Total versus quantum correlations in quantum states

On the premises that total correlations in a bipartite quantum state are measured by the quantum mutual information, and that separation of total correlations into quantum and classical parts satisfies an intuitive dominance relation, we examine to what extent various entropic entanglement measures, such as the distillable entanglement, the relative entropy entanglement, the squashed entanglement, the entanglement cost, and the entanglement of formation, can be regarded as consistent measures of quantum correlations. We illustrate that the entanglement of formation often overestimates quantum correlations and thus is too big to be a genuine measure of quantum correlations. This indicates that the entanglement of formation does not quantify the quantum correlations intrinsic to a quantum state, but rather characterizes the pure entanglement needed to build the quantum state via local operations and classical communication. Furthermore, it has the consequence that, if the additive conjecture for the entanglement of formation is true (as is widely believed), then the entanglement cost, which is an operationally defined measure of entanglement with significant physical meaning, cannot be a consistent measure of quantum correlations in the sense that it may exceed total correlations. Alternatively, if the entanglement cost is dominated by total correlations, as our intuition suggests, then we can immediately disprove the additive conjecture. Both scenarios have their counterintuitive and appealing aspects, and a natural challenge arising in this context is to prove or disprove that the entanglement cost is dominated by the quantum mutual information.

[1]  V. Vedral,et al.  Classical, quantum and total correlations , 2001, quant-ph/0105028.

[2]  Matthias Christandl,et al.  Uncertainty, monogamy, and locking of quantum correlations , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[3]  Charles H. Bennett,et al.  Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction. , 1996, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[4]  Karol Horodecki,et al.  Mutually exclusive aspects of information carried by physical systems: Complementarity between local and nonlocal information , 2003 .

[5]  G. Vidal,et al.  Computable measure of entanglement , 2001, quant-ph/0102117.

[6]  V. Vedral,et al.  Entanglement measures and purification procedures , 1997, quant-ph/9707035.

[7]  A. Winter,et al.  Monogamy of quantum entanglement and other correlations , 2003, quant-ph/0310037.

[8]  S. Popescu,et al.  Thermodynamics and the measure of entanglement , 1996, quant-ph/9610044.

[9]  V. Vedral The role of relative entropy in quantum information theory , 2001, quant-ph/0102094.

[10]  Andreas Winter,et al.  Partial quantum information , 2005, Nature.

[11]  S. Fei,et al.  R function related to entanglement of formation , 2006, quant-ph/0602137.

[12]  P. Shor Equivalence of Additivity Questions in Quantum Information Theory , 2003, quant-ph/0305035.

[13]  M. Horodecki,et al.  The asymptotic entanglement cost of preparing a quantum state , 2000, quant-ph/0008134.

[14]  William K. Wootters,et al.  Entanglement of formation and concurrence , 2001, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[15]  M. Plenio,et al.  Quantifying Entanglement , 1997, quant-ph/9702027.

[16]  Werner,et al.  Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model. , 1989, Physical review. A, General physics.

[17]  G. Vidal,et al.  Robustness of entanglement , 1998, quant-ph/9806094.

[18]  A. Winter,et al.  Quantum, classical, and total amount of correlations in a quantum state , 2004, quant-ph/0410091.

[19]  W. Zurek Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical , 2001, quant-ph/0105127.

[20]  W. Zurek,et al.  Quantum discord: a measure of the quantumness of correlations. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[21]  A. Winter,et al.  “Squashed entanglement”: An additive entanglement measure , 2003, quant-ph/0308088.

[22]  Extracting Classical Correlations from a Bipartite Quantum System , 2002, quant-ph/0211006.

[23]  J. Cirac,et al.  Entanglement cost of bipartite mixed states. , 2001, Physical Review Letters.

[24]  D. Bruß Characterizing Entanglement , 2001, quant-ph/0110078.

[25]  C. Adami,et al.  Negative entropy and information in quantum mechanics , 1995, quant-ph/9512022.

[26]  R. Werner,et al.  Entanglement measures under symmetry , 2000, quant-ph/0010095.

[27]  A. Winter,et al.  Aspects of Generic Entanglement , 2004, quant-ph/0407049.

[28]  Benjamin Schumacher,et al.  Quantum mutual information and the one-time pad , 2006 .

[29]  V. Vedral Classical correlations and entanglement in quantum measurements. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[30]  Martin B. Plenio,et al.  An introduction to entanglement measures , 2005, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[31]  Terhal,et al.  Entanglement of formation for isotropic states , 2000, Physical review letters.

[32]  Barnett,et al.  Entropy as a measure of quantum optical correlation. , 1989, Physical review. A, General physics.

[33]  M. Horodecki,et al.  Local versus nonlocal information in quantum-information theory: Formalism and phenomena , 2004, quant-ph/0410090.

[34]  Barnett,et al.  Information theory, squeezing, and quantum correlations. , 1991, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[35]  Charles H. Bennett,et al.  Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states. , 1992, Physical review letters.

[36]  Andreas J. Winter,et al.  Distilling common randomness from bipartite quantum states , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.