• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Semi-device-independent certification of entanglement in superdense coding George Moreno,1 Ranieri Nery,1 Carlos de Gois,2 Rafael Rabelo,2 and Rafael Chaves1, 3 1International Institute of Physics, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, 59070-405 Natal, Brazil 2Instituto de Física “Gleb Wataghin”, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, CEP 13083-859, Campinas, Brazil 3School of Science and Technology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, 59078-970 Natal, Brazil (Dated: March 24, 2021) Superdense coding is a paradigmatic protocol in quantum information science, employing a quan- tum communication channel to send classical information more efficiently. As we show here, it can be understood as a particular case of a prepare and measure experiment, a scenario that has attracted growing attention for its fundamental and practical applications. Formulating superdense coding as a prepare and measure scenario allows us to provide a semi-device-independent witness of entan- glement that significantly improves over previous tests. Furthermore, we also show how to adapt our results into self-testing of maximally entangled states and also provide a semidefinite program formulation allowing one to efficiently optimize, for any shared quantum state, the probability of success in the superdense coding protocol. I. INTRODUCTION turns out to be rather restrictive in the context of quan- tum communication, since only pre-established correla- Quantum communication [1] is arguably among the tions but no communication are allowed. More recently, first offsprings of quantum technologies to break out device-independent scenarios allowing for communica- of the laboratory. Recent milestones, such as quan- tion have started to attract growing attention. Of par- tum teleportation using metropolitan networks [2] and ticular relevance is the so-called prepare and measure satellites sharing entanglement across continental and (PAM) scenario, a fairly general structure that, apart intercontinental distances [3, 4], are paving the way from its foundational relevance [23–25], has found ap- for the realistic implementation of many of the quan- plications in quantum networks [26, 27], self-testing tum communication protocols discovered over the last [28, 29], quantum key distribution [30], randomness cer- years. Of particular relevance is the possibility of large tification [31], random access codes [32] and as non- scale quantum networks, the so-called quantum inter- classicality witnesses [33–38]. Apart from exploratory net [5, 6], not only allowing for more efficient commu- attempts in [39], in all these works the communicat- nication [7, 8] but also for fundamental information se- ing parties share classical correlations; the nonclassical- curity [9]. ity can only arise due to the communicating (nonen- tangled) quantum states. As a consequence, the PAM In such applications it is of utmost importance to be scenario and the kind of device-independence it en- able to certify the nonclassicality of the quantum re- tails have not yet found any use in the most relevant sources, typically the presence of quantum entangle- entanglement-enhanced quantum communication pro- ment [10] between the communicating parties. For tocols. That is precisely the problem we solve here. instance, entangled states allow for better teleported states [11], improved communication efficiency in the As we show, the paradigmatic superdense coding [7] superdense coding protocol [7] and quantum cryptog- can be cast as a particular instance of the prepare and raphy [12]. However, in order to detect any quantum measure scenario. As a consequence, a dimension wit- enhancement in these examples, one needs to have full ness quantifying the probability of success of the su- control over the preparation as well as of the measure- perdense coding [40] can also be used to certify, in a ment apparatuses. In practice, noise is unavoidable, semi-DI manner, the nonclassicality of the shared cor- potentially leading to erroneous conclusions [13] and relations between the communicating parties. As op- opening the way to hacker attacks [14]. To cope with posed to the typical Bell scenario that is fully DI, quan- that, the device-independent (DI) framework has been tum communication scenarios have to impose a limit arXiv:2102.02709v2 [quant-ph] 22 Mar 2021 established [15]. Based on mild general assumptions, it on the amount of communication exchanged, otherwise allows one to certify quantumness simply from the ob- the communication problem becomes trivial. In line servational data, not requiring any detailed knowledge with the superdense coding protocol, we achieve that of the underlying physical mechanisms at play. by imposing a limit on the Hilbert-space dimension of The DI framework emerged in the context of Bell’s the quantum system being communicated. Strikingly, theorem [16], finding use in practical applications rang- no other information about the preparation and mea- ing from quantum key distribution [17–19] to commu- surement devices is required. Nicely, any pure bipartite nication complexity [20] and self-testing [21, 22]. In entangled state as well as a large family of entangled spite of its clear importance, however, the Bell scenario mixed states violate our witness. Our results largely 2 x y Alice |i⟩ ρx | j⟩ b Z X Λ/ρ FIG. 1. Directed acyclic graph (black box representation) of |0⟩ H H the prepare and measure scenario where two parties share some correlation, which in principle could be either classical, | represented above by the set of variables L, or quantum, rep- 0⟩ resented by a shared state r. According to some input x Alice prepares a state rx and sends it to Bob, this being the only Bob communication between them, who performs a measurement labeled by some input y obtaining an output b. FIG. 2. Quantum circuit (device-dependent) representation of the superdense coding. Alice wants to send a two bit mes- sage to Bob, represented here by the states jii, jji 2 fj0i, j1ig improve over other semi-DI witnesses of entanglement: by sharing an entangled state with Bob (the two bottom qubits not only do they reduce the experimental requirements in the circuit, the first of which is held by Alice). The goal is and increase the tolerance to noise, but they also do achieved by applying sz conditioned to jii and sx conditioned j i not require partial state tomography to work, such as to j on the qubit in possession of Alice, which is, then, sent to Bob, who, in turn, retrieves the values of i and j by per- in quantum steering [41]. We also provide a semidefi- forming a Bell-state measurement on both qubits. nite program (SDP) formulation allowing one to obtain lower bounds for the optimal probability of superdense coding success for arbitrary shared states. Following has a classical explanation, it can be written as that we show how the nonclassicality in the superdense coding naturally leads to a self-testing protocol, also p(bjx, y) = ∑ ∑ p(l)p(ajx, l)p(bja, y, l).( 1) discussing its limitations in cryptographic scenarios. Fi- a2A l2L nally, we also go beyond the superdense coding, an- In turn, a quantum description will explicitly de- alyzing a more general prepare and measure scenario pend on which resources are made nonclassical. For allowing for quantum correlations and a measurement instance, Alice might be allowed to prepare and send device with several inputs. quantum states to Bob, but only share classical correla- tions with him. In this case, the prepared states are de- scribed by the set fr g ⊂ D(H), where D(H) II. SUPERDENSE CODING AS A PREPARE AND x x=0,...,N−1 MEASURE SCENARIO represents the set of density operators acting on some Hilbert space H. A set of positive semidefinite oper- f (y)g ⊂ (H) = − The prepare and measure scenario consists of an ex- ators Mb b=0,...,k−1 Pos for y 0, . , m 1, k−1 (y) = 1 8 periment performed between two parties, which we for which ∑b=0 Mb y, describes the possible will label Alice and Bob. Alice prepares a system in measurements performed by Bob. By Born’s rule, the a state represented by x 2 f0, . , N − 1g and sends observed distribution is then given by 2 it to Bob, who chooses a measurement setting y f − g 2 f − g (y) 0, . , m 1 and obtains an output b 0, . , k 1 p(bjx, y) = tr rx Mb .( 2) (see Fig. 1). The whole experiment is described by the conditional probability distribution p(bjx, y). In particular, notice that the quantum and classical de- In a classical description, depending on her input x, scriptions become equivalent if the prepared states rx Alice prepares a message a 2 f0, . , l − 1g, where l form a mutually commuting set. is the size of the alphabet of the message a, or the In the most general case, Alice not only prepares dimension of the system, that is a probabilistic func- and sends quantum states to Bob but might also share tion not only of x but also of l, the source of possible entangled states with him. That is precisely the case preshared correlations between Alice’s preparation and of the paradigmatic superdense coding protocol [7], Bob’s measurement apparatus. Similarly, Bob’s mea- where, by sharing entanglement with Bob, Alice can surement outcome will depend on the message a be- send him 2 dits of information by actually transmit- ing received, the choice of measurement y and the pre- ting only one qudit. To illustrate this, suppose Al- shared correlations. Thus, if the observed distribution ice wants to send two bits of information to Bob, 3 (x0, x1) 2 f00, 01, 10, 11g. If they sharep a maximally We highlight that this is a device-independent measure entangled state jF+i = (j00i + j11i) / 2, Alice can en- of success, since it only depends on observational data code the information to be sent in different local uni- and does not assume anything about Alice’s prepara- taries applied to the qubit in her possession, for in- tions or Bob’s measurements.

Load more

  13

Copy Link