Asymptotic performance of port-based teleportation - arXiv

Asympto c performance of

port-based teleporta on

arXiv:1809.10751

Felix Leditzky

(JILA & CTQM, University of Colorado Boulder)

Joint work with

M. Christandl, C. Majenz, G. Smith, F. Speelman, M. Walter

BIRS workshop, Banff, Canada

26 July 2019

Resource conversion in teleporta on

▶ Standard teleporta on: [Benne et al. 1993]

[qq] + 2[c → c] ≥ [q → q]

▶ Port-based teleporta on: [Ishizaka and Hiroshima 2008]

N[qq] + (logN)[c → c] ≥ [q → q]

This is worse... why care?

Because port-based teleporta on has unitary covariance!

2 / 35



[qq] + 2[c → c] ≥ [q → q]


N[qq] + (logN)[c → c] ≥ [q → q]



2 / 35



[qq] + 2[c → c] ≥ [q → q]


N[qq] + (logN)[c → c] ≥ [q → q]



2 / 35

Standard teleporta on protocol

Alice Bob

A0

A1 B1

3 / 35


Alice Bob

A0

A1 B1

3 / 35


Alice Bob

m

3 / 35


Alice Bob

mUm

3 / 35


Alice Bob

mUm

B0

3 / 35


Alice Bob

mUm

B0

3 / 35

Port-based teleporta on

Alice BobA0

A1 B1

Ai Bi

AN BN

[Ishizaka and Hiroshima 2008]

4 / 35


Alice BobA0

A1 B1

Ai Bi

AN BN

4 / 35


Alice Bob

i

4 / 35


Alice Bob

i

Tr1...i‐1,i+1...N

4 / 35


Alice Bob

B0

i

Tr1...i‐1,i+1...N

4 / 35


Alice BobA0

A1 B1

Ai Bi

AN BN

i

Tr1...i‐1,i+1...N


5 / 35


Alice BobA0

A1 B1

Ai Bi

AN BN

i

Tr1...i‐1,i+1...N


5 / 35

Why is PBT interes ng?

▶ Par al trace commutes withW⊗N: PBT is unitarily covariant.

▶ PBT enables instantaneous non-local quantum computa on

(INQC). [Beigi and König 2011]

▶ INQC can be used to break posi on-based cryptography.

[Buhrman et al. 2014]

Caveat

Unitary covariance leads to the fact that

perfect PBT is impossible with finite resources.

[Nielsen and Chuang 1997; Ishizaka and Hiroshima 2008]

6 / 35

Variants of PBT

Determinis c PBT

Protocol always yields final state that approximates target state.

Probabilis c PBT

Protocol yields exact target state with certain probability.

▶ Unitary covariance: Perfect PBT impossible with finite

resources.

▶ Goal of this talk: Understand symmetries of PBT and determine

asympto c performance of PBT protocols.

7 / 35

Outline

1 Opera onal se ng & known bounds

2 Symmetries & representa on theory

3 Main results: Asympto cs of PBT protocols

4 Proof methods

5 Concluding remarks

8 / 35

Table of Contents




4 Proof methods


9 / 35

Determinis c PBT

▶ In determinis c PBT the protocol always yields a final state as an

approxima on to the target state.

▶ Hence, PBT protocol implements qudit channel Λ that

simulates ideal channel.

▶ Figure of merit: entanglement fidelity

Fd = F(Λ, id) = 〈Φ+A′A|(id⊗Λ)(Φ+

A′A)|Φ+A′A〉

▶ For PBT the diamond norm distance is exactly equivalent to Fd:

‖ id−Λ‖⋄ = 2(1− Fd). [Pirandola et al. 2018]

10 / 35

Determinis c PBT and state discrimina on

▶ Determinis c PBT is equivalent to state discrimina on of the

uniformly drawn states [Ishizaka and Hiroshima 2009]

ω(i)ANB = TrBic φANBN .

▶ Success probability q of discrimina ng between ω(i):

q =d2

NFd.

▶ Suggests pre y good measurement (PGM) as POVM.

▶ Further protocol simplifica on: |φ〉 = EPR⊗N

▶ We call (EPR⊗N, PGM) the standard protocol.

11 / 35

Probabilis c PBT

▶ Probabilis c PBT yields the exact target state with success

probability pd and aborts otherwise.

▶ Extended POVM Eprob = {E(i)}Ni=0, where E(0) corresponds to

abor on of the protocol.

▶ Probabilis c PBT is a special case of determinis c PBT.

(Send random port when ge ng outcome ”0”.)

▶ Again: consider special case where |φ〉 = EPR⊗N.

▶ We call (EPR⊗N, Eprob) the EPR protocol.

(POVM Eprob is now op mized over.)

12 / 35

Exis ng results: op mal performance of PBT

▶ Standard determinis c protocol:

Fstdd ≥ 1− d2 − 1N

.

[Ishizaka and Hiroshima 2008; Beigi and König 2011]

▶ Converse bound for arbitrary determinis c protocols:

F∗d ≤ 1− 14(d− 1)N2 + O(N−3). [Ishizaka 2015]

▶ Closed forms for d = 2: [Ishizaka and Hiroshima 2009]

Fstd2 = FEPR2 = 1− 34N

+ o(N−1)

pEPR2 ∼ 1−( 8πN

)−1/2+ o(N−1/2).

13 / 35

Exis ng results: op mal performance of PBT

▶ PBT has a lot of inherent symmetries

−→ use representa on theory (RT)!

▶ Leads to exact expressions for Fd and pd in terms of RT

quan es. [Studziński et al. 2017] and [Mozrzymas et al. 2017]

▶ Our main results: Asympto cs of these expressions for F∗d, Fstdd

and pEPRd to first order.

▶ This talk focuses on

▷ standard determinis c protocol Fstdd ;

▷ EPR probabilis c protocol pEPRd .

14 / 35

Table of Contents




4 Proof methods


15 / 35

Natural symmetries of PBT

Nota on: Ud … unitary group; SN … symmetric group.

Permuta on symmetry

Every port Bi is equally good for teleporta on

−→ SN-symmetry of ρBN = TrAN φANBN .

Same symmetry for POVM elements

−→ SN-ac on on {E(i)}i.

Unitary invariance

The protocol works equally well for all input states

−→ Ud-symmetry of ρBN .

16 / 35

Natural symmetries of PBT

Proposi on: Symmetries of PBT

Every PBT protocol Λ can be symmetrized to a protocol Λs with

F(Λs, id) ≥ F(Λ, id), sa sfying:

▶ Resource state φANBN is a purifica on of a symmetric Werner

state, i.e., invariant under U⊗NA ⊗ U⊗N

B and SN.

▶ SN acts on {E(i)}i, and each E(i) is invariant under UA0 ⊗ U⊗NA .

▶ Λs is unitarily covariant.

”Folklore” results, proofs in C. Majenz’s PhD thesis and our paper.

17 / 35

Schur-Weyl duality

▶ Resource state φANBN invariant under ac on of Ud SN

−→ structure determined by Schur-Weyl duality.

▶ Group ac ons:

|ψ1〉 ⊗ . . .⊗ |ψN〉π∈SN7−−−−→ |ψπ−1(1)〉 ⊗ . . .⊗ |ψπ−1(N)〉

|ψ1〉 ⊗ . . .⊗ |ψN〉U∈Ud7−−−−→ U|ψ1〉 ⊗ . . .⊗ U|ψN〉

▶ Schur-Weyl decomposi on:

(Cd)⊗N ∼=⊕λ⊢d N

[λ]⊗ Vλ

▶ λ `d N: Young diagram with N boxes and at most d rows.

▶ Irreducible representa ons:

▷ [λ] is an irrep of SN with dim[λ] = dλ.

▷ Vλ is an irrep of Ud with dimVλ = md,λ.18 / 35

Exact expressions for Fd and pd using RT

[Studziński et al. 2017; Mozrzymas et al. 2017]

Standard determinis c protocol

Fstdd =1

dN−2

∑α ⊢d N−1

( ∑μ=α+□

√dμmd,μ

)2

,

where μ = α +□ denotes a Young diagram μ `d N obtained from

α `d N− 1 by adding a single box (!).

EPR probabilis c protocol

pEPRd =1dN

∑α ⊢d N−1

m2αdμ∗mμ∗

where μ∗ is the Young diagram obtained from α `d N− 1 by adding a single

box such that Nmd,μdαmαdμ

is maximal.

19 / 35

Table of Contents




4 Proof methods


20 / 35

Main results

Main result 1: standard determinis c PBT

For determinis c PBT using PGM and EPR pairs, we prove:

Fstdd = 1− d2 − 14N

+ O(N−3/2+δ) for any δ > 0.

▶ Recovers qubit result Fstd2 = 1− 34N

+ o(N−1).

▶ Shows that Fstdd ≥ 1− d2 − 1N

is not ght, confirming numerical

evidence.

21 / 35

Main results

Main result 2: probabilis c PBT

For probabilis c PBT using EPR, we prove:

pEPRd = 1−√

dN− 1

E[λmax(G)] + o(N−1),

where G is a Gaussian unitary, i.e, a Hermi an, traceless random

d× dmatrix with independent Gaussian RVs as entries.

▶ For qubits (i.e., d = 2 and G is a 2× 2 matrix):

E[λmax(G)] = 2π−1/2.

▶ Hence, our result ”corrects” the qubit result

pEPR2 ∼ 1−√

8πN + o(N−1/2). [Ishizaka and Hiroshima 2009]

▶ Arbitrary d: use bounds on E[λmax(G)].22 / 35

Standard determinis c protocol

0 50 100 150 200

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

N

FstddFstdd,asymptd = 2d = 3d = 4d = 5

Fstdd =1

dN−2

∑α ⊢d N−1

(∑μ=α+□

√dμmd,μ

)2Fstdd,asympt = 1− d2−1

4N

23 / 35

EPR probabilis c protocol

0 100 200 300 400 5000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

N

pEPRd

pEPRd,asymptd = 2d = 3d = 4d = 5

pEPRd =1dN

∑α ⊢d N−1

m2αdμ∗mμ∗

pEPRd,asympt = 1− E[λmax(G)]√

dN−1

24 / 35

Table of Contents




4 Proof methods


25 / 35

Spectrum es ma on & random matrix theory

▶ Recall Schur-Weyl duality:

(Cd)⊗N ∼=⊕λ⊢d N

[λ]⊗ Vλ.

▶ Consider the projec ve measurement {Pλ}λ⊢d N, where Pλ is the

orthogonal projec on onto [λ]⊗ Vλ.

▶ Intui on: {Pλ}λ⊢d N respects the Ud- and SN-symmetries of the

spectrum es ma on problem.

Spectrum es ma on [Keyl and Werner 2001]

Let YN denote the outcome of the measurement {Pλ}λ⊢d N applied to

ρ⊗N where ρ is a state. Then, as N → ∞,

1NYN

D−−→ spec(ρ).

26 / 35


▶ For the completely mixed state τ = 1d1, the corresponding

probability distribu on is called Schur-Weyl distribu on:

pd,N(λ) = Tr(Pλτ⊗N) =1dN

dλmd,λ.

▶ Spectrum es ma on: For the RV YτN obtained from applying the

measurement {Pλ}λ⊢d N to τ, we have

1NY

τN

D−−→ (1/d, . . . , 1/d).

▶ What about a ”central limit theorem” version of this describing

fluctua ons of Young diagrams?

27 / 35


▶ To make this exact, define the centered and normalized RV

AN =λN − (N/d, . . . ,N/d)√

N/d

where λN ∼ pd,N takes values in Young diagrams {λ `d N}.

▶ LetM be the Gaussian unitary ensemble GUE(d): a Hermi an

random matrix whose entries are independent Gaussian RVs.

(df: exp(− 12 TrH

2) where H is a Hermi an matrix-valued RV.)

▶ DefineM0 = M− Tr(M)d 1, called the traceless Gaussian unitary

ensemble GUE0(d).

28 / 35

Main technical result

Fluctua ons of Schur-Weyl distribu on [Johansson 2001]

For the RV AN =√

dN(λN − (N/d, . . . ,N/d)),

AND−−→ spec(G),

where G ∼ GUE0(d).

Note that spec(G) d→∞−−−→a.s. Wigner’s semicircle law.

Main technical result (informal)

Strengthening of Johansson’s result:

E[g(AN)]n→∞−−−→ E[g(spec(G))]

for ”suitable” func ons g.

29 / 35

Applica on of Johansson strengthening

▶ Proof idea of asympto cs for standard and EPR protocol:

apply convergence of expecta on values to exact RT formulas by

rewri ng them as expecta on values over Schur-Weyl

distribu on.

▶ Main principle: Compu ng expecta on values of (func ons of)

GUE-distributed matrices is much easier!

▶ Example: probabilis c PBT

pEPRd =1dN

∑α ⊢d N−1

m2αdμ∗mμ∗

▶ Rewrite pEPRd =NdEα[(α1 + d)−1] and apply technical result.

30 / 35

More results in the paper

Main result 3: fully op mized determinis c PBT

▶ Achievability bound:

F∗d ≥ 1− d5 + O(d9/2)

4√2N2

+ O(N−3).

▶ Converse bound:

F∗d ≤ 1− d2 − 116N2 .

▶ Asympto cs of op mal determinis c PBT are given by

F∗d = 1− Θ(N−2).

31 / 35

Table of Contents




4 Proof methods


32 / 35

Summary

▶ We discussed two variants of port-based teleporta on (PBT):

▷ determinis c PBT with entanglement fidelity Fd;

▷ probabilis c PBT with success probability pd.

▶ Inherent symmetries: closed representa on-theore c formulas

for Fd and pd. [Studziński et al. 2017; Mozrzymas et al. 2017]

▶ Standard protocols: use connec on between Young diagrams

and GUE to determine asympto cs.

▶ We also determine asympto cs of fully op mized case using

different proof technique.

33 / 35

Open problems

Connec on between Schur-Weyl distribu on and GUE seems very

frui ul: get asympto cs for other ”symmetric” tasks?

For the op mal determinis c case, achievability bound is op mal in

N, but not in d-dependence: improvement?

We considered natural limit of fixed d and N → ∞.

What about the limit N, d → ∞ with N/d2 = const?

34 / 35

References

Beigi, S. and R. König (2011). New Journal of Physics 13.9, p. 093036. arXiv: 1101.1065 [quant-ph].Benne , C. H. et al. (1993). Physical Review Le ers 70.13, p. 1895.

Buhrman, H. et al. (2014). SIAM Journal on Compu ng 43.1, pp. 150–178. arXiv: 1009.2490 [quant-ph].Ishizaka, S. (2015). arXiv preprint. arXiv: 1506.01555 [quant-ph].Ishizaka, S. and T. Hiroshima (2008). Physical Review Le ers 101.24, p. 240501. arXiv: 0807.4568 [quant-ph].— (2009). Physical Review A 79.4, p. 042306. arXiv: 0901.2975 [quant-ph].Johansson, K. (2001). Annals of Mathema cs 153.1, pp. 259–296. arXiv: math/9906120 [math.CO].Keyl, M. and R. F. Werner (2001). Physical Review A 64.5, p. 052311. arXiv: quant-ph/0102027.Mozrzymas, M. et al. (2017). New Journal of Physics 20.5, p. 053006. arXiv: 1707.08456 [quant-ph].Nielsen, M. A. and I. L. Chuang (1997). Physical Review Le ers 79.2, p. 321. arXiv: quant-ph/9703032.Pirandola, S. et al. (2018). npj Quantum Informa on 5, p. 50. arXiv: 1803.02834 [quant-ph].Studziński, M. et al. (2017). Scien fic Reports 7, p. 10871. arXiv: 1612.09260 [quant-ph].

Thank you very much for your a en on!

35 / 35

https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1065





https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9906120

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102027


https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9703032



Documents

Asymptotic performance of port-based teleportation - arXiv