Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Complexity of Quantum Entanglement PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Complexity of Quantum Entanglement

The Complexity of Quantum Entanglement

91 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

The Complexity of Quantum Entanglement

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Fernando G.S.L. Brandão ETH Zürich Based on joint work with M. Christandl and J. Yard JourneesDeferation de Reserche en Mathematiques de Paris Centre/GT InformatiqueQuantique Paris, 09/05/2012 The Complexity of Quantum Entanglement

  2. Quadratic vs Biquadratic Optimization • Problem 1: For M in H(Cd) (d x d matrix) compute • Very Easy! • Problem 2: For M in H(CdCl), compute This talk: Best known algorithm (and best hardness result) using ideas from Quantum Information Theory

  3. Quadratic vs Biquadratic Optimization • Problem 1: For M in H(Cd) (d x d matrix) compute • Very Easy! • Problem 2: For M in H(CdCl), compute This talk: Best known algorithm (and best hardness result) using ideas from Quantum Information Theory

  4. Quadratic vs Biquadratic Optimization • Problem 1: For M in H(Cd) (d x d matrix) compute • Very Easy! • Problem 2: For M in H(CdCl), compute This talk: Best known algorithm (and best hardness result) using ideas from Quantum Information Theory

  5. Outline • The Problem • Quantum States • Quantum Entanglement • The Algorithm • Parrilo-Lasserre Relaxation • Monogamy of Entanglement • Quantum de Finetti Theorem • Applications • A new characterization of Quantum NP • Small Set Expansion • Proof Ideas

  6. Quantum States • Pure States: norm-one vector in Cd: • Mixed States: positive semidefinite matrix of unit trace: Dirac notation reminder:

  7. Quantum Measurements • To any experiment with d outcomes we associate d • positive matrices {Mk} such that • and calculate probabilities as • E.g. For pure states,

  8. Quantum Entanglement • Pure States: • If , it’s separable • otherwise, it’s entangled. • Mixed States: • If it’s separable • otherwise, it’s entangled.

  9. Quantum Entanglement • Pure States: • If , it’s separable • otherwise, it’s entangled. • Mixed States: • If , it’s separable • otherwise, it’s entangled.

  10. A Physical Definition of Entanglement LOCC: Local quantum Operations and Classical Communication Separable states can be created by LOCC: Entangled states cannot be created by LOCC: non-classicalcorrelations

  11. The Separability Problem • Given • is it separable or entangled? • (Weak Membership: WSEP(ε, ||*||) Given ρAB • determine if it is separable, or ε-way from SEP D SEP

  12. The Problem (for experimentalists)

  13. The Problem (for experimentalists)

  14. The Problem (for experimentalists)

  15. Relevance • Quantum Cryptography • Security only if state is entangled • Quantum Communication • Advantage over classical (e.g. teleportation, • dense coding) only if state is entangled • Computational Physics • Entanglement responsible for difficulty of • simulation of quantum systems

  16. Deciding Entanglement • The problem of deciding whether a state is entangled • has been considered since the early days of the field of quantum information theory • is regarded as a computationally difficult problem • In this talk I’ll discuss the fastest known algorithm for • this problem

  17. The Separability Problem (again) • Given • is it separable or entangled? • (Weak Membership: WSEP(ε, ||*||) Given ρAB • determine if it is separable, or ε-way from SEP D SEP

  18. The Separability Problem (again) • Given • is it separable or entangled? • (Weak Membership: WSEP(ε, ||*||) Given ρAB • determine if it is separable, or ε-way from SEP Which norm should we use? D SEP

  19. Norms on Quantum States • How to quantify the distance in Weak-Membership? • Euclidean Norm (Hilber-Schmidt): • ||X||2 = tr(XTX)1/2 • Trace Norm • ||X||1 = tr((XTX)1/2) • Obs: ||X||1 ≥||X||2≥d-1/2||X||1

  20. The LOCC Norm • Operational interpretation trace norm: • ||ρ – σ||1= 2 max 0<M<Itr(M(ρ – σ)) • optimal bias of distinguishing the two states by quantum measurements • For ρAB, σAB define • ||ρ – σ||LOCC= 2 max 0<M<Itr(M(ρ – σ)) : {M, I - M} in LOCC LOCC: Local quantum Operations and Classical Communication

  21. The LOCC Norm • Operational interpretation trace norm: • ||ρ – σ||1= 2 max 0<M<Itr(M(ρ – σ)) • optimal bias of distinguishing the two states by quantum measurements • For ρAB, σAB define the LOCC norm • ||ρ – σ||LOCC= 2 max 0<M<Itr(M(ρ – σ)) : {M, I - M} in LOCC • Optimal bias of distinguishing two states by LOCC measurements • E.g. (one-way LOCC)

  22. Optimization Over Separable States (Best Separable State BSS(ε)) Given estimate to additive error ε

  23. Previous Work When is ρAB entangled? - Decide if ρAB is separable or ε-away from separable Beautiful theory behind it (PPT, entanglement witnesses, etc) Horribly expensive algorithms State-of-the-art: 2O(|A|log|B|log (1/ε))time complexity for either ||*||2 or ||*||1 norms (Doherty, Parrilo, Spedalieri ‘04)

  24. Hardness Results When is ρAB entangled? - Decide if ρAB is separable or ε-away from separable (Gurvits ‘02) NP-hard with ε=1/exp(|A||B|) (Gharibian ‘08, Beigi ‘08) NP-hard with ε=1/poly((|A||B|)1/2) (Beigi&Shor ‘08) Favorite separability tests fail (Harrow&Montanaro ‘10) No exp(O(|A|1-ν|A|1-μ))time algorithm for membership in any convex set within ε=Ω(1) trace distance to SEP and any ν+μ>0, unless ETH fails ETH (Exponential Time Hypothesis): SAT cannot be solved in 2o(n) time (Impagliazzo&Paruti’99)

  25. Hardness Results When is ρAB entangled? - Decide if ρAB is separable or ε-away from separable (Gurvits ‘02) NP-hard with ε=1/exp(|A||B|) (Gharibian ‘08, Beigi ‘08) NP-hard with ε=1/poly(|A||B|) (Beigi&Shor ‘08) Favorite separability tests fail (Harrow&Montanaro ‘10) No exp(O(|A|1-ν|A|1-μ))time algorithm for membership in any convex set within ε=Ω(1) trace distance to SEP and any ν+μ>0, unless ETH fails ETH (Exponential Time Hypothesis): SAT cannot be solved in 2o(n) time (Impagliazzo&Paruti’99)

  26. Hardness Results When is ρAB entangled? - Decide if ρAB is separable or ε-away from separable (Gurvits ‘02) NP-hard with ε=1/exp(|A||B|) (Gharibian ‘08, Beigi ‘08) NP-hard with ε=1/poly(|A||B|) (Beigi, Shor ‘08) Favorite separability tests fail (Harrow&Montanaro ‘10) No exp(O(|A|1-ν|A|1-μ))time algorithm for membership in any convex set within ε=Ω(1) trace distance to SEP and any ν+μ>0, unless ETH fails ETH (Exponential Time Hypothesis): SAT cannot be solved in 2o(n) time (Impagliazzo&Paruti’99)

  27. Hardness Results When is ρAB entangled? - Decide if ρAB is separable or ε-away from separable (Gurvits ‘02) NP-hard with ε=1/exp(|A||B|) (Gharibian ‘08, Beigi ‘08) NP-hard with ε=1/poly(|A||B|) (Beigi, Shor ‘08) Favorite separability tests fail (Harrow, Montanaro ‘10) No exp(O(log1-ν|A|log1-μ|B|)) time algorithm for membership in any convex set within ε=Ω(1) trace distance to SEP, and any ν+μ>0, unless ETH fails ETH (Exponential Time Hypothesis): SAT cannot be solved in 2o(n) time (Impagliazzo&Paruti’99)

  28. Algorithms for BSS Estimate with additive error ε State-of-the-art: 2O((|A|+|B|)log (1/ε))time complexity Exhaustive search over ε-nets on A and B!

  29. Hardness Results for BSS Estimate with additive error ε (Gurvits ‘02, Gharibian ‘08, Beigi ‘08) NP-hard with ε=1/poly(|A||B|) (Harrow, Montanaro’10, built on Aaronson et al ‘08) No exp(O(log1-ν|A|log1-μ|B|||M||∞)) time algorithm for any ν+μ>0 and constant ε, unless ETH fails

  30. Main Result 1: Weak Membership (B., Christandl, Yard ‘10) There is aexp(O(ε-2log|A|log|B|)) time algorithm for WSEP(||*||, ε) (in ||*||2 or ||*|LOCC)

  31. Main Result 1: Weak Membership (B., Christandl, Yard ‘10) There is aexp(O(ε-2log|A|log|B|)) time algorithm for WSEP(||*||, ε) (in ||*||2 or ||*|LOCC) Remind: NP-hard for ε = 1/poly(|A||B|) in ||*||2 (Gurvits ‘02, Gharibian ‘08, Beigi ‘08) Corollary: the problem in ||*||2is not NP-hard forε = 1/polylog(|A||B|), unless ETH fails

  32. Main Result 2: Best Separable State • (BCY ‘10) • There is aexp(O(ε-2log|A|log|B|(||M||2)2)) time algorithm for BSS(ε) • For M in LOCC, there is aexp(O(ε-2log|A|log|B|)) time algorithm for BSS(ε)

  33. Main Result 2: Best Separable State • (BCY ‘10) • There is aexp(O(ε-2log|A|log|B|(||M||2)2)) time algorithm for BSS(ε) • For M in LOCC, there is aexp(O(ε-2log|A|log|B|)) time algorithm for BSS(ε) Contrast with: (Harrow, Montanaro ‘10) No exp(O(log1-ν|A|log1-μ|B|||M||∞)) time algorithm for any ν+μ>0 and constant ε, unless ETH fails, even for separable M: . Remember: Part 2 works for

  34. Main Result 2: Best Separable State Quantum Info Remark: The difficulty to show optimality of the algorithm is the existence of separable measurements that are not LOCC, a well studied phenomena in quantum information (e.g. Bennett et al ‘98). Here we have a new computational-complexity motivation for further studying the problem! • (BCY ‘10) • There is aexp(O(ε-2log|A|log|B|(||M||2)2)) time algorithm for BSS(ε) • For M in LOCC, there is aexp(O(ε-2log|A|log|B|)) time algorithm for BSS(ε) Contrast with: (Harrow, Montanaro ‘10) No exp(O(log1-ν|A|log1-μ|B|||M||∞)) time algorithm for any ν+μ>0 and constant ε, unless ETH fails, even for separable M: . Remember: Part 2 works for

  35. The Algorithm • We consider the a Parrilo-Lasserre hierarchy of SDP relaxations to the problem introduced in (Doherty, Parrilo and Spedalieri’01) • We prove it converges to a good approximate solution in a O(log|B|) number of rounds. Previously convergence only in Ω(|B|) rounds • was known.

  36. Optimization Over Separable States (again) (Best Separable State BSS(ε)) Given estimate to additive error ε This is a polynomial optimization problem. One can calculate a sequence of SDP approximations to it following the approach of (Parrilo ‘00, Lasserre’01) We’ll derive the SDP hierachy by a quantum argument

  37. Entanglement Monogamy Classical correlations are shareable: Given separable state Consider the symmetric extension B1 B2 B3 B4 A … Bk Def. ρAB is k-extendible if there is ρAB1…Bk s.t for all j in [k], tr\ Bj(ρAB1…Bk) = ρAB

  38. Entanglement Monogamy Classical correlations are shareable: B1 B2 B3 Def. ρAB is k-extendible if there is ρAB1…Bk s.t for all j in [k], tr\ Bj(ρAB1…Bk) = ρAB B4 A … Bk Separable states are k-extendible for every k

  39. Entanglement Monogamy Quantum correlations are non-shareable: ρAB separable iffρABk-extendible for all k Follows from: Quantum de Finetti Theorem (Stormer’69, Hudson & Moody ’76, Raggio & Werner ’89) Monogamy of entanglement: Very useful concept in general, application e.g. in quantum key distribution

  40. Entanglement Monogamy Quantitative version: For any k-extendible ρAB, • Follows from: Finite quantum de Finetti Theorem • (Christandl, König, Mitchson, Renner ‘05)

  41. Entanglement Monogamy Quantitative version: For any k-extendible ρAB, • Follows from: Finite quantum de Finetti Theorem • (Christandl, König, Mitchson, Renner ‘05) Close to optimal: there is a k-ext state ρABs.t. For other norms (||*||2, ||*||LOCC, …) no better bound known.

  42. Exponentially Improved de Finetti type bound (B., Christandl, Yard ‘10) For any k-extendible ρAB, with||*|| equals ||*||2 or ||*||LOCC Bound proportional to the (square root) of thenumber of qubits:exponential improvement over previous bound

  43. How long does it take to check if a k-extension exists? • Search for a symmetric extension is a semidefinite program (Doherty, Parrilo, Spedalieri ‘04) • Can be solved in poly(n) time in the number of variables n • n = |A|2|B|2k • Our bound implies k = O(ε-2log|A|) • Time Complexity: • poly(|A||B|2k) = exp(O(ε-2log|A|log|B|))

  44. Does it work for 1-norm? • There are k-extendible states s.t. • For such states the SDP hierarchy only gives good solutions for k = O(|B|), which requires exponential time • But we know also: • So, hard instances are always “data hiding” states, i.e.

  45. Does it work for 1-norm? • There are k-extendible states s.t. • For such states the SDP hierarchy only gives good solutions for k = O(|B|), which requires exponential time • But we know also: • So, hard instances are always “data hiding” states, i.e.

  46. Does it work for 1-norm? • There are k-extendible states s.t. • For such states the SDP hierarchy only gives good solutions for k = O(|B|), which requires exponential time • But we know also: • So, hard instances are always “data hiding” states, i.e.

  47. Does it work for 1-norm? • There are k-extendible states s.t. • For such states the SDP hierarchy only gives good solutions for k = O(|B|), which requires exponential time • But we know also: • So, hard instances are always “data hiding” states, i.e.

  48. Algorithm for Best Separable State The idea Optimize over k=O(log|A|ε-2 (||X||2)2) extension of ρAB by SDP This is precisely the Parrilo-Lasserre hierarchy for the problem! (written in a somewhat different form) By Cauchy Schwartz: By de Finetti Bound:

  49. Application 1: Quantum NP