arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 19 Jan 2018

Transcription

1 Non-Locality distillation in tripartite NLBs Talha Lateef (Dated: 207--) arxiv:0.03v2 [quant-ph] 9 Jan 20 In quantum mechanics some spatially separated sub-systems behave as if they are part of a single system, the superposition of states of this single system cannot be written as products of states of individual sub-systems,we say that the state of such system is entangled, such systems give rise to non-local correlations between outcomes of measurements. The non-local correlations are conditional probability distributions of some measurement outcomes given some measurement settings and cannot be explained by shared information[, 2].These correlations can be studied using a non-local box(nlb) which can be viewed as a quantum system a. A NLB is an abstract object which has number of inputs(measurement settings) and number of outputs(outcomes), such NLBs can be both quantum and super-quantum[3 5]. The correlations are of use in quantum information theory, the stronger the correlations the more useful they are, hence we study protocols that have multiple weaker non-local systems, application of these protocols to weaker systems may result in stronger non-local correlations, we call such protocols non-locality distillation protocols[6 ]. In our work here we present non-locality distillation protocols for tripartite NLBs specifically GHZ box and class,5 and 6 of no-signalling polytope. I. INTRODUCTION: The no-signaling box under consideration has three parties, two measurement settings, two measurement outcomes and is represented by the tuple (3,2,2). The measurement settings/inputs are x,y,z 0,} and for measurement outcomes/outputs we use either a,b,c 0,} or the so called fourier representation a,b,c, }. The three parties are Alice with input x and outputa, Bobwithinputy andoutputbandcharliewith input z and output c. The correlations are in the form of conditional probabilities P(abc xyz), these correlations satisfy three constraints of positivity, normalization and no-signaling respectively: P(abc xyz) 0 for all a,b,c,x,y,z P(abc xyz) = for all x,y,z a,b,c and P(abc xyz) = a a P(abc xyz) = b b P(abc xyz) = c c P(abc x yz) for all b,c,x,x,y,z P(abc xy z) for all a,c,x,y,y,z P(abc xyz ) for all a,b,x,y,z,z Positivity and normalization comes from the correlations being conditional probabilities. No-signaling prevents faster than light communication between parties. Non-local boxes talha76@msn.com a we assume quantum correlations. For the case of non-local tripartite boxes they also can not be written in terms of shared information and correlations of individual parties so they do not satisfy: P(abc xyz) = λ p(λ)p(a x,λ)p(b y,λ)p(c z,λ) where p(λ) is probability distribution or shared information, we are using a probability distribution because the variable(s) may be beyond our control, from this it follows that p(λ) 0 and λp(λ) =. The constraints of positivity, normalization and no-signaling is a description of a geometric object called polytope, it is possible to change one description of polytope to another, application of vertex enumeration algorithms to the constraints will result in all vertices or boxes. There are total 5356 boxes with 6 being local and rest of them non-local.these boxes are classified in 6 equivalent classes[9, 0]. Non-locality distillation protocol combines multiple non-local boxes to produce stronger non-locality using local operations without any classical communication. The depth of the protocol is the number of non-local boxes that are part of the protocol. In the case of depth n protocol the three parties Alice, Bob and Charlie input three bits x,y and z to the protocol, the input to the first box is the same as the input to the protocol i.e. x = x, y = y and z = z, the output bits from the first box are a, b and c. The input to nth box are bits x n, y n and z n, which are result of each party using a local operation on their input bit and output bit from the n th box i.e. x n = f n (x n,a n ), y n = g n (y n,b n ) and z n = h n (z n,c n ), we get the output a n, b n and c n from the nth box. The output of the protocol is then define as a = f n+ (x,a,...,a n ), b = g n+ (y,b,...,b n ) and c = h n+ (z,c,...,c n ). A protocol is said to be non-adaptiveif all the inputs tothenlbsin the protocoldependsonthe originalinput to the protocol i.e. x n = f n (x), y n = g n (y) and z n =

2 2 FIG. 2. Noisy GHZ box P GHZ = 2 P P 6 where P 6 and P 6 are both different boxes of class 6. The GHZ box with even parityinputs can be constructed in similar way using boxes: FIG.. Distillation protocol of depth n h n (z) for all n while in the case of adaptive protocols inputs to NLBs also depend on outputs from the previous NLBs in the protocol which can be seen in the original definition, hence non-adaptive protocols are a subset of adaptive protocols[6,, ]. II. GHZ BOX: This NLB is based on GHZ correlations[2] and is defined as: P abc xyz=000 = if a b c = 0 0 if a b c = P 6 = (+abc( )xy+xz+yz ) and P 6 = (+abc( )x+y+z+xy+xz+yz ) where a,b,c, } or just using P where P is the extremal point of class given by: P = (+abc( )x+y+z+xy+xz+yz+xyz ) where a,b,c, } P abc xyz 000 = and in matrix form: P GHZ = if a b c = 0 if a b c = The inputs are limited to even parity i.e xyz 000,0,0,0} and outputs a,b,c 0,}. The GHZ box is not an extremal point of no-signaling polytope, however It is possible to construct GHZ boxes using boxes of class 6 as given in [9] by using: The local deterministic vertices of no-signalling polytope are grouped together as local polytope P L and has 6 vertices which is expressed as: P ικµνστ L (abc xyz) = if a = ιx κ, b = µy ν, c = σz τ 0 otherwise where ι,κ,µ,ν,σ,τ 0,} The P L results in 5356 inequalities which has been classified in 6 different classes[3, ], the amount of

3 To be able to achieve distillation we want to attain V such that: V > V Lemma III. In a depth n GHZ setting there is no adaptive distillation protocol that is more optimal than the non-adaptive distillation protocol. 3 FIG. 3. General depth 2 distillation protocol non-locality or box value for GHZ box is obtained using the bell inequalities of class 2 : 2 A 0 B 0 C 0 A 0 B C A B 0 C A B C 0 2 () where A x B y C z = ( ) a b c P(abc xyz) a,b,c 0,} III. GHZ DISTILLATION: We now present the noisy form of a GHZ box with parameters ǫ [, ] and δ [, ] P abc xyz=000 = P abc xyz 000 = +ǫ if a b c = 0 ǫ if a b c = +δ if a b c = 0 δ if a b c = and in matrix form: +ǫ ǫ ǫ +ǫ ǫ +ǫ +ǫ ǫ P GHZ(ǫ,δ) = +δ δ δ +δ δ +δ +δ δ +δ δ δ +δ δ +δ +δ δ +δ δ δ +δ δ +δ +δ δ using inequality () we get the single box value: V = ǫ 3δ Proof Consider a general depth n distillation protocol(see Fig. ) with GHZ NLBs, the inputs to the protocol x,y and z are restricted to 000,0,0,0} by the definition of distillation protocol and GHZ box, now suppose that the protocol is non-adaptive i.e. all of the x k = f k (x k,a k ) = x k, y k = g k (y k,b k ) = y k and z k = h k (z k,c k ) = z k (where k n) are true, in this case each box gets the same input as that of the protocol and hence every input contribute towards V, we now suppose an adaptive protocol i.e. atleast one of the x k = f k (x k,a k ) x k, y k = g k (y k,b k ) y k and z k = h k (z k,c k ) z k is true, which results in the input being changed to one of the 00,00,00,} and therefore will not be accepted by the NLB and hence will not contribute towards V. We now consider depth 2 non-adaptive protocols, the only protocols that distill are parity protocols i.e the final output functions f 3,g 3 and h 3 are polynomials of degree at most over GF(2)/Z 2 (0,}, )) of outputs and or input(protocol). Since all distillation protocols are parity protocols we can generalize protocols in a single protocol diagram (see Fig. 3) by introducing further boolean variables s a,s b,s c and t. The value attain by this protocol is then: V = ( ) sa s b s c ǫ 2 +( ) sa s b s c 3δ 2 The distillation plot is given in Fig. the light gray curved part in the plot highlights the region of distillation. We now turn our attention to a specific non-adaptive depth n distillation protocol NDP n (GHZ)(see Fig. 5) this is the tripartite version of Forster et al. s[6] parity protocol with GHZ boxes instead of PR boxes, just as we can represent an NLB in the matrix form, we can consider the protocol as a new NLB with it s inputs(x,y,z) and outputs(a,b,c) without worrying about it s internal working, this neat abstraction allows us to write matrix form of the protocol as an NLB. Lemma III.2 For the distillation protocol NDP n (GHZ) the matrix form is: +ǫ n ǫ n ǫ n +ǫ n ǫ n +ǫ n +ǫ n ǫ n P NDPn(GHZ)(ǫ,δ) = +δ n δ n δ n +δ n δ n +δ n +δ n δ n +δ n δ n δ n +δ n δ n +δ n +δ n δ n +δ n δ n δ n +δ n δ n +δ n +δ n δ n

4 with box value: V NDP n(ghz) = ǫn 3δ n Let V n be the value for any depth n non-adaptive GHZ protocol, then V n V NDP i.e. V n(ghz) n is bounded by max ǫ k n ǫ k 3δ k FIG.. Distillation plot for depth 2 protocol with V = ǫ 2 3δ 2 Proof We use Fourier transform for boolean function in our proof[]. Let the n bit tuples (a i,b i,c i ) be the output of the n NLBs that Alice, Bob and Charlie obtain for inputs x,y and z respectively. The tuple (a i,b i,c i ) is drawn from 000,00,00,0,00,0,0,}with respect to the distribution µ = + ǫ, ǫ, ǫ,+ ǫ, ǫ,+ǫ,+ǫ, ǫ}, where ǫ is the bias for the row corresponding to the inputs received by the players(x = 0,y = 0,z = 0 in this case). For inputs x,y and z let Ā, B, C 0,} n be the set of strings for which Alice, Bob and Charlie s final output is 0. Given that Alice, Bob and Charlie input bits x,y and z into n NLBs, the probability that they receive bit strings a,b and c of length n is given by: P abc xyz = ( ǫ + ǫ [ ai b i c i = ]) i n ( ) n ǫ ( P abc xyz = + 2ǫ [ ai b ( ǫ) i c i = ]) i n ( ) n ( ) n a b c ǫ +ǫ P abc xyz = ǫ P abc xyz = n ( ǫ) a b c(+ǫ) n a b c The probability q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ) of obtaining output 000 is obtained by summing over all of the output bit strings a in Ā, b in B and c in C: q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)= a b c(+ǫ) n a b c n ( ǫ) a Ā b B c C Representing the above expression in terms of 2 n characters of finite group (Z n 2 ) q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)= n a Ā b B c C z 0,} n χ z (a b c)ǫ z Using the homomorphism from additive group to multiplicative group z q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)= n a Ā b B c C z 0,} n χ z (a)χ z (b)χ z (c)ǫ q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)= n ǫ z χ z (a) z 0,} n a Ā b B z q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)= ǫ z 0,} n q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)= ǫ z 0,} n z (( s χ z (b) c Cχ z (c) 2 nχ z(a) 2 nχ z(b) 2 nχ z(c) a Ā b B c C 2 nχ z(s) [ )( s Ā] 2 nχ z(t) [ t B ] )( t u 2 nχ z(u) [ u C ] ))

5 5 Let the functions f,g and h be + when s,t and u are in Ā, B and C, respectively and - otherwise: (( q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)= ǫ z z 0,} n s ( f (s)+ 2 nχ z(s) 2 ) )( ( ) )( g(t)+ ( ) )) h(u)+ 2 nχ z(t) 2 2 nχ z(u) 2 t u we know that fourier coefficientˆf S = f,χ S = E x [f(x).χ S (x)] = 2 n x 0,} n f(x)χ S(x) and ˆf 0 = f, q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)= (( ǫ z ˆfz + [ z = 0 ] )(ĝz + [ z = 0 ] )(ĥz + [ z = 0 ] )) z 0,} n q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)= ǫ z ((ˆfz + [ z = 0 ]) (ĝz + [ z = 0 ])( ĥ z + [ z = 0 ])) z 0,} n q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)= z ((ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z + (+ ˆf 0 +ĝ 0 +ĥ0 + ˆf 0 ĝ 0 + ˆf ) [z ] )) 0 ĥ 0 +ĝ 0 ĥ 0 = 0 z 0,} n ǫ we obtain q ( Ā,B,C),q (A, B,C) and q (A,B, C) similarly by flipping sign of ˆf z,ĝ z and ĥz q ( Ā,B,C)(ǫ)= (( ǫ z ˆfz + [ z = 0 ] )( ĝz + [ z = 0 ] )( ĥ z + [ z = 0 ] )) z 0,} n q ( Ā,B,C)(ǫ)= ǫ z ((ˆfz + [ z = 0 ]) ( ĝz + [ z = 0 ])( ĥz + [ z = 0 ])) z 0,} n q ( Ā,B,C)(ǫ)= z ((ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z +(+ ˆf 0 ĝ 0 ĥ0 ˆf 0 ĝ 0 ˆf ) [z ] )) 0 ĥ 0 +ĝ 0 ĥ 0 = 0 q (A, B,C) (ǫ)= q (A, B,C) (ǫ)= q (A, B,C) (ǫ)= z 0,} n ǫ z 0,} n ǫ z 0,} n ǫ z 0,} n ǫ (( z ˆfz + [ z = 0 ] )(ĝz + [ z = 0 ] )( ĥ z + [ z = 0 ] )) z (( ˆf z + [ z = 0 ]) (ĝz + [ z = 0 ])( ĥz + [ z = 0 ])) z ((ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z +( ˆf 0 +ĝ 0 ĥ0 ˆf 0 ĝ 0 + ˆf 0 ĥ 0 ĝ 0 ĥ 0 ) [z = 0 ] )) q (A,B, C) (ǫ)= (( ǫ z ˆfz + [ z = 0 ] )( ĝz + [ z = 0 ] )(ĥz + [ z = 0 ] )) z 0,} n q (A,B, C) (ǫ)= ǫ z (( ˆf z + [ z = 0 ]) ( ĝz + [ z = 0 ])( ĥ z + [ z = 0 ])) z 0,} n q (A,B, C) (ǫ)= z ((ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z + ( ˆf 0 ĝ 0 +ĥ0 + ˆf 0 ĝ 0 ˆf ) [z ] )) 0 ĥ 0 ĝ 0 ĥ 0 = 0 z 0,} n ǫ The probability of obtaining output when A B C = 0 is then: r (A B C=0) (ǫ)= q ( Ā, B, C)(ǫ)+q ( Ā,B,C)(ǫ)+q (A, B,C) (ǫ)+q (A,B, C) (ǫ) = z ( ) ˆf z ĝ z ĥ z + z 0,} n ǫ = + ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z ǫ z 2 z 0,} n

6 6 The expected value for the bias ǫ can now be expressed: r (A B C=0) (ǫ) r (A B C=) (ǫ)= r (A B C=0) (ǫ) ( r (A B C=0) (ǫ) ) = 2r (A B C=0) (ǫ) = 2 + ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z ǫ z 2 z 0,} n = ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z ǫ z z 0,} n The expected value for bias δ can be calculated similarly, using expected value of both biases in () we obtain: V = ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z ǫ z ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z δ z ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z δ z ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z δ z z 0,} n z 0,} n z 0,} n z 0,} n V = ( ) ˆfz ĝ z ĥ z ǫ z z 3δ z 0,} n ĝz ˆf z ĥz ǫ z z 3δ z 0,} n max k ǫ k 3δ k max k ǫ k 3δ k z 0,} n ĝz ˆf z ĥz Using Lemma III. and Lemma III.2 we conclude that non-adaptive parity protocols are optimal for n copies of GHZ box. IV. CLASS,5 AND 6: We use the same representatives as in [5, 9] and define each of class,5 and 6 perfect boxes as: P = a b c = xyz 0 otherwise P 5 = P 6 = a b c = xy xz 0 otherwise a b c = xy yz xz 0 otherwise when we want to refer to any of the perfect boxes we use the notation: P N = a b c = f(x,y,z) 0 otherwise where N can be any of the perfect boxes and f(x,y,z) isabooleanpolynomialofx,y,z overgf(2)forthatbox. To calculate box value we select the following inequality of class : A 0 B 0 C 0 + A 0 B + A B 0 A B + A 0 C + A C 0 A C + B 0 C 0 +3 A 0 B 0 C 0 + A 0 B 0 C + A 0 B C 0 +2 A 0 B C + A B 0 C 0 A B 0 C A B C 0 2 A B C 7 (2) calculating V for each of the perfect boxes using (2), we get the same value of. P c is the tripartite correlated box with even parity and is defined as: P c = a b c = 0 0 otherwise we are restricting ourselves to correlated noise model hence we define noisy box as: P N δ = [ δp N +( δ)p c] where δ [0,] Using (2) we get the box value V for P N δ : V = δ +7

7 7 FIG. 6. Protocol Proof We start with two copies of P N δ : FIG. 5. NDP n(ghz) distillation protocol Finallywe presentcoupleofnotationsthat weusein next sections: P N ( δ) =[ ( δ)p N +δp c] where δ [0,] P f(x,x2,...,xn) a b c = f(x,x 2,...,x n ) where f(x,x 2,...,x n ) is polynomial of inputs. V. P N δ DISTILLATION: A. Common protocols In this section we are going to present two distillation protocols of depth 2 that are common to these three classes:. Protocol This protocol(see Fig. 6) is the similar to the nonadaptive protocol of depth 2 which has been presented previously for GHZ box, we now give proof of it s distillability: Lemma V. Protocol (see Fig. 6) distills for two copies of P N δ with the same amount of V for each class P N δ P N δ = [ δp N +( δ)p c][ δp N +( δ)p c] = δ 2 P N P N +δ( δ) ( P N P c +P c P N) +( δ) 2 P c P c Hence we need each of the four relations above to get to the final box: P N P N For box we have a b c = f(x,y,z ) = f(x,y,z), for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = f(x 2,y 2,z 2 ) = f(x,y,z ) = f(x,y,z), equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = 0, a b c = 0, hence P c P N P c For box we have a b c = f(x,y,z ) = f(x,y,z), 0 = f(x,y,z) a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = f(x,y,z), a b c = f(x,y,z), hence P N P c P N For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = f(x 2,y 2,z 2 ) = f(x,y,z ) = f(x,y,z), 0 = f(x,y,z) a 2 b 2 c 2 equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = f(x,y,z), a b c = f(x,y,z), hence P N P c P c For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = 0, a b c = 0, hencep c P N δ PN δ = (δ(2 2δ))P N +( δ(2 2δ))P c V = δ 2 +δ +7 The protocol distills(v > V) in the region of 0 < δ < 2, the grey curve in fig. highlights the protocol.

8 Class 5: V = δ 2 +6δ +7 P 5 δ P 5 δ = δ 2 P 5 P 5 +δ( δ) ( P 5 P c +P c P 5) +( δ) 2 P c P c P 5 P 5 For box we have a b c = x y x z = xy xz, 0 = xy xz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 x 2 z 2 = x y b x z = xyb xz, 0 = xyb xz a 2 b 2 c 2, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xy xyb xz xz, a b c = xy( b ), hence 2 (Pxy +P c ) FIG. 7. Protocol 2 2. Protocol 2 We now turn our attention to another common protocol(see fig. 7), protocol 2 is a depth 2 adaptive protocol with final box and expression given below: Lemma V.2 Protocol 2(see fig. 7) distills for two copies of P N δ with the different amount of V for each class Proof For each class we derive a different final box and expression: Class : P δ P δ = δ2 P P +δ( δ) ( P P c +P c P ) +( δ) 2 P c P c P P Forboxwehavea b c = x y z = xyz, 0 = xyz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 z 2 = x y z b = xyzb, 0 = xyzb a 2 b 2 c 2 equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c ( c 2 = xyz xyzb, a b c = xyz( b ), hence 2 P +P c) P P c For box we have a b c = x y z = xyz, 0 = xyz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xyz, a b c = xyz, hence P P c P For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 z 2 = x y z b = xyzb, 0 = xyzb a 2 b 2 c 2 equating we get: a a( 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xyzb, a b c = xyzb, hence 2 P c +P ) P c P c For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = 0, a b c = 0, hence P c ( ) ( )) 3 3 Pδ P δ = P 2 δ δ2 +P ( c 2 δ δ2 P 5 P c For box we have a b c = x y x z = xy xz, 0 = xy xz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xy xz, a b c = xy xz, hence P 5 P c P 5 For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 x 2 z 2 = x y b x z = xyb xz, 0 = xyb xz a 2 b 2 c 2 equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 ( c c 2 = xyb xz, a b c = xyb xz, hence 2 P xz +P 5) P c P c For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating a b c = a 2 b 2 c 2, a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = 0, a b c = 0, hencep c ( Pδ 5 Pδ 5 = δ 2 (δpxy +( δ)p xz )+ ) 2 P5 δ +( δ)pδ 5 Class 6: V = 6δ 2 +9δ +7 P 6 δ P6 δ = δ2 P 6 P 6 +δ( δ) ( P 6 P c +P c P 6) +( δ) 2 P c P c P 6 P 6 For box we have a b c = x y y z x z = xy yz xz, 0 = xy yz xz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 y 2 z 2 x 2 z 2 = x y b y z b x z = xyb yzb xz, 0 = xyb yzb xz a 2 b 2 c 2, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xyb yzb xz xy yz xz, a b c = xyb xy yzb yz, a b c = ( b )(xy yz),hence 2 (Pxy yz +P c ) P 6 P c For box we have a b c = x y y z x z = xy yz xz, 0 = xy yz xz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xy yz xz, a b c = xy yz xz, hence P 6 P c P 6 For box we have a b c = 0, for

9 9 FIG.. Protocol 3 FIG. 9. Protocol box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 y 2 z 2 x 2 z 2 = x y b y z b x z = xyb yzb xz, 0 = xyb yzb xz a 2 b 2 c 2, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = ( xyb yzb xz, a b c = b (xy yz) xz, hence 2 P xz +P 6) P c P c For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating a b c = a 2 b 2 c 2, a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = 0, a b c = 0, hence P c ( Pδ 6 P6 δ = δ ( δp xy yz +( δ)p xz) + ) 2 2 P6 δ +( δ)pδ 6 V = 0δ 2 +9δ +7 For class 5 protocol 2 distills in the region of 0 < δ < 5 6 and both for class and class 6 in the region of 0 < δ <, white curves in fig. refer to protocol 2. 2 B. Unique protocols We present three different protocols that atleast distill for each of their respective classes: P P Forboxwehavea b c = x y z = xyz, 0 = xyz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 z 2 = x ( y )z = xz xyz, 0 = xz xyz a 2 b 2 c 2 equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xyz xz xyz, a b c = xz, hence P xz P P c For box we have a b c = x y z = xyz, 0 = xyz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xyz, a b c = xyz, hence P P c P For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 z 2 = x ( y )z = xz xyz, 0 = xz xyz a 2 b 2 c 2 equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xz xyz, a b c = xz xyz, hence P xz xyz P c P c For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = 0, a b c = 0, hencep c Pδ Pδ = δ ( δp xz +( δ)p xz xyz) +( δ)pδ V = 6δ +7 The protocol distills in the region of 0 < δ.. Protocol 3 Lemma V.3 Protocol 3(see fig. ) distills for two copies of P δ Proof We start with two copies of P δ : P δ P δ = δ2 P P +δ( δ) ( P P c +P c P ) +( δ) 2 P c P c 2. Protocol Lemma V. Protocol (see fig. 9) distills for two copies of P 5 δ Proof We start with two copies of P 5 δ : P 5 δ P5 δ = δ2 P 5 P 5 +δ( δ) ( P 5 P c +P c P 5) +( δ) 2 P c P c

10 0 3. Protocol 5 Lemma V.5 Protocol 5(see fig. 0) distills for two copies of P 6 δ Proof We start with two copies of P 6 δ : FIG. 0. Protocol 5 P 5 P 5 For box we have a b c = x y x z = xy xz, 0 = xy xz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 x 2 z 2 = 0 x z = xz, 0 = xz a 2 b 2 c 2, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xy xz xz, a b c = xy, hence P xy P 5 P c For box we have a b c = x y x z = xy xz, 0 = xy xz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xy xz, a b c = xy xz, hence P 5 P c P 5 For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 x 2 z 2 = 0 x z = xz, 0 = xz a 2 b 2 c 2 equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xz, a b c = xz, hence P xz P c P c for box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating a b c = a 2 b 2 c 2, a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = 0, a b c = 0, hence P c P 6 δ P6 δ = δ2 P 6 P 6 +δ( δ) ( P 6 P c +P c P 6) +( δ) 2 P c P c P 6 P 6 For box we have a b c = x y y z x z = xy yz xz, 0 = xy yz xz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 y 2 z 2 x 2 z 2 = 0 0 ( x )z = ( x)z = z xz, 0 = z xz a 2 b 2 c 2, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xy yz xz z xz, a b c = xy yz z, a b c = xy yz z, hence P xy yz z P 6 P c For box we have a b c = x y y z x z = xy yz xz,0 = xy yz xz a b c, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = xy yz xz, a b c = xy yz xz, hence P 6 P c P 6 For box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = x 2 y 2 y 2 z 2 x 2 z 2 = 0 0 ( x )z = ( x)z = z xz,0 = z xz a 2 b 2 c 2 equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = z xz, a b c = z xz, hence P z xz P c P c for box we have a b c = 0, for box 2 we have a 2 b 2 c 2 = 0, equating we get: a a 2 b b 2 c c 2 = 0, a b c = 0, hence P c Pδ 6 P6 δ = δ ( δp xy yz z +( δ)p z xz) +( δ)pδ 6 V = δ 2 2δ +7 The region of distillation for protocol 5 is 3 < δ. Pδ 5 Pδ 5 = δ(δp xy +( δ)p xz )+( δ)pδ 5 V = δ 2 +0δ +7 The region of distillation for protocol is 0 < δ. From fig. we can conclude that protocol 2 as compared to protocol performs much better for class 5, for class 6 protocol 2 performs slightly better than protocol, however for class protocol performs better than protocol 2, each of the unique protocols represented by black curves in fig. perform better than common protocols for their respective classes and distillation regions, among unique protocols protocol for class 5 performs the best.

11 FIG.. Plot for P N δ distillation protocols VI. FINAL COMMENTS: We presented here a limited study of distillation in tripartite NLBs, in comparison to the bipartite((2, 2, 2)) case the tripartite((3, 2, 2)) case is much more complicated with 5356 extremal points classified into 6 classes[9], because of this complexity we selected a limited part of tripartite no-signalling polytope specifically a representative of each class,5,6and GHZ box, the reason for this selection is based on a common criteria that each of these genuine tripartite boxes in their definition have no one and two party expectations. As is the case with tripartite extremal points the distillation is also complicated and does lead to numerous distillation protocols, for GHZ box we selected a pair of class 2 inequalities while for Pδ N we selected a class inequality out of 5356 inequalities[], this inequality has a limited no-signalling violation for P N which provides a common box value for P N, while GHZ box is distilled with only single protocol, Pδ N has much more distillation protocols, for Pδ N we selected two common protocols, protocol 2 is selected for large no-signalling violation of Pδ 5, with the same selection criteria we selected unique protocols, this has led to the conjecture that common protocols cannot outperform unique protocols, clearly in our setting as far as no-signalling violation is concerned class 5 has outperformed other classes. In future we intend to study distillation in other classes however such a task will require a suitable representation of boxes in terms of boolean polynomials which while is not impossible but still is much more complicated, of course such a exercise will lead to numerous protocols, which perhaps can be classified according to some criteria. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am thankful to Jibran Rashid for his initial guidance. I thank Cezary Śliwa for his discussion on bell inequalities.

12 2 [] J. S. Bell, Physics, 95 (96). [2] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 0 (969). [3] L. Khalfin and B. Csirel son., Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, page (95). [] S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Foundations of Physics 2, 379 (99). [5] J. Barrett, N. Linden, S. Massar, S. Pironio, S. Popescu, and D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. A 7, 0220 (2005). [6] M. Forster, S. Winkler, and S. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 02, 200 (2009). [7] N. Brunner and P. Skrzypczyk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 02, 6003 (2009). [] J. Allcock, N. Brunner, N. Linden, S. Popescu, P. Skrzypczyk, and T. Vértesi, Phys. Rev. A 0, (2009). [9] S. Pironio, J.-D. Bancal, and V. Scarani, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, (20 [0] J.-D. Bancal, J. Barrett, N. Gisin, and S. Pironio, Phys. Rev. A, 002 (203). [] P.HøyerandJ.Rashid,Phys. Rev. A 2, 02 (200). [2] D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, American Journal of Physics 5, 3 (990), [3] I. Pitowsky and K. Svozil, Phys. Rev. A 6, 002 (200). [] C. Sliwa, (2003), 0.06/S (03)05-0, arxiv:quant-ph/