Fault-tolerant distribution of GHZ states and controlled DSQC based on parity analyses

Li Dong; Yan-Fang Lin; Cen Cui; Hai-Kuan Dong; Xiao-Ming Xiu; Ya-Jun Gao

doi:10.1364/OE.25.018581

1. Introduction

Combining the techniques of classical cryptography and quantum mechanics, quantum cryptography [1] is one of the most striking and charming developments in the communication field. Employing the principle of quantum mechanics, the legitimate participants can communicate with each other in a private and secret way.

Referring to classical key distribution, quantum key distribution (QKD) was proposed and has made a great progress. Due to the different generation modes of the secret key, there are two kinds of quantum key distribution. One is the random quantum key distribution, such as the protocols of the individual information carriers (BB84-QKD protocol [2] and B92-QKD protocol [3]) and the protocols using quantum entanglement (E91-QKD protocol [4] and BBM92-QKD protocol [5]). The other is deterministic quantum key distribution, for instance, the protocol using order rearrangement of the photons [6].

Long and Liu proposed another kind of quantum communication methods [7], quantum secure deterministic communication (QSDC), which is actually the direct quantum communication without using the key, and the secret information are sent directly through the quantum channel. Following this idea, Deng et al. presented two QSDC protocols using the methods of two-step [8] and one-time pad [9] respectively. Recently, the entanglement based QSDC protocols [7] and the two-step QSDC protocol [8] have been experimentally demonstrated [10]. And the one-time pad QSDC protocol [9] is experimentally realized [11] in a noisy and lossy environment.

Deterministic secure quantum communication (DSQC) can send information deterministically and be read out by the receiver after receiving another classical communication from the sender. DSQC is actually a variant of deterministic QKD. Normally, one first establishes the key, and then encrypts the information into ciphertext, and sends the ciphertext through a classical communication. In DSQC, one can send the ciphertext through the quantum channel first, and if the transmission is secure, then the key can be sent through a classical channel to the receiver. Essentially, DSQC is a combined process of deterministic QKD plus a classical communication [12–16].

In some scenarios, information transmission and communication between two legitimate participants should be in the charge of a controller. In different physical environment, a large amount of controlled deterministic secure quantum communication (Controlled DSQC) protocols were proposed [17–20]. As to the realization of Controlled DSQC, entanglement is a useful resource. Recently, there are many researches about the entanglement generation [21–25], the entanglement concentration [26], the entanglement distribution [26] and transmission [21], and the applications of entanglement [27], such as teleportation [28], quantum state sharing [29], quantum operation sharing [30], and hyperentanglement applications [27].

Noise does great harm to communication. It reduces the accuracy and security of the communication protocols. There are many useful methods to alleviate the noise effect, such as error correction [31], entanglement concentration [32–34], and self-stabilizing algorithm [35]. In practice, if we select photons as information carriers and the free space or the optical fiber as the transmitting paths of photons, the collective noise channel will be a reasonable assumption, which means that the transmitted photons are sufficient near to each other in the space or time interval so that the noise can not judge their difference and the photons suffer from the same noise.

Based on this reasonable assumption and the corresponding elaborate processing and operations, some communication protocols can be realized [36–39].

Taking the collective noise into account, we propose two controlled DSQC protocols exploiting GHZ states in the optical systems. At first, the secure distribution is presented to tolerantly distribute two photons of three-photon GHZ states from the controller to two legitimate participants via collective noise channels. Based on weak cross-Kerr nonlinearities, two explicit controlled DSQC protocols with GHZ states employing single parity analysis and double parity analyses are proposed.

2. Controlled DSQC protocols based on fault-tolerant distribution of GHZ states

It needs to note that the realization of two controlled DSQC protocols are based on the secure distribution of GHZ states. Based on the secure distribution of GHZ states, Hillery et al. [29] presented the first secret sharing protocol, which is considered in the ideal environment. Here we consider the secure distribution of the quantum channel comprised of GHZ states against collective noise.

2.1. The secure distribution of GHZ states as the quantum channel

Suppose that the controller Charlie possesses GHZ states expressed as

{| GHZ 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i} C_{i}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} {(| H H H 〉 + | V V V 〉)}_{A_{i} B_{i} C_{i}},

where |H〉 and |V〉 denote the horizontal polarization mode and vertical polarization mode of the photons.

Illustrated in Fig. 1, Charlie distributes photon A_i and photon B_i from each GHZ polarization-entangled state to two communicators Alice and Bob through path P_A (channel C_A1 and channel C_A2) and path P_B (channel C_B1 and channel C_B2) respectively.

Fig. 1 An illustration plot for distributing photon A_i and photon B_i of a GHZ state from Charlie to Alice (path A) and Bob (path B) via the collective noise channel. The components PBS_A1, PBS_A2, PBS_B1, and PBS_B2 reflect the state |V〉 and transmit the state |H〉. A half wave plate (HWP 45°) where the angle of 45° between the optical axis and horizontal polarization mode |H〉 is set, is inserted into the line, which functions as a NOT gate to realize the state exchange of |H〉 and |V〉.

Download Full Size | PDF

Here, we consider the collective noise channel. Under the assumption of collective noise, the photon A_i sent to Alice via the channel C_A1 and the channel C_A2 suffers from the identical noise, and the photon B_i sent to Bob via the channel C_B1 and the channel C_B2 suffers from the identical noise respectively.

For the requirement of communication security and lesser communication cost, communication sequence is transmitted by photon blocks [7, 8]. If one photon block encounters trouble, it will be discarded. However, its failure can not affect other blocks. Furthermore, before sending A-sequence (is composed of photons A_i) and B-sequence (is composed of photons B_i), Charlie changes the order of the transmitted photons [6,14,15], which can also be used to prevent from the Toffoli gate attack [40–42] and guarantee his controlled function.

After the photon A_i and the photon B_i pass through polarization beam splitters, PBS_A1 and PBS_B1, the GHZ state to be distributed can be denoted as

\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ({| H H 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} | C_{A 2} C_{B 2} 〉 {| H 〉}_{C_{i}} + {| V V 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} | C_{A 1} C_{B 1} 〉 {| V 〉}_{C_{i}}),

where |C_A1C_B1〉 and |C_A2C_B2〉 stand for the spatial modes of the photons (A_i, B_i), which are corresponding to their polarization modes |HH〉_{A_i,B_i} and |VV〉_{A_i,B_i}.

To articulate the fault-tolerant distribution, here we adopt the representation of the product state of the polarization modes and the spatial modes of the photons (A_i, B_i). As for the photon C_i, we express their states by only using the polarization modes, that is, |H〉_{C_i} and |V〉_{C_i}.

Half wave plates ${HWP 45}_{A 11}^{°}$ and ${HWP 45}_{B 11}^{°}$ functioning as a NOT gate change the state denoted as Eq. (2) to

\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} {| H H 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} ({| H 〉}_{C_{i}} | C_{A 2} C_{B 2} 〉 + {| V 〉}_{C_{i}} | C_{A 1} C_{B 1} 〉) .

Before entering into the collective noise channel, the initial state of the whole system is

\begin{array}{l} ρ = ρ_{1} \otimes ρ_{2}, \\ ρ_{1} = {| H H 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 H H |, \\ ρ_{2} = \frac{1}{2} ({| H 〉}_{C_{i}} | C_{A 2} C_{B 2} 〉 + {| V 〉}_{C_{i}} | C_{A 1} C_{B 1} 〉) ({}_{C_{i}}{〈 H |} 〈 C_{A 2} C_{B 2} | + {}_{C_{i}}{〈 V |} 〈 C_{A 1} C_{B 1} |) . \end{array}

Suffered from the collective noise, the polarization mode of the transmitted photons A_i, B_i evolves as

ρ_{1} = {| H H 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 H H | \to ρ_{1}^{'} = \sum_{k, l, m, n = 1}^{2} α_{k l m n} {| k l 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 m n |,

where the coefficients α_klmn (k, l, m, n = 1 or 2) denote the noise parameters which are only corresponding to the different paths (P_A, P_B), rather than the different channels ({C_A1, C_A2}, {C_B1, C_B2}) in the same path, and we adopt the symbols |1〉 ≡ |H〉, |2〉 ≡ |V〉 for simplification.

Leaving from the collective noise channels, the photon A_i and the photon B_i are allowed to pass through ${HWP 45}_{x 12}^{°}$ , and their state evolves as

\begin{array}{l} ρ_{1}^{'} \otimes ρ_{2} \to & \frac{1}{2} ({| V 〉}_{C_{i}} 〈 V | \otimes | C_{A 1} C_{B 1} 〉 〈 C_{A 1} C_{B 1} | \sum_{k, l, m, n = 1}^{2} α_{k l m n} {| \bar{k}, \bar{l} 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 \bar{m} \bar{n} | \\ + {| V 〉}_{C_{i}} 〈 H | \otimes | C_{A 1} C_{B 1} 〉 〈 C_{A 2} C_{B 2} | \sum_{k, l, m, n = 1}^{2} α_{k l m n} {| \bar{k}, \bar{l} 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 \bar{m} \bar{n} | \\ + {| H 〉}_{C_{i}} 〈 V | \otimes | C_{A 2} C_{B 2} 〉 〈 C_{A 1} C_{B 1} | \sum_{k, l, m, n = 1}^{2} α_{k l m n} {| k, l 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 \bar{m} \bar{n} | \\ {| H 〉}_{C_{i}} 〈 H | \otimes | C_{A 2} C_{B 2} 〉 〈 C_{A 2} C_{B 2} | \sum_{k, l, m, n = 1}^{2} α_{k l m n} {| k, l 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 m n |), \end{array}

where, |1̄〉 ≡ |2〉, |2̄〉 ≡ |1〉.

Subsequently, the photon A_i and the photon B_i go through PBS_x2,

\begin{array}{l} \to \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k, l, m, n = 1}^{2} [α_{k l m n} | C_{A_{k}^{'}} C_{B_{l}^{'}} 〉 〈 C_{A_{m}^{'}} C_{B_{n}^{'}} | \\ \otimes {| V 〉}_{C_{i}} 〈 V | \otimes {| \bar{k}, \bar{l} 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 \bar{m} \bar{n} | + {| V 〉}_{C_{i}} 〈 H | \otimes {| \bar{k}, \bar{l} 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 \bar{m} \bar{n} | \\ + {| H 〉}_{C_{i}} 〈 V | \otimes {| k, l 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 \bar{m} \bar{n} | + {| H 〉}_{C_{i}} 〈 H | \otimes {| k, l 〉}_{A_{i} B_{i}} 〈 m n |] . \end{array}

And then, the photon A_i and the photon B_i get through ${HWP 45}_{x^{'} 2}^{°}$ (x = A, B), and the state can be denoted as

\begin{array}{l} \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k, l, m, n = 1}^{2} α_{k l m n} | C_{A_{k}^{'}} C_{B_{l}^{'}} 〉 〈 C_{A_{m}^{'}} C_{B_{n}^{'}} | \\ \otimes {(| H H H 〉 + | V V V 〉)}_{A_{i} B_{i} C_{i}} (〈 H H H | + 〈 V V V |) . \end{array}

Finally, Alice and Bob obtain the photon A_i and the photon B_i at the output ports ( $O_{A_{1}^{'}}$ , $O_{B_{1}^{'}}$ ), ports ( $O_{A_{1}^{'}}$ , $O_{B_{2}^{'}}$ ), ports ( $O_{A_{2}^{'}}$ , $O_{B_{1}^{'}}$ ), or ports ( $O_{A_{2}^{'}}$ , $O_{B_{2}^{'}}$ ) with probabilities α₁₁₁₁, α₁₂₁₂, α₂₁₂₁, or α₂₂₂₂ respectively. That is to say, the photon A_i and the photon B_i in GHZ states can be distributed deterministically from Charlie to Alice and Bob via the collective noise channels.

After photon blocks are distributed, Alice and Bob perform the measurement along two nonorthogonal sets of orthogonal bases {|H〉, |V〉} and ${| + 〉 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (| H 〉 + | V 〉)$ , $| - 〉 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (| H 〉 - | V 〉)$ } at random to check security of the distribution procedure, by which the legitimate participants can confirm the fact whether there is an eavesdropper on the line or not. Taking the imperfect factors into account, Alice and Bob evaluate the disadvantageous influence and set the threshold value of communication security. That is, the error rate beyonds the value will be reviewed as a dangerous signal and the legitimate participants discard this block and check other blocks.

Confirming no eavesdropping, the communication between Alice and Bob can be processed by employing the other photons of this photon block under Charlie’s agreement and cooperation.

Here, we consider two controlled DSQC protocols on the basis of the above preparatory work.

Cooperating with Alice and Bob, Charlie needs to perform single-photon measurements under the basis of {|+〉, |−〉} on the communication photon group C_c, and publicizes the measurement outcomes and the corresponding correct order of communication photons. The publicized information and the measurement outcomes are subject to the rule that ‘0’ corresponds to |+〉 and ‘1’ corresponds to |−〉.

2.2. The first controlled DSQC protocol with single parity analysis

At first, we propose the first controlled DSQC protocol with local nondemoliton single parity analysis. Local single parity analysis is exploited to distinguish parity states, while the discrimination of Bell states is not necessary. Moreover, the resulted states after nondemoliton parity analyses can be continued to fulfil other tasks of quantum information processing.

Alice possesses the encoding photons (photons E_i), called as E-sequence, which are encoded based on the rules: a photon in the state |+〉 is corresponding to secret information ‘0’ and a photon in the state |−〉 corresponds to secret information ‘1’. Alice wants to send the secret information to Bob.

After two communicators obtain Charlie’s permission, Alice performs single parity analysis on the photon E_i and the photon A_i along the basis of {|+〉, |−〉}. Based on weak cross-Kerr nonlinearities, the parity analysis can be realized nearly deterministically [43–49], illustrated in Fig. 2, and as a consequence Alice achieves the parity states which can be denoted as

{| Even 〉}_{+ -} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (| + + 〉 \pm | - - 〉), {| Odd 〉}_{+ -} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (| + - 〉 \pm | - + 〉) .

After that, Alice publicizes the measurement outcomes. Explicitly, if her measurement outcome is |Even〉₊₋, Alice sends the information ‘0’ to Bob, and if her measurement outcome is |Odd〉₊₋, Alice sends the information ‘1’ to Bob.

Fig. 2 A schematic plot of parity analysis. PBS_{HV (±)1} and PBS_{HV (±)2} represent the polarization beam splitter transmitting |H〉 (|+〉) mode and reflecting |V〉 (|−〉) mode. θ and 2θ denote phase shifts occurred on the coherent state |α〉. After the phase modulation −3θ, the measurement on the affected coherent state is performed. According to the measurement outcomes, a phase modulation 2ϕ is performed to eliminate the phase difference of one scenario (photons (1,2) pass through path 1′) and another scenario (photons (1,2) pass through path 2′), if the measurement witnesses the existence of nonzero phase shift.

Download Full Size | PDF

After he receives the parity analysis information from Alice, Bob performs single-photon measurement along the basis of {|+〉, |−〉}, and registers the measurement outcomes according to the following rules. If his single-photon measurement outcome is |+〉, he records ‘0’, while if his measurement outcome is |−〉, he records ‘1’.

Finally, on the basis of the above information, Bob can obtain the secret information sent from Alice according to the addition rule of binary systems, that is, secret information=Charlie’s measurement outcome ⊕ Alice’s parity analysis information ⊕ Bob’s measurement outcome, which can be referred to Table 1.

Table 1. The relations among the outcomes of measurement performed by three participants and the secret information: Charlie’s measurement outcomes ({|+〉, |−〉}) on the control photons C_c and the corresponding publicized information (C. M. Os.), Alice’s parity analysis outcomes and the corresponding publicized information (A. P. A. Os.), Bob’s single-photon measurement outcomes (B. S. P. M. Os.), and the obtained secret information (S. I.).

View Table | View all tables in this article

2.3. The second controlled DSQC protocol with double parity analyses and dense coding

Next, we describe the second controlled DSQC protocol with local double nondemoliton parity analyses and dense coding.

Firstly, Alice performs single-photon unitary transformations I, X, Y, and Z denoted as

\begin{array}{l} I = | + 〉 〈 + | + | - 〉 〈 - |, X = | + 〉 〈 - | + | - 〉 〈 + |, \\ Y = | + 〉 〈 - | - | - 〉 〈 + |, Z = | + 〉 〈 + | - | - 〉 〈 - |, \end{array}

to encode secret information on her photons, on the basis of the encoding rule: 00 : I, 01 : Z, 10 : X, and 11 : Y.

Subsequently, Alice sends the encoding photons to Bob by fault-tolerant distribution, which is similar to the transmitting process of the photon A_i from Charlie to her.

After reception of the photons sent from Alice, Bob performs the first parity analysis on photons (A_c, B_c) to check security. If the security check is passed, Bob can obtain the secret information by performing the second parity analysis to distinguish Bell states. That is called as double parity analyses which mean that two continuous parity analyses are performed along two different measurement bases. The double parity analyses can also be realized with the circuit illustrated in Fig. 2. Explicitly, if the first parity analysis is performed under the basis of {|H〉, |V〉}({|+ 〉, |−〉}), the second parity analysis should be performed on the basis of {|+〉, |−〉}({|H〉, |V〉}).

The detailed relations among Charlie’s single-photon measurement outcomes, Alice’s encoding operations, the resulted states, the outcomes of double nondemolition parity analyses, and the secret information sent from Alice can be found in Table 2, where Bell states along the basis of {|+〉, |−〉} can be denoted as

\begin{array}{l} {| Φ^{+} 〉}_{+ -} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (| + + 〉 + | - - 〉), {| Φ^{-} 〉}_{+ -} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (| + + 〉 - | - - 〉), \\ {| Ψ^{+} 〉}_{+ -} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (| - + 〉 + | + - 〉), {| Ψ^{-} 〉}_{+ -} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (| - + 〉 - | + - 〉), \end{array}

and

{| Even 〉}_{H V} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (| H H 〉 \pm | V V 〉), {| Odd 〉}_{H V} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (| H V 〉 \pm | V H 〉) .

Table 2. The relations among Charlie’s single-photon measurement outcomes (C. S.P.M.Os.), Alice’s encoding operations (A. E.Os.), the resulted states (R.Ss.), Bob’s double parity analysis outcomes (B. D.P.A.Os.), and the secret information (S.I.) sent from Alice.

View Table | View all tables in this article

The photons carried secret information are transmitted from Alice to Bob, so Trojan horse attacks need to be considered. To counterattack Trojan horse attacks, the corresponding countermeasures should be adopted, that is, a wavelength filter before Alice’s reception device to hold back the entry of the photons with the illegitimate frequencies, accurately controlling the operation time of reception window to prevent from delay-time photons, and counting the photon number or putting a photon number splitter to check the trace of multi-photon signals [1,50,51].

3. Error rate and efficiency

In the above two protocols, the measurement error occurs due to imperfect measurement methods, that is, the odd parity and even parity can not be fully distinguished if X Homodyne measurement [43, 52, 53] is applied. When displacement measurement [54–56] or photon number measurement based on double cross-Kerr nonlinearities [45, 46] is applied, the error rates are lowered largely but they need more complicated operations. Here, taking X Homodyne measurement as an example, the error rate of the first Controlled DSQC protocol can be denoted as [43,53]

P_{err 1} = \frac{1}{2} erfc [α (1 - cos θ) / \sqrt{2}],

and the error rate of the second Controlled DSQC protocol is

P_{err 2} = erfc [α (1 - cos θ) / \sqrt{2}] .

Taking the effect of photon losses into accounted, a model of a beam splitter [57–59] is exploited, where the photon dissipation changes the amplitude α of the coherent state to the η_r α(0 ≤ η_r ≤ 1). So the error rate is increased to $P_{err 1}^{'} = \frac{1}{2} erfc [\sqrt{η_{r} η_{d}} α (1 - cos θ) / \sqrt{2}]$ and $P_{err 2}^{'} = erfc [\sqrt{η_{r} η_{d}} α (1 - cos θ) / \sqrt{2}]$ , where η_d denotes the efficiency of detectors.

Illustrated in Fig. 3, if the sufficient large phase shift and large amplitude of the coherent state are available, two protocols can be realized with nearly deterministic probabilities. Moreover, due to double parity analyses, the error rate of the second Controlled DSQC protocol is higher than that of the first Controlled DSQC protocol.

Fig. 3 The error rates of two protocols. The dimensionless parameters are set as: the practicable phase shift is 20° [60] and the efficiency of detectors is η_d = 91% [61]. The error rate of the first protocol and the error rate of the second protocol are plotted in the red dotted line and the blue solid line respectively, which vary with the amplitude of the coherent state.

Download Full Size | PDF

As for the efficiencies of two protocols, the classical transmission information needs to be considered [62–64]. In the first Controlled DSQC protocol, one-bit secret information can be obtained per two-bit classical information (one-bit is Charlie’s classical information and one-bit is Alice’s parity analysis outcome). In the second Controlled DSQC protocol, two-bit secret information can be obtained per one-bit classical information (Charlie’s classical information). Furthermore, the obtained states after nondemolition double parity analyses are not destroyed and can be repeatedly exploited in other protocols, and consequently the communication cost is reduced.

4. Conclusion

Based on the fault-tolerant distribution of GHZ states via the collective noise channels, we propose two controlled DSQC protocols to realize that two participants transmit secret information under the control of the controller. The security of communication and the controlled function of the controller can be confirmed by the security check and the order rearrangement of transmitted photons. The data block transmission reduces effectively communication cost.

In the first protocol, two participates apply two nonorthogonal sets of orthogonal bases measurements to check the security. Then Alice performs the single parity measurement to encode the secret information, and Bob performs the single-photon measurement to decode the secret information. So the first protocol is simple and easy to operate.

In the second protocol, employing dense coding, the information capacity is doubled. Nondemolition double parity analyses are applied, and as a consequence the obtained states can be repeatedly exploited in other protocols after measurement, so the cost is reduced in the second protocol.

Based on cross-Kerr nonlinearities, some tasks of quantum information processing have been proposed [49,65–74], so two controlled DSQC protocols presented here are expectable.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (11674037, 11544013, 11305016, 61301133, 11271055) and Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province (20170540010).

References and links

1. N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, “Quantum cryptography,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145–195 (2002). [CrossRef]

2. C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,” in Proc. - IEEE Int. Conf. comput, Syst. Signal Process., Bangalore, India (IEEE, New York), (1984), pp. 175–179.

3. C. H. Bennett, “Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3121–3124 (1992). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4. A. K. Ekert, “Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661–663 (1991). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, “Quantum cryptography without Bell’s theorem,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 557–559 (1992). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6. F.-G. Deng and G. L. Long, “Controlled order rearrangement encryption for quantum key distribution,” Phys. Rev. A 68, 042315 (2003). [CrossRef]

7. G. L. Long and X. S. Liu, “Theoretically efficient high-capacity quantum-key-distribution scheme,” Phys. Rev. A 65, 032302 (2002). [CrossRef]

8. F.-G. Deng, G. L. Long, and X.-S. Liu, “Two-step quantum direct communication protocol using the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair block,” Phys. Rev. A 68, 042317 (2003). [CrossRef]

9. F.-G. Deng and G. L. Long, “Secure direct communication with a quantum one-time pad,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 052319 (2004). [CrossRef]

10. W. Zhang, D.-S. Ding, Y.-B. Sheng, L. Zhou, B.-S. Shi, and G.-C. Guo, “Quantum Secure Direct Communication with Quantum Memory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 220501 (2017). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11. J.-Y. Hu, B. Yu, M.-Y. Jing, L.-T. Xiao, S.-T. Jia, G.-Q. Qin, and G.-L. Long, “Experimental quantum secure direct communication with single photons,” Light Sci. Appl. 5, e16144 (2016). [CrossRef]

12. G.-l. Long, F.-g. Deng, C. Wang, X.-h. Li, K. Wen, and W.-y. Wang, “Quantum secure direct communication and deterministic secure quantum communication,” Front. Phys. China 2, 251–272 (2007). [CrossRef]

13. H.-F. Wang and S. Zhang, “Quantum Secure Direct Communication by Using a GHZ State,” J. Korean Phys. Soc. 49, 459–463 (2006).

14. A.-D. Zhu, Y. Xia, Q.-B. Fan, and S. Zhang, “Secure direct communication based on secret transmitting order of particles,” Phys. Rev. A 73, 022338 (2006). [CrossRef]

15. X.-H. Li, F.-G. Deng, and H.-Y. Zhou, “Improving the security of secure direct communication based on the secret transmitting order of particles,” Phys. Rev. A 74, 054302 (2006). [CrossRef]

16. L. Dong, J.-X. Wang, Q.-Y. Li, H.-Z. Shen, H.-K. Dong, X.-M. Xiu, Y.-P. Ren, and Y.-J. Gao, “Quantum secure direct communication against the collective noise with polarization-entangled Bell states,” Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2015, 123A02 (2015). [CrossRef]

17. C.-B. Fu, Y. Xia, B.-X. Liu, S. Zhang, K.-H. Yeon, and C.-I. Um, “Controlled Quantum Dense Coding in a Four-particle Non-maximally Entangled State via Local Measurements,” J. Korean Phys. Soc. 46, 1080–1082 (2006).

18. Y. Xia, C.-B. Fu, F.-Y. Li, and S. Zhang, “Controlled Secure Direct Communication by Using GHZ Entangled State,” J. Korean Phys. Soc. 47, 753–756 (2005).

19. J. Wang, Q. Zhang, and C.-j. Tang, “Multiparty controlled quantum secure direct communication using Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state,” Opt. Commun. 266, 732–737 (2006). [CrossRef]

20. Y. Xia and H.-S. Song, “Controlled quantum secure direct communication using a non-symmetric quantum channel with quantum superdense coding,” Phys. Lett. A 364, 117–122 (2007). [CrossRef]

21. Y. Zhang, W.-C. Cao, and G.-L. Long, “Creation of Multipartite Entanglement and Entanglement Transfer via Heisenberg Interaction,” Chinese Phys. Lett. 22, 2143–2146 (2005). [CrossRef]

22. H.-F. Wang and S. Zhang, “Linear optical generation of multipartite entanglement with conventional photon detectors,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 042336 (2009). [CrossRef]

23. H.-F. Wang, S. Zhang, A.-D. Zhu, X. X. Yi, and K.-H. Yeon, “Local conversion of four Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen photon pairs into four-photon polarization-entangled decoherence-free states with non-photon-number-resolving detectors,” Opt. Express 19, 25433–25440 (2011). [CrossRef]

24. R. Heilmann, M. Gräfe, S. Nolte, and A. Szameit, “A novel integrated quantum circuit for high-order W-state generation and its highly precise characterization,” Sci. Bull. 60, 96–100 (2015). [CrossRef]

25. H. Yan and J. F. Chen, “Narrowband polarization entangled paired photons with controllable temporal length,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. 58, 074201 (2015). [CrossRef]

26. C. Wang, W.-W. Shen, S.-C. Mi, Y. Zhang, and T.-J. Wang, “Concentration and distribution of entanglement based on valley qubits system in graphene,” Sci. Bull. 60, 2016–2021 (2015). [CrossRef]

27. F.-G. Deng, B.-C. Ren, and X.-H. Li, “Quantum hyperentanglement and its applications in quantum information processing,” Sci. Bull. 62, 46–68 (2017). [CrossRef]

28. T. Li and Z. Q. Yin, “Quantum superposition, entanglement, and state teleportation of a microorganism on an electromechanical oscillator,” Sci. Bull. 61, 163–171 (2016). [CrossRef]

29. M. Hillery, V. Bužek, and A. Berthiaume, “Quantum secret sharing,” Phys. Rev. A 59, 1829–1834 (1999). [CrossRef]

30. K. J. Zhang, L. Zhang, T. T. Song, and Y. H. Yang, “A potential application in quantum networks-Deterministic quantum operation sharing schemes with Bell states,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. 59, 660302 (2016). [CrossRef]

31. H.-F. Wang, A.-D. Zhu, and S. Zhang, “Physical optimization of quantum error correction circuits with spatially separated quantum dot spins,” Opt. Express 21, 12484–12494 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

32. C.-C. Qu, L. Zhou, and Y.-B. Sheng, “Entanglement concentration for concatenated Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state,” Quantum Inf. Process. 14, 4131–4146 (2015). [CrossRef]

33. Y. Sheng, J. Pan, R. Guo, L. Zhou, and L. Wang, “Efficient N-particle W state concentration with different parity check gates,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. 58, 060301 (2015). [CrossRef]

34. Y.-B. Sheng, L. Zhou, S.-M. Zhao, and B.-Y. Zheng, “Efficient single-photon-assisted entanglement concentration for partially entangled photon pairs,” Phys. Rev. A 85, 012307 (2012). [CrossRef]

35. B. K. Park, M. S. Lee, M. K. Woo, Y.-S. Kim, S.-W. Han, and S. Moon, “QKD system with fast active optical path length compensation,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. 60, 060311 (2017). [CrossRef]

36. J.-C. Boileau, D. Gottesman, R. Laflamme, D. Poulin, and R. Spekkens, “Robust Polarization-Based Quantum Key Distribution over a Collective-Noise Channel,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 017901 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

37. T. Yamamoto, J. Shimamura, S. K. Özdemir, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, “Faithful Qubit Distribution Assisted by One Additional Qubit against Collective Noise,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 040503 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

38. X.-B. Wang, “Fault tolerant quantum key distribution protocol with collective random unitary noise,” Phys. Rev. A 72, 050304(R) (2005). [CrossRef]

39. X.-H. Li, F.-G. Deng, and H.-Y. Zhou, “Faithful qubit transmission against collective noise without ancillary qubits,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 144101 (2007). [CrossRef]

40. F. Gao, Q.-Y. Wen, and F.-C. Zhu, “Comment on: ‘Quantum exam’ [Phys. Lett. A 350 (2006) 174],” Phys. Lett. A 360, 748–750 (2007). [CrossRef]

41. S.-J. Qin, F. Gao, F.-Z. Guo, and Q.-Y. Wen, “Comment on ‘Two-way protocols for quantum cryptography with a nonmaximally entangled qubit pair’,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 36301 (2010). [CrossRef]

42. L. Dong, X.-M. Xiu, Y.-J. Gao, and X. X. Yi, “Controlled quantum key distribution with three-photon polarization-entangled states via the collective noise channel,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 113, 583–591 (2011). [CrossRef]

43. S. D. Barrett, P. Kok, K. Nemoto, R. G. Beausoleil, W. J. Munro, and T. P. Spiller, “Symmetry analyzer for nondestructive Bell-state detection using weak nonlinearities,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 060302(R) (2005). [CrossRef]

44. Y.-F. Xiao, S. K. Özdemir, V. Gaddam, C.-H. Dong, N. Imoto, and L. Yang, “Quantum nondemolition measurement of photon number via optical Kerr effect in an ultra-high-Q microtoroid cavity,” Opt. Express 16, 21462 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

45. B. He, Y. Ren, and J. Bergou, “Creation of high-quality long-distance entanglement with flexible resources,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 052323 (2009). [CrossRef]

46. B. He, Y.-H. Ren, and J. A. Bergou, “Universal entangler with photon pairs in arbitrary states,” J. Phys. B 43, 025502 (2010). [CrossRef]

47. Q. Guo, J. Bai, L.-Y. Cheng, X.-Q. Shao, H.-F. Wang, and S. Zhang, “Simplified optical quantum-information processing via weak cross-Kerr nonlinearities,” Phys. Rev. A 83, 054303 (2011). [CrossRef]

48. X.-M. Xiu, L. Dong, H.-Z. Shen, Y.-J. Gao, and X. X. Yi, “Preparing, linking, and unlinking cluster-type polarization-entangled states by integrating modules,” Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2013, 093A01 (2013). [CrossRef]

49. X.-M. Xiu, L. Dong, H.-Z. Shen, Y.-J. Gao, and X. X. Yi, “Two-party quantum privacy comparison with polarization-entangled Bell states and the coherent states,” Quantum Inf. Comput. 14, 0236–0254 (2014).

50. F.-G. Deng, X.-H. Li, H.-Y. Zhou, and Z.-j. Zhang, “Improving the security of multiparty quantum secret sharing against Trojan horse attack,” Phys. Rev. A 72, 044302 (2005). [CrossRef]

51. Q.-Y. Cai, “Eavesdropping on the two-way quantum communication protocols with invisible photons,” Phys. Lett. A 351, 23–25 (2006). [CrossRef]

52. M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum optics (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 1997). [CrossRef]

53. K. Nemoto and W. J. Munro, “Nearly deterministic linear optical Controlled-NOT gate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 250502 (2004). [CrossRef]

54. W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, and T. P. Spiller, “Weak nonlinearities: a new route to optical quantum computation,” New J. Phys. 7, 137 (2005). [CrossRef]

55. S. D. Barrett and G. J. Milburn, “Quantum-information processing via a lossy bus,” Phys. Rev. A 74, 060302(R) (2006). [CrossRef]

56. H. Jeong, “Quantum computation using weak nonlinearities: Robustness against decoherence,” Phys. Rev. A 73, 052320 (2006). [CrossRef]

57. U. Leonhardt, “Quantum statistics of a lossless beam splitter: SU(2) symmetry in phase space,” Phys. Rev. A 48, 3265–3277 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

58. G. M. D’Ariano, “A group-theoretical approach to the quantum damped oscillator,” Phys. Lett. A 187, 231–235 (1994). [CrossRef]

59. M. Bartkowiak, L.-A. Wu, and A. Miranowicz, “Quantum circuits for amplification of Kerr nonlinearity via quadrature squeezing,” J. Phys. B 47, 145501 (2014). [CrossRef]

60. I.-C. Hoi, A. F. Kockum, T. Palomaki, T. M. Stace, B. Fan, L. Tornberg, S. R. Sathyamoorthy, G. Johansson, P. Delsing, and C. M. Wilson, “Giant Cross-Kerr Effect for Propagating Microwaves Induced by an Artificial Atom,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 053601 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

61. W. H. P. Pernice, C. Schuck, O. Minaeva, M. Li, G. N. Goltsman, A. V. Sergienko, and H. X. Tang, “High-speed and high-efficiency travelling wave single-photon detectors embedded in nanophotonic circuits,” Nat. commun. 3, 1325 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

62. H.-Y. Dai, P.-X. Chen, and C.-Z. Li, “Probabilistic teleportation of an arbitrary two-particle state by a partially entangled three-particle GHZ state and W state,” Opt. Commun. 231, 281–287 (2004). [CrossRef]

63. H.-Y. Dai, P.-X. Chen, L.-M. Liang, and C.-Z. Li, “Classical communication cost and remote preparation of the four-particle GHZ class state,” Phys. Lett. A 355, 285–288 (2006). [CrossRef]

64. H.-Y. Dai, M. Zhang, and L.-M. Kuang, “Classical Communication Cost and Remote Preparation of Multi-qubit with Three-Party,” Commun. Theor. Phys. 50, 73–76 (2008). [CrossRef]

65. G. J. Milburn, “Quantum optical Fredkin gate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2124–2127 (1989). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

66. Y.-B. Sheng, F.-G. Deng, and G.-L. Long, “Complete hyperentangled-Bell-state analysis for quantum communication,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 032318 (2010). [CrossRef]

67. X.-W. Wang, D.-Y. Zhang, S.-Q. Tang, and L.-J. Xie, “Nondestructive Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-state analyzer,” Quantum Inf. Process. 12, 1065–1075 (2013). [CrossRef]

68. L. Dong, J.-X. Wang, H.-Z. Shen, D. Li, X.-M. Xiu, Y.-J. Gao, and X. X. Yi, “Deterministic transmission of an arbitrary single-photon polarization state through bit-flip error channel,” Quantum Inf. Process. 13, 1413–1424 (2014). [CrossRef]

69. Y.-B. Sheng and F.-G. Deng, “Deterministic entanglement purification and complete nonlocal Bell-state analysis with hyperentanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 032307 (2010). [CrossRef]

70. X.-H. Li and S. Ghose, “Efficient hyperconcentration of nonlocal multipartite entanglement via the cross-Kerr nonlinearity,” Opt. Express 23, 3550–3562 (2015). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

71. L. Dong, J.-X. Wang, Q.-Y. Li, H.-Z. Shen, H.-K. Dong, X.-M. Xiu, Y.-J. Gao, and C. H. Oh, “Nearly deterministic preparation of the perfect W state with weak cross-Kerr nonlinearities,” Phys. Rev. A 93, 012308 (2016). [CrossRef]

72. W.-X. Cui, S. Hu, H.-F. Wang, A.-D. Zhu, and S. Zhang, “Deterministic conversion of a four-photon GHZ state to a W state via homodyne measurement,” Opt. Express 24, 15319 (2016). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

73. X.-M. Xiu, Q.-Y. Li, Y.-F. Lin, H.-K. Dong, L. Dong, and Y.-J. Gao, “Preparation of four-photon polarization-entangled decoherence-free states employing weak cross-Kerr nonlinearities,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 042321 (2016). [CrossRef]

74. L. Dong, J.-X. Wang, Q.-Y. Li, H.-Z. Shen, H.-K. Dong, X.-M. Xiu, and Y.-J. Gao, “Single logical qubit information encoding scheme with the minimal optical decoherence-free subsystem,” Opt. Lett. 41, 1030–1033 (2016). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

C. M. Os.	A. P. A. Os.	B. S. P. M. Os.	S. I.
\|+〉 (0)	\|Even〉₊₋ (0)	\|+〉 (0)	0
\|+〉 (0)	\|Odd〉₊₋ (1)	\|−〉 (1)	0
\|+〉 (0)	\|Even〉₊₋ (0)	\|−〉 (1)	1
\|+〉 (0)	\|Odd〉₊₋ (1)	\|+〉 (0)	1
\|−〉 (1)	\|Even〉₊₋(0)	\|−〉 (1)	0
\|−〉 (1)	\|Odd〉₊₋(1)	\|+〉 (0)	0
\|−〉 (1)	\|Even〉₊₋(0)	\|+〉 (0)	1
\|−〉 (1)	\|Odd〉₊₋ (1)	\|−〉 (1)	1

C. M. Os.	A. P. A. Os.	B. S. P. M. Os.	S. I.
\|+〉 (0)	\|Even〉₊₋ (0)	\|+〉 (0)	0
\|+〉 (0)	\|Odd〉₊₋ (1)	\|−〉 (1)	0
\|+〉 (0)	\|Even〉₊₋ (0)	\|−〉 (1)	1
\|+〉 (0)	\|Odd〉₊₋ (1)	\|+〉 (0)	1
\|−〉 (1)	\|Even〉₊₋(0)	\|−〉 (1)	0
\|−〉 (1)	\|Odd〉₊₋(1)	\|+〉 (0)	0
\|−〉 (1)	\|Even〉₊₋(0)	\|+〉 (0)	1
\|−〉 (1)	\|Odd〉₊₋ (1)	\|−〉 (1)	1

Fault-tolerant distribution of GHZ states and controlled DSQC based on parity analyses

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Controlled DSQC protocols based on fault-tolerant distribution of GHZ states

2.1. The secure distribution of GHZ states as the quantum channel

2.2. The first controlled DSQC protocol with single parity analysis

2.3. The second controlled DSQC protocol with double parity analyses and dense coding

3. Error rate and efficiency

4. Conclusion

Funding

References and links

Cited By

Figures (3)

Tables (2)

Equations (14)

Optics Express

C. S.P.M.Os.	A. E.Os.	R.Ss.	B. D.P.A.Os.	S.I.
\|+〉	I	\|Φ⁺〉₊₋	\|Even〉₊₋,\|Even〉_HV	00
\|+〉	Z	\|Φ⁻〉₊₋	\|Even〉₊₋, \|Odd〉_HV	01
\|+〉	X	\|Ψ⁺〉₊₋	\|Odd〉₊₋,\|Even〉_HV	10
\|+〉	Y	\|Ψ⁻〉₊₋	\|Odd〉₊₋,\|Odd〉_HV	11
\|−〉	I	\|Ψ⁺〉₊₋	\|Odd〉₊₋,\|Even〉_HV	00
\|−〉	Z	\|Ψ⁻〉₊₋	\|Odd〉₊₋,\|Odd〉_HV	01
\|−〉	X	\|Φ⁺〉₊₋	\|Even〉₊₋,\|Even〉_HV	10
\|−〉	Y	\|Φ⁻〉₊₋	\|Even〉₊₋,\|Odd〉_HV	11