Home | About Journal | Web Links | E-mail Alerts | RSS RSS Icon | Browse

Numerical evaluation of convex-roof entanglement measures with applications to spin rings

Source: Phys. Rev. A 80, 042301 (2009); doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.042301

Published 1 October 2009

KEYWORDS and PACS
Keywords
PACS
  • 03.67.Mn
    Entanglement measures, witnesses, and other characterizations (quantum information)
  • 02.60.Pn
    Numerical optimization
  • 03.65.Ud
    Entanglement and quantum nonlocality
  • YEAR: 2009
RELATED DATABASES

To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
PUBLICATION DATA
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef APS
Beat Röthlisberger, Jörg Lehmann, and Daniel Loss
Department of Physics, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 82, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
We present two ready-to-use numerical algorithms to evaluate convex-roof extensions of arbitrary pure-state entanglement monotones. Their implementation leaves the user merely with the task of calculating derivatives of the respective pure-state measure. We provide numerical tests of the algorithms and demonstrate their good convergence properties. We further employ them in order to investigate the entanglement in particular few-spins systems at finite temperature. Namely, we consider ferromagnetic Heisenberg exchange-coupled spin-(1/2) rings subject to an inhomogeneous in-plane field geometry obeying full rotational symmetry around the axis perpendicular to the ring through its center. We demonstrate that highly entangled states can be obtained in these systems at sufficiently low temperatures and by tuning the strength of a magnetic field configuration to an optimal value which is identified numerically. ©2009 The American Physical Society
History: Received 19 May 2009; published 1 October 2009
Permalink: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v80/e042301

REFERENCES (51)

For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. C. Emary and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032317 (2004).
  2. O. Gühne, M. Reimpell, and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 110502 (2007).
  3. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996).
  4. V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 61, 052306 (2000).
  5. F. Mintert, M. Kuś, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 260502 (2005).
  6. D. A. Meyer and N. R. Wallach, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4273 (2002).
  7. A. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. A 62, 032307 (2000).
  8. K. Audenaert, F. Verstraete, and B. De Moor, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052304 (2001).
  9. B. Röthlisberger, J. Lehmann, D. S. Saraga, P. Traber, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 100502 (2008).
  10. W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998).
  11. B. M. Terhal, M. Horodecki, D. W. Leung, and D. P. DiVincenzo, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4286 (2002).
  12. C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046 (1996).
  13. W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000).
  14. R. Lohmayer, A. Osterloh, J. Siewert, and A. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 260502 (2006).
  15. G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Phys. Rev. A 59, 141 (1999).
  16. A. J. Scott, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052330 (2004).
  17. H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 910 (2001).
ADVERTISEMENT