Home | About Journal | Web Links | E-mail Alerts | RSS RSS Icon | Browse

Probing the quantumness of channels with mixed states

Source: Phys. Rev. A 80, 042304 (2009); doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.042304

Published 6 October 2009

KEYWORDS and PACS
Keywords
PACS
  • 03.67.Hk
    Quantum communication
  • 03.67.Mn
    Entanglement measures, witnesses, and other characterizations (quantum information)
  • 42.50.Xa
    Optical tests of quantum theory
  • YEAR: 2009
RELATED DATABASES

To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
PUBLICATION DATA
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef APS
Hauke Häseler and Norbert Lütkenhaus
Institute for Quantum Computing and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Canada and Quantum Information Theory Group, University of Erlangen, Germany
We present an alternative approach to the derivation of benchmarks for quantum channels, such as memory or teleportation channels. Using the concept of effective entanglement and the verification thereof, a testing procedure is derived which demands very few experimental resources. The procedure is generalized by allowing for mixed test states. By constructing optimized measure and reprepare channels, the benchmarks are found to be very tight in the considered experimental regimes. ©2009 The American Physical Society
History: Received 9 July 2009; published 6 October 2009
Permalink: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v80/e042304

REFERENCES (38)

For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
  2. S. L. Braunstein and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 869 (1998).
  3. J. Appel, E. Figueroa, D. Korystov, M. Lobino, and A. I. Lvovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 093602 (2008).
  4. K. Hammerer, M. M. Wolf, E. S. Polzik, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 150503 (2005).
  5. R. Namiki, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 100502 (2008).
  6. K. Honda, D. Akamatsu, M. Arikawa, Y. Yokoi, K. Akiba, S. Nagatsuka, T. Tanimura, A. Furusawa, and M. Kozuma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 093601 (2008).
  7. R. Namiki, Phys. Rev. A 78, 032333 (2008).
  8. G. Adesso, A. Serafini, and F. Illuminati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 087901 (2004).
  9. J. Calsamiglia, M. Aspachs, R. M. noz Tapia, and E. Bagan, Phys. Rev. A 79, 050301 (2009).
  10. M. Curty, M. Lewenstein, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 217903 (2004).
  11. F. Grosshans and N. J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 047905 (2004).
  12. T. Moroder, M. Curty, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012311 (2006).
  13. H. Häseler, T. Moroder, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032303 (2008).
  14. J. Rigas, O. Gühne, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012341 (2006).
  15. A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996).
  16. R. Renner, N. Gisin, and B. Kraus, Phys. Rev. A 72, 012332 (2005).
  17. J.-L. Chen, L. Fu, A. A. Ungar, and X.-G. Zhao, Phys. Rev. A 65, 024303 (2002).
  18. P. Raynal, N. Lütkenhaus, and S. J. van Enk, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022308 (2003).
  19. P. Marian and T. A. Marian, Phys. Rev. A 47, 4474 (1993).
ADVERTISEMENT