- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Imprecision plateaus in quantum steering

Elna Svegborn1, Nicola d'Alessandro1, Otfried Gühne2, and Armin Tavakoli1

  • 1Physics Department and NanoLund, Lund University, Box 118, 22100 Lund, Sweden
  • 2Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Fakultät, Universität Siegen, Walter-Flex-Straße 3, 57068 Siegen, Germany

PDF

Phys. Rev. A 111, L020404 – Published 11 February, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.111.L020404

Abstract

We study tests of quantum steering in which the trusted party does not have perfect control of their measurements. We report on steering inequalities that remain unaffected when introducing up to a threshold magnitude of measurement imprecision. This phenomenon, which we call an imprecision plateau, thus permits a departure from the standard assumption of idealized measurements without incurring any cost to the detection power of steering experiments. We provide an explanation for why imprecision plateaus are possible, a simple criterion for their existence, and tools for analyzing their properties. We also demonstrate that these plateaus have natural applications when the assumption of perfect measurements is relaxed: They allow for maintaining both the noise robustness and loss robustness of standard steering tests and the performance rate of idealized one-sided device-independent random number generators.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (40)

  1. R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. Gühne, Quantum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015001 (2020).
  2. D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Quantum steering: A review with focus on semidefinite programming, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 024001 (2017).
  3. C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, S. P. Walborn, V. Scarani, and H. M. Wiseman, One-sided device-independent quantum key distribution: Security, feasibility, and the connection with steering, Phys. Rev. A 85, 010301(R) (2012).
  4. X. Ma and N. Lütkenhaus, Improved data post-processing in quantum key distribution and application to loss thresholds in device independent QKD, Quantum Inf. Comput. 12, 0203 (2011).
  5. Y. Z. Law, L. P. Thinh, J.-D. Bancal, and V. Scarani, Quantum randomness extraction for various levels of characterization of the devices, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 424028 (2014).
  6. Y. Li, Y. Xiang, X.-D. Yu, H. C. Nguyen, O. Gühne, and Q. He, Randomness certification from multipartite quantum steering for arbitrary dimensional systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 080201 (2024).
  7. Q. He, L. Rosales-Zárate, G. Adesso, and M. D. Reid, Secure continuous variable teleportation and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 180502 (2015).
  8. H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Steering, entanglement, nonlocality, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 140402 (2007).
  9. D. Rosset, R. Ferretti-Schöbitz, J.-D. Bancal, N. Gisin, and Y.-C. Liang, Imperfect measurement settings: Implications for quantum state tomography and entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. A 86, 062325 (2012).
  10. A. Tavakoli, Semi-device-independent framework based on restricted distrust in prepare-and-measure experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 210503 (2021).
  11. J. Pauwels, S. Pironio, E. Woodhead, and A. Tavakoli, Almost qudits in the prepare-and-measure scenario, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 250504 (2022).
  12. T. Moroder and O. Gittsovich, Calibration-robust entanglement detection beyond Bell inequalities, Phys. Rev. A 85, 032301 (2012).
  13. S. Morelli, H. Yamasaki, M. Huber, and A. Tavakoli, Entanglement detection with imprecise measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 250501 (2022).
  14. T. Moroder, O. Gittsovich, M. Huber, R. Uola, and O. Gühne, Steering maps and their application to dimension-bounded steering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 090403 (2016).
  15. A. Tavakoli, Quantum steering with imprecise measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 070204 (2024).
  16. S. Sarkar, Distrustful quantum steering, Phys. Rev. A 108, L040401 (2023).
  17. E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and M. D. Reid, Experimental criteria for steering and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032112 (2009).
  18. D. J. Saunders, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Experimental EPR-steering using Bell-local states, Nat. Phys. 6, 845 (2010).
  19. H. Cao, S. Morelli, L. A. Rozema, C. Zhang, A. Tavakoli, and P. Walther, Genuine multipartite entanglement detection with imperfect measurements: Concept and experiment Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 150201 (2024).
  20. N. Gisin, Bell inequalities: Many questions, a few answers, in Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle: Essays in Honour of Abner Shimony (Springer, Dordrecht, 2009), pp. 125–138.
  21. A. Tavakoli and N. Gisin, The Platonic solids and fundamental tests of quantum mechanics, Quantum 4, 293 (2020).
  22. We need only to consider eight of Alice's 16 deterministic strategies because those equivalent under a bit flip correspond to an irrelevant global minus sign.
  23. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevA.111.L020404 for detailed derivations of the results in this Letter, which includes Refs. [24, 25].
  24. A. Chailloux, I. Kerenidis, S. Kundu, and J. Sikora, Optimal bounds for parity-oblivious random access codes, New J. Phys. 18, 045003 (2016).
  25. G. Vallone, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering: Closing the detection loophole with non-maximally-entangled states and arbitrary low efficiency, Phys. Rev. A 87, 020101(R) (2013).
  26. The maximal value is f=3/2 and corresponds to the local hidden variable bound for the witness, i.e., the elegant Bell inequality.
  27. C. de Gois, K. Hansenne, and O. Gühne, Uncertainty relations from graph theory, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062211 (2023).
  28. Note also that one may flip the sign on any number of rows of c without changing the plateau properties.
  29. A. Tavakoli, A. Pozas-Kerstjens, P. Brown, and M. Araújo, Semidefinite programming relaxations for quantum correlations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 045006 (2024).
  30. M. Navascués, S. Pironio, and A. Acín, Bounding the set of quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 010401 (2007).
  31. M. F. Pusey, Negativity and steering: A stronger Peres conjecture, Phys. Rev. A 88, 032313 (2013).
  32. M. Navascués and T. Vértesi, Bounding the set of finite dimensional quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 020501 (2015).
  33. A. J. Bennet, D. A. Evans, D. J. Saunders, C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Arbitrarily loss-tolerant Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering allowing a demonstration over 1 km of optical fiber with no detection loophole, Phys. Rev. X 2, 031003 (2012).
  34. B. Wittmann, S. Ramelow, F. Steinlechner, N. K. Langford, N. Brunner, H. M. Wiseman, R. Ursin, and A. Zeilinger, Loophole-free Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen experiment via quantum steering, New J. Phys. 14, 053030 (2012).
  35. D. A. Evans, E. G. Cavalcanti, and H. M. Wiseman, Loss-tolerant tests of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022106 (2013).
  36. M. Tomamichel, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, and R. Renner, Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptography, Nat. Commun. 3, 634 (2012).
  37. S. Pironio, A. Acín, S. Massar, A. B. de la Giroday, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, L. Luo, T. A. Manning, and C. Monroe, Random numbers certified by Bell's theorem, Nature (London) 464, 1021 (2010).
  38. P. Mironowicz, A. Tavakoli, A. Hameedi, B. Marques, M. Pawłowski, and M. Bourennane, Increased certification of semi-device independent random numbers using many inputs and more post-processing, New J. Phys. 18, 065004 (2016).
  39. Y.-Y. Zhao, H.-Y. Ku, S.-L. Chen, H.-B. Chen, F. Nori, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and Y.-N. Chen, Experimental demonstration of measurement-device-independent measure of quantum steering, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 77 (2020).
  40. S. Kocsis, M. J. W. Hall, A. J. Bennet, D. J. Saunders, and G. J. Pryde, Experimental measurement-device-independent verification of quantum steering, Nat. Commun. 6, 5886 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 111, L020404– Published 11 February, 2025
  • Received 29 August 2024
  • Accepted 29 January 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by Bibsam.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation