Quantifying the entanglement of quantum states under the geometric method
Abstract
Quantifying entanglement is an important issue in quantum information theory. Here we consider the entanglement measures through the trace norm in terms of two methods, the modified measure and the extended measure for bipartite states. We present the analytical formula for the pure states in terms of the modified measure and the mixed states of two-qubit systems for the extended measure. We also generalize the modified measure from bipartite states to tripartite states.
pacs:
03.65.Ud, 03.67.MnI Introduction
Quantum entanglement is an essential feature of quantum mechanics. It plays an important role in quantum information and quantum computation theory horodecki2009quantum , such as superdense coding bennett1992communication , teleportation bennett1993teleporting and the speedup of quantum algorithms shimoni2005entangled .
How to quantify the amount of entanglement for a multipartite system is important in quantum information theory. As it
is linked with many areas of the entanglement theory, such as entanglement distillability bennett1996mixed , the transformation of quantum states vedral1997quantifying ; jonathan1999minimal ; rains1999bound , monogamy of entanglement coffman2000distributed ; bai2014general ; zhu2014entanglement ; de2014monogamy ; shi2021multilinear , quantum speed limit rudnicki2021quantum and so on. Due to the importance of this issue, it has been
investigated almost since the end of the last century shimony1995degree ; bennett1996mixed ; vedral1997quantifying . In 1996, Bennett proposed the distillable entanglement and entanglement cost, as well as their operational interpretations bennett1996mixed . In 1997, Vedral presented three necessary conditions that an entanglement measure should satisfy vedral1997quantifying . And Vidal presented a general method to quantify the entanglement for the bipartite entangled states vidal2000entanglement . This method is built on the function of pure states in the bipartite system and generalized to the mixed states under the convex roof extended methods on the bipartite system. Other than the generic conditions and the building methods of entanglement measures, some meaningful thoughts to bulid the entanglement measures are presented. The robustness of an entangled state tells us how many degrees of the separable states needed to make the state separable vidal1999robustness . The squashed entanglement was motived by the intrinsic information tucci2002entanglement ; christandl2004squashed , it is monogamous for arbitrary dimensional systems christandl2004squashed and faithful brandao2011faithful . Moreover, the way to measure the entanglement can also be defined based on the geometrical ways, such as, the geomeric measure of entanglement barnum2001monotones ; wei2003geometric , the quantum relative entropy vedral1997quantifying and the fidelity streltsov2010linking . However, there are few results of the measure based on the distance between an entangled state and the set of separable states under the trace norm.
Trace norm not only can quantify the entanglement for a multipartitie mixed state, but also it provides a way to quantify the discord paula2013geometric ; montealegre2013one ; ciccarello2014toward ; roga2016geometric , the measurement-induced nonlocality hu2015measurement , asymmetry marvian2014extending , steering sainz2018formalism and coherence baumgratz2014quantifying ; rana2016trace ; chen2018notes . It is also helpful in quantum communication pirandola2017fundamental ; pirandola2020advances and quantum algorithms gebhart2021quantifying ; bai2022quantum .
This article is organized as follows. In section II, first we present the preliminary knowledge needed. We also present some properties of the modified entanglement measure. In section \@slowromancapiii@, we consider the properties of the entanglement mesurement in terms of the trace norm under two methods. Specifically, in section III.1, we present the solutions of the modified measure for pure states, and then we generalize it to a measure for tripartite mixed states , which tells the distance between a tripartite state and the cone of full separable states. In section III.2, we consider the measure based on the trace norm under the method proposed in gour2020optimal ; shi2021extension . In section IV, we end with a conclusion.
II Preliminary Knowledge
In the following, we denote as the set of states on with finite dimensions. Next for a state , if it can be written as , then it is separable, otherwise, it is an entangled state. We denote as the set of separable states on with finite dimensions. And we may leave out the systems in the absence of ambiguity in the following.
Assume is a bipartite pure state in , , then its concurrence is defined as
(1) |
here is the reduced density matrix of When is a mixed state, then
(2) |
where the minimum takes over all the decompositions of .
Next we recall the definition of a distance measure in terms of trace norm for a bipartite mixed state. Assume , its distance measure in terms of trace norm is defined as,
(3) |
here takes over all the separable states in the system
Then we recall is an entanglement measure vedral1997quantifying if it satifies:
-
(I)
if .
-
(II)
does not increase under the local operation and classical communication (LOCC),
here is LOCC.
In vidal2000entanglement , the author presented that when satisfies the following two conditions, is an entanglement monotone,
-
(III)
here , is any unilocal quantum operation performed by any party or and are on behave of the party or
-
(IV)
For any decomposition of
The condition (IV) can also be regarded as the convexity of an entanglement measure. Next we recall the simplified conditions when the function satisifies the LOCC monotone horodecki2005simplifying : For a convex function does not increase under LOCC if and only if
-
1
. satisfies local unitary invariance (LUI)
(4) -
2
. satisfies
(5) for , where are local orthogonal flags.
The properties (I), (II) and (IV) are satisfied by vedral1997quantifying ; chen2014comparison , however, the property (III) for the entanglement measure is not valid qiao2017activation . Then we recall the modified version of the entanglement measure ,
(6) |
Due to the properties of and the definition of if we could prove
(7) | |||
here is a quantum operation on the party at some stage ( labels different outcomes if at some stage A performs a measurement), satisfies the property (III). Next we recall the Naimark theorem paulsen2002completely :
Assume is a POVM acting on a Hilbert space with dimension , then there exists a projection-valued measures (PVM) acting on a Hilbert space with dimension , such that
(8) |
A method is via the direct sum, requiring
(9) |
here is an arbitrary operator in , is the zero matrix with dimension . As the local operations , addition of an uncorrelated ancilla system and the dismissal of a local part of the whole system satisfy
the above inequality is due to the definition of and the monotonicity of the trace norm under Combing the Naimark theorem, we only need to prove (7) is valid for the PVM, that is, we need to prove that
(10) |
here , is a PVM on the -party.
(11) |
Here in the first equality, is the optimal in terms of for . In the first inequality, is a PVM on the -party of , , then due to the contractive under the trace-preserving quantum operations, the first inequality is valid. In the third equality, here the trace of may be not 1, that is, may be not a state. As a separable state, and due to the definition of the last inequality is valid. We finish the proof of the inequality .
At last, we prove the convexity of . Assume is an arbitrary decompostion of , is the optimal for the state in terms of , then
(12) |
the first equality is due to the definition of the first inequality is due to the convexity of the . In the second inequality, we denote as the optimal in terms of for , and the second inequality is due to the definition of Then we prove the property (IV) is satisfied by the entanglement measure .
III Main Results
In this section, we will consider the entanglement measures based on trace norm in terms of two methods, the modified distance measure and the extended distance measure. First we present the analytical formula of a class of entangled states in terms of the modified entanglement measure, we also present some properties of the modified measure. At last, we consider the extended measure generated under the method presented in gour2020optimal ; shi2021extension and show this measure is monogamous for -qubit systems .
III.1 The modified distance measure
In this section, we first rewrite the definition of modified distance measure as follows,
(13) |
here takes over all the elements in the set . In yu2016alternative , the authors presented the method to quantify the coherence in this way. In johnston2018modified , they showed that the modified distance of almost all pure states is a constant, and they numerically showed that a similar result occurs for states with a fixed rank. Here we showed that the same result occurs for the entangled pure states.
Theorem 1
Assume is an arbitrary pure state, here then the modified distance measure of is
(14) |
We present the proof of this theorem in Sec. VI.
Remark 1
In regula2019one , the authors considered the same problem for the pure states in terms of . The method there is due to the convex analysis, ours is different from there. Moreover, comparing with the result in regula2019one , ours is more apparent. And we can also generalize our methods to a class of mixed states.
Corollary 1
Assume is a two-qubit mixed state, then .
The main proof of the above corollary is the same as the proof for the pure states above, and by combing the theorem 1 in johnston2018modified , we can get the corollary. Next we present some properties of the modified distance measure.
Theorem 2
Assume and are two mixed states with , then we have
(15) |
Proof.
Here we can always assume , then we have
(16) |
Here is the optimal for . The first inequality is due to the definition of , as may not be the optimal for , the second inequality is due to the triangle inequality
At the end of this subsection, we generalize the measure to a quantity for a tripartite system which tells the distance from a tripartite state to the set of fully separable states. Next we recall the fully separable states. A pure state is fully separable if it can be written as . If a mixed state can be written as
then is a fully separable state. The definition of is defined as follows,
(17) |
here the infimum takes over all the elements in .
In the following, we will compute the values and
Example 1
Assume
Then
III.2 The extended distance measure
Here we consider another entanglement measure based on the trace norm under the method presented in gour2020optimal ; shi2021extension . There the authors presented a way to generate the entanglement measure for the mixed states from the entanglement measure on pure states. Assume ,
(18) |
here the infimum takes over all the pure states in the set
Here we specifically consider the properties of the entanglement measures based on the trace norm under the method above,
(19) |
Then we show the above quantity is an entanglement measure. When is a mixed state, is the optimal pure state in (19), assume is LOCC, then
here is LOCC. Hence, the property (II) is valid. As a separable pure state can be transformed into a separable mixed state through LOCC, then the quantity of a separable state is 0. Hence, it is an entanglement measure.
Next we consider the mixed states on two-qubit systems in terms of
Theorem 3
When is a two-qubit mixed state, is an entanglement monotone. Furthermore,
where the minimum takes over all the decompositions of Furthermore, assume is an -qubit mixed state, then
(20) |
Proof.
Assume is a two-qubit mixed state, then
where the minimum in the last equality takes over all the decompositions of In the first equality, is the optimal for in terms of , and combing chen2016quantifying , we have the second equality is valid. As for any two-qubit pure state chen2016quantifying , and due to the definition of and , the third equality is valid. Next we show the last inequality,
In the first equality, we denote as the optimal in terms of As is a pure state, then we have chen2016quantifying . The first inequality is due to that can be transformed by under LOCC. The last inequality is proved in osborne2006general . As when is a two-qubit mixed state, , we have the last equality is valid.
IV Conclusion
In this paper, we have considered the entanglement measures in terms of the trace norm under two methods. We have presented the modified distance measure satisfies convexity for arbitrary dimensional systems. And we also have presented the analytical expressions for some classes of states. Then we have shown the extended measure is an entanglement monotone for the 2-qubit systems and monogamous for -qubit systems. We think the above results may be not valid for larger systems, although we havenot found a counterexample. At last, we believe that our results are helpful in the study of monogamy relations for multipartite entanglement systems. And we hope our work could shed some light on related studies.
V Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the NNSF of China (Grant No. 11871089), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant Nos. KG12080401 and ZG216S1902).
References
- (1) R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Reviews of modern physics, vol. 81, no. 2, p. 865, 2009.
- (2) C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, “Communication via one-and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states,” Physical review letters, vol. 69, no. 20, p. 2881, 1992.
- (3) C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,” Physical review letters, vol. 70, no. 13, p. 1895, 1993.
- (4) Y. Shimoni, D. Shapira, and O. Biham, “Entangled quantum states generated by shor’s factoring algorithm,” Physical Review A, vol. 72, no. 6, p. 062308, 2005.
- (5) C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,” Physical Review A, vol. 54, no. 5, p. 3824, 1996.
- (6) V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, “Quantifying entanglement,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 78, no. 12, p. 2275, 1997.
- (7) D. Jonathan and M. B. Plenio, “Minimal conditions for local pure-state entanglement manipulation,” Physical review letters, vol. 83, no. 7, p. 1455, 1999.
- (8) E. M. Rains, “Bound on distillable entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 60, no. 1, p. 179, 1999.
- (9) V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, “Distributed entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 61, no. 5, p. 052306, 2000.
- (10) Y.-K. Bai, Y.-F. Xu, and Z. Wang, “General monogamy relation for the entanglement of formation in multiqubit systems,” Physical review letters, vol. 113, no. 10, p. 100503, 2014.
- (11) X.-N. Zhu and S.-M. Fei, “Entanglement monogamy relations of qubit systems,” Physical Review A, vol. 90, no. 2, p. 024304, 2014.
- (12) T. R. De Oliveira, M. F. Cornelio, and F. F. Fanchini, “Monogamy of entanglement of formation,” Physical Review A, vol. 89, no. 3, p. 034303, 2014.
- (13) X. Shi, L. Chen, and M. Hu, “Multilinear monogamy relations for multiqubit states,” Physical Review A, vol. 104, no. 1, p. 012426, 2021.
- (14) L. Rudnicki, “Quantum speed limit and geometric measure of entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 104, no. 3, p. 032417, 2021.
- (15) A. Shimony, “Degree of entanglement a,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 755, no. 1, pp. 675–679, 1995.
- (16) G. Vidal, “Entanglement monotones,” Journal of Modern Optics, vol. 47, no. 2-3, pp. 355–376, 2000.
- (17) G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, “Robustness of entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 59, no. 1, p. 141, 1999.
- (18) R. R. Tucci, “Entanglement of distillation and conditional mutual information,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/0202144, 2002.
- (19) M. Christandl and A. Winter, ““squashed entanglement”: an additive entanglement measure,” Journal of mathematical physics, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 829–840, 2004.
- (20) F. G. Brandao, M. Christandl, and J. Yard, “Faithful squashed entanglement,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 306, no. 3, pp. 805–830, 2011.
- (21) H. Barnum and N. Linden, “Monotones and invariants for multi-particle quantum states,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, vol. 34, no. 35, p. 6787, 2001.
- (22) T.-C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart, “Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states,” Physical Review A, vol. 68, no. 4, p. 042307, 2003.
- (23) A. Streltsov, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, “Linking a distance measure of entanglement to its convex roof,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 12, no. 12, p. 123004, 2010.
- (24) F. Paula, T. R. de Oliveira, and M. Sarandy, “Geometric quantum discord through the schatten 1-norm,” Physical Review A, vol. 87, no. 6, p. 064101, 2013.
- (25) J. Montealegre, F. Paula, A. Saguia, and M. Sarandy, “One-norm geometric quantum discord under decoherence,” Physical Review A, vol. 87, no. 4, p. 042115, 2013.
- (26) F. Ciccarello, T. Tufarelli, and V. Giovannetti, “Toward computability of trace distance discord,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 013038, 2014.
- (27) W. Roga, D. Spehner, and F. Illuminati, “Geometric measures of quantum correlations: characterization, quantification, and comparison by distances and operations,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 49, no. 23, p. 235301, 2016.
- (28) M.-L. Hu and H. Fan, “Measurement-induced nonlocality based on the trace norm,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 033004, 2015.
- (29) I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, “Extending noether’s theorem by quantifying the asymmetry of quantum states,” Nature communications, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2014.
- (30) A. B. Sainz, L. Aolita, M. Piani, M. J. Hoban, and P. Skrzypczyk, “A formalism for steering with local quantum measurements,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 20, no. 8, p. 083040, 2018.
- (31) T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, “Quantifying coherence,” Physical review letters, vol. 113, no. 14, p. 140401, 2014.
- (32) S. Rana, P. Parashar, and M. Lewenstein, “Trace-distance measure of coherence,” Physical Review A, vol. 93, no. 1, p. 012110, 2016.
- (33) B. Chen and S.-M. Fei, “Notes on modified trace distance measure of coherence,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1–9, 2018.
- (34) S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, “Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications,” Nature communications, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2017.
- (35) S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani et al., “Advances in quantum cryptography,” Advances in optics and photonics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1012–1236, 2020.
- (36) V. Gebhart, L. Pezzè, and A. Smerzi, “Quantifying computational advantage of grover’s algorithm with the trace speed,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2021.
- (37) G. Bai, Y.-D. Wu, Y. Zhu, M. Hayashi, and G. Chiribella, “Quantum causal unravelling,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2022.
- (38) G. Gour and M. Tomamichel, “Optimal extensions of resource measures and their applications,” Physical Review A, vol. 102, no. 6, p. 062401, 2020.
- (39) X. Shi and L. Chen, “An extension of entanglement measures for pure states,” Annalen der Physik, vol. 533, no. 4, p. 2000462, 2021.
- (40) M. Horodecki, “Simplifying monotonicity conditions for entanglement measures,” Open Systems & Information Dynamics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 231–237, 2005.
- (41) L. Chen, M. Aulbach, and M. Hajdušek, “Comparison of different definitions of the geometric measure of entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 89, no. 4, p. 042305, 2014.
- (42) L.-F. Qiao, J. Gao, A. Streltsov, S. Rana, R.-J. Ren, Z.-Q. Jiao, C.-Q. Hu, X.-Y. Xu, C.-Y. Wang, H. Tang, A.-L. Yang, Z.-H. Ma, M. Lewenstein, and X.-M. Jin, “Activation of entanglement from quantum coherence and superposition,” Physical Review A, vol. 98, no. 5, p. 052351, 2018.
- (43) V. Paulsen, Completely bounded maps and operator algebras. Cambridge University Press, 2002, no. 78.
- (44) X.-D. Yu, D.-J. Zhang, G. Xu, and D. Tong, “Alternative framework for quantifying coherence,” Physical Review A, vol. 94, no. 6, p. 060302, 2016.
- (45) N. Johnston, C.-K. Li, and S. Plosker, “The modified trace distance of coherence is constant on most pure states,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 51, no. 41, p. 414010, 2018.
- (46) B. Regula, K. Fang, X. Wang, and M. Gu, “One-shot entanglement distillation beyond local operations and classical communication,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 21, no. 10, p. 103017, 2019.
- (47) J. Chen, S. Grogan, N. Johnston, C.-K. Li, and S. Plosker, “Quantifying the coherence of pure quantum states,” Physical Review A, vol. 94, no. 4, p. 042313, 2016.
- (48) T. J. Osborne and F. Verstraete, “General monogamy inequality for bipartite qubit entanglement,” Physical review letters, vol. 96, no. 22, p. 220503, 2006.
- (49) N. Yu, “Separability of a mixture of dicke states,” Physical Review A, vol. 94, no. 6, p. 060101, 2016.
- (50) C. Eltschka and J. Siewert, “Entanglement of three-qubit greenberger-horne-zeilinger–symmetric states,” Physical review letters, vol. 108, no. 2, p. 020502, 2012.
VI Appendix
VI.1 The proof of Example 1
Proof.
As satisfies the following property:
(21) |
here , then
(22) |
here can be written as
From (22), we have
here the set Combing the Theorem 1 in yu2016separability , the above can be written as the following,
(23) |
from computation, we have
Next we present the result on . In eltschka2012entanglement , the authors presented that satisfies the following properties:
-
i.
it is a symmetric state,
-
ii.
-
iii.
here are arbitrary values.
As is a symmetric state, that is,
here are arbitrary permutations isthe group of all permutations of an -element set, and Assume is the state attaining the minimum, then
here are arbitrary permutations. As and are arbitrary, is a symmetric state. By the similar method, should satisfy the same properties (i),(ii) and (iii). That is, the matrix of should be the following:
Then by simple computation, we have
VI.2 The proof of Theorem 1
1: Assume is an arbitrary pure state, here then the modifies distance measure of is
(24) |
Proof.
Assume is a pure state, , then we have , here is a diagonal unitary matrix. Next assume is an arbitrary positive operator which can be written as , here and are positive operators on the systems and , respectively.
(25) |
Then let be the optimal in terms of the modified distance measure for , we have
(26) |
as is the optimal, and is an element in the set of , then we have the inequality in is an equality. Let
here is the set consisting of all diagnoal unitary matrices, denotes the coefficient of the state in the basis . Hence we only need to compute the minimum of the following equality, here the minimum takes over all the positive operators that can be written as and are positive operators on the systems and , respectively.
(27) |
In the first equality, as , the coefficients of in the basis are 0. The first inequality is due to that the positive operator satisfies the PPT condition, then The last inequality is due to the triangle inequality of the trace norm. In the last equality, Next in johnston2018modified , the authors showed that the optimal coherence states for a pure state in terms of the modified trace norm of coherence is a diagonal matrix, and in the last equality of , this problem is turned into the modified trace norm of coherence for a pure state, then we finish the theorem.