text:
# Generalized Robustness of Entanglement

## I Introduction

The Robustness of Entanglement in  examines how much mixing can take place between an entangled state $`\rho `$ and another state $`\rho _M`$, so that the convex combination of the two states is separable. Such work has significance to how robust entangled states are in the presense of interaction mechanisms that could disentangle the state. This work is also of interest in the characterization of the state space in terms of entangled and separable states, and the decomposition is an important result in quantum information theory.

In  the authors restricted $`\rho _M`$ to be separable. This is a reasonable restriction as long as the states that are being mixed are separable. Another possibility is that a given entangled state would not only interact with separable states, but could also interact with other entangled states. It is known that the mixing of entangled states can also result in the convex combination being separable. Hence entangled states thought to be robust for the cases where interaction is only with separable states, might not be robust when allowed to interact with arbitary states. This would require the presense of entangled states in the interaction medium that are stable at least within the interaction time. The degree and scale for which entangled states exist is not yet known and is a current area of research in mesoscopic physics. What is known is that the processes of entanglement and decoherence are continually at work and it becomes more difficult to maintain entanglement with the scale of the entangled state. In general it is known that microscopic entangled states are found that are very stable, for example electron-sharing in atomic bonding and two-particle entangled photon states generated by parametric down conversion. Additionally, it is known that certain larger entangled systems can exist. Examples of multi-particle superpositions that are given in  include phonons in solids, superfluids, and superconducting quantum interference devices. It is also known that Bose-Einstein Condensates are examples of large scale superpositions and the relation to entanglement is explored in . Hence it is known that entangled states exist on the microscopic level and under certain conditions on the mesoscopic level.

Therefore, the restriction that $`\rho _M`$ be separable is lifted so that $`\rho _M`$ can be an arbitary density matrix. As it is known  that the relative volume of the state space is dominated by entangled states as the dimension of the composite Hilbert space grows, one might initially expect that entangled states would not be as robust when entangled states are allowed to interact with arbitrary states versus only separable states. Numerical simulations in  indicate that the probability of finding a non-entangled state decreases exponentially with the size of the Hilbert space of the composite system. Geometrically, the separable states become sandwiched between two hyperplanes . However, as we will see, the robustness of entanglement of pure entangled states does not change when $`\rho _M`$ can be an arbitrary state, compared to the case when $`\rho _M`$ is separable. That is, we find the same expression for the robustness of entanglement for the two cases.

## II Generalized Robustness of Entanglement

Consider two systems of particles $`p_1,p_2`$ with composite states represented by density matrices $`\rho `$, $`\rho _M`$ that operate on the Hilbert space $`𝒞^n𝒞^n`$, $`N=n^2`$. For a given entangled state $`\rho `$, Vidal and Tarrach  considered the problem of finding the largest $`a[0,1]`$ for which there exists a $`\rho _M𝒮`$ and that

$`a\rho +(1a)\rho _M𝒮,`$

where $`𝒮`$ denotes the set of separable states. The robustness of entanglement  was defined as $`\text{R}_s(\rho )=^{^{\mathrm{}}}\frac{1}{a}1`$, where $`a`$ is largest. Define the optimal $`a`$ for a given $`\rho `$ as $`𝒪_s(\rho )`$. Note from the definition that for any $`a>𝒪_s(\rho )`$, the matrix $`a\rho +(1a)\rho _M`$ is necessarily entangled for all $`\rho _M𝒮`$. For the case where $`\rho `$ is a pure state (i.e. rank 1), $`\rho =\psi \psi ^{}`$ and with $`\psi `$ having a Schmidt decomposition $`\psi =_i\stackrel{~}{a}_i|i>|i>`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i0`$, it was shown in  that

$$\text{R}_s(\rho )=(\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_i)^21.$$
(1)
For the case of generalized robustness of entanglement, we define $`𝒪_g(\rho )`$ as the largest value of $`a`$ for which there exists $`\rho _M\text{DM}(N)`$ with

$$a\rho +(1a)\rho _M𝒮,$$
(2)
where $`\text{DM}(N)`$ is the set of $`N`$ by $`N`$ density matrices. Note that since $`𝒮\text{DM}(N)`$ then

$$𝒪_g(\rho )𝒪_s(\rho ).$$
(3)
The generalized robustness of entanglement is defined as $`\text{R}_g(\rho )=^{^{\mathrm{}}}\frac{1}{𝒪_g(\rho )}1`$.

Several of the results in  can be extended to the generalized robustness of entanglement case. The proofs of these extensions are straightforward and are shown in the Appendix. We state these results here.

###### Theorem 1

$`\text{R}_g(\rho )`$ is convex, i.e.

$`\text{R}_g(t\rho _1+(1t)\rho _2)t\text{R}_g(\rho _1)+(1t)\text{R}_g(\rho _2).`$

###### Theorem 2

$`\text{R}_g(\rho )=\text{R}_g(U_L\rho U_L)`$, where $`U_L`$ is a local unitary transformation of the form $`U_L=U_1U_2`$.

Corollary Let $`\rho =\psi \psi ^{}`$, $`\rho `$ act on $`\text{lC}^n\text{lC}^n`$ and $`\psi =_{i=1}^n\stackrel{~}{a_i}\gamma _i^A\gamma _i^B`$ is a Schmidt decomposition of $`\psi `$ where $`\gamma _i^A`$ is an orthonormal basis for subsystem $`A`$ and $`\gamma _i^B`$ is an orthonormal basis for subsystem $`B`$. Then if $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\stackrel{~}{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\psi ^{}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }=_{i=1}^n\stackrel{~}{a_i}|i>|i>`$, where $`\{|1>,|2>,\mathrm{},|n>\}`$ is the natural basis of $`\text{lC}^n`$, then the robustness is the same, i.e. $`\text{R}_g(\stackrel{~}{\rho })=\text{R}_g(\rho )`$.

Proof: Define $`U_1`$ by the map $`\psi _i^A|i>`$ and similarly define $`U_2`$ for subsystem $`B`$. Since change of orthogonal basis mappings are unitary, one can apply Theorem 2 and the result follows.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`\rho `$ be a pure state acting on $`\text{lC}^n\text{lC}^n`$. The eigenvalues of $`\rho ^{\text{pt}}`$ consist of up to $`n(n1)/2`$ negative eigenvalues, where $`\rho ^{\text{pt}}`$ denotes the partial transpose  of $`\rho `$. If $`\rho =\psi \psi ^{}`$, $`\psi =_{i=1}^n\stackrel{~}{a_i}|i>|i>`$, then these eigenvalues are given by $`\{\stackrel{~}{a_r}\stackrel{~}{a_s}\}`$, $`r<s`$. The corresponding eigenvectors are

$`\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(r,s)}=1/\sqrt{2}(|r>|s>|s>|r>),r<s`$

where $`f(i,j)=(ji)+n(i1)i(i1)/2`$, $`i<j`$.

Proof: The proof is given in , Equations B17-B18.

A main result is that for pure states, the generalized robustness of entanglement is the same as the Vidal and Tarrach robustness of entanglement.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`\rho `$ be a pure state. Then $`𝒪_g(\rho )=𝒪_s(\rho )=\frac{1}{1+R_s(\rho )}`$.

Proof: Consider the eigenvectors $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$ from Lemma 1. If $`𝒪_g(\rho )=t`$, then there exists a $`\rho _M\text{DM(N)}`$, with

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{}(t\rho ^{\text{pt}}+(1t)\rho _M^{\text{pt}})\stackrel{~}{e}_i0,i=1,\mathrm{},n(n1)/2,$$
(4)
where $`x^{}`$ denotes the conjugate transpose of $`x`$. It will be shown that $`t𝒪_s(\rho ),`$ otherwise at least one term in (4) will be negative for every $`\rho _M`$. To this end, let $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(i,j)}^{}(t\rho ^{\text{pt}}+(1t)\rho _M^{\text{pt}})\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(i,j)}0`$ for $`j>i`$. Then

$$t(1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_i\stackrel{~}{a}_j}{\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(i,j)}^{}\rho _M^{\text{pt}}\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(i,j)}})^1,j>i.$$
(5)
Let $`h_{i,j}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(i,j)}^{}\rho _M^{\text{pt}}\stackrel{~}{e}_{f_{i,j}}}{\stackrel{~}{a}_i\stackrel{~}{a}_j}`$. Since (5) is true for all $`j>i`$,

$$t\underset{j>i}{\mathrm{min}}(1+\frac{1}{h_{i,j}})^1.$$
(6)
For a given $`\rho _M`$, (6) must be satisfied if $`t\rho +(1t)\rho _M`$ is separable. The largest $`t`$ for which there exists a $`\rho _M\text{DM}(N)`$ and where $`t\rho +(1t)\rho _M`$ is separable is upper bounded by the maximum of the right hand side (rhs) of (6). That is,

$`𝒪_g(\rho )\underset{\rho _M}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{j>i}{\mathrm{min}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_{i,j}}})^1`$

or

$$𝒪_g(\rho )(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{max}_{\rho _M}\mathrm{min}_{j>i}h_{i,j}})^1.$$
(7)
We will now consider the max-min problem

$$𝒯=^{^{\mathrm{}}}\underset{\rho _M}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{j>i}{\mathrm{min}}h_{i,j}.$$
(8)
Let $`\rho _M=_i\lambda _ie_ie_i^{}`$ be a spectral decomposition of $`\rho _M`$, $`e_i=1`$, $`e_i^{}e_j=0`$, $`ij`$, and where $`||||`$ denotes the L2 norm. Denote the function $`c(i,j)=m`$ where $`m`$ is the indice where the vector $`|i>|j>`$ is equal to one, $`|i>,|j>\text{lC}^n`$. For example, if $`n=2`$, $`|1>|2>=(0100)^{}`$, hence $`c(1,2)=2`$. Clearly then $`c(i,j)=n(i1)+j`$.

Now rewrite the eigenvectors of $`\rho _M`$ as

$`e_i={\displaystyle \underset{r,s}{}}e_{i,c(r,s)}|r>|s>.`$

Now,

$`e_ie_i^{}=({\displaystyle \underset{r,s}{}}e_{i,c(r,s)}|r>|s>)({\displaystyle \underset{t,u}{}}e_{i,c(t,u)}|t>|u>)^{}`$

$`\rho _M={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i{\displaystyle \underset{r,s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t,u}{}}e_{i,c(r,s)}e_{i,c(t,u)}^{}|r><t||s><u|`$

where $``$ denotes conjugate. The second partial transpose  of $`\rho _M`$ is

$$\rho _M^{\text{pt}}=\underset{i}{}\lambda _i\underset{r,s}{}\underset{t,u}{}e_{i,c(r,s)}e_{i,c(t,u)}^{}|r><t||u><s|.$$
(9)
From Lemma 1, we have $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(j,k)}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(<j|<k|<j|<k|)`$, so that

$`\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(j,k)}^{}\rho _M^{pt}\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(j,k)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i{\displaystyle \underset{r,s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t,u}{}}e_{i,c(r,s)}e_{i,c(t,u)}^{}(<j|r><t|j><k|u><s|k>`$ (12)
$`<j|r><t|k><k|u><s|j><k|r><t|j><j|u><s|k>+`$
$`<k|r><t|k><j|u><s|j>)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i[e_{i,c(j,k)}e_{i,c(j,k)}^{}e_{i,c(j,j)}e_{i,c(k,k)}^{}e_{i,c(k,k)}e_{i,c(j,j)}^{}+e_{i,c(k,j)}e_{i,c(k,j)}^{}]`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i[|e_{i,c(j,k)}|^2+|e_{i,c(k,j)}|^22\text{Re}(e_{i,c(j,j)}e_{i,c(k,k)}^{})],`$ (14)
where Re(x) denotes the real part of $`x`$. Define

$`g_{f(j,k)}^{(i)}=^{^{\mathrm{}}}|e_{i,c(j,k)}|^2+|e_{i,c(k,j)}|^22\text{Re}(e_{i,c(j,j)}e_{i,c(k,k)}^{}),`$

and the above becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(j,k)}^{}\rho _M^{pt}\stackrel{~}{e}_{f(j,k)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _ig_{f(j,k)}^{(i)}.`$

Consider the matrix

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\lambda _1g_1^{(1)}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1\stackrel{~}{a}_2}& \frac{\lambda _2g_1^{(2)}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1\stackrel{~}{a}_2}& \mathrm{}& \frac{\lambda _Ng_1^{(1)}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1\stackrel{~}{a}_2}\\ \frac{\lambda _1g_2^{(1)}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1\stackrel{~}{a}_3}& \frac{\lambda _2g_2^{(2)}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1\stackrel{~}{a}_3}& \mathrm{}& \frac{\lambda _Ng_2^{(N)}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_1\stackrel{~}{a}_3}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \frac{\lambda _1g_{f(n1,n}^{(1)}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_{n1}\stackrel{~}{a}_n}& \frac{\lambda _2g_{f(n1,n)}^{(2)}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_{n1}\stackrel{~}{a}_n}& \mathrm{}& \frac{\lambda _Ng_{f(n1,n)}^{(N)}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_{n1}\stackrel{~}{a}_n}\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
Then (8) is identically

$$𝒯=\underset{\rho _M}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{j}{}A_{ij}.$$
(16)
Before the final step in the proof, consider

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n(n1)/2}{}}}g_j^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}g_{f(j,k)}^{(i)}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}|e_{i,c(j,k)}|^2+|e_{i,c(k,j)}|^2e_{i,c(j,j)}e_{i,c(k,k)}^{}e_{i,c(k,k)}e_{i,c(j,j)}^{}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}|e_{i,c(j,k)}|^2e_{i,c(j,j)}e_{i,c(k,k)}^{}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}|e_{i,c(j,k)}|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|e_{i,c(j,j)}|^2)({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|e_{i,c(j,j)}|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}e_{i,c(j,j)}e_{i,c(k,k)}^{})`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`1({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|e_{i,c(j,j)}|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}e_{i,c(j,j)}e_{i,c(k,k)}^{})`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`1|{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}e_{i,c(j,j)}|^2`$ (22)
$``$ $`1.`$ (23)
Now, (16) can be written as

$$𝒯=\underset{\rho _M}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{j<k}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{i}{}\frac{\lambda _ig_{f(j,k)}^{(i)}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_j\stackrel{~}{a}_k}.$$
(24)
Let $`\alpha _{j,k}=_i\lambda _ig_{f(j,k)}^{(i)}.`$ Then (24) becomes

$`𝒯=\underset{\rho _M}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{j<k}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{j,k}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_j\stackrel{~}{a}_k}}.`$

Summing over $`\alpha _{j,k}`$ with $`j<k`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}\alpha _{j,k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _ig_f^{(i)}(j,k)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}g_{f(j,k)}^{(i)}`$
and from (23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i`$
$`=`$ $`1.`$
Hence $`𝒯`$ in (24) can be upper bounded by

$`𝒯\underset{\rho _M}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}\delta _i\beta _i\text{where}\beta _{f(j,k)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_j\stackrel{~}{a}_k}},j<k`$
$`\delta _{f(j,k)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{j,k},j<k,{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta _i1`$
or

$`𝒯\underset{\delta _i1}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}\delta _i\beta _i\text{where}\beta _{f(j,k)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{a}_j\stackrel{~}{a}_k}},j<k`$

and rewritten as

$$𝒯\underset{\begin{array}{c}y\delta _i\beta _i\\ _i\delta _i1\end{array}}{\mathrm{max}}y.$$
(25)
Consider the candidate solution to (25) of $`\delta _i=\delta _i^{(1)}=\frac{K}{\beta _i}`$ where $`K`$ is a constant. Since $`_i\delta _i^{(1)}1`$, it follows that $`K\frac{1}{_{j<k}2\stackrel{~}{a}_j\stackrel{~}{a}_k}`$. Note that the denominator is equal to $`(_i\stackrel{~}{a}_i)^21`$ which is equal to $`\text{R}_s(\rho )`$ from Eqn. (1). Hence

$$K\frac{1}{\text{R}_s(\rho )}.$$
(26)
For this choice of $`\delta _i^{(1)}`$, the rhs of Eqn. (25) is maximized when $`K`$ is on the boundary in Eqn. (26) i.e. $`K=\frac{1}{\text{R}_s(\rho )}`$ and for which $`_i\delta _i^{(1)}=1`$. Then $`\delta _i^{(1)}=\frac{1}{\text{R}_s(\rho )\beta _i}`$, and

$`\underset{\begin{array}{c}y\delta _i\beta _i\\ _i\delta _i1\end{array}}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{\begin{array}{c}y\delta _i^{(1)}\beta _i\\ _i\delta _i^{(1)}=1\end{array}}{\mathrm{max}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{R}_s(\rho )}}.`$

We will now show that no other larger solutions to (25) exist. Suppose that such a solution $`y_2`$ exists and let $`\delta _i=\delta _i^{(2)}`$ be the associated parameters in (25). Since $`y_2>\frac{1}{\text{R}_s(\rho )}`$, there must exist a $`\delta _e>0`$ whereby $`y_2=\frac{1}{\text{R}_s(\rho )}+\delta _e`$. From (25) it follows that

$`y_2`$ $``$ $`\delta _i^{(2)}\beta _ii`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{R}_s(\rho )}}+\delta _e`$ $``$ $`\delta _i^{(2)}\beta _ii`$
$`\delta _i^{(1)}\beta _i+\delta _e`$ $``$ $`\delta _i^{(2)}\beta _ii`$
$`0<\delta _e`$ $``$ $`(\delta _i^{(2)}\delta _i^{(1)})\beta _ii`$
from which it follows that
$`\delta _i^{(2)}`$ $`>`$ $`\delta _i^{(1)}i.`$
Summing both sides
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta _i^{(2)}`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta _i^{(1)}`$
which implies
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta _i^{(2)}`$ $`>`$ $`1.`$
This contradicts the assumption in (25) that $`_i\delta _i^{(2)}>1`$. Hence

$`𝒯{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{R}_s(\rho )}},`$

and so we have upper bounded the rhs of (7) to arrive at

$`𝒪_g(\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\text{R}_s(\rho )}}.`$

Since from (3) we know that $`𝒪_g(\rho )𝒪_s(\rho )`$, the result follows.

An interesting question is whether or not an optimal $`\rho _M`$ in Eqn. (2) (optimal in the sense of maximizing $`𝒪_g`$), is necessarily separable. We already know that such separable states $`\rho _M`$ can be constructed via the construction given in . It is shown by counterexample that one can also construct $`\rho _M`$ that are entangled. To construct the counterexample, consider an entangled pure state $`\rho `$ with $`a=𝒪_g(\rho )`$. Assume that $`\rho `$ is in the simplified form $`\rho =\psi \psi ^{}`$, with $`\psi =_i\stackrel{~}{a_i}|i>|i>`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{a_i}0`$ are the Schmidt coefficients of $`\psi `$ and $`|i>`$ is in the natural basis. Let $`G=a\rho /(1a)`$ and note that all the elements in $`G`$ satisfy $`G_{i,j}0`$, where $`G_{i,j}`$ represents the $`i`$th column and $`j`$th row of $`G`$. Let $`G^{(2)}`$ be the matrix $`G`$ except with the diagonal elements removed. Now $`G^{(2)}`$ is generally not positive definite so we will replace the diagonal elements with values from the Gersgoren disks \[8, p. 344\]. That is, $`G_{i,i}^{(2)}=_kG_{i,k}`$. This will guarantee that $`G^{(2)}`$ is positive semidefinite. Now, $`a\rho +(1a)G^{(2)}`$ is clearly a diagonal matrix. It can also be seen that the diagonal elements are positive and can be verified the sum of the diagonal elements is 1 and $`G^{(2)}`$ is typically entangled. Hence $`a\rho +(1a)G^{(2)}`$ is separable and there exists entangled matrices $`\rho _M`$ that optimize the generalized robustness of entanglement. Additionally, note that if there are two optimal solutions for $`\rho _M`$ in (2), call them $`\rho _{M_1}`$ and $`\rho _{M_2}`$, then it is easily proven that any convex combination, i.e. $`t\rho _{M_1}+(1t)\rho _{M_2}`$, $`0t1`$, also is an optimal solution for $`\rho _M`$ in (2). Since we have seen that both entangled and non-entangled solutions exist, this further implies that there can be an infinite number of solutions for $`\rho _M`$.

## III Conclusions

Vidal and Tarrach considered robustness by considering how much one can mix a state with an arbitrary separable state such that the combination is separable. This result has been extended by allowing any state to mix with the state such that the combination is separable. It was found that the state is just as robust as before. This is somewhat a surprising result since the volume of state space becomes dominated by the entangled states in large dimension as seen in . The author initially expected that the robustness as measured by $`\text{R}_g(\rho )`$ would decrease as compared to $`\text{R}_s(\rho )`$. However, it was found that there is no degradation. This result shows that entangled states that are generally robust (in terms of this definition) when only non-entangled states are present would be expected to robust in similar situations where there are other entangled states present that can mix with the state to cause disentanglement. Extensions to this work would be to determine the generalized robustness of entanglement for mixed states.

Acknowledgements: The author acknowledges helpful discussions with R. Lockhart, M. Rubin, and A. Pittenger and the Office of Naval Research for the support of this work.

Note added in proof: After this work was submitted, the author learned of two recent relevant works  and . The main result on the generalized robustness of entanglement for pure states found in this paper was also found independently by A. Harrow and M. Nielsen and derived in a rather nice compact manner . The authors also extend the notion of state robustness for the application of quantum logic gate robustness. In , F. Verstraete and H. Verschelde examined the problem of the maximal achievable fidelity optimized over all local operations and classical communication (LOCC) operations. They found an interesting equivalence between this latter problem and the generalized robustness of entanglement for the case of two qubits. They also developed a solution for the case of two qubits in a mixed state, which reduces to the solution in this paper when the two qubits are pure.

## IV APPENDIX

Proofs of Theorem 1 and 2. These proofs follow from  with minor modification.

###### Theorem 1

$`\text{R}_g(\rho )`$ is convex, i.e.

$`\text{R}(p\rho _1+(1p)\rho _2)p\text{R}(\rho _1)+(1p)\text{R}(\rho _2).`$

Proof: Define $`t=^{^{\mathrm{}}}p\text{R}(\rho _1)+(1p)\text{R}(\rho _2)`$ and $`\rho =^{^{\mathrm{}}}p\rho _1+(1p)\rho _2`$. From the definition of robustness, there exists $`\rho _{M,1}\text{DM}(N)`$ and $`\rho _{M,2}\text{DM}(N)`$, where $`\text{DM}(N)`$ represents the set of $`N`$ by $`N`$ density matrices, such that

$`\rho _1=(1+\text{R}_g(\rho _1))\rho _{s,1}\text{R}_g(\rho _1)\rho _{M,1}`$

$`\rho _2=(1+\text{R}_g(\rho _2))\rho _{s,2}\text{R}_g(\rho _1)\rho _{M,2}`$

and for which $`\rho _{s,1},\rho _{s,2}𝒮`$. Now, note that the matrix $`\rho _s`$ as defined by

$`\rho _s=^{^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+t)}}(p(1+\text{R}_g(\rho _1)\rho _{s,1}+(1p)(1+\text{R}_g(\rho _2))\rho _{s,2})`$

is separable. It can be shown that

$`\rho =(1+t)\rho _st\rho _{M,3}`$

where $`\rho _{M,3}=^{^{\mathrm{}}}\frac{1}{t}(p\text{R}_g(\rho _1)\rho _{s,1}+(1p)\text{R}_g(\rho _2)\rho _{s,2}).`$ Hence $`\text{R}_g(\rho )t`$.

###### Theorem 2

$`\text{R}_g(\rho )=\text{R}_g(U_L\rho U_L)`$, where $`U_L`$ is a local unitary transformation of the form $`U_L=U_1U_2`$.

Proof: By definition, there exists a decomposition $`\rho =(1+\text{R}_g(\rho ))\rho _s\text{R}_g(\rho )\rho _M`$ with $`\rho _s𝒮`$. Then

$`U_L\rho U_L^{}=(1+\text{R}_g(\rho ))U_L\rho _sU_L^{}\text{R}_g(\rho )U_L\rho _MU_L^{}.`$

Since $`U_L\rho U_L^{}𝒮`$ then $`\text{R}_g(U_L\rho U_L^{})\text{R}_g(\rho ).`$ On the other hand if one considers $`\rho _2=^{^{\mathrm{}}}U_L\rho U_L^{}`$, there exists by definition a decomposition $`\rho _2=(1+\text{R}_g(\rho _2))\rho _{s,2}\text{R}_g(\rho _2)\rho _{M,2}.`$ Multiplying both sides by $`U_L^{}`$ and $`U_L`$, gives

$`\rho =(1+\text{R}_g(\rho _2))U_L^{}\rho _{s,2}U_L\text{R}_g(\rho _2)U_L^{}\rho _{M,2}U_L`$

which implies $`\text{R}_g(\rho )\text{R}_g(\rho _2).`$


format: text

text:
# REFERENCES

Spin 1 fields arise most naturally as the vector connections when global internal symmetries are realized as local symmmetries. This gauging of global symmetries and the resultant Higgs mechanism is at the heart of the much of particle physics including the Standard Model. In this note, we address the possibility of the origin of spin 3/2 particles as the result of gauging a global internal fermionic symmetry. The most familiar fermionic symmetry is supersymmetry (SUSY), a spacetime symmetry related through the SUSY algebra to spacetime translations. Thus gauging supersymmetry automatically requires a gauging of the full Poincaré group resulting in a supergravity theory which, in addition to the spin 3/2 fields, necessarily contains the spin 2 graviton field. Here we examine models with a global internal fermionic symmetry whose gauging can be implemented only using the spin 3/2 fields without the need for any other higher spin fields.

We begin by introducing a model which contains a 2-component Weyl fermion, $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and its complex conjugate $`\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and demand the model be invariant under the global shift transformation:

$`\delta (\xi ,\overline{\xi })\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`f^{3/2}\xi `$ (1)
$`\delta (\xi ,\overline{\xi })\overline{\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`f^{3/2}\overline{\xi }`$ (2)
where $`\xi ,\overline{\xi }`$ are spacetime independent Grassmann parameters and $`f`$ is a mass scale. The resulting invariant action, retaining terms through mass dimension 4 is just the kinetic term of the free Dirac action:

$$I_0=d^4x_0;_0=\frac{i}{2}\lambda \sigma ^\mu \underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\overline{\lambda }$$
(3)
Note that the required symmetry forbids a $`\lambda \lambda +\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda }`$ fermion mass term.

The globally symmetric model can be readily extended to include higher dimensional (derivatively coupled) fermionic self interations. In fact, any term of the form

$$_1=\lambda \sigma ^\mu _\mu \overline{F}_1(\lambda ,\overline{\lambda })+h.c.$$
(4)
where $`\overline{F}_1^{\dot{\alpha }}(\lambda ,\overline{\lambda })`$ is a function of $`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$ produces an invariant action. An example of such an operator is provided by $`\overline{F}_1^{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{a_1}{f^2}^2\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$, where $`a_1`$ is a constant.

The model can be further extended to include couplings to other fields (generically referred to as $`\varphi _i`$). Under the global shift of the fermion field, all these other fields are taken to be invariant: $`\delta (\xi ,\overline{\xi })\varphi _i=0`$. Thus a globally invariant Lagrangian containing no fermion fields experiencing the nontrivial shift is simply

$$_2=F_2(\varphi _i,\varphi _i)$$
(5)
This could include the full Standard Model Lagrangian.
One can also couple the fields $`\varphi _i`$ to the $`\lambda ,\overline{\lambda }`$ with an invariant Lagrangian of the form

$$_3=F_3(\varphi _i,\varphi _i,\lambda ,\overline{\lambda })$$
(6)
Once again focusing on the free massless fermion field theory exhibiting the global shift symmetry, we now promote the Grassmann symmetry parameters to become local, (local variations and locally invariant actions and their associated Lagrangians will be denoted using a hat) $`\xi \xi (x);\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }(x)`$, so that

$`\widehat{\delta }(\xi ,\overline{\xi })\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`f^{3/2}\xi (x)`$ (7)
$`\widehat{\delta }(\xi ,\overline{\xi })\overline{\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`f^{3/2}\overline{\xi }(x)`$ (8)
We seek an action generalizing that of Eq. (3) which is invariant under this local transformation. The standard procedure is to simply replace the derivatives by covariant derivatives

$`_\mu \lambda `$ $``$ $`D_\mu \lambda =_\mu \lambda +if\psi _\mu `$ (9)
$`_\mu \overline{\lambda }`$ $``$ $`D_\mu \overline{\lambda }=_\mu \overline{\lambda }if\overline{\psi }_\mu `$ (10)
where $`\psi _\mu ^\alpha `$ and its conjugate $`\overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}^\mu `$ are spin 3/2 fields carrying both vector and spinor indices. Making such a substitution, the Lagrangian of Eq. (3) takes the form

$$_0=\frac{i}{2}\lambda \sigma ^\mu \underset{\mu }{\overset{}{D}}\overline{\lambda }=\frac{i}{2}\lambda \sigma ^\mu \underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\overline{\lambda }\frac{f}{2}(\lambda \sigma ^\mu \overline{\psi }_\mu +\psi _\mu \sigma ^\mu \overline{\lambda })$$
(11)
The local $`\xi `$ variation of this Lagrangian (the $`\overline{\xi }`$ variation can be obtained by complex conjugation) is then

$$\widehat{\delta }(\xi )_0=\frac{i}{2}[f^{3/2}\xi \sigma ^\mu _\mu \overline{\lambda }f^{3/2}_\mu \xi \sigma ^\mu f^{5/2}\xi \sigma ^\mu \overline{\psi }_\mu if\lambda \widehat{\delta }(\xi )(\sigma ^\mu \overline{\psi }_\mu )if(\widehat{\delta }(\xi )\psi _\mu )\sigma ^\mu \overline{\lambda }]$$
(12)
As usual, we can take

$$\widehat{\delta }(\xi )\psi _\mu =if^{1/2}_\mu \xi $$
(13)
to cancel the part of the variation depending on $`_\mu \xi `$. However, there is nothing to cancel the terms dependent on $`\xi `$ (not derivative of $`\xi `$). The source of the dilema is the fact that the Dirac Lagrangian is not a function of only derivatives of the fermion fields. This case can be compared to the massless scalar kinetic term which is a function of only derivatives of the scalar fields. There simply replacing ordinary derivatives by covariant derivatives which include the spin 1 vector field is sufficient to render that model locally invariant.

Thus to construct a locally invariant model for the fermion case, we must do more than just replace derivatives by covariant derivatives. We need to include additional terms in the action as well as have something which transforms into $`\xi `$ and not its derivative. We already have that $`\psi _\mu `$ transforms into a derivative of $`\xi `$. The only other object remaining is $`\overline{\psi }_\mu `$. Recall that the spin 1/2 field $`\lambda `$ transforms as $`\xi `$. Thus we demand that spin 3/2 field $`\overline{\psi }_\mu `$ transform as

$$\widehat{\delta }(\xi )\overline{\psi }^\mu =\frac{1}{4}f^{3/2}\overline{\sigma }^\mu \xi $$
(14)
so that $`\widehat{\delta }(\xi )(\sigma ^\mu \overline{\psi }_\mu )=f^{3/2}\xi `$.

To proceed, we next systematically list the operators and their associated variations starting with the Dirac covariant kinetic term for $`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$ and then cancelling the unwanted variations until we left with an invariant action under the transformations

$`\widehat{\delta }(\xi )\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`f^{3/2}\xi `$ (15)
$`\widehat{\delta }(\xi )\overline{\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (16)
$`\widehat{\delta }(\xi )\psi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`f^{1/2}_\mu \xi `$ (17)
$`\widehat{\delta }(\xi )\overline{\psi }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f^{3/2}\overline{\sigma }^\mu \xi `$ (18)
and the complex conjugate (i.e. $`\overline{\xi }`$) variations.

The needed operators and their local transformations are given as:

$`𝒪_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\lambda \sigma ^\mu \underset{\mu }{\overset{}{𝒟}}\overline{\lambda };\widehat{\delta }(\xi )𝒪_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{3/2}(i\xi \sigma ^\mu 𝒟_\mu \overline{\lambda }+f\xi \lambda )`$ (19)
$`𝒪_2`$ $`=`$ $`f(\lambda \lambda +\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda });\widehat{\delta }(\xi )𝒪_2=2f_S^{5/2}(\xi \lambda )`$ (20)
$`𝒪_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}(𝒟_\mu \lambda 𝒟^\mu \lambda +𝒟_\mu \overline{\lambda }𝒟^\mu \overline{\lambda }2𝒟_\mu \lambda \sigma ^{\mu \nu }𝒟_\nu \lambda 2𝒟_\mu \overline{\lambda }\overline{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }𝒟_\nu \overline{\lambda });\widehat{\delta }(\xi )𝒪_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{3/2}(i\xi \sigma ^\mu 𝒟_\mu \overline{\lambda })`$ (21)
Next form the Lagrangian

$$\widehat{}_0=\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}c_i𝒪_i$$
(23)
and demand that its action is invariant under the variations. This leads to relationships among the various coeficients $`c_i`$. Canonically normalizing the kinetic term so that $`c_1=1`$, then fixes $`c_2=\frac{1}{4};c_3=\frac{1}{4}`$.

Thus the action, $`\widehat{I}_0`$, formed from the Lagrangian

$$\widehat{}_0=\frac{i}{2}\lambda \sigma ^\mu \underset{\mu }{\overset{}{𝒟}}\overline{\lambda }+\frac{f}{4}(\lambda \lambda +\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda })\frac{1}{4f}(𝒟_\mu \lambda 𝒟^\mu \lambda +𝒟_\mu \overline{\lambda }𝒟^\mu \overline{\lambda }2𝒟_\mu \lambda \sigma ^{\mu \nu }𝒟_\nu \lambda 2𝒟_\mu \overline{\lambda }\overline{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }𝒟_\nu \overline{\lambda })$$
(24)
is invariant under the local variations: $`\widehat{\delta }(\xi ,\overline{\xi })\widehat{I}=0`$. Included in the product of covariant derivatives in $`\widehat{}`$ is a mass term for the spin 3/2 field of the form $`\frac{m_{3/2}}{2}(\psi ^\mu \psi _\mu +\overline{\psi }^\mu \overline{\psi }_\mu )`$ with $`m_{3/2}=\frac{f}{2}`$. It follows that a Higgs mechanism has taken place and the Nambu-Goldstone spin 1/2 fermion fields ($`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$) become the spin 1/2 components of the massive spin 3/2 fields. This is also consistent with the transformation laws $`\widehat{\delta }(\xi )\psi _\mu =if^{1/2}_\mu \xi ;\widehat{\delta }(\sigma ^\mu \overline{\psi }_\mu )=f^{3/2}\xi `$. In contrast to the scalar case where the vector mass term emerges directly from the boson kinetic term when derivatives are replaced with covariant derivatives, the appearance of spin 3/2 field mass term is somewhat more circuitous. It arises from an independent monomial needed to be added to the action in order to inforce the local shift invariance. Note that this Lagrangian is invariant under the local fermionic shift transformation but violates the global chirality of the globally shift invariant theory: $`\delta (\omega )\lambda =i\omega \lambda ;\delta (\omega )\overline{\lambda }=i\omega \overline{\lambda }`$. In particular, the Nambu-Goldstone spin 1/2 fermion fields ($`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$) acquire a mass term of the form $`\frac{m_{3/2}}{2}(\lambda \lambda +\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda })`$ where the coefficient is identical to the mass of the spin 3/2 field; $`m_{3/2}=f/2`$.

To complete the program, we need to construct the locally invariant kinetic term for the spin 3/2 fields. It is readily established that the Lagrangian

$$\widehat{}_{RS}=\frac{i}{2}\psi _\mu (\sigma ^\nu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\overline{\psi }^\mu \sigma ^\mu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\overline{\psi }^\nu +iϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\sigma _\nu \underset{\lambda }{\overset{}{}}\overline{\psi }_\rho )$$
(25)
transforms as a total divergence under the local variations given by Eq. (18). Consequently, the (Rarita-Schwinger) action $`\widehat{I}_{RS}=d^4x\widehat{}_{RS}`$ formed from this Lagrangian is locally invariant.

The total locally invariant action, $`\widehat{I}`$, is obtained by adding $`\widehat{I}_{RS}`$ to the action formed from Eq. (24): $`\widehat{I}=\widehat{I}_0+\widehat{I}_{RS}`$. The dynamical degrees of freedom can be immediately gleaned by going to unitary gauge which is tantamount to setting $`\lambda =0=\overline{\lambda }`$ . So doing, one finds

$`\widehat{}_{\mathrm{unitary}\mathrm{gauge}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\psi _\mu (\sigma ^\nu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\overline{\psi }^\mu \sigma ^\mu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\overline{\psi }^\nu +iϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\sigma _\nu \underset{\lambda }{\overset{}{}}\overline{\psi }_\rho )`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}[\overline{\psi }_\mu \overline{\psi }^\mu +\psi _\mu \psi ^\mu 2\overline{\psi }_\mu \overline{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }\overline{\psi }_\nu 2\psi _\mu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\psi _\nu ]`$
which is the Lagrangian of a massive spin 3/2 field with mass term $`m_{3/2}=\frac{f}{2}`$. This is the Lagrangian relevant for the infrared dynamics.

On the other hand, for energies much greater than the mass of the spin 3/2 particles, the model obeys an equivalence theorem which equates the scattering amplitudes of the (longitudnal polarized) spin 1/2 components of the spin 3/2 particles to the scattering amplitudes of the Nambu-Goldstone fermions. This is the analogous relation to the familiar high energy equivalence theorem between the scattering amplitudes of longitudnally polarized vector gauge bosons and the associated Nambu-Goldstone bosons. To derive the Nambu-Goldstone fermion equivalence theorem, consider the generating functional of connected Green functions for the spin 1/2 components of the spin 3/2 gauge fermions given by

$$W[\eta ^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})}]=i\mathrm{}n[d\psi _\mu ^\alpha ][d\overline{\psi }_\mu ^{\dot{\alpha }}][d\lambda ^\alpha ][d\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}]e^{i\widehat{I}}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle }d^4x[_{\sigma =\pm \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{(\sigma )}\psi ^{(\sigma )}+h.c.]}\delta [F(\psi ,\lambda )]\delta [\overline{F}(\overline{\psi },\overline{\lambda })]$$
(28)
where $`\widehat{I}`$ is the locally invariant action derived above. The gauge fixing (spinor) functions are taken as

$`F^\alpha (\psi ,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`(\sigma ^\nu _\nu \overline{\sigma }^\mu \psi _\mu )^\alpha +\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}m_{3/2}\lambda ^\alpha `$ (29)
$`\overline{F}_{\dot{\alpha }}(\overline{\psi },\overline{\lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\sigma }^\nu _\nu \sigma ^\mu \overline{\psi }_\nu )_{\dot{\alpha }}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}m_{3/2}\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ (30)
Note that with this gauge choice, no ghost fields are required. The $`\eta ^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})}`$ are the (Grassmann) sources for the on mass shell spin 1/2 (longitudnal) components of the spin 3/2 fields which are given in momentum space using the vector-spinor wavefunctions as

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})}(k)=\frac{i}{\sqrt{3}}[ϵ_\mu ^{(\pm 1)}(k)u^{(\frac{1}{2})\alpha }(k)+\sqrt{2}ϵ_\mu ^{(0)}(k)u^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})^\alpha }(k)]\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha ^\mu (k)$$
(31)
with $`k^\mu =(\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m_{3/2}^2},\stackrel{}{k})`$ being the 4-momentum carried by the spin 3/2 fermion. Here $`ϵ_\mu ^{(\pm 1)}(k)`$ and $`ϵ_\mu ^{(0)}(k)`$ are the spin-1 transverse and longitudnal spin-1 polarization vectors respectively, $`u^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})}(k)`$ are the 2-component spinors corresponding to the spin polarizations $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha ^\mu (k)`$ is the Fourier transform of the spin 3/2 field $`\psi _\mu ^\alpha (x)`$. At high energies, $`|\stackrel{}{k}|>>m_{3/2}`$, the longitudnal spin-1 polarization vector, $`ϵ_\mu ^{(0)}(k)=\frac{1}{m_{3/2}}(|\stackrel{}{k}|,\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m_{3/2}^2}\widehat{k})`$, grows as $`ϵ_\mu ^{(0)}(k)=\frac{k_\mu }{m_{3/2}}+𝒪(\frac{m_{3/2}}{|\stackrel{}{k}|})`$ and hence gives the dominant contribution. It follows that in this limit

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})}(k)=i(\frac{2}{3})^{1/2}\frac{k^\mu }{m_{3/2}}u^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})^\alpha }(k)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha ^\mu (k)+𝒪(\frac{m_{3/2}}{|\stackrel{}{k}|});|\stackrel{}{k}|>>m_{3/2}$$
(32)
Using the on mass shell conditions for the scattering amplitudes, the gauge fixing term

$$(\sigma ^\nu _\nu \overline{\sigma }^\mu \psi _\mu )^\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}m_{3/2}\lambda ^\alpha $$
(33)
reduces upon application of the field equations to the constraints

$$(\sigma ^\mu \psi _\mu )_\alpha =i\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\lambda _\alpha $$
(34)
and

$$_\mu \psi _\alpha ^\mu =\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}m_{3/2}\lambda _\alpha $$
(35)
In obtaining these results, it was crucial that the mass, $`m_{3/2}`$, for the spin 3/2 fields, $`\psi _\mu ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }_\mu ^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and spin 1/2 fields, $`\lambda ^\alpha ,\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$, were identical. Using Eq.(35) in Eq. (32) then gives

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})}(k)=u^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})\alpha }(k)\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha (k)+𝒪(\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}|}{m_{3/2}})\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})}(k);|\stackrel{}{k}|>>m_{3/2}$$
(36)
Susbtituting this result into the generating functional for connected on-shell Green functions for the spin 1/2 components of the spin 3/2 gauge fermions allows it to be written at high energies, ($`|\stackrel{}{k}|>>m_{3/2}`$), as

$$W[\eta ^{(\pm \frac{1}{2})}]=i\mathrm{}n[d\psi _\mu ^\alpha ][d\overline{\psi }_\mu ^{\dot{\alpha }}][d\lambda ^\alpha ][d\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}]e^{i\widehat{I}}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle }d^4k[_{\sigma =\pm \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\eta }^{(\sigma )}(k)\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{(\sigma )}(k)+h.c.]}\delta [F(\psi ,\lambda )]\delta [\overline{F}(\overline{\psi },\overline{\lambda })]$$
(37)
which establishes the equivalence theorem. That is, at high energies, the (longitudnal projected) spin 1/2 helicity scattering amplitudes of the spin 3/2 particle can be computed using the Nambu-Goldstone fermion scattering amplitudes.

Finally, let us consider the locally invariant coupling of the spin 3/2 field to the locally invariant matter. To do so, note that the combinations $`\psi ^\mu \frac{1}{f}^\mu \lambda +\frac{1}{4}\sigma ^\mu \overline{\lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\psi }^\mu \frac{1}{f}^\mu \overline{\lambda }+\frac{1}{4}\overline{\sigma }^\mu \lambda `$ are locally shift invariant. Thus any Lorentz invariant function of these combinations and the $`\varphi _i`$ of the form

$$\widehat{}_{int}=\widehat{}_{int}(\psi ^\mu \frac{1}{f}^\mu \lambda +\frac{1}{4}\sigma ^\mu \overline{\lambda },\overline{\psi }^\mu \frac{1}{f}^\mu \overline{\lambda }+\frac{1}{4}\overline{\sigma }^\mu \lambda ,\varphi _i,_\mu \varphi _i)$$
(38)
will be locally shift invariant.

In this note, we have seen how spin 3/2 fields can arise quite naturally when a global internal fermionic shift symmetry is gauged. The gauging procedure, however, requires the inclusion of further monomials in addition to the replacement of ordinary derivatives by covariant derivatives containing the spin 3/2 field. Thus the procedure a bit more involved than that needed for global bosonic internal symmetries. Note that the analogous global shift symmetry in the free massless scalar model when gauged produces the $`U(1)`$ nonlinear sigma model. Further note that as opposed to the gauging of supersymmetry, which is a global spacetime fermionic symmetry, there is no need to include any other higher dimensional fields beyond the spin 3/2 gauge field.

In closing, let us point out that the models possessing the global internal fermionic shift symmetry which we have considered in this paper do not violate the Coleman-Mandula theorem or its extension by Haag, Lopuszanski and M. Sohnius which states that of all graded Lie algebras, only the supersymmetry algebras (and their extensions to include scalar central charges) generate symmetries of the S-matrix consistent with relativistic quantum field theory. The proof of that theorem contains the condition that there is an energy gap between the vacuum and the one particle state. This condition is not satisfied by the model possessing the fermionic shift symmetry.

During the course of this study, I have enjoyed several useful conversations with T.E. Clark. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-91ER40681 (Task B).