1: % STF draft of sections 4,5. Feb 7, 2005.

2: 

3: % AD draft of sections 1,2,3. Revisions of

4: % sections 4,5. Feb 8, 2005.

5: 

6: % STF Abstract added, figures & captions added

7: % with accompanying changes in the text.

8: % Proofread sections 4,5.  Feb 11, 2005.

9: 

10: % AD edit of section 2.  Mar 7 2005

11: 

12: % STF edit of sections 4,5.

13: % Rewrote section 3.

14: % Reformatting, including rearrangement

15: % of sections and addition of appendix.

16: % Conclusion added.

17: % Mar 11 2005

18: 

19: % AD and STF Fuchsian analysis of the introduction.

20: % Mar 14 2005

21: 

22: % CMC edit of intro

23: % Apr 12 2005

24: 

25: % CMC rewrite of Secs. I-IV. May 18, 2005.

26: 

27: % AD added stuff on asymptopia.

28: % STF fixed all the figures.  May 19, 2005.

29: 

30: % CMC final draft. May 26, 2005.

31: 

32: % Absolute final.  May 26, 2005.

33: 

34: \documentclass[pra,eqsecnum,amsmath,amsfonts,12pt,letterpaper,tightenlines,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

35: 

36: \usepackage{hyperref,graphicx}

37: 

38: \input{Qcircuit}

39: 

40: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\langle #1 \vert #2 \rangle}

41: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert {#1} \rvert}

42: \def\ket#1{\lvert #1 \rangle}

43: \def\bra#1{{\langle #1 \rvert  }}

44: \def\tr{{\rm{tr}}}

45: \def\spec{{\rm{Spec}}}

46: 

47: \def\ba{\mathbf{a}}

48: \def\bb{\mathbf{b}}

49: \def\bc{\mathbf{c}}

50: \def\bx{\mathbf{x}}

51: \def\mz{\mathbb{Z}}

52: 

53: \def\sN{\mathcal{N}}

54: \def\sM{\mathcal{M}}

55: \def\sC{\mathcal{C}}

56: \def\sT{\mathcal{T}}

57: \def\sR{\mathcal{R}}

58: 

59: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

60: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

61: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{eqnarray}}

62: \newcommand{\een}{\end{eqnarray}}

63: \newcommand{\bes}{\begin{subequations}}

64: \newcommand{\ees}{\end{subequations}}

65: \newcommand{\bF}{\begin{figure}}

66: \newcommand{\eF}{\end{figure}}

67: \newcommand{\dg}{\dagger}

68: 

69: 

70: \def\ket#1{ | #1 \rangle}

71: \def\bra#1{{\langle #1 |  }}

72: 

73: \begin{document}

74: 

75: \title{Entanglement and the Power of One Qubit}

76: \author{Animesh Datta}

77: \email{animesh@unm.edu}

78: \author{Steven T. Flammia}

79: \email{sflammia@unm.edu}

80: \author{Carlton M. Caves}

81: \email{caves@info.phys.unm.edu}

82: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico,

83:     Albuquerque, NM 87131}

84: \date{\today}

85: 

86: \begin{abstract}

87: The ``Power of One Qubit'' refers to a computational model that has

88: access to only one pure bit of quantum information, along with $n$

89: qubits in the totally mixed state.  This model, though not as powerful

90: as a pure-state quantum computer, is capable of performing some

91: computational tasks exponentially faster than any known classical

92: algorithm.  One such task is to estimate with fixed accuracy the

93: normalized trace of a unitary operator that can be implemented

94: efficiently in a quantum circuit.  We show that circuits of this type

95: generally lead to entangled states, and we investigate the amount of

96: entanglement possible in such circuits, as measured by the

97: multiplicative negativity.  We show that the multiplicative negativity

98: is bounded by a constant, independent of $n$, for all bipartite

99: divisions of the $n+1$ qubits, and so becomes, when $n$ is large, a

100: vanishingly small fraction of the maximum possible multiplicative

101: negativity for roughly equal divisions.  This suggests that the global

102: nature of entanglement is a more important resource for quantum

103: computation than the magnitude of the entanglement.

104: \end{abstract}

105: 

106: \maketitle

107: 

108: \section{Introduction}

109: \label{S:intro}

110: 

111: Fully controllable and scalable quantum computers are likely many years

112: from realization.  This motivates study and development of somewhat

113: less ambitious quantum information processors, defined as devices that

114: fail to satisfy one or more of DiVincenzo's five criteria for a quantum

115: computer~\cite{DiVincenzo00}.   An example of such a quantum

116: information processor is a mixed-state quantum system, which fails to

117: pass DiVincenzo's second requirement, that the system be prepared in a

118: simple initial state.

119: 

120: The prime example of a mixed-state quantum information processor is

121: provided by liquid-state NMR experiments in quantum information

122: processing~\cite{Jones01}.  Current NMR experiments, which operate with

123: initial states that are highly mixed thermal states, use a technique

124: called pseudo-pure-state synthesis to process the initial thermal state

125: and thereby to simulate pure-state quantum information processing. This

126: technique suffers from an exponential loss of signal strength as the

127: number of qubits per molecule increases and thus is not scalable. There

128: is a different technique for processing the initial thermal state,

129: called algorithmic cooling~\cite{Schulman99}, which pumps entropy from

130: a subset of qubits into the remaining qubits, leaving the special

131: subset in a pure state and the remaining qubits maximally mixed.

132: Algorithmic cooling provides an in-principle method for making

133: liquid-state NMR---or any qubit system that begins in a thermal

134: state---scalable, in essence by providing an efficient algorithmic

135: method for cooling a subset of the initially thermal qubits to a pure

136: state, thereby satisfying DiVincenzo's second criterion.

137: 

138: Knill and Laflamme~\cite{kl98} proposed a related mixed-state

139: computational model, which they called DQC1, in which there is just one

140: initial pure qubit, along with $n$ qubits in the maximally mixed state.

141: Although provably less powerful than a pure-state quantum

142: computer~\cite{Ambainis00}, DQC1 can perform some computational tasks

143: efficiently for which there are no known polynomial time classical

144: algorithms.  In particular, a DQC1 quantum circuit can be used to

145: evaluate, with fixed accuracy independent of $n$, the normalized trace,

146: $\tr(U_n)/2^n$, of any $n$-qubit unitary operator $U_n$ that can be

147: implemented efficiently in terms of quantum

148: gates~\cite{kl98,Laflamme02}.  In Sec.~\ref{S:classical} we consider

149: briefly whether there might be efficient classical algorithms for

150: estimating the normalized trace, and we conclude that this is unlikely.

151: The efficient quantum algorithm for estimating the normalized trace

152: provides an exponential speedup over the best known classical algorithm

153: for simulations of some quantum processes~\cite{pklo04,elpc04}.  Knill

154: and Laflamme referred to the power of this mixed-state computational

155: model as the ``power of one qubit.''

156: 

157: Study of the power of one qubit is motivated partly by NMR experiments,

158: but our primary motivation in this paper is to investigate the role of

159: entanglement in quantum computation, using DQC1 as a theoretical test

160: bed for the investigation.  For pure-state quantum computers, Jozsa and

161: Linden \cite{Josza99} have shown that exponential speedup over a

162: classical computer requires that entanglement not be restricted to

163: blocks of qubits of fixed size as problem size increases. Entanglement

164: that increases with problem size is thus a necessary prerequisite for

165: the exponential speedup achieved by a pure-state quantum computer.  On

166: the other hand, the Gottesman-Knill theorem \cite{N&C}, demonstrates

167: that global entanglement is far from sufficient for exponential

168: speedup.  While this means that the role of entanglement is not

169: entirely understood for pure-state quantum computers, far less is known

170: about the role of entanglement in mixed-state quantum computers. When

171: applied to mixed-state computation, the Jozsa-Linden proof does not

172: show that entanglement is a requirement for exponential speedup.

173: Indeed, it has not previously been shown that there is any entanglement

174: in the DQC1 circuits that provide an exponential speedup over classical

175: algorithms.

176: 

177: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the existence of and amount

178: of entanglement in the DQC1 circuit that is used to estimate the

179: normalized trace.  The DQC1 model consists of a \emph{special qubit\/}

180: (qubit~0) in the initial state $|0\rangle\langle0|={1\over2}(I_1+Z)$,

181: where $Z$ is a Pauli operator, along with $n$ other qubits in the

182: completely mixed state, $I_n/2^n$, which we call the \emph{unpolarized

183: qubits}.  The circuit consists of a Hadamard gate on the special qubit

184: followed by a controlled unitary on the remaining

185: qubits~\cite{Laflamme02}: \vspace{-1em}

186: \begin{equation}

187: \label{E:circuit}

188: \Qcircuit @C=.5em @R=-.5em {

189:     & \lstick{\ket{0}\!\bra{0}} & \gate{H} & \ctrl{1} & \meter & \push{\rule{0em}{4em}} \\

190:     & & \qw & \multigate{4}{U_n} & \qw & \qw \\

191:     & & \qw & \ghost{U_n} & \qw & \qw \\

192:     \lstick{\mbox{$I_n/2^n$}} & & \qw & \ghost{U_n} & \qw & \qw \\

193:     & & \qw & \ghost{U_n} & \qw & \qw \\

194:     & & \qw & \ghost{U_n} & \qw & \qw \gategroup{2}{2}{6}{2}{.6em}{\{}

195: }

196: \end{equation}

197: After these operations, the state of the $n+1$ qubits becomes

198: \begin{equation}

199: \rho_{n+1}=

200: {1\over2N}

201: \Bigl(|0\rangle\langle0|\otimes I_n+|1\rangle\langle1|\otimes I_n

202: +|0\rangle\langle1|\otimes U_n^\dagger

203: +|1\rangle\langle0|\otimes U_n\Bigr)

204: = \frac{1}{2N}

205:     \begin{pmatrix}

206:         I_n & \, U_n^\dag \\

207:         \, U_n & I_n

208:     \end{pmatrix} \;,

209: \label{E:rhoout}

210: \end{equation}

211: where $N=2^n$.  The information about the normalized trace of $U_n$ is

212: encoded in the expectation values of the Pauli operators $X$ and $Y$ of

213: the special qubit, i.e., $\langle X\rangle={\rm Re}[\tr(U_n)]/2^n$ and

214: $\langle Y\rangle=-{\rm Im}[\tr(U_n)]/2^n$.

215: 

216: To read out the desired information, say, about the real part of the

217: normalized trace, one runs the circuit repeatedly, each time measuring

218: $X$ on the special qubit at the output.  The measurement results are

219: drawn from a distribution whose mean is the real part of the normalized

220: trace and whose variance is bounded above by 1.  After $L$ runs, one

221: can estimate the real part of the normalized trace with an accuracy

222: $\epsilon\sim1/\sqrt L$.  Thus, to achieve accuracy $\epsilon$ requires

223: that the circuit be run $L\sim1/\epsilon^2$ times. More precisely, what

224: we mean by estimating with fixed accuracy is the following: let $P_e$

225: be the probability that the estimate is farther from the true value

226: than $\epsilon\,$; then the required number of runs is

227: $L\sim\ln(1/P_e)/\epsilon^2$.  That the number of runs required to

228: achieve a fixed accuracy does not scale with number of qubits and

229: scales logarithmically with the error probability is what is meant by

230: saying that the DQC1 circuit provides an efficient method for

231: estimating the normalized trace.

232: 

233: Throughout much of our analysis, we use a generalization of the DQC1

234: circuit, in which the initial pure state of the special qubit is

235: replaced by the mixed state ${1\over2}(I_1+\alpha Z)$,

236: which has polarization $\alpha$,

237: \begin{equation}

238: \label{E:circuitalpha}

239: \Qcircuit @C=.5em @R=-.5em {

240:     & \lstick{{1\over2}(I_1+\alpha Z)}

241:         & \gate{H} & \ctrl{1} & \meter & \push{\rule{0em}{4em}} \\

242:     & & \qw & \multigate{4}{U_n} & \qw & \qw \\

243:     & & \qw & \ghost{U_n} & \qw & \qw \\

244:     \lstick{\mbox{$I_n/2^n$}} & & \qw & \ghost{U_n} & \qw & \qw \\

245:     & & \qw & \ghost{U_n} & \qw & \qw \\

246:     & & \qw & \ghost{U_n} & \qw & \qw \gategroup{2}{2}{6}{2}{.6em}{\{}

247: }

248: \end{equation}

249: giving an overall initial state

250: \begin{equation}

251: \rho_i={1\over2N}(I_1+\alpha Z)\otimes I_n

252: ={1\over2N}\!\left[I_{n+1}+

253: \alpha

254: \begin{pmatrix}

255: I_n&0\\

256: 0&-I_n

257: \end{pmatrix}

258: \right]\;.

259: \end{equation}

260: We generally assume that $\alpha\ge0$, except where we explicitly note

261: otherwise.  After the circuit is run, the system state becomes

262: \begin{equation}

263: \rho_{n+1}(\alpha)=

264: {1\over2N}\!\left[I_{n+1}+

265: \alpha

266: \begin{pmatrix}

267: 0&U_n^\dag\\

268: U_n&0

269: \end{pmatrix}

270: \right]=

271: \frac{1}{2N}

272:     \begin{pmatrix}

273:         I_n &  \alpha U_n^\dag \\

274:         \alpha U_n & I_n

275:     \end{pmatrix} \;.

276: \label{E:rhooutalpha}

277: \end{equation}

278: The effect of subunity polarization is to reduce the expectation

279: values of $\langle X\rangle$ and $\langle Y\rangle$ by a factor of

280: $\alpha$, thereby making it more difficult to estimate the normalized

281: trace.  Specifically, the number of runs required to estimate the

282: normalized trace becomes $L\sim\ln(1/P_e)/\alpha^2\epsilon^2$.  Reduced

283: polarization introduces an additional overhead, but as long as the

284: special qubit has nonzero polarization, the model still provides an

285: efficient estimation of the normalized trace.  What we are dealing with

286: is really the ``power of even the tiniest fraction of a qubit.''

287: 

288: For $n+1$ qubits, \emph{all\/} states contained in a ball of radius

289: $r_{n+1}$ centered at the completely mixed state are

290: separable~\cite{b99,gb03} (distance is measured by the Hilbert-Schmidt

291: norm).  Unitary evolution leaves the distance from the completely mixed

292: state fixed, so at all times during the circuit~(\ref{E:circuitalpha}),

293: the system state is a fixed distance

294: $\sqrt{\tr(\rho_i-I_{n+1}/2N)^2}=\alpha 2^{-(n+1)/2}$ from the

295: completely mixed state.  This suggests that with $\alpha$ small enough,

296: there might be an exponential speedup with demonstrably separable

297: states.  This suggestion doesn't pan out, however, because the radius

298: of the separable ball decreases exponentially faster than

299: $2^{-(n+1)/2}$.  The best known lower bound on $r_n$ is $2\times

300: 6^{-n/2}$~\cite{gb04}; for the system state to be contained in a ball

301: given by this lower bound, we need $\alpha\le 2\times 3^{-(n+1)/2}$.

302: The exponential decrease of $\alpha$ means that an exponentially

303: increasing number of runs is required to estimate the normalized trace

304: with fixed accuracy.  More to the point, the possibility that the

305: actual radius of the separable ball might decrease slowly enough to

306: avoid an exponential number of runs is ruled out by the existence of a

307: family of $n$-qubit entangled states found by D\"ur~\emph{et

308: al.}~\cite{dur99}, which establishes an upper bound on $r_n$ that goes

309: as $2\times 2^{-n}$ for large $n$, implying that $\alpha\le 2\times

310: 2^{-(n+1)/2}$ if the system state is to be in the ball given by the

311: upper bound.  These considerations do not demonstrate the impossibility

312: of an exponential speedup using separable states, but they do rule out

313: the possibility of finding such a speedup within the maximal separable

314: ball about the completely mixed state.

315: 

316: We are thus motivated to look for entanglement in states of the

317: form~(\ref{E:rhooutalpha}), for at least some unitary operators $U_n$.

318: Initial efforts in this direction are not encouraging.  It is clear

319: from the start that the marginal state of the $n$ unpolarized qubits

320: remains completely mixed, so these qubits are not entangled among

321: themselves. Moreover, in the state~(\ref{E:rhooutalpha}), as was shown

322: in Ref.~\cite{pklo04}, the special qubit is unentangled with the $n$

323: unpolarized qubits, no matter what $U_n$ is used.  To see this, one

324: plugs the eigendecomposition of the unitary, $U_n=\sum_j

325: e^{i\phi_j}|e_j\rangle\langle e_j|$, into the expression for

326: $\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$.  This gives a separable decomposition

327: \begin{equation}

328: \rho_{n+1}(\alpha)=

329: {1\over2N}\sum_j

330: (|a_j\rangle\langle a_j|+|b_j\rangle\langle b_j|)

331: \otimes|e_j\rangle\langle e_j|\;,

332: \end{equation}

333: where $|a_j\rangle=\cos\theta|0\rangle+e^{i\phi_j}\sin\theta|1\rangle$

334: and $|b_j\rangle=\sin\theta|0\rangle+e^{i\phi_j}\cos\theta|1\rangle$,

335: with $\sin2\theta=\alpha$.

336: 

337: No entanglement of the special qubit with the rest and no entanglement

338: among the rest---where then are we to find any entanglement?  We look

339: for entanglement relative to other divisions of the qubits into two

340: parts.  In such bipartite divisions the special qubit is grouped with a

341: subset of the unpolarized qubits.  To detect entanglement between the

342: two parts, we use the Peres-Horodecki partial transpose

343: criterion~\cite{p96,hhh96}, and we quantify whatever entanglement we

344: find using a closely related entanglement monotone which we call the

345: \emph{multiplicative negativity\/}~\cite{Vidal02}.  The Peres-Horodecki

346: criterion and the multiplicative negativity do not reveal all

347: entanglement---they can miss what is called bound entanglement---but we

348: are nonetheless able to demonstrate the existence of entanglement in

349: states of the form~(\ref{E:rhoout}) and~(\ref{E:rhooutalpha}). For

350: convenience, we generally refer to the multiplicative negativity simply

351: as the negativity.  The reader should note, as we discuss in

352: Sec.~\ref{S:negativity}, that the term ``negativity'' was originally

353: applied to an entanglement measure that is closely related to, but

354: different from the multiplicative negativity.

355: 

356: The amount of entanglement depends, of course, on the unitary

357: operator~$U_n$ and on the bipartite division.  We present three results

358: in this regard.  First, in Sec.~\ref{S:examples}, we construct a family

359: of unitaries $U_n$ such that for $\alpha>1/2$, $\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ is

360: entangled for all bipartite divisions that put the first and last

361: unpolarized qubits in different parts, and we show that for all such

362: divisions, the negativity is $(2\alpha+3)/4$ for $\alpha\ge1/2$ ($5/4$

363: for $\alpha=1$), independent of~$n$.  Second, in Sec.~\ref{S:random},

364: we present numerical evidence that the state $\rho_{n+1}$ of

365: Eq.~(\ref{E:rhoout}) is entangled for typical unitaries, i.e., those

366: created by random quantum circuits.  For $n+1=5,\ldots,10$, we find

367: average negativities between 1.155 and just above 1.16 for the

368: splitting that puts $\left\lfloor n/2\right\rfloor$ of the unpolarized

369: qubits with qubit~0.  Third, in Sec.~\ref{S:bounds}, we show that for

370: all unitaries and all bipartite divisions of the $n+1$ qubits, the

371: negativity of $\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ is bounded above by the constant

372: $\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}$ ($\sqrt2\simeq1.414$ for $\alpha=1$), independent

373: of $n$.  Thus, when $n$ is large, the negativity achievable by the DQC1

374: circuit~(\ref{E:circuit}) becomes a vanishingly small fraction of the

375: maximum negativity, $\sim2^{n/2}$, for roughly equal bipartite

376: divisions.

377: 

378: The layout of the paper is as follows.  In Sec.~\ref{S:classical} we

379: examine the classical problem of estimating the normalized trace of a

380: unitary.  In Sec.~\ref{S:negativity} we review pertinent properties of

381: the negativity before applying it to obtain our three key results in

382: Secs.~\ref{S:examples}-\ref{S:bounds}.  We conclude in

383: Sec.~\ref{S:conclusion} and prove a brief Lemma in an Appendix.

384: Throughout we use $\breve A$ to stand for the partial transpose of an

385: operator $A$ relative to a particular bipartite tensor-product

386: structure, and we rely on context to make clear which bipartite

387: division we are using at any particular point in the paper.

388: 

389: \section{Classical Evaluation of the Trace}\label{S:classical}

390: 

391: In this section we outline briefly a classical method for evaluating the

392: trace of a unitary operator that can be implemented efficiently in terms

393: of quantum gates, and we indicate why this appears to be a problem that

394: is exponentially hard in the number of qubits.

395: 

396: The trace of a unitary matrix $U_n\equiv U$ is the sum over the

397: diagonal matrix elements of~$U$:

398: \begin{equation}

399: \label{E:sum1}

400: \tr(U)=\sum_{\ba} \bra{\ba}U\ket{\ba}\;.

401: \end{equation}

402: Here $\ba$ is a bit string that specifies a computational-basis state

403: of the $n$ qubits.  By factoring $U$ into a product of elementary gates

404: from a universal set and inserting a resolution of the identity between

405: all the gates, we can write $\tr(U)$ as a sum over the amplitudes of

406: Feynman paths.  A difficulty with this approach is that the sum must be

407: restricted to paths that begin and end in the same state.  We can

408: circumvent this difficulty by preceding and succeeding $U$ with a

409: Hadamard gate on all the qubits.  This does not change the trace, but

410: does allow us to write it as

411: \begin{equation}

412: \label{E:sum2}

413: \tr(U)=\sum_{\ba,\bb,\bc}

414: \bra{\ba}H^{\otimes n}\ket{\bb}\bra{\bb}U\ket{\bc}\bra{\bc}H^{\otimes n}\ket{\ba}

415: ={1\over2^n}\sum_{\ba,\bb,\bc}

416: (-1)^{\ba\cdot(\bb+\bc)}\bra{\bb}U\ket{\bc}\;.

417: \end{equation}

418: Now if we insert a resolution of the identity between the elementary

419: gates, we get $\tr(U)$ written as an unrestricted sum over Feynman-path

420: amplitudes, with an extra phase that depends on the initial and final

421: states.

422: 

423: Following Dawson~\emph{et al.}~\cite{dhhmno05}, we consider two

424: universal gate sets: (i)~the Hadamard gate $H$, the $\pi/4$ gate $T$,

425: and the controlled-NOT gate and (ii)~$H$ and the Toffoli gate.  With

426: either of these gate sets, most of the Feynman paths have zero

427: amplitude.  Dawson~\emph{et al.}~\cite{dhhmno05} introduced a

428: convenient method, which we describe briefly now, for including only

429: those paths with nonzero amplitude.  One associates with each wire in

430: the quantum circuit a classical bit value corresponding to a

431: computational basis state.  The effect of an elementary gate is to

432: change, deterministically or stochastically, the bit values at its

433: input and to introduce a multiplicative amplitude.  The two-qubit

434: controlled-NOT gate changes the input control bit $x$ and target bit

435: $y$ deterministically to output values $x$ and $y\oplus x$, while

436: introducing only unit amplitudes.  Similarly, the three-qubit Toffoli

437: gates changes the input control bits $x$ and $y$ and target bit $z$

438: deterministically to $x$, $y$, and $z\oplus xy$, while introducing only

439: unit amplitudes.  The $T$ gate leaves the input bit value $x$ unchanged

440: and introduces a phase $e^{ix\pi/4}$.  The Hadamard gate changes the

441: input bit value $x$ stochastically to an output value $y$ and

442: introduces an amplitude $(-1)^{xy}/\sqrt2$.

443: 

444: The classical bit values trace out the allowed Feynman paths, and the

445: product of the amplitudes introduced at the gates gives the overall

446: amplitude of the path.  In our application of evaluating the

447: trace~(\ref{E:sum2}), a path is specified by $n$ input bit values

448: (which are identical to the output bit values), $n$ random bit values

449: introduced by the initial Hadamard gates, and $h$ random bit values

450: introduced at the $h$ Hadamard gates required for the implementation of

451: $U$.  This gives a total of $2n+h$ bits to specify a path and thus

452: $2^{2n+h}$ allowed paths.  We let $\bx$ denote collectively the $2n+h$

453: path bits.

454: 

455: If we apply the gate rules to a Hadamard-Toffoli circuit, the only gate

456: amplitudes we have to worry about are the $\pm1/\sqrt2$ amplitudes

457: introduced at the Hadamard gates.  There being no complex amplitudes,

458: the trace cannot be complex.  Indeed, for this reason, achieving

459: universality with the $H$-Toffoli gate set requires the use of a simple

460: encoding, and we assume for the purposes of our discussion that this

461: encoding has already been taken into account.  With all this in mind,

462: we can write the trace~(\ref{E:sum2}) as a sum over the allowed paths,

463: \begin{equation}

464: \tr(U)=\frac{1}{2^{n+h/2}}\sum_{\bx}(-1)^{\psi(\bx)}\;.

465: \end{equation}

466: Here $\psi(\bx)$ is a polynomial over $\mz_2$, specifically, the mod-2

467: sum of the products of input and output bit values at each of the

468: Hadamard gates.  The downside is that a string of Toffoli gates

469: followed by a Hadamard can lead to a polynomial that is high order in

470: the bit values.  As pointed out by Dawson~\emph{et

471: al.}~\cite{dhhmno05}, we can deal with this problem partially by

472: putting a pair of Hadamards on the target qubit after each Toffoli

473: gate, thus replacing the quadratic term in the output target bit with

474: two new random variables and preventing the quadratic term from

475: iterating to higher order terms in subsequent Toffoli gates.  In doing

476: so, we are left with a cubic term in $\psi(\bx)$ from the amplitude of

477: the first Hadamard.  The upshot is that we can always make $\psi(\bx)$

478: a cubic polynomial.

479: 

480: Notice now that we can rewrite the trace as

481: \begin{equation}

482: \tr(U)

483: =\frac{1}{2^{n+h/2}}\left[

484: \begin{pmatrix}

485: \mbox{number of $\bx$ such}\\ \mbox{that $\psi(\bx)=0$}

486: \end{pmatrix}-

487: \begin{pmatrix}

488: \mbox{number of $\bx$ such}\\ \mbox{that $\psi(\bx)=1$}

489: \end{pmatrix}\right]\;,

490: \end{equation}

491: thus reducing the problem of evaluating the trace exactly to counting

492: the number of zeroes of the cubic polynomial $\psi(\bx)$.  This is a

493: standard problem from computational algebraic geometry, and it is known

494: that counting the number of zeroes of a general cubic polynomial over

495: any finite field is \#{\bf P} complete \cite{ek90}.  It is possible

496: that the polynomials that arise from quantum circuits have some special

497: structure that can be exploited to give an efficient algorithm for

498: counting the number of zeroes, but in the absence of such structure,

499: there is no efficient classical algorithm for computing the trace

500: exactly unless the classical complexity hierarchy collapses and

501: \emph{all\/} problems in \#{\bf P} are efficiently solvable on a

502: classical computer.

503: 

504: Of course, it is not our goal to compute the trace exactly, since the

505: quantum circuit only provides an efficient method for estimating the

506: normalized trace to fixed accuracy.  This suggests that we should

507: estimate the normalized trace by sampling the amplitudes of the allowed

508: Feynman paths.  The normalized trace,

509: \begin{equation}

510: {\tr(U)\over2^n}=\frac{1}{2^{2n+h}}\sum_{\bx}2^{h/2}(-1)^{\psi(\bx)}\;,

511: \end{equation}

512: which lies between $-1$ and $+1$, can be regarded as the average of

513: $2^{2n+h}$ quantities whose magnitude, $2^{h/2}$, is exponentially

514: large in the number of Hadamard gates.  To estimate the average with

515: fixed accuracy requires a number of samples that goes as $2^h$,

516: implying that this is not an efficient method for estimating the

517: normalized trace.  The reason the method is not efficient is pure

518: quantum mechanics, i.e., that the trace is a sum of amplitudes, not

519: probabilities.

520: 

521: If we apply the gate rules to a Hadamard-$T$-controlled-NOT circuit,

522: the bit value on each wire in the circuit is a mod-2 sum of appropriate

523: bit values in $\bx$, but now we have to worry about the amplitudes

524: introduced by the Hadamard and $T$ gates.  The trace~(\ref{E:sum2})

525: can be written as

526:  \begin{equation}

527:   \tr(U)={1\over2^{n+h/2}}

528:   \sum_{\bx}e^{i(\pi/4)\chi(\bx)}(-1)^{\phi(\bx)}\;.

529:   \label{E:sum3}

530:  \end{equation}

531: Here $\phi(\bx)$ is a polynomial over $\mz_2$, obtained as the mod-2

532: sum of the products of input and output bit values at each of the

533: Hadamard gates.  Since the output value is a fresh binary variable and

534: the input value is a mod-2 sum of bit values in $\bx$, $\phi(\bx)$ is a

535: purely quadratic polynomial over $\mz_2$.  The function $\chi(\bx)$ is

536: a mod-8 sum of the input bit values to all of the $T$ gates.  Since

537: these input bit values are mod-2 sums of bit values in $\bx$,

538: $\chi(\bx)$ is linear in bit values, but with an unfortunate mixture of

539: mod-2 and mod-8 addition.  We can get rid of this mixture by preceding

540: each $T$ gate with a pair of Hadamards, thus making the input to the

541: every $T$ gate a fresh binary variable.  With this choice, $\chi(\bx)$

542: becomes a mod-8 sum of appropriate bit values from $\bx$.

543: 

544: We can rewrite the sum~(\ref{E:sum3}) in the following way:

545: \begin{equation}

546:  \tr(U)={1\over2^{n+h/2}}

547:  \sum_{j=0}^7 e^{i(\pi/4)j} \left[

548: \begin{pmatrix}

549: \mbox{number of $\bx$ such that}\\

550: \mbox{$\chi(\bx)=j$ and $\phi(\bx)=0$}

551: \end{pmatrix}

552: -

553: \begin{pmatrix}

554: \mbox{number of $\bx$ such that}\\

555: \mbox{$\chi(\bx)=j$ and $\phi(\bx)=1$}

556: \end{pmatrix}

557: \right].

558: \end{equation}

559: Thus the problem now reduces to finding simultaneous (binary) solutions

560: to the purely quadratic $\mz_2$ polynomial $\phi(\bx)$ and the purely

561: linear $\mz_8$ polynomial $\chi(\bx)$.  One has to be careful here to

562: note that we are only interested in binary solutions, so we are not

563: solving $\chi(\bx)=j$ over all values in $\mz_8$.  The number of

564: solutions of a purely quadratic polynomial over $\mz_2$ can be obtained

565: trivially~\cite{ek90}, but the constraint over $\mz_8$ means that one

566: must count the number of solutions over a mixture of a field and a

567: ring.  The complexity class for this problem is not known, but given

568: the equivalence to counting the number of solutions of a cubic

569: polynomial over $\mz_2$, it seems unlikely that there is an efficient

570: classical algorithm.  Moreover, an attempt to estimate the normalized

571: trace by sampling allowed paths obviously suffers from the problem

572: already identified above.

573: 

574: \section{Properties of negativity}

575: \label{S:negativity}

576: 

577: In this section we briefly review properties of negativity as an

578: entanglement measure, focusing on those properties that we need in the

579: subsequent analysis (for a thorough discussion of negativity, see

580: Ref.~\cite{Vidal02}).

581: 

582: Let $A$ be an operator in the joint Hilbert space of two systems,

583: system~1 of dimension $d_1$ and system~2 of dimension $d_2$.  The

584: partial transpose of $A$ with respect to an orthonormal basis of

585: system~2 is defined by taking the transpose of the matrix elements of

586: $A$ with respect to the system-2 indices.  A partial transpose can also

587: be defined with respect to any basis of system~1.  Partial

588: transposition preserves the trace, and it commutes with taking the

589: adjoint.

590: 

591: The operator that results from partial transposition depends on which

592: basis is used to define the transpose, but these different partial

593: transposes are related by unitary transformations on the transposed

594: system and thus have the same eigenvalues and singular values.

595: Moreover, partial transposition on one of the systems is related to

596: partial transposition on the other by an overall transposition, which

597: also preserves eigenvalues and singular values.  Despite the

598: nonuniqueness of the partial transpose, we can talk meaningfully about

599: its invariant properties, such as its eigenvalues and singular values.

600: Similar considerations show that the eigenvalues and singular values

601: are invariant under local unitary transformations.

602: 

603: The singular values of an operator $O$ are the eigenvalues of

604: $\sqrt{O^\dag O}\equiv|O|$ (or, equivalently, of $\sqrt{O

605: O^\dag}$).  Any operator has a polar decomposition $O=T|O|$, where

606: $T$ is a unitary operator.  Writing $|O|=W^\dag SW$, where $W$ is

607: the unitary that diagonalizes $|O|$ and $S$ is the diagonal matrix of

608: singular values, we see that any operator can be written as $O=VSW$,

609: where $V=TW^\dag$ and $W$ are unitary operators.

610: 

611: We denote a partial transpose of $A$ generically by $\breve A$.  We

612: write the eigenvalues of $\breve A$ as $\lambda_j(\breve A)$ and denote

613: the singular values by $s_j(\breve A)$.  If $A$ is Hermitian, so is

614: $\breve A$, and the singular values of $\breve A$, i.e., the

615: eigenvalues of $|\breve A|$, are the magnitudes of the eigenvalues,

616: i.e, $s_j(\breve A)=|\lambda_j(\breve A)|$.

617: 

618: If a joint density operator~$\rho$ of systems 1 and 2 is separable, its

619: partial transpose $\breve\rho$ is a positive operator.  This gives the

620: Peres-Horodecki entanglement criterion~\cite{p96,hhh96}: if

621: $\breve\rho$ has a negative eigenvalue, then $\rho$ is entangled (the

622: converse is not generally true).  The magnitude of the sum of the

623: negative eigenvalues of the partial transpose, denoted by

624: \begin{equation}

625: \sN(\rho)\equiv-\sum_{\lambda_j(\breve\rho)<0}\lambda_j(\breve\rho)\;,

626: \end{equation}

627: is a measure of the amount of entanglement.  Partial transposition

628: preserves the trace, so $\tr(\breve\rho)=1$, from which we get

629: \begin{equation}

630: 1+2\sN(\rho)=\sum_j|\lambda_j(\breve\rho)|=

631: \tr|\breve\rho|\equiv\sM(\rho)\;,

632: \end{equation}

633: where $\sM(\rho)$ is a closely related entanglement measure.  The

634: quantity $\sN(\rho)$ was originally called the

635: \emph{negativity\/}~\cite{Vidal02}; we can distinguish the two measures

636: by referring to $\sM(\rho)$ as the \emph{multiplicative negativity}, a

637: name that emphasizes one of its key properties and advantages over

638: $\sN(\rho)$.  In this paper, however, we use the multiplicative

639: negativity exclusively and so refer to it simply as ``the negativity''.

640: 

641: The negativity $\sM(\rho)$ equals one for separable states, and it is

642: an entanglement monotone~\cite{Vidal02}, meaning that (i)~it is a

643: convex function of density operators and (ii)~it does not increase

644: under local operations and classical communication.  The negativity has

645: the property of being multiplicative in the sense that the $\sM$ value

646: for a state that is a product of states for many pairs of systems is

647: the product of the $\sM$ values for each of the pairs.  By the same

648: token, $\log\sM(\rho)$, called the \emph{log-negativity\/}, is

649: additive, but the logarithm destroys convexity so the log-negativity is

650: not an entanglement monotone~\cite{Vidal02}.  For another point of view

651: on the monotonicity of the log-negativity, see Ref.~\cite{Plenio05}.

652: 

653: The minimum value of the negativity is one, but we need to know the

654: maximum value to calibrate our results.  Convexity guarantees that the

655: maximum value is attained on pure states.  We can find the

656: maximum~\cite{SLee03} by considering the Schmidt decomposition of a

657: joint pure state of systems~1 and 2,

658: \begin{equation}

659: |\psi\rangle=\sum_{j=1}^d\sqrt{\mu_j}|j,j\rangle\;,

660: \end{equation}

661: where $d=\min(d_1,d_2)$.  Taking the partial transpose of $\rho$

662: relative to the Schmidt basis of system~2 gives

663: \begin{equation}

664: \breve\rho

665: =\sum_{j,k=1}^d\sqrt{\mu_j\mu_k}|j,k\rangle\langle k,j|\;,

666: \end{equation}

667: with eigenvectors and eigenvalues

668: \begin{eqnarray}

669: |j,j\rangle\;,&&\mbox{eigenvalue $\mu_j$,}\nonumber\\

670: {1\over\sqrt2}(|j,k\rangle\pm|k,j\rangle)\;,

671: &&\mbox{eigenvalue $\pm\sqrt{\mu_j\mu_k}$,}\quad j<k.

672: \end{eqnarray}

673: This gives a negativity

674: \begin{equation}

675: \sM(\psi)=

676: 1+2\sum_{j<k}\sqrt{\mu_j\mu_k}

677: =\sum_{j,k=1}^d\sqrt{\mu_j\mu_k}

678: =\biggl(\sum_{j=1}^d\sqrt{\mu_j}\biggr)^2\;.

679: \end{equation}

680: The concavity of the square root implies $\sum_j\sqrt{\mu_j}\le\sqrt

681: d$, with equality if and only if $\mu_j=1/d$ for all $j$, i.e.,

682: $|\psi\rangle$ is maximally entangled. We end up with

683: \begin{equation}

684: 1\le\sM(\rho)\le d\;.

685: \end{equation}

686: 

687: The negativity is the sum of the singular values of

688: $\breve\rho$.  For states of the form we are interested in, given by

689: Eq.~(\ref{E:rhooutalpha}), the negativity is determined by the

690: singular values of the partial transpose of the unitary operator~$U_n$.

691: To see this, consider any bipartite division of the qubits. Performing

692: the partial transpose on the part that does not include the special

693: qubit, we have

694: \begin{equation}

695: \breve\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)=

696: \frac{1}{2N}

697:     \begin{pmatrix}

698:         I_n &  \alpha\breve U_n^\dag \\

699:         \alpha\breve U_n & I_n

700:     \end{pmatrix} \;,

701: \label{E:breverhooutalpha}

702: \end{equation}

703: where $\breve U_n$ is the partial transpose of $U_n$ relative to the

704: chosen bipartite division.  Notice that if we make our division between

705: the special qubit and all the rest, then $\breve U_n=U_n^T$ is a

706: unitary operator, and $\breve\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ is the quantum state

707: corresponding to using $U_n^T$ in the circuit~(\ref{E:circuitalpha});

708: this shows that for this division, the negativity is 1, consistent with

709: our earlier conclusion that the special qubit is not entangled with the

710: other qubits.  For a general division, we know there are unitaries $V$

711: and $W$ such that $\breve U_n=VSW$, where $S$ is the diagonal matrix of

712: singular values $s_j(\breve U_n)$.  This allows us to write

713: \begin{equation}

714: \breve\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)=

715:     \begin{pmatrix}

716:         W^\dagger & 0 \\

717:         0 & V

718:     \end{pmatrix}

719:     \frac{1}{2N}

720:     \begin{pmatrix}

721:         I_n &  \alpha S \\

722:         \alpha S & I_n

723:     \end{pmatrix}

724:     \begin{pmatrix}

725:         W & 0 \\

726:         0 & V^\dagger

727:     \end{pmatrix}\;,

728: \end{equation}

729: showing that $\breve\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ is a unitary transformation

730: away from the matrix in the middle and thus has the same eigenvalues.

731: The block structure of the middle matrix makes it easy to find these

732: eigenvalues, which are given by $[1\pm\alpha s_j(\breve U_n)]/2N$.

733: This allows us to put the negativity in the form

734: \begin{equation}

735: \sM\bigl(\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)\bigr)={1\over2N}

736: \sum_{j=1}^N|1+\alpha s_j(\breve U_n)|+|1-\alpha s_j(\breve U_n)| =

737: {1 \over N} \sum_{j=1}^N \max\bigl(\abs{\alpha} s_j(\breve U_n), 1\bigr)\;,

738: \label{E:Msingular}

739: \end{equation}

740: which is valid for both positive and negative values of $\alpha$.  An

741: immediate consequence of Eq.~(\ref{E:Msingular}) is that

742: $\sM\bigl(\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)\bigr)=\sM\bigl(\rho_{n+1}(-\alpha)\bigr)$,

743: as one would expect.  Since $\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ is a mixture of

744: $\rho_{n+1}(+1)=\rho_{n+1}$ and $\rho_{n+1}(-1)$, convexity tells us

745: immediately that

746: $\sM\bigl(\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)\bigr)\le\sM\bigl(\rho_{n+1}\bigr)$, i.e.,

747: that a mixed input for the special qubit cannot increase the negativity

748: over that for a pure input.  More generally, we have that the

749: negativity cannot decrease at any point as $\alpha$ increases from 0

750: to~1.

751: 

752: \section{Entanglement in the DQC1 Circuit} \label{S:examples}

753: 

754: In this section, we construct a family of unitaries $U_n$ that produce

755: global entanglement in the DQC1 circuit~(\ref{E:circuit}).  For

756: $\alpha=1$, the negativity produced by this family is equal to $5/4$,

757: independent of $n$, for all bipartite divisions that put the first and

758: last unpolarized qubits in different parts.  We conjecture that this is

759: the maximum negativity that can be achieved in a circuit of the

760: form~(\ref{E:circuit}).

761: 

762: Before the measurement, the output state of the

763: circuit~(\ref{E:circuitalpha}) is given by Eq.~(\ref{E:rhooutalpha}).

764: To construct the unitaries $U_n$, we first introduce a two-qubit

765: unitary matrix

766: \begin{equation}

767: \label{E:U2}

768:     U_{2} \equiv \begin{pmatrix}

769:         A_1 & C_1 \\

770:         D_1 & B_1 \\

771:     \end{pmatrix} \;,

772: \end{equation}

773: where $A_1$, $B_1$, $C_1$, and $D_1$ are single-qubit ($2\times2$)

774: matrices that must satisfy $A_1^\dagger A_1+D_1^\dagger D_1=

775: B_1^\dagger B_1+C_1^\dagger C_1=I_1$ and $A_1^\dagger C_1+D_1^\dagger

776: B_1=0$ to ensure that $U_2$ is unitary.  The $n$-qubit unitary $U_n$

777: is then defined by

778: \begin{eqnarray}

779:     U_n &\equiv&

780:     \begin{pmatrix}

781:         I_{n-2} \otimes A_1 & X_{n-2} \otimes C_1 \\

782:         X_{n-2} \otimes D_1 & I_{n-2} \otimes B_1

783:     \end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\

784:     &=&|0\rangle\langle0|\otimes I_{n-2}\otimes A_1

785:     +|1\rangle\langle1|\otimes I_{n-2}\otimes B_1 \nonumber \\

786:     &&\phantom{|}

787:     +|0\rangle\langle1|\otimes X_{n-2}\otimes C_1

788:     +|1\rangle\langle0|\otimes X_{n-2}\otimes D_1

789:     \;.

790:     \label{E:Un}

791: \end{eqnarray}

792: Here we use $X_1$, $Y_1$, and $Z_1$ to denote single-qubit Pauli

793: operators.  A subscript $k$ on the identity operator or a Pauli operator

794: denotes a tensor product in which that operator acts on each of $k$

795: qubits.  If we adopt the convention that $X_0 = I_0 = 1$, then $U_n$

796: reduces to $U_2$ when $n=2$.  It is easy to design a quantum circuit

797: that realizes $U_n$.  The structure of the circuit is illustrated by

798: the case of $U_4$:

799: \begin{equation}

800: \label{E:Ucircuit}

801:     \Qcircuit @C=.5em @R=0.5em {

802:     & \lstick{\mbox{1st qubit}} & \ctrl{2} & \ctrl{3} & \multigate{1}{U_2} & \ctrl{3} & \ctrl{2} & \qw \\

803:     & \lstick{\mbox{4th qubit}} & \qw      & \qw      & \ghost{U_n}        & \qw    & \qw & \qw \\

804:     & \lstick{\mbox{2nd qubit}} & \targ    & \qw      & \qw                & \qw      & \targ & \qw \\

805:     & \lstick{\mbox{3rd qubit}} & \qw      & \targ    & \qw                & \targ    & \qw & \qw                    }

806: \end{equation}

807: In general, the two-qubit unitary $U_2$, acting on the first and last

808: qubits, is bracketed by controlled-NOT gates from the first qubit,

809: acting as control, to each of the other qubits, except the last, as

810: targets.

811: 

812: Because $I_1$ and $X_1$ are invariant under transposition, it is clear

813: from the form of $U_n$ that in the state~(\ref{E:rhooutalpha}), all

814: qubits, except~0, 1, and~$n$, are invariant under transposition.  We

815: can use this fact to find the negativity for all bipartite divisions.

816: First consider any bipartite division that puts qubits 1 and $n$ in the

817: same part.  There are two possibilities.  If the special qubit is in

818: the same part as qubits~1 and $n$, then partial transposition on the

819: other part leaves $\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ unchanged, so the negativity

820: is~1.  If the special qubit is not in the same part as~1 and $n$, then

821: partial transposition on the part that includes~1 and $n$ is the same

822: as partial transposition of all the unpolarized qubits, a case we

823: already know to have negativity equal to 1.  We conclude that any

824: bipartite division that puts~1 and $n$ in the same part has negativity

825: equal to 1.

826: 

827: Turn now to bipartite divisions that put qubits~1 and $n$ in different

828: parts.  There are two cases to consider: (i)~the special qubit is in

829: the same part as qubit~1, and (ii)~the special qubit is in the same part

830: as qubit~$n$.  In case~(i), partial transposition of the part that

831: contains qubit~$n$ gives

832: \begin{equation}

833: \breve\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)={1\over2N}

834:     \begin{pmatrix}

835:         I_n                 & \alpha \breve U_n^\dagger \\

836:         \alpha \breve U_n   & I_n

837:     \end{pmatrix}

838: \qquad\mbox{with}\qquad

839: \breve U_n=

840: \begin{pmatrix}

841:         I_{n-2} \otimes A_1^T & X_{n-2} \otimes C_1^T \\

842:         X_{n-2} \otimes D_1^T & I_{n-2} \otimes B_1^T

843:     \end{pmatrix}\;.

844: \end{equation}

845: In case~(ii), partial transposition of the part that contains qubit~1

846: gives

847: \begin{equation}

848: \breve\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)={1\over2N}

849:     \begin{pmatrix}

850:         I_n                 & \alpha \breve U_n^\dagger \\

851:         \alpha \breve U_n   & I_n

852:     \end{pmatrix}

853: \qquad\mbox{with}\qquad

854: \breve U_n=

855: \begin{pmatrix}

856:         I_{n-2} \otimes A_1 & X_{n-2} \otimes D_1 \\

857:         X_{n-2} \otimes C_1 & I_{n-2} \otimes B_1

858:     \end{pmatrix}\;.

859: \end{equation}

860: 

861: The basic structure of $\breve\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ is the same in

862: both cases.  Without changing the spectrum, we can reorder the rows and

863: columns to block diagonalize $\breve\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ so that

864: there are $N/4$ blocks, each of which has the form

865: \begin{equation}

866: {1\over2N}

867: \begin{pmatrix}

868:     I_2                 & \alpha \breve U_2^\dagger \\

869:     \alpha \breve U_2   & I_2

870: \end{pmatrix}

871: ={4\over N}\breve\rho_3(\alpha)\;,

872: \label{E:breverho2}

873: \end{equation}

874: where $\breve\rho_3(\alpha)$ is the appropriate partial transpose of

875: the three-qubit output state.  Thus the spectrum of

876: $\breve\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ is the same as the spectrum of

877: $\breve\rho_3(\alpha)$, except that each eigenvalue is reduced by a

878: factor of $4/N$.  In calculating the negativity, since each eigenvalue

879: is ($N/4$)-fold degenerate, the reduction factor of $4/N$ is cancelled

880: by a degeneracy factor of $N/4$, leaving us with the fundamental result

881: of our construction,

882: \begin{equation}

883: \sM\bigl(\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)\bigr)=\sM\bigl(\rho_3(\alpha)\bigr)\;.

884: \end{equation}

885: This applies to both cases of bipartite splittings that we are

886: considering, showing that all divisions have the same negativity as the

887: corresponding $n=2$ construction.

888: 

889: We now specialize to a particular choice of $U_2$ given by

890: \begin{equation}

891: A_1=

892:     \begin{pmatrix}

893:         0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1

894:     \end{pmatrix}\;,

895: \quad

896: B_1=

897:     \begin{pmatrix}

898:         1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0

899:     \end{pmatrix}\;,

900: \quad

901: C_1=

902:     \begin{pmatrix}

903:         0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0

904:     \end{pmatrix}\;,

905: \quad\mbox{and}\quad

906: D_1=

907:     \begin{pmatrix}

908:         0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0

909:     \end{pmatrix}\;.

910: \label{E:ABCD}

911: \end{equation}

912: For this choice, the two cases of bipartite division lead to the same

913: partial transpose.  The spectrum of

914: \begin{equation}

915: \breve\rho_3(\alpha)={1\over8}

916: \begin{pmatrix}

917: I_1 & 0 & \alpha A_1 & \alpha D_1 \\

918: 0 & I_1 & \alpha C_1 & \alpha B_1  \\

919: \alpha A_1 & \alpha D_1 & I_1 & 0\\

920: \alpha C_1 & \alpha B_1 & 0 & I_1

921: \end{pmatrix}

922: \end{equation}

923: is

924: \begin{equation}

925: \spec(\breve\rho_3\bigl(\alpha)\bigr)=

926: {1\over 8}(1+2\alpha,1,1,1,1,1,1-2\alpha)\;,

927: \end{equation}

928: giving a negativity equal to 1 for $\alpha\le1/2$ and a

929: negativity

930: \begin{equation}

931: \sM\bigl(\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)\bigr)=\sM\bigl(\rho_3(\alpha)\bigr)=

932: {1\over4}(2\alpha+3)

933: \quad\mbox{for}\quad

934: \alpha\ge1/2\;.

935: \end{equation}

936: This result shows definitively that the circuit~ can produce

937: entanglement, at least for $\alpha>1/2$.  We stress that the

938: negativity achieved by this family of unitaries is independent of

939: $n\ge2$.

940: 

941: For $\alpha=1$, the negativity achieved by this family reduces to

942: $5/4$.  For large $n$, this amount of negativity is a vanishingly small

943: fraction of the maximum possible negativity, $\sim2^{n/2}$, for roughly

944: equal divisions of the qubits.  This raises the question whether it is

945: possible for other unitaries to achieve larger negativities.  A first

946: idea might be to find two-qubit unitaries $U_2$ that yield a higher

947: negativity $\sM(\rho_3)=\sM(\rho_{n+1})$ when plugged into the

948: construction of this section, but the bounds we find in

949: Sec.~\ref{S:bounds} dispose of this notion, since they show that $5/4$

950: is the maximum negativity that can be achieved for $n=2$.  Another

951: approach would be to generalize the construction of this section in a

952: way that is obvious from the circuit~(\ref{E:Ucircuit}), i.e., by

953: starting with a $k$-qubit unitary in place of the two-qubit unitary of

954: Eq.~(\ref{E:Ucircuit}).  Numerical investigation of the case $k=3$ has

955: not turned up negativities larger than $5/4$.  We conjecture that $5/4$

956: is the maximum negativity that can be achieved by states of the

957: form~(\ref{E:rhoout}).  Though we have not been able to prove this

958: conjecture, we show in the next section that typical unitaries for

959: $n+1\le10$ achieve negativities less than $5/4$ and in the following

960: section that the negativity is rigorously bounded by $\sqrt2$.

961: 

962: We stress that we are not suggesting that the construction of this

963: section, with $U_2$ given by Eq.~(\ref{E:ABCD}), achieves the maximum

964: negativity for all values of $\alpha$, for that would mean that we

965: believed that the negativity cannot exceed 1 for $\alpha\le1/2$, which

966: we do not.  Although we have not found entanglement for $\alpha\le

967: 1/2$, we suspect there are states with negativity greater than 1 as

968: long as $\alpha$ is large enough that $\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ lies outside

969: the separable ball around the maximally mixed state, i.e.,

970: $\alpha\ge2^{(n+1)/2}r_{n+1}$.  The bound of Sec.~\ref{S:bounds} only

971: says that $\sM\bigl(\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)\bigr)\le\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}$, thus

972: allowing negativities greater than 1 for all values of $\alpha$ except

973: $\alpha=0$.  Moreover, since the negativity does not detect bound

974: entanglement, there could be entangled states that have a negativity

975: equal to~1.

976: 

977: \section{The Average Negativity of a Random Unitary} \label{S:random}

978: 

979: Having constructed a family of unitaries that yields a DQC1 state with

980: negativity $5/4$, a natural question to ask is, ``What is the

981: negativity of a typical state produced by the

982: circuit~(\ref{E:circuit})?''  To address this question, we choose the

983: unitary operator in the circuit~(\ref{E:circuit}) at random and

984: calculate the negativity.  Of course, one must first define what it

985: means for a unitary to be ``typical'' or ``chosen at random''.  The

986: natural measure for defining this is the Haar measure, which is the

987: unique left-invariant measure for the group ${\sf U}(N)$

988: \cite{Conway90}.  The resulting ensemble of unitaries is known as the

989: Circular Unitary Ensemble, or CUE, and it is parameterized by the

990: Hurwitz decomposition \cite{Hurwitz1897}.  Although this is an exact

991: parameterization, implementing it requires computational resources that

992: grow exponentially in the size of the unitary~\cite{Emerson03}.  To

993: circumvent this, a pseudo-random distribution that requires resources

994: growing polynomially in the size of the unitary was formulated and

995: investigated in Ref.~\cite{Emerson03}. This is the distribution from

996: which we draw our random unitaries, and we summarize the procedure for

997: completeness.

998: 

999: We first define a random ${\sf SU}(2)$ unitary as

1000: \begin{equation}

1001:     R(\theta,\phi,\chi) =

1002:     \begin{pmatrix}

1003:     e^{i \phi} \cos\theta & e^{i \chi} \sin\theta \\

1004:     -e^{-i \chi} \sin\theta & e^{-i \phi} \cos\theta \\

1005:     \end{pmatrix} \;,

1006: \end{equation}

1007: where $\theta$ is chosen uniformly between $0$ and $\pi/2$, and $\phi$

1008: and $\chi$ are chosen uniformly between $0$ and $2\pi$.  A random

1009: unitary applied to each of the $n$ qubits is then

1010: \begin{equation}

1011:     {\sf R} = \bigotimes_{i=1}^{n} R(\theta_i, \phi_i, \chi_i) \;,

1012: \end{equation}

1013: where a separate random number is generated for each variable at each

1014: value of $i$.  Now define a mixing operator ${\sf M}$ in terms of

1015: nearest-neighbor $Z\otimes Z$ couplings as

1016: \begin{equation}

1017:     {\sf M} =

1018:     \exp\left(i \frac{\pi}{4} \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} Z^{(j)} \otimes Z^{(j+1)} \right) \;.

1019: \end{equation}

1020: The pseudo-random unitary is then given by

1021: \begin{equation}

1022:     {\sf R}_j{\sf M}{\sf R}_{j-1}\cdots{\sf M}{\sf R}_2{\sf M}{\sf R}_1 \;,

1023: \end{equation}

1024: where $j$ is a positive integer that depends on $n$, and each ${\sf

1025: R}_k$ is chosen randomly as described above.  For a given $n$, the

1026: larger $j$ is, the more accurately the pseudo-random unitary

1027: distribution resembles the actual CUE.  From the results in

1028: Ref.~\cite{Emerson03}, $j=40$ gives excellent agreement with the CUE

1029: for unitary operators on at least up to 10 qubits, so this is what we

1030: use in our calculations.

1031: 

1032: Due to boundary effects, not all bipartite splittings that put $k$

1033: unpolarized qubits in one part are equivalent. Nevertheless, we

1034: consider only bipartite divisions that split the qubits along

1035: horizontal lines placed at various points in the circuit of

1036: Eq.~(\ref{E:circuit}).  We refer to the division that groups the last

1037: $k$ qubits together as the $(n+1-k,k)$ splitting.  For $\alpha=1$, we

1038: calculate the average negativity and standard deviation of a

1039: pseudo-random state $\rho_{n+1}$ for two different bipartite

1040: splittings, $(n,1)$ and $(\left\lfloor n/2 \right\rfloor +1,

1041: \left\lceil n/2 \right\rceil )$. These results are plotted in

1042: Fig.~\ref{F:random}.  For $n+1=5,\ldots,10$, the average negativity for

1043: the roughly equal splitting lies between 1.135 and just above 1.16. The

1044: standard deviation appears to converge exponentially to zero, as in

1045: Ref.~\cite{Scott03}, a behavior that is typical of asymptotically

1046: equivalent matrices.  In addition, for $9+1$ qubits, we calculate the

1047: average negativity and standard deviation for all nontrivial ($k\ne n$)

1048: bipartite splittings $(n+1-k,k)$, and the results are shown in

1049: Fig.~\ref{F:allsplits}.

1050: 

1051: \begin{figure}[t]

1052: \begin{center}

1053: \includegraphics[scale=.458]{meanneg.eps}

1054: \includegraphics[scale=.458]{devneg.eps}

1055: \caption{{\bf Left}: Average negativity of the state $\rho_{n+1}$ of

1056: Eq.~(\protect\ref{E:rhoout}) ($\alpha=1$) for a randomly chosen unitary

1057: $U_n$ for two different bipartite splittings, $(n,1)$ and

1058: $\left(\left\lfloor n/2 \right\rfloor +1, \left\lceil

1059: n/2 \right\rceil\right)$.  The $(n,1)$ splitting appears to

1060: reach an upper bound quickly, whereas the other splitting is still

1061: rising slowly at 10 qubits.  {\bf Right}: Semi-log plot of the standard

1062: deviation in the negativity of the randomly chosen state $\rho_{n+1}$.

1063: The fit curves show that the standard deviation is decaying

1064: exponentially, so that for large numbers of qubits, almost all

1065: unitaries give the same negativity.} \label{F:random}

1066: \end{center}

1067: \end{figure}

1068: 

1069: \begin{figure}[t]

1070: \begin{center}

1071: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{allsplits10.eps}

1072: \caption{Average negativity of the state $\rho_{10}$ of

1073: Eq.~(\protect\ref{E:rhoout}) ($\alpha=1$) for a randomly chosen unitary

1074: $U_9$ as a function of bipartite splitting number $k$ for bipartite

1075: splittings $(10-k,k)$.  The error bars give the standard deviations.

1076: The function attains a maximum when the bipartite split is made between

1077: half of the qubits on which the unitary acts.}

1078: \label{F:allsplits}

1079: \end{center}

1080: \end{figure}

1081: 

1082: \section{Bounds on the Negativity} \label{S:bounds}

1083: 

1084: In this section, we return to allowing the special qubit in the circuit

1085: (\ref{E:circuitalpha}) to have initial polarization~$\alpha$.  Since the

1086: value of $n$ is either clear from context or fixed, we reduce the

1087: notational clutter by denoting the state $\rho_{n+1}(\alpha)$ of

1088: Eq.~(\ref{E:rhooutalpha}) as~$\rho_\alpha$.

1089: 

1090: Given a particular bipartite division, the partial transpose of

1091: $\rho_\alpha$ with respect to the part that does not include the

1092: special qubit is

1093: \begin{equation}

1094:     \breve \rho_\alpha = \frac{I_n+\alpha \breve C}{2N} \;,

1095: \end{equation}

1096: where

1097: \begin{equation}

1098: \label{E:Cdef}

1099:     \breve C \equiv

1100:     \begin{pmatrix}

1101:         0 & \breve U_n^\dag \\

1102:         \breve U_n & 0

1103:     \end{pmatrix} \;.

1104: \end{equation}

1105: Using the binomial theorem, we can expand

1106: $\tr(\breve\rho^{\,s}_\alpha)$ in terms of $\tr(\breve C^k)$:

1107: \begin{equation}

1108: \label{E:binomialform}

1109:     \tr(\breve\rho^{\,s}_\alpha) =

1110:     \left({1\over2N}\right)^{\! \! s} \sum_{k=0}^s {s \choose k} \alpha^k \tr(\breve C^k) \;.

1111: \end{equation}

1112: When $k$ is odd, $\breve C^k$ is block off-diagonal, so its trace

1113: vanishes.  When $k$ is even, we have

1114: \begin{equation}

1115: \tr(\breve C^k) = 2\,\tr\Bigl((\breve U_n \breve U_n^\dag)^{k/2}\Bigr)\;.

1116: \end{equation}

1117: When $k=2$, this simplifies to $\tr(\breve C^2)=2\tr(\breve U_n\breve

1118: U_n^\dag)=2\tr(U_n U_n^\dag)=2N$.  The crucial step here follows

1119: immediately from the property $\tr(\breve A\breve B)=\tr(AB)$, which we

1120: prove as a Lemma in the Appendix.  Note that in general $\tr(\breve A_1

1121: \breve A_2 \ldots \breve A_l) \not= \tr(A_1 A_2 \ldots A_l)$ if $l>2$,

1122: so we cannot give a similar general calculation of

1123: $\tr(\breve\rho^{\,s}_\alpha)$ for even $s \ge 4$, since it involves terms

1124: of this form.

1125: 

1126: Using Eq.~(\ref{E:binomialform}), we can now obtain three independent

1127: constraint equations on the eigenvalues

1128: $\lambda_j=\lambda_j(\breve\rho_\alpha)$ of the partial transpose

1129: $\breve\rho_\alpha$:

1130: \begin{equation} \label{E:sumsofpowers}

1131:     \sum_{j=1}^{2N}\lambda_j^s=

1132:     \tr(\breve \rho^{\,s}_\alpha)

1133:     = \frac{1}{2^s N^{s-1}}[(1+\alpha)^s + (1-\alpha)^s]\;,\qquad s=1,2,3.

1134: \end{equation}

1135: Since the negativity is given by

1136: \begin{equation} \label{E:negdef}

1137:     \sM(\rho_\alpha) = \sum_j \abs{\lambda_i} \;,

1138: \end{equation}

1139: we can find an upper bound on the negativity by maximizing

1140: $\sum_j\abs{\lambda_j}$ subject to the

1141: constraints~(\ref{E:sumsofpowers}).  If we consider only the $s=1,2$

1142: constraints, we obtain a nontrivial upper bound on the negativity with

1143: little effort.  We find that adding the constraint $s=3$ adds nothing

1144: asymptotically for large $N$, but for small $N$ yields a tighter bound

1145: than we get from the $s=1,2$ constraints, although this comes at the

1146: cost of considerably more effort.  We emphasize that these bounds apply

1147: to all bipartite divisions and to all unitaries $U_n$.  Notice that we

1148: have no reason to expect these bounds to be saturated, since the traces

1149: of higher powers of $\breve\rho_\alpha$ impose additional constraints

1150: that we are ignoring.  The one exception is the case of three qubits,

1151: where the $s=1,2,3$ constraints are a complete set, and indeed, in this

1152: case, the $s=1,2,3$ bound is $5/4$, which is saturated by the unitary

1153: found in Sec.~\ref{S:examples}.

1154: 

1155: The remainder of this section is devoted to calculating the $s=1,2$ and

1156: $s=1,2,3$ upper bounds.  A graphical summary of our results is for

1157: $\alpha=1$ presented in Fig.~\ref{F:totalfig}.

1158: 

1159: \begin{figure}[t]

1160: \begin{center}

1161: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{totalfig.eps}

1162: \caption{Plot of the bounds on the negativity of states of the

1163: form~(\ref{E:rhoout}), i.e., for a pure-state input in the zeroth

1164: register ($\alpha=1$).  The uppermost plot is the simple analytic bound

1165: $\sM_{1,2}=\sqrt2$, obtained using the $s=1,2$~constraint equations;

1166: the next largest plot is the numerically constructed $s=1,2,3$ bound.

1167: One can see that the $s=1,2,3$ bound asymptotes to the $s=1,2$ bound.

1168: As noted in the text, these bounds are independent of the unitary $U_n$

1169: and the bipartite division.  The flat line shows the negativity $5/4$

1170: for the state constructed in Sec.~\ref{S:examples}, currently the state

1171: of the form~(\ref{E:rhoout}) with the largest demonstrated negativity;

1172: notice that for $n+1=3$, this state attains the $s=1,2,3$ bound.  The

1173: lowest two sets of data points display the expected negativities for a

1174: randomly chosen unitary using the bipartite splittings $(n,1)$ and

1175: $\left(\left\lfloor n/2 \right\rfloor +1, \left\lceil n/2

1176: \right\rceil\right)$, which were also plotted in Fig.~\ref{F:random}.}

1177: \label{F:totalfig}

1178: \end{center}

1179: \end{figure}

1180: 

1181: \subsection{The $s=1,2$ Bound}

1182: 

1183: We can use Lagrange multipliers to reduce the problem to maximizing a

1184: function of one variable, but first we must deal with the absolute

1185: value in Eq.~(\ref{E:negdef}).  To do so, we assume that $t$ of the

1186: eigenvalues are negative and the $2N-t$ others are nonnegative, where

1187: $t$ becomes a parameter that must now be included in the maximization.

1188: We want to maximize

1189: \begin{equation}

1190: \sM_{1,2} = -\sum_{i=1}^t \lambda_i + \sum_{j=t+1}^{2N} \lambda_j\;,

1191: \end{equation}

1192:  subject to the constraints

1193: \begin{equation} \label{E:cons}

1194:     \sum_{k=1}^{2N} \lambda_k = 1

1195:     \quad \mbox{and} \quad \sum_{k=1}^{2N}

1196:     \lambda_k^2 = \frac{1+\alpha^2}{2N} \;.

1197: \end{equation}

1198: The notation we adopt here for the indices is that $i$ labels negative

1199: eigenvalues and $j$ labels nonnegative eigenvalues, while $k$ can label

1200: either.  This serves to remind us of the sign of an eigenvalue just by

1201: looking at its index.

1202: 

1203: Introducing Lagrange multipliers $\mu$ and $\nu$, the function we want

1204: to maximize is

1205: \begin{equation}

1206:     f(\lambda_k,t) =

1207:     -\sum_{i=1}^t \lambda_i + \sum_{j=t+1}^{2N} \lambda_j +

1208:     \mu\!\left(\sum_{k=1}^{2N} \lambda_k -1\right)

1209:     + \nu\!\left(\sum_{k=1}^{2N} \lambda_k^2 -\frac{1+\alpha^2}{2N}\right)\;.

1210: \end{equation}

1211: Differentiating with respect to $\lambda_i$ and then $\lambda_j$, we find

1212: \begin{eqnarray}

1213:     -1+\mu+2\nu \lambda_i = 0 \;, \\

1214:     +1+\mu+2\nu \lambda_j = 0 \;.

1215: \end{eqnarray}

1216: We immediately see that in the maximal solution, all the negative

1217: eigenvalues are equal, and all the nonnegative eigenvalues are equal.

1218: We can now reformulate the problem in the following way.  If we call

1219: the two eigenvalues $\lambda_-$ and $\lambda_+$, our new problem is to

1220: maximize

1221: \begin{equation} \label{E:newneg}

1222:     \sM_{1,2} = \sum_k \abs{\lambda_k}= -t\lambda_-+(2N-t)\lambda_+\;,

1223: \end{equation}

1224: subject to the constraints

1225: \begin{eqnarray} \label{E:constraint1}

1226:     t \lambda_- + (2N-t) \lambda_+ &=& 1\;,\\

1227:     t \lambda_-^2 + (2N-t) \lambda_+^2 &=& \frac{1+\alpha^2}{2N}\;.

1228:     \label{E:constraint2}

1229: \end{eqnarray}

1230: We can now do the problem by solving the constraints for $\lambda_-$

1231: and $\lambda_+$ in terms of $t$, plugging these results into

1232: $\sM_{1,2}$, and then maximizing over $t$.

1233: 

1234: Before continuing, we note two things.  First, $t$ cannot be $2N$, for

1235: if it were, then all the eigenvalues would be negative, making it

1236: impossible to satisfy Eq.~(\ref{E:constraint1}).  Second, unless

1237: $\alpha=0$, $t$ cannot be 0, for if it were, then all the eigenvalues

1238: would be equal to $1/2N$ by Eq.~(\ref{E:constraint1}), a situation

1239: Eq.~(\ref{E:constraint2}) says can occur only if $\alpha=0$.  Since we

1240: are not really interested in the case $\alpha=0$, for which

1241: $\rho_\alpha$ is always the maximally mixed state, we assume $\alpha>0$

1242: and $0<t<2N$ in what follows.

1243: 

1244: Solving Eqs.~(\ref{E:constraint1}) and (\ref{E:constraint2}) and

1245: plugging the solutions into Eq.~(\ref{E:newneg}), we get the two

1246: solutions

1247: \begin{equation}

1248: \label{E:ellipse}

1249:     \sM_{1,2} = \frac{N-t \pm \alpha \sqrt{t(2N-t)}}{N} \;.

1250: \end{equation}

1251: We choose the positive branch, since it contains the maximum.

1252: Maximizing with respect to $t$ treated as a continuous variable, we

1253: obtain the upper bound,

1254: \begin{equation} \label{E:maxneg}

1255:     \sM_{1,2} = \sqrt{1+\alpha^2}\, \stackrel{\alpha \to 1}{=}

1256:     \sqrt 2 \simeq 1.414\;,

1257: \end{equation}

1258: which occurs when the degeneracy parameter is given by

1259: \begin{equation}

1260: \label{E:degeneracy}

1261:     t = N\!\left(1 -\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}} \right)

1262:     \stackrel{\alpha \to 1}{\simeq} 0.292\,N \;.

1263: \end{equation}

1264: The numbers on the right are for the case $\alpha = 1$, corresponding

1265: to the special qubit starting in a pure state.  Notice that the upper

1266: bound~(\ref{E:maxneg}) allows a negativity greater than 1 for all

1267: $\alpha$ except $\alpha=0$.

1268: 

1269: Since we did not yet enforce the condition that $t$ be a positive

1270: integer, the bound~(\ref{E:maxneg}) can be made tighter for specific

1271: values of $N$ and $\alpha$ by calculating $t$ and checking which of the

1272: two nearest integers yields a larger $\sM_{1,2}$.  Asymptotically,

1273: however, the ratio $t/N$ can approach any real number, so this bound

1274: for continuous $t$ is the same as the bound for integer $t$ in the

1275: limit $N\to\infty$.

1276: 

1277: \subsection{The $s=1,2,3$ Bound}

1278: 

1279: To deal with this case, we again make the assumption that $t$ of the

1280: eigenvalues are negative and $2N-t$ are nonnegative and thus write

1281: \begin{equation}

1282: \sM_{1,2,3} = -\sum_{i=1}^t \lambda_i + \sum_{j=t+1}^{2N} \lambda_j\;,

1283: \end{equation}

1284: as before.  In addition to the constraints~(\ref{E:cons}), we now have a

1285: third constraint

1286: \begin{equation}

1287: \label{E:constraint3}

1288:     \sum_{k=1}^{2N} \lambda_k^3 = \frac{1+3 \alpha^2}{4N^2} \;.

1289: \end{equation}

1290: We specialize to the case $\alpha = 1$ for the remainder of this

1291: subsection, because it is our main interest, and the algebra for

1292: the general case becomes difficult.

1293: 

1294: Introducing three Lagrange multipliers, we can write the function we

1295: want to maximize as

1296: \begin{equation}

1297: \label{E:lagrange123}

1298:     f(\lambda_k,t) =

1299:     -\sum_{i=1}^t \lambda_i + \sum_{j=t+1}^{2N} \lambda_j +

1300:     \mu\!\left( \sum_{k=1}^{2N} \lambda_k - 1 \right)+

1301:     \nu\!\left( \sum_{k=1}^{2N} \lambda_k^2 - \frac{1}{N} \right) +

1302:     \xi\!\left( \sum_{k=1}^{2N} \lambda_k^3 - \frac{1}{N^2} \right)\;.

1303: \end{equation}

1304: Differentiating with respect to $\lambda_i$ and then $\lambda_j$ gives

1305: \begin{eqnarray}

1306:     -1+\mu+2\nu \lambda_i + 3 \xi \lambda_i^2 &=& 0 \;, \\

1307:     +1+\mu+2\nu \lambda_j + 3 \xi \lambda_j^2 &=& 0 \;.

1308: \end{eqnarray}

1309: These equations being quadratic, we see that there are at most two

1310: distinct negative eigenvalues and at most two distinct nonnegative

1311: eigenvalues.  Since the sum of the two solutions of either of these

1312: equations is $-2\nu/3\xi$, however, we can immediately conclude either

1313: that one of the potentially nonnegative solutions is negative or that

1314: one of the potentially negative solutions is positive.  Hence, we find

1315: that at least one of the four putative eigenvalues has the wrong sign,

1316: implying that there are at most three distinct eigenvalues, though we

1317: don't know whether one or two of them are negative.

1318: 

1319: Labelling the three eigenvalues by $A$, $B$, and $C$, we can reduce the

1320: problem to solving the three constraint equations,

1321: \begin{eqnarray} \label{E:123}

1322:     u A + v B + w C & = & 1\;,\nonumber \\

1323:     u A^2 + v B^2 + w C^2 & = & 1/N\;,\\

1324:     u A^3 + v B^3 + w C^3 & = & 1/N^2\;,\nonumber

1325: \end{eqnarray}

1326: for $A$, $B$, and $C$ and then maximizing $\sM_{1,2,3}$ over the

1327: degeneracy parameters $u$, $v$, and $w$, which are nonnegative positive

1328: integers satisfying the further constraint

1329: \begin{equation}

1330: u+v+w=2N\;.

1331: \end{equation}

1332: We do not associate any particular sign with $A$, $B$, and $C$; the

1333: signs are determined by the solution of the equations.

1334: 

1335: One might hope that the symmetry of Eqs.~(\ref{E:123}) would allow for

1336: a simple analytic solution, but this appears not to be the case. In

1337: solving the three equations, one is inevitably led to a sixth-order

1338: polynomial in one of the variables, with the coefficients given as

1339: functions of $u$, $v$, and $w$.  Rather than try to solve this

1340: equation, which appears intractable, we elected to do a brute force

1341: optimization for any given value of $2N$ by solving Eqs.~(\ref{E:123})

1342: for each possible value of $u$, $v$, and $w$.  Picking the solution

1343: that has the largest negativity then yields the global maximum.  We did

1344: this for each $N$ up to $2N=78$.  The values of

1345: $u$, $v$, and $w$ that maximize the negativity are always

1346: \begin{equation} \label{E:uvw}

1347:     u=\left[N\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\right)\right] \;,

1348:     \ v=1 \;,

1349:     \ w = 2N-1-u \;,

1350: \end{equation}

1351: where $[x]$ denotes the integer nearest to $x$.  The unique eigenvalue

1352: corresponding to $v=1$ is the largest positive eigenvalue, $w$ is the

1353: degeneracy of another positive eigenvalue, and $u$ is the degeneracy of

1354: the negative eigenvalue.  Notice that the degeneracy of the negative

1355: eigenvalue is exactly what was found in the $s=1,2$ case.  Using the

1356: results~(\ref{E:uvw}) as a guide, we did a further numerical

1357: calculation of the maximum for larger values of $N$, by considering

1358: only the area around the degeneracy values given by

1359: Eq.~(\protect\ref{E:uvw}).  While this is not a certifiable global

1360: maximum, the perturbation expansion described below matches so well

1361: that the two are indistinguishable if they are plotted together for

1362: $n+1>7$.  This gives us confidence that the numerically determined

1363: upper bound $\sM_{1,2,3}$, which we plot in Fig.~\ref{F:totalfig}, is

1364: indeed a global maximum for all $N$.

1365: 

1366: We have used the numerical work to help formulate a perturbation

1367: expansion that gives the first correction to the $N\to\infty$ behavior

1368: of the $s=1,2,3$ bound.  Defining $x=1/N$, we rewrite the constraint

1369: equations~(\ref{E:123}) as

1370: \begin{eqnarray} \label{E:con}

1371:     a A + b B + c\,C & = & x\;,\nonumber \\

1372:     a A^2 + b B^2 + c\,C^2 & = & x^2\;,\\

1373:     a A^3 + b B^3 + c\,C^3 & = & x^3\;,\nonumber

1374: \end{eqnarray}

1375: where $a=u/N$, $b=v/N$, and $c=w/N$.  We also have the constraint

1376: \begin{equation} \label{E:con2}

1377: a+b+c=2\;.

1378: \end{equation}

1379: As $x$ is the variable that is asymptotically small, we seek an

1380: expansion in terms of it.

1381: 

1382: Our numerical work tells us that there are two positive eigenvalues,

1383: one of which is larger and nondegenerate.  In formulating our

1384: perturbation expansion, we let $B$ and $C$ be the positive eigenvalues,

1385: with $B$ being the larger one, having degeneracy $v=b_1\ge1$.  We do

1386: not assume that $b_1$ is 1, as the numerics show, but rather let the

1387: equations force us to that conclusion.  With this assumption, the form

1388: of the constraints~(\ref{E:con}) shows that the variables have the

1389: following expansions to first order beyond the $N\to\infty$ form:

1390: \begin{eqnarray} \label{E:degs}

1391:     a & = & a_0 + a_1 x^{1/3}\;,\nonumber \\

1392:     b & = & b_1x\;,\\

1393:     c & = & c_0 + c_1x^{1/3}\;,\nonumber

1394: \end{eqnarray}

1395: and

1396: \begin{eqnarray} \label{E:evs}

1397:     A & = & A_0 x + A_1 x^{4/3}\;,\nonumber \\

1398:     B & = & B_1 x^{2/3}\;,\\

1399:     C & = & C_0 x + C_1 x^{4/3}\;.\nonumber

1400: \end{eqnarray}

1401: We see that we are actually expanding in the quantity $y=x^{1/3}$.  In

1402: terms of these variables, the negativity is given by

1403: \begin{eqnarray}

1404:  \sM_{1,2,3}&=&

1405:  \frac{-a A + b B + c C}{x}\nonumber\\

1406:  &=&-a_0A_0+c_0C_0+(-a_0A_1-a_1A_0+c_0C_1+c_1C_0)x^{1/3}+O(x^{2/3})\;,

1407: \end{eqnarray}

1408: which we now endeavor to maximize.

1409: 

1410: Substituting Eqs.~(\ref{E:degs}) and (\ref{E:evs}) into the

1411: constraints~(\ref{E:con}) and (\ref{E:con2}) and equating terms with

1412: equal exponents of $x$, we obtain, to zero order,

1413: \begin{eqnarray}

1414:     a_0 + c_0 & = & 2\;,\nonumber \\

1415:     a_0 A_0 + c_0 C_0 & = & 1\;,\\

1416:     a_0 A_0^2+ c_0 C_0^2 & = & 1 \;.\nonumber

1417: \end{eqnarray}

1418: Solving for $a_0$, $c_0$, and $C_0$ in terms of $A_0$ and substituting

1419: the results into the zero-order piece of $\sM_{1,2,3}$ gives

1420: \begin{equation}

1421:  \label{E:neg1}

1422:  \sM_{1,2,3}=\frac{1-4A_0+2A_0^2}{1-2A_0+2A_0^2}\;.

1423: \end{equation}

1424: Maximizing Eq.~(\ref{E:neg1}) gives $A_0^2=1/2$ and, hence,

1425: $A_0=-1/\sqrt{2}$, since $A$ is the negative eigenvalue.  This leads to

1426: $a_0=1-1/\sqrt{2}$, $c_0 = 1+1/\sqrt{2}$, and $C_0=1/\sqrt{2}$, and the

1427: resulting $N\to\infty$ upper bound is $\sM_{1,2,3}=\sqrt2$, as

1428: expected.

1429: 

1430: If we carry this process out to first order beyond the $N\to\infty$

1431: behavior, we obtain, after some algebraic manipulation, $\sM_{1,2,3} =

1432: \sqrt2-b_1^{1/3}x^{1/3}/2^{7/6}+O(x^{2/3})$.  Maximizing this simply

1433: means making $b_1$ as small as possible, i.e., choosing $b_1=1$, whence

1434: we obtain the following asymptotic expression for the $s=1,2,3$ upper

1435: bound:

1436: \begin{equation}

1437: \sM_{1,2,3} = \sqrt2 - \frac{1}{2^{7/6}N^{1/3}} +

1438: O\!\left(\frac{1}{N^{2/3}}\right)\;.

1439: \end{equation}

1440: This shows that the upper bound of $\sqrt 2$ is approached

1441: monotonically from below in the asymptotic regime.  In addition, the

1442: procedure verifies that in the maximum solution, the largest positive

1443: eigenvalue is nondegenerate.  For the case of qubits we have $N=2^n$,

1444: implying that the approach to the $N\to\infty$ bound is exponentially

1445: fast.

1446: 

1447: \section{Conclusion} \label{S:conclusion}

1448: 

1449: The mixed-state quantum circuit~(\ref{E:circuitalpha}) provides an

1450: efficient method for estimating the normalized trace of a unitary

1451: operator, a task that is thought to be exponentially hard on a

1452: classical computer.  If one believes that global entanglement is the

1453: essential resource for the exponential speedup achieved by quantum

1454: computation, then the question begging to be answered is whether there

1455: is any entanglement in the circuit's output

1456: state~(\ref{E:rhooutalpha}). The purpose of this paper was to

1457: investigate this question.

1458: 

1459: A notable feature of the circuit~(\ref{E:circuitalpha}) is that it

1460: provides an efficient method for estimating the normalized trace no

1461: matter how small the initial polarization $\alpha$ of the special qubit

1462: in the zeroth register, as long as that polarization is not zero.

1463: Since all the other qubits are initially completely unpolarized, we are

1464: led to characterize the computational power of this circuit as the

1465: ``power of even the tiniest fraction of a qubit.''  We provide

1466: preliminary results regarding the entanglement that can be achieved for

1467: $\alpha<1$. Our results are consistent with, but certainly do not

1468: demonstrate the conclusion that separable states cannot provide an

1469: exponential speedup and that entanglement is possible no matter how

1470: small $\alpha$ is.  The question of entanglement for subunity

1471: polarization of the special qubit deserves further investigation.

1472: 

1473: Our key conclusions concern the case where the special qubit is

1474: initially pure ($\alpha=1$).  We find that the

1475: circuit~(\ref{E:circuit}) typically does produce global entanglement,

1476: but the amount of this entanglement is quite small.  Using

1477: multiplicative negativity to measure the amount of entanglement, we

1478: show that as the number of qubits becomes large, the multiplicative

1479: negativity in the state~(\ref{E:rhoout}) is a vanishingly small

1480: fraction of the maximum possible multiplicative negativity for roughly

1481: equal splittings of the qubits.  This hints that the key to

1482: computational speedup might be the global character of the

1483: entanglement, rather than the amount of the entanglement.  In the

1484: spirit of the pioneering contribution of Wyler~\cite{Wyler74}, what

1485: happier motto can we find for this state of affairs than {\it Multum ex

1486: Parvo}, or A Lot out of A Little.

1487: 

1488: 

1489: \begin{acknowledgments}

1490: The authors thank H.~N. Barnum, A.~Denney, B.~Eastin, K.~Manne, N.~C.

1491: Menicucci, and A.~Silberfarb for useful

1492: discussions.  The Matlab code used to calculate the results of

1493: Sec.~\ref{S:random} made use of T.~S.~Cubitt's freely available

1494: algorithm for taking the partial transpose of a matrix; this and other

1495: useful algorithms written by Cubitt are available at the website

1496: \href{http://www.dr-qubit.org/matlab.html}{http://www.dr-qubit.org/matlab.html}.

1497: The quantum circuits in this paper were typeset using Qcircuit, which

1498: is freely available online at

1499: \href{http://info.phys.unm.edu/Qcircuit}{http://info.phys.unm.edu/Qcircuit}.

1500: This work was supported in part by US Army Research Office Contract

1501: No.~W911NF-04-1-0242.

1502: \end{acknowledgments}

1503: 

1504: \appendix

1505: \section{Proof of the Lemma}{\label{A:appendix}}

1506: 

1507: \textbf{Lemma:} $\tr(\breve A \breve B) = \tr(A B) $.\\

1508: 

1509: \textbf{Proof:} Define two operators $A$ and $B$ by

1510: \begin{equation}

1511: A=\sum_{i,j,k,l} a_{ij,kl} \ket{ij}\!\bra{kl}\;,

1512: \quad

1513: B=\sum_{m,n,p,q} b_{mn,pq} \ket{mn}\!\bra{pq} \;.

1514: \end{equation}

1515: Taking the partial transpose with respect to the second subsystem, we

1516: find

1517: \begin{equation}

1518: \breve A=\sum_{i,j,k,l} a_{ij,kl} \ket{il}\!\bra{kj}\;,

1519: \quad

1520: \breve B=\sum_{m,n,p,q} b_{mn,pq} \ket{mq}\!\bra{pn} \;.

1521: \end{equation}

1522: Calculating the quantities of interest, we find that they are indeed equal.

1523: \begin{eqnarray}

1524:     \tr(\breve A \breve B) &=&

1525:         \sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{l}i,j,k,l, \\ m,n,p,q \end{array}}

1526:         a_{ij,kl} b_{mn,pq} \braket{pn}{il} \braket{kj}{mq}

1527:     = \sum_{i,j,k,l} a_{ij,kl} b_{kl,ij} \;, \\

1528:     \tr\left(A  B\right) &=&

1529:         \sum_{\scriptsize \begin{array}{l}i,j,k,l, \\ m,n,p,q \end{array}}

1530:         a_{ij,kl} b_{mn,pq} \braket{pq}{ij} \braket{kl}{mn}

1531:     = \sum_{i,j,k,l} a_{ij,kl} b_{kl,ij}\;.

1532: \end{eqnarray}

1533: 

1534: \begin{references}

1535: 

1536: \bibitem{DiVincenzo00} D.~DiVincenzo, Fortschr.\ Phys. {\bf 48}, 9 (2000).

1537: 

1538: \bibitem{Jones01} J.~A. Jones, Prog. NMR Spectroscopy {\bf 38}, 325 (2001).

1539: 

1540: \bibitem{Schulman99} L.~J. Schulman and U.~V. Vazirani, in Proceedings

1541: of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM Press, New

1542: York, 1999), p.~322 (extended version available as {\tt arXiv.org

1543: e-print \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9804060}{quant-ph/9804060}}).

1544: 

1545: \bibitem{kl98} E.~Knill and R.~Laflamme, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 81}, 5672 (1998).

1546: 

1547: \bibitem{Ambainis00} A.~Ambainis, L.~J. Schulman, and U.~V. Vazirani,

1548: in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

1549: (ACM Press, New York, 2000), p.~697.

1550: 

1551: \bibitem{Laflamme02} R.~Laflamme, D.~G. Cory, C.~Negrevergne, and L.~Viola,

1552: Quant.\ Inf.\ Comp.\ {\bf 2}, 166 (2002).

1553: 

1554: \bibitem{pklo04} D.~Poulin, R.~Blume-Kohout, R.~Laflamme, and H.~Ollivier,

1555: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 177906 (2004).

1556: 

1557: \bibitem{elpc04} J.~Emerson, S.~Lloyd, D.~Poulin, and D.~Cory, Phys.\ Rev.~A

1558: {\bf 69}, 050305(R) (2004).

1559: 

1560: \bibitem{Josza99} R.~Josza and N.~Linden, Proc.~Roy.~Soc.~Lond.~A {\bf 459},

1561: 2011 (2003).

1562: 

1563: \bibitem{N&C} M.~Nielsen and I.~Chuang, {\it Quantum Computation and Quantum

1564: Information\/} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000).

1565: 

1566: \bibitem{b99} S.~L. Braunstein, C.~M. Caves, R.~Jozsa, N.~Linden, S.~Popescu,

1567: and R.~Schack, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 1054 (1999).

1568: 

1569: \bibitem{gb03} L.~Gurvits and H.~Barnum, Phys.\ Rev.~A {\bf 68},

1570: 042312 (2003).

1571: 

1572: \bibitem{gb04} L.~Gurvits and H.~Barnum, {\tt arXiv.org e-print

1573: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0409095}{quant-ph/0409095}}.

1574: 

1575: \bibitem{dur99} W.~D{\"u}r, J.~I. Cirac, and R.~Tarrach, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\

1576: {\bf 83}, 3562 (1999).

1577: 

1578: \bibitem{p96} A.~Peres,  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 77}, 1413 (1996).

1579: 

1580: \bibitem{hhh96} M.~Horodecki, P.~Horodecki, R.~Horodecki, Phys.~Lett.~A

1581: {\bf 223}, 1 (1996).

1582: 

1583: \bibitem{Vidal02} G.~Vidal and R.~F. Werner, Phys.\ Rev.~A {\bf 65}, 032314

1584: (2002).

1585: 

1586: \bibitem{dhhmno05} C.~M.~Dawson, H.~L.~Haselgrove, A.~P.~Hines, D.~Mortimer,

1587: M.~A.~Nielsen, and T.~J.~Osborne, Quant.\ Inf.\ Comp.\ {\bf 5}, 102 (2005).

1588: 

1589: \bibitem{ek90} A.~Ehrenfeucht and  M.~Karpinski, Technical Report~tr-90-033,

1590: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA (1990),

1591: available online at {\tt\href{http://www.citeseer.com}{http://www.citeseer.com}}.

1592: 

1593: \bibitem{Plenio05} M.~B.~Plenio, {\tt arXiv.org e-print

1594: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505071}{quant-ph/0505071}}.

1595: 

1596: \bibitem{SLee03}

1597: S.~Lee, D.~P.~Chi, S.~D.~Oh, and J.~Kim, Phys.\ Rev.~A {\bf 68}, 062304 (2003).

1598: 

1599: \bibitem{Conway90} J.~Conway, {\it A Course in Functional Analysis}

1600: (New York, Springer-Verlag, 1990).

1601: 

1602: \bibitem{Hurwitz1897} A.~Hurwitz, Nachr.\ Ges.\ Wiss.\ G\"ott.\ Math.-Phys.~{\bf Kl},

1603: 71 (1897).  The Hurwitz decomposition is discussed in the appendix of

1604: M.~Po\'zniak, K.~\.Zyczkowski, and M.~Ku\'s, J.~Phys.~A:

1605: Math.~Gen.~{\bf 31}, 1059 (1998).

1606: 

1607: \bibitem{Emerson03} J.~Emerson, Y.~S.~Weinstein, M.~Saraceno, S.~Lloyd,

1608: and D.~G.~Cory, Science {\bf 302}, 2098 (2003).

1609: 

1610: \bibitem{Scott03} A.~J.~Scott and C.~M.~Caves, J.~Phys.~A {\bf 36}, 9553

1611: (2003).

1612: 

1613: \bibitem{Wyler74} J.~A.~Wyler, Gen.~Rel.~Grav. {\bf 5}, 175 (1974).

1614: 

1615: 

1616: \end{references}

1617: 

1618: \end{document}

1619: