Connect with us

Quantum

Sense, sensibility, and superconductors

Published

on

Jonathan Monroe disagreed with his PhD supervisor—with respect. They needed to measure a superconducting qubit, a tiny circuit in which current can flow forever. The qubit emits light, which carries information about the qubit’s state. Jonathan and Kater intensify the light using an amplifier. They’d fabricated many amplifiers, but none had worked. Jonathan suggested changing their strategy—with a politeness to which Emily Post couldn’t have objected. Jonathan’s supervisor, Kater Murch, suggested repeating the protocol they’d performed many times.

“That’s the definition of insanity,” Kater admitted, “but I think experiment needs to involve some of that.”

I watched the exchange via Skype, with more interest than I’d have watched the Oscars with. Someday, I hope, I’ll be able to weigh in on such a debate, despite working as a theorist. Someday, I’ll have partnered with enough experimentalists to develop insight.

I’m partnering with Jonathan and Kater on an experiment that coauthors and I proposed in a paper blogged about here. The experiment centers on an uncertainty relation, an inequality of the sort immortalized by Werner Heisenberg in 1927. Uncertainty relations imply that, if you measure a quantum particle’s position, the particle’s momentum ceases to have a well-defined value. If you measure the momentum, the particle ceases to have a well-defined position. Our uncertainty relation involves weak measurements. Weakly measuring a particle’s position doesn’t disturb the momentum much and vice versa. We can interpret the uncertainty in information-processing terms, because we cast the inequality in terms of entropies. Entropies, described here, are functions that quantify how efficiently we can process information, such as by compressing data. Jonathan and Kater are checking our inequality, and exploring its implications, with a superconducting qubit.

With chip

I had too little experience to side with Jonathan or with Kater. So I watched, and I contemplated how their opinions would sound if expressed about theory. Do I try one strategy again and again, hoping to change my results without changing my approach? 

At the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Masters students had to swallow half-a-year of course material in weeks. I questioned whether I’d ever understand some of the material. But some of that material resurfaced during my PhD. Again, I attended lectures about Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Again, I worked problems about observers in free-fall. Again, I calculated covariant derivatives. The material sank in. I decided never to question, again, whether I could understand a concept. I might not understand a concept today, or tomorrow, or next week. But if I dedicate enough time and effort, I chose to believe, I’ll learn.

My decision rested on experience and on classes, taught by educational psychologists, that I’d taken in college. I’d studied how brains change during learning and how breaks enhance the changes. Sense, I thought, underlay my decision—though expecting outcomes to change, while strategies remain static, sounds insane.

Old cover

Does sense underlie Kater’s suggestion, likened to insanity, to keep fabricating amplifiers as before? He’s expressed cynicism many times during our collaboration: Experiment needs to involve some insanity. The experiment probably won’t work for a long time. Plenty more things will likely break. 

Jonathan and I agree with him. Experiments have a reputation for breaking, and Kater has a reputation for knowing experiments. Yet Jonathan—with professionalism and politeness—remains optimistic that other methods will prevail, that we’ll meet our goals early. I hope that Jonathan remains optimistic, and I fancy that Kater hopes, too. He prophesies gloom with a quarter of a smile, and his record speaks against him: A few months ago, I met a theorist who’d collaborated with Kater years before. The theorist marveled at the speed with which Kater had operated. A theorist would propose an experiment, and boom—the proposal would work.

Sea monsters

Perhaps luck smiled upon the implementation. But luck dovetails with the sense that underlies Kater’s opinion: Experiments involve factors that you can’t control. Implement a protocol once, and it might fail because the temperature has risen too high. Implement the protocol again, and it might fail because a truck drove by your building, vibrating the tabletop. Implement the protocol again, and it might fail because you bumped into a knob. Implement the protocol a fourth time, and it might succeed. If you repeat a protocol many times, your environment might change, changing your results.

Sense underlies also Jonathan’s objections to Kater’s opinions. We boost our chances of succeeding if we keep trying. We derive energy to keep trying from creativity and optimism. So rebelling against our PhD supervisors’ sense is sensible. I wondered, watching the Skype conversation, whether Kater the student had objected to prophesies of doom as Jonathan did. Kater exudes the soberness of a tenured professor but the irreverence of a Californian who wears his hair slightly long and who tattooed his wedding band on. Science thrives on the soberness and the irreverence.

Green cover

Who won Jonathan and Kater’s argument? Both, I think. Last week, they reported having fabricated amplifiers that work. The lab followed a protocol similar to their old one, but with more conscientiousness. 

I’m looking forward to watching who wins the debate about how long the rest of the experiment takes. Either way, check out Jonathan’s talk about our experiment if you attend the American Physical Society’s March Meeting. Jonathan will speak on Thursday, March 5, at 12:03, in room 106. Also, keep an eye out for our paper—which will debut once Jonathan coaxes the amplifier into synching with his qubit.

Source: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2020/02/23/sense-sensibility-and-superconductors/

Quantum

Instance Independence of Single Layer Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm on Mixed-Spin Models at Infinite Size

Published

on

Jahan Claes1,2 and Wim van Dam1,3,4

1QC Ware Corporation, Palo Alto, CA USA
2Department of Physics and Institute for Condensed Matter Theory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
3Department of Computer Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA USA
4Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA USA

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

This paper studies the application of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) to spin-glass models with random multi-body couplings in the limit of a large number of spins. We show that for such mixed-spin models the performance of depth $1$ QAOA is independent of the specific instance in the limit of infinite sized systems and we give an explicit formula for the expected performance. We also give explicit expressions for the higher moments of the expected energy, thereby proving that the expected performance of QAOA concentrates.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1411.4028.
arXiv:1411.4028

[2] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Leo Zhou. The quantum approximate optimization algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model at infinite size. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08187, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1910.08187.
arXiv:1910.08187

[3] Andrea Montanari. Optimization of the Sherrington–Kirkpatrick hamiltonian. SIAM Journal on Computing, 0 (0): FOCS19–1, 2021. 10.1137/​20M132016X.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​20M132016X

[4] Ahmed El Alaoui, Andrea Montanari, and Mark Sellke. Optimization of mean-field spin glasses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00904, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2001.00904.
arXiv:2001.00904

[5] Ahmed El Alaoui and Andrea Montanari. Algorithmic thresholds in mean field spin glasses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11481, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2009.11481.
arXiv:2009.11481

[6] Zhang Jiang, Eleanor G Rieffel, and Zhihui Wang. Near-optimal quantum circuit for Grover’s unstructured search using a transverse field. Physical Review A, 95 (6): 062317, 2017. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.95.062317.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.95.062317

[7] Zhihui Wang, Stuart Hadfield, Zhang Jiang, and Eleanor G Rieffel. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for maxcut: A fermionic view. Physical Review A, 97 (2): 022304, 2018. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.022304.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.022304

[8] Asier Ozaeta, Wim van Dam, and Peter L. McMahon. Expectation values from the single-layer quantum approximate optimization algorithm on Ising problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.03421, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2012.03421.
arXiv:2012.03421

[9] Gavin E Crooks. Performance of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on the maximum cut problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.08419, 2018. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1811.08419.
arXiv:1811.08419

[10] Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices. Physical Review X, 10 (2): 021067, 2020. 10.1103/​PhysRevX.10.021067.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.10.021067

[11] Fernando GSL Brandao, Michael Broughton, Edward Farhi, Sam Gutmann, and Hartmut Neven. For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimization algorithm’s objective function value concentrates for typical instances. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04170, 2018. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1812.04170.
arXiv:1812.04170

[12] David Sherrington and Scott Kirkpatrick. Solvable model of a spin-glass. Physical Review Letters, 35 (26): 1792, 1975. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.35.1792.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.35.1792

[13] Giorgio Parisi. A sequence of approximated solutions to the SK model for spin glasses. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 13 (4): L115, 1980. 10.1088/​0305-4470/​13/​4/​009.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​0305-4470/​13/​4/​009

[14] Michel Talagrand. The Parisi formula. Annals of mathematics, pages 221–263, 2006. 10.4007/​annals.2006.163.221.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.4007/​annals.2006.163.221

[15] Dmitry Panchenko. The Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model: an overview. Journal of Statistical Physics, 149 (2): 362–383, 2012. 10.1007/​s10955-012-0586-7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10955-012-0586-7

[16] Dmitry Panchenko. The Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. 10.1007/​978-1-4614-6289-7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-1-4614-6289-7

[17] Antonio Auffinger, Wei-Kuo Chen, et al. Parisi formula for the ground state energy in the mixed $ p $-spin model. Annals of Probability, 45 (6B): 4617–4631, 2017. 10.1214/​16-AOP1173.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1214/​16-AOP1173

[18] Dmitry Panchenko et al. The Parisi formula for mixed $p$-spin models. Annals of Probability, 42 (3): 946–958, 2014. 10.1214/​12-AOP800.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1214/​12-AOP800

[19] Leo Zhou, Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. The quantum approximate optimization algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model at infinite size. Talk presented at QIP, 2021. URL https:/​/​youtu.be/​UP-Zuke7IUg.
https:/​/​youtu.be/​UP-Zuke7IUg

Cited by

[1] V. Akshay, D. Rabinovich, E. Campos, and J. Biamonte, “Parameter concentrations in quantum approximate optimization”, Physical Review A 104 1, L010401 (2021).

[2] E. Campos, D. Rabinovich, V. Akshay, and J. Biamonte, “Training Saturation in Layerwise Quantum Approximate Optimisation”, arXiv:2106.13814.

[3] Jordi R. Weggemans, Alexander Urech, Alexander Rausch, Robert Spreeuw, Richard Boucherie, Florian Schreck, Kareljan Schoutens, Jiří Minář, and Florian Speelman, “Solving correlation clustering with QAOA and a Rydberg qudit system: a full-stack approach”, arXiv:2106.11672.

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2021-09-15 16:50:26). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

Could not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2021-09-15 16:50:24: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2021-09-15-542 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-09-15-542/

Continue Reading

Quantum

Instance Independence of Single Layer Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm on Mixed-Spin Models at Infinite Size

Published

on

Jahan Claes1,2 and Wim van Dam1,3,4

1QC Ware Corporation, Palo Alto, CA USA
2Department of Physics and Institute for Condensed Matter Theory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
3Department of Computer Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA USA
4Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA USA

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

This paper studies the application of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) to spin-glass models with random multi-body couplings in the limit of a large number of spins. We show that for such mixed-spin models the performance of depth $1$ QAOA is independent of the specific instance in the limit of infinite sized systems and we give an explicit formula for the expected performance. We also give explicit expressions for the higher moments of the expected energy, thereby proving that the expected performance of QAOA concentrates.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1411.4028.
arXiv:1411.4028

[2] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Leo Zhou. The quantum approximate optimization algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model at infinite size. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08187, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1910.08187.
arXiv:1910.08187

[3] Andrea Montanari. Optimization of the Sherrington–Kirkpatrick hamiltonian. SIAM Journal on Computing, 0 (0): FOCS19–1, 2021. 10.1137/​20M132016X.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​20M132016X

[4] Ahmed El Alaoui, Andrea Montanari, and Mark Sellke. Optimization of mean-field spin glasses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00904, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2001.00904.
arXiv:2001.00904

[5] Ahmed El Alaoui and Andrea Montanari. Algorithmic thresholds in mean field spin glasses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11481, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2009.11481.
arXiv:2009.11481

[6] Zhang Jiang, Eleanor G Rieffel, and Zhihui Wang. Near-optimal quantum circuit for Grover’s unstructured search using a transverse field. Physical Review A, 95 (6): 062317, 2017. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.95.062317.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.95.062317

[7] Zhihui Wang, Stuart Hadfield, Zhang Jiang, and Eleanor G Rieffel. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for maxcut: A fermionic view. Physical Review A, 97 (2): 022304, 2018. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.022304.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.022304

[8] Asier Ozaeta, Wim van Dam, and Peter L. McMahon. Expectation values from the single-layer quantum approximate optimization algorithm on Ising problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.03421, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2012.03421.
arXiv:2012.03421

[9] Gavin E Crooks. Performance of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on the maximum cut problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.08419, 2018. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1811.08419.
arXiv:1811.08419

[10] Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices. Physical Review X, 10 (2): 021067, 2020. 10.1103/​PhysRevX.10.021067.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.10.021067

[11] Fernando GSL Brandao, Michael Broughton, Edward Farhi, Sam Gutmann, and Hartmut Neven. For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimization algorithm’s objective function value concentrates for typical instances. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04170, 2018. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1812.04170.
arXiv:1812.04170

[12] David Sherrington and Scott Kirkpatrick. Solvable model of a spin-glass. Physical Review Letters, 35 (26): 1792, 1975. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.35.1792.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.35.1792

[13] Giorgio Parisi. A sequence of approximated solutions to the SK model for spin glasses. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 13 (4): L115, 1980. 10.1088/​0305-4470/​13/​4/​009.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​0305-4470/​13/​4/​009

[14] Michel Talagrand. The Parisi formula. Annals of mathematics, pages 221–263, 2006. 10.4007/​annals.2006.163.221.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.4007/​annals.2006.163.221

[15] Dmitry Panchenko. The Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model: an overview. Journal of Statistical Physics, 149 (2): 362–383, 2012. 10.1007/​s10955-012-0586-7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10955-012-0586-7

[16] Dmitry Panchenko. The Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. 10.1007/​978-1-4614-6289-7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-1-4614-6289-7

[17] Antonio Auffinger, Wei-Kuo Chen, et al. Parisi formula for the ground state energy in the mixed $ p $-spin model. Annals of Probability, 45 (6B): 4617–4631, 2017. 10.1214/​16-AOP1173.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1214/​16-AOP1173

[18] Dmitry Panchenko et al. The Parisi formula for mixed $p$-spin models. Annals of Probability, 42 (3): 946–958, 2014. 10.1214/​12-AOP800.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1214/​12-AOP800

[19] Leo Zhou, Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. The quantum approximate optimization algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model at infinite size. Talk presented at QIP, 2021. URL https:/​/​youtu.be/​UP-Zuke7IUg.
https:/​/​youtu.be/​UP-Zuke7IUg

Cited by

[1] V. Akshay, D. Rabinovich, E. Campos, and J. Biamonte, “Parameter concentrations in quantum approximate optimization”, Physical Review A 104 1, L010401 (2021).

[2] E. Campos, D. Rabinovich, V. Akshay, and J. Biamonte, “Training Saturation in Layerwise Quantum Approximate Optimisation”, arXiv:2106.13814.

[3] Jordi R. Weggemans, Alexander Urech, Alexander Rausch, Robert Spreeuw, Richard Boucherie, Florian Schreck, Kareljan Schoutens, Jiří Minář, and Florian Speelman, “Solving correlation clustering with QAOA and a Rydberg qudit system: a full-stack approach”, arXiv:2106.11672.

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2021-09-15 16:50:26). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

Could not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2021-09-15 16:50:24: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2021-09-15-542 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-09-15-542/

Continue Reading

Quantum

Computable Rényi mutual information: Area laws and correlations

Published

on

Samuel O. Scalet, Álvaro M. Alhambra, Georgios Styliaris, and J. Ignacio Cirac

Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik, Hans-Kopfermann-Straße 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany
Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology (MCQST), Schellingstr. 4, D-80799 München, Germany

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

The mutual information is a measure of classical and quantum correlations of great interest in quantum information. It is also relevant in quantum many-body physics, by virtue of satisfying an area law for thermal states and bounding all correlation functions. However, calculating it exactly or approximately is often challenging in practice. Here, we consider alternative definitions based on Rényi divergences. Their main advantage over their von Neumann counterpart is that they can be expressed as a variational problem whose cost function can be efficiently evaluated for families of states like matrix product operators while preserving all desirable properties of a measure of correlations. In particular, we show that they obey a thermal area law in great generality, and that they upper bound all correlation functions. We also investigate their behavior on certain tensor network states and on classical thermal distributions.

Quantum systems of many particles are notoriously difficult to handle due to the large number of parameters needed for their description. This complexity is often related to the structure of their correlations. Due to this, there is a pressing need for efficient and physically meaningful methods of quantifying these correlations. This is often done with different versions of the so-called mutual information. However, these previously considered versions are either impossible to calculate efficiently, or exhibit various pathological features.

In this work, we propose an alternative definition, a so-called Rényi mutual information, which does not have either of these problems. First, it can be computed in practice using standard numerical techniques from many-body physics. Second, it satisfies all the desirable properties of a measure of correlations that previous ones did not, such as upper bounding all correlation functions. In addition, we show its significance for the ubiquitous thermal states by proving an area law: the quantity evaluated for two regions in a thermal state only grows with the size of their boundary.

With these results, we provide a new tool for the study of correlations of strongly coupled many-body systems. This is a subject of crucial importance, since many such models are becoming increasingly relevant due to the possibility of simulating them in leading quantum platforms.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] J. Eisert, arXiv:1308.3318 [quant-ph].
arXiv:1308.3318

[2] I. Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, arXiv:2011.12127 [quant-ph].
arXiv:2011.12127

[3] F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B 73, 094423 (2006).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.73.094423

[4] M. B. Hastings, J. Stat. Mech. 2007, P08024 (2007).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1742-5468/​2007/​08/​p08024

[5] M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. B 73, 085115 (2006).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.73.085115

[6] A. Molnar, N. Schuch, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B 91, 045138 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.91.045138

[7] T. Kuwahara, A. M. Alhambra, and A. Anshu, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011047 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.11.011047

[8] G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.91.147902

[9] B. Groisman, S. Popescu, and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. A 72, 032317 (2005).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.72.032317

[10] M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, M. B. Hastings, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 070502 (2008).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.100.070502

[11] F. Alcaraz and M. Rajabpour, Phys. Rev. B 90, 075132 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​physrevb.90.075132

[12] J.-M. Stéphan, Phys. Rev. B 90, 045424 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​physrevb.90.045424

[13] R. R. P. Singh, M. B. Hastings, A. B. Kallin, and R. G. Melko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 135701 (2011).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.106.135701

[14] M. C. Bañuls, N. Y. Yao, S. Choi, M. D. Lukin, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B 96, 174201 (2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.96.174201

[15] M. Kormos and Z. Zimborás, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50, 264005 (2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1751-8121/​aa70f6

[16] M. Tomamichel, Quantum Information Processing with Finite Resources (Springer International Publishing, 2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-3-319-21891-5

[17] S. Khatri and M. M. Wilde, arXiv:2011.04672 [quant-ph].
arXiv:2011.04672

[18] M. Berta, M. Christandl, and R. Renner, Commun. Math. Phys. 306, 579 (2011).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-011-1309-7

[19] A. Anshu, V. K. Devabathini, and R. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 120506 (2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.120506

[20] M. M. Wilde, A. Winter, and D. Yang, Commun. Math. Phys. 331, 593 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-014-2122-x

[21] M. Mosonyi, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 61, 2997–3012 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​tit.2015.2417877

[22] F. Leditzky, M. M. Wilde, and N. Datta, J. Math. Phys. 57, 082202 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.4960099

[23] M. Mosonyi and T. Ogawa, Commun. Math. Phys. 355, 373–426 (2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-017-2928-4

[24] D. Ding and M. M. Wilde, Probl. Inf. Transm. 54, 1–19 (2018).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1134/​s0032946018010015

[25] K. Fang and H. Fawzi, arXiv:1909.05758 [quant-ph].
arXiv:1909.05758

[26] M. Mosonyi and T. Ogawa, Commun. Math. Phys. 334, 1617–1648 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-014-2248-x

[27] M. Hayashi and M. Tomamichel, J. Math. Phys. 57, 102201 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.4964755

[28] D. Petz, Rep. Math. Phys. 23, 57 (1986).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0034-4877(86)90067-4

[29] M. Müller-Lennert, F. Dupuis, O. Szehr, S. Fehr, and M. Tomamichel, J. Math. Phys. 54, 122203 (2013).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.4838856

[30] K. Matsumoto, in Reality and Measurement in Algebraic Quantum Theory, edited by M. Ozawa, J. Butterfield, H. Halvorson, M. Rédei, Y. Kitajima, and F. Buscemi (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2018) pp. 229–273.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-981-13-2487-1

[31] N. Datta, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 55, 2816–2826 (2009).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​tit.2009.2018325

[32] K. M. R. Audenaert and N. Datta, Journal of Mathematical Physics 56, 022202 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.4906367

[33] H. Fawzi and O. Fawzi, Quantum 5, 387 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2021-01-26-387

[34] P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, J. Stat. Mech. 2004, P06002 (2004).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1742-5468/​2004/​06/​p06002

[35] P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, J. Phys. A: Math. 42, 504005 (2009).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1751-8113/​42/​50/​504005

[36] C. T. Asplund and A. Bernamonti, Phys. Rev. D 89, 066015 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevD.89.066015

[37] C. A. Agón and T. Faulkner, J. High Energy Phys. 2016 (8), 1.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​JHEP08(2016)118

[38] B. Chen, P.-X. Hao, and W. Song, J. High Energy Phys. 2019 (10).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​jhep10(2019)037

[39] N. Lashkari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 051602 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.113.051602

[40] J. Zhang, P. Ruggiero, and P. Calabrese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 141602 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.122.141602

[41] H. Bernigau, M. J. Kastoryano, and J. Eisert, J. Stat. Mech. 2015, P02008 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1742-5468/​2015/​02/​p02008

[42] B. Pirvu, V. Murg, J. I. Cirac, and F. Verstraete, New J. Phys. 12, 025012 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​12/​2/​025012

[43] J. I. Cirac and G. Sierra, Phys. Rev. B 81, 104431 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.81.104431

[44] M. B. Hastings, I. González, A. B. Kallin, and R. G. Melko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 157201 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.104.157201

[45] S. Humeniuk and T. Roscilde, Phys. Rev. B 86, 235116 (2012).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.86.235116

[46] T. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 130402 (2013).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.111.130402

[47] R. Renner, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 06, 1 (2008).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1142/​s0219749908003256

[48] S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.69.2863

[49] M. Kliesch, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 160503 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.113.160503

[50] U. Schollwöck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 259 (2005).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.77.259

[51] U. Schollwöck, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.aop.2010.09.012

[52] Z. Landau, U. Vazirani, and T. Vidick, Nature Physics 11, 566 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nphys3345

[53] M. Block, J. Motruk, S. Gazit, M. P. Zaletel, Z. Landau, U. Vazirani, and N. Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. B 103, 195122 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.103.195122

[54] D. Aharonov, D. Gottesman, S. Irani, and J. Kempe, Communications in Mathematical Physics 287, 41 (2009).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-008-0710-3

[55] A. Rényi, in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Contributions to the Theory of Statistics (University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif., 1961) pp. 547–561.
https:/​/​projecteuclid.org/​euclid.bsmsp/​1200512181

[56] M. Berta, O. Fawzi, and M. Tomamichel, Lett. Math. Phys. 107, 2239 (2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11005-017-0990-7

[57] D. Pérez-García and A. Pérez-Hernández, arXiv:2004.10516 [math-ph].
arXiv:2004.10516

[58] H. Araki, Commun. Math. Phys. 14, 120 (1969).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF01645134

[59] O. Bratteli and D. W. Robinson, Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics: Volume 1: C*-and W*-Algebras. Symmetry Groups. Decomposition of States (Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1979).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-3-662-02313-6

[60] D. A. Abanin, W. De Roeck, and F. m. c. Huveneers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 256803 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.115.256803

[61] I. Arad, T. Kuwahara, and Z. Landau, J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 033301 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1742-5468/​2016/​03/​033301

[62] T. Kuwahara, T. Mori, and K. Saito, Ann. Phys. 367, 96–124 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.aop.2016.01.012

[63] G. Bouch, J. Math. Phys. 56, 123303 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.4936209

[64] A. Avdoshkin and A. Dymarsky, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043234 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.2.043234

[65] F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, arXiv:cond-mat/​0407066.
arXiv:arXiv:cond-mat/0407066

[66] G. De las Cuevas, N. Schuch, D. Pérez-García, and J. I. Cirac, New J. Phys. 15, 123021 (2013).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​15/​12/​123021

[67] G. De las Cuevas, T. S. Cubitt, J. I. Cirac, M. M. Wolf, and D. Pérez-García, J. Math. Phys. 57, 071902 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.4954983

[68] F. Hiai, M. Ohya, and M. Tsukada, Pacific J. Math. 96, 99 (1981).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2140/​pjm.1981.96.99

[69] G. L. Gilardoni, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 56, 5377 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​TIT.2010.2068710

[70] J. Guth Jarkovský, A. Molnár, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, PRX Quantum 1, 010304 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PRXQuantum.1.010304

[71] V. P. Belavkin and P. Staszewski, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare A 37, 51 (1982).
http:/​/​www.numdam.org/​item/​AIHPA_1982__37_1_51_0

[72] S. Friedli and Y. Velenik, Statistical Mechanics of Lattice Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1017/​9781316882603

[73] O. Perron, Math. Ann. 64, 248 (1907).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​bf01449896

[74] M. Lenci and L. Rey-Bellet, J. Stat. Phys. 119, 715–746 (2005).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10955-005-3015-3

[75] D. Ruelle, Statistical mechanics: Rigorous results (Benjamin, 1969).

Cited by

[1] Gilles Parez, Riccarda Bonsignori, and Pasquale Calabrese, “Exact quench dynamics of symmetry resolved entanglement in a free fermion chain”, arXiv:2106.13115.

[2] Andreas Bluhm, Ángela Capel, and Antonio Pérez-Hernández, “Exponential decay of mutual information for Gibbs states of local Hamiltonians”, arXiv:2104.04419.

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2021-09-14 17:54:24). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

Could not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2021-09-14 17:54:23: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2021-09-14-541 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-09-14-541/

Continue Reading

Quantum

Explicit asymptotic secret key rate of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with an arbitrary modulation

Published

on

Aurélie Denys1, Peter Brown2, and Anthony Leverrier1

1Inria, France
2ENS Lyon, France

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

We establish an analytical lower bound on the asymptotic secret key rate of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with an arbitrary modulation of coherent states. Previously, such bounds were only available for protocols with a Gaussian modulation, and numerical bounds existed in the case of simple phase-shift-keying modulations. The latter bounds were obtained as a solution of convex optimization problems and our new analytical bound matches the results of Ghorai $textit{et al.}$ (2019), up to numerical precision. The more relevant case of quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) could not be analyzed with the previous techniques, due to their large number of coherent states. Our bound shows that relatively small constellation sizes, with say 64 states, are essentially sufficient to obtain a performance close to a true Gaussian modulation and are therefore an attractive solution for large-scale deployment of continuous-variable quantum key distribution. We also derive similar bounds when the modulation consists of arbitrary states, not necessarily pure.

Quantum key distribution (QKD) allows two distant agents to generate a shared secret key using an untrusted quantum channel and classical communication. It is a promising near-term application of quantum technologies, enabling information-theoretically secure communication. QKD schemes that operate using continuous variable (CV) systems are particularly interesting in this regard as they can likely be integrated into existing telecom networks. However, analyzing CV QKD protocols is difficult due to the infinite dimensional nature of the underlying Fock space and a pressing open problem is how to obtain reasonably tight bounds on the secret key rates for general protocols.
In this work, we provide a solution to this problem by deriving an explicit analytical lower bound on the asymptotic secret key rate of any standard one-way CV QKD protocol. Our analytical results allow us to account for imperfections in the state preparation and also straightforwardly to optimize the preparation constellations, further improving performance of the protocols.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] C.H. Bennett and G. Brassard. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, volume 175, 1984. 10.1016/​j.tcs.2014.05.025.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tcs.2014.05.025

[2] Kamil Brádler and Christian Weedbrook. Security proof of continuous-variable quantum key distribution using three coherent states. Phys. Rev. A, 97 (2): 022310, 2018. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.022310.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.022310

[3] Nicolas J Cerf, Marc Levy, and Gilles Van Assche. Quantum distribution of Gaussian keys using squeezed states. Phys. Rev. A, 63 (5): 052311, 2001. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.63.052311.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.63.052311

[4] Matthias Christandl, Robert König, and Renato Renner. Postselection technique for quantum channels with applications to quantum cryptography. Phys. Rev. Lett., 102 (2): 020504, 2009. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.102.020504.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.102.020504

[5] Aurélie Denys, Peter Brown, and Anthony Leverrier. Explicit asymptotic secret key rate of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with an arbitrary modulation of coherent states. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.09746v1, 2021.
arXiv:2011.09746v1

[6] I. Devetak and A. Winter. Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states. In Proc. R. Soc. A, volume 461, pages 207–235, 2005. 10.1098/​rspa.2004.1372.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1098/​rspa.2004.1372

[7] Frederic Dupuis, Omar Fawzi, and Renato Renner. Entropy accumulation. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 379: 867–913, 2020. 10.1007/​s00220-020-03839-5.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-020-03839-5

[8] Radim Filip. Continuous-variable quantum key distribution with noisy coherent states. Phys. Rev. A, 77: 022310, Feb 2008. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.77.022310.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.77.022310

[9] F. Furrer, T. Franz, M. Berta, A. Leverrier, V. B. Scholz, M. Tomamichel, and R. F. Werner. Continuous variable quantum key distribution: Finite-key analysis of composable security against coherent attacks. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109: 100502, 2012. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.109.100502.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.109.100502

[10] Raúl García-Patrón and Nicolas J. Cerf. Unconditional Optimality of Gaussian Attacks against Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97 (19): 190503, 2006. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.97.190503.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.97.190503

[11] Amirhossein Ghazisaeidi et al. Advanced C$+$L-Band Transoceanic Transmission Systems Based on Probabilistically Shaped PDM-64QAM. J. Lightwave Technol., 35 (7): 1291–1299, Apr 2017. 10.1109/​JLT.2017.2657329.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​JLT.2017.2657329

[12] Shouvik Ghorai, Philippe Grangier, Eleni Diamanti, and Anthony Leverrier. Asymptotic security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with a discrete modulation. Phys. Rev. X, 9: 021059, Jun 2019. 10.1103/​PhysRevX.9.021059.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.9.021059

[13] F. Grosshans and P. Grangier. Reverse reconciliation protocols for quantum cryptography with continuous variables. Arxiv preprint quant-ph/​0204127, 2002a.
arXiv:quant-ph/0204127

[14] F. Grosshans, N.J. Cerf, J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier. Virtual entanglement and reconciliation protocols for quantum cryptography with continuous variables. Quantum Information and Computation, 3 (Sp. Iss. SI): 535–552, 2003.

[15] Frédéric Grosshans and Philippe Grangier. Continuous Variable Quantum Cryptography Using Coherent States. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88 (5): 057902, 2002b. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.88.057902.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.88.057902

[16] Matthias Heid and Norbert Lütkenhaus. Security of coherent-state quantum cryptography in the presence of Gaussian noise. Phys. Rev. A, 76 (2): 022313, 2007. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.76.022313.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.76.022313

[17] Takuya Hirano, H Yamanaka, M Ashikaga, T Konishi, and R Namiki. Quantum cryptography using pulsed homodyne detection. Physical Review A, 68 (4): 042331, 2003. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.68.042331.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.68.042331

[18] Fanny Jardel, Tobias A Eriksson, Cyril Méasson, Amirhossein Ghazisaeidi, Fred Buchali, Wilfried Idler, and Joseph J Boutros. Exploring and experimenting with shaping designs for next-generation optical communications. Journal of Lightwave Technology, 36 (22): 5298–5308, 2018. 10.1109/​JLT.2018.2871248.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​JLT.2018.2871248

[19] Paul Jouguet, Sébastien Kunz-Jacques, and Anthony Leverrier. Long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribution with a Gaussian modulation. Phys. Rev. A, 84: 062317, Dec 2011. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.84.062317.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.84.062317

[20] Eneet Kaur, Saikat Guha, and Mark M Wilde. Asymptotic security of discrete-modulation protocols for continuous-variable quantum key distribution. Physical Review A, 103 (1): 012412, 2021. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.103.012412.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.103.012412

[21] Felipe Lacerda, Joseph M Renes, and Volkher B Scholz. Coherent state constellations for Bosonic Gaussian channels. In Information Theory (ISIT), 2016 IEEE International Symposium on, pages 2499–2503. IEEE, 2016. 10.1109/​ISIT.2016.7541749.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​ISIT.2016.7541749

[22] Anthony Leverrier. Composable security proof for continuous-variable quantum key distribution with coherent states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 114: 070501, 2015. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.114.070501.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.114.070501

[23] Anthony Leverrier. Security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution via a Gaussian de Finetti reduction. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118: 200501, May 2017. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.118.200501.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.118.200501

[24] Anthony Leverrier. SU(p, q) coherent states and a Gaussian de Finetti theorem. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 59 (4): 042202, 2018. 10.1063/​1.5007334.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.5007334

[25] Anthony Leverrier and Philippe Grangier. Unconditional security proof of long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribution with discrete modulation. Phys. Rev. Lett., 102: 180504, May 2009. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.102.180504.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.102.180504

[26] Anthony Leverrier and Philippe Grangier. Continuous-variable quantum-key-distribution protocols with a non-Gaussian modulation. Phys. Rev. A, 83: 042312, Apr 2011. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.83.042312.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.83.042312

[27] Jie Lin, Twesh Upadhyaya, and Norbert Lütkenhaus. Asymptotic security analysis of discrete-modulated continuous-variable quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. X, 9: 041064, Dec 2019. 10.1103/​PhysRevX.9.041064.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.9.041064

[28] S. Lorenz, N. Korolkova, and G. Leuchs. Continuous-variable quantum key distribution using polarization encoding and post selection. Appl. Phys. B, 79 (3): 273–277, 2004. 10.1007/​s00340-004-1574-7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00340-004-1574-7

[29] Hossein Mani, Tobias Gehring, Philipp Grabenweger, Bernhard Ömer, Christoph Pacher, and Ulrik Lund Andersen. Multiedge-type low-density parity-check codes for continuous-variable quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. A, 103: 062419, Jun 2021. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.103.062419. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.103.062419.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.103.062419

[30] Takaya Matsuura, Kento Maeda, Toshihiko Sasaki, and Masato Koashi. Finite-size security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with digital signal processing. Nature communications, 12 (1): 1–13, 2021. 10.1038/​s41467-020-19916-1.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41467-020-19916-1

[31] Mario Milicevic, Feng Chen, Lei M Zhang, and P Glenn Gulak. Quasi-cyclic multi-edge LDPC codes for long-distance quantum cryptography. NPJ Quantum Information, 4: 1–9, 2018. 10.1038/​s41534-018-0070-6.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-018-0070-6

[32] Miguel Navascués, Frédéric Grosshans, and Antonio Acín. Optimality of Gaussian Attacks in Continuous-Variable Quantum Cryptography. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97 (19): 190502, 2006. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.97.190502.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.97.190502

[33] Panagiotis Papanastasiou and Stefano Pirandola. Continuous-variable quantum cryptography with discrete alphabets: Composable security under collective Gaussian attacks. Phys. Rev. Research, 3: 013047, Jan 2021. 10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.3.013047.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.3.013047

[34] S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. Shamsul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden. Advances in quantum cryptography. Adv. Opt. Photon., 12 (4): 1012–1236, Dec 2020. 10.1364/​AOP.361502.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1364/​AOP.361502

[35] Stefano Pirandola, Carlo Ottaviani, Gaetana Spedalieri, Christian Weedbrook, Samuel L Braunstein, Seth Lloyd, Tobias Gehring, Christian S Jacobsen, and Ulrik L. Andersen. High-rate measurement-device-independent quantum cryptography. Nat. Photon., 9 (6): 397–402, 2015. 10.1038/​nphoton.2015.83.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nphoton.2015.83

[36] R. Renner. Symmetry of large physical systems implies independence of subsystems. Nat. Phys., 3 (9): 645–649, 2007. 10.1038/​nphys684.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nphys684

[37] R. Renner and J. I. Cirac. de Finetti Representation Theorem for Infinite-Dimensional Quantum Systems and Applications to Quantum Cryptography. Phys. Rev. Lett., 102 (11): 110504, 2009. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.102.110504.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.102.110504

[38] V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev. The security of practical quantum key distribution. Rev. Mod. Phys., 81 (3): 1301, 2009. 10.1103/​RevModPhys.81.1301.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.81.1301

[39] Denis Sych and Gerd Leuchs. Coherent state quantum key distribution with multi letter phase-shift keying. New J. Phys., 12 (5): 053019, 2010. 10.1088/​1367-2630/​12/​5/​053019.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​12/​5/​053019

[40] Marco Tomamichel and Renato Renner. Uncertainty relation for smooth entropies. Phys. Rev. Lett., 106: 110506, Mar 2011. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.106.110506.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.106.110506

[41] Twesh Upadhyaya, Thomas van Himbeeck, Jie Lin, and Norbert Lütkenhaus. Dimension reduction in quantum key distribution for continuous- and discrete-variable protocols. PRX Quantum, 2: 020325, 2021. 10.1103/​PRXQuantum.2.020325.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PRXQuantum.2.020325

[42] Vladyslav C. Usenko and Radim Filip. Feasibility of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with noisy coherent states. Phys. Rev. A, 81: 022318, Feb 2010. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.81.022318.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.81.022318

[43] Christian Weedbrook, Andrew M. Lance, Warwick P. Bowen, Thomas Symul, Timothy C. Ralph, and Ping Koy Lam. Quantum cryptography without switching. Phys. Rev. Lett., 93 (17): 170504, 2004. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.93.170504.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.93.170504

[44] Christian Weedbrook, Stefano Pirandola, Seth Lloyd, and Timothy C. Ralph. Quantum cryptography approaching the classical limit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 105: 110501, Sep 2010. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.105.110501.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.105.110501

[45] Christian Weedbrook, Stefano Pirandola, Raúl García-Patrón, Nicolas J. Cerf, Timothy C. Ralph, Jeffrey H. Shapiro, and Seth Lloyd. Gaussian quantum information. Rev. Mod. Phys., 84: 621–669, 2012. 10.1103/​RevModPhys.84.621.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.84.621

[46] Yihong Wu and Sergio Verdú. The impact of constellation cardinality on Gaussian channel capacity. In 2010 48th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pages 620–628, 2010. 10.1109/​ALLERTON.2010.5706965.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​ALLERTON.2010.5706965

[47] Yi-Bo Zhao, Matthias Heid, Johannes Rigas, and Norbert Lütkenhaus. Asymptotic security of binary modulated continuous-variable quantum key distribution under collective attacks. Phys. Rev. A, 79: 012307, 2009. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.79.012307.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.79.012307

Cited by

[1] Florian Kanitschar and Christoph Pacher, “Postselection Strategies for Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribution Protocols with Quadrature Phase-Shift Keying Modulation”, arXiv:2104.09454.

[2] Wen-Bo Liu, Chen-Long Li, Yuan-Mei Xie, Chen-Xun Weng, Jie Gu, Xiao-Yu Cao, Yu-Shuo Lu, Bing-Hong Li, Hua-Lei Yin, and Zeng-Bing Chen, “Homodyne Detection Quadrature Phase Shift Keying Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribution with High Excess Noise Tolerance”, arXiv:2104.11152.

[3] Min-Gang Zhou, Zhi-Ping Liu, Wen-Bo Liu, Chen-Long Li, Jun-Lin Bai, Yi-Ran Xue, Yao Fu, Hua-Lei Yin, and Zeng-Bing Chen, “Machine learning for secure key rate in continuous-variable quantum key distribution”, arXiv:2108.02578.

[4] Ignatius William Primaatmaja, Cassey Liang, Gong Zhang, Jing Yan Haw, Chao Wang, and Charles Ci-Wen Lim, “Discrete-variable quantum key distribution with homodyne detection”, arXiv:2109.00492.

[5] Cosmo Lupo and Yingkai Ouyang, “Quantum key distribution with non-ideal heterodyne detection”, arXiv:2108.00428.

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2021-09-13 18:45:07). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

Could not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2021-09-13 18:45:05: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2021-09-13-540 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-09-13-540/

Continue Reading
Crowdfunding2 days ago

Conister Bank Lends More to Time Finance

Esports4 days ago

NBA 2K22 MyCareer: How to Get a Shoe Deal

Oceania
Esports4 days ago

lol123 scrape by Rooster to claim final IEM Fall Oceania Closed Qualifier spot

Esports5 days ago

NBA 2K22 Soundtrack: Full List of Artists and Songs

cardano-price-on-the-brink-of-a-huge-breakout-5-imminent-for-ada.jpg
Blockchain5 days ago

Cardano Price on the Brink of a Huge Breakout! $5 Imminent for ADA

Aerospace4 days ago

Potential component defect to delay next Virgin Galactic flight

Esports3 days ago

How to complete a Sideways Encounter in Fortnite

Esports5 days ago

What Time Does the MyNBA 2K22 App Release?

Esports3 days ago

How to craft a weapon in Fortnite Chapter 2, season 8

Ukraine
Esports4 days ago

s1mple claims third consecutive MVP in EPL victory

Esports4 days ago

The best dunkers in NBA 2K22

Esports5 days ago

Pathfinder: Wrath of The Righteous Gray Garrison Statue Puzzle

Esports4 days ago

Na’Vi win ESL Pro League Season 14 in five-map thriller against Vitality to complete $1 million Intel Grand Slam

Aerospace4 days ago

Photos: SpaceX rocket arrives on launch pad for Inspiration4 mission

HRTech4 days ago

Amazon launches educational benefits for frontline staff

Esports4 days ago

AVE and Trasko emerge victorious from CIS IEM Fall open qualifier

Big Data4 days ago

China to break up Ant’s Alipay and force creation of separate loans app – FT

HRTech4 days ago

How Crompton is using the ‘Power of Language’ to create a high-engagement culture

Esports4 days ago

Imperial round out IEM Fall SA closed qualifier team list

Cleantech4 days ago

Bringing Solar & Tesla Batteries To Restaurants In New Orleans To “Stay Lit,” And How You Can Help

Trending

Copyright © 2020 Plato Technologies Inc.