Tighter Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering inequality based on the sum
uncertainty relation
Ananda G. Maity1,∗ , Shounak Datta1† , A. S. Majumdar1,‡∗
1

arXiv:1711.01401v1 [quant-ph] 4 Nov 2017

S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,
JD Block, Sector III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700106
(Dated: November 7, 2017)
We consider the uncertainty bound on the sum of variances of two incompatible observables in
order to derive a corresponding steering inequality. Our steering criterion when applied to discrete
variables yields the optimum steering range for two qubit Werner states in the two measurement
and two outcome scenario. We further employ the derived steering relation for several classes
of continuous variable systems. We show that non-Gaussian entangled states such as the photon
subtracted squeezed vacuum state and the two-dimensional harmonic oscillator state furnish greater
violation of the sum steering relation compared to the Reid criterion as well as the entropic steering
criterion. The sum steering inequality provides a tighter steering condition to reveal the steerability
of continuous variable states.
I.

INTRODUCTION

The idea of nonlocal correlations in quantum mechanics (QM) emanated from the work of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [1] in 1935. Considering a positionmomentum-correlated state EPR conjectured that nonlocality is an artefact of the incompleteness of the quantum
mechanics. Soon afterwards Schrödinger [2, 3] coined the
word entanglement to describe spatially separated but
correlated particles. He also introduced the term steering, to describe how the choice of a measurement basis on
one side could affect the state on the other. He however,
believed that steering would never be observed experimentally, since there existed on the other side a definite
state even if it is unknown to the local observer (local
hidden state(LHS)). Much later, Bell [4, 5] proposed how
correlations in outcomes of joint measurements of observables corresponding to two spatially separated particles
sharing an entangled state could be quantified by taking into consideration the requirements of locality and
realism. QM violates Bell’s inequality, as subsequently
verified through several experiments [6]. Demonstration
of EPR-steering, on the other hand, was first proposed
by Reid [7], with subsequent experimental realization by
Ou et al [8] and others [9].
A few years ago, Wiseman et al [10] formulated a unified information theoretic description of quantum correlations manifested through entanglement, EPR-steering
and Bell-nonlocality in terms of information theoretic
tasks, and showed a strict hierarchy between these three
types of correlation, viz., EPR-steering [11] lies between
Bell nonlocality and entanglement, with the latter being
the weakest. This paved the way for steering inequalities analogous to bell-inequalities to be formulated to
rule out the existence of LHS models and demonstrate

∗

∗anandamaity289@gmail.com
†shounak.datta@bose.res.in
‡ archan@bose.res.in

steerability. Experimental manifestation of EPR-steering
using discrete variable Werner states [12] was first performed by Saunders et al [13]. Several steering inequalities have since been proposed, with the motivation of obtaining stronger or optimal steering criteria corresponding to particular contexts of the number of parties and
measurement settings [14–16]. A necessary and sufficient
condition for steering has recently been obtained by Cavalcanti et al [17], in the case of bipartite systems with two
measurement settings and two outcomes per party.
The quantum uncertainty principle plays a central role
in the manifestation of EPR-steering. In the realm of
continuous variables, the demonstration of steering by
the Reid formalism [7] is based upon the calculation of
inferred variances of quadrature amplitudes. Due to correlations in the observables of the two parties sharing an
entangled state, the product of inferred variances may
fall below the limit obtained through the application of
the Heisenberg uncertainty relation (HUR) [18], thus revealing steering. It was subsequently realized that the
Reid criterion based on the HUR is incapable of demonstrating steerability of several continuous variable states,
notably certain highly entangled and even bell-nonlocal
non-Gaussian states. As entropic uncertainty relations
(EUR) [19, 20] are tighter compared to the HUR, steering inequalities based on EURs have since been proposed [21]. Entropic steering relations provide stronger
conditions for EPR-steering and hence fare better in revealing steering by non-Gaussian entangled states [22]. A
more optimal uncertainty bound is provided by the finegrained uncertainty relation [23] which has been used to
obtain an even tighter fine-grained steering criterion for
continuous variables [24].
Recently, variance based sum uncertainty relations [25,
26] have received a lot of attention. Sum uncertainty relations guarantee the lower bound of uncertainty to be nontrivial for incompatible observables whenever the variance of at least one of the observables is non-zero, a feature that is lacking in uncertainty relations based on the
product of variances, such as the HUR or the RobertsonSchrodinger uncertainty relation [27]. Sum uncertainty

2
relations therefore, in general, provide a tighter bound
of uncertainty compared to product uncertainty relations [28], as has also been realized experimentally [29].
Extensions of the sum uncertainty relations have further
been formulated for systems involving multiple observables [30]. In the present context, it is hence imperative
to enquire what advantage, if any, would the sum uncertainty relation provide to the corresponding steering
criterion, compared to say, an HUR based steering inequality.
With the above motivation, in this work we derive a
new steering criteria using an uncertainty relation based
on the sum of variances [25]. We next apply our steering criteria first to the case of a bipartite system with
two measurements settings and two outcomes. We show
that our steering inequality applied to the Werner state
matches the recently derived necessary and sufficient condition for steering [17] for this setting. We then move on
to study continuous variable systems where tighter steering conditions based on EURs have been able to reveal
steering by several non-Gaussian entangled states [21, 22]
in addition to the Gaussian states which mostly admit
steering using the standard HUR. Non-gaussian states
generally have a higher degree of entanglement compared
to Gaussian states, and hence, have applications in tests
of Bell inequalities, quantum teleportation, and other
quantum information protocols [31]. We consider various classes of non-Gaussian states for application of our
derived steering inequality. We show that the sum uncertainty based steering criterion improves upon the steering
criteria based on HUR and EUR for such states
The plan of this paper is as follows. In the next section we derive a steering inequality from an uncertainty
relation based on the sum of variances. In section III we
show that our steering condition matches the necessary
and sufficient condition for steering in the case of twoqubit Werner states. In section IV we apply our steering
inequality on different classes of continuous variable entangled states such as the two mode squeezed vacuum
state (TMSV), the photon subtracted TMSV state, and
the two-dimensional harmonic oscillator state. We compare the results obtained with those using the Reid steering criterion and the entropic steering criterion. Section
V is reserved for some concluding remarks.

II. STEERING INEQUALITY USING
SUM-UNCERTAINTY RELATION

EPR-steering was first demonstrated using the HUR
by showing that the product of variances of inferred values of the correlated observables is less than the lower
bound of uncertainty [7]. Defining the quadrature phase
amplitudes as
bbe−iφ + bb† eiφ
ae−iθ + b
a† eiθ b
bθ = b
√
√
X
, Yφ =
2
2

(1)

where the operators b
a =
b +iP
b
Y
√ y ,b
b†
2

=

b −iP
b
Y
√ y
2

b P
b
X+i
√ x,b
a†
2

=

b P
b
X−i
√ x ,b
b
2

=

obey the bosonic commutation rela-

tions. In the presence of correlations Cθ,φ =

b Y
b i
hX
q θ φ
,
b 2i
b 2 ihY
hX
φ
θ

bθ could be inferred by meathe quadrature amplitude X
suring the corresponding amplitude Ybφ . Hence, using the
b 2 ∆X
b 2 ≥ 1/4 Reid [7] derived a bound on the
HUR, ∆X
θ1
θ2
product of variances of the inferred amplitudes, given by
bθ )2 (∆inf X
bθ )2 ≥ 1/4
(∆inf X
1
2

(2)

EPR-steering occurs whenever the above inequality is violated by observables acting on some given state.
As stated earlier, it is not possible to reveal steering
by several continuous variable entangled states using the
Reid inequality (2) based on the HUR, even though such
states exhibit Bell-violation [21, 22]. A tighter uncertainty bound is provided by the entropic uncertainty relation [19] given by
hQ (X) + hQ (P ) ≥ ln πe

(3)

EPR-steering is demonstrated by the non-existence of a
LHS model for measurement outcomes. In other words,
EPR steering occurs if the joint measurement probability
cannot be written as [10]
X
P(rA , rB ) =
P(λ)P(rA |λ)PQ (rB |λ).
(4)
λ

where rA and rB are the outcomes of measurements RA
and RB , respectively, λ is the hidden variable, that specifies an ensemble of states, P are general probability distributions and PQ are probability distributions which correspond to measurement on the quantum state specified
by λ. The conditional
probability P(rB |rA ) is given by
P
P(rB |rA ) = λ P(rB , λ|rA ) (equivalent to above equation) with P(rB , λ|rA ) = P(λ|rA )PQ (rB |λ). Thus, using
the EUR (3), Walborn et al. [21] derived a correspondingly tighter steering condition given by
h(RB |RA ) + h(SB |SA ) > ln πe

(5)

The violation of the inequality demonstrates steering, as
has been explicitly shown for several Gaussian and nonGaussian entangled states [21, 22].
We now derive a steering criterion based on the uncertainty bound of the sum of variances of two observables. Let us first consider a typical information theoretic
game [10] involving two parties, Alice and Bob. Alice prepares a bipartite quantum system and sends one particle
to Bob, and this process can be performed repeatedly.
Both the parties can perform measurements on their respective parts and can communicate classically. Here,
Alice’s task is to convince Bob that the state they share
is entangled. If, on the other hand, Alice tries to cheat by
sending a pure state drawn at random from an ensemble
to Bob, and chooses her result (communicated to Bob)

3
based on her knowledge this local hidden state (LHS),
the joint probability distribution of their measurement
outcomes can be written as [10]
P (Xθ , Yφ ) =

X

P (λ)PQ (Xθ |λ)P (Yφ |λ).

(6)

where ∆2Q (Xθ |λ) is the variance of PQ (Xθ |λ). From the
above result it follows that the bound for ∆2min Xθ is given
by
X
∆2min Xθ ≥
P (Yφ , λ)∆2Q (Xθ |λ)
Yφ ,λ

λ

where Xθ is the observable on Bob’s side and Yφ is on Alice’s side, and where PQ (Xθ |λ) represents the probability
of Xθ predicted by a quantum state ρλ .
Our derivation of the steering condition follows the
analysis of [7, 14] based on the HUR. When Alice infers the outcomes of Bob’s measurement by measuring
on her subsystem, the average inference variance of Xθ
given the estimate Xθest (Yφ ) is defined by
∆2inf Xθ = h[Xθ − Xθest (Yφ )]2 i

(7)

where Xθest (Yφ ) is Alice’s estimate of the value of Bob’s
measurement Xθ as a function of her measurement outcome Yφ , and the average is over all outcomes. The estimate that minimizes the r.h.s. of the above equation is
for Xθest (Yφ ) = hXθ iYφ [14]. Thus, the optimal inference
variance of Xθ by measurement of Yφ is given by
∆2min Xθ = h[Xθ − hXθ iYφ ]2 i
X
=
P (Xθ , Yφ )(Xθ − hXθ iYφ )2
Xθ ,Yφ

=

X

=

X

P (Yφ )

Yφ

X

P (Xθ |Yφ )(Xθ − hXθ iYφ )2
(8)

Yφ

where ∆2 (Xθ |Yφ ) is the variance of Xθ calculated from
the conditional probability distribution P (Xθ |Yφ ), and
by definition
∆2inf Xθ ≥ ∆2min Xθ

(9)

Assuming the LHS model given by equation(6), the conditional probability of Xθ given Yφ can be written as
P (Xθ |Yφ ) =

X P (λ)P (Yφ |λ)
P (Yφ )

λ

=

X

PQ (Xθ |λ)

P (λ|Yφ )PQ (Xθ |λ)

(10)

λ

Since
P (x) has a convex decomposition [P (x) =
P
P
(y)P
(x|y)], the variance ∆2 x over the distribuy
tion P (x) cannot be smaller than the average of the
variancesPover the component distribution P (x|y), i.e.,
2
∆2 x ≥
y P (y)∆ (x|y) [14]. Then, from the above
equation, the variance ∆2 (Xθ |Yφ ) satisfies
∆2 (Xθ |Yφ ) ≥

X
λ

P (λ|Yφ )∆2Q (Xθ |λ),

(11)

X

P (λ)∆2Q (Xθ |λ).

(12)

λ

Hence, for two variables on Bob’s side, say Xθ1 and Xθ2
using Eqs.(9) and (12) one has,
X
∆2inf Xθi ≥
P (λ)∆2Q (Xθi |λ)
(13)
λ

with i = 1, 2. Now, let us define two vectors u
and v such that u ≡ [u1 , u2 , .., ui , ...], where ui =
p
P (λi )∆Q (Xθ1 |λi ), are the components of the vector
u, and p
similarly, v ≡ [v1 , v2 , .., vi , ...] with components
vi = p P (λi )∆Q (Xθ2 |λi ). Noting that ∆inf Xθ1 ≥
u21 + u22 + ....), and similarly, for v, in terms
|u|(≡
of u and v, it follows from Eq.(13) that ∆inf Xθ1 ≥
|u| and ∆inf Xθ2 ≥ |v|. Using the triangle inequality
(|u|+|v| ≥ |u+v|) one thus obtains ∆inf Xθ1 +∆inf Xθ2 ≥
p
(u1 + v1 )2 + (u2 + v2 )2 + ...., and hence in summation
form,
v
" 2
#2
u
2
uX
X
X
t
∆inf Xθi ≥
P (λ)
∆Q (Xθi |λ) . (14)
i=1

Xθ

P (Yφ )∆2 (Xθ |Yφ ),

=

λ

i=1

It is known that the quantum fluctuation in the sum
of any two observables is always less than or equal to the
sum of their individual fluctuations, [25], i.e.,
∆(A1 + A2 ) ≤ ∆A1 + ∆A2

(15)

Using the above uncertainty relation (15) in the right
hand side of Eq.(14), one gets
v
"
#2
u
2
2
uX
X
X
t
∆inf Xθi ≥
P (λ) ∆Q (
Xθi )|λ
(16)
i=1

λ

i=1

Since we have assumed a LHS model for Bob, the right
hand side of the above equation therefore corresponds
to the variance of the sum of the observables Xθ1 , and
Xθ2 , i.e., ∆(Xθ1 + Xθ2 ). We thus get the sum steering
inequality given by
∆(Xθ1 + Xθ2 ) ≤ ∆inf Xθ1 + ∆inf Xθ2

(17)

A violation of this inequality will demonstrate steering.
It may be noted that the variance of the measured observables on each individual side will satisfy the uncertainty
relation ∆(Xθ1 + Xθ2 ) ≤ ∆Xθ1 + ∆Xθ2 . But, due to the
presence of correlations, Alice’s measurement of Yφ may
be used to infer the value of Xθ on Bob’s side. Steering
takes place if the calculated uncertainties for the inferred

4

SUM STEERING CONDITION FOR TWO
QUBIT WERNER STATES

Steering for discrete variable systems may be understood by considering an entangled state of two particles,
held by two parties (say Alice and Bob)
X
X
|Ψi =
cn |ψn i|un i =
dn |φn i|vn i,
(18)
where|un i and |vn i are two orthonormal bases for Alice’s
system. If Alice chooses to measure in the |un i(|vn i) basis, she instantaneously projects Bob’s system onto one
of the states|ψn i(|φn i). The steering analogue [17] of
the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality provides a necessary and sufficient criterion for steering in
the two measurement per party scenario performed on
two-qubit entangled states. The inequality is given as,
p
h(A1 + A2 )B1 i2 + h(A1 + A2 )B2 i2
p
+ h(A1 − A2 )B1 i2 + h(A1 − A2 )B2 i2 ≤ 2
(19)
where, {A1 , A2 } are dichotomic measurements on Alice’s side and {B1 , B2 } are dichotomic mutually unbiased
qubit measurements on Bob’s side. the maximum quantum
√ mechanical value of the left hand side is found to be
2 2 which can be achieved by Bell states.
Now, in order to illustrate the EPR steering criterion
given by the sum steering inequality (17) for the case of
discrete variables, let us consider the two-qubit Werner
state [12]
ρW
where, |ψ − i =

1−p
= p|ψ ihψ | +
114
4
−

−

(20)

√1 (|01i
2

− |10i) is the singlet state corresponding to σz -eigenbasis, {|0i, |1i}, and 1144 is the completely mixed state. The mixing parameter p lies in the
range 0 ≤ p ≤ 1.
Corresponding to two non-commuting spin- 21 observables {Sx , Sz }, (Si = σ2i ) on Bob’s side, the sum steering
inequality( 17) becomes,
∆(SxB + SzB ) ≤ ∆inf SxB + ∆inf SzB

(21)

The inferred values for the observables {Sx , Sz } can be
calculated using the Reid prescription [7] using the correlation function. For two general observables on each side
hA B i
with the correlation function defined as Ci,j = √ i2 j 2 ,
hAi ihBj i

the estimates of the variables B1 and B2 on Bob’s side
are given in terms of measurements of Alice’s variables A1
and A2 , by B1e = g1 A1 , B2e = g2 A2 , where g1 and g2 correspond to the errors in estimation. The average errors

For the case of the particular observables √
chosen here,
1−p2
B
B
. Furit can be found that, ∆inf Sx = ∆inf Sz =
2
ther, it is found that ∆(SxB + SzB ) = √12 . Using these
results, the sum steering inequality (21) is violated for
p > √12 which is optimal for any EPR-steering inequality
in the two-measurement setting. Fig. 4 depicts the fact
that for this range of p, the right hand side of Eq.(21)
becomes less than the lower bound corresponding to the
left hand side. For comparison, we also plot the entropic
steering inequality [15, 32], the left hand side of which
for the present case becomes
H(σxB |σxA ) + H(σzB |σzA ) = −

X

(1 ± p) log

+,−

1±p
(22)
2

The above inequality is violated for p > 0.78, showing
that the entropic steering criterion is not optimal here.
2.0
Uncertainty

III.

of inference are given by (∆inf A1 )2 = h(B1 − B1e )2 i =
h(B1 − g1 A1 )2 i, and similarly for (∆inf A2 )2 . Extremization of the inferred errors leads to the conditions
g1 = hAhA1 B2 i1 i and g2 = hAhA2 B2 i2 i , which are plugged back
1
2
into the expressions for the inferred observables to yield
the inferred variances (∆inf B1 )2 and (∆inf B2 )2 .

H(σx B |σx A )+H(σz B |σz A )

observables violate Eq.(17). In other words, if the value
of ∆inf (X1 ) + ∆inf (X2 ) becomes less than that lower
bound of Eq.(17), we can say that the sum uncertainty
relation is able to reveal steering. This is our steering
criteria.

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6
p

0.8

1.0

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

p

FIG. 1. The left panel displays the entropic steering inequality for spin-1/2 observables on the Werner state. The dotted curve is given by Eq.(22)) while the solid line denotes
the lower bound of the entropic steering condition. In the
right panel the dotted curve is given by the right hand side
of Eq.(21) whereas the solid line represents the lower bound
of the sum uncertainty relation which shows steerability for
p > √12 .

There exist however, other two-measurement steering
inequalities [13], [14] that are violated by Werner states in
parameter range, p > √12 . The two-measurement steering analogue of the CHSH inequality [17] given by Eq.(19)
provides a necessary and sufficient criterion for steering
in the two measurement per party scenario performed
on two-qubit entangled states. This steering inequality
demonstrates steering iff p > √12 [33]. Thus, the optimal
range of steerability captured by the inequality given by
Eq.(19) in the discrete variable two-measurement setting
is similar to that obtained using the sum steering inequality (17) derived by us.

5

In this section we study steering for various continuous variable states using our sum steering relation and
compare our steering criteria with the Reid and entropic steering inequalities. We consider first the two
mode squeezed vacuum state, and then two examples
of non-Gaussian entangled states, viz. the photon subtracted squeezed vacuum state, and the two-dimensional
harmonic oscillator given in terms of Laguerre-Gaussian
(LG) wave functions. We calculate the magnitude of violation of our steering inequality and compare it with that
obtained from the Reid and entropic steering inequalities.
A.

Two mode squeezed vaccum

The two mode squeezed vacuum state can be generated
by applying the two mode squeezing operator S(ξ) =
† †
∗
eξba1 ba2 −ξ ba1 ba2 , (where ξ = reiφ ) on the two mode vacuum
state |0, 0i, and is given by
∞
p
X
2
λn |n, ni
|N OP Ai = |ξi = S(ξ)|0, 0i = 1 − λ
n=0

(23)
where λ = tanh(r) ∈ [0, 1], and the squeezing parameter
r > 0. The Wigner function corresponding to above state
is given by [22, 34]

R∞
with h(X , Y) = − −∞ P (X, Y ) ln P (X, Y )dXdY , and
similarly for the other entropies. The probability distributions are obtained from the Wigner function (24).
It is already known that entropic uncertainty relation is
also able to show steering for all r [22].
0.4

2.5

0.3

2.0

Uncertainty

EPR-STEERING FOR CONTINUOUS
VARIABLE SYSTEMS

Uncertainty

IV.

0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

r

r

FIG. 2. The left panel shows that the product of inferred uncertainties ((∆inf Xθ1 )2 (∆inf Xθ2 )2 ) for the two
mode squeezed vacuum state given by the dotted curve falls
below the bound (solid line) obtained from the Reid inequality. The right panel shows that the sum of inferred uncertainties (dotted curve) falls below the bound (28) (solid curve)
obtained using our sum steering relation.

Next, in order to apply our sum steering criterion we
calculate ∆inf (Xθ1 ) + ∆inf (Xθ2 ) and the uncertainty
bound we get the value ∆(Xθ1 + Xθ2 ), and get
2
X

r
∆inf (Xθi ) =

i=1

1
exp[ − 2(PX PY − XY ) sinh 2r
π2
2
2
2
−(X + Y + PX
+ PY2 ) cosh 2r]
(24)

Wξ (X, PX , Y, PY ) =

∆(

2
X

Xθi ) =

p

2
cosh[2r]

2 cosh[2r]

(28)

i=1

The inferred uncertainty is calculated to be [7, 22],
1
1
(∆inf Xθ ) = cosh[2r] − tanh[2r] sinh[2r] cos2 [θ + φ]
2
2
(25)
We calculate (∆inf Xθ1 )2 and (∆inf Xθ2 )2 with the settings θ1 = 0, θ2 = π/2, φ1 = 0 and φ2 = π/2 (the correlations hXY i and hPX PY i are maximized), and hence
one obtains
2

1
(∆inf Xθ1 ) = (∆inf Xθ2 ) =
2 cosh[2r]
2

2

B.

Single photon-subtracted squeezed vaccum

(26)

Thus, the product of uncertainties 4 cosh12 [2r] , is always
1
less than the uncertainty bound ( ) [7] (for r > 0). The
4
Reid criterion (2) is able to show steering for such states
for all squeezing parameters. One can also apply the
entropic steering inequality (5) for this state. Since the
non-vanishing correlations are hXY i and hPX PY i, the
inequality becomes, [22]
h(X |Y) + h(PX |PY ) ≥ ln πe,

We plot the uncertainty bound and the inferred uncertainty in fig(2). It is clear from the figure that our steerability criterion is able to show steering for the two mode
squeezed vacuum state.

(27)

The conditional entropies are given by h(X |Y) =
h(X , Y) − h(Y) and h(PX |PY ) = h(PX , PY ) − h(PY )

A non-Gaussian state derived from a two-mode
squeezed vacuum by subtracting a single photon from
any of the two modes may be written as

|ξ−1 i =

∞
p
X
√
1
2
1
−
λ
λn n[|n − 1, ni+
2
2 sinh (r)
n=0

(−1)k |n, n − 1i]

(29)

with k ∈ [0, 1]. The Wigner function corresponding to this single-photon subtracted state in terms of
X, PX , Y, PY can be calculated from the Wigner function of the two-mode squeezed vacuum state [34], given

1
exp[2 sinh(2r)(XY − PX PY )
π2
2
− cosh(2r)(X 2 + Y 2 + PX
+ PY2 )]

W1 (X, Y, PX ,PY ) =

0.5

Uncertainty

by

Uncertainty

6

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

× [− sinh(2r)[(PX − PY )2 − (X − Y )2 ]
+ cosh(2r)[(PX − PY )2 + (X − Y )2 ] − 1]
(30)
The uncertainties for the inferred observables Xθ1 and
Xθ2 (for conjugate variables we take θ1 = 0 and θ2 =
π/2) are given by
(∆inf Xθi )2 =

3
4[cosh(2r) ∓ cosh(r) sinh(r)]

(31)

(with the minus (plus) sign holding for i = 1(2) respectively), leading to the product of the uncertainties
(∆inf Xθ1 )2 (∆inf Xθ2 )2 =

9
2[3 cosh(4r) + 5]

(32)

A plot of the product of inferred uncertainties and the
uncertainty bound given by the Reid criteria with respect
to the squeezing parameter r is provided in fig(3). It is
clear from the graph that the Reid inequality fails to
exhibit steering for smaller value of r, as already known
in the literature [22]. The entropic steering inequality
(27) is though able to reveal steering by this state, as
shown earlier [22].
Now, in order to check steering using the sum uncertainty relation, we calculate the uncertainty bound
for the photon-subtracted state according to sumuncertainty relation, given by
∆(Xθ1

p
+ Xθ2 ) = cosh[2r] − cos[r] sinh[r]
p
+ cosh[2r] + cos[r] sinh[r].

(33)

The sum of inferred uncertainties due to the presence
of correlations hXY i and hPX PY i, is obtained using
Eq.(31). We plot the sum uncertainty bound and the
sum of inferred uncertainties for the single photon subtracted squeezed vacuum state in Fig(3). It is clear from
the graph that our steering criterion is able to show steering for all values of the squeezing parameter ’r’.
Next, we provide a comparison of the magnitude of
steering by the three different criteria, viz., the Reid criterion, the entropic steering relation, and the sum steering relation for the single photon subtracted squeezed
vacuum state. We present the magnitude of violation for
all these steering criteria in the table below, as functions
of the squeezing parameter r. One can see from the table that the magnitude of violation of the sum steering
inequality is always greater than both the Reid and the
entropic steering inequalities.

2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

r

r

FIG. 3. Steering by the single photon subtracted squeezed
vacuum state. On the left hand panel the product of inferred
uncertainties ((∆inf Xθ1 )2 (∆inf Xθ2 )2 ) (the dotted curve),
and the Reid bound (solid line) are plotted versus the squeezing parameter r. The right hand panel depicts the sum of inferred uncertainties (∆inf Xθ1 + ∆inf Xθ2 ) (the dotted curve)
and sum steering bound (∆(Xθ1 + Xθ2 ))(solid curve). It is
clear that the steering inequality based on sum uncertainty
relation is able to show steering for all values of the squeezing
parameter.

r
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6

C.

1

ln πe

2
c )2 ∆
c
4(∆inf X
θ1
inf Xθ1 )

h(X |PY ) + h(Y|PX )

∆(X1 +X2 )
∆inf (X1 )+∆inf (X2 )

0.444
0.458
0.501
0.581
0.707
0.909
1.204

1.044
1.053
1.061
1.093
1.124
1.192
1.264

1.155
1.161
1.225
1.318
1.457
1.648
1.901

Two-dimensional harmonic oscillator states

For the two-dimensional harmonic oscillator the wavefunction in terms of the Hermite-Gauss function is given
by [35]
√
√
1
2
1
2x
2y
2
{
} Hm (
)Hn (
)
umn (x, y) =
π 2m+n w2 m!n!
w
w
× exp[−(x2 + y 2 )/w2 ]
(34)
r

It is possible to construct entangled states using superpositions of the above Hermite-Gaussian wave functions, that can be represented by Laguerre-Gaussian
(LG) beams given by [34]

Φmn (ρ, θ) = e
r

−ρ2 /w2 i(m−n)θ

e

min(m,n)

(−1)

2
|m−n|
L
πm!n!w2 min(m,n)



2ρ2
w2

√ !|m−n|
ρ 2
w


[min(m, n)]!
(35)

written in terms of cylindrical coordinates using the generalised Laguerre polynomial. The Wigner function corresponding to the LG-beam in terms of the dimensionless

7
quadratures X, PX , Y, PY is given by [22, 36]
(−1)(m+n)
Lm [4(Q0 + Q2 )]
Wm,n (X, PX , Y, PY ) =
π2
Ln [4(Q0 − Q2 )] exp(−4Q0 ) (36)
1 2
2
where Q0 =
[X + Y 2 + PX
+ PY2 ], and Q2 =
4
XPY − Y PX
. It was shown earlier [22] that the Reid
2
criteria fails to demonstrate steering for LG-beams However, the entropic steering criterion is able to reveal steerabilty of LG-beams for all values of n ≥ 1.
We next apply our sum steering inequality (17) for
the case of LG-beams. For this we need to compute the
uncertainty bound as well as the inferred uncertainty for
the LG-beams. The sum uncertainty bound is obtained
in terms of the quadratures, i.e.,
p
∆(Xθ1 +Xθ2 ) = ∆(X+PX ) = h(X + PX )2 i − hX + PX i2
(37)
and, similarly for the inferred variances
max 2
(∆inf Xθ1 )2 = (∆inf X)2 = hX 2 i[1 − (C0,π/2
) ]
"
#
hXPY i
= hX 2 i 1 − p
(38)
hX 2 ihPY2 i

and
2
max 2
(∆inf Xθ2 )2 = (∆inf PX )2 = hPX
i[1 − (C0,π/2
) ]
#
"
hPX Y i
2
(39)
= hPX
i 1− p 2
hPX ihY 2 i

The computed values of the above variables are plotted in
Fig.3 for several values of the beam angular momentum
n, (taking m = 0). It is seen that steering is demonstrated for all n ≥ 1. The violation of the sum steering
inequality becomes stronger for higher n, a feature that is
absent in regard to the violation of the entropic steering
inequality for LG beams [22].
In the table below we compare the magnitude of violation of our steering inequality with that of the Reid
inequality and the entropic steering inequality. It is clear
from the table that not only does the sum steering relation perform better than the entropic steering inequality
for any particular value of n (there is no violation of the
Reid inequality), but also that magnitude of violation
of the sum steering inequality gets stronger with higher
angular momentum.
n
0
1
2
3
4
5

1

ln πe

2
c )2 ∆
c
4(∆inf X
θ1
inf Xθ1 )

h(X |PY ) + h(Y|PX )

∆(X1 +X2 )
∆inf (X1 )+∆inf (X2 )

1
0.4444
0.3599
0.3265
0.3086
0.2975

1
1.0438
1.0567
1.0626
1.0657
1.0676

1
1.1560
1.3243
1.5080
1.6719
1.8115

3.5

(Inferred uncertainty)
(Uncertainty limit)
3

2.5

2

1.5

1
0

1

2

3

4

5

n

FIG. 4. The sum uncertainty bound (solid bar) and the sum of
inferred uncertainties (crossed bar) are plotted versus angular
momentum n for the LG beams. The figure shows clearly that
the violation of the sum steering inequality increases with
larger angular momentum.

V.

CONCLUSIONS

To summarize, in this work we have derived a new
steering criterion using the sum uncertainty relation [25,
26]. Our steering inequality is based on the sum of
inferred variances pertaining to two observables of bipartite systems. the sum uncertainty relation leads to
a tighter uncertainty bound compared to the standard
product (Heisenberg) uncertainty relation, and hence,
the resultant steering inequality based on the former is
expected to yield a tighter steering relation compared to
that obtained from the the latter [7, 13]. In the context
of discrete variables, the derived sum uncertainty based
steering relation is able to replicate the steering range of
Werner states obtained using the necessary and sufficient
steering condition for the case of bipartite systems with
two measurement settings and two outcomes [17]. Application of the sum-uncertainty based steering relation
for continuous variable systems demonstrates its advantage over other approaches based on the Reid criterion [7]
and the entropic steering criterion [21]. Specifically, we
consider examples of non-Gaussian states such as the
photon subtracted squeezed vacuum state and the twodimensional harmonic oscillator state to obtain stronger
violations of the sum steering inequality compared to
those obtained using the Reid inequality as well as the
entropic steering inequality [22]. The sum uncertainty
based steering relation hence offers a better prospect of
detection of steerability compared to other steering criteria for continuous variable systems. It would thus be
interesting to explore the practical feasibility of one-sided
device independent key generation [37] schemes based on
the sum steering relation for continuous variable entangled states.

8
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Tanumoy Pramanik for his
helpful suggestions. SD acknowledges financial support
through INSPIRE fellowship from DST (India).

[1] A. Einstein, D. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev.
47,777 (1935)
[2] E. Schrödinger, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 31, 553
(1935).
[3] E. Schrödinger, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 32, 446
(1936).
[4] J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) 1, 195 (1964).
[5] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony et al., Phys. Rev.
Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
[6] A. Aspect, P. Grangier, C. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49,
91 (1982); W. Tittel, J. Brendel, B. Gisin, T. Herzog,
H. Zbinden, N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3229 (1998);
G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, A.
Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5039 (1998); M. Ansmann
et al. Nature 461, 504 (2009); M. Giustina al., Nature
497, 227 (2013).
[7] M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A 40, 913 (1989).
[8] Z. Y. Ou, S. F. Pereira, H. J. Kimble and K. C. Peng,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3663 (1992).
[9] S. Steinlechner, J. Bauchrowitz, T. Eberle and R. Schnabel, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022104 (2013).
[10] H. M. Wiseman,S. J. Jones and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 98, 140402 (2007); A. C. Jones, H. M. Wiseman and
A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052116 (2007).
[11] Reid, M. D., P. D. Drummond, W. P. Bowen, E. G. Cavalcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A. Bachor, U. L. Andersen, and
G. Leuchs, 2009, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1727.
[12] R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277(1989).
[13] D. J. Saunders, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J.
Pryde, Nature Phys. 6, 845 (2010).
[14] E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman and M. D.
Reid, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032112 (2009).
[15] J. Schneeloch, C. J. Broadbent, S. P. Walborn, E. G.
Cavalcanti, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062103
(2013).
[16] T. Pramanik, M. Kaplan and A. S. Majumdar, Phys.
Rev. A 90, 050305(R) (2014).
[17] E. G. Cavalcanti, C. J. Foster, M. Fuwa and H. M. Wiseman, Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 32,
A74 (2015).

[18] W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 43, 172 (1927).
[19] I. Bialynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski, Commun. Math.
Phys. 44, 129 (1975).
[20] D. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 631 (1983); K. Kraus,
Phys. Rev. D 35, 3070 (1987); H. Maassen, & J. B. M.
Uffink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1103 (1988).
[21] S. P. Walborn, A. Salles, R. M. Gomes, F. Toscano and P.
H. Souto Ribeiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130402 (2011).
[22] P. Chowdhury, T. Pramanik, A. S. Majumdar and G. S.
Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A 89, 012104 (2014).
[23] J. Oppenheim and S. Wehner, Science 330, 1072 (2010).
[24] P. Chowdhury, T. Pramanik and A. S. Majumdar, Phys.
Rev. A 92, 042317 (2015).
[25] A. K. Pati and P. K. Sahu, Phys. Lett. A 367, 177 (2007).
[26] L. Maccone and A. K Pati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 260401
(2014).
[27] H.P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929).
[28] D. Mondal, S. Bagchi, A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A 95,
052117 (2017).
[29] K. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. A 93, 052108 (2016).
[30] B. Chen, S-M. Fei, Sci. Rep. 5, 14238 (2015); Q-C. Song
et al., Sci. Rep. 7, 44764 (2017).
[31] S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1784
(1999); H. Takahashi et al., Nature Photonics 4, 178
(2010); N. Lee et al., Science 332, 330 (2011); M. K.
Olsen and J. F. Corney, Phys. Rev. A 87, 033839 (2013).
[32] K. Kraus, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3070 (1987); H. Maassen,
and J. B. M. Uffink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1103 (1988).
[33] A. Roy, S. S. Bhattacharya, A. Mukherjee and M. Banik,
J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48, 415302 (2015).
[34] G. S. Agarwal, Quantum optics (Cambridge University
Press, 2013).
[35] S. Danakas and P. K. Aravind, Phys. Rev. A 45,1973
(1992); M. W. Beigersbergen, et al., Opt. Commun.
96,123 (1993).
[36] R. Simon and G. S. Agarwal, Opt. Lett. 25, 1313 (2000).
[37] M. Tomamichel and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,
110506 (2011); C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, S. P.
Walborn, V. Scarani, H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A 85,
010301(R) (2012).

