arXiv:quant-ph/0504163v3 10 Jun 2006 lctosfrtesuyo unu nomto science. information quantum of im- study their the present for and plications measures, of entanglement theory studying the essentially measures is tanglement which entanglement, particular the of place concerning will developments We on questions. connec- emphasis three in these obtained with been tion have that results summarizing and, quantification. to manipulation its aims its (3) (2) entanglement, description characterisation, about its a (1) questions such namely three that to see answers de- provide will the theoretical We discover its to scription. important underlying and structures natural mathematical quite is it source informa- quantum modern of science. the development tion provided the have the for developments in seed inefficient These very perform or realm. to impossible used classical either be are may that that resource tasks novel a rec- as be ognized to come these have create correlations with quantum as parallel developments, In well correlations. as and quantum systems, manipulate, controllable prepare, quantum coherently individual to measure that able means now decades are few we last the the However, of progress environ- systems. technological controlled quantum well distinct between in quantum ments created such that be unimaginable could At almost correlations was states. it entangled time mechanically the counterintuitiv quantum quantum the the of for quantify indeed features responsible to may are attempt inequalities that early Bell’s correlations an as 3]. viewed 2, be [1, experimen- verification to accessible tal theory quantum this non- of features the made local rendered has therefore and inequalities subse- quantitative, The Bell’s distinction strikingly of intuition. most development classical that quent our quali- from theory early the it quantum the distinguishes as of In perceived feature mainly tative physics. was quantum entanglement of days development the in ntefloigw i opoieattra overview tutorial a provide to aim we following the In re- a as entanglement of status found new the Given h ocp of concept The nageeto omto;teetnlmn ot h dist the cost; entanglement as the and formation; single-copy of entanglement include: covered Topics case. two-party ilb icse briefly. dimens discussed Infinite be theorems. will extremality and uniqueness the log-negativity; norm; entanglement; squashed the measures; lcetLbrtr,Ipra olg odn rneCons Prince London, College Imperial Laboratory, Blackett erve h hoyo nageetmaue,concentrati measures, entanglement of theory the review We entanglement INTRODUCTION ewl ics h oiainfor motivation the discuss will We . nttt o ahmtclSine,Ipra olg Lon College Imperial Sciences, Mathematical for Institute nitouto oetnlmn measures. entanglement to introduction An 3Pic’ ae xiiinR,Lno,S72G UK 2PG, SW7 London, Rd, Exhibition Gate, Prince’s 53 a lydacuilrole crucial a played has atnB lnoadSahn Virmani Shashank and Plenio B. Martin quantification en- e u te neetn eiwatce eg 4 ,6 ,8 9] literature. 8, 7, original 6, the 5, course [4, vari- of study (e.g. and to articles review reader interesting interested other the process, ous encourage this in we oversights so inevitable several is and made it have work, extensive will such we any providing in that as in course, also Of both have in and We references. possible results as known topic. comprehensive to covering this as them be on enable to literature will endeavoured extensive and the subject, tackle the of impression satisfactory. first from far still understand- is our area as this detail of less in ing discussed multi-party The be will complete far. setting so most obtained the been has which understanding for infinite with constituents, and concerned finite dimensional with be systems will deriva- bipartite review in technical our entanglement formulae. of detailed majority useful present The explicit however, tions. as not, well do as We measures mono- entanglement and useful tones many including and results theory the main underlying principles basic the present We etmaue utbgnwt icsino hten- what of discussion a with tanglement begin must measures ment ecntasotaqbtwtotaydchrne then decoherence, any without qubit a I transport distribution. can entanglement we essen- perfect is to equivalent communication tially quantum separated to Perfect distantly able across quantum laboratories. be particles any to quantum like In distribute would we ones. experiment technological communication the with starting communica- distance. quantum a across involving ex- tion many settings in physical naturally plicit fun- arises and and technological motivations, both damental has restriction This explain. will we that the constraint it particular call a because overcome view. emerges to of us entanglement point allows of operational usefulness highly the a Then adopt will we lowing hti nageet – entanglement? is What ti u oeta hswr ilgv h edragood a reader the give will work this that hope our is It ewl osdrteemtvtosi oedetail, some in motivations these consider will We outesmntns h raetcross- greatest the monotones; robustness mttcetnlmn aiuain the manipulation; entanglement ymptotic lal nageet h eaieentropic relative the entanglement; illable oa ytm n ut-at settings multi-party and systems ional OCconstraint LOCC r d odnS72W Kand UK 2BW, SW7 London Rd, ort gmsl ntefiiedimensional finite the on mostly ng is n o eactually we how and , FOUNDATIONS don, emta ewl shortly will we that term a - n td fentangle- of study Any use t ntefol- the In it. ) f 2 any entanglement shared by that qubit will also be dis- correlations? The distinction between ‘quantum’ effects tributed perfectly. Conversely, if we can distribute entan- and ‘classical’ effects is frequently a cause of heated de- gled states perfectly then with a small amount of classical bate. However, in the context of quantum information a communication we may use teleportation [10] to perfectly precise way to define classical correlations is via LOCC transmit quantum states. However, in any forseeable ex- operations. Classical correlations can be defined as those periment involving these processes, the effects of noise that can be generated by LOCC operations. If we observe will inevitably impair our ability to send quantum states a quantum system and find correlations that cannot be over long distances. simulated classically, then we usually attribute them to One way of trying to overcome this problem is to dis- quantum effects, and hence label them quantum corre- tribute quantum states by using the noisy quantum chan- lations [11]. So suppose that we have a noisy quantum nels that are available, but then to try and combat the ef- state, and we process it using LOCC operations. If in this fects of this noise using higher quality local quantum pro- process we obtain a state that can be used for some task cesses in the distantly separated labs. Such local quan- that cannot be simulated by classical correlations, such tum operations (‘LO’) will be much closer to ideal, as as violating a Bell inequality, then we must not attribute they can be performed in well-controlled environments these effects to the LOCC processing that we have per- without the decoherence induced by communication over formed, but to quantum correlations that were already long-distances. However, there is no reason to make the present in the initial state, even if the initial state was operations of separated labs totally independent. Clas- quite noisy. This is an extremely important point that is sical communication (‘CC’) can essentially be performed at the heart of the study of entanglement. perfectly using standard telecom technologies, and so we may also use such communication to coordinate the quan- It is the constraint to LOCC-operations that elevates tum actions of the different labs (see fig. 1). It turns out entanglement to the status of a resource. Using LOCC- that the ability to perform classical communication is operations as the only other tool, the inherent quantum vital for many quantum information protocols - a promi- correlations of entanglement are required to implement nent example being teleportation. These considerations general, and therefore nonlocal, quantum operations on are the technological reasons for the key status of the two or more parties [13, 14]. As LOCC-operations alone Local Operations and Classical Communication ‘LOCC’ are insufficient to achieve these transformations, we con- paradigm, and are a major motivation for their study. clude that entanglement may be defined as the sort of However, for the purposes of this article, the fundamen- correlations that may not be created by LOCC alone. Allowing classical communication in the set of LOCC (CC) operations means that they are not completely local, and Classical Communication can actually have quite a complicated structure. In order to understand this structure more fully, we must first take Alice Bob a closer look at the notion of general quantum operations and their formal description.

Quantum Operations – In quantum information sci- ence much use is made of so-called ‘generalised measure- ments’ (see [10] for a more detailed account of the fol- lowing basic principles). It should be emphasized that Local Quantum Operations such generalised measurements do not go beyond stan- (LO) dard quantum mechanics. In the usual approach to quan- tum evolution, a system is evolved according to unitary operators, or through collapse caused by projective mea- FIG. 1: In a standard quantum communication setting two parties Alice and Bob may perform any generalized measure- surements. However, one may consider a more general ment that is localized to their laboratory and communicate setting where a system evolves through interactions with classically. The brick wall indicates that no quantum particles other quantum particles in a sequence of three steps: (1) may be exchanged coherently between Alice and Bob. This first we first add ancilla particles, (2) then we perform set of operations is generally referred to as LOCC. joint unitaries and measurements on both the system and ancillae, and finally (3) we discard some particles on the tal motivations of the LOCC paradigm are perhaps more basis of the measurement outcomes. If the ancillae used important than these technological considerations. We in this process are originally uncorrelated with the sys- have loosely described entanglement as the quantum cor- tem, then the evolution can be described by so-called relations that can occur in many-party quantum states. Kraus operators. If one retains total knowledge of the This leads to the question - how do we define quantum outcomes obtained during any measurements, then the correlations, and what differentiates them from classical state corresponding to measurement outcomes i occurs 3 with probability p = tr A ρ A † and is given by LOCC operations. This has motivated the development i { i in i } † of larger classes of operations that can be more easily AiρinAi characterised, while still retaining a considerable element ρi = (1) tr A ρ A † of LOCC-ality. One of the most important such classes is { i in i } the set of separable operations. These are the operations where ρ is the initial state and the A are matrices in i that can be written in terms of Kraus operators with a known as Kraus operators (see part (a) of Fig. 2 for product decomposition: illustration). The normalisation of probabilities implies † that Kraus operators must satisfy i Ai Ai = 11. In † † Ak BkρinAk Bk some situations, for example when a system is interact- ρk = ⊗ ⊗ (3) P trA B ρ A† B† ing with an environment, all or part of the measurement k ⊗ k in k ⊗ k outcomes might not be accessible. In the most extreme such that A† A B†B = 11 11. Clearly, any LOCC case this corresponds to the situation where the ancilla k k k ⊗ k k ⊗ particles are being traced out. Then the map is given by operation can be cast in the form of separable operation, as the localP Kraus operators corresponding to the individ- ual actions of Alice and Bob can be joined into product † σ = AiρinAi (2) Kraus operators. However, it is remarkable that the con- i verse is not true. This was first demonstrated in [16], X which is illustrated in part (b) of Fig. (1). Such a map is where an example task of a separable operation is pre- sented that cannot be implemented using LOCC actions (a) (b) - the example presented there requires a finite amount of quantum communication to implement it, even though ρ ρ the operation is itself separable. It is nevertheless convenient from a mathematical point p4 p1 of view to work with separable operations, as optimising p ρ 3 ρ4 a given task using separable operations provides strong 1 p2 ρ p ρ bounds on what may be achieved using LOCC. Some- 2 ρ3 σ = Σ i i times this process can even lead to tight results - one may try to show whether the optimal separable opera- FIG. 2: Schematic picture of the action of quantum opera- tion may in fact be also implemented using LOCC, and tions with and without sub-selection (eqs. (1) and (2) respec- this can often, but not always, be guaranteed in the pres- tively) shown in part (a) and part (b) respectively. ence of symmetries (see e.g. [15, 17] and refs. therein). Even more general classes of operations such as positive often referred to as a trace preserving quantum operation, partial transpose preserving operations (PPT) [175] may whereas operations in which measurement outcomes are also be used in the study of entanglement as they have retained are sometimes referred to as measuring quan- the advantage of a very compact mathematical charac- tum operations (or sometimes also selective quantum op- terization [17, 18, 19]. erations, or stochastic quantum operations, depending After this initial discussion of quantum operations and upon the context). Conversely, it can be shown (see the LOCC constraint we are now in a position to consider e.g. [10]) that for any set of linear operators Ai sat- in more detail the basic properties of entanglement. † isfying i Ai Ai = 11 we can find a process, composed Basic properties of entanglement – Following our of the addition of ancillae, joint unitary evolution, and discussion of quantum operations and their natural con- von-NeumannP measurements, that leads to eq. (1). In straint to local operations and classical communication, trace preserving operations the Ai should strictly all be we are now in a position to establish some basic facts and matrices of the same dimensions, however, if knowledge definitions regarding entangled states. Given the wide of outcomes is retained, then different Ai may have dif- range of tasks that exploit entanglement one might try to ferent dimensions. Having summarized the basic ingre- define entanglement as ‘that property which is exploited dients of generalised quantum operations, we are in a in such protocols’. However, there is a whole range of position to consider approaches that may be taken to de- such tasks, with a whole range of possible measures of termine which operations are implementable by LOCC. success. This means that situations will almost certainly The LOCC constraint is illustrated in figure 1. In gen- arise where a state ρ1 is better than another state ρ2 eral this set of operations is quite complicated. Alice for achieving one task, but for achieving a different task and Bob may communicate classically before or after any ρ2 is better than ρ1. Consequently using a task-based given round of local actions, and hence in any given round approach to quantifying entanglement will certainly not their actions may depend upon the outcomes of previous lead to a single unified perspective. However, despite this measuring operations. As a consequence of this com- problem, it is possible to assert some general statements plexity, there is no known simple characterisation of the which are valid regardless of what your favourite use of 4 entanglement is, as long as the key set of ‘allowed’ oper- This property follows from the previous one because ations is the LOCC class. This will serve us a guide as local unitaries can be inverted by local unitaries. Hence, to how to approach the quantification of entanglement, by the non-increase of entanglement under LOCC, two and so we will discuss some of these statements in detail: states related by local unitaries have an equal amount of Separable states contain no entanglement. entanglement. • A state ρABC... of many parties A, B, C, ... is said to There are maximally entangled states. • be separable [20], if it can be written in the form Now we have a notion of which states are entangled and are also able, in some cases, to assert that one state is ρ = p ρi ρi ρi ... (4) ABC... i A ⊗ B ⊗ C ⊗ more entangled than another. This naturally raises the i X question whether there is a maximally entangled state, where pi is a probability distribution. These states can i.e. one that is more entangled than all others. Indeed, trivially be created by LOCC - Alice samples from the at least in two-party systems consisting of two fixed d- distribution pi, informs all other parties of the outcome dimensional sub-systems (sometimes called qudits), such i states exist. It turns out that any pure state that is local i, and then each party X locally creates ρX and discards the information about the outcome i. As these states can unitarily equivalent to be created from scratch by LOCC they trivially satisfy 0, 0 + 1, 1 + .. + d 1, d 1 a local hidden variables model and all their correlations + ψd = | i | i | − − i can be described classically. Hence, it is quite reasonable | i √d to state that separable states contain no entanglement. is maximally entangled. This is well justified, because as All non-separable states allow some tasks to be • we shall see in the next subsection, any pure or mixed achieved better than by LOCC alone, hence all non- state of two d-dimensional systems can be prepared from separable states are entangled. such states with certainty using only LOCC operations. For a long time the quantum information community We shall later also see that the non-existence of an has used a ‘negative’ characterization of the term entan- equivalent statement in multi-particle systems is one of glement essentially defining entangled states as those that the reasons for the difficulty in establishing a theory of cannot be created by LOCC alone. On the other hand, multi-particle entanglement. it can be shown that a quantum state ρ may be gener- ated perfectly using LOCC if and only if it is separable. The above considerations have given us the extremes Of course this is a task that becomes trivially possible of entanglement - as long as we consider LOCC as our set by LOCC when the state ρ has been provided as a non- of available operations, separable states contain zero en- local resource in the first place. More interestingly, it tanglement, and we can identify certain states that have has been shown recently that for any non-separable state maximal entanglement. They also suggest that we can ρ, one can find another state σ whose teleportation fi- impose some form of ordering - we may say that state delity may be enhanced if ρ is also present [21, 22, 23]. ρ is more entangled than a state σ if we can perform This is interesting as it allows us to positively character- the transformation ρ σ using LOCC operations. A ize non-separable states as those possessing a useful re- key question is whether→ this method of ordering gives a source that is not present in separable states. This hence partial or total order? To answer this question we must justifies the synonymous use of the terms non-separable try and find out when one quantum state may be trans- and entangled. formed to another using LOCC operations. Before we The entanglement of states does not increase under • move on to the discussion of entanglement measures we LOCC transformations. will consider this question in more detail in the next part. Given that by LOCC we can only create separable, ie Note that the notion that ‘entanglement does not in- non-entangled states, this immediately implies the state- crease under LOCC’ is implicitly related to our restric- ment that LOCC cannot create entanglement from an tion of quantum operations to LOCC operations - if other unentangled state. Indeed, we even have the following restrictions apply, weaker or stronger, then our notion of stronger fact. Suppose that we know that a quantum ‘more entangled’ is likely to also change. state ρ can be transformed with certainty to another quantum state σ using LOCC operations. Then anything that we can do with σ and LOCC operations we can also LOCAL MANIPULATION OF QUANTUM achieve with ρ and LOCC operations. Hence the utility STATES of quantum states cannot increase under LOCC opera- tions [4, 24, 25, 26], and one can rightfully state that ρ Manipulation of single bi-partite states – In the is at least as entangled as σ. previous section we indicated that for bi-partite systems Entanglement does not change under Local Unitary there is a notion of maximally entangled states that is in- operations.• dependent of the specific quantification of entanglement. 5

This is so because there are so-called maximally entan- decomposition). It is an easy exercise, left to the reader, + gled states from which all others can be created by LOCC to construct the operation that takes ψ2 to ρ. only (at least for bipartite systems of fixed maximal di- A natural generalisation of this observation| i would be mension). We we will show this explicitly here for the to consider LOCC transformations between general pure case of two qubits and leave the generalization as an ex- states of two parties [27]. Although this question is a lit- ercise to the reader. In the case of two qubits, we will see tle more difficult, a complete solution has been developed that the maximally entangled states are those that are using the mathematical framework of the theory of ma- local-unitarily equivalent to the state jorization. The results that have been obtained not only provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the pos- + 1 sibility of the LOCC interconversion between two pure ψ2 = ( 00 + 11 ) . (5) | i √2 | i | i states, they are also constructive as they lead to explicit protocols that achieve the task [28, 29, 30, 31]. These Our aim is now to justify this statement by showing that conditions may be expressed most naturally in terms of for any bipartite pure state written in a Schmidt decom- the Schmidt coefficients [10] of the states involved. It is posed form (see discussion around equation (10) for an a useful fact that any bi-partite pure quantum state ψ explanation of the Schmidt Decomposition): may be written in the form | i φ = α 00 + β 11 (6) N | i | i | i ψ = UA UB √αi i A i B (10) + | i ⊗ | i | i we can find a LOCC map that takes ψ to φ with i=1 2 X certainty. To this end we simply need to| writei down| i the where the positive real numbers αi are the Schmidt- Kraus operators (see eq. (1) of a valid quantum opera- coefficients of the state ψ [176]. The local unitaries tion. It is easy to show that the Kraus operators defined do not affect the entanglement| i properties, which is why by we now write the initial state vector ψ and final state | 1i vector ψ2 in their Schmidt-bases, A0 := (α 0 0 + β 1 1 ) 11, | i | ih | | ih | ⊗ n n A := (β 1 0 + α 0 1 ) ( 1 0 + 0 1 ) (7) 1 | ih | | ih | ⊗ | ih | | ih | ψ = √α i i , ψ = α′ i′ i′ | 1i i | Ai | Bi | 2i i | Ai | Bi † † i=1 i=1 satisfy A0A0 + A1A1 = 11 11 and Ai ψ = pi φ , so that X X p † ⊗ † | i | i where n denotes the dimension of each of the quantum φ φ = A0 ψ ψ A0 + A1 ψ ψ A1. It is instructive to |seeih how| one| canih construct| this| ih operation| physically using systems. We can take the Schmidt coefficients to be only LOCC transformations. Let us first add an ancilla given in decreasing order, i.e., α1 α2 . . . αn and ′ ′ ′ ≥ ≥ ≥ in state 0 to Alice which results in the state α1 α2 . . . αn. The question of the intercon- | i vertibility≥ ≥ between≥ the states can then be decided from 00 0 + 01 1 the knowledge of the real Schmidt coefficients only, as | iA| iB | iA| iB . (8) √2 any two pure states with the same Schmidt coefficients may be interconverted straightforwardly by local unitary If we then perform the local unitary operation 00 operations. In [28] it has been shown that a LOCC trans- | i → α 00 + β 11 ; 01 β 01 + α 10 on Alice’s two parti- formation converting ψ1 to ψ2 with unit probability | i | i | i → | i | i | i | i ′ cles, we arrive at exists if and only if the αi are majorized by αi , i.e. if for all 1 l

⊗n rn ignored a couple of important issues. Firstly, our LOCC EC (ρ) = inf r : lim inf D(ρ , Ψ(Φ(2 ))) =0 n→∞ Ψ protocols are always taken to be trace preserving. How- n h i o ever, one could conceivably allow probabilistic protocols where D(σ, η) is a suitable measure of distance [19, 37]. A that have varying degrees of success depending upon var- variety of possible distance measures may be considered. ious measurement outcomes. Fortunately, a thorough It has been shown that the definition of entanglement analysis by Rains [40] shows that taking into account a cost is independent of the choice of distance function, as wide diversity of possible success measures still leads to long as these functions are equivalent to the trace norm the same notion of distillable entanglement. Secondly, we in a way that is sufficiently independent of dimension (see have always used 2-qubit maximally entangled states as [38] for further explanation). Hence we will fix the trace our ‘gold standard’. If we use other entangled pure states, norm distance, i.e. D(σ, η)= tr σ η , as our canonical | − | perhaps even on higher dimensional Hilbert spaces, do we choice of distance function. arrive at significantly altered definitions? We will very It may trouble the reader that in the definition of shortly see that this is not the case so there is no loss of EC (ρ) we have not actually taken input states that are generality in taking singlet states as our target. blocks of rn copies of 2-qubit maximally entangled states, Given these two entanglement measures it is natural to but instead have chosen as inputs single maximally en- ? ask whether EC = ED, i.e. whether entanglement trans- tangled states between subsystems of increasing dimen- formations become reversible in the asymptotic limit. rn sions 2 . However, these two approaches are equivalent This is indeed the case for pure state transformations rn because (for integral rn) Φ(2 ) is local unitarily equiv- where ED(ρ) and EC (ρ) are identical and equal to the ⊗rn alent to Φ(2) . entropy of entanglement [24]. The entropy of entangle- The entanglement cost is an important measure be- ment for a pure state ψ is defined as cause it quantifies a wholesale ‘exchange rate’ for con- | i verting maximally entangled states to ρ by LOCC alone. E( ψ ψ ) := S(trA ψ ψ )= S(trB ψ ψ ) (12) Maximally entangled states are in essence the ‘gold stan- | ih | | ih | | ih | dard currency’ with which one would like to compare all where S denotes the von-Neumann entropy S(ρ) = quantum states. Although computing EC (ρ) is extremely tr[ρ log2 ρ], and trB denotes the partial trace over sub- difficult, we will later discuss its important implications −system B. This reversibility means that in the asymp- for the study of channel capacities, in particular via an- totic regime we may immediately write down the opti- other important and closely related entanglement mea- mal rate of transformation between any two pure states sure known as the entanglement of formation, E (ρ). ψ and ψ . Given a large number N of copies F | 1i | 2i Just as EC (ρ) measures how many maximally entan- of ψ1 ψ1 , we can first distill NE( ψ1 ψ1 ) sin- gled states are required to create copies of ρ by LOCC glet| statesih | and then create from≈ those singlets| ih |M ≈ alone, we can ask about the reverse process: at what NE( ψ1 ψ1 )/E( ψ2 ψ2 ) copies of ψ2 ψ2 . In the in- rate may we obtain maximally entangled states (of two finite| limitih these| | approximationsih | become| ih exact,| and as qubits) from an input supply of states of the form ρ. This a consequence E( ψ1 ψ1 )/E( ψ2 ψ2 ) is the optimal process is known in the literature either as entanglement asymptotic conversion| ih rate| from| ψih ψ| to ψ ψ . It | 1ih 1| | 2ih 2| 8 is the reversibility of pure state transformations that en- tems [52, 53, 54, 55, 56], and bounding quantum com- ables us to define ED(ρ) and EC (ρ) in terms of transfor- puting fault tolerance thresholds [57, 58] to name a few. mations to or from singlet states - the use of any other In this section we will now discuss and present a few entangled pure state (in any other dimensions) simply basic axioms that any measure of entanglement should leads to a constant factor multiplied in front of these satisfy. This will allow us to define further quantities quantities. that go beyond the two important mixed state measures Following these basic considerations we are now in (EC (ρ) and D(ρ)) that we have already introduced. a position to formulate a more rigorous and axiomatic So what exactly are the properties that a good entan- approach to entanglement measures that captures the glement measure should possess? An entanglement mea- lessons that have been learned in the previous sections. sure is a mathematical quantity that should capture the In the final section we will then review several entangle- essential features that we associate with entanglement, ment measures, presenting useful formulae and results and ideally should be related to some operational pro- and discuss the significance of these measures for various cedure. Depending upon your aims, this can lead to a topics in quantum information. variety of possible desirable properties. The following is a list of possible postulates for entanglement measures, some of which are not satisfied by all proposed quantities [26, 63]: POSTULATES FOR AXIOMATIC ENTANGLEMENT MEASURES 1. A bipartite entanglement measure E(ρ) is a map- ping from density matrices into positive real num- In the previous section we considered the quantifi- bers: cation of entanglement from the perspective of LOCC ρ E(ρ) R+ (13) transformations in the asymptotic limit. This approach → ∈ is interesting because it can be solved completely for pure defined for states of arbitrary bipartite systems. A states. It demonstrates that LOCC entanglement manip- normalisation factor is also usually included such ulation is reversible in this setting, therefore imposing a that the maximally entangled state unique order on pure entangled states via the entropy of entanglement. However, for mixed states and LOCC op- 0, 0 + 1, 1 + .. + d 1, d 1 ψ+ = | i | i | − − i erations the situation is more complicated and reversibil- | d i √d ity is lost [41, 42]. + The concomitant loss of a total ordering of quantum of two qudits has E( ψd ) = log d. states (in terms of rates of LOCC entanglement intercon- | i versions) implies that in general an LOCC based classifi- 2. E(ρ) = 0 if the state ρ is separable. cation of entanglement would be extremely complicated. 3. E does not increase on average under LOCC, i.e., However, one can try to salvage the situation by tak- ing a more axiomatic approach. One can define real A ρA† E(ρ) p E( i i ) (14) valued functions that satisfy the basic properties of en- ≥ i † i trAiρAi tanglement that we outlined earlier, and use these func- X tions to attempt to quantify the amount of entanglement where the Ai are the Kraus operators describing in a given quantum state. This is essentially the pro- some LOCC protocol and the probability of ob- cess that is followed in the definition of most entangle- † taining outcome i is given by pi = trAiρAi (see ment measures. Various such quantities have been pro- fig 2). posed over the years, such as the entanglement of distil- lation [24, 40], the entanglement cost [24, 38, 43, 44, 45], 4. For pure state ψ ψ the measure reduces to the the relative entropy of entanglement [25, 26, 46] and entropy of entanglement| ih | the squashed entanglement [47]. Some of these mea- sures have direct physical significance, whereas others E( ψ ψ ) = (S trB)( ψ ψ ) . (15) | ih | ◦ | ih | are purely axiomatic. Initially these measures were used to give a physically motivated classification of entan- We will call any function E satisfying the first three con- glement that is simple to understand, and can even be ditions an entanglement monotone. The term entangle- used to assess the quality of entangled states produced ment measure will be used for any quantity that satisfies in experiments. However, subsequently they have also axioms 1,2 and 4, and also does not increase under deter- been developed into powerful mathematical tools, with ministic LOCC transformations. In the literature these great significance for open questions such as the additiv- terms are often used interchangeably. Note that the con- ity of quantum channel capacities [48, 49, 50], quanti- ditions (1)-(4) may be replaced by an equivalent set of fying quantum correlations in quantum-many-body sys- slightly more abstract conditions which will be explained 9 below eq. (20). Frequently, some authors also impose A much stronger requirement could be to demand full additional requirements for entanglement measures: additivity, by which we mean that for any pair of states Convexity – One common example for an additional σ and ρ we have E(σ ρ)= E(σ)+ E(ρ). This is a very property• required from an entanglement measure is the strong requirement and⊗ in fact it may be too strong to be concept of convexity which means that we require satisfied by all quantities that otherwise satisfy the four basic properties stated above. Indeed, even such basic E( piρi) piE(ρi). measures as the distillable entanglement may not satisfy ≤ i i X X this property [67]. For these reason we have not included the full additivity in our set of properties. However, ad- Requiring this mathematically very convenient property is sometimes justified as capturing the notion of the loss ditivity can be a very useful mathematical property, and we will discuss it further in the context of specific mea- of information, i.e. describing the process of going from a selection of identifiable states ρ that appear with rates p sures. i i Continuity – Conditions (1-3) listed above seem quite to a mixture of these states of the form ρ = p ρ . We i i natural• - the first two conditions are little more than set- would like to stress, however, that some care has to be taken in this context. Indeed, in the first situation,P when ting the scale, and the third condition is a generalisa- tion of the idea that entanglement can only decrease un- the states are locally identifiable, the whole ensemble can der LOCC operations to incorporate probabilistic trans- be described by the quantum state formations. The fourth condition appears considerably p i i ρAB, (16) stronger and perhaps arbitrary at first sight. However, i| iM h |⊗ i i it turns out that it is also quite a natural condition to X impose. In fact we know that S(ρA) represents the re- where the i M denote some orthonormal basis for a versible rate of conversion between pure states in the {| i } particle belonging to one of the two parties. Clearly a asymptotic regime which strongly suggests that it is the measurement of the marker particle M reveals the iden- appropriate measure of entanglement for pure states. tity of the state of parties A and B. Losing the associa- This is reinforced by the following nontrivial observa- AB tion between i M and state ρ then correctly describes tion: it turns out that any entanglement monotone that | i i the process of the forgetting, a process which is then de- is (a) additive on pure states, and (b) “sufficiently con- scribed by tracing out the marker particle M to obtain tinuous” must equal S(ρA) on all pure states. Before we ρ = piρi [64, 65]. As this is a local operation we may see what sufficiently continuous means we present a very AB then require that E( pi i M i ρ ) E(ρ), which is, rough argument for this statement. We know from the P i | i h |⊗ i ≥ of course, already required by condition 3 above. Hence asymptotic pure state distillation protocol that from n P there is no strict need to require convexity, except for copies of a pure state φ we can obtain a state ρn that the mathematical simplicity that it might bring. A com- closely approximates the| i state ψ− ⊗nE(|φi) to within ǫ, pelling example of the technical simplicity that convexity where E( φ ) is the entropy of entanglement| i of φ . Sup- can bring is the very simple test for entanglement mono- pose therefore| i that we have an entanglement monotone| i tonicity of a convex function f. Indeed, a convex function L that is additive on pure states. Then we may write f does not increase under LOCC if and only if it satisfies † † ⊗n nL( φ )= L( φ ) L(ρn) (18) (i) f(UA UBρABUA UB)= f(ρAB) for all local unitary | i | i ≥ U ,U and⊗ (ii) f( ⊗ p ρi i i ) = p f(ρi ) A B i i AB X i i AB where the inequality is due to condition 3 for entan- where X = A′,B′ and i form⊗ | local,ih | orthogonal bases glement monotones. If the monotone L is “sufficiently [66]. P | i P continuous”, then L(ρ ) = L( ψ− ⊗nE(|φi)) + δ(ǫ) = Additivity – Given an entanglement measure and a n nE( φ )+ δ(ǫ), where δ(ǫ) will| be small.i Then we ob- state• σ one may ask for the condition E(σ⊗n) = nE(σ) tain:| i to be satisfied for all integer n. A measure satisfying additive δ(ǫ) this property is said to be . Unfortunately, there L( φ ) E( φ )+ . (19) are some significant entanglement measures that do not | i ≥ | i n satisfy this condition, and for this reason we have not If the function L is sufficiently continuous as the dimen- included additivity as a basic postulate. However, given sion increases, i.e. δ(ǫ)/n 0 when n , then any measure E that is not additive there is a straightfor- we obtain L( φ ) E( φ ).→ Invoking the→ fact ∞ that ward way of removing this deficiency. We may define the the entanglement| i cost≥ for| i pure states is also given by regularized, or asymptotic version: the entropy of entanglement gives the reverse inequality E(σ⊗n) L( φ ) E( φ ) using similar arguments. Hence suffi- E∞(σ) := lim (17) ciently| i ≤ continuous| i monotones that are additive on pure n→∞ n states will naturally satisfy L( φ ) = E( φ ). Of course which is a measure that then automatically satisfies ad- these arguments are not rigorous,| i as we| i have not un- ditivity. dertaken a detailed analysis of how δ or ǫ grow with n. 10

A rigorous analysis is presented in [63], where it is also continuous on mixed states, and also has a regularisation shown that our assumptions may be slightly relaxed. The result of this rigorous analysis is that a function is equiv- L(ρ⊗n) alent to the entropy of entanglement on pure states if lim . (21) n→∞ n and only if it is (a) normalised on the singlet state, (b) additive on pure states, (c) non-increasing on determin- Then it can be shown that istic pure state to pure state LOCC transformations, and L(ρ⊗n) (d) asymptotically continuous on pure states. The term EC (ρ) lim ED(ρ). (22) ≥ n→∞ n ≥ asymptotically continuous is defined as the property In fact the conditions under which this statement is true L( φ n) L( ψ n) are slightly more general than the ones that we have listed | i − | i 0 (20) 1 + log(dimHn) → - for more details see [63]. Entanglement Ordering The above considerations have whenever the trace norm tr φ φ n ψ ψ n between || ih | − | ih | | allowed us to impose quite a great deal of structure on two sequences of states φ n, ψ n on a sequence of Hilbert | i | i entangled states and the next section will make this even spaces Hn Hn tends to 0 as n 0. It is interest- ing to notice⊗ that these constraints→ only concern pure more clear. It should be noted however that the axioms not unique state properties of L, and that they are necessary and 1-4 as formulated above are sufficient to give a sufficient. As a consequence of the above discussion we total ordering in terms of the entanglement of the set of can conclude that we could have redefined the set of ax- states. One can show that any two entanglement mea- iomatic requirements (1)-(4), without changing the set sures satisfying axiom 4 can only impose the same or- of admissible measures. We could have replaced axiom dering on the set of entangled states if they are actually (4) with two separate requirements of (4’a) additivity exactly the same. More precisely, if for two measures any on pure states and (4’b) asymptotic continuity on pure E1 and E2 and pair of states σ1 and σ2 we have that E (σ ) E (σ ) implies E (σ ) E (σ ), then if states. Together with axiom (3) this would automati- 1 1 ≥ 1 2 2 1 ≥ 2 2 cally force any entanglement measure to coincide with both measures satisfy axiom 4 it must be the case that E E [72] (see [73, 74, 75] for ordering results for other the entropy of entanglement on pure states. 1 ≡ 2 It is furthermore interesting to note that the failure entanglement quantities). Given that the entanglement of an entanglement measure to satisfy asymptotic conti- cost and the distillable entanglement are strictly different nuity is strongly related to the counterintuitive effect of on all entangled mixed states [76] this implies that there lockability [68, 69, 70]. The basic question behind locka- is not a unique order, in terms of entanglement, on the bility is: how much can entanglement of any bi- or mul- set of entangled states. tipartite system change when one qubit is discarded? A This suggests one of several viewpoints. We may for measure of entanglement is said to be lockable if the re- example have neglected to take account of the resources moval of a single qubit from a system can reduce the in entanglement manipulation with sufficient care, and entanglement by an arbitrarily large amount. This qubit doing so might lead to the notion of a unique total order hence acts as a ‘key’ which once removed ‘locks’ the re- and therefore a unique entanglement measure [77]. Al- maining entanglement. So which entanglement measures ternatively, it may be possible that the setting of LOCC are lockable? The remarkable answer is this effect can operations is too restrictive, and a unique total order occur for several entanglement measures, including the and entanglement measure might emerge when consider- Entanglement Cost. On the other hand another class ing more general sets of operations [19]. Both approaches of measures that will be described later, Relative En- have received some attention but neither has succeeded tropies of Entanglement, are not lockable [69]. It can completely at the time of writing this article. also be proven that any measure that is convex and is In the following we will simply accept the non- not asymptotically continuous is lockable [69]. uniqueness of entanglement measures as an expression of the fact that they correspond to different operational Extremal Entanglement Measures– In the discussions tasks under which different forms of entanglement may so far we have formulated several requirements on entan- have different degrees of usefulness. glement measures and suggested that various measures exist that satisfy those criteria. It is now interesting to bound the range of such entanglement measures. One A SURVEY OF ENTANGLEMENT MEASURES may in fact show that the entanglement cost EC (ρ) and the distillable entanglement ED(ρ) are in some sense ex- In this section we discuss a variety of bipartite entan- tremal measures [63, 71], in that they are upper and lower glement measures and monotones that have been pro- bounds for many ‘wholesale’ entanglement measures. To posed in the literature. All the following quantities be precise, suppose that we have a quantity L(ρ) satisfy- are entanglement monotones, in that they cannot in- ing conditions (1) - (3) above, that is also asymptotically crease under LOCC. Hence when they can be calculated 11 they can be used to determine whether certain (finite or entanglement measures. While this bound is generally asymptotic) LOCC transformations are possible. How- not tight, it should be noted that there are examples for ever, some measures have a wider significance that we which it equals the distillable entanglement, these include will discuss as they are introduced. Before we continue, Bell diagonal states of rank 2 [37] and some other spe- we consider some features of the distillable entanglement, cial classes of state such as σ = A 00 00 + B 00 11 + particularly with regard to its computation, as this will B∗ 11 00 + (1 A) 11 11 for which| ih relative| | entropyih | | ih | − | ih | be important for some of our later discussion. of entanglement (ie an upper bound to ED) can be com- The distillable entanglement – The distillable entangle- puted [26, 40] and is found to equal the hashing inequal- ment, ED(ρ), provides us with the rate at which noisy ity. mixed states ρ may be converted into the ‘gold standard’ The following subsection will present a variety of other singlet state by LOCC alone. It formal definition is entanglement measures and quantities that provide up- per bounds on the distillable entanglement. ⊗n rn ED(ρ) := sup r : lim inf tr Ψ(ρ ) Φ(2 ) =0 . Entanglement Cost – For a given state ρ the entan- n→∞ Ψ | − | glement• cost quantifies the maximal possible rate r at n h i o The complexity of this variational definition has the un- which one can convert blocks of 2-qubit maximally en- fortunate consequence that despite the importance of tangled states into output states that approximate many the distillable entanglement as an entanglement measure, copies of ρ, such that the approximations become van- very little progress has been made in terms of its compu- ishingly small in the limit of large block sizes. If we tation. It is known for pure states (where it equals the denote a general trace preserving LOCC operation by Ψ, entropy of entanglement), and for some simple but very and write Φ(K) for the density operator corresponding special states [26, 78] (see the end of this paragraph). To to the maximally entangled state vector in K dimensions, i.e. Φ(K) = ψ+ ψ+ , then the entanglement cost may obtain such results and to gain insight into the amount | K ih K | of distillable entanglement it is particularly important to be defined as be able to provide bounds on its value. Upper bounds ⊗n rn EC (ρ) = inf r : lim inf tr (ρ Ψ(Φ(2 )) =0 can, by virtue of eq. (22) and requirement 3 for entan- n→∞ Ψ | − | n h i o glement monotones, be provided by any other entangle- This quantity is again very difficult to compute indeed. ment monotone and measure but non-monotonic bounds It is known to equal the entropy of entanglement for are also of interest (see the remainder of this section pure bi-partite states. It can also be computed for triv- on entanglement measures). Calculating lower bounds ial mixed states ρ = i pi ψi ψi where the states ψi is more challenging. Some lower bounds can be obtained may be discriminated locally| ih perfectly| without destroy-| i by the construction of explicit entanglement purification P ing the states. A simple example is ψ1 = 00 and procedures [43] in particular for Bell diagonal states [79]. | i | i ψ2 = ( 11 + 22 )/√2. As every state can be reduced to a Bell diagonal state | Fortunately,i | i | a closelyi related measure of entanglement, by random bi-local rotations of the form U U (a pro- namely the entanglement of formation, provides some twirling ⊗ cess known as ), these methods result in general hope as it may actually equal the entanglement cost. lower bounds applicable to all states. Improving these Therefore, we move on to discuss its properties in slightly bounds is very difficult as it generally requires the ex- more detail. plicit construction of complex purification procedures in Entanglement of Formation – For a mixed state ρ the asymptotic limit of many copies. this measure• is defined as In this context it is of considerable interest to study the conditional entropy, which is defined as C(A B) := E (ρ) := inf p E( ψ ψ ) : ρ = p ψ ψ . | F { i | iih i| i| iih i|} S(ρ ) S(ρ ) for a bipartite state ρ . It was known i i AB B AB X X for some− time that C(A B) gives a lower bound for Given that this measure represents the minimal possible both the entanglement− cost| and another important mea- average entanglement over all pure state decompositions sure known as the relative entropy of entanglement [78]. of ρ, where E( ψ ψ ) = S(tr ψ ψ ) is taken as the However, this bound was also recently shown to be true B measure of entanglement| ih | for pure{| ih states,|} it can be ex- for the one way distillable entanglement: pected to be closely related to the entanglement cost of ρ. Note however that the entanglement cost is an asymp- ED(ρAB) DA→B(ρAB) max S(ρB) S(ρAB), 0 ⊗n ≥ ≥ { − (23)} totic quantity concerning ρ in the limit n . It is not self-evident and in fact unproven that the→ entangle- ∞ where DA→B is the distillable entanglement under the restriction that the classical communication may only go ment of formation accounts for that correctly. Note how- regularised asymptotic one way from Alice to Bob [80]. This bound is known ever, that the or version of the as the Hashing Inequality [43], and is significant as it is entanglement of formation, which is defined as a computable, non-trivial, lower bound to ED(ρ), and E (ρ⊗n) E∞(ρ) := lim F hence supplies a non-trivial lower bound to many other F n→∞ n 12 can be proven rigorously to equal the entanglement cost The variational problem that defines EF is extremely [38], i.e. difficult to solve in general and at present one must either

∞ resort to numerical techniques for general states [82], or EF (ρ)= EC (ρ). (24) restrict attention to cases with high symmetry (e.g. [83, Obviously, the computation of either, the entanglement 84, 85]), or consider only cases of low dimensionality. cost or the asymptotic entanglement of formation, are Quite remarkably a closed form solution is known for extraordinarily difficult tasks. However, there are indi- bi-partite qubit states [44, 45, 82] that we present here. cations, though no general proof, that the entanglement This exact formula is based on the often used two-qubit ∞ concurrence which is defined as of formation is additive, i.e. EF (ρ) = EF (ρ) = EC (ρ), a result that would simplify the computation of EC (ρ) C(ρ)= max 0, λ1 λ2 λ3 λ4 , (27) significantly if it could be proven. Further to some nu- { − − − } merical evidence for the correctness of this property it is where the λi are, in decreasing order, the square roots of ∗ ∗ also known that the entanglement of formation is addi- the eigenvalues of the matrix ρσy σyρ σy σy where ρ tive for maximally correlated states in d d dimensions, is the elementwise complex conjugate⊗ of ρ⊗. For general × ie states ρmc = ij aij ii jj [42]. More generally it is bi-partite qubit states it has been shown that [45] a major open question in| quantumih | information to decide P 2 whether EF is a fully additive quantity, i.e. whether 1+ 1 C (ρ) EF (ρ)= s( − ) (28) AB AB AB AB 2 EF (ρ σ )= EF (ρ )+ EF (σ ). (25) p ⊗ with This problem is known to be equivalent to the strong s(x)= x log x (1 x)log (1 x). (29) − 2 − − 2 − Party A Party B The two-qubit EF (ρ) and the two-qubit concurrence are monotonically related which explains why some authors Pair 1 prefer to characterise entanglement using only the con- currence rather than the EF . It should be emphasised however that it is only the entanglement of formation that is an entanglement measure, and that the concur- rence obtains its meaning via its relation to the entan- Pair 2 glement of formation and not vice versa. For higher di- mensional systems this connection breaks down - in fact there is not even a unique definition of the concurrence. Therefore, the use of the entanglement of formation even FIG. 3: Schematic picture of the situation described by eq. in the two-qubit setting, is preferable. (26). The entanglement of formation of an arbitrary four Entanglement measures from convex roof construc- particle state |ψi, with particles held by parties A and B is • tions – The entanglement of formation EF is an impor- given is given on the left hand side of eq. (26). The right hand tant example of the general concept of a convex roof con- side of eq. (26) is the sum of the entanglement of formation of struction. The convex roof fˆ of a function f is defined the states ρ1 = trA2B2 |ψihψ| and ρ2 = trA1B1 |ψihψ| obtained by tracing out the lower upper half of the system. as the largest convex function that is for all arguments bounded from above by the function f. A simple exam- ple in one variable is given by f(x)= x4 2α2x2 and its superadditivity of EF convex roof − E (ρAB) ? ? E (ρAB)+ E (ρAB) (26) F 12 ≥ F 1 F 2 x4 2α2x2 for x α fˆ(x)= − | |≥ where the indices 1 and 2 refer to two pairs or entangled α4 for x α  − | |≤ particles while A and B denote the different parties (see fig. 3). Fig. 4 illustrates this idea graphically with an example The importance of these additivity problems is twofold. for the convex roof for a function of a single variable. Firstly, additivity would imply that E = E leading to Generally, for a function f defined on a convex subset of F C Rn ˆ a considerable simplification of the computation of the , the convex roof f can be constructed via the varia- entanglement cost. Secondly, the entanglement of for- tional problem mation is closely related to the classical capacity of a fˆ(x) = inf pif(xi), (30) quantum channel which is given by the Holevo capacity x= pixi i i [81], and it can be shown that the additivity of EF is also P X equivalent to the additivity of the classical communica- where the infimum is taken over all possible probability tion capacity of quantum channels [48, 49, 50]! distributions pi and choices of xi such that x = i pixi. P 13

It is easy to see that fˆ is convex, that fˆ f and that implemented the (not trace-preserving) pure map Λj (i.e. any other convex function g that is smaller≤ than f also corresponding to a single Kraus-operator). Let us define: satisfies g fˆ. ≤ p(j i) := tr Λ ( φ ) , The importance of the convex roof method is based on | { j | ii } the fact that it can be used to construct entanglement p(j) := tr Λj(ρ) . monotones from any unitarily invariant and concave func- { } tion of density matrices [86]. As this construction is very It is clear that p(j) = q(i)p(j i), as required by i | elegant we will discuss how it works in some detail. Sup- the standard probabilistic interpretation of ensembles. P pose that we already have a function E of pure states, Hence given outcome j the state ρ transforms to: that is known to be an entanglement monotone on pure 1 states. This means that for an LOCC transformation ρ = q(i)Λ ( φ ) j p(j) j | ii from an input pure state ψ to output pure states ψ i | i | ii X with probability pi, we have that: 1 Λ ( φ ) = p(i, j) j | ii p(j) p(j i) E( ψ ) p E( ψ ). (31) i | | i ≥ i | ii X i Λj ( φ i) X = p(i j) | i . (34) | p(j i) i Such pure state entanglement monotones are very well X | understood, as it can be shown that a function is a pure ˆ state monotone iff it is a unitarily invariant concave func- Hence by the convexity of E we have that: tion of the single-site reduced density matrices [86]. ˆ ˆ Λj ( φ i) Let us consider the convex-roof extension Eˆ of such a E(ρj ) p(i j)E | i (35) ≤ | p(j i) i pure state monotone E to mixed states. A general LOCC X  |  operation can be written as a sequence of operations by ˆ Alice and Bob. Suppose that Alice goes first, then she and because E is a monotone for operations from pure to pure states, and as each Λ ( φ ) is pure by assertion, will perform an operation that given outcome j performs j | ii the transformation: we find that: Λ ( φ ) 1 † j i p(j)Eˆ(ρj ) p(j) p(i j)Eˆ | i ρ ρj = AkρAk (32) → pj ≤ | p(j i) k j j i  |  X X X X Λj( φ i) where the Ak are Alice’s local Kraus operators corre- = q(i) p(j i)Eˆ | i † | p(j i) sponding to outcome j, and p =tr A ρA is the i j j k k k X X  |  probability of getting outcome j. If k>{ 1 for any} partic- q(i)Eˆ( φi ) ular outcome, then Alice’s operationP is impure, in that ≤ | i i X an input pure state may be taken to a mixed output. ˆ However, any such LOCC impure operation may be im- = E(ρ) (36) pure plemented by first performing a LOCC operation, Hence it can be seen that the convex-roof of any pure where Alice and Bob retain information about all k, fol- state entanglement monotone is automatically an en- lowed by ‘forgetting’ the values of k at the end [177]. It tanglement monotone for LOCC transformations from can be shown quite straightforwardly that if an entangle- mixed states to mixed states. Together with the result ment measure is convex, then the process of ‘forgetting’ that a function of pure states is an entanglement mono- cannot increase the average output entanglement beyond tone iff it is a unitarily invariant concave function of the the average output entanglement of the intermediate pure single-site density matrices [86], this provides a very ele- operation. Hence if one shows that a convex quantity is gant way of constructing many convex-roof entanglement pure an entanglement monotone for LOCC operations, monotones. It is interesting to note that although this then it will be an entanglement monotone in general. ˆ method can also be used to construct monotones under This means that we need only prove that E is an en- separable operations, it does not work for constructing pure tanglement monotone for operations acting upon monotones under the set of PPT transformations, as un- input mixed states. This can be done as follows [86]. like the case of LOCC/ separable operations, an impure Let ρ be an input state with optimal decomposition PPT operation cannot always be equated to a pure PPT ρ = q(i) φ φ , i.e. | iih i| operation plus forgetting [6]. P Relative entropy of entanglement – So far we dis- Eˆ(ρ)= q(i)E( φ i). (33) • | i cussed the extremal entanglement measures, entangle- i X ment cost and entanglement of distillation. For some Suppose that we act upon this state with a measuring time it was unclear whether they were equal or whether LOCC operation, where outcome j signifies that we have there are any entanglement measures that lie between 14

f(x) even more possibilities [46, 87] but for each such choice a valid entanglement measure is obtained as long as the set X is mapped onto itself under LOCC (one may even consider more general classes of operations as long as X is mapped onto itself). Employing the properties of the

The set of all states

ρ σ x

FIG. 4: A schematic picture of the convex roof construction The set X in one dimension. The non-convex function f(x) is given by the solid line. The dotted curve is a convex function smaller than f and the convex roof, the largest convex function that is smaller than f, is drawn as a dashed curved (it coincides FIG. 5: The relative entropy of entanglement is defined as the in large parts with f). smallest relative entropy distance from the state ρ to states σ taken from the set X. The set X may be defined as the set of separable states, non-distillable states or any other set that is these two. The regularised version of the relative entropy mapped onto itself by LOCC. of entanglement provides an example of a measure that lies between EC and ED. quantum relative entropy it is then possible to prove that One way of understanding the motivation for its def- it is a convex entanglement measure satisfying all the con- inition is by considering total correlations. These are ditions 1 - 4 [26] which is also asymptotically continuous measured by the quantum mutual information [10] [88]. The bipartite relative entropies have been used to compute tight upper bounds to the distillable entangle- I(ρ )= S(ρ )+ S(ρ ) S(ρ ) . (37) AB A B − AB ment of certain states [89], and as an invariant to help Employing the quantum relative entropy decide the asymptotic interconvertibility of multipartite states [90, 91, 95]. The relative entropy of entanglement S(ρ σ) := tr ρ log ρ ρ log σ (38) is bounded from below by the conditional entropy || { − } which is a measure of distinguishability between quan- ER(σ) max S(σA),S(σB) S(σAB) tum states one may then rewrite the quantum mutual ≥ { }− information as which can be obtained from the fact that for any bi- partite non-distillable state ρ we have I(ρ )= S(ρ ρ ρ ) . (39) AB AB|| A ⊗ B S(σ )+ S(σ ρ ) S(σ )+ S(σ ρ ), If the total correlations are quantified by a comparison of A A|| A ≤ AB AB|| AB the state ρ with the uncorrelated state ρ ρ then S(σB )+ S(σB ρB) S(σAB)+ S(σAB ρAB ). AB A B || ≤ || it is intuitive to try and measure the quantum⊗ part of The relative entropy measures are generally not additive, these correlations by a comparison of ρAB with the closest separable state - a classically correlated state devoid of as bipartite states can be found where quantum correlations. This approach gives rise to the EX (ρ⊗n) = nEX (ρ). (41) general definition of the relative entropy of entanglement R 6 R [25, 26, 46, 78] with respect to a set X as The regularized relative entropy of entanglement X ER (ρ) := inf S(ρ σ). (40) EX (ρ⊗n) σ∈X || E∞ := lim R R ,X n→∞ n This definition leads to a class of entanglement measures known as the relative entropies of entanglement (see [77] is therefore of some interest. In various cases exhibiting a for a possible operational interpretation). In the bipar- high degree of symmetry the regularised versions of some tite setting the set X can be taken as the set of separa- relative entropy measures can be calculated employing ble states, states with positive partial transpose, or non- ideas from semi-definite programming and optimization distillable states, depending upon what you are regard- theory [96]. These cases include the Werner states, i.e. ing as ‘free’ states. In the multiparty setting there are states that are invariant under the action of unitaries 15 of the form U U, and which take the form σ(p) = One way of getting around the problem of Eve is to ⊗ pσa + (1 p)σs, where p (1/2, 1] and σa (σs) are states use entanglement distillation. If Alice and Bob distill bi- proportional− to the projectors∈ onto the anti-symmetric partite pure states, then because pure states must be un- (symmetric) subspace. It can be shown that [89] correlated with any environment, any measurements on those pure states will be uncorrelated with Eve. More- d+2 1 H(p), p 2d over, if the distilled pure states are EPR pairs, then ∞ − ≤ ER,PPT (σ(p)) = (42) because each local outcome 0 , 1 occurs with equal  d+2 d−2 d+2 | i | i  lg d + (1 p) lg d+2 , p> 2d probability, each EPR pair may be used to distribute − exactly 1 secret bit of information. This means that where H(p)= plg p (1 p) lg(1 p). It is notable that K (ρ) D(ρ). However, entanglement distillation is D ≥ while this expression− is− continuous− − in p it is not differen- not the only means by which a secret key can be dis- tiable for p = 1/2+1/d. These results can be extended tributed, it examples of PPT states are known where to the more general class of states that is invariant under KD(ρ) > 0, even though D(ρ) = 0 for all PPT states the action of O O, where O is an orthogonal transfor- [100]. It has also been shown that the regularized rela- mation [97]. ⊗ tive entropy with respect to separable states is an upper ∞ Other distance based measures – In eq. (40) one may bound to the distillable secret key, E (ρ) KD(ρ) R ,SEP ≥ consider replacing the quantum relative entropy by dif- [100]. ferent distance measures to quantify how far a particular Logarithmic Negativity – The partial transposition • state is from a chosen set of disentangled states. Many with respect to party B of a bipartite state ρAB expanded interesting examples of other functions that can be used in a given local orthonormal basis as ρ = ρij,kl i j | ih |⊗ for this purpose may be found in the literature (see e.g. k l is defined as | ih | P [25, 26, 98]). It is also worth noting that the relative en- TB tropy functional is asymmetric, in that S(ρ σ) = S(σ ρ). ρ := ρij,kl i j l k . (43) || 6 || | ih | ⊗ | ih | This is connected with asymmetries that can occur in the i,j,k,lX discrimination of probability distributions [26]. One can consider reversing the arguments and tentatively define The spectrum of the partial transposition of a density an LOCC monotone J X (ρ) := inf S(σ ρ) : σ X . matrix is independent of the choice of local basis, and is The resulting function has the advantage{ || of being∈ addi-} independent of whether the partial transposition is taken tive, but unfortunately it has the problem that it can over party A or party B. The positivity of the partial be infinite on pure states [99]. An additive measure that transpose of a state is a necessary condition for separa- does not suffer from this deficiency will be presented later bility, and is sufficient to prove that ED(ρ) = 0 for a on in the form of the ‘squashed’ entanglement. given state [101, 102, 103]. The quantity known as the Negativity The Distillable Secret Key– The Distillable Secret [73, 104], N(ρ), is an entanglement monotone • [65, 105, 106, 107] that attempts to quantify the nega- Key, KD(ρ), quantifies the asymptotic rate at which Al- ice and Bob may distill secret classical bits from many tivity in the spectrum of the partial transpose. We will copies of a shared quantum state. Alice and Bob may define the Negativity as use a shared quantum state to distribute a classical ρTB 1 bit of information - for instance if they share a state N(ρ) := || || − , (44) 2 1/2( 00 00 + 11 11 ), then they may measure it in the | ih | | ih | 0 , 1 basis to obtain an identical classical bit 0, 1, which √ † | i | i where X :=tr X X is the trace norm. While being could form the basis of a cryptographic protocol such as a convex|| entanglement|| monotone, the negativity suffers one-time pad (see e.g. [10] for a description of one-time the deficiency that it is not additive. A more suitable pad). However,if we think of a given bipartite mixed state choice for an entanglement monotone may therefore be ρAB as the reduction of a pure state held between Alice, the so called Logarithmic Negativity which is defined as Bob, and a malicious third party Eve, then it is possible that Eve could obtain information about the secret bit E (ρ) := log ρTB . (45) N 2 || || from measurements on her subsystem. In defining KD it is assumed that each copy of ρAB is purified indepen- The monotonicity of the negativity immediately implies dently of the other copies. If we reconsider the example that EN is an entanglement monotone that cannot in- of the state 1/2( 00 00 + 11 11 ), we can easily see crease under the more restrictive class of deterministic | ih | | ih | † that it is not secure. For instance, it could actually be LOCC operations, ie Φ(ρ) = i AiρAi . While this is a reduction of a GHZ state 000 + 111 held between not sufficient to qualify as an entanglement monotone Alice, Bob and Eve, in which| casei Eve| couldi also have it can also be proven that it isP a monotone under proba- complete information about the ‘secret’ bit. The quan- bilistic LOCC transformations [65]. It is additive by con- tity KD is hence zero for this state, and is in fact zero struction but fails to be convex. Although EN is man- for all separable states. ifestly continuous, it is not asymptotically continuous, 16 and hence does not reduce to the entropy of entangle- distillable entanglement for this state which is log2 5/3 ment on all pure states. [17, 89]. The Squashed entanglement is also known to The major practical advantage of EN is that it can be lockable [7, 47], and is an upper bound to the secret be calculated very easily. In addition it also has various distillable key [7]. operational interpretations as an upper bound to ED(ρ), Robustness quantities and norm based monotones – a bound on teleportation capacity [107], and an asymp- This• paragraph discusses various other approaches to en- totic entanglement cost for exact preparation under the tanglement measures and then moves on to demonstrate set of PPT operations [19]. that they and some of the measures discussed previously The Rains bound – The logarithmic negativity, E , can actually be placed on the same footing. • N can also been combined with a relative entropy concept Robustness of Entanglement – Another approach to to give another monotone known as the Rains’ Bound quantifying entanglement is to ask how much noise must [17], which is defined as be mixed in with a particular quantum state before it becomes separable. For example B(ρ) := min [S(ρ σ)+ EN (σ)] . (46) all states σ || P (ρ) := inf λ σ a state ; (1 λ)ρ + λσ SEP ; λ 0 σ { | − ∈ ≥ } The function S(ρ σ)+ E (σ) that is to be minimized is || N (47) not convex which suggests the existence of local minima measures the minimal amount of global state σ that must making the numerical minimization infeasible. Never- be mixed in to make ρ separable. Despite the intuitive theless, this quantity is of considerable interest as one significance of equation (47), for mathematical reasons it can observe immediately that B(ρ) is a lower bound to is more convenient to parameterize this noise in a differ- P P T ER (ρ) as EN (σ) vanishes for states σ that have a pos- ent way: itive partial transpose. It can also be shown that B(ρ) is an upper bound to the Distillable Entanglement. It is in- Rg(ρ) := inf t teresting to observe that for Werner states B(ρ) happens such that t 0 to be equal to lim EP P T (ρ⊗n)/n [17, 89], a connec- ≥ n→∞ R and a state σ tion that has been explored in more detail in [19, 97, 109]. ∃ Squashed entanglement – Another interesting entan- such that ρ + tσ is separable. glement• measure is the squashed entanglement [47] (see also [110]) which is defined as This quantity, Rg, is known as the Global Robustness of entanglement [57], and is monotonically related to P (ρ) 1 by the identity P (ρ) = Rg(ρ)/(1 + Rg(ρ)). However, Esq := inf I(ρABE) : trE ρABE = ρAB 2 { } the advantage of using Rg(ρ) rather than P (ρ) is that   where : the first quantity has very natural mathematical proper- ties that we shall shortly discuss. The global robustness I(ρ ) := S(ρ )+ S(ρ ) S(ρ ) S(ρ ) . ABE AE BE − ABE − E mixes in arbitrary noise σ to reach a separable state, however, one can also consider noise of different forms, In this definition I(ρABE ) is the quantum conditional mutual information, which is often also denoted as leading to other forms of robustness quantity. For in- I(A; B E). The motivation behind E comes from re- stance the earliest such quantity to be defined, which is sq Robustness lated quantities| in classical cryptography that determine simply called the , Rs, is defined exactly as correlations between two communicating parties and an Rg except that the noise σ must be drawn from the set eavesdropper. The squashed entanglement is a convex of separable states [111, 112, 118]. One can also replace the set of separable states in the above definitions with entanglement monotone that is a lower bound to EF (ρ) and an upper bound to E (ρ), and is hence automatically the set of PPT states, or the set of non-distillable states. D The robustness monotones can often be calculated or at equal to S(ρA) on pure states. It is also additive on tensor products, and is hence a useful non-trivial lower bound to least bounded non-trivially, and have found applications E (ρ). It has furthermore been proven that the squashed in areas such as bounding fault tolerance [57, 58]. C Best separable approximation – entanglement is continuous [108], which is a non-trivial Rather than mixing in statement because in principle the minimization must be quantum states to destroy entanglement one may also carried out over all possible extensions, including infi- consider the question of how much of a separable state is nite dimensional ones. Note that despite the complexity contained in an entangled state. The ensuing monotone is Best Separable Approximation of the minimization task one may find upper bounds on known as the [113], which the squashed entanglement from explicit guesses which we define as can be surprisingly sharp. For the totally anti-symmetric BSA(ρ) := inf tr ρ A state σa for two qutrits one obtains immediately (see Ex- { − } √ such that A 0 ; A SEP ample 9 in [47]) that ED(σa) Esq(σa) log2 3 which ≥ ∈ is very close to the sharpest known≤ upper≤ bound on the and (ρ A) 0. − ≥ 17

This measure is not easy to compute analytically or nu- Then the output ensemble can be written as: merically. Note however, that replacing the set SEP by the set PPT allows us to write this problem as a semidef- aΛi(Ω) RΛi(∆) qi ; − inite programme [96] for which efficient algorithms are { qi } known. αX Λi(Ω) αY Λi(∆) qi ;a ˜i R˜i (50) One shape fits all – It turns out that the robustness ≡ { tr Λi(Ω) − tr Λi(∆) } quantities, the best separable approximation as well as { } { } the negativity are all part of a general family of entan- where glement monotones. Such connections were first observed a tr Λi(Ω) R tr Λi(∆) in [107], where it was noted that the Negativity and Ro- a˜i = { } ; R˜i = { } bustness are part of a general family of monotones that αX qi αY qi can be constructed via a concept known as a base norm Now because of the structure of each operator in X, Y , [114]. We will explain this connection in the following. we have thata ˜i, R˜i 0, and hence for each outcome i the However, our discussion will deviate a little from the ar- expansion in (50) is≥ a valid decomposition. This means guments presented in [107], as this will allow us to include that the average output entanglement satisfies: a wider family of entanglement monotones such as Rg(ρ) and BSA(ρ). tr Λ (∆) q R(ρ ) q R˜ = R { i } = R (51) To construct this family of monotones we require i i ≤ i i α i i i Y two sets X, Y of operators satisfying the following con- X X X ditions: (a) X, Y are closed under LOCC operations and hence the RX,Y give entanglement monotones. It (even measuring ones), (b) X, Y are convex cones (i.e. is also not difficult to show that the RX,Y are convex also closed under multiplication by non-negative scalars), functions. In the case that the two sets X and Y are (c) each member of X (Y ) can be written in the form identical, then the quantity α positive-semidefinite operator, where α are X(Y )× X (Y ) fixed real constants, and (d) any Hermitian operator h h X,X := inf a + b h = aΩ b∆,a,b 0 . may be expanded as: || || Ω,∆∈X{ | − ≥ } can be shown to be a norm, and in fact it is a norm of the h = aΩ b∆ (48) so-called base norm kind. As h can be written as a − || ||X,X simple function of the corresponding RX,X , this gives the where Ω X, ∆ Y are normalised to have trace αX , αY robustness quantities a further interesting mathematical respectively,∈ and∈a,b 0. Given two such sets X, Y and ≥ structure. any state ρ we may define an entanglement monotone as All the monotones mentioned at the beginning of this follows: subsection fit into this family - the ‘Robustness’ arises when both X, Y are the set of separable operators; the RX,Y (ρ) := inf b ρ = aΩ b∆,a,b 0 (49) Best Separable approximation Ω∈X,∆∈Y { | − ≥ } ‘ ’ arises when X is the set of separable operators, Y is the set positive semi-definite operators 1 ; the global robustness{ arises when X is Note that if Ω, ∆ are also constrained to be quantum ×− } states (i.e. αX = αY = 1), then we may rewrite this the set of separable operators, Y is the set of all positive equation: semidefinite operators [57, 111, 112, 118]; the Negativity arises when ρ X,Y where both X, Y are the set of nor- malised Hermitian|| || matrices with positive partial trans- RX,Y (ρ)= Random Robustness ρ + b∆ position. Note that the ‘ ’ is not a inf b b 0, ∆ Y, Ω X s.t. =Ω monotone and so does not fit into this scheme, for defi- { | ≥ ∃ ∈ ∈ 1+ b } nition and proof of non-monotonicity see [111, 112]. Hence equation (49) defines a whole family of quantities The greatest cross norm monotone – Another form of that have a similar structure to robustness quantities. norm based entanglement monotone is the cross norm monotone proposed in [115, 116, 117]. The greatest cross In the more general case where α , α = 1, the quan- X Y 6 norm of an operator A is defined as: tities RX,Y (ρ) will not be robustness measures, but they will still be entanglement monotones. This can be shown n as follows, where we will suppress the subscripts X,Y for A := inf u v : A = u v || ||gcn || i||1|| i||1 i ⊗ i clarity. Suppose that a LOCC operation acts on ρ to give "i=1 i # X X output ρi = Λi(ρ)/qi with probability qi. Suppose also (52) † that the optimum expansion of the initial state ρ is: where y 1 := tr y y is the trace norm, and the infimum|| is|| taken over{ all} decompositions of A into fi- p ρ = aΩ R∆ nite sums of product operators. For finite dimensions it − 18 can be shown that a density matrix ρAB is separable iff choosing (bounded) sets of of EWs and defining mono- ρ gcn=1, and that the quantity: tones as the minimal violation over all witnesses taken || || from the chosen set - see e.g. [118]. It turns out that this E (ρ) := ρ 1 (53) gcn || ||gcn − approach also offers another unified way of understand- ing the robustness and negativity measures discussed in is an entanglement monotone [115, 116, 117]. As it is ex- the previous item [118]. pressed as a complicated variational expression, Egcn(ρ) can be difficult to calculate. However, for pure states This concludes our short survey of basic entanglement and cases of high symmetry it may often be computed measures. Our review has mostly been formulated for exactly. Although Egcn(ρ) does not fit precisely into the two-party systems with finite dimensional constituents. family of base norm monotones discussed above, there is In the remaining two subsections we will briefly summa- a relationship. If the sum in (52) is restricted to Her- rize the problems that we are faced with in more general mitian ui and vi (which is of course only allowed if A settings - where we are faced with more parties and is Hermitian), then we recover precisely the base norm infinite dimensional systems. We will present some of A , where X, Y are taken as the set of separable the results that have been obtained so far, and highlight || ||X,Y states. Hence Egcn is an upper bound to the robustness some unanswered questions. [115, 116, 117]. Entanglement Witness monotones – Entanglement Witnesses• are tools used to try to determine whether a state is separable or not. A Hermitian operator W is INFINITE DIMENSIONAL SYSTEMS defined as an Entanglement Witness if:

ρ SEP tr Wρ 0 In the preceding sections we have explicitly considered ∀ ∈ { }≥ and (54) only finite dimensional systems. However, one may also develop a theory of entanglement for the infinite dimen- ρ s.t. tr Wρ < 0. ∃ { } sional setting. This setting is often also referred to as continuous variable Hence W acts as a linear hyperplane separating some the regime, as infinite dimensional entangled states from the convex set of separable ones. pure states are usually considered as wavefunctions in Many entanglement witnesses are known, and in fact the continuous position or momentum variables. The quan- tum harmonic oscillator is an important example of a physical system that needs to be described in an infi- nite dimensional Hilbert space, as it is realized in many experimental settings, e.g. as modes of quantized light. General states – A naive approach to infinite di- mensional systems encounters several complications, in particular with regards to continuity. Firstly, we will need to make some minimal requirements on the Hilbert space, namely that the system has the property that tr expH/T < to avoid pathological behaviour due to SEP limit{ points in∞} the spectrum [119]. The harmonic oscilla- tor is an example of a system satisfying this constraint. Even so, without further constraints, entanglement mea- sures cannot be continuous because by direct construc- tion one may demonstrate that in any arbitrarily small neighborhood of a pure product state, there exist pure FIG. 6: An entanglement witness is a Hermitean operator states with arbitrarily strong entanglement as measured defining a hyperplane in the space of positive operators such that for all separable states we have trWρ ≥ 0 and there is a by the entropy of entanglement [120]. The following ex- ample makes this explicit. Chose σ = ψ ψ where ρ for which trWρ < 0. 0 | 0ih 0| ψ = φ(0) φ(0) , and consider a sequence of pure | 0i | A i ⊗ | B i CHSH inequalities are well known examples. One can states σk = ψk ψk defined by | ih | take a suitable Entanglement Witness (EW) and use the k amount of ‘violation’ ǫ ψ = √1 ǫ ψ + k φ(n) φ(n) , (56) | ki − k| 0i k | A i ⊗ | B i E (W ) = max 0, tr Wρ (55) r n=1 wit { − { }} X 2 (n) as a measure of the non-separability of a given state. where ǫk = 1/ log(k) and φ : n N0 are or- {| A/Bi ∈ } Many entanglement monotones can be constructed by thonormal bases. Then σ ∞ converges to σ in trace- { k}k=1 0 19 norm, i.e., lim σ σ = 0 while lim E(σ )= Weyl or Glauber operator is defined as: k→∞ k k − 0k1 k→∞ k . Obviously, E is not continuous around the state σ . T ∞ 0 iξ σO However, this perhaps surprising feature can only oc- Wξ = e . (61) cur if the mean energy of the states σk grows unlimited in These operators generate displacements in phase space, k. If one imposes additional constraints such as restrict- and are used to define the characteristic function of ρ: ing attention to states with bounded mean energy then one finds that the continuity of entanglement measures χρ(ξ) = tr[ρWξ]. (62) can be recovered [120]. More precisely, given the Hamil- This can be inverted by the transformation [123]: tonian H and the set = ρ tr[ρH] M where SM { ∈ S| ≤ } S is the set of all density matrices, then we find for example 1 2n ρ = d ξχρ( ξ)Wξ, (63) that for σ M ( ), M > 0, being a pure state that is (2π)n − supported on∈ S a finite-dimensionalH subspace of ( ), and Z ∞ ⊗n S H and hence the characteristic function uniquely specifies σn n=1, σn nM ( ), being a sequence of states {satisfying} ∈ S H the state. Gaussian states are now defined as those states whose characteristic function is a Gaussian [9], i.e., ⊗n lim σn σ =0, (57) 1 T T n→∞ − 4 ξ Γξ+D ξ k − k χρ(ξ)= χρ(0)e , (64) then where Γ is a 2n 2n-matrix and D R2n is a vector. E (σ⊗n) E (σ ) × ∈ lim | F − F n | =0. (58) In defining Gaussian states in this way it is easy to see n→∞ n that the reduced density matrix of any Gaussian state Similar statements hold true for the entropy of entan- is also Gaussian - to compute the characteristic function glement and the relative entropy of entanglement. The of a reduced density matrix we simply set to zero any technical details can be found in [120]. Even with this components of ξ corresponding to the modes being traced constraint however, the description of entanglement and out. its quantification is extraordinarily difficult, although As a consequence of the above definition, a Gaussian some concrete statements can be made [121]. Note how- characteristic function can be characterized via its first ever, that for continuous entanglement measures that are and second moments only, such that a Gaussian state of 2 strongly super-additive (in the sense of eq. (26) in the n modes requires only 2n + n real parameters for its full situation given in fig. 3) one can provide lower bounds description, which is polynomial rather than exponential on entanglement measures in terms of a simpler class of in n. The first moments form the displacement vector d = O = tr[O ρ] j =1, ..., 2n which is linked to the state, the Gaussian states [122]. This motivates the con- j h j iρ j sideration of more constrained sets of states. above D by D = σd. They can be made zero by means Gaussian states – A further simplification that can of a unitary translation in the phase space of individual be made is to consider only the set of Gaussian quantum oscillators and carry no information about the entangle- states. This set of states is important because not only ment properties of the state. do they play a key role in several fields of theoretical and The second moments of a quantum state are defined as the expectation values O O . Because of the canonical experimental physics, but they also have some attrac- h j ki tive mathematical features that enable many interesting commutation relationships the value of OkOj is fixed by the value of O O (the operators O h,O eitheri com- problems to be tackled using basic tools from linear alge- h j ki j k bra. We will concentrate on this class of states, as they mute, or their commutator is proportional to the iden- have been subject to the most progress. The systems tity), and so all second moments can be embodied in the real symmetric 2n 2n covariance matrix γ which is de- that are being considered possess n canonical degrees of × freedom representing for example n harmonic oscillators, fined as or n field modes of light. These canonical operators are γj,k = 2Re tr [ρ (Oj Oj ρ) (Ok Ok ρ)] usually arranged in vector form − h i − h i = tr [ρ ( O , O 2 O O )] (65) { j k}− h j iρh kiρ O = (O ,...,O )T = (X , P ,...,X , P )T . (59) 1 2n 1 1 n n where denotes the anticommutator. The link to the {} Then the canonical commutation relations take the form above matrix Γ is Γ = σT γσ. With this convention, the [Oj , Ok] = iσj,k, where we define the symplectic matrix covariance matrix of the n-mode vacuum is simply 112n. as follows: Clearly, not all real symmetric 2n 2n-matrix represent × n quantum states as these must obey the Heisenberg un- 0 1 σ := . (60) certainty relation. In terms of the second moments the 1 0 j=1  −  ‘uncertainty principle’ can be written as the matrix in- M equality States ρ may now also be characterized by functions that are defined on phase space. Given a vector ξ R2n, the γ + iσ 0 . (66) ∈ ≥ 20

Note that for one mode this uncertainty principle is ac- Its elements are called symplectic or canonical transfor- tually stronger than the usual Heisenberg uncertainty mations. It is useful to know that any orthogonal trans- principle presented in textbooks, and in fact equation formation is symplectic. To any symplectic transforma- (66) is the strongest uncertainty relationship that may tion S also ST ,S−1, S are symplectic. The inverse of −1 − T −1 be imposed on the 2nd-moments Oj Ok . This is be- S is given by S = σS σ and the determinant of cause it turns out that any real symmetrich i matrix γ sat- every symplectic matrix is det[S] = 1 [137, 138]. Given isfying the uncertainty principle (66) corresponds to a a real symplectic transformation S there exists a unique valid quantum state. Proving equation (66) is actually unitary transformation US acting on the state space such † not too difficult [124, 125] - we start with a 2n compo- that the Weyl operators satisfy USWξUS = WSξ for all nent vector of complex numbers y, and define an oper- ξ R2. On the level of covariance matrices γ of an n- ator Y := y (O O ). Then the positivity of ρ mode∈ system a symplectic transformation S is reflected j j j − h j i implies that tr ρY †Y 0 y. A little algebra, and use by a congruence P of the canonical{ commutation}≥ ∀ relationships, shows that γ SγST . (69) tr ρY †Y 0 y γ + iσ 0. 7−→ { }≥ ∀ ⇔ ≥ This observation has quite significant implications con- Generalized Gaussian quantum operations may also be cerning the separability of two-mode Gaussian states defined analogously to the finite dimensional setting, ie shared by two parties. Indeed, a necessary condition for by appending Gaussian state ancillas, performing joint the separability of Gaussian states can be formulated on Gaussian unitary evolution followed by tracing out the the basis of the partial transposition, or more precisely ancillas or performing homodyne detection on them [9, partial time reversal, expressed on the level of covariance 132, 133, 136]. matrices. In a system with canonical degrees of freedom Normal forms – Given a group of transformations on time reversal is characterized by the transformation that a set of matrices it is always of great importance to iden- leaves the positions invariant but reverses the relevant tify normal forms for matrices that can be achieved un- momenta X X, P P . A two-party Gaussian state 7→ 7→ − der this group of transformations. Of further interest is then separable exactly if the covariance matrix corre- and importance are invariants under the group transfor- sponding to the partially transposed state again satisfies mations. For the set of Hermitean matrices and the full the uncertainty relations [126, 127, 128, 129, 130]. More unitary group these correspond to the concepts of di- advanced questions concerning the interconvertibility of agonalization and eigenvalues. In the setting of covari- pairs of states under local operations can also often be ance matrices and the symplectic group we are led to the answered fully in terms of the elements of the covariance Williamson normal forms and the concept of symplec- matrix [131, 132, 133, 135]. In particular, the question of tic eigenvalues. Indeed, Williamson [139] (see [125] for a the interconvertability of pure bi-partite Gaussian states more easily accessible reference) proved that for any co- of an arbitrary number of modes can be decided in full variance matrix Γ on n harmonic oscillators there exists generality [135]. a symplectic transformation S such that Gaussian operations – The development of the the- n ory of entanglement of Gaussian states requires also the µ 0 SΓST = j (70) definition of the concept of Gaussian operations. Gaus- 0 µj j=1   sian operations may be defined as those operations that M map all Gaussian input states onto a Gaussian output The diagonal elements µi are the so-called symplectic state. This definition is not constructive but fortunately eigenvalues of a covariance matrix Γ which are the in- more useful characterizations exist. Physically useful variants under the action of the symplectic group. The is the fact that Gaussian operations correspond exactly set µ1,...,µn is usually referred to as the symplec- to those operations that can be implemented by means tic spectrum{ . The} symplectic spectrum can be obtained of optical elements such as beam splitters, phase shifts directly from the absolute values of the eigenvalues of and squeezers together with homodyne measurements iσ−1Γ. The transformation to the Williamson normal [132, 133, 136]. form implements a normal mode decomposition thereby The most general real linear transformation S which reducing any computational problem, such as the com- implements the mapping putation of the entropy, to that for individual uncoupled modes. Each block in the Williamson normal form rep- S : O O′ = SO (67) 7−→ resents a thermal state for which the evaluation of most will have to preserve the canonical commutation relations physical quantities is straightforward. ′ ′ [Oj , Ok]= iσjk11 which is exactly the case if S satisfies Entanglement quantification – Equipped with these tools we may now proceed to discuss the quantifica- SσST = σ . (68) tion of entanglement in the Gaussian continuous variable This condition is satisfied by the real 2n 2n matrices S arena. Despite all the above technical tools the quantifi- that form the so-called real symplectic group× Sp(2n, R). cation of entanglement for Gaussian states is complicated 21 and only very few measures may be defined let alone com- state ρG with the same first and second moments such puted. that ED(ρG) D(ρ). Finding explicit procedures im- Entropy of entanglement: On the level of pure state plementing distillation≤ protocols is very difficult which we• may again employ the entropy of entanglement which makes it very difficult to determine lower bounds on the we may now express in terms of the covariance matrix. distillable entanglement. Various other measures of en- Assume Alice and Bob are in possession of nA + nB har- tanglement, such as those described below, may be used monic oscillators in a Gaussian state described by the co- to find upper bounds on the distillable entanglement. variance matrix Γ and Alice holds nA of these oscillators. Relative entropy of entanglement: As for the en- Then it can be shown that the entropy of entanglement tanglement• of formation there are now various possible is given by definitions of the relative entropy of entanglement all of

nA which are at least as difficult to compute as in the fi- µ +1 µ +1 µ 1 µ 1 S = i log i i − log i − nite dimensional setting. If the relative entropy of en- 2 2 2 − 2 2 2 tanglement should serve as a provable upper bound on i=1   X (71) the distillable entanglement under general LOCC, then where the µi are the symplectic eigenvalues of Alice’s re- it will have to be computed with respect to the set of duced state described by the covariance matrix ΓA which separable general continuous variable states. This is ob- is simply the submatrix of Γ referring to the system per- viously a very involved quantity and only known on pure taining to Alice. These symplectic eigenvalues are, as re- states where it equals the entropy of entanglement. If −1 marked above, the positive eigenvalues of iσ ΓA. The one considers the relative entropy of entanglement of a proof of the above formula is obtained by transforming state with bounded mean energy with respect to the un- the covariance to its Williamson normal form and subse- restricted set of separable states, then it can be shown quently determine the entropy of the single mode states. that the relative entropy of entanglement is continuous Note that on the set of Gaussian states the entropy is ev- [120]. A more tractable setting is that of the relative idently continuous and it can be shown that this remains entropy of entanglement with respect to the set of Gaus- the case for the set of states with bounded mean energy sian separable states but in this case its interpretation is [120]. unclear. Entanglement of formation: In the finite dimensional Logarithmic negativity: As in the finite dimensional • setting• the defintion of the entanglement of formation has setting, most entanglement measures are exceedingly dif- been unambiguous. In the Gaussian state setting how- ficult to compute. The exception is again the logarithmic ever this is no longer the case. One may define the entan- negativity which is an entanglement monotone [65] but glement of formation of a Gaussian state either (i) with differs, on pure states, from the entropy of entanglement. respect to decompositions in pure Gaussian states or (ii) For a system of n = nA + nB harmonic oscillators in a with respect to decompositions in arbitrary pure states. Gaussian state described by the covariance matrix Γ, the In case (i) it has been proven that the so-defined entan- logarithmic negativity can again be expressed in terms glement of formation is an entanglement monotone under of symplectic eigenvalues. Indeed, considering the co- Gaussian operations and that it can be computed explic- variance matrix ΓTB of the partially transposed state we itly in the case where both parties hold a single harmonic find oscillator each. Remarkably, this entanglement of forma- n tion is even additive for symmetric two-mode states [141]. E = log [min(1, µ˜ )] (72) N − 2 k For the case of a single copy of a mixed symmetric Gaus- i=1 sian two mode state it can also be demonstrated that the X definition (i) coincides with definition (ii) [140, 141]. The where theµ ˜k form the symplectic spectrum for the par- entanglement of formation can be shown to be continuous tially transposed state described by covariance matrix for systems with energy constraint [142]. ΓTB , ie the symplectic eigenvalues. This formula is again Distillable Entanglement: The distillable entangle- proven by applying a normal mode decomposition, this ment• in the continuous variable setting is, as expected, time to the partially transposed covariance matrix, re- extremely difficult to compute. Furthermore, its defi- ducing the problem to a single mode question. It is in- nition is not unambiguous as one may define distilla- teresting to note that on Gaussian states the logarithmic tion with respect to (i) Gaussian operations only, or (ii) negativity also possesses an interpretation as a special general quantum operations. It is remarkable that it type of entanglement cost [19]. has been proven that the setting (i) does not actually The tools for the manipulation and quantification are permit entanglement distillation at all [132, 133, 134]. used in the assessment of the quality of practical opti- Therefore, non-Gaussian operations need to be consid- cal entanglement manipulation protocols. It should also ered. Then, in setting (ii), for Gaussian states it can be noted that these tools have been used successfully to be shown to be continuous and interestingly it can also study entanglement properties of quasi-free fields on lat- be demonstrated that for any ρ there exists a Gaussian tices (i.e. lattices of harmonic oscillators) initiating the 22 study of the scaling behaviour of entanglement between B and C assume the largest possible value of 1 ebit. Also, contiguous blocks in the ground state of interacting quan- a local measurement in the = ( 0 1 )/√2 basis for tum systems [143]. The above methods and quantities example on party A allows|±i us to create| i± |deterministicallyi permitted the rigorous proofs of the scaling of entan- a maximally entangled two-party state of parties B and glement between contiguous blocks in the ground state C. Then we can obtain any other two-party entangled of a linear harmonic chain with a Hamiltonian that is state for parties B and C by LOCC. Unfortunately, how- quadratic in position and momentum[143] and a rigor- ever there are tri-partite entangled states that cannot be ous connection between the entanglement of an arbitrary obtained from the GHZ state using LOCC alone. One set of harmonic oscillators and its surrounding with the such example is the W-state [153] boundary area [144, 145]. This illustrates the usefulness 1 of the results that have been obtained in continuous vari- W = ( 0 A 0 B 1 C + 0 A 1 B 0 C + 1 A 0 B 0 C ). able entanglement theory over the last years. | i √3 | i | i | i | i | i | i | i | i | i (74) Multi-particle entanglement – Although the two- Note however that LOCC operations applied to a GHZ- party setting has provided many interesting examples state allow us to approximate the W-state as closely as of quantum entanglement, the multiparty setting allows we like, albeit with decreasing success probability. In the us to explore a much wider range of effects. Phenom- four party setting however it can be shown that there ena such as quantum computation especially when based are pairs of pure states that cannot even be obtained on cluster states [146], entanglement enhanced measure- from each other approximately employing LOCC alone ments [147, 148], multi-user quantum communication [154]. This clearly shows that on the single-copy level it is [149, 150, 151, 152] and the GHZ paradox all require con- not possible to establish a generic notion of a maximally sideration of systems with more than two particles. For entangled state. this reason it is important to investigate entanglement Of course we have already learnt in the bi-partite set- in the multi-party setting. We will proceed along similar ting that the requirement of exact transformations on lines to the bi-partite setting, first discussing briefly basic single copies can lead to phenomena such as incompara- properties of states and operations and then describing ble states and does not yield a simple and unified picture various approaches to the quantification of multi-particle of entanglement. In the bi-partite setting such a uni- entanglement. fied picture for pure state entanglement emerges however States and Operations – In the following we are go- in the asymptotic setting of arbitrarily many identically ing to concentrate again on local operations and clas- prepared states. One might therefore wonder whether a sical communication whose definition extend straightfor- similar approach will be successful in multi-partite sys- wardly to the multi-party setting. Some remarks will also tems. These hopes will be dashed in the following. In the be made concerning PPT operations which are here de- asymptotic setting we would need to establish the possi- fined as operations that preserve ppt-ness of states across bility for the reversible interconversion in the asymtptotic all possible bi-partite splits. That is, any three-party setting. If that were possible we could rightfully claim state shared between A, B and C that remains positive that all tri-partite entanglement is essentially equiva- under partial transposition of particle A or B or C is lent and only appears in different concentrations that we mapped again onto a state with this property. could then quantify unambiguously. The simplest situ- In the bi-partite setting we initiated our discussions ation that one may consider to explore this possibility with the identification of some general properties of is the interconversion between GHZ and the EPR pairs across parties AB, AC and BC, ie in the limit N multi-party entangled states such as the identification of → ∞ disentangled states and maximally entangled states. At we would like to see this stage crucial differences between the two-party and AB AC BC GHZ ⊗N ⇌ EP R ⊗n EP R ⊗n EP R ⊗n . the multi-party setting become apparent. Let us begin AB AB AB | i | i ⊗ | i ⊗ | i (75) by trying to identify the equivalent of the two-party max- To decide this question one needs to identify sufficiently imally entangled states. In the bi-partite setting we al- many entanglement monotones. In the case of reversibil- ready identified qubit states of the form ( 00 + 11 )/√2 ity these entanglement monotones will remain constant. maximally entangled because every other| qubiti state| i can The local entropies represent such a monotone. These are be obtained from it with certainty using LOCC only. One not enough to decide the question but it turns out that natural choice for a state with this property could be the E (ρ )+ S(ρ ), ie the sume of the relative entropy GHZ-state R AB AB of entanglement of the reduction to two parties and the 1 entanglement between these two parties and the third, GHZ = ( 0 A 0 B 0 C + 1 A 1 B 1 C). (73) | i √2 | i | i | i | i | i | i is also an entanglement monotone in this setting. This is then sufficient to prove that the above process cannot This state has the appealing property that its entangle- be achieved reversibly [90]. This result suggests that as ment across any bi-partite cut e.g. party A versus parties opposed to the bi-partite setting there is not such a sim- 23 ple and unique concept of a maximally entangled state exhibit three-party entanglement as the third party C in the multi-partite setting. is uncorrelated from the other two. Therefore may call One may however try and and make progress by this tri-partite state 2-entangled. One may now try and generalizing the idea of a single entangled state from generalize this idea to mixed states. For example we which all other states can be obtained reversibly in could define as the set of 2-entangled states any ρ that the asymptotic setting. Instead one may consider a may be written in the form set of states from which all other state may be ob- tained asymptotically reversibly. The smallest such ρ = p ρ(i) ρ(i) + q ρ(i) ρ(i) + r ρ(i) ρ(i) i A ⊗ BC i B ⊗ AC i C ⊗ AB set is usually referred to as an MREGS which stands i i i for Minimal Reversible Entanglement Generating Set X X X (77) [156]. It was natural to try and see whether the with positive pi, qi and ri. Then, for N parties one may set GHZ ABC, EP R AB, EP R AC , EP R BC is suf- then define k-entangled states as a natural generalization ficient{| to generatei | the W-statei | reversibly.i | Unfortunately,i } of the above 3-party definition. While this definition ap- even this conjecture was proved wrong [91, 155]. Similar pears natural it encounters problems when we consider results have also been obtained in the four-party setting several identical copies of states of the form given above. [92]. Therefore, an MREGS would also have to contain In that case one can obtain a 3-entangled state by LOCC the W-state as well. It is currently an open question acting on two copies of the above 2-entangled state. As a whether under LOCC operations any finite MREGS ac- simple example consider a three party state where Alice tually exists. has two qubits and Bob and Charlie each hold one. Then 1 In another approach to overcome the difficulties pre- a state of the form: [ 0 0 A1 EP R(A2,B) 0 0 C + 2 | ih | ⊗ ⊗ | ih | sented above one may consider extensions of the set of 1 1 A1 0 0 B EP R(A2, C)] is only 2-entangled. | ih | ⊗ | ih | ⊗ operations that is available for entanglement transfor- However, given two copies of this state the ‘classical flag’ mations. A natural generalization are PPT operations particle A1 can enable Alice to obtain (with some prob- that have already made an appearance in the bi-partite ability) one EPR pair with Bob, and one with Charlie. setting. Adopting PPT operations indeed simplifies the She can then use these EPR pairs and teleportation to situation somewhat. In the single copy setting any k- distribute any three party entangled state she chooses. partite entangled state can be transformed, with finite States of three qubits displaying a similar phenomenon success probability, into any other k-partite entangled can also be constructed. Hence we are faced with a sub- state by PPT operations [93, 94]. The success proba- tle dilemma - either this notion of ‘k-entanglement’ is not bilities can be surprisingly large, e.g. the transforma- closed under LOCC, or it is not closed under taking many tion from GHZ to W state succeeds with more than 75% copies of states. Note however that these states may still [93]. It is noteworthy that PPT operations also overcome have relevance for example in the study of fault-tolerant the constraint that is imposed by the non-increase of the quantum computation [58]. Schmidt-number under LOCC. Indeed, PPT operations Quantifying Multi-partite entanglement – Already in (and also the use of LOCC with bound entanglement as the bi-partite setting it was realized that there are many a free resource) allow us to increase the Schmidt number. non-equivalent ways to quantify entanglement [72]. This This result already implicit in [19] was made explicit in concerned mainly the mixed state case, while in the pure [19, 93]. It was hoped for that this strong increase in state case the entropy of entanglement is a distinguished probabilities and the vanishing of the Schmidt number measure of entanglement. In the multipartite setting constraint would lead to reversibility in the multi-partite this situation changes. As was discussed above it ap- setting, ie a finite MREGS under PPT operations. This pears difficult to establish a common currency of multi- question is however still remains open [95]. partite entanglement even for pure states due to the lack Up until now we have restricted attention to pure of asymptotically reversible interconversion of quantum multi-party entangled states. Now let us consider the states. The possibility to define k-entangled states and definition of separable multi-particle states. The most the ensuing ambiguities lead to additional difficulties in natural definition for disentangled states arises from the the definition of entanglement measures in multi-partite idea that we call a state disentangled if we can create it systems. from a pure product state by the action of LOCC only. Owing to this there are many ways to go about quanti- This implies that separable states are of the form fying multipartite entanglement. Some of these measures will be natural generalizations from the bi-partite setting ρ = p ρi ρi ρi ... (76) i A ⊗ B ⊗ C ⊗ while others will be specific to the multi-partite setting. i X These measures and their known properties will be the where the A, B, C.. label different parties. However, one subject of the remainder of this section. can go beyond this definition. Indeed, the state ( 00 + Entanglement Cost and Distillable Entanglement – In | iAB 11 AB)/√2 0 C is clearly entangled and therefore not the bi-partite setting it was possible to define unam- |separablei in⊗ the | i above sense. However, it also does not biguously the entanglement of pure states establishing a 24 common ”currency” for entanglement. This then formed states, this measure is additive while it is known to be the basis for unique definitions of the entanglement cost sub-additive on mixed states. Remarkably, the multipar- and the distillable entanglement. The distillable entan- tite relative entropy of entanglement is not even additive glement determined the largest rate, in the asymptotic for pure states - a counterexample is provided by the limit, at which one may obtain pure maximally entangled totally anti-symmetric state states from an initial supply of mixed entangled states 1 using LOCC only. However, in the multi-particle setting A = ǫijk ijk (80) there is no unique target state that one may aim for. | i √6 | i Xijk One may of course provide a target state specific defini- tion of distillable entanglement, for example the largest where ǫijk is the totally anti-symmetric tensor [95]. One rate at which one may prepare GHZ states [59], cluster can also compute the relative entropy of entanglement states [60, 62] or any other class that one is interested for some other tri-partite states. Examples of particular in. As these individual resources are not asymptotically importance in this respect are the W-state for which we equivalent each of these measures will capture different find properties of the state in question. 9 E W = log (81) One encounters similar problems when attempting to R| i 2 4 define the entanglement cost. Again, one may use singlet and the states GHZ(α) = α 000 + β 111 for which we states as the resource from which to construct the state | i | i | i by LOCC but one may also consider other resources such find as GHZ or W states. For each of these settings one may E W = α 2 log α 2 β 2 log β 2 . (82) then ask for the best rate at which one can create a target R| i −| | 2 | | − | | 2 | | state using LOCC in the asymptotic limit. Therefore we More examples can be found quite easily. obtain a variety of possible definitions of entanglement Also in our discussion of multi-partite entanglement costs. we introduced the notion of k-entangled states. let us While the interpretation of each of these measures is denote the set of k-entangled state of an N-partite sys- clear it is equally evident that it is not possible to arrive N tem by k . If ew explicitly consider the single copy at a unique picture from abstract considerations alone. S N setting, then it is clear that that the set k does not The operational point of view becomes much more im- increase under LOCC. As a consequence itS can be used portant as different resources may be readily available in as the basis for generalizations of the relative entropy of different experimental settings and then motivating dif- N entanglement simply replacing the set X above by k . ferent definitions of the entanglement cost and the distil- N S We have learnt however that the set k may grow when lable entanglement. allowing for two or more copies of theS state. This imme- Relative Entropic Measures. Distance measures – In diately implies that the so constructed measure will ex- • the bipartite setting we have discussed various distance hibit sub-additivity again. Given that even the standard based measures in which one minimizes the distance of a definition for the multi-partite relative entropy of entan- state with respect to a set of states that does not increase glement is sub-additive this should not be regarded as a in size under LOCC. One such set was that of separable deficiency. Indeed, this subadditivity may be viewed as states and a particularly important distant measure is a strength as it could lead to particularly strong bounds the relative entropy of entanglement. This lead to the on the associated distillable entanglement. relative entropy of entanglement. As we discussed in the Exactly the same principle may be used to extend any first part of this section the most natural extension of the of the distance based entanglement quantifiers to multi- definition of separable states in the multipartite setting party systems - one simply picks a suitable definition of is given by the ‘unentangled’ set X (i.e. a set which is closed under LOCC operations, and complies with some notion of lo- ρ = p ρi ρi ρi ... (78) i A ⊗ B ⊗ C ⊗ cality), and then defines the minimal distance from this i X set as the entanglement measure. As stated earlier, one where the A, B, C.. label different parties. In analogy may also replace the class of separable states with other with the bipartite definition one can hence define a mul- classes of limited entanglement - e.g. states containing tipartite relative entropy measure: only bipartite entanglement. Such classes are not in gen- eral closed under LOCC in the many copy setting and so X ER (ρ) := inf S(ρ σ) (79) the resulting quantities may exhibit strong subadditivity σ∈X || and their entanglement monotonicity needs to be verified where X is now the set of multipartite separable states. carefully. As in the bipartite case the resulting quantity is an en- Robustness measures. Norm based measures. The ro- tanglement monotone which, for pure states, coincides bustness• measures discussed in the bipartite case extend with the entropy of entanglement. Therefore, on pure straightforwardly to the multiparty case. In the bipartite 25 case we constructed the robustness monotones from two by definition these collaborative entanglement measures sets of operators X, Y that were closed under LOCC op- are entanglement monotones. erations, and in addition satisfied certain convexity and It is interesting to note that although the bare Lo- ‘basis’ properties. To define analogous monotones in the calizable entanglement is not a monotone, its regularised multiparty case we must choose sets of multiparty oper- version is a monotone for multiparty pure states [159]. In ators that have these properties. One could for example [159] it is shown that the regularised version of the Lo- choose the sets X, Y to be the set of k-separable positive calizable entanglement reduces to the minimal entropy of operators, for any integer k. entanglement across any bipartite cut that divides Alice Entanglement of Assistance. Localizable entangle- and Bob, which is clearly a LOCC monotonous quan- ment.• Collaborative Localizable entanglement. One way tity by the previous discussion of bipartite entanglement of characterizing the entanglement present in a mul- measures. tiparty state is to understand how local actions by Geometric measure. In the case of pure multiparty • the parties may generate entanglement between two states one could try to quantify the ‘distance’ from the distinguished parties. For example, in a GHZ state set of separable states by considering various functions of 1/√2( 000 + 111 ) of three parties, it is possible to the maximal overlap with a product state [98]. One inter- generate| ani EPR| i pair between any two parties using esting choice of function is the logarithm. This was used only LOCC operations - if one party measures in the in [160] to define the following entanglement quantifier: 1/√2( 0 1 ) basis, then there will be a residual EPR 2 | i ± | i G( ψ ) := log sup( ψ α β γ... ) , (83) pair between the remaining two parties. This is the case | i − |h | ⊗ ⊗ i| even though the reduced state of the two parties is by where the supremum is taken over all pure product states. itself unentangled. The first attempt to quantify this This quantity is non-negative, equals zero iff the state phenomenon was the Entanglement of Assistance pro- ψ is separable, and is manifestly invariant under local | i posed by [157]. The Entanglement of Assistance is a unitaries. One can extend this quantity to mixed states property of 3-party states, and quantifies the maximal using a convex roof construction. However G is not an bipartite entanglement that can be generated on aver- entanglement monotone, and it is not additive for multi- age between two parties A, B if party C measures her party pure states [161]. Nevertheless, G is worthy of in- particle and communicates the result to A, B. A related vestigation as it has useful connections to other entangle- measure known as the Localizable Entanglement was pro- ment measures, and also has an interesting relationship posed and investigated in [52, 53, 54, 55] for the general with the question of channel capacity additivity [161]. multiparty case - this is defined as the maximum entan- We could also have described G as a norm based mea- glement that can be generated between two parties if all sure, as the quantity sup( ψ α β γ... ) is a norm (of |h | ⊗ ⊗ i| remaining n parties act using LOCC on the particles that vectors) known to mathematicians as the injective tensor they possess [51]. Both these measures require an under- norm [162]. lying measure of bipartite entanglement to quantify the ‘Tangles’ and related quantities. Entanglement quan- • the entanglement between the two singled-out parties. In tification by local invariants. An interesting property of the original articles [52, 157] the pure state entropy of en- bipartite entanglement is that it tends to be monoga- tanglement was used, however, one can envisage the use mous, in the sense that if three parties A, B, C have the of other entanglement measures [158]. The Localizable same dimensions, and if two of the parties A and B are Entanglement has been shown to have interesting rela- very entangled, then a third party C can only be weakly tions to correlation functions in condensed matter sys- entangled with either A or B. If AB are in a singlet state tems [52, 53, 54, 55]. then they cannot be entangled with C at all. In [163] As multiparty entanglement quantifiers, both the En- this idea was put into the form of a rigorous inequal- tanglement of Assistance and the Localizable entangle- ity for three qubit states using a entanglement quantifier ment have the drawback that they can deterministi- known as the tangle, τ(ρ). For a qubit n dimensional × cally increase under LOCC operations between all parties systems the tangle is defined as [158]. This phenomenon occurs because these measures are defined under the restriction that Alice and Bob can- τ(ρ)= inf p C2( ψ ψ ) (84) i | iih i| not be involved in classical communication with any other ( i ) X parties - it turns out that in some situations allowing this where C2( ψ ψ ) is the square of the concurrence of pure communication can increase the entanglement that can state ψ and| ih the| infimum is taken over all pure state be obtained between Alice and Bob [158]. This observa- decompositions.| i The concurrence can be used in this tion lead the authors of [158] to define the Collaborative way as any pure state of a 2 n system is equivalent Localizable Entanglement as the maximal bipartite en- to a two qubit pure state. It has× been shown that τ(ρ) tanglement (according to some chosen measure) that may satisfies the inequality [163, 164] be obtained (on average) between Alice and Bob using LOCC operations involving all parties. It is clear that τ(A : B)+ τ(A : C)+ τ(A : D)+ ... τ(A : BCD...) ≤ 26 where the notation A : X1X2... means that τ is computed by a local unitary iff they have the same values on the set across the bipartite splitting between party A and parties of polynomial invariants [168]. For more general groups X1X2... This shows that the amount of bipartite entan- a complete set of polynomial invariants cannot always be glement between party A and several individual parties constructed, and one must also consider local invariants B,C,D,.. is bounded from above by the amount of bipar- that are not polynomial functions of states - one example tite entanglement between party A and parties BCD... is a local GL invariant called the ‘Schmidt rank’, which collectively. is the minimal number of product state-vector terms in In the case of three qubit pure states the residual tangle which a given multiparty pure state may be coherently expanded. It can be shown that one can construct an entanglement monotone (the ‘Schmidt measure’) as the τ = τ(A : BC) τ(A : B) τ(A : C) 3 − − convex-roof of the logarithm of this quantity [169]. is a local-unitary invariant that is independent of which Finding non-trivial local invariants is quite challenging qubit is selected as party A, and might be proposed as in general and can require some sophisticated mathemat- a ‘quantifier’ of three party entanglement for pure states ics. However, for pure states of some dimensions it is of 3-qubits. However, there are states with genuine three possible to use such invariants to construct a variety of party entanglement for which the residual tangle can be entanglement quantifiers in a similar fashion to the tan- zero (the W-state serves as an example [163]). However, gle. These quantifiers are useful for identifying different the residual tangle can only be non-zero if there is gen- types of multiparty entanglement. We refer the reader to uine tripartite entanglement, and hence can be used as a articles [168, 170, 171] and references therein for further indicator of three party entanglement. details. Another way to construct multiparty entanglement measures for multi-qubit pure systems is simply to sin- gle out one qubit, compute the entanglement between SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND OPEN PROBLEMS that qubit and the rest of the system, and then aver- age over all possible choices of the singled out qubit. As any pure bipartite system of dimensions 2 m can be Quantum entanglement is a rich field of research. In written in terms of two Schmidt coefficients,× one can ap- recent years considerable effort has been expended on the ply all the formalism of two-qubit entanglement. This characterization, manipulation and quantification of en- approach has been taken, for example, in the paper by tanglement. The results and techniques that have been Meyer and Wallach [165]. That the quantity proposed in obtained in this research are now being applied not only [165] is essentially only a measure of the bipartite entan- to the quantification of entanglement in experiments but glement across various splittings was shown by Brennen also, for example, for the assessment of the role of entan- [167]. Extensions of this approach are presented in [166]. glement in quantum many body systems and lattice field Local unitary invariants: The residual tangle is only theories. In this article we have surveyed many results one of many local unitary invariants that have been de- from entanglement theory with an emphasis on the quan- veloped for multiparty systems. Such local invariants tification of entanglement and basic theoretical tools and are very important for understanding the structure of concepts. Proofs have been omitted but useful results entanglement, and have also been used to construct pro- and formulae have been provided in the hope that they totype entanglement measures. Examples of local invari- prove useful for researchers in the quantum information ants that we have already mentioned are the Schmidt community and beyond. It is the hope that this article coefficients and the Geometric measure. In the multi- will be useful for future research in quantum information party case we may define the local invariants as those processing, entanglement theory and its implications for functions that are invariant under a local group transfor- other areas such as statistical physics. mation of fixed dimensions. If each particle is assumed Despite the tremendous progress in the characterisa- for simplicity to have the same dimension d, then these tion of entanglement in recent years, there are still sev- local groups are of the form A B C... where A, B, C.. eral major open questions that remain. Some significant are taken from a particular d-dimensional⊗ ⊗ group repre- open problems include: sentation such as the unitary group U(d) or the group Multiparty entanglement: The general characterisation of invertible matrices GL(d). The physical significance of multiparty entanglement is a major open problem, and of the local GL(d) invariants is that if two states have yet it is particularly significant for the study of quantum different values for such an invariant then they cannot computation and the links between quantum information even be inter-converted probabilistically using stochastic and many-body physics. Particular unresolved questions LOCC (‘SLOCC’) operations. In the case of local unitary include: groups one typically only need consider invariants that are polynomial functions of the density matrix elements - Finiteness of MREGS for three qubit states – In an this is because it can be shown that two states are related • attempt to achieve a notion of reversibility in the 27

multi-partite setting, the concept of MREGS was not possess a positive partial transpose but are nev- introduced [156]. This was a set of N-partite states ertheless non-distillable [173, 174]. for fixed local dimension from which all other such states may be obtained asymptotically reversibly. Bounds on the Distillable entanglement. Any en- • It was hoped for that such a set may contain only tanglement measure provides an upper bound on a finite number of states. However, there are sug- the distillable entanglement. Various bounds have gestions [90, 91, 92, 155] that this may not the case. been provided such as the squashed entanglement [7, 47], the Rains bound [17] and asymptotic rel- Distillation results for specific target states – In the ative entropy of entanglement [25, 26]. The last • bi-partite setting the uniqueness of maximally en- two of these coincide for Werner states [89] and it tangled states led to clear definitions for the dis- is an open question whether they always coincide, tillable entanglement. As outlined above this is and whether they are larger or smaller than the not so in the multi-party setting. Given a spe- squashed entanglement. cific interesting multiparty target state (e.g. GHZ states, cluster states etc.), or set of multiparty tar- Entanglement Measures – The present article has pre- get states, what are the best possible distillation sented a host of entanglement measures. Many of their protocols that we can construct? Are there good properties are known but crucial issues remain to be re- bounds that can be derived using multiparty entan- solved. Amongst these are the following. glement measures? Some specific examples have been considered [59, 60, 61] but more general re- Operational interpretation of the relative entropy of • sults are still missing. entanglement – While the entanglement cost and the distillable entanglement possess evident opera- Additivity questions: Of all additivity problems, de- tional interpretations no such clear interpretation ciding whether the entanglement of formation EF is ad- is known for the relative entropy of entanglement. ditive is perhaps the most important unresolved ques- A possible interpretation in terms of the distilla- tion. If EF is additive this would greatly simplify the tion of local information has been conjectured and evaluation of the entanglement cost. It would further- partially proven in [77]. more imply the additivity of the classical capacity of a Calculation of various entanglement measures – quantum channel [48, 49, 50]. Related to the additivity • question is the question of the monotonicity of the entan- There are very few measures of entanglement that glement cost under general LOCC. This may be proven can be computed exactly and possess or are ex- reasonably straightforwardly if the entanglement cost it- pected to possess an operational interpretation. A self is fully additive. However, without this assumption notable exception is the entanglement of formation no proof is known to the authors, and in fact a recent for which a formula exists for the two qubit case argument seems to show that full additivity of the en- [44]. Is it possible to compute, or at least derive tanglement cost is equivalent to its monotonicity [172]. better bounds, for the other variational entangle- ment measures? One interesting possibility is the In addition to EF , there are many other measures for which additivity is unknown. Examples include the Dis- 2-qubit case - in analogy to EF , is there a closed tillable Entanglement and the Distillable Key. form for the relative entropy of entanglement or the squashed entanglement? Distillable entanglement – Distillable entanglement is a well motivated entanglement measure of significant im- Squashed entanglement – As an additive, con- • portance. Its computation is however supremely difficult vex, and asymptotically continuous entanglement in general and even the determination of the distillability monotone the Squashed entanglement is known to of a state is difficult. Indeed, good techniques or algo- possess almost all potentially desirable properties rithms for deciding whether a bipartite state is distillable as an entanglement measure. Nevertheless, there or not, and for bounding the distillable entanglement, are are a number of open interesting questions - in par- still largely missing. ticular: (1) is the Squashed entanglement strictly non-zero on inseparable states, and (2) can the Are there NPT bound entangled states? – In the Squashed entanglement be formulated as a finite • bi-partite setting there are currently three known dimensional optimisation problem (with Eve’s sys- distinct classes of states in terms of their entangle- tem of bounded dimension)? ment properties under LOCC. These are the sepa- rable states, the non-separable states with positive Asymptotic continuity and Lockability questions – partial transpose (which are also non-distillable), • It is unknown whether measures such as the Dis- and finally the distillable states. Some evidence tillable Key, the Distillable Entanglement, and the exists that there is another class of states that do Entanglement cost are asymptotically continuous, 28

and it is unknown whether the Distillable entan- Oppenheim, A. Winter, and R.F. Werner for sharing with glement or Distillable Key are lockable [68, 69, 70]. us their thoughts on open problems. This work is part This is important to know as lockability quanti- of the QIP-IRC (www.qipirc.org) supported by EPSRC fies ‘continuity under tensor products’, and so is a (GR/S82176/0), the EU Integrated Project Qubit Appli- physically important property - if a system is sus- cations (QAP) funded by the IST directorate as contract ceptible to loss of particles, then any characteristic no. 015848, the EU Thematic network QUPRODIS (IST- quantified by a lockable measure will tend to be 2001-38877), The Leverhulme Trust, the Royal Commis- very fragile in the presence of such noise. sion for the Exhibition of 1851 and the Royal Society.

Entanglement Manipulation – Entanglement can be manipulated under various sets of operations, including LOCC and PPT operations. While some understanding of what is possible and impossible has been obtained, a [1] M. Bell, K. Gottfried and M. Veltmann, John S. Bell on complete understanding has not been reached yet. the foundations of quantum mechanics, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore. 1 Characterization of entanglement catalysis – For a [2] J.S. Bell, Physica , 195 (1964). • [3] L. Hardy, Contemp. Phys. 39, 419 (1998). single copy of bi-partite pure state entanglement [4] M.B. Plenio and V. Vedral, Contemp. Phys. 39, 431 the LOCC transformations are fully characterized (1998). by the theory of majorization [28, 29, 30]. It was [5] B. Schumacher and M. D. Westmoreland, E-print arxiv discovered that there are transformations φ ψ quant-ph/0004045. such that its success probability under LOCC| i → is p< | i [6] M. Horodecki, Quant. Inf. Comp. 1, 3 (2001). 1 but for which an entangled state η exists such [7] M. Christandl, PhD Thesis, quant-ph/0604183. 1 that φ η ψ η can be achieved| withi certainty [8] P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, Quant. Inf. Comp. , | i| i → | i| i 45 (2001). under LOCC [33]. A complete characterization for [9] J. Eisert and M. B. Plenio, Int. J. Quant. Inf. 1, 479 states admitting entanglement catalysis is currently (2003). not known. [10] M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum information and computation C.U.P. 2000 Other classes of non-global operation. Reversibil- • [11] However, it is important to realise that strong correla- ity under PPT operations – It is well established tions can be obtained by non-local theories that in other that even in the asymptotic limit LOCC entan- respects might be considered quite classical [12]. Hence glement transformations of mixed states are irre- it requires much more discussion than we will present versible. However in [19] it was shown that that here to decide whether certain correlations are really quantum, or classically non-local. the antisymmetric Werner state may be reversibly [12] N. J. Cerf, N. Gisin, S. Massar, and S. Popescu, Phys. interconverted into singlet states under PPT opera- Rev. Lett. 94, 220403 (2005). tions [17]. It is an open question whether this result [13] J. Eisert, K. Jacobs, P. Papadopoulos and M.B. Plenio, may be extended to all Werner states or even to all Phys. Rev. A 62, 052317 (2000). possible states. In addition to questions concern- [14] D. Collins, N. Linden and S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. A 64, ing PPT operations, are there other classed of non- 032302 (2001). global operation that can be useful? If reversibility [15] S. Virmani and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 67, 062308 (2003). under PPT operations does not hold, do any other [16] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, classes of non-global operations exhibit reversibil- E. Rains, P. W. Shor, J. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, ity? Phys. Rev. A 59, 1070 (1999). [17] E.M. Rains, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 47, 2921 (2001). More open problems in quantum information science [18] T. Eggeling, K. G. H. Vollbrecht, R. F. Werner, and M. can be found in the Braunschweig webpage of open prob- M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 257902 (2001). lems [168]. We hope that this list will stimulate some of [19] K. Audenaert, M. B. Plenio, and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. the readers of this article into attacking some of these Lett. 90, 027901 (2003). 40 open problems and perhaps report solutions, even par- [20] R.F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A , 4277 (1989). [21] L. Masanes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 150501 (2006). tial ones. [22] F.G.S.L. Brand˜ao, E-print arxiv quant-ph/0510078 Acknowledgments — We have benefitted greatly from [23] L. Masanes, E-print arxiv quant-ph/0510188 discussions on this topic with numerous researchers over [24] C. H. Bennett, H. Bernstein, S. Popescu and B. Schu- several years. In relation to this specific article, we macher, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046 (1996). must thank K. Audenaert, F. Brand˜ao, M. Horodecki, [25] V. Vedral, M.B. Plenio, M.A. Rippin, and P.L. Knight, O. Rudolph, and A. Serafini for helping us to clarify a Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997). 57 number of issues, as well as G.O. Myhr, P. Hyllus, and A. [26] V. Vedral and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A , 1619 (1998). Feito-Boirac for careful reading and helpful suggestions. [27] H.-K. Lo and S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. A 63, 022301 We would also like to thank M. Christandl, J. Eisert, J. 29

(2001). [63] M.J. Donald, M. Horodecki, and O. Rudolph, J. Math. [28] M.A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 436 (1999). Phys. 43, 4252 (2002). [29] G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1046 (1999). [64] M.B. Plenio and V. Vitelli, Contemp. Phys. 42, 25 [30] D. Jonathan and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1455 (2001). (1999). [65] M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005). [31] L. Hardy, Phys. Rev. A 60, 1912 (1999). [66] M. Horodecki, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 12, 231 (2005). [32] R. Bhatia, Matrix Analysis (Springer, Berlin, 1997). [67] P.W. Shor, J.A. Smolin and B.M. Terhal, Phys. Rev. [33] D. Jonathan and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3566 Lett. 86, 2681 (2001). (1999). [68] D. DiVincenzo, M. Horodecki, D. Leung, J. Smolin, and [34] G. Vidal, D. Jonathan and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A B. Terhal Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 067902 (2004) . 62, 012304 (2000). [69] K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and J. Op- [35] T.M. Cover and J.A. Thomas, Elements of Information penheim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 200501 (2005) . Theory (Wiley Interscience, New York, 1991) [70] B. Synak-Radtke and M. Horodecki, E-print arxiv [36] Common synonyms for two-qubit maximally entan- quant-ph/0507126 gled states include ‘singlet states’, ‘Bell pairs’ or ‘EPR [71] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. pairs’. Even though these terms strictly mean different Rev. Lett. 84, 2014 (2000). things, we will follow this widespread abuse of terminol- [72] S. Virmani and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Lett. A 288, 62 ogy. (2000). [37] E.M. Rains, E-print arxiv quant-ph/9707002 [73] J. Eisert and M.B. Plenio, J. Mod. Opt. 46, 145 (1999). [38] P. Hayden, M. Horodecki, and B.M. Terhal, J. Phys. A [74] K. Zyczkowski and I. Bengtsson, Ann. Phys. 295, 115 34, 6891 (2001). (2002). [39] A. Kent, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2839 (1998). [75] A. Miranowicz and A. Grudka, J. Opt. B: Quantum [40] E. Rains, Phys. Rev. A 60, 173 (1999); ibid 60, 179 Semiclass. Optics 6, 542 (2004). (1999). [76] D. Yang, M. Horodecki, R. Horodecki and B. Synak- [41] G. Vidal and J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5803 Radtke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 190501 (2005). (2001). [77] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, J. Oppen- [42] M. Horodecki, A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A 67, heim, A. Sen(De), U. Sen and B. Synak, Phys. Rev. A 062314 (2003). 71, 062307 (2005) . [43] C.H. Bennett, D.P. DiVincenzo, J.A. Smolin, and W.K. [78] M.B. Plenio, S. Virmani, and P. Papadopoulos, J. Phys. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996). A 33, L193 (2000). [44] W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998). [79] K.G.H. Vollbrecht and F. Verstraete, Phys. rev. A 71, [45] W.K. Wotters, Quant. Inf. Comp. 1, 27 (2001). 062325 (2005). [46] V. Vedral, M.B. Plenio, K. Jacobs and P.L. Knight, [80] I. Devetak and A. Winter, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 461, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4452 (1997). 207 (2005). [47] M. Christandl and A. Winter, J. Math. Phys 45, 829 [81] A. S. Holevo, IEEE Trans.Info.Theor. 44, 269 (1998). (2004). [82] K. Audenaert, F. Verstraete and B. De Moor, Phys. [48] P.W. Shor, Comm. Math. Phys. 246, 453 (2004). Rev. A 64, 052304 (2001). [49] K.M.R. Audenaert and S.L. Braunstein, Comm. Math. [83] K.G.H. Vollbrecht and R.F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 64, Phys. 246, 443 (2003). 062307 (2001). [50] A. A. Pomeransky, Phys. Rev. A 68, 032317 (2003). [84] J. Eisert, T. Felbinger, P. Papadopoulos, M.B. Plenio [51] J. Smolin, F. Verstraete and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. A and M. Wilkens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1611 (2000). 72, 052317 (2005) [85] B. Terhal and K.G.H. Vollbrecht, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, [52] F. Verstraete, M.-A. Martin-Delgado and J.I. Cirac, 2625 (2000). Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 087201 (2004) [86] G. Vidal, J. Mod. Opt. 47, 355 (2000). [53] F. Verstraete, M. Popp, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. [87] M.B. Plenio and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A 34, 6997 (2001). 92, 027901 (2004) [88] M.J. Donald and M. Horodecki, Physics Letters A 264, [54] M. Popp, F. Verstraete, M. A. Martin-Delgado and J. 257 (1999). Cirac, Phys. Rev. A. 71, 042306 (2005). [89] K. Audenaert, J. Eisert, E. Jan´e, M.B. Plenio, S. Vir- [55] J.K. Pachos and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, mani, and B. DeMoor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 217902 056402 (2004) (2001). [56] A. Key, D.K.K. Lee, J.K. Pachos, M.B. Plenio, M. E. [90] N. Linden, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher and M. West- Reuter, and E. Rico, Optics and Spectroscopy 99, 339 moreland, E-print arxiv quant-ph/9912039 (2005). [91] E. Galv˜ao, M.B. Plenio and S. Virmani, J. Phys. A 33, [57] A. Harrow and M. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 68, 012308 8809 (2000). (2003) [92] S. Wu and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 63, 012308 (2001). [58] S. Virmani, S.F. Huelga, and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. [93] S. Ishizaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 190501 (2004). A. 71, 042328 (2005) [94] S. Ishizaka and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052303 [59] M. Murao, M.B. Plenio, S. Popescu, V. Vedral and P.L. (2005) Knight, Phys. Rev. A 57, 4075 (1998). [95] S. Ishizaka and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 72, 042325 [60] H. Aschauer, W. D¨ur and H.J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A (2005). 71, 012319 (2005). [96] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization, [61] K. Goyal, A. McCauley and R. Raussendorf, E-print Cambridge University Press 2004. arxiv quant-ph/0605228 [97] K. Audenaert, B. DeMoor, K.G.H. Vollbrecht and R.F. [62] K. Chen and H-K Lo, quant-ph/0404133. Werner, Phys. Rev A 66, 032310 (2002). 30

[98] T. Wei and P. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. A. 68, 042307 tion is actually quite subtle, as even defining Gaussian (2003). distillation is non-trivial. Consider for example the ver- [99] J. Eisert, K. Audenaert, and M.B. Plenio, J. Phys. A sion of the no-go theorem proven in [133] - there entan- 36, 5605 (2003). glement distillation is defined as a process which allows [100] K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, and J. you to reach a two-mode squeezed state with arbirar- Oppenheim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 160502 (2005). ily high squeezing. Although [133] show that this is not [101] A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996). possible, from an operational perspective one can use [102] P. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 232, 333 (1997). Gaussian operations to improve the quality of the entan- [103] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, Phys. glement present. For instance, consider a bi-partite four- Rev. Lett. 80, 5239 (1998). mode state ρ which consists of a two-mode highly entan- [104] K. Zyczkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. gled state tensored with a product pure state. Given two Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A 58, 883 (1998). copies of ρ, Alice and Bob can merely throw away the [105] J. Lee, M.S. Kim, Y.J. Park, and S. Lee, J. Mod. Opt. product components and are left with a single four-mode 47, 2151 (2000). state that possesses greater utility for quantum informa- [106] J. Eisert, PhD thesis (University of Potsdam, February tion processing. Hence according to an operational defi- 2001). nition of entanglement distillation (say improvement of [107] G. Vidal and R.F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 65, 32314 teleportation fidelity), it is possible to distill Gaussian (2002). entanglement using Gaussian operations from Gaussian [108] R. Alicki and M. Fannes, E-print arxiv states of 2 × 2 modes. This apparent contradiction arises quantum-ph/0312081 because there are different ways in which one can quan- [109] S. Ishizaka, Phys. Rev. A 69, 020301(R) (2004). tify the increase of entanglement of quantum states - in [110] R. R. Tucci, quant-ph/9909041; R. R. Tucci, principle this subtle distinction may also be an issue in quant-ph/0202144. the finite dimensional regime. [111] G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Phys. Rev. A. 59, 141 (1999). [135] G. Giedke, J. Eisert, J.I. Cirac and M.B. Plenio, Quan- [112] M. Steiner, Phys. Rev. A 67, 054305 (2003). tum. Inf. Comput. 3, 211 (2003). [113] M. Lewenstein and A. Sanpera 80, 2261 (1998). [136] J. Fiur´aˇsek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 137904 (2002). [114] R. Nagel ‘Order Unit and Base Norm Spaces’, in Foun- [137] R. Simon, E.C.G. Sudarshan, and N. Mukunda, Phys. dations of Quantum Mechanics and Ordered Linear Rev. A 36, 3868 (1987). Spaces, Eds. A. Hartk¨amper and H. Neumann, Springer- [138] Arvind, B. Dutta, N. Mukunda, and R. Simon, Pra- Verlag (1974). mana 45, 471 (1995). [115] O. Rudolph, J. Phys. A: Math Gen 33, 3951 (2000). [139] J. Williamson, Am. J. Math. 58, 141 (1936). [116] O. Rudolph, J. Math. Phys. 42, 2507 (2001). [140] G. Giedke, M.M. Wolf, O. Kr¨uger, R.F. Werner, and [117] O. Rudolph, quant-ph/0202121. J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 107901 (2003) [118] F.G.S.L. Brand˜ao, Phys. Rev. A 72, 040303(R) (2005). [141] M.M. Wolf, G. Giedke, O. Kr¨uger, R.F. Werner and J.I. [119] This excludes for example the hydrogen atom from our Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052320 (2004). considerations as it has a limit point in the spectrum at [142] M.E. Shirokov, E-print quant-ph/0411091. the ionization level. [143] K. Audenaert, J. Eisert, M.B. Plenio and R.F. Werner, [120] J. Eisert, Ch. Simon and M.B. Plenio, J. Phys. A 35, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042327 (2002). 3911 (2002) [144] M.B. Plenio, J. Eisert, J. Dreißig, M. Cramer, Phys. [121] S. Parker, S. Bose and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 61, Rev. Lett. 94, 060503 (2005). 032305 (2000). [145] M. Cramer, J. Eisert, M.B. Plenio and J. Dreissig, Phys. [122] M.M. Wolf, G. Giedke and J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. Rev. A 73, 012309 (2006) 96, 080502 (2006). [146] R. Raussendorf and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, [123] K. Cahill and R. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 177, 1857 (1969). 5188 (2001). [124] see e.g. H. P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 46, 794 (1934) ; A. [147] D. J.Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W.M. Itano, F. L. Serafini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110402 (2006). Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 46, R6797 [125] R. Simon, N. Mukunda, B. Dutta, Phys. Rev. A. 49, (1992). 1567 (1994) [148] S.F Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A.K. Ek- [126] R. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2726 (2000). ert, M. B. Plenio, J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3865 [127] L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J.I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. (1997). Rev. Lett. 84, 2722 (2000) [149] M. Murao, D. Jonathan, M.B. Plenio and V. Vedral, [128] R.F. Werner and M.M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3658 Phys. Rev. A 59, 156 (1999). (2001). [150] M. Hillery, V. Buzek, and A. Berthiaume, Phys. Rev. A [129] G. Giedke, B. Kraus, M. Lewenstein, and J.I. Cirac, 59, 1829 (1999). Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167904 (2001) [151] A. Karlsson, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Phys. Rev. A [130] G. Giedke, L.-M. Duan, J.I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quan- 59, 162 (1999) tum. Inf. Comput. 1, 79 (2001). [152] M. Murao, D. Jonathan, M.B. Plenio and V. Vedral, [131] J. Eisert and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 097901 Phys. Rev. A 61, 032311 (2000). (2002). [153] W. D¨ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac Phys. Rev. A 62, [132] J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 062314 (2000). 89, 137903 (2002). [154] F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, B. De Moor, and H. Ver- [133] G. Giedke and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032316 schelde, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052112 (2002). (2002). [155] A. Acin, G. Vidal and J. I. Cirac, Quant. Inf. Comp. 3, [134] The no-go theorem for Gaussian entanglement distilla- 55 (2003). 31

[156] C. H. Bennett, S. Popescu, D. Rohrlich, J. A. Smolin [17, 40], and is defined as the set of completely positive and A. V. Thapliyal, Phys. Rev. A. 63, 012307 (2001). operations Φ such that ΓB ◦ Φ ◦ ΓB is also completely [157] D. DiVincenzo, C. Fuchs, H. Mabuchi, J. Smolin and A. positive, where ΓB corresponds to transposition of all Uhlmann, Lecture Notes in Comp. Science 1509, 247 of Bob’s particles, including ancillas. One can also con- (1999) . sider transposition only of those particles belonging to [158] G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens, quant-ph/0512139. Bob that undergo the operation Φ. However, we believe [159] M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Nature that this does not affect the definition. It is also irrel- 436, 673 (2005). evant whether the transposition is taken over Alice or [160] T. Wei, M. Ericsson, P. Goldbart and W. Munro, Quant. Bob, and so one may simply assert that Γ ◦ Φ ◦ Γ must Inf. Comp. 4, 252 (2004). be completely positive, where Γ is the transposition of [161] R. Werner and A. Holevo, J. math. Phys. 43, 4353 one party. It can be shown that the PPT operations (2002). are precisely those operations that preserve the set of [162] see e.g. A. Defant and K. Floret, ‘Tensor Norms and PPT states. Hence the set of non-PPT operations in- Operator Ideals’, North-Holland (1993). cludes any operation that creates a free (non-bound) [163] V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. Wootters, Phys. Rev. entangled state out of one that is PPT. Hence PPT op- A. 61, 052306 (2000). erations correspond to some notion of locality, and in [164] T. Osborne and F. Verstraete, quant-ph/0502176. contrast to separable operations it is relatively easy to [165] D. A. Meyer and N. R. Wallach, J. Math. Phys. 43, check whether a quantum operation is PPT [17]. 4273 (2002) [176] That this is true can be proven as follows. Consider [166] C. Emary, J. Phys A. 37, 8293 (2004). a general bipartite state |ψi = aij |ii|ji. The ampli- [167] G. K. Brennen, Quant. Inf. Comp. 3, 619 (2003). tudes aij can be considered as the matrix elements of a [168] The web site at the Universit¨at Braunschweig matrix A. This matrix hence completelyP represents the http://www.imaph.tu-bs.de/qi/problems/3.html con- state (as long as a local basis is specified). If we per- tains an interesting review of this problem and further form the local unitary transformation U ⊗ V |ψi then references. the matrix A gets transformed as A → UAV T . It is a [169] J. Eisert and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 64, 022306 well established result of matrix analysis - the singular (2001). value decomposition [32] - that any matrix A can be di- [170] A. Miyake, Phys. Rev. A. 67, 012108 (2003). agonalised into the form Aij = λiδij by a suitable choice [171] P. Levay, Journal of Physics A 38, 9075 (2005). of (U, V ), even if A is not square. The coefficients λi are [172] M. Horodecki, private communication. the so-called singular values of A, and correspond to the [173] D.P. DiVincenzo, R. Jozsa, P.W. Shor, J.A. Smolin, Schmidt coefficients. B.M. Terhal, and A.V. Thapliyal, Phys. Rev. A 61, [177] i.e. A pure operation is one in which each different mea- 062312 (2000). surement outcome corresponds to only one Kraus oper- [174] W. D¨ur, J.I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein and D. Bruß, Phys. ator Rev. A 61, 062313 (2000). [175] The class of PPT operations was proposed by Rains