arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 30 Aug 2018

Transcription

1 Preparing tunable Bell-diagonal states on a quantum computer arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 30 Aug 2018 Mauro B. Pozzobom 1 and Jonas Maziero 1, 1 Departamento de Física, Centro de Ciências Naturais e Exatas, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Avenida Roraima 1000, Santa Maria, RS, , Brazil The class of two-qubit Bell-diagonal states has been the workhorse for developing understanding about the geometry, dynamics, and applications of quantum resources. In this letter, we present a quantum circuit for preparing Bell-diagonal states on a quantum computer in a tunable way. We implement this quantum circuit using the IBM Q 5 Yorktown quantum computer and, as an application example, we measure the non-local, steering, entanglement, and discord quantum correlations and non-local quantum coherence of Werner states. Keywords: Bell-diagonal states; Werner states; quantum computer; IBM Q 5 Yorktown; quantum resources Quantum properties such as coherence [1], nonlocality [2], steering [3], entanglement [4], and discord [5] have been identified as resources enabling the implementation of diverse quantum computation and communication protocols [6 10]. The functions defined to quantify these quantum features based on the resource-theory framework [1, 11 14] are frequently hard to compute analytically for general quantum states [15, 16]. Motivated by that observation, a subset of two-qubit states, the so called Bell-diagonal states (BDS), have been used extensively for better understanding some of these resources [17 37]. So, due to its central place within the study of quantum resources, the experimental preparation of BDS is of apparent need. Recently Liu et al. showed how to prepare tunable Werner states in a linear optical system via the implementation of a depolarizing channel applied to a Bell state [38]. Here we take a different route, where we devise a simple quantum circuit that can be used to create tunable BDS on a quantum computer with the use of two auxiliary qubits. To exemplify the use of our protocol, we measure experimentally, using the IBM Q 5 Yorktown quantum computer [39], the quantum nonlocality, steering, entanglement, discord, and non-local coherence of Werner states, which are a one-parameter subset of the BDS. The remainder of this letter is organized as follows. We begin describing the class of BDS and presenting the quantum circuit we propose for its preparation on a quantum computer (QC). In the sequence we outline the implementation of this circuit on the IBM Q 5 Yorktown QC, hereafter referred to as ibmqx2. Then we present the experimental results we obtained for the quantum correlations and non-local coherence of Werner states. Finally, we report on a simple model introduced to explain the noise influence on the experimental data and give our conclusions. As the name indicates, two-qubit Bell-diagonal states read ρ bd = 1 p jk β jk β jk, (1) j,k=0 0 a R(θ/2) 0 b R(α/2) 0 c 0 d H Figure 1: Quantum circuit we propose to generate tunable Bell-diagonal states on a quantum computer. The R gates generate one-qubit superposition states. The CNOTs are used to copy the states of the qubits a and b to the qubits c and d, respectively. By its turn, the Hadamard and the last CNOT gate are used for changing from the computational to the Bell basis. At the output, the joint state of qubits c and d is equivalent to ρ bd of Eq. (1) with p jk given as in Eq. (7). where β jk = 2 1/2 ( 0 k + ( 1) j 1 k 1 ) are the Bell s base states [40], with being the modulo 2 sum, { j } 1 j=0 is the computational basis, and p jk is a probability distribution. This class of two-qubit states has the following four-qubit purification τ abcd = that is to say, 1 pjk j a k b β jk cd, (2) j,k=0 ρ bd = ρ cd = Tr ab ( τ τ abcd ), (3) with Tr ab being the partial trace function [41]. Here we report that the quantum circuit shown in Fig. 1 generates the4-qubit state τ abcd, and therefore that it can be used to prepare any BDS. In the circuit shown in Fig. 1, we used the rotation R(x) = the controlled-not gate [ cosx sinx sinx cosx ], (4) CNOT s s = 0 0 s σ s s σ s 1, (5) and the Hadamard gate H = 1 [ ] 1 1. (6) 2 1 1

2 2 Above σ0 s σ 0 is the 2x2 identity matrix and {σj s σ j } 3 j=1 are the Pauli matrices acting on qubit s [40]. For the circuit in Fig. 1, the relations among the probabilities in the BDS and rotation angles are seen to be p jk = ( cos 2 θ ) 1 j ( sin 2 θ 2 2 ) j ( cos 2 α ) 1 k ( sin 2 α k. 2 2) (7) For the calculation of quantum correlations, one usually starts studying a maximally-mixed marginals state, ρ 3m = 2 2 (σ 0 σ j,k=1 c jk σ j σ k ), put to the normal form, ρ n = 2 2 σ 0 σ 0 + c jj σ j σ j, (8) j=1 via local unitaries. The states ρ n are diagonal in the Bell basis, having the following eigenvalue eigenvector pairs p jk = 1 ( 1+( 1) j c 1 +( 1) j+k 1 c 2 +( 1) k ) c 3, βjk, 4 (9) where we used c j c jj. Hence, from Eqs. (7) and (9) we see that given ρ n, we can prepare any BDS in a tunable way by using as input to the quantum computer rotations R(θ/2) and R(α/2) the angles: θ = 2arccos p 00 +p 01, (10) α = 2arccos p 00 +p 10. (11) For the implementation of the quantum circuit of Fig. 1 on the ibmqx2, we use R(x/2) = U 3 (x,0,0) with U 3 (θ,φ,λ) = [ cos θ 2 e iλ sin θ ] 2 e iφ sin θ 2 ei(λ+φ) cos θ 2 (12) being one of the ibmqx2 quantum gates [39]. The other gates we need are themselves directly included in the ibmqx2 set of ready-to-use quantum gates. The experiments were carried out with the calibration parameters for the ibmqx2 shown in Fig. 2. Based on the qubits connectivities and decoherence rates seen in that figure, we have chosen the following encoding for implementation of the circuit in Fig. 1: a Q1, b Q3, c Q2, d Q4. (13) With these settings, we have prepared Werner states [4], ρ w = (1 w) σ 0 σ 0 4 +w β 11 β 11, (14) for eleven values of w [0,1]. We observe that ρ w is equivalent to ρ n if c 1 = c 2 = c 3 = w. In order to experimentally reconstruct the prepared states, we consider Figure 2: (color online) Calibration data of the IBM Q 5 Yorktown quantum computer with which the experiments were performed. The temperature was T = 159 K. general two-qubit states written in the form ρ = 1 4 j,k=0 c jk σ j σ k, (15) with c jk = σ j σ k ρ. All of these averages can be obtained from the joint probability distributions of the local measurements of σ j and σ k. Let p j±,k± := Prob(σ j = ±1,σ k = ±1). (16) Then, for j,k = 1,2,3: c jk = p j+,k+ +p j,k p j+,k p j,k+. (17) Using the marginal probability distributions p j± = p j±,k+ +p j±,k and p k± = p j+,k± +p j,k± (18) we calculate c j0 = p j+ p j and c 0k = p k+ p k (19) forj = 1,2,3 and fork = 1,2,3. Finally, becausetr(ρ) = 1, we have c 00 = 1. Measurements of σ 3 are part of the ready-to-use operations of ibmqx2. To measure σ 1, we first applied the Hadamard gate H and then measured σ 3. For measuring σ 2, we applied [ ] S 1 0 =, (20) 0 i then applied H, and finally measured σ 3. With these measurements procedures, the probability distributions

3 3 p j±,k± were estimated with 8192 runs of the given quantum circuit and corresponding measurements. In Fig. 3 is shown the computational basis representation of the reconstructed Werner states density matrices for three values of w. In the sequence, we shall describe the quantumness measures we consider in this letter. We begin by the l 1 -norm coherence, with the standard basis used as the reference basis [1]: C l1 (ρ) = j k j ρ k. (21) A natural candidate for quantifying the non-local extent of the quantum coherence of a bipartite system is [42, 43]: - - C(ρ) = C l1 (ρ) [C l1 (ρ a )+C l1 (ρ b )], - - with the reduced states given by [41]: ρ a = Tr b (ρ) and ρ b = Tr a (ρ). The existence of non-local coherence is a prerequisite for a system to present a quantum correlation named quantum discord. This quantum correlation (QC) is related to the minimal extent to which the correlations in a composite system are to be deprecated by local nonselective projective measurements. Here we use a normalized version of the analytical expression for the geometric Hellinger discord reported in Ref. [44]: D(ρ) = 1 t y 2 +k max 1, (22) 2 withk max being the largest eigenvalue ofk = x x T +TT T, for the decomposition 2 ρ = t 0 σ 0 σ 0 + x σ σ 0 +σ 0 y σ + T j,k σ j σ k, (23) j,k= where σ = (σ 1,σ 2,σ 3 ), and t 0 = Tr( ρ)/2. By its turn, discord is known to be a weaker quantum correlation when compared to entanglement. This last type of quantum correlation, the non-separable correlations, are quantified here using the entanglement concurrence [45]: E(ρ) = max 0,2 λ max λj (24) j= where λ j are the eigenvalues of ρσ 2 σ 2 ρ σ 2 σ 2 with ρ being the complex conjugate of ρ when represented in the computational basis and λ max is the greatest among the eigenvalues λ j. For the two strongest forms of quantum correlations known, steering and non-locality, which cannot be explained using a local hidden state and a local hidden variable model, respectively, we use the formulas reported - - Figure 3: (color online) Computational basis representation of the real and imaginary parts of the theoretical-target and experimentally prepared density matrices corresponding to Werner states with three different values of the weight w. - -

4 C C C e D D e E E e S S e N C C d D D d E E d S 0.6 N e F S d N N d Cd D Dd E Ed S Sd N Nd w w Figure 4: (color online) The x-like black points show the preparation fidelities, F(ρ w,ρ exp w ) = Tr ρwρ exp w ρw. The functions indicated in the legend by the subscript e refer to experimentally prepared states. C stands for non-local coherence, shown in gray. In magenta is plotted the Hellinger discord D. The entanglement concurrence E is shown in blue. The steering S is given the color red and the non-locality N is shown in cyan w Figure 5: (color online) Quantum non-local coherence and quantum correlations of Werner states with one of the qubits evolved under de composition of phase and amplitude damping channels. Here we used the same labeling of Fig. 4, with the subscript d standing for the function calculated using the decohered states of Eq. (28). The main figure is for a = p = 0.3 and in the inset are shown the corresponding curves for a = p = 5. in Ref. [46]. These authors considered measures for these quantities given by the maximum extend to which a given related inequality [47 49] is violated. For two-qubit states in the standard form, 4ρ = σ 0 σ 0 + a σ σ 0 +σ 0 b σ+ c j σ j σ j, (25) j=1 they obtained analytically the steering for three dichotomic measurements per qubit [46], ( S(ρ) = max 0, c 1 ), (26) 3 1 and the quantum non-locality for two dichotomic measurements per qubit [46], ( ) c 2 c 2 min N(ρ) = max 0, 1, (27) 2 1 with c min being the minimum value among the components of the correlation vector c = (c 1,c 2,c 3 ). Here we use as the correlation vector the eigenvalues of the correlation matrix C = (c jk ), for j,k = 1,2,3. The results for the state preparation fidelity and for all these quantum non-local coherence and correlation measures are presented in Fig. 4. The code we used to compute these functions is freely available at [50]. Even though the preparation fidelities shown in Fig. 4 have, in general, values quite close to the maximum value 1, we see in this figure that the environmental noise and the quantum computer imperfections have significant detrimental effects on the quantum properties of the prepared states. This fact indicates that state preparation fidelity is not a reliable figure of merit if ones main purpose is the production and utilization of quantum correlations. For a related discussion, see Ref. [51]. It is interesting noticing that not only are the different quantum resources affected unevenly by those external influences, but the stronger the quantum correlation is, the more it is impacted. This fact can be qualitatively well explained in a simplified manner through the application of the composition of the amplitude damping and phase damping channels [40, 52] to one of the qubits of the theoretical-target Werner states: ρ d w(a,p) = 2 K j (a,p) σ 0 ρ w K j (a,p) σ 0, (28) j=0 with being the transpose conjugate and in this case the Kraus operators are given by: K 0 (a,p) = p(1 a) 1 1, (29) K 1 (a,p) = a 0 1, (30) K 2 (a,p) = (1 p)(1 a) 1 1. (31) The quantum non-local coherence and correlations of ρ d w (0.3,0.3) and of ρd w (5,5) are shown in Fig. 5, The results in Fig. 5 show that our simplified model of Eq. (28) describes quite well the main qualitative features of the experimental data of Fig. 4. Besides, we

5 5 see in the inset of Fig. 5 that by lowering the values of the amplitude and phase noise rates, one could increase the values of the quantumness functions of the generated states, and, in particular, that one could generate states with non-zero quantum non-locality. In conclusion, in this letter we gave a quantum circuit that can be used to prepare tunable Bell-diagonal states with a quantum computer. We implemented this quantum circuit using the IBM Q 5 Yorktown quantum computer and measured the non-local quantum coherence and discord, entanglement, steering, and non-local quantum correlations of experimentally reconstructed Werner states. Even though the noise and imperfections of the hardware utilized had a quite strong detrimental effect on the measured quantum correlations, we succeeded in verifying a hierarchy relation for quantum resources (see e.g. Ref. [46]) of the produced states: N S E D C. (32) The simple zero-temperature composite noise model we made to explain the experimental results obtained indicates that access to quantum computers with lower noise rates will allow for the application of our quantum circuit to produce even the strongest kind of quantum correlation and also to test several interesting theoretical results that have been reported in the recent quantum information science literature using Bell-diagonal states [18, 20, 22, 27, 31, 53, 54]. This work was supported by the Brazilian National Institute for the Science and Technology of Quantum Information (INCT-IQ), process / Electronic address: jonas.maziero@ufsm.br [1] T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, (2014). [2] J. S. Bell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966). [3] E. Schrödinger, Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 31, 555 (1935). [4] R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989). [5] H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, (2001). [6] H.-L. Shi, S.-Y. Liu, X.-H. Wang, W.-L. Yang, Z.-Y. Yang, and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. A 95, (2017). [7] N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014). [8] C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, S. P. Walborn, V. Scarani, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A 85, (R) (2012). [9] S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 797 (1994). [10] A. Streltsov, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, in Lectures on General Quantum Correlations and their Applications, edited by F. F. Fanchini, D. O. Soares-Pinto, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, 2017) pp [11] S. G. A. Brito, B. Amaral, and R. Chaves, Phys. Rev. A 97, (2018). [12] R. Gallego and L. Aolita, Phys. Rev. X 5, (2015). [13] V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997). [14] Z.-W. Liu, X. Hu, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, (2017). [15] S. Gharibian, Quantum Inf. Comp. 10, 343 (2010). [16] Y. Huang, New J. Phys. 16, (2014). [17] R. Horodecki and M. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1838 (1996). [18] M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, (2010). [19] Q. Quan, H. Zhu, S.-Y. Liu, S.-M. Fei, H. Fan, and W.-L. Yang, Sci. Rep. 6, (2016). [20] K. Roszak and Ł. Cywiński, EPL 112, (2015). [21] Q. Meng, L. Yan-Biao, W. Xiao, and B. Zhong, Chin. Phys. C 36, 307 (2012). [22] A. Kay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, (2012). [23] Y.-K. Wang, T. Ma, H. Fan, S.-M. Fei, and Z.-X. Wang, Quantum Inf. Proc. 13, 283 (2014). [24] H. Singh, Arvind, and K. Dorai, EPL 118, (2017). [25] J. Maziero, L. C. Céleri, R. M. Serra, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. A 80, (2009). [26] L. C. Céleri and J. Maziero, in Lectures on General Quantum Correlations and their Applications, edited by F. F. Fanchini, D. O. Soares-Pinto, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, 2017) pp [27] C. S. Castro, O. S. Duarte, D. P. Pires, D. O. Soares- Pinto, and M. S. Reis, Phys. Lett. A 380, 1571 (2016). [28] F. M. Paula, A. Saguia, T. R. de Oliveira, and M. S. Sarandy, EPL 108, (2014). [29] S. Luo and Q. Zhang, J. Stat. Phys. 136, 165 (2009). [30] J.-X. Hou, Y.-L. Su, S.-Y. Liu, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Quantum Inf. Process. 17, 184 (2018). [31] W. Han, K.-X. Jiang, Y.-J. Zhang, and Y.-J. Xia, Chin. Phys. B 24, (2015). [32] T. R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, (2015). [33] T. R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, R. L. Franco, and G. Adesso, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, (2014). [34] M.-M. Du, D. Wang, and L. Ye, Sci. Rep. 7, (2017). [35] R. Auccaise, L. C. Céleri, D. O. Soares-Pinto, E. R. deazevedo, J. Maziero, A. M. Souza, T. J. Bonagamba, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, (2011). [36] R. Auccaise, J. Maziero, L. C. Céleri, D. O. Soares-Pinto, E. R. deazevedo, T. J. Bonagamba, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and R. M. Serra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, (2011). [37] G. H. Aguilar, O. J. Farías, J. Maziero, R. M. Serra, P. H. S. Ribeiro, and S. P. Walborn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, (2012). [38] T.-J. Liu, C.-Y. Wang, J. Li, and Q. Wang, EPL 119, (2017). [39] IBM Quantum Experience, com/ibm-q. [40] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000). [41] J. Maziero, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 28, (2016). [42] M. B. Pozzobom and J. Maziero, Ann. Phys. 377, 243 (2017). [43] C. Radhakrishnan, M. Parthasarathy, S. Jambulingam, and T. Byrnes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, (2016).

6 6 [44] W. Roga, D. Spehner, and F. Illuminati, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, (2016). [45] W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998). [46] A. C. S. Costa and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 93, (2016). [47] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969). [48] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 200, 340 (1995). [49] E. G. Cavalcanti, C. J. Foster, M. Fuwa, and H. M. Wiseman, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 32, A74 (2015). [50] J. Maziero, Python library for quantum information science, libpyq (2018). [51] A. Mandarino, M. Bina, C. Porto, S. Cialdi, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A 93, (2016). [52] D. O. Soares-Pinto, M. H. Y. Moussa, J. Maziero, E. R. deazevedo, T. J. Bonagamba, R. M. Serra, and L. C. Céleri, Phys. Rev. A 83, (2011). [53] V. Feldman, J. Maziero, and A. Auyuanet, Quantum Inf. Process. 16, 128 (2017). [54] Z.-N. Li, J.-S. Jin, and C.-S. Yu, Commun. Theor. Phys. 58, 47 (2012).