Numerical evaluation of convex-roof entanglement measures with applications to spin rings

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 80, Issue 4, 2009, Pages

  Röthlisberger, Beat ^a   Lehmann, Jörg ^a   Loss, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONVERGENCE PROPERTIES; COUPLED SPINS; ENTANGLED STATE; ENTANGLEMENT MEASURE; ENTANGLEMENT MONOTONES; FINITE TEMPERATURES; HEISENBERG EXCHANGE; IN-PLANE FIELD GEOMETRY; LOW TEMPERATURES; MAGNETIC FIELD CONFIGURATIONS; NUMERICAL ALGORITHMS; NUMERICAL EVALUATIONS; NUMERICAL TESTS; OPTIMAL VALUES; ROTATIONAL SYMMETRIES; SPIN RINGS; SPIN-S SYSTEMS;

MAGNETIC FIELDS; QUANTUM OPTICS; ROOFS; SPIN DYNAMICS;

CONVERGENCE OF NUMERICAL METHODS;

EID: 70349909616     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.042301     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. E. Schrödinger, Naturwiss. 23, 823 (1935). 10.1007/BF01491914
2. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935). 10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
3. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000).
4. D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 439, 553 (1992). 10.1098/rspa.1992.0167
5. R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 454, 339 (1998). 10.1098/rspa.1998.0164
6. L. K. Grover, Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing 1996, p. 212.
7. P. Shor, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1484 (1997). 10.1137/S0097539795293172
8. M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 1 (2007).
9. J. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).
10. R. Ursin, Nat. Phys. 3, 481 (2007). 10.1038/nphys629
11. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 223, 1 (1996). 10.1016/S0375-9601(96)00706-2
12. B. Terhal, Phys. Lett. A 271, 319 (2000). 10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00401-1
13. C. Emary and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032317 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.032317
14. O. Gühne, M. Reimpell, and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 110502 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.110502
15. J. Eisert, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and K. M. R. Audenaert, New J. Phys. 9, 46 (2007). 10.1088/1367-2630/9/3/046
16. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996). 10.1103/PhysRevA.54.3824
17. V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 61, 052306 (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevA.61.052306
18. F. Mintert, M. Kuå, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 260502 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.260502
19. D. A. Meyer and N. R. Wallach, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4273 (2002). 10.1063/1.1497700
20. A. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. A 62, 032307 (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevA.62.032307
21. K. Audenaert, F. Verstraete, and B. De Moor, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052304 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.052304
22. B. Röthlisberger, J. Lehmann, D. S. Saraga, P. Traber, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 100502 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.100502
23. D. M. Greenberger, M. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dortrecht, 1989).
24. F. Mintert, A. R. R. Carvalho, M. Kuå, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rep. 415, 207 (2005). 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.04.006
25. L. P. Hughston, R. Jozsa, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Lett. A 183, 14 (1993). 10.1016/0375-9601(93)90880-9
26. K. A. Kirkpatrick, Found. Phys. Lett. 19, 95 (2006). 10.1007/s10702-006- 1852-1
27. P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre, Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008).
28. A. Edelman, T. A. Arias, and S. T. Smith, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 20, 303 (1998). 10.1137/S0895479895290954
29. J. H. Manton, IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 50, 635 (2002). 10.1109/78.984753
30. W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80. 2245
31. W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1992).
32. J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical Optimization (Springer, New York, 1999).
33. L. Euler, Opera Omnia, Series I (Birkhäuser, Basel, 1987), Vol. VI.
34. A. Hurwitz, Mathematische Werke (Birkhäuser, Basel, 1933), Vol. II.
35. B. M. Terhal, M. Horodecki, D. W. Leung, and D. P. DiVincenzo, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4286 (2002). 10.1063/1.1498001
36. G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1996).
37. Allowing the iteration points to move outside of S may result in large absolute values of the angles, possibly leading to reduced precision in the output. Such effects can be prevented by projecting the current iteration point back to S a few times in the first couple of iterations.
38. C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046 (1996). 10.1103/PhysRevA.53.2046
39. W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062314
40. R. Lohmayer, A. Osterloh, J. Siewert, and A. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 260502 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.260502
41. The entanglement of ρ (η) (and other states) has also been studied in Ref. in terms of the "global robustness". The search over all separable (pure and mixed) states appearing in the evaluation of this measure could in principle also be accomplished with the parametrized quasi-Newton method (similar in spirit to Sec. 3).
42. J. Batle and M. Casas, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 6, 237 (2008). 10.1142/S0219749908003487
43. G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Phys. Rev. A 59, 141 (1999). 10.1103/PhysRevA.59.141
44. S.-M. Fei and N. Jing, Phys. Lett. A 342, 77 (2005). 10.1016/j.physleta. 2005.05.050
45. G. K. Brennen, Quantum Inf. Comput. 3, 619 (2003).
46. The subsystem linear entropy SL (|ψ) =2 [1-Tr (ρ 2)], where ρ = TrB |ψ ψ|, is a well-established bipartite entanglement measure that is often used instead of the von Neumann entropy in order to simplify calculations.
47. A. J. Scott, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052330 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.052330
48. We mention, however, that there are also measures of entanglement which are not maximized by the n -partite GHZ state Eq. 1. Moreover, some measures ascribe this state an unexpectedly low amount of entanglement for n>3. See, e.g., Ref. for an extensive numerical study.
49. A. Borras, A. R. Plastino, J. Batle, C. Zander, M. Casas, and A. Plastino, J. Phys. A 40, 13407 (2007). 10.1088/1751-8113/40/44/018
50. H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 910 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.910
51. Since for the number of particles N considered in Sec. 4 the splitting between the lowest and the next-higher multiplets is still always large compared to temperature, we diagonalize only the lowest-lying (N+1) -dimensional subspace of H using a Lanczos algorithm.