Convertibility between two-qubit states using stochastic local quantum operations assisted by classical communication

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 77, Issue 1, 2008, Pages

  Liang, Yeong Cherng ^a   Masanes, Lluís ^b   Doherty, Andrew C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NETWORK PROTOCOLS; QUANTUM THEORY; RANDOM PROCESSES; SET THEORY;

PAULI GROUP; POSITIVE MAPS; STOCHASTIC LOCAL OPERATIONS ASSISTED BY CLASSICAL COMMUNICATION (SLOCC);

EQUATIONS OF STATE;

EID: 38549132379     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.012332     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. L. Gurvits, Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, New York, 2003), pp. 10-19
2. L. M. Ioannou, Quantum Inf. Comput. QICUAW 1533-7146 7, 335 (2007).
3. A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413 77, 1413 (1996)
4. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A PYLAAG 0375-9601 10.1016/S0375-9601(96)00706-2 223, 1 (1996).
5. R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4277 40, 4277 (1989).
6. M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.59.4206 59, 4206 (1999).
7. K. G. H. Vollbrecht and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.062307 64, 062307 (2001).
8. T. Eggeling and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.042111 63, 042111 (2001).
9. M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83. 436 83, 436 (1999).
10. G. Vidal, J. Mod. Opt. JMOPEW 0950-0340 10.1080/095003400148268 47, 355 (2000).
11. W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062314 62, 062314 (2000).
12. G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1046 83, 1046 (1999).
13. C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.53.2046 53, 2046 (1996).
14. A. Kent, N. Linden, and S. Massar, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.2656 83, 2656 (1999).
15. L.-X. Cen, F.-L. Li, and S.-Y. Zhu, Phys. Lett. A PYLAAG 0375-9601 10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00611-3 275, 368 (2000)
16. L.-X. Cen, N.-J. Wu, F.-H. Yang, and J.-H. An, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.052318 65, 052318 (2002).
17. S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5022 78, 5022 (1997).
18. F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, and B. DeMoor, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.010101 64, 010101 (R) (2001).
19. Obviously, unique up to local unitary transformations.
20. Maximal, in the sense that no SLOCC transformations can bring the state to another one with higher entanglement of formation.
21. F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, and B. DeMoor, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032308 65, 032308 (2002).
22. Ll. Masanes, Y.-C. Liang, and A. C. Doherty, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/ 0703268.
23. S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2619 74, 2619 (1995)
24. N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A PYLAAG 0375-9601 10.1016/S0375-9601(96)80001-6 210, 151 (1996).
25. J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880 23, 880 (1969)
26. J. S. Bell, Foundation of Quantum Mechanics. Proceedings of the International School of Physics 'Enrico Fermi', Course IL (Academic, New York, 1971), pp. 171-181.
27. Their separability can be veirfied, for example, by writing these operators in full in the product basis via Eq. 4 and showing that they admit convex decomposition in terms of separable states. Alternatively, via the Choi-Jamiołkowski isomorphism that will be discussed later in Sec. 3 and the remarks made towards the end of Sec. 3, one can also see that these matrices correspond to separable states.
28. B. Grünbaum, Convex Polytopes (Springer, New York, 2003).
29. This software package, which stands for POlyhedron Representation Transformation Algorithm, is available at http://www.zib.de/Optimization/ Software/Porta/
30. A. C. Doherty, P. A. Parrilo, and F. M. Spedalieri, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.187904 88, 187904 (2002)
31. A. C. Doherty, P. A. Parrilo, and F. M. Spedalieri, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.022308 69, 022308 (2004).
32. L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, SIAM Rev. SIREAD 0036-1445 10.1137/1038003 38, 49 (1996)
33. S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization (Cambridge, New York, 2004).
34. http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/qisci/yerng/
35. Note that to verify Z2 against Eq. 9, one should also rewrite Zw,2 obtained in Eq. 8 in the appropriate tensor-product basis such that Zw,2 acts on H A′ H A″ H B′ H B″.
36. A. Jamiołkowski, Rep. Math. Phys. RMHPBE 0034-4877 10.1016/0034-4877(72)90011-0 3, 275 (1972)
37. M. D. Choi, Linear Algebr. Appl. LAAPAW 0024-3795 10.1016/0024-3795(75) 90075-0 10, 285 (1975)
38. V. P. Belavkin and P. Staszewski, Rep. Math. Phys. RMHPBE 0034-4877 10.1016/0034-4877(86)90039-X 24, 49 (1986).
39. E. M. Rains, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/9707002.
40. V. Vedral and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.57.1619 57, 1619 (1998).
41. Following Kraus' work on CPM, this specific form of the CPM is also known as a Kraus decomposition of the CPM, with each Ai Bi in the sum conventionally called the Kraus operator associated with the CPM.
42. K. Kraus, State, Effects, and Operations (Springer, Berlin, 1983)
43. K. Kraus, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) APNYA6 0003-4916 10.1016/0003-4916(71)90108-4 64, 311 (1971).
44. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1070 59, 1070 (1999).
45. J. I. Cirac, W. Dür, B. Kraus, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.544 86, 544 (2001).
46. The ρE derived from G0 in Eq. 6 is an example of this sort. In fact, in this case, if the input state has no support on Π1 nor Π2, the map always outputs the zero matrix.
47. Since the mapping from any ρ Ps to a separable CPM via Eq. 13 is only defined up to a positive constant, for the subsequent discussion, we might as well consider the cone generated by Ps.
48. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.1888 60, 1888 (1999).
49. Strictly, the inequality 23 is only valid when λ3 λ4. When λ3 = λ4, F2 degenerates into an edge of the polytope Pλ. If λ1 = λ2, F2 collapses into a single point λ = λ 12 = λ (34).
50. Within TE, 1-2 λ2 -2 λ3 =0 only when λ = λ 12 and λ (23) = λ 13. In this case, F3 degenerates into the line joining λ 12 and λ 13.
51. By this, of course, we are referring only to the states given in Eq. 31 that are originally of rank 3, and which becomes rank 2 upon quasidistillation. The states given in Eq. 31 that are of rank 2 get quasidistilled to the singlet state and so the process is clearly reversible in this case.