Abstract
We study the detection of multipartite entanglement based on the generalized local uncertainty relations. A sufficient criterion for the entanglement of four-partite quantum systems is presented in terms of the local uncertainty relations. Detailed examples are given to illustrate the advantages of our criterion. The approach is generalized to general multipartite entanglement cases.
Subject terms: Quantum information, Quantum physics
Introduction
Quantum entanglement is a remarkable feature in quantum physics1 and has attracted much attention in recent years. Entangled states are recognized as the essential resources in quantum information processing, with many experimental realizations2,3 and applications in such as quantum algorithms4, quantum teleportation4,5, quantum cryptography6. Recently, it was shown that quantum entanglement is tightly connected to wave-particle duality, and it can create a wave-particle entangled state of two photons7. Detecting entanglement of multipartite systems is a fundamental problem in the theory of quantum entanglement. Separability criteria to determine whether a given state is separable or not are of crucial importance8. Enormous efforts have been dedicated to solve the separability problems9–37. Nevertheless, the characterization and quantification of multipartite entanglement are less understood than that of bipartite case, as multipartite states can be entangled in more different ways.
There have been many efficient entanglement criteria such as local uncertainty relations (LUR)11,12, covariance matrix criterion (CMC)13, computable cross-norm or realignment criterion (CCNR)14, permutation separability criteria15, criterion based on Bloch representations17,18, entanglement witnesses21, Bell-type inequalities criteria22, and criterion based on quantum Fisher information23. Generally, these criteria are only necessary condition for separable states and have different advantages in detect different entanglements.
The LUR criterion, the symmetric CMC criterion and the realignment criterion are usually considered as complementary to the the positive partial transposition criterion. The main advantage of LUR criterion is that it allows us to detect the entanglement of quantum states without having to fully understand them, and it can detect bound entangled states more effectively.
Recently, based on the local sum uncertainty relations, some entanglement criteria have been proposed for both discrete and continuous variable bipartite systems and three-qubit systems31–33. Zhang et al. proposed a tighter form of the original LUR criterion to improve the range of entanglement detection31, Akbari-Kourbolagh and Azhdargalam generalized the LUR criterion to the tripartite systems33.
This paper is structured as follows. We start by introducing the entanglement criterion based on LUR for tripartite systems and generalize the entanglement criterion to four-partite quantum systems. Some detail examples are then given to illustrate the advantages of the criterion. Then, the entanglement criterion for N-partite systems () is discussed. Brief discussion and summary are given at last.
Results
Let be an N-partite system with the -dimensional vector space associated with the k-th subsystem. An N-partite state is said to be separable if can be written as
| 1 |
where are density matrices of the subsystem , , .
In quantum theory, the observables of a quantum system are represented by a set of Hermitian operators . The uncertainty principle shows that it is impossible to predict the measurement results of all observables of the system at the same time. The variance of with respect to is the uncertainty of an observable , defining as , where is the mean value. For a set of quantum observables , there exits a constant U such that . This inequality gives a universally valid limitation of the measurement outcomes. Generally, it is difficult to determine the value U. For the case of Pauli matrices , and , one has 32.
In Ref.33, based on the local sum uncertainty relations, an entanglement criterion has been presented for tripartite systems.
Let , and be the set of local observables associated to the subsystems , and , respectively. are lower bound of these local observables, such that , and . For any separable tripartite states, the following inequalities hold under any permutations of 33:
| 2 |
where , , , , and are the operators acting on the first, the second and the third subsystem with the rest subsystems as identity operators in the tripartite systems, respectively.
Generalizing the criterion (2) to four-partite systems, we consider the set of local observables , , and associated to the subsystems , , and , respectively. From the local sum uncertainty relations, there must exists lower bounds for each nonsimultaneous observable for . That is to say,
| 3 |
Then for four-partite quantum systems, we have the following conclusion.
Theorem 1
For any four-partite separable states, the following inequalities hold simultaneously under any permutations of ,
| 4 |
where , , .
Theorem 1provides a necessary condition of separable four-partite states. The violations of the inequalities in (1) sufficiently imply entanglement. For the four-qubit W state, with . Let , and , thus we get , , , , and , which give rise to and , which provide a violation for the inequalities (4). Therefore, the criterion identifies four-qubit W state is entangled. By taking use of Theorem 1, more generally states can be detected and we consider some detailed examples for mixed states below.
Example 1
(Four-qubit W state mixed with white noise) We first consider , . For this state, we choose , and , hence , , , and . Then, we get and . When , , so the state violates one of the inequalities (4). Therefore, the four-partite LUR criterion identifies the as an entangled state, see Fig. 1. While, is detected based on the witness which is proposed in Ref.27 when , see Fig. 2. That is to say our result detects better the entanglement than the criterion of Ref.27.
Figure 1.

For the four-partite W state mixed with the white noise . The the blue line stands for and the red dash line stands for in Theorem 1. We can see that when , state violates one of the inequalities (4), hence is entangled for .
Figure 2.

For the four-partite W state mixed with the white noise . The the black line represents in Ref.27. We can see that is detected by the witness , thus is entangled for .
Example 2
(Four-qubit Dicke state mixed with white noise) Now, we take , , where . For this state, we choose , , . By direct calculations, we get , , , and , which yield and . When , , and for . It can be seen, from Fig. 3, that the violate inequalities (4) for . Furthermore, comparing with the result in Ref.27 which show that is entangled for (see Fig. 4), the Theorem 1 also detects more entanglement.
Figure 3.

For the four-partite Dicke state mixed with the white noise . The the blue line stands for and the red dash line stands for and the red dash line stands for in Theorem 1. When , we can see that the state violates one of the inequalities (4), whence our criterion detects the entanglement of for .
Figure 4.

For the four-partite Dicke state mixed with the white noise . The the black line stands for in Ref.27. By using the witness , we can see that is entangled for .
For a more general case, we consider the set of local observable , , , associated to the subsystems , , , , respectively. Every local observable has a lower bound () satisfies . In order to simplify calculation, let represent and the bi-partition index is denoted as , where and , and . For instance, if , hence , and , which represents three classes of bi-partition index of local observable set in N-body quantum system. Similar to the derivation of the Theorem 1, we obtain the following lemma and theorem.
Lemma 2
For multipartite separable states, the following inequalities must hold:
| 5 |
and
| 6 |
where , , .
Theorem 2
For any multipartite separable states, the following inequalities hold under any permutations of the subsystems,
where
| 7 |
and
| 8 |
is an operator acting on the -th subsystem with the rest subsystems as identity operators in N-partite quantum systems.
Let us consider five-partite quantum systems to illustrate the theorem. In the case of , we can have
Hence we have
| 9 |
where , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , have similar representations.
As a simple example, consider the five-qubit state , with . Let , , . We have , , , , , and , which give rise to and , namely, the state is entangled.
Conclusion
We have generalized the LUR criterion for three qubit quantum systems to multiqubit quantum systems, and obtained new entanglement criteria for four-partite quantum systems as well as for general multipartite systems. By detailed examples we have shown that our criteria can detect better the entanglement than some existing criteria. It is further known that in certain situations they can provide a nonlinear refinement of linear entanglement witnesses35, and it can be measured in experimental settings similar to those of entanglement witnesses. The effectiveness of the LUR criteria relies heavily on certain notions of information content of quantum states and choice of observables.
Quantum entanglement is fundamentally connected to the quantum steering, local uncertainty relations (LURs) are a common tool for entanglement detection, and the underlying idea can be directly generalized to steering detection36.
The considered system here is closed systems with no decoherence effects taken into account. Also, it would be interesting to find criteria for open quantum systems, since realistic quantum systems inevitably interact with the environment. It would be also interesting if our approach may highlight further investigations on the k-separability37 of multipartite systems and genuine multipartite entanglement detection.
Methods
Proof of the Theorem 1
By straightforward computation, we have
Taking into account that for any tripartite separable states 33,
| 10 |
where , we obtain
namely, . By relabeling the sub-indices, we have , and , similarly. Concerning , we have
Since for any bipartite separable states , the following inequality holds33,
| 11 |
we get
namely, . Similarly one can show that and .
Proof of the Theorem 2
We denote the length of as . From above, one has .
When , one has , by straightforward computation, we have
By Lemma 2, for any multipartite separable states ,
| 12 |
via calculation, we obtain
namely, . By relabeling the sub-indices, we have .
When , one has ,
By using Lemma 2, we get
namely, . By relabeling the sub-indices, one can show that .
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11675113; Beijing Municipal Commission of Education (KZ201810028042); Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. Z190005); Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies, Capital Normal University; Shenzhen Institute for Quantum Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China (No. SIQSE202001).
Author contributions
The first and the second authors wrote the main manuscript text and all authors reviewed the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Nielsen MA, Chuang IL. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information Anniversary. Cambridge University Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Leibfried D, Knill E, Seidelin S, Britton J, Blakestad RB, Chiaverini J, et al. Creation of a six-atom ‘Schrödinger cat’ state. Nature (London) 2005;438:639. doi: 10.1038/nature04251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lu CY, Zhou XQ, Gühne O, Gao WB, Zhang J, Yuan ZS, Goebel A, Yang T, Pan JW. Experimental entanglement of six photons in graph states. Nat. Phys. 2007;3:91. doi: 10.1038/nphys507. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Verstraete F, Verschelde H. Optimal teleportation with a mixed state of two qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003;90:097901. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.097901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lee S, Joo J, Kim J. Teleportation capability, distillability, and nonlocality on three-qubit states. Phys. Rev. A. 2007;76:012311. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.012311. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cleve R, Gottesman D, Lo HK. How to share a quantum secret. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1999;83:648. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.648. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rab Adil S, Polino E, Man ZX, et al. Entanglement of photons in their dual wave-particle nature. Nat. Commun. 2017;8:915. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01058-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Werner RF. Quantum states with Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model. Phys. Rev. A. 1989;40:4277. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Liu B, Li JL, Li X, Qiao CF. Local unitary classification of arbitrary dimensional multipartite pure states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012;108:050501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.050501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Gour G, Wallach NR. Classification of multipartite entanglement of all finite dimensionality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013;111:060502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.060502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hofmann HF, Takeuchi S. Violation of local uncertainty relations as a signature of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A. 2003;68:032103. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.032103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hofmann HF. Bound entangled states violate a nonsymmetric local uncertainty relation. Phys. Rev. A. 2003;68:034307. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.034307. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gühne O, Hyllus P, Gittsovich O, Eisert J. Covariance matrices and the separability problem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007;99:130504. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.130504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Chen K, Wu LA. A matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement. Quan. Inf. Comput. 2003;3:193. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Horodecki M, Horodecki P, Horodecki R. Separability of mixed quantum states: linear contractions and permutation criteria. Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 2006;13:103. doi: 10.1007/s11080-006-7271-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Horodecki M, Horodecki P, Horodecki R. Separablity of mixed stated states: Necessary and sufficient conditions. Phys. Lett. A. 1996;223:1. doi: 10.1016/S0375-9601(96)00706-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.de Julio IV. Separability criteria based on the Bloch representation of density matrices. Quan. Inf. Comput. 2007;7:624. [Google Scholar]
- 18.de Julio IV. Further results on entanglement detection and quantification from the correlation matrix criterion. J. Phys. A. 2008;41:065309. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/41/6/065309. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Fei SM, Zhao MJ, Chen K, Wang ZX. Experimental determination of entanglement for arbitrary pure states. Phys. Rev. A. 2009;80:032320. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.032320. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Peres A. Separability criterion for density matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996;77:1413. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Gühne O, Lütkenhaus N. Nonlinear entanglement witnesses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006;96:170502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.170502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Laskowski W, Zukowski M. Detection of N-particle entanglement with generalized Bell inequalities. Phys. Rev. A. 2005;72:062112. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.062112. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kourbolagh YA, Azhdargalam M. Entanglement criterion for multipartite systems based on quantum Fisher information. Phys. Rev. A. 2019;99:12304. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.012304. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Briegel HJ, Browne DE, Dür W, Raussendorf R, Van den Nest M. Measurement-based quantum computation. Nat. Phys. 2009;5:19. doi: 10.1038/nphys1157. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Amico L, Fazio R, Osterloh A, Vedral V. Entanglement in many-body systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2008;80:517. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.517. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Horodecki R, Horodecki P, Horodecki M, Horodecki K. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2009;81:865. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Gühne O, Tóth G. Entanglement detection. Phys. Rep. 2009;474:1. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2009.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Shi Y, Duan L, Vidal G. Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network. Phys. Rev. A. 2006;74:022320. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.022320. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Li M, Fei SM, Wang ZX. Separability and entanglement of quantum states based on covariance matrices. J. Phys. A. 2008;41:202002. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/41/20/202002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Zhang CJ, Zhang YS, Zhang S, Guo GC. Entanglement detection beyond the computable cross-norm or realignment criterion. Phys. Rev. A. 2008;77:060301(R). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.060301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Zhang CJ, Nha H, Zhang YS, Guo GC. Entanglement detection via tighter local uncertainty relations. Phys. Rev. A. 2010;81:012324. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.012324. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Zhao MJ, Wang ZX, Fei SM. Multiqubits entanglement witness based on W state. Rep. Math. Phys. 2009;63:409. doi: 10.1016/S0034-4877(09)90012-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kourbolagh YA, Azhdargalam M. Entanglement criterion for tripartite systems based on local sum uncertainty relations. Phys. Rev. A. 2018;97:042333. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.042333. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Aulbach M. Classification of entanglement in symmetric states. Int. J. Quantum Inf. 2012;10:1230004. doi: 10.1142/S0219749912300045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Gühne O, Mechler M, Peter Adam GT. Entanglement criteria based on local uncertainty relations are strictly stronger than the computable cross norm criterion. Phys. Rev. A. 2006;74:010301(R). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.010301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Uola R, Costa ACS, Nguyen HC, Gühne O. Quantum steering. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2020;92:015001. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Hong Y, Luo SL. Detecting -nonseparability via local uncertainty relations. Phys. Rev. A. 2016;93:042310. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.042310. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
