arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 12 Nov 2014

Transcription

1 Quantum Discord and its role in quantum inormation theory arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 12 Nov 2014 Alexander Streltsov

2 Alexander Streltsov ICFO The Institute o Photonic Sciences Castelldeels (Barcelona), Spain alexander.streltsov@ico.es The inal publication is available at Springer via 2

3 Acknowledgements Parts o this work are based on the research carried out during my PhD at the Heinrich-Heine- Universität Düsseldor [1]. I thank Dagmar Bruß or the excellent supervision o the PhD, and I also thank the ollowing people or discussion and support: Gerardo Adesso, Remigiusz Augusiak, Otried Gühne, Hermann Kampermann, Matthias Kleinmann, Maciej Lewenstein, Tobias Moroder, Marco Piani, and Wojciech Zurek. I also acknowledge inancial support by the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, EU IP SIQS, ERC AdG OSYRIS, and EU-Spanish Ministry CHISTERA DIQIP. 3

4 Contents Index 6 1 Introduction 8 2 Quantum theory Quantum states Quantum measurements and operations Reduced density operator Entropy and mutual inormation Distance between density operators Quantum entanglement Deinition Local operations and classical communication Entanglement as a resource Entanglement measures Quantum correlations beyond entanglement Deinition Measures o quantum correlations Quantum discord General measures o quantum correlations Quantum discord in quantum inormation theory Remote state preparation Deterministic remote state preparation Remote state preparation in the presence o noise Average payo The role o quantum correlations Discussion Entanglement distribution General protocol or entanglement distribution The role o quantum correlations Discussion Transmission o correlations Classical transmission o correlations

5 Contents The role o quantum correlations Quantum transmission o correlations Equivalence o quantum and classical transmission or pure states Discussion Outlook 45 5

6 Index Bures distance, 14 Classical correlations, 20, 22 Classical-quantum states, 20 Concurrence, 18 Density operator, 10 Discord, 21 Distillable entanglement, 17 Entanglement, 15 measure, 17 o ormation, 18 Entanglement distribution, 31 with separable states, 35 Fidelity, 14 Geometric measure o discord, 24 Hilbert-Schmidt distance, 14 Inormation deicit, 23 Koashi-Winter relation, 23 Kraus operators, 12 LOCC, 16 Quantum correlations, 20 measurement, 11 metrology, 44 operation, 12 Qubit, 10 Reduced density operator, 12 Relative entropy, 13 o discord, 24 o entanglement, 19 o quantumness, 24 Remote state preparation, 25 Separable state, 15 Shannon entropy, 13 Singlet, 15 Trace distance, 14 Transmission o correlations classical, 36 quantum, 39 Von Neumann entropy, 12 measurement, 11 Measurement operator, 11 Mixed state, 10 Mutual inormation, 13 Partial trace, 12 POVM, 11 Projective measurement, 11 Pure state, 10 6

7 Abstract Quantum entanglement is the most popular kind o quantum correlations, and its undamental role in several tasks in quantum inormation theory like quantum cryptography, quantum dense coding, and quantum teleportation is undeniable. However, recent results suggest that various applications in quantum inormation theory do not require entanglement, and that their perormance can be captured by a new type o quantum correlations which goes beyond entanglement. Quantum discord, introduced by Zurek more than a decade ago, is the most popular candidate or such general quantum correlations. In this work we give an introduction to this modern research direction. Ater a short review o the main concepts o quantum theory and entanglement, we present quantum discord and general quantum correlations, and discuss three applications which are based on this new type o correlations: remote state preparation, entanglement distribution, and transmission o correlations. We also give an outlook to other research in this direction. 7

8 1 Introduction Quantum entanglement has ascinated the minds o physicists since the very inception o quantum theory [2]. Entangled quantum systems can behave in a bizarre way, exhibiting eatures which seem to contradict our common sense notions o how the world works [3, p. 114]. This was irst pointed out in a seminal work by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, who concluded that the quantum theory must be incomplete [4]. However, about 30 years ater Einstein s objection, Bell proposed an experiment, which aimed to distinguish between predictions made by quantum theory on the one hand, and Einstein s arguments on the other hand [5]. Bell s ideas served as a starting point or Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt, who ormulated an inequality which is known today as the CHSH inequality [6]. Following Einstein et al., Nature should respect the CHSH inequality, and the act that it can be violated in quantum theory demonstrates the incompleteness o quantum mechanics. Due to its simplicity, the CHSH inequality could be tested experimentally by Freedman and Clauser already short time ater its discovery [7]. The data showed a violation o the CHSH inequality, thus invalidating Einstein s arguments, in avor o the quantum mechanical description o Nature. Later in the years 1981/82 Aspect et al. perormed three experiments [8, 9, 10], conirming the results o Freedman and Clauser. Since that time, several experiments have demonstrated violation o the CHSH inequality, although some loopholes still remained open [11]. The ormal deinition o entanglement as we use it today can be dated back to the year 1989, when Werner extended the concept o entanglement to all mixed quantum states [12]. Werner s work can be regarded as the starting point or the theory o entanglement, which studies properties and implications o entanglement, and its role in such undamental tasks like quantum cryptography [13], quantum dense coding [14], and quantum teleportation [15]. Several important contributions to the theory o entanglement also came rom the Horodecki amily: one example is the discovery o bound entanglement [16]. Bound entangled states need some amount o entanglement to be created, but cannot be used or the extraction o any pure entangled state. A comprehensive review on this topic can be ound in [11]. The role o entanglement in quantum algorithms is still subject o extensive debate. This is due to the results by Jozsa and Linden, who showed that a quantum computer operating on a pure state needs entanglement in order to have an exponential speedup compared to classical computation [17, 18]. Although exponential speedup o a quantum computer is not yet rigorously proven, there is strong evidence or its existence. One o the most prominent examples pointing in this direction is Shor s prime actorization algorithm proposed in [19]. The algorithm is able to ind 8

9 1 Introduction the prime actors or any product o two primes on a quantum computer, where the time or the computation grows polynomially in the number o the input bits. This is signiicantly aster, compared to the best known classical algorithm, which exhibits an exponential increase o the running time. Due to the presence o entanglement in Shor s algorithm [18] one might be tempted to see entanglement as the key resource or quantum computation. While or pure state quantum computation this is indeed the case, the situation becomes more involved i mixed state quantum computation is considered [18]. A popular example or mixed state quantum computation has been presented by Knill and Lalamme [20]. Surprisingly, their algorithm is able to solve certain problems eiciently or which no eicient classical algorithm is known even with vanishingly little entanglement [21]. This inding triggered the search or quantum correlations beyond entanglement, which should be responsible or the eiciency o a quantum computer. Quantum discord, introduced by Zurek in the year 2000, has been recognized as a possible candidate or those general quantum correlations [22, 23]. On the one hand, quantum discord can even exist in systems which are not entangled. On the other hand, it has been shown that the algorithm presented by Knill and Lalamme exhibits nonvanishing amount o discord [24]. An even stronger statement has been made by Eastin, who showed that mixed state quantum computation with zero discord in each step can be simulated eiciently on a classical computer [25]. Three years ater Zurek has proposed quantum discord as a new kind o quantum correlations beyond entanglement, he gave it an alternative thermodynamical interpretation [26]. He considered the amount o work which can be extracted rom a quantum system by a classical and a quantum Maxwell s demon. He showed that the quantum demon is more powerul, since it can operate on the whole quantum state, while the classical demon is restricted to local subsystems only. Zurek concluded that more work can be extracted in the quantum case, and this quantum advantage is related to the quantum discord. Approximately at the same time when Zurek deined quantum discord, a closely related quantity has been proposed by Henderson and Vedral [27]. The authors aimed to separate correlations into quantum and purely classical parts by postulating several reasonable properties. This approach is signiicantly dierent rom Zurek s, and the act that both arrive at the same result is surprising. Another related quantity is the inormation deicit, presented in [28]. The authors study the amount o work, which can be extracted rom a heat bath using a mixed quantum state. I the mixed state is shared by two parties, the amount o extractable work is usually smaller, compared to the case where the whole state is in possession o a single party. The dierence o these two quantities is the inormation deicit. In the light o these results, it is not surprising that in the last ew years an enormous amount o research has been devoted to tasks in quantum inormation theory which are not based on entanglement [29]. Quantum discord has been related to the perormance o some o those tasks: remote state preparation [30] and inormation encoding [31] being popular examples. Experimental techniques or detecting general quantum correlations have also been presented [32]. In this work, we give an introduction to general quantum correlations beyond entanglement and 9

10 1 Introduction present a detailed discussion on their role or remote state preparation [30], entanglement distribution [33, 34], and transmission o correlations [35, 36]. We start by briely reviewing the mathematical ramework o quantum theory, ollowed by a short introduction to quantum entanglement. Ater introducing quantum discord and related quantiiers o quantum correlations, we discuss their role in quantum inormation theory, and also present a short outlook on other research directions. 10

11 2 Quantum theory 2.1 Quantum states In quantum mechanics, any physical system is completely described by a state vector Ψ in a Hilbert space H. A system with a two-dimensional Hilbert space is also called a qubit (quantum bit). I not otherwise stated, we consider a Hilbert space with an arbitrary but inite dimension. For two parties, Alice (A) and Bob (B), with Hilbert spaces H A and H B the total Hilbert space is a tensor product o the subsystem spaces: H AB = H A H B. Any system which is described by a single state vector is said to be in a pure state. However, in a realistic experimental setup the physical state o the considered system is not completely known. I the system is in the pure state ψ i with probability p i, the physical state o the system can be described using the density operator ρ = p i ψ i ψ i. (2.1) i The state o such a system is called mixed state. In the ollowing, whenever we talk about quantum states, we usually mean mixed states. In order to have a meaningul physical interpretation, any density operator has the ollowing two properties: ρ has trace equal to one: Tr[ρ] = 1, (2.2) ρ is a positive operator: or any vector ψ. ψ ρ ψ 0 (2.3) Note that the second property also implies that ρ is Hermitian: ρ = ρ. These two condition are essential or the deinition o quantum measurements and operations, which is presented in the ollowing. 11

12 2 Quantum theory 2.2 Quantum measurements and operations Quantum measurement is one o the most important concepts in quantum theory. Most physicists are amiliar with the projective measurement: or a spin- 1 2 particle in the state ψ = a + b, (2.4) the probability to measure spin up or spin down is given by p( ) = a 2 or p( ) = b 2 = 1 p( ). Moreover, the measurement postulate o quantum mechanics tells us that the quantum state ater the measurement is either or, depending on the outcome o the measurement. In quantum inormation theory, a more general deinition is considered. A general quantum measurement is described by a collection {E i } o measurement operators that satisy the completeness equation: E i E i = 1, (2.5) i where 1 is the identity operator. Given a density operator ρ and the set o measurement operators {E i }, the probability that the result i occurs is given by p i = Tr[E i E iρ]. (2.6) Ater the measurement with outcome i, the state o the system is described by the density operator The set o operators ρ i = 1 (E i ρe p i ). (2.7) i M i = E i E i (2.8) is also called positive operator-valued measure (POVM). Due to the completeness equation (2.5), the POVM elements M i sum up to the identity operator: i M i = 1. Moreover, due to Eq. (2.6) the probabilities p i can also be obtained rom the POVM elements M i : p i = Tr[M i ρ]. The positivity o the density operator ρ in Eq. (2.3) implies that all probabilities are nonnegative: p i 0. The completeness equation (2.5) together with Eq. (2.2) implies that the probabilities sum up to one: i p i = 1. For a projective measurement, the operators E i are orthogonal projectors: E i E j = δ i j E i. Von Neumann measurement is a special type o a projective measurement, where the measurement operators E i are orthogonal projectors with rank one. Such a measurement was considered below Eq. (2.4), there the measurement operators are E = and E =. In general, the measurement operators do not have to be projectors, they only need to satisy the completeness equation (2.5). For composite systems consisting o two subsystems, Alice and Bob, it is possible to perorm local measurements on one o the subsystems. I a local measurement is done on Alice s subsystem, the subsystem o Bob remains unchanged. In this case, the measurement operators have the 12

13 2 Quantum theory orm E i = E A i 1B, with the identity operator 1 B on Bob s Hilbert space. Similarly, measurement operators corresponding to local measurement on Bob s subsystem have the orm E i = 1 A E B i. Finally, we also mention the concept o quantum operations, which is closely related to quantum measurements. Any set o measurement operators {E i } can also be called a quantum operation. The corresponding operators E i are then called Kraus operators. The action o a quantum operation {E i } on a density operator ρ is given by Λ(ρ) = E i ρe i. (2.9) i For composite systems, local quantum operations can be deined in the same way as it was done or local measurements. The importance o quantum operations lies in the act that they describe the most general change o a quantum state possible in experiments. Quantum operations also play an important role in the study o noisy systems: noise is usually modeled as a quantum operation. 2.3 Reduced density operator Sometimes one is only interested in one o the subsystems o a composite quantum system. This situation is captured by the concept o the reduced density operator. I the total system is described by the density operator ρ AB, then the system o A is described by the reduced density operator ρ A = Tr B [ρ AB ], (2.10) where Tr B is called partial trace over the subsystem B. The partial trace is deined by Tr B [ a 1 a 2 b 1 b 2 ] = a 1 a 2 Tr[ b 1 b 2 ], (2.11) where a 1 and a 2 are any two vectors in H A, and b 1 and b 2 are any two vectors in H B. The trace on the right hand side is the usual trace or the subsystem B: Tr[ b 1 b 2 ] = b 2 b 1. In addition to Eq. (2.11), we also require that the partial trace is linear, i.e., Tr B [M AB + N AB ] = Tr B [M AB ] + Tr B [N AB ] or any two operators M AB and N AB. In this way, the partial trace is deined or all density operators. The physical meaning o the partial trace lies in the act that it is the unique operation or obtaining correct measurement statistics or the subsystem A [3, p. 105.]. 2.4 Entropy and mutual inormation The von Neumann entropy o a quantum state with density operator ρ is deined as S (ρ) = Tr[ρ log 2 ρ], (2.12) 13

14 2 Quantum theory where the logarithm o the density operator ρ is deined via its eigenvalues λ i and eigenstates i in the ollowing way: log 2 ρ = i log 2 (λ i ) i i. With this deinition, the entropy can be written as S (ρ) = λ i log 2 λ i, (2.13) where it is deined that 0 log 2 0 = 0. i The von Neumann entropy is the quantum version o the classical Shannon entropy. For a discrete random variable X which can take a value x with probability p x, the Shannon entropy is deined as H(X) = p x log 2 p x. (2.14) x Similar to the Shannon entropy, which measures the uncertainty o a classical random variable, the von Neumann entropy measures the uncertainty o a quantum state. Pure states represent ull knowledge about a quantum system: their von Neumann entropy is zero. On the other hand, or a d-dimensional Hilbert space, maximal uncertainty is represented by the completely mixed density operator 1/d with the von Neumann entropy log 2 d. For two parties, the von Neumann entropy can be used to deine the mutual inormation between the parties. I the total state is given by the density operator ρ AB with reduced density operators ρ A and ρ B, the mutual inormation is deined as I(ρ AB ) = S (ρ A ) + S (ρ B ) S (ρ AB ). (2.15) The mutual inormation is zero i the state is completely uncorrelated, i.e., i the density operator has the orm ρ AB = ρ A ρ B. Otherwise, the mutual inormation is greater than zero: it measures the amount o correlations between A and B. Closely related to the von Neumann entropy is the quantum relative entropy. For two density operators ρ and σ it is deined as S (ρ σ) = Tr[ρ log 2 ρ] Tr[ρ log 2 σ] (2.16) i the support o ρ is contained in the support o σ, and S (ρ σ) = + otherwise. The quantum relative entropy is nonnegative, and zero i and only i ρ = σ. The mutual inormation deined in Eq. (2.15) can be written as the relative entropy between the density operator ρ AB and the tensor product o the reduced density operators ρ A ρ B [37]: I(ρ AB ) = S (ρ AB ρ A ρ B ). (2.17) 2.5 Distance between density operators Given two quantum states, how close are they to each other? This question, posed in [3, p. 403], can be answered by deining an appropriate distance onto the set o density operators. One 14

15 2 Quantum theory important and requently used distance is the trace distance D t (ρ, σ) = 1 Tr ρ σ, (2.18) 2 where ρ and σ are any two density operators, Tr M = Tr M M is the trace norm o an operator M, and the square root o a Hermitian operator M M with nonnegative eigenvalues λ i and eigenstates i is deined as M M = i λi i i. The trace distance satisies all properties o a general distance D: D(ρ, σ) 0, and D(ρ, σ) = 0 holds i and only i ρ = σ, D is symmetric: D(ρ, σ) = D(σ, ρ), D satisies the triangle inequality: D(ρ, τ) D(ρ, σ) + D(σ, τ) or any three density operators ρ, σ, and τ. In quantum inormation theory, the trace distance has an important interpretation: D t(ρ, σ) is the optimal probability o success or distinguishing two quantum states with density operators ρ and σ [38]. Another requently used quantity is the idelity. For two density operators ρ and σ it is deined as ( ρσ ) 2 F(ρ, σ) = Tr ρ. (2.19) The idelity itsel is not a distance, since it is one i and only i ρ = σ, and smaller than one otherwise. However, the idelity can be used to deine the Bures distance: D B (ρ, σ) = 2(1 F(ρ, σ)), which satisies all properties o a mathematical distance. Both, the trace distance and the Bures distance have also another important property, namely they are nonincreasing under quantum operations: D(Λ(ρ), Λ(σ)) D(ρ, σ), (2.20) where ρ and σ are any two density operators, and Λ is any quantum operation. This property is requently used in quantum inormation theory, especially in studying entanglement and other quantum correlations. Note that the inequality (2.20) does not ollow rom the general properties o a mathematical distance, and thus there exist distances which violate it. One such distance is the Hilbert-Schmidt distance D HS (ρ, σ) = ρ σ, (2.21) where M = Tr[M M] is the Hilbert-Schmidt norm o an operator M. For the Hilbert- Schmidt distance violation o Eq. (2.20) was shown in [39, 40]. Finally, the relative entropy introduced in Eq. (2.16) is not a distance in the mathematical sense since it is not symmetric, and also does not satisy the triangle inequality. However, the relative entropy is nonincreasing under quantum operations, i.e., it satisies the inequality (2.20) [41]. 15

16 3 Quantum entanglement 3.1 Deinition For two parties, Alice (A) and Bob (B), the state o the total quantum system can have product orm 1 : Ψ = a b, (3.1) where the states a and b are elements o the corresponding local Hilbert spaces H A and H B. States o the orm given in Eq. (3.1) are not entangled, they are also called separable. However, not all states are separable, since quantum mechanics also allows superpositions which are not necessarily product: Φ = 1 N ( a 1 b 1 + a 2 b 2 ), (3.2) where N assures normalization such that Φ Φ = 1. I Φ cannot be written as a product, i.e., Φ a b, the state is called entangled. Example. The singlet state Φ = 1 2 ( ) is entangled, it cannot be written as a product. A mixed state is separable i it can be written as a convex combination o pure product states [12]: ρ sep = p i a i a i b i b i. (3.3) i The pure states a i and b i are elements o the local Hilbert spaces H A and H B, and p i 0 are probabilities summing up to one: i p i = 1. I the state cannot be written in this orm, it is called entangled. The idea behind this deinition o entanglement is the ollowing: suppose that Alice and Bob are able to produce any quantum state locally. In addition, they have access to a classical communication channel, such as a telephone. Then, Alice and Bob can produce any separable state as given in Eq. (3.3) by the ollowing procedure: Alice prepares the state a i with the probability p i, and lets Bob know which state she prepared. Depending on this inormation, Bob prepares the corresponding state b i. On the other hand, it is not possible to create entangled states such as the singlet state in this way. 1 Sometimes we write a b or ab instead o a b. 16

17 3 Quantum entanglement 3.2 Local operations and classical communication The process or creating separable states presented above belongs to the class o local operations and classical communication (LOCC), irst introduced in [42]. This class o operations describes the most general procedure Alice and Bob can apply in quantum theory, i they are limited to classical communication only. The ull mathematical description o these operations is demanding, and still subject o extensive research [43]. However, the general idea is simple, and will be explained in the ollowing. For two parties, Alice and Bob, a quantum operation Λ LOCC belongs to the class o LOCC, i it can be decomposed into the ollowing steps: 1. One o the parties, e.g. Alice, perorms a local measurement on her subsystem. 2. The outcome o the measurement is communicated classically to the other party, here Bob. 3. Depending on the received inormation, Bob perorms a local measurement on his subsystem. 4. The outcome o Bob s measurement is communicated classically to Alice. 5. Depending on the received inormation, Alice perorms a local measurement on her subsystem, and the process starts over at step 2. The class o LOCC plays an important role in quantum inormation theory, especially when studying entanglement. As we have mentioned above, any separable state can be created with LOCC. On the other hand, LOCC cannot be used to create entangled states [11]. 3.3 Entanglement as a resource Until the 1990s, quantum entanglement was mainly regarded as a physical curiosity: an exotic eature with no practical use. This situation started to change in 1991, when Ekert presented the irst task in quantum inormation theory which was based on entanglement [13]. In his work, Ekert showed that i two parties, Alice and Bob, share a large amount o entangled singlet states, they can communicate in a completely secure way. This task is reerred to as quantum cryptography, or quantum key distribution. This strong result should be compared to the classical cryptography as we use it today. The security o classical cryptography is mainly based on the conjecture that a large number is hard to actorize, whereas the quantum cryptography protocol presented by Ekert is provably secure. Motivated by Ekert s result, several tasks involving entanglement have been presented in the ollowing years. In 1992 Bennett and Wiesner showed that two entangled parties can communicate 17

18 3 Quantum entanglement two classical bits by sending only one qubit, i.e., one quantum system on a two-dimensional Hilbert space [14]. This task is also known as quantum dense coding, since it suggests that two classical bits can be coded into one quantum bit. Another application or entanglement has been proposed in [15]. The authors studied the task o communicating an unknown quantum state between two parties. An unknown quantum state cannot be communicated by classical means, which is a direct consequence o the act that such a state cannot be cloned [44]. However, i the two parties share an entangled singlet, Bennett et al. showed that any unknown quantum bit can be perectly communicated. This task is also known as quantum teleportation. 3.4 Entanglement measures The tasks presented above, namely quantum cryptography, dense coding and teleportation demonstrate the role o entanglement or a very special case. In particular, two parties, Alice and Bob, need to share entangled singlets in order to perorm these tasks. However, a pure quantum state is not necessarily a singlet, and in a realistic scenario the quantum state is usually mixed. For this reason it is natural to ask whether a general mixed quantum state can also be used or some o these tasks. The useulness o a quantum state or one o the tasks presented above is usually quantiied by the amount o entanglement contained in the state. One o the most popular quantiiers is the distillable entanglement [45]: it is deined as the maximal number o singlets that can be obtained per copy o a given mixed state via local operations and classical communication, i the number o copies goes to ininity 2. The major disadvantage o the distillable entanglement is the act that it is hard to evaluate. Thus, exact expressions are only known in a ew special cases. For this reason, other quantiiers, known as entanglement measures, have been proposed in the literature. Any entanglement measure E ulills the ollowing two properties [11]: 1. E does not increase under local operations and classical communication, 2. E vanishes on separable states. For a pure state ψ AB distributed between two parties, Alice and Bob, entanglement is usually quantiied by the von Neumann entropy o the reduced density operator ρ A = Tr B [ ψ ψ AB ]: E( ψ AB ) = S (ρ A ) = λ i log 2 λ i, (3.4) where λ i are the eigenvalues o ρ A. The importance o this quantity in quantum inormation theory comes rom the act that it is equal to the distillable entanglement or all pure states [46]. For a mixed state ρ AB, two main classes o entanglement measures are considered in the literature. These are 2 See also [11] or a ormal deinition. i 18

19 3 Quantum entanglement convex roo measures and distance-based measures. Any measure o entanglement E which is deined on all pure states can be extended to mixed states via the ollowing convex roo construction [47]: E(ρ) = in p i E( ψ i ), (3.5) {p i, ψ i } where the inimum is taken over all decompositions {p i, ψ i } o the given density operator ρ with nonnegative probabilities p i, i.e., ρ = i p i ψ i ψ i. For bipartite systems, the entanglement o ormation deined in [42] is one o the most popular and requently used convex roo measures. For pure states it is deined as the von Neumann entropy o the reduced density operator in Eq. (3.4). The extension to mixed states is done via the convex roo construction in Eq. (3.5). Although the inimum in Eq. (3.5) is hard to evaluate in general, Wootters presented a closed expression or the entanglement o ormation or all mixed states o two qubits [48]. For any such state, the entanglement o ormation E is given by ( 1 E (ρ) = h ) 1 C 2 2 (ρ) (3.6) with the binary entropy h(x) = x log 2 x (1 x) log 2 (1 x), and the concurrence C(ρ) = max{0, λ 1 λ 2 λ 3 λ 4 }, where λ i are the square roots o the eigenvalues o ρ ρ in decreasing ( ) 0 i order, and ρ is deined as ρ = (σ y σ y )ρ (σ y σ y ) with the Pauli matrix σ y =. i 0 The entanglement o ormation satisies the criteria or a proper entanglement measure given on page 18: it does not increase under local operations and classical communication and vanishes on separable states. While the second property is easy to veriy, the irst property was proven in [42]. The second main class o entanglement measures are measures based on distance proposed in [49]. All those measures can be written as i E(ρ) = in D(ρ, σ), (3.7) σ S where D is a distance, and the inimum is taken over the set o separable states S. I the distance D does not increase under quantum operations, i.e., D(Λ(ρ), Λ(σ)) D(ρ, σ) (3.8) or any quantum operation Λ and any two states ρ and σ, then the corresponding measure o entanglement does not increase under local operations and classical communication [49]. This property is satisied by the relative entropy S (ρ σ) = Tr[ρ log 2 ρ] Tr[ρ log 2 σ], although the 19

20 3 Quantum entanglement relative entropy is not a distance in the mathematical sense. The corresponding measure o entanglement is called relative entropy o entanglement: E R (ρ) = min S (ρ σ). (3.9) σ S The relative entropy o entanglement is one o the most popular and widely studied measures o entanglement. One reason is the act that the relative entropy itsel plays an important role in quantum inormation theory [37]. Moreover, the relative entropy o entanglement is a powerul upper bound or the distillable entanglement [50]. We have already mentioned above that all distance-based entanglement measures do not increase under local operations and classical communication, i the distance satisies Eq. (3.8). This is one o the properties any reasonable measure o entanglement should satisy. Moreover, any entanglement measure should also vanish on separable states. This is also easily seen to be true or any distance D(ρ, σ) which is zero i and only i ρ = σ, and larger than zero otherwise. Finally, we mention the relation between three o the measures presented in this section, namely between the distillable entanglement E d, the relative entropy o entanglement E R, and the entanglement o ormation E. As was shown in [50], these measures satisy the inequality E d E R E (3.10) or all mixed states, i.e., the relative entropy o entanglement is always between E d and E. 20

21 4 Quantum correlations beyond entanglement 4.1 Deinition A mixed state shared by two parties, Alice and Bob, is called classically correlated i it can be written as [28] ρ cc = p i j i i A j j B, (4.1) i, j where { i A } are orthogonal states on Alice s Hilbert space H A and { j B } are orthogonal states on Bob s Hilbert space H B. The probabilities p i j are nonnegative and sum up to one: i, j p i j = 1. Otherwise the state is called quantum correlated. Note that every classically correlated state is also separable. On the other hand, a separable state ρ sep = i p i a i a i b i b i is not necessarily classically correlated, since the states { a i } and { b i } do not have to be orthogonal. Moreover, a pure state is quantum correlated i and only i the state is entangled, i.e., both concepts are equivalent or pure states. For this reason, we will discuss mixed states in the ollowing. The intuition behind this deinition o classically correlated states comes rom the act that these states are not disturbed by certain local von Neumann measurements on Alice s and Bob s subspaces. The measurement operators corresponding to these non-disturbing von Neumann measurements are given by Ei A = i i A and E B j = j j B. In a similar way we can also deine a class o quantum states which is not disturbed under certain von Neumann measurements on the subspace o one party (e.g. Alice) only. In this case the state has the orm ρ cq = p i i i A ρi B, (4.2) i where i A are orthogonal states on Alice s Hilbert space H A, ρi B are states on Bob s Hilbert space H B, and the nonnegative probabilities p i sum up to one. These states are called classicalquantum states [51, 52]. The corresponding von Neumann measurement on Alice s subsystem which does not disturb the total state is given by the measurement operators Ei A = i i A. Similarly, a quantum-classical state has the orm ρ qc = i p i ρi A i i B. Such a state is not disturbed by a local von Neumann measurement on Bob s subspace with measurement operators Ei B = i i B. 21

22 4 Quantum correlations beyond entanglement 4.2 Measures o quantum correlations A measure o entanglement can be deined via the useulness o a quantum state to perorm certain tasks. The igure o merit is the distillable entanglement, which quantiies how many singlets can be extracted per copy o a given quantum state via local operations and classical communication, i many copies o the same state are available. Since singlets can be used or many tasks in quantum inormation theory, e.g., quantum cryptography, dense coding and teleportation, the distillable entanglement is directly related to the perormance o these tasks. For general quantum correlations the situation is less clear, since the deinition o distillable quantum correlations is meaningless, at least i the concept o local operations and classical communication is considered. The reason or this is the act that local operations and classical communication can be used to create an arbitrary amount o quantum correlations [53, 54]. This means that a measure o distillable quantum correlations would be ininite or all quantum states. However, several other approaches to quantiy quantum correlations have been proposed in the literature. The most important measures o quantum correlations will be presented in the ollowing Quantum discord Quantum discord is historically the irst measure o quantum correlations beyond entanglement [22, 23, 27]. The deinition o quantum discord is based on the act that in classical inormation theory the mutual inormation between two random variables X and Y can be expressed in two dierent ways, namely I(X : Y) = H(X) + H(Y) H(X, Y), J(X : Y) = H(X) H(X Y). (4.3) Here, H(X) = x p x log 2 p x is the classical Shannon entropy o the random variable X, where p x is the probability that the random variable X takes the value x. H(X, Y) is the joint entropy o both variables X and Y. The conditional entropy H(X Y) is deined as H(X Y) = p y H(X y), (4.4) y where p y is the probability that the random variable Y takes the value y, and H(X y) is the entropy o the variable X conditioned on the variable Y taking the value y: H(X y) = x p x y log 2 p x y, and p x y is the probability o x given y. The equality o I and J or classical random variables ollows rom Bayes rule p x y = p xy /p y, which can be used to show that H(X Y) = H(X, Y) H(Y). However, as was noticed in [23], I and J are no longer equal i quantum theory is applied. In particular, or a quantum state ρ AB the mutual inormation between A and B is given by I(ρ AB ) = S (ρ A ) + S (ρ B ) S (ρ AB ) (4.5) 22

23 4 Quantum correlations beyond entanglement with the von Neumann entropy S, and the reduced density operators ρ A = Tr B [ρ AB ] and ρ B = Tr A [ρ AB ]. This expression is the generalization o the classical mutual inormation I(X : Y) to the quantum theory. On the other hand, the generalization o J(X : Y) is not completely straightorward. Ollivier and Zurek have proposed the ollowing way to generalize J to the quantum theory [23]: or a bipartite quantum state ρ AB they deined the conditional entropy o A conditioned on a measurement on B: S (A {Πi B }) = p i S (ρi A ), (4.6) where {Πi B } are measurement operators corresponding to a von Neumann measurement on the subsystem B, i.e., orthogonal projectors with rank one. The probability p i or obtaining the outcome i is given by p i = Tr[Πi BρAB ], and the corresponding post-measurement state o the subsystem A is given by ρi A = Tr B [Πi BρAB ]/p i. The quantity J can now be extended to quantum states as ollows [23]: J(ρ AB ) {Π B i } = S (ρa ) S (A {Πi B }), (4.7) where the index {Πi B } clariies that the value depends on the choice o the measurement operators Πi B. The quantity J represents the amount o inormation gained about the subsystem A by measuring the subsystem B [23]. Quantum discord is the dierence o these two inequivalent expressions or the mutual inormation, minimized over all von Neumann measurements: [ ] δ B A (ρ AB ) = min I(ρ AB ) J(ρ AB ) {Π {Πi B B } i }, (4.8) where the minimum over all von Neumann measurements is taken in order to have a measurementindependent expression [23]. As was also shown in [23], quantum discord is nonnegative, and is equal to zero on quantum-classical states only. These are states o the orm ρ qc = i p i ρi A i i B. A closely related quantity was proposed by Henderson and Vedral in [27]. The authors aimed to quantiy classical correlations in quantum states by deining a measure o classical correlations C B which is equal to J given in Eq. (4.7), maximized over all positive operator-valued measures (POVMs) on the subsystem B: i C B (ρ AB ) = sup {M B i } J(ρ AB ) {M B i }. (4.9) Here, Mi B are POVM elements on the subsystem B, and J(ρ AB ) {M B i } is the generalization o Eq. (4.7) to POVMs: J(ρ AB ) {M B i } = S (ρa ) S (A {Mi B }) (4.10) with S (A {M B i }) = i p i S (ρ A i ). The measurement probabilities are now given by p i = Tr[M B i ρab ], and the corresponding post-measurement state o the subsystem A is given by ρ A i = Tr B [M B i ρab ]/p i. 23

24 4 Quantum correlations beyond entanglement In today s literature, quantum discord is requently deined as the dierence between the mutual inormation I, and the amount o classical correlations C B [55]: D B A (ρ AB ) = I(ρ AB ) C B (ρ AB ). (4.11) This measure is in general dierent rom the original quantum discord δ B A proposed by Ollivier and Zurek. However, this quantity is also nonnegative, and vanishes on quantum-classical states only [56]. Quantum discord as deined in Eq. (4.11) is related to the entanglement o ormation E via the Koashi-Winter relation [57, 58]: D B A (ρ AB ) = E (ρ AC ) S (ρ AB ) + S (ρ B ), (4.12) where the total state ρ ABC is pure, i.e., ρ ABC = ψ ψ ABC General measures o quantum correlations Postulates or general measures o quantum correlations have been proposed in [59]. There the authors identiy three necessary conditions every measure o quantum correlations Q should satisy. These conditions are: 1. Q is nonnegative, 2. Q is invariant under local unitary operations, 3. Q is zero on classically correlated states. Note that both versions o quantum discord, δ and D, satisy all these criteria. In the ollowing we will present main measures o general quantum correlations apart rom quantum discord. Inormation deicit is a measure o quantum correlations which was originally based on the task o extracting work rom a heat bath using a quantum state [28, 51]. In particular, the amount o extractable work rom a heat bath o temperature T using a mixed state ρ o n qubits is given by W = kt{n S (ρ)}, (4.13) where k is the Boltzmann constant and S is the von Neumann entropy. However, i the state is shared by two parties, Alice and Bob, each o them having access to the local subsystem only, the amount o extractable work W will in general be dierent rom W. I Alice is allowed to perorm a single von Neumann measurement on her local system and send the resulting state to Bob, the maximal amount o work which Bob can extract rom the resulting state in this way is given by W = W kt A B (ρ AB ), (4.14) where A B is known as the one-way inormation deicit [51]: A B (ρ AB ) = min S (ρ AB Π A {Πi A} i ρab Πi A ). (4.15) i 24

25 4 Quantum correlations beyond entanglement S (ρ σ) is the relative entropy between the states ρ and σ, and the minimum is taken over local von Neumann measurements {Πi A } on the subsystem A. The one-way inormation deicit is zero on classical-quantum states only, and can also be written as the minimal relative entropy between the given state ρ AB and the set o classical-quantum states CQ [60]: A B (ρ AB ) = min S (ρ AB σ AB ). (4.16) σ AB CQ For this reason, this quantity is also called relative entropy o discord. In a similar way, it is possible to deine the relative entropy o quantumness as the minimal relative entropy between ρ AB and the set o classically correlated states CC [61]: Q R (ρ AB ) = min S (ρ AB σ AB ). (4.17) σ AB CC Inspired by the expression or the relative entropy o discord as the minimal relative entropy between a given state and the set o classical-quantum states CQ, Dakić et al. deined the geometric measure o discord as the minimal squared Hilbert-Schmidt distance between a given state ρ AB and CQ [53]: D A B G (ρab ) = min ρ AB σ AB 2 (4.18) σ AB CQ with the Hilbert-Schmidt norm M = Tr[M M]. The main advantage o the geometric measure o discord was already presented in the original work by Dakić et al.: this measure has an analytical expression or all two-qubit states [53]. I ρ AB is a two-qubit state, then the geometric measure o discord can be written as [53] D A B G (ρab ) = 1 4 (a2 + Tr[E T E] k max ), (4.19) where a is a 3-dimensional vector with entries a i = Tr[(σ i 1)ρ AB ], and E is the 3 3 correlation ( tensor with ) components ( E ) i j = Tr[(σ i ( σ j )ρ AB ) ]. The Pauli operators σ i are given as σ 1 = i 1 0, σ =, and σ i 0 3 =. Finally, k 0 1 max is the largest eigenvalue o the real matrix aa T + EE T. 25

26 5 Quantum discord in quantum inormation theory 5.1 Remote state preparation Deterministic remote state preparation The role o quantum discord in the task o remote state preparation was considered by Dakić et al. [30]. In this task Alice aims to remotely prepare Bob s system in the quantum state ψ = 1 2 ( 0 + e iφ 1 ). (5.1) To this end Alice and Bob have access to an additional shared quantum state and a classical communication channel. In contrast to the standard quantum teleportation [15], which can be applied to remotely prepare an arbitrary quantum state by making use o a shared singlet and two bits o classical communication, remote preparation o the state given in Eq. (5.1) requires a shared singlet supported by only one classical bit [62]. To achieve this task, Alice applies a von Neumann measurement in the basis { ψ ψ, ψ ψ } on her part o the singlet, where the state ψ = ( 0 e iφ 1 )/ 2 is orthogonal to ψ. Depending on her outcome, Bob s system is ound in one o the states ψ ψ or ψ ψ. By sending the outcome o her measurement to Bob which implies sending one classical bit he either inds his system in the desired state ψ ψ, or can correct his state ψ ψ by applying the Pauli operator σ z. Note that the Bloch vector o the state ψ in Eq. (5.1) lies in the equatorial plane o the Bloch sphere orthogonal to the z axis. Moreover, the σ z operation which is applied by Bob to the state ψ ψ can be regarded as a π rotation around the z axis o the corresponding Bloch vector. In a similar way Alice can remotely prepare any pure state in a ixed equatorial plane o the Bloch sphere. I s is the Bloch vector o the state s s Alice wishes to prepare and β is a normalized vector orthogonal to the corresponding equatorial plane, Alice can achieve this task by perorming a von Neumann measurement in the basis { s s, s s } on her part o the singlet and send the outcome to Bob. Depending on the measurement outcome, Bob either inds his system in the state s s or s s and can correct the latter by applying a π rotation around the direction β, see also Fig. 5.1 or illustration. 26

27 5 Quantum discord in quantum inormation theory s β 1 2 ( ) s β s s Alice Bob Figure 5.1: Remote state preparation. Alice can remotely prepare any state s s with Bloch vector s on a ixed equatorial plane o the Bloch sphere by perorming a von Neumann measurement in the basis { s s, s s } on her part o the singlet and by sending the outcome o the measurement to Bob. Depending on the outcome, Bob s system is ound in one o the states s s or s s. Bob can correct the latter by applying a π rotation around the direction β orthogonal to the corresponding equatorial plane Remote state preparation in the presence o noise So ar we considered deterministic remote state preparation where Alice could remotely prepare the desired state with certainty. However, this is not possible in general i the state shared by Alice and Bob is mixed, and the above procedure will leave Bob s system in a mixed state with Bloch vector r. The aim o Alice in this case is to adjust her measurement such that Bob s inal Bloch vector r becomes as close as possible to the desired vector s. As a quantiier o the perormance o this procedure Dakić et al. introduced the payo-unction [30] P = (r s) 2. (5.2) For a pure state s with Bloch vector s and a mixed state ρ with Bloch vector r the payo unction is directly related to the idelity s ρ s between the two states. This can be seen by writing the idelity explicitly as s ρ s = (1 + r s)/2, and thus we get the desired relation P = (2 s ρ s 1) 2. The aim o Alice is to maximize the payo unction or a given Bloch vector s. As was shown in [30], this maximization can be perormed or any mixed two-qubit state shared by Alice and Bob. Note that any such state admits the ollowing representation: ρ = a i σ i 1 + b j 1 σ j + E kl σ k σ l. (5.3) i=1 j=1 k,l=1 27

28 5 Quantum discord in quantum inormation theory The vectors a = (a 1, a 2, a 3 ) and b = (b 1, b 2, b 3 ) are the Bloch vectors o Alice s and Bob s local state respectively, and E kl = Tr[σ k σ l ρ] are the elements o the correlation tensor E. I Alice applies a von Neumann measurement in the basis { α α, α α } on her part o the mixed state, she obtains one o two outcomes with corresponding probabilities p α and p α = 1 p α. By using the relation α α = 1 2 (1 + α σ), where σ = (σ 1, σ 2, σ 3 ) is a vector containing the Pauli matrices, we can express the probability p α as ollows: p α = Tr [ α α 1ρ ] = 1 (1 + α a). (5.4) 2 Conditioned on the outcome o this measurement, the state o Bob s system is ound to be ρα B = Tr [ ] A α α 1ρ. (5.5) p α Recall that this state can also be written in the orm ρ B α = (1 + b α σ)/2 with the Bloch vector b α. By inserting Eqs. (5.3) and (5.4) into Eq. (5.5) the Bloch vector b α can be written explicitly as where E T is the transposed correlation tensor E. b α = b + ET α 1 + α a, (5.6) In the next steps Alice and Bob ollow the same procedure as or the deterministic remote state preparation discussed above (see Fig. 5.1). In particular, Alice sends the outcome o her measurement to Bob, who applies a π rotation R π around the direction β conditioned on the outcome o the measurement. Ater these steps the Bloch vector r α o Bob s inal state takes the orm r α = p α b α + p α R π b α. (5.7) Note that this procedure is optimal i the state shared by Alice and Bob is a singlet, and i Alice chooses her measurement basis { α α, α α } such that α = s, where s is the Bloch vector o the state s Alice wishes to prepare. In this case the Bloch vector o Bob s inal state r s is equal to s. For evaluating the payo unction P = (r s) 2 it is crucial to note that any vector x satisies the ollowing equality: (R π x) s = x s. This equality can be proven by using the invariance o the scalar product under rotations, i.e., (R π x) (R π y) = x y or any two vectors x and y. With this in mind, we see that (R π x) s = (R 2 πx) (R π s) = x s, where in the last step we used the act that double application o the rotation R π does not change the vector, i.e., R 2 πx = x, and that the rotation R π applied to the vector s takes it to s, see Fig Using these results the product r s takes the ollowing orm: r s = p α b α s p α b α s. By using Eqs. (5.4) and (5.6) this product can also be written as r s = αes, and the payo unction reduces to P = (αes) 2. (5.8) This expression is valid or any von Neumann measurement o Alice in the basis { α α, α α }. Maximal payo is achieved i the vector α is parallel to the vector Es, i.e., α = Es/ (Es) 2, and the maximum is thus given by the simple expression P max = (Es) 2. (5.9) 28