- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Quantifying necessary quantum resources for nonlocality

Lucas Tendick*, Hermann Kampermann, and Dagmar Bruß

  • Institute for Theoretical Physics III, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany

  • *Lucas.Tendick@hhu.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L012002 – Published 14 January, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L012002

Abstract

Nonlocality is one of the most important resources for quantum information protocols. The observation of nonlocal correlations in a Bell experiment is the result of appropriately chosen measurements and quantum states. We quantify the minimal purity to achieve a certain Bell value for any Bell operator. Since purity is the most fundamental resource of a quantum state, this enables us also to quantify the necessary coherence, discord, and entanglement for a given violation of two-qubit correlation inequalities. Our results shine a light on the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality by showing that for a fixed Bell violation an increase in the measurement resources does not always lead to a decrease of the minimal state resources.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (54)

  1. N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014).
  2. J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1, 195 (1964).
  3. J. I. de Vicente, On nonlocality as a resource theory and nonlocality measures, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 424017 (2014).
  4. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
  5. R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
  6. F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, and N. Brunner, Quantum measurement incompatibility does not imply Bell nonlocality, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012129 (2018).
  7. E. Bene and T. Vértesi, Measurement incompatibility does not give rise to Bell violation in general, New J. Phys. 20, 013021 (2018).
  8. A. A. Méthot and V. Scarani, An anomaly of non-locality, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 157 (2007).
  9. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  10. A. Streltsov, H. Kampermann, S. Wölk, M. Gessner, and D. Bruß, Maximal coherence and the resource theory of purity, New J. Phys. 20, 053058 (2018).
  11. J. Aberg, Quantifying superposition, arXiv:quant-ph/0612146.
  12. A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017).
  13. H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Quantum Discord: A Measure of the Quantumness of Correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001).
  14. S. Luo, Quantum discord for two-qubit systems, Phys. Rev. A 77, 042303 (2008).
  15. K. Modi, T. Paterek, W. Son, V. Vedral, and M. Williamson, Unified View of Quantum and Classical Correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 080501 (2010).
  16. H. Zhu, M. Hayashi, and L. Chen, Coherence and entanglement measures based on Rényi relative entropies, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50, 475303 (2017).
  17. A. Streltsov, U. Singh, H. S. Dhar, M. N. Bera, and G. Adesso, Measuring Quantum Coherence with Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 020403 (2015).
  18. T. R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, and G. Adesso, Frozen Quantum Coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 210401 (2015).
  19. C. Spee, Certifying the purity of quantum states with temporal correlations, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012420 (2020).
  20. M. Navascués, S. Pironio, and A. Acín, A convergent hierarchy of semidefinite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations, New J. Phys. 10, 073013 (2008).
  21. T. Moroder, J.-D. Bancal, Y.-C. Liang, M. Hofmann, and O. Gühne, Device-Independent Entanglement Quantification and Related Applications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 030501 (2013).
  22. T. Heinosaari, J. Kiukas, and D. Reitzner, Noise robustness of the incompatibility of quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022115 (2015).
  23. J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
  24. E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and M. D. Reid, Experimental criteria for steering and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032112 (2009).
  25. K. M. R. Audenaert and M. B. Plenio, When are correlations quantum?—Verification and quantification of entanglement by simple measurements, New J. Phys. 8, 266 (2006).
  26. J. Eisert, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and K. M. R. Audenaert, Quantitative entanglement witnesses, New J. Phys. 9, 46 (2007).
  27. O. Gühne, M. Reimpell, and R. F. Werner, Estimating Entanglement Measures in Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 110502 (2007).
  28. D. Cavalcanti and M. O. T. Cunha, Estimating entanglement of unknown states, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 084102 (2006).
  29. R. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and P. Horodecki, Entanglement processing and statistical inference: The Jaynes principle can produce fake entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1799 (1999).
  30. J. Batle and M. Casas, Nonlocality and entanglement in qubit systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 445304 (2011).
  31. J. Batle, M. Casas, A. R. Plastino, and A. Plastino, Inference schemes and entanglement determination, Phys. Rev. A 65, 024304 (2002).
  32. J. Batle, M. Casas, A. R. Plastino, and A. Plastino, On the fake inferred entanglement associated with the maximum entropy inference of quantum states, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34, 6443 (2001).
  33. K. Bartkiewicz, B. Horst, K. Lemr, and A. Miranowicz, Entanglement estimation from Bell inequality violation, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052105 (2013).
  34. F. Verstraete and M. M. Wolf, Entanglement versus Bell Violations and their Behavior under Local Filtering Operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 170401 (2002).
  35. E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019).
  36. Y. Luo and Y. Li, Robustness of purity: An operational approach to resource theory of purity, Eur. Phys. J. D 73, 89 (2019).
  37. A. W. Marshall, I. Olkin, and B. C. Arnold, Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications (Springer, New York, 2011).
  38. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L012002 for more details on derivations, as well as for more details on the hierarchy of quantum resources in the I3322 scenario and a discussion about the incompatibility quantifier of C. This includes Refs. [51, 52, 53, 54].
  39. Note that the hierarchy also holds for measures which are no distance in a strict mathematical sense, like the relative entropy, due to the inclusion relations of the void sets. It also holds for the generalized robustness.
  40. Y. Yao, X. Xiao, L. Ge, and C. P. Sun, Quantum coherence in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022112 (2015).
  41. A. Bera, T. Das, D. Sadhukhan, S. S. Roy, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Quantum discord and its allies: A review of recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 024001 (2017).
  42. M. Steiner, Generalized robustness of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 67, 054305 (2003).
  43. V. Scarani and N. Gisin, Spectral decomposition of Bell's operators for qubits, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34, 6043 (2001).
  44. G. Svetlichny, Distinguishing three-body from two-body nonseparability by a Bell-type inequality, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3066 (1987).
  45. M. Cianciaruso, T. R. Bromley, and G. Adesso, Accessible quantification of multiparticle entanglement, npj Quantum Inf. 2, 16030 (2016).
  46. D. Collins and N. Gisin, A relevant two qubit Bell inequality inequivalent to the CHSH inequality, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37, 1775 (2004).
  47. L. J. Landau, On the violation of Bell's inequality in quantum theory, Phys. Lett. A 120, 54 (1987).
  48. H. P. Robertson, The uncertainty principle, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929).
  49. S. L. Braunstein, A. Mann, and M. Revzen, Maximal Violation of Bell Inequalities for Mixed States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3259 (1992).
  50. J. Kiukas and R. F. Werner, Maximal violation of Bell inequalities by position measurements, J. Math. Phys. 51, 072105 (2010).
  51. S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004).
  52. V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, Quantifying Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997).
  53. H. Zhu, L. Chen, and M. Hayashi, Additivity and non-additivity of multipartite entanglement measures, New J. Phys. 12, 083002 (2010).
  54. R. Uola, C. Budroni, O. Gühne, and J.-P. Pellonpää, One-to-One Mapping between Steering and Joint Measurability Problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 230402 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L012002– Published 14 January, 2022
  • Received 22 February 2021
  • Accepted 18 November 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation