# Formulas for Rational-Valued Separability Probabilities of Random Induced Generalized Two-Qubit States

Authors: Paul B. Slater; Charles F. Dunkl
Journal: Advances in Mathematical Physics
 (2015)

---

## Abstract

Previously, a formula, incorporating a5F4 hypergeometric function, for the Hilbert-Schmidt-averaged determinantal moments ρPTnρk/ρk of 4×4 density-matrices (ρ) and their partial transposes (|ρPT|), was applied with k=0 to the generalized two-qubit separability probability question. The formula can, furthermore, be viewed, as we note here, as an averaging over “induced measures in the space of mixed quantum states.” The associated induced-measure separability probabilities (k=1,2,…) are found—via a high-precision density approximation procedure—to assume interesting, relatively simple rational values in the two-re[al]bit (α=1/2), (standard) two-qubit (α=1), and two-quater[nionic]bit (α=2) cases. We deduce rather simple companion (rebit, qubit, quaterbit, …) formulas that successfully reproduce the rational values assumed for general  k. These formulas are observed to share certain features, possibly allowing them to be incorporated into a single master formula.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

The question of the probability that a generic quantum system is separable/disentangled was raised in a 1998 paper of Życzkowski et al. entitled “Volume of the set of separable states” [1]. Certainly, any particular answer to this question will crucially depend upon the measure that is attached to the systems in question. A large body of literature has arisen from the 1998 study, and we seek to make a significant contribution to it, addressing heretofore unsolved problems. Let us point out the work of Aubrun et al. [2], which addresses questions of a somewhat similar nature to those examined below while employing the same class of measures. However, their work is set in anasymptotic framework, while we will be concerned with obtaining exactfinite-dimensional results (cf. [3]). On the other hand, Singh et al. [4] did focus on finite-dimensional scenarios but with a distinct form of measure, the one originally used in [1].We have investigated the possibility of extending to the class of “induced measures in the space of mixed quantum states” [5, 6] the line of analysis reported in [7, 8], the principal separability probability findings of which most notably the two-qubit conjecture of 8/33≈0.242424 has recently been robustly supported, with the use of extensive Monte-Carlo sampling by Fei and Joynt [9] as well as by Milz and Strunz to somewhat similar effect [10, Figure 4, equations (30), (31)] (cf. [11, Table 1]). This earlier line of work pertained to the use of the Hilbert-Schmidt measure (the particular symmetric case, K=N, of the induced measures) on the high-dimensional convex sets of generalized (real-, complex-, quaternionic-entried) two-qubit (N=4) states.In [7, page 30], a central role had been played by the (not yet formally proven) determinantal moment formula obtained there(1)ρPTnρkρk=k+1nk+1+αnk+1+2αn26nk+3α+3/2n2k+6α+5/22n·F45-n,-k,α,α+12,-2k-2n-1-5α-k-n-α,-k-n-2α,-k+n2,-k+n-12;1on the basis of extensive computations. Here ρPT denotes the partial transpose [12] of the density matrix ρ and |ρ|, its determinant and generalized hypergeometric function notation, is employed. The brackets represent averaging with respect to Hilbert-Schmidt measure [13]. Furthermore, α is a random-matrix Dyson-index-like parameter [14], assuming, in particular, the value 1 for the standard (fifteen-dimensional convex set of) density matrices with complex-valued off-diagonal entries.It subsequently occurred to us that this hypergeometric-based moment formula could be readily adapted to the broader class of random induced measures by considering, in the notation of [5, 6], that(2)k=K-N,where K is the dimension of the ancilla/environment state, over which the tracing operation is performed.As in the earlier work [7, 8], a high-precision density-approximation (inverse) procedure of Provost, incorporating the first 11,401 such determinantal moments, strongly indicates that the random induced-measure separability probabilities (k=1,2,…) assume interesting, relatively simple rational values in the two-re[al]bit (α=1/2), (standard) two-qubit (α=1), and two-quater[nionic]bit (α=2) cases, particularly so for α=1 (Section 2). One striking example is that for k=3; the α=1 separability probability is found to be 27/38=33/2·19 (tofifteen decimal places). In fact, based on extensive calculations (k=0,…,15,…) of this nature, we are able to deduce rather simple companion (rebit, qubit, quaterbit) formulas (3)–(5) that successfully reproduce the rational values assumed forgeneral integer and half-integer k (Section 3).Further efforts along these lines have been given in a subsequent paper [15], in which the determinantal inequality |ρPT|>|ρ| is now imposed rather than the broader inequality |ρPT|>0. Of course, |ρ|≥0, while |ρPT| is both a necessary and sufficient condition for separability here [12, 16]. There, equivalent hypergeometric- and difference-equation-based formulas, Q(k,α)=G1k(α)G2k(α), for k=-1,0,1,…,9, were given for that (rational-valued) portion of the total separability probability satisfying the stricter inequality. We also preliminarily investigate this problem below in Section 4.Milz and Strunz [10] have recently reported a highly interesting finding that the conjectured Hilbert-Schmidt separability probability of 8/33≈0.242424 holds constant along the radius of the Bloch sphere of either of the reduced subsystems of generic two-qubit (α=1) systems. We are presently investigating the nature that the separability probability is taken as ajoint function of the radii of the two single-qubit subsystems and related questions.


## 2. Analysis

We pursue the indicated extension of our earlier (Hilbert-Schmidt-based) work to random induced measures, in general. As in [7, 8], the determinantal moment formula above is employed in the Legendre polynomial-based (Mathematica-implemented) density approximation (inverse) procedure of Provost [17]. This possesses a least-squares rationale. The program as originally presented is speeded by incorporating the well-known recursion formula for Legendre polynomials so that successive polynomials do not have to be computedab initio. The computations are all exact, in nature, rather than numerical. Provost advises that the procedure should be regarded as an “approximation” rather than an “estimation” scheme [17]. Let us note that the implementation of the procedure requires considerable caution and an adaptive strategy when the term (k-j+1)n-j [7, Section D.2] in the underlying summation formula for the hypergeometric-based determinantal moments is zero. It is zero if k-j+1≤0≤k+n-2j, that is, if values j for which k+1≤j and 2j≤k+n occur in the summation j=0,…,n.Now, with the use of an unprecedentedly large number (11,401) of the determinantal moments, we found, (to ten decimal places) fork=1, the separability probability of the standard, complex (α=1) 15-dimensional convex set of two-qubit states to be 61/143=61/11·13≈0.4265734. On the other hand, for the Hilbert-Schmidt case (k=K-N=0), a very compelling body of evidence of a number of types (though yet no formal proof) has been adduced that the corresponding separability probability, as has been already noted, is 8/33=23/3·11≈0.242424 [7–10].For the quaternionic (α=2) case, the induced-measure (k=1) separability probability (now to thirteen decimal places) was 3736/22287=23·467/3·17·19·23≈0.16763135, while the Hilbert-Schmidt counterpart strongly appears to be 26/323=2·13/17·19≈0.0804953 [7–9].Let us further note, though any immediate quantum-mechanical random-matrix division-algebra interpretation does not seem at hand forα=3, that for k=1, we obtain a “separability-probability” approximant, based on the 11,401 moments, that, to a remarkablesixteen decimal places equaled 8159/124062=41·199/2·3·23·29·31≈0.0657655. This particularly high accuracy appears to essentially be an artifact of the Legendre polynomial-based procedure that commences with auniform distribution over the interval |ρ|∈[-1/16,1/256]. For such a distribution, the probability over the “separability” interval of [0,1/256] is the ratio of 1/256 to (1/16+1/256), that is, 1/17≈0.0588235, quite near to 0.0657655. So as separability probability approximants increasingly deviate from the uniform-based one of 1/17, at least for specific k, we can expect convergence of the density-approximation procedure to relatively weaken.For the two-rebit scenario (α=1/2), the associated Hilbert-Schmidt separability probability strongly appears to be 29/64=29/26≈0.453125 [7, 8], while in the random induced-measure k=1 counterpart, we obtain (to almost nine decimal places) a value once again larger than that for the Hilbert-Schmidt case of k=0, that is, 515/768=5·103/28·3≈0.670573. Note the powers of 2 in both denominators, a phenomenon that will continue to be observed for rebit-related results.In Tables1, 2, and 3, we present our conclusions, based on such high-precision calculations, as to the rational values (k=0,1,…,8) assumed by these induced-measure separability probabilities. Let us note that with the sole exception of k=7, the rational values assumed by the (standard) two-qubit (α=1) induced states have both smaller denominators and numerators than the other two cases tabulated, indicative, presumably, in some manner, of their greater “naturalness.”Table 1
Two-rebit (α=1/2) separability probabilities.
k
=
0
29
64
29
2
6
0.453125
k
=
1
515
768
5
·
103
2
8
·
3
0.670573
k
=
2
1645
2048
5
·
7
·
47
2
11
0.803222
k
=
3
31641
35840
3
·
53
·
199
2
10
·
5
·
7
0.882840
k
=
4
274373
294912
11
·
24943
2
15
·
3
2
0.930355
k
=
5
439777
458752
13
·
33829
2
16
·
7
0.958638
k
=
6
11251151
11534336
11251151
2
20
·
11
0.975448
k
=
7
30224045
30670848
5
·
17
·
53
·
6709
2
18
·
3
2
·
13
0.985432
k
=
8
10395147
10485760
3
·
7
·
19
·
26053
2
21
·
5
0.991358Table 2
Two-qubit (α=1) separability probabilities.
k
=
0
8
33
2
3
3
·
11
0.242424
k
=
1
61
143
61
11
·
13
0.426573
k
=
2
259
442
7
·
37
2
·
13
·
17
0.585973
k
=
3
27
38
3
3
2
·
19
0.710526
k
=
4
5960
7429
2
3
·
5
·
149
17
·
19
·
23
0.802261
k
=
5
379
437
379
19
·
23
0.867277
k
=
6
63881
70035
127
·
503
3
·
5
·
7
·
23
·
29
0.912129
k
=
7
1169237
1240620
37
·
31601
2
2
·
3
·
5
·
23
·
29
·
31
0.942461
k
=
8
25963
26970
7
·
3709
2
·
3
·
5
·
29
·
31
0.962662Table 3
Two-quaterbit (α=2) separability probabilities.
k
=
0
26
323
2
·
13
17
·
19
0.080495
k
=
1
3736
22287
2
3
·
467
3
·
17
·
19
·
23
0.167631
k
=
2
1807
6555
13
·
139
3
·
5
·
19
·
23
0.275667
k
=
3
3919
10005
3919
3
·
5
·
23
·
29
0.391704
k
=
4
104379
206770
3
·
11
·
3163
2
·
5
·
23
·
29
·
31
0.504807
k
=
5
16387
26970
7
·
2341
2
·
3
·
5
·
29
·
31
0.607601
k
=
6
69475
99789
5
2
·
7
·
397
3
·
29
·
31
·
37
0.696219
k
=
7
203123
263958
229
·
887
2
·
3
·
29
·
37
·
41
0.769527
k
=
8
1674746
2022161
2
·
837373
31
·
37
·
41
·
43
0.828196


## 3. Three Companion Separability Probability Formulas

Further extending the entries of the two-qubit table (Table2) but not explicitly showing the results here, to k=17, application of the Mathematica command FindSequenceFunction to the sequence of length eighteen obtained plus subsequent simplification procedures yielded the governing rule(3)Pkqubit=1-34k+32kk+7+25Γk+7/2Γ2k+9πΓ3k+13.Here Pkqubit is the separability probability of the (15-dimensional) standard, complex two-qubit systems endowed with the induced measure k=K-4. This formula, thus, successfully reproduces the entries of Table 2, as well as the subsequent ones (k=9,…,17) we have approximated to high precision, making use of the 11,401 moments in the Provost Legendre polynomial-based algorithm. For k=0, formula (3) does, in fact, yield the apparent Hilbert-Schmidt separability probability of 8/33 [7–9] (Table 2).Similarly, employing a somewhat longer sequencek=0,…,21, we obtained the quaternionic (α=2) counterpart(4)Pkquaterbit=1-4k+6kk2kk+21+355+1452+2430Γk+13/2Γ2k+153πΓ3k+22,yielding the k=0 (Hilbert-Schmidt) value of 26/323. Furthermore, for the rebit (α=1/2) scenario, making analogous use of the sequence k=0,…,15, we found(5)Pkrebit=1-4k+18k+15Γk+2Γ2k+9/2πΓ3k+7,yielding for k=0, the result 29/64.In Figure1, we show a joint plot of these three separability probability formulas, with the rebit one (α=1/2) dominating the qubit one (α=1), which in turn dominates the quaterbit (α=2) curve. In the limit k→∞, the three curves/probabilities all approach 1 (cf. [2]). We have found [15, Section III] through analytic means that, for each of α=1,2,3,4 and 1/2,3/2,5/2,9/2, as k→∞, the ratio of the logarithm of the (k+1)st separability probability to the logarithm of the kth separability probability is 16/27. Presumably, the pattern continues for larger α, but the required computations have, so far, proved too challenging.Figure 1
Two-rebit> two-qubit > two-quaterbit separability probabilities, given by (5), (3), and (4), respectively, as functions of k=K-4.It is interesting to observe, additionally, that, fork=-1 (i.e., K=3), a value not apparently susceptible to use of the principal 5F4-hypergeometric determinantal moment formula and the density approximation (inverse) procedure of Provost [17], the three basic formulas yield the (nowsmaller than Hilbert-Schmidt) further simple rational values 1/8, 1/14 and 11/442 for the rebit, qubit, and quaterbit cases, respectively (cf. [2, page 130]). Furthermore, for k=-2(K=2), the rebit formula has a singularity, the qubit formula yields 0, and the quaterbit one gives 1/429=1/3×11×13≈0.002331.We have been able to formally extend this series of three formulas to other values ofα as well including α=3/2,5/2,3,7/2,4,9/2,5,6,…,13 obtaining similarly structured (increasingly larger) formulas. A major challenge that we are continuing to address is to find asingle master formula that encompasses these several results and can itself yield the formula for any specific half-integer or integer value of α (Appendix A).


## 4. Division of Separability Probabilities Based on Determinantal Inequalities

We have also begun to investigate related aspects of the geometry of random-induced generalized two-qubit states, making use of asecond hypergeometric-based determinantal moment formula [18, Section II]:(6)ρkρPT-ρnρk=-1nαnα+1/2nn+2k+2+5αn24nk+3α+3/2n2k+6α+5/22n×F34-n2,1-n2,k+1+α,k+1+2α1-n-α,12-n-α,n+2k+2+5α;1.The range of the determinant difference variable (|ρPT|-|ρ|) is [-1/16,1/432], and we shall approximate the contributions over [0,1/432] to the total separability probabilities given in Tables 1, 2, and 3.In [18], employing the first 9,451 of these moments (having set k to zero) in the density approximation procedure of Provost [17], we obtained highly convincing numerical evidence that the basic set of three Hilbert-Schmidt separability probabilities (29/64,8/33,26/323) was evenly (symmetrically) split (i.e., 29/128,4/33,13/323) between the two scenarios |ρPT|>|ρ| and |ρ|>|ρPT|>0. Now, with the use of 14,051 such determinantal moments, with k=1, α=1, we obtained an approximant equal to eight decimal places to 45/286=32·5/2·11·13≈0.157342657 for the case |ρPT|>|ρ|. Employing the total separability probability k=1 result of 61/143 in Table 2, we find a complementary (larger) approximant of 7/26=7/2·13≈0.269230769; so the symmetry present in the Hilbert-Schmidt case (e.g., 8/33=4/33+4/33) is lost for k≠0.Similarly, for thek=1, α=2 counterpart, we obtain an approximant equal, to almost twelve decimal places, to 2056/37145=23·257/5·17·19·23≈0.0553506528470, when |ρPT|>|ρ|, and thus, 32/285=25/3·5·19≈0.1122807017544 for the complementary (larger) approximant.To complete the basic triad, that is,k=1 and α=1/2 (for which convergence is typically weakest), for |ρPT|>|ρ|, we have an approximant equal, to more than six decimal places, to 281/1024=281/210≈0.2744140625 and a complementary (larger, again) approximant of 1217/3072=1217/210·3≈0.3961588542. Note, again, the occurrence of powers of 2 in the α=1/2 case.Fork=-1, α=2, it is interesting to note that the approximation of the probability |ρPT|>|ρ| is 11/442 to ten decimal places. This is thesame rational value we found above for thetotal separability probability. It, thus, appears that we can conclude that the complementary probability (i.e., for |ρ|>|ρPT|>0) is nowsmaller, in fact, zero, in contrast to the k=1 case. The complementary probability also appears to be zero for the two companion cases of k=-1, α=1, and α=1/2.In Figure2, we show, based on numerical results using 9,201 moments, the proportion of the three basic total random induced separability probabilities (Tables 1, 2, and 3), as a function of k, accounted for by the region |ρPT|>|ρ|. We have been investigating the possibility of obtaining explicit formulas, as we have been able to do above ((3), (4), and (5)) for the total separability probabilities (i.e., independently of whether |ρ|>|ρPT|>0 or |ρPT|>|ρ|), for these sets of complementary probabilities. To even hope to achieve such a goal, it seems necessary to fill in considerably more rows of Table 4 than we have so far been able to do (cf. [15]).Table 4
Proportions of total separability probabilities|ρPT|>|ρ|.
α
1
2
1
2
k
=
0
1
2
1
2
1
2
k
=
1
843
2060
45
122
771
2335
k
=
2
9949
26320
1553
4921
26503
104806
k
=
3
—
3073
10557
51585
242978
k
=
4
—
2087
7450
2195945
11586069
k
=
5
—
—
4390079
24859079
k
=
6
—
—
8310451
48993770Figure 2
Proportion of the total random-induced separability probabilities, based on 9,201 moments, accounted for by the region|ρPT|>|ρ|. The two-rebit (α=1/2) curve is dominant, the two-qubit (α=1) is intermediate, and the two-quaterbit (α=2) curve is subordinate.


## 5. Alternative Density Approximation Procedure

In pursuit of such a goal, we have developed an alternative (AppendixB) to the Legendre polynomial-based density approximation procedure of Provost [17], of which we have made abundant use above and in our earlier work [7, 8, 18]. Though well-conditioned, it perhaps is relatively slow to converge for our purposes, since it is taken as the baseline (starting) distribution, the uniform one, which is far from the sharply-peaked ones, with vanishing endpoints, we have encountered in our separability probability investigations. The approach outlined in Appendix B uses base functions of the form ((x-a)(b-x))α where α is a small positive integer. Provost does present a number of codes other than the Legendre polynomial one including one based on Jacobi polynomials [17, pages 15, 24]. It employs an adaptive strategy of matching the first and second given moments to those of a beta distribution; but we have found this algorithm to be highly ill-conditioned in our specific applications.


## 6. Conclusions

We have reported above some considerable successes in our effort to extend to random induced measures [5, 6], earlier separability probability work [7, 8] based on the Hilbert-Schmidt measure (the particular symmetric N=K case of the random induced measures), and the inequality |ρPT|>0. Further efforts using the more restrictive inequality |ρPT|>|ρ| utilized in Section 4 have been given in a subsequent paper [15]. These equivalences between certain hypergeometric-based formulas and difference equations have been noted.Let us importantly note that in the recent study [19] the (random induced measure) separability probability problems posed above, have, in fact, been exhaustivelyformally solved for the “toy” seven-dimensional X-states model [20] of 4×4 density matrices. Here, contrastingly, we have concentrated on the more general cases of 4×4 density matrices with none of the off-diagonal entriesa priori nullified (as they are in the X-states model). Although we have developed certain formulas here, for which the evidentiary support is quite considerable, we still lack formal proofs in this higher-dimensional venue.We continue to investigate these problems in search of a still more definitive (“master formula”) resolution of them (AppendixA). As a possible tool in such research, we have developed (Appendix B), an alternative density approximation procedure to that of Provost [17], on which we have strongly relied to this point in obtaining exact separability probability results.



---

*Source: 621353-2015-05-27.xml*