arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 11 Sep 2017

Transcription

1 Operational one-to-one mapping between coherence an entanglement measures arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 11 Sep 2017 Huangun Zhu, 1, Zhihao Ma, 2, Zhu Cao, 3 Shao-Ming Fei, 4, 5 an Vlatko Veral 6,7 1 Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, Cologne 50937, Germany 2 Department of Mathematics, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, , China 3 Center for Quantum Information, Institute for Interisciplinary Information Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beiing , China 4 School of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beiing , China 5 Max-Planck-Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Leipzig, Germany 6 Department of Physics, University of Oxfor, Parks Roa, Oxfor, OX1 3PU, UK 7 Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore , Singapore (Date: September 13, 2017) We establish a general operational one-to-one mapping between coherence measures an entanglement measures: Any entanglement measure of bipartite pure states is the minimum of a suitable coherence measure over prouct bases. Any coherence measure of pure states, with extension to mixe states by convex roof, is the maximum entanglement generate by incoherent operations acting on the system an an incoherent ancilla. Remarkably, the generalize CNOT gate is the universal optimal incoherent operation. In this way, all convex-roof coherence measures, incluing the coherence of formation, are enowe with (aitional) operational interpretations. By virtue of this connection, many results on entanglement can be translate to the coherence setting, an vice versa. As applications, we provie tight observable lower bouns for generalize entanglement concurrence an coherence concurrence, which enable experimentalists to quantify entanglement an coherence of the maximal imension in real experiments. I. INTRODUCTION Quantum entanglement is a crucial resource for many quantum information processing tasks, such as quantum teleportation, ense coing, an quantum key istribution; see Ref. [1] for a review. It is also a useful tool for stuying various intriguing phenomena in many-boy physics an high energy physics, such as quantum phase transition an black hole information paraox. Quantum coherence unerlies entanglement an is even more funamental. It plays a key role in various research areas, such as interference [2 5], laser [2], quantum metrology [6 8], quantum computation [9 12], quantum thermoynamics [13 20], an photosynthesis [21, 22]. However, the significance of coherence as a resource was not fully appreciate until the works of Aberg [3] an Baumgratz et al. [23], which stuie coherence from the perspective of resource theories [24 29]. Coherence has since foun increasing applications an attracte increasing attention. Accoringly, great efforts have been evote to quantifying coherence, an a number of useful coherence measures have been propose an stuie [3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 23, 28 45]; see Ref. [29] for an overview. The resource theory of coherence is closely relate to the resource theory of entanglement [3, 11, 23, 28 38, 46 57]. Many results on coherence theory are inspire by analogs on entanglement theory, incluing many coherence measures, such as the relative entropy of coherence (equal to the istillable coherence) [3, 23, 28], coherence These authors contribute equally to this work. hzhu1@uni-koeln.e ma @gmail.com of formation (equal to the coherence cost) [3, 28, 31], an robustness of coherence [33, 34]. In aition, coherence transformations uner incoherent operations are surprisingly similar to entanglement transformations uner local operations an classical communication (LOCC) [28 32, 49]. Furthermore, coherence an entanglement can be converte to each other uner certain scenarios of special interest [3, 11, 35, 36, 46 48, 55]. In Refs. [46, 47], it was shown that any egree of coherence in some reference basis can be converte to entanglement via incoherent operations. In aition, this proceure can inuce coherence measures, incluing the relative entropy of coherence an geometric coherence, from entanglement measures [47]. However, little is known about which measures can be inuce in this way beyon a few examples, an the connection between coherence an entanglement is far from clear. In this paper, we show that any entanglement measure of bipartite pure states is the minimum of a suitable coherence measure over prouct bases. Conversely, any coherence measure of pure states, with extension to mixe states by convex roof, is equal to the maximum entanglement generate by incoherent operations acting on the system an an incoherent ancilla. Remarkably, the generalize CNOT gate is the universal optimal incoherent operation, as illustrate in Fig. 1. In this way we enow all convex-roof coherence measures with operational meanings, incluing the coherence of formation [3, 28, 31] an (generalize) coherence concurrence [35, 36]. In aition, our work is instrumental in stuying interconversion between coherence an entanglement. By virtue of the connection establishe here, many results on entanglement etection an quantification can be translate to the coherence setting, an vice versa, which

2 2 FIG. 1. (color online) Operational one-to-one mapping between coherence monotones an entanglement monotones. Any entanglement monotone E f for f F sc between B an A is the minimum of C f over local unitary transformations. Any coherent monotone C f on the system B is the maximum of E f generate by incoherent operations acting on the system B an an incoherent ancilla A. The generalize CNOT gate is the universal optimal incoherent operation. has wie applications in quantum information processing. As an illustration, we provie tight observable lower bouns for the generalize entanglement concurrence [58] in terms of the negativity an robustness of entanglement. In parallel, we also provie tight observable lower bouns for the generalize coherence concurrence [36] in terms of the l 1 -norm coherence an robustness of coherence. Remarkably, these lower bouns can be estimate in a way that is evice inepenent. These results are useful in etecting an quantifying entanglement an coherence of the maximal imension in real experiments. The rest of the paper is organize as follows. In Sec. II, we review the general frameworks for constructing entanglement monotones (measures) an coherence monotones (measures) base on the convex roof. In Sec. III, we establish an operational one-to-one mapping between coherence monotones an entanglement monotones base on the convex roof. In Sec. IV, we erive a necessary conition on converting coherence into entanglement. In Sec. V, we erive tight observable lower bouns for the generalize entanglement concurrence an coherence concurrence. Section VI summarizes this paper. The Appenices provie aitional etails on entanglement monotones, coherence monotones, coherence transformations uner incoherent operations (incluing the maorization criterion), an some technical proofs. II. PRELIMINARIES A. Basic concepts A resource theory is characterize by two basic ingreients, namely, the set of free states an the set of free operations [24 26, 29]. In the resource theory of entanglement, free states are separable states, an free operations are LOCC [1]. In the case of coherence, free states are incoherent states, which correspon to ensity matrices that are iagonal in the reference basis, an free operations are incoherent operations (IO). Recall that an operation with Kraus representation {K n } is incoherent if each Kraus operator is incoherent in the sense that K n ρk n is incoherent whenever ρ is [3, 23, 28, 29]. The operation is strictly incoherent if both K n an K n are incoherent; the set of such operations is enote by SIO. A central question in any resource theory is to quantify the utility of resource states, states that are not free [24 26, 29]. Here are four typical requirements for a coherence measure C [23, 29] (the situation for entanglement is analogous). (C1) Nonnegativity C(ρ) 0 (usually C(ρ) = 0 for incoherent states); (C2) monotonicity uner any incoherent operation Λ, C(Λ(ρ)) C(ρ); (C3) monotonicity on average uner any selective incoherent operation {K n }, n p nc(σ n ) C(ρ), where σ n = K n ρk n /p n with p n = tr(k n ρk n ); an (C4) convexity, q C(ρ ) C( q ρ ). Note that (C2) follows from (C3) an (C4). A coherence monotone satisfies (C2-4), while a coherence measure satisfies all (C1-4). B. Entanglement monotones an coherence monotones base on the convex roof Before iscussing the connection between coherence an entanglement, it is instructive to review the general framework for constructing entanglement monotones introuce by Vial [59] an its analog for coherence [30]. Let H be a bipartite Hilbert space. Denote by F sc the set of real symmetric concave functions on the probability simplex. Given any f F sc, an entanglement monotone for ψ H can be efine as E f (ψ) := f(λ(ψ)), (1) where λ(ψ) is the Schmit vector of ψ, that is, the vector of Schmit coefficients (eigenvalues of each reuce ensity matrix), which form a probability vector. The monotone extens to mixe states by convex roof, E f (ρ) := min {p,ψ } p E f (ψ ), (2) where the minimum (or infimum) is taken over all pure state ecompositions ρ = p ψ ψ. The extension to systems with ifferent local imensions is straightforwar. The connection between entanglement monotones an symmetric concave functions is summarize in Theorem 1 below, which is a variant of the result presente in Ref. [59], but tailore to highlight the connection with coherence monotones; see Appenix A for backgroun an a proof. Theorem 1. For any f F sc, the function E f efine by Eqs. (1) an (2) is an entanglement monotone. Conversely, the restriction to pure states of any entanglement monotone is ientical to E f for certain f F sc.

3 3 Interestingly, coherence monotones for pure states are also in one-to-one corresponence with symmetric concave functions on the probability simplex [30]. Given any f F sc, a coherence monotone on -imensional pure states can be efine as follows, C f (ψ) := f(µ(ψ)), (3) whereµ(ψ) = ( ψ 0 2, ψ 1 2,..., ψ 1 2 ) T is the coherence vector, an ψ are the components of ψ in the reference basis. For mixe states, C f (ρ) := min {p,ψ } p C f (ψ ). (4) This construction is summarize in Theorem 2 below, which is applicable when either IO or SIO is taken as the set of free operations. The result concerning IO was first presente in Ref. [30]; the original proof has a gap, but can be fille. A simple proof was given in Appenix B, which also leas to a simple proof of the maorization criterion on coherent transformations [49]. Theorem 2. For any f F sc, the function C f efine by Eqs. (3) an (4) is a coherence monotone. Conversely, the restriction to pure states of any coherence monotone is ientical to C f for certain f F sc. Theorems 1 an 2 provie many useful entanglement an coherence measures. When f(p) = p logp enotes the Shannon entropy, E f is the celebrate entanglement of formation E F (coinciing with the relative entropy of entanglement E r for pure states) [1], an C f is the coherence of formation C F [3, 31] (equal to the coherence cost C C [28]). When f(p) = 1 max p, E f is the geometric entanglement E G [1], an C f is the geometric coherencec G [47]. When f(p) = ( p ) 1/, E f an C f reuce to the generalize entanglement concurrence [58] an coherence concurrence [36]. These measures play important roles in theoretical stuies an practical applications, so a number of methos have been evelope to compute or approximate them [60 64]. III. OPERATIONAL ONE-TO-ONE MAPPING BETWEEN COHERENCE MEASURES AND ENTANGLEMENT MEASURES The similarity between entanglement monotones an coherence monotones reflecte in Theorems 1 an 2 calls for a simple explanation. Here we shall reveal the operational unerpinning of this resemblance. Our stuy benefits from the theory of maorization [65, 66], which has foun extensive applications in quantum information science [30, 49, 50, 67 71]. Given two - imensional real vectors x = (x 0,x 1,...,x 1 ) T an y = (y 0,y 1,...,y 1 ) T, vector x is maorize by y, written as x y or y x, if k k x y k = 0,1,..., 1, (5) =0 =0 with equality for k = 1. Here x enotes the vector obtaine by arranging the components of x in ecreasing orer. In this work, we nee to consier maorization relations between vectors of ifferent imensions. In such cases, it is unerstoo implicitly that the vector with fewer components is pae with a number of 0 to match the other vector. The notation x y means that x y an y x, so that x an y have the same nonzero components up to permutations. A. Entanglement as minimal coherence Now we clarify the relation between coherence an entanglement for a bipartite state ψ in the Hilbert space H = H B H A of imension B A. The reference basis is the tensor prouct of respective reference bases. Denote by E rk (ψ) the Schmit rank of ψ an C rk (ψ) the coherence rank (number of nonzero components of µ(ψ)). Lemma 1. µ(ψ) λ(ψ) an C rk (ψ) E rk (ψ) for any ψ H B H A. If µ(ψ) λ(ψ), then C rk (ψ) = E rk (ψ), an vice versa; both of them hol if an only if (iff) ψ has the form ψ = λ (ψ)e iθ π 1 ()π 2 (), (6) where θ are arbitrary phases, an π 1,π 2 are permutations of basis states of H B,H A, respectively. Lemma 1 is prove in Appenix C. It implies that µ((u 1 U 2 )(ψ)) λ(ψ) for arbitrary local unitaries U 1,U 2, where U 1,U 2 enote the channels corresponing to U 1,U 2. In aition, max U 1,U 2 µ ((U 1 U 2 )(ψ)) λ (ψ). (7) Here the maximization is taken with respect to the maorization orer, which is well efine, as guarantee by Lemma 1 an the Schmit ecomposition. In this way, Lemma 1 offers an appealing interpretation of the Schmit vector in terms of the coherence vector. Theorem 3. For any f F sc, E f (ρ) min U 1,U 2 C f ( U1 U 2 ρ(u 1 U 2 ) ) ρ; (8) the inequality is saturate if ρ is pure. The boun in Eq. (8) is also saturate by maximally correlate states [28, 47, 72] accoring to Theorem 4 below. Proof. If ρ = ψ ψ is pure, then µ(ψ) λ(ψ) by Lemma 1, so E f (ρ) = f(λ(ψ)) f(µ(ψ)) = C f (ρ) since f is concave an thus Schur concave. This result confirms Eq. (8) for pure states since entanglement is invariant uner local unitary transformations. The inequality is saturate thanks to the Schmit ecomposition.

4 4 Now supposeρis a mixe state with an optimal ecomposition ρ = p ρ with respect to C f (for simplicity, here we assume that the value of C f (ρ) can be attaine by some ecomposition of ρ, but this assumption is not essential to completing the following proof). Then C f (ρ) = p C f (ρ ) from which Eq. (8) follows. p E f (ρ ) E f (ρ), (9) B. Coherence as maximal entanglement In contrast with Theorem 3, in this section we show that every coherence monotone of pure states, with extension to mixe states by convex roof, is the maximum entanglement generate by incoherent operations acting on the system an an incoherent ancilla. This line of research is inspire by a recent work of Streltsov et al. [47], accoring to which any coherent state on H B can generate entanglement uner incoherent operations acting on the system an an incoherent ancilla. Moreover, the maximum entanglement E generate with respect to any given entanglement monotone efines a coherence monotone C E as follows, { } C E (ρ) := lim supe(λ i [ρ 0 0 ]). (10) A Λ i Here A is the imension of the ancilla, an the supremum runs over all incoherent operations. Interestingly, C E = C r,c G when E = E r,e G. However, little is known about other coherence monotones so constructe. By Eq. (10), we can introuce another coherence monotone for any symmetric concave function f F sc, { } C f (ρ) := C Ef := lim supe f (Λ i [ρ 0 0 ]). A Λ i (11) Surprisingly, C f (ρ) coincies with C f for any f F sc. A key to establishing this result is the generalize CNOT gate U CNOT corresponing to the unitary U CNOT, U CNOT k = { ( +k) k < B, k k B, (12) where the aition is moulo B. This operation (efine when A B ) turns any state ρ = k ρ k k on H B into a maximally correlate state [28, 47, 72], ρ MC := U CNOT [ρ 0 0 ] = k ρ k kk. (13) Theorem 4. E f (ρ MC ) = C f (ρ MC ) = C f (ρ) = C f (ρ) for any f F sc. Proof. The equality C f (ρ MC ) = C f (ρ) is clear from the efinition of ρ MC. The equality E f (ρ MC ) = C f (ρ MC ) follows from the fact that any Ψ in the support of ρ MC has the form Ψ = c with c 2 = 1, so that E f (Ψ) = C f (Ψ). Therefore, C f (ρ) = E f (ρ MC ) C f (ρ). The converse C f (ρ) C f (ρ) hols because E f (Λ i [ρ 0 0 ]) C f (Λ i [ρ 0 0 ]) C f (ρ 0 0 ) = C f (ρ), (14) where the first inequality follows from Theorem 3, an the secon one from the monotonicity of C f. Theorem 4 enows every coherence monotone of pure states with an operational meaning as the maximal entanglement that can be generate between the system an an incoherent ancilla uner incoherent operations. This connection extens to all coherence monotones of mixe states that are base on the convex roof. Remarkably, the generalize CNOT gate is optimal with respect to all these monotones, which further implies that SIO an IO are equally powerful for entanglement generation. Theorems 3 an 4 together establish a one-toone mapping between coherence monotones an entanglement monotones base on the convex roof, as illustrate in Fig. 1. Recently, this mapping was extene to many other monotones, which are not base on the convex roof [73, 74]. Theorem 4 in particular applies to measures base on Rényi α-entropies f(p) = (log pα )/(1 α) with 0 α 1 [30, 32, 59], which play a key role in catalytic entanglement an coherence transformations [70, 71]. The limit α 1 recovers the relation E C (ρ MC ) = E F (ρ MC ) = C F (ρ) = C C (ρ) [28]. Theorem 4 also implies E G (ρ MC ) = C G (ρ) [47]. Moreover, the generalize CNOT gate is the universal optimal incoherence operation. This conclusion was known for the geometric measure [47], but our proof is simpler even in this case. The power of Theorem 4 is not limite to entanglement monotones base on convex roof. It provies a nontrivial upper boun on entanglement generation for every entanglement monotone E. Note that, when restricte to pure states, E is etermine by a symmetric concave function f E F sc, which in turn efines an entanglement monotone Ê := E f E, usually referre to as the convex roof (or convex-roof extension) of E. For example, E F is the convex roof of E r. By construction Ê(σ) E(σ) for any bipartite state σ (with equality for pure states), so C E (ρ) CÊ(ρ) = C fe (ρ). The same iea can also exten the scope of Theorem 3. As another extension, Theorems 3 an 4 still apply if E f,c f are replace by h(e f ),h(c f ) with h a real function that is monotonically increasing. In aition, the constructions in Eqs. (1-4) can be extene to functions f that are Schur concave, but not necessarily concave; the resulting quantifiers E f,c f are not necessarily full monotones, but are useful in some applications [69 71]. Theorem 3 hols as before, an so o the equalities E f (ρ MC ) = C f (ρ MC ) = C f (ρ) in Theorem 4.

5 5 IV. CONVERTING COHERENCE INTO ENTANGLEMENT As an application of the results presente in the previous section, here we erive a necessary conition on converting coherence into entanglement with incoherent operations, which is sufficient in a special case. We also erive an upper boun on the conversion probability when there is no eterministic transformation. Theorem 5. Suppose Φ Φ = Λ i [ ψ ψ 0 0 ] with Λ i being an incoherent operation. Then λ(φ) µ(ψ). If Φ has Schmit form in the reference basis, that is, Φ = λ with λ 0 an λ = 1, then ψ can transform to Φ uner IO or SIO iff λ(φ) µ(ψ). Proof. By Lemma 1, λ(φ) µ(φ) µ(ψ), where the secon inequality follows from the coherence analog of the maorization criterion [49, 67]; cf. Theorem 10 in Appenix B. When Φ = λ, let φ = λ. If λ(φ) µ(ψ), then µ(φ) µ(ψ), so ψ can transform to φ uner SIO [49] (cf. Theorem 10), which implies the theorem given that Φ = U CNOT ( φ 0 ). Theorem 6. LetP(ψ Φ) be the maximal probability of generating Φ from ψ by IO (or SIO) acting on the system an an incoherent ancilla. Then m P(ψ Φ) min µ (ψ) (15) m 0 m λ (Φ), with equality if Φ has the Schmit form λ. Theorem 6 implies that the Schmit rank of Φ can not excee the coherence rank of ψ even probabilistically. Proof. Define f m (p) = m p for positive integers m. Then E fm an C fm are entanglement measures an coherence measures accoring to Theorems 1 an 2; cf. Refs. [30, 59]. Therefore, P(ψ Φ) C f m (ψ) C fm (Φ) C f m (ψ) E fm (Φ) = m µ (ψ) (16) m λ (Φ), which verifies Eq. (15) since 0 µ (ψ) = 0 λ (Φ). When Φ = λ, let φ = λ. Then Φ = U CNOT ( φ 0 ). Therefore m P(ψ Φ) P(ψ φ) = min µ (ψ) (17) m 0 m µ (φ). Here P(ψ φ) is the maximal probability of transforming ψ to φ uner IO (or SIO), which was etermine in Ref. [30]; cf. Theorem 11 in Appenix B. So the inequality in Eq. (15) is saturate given that µ(φ) λ(φ). V. LOWER BOUNDS ON GENERALIZED COHERENCE CONCURRENCE AND ENTANGLEMENT CONCURRENCE The connection between coherence an entanglement establishe in this work is useful not only to theoretical stuies of resource theories, but also to practical applications in quantum information processing. By virtue of this connection, many results on entanglement etection an quantification can be translate to the coherence setting, an vice versa. As an illustration, we provie tight observable lower bouns for the generalize entanglement concurrence E gc [58] an its coherence analog C gc [36], which correspon to the convex-roof measurese f anc f with f(p) = ( p ) 1/. Note that the efinitions of E gc an C gc epen explicitly on the imension, unlike most other measures consiere in this paper. The measure E gc quantifies entanglement of the maximal imension an may serve as a imension witness. The analog C gc is equally important in the stuy of coherence. Before presenting our main result in this section, we nee to review a few coherence an entanglement measures. The l 1 -norm coherence C l1 (ρ) := k ρ k =,k ρ k 1 (18) is the simplest an one of the most useful coherence measures [23]. The robustness of coherence is an observable coherence measure efine as { C R (ρ) := min x x 0, a state σ, } ρ+xσ 1+x I, (19) where I enotes the set of incoherent states. It has an operational interpretation in connection with the task of phase iscrimination [33, 34]. When ρ is pure, it is known that C R (ρ) = C l1 (ρ) [34, 74]. The negativity of a bipartite state ρ share by B an A reas N(ρ) := tr ρ TA 1, (20) where T A enotes the partial transpose on subsystem A (the efinition in some literature iffers by a factor of 2). It is essentially the only useful entanglement measure that is easily computable in general [1]. The robustness of entanglement is efine as { E R (ρ) := min x x 0, a state σ, } ρ+xσ 1+x S, (21) where S enotes the set of separable states. This measure has two variants: σ is require to be separable in one variant, but coul be arbitrary in the other variant [1]. When ρ is pure, both variants are equal to the negativity. Theorem 8 below is applicable to both cases.

6 6 A. Tight observable lower bouns Theorem 7. Any state ρ in imension satisfies C gc (ρ)+( 2) Ĉl 1 (ρ) C l1 (ρ) C R (ρ). (22) Theorem 8. Any bipartite state ρ satisfies E gc (ρ)+( 2) ˆN(ρ) max{n(ρ),e R (ρ)}. (23) Here Ĉl 1 is the common convex-roof extension of C l1 an C R, while ˆN is the common convex-roof extension of N an E R. The inequality C l1 (ρ) C R (ρ) in Eq. (22) was erive in Ref. [34]. To eluciate the connection between Theorem 7 an Theorem 8, let ρ be a state in imension, an ρ MC := U CNOT [ρ 0 0 ] be a bipartite state. Then E gc (ρ MC ) = C gc (ρ) accoring to Theorem 4. In aition, E R (ρ MC ) = C R (ρ) accoring to Ref. [74]; also, it is easy to verify that N(ρ MC ) = C l1 (ρ). So we have a perfect analogy between Theorem 7 an Theorem 8. Remark 1. In the above iscussion, C gc (ρ) = C f (ρ) with f(p) = ( p ) 1/ ; however, C gc (ρ MC ) is in general not equal to C f (ρ MC ). Theorem 4 implies the equality E gc (ρ MC ) = C gc (ρ), but cannot guarantee the equality C gc (ρ MC ) = C gc (ρ) except when C gc (ρ) = 0. This subtlety is tie to the fact that the efinition of C gc epens explicitly on the imension. All the inequalities in Eqs. (22) an (23) can be saturate by certain states with high symmetry, as emonstrate in Sec. VB later. Theorem 8 was partially inspire by Ref. [63]. Compare with the lower boun for E gc (ρ) erive in Ref. [63], our boun presente in Theorem 8 is much simpler an usually tighter. The significance of Theorem 8 is further strengthene by the fact that both N(ρ) an E R (ρ) are observable entanglement measures. For example, in certain scenarios of practical interest, such as in quantum simulators base on trappe ions or superconuctors, a tight lower boun for N(ρ) can be erive by measuring a single witness operator [75]. In aition, N(ρ) can be estimate in a evice-inepenent way [76]. Thanks to Theorem 8, these methos can now be applie to boun E gc (ρ) from below. Similarly, C R (ρ) can be estimate by measuring suitable witness operators [33, 34], from which we can erive a lower boun for C gc (ρ). Proof of Theorem 7. The inequality Ĉl 1 (ρ) C l1 (ρ) follows from the convexity of C l1 an the efinition of the convex roof. The inequality C l1 (ρ) C R (ρ) was erive in Ref. [34]. To prove the inequality C gc (ρ) + ( 2) Ĉl 1 (ρ), it suffices to consier the case in which ρ is pure because both C gc (ρ) an Ĉl 1 (ρ) are base on the convex roof. Let ρ = ψ ψ with ψ = c an c 2 = 1. Then we have 2/ C gc (ρ)+( 2) = c +( 2) ( 2 c ) 1 = C l1 (ρ) = Ĉl 1 (ρ), (24) where the inequality follows from Lemma 2 below. Proof of Theorem 8. The inequality ˆN(ρ) N(ρ) is obvious. The inequality ˆN(ρ) E R (ρ) follows from the fact that the negativity an robustness of entanglement are convex an that they coincie on pure states, so they share the same convex roof, that is, ˆN(ρ) = Ê R (ρ). To prove the inequality E gc (ρ) + ( 2) ˆN(ρ), it suffices to consier the case in which ρ is pure, as in the proof of Theorem 7. Applying a local unitary transformation if necessary, we may assume that ρ has the form ρ = Ψ Ψ with Ψ = c, so that ρ is maximally correlate. Let = ψ ψ with ψ = c. Then it is straightforwar to verify that E gc (ρ) = C gc ( ) (cf. Theorem 4) an N(ρ) = C l1 ( ). Now the inequality E gc (ρ)+( 2) ˆN(ρ) follows from Theorem 7. The following lemma was essentially prove in the Supplemental Material of Ref. [63], though this result was not highlighte there. See Appenix D for a self-containe proof. Lemma 2. Any sequence of complex numbers c 0,c 1,...,c 1 satisfies 2/ ( ) 2 c c ( 1) c 2. (25) When 3, the inequality is saturate iff all c are equal, or all of them are equal except for one of them, which equals 0. B. Generalize concurrence of states with high symmetry In this section we erive generalize coherence concurrence an entanglement concurrence of certain states with high symmetry an thereby show that the lower bouns for C gc (ρ) an E gc (ρ) establishe in Theorems 7 an 8 are tight. Let ρ be a convex combination of the maximally coherent state an the completely mixe state in imension, that is, ρ = p( ψ ψ )+(1 p) I, ψ = 1, (26) with 0 p 1. Let F := ψ ρ ψ = p + 1 p be the fielity between ρ an ψ ψ ; then 1/ F 1. The following proposition is prove in Appenix E.

7 7 Proposition 1. The state ρ in Eq. (26) with 0 p 1 satisfies Ĉ l1 (ρ) = C l1 (ρ) = C R (ρ) = p( 1) = F 1, (27) C gc (ρ) = max{0,p( 1) ( 2)} = max{0,f ( 1)}, (28) Proposition 1 shows that all the inequalities in Eq. (22) of Theorem 7 are saturate by the stateρin Eq. (26) with ( 2)/( 1) p 1, that is, ( 1)/ F 1. Next, we show that all the inequalities in Theorem 8 are saturate by isotropic states with sufficiently high purity. Let ρ be an isotropic state in imension [1], which has the form ρ = p( Ψ Ψ )+(1 p) I 1 2, Ψ =, (29) with 0 p 1. Let F := Ψ ρ Ψ = p + 1 p be the 2 fielity between ρ an Ψ Ψ. Then 1/ 2 F 1 an ρ = F( Ψ Ψ )+(1 F) I Ψ Ψ 2. (30) 1 The following proposition is an analog of Proposition 1. Here Eq. (32) follows from Ref. [63]; Eq. (31) shoul also be known before. See Appenix E for a self-containe proof. Proposition 2. The state ρ in Eq. (30) with F 1/ 2 satisfies ˆN(ρ) = N(ρ) = E R (ρ) = max{0,f 1}, (31) E gc (ρ) = max{0,f ( 1)}. (32) Proposition 2 shows that all the inequalities in Eq. (23) of Theorem 8 are saturate by the stateρin Eq. (30) with ( 1)/ F 1. VI. SUMMARY In summary, we establishe a general operational oneto-one mapping between coherence measures an entanglement measures. Any entanglement measure of bipartite pure states is the minimum of a suitable coherence measure over prouct bases; any coherence measure of pure states, with extension to mixe states by convex roof, is the maximum entanglement generate by incoherent operations acting on the system an an incoherent ancilla. Besies its founational significance in briging the two resource theories, this connection has wie applications in quantum information processing. Thanks to this connection, many results on entanglement can be generalize to the coherence setting, an vice versa. As an illustration, we provie tight observable lower bouns for generalize entanglement concurrence an coherence concurrence, which enable experimentalists to quantify entanglement an coherence of the maximal imension in real experiments. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to one referee for constructive suggestions an to another referee for mentioning Ref. [63]. ZM thanks Prof. Jingyun Fan for helpful iscussion. HZ acknowleges financial support from the Excellence Initiative of the German Feeral an State Governments (ZUK 81) an the DFG. ZM acknowleges support from The National Natural Science Founation of China (NSFC), Grants No an No SMF acknowleges support from NSFC, Grant No VV thanks the Oxfor Martin School at the University of Oxfor, the Leverhulme Trust (UK), the John Templeton Founation, the EPSRC (UK) an the Ministry of Manpower (Singapore). This research is also supporte by the National Research Founation, Prime Ministers Office, Singapore, uner its Competitive Research Programme (CRP Awar No. NRF-CRP ) an aministere by the Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore. Appenix A: Entanglement monotones In this Appenix, we provie aitional etails on the connection between entanglement monotones an symmetric concave functions on the probability simplex. We then prove Theorem 1 in the main text, which is a variant of a result first establishe by Vial [59]. This result is now well known among the experts, but some subtlety iscusse here may be helpful to other reaers. Denote by T (C ) the space of ensity matrices on C an U() the group of unitary operators on C. Let F u be the set of unitarily invariant functions on the space of ensity matrices. We assume that each function f F u is efine on T (C ) for each positive integer. For given, the function satisfies f(uρu ) = f(ρ) ρ T (C ), U U(). (A1) So f(ρ) is a function of the eigenvalues of ρ. We also assume implicitly that the number of 0 in the spectrum of ρ oes not affect the value of f(ρ). Let F uc F u be the set of unitarily invariant real concave functions on the space of ensity matrices. For given, each function f F uc satisfies Eq. (A1) an in aition f(pρ 1 +(1 p)ρ 2 ) pf(ρ 1 )+(1 p)f(ρ 2 ) ρ 1,ρ 2 T (C ), 0 p 1. (A2) LetH = C C be a bipartite Hilbert space share by B an A. For simplicity here we assume that the Hilbert spaces for the two subsystems have the same imension, but this is not essential. Any function f F uc can be use to construct an entanglement monotonee f ont (H) as follows [59]. For a pure state ψ H, E f (ψ) := f (tr A ( ψ ψ )). (A3)

8 8 The monotone is then extene to mixe statesρ T (H) by convex roof, E f (ρ) := min {p,ρ } p E f (ρ ), (A4) where the minimization runs over all pure state ensembles of ρ for which ρ = p ρ. The following theorem is reprouce from Ref. [59], where the reaer can fin a etaile proof. Theorem 9. For any f F uc, the function E f efine by Eqs. (A3) an (A4) is an entanglement monotone. Conversely, the restriction to pure states of any entanglement monotone is ientical to E f for certain f F uc. Next we clarify the relation between Theorem 9 an Theorem 1 in the main text. Let be the probability simplex of probability vectors with components. A function on is symmetric if it is invariant uner permutations of the components of probability vectors. Let F s be the set of symmetric functions on the probability simplex. Here we assume implicitly that each f F s is efine on for each positive integer. In aition, the value off(x) oes not epen on the number of 0 in the components of x; in other wors, f(x) = f(y) whenever x y (which means x y an y x), even if x an y have ifferent numbers of components. Any symmetric function f on the probability simplex can be lifte to a unitarily invariant function on the space of ensity matrices, ˇf(ρ) := f(eig(ρ)) ρ T (C ). (A5) Conversely, any unitarily invariant function f on the space of ensity matrices efines a symmetric function on the probability simplex when restricte to iagonal ensity matrices, ˆf(p) := f(iag(p)) p. (A6) It is straightforwar to verify that ˆˇf = f for any f Fs an that ˇˆf = f for any f Fu. So the lifting map f ˇf an the restriction map f ˆf establish a one-toone corresponence between symmetric functions in F s an unitarily invariant functions in F u. Recall that a real function f on the probability simplex is Schur convex if it preserves the maorization orer, that is, f(x) f(y) whenever x y. By contrast, f is Schur concave if it reverses the maorization orer, that is, f(x) f(y) whenever x y [65, 66]. Note that Schur convex functions an Schur concave functions are necessarily symmetric. In aition, symmetric convex (concave) functions are automatically Schur convex (concave), but not vice versa in general. With this backgroun, it is not ifficult to show that the maps efine by Eqs. (A5) an (A6) preserve (Schur) convexity an (Schur) concavity for real functions. Here we prove one of these properties that is most relevant to the current stuy; the other three properties follow from a similar reasoning. Recall that F sc is the set of real symmetric concave functions on the probability simplex. Lemma 3. The two maps f ˇf an f ˆf set a biection between F sc an F uc. Proof. To prove the lemma, it suffices to show that the two maps f ˇf an f ˆf preserve concavity. Given f F sc, let ρ 1,ρ 2 T (C ) be two arbitrary ensity matrices an 0 p 1. It is well-known that [66] eig(pρ 1 +(1 p)ρ 2 ) peig (ρ 1 )+(1 p)eig (ρ 2 ), (A7) where eig(ρ) enotes the vector of eigenvalues of ρ. Consequently, ˇf ( pρ 1 +(1 p)ρ 2 ) = f ( eig(pρ1 +(1 p)ρ 2 ) ) f ( peig (ρ 1 )+(1 p)eig (ρ 2 ) ) pf ( eig (ρ 1 ) ) +(1 p)f ( eig (ρ 2 ) ) = pf ( eig(ρ 1 ) ) +(1 p)f ( eig(ρ 2 ) ) = pˇf(ρ 1 )+(1 p)ˇf(ρ 2 ), (A8) where the first inequality follows from Eq. (A7) an Schur concavity of f, an the secon inequality from the concavity off. Therefore ˇf is concave wheneverf is concave. On the other han, if f F uc, then f is concave in particular on iagonal ensity matrices, which implies that ˆf is concave. Proof of Theorem 1. The theorem is an immeiate consequence of Theorem 9 an Lemma 3. Appenix B: Coherence monotones an Coherence transformations In this section we present a self-containe proof of Theorem 2, which connects coherence monotones an symmetric concave functions on the probability simplex. A variant of this result was first presente by Du, Bai, an Qi [30] (Theorem 1 there). The original proof has a gap in one irection (in particular the reasoning leaing to Eq. (12) there was not fully ustifie). Nevertheless, all essential ieas are alreay manifeste in the proof. It shoul be emphasize that the set of coherence monotones is the same irrespective whether IO or SIO is taken as the set of free operations. Our stuy also leas to a simpler proof of the maorization criterion on coherent transformations uner incoherent operations [49], which is the analog of Nielsen s maorization criterion on entanglement transformations uner local operations an classical communication (LOCC) [67]. As we shall see, the two proofs share a key ingreient, which reflects the strong connection between coherence measures an coherence transformations. Recall that any quantum operation Λ (completely positive trace-preserving map) has a Kraus representation,

9 9 that is, Λ(ρ) = n K nρk n, where the Kraus operators K n satisfy n K n K n = I. Denote by I the set of incoherent states with respect to a given reference basis. Then the operator K n is incoherent if K n ρk n /p n I whenever ρ I an p n = tr(k n ρk n) > 0. It is strictly incoherent if in aition K n is also incoherent. Simple analysis shows that K n is incoherent iff its representation with respect to the reference basis has at most one nonzero entry in each column, an strictly incoherent if the same is also true for each row. The operation Λ with Kraus representation{k n } is (strictly) incoherent if each Kraus operator K n is (strictly) incoherent. Although we are primarily concerne with incoherent operations (IO), most of our results concerning IO also apply to strictly incoherent operations (SIO). 1. Coherence monotones Recall that F sc is the set of real symmetric concave functions on the probability simplex, an that each function f F sc can be use to efine a coherence monotone C f [30]. When ψ is a pure state, in general, C f (ψ) := f(µ(ψ)); C f (ρ) := min p C f (ρ ), {p,ρ } (B1) (B2) where the minimization runs over all pure state ensembles of ρ for which ρ = p ρ. Proof of Theorem 2. By the nature of the convex-roof construction, C f is automatically convex. In aition, to prove monotonicity uner selective operations, it suffices to consier the scenario with a pure initial state ψ. Let Λ = {K n } be an arbitrary incoherent operation an ϕ n = K n ψ / p n with p n = tr(k n ψ ψ K n). Then p n C f (ϕ n ) = ( ) p n f(µ (ϕ n )) f p n µ (ϕ n ) n n n f(µ(ψ)) = C f (ψ), (B3) where the first inequality follows from the concavity of f, an the secon inequality follows from Lemma 4 below an Schur concavity of f (note that a symmetric concave function is automatically Schur concave). Therefore, C f is inee a coherence monotone. Now we come to the converse, which is base on Ref. [30]. Let C be an arbitrary coherence monotone, then C(ψ) is necessarily a symmetric function of µ(ψ) given that monomial unitaries (incluing permutations) are incoherent. Define f on the probability simplex as follows, f(x) = C(ψ(x)) with ψ(x) = x. Then f is clearly symmetric. To prove concavity, letx,y be two probability vectors, an z = px+(1 p)y with 0 p 1. Let ψ(y) = y an ψ(z) = z. Construct the quantum operation with the following two Kraus operators K 1 = ( ) x0 x1 x 1 piag, z 0, K 2 = ( y0 1 piag, z 0,..., z 1 y1,..., z 1 z 1 y 1 z 1 ). (B4) Here x /z an y /z for 0 1 can be set to 1 whenever z = 0, in which case either p(1 p) = 0 or x = y = 0. Note that K 1,K 2 are strictly incoherent an satisfy K 1 K 1 +K 2 K 2 = I. In aition, K 1 ψ(z) = p ψ(x), K 2 ψ(z) = 1 p ψ(y). (B5) Since C is a coherence monotone by assumption, we euce that C(ψ(z)) pc(ψ(x))+(1 p)c(ψ(y)), which implies that (B6) f(px+(1 p)y) = f(z) pf(x)+(1 p)f(y). (B7) Therefore, f is both symmetric an concave. In aition, the coherence monotone C coincies with C f when restricte to pure states. Note that the above proof applies when either IO or SIO is taken as the set of free operations. Therefore, the set of convex-roof coherence monotones (measures) oes not change uner the interchange of IO an SIO. 2. Coherent transformations uner incoherent operations Lemma 4 below was inspire by Refs. [30, 49]. It is a key ingreient for proving Theorem 2 an for establishing the maorization criterion on coherence transformations. Upon completion of this paper, we iscovere that Lemma 4 follows from Theorem 1 in Ref. [50]. However, the proof there crucially epens on Theorem 1 in Ref. [30] by the same authors, which is a variant of Theorem 2 in our main text that we try to prove. To avoi circular argument an to make our presentation self-containe, the iscussion here is instrumental. Lemma 4. Suppose ψ is an arbitrary pure state an Λ = {K n } is an arbitrary incoherent operation acting on ψ. Let p n = tr(k n ψ ψ K n ) an ϕ n = K n ψ / p n when p n > 0. Then µ(ψ) n p n µ (ϕ n ). (B8) Although ϕ n is not well efine whenp n = 0, this fact oes not cause any ifficulty becausek n ψ is what really matters in our calculation an it vanishes when p n = 0.

10 10 Alternatively, we may restrict the summation in Eq. (B8) to the terms with p n > 0, an the conclusion is the same. Similar comments also apply to several other equations appearing in this paper, but will not be mentione again to avoi verbosity. Proof. By assumption each Kraus operator K n is incoherent an thus has at most one nonzero entry in each column. Therefore, K n can be expresse in the form K n = P n Kn, where P n is a permutation matrix an K n is upper triangular. The normalization conition n K n K n = K n n K n = I implies that,n ( K n) k ( K n ) l = δ kl for all k,l. Since K n are upper triangular, we euce that n r ( K n ) k ( K n ) l = δ kl r min{k,l}. (B9) =0 Let ϕ n = K n ψ / p n, then p n ( ϕ n ) = k ( K n ) k ψ k, so that r p n µ ( ϕ n ) = =0 n r p n ( ϕ n ) 2 =0 = r ( K n ) k ( K n ) l ψk ψ l k,l n =0 r = ψ k 2 + r ( K n ) k ( K n ) l ψk ψ l = k=0 k,l>r n n =0 r ψ k 2 + r 2 ( K n ) l ψ l n =0 l>r r r ψ k 2 = µ k (ψ), (B10) k=0 k=0 k=0 where the thir equality follows from Eq. (B9). Since permutations of basis states are incoherent, without loss of generality, we may assume that the coefficients ψ of ψ in the reference basis are in ecreasing orer. Then Eq. (B10) implies that µ(ψ) p n µ( ϕ n ) p n µ ( ϕ n ) = p n µ (ϕ n ); n n n (B11) here the last step follows from the relation ϕ n = P n ϕ n withp n being a permutation, that is,µ(ϕ n ) µ( ϕ n ). As a sie remark, Eq. (B10) in the proof of Lemma 4 actually hols for a larger class of operations whose Kraus operators have upper triangular form up to permutations on the left. Such operations may generate coherence, but Eq. (B8) still hols nevertheless if the coefficients ψ of ψ in the reference basis are in ecreasing orer. However, in general this conclusion no longer hols if the coefficients o not have this property. Although this property can be recovere by a suitable permutation, the permutation require may estroy the upper triangular structure of the Kraus operators, which cannot be recovere by permutations only on the left, in contrast with the scenario of incoherent operations. That is why Lemma 4 cannot hol in general for this wier class of operations, as expecte. 3. The maorization criterion on coherence transformations In aition to proving Theorem 2, Lemma 4 enables us to construct a simple proof of the maorization criterion on coherence transformations uner incoherent operations [49]. The result is the analog of Nielsen s maorization criterion on entanglement transformations uner LOCC [67]. Theorem 10. The pure state ψ can be transforme to ϕ uner IO or SIO iff µ(ψ) is maorize by µ(ϕ). The conclusion concerning IO was first presente in Ref. [49]; the original proof of the only if part has a gap, which was correcte upon completion of our work. In view of this gap, several recent works have erive weaker forms of Theorem 10. In particular, the conclusion concerning SIO was establishe in Refs. [28, 32]. Proof. Suppose ψ can be transforme to ϕ uner an incoherent operation Λ = {K n }. Let ϕ n = K n ψ / p n with p n = tr(k n ψ ψ K n ). Then all ϕ n with p n > 0 are ientical to ϕ up to phase factors. So µ(ψ) µ(ϕ) accoring to Lemma 4, that is,µ(ψ) is maorize byµ(ϕ). Obviously, the same reasoning applies if Λ = {K n } is strictly incoherent. The proof of the other irection follows the approach presente in Ref. [49]. Since iagonal unitaries are incoherent, without loss of generality, we may assume that the coefficients ψ,ϕ of ψ, ϕ in the reference basis are real an nonnegative. If µ(ψ) is maorize by µ(ϕ), then µ(ψ) = Aµ(ϕ) with A a suitable oubly stochastic matrix [65 67]. Such a matrix can always be written as the prouct of a finite number of T-matrices, that is, A = T 1 T 2 T k, where each T for 1 k acts nontrivially only on two components, on which it takes on the form T = ( a 1 a 1 a a ), 0 a 1. (B12) By inuction an the assumption that permutations are free, we may assume thatais at-matrix of the forma = iag(t,i) with 0 < a < 1, so thatµ(ψ) = iag(t,i)µ(ϕ). In aition, we may assume that the first two components ϕ 0,ϕ 1 of ϕ are not zero simultaneously since, otherwise, the action woul be trivial. Let K 1 = ( ϕ0 aiag, ϕ ) 1,1,...,1, ψ 0 ψ 1 K 2 = ( 0 ϕ 0 ) 1 aiag(k 2,1,...,1), K 2 = ψ 1. ϕ 1 ψ 0 0 (B13)

11 11 Then the two operators K 1,K 2 are strictly incoherent an satisfy K 1 K 1 +K 2 K 2 = I. In aition, K 1 ψ = a ϕ, K 2 ψ = 1 a ϕ. (B14) So the two operators K 1,K 2 efine a strictly incoherent quantum operation that achieves the esire transformation from ψ to ϕ. When there is no eterministic transformation from ψ to ϕ, it is of interest to etermine the maximal probability of such transformations. This problem has been solve in Ref. [30] recently. The result is reprouce below for the convenience of the reaer. Theorem 11. Let P(ψ ϕ) be the maximal probability of transforming ψ to ϕ uner IO. Then m P(ψ ϕ) = min µ (ψ) (B15) m 0 m µ (ϕ). Theorem 11 still hols if IO is replace by SIO. This is clear from the proof presente in Ref. [30] an Theorem 10, which imply that the incoherent operation achieving the maximal probability can be chosen to be strictly incoherent. It is worth pointing out that the sum m µ (ψ) for each positive integer m is a bona fie coherence measure associate with the function f m (p) = m p, which is symmetric an concave [30, 68]. Theorem 11 is the analog of a similar result on entanglement transformations uner LOCC, first establishe in Ref. [68]. The iea of the proof in Ref. [30] also mirrors the analog in the entanglement setting. Not surprisingly, the maorization criterion plays a crucial role in proving Theorem 11 as it oes in proving the result in Ref. [68]. Also, the proof relies on Theorem 1 in Ref. [30], which is a variant of Theorem 2 in our main text. Since these stepping stones have been corroborate, Theorem 11 is well establishe by now. Appenix C: Proof of Lemma 1 Proof. Expan ψ in the reference basis ψ = k c k k, then µ(ψ) = ( c k 2 ) k. Let ρ B be the reuce ensity matrix for subsystem B, then the iagonal of ρ B reas iag(ρ B ) = ( k c k 2 ). It follows that µ(ψ) iag(ρ B ) eig(ρ B ) λ(ψ), where eig(ρ B ) enotes the vector of eigenvalues ofρ B, an we have applie the maorization relation iag(ρ B ) eig(ρ B ) [66]. The inequality C rk (ψ) E rk (ψ) is an immeiate consequence of the relation µ(ψ) λ(ψ). Let r = E rk (ψ) be the Schmit rank of ψ. If µ(ψ) λ(ψ), then C rk (ψ) = E rk (ψ) = r. If C rk (ψ) = E rk (ψ) = r, then { c k 0 k} r given that ρ B has rank r. By the same token {k c k 0 } r. So the coefficient matrix c k has exactly r nonzero components, with at most one on each row an each column. Therefore, ψ has the form ψ = r 1 =0 a π 1 ()π 2 () with a 2 = 1, where π 1,π 2 are two permutations of basis states. In aition, a 2 coincie with the Schmit coefficients of ψ, which implies Eq. (6) after reefining π 1,π 2 if necessary. Conversely, the relation µ(ψ) λ(ψ) hols automatically whenever ψ has the form of Eq. (6). Appenix D: Proof of Lemma 2 Proof. Lemma 2 is trivial when = 1,2, so we assume 3 in the following iscussion. Note that both sies of the inequality in Eq. (25) are invariant uner permutations ofc an are inepenent of the phase factors, so we may assume that c 0 c 1 c 1 0 without loss of generality; then it suffices to consier the nontrivial case c 0 > 0. Define ( ) 2/ ( ) 2 h({c }) := c c +( 1) c 2, (D1) then it remains to show that h 0. First, consier the special case c 0 = = c 2 = a an c 1 = b with a > 0 an 0 b a. Since h is homogeneous, we may assume a = 1, so that 0 b 1. Then h({c }) =g(b) := b 2/ +( 2)b 2 2( 1)b. (D2) The first an secon erivatives of g(b) are given by g (b) =2b (2 )/ +2( 2)b 2( 1), g (b) = 2( 2) ( b 2(1 )/ ). (D3) Accoring to these formulas, it is easy to verify that g (b) has only two zeros 0 < b 0 < b 1 = 1 in the interval 0 < b 1. In aition, g (b) > 0 when 0 < b < b 0 an g (b) < 0 when b 0 < b < 1. Therefore, the minimum of g(b) over the interval 0 b 1 can only be attaine at b = 0 or b = 1. Since g(0) = g(1) = 0, we conclue that h({c }) = g(b) 0 for 0 b 1, an the inequality is saturate iff b = 0 or b = 1. Next, consier the general case. Since h is homogeneous, we may assume that c2 = 1 without loss of generality. Let s := c ; then ( ) 2/ h({c }) = c s 2 +( 1). (D4) If s < 1, then h > 0. If s = 1, then h 0 an the inequality is saturate iff c 1 = 0, in which case we have c 0 = c 1 = = c 2 = 1/ 1. If s =, then c 0 = c 1 = = c 1 = 1/ an h = 0. It remains to consier the scenario 1 < s <, in which case c > 0 for all.

12 12 Now, we investigate the minimum ofh({c }) for a given value of s. Suppose the minimum is attaine at a given point. Using the metho of Lagrangian multipliers, it is easy to show that c 0,c 1,...,c 1 take on two ifferent values, that is, c 0 = = c k 1 > c k = = c 1, where 1 k 1. Note that not all c can take on the same value ue to the constraint c2 = 1 an s <. In the case = 3, straightforwar calculation shows that k = 2, in which case we have c 0 = c 1 = 2s+ 6 2s 2 6, c 2 = s 6 2s 2. (D5) 3 In general, we have k = 1; otherwise, the values of c k 1,c k,c 1 can be auste so that the value of the prouct c k 1 c k c 1 ecreases, while c k 1 +c k +c 1 an c 2 k 1 +c2 k +c2 1 are left invariant, which leas to a contraiction. The fact k = 1 implies that c 0 = = c 2 = s+ ( s 2 )/( 1), c 1 = s ( s 2 )( 1). (D6) Since c 0 = = c 2 > c 1 for 1 < s <, it follows that h({c }) > 0 accoring to the iscussion after Eq. (D3). This observation completes the proof of Lemma 2. with a = ( 2)/( 1). Note that C gc (ρ ) = 0 for = 0,1,..., 1, we conclue that C gc (ρ) = 0 when p = ( 2)/( 1), which implies that C gc (ρ) = 0 for 0 p ( 2)/( 1). When p ( 2)/( 1), we have C gc (ρ) p a 1 a C gc(ψ) = p( 1) ( 2) = F ( 1). (E3) On the other han, the opposite inequality follows from Theorem 7 an Eq. (27) in the main text. This observation confirms Eq. (28) an completes the proof of Proposition 1. Proof of Proposition 2. Equation (31) can be erive as follows. When 1/ 2 F 1/, we have ˆN(ρ) = N(ρ) = E R (ρ) = 0 because ρ is separable. When F 1/, the equality N(ρ) = F 1 is straightforwar to verify. The equality ˆN(ρ) = N(ρ) follows from the inequality ˆN(ρ) N(ρ) an the convexity of ˆN(ρ), which implies that ˆN(ρ) F ˆN( Ψ Ψ ) = F 1 = N(ρ). (E4) Finally, the equality E R (ρ) = F 1 can be erive base on the symmetry consieration that ρ is invariant uner the transformation U U for any unitary U (here U enotes the complex conugate of U with respect to a given basis; by contrast, the Hermitian conugate of U is enote by U ). To erive Eq. (32), let Appenix E: Proofs of Propositions 1 an 2 Φ = =0 (E5) Proof of Proposition 1. Equation (27) can be erive as follows. The equality C l1 (ρ) = p( 1) = F 1 is easy to verify; the equality Ĉl 1 (ρ) = C l1 (ρ) follows from the inequality Ĉl 1 (ρ) C l1 (ρ) an the convexity of Ĉ l1 (ρ), which implies that Ĉl 1 (ρ) pĉl 1 (ψ) = p( 1) = C l1 (ρ); the equality C R (ρ) = C l1 (ρ) follows from Theorem 6 in Ref. [34]. Alternatively, C R (ρ) can be compute base on the symmetry consieration that ρ is invariant uner arbitrary permutations of the basis states. To erive Eq. (28), let ρ = ϕ ϕ with ϕ = k=0,k k, = 0,1,..., 1. (E1) an F 0 = Ψ Φ 2 = ( 1)/. Then U [ (U U )( Φ Φ )(U U ) ] = F 0 ( Ψ Ψ )+(1 F 0 ) I Ψ Ψ 2, (E6) 1 where the integral is taken with respect to the normalize Haar measure on the unitary group. Observing that E gc ( Φ Φ ) = 0, we conclue that E gc (ρ) = 0 when F = F 0, which further implies that E gc (ρ) = 0 for 1/ 2 F F 0. When F F 0, we have E gc (ρ) F F 0 1 F 0 E gc (Ψ) = F ( 1). (E7) Then 1 1 ρ = a ψ ψ +(1 a) I =0 (E2) On the other han, the opposite inequality follows from Theorem 8 an Eq. (31) in the main text. This observation confirms Eq. (32) an completes the proof of Proposition 2.