Introduces the Werner state family and proves both the separability/entanglement structure and the existence of a local hidden-variable model for projective measurements up to p=1/2.
doi.org/10.1103/physreva.40.4277 ↗Werner state (two-qubit)
The Werner state ρ_W(p) = p|Ψ⁻⟩⟨Ψ⁻| + (1−p)I/4: a one-parameter family interpolating between the maximally entangled singlet and the maximally mixed state, historically significant as the first known example separating entanglement from Bell-inequality violation.
Atlas stars stay in the public catalog. Saving this entry to your workspace starts an unstarred private copy.
Werner's 1989 construction was designed to answer a specific question: can an entangled state still behave classically under all projective measurements? By mixing the singlet with white noise in a tunable ratio, Werner produced a family that is provably entangled above one threshold yet provably compatible with a local hidden-variable model up to a higher threshold — showing entanglement and Bell-inequality violation are not the same thing.
Circuit & simulation
What this takes and returns
TakesNothingWhat joins here
Nothing goes in, and that is what this entry is: a pipeline starts here. There is no upstream to choose — what you pick is what comes after.
Nothing in the Atlas meets this end.
Returns2 qubitsWhat joins here
Returns a 2-qubit register a next stage can take. This is the end that joins.
12 entries meet this end. Named below.
Prepares a state. Nothing goes in, and what comes out is a register another stage can take. See all 12 →
Where the map uses this
This record is an instance of an object the map names, so these are the processes that consume or produce one. None of them is about this record in particular.
State you can prepare 5 of 33 processes
- Quantum linear solve hands one back
- Prepare an input state hands one back
- Amplify a success branch hands one back
- Estimate an observable takes one
- Minimise the objective over the parameters hands one back
How it works
The two-qubit Werner state, in the singlet-fraction convention used throughout this entry, is
(Other papers parametrize Werner states by mixing the singlet with the other three Bell states rather than with directly; that convention shifts the numerical thresholds below, so the convention must always be stated alongside any threshold value.)
Spectrum. Because and commute (both are diagonal in the Bell basis), has eigenvalue on and (three-fold degenerate) on the symmetric triplet . Both eigenvalues are non-negative for every , so is a valid density matrix everywhere on this interval.
Separability threshold. Applying the partial transpose and computing its eigenvalues directly gives one eigenvalue (the rest stay non-negative); by the Peres–Horodecki (PPT) criterion, which is necessary and sufficient for separability of two-qubit states, is separable iff and entangled (and distillable, since PPT separable in ) for . At , recovers the pure maximally entangled singlet; at , recovers the maximally mixed state.
Local hidden-variable model. Werner's original 1989 result goes further than the separability threshold: he showed that for , admits an explicit local hidden-variable (LHV) model reproducing the statistics of every projective (von Neumann) measurement on either qubit — even though the state is already entangled throughout . This is the historical significance of the construction: it demonstrated for the first time that entanglement alone does not imply the existence of a Bell-inequality-violating experiment, separating "entangled" from "nonlocal" as distinct resources. (The CHSH value for with the standard optimal measurement settings is , so this particular CHSH strategy is violated only for — a third, even higher threshold, leaving a nontrivial gap that motivated later work on whether more elaborate measurement strategies could reveal nonlocality closer to the boundary.)
Symmetry. is invariant under for every single-qubit unitary — this -twirling symmetry is in fact how Werner states are usually produced in practice: apply the completely-depolarizing twirl (average over Haar-random conjugation) to any two-qubit state, and only its overlap with the singlet survives, projecting any input onto some .
Implementation
import numpy as np
from qiskit.quantum_info import DensityMatrix
def werner_state(p: float) -> DensityMatrix:
singlet = np.array([0, 1, -1, 0]) / np.sqrt(2)
proj_singlet = np.outer(singlet, singlet.conj())
rho = p * proj_singlet + (1 - p) * np.eye(4) / 4
return DensityMatrix(rho)
def partial_transpose_second(rho: DensityMatrix) -> np.ndarray:
"""Transpose the second qubit only. Written out rather than imported:
qiskit.quantum_info has no partial_transpose, and the two-qubit case is
one index swap on the reshaped density matrix."""
return rho.data.reshape(2, 2, 2, 2).transpose(0, 3, 2, 1).reshape(4, 4)
separability = {}
for p in (0.2, 1 / 3, 0.5, 0.9):
rho = werner_state(p)
pt_eigs = np.linalg.eigvalsh(partial_transpose_second(rho))
min_rho_eig = min(np.linalg.eigvalsh(rho.data))
separability[f"{p:.3f}"] = bool(pt_eigs.min() >= -1e-9)
print(f"p={p:.3f} min eig(rho)={min_rho_eig:.4f} min eig(partial transpose)={pt_eigs.min():.4f}"
f" separable(PPT)={pt_eigs.min() >= -1e-9}")
RESULT = {"separable_by_ppt": separability}
Quantum vs classical
Classical baseline
Use a classical state-vector or matrix simulation at the same width, precision, and measurement objective.
Quantum claim
The quantum record demonstrates a state or operator behavior; it does not make classical simulation or communication costs disappear.
How to compare
Compare fidelity, samples, gate depth, noise, memory, and the cost of preparing and reading the state.
Declared gaps
Nobody has reviewed this record for gaps yet.