishes for $`c(1/2)`$. It is easily determined by looking at Gaussian states for oscillators as the temperature states of the oscillator. With $`z=e^\beta `$, and $`|n`$ the $`n`$th eigenstate of the oscillator, a general Gaussian is of the form

$$\rho =(1z)\underset{n=0}{}z^n|nn|$$
(68)
where $`z0`$ corresponds to density operators, and $`1<z<0`$ to Gaussians whose Wigner functions have sub-Heisenberg variance. Then we get

$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`(1z)(1|z|)^1`$ (69)
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho P^2)=\mathrm{tr}(\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P^2+Q^2))`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`(1z){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}z^n(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`(1z)^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ (72)
Solving Eq. (72) for $`z`$ and substituting into (69) we find

$$F(c)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& \text{for }2c1\hfill \\ \mathrm{log}_2(2c)& \text{for }2c<1\hfill \end{array}$$
(73)
Together with (67) and the process of normal mode decomposition this is an efficient procedure for determining $`E_𝒩(\rho )`$.

In the simplest case of one oscillator each for Alice and Bob we may go even further, by expressing the symplectic spectrum of the partial transpose directly in terms of the covariance matrix. Suppose that

$$\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& C\\ & \\ C^T& B\end{array}\right),$$
(74)
with $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`A,B,C`$. Then, as shown in , the numbers $`detA,detB,detC`$, and $`det\gamma `$ are a complete set of invariants for $`\gamma `$ with respect to local symplectic transformations. Moreover, when passing from $`\gamma `$ to $`\gamma ^{T_A}`$ only $`detC`$ changes sign, and the others remain unchanged. Pure states are characterized by the conditions $`det\gamma =1/16`$, and $`detA+detB+2detC=1/2`$, and can be brought into the normal form

$$\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a& 0& c& 0\\ 0& a& 0& c\\ & & & \\ c& 0& a& 0\\ 0& c& 0& a\end{array}\right),$$
(75)
where $`a^2=c^2+1/4`$.

Coming back to the general case of (74), the characteristic equation of $`\sigma ^1\gamma ^{T_A}`$, whose solutions are the $`\pm \stackrel{~}{c}_\alpha `$, takes the form

$$\xi ^4+(detA+detB2detC)\xi ^2+det\gamma =0$$
(76)
Together with Eq. (67) this amounts to an explicit formula. For the particular case of a pure state we find

$$E_𝒩(\rho )=2\mathrm{log}_2(\sqrt{a1/2}\sqrt{a+1/2}),$$
(77)
which is readily seen to agree with Eq. (54).

## VI Multipartite systems

As argued in the introduction, a computable measure of entanglement for bipartite mixed states is also very convenient for the quantification of multipartite entanglement. In this section we describe a whole set of computable parameters related to the negativity that can be associated to a multipartite state to make quantitative statements about its entanglement.

### A Multipartite negativities

Consider a quantum system consisting of, say, three parts, associated to Alice, Bob and Charlie. Let $`\rho _{ABC}`$ be the (either pure or mixed) state of the system. A possible way to classify the entanglement properties of such a state is by looking at the different bipartite splittings  of the system.

First, we can join two of the three parts, say those of Alice and Bob, and compute the sum of negative eigenvalues of $`\rho _{ABC}^{T_C}`$, $`𝒩_{(AB)C}(\rho _{ABC})`$. This is automatically an entanglement monotone , which quantifies the strength of quantum correlations between Charlie and the other two parties. Similarly, the negativities $`𝒩_{(AC)B}(\rho _{ABC})`$ and $`𝒩_{(BC)A}(\rho _{ABC})`$ are two other monotonic functions under LOCC with analogous meaning.

We can also consider the entanglement properties of two-party reduced density matrices. Suppose, for instance, that Charlie decides not to cooperate with the two other parties in the manipulation of the tripartite system according to LOCC. Alice and Bob’s effective density matrix, $`\sigma _{AB}`$Tr$`{}_{C}{}^{}[\rho _{ABC}]`$, may still retain some of the original entanglement. The negativity of $`\sigma _{AB}`$, $`𝒩_{AB;\mathit{}}(\rho _{ABC})`$, can be used to quantify this residual entanglement. Analogous quantities can be used to quantify the entanglement of $`\sigma _{AC}`$ and $`\sigma _{BC}`$.

Thus, altogether we have obtained $`6`$ computable functions to quantify the entanglement of any state of a tripartite system. In a four-partite setting the number of possible splittings is much greater (see  for a more detailed description), and thus, we obtain up to $`26`$ inequivalent measures, namely: ($`i`$) $`𝒩_{ABCD}(\rho _{ABCD})`$ and the corresponding permutations, i.e. $`4`$ inequivalent measures; ($`ii`$) $`𝒩_{ABCD}(\rho _{ABCD})`$ and permutations ($`4`$ measures); ($`iii`$) $`𝒩_{ABC;\mathit{}}(\rho _{ABCD})`$ and permutations ($`12`$ measures); ($`iv`$) $`𝒩_{AB;\mathit{}\mathit{}}(\rho _{ABCD})`$ and permutations ($`6`$ measures).

### B Hierarchy

Notice that although all these measures are independent functions of the multipartite state, there is a strength hierarchy between them when corresponding to related bipartite splittings with different number of parties. In the four-party case we have that, for instance,

$$𝒩_{ABCD}𝒩_{ABC;\mathit{}}𝒩_{AB;\mathit{}\mathit{}},$$
(78)
which follows from the fact that to trace out a part of a local system is an operation of the set LOCC, under which the negativity can only decrease. Of course, the same inequalities hold for the corresponding logarithmic negativities, and thus also for the several bounds on distillability —of different kinds of multipartite entanglement— implied by the later.

It should be noted, however, that in this way one can quantify only some aspects of multi-particle entanglement: there are tripartite states which are separable with respect to every splitting of the system, but are nevertheless not a convex combination of triple tensor products of density operators . States which have positive partial transpose with respect to every subsystem satisfy a large class of Bell inequalities .

## VII Discussion and conclusions

In this paper we have presented a computable measure of entanglement for bipartite mixed states, the negativity $`𝒩(\rho )`$, which we have proved not to increase under LOCC. Although it lacks a direct physical interpretation, we have shown that it bounds two relevant quantities characterizing the entanglement of mixed states: the channel capacity and the distillable entanglement $`E_D^ϵ`$.

Ideally, quantum correlations would be best quantified by measures with a given physical meaning. Which measure to be used, would depend on which question we want to answer. For instance, if we want to know how much pure-state entanglement the parties can extract from (infinitely) many copies of the state $`\rho `$, then the proper measure to be used is the entanglement of distillation $`E_D(\rho )`$.

In practice, however, the value of these measures is not known. Recent studies of entangled systems, such as those of entangled chains, entanglement molecules, entangled rings, entangled Heisenberg models and cluster states , which are $`N`$-qubit systems in some global entangled state, are focused on the two-qubit quantum correlations associated to the global state, as measured by the entanglement of formation (or the related concurrence) . This choice of measure of entanglement is somehow arbitrary — where not simply forced by the lack of an alternative measure that can also be computed for two-qubit mixed states—, because it does not reflect anyway the entanglement cost of formation of the $`N`$-qubit state. We envisage that in these and similar contexts it will pay off to use a computable entanglement measure like the negativity, whose evaluation is not restricted to two-qubit mixed states. The negativity will allow, for instance, to generalize the previous investigations to analogous constructions with $`l`$-level systems ($`l>2`$) instead of qubits, also to analyze quantitatively the entanglement between subsets of these $`l`$-level systems.

Finally, in a similar way as the negativity has recently played a role in proving the irreversibility of asymptotic local manipulation of bipartite mixed-state entanglement , we hope that this computable measure will also be a useful tool to answer other fundamental questions of entanglement theory.

## Acknowledgments

G.V. acknowledges a Marie Curie Fellowship HPMF-CT-1999-00200 (European Community). This work was also supported by the project EQUIP (contract IST-1999-11053), the European Science Foundation, and the DFG (Bonn).


text:
# Untitled Document

Constraining new physics in the Tev range by the recent BNL measurement of $`(g2)_\mu `$

Uma Mahanta

Mehta Research Institute

Chhatnag Road, Jhusi

Allahabad-211019, India

Abstract

In this paper we study the implications of the recent high precision measurement of $`(g2)_\mu `$ by BNL  on new heavy physics beyond the SM in a model independent way. We find that if the new physics responsible for the muon anomaly is due to d=6 direct operators then they could arise from the following follwing three broad classes of new physics a) new particles in the few hundred Gev range with weak gauge coupling b) strongly interacting particles and resonances in the few Tev range and c) massive Kaluza-Klein modes of the graviton in the Tev range with couplings to SM particles of the order of $`\frac{E}{(Tev)}`$.

The effect of new heavy physics beyond the SM appearing above some high energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at energies much small compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be expressed by non-renormalizable operators constructed out of SM fields. These operators can be expressed in a systematic power series expansion in $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The structure of these operators is completely determined by a) the fields that are dynamical at the relevant energy scale b) the residual gauge symmetry at scales much small compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and c) the global symmetries respected by the low energy theory.

The muon $`(g2)_\mu `$ collaboration has reported a new improved measurement of the positive muon anomaly

$$a_\mu (expt)=11659202(14)(6)\times 10^{10}.$$
$`(1)`$
The value currently expected in the SM is

$$a_\mu (SM)=11659159.6(6.7)\times 10^{10}.$$
$`(2)`$
The world-average experimenta value of $`a_\mu `$ shows a discrepancy of 2.6 $`\sigma `$ from the SM value

$$\delta a_\mu =a_\mu (expt)a_\mu (SM)=43(16)\times 10^{10}.$$
$`(3)`$
The new measurement of the muon anomaly by BNL has produced quite some interest and activity in this area. The discrepancy between the SM and the experimental value reported by BNL has been used to put bounds on the unknown parameters in a variety of new physics scenario namely extra gauge bosons, exotic fermions, compositeness, supersymmetry and leptoquarks .

In this report we shall study the effect of new heavy phyics appearing at some high energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. Such effects can be expressed by non-renormalizable operators constructed out of SM fields. The operators must be invariant under the SM gauge group $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_l\times U(1)_y`$ which is the relevant gauge symmetry below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We shall assume that the SM gauge symmetry is linearly realized on the SM fileds. This will correspond to an elementary or a light composite higgs scalar. It then follows that the lowest dimension operator invariant under the SM gauge group that contributes to the muon magnetic moment anomaly is six. Here we shall consider two such operators that contribute directly to $`a_\mu ^{np}`$ and determine the lower bound on the scale associated with them from the new physics contribution to muon anomaly reported by BNL. A detailed discussion of effective Lagrangian analysis of muon anomlay can be found in Ref. The two direct operators of dimension six that contributes to $`a_\mu `$ are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill O_1& =(\overline{l}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\tau _a\mu _R)\varphi W_{\mu \nu }^a+h.c.\hfill & \\ & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\overline{\mu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mu )(c_wZ_{\mu \nu }+s_wF_{\mu \nu })(v+H)+..\hfill & (4)\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill O_2& =(\overline{l}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mu _R)\varphi B_{\mu \nu }\hfill & \\ & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_wF_{\mu \nu }s_wZ_{\mu \nu })(v+H)+..\hfill & (5)\hfill \end{array}$$

The low energy effective Lagrangian relevant for us is therefore

$$L_{eff}=\frac{C_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}O_1+\frac{C_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}O_2.$$
$`(6)`$
The coefficients $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ can arise from three broad classes of new physics a) weakly coupled gauge theory b) strongly coupled gauge theory c) theories in extra space-time dimensions. The size of the coefficients will depend upon from which kind of new physics it arises. a.) If the new physics that give rise to $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ is a weakly coupled gauge theory then the coefficients $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ can be estimated by explicitly evaluating the loop diagrams made of virtual states of new heavy particles perturbatively. Typically $`\frac{s_w}{\sqrt{2}}C_1`$ and $`\frac{c_w}{\sqrt{2}}C_2`$ are expected to be of the order of $`e\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}\xi `$ where g is some weak coupling that appears at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. $`\xi \frac{m_F}{v}`$ where $`m_F`$ is the mass of some internal fermion line. The parameter $`\xi `$ carries the information that the operators $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ break chiral symmetry. The muon anomaly due to $`O_1`$ in the weakly coupled scenario is therefore given by

$$a_\mu ^{np}=\frac{m_\mu m_F}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}.$$
$`(7)`$
We would like to note that the interaction that gives rise to anomalous magnetic moment of muon will also contribute to the muon mass. The shift in the muon mass will be given by $`\delta m_\mu \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}m_F\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{m_\mu }`$ where M is the mass scale which gives the dominant contribution to the loop integral. In the weakly coupled case the coupling g must be small enough so that $`\delta m_\mu <<m_\mu `$ and the muon mass is protected from receiving large radiative corrections from the new physics scale. The best known example of weakly coupled new physics that also satisfies the criteria of naturalness is the the supersymmetric version of the SM. In such a scenario the muon gets its mass from yukawa coupling to one of the higgs doublets. However the dynamics that gives rise to the phenomenological yukawa couplings is assumed to take place at an absurdly high energy, certainly much higher than the mass scale of the weakly interacting new particles that give rise to the muon anomaly. Elementary leptoquarks constitute a non-supersymmetric example weakly coupled new physics. If the muon anomaly is due to a second generation leptoquark then we have $`m_F=m_c`$ (mass of charm quark) and $`\delta m_\mu \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}m_c\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{m_c}5.1Mev<<m_\mu `$ if the coupling g of the leptoquark to quark-lepton pair is of the order of electromagnetic coupling. Further in this case the muon anomaly is given by $`a_\mu ^{np}\frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{m_\mu m_c}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$. The new BNL value of the muon anomaly is important because of two reasons. Firstly the average value of the anomaly is large (2.6 $`\sigma `$ effect). Secondly the error in the new value is one third of the combined previous data. Both these factors can be taken into account by determining 95% CL limits on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For the leptoquark case we find that for $`ge`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must satisfy the following bounds: 160 Gev $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$378 Gev. In contrast the previous data  ($`\delta a_\mu 45(46)\times 10^{10}`$) would have given us a central value of 350 Gev and a lower limit of 105 Gev for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Clearly the new BNL value allows a much more precise determination of the scale of new physics. In general for weakly coupled scanario (due to the small coupling and loop suppression factor ) we expect $`\frac{s_w}{\sqrt{2}}C_1`$ to be much smaller than $`\frac{m_\mu }{v}`$. Assuming a typical suppression factor of .01-.04 we expect new particles to appear in the few hundred Gev range with couplings of the order of electromagnetic coupling or even weaker.

b.)In the strongly coupled case ( as for example in composite models ) on the other hand, the underlying physics that give rise to the mass of the muon appears at the scale relevant for the muon anomaly itself. This happens for example in extended technicolor models. Hence the results for this case can be obtained by setting the expression for $`\delta m_\mu `$ or $`vC_1`$ given above equal to $`m_\mu `$. In that limit the expression for the muon anomaly due to $`O_1`$ becomes $`a_\mu ^{np}\frac{m_\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$. To justify that this expression is correct consider a nonabelian gauge theory where the small muon mass arises from the strong binding of very massive preons then the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is expected to be of the order of $`\delta \mu e\frac{m_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$ . The mass of the muon must appear in the numerator since a non zero $`\delta \mu `$ ( anomalous magnetic moment) implies chiral symmetry breaking in the light composite muon. The above expression for $`\delta a_\mu `$ also arises in theories where the muon gets its mass from extended technicolor interactions (ETC) . To see that consider the loop diagram with an exchange of ETC gauge boson that gives rise to an anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. A simple calculation shows that the anomalous magnetic moment would be given by

$`\delta \mu e\frac{g_{etc}^2}{16\pi ^2}\frac{\overline{T}T}{M_{etc}^4}`$. Here $`g_{etc}`$ is the ETC gauge coupling, $`M_{etc}`$ is the mass of the extended technicolor gauge boson and $`\overline{T}T`$ is the technifermion condensate renormalized at $`M_{etc}`$. The exchange of the same ETC gauge boson will also generate the muon mass and will be given by $`m_\mu \frac{g_{etc}^2}{16\pi ^2}\frac{\overline{T}T}{M_{etc}^2}`$. From these two equations it follows that the muon anomaly due to ETC interaction will be given by $`a_\mu ^{np}\frac{m_\mu ^2}{M_{etc}^2}`$. Using the new BNL value for muon anomaly we get the following 95% CL range for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the strongly coupled scenario: 1.2 Tev$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ 3.2 Tev. The ultimate goal of the experiment is to reduce the error to $`\pm 4\times 10^{10}`$ about a factor of 3.5 times better than the present result. Even the inclusion of already existing data from 2000 run would ipmrove the statistical error by a factor of 2. If the central value and other errors are unaffected, the 95% CL bounds will become: 1.3 Tev $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2.3 Tev.

c.) Theories in extra space-time dimensions: Recently theories in extra dimension have been proposed to explain the hierarchy problem . In this section we shall estimate the coefficient $`C_1`$ associated with the direct operator $`O_1`$ assuming that it arises from a higher dimensional model. In these models the SM fields are assumed to be localized on a 3 brane but gravity is allowed to propagate in the bulk. From the point of view of an observer in the visible four dimensional world the effect of having gravity in the bulk is described by a tower of Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes of the graviton with a level spacing of a few Tev. The zero mode is the usual graviton and it couples to the SM fields with a strength proportional to $`\frac{E}{M_p}`$ where $`M_p`$ is the Planck mass. But the higher KK modes lie in the Tev range and they couple to SM fields with a strength proportional to $`\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is of the order of a Tev. The couplings of the KK modes of the graviton to SM particles are therefore strong for energies in the Tev range. Consider now a muon self energy diagram with an exchange of KK graviton. Attach a photon and a higgs field to the muon line. On integrating over the fluctuations of all the massive KK graviton modes such a diagram will generate the operator $`O_1`$. Pulling out the photon momentum out of the integral and evaluating the loop integral (which receives largest contribution from loop momenta of the order of the cut off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) we find that

$$C_1O_1=\frac{e}{16\pi ^2}\frac{m_\mu }{v}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_\mu ^2}\overline{\mu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\mu F^{\mu \nu }h+\mathrm{}$$
$`(8)`$
Hence $`\frac{\sqrt{s_w}}{2}C_1\frac{e}{16\pi ^2}\frac{m_\mu }{v}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_\mu ^2}`$. This will generate a muon anomaly of the order of $`a_\mu ^{np}.24\frac{m_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}2.4\times 10^9`$. Here we have assumed that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ 1 Tev. This is of the right order of magnitude to give rise to the observed BNL muon anomaly. Hence extra dimension scenarios with massive KK modes of the graviton that couple to SM fields with a strength inversely proportional to the Tev scale, can also give rise to the direct operators with coefficients of the right size to generate the BNL muon anomaly

The operators $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ are the only two operators among the d=6 operators which contribute directly to $`a_\mu ^{np}`$ at the tree level. However there are many d=6 operators that contribute indirectly to $`\delta a_\mu `$ through loops. Here we shall consider only those indirect operators (with an elementary or a light composite higgs scalar) whose effects on the muon anomaly have not been considered in Ref..

a) Effect of indirect operators made of gauge bosons and scalars: Consider the two operators  $`O_3=(\varphi ^+D_\mu \varphi )(D_\mu \varphi ^+\varphi )`$ and $`O_4=(\varphi ^+\varphi )(D_\mu \varphi ^+D_\mu \varphi )`$. These operators cause $`O(\frac{v^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})`$ mixing between $`W_{3\mu }`$ and $`B_\mu `$. They also shift the physical W(Z) boson masses by an amount $`\delta m_{w(z)}^2\frac{v^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}m_{w(z)}^2`$. If this operator appears in the low energy effective Lagrangian with a coefficient of the order of one, then it would cause a shift in the $`\rho `$ parameter by an amount $`\delta \rho _{new}O(\frac{v^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})`$. The LEP constraint $`|\delta \rho _{new}|`$.4 % implies that $`\frac{(v^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})`$ can be at most of the order of one percent. If the operator $`O_3`$ is introduced on a weak gauge boson line of a loop diagram that contributes to $`a_\mu ^{ew}`$ then the change $`a_\mu ^{np}`$ due to $`O_3`$ will be given by $`a_\mu ^{np}O(\frac{\delta m_z^2}{m_z^2})a_\mu ^{ew}\frac{v^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}a_\mu ^{ew}10^{11}`$. This contribution is much smaller than the ultimate precision $`4\times 10^{10}`$ that the BNL collaboration aims to achieve. The $`O(\frac{v^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})`$ mixing between $`W_{3\mu }`$ and $`B_\mu `$ will also affect the direct operators $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$. When $`W_{3\mu }`$ and $`B_\mu `$ are expressed in terms of physical states $`Z_\mu `$ and $`A_\mu `$ the shift in $`a_\mu ^{np}`$ will be of order $`\frac{v^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}a_\mu ^{direct}`$. Here $`a_\mu ^{direct}`$ is the contribution to $`a_\mu ^{np}`$ due to $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$. Hence the effect of this operator on the muon anomaly is too small to be observed with the present precision.

b)Effect of indirect operators made of gauge bosons, fermions and scalars: Consider the operator

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill O_5& =(\overline{l}_\mu D_\mu \mu )D^\mu \varphi \hfill & \\ & =\frac{ıv}{2\sqrt{2}}(g^2+g^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}Z_\mu \overline{\mu }_l^\mu \mu _r+\mathrm{}\hfill & (9)\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the operator $`O_4`$ breaks the chiral symmetry of the muon the dimensionless coefficient associated with it in the low energy effective Lagrangian must be proportional to the Yukawa coupling $`\frac{m_\mu }{v}`$ of the muon. This would guarantee that in the limit of vanishing muon mass the operator $`O_4`$ vanishes and the chiral symmetry of the muon is recovered. Hence the relevant term in the effective Lagrangian becomes

$$\frac{C_4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}O_4\frac{ıv}{2\sqrt{2}}(g^2+g^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}Z_\mu \overline{\mu }_l^\mu \mu _r+\mathrm{}$$
$`(9)`$
.

Consider now a loop diagram with Z boson exchange that contributes to $`a_\mu ^{ew}`$ in the SM. Replace one of the SM vertices of Z by the above nonrenormalizable effective vertex. The resulting diagram will give the contribution of $`O_4`$ to $`a_\mu ^{np}`$. Pulling out the photon momentum out of the integral and evaluating the resulting integral we get

$$a_\mu ^{np}\frac{m_\mu ^2}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2c_w^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_z}.$$
$`(10)`$
. This contribution is of the order of $`.001\frac{m_\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$ and hence much smaller than the direct contribution considered in this paper.

The dimension less coefficient associated with the chirality flipping direct operators $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ must be order of the yukawa coupling of the muon and hence these operators will not produce any significant effect at a high energy $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider. However the new physics that give rise to the chiral symmetry breaking operators can also give rise to chiral symmetry conserving operators. The coefficient of these operators in the low energy effective Lagrangian could be of order one. Consider for example the operator $`O_6=i[(\varphi ^+D_\mu \varphi )(D_\mu \varphi ^+\varphi )]\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l`$. Besides shifting the Z coupling to LH muons this operator could also give rise to anomalous contributions to the process $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}hZ`$. Although the contribution of this indirect operator to the muon anomaly is suppressed  compared to that of the direct operators, its collider signatures are stronger than that of the direct operators. It will be interesting to study the collider implications of this and other d=6 indirect operators which are not chirality suppressed for the values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ presented in this paper. This would help in revealing the complementary nature of the new physics responsible for the muon anomaly. In fact this idea was used by Eitchen et al in Ref to propose the study of four fermion contact interactions at a high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider to determine the bounds on the compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Until then the muon anomaly was considered as providing the best bound on the compositeness scale. Motivated by this complementary search strategy we have done some rough estimates of the effect of the operator $`O_5`$ on the process $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}hz`$. We find that at $`\sqrt{s}`$=500 Gev, $`m_h=150Gev`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=2 Tev, $`\sigma _{total}`$=80 fb if $`O_6`$ interferes constructively with the SM contribution. This is to be compared with the SM contribution of 52 Gev. Hence unless $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is much higher we could expect to see large new physics effects in the process $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}hZ`$. Similarly the operator $`O_5`$ can make important new physics contributions to higgs production on resonance at a 500 Gev $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider.

In conclusion in this paper we have shown that the scale associated with the direct operators that can explain the BNL muon anomaly can naturally arise from the following three distinct scenarios: a) weakly coupled gauge theories b) strongly coupled gauge theories and c) theories in extra space time dimension. Remarkably all the three scenarios namely weak scale supersymmetry, technicolor and theories in extra dimensions provide solutions to the hierarchy problem. If the direct operators arise from a weakly coupled underlying gauge theory, the scale of new physics typically turns out to be a few hundred Gev. Here we expect weakly coupled new particles (leptoquarks or supersymmetric partners of the SM particles) with a mass of the order of few hundred Gev. On the ohther hand if $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ arise from a strongly coupled gauge theory, the scale of new physics turns out to be a few Tev. In this scenario we expect strongly coupled new particles ( technihadrons and technimesons ) and other resonances with a mass in the Tev range. Finally if the the direct operators arise from extra dimension theories with gravity living in the bulk then we expect to see the massive KK modes of the graviton in the Tev range which couple to energy momentum tensor of SM fields with only Tev scale suppression. Interestingly all the three scenarios for new physics will be accessible at LHC and other future colliders for detailed study.

Acknowlegdement

The auhor would like to thank Dr. M. Einhorn and Dr. K. Lane for comments which led to the revised version of the manuscript.

References

1. H. N. Brown et al, Muon g-2 collaboration, hep-ex/0102017.

2. A. Czarnecki and W. Marciano, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Supp) B 76, 245 (1999).

3. A. Czarnecki and W. Marciano, hep-ph/0102122; K. Lane, hep-ph/0102131; L. Everett, G. L. Kane, S. Ringolin, and L. T. Wang, hep-ph-0102145; J. Feng and K. Matchev, hep-ph/0102146; E. Baltz and P. Gondlo, hep-ph/0102147; U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, hep-ph/0102157; U. Mahanta, hep-ph/0102176; D. Chowdhury, B. Mukhopadhyaya and S. Rakshit, hep-ph/0102199.

4. C. Arzt, M. Einhorn and J. Wudka, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1370 (1994).

5. W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B 268, 621 (1986).

6. R. Barbieri, L. Maiani and R. Petronzio, Phys. Lett. B 96, 63 (1980); S. J. Brodsky and and S. D. Drell, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2236 (1980).

7. E. Eitchen, K. Lane and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 225 (1980).

8. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B, 429, 263 (1998); I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B, 436, 27 (1998); L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999); L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999).

9. M. B. Einhorn and J. Wudka, hep-ph/0103034.

10. E. Eitchen, K. Lane and M. Peskin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 811 (1983).