Next Article in Journal
Research on Variable Parameter Color Image Encryption Based on Five-Dimensional Tri-Valued Memristor Chaotic System
Previous Article in Journal
Enhanced Air Quality Prediction Using a Coupled DVMD Informer-CNN-LSTM Model Optimized with Dung Beetle Algorithm
Previous Article in Special Issue
Stronger Quantum Speed Limit for Mixed Quantum States
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Parameterized Multipartite Entanglement and Genuine Entanglement Measures Based on q-Concurrence

1
School of Mathematics, Statistics and Mechanics, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
2
School of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China
3
School of Mathematics and Physics, Jiangsu University of Technology, Changzhou 213001, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Entropy 2024, 26(7), 535; https://doi.org/10.3390/e26070535
Submission received: 28 May 2024 / Revised: 17 June 2024 / Accepted: 20 June 2024 / Published: 22 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Collection Quantum Information)

Abstract

:
We study genuine multipartite entanglement (GME) and multipartite k-entanglement based on q-concurrence. Well-defined parameterized GME measures and measures of multipartite k-entanglement are presented for arbitrary dimensional n-partite quantum systems. Our GME measures show that the G H Z state is more entangled than the W state. Moreover, our measures are shown to be inequivalent to the existing measures according to entanglement ordering. Detailed examples show that our measures characterize the multipartite entanglement finer than some existing measures, in the sense that our measures identify the difference of two different states while the latter fail.

1. Introduction

Quantum entanglement serves as a valuable physical resource in quantum information processing, enabling tasks beyond classical ones [1]. It plays a crucial role in various quantum information tasks such as quantum computing [2,3,4], dense coding [5], and quantum teleportation [6,7,8].
Several methods have been developed for quantifying the entanglement of quantum states. For multipartite quantum system, Ma et al. introduced a genuine multipartite entanglement measure, known as the genuine multipartite concurrence (GMC), in which the entanglement of any pure state is quantified by selecting the minimum bipartite concurrence over all possible bipartite splits [9]. A new GME measure, the geometric mean of bipartite concurrence (GBC), was introduced in [10]. Although it does not involve the minimization in calculating the entanglement of pure states, it can only distinguish between genuine entangled states and nongenuine entangled states. For bipartite states, a series of entanglement measures have been proposed, such as entanglement distillation [11,12], entanglement formation [13], negativity [14], and concurrence [15,16]. In [17], Hong et al. proposed a measure of entanglement called k  ( 2 k n ) multipartite entanglement (k-ME) concurrence of any n-partite states, which satisfies the key properties of a well-defined measure of entanglement, such as strictly greater than zero for all k-nonseparable states, vanishing on k-separable states, invariance under local unitary transformations and convexity. Moreover, it satisfies the entanglement monotonicity, namely, the entanglement does not increase under local operations and classical communication (LOCC). Recently, a class of entanglement measures called k geometric mean (k-GM) concurrence has been presented based on the geometric mean of the entanglement associated with k-partitions of n-partite quantum systems [18]. Inspired by general Tsallis entropy [19], by using q-concurrence, the authors in [20] provided the parameterized entanglement measures as the generalizations of the k-ME concurrence.
Given that the multipartite entanglement plays a significant role in quantum information processing, the characterization and quantification of multipartite entanglement have been extensively investigated. Nevertheless, due to the extremely complex structure of entanglement in multipartite quantum states, the studies on GME and multipartite k-entanglement are still far from being satisfied. By taking into account that the q-concurrence is nonincreasing under local operations and classical communication, and vanishes for biseparable states, we present both GME measures and k-entanglement measures based on q-concurrence.
In this paper, we construct GME measures and k-entanglement measures for multipartite quantum systems in terms of q-concurrence. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review some fundamental concepts and give well-defined parameterized GME measures for multipartite quantum systems. By detailed examples, we show that our measures are more efficient than the existing ones in detecting the genuine multipartite entanglement. In Section 3, we present parameterized k-entanglement measures for arbitrary dimensional n-partite systems by using q-concurrence. Through detailed examples, we demonstrate that our measures have different state ordering from other ones. Conclusions are given in Section 4.

2. Parameterized GME Measures for Multipartite Pure States

We first focus on genuine multipartite entanglement. A multipartite pure state is genuinely multipartite entangled if it is not biseparable with respect to any bipartition. A well-defined GME measure should satisfy the following conditions: (a) For all product and biseparable states, the measure must be zero. (b) It is strictly positive for all non-biseparable states. (c) It is nonincreasing under local operations and classical communications.
Denote H f as a d f -dimensional Hilbert vector space. The concurrence of a bipartite pure state | ψ 12 H 1 H 2 is given by C ( | ψ 12 ) = 2 ( 1 T r ( ρ 1 2 ) ) , where ρ 1 = T r 2 ( | ψ 12 ψ 12 | ) . The q-concurrence ( q 2 ) is defined by [19], C q ( | ψ 12 ) = 1 T r ( ρ 1 q ) . For arbitrary n-partite pure state | ψ H 1 H 2 H n , the q-concurrence under bipartition J t | J t ^ is given by
C q J t | J t ^ ( | ψ ) = 1 T r ( ρ J t q ) ,
where J t ( t = 1 , 2 , , 2 n 1 1 ) is a subsystem of H 1 H 2 H n and J t ^ is the complement of J t . Conditions (a) and (b) of a well-defined GME measure imply that one needs to take over all possible bipartitions in constructing GME measures. Hence, we choose the form of geometric mean of concurrence. Moreover, we add a parameter to ensure that our constructed GME measures satisfy condition (c) for well-defined GME measures. In terms of the q-concurrence, we have the following parameterized GME measures.
Theorem 1.
For any n-partite pure states | ψ H 1 H 2 H n ,
Γ G M E ( | ψ ) = [ J t C q J t | J t ^ ξ ( | ψ ) ] 1 2 n 1 1
is a well-defined GME measure for 0 < ξ 1 .
Proof. 
We first prove that | ψ is genuine entangled if and only if Γ G M E ( | ψ ) > 0 . Consider the continuous function y = x ξ ( 0 < ξ 1 ) . If y > 0 , then x = y 1 ξ > 0 . Hence, if Γ G M E ( | ψ ) > 0 , then C q J t | J t ^ ξ ( | ψ ) > 0 , and C q J t | J t ^ ( | ψ ) > 0 as well. That is to say, C q J t | J t ^ ( | ψ ) > 0 always holds under any bipartition. Hence, | ψ is a genuine multipartite entangled state. On the other hand, if Γ G M E ( | ψ ) = 0 , then there must exist C q J t | J t ^ ( | ψ ) = 0 under certain bipartition J t | J t ^ , namely, | ψ is not a genuine multipartite entangled state.
We next prove that Γ G M E ( | ψ ) does not increase under LOCC. As the q-concurrence does not increase under LOCC [20], we only need to verify that Γ G M E ( | ψ ) is an increasing function of C q J m | J m ^ ( | ψ ) . In fact,
Γ G M E ( | ψ ) C q J m | J m ^ ( | ψ ) = ξ [ C q J m | J m ^ ( | ψ ) ] ξ 2 n 1 1 1 2 n 1 1 [ t m C q J t | J t ^ ξ ( | ψ ) ] 1 2 n 1 1 0
for m { 1 , 2 , , 2 n 1 1 } . Thus, the monotonicity of Γ G M E ( | ψ ) holds, and Γ G M E ( | ψ ) is nonincreasing under LOCC. Therefore, Γ G M E ( | ψ ) is a bona fide measure of GME. □
In [21], the authors suggested that a proper GME measure should satisfy an additional criterion: (d) the GME of the G H Z state is larger than that of the W state. Here, for four-qubit pure G H Z state | G H Z = 1 2 ( | 0000 + | 1111 ) and the W state | W = 1 2 ( | 1000 + | 0100 + | 0010 + | 0001 ) , we obtain for q = 2 and ξ = 1 , Γ G M E ( | G H Z ) = 1 due to C q J t | J t ^ ( | ψ ) being all equal to 1, while Γ G M E ( | W ) = 0.4242 . Obviously, the G H Z state is more entangled than the W state. Thus, Γ G M E ( | ψ ) is also a proper GME measure in this sense.
Example 1.
Let us consider the following four-qubit pure states,
| ψ A = 1 2 ( | 0000 + | 1011 + | 1101 + | 1110 ) , | ψ B = 1 2 ( | 0000 + | 0101 + | 1000 + | 1110 ) , | ψ C = 1 5 ( | 0000 + | 1111 + | 0011 + | 0101 + | 0110 ) , | ψ D = 1 4 ( 5 113 32 + 51 32 ) + 3 ( 4 ( 5 113 32 + 51 32 ) ( | 0000 + | 0101 + | 1010 + | 1111 ) + ( i | 0001 + | 0110 i | 1011 ) ) ,
where i = 1 .
The genuine multipartite concurrence of a four-qubit quantum pure state | ψ is defined to be G M C ( | ψ ) = min γ t γ 2 ( 1 T r ( ρ γ t ) 2 ) in [9], where γ = { γ t } labels all the different reduced density matrices of | ψ ψ | . Direct calculation shows that G M C ( | ψ A ) = G M C ( | ψ B ) = 0.8660 and G M C ( | ψ C ) = G M C ( | ψ D ) = 0.8000 . It is evident that although the G M C detects genuine multipartite entanglement of above four-qubit pure states, it cannot tell the difference in entanglement neither between | ψ A and | ψ B nor between | ψ C and | ψ D . The fact is due to G M C only depending on the minimum of concurrence, which is the same for both | ψ A and | ψ B as well as for both | ψ C and | ψ D .
From our Theorem 1, we have Γ G M E ( | ψ A ) = 0.8083 , Γ G M E ( | ψ B ) = 0.7699 , Γ G M E ( | ψ C ) = 0.1133 and Γ G M E ( | ψ D ) = 0.8593 for q = 2 and ξ = 1 3 . Therefore, | ψ A (or | ψ D ) is more entangled than | ψ B (or | ψ C ). Namely, our measure Γ G M E ( | ψ ) can distinguish the difference in the entanglement between | ψ A and | ψ B as well as between | ψ C and | ψ D . In this sense, our measure characterizes the genuine multipartite entanglement in a more fine way.
Furthermore, concerning the entanglement order [21,22], any two entanglement measures should give rise to the same ordering on the set of entangled states if they are actually equivalent [23]. Namely, if two entanglement measures E 1 and E 2 are equivalent, then E 1 ( ρ 1 ) E 1 ( ρ 2 ) implies E 2 ( ρ 1 ) E 2 ( ρ 2 ) for any pair of ρ 1 and ρ 2 . The following example shows that two entanglement measures are inequivalent when there exists a different entanglement order in certain intervals. We will highlight the advantages of our measure by comparing it with other measures.
Example 2.
Consider the following family of four-qubit pure states,
| ϕ θ = sin θ ( cos ( 2 π 3 ) | 0100 + sin ( 2 π 3 ) | 1000 ) + cos θ | 0011 ,
with θ [ 0 , π 2 ] . Set ξ = 1 2 and q = 2 . Using Theorem 1, we have that | ϕ θ is genuine entangled for θ ( 0 , π 2 ) , see Figure 1. With the increasing in θ from θ 1 to θ 2 , Γ G M E decreases. Nevertheless, the G M C increases from θ 1 to θ 2 [9]. Thus, for any two arbitrary states within this range, the entanglement order for G M C and Γ G M E is different. G M C and Γ G M E are inequivalent in this sense. Meanwhile, Γ G M E is a smooth function of θ, while G M C displays a sharp peak at θ 2 = 1.1071 .
Moreover, for θ 1 = 0.8711 and θ 3 = 1.1783 , one has G M C ( | ϕ θ 1 ) = G M C ( | ϕ θ 3 ) = 0.4998 by using the G M C in [9]. This is due to the fact that GMC increases from θ 1 to θ 2 and decreases from θ 2 to θ 3 . Meanwhile, from our GME measure, we have Γ G M E ( | ϕ θ 1 ) = 0.6731 and Γ G M E ( | ϕ θ 3 ) = 0.5733 , as Γ G M E decreases from θ 1 to θ 3 . This means that | ϕ θ 1 is more entangled than | ϕ θ 3 from our GME measure, while the GMC fails to detect this difference. In this sense, our GME measure shows superior performance in characterizing the genuine multipartite entanglement.

3. Parameterized k-Entanglement Measures for n-Partite Quantum Systems

An n-partite pure state | ψ is separable under k-partition if it can be expressed as | ψ = | ψ 1 J 1 | ψ 2 J 2 | ψ k J k , where | ψ l J l is the state in subsystem J l of the k-partition J 1 | J 2 | | J k in the set S = { 1 , 2 , , n } . This k-partition strictly obeys the following conditions: (i) l = 1 k J l = S ; (ii) J u J v = when u v . Similarly, an n-partite mixed state ρ is k-separable if it can be represented as a convex mixture of k-separable pure states, i.e., ρ = i p i | ψ i ψ i | , where { | ψ i } is k-separable with respect to certain k-partitions. Otherwise, ρ is k-nonseparable.
We denote the set of all k-separable states by S k ( k = 2 , 3 , , n ) , with S 1 denoting the set of all quantum states. Clearly, S n S n 1 S 1 . In particular, the complement S 1 S 2 is the set containing all genuine multipartite entangled (2-nonseparable) states.
An entanglement measure for k-separability has to satisfy the following conditions: (i) For all k-separable states, the measure must be zero. (ii) For all k-nonseparable states, the measure must be positive. (iii) It is invariant under local unitary transformations. (iv) The measure is nonincreasing under LOCC for any state ρ (monotonicity). (v) The measure never increases under free operations of LOCC for its LOCC-ensemble { p j , σ j } (strong monotonicity). (vi) Convexity ( E ( i p i ρ i ) i p i E ( ρ i ) ) . Here, the monotonicity means that the measure does not increase under any LOCC, i.e., E ( Λ LOCC ( ρ ) ) E ( ρ ) . The strong monotonicity says that if ρ is transformed into a state σ j with the probability p j under LOCC, the measure is still nonincreasing on average, namely, j p j E ( σ j ) E ( ρ ) holds for the LOCC-ensemble { p j , σ j } .
According to the above conditions (i) and (ii) for a well-defined measure of k-entanglement, we need to take into account all possible k-partitions of multipartite states. By using the concavity of the function y = x ξ ( 0 < ξ 1 ) and the fact that the function g = [ i = 1 n x i ] 1 n is concave [24], we construct k-entanglement measures satisfying conditions (iii)–(vi) by adding some parameters. To quantify the k-entanglement with respect to the k-separability of n-partite systems, we first present parameterized k-entanglement measures k = 2 , 3 , , n for any n-partite pure states | ψ ,
Γ k M E ( | ψ ) = [ α i L k ( t = 1 k C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ξ ( | ψ ) k ) 1 r ] 1 | L k | , 0 < ξ 1 , r 1 ,
where
| L k | = t = 1 k ( 1 ) k t t n 1 ( t 1 ) ! ( k t ) ! ,
where J t α i | J ^ t α i represents any bipartition of the state | ψ , L k = { α i } stands for the set that encompasses all possible k-partitions { J 1 α i | J 2 α i | | J k α i } , and | L k | denotes the cardinality of the elements in the set L k . Γ k M E ( | ψ ) is generalized to n-partite mixed states by convex-roof extension,
Γ k M E ( ρ ) = inf { p i , | ψ i } i p i Γ k M E ( | ψ i ) ,
where the infimum is taken over all possible pure state decompositions. We have the following conclusion.
Theorem 2.
For any n-partite mixed state ρ, Γ k M E ( ρ ) are well-defined parameterized measures of k-entanglement of n-partite systems.
Proof. 
(i) Γ k M E ( ρ ) = 0 for any ρ S k (vanishing on all k-separable states).
If a pure state | ψ is k-separable, then there must exist C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ( | ψ ) such that Γ k M E ( | ψ ) = 0 under certain k-partitions. Likewise, for an arbitrary mixed k-separable state ρ with pure state decomposition { p i , | ψ i } , we have Γ k M E ( ρ ) i p i Γ k M E ( | ψ i ) = 0 .
(ii) Γ k M E ( ρ ) > 0 for all k-nonseparable states ρ .
If an arbitrary pure state | ψ is k-nonseparable, there always exists C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ( | ψ ) > 0 under k-partition such that Γ k M E ( | ψ ) > 0 . Then, if ρ is a mixed k-nonseparable state, it cannot be expressed as a convex mixture of k-separable pure states, i.e., Γ k M E ( ρ ) > 0 .
(iii) Γ k M E ( U L o c a l ρ U L o c a l ) = Γ k M E ( ρ ) (invariant under local unitary transformations).
Since the q-concurrence is invariant under local unitary transformations, we have
Γ k M E ( U L o c a l ρ U L o c a l ) = [ α i L k ( t = 1 k C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ξ ( U L o c a l ρ U L o c a l ) k ) 1 r ] 1 | L k | = [ α i L k ( t = 1 k C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ξ ( ρ ) k ) 1 r ] 1 | L k | = Γ k M E ( ρ ) .
(iv) Γ k M E ( ρ ) is nonincreasing under LOCC (monotonicity).
Firstly, we prove that the inequality Γ k M E ( Λ LOCC ( | ψ ) ) Γ k M E ( | ψ ) holds for any LOCC operations on pure state | ψ . Since the q-concurrence decreases under LOCC, we only need to verify that Γ k M E ( | ψ ) is an increasing function of C q J m α l | J ^ m α l ( | ψ ) . By direct calculation, we have
Γ k M E ( | ψ ) C q J m α l | J ^ m α l ( | ψ ) = ξ C q J m α l | J ^ m α l ξ 1 ( | ψ ) L k / { α l } t = 1 k C q J t α l | J ^ t α l ξ ( | ψ ) r k | L k | [ α i L k t = 1 k C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ξ ( | ψ ) ] 1 1 r | L k | 0 ,
where l = 1 , 2 , , | L k | , m = 1 , 2 , , k . Hence, Γ k M E ( | ψ ) is nonincreasing under LOCC.
Now, for an arbitrary mixed state ρ with pure state decomposition { p i , | ψ i } , we obtain
Γ k M E ( Λ L O C C ( ρ ) ) = Γ k M E ( Λ L O C C ( i p i | ψ i ψ i | ) ) = Γ k M E ( i p i Λ L O C C ( | ψ i ψ i | ) ) i p i Γ k M E ( Λ L O C C ( | ψ i ) ) i p i Γ k M E ( | ψ i ) = Γ k M E ( ρ ) ,
where the first inequality is due to the convexity of parameterized k-entanglement measures Γ k M E ( ρ ) , and the second inequality is derived from the property that Γ k M E ( | ψ ) is nonincreasing under LOCC for any pure states.
(v) Γ k M E ( ρ ) never increases under free operations of LOCC for its LOCC-ensemble { p j , σ j } (strong monotonicity).
We need to prove that the inequality Γ k M E ( ρ ) j p j Γ k M E ( σ j ) holds, where the state σ j = K j | ψ ψ | K j is generated with probability p j by applying LOCC on ρ , j K j K j = I (unit operator). If ρ = | ψ ψ | is a pure state, we have
Γ k M E ( ρ ) = [ α i L k ( t = 1 k C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ξ ( ρ ) k ) 1 r ] 1 | L k | [ α i L k ( t = 1 k ( j p j C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ( σ j ) ) ξ k ) 1 r ] 1 | L k | [ α i L k ( t = 1 k j p j C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ξ ( σ j ) k ) 1 r ] 1 | L k | = [ α i L k ( j p j t = 1 k C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ξ ( σ j ) k ) 1 r ] 1 | L k | j p j [ α i L k ( t = 1 k C q J t α i | J ^ t α i ξ ( σ j ) k ) 1 r ] 1 | L k | j p j Γ k M E ( σ j ) ,
where the first inequality is due to the strong monotonicity of q-concurrence, that is, C q ( ρ ) j p j C q ( σ j ) [19]; the concavity of the function y = x ξ ( 0 < ξ 1 ) leads to the second inequality; and the third inequality holds, as the function g = [ i = 1 n x i ] 1 n is concave [24].
For mixed state ρ = i p i | ψ i ψ i | , we have
Γ k M E ( ρ ) = i p i Γ k M E ( | ψ i ) i j p i T r ( K j | ψ i ψ i | K j ) Γ k M E ( K j | ψ i ψ i | K j T r ( K j | ψ i ψ i | K j ) ) = i j T r ( K j ρ K j ) p i T r ( K j | ψ i ψ i | K j ) T r ( K j ρ K j ) Γ k M E ( K j | ψ i ψ i | K j T r ( K j | ψ i ψ i | K j ) ) = j p j [ i p i j Γ k M E ( | ψ i j ) ] j p j Γ k M E ( σ j ) ,
where | ψ i j = K j | ψ i T r ( K j | ψ i ψ i | K j ) , p i j = p i T r ( K j | ψ i ψ i | K j ) T r ( K j ρ K j ) and the state σ j = i p i j | ψ i j ψ i j | occurs with the probability p j = T r ( K j ρ K j ) under LOCC. The first inequality holds since Γ k M E ( | ψ ) obeys the strong monotonicity for any pure states. The second inequality is due to the definition of Γ k M E ( ρ ) .
(vi) Convexity E ( i p i ρ i ) i p i E ( ρ i ) is due to the convexity of the mixed states. □
In [17], the k-ME concurrence of an n-partite pure state | ψ is defined by C k M E ( | ψ ) = min A 2 t = 1 k ( 1 T r ( ρ A t ) 2 ) k , where ρ A t is the reduced density matrix of the subsystem A t and the minimum is taken over all possible k-partitions A = A 1 | A 2 | | A k of the set S = { 1 , 2 , , n } .
In [18], the k-GM concurrence of an n-partite pure state | ψ is defined by C k G M ( | ψ ) = [ α i T k 2 t = 1 k C 2 A t α i | A ^ t α i ( | ψ ) k ] 1 | T k | , where T k = { α i } is the set of all possible k-partitions A 1 α i | A 2 α i | where | A k α i , | T k | represents the cardinality of the elements in the set T k , and C 2 is the q-concurrence with q = 2 .
The example below illustrates that our approach is able to detect multipartite entanglement and is inequivalent to the above multipartite entanglement measures.
Example 3.
Consider the following family of four-qubit pure states
| ψ θ = 3 3 sin θ ( | 0001 + | 0100 + | 1000 ) + cos θ | 0011 ,
with θ [ 0 , π ] . By using Equation (5) for ξ = 1 2 , r = 1 and q = 2 , | ψ θ is 3-nonseparable when θ ( 0 , π ) . By direct calculation, 3-GM concurrence has a maximum value 0.9358 at θ 1 = 1.011 in the interval ( 0 , π 2 ) , while in the interval ( π 2 , π ) , the 3-GM concurrence has a maximum value 0.9358 at θ 6 = 2.1306 . The 3-ME concurrence takes a maximum value 0.9129 at θ 3 = 1.0472 or θ 4 = 2.0944 . Our Γ 3 M E has a maximum value 0.6602 at θ 2 = 1.0126 or θ 5 = 2.129 . Therefore, when θ [ θ 1 , θ 2 ] or [ θ 5 , θ 6 ] , the entanglement order of Γ 3 M E is different from 3-GM concurrence. When θ [ θ 2 , θ 3 ] or [ θ 4 , θ 5 ] , the entanglement order of Γ 3 M E is different from 3-ME concurrence. That is, Γ 3 M E is not equivalent to the 3-GM concurrence as well as the 3-ME concurrence.
Moreover, when θ ( 0 , θ 2 ) or ( θ 5 , π ) , we find that the 3-GM concurrence increases from 0 to θ 1 and decreases from θ 1 to θ 2 . Then, there always exists at least one pair of states whose 3-GM concurrences have the same value. While our measure Γ 3 M E increases from 0 to θ 2 , it always has different values for θ ( 0 , θ 2 ) . This means that Γ 3 M E is able to identify different entanglements, while the 3-GM concurrence fails in this interval. Therefore, our measure Γ 3 M E is not only inequivalent to the 3-GM concurrence but also has a superior performance in characterizing the multipartite entanglement finely in this case. Similar analysis yields that our Γ 3 M E distinguishes the entanglement in θ ( θ 2 , π 2 ) or ( π 2 , θ 5 ) , while the 3-ME concurrence fails (Figure 2).

4. Conclusions

We have presented parameterized GME measures Γ G M E and k-entanglement measures Γ k M E in terms of q-concurrence. They are proved to be well-defined measures and satisfy all the related conditions such as entanglement monotonicity, invariance under local unitary transformations, convexity, and strong entanglement monotonicity. Our measures are not equivalent to the existing ones in the sense that they give rise to different state orderings. Detailed examples have shown that our measure may characterize better the genuine multipartite entanglement and the k-entanglement of arbitrary n-partite systems.

Author Contributions

P.-W.M., H.Z. and S.-M.F. performed the formal analysis, writing, the numerical calculations and figure. All authors contributed to the writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant No. (2022YFB3806000), National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants (12272011, 12075159, 12126351 and 12171044), the specific research fund of the Innovation Platform for Academicians of Hainan Province.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Horodecki, R.; Horodecki, P.; Horodecki, M.; Horodecki, K. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2009, 81, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bennett, C.H.; Di Vincenzo, D.P. Quantum information and computation. Nature 2000, 404, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jozsa, R.; Linden, N. On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2003, 459, 2011–2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Van den Nest, M. Universal quantum computation with little entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 110, 060504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bennett, C.H.; Wiesner, S.J. Communication via one-and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1992, 69, 2881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Yan, F.L.; Zhang, X.Q. A scheme for secure direct communication using EPR pairs and teleportation. Eur. Phys. J. B 2004, 41, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gao, T.; Yan, F.L.; Li, Y.C. Optimal controlled teleportation. Europhys. Lett. 2008, 84, 50001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yan, F.L.; Gao, T.; Chitambar, E. Two local observables are sufficient to characterize maximally entangled states of N qubits. Phys. Rev. A 2011, 83, 022319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ma, Z.H.; Chen, Z.H.; Chen, J.L.; Spengler, C.; Gabriel, A.; Huber, M. Measure of genuine multipartite entanglement with computable lower bounds. Phys. Rev. A 2011, 83, 062325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, Y.; Shang, J. Geometric mean of bipartite concurrences as a genuine multipartite entanglement measure. Phys. Rev. Res. 2022, 4, 023059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bennett, C.H.; Bernstein, H.J.; Popescu, S.; Schumacher, B. Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations. Phys. Rev. A 1996, 53, 2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bennett, C.H.; Brassard, G.; Popescu, S.; Schumacher, B.; Smolin, J.A.; Wootters, W.K. Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 76, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bennett, C.H.; Di Vincenzo, D.P.; Smolin, J.A.; Wootters, W.K. Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. A 1996, 54, 3824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Vidal, G.; Werner, R.F. Computable measure of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 2002, 65, 032314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hill, S.A.; Wootters, W.K. Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, 78, 5022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mintert, F.; Kuś, M.; Buchleitner, A. Concurrence of mixed multipartite quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 95, 260502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hong, Y.; Gao, T.; Yan, F. Measure of multipartite entanglement with computable lower bounds. Phys. Rev. A 2012, 86, 062323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, H.; Gao, T.; Yan, F.L. Multipartite entanglement measures based on geometric mean. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2401.01014. [Google Scholar]
  19. Yang, X.; Luo, M.X.; Yang, Y.H.; Fei, S.M. Parametrized entanglement monotone. Phys. Rev. A 2021, 103, 052423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, H.; Gao, T.; Yan, F.L. Parametrized multipartite entanglement measures. Phys. Rev. A 2024, 109, 012213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xie, S.; Eberly, J.H. Triangle measure of tripartite entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2021, 127, 040403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Eisert, J.; Plenio, M.B. A comparison of entanglement measures. J. Mod. Opt. 1999, 46, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Plenio, M.B.; Virmani, S. An introduction to entanglement measures. Quant. Inf. Comput. 2007, 7, 1–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Boyd, S.P.; Vandenberghe, L. Convex Optimization; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The Γ G M E (solid red) and G M C (dashed blue) for the four-qubit states given in (4) versus θ . The peak of Γ G M E is at θ 1 , while the G M C has a sharp peak at θ = θ 2 . From θ 1 to θ 2 , Γ G M E decreases, while the GMC increases. The G M C has a series of paired equal values in the interval θ [ θ 1 , θ 3 ] .
Figure 1. The Γ G M E (solid red) and G M C (dashed blue) for the four-qubit states given in (4) versus θ . The peak of Γ G M E is at θ 1 , while the G M C has a sharp peak at θ = θ 2 . From θ 1 to θ 2 , Γ G M E decreases, while the GMC increases. The G M C has a series of paired equal values in the interval θ [ θ 1 , θ 3 ] .
Entropy 26 00535 g001
Figure 2. The 3-GM concurrence, 3-ME concurrence, and Γ 3 M E for the four-qubit states given in (13). The dotted green, dashed blue, and solid red lines stand for the 3-GM concurrence, 3-ME concurrence, and Γ 3 M E of | ψ θ , respectively.
Figure 2. The 3-GM concurrence, 3-ME concurrence, and Γ 3 M E for the four-qubit states given in (13). The dotted green, dashed blue, and solid red lines stand for the 3-GM concurrence, 3-ME concurrence, and Γ 3 M E of | ψ θ , respectively.
Entropy 26 00535 g002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, P.-W.; Zhao, H.; Fei, S.-M.; Zhang, M.-M.; Wang, Z.-X. Parameterized Multipartite Entanglement and Genuine Entanglement Measures Based on q-Concurrence. Entropy 2024, 26, 535. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26070535

AMA Style

Ma P-W, Zhao H, Fei S-M, Zhang M-M, Wang Z-X. Parameterized Multipartite Entanglement and Genuine Entanglement Measures Based on q-Concurrence. Entropy. 2024; 26(7):535. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26070535

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Pan-Wen, Hui Zhao, Shao-Ming Fei, Mei-Ming Zhang, and Zhi-Xi Wang. 2024. "Parameterized Multipartite Entanglement and Genuine Entanglement Measures Based on q-Concurrence" Entropy 26, no. 7: 535. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26070535

APA Style

Ma, P.-W., Zhao, H., Fei, S.-M., Zhang, M.-M., & Wang, Z.-X. (2024). Parameterized Multipartite Entanglement and Genuine Entanglement Measures Based on q-Concurrence. Entropy, 26(7), 535. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26070535

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop