Paper detail

Testing the Monogamy Relations via Rank-2 Mixtures

We introduce two tangle-based four-party entanglement measures $t_1$ and $t_2$, and two negativity-based measures $n_1$ and $n_2$, which are derived from the monogamy relations. These measures are computed for three four-qubit maximally entangled and W states explicitly. We also compute these measures for the rank-$2$ mixture $ρ_4 = p \ket{\mbox{GHZ}_4} \bra{\mbox{GHZ}_4} + (1 - p) \ket{\mbox{W}_4} \bra{\mbox{W}_4}$ by finding the corresponding optimal decompositions. It turns out that $t_1 (ρ_4)$ is trivial and the corresponding optimal decomposition is equal to the spectral decomposition. Probably, this triviality is a sign of the fact that the corresponding monogamy inequality is not sufficiently tight. We fail to compute $t_2 (ρ_4)$ due to the difficulty for the calculation of the residual entanglement. The negativity-based measures $n_1 (ρ_4)$ and $n_2 (ρ_4)$ are explicitly computed and the corresponding optimal decompositions are also derived explicitly.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.