\section{Introduction}

Throughout this paper we consider topological spaces on which  no separation axioms are assumed unless explicity stated. The topology of a space is denoted by ${\mathcal T}$ and $(X,{\mathcal T})$ will be replaced by $X$ if there is no chance for confusion. For a subset $A$ of $(X, {\mathcal T})$, the closure, the interior, the boundary and the set of accumulation points of $A$ are denoted by ${\rm cl}_{\mathcal T}(A)$ or ${\rm cl}_X(A)$, ${\rm int}_{\mathcal T}(A)$ or ${\rm int}_X(A)$, ${\rm Fr}_{\mathcal T}(A)$ or  ${\rm Fr}_X(A)$ and $A'$, respectively. In places where there is no chance for confusion $\overline{A}$ and $A^\circ$ stands for  ${\rm cl}_{\mathcal T}(A)$ and ${\rm int}_{\mathcal T}(A)$, respectively. If $A\subseteq X$ be open, closed or locally closed respect to the topology ${\mathcal T}$ on $X$, then we write sometimes to avoid confusion, ${\mathcal T}$-open, ${\mathcal T}$-closed or ${\mathcal T}$-locally closed, respectively. A subset $A$ of a topological space $X$ is called locally closed if for every $x\in A$ there is an open set $U\subseteq X$ such that $x\in U$ and $A\cap U$ is closed in $U$. Since the intersection of two locally closed sets is locally closed, the family of ${\mathcal T}$-locally closed sets forms a base for a finer topology ${\mathcal T_l}$ on $X$. For a Tychonoff (completely regular Hausdorff) space $X$, $\beta X$ is the Stone-\v{C}ech compactification and $\upsilon X$ is the Hewitt realcompactification of $X$. It is well known that $X$ is compact, pseudocompact or realcompact if and only if $\beta X=X$, $\beta X=\upsilon X$ or $\upsilon X=X$, respectively.  For a Tychonoff space the symbol $C(X)$ (resp. $C^*(X)$) denotes  the ring of all continuous real valued (resp. all bounded continuous real valued) functions defined on  $X$. We say that a subspace $S$ of $X$ is $C^*$-embedded in $X$ if every function in $C^*(S)$ can be extended to a function in $C^*(X)$. For $f\in C(X)$, the zero-set of $f$ is the set $Z(f)=\{x\in X:f(x)=0\}$. The set-theoretic complement of $Z(f)$ is denoted by $coz(f)$. The support of a function $f\in C(X)$ is the $\overline{coz(f)}$. For any $p\in\beta X$, the maximal ideal $M^p$ (resp. the ideal $O^p$) is the set of all $f\in C(X)$ for which $p\in {\rm cl}_{\beta X}Z(f)$ (resp. $p\in{\rm int}_{\beta X}{\rm cl}_{\beta X}Z(f)$). More generally, for $A\subseteq \beta X$, $M^A$ (resp. $O^A$) is the intersection of all $M^p$ (resp. $O^p$) with $p\in A$. It is clear that $O^A\subseteq M^A$.

A space $X$ is said to be a, a) door space if every set is either open or closed; b) $T_\frac{1}{2}$-space if every singleton is either open or closed; c) submaximal space if every dense subset is open; d) principal space, if every intersection of open sets is open, e) $c$-principal space, if every countable intersection of open sets (i.e., $G_\delta$-set) is open, f) resolvable space if it has two disjoint dense subsets.

Tychonoff $c$-principal spaces are the same $P$-spaces, see Exercise 4J of \cite{GJ}. A door space is submaximal and a submaximal space is $T_\frac{1}{2}$. The one-point compactification of any discrete space is submaximal. A nonempty resolvable space never submaximal. For example, $\Bbb R$ and $\beta \Bbb Q$ are resolvable spaces. For more information about the locally closed sets, see \cite{AC, D, GR}, about the submaximal spaces, see \cite{AC, D, BDE, ABK}, about the door spaces, see \cite{BDE, DLT} and about the $T_\frac{1}{2}$-spaces, see \cite{AT}. For details about $\beta X$ and $\upsilon X$, see \cite{GJ, Wal} and about other concepts of general topology, see \cite{En, Wil}.

Section 2, of this paper is devoted to investigate some separation properties between  $(X, {\mathcal T})$ and  $(X, {\mathcal T_l})$. Such as we show that  $(X, {\mathcal T_l})$ is discrete if and only if $(X, {\mathcal T})$ is a $T_D$-space.  We show that, in this section, if $\beta X$ is submaximal, then $X$ is compact and therefor, in this case, we conclude that $X=\beta X$.   We also prove that if  $\upsilon X$ is submaximal and first countable and $X$ is without isolated point, then $X$ is realcompact. We observe that every submaximal Hausdorff space is pseudo-finite. It turns out that if $\upsilon X$ is a submaximal space, then $X$ is a pseudo-finite $\mu$-compact space.
In Section 3, we study and investigate the behavior locally indiscrete spaces. We observe that $(X, {\mathcal T})$ is a locally indiscrete space if and only if ${\mathcal T}={\mathcal T_l}$ if and only if every dense open subset of $X$ is regular open. In Section 4, we introduce some lc-properties such as lc-regular and lc-completely regular and compare them with the concepts regular and completely regular. We prove that every clopen subset of a lc-compact space is lc-compact.

\section{Locally closed sets and ${\mathcal T_l}$-topology}

 A space $X$ is called a $T_D$-space if every singleton is locally closed. It is well known that the space $X$ is submaximal if and only if every subset of $X$ is locally closed, see Theorem 4.2 of \cite{D} and also every subspace of a submaximal space is submaximal, see Theorem 1.1 of \cite{D}.

The proof of the following proposition is straightforward.

\begin{prop}
The following statements are equivalent, for a subset $A$ of the space $X$.\\
a) $A$ is a locally closed set.\\
b) $A=G\cap B$, which $G$ is open and $B$ is closed.\\
c) $A=H\cap\overline{A}$, which $H$ is open.\\
d) $A=E-F$, which $E$ and $F$ are closed.\\
e) $\overline{A}-A$ is a closed set.\\
f) $A\subseteq (A\cup(X-\overline{A}))^\circ$.\\
g) $A\cup(X-\overline{A})$ is an open set.
\end{prop}

\begin{Rem}
a) Every closed (resp. open) set is locally closed.\\
b) Every dense locally closed set is open.\\
c) The intersection of finite number locally closed sets is locally closed.\\
d) Every intersection of locally closed sets  may not be locally closed.\\
e) The complement of a locally closed set need not be locally closed. For example, $A=\{\frac{1}{n}:n=1,\cdots\}$ is a locally closed set in $\Bbb R$ while $\Bbb R-A$ is not locally closed.\\
f) The union of two locally closed sets need not be locally closed. For example, suppose that $A=(-\infty, 0]$ and $B=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty(\frac{1}{n+1},\frac{1}{n})$ in $\Bbb R$. Then $A\cup B$ is not locally closed.\\
g) The union of two completely separated locally closed sets is locally closed.\\
h) If $A$ is preopen, (that is, $A\subseteq{\rm int}{\rm cl}(A)$) then it is open if and only if it is locally closed.\\
i) If $\overline{A}$ is open, where $A$ is locally closed, then $A$ is open.\\
j) If $A$ is locally closed and $B$ is clopen, then $\overline{A\cap B}$ is locally closed.\\
k) If $A$ and $B$ are locally closed, then the equal $\overline{A\cap B}=\overline{A}\cap\overline{B}$ may not be true. For example, let $X=\{a,b\}$ and ${\mathcal T}=\{\emptyset, \{a\}, X\}$. Now suppose that $A=\{a\}$ and $B=\{b\}$.\\
l) Let $X$ be a topological space and $Y$ a subspace of $X$. The set $A\subseteq Y$ is locally closed in $Y$ if and only if $A=Y\cap B$, where $B$ is locally closed in $X$.\\
m) In a locally compact Hausdorff space, any subset is locally closed if and only if it is a locally compact set, see Theorem 18.4 of \cite{Wil} or Corollary 3.3.10 of \cite{En}.\\
n) Let $X, Y$ are topological spaces,  the continuous mapping $f:X\to Y$ is one-to-one and let the one element family $\{f\}$ separates points and closed sets. If $X$ is a $T_1$-space and $f(X)$ is open subset of $Y$, then $f(X)$ is  a $T_D$-space, see Lemma 2.3.19 of \cite{En}.\\
o) A locally closed set $A$ of $X$ is dense in $X$ if and only if there is an open set $G$ of $X$ such that $A\cap G$ is dense in $X$.\\
p) Every discrete subset of a $T_1$-space is locally closed.\\
q)  $A\subseteq X$ is locally closed in $X$ if and only if it is locally closed in $\overline{A}$.
\end{Rem}

Given a topological space $(X,{\mathcal T})$, the collection of all locally closed subsets of $X$ forms a base for a topology on $X$ which is denotes by ${\mathcal T_l}$. It is clear that ${\mathcal T}\subseteq {\mathcal T_l}$ and in locally indiscrete spaces we have ${\mathcal T}={\mathcal T_l}$, see Proposition \ref{p33}. In the sequel, we study some topological properties between  $(X,{\mathcal T})$ and $(X,{\mathcal T_l})$.

\begin{prop}
$(X,{\mathcal T})$ is indiscrete if and only if $(X,{\mathcal T_l})$ is a connected space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
$(\Rightarrow)$
Let $G\in {\mathcal T}$ and let $\emptyset\neq G\neq X$. Clearly $G\in{\mathcal T_l}$ and $X-G\in {\mathcal T_l}$ and therefore $(X,{\mathcal T_l})$ is disconnected.\\
$(\Leftarrow)$ Suppose that $X=G\cup H$, which $G$ and $H$ are two nonempty disjoint ${\mathcal T_l}$-open sets and let $x\in G$. Hence there is a ${\mathcal T}$-locally closed set $A$  such that $x\in A\subseteq G$. Therefor $A=U\cap {\rm cl}_{\mathcal T}A$, where $U\in {\mathcal T}$. If $U\neq X$, then we are done. Assume that $U=X$. This implies that $A={\rm cl}_{\mathcal T}A$, that is, $X-A$ is a  ${\mathcal T}$-open. Since $\emptyset\neq H\subseteq X-A$, we infer that $X-A\neq\emptyset$. Now if $X-A=X$, then $A=\emptyset$ which is not true. Consequently, $\emptyset\neq X-A\neq X$ is a  ${\mathcal T}$-open set. This complete the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
$(X,{\mathcal T})$ is a $T_0$-space if and only if $(X,{\mathcal T_l})$ is a $T_0$-space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
$(\Rightarrow)$ It is trivial.\\
$(\Leftarrow)$ Let $x,y\in X$ and $x\neq y$. Hence there is $G\in{\mathcal T_l}$ such that $x\in G$ and $y\notin G$. Let $A$ be  ${\mathcal T}$-locally closed set such that $x\in A\subseteq G$. Therefor $A=U\cap {\rm cl}_{\mathcal T}A$, where $U\in {\mathcal T}$. If $y\notin U$, then we are done. If $y\in U$, then $y\notin{\rm cl}_{\mathcal T}A$. Otherwise $y\in A$ and so $y\in G$ which is not true. Thus there is $V\in{\mathcal T}$ such that $y\in V$ and $V\cap A=\emptyset$. This consequence that $x\notin V$ and this complete the proof.
\end{proof}

If $(X,{\mathcal T})$ is a $T_1$-space then $(X,{\mathcal T_l})$ is discrete. The converse is not true. For example, let $X=\{a,b\}$ and ${\mathcal T}=\{\emptyset, \{a\}, X\}$. For the converse see the next proposition.

\begin{prop}
 $(X,{\mathcal T})$ is a $T_D$-space if and only if $(X,{\mathcal T_l})$ is discrete.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
$(\Rightarrow)$ It is trivial.\\
$(\Leftarrow)$  Let $x\in X$. Hence $\{x\}\in {\mathcal T_l}$, and therefore there is a  ${\mathcal T}$-locally closed set	$A$ such that $x\in A\subseteq \{x\}$. It implies that $A=\{x\}$, i.e.,  $(X,{\mathcal T})$ is a $T_D$-space.
\end{proof}

\begin{Rem}
Every $T_D$-space is $T_0$. The converse is false. For example, we consider the topology ${\mathcal T}=\{(a,\infty):a\in \Bbb R\}\cup\{\emptyset, \Bbb R\}$ on $\Bbb R$.
\end{Rem}
If ${\mathcal T}$ be the principal
topology on $X$, then every element $x\in X$ has a minimal open neighborhood $M_x = \bigcap\{G\in{\mathcal T}: x\in G\}$. For details about principal topology, see \cite{R}.
\begin{lem}
Every principal $T_0$-space is $T_D$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $x\in X$. If $\overline{\{x\}}=\{x\}$, then we are done. Hence, assume that $x\neq x_0\in\overline{\{x\}}$. Since there is no an open set $G$ such that $x_0\in G$ and $x\notin G$ we infer that there is an open set $H$ such that $x\in H$ and $x_0\notin H$. Now let $U=M_x$ be the minimal open neighborhood of $x$. We claim that $\{x\}=U\cap\overline{\{x\}}$. Assume that $t\in U\cap\overline{\{x\}}$. We show that $t=x$. If not, then two cases occur. In the first case, there is an open set $V$ such that $t\in V$ and $x\notin V$, which is not true, for $t\in \overline{\{x\}}$. In the second case, there is an open set $W$ such that $t\notin W$ and $x\in W$. Now since $t\in U$, we conclude that $t\in W$ which is not true. Consequently, $t=x$ and this implies that $\{x\}$ is locally closed set.
\end{proof}

\begin{Rem}
a) If $(X, {\mathcal T})$ is a principal space, then every intersection of locally closed sets is locally closed.\\
b) If  $(X,{\mathcal T})$ is a principal space, then $(X,{\mathcal T_l})$ is principal. The converse is false. For example, 	$(\Bbb R,{\mathcal T_l})$ is principal but $(\Bbb R,{\mathcal T_u})$, where ${\mathcal T_u}$ denotes usual topology on $\Bbb R$, is not principal.
\end{Rem}

\begin{exam}
 A continuous image of a $T_D$-space need not be $T_D$-space. Let $X=(0,1)$ with usual topology and $Y=(1,\infty)$ with ${\mathcal T_Y}=\{Y\cap G:G\in {\mathcal T}\}$, where ${\mathcal T}=\{(a,\infty):a\in \Bbb R\}\cup\{\emptyset, \Bbb R\}$ on $\Bbb R$. We define $f:X\to Y$ by $f(x)=\frac{1}{x}$. Then $f$ is a one-to-one and onto which is continuous. To prove continuity,  suppose that $H\subseteq Y$ be open and $f(x_0)\in H$, where $x_0\in X$. There is $0<r\in \Bbb R$ such that $r<\frac{1}{x_0}$ and $H=(r,\infty)$. We put $G=(s,\frac{1}{r})$, where $s<x_0$. It is clear that $f(G)\subseteq H$. Note that $X$ is a $T_D$-space while $Y$ is not a $T_D$-space.

\end{exam}
If $\prod_{\alpha \in\Lambda}X_{\alpha}$ is a $T_D$-space, then $X_{\alpha}$ is a $T_D$-space for each $\alpha\in\Lambda$. The converse is true if $I$ is finite. In the next example we see that an arbitrary product of $T_D$-spaces need not be $T_D$.
\begin{exam}
Let $X_n=\{a,b\}$ and ${\mathcal T_n}=\{\emptyset, \{a\}, X\}$, for any $n\in \Bbb N$ and let $X=\prod_{n \in\Bbb N}X_n$. Suppose that $x=(x_n)\in X$, where $x_n=a$ for every $n\in \Bbb N$. It is clear that $x$ belongs to every nonempty open set in $X$. We claim that $\{x\}$ is not a locally closed set. Otherwise, there is an open set $G$ and a closed set $F$ such that $\{x\}=G\cap F$. If $F\neq X$, then $x\in F\cap(X-F)$ which is not true. If $F=X$, then $\{x\}=G$. But $G=\prod_{n \in\Bbb N}G_n$, where $G_n=X_n$, for every $n\notin I$, which $I\subseteq \Bbb N$ is finite and this is impossible. It is consequence that $\{x\}$ is not locally closed.
\end{exam}

\begin{lem}
 $X=\prod_{\alpha \in\Lambda}X_{\alpha}$ is a $c$-principal space if and only if all but finitely many of the $X_{\alpha}$ are trivial spaces.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is straightforward.
\end{proof}
In the sequel, by $|A|$ we mean the cardinality of $A$ for every set $A$.
\begin{Rem}
Let	 $X=\prod_{\alpha \in\Lambda}X_{\alpha}$ be a $c$-principal space and $|I|\leq\aleph_0$. Then $X$ is a $T_D$-space if and only if each factor space is a $T_D$-space, see part (b) of Exercise 2.3.B of \cite{En}.
\end{Rem}

Every $T_\frac{1}{2}$-space is $T_D$. The converse is not true. For example, let $X=\Bbb N$ and ${\mathcal T}=\{E_n:n=1,\cdots\}\cup\{\emptyset\}$, where $E_n=\{n,n+1,\cdots\}$, for any $n\in\Bbb N$. Since $\{n\}=E_n\cap(\Bbb N-E_{n+1})$, we infer that $\Bbb N$ is a $T_D$-space. It is clear that the set $\{2\}$ neither open nor closed, so $\Bbb N$ is not a $T_\frac{1}{2}$-space.

Recall that union of two locally closed sets may not be locally closed. In the next example, we see that even if we add a cluster point to a locally closed set, the resulting set may not be locally closed. In other words,
if $A$ is locally closed and $x\in\overline{A}-A$, then $A\cup\{x\}$ need not be locally closed.
\begin{exam}
Suppose that $X=\Bbb R$,  and for any $k\in \Bbb N$, let $A_k=\{\frac{n+1}{kn+1}:n=1,\cdots\}$. We consider $A=\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty A_k$ and we put $B=A-\{1,\frac{1}{2},\cdots\}$. Then $\overline{B}-B=\{0,1,\frac{1}{2},\cdots\}$ is closed and hence $B$ is locally closed in $\Bbb R$. Now assume that $C=B\cup\{0\}$. Clearly,  $\overline{B}=\overline{C}$. Note that $\overline{C}-C=\{1,\frac{1}{2},\cdots\}$ is not closed set in $\Bbb R$ and hence $C$ is not locally closed.
\end{exam}

\begin{exam}
An arbitrary product of Tychonoff, compact and submaximal spaces need not be submaximal. For example, assume that $X_n^*=X_n\cup\{\sigma_n\}$ be a one-point compactification of a discrete space $X_n$, for every $n\in \Bbb N$. Suppose that $X=\prod_{n\in\Bbb N}X_n^*$ and suppose that $A=\prod_{n\in\Bbb N}X_n$, then $A$ is dense in $X$ which is not open.

\end{exam}

\begin{prop}
Let $X$ be a submaximal space and $A, B\subseteq X$ with $A\cap B=\emptyset$. Then $\overline{A}\cap\overline{B}$ is discrete.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $x\in\overline{A}\cap\overline{B}$. Hence $A\cup\{x\}$	is locally closed in $\overline{A}$. Therefor there is an open set $G$ in $\overline{A}$ such that $A\cup\{x\}=G\cap{\rm cl}_{\overline{A}}(A\cup\{x\})$. Let $U$ be open in $X$ such that $G=U\cap \overline{A}$. Note that ${\rm cl}_{\overline{A}}(A\cup\{x\})={\rm cl}_X(A\cup\{x\})\cap\overline{A}=\overline{A}\cap\overline{A}=\overline{A}$. This implies that $A\cup\{x\}=U\cap\overline{A}$. Similarly, there is an open set $V$ in $X$ such that $B\cup\{x\}=V\cap\overline{B}$. Now $\{x\}=(A\cup\{x\})\cap(B\cup \{x\})=(U\cap\overline{A})\cap(V\cap\overline{B})=(U\cap V)\cap(\overline{A}\cap\overline{B})$. This consequence that $x$ is an isolated point of  $\overline{A}\cap\overline{B}$.
\end{proof}
If  $X$ is a submaximal space and $A\subseteq X$, then ${\rm Fr}(A)$ is a discrete subset of $X$.  Also if $X$ is a submaximal space and $A$ is a discrete subset of $X$, then $\overline{A'}$ is discrete and if in addition $X$ is a $T_1$-space, then $A'$ is discrete.

\begin{thm}\label{t1}
If $\beta X$ is a submaximal space, then $X$ is compact. In this case $\beta X=X$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Since $\beta X$ is countably compact, by Theorem 4.20 of \cite{ABK},  $\beta X$ is a finite disjoint union of one-point compactification of some discrete spaces. Suppose that $\beta X=\bigcup_{i=1}^nX^*_i$, where $X^*_i$ is the one-point compactification  of  discrete space $X_i$, for every $i=1,\cdots,n$. Assume that $X^*_i=X_i\cup\{\sigma_i\}$, $Y=\bigcup_{i=1}^nX_i$ and $A=\{\sigma_1,\cdots,\sigma_n\}$. Clearly, $Y$ is discrete and hence $Y\subseteq X$. It is sufficient to show that $A\subseteq X$. On the contrary suppose that $A\cap(\beta X-X)=I$ is a nonempty set. Then $D=\bigcup_{i\in I}X_i$ is discrete and $X=D\cup(\bigcup_{i\notin I}X^*_i)$. One can easily see that $D$ is $C^*$-embedded in $X$ and consequently  is $C^*$-embedded in $\beta X$. Hence, ${\rm cl}_{\beta X}D=\beta D$ and therefor $\beta D\subseteq\bigcup_{i\in I}X^*_i$. This implies that $|\beta D|\leq|\bigcup_{i\in I}X^*_i|=\sum_{i\in I}|X_i|=|D|$ which is contradiction, for by Theorem 9.2 of \cite{GJ} we have  $|\beta D|=2^{2^{|D|}}$.
\end{proof}

The converse of the above theorem is not true, in general. For example, $X=\beta \Bbb Q$ is compact, while $\beta X=\beta\Bbb Q$ is not a submaximal space. Also, if $X$ is a submaximal space, then $\beta X$ may not be submaximal. For example, $\Bbb N$ is submaximal but $\beta\Bbb N$ is not submaximal.

\begin{cor}
Let $\upsilon X$ be a submaximal space. The following statements are equivalent.\\
a) $X$ is compact.\\
b) $X$ is $\sigma$-compact.\\
c) $X$ is countably compact.\\
d) $X$ is pseudocompact.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
$(a\Rightarrow b)$ and $(c\Rightarrow d)$ are trivial.\\
$(b\Rightarrow c)$ Since $X$ is union a finite number of compact spaces, then it is countably compact.\\
$(c\Rightarrow a)$ If $X$ is a pseudocompact space, then $\upsilon X=\beta X$ and by hypothesis $\beta X$ is submaximal. Now by Theorem \ref{t1} we conclude that $X$ is compact.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
If $X$ is a dense countably compact set in $T$ and $T$ is a Hausdorff submaximal space, then $X=Y$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $X$ is a submaximal space, then by Theorem 4.21 of \cite{ABK}, $X$ is compact and since $T$ is Hausdorff, we infer that $X$ is closed in $T$. Therefor, by density  of $X$ we have $X=T$.
\end{proof}
By the above lemma the proof of the next corollary is obvious.
\begin{cor}
If $\upsilon X$ is submaximal and $X$ is countably compact, then $X$ is realcompact.
\end{cor}

\begin{Rem}
We denote the set of all isolated points of space $X$ with $I(X)$. If $X$ is open in $T$, then $I(X)\subseteq I(T)$ and if $X$ is dense in $T$, then $I(T)\subseteq I(X)$. Hence, if $X$ is an open dense set in $T$, then $I(X)=I(T)$.
\end{Rem}

\begin{thm}\label{t2}
Suppose that $T$ is a first countable, Hausdorff and submaximal space and $X$ is a dense set in $T$ and $I(X)=\emptyset$. Then $X=T$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $p\in T-X$. Hence, there is an infinite sequence $(x_n)$ contained in $X$ which converges to $p$. Put $A=\{x_n:n=1,\cdots\}\cup\{p\}$. Let $N$ be a copy of $\Bbb N$ contained in $A$. Since $A$ is compact, then $N$ has an accumulation point in $A$, namely $x_0$. We claim that $\overline{T-N}=T$. To see this, let $a\in T$ and $a\in G\subseteq T$, which $G$ is an open set in $T$. We must show that $G\cap (T-N)\neq\emptyset$. If not, then $a\in G\subseteq N$ and hence there is an open set $H$ in $T$ such that $H\cap N=\{a\}$. It is clear that $H\cap G=\{a\}$, that is $a\in I(T)$ which is contradiction. Now one can easily see that $x_0\in T-N$ while $x_0\notin (T-N)^\circ$, that is $T-N$ is not open, so it contradicts the submaximality  of $T$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
Let $X$ be a compact submaximal space. Then $|I(X)|$ is finite if and only if $X$ is finite.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $|I(X)|$ is finite. If $X-I(X)$ is infinite, then similar to the proof of the Theorem \ref{t2}, we can show that $X$ is not submaximal, which is a contradiction. Hence $X-I(X)$ is finite and so $X$ is finite.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
If $\upsilon X$ is submaximal and  first countable and $I(X)=\emptyset$, then $X=\upsilon X$ i.e., $X$ is realcompact.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{t2}	is clear.
\end{proof}

A space $X$ is called a pseudo-finite (resp. pseudo-discrete) space if every compact subspace of $X$ is finite (resp. has finite interior). We say that $X$ is real pseudo-finite, if $\upsilon X$ is pseudo-finite. Every  pseudo-finite space is pseudo-discrete, but not conversely. For example, we consider the space $\Bbb Q$ of rational numbers.

\begin{exam}
The space $\Sigma$ is pseudo-finite. To see this, let $F\subseteq\Sigma$ be a compact subspace. If $\sigma\notin F$, then $F$ is  discrete and hence it is finite. If $\sigma\in F$ and $F$ is infinite, then assume that $A=\{x_1, x_2,\cdots\}$ be an infinite subset of $F$ and put $G=(\Bbb N-\{x_1\})\cup\{\sigma\}$. Now ${\mathcal C}=\{\{x_n\}:n=1,\cdots\}\cup\{G\}$ be an open cover for $F$ which has not a finite subcover. This is a contradiction.
\end{exam}

\begin{prop}\label{p44}
Every submaximal Hausdorff space is pseudo-finite.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $X$ be a submaximal Hausdorff space and let $Y$ be a compact subspace of $X$. If $Y$ be infinite, then contains a copy of $\Bbb N$, namely $N$. Suppose that $x_0\in N'$, where $x_0\in Y$. Now similar to the proof of the Theorem \ref{t2}, it is observe that $X-N$ is dense in $X$ but it is not an open set in $X$, so it contradicts the submaximality of $X$.
\end{proof}

A  pseudo-finite Tychonoff space may be not submaximal. For example, $\Bbb Q$ is  pseudo-finite but not submaximal. See also the following example.

\begin{exam}
We consider the space $X$ in Example 2 of \cite{RW}. This example shows that the Tychonoff space $X$ is an infinite countably compact subset of $\beta\Bbb N$ 	which is also pseudo-finite. We claim that $X$ is not submaximal. Otherwise, by Theorem 4.20 of \cite{ABK}, $X$ must be a compact space. In this case, since $X$ is pseudo-finite, it must be finite, which is not true.
\end{exam}

$C_K(X)$ (resp. $C_\psi(X)$) is the family of all $f\in C(X)$ with compact (resp. pseudocompact) support. Also $C_{\infty}(X)$ is a subcollection of $C^*(X)$ consisting of all functions vanishing at infinity, that is all $f\in C(X)$ for which $\{x\in X:|f(x)|\geq\frac{1}{n}\}$ is compact for every $n\in\Bbb N$. For the convenience of readers, some special ideals are listed below.

a) $C_F(X)=O^{\beta X\setminus I(X)}$ is the intersection of all essential ideals in $C(X)$. Recall that $C_F(X)$ is the socle of $C(X)$ and it is well known  that $C_F(X)=\{f\in C(X):coz(f)~\mbox{is finite}\}$, see Proposition 3.3 of \cite{KR}.

b) $C_K(X)=O^{\beta X\setminus X}$ is the intersection of all free ideals in $C(X)$, see 7E of \cite{GJ}.

c) $C_\infty(X)=M^{*\beta X\setminus X}$ is the intersection of all free maximal ideals in $C^*(X)$.

d) $C_\psi(X)=M^{\beta X\setminus \upsilon X}$ is the intersection of all hyper-real maximal ideals in $C(X)$.

e) $I_\psi(X)=M^{\beta X\setminus X}$ is the intersection of all free maximal ideals in $C(X)$.\\

One can easily see that $C_F(X)\subseteq C_K(X)\subseteq I_{\psi}(X)$. In Theorem 8.19 of \cite{GJ}, it is shown that if $X$ is realcompact, then $C_K(X)=I_{\psi}(X)$. In part (a) of Theorem 4.5 of \cite{Az}, it is proved that $X$ is a pseudo-discrete if and only if $C_F(X)=C_K(X)$.

In \cite{JM} a space $X$ is called:\\
a) a $\mu$-compact if $C_K(X)=I_{\psi}(X)$.\\
b) an $\eta$-compact if $C_{\psi}(X)=I_{\psi}(X)$.\\
c) a $\psi$-compact if $C_K(X)=C_{\psi}(X)$.\\
d) an $\infty$-compact if $C_K(X)=C_{\infty}(X)$.

In \cite{M} a space $X$ is called an $i$-compact if $C_{\infty}(X)=I_{\psi}(X)$.

\begin{prop}
If $\upsilon X$ is a submaximal space, then $X$ is a pseudo-finite $\mu$-compact space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Corollary \ref{p44}, $X$ is 	pseudo-finite. Since $X$ is real  pseudo-finite, by Theorem 3.8 of \cite{KR}, we infer that $C_K(X)=I_\psi(X)$, that is, $X$ is a $\mu$-compact space.
\end{proof}

The converse of the above proposition is not true, in general. For example, $\Bbb Q$ is a pseudo-finite $\mu$-compact space but $\upsilon\Bbb Q=\Bbb Q$ is not submaximal.\\
By part (b) of Theorem 4.5 of \cite{Az}, the proof of the result is obvious.
\begin{cor}
Let $X$ be a submaximal Hausdorff space and $|I(X)|<\aleph_0$. Then $C_K(X)=C_{\infty}(X)$.
\end{cor}

\begin{prop}
Let $\upsilon X$ be a submaximal space and $|I(X)|<\aleph_0$. Then the following statement are hold.\\
a) $X$ is a $i$-compact.\\
b) $X$ is a $\infty$-compact.\\
c) $X$ is compact if and only if it is a realcompact space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof of parts (a) and (b) and implication ($\Rightarrow$) of (c) is clear. For the other side of (c), since $X$ is $i$-compact, then $C_{\infty}(X)=I_{\psi}(X)$. Since $X$ is realcompact, we infer that $C_{\psi}(X)=I_{\psi}(X)=C_K(X)$, that is, $X$ is $\eta$-compact and $\psi$-compact. Hence $C_{\infty}(X)=C_{\psi}(X)$  and by Corollary 2.5 of \cite{AS} we conclude that $X$ is compact.
\end{proof}

Similar to Theorem \ref{t1}, the question arises that if $\upsilon X$ is a submaximal space, is $X$ realcompact?. So far, we have not been able to answer this question, in general. Therefor we express it as a question.\\

Question:  If $\upsilon X$ is a submaximal space, is $X$ realcompact?\\

The space $\Bbb R$ is a realcompact space which is not submaximal. See the following example for an example of a space that is submaximal but not realcompact. This example, also shows that $X$ may be submaximal but $\upsilon X$ may not be submaximal.

\begin{exam}
We consider the space ${\bold\Psi}$ in 5I of \cite{GJ}. By 5I. 5, the space ${\bold\Psi}$ is pseudocompact which it is not a realcompact space. We now show that it is submaximal. Suppose that $\overline{B}={\bold\Psi}$. Since $\Bbb N\subseteq B$, we infer that $B=\Bbb N\cup A$, where $A=\{\omega_E:E\in{\mathcal F\subseteq{\mathcal E}}\}$. Assume that $\omega_E\in B$, which $E\in{\mathcal F}$. Put $G=D\cup\{\omega_E\}$, where $D$ containing all but a finite number of points of $E$. Then $G$ is an open set contains $\omega_E$ and $G\subseteq B$. This implies that $\omega _E\in B^\circ$, that is  $B$ open and consequence that ${\bold\Psi}$ is submaximal. Furthermore, since ${\bold\Psi}$ is not compact, by Theorem \ref{t1}, $\beta{\bold\Psi}$  is not submaximal. Now $\upsilon{\bold\Psi}=\beta{\bold\Psi}$ shows that $\upsilon{\bold\Psi}$ is not a submaximal space.
\end{exam}

It is possible that  $X$ is a locally compact and pseudocompact space but $\upsilon X$ is not submaximal. See the next example.

\begin{exam}
We consider the space $\bold W=W(\omega_1)=\{\sigma:\sigma<\omega_1\}$ of all countable ordinals and $\bold W^*=W(\omega_1+1)=\{\sigma:\sigma\leq\omega_1\}$, where $\omega_1$ denoting the first uncountable ordinal. It is well known that $\bold W$ is a pseudocompact locally compact space which neither compact nor realcompact. Clearly, $\upsilon \bold W=\beta \bold W=\bold W^*$. Since $\bold W$ is not compact, then by Theorem \ref{t1},  $\upsilon \bold W$
 is not submaximal. For a direct proof let $A=\{\omega_0, 2\omega_0,3\omega_0.\cdots\}$, where $\omega_0$ is the first infinite ordinal and let $B=\bold W^*-A$. One can easily check that $B$ is dense in $\upsilon\bold W$. But $B$ is not open in $\upsilon\bold W$, for $\omega_0^2\in B$ while $\omega_0^2\notin B^\circ$.
\end{exam}

\section{locally indiscrete spaces}

A space $X$ is called locally indiscrete if  every open set is closed or equivalently if every closed set is open. Every discrete space is locally indiscrete. For another nontrivial example, let $R$ be a principal ideal ring. Then the space ${\rm Min}(R)$ with Zariski topology is a locally indiscrete space.

\begin{prop}
For a topological space $X$ the following conditions are equivalent.\\
a) $X$ is locally indiscrete.\\
b) Every subset of $X$ is preopen.\\
c) Every singleton in $X$ is preopen.\\
d) Every closed subset of $X$ is preopen.\\
e) Every locally closed subset of $X$ is open.\\
f) Every locally closed subset of $X$ is closed.\\
g) The closure of every locally closed set is open.\\
h) Every dense open subset of $X$ is regular open.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
All implications are straightforward. We only show $(h\Rightarrow a)$. Suppose that $A$ is an open set in $X$ and consider $B=A\cup(X-A)^\circ$. Then $B$ is open in $X$. Furthermore, $\overline{B}=\overline{A}\cup\overline{(X-A)^\circ}=\overline{A}\cup\overline{(X-\overline{A})}=\overline{A}\cup (X-\overline{A}^\circ)=X$. Hence, by hypothesis $B$ is regular open and therefore we have $X=\overline{B}^\circ\subseteq B$. It implies that $X=A\cup(X-\overline{A})$ and thus $\overline{A}\cap(X-A)=\emptyset$. This consequence that $\overline{A}\subseteq A$, that is, $A$ is closed and we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
For a topological $T_1$-space $X$ the following conditions are equivalent.\\
a) $X$ is discrete.\\
b) $X$ is locally indiscrete.\\
c) Every open set is regular open.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It is straightforward.
\end{proof}

To see the definition of the concepts given in the next remark, see \cite{GJ, En}. Foe details about $P_F$-spaces, see \cite{AMM}.

\begin{Rem}
a) A locally indiscrete space need not be discrete.\\
b) If $X$ is a 	$T_\frac{1}{2}$-space, then it is locally indiscrete if and only if it is discrete.\\
c) Every  locally indiscrete space is a strongly zero-dimensional space. The converse is not true. For example, $A=\{0,1,\frac{1}{2},\cdots\}$ is a strongly zero-dimensional subspace of $\Bbb R$ while it is not  locally indiscrete.\\
d) Every  locally indiscrete space is a $P_F$-space. The converse is not true. For example, the space $\Sigma$ of 4M in \cite{GJ} is a $P_F$-space which is not locally indiscrete.\\
e) A locally indiscrete space need not be submaximal. For instance, let $X=\{a,b,c\}$ and ${\mathcal T}=\{\emptyset, \{a\}, \{b,c\}, X\}$.\\
f) A submaximal space need not be a locally indiscrete space. For example we consider the space $\Sigma$ of 4M in \cite{GJ}.\\
g) Every  locally indiscrete space is a $P$-space. The converse is false. For example, the space $S$ in 4.N of \cite{GJ} is a $P$-space which is not locally indiscrete.
h) Every  locally indiscrete space is a extremally disconnected and hence is basically disconnected. The converse is false. For example, the space $S$ in 4.N of \cite{GJ} is a basically disconnected which is not locally indiscrete and the space $\Sigma$ is extremally disconnected which is not locally indiscrete.
\end{Rem}

\begin{prop}\label{p33}
The space  $(X,{\mathcal T})$ is a locally indiscrete space  if and only if ${\mathcal T}={\mathcal T_l}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
$(\Rightarrow)$	Let $G\in {\mathcal T_l}$. Then $G=\bigcup_{\alpha\in \Lambda} A_{\alpha}$, where $A_{\alpha}$ is ${\mathcal T}$-locally closed, for any $\alpha\in\Lambda$. By hypothesis, $A_{\alpha}$ is ${\mathcal T}$-open, hence $G\in {\mathcal T}$ and we are done.\\
$(\Leftarrow)$ Let $A$ is a ${\mathcal T}$-locally closed subset of $X$. Hence $A\in {\mathcal T_l}$ and therefore $A\in{\mathcal T}$. This shows that $X$ is a locally indiscrete space.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
Let $X$ be a locally indiscrete space. The following conditions are equivalent.\\
a) $X$ is a $T_1$-space.\\
b) $X$ is a $T_\frac{1}{2}$-space.\\
c) $X$ is a $T_D$-space.\\
d) $X$ is a $T_0$-space.\\
e) $X$ is a submaximal space.\\
f) $X$ is a discrete space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
All implications are obvious. We only show $(d\Rightarrow a)$. Let $x\in X$ and on the contrary suppose that $y\in\overline{\{x\}}$ and $y\neq x$. If there is an open set $G$ such that $y\in G$ and $x\notin G$, then $G\cap \{x\}\neq\emptyset$ which is not true. If there is an open set $H$ such that $x\in H$ and $y\notin H$, then $y\in X-H$ and since $X-H$ is open we infer that  $(X-H)\cap \{x\}\neq\emptyset$ and this is not true. Therefor $X$ is a $T_1$-space and we are through.
\end{proof}

\section{lc-properties}
In this section, by using the locally closed sets, we introduce some separation axioms. For more details about lc-continuous functions, see \cite{GR}. We begin with the following definition.

\begin{defn}
A space $X$ is called:\\
a) lc-regular if for each locally closed set $A$ and for each point $x\notin A$, there are disjoint open sets $U$ and $V$ with $x\in U$ and $A\subseteq V$.\\
b) lc-completely regular if for each locally closed set $A$ and for each point $x\notin A$, there exists a continuous function $f:X\to [0,1]$ such that $f(x)=0$ and $f(A)=1$.\\
c) lc-normal if for every two disjoint locally closed sets $A$ and $B$, there are disjoint open sets $U$ and $V$ with $A\subseteq U$ and $B\subseteq V$.
\end{defn}

Every lc-regular (resp. lc-completely regular, lc-normal)  space is a regular  (resp. completely regular, normal) space. The converse is hold in locally indiscrete spaces, but is not true, in general. See the following example.
\begin{exam}
We consider $X=\Bbb R$ with usual topology.\\
a) $\Bbb R$ is not a lc-regular space. To see this let $A=[0,1)$. Then $A$ is locally closed and $1\notin A$. But $A$ cannot be separated from $1$ by disjoint open sets.\\
b) $\Bbb R$ is not a lc-completely regular space. To see this let $A=\{1,\frac{1}{2},\cdots\}$. Then $A$ is locally closed and $0\notin A$. But $A$ cannot be separated from $0$ by a continuous function.\\
c) $\Bbb R$ is not a lc-normal space. To see this let $A=\{1,\frac{1}{2},\cdots\}$ and $B=\{0\}$. Then $A$ and $B$ are locally closed  sets. But $A$ and $B$ cannot be separated by disjoint open sets.
\end{exam}

\begin{Rem}
a) Every lc-completely regular $T_D$-space is completely regular.\\
b) Every lc-normal $T_D$-space is Hausdorff.
\end{Rem}

\begin{defn}
A space $X$ is called lc-compact if each locally closed cover of $X$ has a finite subcover.
\end{defn}
Every lc-compact space is compact. Every infinite compact $T_1$-space is not lc-compact. One can easily see that $(X,{\mathcal T})$ is lc-compact if and only if   $(X,{\mathcal T_l})$ is compact.

\begin{prop}
Every clopen subset of a lc-compact space is lc-compact.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $Y\subseteq\bigcup_{\alpha\in \Lambda}A_\alpha\in\Lambda$, where $A_\alpha$ is locally closed set in $Y$, for each $\alpha\in \Lambda$. Hence, $A_\alpha=B_\alpha\cap Y$, which $B_\alpha$ is locally closed set in $X$, for each $\alpha\in\Lambda$. Therefor there is an open set $G_\alpha$ and a closed set $F_\alpha$ in $X$ which $B_\alpha=G_\alpha\cap F_\alpha$. Now it is clear that $X=\bigcup_{\alpha\in \Lambda}((G_\alpha\cup(X-Y))\cap(F_\alpha\cup(X-Y)))$. Since $X$ is a lc-compact space we infer that $X=\bigcup_{k=1}^n((G_{\alpha_k}\cup(X-Y))\cap(F_{\alpha_k}\cup(X-Y)))$, for a natural number $n$ and $\alpha_i\in\Lambda$ for $i=1,\cdots,n$ . It implies that $Y\subseteq\bigcup_{k=1}^n A_{\alpha_k}$, that is, $Y$ is a lc-compact space.
\end{proof}

\begin{defn}
A function $f:X\to Y$ is called lc-continuous if the converse image of any open set in $Y$ is locally closed in $X$.
\end{defn}

Every continuous function is lc-continuous. The converse is not true. For example, let $X=\{a,b\}$ and  ${\mathcal T_1}=\{\emptyset, \{a\}, X\}$ and ${\mathcal T_2}=\{\emptyset, \{a\}, \{b\}, X\}$ are two topology on $X$. We define $f:(X,{\mathcal T_1})\to (X,{\mathcal T_2})$ by $f(x)=x$. Then $f$ is lc-continuous but it is not a continuous function.

\begin{Rem}
Let $f:X\to Y$ be a onto and $X$ be a lc-compact space. Then\\
a) if $f$ is continuous then $Y$ is lc-compact.\\
b)  if $f$ is lc-continuous then $Y$ is compact.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Rem}
If $f:(X,{\mathcal T})\to Y$ is lc-continuous, then 	 $f:(X,{\mathcal T_l})\to Y$ is continuous. The converse is false. To see this we consider $(\Bbb R, {\mathcal T_u})$ and define $f:(\Bbb R, {\mathcal T_l})\to Y=\{0,1\}$ by $f(\Bbb Q)=0$ and $f(\Bbb R-\Bbb Q)=1$, which $Y$ is equipped with discrete topology. Since $(\Bbb R, {\mathcal T_l})$ is discrete, then $f$ is continuous. But $\Bbb Q=f^{-1}(\{0\})$ is not locally closed set in $(\Bbb R, {\mathcal T_u})$ while $\{0\}$ is an open set in $Y$. This shows that $f:(\Bbb R, {\mathcal T_u})\to Y$ is not a lc-continuous function.
\end{Rem}

\begin{Rem}
Let  $f:X\to Y$ be continuous.Then\\
a) if $B\subseteq Y$ is locally closed then $f^{-1}(B)\subseteq X$ is locally closed.\\
b) if $A\subseteq X$ is locally closed then $f(A)$ need not be locally closed. Let $X=\{a,b\}$,  ${\mathcal T_1}$ be discrete topology and  ${\mathcal T_2}$ be trivial topology on $X$. We define $f:(X,{\mathcal T_1})\to (X,{\mathcal T_2})$ by $f(x)=x$. Then $A=\{a\}$ is locally closed set in $(X,{\mathcal T_1})$ but $f(A)=\{a\}$ is not locally closed set in $(X,{\mathcal T_2})$.
\end{Rem}

\begin{defn}
A function $f:X\to Y$ is called locally closed if the image of each locally closed set of $X$, is  locally closed in $Y$.
\end{defn}
If  $f:X\to Y$ is one-to-one, open and closed function, then it is locally closed. A locally closed function need not be open or closed. See the next example.
\begin{exam}
a) Let $X=\{a,b\}$,  ${\mathcal T_1}$ be discrete topology and  ${\mathcal T_2}=\{\emptyset,\{a\}, X\}$ be another topology on $X$.  We define $f:(X,{\mathcal T_1})\to (X,{\mathcal T_2})$ by $f(x)=x$. Then $f$ is locally closed but it is not an open function.\\
b)  Let $X=\{a,b,c\}$,  ${\mathcal T_1}$ be discrete topology and  ${\mathcal T_2}=\{\emptyset,\{a,c\}, \{b,c\}, \{c\}, X\}$ be another topology on $X$.  We define $f:(X,{\mathcal T_1})\to (X,{\mathcal T_2})$ by $f(x)=x$. Then $f$ is locally closed but it is not a closed function.

\end{exam}


\section{\label{sec:intro} Introduction}

Entanglement has assumed an important role in quantum information theory and in the development of the quantum technologies. It is considered as a valuable resource in quantum cryptography, in quantum computation, in teleportation and in quantum metrology \cite{GUHNE20091}. Nevertheless, entanglement remains elusive and the problem
of its quantification in the case of a general system, is still open
\citep{PhysRevA.95.062116,PhysRevA.67.022320}.
In the last decades, several approaches have been developed to quantify the entanglement in the variety of states of the quantum realm. However, the rigorous achievements in the explicit quantification of entanglement, are limited to bipartite systems case \cite{RevModPhys.81.865}.
Entropy of entanglement is uniquely accepted as measure of entanglement for pure states of bipartite systems \cite{PhysRevA.56.R3319}, while entanglement of formation \cite{PhysRevLett.80.2245}, entanglement distillation \cite{PhysRevA.54.3824,PhysRevLett.76.722,PhysRevLett.80.5239} and relative entropy of entanglement \cite{PhysRevLett.78.2275} are largely acknowledged as faithful measures  for bipartite mixed systems \cite{Adesso_2016}.
An extensive literature is devoted to the study of entanglement in multipartite systems. Over time, different approaches have been proposed including, e.g. in the case of pure states, the study of the equivalence classes in the set of multipartite entangled states \cite{PhysRevA.62.062314,briegel_PRL86_910},  whereas, the study of entanglement in mixed multipartite states have been addressed, e.g., with a Schmidt measure \cite{PhysRevA.64.022306} or with a generalisation of concurrence \cite{PhysRevA.61.052306,PhysRevLett.93.230501}.
In the last years, have been proposed entanglement estimation-oriented approaches and derived from a statistical distance \cite{PhysRevLett.72.3439} concept, as, for instace, the quantum Fisher information \cite{PhysRevLett.102.100401,PhysRevA.85.022321,j.aop.2019.167995}.

In a recent paper \cite{PhysRevA.101.042129}, some of us have put forward a new entanglement measure able to quantify by a direct calculation, the degree of entanglement of a general multi-qudit hybrid pure state. Such entanglement measure, named entanglement distance (ED), derives from a minimum distance principle. In Ref. \cite{PhysRevA.101.042129}, we have shown that a pure state is entangled if manifests any quantum correlation between its components and vice versa. In fact, entanglement and correlation are completely equivalent in the case of pure states . On the contrary, in the case of mixed states, one can observe states that manifest correlations detached from entanglement. In the present work, we propose a new measure of quantum correlation, and a related entanglement measure for mixed states, derived from the first through a regularization process.
Such entanglement measure derives from a minimum distance principle and, for this reason, we name it entanglement distance.

In this article we first summarize the ED derivation in the case of pure states, then we derive a quantum correlation measure for mixed states from a minimum distance principle and, from the latter, we derive an entanglement measure valid for the same class of states.
Finally, we report as easily tractable examples the application of the quantum correlation measure and ED to a general Bell diagonal state and to the Werner states.

\section{\label{sec:pure} Entanglement Distance for Pure States}

The ED \cite{PhysRevA.101.042129} derives from the Fubini-Study metric which gives the distance between two neighbouring states of a finite projective Hilbert-space \cite{gibbons} according to
\begin{equation}
d^2_{_{FS}} (|s\rangle,|s\rangle +|ds\rangle)=
\langle d s | d s \rangle - \dfrac{1}{4}
|\langle s | d s \rangle - \langle d s | s \rangle|^2 \, ,
\label{F-S-metric}
\end{equation}
$|s \rangle$ is a normalized state and $|ds \rangle$
is an infinitesimal variation of such state. We consider the Hilbert space
${\cal H } = {\cal H}^0 \otimes {\cal H}^1 \cdots {\cal H}^{M-1}$ tensor product of $M$ two qubits Hilbert spaces.
The entanglement is invariant under local unitary transformations, thus a measure quantifying it must be a function of the set of classes of equivalence of states that differ for local unitary transformations. To derive a measure with this property from $d_{_{FS}}$, for any state $|s\rangle$, we first consider the set of states
\begin{equation}
|U,s\rangle = \prod^{M-1}_{\mu=0} U^\mu |s\rangle \, ,
\label{Us}
\end{equation}
where, for $\mu=0,\ldots,M-1$, $U^\mu$ is an arbitrary $SU(2)$ (local) unitary operator that operates on the $\mu$th qubit. The states \eqref{Us} share the same degree of entanglement.
We consider an infinitesimal variation of state \eqref{Us}, given by
\begin{equation}
|dU,s\rangle = \sum^{M-1}_{\mu=0} d\tilde{U}^\mu |U,s\rangle \, ,
\label{dUs}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
d\tilde{U}^\mu = -i
( \bm{\sigma}_{\bf n})^\mu
d \xi^\mu
\label{dU}
\end{equation}
rotates the $\mu$th qubit by an infinitesimal angle $2 d\xi^\mu$  around
the unitary vector ${\bf n}^\mu $. Here and in the following we use the notation $(\bm{\sigma}_{\bf n})^\mu = ({\bf n}^\mu \cdot \bm{\sigma}^\mu)$, and
for $\mu=0,\ldots,M-1$, we denote by $\sigma^\mu_1$, $\sigma^\mu_2$ and $\sigma^\mu_3$
the three Pauli matrices operating on the $\mu$-th qubit, where the index $\mu$ labels the spins.
By substitunig $|U,s\rangle$ and $|dU,s\rangle $ in Eq. \eqref{F-S-metric}, in place of $|s\rangle$ and $|ds\rangle$, respectively, we get
\begin{equation}
    d^2_{_{FS}} (|U,s\rangle,|U,s\rangle +|dU,s\rangle) =
    \sum_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu} (|s\rangle,{\bf v}) d\xi^\mu d\xi^\nu \, ,
\end{equation}
where, the Fubini-Study tensor metric is
\begin{equation}
    g_{\mu \nu} (|s\rangle,{\bf v}) =
\langle s | (\bm{\sigma}_{\bf v})^\mu
(\bm{\sigma}_{\bf v})^\nu|s\rangle
-\langle s | (\bm{\sigma}_{\bf v})^\mu
|s\rangle
\langle s |
(\bm{\sigma}_{\bf v})^\nu|s\rangle \, ,
\label{gmunu}
\end{equation}
${\bf v} = ({\bf v}^0,\ldots,{\bf v}^{M-1})$ and
the unit vectors ${\bf v}^\mu$, $\mu=0,\dots,M-1$, are derived by a rotation of the original
ones of Eq. \eqref{dU}, according to ${\bf v}^\nu \cdot \bm{\sigma}^\nu =
U^{\nu \dagger} {\bf n}^\nu \cdot \bm{\sigma}^\nu
U^{\nu}$,
where there is no summation on the index $\nu$.
Of course, for each state $|s\rangle$, the tensor metric $g_{\mu \nu} (|s\rangle,{\bf v})$ is not invariant under rotation of the unit vectors ${\bf v}^\mu$. In order to derive a measure that is invariant, we define the entanglement measure of $|s\rangle$, as the inferior value of the trace of $g_{\mu \nu} (|s\rangle,{\bf v})$ as the orientation of the unit vectors ${\bf v}^\mu$ change, in formulas
\begin{equation}
E(|s\rangle) =\inf_{ \{{\bf v}^\nu\}_\nu} \tr (g(|s\rangle,{\bf v})) \, ,
\label{emeasure}
\end{equation}
where $\tr$ is the trace operator and where the $\inf$ is taken over all possible orientations of the unit vectors $ {\bf v}^\nu$ ($\nu = 0, \dots , M-1$).
We emphasize that, in general, the inspection of the block structure of $g(|s\rangle)$ is informative about k-separability. In particular, a given state is \textit{genuinely} multipartite entangled if and only if $g (|s\rangle,{\bf v})$ is irreducible, that is $g (|s\rangle,{\bf v})$ is not a block-diagonal matrix for all possible chose of the unit vectors ${\bf v}^\mu$. This irreducibility condition indeed excludes k-separable cases, i.e. states $|s\rangle$ given as product of entangled states (e.g.  $|s\rangle = |s_1\rangle\otimes |s_2\rangle$).
From Eq. \eqref{gmunu} we derive
\begin{equation}
    \tr [ g(|s\rangle,{\bf v}) ]= \sum^{M-1}_{\mu=0} \left[1 - ({\bf v}^\mu\cdot \langle s |\bm{\sigma}^\mu|s\rangle )^2\right] \, ,
\end{equation}
that shows that the unit vectors
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bf v}^\mu = \pm \langle s |\bm{\sigma}^\mu|s\rangle/\Vert \langle s |\bm{\sigma}^\mu|s\rangle \Vert \, ,
    \label{vtildes}
\end{equation}
provide the $\inf$ of $\tr(g)$.
Therefore, we obtain
\begin{equation}
    E(|s\rangle) =M - \sum^{M-1}_{\mu =0} \Vert \langle s |\bm{\sigma}^\mu|s\rangle\Vert^2 \, .
    \label{measureMqpure}
\end{equation}
The $\inf$ operation, makes the measure \eqref{emeasure}
independent from the choice of the operators $U^\mu$. Consequently, its numerical
value is associated with the class of states generated by acting with local unitary
transformations on the state $|s\rangle$, and does not depend on a specific element
chosen inside the class. This is a necessary condition for a well defined
entanglement measure \cite{PhysRevLett.78.2275}.
The ED is built upon the geometrical structure of the projective Hilbert space through the principle of minimum distance expressed in Eq. \eqref{emeasure}.
The generalization of the ED to mixed states naturally leads to a measure of quantum correlations. We refer the reader to \cite{Adesso_2016} for a thorough definition of the various types of quantum correlations. In particular, the distinction between the set $\mathcal{S}$ of the separable states and the set $\mathcal{C}$ of the classical states (i.e. states with no quantum correlation) is of critical importance to understand how mixed states (unlike pure states) can contain quantum correlation even in the absence of entanglement.
In the following, we derive a quantum correlation measure for mixed states via the same minimum distance principle and, for this reason, we name it quantum correlation distance (QCD). Then, we derive an entanglement measure for mixed states from the QCD, through a regularization process of the density matrix.

\section{Entanglement Distance for Mixed States}

\subsection{\label{sec:qcd} Quantum Correlation Distance}

The Hilbert-Schmidt distance $D$ between two general square matrices, $A$ and $B$, is given by
\begin{equation}
D(A,B) = \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{2} \tr[(A-B)^\dagger (A-B)] } \, .
\label{DAB}
\end{equation}
We derive from the latter, the distance between two neighbouring density matrices, by
\begin{equation}
d^2_{_{dm}} (\rho,\rho+d\rho)=
\dfrac{1}{2} \tr[(d\rho)^\dagger (d\rho)]
\, .
\label{dm-distance}
\end{equation}
The infinitesimal variation $d\rho$ of state $\rho$ is
\begin{align}
d\rho &= \sum^{M-1}_{j=0} d\tilde{U}^\mu  \rho + \rho \sum^{M-1}_{\mu=0} d\tilde{U}^{\mu\dagger} \nonumber \\
&= -i \sum^{M-1}_{\mu = 0} \sum^3_{j=1} \comm{\sigma^\mu_j}{\rho}
n^\mu_j d \xi^\mu
\, ,
\label{drho}
\end{align}
where, the infinitesimal operators $d\tilde{U}^\mu$ have been defined in \eqref{dU} and with $\comm{}{}$, we mean the commutator.
We have
\begin{align}
d^2_{_{dm}} (\rho,\rho+d\rho)=
\sum^{M-1}_{\mu,\nu=0}g_{\mu\nu} (\rho, {\bf n})
 d\xi^\mu d\xi^\nu
\, ,
\label{dm-distance2}
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\!\!\!\!\!\!  g_{\mu\nu} (\rho, {\bf n}) = \dfrac{1}{2}
\sum^3_{i,j=1} \tr [\rho \acomm{\sigma^\mu_i}{ \sigma^\nu_j} \rho -2 \rho \sigma^\mu_i
\rho\sigma^\nu_j ] n^\mu_i n^\nu_j \, ,
\label{gmunudm}
\end{equation}
with $\acomm{}{}$ we mean the anticommutator.
By imposing the minimum distance principle in a similar fashion to what we did above, we define the QCD for the state $\rho$ as
\begin{equation}
C(\rho) =\inf_{ \{{\bf n}^\nu\}_\nu} \tr (g(\rho, {\bf n}) ) \, .
\label{emeasurerho}
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{equation}
\sum^{M-1}_{\mu=0} g_{\mu \mu}(\rho, {\bf n}) =
 M \tr(\rho^2)-\sum^{M-1}_{\mu=0}
\sum^3_{i,j=1} \tr [\rho \sigma^\mu_i
\rho\sigma^\mu_j ] n^\mu_i n^\mu_j \,
\label{trg}
\end{equation}
Finally, by defining the matrices $A^\mu(\rho)$, for $\mu=0,\ldots,M-1$, whose entries are
\begin{equation}
A^\mu_{ij}(\rho) = \tr [\rho \sigma^\mu_i
\rho\sigma^\mu_j ] \,  ,
\label{Amu}
\end{equation}
we obtain the closed-form expression for the QCD of $\rho$,
\begin{equation}
C(\rho) =M \tr(\rho^2)- \sum^{M-1}_{\mu=0} \lambda^\mu_{max} (\rho)  \, ,
\label{QCDrho}
\end{equation}
where, for $\mu=0,\ldots,M-1$, $\lambda^\mu_{max} (\rho)$ is the maximum of the eigenvalues of $A^\mu(\rho)$.
The QCD \eqref{QCDrho} fulfills the following requirements for a \textit{bona fide} measure of quantum correlation \cite{Adesso_2016}:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item \label{cond:null_for_classical}$C(\rho)=0$ if $\rho\in\mathcal{C}$, i.e. $\rho$ is a classical state:
    $\rho = \sum_j p_j \bigotimes_{\mu=0}^{M-1}|j\rangle\langle j|^\mu$, where the $\{|j\rangle^\mu\}$ form orthonormal basis in $\mathcal{H}^\mu$, $\mu=0,\dots,M-1$, $p_j>0$ and $\sum_j p_j =1$.
    \item \label{cond:LU-invariant}$C(U\rho U^\dagger)=C(\rho)$, i.e. it is invariant under local unitary transformations.
    \item \label{cond:ent_for_pure}$C(\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi})=E(\ket{\psi})$, i.e. it reduces to the measure of entanglement on pure states defined by Eq. \eqref{measureMqpure}.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{\label{sec:edm} Entanglement Distance}
As stated above, for a mixed state, the existence of quantum correlation is not a sufficient condition to guarantee the presence of entanglement. To extract from a given state $\rho$ its entanglement essence, we now propose a procedure of regularization of $\rho$, repurposing our measure of quantum correlations to catch the true degree of entanglement owned by $\rho$.

Given a state $\rho$, we consider all of its possible decomposition $\{p_j,\rho_j\}$, such that
\begin{equation}
    \rho = \sum_j p_j \rho_j \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\sum_j p_j = 1$ and $\tr[\rho_j] = 1$. Also, we consider all the possible local partial transformation
\begin{equation}
    \rho (\{p_j,\rho_j,U_j\}) = \sum_j p_j U_j \rho_j U^\dagger_j \, ,
    \label{rhoU}
\end{equation}
where, for each $j$, $U_j$ is an arbitrary product of $SU(2)$ local unitary operators
$U^{\mu}_j$ ($\mu = 0,\ldots, M-1$).
We define the ED for state $\rho$
\begin{equation}
E(\rho) = \inf_{\{p_j,\rho_j,U_j\}} C\left( \rho(\{p_j,\rho_j,U_j\}) \right)  \, .
\label{EDrho}
\end{equation}

The ED \eqref{EDrho} fulfills the following requirements for a suitable measure of quantum
entanglement:

\begin{enumerate}[i]
    \item \label{cond:null_for_separable}If $\rho$ is a separable state, then $E(\rho)=0$. In fact, if $\rho$ is separable, it admits a decomposition $\{p_j,\rho_j\}$, where, for each $j$, $\rho_j=\bigotimes_\mu (\mathbb{I}^\mu + (\bm{\sigma}_{{\bf n}_j})^\mu)/2$. Thus, it is always possible to determine local partial operators $U_j$, such that, after transformation \eqref{rhoU} it results $\rho(\{p_j,\rho_j,U_j\}) = \sum_j p_j \bigotimes_{\mu=0}^{M-1} (\mathbb{I}^\mu + {\sigma}_{3}^\mu)/2 $. The latter has the form $\rho(\{p_j,\rho_j,U_j\}) = \sum_j p^\prime_j \bigotimes_{\mu=0}^{M-1}|j\rangle\langle j|^\mu$ and, from property \ref{cond:null_for_classical}, it follows our statement.
    \item Now we prove the converse: if $E(\rho) =0$, then $\rho$ is separable. First of all, we note that, for each $\mu=0,\ldots,M-1$, $\lambda^\mu_{max} (\rho) \leq \tr(\rho^2)$. In fact, for each $\mu$ and for each unit vector ${\bf n}^\mu$ it is possible to determine a unitary local operator $U$, so that $\tr[\left(\rho (\bm{\sigma}_{{\bf n}})^\mu \rho (\bm{\sigma}_{{\bf n}})^\mu \right)] = \tr[\tilde{\rho} {\sigma}_3^\mu \tilde{\rho} {\sigma}_3^\mu]$, where $\tilde{\rho} = U\rho U^\dagger$. Furthermore $\tr[\tilde{\rho} {\sigma}_3^\mu \tilde{\rho} {\sigma}_3^\mu] = \sum_j \tilde{\rho}_{jj}^2+2 \sum_{i\neq j} \pm |\tilde{\rho}_{ij}|^2\leq \sum_j \tilde{\rho}_{jj}^2+2 \sum_{i\neq j}  |\tilde{\rho}_{ij}|^2 = \tr[\tilde{\rho}^2] = \tr[\rho^2]$. Therefore, $E(\rho) =0$ implies that there exist a decomposition of $\rho$, let's say $\overline{\rho}$, for which
\begin{equation}
\sup_{{\bf n}^\mu}  \tr[\overline{\rho} (\bm{\sigma}_{{\bf n}})^\mu) \overline{\rho} (\bm{\sigma}_{{\bf n}})^\mu)]  =\tr[\overline{\rho}^2]
\end{equation}
    for each $\mu$, namely we have $|\overline{\rho}_{ij}|^2 =0$ for each $i\neq j$. But this implies that $\overline{\rho}$ is diagonal and then $\rho$ separable.
\end{enumerate}

For a given density matrix decomposition $\{p_j,\rho_j\}$, the minimization on the local unitary partial transformations, entailed by Eq. \eqref{EDrho}, can be addressed by studying the local minima of $C(\rho(\{p_j,\rho_j,U_j\}))$ under variation of $\{U_j\}$.
Nevertheless, it can be proven that such fixed points do correspond only to cases where $E(\rho)=0$, hence to separable states. Therefore, the minima of \eqref{EDrho} in the case of non-separable states, do not correspond to fixed points, but rather to nonlocal
(boundary) minima.
Remarkably, these fixed points of the minimization procedure \eqref{EDrho} can, at least in some cases, be realized by a decomposition $\{p_j,\rho_j\}$ including entangled pure states $\rho_j$.
In particular, for two-qubits states diagonal in the Bell basis (the Bell-diagonal (BD) states, see \cite{PhysRevA.54.1838,PhysRevA.88.012120}) the fixed points can always be realized on the eigen-decomposition (hence, where the $\rho_j$ are Bell states).
This of course greatly simplify the problem, as the full exploration of the $\{p_j,\rho_j\}$-space is avoided.
It is worth emphasizing that BD states are representative of the larger class of two-qubits states of maximally mixed marginals (that is, for which $\forall\mu$ and $\forall j$,
$\tr [\rho\sigma_j^\mu ]=0$ \cite{PhysRevA.54.1838}), hence \eqref{EDrho} is tractable in the same manner for this class of states.
Leaning on numerical evidences, we further conjecture that, for a given state $\rho(\pmb{\gamma})$ depending on parameters $\pmb{\gamma} = (\gamma_1,\gamma_2,...)$, the decomposition realizing the minimum \eqref{EDrho} is the same in the whole parametric domain of $\pmb{\gamma}$, and can hence be inferred from the fixed points found in the domains where this state is separable, if such a domain exists.
This suggests that the minimization over all possible decompositions $\{p_j,\rho_j\}$ might in fact possess \textit{non-trivial} general solutions \footnote{Here, by ``non-trivial solutions'' of the minimization procedure, we mean solutions which do not require to find the decomposition of $\rho$ in terms of pure product-states $\rho_j=\bigotimes_\mu (\mathbb{I}^\mu + (\bm{\sigma}_{{\bf n}_j})^\mu)/2$.}, depending on the considered class of states. A subsequent more thorough work on such a classification of the solutions of this procedure could thus lead to an entanglement measure of relatively low computational cost, in particular for systems symmetric under qudit permutations, and with low $\operatorname{rank}(\rho)$.

\section{Applications}

\subsection{Bell diagonal states}

As a first and seminal example of application of this procedure, we consider general BD states. They can be expressed as:
\begin{align}
\rho_{BD}(\{p_\alpha\}) &= \sum_{\alpha=1}^4 p_\alpha |\psi_\alpha\rangle\langle\psi_\alpha|\nonumber\\ &= \frac{1}{4}\Big(\mathbb{I} + \sum_i c_i \sigma_i^0\sigma_i^1 \Big)\,  ,
\label{rhoBD}
\end{align}
where the $|\psi_\alpha\rangle$ are the four Bell states: $|\psi_\pm\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle \pm |11\rangle)$ and $|\phi_\pm\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01\rangle \pm |10\rangle)$. Furthermore, we have $\forall i,\,|c_i|\leq1$, and the $c_i$ are such that the vector $(c_1,c_2,c_3)$, fully characterizing the state, belongs to the tetrahedron $\mathcal{T}$ of vertices $(-1,1,1),\,(1,-1,1),\,(1,1,-1),\,(-1,-1,-1)$. The separable BD states belong to the octahedron $\mathcal{O}$ of vertices $(\pm1,0,0),\,(0,\pm1,0),\,(0,0,\pm1)$, corresponding to the condition $\forall\alpha,\,p_\alpha\leq2$, and the classical BD states are located on the Cartesian axis $(c_1,0,0),\,(0,c_2,0),\,(0,0,c_3)$ \cite{PhysRevA.54.1838,PhysRevA.88.012120}.

Direct calculation yields the following result for the QCD of general BD states
\begin{equation}
    C(\rho_{BD}(\{p_\alpha\})=2\sum_{\alpha=1}^4 p_\alpha^2 -4\max_{P\{i,j,k,l\}}\Big\{p_ip_j +p_kp_l\Big\},
\end{equation}
where the maximum is taken on all permutations $P\{i,j,k,l\}$ of the indices $\{1,2,3,4\}$. Figure \ref{figBD_QCD} shows the QCD of BD states on a face of $\mathcal{T}$.
\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{BD_QCD.png}
    \caption{Quantum correlations $C[\rho_{BD}](c_1,c_2=c_1,c_3)/2$ for a face of the BD state tetrahedron $\mathcal{T}$, corresponding to a mixture of three Bell states. The red dotted line defines the smaller triangle where the state is separable, according to the PPT criterion \cite{PhysRevLett.77.1413,HORODECKI19961}. The vertices of the large triangle correspond to pure Bell states. Those of the red dotted triangle, of vanishing QCD, correspond to equal-weight mixtures of two Bell states, which are evidently the three only \textit{classical} states in the represented domain.}
    \label{figBD_QCD}
\end{figure}
We were not able to find a simple analytic solution of the minimization procedure for the most general case of BD states. However, numerical minimization provided us with empirical evidence that the procedure (22) also leads for these states to the squared concurrence, as shown in figure \ref{figBD_ED}, which represent a face of the tetrahedral domain of BD states. It it interesting to note that the ED, as the concurrence and unlike the QCD, is constant on planes parallel to the boundary faces of the separability region: the ED of any given state indeed equates the QCD of the closest point located on a hinge of $\mathcal{T}$, hence the closest mixture of only two Bell states.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{BD_ED.png}
    \caption{Entanglement distance $E[\rho_{BD}](c_1,c_2=c_1,c_3)/2$ for a face of the BD state tetrahedron $\mathcal{T}$, corresponding to a mixture of three Bell states. The red dotted line defines the smaller triangle where the state is separable, according to the PPT criterion \cite{PhysRevLett.77.1413,HORODECKI19961} and a number of alternative derivations available in the literature (see e.g. \citep{PhysRevA.54.1838}). Values below the threshold of $10^{-3}$ have been represented in black to emphasize that they correspond to a numerical zero, given the level of precision allowed by such time-costly minimization. The vertices of the large triangle correspond to pure Bell states, and those of the smaller black triangle to equal-weight mixtures of two Bell states.}
    \label{figBD_ED}
\end{figure}
\vskip0.4cm

\subsection{Werner states}

Let us now consider the two-qubit Werner states (WS) \cite{PhysRevA.40.4277}, which stems as a special case of BD state, for which a simple analytical solution for the proposed procedure is available. WS are used as a testbed since they illustrate many features of mixed-states entanglement \cite{PhysRevA.54.3824}. Using Eq. \eqref{rhoBD}, they can simply be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{W}(p)=\rho_{BD}\big(\frac{p}{3},\frac{p}{3},\frac{p}{3},(1-p)\big) \, .
\label{rhoW}
\end{equation}
Via direct calculations, one gets for the QCD of the WS
\begin{equation}
C(\rho_W(p) ) = 2(1-\dfrac{4}{3} p)^2 \, .
\label{EWs}
\end{equation}
WS yields a relatively simple solution to the minimization procedure (22). Indeed, as it can be easily verified, if we set
\begin{align}
    &U_{|\psi_+\rangle}(\theta)=U^\mu_z(\theta)U^\mu_x(\pi), \nonumber\\ &U_{|\psi_-\rangle}(\theta)=U^\mu_z(\pi-\theta)U^\mu_x(\pi), \text{ and}\nonumber\\
    &U_{|\phi_+\rangle}=U_{|\phi_-\rangle}=\mathbb{I},
\end{align}
with $\mu=0,1$ arbitrarily chosen, the fixed points are found for $\theta=\arccos{(\frac{3}{2p}-2)}$. This last expression has a solution if and only if $p\geq1/2$, which is the parametric region of separability for $\rho_W(p)$ (as can be verified by application of the positive partial trace criterion, see \cite{HORODECKI19961}). Hence, $E(\rho_W)=0$ for $p\geq1/2$.
For $p<1/2$ numerical minimization yields $E(\rho_W)=4p^2 - 4p + 1$. This corresponds to $\theta=0$ uniformly on this whole domain, which is also the value previously determined at $p=1/2$: hence, the minimum after this point cease to be a fixed point, but keeps the last position in terms of the parameters governing the rotations. One can understand this as the fixed point reaching the boundary of the parametric domain as the geometry of the state is changing continuously, becoming a simple point on a slope, located at this boundary.
All together, for Werner states, the result of our entanglement measure exactly equates twice the square of the concurrence \cite{PhysRevLett.80.2245}, that is
\begin{equation}
E(\rho_W(p) ) = 2\Theta(1/2-p)(1-2p)^2\, ,
\label{EDWs}
\end{equation}
Fig. \ref{figfirstfirst} shows $C(\rho_W(p) ) /2$ versus $p$, there it is clear that the only state with no quantum correlation, i.e. \textit{classical state} according to the conventional terminology \citep{Adesso_2016}, is the one corresponding to the value $p=3/4$, whereas the maximally quantum-correlated state is that of $p=0$. On the other hand, the state is entangled only in the region $p<1/2$, and separable otherwise, a well-known fact that can be easily checked by application of the positive partial transpose (PPT) criterion \cite{PhysRevLett.77.1413,HORODECKI19961}. Alternatively, one can find, in the separable region, the expression of $\rho_W$ convex combination of (non-orthogonal) product states, using a more involved calculation resorting to the so-called Bloch representation.. \\
\begin{figure}
   \centering
    {\includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{Werner_QCD+ED.png}}
  \caption{$C[\rho_W](p) /2$ and $E[\rho_W](p) /2$ versus $p$ for state \eqref{rhoW}. It is clear that the state $\rho_W(p=0)$ is, as expected, the maximally-entangled, and that the states $\rho_W(p>1/2)$ are fully-separable, as can be verified using the PPT criterion \cite{PhysRevLett.77.1413,HORODECKI19961}. This plot emphasizes that separable states can contain quantum correlation (i.e. not be classical). Note that, here $E[\rho_W](p) /2=C_2^2[\rho_W](p)$, that is, the ED equates twice the squared concurrence for 2-qubits Werner states.}
      \label{figfirstfirst}
\end{figure}

\section{Summary}
Our goal in this work has been to derive an entanglement measure from geometric properties of the projective Hilbert space describing a quantum multipartite system. We have derived from a minimum distance principle an explicitly computable entanglement measure for pure states and a quantum correlation measure either for pure or mixed states. We have shown that the quantum correlation measure reduces to the entanglement one, in the case of pure states.
For mixed states, the quantum correlation is not a faithful measure of entanglement. To extract from a given state $\rho$ its entanglement essence, we have defined a regularization procedure for the density matrix that allows our measure of quantum correlation to catch the true degree of entanglement owned by $\rho$. We have proved that the entanglement and quantum-correlation measures derived satisfy the requirements for suitable measures of these quantities.
Finally, we have applied our procedure to two relevant examples, the Bell diagonal states and the Werner states.

\begin{acknowledgments}
We acknowledge support by the QuantERA ERA-NET Co-fund 731473 (Project Q-CLOCKS), in addition, we acknowledge the support by National Group of Mathematical Physics (GNFM-INdAM). We also acknowledge discussions with Lorenzo Capra.
\end{acknowledgments}


\section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENT}
G. C. and V. G. acknowledge partial support by the University of Sannio under the FRA-2020 program.


\section{Introduction}

Meson spectroscopy is one of the important subjects in hadron physics, and the heavy-light system offers an excellent laboratory for testing the heavy quark symmetry.
As we known, most of the charmed and charmed-strange mesons are well established, although there exists some exotic explanations for some states, for example $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ and $D_{s1}(2460)$~\cite{Chen:2016spr,Du:2017zvv}.
For the family of bottom mesons, the first bottom meson $B$ was observed in 1983 by the CLEO Collaboration~\cite{CLEO:1983mma}, and there are only six excited bottom mesons observed experimentally so far, which are $B^*$, $B_1(5721)$, $B^*_J(5732)$, $B_J(5840)$, $B_J(5970)$, and $B^*_2(5747)$~\cite{PDG2021}. Among those bottom states, only $B$ and $B^*$ are well assigned as the $S$-wave doublet ($1^1S_0$ and $1^3S_1$).

The $B^*_J(5732)$, as the first orbitally excited bottom meson, was observed in 1994 by the OPAL detector at LEP~\cite{OPAL:1994hqv}, and this state has not yet confirmed in the last two decadeds~\cite{PDG2021}. It should be streesed that its signal can be interpreted as stemming from several narrow and broad resonances, as discussed in Review of Particle Physics (RPP)~\cite{PDG2021}, thus we will not discuss this state. In 2007, the D0 Collaboration reported two narrow orbitally excited ($L=1$) bottom mesons,  $B_1(5721)$ with $J^P=1^+$ and  $B^*_2(5747)$ with $J^P=2^+$~\cite{D0:2007vzd}, later confirmed by the CDF and LHCb Collaborations~\cite{CDF:2008qzb,CDF:2013www,LHCb:2015aaf}. The $B_J(5970)$ was first observed in 2013 by the CDF Collaboration~\cite{CDF:2013www}. In 2015 the LHCb Collaboration reproted two states $B_J(5840)$  and $B_J(5960)$~\cite{LHCb:2015aaf}, where the latter one should be the same state as the $B_J(5970)$ since they have the similar properties. Here we list the masses, widths, and the quantum numbers of $B_1(5721)$, $B^*_J(5732)$, $B_J(5840)$, $B_J(5970)$, and $B^*_2(5747)$ in Table~\ref{experment}.

\begin{table}[!htpb]
\begin{center}
\caption{ \label{experment} Masses, decay widths, and quantum numbers of the bottom mesons~\cite{PDG2021}.}
\footnotesize
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline\hline
  state                 &mass  (MeV)                          &width  (MeV)                & $I(J^{P})$          \\\hline
  $B_J^*(5732)$             &$5698\pm8$                      &$128\pm18$             & $?(?^?)$  \\
  $B_1(5721)^0$             &$5726.1\pm 1.3$                 &$27.5\pm3.4$           & $1/2(1^+)$      \\
  $B^*_2(5747)^0$           &$5739.5\pm 0.7$                 &$24.2\pm1.7$           & $1/2(2^+)$ \\
  $B_J(5840)$               &$5863\pm9$                      &$127\pm 40$            & $1/2(?^?)$    \\
  $B_J(5970)$               &$5971\pm5$                      &$81\pm12$              & $1/2(?^?)$     \\
  \hline\hline

\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table}

Based on the experimental measurements of the bottom mesons, there are many theoretical discussions in literatures~\cite{Zeng:1994vj, Godfrey:1985xj, Lahde:1999ih, DiPierro:2001dwf, Zhong:2008kd, Ebert:2009ua, Godfrey:2016nwn, Lu:2016bbk, Kher:2017mky, Asghar:2018tha, Godfrey:2019cmi, Yu:2019iwm,Chen:2022fye,li:2021hss,Narison:2020wql}. The $B^*_2(5747)$ is commonly regarded as the $B(1^3P_2)$ state~\cite{Ebert:2009ua, Godfrey:2016nwn, Lu:2016bbk, Kher:2017mky, Asghar:2018tha, Godfrey:2019cmi, Yu:2019iwm,Chen:2022fye}, and the $B_1(5721)$ is explained as the $B^\prime(1P_1)$ in Refs.~\cite{Lu:2016bbk,Godfrey:2019cmi,Yu:2019iwm,Chen:2022fye}, $B(1P_1)$ in Refs.~\cite{Kher:2017mky,Asghar:2018tha}.

 Although the LHCb Collaboration has suggested that the $B_J(5840)$ and $B_J(5970)$ could be the $2^1S_0$ and $2^3S_1$ states, respectively~\cite{LHCb:2015aaf}, the mass difference between them is about 110~MeV, much larger than the theoretical predictions of the $2S$  mass splitting, which is 39~MeV of Godfrey-Isgur model~\citep{Godfrey:1985xj}, 30~MeV in alternate relativized (AR) model~\cite{Godfrey:2016nwn}, and 28~MeV in nonrelativistic potential quark model~\cite{Asghar:2018tha}. On the other hand, there are different interpretations for the $B_J(5840)$ and $B_J(5970)$,
because their masses and widths can not be simultaneously  reasonably reproduced.

 As discussed in Ref.~\cite{bai:2009}, the quenched quark models, incorporating a coulomb term at short distances and the linear confining interaction at large distances, will not be reliable for the high excited mesons. This is because the linear potential, which is expected to be dominant in this mass region, will be screened and softened by the vacuum polarization effects of dynamical fermions. It is shown that the screened potential plays an important role in describing the spectra and decay properties of the charmed, charmed-strange mesons and charmonium~\cite{Song:2015fha,Song:2015nia,Wang:2018rjg}. Thus one expect that the screened potential could improve the description of the bottom mesons.

In this work, we will investigate the possible assignments of the $B_1(5721)$, $B^*_2(5747)$, $B_J(5840)$, and $B_J(5970)$ by employing the modified nonrelativistic quark model with screening effect, and the $^3P_0$ model to calculate the mass spectrum and decay properties of the bottom mesons.

This article is organized as follows. In  Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, we give a brief review about the modified nonrelativistic quark model and the $^3P_0$ model. In Sec.~\ref{sec:result}, we present the numerical results and discuss the possible assignments of the bottom mesons. The summary is given in Sec.~\ref{sec:summary}

\section{Theoretical models}
\label{sec:model}

\subsection{Modified nonrelativistic quark model}
The nonrelativistic quark model~\cite{Lakhina:2006fy}, as one of the successful quark models, is proposed by Lakhina and Swanson, and has already been used to  describe the heavy-light mesons and heavy quarkonium successfully, such as the charmed-strange mesons~\citep{Li:2010vx} and the bottom mesons~\citep{Lu:2016bbk}. In the model, the Hamiltonian of a $q\bar{q}$ meson system is defined as~\citep{Li:2010vx,Lu:2016bbk}
    \begin{equation}
    \label{ha}
    H = H_0+H_{sd}+C_{q\bar{q}},
    \end{equation}
where $H_0$ is the zeroth-order Hamiltonian, $H_{sd}$ is the spin-dependent Hamiltonian, and $C_{q\bar{q}}$ is a constant, which will be fixed by experimental data.
The $H_{0}$ can be compressed as
    \begin{eqnarray}
          H_0 &=& \frac{\boldsymbol{p}^2}{M_r}-\frac{4}{3}\frac{{\alpha}_s}{r}+br+\frac{32{\alpha}_s{\sigma}^3 e^{-{\sigma}^2r^2}}{9\sqrt{\pi}m_qm_{\bar{q}}} {\boldsymbol{S}}_{q} \cdot {\boldsymbol{S}}_{\bar{q}}, \label{eq:H0}
     \end{eqnarray}
where the confinement interaction includes the standard Coulomb potential $-4\alpha_s/3r$ and linear scalar potential $br$, and the last term is the hyperfine interaction that could be treated nonperturbatively.
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:H0}), $\boldsymbol{p}$ is quark momentum in the system of $q\bar{q}$ meson, $r=|\vec{r}|$ is the $q\bar{q}$ separation, $M_r=2m_qm_{\bar{q}}/(m_q+m_{\bar{q}})$, $m_q$ ($m_{\bar{q}}$) and $\boldsymbol{S}_{q}$ (${\boldsymbol{S}}_{\bar{q}}$) are the mass and spin of the constituent quark $q$ (antiquark $\bar{q}$), respectively.

The spin-dependent term $H_{sd}$ is,
    \begin{eqnarray}

      H_{sd} &=& \left(\frac{\boldsymbol{S}_{q}}{2m_q^2}+\frac{{\boldsymbol{S}}_{\bar{q}}}{2m_{\bar{q}}^2}\right) \cdot \boldsymbol{L}\,\left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{dV_c}{dr}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{dV_1}{dr}\right)\nonumber\\
      &&+\frac{{\boldsymbol{S}}_+ \cdot \boldsymbol{L}}{m_qm_{\bar{q}}}\left(\frac{1}{r} \frac{dV_2}{r}\right) \nonumber\\
      && +\frac{3{\boldsymbol{S}}_{q} \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{r}}\,{\boldsymbol{S}}_{\bar{q}} \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{r}}-{\boldsymbol{S}}_{q} \cdot {\boldsymbol{S}}_{\bar{q}}}{3m_qm_{\bar{q}}}V_3\nonumber\\
      && +\left[\left(\frac{{\boldsymbol{S}}_{q}}{m_q^2}-\frac{{\boldsymbol{S}}_{\bar{q}}}{m_{\bar{q}}^2}\right)+\frac{{\boldsymbol{S}}_-}{m_qm_{\bar{q}}}\right] \cdot \boldsymbol{L} V_4,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
  V_c &=& -\frac{4}{3}\frac{{\alpha}_s}{r}+br,\nonumber \\
  V_1 &=& -br-\frac{2}{9\pi}\frac{{\alpha}_s^2}{r}\left[9\,{\rm ln}(\sqrt{m_qm_{\bar{q}}}r)+9{\gamma}_E-4\right],\nonumber\\
  V_2 &=& -\frac{4}{3}\frac{{\alpha}_s}{r}-\frac{1}{9\pi}\frac{{\alpha}_s^2}{r}\left[-18\,{\rm ln}(\sqrt{m_qm_{\bar{q}}}r)+54\,{\rm ln}(\mu r) \right.\nonumber\\
  &&\left. +36{\gamma}_E+29\right],\nonumber\\
  V_3 &=& -\frac{4{\alpha}_s}{r^3}-\frac{1}{3\pi}\frac{{\alpha}_s^2}{r^3}\left[-36\,{\rm ln}(\sqrt{m_qm_{\bar{q}}}r)+54\,{\rm ln}(\mu r) \right.\nonumber\\
  &&\left. +18{\gamma}_E+31\right],\nonumber\\
  V_4 &=& \frac{1}{\pi}\frac{{\alpha}_s^2}{r^3}{\rm ln}\left(\frac{m_{\bar{q}}}{m_q}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\boldsymbol{S}_{\pm}={\boldsymbol{S}}_q\pm{\boldsymbol{S}}_{\bar{q}}$, $\boldsymbol{L}$ is the relative orbital angular momentum of the $q\bar{q}$ system. We take Euler constant $\gamma_E=0.5772$, the scalar $\mu=1$~GeV, ${\alpha}_s=0.5$, $b=0.14$~GeV$^2$, $\sigma=1.17$~GeV, $m_u=m_d=0.45$~GeV, and $m_b=4.5$ GeV \citep{Li:2010vx,Lu:2016bbk}.

Because the coupled-channel effects become more important for higher radial and orbital excitations of the heavy-light mesons, some modified models have been proposed by including the screening effect~\cite{bai:2009,Song:2015nia,Song:2015fha}, and widely used to calculate mass spectrum of charmed-strange meson~\cite{Song:2015nia}, charm meson~ \cite{Song:2015fha}, charmonium~\cite{Wang:2019mhs,bai:2009}, and bottomonium~\cite{Wang:2018rjg}. The screening effect was introduced by the following  replacement~\cite{Song:2015nia},
\begin{eqnarray}
br\to V^{\text{scr}}(r)=\frac{b(1-e^{-\beta r})}{\beta}, \label{eq:screened}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V^{\text{scr}}(r)$ behaves like $br$ at short distances and constant $b/\beta$ at large distance\cite{Song:2015nia, Song:2015fha}, $\beta$ is parameter which is used to control the power of  the screening effect.

The spin-orbit term in the $H_{sd}$ can be decomposed into
symmetric part $H_{sym}$ and antisymmetric part $H_{anti}$. These two parts can be written as \cite{Lu:2016bbk}
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{sym} &=& \frac{{\boldsymbol{S}}_+ \cdot {\boldsymbol{L}}}{2}\left[\left(\frac{1}{2m_q^2}+\frac{1}{2m_{\bar{q}}^2}\right) \left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{dV_c}{dr}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{dV_1}{dr}\right)\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.+\frac{2}{m_qm_{\bar{q}}}\left(\frac{1}{r} \frac{dV_2}{r}\right)+\left(\frac{1}{m_q^2}-\frac{1}{m_{\bar{q}}^2}\right)V_4\right],
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{anti} &=& \frac{{\boldsymbol{S}}_- \cdot {\boldsymbol{L}}}{2}\left[\left(\frac{1}{2m_q^2}-\frac{1}{2m_{\bar{q}}^2}\right) \left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{dV_c}{dr}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{dV_1}{dr}\right)\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.+\left(\frac{1}{m_q^2}+\frac{1}{m_{\bar{q}}^2}+\frac{2}{m_qm_{\bar{q}}}\right)V_4\right].
\end{eqnarray}
The antisymmetric part $H_{anti}$ gives rise to the
the spin-orbit mixing of the heavy-light mesons with different total spins but with the same total angular momentum such as
$B(n{}^3L_L)$ and $B(n{}^1L_L)$.  Hence, the two physical states $B_L(nL)$ and $B_L^\prime(nL)$ can be
expressed as

\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{cr}
B_L(nL)\\
B^\prime_L(nL)
\end{array}
\right)
 =\left(
 \begin{array}{cr}
\cos \theta_{nL} & \sin \theta_{nL} \\
-\sin \theta_{nL} & \cos \theta_{nL}
\end{array}
\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cr}
B(n^1L_L)\\
B(n^3L_L)
\end{array}
\right),
\label{Bmixing1}
\end{equation}
where the $\theta_{nL}$ is the mixing angles.

With above formalisms, one can solve the Schr\"{o}dinger equation with Hamiltonian  of Eq.~(\ref{ha}) to get the meson wave functions, which will act as the input for calculating the strong decays of excited bottom mesons in the $^3P_0$ model.

\subsection{$^3P_0$ model}
The $^3P_0$ model was proposed by Micu \cite{Micu:1968mk} and further developed by Le Yaouanc
\cite{LeYaouanc:1972vsx, LeYaouanc:1974cvx, LeYaouanc:1977fsz,LeYaouanc:1977gm},  and it has been widely used to calculate the OZI allowed decay processes \cite{Roberts:1992js,Blundell:1996as,Barnes:1996ff,
Close:2005se,Barnes:2005pb,Zhang:2006yj,Li:2008mza,
Li:2009rka,Li:2010vx,Lu:2014zua,Pan:2016bac,Lu:2016bbk,Li:2022ybj,Li:2021qgz,Wang:2017pxm,Hao:2020fs}.
In this model, the meson decay occurs through the regroupment between the $q\bar{q}$ of the initial meson and the another $q\bar{q}$ pair created from vacuum with the quantum numbers $J^{PC}=0^{++}$. The transition operator $T$ of the decay  $A\rightarrow BC$ in the $^3P_0$ model is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&T=-3\gamma \sum \limits_{m} \langle1m;1-m|00\rangle \int d^3\boldsymbol{p}_3 d^3\boldsymbol{p}_4 \delta^3(\boldsymbol{p}_3+\boldsymbol{p}_4)\nonumber\\
&\mathcal{Y}_{1m}\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{p}_3-\boldsymbol{p}_4}{2}\right) \chi^{34}_{1,-m} \phi^{34}_{0} \left(\omega^{34}_{0}\right)b^{\dag}_{3}(\boldsymbol{p}_3) d^{\dag}_{4}(\boldsymbol{p}_4),
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal{Y}}^m_1(\boldsymbol{p})\equiv|\boldsymbol{p}|^1Y^m_1(\theta_p,\phi_p)$ is solid harmonic polynomial in the momentum space of the created quark-antiquark pair.
$\chi^{34}_{1, -m}$, $\phi^{34}_0$ and $\omega^{34}_0$
 are the spin, flavor and color wave functions, respectively.
The paramtere $\gamma$ is the quark pair creation strength parameter  for $u \bar{u}$ and $d \bar{d}$ pairs, and for $s\bar{s}$ we take $\gamma_{s\bar{s}}=\gamma\frac{m_u}{m_s}$ \cite{LeYaouanc:1977gm}. The parameter $\gamma$ can be determined by fitting to the experimental data.
The partial wave amplitude ${\cal{M}}^{LS}(\boldsymbol{P})$ of the decay  $A\rightarrow BC$ is be given by Ref.~\cite{Jacob:1959at},
\begin{eqnarray}
    {\cal{M}}^{LS}(\boldsymbol{P})&=&
    \sum_{ M_{J_B},M_{J_C}, M_S,M_L}
    \langle LM_LSM_S|J_AM_{J_A}\rangle \nonumber\\
    &&\langle
    J_BM_{J_B}J_CM_{J_C}|SM_S\rangle\nonumber\\
    &&\int
    d\Omega\,\mbox{}Y^\ast_{LM_L}
  {\cal{M}}^{M_{J_A}M_{J_B}M_{J_C}}
    (\boldsymbol{P}),
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal{M}}^{M_{J_A}M_{J_B}M_{J_C}}
(\boldsymbol{P})$ is the helicity amplitude,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle
BC|T|A\rangle =\delta^3(\boldsymbol{P}_A-\boldsymbol{P}_B-\boldsymbol{P}_C)\nonumber\\
               {\cal{M}}^{M_{J_A}M_{J_B}M_{J_C}}(\boldsymbol{P}).
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $|A\rangle$, $|B\rangle$, and $|C\rangle$ denote the mock meson states which are defined in Ref.~\cite{Hayne:1981zy}.
Then, the decay width
$\Gamma(A\rightarrow BC)$ can be expressed as

\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(A\rightarrow BC)= \frac{\pi
P}{4M^2_A}\sum_{LS}|{\cal{M}}^{LS}(\boldsymbol{P})|^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $P=|\boldsymbol{P}|=\frac{\sqrt{[M^2_A-(M_B+M_C)^2][M^2_A-(M_B-M_C)^2]}}{2M_A}$,
 $M_A$, $M_B$, and $M_C$ are the masses of the mesons $A$, $B$,
and $C$, respectively. The spatial wave functions of the mesons in the $^3P_0$ model are obtained by solving the Schr$\ddot{o}$dinger equation in Eq. (\ref{ha}).

\begin{table*}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\caption{ \label{bmass} The mass spectrum of the  bottom mesons by
different quark models in the units of MeV. The mixing angles of $B_L-B^\prime_L$ calculated in
this work are $\theta_{1P} =-53.5^\circ$, $\theta_{2P} =-54.5^\circ$, $\theta_{1D}=-50.5^\circ$, $\theta_{2D}=-50.5^\circ$ and  $\theta_{1F}=49.0^\circ$}.
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccccc}
\hline\hline
  State          &PDG                 & Ours    & GI\cite{Godfrey:2016nwn}    & ARM\cite{Godfrey:2016nwn}   & NRQM\cite{Lu:2016bbk} & EFG\cite{Ebert:2009ua}  &DE\cite{DiPierro:2001dwf}  & LNR\cite{Lahde:1999ih} &ZVR\cite{Zeng:1994vj} \\\hline
  $B(1^1S_0)$  &$5279.65\pm0.12$      &5279           &5312          & 5275     & 5280   & 5280 &5279  &5277 &5280  \\
  $B(1^3S_1)$  &$5324.70\pm0.21$      &5327           &5371          & 5316     & 5329   & 5326 &5324  &5325 &5330  \\
  $B(2^1S_0)$  &$5863\pm9$            &5870           &5904          & 5834     & 5910   & 5890 &5886  &5822 &5830  \\
  $B(2^3S_1)$  &                      &5896           & 5933         & 5864     & 5939   & 5906 &5920  &5848 &5870  \\
  $B(3^1S_0)$  &                      &6278           & 6335         & 6216     & 6369   & 6379 &6320  &6117 &6210  \\
  $B(3^3S_1)$  &                      &6297           & 6355         & 6240     & 6391   & 6387 &6347  &6136 &6240  \\
  $B(1^3P_0)$  &                      &5683           & 5756         & 5720     & 5683   & 5749 &5706  &5678 &5650  \\
  $B_1(1P)$    &                      &5722           & 5777         & 5738     & 5729   & 5774 &5700  &5686 &5690  \\
  $B^\prime_1(1P)$  & $5726.1\pm1.3$  &5725           & 5784         & 5753     & 5754   & 5723 &5742  &5699 &5690  \\
  $B(1^3P_2)$  &$5739.5\pm0.7$        &5736           & 5797         & 5754     & 5768   & 5741 &5714  &5704 &5710  \\
  $B(2^3P_0)$  &                      &6104           & 6213         & 6106     & 6145   & 6221 &6163  &6010 &6060  \\
  $B_1(2P)$    &                      &6139           & 6197         & 6126     & 6185   & 6281 &6175  &6022 &6100  \\
  $B^\prime_1(2P)$   &                &6162           & 6228         & 6132     &6241    & 6209 &6194  &6028 &6100  \\
  $B(2^3P_2)$  &                      &6174           & 6213         & 6141     & 6253   & 6260 &6188  &6040 &6120  \\
  $B(1^3D_1)$  &                      &6066           & 6110         & 6053     & 6095   & 6119 &6025  &6005 &5970  \\
  $B_2(1D)$    &                      &5952           & 6095         & 6012     &6004    & 6121 &5985  &5920 &5960  \\
  $B^\prime_2(1D)$  &                 &6080           & 6124         & 6072     & 6113   & 6103 &6037  &5955 &5980  \\
  $B(1^3D_3)$   & $5971\pm5$          &5959           & 6106         & 6026     & 6014   & 6091 &5993  &5871 &5970  \\
  $B(2^3D_1)$  &                      &6420           & 6475         &6357      & 6497   & 6534 &      &6248 &      \\
  $B_2(2D)$   &                       &6334           &6450          &6334      & 6435   & 6554 &      &6179 &6310  \\
  $B^\prime_2(2D)$      &             &6433           & 6486         &6377      & 6513   & 6528 &      &6207 &6320  \\
  $B(2^3D_3)$  &                      &6341           & 6460         & 6347     & 6444   & 6542 &      &6140 &6320  \\
  $B(1^3F_2)$  &                      &6329           & 6387         &6302      & 6383   & 6412 &6264  &     &6190  \\
  $B_3(1F)$    &                      &6157           & 6358         & 6231     & 6236   & 6420 &6220  &     &6180  \\
  $B^\prime_3(1F)$       &            &6337           &6396          &6316      & 6393   & 6391 &6271  &     &6200  \\
  $B(1^3F_4)$            &            &6162           & 6364         & 6244     & 6243   & 6380 &6226  &     &6180  \\
  \hline\hline

\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

\section{Results and discussions}
\label{sec:result}
In the modified nonrelativistic quark model, we  determine two parameters,  $C_{q\bar{q}}=0.0152$~GeV of Eq.~(\ref{ha}) and $\beta=0.0246$~GeV of Eq.~(\ref{eq:screened}), by fitting the  masses of the bottom mesons $B$ and $B^*$, which have already been well established as the $B(1^1S_0)$ and $B(1^3S_1)$, respectively.
With these values, we calculated the mass spectrum of the bottom mesons, as shown in Table~\ref{bmass}, where we also present the predictions with other models without considering the screening effect~\cite{Zeng:1994vj,Lahde:1999ih,DiPierro:2001dwf,Ebert:2009ua,Godfrey:2016nwn, Lu:2016bbk}. It should be stressed that the mixing angles are obtained as $\theta_{1P} =-53.5^\circ$, $\theta_{2P} =-54.5^\circ$, $\theta_{1D}=-50.5^\circ$, $\theta_{2D}=-50.5^\circ$ and  $\theta_{1F}=-49.0^\circ$  by solving the potential model with the Hamiltonian  of Eq.~(\ref{ha}), which are close to the heavy quark limit mixing angles $\theta_{1P}=\theta_{2P}=-54.7^\circ$, $\theta_{1D}=\theta_{2D}=-50.8^\circ$ and $\theta_{1F}=\theta_{2F}=-49.1^\circ$ ~\cite{Cahn:2003cw}.

\begin{table}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\caption{ \label{B13P2} Decay widths of the $B_2^*(5747)$ as the $B(1^3P_2)$ in units of MeV. }
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\hline\hline
                               &$B_2^*(5747)$  \\\hline
  $B^+\pi^-$                   &8.2       \\
  $B^0\pi^0$                   &4.1         \\
  $B^{*+}\pi^-$                &7.8       \\
  $B^{*0}\pi^0$                &4.0             \\
  Total width                  &24.2          \\
  Experiment                   & $24.2\pm1.7$                                      \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

In Table~\ref{bmass}, one can find that our results for excited bottom mesons are lower than those of Godfrey-Isgur (GI)~\cite{Godfrey:2016nwn} and Nonrelativistic quark model (NRQM)~\cite{Lu:2016bbk}, which is due to the screening effect. In the modified nonrelativistic quark model, the $B^*_2(5747)$ mass is consistent with the predicted mass of  $B(1^3P_2)$, and the $B_1(5721)$ mass is also in well agreement with the one of $B^\prime_1(1P)$.
On the other hand, the $B_J(5840)$ can be considered as the candidate of the $B(2^1S_0)$ taking into account the experimental uncertainties,  and the $B_J(5970)$ can be assigned as the candidate of the $B_2(1D)$ or $B(1^3D_3)$. As we known, only the mass information is not enough to make those assignments,  and we will calculate their strong decay widths based on these preliminary assignments for the $B_1(5721)$, $B^*_2(5747)$, $B_J(5840)$, and  $B_J(5970)$ to further examine these  assignments.

 \begin{table}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\caption{ \label{B1P} Decay widths of the $B_1(5721)$ a,s the $B(1P)$ and  $B^\prime_1(1P)$ in units of MeV, with the mixing angle $\theta_{1P}=-53.5^\circ$.}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline\hline
 Channel            & $B_1(1P)$         & $B^\prime_1(1P)$        \\\hline
  $B^{*+}\pi^-$     &$129.2$            &$11.0$             \\
  $B^{*0}\pi^0$     &$64.3$             &$5.6$            \\
  Total width       &$193.5$            &$16.5$            \\
  Experiment          & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$27.5\pm3.4$} \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

Before presenting the strong decays, we need to determine the quark pair creation strength $\gamma$ firstly. As we discussed above, $B_1(5721)$ may be a mixing state, and the assignments of the $B_J(5840)$ and $B_J(5970)$ are still in debate due to the unknown quantum numbers and poor decay information. In this work we take $\gamma=0.411$ by fitting to the experimental widths of $B^*_2(5747)$ which is regarded as the $B(1^3P_2)$ state in previous works~\cite{Lu:2016bbk,Kher:2017mky, Asghar:2018tha, Godfrey:2019cmi, Yu:2019iwm}. The decay properties of the state $B^*_2(5747)$ with the assignment of $B(1^3P_2)$ are shown in Table~\ref{B13P2}. The ratio of the decay modes are calculated as,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Gamma(B^*_2(5747)\to B^{*+}\pi^-)}{\Gamma(B^*_2(5747)\to B^{+}\pi^-)}=0.95,
\end{equation}
which is consistent with the experimental data of $1.10\pm0.42\pm0.31$~\cite{D0:2007vzd} and $0.71\pm 0.14 \pm 0.30$~\cite{LHCb:2015aaf}, and also the prediction of  the nonrelativistic quark model~\cite{Lu:2016bbk}.

\begin{table}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\caption{ \label{B5840} Decay widths of the $B_J(5840)$ as the $B(2^1S_0)$ in units of MeV.}
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\hline\hline
                              &$2^1S_0$           \\\hline
  $B^{*+}\pi^-$               &$73.0$                 \\
  $B^{*0}\pi^0$               &$36.5$                   \\
  $B^*(1^3P_0)^+\pi^-$        &$0.004$                    \\
  $B^*(1^3P_0)^0\pi^0$        &$0.003$                \\
  Total width                 & $109.5$                 \\
  Experiment                &$127\pm40$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

The decay widths of the $B_1(5721)$ as the $B_1(1P)$ and $B^\prime_1(1P)$ with the mixing angle $\theta_{1P}=-53.5^\circ$ are listed in Table~\ref{B1P}. The total widths of the $B_1(5721)$ as the $B_1(1P)$ and $B^\prime_1(1P)$  are predicted to be $193.5$~MeV and $16.5$~MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the total decay widths of the $B_1(5721)$ as the $B_1(1P)$ and $B^\prime_1(1P)$
on the mixing angle is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. One can see that the total width is narrow around $\theta_{1P}=-53.5^\circ$.  We can safely rule out the $B_1(1P)$ assignment since the width of this case is much larger than the experimental data. Within in the experimental uncertainties, the total width of the $B^\prime_1(1P)$  assignment is in fair agreement with the experimental data, which implies that $B_1(5721)$ could be the $B^\prime_1(1P)$ state.

 In the heavy quark limit, the $P$-wave heavy-light mesons could be divided into $j=1/2 (0^+,1^+)$ doublet and  $j=3/2 (1^+,2^+)$ doublet, with $j(=S_q+L)$ is the total angular momentum of the light quark. For the bottom mesons, the decay width  is broad for $j=1/2$ doublet, which couples to $B\pi$ in $S$-wave, and narrow for $j=3/2$ doublet, which couples to $B\pi$ in $D$-wave. Thus, the $B_1(5721)$
and $B^*_2(5747)$ should be the  $j=3/2 (1^+,2^+)$ doublet.

\begin{figure}[!htpb]
  \centering

   \begin{tabular}{c}
  \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{1P.eps}
   \end{tabular}
  \caption{Total decay width of the $B_1(5721)$ as the $B^\prime_1(1P)$ depends on the mixing angle. The vertical red solid line corresponds to the mixing angle $\theta_{1P}=-53.5^\circ$, and the blue band denotes the experimental width of the $B_1(5721)$ from RPP~\cite{PDG2021}.}
  \label{fig1}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\caption{ \label{B1D} Decay widths of the $B_J(5970)$ as the  $B_2(1D)$ and $B(1^3D_3)$ in units of  MeV with the mixing angle  $\theta_{1D}=-50.5^\circ$. }
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline\hline

                             &$B_2(1D)$    &$B(1^3D_3)$ \\\hline
  $B^+\pi^-$                 & $-$                     & $12.6$   \\
  $B^0\pi^0$                 & $-$                     & $6.3$   \\
  $B^{*+}\pi^-$              & $52.9$              & $13.5$   \\
  $B^{*0}\pi^0$              & $26.4$               & $6.8$     \\
  $B^*(1^3P_0)^+\pi^-$       & $0.006$               & $-$  \\
  $B^*(1^3P_0)^0\pi^0$       & $0.003$            & $-$       \\
  $B^*(1^3P_2)^+\pi^-$       & $66.8$               & $0.2$  \\
  $B^*(1^3P_2)^0\pi^0$       & $33.5$              & $0.1$   \\
  $B_1(1P)^+\pi^-$           & $0.005$            & $0.05$  \\
  $B_1(1P)^0\pi^0$           & $0.003$              & $0.03$       \\
  $B^\prime_1(1P)^+\pi^-$    & $0.4$              & $0.05$   \\
  $B^\prime_1(1P)^0\pi^0$    & $0.1$               & $0.03$       \\
  $B^0\eta$                  & $-$                  & $0.3$     \\
  $B^{*0}\eta$               & $11.2$               & $0.1$     \\
  $B_s^0K^0$                 & $-$                   & $0.1$   \\
  $B_s^{*0}K^0$              & $11.1$              & $0.03$      \\
  Total width                & $202.5$           &$40.1$       \\
  Experiment                 &\multicolumn{2}{c} {$81\pm12$ }            \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[!htpb]
  \centering

   \begin{tabular}{c}
  \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{1D.eps}
   \end{tabular}
  \caption{Total decay width of the $B_J(5970)$    depends on the mixing angle as the $B_2(1D)$ and $B^\prime_2(1D)$. The vertical red solid line corresponds to the mixing angle $\theta_{1D}=-50.5^\circ$ and the blue band denotes the experimental width from RPP~\cite{PDG2021}}
  \label{fig2}
\end{figure}

The decay widths of the $B_J(5840)$ as the $B(2^1S_0)$ is shown in Table~\ref{B5840}, and the predicted total decay width is 109.5~MeV,  in well agreement with the experimental measurement $127\pm40$~MeV~\cite{PDG2021}. In this case, the dominant decay mode is $B^*\pi$, and the decay mode $B\pi$ is forbidden for the $B(2^1S_0)$ assignment. It should be pointed out that the decay mode $B\pi$ has not yet finally been confirmed by the LHCb~\cite{LHCb:2015aaf}, which implies that assignments of the $B_J(5840)$ as the $B(2^1S_0)$ is acceptable.

The decay widths of the $B_J(5970)$ as the $B_2(1D)$ and $B(1^3D_3)$ are listed in Table~\ref{B1D}. The predicted total width of the $B_2(1D)$ assignment is $202.5$~MeV with mixing angle $\theta_{1D}=-50.5^\circ$, which is about 100~MeV larger than the experimental data $81\pm12$ MeV, while the one of the $B(1^3D_3)$ assignment is $40.1$ MeV.
 The dominant decay modes are $B\pi$ and $B^*\pi$ decay modes, supported by the measurements of the CDF~\cite{CDF:2013www} and LHCb Collaborations~\cite{LHCb:2015aaf}.
The dependence of the decay widths of the $B_J(5970)$ as the $B_2(1D)$ on the mixing angle is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, one can find that the total width of $B_2(1D)$ is about 200~MeV around the mixing angle $\theta_{1D}=-50.5^\circ$, and the total width of $B'_2(1D)$ is predicted to be about 50~MeV. Considering the predictive power of the model and the experimental uncertainties, it is reasonable to regard $B_J(5970)$ as the $B(1^3D_3)$.

\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
In this paper, we have calculated the bottom meson spectrum with a modified nonrelativistic quark model involving the screening effect. We present a good description of mass spectrum of the bottom mesons, especially for the excited bottom mesons. Furthermore, we also investigate the strong decay properties of the $B_1(5721)$, $B^*_2(5747)$, $B_J(5840)$, and $B_J(5970)$ with the $^3P_0$ model.

Based on the mass spectrum and decay properties, the $B_1(5721)$ and $B^*_2(5747)$ can be identified as the $B_1^\prime(1P)$ and $B(1^3P_2)$, respectively.
The $B_J(5840)$ could be interpreted as the $B(2^1S_0)$, and the $B_J(5970)$ could be explained as the $B(1^3D_3)$.  Further experimental information, especially the quantum numbers and decay modes of $B_J(5840)$ and $B_J(5970)$, are necessary to confirm these assignments.

\begin{acknowledgements}
 This work is supported by the Academic Improvement Project of Zhengzhou University.
\end{acknowledgements}