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

Entanglement purification with double selection

Source: Phys. Rev. A 80, 042308 (2009); doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.042308

Published 9 October 2009

KEYWORDS and PACS
Keywords
PACS
  • 03.67.Hk
    Quantum communication
  • 03.67.Pp
    Quantum error correction and other methods for protection against decoherence
  • 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
Keisuke Fujii and Katsuji Yamamoto
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan
We investigate an entanglement purification protocol with double-selection process, which works under imperfect local operations. Compared with the usual protocol with single selection, this double-selection method has higher noise thresholds for the local operations and quantum communication channels and achieves higher fidelity of purified states. It also provides a yield comparable to that of the usual protocol with single selection. We discuss on general grounds how some of the errors which are introduced by local operations are left as intrinsically undetectable. The undetectable errors place a general upper bound on the purification fidelity. The double selection is a simple method to remove all the detectable errors in the first order, so that the upper bound on the fidelity is achieved in the low-noise regime. The double selection is further applied to purification of multipartite entanglement such as two-colorable graph states. ©2009 The American Physical Society
History: Received 17 November 2008; published 9 October 2009
Permalink: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v80/e042308

REFERENCES (24)

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. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992).
  3. A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
  4. H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998)
    5. W. Dür, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 59, 169 (1999).
  5. R. Raussendorf and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001)
    6. R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022312 (2003).
  6. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996)
    7. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996).
  7. D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2818 (1996).
  8. M. Murao, M. B. Plenio, S. Popescu, V. Vedral, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 57, R4075 (1998).
  9. W. Dür, H. Aschauer, and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 107903 (2003)
    10. H. Aschauer, W. Dür, and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 71, 012319 (2005).
  10. K. Goyal, A. McCauley, and R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. A 74, 032318 (2006).
  11. S. Glancy, E. Knill, and H. M. Vasconcelos, Phys. Rev. A 74, 032319 (2006).
  12. C. Kruszynska, A. Miyake, H.-J. Briegel, and W. Dür, Phys. Rev. A 74, 052316 (2006).
  13. A. Miyake and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 220501 (2005).
  14. C. Kruszynska, S. Anders, W. Dür, and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 73, 062328 (2006).
  15. A. Kay, Phys. Rev. A 77, 052319 (2008).
  16. B. Eastin, Phys. Rev. A 75, 022301 (2007).
  17. A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2252 (1997).
ADVERTISEMENT