Entropic entanglement criteria in

Stefan Floerchinger,1, ∗ Martin Gärttner,1, 2, 3, † Tobias Haas,1, ‡ and Oliver R. Stockdale3, § 1Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Heidelberg, Philosophenweg 16, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 2Physikalisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 226, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 3Kirchhoff-Institut für Physik, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 227, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany We derive inseparability criteria for the phase space representation of quantum states in terms of variants of Wehrl’s . In contrast to entropic criteria involving differential of marginal phase space distributions, our criteria are based on the Husimi Q-distribution. This is experimentally accessible through the heterodyne detection scheme, avoiding costly tomographic measurements. We apply our entropic criteria to Gaussian states and show that they imply a pair of second-order criteria for moments. We exemplify the strengths of our entropic approach by considering several classes of non-Gaussian states where second-order criteria fail. We show that our criteria certify entanglement in previously undetectable regions highlighting the strength of using the Husimi Q-distribution for entanglement detection.

Introduction—Entanglement is the distinguishing fea- ferent approach and characterize the inseparability of a ture of quantum systems and will be a key resource in given bipartite state not by its marginal distributions, but future quantum technologies [1]. Fundamental problems by its joint probability distribution. This distribution, such as the thermalization of isolated quantum systems known as the Husimi Q-distribution, is a quasiprobability and characterizing quantum phase transitions, strongly distribution that contains the full information about the rely on a deep understanding of how entanglement man- state [33–37]. As it is non-negative and normalized, it has ifests and evolves [2, 3]. However a central problem in an associated entropy known as the Wehrl entropy [38, 39] studying entanglement is being able to derive experimen- and is bound from below per the Wehrl-Lieb inequal- tally accessible witnesses to detect it [4, 5]. The complex- ity [40, 41]. Crucially, the Husimi Q- (and hence ity of such a problem depends upon the Hilbert space size, the Wehrl entropy) is an experimentally accessible quan- such that continuous variable systems with an infinite tity that can be measured via a heterodyne detection dimensional Hilbert space pose a particular challenge. protocol [12]. This is well-established within quantum For continuous quantum variables, many entanglement optics and has been realized in quantum optics experi- criteria rely on measuring the second-order moments of ments [42–44]. Furthermore, it was shown recently that two marginal distributions [6–11]. These criteria are most the Husimi Q-distribution can be measured in ultracold powerful whenever the state is Gaussian but are often atomic gases [45, 46]. insensitive elsewhere [12, 13]. This can pose significant The use of the the Wehrl entropy in the context of problems as there are many important classes of highly entanglement theory has only been discussed to define an entangled non-Gaussian states that cannot be witnessed entanglement monotone [47]. Here, we make use of the by second-order criteria [14–16]. Wehrl-Lieb inequality to derive entanglement criteria in To capture higher-order moments of measured distri- terms of entropies of the Husimi distribution. We show butions [17, 18], one can use differential entropies of that these criteria are stronger than previously known measured marginal distributions [19, 20]. Differential ones for certain classes of states within the non-Gaussian entropies reach beyond the scope of second-order criteria regime. arXiv:2106.08788v1 [quant-ph] 16 Jun 2021 since they are a functional of the full probability density Notation—We set ~ = 1 and disregard operator hats. function. Examples include criteria that rely on entropic We use capital letters for quantum operators Xj and uncertainty relations [21–25] as well as the complexity small letters for their corresponding eigenvalues xj and based criterion [26]. Other approaches are predicated on eigenvectors |xji. entropic uncertainty relations with (quantum) memory Husimi distribution—We consider a set of continuous formulated in terms of conditional differential entropies quantum variables Xj and Pj that fulfil the bosonic com- [27, 28] or as entropic steering inequalities [29, 30], see mutation relation [Xj,Pk] = iδjk where the subindices also [31]. denote the two subsystems j, k ∈ {1, 2}. One disadvantage to these methods is that measuring A canonical transformation allows to do rotations in marginals of a distribution is often costly and impractical the local phase spaces by angles ϑj, as it requires angle tomography. This is particularly diffi- cult in ultracold quantum gas experiments where statistics R   cos ϑ sin ϑ  X  j = j j j . (1) are limited [32]. In this work, we take a conceptually dif- Sj − sin ϑj cos ϑj Pj 2

To a set of (possibly rotated) position and momentum [50]. One can associate to them an entropy SM(Q±) that operators Rj and√Sj, we define annihilation operators is defined in analogy to Wehrl’s entropy in Eq. (3) even Aj = (Rj + iSj)/ 2 such that coherent states are their though s∓ is not the conjugate momentum of r±. eigenstates Aj |αi = αj |αi. The complex√ eigenvalues αj Inseparability criteria—We first derive criteria for pure are parameterized as αj = (rj + isj)/ 2. One can as- states and show they generalize to mixed states. We sociate a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) to consider pure separable states, for which the density op- pure coherent state projectors of the form Eα = |αi hα|. erator is a product ρ = ρ1 ⊗ ρ2. Here, the global Husimi This POVM is experimentally accessible through the het- Q-distribution factorizes erodyne detection protocol commonly used in quantum optical systems [12, 34, 35], which corresponds to mea- Q(r1, s1, r2, s2) = Q1(r1, s1) Q2(r2, s2), (7) suring the state ρ in the pure coherent state basis. This where Q (r , s ) denotes the marginals of the global allows for full access to the phase space via a single mea- j j j Husimi Q-distribution. surement setting. Inserting Eq. (7) in Eq. (6) yields The distribution associated to the measurement out- comes for a set of conjugate quantum variables is the (±) Q±(r±, s∓) = (Q1 ∗ Q )(r±, s∓), (8) global Husimi Q-distribution 2 where ∗ denotes a and Q(±) ≡ Q (±r, ∓s). In- Q(r , s , r , s ) = Tr{ρE } = hα|ρ|αi . (2) 2 2 1 1 2 2 α voking the two-dimensional entropy power inequality [51– Due to the non-orthogonality of the coherent states, the 53] Husimi Q-distribution is a quasi-probability distribution eS(QA∗QB ) ≥ eS(QA) + eS(QB ), (9) in phase space. The Husimi Q-distribution is bounded, 0 ≤ Q ≤ 1, and normalized to unity with respect to the for any two two-dimensional Husimi Q-distributions Q Q A phase space measure j drjdsj/(2π). and QB, as well as the invariance of the Wehrl entropy Hence, an entropy associated to the Husimi Q- under mirror reflections in phase space allows to write distribution exists, known as the Wehrl entropy [38, 39] eSM(Q±) ≥ eSW(Q1) + eSW(Q2). (10) Z Y drj dsj S (Q) = − Q ln Q. (3) W 2π Thus, we find the pair of inequalities j   SW(Q1) SW(Q2) The Wehrl entropy is strictly monotonous under partial SM(Q±) ≥ ln e + e , (11) trace and can therefore be regarded as a classical (differ- which provide a state-dependent lower bound on the en- ential) entropy [48]. tropies S (Q ) obeyed by all pure product states. Hence, The Wehrl-Lieb inequality bounds the Wehrl entropy M ± pure states for which S (Q ) violates this bound are nec- from below [40, 41] (for 2N dimensional phase space) M ± essarily entangled. We call Eq. (11) the strong criteria. To obtain a state-independent bound, we apply the SW(Q) ≥ N, (4) Wehrl-Lieb inequality Eq. (4) to both subsystems, leaving and can therefore be understood as an entropic uncer- us with the criteria tainty relation in the quantum mechanical phase space. In contrast to many common uncertainty relations, it is SM(Q±) ≥ 1 + ln 2. (12) not invariant under one-mode squeezing but is instead As the latter relations are in general less tight than preserved under rotations in phase space. Eq. (11), we call them the weak criteria. Mixed marginalized distributions—It is useful to make We can generalize the weak criteria to mixed separable a linear transformation to non-local EPR-type vari- P i i  P states ρ = i ρ1 ⊗ ρ2 , where pi ≥ 0 and i pi = 1. ables [49], On the level of the global Husimi Q-distributions, one has an analogous decomposition, leading, via Eq. (6), to r± = r1 ± r2, s± = s1 ± s2. (5) X i By integrating over half of these variables one obtains Q±(r±, s∓) = pi Q±(r±, s∓). (13) from (2) marginalized distributions i Using concavity of the entropy S (Q ) [54], we find Z dr ds M ± Q (r , s ) = Q(r, s, ∓r ± r , ±s ∓ s ). (6) ± ± ∓ 2π ± ∓ X i SM(Q±) ≥ piSM(Q±) ≥ 1 + ln 2, (14) These are normalized to unity with respect to the mea- i sure dr±ds∓/(2π) but, because of the twisted assignment where we have employed the strong pure state criteria (r±, s∓), they are not themselves Husimi distributions Eq. (11) and then the Wehrl-Lieb inequality Eq. (4) in 3 the last step. Therefore, the weak Wehrl entropic criteria To validate these second-order criteria, we consider how for pure product states Eq. (12) generalize identically to symplectic transformations in the ±-variables affect the mixed separable states [55]. The violation of inequality Husimi Q-distribution. A general symplectic transfor- Eq. (14) thus flags entanglement rendering it an insepara- mation S ∈ Sp(2, R) fulfilling ST ΩS = Ω, with Ω being bility criterion. the symplectic form, can easily be applied to the original Gaussian states—An important class of states to con- Wigner W -distribution [6]. This causes the corresponding sider is Gaussian states, which can be fully characterized covariance matrix γ to transform as by their first- and second-order moments. Since entropies 0 T are generally invariant under constant shifts of variables, γ → γ = SγS . (21) we assume without loss of generality that the mean values In contrast, the distribution Q does not transform in vanish hri = hsi = 0. Hence, we only need to specify the ± a straight forward manner. We therefore restrict our covariance of the state analysis of the symplectic group to only Gaussian states.  2   2  The second-order criteria Eq. (20) then transform as hr i hrsi σr σrs γ = 2 ≡ 2 , (15) hsri hs i σrs σs 0 T  det V± → det V = det Sγ±S + γ0 ± (22) which is also the covariance matrix of the Wigner W - T  = det γ± + γ0S S , distribution. The diagonal entries contain the variances of the corresponding marginal distributions, while the where we used det S = det ST = 1 and that the vacuum off-diagonal elements contain the covariance. One can covariance matrix is the identity γ0 = 1. This shows always choose rotation angles ϑi such that σrs = 0, which that invariance of det V± is equivalent to S being an aligns the coordinate axes along the principal axes. orthogonal matrix ST S = 1 corresponding to a rotation. For the Husimi Q-distribution, we define the covariance Therefore, the orientation of the axes is unimportant for matrix as the analysis of entanglement. This result generalizes to 1 arbitrary marginals of Husimi Q-distributions since any V ≡ h{u , u }i , (16) two-dimensional (differential) entropy is invariant under ij 2 i j Q a rotation. where u = (r, s) and the subscript Q indicates the expec- On the contrary, our criteria Eq. (20) are not invariant tation value with respect to the Husimi Q-distribution. under local squeezing. If we consider equal amounts of Given that the Husimi Q-distribution can be obtained local squeezing a > 0, such that S = diag(a, 1/a), the via a Weierstrass transform of the Wigner W -distribution second-order criteria can be rewritten as with respect to the vacuum W0    1  σ2 + a2 σ2 + ≥ 4 + σ2 . (23) Z r± s∓ a2 r±s∓ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q(r, s) = 2π dr ds W (r , s )W0(r − r , s − s ), (17) After optimizing over the local squeezing parameter a we can reconcile the two covariance matrices Eq. (16) and and choosing angles ϑi such that the coordinate axes are parallel to the principal axes (i.e., σ2 = 0) these Eq. (15) as r±s∓ criteria are equivalent to the MGVT criteria [8]

V = γ + γ0. (18) σr± σs∓ ≥ 1, (24) Then, expressed in terms of the twisted variables (r , s ), ± ∓ which themselves are equivalent to the entropic criteria in the Husimi Q-distribution of a general Gaussian quantum Ref. [24] for Gaussian states. In contrast to our second- state leads to order criteria Eq. (23), the MGVT criteria are invariant 1 − 1 (r ,s )T V −1(r ,s ) under equal amounts of local squeezing. However, they Q (r , s ) = e 2 ± ∓ ± ± ∓ , (19) ± ± ∓ Z are not invariant under rotations in the ±-phase space as they do not contain the covariances. In this sense, the 1/2 where Z = det V± is a normalization constant. two second-order criteria Eq. (23) and Eq. (24) behave The entropy SM of a state with covariance matrix V± is complementary under rotations and squeezing. This is maximized by a Gaussian distribution of the form Eq. (19), summarized in Fig.1. such that Note that both second-order criteria Eq. (23) and 1 Eq. (24) are only sufficient criteria for inseparability. This 1 + ln det V± ≥ SM(Q±) ≥ 1 + ln 2, (20) implies that the criteria by Simon [6] and Duan et al. [7] 2 (after optimization over local squeezing parameters and holds for all Q±(r±, s∓). Therefore, the weak entropic angles) are generally stronger in the Gaussian regime. criteria Eq. (14) imply a set of second-order based criteria Examples of non-Gaussian states—Finally, we consider and the two are equivalent for Gaussian states. a set of non-Gaussian entangled states that cannot be 4

3.5 (a) (b)

3 0

2.5 -0.1 2 1 -0.2 0.5 1.5 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 1 2 3 0

Figure 2. (a) Wehrl entropic criteria for the first 15 N00N states. Entanglement is witnessed when the points (blue diamonds) are below the bars. The strong criterion Eq. (11) Figure 1. Regions where the MGVT criteria Eq. (24) and the witnesses entanglement up to N = 11, while the weak criterion second-order criteria Eq. (23) are fulfilled, plotted against the Eq. (14) does not witness any entanglement. In both cases two marginal variances σ and σ . The regions below the r± s∓ ϑ = ϑ = 0. (b) Testing the weak criterion Eq. (14) for covering curves indicate entanglement. (a) We vary σ and 1 2 r±s∓ the dephased cat state Eq. (28) with s = 0. Negative W = fix a = 1. The second-order criteria Eq. (23) automatically SM(Q±) − 1 − ln 2 witnesses entanglement. Entanglement is account for an impractical alignment of the coordinate axes, detected for r > 0 and z < 1, but the difference W converges while the MGVT criteria Eq. (24) can become less tight for an quickly to zero for r & 2. improper alignment. (b) We vary a and fix σr±s∓ = 0. The MGVT criteria Eq. (24) are invariant under an equal amount of local squeezing a, whereas the second-order criteria Eq. (23) state must be optimized over a. We have additionally marked the h two-mode squeezed state for all squeezing parameters λ (gray ρ = N(α) |α, αi hα, α| + |−α, −αi h−α, −α| line) from the vacuum state σ = σ = 1 (gray square) up r± s∓ (27) to the fully-correlated EPR-state σ = σ = 0 (black dot). i r± s∓ − (1 − z)(|α, αi h−α, −α| + |−α, −αi hα, α|) ,

2 where 0 ≤ z ≤ 1 and with N(α) = 1/2(1 + (1 − z)e−4|α| ) witnessed by second-order criteria to test the weak Eq. (14) normalizing the state. For z = 0, Eq. (27) is a pure and strong criteria Eq. (11). When the state is pure, Schrödinger cat state and for z > 0 it is a dephased cat however, the Wehrl mutual information already provides state that is mixed. a perfect entropic witness [48]. We first compute the global Husimi Q-distribution for First, we consider the N00N states that are given by ϑ1 = ϑ2 = 0,

1 Q(r1, s1, r2, s2) |ψN i = (|N, 0i + |0,Ni) , (25) p h − 1 (r−r )2+(s−s )2+(r−r )2+(s−r )2 2(1 + δ0N ) = N(r, s) e 2 ( 1 1 2 2 )

1 2 2 2 2 − ((r+r1) +(s+s1) +(r+r2) +(s+s2) ) with N ∈ N0. + e 2 (28) The global Husimi Q-distribution for ϑ1 = ϑ2 = 0 is −r2−s2− 1 r2+s2+r2+s2 + 2(1 − z) e 2 ( 1 1 2 2) − 1 (r2+s2+r2+s2) i e 2 1 1 2 2 × cos (r(s1 + s2) − s(r1 + r2)) , Q(r1, s1, r2, s2) = N+1 2 N! (1 + δ0N ) √ (26) where we use the parameterization α = (r + is)/ 2. In × (r − is )N + (r − is )N  1 1 2 2 Fig.2(b), we show that entanglement is witnessed for all N N  × (r1 + is1) + (r2 + is2) . values of r > 0, s = 0 and z < 1 by the weak criteria Eq. (14)[56]. We plot the behavior for the two criteria in Fig.2(a) up The inseparability criteria in Eq. (14) are violated most to N = 15 for Q+(r+, s−). Our strong Wehrl criteria in the region 0 . r . 3/2, while for larger r & 2, the Eq. (11) witnesses entanglement up to N = 11. This difference between a superposition and a mixture becomes goes beyond the capabilities of entropic criteria based suppressed exponentially, explaining why no entanglement on marginal distributions. For example, the witness in is witnessed here. In contrast, the entropic criteria in Ref. [24] detects entanglement up to N = 5, while the Refs. [24, 25] certified entanglement for Re(α) & 5/3 and generalization in Ref. [25] is capable of certifying entan- z < 1 when using ϑ1 = ϑ2 = 0. glement up to N = 6. The weak criteria Eq. (12) do Conclusions—We have derived inseparability criteria not witness any entanglement, which is analogous to the in terms of variants of the Wehrl entropy, which can be results in Refs. [24, 25]. applied when measuring the Husimi Q-distribution fol- As a second example, we consider the Schrödinger cat lowing the heterodyne detection protocol. In contrast 5 to most (entropic) criteria, we have shown that our cri- for continuous-variable systems, New Journal of Physics teria are invariant under rotations in phase space while 8, 51 (2006). depending on the local squeezing parameters. As a conse- [12] C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. García-Patrón, N. J. quence, the criteria witnessed some entangled states that Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian , Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 612 (2012). are undetectable using entropic criteria based on marginal [13] A. Serafini, Quantum Continuous Variables (CRC Press, distributions. 2017). Future theoretical studies should generalize the pre- [14] C. Rodó, G. Adesso, and A. Sanpera, Operational quan- sented approach to incorporate memory, possibly leading tification of continuous-variable correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 110505 (2008). to steering inequalities in terms of a conditional Wehrl [15] R. Dong, M. Lassen, J. Heersink, C. Marquardt, R. Filip, entropy. Furthermore, it would be of great interest to de- G. Leuchs, and U. L. Andersen, Experimental entangle- rive inseparability for SU(2) coherent states. This would ment distillation of mesoscopic quantum states, Nature broaden the range of applicability of our inseparability Physics 4, 919 (2008). criteria, e.g., in the context of of spinor Bose-Einstein con- [16] H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, D. B. densates where current experimental capabilities already Hume, L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Fisher exist [46]. information and entanglement of non-Gaussian states, Science 345, 424 (2014). Acknowledgements—We thank Markus Oberthaler and [17] E. Shchukin and W. Vogel, Inseparability Criteria for Markus Schröfl for useful discussions. This work is sup- Continuous Bipartite Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett. ported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, 95, 230502 (2005). German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excel- [18] E. V. Shchukin and W. Vogel, Nonclassical moments and lence Strategy EXC 2181/1 - 390900948 (the Heidelberg their measurement, Phys. Rev. A 72, 043808 (2005). [19] I. Białynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski, Uncertainty rela- STRUCTURES Excellence Cluster) and under SFB 1225 tions for information entropy in wave mechanics, Commu- ISOQUANT - 273811115 as well as FL 736/3-1. nications in Mathematical Physics 44, 129 (1975). [20] H. Maassen and J. B. M. Uffink, Generalized entropic uncertainty relations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1103 (1988). [21] P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications, Rev. ∗ stefan.fl[email protected] Mod. Phys. 89, 015002 (2017). † [email protected] [22] A. Hertz and N. J. Cerf, Continuous-variable entropic ‡ [email protected] uncertainty relations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical § [email protected] and Theoretical 52, 173001 (2019). [1] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and [23] I. Białynicki-Birula and Ł. Rudnicki, Entropic Uncertainty K. Horodecki, , Rev. Mod. Phys. Relations in Quantum Physics, in Statistical Complexity 81, 865 (2009). (Springer, Dordrecht, 2011). [2] A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schit- [24] S. P. Walborn, B. G. Taketani, A. Salles, F. Toscano, tko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quantum thermal- and R. L. de Matos Filho, Entropic entanglement criteria ization through entanglement in an isolated many-body for continuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160505 system, Science 353, 794 (2016). (2009). [3] T. J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen, Entanglement in a [25] A. Saboia, F. Toscano, and S. P. Walborn, Family of simple quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032110 continuous-variable entanglement criteria using general (2002). entropy functions, Phys. Rev. A 83, 032307 (2011). [4] O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Physics [26] Y. Huang, Entanglement Detection: Complexity and Reports 474, 1 (2009). Shannon Entropic Criteria, IEEE Transactions on In- [5] M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, An Introduction to Entangle- formation Theory 59, 6774 (2013). ment Measures, Quantum Information and Computation [27] R. L. Frank and E. H. Lieb, Extended Quantum Con- 7, 1–51 (2007). ditional Entropy and Quantum Uncertainty Inequali- [6] R. Simon, Peres-Horodecki Separability Criterion for Con- ties, Communications in Mathematical Physics 323, 487 tinuous Variable Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2726 (2013). (2000). [28] F. Furrer, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, V. B. Scholz, and [7] L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Insepa- M. Christandl, Position-momentum uncertainty relations rability Criterion for Continuous Variable Systems, Phys. in the presence of quantum memory, Journal of Mathe- Rev. Lett. 84, 2722 (2000). matical Physics 55, 122205 (2014). [8] S. Mancini, V. Giovannetti, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, [29] S. P. Walborn, A. Salles, R. M. Gomes, F. Toscano, and Entangling Macroscopic Oscillators Exploiting Radiation P. H. S. Ribeiro, Revealing Hidden Einstein-Podolsky- Pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120401 (2002). Rosen Nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130402 (2011). [9] V. Giovannetti, S. Mancini, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, [30] P. Chowdhury, T. Pramanik, A. S. Majumdar, and G. S. Characterizing the entanglement of bipartite quantum Agarwal, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering using quan- systems, Phys. Rev. A 67, 022320 (2003). tum correlations in non-Gaussian entangled states, Phys. [10] O. Gühne, Characterizing Entanglement via Uncertainty Rev. A 89, 012104 (2014). Relations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 117903 (2004). [31] Entropic criteria have also been derived and experimen- [11] P. Hyllus and J. Eisert, Optimal entanglement witnesses tally tested for discrete variables [57–62]. 6

[32] G. A. Phelps, A. Hébert, A. Krahn, S. Dickerson, jecture, and entanglement monotones, Phys. Rev. A 69, F. Öztürk, S. Ebadi, L. Su, and M. Greiner, Sub-second 022317 (2004). production of a quantum degenerate gas, arXiv:2007.10807 [48] S. Floerchinger, T. Haas, and H. Mueller-Groeling, Wehrl (2020). entropy, entropic uncertainty relations and entanglement, [33] K. Husimi, Some formal properties of the density ma- arXiv:2103.07229 (2021). trix, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of [49] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum- Japan. 3rd Series 22, 264 (1940). Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered [34] W. P. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space (Wiley- Complete?, Physical Review 47, 777 (1935). VCH Verlag Berlin, 2001). [50] The appearance of the mixed variable pairs (r+, s−) and [35] L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum (r−, s+) can be understood when employing the positive Optics (Cambridge University Press, 2013). partial transpose criterion for continuous quantum vari- [36] H.-W. Lee, Theory and application of the quantum phase- ables [6]. space distribution functions, Physics Reports 259, 147 [51] C. E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, (1995). The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 623 (1948). [37] N. D. Cartwright, A non-negative Wigner-type distribu- [52] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information tion, Physica A: and its Applications Theory, Second Edition (John Wiley and Sons, 2006). 83, 210 (1976). [53] S. Verdu and D. Guo, A simple proof of the entropy-power [38] A. Wehrl, General properties of entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. inequality, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 52, 50, 221 (1978). 2165 (2006). [39] A. Wehrl, On the relation between classical and quantum- [54] E. H. Lieb and R. Seiringer, Stronger subadditivity of mechanical entropy, Reports on Mathematical Physics entropy, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062329 (2005). 16, 353 (1979). [55] One could derive a set of strong criteria for mixed separa- [40] E. H. Lieb, Proof of an entropy conjecture of Wehrl, ble states however this requires the knowledge about the Communications in Mathematical Physics 62, 35 (1978). decomposition of ρ, which is inaccessible in experiments. [41] E. H. Lieb and J. P. Solovej, Proof of an entropy conjecture [56] In principle, detecting entanglement in Eq. (28) depends for Bloch coherent spin states and its generalizations, Acta on |α|. However one can choose arbitrary ϑi such that the Math. 212, 79 (2014). optimal α only depends upon its real component. [42] J. W. Noh, A. Fougères, and L. Mandel, Measurement of [57] O. Gühne and M. Lewenstein, Entropic uncertainty rela- the quantum phase by photon counting, Phys. Rev. Lett. tions and entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 70, 022316 (2004). 67, 1426 (1991). [58] C.-F. Li, J.-S. Xu, X.-Y. Xu, K. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experi- [43] J. W. Noh, A. Fougères, and L. Mandel, Operational mental investigation of the entanglement-assisted entropic approach to the phase of a quantum field, Phys. Rev. A uncertainty principle, Nature Physics 7, 752 (2011). 45, 424 (1992). [59] J. Schneeloch, C. C. Tison, M. L. Fanto, P. M. Alsing, [44] U. Leonhardt and H. Paul, Phase measurement and Q and G. A. Howland, Quantifying entanglement in a 68- function, Phys. Rev. A 47, R2460 (1993). billion-dimensional quantum state space, Nature Commu- [45] P. Kunkel, M. Prüfer, S. Lannig, R. Rosa-Medina, A. Bon- nications 10, 1 (2019). nin, M. Gärttner, H. Strobel, and M. K. Oberthaler, Si- [60] M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and multaneous Readout of Noncommuting Collective Spin R. Renner, The uncertainty principle in the presence of Observables beyond the Standard Quantum Limit, Phys. quantum memory, Nature Physics 6, 659 (2010). Rev. Lett. 123, 063603 (2019). [61] B. Bergh and M. Gärttner, Entanglement detection in [46] P. Kunkel, M. Prüfer, S. Lannig, R. Strohmaier, M. Gärt- quantum many-body systems using entropic uncertainty tner, H. Strobel, and M. K. Oberthaler, Detecting en- relations, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052412 (2021). tanglement structure in continuous many-body quantum [62] B. Bergh and M. Gärttner, Experimentally Accessible systems, arXiv:2105.12219 (2021). Bounds on Distillable Entanglement from Entropic Un- [47] F. Mintert and K. Życzkowski, Wehrl entropy, Lieb con- certainty Relations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 190503 (2021).