arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 9 Aug 2010

Transcription

1 Probing the quit epolarizing channel Michael Frey Department of Mathematics, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 787, USA Davi Collins Department of Physical an Environmental Sciences, Mesa State College, 00 North Avenue, Gran Junction, CO 850, USA Karl Gerlach ITT Corp, 560 Huntington Avenue, Alexanria, VA 0, USA arxiv:008557v [quant-ph] 9 Aug 00 For the quantum epolarizing channel with any finite imension, we compare three schemes for channel ientification: unentangle probes, probes maximally entangle with an external ancilla, an maximally entangle probe pairs This comparison inclues cases where the ancilla is itself epolarizing an where the probe is circulate back through the channel before measurement Compare on the basis of (quantum Fisher) information gaine per channel use, we fin broaly that entanglement with an ancilla ominates the other two schemes, but only if entanglement is cheap relative to the cost per channel use an only if the external ancilla is well shiele from epolarization We arrive at these results by a relatively simple analytical means A separate, more complicate analysis for partially entangle probes shows for the quit epolarizing channel that any amount of probe entanglement is avantageous an that the greatest avantage comes with maximal entanglement PACS numbers: 067-a I INTRODUCTION A quantum operation, or channel, Γ is a tracepreserving, completely positive map for representing the change of state of a quantum system Quantum channels are the funamental builing blocks of quantum information processing In any physical implementation, though, the channel is usually not fully known an must be etermine experimentally by observing its effect on prepare quantum systems, or probes This is the problem of quantum channel ientification [ 7], also known as quantum process tomography [8], an a major challenge is to etermine the optimal quantum state an measurement for the channel probe In particular, the probe may be entangle with an ancilla system, or with other probes Quantum channel ientification is statistical by nature an is generally formulate as a parameter estimation problem: the unknown channel Γ θ is suppose to belong to a parametric family {Γ θ, θ Θ} of channels, an we ientify the channel by estimating θ The general scheme for oing this is to prepare the channel input probe in a chosen quantum state σ, make a quantum measurement M of the channel output ρ θ = Γ θ [σ], an base the estimation of θ on the measurement s registere result X This process (see Fig ) is repeate to obtain n inepenent, ientically istribute measurement outcomes X,,X n, an then θ is estimate by an estimator ˆθ = ˆθ(X,,X n ) This arrangement, in which mfrey@bucknelleu; Author to whom corresponence shoul be aresse acollin@mesastateeu a prepare quantum system is use to probe a quantum channel, is stanar for channel ientification, it is common in interferometry [9], an it occurs generally whenever a quantum measurement is mae inirectly by observing a change in an ancillary part of the measurement apparatus σ Γ θ ρ θ M X n runs ˆθ = ˆθ(X,,X n ) FIG Set-up for probing a epolarizing channel Γ θ by a probe system prepare in state σ We stuy the problem of ientifying the quit (imension < ) epolarizing channel This channel is a stanar moel of quantum noise, it is analytically tractable, an it is the basis of investigation in a range of contexts [7, 0 4] Our stuy of the quit epolarizing channel procees most irectly from the works of Fujiwara an Sasaki et al Fujiwara [] consiers the qubit ( = ) epolarizing channel with probes prepare by three ifferent schemes Using a likelihoo approach base aroun quantum Fisher information, Fujiwara obtains comprehensive local/asymptotic optimality results for his three ientification schemes, even incluing probes prepare in partially entangle states Sasaki et al [] stuy the more general quit ( < ) epolarizing channel from a Bayesian perspective, comparing the same channel ientification schemes as Fujiwara Their Bayesian approach yiels global optimality results for any <, though their results for partial entanglement are limite to = We take the same approach as Fujiwara but treat the general quit epolarizing channel, introucing a common simple expression for the quan-

2 tum Fisher information to aress all three ientification schemes treate in [, ] We exten this metho to entanglement with an ancilla that is itself epolarizing an to a scheme we call probe re-circulation, whereby the probe is passe multiple times through the channel before measurement By a separate analysis we show for the epolarizing channel that any egree of entanglement is beneficial for quits of any imension an that maximal entanglement is most beneficial This broa usefulness of entanglement in any imension is known in only a few instances [5] The remainer of the paper is arrange as follows We set the stage for our work in Sec II by recalling the efinition of quantum Fisher information an its role in the quantum Cramér-Rao inequality We then erive a general expression for the quantum Fisher information in the output of the quit epolarizing channel In Sec III we apply this expression to channel ientification schemes in which the quit probe is unentangle, maximally entangle with an ancilla quit, or maximally entangle with another probe (the three schemes stuie in [, ]) For each of these schemes, we treat the possibility that the probe is circulate back through the channel before measurement We further apply our expression for quantum Fisher information to a probe that is maximally entangle with an ancilla quit that is itself epolarizing Partially entangle probes must be aresse with a separate metho; we o this in Sec IV We take up the question of optimal probe measurement in Sec V an summarize our results in Sec VI II PRELIMINARIES The quantum Fisher information J(θ) = J[ρ θ ] in the parametric output ρ θ = Γ θ (σ) of a quantum channel bouns the ultimate precision of the estimation of the parameter θ attainable by quantum measurement M of ρ θ The quantum information (Cramér-Rao) inequality states for n inepenent, ientically istribute registrations of any quantum measurement M an any unbiase estimator ˆθ that mse[ˆθ] nj(θ) () where mse[ˆθ] = E[(ˆθ θ) ] is the mean square error of ˆθ The quantum Fisher information J(θ) in Eq () is J(θ) = J[ρ θ ] = tr[ρ θ L θ ] () where L θ is the quantum score operator (symmetric logarithmic erivative) of ρ θ efine by L θ ρ θ +ρ θ L θ = θ ρ θ () where θ signifies ifferentiation Quantum Fisher information originate with Helstrom [6]; its relationship to classical Fisher information is brought out in [7]; an recent presentations are [8, 9] The Cramér-Rao boun, Eq (), is asymptotically achievable so the larger J(θ) is in Eq (), the more precisely θ can potentially be estimate We therefore interpret J(θ) to be the overall information about θ available in a parametrically efine quantum state ρ θ In this sense J(θ) serves as a quantitative measure of the relative merit of ifferent channel ientification schemes The information inequality, Eq (), an this interpretation of quantum Fisher information, reaily extens [8] to biase estimators, epenent an non-ientically istribute registrations, vectors of channel parameters [0], an transformations of parameter The quit (-imensional) epolarizing channel efine for any quit input state σ is Γ θ (σ) = θ I +θσ (4) where θ is the probability of epolarization an I is the completely mixe quit state The channel Γ θ is completely positive for 0 θ In fact [], Γ θ is completely positive for /( ) θ ; we restrict our attention to 0 θ where θ reflects solely epolarization We take avantage of a general transformation of parameter to simply an flexibly express the quantum Fisher information J(θ) for the quit epolarizing channel This formulation of J(θ) is use in the following section to evelop an compare schemes for estimating θ an ientifying Γ θ In particular, we generalize results known [] for the qubit epolarizing channel to the setting of quits We will nee to consier a variety of epolarizing-type channels, whose general form is σ h(θ) I +h(θ)σ (5) where is the imension of the system an 0 h(θ) is monotonic an has the interpretation that h(θ) is a generalize epolarizing probability Given that the probe state σ at the input ofthe quit epolarizingchannel has spectral ecomposition σ = i= s i s i s i it follows that ρ θ = Γ θ (σ) = i= λ i(θ) s i s i where λ i (θ) = h(θ) +s i h(θ) (6) Only the eigenvalues λ i (θ) of ρ θ epen on θ; its eigenvectors s i o not, so ρ θ is quasi-classical [8, 0] In this situation ρ θ an the score operator L θ commute, L θ is reaily calculate, an we have J(θ) = Tr[ρ θ L θ ] = Tr[ρ θ ( θρ θ ) ] = i= λ i (θ) λ i (θ) (7) Fujiwara [] observe that the quantum Fisher information J(θ) = J[Γ θ (σ)] in a channel output Γ µ (σ) about

3 a channel parameter θ is maximize by a pure state σ This observation applies in particular to the quit epolarizing channel, so we restrict our attention here to pure probe states Let { s i, i =,,} be an orthonormal basis relative to which σ = s s The channel output is then ρ θ = +( )h(θ) s s + h(θ) s i s i (8) i= Reaing the eigenvalues of ρ θ from Eq (8), we fin that the quantum Fisher information Eq (7) in ρ θ is J(θ) = (h (θ)) ( ) (9) ( h(θ)) h(θ)+ This expression for J(θ) applies to all the quit epolarizing channel ientification schemes of the next section III PROBING WITH ENTANGLEMENT We first consier channel ientification in which the quit probe is prepare in an unentangle pure state σ we call this scheme O The probe is applie to the epolarizing channel with epolarizing probability θ; ie, h(θ) = θ We have immeiately from Eq (9) that the quantum Fisher information available in the channel output about θ is J O (θ) = ( ) (0) ( θ) θ + with no input entanglement This quantum Fisher information is the same for any pure input state σ, because the quit epolarizing channel is unitarily invariant an J[ρ θ ] = J[Uρ θ U ] for any unitary transformation U We now consier an externally entangle probe Specifically, in scheme E one of a maximally entangle pair of quits is passe through Γ θ with epolarizing probability θ; again h(θ) = θ The state of the maximally entangle quit pair is σ = µ µ with µ = s t + + s t () where { s i } an { t i } are orthonormal bases for each qubit The channel output ρ θ = (I Γ θ )(σ) is, after some calculation, ρ θ = θ I +θσ () This output is ientically that of a -imensional quit epolarizing channel with epolarizing probability θ an a probe prepare in a pure state From Eq (0), then, the quantum Fisher information in Eq () about θ obtaine by a maximally entangle probe is J E (θ) = ( ), () ( θ) θ + an the information gaine using a maximally entangle probe is J E (θ) J O (θ) = ( )( θ) ( θ +θ)( θ + θ) (4) This gain is positive for all < an all θ < One might entangle two quits an use both as probes as a scheme for channel ientification In scheme B two quits in the maximally entangle state σ = µ µ, with µ as in Eq (), are each passe through the quit epolarizing channel This yiels the channel output ρ θ = (Γ θ Γ θ )(σ), in which case ρ θ = θ I +θ σ (5) This is ientically the parametric family of output states that woul result from passing a -imensional unentangle quit in the pure state σ through a channel with epolarizing probability h(θ) where h(θ) = θ So from Eq (9), the information per channel use in Eq (5) about θ is J B (θ) = θ ( ) (6) ( θ ) θ + Our three channel ientification schemes O, E, an B are just those consiere in [, ] These schemes can be compare in ifferent ways base on the quantum Fisher informations J O (θ), J E (θ) an J B (θ) The three schemes use ifferent resources to ifferent egrees, suggesting ifferent accountings Schemes O an E involve just one channel use; scheme B requires two uses Schemes E an B use entanglement, whereas scheme O oes not Schemes E an B involve a imensional extension of the channel (with a more complex measurement); scheme O oes not Both Fujiwara [] an Sasaki et al [], compare these schemes on the basis of channel extension Our J O (θ), J E (θ), an J B (θ) are information gaine per channel use Thus Fujiwara effectively compare J O (θ), J E (θ) an J B (θ) He foun by his accounting that no one scheme uniformly ominate the others; each scheme was optimal for ifferent θ We compare our ientification schemes O, E, an B for the general quit epolarizing channel on the basis of quantum Fisher information per channel use This comparison emphasizes the essential cost of the channel to estimation From a resource perspective this seems most natural, because if channel use is not relatively costly, we woul alwaysjust probe the channel by scheme O with as many probes as neee to achieve the esire precision Comparing quantum Fisher information per channel use, we fin that J E (θ) J O (θ) an J E (θ) J B (θ) (7a) (7b) for all θ an all channel imensions, as shown in Fig

4 Θ 0 0 Θ Scheme O 0 0 Θ 0 Θ Scheme B Θ 0 0 Θ 0 0 Θ FIG Quantum Fisher information per channel use: Scheme E (upper soli line), Scheme O (otte), Scheme B (ashe), Scheme O, (soli lower) Comparing just schemes O an B, Fig shows that, above a -epenent threshol for θ, scheme B always yiels more information (per channel use) than oes scheme O an that below θ = / scheme O always ominates scheme B Ancilla epolarization: Ientification scheme E uniformly ominates schemes O an B for the quit epolarizing channel Scheme E, though, may be unrealistic in assuming that the ancilla quit in the entangle pair unergoes no egraation Suppose we moel the evolution of the ancilla quit by a epolarizing channel Γ η with epolarizing probability η If the probe an its ancilla quit are initially in a maximally entangle state σ = µ µ (see Eq ()), the channel output ρ θ = (Γ η Γ θ )(σ) is ρ θ = ηθ I +ηθσ (8) This is ientically the parametric family of states that woul result from passing a -imensional quit in a pure state σ with no external entanglement through a epolarizing channel with parameterization h(θ) = ηθ Therefore, from (9), the quantum Fisher information per use of Γ θ with this scheme E η is η J Eη (θ) = ( ) (9) ( ηθ) ηθ + FIG Unentangle probes (scheme O) versus maximally entangle probe pairs (scheme B) Scheme B yiels more information above a imension-epenent threshol Unlike ientification scheme E = E, scheme E η for η < oes not uniformly ominate schemes O an B In fact, for any egree of epolarization η < in the ancilla system, there exist θ where J Eη (θ) < J O (θ) an/or J Eη (θ) < J B (θ) Simple calculation shows, for example, that J Eη (θ) < J O (θ) if θ > g(η) where g(η) = η (+) η( η)( )+η (0) Since g(η) < for any η < an any, there is always aθ large enough such that J Eη (θ) < J O (θ) Similar statements can be mae regaring J Eη (θ) relative to J B (θ) The broa point here is that, in this as in many other situations, realizing the theoretical avantage of entanglement epens on precise control of the experimental apparatus, an particularly in this case, evolution of the ancilla quit Probe re-circulation: One might ask whether any avantage can accrue to circulating the probe back through the channel, this being the scheme where the probe is passe through the channel, kept intact (no measurement), passe through the channel again, an, finally, measure Conceivably, the probe coul be re-circulate through the channel any number of times before measurement Our schemes O, E, an B all accommoate probe re-circulation The quit epolarizing channel satisfies Γ n θ = Γ θ n where n is the number of channel passages so,

5 5 from Eq (9), nθ (n ) J O,n (θ) = ( ) (a) ( θ n ) θ n + nθ (n ) J E,n (θ) = ( ) (b) ( θ n ) θ n + nθ (n ) J B,n (θ) = ( ) (c) ( θ n ) θ n + where J O,n (θ), J E,n (θ) an J B,n (θ) are, respectively, the quantum Fisher informations per channel use (n channel uses with schemes O an E, n uses with B) about θ available by schemes O, E an B by measurement after n circulations of the probe through the channel Some elementary calculus shows that J O,n+ (θ) J O,n (θ) for all n, an 0 θ, meaning that no egree of probe re-circulation is avantageous with scheme O Since J E,n (θ;) = J O,n (θ; ) an J B,n (θ;) = J O,n (θ; ), the same must be true for schemes E an B The information J O, (θ) with scheme O, is shown in Fig for various channel imensions We see that with increasing imension the entanglement schemes E an B yiel information increasingly close to schemes O, an O, without entanglement: J E (θ) J O, (θ) an J B (θ) J O, (θ) We observe that probe re-circulation, with any of our schemes, can only iminish the quantum Fisher information in the channel output These observations were mae, though, on the basis of quantum Fisher information per channel use If channel use is not a significant cost, probe re-circulation can be avantageous In fact, when the channel epolarizing probability θ is small, re-circulating the probe just once can yiel more information than entanglement For the qubit epolarizing channel with θ = 9, for example, the quantum Fisher information gaine by measuring a once re-circulate scheme O probe is J O, (9;) = 94, while that gaine by measuring a maximally entangle probe with no recirculation is J E, (9;) = 8 Entanglement clearly hols promise for channel probing, but epening on the relative cost of this resource, probe re-circulation or some other similarly simple classical strategy may be more effective In the case of the epolarizing channel, since probe re-circulation may be, for example, just a matter of maintaining the probe in the target epolarizing meium for some longer perio of time, entanglement may nee to be very inexpensive to be competitive IV PROBING WITH PARTIAL ENTANGLEMENT Various quantum Fisher informations J(θ) in the output of the epolarizing channel probe by quits with zero an maximal entanglement were presente an compare in the previous section Here we consier quit probes just partially entangle with an ancilla The effect of partial entanglement is not obvious; channels are known for which a partially entangle probe can yiel more information than a fully entangle probe [4] The essential conclusion of this section is that, for the quit epolarizing channel of any imension, partial entanglement always yiels information intermeiate between J O (θ) from an unentangle quit probe an J E (θ) from a maximally entangle probe The previous section s approach, represente by use of Eq (9), is applicable to certain special kins of partial entanglement quits which are fully entangle on just a subspace We briefly pursue this point an then turn to the question of partial entanglement generally Consier a pair of quits in the partially entangle pure state σ = Ψ Ψ with Schmit ecomposition Ψ = ψ ++ψ () where ψ j 0 an ψ + +ψ = Suppose that o of the ψ i are / o an that the remainer are zero, where < o < These quits are maximally entangle on a subspace of imension o < with no entanglement outsie this subspace The output of the epolarizing channel probe by the first of these quits is ρ θ = θ o I I o +θσ () an associate with this output is the quantum Fisher information J(θ) = ( ) (4) ( θ) θ + o This shows for quits with this special form of partial entanglement that J O (θ) J(θ) J E (θ) (5) We now prove that Eq (5) is true generally for any partial entanglement Suppose two quits are partially entangle generally as in Eq () Probing the channel with the first quit prouces the channel output where ρ θ = (Γ θ I)(σ) = θ D = I D+θσ (6) ψi i i (7) i= operates on a single quit Reefining D := i= ψ i ii ii as an operator on both quits gives ρ θ = ρ C +ρ Q where ρ Q = θ D+θ Ψ Ψ an ρ C = θ C (8)

6 6 are positive semi-efinite operators with orthogonal supports S = { ii,i =,,} an S = { ij,i j}, respectively, etermine by the Schmit ecomposition Eq (), an C = j i ψ j ij ij A general result, whose proof is straightforwar, is that, if ρ θ = ρ θ +ρ θ where ρ θ an ρ θ have orthogonal supports, then the score operator associate with ρ θ, ie L, can be expresse as L = L +L where L i is the score operator associate with ρ iθ Also the support of L i is orthogonal to that of L j an ρ jθ if i j Thus L = L Q + L C where L Q ρ C = L C ρ Q = 0 such that L Q an L C satisfy, respectively, L Q ρ Q +ρ Q L Q = θ ρ Q = ( Ψ Ψ ) D, (9) L C ρ C +ρ C L C = θ ρ C = C (0) We have immeiately from Eq (0), then, that L C = θ I C () wherei C isthe ientityons While nosimilarlysimple solutionexistsforeq(9), substituting ρ Q from Eq(8) in Eq (9) yiels Ψ L Q Ψ = θ θ θ Tr(DL Q) () We now erive, using our results from Eqs (9) an (0), an expression for the quantum Fisher information J(θ) in the channel output Eq (6), J(θ) = Tr(L θ ρ θ ) = Tr(L C θ ρ C )+Tr(L Q θ ρ Q ) = Tr [L C ( )] C +Tr [L Q ( Ψ Ψ )] D = ( θ) + Ψ L Q Ψ Tr(DL Q) = ( θ) + θ θ θ Tr(DL Q) Tr(DL Q) = θ( θ) θ Tr(DL Q) = θ( θ) θ T Dx () where x is the imensional vector L L x = L (4) with L ii = ii L Q ii, D is, now, a iagonal matrix with iagonal entries ψ,,ψ, an is the imensional column vector of ones Expression () shows, significantly, that only L Q s iagonal elements are neee for J(θ) In appenix A we emonstrate that T Dx = θ +θ θ ( θ)( θ+θ) bt Z b (5) where b is a ( )/ imensional vector with lexicographically orere entries ψ ψ ψ ψ b = (6) ψ ψ an Z is the ( )/ ( )/ matrix Z = J+αΩ T Ω (7) where α = θ/( θ+θ) The two constituent matrices of Z are ψ +ψ ψ +ψ 0 J = (8) 0 0 ψ +ψ an a ( )/ matrix Ω = f (ψ,,ψ ) with f ( ) is efine recursively by ( r f (x,r) = an (9a) x) ( ) r 0 f + (x,r ) = (9b) xi f (r ) where r = (r r ) an 0 is a row vector of ( )( )/ zeros For example Ω 4 = f 4 (ψ,ψ,ψ,ψ 4 ) ψ ψ ψ ψ = 0 0 ψ ψ ψ 0 ψ 0 ψ (40) ψ 0 ψ ψ Combining Eqs () an (5) yiels J(θ) = ( θ)(θ + ) + ( θ)( θ+θ) bt Z b (4) While Z is singular in cases where the quits entanglement is confine to a proper subspace, b T Z b is always well-efine With this in min one can reaily check that, for maximal entanglement on a subspace, Eq (4) is ientically Eq (4) To prove Eq (5) we must prove that b T Z θ +θ b ( ) θ + θ (4)

7 7 or, equivalently, that b T (αω T Ω+J) b α+ (4) Let λ min [M] an λ max [M] enote, respectively, the minimum an the maximum eigenvalues of a positive semiefinite matrix M, an let A enote the matrix A = ΩJ Ω T Let ψ be the length- column vector with components ψ j Using the relation b = Ω T ψ, the matrix inversion lemma [], an the Rayleigh-Ritz theorem [], we have b T (αω T Ω+J) b = ψ T Ω(αΩ T Ω+J) Ω T ψ = ψ T( αi +A ) ψ [ (αi λ max +A ] = λ min = = [ αi +A α+λ min [A ] ) ] ( max ψ T ψ ) ψ α+λ max[a ] (44) Accoring to Eqs (4) an (44), we only nee to show that λ max [A ] = to provethe inequality of Eq (5) First we show that is an eigenvalue of A ; then we show that it is the maximum eigenvalue Let Λ be an eigenvector of A with associate eigenvalue λ so that Let Λ = J Ω T Λ Then A Λ = λλ (45) J Ω T ΩΛ = λλ, (46) so λ is also an eigenvalue of J Ω T Ω One can check by irect substitution that Eq (46) is satisfie by λ = with (unnormalize) eigenvector Λ = ( ψ ψ ψ ψ ψ ψ ) T (47) In appenix B we prove that is the maximum eigenvalue of A, an this completes the proof of Eq (5) V OPTIMAL MEASUREMENTS Realizing the precision promise by the quantum Fisher information in the Cramér-Rao inequality epens on optimal measurement of the channel output The quantum measurement that saturates the inequality is not always obvious, an in some cases certain vectors of parameters, for example no such measurement exists [9] For the quit epolarizing channel, is is possible to escribe a measurement which yiels a (classical) Fisher information which equals the quantum Fisher information For this channel the ensity operator after evolution is such that its eigenstates are inepenent of the channel parameter (only the eigenvalues epen on the channel parameter), ie ρ θ = i λ i (θ) s i s i (48) where λ i (θ) an s i are the eigenvalues an eigenstates respectively Then [8] the quantum Fisher information is J(θ) = i λ i (θ) ( ) λi (49) θ However [8], this is exactly the expression for the classical Fisher information for a probability istribution with probabilities {λ i (θ)} Thus the quantum Fisher information can be attaine via a measurement which results in this probability istribution Clearly measurement in the eigenbasis of ρ θ accomplishes this Here, one of the eigenstates of ρ θ is the initial state µ of the pair of quits prior to action by the epolarizing channel It follows that the projective measurement for which the projectors are Π 0 = µ µ an (50) Π = I µ µ (5) yiels a probability istribution, which gives a classical Fisher information exactly equal to that of the quantum Fisher information For an entangle input state such as that use in scheme E, this optimal measurement requires measurements involving entangle states It is unclear whether there is a scheme which involves unentangle states at the measurement phase an which attains the quantum Fisher information; such a scheme exists for unitary parameter estimation [] VI SUMMARY We have given an extensive treatment of channel ientification for the general quit epolarizing channel, comparing ifferent probe preparation schemes base on the quantum Fisher information attainable by channel probing We showe for epolarizing channels of any imension that maximally entangling the channel probe with an external qubit uniformly realizes the maximum theoretical avantage, but that this avantage isappears if the ancilla qubit is not sufficiently shiele from epolarization We primarily compare the same three channel ientification schemes consiere in [, ], though our results apply generally for imension < We eparte from [, ] most significantly in choosing to compare ientification schemes on an information per channel use basis This is a practically meaningful basis of comparison; in any case, our results for each scheme are reaily amenable to other comparisons We have consiere here ientification schemes involving bipartite probe entanglement, with an ancilla quit

8 8 or with another probe Multipartite probe entanglement ofvariousorersantypesremainsforstuy Wehopeto be able to aress at least some important multipartite entanglement schemes with our present methos Appenix A: Diagonal elements of the score operator Substituting from Eq (8) into Eq (9) gives θ D+ Ψ Ψ = (L Q D+DL Q ) + θ (L Q Ψ Ψ + Ψ Ψ L Q )(A) Acting with this on jj an acting on the result with ii gives ψ iδ ij +ψ i ψ j = θ ( ψ i +ψj ) Lij +θ (ψ j ψ k L ik +ψ i ψ k L jk )(A) k= where L ij = ii L Q jj Note that the score operator is Hermitian an in this case real; thus L ij = L ji Thus Eq(A) is a system of (+)/ istinct linear equations for the components of L Q Our aim is to invert these for the iagonal elements of L Q Using x as efine in Eq (4) an gives y = L L L L L ( ) ( R S x a S T)( T = y b) where a is a imensional vector given by a = ψ ψ, ψ (A) (A4) (A5) b is given in Eq (6), an the concatenation ( x y ) T is the column vector consisting of the components of x followe by those of y The submatrices R an S within Eq (A4) are reaily erive from Eq (A) an are ρ ρ 0 θ +θ R = = D (A6) 0 0 ρ an S = θd / Ω (A7) whereω isasefineviaeq(9b) The finalsubmatrix is T = θ J+θΩT Ω (A8) an this can be verifie by consiering Eq (A) for i < j The left sie yiels the row of b corresponing to the inices i an j an the right sie yiels the following contribution from Ty θ +θ ( ψ i +ψj ) Lij k=,k i ψ j ψ k L ik + k=,k j ψ i ψ k L jk (A9) The first term clearly correspons to ( θ)/ Jy To check the secon term, we can show by an iterative process that Ω y = k ψ kl k k ψ kl k (A0) Using this, we can again show iteratively that k ψ kl k + k ψ kl k Ω T k Ω y = ψ kl k + k ψ kl k k ψ kl k + (A) k ψ kl k an this correspons to the secon term This justifies the form of Eq (A4) Applying the matrix inversion lemma [] to the solution of Eq (A4) for x gives x = ( R ST S T) ( a ST b ) = [ R +R S(T S T R S) S T R ] (a ST b) From (A), an using R a = a lengthy calculation yiels θ +θ (A) (A) Dx = θ +θ (a ST b) + θ +θ S(T ST R S) S T [ ] θ +θ R ST b (A4)

9 9 Using the relations T a = ( )/ an S T = θb, we calculate from Eq (A4) that T Dx = θ+θ + θ ( θ +θ) b T (S T R S T) b (A5) Recalling the efinitions of S an T in Eqs (A7) an (A8), we calculate further that where T Dx = θ+θ θ ( θ)( θ +θ) bt Z b (A6) with α = θ/( θ +θ) This gives Eq (5) Appenix B: Maximum eigenvalue of A The matrix A = [a ij ] has elements a ij = ψ i ψ j ψi +ψ j k=,k i ψ k ψ i +ψ k if i = j, if i j (B) Z = J+αΩ T Ω (A7) For example, A = ψ + ψ ψ +ψ ψ +ψ ψ ψ ψ +ψ ψ ψ ψ +ψ ψ + ψ ψ +ψ ψ +ψ ψ ψ ψ +ψ ψ ψ ψ +ψ (B) ψ ψ ψ +ψ ψ ψ ψ +ψ ψ + ψ ψ +ψ ψ +ψ Define the angles φ ij for i < j by cosφ ij = ψ i / ψi +ψ j an let Φ be the length-( )/ vector Φ = (φ φ φ, ) The matrix A is a function A (Φ ) of the angles in Φ Consier the characteristic function h(λ) = et(λi A ) of A The eigenvalue λ max [A ] = if an only if h (λ) is positive for λ > This is a consequence of the following If the eigenvalues of A are λ min,,λ max then h(λ) = (λ λ min )(λ λ max ) an h (λ) = h(λ)[/(λ λ min )+/(λ λ max )] Clearly if λ > λ max then h(λ) > 0 an h (λ) > 0 A graphical representation of the characteristic function reveals that at some point between λ max an the eigenvalue immeiately smaller than this, h (λ) must be negative since h(λ) in this region is between two of its roots Thus if h (λ) > 0 for all λ > λ then λ = λ max We have h (λ) = i= et(λi A ii ) (B) where A ii is the matrix A with its ith row an column elete The summan in Eq (B) is the characteristic function of A ii, so we nee just show that no Aii has an eigenvalue greater than A stanar calculation yiels A ii = A (Φ i )+ i (B4) where i is a iagonal matrix with iagonal elements cos φ ij, an Φ i is the vector Φ with the angles φ ij an φ ji elete Therefore, by Weyl s inequality [], λ max [A ii ] λ max [A (Φ i )]+λ max [ i ] λ max [A (Φ i )]+ (B5) We have λ max [A (Φ )] = λ max [A (Φ i )] = by irect calculation from Eq (B) Thus λ max [A ii ] by Eq(B5), an λ max [A ] by consierationofeq(b) Arguing recursively, we conclue that λ max [A ] for We saw that is an eigenvalue of A so λ max [A ] = [] A Fujiwara, Phys Rev A 6, 0404 (Mar 00) [] M Sasaki, M Ban, an S M Barnett, Phys Rev A 66, 008 (Aug 00) [] A Fujiwara an H Imai, J Phys A 6, 809 [4] A Fujiwara, Phys Rev A 70, 07 (Jul 004) [5] M A Ballester, Phys Rev A 69, 00 (Feb 004)

10 0 [6] M Frey, A L Miller, L K Mentch, an J Graham, Quantum Information Processing 9 (Mar 00) [7] M Frey, L Coffey, L K Mentch, A L Miller, an S Rubin, Int J Quantum Information(00) [8] M A Nielsen an I L Chuang, Quantum Computation an Quantum Information (Cambrige University Press, Cambrige, 000) [9] J H Shapiro an S R Shepar, Phys Rev A 4, 795 (Apr 99) [0] C King, IEEE Trans Inf Theory 49, (Jan 00) [] A Dragan an K Wókiewicz, Phys Rev A 7, 0 (Jan 005) [] I B Slimen, O Trabelsi, H Rezig, R Bouallègue, an A Boualègue, J Comp Sci, 44 (007) [] S Boixo an A Monras, Phys Rev Lett 00, 0050 (Mar 008) [4] D Daems, Phys Rev A 76, 00 (Jul 007) [5] M Piani an J Watrous, Phys Rev Lett 0, 5050 (Jun 009) [6] C W Helstrom, Phys Lett A 5, 0 (Jul 967) [7] S L Braunstein an C M Caves, Phys Rev Lett 7, 49 (May 994) [8] M Paris, Int J Quantum Information 9, 5 (009) [9] C Ping an L Shunlong, Front Math China, 59 (007) [0] M Frey an D Collins, Quantum Information an Computation VII, Proc SPIE 74, 740N (009) [] A Fujiwara an P Algoet, Phys Rev A 59, 90 (May 999) [] R A Horn an C R Johnson, Matrix Analysis (Cambrige University Press, Cambrige, 985) [] V Giovannetti, S Lloy, an L Maccone, Phys Rev Lett 96, 0040 (Jan 006)