on the dimension of subspaces with bounded schmidt rank toby cubitt, ashley montanaro, andreas...
TRANSCRIPT
On the Dimension of
Subspaces with
Bounded Schmidt
RankToby Cubitt, Ashley Montanaro, Andreas Winterand also Aram Harrow, Debbie Leung
(who says there's no blackboard at AQIS?!)
On the Dimension of Subspaces with
Bounded Schmidt Rank
von Neumann entropy
Relative entropy of entanglement
Concurrence
Tangle
Entanglement of formation
Entanglement cost
Localizable entanglement
Entanglement of assistance Distillable entanglement
Squashable entanglement
Squeezing
Correlation function
Schmidt rank
Renyi entropy
2 + 2 = 3?
Previously...
ANSWER: ~dA dB
(almost the entire space!)
P. Hayden, D. Leung, A. Winter, “Aspects of Generic Entanglement”,Comm. Math. Phys 265:1, pp. 95–117 (2006)
What is the maximum dimension of a subspace S in a dA dB bipartite system such that every state in S has entropy of entanglement “close” to maximum?
The Question
What is the maximum dimension of a subspace S in a dA dB bipartite system such that every state
in S has Schmidt rank at least r?
T. Cubitt, A. Montanaro, A. Winter“On the dimension of subspaces with bounded Schmidt rank”, arXiv:0706.0705
Upper bound: proof outline
reminder: dA dB bipartite system, subspace S, min Schmidt rank r
(1) Characterize states with Schmidt rank < r (the ones we don't want in S).
(2) Calculate the “dimension” of this set of states.
(3) Dimension counting argument to bound largest S that avoids this set.
(1) Characterize Schmidt rank < r
states
iff allorder–r matrix minors = 0
order–3 minor
Solutions to set of simultaneouspolynomials:
reminder: dA dB bipartite system, subspace S, min Schmidt rank r
dA dB matrix
(2) Calculate dimension “Variety” = space of solutions of set of simultaneous
polynomial equations
Variety defined by order– r minors of a dA dB matrix: “determinantal variety”
Oh look! That's exactly what we have :-)
reminder: dA dB bipartite system, subspace S, min Schmidt rank r
Raid algebraic geometry literature . . .
(3) Dimension counting argument Intersection Lemma: if V and W are projective varieties
in Pd such that , then
dA dB bipartite space of (unnormalized) states:
Projective variety of low Schmidt-rank states to avoid:
Subspace S (= linear projective variety):
QEDreminder: dA dB bipartite system, subspace S, min Schmidt rank r
Lower bound: preliminaries
Definition: a “totally non-singular” matrix has only non-zero minors.
Lemma: there exist totally non-singular matrices of any size (proof: Vandermonde matrices; random matrices).
Lemma: there exist sets of n vectors of anylength l such that any linear combinationof them contains at most n–1 zeroelements (proof: pick them fromcolumns of an l l totallynon-singular matrix).
Lower bound: construction (1)
Label diagonals of dA dB state matrix
|k| = length of kth diag.
totally non-singular
reminder: dA dB bipartite system, subspace S, min Schmidt rank r
Pick |k| – r + 1 length |k| vectors:lin. comb. r non-zero elements
Lower bound: construction (2)
Linear combination of Sk has non-zero order– r minor → rank r
Any linear combination of S has an lower-triangular rr submatrix with non-zero elements on its main diagonal→ non-zero order– r minor→ rank r
QEDreminder: dA dB bipartite system, subspace S, min Schmidt rank r
Additivity: 2 + 2 = 3? Does quantum information do bulk discounts?
Entanglement of formation: can two copies of a state be created from less than twice the entanglement required for a single copy?
Channel capacity: can two copies of a quantum channel transmit information at more than twice the rate of a single copy?
Additivity of minimum output entropy:
for p = 1
Minimum output Renyi p-entropy
Can't solve additivity for interesting case p=1(simply not clever enough...yet!).
Try to solve it for other values of p:Until recently, known to be non-additive for p > ~4.72... Very recent progress, now known to be non-additive for p > 2, 1 < p 2 – go to Andreas' talk!
Final frontier: p < 1.
(recall Renyi entropy: )
p=0 counterexample
Idea:
Pick two channels with full output rank, but arrange for “conspiracy” in product channel, leading to
cancellation and non-full output rank.
Channels with full output rank
Output is full rank for all inputs
Choi-Jamiołkowski state has no product vectors in orthogonal complement
of its support
Product channel without full output
rank
Product state in orthogonal
complement
Vanishes if and have orthogonal
support
p=0 counterexample: construction (1)Wanted: supported on orthogonal subspaces whose orthogonal complements contain no product states.
Use 22 and 33 QFT matrices to construct two orthogonal subspaces with dA = 4, dB = 3, r = 2.
totally non-singular and unitary
Take Choi-Jamiołkowski states tobe projectors onto these subspaces.
Simplify by taking supports of to be orthogonal complements, both containing no product states.
p=0 counterexample: construction (2)Supplement construction with maximally entangled states in corners, to ensure orthogonal complement contains no product states.
Argument by lower-triangular submatrix no longer works, but turns out subspaces still contain no product states.
Conclusions
Question of dimension of subspaces with lower-bounded Schmidt-rank fully solved.
Also solved question of dimensions of subspaces with upper-bounded Schmidt-rank (not discussed here; interestingly, question of subspaces containing only states with Schmidt-rank = r is not solved in general...)
Applied construction to give counter-example to additivity conjecture for p = 0,and by continuity for small p (numerically p < ~0.1).
and violated AQIS presentation guidelines by using a blackboard!