Paper detail

Checking the optimality of entanglement witnesses: an application to structural physical approximations

In 2008, the conjecture that structural physical approximations to optimal entanglement witnesses are separable states (in general unnormalized) was posed. In an attempt to disprove it, in [K.-C. Ha and S.-H. Kye, Separable states with unique decompositions, arXiv:1210.1088v3], Ha and Kye proposed a decomposable entanglement witness whose SPA is entangled and argued that it is optimal. In this note, which is based on a comment to the latter work [R. Augusiak et al., Comment on "Separable states with unique decompositions", arXiv:1304.2040v1], we show, both analytically and numerically, that this entanglement witness is not optimal, and as such it is not a counterexample to the conjecture. To this end, we make use of a method for checking optimality of entanglement witnesses developed already in [M. Lewenstein et al., Phys. Rev. A 62, 052310 (2000)], however, hardly exploited so far in the literature.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.