1: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,floats,epsfig,showpacs]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{pstricks,pst-grad,color,graphics}
4: \usepackage{latexsym}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{amssymb}
7: \usepackage{enumerate}
8: \usepackage{bbm}
9: \usepackage{psfrag}
10: \usepackage{epsfig}
11:
12:
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% General mathematical / physical commands %%%%%%%%%%%
14:
15: \newcommand{\C}{\ensuremath{\mathbbm C}}
16: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
17: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\BE}{\begin{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\EE}{\end{equation}}
20: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
21: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
22: \newcommand{\bd}{\ensuremath{b^\dagger}}
23: \newcommand{\va}[1]{\ensuremath{(\Delta#1)^2}}
24: \newcommand{\vasq}[1]{\ensuremath{[\Delta#1]^2}}
25: \newcommand{\varho}[1]{\ensuremath{(\Delta_\rho #1)^2}}
26: \newcommand{\ex}[1]{\ensuremath{\left\langle{#1}\right\rangle}}
27: \newcommand{\mean}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle{#1}\rangle}}
28: \newcommand{\exs}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle{#1}\rangle}}
29: \newcommand{\exrho}[1]{\ensuremath{\left\langle{#1}\right\rangle}_{\rho}}
30: \newcommand{\eins}{\ensuremath{\mathbbm 1}}
31: \newcommand{\Eins}{\ensuremath{\mathbbm 1}}
32: \newcommand{\qed}{\ensuremath{\hfill \Box}}
33: \newcommand{\fa}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}
34: \newcommand{\fb}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{b}}}
35: \newcommand{\fs}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}}}
36: \newcommand{\WW}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}
37: \newcommand{\PP}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}
38: \newcommand{\QQ}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}
39: \newcommand{\CC}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}
40: \newcommand{\DD}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}
41: \newcommand{\BB}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}
42: \newcommand{\NN}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}
43: \renewcommand{\SS}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}
44: \newcommand{\KetBra}[1]{\ensuremath{| #1 \rangle \langle #1 |}}
45: \newcommand{\ketbra}[1]{\ensuremath{| #1 \rangle \langle #1 |}}
46: \newcommand{\Ket}[1]{\ensuremath{|#1\rangle}}
47: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\ensuremath{|#1\rangle}}
48: \newcommand{\Bra}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle#1|}}
49: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle#1|}}
50: \newcommand{\BraKet}[2]{\ensuremath{\langle #1|#2\rangle}}
51: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\ensuremath{\langle #1|#2\rangle}}
52: \newcommand{\KetBraO}[3]{\ensuremath{| #1 \rangle_{#3}\langle #2 |}}
53: \renewcommand{\vr}{\ensuremath{\varrho}}
54: \newcommand{\wz}{\ensuremath{\phi^{\mbox{\tiny W\.Z}}}}
55: \newcommand{\kommentar}[1]{}
56:
57: \def\tr{{\rm tr}}
58: \def\Emin{\varepsilon}
59: \def\Rl{{\mathbb R}}
60: \def\Eh{\widehat E}
61: \def\idty{\Eins}
62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
63: %\def\vr{\varrho}
64:
65:
66: \begin{document}
67: \title{Estimating entanglement measures in experiments}
68:
69: \author{O. G\"uhne}
70: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Quantenoptik und Quanteninformation,
71: \"Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
72: A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria}
73: \author{M. Reimpell}
74: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Mathematische Physik,
75: Technische Universit\"at Braunschweig,
76: Mendelssohnstra{\ss}e 3, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany}
77: \author{R.F. Werner}
78: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Mathematische Physik,
79: Technische Universit\"at Braunschweig,
80: Mendelssohnstra{\ss}e 3, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany}
81:
82:
83: \begin{abstract}
84: We present a method to estimate entanglement measures in experiments.
85: We show how a lower bound on a generic entanglement
86: measure can be derived from the measured expectation values of any
87: finite collection of entanglement witnesses.
88: Hence witness measurements are given a quantitative meaning without
89: the need of further experimental data.
90: We apply our results to a recent multi-photon
91: experiment [M.~Bourennane {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92},
92: 087902 (2004)], giving bounds on the entanglement of formation and
93: the geometric measure of entanglement in this experiment.
94: \end{abstract}
95: \pacs{03.65.-w, 03.65.Ud, 03.67.-a}
96: \maketitle
97: %------------------------------------------------------------------
98:
99: %\section{Introduction}
100:
101: {\it Introduction ---}
102: Deciding whether or not a given state is entangled is one of the
103: basic tasks of quantum information theory. In principle, one can
104: determine the full quantum state via state tomography, and apply
105: some separability criteria afterwards. However, the tomography
106: requires an effort which is growing exponentially with the number
107: of parties. For practical implementations, it is therefore
108: highly desirable to verify entanglement on the basis of only a few,
109: maybe only one measurement.
110: Entanglement witnesses \cite{horo} are just the observables for this
111: purpose: by definition they have positive expectation on every
112: separable state, so when a negative expectation is found in some
113: state, it must be entangled. Consequently, entanglement witnesses
114: have been used in many experiments \cite{witexp, mohamed, hartmut},
115: and their theory is far developed \cite{wittheo, brandao, nlew}.
116:
117:
118: Besides the mere detection, the quantification of entanglement
119: is an even more challenging problem in the field. Here one aims
120: at characterizing the amount of entanglement by so-called entanglement
121: measures. Many entanglement measures have been
122: introduced for this purpose \cite{plenio}. But even if a quantum state is fully
123: known, the computation of given entanglement measure is often not
124: straightforward. Needless to say that the efficient determination of
125: an entanglement measure in experiments is even more complicated.
126:
127:
128: In this paper we present a method to estimate entanglement measures
129: in experiments. We show that entanglement witnesses cannot only be
130: used for the detection of entanglement, but also for its quantification:
131: any measured negative expectation value of a witness can be
132: turned into a nontrivial lower bound on a generic entanglement measure.
133: Hence, if witnesses are already used for entanglement detection,
134: the estimation of an entanglement measure requires no extra
135: experimental effort.
136: We describe the procedures for computing such bounds in detail for
137: entanglement of formation \cite{eof} and the geometric measure of
138: entanglement \cite{wei}.
139: Our method can not only be applied to the measurement of a single
140: witness, but extends to incomplete tomography in general: for any
141: finite set of measured expectation values we characterize the best
142: possible lower bound on any convex entanglement measure
143: (or, more generally, any convex figure of merit) consistent with
144: these expectations.
145: Finally, we apply our results to a recent multi-photon
146: experiment~\cite{mohamed}.
147:
148: The theoretical context of our method is the theory of Legendre
149: transforms (also called Fenchel transforms or conjugate functions)
150: \cite{rockafellar}. This method has already been used to characterize
151: additivity properties of entanglement measures~\cite{lit:koenraad}.
152: The question how to estimate the entanglement when only partial
153: knowledge is given was, to our knowledge, first addressed
154: in Ref.~\cite{horoneu}. Bounds on some entanglement measures
155: from special Bell inequalities or entanglement witnesses have been
156: obtained in Refs.~\cite{wolf, brandao}, and methods to estimate
157: measures in experiments by making measurements on several
158: copies of a state have been discussed in Ref.~\cite{mintert}.
159: While finishing this paper, we learned that similar ideas and conclusions,
160: illustrated with a discussion of a complementary choice of entanglement
161: measures, are reached in a paper %in preparation
162: by Eisert, Brand\~ao and Audenaert \cite{eisert}.
163:
164:
165: {\it Main idea of the estimation ---} Let us consider $n$ witness operators
166: (or indeed any hermitian operators \cite{remark1}),
167: $\WW_1,\ldots,\WW_n$ on the same Hilbert space,
168: and some entanglement measure $E$, assigning to every density operator
169: $\rho$ a numerical value $E(\rho)$ characterizing its entanglement.
170: We assume for the moment only that $\rho\mapsto E(\rho)$ is convex
171: and continuous. Suppose now that, for some state $\rho$, we have
172: measured the expectations of the $\WW_k$, i.e., that we are given the
173: real numbers $w_k=\tr(\rho \WW_k)$ for $k=1,\ldots,n$. On the basis of
174: these numbers we would like to calculate a lower bound on $E(\rho)$
175: or, more precisely, the best lower bound
176: \begin{equation}
177: \label{Emin}
178: \Emin(w_1,\ldots,w_n)
179: =\inf_\rho \left\{E(\rho)\,|\,\tr(\rho \WW_k)=w_k\right\},
180: \end{equation}
181: where the infimum is understood as the infimum over all states
182: compatible with the
183: data $w_k=\tr(\rho \WW_k).$
184:
185: The idea of our estimate is to characterize a convex function such as
186: $\Emin:\Rl^n\to\Rl$ or the
187: entanglement measure $E$ itself as the supremum of all affine (i.e.,
188: linear+constant) functions below it. So let $r=(r_1,\ldots,r_n)$ and
189: $w=(w_1,\ldots,w_n)$ be vectors, which we use to define the linear
190: function $w\mapsto r\cdot w=\sum_kr_kw_k$, and consider bounds of
191: the type
192: \begin{equation}
193: \label{affbound}
194: \Emin(w)\geq r\cdot w -c
195: \end{equation}
196: for arbitrary $r$ and $c.$ Note that by definition of $\Emin$
197: this is the same as saying that $E(\rho)\geq r\cdot w-c$ for
198: every $\rho$ giving the expectation values $w_k$ as in
199: (\ref{Emin}). The constant $c$, which we try to choose as small
200: as possible, hence needs to satisfy, for any $\rho$, the inequality
201: \begin{equation}
202: \label{cbelow}
203: c\geq \sum_kr_k\tr(\rho \WW_k)\ - E(\rho),
204: \end{equation}
205: where we already inserted the condition $w_k=\tr(\rho \WW_k)$.
206: Obviously, the best choice of $c$ is the supremum of the right hand
207: side, which only depends on the operator $\WW=\sum_k r_k \WW_k$. Hence
208: we can write
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: \label{legendreE}
211: c&=& \Eh\Bigl(\sum_k r_k \WW_k \Bigr) \quad\mbox{with}\\
212: \label{Ehat}
213: \Eh(\WW)&=&\sup_\rho\{\tr(\rho \WW)-E(\rho)\}.
214: \end{eqnarray}
215: Here (\ref{Ehat}) is just the definition of $\Eh$ as the Legendre
216: transform of the
217: entanglement measure $E$. We now use the
218: formula (\ref{legendreE}) of the optimal constant $c$ in
219: (\ref{affbound}) to compute $\Emin$. As a convex function it is the
220: supremum over all affine functions below it, which are now
221: parameterized by the ``slopes'' $r$ (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:Legendre}).
222: Hence we arrive at the main formula of this paper, characterizing the
223: lower bound on $E$, obtainable from the measured expectations $w_k$:
224: \begin{equation}\label{EminLeg}
225: \Emin(w)=\sup_r\textstyle\Bigl\{
226: r\cdot w-\Eh\bigl(\sum_k r_k \WW_k\bigr)\Bigr\}.
227: \end{equation}
228: Once again this is a Legendre transform formula, saying that $\Emin$
229: is the Legendre transform of
230: $
231: \widehat\Emin(r)=\textstyle\Eh\bigl(\sum_kr_k \WW_k\bigr).
232: $
233:
234: Of course, we want to apply formula (\ref{EminLeg}) mainly when
235: $n=1$, or at least, when $n$ is very small compared to the dimension
236: of the full space of hermitian operators. It does involve the
237: computation of two Legendre transforms: on the one hand, we have to
238: compute $\Eh$ from (\ref{Ehat}). For any choice of coefficients
239: $(r_1,\ldots,r_n)$ the computation of
240: $c=\Eh(\sum_kr_k \WW_k)$ already gives a partial solution to
241: our problem of giving a lower bound on $E(\rho)$ in terms of the
242: measured expectations, namely a best linear lower bound of the form
243: (\ref{affbound}). Optimizing over $r$ then gives the best overall
244: lower bound (\ref{EminLeg}) for which the Legendre transform has to
245: be taken over a low (i.e., $n$-) dimensional space only (see
246: Fig~\ref{fig:Legendre}). In any case the success of the method
247: depends on the possibility of efficiently computing $\Eh$. Clearly
248: this will depend on the entanglement measure $E$ and the witness $\WW$
249: chosen.
250: \begin{figure}[t]
251: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.1\columnwidth}
252: \begin{picture}(10,6)
253: \thinlines
254: \put(1,0){\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{picture}}
255: \put(0.,6){\mbox{$\varepsilon(w)$}}
256: \put(0.,3.7){\mbox{$\varepsilon(w_0)$}}
257: \put(0.4,3){\mbox{$B$}}
258: \put(0.6,1.2){\mbox{$c \; \Big\{$}}
259: \put(8.8,1.2){\mbox{$w$}}
260: \put(7.1,1.2){\mbox{$w_0$}}
261: \end{picture}
262: \caption{A schematic view of the estimation method. In order
263: to estimate the convex function $\varepsilon(w)$ we consider
264: linear affine functions below it. The dotted line
265: corresponds to a general estimate as in Eq.~(\ref{affbound}),
266: the dashed line to an estimate with the same slope $r$, but
267: the smallest possible $c.$ This gives already the bound
268: $\varepsilon(w_0) \geq B = r \cdot w_0 -c.$
269: By varying the slope $r$ one arrives at the dashed-dotted
270: line, which gives the best possible bound $\varepsilon(w_0).$
271: }
272: \label{fig:Legendre}
273: \end{figure}
274: We will demonstrate now for important examples how the
275: computation can be done.
276:
277:
278: {\it Convex roof constructions ---}
279: Many entanglement measures are defined
280: by a standard extension process, which extends a function
281: $\ket{\psi}\mapsto E(\ket\psi)$ defined only on pure entangled states to
282: all mixed states, namely as
283: \begin{equation}\label{roof}
284: E(\rho) = \inf_{p_i, \ket{\psi_i}} \sum_i p_i E(\ket{\psi_i}),
285: \end{equation}
286: where the $p_i$ are convex weights, and $\sum_i p_i \ketbra{\psi_i}
287: = \rho$. The convex roof (or ``convex hull'') is just the largest
288: convex function smaller than $E$ on pure states, and can therefore
289: be computed as the supremum of its affine lower bounds, i.e., once again as
290: a Legendre transform. $\Eh$ can then be simplified to a variational
291: problem over pure states only:
292: \begin{eqnarray}
293: \label{roofhat}
294: \Eh(\WW)
295: &=& \sup_\rho
296: \Bigl\{ \tr(\rho \WW) - \inf_{p_i, \ket{\psi_i}} \sum_i p_i E(\ket{\psi_i})\Bigr\}
297: \nonumber \\
298: &=& \sup_{p_i}
299: \sup_{\ket{\psi_i}}
300: \Bigl\{\sum_ip_i
301: \bigl\{\bra{\psi_i}\WW\ket{\psi_i}-
302: E(\ket{\psi_i}) \bigr\}
303: \Bigr\}
304: \nonumber\\
305: &=&\sup_{\ket{\psi}}
306: \bigl\{\bra{\psi}\WW\ket{\psi}-
307: E(\ket{\psi}) \bigr\}.
308: \end{eqnarray}
309: Here, at the second equality, we converted the ``$-\inf$'' into a
310: ``$\sup$'' and substituted $\rho$ from the constraint
311: $\rho=\sum_ip_i\ketbra{\psi_i}$. The constraint then becomes
312: redundant, because the $\sup$ is taken over all values $\rho$, too.
313: The sup over the $p_i$ can furthermore be dropped, because convex
314: combinations of expressions of the form (\ref{roofhat}) cannot be
315: larger than the largest of these values. So in the end we can use
316: the Legendre formula (\ref{Ehat}) for $\Eh$, with the simplification
317: that we need only vary over pure states.
318:
319: In many cases the variation can be simplified by varying first over
320: orbits of the local unitary group, i.e., to consider vectors
321: $\ket{\psi}=(U_1\otimes U_2)\ket{\phi}$ with $U_1,U_2$ unitary
322: matrices and $\ket{\phi}$ fixed. Since, by definition, entanglement
323: measures are invariant under such transformations, the second term in
324: (\ref{roofhat}) is independent of the $U_i$, so we can maximize the
325: first term separately.
326:
327: Consider, for example witness operators of the form
328: $\WW=\alpha \eins - \ketbra{\chi},$ which is a typical
329: form of witnesses. Then we have to maximize
330: $|\braket{\chi}{(U_1\otimes U_2)\phi}|$. It
331: is easy to see that this maximum is attained, when
332: $\ket{\chi}$ and $(U_1\otimes U_2)\ket{\phi}$ have
333: the same Schmidt basis, and the Schmidt coefficients
334: are ordered in the same way (for a detailed proof see the
335: appendix of Ref.~\cite{nlew}). Hence for a system
336: composed of two $d$-dimensional ones, we only need to vary
337: over $d$ positive numbers with one normalization constraint
338: (rather than $d^2$ complex amplitudes in $\ket{\psi}$).
339: In the examples shown below this reduces the computation
340: to a simple one parameter optimization.
341:
342: %
343: %\subsection{Entanglement of formation}
344: %
345:
346: {\it Entanglement of formation ---}
347: The entanglement of formation $E_F$ is defined as the convex roof of the
348: function $E_F(\ket\psi)=S\bigl(\tr_2(\ketbra\psi)\bigr)$, the von
349: Neumann entropy of the reduced state \cite{eof}. It is one of the natural
350: figures of merit for experimental achievements in state preparation,
351: because it quantifies the entanglement (measured in singlet pairs)
352: which must be invested per realization of the state. In contrast,
353: measures like the distillable entanglement tell us about the
354: potential further uses of the state, which may be quite low, even if
355: the state is entanglement-expensive to make.
356:
357: For small dimensions the direct computation of $\Eh_F$ along the
358: lines described above is feasible. For higher dimensions it is
359: convenient to solve (\ref{roofhat}) by an uphill iteration, which
360: will find a maximum efficiently.
361:
362: To this end we rewrite the entropy term by the Gibbs variational
363: principle, i.e., as the Legendre transform of the free energy $F$
364: from statistical mechanics:
365: \begin{eqnarray}
366: \label{entGibbs}
367: S(\rho) &=& \inf_H\bigl\{\tr\rho H-F(H) \bigr\} =-\tr\rho\ln\rho ,
368: \\
369: \label{}
370: F(H) &=&\inf_\rho\bigl\{\tr\rho H-S(\rho)\bigr\}=-\ln\tr(e^{-H}).
371: \end{eqnarray}
372: Here the first infimum is over all hermitian operators $H$, and the
373: second is over all density operators $\rho$. The first infimum is
374: attained for $H=-\ln\rho$, and the second one for $\rho=\exp(-H)/\tr(\exp(-H))$.
375: We followed the conventions from statistical mechanics by using
376: natural logarithms, but have set the inverse temperature $\beta=1$
377: \cite{remark2}.
378: Inserting (\ref{entGibbs})
379: into the entanglement term in (\ref{roofhat}) we get
380: \begin{equation}
381: \label{EhFsupsup}
382: \Eh_F(\WW)=\sup_{\ket{\psi}}\sup_H
383: \bigl\{ \bra\psi (\WW-H \otimes\idty) \ket\psi +F(H) \bigr\},
384: \end{equation}
385: where the first supremum is over all unit vectors of the bipartite
386: system, and the second over all hermitian $H$ of the first system.
387: The point of this way of writing $\Eh_F$ is that the suprema over
388: these two variables obviously commute, and that when one of them is
389: fixed, the supremum (in fact, the absolute maximum) over the other
390: variable can be computed directly (without a search algorithm).
391: Indeed, for fixed $H$ (\ref{EhFsupsup}) requires $\ket{\psi}$ to be
392: an eigenvector for the largest eigenvalue of
393: $(\WW-H\otimes\idty)$. On the other hand, when $\ket{\psi}$ is fixed, the
394: variation is exactly (\ref{entGibbs}) for the reduced density
395: operator $\rho_1$ of $\ket{\psi}$, which we know to be attained at
396: $H=-\ln\rho_1.$ Hence by alternating these steps, we
397: gain in every step, and get convergence to a local maximum.
398: In the cases we have tried, the local maximum was always independent
399: of the starting point, giving strong support to the claim of having
400: found the global maximum. Therefore the algorithm is a useful tool
401: for finding the maximum. However, a guarantee cannot be given in
402: this algorithm, so in principle the resulting entanglement lower
403: bound (\ref{EminLeg}) could be too optimistic.
404:
405:
406: {\it Geometric measure of entanglement ---}
407: This measure is an entanglement monotone for
408: multipartite systems \cite{wei}, defined via
409: the convex roof construction and
410: \be
411: E_G(\ket{\psi}) = 1- \sup_{\ket{\phi}=\ket{a}\ket{b}\ket{c}...}
412: |\braket{\phi}{\psi}|^2
413: \ee
414: as one minus the maximal squared overlap with the fully separable
415: states. For pure states, the geometric measure is a lower bound
416: on the relative entropy and one can derive from it an upper bound
417: on the number of states which can be discriminated perfectly by local
418: operations and classical communication \cite{geoapp}.
419: We have then
420: \be
421: \Eh_G(\WW) =
422: \sup_{\ket{\psi}}
423: \sup_{\ket{\phi}=\ket{a}\ket{b}\ket{c}...}
424: \bigl\{
425: \bra{\psi}(\WW + \ketbra{\phi})\ket{\psi}-1
426: \bigr\}.
427: \label{geoleg}
428: \ee
429: To show how this optimization can be performed, let us assume for
430: simplicity that we have three parties, i.\ e., $\ket{\phi} = \ket{abc}$.
431: If $\ket{a}$, $\ket{b}$ and $\ket{c}$ are fixed, we can perform the optimization
432: by taking $\ket{\psi}$ as an eigenvector corresponding to the maximal
433: eigenvalue. If we fix $\ket{\psi}$ and two of the other
434: vectors, e.\,g., $\ket{b}$
435: and $\ket{c}$, we have to find a vector $\ket{\tilde{a}}$ such that
436: %\be
437: $
438: \sup_{\ket{a}} |\braket{\psi}{abc}|^2 =: |\braket{\psi}{\tilde{a}bc}|^2.
439: $
440: %\ee
441: If the Schmidt decomposition of $\ket{\psi}$ with respect to the
442: $A|BC$ partition is given by
443: $\ket{\psi}=\sum_i s_i \ket{\eta^{A}_i} \ket{\eta^{BC}_i},$
444: we have $|\braket{\psi}{abc}| =
445: |\sum_i s_i \braket{\eta^{A}_i}{a} \braket{\eta^{BC}_i}{bc}|.$
446: This scalar product is maximal if the vectors are parallel.
447: So we set
448: \be
449: \ket{\tilde a} = \NN \sum_j s_j\braket{\eta^{BC}_j}{bc}\ket{\eta^{A}_j},
450: \ee
451: where $\NN$ denotes a normalization. So this optimization can be iterated,
452: as in the case of the entanglement of formation. Note that a similar
453: iteration also delivers a method to calculate the geometric measure
454: $E_G(\ket{\psi})$ for arbitrary pure states $\ket{\psi}.$
455:
456: For special cases of witnesses, the Legendre transform can even be
457: calculated analytically. Let us assume that the witness is of the
458: form
459: $
460: r \WW = r (\alpha \eins - \ketbra{\chi}).
461: $
462: Here, we
463: have already inserted the $r$ as it is used in Eq.~(\ref{EminLeg}).
464: If $r > 0,$ we choose in Eq.~(\ref{geoleg}) $\ket{\phi}$ orthogonal
465: to $\ket{\chi},$ resulting in $\Eh(r\WW)=r\alpha.$ If $r < 0,$ one
466: can directly verify that we have to choose $\ket{\phi}$ as the
467: state with the largest overlap with $\ket{\chi},$ which results
468: in
469: \be
470: \Eh_G (r\WW) =
471: \frac{1-r}{2}+
472: \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{(1-r)^2+4rE_G(\ket{\chi})} + r \alpha -1.
473: \label{leggeoeinfach}
474: \ee
475: Hence $\Eh_G$ can be computed, provided $E_G(\ket{\chi})$ is
476: known.
477:
478:
479: {\it Application to the experiment ---}
480: The experiment in Ref.~\cite{mohamed} aimed at the production of the
481: W-state
482: \be
483: \ket{W}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\ket{001}+\ket{010}+\ket{100}).
484: \ee
485: For the entanglement verification, two witnesses have been used.
486: The witnesses and their mean values were given by \cite{mohamed}
487: \bea
488: &&\WW_1 = \frac{2}{3} \eins - \ketbra{W} ,
489: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
490: \mean{\WW_1}=-0.197 \pm 0.018,
491: \nonumber
492: \\
493: &&\WW_2 = \frac{1}{2} \eins - \ketbra{\psi^{\rm GHZ}} ,
494: \;\;
495: \mean{\WW_2}=-0.139 \pm 0.030,
496: \nonumber
497: \eea
498: where $\ket{\psi^{\rm GHZ}}= (\ket{y^+ y^+ y^+}-\ket{y^- y^- y^-})/\sqrt{2}
499: = {i}(\sqrt{3}\ket{W}-\ket{111})/2$ is a GHZ type state.
500:
501: For the entanglement of formation, we consider
502: the $A|BC$-bipartition, because
503: of the symmetry the other bipartitions are equivalent.
504: If we apply our theory on witnesses $\WW_1$ and $\WW_2$
505: separately, we get the bounds
506: $E_F^{(1)}(\rho)\geq 0.308 \pm 0.051$ from $\WW_1$ and
507: $E_F^{(2)}(\rho)\geq 0.140 \pm 0.051$ from $\WW_2.$ If we
508: use both witnesses at the same time, we get the bound
509: \be
510: E_F^{(1,2)}(\rho)\geq 0.309 \pm 0.050.
511: \ee
512: For the geometric measure, using
513: Eq.~(\ref{leggeoeinfach}) and the
514: fact that $E_G(\ket{W})=5/9$
515: and $E_G(\ket{\psi^{\rm GHZ}})=1/2$ \cite{wei},
516: we get
517: the bounds
518: $E_G^{(1)}(\rho)\geq 0.199 \pm 0.022$ from $\WW_1$ and
519: $E_G^{(2)}(\rho)\geq 0.019 \pm 0.010$ from $\WW_2.$
520: Using both witnesses simultaneously, we obtain the bound
521: \be
522: E_G^{(1,2)}(\rho)\geq 0.209 \pm 0.023.
523: \ee
524: The fact that the bounds from $\WW_1$ are better than the ones
525: obtained from $\WW_2$ stems from the fact that $\WW_1$ is by
526: construction sensitive for detecting the W-state. If the W-state
527: were produced perfectly, then the bound from $\WW_1$ would give
528: the exact value, since only the W state is compatible with
529: $\mean{\WW_1}=-1/3.$ Naturally, the bounds using both witnesses
530: are always better than the bound of the single witnesses alone,
531: since more information on the state is available. In principle,
532: one may still improve the bound by including all the measured
533: coincidence probabilities from Ref.~\cite{mohamed}.
534:
535: Along the same lines one can also investigate other experiments,
536: where witnesses have been used \cite{witexp, mohamed}. In the
537: exceptional cases where complete state tomography has been done
538: \cite{hartmut}, one may, of course, also try other estimation methods.
539: Then it would be of great interest to compare these methods with
540: our proposed one.
541:
542: {\it Conclusion ---}
543: We proposed a method to estimate entanglement measures
544: in experiments. To do so, we showed how entanglement
545: witnesses can be used to obtain lower bounds on generic
546: entanglement measures. We have explicitly demonstrated
547: the calculations for the
548: entanglement of formation and the geometric measure of entanglement.
549: Finally, we applied our results to experimental data, gaining new insights
550: into already performed experiments. Identifying witnesses, which are not only
551: capable to detect entanglement in noisy situations but deliver at the same
552: time good estimates of entanglement measures is an interesting task for
553: further study.
554:
555:
556: We thank H. J. Briegel, J. Eisert, A. Miyake, and K. Osterloh
557: for valuable discussions. This work has been supported
558: by the FWF, the DFG and the EU (OLAQI, PROSECCO, QUPRODIS, QICS, SCALA).
559:
560: \begin{thebibliography}{12}
561: \bibitem{horo}
562: M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki,
563: Phys. Lett. A {\bf 223}, 1 (1996);
564: B. Terhal, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 271}, 319 (2000).
565:
566: \bibitem{witexp}
567: M.~Barbieri {\it et al.},
568: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 227901 (2003);
569: J. Altepeter {\it et al.},
570: {\it ibid.} {\bf 95}, 033601 (2005);
571: N. Kiesel {\it et al.},
572: {\it ibid.} {\bf 95}, 210502 (2005);
573: D.~Leibfried {\it et al.},
574: Nature (London) {\bf 438}, 639 (2005);
575: C.-Y. Lu {\it et al.}, Nature Physics
576: {\bf 3}, 91 (2007).
577:
578: \bibitem{mohamed}
579: M. Bourennane {\it et al.},
580: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 087902 (2004).
581:
582: \bibitem{hartmut}
583: H.~H\"affner {\it et al.},
584: Nature (London) {\bf 438}, 643 (2005).
585:
586: \bibitem{wittheo}
587: M. Lewenstein {\it et al.},
588: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 62}, 052310 (2000);
589: D. Bru\ss~{\it et al.},
590: J. Mod. Opt. {\bf 49}, 1399 (2002);
591: G. T\'oth and O. G\"uhne,
592: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 060501 (2005).
593:
594: \bibitem{brandao}
595: F. Brand\~ao,
596: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 72}, 022310 (2005).
597:
598: \bibitem{nlew} O. G\"uhne and N. L\"utkenhaus,
599: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 170502 (2006).
600:
601: \bibitem{plenio}
602: For a recent review see
603: M.B. Plenio and S. Virmani,
604: Quant. Inf. Comp. {\bf 7}, 1 (2007).
605:
606: \bibitem{eof}C. H. Bennett {\it et al.},
607: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 54}, 3824 (1996).
608:
609: \bibitem{wei} T.-C. Wei and P.M. Goldbart,
610: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 68}, 042307 (2003).
611:
612: \bibitem{rockafellar}
613: R.T. Rockafellar, {\it Convex Analysis},
614: (Princeton University Press, Princeton)
615: 1997.
616:
617: \bibitem{lit:koenraad}
618: K.M.R.~Audenaert and S.L.~Braunstein,
619: Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 246}, 443 (2004).
620:
621: \bibitem{horoneu}
622: R. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and P. Horodecki,
623: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 59}, 1799 (1999).
624:
625: \bibitem{wolf}
626: F. Verstraete and M.M. Wolf,
627: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 170401 (2002).
628:
629: \bibitem{mintert}
630: S.P. Walborn {\it et al.},
631: Nature (London) {\bf 440}, 1022 (2006);
632: F. Mintert and A. Buchleitner,
633: quant-ph/0605250;
634: S.J.~van Enk,
635: quant-ph/0606017.
636:
637: \bibitem{eisert}J. Eisert, F. Brand\~ao, and K. Audenaert,
638: New J. Phys. {\bf 9}, 46 (2007).
639:
640: \bibitem{remark1} Taking the $\WW_i$ as witnesses
641: with $Tr(\rho\WW_i)<0$ for at least one $i$ guarantees
642: that the bound on the entanglement measure will not
643: be the trivial bound $E(\rho)\geq 0.$
644:
645: \bibitem{remark2} Since $E_F(\ket{\psi})$ is defined
646: with a $\log_2$ in the von Neumann entropy, one has
647: to rescale the obtained value at the end.
648:
649: \bibitem{geoapp}
650: T.C. Wei {\it et al.}, Quantum Inf. Comput. {\bf 4}, 252 (2004);
651: M. Hayashi {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 040501 (2006).
652:
653: \end{thebibliography}
654:
655: \end{document}
656: