1 / 18

Aram Harrow, Bristol Peter Shor, MIT

Erasing correlations, destroying entanglement and other new challenges for quantum information theory. quant-ph/0511219. Aram Harrow, Bristol Peter Shor, MIT. IHP, 23 Feb 2006. outline. General rules for reversing protocols Coherent erasure of classical correlations

jethro
Download Presentation

Aram Harrow, Bristol Peter Shor, MIT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Erasing correlations, destroying entanglement and other new challenges for quantum information theory quant-ph/0511219 Aram Harrow, Bristol Peter Shor, MIT IHP, 23 Feb 2006

  2. outline • General rules forreversing protocols • Coherent erasureof classical correlations • Disentangling powerof quantum operations and entanglement spread as a resource in quantum communication

  3. Everything is a resource resource inequalities super-dense coding: [q!q] + [qq] > 2[c!c] 2 [q!qq] In fact, [q!q] + [qq] = 2 [q!qq]

  4. Undoing things is also a resource [q!q]y = [qÃq] (relation between time-reversal and exchange symmetry) [qq]y = -[qq] (disentangling power) [q!qq]y = [qÃqq] (?) |0iA |0iB! |0iA and |1iA |1iB!|1iA (coherent erasure??) reversal meaning

  5. [qq!q] > [q!q] - [q!qq] = [q!qq] - [qq] = ([q!q] - [qq]) / 2 What good is coherent erasure? = = entanglement-assisted communication only In fact, these are all equalities! (Proof: reverse SDC.) |xi E Alice (I ­ XxZy)|Fi |Fi |yi X Z |xi |xi Bob |yi |yi a|0iA + b|1iA! a|0iA|0iB + b|1iA|1iB (using [q!qq]) !a|0iB + b|1iB (using [qq!q]) [q!qq] + [qq!q] > [q!q]

  6. application to unitary gates U is a bipartite unitary gate (e.g. CNOT) Known: U > C[c! c] implies U > C[q!qq] Time reversal means: Uy> C [qÃqq] = C [qqÃq] - C [qq] Corollary: If entanglement is free then C!E(U) = CÃE(Uy).

  7. How to find a gate with asymmetric capacities? the construction: (Um acts on 2m £ 2m dimensions) Um|xiA|0iB = |xiA|xiB for 0 6 x < 2m Um|xiA|yiB = |xiA|y-1iB for 0 <y 6 x < 2m Um|xiA|yiB = |xiA|yiB for 0 6 x < y < 2m Problem: If U is nonlocal, it has nonzero quantum capacities in both directions. Are they equal? Yes, if U is 2£2. No, in general, but for a dramatic separation we will need a gate that violates time-reversal symmetry.

  8. C!(Um) = m À O(log2m) > CÃE(Um) Alice’s input x 0 1 2 3 4 … 2m-1 0 PICTURE STOLEN FROM CHARLIE BENNETT Bob’s input y 1 Um|xiA|0iB = |xiA|xiB for 06x<2m Um|xiA|yiB = |xiA|y-1iB for 0<y6x<2m Um|xiA|yiB = |xiA|yiB for 0 6x<y<2m 2 3 4 Um> m[q!qq] Upper bound by simulation: 1. Jointly test whether y=0, 0<y6x or y>x. 2. Either send x to Bob using m[q!qq], map y!y-1 or do nothing. 3. Test whether y=x, 06y<x or y>x. m[q!qq] + O((log m)(log m/e)) ([q!q] + [qÃq]) & Um

  9. CÃE(Umy) > m À O(log2m) > E(Umy) Alice’s input x 0 1 2 3 4 … 2m-1 0 PICTURE STOLEN FROM CHARLIE BENNETT Bob’s input y 1 Umy|xiA|xiB = |xiA|0iB for 06x<2m Umy|xiA|yiB = |xiA|y+1iB for 06y<x<2m Umy|xiA|yiB = |xiA|yiB for 0 6x<y<2m 2 3 4 Rerverse everything: Umy> m[qÃqq] and m[qÃqq] + O((log m)(log m/e)) ([q!q] + [qÃq]) & Umy Meaning: Um¼ m [q!qq] and Umy¼ m [qÃqq] (almost worthless w/o ent. assistance!)

  10. disentanglement clean clean Example: [q!q] > [qq] and [q!q] > -[qq] clean Example: Um> m[qq], but can only destroy O(log2m) [qq] Umy> -m[qq], but can only create O(log2m) [qq] clean clean resource inequalities: means that a­n can be asymptotically converted to b­n while discarding only o(n) entanglement. (equivalently: while generating a sublinear amount of local entropy.)

  11. You can’t just throw it away Q: Why not? A: Given unlimited EPR pairs, try creating the state Hayden & Winter [quant-ph/0204092] proved that this requires ¼n bits of communication.

  12. spread: a LU+EPR monotone Entanglement measures are usually LOCC monotones. e.g. for pure states yAB, the entropy of entanglement E(y) = S(yA) cannot increase on average under LOCC. Under LU + EPR, Alice and Bob have free EPR pairs and local unitaries, but classical communication is expensive. D(yA) := S0(yA) - S1(yA) > 0 is a LU+EPR monotone S0(r) := log rank(r) and S1 = - log ||r||1 Useful because it can increase by at most one per cbit sent. [Hayden & Winter- q-ph/0204092] approximate version:De(r) := min { D(s) : || r-s ||16e }

  13. spread: another resource you didn’t know you needed 1. Entanglement dilution: |yiAB is partially entangled. E = S(yA). goal: |Fi­nE+o(n)!|yi­n even the weaker |Fi­1!|yi­n requires W(n½) cbits (in either direction). why? concentration requires no communication: |yi­n! |Fi­nE+d with probability p(d), where p(d)¼Gaussian with mean 0 and std. dev O(n½), meaning |yi­n @LUådpp(d)|diA|diB |Fi­nE+d Thus D((yA)­n) ~ n½ and creating |yi­n means creating O(n½) entanglement spread, which requires communication. (possible [Lo&Popescu, q-ph/9902045], necessary [Hayden&Winter, q-ph/0204092; Harrow&Lo, q-ph/0204096])

  14. spread: another resource you didn’t know you needed [Bennett, Devetak, Harrow, Shor, Winter] 2. Quantum Reverse Shannon Theorem for general inputs generalizes entanglement dilution. Goal: Simulate n copies of a channel N:A’!B or its isometric extension UN:A’!AB. Input r­n requires I(R;B)r [c!c] + H(B) [qq]. note: H(B):=H(N(r)) General inputs reduce (via e.g. the Schur transform) to the case of coherent superpositions of different r­n, which require consuming different amounts of entanglement. Example: noiseless channel, superposition of |0i and I/2 inputs. But! Varying r changes I(R;B) at the same time as it changes H(B), so we can use maxr H(B) [qq] + (maxr H(B) + maxr H(R)-H(A)) [c!c]. Still terrible! Is this really optimal?

  15. sadly, this appears optimal SLIDE STOLEN FROM CHARLIE BENNETT SLIDE STOLEN FROM CHARLIE BENNETT “Clueless-Eve” Channel on d+1 dimensional Hilbert space conceals information about its input and output from the environment |0ñA => S | j jñBE/Öd ( j =1…d ) |jñA => |0 jñBE If source is 0, creates entangled state between Bob and Eve. If source is nonzero, sends the nonzero value to Eve and zero to Bob. R Malicious Non tensor product RA input YNTP = |00ñÄmRA+ ( S | j jñ /Öd)ÄmRA is not decohered by the Clueless-Eve channel, and so it should not be decohered by a faithful simulation of it YNTP A B E SLIDE STOLEN FROM CHARLIE BENNETT SLIDE STOLEN FROM CHARLIE BENNETT

  16. Non tensor product RA input YNTP = (|00ñÄm + ( S | j jñ /Öd)Äm) /Ö2 to attempted simulation of n instances of Clueless-Eve Channel |0ñA => S | j jñBE/Öd , | jñA => |0 jñBE SLIDE STOLEN FROM CHARLIE BENNETT SLIDE STOLEN FROM CHARLIE BENNETT SLIDE STOLEN FROM CHARLIE BENNETT SLIDE STOLEN FROM CHARLIE BENNETT R A Alice’s Encoder Output fidelity evaluated here. E m qubits communication 0 Bob’s Decoder Sender- receiver entanglement E’ B 0 Local Environment LA Local Environment LB Local environments could contain information on whether A was zero or nonzero. If A is nonzero, entropy of LA will be » H(E)+log(md). Otherwise it will be less, » H(E), by conservation of entropy. Because local environments know whether A is zero or not, they necessarily decohere the 2 terms in the superposition

  17. Spread: where to buy it 2. embezzle it![q-ph/0205100, Hayden-van Dam] spread n with error e using a size S=n/e embezzling state 1. Classical communication in either direction: |xiA|xiB|FiAB­n ! |xiA|xiB|Fi­x|00i­n-x uses POVM with elements

  18. s-bits?? In some ways, spread smells like a resource. Example: The spread capacity of a unitary gate U is E(U) + E(Uy). This is a lower bound on the number of cbits needed to simulate U, even given free entanglement. (Corollary: to prove E(U) À C+(U), we can’t use simulation-based upper bounds.) (Interesting aside: E(U)+E(U^\dag) also upper-bounds C_+^E(U) [Berry&Sanders, q-ph/0207065]) But it has no canonical instantiation! -cbits are too strong -partially entangled states: |yi­n scales as pn, and isn’t known to be universal -embezzling states are non-i.i.d. and give big errors -unitaries are too strong (unless E(U)ÀC+(U)…)

More Related