Arxiv:1903.02146V1 [Quant-Ph] 6 Mar 2019

Home , Quantum steering

arXiv:1903.02146v1 [quant-ph] 6 Mar 2019 aeatatdicesn teto [ attention increasing attracted have n-ie eieidpnetqatmkydistribution [ key (1SDI-QKD) quantum device-independent one-sided oet [ moments [ lations [ [ variances relations multiplicative uncertainty on [ based inequalities ities derived, steering been linear have as inequalities such and criteria steering ious [ communities information quantum 7 and optics tum [ steering EPR and [ entanglement EPR quantum from Especially, originated paradox: correlations quantum theory. be- of quantum out conflict types three and or points difference theory It the classical investigate tween paradox. deeply to EPR way lo- called a on usually based realism (QM) cal mechanics quantum of completeness P teigwsnteaoaeyitrrtdutl2007 until interpreted of elaborately concept [ not the was of steering formulation EPR rigorous a Bell of However, since and superset developments 1964. entanglement flourishing a attained Quantum and have states nonlocality states. steerable entangled EPR of nonlocal of subset Bell set a the is states nonlocalities, of hierarchy the e iciiain[ discrimination nel odto o w-ui tt ob teal ihre- with steerable be to state two-qubit a for condition isen oosy n oe ER [ (EPR) Rosen and Podolsky, Einstein, 5 .Frisac,ERsern a rvd euiyin security provide can steering EPR instance, For ]. .Rcnl,i a andicesn neeti quan- in interest increasing gained has it Recently, ]. 2 aual,dtcinadcaatrzto fsteering of characterization and detection Naturally, ntegetdbt fqatmmcaisi 1930s, in mechanics quantum of debate great the In A e aoaoyo unu nomto,Uiest fSc of University Information, Quantum of Laboratory Key CAS 19 ,adheacyo teigciei ae on based criteria steering of hierarchy and ], 20 teaiiydtcino rirr -ui tt i mach via state 2-qubit arbitrary of detection Steerability pnn pteaeust xlr unu teigvatema the via in numbers: steering PACS quantum cases explore three generic to in in avenues measure the methods to up existing need opening only the quantum Bob outperforms and performance method Alice stee high directions where quantum a measurement realized, performance is realize fixed high a firstly few Furthermore, we a information. help in method, the measure this steer with to of states is need 2-qubit only Bob w arbitrary Bob and work, for this Alice In scheme unknown. by detection ve are shared Alice still of is state directions measurement it two-qubit exist, arbitrary criteria steering an of lots even However, .I atclr eesr n sufficient and necessary a particular, In ]. 8 unu teigi nipratnnlsia eorefor resource nonclassical important an is steering Quantum – 10 .INTRODUCTION I. n lya prtv oei chan- in role operative an play and ] 11 4 ,hv enptfrad Within forward. put been have ], hns cdm fSine,Cogig401,Pol’ Re People’s 400714, Chongqing Sciences, of Academy Chinese hns cdm fSine,Cogig401,Pol’ Re People’s 400714, Chongqing Sciences, of Academy Chinese n eemlfiain[ teleamplification and ] 16 , 17 3 hnqn e aoaoyo uoae esnn n Cognit and Reasoning Automated of Laboratory Key Chongqing ,fieganducranyre- uncertainty fine-grained ], hnqn nttt fGenadItlietTechnology, Intelligent and Green of Institute Chongqing hnqn nttt fGenadItlietTechnology, Intelligent and Green of Institute Chongqing 1 2 etrfrNnfbiainadSse Integration, System and Nanofabrication for Center ,Bl olclt [ nonlocality Bell ], hnlagRen Changliang 5 15 – 7 , , 1 18 13 11 hlegdthe challenged ] , – , 15 22 13 12 ,entropic ], ,inequal- ], – Dtd ac ,2019) 7, March (Dated: 24 ]. .Var- ]. ,2, 1, 3 5 ], – ∗ n hnb Chen Changbo and n praho nageet[ entanglement on approach ing test. experimental to Thus approach for efficient steerability states. an de- detect develop generated be to rapidly challenging to remains distinct steerability it of states detect sequence to different wants a one of of when if typical worse amount is even large which tected, is of a lot It are a need efficient. there them not of and phe- both measurements Hence, characterized amount observed. the large is the until a nomenon while choosing directions by measurement state, times many of the try of to has information to latter needs whole former the the measure Obviously, steerabil- non-steerability. the and the distinguish ity of can violation which inequality), the the observe steering as directly (such steer- tomograph to phenomenon the trying state characterized through is quantum other computing complete the is a measurement, One after criteria state. steerabil- un- ing the this an identify share of to ways Bob ity two and are Alice there below. state, if known explained test, as experimental demanding real In resource criteria of is those directions measurement which Bob, optimal Alice, steer finding can to Alice down if boils determine to Bob, e eae,teehsbe ai rwn neetnot interest growing rapid past a the been In has data. there existing after decades, of few accuracy amount reasonable large with from learning data make new instantly on to capability predictions the possesses learning chine ly hs rtracnb optdtruhsemidefinite through [ computed programming be can criteria these ally, iciiat [ discriminants pc opoetv esrmnsi xiie [ exhibited is measurements projective to spect ec n ehooyo hn,Hfi202,P China PR 230026, Hefei China, of Technology and ience eety h ucsflapiain fmcielearn- machine of applications successful the Recently, and Alice by shared state quantum arbitrary an For ydffiutt ffiinl eemn whether determine efficiently to difficult ry igcasfirwt ata information partial with classifier ring rvd necetqatmsteering quantum efficient an provide e fmcielann,weeAieand Alice where learning, machine of em fbt pe n accuracy, and speed both of terms hn erigapproach. learning chine xdmaueetdrcin.Our directions. measurement fixed beo o,bcueteoptimal the because not, or able unu nomto processing. information quantum teigcasfirwt h whole the with classifier steering nodrt rv h validity the prove to order In . 28 25 hdanwlgto hspolm Ma- problem. this on light new a shed ] ]. 3, ∗ ulco China of public ulco China of public ion, n learning ine 26 ‡ † , 27 n nonlocality and ] 24 .Actu- ]. 2

ˆ a ˆ b only in theoretical studies, but also in a variety of ap- where MA and MB are the projective operators for Alice plications of machine learning. Interestingly, beside its and Bob respectively. extensive applications in industry, machine learning has It is well-known that, Wiseman, Jones and Doherty also been employed to investigate physics-related prob- formally defined quantum steering as the possibility of re- lems in recent years. Nowadays, many quantum imple- motely generating ensembles that could not be produced mentations of machine learning have been introduced to by a local hidden state (LHS) model. The mathematic achieve better performance for quantum information pro- formulation of the LHS model adds an extra requirement cessing [26–37], such as the hamiltonian learning [34], au- on Bob’s probabilities, which can be expressed as tomated quantum experiments search [35], phase transi- ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ tion identification [36], identification of topological phase P (a,b | A, B,ρ) = Pλ P (λ)P (a | A, λ)PQ(b | B, λ) ˆ ˆ b of matter [37], entanglement classification [26–28], just to PQ(b | B, λ) = Tr(ρλMB), name a few. (2) Certainly, these works motivate us to adopt machine where ρλ is a qubit specified by λ. If the joint proba- learning as an alternative approach for investigations of bility can be decomposed in the form of Eq. (2), then various quantum tasks. Different from the previous re- we say that Alice can not steer Bob’s state. Other- searches, in this paper, we employ the machine learn- wise P (a,b | A,ˆ B,ρˆ ) shows quantum steering correla- ing techniques to tackle the bipartite steering detection tion (in the sense that Alice steers Bob). The steering problem by recasting it as a learning task. We build scenario consists of the situation where no characteri- several new steerability classifiers underpinned by ma- sation of Alice’s measurements is assumed, while Bob chine learning techniques. Firstly, an efficient steerabil- has full control of his measurements and can thus access ity classifiers with the whole information demonstrated the unnormalised conditional states σa|A, where σa|A = ˆ a the validity of steering classification by machine learning. TrA[(MA ⊗ I)ρ]. In other words, deciding whether an as- Secondly, and more importantly, we provide a quantum semblage σa|A demonstrates steering amounts to check- steering detection scheme for arbitrary two-qubit states ing whether there exists a collection of quantum states ρλ with the help of machine learning, where Alice and Bob and probability distributions P (λ) and P (a | A,ˆ λ) such only need to measure in three fixed measurement direc- that (2) holds. Obviously this is in principle a hard prob- tions. These efficient steerability classifiers, which work lem, since the variable λ could assume infinitely many for arbitrary 2-qubit states, are exhibited and fully ana- values. However, if the number of measurements and lyzed. Either for arbitrary 2-qubit state or special states, outputs is finite, this problem becomes much simpler, they can perform better than the traditional semidefinite and it was shown in [4] that the problem can be solved programming (SDP). More importantly, comparing with through semi definite programming (SDP) [38]. Next, we the classical method, this approach is much less resource briefly review this approach. demanding and can quickly determine whether a state is Suppose that Alice performs m measurements, labeled steerable with a well-trained classifier. Hence, it provides as x =0, 1...... , m − 1. One can write a SDP that deter- a simpler and more efficient way to detect steerability, mines if Alice can steer Bob [4], which sheds new light on classification of quantum steer- ′ ing with limited resources, and represents a step towards given {σa|x}, {D(a|x, λ )}λ′ large-scale machine-learning-based applications in quan- min Tr Pax Fa|xσa|x {Fa|x} (3) tum information processing. ′ ′ s.t. Pax Fa|xD(a|x, λ ) ≥ 0 ∀λ ′ Tr Pax,λ′ Fa|xD(a|x, λ )=1,

′ II. QUANTUM STEERING where Fa|x are Hermitian matrices, λ is a map from {x} ′ ′ to {a} and D(a|x, λ ) = δa,λ′(x), that is D(a|x, λ )=1 if λ′(x) = a and D(a|x, λ′) = 0 if λ′(x) 6= a. If the We start by deﬁning the scenario in which quantum objective value of (3) is negative for some measurements steering is discussed. For the sake of convenience, let us x, then ρ is steerable from Alice to Bob. On the other only consider the simplest case — two qubit system. Con- hand, a non-negative value means that there exists an sider a bipartite situation composed by Alice and Bob LHS model. sharing an arbitrary quantum state ρ. Suppose Alice performs measurement Aˆ with outcome a and Bob performs measurement Bˆ with outcome b. These outcomes are thus in general governed by a joint probability distribu- III. QUANTUM STEERING CLASSIFIER WITH WHOLE INFORMATION tion P (a,b | A,ˆ B,ρˆ ). Such joint probability distribution predicted by quantum theory is deﬁned by Theoretically, we can detect steering more and more ˆ ˆ ˆ a ˆ b P (a,b | A, B,ρ) = Tr(MA ⊗ MBρ), (1) precise with the increase of measurements by SDP [25]. 3

However, there is yet a noticeable drawback of the above Classification Accuracy of the ML Approach with Features F1 SDP approach from the perspective of the tradeoﬀ be- 1.0 tween the accuracy and time consumption. Boosting the Cross accuracy means adding additional extreme points to en- 0.8 Random large the convex hull, which requires more time to de- Werner termine if a point is inside the enlarged convex hull or 0.6 not. To overcome this, we combined SDP with supervised learning, as machine learning has the power to speed up accuracy such computations. 0.4 Naturally, the bipartite steering detection problem can be formulated as a supervised binary classiﬁcation task. 0.2 Here, the datasets are generated by adopting the follow- 0.0 ing procedure: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 m

• First generating two random 4 × 4 matrices M and N, which are used to generate a Hermitian matrix FIG. 1: (Color online) Classification accuracy of machine † learning with the whole information (F1-features). The first H := (M+iN)(M+iN) , where † means taking the column (blue) depicts the accuracy of cross validation; the conjugate transpose, and a density matrix ρAB := second column (orange) depicts the classification accuracy on H/Tr(H). random states and the third column (green) depicts the classification accuracy on the Werner state.

• Since ρAB is a density matrix of 4 × 4, it is enough to use the ﬁrst 3 elements on the diagonal and the real and imaginary parts of 6 elements below the following optimization problem: diagonal of the matrix to form the vector of fea-

tures, which is a real vector of 15 numbers in the given (xi,yi),i =1,...,ℓ interval (−1, 1), denoted by F1. 1 wT w ℓ min + C P =1 ξi w,b,ξ 2 i (4) T s.t. yi(w φ(xi)+ b) ≥ 1 − ξi • For a given density matrix ρ , we run SDP Pro- AB ξi ≥ 0. gram (3) 100 times with different values of measurements. If the objective value is negative, we Here ℓ is the number of samples, yi and xi are respec- assign a label −1; otherwise we assign a label +1, tively the label and the vector of features of sample i, which means that we do not know if Alice can steer φ is a mapping implictly defined by a kernel function Bob. and we choose the radial basis function (RBF) kernel T 2 K(φ(xi) , φ(xj )) = exp(−γkxi − xj k ) with the param- For each m = 2,..., 8, we generate the corresponding eters C and γ to be determined by a grid search approach dataset until at least 5000 samples with label +1 and when training the model. 5000 samples with label −1 are obtained. Generating In the rest of this section, the models are trained with the datasets for all different settings m = 2,..., 8 take feature vectors of type F1, which encodes the full infor- several months on a workstation. Here, we should empha- mation of a two-qubit quantum state. After the SVM size that the collected states for different settings m are model is trained, we test the performance by creating a totally random and independent. Finally, we collected new set of quantum ensemble that is distinct from the over 70000 samples in total [39]. Actually, it becomes data set employed for training. The classification accu- harder and harder to obtain a dataset with the increase racy of the learning model for each m is illustrated in of amount of measurements. For example, when m = 8, Fig. 1. All the accuracies for training and cross valida- it spent about 63 days to collect the dataset. For each tion are higher than 0.95, which clearly shows that the m =2,..., 8, the last 1000 positive samples and the last models are well-trained. 1000 negative samples are reserved for test. The rest 4000 It is reasonable to predict that, if these steerability positive samples and 4000 negative samples are kept as classifiers are well-trained, the classifiers should turn the training set to learn a classifier. We employ a 4-fold more precise with the increase of m. To show such va- cross-validation technique and a grid search approach for lidity, we use classifiers learned for different m to test selecting best hyperparameters. The machine learning against the random data for m = 8. As illustrated in method we use is support vector machine (SVM). Fig. 2, the blue-circle line is for F1 features, it is shown SVM is a supervised learning model used for classifi- that, the error drops very rapidly (except m = 6, which cation and regression analysis, which requires solving the may come from the imperfection in the learning pro- 4

We predict the steerability bounds using both learned Error of Classification on Test Data of m=8 0.5 classiﬁers and SDP. F1

F3 0.4 F4 π/4 π/6 1.0 1.0 ML ML SDP SDP Bound Bound 0.3 0.8 0.8 p p 0.6 0.6 error 0.2 0.4 0.4 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 m m 0.1 π/8 π/12 1.0 1.0 ML ML SDP SDP Bound Bound 0.0 0.8 0.8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 p p m 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 FIG. 2: (Color online) Error of classification on test data 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 of m = 8 by each machine learning classifier with different m m features F1, F2, F3, F4 (summarized in appendix) respectively. FIG. 3: (Color online) The predictions of steerability for generalized Werner states by learned classifiers and SDP. The blue line is the result predicted by learning classifiers with cess). However, the variation tendency is identical to F1 features. Similarly, the red line is the result predicted by the theoretical prediction in general (the more measure- SDP. And the orange line is the steerability bound from Alice to Bob. ment settings, the more precise the prediction) which further demonstrates that these are well-trained classifiers of quantum steering. As illustrated in Fig. 3, four subfigs in this picture cor- To demonstrate the generalization ability of the steer- π π π π respond to ξ = { 4 , 6 , 8 , 12 } respectively. In each subfig, ing classifiers, we study their ability in clarifying a special the blue line is the result predicted by the learned clas- state which has unambiguous bound for steerability. The sifiers for m = 2, ..., 8 respectively. Similarly, the red state can be written as, line is the result predicted by SDP with m = 2, ..., 8. The orange line is the steerability bound from Alice to ρW = p | ψihψ | +(1 − p)ρA ⊗ I/2 (5) Bob which is defined by Eq. (6). Obviously, the learning classifiers perform better than the traditional SDP. Espe- where | ψi = cos ξ | 00i + sin ξ | 11i, ρ = Tr (| ψihψ |). A B cially, when ξ = π , Werner state, the learning classifiers This state is a two-qubit one-way steerable state, which 4 demonstrate the best performance. In Fig. 1, the third was exhibited by Bowles et.al in [40] recently. The state green column depicts the classification accuracy on the reduces to the Werner state when ξ = π . In simplic- 4 Werner state. It is interesting to notice that for m > 4, ity, this state can be called “generalized Werner state”. the classification accuracy on Werner state is even higher Different from entanglement and nonlocality, each qubit than on random data, despite the fact that the model is in Alice and Bob plays different role in the steering sce- trained with random data. As the decrease of ξ, the pre- nario. There exists one-way quantum steering. That diction errors of both the learning classifiers and SDP is, special entangled states such that steering can occur increase. It is a reasonable phenomenon since the predic- from Alice to Bob, but not from Bob to Alice. One-way tions for the marginal states become harder and harder. steering states attracted more attention due to their spe- In Fig. 4, the first subfig for F features shows the classifi- cial characterization. For the state in Eq. (5), which is 1 cation error for generalized Werner States (with different unsteerable from Alice to Bob [40], if angles). Obviously, the error increases when the angle 2p − 1 drops which coincides with the above analysis. Another cos2 2ξ ≥ (6) (2 − p)p3 interesting phenomenon is, even though the learned classifiers can be more effective than SDP, it is still possible which has also been experimentally demonstrated very that they may predict the value of p lower than the steer- recently in [41]. Obviously, the bound of the parameter ability bound, which almost never happens for SDP. The p that Alice can steer Bob’s state is determined by Eq. reason is that, one typical character for machine learn- (6). Here we apply our classifiers to predict the steering classifiers is that they can predict the positive to be ability of such states. The test states are constructed negative and vice versa. However, the main error for according to the uniform distribution of p and ξ. For SDP occurs when it predicts the negative to be positive. π π π π each ξ = { 4 , 6 , 8 , 12 }, we generate 10000 test samples. Hence, this phenomenon can be used to distinguish which 5 method is used. Classification Accuracy of the ML Approach with features F2 1.0

F1 F2 0.5 0.5 0.8 /4 /4 /6 /6 0.4 /8 0.4 /8 /12 /12 Cross 0.3 0.3 0.6 Random

error 0.2 error 0.2 Werner

0.1 0.1 accuracy 0.4 0.0 0.0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 m m 0.2

F3 F4 0.5 0.5 /4 /4 /6 /6 0.4 /8 0.4 /8 0.0 /12 /12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.3 0.3 m

error 0.2 error 0.2 0.1 0.1 FIG. 5: (Color online) Classification accuracy of machine 0.0 0.0 2 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 learning with partial information (F features). The first m m column (blue) depicts the accuracy of cross validation; the second column (orange) depicts the classification accuracy on random states and the third column (green) depicts the clas- FIG. 4: (Color online) Classification error for generalized sification accuracy on the Werner state. Werner states with different classifiers.

The above results clearly demonstrate the validity of need to measure in a few fixed measurement directions. steerability detection by machine learning. Even the Steerability is unaffected by local unitaries for Alice whole information is still needed by this scheme, same and “local filters”/”stochastic local operations” for Bob. as the traditional SDP method, the machine learning Hence the relevant information for steerability could be method is much more efficient than SDP in data pro- encoded in a smaller feature vector. Actually, an arbitrary two-qubit state can be expressed in the local Pauli cessing. Take m = 8 for example, the learned classifier basis spends about 10−2s to predict an unknown state while 3 3 3 it takes about 102s for the SDP with m = 8. Maybe it 1 ρ = I + riσi ⊗ I + sj I ⊗ σj + τklσk ⊗ σl .(7) is unfair to exhibit the time advantage in testing only 4 Xi=1 Xj=1 k,lX=1 one state, after all the time cost of the machine learning classifier should contain both the training time and the Steerability is determined by all the parameters prediction time. However, when the task is to predict a ri,sj , τkl. It is intuitively believed that steerability is large number of unknown states, the time advantage of dominated by the correlation terms τkl between the two machine learning classifier is obvious. qubits from Eq. (7). Hence, it is natural to extract the coefficients of the correlation terms, {τkl}, as features. More precisely, the partial information is extracted by IV. QUANTUM STEERING CLASSIFIERS WITH computing Tr[(σk ⊗ σl)ρ] as features, denoted by F2. PARTIAL INFORMATION We repeat the same training and test process as for F1. The classification accuracy of the learned models for Although the above steering classifier via machine each m is illustrated in Fig. 5. It is interesting to see learning boosts the performance of the state classifica- that, even the classification accuracy on random quan- tion compared with traditional SDP method, it still has tum state is apparently high, the accuracy for classifying a disadvantage that such classifier needs the whole infor- Werner states is rather low. Similarly, the second sub- mation of the state as the input feature. However, the figure of Fig. 4 shows that the classification errors for size of a quantum state grows exponentially when scaled generalized Werner states are high. Thus the models up, which makes large-scale quantum state tomography trained with features F2 have poor generalization abil- intractable to carry out. Hence, it will become more and ity. As a result, these classifiers have poor performance more difficult to extend the method to higher dimensions. compared with traditional SDP method, as illustrated by Hence, it is important to further explore the possibility Fig. 6. Therefore, exploring high performance classifier of learning with only partial information of the quantum with partial information is not trivial, and such a simple state. Here we will introduce an efficient quantum steer- and crude way is impracticable. ing detection scheme for arbitrary two-qubit states with To further explore high performance classifier with par- the help of machine learning, where Alice and Bob only tial information, we convert the state ρ into a canonical 6

Classification Accuracy of the ML Approach with features F3 π/4 π/6 1.0 1.0 1.0 ML ML SDP SDP 0.8 Bound 0.8 Bound Cross 0.8 Random

p 0.6 p 0.6 Werner

0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 m m accuracy 0.4 π/8 π/12 1.0 1.0 ML ML SDP SDP 0.8 Bound 0.8 Bound 0.2

p 0.6 p 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 m 0.2 0.2 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 m m FIG. 7: (Color online) Classification accuracy of machine learning with partial information (F3 features). The first FIG. 6: (Color online) The predictions of steerability for gen- column (blue) depicts the accuracy of cross validation; the eralized Werner states by learning classifiers and SDP. The second column (orange) depicts the classification accuracy on blue line is the result which predicted by learning classifiers random states and the third column (green) depicts the clas- with F2 features. Similarly, the red line is the result which sification accuracy on the Werner state. predicted by SDP. And the orange line is the steerability bound from Alice to Bob.

rors of both the learning classifiers and SDP increase. As we mentioned for features F1, it is a reasonable phe- form ρ0 by local unitaries, which preserves the steerabil- nomenon since the predictions for the marginal states ity of ρ. As proved in [40], the map given by, become harder and harder. In Fig. 4, the third subfig shows the classification error for generalized Werner ρ = (I ⊗ ρ1/2)ρ(I ⊗ ρ1/2) (8) 0 B B States (with different angles) for F3 features. Obviously, the error increases when the angle drops which coincides where ρ = Tr [ρ], preserves the steerability of ρ. The B A with the above analysis. Generally, this classifier has bet- interesting property of this map is that when applied ter performance compared with traditional SDP method. to an arbitrary state ρ, it can be realized by only local Note that in this scheme, for any unknown state, Alice operation on Bob. and Bob only need to measure in three fixed measure- Similarly, we can extract the coefficients of the corre- ment directions. Therefore, it is more efficient than SDP lation terms of the resulting state ρ0, τkl, to combine a in both physical measurement process and data process- real vector of 9 numbers as features. More precisely, we ing. In particular, it should be very efficient for testing compute Tr[(σk ⊗ σl)ρ0] as features, denoted by F3. The a large amount of arbitrary states in quantum informa- classification accuracy of learned models for each m is il- tion process, such as one-sided device-independent quan- lustrated in Fig. 7. In general, all the accuracies turn to tum key distribution (1SDI-QKD), channel discrimina- higher and higher (> 0.95) with the increase of m, which tion and teleamplification, etc. clearly shows that we get several well-trained learning To explore the performance of machine learning based machines. quantum steering using even less information, according Moreover, we observe the following similar phe- to the symmetry, we dropped the coefficients of the cor- nomenon as using the full information features. As il- relation terms, σy ⊗ σx, σz ⊗ σx, σz ⊗ σy from F3 and lustrated in Fig. 2, the green-star line is for F3 features, named the rest features as F4. The training process was it is shown that, the error drops very rapidly. Hence, the carried out as before. As illustrated in Fig. 9, the clas- variation tendency is identical to the theoretical predic- sification accuracy of such classifiers on random states tion in general (the more measurement settings, the more is acceptable but lower than with F3 features. Interest- precise the prediction). ingly, it performs better on Werner states as illustrated Fig. 8 illustrates the steerability bounds predicted by in Fig. 10 except for m = 8. The fact that the accuracy machine learning classifiers and SDP with the angle drops for m = 8 may be caused by overfitting, as shown in π π π π ξ = { 4 , 6 , 8 , 12 } respectively. Obviously, the learned Fig. 9. Similarly, the predictions for the marginal states classifiers outperforms the traditional SDP except for becomes harder and harder. Even such classifiers with π the states when ξ = 12 , which is near the boundary F4 features perform worse than those with F3 features, of steerability. As the decrease of ξ, the prediction er- they are still more effective than those with F2 features. 7

π/4 π/6 π/4 π/6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ML ML ML ML 0.9 SDP 0.9 SDP 0.9 SDP 0.9 SDP Bound Bound Bound Bound 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

p 0.7 p 0.7

p 0.7 p 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 m m m m π/8 π/12 π/8 π/12 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ML ML ML ML 0.9 SDP 0.9 SDP Bound Bound 0.9 SDP 0.9 SDP Bound Bound 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

p 0.7 p 0.7

p 0.7 p 0.7 0.6 0.6

0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 0.4 0.4 m m 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 m m

FIG. 10: (Color online) The predictions of steerability for FIG. 8: (Color online) The predictions of steerability for gen- generalized Werner states by learning classifiers and SDP. The eralized Werner states by machine learning classifiers and blue line is the result predicted by learning classifiers with F4 SDP. The blue line is the result predicted by learned clas- features. Similarly, the red line is the result predicted by SDP. sifiers with F3 features. Similarly, the red line is the result And the orange line is the steerability bound from Alice to which predicted by SDP. And the orange line is the steerabil- Bob. ity bound from Alice to Bob.

tion in quantum information science. Several reliable

Classification Accuracy of the ML Approach with features F4 1.0 enhanced steerability classiﬁers by combining supervised learning and the SDP method are achieved.

0.8 At first, we build a high performance quantum steer- Cross ing classifier with the whole information, which are used Random Werner to test some random unknown states and the general- 0.6 ized Werner states. The prediction performance of such learning classifier and SDP are completely analyzed and accuracy 0.4 discussed. It clearly demonstrates the validity and effi- ciency of steering classification by machine learning. Sec- 0.2 ondly, we investigate the possibility of constructing steering classifiers with partial information. It is shown that, 0.0 correctly extracting partial information is very important 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 m for realizing high quality steering classifiers via machine learning. Finally, an efficient quantum steering detection FIG. 9: (Color online) Classification accuracy of machine scheme for arbitrary two-qubit states via machine learn- learning with partial information (F4 features). The first ing is realized, where Alice and Bob only need to measure column (blue) depicts the accuracy of cross validation; the in three fixed measurement directions. It should be very second column (orange) depicts the classification accuracy on efficient for testing the steerability of a large amount of random states and the third column (green) depicts the clas- arbitrary states in quantum information process, such as sification accuracy on the Werner state. one-sided device-independent quantum key distribution (1SDI-QKD), channel discrimination and teleamplification, etc. Hence, correctly extracting partial information is very Acknowledgement.-C.L.R. is supported by Na- important for realizing high performance steering classi- tional key research and development program (No. fiers via machine learning. 2017YFA0305200), the Youth Innovation Promotion Association (CAS) (No. 2015317), the National Nat- ural Science Foundation of China (No. 11605205), V. CONCLUSION the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (No. cstc2015jcyjA00021, cstc2018jcyjAX0656), the En- In this work, we have applied a method of machine trepreneurship and Innovation Support Program for learning to solve problems of quantum state classifica- Chongqing Overseas Returnees (No.cx017134), the fund 8 of CAS Key Laboratory of Microscale Magnetic Reso- Lett. 114, 060403 (2015). nance, and the fund of CAS Key Laboratory of Quantum [22] E. G. Cavalcanti, C. J. Foster, M. Fuwa, H. M. Wiseman, Information. And C.C. is supported by the National J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, 32, No. 4, A74 (2015). Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11771421, [23] H. Zhu, M. Hayashi, L. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 070403(2016). 11471307, 61572024, 11671377), cstc2018jcyj-yszxX0002 [24] H. C. Nguyen, T. Vu, Europhys. Lett. 115, 1 (2016). of Chongqing, and the Key Research Program of Frontier [25] D. Cavalcanti, and P. Skrzypczyk, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, Sciences of CAS (QYZDB-SSW-SYS026). C. L. Ren 2 (2016). and C. B. Chen contributed equally to this work. [26] Y. C. Ma and M. H. Yung, arXiv: 1705.00813. [27] S. R. Lu et.al, arXiv: 1705.01523. [28] D. L. Deng, X. Li and S. D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021021 (2017). [29] A. Assion, T. Baumert, M. Bergt, T. Brixner, B. Kiefer, ∗ These authors contributed equally. V. Seyfried, M. Strehle and G. Gerber, Science 282, 919 † Electronic address: [email protected] (1998). ‡ Electronic address: [email protected] [30] M. Sasaki and A. Carlini, Phys. Rev. A 66, 022303 [1] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, (2002). 777 (1935). [31] A. Bisio, G. Chiribella, G. M. DAriano, S. Facchini and [2] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, K. Horodecki, P. Perinotti, Phys. Rev. A 81, 032324 (2010). Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009). [32] A. Hentschel and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, [3] N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and 063603 (2010). S.Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014). [33] J. Bang, S. W. Lee, H. Jeong and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. A [4] D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 86, 062317 (2012). 024001 (2017). [34] N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory, Phys. [5] H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190501 (2014). Rev. Lett. 98, 140402 (2007). [35] M. Krenn, M. Malik, R. Fickler, R. Lapkiewicz, and A. [6] S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 090405 (2016). Rev. A 76, 052116 (2007). [36] S. S. Schoenholz, E. D. Cubuk, D. M. Sussman, E. Kaxi- [7] P. Skrzypczyk, M. Navascus, and D. Cavalcanti, Phys. ras, and A. J. Liu, Nat. Phys. 12, 469 (2016). Rev. Lett. 112, 180404 (2014). [37] Y. Zhang and E.-A. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 216401 [8] C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, S. P. Walborn, V. (2017). Scarani, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A 85, 010301 [38] L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, SIAM Review 38, 49 (2012). (1996). [9] T. Gehring et al., Nat. Commun. 6, 8795 (2015). [39] We have shared all of the detail of [10] N. Walk et al., Optica 3, 634 (2015). the programs and the whole data in [11] M. Piani and J. Watrous, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 060404 http://www.arcnl.org/cchen/data/quantum. (2015). [40] J. Bowles, F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, and N. Brunner, [12] Q. He, L. Rosales-Zárate, G. Adesso, and M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A 93, 022121 (2016). Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 180502 (2015). [41] Y. Xiao, X-J. Ye, K. Sun, J-S. Xu, C-F. Li, and G-C. [13] M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A 40, 913 (1989). Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 140404 (2017). [14] M. D. Reid, P. D. Drummond,W. P. Bowen, E. G. Cav- alcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A. Bachor,U. L.Andersen, and G. Leuchs, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1727 (2009). APPENDIX: THE VECTOR OF FEATURES [15] E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032112 (2009). [16] S. P. Walborn, A. Salles, R. M. Gomes, F. Toscano, and For an arbitrary quantum state ρ, the four different P. H. Souto Ribeiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130402 (2011). features used in this work is summarized as below: [17] J. Schneeloch, C. J.Broadbent, S. P.Walborn,E. G.Cavalcanti, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062103 (2013). F1 ρii, i ∈ {1, 2, 3}, the real and imaginary part of ρij ,j>i [18] M. F. Pusey, Phys. Rev. A 88, 032313 (2013). F2 Tr[(σk ⊗ σl)ρ], {k,l} ∈ {x,y,z} [19] T. Pramanik, M. Kaplan, and A. S. Majumdar, Phys. F3 ρ → ρ0, Tr[(σk ⊗ σl)ρ0], {k,l} ∈ {x,y,z}

Rev. A 90, 050305 (2014). F4 F3 except for the terms of {σy ⊗ σx,σz ⊗ σx,σz ⊗ σy} [20] I. Kogias, P. Skrzypczyk, D. Cavalcanti, A. Acn, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 210401 (2015). [21] I. Kogias, A. R. Lee, S. Ragy, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev.