- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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
  • Open Access

Robust semi-device-independent certification of all pure bipartite maximally entangled states via quantum steering

Harshank Shrotriya1, Kishor Bharti1, and Leong-Chuan Kwek1,2,3

  • 1Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543, Singapore
  • 2MajuLab, CNRS-UNS-NUS-NTU International Joint Research Unit, Singapore UMI 3654, Singapore
  • 3National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637616, Singapore

PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 3, 033093 – Published 27 July, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033093

Abstract

The idea of self-testing is to render guarantees concerning the inner workings of a device based on the measurement statistics. It is one of the most formidable quantum certification and benchmarking schemes. Recently it was shown [A. Coladangelo, K. T. Goh, and V. Scarani, Nat. Commun. 8, 15485 (2017)] that all pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested in the device-independent scenario by employing subspace methods introduced by Yang and Navascués [Phys. Rev. A 87, 050102(R) (2013)]. Here, we have adapted their method to show that any bipartite pure entangled state can be certified in the semi-device-independent scenario through quantum steering. Analogous to the tilted Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality, we use a steering inequality called the tilted steering inequality for certifying any pure two-qubit entangled state. Furthermore, we use this inequality to certify any bipartite pure entangled state by certifying two-dimensional subspaces of the qudit state by observing the structure of the set of assemblages obtained on the trusted side after measurements are made on the untrusted side. As a feature of quantum state certification via steering, we use the notion of assemblage-based robust state certification to provide robustness bounds for the certification result in the case of pure maximally entangled states of any local dimension.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (55)

  1. J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Quantum certification and benchmarking, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 382 (2020).
  2. S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Generic quantum nonlocality, Phys. Lett. A 166, 293 (1992).
  3. D. Mayers and A. Yao, Self testing quantum apparatus, Quantum Inf. Comput. 4, 273 (2004).
  4. I. Šupić and J. Bowles, Self-testing of quantum systems: A review, Quantum 4, 337 (2020).
  5. T. H. Yang, T. Vértesi, J.-D. Bancal, V. Scarani, and M. Navascués, Robust and Versatile Black-Box Certification of Quantum Devices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 040401 (2014).
  6. T. H. Yang and M. Navascués, Robust self-testing of unknown quantum systems into any entangled two-qubit states, Phys. Rev. A 87, 050102(R) (2013).
  7. C. Bamps and S. Pironio, Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt-like inequalities and their application to self-testing, Phys. Rev. A 91, 052111 (2015).
  8. P. Sekatski, J.-D. Bancal, S. Wagner, and N. Sangouard, Certifying the Building Blocks of Quantum Computers from Bell's Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 180505 (2018).
  9. 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 et al., Random numbers certified by Bell's theorem, Nature (London) 464, 1021 (2010).
  10. O. Andersson, P. Badziag, I. Dumitru, and A. Cabello, Device-independent certification of two bits of randomness from one entangled bit and Gisin's elegant bell inequality, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012314 (2018).
  11. S. Gómez, A. Mattar, I. Machuca, E. S. Gómez, D. Cavalcanti, O. J. Farías, A. Acín, and G. Lima, Experimental investigation of partially entangled states for device-independent randomness generation and self-testing protocols, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032108 (2019).
  12. D. Mayers and A. Yao, Quantum cryptography with imperfect apparatus, in Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, 1998), pp. 503–509.
  13. R. Jain, C. A. Miller, and Y. Shi, Parallel device-independent quantum key distribution, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 66, 5567 (2020).
  14. J. Bowles, I. Šupić, D. Cavalcanti, and A. Acín, Device-Independent Entanglement Certification of All Entangled States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 180503 (2018).
  15. J. Bowles, I. Šupić, D. Cavalcanti, and A. Acín, Self-testing of Pauli observables for device-independent entanglement certification, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042336 (2018).
  16. N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014).
  17. A. Coladangelo, K. T. Goh, and V. Scarani, All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested, Nat. Commun. 8, 15485 (2017).
  18. I. Šupić, A. Coladangelo, R. Augusiak, and A. Acín, Self-testing multipartite entangled states through projections onto two systems, New J. Phys. 20, 083041 (2018).
  19. B. W. Reichardt, F. Unger, and U. Vazirani, Classical command of quantum systems, Nature (London) 496, 456 (2013).
  20. M. McKague, Self-testing in parallel, New J. Phys. 18, 045013 (2016).
  21. A. Coladangelo, Parallel self-testing of (tilted) EPR pairs via copies of (tilted) CHSH and the magic square game, Quantum Inf. Comput. 17, 831 (2017).
  22. S. Breiner, A. Kalev, and C. A. Miller, Parallel self-testing of the GHZ state with a proof by diagrams, EPTCS 287, 43 (2019).
  23. K. Bharti, M. Ray, A. Varvitsiotis, N. A. Warsi, A. Cabello, and L.-C. Kwek, Robust Self-Testing of Quantum Systems via Noncontextuality Inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250403 (2019).
  24. K. Bharti, M. Ray, A. Varvitsiotis, A. Cabello, and L.-C. Kwek, Local certification of programmable quantum devices of arbitrary high dimensionality, arXiv:1911.09448.
  25. A. Tavakoli, J. Kaniewski, T. Vértesi, D. Rosset, and N. Brunner, Self-testing quantum states and measurements in the prepare-and-measure scenario, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062307 (2018).
  26. F. Magniez, D. Mayers, M. Mosca, and H. Ollivier, Self-testing of quantum circuits, in International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (Springer, Berlin, 2006), pp. 72–83.
  27. S. Goswami, B. Bhattacharya, D. Das, S. Sasmal, C. Jebaratnam, and A. S. Majumdar, One-sided device-independent self-testing of any pure two-qubit entangled state, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022311(R) (2018).
  28. I. Šupić and M. J. Hoban, Self-testing through EPR-steering, New J. Phys. 18, 075006 (2016).
  29. A. Gheorghiu, P. Wallden, and E. Kashefi, Rigidity of quantum steering and one-sided device-independent verifiable quantum computation, New J. Phys. 19, 023043 (2017).
  30. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
  31. E. Schrödinger, Discussion of probability relations between separated systems, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 31, 555 (1935).
  32. E. Schrödinger, Probability relations between separated systems, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 32, 446 (1936).
  33. 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).
  34. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Quantum Cryptography without Bell's Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 557 (1992).
  35. 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).
  36. E. Passaro, D. Cavalcanti, P. Skrzypczyk, and A. Acín, Optimal randomness certification in the quantum steering and prepare-and-measure scenarios, New J. Phys. 17, 113010 (2015).
  37. P. Skrzypczyk and D. Cavalcanti, Maximal Randomness Generation from Steering Inequality Violations Using Qudits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 260401 (2018).
  38. R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. Gühne, Quantum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015001 (2020).
  39. D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Quantum steering: A review with focus on semidefinite programming, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 024001 (2016).
  40. J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
  41. 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).
  42. Z. Bian, A. S. Majumdar, C. Jebarathinam, K. Wang, L. Xiao, X. Zhan, Y. Zhang, and P. Xue, Experimental demonstration of one-sided device-independent self-testing of any pure two-qubit entangled state, Phys. Rev. A 101, 020301(R) (2020).
  43. V. Händchen, T. Eberle, S. Steinlechner, A. Samblowski, T. Franz, R. F. Werner, and R. Schnabel, Observation of one-way Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering, Nat. Photonics 6, 596 (2012).
  44. 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).
  45. M. Malik, V. Srivastav, N. H. Valencia, W. McCutcheon, S. Designolle, R. K. Uola, and N. Brunner, Genuine high-dimensional quantum steering, in Optical and Quantum Sensing and Precision Metrology, Vol. 11700 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, Bellingham, WA, 2021), p. 117001H.
  46. L. Mančinska, J. Prakash, and C. Schafhauser, Constant-sized robust self-tests for states and measurements of unbounded dimension, arXiv:2103.01729.
  47. H. Fu, Constant-sized correlations are sufficient to robustly self-test maximally entangled states with unbounded dimension, arXiv:1911.01494.
  48. A. Gheorghiu, E. Kashefi, and P. Wallden, Robustness and device independence of verifiable blind quantum computing, New J. Phys. 17, 083040 (2015).
  49. T. Pramanik, M. Kaplan, and A. S. Majumdar, Fine-grained Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen–steering inequalities, Phys. Rev. A 90, 050305(R) (2014).
  50. E. G. Cavalcanti, C. J. Foster, M. Fuwa, and H. M. Wiseman, Analog of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality for steering, J, Opt. Soc. Am. B 32, A74 (2015).
  51. 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).
  52. P. Skrzypczyk, M. Navascués, and D. Cavalcanti, Quantifying Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Steering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 180404 (2014).
  53. R. Gallego and L. Aolita, Resource Theory of Steering, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041008 (2015).
  54. A. Acín, S. Massar, and S. Pironio, Randomness Versus Nonlocality and Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 100402 (2012).
  55. L. Masanes, Asymptotic Violation of Bell Inequalities and Distillability, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 050503 (2006).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 3, 033093– Published 27 July, 2021
  • Received 12 August 2020
  • Revised 17 March 2021
  • Accepted 7 July 2021
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.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation