# A Schmidt number for density matrices

\[

## Abstract

We introduce the notion of a Schmidt number of a bipartite density matrix, characterizing the minimum Schmidt rank of the pure states that are needed to construct the density matrix. We prove that Schmidt number is nonincreasing under local quantum operations and classical communication. We show that $`k`$-positive maps witness Schmidt number, in the same way that positive maps witness entanglement. We show that the family of states which is made from mixing the completely mixed state and a maximally entangled state have increasing Schmidt number depending on the amount of maximally entangled state that is mixed in. We show that Schmidt number does not necessarily increase when taking tensor copies of a density matrix $`\rho `$; we give an example of a density matrix for which the Schmidt numbers of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho \rho `$ are both $`2`$.

\]

In quantum information theory the study of bipartite entanglement is of great importance. The usual scenario is one in which two parties, Alice and Bob, share a supply of $`n`$ pure or mixed states $`\rho ^n`$ which they would like to convert by Local Operations and Classical Communication (denoted as $`LO+CC`$) to a supply of $`k`$ other mixed or pure states $`\sigma ^k`$, where $`k`$ can either be smaller or larger than $`n`$. The simple question that underlies many studies in bipartite entanglement is the question: what properties of these two sets of states make it possible or impossible to carry out such a protocol? Much work has been devoted to developing the necessary and sufficient conditions for this $`LO+CC`$ convertability. In the case of pure state convertability, it has been found that some aspects of this problem can be understood with the mathematics of majorization . In the case of mixed state entanglement the theory of positive maps has been shown to play an important role . The power of positive maps is best illustrated by the Peres separability condition  which says that a bipartite density matrix which is unentangled (aka separable) must be positive under the application of the partial transposition map. For low dimensional spin systems this condition is not only necessary but also sufficient to ensure separability . It has been shown  that density matrices which are positive under partial transposition are undistillable, that is, nonconvertible by $`LO+CC`$ to sets of entangled pure states. Many examples of these bound entangled states have been found . Evidence has been found as well for the nondistillability of certain classes of entangled states which are not positive under partial transposition , and it was shown that this feature relates to the $`2`$-positivity of certain maps .

In this paper, we extend the $`LO+CC`$ classification of bipartite mixed states with the use of positive maps. In particular, we extend the notion of the Schmidt rank of a pure bipartite state to the domain of bipartite density matrices. We will show that this new quantity, which we will call Schmidt number, is witnessed by $`k`$-positive maps.

For a bipartite pure state which we write in its Schmidt decomposition (see Ref. )

$$|\psi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _i}|a_i|b_i,$$
(1)   
the number $`k`$ is the Schmidt rank of the pure state; it is the rank of the reduced density matrix $`\rho _{red}=\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi \psi |`$. A necessary condition for a pure state to be convertible by $`LO+CC`$ to another pure state, is that the Schmidt rank of the first pure state is larger than or equal to the Schmidt rank of the latter pure state; local operations and classical communication cannot increase the Schmidt rank of a state . When we extend this number to the domain of mixed states, we will require that this property of no increase of Schmidt number by $`LO+CC`$ still holds. We propose the following definition which is a natural extension of the one applied to pure states.

###### Definition 1

A bipartite density matrix $`\rho `$ has Schmidt number $`k`$ if (i) for any decomposition of $`\rho `$, $`\{p_i0,|\psi _i\}`$ with $`\rho =_ip_i|\psi _i\psi _i|`$ at least one of vectors $`\{|\psi _i\}`$ has at least Schmidt rank $`k`$ and (ii) there exists a decomposition of $`\rho `$ with all vectors $`\{|\psi _i\}`$ of Schmidt rank at most $`k`$.

The Schmidt number of a pure state $`|\psi `$ is simply the Schmidt rank of the pure state. The Schmidt number of a separable state is 1. Let us denote the set of density matrices on $`_n_n`$ that have Schmidt number $`k`$ or less by $`S_k`$. The set $`S_k`$ is a convex compact subset of the entire set of density matrices denoted by $`S`$, and $`S_{k1}S_k`$. The set of separable density matrices is $`S_1`$.

The set $`S_1`$ has been completely characterized by positive maps . Namely, for any state $`\rho `$ defined on $`_n_n`$, $`\rho S_1`$ holds if and only if the matrix $`(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)(\rho )`$ has nonnegative eigenvalues for all positive maps $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1:_n(𝒞)_n(𝒞)`$ .

Now let us recall the definition of $`k`$-positive linear maps:

###### Definition 2

The linear Hermiticity-preserving map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is $`k`$-positive if and only if

$$(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Lambda })(|\psi \psi |)0,$$
(2)   
for all $`|\psi \psi |S_k`$.

It is not hard to show that when a positive map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n:_n(𝒞)_m(𝒞)`$ is $`n`$-positive, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ is completely positive . Similarly as with the characterization of $`S_1`$ in terms of $`1`$-positive (or, equivalently, positive) maps, we can characterize $`S_k`$ with $`k`$-positive maps:

###### Theorem 1

Let $`\rho `$ be a density matrix on $`_n_n`$. The density matrix $`\rho `$ has Schmidt number at least $`k+1`$ if and only if there exists a $`k`$-positive linear map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$ such that

$$(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Lambda }_k)(\rho )0.$$
(3)   
The proof of this theorem, which involves some technical details, is given at the end of this paper. With our definition of Schmidt number, it is not hard to prove that

###### Proposition 1

The Schmidt number of a density matrix cannot increase under local quantum operations and classical communication.

Proof Consider a density matrix $`\varrho `$ which has some Schmidt number $`k`$. Then it has the form $`\rho =_ip_i|\psi _i\psi _i|`$ with all vectors $`|\psi _i`$ having Schmidt rank at most $`k`$. If there were any $`LO+CC`$ operation which would increase the Schmidt number of the state, it would increase the Schmidt rank of least one of the pure states $`|\psi _i\psi _i|`$. But no $`LO+CC`$ operation can increase the Schmidt rank of a pure state . $`\mathrm{}`$

We will study a well known class of states $`\rho _F`$, mixtures of the completely mixed state and a maximally entangled state, by which we illustrate the notion of Schmidt number and its relation to $`k`$-positive maps. First we note the following:

###### Lemma 1

For any density matrix $`\rho `$ on $`_N_N`$ that has Schmidt number $`k`$, we have

$$f(\rho )\underset{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Psi }|\rho \mathrm{\Psi }\frac{k}{N},$$
(4)   
where we maximize over maximally entangled states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Proof For any pure state $`|\psi \psi |`$ with Schmidt rank $`k`$ characterized by its Schmidt coefficients $`\{\lambda _i\}`$, see Eq. (1), the function $`f`$ equals 

$$f(|\psi \psi |)=\frac{1}{N}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _i}\right]^2.$$
(5)   
Using Lagrange multipliers to implement the constraint $`_i\lambda _i=1`$ one can show that $`[_{i=1}^N\sqrt{\lambda _i}]^2k`$. Since $`\rho `$ has Schmidt number $`k`$, $`f(\rho )=\mathrm{max}_\mathrm{\Psi }_ip_i\mathrm{\Psi }|\psi _i\psi _i|\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{k}{N}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We consider the family of states

$`\rho _F={\displaystyle \frac{1F}{N^21}}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|\right)+F|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|,`$ (6)   
$`0F1,`$ (7)   
with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}_{i=1}^N|ii`$. When $`F\frac{1}{N}`$ the density matrix $`\rho _F`$ is separable while for $`F>\frac{1}{N}`$ it can be distilled by an explicit protocol (see Ref. ).

For these states we have $`f(\rho _F)=F`$. Therefore by Lemma 1, when $`F>\frac{k}{N}`$ the state has Schmidt number at least $`k+1`$. This result has an alternative derivation in terms of $`k`$-positive maps. There exists a well known family of $`k`$-positive maps for which the following has been proved:

###### Lemma 2

 Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ be a family of positive maps on $`_N(𝒞)`$ of the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(X)=\mathrm{Tr}X\mathrm{𝟏}pX,$$
(8)   
where $`X_N`$. The map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ is $`k`$-positive , but $`k+1`$-negative ($`k<N`$) for

$$\frac{1}{k+1}<p\frac{1}{k}.$$
(9)   
Note that the range of $`p`$ for $`k`$-positivity does not depend on the dimension $`N`$ of $`_N`$. We note that the map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p=1}`$ is the reduction criterion that was used in Ref.  to develop a distillation method for entangled density matrices on $`_N_N`$. If we apply these maps $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ on half of $`\rho _F`$, we find the same lower bound on the Schmidt number of $`\rho _F`$.

By giving an explicit decomposition of $`\rho _F`$, we will show that this lower bound on the Schmidt number is tight. We will do so by showing that the density matrix $`\rho _F`$ at the point $`F=\frac{k}{N}`$ can be made by mixing Schmidt rank $`k`$ vectors. If we show that at $`F=\frac{k}{N}`$ the density matrix can be made by mixing Schmidt rank $`k`$ vectors, then it follows that at any $`F<\frac{k}{N}`$ only vectors with Schmidt rank $`k`$ are needed, as we can make these states by mixing the completely mixed state $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ with the density matrix $`\rho _{F=k/N}`$. As observed in Ref. , the states $`\rho _F`$ have the important property that they are invariant under the operation $`UU^{}`$ for any unitary transformation $`U`$. We can define the $`LO+CC`$ superoperator $`𝒮^{UU^{}}`$ as

$$𝒮^{UU^{}}(\rho )=\frac{1}{Vol(U)}𝑑UUU^{}\rho U^{}U_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{},$$
(10)   
which will bring any initial state $`\rho `$ into the form of $`\rho _F`$, i.e. a mixture of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|`$.

As our initial state we take the maximally entangled Schmidt rank $`k`$ state

$$|\psi _k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|ii,$$
(11)   
and let $`𝒮^{UU^{}}`$ operate on this state. We easily find that the resulting density matrix equals $`\frac{k}{N}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|+\frac{1k/N}{N^21}(\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|)`$ which is the desired result. We can summarize these results in a theorem:

###### Theorem 2

The state $`\rho _F`$ in $`_N_N`$ has Schmidt number $`k`$ if and only if

$$\frac{k1}{N}<F\frac{k}{N}.$$
(12)   
For this special class of states we have found that Schmidt number is monotonically related to the amount of entanglement in the state. This is not always the case; a pure state $`|\psi `$ with Schmidt rank $`k`$ can have much less entanglement than, say, the 1 bit of a maximally entangled Schmidt rank 2 state.

When we find that a density matrix $`\rho `$ is of Schmidt number $`k`$, we may ask whether the tensor product $`\rho \rho `$ is of Schmidt number $`k^2`$. Or is it possible to make $`\rho \rho `$ from Schmidt rank $`m<k^2`$ vectors? In other words, when we assign the value $`𝒩(\rho )=\mathrm{log}k`$ to a density matrix $`\rho `$ which has Schmidt number $`k`$, we ask whether $`𝒩(\rho )`$ is additive, i.e.

$$𝒩(\rho ^n)=n\mathrm{log}k.$$
(13)   
For pure states this additivity property holds: The tensor product of two pure entangled states, each with Schmidt rank $`k`$, is a pure state with Schmidt rank $`k^2`$. With a simple argument we can lower bound the function $`𝒩(\rho )`$. When $`\rho `$ itself has Schmidt number $`k`$, then the Schmidt number of any number of copies of $`\rho `$, $`\rho ^n`$, must be at least $`k`$. We can get $`\rho `$ from $`\rho ^n`$ ($`n2`$) by local operations, namely tracing out all states but one. Therefore $`\rho ^n`$ cannot have a smaller Schmidt number than $`\rho `$ itself, since, if it were, then we find a contradiction with Proposition 1. Thus we obtain the bound

$$𝒩(\rho ^n)𝒩(\rho ).$$
(14)   
Let us consider tensor copies of the state $`\rho _F`$, i.e. $`\rho _F^m`$ with $`m2`$ and lower bound the Schmidt number as before. This time, in the space $`_{N^m}_{N^m}`$ we have $`f(\rho _F^m)F^m`$ and with Lemma 1 this implies that when $`F^m>\frac{k}{N^m}`$ the Schmidt number of $`\rho _F^m`$ is at least $`k+1`$. We will give an example of two copies of $`\rho _F`$ in $`_2_2`$ which will show that this bound can be tight. The idea is again to use the $`UU^{}`$ invariance of each copy of $`\rho _F`$. We show how to construct the density matrix $`\rho _F^2`$ where $`\rho _F`$ is a 2-qubit state at $`F=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ by mixing Schmidt rank two vectors. Let $`|\psi `$ be the state

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[|0,\psi _0|0,\psi _0+|1,0|1,0\right],$$
(15)   
where

$$|\psi _0=\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\sqrt{2}1}|0+(1\sqrt{2})|1.$$
(16)   
This is a maximally entangled Schmidt rank two state between $`_{A_1,A_2}`$ and $`_{B_1,B_2}`$. Now Alice and Bob perform the following operations on this state:

* They perform the superoperator $`𝒮^{UU^{}}`$, Eq. (10), on the Hilbert space $`_{A_1}_{B_1}`$ and they apply the same superoperator on $`_{A_2}_{B_2}`$.
* Then Alice and Bob symmetrize the state between system 1 and system 2, i.e. with probability 1/2, they locally swap qubit $`A_1A_2`$ and $`B_1B_2`$ and with probability 1/2 they do nothing.

By these two $`LO+CC`$ operations any initial state is mapped onto a state of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}a(\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|)^2+b|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|[\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|]\hfill \\ +b[\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|]|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|+c(|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|)^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)   
By going through the algebra, one can check that the two operations on the state $`|\psi `$ result in $`a=\frac{[\sqrt{2}1]^2}{18}`$, $`b=\frac{\sqrt{2}1}{6}`$ and $`c=\frac{1}{2}`$. We have shown that the state $`\rho _{F=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ has Schmidt number two and $`\rho _{F=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}^2`$ has Schmidt number 2! This is an example of nonadditivity of the function $`𝒩`$ in Eq. (13). We have numerical evidence that the lower bound on the Schmidt number at $`F=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}`$ is tight as well, i.e. it seems possible to make $`\rho _F^2`$ at $`F=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}`$ with mixing only Schmidt rank 3 vectors. The stepwise behavior of Schmidt number is illustrated in Figure 1.

Since we have found that the Schmidt number can exhibit ‘nonadditivity’, we can define the asymptotic Schmidt characteristic of a state

$$𝒩^{\mathrm{}}(\rho )=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\{\frac{\mathrm{log}k}{m}:\rho ^m\text{ has Schmidt number }k\}.$$
(18)   
The asymptotic Schmidt number of a density matrix gives us some information about whether two states, whose single copy Schmidt number is identical, can be interconverted by $`LO+CC`$. Say we have two density matrices $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ which each have Schmidt number $`k`$. But assume that for some $`n`$ the Schmidt number of $`\rho _1^n`$ is larger than the Schmidt number of $`\rho _2^n`$. Then it follows that a single copy of $`\rho _2`$ cannot be converted by $`LO+CC`$ to $`\rho _2`$, because, if it could, then by repeating this procedure $`n`$ times we could convert $`\rho _2^n`$ to $`\rho _1^n`$, which is in violation of Proposition 1.

In conclusion, we have introduced a new criterion for $`LO+CC`$ convertibility for bipartite mixed states and shown its relation to $`k`$-positive maps. Since the theory of $`k`$-positive maps is not (yet) greatly developed, we have not been able to use this connection extensively. We have found that Schmidt number for mixed states behaves differently than for pure states, in particular it does not necessarily increase when taking tensor copies of a state. This feature of ’nonadditivity’ makes it possible to pose the following open question: Assume that a bipartite state $`\rho _1`$ has a higher Schmidt number than $`\rho _2`$, and thus $`\rho _2`$ cannot be converted to $`\rho _1`$. Assume however that for some $`\rho _{help}`$ we can prove that $`\rho _1\rho _{help}`$ and $`\rho _2\rho _{help}`$ have the same Schmidt number or that $`\rho _2\rho _{help}`$ has a larger Schmidt number. Then it could possibly be that $`\rho _2\rho _{help}`$ can be converted to $`\rho _1\rho _{help}`$. This would be an example of the use of borrowing of entanglement for mixed state conversions. Such a borrowing scheme has been found for exact pure state conversion ; it would be interesting to see whether it is possible in the mixed state domain.

Acknowledgments: BMT would like to thank David DiVincenzo and Armin Uhlmann for interesting discussions. BMT acknowledges support of the ARO under contract number DAAG-55-98-C-0041. PH is grateful to Maciej Lewenstein and Karol Życzkowski for stimulating discussions. He also acknowledges support from Polish Committee for Scientific Research, grant No. 2 PO3B 103 16, and partial support from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst. Part of this work has been carried out at the ESF-Newton Institute Workshop on ‘Computation, Complexity and the Physics of Information’ held in Cambridge U.K., July 1999.

Proof of Theorem 1

Before proving Theorem 3 it will be useful to give some properties related to $`k`$-positivity and an alternative formulation of $`k`$-positivity:

###### Lemma 3

The linear Hermiticity-preserving map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is $`k`$-positive if and only if

$$(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Lambda })(|\mathrm{\Psi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }_k|)0,$$
(19)   
for all $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_k`$ which are maximally entangled Schmidt rank $`k`$ vectors. The linear Hermiticity-preserving map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is $`k`$-positive if and only if

$$\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{k}{}}\sqrt{\mu _n\mu _m}b_n|\mathrm{\Lambda }(|a_na_m|)|b_m0,$$
(20)   
for all possible orthogonal sets of vectors $`\{|a_n\}_{n=1}^k`$ and $`\{|b_n\}_{n=1}^k`$ and Schmidt coefficients $`\{\mu _n\}`$, $`_{n=1}^k\mu _n=1`$. Finally, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is $`k`$-positive, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ defined by $`\mathrm{Tr}A^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(B)=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(A^{})B`$ for all $`A`$ and $`B`$, is also $`k`$-positive.

Proof (sketch) Equation (19) can be proved in a fashion completely analogous to Lemma 7 in Ref. ; there it is proved for $`k=2`$. Equation (20) has been proved by A. Uhlmann  and can be understood as follows. It is equivalent to

$$\begin{array}{c}_{n,m,i,j=1}^k\sqrt{\mu _n\mu _m}\\ \gamma _n,b_n|(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Lambda })(|\gamma _i,a_i\gamma _j,a_j|)|\gamma _m,b_m0,\end{array}$$
(21)   
for any orthogonal set $`\{|\gamma _n\}_{n=1}^k`$, or

$$\psi |(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Lambda })(|\mathrm{\Psi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }_k|)|\psi 0,$$
(22)   
for arbitrary $`|\psi `$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_k`$. The $`k`$-positivity of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ can be seen by noting that Eq. (2) can be written in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ as

$$\psi |(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})(|\varphi \varphi |)|\psi 0,$$
(23)   
for all $`|\psi \psi |S_k`$ and arbritrary $`|\varphi `$. Since $`|\psi `$ has Schmidt rank $`k`$ or less, it follows that we can restrict the state $`|\varphi `$ to be of Schmidt rank $`k`$ as well, or $`|\varphi \varphi |S_k`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 3 Consider the “if” part of the theorem. Suppose, conversely, that there exist some $`\varrho `$ of Schmidt number at most $`k`$ for which at some time Eq. (3) is satisfied for some k-positive map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$. The first assumption guarantees that $`\varrho `$ is a convex combination of pure states $`|\psi _i\psi _i|`$ of Schmidt rank at most $`k`$ each. From the definition of $`k`$-positivity it follows immediately that all $`|\psi _i\psi _i|`$ remain positive after the action of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$, so their convex combination equal to $`\varrho `$ remains positive too. But this then is in a contradiction with Eq. (3).   
Consider the “only if” part of the theorem. Let $`\rho `$ have Schmidt number at least $`k+1`$, i.e. $`\rho S_k`$. Then there exists a hyperplane $`\{\sigma S|\mathrm{Tr}H\sigma =0\}`$ which separates the convex compact set $`S_k`$ and the point $`\rho S_k`$, i.e. there exists a Hermitian operator $`H`$ such that

$$\mathrm{Tr}H\rho <0\mathrm{and}\sigma S_k\mathrm{Tr}H\sigma 0.$$
(24)   
We will show that we can associate with this Hermitian operator $`H`$ a positive linear map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$ which is $`k`$-positive. We define $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as

$$H=(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Lambda }_k)(|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|),$$
(25)   
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}_{i=1}^n|ii`$. We use $`\mathrm{Tr}H\sigma 0`$ where we take $`\sigma `$ to be an entangled Schmidt rank $`k`$ vector, $`\sigma =_{n,m=1}^k\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}|a_m,b_ma_n,b_n|`$. We will denote transposition in the full $`\{|a_n\}`$ basis as $`T^a`$. We can rewrite the expression

$$\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{k}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}\mathrm{Tr}H|a_m,b_ma_n,b_n|0,$$
(26)   
using Eq. (25) and the expansion of a linear map $`𝒮`$ on an operator $`X`$ as $`𝒮(X)=_{i,j=1}^ni|X|j𝒮(|ij|)`$, as

$$\frac{1}{n}\underset{m,n=1}{\overset{k}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _n\lambda _m}b_n|\mathrm{\Lambda }_kTT^a(|a_na_m|)|b_m0.$$
(27)   
Lemma 3 then implies that the map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_kTT^a`$ is $`k`$-positive. The map $`TT^a`$ maps the vector $`|a_n`$ onto $`|a_n^{}`$ where complex conjugation is performed with respect to the $`\{|i\}`$ basis. This corresponds to a unitary rotation from the $`\{|a_n\}`$ basis to the $`\{|a_n^{}\}`$ basis. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$ itself will be $`k`$-positive. On the other hand the condition $`\mathrm{Tr}H\rho <0`$ can be rewritten, using Eq. (25), as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^+|(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^{})(\rho )|\mathrm{\Psi }^+<0.$$
(28)   
Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$ is $`k`$-positive, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^{}`$ is $`k`$-positive, see Lemma 3. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$