Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in Mathematical Physics
Volume 2010, Article ID 301072, 57 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/301072
Review Article

Quantum Entanglement: Separability, Measure, Fidelity of Teleportation, and Distillation

1College of Mathematics and Computational Science, China University of Petroleum, 257061 Dongying, China
2Department of Mathematics, Capital Normal University, 100037 Beijing, China
3Max-Planck-Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, 04103 Leipzig, Germany

Received 29 August 2009; Accepted 2 December 2009

Academic Editor: NaiHuan Jing

Copyright © 2010 Ming Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?” Physical Review, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 777–780, 1935. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  2. A. Peres, Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and Methods, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.
  3. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000. View at MathSciNet
  4. D. P. Di Vincenzo, “Quantum computation,” Science, vol. 270, pp. 255–261, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  5. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 70, no. 13, pp. 1895–1899, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  6. S. Albeberio and S. M. Fei, “Teleportation of general finite-dimensional quantum systems,” Physics Letters A, vol. 276, pp. 8–11, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  7. G. M. D'Ariano, P. Lo Presti, and M. F. Sacchi, “Bell measurements and observables,” Physics Letters A, vol. 272, no. 1-2, pp. 32–38, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  8. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “General teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistillation,” Physical Review A, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1888–1898, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus
  9. S. Albeverio, S.-M. Fei, and W.-L. Yang, “Optimal teleportation based on bell measurements,” Physical Review A, vol. 66, no. 1, Article ID 012301, 4 pages, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  10. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, “Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 69, no. 20, pp. 2881–2884, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  11. A. K. Ekert, “Quantum cryptography based on Bell's theorem,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 661–663, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  12. D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, “Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 77, no. 13, pp. 2818–2821, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. C. A. Fuchs, N. Gisin, R. B. Griffiths, C.-S. Niu, and A. Peres, “Optimal eavesdropping in quantum cryptography. I. Information bound and optimal strategy,” Physical Review A, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 1163–1172, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. M. Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert, ““Event-ready-detectors” Bell experiment via entanglement swapping,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 71, no. 26, pp. 4287–4290, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. S. Bose, V. Vedral, and P. L. Knight, “Multiparticle generalization of entanglement swapping,” Physical Review A, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 822–829, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. Bose, V. Vedral, and P. L. Knight, “Purification via entanglement swapping and conserved entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 194–197, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. B.-S. Shi, Y.-K. Jiang, and G.-C. Guo, “Optimal entanglement purification via entanglement swapping,” Physical Review A, vol. 62, no. 5, Article ID 054301, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. L. Hardy and D. D. Song, “Entanglement-swapping chains for general pure states,” Physical Review A, vol. 62, no. 5, Article ID 052315, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, B. M. Terhal, and W. K. Wootters, “Remote state preparation,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 87, no. 7, Article ID 077902, 4 pages, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  20. B.-S. Shi and A. Tomita, “Remote state preparation of an entangled state,” Journal of Optics B, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 380–382, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  21. J. M Liu and Y. Z. Wang, “Probabilistic remote state preparation by W states,” Chinese Physics, vol. 13, pp. 147–152, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  22. D. W. Leung and P. W. Shor, “Oblivious remote state preparation,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 90, no. 12, Article ID 127905, 4 pages, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  23. D. W. Berry and B. C. Sanders, “Optimal remote state preparation,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 90, no. 5, Article ID 057901, 4 pages, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  24. M.-Y. Ye, Y.-S. Zhang, and G.-C. Guo, “Faithful remote state preparation using finite classical bits and a nonmaximally entangled state,” Physical Review A, vol. 69, no. 2, Article ID 022310, 4 pages, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  25. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 865–942, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  26. O. Gühne and G. Tóth, “Entanglement detection,” Physics Reports, vol. 474, no. 1–6, pp. 1–75, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. S. Albeverio and S.-M. Fei, “A note on invariants and entanglements,” Journal of Optics B, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 223–227, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. R. F. Werner, “Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model,” Physical Review A, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 4277–4281, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  29. A. Peres, “Separability criterion for density matrices,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 77, no. 8, pp. 1413–1415, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  30. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions,” Physics Letters A, vol. 223, no. 1-2, pp. 1–8, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  31. P. Horodecki, “Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition,” Physics Letters A, vol. 232, no. 5, pp. 333–339, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  32. O. Rudolph, “Some properties of the computable cross-norm criterion for separability,” Physical Review A, vol. 67, no. 3, Article ID 032312, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  33. K. Chen and L.-A. Wu, “A matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement,” Quantum Information and Computation, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 193–202, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  34. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “Separability of mixed quantum states: linear contractions and permutation criteria,” Open Systems & Information Dynamics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 103–111, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  35. K. Chen and L.-A. Wu, “The generalized partial transposition criterion for separability of multipartite quantum states,” Physics Letters A, vol. 306, no. 1, pp. 14–20, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  36. O. Rudolph, “Some properties of the computable cross-norm criterion for separability,” Physical Review A, vol. 67, no. 3, Article ID 032312, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  37. K. Chen and L.-A. Wu, “Test for entanglement using physically observable witness operators and positive maps,” Physical Review A, vol. 69, no. 2, Article ID 022312, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  38. L. Clarisse and P. Wocjan, “On independent permutation separability criteria,” Quantum Information & Computation, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 277–288, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  39. S. Albeverio, K. Chen, and S.-M. Fei, “Generalized reduction criterion for separability of quantum states,” Physical Review A, vol. 68, no. 6, Article ID 062313, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  40. M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, “Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols,” Physical Review A, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 4206–4216, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  41. N. J. Cerf, C. Adami, and R. M. Gingrich, “Reduction criterion for separability,” Physical Review A, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 898–909, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  42. M. A. Nielsen and J. Kempe, “Separable states are more disordered globally than locally,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 86, no. 22, pp. 5184–5187, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. H. F. Hofmann and S. Takeuchi, “Violation of local uncertainty relations as a signature of entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 68, no. 3, Article ID 032103, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  44. O. Gühne, M. Mechler, G. Tóth, and P. Adam, “Entanglement criteria based on local uncertainty relations are strictly stronger than the computable cross norm criterion,” Physical Review A, vol. 74, no. 1, Article ID 010301, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  45. O. Gühne, “Characterizing entanglement via uncertainty relations,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 92, no. 11, Article ID 117903, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  46. C.-J. Zhang, Y.-S. Zhang, S. Zhang, and G.-C. Guo, “Optimal entanglement witnesses based on local orthogonal observables,” Physical Review A, vol. 76, no. 1, Article ID 012334, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  47. J. I. De Vicente, “Separability criteria based on the Bloch representation of density matrices,” Quantum Information & Computation, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 624–638, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  48. J. I. De Vicente, “Further results on entanglement detection and quantification from the correlation matrix criterion,” Journal of Physics A, vol. 41, no. 6, Article ID 065309, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  49. O. Gühne, P. Hyllus, O. Gittsovich, and J. Eisert, “Covariance matrices and the separability problem,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 99, no. 13, Article ID 130504, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  50. O. Gittsovich, O. Gühne, P. Hyllus, and J. Eisert, “Unifying several separability conditions using the covariance matrix criterion,” Physical Review A, vol. 78, no. 5, Article ID 052319, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  51. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 78, p. 2031, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  52. D. Bruß, “Characterizing entanglement,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 4237–4251, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  53. W. K. Wootters, “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 80, no. 10, pp. 2245–2248, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. B. M. Terhal and K. G. H. Vollbrecht, “Entanglement of formation for isotropic states,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 85, no. 12, pp. 2625–2628, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  55. S.-M. Fei, J. Jost, X. Li-Jost, and G.-F. Wang, “Entanglement of formation for a class of quantum states,” Physics Letters A, vol. 310, no. 5-6, pp. 333–338, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  56. S.-M. Fei and X. Li-Jost, “A class of special matrices and quantum entanglement,” Reports on Mathematical Physics, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 195–210, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  57. S.-M. Fei, Z.-X. Wang, and H. Zhao, “A note on entanglement of formation and generalized concurrence,” Physics Letters A, vol. 329, no. 6, pp. 414–419, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  58. P. Rungta and C. M. Caves, “Concurrence-based entanglement measures for isotropic states,” Physical Review A, vol. 67, no. 1, Article ID 012307, 9 pages, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  59. F. Mintert, M. Kus, and A. Buchleitner, “Concurrence of mixed bipartite quantum states in arbitrary dimensions,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 92, no. 16, Article ID 167902, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  60. K. Chen, S. Albeverio, and S.-M. Fei, “Entanglement of formation of bipartite quantum states,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 95, no. 21, Article ID 210501, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  61. K. Chen, S. Albeverio, and S.-M. Fei, “Concurrence of arbitrary dimensional bipartite quantum states,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 95, no. 4, Article ID 040504, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  62. H.-P. Breuer, “Separability criteria and bounds for entanglement measures,” Journal of Physics A, vol. 39, no. 38, pp. 11847–11860, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  63. H.-P. Breuer, “Optimal entanglement criterion for mixed quantum states,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 97, no. 8, Article ID 080501, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  64. J. I. De Vicente, “Lower bounds on concurrence and separability conditions,” Physical Review A, vol. 75, no. 5, Article ID 052320, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  65. X.-H. Gao, S.-M. Fei, and K. Wu, “Lower bounds of concurrence for tripartite quantum systems,” Physical Review A, vol. 74, no. 5, Article ID 050303, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  66. E. Gerjuoy, “Lower bound on entanglement of formation for the qubit-qudit system,” Physical Review A, vol. 67, no. 5, Article ID 052308, 10 pages, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  67. Y.-C. Ou, H. Fan, and S.-M. Fei, “Proper monogamy inequality for arbitrary pure quantum states,” Physical Review A, vol. 78, no. 1, Article ID 012311, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  68. J. I. De Vicente, “Further results on entanglement detection and quantification from the correlation matrix criterion,” Journal of Physics A, vol. 41, no. 6, Article ID 065309, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  69. F. Mintert, M. Kus, and A. Buchleitner, “Concurrence of mixed multipartite quantum states,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 95, no. 26, Article ID 260502, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  70. S. P. Walborn, P. H. Souto Ribeiro, L. Davidovich, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, “Experimental determination of entanglement with a single measurement,” Nature, vol. 440, no. 7087, pp. 1022–1024, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  71. S. P. Walborn, P. H. S. Ribeiro, L. Davidovich, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, “Experimental determination of entanglement by a projective measurement,” Physical Review A, vol. 75, no. 3, Article ID 032338, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  72. S.-M. Fei, M.-J. Zhao, K. Chen, and Z.-X. Wang, “Experimental determination of entanglement for arbitrary pure states,” Physical Review A, vol. 80, no. 3, Article ID 032320, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  73. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 722–725, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  74. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “Inseparable two spin-1/2 density matrices can be distilled to a singlet form,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 574–577, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  75. D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, “Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 77, no. 13, pp. 2818–2821, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  76. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,” Physical Review A, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 3824–3851, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  77. M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, “Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols,” Physical Review A, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 4206–4216, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  78. J. Priskill, Quantum Information and Quantum Computation, California Institute of Technology, 1998.
  79. A. Acin, A. Andrianov, L. Costa, E. Jane, J. I. Latorre, and R. Tarrach, “Generalized Schmidt decomposition and classification of three-quantum-bit states,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 85, no. 7, pp. 1560–1563, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  80. A. Sanpera, R. Tarrach, and G. Vidal, “Local description of quantum inseparability,” Physical Review A, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 826–830, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  81. N. J. Cerf, C. Adami, and R. M. Gingrich, “Reduction criterion for separability,” Physical Review A, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 898–909, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  82. M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, Physical Review A, vol. 54, p. 2406, 1999.
  83. O. Rudolph, “On the cross norm criterion for separability,” Journal of Physics A, vol. 36, no. 21, p. 5825, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  84. F. T. Hioe and J. H. Eberly, “N-level coherence vector and higher conservation laws in quantum optics and quantum mechanics,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 838–841, 1981. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  85. W. Greiner and B. Muller, Quantum Mechanics: Symmetries, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1989.
  86. J. E. Harriman, “Geometry of density matrices. I. Definitions, N matrices and 1 matrices,” Physical Review A, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1249–1256, 1978. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  87. M. Li, S.-M. Fei, and Z.-X. Wang, “Separability of tripartite quantum system,” International Journal of Quantum Information, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 859–866, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  88. S. Wu and J. Anandan, “Some aspects ot separability,” Physics Letters A, vol. 297, no. 1-2, pp. 4–8, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  89. O. Rudolph, “Further results on the cross norm criterion for separability,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 219–239, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  90. M. Li, S.-M. Fei, and Z.-X. Wang, “Separability and entanglement of quantum states based on covariance matrices,” Journal of Physics A, vol. 41, no. 20, Article ID 202002, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  91. R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1985. View at MathSciNet
  92. S. Yu and N. Liu, “Entanglement detection by local orthogonal observables,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 95, no. 15, Article ID 150504, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  93. F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, “Normal forms and entanglement measures for multipartite quantum states,” Physical Review A, vol. 68, no. 1, Article ID 012103, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  94. J. M. Leinaas, J. Myrheim, and E. Ovrum, “Geometrical aspects of entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 74, no. 1, Article ID 012313, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  95. F. Verstraete, , Ph. K. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2002.
  96. J. I. De Vicente, “Separability criteria based on the bloch representation of density matrices,” Quantum Information and Computation, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 624–638, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  97. A. S. M. Hassan and P. S. Joag, “Separability criterion for multipartite quantum states based on the bloch representation of density matrices,” Quantum Information and Computation, vol. 8, no. 8-9, pp. 773–790, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  98. M. Li, S.-M. Fei, and Z.-X. Wang, “A note on normal forms of quantum states and separability,” Communications in Theoretical Physics, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1307–1311, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  99. G. Vidal, D. Jonathan, and M. A. Nielsen, “Approximate transformations and robust manipulation of bipartite pure-state entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 62, no. 1, Article ID 012304, 10 pages, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  100. V. Vedral and M. B. Plenio, “Entanglement measures and purification procedures,” Physical Review A, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1619–1633, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  101. S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, “Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 78, no. 26, pp. 5022–5025, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  102. A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, “Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition,” Nature, vol. 416, no. 6881, pp. 608–610, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  103. L.-A. Wu, M. S. Sarandy, and D. A. Lidar, “Quantum phase transitions and bipartite entanglement,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 93, no. 25, Article ID 250404, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  104. S. Ghosh, T. F. Rosenbaum, G. Aeppli, and S. N. Coppersmith, “Entangled quantum state of magnetic dipoles,” Nature, vol. 425, no. 6953, pp. 48–51, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  105. V. Vedral, “Entanglement hits the big time,” Nature, vol. 425, no. 6953, pp. 28–29, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  106. F. Mintert, M. Kus, and A. Buchleitner, “Concurrence of mixed bipartite quantum states in arbitrary dimensions,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 92, no. 16, Article ID 167902, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  107. F. Mintert, , Ph.D. thesis, Munich University, Munich, Germany, 2004.
  108. P. Rungta, V. Bužek, C. M. Caves, M. Hillery, and G. J. Milburn, “Universal state inversion and concurrence in arbitrary dimensions,” Physical Review A, vol. 64, no. 4, Article ID 042315, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  109. A. Uhlmann, “Fidelity and concurrence of conjugated states,” Physical Review A, vol. 62, no. 3, Article ID 032307, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  110. L. Aolita and F. Mintert, “Measuring multipartite concurrence with a single factorizable observable,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 97, no. 5, Article ID 050501, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  111. A. R. R. Carvalho, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, “Decoherence and multipartite entanglement,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 93, no. 23, Article ID 230501, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  112. M. Li, S.-M. Fei, and Z.-X. Wang, “A lower bound of concurrence for multipartite quantum states,” Journal of Physics A, vol. 42, no. 14, Article ID 145303, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  113. V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, “Distributed entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 61, no. 5, Article ID 052306, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  114. M. Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert, ““Event-ready-detectors” Bell experiment via entanglement swapping,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 71, no. 26, pp. 4287–4290, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  115. J.-M. Cai, Z.-W. Zhou, S. Zhang, and G.-C. Guo, “Compatibility conditions from multipartite entanglement measures,” Physical Review A, vol. 75, no. 5, Article ID 052324, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  116. M. Li, S.-M. Fei, X. Li-Jost, and Z.-X. Wang, Reports on Mathematical Physics. In press.
  117. L. Aolita, A. Buchleitner, and F. Mintert, “Scalable method to estimate experimentally the entanglement of multipartite systems,” Physical Review A, vol. 78, no. 2, Article ID 022308, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  118. M. Li, S.-M. Fei, X. Li-Jost, and Z.-X. Wang, Chinese Physics B. In press.
  119. L. Masanes, “All bipartite entangled states are useful for information processing,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 96, no. 15, Article ID 150501, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  120. G. Bowen and S. Bose, “Teleportation as a depolarizing quantum channel, relative entropy, and classical capacity,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 87, no. 26, Article ID 267901, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  121. S. Albeverio, S.-M. Fei, and W.-L. Yang, “Teleportation with an arbitrary mixed resource as a trace-preserving quantum channel,” Communications in Theoretical Physics, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 301–304, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  122. J. Grondalski, D. M. Etlinger, and D. F. V. James, “The fully entangled fraction as an inclusive measure of entanglement applications,” Physics Letters A, vol. 300, no. 6, pp. 573–580, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  123. M. Li, S.-M. Fei, and Z.-X. Wang, “Upper bound of the fully entangled fraction,” Physical Review A, vol. 78, no. 3, Article ID 032332, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  124. R. F. Werner, “All teleportation and dense coding schemes,” Journal of Physics A, vol. 34, no. 35, pp. 7081–7094, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  125. R.-J. Gu, M. Li, S.-M. Fei, and X.-Q. Li-Jost, “On estimation of fully entangled fraction,” Communications in Theoretical Physics, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 265–268, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  126. C.-S. Yu, X. X. Yi, and H.-S. Song, “Evolution of entanglement for quantum mixed states,” Physical Review A, vol. 78, no. 6, Article ID 062330, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  127. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “Mixed-state entanglement and distillation: is there a “bound” entanglement in nature?” Physical Review Letters, vol. 80, no. 24, pp. 5239–5242, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  128. W. Du, J. I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, and D. Bruß, “Distillability and partial transposition in bipartite systems,” Physical Review A, vol. 61, no. 6, Article ID 062313, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  129. D. P. DiVincenzo, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, B. M. Terhal, and A. V. Thapliyal, “Evidence for bound entangled states with negative partial transpose,” Physical Review A, vol. 61, no. 6, Article ID 062312, 2000. View at Google Scholar