text:
# Optimal Lewenstein-Sanpera Decomposition for some Biparatite Systems

## 1 Introduction

In the past decade quantum entanglement has been attracted much attention in connection with theory of quantum information and computation. This is because of potential resource that entanglement provides for quantum communication and information processing . By definition, a bipartite mixed state $`\rho `$ is said to be entangled if it can not be expressed as

$$\rho =\underset{i}{}w_i\rho _i^{(1)}\rho _i^{(2)},w_i0,\underset{i}{}w_i=1,$$

where $`\rho _i^{(1)}`$ and $`\rho _i^{(2)}`$ denote density matrices of subsystems 1 and 2, respectively. Otherwise the state is separable.

The central tasks of quantum information theory is to characterize and quantify entangled states. A first attempt in characterization of entangled states has been made by Peres and Horodecki et al. . Peres showed that a necessary condition for separability of a bipartite system is that its partial transpose be positive. Horodecki et al. have shown that this condition is sufficient for separability of composite systems only for dimensions $`22`$ and $`23`$.

Having a well justified measure to quantify entanglement, particularly for mixed states of a bipartite system, is indeed worth, and a number of measures have been proposed . Among them the entanglement of formation has more importance, since it intends to quantify the resources needed to create a given entangled state.

Another interesting description of entanglement is Lewenstein-Sanpera (L-S) decomposition . Lewenstein and Sanpera have shown that any bipartite density matrix can be represented optimally as a sum of a separable state and an entangled state. They have also shown that for two qubit systems the decomposition reduces to a mixture of a mixed separable state and an entangled pure state, thus all entanglement content of the state is concentrated in the pure entangled state. This leads to an unambiguous measure of entanglement for any two qubit state as entanglement of pure state multiplied by the weight of pure part in the decomposition. The strategy of Refs.  is based on the fact that for a given set $`V=\{|e_\alpha ,f_\alpha \}`$ of product states belonging to the range of density matrix $`\rho `$, one can subtract separable density matrix $`\rho _s^{}=_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha P_\alpha `$ (not necessary normalized) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha 0`$ such that $`\delta \rho =\rho \rho _s^{}0`$.

In Ref. , the best separable approximation (BSA) has been obtained numerically in case of two qubit Werner state by choosing a set of several hundred $`P_\alpha `$-projectors. Some analytical results is also obtained for special states of two qubit states . Further, in  BSA of a two qubit state has been obtained algebraically. They have also shown that in some cases the weight of the entangled part in the decomposition is equal to the concurrence of the state. In Ref.  we have obtained optimal L-S decomposition for a generic two qubit density matrix by using Wootters basis. It is shown that the average concurrence of the decomposition is equal to the concurrence of the state.

In this paper we obtain optimal L-S decomposition for some bipartite systems. Here we obtain optimal decomposition for a given density matrix $`\rho `$ by choosing suitable separable set $`S`$ in which $`\rho _sS`$. This approach is different from the others in the sense that optimal decomposition is obtained for a given separable set $`S`$ instead of product set $`V`$. Also this approach is geometrically intuitive as it will be explained in section 4 by providing a bunch of interesting bipartite systems such as, $`22`$ and $`23`$ Bell decomposable states, a generic two qubit state in Wootters basis, iso-concurrence decomposable states, states differing from BD states via one parameter and three parameters local operations and classical communications (LOCC), $`dd`$ Werner and isotropic states, and a one parameter $`33`$ state. We also provide the optimal decomposition for multi partite isotropic system. As a byproduct we show that in all $`22`$ systems considered here the average concurrence of the decomposition is equal to the concurrence. We also show that for some $`23`$ Bell decomposable states for which entangled part of the decomposition is only a pure state the average concurrence of the decomposition is equal to the lower bound of the concurrence of state presented recently in Ref. , consequently an exact expression for concurrence of these states is given. In the case of $`dd`$ isotropic state we show that the average I-concurrence of the decomposition is equal to the I-concurrence of the state.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we, briefly, review concurrence as presented in . In section 3 we first review Lewenstein-Sanpera decomposition for bipartite density matrix, then a new prescription for finding optimal decomposition is presented. Some important bipartite examples is considered in section 4. The paper is ended with a brief conclusion in section 5.

## 2 Concurrence

In this section we review concurrence of two qubit mixed states as introduced in . The generalized concurrence is also reviewed, briefly.

### 2.1 Wootters’s Concurrence

From the various measures proposed to quantify entanglement, the entanglement of formation has a special position which in fact intends to quantify the resources needed to create a given entangled state . Wootters in  has shown that for a two qubit system entanglement of formation of a mixed state $`\rho `$ can be defined as

$$E_f(\rho )=H\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1C^2}\right),$$
(2-1)
where $`H(x)=x\mathrm{ln}x(1x)\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ is binary entropy and concurrence $`C(\rho )`$ is defined by

$$C(\rho )=\mathrm{max}\{0,\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4\},$$
(2-2)
where the $`\lambda _i`$ are the non-negative eigenvalues, in decreasing order, of the Hermitian matrix $`R\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\rho }\sqrt{\rho }}`$ where the spin-flipped state $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=(\sigma _y\sigma _y)\rho ^{}(\sigma _y\sigma _y),$$
(2-3)
where $`\rho ^{}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`\rho `$ in a standard basis such as $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ represent Pauli matrix in local basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$.

Consider a generic two qubit density matrix $`\rho `$ with its subnormalized orthogonal eigenvectors $`|v_i`$, i.e. $`\rho =_i|v_iv_i|`$. There always exist a decomposition

$$\rho =\underset{i}{}|x_ix_i|$$
(2-4)
where Wootters’s basis $`|x_i`$ are defined by

$$|x_i=\underset{j}{\overset{4}{}}U_{ij}^{}|v_i,\text{for}i=1,2,3,4,$$
(2-5)
such that

$$x_i\stackrel{~}{x}_j=(U\tau U^T)_{ij}=\lambda _i\delta _{ij},$$
(2-6)
where $`\tau _{ij}=v_i\stackrel{~}{v}_j`$ is a symmetric but not necessarily Hermitian matrix. The states $`|x_i^{}`$, which are going to be used in our notation, is defined as

$$|x_i^{}=\frac{|x_i}{\sqrt{\lambda _i}},\mathrm{for}\mathrm{i}=1,2,3,4.$$
(2-7)
### 2.2 I-concurrence

Several attempts to generalize the notion of concurrence for arbitrary bipartite quantum system have been made already . Among them the so-called I-concurrence  is defined in terms of universal-inverter superoperator which is a natural generalization to higher dimensions of two qubit spin flip. I-concurrence of a joint pure state $`|\psi `$ of a $`d_Ad_B`$ system is defined by Rungta et al.

$$C(|\psi )=\sqrt{2(1\mathrm{tr}(\rho _\mathrm{A}^2))}=\sqrt{2(1\mathrm{tr}(\rho _\mathrm{B}^2))},$$
(2-8)
where $`\rho _A=\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{B}(|\psi \psi |)`$ and $`\rho _B`$ is defined similarly.

## 3 Lewenstein-Sanpera decomposition

According to Lewenstein-Sanpera decomposition , any bipartite density matrix $`\rho `$ can be written as

$$\rho =\lambda \rho _s+(1\lambda )\rho _e,\lambda [0,1],$$
(3-9)
where $`\rho _s`$ is a separable density matrix and $`\rho _e`$ is an entangled state. The Lewenstein-Sanpera (L-S) decomposition of a given density matrix $`\rho `$ is not unique and, in general, there is a continuum set of L-S decomposition to choose from. However, Lewenstein and Sanpera in  have shown that the optimal decomposition is unique for which $`\lambda `$ is maximal. Furthermore they have demonstrated that in the case of two qubit systems $`\rho _e`$ reduces to a single pure state.

The idea of Refs.  is based on the method of subtracting projections on product vectors from a given state, that is, for a given density matrix $`\rho `$ and any set $`V=\{|e_\alpha ,f_\alpha \}`$ of product states belonging to the range of $`\rho `$, one can subtract separable density matrix $`\rho _s^{}=_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha P_\alpha `$ (not necessary normalized) with all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha 0`$ such that $`\delta \rho =\rho \rho _s^{}0`$. Separable state $`\rho _s^{}`$ provides the optimal separable approximation (OSA) in the sense that trace $`Tr(\rho _s^{})1`$ is maximal and entangled part $`\rho _e`$ is called edge state, a state with no product vectors in the range . Lewenstein and Sanpera provide the conditions that trace $`Tr(\rho _s^{})`$ is maximal.

In this paper we will deal with L-S decomposition from different point of view. Our approach is based on the fact that the set of separable density matrices is convex and compact . This follows from the fact that any separable density matrix $`\rho _s𝒮`$ can be written as a finite convex combination of pure product states. The set of all Hermitian operators acting on the Hilbert space $`_1_2`$ constitute a Hilbert space (called Hilbert-Shcmidt space) with a real inner product $`<A,B>=Tr(A^{}B)`$. The set of density matrices $`\rho `$ are defined as Hermitian positive semi-definite and the trace one matrices form subset $`𝒟`$ of H-S space which is compact and convex . Let $`𝒫`$ denotes the set of all pure product states. $`𝒫`$ is tensor product of two spheres which are compact in the finite dimensional case. So $`𝒫`$ is also compact . The set of all finite convex combinations of product states $`𝒫`$ is defined as the convex hull of $`𝒫`$, i.e. $`𝒮=\text{conv}𝒫`$, and convex hull of a compact set $`𝒫`$ is also compact, so the set of separable density matrices is compact .

Based on the above fact we obtain optimal L-S decomposition for some bipartite systems. For a given density matrix $`\rho `$, we choose a suitable separable set $`S𝒮`$ on the separable-entangled boundary, and express $`\rho `$ as a convex combination of separable state $`\rho _sS`$ and an arbitrary entangled state $`\rho _e`$, i.e. $`\rho =\lambda \rho _s+(1\lambda )\rho _e`$. Then we evaluate $`\lambda `$ and provide the conditions that $`\lambda `$ is maximal under the restrictions that $`\rho _s`$ is in the separable set $`S`$ and maintaining the positivity of the difference $`\rho \lambda \rho _s`$, i.e. $`\rho _e`$ remains nonnegative. To this aim we allow $`\rho _s`$ to move on the surface defined by $`S`$, and simultaneously search for the $`\rho _e`$ with corresponding maximal $`\lambda `$. This restricts $`\rho _e`$ to some entangled states and gives $`\rho _s`$ as a function of $`\rho `$ and restricted $`\rho _e`$. The only matter that should be noticed in choosing the set $`S`$ for which $`\rho _sS`$, is that all states on the line segment connecting $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho `$, i.e. $`\rho _ϵ=ϵ\rho _s+(1ϵ)\rho `$ for $`0ϵ1`$, must be entangled. This guarantees that thus obtained decomposition is indeed maximal. In all examples considered in this paper we will see that the rank of $`\rho _e`$ is less than rank of $`\rho `$. This means that $`\rho _e`$ is an edge state with no product vectors in its range as pointed out in Ref. . Moreover in the case of two qubit system it is shown that $`\rho _e`$ reduces to pure entangled state as we expect from the results of Refs. . For these systems $`\rho _s`$ is defined as a function of $`\rho `$ and concurrence of entangled pure state. To make our consideration more clear, we provide some examples in the next section.

## 4 Some important examples

In this section we obtain optimal decomposition for some categories of states, namely, $`22`$ Bell decomposable (BD) states, a generic two qubit state in Wootters basis, iso-concurrence decomposable states, some $`22`$ states obtaining from BD states via one parameter and three parameters LOCC operations, $`23`$ Bell decomposable states, $`dd`$ Werner and isotropic states, a one parameter $`33`$ state and finally multi partite isotropic state.

### 4.1 $`22`$ Bell decomposable states

We begin by considering the $`22`$ Bell decomposable (BD) states. A BD state acting on $`H^4H^2H^2`$ Hilbert space is defined by

$$\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_i|\psi _i\psi _i|,0p_i1,\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_i=1,$$
(4-10)
where $`|\psi _i`$ are Bell states given by

$`|\psi _1=|\varphi ^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|00+|11),|\psi _2=|\varphi ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|00|11),`$ (4-11)
$`|\psi _3=|\psi ^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|01+|10),|\psi _4=|\psi ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|01|10).`$ (4-12)
A BD state is separable iff $`p_i\frac{1}{2}`$ for all $`i=1,2,3,4`$ . In the following we consider the case that $`\rho `$ is entangled for which $`p_1>\frac{1}{2}`$. To obtain optimal L-S decomposition we choose $`\rho _s=_{i=1}^4p_i^{}|\psi _i\psi _i|`$ with $`p_1^{}=\frac{1}{2}`$ as boundary separable state and $`\rho _e=_{i=1}^4p_i^{\prime \prime }|\psi _i\psi _i|`$. Inserting these equations into the decomposition given in Eq. (3-9) we get

$$p_i=\lambda p_i^{}+(1\lambda )p_i^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{for}\mathrm{i}=1,2,3,4.$$
(4-13)
From Eq. (4-13) we get $`\lambda =\frac{C^{\prime \prime }C}{C^{\prime \prime }}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\mathrm{dC}^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{C}{C_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}}0`$ where $`C=2p_11`$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }=2p_1^{\prime \prime }1`$ are concurrence of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _e`$, respectively. This means that in order to obtain optimal decomposition, i.e. having maximal $`\lambda `$, we should require that $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ takes its maximal value, where this happens as long as $`p_2^{\prime \prime }=p_3^{\prime \prime }=p_4^{\prime \prime }=0`$, i.e. $`\rho _e`$ is pure entangled state. Considering the above arguments we get for $`\lambda `$, $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _e`$ the following results

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda =1C,\rho _e=|\psi _1\psi _1|,\\ p_1^{}=\frac{1}{2},p_j^{}=\frac{p_j}{\lambda }\text{for}j=2,3,4.\end{array}$$
(4-14)
Equation (4-14) simply shows that average concurrence of the decomposition is equal to the concurrence of state, i.e. $`(1\lambda )C(|\psi )=C`$.

### 4.2  A generic two qubit state in Wootters’s basis

In this subsection we obtain optimal L-S decomposition for a generic two qubit density matrix by using Wootters basis. In Ref.  we have shown that a generic two qubit density matrix $`\rho =_i\lambda _i|x_i^{}x_i^{}|`$ with corresponding set of positive numbers $`\lambda _i`$ and Wootters’s basis $`|x_i^{}`$ can be obtained from a Bell decomposable state with the same set of positive numbers $`\lambda _i`$ but with different Wootters’s basis via $`SO(4,c)`$ transformation. It is also shown that local unitary transformations correspond to $`SO(4,r)`$ transformations, hence, $`\rho `$ can be represented as coset space $`SO(4,c)/SO(4,r)`$ together with positive numbers $`\lambda _i`$.

Now in order to obtain optimal L-S decomposition we choose $`\rho _s=_i\lambda _i^{}|x_i^{}x_i^{}|`$ with $`\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}\lambda _3^{}\lambda _4^{}=0`$ as boundary separable state and $`\rho _e=_i\lambda _i^{\prime \prime }|x_i^{}x_i^{}|`$. Inserting these equations into the decomposition given in Eq. (3-9) we get

$$\lambda _i=\lambda \lambda _i^{}+(1\lambda )\lambda _i^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{for}\mathrm{i}=1,2,3,4.$$
(4-15)
From Eq. (4-15) we get $`\lambda =\frac{C^{\prime \prime }C}{C^{\prime \prime }}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\mathrm{dC}^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{C}{C_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}}0`$ where $`C=\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4`$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }=\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\lambda _2^{\prime \prime }\lambda _3^{\prime \prime }\lambda _4^{\prime \prime }`$ are concurrence of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _e`$, respectively. This means that in order to obtain optimal decomposition, i.e. having maximal $`\lambda `$, we should require that $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ takes its maximal value, which happens as long as $`\lambda _2^{\prime \prime }=\lambda _3^{\prime \prime }=\lambda _4^{\prime \prime }=0`$, i.e. $`\rho _e`$ is pure entangled state with concurrence $`\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }`$. Considering the above arguments we get for $`\lambda `$, $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _e`$ the following results

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda =1\frac{C}{\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }},\rho _e=\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }|x_1^{}x_1^{}|,\\ \lambda _1^{}=\frac{\lambda _2+\lambda _3+\lambda _4}{\lambda },\lambda _j^{}=\frac{\lambda _j}{\lambda }\text{for}j=2,3,4.\end{array}$$
(4-16)
Equation (4-16) simply shows that average concurrence of the decomposition is equal to the concurrence of state, i.e. $`(1\lambda )C(|\psi )=C`$. The decomposition (4-16) is in agrement with results obtained in Ref.

### 4.3 Iso-concurrence decomposable states

In this section we define iso-concurrence decomposable (ICD) states, then we give their separability condition and evaluate optimal decompsition. The iso-concurrence states are defined by

$`|\varphi _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta |00+\mathrm{sin}\theta |11),|\varphi _2=\mathrm{sin}\theta |00\mathrm{cos}\theta |11),`$ (4-17)
$`|\varphi _3=\mathrm{cos}\theta |01+\mathrm{sin}\theta |10),|\varphi _4=\mathrm{sin}\theta |01\mathrm{cos}\theta |10).`$ (4-18)
It is quite easy to see that the above states are orthogonal thus span the Hilbert space of $`22`$ systems. Also by choosing $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{4}`$ the above states reduce to Bell states. Now we can define ICD states as

$$\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_i|\varphi _i\varphi _i|,0p_i1,\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_i=1.$$
(4-19)
These states form a four simplex (tetrahedral) with its vertices defined by $`p_1=1`$, $`p_2=1`$, $`p_3=1`$ and $`p_4=1`$, respectively.

Peres-Horodeckis criterion  for separability implies that the state given in Eq. (4-19) is separable if and only if the following inequalities are satisfied

$`(p_1p_2)\sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta },`$ (4-20)
$`(p_2p_1)\sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta },`$ (4-21)
$`(p_3p_4)\sqrt{4p_1p_2+(p_1p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta },`$ (4-22)
$`(p_4p_3)\sqrt{4p_1p_2+(p_1p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }.`$ (4-23)
Inequalities (4-20) to (4-23) divide tetrahedral of density matrices to five regions. Central regions, defined by the above inequalities, form a deformed octahedral and are separable states. In four other regions one of the above inequality will not hold, therefor they represent entangled states. Bellow we consider entangled states corresponding to violation of inequality (4-20) i.e. the states which satisfy the following inequality

$$(p_1p_2)>\sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }.$$
(4-24)
All other ICD states can be obtain via local unitary transformations. Now we will obtain concurrence of ICD states. Following the Wootters protocol given in subsection 2.1 we get for the state $`\rho `$ given in Eq. (4-19)

$$\tau =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}p_1\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{p_1p_2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 0& 0\\ \sqrt{p_1p_2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta & p_2\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& p_3\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{p_3p_4}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \\ 0& 0& \sqrt{p_3p_4}\mathrm{cos}2\theta & p_4\mathrm{sin}2\theta \end{array}\right).$$
(4-25)
Now it is easy to evaluate $`\lambda _i`$ which yields

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda _{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\pm (p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\sqrt{4p_1p_2+(p_1p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right),\\ \lambda _{3,4}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\pm (p_3p_4)\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right).\end{array}$$
(4-26)
Thus one can evaluate the concurrence of ICD states as

$$C=(p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta \sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }.$$
(4-27)
It is worth to note that thus obtained concurrence is equal to the amount of violation of inequality (4-24). Note that the concurrence of an ICD state can be written as

$$A_{11}A_{22}\sqrt{(A_{33}+A_{44})^24A_{34}^2},$$
(4-28)
where $`A_{ij}`$ denote matrix representation of ICD state in Bell basis, that is

$$A_{11}=\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2+(p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta ),A_{22}=\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2(p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta ),$$
(4-29)
$$A_{33}=\frac{1}{2}(p_3+p_4+(p_3p_4)\mathrm{sin}2\theta ),A_{44}=\frac{1}{2}(p_3+p_4(p_3p_4)\mathrm{sin}2\theta ),$$
(4-30)
$$A_{12}=\frac{1}{2}(p_1p_2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta ,A_{34}=\frac{1}{2}(p_3p_4)\mathrm{cos}2\theta .$$
(4-31)
Now in order to obtain optimal L-S decomposition we parameterize $`\rho _s`$ like ICD state with matrix elements $`A_{ij}^{}`$ (in Bell basis) which are defined like $`A_{ij}`$ except for $`p_i`$ and $`\theta `$ which are replaced with $`p_i^{}`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$, respectively. We also choose $`\rho _e`$ similar to $`\rho `$ with matrix elements $`A_{ij}^{\prime \prime }`$ parameterized with $`p_i^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\theta ^{\prime \prime }`$. For simplicity the rank of $`\rho _e`$ is considered to be two, namely $`p_3^{\prime \prime }=p_4^{\prime \prime }=0`$. Using these consideration together with Eq. (3-9) we get

$$A_{ij}=\lambda A_{ij}^{}+(1\lambda )A_{ij}^{\prime \prime },$$
(4-32)
Taking into account the fact that $`\rho _s`$ is boundary separable state with zero concurrence and using Eq. (4-28), we get $`\lambda =\frac{C^{\prime \prime }C}{C^{\prime \prime }}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\mathrm{dC}^{\prime \prime }}`$, where $`C`$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ are concurrence of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _e`$, respectively. Obviously we observe that $`\lambda `$ becomes maximal when $`\rho _e`$ is a pure entangled state. Considering this fact and setting $`p_2^{\prime \prime }=0`$ we arrive at

$$p_1+p_2+(p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta =\lambda \left(p_1^{}+p_2^{}+(p_1^{}p_2^{})\mathrm{sin}2\theta ^{}\right)+(1\lambda )(1+\mathrm{sin}2\theta ^{\prime \prime }),$$
(4-33)
$$p_1+p_2(p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta =\lambda \left(p_1^{}+p_2^{}(p_1^{}p_2^{})\mathrm{sin}2\theta ^{}\right)+(1\lambda )(1\mathrm{sin}2\theta ^{\prime \prime }),$$
(4-34)
$$p_3+p_4+(p_3p_4)\mathrm{sin}2\theta =\lambda \left(p_3^{}+p_4^{}+(p_3^{}p_4^{})\mathrm{sin}2\theta ^{}\right),$$
(4-35)
$$p_3+p_4(p_3p_4)\mathrm{sin}2\theta =\lambda \left(p_3^{}+p_4^{}(p_3^{}p_4^{})\mathrm{sin}2\theta ^{}\right),$$
(4-36)
$$(p_1p_2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta =\lambda (p_1^{}p_2^{})\mathrm{cos}2\theta ^{}+(1\lambda )\mathrm{cos}2\theta ^{\prime \prime },$$
(4-37)
$$(p_3p_4)\mathrm{cos}2\theta =\lambda (p_3^{}p_4^{})\mathrm{cos}2\theta ^{}.$$
(4-38)
In order to solve above equations we consider two cases separability.

i) case 1:

First let us consider the case that $`\theta ,\theta ^{}\frac{\pi }{4}`$. In this case Eqs. (4-33) to (4-38) yield to

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta =\theta ^{}=\theta ^{\prime \prime },\\ \lambda =1(p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\sqrt{(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6)},\\ p_1^{}=\frac{p_1(1\lambda )}{\lambda },p_j^{}=\frac{p_j}{\lambda },\text{for}j=2,3,4.\end{array}$$
(4-39)
This case corresponds to results of Ref. .

ii) case 2:

Now let us consider the case that $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{4}`$, i.e. $`\rho `$ is Bell decomposable state. The only nontrivial solution of Eq. (4-38) is $`p_3^{}=p_4^{}`$. Equations (4-35) and (4-36) show that this restricts the density matrix to $`p_3=p_4`$. Combining all, we arrive at the following $`\rho _s`$ for decomposition

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta ^{}=\frac{p_1+p_21}{C}\mathrm{tan}2\theta ^{\prime \prime },\lambda =\frac{C}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta ^{\prime \prime }},$$
(4-40)
$$p_{1,2}^{}=\frac{1}{2\lambda }\left(p_1+p_2\frac{C}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta ^{\prime \prime }}\pm \frac{1p_1p_2}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta ^{}}\right)$$
(4-41)
$$p_3^{}=p_4^{}=\frac{p_3}{\lambda }.$$
(4-42)
where $`C=2p_11`$ is concurrence of $`\rho `$. The separability of density matrix $`\rho _s`$ implies that $`p_i^{}0`$ for all $`i`$ (recall that the separability condition has been already imposed over $`\rho _s`$ by putting its concurrence equal to zero). So $`p_i^{}`$ should satisfy the following condition

$$\mathrm{sin}2\theta ^{\prime \prime }\frac{(p_1+p_2)C}{p_1C+p_2}.$$
(4-43)
This condition also guarantees positivity of $`\lambda `$. It is worth to emphasis that this case involves the result of Ref.  as a special case. There authors have obtained the optimal decomposition for a special kind of BD states, namely a specific Werner state with $`p_1=\frac{5}{8}`$ (of course in their treatment they take singlet state $`|\psi _4`$ as dominant pure state in Werner state, i.e. $`p_4=\frac{5}{8}`$).

### 4.4 One parameter LOCC operations

A generic two qubit density matrix $`\rho `$ can be represented in Bell basis as $`\rho =Y\mathrm{\Lambda }Y^{}`$ where $`YSO(4,c)/SO(4,r)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\text{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _4)`$ . Here we consider the case that $`Y`$ is a one parameter matrix as

$$Y=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cosh}\theta & i\mathrm{sinh}\theta & 0& 0\\ i\mathrm{sinh}\theta & \mathrm{cosh}\theta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(4-44)
thus

$$\rho =Y\mathrm{\Lambda }Y^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\lambda _1\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta +\lambda _2\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta & i(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\theta & 0& 0\\ i(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\theta & \lambda _1\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta +\lambda _2\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \lambda _3& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \lambda _4\end{array}\right).$$
(4-45)
Obviously, normalization condition leads to $`(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{cosh}2\theta +\lambda _3+\lambda _4=1`$. We choose $`\rho _s`$ in the same form as $`\rho `$, i.e. $`\rho _s=Y^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}Y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\text{diag}(\lambda _1^{},\lambda _2^{},\lambda _3^{},\lambda _4^{})`$ and $`Y^{}`$ is defined as $`Y`$ but here $`\theta `$ is replaced with $`\theta ^{}`$. Now in order to obtain optimal L-S decomposition we have to get a generic density matrix for $`\rho _e`$. After doing so, it can be easily seen that Eq. (3-9) requires that $`\rho _e`$ has also the same form as $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _s`$, i.e. $`\rho _e=Y^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime }Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime }=\text{diag}(\lambda _1^{\prime \prime },\lambda _2^{\prime \prime },\lambda _3^{\prime \prime },\lambda _4^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`Y^{\prime \prime }`$ is defined as $`Y`$ but with $`\theta ^{\prime \prime }`$ instead of $`\theta `$. Inserting the above equations in Eq. (3-9) we get

$$Y\mathrm{\Lambda }Y^{}=\lambda (Y^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}Y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})+(1\lambda )(Y^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime }Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}).$$
(4-46)
Now multiplying Eq. (4-46) by $`Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{T}`$ and $`Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}`$, respectively from left and right and using the orthogonality of $`Y^{\prime \prime }`$ we get

$$(Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{T}Y)\mathrm{\Lambda }(Y^{}Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})=\lambda (Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{T}Y^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(Y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})+(1\lambda )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime },$$
(4-47)
where it can be written as

$$\left(\lambda _1\mathrm{cosh}^2(\theta \theta ^{\prime \prime })+\lambda _2\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta \theta ^{\prime \prime })\right)=\lambda \left(\lambda _1^{}\mathrm{cosh}^2(\theta ^{}\theta ^{\prime \prime })+\lambda _2^{}\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta ^{}\theta ^{\prime \prime })\right)+(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime },$$
(4-48)
$$\left(\lambda _1\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta \theta ^{\prime \prime })+\lambda _2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\theta \theta ^{\prime \prime })\right)=\lambda \left(\lambda _1^{}\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta ^{}\theta ^{\prime \prime })+\lambda _2^{}\mathrm{cosh}^2(\theta ^{}\theta ^{\prime \prime })\right)+(1\lambda )\lambda _2^{\prime \prime },$$
(4-49)
$$\lambda _3=\lambda \lambda _3^{\prime \prime }+(1\lambda )\lambda _3^{\prime \prime },$$
(4-50)
$$\lambda _4=\lambda \lambda _4^{\prime \prime }+(1\lambda )\lambda _4^{\prime \prime },$$
(4-51)
$$(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{sinh}2(\theta \theta ^{\prime \prime })+\lambda (\lambda _1^{}+\lambda _2^{})\mathrm{sinh}2(\theta ^{}\theta ^{\prime \prime })=0$$
(4-52)
Subtracting Eqs. (4-49), (4-50) and (4-51) from Eq. (4-48) and using the fact that $`\rho _s`$ is boundary separable state, hence having zero concurrence, i.e. $`\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}\lambda _3^{}\lambda _4^{}=0`$, we get $`\lambda =\frac{C^{\prime \prime }C}{C^{\prime \prime }},\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\mathrm{dC}^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{C}{C_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}}0`$ where $`C=\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4`$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }=\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\lambda _2^{\prime \prime }\lambda _3^{\prime \prime }\lambda _4^{\prime \prime }`$, are concurrence of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _e`$, respectively. This shows that maximal $`\lambda `$ is achieved when $`\lambda _2^{\prime \prime }=\lambda _3^{\prime \prime }=\lambda _4^{\prime \prime }=0`$, i.e. $`\rho _e`$ is pure entangled state with concurrence $`\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }`$. Implying the above results we can solve Eqs. (4-48) to (4-52) for $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho _s`$ where we get

$$\lambda =1C\mathrm{cosh}2\theta ^{\prime \prime },$$
(4-53)
$$\mathrm{tanh}2(\theta ^{}\theta ^{\prime \prime })=\frac{(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{sinh}2(\theta \theta ^{\prime \prime })}{(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{cosh}2(\theta \theta ^{\prime \prime })C},$$
(4-54)
$$\lambda _{1,2}^{}=\frac{1}{2\lambda }\left(\frac{(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{cosh}2(\theta \theta ^{\prime \prime })C}{\mathrm{cosh}2(\theta ^{}\theta ^{\prime \prime })}\pm (\lambda _3+\lambda _4)\right),$$
(4-55)
$$\lambda _j^{}=\frac{\lambda _j}{\lambda },\text{for}j=3,4,$$
(4-56)
where in Eq. (4-53) we have used $`\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}2\theta ^{\prime \prime }}`$ which follows from normalization condition of $`\rho _e`$. Finally from the positivity conditions for $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _i`$ we see that the following inequalities should hold

$$\mathrm{cosh}2\theta ^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{C},\mathrm{cosh}2(\theta \theta ^{\prime \prime })\frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2}{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}+\frac{2\lambda _1\lambda _2}{(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)C}.$$
(4-57)
Note that thus obtained decomposition is not a special case of the decomposition considered in subsection 4.2. There we considered the case that all $`\rho `$, $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _e`$ were expressed in same Wootters basis. Here their Wootters basis parameterized differently, namely $`\theta `$, $`\theta ^{}`$ and $`\theta ^{\prime \prime }`$ respectively. The optimal decomposition given by Eqs. (4-53) to (4-56) involves some interesting special cases as follows

case i) $`\theta =\theta ^{}`$: In this case from Eqs. (4-53) to (4-56) we get $`\theta ^{\prime \prime }=\theta `$, which yields the results of subsection 4.2 for a one parameter Wootters basis.

case ii) $`\theta =0`$, $`\theta ^{\prime \prime }0`$: This case leads to optimal decomposition of a BD state in terms of the non maximal entangled pure state. This case also can be considered as generalization of the result of Ref. .

case iii) $`\theta 0`$, $`\theta ^{\prime \prime }=0:`$ This case leads to the optimal decomposition of a one parameter LOCC transformed BD state in terms of maximal entangled pure state.

### 4.5 Three parameters LOCC transformed BD states

Now we consider the case that $`\rho `$ can be obtained from BD states via three parameters LOCC transformation as $`\rho =Y\mathrm{\Lambda }Y^{}`$ with

$$Y=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{cosh}\varphi +\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\varphi & i\left(\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}\varphi +\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\varphi \right)& i\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi & 0\\ i\left(\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{cosh}\varphi +\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\varphi \right)& \mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}\varphi +\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\varphi & \mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi & 0\\ i\mathrm{sinh}\xi \mathrm{cosh}\varphi & \mathrm{sinh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}\varphi & \mathrm{cosh}\xi & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(4-58)
where normalization condition leads to

$$Tr(\rho )=\left(\left(\lambda _1\mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi +\lambda _2\mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi \right)\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi +\lambda _3\mathrm{sinh}^2\xi +\left(\lambda _1\mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi +\lambda _2\mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi \right)\right)\mathrm{cosh}2\theta $$

$$+\left(\lambda _1\mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi +\lambda _2\mathrm{sinh}\varphi \right)\mathrm{sinh}^2\xi +\lambda _3\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi +(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}2\theta \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi +\lambda _4=1.$$
(4-59)
We choose below $`\rho _s`$ in the same form as $`\rho `$, i.e. $`\rho _s=Y^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}Y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\text{diag}(\lambda _1^{},\lambda _2^{},\lambda _3^{},\lambda _4^{})`$ and $`Y^{}`$ are defined as $`Y`$ but here $`\theta `$, $`\xi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are replaced with $`\theta ^{}`$, $`\xi ^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$. Now to obtain optimal L-S decomposition we should take a generic density matrix for $`\rho _e`$. It can be easily seen that Eq. (3-9) requires that $`\rho _e`$ has also the same form as $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _s`$. So we get $`\rho _e=Y^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime }Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime }=\text{diag}(\lambda _1^{\prime \prime },\lambda _2^{\prime \prime },\lambda _3^{\prime \prime },\lambda _4^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`Y^{\prime \prime }`$ is defined as $`Y`$ but here $`\theta `$, $`\xi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are replaced with $`\theta ^{\prime \prime }`$, $`\xi ^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }`$. By using the above considerations and Eq. (3-9) we get

$$Y\mathrm{\Lambda }Y^{}=\lambda (Y^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}Y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})+(1\lambda )(Y^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime }Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}).$$
(4-60)
Now multiplying Eq. (4-60) by $`Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{T}`$ and $`Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}`$, respectively from left and right and using the orthogonality of $`Y^{\prime \prime }`$ we get

$$(Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{T}Y)\mathrm{\Lambda }(Y^{}Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})=\lambda (Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{T}Y^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(Y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}Y_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})+(1\lambda )\lambda ^{\prime \prime },$$
(4-61)
Subtracting three last diagonal elements of matrix equation (4-61) from the first one and using the fact that $`\rho _s`$ has zero concurrence, i.e. $`\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}\lambda _3^{}\lambda _4^{}=0`$, we get after some algebraic calculations $`\lambda =\frac{C^{\prime \prime }C}{C^{\prime \prime }}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\mathrm{dC}^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{C}{C_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}}0`$ where $`C=\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4`$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }=\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\lambda _2^{\prime \prime }\lambda _3^{\prime \prime }\lambda _4^{\prime \prime }`$, are concurrence of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _e`$, respectively. This shows that maximal $`\lambda `$ is achieved when $`\lambda _2^{\prime \prime }=\lambda _3^{\prime \prime }=\lambda _4^{\prime \prime }=0`$, i.e. $`\rho _e`$ is pure entangled state with concurrence $`\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }`$. Considering the above results we can write Eq. (4-60) as

$$\rho _{11}=\lambda \rho _{11}^{}+(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\left(\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{cosh}\varphi +\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\varphi \right)^2,$$
(4-62)
$$\rho _{22}=\lambda \rho _{22}^{}+(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\left(\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{cosh}\varphi +\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\varphi \right)^2,$$
(4-63)
$$\rho _{33}=\lambda \rho _{33}^{}+(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{sinh}^2\xi \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi ,$$
(4-64)
$$\rho _{44}=\lambda \rho _{44}^{},$$
(4-65)
$$\rho _{12}=\lambda \rho _{12}^{}+(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\left(\left(\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi +\mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi \right)\mathrm{sinh}2\theta +\mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{cosh}2\theta \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi \right),$$
(4-66)
$$\rho _{13}=\lambda \rho _{13}^{}+(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\left(\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi \mathrm{sinh}2\xi +\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi \right),$$
(4-67)
$$\rho _{23}=\lambda \rho _{23}^{}+(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\left(\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi \mathrm{sinh}2\xi +\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi \right),$$
(4-68)
where

$$\rho _{11}=(\lambda _1(\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{cosh}\varphi +\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\varphi )^2+\lambda _2(\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}\varphi +\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\varphi )^2$$

$$+\lambda _3\left(\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi \right)^2),$$
(4-69)
$$\rho _{22}=(\lambda _1(\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{cosh}\varphi +\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\varphi )^2+\lambda _2(\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}\varphi +\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\varphi )^2$$

$$+\lambda _3\left(\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi \right)^2),$$
(4-70)
$$\rho _{33}=\left(\lambda _1\mathrm{sinh}^2\xi \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi +\lambda _2\mathrm{sinh}^2\xi \mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi +\lambda _3\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi \right),$$
(4-71)
$$\rho _{44}=\lambda _4,$$
(4-72)
$$\rho _{12}=((\lambda _1(\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi +\mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi )+\lambda _2(\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi \mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi +\mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi )+\lambda _3\mathrm{sinh}^2\xi )\mathrm{sinh}2\theta $$

$$+(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi \mathrm{cosh}2\theta ),$$
(4-73)
$$\rho _{13}=\left(\left(\lambda _1\mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi +\lambda _2\mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi +\lambda _3\right)\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}2\xi +(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi \right),$$
(4-74)
$$\rho _{23}=\left(\left(\lambda _1\mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi +\lambda _2\mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi +\lambda _3\right)\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}2\xi +(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi ^{}\right),$$
(4-75)
and $`\rho _{ij}^{}`$ are defined in same form as $`\rho _{ij}`$ but here all parameters are expressed in terms of prime parameters. After tedious but straightforward calculations we arrive at the following results for $`\rho _s`$

$$\mathrm{tanh}\xi ^{}=\frac{F\mathrm{sinh}\theta ^{}+G\mathrm{cosh}\theta ^{}}{(p_1+p_2A)\mathrm{sinh}2\theta ^{}+E\mathrm{cosh}2\theta ^{}},$$
(4-76)
$$\mathrm{tanh}2\xi ^{}=\frac{F\mathrm{cosh}\theta ^{}+G\mathrm{sinh}\theta ^{}}{p_1\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta ^{}+p_2\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta ^{}+p_3\frac{1}{2}(A\mathrm{cosh}2\theta ^{}E\mathrm{sinh}2\theta ^{}+B+2D)},$$
(4-77)
$$\mathrm{tanh}2\varphi ^{}=\frac{F\mathrm{sinh}\theta ^{}G\mathrm{cosh}\theta ^{}}{\mathrm{sinh}\xi ^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _3^{}+(p_1+p_2A)\mathrm{cosh}2\theta ^{}p_3+E\mathrm{sinh}2\theta ^{}+D)},$$
(4-78)
$$\lambda _3^{}=\frac{1}{2\lambda }\left(\frac{F\mathrm{cosh}\theta ^{}+G\mathrm{sinh}\theta ^{}}{\mathrm{sinh}2\xi ^{}}p_1\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta ^{}p_2\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta ^{}+P_3+\frac{1}{2}(A\mathrm{cosh}2\theta ^{}E\mathrm{sinh}2\theta ^{}+B2D)\right),$$
(4-79)
$$\lambda _1^{}=\frac{1}{2\lambda }\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}2\varphi ^{}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _3^{}+(p_1+p_2A)\mathrm{cosh}2\theta ^{}P_3+E\mathrm{sinh}2\theta ^{}+D)+\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _3^{}+p_1p_2p_3B+D\right),$$
(4-80)
$$\lambda _2^{}=\frac{1}{2\lambda }\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}2\varphi ^{}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _3^{}+(p_1+p_2A)\mathrm{cosh}2\theta ^{}P_3+E\mathrm{sinh}2\theta ^{}+D)\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _3^{}p_1+p_2+p_3+BD\right),$$
(4-81)
$$\lambda _4^{}=\frac{p_4}{\lambda },$$
(4-82)
where

$$A=(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\left((\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi +\mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi )\mathrm{cosh}2\theta +\mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}2\theta \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi \right),$$
(4-83)
$$B=(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\left(\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi \mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi \right),$$
(4-84)
$$D=(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{sinh}^2\xi \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi ,$$
(4-85)
$$E=(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\left((\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi +\mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi )\mathrm{sinh}2\theta +\mathrm{cosh}\xi \mathrm{cosh}2\theta \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi \right)\rho _{12},$$
(4-86)
$$F=(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\left(\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi \mathrm{sinh}2\xi +\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi \right)\rho _{13},$$
(4-87)
$$G=(1\lambda )\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }\left(\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}^2\varphi \mathrm{sinh}2\xi +\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi \mathrm{sinh}2\varphi \right)\rho _{23}.$$
(4-88)
The parameters $`\theta ^{}`$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ are obtained by solving the Eqs. (4-76) and (4-77), using the remaining equations we can determine the parameters of $`\rho _s`$ in terms of parameters of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _e`$. Note that the one parameter density matrix which was considered in previous subsection can be obtain from three parameters one by setting $`\varphi =\varphi ^{}=\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=\xi =\xi ^{}=\xi ^{\prime \prime }=0`$. One can see that the equations in one parameter case is solvable and we can express the parameters of separable and entangled parts in L-S decomposition in terms of parameters of density matrix $`\rho `$ which is the reason for its separated consideration in previous subsection.

### 4.6  $`23`$ Bell decomposable state

In this subsection we obtain optimal L-S decomposition for Bell decomposable states of $`23`$ quantum systems. A Bell decomposable density matrix acting on $`23`$ Hilbert space can be defined by

$$\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}p_i|\psi _i\psi _i|,0p_i1,\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}p_i=1,$$
(4-89)
where $`|\psi _i`$ are Bell states in $`H^6H^2H^3`$ Hilbert space, defined by:

$$|\psi _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|11+|22),|\psi _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|11|22),$$

$$|\psi _3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|12+|23),|\psi _4=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|12|23),$$
(4-90)
$$|\psi _5=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|13+|21),|\psi _6=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|13|21).$$

It is quite easy to see that the above states are orthogonal and hence it can span the Hilbert space of $`23`$ systems. From Peres-Horodeckis  criterion for separability we deduce that the state given in Eq. (4-89) is separable if and only if the following inequalities are satisfied

$$(p_1p_2)^2(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6),$$
(4-91)
$$(p_3p_4)^2(p_5+p_6)(p_1+p_2),$$
(4-92)
$$(p_5p_6)^2(p_1+p_2)(p_3+p_4).$$
(4-93)
In the sequel we always assume without loss of generality that $`p_1p_2`$, $`p_3p_4`$ and $`p_5p_6`$. Recently in Ref.  an analytical lower bound of concurrence of any $`2K`$ mixed state is derived as

$$C(\rho )\sqrt{\underset{i>j}{}C^2(\rho ^{(ij)})},$$
(4-94)
where $`\rho ^{(ij)}`$ are unnormalized states restricted to $`22`$ subsystems under projection operators $`P^{(ij)}`$ as

$$\rho ^{(ij)}=P^{(ij)}\rho P^{(ij)},P^{(ij)}=I_2(|ii|+|jj|),$$
(4-95)
and $`C(\rho ^{(ij)})`$ are Wootters concurrences of corresponding restricted $`22`$ density matrices. For our $`23`$ Bell decomposable state we get

$$C(\rho ^{(12)})=\mathrm{max}\{0,\mathrm{p}_1\mathrm{p}_2\sqrt{(\mathrm{p}_3+\mathrm{p}_4)(\mathrm{p}_5+\mathrm{p}_6)}\},$$
(4-96)
$$C(\rho ^{(23)})=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{p}_3\mathrm{p}_4\sqrt{(\mathrm{p}_1+\mathrm{p}_2)(\mathrm{p}_5+\mathrm{p}_6)}\},$$
(4-97)
$$C(\rho ^{(13)})=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{p}_5\mathrm{p}_6\sqrt{(\mathrm{p}_1+\mathrm{p}_2)(\mathrm{p}_3+\mathrm{p}_4)}\}.$$
(4-98)
It is interesting to note that each Wootters concurrence given in Eqs. (4-96) to (4-98) corresponds to separability conditions given in Eqs. (4-91) to (4-93), respectively. Now in order to obtain optimal L-S decomposition for BD state given in Eq. (4-89) we choose $`\rho _s=_ip_i^{}|\psi _i\psi _i|`$ and $`\rho _e=_ip_i^{\prime \prime }|\psi _i\psi _i|`$. We also assume without loss of generality that $`\rho _s`$ lies on the separable-entangled boundary defined by (all other cases where $`\rho _s`$ lies on other surfaces can be treated similarly)

$$p_1^{}p_2^{}=\sqrt{(p_3^{}+p_4^{})(p_5^{}+p_6^{})}.$$
(4-99)
Moreover $`\rho _s`$ must satisfies the other two separability conditions (4-92) and (4-93). This means that entangled state $`\rho `$ violates separability condition (4-91), i.e. we have

$$p_1p_2+\sqrt{(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6)}.$$
(4-100)
However, two other inequalities (4-92) and (4-93) may be violated simultaneously. Taking into account the above considerations and Eq. (3-9) we get after some elementary calculations the following equation

$$(1\lambda )^2\left((p_1^{\prime \prime }p_2^{\prime \prime })^2(p_3^{\prime \prime }+p_4^{\prime \prime })(p_5^{\prime \prime }+p_6^{\prime \prime })\right)$$

$$(1\lambda )\left(2(p_1p_2)(p_1^{\prime \prime }p_2^{\prime \prime })(p_3+p_4)(p_5^{\prime \prime }+p_6^{\prime \prime })(p_5+p_6)(p_3^{\prime \prime }+p_4^{\prime \prime })\right)$$

$$+\left((p_1p_2)^2(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6)\right)=0.$$
(4-101)
Below in the rest of this subsection we will use Eq. (4-101) to calculate $`\lambda `$ for some possibile values of $`p_i^{\prime \prime },i=1,2,\mathrm{},6`$: as follows

i) $`p^{\prime \prime }=1`$:

In this case Eq. (4-101) gives the following results

$$\lambda =1p_1p_2+\sqrt{(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6)},\rho _e=|\psi _1\psi _1|,$$
(4-102)
$$p_1^{}=\frac{p_1(1\lambda )}{\lambda },p_j^{}=\frac{p_j}{\lambda }\text{for}j=2,\mathrm{},6.$$
(4-103)
Furthermore $`\rho _s`$ must satisfies the separability conditions (4-92) and (4-93) which leads to the following restrictions for $`\rho `$

$$\begin{array}{c}(p_3p_4)^2(p_5+p_6)\left(2p_2+\sqrt{(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6)}\right)\hfill \\ (p_5p_6)^2(p_3+p_4)\left(2p_2+\sqrt{(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6)}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(4-104)
By using Eq. (4-100) one can see that conditions (4-104) are stronger than separability conditions (4-92) and (4-93), that is in this case only separability condition (4-91) is violated by $`\rho `$. It is worth to mention that for these states we are enable to give exact expression for concurrence. As concurrence $`C(\rho )`$ is defined as the infimum over all possible pure state decompositions, no decomposition can have average concurrence smaller than $`C(\rho )`$. Since the decomposition given by Eqs. (4-102) and (4-103) constitute a maximal entangled pure state $`|\psi _1`$ and a separable state $`\rho _s`$, it follows that its average concurrence is equal to the weight of entangled part, namely $`(1\lambda )`$. On the other hand for entangled states restricted by equations (4-100) and (4-104) we get $`C(\rho ^{(12)})0`$ and $`C(\rho ^{(13)})=C(\rho ^{(13)})=0`$. This means that the lower bound is equal to $`(1\lambda )`$, i.e.

$$C(\rho )=(1\lambda )=p_1p_2\sqrt{(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6)}.$$
(4-105)
ii) $`p_1^{\prime \prime }+p_2^{\prime \prime }=1`$:

In this case by performing optimization procedure $`\frac{\lambda }{p_1^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{\lambda }{p_2^{\prime \prime }}=0`$ in Eq. (4-101) (under constraint $`p_1^{\prime \prime }+p_2^{\prime \prime }=1`$), we can see that thus obtained equations from optimization procedure restrict the density matrix $`\rho `$ to rank four one, namely $`p_3=p_4=0`$ or $`p_5=p_6=0`$. Under this circumstances we get $`\lambda =\frac{C^{\prime \prime }C}{C^{\prime \prime }}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\mathrm{dC}^{\prime \prime }}`$, where $`C`$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ are concurrence of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _e`$, respectively. This means that maximum $`\lambda `$ happens when $`p_2^{\prime \prime }=0`$ which reduces to results of previous case.

iii) $`p_1^{\prime \prime }+p_3^{\prime \prime }=1:`$

After optimization procedure with the constraint $`p_1^{\prime \prime }+p_3^{\prime \prime }=1`$ we get

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda =1(p_1p_2)(p_3+p_4)\frac{1}{4}(p_5+p_6)\\ p_1^{}=\frac{2p_2p_5p_6}{2\lambda },p_3^{}=\frac{p_5+p_64p_4}{4\lambda },p_j^{}=\frac{p_j}{\lambda },\text{for}j=2,4,5,6,\end{array}$$
(4-106)
where the following inequalities should be imposed in order $`\rho _s`$ to be separable state

$$\begin{array}{c}2\left(p_4\frac{1}{8}(p_5+p_6)\right)^2(p_5+p_6)\left(p_2\frac{1}{4}(p_5+p_6)\right),\\ 2(p_5p_6)^2(p_5+p_6)\left(p_2\frac{1}{4}(p_5+p_6)\right),\\ 4p_4p_5+p_62p_2.\end{array}$$
(4-107)
iv) $`p_1^{\prime \prime }+p_5^{\prime \prime }=1`$:

Analogue to the case $`p_1^{\prime \prime }+p_3^{\prime \prime }=1`$ we get

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda =1(p_1p_2)\frac{1}{4}(p_3+p_4)(p_5+p_6),\\ p_1^{}=\frac{2p_2p_3p_4}{2\lambda },p_3^{}=\frac{p_3+p_44p_6}{4\lambda },p_j^{}=\frac{p_j}{\lambda },\text{for}j=2,3,4,6,\end{array}$$
(4-108)
whit restrictions

$$\begin{array}{c}2(p_3p_4)^2(p_3+p_4)\left(p_2\frac{1}{4}(p_3+p_4)\right),\\ 2\left(p_6\frac{1}{8}(p_3+p_4)\right)^2(p_3+p_4)\left(p_2\frac{1}{4}(p_3+p_4)\right),\\ 4p_6p_3+p_42p_2.\end{array}$$
(4-109)
v) $`p_1^{\prime \prime }+p_3^{\prime \prime }+P_5^{\prime \prime }=1`$:

In this case it follows from optimization that rank $`\rho `$ should be four, namely $`p_4=p_6=0`$. Under this conditions we get

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda =2p_2,\\ p_1^{}=p_2^{}=\frac{1}{2},p_3^{}=p_4^{}=p_5^{}=p_6^{}=0.\end{array}$$
(4-110)
### 4.7 Werner states

The Werner states are the only states that are invariant under $`UU`$ operations. For $`dd`$ systems the Werner states are defined by

$$\rho _f=\frac{1}{d^3d}\left((df)I+(df1)F\right),1f1,$$
(4-111)
where $`I`$ stands for identity operator and $`F=_{i,j}|ijji|`$. It is shown that Werner state is separable iff $`0f1`$. Now to obtain L-S decomposition for Werner states we choose $`\rho _{f=0}`$ as separable part and $`\rho _f^{}`$ as entangled state , i.e. $`\rho _f=\lambda \rho _{f=0}+(1\lambda )\rho _f^{}`$. Then from Eq. (3-9) we get $`\lambda =\frac{f^{}f}{f^{}}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\mathrm{df}^{}}=\frac{f}{f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}0`$, that is $`\lambda `$ is maximum when $`f^{}=1`$. Using the above results we get

$$\lambda =f+1,\rho _e=\frac{1}{d(d1)}\left(IF\right).$$
(4-112)
### 4.8 Isotropic states

The isotropic states are the only ones that are invariant under $`UU^{}`$ operations, where  denotes complex conjugation. The isotropic states of $`dd`$ systems are defined by

$$\rho _F=\frac{1F}{d^21}\left(I|\psi ^+\psi ^+|\right)+F|\psi ^+\psi ^+|,0F1,$$
(4-113)
where $`|\psi ^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}_i|ii`$ is maximally entangled state. It is shown that isotropic state is separable when $`0F\frac{1}{d}`$ . Now in order to obtain optimal L-S decomposition we choose boundary isotropic separable state with $`F=1/d`$ as separable part and $`\rho _F^{}`$ as entangled state where we get $`\lambda =\frac{d(F^{}F)}{dF^{}1}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\mathrm{dF}^{}}=\frac{d^2(F1/d)}{(dF^{}1)^2}0`$, that is, $`\lambda `$ is maximum when $`F^{}=1`$. Using the above results we get

$$\lambda =\frac{d(1F)}{d1},\rho _e=|\psi ^+\psi ^+|.$$
(4-114)
It is interesting to stress that the average I-concurrence of the decomposition (4-114) is equal to the I-concurrence of the state obtained in Ref. . By using Eq. (2-8) one can easily see that $`C(|\psi ^+)=\sqrt{2(11/d)}`$, which can be used to evaluate average I-concurrence of the decomposition

$$(1\lambda )C(|\psi ^+)=\sqrt{\frac{2d}{d1}}\left(F\frac{1}{d}\right),\mathrm{for}\frac{1}{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{F}1,$$
(4-115)
which is equal to the I-concurrence of isotropic states which has been obtained in .

### 4.9  One parameter $`33`$ state

Finally let us consider a one parameter state acting on $`H^9H^3H^3`$ Hilbert space as

$$\rho _\alpha =\frac{2}{7}|\psi ^+\psi ^+|+\frac{\alpha }{7}\sigma _++\frac{5\alpha }{7}\sigma _{},2\alpha 5,$$
(4-116)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}|\psi ^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(|11+|22+|33\right),\hfill \\ \sigma _+=\frac{1}{3}\left(|1212||2323|+|3131|\right),\hfill \\ \sigma _{}=\frac{1}{3}\left(|2121||3232|+|1313|\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4-117)
$`\rho _\alpha `$ is separable iff $`2\alpha 3`$, it is bound entangled iff $`3\alpha 4`$ and it is distillable entangled state iff $`4\alpha 5`$ . To obtain L-S decomposition for $`\rho _\alpha `$ we choose boundary separable state with $`\alpha =3`$ as $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _e=\rho _\alpha ^{}`$. After some calculations we get $`\lambda =\frac{\alpha \alpha ^{}}{3\alpha ^{}}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\mathrm{d}\alpha ^{}}=\frac{\alpha 3}{(3\alpha ^{})^2}0`$. So the optimal L-S decomposition is achieved by choosing $`\alpha ^{}=5`$ and we get

$$\lambda =\frac{5\alpha }{2},\rho _e=\frac{2}{7}|\psi ^+\psi ^+|+\frac{5}{7}\sigma _+.$$
(4-118)
### 4.10  Multi partite isotropic states

In this subsection we obtain optimal L-S decomposition for a n-partite d-levels system. Let us consider the following mixture of completely random state $`\rho _0=I/d^n`$ and maximally entangled state $`|\psi ^+`$

$$\rho (s)=(1s)\frac{I}{d^n}+s|\psi ^+\psi ^+|,0s1,$$
(4-119)
where $`I`$ denotes identity operator in $`d^n`$-dimensional Hilbert space and $`|\psi ^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}_{i=1}^d|ii\mathrm{}i`$. The separability properties of the state (4-119) is considered in Ref. . It is shown that the above state is separable iff $`s=s_0=\left(1+d^{n1}\right)^1`$.

Now to obtain optimal L-S decomposition we choose $`\rho (s_0)`$ as separable part and $`\rho (s^{})`$ as entangled part. By using Eq. (3-9) we get $`\lambda =\frac{s^{}s}{s^{}\left(1+d^{n1}\right)^1}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\mathrm{ds}^{}}=\frac{s\left(1+d^{n1}\right)^1}{\left(s^{}\left(1+d^{n1}\right)^1\right)^2}`$. This means that the maximum $`\lambda `$ achieved when $`s^{}=1`$, so we get

$$\lambda =\frac{(1s)(1+d^{n1})}{d^{n1}},\rho _e=|\psi ^+\psi ^+|.$$
(4-120)
## 5 Conclusion

We have shown that for a given bipartite density matrix and by choosing a suitable separable set on the separable-entangled boundary, optimal Lewenstein-Sanpera decomposition can be obtained via optimization over a generic entangled density matrix. Based on this , optimal L-S decomposition is obtained for some bipartite systems. We have obtained optimal decomposition for some bipartite states such as $`22`$ and $`23`$ Bell decomposable states, generic two qubit state in Wootters basis, iso-concurrence decomposable states, states obtained from BD states via one parameter and three parameters LOCC operations, $`dd`$ Werner and isotropic states, a one parameter $`33`$ state and multi partite isotropic state. It is shown that in all $`22`$ systems considered here the average concurrence of the decomposition is equal to the concurrence. We also obtain exact expression for concurrence of some $`23`$ BD states. In the case of $`dd`$ isotropic states it is shown that the average I-concurrence of the decomposition is equal to the I-concurrence of the states. We conjecture that for all optimal decomposition that entangled part is only a pure state, the average I-concurrence of the decomposition is equal to the I-concurrence of the state.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The supersymmetric D-brane actions with local fermionic kappa symmetry were constructed in ref. . When the kappa-symmetry is fixed, half of supersymmetry is spontaneously broken, whereas the fermionic superpartner (with respect to unbroken half of supersymmetry) of the $`U(1)`$ gauge field in the D-brane worldvolume can be identified with the Goldstone fermion. The most relevant part of the gauge-fixed D-brane action is given by a supersymmetric Born-Infeld (BI) action . Gauge-fixing results in the D-brane actions whose all supersymmetries are non-linearly realized, i.e. non-manifest. Unbroken supersymmetries can sometimes be made manifest by using superspace .

The electric-magnetic self-duality of the BI action can be extended to a full $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ duality in the case of a gauge-fixed ‘spacetime-filling’ D3-brane with axion-dilaton coupling . This feature can be made manifest when considering the D3-brane action as the double dimensionally reduced M5-brane action on a 2-torus . The dilaton-axion can be identified with the complex structure of the torus, while the $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ self-duality of a D3-brane is then nothing but the modular group of the torus . In this Letter we make manifest the unbroken N=1 supersymmetry of the spacetime-filling D3-brane action with dilaton-axion coupling, and investigate its other relevant symmetries in flat N=1 superspace.

## 2 N=1 BI action in superspace

In this section we briefly describe the N=1 BI action is superspace, which is the pre-requisite to our investigation in sect. 3. The BI action in Minkowski spacetime of signature $`\eta =\mathrm{diag}(+,,,,)`$ is

$$S_{\mathrm{BI}}=\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}d^4x\sqrt{det(\eta _{mn}+\kappa F_{mn})},$$
$`(1)`$
where $`F_{mn}=_mA_n_nA_m`$, $`m,n=0,1,2,3`$, and $`\kappa `$ is the dimensional coupling constant ($`\kappa =2\pi \alpha ^{}`$ in string theory). The N=1 supersymmetric extension of the action (1) can be interpreted as the Goldstone-Maxwell action associated with partial (1/2) spontaneous supersymmetry breaking, N=2 to N=1, whose Goldstone fermion is photino of a Maxwell (vector) N=1 multiplet with respect to unbroken N=1 supersymmetry . Manifest supersymmetry does not respect the standard form (1) of the BI action. The complex bosonic variable, having the most natural supersymmetric extention, is given by

$$\omega =\alpha +i\beta ,\alpha =\frac{1}{4}F^{mn}F_{mn},\beta =\frac{1}{4}F^{mn}\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn},\stackrel{~}{F}^{mn}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{mnpq}F_{pq}.$$
$`(2)`$
The BI Lagrangian (1) can be rewritten in terms of $`\omega `$ and $`\overline{\omega }`$ as

$$_{\mathrm{BI}}(\omega ,\overline{\omega })=_{\mathrm{free}}+_{\mathrm{int}.}\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega +\overline{\omega }\right)+\kappa ^2\omega \overline{\omega }𝒴(\omega ,\overline{\omega }),$$
$`(3)`$
where the particular structure function $`𝒴(\omega ,\overline{\omega })`$ has been introduced,

$$𝒴(\omega ,\overline{\omega })=\frac{1}{1+\frac{\kappa ^2}{2}(\omega +\overline{\omega })+\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2(\omega +\overline{\omega })+\frac{\kappa ^4}{4}(\omega \overline{\omega })^2}}.$$
$`(4)`$
A supersymmetrization of the bosonic BI theory (1) in the form (3) amounts to replacing the field strength $`F_{mn}`$ by the N=1 chiral spinor superfield strength $`W_\alpha `$, and $`\omega `$ by the N=1 chiral scalar superfield $`K=\frac{1}{8}\overline{D}^2\overline{W}^2`$, viz.

$$S_{\mathrm{sBI}}=\frac{1}{4}(d^4xd^2\theta W^2+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)+\frac{\kappa ^2}{8}d^4xd^4\theta W^2\overline{W}^2𝒴(K,\overline{K})$$
$`(5)`$
with the same structure function (4), so that the bosonic terms of eq. (5) exactly reproduce eq. (1). We use the standard notation, $`W^2=W^\alpha W_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{W}^2=\overline{W}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }\overline{W}^\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }`$, and similarly for the N=1 flat superspace covariant derivatives $`D^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }`$ with $`\alpha =1,2`$ and $`\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }=\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{1},\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{2}`$. The gauge superfield strength $`W_\alpha `$ obeys the superfield Bianchi identities

$$\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }W_\alpha =0\mathrm{and}D^\alpha W_\alpha =\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }\overline{W}^\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }.$$
$`(6)`$
In the chiral basis the gauge superfield strength reads

$$W_\alpha (x,\theta )=i\psi _\alpha (x)+\left[\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }D(x)i(\sigma ^{mn})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }F_{mn}^{}(x)\right]\theta _\beta +\theta ^2(\sigma ^m_m)_{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }}\overline{\psi }^\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }(x),$$
$`(7)`$
where $`\psi _\alpha (x)`$ is the fermionic superpartner (photino) of the abelian BI vector field $`A_m`$, and $`D`$ is the real auxiliary field. In the N=1 super-BI theory (5) setting $`D=0`$ is consistent with its equations of motion (this is called the ‘auxiliary freedom’ ).

The action (5) can be put into the simple ‘non-linear sigma-model’ form

$$S_{\mathrm{sBI}}=d^4xd^2\theta X+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
$`(8)`$
whose chiral superfield Lagrangian $`X`$ is determined via the recursive relation

$$X+\frac{\kappa ^2}{4}X\overline{D}^2\overline{X}=\frac{1}{4}W^\alpha W_\alpha .$$
$`(9)`$
The BI action (1) is well-known to be invariant under non-trivial electric-magnetic duality . This means that treating $`F`$ as a generic two-form, enforcing the Bianchi identity, $`dF=0`$, by means of a Lagrange multiplier (= dual vector potential) in the first-order action, and integrating out $`F`$ in favor of the Lagrange multiplier yield the dual action having the same form as eq. (1) in terms of the dual vector potential. The same is true in N=1 superspace for the action (5) when introducing the dual N=1 superfield strength as an N=1 Lagrange multiplier, and integrating over $`W`$ in the corresponding first-order action, i.e. after the N=1 superfield Legendre transform .

Another highly non-trivial property of eq. (5) is its invariance under the (non-linearly realized and spontaneously broken) second N=1 supersymmetry with rigid spinor parameter $`\eta _\alpha `$ ,

$$\delta _\eta W_\alpha =\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _\alpha +\frac{\kappa }{4}\overline{D}^2\overline{X}\eta _\alpha +i\kappa (\sigma ^m\overline{\eta })_\alpha _mX.$$
$`(10)`$
The transformations (10) are consistent with the N=1 Bianchi identities (6), and they realize a supersymmetry algebra. The invariance of the action (5) under the transformations (10) follows from the remarkable fact that $`d^2\theta \delta _\eta X=\frac{1}{2\kappa }d^2\theta W^\alpha \eta _\alpha `$ is a total derivative in spacetime.

To make manifest the hidden second supersymmetry of the the N=1 BI theory, one can reformulate it in the formalism of non-linear realizations . The Goldstone superfield $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ having the standard transformation law in the chiral version of the non-linearly realized supersymmetry , $`\delta _\eta \mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta 2i\kappa (\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma ^m\overline{\eta })_m\mathrm{\Psi }`$, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha =\frac{W_\alpha }{1+\frac{\kappa ^2}{4}\overline{D}^2\overline{X}}+\mathrm{},$$
$`(11)`$
where the dots stand for the higher-order fermionic terms . The new Goldstone superfield $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ obeys the non-linear N=1 superspace constraints

$$\overline{𝒟}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha =𝒟_\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }=0$$
$`(12)`$
that are also covariant under the second non-linearly realized supersymmetry. The N=2 covariant derivatives in N=1 superspace

$$𝒟_\alpha =D_\alpha +i\kappa ^2(D_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }\sigma ^m\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}+D_\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^m\mathrm{\Psi })D_m\mathrm{and}D_m=(\omega ^1)_m{}_{}{}^{n}_{n}^{},$$
$`(13)`$
where $`\omega _m{}_{}{}^{n}=\delta _m{}_{}{}^{n}i\kappa ^2(_m\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma ^n\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}+_m\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^n\mathrm{\Psi })`$, form a closed algebra. The action (5) may be rewritten in terms of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the N=2 covariant derivatives (13) as

$$S_{\mathrm{sBI}}=\frac{1}{4}d^4xd^2\theta ^1\mathrm{\Psi }^2+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
$`(14)`$
whose N=1 chiral superfield $`^1=1+\frac{\kappa ^4}{4}\overline{D}^2\overline{X}+\mathrm{}`$, should transform as a density under the second supersymmetry, $`\delta _\eta ^1=2i\kappa _m(^1\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma ^m\overline{\eta })`$.

Both the electric-magnetic self-duality and the second non-linearly realized supersymmetry of the N=1 BI action may have been expected from its anticipated connection to the D3-brane action. It is just these key properties that allow one to identify the N=1 BI action with the low-energy effective action of the spacetime-filling D3-brane in the case of slowly varying fields. Any direct gauge-fixing of the kappa-symmetric D3-brane action  would yield highly involved supersymmetry transformations, whose precise relation to the standard N=1 superspace transformations implies complicated field redefinitions. We didn’t attempt to establish this connection explicitly.

## 3 N=1 BI action with dilaton-axion coupling

The bosonic BI action coupled to a background dilaton $`\varphi `$ and axion $`C`$ reads

$$S_{\mathrm{bosonic}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^4x\sqrt{det(\eta _{mn}+e^{\varphi /2}F_{mn})}+\frac{1}{32\pi }i\epsilon ^{mnpq}CF_{mn}F_{pq}.$$
$`(15)`$
The dilaton-axion background now plays the role of the effective coupling constant, so that we chose $`\kappa =1`$ for simplicity. We also rescaled the BI action by a factor of $`4\pi `$, in order to make it invariant under the T-duality transformations, $`CC+n`$, where $`n𝐙`$, because $`C`$ multiplies the topological density in eq. (15).

It is not difficult to supersymmetrize eq. (15) in N=1 superspace, by using the results of sect. 2. First, let’s define a complex scalar

$$\rho =e^\varphi +iC,$$
$`(16)`$
and assume that it belongs to an N=1 chiral superfield,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\rho +\theta ^\alpha \lambda _\alpha +\theta ^2F,$$
$`(17)`$
where we have introduced the physical dilatino $`\lambda _\alpha `$ and the ‘auxiliary’ field $`F`$. This is not quite innocent procedure in the theories with higher derivatives, because the field $`F`$ should be truly auxiliary or, at least, $`F=0`$ should be a solution to the equations of motion (the auxiliary freedom). Equation (5) implies the N=1 supersymmetric extension of eq. (15) in the form

$`4\pi S`$ $`=\frac{1}{4}({\displaystyle }d^4xd^2\theta \mathrm{\Phi }W^2+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$   $`+\frac{1}{32}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4\theta (\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})^2W^2\overline{W}^2𝒴(\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})K,\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\overline{K})},`$   $`(18)`$
with the same function $`𝒴`$ defined by eq. (4) at $`\kappa =1`$, where we have used the identity

$$D^2W^2\overline{D}^2\overline{W}^2=i\epsilon ^{mnpq}F_{mn}F_{pq}.$$
$`(19)`$
The N=1 Legendre transform of the action (18) with respect to the gauge superfield $`W`$ yields the dual N=1 superspace action that has the same form (18) in terms of the dual N=1 superfield strength and the dual coupling

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
$`(20)`$
Together with imaginary shifts of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by integers the S-duality transformation (20) generates the full $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ duality, as required. In fact, the action (18) is invariant under the continuous $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ duality, as it belongs to the class of the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ duality invariant actions constructed in ref. . Of course, in quantum theory only $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ survives.

The $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ duality invariant dilaton and axion kinetic terms to be added to eq. (18),

$$(\varphi ,C)=\frac{1}{2}(_m\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{2}e^{2\varphi }(_mC)^2,$$
$`(21)`$
are given by the Kähler non-linear sigma-model with a Kähler potential

$$K(S,\overline{S})=\mathrm{ln}(S+\overline{S}).$$
$`(22)`$
The N=1 supersymmetrization of eq. (21) in superspace is straightforward,

$$S_{\mathrm{kin}.}=d^4xd^4\theta \mathrm{ln}(S+\overline{S}).$$
$`(23)`$
There is, however, a problem with another (non-linearly realized) supersymmetry. A variation of the leading terms in eq. (18) yields

$$\delta _\eta =\frac{1}{2}d^2\theta \mathrm{\Phi }W^\alpha \eta _\alpha +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
$`(24)`$
which is a total derivative only for a constant dilaton-axion background $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Yet another problem is the auxiliary freedom of $`F`$.

The way out of both problems may be the assignment of dilaton and axion to an N=1 linear multiplet $`G`$, instead of the N=1 chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. As regards the bosonic action (15), this means trading $`C`$ against a gauge two-form $`B`$, at the expense of giving up the manifest $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance, viz.

$$CFF=𝑑C(AF)={}_{}{}^{}dB\mathrm{\Theta },$$
$`(25)`$
where the star denotes the Poincaré dual, $`{}_{}{}^{}(dC)=dB`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=AF`$ is the abelian Chern-Simons three-form. In N=1 superspace a real linear supefield $`G`$ is defined by the constraints

$$D^2G=\overline{D}^2G=0.$$
$`(26)`$
It consists of a real scalar (dilaton), an antisymmetric tensor $`(B)`$ subject to the gauge transformation $`\delta B=d\xi `$ with the one-form gauge parameter $`\xi `$, a dilatino $`\lambda _\alpha `$, and no auxiliary fields. The two-form $`B`$ enters the superfield $`G`$ only via its field strength $`dB`$.

The leading term in eq. (18) can then be rewritten to the form

$$\frac{1}{4}(d^4xd^2\theta \mathrm{\Phi }W^2+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)=\frac{1}{4}d^4xd^4\theta (\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\mathrm{\Omega },$$
$`(27)`$
where we have introduced the Chern-Simons superfield $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ via the equations

$$W^2=\frac{1}{2}\overline{D}^2\mathrm{\Omega },\overline{W}^2=\frac{1}{2}D^2\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
$`(28)`$
By using a solution $`W_\alpha =\frac{1}{4}\overline{D}^2D_\alpha V`$ to the Bianchi identities (6), in terms of the real gauge scalar superfield $`V`$ subject to the gauge transformations $`VV+i(\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$, with $`\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, we easily find $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{4}(D^\alpha V)W_\alpha +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$

The full action given by a sum of eqs. (18) and (23) is now dependent upon the chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ only through their linear combination $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$, so that it is possible to dualize this action in terms of the linear superfield $`G`$ by Legendre transform. 222The possibility of such transformation was noticed in ref. . We replace in eqs. (18) and (23) the combination $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ by a general real superfield $`U`$, and add extra term

$$d^4xd^4\theta UG$$
$`(29)`$
to the action (18). On the one hand side, varying eq. (26) with respect to $`G`$ (in fact, with respect to a potential $`J_\alpha `$ in the general solution $`G=D^\alpha \overline{D}^2J_\alpha +\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }D^2\overline{J}^\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }`$ to the defining constraints (26)), we get $`U=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ back. On the other hand side, varying with respect to $`U`$ in the action

$$S=d^4xd^4\theta \left[\mathrm{ln}U+UG+\frac{1}{8\pi }U\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{1}{32\pi }U^2W^2\overline{W}^2𝒴(UK,U\overline{K})\right]$$
$`(30)`$
we find an algebraic equation on $`U`$:

$$\frac{1}{U}=\left(G+\frac{1}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)+\frac{1}{32\pi }W^2\overline{W}^2\left(2U𝒴(UK,U\overline{K})+U^2\frac{𝒴(UK,U\overline{K})}{U}\right).$$
$`(31)`$
Since $`W_\alpha W_\beta W_\gamma =0`$ due to the anti-commutativity of $`W_\alpha `$, the second term on the right-hand-side of recursive relation (31) can be considered as an ‘exact’ perturbation. This leads to a complete solution to eq. (31) in the form

$$U^1=G_{\mathrm{mod}}+\frac{1}{32\pi }W^2\overline{W}^2\left(\frac{2𝒴(G_{\mathrm{mod}}^1K,G_{\mathrm{mod}}^1\overline{K})}{G_{\mathrm{mod}}}\frac{𝒴(G_{\mathrm{mod}}^1K,G_{\mathrm{mod}}^1\overline{K})}{G_{\mathrm{mod}}}\right),$$
$`(32)`$
where we have introduced the ‘modified’ N=1 linear multiplet $`G_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ as

$$G_{\mathrm{mod}}=G+\frac{1}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
$`(33)`$
The appearance of the N=1 Chern-Simons superfield $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is quite natural from the point of view of string theory and D-branes, where Chern-Simons-type couplings (in components) are known to appear in the famous Green-Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism and in the (dual) D-brane actions. In particular, the dilaton superfield $`G`$ must transform under the $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations as

$$\delta G=\frac{i}{32\pi }(D^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })W_\alpha +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
$`(34)`$
in order to make $`G_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ gauge-invariant. Equations (26) and (28) lead to the manifestly gauge-invariant constraints on $`G_{\mathrm{mod}}`$,

$$\overline{D}^2G_{\mathrm{mod}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }W^2,D^2G_{\mathrm{mod}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\overline{W}^2.$$
$`(35)`$
Such couplings were extensively studied in superspace (see e.g., ref.  for a recent review), while the relevant superspace geometry appears to be closely related to a three-form N=1 multiplet introduced in ref. .

Substituting the solution (32) into the action (30) yields the dual action in the form

$$S=d^4xd^4\theta \left\{\mathrm{ln}G_{\mathrm{mod}}+\frac{1}{32\pi }W^2\overline{W}^2G_{\mathrm{mod}}^2𝒴(G_{\mathrm{mod}}^1K,G_{\mathrm{mod}}^1\overline{K})\right\}.$$
$`(36)`$
By construction this action is equivalent (dual) to the action given by a sum of eqs. (18) and (23). However, it seems to be much easier to find a supersymmetric completion of the action (36) with respect to the second (spontaneously broken) supersymmetry, since the action (36) is given by the full N=1 superspace integral, while the constraints (35) are also easy to be covariantized. The second non-linearly realized supersymmetry with the transformation law $`\delta W_\alpha =\eta _\alpha +\mathrm{}`$ implies a non-trivial transformation law of $`G_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ as well, because of the constraint (35),

$$\delta _\eta G_{\mathrm{mod}}=\frac{1}{8\pi }(\eta ^\alpha D_\alpha V+\overline{\eta }_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }\overline{D}^\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }V)+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(37)`$
The minimal, manifestly N=2 covariant version of the constraints (35) is given by

$$\overline{𝒟}^2\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{mod}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Psi }^2,𝒟^2\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{mod}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^2,$$
$`(38)`$
where we have substituted the Maxwell-Goldstone N=1 superfield $`W`$ by the N=1 Goldstone superfield $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and the N=1 linear (dilaton-axion) superfield $`G_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ by its fully covariant counterpart $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{mod}}`$. The superfield $`W`$ obeys the ‘canonical’ constraints (6) but it has the complicated transformation law (10), whereas the N=1 Goldstone superfield $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has the ‘canonical’ transformation law under the second supersymmetry but it obeys the complicated constraints (12). The same remarks also apply to $`G_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{mod}}`$, respectively.

The defining constraints (38) on $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ are consistent with the constraints (12) because of the identities

$$𝒟_\alpha 𝒟_\beta 𝒟_\gamma =\overline{𝒟}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }\overline{𝒟}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }\overline{𝒟}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\gamma }=0$$
$`(39)`$
that follow from the definitions (13). The fully covariant action is thus of the form

$$S=d^4xd^4\theta E^1\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{mod}},$$
$`(40)`$
where we have introduced a density $`E^1(\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{mod}})`$ in the full N=1 superspace.

## Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University in Hannover, and the Department of Physics of the University in Kaiserslautern, Germany, for kind hospitality extended to him during a preparation of this paper. This work was supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) under the Federal Research Programm ‘String Theory’ and the Volkswagen Grant from the University of Kaiserslautern.