arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 30 Oct 2017

Transcription

1 Noname manuscript No (will be inserted by the editor) Lower bound on concurrence for arbitrary-dimensional tripartite quantum states Wei Chen Shao-Ming Fei Zhu-Jun Zheng arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 30 Oct 2017 Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract In this paper, we study the concurrence of arbitrary-dimensional tripartite quantum states An explicit operational lower bound of concurrence is obtained in terms of the concurrence of substates A given example show that our lower bound may improve the well known existing lower bounds of concurrence The significance of our result is to get a lower bound when we study the concurrence of arbitrary m n l-dimensional tripartite quantum states Keywords Concurrence Lower bound of concurrence Tripartite quantum states Substates 1 Introduction As one of the most striking features of quantum phenomena[1], quantum entanglement has been identified as a key non-local resource in quantum information processing vary from quantum teleportation[2] and quantum cryptography[3] to dense coding[4] These effects based on quantum entanglement have been demonstrated in many outstanding experiments An important issue in the theory of quantum entanglement is to recognize and quantify the entanglement for a given quantum state Concurrence is one of the well-defined quantitative measures of entanglement[5]-[9] For a mixed two-qubit state, an elegant formula of concurrence was derived analytically by Wootters in [9] However, beyond bipartite qubit systems and some special symmetric states [10], there exists no explicit analytic formulas to show the concurrence of arbitrary highdimensional mixed states Instead of analytic formulas, some progress has been made toward the analytical lower bounds of concurrence In recent years, there are many papers [11]-[22] to give the lower bounds of concurrence for bipartite quantum states by using different methods All these bounds give rise to a good quantitative estimation of concurrence They are usually supplementary in detecting quantum entanglement With the deepening research of the lower bound of bipartite concurrence, some nice algorithms and progress have been concentrated on possible lower bound of concurrence for tripartite quantum systems [23]-[26] and other multipartite quantum systems [27]-[29] In Ref[27, 28], the authors obtained lower bounds of multipartite concurrence in terms of the concurrence of bipartite partitioned Wei Chen School of Automation Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou , China auwchen@scuteducn Shao-Ming Fei School of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing , China Shao-Ming Fei Max-Planck-Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Leipzig 04103, Germany Zhu-Jun Zheng School of Mathematics, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou , China

2 2 Wei Chen et al states of the whole quantum system In Ref[30], a lower bound of concurrence for four-qubit systems has been presented by using tripartite concurrence However, the lower bound (10) in [30] is in general not operationally computable In order to get operationally lower bound for multipartite quantum systems, we need to give operationally lower bounds for m n l (m n l) tripartite quantum systems, which will be considered in this paper In Ref[23], the analytic lower bounds of concurrence for three-qubit systems or for any m n l (m n,l) tripartite quantum systems have been presented by using the generalized partial transposition(gpt) criterion In Ref[26], another analytic lower bounds of concurrence for N N N tripartite quantum systems have been obtained in terms of the concurrence of substates This paper is organized as follows In Sec 2, we generalize the results in [23,26] and obtain some new operational lower bounds of concurrence for arbitrary m n l-dimensional (m n l) tripartite quantum systems in terms of lower-dimensional systems In Sec 3, we present that our lower bound may be used to improve the known lower bounds of concurrence with an example Conclusions are given in Sec 4 2 Lower bounds of concurrence for tripartite quantum systems of different dimensions We first recall the definition of the tripartite concurrence Let H A1,H A2 and H A3 be m-, n-, l- dimensional Hilbert spaces, respectively In general, we can assume that m n l, any pure tripartite state ψ H A1 H A2 H A3 has the form ψ = m n i=1 k=1 l a ijk ijk, (1) where a ijk C, ijk a ijk 2 = 1,{ ijk } is the basis of H A1 H A2 H A3 The concurrence of a tripartite pure state ψ H A1 H A2 H A3 is defined by [8] C( ψ ) = 3 Tr(ρ 2 A 1 +ρ 2 A 2 +ρ 2 A 3 ), (2) where the reduced density matrix ρ A1 (respectively, ρ A2,ρ A3 ) is obtained by tracing over the subsystems A 2 and A 3 (respectively, A 1 and A 3, A 1 and A 2 ) When m = n = l, C( ψ ) can be equivalently written as [6] C( ψ ) = 1 ( aijk a pqt a ijt a pqk a ijk a pqt a iqk a pjt 2 + a ijk a pqt a pjk a iqt 2 ) (3) When m n l, we can have the following result: Theorem 1 For any m,n,l, we have C 2 ( ψ ) = 1 2 m n i,p=1 j,q=1 k,t=1 l ( a ijk a pqt a ijt a pqk 2 + a ijk a pqt a iqk a pjt 2 + a ijk a pqt a pjk a iqt 2 ) (4) Proof For any m,n,l, a pure tripartite state ψ H A1 H A2 H A3 has the form ψ = m n i=1 k=1 l a ijk ijk, then we can compute m n l ρ A1 = a ijk a pjk i p, i,p=1 k=1

3 Lower bound on concurrence for arbitrary-dimensional tripartite quantum state and hence we obtain Similarly, we have and trρ 2 A 1 = 1 trρ 2 A 1 = trρ 2 A 2 = trρ 2 A 3 = 1 2 m n i,p=1 j,q=1k,t=1 m n i,p=1 j,q=1 k,t=1 m n i,p=1 j,q=1 k,t=1 m n i,p=1 j,q=1 k,t=1 l a ijk a pjka pqt a iqt, l a ijk a pqt a pjk a iqt 2 l a ijk a pqt a iqk a pjt 2, l a ijk a pqt a ijt a pqk 2 Associated with (2), we get our result (4) The concurrence for a tripartite mixed state ρ is defined by the convex roof, C N (ρ) = min {p i, ψ i } p i C( ψ i ), (5) where the minimum is taken over all possible convex decompositions of ρ into an ensemble { ψ i } of pure states with probability distribution {p i } To evaluate C(ρ), we project high-dimensional states to lower-dimensional ones For a given m n l pure state ψ, we define its s 1,s 1 m, n, l pure substate ψ s1 = is1 js2 ks3 i=i 1 j=j 1 k=k 1 a ijk ijk = E 1 E 2 E 3 ψ, where E 1 = i s1 i=i 1 i i,e 2 = j s2 j=j 1 j j and E 3 = k s3 k=k 1 k k We denote the concurrence C 2 ( ψ s1 ) by C 2 ( ψ s1 ) = s 1 u,x=1v,y=1w,z=1 s 1 u,x=1v,y=1w,z=1 s 1 u,x=1v,y=1w,z=1 i a iuj vk w a pxq yt z a pxj vk w a iuq yt z 2 a iuj vk w a pxq yt z a iuq yk w a pxj vt z 2 a iuj vk w a pxq yt z a iuj vt z a pxq yk w 2 In fact, there are ( m s 1 n l ) different s1 substates ψ s1 for a given pure state ψ, where ( m s 1, n and l ) are the binomial coefficients To avoid causing confusion, in the following we simply use ψ s1 to denote one of such substates, as these substates will always be considered together For a mixed state ρ H A1 H A2 H A3, we define its s 1 mixed substates by ρ s1 = E 1 E 2 E 3 ρe 1 E 2 E 3, having the following matrices form: ρ s1 = ρ i1j 1k 1,i 1j 1k 1 ρ i1j 1k 1,i 1j 1k s3 ρ i1j 1k s3,i 1j 1k 1 ρ i1j 1k s3,i 1j 1k s3 ρ i1j 2k 1,i 1j 1k 1 ρ i1j 2k 1,i 1j 1k s3 ρ i1j 2k s3,i 1j 1k 1 ρ i1j 2k s3,i 1j 1k s3 ρ i1j 1k 1,i 1j 2k 1 ρ i1j 1k 1,i s1 j s2 k s3 ρ i1j 1k s3,i 1j 2k 1 ρ i1j 1k s3,i s1 j s2 k s3 ρ i1j 2k 1,i 1j 2k 1 ρ i1j 2k 1,i s1 j s2 k s3 ρ i1j 2k s3,i 1j 2k 1 ρ i1j 2k s3,i s1 j s2 k s3 ρ is1 j s2 k s3,i 1j 1k 1 ρ is1 j s2 k s3,i 1j 1k s3 ρ is1 j s2 k s3,i 1j 2k 1 ρ is1 j s2 k s3,i s1 j s2 k s3, (6)

4 4 Wei Chen et al which are unnormalized tripartite s 1 mixed states The concurrence of ρ s1 is defined by C(ρ s1 ) min i p ic( ψ i s1 ), minimized over all possible s 1 pure-state decompositions of ρ s1 = i p i ψ i s1 ψ i, with i p i = Tr(ρ s1 ) Theorem 2 For any m n l tripartite mixed quantum state ρ H A1 H A2 H A3, assume 2 m n l, then the concurrence C(ρ) satisfies C 2 (ρ) c s s s C 2 (ρ s s s ) τ s s s (ρ), (7) n 2 l 1 where m s 2,c s s s = [ ( m 2 s 2 s 2 s 1) ] 1, stands for summing over all possible s s s mixed substates, and τ s s s (ρ) denotes the lower bound of C 2 (ρ) with respect to the s s s subspaces Proof For any m n l tripartite pure quantum state ψ = m i=1 n l k=1 a ijk ijk, and any given term a i0j 0k 0 a p0q 0t 0 a i0j 0t 0 a p0q 0k 0 2,i 0 p 0, (8) in Eq(4) If j 0 q 0 and k 0 t 0, then there are ( m 2 s 2 n 2 s 2 l 2 s 2) different s s ssubstates ψ s s s = E 1 E 2 E 3 ψ,with E 1 = i 0 i 0 + p 0 p 0 + i s i=i 3 i i,e 2 = j 0 j 0 + q 0 q 0 + j s j=j 3 j j,e 3 = and { k }ks k=k 3 k 0 k 0 + t 0 t 0 + k s k=k 1 k k, where { i } is i=i 3 { i } m i=1, { j }js j=j 3 { j } n { k } l k=1, such that the term (8) appears in the concurrence of ψ s s s = E 1 E 2 E 3 ψ n 2 s 2 l 1 s 1) different s s s substates k=k 2 k k, where { k } ks k=k 2 { k } m k=1, such that the term (8) appears in the concurrence of ψ s s s = E 1 E 2 F 3 ψ Otherwise, if j 0 = q 0 and k 0 t 0, then there are ( m 2 s 2 n 1 s 1 l 2 s 2) different s s s substates ψ s s s = E 1 F 2 E 3 ψ, with F 2 = j 0 j 0 + j s j=j 2 j j, where { j } js j=j 2 { j } n, such that the term (8) appears in the concurrence of ψ s s s = E 1 F 2 E 3 ψ Since ( l 2 s 2 l 1 s 1 and n 1 s 1 l 2 s 2 n 2 s 2 l 1 s 1), we have the following relation: ( ) m 2 n 2 l 1 C 2 ( ψ ) C 2 ( ψ s s s 9) s 2 s 2 s 1 If j 0 q 0 and k 0 = t 0, then there are ( m 2 s 2 ψ s s s = E 1 E 2 F 3 ψ, with F 3 = k 0 t 0 + k s equivalently, C 2 ( ψ ) c s s s Therefore, for mixed state ρ = p i ψ i ψ i, we have C 2 ( ψ s s s 10) C(ρ) = min i p i C( ψ i ) c s s s min p i ( C 2 ( ψ i s s s )) 1 2 i c s s s min[ p i C( ψ i s s s )) 2 ] 1 2 ( c s s s [ (min p i C( ψ i s s s )) 2 ] 1 2 i = c s s s [ 2, C 2 (ρ s s s )] 1 where the relation [ j ( i x ij) 2 ] 1 2 i ( j x2 ij )1 2 has been used in the second inequality, the first three minimizations run over all possible pure-state decompositions of the mixed state ρ, while i

5 Lower bound on concurrence for arbitrary-dimensional tripartite quantum states 5 the last minimization runs over all s s s pure-state decompositions of ρ s s s = i p i ψ i ψ i associated with ρ Equation (7) gives a lower bound of C(ρ) One can estimate C(ρ) by calculating the concurrence of the substates ρ s s s,2 s < m Different choices of s may give rise to different lower bounds A convex combination of these lower bounds is still a lower bound So, generally we have the following: Corollary 1 For any m n l tripartite mixed quantum state ρ H A1 H A2 H A3,s 2, assume 2 m n l, then the concurrence C(ρ) satisfies C 2 (ρ) m p s τ s s s (ρ), (11) s=2 where 0 p s 1,s = 2,,m and m s=2 p s = 1 Theorem 3 For any s s s tripartite mixed quantum state ρ H A1 H A2 H A3,s 2, then the concurrence C(ρ) satisfies C 2 (ρ) c λ µ ν C 2 (ρ λ µ ν ) τ λ µ ν (ρ), (12) P λ µ ν where 1 < λ µ ν s,c λ µ ν = [ ( s 1 λ 1 s 2 µ 2 s 2 ν 2) ] 1, P λ µ ν stands for summing over all possible λ µ ν mixed substates, and τ λ µ ν (ρ) denotes the lower bound of C 2 (ρ) with respect to the λ µ ν subspace Proof The proof is as same as Theorem 2 The lower bound of concurrence of ρ in equation (12) is given by the concurrence of sub-matrix ρ λ µ ν Choosing different λ,µ and ν would result in different lower bounds Generally, we have the following corollary Corollary 2 For any s s s tripartite mixed quantum state ρ H A1 H A2 H A3,s 2, then the concurrence C(ρ) satisfies C 2 (ρ) s s λ=2µ λ ν µ where 0 p λµν 1,1 < λ µ ν s and s λ=2 s µ λ s ν µ p λµν = 1 s p λµν τ λ µ ν (ρ), (13) 3 Lower bounds of concurrence for tripartite quantum systems from lower bounds The lower bounds (7) and (12) are in general not operationally computable, as we still have no analytical results for concurrence of lower-dimensional states If we replace the computation of concurrence of lower-dimensional substates ρ s s s and ρ λ µ ν by that of the lower bounds of threequbit mixed quantum substates, Eq(7) and (12) give an operational lower bound based on known lowerboundsthe lowerbound obtainedin thiswayshouldbe the sameorbetter than the previously known lower bounds Hence (7) and (12) can be used to improve all the known lower bounds of concurrence by associating with some analytical lower bounds for three-qubit mixed quantum states [23,26] in this sense Assume g(ρ) is any lower bound of concurrence, ie C(ρ) g(ρ) Then for a given mixed state ρ, the concurrence of the projected lower-dimensional mixed state ρ s s s satisfies C(ρ s s s ) = tr(ρ s s s )C((trρ s s s ) 1 ρ s s s ) tr(ρ s s s )g((trρ s s s ) 1 ρ s s s ) (14) Associated with (7), we get C 2 (ρ) c s s s C 2 (ρ s s s ) c s s s (tr(ρ s s s )) 2 g 2 ((trρ s s s ) 1 ρ s s s ) (15)

6 6 Wei Chen et al Here if we choose ρ s s s to be the given mixed state ρ itself, the inequality reduces to C(ρ) g(ρ) again Generally, the lower bound g(ρ) may be improved if one takes into account all the lowerdimensional mixed states ρ s s s In the following, we will first present an analytical lower bound for mixed quantum substates like ρ by using the Theorem 2 in [26] and (15) Theorem 4 For any m n l tripartite mixed quantum state ρ H A1 H A2 H A3, assume 2 m n l, let ρ be a mixed quantum sub-state, then we have and C 2 (ρ ) max[ ( ρ Tj tr(ρ 2 2 2)) 2, 3 ( R j, j(ρ ) tr(ρ )) 2 ], (16) C 2 (ρ) l 1 2 max[ ( ρ Tj tr(ρ 2 2 2)) 2, P ( R j, j(ρ ) tr(ρ )) 2 ] (17) where ρ Tj stands for partial transposition of ρ with respect to the jth sub-system A j, R j, j(ρ ) is the realignment of ρ with respect to the bipartite partition between jth and the rest systems, and A = Tr AA is the trace norm of a matrix Proof For the three-qubit mixed quantum state ρ, by Theorem 2 in [26], we have From (14), we get C 2 (ρ) max[ ( ρ Tj 1) 2, 3 ( R j, j(ρ) 1) 2 ] =: g 2 (ρ) C 2 (ρ s s s ) (tr(ρ s s s )) 2 g 2 ((trρ s s s ) 1 ρ s s s ) (tr(ρ s s s )) max[ ( (trρ s s s ) 1 ρ Tj s s s 1)2, = max[ ( ρ Tj tr(ρ 2 2 2)) 2, 3 ( R j, j((trρ s s s ) 1 ρ s s s ) 1) 2 ] 3 ( R j, j(ρ ) tr(ρ )) 2 ] Then, associated with (15), we obtain (17) (17) gives an operational lower bound of concurrence for any m n l tripartite mixed quantum state We will show the power of (17) by the following example: Example 1 We consider the quantum mixed state ρ = 1 t 16 I 16 + t φ φ, with φ = 1 2 ( ), where 0 t 1 and I 16 denotes the identity matrix According to (17), we obtain C 2 (ρ) 0, 0 t 1 9, 9 < t 1 5, 96, 1 5 < t 1 81t 2 18t , 181t 2 58t+5 So our result can detect the entanglement of ρ when 1 9 < t 1, see Fig1 While the lower bound of Theorem 2 in [23] is C 2 (ρ) 0, which can not detect the entanglement of the above ρ

7 Lower bound on concurrence for arbitrary-dimensional tripartite quantum states 7 C^ t Fig 1 Color line for the lower bound of ρ for 1 < t 1 from (17), dashed line for the lower bound from Theorem 2 9 in [23] 4 Conclusion In summary, we have perform a method of constructing some new lower bounds of concurrence for tripartite mixed states in terms of the concurrence of substates By an example we have shown that this bound is better for some states than other existing lower bounds of concurrence Also the approach can be readily generalized to arbitrary dimensional multipartite systems Acknowledgements This project is supported by NSFC through Grants No , , and References 1 Peres, A: Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993) 2 Bennett, CH, Brassard, G, Crepeau, C, Jozsa, R, Peres, A, Wootters, WK: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels Phys Rev Lett 70, 1895(1993) 3 Ekert, AK: Quantum cryptography based on Bells theorem Phys Rev Lett 67, 661(1991) 4 Bennett, CH, Wiesner, SJ: Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states Phys Rev Lett 69, 2881(1992) 5 Uhlmann, A: Fidelity and concurrence of conjugated states Phys Rev A 62, (2000); Rungta, P, Bužek, V, Caves, CM, Hillery, M, Milburn, GJ: Universal state inversion and concurrence in arbitrary dimensions Phys Rev A 64, (2001) 6 Albeverio, S, Fei, SM: A note on invariants and entanglements J Opt B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt 3, 223(2001) 7 Meyer, DA, Wallach, NR: Global entanglement in multiparticle systems J Math Phys 43,4237(2002) 8 Carvalho, ARR, Mintert, F, Buchleitner, A: Decoherence and multipartite entanglement Phys Rev Lett 93, (2004) 9 Wootters, WK: Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits Phys Rev Lett 80, 2245(1998) 10 Terhal, BM, Vollbrecht, KGH: Entanglement of formation for isotropic states Phys Rev Lett 85, 2625(2000); Fei, SM, Jost, J, Li-Jost, XQ, Wang, GF: Entanglement of formation for a class of quantum states Phys Lett A 310, 333(2003); Fei, SM, Li-Jost, XQ: A class of special matrices and quantum entanglement Rep Math Phys 53, 195(2004); Fei, SM, Wang, ZX, Zhao, H: A note on entanglement of formation and generalized concurrence Phys Lett A 329, 414(2004); Rungta, P, Caves, CM: Concurrence-based entanglement measures for isotropic states Phys Rev A 67, (2003) 11 Mintert, F, Kuś, M, Buchleitner, A: Concurrence of mixed bipartite quantum states in arbitrary dimensions Phys Rev Lett 92, (2004)

8 8 Wei Chen et al 12 Chen, K, Albeverio, S, Fei, SM: Concurrence of arbitrary dimensional bipartite quantum states Phys Rev Lett 95, (2005) 13 Breuer, HP: Separability criteria and bounds for entanglement measures J Phys A: Math Gen 39, (2006) 14 Breuer, HP: Optimal entanglement criterion for mixed quantum states Phys Rev Lett 97, (2006) 15 de Vicente, JI: Lower bounds on concurrence and separability conditions Phys Rev A 75, (2007) 16 Horodecki, R, Horodecki, P, Horodecki, M, Horodecki, K: Quantum entanglement Rev Mod Phys 81, 865(2009) 17 Zhang, CJ, Zhang, YS, Zhang, S, Guo, GC: Optimal entanglement witnesses based on local orthogonal observables Phys Rev A 76, (2007) 18 Gerjuoy, E: Lower bound on entanglement of formation for the qubit-qudit system Phys Rev A 67,052308(2003) 19 Ou, YC, Fan, H, Fei, SM: Proper monogamy inequality for arbitrary pure quantum states Phys, Rev A 78, (2008) 20 Zhao, MJ, Zhu, XN, Fei, SM, Li-Jost, XQ: Lower bound on concurrence and distillation for arbitrarydimensional bipartite quantum states Phys, Rev A 84, (2011) 21 Li, XS, Gao, XH, Fei, SM: Lower bound of concurrence based on positive maps Phys, Rev A 83, (2011) 22 Mintert, F, Buchleitner, A: Observable entanglement measure for mixed quantum states Phys Rev Lett 98, (2007) 23 Gao, XH, Fei, SM, Wu, K: Lower bounds of concurrence for tripartite quantum systems Phys Rev A 74, (2006) 24 Gao, XH, Fei, SM: Estimation of concurrence for multipartite mixed states EurPhys J Special Topics 159, 71(2008) 25 Yu, CS, Song, HS: Measurable entanglement for tripartite quantum pure states of qubits Phys Rev A 76, (2007) 26 Zhu, XN, Zhao, MJ, Fei, SM: Lower bound of multipartite concurrence based on subquantum state decomposition Phys, Rev A 86, (2012) 27 Li, M, Fei, SM, Wang, ZX: Bounds for multipartite concurrence Rep Math Phys 65, (2010) 28 Zhu, XN, Li, M, Fei, SM: Lower bounds of concurrence for multipartite states Aip Conf Proc Advances in Quan Theory, 1424(2012) 29 Zhu, XN, Fei, SM: Lower bound of concurrence for qubit systems Quantum Inform Processing 13, (2014) 30 Chen, W, Zhu, XN, Fei, SM, Zheng, ZJ: Lower bound of multipartite concurrence based on sub-partite quantum systems arxiv: (2015)