Monogamy of entanglement without inequalities

Gilad Gour; Guo Yu

doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-13-81

Monogamy of entanglement without inequalities

Gilad Gour¹ and Guo Yu²

¹Department of Mathematics and Statistics and Institute for Quantum Science and Technology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada
²Institute of Quantum Information Science, Shanxi Datong University, Datong, Shanxi 037009, China

Published:	2018-08-13, volume 2, page 81
Eprint:	arXiv:1710.03295v2
Doi:	https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-13-81
Citation:	Quantum 2, 81 (2018).

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

We provide a fine-grained definition for monogamous measure of entanglement that does not invoke any particular monogamy relation. Our definition is given in terms an equality, as oppose to inequality, that we call the "disentangling condition". We relate our definition to the more traditional one, by showing that it generates standard monogamy relations. We then show that all quantum Markov states satisfy the disentangling condition for any entanglement monotone. In addition, we demonstrate that entanglement monotones that are given in terms of a convex roof extension are monogamous if they are monogamous on pure states, and show that for any quantum state that satisfies the disentangling condition, its entanglement of formation equals the entanglement of assistance. We characterize all bipartite mixed states with this property, and use it to show that the G-concurrence is monogamous. In the case of two qubits, we show that the equality between entanglement of formation and assistance holds if and only if the state is a rank 2 bipartite state that can be expressed as the marginal of a pure 3-qubit state in the W class.

► BibTeX data

@article{Gour2018monogamyof,
  doi = {10.22331/q-2018-08-13-81},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-13-81},
  title = {Monogamy of entanglement without inequalities},
  author = {Gour, Gilad and Guo Yu},
  journal = {{Quantum}},
  issn = {2521-327X},
  publisher = {{Verein zur F{\"{o}}rderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften}},
  volume = {2},
  pages = {81},
  month = aug,
  year = {2018}
}

► References

[1] V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters. Distributed entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 61:052306, 2000. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.61.052306.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.052306

[2] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:865, 2009. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865.
https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865

[3] M. Koashi and A. Winter. Monogamy of quantum entanglement and other correlations. Phys. Rev. A, 69:022309, 2004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.69.022309.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.69.022309

[4] G. Gour, D. A. Meyer, and B. C. Sanders. Deterministic entanglement of assistance and monogamy constraints. Phys. Rev. A, 72:042329, 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.042329.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.042329

[5] T. J. Osborne and F. Verstraete. General monogamy inequality for bipartite qubit entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:220503, 2006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.220503.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.220503

[6] Y.-C. Ou and H. Fan, Monogamy inequality in terms of negativity for three-qubit states. Phys. Rev. A, 75:062308, 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.062308.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.062308

[7] J. S. Kim, A. Das, and B. C. Sanders. Entanglement monogamy of multipartite higher-dimensional quantum systems using convex-roof extended negativity. Phys. Rev. A, 79:012329, 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.79.012329.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.79.012329

[8] X. N. Zhu and S. M. Fei. Entanglement monogamy relations of qubit systems. Phys. Rev. A, 90: 024304, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.90.024304.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.024304

[9] Y.-K. Bai, Y.-F. Xu, and Z. D. Wang. General monogamy relation for the entanglement of formation in multiqubit systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:100503, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.100503.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.100503

[10] J. H. Choi and J. S. Kim. Negativity and strong monogamy of multiparty quantum entanglement beyond qubits. Phys. Rev. A, 92:042307, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042307.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042307

[11] Y. Luo and Y. Li. Monogamy of $\alpha$th power entanglement measurement in qubit systems. Ann. Phys., 362:511-520, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2015.08.022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2015.08.022

[12] X. N. Zhu and S. M. Fei. Entanglement monogamy relations of concurrence for $N$-qubit systems. Phys. Rev. A, 92:062345, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062345.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062345

[13] A. Kumar. Conditions for monogamy of quantum correlations in multipartite systems. Phys. Lett. A, 380:3044-3050, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2016.07.032.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2016.07.032

[14] G. Gour, S. Bandyopadhyay, and B. C. Sanders. Dual monogamy inequality for entanglement. J. Math. Phys., 48:012108, 2007. doi:10.1063/1.2435088.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2435088

[15] Y.-C. Ou. Violation of monogamy inequality for higher dimensional objects. Phys. Rev. A, 75:034305, 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.034305.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.034305

[16] T. Hiroshima, G. Adesso and F. Illuminati. Monogamy inequality for distributed Gaussian entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 98:050503, 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.050503.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.050503

[17] G. Adesso and F. Illuminati. Strong monogamy of bipartite and genuine multipartite entanglement: The Gaussian case. Phys. Rev. Lett., 99:150501, 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.150501.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.150501

[18] J. S. Kim and B. C. Sanders. Generalized W-class state and its monogamy relation. J. Phys. A, 41:495301, 2008. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/41/49/495301.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/41/49/495301

[19] J. S. Kim and B. C. Sanders. Monogamy of multi-qubit entanglement using Rényi entropy. J. Phys. A, 43:445305, 2010. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/43/44/445305.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/43/44/445305

[20] X.-J. Ren and W. Jiang. Entanglement monogamy inequality in a $2\otimes 2\otimes 4$ system. Phys. Rev. A, 81:024305, 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.81.024305.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.024305

[21] M. F. Cornelio and M. C. de Oliveira. Strong superadditivity and monogamy of the Rényi measure of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 81:032332, 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.81.032332.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.032332

[22] A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, M. Piani, and D. Bruß. Are general quantum correlations monogamous? Phys. Rev. Lett., 109:050503, 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050503.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050503

[23] M. F. Cornelio. Multipartite monogamy of the concurrence. Phys. Rev. A, 87:032330, 2013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.032330.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.032330

[24] S.-Y. Liu, B. Li, W.-L. Yang, and H. Fan. Monogamy deficit for quantum correlations in a multipartite quantum system. Phys. Rev. A, 87:062120, 2013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.062120.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.062120

[25] T. R. de Oliveira, M. F. Cornelio, and F. F. Fanchini. Monogamy of entanglement of formation. Phys. Rev. A, 89:034303, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.034303.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.034303

[26] B. Regula, S. D. Martino, S. Lee, and G. Adesso. Strong monogamy conjecture for multiqubit entanglement: the four-qubit case. Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:110501, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.110501.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.110501

[27] K. Salini, R. Prabhub, Aditi Sen(De), and Ujjwal Sen. Monotonically increasing functions of any quantum correlation can make all multiparty states monogamous. Ann. Phys., 348:297-305, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2014.06.001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2014.06.001

[28] H. He and G. Vidal. Disentangling theorem and monogamy for entanglement negativity. Phys. Rev. A, 91:012339, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.91.012339.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.012339

[29] C. Eltschka and J. Siewert. Monogamy equalities for qubit entanglement from Lorentz invariance. Phys. Rev. Lett., 114:140402, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.140402.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.140402

[30] A. Kumar, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(de), and U. Sen. Effect of a large number of parties on the monogamy of quantum correlations. Phys. Rev. A, 91:012341, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.91.012341.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.012341

[31] Lancien et al. Should entanglement measures be monogamous or faithful? Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:060501, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.060501.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.060501

[32] L. Lami, C. Hirche, G. Adesso, and A. Winter. Schur complement inequalities for covariance matrices and monogamy of quantum correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:220502, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.220502.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.220502

[33] Song et al. General monogamy relation of multiqubit systems in terms of squared Rényi-$\alpha$ entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 93:022306, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.93.022306.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.93.022306

[34] B. Regula, A. Osterloh, and G. Adesso. Strong monogamy inequalities for four qubits. Phys. Rev. A, 93:052338, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.052338.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.052338

[35] Y. Luo, T. Tian, L.-H. Shao, and Y. Li. General monogamy of Tsallis $q$-entropy entanglement in multiqubit systems. Phys. Rev. A, 93: 062340, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.062340.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.062340

[36] E. Jung and D. Park. Testing the monogamy relations via rank-2 mixtures. Phys. Rev. A, 94:042330, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.042330.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.042330

[37] S. Cheng and M. J. W. Hall. Anisotropic invariance and the distribution of quantum correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118:010401, 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.010401.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.010401

[38] G. W. Allen and D. A. Meyer. Polynomial monogamy relations for entanglement negativity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118: 080402, 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.080402.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.080402

[39] Q. Li, J. Cui, S. Wang, and G.-L. Long. Entanglement monogamy in three qutrit systems. Sci. Rep., 7:1946, 2017. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02066-8.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02066-8

[40] S. Camalet. Monogamy Inequality for any local quantum resource and entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119: 110503, 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.110503.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.110503

[41] B. M. Terhal. IBM Journal of Research and Development,48(1):71-78, 2004. doi:10.1147/rd.481.0071.
https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.481.0071

[42] M. Pawlowski. Security proof for cryptographic protocols based only on the monogamy of Bell’s inequality violations. Phys. Rev. A, 82:032313, 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.032313.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.032313

[43] N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden. Quantum cryptography. Rev. Mod. Phys., 74:145, 2002. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.74.145.
https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.145

[44] W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac. Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways. Phys. Rev. A, 62:062314, 2000. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062314. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062314.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062314

[45] G. L. Giorgi. Monogamy properties of quantum and classical correlations. Phys. Rev. A, 84: 054301, 2011. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.84.054301.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.054301

[46] R. Prabhu, A. K. Pati, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen. Conditions for monogamy of quantum correlations: Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger versus W states. Phys. Rev. A, 85:040102(R), 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.85.040102.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.85.040102

[47] Ma et al. Quantum simulation of the wavefunction to probe frustrated Heisenberg spin systems. Nat. Phys., 7:399, 2011. doi:10.1038/nphys1919.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1919

[48] F. G. S. L. Brandao and A. W. Harrow, in Proceedings of the 45th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2013. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2488608.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2488608

[49] A. García-Sáez and J. I. Latorre. Renormalization group contraction of tensor networks in three dimensions. Phys. Rev. B, 87:085130, 2013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.87.085130.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.085130

[50] Rao et al. Multipartite quantum correlations reveal frustration in a quantum Ising spin system. Phys. Rev. A, 88:022312, 2013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.88.022312.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.022312

[51] C. H. Bennett, in Proceedings of the FQXi 4th International Conference, Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, 2014, http://fqxi.org/conference/talks/2014.
http://fqxi.org/conference/talks/2014

[52] L. Susskind. Black hole complementarity and the Harlow-Hayden conjecture. https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4505.
arXiv:1301.4505

[53] S. Lloyd and J. Preskill. Unitarity of black hole evaporation in final-state projection models. J. High Energy Phys., 08:126, 2014. doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)126.
https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2014)126

[54] P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal. Nonadditivity of bipartite distillable entanglement follows from a conjecture on bound entangled Werner states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86:2681–2684, 2001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.2681.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.2681

[55] P. W. Shor. Equivalence of additivity questions in quantum information theory. Commun. Math. Phys., 246(3):453-472, 2004. doi:10.1007/s00220-003-0981-7.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-003-0981-7

[56] K. G. H. Vollbrecht and R. F. Werner. Entanglement measures under symmetry. Phys. Rev. A, 64:062307, 2001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.062307.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.64.062307

[57] G. Gour. Family of concurrence monotones and its applications. Phys. Rev. A, 71:012318, 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.012318.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.012318

[58] DiVincenzo et al. Entanglement of Assistance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1509:247, 1999. doi:10.1007/3-540-49208-9_21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49208-9_21

[59] P. Hayden, R. Jozsa, D. Petz, and A. Winter. Structure of states which satisfy strong subadditivity of quantum entropy with equality. Commun. Math. Phys., 246(2):359-374, 2004. doi:10.1007/s00220-004-1049-z.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-004-1049-z

[60] M. B. Plenio. Logarithmic negativity: a full entanglement monotone that is not convex. Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:090503, 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.090503. Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:119902, 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.119902.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.090503.

[61] G. Vidal. Entanglement monotone. J. Mod. Opt., 47:355, 2000. doi:10.1080/09500340008244048.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500340008244048

[62] G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens. Entanglement of assistance is not a bipartite measure nor a tripartite monotone. Phys. Rev. A, 73:062331, 2006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.73.062331.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.062331

[63] M. Gerstenhaber. On nilalgebras and linear varieties of nilpotent matrices (I). Amer. J. Math., 80:614-622, 1958. doi:10.2307/2372773.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2372773

[64] W. K. Wootters. Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:2245, 1998. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2245.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2245

[1] H. He and G. Vidal. Disentangling theorem and monogamy for entanglement negativity. Phys. Rev. A, 91:012339, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.91.012339.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.012339

[2] C. Eltschka and J. Siewert. Monogamy equalities for qubit entanglement from Lorentz invariance. Phys. Rev. Lett., 114:140402, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.140402.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.140402

[3] K. M. R. Audenaert. On a block matrix inequality quantifying the monogamy of the negativity of entanglement. Lin. Multilin. Alg., 63(12):2526-2536, 2015. doi/full/10.1080/03081087.2015.1024193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03081087.2015.1024193

[4] Lancien et al. Should entanglement measures be monogamous or faithful? Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:060501, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.060501.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.060501

[5] S. Cheng and M. J. W. Hall. Anisotropic invariance and the distribution of quantum correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118:010401, 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.010401.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.010401

[6] G. W. Allen and D. A. Meyer. Polynomial monogamy relations for entanglement negativity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118: 080402, 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.080402.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.080402

[7] S. Hill and W. K. Wootters. Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:5022, 1997. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5022.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5022

[8] M. Koashi and A. Winter. Monogamy of quantum entanglement and other correlations. Phys. Rev. A, 69:022309, 2004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.69.022309.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.69.022309

[9] V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters. Distributed entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 61:052306, 2000. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.61.052306.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.052306

[10] X. N. Zhu and S. M. Fei, Phys. Rev. A 90, 024304 (2014).

[11] T. J. Osborne and F. Verstraete. General mnogamy inequality for bipartite qubit entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:220503, 2006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.220503.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.220503

[12] Y.-C. Ou. Violation of monogamy inequality for higher dimensional objects. Phys. Rev. A, 75:034305, 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.034305.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.034305

[13] X.-J. Ren and W. Jiang. Entanglement monogamy inequality in a $2\otimes 2\otimes 4$ system. Phys. Rev. A, 81:024305, 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.81.024305.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.024305

[14] J. S. Kim and B. C. Sanders. Generalized W-class state and its monogamy relation. J. Phys. A, 41:495301, 2008. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/41/49/495301.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/41/49/495301

[15] Y.-C. Ou and H. Fan, Monogamy inequality in terms of negativity for three-qubit states. Phys. Rev. A, 75:062308, 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.062308.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.062308

[16] Y. Luo and Y. Li. Monogamy of $\alpha$th power entanglement measurement in qubit systems. Ann. Phys., 362:511-520, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2015.08.022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2015.08.022

[17] J. S. Kim, A. Das, and B. C. Sanders. Entanglement monogamy of multipartite higher-dimensional quantum systems using convex-roof extended negativity. Phys. Rev. A, 79:012329, 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.79.012329.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.79.012329

[18] J. H. Choi and J. S. Kim. Negativity and strong monogamy of multiparty quantum entanglement beyond qubits. Phys. Rev. A, 92:042307, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042307.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042307

[19] A. Kumar. Conditions for monogamy of quantum correlations in multipartite systems. Phys. Lett. A, 380:3044-3050, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2016.07.032.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2016.07.032

[20] Y.-K. Bai, Y.-F. Xu, and Z. D. Wang. General monogamy relation for the entanglement of formation in multiqubit systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:100503, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.100503.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.100503

[21] T. R. de Oliveira, M. F. Cornelio, and F. F. Fanchini. Monogamy of entanglement of formation. Phys. Rev. A, 89:034303, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.034303.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.034303

[22] J. S. Kim. Tsallis entropy and general polygamy of multiparty quantum entanglement in arbitrary dimensions. Phys. Rev. A, 94:062338, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.062338.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.062338

[23] Y. Luo, T. Tian, L.-H. Shao, and Y. Li. General monogamy of Tsallis $q$-entropy entanglement in multiqubit systems. Phys. Rev. A, 93: 062340, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.062340.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.062340

[24] J. S. Kim and B. C. Sanders. Monogamy of multi-qubit entanglement using Rényi entropy. J. Phys. A, 43:445305, 2010. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/43/44/445305.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/43/44/445305

[25] M. F. Cornelio and M. C. de Oliveira. Strong superadditivity and monogamy of the Rényi measure of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 81:032332, 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.81.032332.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.032332

[26] Song et al. General monogamy relation of multiqubit systems in terms of squared Rényi-$\alpha$ entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 93:022306, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.93.022306.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.93.022306

[27] Y. Guo, J. Hou, and Y. Wang. Concurrence for infinite-dimensional quantum systems. Quant. Inf. Process., 12:2641-2653, 2013. doi:10.1007/s11128-013-0552-6.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-013-0552-6

[28] Y. Guo and J. Hou. Entanglement detection beyond the CCNR criterion for infinite-dimensions. Chin. Sci. Bull., 58(11):1250-1255, 2013. doi:10.1007/s11434-013-5738-x.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-013-5738-x

[29] M. J. Donald and M. Horodecki. Continuity of relative entropy of entanglement. Phys. Lett. A, 264:257, 1999. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00813-0.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00813-0

[30] The continuty of the convex roof extended entanglement measure can be checked according to Proposition 2 in supGuo2013qip, the continuty of partial trace and partial transpose is proved in supGuo2013csb, the continuty of the realtive entropy entanglement is proved in supDonald1999pla.

[31] P. Hayden, R. Jozsa, D. Petz, and A. Winter. Structure of states which satisfy strong subadditivity of quantum entropy with equality. Commun. Math. Phys., 246(2):359-374, 2004. doi:10.1007/s00220-004-1049-z.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-004-1049-z

[32] G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens. Entanglement of assistance is not a bipartite measure nor a tripartite monotone. Phys. Rev. A, 73:062331, 2006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.73.062331.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.062331

[33] A. Uhlmann. Roofs and Convexity. Entropy, 12:1799-1832, 2010. doi:10.3390/e12071799.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e12071799

[34] M. Gerstenhaber. On nilalgebras and linear varieties of nilpotent matrices (I). Amer. J. Math., 80:614-622, 1958. doi:10.2307/2372773.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2372773

[35] W. K. Wootters. Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:2245, 1998. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2245.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2245

[36] G. Gour, D. A. Meyer, and B. C. Sanders. Deterministic entanglement of assistance and monogamy constraints. Phys. Rev. A, 72:042329, 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.042329.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.042329

[37] T. Laustsen, F. Verstraete, and S. J. van Enk. Local vs. joint measurements for the entanglement of assistance. Quant. Inf. Comput., 3:64, 2003. arXiv:0206192.
arXiv:quant-ph/0206192

Cited by

[1] Sudha, K. S. Akhilesh, B. G. Divyamani, A. R. Usha Devi, and K. S. Mallesh, "Monogamous nature of Dicke-class of states with two distinct Majorana spinors", Quantum Information Processing 19 1, 35 (2020).

[2] Xia Zhang, Naihuan Jing, Ming Liu, and Haitao Ma, "On monogamy and polygamy relations of multipartite systems", Physica Scripta 98 3, 035106 (2023).

[3] Yuan-Hong Tao, Kai Zheng, Zhi-Xiang Jin, and Shao-Ming Fei, "Tighter Monogamy Relations for Concurrence and Negativity in Multiqubit Systems", Mathematics 11 5, 1159 (2023).

[4] Zhi‐Xiang Jin, Shao‐Ming Fei, Xianqing Li‐Jost, and Cong‐Feng Qiao, "A New Parameterized Monogamy Relation between Entanglement and Equality", Advanced Quantum Technologies 5 6, 2100148 (2022).

[5] Priyabrata Char, Prabir Kumar Dey, Amit Kundu, Indrani Chattopadhyay, and Debasis Sarkar, "New monogamy relations for multiqubit systems", Quantum Information Processing 20 1, 30 (2021).

[6] Yu Guo, Lizhong Huang, and Yang Zhang, "Monogamy of quantum discord", Quantum Science and Technology 6 4, 045028 (2021).

[7] Xian Shi and Lin Chen, "An Extension of Entanglement Measures for Pure States", Annalen der Physik 533 4, 2000462 (2021).

[8] Yu Guo, "Partial-norm of entanglement: entanglement monotones that are not monogamous", New Journal of Physics 25 8, 083047 (2023).

[9] Li-Min Gao, Feng-Li Yan, and Ting Gao, "Monogamy of nonconvex entanglement measures", Results in Physics 31, 104983 (2021).

[10] Dongping Xuan, Xiaohui Hu, Zhixiang Jin, Guangri Piao, and Hua Nan, "Quantifying the Parameterized Monogamy Relation for Quantum Entanglement with Equation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics 62 6, 131 (2023).

[11] Zhi-Xiang Jin, Shao-Ming Fei, and Cong-Feng Qiao, "Complementary quantum correlations among multipartite systems", Quantum Information Processing 19 3, 101 (2020).

[12] Limin Gao, Fengli Yan, and Ting Gao, "Monogamy of entanglement measures based on fidelity in multiqubit systems", Quantum Information Processing 20 10, 332 (2021).

[13] Paul Appel, Marcus Huber, and Claude Klöckl, "Monogamy of correlations and entropy inequalities in the Bloch picture", Journal of Physics Communications 4 2, 025009 (2020).

[14] Pak Kau Lim, Hamed Asasi, Jeffrey C. Y. Teo, and Michael Mulligan, "Disentangling (2+1)D topological states of matter with entanglement negativity", Physical Review B 104 11, 115155 (2021).

[15] Soorya Rethinasamy, Saptarshi Roy, Titas Chanda, Aditi Sen(De), and Ujjwal Sen, "Universality in distribution of monogamy scores for random multiqubit pure states", Physical Review A 99 4, 042302 (2019).

[16] Jie Zhu, Yue Dai, S. Camalet, Cheng-Jie Zhang, Bi-Heng Liu, Yong-Sheng Zhang, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo, "Observation of the tradeoff between internal quantum nonseparability and external classical correlations", Physical Review A 104 6, 062442 (2021).

[17] Zhi-Xiang Jin and Shao-Ming Fei, "Superactivation of monogamy relations for nonadditive quantum correlation measures", Physical Review A 99 3, 032343 (2019).

[18] Xue-Na Zhu and Gui Bao, "Monogamy properties of any dimensional quantum systems", Quantum Information Processing 18 9, 289 (2019).

[19] Xin Wang and Mark M. Wilde, "Cost of Quantum Entanglement Simplified", Physical Review Letters 125 4, 040502 (2020).

[20] Jie Zhu, Meng-Jun Hu, Yue Dai, Yan-Kui Bai, S. Camalet, Chengjie Zhang, Chuan-Feng Li, Guang-Can Guo, and Yong-Sheng Zhang, "Realization of the tradeoff between internal and external entanglement", Physical Review Research 2 4, 043068 (2020).

[21] Jian Wei Cheong, Andri Pradana, and Lock Yue Chew, "Communication advantage of quantum compositions of channels from non-Markovianity", Physical Review A 106 5, 052410 (2022).

[22] Yu Guo and Lizhong Huang, "Complete monogamy of multipartite quantum mutual information", Physical Review A 107 4, 042409 (2023).

[23] Xian Shi, "Entanglement polygon inequalities for pure states in qudit systems", The European Physical Journal Plus 138 8, 768 (2023).

[24] Yu Guo and Lin Zhang, "Multipartite entanglement measure and complete monogamy relation", Physical Review A 101 3, 032301 (2020).

[25] Yu Guo and Gilad Gour, "Monogamy of the entanglement of formation", Physical Review A 99 4, 042305 (2019).

[26] Christopher Eltschka, Felix Huber, Otfried Gühne, and Jens Siewert, "Exponentially many entanglement and correlation constraints for multipartite quantum states", Physical Review A 98 5, 052317 (2018).

[27] Rivu Gupta, Saptarshi Roy, Shiladitya Mal, and Aditi Sen(De), "Emergence of monogamy under static and dynamic scenarios", Physical Review A 108 1, 012420 (2023).

[28] Xue-Na Zhu, Gui Bao, Zhi-Xiang Jin, and Shao-Ming Fei, "Monogamy of entanglement for tripartite systems", Physical Review A 107 5, 052404 (2023).

[29] Zhi-Xiang Jin and Shao-Ming Fei, "Polygamy relations of multipartite entanglement beyond qubits", Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52 16, 165303 (2019).

[30] Zhi-Xiang Jin and Shao-Ming Fei, "Tighter generalized monogamy and polygamy relations for multiqubit systems", Quantum Information Processing 19 1, 23 (2020).

[31] Yu Guo, "When Is a Genuine Multipartite Entanglement Measure Monogamous?", Entropy 24 3, 355 (2022).

[32] Zhi-Xiang Jin, Shao-Ming Fei, and Xianqing Li-Jost, "Generalized Entanglement Monogamy and Polygamy Relations for N-Qubit Systems", International Journal of Theoretical Physics 58 5, 1576 (2019).

[33] Kun Wang, Xin Wang, and Mark M. Wilde, 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) 1939 (2020) ISBN:978-1-7281-6432-8.

[34] Yu Guo, Lin Zhang, and Huting Yuan, "Entanglement measures induced by fidelity-based distances", Quantum Information Processing 19 9, 282 (2020).

[35] Mir Alimuddin, Tamal Guha, and Preeti Parashar, "Independence of work and entropy for equal-energetic finite quantum systems: Passive-state energy as an entanglement quantifier", Physical Review E 102 1, 012145 (2020).

[36] Yu Guo, "Strict entanglement monotonicity under local operations and classical communication", Physical Review A 99 2, 022338 (2019).

[37] Xiao-Lan Zong, Hao-Hao Yin, Wei Song, and Zhuo-Liang Cao, "Monogamy of Quantum Entanglement", Frontiers in Physics 10, 880560 (2022).

[38] Zhi-Xiang Jin and Shao-Ming Fei, "Strong polygamy and monogamy relations for multipartite quantum systems", Quantum Information Processing 19 2, 45 (2020).

[39] Yu Guo, Yanping Jia, Xinping Li, and Lizhong Huang, "Genuine multipartite entanglement measure", Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55 14, 145303 (2022).

[40] Yu Guo, "Any entanglement of assistance is polygamous", Quantum Information Processing 17 9, 222 (2018).

[41] Paul Appel, Marcus Huber, and Claude Klöckl, "Monogamy of correlations and entropy inequalities in the Bloch picture", arXiv:1710.02473, (2017).

[42] Simon Morelli, Christopher Eltschka, Marcus Huber, and Jens Siewert, "Correlation constraints and the Bloch geometry of two qubits", arXiv:2303.11400, (2023).

The above citations are from Crossref's cited-by service (last updated successfully 2023-09-21 20:23:05) and SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2023-09-21 20:23:06). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

This Paper is published in Quantum under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Copyright remains with the original copyright holders such as the authors or their institutions.