Multiparticle singlet states cannot be maximally entangled for the bipartitions
Extracted source text · arXiv 2211.03813
%\documentclass[aps,pra,nopacs,nosuperscriptaddress, twocolumn]{revtex4-2}
\documentclass[aps, pra, a4paper, longbibliography, twocolumn]{revtex4-1}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
%\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[british]{babel} %Do hyphenation according to british english
\usepackage[osf,sc]{mathpazo}% Palatino with real small caps and old style figures
\usepackage{graphicx} % Package to insert external figures
\usepackage{xcolor}
\definecolor{darkred}{rgb}{.8 .1 .1}
\definecolor{darkgreen}{rgb}{.1 .8 .1}
\definecolor{darkyellow}{rgb}{.6 .6 .0}
\newcommand{\og}[1]{{\color{darkred} #1 }}
\usepackage[colorlinks,citecolor=blue,linkcolor=blue,urlcolor=blue,linktocpage=true]{hyperref}
%\usepackage{cite}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb,amsthm,bm,mathtools,amsfonts,mathrsfs,bbm,dsfont}
%\usepackage{physics}
\newcommand{\mean}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle{#1}\rangle}}
\newcommand{\mm}[1]{\begin{align} #1 \end{align}}
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}}
\newcommand{\mmnn}[1]{\begin{align*} #1 \end{align*}}
\newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber\\}
\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\ensuremath\,|#1\rangle}
\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\ensuremath\langle #1 |\,}
\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\ensuremath \langle #1 | #2 \rangle}
\newcommand{\ketbra}[2]{|#1\rangle \langle #2 |}
\newcommand{\expect}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}
\newcommand{\scpr}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}
\newcommand{\var}[1]{\text{Var}\left(#1\right)}
%\renewcommand{\it}[1]{\intertext{#1}}
\newcommand{\tr}[2][]{\text{Tr}_{#1}\left(#2\right)}
\renewcommand{\rho}{\varrho}
\newcommand{\alert}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
\newcommand{\gr}[1]{\textcolor{black!70}{#1}}
\newcommand{\ot}{\otimes}
\newcommand{\dg}{^\dagger}
\newcommand{\lr}{\Leftrightarrow}
\newcommand{\rar}{\Rightarrow}
\newcommand{\id}{\mathds 1}
\newcommand{\idd}{\text{id}}
\newcommand{\ccn}[1]{\ensuremath \|#1\|_{\text{ccn}}}
\newcommand{\kf}[1]{\ensuremath \|#1\|_{\text{\textnormal{kf}}}}
\newcommand{\prf}[1]{\begin{myproof}#1\end{myproof}}
\newcommand{\thm}[1]{\begin{mytheorem}#1\end{mytheorem}}
\newcommand{\defi}[1]{\begin{mydefinition}#1\end{mydefinition}}
\newcommand{\sv}{\text{SV}}
\newcommand{\svm}{\text{SV}_{\text{max}}}
\newcommand{\sgn}{\text{sgn}}
\newcommand{\argmin}[1]{\underset{#1}{\text{argmin}}}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert #1 \rvert}
\newcommand{\anticomm}[1]{\{#1\}}
\newcommand{\diag}{\text{diag}}
\newcommand{\lb}{\left(}
\newcommand{\rb}{\right)}
\newcommand{\sS}{\mathbb{S}}
\newcommand{\NN}{\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\Hil}{\mathcal{H}}
\newcommand{\dd}{\text{ d}}
\newcommand{\norm}[2][]{\|#2\|_{#1}}
\newcommand{\dom}{\text{dom}}
\newcommand{\cone}{\text{cone}}
\newcommand{\conv}{\text{conv}}
\newcommand{\AME}{\text{AME}}
\renewcommand{\eqref}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}
\renewcommand{\refeq}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\refeqs}[2]{Eqs.~(\ref{#1}-\ref{#2})}
\newcommand{\fpi}[2][A]{#2_#1}
\newcommand{\spi}[2][A]{#2_{\neg #1}}
\renewcommand{\exp}[1]{\text{exp}\left(#1\right)}
%\newcommand{\scpr}[2]{\langle #1,#2 \rangle}
\newcommand{\eig}[1]{\text{eig}\left( #1\right)}
\newcommand{\fabian}[1]{\textcolor{green}{#1}}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Environments %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}%[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}%[section]
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem*{remark}{Remark}
\newenvironment{KeepFromToc}{}{}
\begin{document}
\title{
Multiparticle singlet states cannot be maximally entangled
for the bipartitions
}
\author{Fabian Bernards}
\affiliation{Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Fakultät,
Universität Siegen, Walter-Flex-Straße 3, 57068 Siegen, Germany}
\author{Otfried Gühne}
\affiliation{Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Fakultät,
Universität Siegen, Walter-Flex-Straße 3, 57068 Siegen, Germany}
\date{\today}
\begin{abstract}
One way to explore multiparticle entanglement is to ask for
maximal entanglement with respect to different bipartitions,
leading to the notion of absolutely maximally entangled
states or perfect tensors. A different path uses unitary
invariance and symmetries, resulting in the concept of
multiparticle singlet states. We show that these two
concepts are incompatible in the sense that
the space of pure multiparticle singlet states does not contain
any state for which all partitions of two particles versus
the rest are maximally entangled. This puts restrictions on the
construction of quantum codes and contributes to discussions
in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence and quantum gravity.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The notion of multiparticle entanglement is relevant for different
fields in physics, such as condensed matter physics or quantum
information processing. A fundamental problem, however, lies in
the exponential scaling of the dimension of the underlying Hilbert
space, rendering an exhaustive classification difficult. So, in
order to gain insight into multiparticle entanglement phenomena
as well as to identify potentially interesting quantum states,
different concepts based on symmetries \cite{werner, eggeling, symm1, symm2, symm3},
graphical representations \cite{graph1, graph2, graph3}, matrix product approximations \cite{mps1, mps2} or entanglement quantification \cite{maxe1, maxe2, maxe3, maxe4, maxe5, maxe6}
can be used.
Indeed, it is a natural question to ask for states with maximal
entanglement. A pure two-particle quantum state is maximally
entangled if the reduced state for one particle is maximally
mixed \cite{vidal}. One can extend this definition to the multiparticle
case by considering bipartitions of the particles into two groups
and asking whether the global state is maximally entangled
for the bipartitions. A multiparticle state is then absolutely
maximally entangled (AME) if is it maximally entangled for all
bipartitions. A weaker requirement is that all bipartitions of
$k$ particles versus the rest shall be maximally entangled, these
states are called $k$-uniform.
As AME states and $k$-uniform states are central for quantum error
correction, they are under intensive research \cite{scott, grassl, felix}.
Indeed, some recently solved questions concerning the sheer existence of AME
states have been highlighted as central problems in quantum
information theory \cite{karol1, karol2}. In addition to their use in quantum
information processing, AME states, under the name of perfect tensors,
have been used to construct toy models for the AdS/CFT correspondence
\cite{pastawski, bhattacha} and to study the entanglement entropy in conformal
field theories \cite{ryu}.
A different concept to explore the phenomena of multiparticle
entanglement is the use of symmetries. Here, the study of unitary
invariance has a some tradition \cite{werner, eggeling, adan-singlets, huberdimension}. Consider the two-qubit
singlet state
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi^-} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{01}-\ket{10}).
\label{eq-2qbsinglet}
\end{equation}
This is not only a maximally entangled state (as the reduced
density matrices are maximally mixed), it also has the property
that it is form-invariant under simultaneous application of local
unitaries, that is, $U \otimes U \ket{\psi^-} = e^{i \phi} \ket{\psi^-}$.
Historically, this property was the key to understand the difference
between quantum entanglement and the violation of Bell inequalities
\cite{werner}.
For more particles, one finds more states with this kind of unitary
symmetry. For three three-level systems, there is the totally
antisymmetric state
$
\ket{\psi_3} =
(\ket{012}+\ket{201}+\ket{120}
- \ket{210}- \ket{102}-\ket{021}
)/\sqrt{6},
$
and for four qubits, the unitarily invariant states form a
two-dimensional subspace \cite{rumer1, rumer2, pauling, beach}, spanned by
a two-copy extension of the singlet state (\ref{eq-2qbsinglet})
and the four-qubit singlet state \cite{kempe, bourenanne}
\begin{align}
\ket{\psi_4} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}
\big[
\ket{0011}
+
\ket{1100}
\nonumber \\
&´ -\frac{1}{2} (\ket{01}+ \ket{10}) \otimes (\ket{01}+ \ket{10})
\big].
\label{eq-4qbsinglet}
\end{align}
This two-dimensional subspace can be used to encode a quantum bit such
that it is immune against collective decoherence \cite{lidar, kempe, bourenanne}.
In addition,
multiparticle singlet states have turned out to be useful for various
quantum information tasks, such as secret sharing and liar detection,
see Ref.~\cite{adan-singlets} for an overview. Finally, states with unitary
symmetry have attracted interest from the perspective of quantum gravity
\cite{gravity1, gravity2, gravity3, sahlmann}.
It is a natural question to ask whether these two research lines are
connected, in the sense that one can find $k$-uniform states or even
AME states which belong the the invariant subspace of singlet states.
This question was first studied in Ref.~\cite{grassl-njp} where it
has been shown that for four particles and arbitrary dimensions no
AME singlet state can be found. Using methods from quantum gravity
it was shown recently in Ref.~\cite{sahlmann} that for six qubits
the singlet states cannot be AME. Combined with known results on the
non-existence of AME states, this shows that multi-qubit singlet states
cannot be AME (see also \cite{fabian-phd}).
In this paper we prove that the space of pure multiparticle
singlet states of any particle number and any dimension does not
contain states which are two-uniform. Consequently, there are
no AME states in this subspace for four or more particles of any dimension.
From the viewpoint of quantum information processing this may
be interpreted as showing that no code words of the usual quantum
codes are within the singlet subspace, or that quantum code words
cannot be immune against collective decoherence. Our proof technique
seems conceptually simpler than previous approaches
\cite{grassl-njp, sahlmann}. In the following, in order to be understandable
for different communities, we formulate our approach self-contained and
in rigorous mathematical terms; this has been
suggested to be the appropriate language for science already some
time ago \cite{galileo}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Properties of pure singlet states}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In this section we give the formal definition of pure multiparticle
singlet states (also called pure Werner states) and establish some
properties of them, which are needed for our later discussion.
First, a {\it pure multiparticle singlet state} is a quantum state
$\ket{\psi} \in (\C^d)^{\ot n}$ such that for any
unitary $U \in U(d)$ it holds that
\begin{equation}
U \ot \ldots \ot U \ket{\psi} = \xi \ket{\psi},
\label{eq-purewerner}
\end{equation}
where $\xi \in \C$ is a complex phase that depends on the
unitary $U$ and the state. The function
$\xi: U(d) \to \C$ that satisfies
\begin{equation}
U \ot \ldots \ot U \ket{\psi} = \xi(U) \ket{\psi},
\label{eq-phasefunc}
\end{equation}
is called the {\it phase function} of $\ket{\psi}$.
Clearly, the phase function $\xi$ is a group homomorphism, that is
$ \xi(U_1 U_2) = \xi(U_1) \xi(U_2)$ and $\xi(\id) = 1$.
The phase function determines the action of unitaries on
a singlet state and will be the key to study properties
of singlet states for our purpose. In the following, we
will consider the behaviour of this function for two
special types of unitaries, local permutations of the
basis vectors, and unitaries diagonal in the computational
basis.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Local permutations and the phase function}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In this subsection we discuss the action of permutations
of the local basis vectors on the phase function. In the
end, this will put strong constraints on the signs of
the coefficients of the singlet state when expressed
in a local basis. In order to fix our notation, let us
first note basic facts about the phase function
in the case of permutations.
First, we take $\{\ket k\}$ for ${k \in \{0,...,d-1\}}$ as
the computational basis of $\C^d$ and consider unitary
matrices that induce a permutation of these basis vectors.
More formally, we consider the representation $(V, \C^d)$ of
the symmetric (permutation) group $\sS_d$ which is defined as
\begin{equation}
V(\pi) \ket{k} = \ket{\pi(k)}
\end{equation}
and call it the {\it canonical representation} of $\sS_d$.
Second, let $(V, \C^d)$ be the canonical representation of
$\sS_d$ and let $\xi$ be the phase function of the singlet
state $\ket{\psi}$. Then we call
\begin{equation}
f (\pi) = \xi\big[V(\pi)\big]
\end{equation}
the {\it permutation phase function} of $\ket{\psi}$. The following
Lemma puts a strong restriction to the permutation phase function
of any singlet state.
\begin{lemma}
There are only two functions that are compatible with the definition
of the permutation-phase function $f$, namely either
$f(\pi) = 1, \, \forall \pi \in \sS_d$ or $f(\pi) = \sgn(\pi)$,
the signum of the permutation.
\label{lemma1}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\xi$ is a group homomorphism, $f$ is a group homomorphism,
too. So we only need to consider the images of the generators of
$\sS_d$ under $f$ in order to characterize $f$.
The symmetric group $\sS_d$ is generated by the transpositions
$\theta_k = (k, k+1)$ of two neighboring elements with $k \in \{0,...,d-2\}$,
so $f$ is determined by $f(\theta_k)$. Further, the transpositions fulfill
the following relations
\begin{align}
\theta_k^2 &= \idd \label{eq-transpid}\\
\theta_k \theta_m &= \theta_m \theta_k, \text{ for } |k-m|\ge 2 \\
\theta_k \theta_m \theta_k &= \theta_m \theta_k \theta_m, \text{ for } |k-m| =
1. \label{eq-transprel3}
\end{align}
Since $f$ is a homomorphism, \refeq{eq-transpid} gives
$f(\theta_k) = \pm 1$ and \refeq{eq-transprel3} gives
\begin{equation}
f(\theta_k) = f(\theta_m) \text{ for } |k-m| = 1.
\end{equation}
Hence, we only have to distinguish two cases: Either $f(\theta_k) = 1 \quad \forall k$
which implies that $f\equiv1$ or (2) $f(\theta_k) = -1 \quad\forall k$, which means that
$f(\pi) = \sgn(\pi).$
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{lemma1} allows to derive a simple relation between some of
the coefficients of a singlet state. We can state the result more elegantly
by making use of a multi-index notation. We define a {\it multi-index} $i$
as a sequence of indices $i_{\alpha} \in \{0,\ldots, d-1\}$ with
$\alpha \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$. In this notation, the action of the group
$\sS_d$ on a multi-index $i = (i_1, \ldots, i_n)$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\pi(i) = \big(\pi(i_1), \ldots, \pi(i_n)\big).
\end{equation}
Then we have the following Lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma-permutationd}
Let $\ket{\psi} = \sum_i t_i \ket i \in (\C^d)^{\otimes n}$ be a pure
singlet state and $\pi \in \sS_d$ a permutation. Then it holds that
\mm{
t_{\pi(i)} = f(\pi) t_i
}
where $f$ is the permutation-phase function of $\ket{\psi}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Taking the identity
$
V(\sigma)^{\otimes n} \ket{\psi} = f(\sigma) \ket{\psi}
$
and comparing the coefficients in front of the basis vector $\ket{i}$
results in
\begin{equation}
t_{\sigma^{-1}(i)} = f(\sigma) t_i.
\end{equation}
Choosing $\sigma = \pi^{-1}$ and using the fact that $f(\sigma)=f(\sigma^{-1})$
(which follows from $f(\sigma) = \pm 1$) proves the claim.
\end{proof}
%This lemma proves the observation (X) made in the introduction.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Diagonal unitaries and the phase function}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
We now characterize the phase function further by considering
the restriction of $\xi$ to the diagonal unitaries. The key result
is that for a multiparticle singlet state expanded
in the computational basis many coefficients have to vanish.
We start with a technical lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\ket{\psi} = \sum_i t_i \ket{i}$ be a pure $n$-particle singlet state. Then, for any
$k \in \{0, \ldots, d-1\}$, there exists a number $N_k \in \NN$ such that for
any non-zero coefficient $t_l \neq 0$, the multi-index $l$ contains the value
$k$ exactly $N_k$ times.
In other words, the non-vanishing terms of a singlet state in the computational
basis are tensor products $\ket{i_1, i_2, i_3, \dots, i_n}$ of $N_0$ times the
single-particle state $\ket{0}$, $N_1$ times the single-particle state $\ket{1}$,
etc. This naturally implies $\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} N_k =n$.
\label{lemma-samenumber}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider \refeq{eq-purewerner} for diagonal unitary matrices.
Diagonal unitary matrices are generated by the matrices
\begin{equation}
U_k = \id + (e^{i\phi_k} - 1) \ketbra{k}{k},
\end{equation}
where all diagonal entries, except the $k$-th one, are $1$,
while the $k$-th diagonal entry is $e^{i\phi_k}$. Such a
diagonal matrix acts on a single-particle computational basis
vector $\ket a$ as
\begin{equation}
U_k \ket a = \begin{cases} e^{i\phi_k} \ket a, \text{ if } a = k, \\ \ket a, \,
\text{else.} \end{cases}
\end{equation}
We now determine the phase function $\xi(U_k)$ from \refeq{eq-purewerner}. This yields
\begin{align}
U_k^{\otimes n}\ket{\psi}
=
\sum_i t_i U_k \ket{i_1} \ot \ldots \ot U_k \ket{i_n} %\nonumber \\
= \sum_i e^{i\phi_k K_i} t_i \ket i,
\end{align}
where $K_i$ is the number of times that $k$ appears in the multi-index $i$.
This equation holds for arbitrary $\phi_k$; moreover, $\xi(U_k)$ affects all
coefficients $t_j \neq 0$ in the same way. Hence, all indices $l$, for which
$t_l \neq 0$ must contain $k$ the same number of times.
\end{proof}
In the following, we combine this result with the previous results on
local permutations of the basis vectors. Intuitively, one may expect
that the numbers $N_k$ in Lemma \ref{lemma-samenumber} can not depend on $k$,
as one can always change the index $k$ by local permutations, without
affecting the singlet state too much. This will indeed turn out to be
the case.
Before formulating this in a precise manner, note that we can
describe the action of a permutation $\omega \in \sS_n$ of the
particles on a multi-index as
\begin{equation}
\omega(i) = (i_{\omega(1)}, ..., i_{\omega(n)}).
\end{equation}
In this language, if $\ket{\psi} = \sum_i t_i \ket i$ is a pure singlet state
where $j,l$ are two multi-indices such that $t_j \neq 0 $ and $t_l\neq 0$.
Then there exists a permutation $\omega \in \sS_n$ of the particles such that
$j = \omega(l)$. This follows directly from Lemma \ref{lemma-samenumber}.
More generally, we have:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma-samenumber2}
Let $\ket{\psi} = \sum_i t_i \ket i$ be a pure singlet state. Then
there
exists a number $K \in \NN$, such that for any non-zero coefficient $t_l \neq 0$,
the multi-index $l$ contains each value $k \in \{0, \ldots, d-1\}$ exactly $K$
times.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider two values $k, m \in \{0, \ldots, d-1\}$ and let $N_k $ and $N_m$ be
defined as in Lemma \ref{lemma-samenumber}. So, $N_k$ denotes how many times
$k$ is contained in the multi-index $l$ of any coefficient $t_l \neq 0$. Now
consider the local permutation $\pi= (k, m) \in \sS_d$, which just replaces
$k$ with $m$ and vice versa. According to Lemma \ref{lemma-permutationd},
we have
\begin{equation}
t_{\pi(l)} = f[(k,m)] t_{l}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, $t_l \neq 0$ implies $t_{\pi(l)} \neq 0$ due to Lemma
\ref{lemma1}. However, $\pi(l)$ contains $k$ exactly $N_m$ times
and $m$ exactly $N_k$ times. Thus, we must have $N_m = N_k$.
\end{proof}
It follows that for any pure singlet state $\ket{\psi} \in (\C^d)^{\otimes n}$,
$n$ is always an integer multiple of $d$, that is $n = Kd$ for some $K \in \NN$.
In view of the previous results, the structure of the four-qubit singlet
state in Eq.~(\ref{eq-4qbsinglet}) becomes clearer now. For this state,
we have $K=2,$ so it must be a superposition of tensor products with two
$\ket{0}$ and two $\ket{1}$ factors. The phase function of two possible
permutations is just the identity. Note that Lemma \ref{lemma-samenumber2}
also implies that pure singlet states cannot exist for an odd number of qubits.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Main results}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
With the previous insights, we have characterized pure singlet states
for our needs and we can now consider the second property, absolutely
maximally entangled states and $k$-uniform states.
We start with introducing some notation on truncated
multi-indices. Let $A \subset \{1, \ldots, n\}$ be a set
of particles and $B = A^C =\{1, \ldots, n\} \setminus A$ be
its complement. For a multi-index
$i = (i_{\alpha})_{\alpha \in \{1, \ldots, n\}}$
we define the truncated
multi-indices
\begin{align}
i_A = (i_{\alpha})_{\alpha \in A}
\quad{\rm and} \quad
i_{B} = (i_{\alpha})_{\alpha \in B}.
\end{align}
Using this notation we express the marginal state of the subsystems
contained in $A$ as
\begin{align}
\varrho_A & = \tr[B]{\ketbra{\psi}{\psi}}
%\nonumber \\
%&=
=\sum_{i_A, j_A} \tau_A (i_A; j_A)\ketbra{i_A}{j_A},
\end{align}
with the coefficients of the marginal density matrix
\begin{equation}
\tau_A (i_A; j_A) = \sum_{i_B} t_{i_A,i_B} t^*_{j_A,i_B}.
\label{eq-element}
\end{equation}
Now we can define AME states and $k$-uniform states
in a very explicit manner that is useful for our purpose.
We call a state $\ket{\psi} \in (\C^d)^{\otimes n}$ a {\it $k$-uniform
state}, if for any set of parties $A$ with $|A| \leq k$
the corresponding marginal is a maximally mixed state, that
is
\begin{equation}
\tau_A(i_A; j_A) = \begin{cases} \frac 1{d^{|A|}} \text{, if } \fpi i =
\fpi j \\ 0 \text{, else.} \end{cases}
\end{equation}
A quantum state is {\it absolutely maximally entangled (AME)} if it is
$k$-uniform
with $k=\lfloor n/2 \rfloor$.
Note that for multiparticle singlet states the single-particle
marginals are always maximally mixed, so they are automatically
$1$-uniform. This follows from the fact that the single-particle
reduced state $\varrho_{\{1\}}$ is also unitarily invariant, that is
$U\varrho_{\{1\}}U^\dagger = \varrho_{\{1\}}$, and for a single particle
this implies that $\varrho_{\{1\}} = \openone /d$. But can singlet states
be two-uniform?
We are ready to prove that this is never the case. To introduce the argument
in a simplified setting, consider a putative six-qubit singlet state, which
should be two-uniform. Consequently, we should have $\varrho_{\{1,2\}} = \openone /4$
which fixes the diagonal elements in any basis. So, for the diagonal element
$\tau_{\{1,2\}}(0,0;0,0)$ in the computational basis it should hold that
\begin{align}
\tau_{\{1,2\}}(0,0;0,0) &= |t_{(0,0,0,1,1,1)}|^2
+
|t_{(0,0,1,0,1,1)}|^2
\nonumber \\
&
+
|t_{(0,0,1,1,0,1)}|^2
+
|t_{(0,0,1,1,1,0)}|^2
\stackrel{!}{=} \frac{1}{4}.
\label{eq-6qb3}
\end{align}
If we consider also $\tau_{\{1,2\}}(1,1;1,1)$ and sum over
all qubit pairs $\alpha, \beta$ we obtain after a short
calculation the condition
\begin{align}
\sum_{\alpha, \beta} \big[\tau_{\{\alpha,\beta\}}(0,0;0,0)
+
\tau_{\{\alpha,\beta\}}(1,1;1,1)\big]
\nonumber
\\
=
2 {{3}\choose{2}}
\sum_i |t_i|^2 \stackrel{!}{=}\frac{1}{4}\times 2 \times {6 \choose 2} = \frac{15}{2},
\end{align}
where the prefactor $2 {{3}\choose{2}}=6$ can be understood
as coming from the fact that any $|t_i|^2$ contributes to
$2 {{3}\choose{2}}$ terms of the form
$\tau_{\{\alpha,\beta\}}(\ell,\ell;\ell,\ell)$. But then,
this condition is in direct contradiction to the normalization
condition $\sum_i |t_i|^2=1$, so a six-qubit singlet state cannot
be two-uniform.
This reasoning can directly be generalized to arbitrary dimensions
and numbers of particles. Indeed, in the general case, we have
\begin{align}
\sum_{\alpha, \beta}
\sum_{\ell=0}^{d-1}
\tau_{\{\alpha,\beta\}}(\ell,\ell;\ell,\ell)
=
d {K \choose 2}
\sum_i |t_i|^2 \stackrel{!}{=}\frac{1}{d^2}\times d \times {n \choose 2},
\end{align}
where, as before, $K=n/d.$ Again, it can easily be seen that
this is in contradiction to the normalization
$\sum_i |t_i|^2=1$, unless $d=K=1$. In summary, we have proved
the following:
\begin{theorem}
Let $\ket{\psi} \in (\C^d)^{\otimes n}$ be a multiparticle singlet
state. Then, not all two-particle reduced density matrices cannot
be maximally mixed. In other words, singlet states cannot be
two-uniform.
\label{theorem-2uniform}
\end{theorem}
For $n\geq 4$ AME states need to be two-uniform, while for $n\leq 3$
AME states need to be one-uniform only. This directly implies:
\begin{corollary}
Let $\ket{\psi} \in (\C^d)^{\otimes n}$ be an AME singlet state.
Then either $n = d = 2$ or $n = d = 3$. For these two cases AME
singlet states indeed exist as explained in the introduction.
For all other cases of $n$ and $d$ there are no AME singlet
states.
\label{theorem-qubit}
\end{corollary}
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, we have shown that the space of unitarily invariant
pure quantum states does not contain any two-uniform state. Especially,
an invariant state cannot be absolutely maximally entangled.
This generalizes previous results and closes some debates from the
literature \cite{grassl-njp, sahlmann, fabian-phd}.
There are several ways in which our work can be generalized.
First, it would be interesting to weaken the condition of
unitary invariance, by considering a subgroup of the unitary
group $U(d)$. This may help to understand the set of decoherence
processes, under which code words of a given quantum code can
be made robust. Second, the characterization of entangled subspaces
has attracted recent interest \cite{entsp1, entsp2, entsp3}. In this
terminology, we characterized the entangled subspace of multiparticle
singlets. It would be very interesting whether similar results can also
be obtained for other constructions of entangled subspaces.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank
Felix Huber,
Hanno Sahlmann,
and
Jonathan Steinberg
for discussions.
This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research
Foundation, project numbers 447948357 and 440958198), the Sino-German Center
for Research Promotion (Project M-0294), the ERC (Consolidator Grant 683107/TempoQ)
and the German Ministry of Education and Research (Project QuKuK, BMBF Grant
No.~16KIS1618K).
FB acknowledges support from the House of Young Talents of the University of Siegen.
%\bibliographystyle{unsrt.bst}
%\bibliography{Bibliothek}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{werner}
R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 40}, 4277 (1989).
\bibitem{eggeling}
T. Eggeling and R.F. Werner,
Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63}, 042111 (2001).
\bibitem{symm1}
K. Eckert, J. Schliemann, D. Bru{\ss}, and M. Lewenstein,
Ann. Phys. (New York) {\bf 299}, 88 (2002).
\bibitem{symm2}
J. Tura, A. Aloy, R. Quesada, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera,
Quantum {\bf 2}, 45 (2018).
\bibitem{symm3}
K. Hansenne, Z.-P. Xu, T. Kraft, and O. Gühne,
Nature Comm. {\bf 13}, 496 (2022).
\bibitem{graph1}
M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel,
Phys. Rev. A {\bf 69}, 062311 (2004).
\bibitem{graph2}
M. Rossi, M. Huber, D. Bru{\ss}, and C. Macchiavello,
New J. Phys. {\bf 15}, 113022 (2013).
\bibitem{graph3}
J. Lockhart, O. Gühne, and S. Severini,
Phys. Rev. A {\bf 97}, 062340 (2018).
\bibitem{mps1}
R. Orus,
Ann. Phys. (New York) {\bf 349}, 117 (2014).
\bibitem{mps2}
J. I. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete,
Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 93}, 045003 (2021).
\bibitem{maxe1}
A. Osterloh and J. Siewert,
Phys. Rev. A {\bf 72}, 012337 (2005).
\bibitem{maxe2}
G. Gour and N. R. Wallach,
J. Math. Phys. {\bf 51}, 112201 (2010).
\bibitem{maxe5}
J. Martin, O. Giraud, P. A. Braun, D. Braun, and T. Bastin,
Phys. Rev. A {\bf 81}, 062347 (2010).
\bibitem{maxe3}
J. I. de Vicente, C. Spee, and B. Kraus,
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 111}, 110502 (2013).
\bibitem{maxe4}
M. Enríquez, I. Wintrowicz, and K. \.Zyczkowski,
J Phys.: Conf. Ser. {\bf 698}, 012003 (2016).
\bibitem{maxe6}
J. Steinberg and O. Gühne,
arXiv:2210.13475.
\bibitem{vidal}
G. Vidal,
J. Mod. Opt. {\bf 47}, 355 (2000).
\bibitem{scott}
A. J. Scott,
Phys. Rev. A {\bf 69}, 052330 (2004).
\bibitem{grassl}
M. Grassl,
{\it Bounds on the minimum distance of linear codes and quantum codes};
available at {\tt http://www.codetables.de}.
\bibitem{felix}
F. Huber, O. Gühne, and J. Siewert,
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 118}, 200502 (2017).
\bibitem{karol1}
P. Horodecki, L. Rudnicki, and K. \.Zyczkowski,
PRX Quantum {\bf 3}, 010101 (2022).
\bibitem{karol2}
S. A. Rather, A.Burchardt, W. Bruzda, G. Rajchel-
Mieldzioć, A. Lakshminarayan, and K. Życzkowski,
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 128}, 080507 (2022).
\bibitem{pastawski}
F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and
J. Preskill, JHEP {\bf 06}, 149 (2015).
\bibitem{bhattacha}
A. Bhattacharyya, Z.-S. Gao, L.-Y. Hung, and S.-N. Liu,
JHEP {\bf 08}, 186 (2016).
\bibitem{ryu}
S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi,
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 181602 (2006).
\bibitem{adan-singlets}
A. Cabello,
J. Mod. Opt. {\bf 50}, 10049 (2003).
\bibitem{huberdimension}
F. Huber, I. Klep, V. Magron, and J. Volčič,
arXiv:2108.08720.
\bibitem{rumer1}
G. Rumer, Nachrichten v. d. Gesellschaft
d. Wissenschaften z. Göttingen, Math.-Phys.
Klasse {\bf 1932}, 337 (1932);
available at {\tt https://eudml.org/doc/59385}.
\bibitem{rumer2}
H. Weyl, G. Rumer, and E. Teller,
Nachrichten v. d. Gesellschaft
d. Wissenschaften z. Göttingen, Math.-Phys.
Klasse {\bf 1932}, 499 (1932);
available at {\tt https://eudml.org/doc/59396}.
\bibitem{pauling}
L. Pauling, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 1}, 280 (1933).
\bibitem{beach}
K. S. D. Beach and A. W. Sandvik,
Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 750}, 142 (2006).
\bibitem{kempe}
J. Kempe, D. Bacon, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley,
Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63}, 042307 (2001).
\bibitem{bourenanne}
M. Bourennane, M. Eibl, S. Gaertner, C. Kurtsiefer, A. Cabello, and H. Weinfurter,
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 107901 (2004).
\bibitem{lidar}
D. A. Lidar, D. Bacon, and K. B. Whaley,
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 4556 (1999).
\bibitem{gravity1}
C. Rovelli and L. Smolin,
Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 5743 (1995).
\bibitem{gravity2}
J.C. Baez,
Adv. Math. {\bf 117}, 253 (1996).
\bibitem{gravity3}
A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski,
Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 21}, R53 (2004).
\bibitem{grassl-njp}
Y. Li, M. Han, M. Grassl, and B. Zeng,
New J. Phys. {\bf 19}, 063029 (2017).
\bibitem{sahlmann}
R. Mansuroglu and H. Sahlmann, arXiv:2210.02483.
\bibitem{fabian-phd}
F. Bernards,
{\it Generalized Bell inequalities and quantum entanglement},
PhD thesis, University of Siegen (2022);
available at {\tt http://dx.doi.org/10.25819/ubsi/10149}.
\bibitem{galileo}
G. Galilei, {\it Il saggiatore}, Roma 1623.
\bibitem{entsp1}
F. Huber and M. Grassl,
Quantum {\bf 4}, 284 (2020).
\bibitem{entsp2}
B. Lovitz and N. Johnston,
Quantum {\bf 6}, 760 (2022).
\bibitem{entsp3}
O. Makuta, B. Kuzaka, and R. Augusiak,
arXiv:2203.16902.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}