On two maximally entangled couples

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2506.21282
• Title: On two maximally entangled couples
• Authors: Felix Huber (University of Gdańsk), Jens Siewert (University of the Basque Country & Ikerbasque Foundation)
• Classification: quant-ph (Quantum Physics)
• Publication Date: November 7, 2025 (arXiv v2: November 5, 2025)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21282

Abstract

This paper is dedicated to Ryszard Horodecki's 80th birthday. The article investigates the existence problem of absolutely maximally entangled (AME) states, particularly the non-existence of four-qubit AME states. Higuchi and Sudbery proved in their pioneering work that pure four-qubit states cannot achieve maximum entanglement across every bipartition. This paper provides seven different proofs, including classical and novel proofs, based on invariant theory, coding theory approaches, and fundamental properties of linear algebra (such as Pauli commutation relations).

Research Background and Motivation

Research Questions

This paper focuses on a fundamental question in quantum many-body systems: Does there exist a pure four-qubit state that achieves maximum entanglement across every bipartition? Equivalently, does there exist a pure n-qubit state whose all reduced density matrices of size ⌊n/2⌋ are maximally mixed?

Problem Significance

1. Canonical instance of the quantum marginal problem: The existence of AME states represents one of the simplest instances of the quantum marginal problem, perfectly demonstrating the core challenge of many-body physics—how local characteristics constrain global structure.
2. Foundation of quantum information theory: This problem connects multiple core areas of quantum information theory, including entanglement theory, quantum coding theory, and invariant theory.
3. Theoretical and applied value: AME states are directly related to pure quantum error-correcting codes. If every vector in a subspace has maximally mixed k-body marginals, it corresponds to a pure quantum code with distance k+1.

Current Research Status

• For n=2 (Bell states) and n=3 (GHZ states), AME states exist
• Higuchi and Sudbery's pioneering work in 2000 first proved the non-existence of four-qubit AME states
• Subsequently, research has developed in directions concerning bounds and constructions of AME states and k-uniform states

Research Motivation

Although the non-existence of four-qubit AME states has been established, several gaps remain:

1. Lack of unified understanding: Different proof methods reveal different aspects of the problem but lack simple intuition about its essence.
2. Methodological value: By collecting multiple proof methods, one can demonstrate how entanglement theory connects different mathematical subdisciplines.
3. Educational and inspirational significance: Multi-perspective proofs deepen understanding of quantum correlation structures and inherent limitations.

Core Contributions

1. Systematic review: First systematic collection and presentation of seven different proof methods for the non-existence of four-qubit AME states.
2. Novel proof methods: Two entirely new proofs are proposed:
   • Proof 3 (Opposing bipartite correlations): Based on local unitary equivalence of GHZ states and correlation cancellation.
   • Proof 4 (Four-qubit polynomial invariants): Utilizing the L+M+N=0 identity.
3. Interdisciplinary connections: Demonstrates deep connections between this problem and multiple mathematical fields:
   • Invariant theory (polynomial invariants)
   • Coding theory (quantum error-correcting codes, shadow inequalities)
   • Graph theory (Lovász theta number)
   • Linear algebra (Schmidt decomposition, Pauli commutation relations)
4. Theoretical insights: Reveals that quantum entanglement problems often contain more structure than strictly required for proofs, providing multidimensional perspectives for understanding constraints in many-body quantum systems.

Methods in Detail

Task Definition

Core Observation (Observation 1): There does not exist a pure four-qubit state that achieves maximum entanglement across every bipartition.

Formal definition:

• Input: Assume existence of four-qubit pure state |ψ⟩ ∈ (ℂ²)⊗⁴
• Condition: All two-qubit reduced density matrices are maximally mixed, i.e., ρᵢⱼ = 𝟙/4
• Goal: Prove that no state satisfying this condition exists

Architecture of Seven Proof Methods

Proof 1: Higuchi-Sudbery Original Proof

Method Overview: Derives contradiction through local unitary transformations and orthogonality conditions of unitary matrices.

Key Steps:

1. Expand four-qubit state in computational basis: |ψ⟩ = Σ aⱼₖₗₘ |jklm⟩
2. Convert AME conditions to: aⱼₖₗₘ = ½(U₁)ⱼₖ,ₗₘ = ½(U₂)ⱼₗ,ₖₘ = ½(U₃)ⱼₘ,ₖₗ, where U₁, U₂, U₃ are two-qubit unitary matrices
3. Achieve through local unitary operations: a₁₀₀₀ = a₀₁₀₀ = 0 = a₀₀₁₀ = a₀₀₀₁ (iterative Schmidt decomposition)
4. Utilize row and column orthogonality of unitary matrices to prove more coefficients must vanish
5. Remaining non-zero elements cannot simultaneously ensure unitarity of U₁, U₂, U₃, producing contradiction

Technical Innovation: First converts AME conditions into compatibility problems of multiple unitary matrices.

Proof 2: Even-Odd Correlation Method

Method Overview: Exploits even-odd weight decomposition of Pauli operators and anticommutation relations.

Key Steps:

1. Three-body reduced density matrix: ρ₁₂₃ = ⅛(𝟙 + P₃), where P₃ contains only three-body terms
2. Schmidt decomposition shows ρ₁₂₃ satisfies projector relation: ρ²₁₂₃ = ½ρ₁₂₃
3. Expansion yields: P₃² = 3𝟙 + 2P₃
4. Apply even-odd lemma:
   • {even, even} → even
   • {odd, odd} → even
   • {even, odd} → odd
5. Separate even and odd parts:
   • Even part: ½{P₃, P₃} = 3𝟙
   • Odd part: P₃ = 0 (contradiction! since ρ₁₂₃ cannot be full rank)

Technical Innovation: First application of Pauli operator weight parity to AME state non-existence proofs.

Proof 3: Opposing Bipartite Correlations (Novel Proof)

Method Overview: Exploits local unitary equivalence of GHZ states and constraints on correlation spectra.

Core Lemma (Lemma 3): All pure three-qubit states with three maximally mixed single-body reduced density matrices are locally unitarily equivalent to the standard GHZ state (|000⟩+|111⟩)/√2.

Key Steps:

1. Four-qubit AME state corresponds to pure quantum code ((4,1,3))₂
2. Code propagation yields ((3,2,2))₂ code, corresponding to density matrix ρ_ABC = ½(|v⟩⟨v| + |w⟩⟨w|)
3. Both |v⟩ and |w⟩ are 1-uniform, hence GHZ-type by Lemma 3
4. Expansion:
   • |v⟩⟨v| = ⅛(𝟙 + P₂ + P₃)
   • |w⟩⟨w| = ⅛(𝟙 + Q₂ + Q₃)
5. Choose local basis such |v⟩ = |GHZ⟩, compute its correlation spectrum:
   • σ(P₂) = (-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,3,3)
   • σ(P₃) = (-4,0,0,0,0,0,0,4)
6. Since ρ_ABC is 2-uniform, must have Q₂ = -P₂
7. But σ(𝟙-P₂) already has negative eigenvalues (-2,-2,...), while λ_max(Q₃)=4 is insufficient to compensate (needs ≥6), producing contradiction

Technical Innovation: First application of GHZ state correlation structure spectral properties to prove AME state non-existence.

Proof 4: Four-Qubit Polynomial Invariants (Novel Proof)

Method Overview: Exploits the L+M+N=0 identity of SL(2,ℂ)⊗⁴ invariants.

Key Construction: Define three fourth-order determinant invariants L, M, N (Luque-Thibon construction), related to two-qubit reduced states by:

• ρ₁₂ = L^T L*
• ρ₂₄ = MM†
• ρ₁₄ = N^T N*

Key Steps:

1. AME conditions require ρ₁₂ = ρ₂₄ = ρ₁₄ = ¼𝟙₄
2. Therefore L, M, N (up to factor ½) must be unitary matrices
3. Using L+M+N=0, can choose global phase such:
   • L = 1/16
   • M, N ∈ {1/16 · e^(2πi/3), 1/16 · e^(4πi/3)}
4. Apply local unitaries to bring L's first column and row to Schmidt form: a₀₀₀₁ = a₀₀₁₀ = a₀₁₀₀ = a₁₀₀₀ = 0
5. Orthogonality conditions force L to have specific structure (equation 26)
6. Computing yields M, N ∈ ℝ, contradicting equation (25)

Technical Innovation: First direct application of Luque-Thibon invariant algebraic relations to prove AME state non-existence.

Proof 5: Shadow Inequalities

Method Overview: Applies Rains' shadow inequality (monogamy constraints).

Shadow Inequality: For all states ρ and subsets T ⊆ {1,...,n}, $S_T = \sum_{S \subseteq \{1...n\}} (-1)^{|S \cap T|} \text{tr}_S(\rho_S^2) \geq 0$

Key Steps:

1. For four-qubit AME states, all purities are known:
   • tr(ρᵢ²) = tr(ρᵢⱼₖ²) = ½
   • tr(ρᵢⱼ²) = ¼
2. Compute shadow for T={A,B,C,D}: $S_{ABCD} = 1 - 4 \cdot \frac{1}{2} + 6 \cdot \frac{1}{4} - 4 \cdot \frac{1}{4} + 1 = -\frac{1}{2}$
3. Violates non-negativity requirement, producing contradiction

Technical Innovation: Most concise proof, directly exploiting monogamy constraints.

Proof 6: Gour-Wallach Method

Method Overview: Exploits linear entropy invariant inequalities.

Key Inequality: For four-qubit states, $4\tau_1 - 3\tau_2 = \tau_{ABCD} \geq 0$ where:

• τ₁ = ¼(τ_A|BCD + τ_B|ACD + τ_C|ABD + τ_D|ABC)
• τ₂ = ⅓(τ_AB|CD + τ_AC|BD + τ_AD|BC)
• τ_X|X̄ = 2(1 - tr(ρ_X²)) is linear entropy

Key Steps:

1. AME states have τ₁ = 1, τ₂ = 3/2
2. Substituting yields: 4·1 - 3·(3/2) = -1/2 < 0
3. Violates inequality, producing contradiction

Technical Connection: τ_ABCD = |⟨ψ|σ_y⊗⁴|ψ*⟩|² actually equals S_ABCD

Proof 7: Lovász Bound

Method Overview: Exploits Lovász theta number from graph theory to bound quantum code parameters.

Lovász Number Definition: For graph G, $\theta(G) = \max \sum_i M_{ii} \text{ s.t. } M_{ii}=a_i, M_{ij}=0 \text{ if } i \sim j, \Delta \succeq 0$

Key Steps:

1. Construct anticommuting graph G: vertices are Pauli basis P₄{𝟙}, edges connect anticommuting or low-weight product operators
2. Define moment matrix: Γ_αβ = ⟨E_α†⟩⟨E_β⟩⟨E_α†E_β⟩
3. Convert AME conditions to semidefinite program: maximize Σ_α Γ_αα, subject to Γ̂_αβ=0 (if α∼β)
4. This equals computing ϑ(G)
5. For anticommuting graph of P₄{𝟙}, ϑ(G)+1=8 < 16 (required for AME states)
6. Produces contradiction

Technical Innovation: First application of graph-theoretic invariants to continuous property (non-existence of rank-1 subspaces) problems.

Summary of Technical Innovations

1. Multidisciplinary fusion: Seven proofs originate from invariant theory, coding theory, linear algebra, and graph theory, demonstrating the problem's rich mathematical structure.
2. Method complementarity:
   • Proofs 1-2: Constructive methods, directly analyzing state coefficient structure
   • Proofs 3-4: Algebraic methods, exploiting invariants and symmetries
   • Proofs 5-6: Inequality methods, exploiting monogamy constraints
   • Proof 7: Optimization method, exploiting semidefinite programming
3. Proof simplicity ranking: Proof 5 (shadow inequality) is most concise, requiring only simple calculation; Proof 1 (Higuchi-Sudbery) is most constructive, providing maximum insight.

Experimental Setup

This is purely theoretical research with no experiments or numerical computations. All proofs are rigorous mathematical proofs requiring no datasets, evaluation metrics, or experimental verification.

Experimental Results

Main Results

Theorem Verification: Seven independent proof methods all rigorously establish the correctness of Observation 1:

There does not exist a pure four-qubit state achieving maximum entanglement across every bipartition

Proof Method Comparison

Theoretical Findings

1. Structural redundancy: The problem contains more mathematical structure than strictly required for proofs; different proofs reveal different facets.
2. Monogamy essence: Proofs 5-6 essentially exploit the same monogamy constraint (τ_ABCD = S_ABCD), embodying fundamental entanglement limitations.
3. Code theory connection: Four-qubit AME state ⟺ ((4,1,3))₂ pure code; its non-existence can be derived through code propagation.
4. Local-global tension: All proofs embody incompatibility between local constraints (maximally mixed marginals) and global structure (pure state).

Related Work

Historical Development

1. Foundational work:
   • Higuchi & Sudbery (2000): First proof of four-qubit AME state non-existence
   • Rains (1998-2000): Development of shadow inequalities and polynomial invariant theory
2. Coding theory connections:
   • Scott (2004): Recognition of coding theory methods' utility for entanglement characterization
   • Grassl, Beth & Pellizzari (1997): Proof via ((3,2,3)) code non-existence
3. Invariant theory:
   • Luque & Thibon (2003): Construction of complete generating set of four-qubit SL(2,ℂ)⊗⁴ invariants
   • Gour & Wallach (2010): Invariant-based analysis of four-qubit entanglement
4. AME state research:
   • Huber, Gühne & Siewert (2017): Proof of seven-qubit AME state non-existence
   • Goyeneche et al. (2015): Connections between AME states and combinatorial designs, multiunitary matrices

Relationship to Related Work

1. Comprehensive nature: First systematic collection of multiple proof methods, rather than proposing single new method.
2. Novel contributions:
   • Proof 3 exploits GHZ state spectral properties (new perspective)
   • Proof 4 directly uses L+M+N=0 (simplifies Higuchi-Sudbery approach)
3. Modern tools: Proof 7 introduces latest SDP methods (Munné, Nemec & Huber 2024).

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Core theorem: Non-existence of four-qubit AME states has been rigorously established through seven independent methods, with extremely strong mathematical foundation.
2. Methodological insights:
   • Same problem can be solved from multiple perspectives: invariant theory, coding theory, graph theory
   • Different proofs reveal different mathematical structure layers
   • Most concise proof (shadow inequality) and most insightful proof (Higuchi-Sudbery) each have value
3. Theoretical significance:
   • Embodies fundamental tension between local and global in quantum entanglement theory
   • Demonstrates complexity of quantum marginal problem
   • Provides foundation for k-uniform states and quantum code research

Limitations

1. Missing intuition: Despite seven proofs, simple intuitive understanding of "why three completely mixed two-qubit marginals cannot arise from globally pure four-qubit state" remains elusive.
2. Limited generalizability:
   • Proof methods highly dependent on four-qubit special properties
   • Difficult to directly generalize to general n-qubit or higher-dimensional cases
   • Different methods apply to different AME state parameters
3. Computational complexity: Some proofs (e.g., Proof 7) involve complex semidefinite programming, difficult to verify by hand.
4. Essential understanding: While sketching the problem and clarifying technical solutions, lacks simple physical picture of how local features constrain global structure.

Future Directions

1. SDP method extensions:
   • Apply complete SDP hierarchy of Munné et al. (2024) to improve quantum code bounds
   • Explore state polynomial optimization framework in other nonlinear problems
   • Extract rational infeasibility certificates, enhancing rigor of numerical methods
2. New inequality discovery:
   • Systematically search for new entropy and rank inequalities (cf. Cadney et al. 2012, 2014)
   • Develop analytical or numerical mechanisms for automatic constraint discovery
3. Generalization research:
   • Study AME states and k-uniform states with other parameters
   • Explore new bounds and constructions for quantum codes
   • Analyze AME states in higher-dimensional systems (qudits)
4. Physical intuition:
   • Seek simpler physical explanation frameworks
   • Develop general theory of local-global relationships
   • Connect to other fundamental quantum information problems (monogamy, no-cloning, etc.)

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Academic value:
   • Strong comprehensiveness: First systematic compilation of all major proof methods for four-qubit AME state non-existence
   • Originality: Proposes two novel proofs (Proofs 3, 4), enriching theoretical understanding of the problem
   • Interdisciplinarity: Demonstrates deep connections between quantum information theory and pure mathematics (invariant theory, graph theory, coding theory)
2. Technical quality:
   • Rigor: All proofs undergo strict mathematical argumentation with clear logic
   • Completeness: Ranges from simple (Proof 5) to complex (Proof 7), covering different technical levels
   • Readability: Each proof has clear step-by-step explanations and key insight summaries
3. Educational value:
   • Suitable as textbook material for advanced quantum information theory courses
   • Demonstrates attacking single problem from multiple angles
   • Provides graduate students with application examples of different mathematical tools
4. Tribute significance:
   • Dedicated to Ryszard Horodecki's 80th birthday, reflecting academic heritage
   • Connects AME state research to Horodecki's pioneering work on entanglement and nonlocality

Weaknesses

1. Limited novelty:
   • Five of seven proofs are compilations of known methods
   • Only two proofs (Proofs 3, 4) are novel contributions
   • Does not resolve essential understanding of four-qubit AME state non-existence
2. Insufficient practicality:
   • Pure theoretical research without experimental verification or numerical computation
   • Lacks systematic methods for generalizing to other AME state parameters
   • Limited guidance for quantum information practical applications
3. Limited analytical depth:
   • Lacks in-depth comparison of different proof methods' merits and applicability
   • Missing discussion of "which proof is most essential"
   • Unexplored intrinsic connections between proof methods
4. Technical details:
   • Lemma 3 proof relegated to appendix, disrupting main narrative flow
   • Proof 7's semidefinite programming construction quite abstract, lacking geometric intuition
   • No code or computational tools provided to assist verification
5. Future outlook:
   • Discussion of future research directions relatively brief
   • Unclear which methods have greatest generalization potential
   • Lacks systematic review of open problems

Impact Assessment

1. Contribution to field:
   • Medium-high: While not breakthrough results, systematic compilation provides important reference value
   • Two novel proofs (particularly Proof 3) provide new technical tools
   • Provides methodological guidance for AME state and quantum code research
2. Practical value:
   • Theory-focused: Primary value in theoretical understanding rather than practical application
   • Provides indirect guidance for quantum error-correcting code design
   • Establishes theoretical bounds for quantum information experiments
3. Reproducibility:
   • Extremely high: All proofs are pure mathematical derivations, completely reproducible
   • Requires no experimental equipment or numerical computation
   • Clear paper exposition facilitates verification
4. Citation potential:
   • Expected to become standard reference for AME state research
   • Widely cited in teaching and review papers
   • Novel proof methods may inspire research on related problems

Applicable Scenarios

1. Theoretical research:
   • Foundational research in quantum entanglement theory
   • Research on quantum marginal problems
   • Existence analysis of k-uniform states and AME states
2. Quantum coding:
   • Parameter bounds for pure quantum error-correcting codes
   • Code propagation and construction theory
   • Quantum code capacity analysis
3. Educational applications:
   • Graduate-level quantum information theory courses
   • Specialized seminars on many-body quantum systems
   • Mathematical physics methods training
4. Interdisciplinary research:
   • Applications of invariant theory in quantum information
   • Applications of graph theory methods in quantum problems
   • Applications of semidefinite programming in quantum optimization

Selected References

1. Higuchi & Sudbery (2000): "How entangled can two couples get?" - Original pioneering work
2. Rains (1999, 2000): Shadow inequalities and polynomial invariant theory
3. Luque & Thibon (2003): Four-qubit polynomial invariants
4. Scott (2004): Many-body entanglement and quantum error-correcting codes
5. Huber, Gühne & Siewert (2017): Seven-qubit AME state non-existence
6. Munné, Nemec & Huber (2024): SDP bounds for quantum codes

Summary

This paper systematically demonstrates the non-existence of four-qubit AME states through seven independent proof methods, embodying the rich mathematical structure of quantum information theory. While as a review-type work its novelty is limited, two novel proofs (particularly Proof 3 based on GHZ state spectral properties) provide new technical perspectives. The paper's main value lies in: (1) providing complete methodological landscape for this classical problem; (2) demonstrating applications of different mathematical tools in quantum problems; (3) establishing solid theoretical foundation for future research. For quantum information theory researchers and graduate students, this is an extremely valuable reference and teaching resource.