Quantum Steering Breaks Monogamy Rules

Quantum steering, a form of correlation between entangled particles, has been thought to follow strict monogamy rules similar to other quantum properties. This principle limits how correlations can be shared among multiple parties and forms the foundation for secure quantum communication. However, new research demonstrates that steering correlations behave differently depending on measurement scenarios, with three-setting measurements allowing non-monogamous sharing that contradicts previous understanding.

The key finding reveals that at most two parties in a three-qubit system can violate the three-setting Cavalcanti-Jones-Wiseman-Reid linear inequality, making steering non-monogamous under this specific measurement condition. This contrasts sharply with two-setting measurements and Bell-CHSH inequality violations, where correlations remain strictly monogamous and limited to single pairs. The research shows steering's shareability properties depend critically on the number of measurement settings used to detect them.

Researchers employed analytical methods to derive trade-off relations among steering correlations in tripartite quantum systems. They calculated maximum violation values of the CJWR inequality for different measurement scenarios and established mathematical relations between steering and various entanglement measures. The methodology involved examining how steering correlations distribute across different subsystems of three-qubit states and deriving constraints that govern their shareability.

Analysis shows that while Bell nonlocality and two-setting steering maintain monogamous relationships where Q(ρ_AB) + Q(ρ_AC) ≤ 2, three-setting steering allows Q(ρ_AB) + Q(ρ_AC) + Q(ρ_BC) ≤ 3, permitting two simultaneous violations. The state |ψ⟩_ABC = (|100⟩ + |010⟩ + √2|001⟩)/2 demonstrates this non-monogamous behavior, with both ρ_BC and ρ_AC showing steering violations. The research establishes that only star-shaped GHZ states and W-like states can exhibit this non-monogamous steering behavior among pure three-qubit states.

The context for these findings lies in quantum information processing, where understanding correlation shareability is crucial for developing secure communication protocols. Monogamy properties ensure that if two systems share strong correlations, they cannot simultaneously maintain strong correlations with third parties—a fundamental requirement for quantum key distribution security. The discovery that steering can be non-monogamous under specific measurement conditions reveals previously unknown flexibility in quantum correlation distribution.

Limitations acknowledged in the research include the specific focus on three-setting CJWR inequalities and qubit systems. The authors note that their findings apply specifically to dichotomic measurements and that different measurement scenarios might yield different shareability properties. They also indicate that while they established sufficient conditions for non-monogamous steering, necessary conditions remain an open question for future investigation.

References: [1] H. J. Kimble, Nature 453, 1023 (2008) [2] R. Horodecki et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009) [3] O. Gühne, G. Tóth, Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009) [4] N. Brunner et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 839 (2014) [5] B. Toner, Proc. R. Soc. A 465, 59 (2008) [6] V. Coffman et al., Phys. Rev. A 61, 052306 (2000) [7] T. Osborne, F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 220503 (2006) [8] Y. C. Ou, H. Fan, S. M. Fei, Phys. Rev. A 78, 012311 (2008) [9] Y. K. Bai et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 100503 (2014) [10] X. N. Zhu, S. M. Fei, Phys. Rev. A 90, 024304 (2014) [11] B. Regula et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 110501 (2014) [12] B. M. Terhal, IBM J. Res. Dev. 48, 1 (2004) [13] M. Pawłowski, Phys. Rev. A 82, 032313 (2010) [14] N. Gisin et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002) [15] W. Dür et al., Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000) [16] G. L. Giorgi, Phys. Rev. A 84, 054301 (2011) [17] R. Prabhu et al., Phys. Rev. A 85, 040102(R) (2012) [18] S. Lloyd, J. Preskill, J. High Energy Phys. 08, 126 (2014) [19] K. R. K. Rao et al., Phys. Rev. A 88, 022312 (2013) [20] J. F. Clauser et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969) [21] V. Scarani, N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 117901 (2001) [22] V. Scarani, N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012311 (2001) [23] B. Toner, F. Verstraete, arXiv:quant-ph/0611001 [24] J. Barrett et al., Phys. Rev. A 71, 022101 (2005) [25] Ll. Masanes et al., Phys. Rev. A 73, 012112 (2006) [26] P. Seevinck, Quantum Inf. Process. 9, 273 (2010) [27] M. Pawłowski, Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 030403 (2009) [28] P. Kurzyński et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180402 (2011) [29] H. H. Qin et al., Phys. Rev. A 92, 062339 (2015) [30] S. Cheng, M. J. W. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010401 (2017) [31] C. Tran et al., Phys. Rev. A 98, 052325 (2018) [32] R. Ramanathan, P. Mironowicz, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022133 (2018) [33] A. Streltsov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 050503 (2012) [34] M. Karczewski et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 090403 (2018) [35] C. Radhakrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 150504 (2016) [36] S. Cheng, L. Liu, Laser Phys. Lett. 15, 025202 (2018) [37] M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A 88, 062108 (2013) [38] Y. Xiang et al., Phys. Rev. A 95, 010101(R) (2017) [39] S. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. A 94, 042105 (2016) [40] E. Schrödinger, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 31, 555 (1935) [41] H. M. Wiseman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 140402 (2007) [42] S. J. Jones et al., Phys. Rev. A 76, 052116 (2007) [43] R. Uola et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015001 (2020) [44] T. Quintino et al., Phys. Rev. A 92, 032107 (2015) [45] M. D. Reid et al., Phys. Rev. A 40, 913 (1989) [46] E. G. Cavalcanti et al., Phys. Rev. A 80, 032112 (2009) [47] S. P. Walborn et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130402 (2011) [48] J. Schneeloch et al., Phys. Rev. A 87, 062103 (2013) [49] J.-L. Chen et al., Sci. Rep. 3, 2143 (2013) [50] I. Kogias et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 210401 (2015) [51] E. G. Cavalcanti et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 32, 74 (2015) [52] M. Żukowski et al., Phys. Rev. A 91, 032107 (2015) [53] S. Jevtić et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 32, 40 (2015) [54] A. C. S. Costa, R. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 93, 020103 (2016) [55] Y. Z. Law et al., J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 363001 (2016) [56] M. Piani, J. Watrous, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 060404 (2015) [57] C. Branciard, N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 020401 (2011) [58] C. Branciard et al., Phys. Rev. A 85, 010301(R) (2012) [59] N. Brunner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 110501 (2012) [60] M. Wiesniak et al., Phys. Rev. A 86, 042339 (2012) [61] J. Tura et al., Science 344, 1256 (2014) [62] G. Tóth, Phys. Rev. A 71, 010301(R) (2005) [63] J. Korbicz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 153601 (2005) [64] G. Tóth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250405 (2007) [65] M. Markiewicz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 200401 (2013) [66] S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A 77, 042303 (2008) [67] N. G. K. Feng, PhD thesis, Nanyang Technological University (2015) [68] D. M. Greenberger et al., Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990) [69] P. Agrawal, A. Pati, Phys. Rev. A 74, 062320 (2006) [70] C. Sabín, G. García-Alcaine, Eur. Phys. J. D 48, 435 (2008) [71] S. Hill, W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997) [72] W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998) [73] F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 170401 (2002) [74] R. Nepal et al., Phys. Rev. A 87, 032336 (2013) [75] R. Horodecki et al., Phys. Lett. A 200, 340 (1995) [76] X. Zha et al., Laser Phys. Lett. 15, 025202 (2018) [77] A. Higuchi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 107902 (2003) [78] A. Acín et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1560 (2000) [79] M. Plesch, V. Bužek, Phys. Rev. A 67, 012322 (2003)