Carolina Thesis

Detection of quantum entanglement
in physical systems
Carolina Moura Alves
Merton College
University of Oxford
A thesis submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Trinity 2005
Abstract
Quantum entanglement is a fundamental concept both in quantum mechanics and in
quantum information science. It encapsulates the shift in paradigm, for the descrip-
tion of the physical reality, brought by quantum physics. It has therefore been a key
element in the debates surrounding the foundations of quantum theory. Entangle-
ment is also a physical resource of great practical importance, instrumental in the
computational advantages oered by quantum information processors. However, the
properties of entanglement are still to be completely understood. In particular, the
development of methods to eciently identify entangled states, both theoretically
and experimentally, has proved to be very challenging. This dissertation addresses
this topic by investigating the detection of entanglement in physical systems.
Multipartite interferometry is used as a tool to directly estimate nonlinear properties
of quantum states. A quantum network where a qubit undergoes single-particle
interferometry and acts as a control on a swap operation between k copies of the
quantum state is presented. This network is then extended to a more general
quantum information scenario, known as LOCC. This scenario considers two distant
parties A and B that share several copies of a given bipartite quantum state.
The construction of entanglement criteria based on nonlinear properties of quantum
states is investigated. A method to implement these criteria in a simple, experimen-
tally feasible way is presented. The method is based of particle statistics eects
and its extension to the detection of multipartite entanglement is analyzed. Finally,
the experimental realization of the nonlinear entanglement test in photonic systems
is investigated. The realistic experimental scenario where the source of entangled
photons is imperfect is analyzed.
Acknowledgements
Contents
Abstract i
Acknowledgements ii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Entanglement as a property of quantum systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Entanglement as a physical resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Detection and characterization of entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Outline of thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Chapter outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Basic concepts 5
2.1 State Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Subsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Density Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1 Mathematical properties of density operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2 Ensemble interpretation of density operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Superoperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1 Mathematical properties of superoperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.2 Jamiolkowski isomorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5 Mathematical characterization of bipartite entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.1 Mixed states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6 Experimental detection of entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.1 Bells inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.2 Entanglement witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7 Multipartite entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.7.1 Maximally entangled state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.7.2 W State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.7.3 Cluster state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.8 Quantum networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.8.1 Universal set of gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.8.2 Interferometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
iii
CONTENTS iv
3 Direct estimation of density operators 21
3.1 Modied interferometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Multiple target states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.1 Spectrum estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.2 Quantum communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.3 Extremal eigenvalues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.4 State estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.5 Arbitrary observables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3 Quantum channel estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4 Direct estimation of density operators using LOCC 28
4.1 LOCC estimation of nonlinear functionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2 Structural Physical Approximations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.1 SPA using only LOCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3 Entanglement detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.4 Channel capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5 Entanglement Detection in Bosons 33
5.1 Nonlinear entanglement inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2 Estimation of the purities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2.1 Bipartite case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2.2 Multipartite case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.3 Realization of the entanglement detection network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4 Detection of entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.5 Degree of macroscopicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.5.1 Determination of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6 Entropic inequalities 41
6.1 Entropic inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.1.1 Graphical comparison between Bell-CHSH and entropic inequalities . . . 42
6.2 Experimental proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2.1 Realistic sources of entangled photons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7 Conclusion 49
Bibliography 51
List of Figures
2.1 The controlled-U gate. The top line represents the control qubit and the bottom
line represents the target qubit. U acts on the target qubit i the control qubit
is in the logical state [1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2 The Mach-Zender interferometer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3 The quantum network corresponding to the Mach-Zender interferometer ( =
0
). The visibility of the interference pattern associated with p
0
varies as a
function of according to Eq.(2.70). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1 A modied Mach-Zender interferometer with coupling to an ancilla by a controlled-
U gate. The interference pattern is modied by the factor ve
i
= Tr [U]. . . . 22
3.2 Quantum network for direct estimations of both linear and non-linear functions
of a quantum state. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 A quantum channel acting on one of the subsystems of a bipartite maxi-
mally entangled state of the form [
+
) =

k
[k)[k)/
d. The output state
=
1
d
kl
[k)l[ ([k)l[), contains a complete information about the channel. 26
4.1 Network for remote estimation of non-linear functionals of bipartite density op-
erators. Since Tr[V
(k)
k
] is real, Alice and Bob can omit their respective phase
shifters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1 Network of BS acting on pairs of identical bosons. The two rows of N atoms,
labelled I and II respectively, are identical, and the state of each of the rows is
123...N
. The total state of the system is
123...N

123...N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2 In Fig. 4.2(a), we plot the violation V of the inequalities Eq. (5.2), V
1
= Tr(
2
123
)
Tr(
2
12
) (dashed), V
2
= Tr(
2
12
) Tr(
2
1
) (grey) and V
3
= Tr(
2
12
) Tr(
2
2
) (solid),
as a function of the phase , for N = 3 atoms. Whenever V > 0, entanglement is
detected by our network. In Fig. 4.2(b) we plot dierent purities associated with
a cluster state of size N, as a function of . B is any one atom not at an end
(dotted), any two atoms not at ends and with at least two others between them
(dashed), any two or more consecutive atoms not including an end (dash-dotted),
any one or more consecutive atoms including one end (solid). The plotted purities
are independent of N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
5.3 Plot of the purity
Nm
for m = 1 (solid black), m = 7 (dashed black), m = 14
(solid grey) and m = 20 (dashed grey), as a function of , for N = 300 atoms. . . 40
6.1 A graphical comparison of the Bell-CHSH inequalities with the entropic inequali-
ties (6.2). All points inside the ball satisfy the entropic inequalities and all points
within the Steinmetz solid satisfy all possible Bell-CHSH inequalities. NB not all
the points in the outlining cube represent quantum states. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.2 In a special case of locally depolarized states, represented by points within the
tetrahedron, the set of separable states can be characterized exactly as an octahe-
dron. All states in the ball but not in the octahedron are entangled states which
are not detectable by the entropic inequalities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.3 An outline of our experimental set-up which allows to test for the violation of the
entropic inequalities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.4 Possible emissions leading to four-photons coincidences. The central diagram
shows the desired emission of two independent entangled pairs one by source
S
1
and one by source S
2
. The top and the bottom diagrams show unwelcome
emissions of four photons by one of the two sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The subject of this dissertation is the detection of quantum entanglement in physical systems.
Quantum entanglement was singled out by Erwin Schrodinger as ...the characteristic trait of
quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought. [1].
Indeed, after playing a signicant role in the development of the foundations of quantum me-
chanics [1, 2, 3], quantum entanglement has been recently rediscovered as a physical resource in
the context of quantum information science [4, 5, 6, 7]. This set of correlations, to which a clas-
sical counterpart does not exist, arises from the interaction between distinct quantum systems.
Entanglement is instrumental in the improvements of classical computation and classical com-
munication results, of which two particularly important examples are the exponential speedup
of certain classes of algorithms [8, 9] and physically secure cryptographic protocols [4].
1.1 Entanglement as a property of quantum systems
Entanglement was rst used by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen (EPR) [2] to illustrate the con-
ceptual dierences between quantum and classical physics. In their seminal paper published
in 1935, EPR argued that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory of Nature, i.e. it does
not include a full description of the physical reality, by presenting an example of an entangled
quantum state to which it was not possible to ascribe denite elements of reality. EPR dened
an element of reality as a physical property, the value of which can be predicted with certainty,
before the actual property measurement. This condition is straightforwardly obeyed in the con-
text of classical physics, but not in the context of quantum mechanics. The predictive power
of quantum mechanics is limited to, given a quantum state and an observable, the probabilities
of the dierent measurement outcomes. This feature led EPR to deem quantum mechanics as
incomplete. The incompleteness of quantum mechanics, as understood by EPR, was to plague
physicists for decades.
On one hand the quantum mechanical formalism explained the behaviour of microscopical
systems to a great degree of accuracy. On the other hand, it was conceptually unsatisfactory
as a fundamental theory of Nature and the EPR argument seemed a valid one. It was not
until John Bell published his seminal paper in 1964 [3], where he discussed the validity of the
EPR assumptions, that light was shed into the matter. In his paper Bell does not make any
assumption about quantum mechanics. It does, however, assume that our classical common sense
view of the world is true. He considered a thought experiment where two causally disconnected
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2
observers share many identical pairs of physical systems and are allowed to perform two dierent
types of measurements on their respective systems. The measurements performed in each pair
are chosen at random and correspond to elements of reality. The expectation values of these
observables depend of the probability associated with a given outcome and the actual value of
the outcome. Bell then derived a set of inequalities that bound the expectation value of a linear
combination of the observables. It turns out that certain entangled states theoretically violate
these inequalities, which means that either quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of
Nature or the EPR assumptions are incorrect. The only way to decide which is the case was
by performing an experimental test of Bells inequalities. This test was realized with entangled
pairs of photons in 1982 [10] and it shown the violation of the Bells inequalities, as predicted
by quantum mechanics. This type of experimental test has subsequently been used to detect
entanglement experimentally in physical systems [11].
1.2 Entanglement as a physical resource
Fundamental quantum eects, such as quantum tunnelling or stimulated emission, have yielded
over the last century important technological breakthroughs, of which semiconductors or lasers
are two examples. Entanglement too has proved to be a physical resource capable of revolution-
izing the theories of computation and information. Within quantum information science, the
logical unit of information is the qubit, a two-level quantum system. The qubit diers from the
bit in that is can be any superposition of 0 and 1. In particular, a set of qubits can be in
an entangled state. The possibility of exploiting these quantum correlations between qubits, for
realizing computations faster than it would be possible classically, was rst realized by Deutsch
in 1985 [12]. The development of quantum algorithms that ensued culminated with a result by
Shor for the ecient factoring the primes of a number [8]. The best classical algorithms for
this task scale exponentially with the size of the number to be factored, which means that it is
eectively impossible to factor large numbers. However, Shors algorithm can factor the primes
in a time that scales polynomially with the number size, i.e. eciently. This result is particularly
relevant since the security of currently used cryptographic protocols is based on the diculty of
factoring large numbers. Therefore a quantum factoring machine would render these protocols
useless.
Ironically, entanglement turns out to be the key resource in one of the possible solutions
to the security of cryptographic protocols. This solution, proposed by Ekert in 1991 [4], uses
entangled states as the carrier of protected information. The security of the protocol comes from
the fact that any attempt to gain access to the encrypted information, via a measurement on the
state, will necessarily disturb the quantum correlations. As mentioned earlier, the amount of
entanglement in a given state can be measured by checking for the violation of Bells inequalities.
Therefore, any tampering of the carriers of information can be detected and the protocol aborted.
1.3 Detection and characterization of entanglement
We have seen how entanglement is not only a key concept in quantum mechanics, but also
a physical resource of great practical importance. It is therefore no wonder that it has been
extensively researched, both as a mathematical concept and as a property of physical systems.
In particular the experimental detection of entanglement is of paramount relevance for both
probing the limits of validity of quantum mechanics, as a physical theory, and for the monitoring
of quantum information processes. Its success is intimately related to the successful development
of theoretical tools that not only help us to further understand the properties of entanglement,
but also provide practical experimental methods of detection.
There have been so far two dierent approaches to investigating the concept of entanglement.
One approach, the mathematical one, treats quantum states as mathematical objects and tries to
dene entanglement as a mathematical property. It considers the density matrix representation
of quantum states and attempts to derive conditions that the matrices must obey in order to
represent an entangled state. This approach enabled the derivation of necessary and sucient
conditions for entanglement in systems of two or three qubits. These results were obtained by
Peres [13] and the Horodeckis [14]. They pointed the way to a more general strategy of identifying
the mathematical properties of entanglement, based on the theory of positive maps. I will return
to this statement in more detail in the next chapter. However, a full characterization of the set
of entangled states for high-dimensional bipartite systems is yet to be found. In particular the
understanding of entanglement between more than two systems, multipartite entanglement, is
at present quite limited. Here, additional problems arise in the classication of entanglement,
since it is possible for states to exhibit multipartite entanglement while being separable with
respect to some of the subsystems. A general framework for the classication of entanglement
is yet to be developed and researchers have so far concentrated in studying specic classes of
multipartite entangled states. I will present some examples of these classes in the next chapter
that we believe illustrate simultaneously the complexity of multipartite entanglement and its
great potential for quantum information processing.
The second approach to entanglement research, the physical one, treats quantum states as
properties of physical systems, that either exist in Nature or can be experimentally generated in
the laboratory. This approach diers fundamentally from the mathematical one in that it focuses
on the types of states actually generated in a given physical setting. The characterization or
detection of entanglement in this case is accomplished by via tests that are tailored for the specic
class of states considered. In the next chapter we will present the two most commonly used
experimental entanglement tests. Rather than aiming at a full characterization of entanglement,
this approach aims at developing techniques and methods for entanglement detection that are
experimentally accessible. In particular, it tries to identify which properties of a given quantum
system are relevant for entanglement detection. Providing a solution for this question will have
important consequences on the realization of experiments in quantum information processing,
since it will direct the experimentalists to a more ecient, and possibly easier, detection of
entanglement in the laboratory.
Despite all the eort devoted in recent years to the characterization of entanglement, the full
understanding of entanglements properties still eludes researchers. My doctoral research aimed
to contribute to our knowledge about entanglement by pursuing the physical approach. I have
developed new methods for not only the detection of both bipartite and multipartite entangle-
ment but also the characterization of certain properties of quantum states. These methods are
experimentally realistic and one of them was in particular realized experimentally.
1.4 Outline of thesis
When writing this thesis, I was faced with the dicult choice of which of my doctoral research
results to include. I decided to include the results that were not only the most directly relevant
to the subject of the dissertation, entanglement detection, but also the results that formed
the most chronologically coherent set. It will become apparent that these results were obtained
sequentially and that they are dierent instances of one research program. This program started
from a rather abstract setting of quantum networks, specically designed to measure state
properties, and ended in the development of tailor-made experimental methods for the detection
of entanglement in photons. However, I also pursued other research projects, such as the study
of the computational complexity of quantum languages [15], the development of methods to
generate classes of bound entangled states [16] and the investigation of methods to eciently
generate graph states [17].
1.5 Chapter outline
I will now present the outline of remainder chapters of the thesis. Chapter 2 introduces the basic
concepts underlying the research results of the thesis. In particular it provides a mathematical
description of entanglement and discusses in more detail the general methods to detect and
characterize entanglement. Chapter 3 addresses the problem of estimating nonlinear functionals
Tr
k
, k = 1, 2, ... of a general density operator . The estimation method we proposed allows the
direct estimation of these nonlinear functionals. Our method uses an interferometric network
where a qubit undergoes single-particle interferometry and acts as a control on a swap operation
between k copies of . Chapter 4 extends the above result to a more general quantum information
scenario, known as LOCC. In this scenario we consider two distant parties A and B that share
several copies of a given bipartite quantum state
AB
and are only allowed to perform local
operations and communicate classically. Chapter 5 investigates entanglement criteria based
on nonlinear functionals of that could be implemented in a simple, experimentally feasible
way. Our method is based of particle statistics eects and uses the fact that measuring the
purity of is tantamount to measuring the probability of projecting the state of two copies of
in its symmetric or antisymmetric subspaces. We extend of the nonlinear inequalities to the
detection of multipartite entanglement. Chapter 6 investigates the experimental realization of
the nonlinear entanglement test. We consider two copies of a polarization entangled pair of
photons
AB
. We also analyze the realistic experimental scenario where the source of entangled
photons is imperfect. Chapter 7 presents a conclusion to the thesis, with a summary of the main
research results presented.
CHAPTER 2
Basic concepts
2.1 State Vectors
Statistical predictions of quantum mechanics are based on two main concepts, quantum states
and quantum observables. With every isolated physical systemo, we associate a complex Hilbert
space H
S
of a suitable dimension, so that quantum states are represented by time-dependent
unit vectors [ (t)) H
S
, and quantum observables by Hermitian operators acting in this space.
Given a observable represented by the operator A, there is a set of vectors [
i
) such that
A[
i
) = a
i
[
i
) , a
i
R. (2.1)
The vectors [
i
) are called the eigenvectors of A, with respective eigenvalues a
i
. The set of
values a
i
is called the spectrum of A. The time evolution of state vectors is unitary, i.e.
[ (t)) = U(t, t
0
) [ (t
0
)) , (2.2)
where U(t, t
0
) is a unitary operator, UU
= 11.
Given a quantum system described by a state vector [ ) and any observable A, represented
by a Hermitian operator, we can calculate all statistical properties of A from the relation
A) = [ A[ ) , (2.3)
where A) stands for the average value of A. In particular, when A is a projection operator,
projecting on a one dimensional subspace spanned by vector [), A = [)[. In this case
A) = [[)[
2
represents the probability, for a system in state [), to pass a test for being in
the state [).
Quantum states can be equally well represented by projectors on the state vectors. Namely,
if instead of states [) we consider the corresponding projectors [)[, then the time evolution
of the state of the system will be given by
[ (t)) (t) [ = U [ (t
0
)) (t
0
) [ U
, (2.4)
and the average value of observable observable A will be written as
A) = Tr A, (2.5)
5
CHAPTER 2. BASIC CONCEPTS 6
where = [)[ and the trace Tr A stands for the sum of the diagonal elements of A. The
trace operation is linear, Tr (A+B) = Tr A+Tr B, and is basis-independent. The operator
is called density operator.
2.1.1 Subsystems
Consider a quantum system o composed of two subsystems / and B. The Hilbert space asso-
ciated with system o is the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of sub-system / and B
H
S
= H
A
H
B
. (2.6)
The dimension of H
S
is dimH
S
= dimH
A
dimH
B
and any state [
S
) of the system S can be
expressed as a linear superposition of elements of the type [a)[b), where [a) H
A
and [b) H
B
.
Whenever convenient, well also write [a) [b) as [a)[b) or as [a, b). If we introduce orthonormal
bases, i.e. maximal sets of vectors [a
k
) in H
A
and [b
m
) in H
B
, such that a
k
[ a
l
) =
kl
,
b
m
[ b
n
) =
mn
, then any vector in H
S
can be written as,
[
S
) =
k,l
c
kl
[a
k
)[b
l
) ,
kl
[c
kl
[
2
= 1. (2.7)
A particular subset of the states in H
S
can be written as a tensor product of state vectors
of H
A
and H
B
,
[
S
) = [
A
) [
B
) =
_
k
[a
k
)
_
l
[b
l
)
_
(2.8)
=
kl
l
[a
k
)[b
l
), (2.9)
where

k
[
k
[
2
=
l
[
l
[
2
= 1. This requires (comparing Eq.(2.8) and Eq.(2.7)) that
c
kl
=
k
l
. (2.10)
The states for which this holds are called separable states. Note that this decomposition is
basis-independent. Thus, if [
S
) is separable, we can associate state [
A
) with the subsystem /
and state [
B
) with the subsystem B. Otherwise we need to resort to density operators in order
to represent quantum states in subsystems / and B.
2.2 Density Operators
Any linear operator S acting in H
S
can be written as a superposition of operators of the type
AB, where A acts on H
A
and B acts on H
B
. We can choose operators bases, A
k
acting on
H
A
, B
k
acting on H
B
, such that
S =
k,l
S
kl
A
k
B
l
. (2.11)
The most common operator bases are formed from operators of the type [
i
)
j
[. In our case
we have [ a
k
) a
l
[, for operators acting on H
A
, and [ b
m
) b
n
[, for operators acting on H
B
(recall
that [a
i
) and [b
j
) are, respectively, orthonormal bases in H
A
and H
B
). This means that S can
be expressed as
S =
k,l,m,n
S
km
ln
[ a
k
) a
l
[ [ b
m
) b
n
[ . (2.12)
Any operator A pertaining only to sub-system / can be trivially extended to system S through
1
A A11. (2.13)
The average value of an observable S = AB acting on o is given by
S
[ S [
S
) =
S
[ (AB) [
S
) (2.14)
=
k,l,m,n
c
ln
c
km
a
l
[ b
n
[ (AB) [ a
k
) [ b
m
)
=
k,l,m,n
c
ln
c
km
(a
l
[ A[ a
k
))(b
n
[ B[ b
m
)).
In the special case of an observable pertaining to one of the subsystems, i.e. if either A = 11 or
B = 11, we obtain (we choose B = 11),
S
[S[
S
) =
k,l,m,n
c
ln
c
km
(a
l
[ A[ a
k
))(b
n
[ 11 [ b
m
)),
=
k,l,m,n
c
ln
c
km
a
l
[A[a
k
)
nm
,
=
k,l,m
c
lm
c
km
a
l
[A[a
k
),
=Tr
_
_
k,l,m
c
lm
c
km
[a
k
)a
l
[
_
_
A, (2.15)
=Tr
A
A, (2.16)
where
A
=
k,l,m
c
lm
c
km
[ a
k
) a
m
[ is called the reduced density operator and is associated only
with sub-system /. Recall that the density operator associated with the total system is
AB
= [
S
)
S
[ =
k,l,m,n
c
km
c
ln
([a
k
)a
l
[) ([b
m
)b
n
[) . (2.17)
Given
AB
, the density operator of a bipartite system, we obtain
A
, the reduced density
operator of the subsystem /, by taking the partial trace over the subsystem B. Mathematically
the partial trace operation
AB

A
, (2.18)
is dened as
Tr
B
(AB) = ATr B. (2.19)
Thus,
1
The procedure for sub-system B is analogous.
Tr
B
(
AB
) =
k,l,m,n
c
km
c
ln
[ a
k
) a
l
[ Tr [ b
m
) b
n
[ (2.20)
=
k,l,m,n
c
km
c
ln
[ a
k
) a
l
[
mn
=
k,l,m
c
km
c
lm
[ a
k
) a
l
[
=
A
.
2.2.1 Mathematical properties of density operators
Density operators provide a description of quantum states. They can be dened as such without
any reference to state vectors. Let H be a nite-dimensional Hilbert space. A density operator
, on H, is a linear operator such that
is positive semi-denite, that is [[) 0, for any [) H.
Tr = 1.
Any linear positive semi-denite operator X on H is always Hermitian, with non-negative
eigenvalues, and can be written as X = Y
Y for some Y [18]. Many inequalities regarding pos-

itive operators can be derived directly from [X[) 0 by special choices of [). In particular,
if [) has only two non-zero components, labelled by i and j, then the submatrix of X with
the elements labelled by the indices i and j is also positive semi-denite. More generally, any
submatrix of a positive semi-denite matrix, obtained by keeping only the rows and columns
labelled by a subset of the original indices, is itself a positive semi-denite matrix and as such
must have a nonnegative determinant (because all its eigenvalues are nonnegative).
To make a connection with the state vectors, let us consider a particular state (a pure state)
which can be described by a state vector [) H. The density operator of any pure state
corresponds to a projection operator on that particular state, dened as
= [)[, (2.21)
which, like any projection operator, is idempotent:
2
= . (2.22)
For example, the state of a qubit [0) +[1) is described by the density operator
= ([0) +[1)) (1[
+0[
) = [[
2
[0)0[ +
[0)1[ +
[1)0[ +[[
2
[1)1[, (2.23)
or, in the matrix form,
=
_
[[
2
[[
2
_
. (2.24)
The diagonal elements
00
= [[
2
and
11
= [[
2
correspond, respectively, to the expectation
values 0[[0) and 1[[1), giving the probabilities of observing bit values 0 and 1 respectively.
2.2.2 Ensemble interpretation of density operators
Consider a quantum source which emits particles in states [
1
), [
2
)... [
n
) with a priori prob-
abilities p
1,
p
2
...p
n
. We will write it as an ensemble p
i,
[
i
) . In this case
S) =
n
i=1
p
i
i
[S[
i
) =
n
i=1
p
i
TrS[
i
)
i
[ = TrS
_
n
i=1
p
i
[
i
)
i
[
_
= TrS. (2.25)
The result depends on the observable S and on the quantum state, which appears in the expres-
sion above only as the combination
=
n
i=1
p
i
[
i
)
i
[. (2.26)
We call this operator the density operator that describes a mixture of pure states [
1
), [
2
)...
[
n
) with weights p
1,
p
2
...p
n
. The operator is not a projector any more,
2
,= , but it has
all the properties we require for density operators (self-adjoint, semi-positive, unit-trace). If we
refer to a single particle, we are uncertain as to which particular pure state [
i
) it is prepared
in. However, it makes perfect sense to say that the particle is in the state . Please note that
many dierent mixtures may lead to the same density operator:
=
n
i=1
p
i
[
i
)
i
[ =
n
i=1
q
i
[
i
)
i
[. (2.27)
Note the sets of pure states [
i
), [, [
i
), [ are not in general orthonormal. In fact, unless
there is any degeneracy in the values p
i
, only one such set can be orthonormal.
Now take, for example, this particular density operator of a qubit:
=
_
3
4
0
0
1
4
_
. (2.28)
It can be viewed as the mixtures of [0) and [1) with the probabilities
3
4
and
1
4
, or as a mixture
of [
1
) =
3
2
[0) +
1
2
[1) and [
2
) =
3
2
[0)
1
2
[1) with probabilities p
1
=
1
2
and p
2
=
1
2
. Even
though states [0) and [1) are clearly dierent from states [
1
) and [
2
), according to Eq.(2.25),
these mixtures behave identically under any any physical investigation, i.e. we are not able to
distinguish between dierent mixtures described by the same density operator.
2.3 Entanglement
We have previously introduced the concept of separable sates. However, there are states in H
S
which are not separable, i.e. they cannot be written as a simple tensor product of two states
[
A
) and [
B
) (states for which c
kl
,=
k
l
). These states are referred to as entangled states.
Entanglement is a set of quantum correlations arising from the interaction between two or more
quantum systems that does not have a classical counterpart. An example of an entangled state
is the singlet state of two spin-half particles
[
) =
1
2
([)[) [)[)) , (2.29)
where [) and [) denote respectively spin up and spin down with respect to a chosen quantization
axis.
As we mentioned in the previous chapter, entanglement is a very important physical resource
in quantum information science and both its mathematical characterization and experimental
detection have been subjected to extensive research. Unfortunately, the only general mathe-
matical denition of an entangled state is a negative one. A state is entangled if it cannot be
written as a convex sum of product states [19]
123...N
=
3
. . .
N
, (2.30)
where
j
is a state of subsystem j, and

= 1. This fact means that in order to test

whether a given unknown state is entangled, we have in principle to check whether the state
can be decomposed in any of all the possible convex sums of product states. We will discuss
in a later section the most important results concerning the characterization and detection of
entanglement. But rst, we will introduce the concept of superoperators, since they have proved
particularly relevant in the construction of entanglement criteria.
2.4 Superoperators
As we pointed out before, the time evolution of a state of system o is unitary and obeys
Eq.(2.4). Suppose now that o is composed of two sub-systems, / and B, and that we are
interested in the time evolution of sub-system / only. We can, without loss of generality, choose
the state of / to be
A
and the state of B to be the pure state [0). The time evolution of the
state of system o,
A
[0)0[, is given by
= U
A
[0)0[U
, (2.31)
which is still a density operator describing system o. The time evolution of the state of sub-
system / is then obtained by performing the partial trace, on sub-system B, of the state
of
system o:
A
= Tr
B
(U
A
[0)0[U
). (2.32)
If we now consider an orthonormal basis [i), i = 0, 1, ..., for sub-system B, Eq.(2.32) becomes
A
=
i
i[U[0)
A
0[U
[i)
i
E
i
A
E
i
, (2.33)
where E
i
= i[U[0) are operators, acting on sub-system /, and are trace-preserving:
i
E
i
E
i
=
i
0[U
[i)i[U[0) = 0[U
U[0) = 11. (2.34)

Eq.(2.33) denes a linear map L that takes linear operators
A
to linear operators
A
. Such
a map, if the property in Eq.(2.34) is satised, is called a superoperator. The representation of
the superoperator given in Eq.(2.33) is called the operator-sum representation.
2.4.1 Mathematical properties of superoperators
A superoperator L :
that takes density operators to density operators has the following

properties [18]:
L is trace-preserving, that is Tr
= TrL() = 1.
L is linear, that is L(
1
1
+
2
2
) =
1
L(
1
) +
2
L(
2
),
1
+
2
= 1.
L is a is completely positive map, that is, if is positive, then
= L() is positive and

the extension of L to a larger sub-system (11 L) is also positive.
All the mathematical properties originate from physical requirements. The rst and third
properties originate from the requirement that, assuming to be a density operator,
will also
be a density operator. The second property originates from our desire to reconcile the density
operator time evolution and its ensemble interpretation.
The rst property of superoperators is quite straightforward to accept, since any density
operator has, by denition, trace equal to one. The third property is perhaps less obvious.
Clearly, L must be a positive map to assure that
will be a positive operator (necessary

condition for
to be a density operator). But why must L be completely positive? The answer

is: in order to assure that, if we decide to consider the action of the superoperator on an extended
system,
ext
, the resulting operator
=
ext
L() will still be a density operator.
2.4.2 Jamiolkowski isomorphism
The Jamiolkowski isomorphism [20] establishes an equivalence between quantum states and
superoperators. Consider the action of a superoperator on half of the maximally entangled
state [
J
) =
1
N
i
[i)[i):
1 [
J
)
J
[
ij
[i)j[([i)j[) =
. (2.35)
The bipartite state
encodes all the properties of the superoperator , as from it we can learn

how each density matrix element is transformed by
[i)j[ ([i)j[) . (2.36)
This establishes the equivalence between a completely positive map acting on density operators
pertaining to a Hilbert space H of dimension d
2
1 and a density operator pertaining to a
Hilbert space HH of dimension 4d
2
1.
2.5 Mathematical characterization of bipartite entanglement
When studying the existence of entanglement in bipartite states, it is very useful to distinguish
between pure states of the form Eq.(2.7) and mixed states. Pure bipartite states are entangled i
the number number of terms of their Schmidt decomposition is greater than one. The Schmidt
decomposition of [
S
) is dened as:
[
S
) =
k,l
c
kl
[a
k
)[b
l
) =
i
[a
i
)[b
i
), (2.37)
where [a
i
) and [b
i
) are orthonormal bases for H
A
and H
B
, respectively, and
i
are non-negative
real coecients such that

i
2
i
= 1. Any state of the form Eq.(2.7) admits a Schmidt de-
composition [18]. Hence, given a pure bipartite state, the computation of the coecients
i
in
the Schmidt decomposition is sucient for entanglement detection. However, there are not any
known ecient methods to determine experimentally the Schmidt coecients of an unknown
state Eq.(2.7). Therefore, other more accessible entanglement criteria were developed. An ex-
ample is the entropic inequalities. Entropy measures uncertainty or our lack of information
about a particular physical property. Entropic inequalities, which quantify relations between
the information content of a composite quantum system and its parts, are of the form
S(
A
) S(
AB
) , S(
B
) S(
AB
), (2.38)
where
AB
is a density operator of a composite quantum system and
A
and
B
are the reduced
density operators pertaining to individual subsystems. They indicate that no matter which
physical property is measured there is more uncertainty in the composite system than in any
of its parts. Here S stands for several dierent types of entropies, including the regular von
Neumann entropy S() = Tr log and the Ren yi entropy S() = log Tr
2
[21]. These
inequalities depend on the spectrum of both the state of the composite system and the states
of each individual subsystem, and provide necessary conditions for separability of bipartite pure
states. We will introduce in a later chapter of the thesis an ecient method for the determination
of the spectrum of unknown density operators.
2.5.1 Mixed states
However, not all bipartite states are of the form Eq.(2.7). In fact, for more general bipartite
states such as Eq.(2.26), the Schmidt decomposition is no longer valid [18]. Therefore new
methods to identify entangled states were developed. These methods are based on the theory
of positive maps.
Positive, but not completely positive maps are the most powerful tool in the detection of
entanglement. These maps are not physical, that is, they cannot be directly implemented in the
laboratory, but they provide the best mathematical criteria for the existence of entanglement
in a given state. In fact, they provide a necessary and sucient condition for the existence of
entanglement [22]: a bipartite state
AB
H
A
H
B
is entangled i (11 L)
AB
0, for all
L H
B
2
. Unfortunately, very little is known about the structure of positive maps, even for
small dimensional spaces like (
. It is therefore very dicult to extract practical entanglement

criteria from the above condition.
Still, Peres [13] and the Horodeckis [14] have shown that the positive partial-transposition
map provides a necessary and sucient condition for systems of two or three qubits. This map
preserves the eigenvalues of , so its clearly positive and trace preserving. For example, let
consider a generic density operator of a qubit. This is a 2 2 matrix of the form
_

_
, (2.39)
where the coecients , , are chosen such that Eq.(2.39) is a valid density operator. It is
sometimes convenient to represent the density operators of qubits as
=
1 +
2
=
1 +
i=x,y,z
r
i
i
2
, (2.40)
where 1 is the identity operator,

r is a three dimensional vector of length smaller or equal to
one and
x
=
_
0 1
1 0
_
,
y
=
_
0 i
i 0
_
,
z
=
_
1 0
0 1
_
, (2.41)
are the Pauli operators. The action of the transposition map on the density operator of the
qubit is
2
Or conversely, (L 11)
AB
0.
_

T
_

_
. (2.42)
Suppose now that we consider a qubit, part of a larger system in the entangled state
[
+
) =
1
2
([0)[0) +[1)[1)) . (2.43)
If we now apply the transposition map to the second qubit, which corresponds to a situation in
which we consider the extension of transposition to a larger system (11T), the density operator
will suer a partial transpose of its matrix elements:
1
2
_
_
_
_
1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1
_
_
_
_
T
1
2
_
_
_
_
1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1
_
_
_
_
. (2.44)
The resulting density matrix has eigenvalues
1
2
,
1
2
,
1
2
and
1
2
, so its not a valid density operator.
The negativity under partial transposition is a signature of entanglement, even for more general
cases. It is in fact a sucient condition for the existence of entanglement.
2.6 Experimental detection of entanglement
Entanglement tests based on positive maps are not physical, since positive maps cannot be
directly implemented in the laboratory. While this problem can be circumvented, by mathemat-
ically constructing completely positive maps out of the positive maps relevant for entanglement
detection [23], the actual implementation of these tests in the laboratory is yet to be achieved.
Instead researchers have focussed on experimental tests that, albeit less powerful than positive
maps, are within reach of current technology.
2.6.1 Bells inequalities
Bells inequalities [3] were introduced as an attempt to encapsulate the non-locality of quantum
mechanics. While this is a completely dierent goal from the detection of entanglement, the
fact that they were designed to capture the quantum essence of physical systems meant that
they were also an entanglement test. In fact, they are the most widely used experimental
entanglement test. We will next briey present the derivation of the Bell-CHSH inequality [24]
and show that it is violated by the maximally entangled singlet state introduced in Eq.(2.29).
If we remember the thought experiment mentioned in the introduction, we have the following
scenario: two distant observers A and B share many identical pairs of particles; A and B can
perform two dierent types of measurements on their respective particles, X
A
, Y
A
and X
B
, Y
B
,
respectively; Each measurement is chosen randomly and has two possible outcomes: +1 and 1.
Let us consider the quantity Q = X
A
X
B
+Y
A
X
B
+Y
A
Y
B
X
A
Y
B
. Note that
X
A
X
B
+Y
A
X
B
+Y
A
Y
B
X
A
Y
B
= (X
A
+Y
A
)X
B
+ (X
A
Y
A
)Y
B
. (2.45)
Since X
A
, Y
A
= 1, it follows that either X
A
+ Y
A
= 0 or X
A
Y
A
= 0, which in turn means
X
A
X
B
+Y
A
X
B
+Y
A
Y
B
X
A
Y
B
= 2. Hence, the expectation value of Q is
E(Q) =
x
A
y
A
x
B
y
B
p(x
A
, y
A
, x
B
, y
B
)(x
A
x
B
+y
A
x
B
+y
A
y
B
x
A
y
B
) (2.46)
x
A
y
A
x
B
y
B
p(x
A
, y
A
, x
B
, y
B
) 2 = 2, (2.47)
where p(x
A
, y
A
, x
B
, y
B
) is the probability that, before the measurements are performed, X
A
=
x
A
, Y
A
= y
A
, X
B
= x
B
, Y
B
= y
B
. If we further notice that E(Q) = E(X
A
X
B
) + E(Y
A
X
B
) +
E(Y
A
Y
B
) E(X
A
Y
B
), we obtain the Bell inequality
E(X
A
X
B
) +E(Y
A
X
B
) +E(Y
A
Y
B
) E(X
A
Y
B
) 2. (2.48)
However, if we now compute the expectation value of Q, with
X
A
=
A
z
, (2.49)
Y
A
=
A
x
, (2.50)
X
B
=
B
z
+
B
x
2
, (2.51)
Y
B
=

B
z

B
x
2
, (2.52)
on the singlet state [
), we obtain that
X
A
X
B
)
|
= Y
A
X
B
)
|
= Y
A
Y
B
)
|
= X
A
Y
B
)
|
=
1
2
. (2.53)
Thus, Q)
|
= 2
2, which is in clear violation of Eq.(2.47) and implies that the state is

entangled.
The violation of this and other Bells inequalities has been extensively observed experimen-
tally [10, 11], mostly in systems of photons. While being a very convenient entanglement test,
that requires only the computation of expectation values of linear operators on the state of the
composite system, these inequalities fail to detect many entangled states currently produced in
the laboratory. Hence, researchers have actively looked for other types of experimental entan-
glement tests.
2.6.2 Entanglement witnesses
Entanglement witnesses W were recently introduced as a tool for experimental entanglement de-
tection [25, 26]. They are particularly well suited to the experimental detection of entanglement,
where quite often the type of entangled state generated is known. They are linear operators
acting on the composite Hilbert space H
A
H
B
that obey the following properties:
W is Hermitian, that is W
= W.
Tr(W[a, b)a, b[) 0, for all states [a, b) in H
A
H
B
, that is, the expectation value of W
on any separable state is greater or equal to zero.
W is not a positive operator, that is, it has at least one negative eigenvalue.
Tr(W)=1.
Thus, if we have Tr(W) < 0 for some , then is entangled. In that case we say that W
detects . Every entanglement witness detects something [26], since it detects in particular the
projector on the subspace corresponding to the negative eigenvalues of W. We will next give an
example of an entanglement witness that detects bipartite entangled states.
Consider an experimental setup that, due to the imperfections, produces the mixed rather
than pure bipartite state of two qubits [27]
= p[)[ + (1 p)
1
4
, (2.54)
where [)[ is the pure state generated under ideal experimental circumstances, 0 p 1 and
1/4 is the completely mixed state (white noise).
The witness is constructed by rst computing the eigenvector corresponding to the negative
eigenvalue of the partially transposed density operator
T
B
. The witness is given by the partially
transposed projector onto this eigenvector. If the Schmidt decomposition of [) is [) = a[01) +
b[10), with a, b 0, the spectrum of
T
B
is given by
1 p
4
+pa
2
,
1 p
4
+pb
2
,
1 p
4
+pab,
1 p
4
pab. (2.55)
Therefore is entangled i p > 1/(1 + 4ab). The eigenvector corresponding to the minimal
eigenvalue
is given by
[
) =
1
2
([00) [11)). (2.56)
Hence the witness W is given by
W = [
[
T
B
=
1
2
_
_
_
_
1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1
_
_
_
_
. (2.57)
Note that this witness does neither depend on p, nor on the Schmidt coecients a, b. It detects
i it is entangled, since we have that
Tr([
[
T
B
) = Tr([
[
T
B
) =
. (2.58)
Note also that in this particular case we just considered, if Tr(W) 0, is separable. This is
not a general property of witnesses, and indeed if the noise is not white this is not true anymore.
2.7 Multipartite entanglement
Multipartite entanglement, as a set of quantum correlations, is much more complex than bi-
partite entanglement. Hence, we know considerably less about its mathematical structure and
experimental detection. Still, the general approach of the methods described in the previous sec-
tion is equally suited to detect multipartite entanglement. In fact, Bells inequalities have been
derived for multipartite entangled states [28] and so have entanglement witnesses [29]. How-
ever their experimental implementation has proved to be too challenging so far. The approach
to multipartite entanglement detection is similar to the bipartite case. Therefore we will use
this section to try to capture the complexity of multipartite entanglement by presenting three
examples of multipartite entangled states. These states were all introduced in the context of
quantum information and have proved to be useful resources for quantum information tasks.
The classication of multipartite entanglement diers from the bipartite case in that it
is dicult to compare the dierent types of multipartite entanglement that are possible in a
given composite system. For example, multipartite states of N subsystems can be biseparable,
i.e. admit the decomposition
=
i
c
i
i
A
i
B
, (2.59)
where A, B are two disjunct partitions of the composite system. How does one compare this
type of state with a state that is triseparable or non-separable with respect to any partition?
This question is still open and considerable research is being currently devoted to it.
We will next present three classes of states that are representative of dierent features of
multipartite entanglement. We will also briey discuss their application to quantum information.
2.7.1 Maximally entangled state
Just as we introduced the concept of maximally entangled state for the case of two qubits, we
will equally dene the maximally entangled state of N qubits:
[
N
) =
1
2
([0000....0)
N
+[1111....1)
N
) , (2.60)
where [iiii....i)
N
= [i)
N
, i = 0, 1. In this case all the qubits are entangled with one another,
but the state of any subset m of qubits is separable
m
= Tr
Nm
([
N
)
N
[) =
1
2
([00...0)
m
00...0[
m
+[11...1)
m
11...1[
m
) . (2.61)
These states are particularly useful for multi-party quantum communication protocols, such
as multiparty quantum coin ipping [30].
2.7.2 W State
This class of symmetric states is, after the maximally entangled state, the most widely used
example of multipartite entanglement. Unfortunately, a practical application in the context of
quantum information is yet to be found. The W state is dened as
[W
N
) =
1
N
([1000....0)
N
+[0100....0)
N
+[0010....0)
N
+... +[0000....1)
N
) . (2.62)
In this case all the qubits are again entangled with one another, but interestingly enough the
state of any subset m of qubits is not separable. In fact, for the case of three qubits, the W state
retains maximally bipartite entanglement when any one of the three qubits is traced out [31].
2.7.3 Cluster state
The cluster state is perhaps the best example of the computational advantage of multipartite
over bipartite entanglement. This class of pure states is represented by a connected subset of a
simple cubic lattice of qubits [32]. The cluster state is dened as the set of states [
{k}
)
C
that
obey the set of eigenvalue equations
K
(a)
[
{k}
)
C
= (1)
k
a
[
{k}
)
C
, (2.63)
with the correlation operators
K
(a)
=
(a)
x
bnghb(a)
(b)
z
. (2.64)
Therein, k
a
0, 1[a C is a set of binary parameters which specify the cluster state and
nghb(a) is the set of all neighboring lattice sites of a. This class of states in cubic lattices with
two or more dimensions is, together with single qubit measurements, sucient for universal
quantum computation [32]. It is remarkable how a multipartite entangled state is alone the
computational resource required for quantum computation.
2.8 Quantum networks
A quantum computation is nothing but changing the logical values of a set of qubits through a
series of operations, such that the nal result has logical meaning. Similarly to classical com-
putations, quantum computations are described through quantum circuits or networks. These
networks are a sequence of quantum gates, unitary operations that change the logical values of
the qubits, acting on one or more qubits at a time. They are a very useful paradigm to describe
the dynamical evolution of systems of qubits, where the emphasis is on the state of the system
after the implementation of the quantum gate, rather than on the actual physical interaction
that realizes the gate. Deutsch [33] showed the existence of a universal set of quantum gates,
i.e. a set of gates that can approximate any unitary evolution of a set of qubits with arbitrary
accuracy. It was later shown that this set is nite [34].
2.8.1 Universal set of gates
The universal set of quantum gates is constituted by the set of all possible single qubit unitaries
plus an entangling two-qubit gate [18]. Any single qubit unitary operator can be written in the
form
U = exp(i)R
n
() = exp(i) exp(i n
), (2.65)
where , are real numbers and R
n
() denotes a rotation by about the n axis. However,
the actual implementation of arbitrary rotations in a given physical qubit can be experimentally
very challenging. Therefore, researchers have instead concentrated in nding a nite set of single
qubit gates that can approximate an any unitary operation U to arbitrary accuracy , i.e.
(U, V ) = max
|
[[(U V )[)[[ , (2.66)
where V is the unitary implemented instead of U, (U, V ) is the unitary error and the maximum
is taken over all normalized states [). A possible such set of gates is constituted by the
Hadamard, /4 and /8 gates [18]:
H =
1
2
_
1 1
1 1
_
, /4 =
_
1 0
0 i
_
, /8 =
_
1 0
0 e
i/4
_
. (2.67)
As for the two-qubit gate, it is a controlled operation, i.e. it is a quantum gate where the
inputs have dierent roles. One of the inputs is the control qubit while the other is the target
qubit. The gate acts on the target qubit i the control qubit is in state [1). A generic controlled-
U gate is depicted in Fig. 2.1. The prototypical example of the entangling two-qubit gate is the
controlled-NOT gate. It has the following matrix representation in the [control, target) basis:
U
Truth table
C T
0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1
1 0 1 U(0)
1 1 1 U(1)
C T
C
T
Figure 2.1: The controlled-U gate. The top line represents the control qubit and the bottom
line represents the target qubit. U acts on the target qubit i the control qubit is in the logical
state [1).
C NOT =
_
_
_
_
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
_
_
_
_
. (2.68)
The C NOT gate ips the target qubit i the control qubit is in state [1), otherwise it acts as
the identity gate. Let us now understand why is it that this gate is an entangling gate. Consider
the case where the control qubit is in state ([0) + [1))/
2 and the target qubit is in state [0).

The composite state of the two qubits is clearly separable. After the C NOT,
1
2
([0) +[1))[0) =
1
2
([00) +[10))
C
NOT
1
2
([00) +[11)), (2.69)
which is no longer separable and is in fact the maximally entangled state [
+
) mentioned earlier.
2.8.2 Interferometry
As we mentioned earlier, the quantum network formalism provides us with a very useful set of
tools to describe the dynamical evolution of physical systems of qubits. A particularly simple
and relevant example that of quantum interferometry. Consider a single particle going through
a Mach-Zender interferometer (Fig. 2.2).
The incoming particle enters the interferometer from the lower left, in the path labelled
[0). It encounters a 50:50 beam-splitter that deects the particle into arm [1) with probability
p = 0.5. If the particle goes through arm [0), it acquires a phase
0
, while if it goes through
arm [1) it acquires the phase
1
. The two paths are then recombined in a second 50:50 beam-
splitter. If we place particle detectors at each of the output ports of the second beam-splitter,
and repeated this experiment many times, we would observe that the probability of the particle
being detected in port [0) or [1) after the interferometer is given by
1
q
0
q
0
1
2
1 0
0
cos
2
P
q q -

=

2
1 0
1
sin
2
P
q q -

=

50/50 Beam Splitter
50/50 Beam Splitter
Figure 2.2: The Mach-Zender interferometer.
p
0
= cos
2
_
0
2
_
, (2.70)
p
1
= sin
2
_
0
2
_
. (2.71)
This result can be easily understood if we translate the Mach-Zender interferometer into the
language of quantum networks (Fig. 2.3). Let us encode our qubit in the two arms of the
interferometer. The qubit is initially is state [0). After the beam-splitter, which is nothing but
a Hadamard gate, the state of the qubit becomes ([0) + [1))/
2. The qubit then acquires the

phases
0
,
1
: (e
i
0
[0) +e
i
1
[1))/
2, which is equivalent the the action of a phase gate 2(

1
0
).
After the second beam-splitter the state of the qubit is
[0)
BS
[0) +[1)
[0) +e
i(
1
0
)
[1)
2

BS
(1 +e
i(
1
0
)
)[0) + (1 e
i(
1
0
)
)[1)
2
, (2.72)
hence the probability of nding the qubit in state [0) or [1) after the interferometer is simply
given by Eq.(2.70) and Eq.(2.71), respectively.
2.9 Summary
We have now presented the basic concepts underlying this thesis: mixed states, superoperators,
entanglement and quantum circuits. We have discussed the ambiguity in the denition of any
mixed quantum state, which is due to the indistinguishability of state preparations. We have
introduced superoperators, completely positive maps acting on quantum states, as the most
general evolution of quantum systems. We have mentioned the Jamiolkowski isomorphism be-
tween superoperators and quantum states. Entanglement, and in particular its detection, is the
main object of research of this thesis. We gave an overview of the main results concerning the
V
I
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Figure 2.3: The quantum network corresponding to the Mach-Zender interferometer ( =
1
0
). The visibility of the interference pattern associated with p
0
varies as a function of
according to Eq.(2.70).
mathematical characterization and experimental detection of entanglement. Finally, we intro-
duced the circuit model of quantum computation and we shown its suitability to describe the
dynamical evolution of quantum systems, and in particular interferometric eects.
CHAPTER 3
Direct estimation of density operators
This chapter presents the results that were published in an article written in collaboration with
A. K. Ekert, D. K. L. Oi, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, L. C. Kwek: A. K. Ekert, C. Moura
Alves, D. K. L. Oi, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, L. C. Kwek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 217901
(2002).
Certain properties of a quantum state , such as its purity, degree of entanglement, or its
spectrum, are of signicant importance in quantum information science. They can be quantied
in terms of linear or non-linear functionals of . Linear functionals, such as average values of
observables A, given by TrA, are quite common as they correspond to directly measurable
quantities. Non-linear functionals of state, such as the von Neumann entropy Tr ln, eigen-
values, or a measure of purity Tr
2
, are usually extracted from by classical means i.e. is rst
estimated and once a suciently precise classical description of is available, classical evalu-
ations of the required functionals can be made. However, if only a limited supply of physical
objects in state is available, then a direct estimation of a specic quantity may be both more
ecient and more desirable [35]. For example, the estimation of purity of does not require
knowledge of all matrix elements of , thus any prior state estimation procedure followed by
classical calculations is, in this case, inecient. However, in order to bypass tomography and to
estimate non-linear functionals of more directly, we need quantum networks [33, 36] performing
quantum computations that supersede classical evaluations.
In this chapter, we shall present and examine a simple quantum network that can be used as
a basic building block for direct quantum estimations of both linear and non-linear functionals
of any . The network can be realized as multiparticle interferometry. While conventional
quantum measurements, represented as quantum networks or otherwise, allow the estimation of
TrA for some Hermitian operator A, our network can also provide a direct estimation of the
overlap of any two unknown quantum states
a
and
b
, i.e. Tr
a
b
.
3.1 Modied interferometry
In order to explain how the network works, let us start with a general observation related to
modications of visibility in interferometry. Consider a typical interferometric set-up for a single
qubit: Hadamard gate, phase shift
21
CHAPTER 3. DIRECT ESTIMATION OF DENSITY OPERATORS 22
Figure 3.1: A modied Mach-Zender interferometer with coupling to an ancilla by a controlled-U
gate. The interference pattern is modied by the factor ve
i
= Tr [U].
=
_
1 0
0 e
i
_
, (3.1)
Hadamard gate, followed by a measurement in the computational basis. We modify the interfer-
ometer by inserting a controlled-U operation between the Hadamard gates, with its control on
the qubit and with U acting on a quantum system described by some unknown density operator
, as shown in Fig. 3.1. The action of the quantum network is given by
[0)[)
H
2
([0) +[1)) [)
cU
2
([0)[) +[1)U([)))
2
([0)[) +e
i
[1)U([)))
H
1
2
_
[0)
_
[) +e
i
U([))
_
+[1)
_
[) e
i
U([))
__
. (3.2)
The action of the controlled-U on modies the interference pattern:
P
0
() =
1
4
(1 +ve
i
e
i
+ve
i
e
i
+ 1) =
1
2
(1 +v cos ( +)) , (3.3)
by the factor Tr([)[U) = TrU = ve
i
[37], where v is the new visibility and is the shift
of the interference fringes, also known as the Pancharatnam phase [38]. Thus, the observed
modication of the visibility gives an estimate of TrU, i.e. the average value of the unitary
operator U in state . Let us mention in passing that this property, among other things, allows
the estimation of an unknown quantum state as long as we can estimate TrU
k
for a set of
unitary operators U
k
which form a basis in the vector space of density operators.
Let us now consider a quantum state of two separable subsystems, such that =
a
b
.
We choose our controlled-U to be the controlled-V , where V is the swap operator, dened as,
V [)
A
[)
B
= [)
A
[)
B
, for any pure states [)
A
and [)
B
. In this case, the modication of the
interference pattern given by Eq. (3.3) can be written as,

V
a
b
a
b
Figure 3.2: Quantum network for direct estimations of both linear and non-linear functions of
a quantum state.
v = TrV (
a
b
)
=
ij
rs
s
f
j
[e
i
[ ([f
s
)[e
r
)f
s
[e
r
[) [e
i
)[f
j
)
=
ij
rs
js
ir
e
i
[ f
s
) f
j
[ e
r
)
=
ij
j
[ e
i
[ f
j
)[
2
= Tr
a
b
. (3.4)
Since Tr
a
b
is real, we can x = 0 and the probability of nding the qubit in state [0) at the
output, P
0
, is related to the visibility by v = 2 P
0
1. This construction, shown in Fig. 3.2,
provides a direct way to measure Tr
a
b
(c.f. [39] for a related idea).
3.2 Multiple target states
There are many possible ways of utilizing this result. For pure states
a
= [)[ and
b
= [)[
the formula above gives Tr
a
b
= [ [ )[
2
i.e. a direct measure of orthogonality of [) and
[). If we put
a
=
b
= then we obtain an estimation of Tr
2
. In the single qubit case,
this measurement allows us to estimate the length of the Bloch vector, leaving its direction
completely undetermined. For qubits Tr
2
gives the sum of squares of the two eigenvalues which
allows to estimate the spectrum of .
3.2.1 Spectrum estimation
In general, the evaluation of the spectrum of any d d density matrix requires the estimation
of d1 parameters Tr
2
, Tr
3
,... Tr
d
. We can do so directly via the controlled-shift operation,
which is a generalization of the controlled-swap gate. Given k systems of dimension d we dene
the shift V
(k)
as
V
(k)
[
1
)[
2
)...[
k
) = [
k
)[
1
)...[
k1
), (3.5)
for any pure states [). Such an operation can be easily constructed by cascading k 1 swaps
V . If we extend the network and prepare =
k
at the input then the interference will be
modied by the visibility factor,
v = Tr V
(k)
k
= Tr
k
=
k
i=1
i
k
. (3.6)
Thus measuring the average values of V
(k)
for k = 2, 3...d allows us to evaluate the spectrum
of [35]. Although we have not eliminated classical evaluations, we have reduced them by a
signicant amount. The average values of V
(k)
for k = 2, 3...d provide enough information to
evaluate the spectrum of , but certainly not enough to estimate the whole density matrix.
It should be mentioned that other spectrum estimation methods, relying on single collective
measurements of several copies of , have been proposed [40]. These methods essentially project
the initial state =
n
, which forms an operator on the n-fold tensor product space, onto
orthogonal subspaces corresponding to irreducible representations of the permutation group of
n points. This decomposition is labelled by Young frames, the arrangement of n boxes into d
rows of decreasing length. The normalized row lengths of each tableau are taken as estimates
of the ordered sequence of eigenvalues of . The probability that the error in the spectrum
estimation is greater than some xed decreases exponentially with n [40].
3.2.2 Quantum communication
So far we have treated the two inputs
a
and
b
in a symmetric way. However, there are several
interesting applications in which one of the inputs, say
a
, is predetermined and the other is
unknown. For example, projections on a prescribed vector [), or on the subspace perpendicular
to it, can be implemented by choosing
a
= [)[. By changing the input state [) we eectively
reprogram the action of the network which then performs dierent projections. This property
can be used for quantum communication, in a scenario where one carrier of information, in state
[), determines the type of detection measurement performed on the second carrier. Note that
as the state [) of a single carrier cannot be determined, the information about the type of the
measurement to be performed by the detector remains secret until the moment of detection.
3.2.3 Extremal eigenvalues
Another interesting application is the estimation of the extremal eigenvalues and eigenvectors
of
b
without reconstructing the entire spectrum. In this case, the input states are of the form
[)[
b
and we vary [) searching for the minimum and the maximum of v = [
b
[). This,
at rst sight, seems to be a complicated task as it involves scanning 2(d 1) parameters of .
The visibility is related to the overlap of the reference state [) and
b
by,
v
= Tr
_
[)[
i
[
i
)
i
[
_
=
i
[ [
i
)[
2
=
i
p
i
, (3.7)
where

i
p
i
= 1. This is a convex sum of the eigenvalues of
b
and is minimized (maximized)
when [) = [
min
) ([
max
)). For any [) , = [
min
) ([
max
)), there exists a state, [
), in the
neighbourhood of [) such that v
< v
(v
> v
). Thus this global optimization problem

can be solved using standard iterative methods, of which steepest decent [41] is an example.
Estimation of extremal eigenvalues plays a signicant role in the direct detection [35] and
distillation [22] of quantum entanglement. As an example, consider two qubits described by the
density operator
b
, such that the reduced density operator of one of the qubits is maximally
mixed. We can test for the separability of
b
by checking whether the maximal eigenvalue of
b
does not exceed
1
2
[42].
3.2.4 State estimation
Finally, we may want to estimate an unknown state, say a d d density operator,
b
. Such an
operator is determined by d
2
1 real parameters. In order to estimate matrix elements [
b
[),
we run the network as many times as possible (limited by the number of copies of
b
at our
disposal) on the input [)[
b
, where [) is a pure state of our choice. For a xed [), after
several runs, we obtain an estimation of,
v = [
b
[). (3.8)
In some chosen basis [n) the diagonal elements n[
b
[n) can be determined using the input
states [n)n[
b
. The real part of the o-diagonal element n[
b
[k) can be estimated by choosing
[) = ([n) +[k))/
2, and the imaginary part by choosing [) = ([n) +i[k))/
2. In particular,
if we want to estimate the density operator of a qubit, we can choose the pure states, [0) (spin
+z), ([0) +[1)) /
2 (spin +x) and ([0) +i[1)) /
2 (spin +y), i.e. the three components of the

Bloch vector.
Quantum tomography can also be performed in many other ways, the practicalities of which
depend on technologies involved. However, it is worth stressing that the strength of our scheme is
the use of a xed architecture network, controlled only by input data, to perform the estimation
of properties of .
3.2.5 Arbitrary observables
We can extend the procedure above to cover estimations of expectation values of arbitrary
observables A. This can be done with the network shown in Fig. 3.2, since estimations of mean
values of any observable can always be reduced to estimations of a binary two-output POVMs.
We shall apply the technique developed in Refs. [23, 35]. As A
= 1+A is positive if is the

minimum negative eigenvalue of A, we can construct the state
a
=
A
=
A
Tr(A
)
and apply our
interference scheme to the pair
A

b
. The visibility gives us the mean value of V,
v = V )
A

b
= Tr
_
A
Tr(A
b
_
, (3.9)
which leads us to the desired value,
A)
b
Tr(
b
A) = vTrA+(vd 1), (3.10)
where Tr1 = d.
3.3 Quantum channel estimation
Any technique that allows direct estimations of properties of quantum states can be also used
to estimate certain properties of quantum channels. Recall that, from a mathematical point
of view, a quantum channel is a superoperator, (), which maps density operators into
density operators, and whose trivial extensions, 1
k
do the same, i.e. is a completely positive
Figure 3.3: A quantum channel acting on one of the subsystems of a bipartite maximally
entangled state of the form[
+
) =
k
[k)[k)/
d. The output state
=
1
d
kl
[k)l[([k)l[),
contains a complete information about the channel.
map. In a chosen basis the action of the channel on a density operator =
kl
kl
[k)l[ can be
written as
() =
_
kl
kl
[k)l[
_
=
kl
kl
([k)l[) . (3.11)
Thus the channel is completely characterized by operators ([k)l[). In fact, with every channel
we can associate a quantum state
that provides a complete characterization of the channel.

If we prepare a maximally entangled states of two particles, described by the density operator
P
+
=
1
d
kl
[k)l[ [k)l[, and we send only one particle through the channel, as shown in
Fig. 3.3, we obtain
P
+
[1 ] P
+
=
, (3.12)
where
=
1
d
kl
[k)l[ ([k)l[) . (3.13)
We may interpret this as mapping the [k)l[
th
-element of an input density matrix to the
output matrix, ([k)l[). Thus, knowledge of
allows us to determine the action of on

an arbitrary state, (). If we perform a state tomography on
we eectively perform
a quantum channel tomography. If we choose to estimate directly some functions of
then
we gain some knowledge about specic properties of the channel without performing the full
tomography of the channel.
For example, consider a single qubit channel. Suppose we are interested in the maximal
rate of a reliable transmission of qubits per use of the channel, which can be quantied as the
channel capacity. Unlike in the classical case, quantum channels admit several capacities [43, 44],
because users of quantum channels can also exchange classical information. We have then the
capacities Q
C
where C = , , , , stands for zero way, one way and two way classical
communication. In general, it is very dicult to calculate the capacity of a given channel.
However, our extremal eigenvalue estimation scheme provides a simple necessary and sucient
condition for a one qubit channel to have non-zero two-way capacity. Namely, Q
> 0 i

has maximal eigenvalue greater than
1
2
. Note that this condition is also necessary for the other
three capacities to be non-zero.
This result becomes apparent by noticing that if we trace
over the qubit that went through

the channel (particle 2 in Fig. 3.3), we obtain the maximally mixed state. Furthermore, the
two qubit state,
, is two-way distillable i the operator

1
2
1
has a negative eigenvalue

(see [42] for details), or equivalently when
has the maximal eigenvalue greater than

1
2
. This
implies Q
() > 0 because two-way distillable entanglement, which is non-zero i given state

is two way distillable, is the lower bound for Q
() [44].
3.4 Summary
In summary, we have described a simple quantum network which can be used as a basic building
block for direct quantum estimations of both linear and non-linear functionals of any density
operator . It provides a direct estimation of the overlap of any two unknown quantum states
a
and
b
, i.e. Tr
a
b
. Its straightforward extension can be employed to estimate functionals
of any powers of density operators. The network has many potential applications ranging from
purity tests and eigenvalue estimations to direct characterization of some properties of quantum
channels.
Finally let us also mention that the controlled-SWAP operation is a direct generalization
of a Fredkin gate [45] and can be constructed out of simple quantum logic gates [36]. This
means that experimental realizations of the proposed network are within the reach of quantum
technology that is currently being developed (for an overview see, for example, [46]).
CHAPTER 4
Direct estimation of density operators using LOCC
D. K. L Oi, P. Horodecki, A. K. Ekert, L. C. Kwek: C. Moura Alves, D. K. L Oi, P. Horodecki,
A. K. Ekert, L. C. Kwek, Phys. Rev. A 68, 32306 (2003).
In the previous chapter we presented a family of quantum networks that directly estimate
multi-copy observables, Tr[
k
], of an unknown state [47, 35, 23]. As mentioned before, these
nonlinear functionals quantify important properties of , such as the degree of entanglement or
the spectrum. Therefore it would be very useful to be able to estimate them even when is a
bipartite state
AB
shared by two distant parties, Alice and Bob, who can perform only local
operations and communicate classically (LOCC). In this chapter we show that the estimation
of non-linear functionals of quantum states admit LOCC implementation. We also show that
Structural Physical Approximations [35, 23], an important tool for entanglement detection, can
be constructed locally. This opens the possibility of the direct estimation of entanglement and
some channel capacities using only LOCC.
As a general remark, let us recall that a quantum operation can be implemented using
LOCC if it can be written as a convex sum
=
k
p
k
A
k
B
k
, (4.1)
where A
k
acts on the subsystem at Alices location and B
k
on the subsystem at Bobs location,
and p
k
represent the respective probabilities.
4.1 LOCC estimation of nonlinear functionals
The direct estimation method is extended to the LOCC scenario by constructing two local
networks, one for Alice and one for Bob, in such a way that the global network is similar to
the network with the controlled-shift. Unfortunately, the global shift operation V
(k)
cannot
be implemented directly using only LOCC, since it does not admit local decomposition (4.1).
Hence, we will implement it indirectly, using the global network shown in Fig. 4.1. Alice and
Bob share a number of copies of the state
AB
H
d
. They group them respectively into sets
of k elements, and run the local interferometric network on their respective halves of the state
AB
=
k
AB
. For each run of the experiment, they record and communicate their result.
28
CHAPTER 4. DIRECT ESTIMATION OF DENSITY OPERATORS USING LOCC 29
Figure 4.1: Network for remote estimation of non-linear functionals of bipartite density opera-
tors. Since Tr[V
(k)
k
] is real, Alice and Bob can omit their respective phase shifters.
The individual interference patterns Alice and Bob record will depend only on their respective
reduced density operators. Alice will observe the visibility v
A
= Tr[
k
A
] and Bob will observe
the visibility v
B
= Tr[
k
B
]. However, if they compare their individual observations, they will be
able to extract information about the global density operator
AB
, e.g. about
Tr[
k
AB
] = Tr
_
k
AB
_
V
(k)
A
V
(k)
B
__
. (4.2)
This is because Alice and Bob can estimate the probabilities P
ij
that in the measurement Alices
interfering qubit is found in state [i)
A
and Bobs in state [j)
A
for i, j = 0, 1. These probabilities
can be conveniently expressed as
P
ij
=
1
4
Tr
_
k
AB
_
1 + (1)
i
V
(k)
A
_
_
1 + (1)
j
V
(k)
B
_
_
, (4.3)
hence the formula for the basic non-linear functional of
AB
reads
Tr[
k
AB
] = P
00
P
01
P
10
+ P
11
. (4.4)
In fact, the expression above is the expectation value
z
z
), measured on Alices and Bobs
qubits (the two qubits that undergo interference). Given that we are able to directly estimate
Tr[
k
AB
] for any integer value of k, we can estimate the spectrum of
AB
without resorting to a
full state tomography.
4.2 Structural Physical Approximations
We next show how to implement Structural Physical Approximations within the LOCC scenario.
Structural Physical Approximations (SPAs) were introduced recently as tools for determining
relevant parameters of density operators (see [23, 35] for more details). Basically the SPA of a
mathematical operation , denoted as

, is a physical operation, a process that can be carried
out in a laboratory, that emulates the character of . More precisely, suppose : H
d
H
d
is a
trace preserving map which does not represent any physical process, for example, an anti-unitary
operation such as transposition. Then a convex sum
= T + (1 ), (4.5)
where T is the depolarizing map which sends any density operator into the maximally mixed
state, represents a physical process, i.e. a completely positive map, as long as is suciently
large. On top of this T, with its trivial structure, does not mask the structure of . The
Structural Physical Approximation to is obtained by selecting, in the expression above, the
threshold value = (d
2
)/(d
2
+1), where is the lowest eigenvalue of (1 )P
(d)
+
and P
(d)
+
is a maximally entangled state of a dd system
1
. Note that we impose the positivity condition
on the map 1 to ensure that

is a completely positive map.
Please note that the physical implementation of SPAs is not a trivial problem as the for-
mula (4.5), which explicitly contains the physically impossible map , is of little guidance here.
Let us also mention in passing that if is not trace preserving then

may be implementable
but only in a probabilistic sense e.g. using experimental post-selection.
There are many examples of mathematical operations which, though important in the quan-
tum information contexts, do not represent a physical process. For example, mathematical cri-
teria for entanglement involve positive but not completely positive maps [21] and as such they
are not directly implementable in a laboratory they tacitly assume that a precise description
of a quantum state of a physical system is given and that such operations are mathematical
transformations on the matrix describing the quantum state.
1
The threshold value for is obtained from the requirement of complete positivity of

, which in this case can
be reduced to

P
(d)
+
0
4.2.1 SPA using only LOCC
If does not represent any physical process then its trivial extension to a bipartite case, 1 ,
does not represent a physical process either. Still, its SPA,

1 , does describe a physical
operation. But can it be implemented with LOCC?
The positive answer is obtained by putting

1 into the tensor product form (4.1). Let us
start by writing it as
1 = T T + (1 )1
= (1 +)1
_
1
1 +
+

1 +
T
_
+ ( )
_

T +

1
_
T
= (1 +)1

+ ( )
T, (4.6)
where
=
1
1 +
+

1 +
T, (4.7)
=

T +

(1). (4.8)
Equation (4.6) does not represent a convex sum of physically implementable maps for any values
of and but if we choose
(1 )d
2
(4.9)
d
2
, (4.10)
where is the minimum eigenvalue of 1 (P
d
+
), then indeed

1 is completely positive
map in the LOCC form. Note, however, that the map

is not trace preserving and as such it
can be implemented only with a certain probability of success. The minimal parameters and
that satisfy inequalities Eqs. (4.9) and(4.10) are
=
d
4
d
4
+ 1
, (4.11)
=
d
2
d
4
+ 1
. (4.12)
Hence, the SPA

1 can be implemented, by Alice and Bob, using only only LOCC.
4.3 Entanglement detection
One of the applications of the methods presented above is LOCC entanglement detection. For
example, in Bell diagonal states (i.e. two-qubit states with maximally entangled eigenvectors)
the entanglement of formation (or negativity, see below) can be inferred from its spectrum [44].
Hence, our method allows Alice and Bob to determine this entanglement property using only
LOCC. An important subclass of Bell diagonal states are the maximally correlated states, which
rank two states equivalent (up to U
A
U
B
transformations) to mixtures of two pure states,
[
+
) =
1
2
([0)[0) +[1)[1)) and [
) =
1
2
([0)[0) [1)[1)). The one-way distillable entanglement
can be calculated for such states as D
= log 2S(), which is a function solely of the spectrum.

Thus, instead of estimating the seven parameters required to describe maximally correlated
states, we need to estimate only three parameters.
SPAs have also been employed to test for quantum entanglement [35]. Recall that a necessary
and sucient condition for a bi-partite state
AB
to be separable is 1 (
AB
) 0, for all
positive maps [21]. This condition, when considering the SPA

1 on
AB
, is equivalent to
_
1
_
AB

d
2
d
4
+ 1
, (4.13)
where is the minimal eigenvalue of the state [(1 1) (1 )] (P
d
2
+
) [35]. Thus, by esti-
mating the spectrum (or the lowest eigenvalue) of the state
_
1
_
AB
, we can directly detect
quantum entanglement.
In particular, if we choose = T, where T is the partial transposition map, we are also able
to estimate the measure of entanglement [48], ^(
AB
) log [[
T
B
AB
[[ = log(
i
[
i
[). Note that
the computation of entanglement measures (see [49] for review) is known only for very particular
cases. The measure introduced in [48] is valid for any shared bipartite state with a maximally
mixed reduced density operator of at least one sub-system, and it is a function of the spectrum
i
of the partially transposed matrix
T
B
AB
1 T(
AB
). It is worth mentioning that for the
particular case of partial-transposition, a method that bypasses the implementation of a SPA
was developed by Carteret [50]. This method simulates the action of the partial-transposition
map on nonlinear functionals of , allowing the direct estimation of Tr[(
T
A
)
k
], k = 2, 3, ....
4.4 Channel capacities
Another potential application of the methods presented above is the LOCC estimation of channel
capacities. Let a completely positive map : H
d
H
d
represent a quantum channel shared by
Alice and Bob. Estimating the channel capacity can involve either channel tomography or direct
estimation. In the case of tomography Alice prepares a maximally entangled pair of particles in
state P
d
+
and sends one half of the pair to Bob. They now share the state
= [1 ] P
d
+
. (4.14)
From the Jamiolkowski isomorphism [20], this bi-partite state encodes all properties of the
channel , so state tomography on
is eectively channel tomography on . However, given

a bi-partite state
, Alice and Bob can also use the LOCC techniques to directly estimate its
desired properties. For example, we have previously shown that a single qubit channel has
non-zero channel capacity if and only if the maximal eigenvalue of
is strictly greater than

1
2
(see [47] for details). This can be estimated directly via spectrum estimation, which in the case
of two qubits requires three measurements of the type
z
z
as opposed to the 15 parameters
required for the state estimation.
4.5 Summary
In summary, we have demonstrated that both direct spectrum estimations and the structural
physical approximations can be implemented in the case of bi-partite states using only local
operations and classical communication. This leads to more direct, LOCC type, detections
and estimations of quantum entanglement and of some properties of quantum channels. Direct
estimations of specic properties have the natural advantage over the state tomography because
they avoid estimating superuous parameters.
CHAPTER 5
Entanglement Detection in Bosons
D. Jaksch: C. Moura Alves and D. Jaksch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 110501 (2004).
The implementation of almost any quantum information tasks requires precise knowledge on
the entangled states being used. Hence, the development of measurement tools for the char-
acterization and detection of entanglement in physical systems is of great practical importance.
The usual experimental methods to detect entanglement are based on the violation of Bell type
inequalities [3], which are known to be quite inecient, in the sense that they leave many entan-
gled states undetected [19]. Alternatively, one can perform a complete state tomography of the
system [51], but this method requires the preparation of an exponentially large number of copies
of the state and it is redundant, since not all parameters of the density operator are relevant for
the entanglement detection.
In this chapter we present a simple quantum network to detect multipartite entangled states
through an entanglement test more powerful than the Bell-CHSH inequalities for all possible
settings [52], albeit less powerful than full state tomography. The network is realized by coupling
two identically prepared 1D rows of N previously entangled qubits via pairwise beam splitters
(BS), as shown in Fig. 5.1. We also show how to implement this network in an optical lattice
or array of magnetic microtraps loaded with atoms in a Mott insulating state with lling factor
one [53, 54]. Each of the atoms has two long lived internal states a and b which represent the
qubit. The pairwise BS can be implemented by decreasing the horizontal barrier between the
two rows of atoms.
5.1 Nonlinear entanglement inequalities
We start by introducing the set of inequalities used by our network for the detection of multi-
partite entanglement. The information-theoretic approach to separability of bipartite quantum
systems leads to a set of entropic inequalities satised by all separable bipartite states [52]. We
extend these inequalities to separable multipartite states by considering a state
123...N
of N
subsystems. If
123...N
is separable then we can write it as
123...N
=
3
. . .
N
, (5.1)
33
CHAPTER 5. ENTANGLEMENT DETECTION IN BOSONS 34
... ...
... ...
r
r
j
j
BS BS BS BS BS BS BS
1 2 3 4 j N-1 N
x
y
I
II
z
1 2 3 4 j N-1 N
Figure 5.1: Network of BS acting on pairs of identical bosons. The two rows of N atoms, labelled
I and II respectively, are identical, and the state of each of the rows is
123...N
. The total state
of the system is
123...N

123...N
.
where
j
is a state of subsystem j, and

= 1. The purity Tr(

2
123...n
) of
123...n
, where
n 1, 2, ..., N, is smaller or equal than the purity of any of its reduced density operators. For
example,
Tr(
2
123...n
) Tr(
2
123...n1
) Tr(
2
123...n2
) . . . Tr(
2
12
) Tr(
2
1
) 1. (5.2)
This set of nonlinear inequalities provides a set of necessary conditions for separability, i.e. if for
any state any of these inequalities is violated then is entangled. For the case where
123...n
is separable and pure we have that Tr(
2
123...n
) = 1 and the inequalities become equalities.
In order to test Eq. (5.2) we need to be able to determine the non-linear functional Tr(
2
),
where is any of the dierent reduced density operators of
123...n
. The direct estimation of this
functional has already been addressed both in chapter 2 and in [47].
5.2 Estimation of the purities
Let us consider again the network depicted in Fig. 3.2, with input target state . After
implementing the network, we measuring the state of the control qubit. This measurement
projects the state of the target qubits onto its symmetric subspace SS
, if the control qubit

is found in state [0), or onto its antisymmetric subspace A A
, if the control qubit is found

in state [1). Here, S = (1 + V )/2 and A = (1 V )/2 are the symmetric and antisymmetric
projectors, respectively, with V the swap operator previously introduced and 1 the identity
operator. Hence the value of Tr(
2
) is determined from the measurement of the expectation
value, on state , of the symmetric and antisymmetric projectors. We will next show how
a BS transformation eectively projects a pairs of bosons on its symmetric and antisymmetric
subspaces.
5.2.1 Bipartite case
Let us rst consider the simple scenario of one pair of identical bosons, in state
j
j
, impinging
on the BS (as depicted in Fig. 5.1). In order to better grasp the action of the BS, it is convenient
to consider the purication of
j

j
. Writing
j
in its spectral decomposition
j
=
0
[
0
)
0
[ +
1
[
1
)
1
[, (5.3)
with
0
+
1
= 1, [
i
) =
i
a
(j)
k
[vac) +
i
b
(j)
k
[vac), where a
(j)
k
and b
(j)
k
, k = I, II, are the bosonic
destruction operators for particles in site number j = 1 N, internal state a and b, and row
I, II respectively. Setting [
i
[
2
+[
i
[
2
, i = 0, 1, the purication of
j

j
is simply
[) [) =
1
i,j=0
_
i
_
j
[
i
)[
j
), (5.4)
After the BS, the resulting state
j
= |
BS
j

j
|
BS
, where
|
BS
: a
(j)
I,II

a
(j)
I,II
ia
(j)
II,I
2
(5.5)
|
BS
: b
(j)
I,II

b
(j)
I,II
ib
(j)
II,I
2
(5.6)
is the unitary time evolution operator of the BS, becomes
j
=
2
1
[
1
)
1
[ +
2
2
[
2
)
2
[ +
1
2
[
3
)
3
[ +
1
2
[
4
)
4
[, (5.7)
where [
i
) = (
(j)
I

(j)
I
+
(j)
II

(j)
II
)[vac), , a, b, i = 1, 2, 3 are states with double occupancy
spatial modes, i.e are states where the two bosons occupy the same site. As for [
4
) = (a
(j)
I
b
(j)
II

a
(j)
II
b
(j)
I
)[vac), it is a single occupancy spatial mode, i.e each boson occupies a dierent site.
The double occupancy states originate from the symmetric component of
j

j
, while the
single occupancy state originates from the antisymmetric component. Hence the BS eectively
projects
j

j
onto the symmetric (doubly occupied spatial modes) and the antisymmetric
(singly occupied spatial modes) subspaces, with probabilities
P
j
+
= 1
1
2
=
1
2
Tr[(1 +V
(2)
)
j

j
] =
1
2
+
1
2
Tr(
2
j
), (5.8)
P
j
=
1
2
=
1
2
Tr[(1 V
(2)
)
j

j
] =
1
2

1
2
Tr(
2
j
). (5.9)
5.2.2 Multipartite case
We now extend the above two-boson scenario to the general situation (see Fig. 5.1) and consider
two copies of a state of N bosons, undergoing pairwise BS. By correlating the probabilities of
projecting the state of each pair of identical bosons on the symmetric/antisymmetric subspaces,
we can estimate the purity of
123...N
and of any of its reduced density operators. As a more
concrete example, let us consider the probabilities for N = 3. We will label the subsystems
1, 2, 3, respectively:
P
3
=
1
2
3
Tr[
3
i=1
(1
i
V
i
)
123
123
] (5.10)
=
1
8
_
1
1
Tr(
2
1
)
2
Tr(
2
2
)
3
Tr(
2
3
)
1,2
Tr(
2
12
)
1,3
Tr(
2
13
)
2,3
Tr(
2
23
)
1,2,3
Tr(
2
123
)
,
where
i,i
= (
i
)(
i
), i, i
= 1, 2, 3, and V
1,2,3
stand for the swap operator acting on subsystem
1, 2, 3. The purities related to
123
are unequivocally determined by the eight probabilities
P
3
. For example,
Tr(
123
)
2
= P
+
1
+
2
+
3
+P
+
1
3
+P
1
+
2
3
+P
2
+
3
P
3
(5.11)
P
+
1
2
+
3
P
+
1
+
2
3
P
1
+
2
+
3
,
Tr(
12
)
2
= P
+
1
+
2
+
3
+P
+
1
+
2
3
+P
2
+
3
+P
3
P
1
+
2
+
3
(5.12)
P
1
+
2
3
P
+
1
2
+
3
P
+
1
3
,
Tr(
1
)
2
= P
+
1
+
2
+
3
+P
+
1
+
2
3
+P
+
1
2
+
3
+P
+
1
3
P
1
+
2
+
3
(5.13)
P
1
+
2
3
P
2
+
3
P
3
.
Note that the purity of any subset of bosons is given simply by the probabilities of even number
antisymmetric projections (-) minus the probabilities of odd number in the subset, varied over
all projections in the remaining bosons. The expression for the probabilities in Eq. (6.8) can be
straightforwardly extended to states of N bosons, where we consider the expectation values of
the projector

N
i=1
(1
i
V
i
)/2, on
123...N

123...N
. In the N boson case, the 2
N
1 unknown
purities will be determined by the 2
N
1 independent probabilities.
5.3 Realization of the entanglement detection network
The implementation of this entanglement detection scheme in optical lattices and magnetic
microtraps follows four steps:
(i) Creation of two identical copies of the entangled state
123...N
: Each of the two rows
of bosons shown in Fig. 5.1 is realized by a 1D chain of entangled atoms. The entanglement
can e.g. be created by spin selective movement and controlled interactions between atoms as
described in [55, 56] or by entangling beam splitters as investigated in [57]. We assume that any
hopping of atoms between the lattice sites is initially turned o and that the two chains consist
of exactly one atom per lattice site [53, 54].
(ii) Implementation of the pairwise BS: This is achieved by decreasing the potential barrier
between the two rows of atoms. In an optical lattice one can decrease the corresponding laser
intensities [53] while in an array of magnetic microtraps electric/magnetic elds can be switched
to change the barrier height [58]. The dynamics after lowering the potential barrier is described
by the Hamiltonian H = H
BS
+H
int
where (c.f. [53])
H
BS
=
N
j=1
J(a
(j)
I
a
(j)
II
+b
(j)
I
b
(j)
II
+ h.c.) (5.14)
H
int
=
l=I,II
N
j=1
U
a
2
a
(j)
l
a
(j)
l
a
(j)
l
a
(j)
l
+
U
b
2
b
(j)
l
b
(j)
l
b
(j)
l
b
(j)
l
+U
ab
b
(j)
l
b
(j)
l
a
(j)
l
a
(j)
l
. (5.15)
Here H
BS
describes vertical hopping of particles between the two rows with hopping matrix
element J [59] and H
int
gives the on-site interaction of two particles in a lattice site with
internal state dependent interaction strengths U
a
, U
b
and U
ab
. For simplicity we assume that
the interaction terms H
int
can be neglected while the hopping is turned on, i.e. J U, and we
assume U
a
= U
b
= U
ab
= U
1
. Turning on the Hamiltonian H
BS
for the specic time T = /(4J)
1
When J U, an extra phase is introduced during the BS, leading to a dierent time T.
implements the N pairwise BS. This can be seen by solving the Heisenberg equations of motion
and calculating the time evolution of modes a and b:
a(b)
(j)
I
(t) = cos(Jt)a(b)
(j)
I
i sin(Jt)a(b)
(j)
II
a(b)
(j)
II
(t) = cos(Jt)a(b)
(j)
II
i sin(Jt)a(b)
(j)
I
. (5.16)
The N pairwise BS are implemented for the specic time T = /(4J).
(iii) Acquisition of a relative phase between the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of the
wave function: After implementing the BS we let the system evolve according to H
int
for time
. This introduces a phase = U in each doubly occupied lattice site while it has no inuence
on singly occupied lattice sites. Recently it was demonstrated in an interference experiment [60]
that this phase allows the double occupancy sites to be distinguished from single occupancy
ones.
(iv) Turning o the lattice and measuring the resulting interference pattern [60]: After time
the particles are released from the trap such that their wave function dominantly spreads
along the vertical direction x (see Fig. 5.1). The density prole resulting from the pair of atoms
j in state
j
will exhibit interference terms dependent on
2
1
,
2
2
,
1
2
and , so by varying the
interaction phase we can determine
1
2
= P
j
and subsequently P
+
j
. For N pairs of atoms
the density prole will depend on
2
1
,
2
2
,
1
2
, as well as on correlations between the density
proles of dierent pairs of atoms, according to Eq. (6.8). Measuring the density prole for the
N pairs of atoms allows us to determine the dierent joint probabilities P
2
...
N
, so by solving
Eq. (6.8) we can detect multipartite entangled states which violate Eq. (5.2). We note that both
the creation of the two copies of
123...N
and the network can be implemented with current
experimental technology and do not introduce any novel or unknown sources of imperfections.
5.4 Detection of entanglement
The multipartite entropic inequalities dened in Eq. (5.2) detect entanglement in dierent classes
of states, such as maximally entangled states [), Werner states
W
= p[)[ + (1 p)1 [19],
and cluster states, the entanglement resource used in one-way computation [32]. In fact, our
entanglement network does not presuppose any initial knowledge on the state, unlike entangle-
ment witnesses or Bell inequalities, and its detection power is not aected by purity-preserving
local unitaries. For example, our test detects entanglement in Werner states for p > 1/
3,
irrespective of the actual maximally entangled state [) dening the state. It also unequivocally
identies any maximally entangled multipartite state, since these state have the property of
being pure while all related reduced density operators have purity 1/2.
In the specic case of optical lattices, multipartite entanglement was recently generated
experimentally [55, 56], via cold controlled collisions between nearest-neighboring atoms. The
creation procedure worked as follows: (i) Start with a row of N atoms, one atom per lattice
site, all in internal state [0). (ii) Apply a /2 pulse to the atoms, putting each atom in state
([0) +[1))/
2. (iii) Shift the lattice across one lattice site, let them interact for a variable length
of time (the conditional phase acquired by the atoms depends on the interaction time), and
shift the lattice back to its original position. This process generates a class of states [
i
), where
i = 1, ..., n is the total number of atoms in the row,
0 p
0
0.25
0.5
f
2p
(a)
V
(b)
Figure 5.2: In Fig. 4.2(a), we plot the violation V of the inequalities Eq. (5.2), V
1
= Tr(
2
123
)
Tr(
2
12
) (dashed), V
2
= Tr(
2
12
) Tr(
2
1
) (grey) and V
3
= Tr(
2
12
) Tr(
2
2
) (solid), as a function
of the phase , for N = 3 atoms. Whenever V > 0, entanglement is detected by our network.
In Fig. 4.2(b) we plot dierent purities associated with a cluster state of size N, as a function of
. B is any one atom not at an end (dotted), any two atoms not at ends and with at least two
others between them (dashed), any two or more consecutive atoms not including an end (dash-
dotted), any one or more consecutive atoms including one end (solid). The plotted purities are
independent of N.
[
2
) =
1
2
_
[00) +[01) +e
i
[10) +[11)
_
,
[
n
) = cos
_
2
_
[000...0) + sin
_
2
_
[Cluster), (5.17)
where [Cluster) is as dened in [32]. Since the entangled state of the N atoms, generated by
the process described above, is be a pure state, it will violate the inequalities Eq. (5.2), for
any reduced density operator of m < n atoms we might consider. In particular, for n = 2, 3,
whenever the value of is such that the state is entangled, the inequalities in Eq. (5.2) are
always violated, Fig. 5.2(a) [61].
However, if we consider rows of n > 3 atoms, we will not always get violation of Eq. (5.2),
even though the state might be entangled. To understand better the type of states generated
by the controlled collisions, it is worth devoting some attention to the process itself. In this
process, we have that all atoms in the row will interact only with their two nearest-neighbors;
except for the atoms at the extremities, which will interact with only one neighbor. This means
that the state of any equally numbered sets of adjacent atoms, located in dierent parts of the
row, will be the same, as long as these sets do not include the two extremal atoms. If one of the
sets includes and extremal atoms, then its state will be equal to the set that includes the other
extremal atom. So, in order to study the violation of Eq. (5.2) for states of m < n 2 atoms,
it is enough to consider rows of atoms of length m + 2, where the 2 accounts for the extremal
atoms. We plotted the dierent purities associated with a cluster state of size N, as a function
of , and we observed that indeed violation of Eq. (5.2) occurs for certain subsets of atoms.
5.5 Degree of macroscopicity
Our network can also be used to study superpositions of distinct quantum macroscopic states
which are of great importance for the better understanding of fundamental aspects of quantum
theory [62, 63, 64]. There have been several proposals on how to create macroscopic superposi-
tions in systems ranging from superconductors [65], Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) [66, 67]
to opto-mechanical setups [68]. In the case of BECs, the macroscopic superpositions are multi-
partite entangled states of the form
[) =
1
K
([
1
)
N
+[
2
)
N
), (5.18)
where K = 2 +
1
[
2
)
N
+
2
[
1
)
N
and we dene a parameter by the overlap
2
=
1 [
1
[
2
)[
2
. Recently, a measure based on for the eective size S of such superpositions
of distinct macroscopic quantum states was introduced [69]. It compares states of the form [)
with generalized GHZ states of N atoms ([0)
N
+ [1)
N
)/
2, where = 1 for a generalized

GHZ state. The eective size S of the state [) is given by S = N
2
[69].
We can determine S from the measurement of the purity of any reduced density operator of
Eq. (5.18). We derive an explicit formula for the purity
Nm
= Tr(
2
Nm
), where
Nm
is the
density operator
N
= [)[ reduced by m subsystems. We nd
Nm
=
1 +
m
+
N
+ 4
N/2
+
Nm
2(1 +
N/2
)
2
, (5.19)
with = 1
2
= [
1
[
2
)[
2
.
5.5.1 Determination of
Suppose we create two identical BECs, each in state
N
, wait for a time t
c
to let their density
operators be inelastically reduced via single particle loss processes to
Nm
Nm
, and then
let the two BECs go through a BS like transformation. As an aside we note that the reduced
density operators emerging from multi particle collisions not only depend on , but also on
[
1
), [
2
) and thus could be used to gain further insight into the properties of the state. The
BS can be implemented either through collisional interactions between the atoms in two arms
of a spatial interferometer [70], or by rst turning both BECs into Mott insulator states [53]
trapping them in an optical lattice and then switching on H
BS
. We only consider the latter
method since it corresponds more directly to the situation of Fig. 5.1. The loss processes which
reduce the density operators
N
are stochastic so in general m ,= m
which means that only

N n, where n = maxm, m
, pairs of atoms will undergo pairwise BS in the lattice. Since

only density proles of pairs of vertical sites with two atoms contribute to the interference
pattern, measuring the collective density prole will determine Tr(
2
Nn
). Plots of dierent
Nn
for an initial number of N = 300 atoms as a function of are presented in Fig. 5.2(b).
The dependence of these curves on N is very weak but for constant the values of
Nn
quickly
tend towards 1/2 as n increases. Therefore from measuring the density prole the determination
of from
Nn
is best done for small n 15. For a given particle loss rate the average value of n
after time t
c
will be known and can be found by averaging over several runs of the experiment
performed under identical initial conditions.
We note that this measurement is considerably simpler than those in the previous entangle-
ment detection schemes, since we do not require the ability to distinguish between individual
pairs of bosons but only need to nd the overall probability of projecting on the symmetric and
antisymmetric subspaces. If the experimental setup allows to determine the number of pairwise
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.5
0.75
1
Purity (N=300)
e
n=299
n=293
n=286
n=280
Figure 5.3: Plot of the purity
Nm
for m = 1 (solid black), m = 7 (dashed black), m = 14
(solid grey) and m = 20 (dashed grey), as a function of , for N = 300 atoms.
beam splitters N n, the measurement can be performed in one run and inelastic processes are
not necessary if one can measure the collective density prole associated with a subset of the
pairs of atoms.
5.6 Summary
In summary, we have presented and investigated a simple quantum network that detects multi-
partite entanglement, requiring only two identical copies of the quantum state and pairwise BS
between the constituents of each copy. We have shown how the network can be implemented in
optical lattices and magnetic microtraps, using current technology. As examples of its power we
have applied the network to detect entanglement and imperfections in cluster states and shown
that it also can be used to characterize macroscopic superposition states.
CHAPTER 6
Entropic inequalities
Research on ecient experimental methods for detection, verication, and estimation of quan-
tum entanglement if of great practical importance. However, despite a remarkable progress in
the eld, entanglement still eludes both a rigorous mathematical classication and an ecient
experimental detection. In particular, the most popular experimental methods of detecting en-
tanglement in photons are based on inecient tests, such as Bells inequalities, which leave many
entangled states undetected. In this chapter we present a simple experimental technique that
allows to test for entanglement of polarized photons. The test is more powerful than all the
Bell-CHSH inequalities taken together [52]. The experimental implementation employs photon
bunching and anti-bunching eects [71].
Consider a source which generates pairs of photons. The photons in each pair y apart from
each other to two distant locations A and B. Let us assume that the polarization of each pair
is described by some density operator , which is unknown to us. Our task is to determine
whether represents an entangled state or not. From a mathematical point of view we need to
assert whether can be written as a convex sum of product states [19],
=
i
p
i
[
i
)
i
[ [
i
)
i
[, (6.1)
where [
i
) and [
i
) are the polarization states of individual photons in the pair, and
i
p
i
= 1.
If we were given a precise description of then we could benet from a number of mathematical
tests that check for the existence of the decomposition Eq. (6.1) [72]. Of course, if we can
measure polarizations of suciently many photons we can estimate the state , but as long as
our sole concern is one particular property of the state, namely whether it is entangled or not,
this is a very wasteful procedure.
There are recent proposals for direct tests of quantum entanglement, which are as strong as
their corresponding mathematical tests [35], however, they rely on technology which is not yet
available. Thus experimentalists are eectively left with the Bell-CHSH [24] inequalities or, more
generally, with entanglement witnesses [73] as the method of choice. This is, to some extend, a
heritage of the Einstein Podolsky Rosen programme [2], where the primary motivation was the
refutation of the local hidden variables theories rather than detecting quantum entanglement.
In fact, there are many entangled states that cannot be detected by any of the Bell-CHSH
inequalities.
41
CHAPTER 6. ENTROPIC INEQUALITIES 42
6.1 Entropic inequalities
Following Schrodinger remarks on relations between the information content of the total system
and its sub-systems [1], a number of entropic inequalities have been derived. These inequalities
are satised by all separable states [52, 74, 75]. The simplest one is based on the purity measure
Tr(
2
) and can be rewritten as
Tr(
2
A
) Tr(
2
),
Tr(
2
B
) Tr(
2
), (6.2)
where
A
and
B
are the reduced density operators pertaining to individual photons. The
inequalities above are non-linear functions of density operators and are known to be stronger
than all Bell-CHSH inequalities [52]. There are entangled states which are not detected by the
Bell-CHSH inequalities but which are detected by the inequality in Eq. (6.2).
6.1.1 Graphical comparison between Bell-CHSH and entropic inequalities
There is a succinct way to write all possible two-qubit Bell-CHSH inequalities [52]. We start by
writing the density operator in the basis of the Pauli operators
i
, i = 1, 2, 3,
=
1
4
_
_
11 11 +a 11 + 11 b +
i,j
T
ij

i
j
_
_
. (6.3)
We can always choose local axes such that the correlation matrix T
ij
is diagonal i.e. the state
is described only by 9 parameters, namely, the local Bloch vectors a and b, and the correlations
t
i
= Tr(
i
i
), such that 1 t
i
1. Please note that we require to be a positive matrix
thus only some of these nine parameters specify a density operator. In this parametrization
the Bell-CHSH inequalities for all possible settings correspond to the set of the following three
inequalities [76]:
t
2
1
+t
2
2
1,
t
2
1
+t
2
3
1,
t
2
2
+t
2
3
1. (6.4)
In the parameter space spanned by t
1
, t
2
and t
3
the points satisfying all three inequalities form a
solid common to three right circular cylinders of unit radii intersecting at right angles. The solid
is also known as the Steinmetz solid [77], and has volume 8(2
2) 4.68629. The Steinmetz

solid contains all separable states but also some entangled states.
Using the same notation we can rewrite the two entropic inequalities Eq. (6.2) as
t
2
1
+t
2
2
+t
2
3
1 [a
2
b
2
[, (6.5)
where a and b are the lengths of the vectors a and b, respectively. They represents a ball of radius
_
1 [a
2
b
2
[. The ball contains all separable states and is itself contained in the Steinmetz
solid. Its volume is at most 4/3 4.18879 (for the unit radius). Thus for all admissible values
of parameters t
1
, t
2
and t
3
whenever the entropic inequalities Eq. (6.2) are satised, all of the
Bell-CHSH inequalities Eq. (6.4) are also satised. The reverse does not hold. Thus the entropic
inequalities are strictly stronger then all of the Bell-CHSH inequalities. This is illustrated in
Fig. 6.1.
The ball corresponding to the entropic inequalities contains, apart from all separable states,
some entangled states. In a particular case of states with the maximally mixed reduced density
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.5
-1
-1
0
-1
0.5
-1
1
t
1
t
2
t
3
Figure 6.1: A graphical comparison of the Bell-CHSH inequalities with the entropic inequali-
ties (6.2). All points inside the ball satisfy the entropic inequalities and all points within the
Steinmetz solid satisfy all possible Bell-CHSH inequalities. NB not all the points in the outlining
cube represent quantum states.
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
-1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0.5
-1
t
1
t
2
t
3
Figure 6.2: In a special case of locally depolarized states, represented by points within the
tetrahedron, the set of separable states can be characterized exactly as an octahedron. All
states in the ball but not in the octahedron are entangled states which are not detectable by the
entropic inequalities.
operators, also known as locally depolarized states (a = b = 0), we can provide a simple
geometrical relationship between the set of separable states and those detected as entangled by
the entropic inequalities. Following the same notation as above we rst represent the class of
locally depolarized states (up to local rotations of the axes) by the tetrahedron spanned by the
vertices [-1,-1,-1], [1,1,-1], [1,-1,1], [-1,1,1]. All locally depolarized and separable states form the
octahedron dened by the inequality
[t
1
[ +[t
2
[ +[t
3
[ 1. (6.6)
The octahedron does not contain any entangled states. Thus in the case of locally depolarized
states we have a clear classication: octahedron corresponds to all separable states, all states
in the ball but not in the octahedron are the entangled states which are not detectable by the
entropic inequalities, all states in the Steinmetz solid but not in the ball are entangled states
detectable by the entropic inequalities but not detectable by any of the Bell-CHSH inequalities.
All the points outside the outlining tetrahedron do not represent quantum states. This is
illustrated in Fig. 6.2.
It is quite remarkable that while the above reasoning has been performed for a specic
basis, in which with the correlation matrix is diagonal, the experimental test of the entropic
inequalities involves only a single setting and provides more information than all the settings of
the Bell-CHSH inequalities.
Figure 6.3: An outline of our experimental set-up which allows to test for the violation of the
entropic inequalities.
6.2 Experimental proposal
Our experimental proposal for testing the entropic inequalities is based on the phenomenon
of bunching and anti-bunching of photons. If two identical photons are incident on two dif-
ferent input ports of a beam-splitter they will bunch, i.e. they will emerge together in one of
the two, randomly chosen, output ports. More precisely, all pairs of photons (in general all
pairs of bosons) with a symmetric polarization state will bunch and all pairs of photons with
an antisymmetric polarization state will anti-bunch i.e. photons will emerge separately in two
dierent output ports of the beam-splitter. A beautiful experimental observation of this eect
was reported by Hong, Ou, and Mandel over fteen years ago [71], and more recently by Di
Giuseppe et al [78].
Consider an experimental set up in outlined in Fig. 6.3. Sources S
1
and S
2
emit pairs of
polarization-entangled photons. The entangled pairs are emitted into spatial modes 1 and 3, and
2 and 4. One photon from each pair is directed into location A and the other into location B. At
the two locations photons impinge on beam-splitters and are then detected by photo-detectors.
The beam-splitters at A and B, as long as the photons from two dierent pairs arrive within the
coherence time, eectively project on the symmetric and anti-symmetric subspace in the four
dimensional Hilbert space associated with the polarization degrees of freedom.
Let us consider four possible detections in this experiment: bunching at A and bunching
at B, bunching at A and anti-bunching at B, anti-bunching at A and bunching at B, and
nally, anti-bunching at A and anti-bunching at B. Anti-bunching at A (B) manifest itself in a
coincidence detection in the two detectors at A (B). This is a preferable method of detection in
all cases where photo-detectors are unable to dierentiate between dierent numbers of photons.
However, more recent experiments can handle both bunching and anti-bunching detection [78].
Bunching at A (B) generates a click in one of the photo-detectors at A (B) but the click
is due to two photons arriving together at this detector. Let the probabilities associated with
the four outcomes be, respectively, p
00
, p
01
, p
10
, and p
11
(0 stands for bunching and 1 for anti-
bunching). They correspond to probabilities of projecting the state of two pairs of photons
on symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces, e.g. p
01
= TrP
S
P
A
etc, where P
S
and P
A
are the corresponding projectors. In terms of the entropic inequalities we have that, as shown
in the previous chapter,
Tr(
2
A
) = p
00
+p
01
p
10
p
11
p
00
+p
11
p
01
p
10
= Tr(
2
),
Tr(
2
B
) = p
00
+p
10
p
01
p
11
p
00
+p
11
p
01
p
10
= Tr(
2
). (6.7)
Hence the inequality Eq.(6.2) can be rewritten in a new and simple, form,
p
01
p
11
p
10
p
11
(6.8)
6.2.1 Realistic sources of entangled photons
Currently available sources of entangled photons are probabilistic. Pairs of maximally entangled
photons are generated when a UV laser pulse passes through a BBO crystal. This process,
known as parametric down-conversion, is not an ideal source of entangled photons. It generates
a superposition of vacuum, two-entangled photons, four-entangled photons, etc. Hence, a four-
photon coincidence in our set-up may be caused by two entangled pairs from two dierent sources
but also by four photons from one source and no photons from the other, as shown in Fig. 6.4,
moreover, the three scenarios are equally likely. In order to discriminate unwelcome four-photon
coincidences we can use phase marking - for certain values of the phase dierence between
the two pumping beams we register only coincidences that were not corrupted by the spurious
emissions.
The description can be made more quantitative by analysing an eective Hamiltonian de-
scribing entanglement generation in two coherently pumped BBO crystals,
H = (K +K
) +(Le
i
+L
e
i
). (6.9)
Here is a coupling constant, proportional to the amplitude of the pumping beams,
is the relative phase shift between the beams introduced by the tilted quartz-plate, and K =
a
1H
a
3V
a
1V
a
3H
and L = a
2H
a
4V
a
2V
a
4H
are the linear combination of annihilation operators
describing the down-converted modes. The subscripts 1, 2, 3, 4 label the spatial modes and H,
V stand for horizontal and vertical polarizations. The four-photon term of a quantum state
generated by this Hamiltonian can be written as
[) =
e
i
10
(a
1H
a
3V
a
1V
a
3H
)(a
2H
a
4V
a
2V
a
4H
)[vac)
+
1
10
_
1
2
a
2
1H
a
2
3V
a
1H
a
1V
a
3V
a
3H
+
1
2
a
2
1V
a
2
3H
_
[ vac) (6.10)
+
e
2i
10
_
1
2
a
2
2H
a
2
4V
a
2H
a
2V
a
4V
a
4H
+
1
2
a
2
2V
a
2
4H
_
[ vac) ,
where the rst term describes the desired two polarization-entangled pairs, each in the singlet
state [ H) [ V ) [ V ) [ H), whereas the last two terms describe unwelcome four-photon states
generated by an emission from only one of the two crystals (see Fig. 6.4).
The bunching and anti-bunching coincidences for the state Eq. (6.11) are given by
Figure 6.4: Possible emissions leading to four-photons coincidences. The central diagram shows
the desired emission of two independent entangled pairs one by source S
1
and one by source
S
2
. The top and the bottom diagrams show unwelcome emissions of four photons by one of the
two sources.
p
ab
= p
ba
=
3
20
(1 cos 2), p
aa
=
1
4
+
3
20
cos 2. (6.11)
In order to recover the coincidences associated with the desired singlet state we notice that
for = 0 and = /2 there are no spurious contributions to p
ab
= p
ba
and p
aa
respectively. For
these two phase settings the symmetric and antisymmetric superposition of the last two terms
in Eq. (6.11)lead to additional symmetries at the input of the beam-splitters and cancels out
the unwelcome outcomes. The use of symmetry properties of photonic states in post-selection of
unwanted states, by letting them impinge in beam-splitter, was rst observed by Shih-Alley [79],
in an experiment similar in spirit to the experiment performed by Hong, Ou, and Mandel.
Let us stress that these inequalities involve nonlinear functions of a quantum state. Their
power exceeds all linear tests such as the Bell-CHSH inequalities with all possible settings and
entanglement witnesses. In fact, in a dierent context, our result can be viewed as the rst
experimental proposal of a non-linear entanglement witness. The nonlinear inequalities Eq. (6.8)
can be tested with the current state of the art technology. In fact, an experiment following our
proposed setup was recently realized [80].
CHAPTER 7
Conclusion
In this thesis I have presented the main research results obtained during my doctorate. The
main topic of my research was the detection of entanglement in physical systems. Chapter 1 and
Chapter 2 were the introductory chapters, where I motivated and introduced the main concepts
underlying my research.
Chapter 3 addressed the problem of estimating nonlinear functionals Tr
k
, k = 1, 2, ... of a
general density operator . These functionals, of which the purity Tr
2
is an example, are known
to be relevant quantities both in entanglement detection and in the characterization of . In
the standard estimation methods the functional is estimated from the classical description of
the quantum state, i.e full state tomography is initially performed yielding the density operator
matrix from which the functional is calculated. This procedure is both resource demanding and
redundant, since a number of state parameters exponential in the dimension of is measured
in the state tomography, and yet we are only interested in estimating one quantity. However,
the estimation method I together with collaborators proposed overcomes the redundancy of the
standard methods and in fact allows the direct estimation of each of the nonlinear functionals.
Our method uses an interferometric network where a qubit undergoes single-particle interfer-
ometry and acts as a control on a swap operation between m copies of , i.e the swap occurs
conditional on the logical state of the qubit. By measuring the probability of nding the con-
trol qubit in either 0 or 1, we directly estimate Tr
m
. From the knowledge of Tr
m
for
m = 1, ..., d, where d is the dimension of the quantum state, we can determine the spectrum of
and other important quantities such as the von Neumann entropy.
Chapter 4 extended the above result to a more general quantum information scenario, known
as LOCC. In this scenario we consider two distant parties A and B that share several copies
of a given bipartite quantum state
AB
and are only allowed to perform local operations and
communicate classically, i.e each party can only act on its part/subsystem of the total state and
send classical information, e.g. the outcome of a measurement. The LOCC setup is particularly
relevant to information tasks where entangled states shared between the parties are used as a
communication resource. The extension of our estimation method to the LOCC setup works as
follows: each party implements the interferometric network earlier described on their respective
set of halves
A
,
B
of the quantum state, measures the logical state of the respective control
qubit and then correlates the results using classical communication. From the correlated results
A and B estimate not only Tr
m
A
, Tr
m
B
but also Tr
m
AB
, i.e from performing just local operations
in the individual subsystems and communicating classically the results, A and B are able to
49
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION 50
estimate nonlinear functionals of the bipartite state.
Chapter 5 investigated entanglement criteria based on nonlinear functionals of , e.g if a
given bipartite state is separable, then Tr
k
AB
Tr
k
, = A, B and k = 2, 3, ..., that could be

implemented in a simple, experimentally feasible way. Even though our interferometric network
directly estimates Tr
k
for any k, implementing it experimentally requires the ability to perform
controlled swap operations on sets of physical copies of , which unfortunately is not within
practical reach of current technology. Nevertheless we introduced a signicant experimental
simplication, based of particle statistics eects, for the simpler inequality involving the purity
Tr
2
. This inequality is in fact strictly stronger than the currently employed Bells inequalities.
Our method uses the fact that measuring the purity of is tantamount to measuring the proba-
bility of projecting the state of two copies of in its symmetric or antisymmetric subspaces. For
bosons, the projection on these subspaces is simply accomplished by a beam-splitter transforma-
tion, after which the symmetric component of
AB
corresponds to two bosons in the same spatial
mode while the antisymmetric component corresponds to each boson in a dierent spatial mode.
We extended the nonlinear inequalities and the purity measurement to the multipartite setting
and we proposed an experimental realization with neutral atoms stored in optical lattices. In
this case the experimental setup consists of two identical rows of N atoms each in a multipartite
entangled state
123...N
that undergo pairwise beam-splitter transformations. The beam-splitter
is implemented by lowering the potential barrier between the pairs of atoms, allowing them
to tunnel between the two sites. We also proposed a method to evaluate experimentally the
macroscopicity of a given quantum superposition of states [).
Chapter 6 investigated the experimental realization of the nonlinear entanglement test in
photonic systems. We considered two copies of a polarization entangled pair of photons
AB
.
The experimental setup for entanglement detection is quite simple: the two respective halves
A
impinge on beam-splitter A and the two halves
B
impinge on beam-splitter B, after which
the number of photons in each of the four spatial modes is counted. From the probabilities of
detecting one or two photons at each mode we directly estimate Tr
2
A
, Tr
2
B
and Tr
2
AB
and
check for the violation of the nonlinear inequalities. We analyzed the case where the source
of entangled photons is imperfect, and we modied the experimental procedure to take the
imperfection into account. This experiment was recently realized at Elsag SPA, Italy [80], and
it successfully detected the singlet state.
Bibliography
[1] E. Schrodinger, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 31, 555
(1935)
[2] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Physical Review 47, 777 (1935)
[3] J. S. Bell, Physics 1 195, (1964)
[4] A.K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)
[5] C.H. Bennet et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)
[6] J.J. Bollinger, W.M. Itano, D.J. Wineland, and D.J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 54,
4649 (1996)
[7] V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature, 412, 417 (2001).
[8] P.W. Shor, Proceedings, 37th Anual Symposium on Fundamentals of Computer
Science, 56, IEEE Press (1996)
[9] M. Mosca, A.K. Ekert, quant-ph/9903071
[10] A. Aspect, P. Grangier, G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982)
[11] A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 240401 (2002)
[12] D. Deutsch, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 400 97 (1985)
[13] A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996)
[14] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 223, 1 (1996)
[15] E. Kashe, C. Moura Alves, quant-ph/0404062
[16] P. Hyllus, C. Moura Alves, D. Bruss, C. Macchiavello, Phys. Rev. A 70, 032316
(2004)
[17] S. C. Clark, C. Moura Alves, D. Jaksch, quant-ph/0406150
[18] M. Nielsen, I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cam-
bridge University Press (2000)
51
BIBLIOGRAPHY 52
[19] R.F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989)
[20] A. Jamiolkowski, Rep. Math. Phys. 3, 275 (1972)
[21] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 223, 8 (1996)
[22] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 574 (1997)
[23] P. Horodecki, quant-ph/0111036
[24] J.F. Clauser, M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, R.A. Holt, Physical Review Letters 23,
880 (1969)
[25] B. Terhal, Phys. Lett. A 271, 319 (2000)
[26] M. Lewenstein, B. Kraus, I.J. Cirac, P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 62, 052310
(2000)
[27] O. G uhne et al., Phys. Rev. A 66, 062305 (2002)
[28] O. Guehne, G. Toth, P. Hyllus, H. J. Briegel, quant-ph/0410059
[29] G. Toth, Physical Review A 71, 010301 (2005)
[30] A. Ambainis, H. Buhrman, Y. Dodis, H. Roehrig, quant-ph/0304112
[31] W. D ur, G. Vidal, J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000)
[32] H.-J. Briegel, R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 910 (2001)
[33] D. Deutsch, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 425, 73 (1989)
[34] D. Deutsch, A. Barenco, A.K. Ekert, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 449, 669 (1995)
[35] P. Horodecki, A. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 127902 (2002).
[36] A. Barenco, et al., Phys. Rev. A 52, 3457 (1995).
[37] E. Sjoqvist, A. K. Pati, A. K. Ekert, J. S. Anandan, M. Ericsson, D. K. L. Oi,
V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2845 (2000)
[38] S. Pancharatnam. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Science, XLIV(5), 247
(1956).
[39] R. Filip, quant-ph/0108119
[40] M. Keyl, R.F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 64, 52311 (2001)
[41] P. E. Gill,W. Murray, M. H.Wright, Practical Optimization (Academic Press,
Inc., London, 1981)
[42] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4206 (1999)
[43] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 433 (2000)
[44] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin and W. K. Wooters, Phys. Rev.
A 54, 3824 (1996)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 53
[45] E. Fredkin and T. Tooli, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 219 (1982)
[46] The physics of quantum information : quantum cryptography, quantum telepor-
tation, quantum computation. Springer, New York, 2000. Dirk Bouwmeester,
Artur K. Ekert, Anton Zeilinger (eds.).
[47] A. K. Ekert, C. Moura Alves, D. K. L Oi, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, L. C.
Kwek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 217901 (2002)
[48] R. F. Werner, G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)
[49] M. Horodecki, Quantum Information and Computation 1, 3 (2001)
[50] H. A. Carteret, Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 94(4), 040502 (2005)
[51] A.S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statiscal Aspects of Quantum Theory (North Hol-
land, Amsterdam, 1982)
[52] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Physics Letters A, 210, 377 (1996)
[53] D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J.I. Cirac, C.W. Gardiner, P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81,
3108 (1998)
[54] M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T.W. Haensch, I. Bloch, Nature 415, 39
(2002)
[55] O. Mandel et al., Nature 425, 937 (2003)
[56] D. Jaksch, H.-J. Briegel, J.I. Cirac, C.W. Gardiner, P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.
82, 1975 (1999)
[57] U. Dorner, P. Fedichev, D. Jaksch, M. Lewenstein, P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.
91, 073601 (2003)
[58] T. Calarco et al., quant-ph/9905013
[59] J. Pachos, P.L. Knight, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 107902 (2003)
[60] A. Widera et al., cond-mat/0310719
[61] C. Moura Alves, D. Jaksch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 110501 (2004)
[62] C. A. Sackett et al., Nature 404, 256 (2000)
[63] A. Rauschenbeutel et al., Science 288, 2024 (2000)
[64] J.S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, New York, (1987)
[65] A.J. Leggett, A. Garg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985)
[66] J.I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, K. Molmer, P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 57, 1208 (1998)
[67] A. Micheli, D. Jaksch, J.I. Cirac, P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 67, 13607 (2003)
[68] W. Marshall, C. Simon, R. Penrose, D. Bouwmeester, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 130401
(2003)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 54
[69] W. D ur, C. Simon, J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 210402 (2002)
[70] U.V. Poulsen, K. Molmer, Phys. Rev. A 65, 033613 (2002)
[71] C.K. Hong, Z.Y. Ou, L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987)
[72] G. Alber, T. Beth, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, M. Rottler, H. We-
infurter, R. F. Werner, and A. Zeilinger. Quantum information: an introduction
to basic theoretical concepts and experiments., volume 173 of Springer Tracts in
Modern Physics
[73] B.M. Terhal, M.M. Wolf, A.C. Doherty, Physics Today 56, 46 (2003)
[74] B.M. Terhal, Journal of Theoretical Computer Science 287, 313 (2002)
[75] K.G. Vollbrecht, M.M. Wolf, quant-ph/0202058
[76] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki M. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 200, 340 (1995)
[77] D. Wells. The Penguin dictionary of curious and interesting geometry, p.118.
Penguin, London, (1991)
[78] G. Di Giuseppe, M. Atature, M.D. Shaw, A.V. Sergienko, B.E.A. Saleh, M.C.
Teich, A.J. Miller, S.W. Nam, J. Martinis, Phys. Rev. A 68, 063817 (2003)
[79] Y.H. Shih, C.O. Alley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2921 (1988)
[80] F.A. Bovino, G. Castagnolli, A.K. Ekert, P. Horodecki, C. Moura Alves, A.V.
Sergienko, submitted

Carolina Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Carolina Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carolina Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Detection of quantum entanglement

d. The output state

Y for some Y [18]. Many inequalities regarding pos-

= 1. This fact means that in order to test

U[0) = 11. (2.34)

that takes density operators to density operators has the following

= L() is positive and

will be a positive operator (necessary

to be a density operator). But why must L be completely positive? The answer

encodes all the properties of the superoperator , as from it we can learn

. It is therefore very dicult to extract practical entanglement

2, which is in clear violation of Eq.(2.47) and implies that the state is

2 and the target qubit is in state [0).

2. The qubit then acquires the

2, which is equivalent the the action of a phase gate 2(

). Thus this global optimization problem

2, and the imaginary part by choosing [) = ([n) +i[k))/

2 (spin +x) and ([0) +i[1)) /

2 (spin +y), i.e. the three components of the

= 1+A is positive if is the

d. The output state

that provides a complete characterization of the channel.

allows us to determine the action of on

CHAPTER 3. DIRECT ESTIMATION OF DENSITY OPERATORS 27

over the qubit that went through

, is two-way distillable i the operator

has a negative eigenvalue

has the maximal eigenvalue greater than

() > 0 because two-way distillable entanglement, which is non-zero i given state

= log 2S(), which is a function solely of the spectrum.

is eectively channel tomography on . However, given

is strictly greater than

= 1. The purity Tr(

, if the control qubit

, if the control qubit is found

2, where = 1 for a generalized

which means that only

, pairs of atoms will undergo pairwise BS in the lattice. Since

2) 4.68629. The Steinmetz

, = A, B and k = 2, 3, ..., that could be

You might also like