One-way Quantum Deficit Decoherence for Two-qubit X States Biao-Liang Ye, 1 Yao-Kun Wang,, 3 Shao-Ming Fei 1, 1 School of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing 18, China Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 119, China 3 College of Mathematics, Tonghua Normal University, Tonghua, Jilin 131, China Max-Planck-Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Leipzig 13, Germany arxiv:163.386v1 [quant-ph] 1 Mar 16 We study one-way quantum deficit of two-qubit X states systematically from analytical derivations. An effective approach to compute one-way quantum deficit of two-qubit X states has been provided. Analytical results are presented as for detailed examples. Moreover, we demonstrate the decoherence of one-way quantum deficit under phase damping channel. Keywords One-way quantum deficit; two-qubit X states; decoherence I. INTRODUCTION Quantum entanglement is one of the most distinguishing properties in quantum mechanics, which gives quantum information processing novel advantages over classical information processing [1, ]. Recently, quantum correlations [3] receive much attention because they may play vital roles in quantum information processing quantum simulation even without quantum entanglement [, 5]. The characterization quantification of quantum correlations have become one of the significant topics in the past decade [3]. One of the quantum correlations is characterized by quantum discord [6, 7] which is shown to play important roles in quantum information tasks such as quantum state discrimination [8, 9], remote state preparation [1] quantum state merging [11, 1]. There have been many kinds of quantum correlations like measurement-induced disturbance [13], geometric quantum discord [1, 15], relative entropy of discord [16], continuousvariable discord [17, 18] etc.. However, analytical computation of these quantum correlations seem extremely difficult as optimization involved. Few analytical results have been obtained even for general two-qubit states. An analytical formula of quantum discord for Bell-diagonal states is provided in [19]. For general two-qubit X states, the analytical formula is still missed [ ]. Recently, the authors in [5 7] presented a better classification in deriving analytical quantum discord for five parameters X states. Among other quantum correlations, the quantum deficit is related to extract work from a correlated system coupled to a heat bath under nonlocal operations [8], with the work deficit defined by W t W l, where W t is the information of the whole system W l is the localizable
information [9]. It is also equal to the difference of the mutual information the classical deficit [3]. The analytical formula of one-way quantum deficit [8, 9], like quantum discord, remains unknown. In Ref.[31] the quantum deficit of four-parameter two-qubit X states has been calculated. Numerical results for five-parameter X states are presented in Ref.[3]. In this paper, by using different approaches, we systematically compute the one-way quantum deficit for general two-qubit X states in terms of analytical derivations. Analytical results are presented for classes of detailed quantum states. Decoherence of one-way quantum deficit under phase damping channels is calculated too. II. ONE-WAY QUANTUM DEFICIT OF TWO-QUBIT X STATES We consider two-qubit states ρ AB in Hilbert space HA H B. The one-way quantum deficit [33] is defined according to the minimal increase of entropy after measurement on B, (ρ AB ) = min S( M k k M k ρ AB M k ) S(ρ AB ), (1) where the minimum is taken over all measurement operators {M k } satisfying k M k = 1, S(ρ) = Trρ log ρ is von Neumann entropy. It is equal to the thermal discord [3]. It is also denoted by the relative entropy to the set of classical-quantum states [9]. Since the quantum correlations between A B do not change under the local unitary operations, we consider ρ AB in the Bloch representation as ρ AB = 1 3 [I I + xσ 3 I + yi σ 3 + t i σ i σ i ], () where σ i (i = 1,, 3) are the Pauli matrices, x, y, t 1, t t 3 are real number. Equivalently under the computational bases {, 1, 1, 11 }, a f b e ρ AB =, e c (3) f d where a = 1 (1 + t 3 + x + y) ; b = 1 (1 t 3 + x y) ; () c = 1 (1 t 3 x + y) ; d = 1 (1 + t 3 x y) ; (5) e = 1 (t 1 + t ) ; f = 1 (t 1 t ). (6) i=1
3 ρ AB is called two-qubit X state, in which the parameters satisfy the relations a, b, c, d, e, f, a + b + c + d = 1, e bc f ad. It is easily verified that S(ρ AB ) in (1) is given by S(ρ AB ) = ± (u ± log u ± + v ± log v ± ), with u ± = 1 (1 + t 3 ± (x + y) + (t 1 t ) ), v ± = 1 (1 t 3 ± (x y) + (t 1 + t ) ). (7) For arbitrary rank-two two-qubit states, the projective measurements are optimal to minimizes the von Neumann entropy [35]. They are also almost sufficient rank-three four two-qubit states [36]. In the following, we focus on projective measurements. Let M k be the local measurement operators on subsystem B, M k = V Π k V, with Π k = k k, k =, 1, V U() unitary matrices. Generally V can be expressed as V = ti + i y σ, where t R y = (y 1, y, y 3 ) R 3 satisfy y1 + y + y 3 + t = 1. After measurement the state ρ AB is transformed to the ensemble {ρ k, p k } with ρ k = 1 p k (I M k ) ρ AB (I M k ), (8) p k = tr(i M k )ρ AB (I M k ). By tedious calculation [3], we have k (I M k) ρ AB (I M k ) = p ρ + p 1 ρ 1, where p ρ = 1 [I + yz 3I + t 1 z 1 σ 1 + t z σ + (x + t 3 z 3 )σ 3 ] V Π V, (9) p 1 ρ 1 = 1 [I yz 3I t 1 z 1 σ 1 t z σ (x t 3 z 3 )σ 3 ] V Π 1 V, (1) z 1 = ( ty + y 1 y 3 ), z = (ty 1 + y y 3 ), z 3 = t + y 3 y 1 y. From the matrix diagonalization techniques in Ref. [31], we have the eigenvalues of k (I M k ) ρ AB (I M k ), λ 1, = 1 λ 3, = 1 ( ) 1 + yz 3 ± (x + t 3 z 3 ) + t 1 z 1 + t z, ( ) 1 yz 3 ± (x t 3 z 3 ) + t 1 z 1 + t z, (11) with z 1 + z + z 3 = 1. Therefore the one-way quantum deficit (1) is given by = ± (u ± log u ± + v ± log v ± ) + min[ λ i log λ i ]. (1) i=1
To find the analytical solutions of (1), let us set z 1 = sin θ cos ϕ, z = sin θ sin ϕ z 3 = cos θ. Then λ 1, = 1 (p + ± ) R + S +, λ 3, = 1 (p ± ) R + S, (13) where p ± = 1 ± y cos θ, R = [t 1 cos ϕ + t sin ϕ] sin θ, S ± = (x ± t 3 cos θ). Because λ i is the eigenvalue of the density matrix, λ i. Hence p ± R + S ±. Denote G(θ, ϕ) = i=1 λ i log λ i. The one-way quantum deficit is given by the minimal value of G(θ, ϕ). We observe that G(θ, ϕ) = G(π θ, ϕ) G(θ, ϕ) = G(θ, π ϕ). Moreover, G(θ, ϕ) is symmetric with respect to θ = π/ ϕ = π. Therefore, we only need to consider the case of θ [, π/] ϕ [, π). The extreme points of G(θ, ϕ) are determined by the first partial derivatives of G with respect to θ ϕ, with with G θ = sin θ H θ, (1) H θ = R csc θ cot θ t 3 S+ p + + R + S + log R + S+ p + p (R + S ) + y log R + S + p + (R + S +) + R csc θ cot θ + t 3 S p + R + S log R + S p, (15) R + S H ϕ = G ϕ = ef sin θ sin ϕ H ϕ, (16) 1 p + + R + S + log R + S+ p + 1 p + + R + S log R + S + R + S p. (17) R + S Since H ϕ is always positive, G ϕ = implies that either sin ϕ =, namely, ϕ =, π/, for any θ, or θ = for any ϕ which implies that (1) is zero at the same time the minimization is independent on ϕ. If θ, one gets the second derivative G/ ϕ G ϕ (θ,) = ef sin (θ)h ϕ= >, (18) G ϕ (θ,π/) = ef sin (θ)h ϕ=π/ <. (19)
5 Since for any θ the second derivative G/ ϕ is always negative for ϕ = π/, we only need to deal with the minimization problem for the case of ϕ =. To minimize G(θ, ϕ) becomes to minimize G(θ, ) which can be written as G(θ, ) = j,k=1 w j,k log w j,k with w j,k=1, = 1 ) (1 + ( 1) j y cos(θ) + ( 1) t k 1 sin (θ) + (x + ( 1) j t 3 cos(θ)). () The derivative (1) is zero for either sin θ = or H θ =. sin θ = gives an extreme point θ = θ e =. While H θ = has the one obvious solution θ e = π/ a special solution θ s that depends on the density matrix entries. The optimization problem is then reduced to study the second derivative of G(θ, ) with respect to θ evaluated at the critical angles θ e =, π/ θ s. Denote H θ = H θ/ θ. The second derivative G/ θ = (cos θ H θ + sin θ H θ )/ evaluated at the three θ e s depends on the behavior of two quantities, H = G/ θ θ= = t 1 t 3 x + t 3 p + + x + t 3 log x + t 3 p + x + t 3 + y log p (x t 3 ) p + (x + t 3) + t 1 + t 3 x t 3 x t 3 log p + x t 3 p x t 3, (1) H π/ = G/ θ θ=π/ = [(t 3x + (y t 3 xy)(t 1 + x )) t 1 + x + t ( 1 t 1 + x 1 ) ( t 1 t 3 + x ) ( tanh 1 t 1 )]/[(t + x 1 + x 1)(t 1 + x ) 3/ ]. () The sign of H H π/ determines which of G(, ), G(π/, ) G(θ s, ) is the minimum. (1) If H > H π/ >, then θ s takes values in (, π/). In this case, the minimum of G(θ s, ) depends on the state. For given ρ AB, θ s can be calculated numerically from H θ =. () Otherwise, we have the minimum either G(, ) or G(π/, ), G(, ) = k,j {,1} Q k,j log Q k,j, (3) with Q k,j = 1 [(1 + ( 1)k x) + ( 1) j (y + ( 1) k t 3 )], G(π/, ) = 1 + L( 1 ( ) 1 t 1 + x ), () where L(w) = w log w (1 w) log (1 w) is the binary entropy. Thus, we have the following result: one-way quantum deficit of ρ AB is given by = (u ± log u ± + v ± log v ± ) + G, (5) ±
6 where G(θ s, ), H > H π/ G = >, θ s (, π/); min{g(, ), G(π/, )}, others. (6) By careful numerical analysis, there is at most one zero point of first derivative of G(θ, ) with respect to θ, only when H > H π/ >, one gets the minimum inside the interval θ s (, π/). Therefore, we can obtain the analytical minimum of G at θ =, π/ or θ = θ s. In the following we present some detailed examples. Example 1. Consider the class of special X states defined by ρ AB = q ψ ψ + (1 q), (7) where ψ = 1 ( 1 1 ), q [, 1]. By using the Bloch sphere representation, from (1) () we have H (q) = ( ) ( )] (q 1) q q + 3q [ 3q log 3q + (5q ) log q 3q (8) H π/ = (1 q) ( q (q q + 1) 3/ q + 1 ( q 3q + 1 ) ( q 3 tanh 1 q q + 1)). (9) The case that both H (q) > H π/ (q) > happens only in interval q (1/, 7), see Fig.1(a), where q = 1/ 7 are the solutions of H (q) = H π/ =, respectively. From (5), we have q, θ =, q [, 1/]; = G(θ s, ), q (1/, 7]; see Fig.1(b). q log q + (1 q) log (1 q) + 1 + L( Example. We consider the state (1+ q +(1 q) ) ), θ = π/, q (7, 1], (3) ρ α = α φ φ + (1 α)/( 1 1 + 1 1 ), (31) with φ + = ( + 11 )/. For this case we have H (α) = (α 1)(3α 1) (log (1 α 1 ) log (1 + α 1 )), (3) α 1
7 6.. 6.58.56.5 Ž D q. -. - -6. -8.5.56.58 6... q (a) (b) FIG. 1: (a) H (purple thick solid line) Hπ/ (blue dashed line) with respect to q. (b) One-way quantum deficit (blue thick line) via q. The dashed red line sts for G(, ) which is the one-way quantum deficit for q [, 1/]. The green line is for G(π/, ). It coincides with the one-way quantum deficit for q (7, 1]. Hπ/ = (α 1)(3α 1) tanh 1 (α)/α. (33) (α) are equal to zero. There is no domain of α such that both For α = 1/3 both H (α) Hπ/ H > Hπ/ >, see Fig. (a). Hence we can easily obtain the analytical expression of one-way quantum deficit for ρα, α, θ =, α [, 1/3]; = (3) 1 + α + α log α + 1 [(1 α) log (1 α) (1 + α) log (1 + α)], θ = π/, α (1/3, 1], see Fig.(b) for the analytical expression of one-way quantum deficit vs α. Example 3. Consider the Bell diagonal state, 3 ρab X 1 = [I I + ti σi σi ]. (35) i=1 We have t1 t3 1 + t3 H = log t3 1 t3 (36) Hπ/ = t1 t3 tanh 1 ( t1 ) / t1. Since log 1+ t3 1 t3 (37) > tanh 1 ( t1 ) >, H Hπ/ cannot be greater than zero simultaneously. We obtain the analytical expression min{g(, ), G(π/, )}, G(, ) = 1 + L( 1 + t3 ) (38)
8 6. 1 3. a Ž D. -. - -6... 1 3. -8 a (a) FIG. : (b) (a) H (purple thick solid line) Hπ/ (blue dashed line) with respect to α. (b) One-way quantum deficit (blue thick line) via α. Dashed red line for G at θ =, green line for G at θ = π/. G(π/, ) = 1 + L( 1 + t1 ). (39) Therefore min{g(, ), G(π/, )} = 1+L( 1+t ), where t = max{ t1, t3 }. In fact, for Bell-diagonal states, the optimization is ontained at t3 = ±t1 or t3 = ±t []. Therefore, we recovered the result in Ref.[31] where t = max{ t1, t, t3 }. III. ONE-WAY QUANTUM DEFICIT UNDER DECOHERENCE A system undergoes environmental noises can be characterized by Kraus operators. We consider quantum two-qubit systems subjecting to dephasing channels described by the Kraus operators F = ih + 1 γ 1ih1 F1 = γ = 1ih1, where γ = 1 e τ t τ is phase damping rate [37]. Under the channel the ρab is changed to be ρab = 1 X FiA FjB ρab (FiA FjB ) i,j= X 1 = [I I + xσ3 I + yi σ3 + (1 γ) ti σi σi + (t3 σ3 σ3 )]. i=1
9 D.15.1.9.88.86.8.8.8.78.76..3.3.5.... g FIG. 3: One-way quantum deficit vs γ under dephasing noise for x =.5, y =.3, t 1 =.3, t =.9 t 3 =.15. We see that t 1 t have been transformed to (1 γ) t 1 (1 γ) t. We have H = G/ θ θ= = Υ t 3 x + t 3 p + + x + t 3 log x + t 3 p + x + t 3 + y log p (x t 3 ) p + (x + t 3) + Υ + t 3 x t 3 x t 3 log p + x t 3 p x t 3 () H π/ = Υ ( Υ + x 1 ) ( Υ t 3 + x ) tanh 1 ( Υ + x )]/( ( Υ + x 1 ) ( Υ + x ) 3/ ) [( t 3 xy(υ + x ) + x y + Υ y + t 3x ) Υ + x, (1) where Υ = (1 γ) t 1. It is direct to verify that G(, ) exactly given by (3). While G(π/, ) has the following form, G(π/, ) = 1 + L( 1 (1 Υ + x ) ). () As an example, taking x =.5, y =.3, t 1 =.3, t =.9 t 3 =.15, we can observe the one-way quantum deficit under phase damping channel, see Fig. (3). It should be emphasized that the exact boundaries exist between three different branches sudden transitions occur in the phase damping channel. IV. SUMMARY We have provided an effective approach to get analytical results of one-way quantum deficit for general two-qubit X states. Analytical formulae of one-way quantum deficit have been obtained
1 in general for states such that min{g(, ), G(π/, )}. It has been shown that only in very few cases, the conditions H > H π/ > are satisfied. Even in such special cases, the one-way quantum deficit can be easily calculated by solving θ s from a one-parameter equation. We have also studied the decoherence of one-way quantum deficit under phase damping channel. As for a detailed example, it has been shown that the one-way quantum deficit changes gradually phase damping channel. There is no behavior like sudden death of quantum entanglement. Acknowledgments We thank the anonymous referee for the useful suggestions valuable comments. This work is supported by the NSFC under number 1175131. [1] Amico, L., Fazio, R., Osterloh, A., Vedral, V.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 8, 517 (8) [] Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., Horodecki, K.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (9) [3] Modi, K., Brodutch, A., Cable, H., Paterek, T., Vedral, V.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 8, 1655 (1) [] Datta, A., Shaji, A., Caves, C. M.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 1, 55 (8) [5] Lanyon, B. P., Barbieri, M., Almeida, M. P., White, A. G.: Phys. Rev. Lett., 11, 51 (8) [6] Ollivier, H., Zurek, W. H.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 1791(1) [7] Henderson, L., Vedral, V.: J. Phys. A 3, 6899 (1) [8] Roa, L., Retamal, J. C., Alid-Vaccarezza, M.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 81 (11) [9] Li, B., Fei, S. M., Wang, Z. X., Fan, H.: Phys. Rev. A 85, 38 (1) [1] Dakic, B., et al.: Nat. Phys. 8, 666 (1) [11] Madhok, V., Datta, A.: Phys. Rev. A 83, 333 (11) [1] Cavalcanti, D., Aolita, L., Boixo, S., Modi, K., Piani, M., Winter, A.: Phys. Rev. A 83, 33 (11) [13] Luo, S.: Phys. Rev. A 77, 31 (8) [1] Dakić, B., Vedral, V., Brukner, C.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 195 (1) [15] Luo, S., Fu, S.: Phys. Rev. A 8, 33 (1) [16] Modi, K., Paterek, T., Son, W., Vedral, V., Williamson, M.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 1, 851 (1) [17] Adesso, G., Datta, A.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 351 (1) [18] Giorda, P., Paris, M. G. A.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 53 (1) [19] Luo, S.: Phys. Rev. A 77, 33 (8) [] Ali, M., Rau, A. R. P., Alber, G.: Phys. Rev. A 81, 15 (1); Erratum in: Phys. Rev. A 8, 699(E) (1) [1] Lu, X.-M., Ma, J., Xi, Z., Wang, X.: Phys. Rev. A 83, 137 (11) [] Chen, Q., Zhang, C., Yu, S., Yi, X. X., Oh, C. H.: Phys. Rev. A 8, 313 (11) [3] Girolami, D., Adesso, G.: Phys. Rev. A 83, 518 (11) [] Huang, Y.: Phys. Rev. A 88, 13 (13)
11 [5] Maldonado-Trapp, A., Hu, A., Roa, L.: Quantum Inf. Process. 1, 197 (15) [6] Yurishchev, M. A.: J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 119, 88 (1) [7] Yurischev, M. A.: Quantum Inf. Process. 1, 3399 (15) [8] Oppenheim, J., Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, R.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 18 () [9] Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, R., Oppenheim, J., Sen(De), A., Sen, U., Synak, B.: Phys. Rev. A 71, 637 (5) [3] Oppenheim, J., Horodecki, K., Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, R.: Phys. Rev. A 68, 37 (3) [31] Wang, Y. K., Ma, T., Li, B., Wang, Z. X.: Commun. Theor. Phys. 59, 5 (13) [3] Wang, Y. K., Jing, N. H., Fei, S. M., Wang, Z. X., Cao, J. P., Fan, H.: Quantum Inf. Process. 1, 87 (15) [33] Streltsov, A., Kampermann, H., Bruss, D.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 161 (11) [3] Zurek, W. H.: Phys. Rev. A 67, 13 (3) [35] Shi, M., Sun, C., Jiang, F., Yan, X., Du, J.: Phys. Rev. A 85, 61 (1) [36] Galve, F., Giorgi, G., Zambrini, R.: Europhys. Lett. 96, 5 (11) [37] Nielsen, M. A., Chuang, I. L.: Quantum Computation Quantum Information, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, )