Multiparticle Entanglement in Hypergraph States
Otfried Gühne
D. Bruß, C. Budroni, M. Cuquet, M. Gachechiladze, B. Kraus,
C. Macchiavello, T. Moroder, M. Rossi, F. Steinhoff
Department Physik, Universität Siegen
Overview
1 Multiparticle entanglement & graph states
2 Hypergraph states: Definitions & classification
3 Hypergraph states: Bell inequalities & applications
4 Conclusion & Outlook
Multiparticle entanglement
Entanglement & separability
Alice and Bob share a state |ψi.
Entanglement & separability
Alice and Bob share a state |ψi.
A pure state |ψi is separable iff it is a product state:
|ψi = |aiA |biB = |a, bi.
Otherwise it is entangled.
Entanglement & separability
Alice and Bob share a state |ψi.
A pure state |ψi is separable iff it is a product state:
|ψi = |aiA |biB = |a, bi.
Otherwise it is entangled.
Mixed states: Consider convex combinations: % is separable, if
X X
%= pi |ai ihai | ⊗ |bi ihbi |, mit pi ≥ 0, pi = 1.
i i
Interpretation: Entanglement cannot be generated by local operations and
classical communication.
R. Werner, PRA 40, 4277 (1989).
The separability problem
Question
Given %, is it entangled or separable?
The separability problem
Question
Given %, is it entangled or separable?
Geometrical interpretation
The set of all separable states is convex.
Multiparticle entanglement
Several possibilities:
Fully separable:
|ψ fs i = |000i
Biseparable:
|ψ bs i = |0i ⊗ (|00i + |11i)
Genuine multiparticle entangled:
|GHZ i = |000i + |111i oder |W i = |001i + |010i + |100i.
Mixed states: Convex combinations, again.
Why is entanglement interesting?
Quantum cryptography One-way quantum computer
Source S sends entangled
states to A and B. By making local
From the correlations a key measurement on a cluster
can be generated. state, a quantum computer
can be realized.
If the measurement results
are compatible with a Problem: Experimental
separable state, then the generation of the cluster
scheme is not secure. state.
A.K. Ekert, PRL 67, 661 (1991);
M. Curty et al, PRL 92, 217903 (2004). R. Raussendorf, H. Briegel, PRL 86, 5188 (2001).
Entanglement and precision measurements
The task
Assume we have a device D indu-
cing the transformation
|0i 7→ |0i, |1i 7→ e iφ |1i
How can we estimate φ?
Entanglement and precision measurements
The task
Assume we have a device D indu-
cing the transformation
|0i 7→ |0i, |1i 7→ e iφ |1i
How can we estimate φ?
Simple strategy
Prepare |ψi = |0i + |1i.
Apply D: |ψ 0 i = |0i + e iφ |1i.
Measure hσx i ∼ cos(φ).
Uncertainty:
∆hσx i
∆φ = =1
|∂hσx i/∂φ|
Repeat N times:
√
∆φ ≥ 1/ N
Entanglement and precision measurements
The task
Assume we have a device D indu-
cing the transformation
|0i 7→ |0i, |1i 7→ e iφ |1i
How can we estimate φ?
Simple strategy Using entanglement
Prepare |ψi = |0i + |1i. Prepare N qubit state:
Apply D: |ψ 0 i = |0i + e iφ |1i. |GHZN i = |0...0i + |1...1i
Measure hσx i ∼ cos(φ). Apply D and measure
hσx⊗N i ∼ cos(Nφ).
Uncertainty:
∆hσx i Uncertainty:
∆φ = =1 1
|∂hσx i/∂φ| ∆φ =
Repeat N times: N
√
∆φ ≥ 1/ N Review: V. Giovanetti et al, Science 306, 1330 (2004).
Graph states
1) Start with a product state
on N qubits in the √ state
|+i = |x + i = (|0i + |1i)/ 2
Graph states
1) Start with a product state on N
+
√ state |+i = |x i =
qubits in the
(|0i + |1i)/ 2
2) Let some of them interact pairwise
via some Ising-type interaction:
Cab = e i 4 (1−σz
(a)
π
−σz(b) +σz(a) σz(b) )}
This corresponds to a phase gate.
Graph states
1) Start with a product state on N
+
√ state |+i = |x i =
qubits in the
(|0i + |1i)/ 2
2) Let some of them interact pairwise
via some Ising-type interaction:
Cab = e i 4 (1−σz
(a)
π
−σz(b) +σz(a) σz(b) )}
This corresponds to a phase gate.
3) Resulting state is the graph state.
M. Hein, J. Eisert, H.J. Briegel, PRA 69, 062311 (2004).
Graph states as stabilizer states
1) For any graph, we define sta-
(i)
bilizing operators as (Xi = σx )
O
Si = Xi Zj .
j∈N(i)
2) The graph state |G i is the un-
ique state fulfilling
Si |G i = |G i.
Graph states as stabilizer states
GHZ as example
The GHZ state |GHZ i = |000i +
|111i fulfills
X1 X2 X3 |GHZ i = |GHZ i
1) For any graph, we define sta- Z1 Z2 1|GHZ i = |GHZ i
(i)
bilizing operators as (Xi = σx ) 1Z2 Z3 |GHZ i = |GHZ i
O
Si = Xi Zj . and corresponds (up to local ro-
j∈N(i) tations) to the graphs
2) The graph state |G i is the un-
ique state fulfilling
Si |G i = |G i.
Graph states
Further examples of graph Properties of graph states:
states: General GHZ states: They serve as the central
resource in the one-way
quantum computer.
R. Raussendorf, H.J. Briegel, PRL 86, 5188
(2001)
All code words in quantum
error correcting codes
and cluster states: correspond to graph states.
D. Schlingemann and R.F. Werner, PRA 65,
012308 (2002).
The violate local realism in an
extreme manner.
O. Gühne et al., PRL 95, 120405 (2005).
Hypergraph states
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
1 4 6 4 1
1 5 10 10 5 1
1 6 15 20 15 6 1
1 7 21 35 35 21 7 1
1 8 28 56 70 56 28 8 1
1 9 36 84 126 126 84 36 9 1
1 10 45 120 210 252 210 120 45 10 1
1 11 55 165 330 462 462 330 165 55 11 1
1 12 66 220 495 792 924 792 495 220 66 12 1
1 13 78 286 715 1287 1716 1716 1287 715 286 78 13 1
1 14 91 364 1001 2002 3003 3432 3003 2002 1001 364 91 14 1
1 15 105 455 1365 3003 5005 6435 6435 5005 3003 1365 455 105 15 1
1 16 120 560 1820 4368 8008 11440 12870 11440 8008 4368 1820 560 120 16 1
Basic definitions
In a hypergraph, edges can contain more than two vertices.
Basic definitions
In a hypergraph, edges can contain more than two vertices.
The controlled phase gate on an edge e is given by
Ce = 1 − 2|1 · · · 1ih1 · · · 1|
Basic definitions
In a hypergraph, edges can contain more than two vertices.
The controlled phase gate on an edge e is given by
Ce = 1 − 2|1 · · · 1ih1 · · · 1|
The hypergraph state is:
Y
|Hi = Ce |+i⊗N
e∈E
C. Kruszynska, B. Kraus. PRA 79, 052304 (2009), M. Rossi, M. Huber, D. Bruß,C. Macchiavello, NJP 15, (2013).
The nonlocal stabilizer
Define for each qubit the operator
Y Y Y
gi ≡ Ce Xi Ce = Xi ⊗ Ce\{i}
e∈E e∈E e3i
Then:
gi |Hi = |Hi for all i
The nonlocal stabilizer
Define for each qubit the operator
Y Y Y
gi ≡ Ce Xi Ce = Xi ⊗ Ce\{i}
e∈E e∈E e3i
Then:
gi |Hi = |Hi for all i
The stabilizing operators gi :
... are hermitean, but nonlocal,
... commute: gi gj = gj gi ,
... generate a group with 2N elements.
Examples
The three-qubit HG state
For the simplest nontrivial HG we have
1
|H3 i = √ (|000i + |001i + |010i + |011i + |100i + |101i + |110i − |111i)
8
after a Hadarmard transformation on the third qubit:
1
|H3 i = (|000i + |010i + |100i + |111i).
2
This state was also called “logical AND state”.
S. Abramsky, C. Costantin, arXiv:1412.5213
Pauli operations
Three possibilities
(i)
How does |HG i 7→ σ? |HG i change the hypergraph?
(i)
Z-tranformation: Add / remove the edge e = {i}, since C{i} = σz .
X-transformation: Determine the set
E (k) = {e \ {k}|e ∈ E (k)}.
by taking all edges e which contain k and then removing k out of all
these edges.
Then, remove or add the edges from E to the HG, depending on
whether they exist already in the HG or not.
Y-transformation: Combined X- and Z- transformation.
R. Qu, J. Wang, Z. Li, Y. Bao, PRA 87, 022311 (2013).
Example
X1 7→ Z2 , Z3 7→ X2 7→ Z1 7→ X3
Example
X1 7→ Z2 , Z3 7→ X2 7→ Z1 7→ X3
Consequence
There is only one HG state for three qubits.
LU classes for four qubits
One finds 27 LP equivalence classes, which turn out to be LU inequivalent
O. Gühne et al., J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 335303 (2014)
LU classes for four qubits
One finds 27 LP equivalence classes, which turn out to be LU inequivalent
O. Gühne et al., J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 335303 (2014)
Some interesting states
States with maximally mixed single-qubit marginals are:
No. 3: r
3 1
|V3 i = |D4 i + |GHZ4− i.
4 2
No. 9: With |γi = (|00i + |01i − |10i + |11i)/2 one has:
1 1 1
|V9 i = √ |GHZ4− i + |01i|γi + |10i|γi,
2 2 2
No. 14: r
3 1 −
|V14 i = |D4 i + |GHZ 4 i,
4 2
Discussion
LU-LP Problem
Is LU equivalence always equivalent to LP equivalence?
For many cases yes, but in general ... ?
Counterexamples would be useful.
Questions
Is there a general rule to identify maximally entangled HG states?
What are the applications of these states?
Bell inequalities for HG states
The first idea
First Problem
Can the non-local stabilizer be used for characterizing local correlations?
The first idea
First Problem
Can the non-local stabilizer be used for characterizing local correlations?
The state |H3 i is a +1 eigenstate of
g1 = X1 ⊗ C23 = X1 ⊗ (|00ih00| + |01ih01| + |10ih10| − |11ih11|)
The first idea
First Problem
Can the non-local stabilizer be used for characterizing local correlations?
The state |H3 i is a +1 eigenstate of
g1 = X1 ⊗ C23 = X1 ⊗ (|00ih00| + |01ih01| + |10ih10| − |11ih11|)
So we have
P(+ − −|XZZ ) = 0.
Furthermore:
P(− + +|XZZ ) + P(− + −|XZZ ) + P(− − +|XZZ ) = 0,
⇒ The non-local stabilizer predicts some local perfect correlations!
Hardy argument
If a LHV model satisfies the conditions from zero correlations from the
state |H3 i then it must fulfill
P(+ − −|XXX ) + P(− + −|XXX ) + P(− − +|XXX ) = 0.
Hardy argument
If a LHV model satisfies the conditions from zero correlations from the
state |H3 i then it must fulfill
P(+ − −|XXX ) + P(− + −|XXX ) + P(− − +|XXX ) = 0.
In contrast, for |H3 i we have
1
P(+ − −|XXX ) =
16
This argument can be generalized to N qubits.
N qubits
...
Genuine multiparticle nonlocality
Taking the zero terms and P(− − −|XXX ) and P(− − −|ZZZ ) one has a
Bell-Svetlichny inequality for genuine multiparticle nonlocality,
(2)
hB3 i = P(+ − −|XZZ ) + P(− + +|XZZ )
+P(− + −|XZZ ) + P(− − +|XZZ ) + permutat.
+P(− − −|XXX ) − P(− − −|ZZZ ) ≥ 0,
(2)
which is violated by |H3 i with hB3 i = −1\16.
This inequality is a facet of the classical polytope.
Scaling
Question & Answer
Does the violation of local realism increase with the number of
particles? What are the interesting many-qubit HG states?
Take three- and four-uniform fully connected HG states. They can
be seen as generalizations of GHZ states.
Scaling
For three-uniform HG states and for even m with 1 < m < N:
(
+ 12 if m = 2 mod 4,
hX . . . X Z . . . Z i =
| {z } − 21 if m = 0 mod 4.
m
A similar result holds for four-uniform HG states
This can be combined with the Mermin-type Bell operator:
BN = − AAA . . . AA + BBA . . . A + permutat. −
− BBBBA . . . A + permutat. + . . . − . . .
Results
For three-uniform HG states the violation of Bell inequalities scales
exponentially with the number of particles:
hBN iQ N→∞ √ N
∼ 2
hBN iC
For four-uniform HG states the scaling is:
hBN iQ N→∞
∼ 1.20711N
hBN iC
Results
For three-uniform HG states the violation of Bell inequalities scales
exponentially with the number of particles:
hBN iQ N→∞ √ N
∼ 2
hBN iC
For four-uniform HG states the scaling is:
hBN iQ N→∞
∼ 1.20711N
hBN iC
For four-uniform HG states also the state after loosing one qubit
violates Bell inequalities with the same scaling.
For three-uniform HG states the reduced state is still highly
entangled.
M. Gachechiladze, C. Budroni, O. Gühne, arXiv:1507.03570
Applications
HG states are useful in the standard scheme of metrology
Reason: The visibility of the cos(Nφ) component is related to the
violation of the Mermin inequality.
W.B. Gao et al., Nat. Phys. 6, 331 (2010)
HG states are useful in some schemes of measurement based
quantum computation.
M. Gachechiladze, C. Budroni, O. Gühne, arXiv:1507.03570
Open Question: HG states & topological models?
B. Yoshida, arXiv:1508.03468, J. Miller, A Miyake, arXiv:1508.02695.
Conclusion
HG states are a generalization of graph states
They can be described by a non-local stabilizer formalism
They violate Bell inequalities in many ways and are robust against
particle loss
The can be useful in metrology & quantum computation
Literature
O. Gühne, M. Cuquet, F.E.S. Steinhoff, T. Moroder, M. Rossi, D.
Bruß, B. Kraus, C. Macchiavello, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47,
335303 (2014)
M. Gachechiladze, C. Budroni, O. Gühne, arXiv:1507.03570
Acknowledgements
