Maximal entanglement achievable by controlled dynamics

Alessio Serafini1 and Stefano Mancini2

1
Department of Physics & Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
2
Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Camerino, I-62032 Camerino, Italy
(Dated: October 13, 2009)
We consider the feedback control of quantum systems comprised of any number of bosonic degrees
of freedom. We derive a general upper bound for the logarithmic negativity achievable, at steady
state, with continuous Gaussian measurements on the environment and linear driving on the system.
Our results apply to rotating wave system-bath couplings and to any quadratic system’s Hamiltonian.
Furthermore, we apply this upper bound to parametric processes, show it to be tight, and compare it
to feedback strategies limited to local measurements.
arXiv:0910.2205v1 [quant-ph] 12 Oct 2009

PACS numbers: 03.67.Bg, 02.30.Yy, 42.50.Dv

The field of quantum control is central in the current
rise of quantum technologies [1, 2]. In particular, the
control of the coherent resources of quantum states is of
crucial practical interest. Most valuable, and delicate,
among such resources is certainly quantum entangle-
ment, whose control is a primary requisite for quantum
information and communication [3, 4].
In this paper, we focus on bosonic quantum systems
subject to quadratic Hamiltonians and losses, and de-
rive bounds on the maximal entanglement achievable,
between specific bipartitions, through continuous feed-
back based on general Gaussian measurements and lin-
ear driving [5]. The class of dynamics and feedback
strategies covered in our study is of great practical rel-
evance in quantum optics, and is applicable to more
general continuous variable systems. Because entan-
glement is not a linear figure of merit in the quantum
state’s parameters, one cannot address the questions we
are about to tackle with standard optimisation tools, like
semi-definite programming [6], but rather requires the
more detailed, specific analysis we shall present.
Notation – We consider systems of N degrees of free-
doms described by pairs of canonical operators:
ing
h a vector
i of operators x̂ = q̂1 , p̂ 1 , ..., q̂N , p̂ N
x̂ j , x̂k = iΩ jk , where Ω is the (2N) × (2N) symplectic
   
form: Ω jk = δ j+1,k 1 − (−1) j /2 − δ j,k+1 1 + (−1) j /2, in
terms of Kroneker deltas δ j,k . Also, a j = (x̂ j + ip̂ j )/ 2.
For a system with such a phase-space structure we
can define “Gaussian states” as the states with a Gaus-
sian Wigner function. These states are completely deter-
mined by the vector of means hx̂i, and by the covariance
matrix (CM) σ, with entries σ jk = h∆x̂ j ∆x̂k i + h∆x̂ j ∆x̂k i ,
where ∆ô = (ô − hôi) for operator ô. The – always nec-
essary – Robertson-Schrödinger uncertainty relation is
also sufficient for Gaussian states to be physical [7]:
σ + iΩ ≥ 0 .
We will consider Hamiltonians Ĥ that are at most of the
second-order in x̂, so that their resulting free evolutions
are affine in phase-space: Ĥ = (1/2)x̂⊤Hx̂ − x̂⊤ ΩBu(t),
where the “Hamiltonian matrix” H is real and symmetric
and B is real. The second term of Ĥ is a ‘linear driving’
proportional to a time-dependent input u(t): this term
will describe the control exerted over the system.
The system is considered to be open and such that
each degree of freedom has its own channel to interact
with the environment. Though thermal noise can also
be treated along the lines we will present here, in this
study we specialise for simplicity to pure losses, which
are the main source of decoherence in quantum optical
settings. We will thus assume a beam splitter-like (“ro-
tating wave”) interaction a j b†j + a†j b j between each mode
and the associated mode of the bath, with ladder op-
erator b j . Under the conditions set out above, the first
moments of the canonical operators evolve according to
dhx̂i/dt = Ahx̂i + Bu(t), while the second moments obey
dσ/dt = Aσ + σA⊤ + 1. (2)
Here, the “drift matrix” A = (ΩH−1)/2, and 1 is the iden-
tity matrix with dimension clear from the context. We
will only address stable systems, for which (A + AT ) < 0.

⊤ defin- Note that, for Gaussian states, these equations describe
, one has the complete dynamics of the system.
As customary in the context of feedback control, we
will now assume that the degrees of freedom of the envi-
√ ronment can be continuously monitored on time-scales
which are short with respect to the system’s response
time [8]. Because of the rotating wave interaction be-
tween system and environment, instantaneous Gaussian
measurements on the environment degrees of freedom
results into measuring the operators â 1 + â† Υ , where
 
 ⊤
the vector â = (a1 , . . . , aN )⊤ contains all the annihila-
tion operators of the system, and the complex matrix
Υ parametrises the Gaussian measurement. In turn, Υ
defines the so called “unravelling matrix” U, given by
(1) 1 1 + Re [Υ] Im [Υ]
!
U≡ . (3)
2 Im [Υ] 1 − Re [Υ]
The only conditions on Υ are that U be symmetric and

positive semi-definite. The outcome of the measure-
ments on the environment √ is recorded as a “current” y =
Chx̂i+ dwdt , where C = 2U 1/2
C̄ and C̄ jk = (δ2 j−1,k +δ2(j−N),k )
for j, k ∈ [1, . . . , 2N]. Finally, dw is a vector of real Wiener
increments satisfying dwdw⊤ = 1dt.
The conditional evolution of the moments under such
continuous measurements can also be derived by stan-
dard techniques (Itô calculus). It amounts to a diffusive
equation with a stochastic component for the first mo-
ments hx̂i, and to a deterministic Riccati equation for the
second moments [6]. In our reasonings to follow, we will
not make use of the details of such equations directly. We
will be interested in stable systems, and will determine
the maximal entanglement achievable at steady state.
Hence, all we need to remark is that the set of CMs {σ∞ }
that are stabilising solutions [9] of the Riccati equation for
the second moments can be characterised as follows [6]:
Aσ ∞ + σ ∞ AT + 1 ≥ 0 .
Together with Inequality (1), this relationship completely
determines the set of stabilising solutions of our condi-
tional dynamics.
The final ingredient to be added is the possible de-
pendence of the linear drive u(t) on the history of the
measurement record y(s) for s < t, which affects both
first and second moments of the unconditional, ‘average’,
evolution (whereas second moments of the conditional
states are unaffected by the linear driving), and closes
the control loop. We will denote the unconditional state
by ̺. Note that, for our class of dynamics, ̺ is a statisti-
cal mixture of states with the same conditional CM σ ∞ ,
obeying Inequality (4), and varying first moments. For
Gaussian states, this implies that ̺ can be obtained from
a Gaussian state ̺0 with CM σ ∞ and vanishing first mo-
ments by local operations and classical communication
alone: ̺ = L(̺0 ), where L is some LOCC map.
The typical aim of control over some time interval is
to minimise the expected value of a cost function [1, 9].
Our cost function will be the entanglement of Gaussian
multi-mode steady states for bipartitions of 1 versus
(N − 1) modes and ‘bi-symmetric’ bipartitions (i.e., in-
variant under the permutation of local modes). Such an
entanglement can be quantified by the logarithmic neg-
ativity EN , which is in turn determined, for a Gaussian
state with CM σ, as − log2 ν̃− , where ν̃2− is the smallest
eigenvalue of (σ Ω̃σ Ω̃T ), being Ω̃ the (skew-symmetric)
partial transposition of Ω [10, 11]. Clearly, ν̃− is not a
quadratic cost function (i.e., it is not linear in σ). This
is why, albeit dealing with linear systems with Gaussian
noise, we cannot resort to optimisation methods mutu-
ated from classical LQG control problems [6].
General results – Hereafter, we present our main findings
as three lemmas leading to a final proposition. Proofs of
these statements may be found in appendix.
Our investigation starts off from a corollary of Ref. [12]:
2
Lemma 1 (Bound on smallest symplectic eigenvalue)
The smallest partially transposed symplectic eigenvalue ν̃− of
a generic CM σ is bounded from below as follows
ν̃2− ≥ λ↑1 λ↑2 , (5)
λ↑1 and λ↑2 being the two smallest eigenvalues of σ.
Next, the uncertainty principle entails:
Lemma 2 (Uncertainty relation for CMs’ eigenvalues)
Let { λ↑j } and { λ↓j } be, respectively, the 2N increasingly-
ordered and decreasingly-ordered eigenvalues of an N-mode
CM σ. Then one has:
λ↑j λ↓j ≥ 1 for 1 ≤ j ≤ N. (6)
As an immediate corollary of Lemma 2, one obtains
(4)
1
λ↑1 λ↑2 ≥ . (7)
λ↓1 λ↓2
Lemma 3 (Bound on eigenvalues of steady state CMs)
Let σ ∞ be a conditional CM at steady state obtained under
continuous Gaussian measurements, pure losses and a
Hamiltonian matrix H. The product of the two largest
eigenvalues λ↓1 and λ↓2 of σ ∞ is bounded as follows:
1
λ↓1 λ↓2 ≤ , (8)
α↑1 α↑2
where {α↑j } are the (strictly positive) eigenvalues of (−A − A⊤)
in increasing order, and A = 12 (ΩH − 1).
The chain of Inequalities (5), (7) and (8) leads to
ν̃2− ≥ α↑1 α↑2 , (9)
which constrains the maximal logarithmic negativity
achievable for states conditioned by Gaussian measure-
ments. Further, and more generally, one has:
Proposition 1 (Maximal unconditional entanglement)
The logarithmic negativity EN (̺) of any 1 versus (N − 1)
modes or bi-symmetric bipartition of an unconditional steady
state achievable by continuous Gaussian feedback and linear
driving is bounded by:
1
 
EN (̺) ≤ max 0, − log2 (α↑1 α↑2 ) . (10)
2
Applications – Clearly, the eigenvalues {α↑j } can be analyt-
ically or numerically determined for general quadratic
Hamiltonians, describing a wide variety of systems of
practical interest (bosonic atoms, trapped ions, nano-
mechanical resonators and Josephson junctions, just to

mention a few). Here, we will focus on yet another inter-
esting case where our results apply and can be handled
analytically: the case of parametric interactions, which
are the state of the art technology to generate continuous
variable entanglement in quantum optics.
The parametric interaction between modes j and k is
described by the Hamiltonian χ(x̂ j p̂k + p̂ j x̂k ) [13]. We will
assume equal interaction strengths χ between any pair of
modes, consider a (m+n)-mode bipartition, and describe
analytically the scaling of the control of the entanglement
with the number of modes m and n (we have m + n = N).
In point of fact, we will see that our bounds in this
case are tight, and yield the actual optimal entanglement
achievable by Gaussian filtering. Due to the symmetry
of the system under the exchange of any two modes, the
entanglement between the m- and the n-modes subsys-
tems can be reduced to two-mode entanglement [14]: a
local symplectic transformation exists that turns the ma-
trix A into an equivalent two-mode drift matrix Ā, plus
a direct sum of decoupled single-mode matrices that are
irrelevant for the entanglement. The matrix Ā reads:
√

 (m − 1)χ 0 mnχ
√0
0 −(m − 1)χ 0 − mnχ

Ā =  √

mnχ 0 (n − 1)χ 0  2
 √
0 − mnχ 0 −(n − 1)χ
 
For the system to be stable one must require: χ < 2(N−1)
As A is symmetric and invertible, the ‘free’ steady
state CM σ f can be promptly determined from Eq. (2):
σ f = −A−1 /2. Its smallest partially transposed sym-
plectic eigenvalue, which determines the asymptotic
entanglement in the absence of control, is given by
1/[(1 + 2χ)(1 + 2(N − 1)χ)]. Instead, the bound of In-
equality (9) for any steady state CM σ ∞ with Gaussian
feedback control reads
ν̃2− ≥ (1 − 2χ) [1 − 2(N − 1)χ] .
This lower bound is attained by the CM
RT diag(α4 , α3 , α1 , α2 )R, where R is the orthogonal
transformation that diagonalises Ā and {α j } are the
eigenvalues of −Ā in increasing order. This solution
also saturates the Inequalities (4) and (1). Both the free
asymptotic entanglement and the optimal one under
Gaussian filtering have thus been obtained analyti-
cally. Quite remarkably, in the symmetric situation
considered, none of these quantities depends on the
chosen bipartition, but only on the total number of
modes involved: the same amount of entanglement can
be obtained regardless of the bipartition considered.
Note also that the ‘optimal unravelling’, that is the
matrix U granting maximal entanglement, may also be
straightforwardly derived from the optimal state [6].
Local control – Such an optimal entanglement is in gen-
eral achieved by filtering the system through global mea-
surements on the environment, as no restrictions were
3
assumed for the unravelling matrix U. This applies to
situations where the environments of the two local sub-
systems can be combined before being measured (like,
e.g., for a parametric crystal in a cavity). We intend now
to provide a lower bound on the entanglement achiev-
able under local control, where the environmental de-
grees of freedom pertaining to the separate subsystems
cannot be combined, and compare it to the upper bound
we obtained above. To this end, we will adopt direct
(Markovian) feedback [5] and set u(t) = Fy(t). The un-
conditional evolution of the system is then described by
dσ/dt = A′ σ + σA′T + D′ , (13)
with drift and diffusion matrices modified as A′ =
Ā + BFC and D′ = 1 − CT FT BT − BFC + 2BFFT BT . We
also choose a specific form of U and BF. Since in the free
dynamics, governed by the drift matrix of Eq. (11), the
quadratures p1 and p2 are less noisy than q1 and q2 , it
is advantageous to measure locally p1 and p2 and drive
with the respective currents the quadratures q2 and q1 .
However, due to the possible asymmetry of the two sub-
 systems for m , n, we have to consider different driving

 1 amplitudes µ1 and µ2 for their quadratures. All this

 − . √
corresponds
√ to setting U 33 = U 44 = 1, 2(BF)24 = µ2 ,
2(BF)43 = µ1 , and all other entries of U and BF vanish-
(11) ing. We can then find the steady state solution of Eq. (13)
1 as a function of the two feedback amplitudes µ1 and µ2 ,
.
and evaluate its logarithmic negativity. It turns out that
the maximum logarithmic negativity at steady state is
attained for µ2 = µ1 n/m. Hence, we are left with the en-
tanglement depending on one parameter, over which we
minimise numerically in the stable region, determined
by (A′ + A′T ) < 0. As a case of study, we have considered
a system of 6 modes and summarised the results in Fig. 1.
Local control is very close to optimal global control in the
case of a balanced bipartition. However, the more un-
(12) balanced the bipartition, the more degraded the control,
although numerics indicate that infinite entanglement
can always be retrieved close to instability.
Conclusion – We have derived bounds on the entangle-
ment achievable, at steady state and for various biparti-
tions, in multimode linear bosonic systems subjected to
continuous feedback control. Our investigation not only
applies to quantum information processing and state en-
gineering, as shown, but also yields a technique for op-
timisation problems lying beyond the LQG scenario.
Appendix – Proofs of mathematical statements. Henceforth,
|vi will stand for a unit vector in the phase space Γ and
hv| will be its dual under the Euclidean scalar product.
Also, note that the uncertainty relation (1) is equivalent
to the two following conditions [12, 15]:
σ 1/2 ΩT σΩσ 1/2 ≥ 1 , and σ > 0 . (14)
Proof of Lemma 1. The squared symplectic eigenvalue
ν̃2− is the smallest eigenvalue of the matrix σ 1/2 Ω̃T σ Ω̃σ 1/2 :

1.0
∼
ν2−
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
χ 0.10
FIG. 1: Squared symplectic eigenvalue ν̃2− at steady state for
a system of 6 modes (ν̃− → 0 implies infinite entanglement).
Green (lighter) curves depict ν̃− in the absence of control (from
top to bottom: 1:5, 2:4, and 3:3 modes bipartition); bleu (darker)
curves refer to numerically optimised local feedback (from top
to bottom: 1:5, 2:4, and 3:3 modes bipartition); the red curve is
the analytical lower bound (12) achievable by global control.
ν̃2− = min|vi hv|σ1/2 Ω̃T σ Ω̃σ 1/2 |vi. For √
each |vi, one can
define the unit vector |wi = Ω̃σ 1/2 |vi/ hv|σ|vi, such that
hv|σ1/2 |wi = 0 (due to the antisymmetry of Ω̃) and
ν̃2− = minhv|σ|vihw|σ|wi ≥ min hv|σ|vihw|σ|wi = λ↑1 λ↑2 .
|vi |vi,|wi
The last equality is easily verified once hv|σ1/2 |wi = 0 and
σ > 0 are enforced, and completes the proof.
Proof of Lemma 2. Once √ again, for any |vi ∈ Γ one can
define |wi = Ωσ 1/2 |vi/ hv|σ|vi, so that the Robertson
Schrödinger Inequality (14) can be recast as
hv|σ|vihw|σ|wi ≥ 1 ∀ |vi ∈ Γ.
We will now denote by |v j i the eigenvectors corre-
sponding to the increasingly ordered eigenvalues of σ:
σ|v j i = λ↑j |v j i. Let us consider a vector |vi belonging to
the subspace, which we shall denote Γk , spanned by the
k smallest eigenvectors of σ {|v ji}, for j ≤ k. Clearly one
has hv|σ|vi ≤ λ↑k . The inequality above then leads to
λ↑k hw|σ|wi ≥ hv|σ|vihw|σ|wi ≥ 1 ∀ |vi ∈ Γk ,
which must be satisfied by all the vectors |wi belonging
to the k-dimensional linear subspace ΩΓk (defined as the
subspace spanned by the k orthogonal vectors Ω|vk i):
λ↑k hw|σ|wi ≥ 1 ∀|wi ∈ ΩΓk .
By Poincaré Inequality [16], a vector |wi must exist in
ΩΓk for which hw|σ|wi ≤ λ↓k , such that λ↑k λ↓k ≥ 1.
Proof of Lemma 3. This statement is a consequence
of Inequality (4) applied to the two eigenvectors cor-
responding to λ↓1 and λ↓2 , and of the relationship:
4
infhw|vi=0 hw|K|wihv|K|vi = λ↑1 λ↑2 , where λ↑j is the j-th small-
est eigenvalue of the positive matrix K.
Proof of Proposition 1. As seen previously, ̺ = L(̺0 ),
where L is a LOCC operation and ̺0 a Gaussian state with
a CM which is a stabilisinghsolution of (2). Thusi EN (̺) =
↑ ↑
EN (L(̺0 )) ≤ EN (̺0 ) ≤ max 0, − log2 (α1 α2 )/2 , where (9),
the formula EN = − log(ν̃− ) (holding for 1 − (N − 1) and
bi-symmetric bipartitions), and the monotonicity of EN
under LOCC [17] have been invoked.
We acknowledge financial support from the EU through the
FET-Open Project HIP (FP7-ICT-221899).
[1] H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum measurement
and control (Cambridge University Press, in press).
[2] W. P. Smith et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 133601, (2002); M. A.
Armen et al., ibid. 89, 133602 (2002); S. Chaudhury et al.,
ibid. 99, 163002 (2007); R. L. Cook, P. J. Martin and J. M.
Geremia, Nature 446, 774 (2007); B. L. Higgins et. al., ibid.
450, 393 (2007); B. L. Higgins et al., arXiv:0909.1572.
[3] S. Mancini and J. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. D 32, 257 (2005); S.
Mancini, Phys. Rev. A 73, 010304(R) (2006).
[4] S. Mancini and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A 75, 012330
(2007).
[5] H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 548
(1993); Phys. Rev. A 49, 1350 (1994).
[6] H. M. Wiseman and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94,
070405 (2005).
[7] A. S. Holevo, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor. IT21 533 (1975); R.
Simon, N. Mukunda, and B. Dutta, Phys. Rev. A 49, 1567
(1994).
[8] H. M. Wiseman and L. Diósi, Chem. Phys. 268, 91 (2001).
[9] K. Zhou, J. C. Doyle, and K. Glover, Robust and Optimal
Control (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1996).
[10] Partial transposition on a (m + n)-mode bipartition is de-
scribed in phase space by T = 1 ⊕ σ⊕n z , where the identity
act on the first m modes while the direct sum of reflections
σz acts on the other n modes. One then has Ω̃ = TΩT.
[11] For such bipartitions, only one partially transposed sym-
plectic eigenvalue contributes to the logarithmic negativ-
ity. See A. Serafini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110402 (2006).
[12] M. M. Wolf, J. Eisert, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90,
047904 (2003).
[13] M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A 4440, 913 (1989).
[14] A. Serafini, G. Adesso, and F. Illuminati, Phys. Rev. A 71,
032349 (2005).
[15] S. Pirandola et al., Phys. Rev. A 79, 052327 (2009).
[16] ∀ k-dimensional subspace Σk and hermitian M, ∃ |vi ∈ Σk
such that hv|vi = 1 and hv|M|vi ≤ λ↓k (M). See, e.g., R. Bathia,
Matrix Analysis (Springer, New York, 1996), page 58.
[17] M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005).