2013 03 01 Maurizio Di Noia Presentation

Entanglement Concentration and
Distillation in Continuous Variable Systems

Maurizio Di Noia
University of Physics of Milan
01 March 2013
Introduction Entanglement Concentration Entanglement Distillation Conclusions Appendix
1
Introduction
Entanglement
Denition
Example
Gaussian Systems
2
Entanglement Concentration
System denition
Separability
Entanglement Measure
3
Entanglement Distillation
Initial System
IPS
Quantum Teleportation
Relative Improvement of Quantum Teleportation Fidelity
4
Conclusions
1
Introduction
Entanglement
Denition
Example
Gaussian Systems
2
System denition
Separability
3
Initial System
IPS
4
Conclusions
Introduction
Entanglement
Operational Denition
We dene entangled those states which cannot be created only
by Local Operations and Classical Communication(LOCC)
States not entangled are called separable
Introduction
Entanglement
Mathematical Denition
Let a bipartite system consists of two subsystems A and B, described
by the density operator
1
A
1
B
,
with density operators
j
1
A
and
j
1
B
then p
j
0,
j
p
j
= 1,
entangled ,=
j
p
j

j

j
separable =
j
p
j

j

j
Since Entanglement permits to implement operations not achievable
only with LOCC it represents a resource to manipulate information in
an effective way.
Introduction
Entanglement
1
A
1
B
,
j
1
A
and
j
1
B
then p
j
0,
j
p
j
= 1,
entangled ,=
j
p
j

j

j
separable =
j
p
j

j

j
an effective way.
Introduction
Entanglement
1
A
1
B
,
j
1
A
and
j
1
B
then p
j
0,
j
p
j
= 1,
entangled ,=
j
p
j

j

j
separable =
j
p
j

j

j
an effective way.
Introduction
Entanglement
1
A
1
B
,
j
1
A
and
j
1
B
then p
j
0,
j
p
j
= 1,
entangled ,=
j
p
j

j

j
separable =
j
p
j

j

j
an effective way.
Introduction
Entanglement
Example
Is entangled the state :
[ =
n=0
c
n
[n [n = [[
while is separable the state :
=
n=0
c
n
_
[nn[ [nn[
_
Both and show correlations in photon numbers, but it does exist
an observable for which those of disappear while those of do not.
also pure quantum correlations
only classical correlation achievable through LOCC
Introduction
Entanglement
Example
[ =
n=0
c
n
[n [n = [[
=
n=0
c
n
_
[nn[ [nn[
_
Introduction
Entanglement
Example
[ =
n=0
c
n
[n [n = [[
=
n=0
c
n
_
[nn[ [nn[
_
Introduction
Gaussian Systems
The systems studied in quantum information can be classied in
discrete Variable Systems (DV) and Continuous Variable Systems
(CV).
Denition of Gaussian System
A CV System
G
with n free parameters is Gaussian if its Wigner
function W[
G
](X) is Gaussian:
W[
G
](X) =
e
1
2
(XX)
T
1
(XX)
(2)
n
_
Det[]
.
The Gaussian state
G
is completely dened by its rst two moments:
the mean square vector X
the covariance matrix which contains the second moments
Introduction
Gaussian Systems
The systems studied in quantum information can be classied in
discrete Variable Systems (DV) and Continuous Variable Systems
(CV).
Denition of Gaussian System
A CV System
G
with n free parameters is Gaussian if its Wigner
function W[
G
](X) is Gaussian:
W[
G
](X) =
e
1
2
(XX)
T
1
(XX)
(2)
n
_
Det[]
.
The Gaussian state
G
is completely dened by its rst two moments:
the mean square vector X
the covariance matrix which contains the second moments
Introduction
Gaussian Systems
I will focus on two mode bipartite Gaussian Systems.
Why Gaussian Systems
since the Quantum Electrodynamics vacuum state is a Gaussian
state and the experimental apparatuses implemented with better
control are described by Hamiltonian bilinear in eld mode which
preserve the Gaussian character, most of the systems produced
in laboratory are Gaussian
a generic two mode Gaussian bipartite State can be realized by
a squeezer, a thermal state and a displacement, which are
operations that are all currently realized by experimental
apparatuses
Gaussian States are exhaustively characterized with respect to
entanglement
Introduction
Gaussian Systems - Separability Criterion
For two mode bipartite Gaussian Systems exists a necessary
and sufcient criterion to distinguish separable states from the
entangled one.
Let be a separable bipartite state, we dene the partial
transpose state (over the second subsystems)
i
p
i

i

i
T
.
The Peres-Horodecki Condition
1
, or PPT Condition, establishes
that the state is separable if and only if
2

0.
1
Asher Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 1413 (1996), Horodecki, P.Horodecki, and
R.Horodecki Phys. Lett. A 223 18 (1996)
2
R.Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 2726, (2000)
Introduction
entangled one.
i
p
i

i

i
T
.
1
2

0.
1
2
Introduction
entangled one.
i
p
i

i

i
T
.
1
2

0.
1
2
Introduction
Gaussian Systems - Entanglement Measure
For two mode bipartite Gaussian states exists an entanglement
measure which can be computed
3
.
We dene the logarithmic negativity c
N
( ) as
c
N
( ) = ln|
|
1
, where |
A|
1
= Tr
_
A

A.
Since
|
|
1
= 1 + 2
,
j
negative eigenvalues of
,
the negativity basically measure how much the partial
transposed density operator fails in satisfying the PPT condition,
i.e. in being positive.
3
G.Vidal R.F.Werner Phys. Rev. A 65 032314 (2002)
Introduction
For two mode bipartite Gaussian states exists an entanglement
measure which can be computed
3
.
We dene the logarithmic negativity c
N
( ) as
c
N
( ) = ln|
|
1
, where |
A|
1
= Tr
_
A

A.
Since
|
|
1
= 1 + 2
,
j
negative eigenvalues of
,
the negativity basically measure how much the partial
transposed density operator fails in satisfying the PPT condition,
i.e. in being positive.
3
G.Vidal R.F.Werner Phys. Rev. A 65 032314 (2002)
Introduction
For two mode bipartite Gaussian states the logarithmic negativity can
be written in the easy way
c
N
( ) = max
_
0, ln[2
]
_
.
where

d
is called symplectic eigenvalue of the partial transposed

system and can be computed from the covariance matrix.
Hence the two mode Gaussian System Entanglement can be
evaluated from the symplectic eigenvalue

d
of the partial transposed

state.
Introduction
For two mode bipartite Gaussian states the logarithmic negativity can
be written in the easy way
c
N
( ) = max
_
0, ln[2
]
_
.
where

d
is called symplectic eigenvalue of the partial transposed

system and can be computed from the covariance matrix.
Hence the two mode Gaussian System Entanglement can be
evaluated from the symplectic eigenvalue

d
of the partial transposed

state.
1
Introduction
Entanglement
Denition
Example
Gaussian Systems
2
System denition
Separability
3
Initial System
IPS
4
Conclusions
System denition
The initial state
0
=
0
(
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
) is the most generic
Gaussian factorized state

0
(
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
) =

S(
1
)
1

S
(
1
)
S(r
2
)
2

S
(r
2
)
1
C r
2
R
The state after the interaction
System denition
S() is the squeezing operator given by
S() = e
1
2
_
(
)
2
(
a)
2
C

i
, i = 1, 2 the thermal state (noise)

i
=
e
i

a
i
Tr[e
i

a
i
]
=
1
1 + n
i
s=0
_
n
i
1 + n
i
_
s
[s
i i
s[
with average number of photons n
i
, where =
1
k
B
T
.
The state
0
interacts with a two mode mixer, a linear device
described by the unitary operator

U(),
U() = e
(
)
= e
i
C
System denition
S() = e
1
2
_
(
)
2
(
a)
2
C

i

i
=
e
i

a
i
Tr[e
i

a
i
]
=
1
1 + n
i
s=0
_
n
i
1 + n
i
_
s
[s
i i
s[
i
, where =
1
k
B
T
.
The state
0

U(),
U() = e
(
)
= e
i
C
System denition
S() = e
1
2
_
(
)
2
(
a)
2
C

i

i
=
e
i

a
i
Tr[e
i

a
i
]
=
1
1 + n
i
s=0
_
n
i
1 + n
i
_
s
[s
i i
s[
i
, where =
1
k
B
T
.
The state
0

U(),
U() = e
(
)
= e
i
C
System denition
The operator

U() describes a complex rotations of the two modes.
The action of

U() can be decomposed as in the picture
where

U
1
_
2
_
= e
i

2

a
a
are unitary operations which cannot modify
the entanglement of the system.
= in order to study the entanglement behaviour we can reduce to a
two mode mixer with real parameter

U(), R (BS).
System denition
The operator

The action of

where

U
1
_
2
_
= e
i

2

a
a

U(), R (BS).
System denition
The operator

The action of

where

U
1
_
2
_
= e
i

2

a
a

U(), R (BS).
System denition
Variables of the state evolved through the BS
average number of thermal photons n
1
and n
2
squeezing parameters r
1
and r
2
relative phase between the two squeezing
BS transmissivity T = cos
2
Covariance Matrix of the evolved state

Det[] =
_
n
1
+
1
2
_
2
_
n
2
+
1
2
_
2
System denition
Variables of the state evolved through the BS
1
and n
2
1
and r
2
relative phase between the two squeezing
BS transmissivity T = cos
2
Covariance Matrix of the evolved state

Det[] =
_
n
1
+
1
2
_
2
_
n
2
+
1
2
_
2
Separability
The PPT Condition for the state after the interaction with the BS
can be written as
f (r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, T, ) = K(n
1
, n
2
)+4T(1T)W(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, ) 0
Lets call f PPT function
If we set the squeezing parameters r
1
= r
2
= r the minimum
value r
min
of r for which the state after the interaction with the BS
with T =
1
2
is entangled
r
min
= r
min
_
Det[]
_
=
1
4
Arcosh
1 + 16 Det[]
8
_
Det[]
=
1
4
Arcosh
1 + 16
_
n
1
+
1
2
_
2
_
n
2
+
1
2
_
2
8
_
n
1
+
1
2
_ _
n
2
+
1
2
_
Separability
The PPT Condition for the state after the interaction with the BS
can be written as
f (r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, T, ) = K(n
1
, n
2
)+4T(1T)W(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, ) 0
Lets call f PPT function
If we set the squeezing parameters r
1
= r
2
= r the minimum
value r
min
of r for which the state after the interaction with the BS
with T =
1
2
is entangled
r
min
= r
min
_
Det[]
_
=
1
4
Arcosh
1 + 16 Det[]
8
_
Det[]
=
1
4
Arcosh
1 + 16
_
n
1
+
1
2
_
2
_
n
2
+
1
2
_
2
8
_
n
1
+
1
2
_ _
n
2
+
1
2
_
Separability
In case of same thermal noise in both branches n
1
= n
2
= n,
r
min
=
1
4
Arcosh
1 + 16(n +
1
2
)
4
8(n +
1
2
)
2
.
In general the PPT f function can be used only to determine the
threshold between separable and entangled states through the
condition f 0, while it does not give a measure of the quantum
correlation of the system
In the specic case of the variables from which the determinant
of the covariant matrix Det[] is not dependent on, the function f
has a monotone behaviour with respect of the symplectic
eigenvalue

d
and hence with respect of the entanglement of the

system
the PPT function f is easier to compute than the symplectic
eigenvalue

d
Since Det[] = Det[](n

1
, n
2
) the f provides an entanglement
measure as function of the phase and the BS transmissivity T
eigenvalue

d

system
eigenvalue

d

1
, n
2
eigenvalue

d

system
eigenvalue

d

1
, n
2
eigenvalue

d

system
eigenvalue

d

1
, n
2
Once we set the thermal noise n
1
and n
2
, the squeezing parameters
r
1
and r
2
, the output state has always the maximum entanglement for
relative phase between the two squeezing =
BS transmissivity T =
1
2
(balanced BS)
Lets then set = and T =
1
2
.
Once we set the total squeezing photons n
s
, and hence the
squeezing energy,
sinh
2
r
1
+ sinh
2
r
2
= n
s
the best squeezing photon distribution of the initial state to maximize
the entanglement of the output state from the BS is always
r
1
= r
2
Once we set the thermal noise n
1
and n
2
, the squeezing parameters
r
1
and r
2
, the output state has always the maximum entanglement for
1
2
(balanced BS)
Lets then set = and T =
1
2
.
Once we set the total squeezing photons n
s
, and hence the
squeezing energy,
sinh
2
r
1
+ sinh
2
r
2
= n
s
the best squeezing photon distribution of the initial state to maximize
the entanglement of the output state from the BS is always
r
1
= r
2
The logarithmic negativity c
N
( ) of the state
c
N
( ) = max
_
0, r
1
+ r
2
1
2
ln[(1 + 2n
1
)(1 + 2n
2
)]
_
.
N
( )
logarithmically increase in the squeezing energy
logarithmically decrease in the thermal photon number
N
( ) of the state
c
N
( ) = max
_
0, r
1
+ r
2
1
2
ln[(1 + 2n
1
)(1 + 2n
2
)]
_
.
N
( )
logarithmically increase in the squeezing energy
logarithmically decrease in the thermal photon number
This work exhausts the study of entanglement concentration of a
bipartite two-mode Gaussian state through a passive linear
transformation.
Overall best conditions:
1
2
same squeezing on both branches r
1
= r
2
= r
lowest total number of thermal photon n
t
= n
1
+ n
2
In the limit case of n
1
= n
2
= 0, r
1
= r
2
= r the output state is the twin
beam state (TWB), the maximum entangled state for xed energy.
This work exhausts the study of entanglement concentration of a
bipartite two-mode Gaussian state through a passive linear
transformation.
Overall best conditions:
1
2
same squeezing on both branches r
1
= r
2
= r
lowest total number of thermal photon n
t
= n
1
+ n
2
In the limit case of n
1
= n
2
= 0, r
1
= r
2
= r the output state is the twin
beam state (TWB), the maximum entangled state for xed energy.
1
Introduction
Entanglement
Denition
Example
Gaussian Systems
2
System denition
Separability
3
Initial System
IPS
4
Conclusions
Initial System
The initial System
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
) is the generic two modes bipartite
Gaussian state evolved through a BS with transmissivity T =
1
2
and
relative phase between the two squeezing xed = :

0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
) =

U1
2
S(
1
)
1

S
(
1
)

S(r
2
)
2

S
(r
2
)

U
1
2
, r
1
, r
2
R
IPS
The System
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
) evolves through the Inconclusive Photon
Substraction (IPS) process
each branch is mixed with the
vacuum in a BS with
transmissivity T
the output state is measured by
an avalanche photodetector
(APD) with quantum efciency
IPS
The outcomes from each detector is either a click for any number of
photon or nothing
4 possibile events
The joint measurement of the two photodetectors is described by the
4 value factorized POVM
ij
() =

i ,c
()

j ,d
() i , j = 0, 1
where
0
() =
k=0
(1 )
k
[kk[,

1
() =

I

0
()
IPS
The outcomes from each detector is either a click for any number of
photon or nothing
4 possibile events
The joint measurement of the two photodetectors is described by the
4 value factorized POVM
ij
() =

i ,c
()

j ,d
() i , j = 0, 1
where
0
() =
k=0
(1 )
k
[kk[,

1
() =

I

0
()
IPS
The outcome of the IPS are 4 conditional states
ij
, with i , j = 0, 1,
each given by

ij
=
Tr
cd
_
U
ac
(T)

U
bd
(T)
0
[0
cd dc
0[
ac
(T)

U
bd
(T)
I
a
I
b

ij
()
_
p
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, T, )
where the p
ij
are the relative probability.
State parameters after IPS process:
1
and n
2
1
and r
2
BS transmissivity T and APD efciency
IPS
The outcome of the IPS are 4 conditional states
ij
, with i , j = 0, 1,
each given by

ij
=
Tr
cd
_
U
ac
(T)

U
bd
(T)
0
[0
cd dc
0[
ac
(T)

U
bd
(T)
I
a
I
b

ij
()
_
p
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, T, )
where the p
ij
are the relative probability.
State parameters after IPS process:
1
and n
2
1
and r
2
BS transmissivity T and APD efciency
IPS
Wigner Formalism.
Wigner Functions W
ij
(, ), i , j = 0, 1 of the 4 states after IPS process
W
00
(, ) =
1
2
p
00
L
4
W
4
(, )
W
01
(, ) =
1
2
p
01
k=2,4
L
k
W
k
(, )
W
10
(, ) =
1
2
p
10
k=3,4
L
k
W
k
(, )
W
11
(, ) =
1
2
p
11
4
k=1
L
k
W
k
(, )
where W
k
(, ) are gaussian
functions, L
k
functions of system
parameters,
The states
ij
, except
00
, are not
Gaussian .
IPS Process de-Gaussies the
state.
IPS
Wigner Formalism.
Wigner Functions W
ij
(, ), i , j = 0, 1 of the 4 states after IPS process
W
00
(, ) =
1
2
p
00
L
4
W
4
(, )
W
01
(, ) =
1
2
p
01
k=2,4
L
k
W
k
(, )
W
10
(, ) =
1
2
p
10
k=3,4
L
k
W
k
(, )
W
11
(, ) =
1
2
p
11
4
k=1
L
k
W
k
(, )
where W
k
(, ) are gaussian
functions, L
k
functions of system
parameters,
The states
ij
, except
00
, are not
Gaussian .
IPS Process de-Gaussies the
state.
PPT Criterion is not valid for non Gaussian states and logarithmic
negativity is not computable.
To measure quantum correlations we us the average delity of
Coherent States Quantum Teleportation.
Coherent States to be
teleported whose Wigner function
W(z) is given by
W(z) =
2
exp
_
2[z [
2
_

ij
status shared by Alice and Bob

out
output state from
teleportation
Lets dene the average delity F between the pure state = [[
to be teleported and the state
out
after the Teleportation.
F Tr[
out
] = [
out
[,
as Wigner functions
F
_
C
d
2
W[ ]() W[
out
]().
The average delity measure the overlap between the two states.
Shared state not entangled Classical Limit = max[F
cl
] =
1
2
Relative Improvement of Quantum Teleportation
Fidelity
For non Gaussian states lets consider only average delity values
greater than
1
2
.
We studied the following average delities:
F
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
) obtained using as shared state between Alice
and Bob the Gaussian state
0
not processed by IPS
F
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, , T), i , j = 0, 1 obtained using as shared states
between Alice and Bob the states
ij
processed through IPS
Lets dene the relative improvement 1
ij
(r
1
, r
1
, n
1
, n
2
, , T) of average
delity obtained with the states
ij
over the one obtained with the
state
0
as
1
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, , T) =
F
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, , T) F
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
)
F
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
)
Fidelity
greater than
1
2
.
F
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
0
F
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
ij
ij
(r
1
, r
1
, n
1
, n
2
, , T) of average
ij
state
0
as
1
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, , T) =
F
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, , T) F
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
)
F
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
)
Fidelity
greater than
1
2
.
F
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
0
F
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
ij
ij
(r
1
, r
1
, n
1
, n
2
, , T) of average
ij
state
0
as
1
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, , T) =
F
ij
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
, , T) F
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
)
F
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
)
Fidelity
The state
11
of the joint APD click provides a relative improvement of
average delity and hence of entanglement .
Positive relative improvement 1
11
displayed for r
1
= r
2
= r and
n
1
= n
2
= n with quantum efciency
value = 0.9 and transmissivity
T = 0.99.
Fidelity
Selecting on an high number of input copies only those
corresponding to a joint click by APD
Increase of Entanglement of the original Gaussian System
through the non Gaussian IPS map
Fidelity
Selecting on an high number of input copies only those
corresponding to a joint click by APD
Increase of Entanglement of the original Gaussian System
through the non Gaussian IPS map
1
Introduction
Entanglement
Denition
Example
Gaussian Systems
2
System denition
Separability
3
Initial System
IPS
4
Conclusions
Conclusions
Optimal conditions for Entanglement Concentration through the
interaction with a linear passive device
Threshold separability on r as function of the noises n
1
and n
2
of
the state evolved through a balanced BS
Conditions for entanglement increase for a two mode bipartite
Gaussian state through the de-Gaussication IPS process
Entanglement
Examples of applications
Quantum Information
dense coding
quantum teleportation
Quantum Computing
Implementation of algorithms more effective than the classical one
Groover searching algorithm
Shor factorization algorithm
Quantum Cryptography
BB84 protocol
E91 protocol
Back
Entanglement
Quantum Information
dense coding
Quantum Computing
BB84 protocol
E91 protocol
Back
Entanglement
Quantum Information
dense coding
Quantum Computing
BB84 protocol
E91 protocol
Back
DV and CV Systems
DV Systems
The DV Systems are those systems whose degrees of freedom are
described in Hilbert spaces of nite dimensions.
Example
The two levels system (qubit) [+ =
1
2
([0 +[1) described in the
Hilbert space C
2
physically implemented by the two polarizations of a
photon or from the base and excited states of an electron in an atom.
CV Systems
The CV Systems are those systems whose degrees of freedom are
described in Hilbert spaces of innite dimensions..
Example
A radiation mode described in the Hilbert space 1 = L
2
(R)
DV and CV Systems
DV Systems
The DV Systems are those systems whose degrees of freedom are
described in Hilbert spaces of nite dimensions.
Example
The two levels system (qubit) [+ =
1
2
([0 +[1) described in the
Hilbert space C
2
physically implemented by the two polarizations of a
photon or from the base and excited states of an electron in an atom.
CV Systems
The CV Systems are those systems whose degrees of freedom are
described in Hilbert spaces of innite dimensions..
Example
A radiation mode described in the Hilbert space 1 = L
2
(R)
DC and CV Systems
DV Systems
unitarian operations are difcult to
implement
states are easily destroyed
they are probabilistic (e.g.:
success rate of the teleportation
protocol of
1
4
)
CV Systems
they can leverage experimental
apparatuses of quantum optics
they are states with low race of
decoherence, i.e. resistant to
noise
they are deterministic
thanks to the size of the Hilbert
space they potentially provide a
greater bandwidth (e.g. arbitrary
systems of d-levels can be stored
in one CV mode)
they can be implemented in
optical cables
Back
DC and CV Systems
DV Systems
unitarian operations are difcult to
implement
states are easily destroyed
they are probabilistic (e.g.:
success rate of the teleportation
protocol of
1
4
)
CV Systems
they can leverage experimental
apparatuses of quantum optics
they are states with low race of
decoherence, i.e. resistant to
noise
they are deterministic
thanks to the size of the Hilbert
space they potentially provide a
greater bandwidth (e.g. arbitrary
systems of d-levels can be stored
in one CV mode)
they can be implemented in
optical cables
Back
Covariance Matrix
Let

q and

p be the position and momentum operators given by
q
k
=
1
2
(
a
k
+

a
k
),

p
k
=
1
i
2
(
a
k

k
),
R the vector dened by R = (
q
1
,

p
1
, ...,

q
n
,

p
n
)
T
, where (...)
T
is the
transposition

T, we dene Covariance Matrix
kj
=
1
2
R
k
, R
j
R
j
R
k
,
where
A,

B =

A
B +

B
A is the anticommutator and
A Tr[
A] the
expectation value of the operator

A.
Back
Wigner Function
Let

O be a generic Hilbert-Schmidt operator,

D() the displacement
operator, we dene the characteristic function [

O]() as
[

O]() = Tr[

O
D()], = (
1
, ...,
n
)
T
.
We dene the Wigner function W[

O]() as the complex Fourier
transformation of the characteristic function:
W[

O]() =
_
C
n
d
2n
2n
e
(
)
[

O](), = (
1
, ...,
n
).
Back
Quantum Teleportation Fidelity
Minimum value of average delity F
min
(n
1
, n
2
) for two mode bipartite
Gaussian States with shared state entangled
F
min
(n
1
, n
2
) =
1
_
_
2n
1
+1
2n
2
+1
+
_
2n
2
+1
2n
1
+1
+ 2
F
min
=
1
2
n
1
= n
2
.
Minimum value of average delity F
min
(n
1
, n
2
) for two mode bipartite
Gaussian States with shared state entangled
F
min
(n
1
, n
2
) =
1
_
_
2n
1
+1
2n
2
+1
+
_
2n
2
+1
2n
1
+1
+ 2
F
min
=
1
2
n
1
= n
2
.
Probability of IPS States
Due to the symmetry of IPS process the probabilities p
01
and p
10
are
the same. Probability behaviour shown for r
1
= r
2
= r and for thermal
photon number n
1
= n
2
= n = 0.5, quantum efciency = 0.9, BSs
transmissivity T = 0.9.
Back
Fidelity of the non IPS state
Analytical formula for the delity F
0
obtained with the state
0
non
processed by IPS.
F
0
= F
0
(r
1
, r
2
, n
1
, n
2
) =
e
(r
1
+r
2
)
_
(2n
1
+ e
2r
1
+ 1) (2n
1
+ e
2r
2
+ 1)
,
which in the special case r
1
= r
2
= r and n
1
= n
2
= r , becomes
F
0
(r , n) =
e
2r
2n + e
2r
+ 1
.
Back
Fidelity of the state
11
The Fidelity F
11
of the state
11
is shown as function of tanhr .
thermal noise xed n
1
= n
2
= n from
the top to the bottom values n = 0,
n = 0.25, n = 0.75, n = 1.25, n = 2,
quantum efciency = 0.9,
transmissivity T = 0.99. Dashed line
delity obtained with TWB.
Back
Relative Improvement and Probability as a function of T
Relative Improvement and Probability as a
function of T
The relative improvement 1
11
of the average delity obtained as the
IPS state
11
proportionally increases with the transmissivity T.
squeezing parameters xed
r
1
= r
2
= 0.3 thermal noises xed
n
1
= n
2
= 0.001.
Back
Relative Improvement and Probability as a function of T
Relative Improvement and Probability as a
function of T
The probability p
11
decreases as the transmissivity T increases.
thermal noises xed n
1
= n
2
= 0.1.
Experimental Values
Experimental Values
Best Experimental Values achievable with the current technology:
maximum squeezing parameter: r 2
thermal noise: order of decimal of thermal photon
BS transmissivity: T 0.99
usual nominal quantum photodetector efciency: 0.9

2013 03 01 Maurizio Di Noia Presentation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2013 03 01 Maurizio Di Noia Presentation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Entanglement Concentration and

Distillation in Continuous Variable Systems

is called symplectic eigenvalue of the partial transposed

of the partial transposed

is called symplectic eigenvalue of the partial transposed

of the partial transposed

S() is the squeezing operator given by

S() is the squeezing operator given by

S() is the squeezing operator given by

Covariance Matrix of the evolved state

Covariance Matrix of the evolved state

and hence with respect of the entanglement of the

Since Det[] = Det[](n

and hence with respect of the entanglement of the

Since Det[] = Det[](n

and hence with respect of the entanglement of the

Since Det[] = Det[](n

and hence with respect of the entanglement of the

Since Det[] = Det[](n

A is the anticommutator and

Você também pode gostar