Every density matrix of $n$ qubits can be written in the following way $$\hat{\rho}=\frac{1}{2^n}\sum_{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_n=0}^3 t_{i_1i_2\ldots i_n} \hat{\sigma}_{i_1}\otimes\hat{\sigma}_{i_2}\otimes\ldots\otimes\hat{\sigma}_{i_n},$$ where $-1 \leq t_{i_1i_2\ldots i_n} \leq 1$ are real numbers and $\{\hat{\sigma}_0,\hat{\sigma}_1,\hat{\sigma}_2,\hat{\sigma}_3\}$ are the Pauli matrices. In particular for one particle ($n=1$) it is the Bloch representation.

Such representation is used e.g. in a work by Horodecki arXiv:quant-ph/9607007 (they apply $n=2$ to investigate the entanglement of two qubit systems). It is called decomposition in the Hilbert-Schmidt basis.

The question is if there is any good reference for such representation for qubits - either introducing it for quantum applications or a review paper? I am especially interested in the constrains on $t_{i_1i_2\ldots i_n}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Just having read the question, and possibly not understanding correctly yet, What additional constraints should there be on $t_{i_1i_2\ldots i_n}$ other than leading to a normalised $\hat\rho$? $\endgroup$
    – qubyte
    Nov 22, 2011 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark: Normalization is equivalent to $t_{00\ldots0}=1$. All other constrains are related to the nonnegative definiteness (e.g. for $n=1$ there is $t_1+t_2+t_3 \leq 1$). $\endgroup$ Nov 22, 2011 at 15:35
  • $\begingroup$ With you now. Apparently my brain has already turned in for an early (earlier than me anyway) night. $\endgroup$
    – qubyte
    Nov 22, 2011 at 15:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlexV I know that it has nothing to do with the Schmidt decomposition. $\endgroup$ Nov 22, 2011 at 17:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This seems to be what you're looking for. $\endgroup$
    – Mateus Araújo
    Nov 22, 2011 at 23:53

3 Answers 3


I use this decomposition all the time, but I have never read a paper solely devoted to the topic. From my experience a complete characterization of the constraints on $t_{i_{1}, t_{2},..t_{n}}$ is tricky, and so if you want to be sure $\rho$ is physical you should calculate the density matrix and its eigenvalues.

However, there are a lot of necessary conditions that have a useful form in this decomposition. For example, for a positive unit-trace Hermitian operator $\rho$ is follows that

$|t_{i_{1}, i_{2},.. i_{n}}| \leq 1$

$tr ( \rho^{2} ) =\frac{1}{2^{n}} \sum_{i_{1}, i_{2},.. i_{n}} t_{i_{1}, i_{2},.. i_{n}}^{2} \leq 1 $

The above condition tells us that if we think of $t$ as a vector in a real vector space, then the physical states live within the unit sphere. This is a bit like the Bloch sphere for 1 qubit but for many qubits we have some other constraints that take the form of hyperplanes. For every $\vert \psi \rangle$ expressed in the same form $\vert \psi \rangle \langle \psi \vert = \frac{1}{2^{n}} \sum_{i_{1},i_{2},... i_{n}} Q_{i_{1},i_{2},... i_{n}}\sigma_{i1} \otimes \sigma_{i2}... \sigma_{in}$ we require that

$\langle \psi \vert \rho \vert \psi \rangle \geq 0 $ and so $\sum Q_{i_{1},i_{2},... i_{n}}t_{i_{1},i_{2},... i_{n}}\geq 0$ which defines a hyperplane.

The problem is you have a hyperplane for every $\psi$ so that requiring $t$ to satisfy every inequality one of the infinite hyperplanes is impossible to check by brute force. If you want sufficient conditions for positivity of $\rho$ I suspect you have to calculate eigenvalues.

  • $\begingroup$ +1 from me. I use it a lot too, but couldn't think of anything interesting to say! $\endgroup$ Nov 25, 2011 at 11:36

Claudio Altafini studies precisely this subject, in Tensor of coherences parameterization of multiqubit density operators for entanglement characterization and some follow-ups.


A good starting point, I have checked just chapter 4 but there is more, is

R. R. Puri, Mathematical Methods of Quantum Optics, Springer (2001) (see here).

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, Jon. In the meantime I found papers about discrete phase space, where $\hat{\sigma}_{\vec{i}}$ is a shift operator (Gibbons, Hoffman, Wootters quant-ph/0401155, Paz, Roncaglia, Saraceno quant-ph/0410117 and Sec 4.2 of Chris Ferrie's 1010.2701). $\endgroup$ Nov 24, 2011 at 11:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.